May 15, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2019-05-15 4:00 PM

>> Good evening or afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, it is 4.05. Seeing that we have a quorum, I will call this work session meeting to order for the PNZ work session meeting for May 15th, again, it's 4.05. The first item for business is item 1A, which is a presentation on board and commission attendance policy. >> Good afternoon, commission, Charlie Rosendahl, business services manager at the development services department. I wanted to bring the attendance policy before you today, so this is the council boards and commissions attendance policy that we have here. I wanted to speak with you guys on it as we're creating a policy manual for the planning and zoning commission, we wanted to bring this forward as it will be included in the future and see if there's any additional items that you guys would like as excuse absences. So just some background here, it's the section 283 of the code ordinances. Members should attend every scheduled meeting and if you're unable to attend, you should notify staff. Unexcuse absences of 50% in a single year shall be caused for removal. Below is a list of those excused absences highlighted in bold and the bottom right is any matter that the commission deems as excused. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Good question. >> Thank you, Chair. >> The 50% level now, would that just be an automatic thing or is that something that the commission would be brought for the commission to take a vote on or is that just going to automatically happen? >> Yeah, so no, it doesn't automatically happen. So that the reports go out quarterly of attendance for boards and commissions. So that's included in that policy there and the city council would have to bring forward an item to remove somebody from a board. >> Okay, so it goes to the city council, not necessarily to the commission or board. Okay, got you, thanks. >> And is that, meetings itself, is that the approved calendar meetings? Does that include special called? What all does that 50% or attendance refer to? What is the requirement of board and commissions? >> So let me double check here. I believe it's any scheduled meeting. It doesn't specify only regular meetings. Regularly called and scheduled meetings. >> Gotcha. >> And to clarify, it's just unexcused. >> Perfect. >> So just the procedure, if you're going to miss a meeting, if you notify Richard or Kathy that you're unable to attend, they'll ask you for a reason for the absence to try to determine if it's excused or unexcused. If it's excused, we'll note that and that'll go out in that quarterly report to city council for boards and commissions attendance. And if it's unexcused, the commissioner can choose to leave it unexcused or you can request that that come before the board and then have an individual vote whether to see if that's going to be excused or stay as unexcused. So if you requested that, that would come forward as an item for individual consideration and then the board would determine whether to excuse that absence or not. >> You might, this might be later, isn't there also a provision of consecutive absences or is that no, I thought maybe not, I was under the impression there was like consecutive policy. >> So the, there is a three, but that's three meetings or 50%. >> Is it the lesser of? >> No, it's the 50%, that's why I've only included the 50% here. So if you had less than three meetings, then it would be the three meetings. But if it's greater than, of course, PNZ has more than, it would be the 50%. >> Okay. For some reason, my mind was recalling like if a commissioner missed three meetings in a row consecutively, it could be cause for removal. >> There is, the only consecutive term from this section refers to no more than three consecutive terms for serving on the board. >> Okay. >> So here, I just want to see if there's any additional excused absences that the commission feels should be included, if those were to be included in a future policy, then we wouldn't need to bring those before the commission to determine if they're excused or unexcused, we would just excuse those absences. Since it's at the board's discretion to determine what's deemed excused. >> Can you tell me the history behind 50%? It's just off the top of my head, seems real, like a really low requirement. Because I mean, our PNZ, I mean, I don't count, but we have well above 50% by all of our members. I'm just wondering, is that a state thing, is that a council, city, where did 50% come from, why not 70%? >> I'm not aware of the history on it, I could definitely research it and get back to you guys. >> Okay. Out of curiosity, it just seems like a pretty low expectation. >> And most of the boards and commissions in the city don't meet as regularly as the planning and zoning commission, so if you think about a board that meets a dozen times a year, then that would be more applicable probably than the planning and zoning commission that meets twice a month or more. >> Yeah, it just seems, if I understand this correctly, apart from any scheduled meetings that aren't regular meetings, a PNZ commissioner can miss every other meeting and be fined. They can miss every other meeting unexcused. >> Right. >> And they're fine. Did I understand that correctly? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Awesome. Is there any questions for Charlie regarding excused evidences or this policy? Great. Thanks for the presentation. Next item for business is 1B, a notification update. >> You get me again? So I wanted to make the commission aware that last week we took a work session item to city council to discuss using utility service addresses and our 500 foot courtesy notices rather than Denton County appraisal district data. Just some background on it, they requested this information back in November and we provided a staff report in December and they asked that come back before them as a work session and then last week we had that work session with them. So the notification procedures that we have were legally required to send 200 foot mailed notices to property owners based on the certified tax rule and publish that notice in the local newspaper. Per city of Denton policy, we do additional items for disclosures. We send the 200 foot mailings by certified mail. We also send a postcard to residents within 500 feet and post signs on the property and then information is included on the city's website. So the charges, the fees that we charge applicants are based on their actual cost for mailings. So any change that we made here was going to affect the applicants and it wouldn't be any additional cost to the city. And then to note, only the owners of that property within 200 feet have any legal standing for the 20% to force a supermajority by 20% protest. So we went back and reviewed 27 cases from 2018 to determine what the effect of using the service address versus the county appraisal district data. Fifty-six percent had an increase in mailings, on average 169 additional mailings and that would be a cost of $108. The maximum that we found in one case was $1,100. So those occur when we have a single parcel but multiple service addresses on those parcels. So if you think about an apartment, each unit would have its own utility service address but that apartment complex would only have a single parcel. So whereas now we send one notice to that entire parcel, this change would send an individual postcard to each of those service addresses. And so some considerations on that was of course it increases transparency but with an additional cost, again, that cost would just be to the applicant and then still only the 200 foot property owners would have that legal standing for protest. And any change that we made to this was also going to affect the way we noticed the neighborhood meetings because we use that same data that we collect for sending out the notices to give to applicants for their neighborhood meeting notifications. So City Council directed staff to make that change and so we'll begin using utility service addresses for that 500 foot postcard notification. Additionally, during that work session, they requested that we bring back an item for discussion of the certified mailings. It's quite a substantial difference in cost for certified mailings over just the legally required first class mail. So we're collecting data on that. We're going to take that as a work session in July for City Council and we'll bring that back to you beforehand. To clarify that second point, the discussion on July 16th will determine if the certified mailings will also be sent to service addresses or not to send them certified at all. Not to send them certified at all. Gotcha, just right. So I just wanted to verify so by going to service addresses, are we doing that in addition to the county addresses for owners? I just want to verify, you know, say, say a property owner rents to several different people, but they don't have a service there. How are we ensuring that we're still getting the property owners notified? So the property owners are so we're legally required to send the 200 foot letters of property owners. So property owners will receive that notification within 200 foot. And that's using the county tax. Okay. So we're doing both now. Using the certified tax rule. So we send that to the property owners within 200 foot and then we send a courtesy notice to residents. So we just send it to that address as current resident address, you know, blank and that's within 500 foot. So that change would be in that 500 foot instead of using Denton County data, we would use our utility service addresses, more accurate data source. So within 500 feet, property owners would not get it unless they had a service attached to them as well. If they were, if they were the resident, they would receive it. Right. But if, if the owner had a duplex within 500 feet, but didn't live there, the two individuals or tenants of the duplex would get the notification. The property owner would not. Between 200 and 500 feet, they wouldn't receive it, but they were, yeah, that's correct. Any other questions for this change? Commissioner Beck. This is outside of what we discussed at the last Friday's DCRC meeting about 500 foot for that. This is just the routine procedure. Now we're talking about, right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thanks. All right. I don't see any questions. Thanks, Charlie. Next item for business is item one C looks like Ron will be presenting. This is a development code and city initiating rezoning presentation. Yes. Thank you chairs, chair, members of the commission. We want to put this on the agenda for today, just a way of giving the commission some information prior to the public hearings that are scheduled for the planning zoning commission and then ultimately the city council regarding city initiated rezonings. My first slide is really to cover where we are in the development code and I'll get into the city initiated rezoning as part of this presentation. But again, just continue to have that conversation, that discussion with planning zoning commission. So as y'all know, April 23rd planning zoning, I'm sorry, the city council adopted the DDC, the 2019 DDC with an effective date of October 1st. So what does that mean? That applies in that the, an applicant can choose between the 2002, which is the previous code and the 2019 development code. So when they're submitting for an application, they are letting us know in advance of which code they're reviewing or which code they would like to be reviewed under. So we are following that and they can't pick and choose, they just got picked. If they choose the 2019, that's what they're going forward with as part of that implementation. If we're reviewing it, we're also looking at ways of 2019 development code or monitoring any, you know, you know, issues or, you know, typos, whatever. We're making sure we're, we're cleaning it up. We're testing it as well. So if there's something that needs to be adjusted, we will make sure we address that moving forward with any future code amendments. It's also an opportunity to train staff, the public and developers, as we go through this cycle or this time period between again, now and October 1st. So it gives us an opportunity for training in that regards, as again, I talked about earlier, we are going to bring forward some ordinances that will address maybe some issues that we found during a review that we didn't intend. So we'll bring that forward. In addition, there'll be some repeal ordinances, meaning that there are certain sections of the code of ordinances that we did not bring as part of the DDC update in April, that we will be bringing forward as part of that cleanup effort to make it more user friendly, delete any repetitions, any conflicting sections that conflict with the 2019 code. So that will be part of the repeal ordinances. Criteria manual updates. That's again, part of ways of making the development review process more user friendly. We took a lot of information from the previous 2002 code and we're moving it into criteria manuals. So those will be brought forward as part of our efforts again, between now and October 1st. And again, one of the other things that we're going to be looking at, it's obviously city initiated rezonings. As you know, the history here is that we transitioned from the current or the previous zoning to the 2019, I'm going to call them transition zoning districts. And of course, not everything was simple. So what we're doing is going through the city map and trying to update those specific areas that are in either non-conforming or in conflict of the future land use map or land use element. And we're making those changes as part of the city initiated rezoning. So that's kind of a quick history of where we have been, where we're going. And of course, the city initiated rezoning is one that's being brought forward soon. Mr. Beck. Thank you, chair. Let me, Ron, let me ask you a question I asked in our last meeting for the benefit of the commissioners that weren't there and for our video audience. Now, when the applicant picks the 2002 code or the new one, what's the point of no return where they can't change their mind? Did we, Richard brought that up. I think that there was going to be a point where they're locked in and. I think once we, once we start reviewing it, uh, it's, that's where we're going forward in any, like any application. Once the review starts, that's, that's, we're moving forward. If they choose to go back, they would have to withdraw the application process. That's what I would, any permanence issue to, right. Correct. If they've gone through, if they're already at building permit, um, they're, they're under that under the guise of whatever zoning that they're under. If the project is that far along, that makes sense. Okay. Thank you. And then what, what we've done in staff can chime in, but we've been encouraging the 2019 development code, just because obviously it's to us, it's a better code and it should be something that we should start using. And so we've been encouraging applicants to, to use that. Okay. So city initiated rezonings, and this is why we're here, um, this afternoon or to hear about what's, what's going to happen. I've got a chart here that identifies the dates of when we are scheduled to have the city's city initiated zoning changes, public hearings, as you can see, the first column, first row, that is May 29th with planning zoning commission, then June 11th to city council, we have identified 25 areas that we have areas and I'll show you an exhibit later, what those areas look like. What we wanted to make sure is we identified areas that shared the same zoning districts that we're proposing to go into so that it's simple in ways of reviewing them. Um, there was a total of 155 parcels as part of those 25, um, areas. And again, there's an exhibit that I'll be showing the commission to show where those are and how those, uh, correlate to this, uh, uh, spreadsheet or this table. Those are primarily along I 35 E between the city limits by current all the way up to Fort Worth drive. So those are the errors that we will be taking, bringing forward to the planning zoning commission on May 29th. Um, and then on June 26th, there'll be another batch or groupings of areas. And you see, we've already potentially identified 23 areas in approximately 529 parcels that's going to fluctuate. Uh, we're still looking into some of those parcels, but that's generally what the next batch or groupings will look like. And then following that July 10th, um, we will be bringing another batch and those will be primarily in the, um, us three cents seven, which is Fort Worth drive, Teasley and areas within the neighborhood, uh, university compatibility areas, the areas around the university, around downtown. So those are the areas that you'll see as part of the June, I'm sorry, July 10th public hearing with PNC, but any questions regarding this table, how we're moving forward with it and okay. Um, so what's the process? Um, the process is that we have identified those public hearing dates. We have started to notify property owners. We have sent letters out to the property owners, letting them know that their properties, um, identified in the letter are being proposed to be zoned to X. Uh, we've also contacted them through phone. Uh, those that we have phone numbers with, we've contacted them and let them, let them know that there is a city initiated rezoning, rezoning change on their property so that they're aware of that. Uh, we also have started sending out notifications and you heard a little bit about that earlier, we mailed, I'm sorry, we published newspaper notices this Sunday. And if you saw the newspaper, it was like three or four pages of, um, newspaper, you know, columns for these, uh, city initiated rezoning, these 25 areas. So we, that was published on Sunday. Mailers within the turn of foot buffer area were sent out to property owners within turn of feet. We also sent out those 500 foot, um, notices, postcards, uh, those were sent out today, I believe. Uh, so they'll be received hopefully earlier or this week and through the weekend, uh, and I'm sure there'll be some questions, but just to let you know that those were sent out this week. Uh, we also posted those, uh, information, those notices online. So that's available online as well. So the notification has been done. Uh, we're, we're, um, going forward with the may 29th and, um, like I said, um, we'll probably hear from folks in the next couple of days, but we've, we've met the requirements for notifying, uh, the public hearing staff analysis. Um, we've started that as well. And that is just to give you an idea. Um, it's a, it's a very, um, systematic way of identifying existing conditions as well as what that means as relate as it relates to the proposed and why it's being considered as part of the city initiated rezoning or zoning changes. So to talk about a little bit about what the, um, um, uh, conflict of interest. I know that we, we talked about this, um, maybe a little bit earlier, but we want to make sure that we have enough folks here for the staff, um, to present and to the plan for the planning zoning commission to make a recommendation to city council. So we are planning on sending the commission, our staff analysis in events, well in advance of our typical, uh, submittal or, um, backups so that if you identify a parcel that you have a conflict of interest, we want to make sure that you identify that, let us know so that we can make sure that we have quorum for that, uh, particular, uh, planning zoning commission. I don't anticipate that, uh, but if there is one or two, we want to make sure that we pull, um, those, um, or you, you excuse yourself regarding those specific areas and then we'll make accommodations. But again, the idea is that if you have a conflict of interest of a particular area, please let us know in advance so that we can make accommodations. Staff presentation. So now we're, we're, um, we're at the planning zoning commission, public hearing staff will make a presentation of all 25 areas all at one time. We'll cover from again, the city limits current all the way up to three, seven, Sanford with drive. We'll make sure that we identify each area, explain why we're doing it. The, um, the existing conditions and we'll just do it all one presentation. Um, then the chair will open it up for a public hearing. And those that are in attendance will speak in favor or in opposition. Uh, we'll go through, um, their, their comments and on the card, they'll identify which area they are in opposition or in favor of. And so that we can organize it that way. Um, following all comments received, the chair will then close a public hearing, uh, and then opening up for discussion for the planning zoning commission and after, of course, the commission has discussed it, um, there will be a motion and the way the motion can be in Jerry can correct me, but it can be one recommendation of all 25 areas is my understanding. So that, um, if, if there's obviously a, there's a recusal or there's a, uh, an item that needs to be pulled because of a public, uh, of a public comment that certainly can be done, but if there's none, the motion can be, um, that all 25 areas can be recommended for whatever recommendation the commission chooses. I think that's potentially true, whether that's likely or not is another issue. Sure. So the option is there, um, um, as opposed to say city council where they have to read each item and, uh, motion and vote on each item, um, but for the planning zoning commission, our understanding is that it can be done all at one time, potentially. So how do we choose, how are we, how are we choosing these areas? And so we've put together a list of selection of area and, uh, proposed zoning criteria. So we are starting with the transition chart. Of course, that's going to be the zoning that we're going to be looking at. And if it's compatible with the area, we're not changing it. Right. But if it's not, that's why we're doing the city initially rezoning because as of October 1st, that is the zoning that's going to be in place, uh, we'll looking, we're looking at existing uses, uh, we're looking at ways of addressing nonconformity of those nonconforming uses. We're looking at protecting neighborhoods. How can we protect them either by introducing some zoning districts that are less impactful in those particular areas? We're looking at areas in certain locations. Our first attempt are been I 35 working a way up the corridor. We are, we're also looking at us three 80, the loop, um, Teasley and Fort Worth will be, uh, upcoming, uh, and then specific areas within the city that we have identified as well as what, um, uh, what we've heard from the community as, um, potential city initial results. We're looking at those as well as part of this effort. So those comments that we received through response forms, through emails, through phone calls, through the public hearing process, we've collected those and we're making sure that we look into those and, and not just, um, you know, discard them, but rather making sure that we, uh, find if it's, it's something that's worth a city initiated rezoning again, using the criteria that we have here, uh, we'll bring that forward. If not, those items or those, those requests will be brought forward, uh, by applications. Of course, we're looking at the, uh, the land use element and the future land use map as, uh, another criteria for our city initiated rezoning. Um, and last, um, is it a neighborhood commercial, I'm sorry, a community or a regional draw? Those obviously would then, um, reference or reflect what zoning district, for example, MN is, you know, mixed use neighborhood, neighborhood, right? Uh, SC, if it's a community, you know, draw, then it'd be an SC, a suburban quarter, anything of a regional draw would be an MR, a mixed use regional zoning district, so just stuff that we are looking at and will be reflected in our staff analysis. I think you all have seen this chart already. This is the, uh, transition chart that shows what the zonings were and what they are, um, currently in as far as the transition zoning. I won't spend time, uh, a lot. I won't spend a lot of time on this one, but I just wanted to show this so that y'all are again, um, familiar with, uh, this chart. Okay. So these are the 25 areas. And again, you can see that they're grouped by zoning districts as well as, um, in geographic area. We, um, made a decision or is our, it was our methodology that, uh, here's one in case you're looking for it. It's a small parcel, um, office, uh, shady shores or Lakeview Boulevard. Sorry, um, that, um, if I 35 divided it, it would be separated. And so therefore two, you can see it's just north of I-35 and it's up in this general area here. Three, four is a small one that's over here. Uh, five, six, uh, and so on and so forth. Again, we made sure that we identified those areas by zoning districts. And also if they were separated by I-35, um, or a major roadway. So again, to give some, um, similarities in our review and in your consideration. Again, the first batch will be along I-35 as you see here. Uh, they also include other arterials. Again, I said 25, but there are other 24 areas that we're looking at. And again, 155 parcels that are involved. With this first grouping, um, I won't spend a lot of time on this slide either, just to give you an idea of what that staff analysis will include. It'll include, of course, the location, the size, uh, what their zoning was in 2002 and then what it is in the transition or the 2019 zoning, uh, if it was requested by a citizen or not, uh, what are the existing uses? Did we address not conforming, um, statuses, um, who the property owners, a little background of the property, any site data that is available and then, um, any findings of facts that we've developed or, um, put together. And then the end will be a staff recommendation and then we'll open it up, obviously, or present that to you on and open up for, uh, your consideration. That concludes my presentation. I just, again, thank you for the opportunity. Um, it's obviously something that's going to be upcoming. Um, it seems like it's a long ways away, but it's going to come in the next couple of weeks. So, um, a week from, uh, I guess it's coming Tuesday to 29th. So do you all have any questions, any recommendations, any input? Obviously we're here to see what we can do to improve the process. And this is what we've come up and certainly happy to hear from the commission. I have a couple of questions. Uh, first, thanks in advance for all the staff's work. That sounds, uh, like a ton, ton of work. So, uh, thank you, uh, sincerely for that work. Uh, two questions. I'm curious on how heavily the flume will be looked at because as anyone who's heard my voice before here knows that it seems as though the future land use map is outdated, uh, and so, uh, how heavily is going to be used when there's areas specifically on, on our map right now that say rural, which we know are not remaining rural and we're not prioritizing as being rural. So can you walk me through the, the amount of weight that's being placed on the future land use map? It, it does, um, have some weight, but I would say it depends on the area. And again, like you said, if certain areas we're seeing some changes of, um, activity, it's, it's, it's going to be adjusted. So I can't say it's 1% of one area. It's going to be the same as it will be for another area. Uh, it is on our list of items of, of, um, factors to, to look at as far as consideration, um, but, um, it's something we look at and I don't know if that helps make sense, but it's, it doesn't serve, um, one percentage throughout. It's, it's going to depend on the area. Okay. That is helpful. And then, uh, second, this process will. Ideally clear up all split zoning or is, is this included and of split zoning? Can you walk me through the split zoning? Split zoning is, is, is included in these, this analysis as well. Yeah. So our attempt is to address as many of the split zoning as possible. We continue to reach out to property owners, uh, to get their input. And of course, any other factors that we use in regards to split zoning, we will include in our analysis, but yes, the answer is, uh, this does include split zoning, um, addressing those, those in the city. Great. Any other questions? All right. Perfect. Great. Thank you very much. Next item for business is the clarification of agenda. So we have the consent, but, uh, also three a three B and three C on the public hearings are being postponed. So we will not look at those three items tonight from the public hearing. So I just want to make note of that. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, chair. I just wanted to throw something out there regarding one of the consent agenda items, um, the, um, FP 19, 005 Cooper Creek states edition. Uh, I looking at that where it was located, I automatically went to the, uh, mobility plan and notice that that's that road is designed to run right in front of their property was that brought up during the, uh, uh, discussion of this, just curious if it was and how they reacted to that and if in fact they were doing wanted it because those look like those were going to be, uh, residential lots. If I, that's correct. Okay. So now they're going to have a six lane. Is it six line three lines each way? I believe it's, uh, okay. So was there any reaction to that? Any comment? No, nothing at all. Okay. I've dealt with the property, yeah, they're aware of it. Okay. And it's in the ETJ. Okay. Um, the property owner is aware of it and, and, uh, there's one thing he noted. He's like, they dedicated the right away for the plot. Okay. So they don't have a problem with that when it happens, when it happens. Right. Yeah. It's, it's necessary. So, okay, great. Thank you. Is there any other questions for the consent agenda? We have two preliminary plots in the final plot. Just look at that. All right. Seeing none, we will move into our public hearings again, three AB and C are being postponed, so that starts us out with item three D and Karina is here to present the zoning case. So I will preface that my allergies are kicking in. So my throat is very raspy. So I apologize. Um, so later tonight I'll be presenting, uh, Z 19 four, which is the Prairie parcel. So the request is to rezone the property, which is a residential lot from NR two or neighborhood residential two to neighborhood residential four and our four, um, on approximately 0.1 Oh one acres of land. Um, that translates to approximately 4,500 square feet. Um, the subject property is located, uh, north of Prairie street. So Oakwood cemetery is just to the east of it, um, north of Fred Moore park. Um, and it is approximately 610 feet west of South brought Brad Bradshaw street. Um, and again, they're looking to construct a single family dwelling and accessory structure on this property. So as a map of the current zoning and the proposed, um, as you can see, it's mostly surrounded by an R four to the east and south, um, Oakwood cemetery and Fred Moore park are zoned and are two and, um, just to the Northwest of the property is a DCG, um, and then there is one, um, chunk of NRMU 12, um, which just happens to be, um, one hair salon and a duplex and a residential, uh, lot. So the criteria for approval for this rezoning, um, there are two, one is the proposed rezoning conforms to the future land use element of the dent plan 2030. And second, the proposed rezoning facilitates the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewers, school parks, and other public requirements. So first looking at the future land use map, um, there are about four, um, future land use designations on this single parcel. Um, it's not really depicted well here. Uh, mostly the red shows, but that is downtown Denton, downtown compel compatibility, um, parks and open space and then low density residential. So in our evaluation, uh, the proposed rezoning does conform to the future land use for the low density residential. Um, it is a transition area between the other, um, designations. Um, however, the, the existing site and the surrounding, um, property uses are mostly consistent with low density residential. Um, this property is located in an existing subdivision. So there is existing water sewer transportation. It is located right next to front more park. Um, and there are no anticipated, uh, negative impacts to this rezoning. So the property was, um, the property owners surrounding the 200 foot area were notified. Um, six notices were sent out, um, within the 500 foot area, courtesy of notices were sent out to approximately 29 or 229 property owners. Um, to date, we have not received any, um, responses in favor or opposed to the rezoning, um, one sign was posted on the property, uh, and no neighborhood meetings were held. And so with that, um, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning. Any questions? Chris, you're back. Thank you, chair. The property to the east of that, that is a cemetery, is that correct? Uh, right here. Yes. Yes. That is Oakwood cemetery. That's curious why that was even zoned in our two with sad. Yeah, we did just wasn't in cemeteries are allowed in NR two, I guess. Yeah, we did look at the property. Um, and so it was zoned in 2002 with that, that designation. Um, it appeared to be a map error, but it does look like, in fact, maybe it was an oversight on that single parcel, uh, just a little bit of background on that, that lot. It was subdivided, um, as part of the Jasper edition in 1920. So it mostly carried the same zoning designation through our various rezonings. It just so happened that in 2002, there might've been an error. Okay. Thanks. Jerry, do you have something to add? Yeah, I'm just going to say that, uh, back in 2002, NR two was largely a default zoning. I have a couple of questions. Can they, can anyone build right now with NR two, the plot, the property seems too small to do that. So the, the current zoning allows for 30% lot coverage, which is very tight in this specific lot area. The neighborhood surrounding it all have that NR four zoning. So they have 60% lot coverage. Um, so it, it's doable, but it's very tight in that small space. And do we know what the accessory structure is? Um, from the, um, narrative that was provided, it just said it could be a carport or garage. It won't be a dwelling unit. Um, but it's most likely going to be for storage. Uh, the property owner or the applicant is here today. Um, so they will be speaking at the public hearing at six 30. Um, they are here in the room. If, if, uh, and, and with that, if they were to build a garage or storage, non-dwelling unit, is there an SUP required for that? Or any other questions? Thank you very much. Next item is item three E Z 18 dash 0011C I'll invite Julie for presentation. Good evening. Evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city and I am presenting Z 18 11 agave ranch to you this evening. So the request before you is, um, to zone the property with a mix of zoning districts, um, in our four on 36 acres in our three neighborhood residential three on 41 acres and neighborhood residential two on 15 acres on a subject property, uh, totaling 92 total acres off of FM four 28 situated in the Northeast side of town. Um, this may look familiar to you. You, you saw something similar, um, in January of this year, uh, they, they came in at that time with a different request, they've since amended the request and so that's why it's coming back to you this evening. So just to take a look at, at what the current, um, uh, map looks like, and then what the proposed map would be. So this is the current map right here. Um, as I said, it's this 92 acres along FM four 28 adjacent to FM four 28, there is a zoning designation of RD five and that zoning designation was put on the property with the city wide zone rezoning in 2002, uh, the, uh, the balance of the, of the property, um, to the east of that has the, the strike marks that is RD five X, which is actually not really even a zoning. It's kind of unzoned property. Um, it was annexed in 2005. And as you're aware, when property is annexed into the city of Denton, um, it, it kind of follows that RD five X, but stays unzoned until the property owner comes forward with the zoning, um, proposal. So this is the proposed map here. Uh, the, the, as I said, the south portion is the NR four, uh, that middle portion they're proposing to be in our three and then the NR two to the north. So that that zoning, um, would sort of flow, um, going less dense to, or more dense to less dense as you move forward to move toward the north, um, to look, we're going to take a look at the comparison of the densities and the, the, um, the zoning districts that we're talking about tonight. So, um, this column here is the current regulations and that's that RD five. And then the RD five X, um, residential and rural uses are permitted in our D five, a minimum lot size of five acres, maximum lot coverage of 15% for any buildings that aren't agricultural buildings, and then the maximum building height of 65 feet. So essentially on the 92 acres, they could under current zoning build five dwelling units. Um, they're proposing that, uh, mix of zoning districts and our four in our three and NR two and our four permit single family duplex with limitations and townhomes with an SUP minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet. Um, for, for, um, uh, subdivisions that are over two acres, they could go to that maximum density of four dwelling units per acre, maximum lot coverage of 60% and our three is a little less dense. It goes to that 10,000 square foot lot or the three and a half dwelling units per acre takes out that duplex use, but still keeps the townhomes with an SUP and then NR two is less dense with the 16,000 square foot lots, uh, two dwelling units per acre and then, um, adds in the manufactured housing use with an SUP, but no townhome or duplex uses. So if approved in accordance with their plan, they could develop a maximum of 317 single family dwellings over those three zoning districts. So the criteria for approval in sub chapter three, uh, the first thing we always look at, does it conform to the future land use, um, at map of the, of the dent plan 2030. So didn't plan it, didn't plan 2030 calls for this area to be rural areas. The intent is to maintain that rural character along the city's edge, um, with development of farms and ranches or low density of rural type housing or conservation type development. Uh, the proposed zoning does not meet this future land use designation. And because of that, we actually have a separate set of criteria for approval that we look at, and that's in sub chapter three. I won't read all of these, uh, to you, but it is in your backup and also in the dent development code. And we'll just kind of talk through this as we talk about their project. So criteria one and two, um, deals with the existing land uses in zoning and impact to future development. Um, this is something we looked at in, in January, but, um, so the subject property is, is, is near rural, but urbanizing areas. And this map really kind of shows what kind of development we're seeing along our Northern edge and that urban fringe. So all of the dots represent either something that has, um, either in development now, so something maybe is going in on the ground or maybe they have a plat or, or they've approached the city and are moving forward with some development. So you see a lot of yellow dots on that North side of town and, and in the Northeast side of town. So we're seeing that development push North, um, outside the loop, uh, up our arterials, um, where it has that, that access. Um, and so these recent rezoning, these development is really showing that continuous development pattern that the, the dent plan calls for. They want to make sure there's continuous development and that's emerging, emerging along these arterials. Um, and we're also planning for this potential growth. We, like I said, we're, we're hearing a lot. And so, um, the city undertook a traffic study and I believe that was in your backup. So, um, we're looking to see what kind of traffic patterns we're going to have on the Northeast side of town and how we're going to manage that in the future. Um, to continue on with that, um, the, the criteria one and two, uh, the existing, it's adjacent to the existing in our four and in our two districts. So really when you look at that proposed map, you can see those adjacencies and what we want to see with any zoning case is that logical continuation of that zoning pattern. And what they're proposing really does continue that zoning pattern. Um, the proposal could also create a transition, um, uh, transition area and buffer to the high traffic areas. Um, FM four 28, isn't going to stay the way it is now. Text dot has plans to expand it as well as some other, um, transportation interventions that are more regional in nature that are going on north of the property. So, um, by providing this, um, residential area, it could provide that, that transition. Um, the applicant as part of their submittal did provide some trip generation, um, for, uh, they assumed 310 single family homes and that, and, and their assumption was that that would, um, create 29, about 2,900 trips within a 24 hour period. Um, AM peak when people were going to work, that would be about 236 trips. And then when people were coming home in the evening, about 310 trips and that's based upon the ITE manual. Um, and as I said, the, the city also commissioned a transportation study, uh, and, and, and the results of that, um, called for more, um, more connections within this area and particularly going east and west. Um, if you, if you're familiar with it, you know that FM four 28 is that spine that you have to use. There's no real, no other many options. And so, um, so more east west connections would allow more, um, disbursement of that traffic in the area, also calling for more additional travel lanes, which are proposed, uh, for text audit at some point in the future, um, it would be a three lane divided arterial also to improve the intersections. Um, also as part of it would be a realignment of, of Hartley field road. It would bisect the site extending to the west. So if this project were approved, they would have to build their, their part of that Hartley field and, and start that, that connection. Um, and then with the development impact fees would be required to be paid. And then, um, also we have previously identified improvements, a dedicated right turn, um, from FM four 28 to Luke two 88, as well as a signal there. And that, that is, um, that is coming soon. Um, so just, here's a map showing that transportation study. So, um, the study boundary is this sort of, um, fuzzy line here and, and, um, planning work with engineering on that to kind of, um, talk about the methodology and, and how they, how they were going to approach the study. So the study really kind of assumed that, um, the build out of this area would be four dwelling units per acre. And then those nodes of commercial activity, we don't know if that's the way it's going to develop, but that was kind of the methodology we used to see. What would that scenario look like? Um, the subject side is there shown in red and then the yellow is the, is the proposed connections that they, that the, um, that the study, uh, determined this F road that's Hartley field. So that would straighten out and go through the property, um, connecting, um, onto the West to provide an additional way for, for, um, residents and, and people who are moving through the area to get around. Um, also just one other thing to look at that we don't see very often because, um, we just, you know, development in this area is, is coming along. But this, this, um, this line right here is actually, um, a regional loop that will go around the entire Metro area. So I believe it's actually under construction in Mansfield and it's going to loop the entire DFW area. So, um, I don't know when it's going to be completed, but, uh, the cog and, and, um, text dot is, is, is, is planning for the future. I know he believed that. So, um, we also looked at water and sewer in the area. Um, they would have to extend water either from the 12 inch to the North or 12 inch to the South. They'd also have to do sewer extensions across the frontage and a lift station to ensure that that sewer works properly. Um, we, we did the calculation on the schools. This is based upon Denton ISD formula, uh, based upon what that maximum, the 370, 317 homes, it would generate, uh, approximately 72 elementary students, 38 middle school students, and then 47 high school students. And the schools within that attendance boundary currently do have the capacity for that. Uh, Parkland dedication would be provided, um, with, uh, the platting and also the development of the site. And then, you know, just from a broader standpoint, new development and, and particularly in this area should integrate the park's goals with, um, and cooperate, you know, provide cooperation between the developers and our parks department, um, to ensure that we have adequate parkland. So, um, the next criterion we're looking at is seven, the consideration of character and land use. Um, so this is still a rural area. Um, but the existing growth does suggest that there is stage development coming along these arterials. Um, and that, um, and that, you know, residential development and this periphery, particularly this sort of low density residential development, it may be appropriate in this area. Um, however, there may be some uses, particularly in the zoning districts that they're proposing that would be incompatible because this is kind of that farm and ranch area. But there's also some residential neighborhoods. We feel like if it was approved, um, all of the permitted uses should be netted out to just those single family to be consistent with that, um, existing development pattern. Um, we also looked at mobility and, and open space. As I said, the surrounding area is known for the farming and the ranching. Um, it's got a lot of natural open spaces and recreation. And in fact, um, I've got a map here of the parkland shown in green. And if you've been out there, you've got the clear Creek natural heritage center, um, in this location. Plus you've got a state park to the north. Um, so design standards should compliment that existing character in meaningful open space should be provided with, with any development on this site. Um, therefore staff staff recommends a condition to require an off street multi-use path that would provide internal and external connectivity and recreation and how we've kind of framed this as, um, um, or as we've proposed it with it, all lots, uh, within the proposed development would have to be within 1300 feet of an access point to that trail system. And that actually serves one of parks goals and that every citizen within the city of Denton should be within a 10 minute walk to a park. So that's about a quarter mile walk. So it actually exceeds that requirement. We want to make sure that any houses would, would have access to that park. And then also two remote connections to adjacent properties should be provided if this was, um, approved. And the intent of that is once that, that trail system gets started, that this would be the catalyst that trail system would continue, um, continue on as, as this area develops to get to that clear Creek natural heritage center, or there's, there's a lot of floodplain in this area. So these are great natural assets that the city has and that we should make sure that our trail system, um, takes advantage of that and gets, um, gets, gets our residents there off, you know, so they don't have to drive to those places. They could walk or ride their bikes. Um, we also feel like a buffer should be, um, should be, um, placed or put in place, uh, along FM four 28. Um, it is slated to be, um, at least six travel lanes, possibly even larger, especially once you've got that, that, um, regional loop, uh, to the north of the subject property and, um, this type of higher speed road can create nuisances for residents. And so, um, as part of our review and as, as part of the request, uh, we think a buffer is appropriate in this location, not only to screen those, those new rooftops from this sort of rural area and to kind of, kind of provide that separation from the rural area, but also to increase the livability of those residents once they are there. Um, and so we're, we're recommending, um, a, a 20 foot landscape buffer outside of any PUE, uh, public utility easement on FM four 28 for the entire frontage of the property and that would include a berm, um, a large tree planted every 30 linear feet shrubs and, and also, um, a wall and that's just to provide that distance separation as well as that, um, that, that buffer, that, that green wall, if you will, to, to separate the uses to Mr. Smith, thank you, chair Julie. What is one, you said 20, is it 20 or 30? You said 20, I'm sorry. Um, it's a 30 foot. Okay. Um, but it's a 30 foot landscape. It's just meaning that trees that are 30 feet have the capacity to grow 30 feet. Is it the berm plus, I know this is a maximum six foot tall masonry also. It's not a 30 foot wall. What makes up that 30 foot landscape buffer? I said, is it, is it 30 feet high? Is it, is it 30 feet wide? 30 feet wide. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Appreciate it. Um, notification was sent out. Um, so, uh, notification boundary really only applies to that portion of the property that is currently zoned. So that portion of the property that is unzoned isn't factored into that notification, so that's why you see this map in this way. Um, and so within that 200 feet of the property that's within that zoned RD five zoning district adjacent to FM four 28, we've received, um, one letter in opposition and then, um, two in favor, and I believe the, um, the applicant is also in favor of the request as well. There are also eight signs posted on the site and there have been four neighborhood meetings. Julie, can, um, is that just one sliver of a property between the green and red? There's a very small sliver here. The property owner there. Yep. There's a property owner that owns this little sliver, and then they, they own quite a bit of property, um, to the east. Okay. Um, but we, we heard, you probably noticed in your backup, there were quite a few letters. Um, and so we have, we've received a lot. There's been a lot of interest in this project. So we wanted to make sure that we kind of just showed you where we've been receiving a lot of the concern. Um, I've got, I put more letters on your table. This may not reflect that. And then I have some more that I tried to collate over there and I got confused. So I'll get those to you, but, um, but just, just the dots kind of represent where we're seeing some of that concern. Um, these dots that are red or larger because I received quite a few letters from the, the Hartley field road area, as well as this, this neighborhood right here. So kind of want to make those larger so you'd visually, um, it would make sense. And then we have received, um, some, some responses from the south part of town. So, um, as development moves toward that urban fridge and pushes to the north, um, analysis of the proposal must con, must consider the future land use designation as well as that overall vision, um, and goals in the Denton plan 2030. So we have to kind of have to look at it in a more holistic way. And this includes not only landscape or land use, but also urban design, the multimodal connectivity, parks, and the environment. And while this request is not consistent with the future land use designation, um, the proposal would combine with the conditions staff feels like, um, is consistent with the overall goals of the Denton plan 2030 and therefore recommends approval of it with the following conditions. Um, only single family detached dwellings would be permitted, um, that they would have to install an off street multi-use path, um, to include the following conditions that each residential lot would be located within 1300 feet of an access point. And then to provide those two remote connections and then, and then that 30 foot landscape buffer we just talked about along FM four 28, it should be located outside of any public utility easement on, um, on the road, just under current regulations, any text dot road within the city of Denton, the city requires a 20 foot public utility easement outside of that right of way. So it would essentially set back the development 50 feet from that, that right of way. Um, and then with those, with those elements within it, they, they would have to provide a berm, um, one large canopy tree, every 30 linear feet, um, 30 shrubs per 100 linear feet. Those could be clustered to create a more lateral effect. You may not want just a whole line of shrubs and then that masonry wall, um, with also the condition that the wall could meander within that landscape buffer. Um, but that 75% of that required landscaping should be between that fencing or wall and FM four 28. So that it would be along the right of way. And I'll stand for any questions. Thank you. Um, the, uh, the new zoning, whenever the new zoning comes into effect in October and there's a rezone, would it change this because it's split? Uh, would it just change to, you know, from in our two to our two or three or four, would it be a PD? What would be the new zoning on that? Um, it is my understanding that it's going to go in, it would be a PD. If, if the conditions were approved, that it would, uh, go forward as a PD, but that the underlying zoning would, would transfer. So that in our two would transfer to our two with that overlay conditions that would essentially create that. And that's, that's what I was wondering on the PD with it being that way. How is that? I guess it's just written, it's just written in as conditions that it's going to be, you know, two, you know, two welling units per acre on this section. Is there, is it split? Is that, is that zoning split by, by a certain plan site? I guess we have plats that are on there already or what's, how is that split? How is that defined on a, from the map for us to be able to see that? We actually, they have provided legal descriptions for that. So it's a great survey. They gave me a true survey and pins and correct, correct. Yes. They, there isn't a plat that reflects that. It's a great question. It would be based upon those legal legal. We hope it stays there for the chalk line. Okay. Um, on, uh, the, on the new improvements for the roadways, um, but the dedicated right turn lane and the impact, what, what mechanisms do we have as, as, you know, as a city to be able to make sure that the timeline for the development doesn't outpace the city's timeline for using that impact fee to actually building that, that dedicated right turn lane and the signal at two 88. Those are actually already planned. So those are in the works and those were actually as part of that stark farm development. So those according to engineering are supposed to be in by the end of the year. I don't, I don't quite know what their exact timelines are now in terms of these additional connections. Sure. They're there. I don't have a timeline on those. I think, I think, I think signal lighting along four 28 is yeah, is will help. And it's probably vitally I mean vitally important to even make this happen. So I just wanted to make sure that it wasn't because pretty much the developer, they pay the impact fee and then they're out of it after that. And so I wanted to make sure I just didn't know where it was with traffic. So thank you. Um, on the water and sewer connection, would they connect, uh, I guess that looks like that line is on the other side of four 28 so that I have to connect under four 28 to get, to get access to that. They would have to bore under. Yes sir. Okay. How big of an issue is, is that for, I mean, it would just be a cost of their development that they would have to get a text up permit because they, to do anything in the text out right away, they'll, they'll, they're going to require a permit and a review of that. That's what I was wondering. So is that pretty common? How often do we see that happen where we see people go under to get, get access to utilities? I would say probably on text that they normally bore under because they don't want to shut down the road. Okay. I just want to make sure, um, on the restriction to single family, uh, detached, um, does that mean we could even remove? Cause you know, as you went through NR two and our three and our four and our three allows for town homes and our two allows for manufactured homes. Uh, are we allowed to remove and even on NR four, a lot of times, are we allowed to remove those as well? You think, or is that something that the way we really structured it was try to be as simple as possible. But the only thing you could build is single family homes. So they couldn't build a manufactured home or a home. Cause that doesn't classify as a single family. That doesn't, that is a separate use of a modular home. I think we've, we've seen those, those, those are considered single family homes. Even though it's a single family because of the style and the structure of it, it's not a single family. It is a single family, but we consider it to be single family attached. Got it. So that's why we wanted to make sure that detached word was in there cause you're right. I just wanted to make sure. Thank you. You bet. Mr. Beck. Thank you chair. Thanks Julie. Good job on this. Uh, you pointed out that the total development was 92 acres. Is that without the apparently is going to be a 50 foot wide strip. Is that 92 acres of viable land that house is going to be built on? Or is that a 50 foot stretch, including the buffer and the right away, the utility right away. Is that part of the 92 acres? That would be part of the 92 acres. That's the total before the right of way dedication right now, since it's unplatted, that is the gross. Okay. So 92 acres and not all that 92 acres is land that the houses can be built. Correct. Okay. Great. Thank you. Julie, when were they notified of these conditions? We talked about it before cause this was postponed for the, the, the weather. So we talked about it before then and we talked through it and I believe they are in agreement with them. I think, um, I think they understand we want to make sure that we get that, that, um, the meaningful open space in these types of areas. Mr. Cole. Yeah, this thing, uh, the vote last time was at five to against this development. Correct. Yes sir. Off. They sprinkled an awful lot of sugar on that, didn't they? I mean, but it's still a turd, you know, in my opinion, don't say much, but I'm direct. Okay. Uh, I don't see any other questions. Thank you, Julie. The next item for business is item three F Z 18 dash zero zero two six B. This is Haley's presentation for a rezone, actually not a rezone per se. Yeah. All right. Good evening. This is Casey 1826, um, proposed changes to the razor ranch overlay district. So the razor ranch overlay district, um, as some of you may be familiar with is a total of 410 acres, uh, located generally along us three 80 between Bonnie Bray and I 35. What's outlined in yellow is the South campus of the overlay. It also, uh, does extend on the North side, but we will not be considering any changes to the North side of the overlay district tonight. Um, this overlay district was first approved of in 2007 and since then, as you're probably aware, there've been updates, uh, periodically, um, as it progresses. So this particular request is to amend the overlay district to provide standards and, um, development criteria for residential developments within the razor ranch South campus, specifically within what's known as the South mixed use district. So looking at razor in a little more detail, as I mentioned, it's got two primary areas. The North side is known as the marketplace. Um, that's about 153 acres. The South campus is everything South of three 80. Um, that's 257 acres roughly within the South campus. It's then further subdivided into districts. Um, so there are three districts within the South area, the RR one area, which is shown in red on the map, um, the South RR two district, which is kind of the perimeter, um, higher intensity commercial uses that's shown in yellow. And then all of the other colors you see on this map are what's known as the South mixed use district. Um, so it's a mixture of offices, um, some like commercial uses, um, and a lot of residential uses as well as some park space. Um, over, uh, the, the years, as I said, we've updated the district, um, with standards for all of these areas. The South mixed use district doesn't have a lot of those standards developed yet because it, nothing is out there to date. So in 2016, we did have standards come forward for multifamily specifically for, uh, this one parcel along heritage trail that's under construction today. That's remaining as exhibit C three to the razor range overlay district. What we have before you tonight is a two additional exhibits that would be for the multifamily and single family located on the East side of heritage trail. So this blue outline are, um, the general location of the parcels that could have multifamily or single family development, uh, within the South mixed use district. And then there are placeholders left in the overlay, uh, for standards that you'll see before you in the future for the non-residential uses within the mix, uh, South mixed use district. The base zoning for razor, um, is primarily RCCD. So that's the purple you see here on the map. That's, um, the town center portion and then within the mixed use district, uh, that's everything kind of here along heritage trail and scripture. The remainder of this area that we're looking at tonight is a base zoning of NRM U district. So this may be familiar to you all. This was the general development plan that was approved last spring. And what this shows here, uh, the blue areas are the areas that were allocated for single family development. And then the red are the poor parcels that could be a multifamily or age restricted multifamily. So what you have in your backup are the proposed exhibits that would be attached to the overlay district. So I'll just briefly go through those. There's more detail, of course, in the staff analysis that was provided to you. So exhibit C2A, uh, would be the site design, architecture, landscaping, parking and signage standards for the multifamily parcels that we just saw. Those were the red ones on the map. Um, overall, it is consistent with both the razor ranch, um, overlay district standards for other areas, as well as consistent with our current DDC standards for multifamily in terms of open space, uh, landscaping, minimum unit size and things like that. The two primary differences I wanted to point out for a multifamily would be parking and the minimum masonry standard. So for parking, um, what they've proposed to do is follow the old DDC parking standards. You may remember, um, in 2018, we updated our parking for multi and single family to provide more parking on site. Um, what they're electing to do is follow the old DDC standards that are applied across the rest of razor ranch. Um, so you see that comparison here, our updated standards as of 2018, um, 1.25 spaces for one bedroom, one bedroom units, everything else is one space per bedroom plus 10% guest parking on top of that. Um, what they're looking to do is go with the old standards. So, um, efficiency, one bedrooms would have one space, any one bedroom over 600 square feet would be one and a half spaces. 1.75 for two bedrooms, two spaces for three bedroom, and then one space per bedroom if the apartment is larger than that with no guest parking. Um, as I mentioned, this would be consistent with the other, uh, multifamily within razor ranch. It's consistent with the rest of the district following our 2002 parking standards. Um, and then for the age restricted units, that parking ratio didn't change and they're sticking with the one space for dwelling. Um, the masonry standards they've proposed are much higher than what we have in the DDC. We have a 40% overall minimum masonry for multifamily. That would be on all sides of the building. Uh, they've proposed 60% minimum brick or stone, uh, for sides facing a street and then 40% on all other sides. So overall it would be a much higher percentage of masonry. And then for single family, again, um, following the DDC and the razor ranch overlay for most aspects of it, but there are a few key differences. Um, they are proposing to lower the minimum unit size to allow 800 square foot minimum instead of 900 for parking. Again, they're, um, proposing to follow the old DDC standards. So we used to just have two spaces per dwelling. That's what they're proposing to follow rather than the new four spaces per dwelling unit. Um, and then for attached single family, which would be townhome, um, they're proposing kind of a hybrid with our old multifamily standard applying instead of the single family. Um, again, minimum masonry, DDC currently doesn't have that for single family. So what they're proposing is a substantial improvement with 40% minimum brick or stone on street sides of the buildings. 80% overall would have to be brick stone stucco or cementitious siding. And then the other key change is, um, they do want to allow for zero lot line houses. So they're proposing instead of a six foot side yard within NRMU to have a zero side yard setback on at least one side for these to allow for that zero lot line style development. Uh, just some summary findings. Um, again, all outlined in more detail in your backup. Um, we did find these to be generally consistent with the commercial standards for the rest of the South districts in terms of landscaping building materials. So you'll see that continued, um, theme that you have in razor with the native stone and the neutral color palette. What they've proposed is stricter than the DDC in terms of architectural detail and building materials. Um, I did want to point out because of a question that was raised, uh, single family isn't typically permitted in NRMU or in our regional mixed use areas. Uh, the razor overlay was updated in 2008 to specifically allow a single family development in that area. And it does provide that transition between the high density and the intense commercial uses that we'll someday see at the town center and the adjoining single family neighborhoods along Bonnie brain. Um, and then, um, as I mentioned, the other key thing that, that staff kind of struggled with on this one a little bit was the parking standards. Um, however, after analyzing it, what we found is they are choosing to be consistent with the overall standards that have applied across razor ranch, including the residential developments on the north side. Um, they are, we are looking at a, um, kind of a master plan mixed use development that does have an excess of parking. Um, you may be familiar each time you see a site planet razor, they've, they've exempted themselves from the maximum parking that we have in the DDC. So they can go above and beyond without being penalized with pervious paving or having to go through the ADP process. So there is an excess of parking existing at razor that could be available for overflow. However, staff is recommending that the mixed use parking reduction allowed for in the DDC that is referenced in the overlay, not be able to apply within the NRMU portion here. Um, so I've actually updated the recommendation from what was in your backup. So we'll look at that in just a second to see the new language. Um, notification was sent regarding this case. We did receive one response. Um, that's from the current owner of the razor marketplace and the razor ranch town center. He's in support of the request. Um, due to the nature of this area, there wasn't a neighborhood meeting held cause it's, it's not a substantial change. It's just adopting these standards to allow for the consistent development here. So I mentioned this recommendation is updated. The language in red is what's new since what you saw in your backup. So we're proposing in addition to the parking standards within the overlay, so that's 35 seven 15 10 a, um, to include a statement that would say that subsection 35 14 seven C, which is the mixed use parking reduction within the DDC shall not apply to residential uses in areas with a base zoning of NRMU district and located in the south mixed use district east of heritage trail. And so far as a parking reduction beyond the minimum required amount shall not be granted for any residential use. So since they are proposing to go below the current DDC standard, we want to ensure that that can't be further reduced by up to 25% that is allowed with this mixed use parking reduction across the city. Um, and with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions. Mr. Beck. Thank you chair. Thanks Haley. You mentioned real briefly there. So it raised my, uh, got my attention about pervious parking. What were you talking about there? Um, in throughout the city, if you have more than the maximum amount of required parking, it has to be either be pervious paving or you have to get an ADP. So that's the reason you see many ADPs come through here for parking above the maximum. Okay. So it's possible. Some pervious parking. Um, it not within razor. They specifically since as far as I can tell for at least a decade now have exempted themselves from that requirement. So development within razor can go above and beyond that, but they do have higher landscaping standards in their parking lot than we have citywide and just a little sidebar. I thought I noticed in a future improvements and I think it was, you're the project manager. Is there some, is there a project already being put forward for the senior housing in that area? Correct. That would be back to the map here. Um, that is this, um, L shaped parcel is the age restricted multi-family up there on the top. Correct. North is to the left side of the screeners. This is Bonnie Bray. This is university. Okay. So it's that one little L shaped area that the project, correct. Okay. Thanks. Just wanted to see this. Sorry. The, uh, the single family at the very, very top there. Correct. Correct. That's what's in blue. And just to remind y'all this, every development within razor does come back to you all for a site plan. So you'll see each of these in more detail as they come forward. Just wanted to make sure there was single family close to Bonnie Bray and then correct. Yeah. I think it was designed kind of as that transitional between the high density and, and they're doing, and they're doing staggered staggered elevations right on their multi-family as well to where, you know, two stories in is, you know, full build out on the, on that footprint. And then third story set back a little bit for source of back. Not a, I saw that in the, in the standards. Okay. It's possible. Um, I said, I have to look back through it, but, um, yeah, this is exhibit C2A and it has the like that for multi-family. I just want to make sure. Correct. That would be if it's adjoining single family outside of the razor overlay district, that's the, um, the kind of stair step that we have in the, so it won't be that way because the single family is still within the, the razor. Okay. Yeah. That would be if some of the parcels here along Bonnie Bray do allow in the original zoning overlay for multi-family. So if they had chosen to do multi-family and those parcels that could have applied. I know, I know this, we're just looking for guidelines here, but you know, and in your estimation, Haley, do you see the single family being built before the multi-family, which, which would you see being developed for some multifamily is already being built within razor ranch? Correct. And that that's this parcel here across from the park. Um, like commissioner Beck alluded to, there is a site plan that's been submitted for this parcel that would be age restricted multi-family and we've had pre-development meetings on this particular parcel for single family. So I think those will both be in fairly quickly for site plans. She's still just a little scared that if we build single family and put a bunch of, you know, put some folks in there and even though they know they're buying single family in razor ranch, they may not know that, you know, they have the right across the street from the right next to them for multifamily. They may not know that. And then as soon as we start building it or seeing site plans, people get mad because they were never notified or something like that. So I just, I'm just looking at this, the, the regulations here thinking that looks pretty good for across the board. If it's a budding single family, whether it's in razor ranch overlay or not, it doesn't matter to me that it's near single family, whether it's in razor ranch or not. Yeah. As it's proposed is, um, if it abuts existing single family outside of the overlay district. So I would just be, I would be a little hesitant for the down the road. We have some complaints from single family owners over there. There's still an overlay that say, well, they're building multifamily. Well, you should have known, but the same time we also didn't make any amends to know that it's kind of coming and we could possibly, you know, stem that by having this extend from outside single family. It's also interior single family as well. That's certainly something you all could propose. Um, if it's any, um, comfort here, at least these three parcels of multifamily or all have a base zoning of NRMU. So that's the 30 dwelling unit per acre maximum. So it is less intense than the development that's going in along here in a trail today. And this particular parcel that would be RCC, NRMU, even when it goes over to the new zoning, well, I guess, yeah, when it goes to the new zoning, what's, what's the max height on those 60? Um, I believe it's 65. I believe that's correct. I can verify the site. That's further down. That's being built right next to, um, Alamo. Um, that parcel is based on the RCCD that goes up to a hundred feet. Okay. Good. All right. Thank you, Jerry. Yes. I just wanted to explain that, uh, uh, I'm familiar with some of the history of razor ranch and how it has evolved over the years. And, uh, this was originally proposed at a time. We didn't have a PD ordinance and we didn't have a master plan community ordinance. And so the only way to provide the kind of customized, uh, zoning that the applicant wanted was to do an overlay. And so, uh, what was set up was to start with a very permissive zoning and then restrict it back with overlay conditions. And so the NRMU has been in place for a very long time. And, uh, it's, it's the, the, the overlay conditions have always provided for this to be some form of residential at, at, at, at, at a given point in time. And, uh, it's, it's just the details that are being worked out right now. Sure. I totally understand. I just, I get it from a realtor standpoint that if a realtor goes in there, sells a single family home to a new home buyer and they go in there and buy it. And then two years go by and a multifamily unit comes in. It's just a big old monolith right next to them and they never knew. And we could, we could put some design standards in now that could maybe mitigate from some, Hey, look, yes, you're right next to you, but it's staggered this way to where a sight line is right into your backyard. I'd be preferable to me, but I'm just trying to think a little bit of a head here. Yeah. Like I said, you all do have that oversight at the site plan level. So if it, you find it more palatable for a buffer or parking on that side, you would also have that detailed opportunity to look at the plans. Hey, they're wanting to reduce the minimum square foot for a single family and reduce setbacks. Are they making like zero lot line tiny homes? Is that what they're intending? I don't think it's tiny homes as far as what you see with the three and 400 square foot. It is still that 800 square foot minimum. Um, what I've heard is kind of a cottage style, zero lot line development. So they would be, um, you know, just smaller homes intended for maybe retired or single, you know, single individuals, um, not necessarily typical single family homes where you're expecting a couple and a few kids to live there. Um, and what's the density allowance for the blue shaded area? Um, it's it's zone NRMU so it can go up to 30 units per acre, even on single family homes. Correct. So I don't know that it could ever reach that density when you consider the infrastructure that would have to go in. Um, cause they would have to each be an individually platted lot. I believe they're proposing alley access on some of them. So you'd have a street to the front and alley in the rear. Um, I don't know that it could ever reach that density, but that would be the maximum allowable. Okay. Here's your Smith. Thank you chair. Is there going to be a representative here tonight at all? Correct. Yeah. They've listened to this conversation, so I think they'll be able to address any questions. Mr. Beck. Thanks chair. Zero lot line. Is this a living unit? Touching the living unit? Uh, is there any, there's no gap at all. Um, no, it's so when they're attached, that would be a townhomes development, which is permitted there. Um, zero lot lines typically just, there would be a much narrower setback between the buildings. So like the eve of the building could almost approach the property line and just allow kind of a very narrow four to six foot space in between the buildings. But what three, four or five feet still between potentially. Yeah. Several feet I suspect still between the buildings, but not the 12 feet that you would get with that six foot minimum side yard. So the 12 feet would be reduced to possibly six feet or lower. Okay. Thanks. I don't see any questions. Thank you very much. The next item is item three G DCA 19 dash zero zero four. And this is Julie. My understanding is a three G and three H are very tied together, but there will be two presentations, correct? So yes, the first item is going to be actually a DTC text amendment. The second item is, is, is a, an applicant coming forward to to ask for an SUP for within that text amendment. So hopefully it'll make sense. All right. So I'm presenting DCA 19 four to you this evening, treatment centers. So the request before you is a city initiated revision to the Denton development code specifically to amend sub chapters five eight 14 and 23 as they relate to supportive residential uses and treatment facilities. Um, just some background on, on the use. Uh, so we did a little research the substance abuse and mental health services administration, their 2013 survey of, uh, drug use and health determined that 22.7 million Americans needed treatment for drugs and alcohol, a drug or alcohol problem. But only 2.5 million receive that treatment. So it creates what they call a treatment gap of 20.2 million people. Um, additionally, the white house has also declared the opioid abuse as a public health crisis. Um, the state of Texas, the opioid abuse in this chart, shows it's not quite the state of Texas is the red line and then, um, the United States is the gray line. It's not quite as pronounced in Texas as it is other parts of the nation, but it is something that is trending upward. And so it's something that, um, we need to think about. Additionally, when you look more locally, um, you can open up the Denton record Chronicle and from time to time see articles about how drugs and alcohol abuse have affected our citizens. So we do have a, an organization within the community that actually addresses this problem, this treatment gap that the United States and the city of Denton sees. Um, and it provides treatment for adults and families impacted by a drug and alcohol dependency. They have some current facilities on North Riddell, but they would like to expand that. Um, and, and so they approached the city and, and we, we, we looked at the code and we looked at our requirements and determined that our current zoning regulations and our use tables don't adequately adequately address these types of uses so that they could, um, responsibly, um, be developed within the city. And so, and so here's, here's really our menu of, of, um, of uses. Uh, we have community home for disabled persons, a group home or hospital services. Those are really the only uses that could potentially, um, fit within this, this type of activity and facility community homes for the disabled. Those are something that are regulated by the state of Texas, uh, through chapter one 23 of the Texas Texas human resources code that didn't really fit, um, with it, with, with what their type of uses, um, group homes that is, um, permitted with an SUP in, um, in our, in our multifamily districts in the city of Denton, but that's really broader than what we're talking about. It could capture a lot of different types of residents that maybe we're not talking about with these treatment facilities and supportive residential uses. And then we have hospitals and, and our hospitals provide our primary healthcare services, but it also, they also can provide psychiatric services or maybe detox services, but they provide a wide range of activities and they're not really, they're more general in nature. They're not really specifically, um, um, tailored to this type of, of a facility. Uh, in 2016, the, the, um, um, HUD and the department of justice, uh, released a joint statement regarding these types of facilities and the, and the treatment facilities. And, and within that statement, they identified that treatment for substance abuse is an important societal need, but it's also a complex land use issue and it could affect a community. Um, they wanted to provide cities with legal clarity to maintain, um, uh, the community, but also protecting the rights and needs of, of those with drug and alcohol addiction problems. And, um, and, and this statement was resulting resulted from a, from a community where they actually had a high concentration of these types of uses or sober homes actually. And it was, it was a smaller community, but they had a really high concentration. So this was the result of that, uh, of the issues that came out of that. So there were really three points within that. First, a city can deny an accommodation request if it would impose, um, an undue financial or administrative burden on the city, um, that licensing or other requirements for health and safety may be permitted. So, so regulations may be permitted, um, but this can't be based on stereotypes and it must apply equally to all homes and with, and, um, within a minimum, with a minimum number of unrelated persons and it can't target homes based on disability. And then the fair housing act does not prevent action in response to criminal activity, insurance fraud, Medicaid fraud, abuse or neglect, or other illegal conduct. So, so they couldn't, they couldn't do something illegal. So based upon, um, the kind of background information we talked about, um, the, the solutions of North Texas, what, what their program is, the joint statement guidelines and the current regulations staff has, has, um, has some, um, um, code amendments that we'd like to talk about today. Um, and, and first we're going to talk about sub chapters five and 23 and talk about two new uses that we're proposing. So the first new use that we're proposing is called supportive residential. And, um, the intent of this is to provide for a residential living for unrelated individuals with disabilities in a single dwelling unit. So it'd be home. Um, it should be a supportive family like environment. They could be self governing or they could be supervised by an entity. Um, it seeks to emulate the biological family to normalize residents and make sure that they're integrated within our community. Um, treatment would be incidental as to any home, um, like a therapist, and it does not include individuals who are not disabled, who are pre prison, pre parolees, who are sex offenders. So as we, as we are looking at integrating this in the use tables, we're proposing that this supportive residential use, as I just talked about the definition would be provided in the residential land use category, um, and that it would be permitted in our residential districts with limitation six and that limitation six would limit it to fewer than six unrelated individuals per dwelling unit. And it could not be located within a 600 foot radius or on the same block as another supportive residential treatment facility or group home. So we want to make sure that those don't cluster together. So we would have that separation. Thank you chair. Julie, as we're moving through this, we're looking to amend our old code. Yes. I assume so they can start before adoption of our new code in October. Yes. Correct. So we are amending the old code, but how is that going to look with the new code? And are we going to then have to amend the new code? I assume you are correct. So the way we crafted it is we try to craft the language in a way that could be transferred easily. So if, if you recall in the new DDC, we have the use specific standards, though these limitations would just flow to that. So it should be fairly seamless. It will come back to you probably in about a month to get that cleaned up and get it in the new code as well, if it's approved. Thanks. So we also are proposing that supportive residential as a, as a use would be permitted in districts where multifamily is permitted or permitted with an SUP with limitation 34 and 34 would allow uses that accommodate fewer than six unrelated, unrelated individuals to be permitted by right. So as, as in limitation six, if it's fewer than six, you could, it would be permitted. However, if they wanted to have more than six, then an SUP would be required. Once again, we have that same 600 foot radius separation. So is that, does that make sense? Is that. Mr. Beck. Thank you chair. So that explains where we're getting the 16 eight on each side, right? Well, that is actually, that's actually going to be as part of a treatment facility. So, so the, the SUP you're going to be seeing tonight, we're going to talk about, they're not, they're not proposing to develop a standalone supportive residential use. They're proposing to develop a treatment facility within that broad umbrella of treatment facility will be the supportive residential uses. So it's actually going to be one campus as, as that a broad umbrella of the residential use of the supportive residential within the treatment facility, no, if, if it was approved, no other supportive residential or treatment facility or group home could be located within the boundaries of that property. And I have a map in the next presentation and hopefully it'll make it clear. I hope. So this limitation of six or less won't apply to the treatment center. Correct. Correct. That's its own separate, own separate thing. It's a great question. How, well, how many, okay, we're looking at eight right now, but would it allow more than that? Is there a, is there a maximum could allow? Well, it would have to all be within the confines of the SUP. So they're proposing a certain number of uses tonight. We've crafted our language that that would be capped at that. If they wanted to add more, it would be a revision to the S okay. Okay. Thanks. All right. So, um, next, next we're going to the second, um, new use and that would be treatment facility. And that's a little more intense than the supportive residential. Um, so this is intended to be a facility with plan structured and organized programs solely designed to initiate and promote a person's chemical free status or to maintain the person free of illegal drugs. It would be licensed in accordance with the state of Texas safety code chapter four 64. Um, and, and supportive residential could be a component of that. It's a pretty broad, a broad term. We're proposing this use be located in the institutional land use category because it is a more institutional use. You can almost look at it that it could be all the way up to the intensity of a hospital. So that's, that's why it's proposed to go in that area. Um, and it would be permitted in some of the downtown university core districts, community mixed use centers and regional mixed use centers and employment centers with an S U P always an S U P and limitation 39 and that limitation 39 has that separation distance of 1200 feet. So it actually increases it. Thank you chair. Julie, with regard to the new code, what are the districts that it would be a lot of, we're going to continue, we're going to look at that. It will follow that transition table, but it would be in the M N district, the M M D and the M R district. And there may be some more employment districts that we would, we would look at. So we'll take a harder look at that and make sure we get that lined up correctly in the new code. Um, you know, it's not a, it's not a perfect apples to apples transition. So we want to make sure we're thoughtful about that as it comes back to you. I know with the, with the new code looming, it's a little bit weird to be looking at it like this because in a, in a few short months we're really dealing with a different code. So it would have been great to, to see the new code alongside of this. Um, it is, it is a little strange and what we can do maybe in the intervening is kind of look at some of those districts and maybe have some sort of transition there. We're also looking at, so we've talked about sub chapter five in the 2002 code, which was the use tables and sub chapter 23, which is the definitions. And now in sub chapter eight, that sub chapter eight and the 2002 code actually, um, refer to, um, our group homes within the city of Denton. And there were, um, within that section of the Denton development code, there were a lot of unnecessary references to assisted living facility and group homes for handicapped persons or institutions. And we don't have that use. So it created a lot of confusion. So we've actually just struck the, those, that language to make it just less confusing and more consistent with what our use tables. Um, however, this, this chapter is actually being eliminated in the new code. And so all of it is, has, has been incorporated into those use specific standards in sub chapter five of the new code. Sub chapter 14 is our parking standards in 2002. We wanted to make sure there was an adequate, that there was adequate parking. So we're proposing supportive residential provide one space per each bedroom with a minimum of four. Um, since they could have up to six residents, we wanted to make sure that they would may all have cars. And so we make sure there's adequate parking and that there wasn't, um, an unnecessary burden on the, on the on street parking and then treatment facilities. We looked at as, as, um, we sort of compared it to our medical, um, our medical center standards, medical office standards, and that would be one space per 200 square feet of growth floor area. Um, sub chapter 23, a little, a little more cleanup on sub chapter 23, we're proposing a new definition for disability. And that just refers to the Americans with disabilities act of 1990 as amended sort of keeps it really clean. Um, I believe that act was included in your backup, but just as a quick hit, they, um, their definition of disability is here is you've got to have a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. There has to be a record of such impairment or, or being regarded as as having such an impairment. So that's really the federal definition of that disability. We're also proposing to revise the definition for disabled persons as it's, um, this really relates to just one use within the debt and development code and that is community homes for the disabled. That is regulated by chapter one 23 of the Texas human resources code. It's kind of a separate and apart use. And so because this was differentiated from that, we really wanted to add that language, make it very clear as the code is applied in the future and that, um, disabled persons, um, is, is just references that one section of the Texas human resources code. And we're also proposing to remove the definition of handicap. Um, it's, it's redundant. It creates more confusion and what we're trying to do is make sure that these regulations are, are applied, um, in the clearest way possible. So we looked at a, at a, um, slide earlier in the presentation about what we have as current regulations within the debt and development code. And those are, um, those, those columns in blue. And as we're proposing, um, this, uh, this, um, text amendment, we then slide in the green into that menu. Um, and there's the supportive residential, fewer than six residents, um, in residential districts, um, few, fewer than six residents permitted by right and multifamily districts, anything equal to or greater than six residents would require an SUP. Um, we've got to have parking for each bedroom, uh, disability is required and you've got that 600 foot separation. Um, treatment facilities would be solely designed to initiate and promote that chemical free status. SUP would always be required. Um, it would be in more of our, um, in of our more intense zoning districts and we were requiring that 1200 foot separation. Um, so the considerations we looked at, um, it, we, the proposal balances the need for those community services with issues of compatibility. Um, the supportive residential just, um, um, it, it is generally appropriate for neighborhood settings with that limitation six and 34. We want to make sure we keep that intensity reduced, um, and that we ensure adequate spacing to, to prevent that grouping from happening. Um, that SUP for over six individual individuals provides for additional screw scrutiny and make sure that there's adequate buffers and that it, it's handled correctly. Uh, we want to make sure that the parking is adequate for the use. And so we reduce those parking impacts for the surrounding area. Um, it does require a disability in the definition and that, um, we wanted to put it in that residential, um, land use category so that it's developed with those residential design standards so that it's integrated in a neighborhoods and that it is, it is, it works in scale as well as building materials and architectural design. Um, treatment facilities due to the potential impacts associated with the proposed use, we added in that an SUP is always required and add that limitation 39 to make sure that there's adequate spacing. Um, in order to reduce confusion with other medical uses, we added that word solely to the definition because some hospitals do have these types of, um, of, of, um, detox facilities or other types of counseling facilities as a part of their mission. And so we wanted to, to, to separate those two. These are separate uses. Um, but it is a, it is a large umbrella term. And so we could go all the way from intensity of a, of a, of a hospital detox facility all the way down to just, uh, to a community mental health, uh, mental health center or a recovery center. So it, or, or, or supportive residential. So it's got a wide range of intensity and that's why the SUP component is so important. So we can look at it, um, with, with each case, um, staff did sound or did publish notification and we recommend approval of, of the, um, of the text amendments, um, as proposed. And I'll stand for any questions. I do not see any great presentation, Julie. At this time. Oh, commissioner Smith. Um, are you going to do the SCP as well? Or no, just, just this, we weren't into the SP about this thing about breaking for dinner and then coming back for the SP. I got, I'll just bring it up now. So we did it just in case we're rushed for it. Um, seeing that, I don't think we're going to have a lot of, we could have public input on this. And I think that'd be great. Is there any way for us to amend the agenda to move this item before the agave ranch item at eight for the applicant who's here to see this, to have to sit through what it seems like we're going to have a lot of public input on that. I don't know if we have the ability to move that agenda item up. I know, I know we've had it before when we had the Lakeview ranch. I mean that one gentleman who had the bell, the right there off university, sit there for a storage unit. He was, we're talking about one 30 a night about a storage unit. It's like, thanks for sitting here and I was like, why couldn't we just had him first get him out of here and then let the real time, the real timely one or the one for time, uh, time sucking be done towards the end. Yeah, we can consider that. Thanks for the consideration chair. So this time at five 49 we'll break for 15 minutes and then reconvene for the last item. Thank you for that short break. We'll call the meeting back to order at six Oh six and the next item for consideration is item three H it's an SUP presented by Julie Wyatt. All right. This is S 19 nine Riddell campus. So the request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider a request by solutions of North Texas for a specific use permit for a treatment facility. The subject property is about 4.4 acres located on the east side of North Riddell street, about 495 feet north of mingo road. It's right there in yellow. The current zoning is DR two district. And, um, as, as you're aware, this SUP is actually running concurrently with a DDC text amendment DCA 19 four. So if that text amendment is approved as proposed treatment facilities would be permitted in DR two with approval of an SUP and a distance separation of 1200 feet from any other supportive residential, um, treatment facility or group home. So let we'll just talk about their, their site for a few minutes. So they've got some existing development on the side. We want to go over that first. Um, so this is kind of their conceptual site plan. They haven't fully flushed out their site plan and what we're really looking at today is the activities on the site. So right now, um, they have an administrative building located here in this orange, um, and that's for case management, for treatment counseling services. They maintain regular office hours and they also have evening sessions, five nights a week for counseling services. They also have some program residential housing. It's there in purple. These are two duplexes that can accommodate 32 male residents. Um, these residents have been cleared from detox and remain drug and alcohol free. Uh, they must obtain full time employment or be enrolled in school for at least 30 hours, 35 hours a week. And solutions North of North Texas staff is onsite during night and weekend hours for resident support to ensure safety, to ensure good decision making, and drug and alcohol testing. Um, and then they have the return to monitor house and that's this, um, this right here, it's an existing duplex. It actually can accommodate two single mothers, um, that have completed drug and alcohol programs. Um, but it provides a stable residence while they're working to be reunified with their children. So they're working through that case. Um, and, and, um, and it just provides a safe and stable place for them to live. So that's what's on the ground now. Um, what they're proposing to do is to expand this use to, um, include an ambulatory detox housing program. And that's here in that sort of weird green color. Um, and that, uh, as proposed would accommodate, um, six adults for housing and medical care. It would, um, uh, provide for full time monitoring, both for counseling and that medical, um, that medical monitoring. And, um, and then, you know, once a person would complete that program, the intent would be to transition to that supportive residential once they're, um, drop drug and alcohol free. Um, and then they're also proposing, um, to expand that program residential housing, um, to include another, uh, male, um, residents here, a duplex, that would, um, accommodate additional residents as well as three duplexes for women on the South side. So, um, with the, with the additional housing, they could accommodate another 64 residents. Um, and then they are proposing, uh, uh, additional administrative functions. And, you know, as the organization grows, they're going to need additional room for administration offices and counseling services. Um, other development on the, on the site could include, um, some outdoor pavilions, um, some, some storage sheds, uh, and then two access points to redel with an internal access loop, um, and then buffers to the adjacent properties. So the criteria for approval are in sub chapter six of the didn't development code. I won't read all of this. It is in your backup material, but we'll kind of go through the criteria as we talk about their site and their proposal. Um, so first of all, the first thing we look at is the future land use and it is in a neighborhood university compatibility. It's, it's near TWU. Um, and the proposed use is fitting for these kinds of mixed use districts. That's kind of what we're looking at in terms of where to locate these types of uses. Um, but the future land use doesn't really talk about these types of social services. So we kind of had to look at other parts of the, of the dent plan 2030 and, and, um, uh, element eight, um, it is, it addresses community health safety and services. And it really talks to this and identifies the need for substance abuse treatment. And as part of that, it establishes an action to identify key partners, um, to aid in the implementation of these types of programs and, and solutions of North Texas and those programs that they administer is consistent with that, um, that goal. Um, it does, if, um, as proposed, it conforms to the definition and limitations for the proposed treatment facility use. Um, and here's where that 1200 foot buffer comes in. So here's the subject property in yellow. Um, and it is the subject site. Surrounding it, there is a community home for the disabled. That's just south of it. It kind of looks similar to it. Um, and, and, um, but that, that there's not a distance separation from that. That's a, that's a different type of use. There's also some elderly housing near them as well as some, um, some multifamily to the North. Um, so as part of the SUP staff recommends that, um, a recommendation that the facility administrator provide evidence, evidence of that licensing to make sure their license is current with the Texas health and safety code chapter four 64 as part of their yearly fire inspection. Um, and then if approved, a full site plan would be required right now. They're kind of in this conceptual stage. We're really just talking about what activities are on the site and that we would make sure that they comply with all setback, lot coverage, site design, landscaping, parking, and access requirements. Thank you, chair. Julie, with, um, the licensing factor, do they have the current license now? The applicant is here and he'll be able to answer all of, all of your questions as far as how that, how, how their licensing is, is maintained and, and, um, and what activities are, you know, how their business is run. So he should be able to answer those. So, um, we looked at each kind of activity that, that they're proposing as, as we analyze this project. Um, so first of all, we looked at the ambulatory detox housing program. It is limited to six residents. It's pretty, it's pretty limited, um, and that they would be housed in a watchful environment. So staff doesn't anticipate that the use would create negative impacts for the surrounding, um, current and future development because of it's, if, of it's, uh, of the low scale of it. Um, as far as the program residential housing, that's those do, those are those duplexes. It really is intended to function in a way that's similar to any other residential use. The occupants must attend work or school. They have to pay rent, um, and they have to maintain the property. They, they've got to, you know, cook, do the dishes, um, take care of the exterior. So it really would function like a residential, um, property. Um, it also, um, would not result in incompatible densities. So the potential number of residents with the current residents and the proposed would equal 96, um, and, um, which is a maximum of 22 persons per acre. Uh, the maximum density in DR2 district is, um, 30 dwelling units per acre. So you really could have a lot of, for instance, multifamily units on this property. And so the density would actually be a lot less than what could be, um, provided on the property. And, and we don't anticipate any adverse impacts for on street parking, um, because the residential housing facilities, we believe that our code amendment would provide adequate parking, um, for the housing as well as the offices that one space per 200 square feet. Um, and then there are administrative buildings. Offices are generally compatible with these mixed use areas. So, so we don't feel like there's going to be adverse impacts. We also looked at the infrastructure associated with the development. Um, it is an infill site and so there's water and sewer available along North Riddell that they could tie into. It's also within 200 feet of a DCTA bus shelter outlined there in a red circle, um, that would, um, provide for multimodal transportation for their residents. Um, however, the sidewalk network on North Riddell is not quite complete yet. Um, as, as development happens, um, additional sidewalks be will be required and we're hoping at some point in the future, there will be a full sidewalk facility. Thank you, chair. Yes. I'm reading that. I did have a concern about that. I assume that many of these residents possibly will not have a vehicle and they will use the bus to get to their jobs or school. So with the street or sidewalk incomplete, how do they get to the bus stop? They would have to kind of veer onto the street. I drove it over the weekend and it's not a, it's not a, it's a collector. So it's not one of our arterial rows. So it does kind of function more of a, of a lower key collector. Um, yeah, I, I, I hope we can get that sidewalk, um, um, connected. And it's certainly something we'll be talking with engineering about in, in all of these sort of pedestrian oriented areas, getting our sidewalks in place. Um, but we also, I too had concerns about their residents and how they would move about the city because school and work is something that they have to, that they have to, um, do on a daily basis. And so, um, the, the, the bus shelter was important as well as, um, we also felt like we should add a requirement that bike racks would be required at least one space, one bike space per 10 required parking spaces to just provide additional options for their residents. Public notification was sent out. Um, we haven't received any responses as of today. Um, so with that, we'll, we'll talk about our recommendation. Um, with, our recommendation is structured as we're going to talk about the permitted activities and then, um, as, as proposed and then, um, and then the, the, um, conditions. So if, if PNC recommends approval and city council then votes to approve it with the conditions, these would all be a part of the ordinance. So, um, the activities that are, that we've talked about today, the administrative building with the training education, the, the, um, the counseling, the treatment that would be permitted as well as the program, residential housing with that, um, um, the, the current 32 residents as well as the proposed 64 or 64 additional residents that would be permitted if, if approved, um, it would still have, they would still have to follow all of those, um, all those parameters that they set forth in their narrative about the school and the work and the maintaining the property. Um, we're also, um, also that returned to monitor house that duplex for the two, um, single moms, um, the ambulatory detox program, that would be permitted if it was approved, it would be limited to six adults and they would have to maintain that monitoring of, of those residents. And then, and then, as I said before, the additional program housing for the six 64 residents. Um, so staff, so those would be the permitted activities. Staff also recommends, um, some additional conditions. First of all, sobering centers defined as play a place to stay for individuals in lieu of arrest until sober enough to safely leave would not be permitted on site. Um, there would need to be evidence of licensing provided on a yearly basis with that, with that fire inspection. Um, because this is kind of a redeveloping site, there's some existing driveways. We would want those to be closed off and the, um, curb and gutter, um, replaced, uh, as the property develops and as they put their, their two driveways with their internal loop in, we'd want, we'd want that street to be complete in that location. Um, bicycle racks to be installed at one per 10 parking spaces. And then we're also proposing, um, and I, and, and, and this is actually their proposal that require buffers of a fence along the north, uh, east and south property lines, as well as, um, medium or small canopy trees planted every, uh, every 30 linear feet along the north and south property lines. They had talked about some Nellie Stevens Hollies. I didn't want to tie them so much into a specific landscaping type because, um, because what if it wasn't available in the nursery? I didn't want them to be tied down. We just want to make sure we've got that, that landscaping there to provide that buffer. Julie, when did they see, when did these recommendations, when were they reviewed with the client? We sent them to the applicant last week and they sent an email that they were good with them. So, and, and he is here. So, um, we also propose that all future buildings be designed with the residential character. This is a mixed use area, but there's a lot of residential. It's there's some multifamily and elderly housing. We want to make sure it maintains the character of the surrounding property. And that includes primary entrances toward the right of way. Um, we want those, those architectural elements to be residential, like dormers, gables, porches, um, windows and doors that are facing the, or, um, at least 15% of the wall area facing the street to be fit, um, to be windows and doors, exterior finishes of wood, masonry, or cementitious siding. And this really does follow the new debt and development code regs. And then on that minimum masonry around the 25%, uh, all existing and proposed solid wall waste rest receptacles should be located toward the rear of the property line. I don't believe they have any dumpsters in front of the buildings. So, but just, just to maintain that, um, the, the solid waste to the rear. And then, and then to follow that new code as it relates to those design standards, um, in, in terms of tree preservation, landscaping, fencing and screening. So, um, that is it. I'll stand for any questions. Thank you, chair Julie. One of my concerns with expanding this is the fact that it's across the street from TWU campus, which is a future student housing area. Did you get TWU input? They were sent notification as part of the notification process. We haven't heard from them and we, I didn't talk to them. Any other question? Yep. I do have another question. You may not know the answer to this. If a resident does not maintain work or school, what happens to them? I don't know the answer to that. Thank you. Any other questions for Julie? Great. Recommendation. So just as a, um, a recommendation from Richard and myself in regards to the agenda before we close, I think we're going to reorder it. Uh, if there's not any, um, opposition to we're skipping three a three B and three C because of the postponements, then we'll do three D as planned from there. We'll allow a G and H to go before agave and then we'll wrap up with, with ropes and ramps. So we'll go razor ranch. Yeah, sorry. So we'll go D G H E F as the order for the agenda. With that, we will close the work session at six 22. We'll reconvene at six 30 in council chambers. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday, May 15th, 2019. I'll call the meeting to order at six 36. The first item of business is to stand and give a pledge of allegiance to the U S and Texas flag. I'm Texas. [inaudible] the next item of business is the consent agenda. Chair will entertain a discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Pernetta second. We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none. I'll call for a vote on the board. [inaudible] motion carries six zero next items for business will be our public hearing. I want to make notes of some changes to the agenda for those in the audience and those watching at home. Items three a B and C have been postponed. They will not be heard tonight. So if you hear for three a three B or three C, we will not be hearing those this evening. And then there's going to be a reordering of the remaining. So if you pay attention to these changes, the order for tonight will be item D then item G H E and we'll conclude with F. So the items we heard D G H E F and this is hopefully just a, to manage the expectations of time. So we can be a little bit more efficient in the process this evening. So with that, the first item for public hearing is item three D Z 19 dash zero zero zero four invite Karina for presentation and I'll open the public hearing. All right. Good evening everyone. Um, my name is Karina Maldonado assistant planner. Um, today I'll be presenting Z 19 for Prairie parcel. The request today is to rezone a residential lot, um, outlined here in yellow, um, from a neighborhood residential to zoning district, to a neighborhood residential for zoning district on approximately 0.101 acres of land. Um, that is approximately 4,500 square feet. The subject property is located North on Prairie street, uh, adjacent to Oakwood cemetery, Fred Moore park, and it is approximately 610 feet West of South breads Bradshaw street. Um, the proposed use for this parcel is a single family dwelling with one accessory structure. So on the screen you'll see the current zoning NR two against the proposed zoning of NR four, um, adjacent to this parcel is um, NR four to the West and South, um, Oakwood cemetery and Fred Moore park are zoned and are two, um, and then, uh, North West of the property is zoned DCG. Um, and I do want to point out that there is a small parcel of NR MU 12. Um, those existing uses are currently a hair salon, a duplex and a single family home. So the criteria for approval for this parcel is, um, that one, the proposed rezoning conforms to the future land use element of Denton plan 2030. And second that the proposed rezoning facilitates the adequate adequate provision of transportation, water, sewer, school parks, and other public requirements. So when we look at the future land use designation for this area, there are four, um, land, future land use designations that overlap of the parcel. Um, one being downtown Denton, uh, downtown compatibility area, parks and open space, and then, uh, low density residential. Um, this is a transition, uh, parcel. Um, and with that, the most appropriate use in the surrounding area is the, uh, low density residential, um, as it does meet the future land use requirements. Um, second there are, um, this is a residential lot, uh, within an existing established subdivision. Um, so there are existing water sewer, um, facilities and, uh, transportation. There is no, uh, major increase in the trip generation for this parcel. Notifications were sent out, um, within the required 200 foot, uh, area, six notices were sent, uh, within the 500 courtesy area, 29 notices were sent out, um, to the, to date at the time of this presentation, we have not received any opposition or notices in favor of the rezoning. One notification or one post did sign was placed on the parcel, uh, and no neighborhood meetings were held. And with this, I'll conclude, um, staff does recommend approval of the rezoning request. Thank you very much for presentation. Is there any questions? I do not see any. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item? I certainly do so. Scene nine. I'll close the public hearing. Oh, the applicant is here and wishes to speak. Oh, fantastic. Thank you. If you could just state your name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is belt. Sorry. I'm with Epic Hill homes. And my address is a five zero three chamber street in the neighborhood. I am the agent for the owner of the property that wants it rezoned to an hour four and the biggest impact effect on it is we want to create a building lot that will resemble the rest of the building structures in the neighborhood, which are all single family in our four. And it gives us 30% more land coverage available for either an accessory structure, a cardboard garage storage, which currently we don't have within the inner two. And it separates us from the designation of the cemetery zoning, which is also in our, in our two. So at this point, I propose that, uh, we, um, go forward with a change in the zoning. Thank you. Thank you for being here. I don't see any questions for you at this time. Is anyone else wishing to speak? Seeing none. I'll close the public hearing. The commission can discuss or make a motion. Commissioner pernetta. Motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none. I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six zero. Congratulations. Next item for business will be item three G DCA 19 dash four D. I will invite Julie wife presentation and open the public hearing. Okay. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city of Denton and I am presenting to you tonight. DCA 19 for treatment centers. The request before you as a city initiated rezoning or revision to the, uh, didn't development code text specifically to amend sub chapters five, eight, 14 and 23 as they relate to supportive residential uses and treatment facilities. So just a little bit of background. The substance abuse and mental health services administrations, uh, 2013 national survey of drug use and health determined that 22.7 million Americans needed treatment for drug or alcohol problems. Yet only 2.5 million received treatment, which resulted in a treatment gap of 20.2 million. Um, additionally the white house has declared an opioid abuse as a public health crisis closer to home. Um, in the dead record Chronicle, you, you from time to time see articles that show how drugs and alcohol, um, can affect our citizens and our community. Um, and then we, we do have an organization within the community solutions of North Texas that does provide treatment, um, for adults and families impacted by drug and alcohol dependency. They currently have a facility on North Riddell and they're actually, um, seeking to expand that facility. But when they approached the city to expand it, we, we dug through the Denton development code and realized it really wasn't a use that, um, that adequately captured their, their activities on site. Um, and we want to make sure that these, that we, that we have these types of facilities. We have these community members who need them, but that they're developed in a responsible way. Um, and so here are, here's the menu of items that we have to, or uses that we have to choose from in the Denton development code as it relates to these types of, um, activities and facilities, uh, community homes for the disabled. Um, that's regulated by chapter 123 of the Texas human resources code that really doesn't fit within, um, the parameters of what this use is. Um, we have group homes, um, and SUP is required in zoning districts which permit multifamily dwellings. Um, but, but group homes can include a lot of different types of uses. And we really wanted to be a little more limited and targeted, um, in this use. And then we have hospital services. Um, hospitals, uh, provide that general medical care, like, um, you could have primary health services, emergency rooms, um, surgery. So I really didn't fit within it either. Um, in 2016 HUD and the department of justice issued a joint statement and it, they determined that treatment for substance abuse is an important societal need, but it's also a complex land use issue and it can affect a community. Um, they wanted to provide cities with legal clarity on, on how to maintain community safety and character while also protecting the rights of those, um, of those people with disabilities or the, um, including those, uh, recovering from a drug addiction. Um, and this statement resulted from issues associated with a high concentration of sober homes in a community of 60,000 residents. Um, so there are three key takeaways in that joint statement. First that a city can deny an accommodation request of granting would impose an undue financial and administrative burden or would fundamentally alter the city zoning scheme, um, that licensing and other requirements are permitted, but it can't be based on stereotypes and must equally apply to all homes within, uh, with a minimum number of unrelated residents and that the fair housing act does not prevent action in response to criminal or illegal activity or fraud. So based upon, um, the solutions of North Texas, their, their, um, their organization and their project, uh, the community needs, the joint statement guidelines and the current regulations staff recommends the following DDC text amendments. Um, and, and we'll go over those sub chapters. So first we're going to talk about sub chapters five and 23, five has the land use tables and 23 is the definitions and we're proposing two new uses, um, in association with this, um, request. First would be the supportive residential and the intent is to provide sort of a home, a residential living for unrelated individuals with disabilities and a single dwelling unit. It should be a supportive family like environment and they can be self governing or supervised. Um, it seeks to emulate the biological family. Um, and we want to make sure that the, that these, um, that these, uh, supportive residential uses are integrated into our surrounding community. A treatment would be incidental as to any home and it would not include individual individuals who are not disabled or prison pre parolees or her sex offenders. And that all is embedded in the definition and sub chapter 23. And then as it relates to the, um, to the use tables, we're proposing that this used to go under the residential land use category. Um, and then it would be permitted in our residential districts with the limitation, um, on that use that uses are limited to fewer than six unrelated individuals and there has to be a separation between any one individual supportive residential and, um, a nearby one, uh, residential, supportive residential treatment facility or group home. There has to be a 600 foot buffer between those uses. Um, we're also promoting, uh, uh, proposing that they'd be permitted in districts where multifamily is permitted or permitted with an SUP, um, with limitation 34. That would allow fewer than six residents by right. But if they wanted to do more than six residents, they would have to obtain approval of an SUP. Um, once again, there's that 600 foot buffer. Um, we're also proposing to add treatment facility. Um, this is a facility with a plan structured in or in organized programs solely designed to initiate and pro and promote a person's chemical free status. Um, it should be licensed with the Texas health and safety code chapter or under the Texas health and safety code chapter four 64 and supportive residential uses could be a component. It's kind of an umbrella, um, um, term that would, would, um, capture a lot of different types of uses. Um, as, as it would be put in the use tables, we're proposing that that would be permitted under the residential land use category and under the 2002 zoning would be permitted in some downtown university core community mixed use, regional mixed use and employment centers always with an SUP and a limitation that there has to be a 1200 foot buffer between any one use and another supportive residential group home or treatment facility. Um, so we also are proposing some changes to sub chapter eight. That's our group home sub chapter in the 2002 code. Um, this code is accurate. This, this chapter is actually being, um, um, removed as of the 2019 code, but we did as a part of this, just want to clean it up. Um, they're in that there's, there are references to assisted living facilities in group homes for handicap persons or institutions. We don't really have that use. And so it really creates confusion. We want to make sure that all of these types of uses are applied in a clear and consistent way. So we want to take away, um, um, words that don't really mean anything in our code. Um, and then, um, uh, and as I said, this sub chapter will be eliminated. It's, it's, it's being eliminated, but really all those regulations are being folded into other parts of the code. So chapter 14, uh, we want to ensure adequate parking for these uses. That's why we're proposing, um, with the supportive residential that one space be provided for each bedroom and with a minimum of four spaces, we want to make sure, um, the residents are, um, you know, have adequate parking on the site and not rely on, on just on street parking. And then, um, the treatment facility that really falls or follows our medical uses parking standard of one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. We're also, um, additional changes to sub chapter 23. We're proposing a new definition for disability really just to be consistent with the federal law, the 1990, uh, Americans with the disabilities act, where we're proposing to revise the definition for disabled persons. This, this definition really only applies to one use in our code and that is community homes for the disabled. And so we wanted to make that crystal clear as we apply the, these regulations in the future. And that's why we added that additional language about that. It was as defined by chapter one 23 of the Texas human resources code. Um, we're also proposing to remove the definition for handicap. It's redundant. And we want to make sure we don't, we don't cause confusion there. Um, so, so, um, we've gone back to our original slide of what the menu of, of those, um, potential uses are in the debt and development code. And, and I've slid in those, um, those proposed new uses of supportive, residential and treatment facility to show how all those institutional uses and where they would fall within, um, within our, um, our development standards and how they would be applied. Our considerations, um, we wanted to propose that where we wanted to balance the need for community services, but with issues, but we wanted to make sure that we addressed issues of compatibility. So for supportive residential, we felt it was generally appropriate for a, in neighborhood settings, provided that it was limited in scale. And that's why we had that fewer than six residents. We want to make sure that it really did resemble in scale and intensity of what a, a neighborhood would typically see. Um, anything over, uh, over, um, six individuals would require that SUP, that additional scrutiny. And we also make sure we wanted to put that, um, distance requirement, that buffer to make sure that they weren't, um, that they didn't group and that, that they, that they were spread out. Um, it does require that disability. Um, and, uh, we, we, we placed them in the residential development regulations to ensure that they would be designed with that residential character, that they would fit in with the scale and design of any neighborhood, um, treatment facilities. And this is the more intense of the uses. And so we wanted to make sure potential impacts were addressed. And that's why we, we, um, are proposing to have an SUP, uh, regardless, wherever it goes. And then also add that limitation 39, once again, that separation buffer just to make sure we don't have the clustering of this type of use, um, to reduce the confusion with the other medical uses. That's why we added that, that word solely in there, because a lot of our hospitals probably do have, um, um, some of the detox facilities or counseling, some things that a treatment facility may, um, contain, or that would provide that treatment for our, for our community. But this is solely for that use. Um, and it, as I said, it's an umbrella, so it could go all the way from, from the intensity of a hospital, um, down to just, to a recovery center. So there's a broad range and that's another reason for the SUP. It really should be site specific and we should look at each of them individually. Um, staff did, um, did place a notice in the paper in accordance with the regulations and we do recommend approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions. Thank you, Julie. I could turn back. Thank you, chair. Thanks Julie. Uh, just for clarification purposes, you mentioned at 1200 foot buffer, uh, does exist, but you also noted that unless the owner or operator has sought and obtained approval of a reasonable accommodation that they can get closer, um, with the standards and procedures established in the code of ordinances. Now, is that something that had come back before us as a body and we'll just go to city council, the city council. Okay. Very good. Thanks. I don't see any other questions. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on the side of it? We certainly do. So seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and turn to the commission for discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith moved to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Pernitta second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six zero. The next item of business is item three H S 19 dash zero zero nine. Julie white will be presenting again and I will open the public hearing. All right. So this item is S 99 Redel campus. The request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider requests by solutions of North Texas for a specific use permit for a treatment facility. So we just talked about those treatment facilities and the definitions and now, um, this will give you an opportunity to look, to look at one. Um, so the subject property is approximately 4.4 acres. It's located on North Redel, uh, about 500 feet north of mingo road. It's in a DR two district. And as I said, this is running concurrently with that text amendment. Um, so if that text amendment is approved as proposed, a treatment facilities would be permitted in DR two with approval of an S U P and a distance separation of 1200 feet from any other supportive residential treatment facility or group home. So first we'll take a look at their existing development on the side and then we'll take a look at their proposal. Um, right now they're, they have, uh, just a few buildings on the site. Um, this outlined in orange, that is their, um, administration building. It's got their offices, their counseling services. Um, they do some education in there, um, and case management. So, uh, that, that office has regular hours. It does have evening sessions, five nights a week. Uh, they also have program residential housing north of that. It's two duplexes and it has room for 32 male residents. Um, they must be, uh, cleared from detox and remain drug and alcohol free for their stay. Uh, they must also keep full time employment or go to school for at least 35 hours a week. Um, and, and the staff is on site during night and weekend hours for resident support, um, drug and alcohol testing and for safety. Uh, the return to monitor house is located in this, in this location. Um, it is a duplex for two single mothers and the intent of this is, um, the, the residents of, of this, of this property would have completed drug and drug and alcohol treatment. And now they are, they need a safe and stable environment, um, as they work toward reunification with their children. So, um, so that, so that is what's on site today. They are proposing to expand the development to include an ambulatory detox housing program in this location. This is actually an existing building and they would add that detox housing to this, to this property. Um, it would provide housing and medical care for six adults and it would require full time monitoring. So that would be, um, um, not only counseling, but medical, um, they would like to expand that residential, uh, housing for another male duplex here and then three female duplexes to the south as well as an additional, um, administrative building. Um, that's just to accommodate future growth. Uh, the other development could include outdoor pavilions, um, maybe storage, storage sheds, um, two access points on Riddell with an internal loop to, to connect all of these, um, buildings and, um, buffers. So the act criteria for approval for an SUPs and sub chapter six of the didn't development code. And we'll just go over, excuse me, um, that, uh, that criteria as we talk through the project. So first of all, we look at the future land use with any project. Um, and this is in a neighborhood university compatibility area. Um, we feel like the proposed use is fitting within this mixed use context. There's multifamily, there's elderly housing, there's, there's, there's a mixture of uses and we felt like this was, was compatible with, with that, um, with the area. Um, but the future land use really doesn't speak to those social services. And so we looked at other parts of the dent and plan to find guidance. And so, um, element eight is, um, the community health, safety, and services, uh, chapter. And it identifies a need for substance abuse treatment within our city. Um, and it also establishes an action to identify key partners to aid in the implementation of programs for, of substance abuse treatment. And in this respect, the programs administered by the solutions of North Texas would meet that intent of that goal. The proposed use does conform to the definition and limitations of the treatment facility use. You'll see the subject site in yellow here. Um, and then here is a 1200 foot buffer from that subject site. There is one community home for the disabled and, um, just adjacent. That isn't, the, the buffer doesn't apply to that, that use. As I said, there's some elderly housing, there's some neighborhoods, um, to the East and there's a multifamily to the North. Um, but, uh, but we want to make sure that there's adequate monitoring of, of the SUP. And so staff recommends the facility administrator provide evidence of licensing in accordance with the Texas health and safety code chapter four 64 as part of their yearly inspection. And then if approved a full site plan would be required to make sure that it meets all site plan buffers, screening access requirements. We also looked at the specific activities on the side as we analyzed it. And so, first of all, the ambulatory detox housing program due to the limited number of residents and that watchful environment staff does not anticipate negative impacts to the surrounding current or future development. Um, it is pretty limited in scope. Um, excuse me, the, the program residential housing, it's really intended to function in similar to any other residential use. The occupants must, must go to work and school, maintain the property, pay rent. So, um, so we, we feel like it's probably, it is compatible with, with a residential area. Um, it wouldn't, uh, result in incompatible densities. The number of potential residents is 96 and that would result in a maximum of 22 persons per acre. The maximum density in DR two district is 30 dwelling units per acre. So this is actually less than that. Um, and it's not anticipated to create adverse impacts for, um, parking due to the parking requirements that, um, that are embedded within that code amendment. Administrative buildings are generally compatible, you know, just office buildings are compatible with, um, mixed use areas. Um, we did look at that infrastructure. This is an infill site with water and sewer available along North Riddell. Um, there's a DCTA bus shelter in this location right here. It's, it's outlined in red and it's within 200 feet of the proposed facility. So, so that would, um, um, ensure that the residents would, if they didn't have a car, they could, they could get around the city. They could get to work in school. Um, however, the side work network on Riddell is, is, is incomplete. And so, um, as this, a sidewalk would be required for this development and as additional development occurs, um, that sidewalk facility and that network will be completed. Um, so we can make sure that our, our, um, our pedestrians stay safe. We also want to provide for additional modes of transit. Um, and so we are proposing to add bike racks at a rate of one per 10 parking spaces. Public notification was sent out. We haven't received any responses, um, either in opposition or in favor. So, um, uh, we're going to get to our, we're at our recommendation and, um, what we wanted to do as, as, as part of our recommendation and if this is approved as part of the ordinance, really limit those activities on site and make sure that that's a very clearly spelled out. And so, um, so the activities that would be expressly permitted would be the office, the administrative buildings, those administrative function, the program, residential housing, both the existing and the proposed along with the parameters that they have, that they have outlined that the work requirements, um, and the watchful environment and the maintenance of the property, um, that return to monitor house, that house for the single moms, the, the duplex, um, the ambulatory detox program. We've, we've added that that it would be limited to that six adults. Um, and then, and then as I said, the, the additional, um, program, residential housing. So we've limited to what's existing, that 32 plus the 64. I want to make sure that that was very clear. Um, and as, in addition to what those parameters are of the activities on site, we also have some, um, recommendations. Um, first that sobering centers would not be permitted. Um, that they would provide that evidence of licensing on a yearly basis, um, that this is a redevelopment side. And so there's some existing driveways. And so as they develop, we'd like to make sure that that those driveways are closed and that curb and gutter is repaired. Um, and so, uh, and so we've, we've requested that as a condition, um, that the bike racks, uh, the required buffers, a six foot tall, what, uh, wood fence along the Northeast and South property lines, as well as smaller medium canopy trees planted every 30 linear, every 30 linear feet along the North or South property lines. And then, um, all future buildings must be designed with a residential character. That's including building orientation, building materials, um, um, architectural elements. We want to make sure it's compatible with the surrounding property and also a nice place for their residents to live. Um, and then all, all solid waste receptacles would be, would be have to be located toward the rear and screen from public view. And then all other requirements outlined in the DDC in terms of that site design, like, uh, tree preservation, landscaping, fencing, and screening. And so with that, the applicant is here. I'll stand for any questions. And I believe he's here and has a small presentation or some information for Great. We have one question for you, Mr. Beck. Thank you, chair. Thank you, chair. Thanks, Julie. Um, the sidewall, would that part of the sidewall that expense, uh, that spans their property is that, or will they be required to install that? Yes, sir. As part of their development, they will have to install the sidewalk along their frontage where they there's, there's some existing development here that right now doesn't have a sidewalk along the frontage. Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions have. Thank you. And if you could just say your full name and address for the record, my name is Scott Weisenbaker. My home address is 4700 Gunnison Drive, Denton, Texas. I have a handout for you. This is a stack of support letters. [inaudible] I also have a crime map, but she's going to bring this up so I can show you the crime map just to show you we have been here for 13 years and we have never had a police called on us. We've worked with over 3000 families. So I just wanted to kind of show you what that looked like. There is what she was talking about. This is the satellite image. When we look at the crime map, there's the city of Denton. There's our crime for an entire year. This is my facility right here where there's a total void. If we come in a little closer, there again is every crime that has happened for a year in the city of Denton. I would go back further, but that's as far back as Alexis nexus would let me take it. And so then I even went a little further just to kind of show you exactly where the crime was happening. It is happening at the apartments up the street and some of the businesses right around us, but it has never happened on our facility. We've been a good community partner since day one and we, we work on many different levels with our county and our city. So if, if, if anybody has any questions, I'd be glad to answer them. I appreciate you being here tonight, but, uh, we do have one question for Netta. Did you have a question? Yeah, I just, uh, you know what? Thank you for bringing the crime map because, uh, that was one of the questions I was going to ask, uh, if you'd had any incidents and everything and it looks like it's clear. Um, so, so in essence, what we're providing the SCP for is pretty much everything that you're already doing. We're just giving you the capacity to, to expand that to, like, uh, you know, like three times what you're doing right now. Right. Correct. For, for instance, right now, um, I serve on three of our drug courts and help develop them in our family drug court. The women who are participating in that mostly are turned away from Denton because we do not have the capacity to help them. So this is answering that call for our residents and is desperately needed. And how long have you been in service right now where you're at? Years in this location. I personally have been claimed for 24 years. I've been doing this for a long time and, and I believe we're very good at what we're doing in our ability to help the community and lack of any police activity I think demonstrates that. No, I believe that. And thank you. Uh, I'm, I just wanted to check and see how long you guys had been there. I'm familiar with the area. I think, uh, several years ago, I tossed a few golf balls over there. Um, it's very quiet and, uh, I'm supportive of recovery services. Uh, thank you. Thanks sir. Mr. Beck. Thank you chair. Thanks Scott for your presentation. And, um, if you would, uh, I visited Scott in his facility yesterday and I was really impressed. And one of the things he made a point to me was, and I just like to bring it out here is that this expansion should take care of the needs of this clientele probably for years down the road. So, um, you know, if people were concerned that these things were going to start popping up around the city, uh, that's probably not the case. Is that correct? That is correct. And we've had, um, we're very well known in, in our industry. I attend a lot of conferences, again, serve on our different drug courts, also serve on some task force objectives throughout the state. Um, there has been a number of people that have looked at them over the last decade as opening operations here. But as a nonprofit, what we're doing at the price level that we're doing it at is so low that everybody's kind of moved on to somewhere else and kind of thought that, that we kind of had it going on here. But, um, okay. So if we did need one of these facilities, it'd be years down the road and it'd probably be on the other side of town. And, and you know, if the need really was there, then we'd like to look at possibly doing a separate location then is our home. And this is where we want to be. I also wanted to point out that we just received our accreditation from the joint commission, also known as JCO, which is the gold standard for hospitals. So the, the fact that we're being held to the standard for our accreditation is far beyond anything that our state licensure and our state inspectors, it supersedes all that tremendously. Uh, as far as, uh, a organization like mine, it does the housing and the treatment. There is only one other facility in the state of Texas that has been able to achieve the JCO accreditation. And there's very few in the country that have the combination of the housing with treatment as we're doing, um, that have done that. So that, that's something we're, we're excited about. And, and again, you know, keeping our price to where it's affordable for everybody. Just one specific on the site plan you provided that was provided. Um, you showed a future office. Uh, is that going to take the place at the current office? And if so, what's going to be housed in my current, uh, office building is my administrative, uh, folks. I also have, you know, as we, I showed you kind of two different hallways. Um, and I have all my counselors in there. My treatment license is specific to that building at 1516. And eventually we are going, we're already at capacity in that building as far as staff, uh, with support staff. So we will need additional space for support staff. All treatment processes will always happen in 1516, but the additional administrative building that we'll build next door to it, which would be 1510, that will strictly be a support services, non-licensed, uh, professionals. Okay. So the current office building won't transition into residential. Okay. Our treatment building. Great. Thank you, Scott. Mr. Ellis. Thank you, Jim. Hi, Scott. Thank you. Thank you for what you do. A couple of questions I had at work session, um, that Julie couldn't answer. Do you have the license that they are speaking of that they would want? I do to be seen every year. Um, secondly, if a resident does not maintain that full time work or school, what, what happens to them? Well, we're going to work with them and find out, first of all, why did they not hold that employment? But we're going to work with them. We'll give them a grace period of time to find another job. Um, we have put over 3000 people to work, so we're very good at that part. And what we're trying to do is normalize their life and get them to fit back into the community and become self-sufficient and a job of course is, is part of that. But if somebody flat out refused to go to work and flat out refused to participate in what we were doing, then we would exit them from our program. I don't, if somebody doesn't want to be there nor they're willing to follow the rules, you know, stay clean. Um, then, then that's not somebody that we can help at that moment. And they need to go do a little more research out in a, out in the world. And hopefully we can help them down the road. And we did have a lot of discussion with regard to that, the bus stop and the sidewalk not being there. Um, I assume a lot of your residents do not have vehicles and use that bus stop. Correct. How, how are they managing to get? Well, it was always in our front yard until they built those new apartment complexes and then they moved it down the street from us. Um, but we, when we first opened up, they had to walk to university to catch the bus and the DCTA came and put a bus stop in front of our place when they found we were there. Uh, it, right now it is two doors down. So they just walk. Um, I know there's not a sidewalk on most of Ruedell. Um, but everybody walks up and down as if there wasn't a sidewalk. It's kind of a dirt path. Yeah. I mean, with this, if you were tripling effectively, the, the number of residents in that area. So, um, I do have a concern with how many are going to be out on that road that is not fully sidewalked. Well, and, and you know, the, the portion between us and the bus stop, that's not going to be sidewalk cause there's still two homes right there. Um, unless they put in a sidewalk. But again, we've, people have been walking our, even though we're, we're going to triple in our size, it's a fraction of the, the use put on everything from the apartments up to street, the new ones and any existing ones who have been there for long before we were here. So it's, it's, it's been, it's, it's just not been a problem. And then one last question. Um, did you reach out to TWU at all to discuss it? Cause I do know that they have future student housing planned for that golf course area. I have reached out to them. Um, I, you know, with, as with any of the schools is very departmentalized. We have a great relationship with TWU. We always have. We have an intern program that we use. I have one of their interns right now. There is so many social services that people are achieving their degrees at TWU that they look at us like, well, this is a live operating lab and they, they love us. We've never had a problem with them. As far as I did reach out to the counselor, or I'm sorry to the, uh, I want to call the president, the chancellor. I did not hear back. Um, and specifically to discuss this and talk about this. Um, and you know, we always want to be on, on their forefront for when they have students that are suffering, which I've worked with students from both universities on many occasions. I did not see any other questions. I appreciate you being here though. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none. I will close the public hearing and turn to the commission for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Prunetta. Um, motion to approve with stacker staff recommendations. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none. I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six zero. Congratulations. Next item of business is item three. E Z 18 dash 11 C and I'll invite Julie back up for presentation and I'll open the public hearing. All right. This is, um, Z 18 11 Agave ranch. So the request before you is an initial zoning district and a change in the zoning district from rural residential. That's already five to neighborhood residential four district on 36 acres, neighborhood residential three on 41 acres and neighborhood residential two on 15 acres for a total of 92 acres of land. Um, this is a change to a project that you saw in January. They were asking for, um, um, just one zoning district at that time. So they've actually, um, changed their projects. So it's coming back to you. So just to take a look at the existing zoning map and then the proposed. So the existing zoning map has RD five along FM four 28 and then RD five X, which, which is really kind of unzoned property within the city of Denton. It follows that RD five X rules, but it really doesn't have a zoning designation and that's east of the, of that RD five that's adjacent to FM four 28. Um, their proposed zoning map is shown here with that, um, darker, darker, brown, brownish yellow. Um, that's that in our four proposed in our four. Um, and then transitioning to the NR three and then the proposed in our two on the north side. Um, so we'll take a look at the comparison of the zoning districts. Um, the current regulations are here in this column, um, the RD five and RD five X. So the prevented uses are generally residential and rural type uses minimum lot size of five acres. Um, maximum lot coverage of 15%. So if it developed under the current regulations, uh, a maximum of 18 dwelling units would be permitted. The proposed regulations, uh, here is a listing of the NR four, NR three, and NR two. Um, it's a, it's a combination of single family, duplex with limitations and, and the NR four, um, and then town homes with an SUP and NR four, I'm sorry, with an SUP and NR four and NR three. Um, and then manufactured housing is permitted with an SUP and NR two, um, minimum lot size transitions larger as you move from NR four to NR two, 7,000 square feet for NR four up to 16,000 for NR two. Um, and that density follows as well. Four dwelling units an acre to three and a half to two, a maximum lot coverage of 60% all, um, to 30%. So essentially if, if the, if the request was approved, a maximum of 317 single family dwellings could be permitted. So the criteria for approvals in SUP chapter three of the debt and development code, does it conform to the future land use plan? Um, or the, the future land use element of debt and plan 2030. Um, uh, the future land use map shows this area as rural areas and the intent of that is to maintain the rural character along the city's edge with the development of farms and ranches or very low density or conservation type development. The proposed zoning does not meet this future land use designation. So because of that, we then go to a different criteria for approval and SUP chapter three of the debt and development code. It's outlined in your backup, but we'll just go over those, um, kind of, um, individually. So in criteria one and two, it references the existing land uses in zoning and impact to future development. So the subject property is located right here and this is in a, is in a rural area, but it is, it is urbanizing at, um, uh, with recent projects. Um, they're shown in the yellow dots. Those are, um, projects that are either under development or that have approached the city, um, or that are in some sort of platting stage, um, that we, we see a lot of them moving toward the north side of town. We see that development pressure going particularly along of our arterials and really these cases are starting to show a, um, a continuous growth pattern, emerging along those, the FM four 28 and the locust going toward north on Bonnie bray. Um, and, uh, but we didn't want to plan for this potential growth. So there was actually a traffic study that was done at the end of last year and we'll go over some of the elements of that. Um, it is adjacent to existing in our four and in our two districts. So you can see by this map, you have adjacency, you've got that logical continuation of that zoning pattern as you move north from, uh, along FM four 28. And this proposal could create some buffering, um, between this area and the, the higher density and commercial uses, um, located here at the corner of FM four 28 and loop two 88, um, and as well as maybe buffer from that, that high, high traffic or the, um, the high speed, um, future development of FM four 28. We also looked at the public improvements. First of all, transportation, um, in, um, the applicant did provide a trip generation analysis based upon the ITE manual for the project. And it is anticipating about 2,900 trips for 310 homes during a 24 hour workday. Um, AM peak, when everyone's going to work, it would be 236 and in the evening it would be three 10, uh, peak anticipated. Uh, there was also a transportation study commissioned by the city as a result of this project and others we've had, we've had several, um, to, to figure out what's going up on on the Northeast side of town, as far as transportation and then what, what are the future needs? Um, and just top line takeaways from that are that more East West connections are needed right now. FM four 28 really is a central spine. It's kind of where everything flows to and some more East West connections with, disperse that traffic and provide some more outlets. Um, and also additional travel lanes are going to be needed on existing roads as well as an improvement of the intersections. Um, additionally, the, uh, the, the study proposed a realignment of Hartley field road, um, to cut through that site and extending toward the West toward Locus. Additionally, with the development roadway impact fees would be paid. Um, they would contribute to, um, some, to any previously identified, uh, roadway improvements as well as just system wide improvements. Also, um, there is proposed a dedicated or there is forthcoming, a dedicated right turn and signal at loop two 88 and FM four 28. So here is, here's the map provided with that transportation study. This, um, this shadow line here that was that, that included the limits of the study. And just in order to provide a methodology for that analysis, there was just an assumption of four dwelling, a four dwelling units per acre across that entire region with some nodes of commercial activity. And, um, and these are the, the, the yellow lines or the roads and those East West connections that, that, um, are, are, would be needed, um, to accommodate the, that, um, that growth. And then here that, that line F, that is the proposed future Hartley field alignment. As you see, it would go through the site and then continue onto the West. Um, one other road that we're, that hasn't been on our radar. Um, but it's, it will, um, it's some day I'd be a part of our transportation network. And that is, um, this outer loop, uh, proposed for the North side of town. And that is going to be a regional, uh, loop that goes all the way from South of Arlington and, and, and kind of rings around the entire Metro area. Um, water and sewer are available, available to the site. They will have to be extended. There's water to the North and South that will have to be extended as well as sewer extended extensions and a lift station. Expected student generation includes 72 elementary students, 38 middle school students and 47 high school students. At this time, the school has capacity, um, for, for those students. And then a parkland dedication would be required at platting as well as a park development fee with each building permit. And then just as a part of this development, as well as all developments, um, parks, um, there should be a collaboration between all development and parks to ensure that, that we have adequate park space and, um, and open space for our residents. Um, we looked at the land use. And so, as I said, while this is a commercial or rural area, um, existing growth does suggest that that stage development is, is moving along the arterials at that urban periphery and that, um, low density residential, um, could be appropriate in this area, uh, provided that some conditions would be put in place. Um, so, uh, we do recommend that because, uh, in our four and our three and in our two, do you have some additional uses other than just that single family detached that if, if approved, all uses would just be limited to that single family detached. Additionally, we looked at mobility and open space, um, with, with the character of this area, this, this ranching and, and, uh, the open spaces and that recreation for, for the, the, the, the large park land we have in this area. Um, those design standards and development this area should compliment that existing character. And therefore, um, as a part of the development, if approved, staff recommends a condition to require an off street trail, um, that would provide internal connectivity for any future residents, as well as the external connectivity. The intent is as this area develops, that that trail would be continued. So that, um, so that there could be a meaningful way to get to that Clear Creek Natural Heritage Center, um, and maybe even up to the state park to the north to ensure that, that, um, that we, we've got the, that, that connected trail system. Um, as part of that, we are proposed, we are recommending that all lots be within 1300 feet of an access point. This would serve to, um, to help parks, um, goal of having a park within a 10 minute of walk of all of our residents. And then also we would want those two remote connections, um, once again, to link, to, to provide those linkages, to create a catalytic project, to move, to move those trail systems forward. Um, we are also recommending that if approved a buffer be required along FM 428, it serves a couple of purposes. Uh, FM 428 is, is, is currently a high speed road that has a lot of traffic on it. And it will only, um, get larger with TxDOT's plans. They are proposing, um, at least six travel lanes. And so, um, this type of higher speed, high capacity road, um, can create nuisances for the, any future residents, if this was approved. Um, also we would want to make sure that, that, um, that the development if approved would be screened from, from the surrounding area, make sure we reduce those visual impacts of those additional, um, rooftops. And so therefore we recommend a condition to require a 30 foot landscape buffer outside of any required public utility easement along FM 428 for that entire frontage. Um, and within that would be required a landscape berm, uh, one large canopy tree, 30 shrubs per 100 linear feet. Um, I'm sorry, one large canopy tree per 30 linear feet, 30 shrubs per 100. And then, uh, a maximum six foot tall masonry, wrought iron split rail fence. Notification was sent out, um, due to the, due to the, um, the way that the notification is calculated, um, only that area that is adjacent to FM 428 is actually counted toward any, um, any opposition calculations. Um, because that is the part of the property that is being rezoned. The property to the East that's in that already, that unzoned property, that isn't a rezoning. So it actually doesn't get counted toward that opposition. So you can see this map here, um, showing one in opposition and two in favor. Um, eight signs were posted on the side and they had neighborhood meetings, but there we have seen a lot of, um, a lot of interest in this project. And so we didn't want to leave that unaddressed. We wanted to talk about all of the letters we received. Um, I, you, you got some more tonight. This may not be a comprehensive list just because we got some more. Um, but, but this, this is an outline of, of those addresses we've received that were opposed. And then those in favor, um, I've put dots on this larger map just to kind of, um, um, depict where we've seen that opposition. Um, the, the red dots being those areas that clustering of those letters, um, in the Hartley field area, we've seen a lot of, um, of, of letters, or responses in opposition. And then in the, in the neighborhood here to the north, we've received quite a few letters. So staff does recommend approval of the request with conditions. Um, and, and really because although this is the urban fringe and, um, the future land use doesn't support it. When you look at all the criteria for approval, both in the goals and the dent plan, as well as the other criteria we went over, um, staff feels that the proposal when, when combined with those conditions does meet those overall goals. Um, and then I'll just go over the conditions one more time. Only, uh, single family detached dwellings would be permitted, um, that a, a trail system would be required. An off street trail system would be required to be installed and it would have to be, um, accessed within 1300 feet of each residential lot plus those two remote connections to ensure that there would be a continuation of that trail. We're also proposing a 30 foot landscape buffer or a recommendation for a 30 foot landscape buffer along FM four 28. Um, um, that would be outside of any public utility easement within that. If approved would be a landscape berm, um, a one large canopy tree, every 30 linear feet, uh, 30 shrubs per 100 linear feet. Those could be clustered to create a more natural effect. So you just wouldn't have a line of shrubs. Um, and then a, uh, I, a masonry wrought iron or split fake rail fence, uh, or masonry wall wrought iron split rail fence. Um, that fence could be, um, could meander through that 30 feet if approved. Um, but that, that landscaping 75% of it would need to be between FM four 28 and that fence to ensure that there is adequate, um, screening and, and that green wall along FM four 28. So, um, the applicant is here and I will stand for any questions. We have a couple for you. Commissioner Smith. Uh, Julie, the Hartley field realignment, uh, is that going to be, is that impact fee going to be charged to the developer? They would, um, as part of any development or platting, um, right away, dedication would have to be, um, um, right away would have to be dedicated with platting and, um, any perimeter street improvements, any of those roadway improvements on their site would have to be, um, done by the developer. Platting, but there's not an actual building of a street. Does the city, would the city do that concurrently with the development of the project? They would probably, they would have to build their portion of it. Now offsite improvements would have to be done either by, um, other developments or as part of a, uh, a larger city project. It's a part of that realignment is a stoplight at Hartley field and four 28 in the conversation or is that not even part of the party? I believe there are some, um, talks about interventions at that either, um, either around about that got bandied about or, um, or a light something to, we want to make sure that people move, are able to move through there. So that will all be a part of the conversation. Okay. And that's it. And that's that site planning anyways. Right. Yes sir. Gotcha. Uh, second question. The outer loop, uh, I know this is, this is, this is something new from the first time we've seen this project to the second time. How much do you know about that outer loop? What details do you have so far? Um, it is, it's, it's begun construction South. I don't know what they're talking to. They started doing the expansion between 35, 75 and one 21 as well. So I don't know all of its comp, all of its timelines or completion dates, but it's far north of the proposed project site is that loop intersecting the four 28 you think, um, it's pretty far. I don't, I don't, maybe, maybe two miles, two and a half miles, huh? Longer than that. I'm just looking roughly from, I'm looking roughly at the map for where that is. Okay. Three, give me, give it five miles, maybe at most. So this looks to be really close to the dam road right there. So probably just South. The, uh, okay. It's about about five miles at least under five miles or less. Um, did you have, do you know a date on when the tea teacog's trying to get that? I don't, I don't. My lifetime. Thanks. Appreciate it. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. Julie, do you remember how many homes were proposed the first time we saw this? 368. Thanks. I don't see any other questions for you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. We ask just for management to fill out a management of time, just fill out a blue card and turn it in. If not, you'll have an opportunity later. Uh, we do have the applicant here. So if the applicant would like to come and provide their presentation and if you could just state your name and address for the record. [inaudible] Julie, can you help? Thank you. , that's not it. Okay. There it goes. There we go. [inaudible] Thank you. Uh, Jason five Lee with Allison engineering group, uh, 24, 15 North Elm here in Denton. And thank you Julie for your presentation and opening this for us. Originally this public hearing were before you back in January and we did show a concept for the 92 acres. That was 368 lots or up to 368 lots. It was a pure in our four zoning plan. Since then we've had a couple of additional neighborhood meetings from the original two that we had prior to the original public hearing back in July and August of last year to a new ones, uh, excuse me, February 2nd of this year. Then we also had another one before the last scheduled PNZ meeting, uh, that did get canceled, which was, uh, I think the first time that ever happened. But April 16th, we held another neighborhood meeting to show neighbors and interested individuals what we were planning on presenting to you on the next day, April 17th, we have modified our zoning request, um, mainly to emphasize how this development will align with the Denton plan 2030 vision. And Julie touched on several, uh, good points that we'll be focusing on and how we, while we aren't aligned with the land use plan, we are aligned with the objectives and the intent for what we believe is to be the objectives and the intent of the 2030 plan. And of course, we have been responsive to a lot of the neighborhood interests and we've made adjustments and refinements to reflect that the new zoning request, our current zoning request, the amendment is a transition clustered request to, to, uh, to transition from the south end to the north end with NR four at the north end and our three in the middle of the property and NR two at the north end of the property. We feel that this density transition from loop two 88 to the northern edge of the property does align with what is currently out there. We are bordered with NR four zoning on the south west of this property and we do have NR two on the northwest of this property. We have added landscape buffers along four 28 in alignment with what staff has recommended and we have quite a bit of open space preservation, which we'll get to here shortly. We also are taking in some of the ideas of the clustering concepts, which is considered in the 2030 plan as a best practice in the rural areas. And that's specifically mentioned as a dent and plan 2030 land use goal. And this development is it's less than a mile from the center of this development to the two 88 intersection and we're about 2.3 miles up to Washington road, which is considered the Northern gateway along four 28, the Northern gateway to Denton. Our zoning requests, like I mentioned a few minutes ago, is consistent with the adjacent zoning. We have the NR two along the west and the NR four along the southwest. This graduated zoning protects friend the fringe areas from increasing density by establishing this NR two along the north edge of this property. We have established precedence to prevent any denser zoning requests from creeping north of this 92 acres. And it is consistent with the growth pattern across the outer loop of Denton. The, the NR four portion of this of this project is less than 1500 feet from the commercial zoning down at Hartley field road. It is walkable to that the commercial CMC zoning, which is another goal of the 2030 plan to have neighborhoods within walking distance of retail centers. We have almost 4,000 feet of frontage along four 28. So it like that 1500 feet is from our southern edge. I'll talk a little bit about the major gateways that are identified within the 2030 plan along the perimeter of this exhibit here are the seven major gateways. We have them along east and west side of, of three 80. We have them along three 77 35 E 35 W and then I 35 on the north. And then you have the one here in four 28, which is in the north east corner, up by that 6.7 mile mark. Those distances are measured from the courthouse and what this really shows is, is kind of the pattern of, of the residential development surrounding Denton, specifically radially measured from, from the courthouse. The, the outer, the outer gateways tend to be about that six and a half to seven mile point on the south edge of town. You, you're, you have a couple that are a little bit closer within that four to five mile range. This development sits in that 3.8 to 4.5 mile range from the courthouse. And if you follow that around the perimeter of the city, you'll see that that is exactly where the NR four to NR two zoning is clustered on all sides of the city. Uh, this, this really is in line with, with what, with how the rest of the, the city has grown in all directions. Uh, this obviously is kind of the last quadrant of, of Denton as, as growth pushes to the north and to the east. But we, we did want to show this that, that we are in alignment with, with, with the, with the previous growth patterns of the city. Uh, and also in the 2030 Denton plan, it shows the preferred growth concept in the areas of, I guess it's a heat map, the areas of, of where growth was happening back when this plan was adopted in 2015. You'll see that again, it, it, it correlates with those, with those gateways. And specifically they tend to be concentrated about a mile and a half inside of each of these, of each of those gateways that were identified in that 2030 plan. And again, the blue star represents our development, which is right outside, kind of a future place making an urban vitality center surrounding an auditorium right there at two 88 and four 28. A couple of the vision statements or clips from the vision statement in the 20 plan 2030 anticipate future housing needs as the city's population grows and align development approvals to reflect the changing housing market through a mix of housing, embracing walkability, sustainability and conservation. We really believe that this new layout, this concept plan that we'll show you here in a second embodies all of those ideals and really is in alignment with this vision statement. Uh, they do, they, they want you to encourage innovative housing development through residential development in rural areas that protects the rural character, compact, mixed use and walkable development patterns. Again, that clustering concepts, pulling, pulling ideas of, of, of having lot sizes that accommodate a variety of housing styles, price points, and then also shared amenities, area wide trails, greenways and green infrastructure. Julie mentioned that about about having these all within 1300 feet of access points of, of community trails. That is exactly what we want to do. That is what we are trying to provide with our new concept and mix of housing types to reflect changing demographics and housing preferences. We all know that the trend has been towards good size houses on smaller size lots. That is what home builders are wanting to buy or wanting to develop, wanting to build. That is what home buyers are looking to buy. What our goal here with this development is, is to provide that mix of product for the builders for residents. We have a couple of sections here that that shows some of our community amenities. Again, it reflects some of the, the requests that staff has made that we incorporate the buffers along for 28, the, uh, the, the walkability, the trails, the many centers, the green spaces we, we are, we do intend to, to showcase all of that in this development. Here's our concept plan. 92 acres, 306 lots, which is what we'd be proposing under the current, under the, if, if, if these, if this clustered zoning strategy can, can move forward. We have 15 acres on the north end as an NR2 that's a two unit per acre development, 30 homes on the north side, uh, with three distinct neighborhoods, the NR2 in the north and our three with 41 acres in the middle and NR4 36 acres on the south. We are incorporating one existing and two proposed ponds at least nine pocket parks varying from about a quarter acre all the way up to four and a half acres into the quarter acre. There's a couple of quarter acre, couple of half acre parks. And again, they're they're spread throughout the development where all the lots are, are accessible to these and then it's all interconnected as well. So you do have continuous trails from the west to the east, north to the south to, to tie into the city's greenbelt system. At least 14 acres of preserved green space. And that is not including the landscape buffers adjacent to 428 or any of the streetscapes that's between the front yards and the back of curb. It doesn't also does not include any of the individual lot landscape and coverage. And each of the zoning districts that we're proposing are lots within NR2, NR3 and NR4 do meet minimum widths, depth, and setbacks of the, we're still kind of at the draft development code in here, but it's the, it's the recently adopted development code. A couple of our, a couple of our key elements obviously is the open space preservation. Again, back here, we, you do see the pond along the south east portion of this property, keeping that open and as natural as possible, as well as developing a two new green space areas with surrounding the ponds at the northwest side of the property and along the eastern edge of the property. And again, the previously mentioned landscape buffer along 428, which does allow for trees to go in the streetscape. We're actually proposing two fences. We're proposing the masonry screen wall along the back of the lots. And then in the landscape buffer, we would be proposing a more open style, natural, rural type split rail pipe rail. Not sure exactly what, what it would be, but more of a decorative open element to provide some separation between the main trail, the main sidewalk out on 428 and the meandering kind of recreation element ties trail that would be within the buffer at the backside of our lots. Our three distinctive neighborhoods. We really are trying to retain the rural character and the open space that, that is out here. That's along 428. We are, we, we are providing clustering concepts as an alternative to the large lot development, our new development, and it will be organized for walkability access to parks, open space, recreation. And going back to mentioned a few times now, all residents should be within a five to seven minute walk from neighborhoods, serving retail and amenities. And again, we do have that at the south edge of our property as you cross down, go down 428 and you hit Hartley field road, which is that future CMG retail area. Talk a little bit about some of the individual neighborhoods are our middle, our largest area, our largest neighborhood is a 41 acre tract and our three proposing 143 lots. We have a five acre pond, a four and a half five acre pond and three pocket parks ranging along the Southeast corner there. That's that quarter acre, a little guy all the way down to the Southern edge by the traffic circle, which we're proposing. I think that was mentioned earlier about a couple of traffic circles that may end up out here in this area. That's about an acre down there. We have four and a half acres of preserved green space, excluding the landscape buffer, the streetscape and individual lot coverage. The Southern edge is our, is our denser neighborhood that abuts the existing and our four zoning at our Southwest borders. It's 36 acres with 133 lots. It's actually more like the density on that's about a 3.7 3.8 lots per per acre. And once again, part of that is to, to cluster these to preserve that existing green space in the pond. We have three additional pocket parks ranging from a half acre at that Southwest little corner there, basically room for a nice entryway monument from the South coming up 428 and then we've got an acre and a half there in the middle kind of overlaying the existing and existing easement that runs through the South edge of this property total of seven acres of preserved green space and the North portion of this, the North tract of this development is our, and our two neighborhood. We think this is a pretty special area of, of this development. It's 15 acres, 30 lots. These lots, the intent is to reserve these for local home builders. We understand that there's always a need for four lots for local home builders to purchase those that can't afford to take down 90 or a hundred or 180 lots in six months. These, we want to reserve for for those home builders that are looking to build one, two, three houses a year, custom homes. And this is along the North edge. This becomes the scenic gateway into this community from the North. Again, pond with amenities and green space, two and a half acres of preserved green space primarily in, in that pond. We are amenitized in the pond, probably have a little fishing pier, gazebo, something like that. And that is the community gateway. That is, that is what, that is what you will see as you're coming down 428 and, and you, you, you leave the, you leave the, the open space and you, you get to the first development along that Northeast side of, of Denton. And I'll turn it over to Amy and she'll have some more, some more comments. Good evening commissioners. I'm going to wrap our presentation tonight. I, um, I'm going to be brief, but I want to talk a little bit about what we've heard from the neighborhood specifically and what we have done to address that. But some, some specific comments that we've heard from the neighborhood are that they were concerned about the alignment with the Denton plan 2030. I feel like Jason and Julie have both, um, done a good job of demonstrating how we are aligning with the vision intent of the plan. Um, even if it doesn't align directly with the future land use map, um, we've heard their interest or concern in the preservation of rural character, the traffic on 428, um, the density and concentration of lots in the vicinity as a whole, not necessarily just within our development, but just seeing the growth in that area. And some concerns or interest in the clear Creek tributary that backs up to our property, even though it doesn't actually encroach into our property, respecting the character of the land and the eco region and concerns about other uses that might be allowed in the zoning districts that have, that we're requesting and ongoing neighborhood engagement. So, um, in terms of respecting the rural character, I do believe that we are demonstrating that we are adding open space and amenities to, um, to create the feeling when you drive down 428, that, um, there is a, it still feels rural because we're backed off of the road quite a ways. And I'm going to demonstrate in a moment with the, with an exhibit, a couple of exhibits, what that looks like visually. And we're, we're talking about, um, adding a pond on the north end, the entrance from the north that includes a gazebo and, and picnic, uh, tables and fishing. And we are more than two miles from Washington road, which is considered, um, by the Denton plan 2030 to be the gateway into Denton. So this is, um, this is much further south than then the entrance into the city of Denton and we've preserved over 14 acres of open space. And that does not include the landscape buffer, um, or the individual lot coverage. Um, commissioner Beck, I heard you say that in the work session that you asked about the 92 acres, the 92 acres is gross. It's what the property owner has today. But in terms of what is actually developable, I want to say, and we calculated that to be 52 acres. Is that correct? 52 acres. So the rest is landscape buffers and open space preservation amenities. So I want to show you a little bit. I don't want to get too much into engineering here because we're not at that stage of approval yet, but I do want to show you a couple of exhibits regarding 428. So this is an exhibit showing a cross section of 428 as it exists today. There are two through lanes, one each direction and a shoulder on each side. And there's 32 half 32 and a half feet of right away on the, on each side that would be considered green space today under the proposed conditions, which would be developer, um, costs. They would, they would actually build this to in order to be able to put in the development would be 65 feet of pavement, which is two through lanes, a turn lane in the middle, a right hand turn lane into the development and a show and a shoulder on each side. But perhaps more importantly, and if you look on the left side of the screen is we go from 32 feet of green space to 65 feet of green space minimum. And I, I do want to say a caveat here. We planned for a 20 foot landscape buffer. So the exhibits that you're going to see are related to a 20 foot landscape buffer. I believe that the developer would be open to a 30 foot landscape buffer. I would invite you to ask him that question when we're done with the presentation. So here's just sort of a visual depiction of a landscape buffer in terms of what you see if you look on the far left of the screen is, is the house. And then there's the masonry screening wall. And then you've got a landscape buffer, a winding decorative, or I'm sorry, a winding trail that would be a pervious trail, um, with a decorative fence on the outside of that, uh, public utilities meant and then the right of way beyond that. So at that point you're looking at 60 plus feet of green space between 428 and as planned at development to the screening wall to the first lot. The idea here is to, when you drive down 428, you want to feel like it's still a rural area. So you want to be able to see lots of green space, lots of trees, lots of landscaping and not lots of houses. We are proposing a graduated density. We do believe that by proposing NR two at the Northern end of the property that we are essentially creating a buffer for the city of Denton in terms of future growth outside of that, going North of that, you're not going to go from NR two back into something more dense. So the intent here is to create a buffer on both sides of 428 that actually protects the city in the future. We did hear from the neighbors that they had some environmental interests that they would like us to respect and take notice of. They asked that we preserve or transplant the existing native plants and grasses which we've spoken with the property owners and they are more than happy to do. And they are more than happy to utilize native and adapted plants and not bring in native species to the area and to consult with master naturalists on the existing land conditions and how to respect the ecosystem that's there today. And we've heard specific concerns about protecting the Clear Creek tributary, which the image on the screen shows that there's a very small finger of the tributary that backs up to the property. It doesn't encroach into the property, but the developer and property owner are more than willing to do whatever is necessary to protect the tributary and Clear Creek into the future. In addition to that, they have committed to being good neighbors moving forward. They want to hold future neighborhood meetings and to continue to collaborate with the community and the neighborhood. They do want to have an amicable relationship with neighbors moving forward and are willing to commit publicly standing here now that they will and they will hold meetings throughout the development process and they're willingly agreeing to staff recommended conditions, single family homes, detached, no town homes, no multifamily, no duplexes, nothing other than your traditional single family detached homes. They're willing to commit to the trail connections, the masonry screening wall and the enhanced landscape recommendations. The 30 foot landscape buffer is something that they're also willing to consider and commit to, but I would ask you to invite them up here to visit about that. And that that's all I have with that. I'll take any questions. Thank you. We do have one on the board, Mr. Smith. Thank you chair. Amy, the, what is the projected, if there was an approval for zoning tonight and approval by city council a couple of weeks from now, whatever it is from the, from the date of approval for the zoning, what is the timeline that the first phase of the build out of the actual residents being in homes in this development? How long would that be? I project about four years, but it's going to be quite some time. I do know that the property owner who is also the developer has some home, home builders that have expressed some interest, but I would let them speak to that more specifically in terms of the timing of, of the build out. Okay. I've got a couple more. The commercial development you mentioned down there, the CMG that's 1500 feet south on four 28. How long in general does, if you know, if commercial development wants to occur in an area where there is a blank spot now that's already currently zone that way in your past experience, but how long does that take to develop commercial? So for commercial to come in and anywhere, they're going to want to see rooftops and density first. So, and they're going to look to see that there's a market for it. But once they, once they see that there is a market for it, they'll, they'll respond immediately. They're pretty nimble, I think, but, um, they're, they're not going to do it in a vacuum of density. Does that answer your question? I guess more or less that if it's already correctly zoned, I just know that in past experiences, residential develops slower than commercial does. You know, if it's already correctly zoned that way, usually commercial takes about what, 18 months or so from site plan and build and get built out and be done. I mean, you see commercial pop up a lot quicker than a house. So a commercial development from start to finish will, um, go through the process much more quickly because their investment is all made at one time and they are committed and it's open and operating. So it's pretty safe to say that with the developments is happening south on 428 already next to the natatorium. And then, you know, other projects like this, that that commercial corner there at 428 and 288 is probably get built out here quickly. Cause there's, there's quite a bit of, of, um, rooftops coming into that area that will support that. And so, yes, I agree with that. The other question I had was because I think the last time we had visited the last time we looked at this project, there had been a discussion about phases in building. And so how would this project be built in a phase model? Would it be built a phase model would be done in one fatal swoop, um, with the news split zoning that's kind of coming in. I would anticipate that it would be phased based on going from south to north to, um, respond to the market. But also the, the, um, home builders that are already in conversations with the property owner are probably looking more at the Southern lots. They're closer to everything. They're going to, uh, home builders will, will, will take down lots and phases as well. So they're going to go from the South to the North more likely be built more dense to less dense in a regular. Okay. Understood. Uh, and then I had one more question on the past presentation that you given us back in January. How many, how many units were proposed in that project? Acreage, acreage is obviously the same. I want to say it was three 68. Is that correct? Jason, it was, well it was a straight in our four zoning, which allowed up to three 68. The previous concept plan, I believe only showed about three 40 something, but the straight zoning would allow up to three 68 back then. So we're down to three Oh six proposed now. Gotcha. Thank you. I have no more questions. Commissioner back. Uh, thanks Amy. Um, answered one of my questions on the last one, where were you going to start in our four and work your way up to in our two? So that makes sense. Let me ask you this. My sense of the job and housing market is, is that it's, it's not that strong right now. I know we've got some of the lowest unemployment rates, but job wise, a lot of these jobs are being filled by people that are currently here. The future, can you give me some evidence that the job and housing market is really going to be expanding fast enough where we need to develop this project now or as soon as possible? Have you got something out there in the ether that, uh, uh, really demands that. Sure. So I would, I, I, I'm going to answer this anecdotally. I'd be more than happy to back it up with some research later. But, um, what I see in terms of the, of the housing market is that it's slowing for homes that are in the 600 to $700,000 range, but it's still pretty strong for the $300,000 range. And, and from a, just from a market standpoint, I would say if you want to capture the tax base now and capture the residents now have people buy homes in Denton and pay taxes in Denton and have jobs in Denton that you would respond sooner rather than later to that. Um, because there, there may be a slowdown coming at some point, but, um, right now what we see in terms of interest from home builders is, is they're ready to move forward. And so we would like to be able to, to respond to that need today. Thank you. I don't see any other questions at this time. This is a public hearing. So we'll go forward with the cards that individuals have have completed and, um, listen to individuals. Um, as a, a courtesy to this, the number of individuals that have requested to speak last for three minute timeframe for, uh, for points to be made. But we'll start with Buddy Ford Dobson. See here. We want to come back. Just coming back. Great. And I, Caitlin Ashley, you want to, yeah. And Brenda, okay. Hello members of planning and zoning commission. My name is Brenda Dobson Ashley and I want to share with you the reasons why we I support the agave ranch development project. I'm a fourth generation didn't night and my family has lived in the area near this project since 1894. That's 124 years. My immediate family has owned the property adjoining the proposed development for 50 years and has made their home there for the last 40 years. My parents still live there. They also share one half ownership of a two acre pond with the proposed development. Although many will be impacted in some way by this development, our property is possibly one of the most impacted. This development is literally in our backyard and will forever change one of the most beautiful aspects of our home and property, which is the view across our pond to the West where the sun sets. So with all that said, why am I here in support of this project? Over the years, many developers have proposed developing this property. Our family has attended meetings about those proposed projects. And this project is by far better than any of the previous options as far as density of homes, no duplexes, no apartments and the quality of homes being built. Agave ranch is not a huge corporation based in another state. They're a Texas based LLC. The home, um, the home builders that they're proposing for this project, Kaye Hubnanian and Highland Homes are high end. Well with home builders with good reputations for building nice homes. Agave ranch has worked hard to keep the neighbors informed and has wanted public input. They have worked with our family about our biggest concern, maintaining the integrity of our natural shared pond. No other developer has ever even talked with us about what, what would we hope to happen with that pond? Denton is one of the fastest growing counties in the country. That growth and reality and housing development has now reached North Denton. Look at the huge multi-story housing complex being built at 428 in Poinsettia and the high density develop approved across 428. That type of development I would be adamantly opposed to, but this is not what the Agave ranch is proposing. As you've seen, the major concern expressed over and over at numerous meetings with the Agave ranch is the traffic impact on 428. That is a very, very real concern. Until TextDOT by TextDOT standards, the need is there. Nothing will be done and these developers can't change that. Sadly, this is how TextDOT works. Agave ranch does not have any control, but their development could possibly help speed up the project and improvements to 428. I visited another Agave ranch development near here, and it's a beautiful neighborhood. What they are proposing is a lower density well-planned community with no multi-family, multi-story housing. They've sought input from those most closely affected. Ideally things would never change, but that's no longer the reality when you live on the outskirts of a very rapidly growing city. This was not an easy decision for anyone in our family. After much thought discussion and taking into consideration the previous proposed options, I, along with my family, support this project moving forward. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next card I have is for Susan Smith. After that will be Bridget Marshall. My name is Susan Smith and I live at 7736 FM 428 just directly north of the proposed development. In looking at this current request for zoning, I think it's necessary not just to look at this, but at everything else that's going on in the immediate area that are posing challenges to our traffic and congestion. Things are happening so fast right now that it is hard to keep track of everything. Number one, there's a high density apartment housing, still to come retail center and multiple homes immediately south of the loop. All of these will be feeding and using 428 in the loop. Across the street from the proposed Agave Ranch project is the already approved Stark Farms with 390 homes have been approved and the anticipation that they will be asking to annex an additional 635 acres in the immediate vicinity. Some more houses will be going there. There's the number three, there's the large recent Beaver Creek development west of 428 that uses Long and 428 to go south. Number four, 92 acres owned by the DISD that's getting a lot of interest from developers and will likely have houses on it at some point in the near future. Number five, you have the Notorium Stadium and schools, which all use 428 and Long to get in and out. And don't forget the football games on Friday. Number six, you have several neighbors in the immediate area that are interested in developing their large acreage and others that are looking at possibilities of selling their property off for future development. So all of this is happening right now as we speak, and these are all in addition to the Agave proposal of NR3. They are staggering it from NR2 to NR4, but their plan calls for 306 houses making it NR3. We've all seen what's happened on 380 and we do not want to see the same scenario recreated on 428. 428 is at the edge of Denton. It's a gateway corridor into rural and outdoor recreational areas and has a larger concentration of ESAs than anywhere else in Denton County. We need to be very careful about the urbanization from Denton spreading into and destroying that character that is described in our 2030 plan. Once approved, you can never get it back. So I hope you'll be extremely careful concerning the Agave Ranch plan. I do like the north end of it, the NR2, the best. And I wish all of it were like that. Just because you approved NR4 across the street does not mean that every other piece of vacant land should be approved to the same density. We need to have diversity in our housing. So in conclusion, I hope you'll consider this very carefully and not set us up for failure from the very beginning as you plan everything that's coming into this area. I think you need to look very carefully at the densities and the traffic. Thank you. Thank you. Bridget Marshall with Sharon Kramer next. Hi, I'm Bridget Marshall. I live at 3539 Pine Trail, Denton, Texas. Thank you for your time. My family and I have enjoyed living off Hartley Field Road for 22 years. And the reason we bought our place is because of the ruralness of this area. I realize growth is inevitable, but I wish to see a well thought out development plan for the rural area of Denton north of Loop 288 that is in keeping with the character and the beauty of the area. I've always considered FM 428 a gateway into horse and cattle country, into a beautiful part of Denton County. Even the Denton Chamber of Commerce through its Denton Convention and Visitors Bureau recognizes this asset and has promoted its horse country tours for many years. FM 428 is the only road linking the city of Denton directly to horse country in Denton County and also the Greenbelt. The proposed Agave Ranch development for the Diamond Tea Arena property with 306 houses does not suit the character of this area and does not meet the criteria laid out by the Denton Plan 2030 in the land use plan. It would be a huge detriment to have development not in keeping with the character of this rural area in the Denton Plan 2030. Houses on acreage or large estate lots would be much more suitable, not a 306 house housing development. The traffic from 306 houses in addition to the approximately 1200 houses in the already approved Beaver Creek development on Stewart Road and the Stark Farm development on Long Road would exacerbate the heavy traffic we currently experience and would create even more unsafe travel conditions. At peak hours and during class changes at the ATC, it is nearly impossible to safely access FM 428. There's also the traffic from the Natatorium, Gonzales School and at times CH Collins Stadium to contend with. Please ensure that suitable infrastructure is in place before allowing any further development along FM 428. Once houses and businesses are built, there is no going back. I respectfully ask that you do not approve the proposed Agave Ranch development for these reasons and to adhere to the recommendations laid out by Denton Plan 2030 in the land use plan. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much. Sharon Kramer with Susan Fulton next. Well, once again, I came with a prepared statement, listen to what was happening and like 40 years of the classroom teaches you, you adjust and address as necessary. 40 years in the classroom, but a lifelong Denton resident. And I have lived in my home at 3574 Pine Trail. I'm Bridget's most immediate neighbor. I've lived there 40 years. So I know the area well. First, though, I want to thank all of you in the commission. You serve and give up your time freely. You take a lot of heat. You take a lot of flack, I'm sure. Sometimes you get some praise. I appreciate what you do for my hometown. And I appreciate the watchdogs that you are. My points are this. Back in January, Commissioner Beck said we have the other side of 428 developing. Things are already being built. Let's build that out. Let's see what happens with Sherman Drive. That will give us time to see what we want for this other side. I think those words are still true and I think they're wise. Yes, Agave Ranch has listened and they have learned quite wisely from us that environmental issues, cultural issues and appropriateness to the character of the area are of prime importance. I would add at this point that I don't think Sherman Drive 428 makes a sufficient barrier that I mean, it is a sufficient barrier that the Agave Ranch development with NR3 and NR4 has any connection to. Once Sherman Drive is six lanes, no one is going to see those two sides connected. However, NR3s and NR4s don't connect to the surrounding area. Everyone has yet to say that gray area is the ETJ. The remaining 600, 800 acres are pasture and ranch land. And my neighbor Bridget is right. Once you build on that pasture and ranch land, you lose knowledge of the history. You lose connection to what it was. In brief, good development is necessary. Development is inevitable, but is this the best plan at the best time? In the best place. If it were all in our two with the parks and the ponds and the tanks, I might be standing up here saying. We should bite. But it isn't and we shouldn't. Thank you. Thank you, Susan Fulton. OK, good evening. I'll get straight to your name. Oh, Suzanne, 729 Greenwood. I'll get straight to the point. I'm not in favor of rezoning the property located at 6900 East Sherman Drive, more commonly known as the Diamond T Ranch or now the Guavi Ranch project. I would like to see it remain as the current zoning of residential rule or RD5. Let me back up and give you a little information about myself as well as my family. My name, as I stated, is Suzanne Fulton. I'm a fourth generation dentonite born and raised here on one side and a third on the other. I'll answer that question. Yes, Fulton Street is where the current denton high is located. A school I graduated 30 years ago this May was named for my great grandfather. He donated the land for that street and Ponder Streets. We live in Denton and we have established businesses that have contributed to the community of Denton for over 50 years. My mother served on the city council and my father, much like yourselves, donated his time by serving on committees that contributed to the future development and infrastructure of Denton. Now, the 2030 plan agrees and spells out the reasons that I'm not in favor of such a dramatic change to the area. As defined in the 2030 plan for the city, this area needs to remain the RR zoning to ensure that farming, forest, environmental and scenic areas are protected from incompatible development. This area is very close to the green belt and it's an environmental and with the developments that are approved near the natatorium and the ones that are currently under construction on the other side of loop 288. The impact of the environment this area will be tested if not destroyed. Another reason I'm asking for that the zoning to remain the RR designation is that the development that is proposed is very similar, if not the same, to developments that are in current construction all over town or ones waiting to break ground. Why does didn't just want to be more of the same? Is it just to develop for development sake? As a lifelong resident of the community, a contributor to the city of Denton, I want to ask that you protect the uniqueness of Denton. Let us not look like just another city in North Texas. The rooftops, as far as you can see, as you travel down 35 east and west, three eighty three seventy seven and four twenty eight. Let us look to develop and keep Denton to look like Denton. Even when this area is developed or other areas in the city, why can that not be held to a higher standard? When we see more developments that are unique on the south side of Denton, as you come into Denton on Highway three seventy seven, there's an area called the Hills of Argyle, not a didn't development, but unique with the same with large open spaces. You even see similar developments like this out on three eighty called Lake View. Even the project manager for the Aguabi Ranch development stated that he could make more money with larger lots and homes. But a study called for this type of housing, again, why can Denton not be unique? I think Denton has a need for this type of development, not more of the same. I ask, where do the higher ups of the Peterbilt Corporation live in Denton or in the large lot neighborhoods you find nestled in Flower Mound? Where do the administration of UNT live, even the football coach? Where do they live, shop and dine? I've heard how the 2030 plan is out of date due to the growth. Is this because we have allowed growth to get out of control by building just more of the same to ensure that the next developer from out of town or out of state makes the next fortune? Please consider the future of Denton, the future of Denton's green space and its current residents and vote no to the drastic change that's being proposed. Thank you. So we have a question for you, Mr. Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Miss Holden, for your presentation. That's very informative. Let me ask you this. I I've been here since the early 70s and I'm familiar with that area. Unless you get real deep down Sherman Drive, I'm not real familiar with a lot of farming, but I know it's popular with horse ranching. To what extent is ranching and horsing, of course, training and everything still popular and thriving in that area? Can you elaborate? There are three large development, three large horse ranches just to the north of the Smith property, which is just I don't have a map, but it's just right above that. And when I was looking at the proposed pond, my question was, the proposed ponds, where were they drained? The flooding in that area is awful. Once you go down for 28 and you cross over the creek, it's you think you were at Ray Roberts. So my question is, when they put those ponds in, where's that drainage going? OK, OK, so horse horse ranching is big right there. It's just right to the north. It's on the other side. There's a development where you see the rooster. There's horse property right in there and boarding and you see riding out there all the time, it hadn't died out. No, it hadn't died down at all. OK, great. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Susie Autry, followed by David Grant. And if you could just state your name and address for the record. I'm Susie Dobson Autry, part of the Dobson family represented here by three generations, and we're all in support of this project. As my sister mentioned earlier and painted a great picture of where my family's property is, the south end of this project, we feel like the location makes it one of the few properties most directly affected by the proposed changes. Because of this, ideally, it would be nice to have it remain rural. However, we must look at it realistically. Progress and growth are evident all over Denton, with some of the more recent along Sherman Drive just south of Luke 288. The new construction of multi and single family dwellings, along with all four corners of that area, zoned for multi mixed use. It's inevitable that growth will continue north along FM 428. North of Luke 288 already includes the waterpark, mandatory, skate park, football stadium and two DISD teaching facilities. That alone contradicts the rural feel of the area, which is one of the main reasons given for those in opposition. Ten years ago, the city annexed the proposed property into the city limits and more recently approved a rezoning request nearby to NR 6, which shows the city believes that growth in that direction is imminent. For that reason, it is important to support a quality development. I believe that Gavi Ranch developers will provide that quality. They have held numerous opportunities for neighborhood outreach and input. With this input, they have revised their original plan and zoning request. The new cluster plan follows the idea for staged growth that the city recommends, which includes more density to the south and lower density to the north, which blends into the rural properties there. In addition, Agave offered an overlay condition of having only single family detached dwellings in the plan, which eliminates the option for duplexes and townhomes. Zoning in to the immediate south and west of this development is already approved for NR 4. Rezoning the Agave property to NR 4, 3 and 2 is realistic for that area. Agave's conceptual plan includes a large amount of green space and neighborhood amenities, including walking paths and a nicely landscaped and extensive buffer along 428. The home builders secured are quality builders. It would be an HOA community, which would help guarantee a well-maintained neighborhood and landscaped area along 428. Most opposition expressed for this development is due to issues associated with 428, which is realistically only addressed by TxDOT. It has been explained many times that roadway and infrastructure does not pave the way for development, but with the development, those improvements will come. It is possible that the Agave development could provide the incentive for TxDOT to take notice of the issues with 428 and expedite its much-needed improvement. In closing, our family supports the rezoning request by Agave, and we hope that you'll consider that as well. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next is David Grant, and then followed by Ann Woodbridge. I know you just state your name and address for the record. >> Hi. I'm David Grant, 3420 Elm Bottom Circle. I'm also representing my company, which is Gods Land LLC, which is approximately 22 acres directly to the south of the property there. It actually is off of Hartley Field, actually touching the Agave Ranch properties. I am strongly in favor of the proposal. I believe that there is-- that change is inevitable, that we-- I'm a 30-year resident of Denton. I love to see the controlled quality growth that PNZ and council have advocated over the years. I love seeing the-- just the dynamic culture that's developed in our city. And I don't see this as contradictory. I think that we're somewhat naive to think that we can always look at horses and cows across the field. I think that in reality, quality developments, good growth is inevitable, and change is inevitable. And I believe that what they're doing is a high quality. I do think that if it was an apartment complex, I wouldn't recommend it. I think this creates an excellent buffer to the country north of that. I drive past a-- past that property four to six times a day. I recognize that eventually that's going to create a change in traffic dynamics, and I'm willing to take my chances. The tech stock will take this as an incentive to move things forward. So in summary, I am strongly advocating the acceptance of this proposal. >> Thank you very much. Ann Woodbridge, followed by Ned Woodbridge. If you just state your name and address for the record. >> Hello, my name is Ann Woodbridge, and I live at 3596 Hartley Field Road. Although we're not a Butters, our house does overlook the proposed Agave Ranch development. I want to share my significant concerns about the proposed development in regard to traffic safety, another subject that Butters brought up tonight. As FM 428 approaches the 288 loop from the north where the development is proposed, this section of road is already rated level of service F by text dot, the worst possible rating for congestion. FM 428 may look like a two-lane country road. But it is heavily used by traffic coming mostly from the west, by students from the technical high school, swim families using the water park, bands and football fans from the stadium, trucks hauling heavy farm equipment, livestock trailers full of cattle and horses, and residents. It's also a popular cycling route, so there are lots and lots of bike riders using the road because there's no bike lane. At Hartley Field Road and FM 428, the road crests a hill, invisibility is blind for left-hand turns on the FM 428 and onto the 280-- and the Hartley Field Road. The improvements at the 288 loop will do nothing to address this problem because the crest of the hill is blind. Too, too often when I pull out in the morning, there's broken glass or a piece of car on the road as evidence of a recent accident. Adding to the proposed 317 houses of Agave Ranch with their almost 3000 day trips in the cars a day to the 400 homes already approved for Stark Farms plus the potential use by the 400 new homes along Stewart Road, this adds up to a traffic load of an additional 9000 trips per day on an already F-rated road. The current infrastructure is already dangerously overloaded and to add an additional 317 homes will be a threat to the public safety of all who use this road. Additionally, I'm really puzzled this project was recommended for approval since it's clearly inconsistent with the 2030 plan. I urge you not to support the zoning change that would allow the Agave Ranch proposal. Thank you. >> Thank you. We actually have a question. Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. Ma'am, it's not actually for you. I'm actually going to address Julie about something that you brought up in your speech, though. Julie, if I could ask you a quick question. >> Yes, sir. >> Ms. Woodridge has brought up the traffic and I remember asking you in work session, if you could recap that again here. With the realignment of Hartley Field going through the property and intersecting at 428, there would be some sort of traffic mitigation at 428 in Hartley Field. There would be a stoplight, some sort of roundabout, something like that, that the neighborhood people would have access to. So they wouldn't be having to turn across blindly off 428 or some degree, correct? >> The discussions we've had with engineering is there would be something at that intersection to ensure safe connection between Hartley Field and FM 428. I don't know what that would be. >> Yeah. And then the check and balance in that is that we would see -- we as a commission and then the city council would see that at site planning. So this development wouldn't be built without us seeing it at site planning, correct? >> Well, if it was approved, there would not be a site plan associated with -- there would be a plat. So that would be reviewed potentially as part of the civil engineering plans associated with the final plat. So there would be potentially additional answers at that final plat stage, but it wouldn't be shown on a site plan, per se. >> Final plat, I should have said that correctly myself. So, okay, thank you. >> Sure. >> Next we have Ned Woodbridge, if you could just state your name and address for the record. >> Good evening. I'm Ned Woodbridge and I live at 3596 Hartley Field Road, Denton. I recommend voting against the Agave Ranch project and offer the following reasons. I first would like to point out that the proposed plans are inconsistent with the Denton 2030 plan and the future land use map that is part of that plan. Simply said, the existing zoning is rural 5 and 5X. So NR4, NR3, NR2 are not in compliance. Nonetheless, the city staff has recommended voting for the proposal because one, there is NR4 zone property adjacent to the south. And secondly, the development is-- they argued development is needed here to accommodate the growth-- may be needed to accommodate the growth of the town. I disagree with this rationale. The first is that the fact that the adjacency of the NR4 zoning to the south, it seems-- it strikes me as almost silly because it's a little 200 foot strip that just sort of hugs the road, 428, it doesn't seem like that is a particularly strong precedent there. I'm not sure who would be developing that land. Secondly, development is simply not needed here to accommodate the plan growth in the 2030 plan horizon. There's plenty of open, undeveloped land with NR4 zoning already provided in the flum. And I, you know, ask you to consider the yellow areas of the future land use map, you know, which incorporated much thought as to where future growth should be and designated major currently undeveloped areas for NR4 development and provided that development should be in those identified areas. For example, the proposed development of the Hunter and Cole Ranch properties are expected to add 15,000 homes plus-- I'm not sure how many, I think it was 4,000 departments, units. Additionally, the proposed plan, my view is inconsistent with the preferred growth concept described in the plan, especially with respect to the outer fringe and ETJ areas. The plan calls for prioritizing infill in the center area of the city which still has room for growth, just consider Bonnie Bray or drive along Shady Grove. The page-- last thing I want to add, page 48 of the 2030 plan says and I quote, "As much of the edge of Denton is characterized as rural land that possesses a character of Denton's past and natural environment that is cherished. Conservation development is recommended as the primary means of managing the interface of the edge," close quotes. Clearly, this proposal is not conservation development as described in the plan and not consistent with this and other similar statements and therefore violates the Denton 2030 plan. Let me conclude if I may by saying that good planning is critical for the attractiveness of the community. We have all seen development occurring around the DFW area and see some areas that have been developed very badly, helter skelter development and congested roads, while others have done well and are very attractive communities. A lot of well-- a lot of thought went into the Denton 2030 plan by the city planners and the citizenry to guide zoning and growth. There is good reason for the mandate that in the city's review of zoning deviations, the proposals be measured and evaluated against the 2030 plan. And I guess lastly, I just want to add that the property owners bought the land with the property zone NR5 and so there's no undue burden on them to maintain the current zoning. Thank you. >> Thank you. Next is Richard Wells and then we're going to come back to the Dobson family. >> My name is Richard Wells, 3830 Warshoen Road. Thank you, commissioners, for what you do. I invite you to ask these questions. It-- in your heads and in your hearts, does it fit with plan-- Denton plan 2030? So we get interpretations from different people so you're going to have to decide that. Also, is moving from 18 units in RD5 to 317 units too much? You need to ask that question. Last time we met, the option was brought up that one per acre and that would be-- I'm not sure how much of that is developed, 50 or 60 homes. I hear a lot of, yes, this is going to be done and yes, that's going to be done but I can't get any dates on that. You need to ask, if TxDOT does make six lanes, how does that affect this buffer zone that we are seeing and all these berms and things like that? Also, pinning down the city staff and TxDOT on when roads might be developed and, you know, Hartley Field Road, if you've driven it, it's like 15 feet wide and it's really, you know, how are you going to tie in all those things out there? Ask your city staff and others for some real dates, when would this be done? If you build homes and there are people move in to these homes in five years and the streets aren't done and the roads aren't done and the turn lanes aren't done for 15 years, that does not help the problem. There's a horse training facility out on Washington Road. There's a horse training out there. There are several horse training facilities. That question came up. Also, the question came up and you can get more from your city staff because they attend the NCTOG government things on the North Central Texas Council of Governments on the proposed outer loop, proposed outer loop. I will say the Collin County is already getting land. They are using eminent domain. So, this is going to happen maybe 20 years before it happens here, 15 years. It will tie in at Shepherd Road. That's the proposed. That's about another two miles past Washington. So, the traffic is going to increase greatly there. The argument that I hear all the time, which probably is good for us and perhaps in the United States is that you have to build houses before their infrastructure comes. I just was visiting my family in the Netherlands and I talked to a city safety planner in Amherst Fort. They're building Amherst Fort, a large area out there. And I said, how does this work here? And he said, we build the roads, the city builds roads. The city and the developer work together to build roads, turn lanes, stop lights, all the access in and out. We study the way the traffic will be and the roads are there before anybody moves in. So, it's a little specious argument to say you've got to build houses before you can build the roads. So, I think you need to ask those hard questions and see where you go from there. Thank you. >> Thank you. [ Bell Ringing ] >> Commissioner Smith. >> It's actually once again for Julie. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate you. I just couldn't get to my speaker. On the Harley Fold Road, just looking at it now, seeing that map of what the mobility study, I guess we call it traffic study, what would happen to the existing Harley Field Road that's there? Is that going-- is it going to remain the same because it kind of-- Harley Field Road kind of bends up kind of like to straight and it goes north and it comes back east again, so it goes east, northeast. So, what's going-- is it just going to be two parallel roads there? What's going to happen with that? >> The plans that I've seen, the maps that I've seen would-- Harley Field would be straightened out and then that bend would remain. It would remain as maybe a collector. It wouldn't be as part of that arterial. But that arterial path would go straight, whereas Harley Field now turns to the south. >> Yeah, and then it turns back-- then it turns west towards 420. So there technically would be two roads then at that point. >> Right. I mean, that road would stay in place but the arterial would go a straighter path. >> Understood. Just wondering for, you know, gentleman address, just expansion. I've driven down Harley Field Road. It's a piece of crap to put it bluntly. So, putting it-- putting it to where it'd be straight through, OK, got it. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Next we have, you can pick if you want Caitlin or Buddy to come first. >> Hello. My name is Caitlin Ashley. My address is 3601 Meadow Trail Lane here on the north side of town. I just bought a house over here. If you would have asked me 15 years ago if I would want to live on the north side of town, I grew up on the south side of town where all the amenities are. I never thought that I would want to live on the north side of town where now all the growth and amenities are. That's just kind of the way growth has gone in Denton. So, I'm an attorney here in town. I work on Elm Street. I also quite frequently travel down 428 to get to our secondary office in Aubrey. I also travel down 428 and Hartley Field Road to visit my grandparents at their property on Woodland Hills. Like my mom said, we enjoy many sunsets over their pond which makes up the southeast border of the Agave Ranch development. I will admit when my grandparents showed approval of this plan, I was skeptical and I was confused. But like many times in my life, I learned not to question the wisdom that 87 and 85 years of life experience has provided to my grandparents and they have bestowed upon us. That wisdom is best summarized in the realistic statement that growth is inevitable. It's going to happen and opportunity to shape and plan for the quality development that we believe Agave is providing is why we support this development strongly and why we have not supported other developers in the past. My grandparents would like to see a quality development like Agave has approved-- like Agave is proposing approved in their lifetime because they want to protect our interest in their property and they think that this is a great development to border their pond. So, thank you. >> Thank you very much. Mr. Jobson, are you wishing to speak? >> I would just like to say a few words that I just wonder where we would be if this farm in 1965 hadn't have been split up into small acreages and so forth. It includes Woodland Hills addition and includes this 92 acres, includes my five and six tenths acres and several other small properties. It was split up into these small acreages if people weren't willing to go along with change and modification and I don't know why this has gotten included with the highway. I don't know how many people here traveled Highway 10 which is what Sherman Drive was when I was little. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for being here. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. I have some cards that I'd like to read in to record of those individuals wanting to voice opposition but not requesting to speak and so the following cards are all in opposition, Elizabeth Faring, Vicki McGovern, Walter McGovern, Janet Tracesta at Deer-Ron Road and Kelly Grisafi at 2882 Trails End Road. I apologize if I messed up some of those names. This is again a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. I'll give you the state your name and address for the record. >> My name is Ronald L. Carter. I live on 4105 Hartleaf Field Road. My family's had property on Hartleaf Field Road in 428 for over 40 years. The subject property we owned for over 30 years. We built the arena. We have been blessed to have the Dobson's as great neighbors for a long, long, long time. And just for a little bit of historical, one, Commissioner Smith, did you state that Hartleaf Field Road other than the very beginning of Hartleaf Field Road along with the Circle T that Ms. Evans has is not the city limits of Denton. That is all county road and it wasn't until December of 2013, I mean of 2005, when we were all involuntarily annexed that Mr. Dobson and myself and there's only five that live along Hartleaf Field Road that are actually residents of the city of Denton. So when this first came up, we were not in support and nor did we disagree with this project. I have been impressed with the Agave Ranch, the changes that they have made and the change is coming, the change is inevitable. When we first were involuntarily annexed, we had asked the city if we were going to get any amenities, if we were going to get any services. Well, since then, we've never received anything. Now, I have paid property taxes to the city of Denton as Mr. Dobson has and we would like to see some infrastructure to come out here and to say, well, the rooftops have to come. Well, the rooftops do have to come to get a lot of infrastructure. So on behalf of my family and we do own the 800 acres, we do adjoin the north end of this property, we adjoin the majority of the eastern side of this property and we do support this and I would ask that you support this. We cannot hold back the tide, the change is coming and what we don't want is to see the multifamily of the apartments that are on the other side, that are on the south side of 288. So we would encourage you to support this. Anyway, so we're very impressed with what they've done, so we thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> If you could just state your name and address for the record. >> My name is Joshua Smith. I live in 5020 Golden Circle here in Denton and it's actually right off of Harley Field. To go along with Mr. Carter's, you know, comment, if it was just going to be NR2, you know, two houses per acre, I'd be on board with it, but since the other side of the 428 is going to have that many houses, it would be nice to have a break, essentially. I know it's coming, so to basically speak on basically, you know, the higher end houses that basically two per acre would afford, I would be for that. I oppose this because based on what's been, you know, with the higher density coupled with all of that, I don't see it, you know, I don't see the reasoning behind that, so thank you. >> Thank you very much. Anyone else want to speak? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and we'll turn it to the commission for discussion, questions, and a motion. We do have a motion on the floor, Commissioner Smith. >> I'd like to motion to approve and adopt with staff's recommendations. Before I do that, I'd like to say a couple of words. One, I said this back whenever I voted for this project in January in that, sadly, in America, yes, the cart does lead the horse when it comes to development, whether it's commercial development, I know I had a discussion back in January about commercial amenities available to the residents of these, you know, residential neighborhoods we're putting in, well, it takes a lot shorter time for commercial to develop than residential does, therefore they know homes are coming, they'll build it. On top of that, I think TxDOT is very reactionary. They have been with multiple other projects that we've seen in this commission over the years. They won't feel it as a hard pressure until they know that homes are coming, so the expansion of 428 needs to happen. I grew up here, and I drove back and forth to see an old girlfriend, an old flame of mine in high school up around Green Circle, and so the -- I know what 428 is like, I've been up there. So now whenever a lot of folks said, you know, this is not the right time, this is not it, this is not the development, this is not it, I think I want to echo a lot of the sentiment that it's not an if scenario, it's a when scenario, and, you know, a lot of the questions were is this truly the best plan for this site, truly the best plan for the expansion and the development of this area. I think the developers have shown through both the January attempt as well as this one now that they're willing to work with neighborhoods. They're willing to change the density to be more amenable to what the surrounding existing residents want. They're more amenable to opening it up to, you know, local developers and builders, building the NR2 section. I mean, heck, the LLC, the Agave Ranch LLC is a Roanoke company if you check the state comptroller's website. So it is something that does seem like it's good for Denton, what it seems like it fits within our community. And then going back to the tech stop thing for a second, 2499's expansion in Highland Village really mirrors a lot of what's happening in the future with 428. The 2499 expansion through Flower Mound, Highland Village, and then what just got done up through Corinth and into Denton mirrors this. And there was a bond election in '98 and 2004 to expand 2499 to be able to build that out. A lot of the homes that were along 2499 were built in 2004 and 2005 for what I can find on the map. So this is another-- a good local example of, you know, four years, five years prior, these projects along this 2499 projected area was being proposed. They were in a zoning meeting probably in Highland Village somewhere. Them getting passed the big move forward prompted the need for the bonds to be passed for 2499 to be expanded, not saying this would be a bond project. This is a tech stop project with 428, but this definitely shows an instance where the residential coming of homes predicates the development of highway that's going to be needed as the expansion occurs. So after my long, long soapbox speech, I will make a motion to approve. >> And just for clarity, Commissioner Smith, are you moving to approve with the conditions stated by staff? >> Yeah, so that's the very beginning, Chair. Yes, sir. >> Great. We have a first. Before we move to discussion, I want to see if there is a second for the motion. Seeing no second, the motion fails. Commissioner Cole. >> Thank you, Chair. You know, and Jane, I really appreciate the applicant making these changes, but this is still the same pig you tried to sell me in January with lipstick and a tutu, 15 acres of NR2, it's a joke. You don't put this kind of density next to rural areas. I've been on the losing end of that fight. The neighborhood I live in in Ranch-E-States, we're now surrounded by warehouses. I'll never see real darkness again. It may not even be able to see the sunset, but there's, you know, I was a no last time. And it's density. I mean, it was a slick presentation. I can tell you all of the closers, but I've been a closer in my life, too, and I can spot it. And traffic issues, when staff put the map up that showed all the yellow dots of growth points, I look at that, and I see, man, we're on our way, well on our way, sprinting towards sprawl. That's what we're doing. This is happening so fast. We're experiencing hyper growth right now. Four or maybe five municipalities have had that experience. And we're going to, I don't want to wake up in 12 years. I mean, I was born here. I've lived all my life here. I'm going to die here, and I don't want to wake up to see Frisco. We don't have to have cement asphalt on every damn square inch of ground here. We don't. There's no law that says we have to. I mean, these people, they have barns. They have horses. They have other livestock. You can't just go and stick a whole lot of civilization there. Yeah, I hear words, yeah, growth is inevitable. We're, it's going to happen anyway. Oh, we, okay, but we just don't have to sprint recklessly towards it. We can walk and be thoughtful about it because one thing that's ringing in my head, I've heard tonight over and over, once it's gone, it's gone. I can't tell you how many spring days I've spent fishing the bass spawn in Clear Creek. One of the prettiest drives there is in this town is from Hartlefield Road to Aubrey. And this would be a beautiful development somewhere else at some other time. But we're losing control of this thing and this public opposition has got to be taken into account, you know, and I just, you know, I've been on the losing end of this and I know how it feels and I don't want to see that happen again. You know, we don't, like I said, this will be the third time. We don't have to sprint toward it. Let's walk deliberately and thoughtfully towards it. All right. And that's all I mean, all my fellow commissioners sitting when he speaks, I don't say much, but when I do, it tends to have some weight. But again, I'm sorry if I insulted you guys, I didn't mean to, but I feel a little, you know, like 15 acres are, I mean, it's just too much density for this area right now. Thank you. Chris, you're back. Thank you, Chair. And I want to thank everybody for coming down, speaking out on this and speaking in ways that just overwhelm me some of the time. Everybody's well-informed and I agree on both sides that this is a good project. This, this fits this area. People are concerned and how it's going to affect their neighborhood. And that's a legitimate concern. But I'm with Commissioner Cole and I don't agree that building houses is going to invite tech study and I've been here since the early seventies, as I mentioned. And I've seen, we waited for the loop to widen. It took years to do that. 380, once 380 did widen, then it really did take off. So, and the fact that if we don't accept this development, then you're going to get something worse, that couldn't be further from the truth. If we're making it difficult for this fine development to not go through, you know, we're going to expect something every bit as good. Now, yes, I love this development. I thank the people who designed it, that put their hearts and souls into it. And it meets a lot of my requirements for single family developments. But there's other places that could go. And I know it's not the places that these property owners own, but North Denton is growing and there's areas in North Denton where it could go. The intersections of Locust and the Loop, the intersections of Bonnebray and the Loop are great, but there's also infill areas, too, that we haven't taken care of. There's 80 acres over off of Mankenburg, between Mankenburg and Loop 288 and Paisley and I think Newton Road, you know, that something like this would fit real nicely. So there's other areas that this can go. Now, ultimately, if I saw TxDOT getting their project off paper and into action, you know, I'd be a little bit more supportive of this, but it could be a good decade for this, comes along, and with nearly over 300 houses across the street and the other developments on the southwest and southeast corner of Sherman Road and Loop 288. This road is not going to be able to handle that. We are putting the horse before the cart and this is one area where we can walk. We can go a little bit slower and then when the time's right, this development will be right then, but not yet, not now, not this place. So I'll be voting no for it. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Bracken. And just, just so you know, there's not a motion on the floor to vote no or yes to. I just want to make, make sure. I don't know what you're saying you're voting no to, but we want to clear that motion up first, so not, but I wasn't going to make a motion. I can make a motion, but we want to wait until everybody's talked or you can certainly make a motion at any time. Okay. Well, I, I, I moved to deny this agenda item Z 18. Okay. Okay. With, with the first for denial, we have that on the floor. Do you want to get a second commissioner Cole? Second. So we have a first and a second for denying or recommended denial on this item and continue discussion. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, chair. Yeah, I am struggling with the intensity of zoning on this side of 428. Many people spoke and are impressed with Agave Ranch and with good reason, it looks like a great concept, but the issue is, is it's a concept. We're not voting on Agave Ranch here. We're voting on a zoning change and the zoning change as it's proposed is not something at this time that I can support on that side of 428. I'm just not so sure we want that kind of density there right now. Again, your, your willingness to talk to the community, I think should be commended and again, it does look like a great concept. I just, I'm concerned about the feasibility of the project going forward. It was stated that it'll take quite some time to develop. Anything could happen. Then the zoning changes in place and there is no Agave Ranch. It is not tied together. So, um, I will vote to deny. Christopher Netta. Um, yeah, so I guess when, when this came back, came up a while back, I voted against it and, um, listening to the discussion and everything tonight, that there was a lot of great movement, you know, and I want to thank the developers, uh, for everything that they did, uh, listening to the community. Um, you know, you, you adjusted your density. Uh, I was kind of conferring with commissioner Smith and we were looking at, you know, the number of units that were going in and, you know, you have a request for an NR four, but really, you know, what was proposed on this was, it was more like an NR three. And I'd have been more comfortable if there was, you know, NR three to NR two, maybe, um, you know, as far as, you know, what was presented, I think in almost any other place I would vote for this, there's lots of places that I would have loved to have seen, uh, this development go in. I like the fact that, uh, you were, um, you know, respecting the land to a certain degree and, uh, you know, kind of trying to preserve that, um, transition. Uh, once again, though, and our four and our three and our two just didn't feel right for this, um, you know, commissioner Cole mentioned the idea of sprawl and it was a very interesting and a good point to make, um, because we, we are as a town reaching that point where we already have sprawl, which is a bizarre thing because we haven't even finished becoming what we are, um, but what we're already becoming something that's degrading into something less than we could be, uh, so to that end, I mean, I, I, I couldn't support this, um, you know, I would hope that, you know, that, that the developer would kind of go back and, and maybe come up with a plan where, you know, we are a, a soft NR three to a larger NR two and kind of have that available because I think, I think there is something coming. There's an army of steam rollers coming. Um, I like the fact that y'all, y'all made some accommodations. I think we're, we're, we're this close, you know, to something that I think everybody could agree on and it's a, it's a small bit, I think compared to, you know, what you guys have got. Um, you know, hopefully for everyone involved, uh, we can see that come forward, but, uh, that's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, chair. Um, Ms. Bissett, there was a, uh, uh, individual who remarked earlier that there is, um, the NR two was possible in this project, but for some reason, um, that this higher density was needed, um, can I ask you a quick question about, um, lowering the possible density and if possibly the applicant will be willing to, um, lower the density if they're given a chance to make it to where it was something more like an NR two or NR three or a blend of those. I don't want to speak on behalf of the property owner and developer, but they are here. So I would invite one of them to come up and answer that question directly for you. John Heilman is one of the property owners. I'm John Heilman. I live at 300 Lamar street, Texas. Okay. Uh, same question would, you know, seems like a lot of the, a lot of the residents around Hartley field road would want to, uh, a lower density, something like that in our fours is too far of a stretch. Would that be something that would be amenable that would still let the project, uh, we've, we've talked about it. And, uh, you know, to go from the NR four to NR three, it's something that we would be willing to do. Um, the, I'm, I'm pretty prudent in real estate, but these guys are very prudent in real estate. Um, they kind of, they have done all their research, both highland homes and K Albanian homes. They know what is going to sell here. They know what, you know, it's going to go. Um, they are not interested in the, in the inner two lots at all that they say that, you know, it's just not, not something that's going to get. So even an NR three might, might not even be attractive to the and then there are three, they would be willing to do an NR three. Um, you know, by us going to NR three, we're not, not really going to knock it out a whole lot, a lot. So I think, you know, we're okay doing that. Um, yeah. Thank you, sir. Thank you. You're good. Christopher. Okay. Uh, I have, uh, a couple of things that I would kind of want to add. Um, I have a lot of, uh, scratch notes. Let's see if I can, uh, figure out where to start. I think I'm, I'm, I align a lot with the commissioner Alice on this. Uh, oftentimes we convolute both the concept plan site plan with a zoning case, when in reality, as much as that project actually does look good. And the individuals who are hired to present it always do a fantastic job. Once we approve a rezoning, that's it. Not, not to think ill will of the owner, anything else, but they can, they can, uh, sell it and, and the new owner can come in and build an R four. And that'd be a, a looming concern just to have, um, just the zoning change so dramatically that anyone could come in and enter for, and might not do the same project. Um, I think the conditions we had established maybe. Help mold the vision of that project, but it doesn't hold, uh, anyone to that, that same actual rule, uh, look, uh, I also, I found it a little bit ironic. Um, the applicant stated that they're adding open spaces to the development. I would, I would think the residents would, would argue that you're, you're removing open spaces, uh, from the development at, at this density. Um, I, I appreciate the willingness to go in our three. Um, and I get the economic conditions that are around selling at a 200,000, 300, 300,000 price point or whatever that, that is, I personally, um, would rather see half the houses, uh, not half. Uh, so you're at three of six. I would love to see at one 84. That's a straight NR two and sell half a million dollar homes. And we have way more discretionary income to spend in Denton. And so I think the tax and economic conditions would better. I get the, the fact that selling 184 homes at half a million dollars and Denton doesn't sound, uh, feasible, but, um, that's, that's not to say I wouldn't, wouldn't prefer seeing that kind of development, um, or even if they're not half a million dollar homes. Um, but I think that's just, it holds more true to the character of the ranch, especially on the East side. Uh, once we put in an NR four on the East side, uh, a lot more property owners have justification to go in our four and, and the Hartley field area, I think is, is, is kind of a, a prized possession of, of our town. So, uh, with that, I didn't support the original motion and I would support, uh, the motion by commissioner Beck, but it looks like commissioner Smith, you had a four. Yeah, I was just, you know, after hearing what you've said, and then, um, what the developer said that, um, you know, if a denial goes through, then it has to go to super majority to council, but, uh, possibility of allowing the applicant to come back with a lower density plan, which is the thing that everyone on council or everyone on the commission is a little more amenable to, to see something like an NR two, NR three, uh, and if they make that feasible, uh, I know I ever want to shoot a, shoot somebody down dead in the water, but you know, if they want to give an option that makes it even more amenable with the neighborhood, I'd like to see that, but the emotion on the floor is deny. So, uh, I just wanted to throw that out there, uh, before the vote. Cause you're Smith. Are you wanting to make a secondary motion for postponement? Yes, I would be to date to a date. Certain. Do you have a date? Certain. Don't not, I don't know what the, what, I don't know what Richard and what it looks like, and, you know, I can shoot a boy off in the future, but I guess before I started doing that, I mean, would kind of ask if the, if the applicant would, would the applicant or anybody even be willing wanting to do that, if not, I mean, we don't need to postpone anything to see it. You want to give a recess for five minutes? I think they even have a couple of minutes. Just for the commissions, uh, been a benefit. Uh, there's a motion to postpone to a date. Certain if they're agreeable. Um, I'll take a second on that motion. If there is a second for the postponement, we'll have a vote for that. If that passes, that will be the conclusion. If that doesn't pass, we'll come back to commissioner Beck's original motion to deny. So, uh, that would be the course of action that we'll take. Commissioner Beck, if, um, I'm hesitant to vote on postponement, but say we do, and it goes through, or, um, let me put it this way, if my motion passes, uh, how much more difficult is it for them to come back with a project that has a lower density, uh, yeah, there's a delay. I don't remember exactly what the time, I believe it's a year. If they get denied a PNZF, I believe it's a year, unless it's substantially different, the application is substantially different. That's what I thought. So postponing, if we're giving them enough time, then they don't have to wait that long time and gives them an opportunity to come back with something. Okay. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. I mean, if you could please, uh, commissioner, uh, Smith, I believe you're asking if they're amenable to a postponement. We are amenable to a postponement. We'd prefer, um, the second PNZ meeting in June or something thereafter. All right. So something thereafter. So what if I did, uh, do a date on certain postpone to a date on certain. Is that okay, Jerry? Okay. Then I make a motion to postpone this item till date on certain. So we'll try to get you on it. Kathy, can you clear the motion? We have to re-notice. I'm sorry. That's, that's a good point. It, it, that would require a different notice. If you, uh, postpone it to a date, certain you could, uh, you keep the public hearing open and not have to re-notice it. Well, you can reopen it. Okay. If you reopen it then, uh, and postpone it to a date certain, then it would not be necessary to re-notice. I think we would prefer to re-notice regardless so that the neighbors know the new plan for. So June, June 19th is the date that's down. So we're going to go uncertain. So we don't reopen the public hearing and staff and then we can determine a date. Then I might, might make. Yep. So we have a first to postpone it to a date uncertain, uh, by commissioner Smith, uh, commissioner Pernetta. So we have a first and a second, uh, for postponement. For the purposes of Robertson rules, that's, uh, a motion to postpone indefinitely is, is consistent with the wording of Robertson rules. Great. Thank you for the clarification. Commissioner Beck, did you have discussion on this? Yeah, I just, I, I'm glad we're going to a date uncertain because if we're going to something as early as June, I just, I want to give you all plenty of time to really put something good together and it just doesn't seem like enough time, so, um, you know, something a little, and I know you're anxious to get this going, I really do, but if you're coming back in less than a month, I'm, I'm not going to feel comfortable that we're going to get what we need. But then again, I'm not the expert on this. So anyway, I'm glad we're going to date uncertain. So we have a first and a second. Oh, commissioner Cole. Yeah, I just would hope the applicant would come forward with a more serious proposal. So we have a first and a second for postpone to, uh, postpone indefinitely. Commissioner Cole, we can't banter before, maybe sidebar afterwards, if you want to have that discussion. Uh, so at this point, I see no more discussion. Let's call for a vote on the board to postpone indefinitely. The motion carries six zero at this time and allow a five minute recess for the room to clear. It is nine 18. Thank you. And whoa, thank you. And welcome back to planning and zoning. Uh, I'll call the meeting back to order at nine 29. And we just have one more item left. That's item three F Z 18 dash zero zero two six B and Haley has been waiting for this one. I'm sure it will be. Razor wrench south. Um, I'll go through this a little more quickly cause we kind of went into a lot of background on razor during the work session. Um, so just a reminder, this is a request for an amendment to the razor wrench overlay district to provide standards and criteria for residential developments within the south mixed use district of the south campus, which is outlined here on the map. Um, again, razor has two primary, um, subdivisions within it, the marketplace north of three 80 and the south campus on the south side of the highway within the south campus, it's further subdivided into three districts. So the RR one and RR two districts are the ones you've seen the most development within so far. The standards for those were adopted several years ago. Um, and they're just proceeding along under those standards coming to you all for site plans as development occurs. The south mixed use district is kind of, um, not developed as quickly as the commercial portions. It's a mixture of office and residential spaces primarily. Um, and so within this district, we have placeholders left in the overlay for the non-residential portions. This would establish the architecture, landscaping and signage standards for the residential portions of the development, which would occur within the area outlined in blue on the map. Uh, the base zoning for this area is a division of NRMU and RCCD. RCCD along the periphery closest to the town center would allow the higher density commercial and residential uses. The NRMU is intended to provide that step down between, um, that high intensity area and the adjoining single family subdivisions. This is just a reminder of the general development plan that was approved last spring. The areas outlined in blue would be those lots, uh, that were designated on the GDP for single family development. The, um, lots outlined in red would be those were multifamily development was designated on the GDP, uh, with the exception of this one lot here that would actually be age restricted multifamily. So a little bit different. Um, so kind of going through the standards that were proposed, um, you have them in full detail in your backup. Um, but one of the exhibits was C2A. So this would be the site design, architecture, landscaping and signage standards for multifamily development on the east side of heritage trail. So those lots that were just outlined in red, um, for the most part, it is consistent with, uh, the provisions in the razor ranch overlay district for other developments. Um, very consistent with the development that's occurring currently along heritage trail. There are two primary differences that I wanted to outline between what's proposed here and what we typically see with multifamily based on the Denton development code. Uh, the first is the parking provision. If you remember last year, um, city council adopted new parking standards that increased the amount of parking required for both single family and multifamily, um, because razor has been under development since 2007, um, they're opting to go with those old standards that have applied elsewhere within the overlay district. Um, so for that consistency, they're referring back to the old parking standards that provided a breakdown of, um, parking space requirements dependent on the type of unit that was being developed. So you can see that here in this table. Um, the other primary difference is in the masonry requirements. The DDC, um, requires 40% overall minimum masonry doesn't define masonry though. Um, so within this, they're not only increasing that to 60% on street facing sides and 40% on all other sides. They're also, uh, defining that that masonry has to be brick or stone. For single family, uh, we would look to exhibit C2B, uh, which again includes site design, architecture, landscaping, parking, um, all the things that are in the other exhibit for multifamily. There are a few, um, differences here that I want to point out. One is the minimum unit size, uh, that didn't development code city wide requires a minimum of 900 square feet for single family. They are proposing to lower that to 800 square feet because a number of the homes that they intend to develop here are kind of smaller cottage style developments, um, the parking standards. Again, they're proposing to go with what was in place at the time that the razor overlay was first adopted. Um, so that is two spaces per single family dwelling as opposed to four, which is the 2018 parking update that we had. And then for attached single family, they're proposing to park that as kind of a hybrid of the, um, the old multifamily standards actually. So one space for one bedroom units, uh, 1.75 spaces for each two bedroom unit, and then two spaces for each three bedroom. And again, these are just the minimum parking requirements. Um, the razor overlay exempts itself from the restriction on only having the maximum amount of spaces. So they could always provide more than that when it comes to site plan. Again, they have provided for a heightened masonry standard. The DDC actually doesn't have minimum masonry for single family. They're proposing a 40% on street facing sides, 80% overall on the buildings. And then they're also proposing a reduction in side yard setback from six feet with an NRMU down to as low as, um, zero so that they could have zero lot line homes if, if that is what they choose to develop in the future. So just some summary findings. Um, we found the standards they've proposed to be consistent with the commercial standards and the other multifamily standards within razor ranch in terms of landscaping, building materials, um, and other provisions. We found that their architectural standards were stricter than what the DDC generally requires, which is again, consistent with what we've seen at razor. Um, I wanted to point out that the single family may have surprised some of you because that's typically not permitted with an NRMU. Um, that portion of the razor overlay was updated in 2008 to specifically allow single family in the NRMU portion. Um, so that will provide that nice transition, as I mentioned, from the high density commercial and multifamily developments at the town center towards the single family subdivisions that are existing along Bonnie bray. And then again, the parking standards, um, are different than what we've recently seen updated in the DDC. Um, so staff did take a closer look at that. We found it, um, you know, it is consistent with what we see elsewhere in razor ranch, it would provide that consistency and development standards for them from what was in place at the time of adoption of the overlay. Um, there is a significant amount of parking and razor as it exists today. And we would expect to see that continue as the town center further develops, because again, they don't have to limit themselves to the maximum parking requirement as we have in the rest of the city. Um, but staff is recommending that the mixed use parking reduction that's allowed for in the DDC and cross referenced in the overlay, not be allowed to apply to these residential uses within the NRMU portion so that we couldn't go below that minimum that they've requested notification was sent. The one response we received was favorable from the owner of the marketplace and the town center portions of razor. And with that staff is recommending approval of the request with the following condition that section 35, seven 15, 10 a be updated to include the following language subjection 35, 14, seven C mixed uses shall not apply to the residential uses that have a base zoning of NRMU district and are located in the south mixed you district. East of heritage trail in so far as a parking reduction beyond the minimum required amount shall not be granted for any residential use. Um, so again, just to ensure if that minimum that they've proposed, which is lower than the DDC is approved, they couldn't go below that even further. Um, and with that, I'm happy to stand for any questions. Thank you, Haley. I do not see any questions. This is a public hearing, however. Um, so if anyone's wishing to speak on this item, I certainly do so. The applicant is here. If you all have questions, Vita state your name and address for the record. And, uh, thanks for your patience and hanging out late with us. Absolutely. Thank you. I'm Gerald Lukey with Hodges architecture. One three, six, four, two omega in Dallas and appreciate the opportunity to come before you tonight to, uh, continue our guidelines on raise a ranch. We've been working on a raise ranch project for well over a decade now. So time, time flies when you're having fun, right? Um, we, uh, we come before you with these, these guidelines and it's a natural progression of what, uh, the development is happening out in razor ranch, and we, we feel that the guidelines are consistent with the development standards that have been set forth previously and continue on with that. We appreciate the help, uh, from Richard and Haley through this process. We're here to answer questions. We actually have one question. Hey chair, um, during the work session, uh, discussed about the, uh, the rules that are on multifamily properties and the way that they're constructed when they have, but a single family detached dwelling that is outside of the razor ranch overlay district, um, and how it's a tiered system to where the sight lines of the, the highest point of the multifamily can't see down the backyard or into the property of the single family outside the razor ranch overlay district. With it seeming like from what I could hear from staff during, um, the work session was that the single family, uh, section that is, you know, in this overlay, that that's as possible conversations occurring currently on the east side of, uh, the town center. Um, I would be afraid to see, uh, those single families, zero lot line homes be sold to somebody who's not knowing or maybe in the know that there's multifamily allowed next to them and then multifamily being built and then them being worried about sight lines into their property. And so I'd be, I'd wonder if, if, you know, be amenable to the warding, including that exact same structure you guys have for a budding multifamily to single family for outside razor, razor ranch overlay district, single families also be for single family, the budding multifamily inside the razor ranch overlay district. Okay. I appreciate the comment. The, um, I guess going back again to, um, to the original master plan of razor ranch and what we've been working with throughout the years, um, this area of razor ranch was set up based upon these densities, based upon the layouts, the way that, that they're set today without that, that residential proximity slope. And the reason for that is, is, uh, within razor ranch, it's more of an urban setting and in this part of razor ranch and the city also, I think, requested that we push the buildings up toward the street, toward the property lines such that we include parking and other amenities and things inside the development versus them being around the perimeter of the development. So when you do that, the buildings are pushed obviously towards the property lines in order to do that. Um, one of your concerns, I think that may have been brought up earlier also was whether the single family homeowners will know that that multifamily is coming and we've been working with the single family developer throughout this entire process. They're well aware of, of what is happening with the multifamily here. And again, that's been planned for years on our overall master plan and a representative of the developers here as well, if you'd like to speak with them. So we would much prefer to keep it the way it is today so that we can continue on with our plan throughout. And I guess, you know, I totally understand. I don't think we need to hear from the developer representative on it, but, uh, we, we see in front of this commission, a lot of times when someone says, you know, someone says I bought my house and I wasn't told XYZ was going to come across the street. So I'm sure the developer has a full intention to make it known, but, um, I think, I think I've heard the other, other side of that coin too many times to take it at its face value, but, uh, thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. Absolutely. Do you have any other questions? I did not see any. Thank you very much. All right. This is, this is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak on this item? I certainly do so. Welcome back. If you could just state your name and address. Thank you. Amy Bissett, 212 South Elm, Denton 76201. Um, I do actually represent the buyer of the cottage portion of the development and I watched the work session earlier today. So, um, just decided I'd take the opportunity to stick around and try to answer some of those specific questions that were related to that, um, parcel. Um, the, the buyer is looking at roughly six acres, six and a half acres to, um, develop the garden style homes that are defined in the original razor ranch overlay district as being zero lot line homes. Um, what that means is that the, the building itself, the building envelope of the home will sit on the property line on one side and there will be a side yard on one side. So rather than right now, I believe that the minimum side yard for, um, single family developments in Denton is six feet. That means the distance between two homes will be 12 feet total because you've got to set back on both sides of the property line with zero lot line homes, it sits on the property line on one side, so there's only a six foot setback total. And this is a, um, a cottage style or garden style development. So, um, what the, what the, what the buyer is looking at is roughly 36 homes on six and a half acres. So we're not talking about the density that some, some of you were concerned about in the work session. Um, they are roughly 900 square feet each. And that does, um, vary a little bit, but all of them are one bedroom. The intent is that they will be for single professionals, young couples or retired, um, folks that will not be developed for students or for families with children, which is why we believe that two parking spaces per home is more than sufficient. And we expect one to two adults to live in each of these homes, essentially. And they will be plotted as individual lots. So, um, they will be sold as single family homes. Um, they will have common amenities as well as guest parking, which will be near a park. Um, so there will be some additional parking available for, um, guests. We want to make sure that we do actually accommodate the parking needs of the development. It is small, 36 homes. Um, there's a park included. And the, I have some, some renderings as well as a concept plan. If, if you do want to dive into more details of that, we've already been to the city to meet with them on the concept plan. It does comply with these, um, these design guidelines. In fact, I participated, um, with Hodges to help make sure that, um, we were all consistent with each other before we came in with this zoning request. Thank you, chair. Um, the, um, uh, any of the, is it going to be something close to what the garden homes are off of San Jacinto and, uh, Colorado, that area over there next to the bowling alley behind the mall? Nothing close to, you know what I'm talking about? I can't picture what you're talking about. Okay. Um, what's the price, what's the price point for these? We're probably talking at two 50 plus. Thank you. They're going to be nice development. Nice, nice homes. Can, can I see those renderings? Absolutely. Do you have them? I have a flash drive. I can pull them up in two seconds. I would love to see that. Just, I just want to know what's going on in the city. Just want to know what's going on. You're going to be asked the question and now we're going to the answer. I'm going to, you're going to have to give me a second. I'm going to have to kind of orient them. So here's, we have four different, uh, floor plans. These are four different renderings. Essentially. Here's the second one. Don't start to her. They're done by a local architect here who specializes in single family and we've played with the floor plans quite a bit to make sure that they are, um, amenitized the way they need to be, but don't provide an opportunity to, to stack a bunch of people in or they're all seen one bedroom. Thanks. Uh, Chris, you're back. Thank you, chair. You said they're all one bedroom. They're all one bedroom. Okay. That was my question. What was the square footage that we're looking at? 800 minimum, 800 minimum, um, excluding the garage. That is correct. And they range between 800 and maybe close to 1100 max. Okay. Definitely cottage. Thank you. I don't see any other questions. Thank you. Thank you. I think there's only one more person who could possibly speak, but it is a public hearing, if you want to see that there is none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and, uh, ask commissioner pernetta motion to approve. We have a first to approve. Christopher Beck second. We have a first and a second for approval. Seeing no discussion. I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six zero. Congratulations. That moves us to our last item, which is the project matrix. I'll have Richard start and we'll go from there. I'll be briefed through a couple of things I wanted to, um, to highlight on here. Um, the first item, um, I know we've had this on for quite a while to discuss the, the, um, sort of a rural area or sector plan, um, given tonight's discussion, it's probably, uh, probably worthy that we, we do that sooner than later, at least begin that discussion. Um, and so what I, what I'll probably end up doing is, um, looking at the six 19 agenda, I don't think it's sort of the draft where we're headed. I don't think it's going to be too heavy of an agenda. Um, so I, uh, and given where the, uh, criteria manual is, I may flip flop those and maybe move the criteria manual most likely go in July, I'm guessing, um, as it relates to the upland habitat, um, but put the, uh, at least have a discussion of the rural area, small area plan as part of a work session, um, at least give us a little bit more time to prepare, um, also give us some, some thought as we, uh, um, really dive into these city initiated rezoning, not saying we're going to do city initiated rezoning in an area, but I think at least have that, um, have that discussion and have that more with the, uh, with the commission, um, one other thing I wanted to, um, to also mention, uh, the draft policies and procedures that will still remain on there, um, as a, to be determined, I think we'll have to come back and, and clarify possibly, um, there was a question earlier about, uh, the three day sort of a three, um, three meeting rule going back and looking at, at the, um, policy within the code of ordinances, I believe it states, um, it's a 50%, it's an, or, um, three, if you miss three meetings in a year or a 50%, but I want to get that clarification, uh, and, and provide that, um, provide that to everybody. Um, the only other item I wanted to add on here, uh, again, probably for that six 19, um, uh, agenda is I know the, the legislative session will be wrapping up in the next week or two. Um, I think there's one bill that, that went through both the house and senate, uh, related to annexation. And so once that ends, at least, um, just give a short little report on what some of those bills, um, who knows what's going to ultimately pass in the next two weeks, um, but at least give, just give a little update of what they are and how it might affect any of our, uh, any of our codes. Um, last item, sorry, um, the urban forest master plan tree fund. Um, I spoke to, uh, Gary packing, um, last week, I was actually trying to get him on the agenda today, but given the number of items that we had, um, I said, it's probably better that, that we wait. Um, and so that will be coming, um, at least in, within the next month or July at the very latest for an update on that. And that's all I have. Thank you. And commissioner Smith or commissioner Ellis, sorry. Thank you, chair Richard. Do you have any council votes to update us on or no, is there none of that? Not that I could, not that I can think of off the top of my head. Did Windsor get re voted or I'm sorry. The Windsor, the Windsor did, um, Windsor did get approved. It did. It did. Okay. It did get approved. Sorry. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Seeing no other discussion items, I'll go ahead and close the PNC meeting for May 15th at nine 50.