Jun 19, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2019-06-19 4:30 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Work Session Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session Meeting for Wednesday, June 19th to 2019. It is 435. I'll call the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda is to receive a report about the Denton Development Code and City Initiated Rezoning. Thank you Chair, Members of the Commission, just an opportunity to provide you all with an update of the City Initiated Rezoning changes that we've been working on. Group 1 is complete. We took it to City Council on June 11th, and they approved Areas 1 through 24, except 8 and 9, of course, that we discussed during Planning and Zoning Commission. Again, so that has been adopted and taken care of. So now Group 2 is scheduled, of course, as you all know, is scheduled for next week. We are bringing forward Areas 25 through 44 and Area 9 that we had initially brought forward and couldn't take because of some notification issues. So that will be on June 26, that will be Group 2. Group 3, initially we had on the schedule for a July 10th P&Z, however, staff is still working on getting Areas identified and leading towards more of a late July or maybe a possible early August Planning and Zoning Commission. So what we'll do is we'll send you all a list of dates, possible dates for those public hearings. We are looking at possibly 150 parcels, so not as much as Group 2, but still gathering a lot more. So again, initially we had Group 3 scheduled for July 10th. We are not going to have it on July 10th. We're going to be sending you all some new dates for you all to pick for Group 3. So that's where we are. Anybody have any questions? >> I don't see any. >> All right. Great. >> Thanks, Ron. >> Thank you. >> Next on the agenda is to receive report and discussion about Certified Mailing and Public Hearing Notification. >> Good afternoon, Commission members. Charlie Rosendahl, Business Services Manager with Development Services. I'm here today to discuss our use of Certified Mailing in the 200-foot notices sent out to property owners of a proposed development on a work session in May with City Council. They requested that we take a look at Certified Mailings and then bring that back at a future work session. So in advance of that, we wanted to have that discussion with Planning and Zoning Commission. So just a brief reminder of the notification procedures. Our legal requirement is to send a mailed notice to property owners within 200 feet of a proposed public hearing. And we also need to publish in the local newspaper. Our City of Denton policy goes beyond that. We send legal notices within 200 foot by Certified Mail. We also send a courtesy postcard to properties within 500 feet. We require applicants to post signs on the property. And then we also include that on the city's website. And just for your information, the fees for mailings are charged back. It's a pass-through cost for the city and is paid for by the applicant. So as far as Certified Mailings go, the advantage for staff is that it allows us to track those mailings and we have a record and proof of the mailing. Some of the disadvantages are that it's almost $5 more for a certified piece of mail than a regular first-class mail. And it also requires the owner, if they're not at home at the time of delivery, to travel to the post office. We took a look over the course of the last two months and approximately 21% of all the mailed notices that were sent out were returned back to the city because they were not picked up by the property owners at the mail box, at the post office. So we went back to 2018 and looked at zoning and SUP cases. So in total, we sent 616 notices. There's the cost sitting in by Certified Mail and what it would have been at first-class mail. The difference is almost $3,000 for all those mailings. On average, the cost savings would have been $120 for each case and the maximum that we found was 95 notices were sent and the savings would have been $500. Just in those 200-foot mailings, the 500-foot postcards would still go out and it's additional cost. So with that, our staff recommendation is to discontinue the use of Certified Mailing and just follow the state-required first-class mailing for the 200-foot notices. We do have a work session scheduled with City Council on August 27th. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. But you're still going to do the courtesy 500-foot notice, too? Right. Yeah. Nothing else has changed. Just whether we use Certified Mailing or not for those 200-foot property owners. Certified versus first-class. Correct. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Sanchez. Is there any possibility, you know, those big signs? I know a lot of people, or at least myself, I know for a long time I just kind of zoomed through it and didn't pay much attention to them. You don't read. Is there any way of having some type of article in the paper identifying what they are so that when people see them, especially in their neighborhood, it's something they need to look at? I think a lot of people just don't pay that much attention and then later on come back and say if you're going to discontinue -- I agree with discontinuing it because I think it's an extra cost and our citizens also have a responsibility, you know, you also put those big signs. They have a responsibility to stop when there's one in the neighborhood. But I think a lot of people just don't really pay much attention to signs until, you know, we have something -- we actually have a zone change and all of a sudden I didn't know. Well, it was in your neighborhood for -- especially within the 200 foot. I mean, I know you're going to be going around that small area several times. I was just curious, is there anything that we can put in the newspaper, an article about how it is important to recognize these signs when they're in your neighborhood? We do post the cases in the newspaper per the local government code for the public hearings. We post that in the newspaper. The city has the newsletter that goes out. You guys may have received it in your mailbox every other month. So that might be a good avenue to draw awareness to that. I will let you know that one of our initiatives is working on the signs, including a website where somebody can go to get more information. That's been one of the comments that we've received is there's a lack of information or a lack of a resource to go to to gain additional information about what that project is. Of course, we do put our contact information on there. But if somebody just wanted to go look what it was, it's kind of difficult to get there on the website. So that is one of our initiatives. So we could look at putting that in the newsletter to raise awareness. Okay. It's just, like I said, a lot of people won't see them in their neighborhood. When they do see it, they really don't know what it's all about. If the city would just be educated on these signs, you know, people would get the word out among themselves, I believe. Yeah. And we're also looking at redesigning the signs so that it can be a little more informative for people passing by. So there are some things that we're doing to try to raise some of that awareness and to give people knowledge of what's going on. Okay. Charlie, what was the precipice for even this coming up? Is this a headache to do or what's -- I mean, it's not -- the city's not out any money to do it if it's passed through cost. Why -- what was the initiative to even change this? So this was a council request that the last work session we had, they wanted to discuss certified mailings, but they didn't have an opportunity under the posting that we had. But also from staff, we do hear from citizens that they have difficulty going to the post office or it's an inconvenience for them to have to travel to the post office to pick up that certified mail. So I think some of their preferences have been that it just be delivered by regular mail, and they can just receive that in their mailbox. And those people that would be giving feedback about it being difficult would be that 21% that was returned? Is that what you're referring to? It's just general comments that we've received, and we haven't followed up specifically with those that didn't pick up their mail. So that 21% is people who never even came and got it or it was undeliverable. That 21% never got to the -- Correct. It was returned back to the city. So they either didn't go to the post office to pick it up or it was undeliverable for some other reason. And does the city actively historically track -- is that an active feature that's been used by the city to follow up on mailings? You said that one of the benefits was to track it. Was that used? It's not historically been used often. Richard may be able to comment on it more. We had that discussion that historically we haven't had to go back to the record to find out whether that mailing was sent or not. Great. Just a comment, but it seems like there would always be the argument by somebody that I never got the mailing, and I think that was probably the intended purpose behind the certified mail. But we're seeing now that it didn't even work for the most part, so -- right, the money isn't a great deal, but I can see where -- having to go down and get one, I know that I've had to deal with it, too, and go down and get something that didn't have any real value to me anyway. So anyway, my two cents were gone. Does PNC voting on this, or we're just being apprised of a council decision? Yeah, and then if you have any recommendations or input that I've received so far, I'm taking those back with me. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, for the most part, this seems fine. I know I've heard negative comments before from property owners that don't want to go through the hassle of going to the post office, and I have no doubt you've probably heard it from the developers as well, that it's a cost that might be able to be averted. I guess my only question would be, is there ever a reason that the city would need proof? I mean, I guess if the state law doesn't require a certified mail, I mean, I guess that's maybe a legal question. I can't think of any, there are statutes that, for some kind of notices, that require certified mail, but it's really kind of an ancient artifact for most purposes in the law, unless you have to prove receipt, and besides which nowadays, there's lots of ways to prove receipt with tracking numbers and what have you. But the idea that someone received the notice letter is really so much of an issue of proof, because if they're showing up at the meeting, they got notice. So I don't see a whole lot of point in it myself of requiring the certified mail. So never really a reason the city would have to use it as a defense or a right thing? I can't think of any. Okay. Thank you. I have a few thoughts on this, I guess it makes sense to a point. I think just personally it felt good, like emotionally, to say we're going above and beyond the minimum. Like, we were, so the state says send a letter to 200 feet, well, the city of Denton doesn't just do that. We do a certified mail to 200 feet, and we do a postcard to 500 feet, and again, it makes sense, it's not a huge cost, money shouldn't be an issue with this, 300 bucks, for all the other stuff they're spending to develop, that's really insignificant. But we're reverting back to the state minimums, and so I would like to see if there's another way to either, we talked about, I don't know if it's codified, to do a mail to like the tax roll versus residents, like if we do duplicate mailing, if we're not paying the cost for certified and we actually can send it to the residents, because right now it's just the property owner, I believe. So when we send the courtesy postcard, so the 200 foot notice goes to the property owner, the postcard goes to everybody, so in theory, if the resident is getting that postcard within 200 feet and outward, up to 500 feet. So if you own your property within 200 feet, you'll get the certified mail and the postcard. Yeah, I mean, I guess to Mr. Beck points, we're going to get complaints of this ongoing, I think, regardless. To your point, yeah, I think, and I thought we were not only sending them to the address, but sending, you know, if the tax roll showed that they didn't live there, we were sending it to that address, too. We're not doing that. So that's the residents, so we send it to the residents within 500 feet. But say it's a property owner who rents that out, he's not, you know, the renter may not care, is what I'm saying, the renter will get it and may not care, but the property owner may, but we're not sending them anything to their address. I thought we were doing that. I thought we talked about that and decided no. The last conversation we had was sending the courtesy notices based on these utility service address. The 200 foot notice continues to only go to the property owner based on the certified tax roll, you know, according to Texas law. So it would go to him if he didn't live at that address. Right. Okay, we were doing that, but, okay, the, I guess, you know, the concern was the person who actually lives there never got the notice, and they would be the one coming in saying nobody ever sent anything to me, but if we're sending the postcards now, too, they ought to at least get that, too, right? If they're at that residence, they can get the postcard out. Right. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And then, Chair Roselle, I would just, we do have a number of things that we do beyond the state law, including the posting of the signs, the courtesy notices, and on the website, putting that information out there, so. Good to know. Thank you. Coach Ellis. Thank you. Okay. So just to clarify, this is changing nothing as far as who we're notifying. It's how we're notifying. Correct. So the certified mail that was going to the tax record address is now just going to be a regular mailed first class letter. Correct. That's the only thing that's changing. I don't see any other questions. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Next, we go into the regular meeting. First off, is there any clarification needed, Richard, about the agenda this evening? No. That will clarify a couple of the items, a couple of the agenda items, but no changes. B is being removed, no, A and B, for public hearing being removed. Correct. Correct. Okay. So with that, is there any questions about the minutes? We have an update that we all should receive for the minutes of May 29th. Yeah, May 29th. Anything besides these that need to be updated? Great. Next is our consent agenda. We had several things on the consent. Is there any questions that we can bring up individuals for answers instead of going through each one of these? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. I have a question on E, Audra Oaks. That is Haley. Hi, Haley. Hey, I just had a question with that lot, one block A that says to be dedicated as a park. Yes. So is that dedicating to the city as a park or within the development as a park? It's intended to be dedicated to the city. They're currently in discussions with our parks department about what could be done with that property. Okay. But it's one of, I think, three in this area that parks is considering as an option for a new public park. Okay. Because yeah, I didn't know if it needed to be listed on there who would then have to maintain that lot. The final plan will clarify whether it's dedicated to the city or becomes an HOA lot, but currently the intent is the city. Outstanding. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Any other questions on the consent agenda? Just like to pass along something that I noticed on consent A and B that's calling for vacation of a plant. It's not clear to me whether there were any dedications that occurred on the plant to be dedicated. And if there were, whether that's going to be addressed with this action. I'm just concerned that there doesn't appear to be an analysis in there of what will happen with respect to any prior dedications. Sure. So the applicant has provided a legal description for that area to be dedicated. And we're working on getting those easements together so that when the final plaque comes in and the plaque vacations are filed, we intend to file them in order so that the easement would be filed first, then each plaque vacation, and then the final plaque. There is development on that site, so we don't want to file that final plaque or that plaque vacation until the final plaque has been prepared. Make sure that stays a platted lot. But I guess the question I have is if there are dedications, is it premature to take the action to vacate them at the P&Z, irrespective of whether we file them later or not, to take the action to vacate the plant if there are dedications that are carried out on the face of that plant? We looked at it as no, because we have a preliminary plaque for a component of that that's also part of the consent item. And so it's really making sure that that development will be able to comply with the new plaque. Okay. Well, I just wanted to raise the issue in case anybody had looked at it. It was something that occurred to me. Right. Okay, with that, we'll move into our public hearing items for this evening. Like I just previously mentioned, A has been withdrawn. B is being rescheduled to July 17th, which will bring us to start with item C. And Karina will be presenting this. All right, good afternoon or evening, I guess. Karina Maldonado, assistant planner. Today I'll be bringing an SUP for S19.5 TZ multifamily. So the request is for a specific use permit for five multifamily dwelling units on approximately 1.09 acres located at 1714 Teasley, that's this tract right here. This is Teasley Lane. The site is in the CMG zoning district, which does allow for multifamily with the specific use permit. The request is not to expand the existing building, just to use it as is and just change the use. So just a very brief site history, and I provided some aerials to show kind of just the progress of the surrounding area. So the existing building was constructed in the 1960s as a single-family home. Over the years, it has changed to a childcare, a daycare use, then to an office. And then at some point, the exact date is not really known, but between 2005 and 2016, the previous owner did illegally convert this to multifamily. But in 2018, the new owner, knowing that there was an issue, wanted to remedy this by going through the legal process of getting an SUP. And so that's how we're here today with the request for five multifamily units. So just showing, in 1984, that's when the surrounding area started to become built with multifamily. In 1964, this was the actual home, nothing surrounding it. And then, of course, today, everything surrounding the existing tract is built out. So this is a proposed site plan. Again, they will be using the existing building that is shown here. No expansion to that building, only interior alteration. They are showing the five dwelling units proposed. The existing are currently six dwelling units. So they're adjusting that to meet the minimum residential unit size of 500 square feet. So you can see that the range for the units is between 850 square feet and 1,200. Each dwelling unit will have two bedrooms. And then along the site, we wanted to make sure that we kind of just clean it up a bit to look more like the surrounding area. So there is a damaged chain link fence that they have agreed to remove, an accessory shed to the north of the property. There is a propane tank that they will also remove. And then some excess parking on the site. So the change in use did have a change in required parking. So they're going to address that. That's not a tear-up of concrete. That is just to remove the parking striping on the site. And so in the proposed landscape plan, they do exceed the minimum landscape requirement of 20%. They're actually providing-- they're not providing additional landscape. This is what is existing on the site. So 40% landscaped area. They have shown a dedicated open space, which is this hashed area right here. And then they are preserving all trees on the site, which equals out to about 38% or 39% tree canopy coverage. These are just a couple of photos of the site as it exists today. So this is at the north of the property facing to the main entrance. This is that carport that they are also removing. This is the addition to the existing site where we talked about the illegal conversion. And this is they're going to remedy that portion, too. Showing here, this is facing west on their driveway access. Showing this chain link fence. That's a bit damaged. They're going to remove that. And then this is just a close-up aerial of the site. It's from the north facing south. So this is the existing structure. They do have a lot of open space towards the back. This is that shed that they're removing. They do have a gazebo and some parking and log trees. I want to kind of show, I know we talked about they're preserving all the trees. They really do have really large, I believe they're oaks on that property. So we did talk, there was some talk of maybe removing one, but we did agree that all trees would be preserved, none would be removed on the site. And so the approval, the criteria for approval for an SUP is shown on the screen. I won't go through it in extreme detail, but I will go through kind of the highlights of this on the next couple of slides. So the first criteria for approval is being that it conforms with the zoning or long-range plan and other federal, state, and local laws. So in terms of the Denton plan, the future land use designation for the area is community mixed use. So the proposed use of multifamily is in line with that designation where it's designated for commercial use predominantly, but has complimentary uses like residential and encourages proximity to other areas. So if you remember the aerial going back, most of this is multifamily surrounding and along the edge is that shopping area. So still on criteria one, talking about conformance with zoning, originally the way that the site exists today, it does not conform with the minimum unit size of 500 square feet, which is specific in the 2002 code. However, the applicant is proposing to reduce the number of units that are existing to meet that minimum unit size. So again, five multifamily units all meeting or exceeding that 500 square feet of residential unit living space. So part of that is staff is recommending as part of a condition on the approval that they ensure that they're meeting the 2002 code requirements, which does include that minimum residential unit size and then other items like parking. Yes, thank you, Chair. This is a single building under one roof, right? And the apartments are simply divided by a two by four wall with sheetrock between them and that's it. And each apartment has a door to the outside, I assume. I'm not sure about the door, but the individual units, I'd have to go back and check, and I'll get to kind of that part of it in a second. Well, they'd have to have their own. Yes. Okay. Speaking to it is one building, they have that addition on the side, it is connected by a roof. Did I see in your information early on that they were all two bedroom apartments? That's what they're proposing. Okay. They're proposing. Let me go back a couple of slides. 500 square feet. So this, I apologize, it's not that zoomed in. This is the existing building. Right here was actually two units. They're proposing to combine those into one dwelling unit to meet that minimum residential square foot. So we do actually have one apartment that's 500 square feet. They're actually just under 400. So we went back and forth with the applicant to ensure that they were meeting that minimum 500. Okay. And so they did agree, the owners in agreement with it, to combine the units to ensure that it does meet that requirement. I guess the one concern I had when I looked at, I assume the fire department's okay with access to this. It looks like a real tight turnaround. Yes. So let me move back forward, actually. Yeah. Just to provide us a little bit of context, again, this is just for the use. So this will have to go through full building permit review. So all of those life safety items will be looked at, at that time. Okay. Okay. If this is approved. Okay. Great. Thanks. Christopher Smith. Thank you, Chair. Were the fire petition walls, was this stipulation reviewed with the applicant? Yes. So all the conditions were reviewed and I'll talk about it a little bit later in the presentation. So, actually, I'll just kind of move forward that we can get to some of these items. So the second, related to zoning and local laws, the existing, talking about the existing building does not meet the building code requirement for having fire partition walls. So just a little bit of context on that. We did meet with the applicant and the owner. We agreed to do a courtesy building inspection just to make sure we caught any additional maybe safety items. So this was one of those where they would have to do interior alteration to make sure that each unit meets our building and fire code requirements. So they've agreed to this and so we're placing a condition on the SUP approval that they would have to meet all these building code requirements prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. And so these are actually normal processes, but we're tying it to the approval just to kind of put that extra certainty on it. So the second criteria has a list of several conditions for approval. I'll try to go through more of the highlights. So talking about use compatibility, going back to zoomed in on the aerial, the surrounding area is multi-family. There is a hotel to the north, Rudy's is right here, but this is a vacant land. So this is a 500 foot shot or aerial, but the majority of this is multi-family. So the use is compatible with that is immediately surrounding it. Second, this SUP request would not impact the development of vacant parcels. So currently there is just one vacant parcel in the adjacent area. That's this parcel to the south, which the owner also owns. So it would not immediately impact that parcel. However, if they do wish to expand there, that would require a separate SUP. So that would be not tied to this SUP request. Next would be whether the site has adequate utilities and other supporting facilities. So this site has been served for several years with water, sewer, and other infrastructure. So it does have access to facilities. Just going through the development review process, we wanted to take that extra step to show where they're actually connecting, where the actual line is. I mean, it's going to be an off-site connection, not public infrastructure. So we did add a condition per water regarding the need for any additional utility easements, off-site easements, whatever that be, that they be filed prior to the issuance of a building permit. And just going back, these are the actual public infrastructure lines surrounding the site, however they do have current access to water, sewer. And then access. We'll talk about access a little bit later. All right, so other conditions for approval include vehicular access. So I do want to clarify ahead of time, the staff analysis did previously include a condition indicating that the applicant identify or demonstrate that there was public access to the site in which we would put a legal condition stating that they would have to prove this up prior to issuance of a building permit. They did verify that prior to today, so we did remove it, but it's still listed in the analysis, but it won't be added to the staff recommendation later. So they did provide the documentation that shows coming off of Teasley that they do have an ingress and egress easement dedicated to the public in perpetuity for this site. So they do have the sufficient access to get through. That would include fire, police, and other public services. I'll kind of highlight these pretty quickly. The request for the SUP doesn't have any significant impact in regards to air quality, lighting pollution, and it does, as we previously mentioned, increase landscaping and screening around the property. So I'll skip over criteria three because it kind of just highlights back to the previous conditions for improvement, which talk about infrastructure, and the site does have adequate infrastructure to it. Criteria four talks about compatibility. I'm actually only going to highlight three of them because there is a lot of repetition between criteria two and then three and four, one being traffic generation. So the previous legal use was an office. This multifamily use, it being only five dwelling units, would have less of an impact on traffic with no more than 37 weekday trips, exiting off onto Teasley Lane. I did want to highlight, in terms of walkability and transportation, there is a DCTA bus stop right off of this commercial property, and it is kind of like a low-scale property, so it's easily walkable onto if someone needed to get to this stop and then kind of make their way around the city. So next, I provided some photos of those immediate adjacent properties around. If you refer back to those aerials showing between 1964 and then today, there was that steady increase of development around the '80s. So this is what is just nearby, this existing property, so you'll see their low-rise multifamily, some they call townhomes, but they're just multifamily units. They're very low-scale, they do have masonry, stucco, and wood combination, which is consistent with what the existing structure is today in terms of building materials. And so with that, we did send out public notices, certified mail, around May 31st to 200-foot boundary to eight property owners, and then sent out the 500-foot courtesy notices to about 27 people. To now, we have not received any responses in opposition favor, and no neighborhood meetings were held for this request. And so with this, staff is recommending approval of the SUP with the following conditions. First, the SUP was reviewed under the 2002 Development Code, and therefore shall meet all 2002 Development Code requirements of the CMG district, including but not limited to the minimum residential unit size and parking requirements. Second, any additional utility easements required to serve the project must be filed prior to issuance of a building permit. And third, the existing building must meet all building and fire code requirements for the approved use. So we did meet with the applicant earlier this month, and they have indicated agreement with the conditions. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Carina, this came to be because a complaint started all of this, from what I understand. Yes. Are there tenants in this place now? No, not currently. They don't have a CO. They're not allowed to occupy the building currently. They're kind of trying to go through the appropriate process before they can get to that point. So maybe the complaint came from surrounding somewhere? It might have been a tenant at the time. The actual complaint doesn't list who it came from. It just says a concerned citizen. That was back in April 23rd of 2016. And then also, earlier you mentioned they have to remove the propane tank and the fence and all that. Do we not want that part of the conditions? I think that was something that we discussed. Certainly we can make it more detailed on there. I think it is shown on their plan that it is being removed. It is shown on the site plan that they will remove it. Which is a component of the approval. So that was kind of one reason we didn't call out specifically, but that's certainly something that can be proposed as a condition. Did we call out that particular site plan as being? Yes. We did? Yes. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. As far as the public vehicular access that you said that they assured that they have, has anyone in our legal department reviewed it, because I know I haven't, and is it recorded? Is it at least 24 feet wide? I know you had a question about if fire was okay with it because of it not being 24 foot. It's actually 20 foot. We actually reached out to fire two times, and both times they indicated that it was perfectly fine, that they've actually used the access now as it is, and it's okay. In terms of the legal document of legal review, it's not to my knowledge that anyone's recently reviewed it, but it is recorded by the, I think, I can't remember the date off my head, but we did pull it up from Denton County records to verify it. And I do have a copy of it with me today, I believe. I only have one copy, but I can provide that to you between now and the meeting. Well, yeah, I just wanted to point that out as an issue, because it does say that it's a private drive up on the map, and that it's only 20 feet wide. The DDC does have a requirement for non-single family residential private drives, it has to be at least 24 feet wide when it's constructed. And I understand that these are associated with development requirements, but just so that the Planning and Zoning Commission can have, I guess, an informed decision in this for recommending approval with respect to public access and the ability to drive through it all. The proposal, it sounds like, would not meet the current DDC requirements for access if the lot were being platted at this time, and part of the SUP recommendation from the P&Z is that they recommend it as far as traffic circulation and what have you. Sure. So to kind of break it down and address it in pieces, because the SUP is not for an expansion to the site, they're simply using what is existing, it does not meet that expansion applicability table in sub-chapter 13 of the 2002 code. So everything related to development standards don't actually apply. What does apply is specifically the zoning requirements and that's why we call out minimum residential unit size and landscaping, because that is specific to the CMG zoning district. And so that's certainly something that can be taken up for discussion, but I just wanted to note because it was not an expansion, that's why additional development standards weren't enforced. And sure, it is the recommendation of a specific use permit is discretionary on these elements, and so I just want to make sure that it's clear to the commission that those issues are there. It's certainly up to the commission as to whether or not to recommend it to the council. To provide a little bit more background also, the requirements for the 24-foot aisle are within the subdivision regulations of the DDC. There's also exemptions within the subdivision regulations. If they are, if they're doing an expansion or interior renovation that's not requiring any extension of public improvements, they're not required to plat. And so that's really also part of the reason why we did not enforce that component of the subdivision regulations. One, because they're not subdividing, two, they're not requiring extension of public improvements that would require them to plat. Mr. Beck? Thank you, Chair. So just to confirm, it can be 20-feet wide and we're okay with that, that's going to be allowed, right? From our perspective, yes. That's for your recommendation. Is it pervious or impervious? Impervious. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions? Great. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is item DS19-0002 and this is Julie Wyatt's item. All right, so this is S19-0002, Forest Crossing. The request before you is the specific use permit for multifamily dwellings. The subject property is located north of McKinney between May Hill and Loop 288 here. The property is here in yellow. It's about 15 acres. Subject property has a CMG zoning designation. You might remember that case going before you in 2017, it's been fairly recent. And within the CMG zoning district, multifamily developments require an SUP for development if they're not part of a mixed use type of program. So they're just doing multifamily at this time, so that's why they're coming for you for the SUP. As you're aware, the criteria for approval for an SUP are in subchapter six of the Denton Development Code. I won't read all of these to you. It is in your backup. We'll just talk about them as we talk about the site plan and elements related to the development. So first thing we always look at is the future land use map in the Denton Plan 2030. This area is community mixed use. The intent of community mixed use is to promote a mix of uses, both commercial with complementary residential uses. It's intended to encourage diversity with use, within proximity to each other, to really create a sense of place, to have those uses that work together as a district and create vitality within that area. Multifamily development is consistent with this future land use map. The complementary residential use is definitely a necessary component of any mixed use and commercial center. Multifamily is often also found in mixed use districts. We also looked at some other parts of the Denton Plan 2030, and in particular the growth projections for Denton. As part of the preparation of that plan, they did do an exercise where they projected the growth. Denton is, per the plan, anticipated to grow to over 200,000 people by 2030. In order to accommodate all of those people, at least 12,000 new multifamily units will be needed. In multifamily developments in areas like the subject property, these are strategic areas. They're already urbanized areas. They're adjacent to arterials to access, to schools, to employment, to shopping. And that does promote the intent to reduce sprawl and to provide for a compact development pattern. It's already an urbanized area and adding that multifamily is a component of that. As with any SUP, we look at the site plan, and we'll talk about that now. So this is the site plan. It's got lots of colors on it here. The property boundary is outlined in the black hatch mark. They're proposing 12 multifamily buildings, and those are generally shown in the purple. Their lot coverage they're proposing is 68.4%. They could go up to a maximum of 80% in CMG. And then the inverse landscape area is 31.5%. Maximum building height that they're proposing is the 41.9 maximum feet. They could go up to 65 feet. Maximum density in CMG is, it's showing 30. Actually that's an error. It's actually zero. CMG doesn't have a maximum density. So they are proposing 18 dwelling units per acre. They are also proposing a community building with a pool, controlled access gates, two detention areas, one here and one here to ensure that they don't improperly drain on adjacent properties. They're also proposing what I dubbed kind of a donut design. They've got 15 acres here surrounded by undeveloped property, particularly along the arterials. So you see undeveloped property in blue. And then you've got McKinney Street here and Mayhill Road. So this really is kind of an ideal site plan or orientation for this kind of mixed use because it puts that residential in a central location. It reserves the property that has the greatest visibility and access adjacent to those arterials, reserves that for the commercial development, also separates the residential from those high capacity roads to kind of provide that buffer. Also fencing is proposed around the subject property as well as the parking will separate the proposed residential from any commercial development to really mute any potential nuisances between commercial development and residential, you know, noise, light, that type of thing. And it also meets parking regulations. They're proposing two access points, one on Mayhill Road here and then one on East McKinney here. For their landscape plan, they're proposing 476 new trees. Your backup explains the variety in species and canopy. So here is the north portion of the site plan with all of the tree dots I had to split up the landscape plan. So here's the north portion. All of those trees when at their maturity would total over 300,000 square feet in new canopy. And then here's the southern portion. They are also proposing to preserve larger areas for those existing trees. They are meeting the tree preservation requirements, but they are preserving tree stands in specific locations to kind of have more of an impact of that tree preservation. And once again, the green dots show those proposed trees. >> I'm glad you mentioned that was my concern. I saw all those trees in there and I saw all these new trees in, but I didn't see anything in there about tree preservation. So the tree preservation for this is 20% or 30%? >> It will actually fall under the 2019 code -- I'm sorry, the 2002 code based upon when they submitted. So they'll meet the minimums of that 12 and a half percent. They will be a mitigation required as well. >> Right. Okay. Thank you. >> Here is a sample of the elevations. They're proposing three story buildings. They've got a variety of earth tones with bright accent colors like orange, yellow and burgundy in specific locations to differentiate the buildings to kind of add a little pop of color. The exterior facades include fiber siding, stone brick and metal guard rails. It's also noted in your backup that as part of this SUP, they will also have to pursue an alternative development plan. If the SUP is approved, we are recommending a condition that they come back with an alternative development plan. There's a couple of areas in subchapter 13 of the DENT development code that due to that unique property boundary, they are requesting to deviate from. One being that the 50% of the front yard frontage shall have buildings within 20 feet of the front property line. Well, we've got two little arms that jut out and those really aren't ideal locations for buildings. They're a little too narrow. The other would be the parking areas between the building and the street. There is a parking area proposed for right here for guests. So that is a deviation they're going to be requesting. And then adjacent buildings should have different elevations. They really wanted to go with a consistent theme across all of the buildings. And so if that SUP is approved, we are requesting that they come back with that ADP. Staff really doesn't have a lot of heartburn for it, but they do need to follow that process and it is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. As part of the request, we looked at the infrastructure and in particular transportation. They did a traffic impact analysis and per the ITE trip generation manual, they are anticipating over 2100 trips per day within a 24-hour day. Morning hour peak would be 130 and evening would be 151. As part of the development, they would have to pay roadway impact fees. This is based on the number of dwelling units and those vehicle trips by the ITE manual. These are used to implement the mobility plan and the estimated amount for the proposal is about 357,000 or about 1200 per dwelling unit. They will also as part of the development have to improve or make improvements to the perimeter streets. Now we're going to talk about capital improvements in the area in just a minute, but there is a little bit of timing issue with the capital improvements and the development of the property. If the development comes before the capital improvements, particularly on McKinney Street that's moving forward, but it may lag a little bit behind, then the applicant would be required to do the perimeter street improvements just on their little tiny portion. If the capital comes first, then they wouldn't be required to do it. However, they will be required to add an eastbound left turn lane as part of engineering's analysis. They wanted to make sure that there was a safe turning movement into the site going toward the east. Julie, if they put in their side on McKinney, would they get a rebate from the impact fee for building that road? Our impact fee ordinance does have a rebate system. It depends on how much improvements that they construct and then versus that. Once all of the engineering plans get done and the construction costs are determined, that's when we can really see what those credits are. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. A couple things. One, we're talking about the turn lane. So the left hander on McKinney, has TxDOT expressed any knowledge or conversation about on May Hill, turn at 2499, having turn in lanes into that property or what that looks like on May Hill heading northbound? Any discussion on that? I have the drawings. If you'll give me a minute, I'll go show them. Sure. Go ahead. Is it May Hill, TxDOT? It's going to be 2499, so I assume it's TxDOT. It's going to be. So they're expanding 249 all the way up to 380. So am I right in saying that, Julie, that it's TxDOT project? So right now, they don't -- their TIA didn't anticipate needing a -- I take that back. There is a full median opening here proposed with a turn lane. Dedicated left turn lane. Okay. The other question I had -- good. Thank you. Appreciate it. The other thing I was going to ask was sidewalks. I know whenever we had the manufactured home project further down the other side of Ryan, what was the discussion? I guess on McKinney and the easements and the development that's supposed to happen, is there a McKinney development down that way? Is that in the traffic department right now with McKinney being widened and improved? And if so, I guess sidewalks, if we're going to have apartments there, folks welcome back and forth to Ryan because those kids are certainly too close to be bused and also too close for the parents to justify driving them to school every single day, but there is no sidewalks up and down McKinney to Ryan and back. So I don't know if there was something in the city's plans for McKinney for sidewalks or of TxDOT. I could look on here, but TxDOT's plans for sidewalks here as well. Five-foot sidewalk. Five-foot sidewalk? Yes, sir. Okay. For the McKinney expansion? Where is that project at right now? It is, they are close to going under construction, I believe. Okay. Thanks. And this really kind of talks about those nearby capital improvements. Just to let you know, McKinney east of loop 288 will be expanded and improved to a four-lane divided road with curb gutter and sidewalks, that five-foot sidewalk. And then May Hill is under construction. It will include four travel lanes with a large median to allow for additional lanes to be added in the future. Water and wastewater are available to the site. Parks. We looked at parks and how close the nearest park was. The site is about 3,700 linear feet from Milam Park, which is about a 15 to 20-minute walk, which does exceed that 10-minute walk to a park goal that our parks department has set for itself. We are looking at ways to increase their parkland. So I'm sure Parks is going to be going forward with their new master plan. I know they're working at public outreach on that. So it's forthcoming in order to add more parkland. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Can you show us where Milam Park is on there? I was… It is. It is across loop 288 and… Okay. Thanks. Schools, there is adequate capacity within the schools that are in the attendance boundary. And it is about half a mile from the nearest fire station, which meets the fire's goal of 8-minute or less response time. We also did, as part of the analysis, just a general property tax analysis looking at the value per acre and the value of the property is unimproved versus what those estimated improvements are. So the estimated improvement value comes from the applicant. That value per acre comes from Denton County Appraisal District. So really just bottom line, our analysis yielded that between the 2018 city taxes and the estimated taxes with improvements that there would be a potential increase in about $198,000 in city taxes per year. We sent out public notification. We haven't received any responses. So as a recommendation, we recommend approval of the request, that it's consistent with the site plan, landscape plan, and elevations, and these listings just go over what that site plan includes, the 12 buildings, the tree plantings, the bicycle racks. And then as part of our conditions for the recommendation, we recommended that within 30 days of City Council approval that they come back with that alternative development plan. They've actually applied for it. So really it's just a matter of them getting back on the P&Z schedule for those areas of the Denton Development Code where they've requested a deviation. And I will stand for any questions. >> Mr. Beck. >> Thanks, Chair. Thanks, Julie. So they decided to go with the 2002 DDC regulations, which you said tree canopy coverage was only or preservation was 12%? >> Well it depends on the classification of the trees. So the secondary trees, I believe, they have to preserve 20%, but they can mitigate down to 10%. The quality trees would be -- >> See, I thought it was they could -- it was 30% they could mitigate down to 20%. >> That's the new one. >> That's the new one. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> We're going to go over that on the next one. >> Okay. And I know we're just talking about an SGP here, but I want to throw this out. We were talking about the roads and widening. That entrance and exit there on McKinney, you said, was going to line up with the street Dutchess Drive, and obviously there's that little commercial area. What's their plans, do we know if they're going to put a marked crosswalk there to kind of stand out so traffic buzzing through there, we'll know. >> I don't know. >> Okay. >> I haven't been -- no discussion about that. >> Is that something that we can put on our matrix that you'll find out -- okay, I'll bring that up later. Thanks. Make sure that was the only thing -- oh, I guess the other thing, too, and maybe I'll bring this up with the matrix, is I'll deal with it later. Thanks. >> Okay. >> Krista Ellis. >> Thank you. Julie, is there no other way to take care of this ADP issue, I mean, them forcing them to come back through? Is there no other way to do this? It just seems so odd to be approving an SUP that needs to come back and put the applicant through another process and cost, and I don't -- I'm very confused. >> Unfortunately, no. >> Really? Okay. >> I think the -- sort of the quagmire we're in, SUPs go to City Council for approval, and so it's -- if for some reason that SUP doesn't get approved or it changes, then we're back again changing an ADP, and so we sort of talk through the various options for them, including even under the 2019 code, which would still require an SUP, and this was the route that they wanted to move forward with. >> Okay. >> I don't see any other questions. Thank you, Julie. You are coming back up. There's a new project, Agave Ranch, that we get to hear about. >> I'll be brief on this one. All right. This is Z1811, Agave Ranch. Before I got into the request, I wanted to talk about a timeline, because I know this is a project you've seen before, so if you remember back to January of this year, they did have a request to rezone the entire subject property at NR4. At that meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial. They came back and modified the request. It did not go to City Council at that time. They came back to the city and modified the request to have a combination of zoning districts of NR3, NR4, and NR2, and that was on May 15th. At the deliberation, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended they go back and revise the plan to reduce the densities, and so the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to postpone the item indefinitely so that they could revise their plan. So at this point, now they've revised their plan, but it hasn't gone to City Council yet, so here we are this evening. So the request. It's an initial zoning district and a change in zoning from RD5 and RD5X, or I'm sorry, just RD5, to NR3 on 45.5 acres and NR2 on 46.5 acres, the total of which is 92.06 acres of land, and it is outlined in yellow here on the east side of FM 428, just north of the loop. And just here's a map of the current and then what they're proposing. It might be a little difficult to see, but here's their proposal for the NR2 to be toward the north and east portions and then the NR3 to be adjacent to FM 428. So your backup has a lot of this information. NR3 and NR2 are both kind of single-family districts. Some of them do have a little different uses. Or density districts. The existing zoning is more of our rural or agricultural districts. The criteria for approval is in sub-chapter 3 of the Denton Development Code. First thing we always look at, Denton Plan 2030. The area is designated rural area. The proposed zoning district does not meet the future land use designation. So we look at the additional criteria for approval in sub-chapter 3, the first of which is it compatible with the existing land and zoning uses and the impact of future development. Our analysis yielded that this is a rural but it is an urbanizing area and development, the way it's tracking is going up toward our north arterials. And so these recent cases do show a continuous development pattern. It's also adjacent to NR4, which is a more dense zoning district and NR2, then the proposal could potentially create a buffer between the rural areas to the east and FM428. We looked at or the applicant provided trip generation for more units than what they're proposing, actually 310, and that would yield the higher number of units because the current proposal would be a maximum of 252 dwelling units. 310 would generate about 2,900 trips per day. As a result of this case, as well as others in the area, the city did do that traffic study. And there are capital improvement projects in the area, particularly a signal at the intersection of FM428 and Loop 288, as well as a dedicated right turn in that area. So both of those things are supposed to be installed by the end of the year. And here's what the transportation study determined, that there are more east-west connections needed in this area. Right now, really, FM428 is the central spine getting in and out of Denton. And so additional east-west connections are going to be needed in order to accommodate future and current growth, as well as the outer loop that will eventually come our way. The subject site is there in red, probably not to scale, but this is Hartley Field would be -- or, I'm sorry, a connection would be required kind of on the north end of the property. And then Hartley Field, per this proposed plan, would kind of straighten out and head west. >> Julie, those are proposed roads, would the developer have to have right-of-way dedicated back to just those -- how exact are those roads going to be given the right-of-way through the development if we don't know where those roads are going to be? >> Well, if this is approved as part of platting, they will work with engineering to kind of figure out where those roads are going to go and they'll dedicate the right-of-way. And probably as this area develops, the first project may set those alignments. Water and sewer are available to the site. There will be extensions required, but they are in the area. There are -- there is adequate capacity in DISD, and also there is a fire station within 1.2 miles of the subject property. Impact fees will be required to be paid once the -- as the property develops. A good shorthand for our current roadway impact fees is that for a single-family development, it's about $2,000 per development -- per house for the roadway. And then parks, where they estimate that a park dedication of 1.7 acres would be required. That can either be dedicated by land or by payment in lieu. And then the total park development fees -- there's two items for parks. The development fee would be paid at each building permit, $291 per single-family house. We also did a property tax analysis based upon just what the current value is. Part of the property does have an agricultural exemption, so that does lower their property tax liability or value. And so, you know, just based upon the current 2018 value and what they're estimating would be the property -- the house cost when it's done, about $370 per house, we're estimating that there would be a difference of about $572,000 in taxes paid to the city. We also looked at consideration of character and land use. This is a rural area, so -- and a lot of single-family, so as part of that, we are recommending an overlay restriction to restrict all uses back to the single-family. And then also, I know we talked about this in May, but we're also recommending that they dedicate a trail system to make sure that all lots are within 1,300 feet of an access point of that trail. It needs to be off -- it can't be on the street. It's got to be off the street, and there would also need to be two remote connections to the adjacent properties, so that as the area develops, the -- that trail could be extended hopefully toward our Clear Creek Natural Heritage Center. That would be great to have trail systems off street. We're also proposing a buffer along FM428, both in landscaping and fencing, as well as a berm. We sent out public notification. We didn't receive any letters within that 200-foot buffer on this iteration of the project. But we did include all of the letters we have received thus far, because I know that this project has had a long history. We want to make sure that everybody has all of the information, and I know this is the slide you've seen before, and it shows where we've seen those letters, the red dots would be where we've received most of our letters in opposition, kind of off of the Hartley Field Road area and then in this area up here. We've also received some in favor of the property -- or of the project. Staff does recommend approval of the request, but with conditions that the single-family only be permitted, provided for that pathway and then that 30-foot landscape buffer adjacent to FM428. And I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. The water and sewage, Julie, is that on the east side of Sherman, or are they going to have to cross over from the west side? They may have to bore under. Okay. They couldn't cut the road. They would have to go under. Right. Okay. In terms of land material, it says the future land use designation for the subject property is rural areas. Rural areas are intended to maintain the rural character along the city's edge by encouraging the development of farms and ranches. Are we seeing any development of farms and ranches around this area? I'm not aware of any -- Like new ones? Yeah. Are there any people proposing to develop this land for farm or ranch use? We have met with some adjacent and surrounding property owners that own some large tracts of land, and it was not for the purposes of ranching or farming. Okay. So that's not something that's likely to happen then, right? A little further north, I guess on the other side of the green belt, we've had some conversations with a property owner that was looking at doing some small ranchettes with sort of the shared -- almost a shared ranch kind of concept. But again, much further north than the subject property. Okay. Okay. I think there has been a -- and I do believe they were at one of the meetings -- I think it's a brother and sister possibly that has a -- recently bought a piece of property near there on the west side of Sherman that has -- they do equestrian, and I think some training. So the history of this area is horses, and yet that history seems to be dying a little bit. It's my sense. Is that safe to say based on the fact that there's nothing new coming online for a horse ranch or anything like that? We have not -- I have not -- at least in the two years I've been here, I've not had that request. Okay. With the two new zonings of NR2 and NR3, are we coming up with a density of roughly 2.5 then? Is that safe to say? Well, I did the math on each one. So NR2 permits a maximum density of two dwelling units per acre. The NR3 is three and a half dwelling units per acre. So when you do that across it, it comes up to that 252 dwelling units across. They haven't given me a plan as to how they would organize those -- But there actually will be 252 homes, or that's what they're proposing? That is just what kind of I analyzed based upon what the maximum could be. It could be less. Okay. Could be. Sure. Great. Thank you. Kosher Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Back to the discussion earlier about developing. Didn't we have to the east of this a plat that we just approved on some acreage properties? It seems to me it was about a month or six weeks ago, something like that, that we had a plat come through. Yeah, I mean, I guess if it's -- if I'm orienting the right -- to the east of 428, if that's -- if 428 actually runs north in that regard. I believe that was one in the ETJ that was looking at -- Yeah. It seems like it was very recent. They were -- And the ETJ was subdivided into -- Into like ten -- one acre subdivision lots. Correct. Julie, on this slide, the pink outlined gray area, that's county or ETJ? Correct. Only the parts that are not in the sort of faded out white are within the city limits. And then the notification map doesn't align to the actual property line, that's because of the original zoning? Correct. So the notification, that 200-foot boundary -- now, we noticed all property owners within the city within -- for the entire 92 acres, but in terms of the opposition and creating that supermajority, the only portions that factor into that are those that are currently have a zoning. So that is just this portion adjacent to FM428. That area that has that RD5X zoning, that doesn't come into play with the calculation of the 20% opposition. But we did notify all property owners within 200 feet of the larger tract. Another question I have for clarification, there's a requirement to be within 1,300 feet of an entrance to the walking trail and ten minutes for a park? Those are two different things. So it's 1,300 feet to an entrance and then ten minutes to a park. You're not saying it takes ten minutes to walk 1,000 feet? No. No. Okay. That's a massive threshold for a developer to have put on them. No, we really just wanted -- and we don't -- we didn't want to get really prescriptive in where that trail would go within the property. We wanted to just make sure that it was accessible to all property owners within 1,300 feet of the front door. So that's why we really added that the entrance needs to be within 1,300 feet of every single family lot. Gotcha. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. There was not another meeting with this new proposal, correct? No, ma'am. Okay. Not that I'm aware of. The applicant will be here, so... Last thing that I would want to say is just in reference to Commissioner Beck, I'm sure citizens will provide their own feedback, but I don't know if there's a correlation of non-new horse ranch applicants, if there's a correlation to that industry dying there. I think it seems as though there's a pretty big healthy breeding and ranching industry there, and I don't know if -- because we're not getting new applicants, is there any indication that their businesses are struggling or dying off? My concern was the prospects of this being sustained over the long run. Perfect. Thanks for that clarification. Any questions for Julie? All right. Do we get food? No. Okay. So moving on until we get food, we'll take a break once food arrives, but the next item of business is item F, Z18-Z025. I think she's having -- has a combined presentation. Gotcha. So Julie, you're going to be combining F and G into one? All right. So these are two separate cases, so it will require two separate votes, but just in interest of efficiency, because they all kind of work together, we're going to talk about them together. So this is Z18-25 and S19-4, Hunters Creek. The request before you is a zoning case to amend Ordinance 2014-075 to remove overlay restrictions that prohibited multifamily dwellings, and then a specific use permit to permit multifamily dwellings. The subject property is located north of Ryan Road. It's outlined here in yellow, and it is west of Teasley. Give you a background on what's happened on the property. Prior to 2008, the property was zoned in R2. It was part of a larger 54-acre tract. We're only talking about 8.6 acres today, but we're going to talk about the evolution of the property. So it's outlined here in black. In 2008, the property was rezoned, the whole 54 acres, from NR2 to NRMU with overlay restrictions. Those restrictions said no more than 50% of the site could be developed with commercial retail, and that multifamily dwellings could not be constructed along Teasley Lane to keep that road frontage for commercial development. And Julie, what classifies property fronting at Teasley Lane? Is there a distance of feet, or how is that defined? There was an illustration in that zoning. It did not give specifics, but it essentially sort of bifurcated the site in kind of this area to say anything along here couldn't be multifamily. Do we know if the overlay was on the subject property as it is now? The overlay of no multifamily dwellings could be contracted on the portion fronting. This 8 acres that we're talking about tonight, did that fall underneath the overlay restriction that fronts Teasley? That is a great question. I don't believe the exhibit that was attached to the ordinance gave a real clear distinction, but I can look at that ordinance and try to get an answer for you. It might be helpful, because I would like to respect the council and P&Z from 11 years ago and how they're thinking and planning through this. And so if back 11 years ago there was an overlay of half the property, I think that would be helpful context to know about where that overlay actually was applied to, of where the previous individuals thought there should be multifamily and not. Sure. Let me see if I can pull that up for you. Thanks. In 2014, that was the subject of another rezoning case. This time it rezoned 30 acres outlined here in blue to NR6 for a single family development. It left the NRMU intact for the subject property as well as the property adjacent to Teasley, and so this is a total of 23 acres. It did have overlay restrictions on that NRMU, which prohibited multifamily dwellings and also said that that area could be developed with commercial development, so it didn't have a limit to the amount of commercial development on the 23 acres as the previous zoning case did. In 2019, they came back to us with a new request to maintain the existing zoning of NRMU, but to remove the overlay restriction for multifamily dwellings on 8.6 acres, and that's the subject property here, leaving the remainder of the property with that overlay restriction. Criteria for approval in the zoning. We're going to go over the zoning case first, but they'll all relate to each other, so criteria for approval is first, does it meet the future land use, and second, is there adequate public infrastructure? First of all, Dent Plan 2030, once again, this property, like the last one, identifies this area as community mixed use. Again, it's intended to promote a mix of uses, both with commercial and that complementary residential use, and once again, we want to encourage a diverse array of uses in these areas to ensure economic viability and to really have dynamic developments. Multifamily development is consistent with the future land use map. Once again, it's a complementary residential use, and when you look at the future land use in this area and how it all plays together, so you can't look at the future land use map. You can't necessarily just zoom in on the property. You want to look at the entire surrounding areas to see how the vision of the city kind of works together, and so you could see that this yellow portion, that's low residential per the future land use, but you could see how as you move from the west toward the east toward the intersection of Teasley and Ryan that you get this commercial center here. So it really does allow for that transition of uses. Multifamily would be an appropriate use in this location just because it does provide that adequate transition, creates that buffer between the single family uses. When you think about Ryan Road and you think off to the west, you've got really large lots, and as you get closer to Teasley, the lots get a little smaller, so it really does sort of transition nicely from the west toward the east. Once again, you saw this in the last presentation. The growth projections for the city of Denton, new multifamily is going to be needed in order to accommodate for future growth, and this is an urbanized area that Teasley Lane has been growing for many years, and so this type of area where you've got this mix of uses, the schools, the parks, the employment centers, and the shopping, that's where you want to put your residential. You want to make sure that compact development pattern continues within the city. We're going to go over a lot more detail than we typically do on SUPs, so I just have a title slide about the infrastructure we're going to be talking about related to transportation. First we looked at a trip generation analysis. This is kind of a dynamic area. You've got residential, you've got a proposed multifamily, you've got existing commercial, and then you have future commercial. How does this all work together? We first wanted to compare the traffic volumes generated by the proposal versus what the potential commercial development on the site could be. We kind of just looked at how would it compare if they put a 50,000 square foot shopping center versus that multifamily, and we saw that just when you -- those top line comparisons, the proposed multifamily would generate less traffic than a commercial development in this location. We also looked at roadway impact fees. As I said in the last presentation, about $1,200 per multifamily dwelling unit would be paid toward implementation of our mobility plan, and that comes to about $265,000. They would also be required to do perimeter street improvements as well as some access improvements. As a result, their site plan shows a ride in, ride out only access point on the south side, and then full access to Hunter's Creek. As you can see, this single family development, there was -- Hunter's Creek right here was stubbed out to the subject property, and so as part of this development, they will be required to build all of Hunter's Creek all the way to Teasley, and that will be three lane, two exiting, and one entering, and they'll have full access from the subject property to that Hunter's Creek. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Was there a traffic analysis done with this? They've done a traffic assessment memo. They haven't done that full traffic impact analysis. That will come at that platting stage, but we have met with the applicant's engineers in our engineering several times to kind of talk about not only this project but the general mobility of the area, and so we'll talk about some of those interventions that we anticipate will be coming. Okay. I guess, do the engineers look at this from -- I know when we usually do the TIA, I don't know the traffic assessment memo, how different it is, and what criteria, what things are looked at, but I know usually it looks at, of course, existing traffic up and down and then the impact of the existing site. In this scenario, it's a little bit different because it's not just the current traffic and then the existing site, but it's also when you extend Hunter's Creek and you connect it to that current stub-out that's connected to that neighborhood, you're now giving a new flow for traffic to come from an existing neighborhood as well, and so I guess my concern is that from the way it looks like on the current renderings and everything else I've seen has been there's not going to be a traffic light at Hunter's Creek in Teasley, and what's happening with that? We talked about that very topic. I have a slide about that. Okay. Well, let's talk about it. It's the next one. So we did actually look at the roadway network in the area and how all of these parts and neighborhoods play together. So here's Teasley Trails here. It's outlined in blue. It has several access points to get in and out. So you have to the north, and I can't remember the street name, but there's access to Teasley in this location. You've got Ranch Man. That's an access point, and then the future Hunter's Creek. That's an access point to Teasley. They also have full access to Ryan Road here. So there's several ways in and out of Teasley Trails. The neighborhood across the street, across Teasley, really only has one and a half options of getting in and out of their neighborhood, and it's quite a few homes. Right now, they've got this is Hunter's Creek, and then this right here, which are really close together, and there's no signal there. So it makes it difficult. They essentially have one way in and out. And then this subject property will also access Hunter's Creek and then Ryan Road to the south. We'll talk about those traffic volumes created in just a minute, but we did talk with engineering. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Is Hunter's Creek connecting to the west into Teasley Trails? It will. Yes, ma'am. So as this area develops, with the residential to the west of the subject property, Teasley Trails, with the subject property, the multifamily, if approved, and the neighborhood to the east, as well as when our engineering feels that once this commercial component comes in, there will be a warrant met for a traffic light here, not only a traffic light here, but probably also a deceleration lane on Teasley going south to create that safe turning movement. So that really is anticipated by our engineering department once all of this area develops out. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Julie, do we know if TxDOT has signed a new agreement with the contractor to continue the work that was started by the contractor they released? I don't believe so. I've checked with our engineering, and I don't believe there's a new one yet. Commissioner Smith. Does the engineers feel like it's dependent upon the commercial rather than just the fact of adding in bodies into a multifamily, along with the single-family residential that's already existing there? Well, maybe this slide will help answer that. So the surrounding single-family, we kind of looked at 430 dwelling units, and that really was based upon the assumption of who in Teasley Trails would use Hunters Creek, and then that Summit Oaks neighborhood to the east. So we kind of used that 430 trips, and based upon the ITE manual, those two neighborhoods alone create over 4,000 trips per day. The proposed multifamily would add about 1,100 trips to that. And then we looked at what the potential uses could be for the commercial component and kind of what kind of trips would be associated with that. It will be 15 acres if developed as proposed, so there's going to be a variety. It won't just necessarily be one commercial use, so it will be a variety. So when we look at all of these potential uses, office, fast food generates 1,600 trips per day, a grocery store 2,600 trips, a medical or dental office 348 trips, when we added all those up, that's where it got those level of trips to that over 11,000, which would trigger the warrant for the light in that area. So what you're saying is that the 5,100 trips currently of the multifamily and single-family residential isn't enough, but the extra 6,000 or so of the commercial is? Our engineering didn't feel like just the residential component alone would warrant the light. The grocery store is the biggest trip generator whenever looking at it from that standpoint with the ITE, but there's already a grocery store right across the street, so I don't know how the likelihood of building another grocery store right next to the Walmart there is, especially with the Kroger down that way, and then what, the Albertsons is still the other map? No, I'm outdated. Albertsons is not the way. That's gone. It's now Trampoline Park. Long time ago. Whatever. Same difference. But, and then yeah, there's a lot of grocery stores in the area. I don't know. It just feels like this almost, just this project alone with the current single-family seems like it should be enough to predicate a traffic light. I know that's not, because of TxDOT controlled road, it's not even the city's responsibility, that traffic light thing, but I would think that the city could put at least some pressure with TxDOT to make that a requirement or something that has to happen with the development of this multifamily property, rather than having to wait for commercial to develop, because it's kind of a hope and a prayer, right, that the commercial gets developed. I mean, we're not, we don't have commercial developments being proposed to the city right now. It's a zone that way, and maybe the developer or the landowner says, "I'm going to do it," but we've heard a lot of promises before, so I'd rather have something concrete whenever we have something concrete that we're looking at now. Sure, sure. There are nearby capital improvements. I know Commissioner Ellis talked about TxDOT. It is, once it's done, we'll expand a two-lane road to six-lane divided road. Its final design will add additional capacity, not only for the residents in the area, but people who are traveling to our city and outside of our city. And then Ryan Road is one of those roads that needs some attention, and so it's actually going to be on our November bond election for funding to expand it from a two-lane undivided road to the four-lane divided road with sidewalks along it, so that is in the works of our engineering department. Also, the city has commissioned a transportation study for this entire area, and that's factoring in those improvements on Ryan Road and Hickory Creek Road, with additional improvements in that roadway network, the intent is to disperse the traffic and not have so many people funneling on so few roads that don't have the capacity. Water and wastewater are available in the area. There is a park. Lake Forest Park is about 1,600 feet from the southwest corner of the site, but once again, park dedication and development fees will be required for the development. The schools that are within the attendance boundary, Sam Houston Elementary, McMath Middle, and Denton High School have capacity, and there is a fire station within that eight-minute or less boundary. So staff has analyzed the request and does feel that it meets that requirement for the future land use map, the Denton plan, as well as the public infrastructure, and now we'll talk about the SUP. So we do recommend approval of the rezoning to remove that overlay restriction. SUP criteria for approval is in sub-chapter six. We'll just look at the site plan. It is in this location. The purple is the buildings. They're proposing five three-story buildings, access, as I said, on Hunter's Creek and to Ryan Road. They're proposing 59.2% lot coverage, maximum building height of 50 feet. I think it's actually more close to 45 feet, but the zoning would allow for 65 feet. Maximum density per the zoning is 30. They're actually proposing 24.8. And then the setback from the residential is -- it's required to be 45 feet. They're actually doing -- this line here shows a 101-foot setback from that residential -- those dwellings. >> Thank you, Chair. I didn't see that on the plan. What's going in there? Is it trees, a parking, or -- >> Well, there is going to be a proposed an eight-foot precast concrete fence along the property line, plus a tree line, which we'll look at with the landscape plan, and then there's also a tree preserve proposed for here, and then parking. >> Okay. Okay. That's quite a wide setback. They're also proposing a minimum of 7,000 square feet of plaza area, and that includes -- which will include seating, a swimming pool, a gated dog park, and then they're also proposing this creek area here is not considered an ESA. It was removed from our ESA maps, but they are proposing to keep that as a naturalized area, but just put maybe some dog waste stations in that. To ensure adequate lighting for the parking lot, to make sure that it remains safe, we are proposing that they do provide the adequate lighting, and that's the two-foot candles. That's actually in the 2019 code, but we want to make sure that it doesn't produce a lot of glare for the residential off to the west, so we're proposing a condition that those light fixtures be capped at 14 feet to just ensure that there's -- that it doesn't produce too much glare on the adjacent properties. We're also meeting the parking regulations. The landscape plan, they are conforming with the 2019 tree preservation requirements. That requires a minimum of 30% preservation on site. They are actually proposing to preserve 61% of the trees on site, and that includes this post oak stand in this location as well as the trees in that naturalized buffer. They're also proposing to plant 126 new large canopy trees, and you can see here is that buffer to the adjacent single family, so that is in that location. Here's their elevations. They're proposing earth tone colors with an average of 40% brick or stone for the exterior finishes, and that is compatible with the adjacent -- with the existing surrounding property. Once again, we did the property tax analysis, and based upon the dent and CAD numbers as well as the proposed estimated improvements, that would generate an additional -- or $167,000 in property taxes to the city. The public notification was sent out for both the zoning and the SUP. We have received quite a few letters. They also did have a neighborhood meeting. They had two. This is the map for the zoning, and then here is for the SUP. This is actually changed a little bit. So the opposition percentage for the zoning case is 12.27%, and for the SUP it's at 19.11%. So staff recommends approval of the multifamily development consistent with that -- with the site plan, landscape plan, and the elevations. We do recommend the following condition, that it -- the parking area, those light fixtures to make sure that they maintain those two-foot candles throughout the parking area, but that they keep the height of those poles limited to reduce impacts to the adjacent properties. And I will stand for any questions. Kishorellis? You don't have to answer this here, but I'm just going to give you some maybe to bring to us here because our time is short. I understand why you're recommending approval when you look at everything. What I would love to hear is how staff came to the determination to negate the overlay so quickly. You know, a lot of thought and discussion goes into it. It was upheld twice, right, 2008, 2014. So I would -- I definitely -- missing from the back, I really would like to hear those thoughts. Thanks. I do not see any other questions. Thanks, Julie. Thanks. At this time, we will close the work session at 616, and we're going to shoot for the public meeting to start at 635. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for June 19th, 2019. Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order at 647. I appreciate you all being patient with us. We're running a little bit late, so I appreciate that. The first order of business is to stand, if able, and provide a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, and I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one, indivisible. The next item for business is to take a vote on our meeting minutes from May 29th and June 5th. We'll take these in two separate votes. Chair will entertain a motion. Is it not working? Commissioner Smith? Motion to approve the May 29th minutes with edits. We have a first. Commissioner Beck? Second. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 5-0 with one recusal. We'll take a vote for the June 5th meeting minutes. Commissioner Beck? Move to approve the minutes for June 5th. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Sanchez? Approved. Second. I second the motion. I second it. Perfect. We have a first and a second. No discussion. We'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 4-0 to recuses. Next item for business is the consent agenda. Commissioner Smith? Move for approval of the consent agenda. We have a first for consent agenda approval. Commissioner Ellis? Second. Mr. Drake? I'm just wondering, has anyone on staff been able to determine whether we have any infrastructure that appeared inside any dedicated easements within those approved plots? Is anyone here to speak to that? Julie Wyatt, can you come speak to that question for Mr. Drake? Yes. Within that easement, there is a water line. The applicant has provided a legal description for that, and we are working to prepare that easement so that the easement document will be filed along with the plot vacations and when the final plot comes to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I would just simply caution, ordinarily, the vacations of approvals should wait for those events to occur rather than to take place upon filing, but certainly that's best within the Commission's decision-making authority. Just to clarify, Mr. Drake, we are able to vote for -- we have the discretion to make that vote tonight. Yes, you do have the discretion to make that vote, but, you know, there could be consequences that arise out of it, and I simply have to caution that they exist. Okay. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. That moves us to the public agenda for this evening. For those who don't have an agenda, just take note that Item 4A has been withdrawn, and Item 4B is being rescheduled to the July 17th meeting, so if you're here for Item 4A or B, those will not be heard this evening. That will bring us to our next item for business, Item 4C, S19-0005. I'll open the public hearing and invite Corrina for presentation. Just a disclaimer before I start. Based on the discussion from the work session, I made a slight revision to the final slide, which I'll go over once we get to that part of the presentation. Great. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Corrina Maldonado, assistant planner with the Planning Division. Today I'll be presenting S19-5 for Teasley multifamily. The request today is for a specific use permit for five multifamily dwelling units on approximately 1.09 acres, located at 1714 Teasley Lane. That is located here in the yellow on the screen on the aerial. The site is zoned Community Mixed Use General, CMG, Zoning District, which requires an SUP for multifamily. The request is for a change in use only and does not include the expansion of the existing building, so we'll talk about that a little bit more later in the presentation. Just a brief history about the site. I did provide some aerials for the site in the general area going back to 1964, but just some history. The existing building was constructed in the 1960s as a single family home. Over the years it did have a change of use to a child daycare and then a change to office. Sometime between 2005 and 2016, the exact date is not really certain. There wasn't a legal conversion to multifamily, however in 2018 the new property owner wished to remedy this and so the request today is to go through the formal SUP process for multifamily units. I apologize for the silence, if I need to repeat anything just let me know. The proposed site plan is shown on the screen. Again it's for the use of an existing building shown here in the yellow, so they're not proposing to expand the building, only do interior alterations. This is because the existing site as it exists today has six dwelling units on it, however the smallest dwelling unit does not meet the minimum residential unit size of 500 square feet. So to remedy this the proposed site plan is to combine the two smallest units to create five dwelling units ranging from 850 square feet to 1200. Each dwelling unit will be two bedrooms. Additionally on the site plan they have indicated some removal of certain items just as a recommendation from staff to just appear a little bit nicer in terms of code with the surrounding uses of multifamily. These do include a removal of a damaged chain link fence which can be seen right here. Additionally there is an accessory shed located at the back that will also be removed. A propane tank to the southern property line as well as a carport which would not be allowed by code due to its location and then the site does have because of the change in use an excess of parking, so in this case they're not actually proposing to remove the concrete to remove parking, they're just going to remove the striping to meet the required ten spaces. Here is the proposed landscape plan. So again they're not proposing to have additional landscaping, this is what exists on the site. The required landscaping for the CMG zoning district is 20 percent, the site actually exceeds that with 49 percent landscaped area. Additionally the use of multifamily requires dedication of open space and so they have provided 8.8 percent open space and this is indicated by the hashed mark area. Lastly they are going to keep all existing trees on the site, they will not be removing any so all will be preserved and that meets the required 30 percent tree canopy coverage so they exceed it reaching approximately 39 percent. So these are just some photos of the site as it exists today. This would be looking right at the property from the north, this is that carport that they are going to be removing and this is just kind of the eastern portion of the property, this is that addition that we talked about where they added it on to do that illegal multifamily use. And then here we're showing the fence that they will also be removing, this is a chain link fence, it doesn't continue throughout the site, it's just on the eastern and southern portion of the property. And then last we just provided this aerial free that shows a more close up eagle eye view of the property and so here you can see they do have a large portion of landscaping towards the back which could also be used for open space even though it's not specifically dedicated. It's also showing all the existing trees on site, this is the shed they will be removing and some more dedicated open space would be this gazebo area here. So the criteria for approval for the SUP, there are four, I'll go through them very briefly and then discuss them further just kind of the highlights. So the first criteria being that they would be in conformance with all standards within the zoning district for the use that is to be proposed and in conformance with the long range plan and then local state and federal law. Second point would be that the specific use permit shall be issued only if the following conditions exist, these are things like compatibility with the surrounding area that it would not provide or not deter any development or impact it negatively in any way, it also talks about infrastructure utilities, access, air pollution, lighting and landscaping. Third would be that there is adequate capacity for infrastructure that it will or can be provided to the subject property and last that the special use is compatible with and will not have an adverse effect on the surrounding area. And so criteria four and two are similar so when I go through the presentation I won't really duplicate kind of how they're meeting it, I'll just talk about it at one point and then discuss how they're overlapping. So first, under the first criteria, talking specifically about how it meets the future land use, this area is designated as community mixed use and so the proposed use of multifamily is in line with that designation, this area is mostly reserved for commercial uses, however it does encourage complimentary residential uses and so similar to the area it does meet the future land use designation. Second in terms of compliance with the zoning, as the site exists today, the units that are existing do not meet the minimum residential unit size of 500 square feet that is part of the general requirements for the zoning district, so in terms of lot area lot coverage with depth, residential unit size is specifically called out, however the applicant will be proposing to combine units to meet that minimum residential unit size and in addition to this staff is, which I'll talk about later, is recommending to place a condition to specifically call out that they will meet this if approved. Second relates to building code requirements, part of this process we did request that a courtesy building inspection be conducted prior to taking it to planning and zoning and they did comply, our building inspections actually went out there, found a couple issues that are listed in the staff analysis and through that it's shown that the existing building does not meet existing building code requirements, specifically for the requirement to have fire partition walls between units, so staff is recommending a condition on the SUP to ensure that all building and fire code standards are met prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and then just as a side note, this is still a requirement regardless of us putting the condition on this, however staff felt it appropriate to call it out on the SUP approval process. Again going back to the second criteria for approval, calling out the youth compatibility, so the site is located here and surrounding the property is all, the majority is multi-family, so you've got multi-family along this edge and even these properties here are multi-family units. To the north we have the Rudy's, so restaurant, hotel and I believe that's a gas station on the corner, but the majority of the surrounding youths and this is a 500 aerial shot, is multi-family. Touching back to, so within this area there is only one vacant property, it's adjacent to the south, that is also owned by the property owner for this, the subject property, so this development will not immediately impact that property, however if they wish to expand to do multi-family on that vacant parcel, that will require a separate SUP application. Moving on to adequate utilities and supporting facilities, this site has been served by water and sewer since it was developed, however our water department did feel that even though they are not requiring public infrastructure, they want to ensure that they have the adequate off-site connections shown, so we have added a condition to the SUP approval to ensure that all utility easements be filed prior to issuance of a building permit, again this follows our normal process for how we go through new projects, but again we want to call it out to just ensure that that's being addressed. And then I'll just touch through the final criteria for the second criteria for approval, one being vehicular access, so there is an access easement to the north that allows access from the site to Teasley Lane, and then the driveways located on site do provide that access to that easement. No other issues related to air quality or directional lighting will be a result of this SUP, and landscaping has been met, they actually exceed the requirement. And so I'll actually skip over criteria three because it's a duplication of a previous criteria under criteria two, and skip over to criteria four regarding compatibility, specifically traffic generation, so on this site the previous use was general office, which was a more intensive use or generation of traffic, so the proposed use of five multifamily units will actually generate less traffic with a maximum of 37 weekday trips that would exit off onto Teasley Lane. Additionally, I did want to mention that there is a DCTA route, route one, located off of Teasley that is accessible from the site by walking that tenants could reach if they needed that alternative transportation. And then last, talking about scale of the surrounding multifamily and architectural compatibility, so going back to kind of that first aerial about how the development was coming in, a lot of this multifamily came in around the same time, in the 1980s. They were all constructed with brick, wood, or stucco, similar to what the existing home was at the time, which is a majority brick and wood. So size and scale, most of these multifamily developments in the immediate area are low rise with less than ten dwelling units per building, with the exception of the one multifamily to the west, which is a larger mid-rise with multiple buildings, however, that is immediately separated and screened from that property. So public notification was sent out in May with newspaper ads going out in June, and a sign was posted along on the property here and off of Teasley here. So within the 200 foot area shown in red, eight notices were sent by certified mail, and then within the 500 area shown in blue, courtesy notices were sent out to 27 residents. As of today, we have not received any responses in terms of opposition or being in favor of the request, and there were no neighborhood meetings held for this project. So with that, staff recommends approval of the SUP, subject to the attached site plan and Latsky plan, so this is the language I added today based on our discussion, along with the following conditions, which were already previously shown. So the first being that the SUP was reviewed under the 2002 development code, and therefore shall meet all 2002 development code requirements of the CMG zoning district, including but not limited to minimum residential unit size and parking requirements. Any additional utility easements required to serve the project must be filed prior to issuance of a building permit, and then last, that the existing building meet all building and fire code requirements for the approved use. So we did meet with the applicant earlier this month to discuss these conditions, and the applicant is in agreement with the conditions placed. So with that, I'll take any questions. Thank you for the presentation. I don't see any questions at this time. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. I do have one card on the issue. It's Lee Allison, and Lee, you have 20 minutes to present if needed. Let's see if we can keep it under five. Good evening. Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group, 2415 North Elm in Denton, Texas. With me this evening is the property owner, Santos, as well as Schaefer Harris, our internal project manager, and our administrator, Sue Allison. Carina did a great job presenting the information this evening. This is a tough situation, if you notice from the chronology of events. Mr. Santos bought this. He tried to do some due diligence, and he thought he had a project that just needed a simple SUP to move forward with, and then he's found out that the prior owner did some things with the building, didn't necessarily get approvals to get them done or to get them approved, and he ended up picking a poke to a certain degree. On the same time, it's a very nice site. It's important to him to be able to put it into productivity, and once he does, as Carina mentioned, on the south side, he has additional property there, and we probably will be coming back with future SUPs. Even under the new Denton Development Code, I believe this area is going to be suburban corridor, which also requires an SUP for apartments, so it's not going to be something automatic. If you recall from the pictures that Carina presented, there's some gorgeous trees around there, which we're not messing with at all at this time. There's a gazebo there, a very nice outdoor recreational area. If we tried to measure it all, it would far exceed the 8% at this time. We are adding a dumpster with enclosures. Certain facilities are being removed that are an eyesore there, such as the propane tank, the dilapidated chain link fence, the flimsy carport and an old shed that's out there, those are going away, so they're going to help with the property, we believe as well. Mr. Santos, I believe he's demonstrated by his actions of coming to the city even during due diligence that he is trying to do it by the book, he's trying to do it correctly, but he needs to get this going at this time, make it a decent housing prospect. It's in the middle of a bunch of other apartments, as Carina pointed out, as well as some retail to the front and more retail to the north, I believe, on the back sides of those. Do appreciate someone from Legal early up, and it might have been you, Jerry, I'm not sure, that brought up the issue about access. That is important, and fortunately, Carina and Mark Laird made a noble effort and found the access easement, so we do have Legal Access, that's been proven up. And I believe the fire marshal has signed off, the fire department has signed off on the fire lanes that are already there and approved to be able to access the site, so that's in good shape. The other items that are on the conditions are items that have to be adhered to regardless to get a CO, so we certainly don't have any objections to those, and we do got to camera the sewer line, find out where it is so we can determine where to put a sewer easement, but hopefully he's been there by adverse possession or something, we'll figure something out, but we'll get it written up and get it correct. I'll be glad to respond to any questions at this time, I don't want to belabor this issue. Mr. Sanchez has a question. I have a question, as I was going through my notes, there's talks about an unpermitted addition and then it says, when it was inspected in 2016, it says the addition showed indications of a lack of structural integrity, have you all looked at that? As far as, I know nobody's mentioned it, this is the only place I've seen it, so I was just wondering how have you addressed it, or are you looking at it as part of the permit? I'll let Karina address it, I will say this is the first we've heard of that, and the city was good to give a, not complimentary, but a preview of a walk-through and inspection, we will take care of it, but I'll let Karina elaborate on that. Yes, so part of the site history talking about the illegal addition, over the years there have been some complaints, and this is due to a previous owner, not the current owner, regarding several issues, some related to the addition, let me pull it up on this side. If you see right here, this portion was called out as an illegal addition, and so when our building inspections actually went out to inspect the site, they indicated that there was some structural issues with the walls because of that addition, however, the owner at the time did go through the process to get some repairs on the foundation that seemed to have fixed the issues with that, so from our records, our city records, it looks like that issue has been resolved through our SUP process. If you go back to one of those conditions regarding building code requirements, we had our courtesy inspection done, the applicant was in agreement, and so they walked the site together just to make sure that there were no additional safety hazards, so in that walk they found that because it's multi-family, they would need to have fire partition walls, but other than that, they didn't find any additional major issues where a major repair would be indicated to where this is not a structurally sound building. Okay, that was my concern, is that that was addressed. Yes. That was addressed. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Allison. I don't have any more questions for you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item? I certainly do so. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and give the floor to Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I move to approve this SUP with the three recommendations by the staff. So we have a first for approval with the conditions. Commissioner Smith? Second the motion. We have a first and a second for approval. Mr. Drake? I just wanted to point out that the documents found by Mr. Laird that Mr. Allison referred to were forwarded to me for the first time tonight during the work session earlier this evening. And I have forwarded them on to our real estate attorneys here in the city attorney's office. But at this time, I have some doubts about the sufficiency of those documents to meet the required standards and to in fact convey a public access easement to the city. So for the purposes of the staff recommendation of approval, I can't say that that includes our legal department at this time. The documents seem to include an easement that allows for construction of an all weather access, not for maintenance or ongoing use. And we cannot confirm at this time that that would satisfy the ordinary code requirements for development with regard to public access. In fact, the width of it seems to be narrower than would be required in a situation for platting. And for whatever purpose, the commission chooses to give weight to that if any at all in looking at the access component of recommending specific use permit at this time, I will simply offer that information. I cannot give you a clear up or down legal recommendation at that time, I can only offer you doubt. >> Thank you, Mr. Drake. Mr. Beck. >> Well, as Jerry's comments have given me pause then on my motion, I'm wondering if perhaps I should add to the recommendations his concerns about this right of way. Would that be appropriate? If so, probably need some help wording it. >> If you're asking me as parliamentarian, you can certainly withdraw your motion if that's the case or make another motion or wait for another motion to be made. >> Would like to withdraw it and add your concerns to the road. I had a little bit of concern about that myself earlier, so if -- chair, if I can remove my motion. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Mr. Allison, if you -- you said that -- come to the mic -- you said you've talked to the fire department, can you speak to more of that and if you have an additional point. >> As far as the fire department, that was talking about the physical access. I appreciate Mr. Drake's comments. This is the first time hearing that that easement may not be adequate and I acknowledge that I have not read it either or pursued it, we were just told we thought we found it. With that, I don't think we would mind a condition at all related to adding appropriate access suitable to the city as a part of this approval. I would hope that the neighbors would want us to be able to access and clean up this site versus keeping the way it is, so if that's necessary, we'd certainly be agreeable to that. >> Captain, can you clear the board of the motion? Oh, we're back. Commissioner Beck. >> At this point, I would like to make a motion to approve this SUP with three staff recommendations plus a fourth recommendation that we get this access concern clarified straight in the way and I don't know how to word that exactly, but obviously there's a concern about the right of way there. That could create problems. >> Karina. >> I just want to point out we did have previously the condition based on legal recommendation. I believe the wording was that the applicant demonstrate that access for public services exists for the site prior to certificate of occupancy. That was the language we had in before, however staff did review the document related to the access easement and did speak with fire twice about the access in which they indicated that it was appropriate for them and they currently use it to access the site now, so I just kind of wanted to make that clarification. >> And I appreciate that, Karina, but just so we're doing due diligence, if we could get it resolved to Jerry's satisfaction, he is our legal advisor here, so again, I would like to add that condition. >> You know, I would prefer to give you a well informed legal opinion so that you can make an informed decision if it wouldn't be too much of a hardship to postpone this until the next meeting, I think that would give us a reasonable opportunity to do some exploration into the easements that are offered and give the planning and zoning commission a more thorough report on where we feel the easements leave us. >> Okay, and you feel certain that you could provide that information, we could have this settled by the next BNZ meeting? >> I feel confident. >> Okay. >> I feel certain, but I feel confident. >> Mr. Allison, is that amenable to you? A couple more weeks? >> Well, generally, yes, specifically, we're either going to find out that we got to go get another easement or we're going to find out it's good to go, so we can go either way in two weeks, give us a chance to look at the easement and see what we can do as well. >> I guess I'll leave my motion as it is, rather than -- okay. >> Mr. Cronin, do you want to say something? >> Just wanted to clarify again, we initially had it, as Karina had indicated, we had had that condition about the access easement when we went through the deed records, specifically volume 257, page 700, there is a description of the easement and it is hereby dedicated such land to the public for use as an easement for the purposes of ingress and egress. Again, we went through a real estate individual or analyst as part of our department who clarified that yes, that is the -- that description does match the easement that's been in place since, I don't know when this was initially recorded, 1979. >> Okay. Then we can probably feel comfortable that this will go through without a whole lot of problems, but we'll at least have done our due diligence and allow Jerry's concern to be addressed. >> The only other point I want, again, as I discussed and mentioned in the work session, the width of the 24 foot drive is part of the subdivision regulations. They're not required to subdivide or follow the platix, so therefore that is not a requirement. >> Understood. Thank you. I'm good. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Okay. Clarification of the motion on the floor. >> Commissioner Beck, can you clarify your motion? >> You would ask that. Yes. We're going to recommend approval of the SUP with the Staff 3 recommendation plus legal's concern about the right of way for the means of ingress and egress. Good enough. Okay. >> Second motion. >> So we have a first and a second for approval, Commissioner Sanchez. >> I guess my question was, when you were talking about a private easement, my question was, and he answered it was since 1970, I think you said. But as a private easement, it's strictly for those people utilizing that building or it's not public, it doesn't have to be public so everybody can go in and out of it, does it? I'm not -- so it's really a private drive. >> No. I mean, you're opening multifamily units open to the public and there does need to be public access to that land. It's not a single family home where they own the private easement. That's what it was originally and that's why the easement was sufficient back then. People decided to build a single family home there and as long as they owned the land that they get access from, their approval is sufficient to satisfy their needs. It's just like having a private drive. When you turn that into a multifamily unit, the standards change a bit and, you know, ordinarily you need to have some kind of public access, whether that be frontage on a public street or a fully dedicated public easement. Yes, there is the language about public access, but it was for installation of an all-weather surface sufficient to satisfy the needs of two individuals, as I recall. I think there's enough doubt in there that it certainly gives us pause and we need to advise you about it. The call is the commission's to make as far as what it wants to recommend. I simply have a legal duty to advise you. >> I guess I was only curious -- I was curious because when we were discussing that location as a little community down on Colorado, they had a private -- we said it was private streets. So that's my question, but it could be accessed by the fire department, but it was still private. So how do you -- we compare that to something like this, they identify it as a private road. People can still utilize that street if they go visit those people living there, but it's not utilized for just anybody going in there because it doesn't go anywhere. >> Those aren't multi-family residents. That's a facility that's owned Alpha to Omega by the senior care facility and they can bring people in under terms of their contract. >> If I could interject here, Mr. Sanchez, has the deed pulled up, if we could pull the eye in the sky up, it says -- and we can read it. >> I figure rather than talk in the abstract, you can see the exact document that we had included. I'm not going to read all, but I will highlight the dedication to the public for the use of an easement for the purpose of ingress and egress gives a legal description, the grant of the easement shall be perpetual, shall run with the land in title, and then there was some right-of-way dedication. >> Richard, in your reading of that, does it speak to anything about the purpose of construction that they were conceding the public access? >> There was the right-of-way hereby conveyed for the purpose of locating, establishing, construction, maintaining over and across the subject property and all-weather road. So that was -- that's in conjunction with the right-of-way. The top part was in conjunction with the easement dedicated to the public for ingress and egress. >> Clear as mud. Krisha Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. Okay. So I'm super uncomfortable with staff and legal not being on the same page here, and if this is not sufficient, we don't exactly know what that's going to look like if something has to be recreated. So I'm going to move to postpone to get more clarification. I move to postpone until our next planning and zoning meeting. >> So we have a superseding motion to postpone. Do we have a second? By show of hand, do we have a second? Commissioner Sanchez. >> I second, Commissioner Ellis' recommendation. >> So we have a first and a second to postpone to the next P&Z meetings at a date certain, Commissioner Ellis. >> To the next planning and zoning meeting. >> Is that the special call? Does it go to the 17th? The special call is next week. July 17th is the next regular call. >> July 17th? >> Yes. >> So a first and a second to postpone this item to the July 17th meeting. Is there any discussion on this? We will call for a vote to postpone this agenda item on the board. Motion carries 5-1. It will be back on the agenda on July 17th. Next item of business is item 4-D, S19-0002. I will open the public hearing and invite Julie Wyatt for presentation. >> Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt. I'm the senior planner with the city, and I'm presenting S19-2, forest crossing. So the request before you is for a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings. The subject property is about 15 acres. It's outlined here in yellow. It's on the north side of McKinney, west of May Hill, and east of loop 288. The subject property has a CMG zoning district, and that was approved in 2017. CMG permits multifamily dwellings with an SUP or as part of a mixed use development. Tonight the applicant is seeking an SUP for the multifamily use. The criteria for approval are in subchapter 6 of the Denton Development Code. I won't go over all of those. I won't read those to you, but we'll just kind of talk about them as we talk about the site plan and the proposal. So the first thing we always look at is the future land use element of Denton Plan 2030. And that designates this property in the surrounding area as community mixed use. This is intended to promote a mix of uses to encourage commercial and also complementary residential uses. The intent is to encourage diverse uses to be located next to each other to create districts. Multifamily development is consistent with the future land use map. It's a complementary residential use for commercial development, and it's often found in mixed use districts. Denton Plan 2030 also talks about the growth projections for the city. And per that plan, Denton is expected to grow to over 200,000 people by 2030, which will require additional housing and as part of that mix will be multifamily. So they are proposing that over 12,000 new multifamily units will be needed in order to satisfy the demand. Multifamily developments in strategic locations like urbanized areas, adjacent arterials, are appropriate because they're within proximity to schools and shopping and employment and allows that housing to develop in a compact development pattern which is part of our vision for our city and it reduces that sprawl. Here's the site plan. The subject property is outlined in the black hatch mark. The applicant is proposing 12 three-story buildings, and they're in the purple. They're accessing McKinney in this location and then Mayhill. They're proposing 68 percent lot coverage, 31 percent landscape area, a building height, a maximum building height of about 41 feet, and a maximum density of 18.6 dwelling units per acre. They're also proposing a community building with a pool. Two detention areas, one in this location and one in this location. And they're proposing what I call a donut design in that it's that 15 acres in the middle of an undeveloped area reserving the commercial tracks adjacent to those arterials for that future commercial development. That has the greater access. It's got the greater visibility. So in this location that residential makes sense. It provides that higher density dwellings needed for commercial development but sets it off of the street to allow the commercial to develop adjacent to the right of way. Fencing and open spaces as well as the parking areas are proposed surrounding the buildings to provide a little extra separation between the future or the proposed future residential of multifamily and that potential future commercial development. And the proposal also meets parking regulations. The landscape plan indicates that they are proposing 476 new trees. And your backup shows the variety of species. And at maturity, this canopy would create over 300,000 square feet of new tree canopy. This is the north side of the property. The green dots are those proposed trees or at least tree areas. And then this is the southern portion of the property. Here's that driveway to May Hill and McKinney. They're also proposing open space areas for the tree preservation and additional planting in that area to provide those more meaningful tree stands. The proposed elevations show three story buildings with earth tones. They do propose bright accent colors in orange and yellow and burgundy to identify the different buildings and add that pop of color. The exterior facades include fiber cement siding, stone, brick, and metal guard rails. As part of their request, they are requesting a deviation for a couple of the site design requirements in subchapter 13 of the Debt and Development Code, particularly where the buildings and the parking are placed. The SUP is not the process to approve that. If this SUP is approved, they will have to come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission to get approval of that ADP. They've actually already submitted for it. It's just we've got to take things in order. Staff really doesn't have a lot of issue with their request of deviations. It's just got to follow that process. As part of the analysis, we looked at the infrastructure. First of all, transportation. They provided trip generation. Per the ITE trip generation manual, this proposed 288 dwelling units would generate about 2,100 trips per day. That's 130 peak morning and 151 peak evening. They would also have to pay roadway impact fees as a result of the development. This is used to implement the mobility plan, and the estimated amount for the proposal is approximately about $357,000 for roadway impact fees. They would also have to make some perimeter street improvements, particularly to mitigate for traffic to their side. That would be a left turn lane going eastbound into McKinney. That way, cars traveling east on McKinney would have a safe way to turn left into the subject property. There are nearby capital improvements. You're probably well aware of the Mayhill Road improvements. That will, in the near future, include four travel lanes with a large median, but there will be additional space to add two extra lanes, and then East McKinney Street will be improved imminently, and that is east of loop 288, and it will be a four-lane divided road with curb, gutter, and five-foot sidewalks. Water and wastewater are available to the property. There is a park about 3,700 linear feet from the subject site. That's about a 15- to 20-minute walk, which really doesn't meet our park's goals for our 10-minute-to-a-walk park standard, but they are working on identifying additional parkland as well as parking with schools, so they are working actively to make sure we have adequate parks within the city. As part of the adequate park provision, the applicant will have to do a park dedication as well as development fees for the subject property. The schools within the attendance zone do have adequate capacity per Denton ISD, and there's also a fire station within the vicinity. We did a property tax analysis based upon the unimproved value of the property, and based upon the estimated improvement value that the applicant provided, we do anticipate that the value of the property would increase, which could result in a potential increase of about $198,000 paid to the city within a given year. Public notification was sent out. We didn't receive any responses, and staff does recommend approval of the request as it meets the criteria for approval. We do recommend that the project conform to the site plan and landscape plan and elevations that were shown, and as part of our conditions, we recommend that they come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission within 30 days of city council approval of an SUP with that alternative development plan to go ahead and get that process completed for those proposed deviations. And the applicant is here, and I'll stand for any questions. We do have a couple. Commissioner Ellis? Thank you, Chair. I'll go back one slide of your recommendation. Go to the next one. It's the one where it talks about units. Perhaps it's the one before. The 202. Right. So there's a typo there that needs to be addressed. Recommendation 2 doesn't make sense there. I do believe it's 288, but it says 214. Oh. Oh, you're right. Thank you. I'll make sure to correct that. Commissioner Becht? Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Julie. I just caught something that piqued my interest there. You may not notice that you're not part of the ISD, but I noticed the elementary schools available would be Hodge and Rivera. Does that mean, or do you know, does that mean the kids in that area, families in that area will have a choice between the two? I don't think so. When I look at their attendance boundary, I believe I'm quoting this correctly, but their attendance boundary kind of cuts across the subject property so that kids within a certain part of the development would go to one, but I don't really know how that works out with Denton ISD. It's okay. Thank you, though. I don't see any other questions. Thanks, Julie. This is a public hearing. We do have some individuals wanting to speak. If you do want to speak, we just ask you to fill out a card. The first individual is Amy Passett. Good evening, commissioners. I do represent the developer tonight as the applicant, and I have a brief presentation for you. I want to start a little bit by giving you some of the zoning history, just so you can hear the vision behind the intent of the development as a whole. As Julie mentioned, this property was rezoned in 2017. It was actually rezoned as ten tracks under unified control that are all still owned by the same property owner today. It was rezoned to CMG with the intent to be a regional hub for commerce and community services and to feature a live/work/play environment, which this multifamily component is certainly a part of that. The long-term plan is to bring in grocery and retail and restaurants and offices along the corridors, but as we all know, rooftops tend to come first and then attract the commercial uses after that. So the SUP is because the multifamily is coming in first, which is a logical progression from an economic standpoint. I also want to give you a little bit of the project history, specifically because Commissioner Beck asked about us coming in under the 2002 code versus the 2019 code. And we actually filed our preliminary plat application in April of 2018 and our traffic impact analysis in July of 2018. The SUP and ADP applications were filed simultaneously in January of this year, so all of those came in prior to the adoption of the new code. So I will show you our tree mitigation and preservation numbers in a little more detail since you asked that question, Commissioner Beck, but we didn't necessarily choose to come in under the old code. It was just the timing of the development. And just so you are aware, you will see this project multiple times. You approved the preliminary plat tonight. We will have the ADP coming back next month if tonight goes well, and we've got the final plat coming in shortly after that. In fact, our building plans are already in review with the city as well. I do want to point out the preferred growth concept for the City of Denton. You'll notice that there is a place making and urban vitality center that's centered right around the corridor that we are looking at today. So it is intended in the comp plan to be the highest degree of density and the highest degree of mixed use, and it is adjacent to two primary arterials and a secondary arterial. The project details, Julie went through, but I do want to point out a couple more specifics. There are 288 units, you're correct, Commissioner Ellis, in 12 buildings. It's split evenly between one bedroom and two bedroom units. The average density is 18.6. We do meet the parking requirement at 515, and there are four color schemes that help break up the look a little bit, but also provide some uniformity, so I'll just quickly scroll through those since Julie did show them to you. She also did mention that we are well within lot coverage, the maximum lot coverage being 80%. We're well below that, and we're above on landscape area, and we're proposing just a little over 44% new tree canopy coverage when the requirement is 30%. Commissioner Beck, you asked specifically about tree preservation. The majority of the trees on site are being classified as a quality tree stand because they do have one contiguous strip line, which means that we are required to preserve 25% of that, but can mitigate up to -- down to 12.5%, and we're at 17% now, and we have literally gone through our tree preservation plan, individual tree by tree, to save everyone possible even inside the construction envelope in order to meet and exceed these requirements. I do want to let you know that we have quite a few team members here tonight representing the lender, the developer, the buyer, the investor, the broker, and so any question you may have about the project, I've got somebody here that would be more than happy to answer that question if I'm not able to, and with that, I'll be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Amy. I think Commissioner Beck has a question. Couldn't get my screen back up in time. Thank you, Amy, for your presentation. Just a couple of questions. I'm always interested to want to see multifamilies come up, and this is a good area where addressing low income families, are there going to be any units set aside priced to accommodate low income families? Has that been a consideration? I'm going to let the developer answer that question specifically. I do know they are market apartments, but I don't really know specifics about what the rental rates will be. Okay. I'll give him an opportunity to answer that, and he can answer the other one, too, because we talked about the race is on, whether you're going to start before the McKinney's expanded or vice versa, so I was just curious if that was -- I can tell you a little bit about that, so our intent is to have building permits before the end of August, so it's aggressive, which is why we have all of our plans in review today. Okay. So I do expect that it would come along quickly, and I also understand that if we beat the McKinney expansion, we may be required to add sidewalks or do some things within our property that tech stock may come along and -- Okay. -- would do later. It just depends on the timing. Okay. Conceivably, if weather allows stuff like that, you might be breaking ground this year? I'll let the developer answer that question. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chair. Amy, I actually have a question for you. I have a question for Julie in regards to you beating out the McKinney project. Julie, if I can ask you a quick question. When I asked in the work session about sidewalks, if they do beat out the McKinney project, is it -- they have to do improvements, including sidewalks, along their entire stretch of their property? You mentioned something along the lines of, like, the short stretch right in front of their entrance, so I can know -- Just along the portion of their property that touches McKinney, which is that sort of tail of it. Do you have a -- to me, I think Ms. Bissett might have her -- her project -- I might be able to see it from there. So it's a very, very tiny amount. It's -- Yes, sir. Just the entrance. Okay. Thank you. Sure. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak? I certainly do so. We have a couple more cards. The next individual is Greg Johnson, followed by Nathan Toon. Did you just state your name and address for the record? I think you know the drill. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Thank you for your service. My name is Greg Johnson, 319 West Oak Street here in Denton. I'm representing the seller who's selling the land on the property. I just wanted to offer up a couple of comments as it relates to this whole project. So Mr. Strange and his partners have assembled roughly 75 acres from Luke 288 to May Hill, McKinney on the bottom side, and we desperately -- the east side of Denton desperately deserves a great mixed-use project, and this is the spot to do it. You might have seen, because I'm sure you all drive around looking for my signs, you know, every day, but you may notice that the commercial signs just went up, and that was by design. So we wanted to let May Hill get almost completed, and hopefully McKinney Street -- we really won't sell anything likely along McKinney Street until that's completed, but we've just started marketing the commercial tracks. We have very, very strong interest from several national credit retail tenants on the loop side. That's where we think the bulk of your major, more national retail will go, but what attracts those folks to the mixed-use obviously is, Amy said, rooftops, but in the mixed-use developments, specifically having those residences already under construction so that we can show the retailer it's really happening, right, this isn't something that may happen if you put your Chick-fil-A or your this or your that there. But I would tell you, this will be, you know, not to overstate it, but this really could change sort of the face of Loop 288 on the east side of town. If you think about it, if you drive that area, with the exception of discount tire, this area has looked the same for a very, very long time, and your theme tonight is going to be great multifamily replaces blight, and that's what you'll see here, the old Foxworth-Galbra site. We sold the corner to 7-Eleven, they're proposing to build a new 7-Eleven concept on the corner, but they're playing defense for the old junkie one across the street, so we're excited about it. I think this is a fantastic use, sandwiched right here in the middle, as Amy said, or Julie said, the whole of the doughnut, not completely hidden by the commercial, but it'll be tucked back in there with the commercial on it, so I'd really appreciate your support. Thank you. I don't see any questions. Next is Nathan Toon. Maybe you just state your name and address for the record. Nathan Toon, 3717 Merrimack Drive, Denton, Texas. I'm in support of this project. I thought Julie and staff did a fantastic job with the presentation. There's clearly a need for this type of product here in town, and specifically in this general area, the city has made significant investments in thoroughfares and roadways, and is planning to make further investments in this area, as well as TechStot, and so I think that the density and the rooftops and the people living in this area will do wonders for, like the previous gentleman said, the future commercial development, and so those are some of the main reasons why I support the project and would ask for your support, as well. Thank you. Thank you. There's no other cards to speak. We have several names to read into the record. Before I do so, I do have a card that the agenda item was left blank, and I want to make sure I read this to the correct item. Is Brenna Pennington still here? Which agenda item were you wanting to ... Hunters Creek. Hunters Creek? Okay. Thank you. So, with that, I'm going to read the following names into the record, and I apologize in advance for any mispronunciation. Steve Cohn is in support, Fred Morgan in support, Gary Hill in support, J.V. Strange in support, Stephen Charnquist did not know ... Is he here? Were you in support or ... Okay. Stephen Charnquist is in support, Daniel Crane is in support, Richard Lapp is in support, and J. Mike Reynolds, or Mikel Reynolds, is in support. Those are all the cards that have ... This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, at this time, I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for discussion and motion. Commissioner Smith. Motion for approval of S19-0002. We have a motion for approval. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I was just hoping we'd get the developer up here to ask the questions I asked. Amy, is the developer here? Okay. If you don't mind, sir, please state your name and address. Sure. My name is Stephen Charnquist, 5799 Oliver Drive. Stephen Charnquist? Charnquist. C-H-A-R-N-Q-U-I-S-T. The address is 5799 Oliver Drive, Houston, Texas, 77057. Do you want me to repeat my concerns? No. If I understand, if I get it wrong, tell me. First, thank you all for tonight, give us an opportunity. We think this is a great project. Your first question, I believe, had to do with whether or not we're going to have any low income housing. It is not. It is a market rate project. Okay. I had to ask. I'm sorry? I had to ask. Yes. I understand. Yes. It's market rate. And breaking ground this year, right? We will break ground this year. Okay. Very good. We are pushing every lever we can. We really need to get this thing done by the end of August. Looking forward to it. Thank you, sir. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. Commissioner Smith, just for the record, were you -- was your motion including staff recommendations and conditions? Yes, it was. And Commissioner Ellis, are you okay seconding that? Yes, I am. Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much for your comments and conditions by staff recommendation. Is there any other discussion on the item? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Congratulations. Next item of business is item 4EZ18-0011F. I'll open the public hearing and invite Julie Wyatt for presentation. All right. This is Z18-11, Agave Ranch. Because you have seen this before, I thought I'd start out with the timeline. In January -- on January 9th of this year, you -- or this item came before you to rezone the subject property to NR4 across the entire 92 acres. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of the request. The applicant did not move forward to City Council, but instead went back to modify the project to reduce the NR4 to a portion of the site. They're also proposing NR3 and NR2, and that request came before the Planning and Zoning Commission in May. At that time, the Planning and Zoning Commission asked the applicant to go back and reduce those densities and voted to postpone the property -- I'm sorry, the project. So the applicant went back, changed the densities, and now we're back here tonight to -- for your consideration. So tonight's request is for an initial zoning and a change of zoning from Rural Residential 5 District to Neighborhood Residential 3 on 45 1/2 acres and Neighborhood Residential 2 on 46 1/2 acres, totaling about -- approximately 92.6 acres of land. The subject property is outlined in yellow, and it is on the east side of FM428 north of Loop 288. This is a side-by-side comparison of what the existing zoning is and what they're proposing. The existing zoning has RD5 adjacent to FM428 with RD5X, essentially unzoned property to the east, the balance of the site there in the stripes. They're proposing a zoning pattern that you see in here. You've got the yellow that is the NR2, and then they're proposing NR3 along FM428. Your backup has a use and density comparison, essentially NR3 permits about 3 1/2 dwelling units per acre. NR2 permits about 12 -- two dwelling units per acre. If this was approved, they could develop a maximum of 252 dwellings. Current zoning is one of our more rural zoning designations, and the minimum lot size would be 5 acres. So the criteria for approval is in step chapter 3 of the Debt and Development Code, and the first thing is does it conform to the future land use element of Debt and Plan 2030? The subject property is in a designated rural areas per the future land use map, and the intent of that is to maintain the rural character along the city's edge, but the proposed zoning designations do not meet the future land use designation. So then we go to a different criteria for approval, still in step chapter 3 of the Debt and Development Code, and we'll kind of talk through those. Category 1 and 2, does it conform to the existing land uses and zoning, and what would be the impact to future development? Staff has seen with continued projects that have come before us that development is pushing to the north, particularly on the arterials like Locust, I-35, and FM428, and so this is kind of showing a contiguous growth pattern emerging, and so there is a lot of potential out there, and it is slowly moving north. The subject property is adjacent to a couple of zoning districts across the FM428. There's NR4, so there's adjacency for NR4, which is actually more dense than what the proposed NR3 permits, and then there's also NR2 to the north of there. The proposal could also create a transition area, a buffer, between any rural uses to the east and the high traffic areas along FM428. The applicant did provide trip generation numbers actually on 310 properties, so it's actually greater than what they're proposing. That 310 homes would create about 2,900 trips per day. The city also undertook a transportation study for the northeast sector of town. As you're probably aware, FM428 is really that central spine that all trips go through, both who live here and then also travel to the city, and so we wanted to see and understand how this area is going to develop out in the future. And then capital improvements, there is a dedicated right-turn lane and a signal proposed for Loop 288 and FM428, and those are scheduled for installation by the end of this year. So here are the results of that transportation study. This map shows the outer loop to the north. You can see it's kind of faint. And it also really shows more east-west connections to really disperse more of that traffic throughout the area instead of just staying on one central spine. The subject property is here in red. Hartley Field, as this is proposed, would straighten out, cut through the subject property, and then head west, actually connecting to Locust and providing additional connections to the west. There is water and sewer available to the property. And there is adequate school capacity for students generated by the proposal. And there is a fire station within 1.2 miles from the subject property. Impact fees would be paid as a result of any development. As they're proposing, the estimated roadway impact fee would be about $500,000, which comes to about $2,000 per dwelling unit. And then parks also requires a dedication fee as well as a development fee. The dedication fee is based on a formula, and the estimated park dedication for the property would be 1.7 acres. The park development fee would be about $291 per single-family dwelling. We also did a property tax analysis based upon the current taxable value of the land as it is. Part of it does have an agricultural exemption on it. And then what the estimated taxes would be at buildout if the houses that they are proposing were valued at about $370,000. And that comes to an estimated city taxes with improvements of about $578,000 per year. We also want to consider the character of the area and the land uses. And this is a rural area. But with that existing growth around it, we do anticipate stage development along these arterials. But some uses in NR 3 and NR 2 would be inappropriate, more townhome uses, and manufactured housing. So we're recommending a condition that only single-family uses would be permitted. We also looked at the mobility and open space. Since this area is known for especially ranching and horses, the design standard should complement that character. And that's why we're proposing as a condition of approval that they would be required to construct an off-street multi-use path, essentially a trail off the street, however they wanted to design that. But we wanted to make sure that every home in the development would be a maximum of 1,300 feet from a trail head so that those residents could access it. And then we also request two remote connections to adjacent properties to make sure that trail would be extended in the future. Also looking at buffers, FM428 is a high capacity, higher speed road now, and it will only increase in size with text dot plans. And so therefore, it's important that there are buffers at arterials. Not only for the residents out there to minimize the visual impacts of rooftops, but also for the future residents of any residential development. And so that's why we're recommending that 30 foot landscape buffer with trees, landscaping, berms, as well as fencing. Public notification was sent out. We sent a lot of them out. And so in your backup, you received all of the response letters that we have received thus far with this project. We didn't receive any letters for this specific request in that boundary around the property adjacent to FM428. They did also hold neighborhood meetings. But I wanted to show you also where all of those opposition and in favor letters have come from. I know you've seen this slide before, but wanted to once again point it out to you. So staff does recommend approval of this request, as it does meet the overall vision and goals of Debt and Plan 2030. But we do recommend the following conditions to ensure compatibility, one, to restrict those uses back to single family, to require that off-street multi-use path with the 1,300 feet with access point and the remote connections, and then the 30 foot landscape buffer on FM428. The applicant is here, and I will stand for any questions. Thank you, Julie. I don't see any questions at this time. This is public hearing. We have several cards to go through. But if you're wanting to speak and unfollow the card, you're more than welcome to do so. The applicant is Amy Bassett again, or other. If you could just state your name and address for the record. Jason Feigley with Allison Engineering, 2415 North Elm. And Jason, just to give you a heads up, with the two listed, you have 20 minutes. Yes, I'll try to keep it. I think we made it last time. All right. Let's try it. We'll be a little quicker this time. Again, as a quick overview, original public hearing was back in January. We had a total of four public hearings before that meeting and a few after neighborhood meetings. Our second public hearing was back in May, and at that meeting, we were trying to emphasize alignment with the Denton Plan, the 2030 vision, and we were trying to be responsive to neighborhood interests. And our original plan was for an NR4 development, 368 homes. On May 15th, we reduced it to a transition zoning with NR4, NR3, NR2, reduced the number of homes down to 306. And tonight, we are presenting another modified zoning request, which we're trying to be a little more responsive to commissioner interests that we heard last month by further reducing overall density and then also memorializing open space, pocket parks, and ponds. And that's also in addition to the conditions that Julie mentioned earlier. So our new zoning request is consistent with adjacent zoning, as Julie pointed out earlier. It's a graduated zoning that protects the fringe from increasing density. We are bordering the existing NR4 with a proposed NR3 that runs up along 428 and then wrapping our NR3 with an NR2 on the north, as you saw before back in May, and then down the east side of the property along both, and then down to that southern edge, which is unincorporated. This is consistent with the growth pattern across the outer loop of Denton, which I'll show that in a second. We are less than 1,500 feet away from commercial zoning, the CMG that's down at the corner of 288 and 428, and one of the main things that we did want to focus on here is addressing the commissioner interests and maintain that eastern rural character as you get into the lower density, some of those one acre lots that are east of us and the unincorporated area south of us, really providing a buffer. Before we were focusing on south to north as you moved away from the loop, decreasing density, now we're also focusing on moving away from the major arterial reducing density. This slide we showed last time back in May, these major gateways, the seven major gateways that were identified in the Denton plan, the 2030 plan, and really what this shows is that this development falls within the overall pattern that exists in Denton. As you move away from the center of Denton and the courthouse, you move into the two and a half to four, four and a half mile zone outside of the center of Denton, you see that all around Denton you do have anywhere from NR2 to NR4 zoning. We fit right within that target zone. The gateways, as identified, tend to be anywhere from four and a half out to the seven mile point, along 380, you're almost seven miles out, and that's where the northeastern gateway is off of 428 up at Warshun Road, that is identified as the gateway from 428 into Denton. That's about two and a half miles away from this development. These images are from the 2030 plan as well, and they just show the growth patterns, and it shows where we are there out by the Natatorium. The 2030 plan vision statement anticipate future housing needs as the city's population grows. We've heard that a couple of times tonight, that a variety of housing is needed, and we intend to align our development with this plan, align the development approvals to reflect the changing housing market through a mix of housing, embracing walkability, sustainability, and conservation. Encourage innovative housing development through residential development in rural areas that protects the rural character, again, by allowing this transitional zoning and a cluster type concepts in our development, we hope to meet these goals with compact mixed use and walkable development patterns. Again, we're meeting the city's recommendation, staff's recommendation of that, of the walking distance, all the residents within here will be within walking distance of a park. Area-wide trails, greenways, and green infrastructure, again, the connectivity to the city's plan and mix of housing types to reflect changing demographics and housing preferences. Having some of the lower density NR2 along the north and the east will allow a different home, a different price point than what will be along 428 in the NR3 zoning. These slides we showed last time, I'm trying not to focus on the community amenities tonight. We talked a lot about the home types and the community amenities. All of that's still planned, but one of the interests that the commissioners brought up was really about the zoning, that we're setting zoning for this property and what is to happen with this, what are we permanently doing to this property? That's really why I'm focusing on the density and not so much the other amenities that we still are incorporating and you will see as we hopefully come back with platting in the future. The concept plan currently, and this is a rough concept plan, it is the 92 acres that provides a maximum of 252 lots and overall density of 2.7 units per acre, and that's the two units per acre on the NR2, the northern and eastern sides, and the three and a half up to three and a half units per acre along the NR3. Provides for two distinct neighborhoods and even within that you'll really end up with a neighborhood kind of on the north side of the primary arterial that will divide this development and then a neighborhood on the south side with two different levels of density within those neighborhoods. We have three ponds and nine pocket parks and we feel very confident about memorializing those amenities. We've got three drainage basins here utilizing the existing pond and then providing with two additional ponds, one at that northern gateway which we've discussed in the past and then one along the eastern edge. The pocket parks will be distributed throughout the development and utilizing some of the existing features, again, providing that vicinity closeness to all of the residents so they have amenities that they can walk to. We are memorializing again a minimum of 15% preserved green space and that's on top of the landscape buffers that staff was recommending along 428, the other additional buffers along the arterials, the streetscape that will be out in front of every home, and individual lot coverage which code does have lot coverage requirements for NR2 and NR3 that is significantly greater than what was going to be allowed in the NR4. With these distinctive neighborhoods, again, trying to retain the rural character in open space, trying to implement some clustering concepts as an alternative to the large lot development and that's really in response to what market demand is showing. The new development should be organized for walkability which we are doing, access to parks which we are providing, open space and recreation, and ideally with all residents should be within a 5-10 minute walk from neighborhoods serving retail and amenities. Again, we are located within what will become a pretty significant retail center there at 288 and 428. I think Amy will continue with some additional comments. Thank you, commissioners. I'll be brief. I know you guys have seen this several times at this point but you see many cases throughout the month so I just want to make sure that we refresh your memory. What we heard from the neighbors in the four neighborhood meetings that we had was that they were concerned about whether or not we aligned with the Denton Plan which Jason just went through, the ways that we believe that we do, the preservation of rural character, the traffic on 428, the density and concentration of lots, their environmental concerns for the Clear Creek Tributary nearby, respecting the character of the land, specifically the ecoregion, concerns about multifamily in the future and ongoing neighborhood engagement. We are attempting to preserve the rural character through the open space amenities that we're providing with the pond, especially at the north entrance into the community gateway. It creates a rural feel and preserves that feel as well as the 30-foot landscape buffer which I'll show you a little bit better perspective of that. We are proposing to preserve over 14 acres of open space which we are willing to memorialize as a condition or as a part of a zoning approval. Just to talk a little bit about 428, this is kind of a cross-section of what it looks like today with our future development on the left-hand side in green. So you've got two through lanes and two shoulders and then 32 and a half feet of green space or right-of-way that exists today. What will be required of us to provide, if this is approved, is the 428 will be widened across the frontage of our property which is 3,800 feet that will include a center turn lane, two through lanes and two shoulders. But then more importantly is we'll have the 32 and a half feet of right-of-way plus a public utility easement plus a buffer. This illustration shows a 20-foot buffer. Staff is recommending a 30-foot buffer which we are amenable to that condition which puts our development 75 feet from the edge of curb of 428. This is more of an elevation of what that might look like. Again, this is at the 20-foot landscape buffer but it gives you a feel for the distance between the masonry screening wall at the back fence line of the first house to the curb. It would end up being 75 feet. We did hear from the neighbors that they have some environmental concerns specifically about existing plants, native plants and grasses on the property. We have absolutely no problem with working with master naturalists at their suggestion to preserve or transplant any of those native species. We're also more than willing to use native and adapted plants in our landscape plan and to protect the adjacent Clear Creek tributary. As you can see from the image above, it does not encroach into our property but a finger of it does kind of just back up to the property. So we recognize that it's there, it's certainly not something that we would disturb or cause damage to in any way. Agave Ranch owners do want to be good neighbors. They're committing to memorializing all of these conditions, holding future neighborhood meetings, agreeing to staff recommended conditions and committing to memorializing a 15% preserved open space including three ponds and nine pocket parks and that pond or pocket park amenity is within a five minute walk of all homes within the development. If you do codify that, maybe the same 1,300 feet that Julie is suggesting to a trailhead. And that is all I have but I'd be happy to answer any questions. We have questions. I'm not sure if it's going to be for you or Jason but it starts with Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chair. I actually have a question for Jason, although Mr. Smith, you might be able to answer too. Last time we presented, we had NR2, NR3, NR4. The plan with the NR2 was to make the developments in that area be local custom home builders. Is that still the plan with NR2 or the plans now with NR3 being wrapped by NR2? I'm not sure if there -- with the 46.5 acres of NR2, that's now 93 homes. I don't know if you'll have local home builders that will want to take all 93 lots. I definitely know that a chunk of these would still be reserved for local home builders. I definitely still see that northern piece maintaining an independent character from the rest of the development so even though you have the NR2 wrapping down, I think you'll still see a variety of homes throughout this development. Do you see a local -- not a local developer -- do you see even a national developer or a regional developer who -- I should say builder, not developer -- do you see a regional or national builder who would come in and buy a chunk like 60? Does that seem like something that you would -- I think that might be a better question for the developers. I mean, I know that that is the intent that -- I guess I'd hate to be caught in between, so to speak. I would like for that characteristic of custom home builders still being involved in this process for the NR2 and I understand that there's not many local home builders who can take on 93 homes. Right. They don't have that demand necessarily but I'd also hate it for a national or even a regional builder to say, "Well, 93 homes isn't really enough for us to devote energy and time to." And so for things to not get built out, that'd be a sad thing for me to see. And I'm not sure how much of a variety of product you'll see, again, on the southern piece. I mean, with the NR2, again, the current code does have certain lot coverage requirements and the side yard requirements and we'll adhere to all of that. But will there be a different builder on that southern piece? I'm not sure. Wouldn't that be a question for the owners if they're here? They might be able to speak to that. Chair, does the developer have a card up here? If so, I'll wait until the card. I don't know. I believe either John or Todd might -- Todd, I'm sorry. Okay. So -- Yeah, I'd like to ask the question of the developer then. Okay. You didn't want to speak? Okay. Is it okay if he comes up and answers? Absolutely. There's a question, if you wouldn't mind answering it. If you could just state your name and address for the record. My name is John Howman. I live at 300 Lamar Street, Roanoke, Texas. Yeah. The question still stands. Yeah. What the plan is for the NR2, if it's still going to be custom home builders or if you guys are going to try to market that to a national or regional builder instead. On that northern section, as it was, we still have -- the local home builders are still interested in those pieces. Like you're saying, there's not a demand for 92 for a local home builder. Our regional and national home builders are interested in the properties as it stands. So maybe the builders who are touching the NR3 section will just extend back into that equitable NR2 sections back behind there. Correct. So, you know, we're still looking at probably about 40 homes that will be up in that northern section that will be custom home builders, and that's about what our demand was. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Yeah. My question is, you know, we've gone over this several times, and one of the concerns I have -- we're always talking about affordable housing, and that's one of our big concerns. My concern is, as you've dropped the density, how is that going to affect the size of the homes you're going to build or the cost that you're going to sell them for? Well, obviously, we've cut out a large number of homes from this development, and so with removing the ability to have the NR4 in that southwestern portion and the side yard requirements and the lot coverage requirements that NR3 has that is greater than NR4, obviously that's going to affect what will go there. But that NR3, what's along 428, the goal still is to make that a more affordable product, and it is a -- NR3 is still the three and a half units per acre, and before, we read about a 3.7 overall, and so the character of the NR3 here hasn't changed that much. It's really extending that NR2 down and pulling the units out of that eastern piece that -- where we see the reduction in the total maximum number of lots. So you're not seeing an overall 92 acres that's a completely different development than what you saw a month ago. It's just setting a different zoning category, but still having a similar feel to what we had before with the lower densities, but with a variety of housing types. And so from the custom to the north to the production in the south. And that's still -- I mean, unless I'm -- feel free to come up and -- yeah. >> So really what it's done by taking this zoning change has really made more parkland. When we were here last time, it was -- I think it was a little over 12. It's now 15. >> And the 15 is a minimum, it'll likely end up being more again as we come -- as we massage this plan to meet these densities, to meet these open space requirements, that that park space will likely increase. But as a memorialization, 15% is a good number. >> And that number doesn't include the 30 foot setback that the city's requiring. So that's on top of all the parkland that's gone in here with the ponds and that type of thing. The homes, the homes are still going to be $250,000 to $400,000 homes. Some lots will be larger sizes, and our builders are willing to take those on. >> I do not see any other questions. Thanks, Jason. >> Thank you. >> The next card that I have is for Bridget Marshall, and then after Bridget, we have Susie Autry. And Miss Marshall, if you could state your name and address the record, you have four minutes to speak. >> Thank you. Good evening. I'm Bridget Marshall. I live at 3539 Pine Trail in Denton. I ask that you do not approve the Agave Ranch development. Even though the developers have made changes to their plans, NR3 zoning with three houses per acre and 252 houses total are still far too dense for this rural area, and would still have a negative impact on the land and still exacerbate the heavy traffic on FM 428 we currently experience. The FM 428 corridor is a beautiful and unique area of Denton County with its touted horse country. Careful and thoughtful planning should be taken into consideration in order to keep that aesthetic character of this area, such as laid out by the Denton Plan 2030. Last night while driving on FM 428 past the Diamond T Arena, I was reminded how beautiful this area is. Those 92 acres are not ugly flat land. I appreciate the existing prairie land, as many people do. The type of subdivision that's being proposed is just not in keeping with the horse farms, the cattle ranches, and the open land surrounding it, no matter what facade is presented. It would be a shame for dense and unbridled development to occur along FM 428, similar to what has happened to Highway 380. Once that happens, there will absolutely be no going back and regaining what once existed. Many of us moved to this area for the ruralness. We ourselves have horses and chickens on five acres, and have enjoyed living here and raising a family in the country for 22 years. I urge you to also consider the impact of having large subdivisions in an ecologically sensitive area with the Elm Fork of the Trinity River and Clear Creek watersheds. I'm also very concerned about the impact the Agave Ranch development will have on our well's water level. When questioned at one of their neighborhood meetings, the developers stated that they would use their existing well for the landscaping. That is a lot of water for 92 acres. Over the years, we have seen a dramatic decrease in water from our well during the summer months I hate to imagine how much worse it will be with a 92 acre development watering their green spaces from the same aquifer. So I'm asking you to please take all these things carefully into consideration and not approve the proposed Agave Ranch development, and to please ensure any development adheres to the recommendations laid out by the Denton Plan 2030 and the Future Land Use Plan. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Marshall. Next is Susie Autry, followed by Sharon Kramer. Hi, I'm Susie Dobson Autry, I live at 1501 Euphemia Drive in Denton, that's the north side of Denton. I'm part of the Dobson family here. We've been here each time representing the property at 5547 Woodland Hills, which is directly adjacent to the southeast side of the property in question. We continue to support the request to rezone. Even with previous rezoning, we felt like it was a good product, a good project, even better now because they are reducing the density, which is what more of the neighbors have asked for and it's more of what you have asked for. I just wanted to point out a few things. My prepared speech came last time. So we feel like they have met and exceeded many of the city's requirements, met all of the city's requirements and exceeded many of those. We feel like they've been considerate and taken on the issues that the neighbors and the city have addressed or asked of them to do. We feel like Commissioner Ellis, you mentioned last time that it's not the product that we're here to address. It's the rezoning. Once it's rezoned, it can't change back. Someone else could come in and do something different, depending on the zoning. So our feeling is, given how much time and effort this agave development has put into this and how much they've met with the neighbors, how much they've come back to the city with changes and improvements based on request, that they're invested in this and that they're not going to rezone and walk away. So we feel like we can trust what they're asking of you. We support that. A lot has been said about the rural feel, which we completely agree with. However, living at 5547 Woodland Hills Road, when there's anything at the football stadium, you see the lights, you hear the speakers. That's not too much of a rural feel anymore. You have the water park with constant traffic. That's not really the rural feel. The auditorium, the skate park, the two DISD facilities, all of that doesn't really lend itself to the rural feel anyway. In addition to the corners of Luke 288 and 428, the north side is the commercial or mixed use zoning already. So we don't know what that will entail in the future. So we feel like this is a very good complement for the area. Any mentions about horse ranches? I don't really recollect that in this area there are any horse ranches. They begin to the north. So anything up to the Clear Creek Bridge seems to be where improvement and building could take place, and this just seems like a good product. And we feel like we support it, and we hope that you will support it, and that we can work with this developer and make it the best it can be for that area. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Sharon Kramer, followed by Ned Woodbridge. If you could just state your name and address for the record, please. Sharon Kramer, 3574 Pine Trail. I'm Bridget's immediate neighbor, and I'm lucky to have her. I'm going to start with where I started last time, what Larry said in January about we have hundreds of homes coming in across Sherman Drive. Let's see how that shakes out. See what happens with TxDOT and 428. See what happens to the nature of the rate of home building. And then let's come back and look at this again. As I said earlier this week at yet another meeting, I think good decisions come from good data. Adding to the data, yes, there have been neighborhood meetings. I was surprised that there was none for this plan. I further would add that it was a broad consensus at the last meeting that NR3 was not what anyone was looking for, something like an NR2 was more acceptable. I also want to back up what Bridget said about our aquifer which is drilled just off of Hartley Field Road. I've been there for 40 years, and I usually get called when there's a water problem. And there was one last week, and I informed the other members of our water corporation that our flow rate is about 10 gallons a minute on a good day. Forty years ago that was not the case. Forty years ago it was 30 to 35 a minute. Just to sort of give you a rule of thumb on that, a garden hose, depending on the diameter or how long the run is, a garden hose can produce 5 to 12 gallons of water a minute. Well not any of my garden hoses, not any of Bridget's or other neighbors on the well. We maybe get 10 gallons a minute if no one else is running any water. So for Agave to use even more water would easily be recognizable. That leaves me just to say that a 50/50 NR2, NR3, I do not think is in keeping with the surrounding area. It may be reflective of what's across Sherman Drive, but as I've said before, four lanes or even two lanes of Sherman Drive completely disassociates those two sides. What Agave would be most connected to is the small ranchettes that pepper the ETJ to which it connects. So thank you for your time. I almost always say public service is a thankless and often a hot seat to sit in. So I appreciate the work you do for my native community. Thank you. Thank you very much Sharon. Next is Ned Woodbridge followed by Greg Johnson. Good evening. I'm Ned Woodbridge, 3596 Hartley Field Road in Denton. I am here to express my opposition to the proposed zoning change. I appreciate that the developers have made an effort to improve the plan, but I still feel it falls far short and should be rejected. The proposed development clearly is inconsistent with the Denton 2030 plan. This is noted in the staff analysis as the FLUM indicates Rural 5 zoning for this property. Time does not permit me to go through all the pertinent sections of the Denton 2030 plan and why this development proposal is antithetical to that plan. So I must limit myself to making two points. The first, the Denton 2030 plan establishes an optimal pattern of growth identified as preferred growth concept, which calls for compact growth, encouraging infill, discouraging suburban sprawl, and prescribing certain areas for future growth during the 2030 plan horizon. These prescribed areas were deemed adequate to support the growth through the 2030 plan horizon. And let me just give you an example from the community vision statement, which seeks, and I quote, "contiguous stage growth, which is fiscally and environmentally sound, reduces fragmentation and sprawl, discourages premature development," and it goes on and will continue in the interest of time. The Agave Ranch project is suburban sprawl, which is explicitly discouraged in the 2030 plan. We have all seen the unfortunate impact over the last 50 years in many communities of suburban sprawl and the economic blight it causes the city centers as retail and commercial activity moves outward to follow the population. A second reason that the Agave Ranch proposal fails the 2030 plan is that the plan calls for conservation development in the fringe areas of the city. To quote the community vision statement, page 14, regarding these areas, I quote, "In our rural fringe areas of the city and the extraterritorial jurisdiction, we see conservation development, which retains rural character, protects open space and greenways, enhances development value, and provides greater choices to landowners." Thus, if the developers are looking for guidance, what would be acceptable to the community, they should consider the conservation development pattern. They could retain the lower housing price point and smaller lots they desire in a portion of the property while maintaining significant open spaces to preserve the desired character of the community, all in the R5 context. Now, this is a personal view, but I think you might even see the community get behind an overall density of NR1 if it were done in the conservation development pattern. Lastly, I want to remind everyone that the property developers bought this property zoned as Rural 5, so under no undue burden with the existing zoning. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you very much for being here. Next is Greg Johnson followed by Nathan Tune. Hello again. Greg Johnson, 319 West Oak, Denton, Texas. I don't have a dog in this fight, I don't represent any party, but as I was listening the last time around, sometimes it's helpful to revisit history, so many of you have been around the city a long time and probably remember that RD5X has been used as a placeholder zoning. It was never intended to be used as a zoning classification, so as a city when we annex the city, we placed it as RD5X with the intention of someday whenever somebody wants to do something with it, it will get zoned appropriately. So I've heard conversation about RD5X, I think it's important to clarify that's what RD5X was intended for, at least that's the way it was always used. Secondly, I was taken aback by the photo of Teasley at I-35 in 1964, and while there's a lot of parts of our city that are rural today, they won't be rural 10 years from now. We're going to double in size by 2030, where are those people going to live? We're not going to build 20-story apartment complexes downtown. So I would just say, again, I don't have anything to do with this thing other than to say on every road that we have in our city, at some point it was all farms, and then somebody stepped out and took a risk and built something, and then the other neighborhoods come and it develops. The north side of town is the next logical place for us to grow. There's no, the reason the school district bought 100 acres right down the street from this is they know they're going to need to put a school out here. So I think we need to be open to the fact that, yes, it looks, it's country today. And I'm always appreciative of the folks who have been living somewhere for 30 or 40 years and don't want it to change, because when they bought it 30 or 40 years ago, that's the lifestyle they seeked. So I think it's important that we at least look at this with the right glasses on, right? Which is, you know, these folks, sure, they went and bought the property. Whether they bought it or they hadn't bought it yet really doesn't matter. The question is, is 428 going to grow, and is this the kind of development that we would like to see there when it grows? Because it's going to grow, you know, ultimately it's going to happen because that's the next logical place for us to grow. And so I would just urge you to think about the two points. You know, at some point the city annexed it. I'm sure that property owner didn't walk in with their hand up saying, "Annex me, please." That's why it's already 5. And 428 is a fantastic corridor for future growth because you've got some beautiful topography there. All of it can't be developed because you've got canyons and, you know, some areas that you just couldn't develop into houses. So you're going to still have a lot of green space. You've got quite a bit of floodplain up and down there. And so I think I would just say, you know, in my opinion these guys deserve a fair shake. It seems to me in looking at what they've shown as part of the development, the math doesn't work to put one or two lots per acre. You'll never see any developer build anything in Denton, Texas anymore with one or two lots per acre. You can't put the streets in. You'd have to sell the lots for half a million dollars and sell million dollar homes. Well, you could sell one of those in Denton a year. So if we want to put land to work and have quality development happen, you know, we need to -- we need to understand that these sort of things ultimately are going to grow in these corridors. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Nathan Toon. Nathan Toon, 3717 Merrimack Drive. Greg took quite a few of the words right out of my mouth. But one thought that I was going to propose kind of in a pragmatic manner was the timing of the Denton 2030 plan. I'm not sure the exact time that it was -- the report was commissioned or when it was adopted or ratified, but I would argue that several significant changes have happened to the landscape of Denton since that plan was adopted, one of which being Denton High School buying land on the north side of town in a -- what was a rural, undeveloped area. Generally when schools come, you know, come close by, so do homes. And like Greg said, when they bought and decided they were going to build in this general area, they were anticipating growth and they were, quite frankly, looking for land that wasn't already developed. And secondly, as it relates to kind of the rural plan and aspect for the northern 428 before and the 2030 plan, you know, there's a decent chance that, you know, all of that changes when the outer loop comes, you know, maybe five to eight miles north of this particular site. You know, the road that's planning to come from 75 all the way to 35 and connecting those two roadways, the last plans that I've seen show it coming not far from here. And when that -- if that comes to fruition, that would change the landscape in this particular area by itself, and, you know, I can certainly sympathize with, you know, somebody who bought a home on five acres and had a horse, you know, eventually I plan to live on, you know, something like that myself, but, you know, pragmatically speaking, I think this is the next growth frontier in the City of Denton. And this is not a very dense development relative to NR4, NR6, NR12, NRMU. This is about as undense of a subdivision as we probably will see in the City of Denton. So I support it, and I would ask that you do the same. Thank you. Thank you. This is public hearing. If anyone is wishing to speak, and we certainly do so, I have some cards of individuals not wishing to speak that I'll read into the record, and then we'll see if anyone else wants to speak. Anyone want to come on? Oh, bring it on down. That's fine. Yeah, you can fill it out later. Yeah. Hello, again. This is the third time. I think you guys all know my name, Susan Smith. I live at 7736 FM 428. I went over my reasons last time, and I do want to say that no one is opposed to development here at all, just the density for this area, which is quickly becoming overpopulated. Someone, and I would hope it would be the city, needs to give guidelines on what this area will bear in terms of traffic and safety, because we are very constricted by the Textot two-lane road, and there are a lot of areas yet to be developed and a lot of open land around where we are, so I hope you guys will consider this as you decide what you can approve and for what densities. Because we are on Textot, to say that build whatever and let the roads follow I think is sticking your head in the sand, because the Textot improvements on 377 that are currently being done have been 30 years in the making, so I just think that we have to be careful about how we space and how we populate the areas, and not to give one zoning just because they have that zoning across the street. If you didn't have 400 houses directly across the street, which had already been approved, and the possibility of annexing more, and there's a lot of other areas, the DSID area, and a lot of other land and neighbors that will be seeking to develop their land, so I hope you'll consider that and not overly congest this area. We'd like you to look at all the facts and consider what you've already approved and hold all future developments to what you feel the area can support and safely. It seems to me some requirements need to be established because we have so many areas that are yet to come up and we don't need to face this issue every time someone else wants to develop. You've heard the outcry from the many citizens that are concerned in our area, and as you stated before, it's more objections than you've ever received, and there's a good reason for that. Our plea to you is to protect our safety, our existing neighborhoods, and have some developmental requirements for future forthcoming developments. In other words, a vision and a plan for this area that can be accommodated. With that being said, what I've heard and I would agree with what some of the commissioners, including Andrew, said from the last meeting, that I feel that this area would be very appropriate, the 92 acres, for anywhere from 184 to 200 homes maximum for that amount of acreage, and I think that that would be appropriate here because you have a lot of other areas that are going to be developed and all using the same existing roads that we have right now. One thing that I wanted to say in hearing from other comments is I think the Denton 2030 plan was fairly recent, am I right? Maybe it was adapted five, eight years ago, something like that. So it is fairly recent and I think they used a lot of preparation in what they foresaw for Denton and I don't think we need to give all of our open spaces away. I think we could stagger it in different areas. As far as opposition goes, there's 12 people within 200 feet and I have four objections to that in my hands, so I'll be sure and give them to Julie, I thought she had them, but that's over 30% objections. And also, as far as no horse or cattle ranches in the area, I am directly to the north, the closest neighbor to the north of the development, and I have a horse and cattle ranch. So I would like to see some of that feeling kept as we work with developers to do what is appropriate. Thank you guys very much. And I'll turn this in. Is that okay? The following individuals had filled out a card and said they did not wish to speak but wanted to register their thoughts, so I'm just going to read these into the record. Anne Woodbridge, opposed. Buddy Dobson, in support. Kaitlyn Ashley, in support. Bessie Lou Dobson, in support. Eric Rushton, in support. Todd Price, in support. Jenna Rushton, in support. John Hellman, in support. Nina Rushton, in support. Brenda Ashley, is in support. Absolutely. If you need to state your name and address for the record. My name is Brenda Dobson Ashley and I live at 2905 Osage Lane in Denton and I did a formal speech at the last meeting and I just want to reiterate some of the things that I talked about last time. Our family is the closest one to this development. My family's lived there for almost 50 years. They share the big pond with this development. So it's in our family's backyard. We're the most closely affected and we support this development because Mr. Johnson did a great job talking about the development is here. Denton's growing and this is a great lower density development for this area and this company has gone above and beyond to work with the people that live around there to come back and do the things that you've asked that they do. And we just feel like that this is the appropriate development for this area. We're going to be looking at it. It's right in our backyard. We're sharing a beautiful fishing pond that so many people have fished at for as long as longer than I can remember. And I think one of the things my dad that's 88 that's lived here his whole life lived in this area, was born in this area, he stated his rural life in this spot ended several years ago because he was annexed into the city limits several years ago. So to say that this is only a rural area, you know, it'd be great if it could stay that way forever, but that's not a reality where we live. So I just want you to know that we think that Agave Ranch has done a great job, has worked so hard, and we would just hate to see them lose this opportunity because, you know, we don't know what would come next, the other options before that were presented or not nearly as good as this option. So I would just ask that you vote in favor of this project. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing, come on down. If you could just state your name and address to the record, you have four minutes to speak. Kelly Grisafi, I live at 2882 Trails End, Auburn, Texas, about a mile and a half or so from this proposed development, and I'm not going to, I'm opposed to the development as it stands. Everyone has come up and said a lot of things very eloquently. I just had a couple of questions. One of the requirements for this was the realignment of Hartley Field Road, and I was wondering if that land is already in the possession of the developer, or would they have to acquire it before that happens? And then my other statement was, or thought was, that from the last plan to this plan, it seems like they've dropped about 50 houses, and that doesn't seem like much of a change. And then one comment was this was a mix of housing. I kind of look at it a different way, where this isn't really a mix of housing, because this is the same housing that we see all up and down, 380 and Frisco and Plano, small lot sizes, big houses, and it's not a mix. It's not anything different than what's there, and what would be different is houses on, or two houses per acre, or even up to a two acre lot size, and in regards to that not being a viable aspect, just around the corner on land that my grandmother used to own, they had divided up into two acre lots, and they sold very, very quickly. They had a pretty nice per acre price, too, so I'm not a developer, that's not my job, but I think that there probably is some demand for that kind of housing, especially in an area that's already rural, so that's all I want to say, and I do have some cards to turn in. Perfect. And just to answer your question, they would be responsible for the right of way of Hartley Field on their property that they're developing, not the extension to realign it completely. They would just provide the street where Hartley Field would end up going through the development. They would have to designate a right of way back to the city. So there is property in between their property and the current position of Hartley Field Road that is not in the process of being developed. That's correct. And it would have to be either purchased or taken. The city would have to acquire that to build a road. Okay. Thank you. He handed me two cards. This is Kelly Grizzeri in opposition, not wishing to speak, and Suzanne Fulton in opposition, not wishing to speak. This is a public hearing, anyone else wishing to speak may to certainly do so. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith. I'd like to make a motion to approve this project. Before I do so, I'd like to make a couple comments. First of all, I think I said once in business that a good negotiation, and I think I said this the last time I talked, but a good negotiation is one that both parties walk away from it, both feeling screwed. So I think that the neighborhood might feel this way, and I know that developers come back and forth. It's the third time they've come back now, and have definitely reduced their density. And to address the last person who spoke, they have changed it since the beginning. It was 368 units for the 92 acres, it's down to 252 units, so they gave up 116 units at about $370,000 per unit. It's a pretty big sacrifice there, but I think in a lot of ways, the cart is in front of the horse on the way development works, and that residential development a lot of times does have to lead commercial and infrastructure development. And so I think we said the last time that Hartley Field, the safety and the cleanup of that road, the expansion of 428 and pushing that road up the importance list for tax dot, and then the commercial development down the joint of 428 and 288 is going to be led by seeing three, three and a half, four years out from now, there's going to be 252 homes out there, on top of the other ones that have already been approved closer to the stadium. So I think this is a necessary deal. I think the developer has made some pretty large concessions, having come back to us now three times to reduce the density down to half acre and third acre lots, which are not zero lot line homes by any means. I don't think any place you've got a half acre lot, you're not Frisco zero lot line there. That doesn't compute to me unless it's a gigantic home, which it could be. I do think that the developer's done a very good job to honor the local and neighborhood interests and trying to reduce that density by coming back and revising, as well as wanting to honor local developers and trying to bring that to the project. And lastly, I'll say this, I know that Commissioner Ellis brought up in last meeting that the big worry is to rezone this area and if this project falls through, that we've made a permanent change to this area that then could be taken by anybody and they then have the right to develop it the way they want to. I think you're 100% correct in that. But I think with the outer loop coming in the next eight years is what it sounds like, the eight to 11 years, I think that we're naturally going to have infill. I think that this density, I think it fits the infill and I think that this project is good for us to go with. And lastly, I'll say that if we think that this ranch land is always going to stay ranch land with the development that is happening on the outer loop with Sanger and Pilot Point and Aubrey expanding as they are, I think we'd be in our head, the ones with the head in the sand to think that we're not going to have development out there. So because of that, I think this project fits and like I said, I do make the motion to approve with the staff recommendations and conditions. Kathy, can you put his motion because I thought we had a second up there. It was Commissioner Sanchez. I second the motion and I also want to say a few things. You know, we've had a lot of good discussion here, a lot of lively discussion. One of the things, you know, when we talk about growth patterns and we're talking about what's happening here in Denton, it's a growing community and we talk about the 2030 plan. Well, the 2030 plan to me is a plan. It's not set in stone. And so when we see patterns happening in the city, we have to react to those patterns and not just say, well, this is our 2030 plan, we can't deviate from that. And I think the city, the planners here are trying to do their best to react to what's happening in our city, growth. So as far as I'm concerned is -- and I think they did a real -- one of the ladies that came up discussed, it's not rural anymore. When you go out to 428, I go out 428 all the time because I go out to a pilot point. That area, going out two or three miles, it's not rural anymore. You know, we would like to see it be rural, but it's not. And like they've said, we have to come to that realization. Denton is growing and that's where it's going to grow. And everything is already planned there. It doesn't indicate it's rural. We like to think it is, but it's not. I'd like to somebody tell me what rural really means because it's not rural to me. And I came from New Mexico where I believe there were some rural places. And also I guess I just fragment -- we talk about sprawling. It's not sprawl. The city of Denton, I don't think it's sprawling. It's growing. And there's a big difference. So I'd just like to say I'm for the recommendation. We have a first and a second for -- sir, we have closed the public hearing. So unfortunately -- unfortunately we can't have any comments at this point. We have a first and a second for approval of the motion. And just to clarify, that was with conditions, Commissioner Smith? Yes, sir. And Sanchez, you were seconding that. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. And as usual, thanks for everybody coming down and giving their input. How this area transforms in the coming years will ultimately depend a lot on how property owners and parcels north of this area will sustain the ranch and agricultural lifestyle this area is known for. Will they sustain their way of life or will they or their children seek remuneration selling off their land piece by piece to future investors who don't share our vision? Will this commission or city councils in the near future be able to exclude land currently laying dormant along FM 428, be able to ignore the forces that demand growth to accommodate future -- rapid future growth? And here's where I hope I don't lose the friendship of Sharon Kramer and Susan Smith. I confess that I'm being won over by the efforts of this developer to create something that I feel maybe we can all live with in this area, especially the increase in trees we're going to see there. There's no trees here. I know prairie land is appreciated and I do, too, but there's currently no trees there and we're going to be seeing a bunch of them from this development. These are local people who are invested in debt and that's a big plus, too. Our hope was that we would keep it zoned appropriately to sustain the rural atmosphere it's enjoyed all these years, but we could also clearly see the time was progressively diminishing this prospect as developments in population growth extended itself along this FM 428 corridor. To me, it seems highly unlikely that we'll see any revitalization for this property reflect the glory days of the horse ranch. It may also be unlikely that we will see it bought off in any timely manner as one to five-acre lots to single-family residential dwellings. I appreciate the perspective Mr. Woodbridge and others have about the 2030 plan, but it is a guide. When things change dramatically like they have in this area and other areas, it's not a hard and fast standard, unfortunately. We have to make decisions based on things as they change. With plans to widen Sherman Drive to a four-lane arterial or six-lane and connecting to a more traffic-intense four-county loop to the north, this area is destined to be developed with residential and nonresidential developments to meet this growth. To obstruct this inevitability means financial loss for the property owners if we insist it remains idle, and also lose city revenue, which Julie mentioned was over half a million dollars a year, that would benefit the kind of smart growth we all want for Denton, and it's not all about money, but that's a big sum. I think we have been right to fend off the previous efforts to develop this large 92-acre parcel with housing densities not commiserate with the surrounding land use, but I've lately become concerned that not accommodating a development that doesn't meet a strict one house per acre requirement or more may force the property owners to abandon any effort to build homes here and conceivably sell this land to outsiders who can afford to sit on it and wait until the infrastructure accommodates their needs to build residential and nonresidential units that could be less acceptable to us. If that happens, Sherman Drive could by default, this stretch of Sherman Drive, could by default become a suburban corridor which would allow mixed commercial use as well as multifamily dwellings with an SUP, and none of us want to see that. What's being offered here, though not as we hoped for, is undoubtedly a well-conceived plan to incorporate low-density housing, and it is. We've got a mix of two and three houses per acre, so we're looking at roughly 2.5. It's not the two we'd like to see. It's definitely not going to be the one. But it has a lot of trail -- it has a lot of green spaces and trail spaces that are more suited for what's currently in place. And though I've been skeptical about it in the past, it could conceivably be a catalyst to encourage TxDOT to make plans sooner rather than later to improve Sherman Drive to better handle the traffic that growth is creating here. So I'm probably going to go along with this one, too. Just keep in mind, everybody, this has to go to City Council, too. This isn't the final say on this. Thank you, Mr. Beck. Mr. Ellis? Thank you, Chair. I've still got a couple of questions. Julie, can you address Ms. Smith's comments about the notification and comments, please? I didn't have those opposition letters. In fact, I went back and checked my email today, but she said she was going to email them to me to have them for City Council. Okay. You still haven't seen them? I haven't seen them, but she's going to get them to me. Okay. Secondly, in the applicant camp, can anyone address the aquaphor concerns that were brought up? So on the property right now is a deep drill well. They asked what we were going to do with that well. Were we going to abandon it? It happens to sit in one of the parks. One of those park areas, we're going to have a garden area. And I said at one point, it would probably use it to water the gardens. Can we get him to speak up? I said that it probably could be used, you know, to water the garden areas, to water some of the green areas. It's not going to be to water everybody's yard. We've got City Water going to be here. That's on the home people, and it's strictly for that type of thing. I mean, if somebody says abandon it, we'll take the pipe out tomorrow. It's not that big of a deal for us. So you don't know really how it's going to affect them, if you do use it to -- Our well is a deep well. It's on a huge aquaphor. I did look into it, because it was questioned. I'm not sure what their well is on, but I don't think that it's on the same exact aquaphor. Okay. Thank you. And then -- Can we serve -- Sure, if I could. Yeah, I do. Yeah, you saw the floor. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Good evening. Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group. I've looked at this well for a number of years. My understanding, it goes into the Trinity Aquaphor. There are actually three aquaphors in this area, the Upper Paluxy, the Lower Paluxy, and the Trinity. Most individual residential wells are in either the Upper or Lower Paluxy. Municipal wells typically go into the Trinity. That's where the City of Denton has its wells that go in there. If we have large acre developments, they'll be drilling individual wells. It's not unusual to have to go in and rework your well or lower your pumps to get more out of it. And as the area grows and develops, whether it be five acre lots or one acre lots or four lots per acre, it'd rather be cities drawing from the aquaphors or individual wells. That's going to be a dilemma of the wells going down, and that's one of the reasons that the City of Denton has a water CCN in that area so they can expand their water distribution facilities as they take water from Lake Ray Roberts and Lake Louisville and make it available as the, unfortunately, the well water's to replenish. Hope that helps answer some. It does. Thank you, Mr. Allison. Appreciate it. So with that, Chair, I had a question, I guess maybe for our legal department. Earlier on in the discussion, I think it was, well, several people in the applicant presentation mentioned memorializing things like the ponds and the green space. Is that something that could actually be made part of the zoning change or as a condition or not? I would like to defer to staff on how they would bring that about. That's the type of thing that they look at more commonly, if I may. We'll let somebody from staff answer that if they can, please. Trying to think how to, in terms of the open space acreage. It was mentioned 15% ponds. My question is, is there a way to make that part of this or, you know, if even anyone was on board with that, but they had mentioned it more than one time, so that's why I'm bringing it up. It certainly could be memorialized as part of an overlay condition. As long as it's a more stringent restriction than what was posted, there wouldn't be a legal issue, I see. I'll give that some thought and I think Mr. Beckson. Mr. Beck? Thank you, Chair. To Commissioner Ellis' statement on that, I would direct, I guess, the proposal that Commissioner Smith maybe reword his approval, that would include that, if he's willing to do that. I'll accept a friendly amendment to the motion. I don't know what you want to see memorialized, but I think however you want to phrase it, I think that I'd be open to memorializing green space or pond or anything like that, but I accept a friendly amendment. Mr. Shaw's? Oh, here comes Julie. Leave me open. Let her go ahead and ask. Okay. Kyshaw's? It looks like they're going to maybe answer more of my questions, so I want to, yeah, thank you. Let me comment real quickly for the, again, I'm in agreement with, and I'm glad Commissioner Ellis brought it up, that I hope there's a way you can avoid going after that well water there, if at all we've got, you know, water supplies from the city that you could use if you need to, so if there's a, anyway that's going to negatively impact, you know, the neighbors, I would encourage you, I've stuck my neck out here, so I'd strongly encourage you to avoid using the well, and I understand you can't, you know, get local builders to take care of all the R2 section, but I hope that process is stretched as tight as it can where you can get as many local builders to build houses in there before you go to a national builder, so, thanks. Commissioner Sanchez? I guess I'm getting confused with, I guess I'm getting confused with this term memorialized. We're not sure even what it means, and we want to stick it in there, so I'd like somebody to give us what the definition of memorialized is, rather than just say, okay, we're going to adopt it and put it into this, make it a requirement, when we don't even really understand what it entails. Well, we pulled up a portion of the applicant's presentation that they referenced, and it could certainly be added as part of the conditions in addition to the staff recommended conditions for that zoning. I think in particular the last two bullet points seem to be. Does that clarify for you, Commissioner Sanchez? Would that be part of their recommendation? That's what they're going to do anyway, isn't it? It would just make it a part of the ordinance, the recommendation that P&Z would, as part of their recommendation, and then it would go to City Council and be placed as part of the rezoning ordinance, like the other staff conditions would be written into that ordinance. Okay. Would City Council recognize it, would put this in as in addition to what you all put in? With our AIS, our agenda information sheet that goes to City Council, we typically provide a blurb about what transpired at Planning and Zoning Commission. It would certainly be part of our discussion. Okay. Commissioner Ellis. Would it be a recommendation of zoning with conditions, as I understand it, and so that's what the council would consider? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, Commissioner Sanchez, so moralizing would mean we'd make it a condition, which I haven't made a friendly amendment yet, but I'm about to. So early on when this first came about a long time ago, I had said that I was not against development here, but on this side of 428, NR2 is about all I would consider. With everything that they have tweaked on this plan, and they've done a great job, they've come within 68 homes of what I said I would agree to see here. With these further concessions, I can definitely get on board with this development if I can make a friendly amendment to the current motion to add condition of 15% preserved green space, including three ponds at nine pocket parks, and what does it say up there, commit to parking and pond amenities within a five-minute walk of all homes, would be my friendly amendment. I'll accept that amendment to my motion. And Commissioner Sanchez, do you second? I second that. And just maybe just to dot I's and cross T's for this, can I get confirmation that the developer or the applicant is okay with those two additional conditions? Okay. I'm seeing nodding of heads for those on TV watching. So with that, we have a first and a second to approve with staff conditions and the two added conditions by Commissioner Smith. Is there any other discussion on this item? Before we go to a vote, I haven't said anything on this yet, and so I just wanted to, we've spent most of 2019 looking at this project, and I'm thankful that each of the three meetings, the same faces have shown up each time. It's helpful for me personally and I think as a commission to have primarily citizen feedback that's been diligent and persistent, and we've had offline conversations, we've had discussions here, and it seems as though from the best I can gauge, almost everything that the citizens and residents of not just that area, but in Aubrey and in Countyland and even south of I-35, the developers have taken into consideration to try to create the best they can, and at that density, that neighborhood will be in almost alignment with Idiots Hill, Forest Ridge, South Lake, some of the preeminent neighborhoods in our city. It's a pretty good compromise from what I can see, from where we started, where I was not for it at all, to the point where even to not even look at a north-south boundary, but to take into consideration the wrapping of NR2, which my hope is that future P&Z commissions down the road take into consideration how that plays out to eastward expansion, that going east, it's an NR2 precedent going forward. I think that would be exceptional, that density remains at NR3 levels on 428, but as you leave the arterioles, that it's as rural as it can be. I think those are my notes I had. So with that, maybe I need to speak explicitly, I'm for the project. I appreciate the applicant and the developer being really persistent and patient and listening, and I think for the residents to come out and voice their opinions. My hope is that this project actually is something that looks good driving on 428. It's not going to be pasture land or horses, but I bike down that and I haven't seen horses on that property in a while besides the occasional show there. So I'm for this and I'm excited to see this project move forward. Seeing no other discussion, I'm going to call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0, congratulations. It is 920, at this time I'm going to call a 5-minute recess to clear the room and take a break. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We'll reconvene the meeting at 931, I appreciate you giving us a couple of minutes to clear the room and use the facilities. At this time, the next item on our agenda is item 4F, and we're actually going to call 4F and 4G together, and so I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation of both those items and open the public hearing for both 4F and 4G. All right, so yes, we will be talking about both of these proposals at the same time. Just to clarify, though, there will have to be a separate vote on each one. So with that said, I'm presenting Z1825 and S194. The request before you is two items, the first being a rezoning to amend a previous ordinance to remove an overlay restriction that prohibited multifamily dwellings, and then the second request is a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings. The subject property is located on the north side of Ryan Road, just west of Teasley. Some zoning on the subject property, prior to 2008, the subject property is part of a larger tract, actually 54 acres, and it had an NR2 zoning, and you can see it here outlined in black. In 2008, that zoning was modified, and it was rezoned to NRMU, and it included overlay restrictions, one of those being no more than 50 percent of the site could be developed as commercial retail, and then the second overlay restriction was no multifamily dwellings could be constructed on the portion of the property fronting Teasley Lane. Commissioner Rozelle asked at the work session about where that line was, and so we went back and looked at the ordinance, and here is a copy of an exhibit associated with that ordinance. There's not a lot of detail as far as the dimensions, however, it does point out that little stream buffer, which if we'll go back to, it follows the eastern property boundary, so as you can see, this area was the area that they reserved that no multifamily would be permitted, that would be for retail and more commercial type uses adjacent to Teasley, and so it did include a portion of that property, the eastern portion of the property, and it looks like that line may have separated the subject property in two. In 2014, the property came back for another rezoning. It was to remove 30 acres, the area outlined in blue, from that NRMU and rezone that to NR6 for a single family development. The NRMU was maintained on the remainder 23 acres, that area outlined in black, with the following limitations, no multifamily dwellings were permitted, and that entire tract of 23 acres could be developed with commercial uses, so no 50% limitation. Currently, in the 2019 request, they're proposing to maintain the existing NRMU zoning, so not change that underlying zoning, but remove that overlay restriction for the multifamily dwellings on 8.6 acres, so the subject property here, but keep that restriction in place for the remainder 15 adjacent to Teasley Lane. The criteria for approval for a rezoning case are in subchapter three of the Debt and Development Code, and the two criteria, does it conform with the future land use element of Debt and Plan 2030, and does it facilitate the adequate provision of public facilities? So in Debt and Plan 2030, the subject property has a future land use designation of community mixed use. It's intended to provide that mix of commercial uses, but with the complementary higher density residential uses, the intent is to have a diversity of use on any given property to increase economic vitality and create a sense of place, maybe have a walkable environment. Multifamily development is consistent with this future land use designation. Residential use is a complementary use for commercial centers. In this instance, in the way the future land use and the different parts of the future land use work together, the property to the west has that low residential future land use designation, so kind of more that single family suburban pattern, and you can see as you transition from the west toward the east, as you get closer to Teasley Lane, that transition goes from the low density to a more moderate density, and then the commercial center, and a multifamily use in this area really would contribute to that gradual transition of intensity. So it would provide an appropriate buffer. Denton Plan 2030 does predict growth for the city of Denton, and a variety of housing is going to be required in order to accommodate that growth, and that includes multifamily, and includes multifamily in areas that are in urbanized areas that are close to schools and shopping and areas of convenience. So the subject property is consistent with that. We also looked at the infrastructure, and we looked at quite a few factors considering infrastructure. So the first we looked at was a trip generation analysis. We compared the traffic volumes generated from what would be entitled today, so just a commercial retail center, versus what's proposed. So if the property was developed with 50,000 square feet of a shopping center, which would be permitted by right, it would generate about 1,800 trips per day. The proposed multifamily would generate about 1,100, so there really is a reduction. The multifamily would actually generate less traffic than a commercial use on this property. Any development on the site will require roadway impact fees. Before this proposed plan, they would have to pay approximately $265,000 or about $1,200 per dwelling unit. This is used to implement our mobility plan. They would also be required to make access and perimeter street improvements. I did make one factual error in the work session that the applicant corrected me on, and that is the driveway onto Ryan Road will actually be right out only. That right end will be for emergency vehicles only, would be actually locked and only be accessed by emergency vehicles. So it really would push the traffic to that Hunters Creek and onto Teasley Lane. So there would be full access onto Hunters Creek. Hunters Creek was, when Teasley Trails was developed, was stubbed out to be continued in the future to connect that neighborhood to Teasley Lane. The developer, as a result of any development on the site, would be required to build that entire road, and there would be full access there. When we look at the mobility for the entire area, or at least the area that is kind of affected by that Hunters Creek road, we wanted to take a look at the neighborhoods as well as the proposed use and that future commercial development to see how that's going to affect those roads. So I've got Teasley Trails outlined here in blue. I only included those lots that kind of we really thought would maybe go toward the south to get onto Teasley or Ryan. Teasley Trails has several ways in and out. Ranch Man to the north, then you have the future Hunters Creek, that will be another way in and out of the neighborhood, and then they also have a full access driveway here to the south. So Teasley Trails has several ways in and out. It's kind of a different story for the neighborhood across Teasley. Summit Oaks really has Hunters Creek right here, and then one other street that connects to Teasley Lane to the north pretty close to each other. So there's really only one and a half ways in and out of that Summit Oaks neighborhood. So it really comes into play because it's going to put a lot of pressure on this connection right here and this intersection. So as we looked at that, we met with the developer's engineers and we met with our engineering department, and based upon the existing trips for the neighborhoods, the proposed trips for that proposed multifamily development and any future commercial development would probably meet the warrants at this location for a signal, for a light, and probably a deceleration lane going south onto Teasley as people were entering this commercial development. So here's those trips that we looked at to create this analysis. We looked at the surrounding single family, 430 dwelling units, creates about 4,000 trips per day for the ITE manual. The proposed multifamily, once again, is that 1165, and then we just took the uses that are permitted by right in NRMU and what we thought those kind of sizes would be. Now it's 15 acres, so probably several commercial uses would be located here, and so it would be some combination of those commercial uses. It could create a potential trips of about 11,000 trips, which would meet those warrants for that signal at Hunters Creek. Nearby capital improvements include both Teasley Lane and Ryan Road. Teasley Lane has been under expansion from two lane to that eventual six lane divided road. Construction is a bit stalled right now. They are looking at replacing the contractor. We don't have an end date for that. Ryan Road is on the November, the funding for that is on the November bond election to expand Ryan Road from a two lane undivided road to four lane divided road with sidewalks. There will be an increasing capacity in both of those roads. Additionally, the city has commissioned a transportation study for Southwest Denton. We've seen a lot of growth. We've seen a lot of projects come in this area, and those roads, we want to make sure that there is capacity and that especially improvements to Ryan Road and also Hickory Creek to the south will add additional places for traffic to go, disperse the traffic a little more instead of just funneling them onto very few roads with limited capacity. Water and wastewater, they are available to the site. There is a park, Lake Forest Park, is about 1600 feet from the southwest corner of the subject property, so it does meet the park's goal of ten minute walk to a park. They also as part of development would be required to do park dedication and development fees. The schools that are within the attendance zone, that's Sam Houston Elementary, McMath Middle, and then Denton High School, there is adequate capacity. We've let Denton ISD know that this proposal is coming before you and then City Council, and there's also a fire station near to make sure that there is adequate fire. So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the rezoning request to remove that overlay restriction, and now we'll go over some specific criteria for the site plan for the SUP. So the criteria for approval are in SUP Chapter 6 of the Denton Development Code. So we'll look at the site plan. The subject property is, or the development as proposed would include five three story buildings. They are in purple. It would also include access, as I said, to Hunters Creek and to Ryan Road, two open space areas or amenities in terms of the pool as well as a dog park. They are proposing about 59 percent lot coverage, which is less than the maximum permitted of 80 percent, landscape area of 40 percent. They're proposing a maximum building height of 50 feet. I believe their building height is actually less than that. I think it's closer to 45 feet, and a maximum density of 24.8 dwelling units per acre. The required setback from single family uses for this type of use is 45 feet, depending on the height of the building, from the property line. They are proposing to set back the building's 101 feet, and you can see that blue line there is that 101 feet setback from that property line here. They're also proposing an eight foot precast fence along the property line, and also to ensure that there is adequate parking lot lighting, we want to make sure the parking lots are safe, but we also want to make sure that we minimize any glare to adjacent properties. We are recommending a condition that parking area light fixtures be held at a maximum height of 14 feet or less, and that they have an average illuminance of two foot candles. We're also meeting the parking racks. We reviewed the proposal under the new tree code, and per the new tree code they are required to preserve 30% of the DBH on site, and they are actually proposing to preserve 61% of that, and in part due to a couple of larger tree stands, one post oak tree stand here, and then also in this naturalized area, as well as some throughout the site. They're also proposing to plant 126 new large canopy trees, and then they are also proposing to keep that stream buffer, which is no longer an environmentally sensitive area, but to keep it naturalized. They are proposing to put some dog waste stations through there, though, just for the residents. The elevations show earth tone color scheme with an average of 40% brick or stone for the exterior finishes, and this is compatible with the character of the surrounding residential properties. We did a property tax analysis based upon the unimproved value of the land versus the difference with improvements based upon the numbers they gave us for what they think is the estimated improvements, and that shows a difference of $167,000 in a given year for city taxes paid. We sent out public notification for both the rezoning request and the SUP. For the zoning, we've received 14 letters in opposition, and the number has actually changed, the percentage is 12.27%. And then for the SUP, we've received 45 letters in opposition, and that's 19.11%. So staff recommends approval of the SUP in addition to the zoning case, tying that site plan, landscape plan, and elevations to that SUP, and additionally with another condition that those parking area light fixtures be capped at heights that would prevent that glare from the adjacent properties, but also provide enough illumination. And the applicant is here, and I'll stand for questions. We got several. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Julie, can you explain to me the process in which after a vote for an approval here and a vote for approval at council, the next step, there would be a TIA at some point in time, correct? What is TechStock looking for from that TIA to predicate whether or not a street light needs to be put in? My discussions with our engineering group is that the commercial component will have to be developed at the corner for it to meet the warrants for a light. There's nothing else that can be done in this process from a recommendation and putting it into the ordinance to be able to get this to the point where we can make the street light tied to this project itself. We can continue talking with engineering. It could certainly be something that- Basically what you're saying is that city engineering has to tell TechStock that yes, we see that there is a need for a street light here. Yes. Yes. Okay. We agree with you. Our engineering group looks at TechStock's warrants for that. They work hand in hand about what those warrants are. In my discussions with them, it just wasn't there until the commercial piece was developed. Is there a chance that the trip generation and the TIA will come back different? That trip generation is based upon those industry standards defined by the ITE manual. I don't anticipate those numbers changing because it's a manual published. It's used by all engineers as their established baseline for those uses. I don't anticipate those trips changing. Okay. If I can ask Richard to speak into that. I just wanted to also add, I think part of the problem is with TZ being under construction, it's really hard to get good data as far as how many trips are currently being, are occurring on that segment of the right of way. I think once this development, by the time it actually is built and is open, hopefully Teasley will be done within the next two years. At that time, I think we'll have a much better idea as far as what's actually occurring on Teasley. Again, in terms of width, think of 2499, six lane divided. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Julie. If I were standing in the backyard of the houses, but up to just on the west with these three story apartments, but you've got that 100 foot setback, if I stood in the backyard, would I be able to see the tops of those roofs, do you know? We did ask the applicant to bring a view shed study, but that edge was a point of discussion that we had with the applicant a lot. That setback is critical and that tree preservation and the trees being planned, that is a really critical component because we wanted to make sure that there was buffering. This is a residential use and so it's a residential use of budding, a residential use, but you do want to make sure that those edges, that you think about them and that you're thoughtful about them, and so that's why we really, we talked with the applicant a lot about that area. And I'm glad, and I agree, that's something that doesn't have to fall on them, but the concerns of neighbors are going to be what they're seeing, so if that does, and it seems like it should with the trees, the 100 foot and everything, but I was just curious, and he can address it when it comes down. The only other thing I want to say is thank you, Julie, for your super trooper performance tonight, for handling the bulk of the presentations. You're starting to fade there a little bit at the end, but you hung in there good. Thanks so much. So, Julie, I have two questions. The first is maybe a more pointed question of Commissioner Smith's. Has the city ever been able to overturn state warrants for a light to be issued? I think TextDOT listens to the city, for what I've been told in my experience, and that they do work in conjunction to make sure our roadways function well and that are safe. So, if there can be a demonstration that those warrants are met, I'm sure our engineering department will definitely be presenting that information to TextDOT to ensure that those residents are considered in those decisions. Perfect. The other question I have is, can you go back to, it might be the very first slide where you had the overlay kind of sketched out, that little dotted line. Oh, that one? Yeah. So, can you go to the next slide in 2014? I'm sorry. Go back to 2008. What was the initial zoning of this, MRMU? In 2014, the request came to simply separate some of the MRMU to NR6, right? Correct. And it just left NRMU. Yes, sir. That was not the subject of that rezoning in 2014, correct? They're breaking off a piece. Correct. They were. And then there's an untouched piece. Well, they did, it was a part of it because they did change those overlay to, it looks like to me that they probably expanded that prohibition of multifamily dwellings as well as then removed that 50% provision. So the original overlay restriction said no more than 50% of the site could be developed with commercial retail. So they said, no, you could develop this whole area with commercial retail. Which is less than 50% of the initial one. So that was a de facto. They separated it in half. You don't need the half provision anymore. That comes to maybe my point more directly, maybe we can pull the minutes and I can find this out later. But it seems like in 2014, the overlay, I'm going to speculate here, was just put, mistakes might be a strong word. But the initial MRMU said, let's have commercial up front, we're okay with MRMU in the back. And then 2014 comes, we're like, okay, let's get some houses in the back and then let's extend this overlay over, which was not the intent in 2008. The intent in 2008 was that area west of the creek to be NRMU. So it seems like, in my opinion, the overlay, we just need to correct a mistake on item F and then look at an SUP for item G. Do you have any context of why an overlay was extended when the initial hearing, it seems, was someone came to split NR6 out? Here is my understanding, is that, first of all, in both of these rezoning cases, we had a different comprehensive plan. Our dent plan 2030 was not adopted until 2015, so these were actually analyzed under a different future land use designation, which was infill compatibility area. So we really didn't have this as one of those centers that we have now. So that was one item. But as a part of staff's analysis, they wanted to reserve this area for commercial development. That was their intent at that time, was they wanted all commercial development at this corner and then they broke off that residential portion and made it NR6. So I appreciate that context, just so I understand, in 2008, city officials were under the mindset that commercial should be Teasley fronting, and in 2014, they made the decision that commercial should be both on Ryan Road and Teasley, and now we're making a decision to put commercial just back to Teasley. That might be an oversimplification, but that's what we're kind of looking at this evening, is to take away, or obviously the SGPs from multifamilies, to remove commercial from being on Ryan Road, in essence. I think that, and really that's part of our analysis, was that commercial uses, they are appropriate on Teasley, because you do have the frontage and the access and the visibility. In terms of multifamily, multifamily is a really good transitional use between sort of that moderate density housing and a commercial, so that you don't have a large commercial development backing up to these houses. You have a residential use, albeit a more dense residential use, but a residential use than transitioning and providing that buffer area. That really was a part of our analysis as well. Are you familiar with any property on Ryan Road that is commercial? I am not aware of any property. Okay. Except for the Walmart is right here at this location. Which is a Teasley address. Mm-hmm. Walmart's right there. There's an entrance for that gas station into the ... Yes, sir. Right. Okay. Thank you. Sure. You ... Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. One question that I had that popped up while I was thinking about it, back to the ... I'm going to be the one guy that's going to stand on the lone hill by this dang traffic light, I swear. When engineering is looking at those, the TIA and everything else deciding, and a commercial is going to be the big deal, at what point in the planning process is it that they say, "Okay. Now, this commercial there, is it building is created? There's doors are open. Businesses are there. Right now, we need to put a streetlight in, or is it lots are ready to be sold? Is it lots have been bought and the preliminary plan has been submitted? What part in the process here is it to where engineering is going to say, "All right, streetlight is now predicated"? It is my understanding that streetlights don't ... The way TxDOT typically works is that they don't ... They have to meet the warrants before the light could come in. The commercial would have to be in place and generating the traffic before the light would be warranted there. That's my understanding of the way that TxDOT has worked. We can talk to our engineering about how that works. As I said, we are undertaking a traffic study for this whole area. Part of our analysis in all of this is we do have quite a few neighborhoods within the city of Denton that have one way in and one way out. How are we addressing that? Especially the getting out of your house in the morning. The traffic study may also yield additional results, but right now that is the information that I've been getting. How much different in the results it's going to get that the trip generation is given out? How much different in results is it needed for engineering to get to the point where a streetlight would be required? Then I'll just make a side note here that's dumb of them to ... I'm sorry, I'm just going to say what it is, but it's to say that you need to build the commercial for the traffic to be there before we start then putting a streetlight in. Same as backwards, but that's just me. My original question, you can write that down, let engineering know, I said they're dumb D-U-M-B, but the original question was the difference between the traffic generation now and the TIA done, how much are we talking about difference here? For the residential component or the commercial department? Residential component. If we're doing a TIA in this process and it comes back that is different than what we're seeing as the trip generation right now, how much different are we talking about? I know you said it was something between ... I think at work session it says 5,000, 5,500 in trips. Yeah, this one here and then now it's 11,005 after commercials included and what can be there? Are we 1,000 away? Are we 7,000 away? I don't have that number. Got it. Sorry. Thanks. Crystal Beck. Thank you, Chair. I almost forgot the question I was going to ask you. From what I was reading from comments from some of the homeowners in the area that the idea that apartments are inundating us and among other things create problems. Other than the apartments further down TZ land across from Geyer, what's the closest? Within a half mile radius are there apartments? We looked at multi-family developments within the vicinity of the site and the closest ones would be the apartments down off of Geyer or the ones at Unicorn Lake. Unicorn Lake. Okay. There's not a lot of multi-family. There weren't a lot within this specific area. Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions, Julie. Thanks. This is a public hearing. First, we'll have the applicant give a presentation and then we'll go to the cards in the stack here. The first is Thomas Fletcher and Thomas, you and David Marks and Darren Dobbins will all have a combined 20 minutes. I need you to state your name and address for record. Good evening. Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Thomas Fletcher with Kinley Horne. I'm the engineer for the applicant, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas, 75034, here as well as David Marks, the potential developer and Darren Dobbins, the architect for the project. I'll be giving the presentation tonight, but the architect and developer here for questions that may be relevant to them. Really the agenda I want to talk about is site history. Commissioner Rosell, a lot of the questions that you are asking about the history of the project, I think I'll be able to touch on. Existing site conditions, the proposed site plan, an overview of Hickory Creek Ranch Apartments, which are the apartments across from Geyer. This is the same developer that did that project. The workforce housing need, kind of the economics of our project for the city, projects schedule, traffic impact analysis and a summary. Really for site history, the Denton West Joint Venture Mobile Home Park was constructed in 1970. About 50 years ago when it was developed, it was outside the city limits. At the time, it was approximately 310 mobile home spaces on just over 54 acres. In 1975, the property was annexed into the city. At the time it was annexed, it was placed in the Agricultural Zoning District. It was a nonconforming use to that district. In 2002, the city did an initiated citywide rezoning and at that time the subject tract was placed in NR2 Zoning District. At that time it was still a nonconforming use in the NR2 Zoning District. In 2008, Springbrook Planning Group resumed the property to NRMU and that was ordinance 2008-045 with the following conditions. Only 50% of the property could be developed as commercial retail. That would allow approximately 27 acres total for commercial retail and that no multifamily shall be permitted fronting Teasley Lane. Julie showed the exhibit that showed that boundary line which for the most part followed the creek line. There was a small portion on the west side of the creek that was outside of that limits. For reference with that ordinance, there was a dimension of 960 feet. From the west property boundary over to that line was 960 feet. That was dimensioned on that exhibit. Because we've done a survey of the tract, we knew the length going north-south, that was approximately 34.7 acres. With the zoning change in 2008 and a maximum of 30 units per acre, the city council at that time essentially approved the development or the opportunity for development of just over a thousand multifamily units. So I think that's important. In 2014, Bob Shelton Enterprises put the portion of the property under contract that was developed as single family and did a rezone into two tracts, tract A being NR6 and tract B being NRMU, and that was approved as ordinance 2014-075. In order to gain the staff support, certain conditions were placed on that. The tract A has been developed under those conditions and the tract B conditions for NRMU was that no multifamily units were permitted and that the entirety of tract B could be developed as commercial retail. So at that time, so the initial zoning application that was made at that time was just for the residential. So when we made our initial, I was the engineer for that application, so I worked with the city during that process, provided the presentation to PNZ and council for that zoning project. So originally we were going to submit just the zoning for the NR6 portion. Because there was the overlay condition, what the city staff stated is that if they approved the NR6, there was still the condition on the remainder and because the remainder was being reduced by roughly half, then only half of the remainder could be developed as commercial. So the remainder was roughly 24 acres, so they said if we didn't include the entire tract in the zoning, then only 12 of the 24 acres could be utilized as commercial retail. So they asked us to do the whole tract. When we were going through that process, they said we would really like to see this developed as a commercial site and not do any multifamily. So the staff was actually the one that asked us as the applicant to remove the multifamily designation from the tract. It wasn't offered by the developer, it wasn't requested by PNZ or council, it was the staff at the time, their request to the applicant. This is actually an exhibit that we put together back in 2014 that shows how a commercial grocer could go there, along with a fueling station, some strip center retail, and then a couple of restaurant pads. In addition to this, we were working with the city at the time for their lift station. The city had a need for reconstruction of the Denton West lift station, so we were working with them and included where that new lift station would go in this development plan so that we were kind of looking and making sure that if we donated this land to the city or an easement to the city for the lift station, that we could still work with the proposed development. So that kind of gives you a little bit of background of where that zoning condition and overlay kind of came in. Act B has been marketed heavily since 2014 zoning ordinance, with the neighborhood Walmart adjacent to us, Kroger down the street, Sprouts coming in at a different location, there really is just not the opportunity for a grocer or big box retail in this area. So after kind of exhausting those options, we really looked at what makes the most sense as far as the Denton 2030 plan, what is the natural transition between commercial retail and the existing residential, and that's why we brought before you the case for the zoning tonight. So this is a couple of pictures that shows the site history. If you look at the aerial from 2005, you can see the multi-family or the mobile home development in West Joint Venture. There was 300, it's a highly dense development, just over six units per acre. Development was right adjacent to the creek. There's a lot of utilities and crossings and other things going through the creek. And then the aerial on the lower right is what it looks like today. This is an aerial from 2018, so that you can see the Teasley Trails Phase 3 and Phase 4 that are fully developed out in this aerial, and you can see the remnants of the mobile home park. Another thing to point out is within the Teasley Trails Phase 3 and 4, that's within what was what the Denton West Joint Venture tract, there's about 128 residential homes. So with our proposed request for multi-family with 214 units, you would have about 342 total units between the two projects combined, and that's compared to what was the potential of over 1,000 multi-family units. So even the density combined with the single-family detached and the multi-family, it's significantly less than what was approved by Council or what was approved by Zoning and the Council in 2008. Existing site conditions, that just shows the area that is under consideration for zoning tonight. Here's some pictures of the existing conditions. In the lower right, you see the mobile home park. Because it's no longer in use, it's deteriorating. It needs to be, right now it's kind of an eyesore if you're familiar with the area. The remaining facilities are in disrepair. You've got an abandoned utility cabinet that's in the upper picture. You've got the old clubhouse in the lower picture. There has been instances where you've had vagrants or homeless that have been utilizing that clubhouse, and there's been calls where the police have had to go out there and address that issue. However, with this development, all of this existing infrastructure will be cleaned up with the development. All the utilities that are currently crossing the creek, there's gas lines, there's communication lines, there's water and sewer lines, all those would be removed and the creek would be restored. So back on January 3rd of this year, we had our first neighborhood meeting. The exhibit that you see before you was our initial site plan. This initial site plan had 225 units and 304 bedrooms. The buildings closest to the residential property line were within 71 feet, 11 inches, so just under 72 feet. When we had met with the city previously, they had provided the minimum setback, and at the time of this plan, we felt like we were making a great concerted effort to push those buildings further away, and then after meeting with the citizens and listening to their concerns, we took it a step further and moved them even further away. You can also notice along the western boundary we show about nine trees there, so since that initial neighborhood meeting, we increased our tree planning to provide more living screen in addition to that masonry buffer that's going to be provided along that boundary. We talked about allowable uses that may not provide as much tree preservation, may not provide as much open space at those meetings, and talked about the cleaning up of the existing site. Just for your reference, the existing site, just for this 8.6 acres, it's about a quarter of a million dollar cleanup project, so it is a substantial cost to the development in order to go in there and clean all that up, dispose of it properly, and get the tract ready for development. This is the development site plan that Julia shared, and it was also what we shared as part of our second neighborhood meeting. I'll also mention at our initial neighborhood meeting, we had 53 people that signed our sign-in sheet. It felt like we probably had 60 to 65 people there. At the second neighborhood meeting, we only had five in attendance. We did hold the neighborhood meeting at the Hickory Creek Ranch apartments just down the road so that they would be able to see the quality of the development that would go in. With our second neighborhood meeting, we changed our layout. We reduced the unit count to 214 units. We reduced the bedroom count to 282 bedrooms. This is 4.9% less units and 7.2% less bedrooms than the original plan. It's also about 17% less than what would be allowed under NRMU at 30 units per acre. With this site plan, we relocated the buildings and made all buildings a minimum of 101 feet from the property line. The nearest dumpster is 123 foot away, so we moved the dumpsters as well. We increased our open space and our tree preservation. As Julie mentioned, our open space is 40% of the site, which is double what's required with the zoning. Our tree preservation is 61% of the canopy, which is double the 30% within the new ordinance. We've laid the development out in a manner that promotes preservation, open space, and good environmental design. Just another close-up, it shows the site plan, the trees, the proposed trees. You can see along that western boundary, we've got about 22 new tree plantings that are proposed. Along with the trees that are being preserved that are existing up in the northwest. Then the tree preservation under the new code, when you take into account the mitigation credit, our preservation inches are about four times what that mitigation requirement would have been. Significant user amenities, we have clubhouse and resort-style pool, outdoor grills, fitness room, community spaces, dog park, bike racks, electric car charging station. It's a well-adminitized development. The proposed elevation, contemporary in design with architectural lines, diversity of high-quality materials and contrasting earth tones. Here's some pictures of Hickory Creek Ranch. I just wanted to go through and show you what the development would look like. When Hickory Creek Ranch was developed, this is a project that's in the county. There's not as stringent building codes, but the developer, Marksman Realty, because he built this for the long-term and is part of the project and still is owner and runs the management company, he wanted to make sure that he was building a project that was going to last. You can see within the picture the quality of the materials, the different materials, the different contrasting tones. Here's the outdoor area, the clubhouse, and you've got outdoor cabanas and pavilions. You have the outdoor resort-style swimming pool. All the HVAC equipment is roof-mounted and screened, so you don't have to worry about seeing all the AC condenser units on the ground. That's another benefit to the development, the proposed development. The gated dog park with dog waste stations. There's available garage parking and there's available carport parking, so the residents have that opportunity to utilize that resource there. The interior, it's high-quality materials as well. You can see there's stone columns, there's exposed beams, there's high-quality floors, there's gathering areas, there's a kitchen area, fitness center. You've got fireplace and seating areas. You've got the community kitchen and serving area, so the residents have the ability to reserve these spaces and utilize them for events. The interiors are well-appointed. All the kitchens and bathrooms have granite countertops. There's French doors to the balconies. They have stainless steel appliances. They have high-end flooring and all units have connections to full-size washer and dryer. The next slide is workforce housing need. Really the demand, there is a significant demand in this area of Denton. What David has found with the Hickory Creek Ranch Apartments is that it leased up much faster than what they anticipated. The other thing that they found is that the one-bedroom apartments are what is highest in demand. Home builders don't build one-bedroom homes. Most people that are, whether they're single or what their situation is, if they have the need for a one-bedroom apartment, that just isn't out there and readily available. With our development, what we're proposing is 71% one-bedroom. With the Hickory Creek Ranch, it had 64% one-bedroom. With one-bedroom units replacing more two- and three-bedroom units, it means an overall reduction on the property population compared to other multifamily developments that may have a different percentage. As far as the development standards or the leasing requirements within Hunter's Creek Ranch Apartments, there is no maximum income restriction. Hunter Creek Apartments is not a rent-subsidized property, and there is no low-income restrictions or requirements. A lot of the comments that we saw from the neighbors was they were concerned about Section 8 housing, and was this development going to bring crime and that type of situation, and that's not. It's a market rate development. The management verifies income. The income has to meet three times the rent. They also do mandatory background checks. If there are people that are staying within the apartment that are on the lease but may not be the leasee, if they're 18 and older, they go through that criminal background check as well. For Hickory Creek Ranch, the average household income is just over $66,000, and the average monthly rent is just under $1,300. Economics of the project. A project of this size that's going to create this value for the city. There's a lot of different things that provide benefit to the city. Approximate economic impacts for the upfront developments, estimated to be just over a million dollars. There's about $385,000 in water impact fees. There's about $210,000 in sewer impact fees. There's about $265,000 in roadway, $125,000 in park dedication based on the current appraised value, and roughly $40,000 from the park development fees. In addition to that, with just a $25 million valuation, you would have city taxes of $155,000 and ISD taxes of about $385,000. As that value increases, so does that tax revenue for both the city and the DISD. So we were in the neighborhood meetings, the concern about ISD and how is the impact on the schools. So Julie has already kind of gone over that, but we did reach out to the ISD and talked to them, and we found out they provided their ratios for a market rate development. That was one of the first questions they asked us. Is it market rate? Is it subsidized? Because that affects the ratios. But our development would generate roughly 50 students. That would be distributed roughly 26 to the elementary, 11 to middle school, and 13 to the high school. If this had been a subsidized project, that would have generated roughly 122 students. So you can see the difference there in the two types of projects. Roadway improvements. Teasley is currently under construction. I know the timeframe for that was supposed to be within three years, and I know that's kind of on hold. But that is, I know TechStot's working with the bonding company and trying to get that resolved so that that can get back under construction. Hunters Creek Road, which would be designed and constructed as a collector, that would be by the developer. So the development would provide that construction of that roadway and the connection to Teasley. And we have already coordinated with the TechStot engineer for that connection. So once that project gets going again, there's been conversations on how to make that. It's currently the plan show connection to the old Mobile Home Park, and we want to, we're working with them to make that adjustment. Ryan Road improvements, four-lane arterial to be included with the bond application in the fall. That's underway. And then the multifamily project is expected to be constructed about 90% occupied after all these roadway improvements are done. So we have about a year of entitlements, about 18 to 22 months of construction, and then we have the leasing period before it will fully impact that roadway system. This is an exhibit that shows the ultimate build out just so that you can see the thoroughfares. You can see Teasley is a six-lane divided, Ryan Road is a four-lane divided, and then Hunters Creek is the collector section with two lanes out, one lane in. So the ultimate conditions that will be in place when this development is fully leased would support the development, and as Julie mentioned, the multifamily development actually generates less traffic than what the commercial, a commercial development would generate. Here's the section that you had asked about as far as the sight lines. Depending on where you stand in the backyard would depend on what you're able to see. I'm just under six feet or I'm five foot eight with an eight-foot masonry wall. We're talking about a little over two feet higher than my height. So I mean that's a pretty large wall with the trees that will be planted. Generally a three-inch tree is 12 to 14 feet, and with the spacing you would have, those would create a pretty nice living screen through there that would kind of block that view as someone's looking out their backyard. And then just a quick summary. It's compatible with the neighborhood retail mixed use, provides the transition between the commercial and the residential. The site plan is done in a manner that exceeds the city's criteria. It creates a positive environmental impact by restoring the creek, preserving trees, providing additional open space, and then it redevelops the remnants of that mobile home park, and it provides the much-needed workforce housing that the city of Denton needs in this area. And with that, I appreciate your time and will be glad to answer any questions. It looks like we have one, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chair. About how long, what's the length of time to develop this actual site itself? So it's the construction itself, generally for this number of units and buildings is typically 18 to 24 months, so you're talking about it. The longest 24 months until it's occupied. Well, when you talk about, so there's really three steps that we go through. The first step is the construction plan, design approval, and the financing. That in itself will take about 10 to 12 months. So we're talking about breaking ground on the project roughly 10 to 12 months from today. The construction of the project itself will take about 18 to 24 months. So we're talking about, now we're at two and a half to three years out. And then the leasing, what they've estimated is about 15 to 16 units per month. So when you look at that, it's going to take about 15 to 18 months to lease the site out. So if we're... So you're talking four years to... We're talking about four years before all the units are leased up. Great. Thanks. I don't see any other questions. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. We do have a couple of cards. The first one will be Monica Miller, followed by Chris Hill. So Chris is going to come first and then Monica. Yeah. Perfect. If you could just state your name and address for the record. Chris Hill, 4013 Jenicker. I'd like to pull up one of his slides, if possible, that shows the apartments backing up to my backyard. And Kathy, just so, since we're double agenda, let's do six minutes. Okay. Basically, the bottom of that little backwards seat is my backyard. Okay. That's 50 feet high, I don't care what size wall you put there. It's not going to block anything if I put a pole in there and I want to go swimming. This is, you know, we moved in here thinking this is a green belt. This is NRMU, all they can do is commercial, they can't do anything with this. Now I'm told that's a whole new bag of goods since they can put apartments there if we let this happen. My last house, they did the same thing and I know it's not section eight housing, crime comes with apartments, apartment management changes like socks, it just doesn't work. And I moved out here to a somewhat rural area. I realize it's an NR6, not NR2 or 3, but I also moved out here with the intent of getting away from Louisville, and that's what we're becoming if we put apartments up. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Yeah, thank you. Chris, can I ask you a quick question, Mr. Hill? Yes, please. Just for clarification, are you saying you'd prefer a grocery store? I would prefer anything that's not 50 feet above my, or 40 feet above my fence line. The height is the... Yeah. It looks into my backyard. Okay. Yeah, I'd prefer another Walmart. Gotcha. I appreciate that clarification. Thank you. Yes, sir. Next is Monica Miller, and then that will be followed by Richard Anson, if I pronounced that right. Perfectly fine. My name is Monica Miller. I live at 4017 Jennerker Drive. We will also... My home would be the home that faces the closest to the fence line of the... where the apartments would be. I'd like to speak to you as a mother. I'd like to speak to your heart. When we moved here, we had to move here due to my husband's job, and I have a medically fragile daughter. She's completely dependent. She cannot sit, walk, or talk. She has a trachea. She has a feeding tube. She has a generalized seizure disorder. The reason we chose this spot to live in, which took time, is number one, it had to be able to accommodate her needs as far as plumbing, so we could plumb in a medical tub and other things that she needs. Number two, it's quiet. A lot of noise and things like that trigger seizures for my daughter. One of the biggest things in our life, and I'm sorry if I get emotional, is sitting out back on our back patio, so she can listen to the birds and listen to the sounds of nature. We can't do a lot of coming and going because of all of her needs. I would like to show you a picture of my daughter, just so you can know. My daughter's in her bag enjoying her... her big baby one. So, Ms. Miller, I think it would be best if you could walk to the mic and just set it next to you, then everyone can see at the same time and people at home can still hear you. I don't know how to do all this. Just set it right there in the center. Right there? Can you tap the screen? Is it sleeping? There you go. Well, I don't know if you can... No, we'll... That's better. We'll fix it. Okay. Anyway, this is my Kaylee. You can't really see her tragus stuff, but this is a big part of our world. When we go sit out back and she can listen to the birds and she can listen to the sounds of nature and just the thought of having apartment buildings right in our backyard, really. I feel like it's an invasion of our privacy to have people... I don't care. I know you're going to be able to see in. People are going to be able to look down there and see in our backyard and the sounds of construction, all the construction that's going to go on, there goes all that piece. She can't sit out there and listen to all that and just not trigger seizures constantly. That peace and quiet is what's a big thing in our world. I know it's just one person, but I'm sure there's other people that moved out there. They have their personal reasons. It took quite a while. I had to stay behind because it's difficult for us to buy a home or sell a home before we buy a home. We can't just move into an apartment while we get a place ready for her. There's a lot of things required to get this home ready to bring our daughter here. It took a lot of time. This home fit our need. We were able to plumb a medical tub into her room. We were able to meet... Really one of the big requirements for me to make this move was to have a spot for her that could be peaceful and that we could continue to live our life the way we have to live our life. I would just ask that you would consider these things. Look at it from your heart. I understand that there's other needs that go on and she's not the only need, but she's a big part of my world. That's a big reason we moved there and we'd like to ask you to please consider that, that we'd like to keep our privacy. I guess that's about it. Thank you. Well, I appreciate you coming and staying up late and being here to give that testimony. Thank you. Yeah, I do have to be up all night. I have help that's there helping her and staying late so I could be here for this. I'm up overnight with my child, so she is 24-hour care. That is another thing. Oh, the other thing is that I really believe that by putting in that whatever street, Hunter's, whatever, I don't think everybody's going to come in to their apartment building off of Teasley. They're going to have to utilize all the entrances. They're going to have to come in through Ryan, onto Commerce, make a right, which goes right in front of my home. I believe it's going to bring a lot of traffic into our area. That's another thing. When you go on walks, you've got to deal with all this traffic coming through. I really believe it's going to disturb the peace and quiet we have in our neighborhood and crime. I know you're saying that there's not going to be a lot of crime, and maybe there won't be. I don't know. It's always a part of the picture. So thank you. Thank you. So, Mr. Hill, we typically don't allow for repeat, but we can go ahead and ... I personally faxed over 70 proposal forms last night, 35 to each one of these that are close enough, within 200 feet of where we're seeking these apartments. You submitted those to the city? I submitted them to the fax member that Julie sent out the letter. Okay. They're probably in the stack of papers we have. Okay. So the next one we have is Richard Anson. Yes. I'm sorry. Then it'll be Nathan Tune. I'm Richard Anson, 3809 Genaker, and I was told that there were 74 certified letters sent out, and if her numbers are correct, 44, 45 came back. Her numbers, percentages are all wrong, so there's something really haywire in the counting. But one of the things that you saw in the work session, there was no talk about the backup on the corner of Ryan and Teasley. When people come south on Teasley, they stop at Ryan because of the light, but they can't proceed on because Robinson Road, which turns left to go to 2499, backs up all the way to Ryan until they can get through that, traffic is at a standstill. So when they come down Teasley, they immediately turn off on Moonsail, or they turn off on Ranchman, turn around and come down Genaker, and then get on Ryan, and then go their direction. Now, when this apartment gets in there, there's 350 cars that are going to come down there every day, turn off and get on Hunter's Creek. Right now, there is no road on Hunter's Creek, it's just all torn up, and there's a bridge there that has to be replaced. I haven't heard anybody talking about that little bridge over the creek. So, and since there's no traffic design or analysis that's been done, nobody's figured out what's going to happen on this thing. So I really question the validity of putting this big apartment complex in this area right now. I'm going to jump to the watershed, that little creek that comes down there after a big rain, it backs up at Ryan, it actually floods that lower portion where some of his apartments are. Now, in your working session, Julie said that there was no plan to work on that. The vendor has said he's going to totally redo it both sides of the creek. So I don't know what the story is, somebody needs to get that straight, and I would recommend you put it in, if you redo the planning, that that becomes an issue, that the vendor has to take care of all that. The, I talked about the count of letters, the, there was an issue of the vision going down into the backyards, his diagram showed that people can see there in the winter when all the trees drop their leaves, every house is exposed. So that becomes a non-point on all the, we can't see the backyards. Okay. Oh, I got two and a half minutes, I appreciate all your time and all the work that you do on this. Some of the numbers that you've been given, I really question them, and I've seen, because of the backup right now, I've seen people cut through our neighborhood because they don't like that light at Ryan and Teasley. Now, when you come out Hunter's Creek, heading to Teasley, until there's a light there that is a suicide curve, because it's an uphill from Hunter's Creek to get on, left turn on Teasley, and you're not going to make it, you might as well park the police there, because there's always going to be an accident. That is a terrible intersection. It's a gated community, and going out of Ryan, I understand the story is now that it's only an exit out of the apartments, on to right turn on Ryan, that will last to the second car, and they will turn left, because we know how people drive in Denton, which is, so anyway. Right now, you can't turn left on Ranch Man to go on Teasley, you can't turn, you're not going to make Hunter's Creek, and the way I exit, I have to go out, down to Jennicker, down to Ryan, go east on Ryan, so I can get on Teasley, because it's impossible to get out of that area, except for about 10 o'clock, and that's the only time. It backs up every day, and that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Nathan Toon, followed by Chuck Bago. Nathan Toon, 3717 Merrimack Drive, Denton, Texas. This project is actually right around the corner from my house. I can sympathize with some of the comments regarding traffic, however, just like a lot of roads here in Denton, Teasley is under construction, has been for a while, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. As I drive by this site nearly every day, and I look at the remnants of an old RV and mobile home park, this site, maybe more than any, sticks out in my mind as one that needs to get redeveloped. As Mr. Fletcher said, there's utilities running all throughout this property, there's concrete that's deteriorating, there's clubhouses, which the cops do get called as a result of homeless people doing things and inhabiting structures that are on the property. I think it's important to note that currently, Hunter's Creek Drive is not a roadway, so the neighborhood of Teasley Trails has three other alternative routes that they can go in and out of the neighborhood. This would be adding another one, and so I'm not sure that it's really an intersection at the moment, but I think by the time this project does get on the ground in three to five years, I'm not sure that the traffic will be as big of a concern as it is now, and I'm not sure that there's anything that any of you guys at the city can really do about that to begin with. Secondly, I would like to speak to the commercial aspect of the property. I can speak from a first-hand knowledge. As some of you may know, I'm in the commercial real estate business here in town, and I deal with a lot of retailers on a daily basis, and I can tell you, I personally contacted 10 to 30 of them about this particular site, grocery stores, big-box retailers, and certainly the owner of this property would have loved to sell it for that use because he probably would make twice as much money, but the reality is with the creek bisecting the property and all of the development costs, it just wasn't a feasible project for that type of use, and so that's why we are all here this evening. I think it's, like Julie said, it's a great transitional use. I think we'll get pad users out front. The gas station on the corner is not part of any future development for this property, which is a little bit unfortunate, but I think once this project gets off the ground and it's cleaned up, the interior roads, the utilities, I think it won't be too long before we get some additional commercial uses out front, and so as a neighboring resident, again, I'm in support of the project and ask for your consideration in that regard. Thank you. The next individual is Chuck Bago. Bago. Bago. After that is Sean Faulkner. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Chuck Bago. I live at 226 Timberview Court in Argyle, so I wanted to come in and share my story with you. Unfortunately, my story, I think, occurs a little too often here lately. About almost a year and a half ago, I found myself as a father of three divorced, looking for a place to live, and as you all pointed out, where could I go? I was living in Corinth, and I searched all the apartment complexes. My simple priorities were I wanted something that was safe, something that was clean and honestly affordable, right, and I searched all of them, and I went to Unicorn Lake, looked at that, went to a few others, even looked up here at the Square. As a single person, it would have been fun, kids, probably not so much, right? I finally found a place, and that was Hickory Creek Ranch, and it had all the things that I was looking for that I got to check off my list. It was clean, it was very well-kept, the management staff, very professional, very nice, and as I think you all know, that is the sister location to what is being proposed, and so I just wanted to simply share with you that having lived at a property that this developer has built and managed by a company that he owns and manages it, very appreciative of the fact that I was going through a transition period at that time with very limited options as to where I could live and feel safe for my children, and I found it, so I just wanted to share that with you. From a traffic standpoint, I know that's come up a couple of times today, Hickory Creek right across the street from Gettin' Geyer High School, and for those of us that have teenagers that drive, we all know the fears that come with that, I can honestly tell you that traffic really was never that big of a problem. When I first moved in, there was no traffic light, and I'm sure it was on the plans, but shortly thereafter they did put the traffic light up, that helped a lot, but you know, we're in Dallas, Fort Worth, right, we learn the traffic patterns, we learn when the windows are and we figure that out, honestly it just wasn't that bad, and I'm very familiar with this area here, my kids go to the pediatricians just down the street, and I'm sure you all see this is an eyesore, right, so I'm absolutely in support, and really my story is I know what I was living in, and I know what they're proposing to build, and for those that are in my similar situation that are looking for a place that they can feel safe, it's quiet, it's well-kept, nicely maintained, professional staff, obviously you can see he's got customer service training, this is a great alternative form, so we appreciate it, and the other thing I just wanted to mention, with three minutes left, this is the first time I've been to a P&Z meeting like this, and you know, as the unknowing citizen, man, you all work hard, this is something that I've, you know, had the opportunity to see, and so, just from us unknowing, thank you for what you do, it's appreciated even though they don't even realize that this is what you're doing, so thanks a lot, you all. I appreciate you being here and staying up late with us. Next is Sean Faulkner, followed by Greg Johnson. Good evening, members of the commission, my name is Sean Faulkner, my address is 2713 Bissonette Drive, I live in the subdivision right across the street from this on the other side of Teasley. To give you a background myself, you can just place Mr. Fletcher with me, I do the same job that he does, but just at a different company, so I'm very well versed in development, I've worked on multi-family projects before, all across the state, actually. I know you guys have heard a lot of information, I want to bring some information back, going back to the 2030 plan. The 2030 plan shows this area to be a community mixed use area, and the 2030 plan, it calls out for multi-family, well for the community mixed use, for it to be predominantly commercial, and right now, 15 acres out of 23 acres being multi-family, I don't see how you can get to being a predominantly commercial area for that. The apartment complexes, they're supposed to be put in to maintain the style of the area. The architecture is great, I love it, down at Hickory Creek Ranch, it works great in that area, but around here, with single family houses being primarily one story and two story, I don't think three story will work. They're planning on building pretty much the same thing at Hickory Creek Ranch, so I would advise you guys to go down there, stand 100 feet away, and see what it is, see how you feel standing up against it. When I went to the public meeting back in January, I stood about 50 feet away from it, and I was like, oh my God, I'm glad this is not going in my backyard, because I would not want to see that. Traffic, everyone says Teasley's construction, well it was supposed to start construction 15 years ago, I've lived in this neighborhood for 18, 19 years now, so I've seen a lot, I've seen fatal car accidents, I've seen countless rear endings along there, I apologize to the residents of Teasley Trails, I'm one of the ones that cuts through their neighborhood, because I'm unable to turn left to go south on Teasley from Summit Oaks, and you know, I said to Mr. Smith, I would not be in support of a traffic signal there. Currently, when you drive down Teasley, you hit every single light, so a three mile stretch of road, that's a 45 mile speed limit, takes 15 minutes to get down. That's a bit ridiculous to me, and if there's one added here, we'll have three lights within a quarter mile of each other, one at Robinson, one at Ryan, and one up here. To me, that's just, it cuts up traffic too much, I can't tell you how much gas I spent sitting on Teasley, out of light. A couple other issues I have, you know, the current site plan shows parking up against the residential areas, and I was talking about putting an eight foot fence, but it still doesn't block out all the noise and lights, and you know, people coming in, I know people, especially if they're single, you know, singles, with the one bedroom apartments, it's going to be single people coming in all hours at night, you know, it's just a lot of noise being created for those people, so that's, thank you for your time. Thank you very much, next is Greg Johnson. Good evening again, Greg Johnson, 319 West Oak, in Denton, so I don't have time to cover everything I want to cover, I do think if that last guy was working for the developer, he'd be telling you it's the best project ever, but since it's in his backyard, it's bad. Well, I'm not picking on him, we're all that way, right, I mean, I've got a great free view behind my house, big open field, they're about to build cell storage there, do I want cell storage behind my backyard, no, but I don't own it, so I'm not going to make the guy wrong for using his property. And Thomas is much nicer than I am, so, sit this down, Thomas is much nicer than I am, so if I could have that picture that's up there back, instead of this thing, so here's what really happened, Thomas said to the staff at the time when you were asking Mr. Chairman about the, when the zoning's changed and all that, I've been involved with this property far too long, so here's what really happened, so when Mr. Button got it all zoned in RMU, a thousand apartment units allowed, Mr. Shelton came along because he had DR Horton wanting to build a neighborhood, and what they put in contract was all the way to the creek, that's what they wanted to buy, I can't make this thing work great, they wanted to buy all the way to the creek, built single family to the creek, we would have been left with commercial in the front, that's what they came wanting to buy and that's what they went to the city and met about. The planning staff, not here anymore, but they said we really want a grocery store on this corner, so when you're asking why did the multifamily restriction go from 700 feet to it was just on all of it, it's because the staff person said if you want us to support it I want the property line to be moved back to here because we want a grocery store on this corner, so Mr. Button who owned the property was left with two choices, tell them no I'm not moving it back to there because Horton wants to buy to the creek and have the staff recommend denial, or say okay fine I'll sell Horton all this back here and I'm going to have to move this property line back to here, simple decision, I'm left with a piece right here that I might be able to sell and I might not, but these guys want to buy all this right now and by the way I would never develop 54 acres of NRMU in my head in 2008, it's way too big, you'd never build a thousand apartment units here, I couldn't sell that many office pad sites in my lifetime on Teasley Lane. So it made sense to down zone it, but what he was left with is I'm held hostage and that's what really happened and Thomas can't say that because he's got to deal with planners and engineers all the time, those of you that know me I kind of say what's on my mind and it really pisses me off that we're even here tonight having to talk about it because we shouldn't be, that said no multifamily within 700 feet, whatever the number was of the creek and then it magically disappeared when you carved the other piece off, it shouldn't happen. So for five years, really why I'm pissed off, for five years I've been trying to sell that thing to a stupid grocer and they're not coming because there's not one left and that's why we still have a blighted corner, I live right down Ryan Road, I get to drive by all the time and see my stupid sign there that I've had to replace like five times because it looks like downtown Beirut after a war and it's blight, okay so we've been trying to get a grocer and they're not coming and if you put a grocer there you've got to capture that whole creek and ESA underneath a parking lot, the cost to do that makes it economically infeasible to do so. So what should go there is what should have gone there from the very beginning, you separate commercial and single family with multifamily, it just happens in every city in the country and I perfectly get it why there's so many red dots that back up to this property because I feel the same way, I mean but I'm not going to be a hypocrite and tell the guy who wants to build self storage behind my house by right that he shouldn't do it, he owns it, it's his right, it's his land and this needs to be multifamily because it's a solid transition from commercial to single family but we've been trying to get a grocer because that's what the city staff said they wanted and it'll never happen, Mr. Button is going to use the proceeds from the sale of the back property to clean up the front so that we can sell the commercial pads. I can't sell those commercial lots today because it looks like they're like what in the hell is this, there's junk everywhere, you can't see logical lot lines, there's no access, so he's going to build Hunters Creek Road, that's his obligation as a part of this sale, I mean Mr. Marks will probably build it but he has to deliver Hunters Creek before that apartment complex is completed and as to the traffic on Ryan Road, that's the city's fault, we should have addressed that ten years ago, it's like driving on the freaking moon with jogs here and jogs there because it's like a patchwork quilt that's been built and we finally recognize it and now it's been moved up in the queue and we get the money in November and we'll get fixed but the fact that he's redesigned his project with a write out only and an exit only gate, you're talking about what is it, eight cars a day on the trip, I mean they did the traffic study, I think you guys got it in your backup, eight cars a day on the peak time, turning right only, so if you lived in here would you turn right, go find you a place down there to U-turn because they're going to make them put a pork chop, the engineering won't make it to where they can turn left, you're not going to drive down Ryan trying to find a place to turn around and come back, you're going to pull out Hunters Creek Road and take a right and if you're going left, you're going to turn left because otherwise you'd have to go down Ryan U-turn and come back and sit through the traffic so that you could turn left and I get it, the neighbors don't want it but you could be looking at the back of Walmart and that's what the people got across the street, we should have never tried to force this guy to put a grocery store, I get a little passionate about it because it's sins of the past and we're having to fix it now and the staff we have today would never do that. Thank you. We actually have a question for you Mr. Johnson. Commissioner Smith. Thank you Chair. Mr. Johnson, you said you're the one representing the landowner as a real estate agent, so I guess the plans are for the front part then, the state commercial obviously, the sale of this property, so if it goes through us, goes through City Council is done, is that transaction going to be completed and your client is going to receive their money at that point in time, correct? Yes, so they'll receive their money at closing, part of the requirement will be that they will have to escrow the funds out of closing for the construction of Hunter's Creek Road, so that money is sitting there to be built so that whether Marksman builds it or the seller builds it, the money is sitting there and either party can build it. He'll use the balance of the proceeds to get all the old concrete pads torn up, all the old asphalt crushed and off of there, cleaned up so that we can sell. I will tell you, we have two users right now that if we just had access, they'd already closed on their pads, so the question earlier about the signal, I think the signal is not going to be an issue because by the time there's actually people ready to move in here, we will have sold commercial pads and that signal will warrant even if this project doesn't warrant it. What is that timeline? They're saying four, four-and-a-half years for actual full occupancy in that multifamily. If you're talking about this transaction gets done in three, four months, how quickly do you see side pads actually being done? Do you sound like the demand is there, it's cleaned up? Yeah, the demand is there. Mr. Button chose to not really go out and push trying to sell the commercial pads because he felt like he'd leave money on the table if Teasley was just under construction, right? Nobody wants to buy, build, open and then it goes under construction. Honestly, it's taking longer than all of us thought because the contractor went bust and we all know what's going on there, but if we just had the approach built, which what I think will happen is this deal closes, the money's there to build Hunter's Creek, that road's going to go get built because until that road's built, we can't sell a commercial pad. That's going to be their only access. You'll come in there and you'll have driveways across the back of the commercial pads and all the connections. So I would anticipate that'll get existing, get torn out, they'll build Hunter's Creek and then we can start closing on commercial pads. Now I can get that street light on one so bad. I really think there's two right now that we could close if that access was there. Thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing. If you're wishing to speak, you may certainly do so. Yeah, you can just state your name and address for the record. Derek Martin at 2204 Corsair, just north of the proposed development. I would urge the P&Z to go back and look at those meeting minutes in 2014 to actually verify. I know Mr. Johnson, thank you for giving that detailed description of why it was zoned the way it was with the conditions. If you could just go back and verify before you make a decision this evening on maybe postpone the decision to approve this or not so you have all the information you have in order to make an informed decision. The second thing is thank you, Commissioner Smith, for trying to push for the traffic light at Hunter's Creek. I know it will be very beneficial to Teasley Trails that haven't gone down to Ryan or having to fight Teasley traffic getting off of Ranchman. I would like to see a TIA done to see if that can be tied to this somehow to make that decision before you say yes or no. And then noise, I think, is a big concern for the residents here. I know it is for me. I would like to see the developer mitigate as much as they can with the noise. I understand that they have pushed it back a little bit further, the offset to 100 foot. They've added the 8 foot wall with some trees. But maybe re-architect some of their design, their site plan somewhat to alleviate the noise because right now as it sits with their new proposed site plan, they have the plaza facing towards the residents and that could generate a lot of noise related complaints with pool parties and late night activities and stuff like that being echoed out towards the residents. So that's all I have. I appreciate you being here. Thank you for the words. We do have some cards of individuals not wishing to... Please state your name and address for the record. Kenna Stevens, 2201 Corusair. I have a card up there but I wasn't going to speak until I heard some of the other things that were said. Mr. Smith, you are correct about the signal and not for traffic, for public safety. You have condos or apartments that are going in there. You're going to have a lot of children darting across that street to get to school. What is that? They are not going to walk down to Ryan and try to cross there because we have people turning left right there to get onto Teasley. And so it's going to be a public safety issue. So anything you can do or all of you can do to get that signal put in, it would be, I think, a savior for a lot of parents and kids. I look at this development and I came from a city that was totally built out where they were tearing down three-year-old eight-unit apartment houses to be able to build brand new 20-unit apartment houses. I believe in development. You are going to have development. I kept hearing the issue about this apartment house being the same as the apartment house down by Geyer. No issues. Everything is kumbaya. Let's roast marshmallows. There's no houses around that one. There's not a track around that one down there. We are a housing track around this development. Like it or not, developers are in here, good people, all of them. They keep a lot of people employed. They do a lot of good work. You are only going to see them for a year, maybe two years. You are going to see my neighbors for 30 years. You are going to see me in my house for probably 100 years at my age. We are going to be around. So we are the ones that have to live with the decision that all of you make. And I want you to really think about this one because I was talking to a few of my neighbors and the big thing that some of the people came up here and spoke to, some of the developers were, wow, you can have a big box department store in there. Well, I am to the point right now I am saying put the big box department store in. You know, honestly, it is going to be the same either way. This property is going to be developed. It is either going to be developed responsibly as a supermarket, I don't care if it is a Kroger's or anything else, or a sensible multifamily unit. Take us into consideration. The comment was made that the Teasley Trails Estates has three entrances and exits. It has two. It only has two. One out on the Ryan, one out on the Teasley. Because if you come in off of Ranchman, it circles you back around and so you end up inside the track. On this development, when you have that right turn only, when people are coming out of the development onto Ryan, they are going to turn right there and then they are going to turn right, right into the Teasley Trail, go all the way up and back out to Teasley Street. So there is a lot of things in here that just don't ring a bell to me. There is no prototype for this. I mean, you are setting new ground right now. Is this going to be the first development or are you going to have apartments down Ryan farther or even up Teasley farther? These are single family homes. That is why all of us moved out there. We shouldn't have to put up with this. I mean, God love you if you can stop it, slow it down, change it, whatever you might be able to do, but that is why we moved out to this area. Single family dwellings. We don't have big houses. There is condos around town that people are paying more than we paid for our houses. We just wanted a peaceful community that we could enjoy. Please take these things into consideration. I have got a feeling that is moving too fast on this and I would just like to see more things vetted out of it. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Absolutely. Do you just state your name and address for the audience? My name is Rob Miller. My wife gave the passionate speech about our special needs child. Excuse me, can you say your name again? It is Robert Miller as in the beer. I thought I would throw something into a long meeting. Basically, I appreciate the developers, their presentation and my fellow neighbors. As a military person and as an engineer in background, I would also like to say that the 40 or 50 foot clearance doesn't make sense as a special forces guy. I can look at the azimuth and line of sight and those apartments, second and third floor, look right into all of them, right over the fence. Eight foot fence doesn't make a difference when you are a couple hundred feet back. An idea, maybe drop it to two stories or take the whole plan and invert it and shove the pole and everything towards Teasley. That way people aren't looking into the housing area. I don't know if that was ever talked about or anything like that. That would also push noise away from the neighborhood, the people that are affected, it would push it towards their highway or towards Teasley where the road is. Just so I understand what you are proposing, you are talking about the main building that is kind of like a reverse C, opens up to the housing so that the noise from the pool area would go that way. If you flipped it, you would effectively put more windows higher up closer to your property though. It would be quieter. It would be. Think about this, the pool and all the noise that people are going to make is going to go out towards the front. How many people, I mean 100 degrees, 90 degrees, how many people open their windows around here? Honestly, they don't. If you do, your house is going to be an oven. That's a fact. I totally agree. I was just wondering, you would trade the noise for the eyeballs potentially. Because if you flipped it, you would have a lot more windows looking over the fence. Correct. But in reality, most people, unless it's a nudist colony and I hate to say that, are going to put curtains or whatever over their windows or shades or blinds or whatever because they are not going to want to see out either. I mean, God forbid, I mean I have hunting stuff and things like that. You can take binoculars and look across. I have high powered binoculars and you can see. So if somebody doesn't put whatever up their windows or shades up, it's going to be the same. We have blinds. At night definitely. You put some light on, you can see right through. Sure. And 100 foot is not very far. So, I mean, just food for thought. Sure. I'm not nixing development. We moved here under the pretense when we bought. Nothing was ever said about this being, you know, I knew it was a trailer park. I'm not saying I was in the military for over 20 years, so I lived in a trailer park myself. So, you know, I ain't taking anything away from anybody. But, you know, we weren't expecting, you know, to have multifamily, you know, two, three, four stories, you know, looking into ours, our home. I mean, those are just straight up facts. Sure. I appreciate your -- No, I truly appreciate you giving me an opportunity to speak. Yeah. I wish I was a little more prepared, but thank you very much, gentlemen and ladies. Appreciate it. Thank you. Anyone else want to speak? I'm going to go ahead and read these cards into the record, and then if anyone else will speak, we'll have time. First one is from Marty Biagi, 3804. He wrote an e-mail requesting it to be read into record, and it says, "Unfortunately, due to the rescheduling of this hearing, I cannot attend. I am in support of the proposed multifamily project. I believe it is a good buffer for our homes from the commercial uses that will be in front of Teasley, and I would definitely prefer that use versus a grocery store with stinking dumpsters and truck traffic and back." That's Marty Biagi. One more letter to read into the record. This is from John Harris. It reads, "My name is John Harris. I am a state trooper with the Texas Department of Public Safety. Unfortunately, I am unable to make it to this meeting in person due to a last minute work assignment at a different county. I hope this e-mail will suffice. I have been a resident and courtesy officer at Hickory Creek Ranch Apartments since February of 2018. I first met the management team when the apartment complex was just beginning to open to its residents. The management team at Hickory Creek Ranch Apartments is phenomenal and has been since day one. Each staff member works extremely hard to ensure their property is run smoothly. As previously stated, I've been the courtesy officer since I moved in and have had very few issues with the residents. The few issues I typically handle are not serious in nature and resolved very easily. The overwhelming majority of residents are friendly and polite. There is a strong sense of community that has been built by the management team here at Hickory Creek Ranch. The management team often puts on events at the property that brings the residents together. The entire complex was built with great quality. I understand some apartments can be an eyesore and may negatively affect the community around it. Hickory Creek Ranch Apartments have proven to be the opposite of that. The complex itself looks great and has brought many wonderful people and families into the community. Again, I apologize. I was not there to make it to the meeting in person, but I hope that I'm able to get my message of support across to you. Thank you, Trooper J. Harris. The other cards I have is Rachel Smith in support, Brenna Pennington in support, Derek Martin is opposed to both items F and items G, and Kenneth Stevens has voiced opposition for both items F and G. Those are all the cards I have and the feedback we received on the items. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on the matter? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing for both 4F and 4G and open the day as for discussion. We will take these in separate motions at that time. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I would like if Julie could probably address the concern that was expressed by Richard Hansen, feels that not enough of the opposition letters made our way. I did talk with one resident who said he faxed them. I did receive a bundle of faxes today and I provided those. It was a different, it was a stable bundle. But I did give him my card because with fax machines, you never quite know if you got everything you were supposed to get. So we're going to work together to make sure that I've got everything he was supposed to send so that we can have it for council. Okay. So we probably need to see if we've got the numbers there that would put it over the percentage that would require a supermajority. The supermajority would come into play during City Council. Right. Right. I'm just saying. Yes. We don't have that number now. It's 19 point something. Correct. So it may be over the 20%. It could be. Okay. Yeah, Richard. Just to add a little clarification because I think we came across this on a number of items even prior to this, particularly when there's two items of rezoning in an SGP, at times we will only get a response to the SGP. And so if it's not for both of them, we don't assume that that's what somebody meant. And so unless it's stated specifically on their form that they're objecting to the rezoning or the zoning change and only submit for the SGP, we only count the SGP. Okay. And I understand that. I agree. But the SGP, the 20% part, it doesn't apply. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. Commissioner Smith. I'm going to make a motion to approve this item. A couple things. One, my biggest thing, the reason why I ask about the traffic light is because it all comes down to public safety. As of right now, since Mr. Johnson could sell this land on behalf of his client for what it looks like online, it's about $1.8 million. They said in the presentation it's $250,000 cleanup to clean up that site itself. So you're saying after a little bit, $1.55 million in total after the cleanup. And by right, since the only zoning issue that we have here is the overlay is restricting multifamily. By right, you could build medical, hotel, elderly housing or a bar up to 65 foot by right with a by right 15 foot buffer at minimum. So essentially as it stands right now, Mr. Johnson could develop this or work with his client to have somebody develop it into a 65 foot elderly housing development there that is essentially multifamily as well. But it's an elderly housing that's allowed, not with an SCP. And so I think that is just as inhibitive as a multifamily property is. On top of that, I measured where was referenced by Mr. Fletcher about the vagrants and the homelessness that do live out there. If you read the blotter on the DRC, you see them out there. That clubhouse is 200 feet from the nearest home in the Teasley Trails neighborhood and there is no fence that separates that clubhouse from the house. So essentially if we have children living in the neighborhood, this seems like a serious public safety issue where there are folks who are having access to land and squatting in an abandoned home and God knows what they're doing in there and they can just very easily go over to a neighborhood. This needs to be torn down and developed into something as quickly as possible. So I'm going to motion to approve. So just for clarification, we're taking these into a motion. So will you? Okay, item four F. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for the item four F, the rezoning or moving of the overlay. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. And I want to thank all the people that live in that area that came down to speak to preserving their neighborhood. I empathize with your perspective. I've been on that side before. And Ms. Mulligan, you did touch my heart. Your position as a caretaker for your child is tough. I understand that. No current sitting member of this commission was seated when this ordinance was written. Chairman Roselle and myself have probably been here the longest since late summer 2015. And I can't speak for the chairman, but if I were here at that time, I probably would have voted for this overlay restriction. But back then the Teasley corridor wasn't looked as then as it is now. With the expansion of the road that will command more traffic, it's creating pressure to develop both residential and non-residential products to address Denton's rapidly growing population. As Julie indicated earlier, the overlay restriction was meant for only a fraction of this parcel, and that was closest to Teasley. It's not uncommon to preserve our little corners of the world from higher density housing developments and commercial projects. But let's call this what it is. It's NIMBYism. Not in my backyard. And I don't use that as a majority, but it's just an innate instinct of our species. In his book, The Righteous Mind, psychologist Jonathan Hay describes the moral license that's rooted in our evolutionary past for better or worse, that often pits us against those who invade our spaces. He says we're wired to be tribal creatures, and we often find it easier, even good sport, to circle around our own and attack the newcomers. Morality, Height says, is both -- it both binds and blinds. It binds us together and blinds us to other truths. Height's comments were from an article in a website called Strong Towns. I don't know, I think a lot of people who work in development are familiar with that. I know our staff are. It's a good source. I'm going to quote, pervade them partially from this article. I'm going to paraphrase some of them, and then I'm going to assert my own insights on this to explain my position. And I'll be as brief as I can. Can you hear that? Okay. I apologize. I'm often guilty of not being heard well enough. We need to be mindful that no neighborhood can be exempt from unpopular changes. It becomes detrimental to good growth, and we elevate single-family zoning to levels that create exclusionary neighborhoods. You do, of course, have the right to pose those developments that are over the top and have proven in the past to be disruptive to residential neighborhoods. This commission has acted many times during my four-year tenure to inhibit development in close proximity to single-family developments that we believe have exhibited its potential to disrupt established settled neighborhoods. It is my sincere feeling, however, that this development is not one of those. Human habitats are not and should not be designed to work when they exclude a reasonable blend of different residential dwellings and commercial enterprises. We simply can't financially sustain neighborhoods built all at once to a finished state. Our goal is to build densely populated areas that incorporate a mix of spaces and places that bring people together, not separates them. None of us here supports tearing down coherent single-family homes to make way for multi-story apartments. I believe such practices distort local communities in unhealthy and destructive ways. Studies show that this approach artificially inflates housing values, dislocates for stifles entry-level entrepreneurship, accelerates wealthy inequality, and bankrupts local governments. But this is an existing field area, already vacant, where a trailer park once existed and in a deteriorating condition, as Commissioner Smith pointed out, actually poses some self-inset safety and health risks. By building units here that accommodate the rapid population growth Denton is faced with, and I think it was mentioned earlier in another agenda item that requires 12,000 new multi-family dwelling units before 2030, we can keep these in close proximity to those commercial businesses that homeowners require to fill daily essential needs rather than creating a greater sprawl that places them in locations further away from necessary resources and requires the added expense to build the necessary infrastructure to accommodate this sprawl. What's being proposed here tonight with this development is not, in my opinion, out of scale with the adjoining neighborhood. I agree with the planning staff's analysis that after Teasley is widened and becomes a major corridor and gateway to Denton to the south, it could attract a combination of businesses that will generate far more traffic in this area than the proposed multi-family development. A development I agree with others that could service a buffer between the single-family houses to the west and Teasley, where the commercial development will be built. Thank you. Mr. Smith. Julie, were there staff recommendations on the zoning? Not on the zoning. Can we refer to the zoning and the SCP if there were recommendations? Not on the zoning. Not on the zoning? No. Okay, my motion stands as is. Julie, I actually have a question for you. Can you pull up the numbers on traffic and talk about that commercial number that triggers that 11,000? That. Yes. So, it was said multiple times by the applicant as others that a grocer's not happening here. I think that's one of my big takeaways, that a grocer is not happening, which is the biggest single contributor to daily trips. And it was the staff's opinion that all those things, the 11,000, would need to be there to warrant a stoplight. So, I'm having concerns about my confidence in Tim Smith's mission over here to get a stoplight there if the grocer is not happening. This really was an example, an illustration of what could go in there in the trips. Our discussion about the warrants for the light were really just commercial development on 15 acres. Less about what these specific potential uses would be and just the fact that commercial shopping on 15 acres would generate enough traffic, whether it be a drug store or plus a couple of fast food restaurants and strip shopping. So, because of the size of the property, it will be several commercial uses. And really, that was engineering's discussion. This is really kind of illustrative. So, more or less that general amount of square footages of commercial, there's confidence from the city staff that that is enough or an adequate momentum push to get a stoplight at Hunter's Creek. It may even be less. Okay. I did reach out to Preetam and said, "Is there a magic number that you want to get to?" He actually thought once Keasley gets built out and you really can get a full assessment of the traffic patterns, given the existing development in the area, particularly the residential and Keasley trails, once that fully gets built out, you might even be closer than where we are now. Perfect. So, it might be sooner than later. Great. Thanks Julie and Richard for helping out. Before we get to the vote, the only thing I want to say is one of the things that's difficult for me as a commissioner, I think the commission in totality, is to understand how to transition between areas. It's difficult to put a warehouse next to a ranch and we have buffers in place for trying to figure out how to transition single family to commercial. And this is one of those times where the future land use, the momentum of the city, everything shows, Keasley, especially that corner being a commercially outfitted piece of property. And so how do we as a commission in the city at large steward the responsibility to transition from an NR6 neighborhood to hopefully a Chick-fil-A or something? What's the transition look like? And there's a lot of different things that can be done there. You could put a Walmart there or a bar or a 60 foot hotel 15 feet from the property line. And so we have to think of all these different options and weigh the pros and cons of how do we transition. And I don't think moving NR6 over and then having more single family homes right up to a strip center is the effective way. And so that's where I kind of fall in this is thinking through all the different possibilities and certainly hearing the personal testimonies of the joys of backing up to, let me rephrase that. I don't know if there's a joy backing up to that, but it seems as though there's nature persisting and I know it seems to be impactful to families and I think that's meaningful and it's not taken without consideration in my decision, but it seems as though a well constructed local developer of an apartment complex is the right move for this specific property given the context of this intersection. And I happen to live in Forest Ridge and I drive by this all the time. This is not literally in my backyard, but it is very much backyard to me because I'm at that intersection twice a day taking my kid to school and eating and living down in that area. So that all to say I support the project and I certainly hope that it is as good a quality as Hickory Creek is and that you're a long time owner and proprietor of the property. So with that, I don't see any other discussion. So I'll call for a vote on the board for the zoning case. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is to consider item 4G. Commissioner Smith. Motion to approve. This one does have conditions. List have conditions. Mr. Cole? Second. We have a first and second for approval of the SUP item 4G S19-0004C. Any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Congratulations. Next item of business is our project matrix. I will turn to Richard for an update and then we can have some discussion if needed. Commissars, I'll be brief. I know it's been a long night. I just wanted to point one item that we sort of put back on the matrix, staff analysis updates. I hope you enjoyed the staff analysis that was included with this agenda. I think it was a little bit more robust than what we've provided in the past. And just want to get to that point where we're providing enough information where you can make an informed decision, including I know that it was on for quite a long time, the financial analysis about how much would be paid for impact fees, new taxes generated. And so I just wanted to put that back on for discussion and make sure it's falling in line with what everyone was looking for, as well as kind of update you on some of the some of the items that we're looking to also include more from a visual perspective. We're working with capital improvements in our GIS where we can actually map all of the capital projects that are currently underway or in the pike. So you can see how that relates to the project at hand being discussed, not just roads but also water sewer drainage and all the above. So that way everything is packaged together. And so I have that for the 17th, we will probably also have a work session just to give you an update on the legislative changes. There were two two bills that that passed 31 67, Senate Bill 3167, which was a change to the platting shot clock as it's commonly referred to under the current or the current law, that PNZ needs to take action within 30 days of a final plat. They have now changed that. And we're still going through and analyzing what it actually means as well as discussing it both internally as well as we had one conversation with the Texas Municipal League on what exactly it means. It probably will mean many more items coming to PNZ. And so that's where we want to have a full analysis of it. And just what that means, whether it's ultimately going to be more meetings, possibly moving the time up. What it requires now is within 30 days, the item, it expands it from not just a plat but now to plan. So site plan, construction, engineering plans. So we're just trying to get a handle on how wide this net is cast. But it needs to be either approved, approved with conditions or denied. And if it's approved with conditions or denied, then the applicant has the ability to cure that. There's no limitation on when they can come back. But once they come up with their solution as to how they addressed it, then we as staff have to put it on an agenda for PNZ to consider within 15 days. And at that point in time, rather than making a conditional approval, you then have to approve that they've met those conditions. And so the premise of this bill was to get better comments and streamline the process. But what it's done, it's creating, I think, a much more bureaucratic endeavor in trying to get things through the process. And so that's where we're -- that's our initial reading of it again. But we're -- we really want to fully vet this thing before we -- before we present it. But just kind of want to give you a little bit of an idea of what the unintended consequence, I think, was a result of passage of that bill. Does that Senate bill have a time in which we have to implement those changes? September 1st. The other one that has a September 1st deadline was 2439. This was one relative to not regulating building materials anymore. And so the new DDC that we just adopted, we will probably be bringing forward amendments, repealing a number of those provisions that we just went through requiring a certain amount of masonry. We can no longer do that. So if somebody wanted to come in today instead of the conditions that we put in on the multifamily and wanted to do plywood or corrugated metal, they certainly could do that and we have no ability to say -- Richard, would that apply to developments that are already on the books or is that -- It becomes into effect September 1st. But it stretches much more -- it stretches further beyond, I think, just building materials on a structure. There's also concerns -- I know Scott has talked to some of his colleagues on the building side where they're, I think, Lubbock and there's some other municipalities that ban a certain type of pipe to be used for gas. It's not regulated by the building code. And so if someone wanted to use that, we can no longer tell them no. The bill went so far as even limiting a city's ability to pass their own local amendments that would prohibit it. And so these are -- We can deny -- we can vote to deny, though. I think that's what we really need to flush out. Okay. So that's coming down the pike very soon. Awesome news. On that note -- Yeah. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to bring back up, in conjunction with the multifamily development overall from East McKinney, can we get somebody to look at putting a marked crosswalk there where that McKinney exit is going to connect with Dutchess Drive across there, just because I know that's not part of what we discussed. And if there's some way -- and again, this is definitely going to involve TexNOT, but it would be nice if there was a true right-turn lane on northbound, Luke 288, that turns right on McKinney there. They've got that little curve there, and with this new development, it's going to create a lot more traffic. So if you could, please, thanks. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Richard, with what occurred today with our first public hearing item, and what I've seen happen on a couple of other meetings, is there a way that we can get and ensure that legal has signed off on staff recommendations before our meeting? I mean, to me, it puts us in a really awkward position if you're not on the same page to be able to vote on an item accordingly. So I don't know -- you know, I don't live the day-to-day that you all live, so I don't even know if that request is possible, but it seems to me that, you know, whatever you're recommending to us should be something that legal has seen, and, you know, I don't know. We do meet every Friday to discuss that, but we will work to improve it. Yeah, because it's -- for me, I mean, I can only speak for myself, but put me in a very awkward position on making a decision. Any other questions? Any other discussion? I will close this meeting at 1137. Thank you.