Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for Wednesday, May 15th, 2024.
This is our work session, and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.02 p.m.
First item on our work session agenda is citizen comment on the consent agenda.
There is no one in attendance for that, so we'll move on to clarification for tonight's
agenda.
That's being the minutes from April 24th.
Any questions on that?
Okay.
Next is our consent.
I'm going to have Angie come up.
There was a very late email, 4.47 p.m., that came through with a slight revision that I
would just like -- I'm not sure how many people saw it, so if you don't mind, please.
Absolutely.
Good evening.
Angie Mangleris, Development Review Manager.
This is a final plat, FP24-0006E.
This is JPI@BonnieBray.
It is a final plat.
It was in your backup on the consent agenda and is still recommended for approval.
I did want to draw to your attention.
We did send an email with a slightly revised plat rather late this afternoon as it relates
to the labeling of the future right-of-way due to an eminent domain situation.
We've asked the applicant to remove a reference to dedication and just call out that the future
right-of-way is just that it's future right-of-way, and that is the only change to this plot.
Any questions for Angie?
Mm-hmm.
Commissioner Perot.
Do you have a point about the slide for clarity approval as it does not comply?
Oh, sorry.
It was a little bit of a scattered day.
Thank you.
Very good.
Okay.
Anything else?
Okay.
Thanks, Angie.
Okay.
Our items for individual consideration, I think the entire thing is the same, so.
We'll go over these quickly, because they will all sound familiar.
Hello, Bryce.
How are you?
Good evening, Commissioner.
Bryce Menardsdale, Assistant Planner.
This is final plat 240008.
It's approximately 48 acres in our city's ETJ Division 1.
It'll end up being 38 single-family residential lots, as well as one HOA lot.
Currently, the plat does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff has no issue with
the requested extension granted to a date certain of June 12th, 2024.
Okay.
Commissioner Bill Grail.
One number extension, is this?
This is the first extension.
First.
Thanks, Bryce.
Absolutely.
Okay.
4B is FP230031, and somebody's going to be shown, it looks like.
Hello, Cameron.
Good evening, Commission.
Cameron Robertson, Principal Planner.
Hold on.
Home screen.
Hold on one moment.
Slight technical difficulty.
Is it FP230031, or 4B, oh, okay, sorry, so it's not, okay, cool, thank you.
Sorry, okay, okay, here we are.
So this is the final plat for the Mayhill Edition, lots one and two, block one.
This site is approximately 32 acres.
It's on the west side of Mayhill Road, just south of Foster Road.
The staff is recommending denial of the final plat as it does not meet our criteria for
approval, but staff has no objection to the second requested extension date of June 12th,
2024.
Any questions?
Questions?
Okay.
Thank you, Cameron.
Next one is 4C FP240012, and Commissioner Cole is going to recuse from 4C through 4F.
Okay, good evening, Cameron Robertson.
So this is for Hunter Ranch, our final plat for Hunter Ranch Phase 1A.
The lot is approximately 53 acres and is located north of Robeson Ranch Road, just west of
Interstate 35 West.
It is for 95 single-family residential lots and 10 HOA lots.
Staff does recommend denial at the time, but staff has no objection to the first extension
request to a date of June 12th, 2024.
Questions on 4C?
Okay, we'll just roll into 4D, FP240013.
So this is for Hunter Ranch Phase 1B, it is approximately 53 acre site.
It is for 180 single-family residential lots and 8 HOA lots.
Staff is currently recommending denial, but staff has no objection to the first extension
request of June 12th, 2024.
Okay, no questions there.
That would be 4E FP240014.
So this is for Hunter Ranch Phase 1C, it is approximately 66 acre site.
It is for 287 single-family residential lots and 10 HOA lots.
Staff does recommend denial as it does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff
has no objection to the first extension request to a date starting of June 12th, 2024.
Sounds like we're going to be busy on June 12th, 2024.
Okay, questions there?
For FP240015.
I promise I'm almost done.
This is for Hunter Ranch Phase 1D, it is approximately 56 acres.
It is for 185 single-family residential lots and 8 HOA lots.
Staff is currently recommending denial, but staff has no objection to the first extension
request date of June 12th, 2024.
Any questions?
Okay, thank you, Cameron.
That brings us to 4G FP240017.
We'll bring Commissioner Cole back in here and Mia is here to present.
Good afternoon.
Mia Hines, Senior Planner.
This item is a final plan for Jefferson-Mayhill addition located just west of Mayhill Road,
approximately 850 feet south of Roy Road.
The site itself is just under 40 acres and the plat is not currently ready for approval.
So we are recommending denial at this time, but we have no objection to the request extension
to June 12th, 2024, and this would be the first extension.
Questions for Mia?
Okay, thank you very much.
Okay, that'll take us to public hearings.
5A is being postponed.
I will open the public hearing because that is being postponed just to May 29th, so they
won't re-notice that and then we'll ask for a postponement to that date certain of May
29th.
Any questions, though, on that?
Okay.
All right, that will take us to 5B, which is MPA 240001.
Hello.
Good evening, Commission, Farhan Bhatt, Transportation Services, Deputy Director.
This is a comprehensive plan amendment to modify 2022 Mobility Plan, including three
elements, including three elements, three proposed elements.
The first one is to extend Windsor across Loop 288, connecting to Farris Road as a slow-speed
major collector with a bike facility 110 feet right of way.
And then the second element of this proposed amendment is add a major collector roadway
classification, and the third one is minor alignment changes for 380 connector.
When it comes to, you know, compliance with 2040 comprehensive plan and then Mobility
Plan, we found that it is compliant, and there is a compliance.
And then as far as text-dot coordination with text-dot plans, there is a compliance on there
as well.
And I think overall this project would enhance safety and enhance integrated connectivity
when it comes to mobility on both sides of Loop 288.
Staff recommends approval of the proposal as it complies with the criteria in Section
2.7.1(d) of the DDC for approval of comprehensive plan amendment.
I'm sure we have questions.
Yeah, Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Frata, two things on this, one, the alignment that's on there, that curvature up to Farris,
that's just a placeholder for the time being.
It is.
It's not going to be one big slow curve or something like that.
I had that question from the public, correct?
It is a snapshot in time, but it is a proposed alignment, it is city-initiated amendment,
so it is alignment that the city is proposing.
Gotcha.
But yes, that's true that it's a placeholder.
Gotcha.
And I believe this alignment, it's mainly because of text dot and those kinds of things
within there, but I know we proved there's a plat process that's happening on the south
side of King's Row there right now.
Was any of this, was any of that project or this, was that coinciding, was that lining
up with each other, or was there anything within that that was connected within that?
So you mean the purple?
No, I'm talking about there's the project right at the south.
It's the southwest or southeast corner of King's Row in 288.
There was a project that was approved that's there that's mainly, the project is on, correct
me if I'm wrong, I'm trying to remember this project off the top of my head.
What project is that?
So you're talking about it.
That development that's on, that's mainly on the north side of King's Row.
Uh-huh.
But east of…
Are you talking about King's Way?
King's Place, King's Place.
King's Place, yeah.
King's Way maybe, yes.
There's a piece of it, there's a phase that's south of King's Row there.
Correct.
Did you have any bearing on this realignment?
Was there anything that…
We know that the TxDOT is working on coordination of facilities on both sides of the loop 288.
We understand that King's Row would be right in, right out, and on the west side of loop
288, and then on east side as well, there are plans, you know, TxDOT is looking into
how the connectivity could be improved.
To date, it's fluid, it's in planning stage, and I think that's the max I could
say on that.
Got it.
And then the last thing, the proposed 380 connector, I know it's a TxDOT project.
Is that going to fly over, is the intent for that to be a flyover of the Windsor, if this
was approved, that proposed future piece of mobility would be a flyover?
How is TxDOT imagining that connector to be built if they know that we have this intermobility
plan that in the future we could connect Ferris across?
So this connector would be landing somewhere close to King's Row, and then Windsor connector
would be at grade on loop 288, and then there'll be an underpass that will be punched through
the elevated…
Gotcha.
…the connector.
Got it.
So it wouldn't be another…
You know, it wouldn't be a stoplight, basically, is the intent.
It would not be a stoplight process there at Windsor.
If there was a connector, if the 380 connector in the Windsor, if they're built, there's
not a design function or thought that it would be a stoplight, a four-way stoplight crossing
there.
Not at Windsor.
Okay.
Not at Windsor and 380, but at Windsor and loop 288, there'll be a stoplight.
Sure.
Of course.
Yeah.
But yeah, it's just there.
That's what I was asking about.
Yes.
That doesn't make sense for the connector to have a stoplight on it.
The traffic issues, we want to make sure that would be, that's kind of the thought process
there.
I know a lot of this is fluid.
This is a mobility plan amendment.
Yeah.
It's not approving a road.
We're just approving, changing our designation for that road in the future in the mobility
plan, but just want to make sure that flyover process is kind of incorporated in there.
That is correct.
Got it.
Thank you.
Okay.
Other questions?
Commissioner Villarreal.
So I know we've received a lot of citizen feedback about traffic and safety concerns
along Windsor in regards to this mobility potential change.
In regards to that, does the city have a plan to put additional stop signs and traffic calming
devices on West Windsor in coordination with this upcoming change?
Yes.
You know, we are not waiting on completion of this project.
We are, as we speak, we are going, we are auditing this area.
Transportation services has completed at least four audits of the area on West and East side
of Loop 288.
And our plan is to, as a matter of fact, yesterday we had meeting with the principal of elementary
school, Nettichell Elementary School, and we are planning to have some traffic safety
improvements there as well.
And on top of that, further, all the way to Loop 288, we will go through this process
of phased interventions.
We will deploy safety interventions, traffic calming interventions, we'll be in touch
with the community to get feedback on what kind of improvements they have in mind.
So yes, that process is there, and we are not waiting until the completion of this Windsor
project.
We are just doing it now.
Right.
And I see that it says ideally some intervention will be in place.
I know the biggest concern from the community appears from at least what I've seen in the
communications we've received is they would like interventions in place for sure prior
to the construction of the East Windsor Drive extension.
Is there any way we could get the city to make that commitment prior to the extension
being built?
That is our commitment from transportation services side.
That is our commitment.
But when it comes to interventions, there has to be an audit process that we are following
right now because in order to deploy certain interventions, we need to have data, we need
to have specific information to inform our decision-making process on what kind of intervention
is needed.
We are in that process.
But yes, there is a commitment from transportation services, from the city that yes, we are looking
into that and we will deploy the interventions and also be in touch with the community to
get the feedback on those interventions, it will not be just unilaterally we will be making
that decision but it will be informed decision based on the feedback from the community.
Got it.
Thank you.
Yeah.
I've got a couple questions.
It's like the tale of two roads on which side of the loop that you're on because Windsor
on the west side is basically a residential street when you look at it.
Those houses are on Windsor, they're not backing to Windsor, they're on Windsor and it's a
neighborhood that street is on and of course we have development happening on the east
side but it's not there yet so it's this kind of rural place still that needs and deserves
some kind of connectivity that hasn't been done on that side yet.
One of my concerns is renaming this, which I think is just supposed to be the east side
of Windsor, this major collector, why do we have to do that?
In 2022 when we looked at the mobility plan and we did that in great detail, we had multiple
meetings on that, separate meetings that were just on that so it was very focused decisions
and that decision then was made to rename it actually a collector street.
I don't understand why we have to bring this new name into it because to me that invites
more traffic just by simply how it's going to be built, I understand the speed is supposed
to be kept the same but I'm having a hard time with us wanting to rename part of that
a major collector.
You can discourage country all you want, as soon as there's a cut through people will
be on it.
The street sections in civil engineering terminology or engineering terminology they go with classification
systems and there's a system that we have to follow based on standards.
In case of collectors we are limited to 65 feet or maximum 70 feet of total right of
way and then the speeds are pretty much same in that range of 30 to 35 but we could do
in terms of all other modes that are present, that should be present or that would be present
on proposed winter, we would not be able to achieve that through collector and hence major
collector comes into the picture where we are forcing this wider section of the street
where 110 feet of total right of way accommodating a variety of modes and not to talk about only
pedestrians but we'll have bike lanes as well in some way we will accommodate that and maybe
multi-use path.
More and more we are seeing that the communities are coming with the idea of we should be able
to use other modes as well and we are seeing pedestrian requirements, we are seeing desire
to have bike lanes, we are seeing desire to be able to traverse through the area using
micro mobility elements so all of these features will be able to provide that in this proposed
major collector roadway when it comes to east side of Windsor and that's what we have in
mind because this will be providing access to not only autos but it will be a multi-modal
connectivity enhancement and it will provide safety to the users, it will not push users
on the roadside but we'll have a dedicated right of way for all their modes including
bike, pedestrians, micro mobility in the form of multi-use path or maybe since it is fluid
since it is still in the planning stage maybe we could have, due to relatively lower speeds
we could still have bike lanes, on street bike lanes as well, that's a potential as
well.
If I could add, so through all of the northeast area planning work that we had done during
the past 12 months, one of the things that we have heard from the community is a strong
desire to have improved bicycle connectivity to the northeast part of the town and so with
this major collector designation allows us to be able to require the additional right
of way dedication but more importantly to Farhan's point, being able to provide for
that bicycle connection and so we're really focused, as he pointed out, trying to address
all modes of transportation, not just the vehicles but also taking care of the bicyclists
in a safe manner as well as the pedestrians.
So we're also trying to be responsive to the community to what we've heard in our past
planning efforts to be able to provide a safe connection for those users because the current
connections are not ideal for those type of users of our roadway system.
So this allows us to be able to ask for that additional right of way, otherwise we're limited
by our current mobility plan.
The other thing that I would add is in working with Farhan and his team is we see this major
collector classification being added to the mobility plan, an opportunity for us to be
able to use that in other areas of the city as properties develop.
So this is just this major collector classification, this is the first project where we're introducing
this but we see value to having this major collector classification to be able to utilize
it elsewhere in the community.
And of course the west side of the community would be, you know, we'll have interventions
there to ensure that we are providing the same sense of safety and traffic calming measures
and addressing any other concerns that the communities have over there.
>> Yeah, I mean, and they have a lot, we've received a lot of feedback from that, particularly
that side of Windsor.
And with, yeah, again, it's a residential neighborhood, there's a school right there,
everybody bikes, walks to school in that neighborhood, it's, you know, it's just strange to, I guess
to have that, try to remain that and be this collector and then boom, all of a sudden on
the other side it's called this major collector, which, again, just I think invites things
that we might not want happening through there.
I don't know.
Next question I had, and Commissioner Prude, I know you've got questions, I'll be right
with you, I've got one more.
There's a diagram in here and I know it's always on a mobility plan, there's never like
a true alignment, but this, in 2006 up until 2022, it had Windsor going through straight,
yeah, that one, straight to Cooper Creek.
Talk me through that and that change, because I know we've had some people who would like
that actually to happen.
So as we looked into the literature before, when I say literature, the previous plans,
you know, through 1999 and then 2006, that's what it depicts, that it just takes East Windsor
Road and connects it across Loop 288 and takes it to Cooper Creek.
And then it, from 2006 onwards to 2022, it just retains that connection to Cooper Creek,
but it changes to secondary arterial, which is a higher classification, higher speeds
and more capacity as compared to major collector or collector.
And then in 2022, it was removed and then the Windsor was classified from secondary
arterial to collector and then Kingsrow was maintained as a collector and the only connection
between Mingo and 428 across Loop 288.
So that kind of, you know, put a lot of pressure on Kingsrow, being a collector, serving the
communities on both sides and made, in engineering terminologies, made it unstable when it comes
to serving and providing the level of service to the road users and also concentrating
all trips on one segment across Loop 288.
And so this amendment is kind of trying to correct that.
At the same time, trying to make sure that this is, there's a window, there's an open
window for us where TextDOT is designing their connector and it's landing near Kingsrow.
It's changing the Kingsrow's geometric design because it's going to be right in, right out.
It's not going to be through connection anymore.
So there's an opportunity for us as a city to look into this and make sure that the communities
on both sides are connected in future.
If we miss this opportunity, then maybe later on if we go to TextDOT and say that we want
to change the design, it will be, it will not be possible, it will be difficult because
then we'll be requesting to change the structure or structural design, which is already there.
So right now, this proposal is, this amendment is suggesting to have a Windsor connector
across Loop 288, have an intersection.
Both sides of the communities would be connected, will provide safer way of traveling across
and then provide good access on Loop 288 on both ends and then also make sure that all
modes have access, not only one.
And then of course, we are looking into the west side to ensure that we have all those
interventions deployed before construction.
Some of those will be sooner.
What do you see the future of Kingsway as being, Kingsrow, sorry.
It will still be a very, an integral part of the transportation system.
It will provide access to right and right out to Loop 288 to west side.
And then I, even though the plan, it's still in the planning state, but we do see that
TextDOT will have some kind of accessibility to Loop 288 and give direct access to Sherman
for right out.
And then we also hope that there'll be some kind of possibility to have U-turn arrangement.
In fact, I could pull our city traffic engineer, Chandra, if you want to get more details on
that.
But we have some slides to explain how the, how this would work.
Chandra, maybe you could explain more on the, on how the, this whole process would work.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
All right.
Chandra, city traffic engineer.
So what questions do you might have?
We were discussing the future of Kingsrow.
The inside out, how the geometric design would change, Kingrow's geometric design would change.
So basically, this is zoomed out of the handout that Tina handed out.
This configuration is from TextDOT as of two weeks ago, and it's still fluid.
But what's happening at Kingsrow is they might block the access to 288, but provide a connection
at Deerwood Parkway to 288 for the existing homes to have an access.
So this connection, if anything, if we are lucky, we might get a right in, right out.
But anything that's houses that have access here, the new Kingsway homes, will have to
come down and make a right turn at Deerwood.
So Deerwood will have an access at the loop with the right in, right out.
At the carnage room.
So basically...
Yeah, off of Kingsrow.
If I could just...
That's what they have now.
Yeah.
So basically, on the west side, for the west side community, we have right in, right out
arrangement, and that will take the...if anybody's taking a right turn on loop 288, they will
have an opportunity to...they will have an opportunity...I apologize, I need to...
Sorry, we're recording, so I just wanted to...
Yeah, sorry.
So on Kingsrow, for instance, on the west side of the community, we'll have right in
and right out arrangement.
It will not be a through street anymore.
And so that right in, right out, the natural question is that right out is okay, because
they will be going to loop 288 frontage roads.
But what happens with the left turns on Kingsrow from the west side?
So they will have an opportunity to take a U-turn at the loop 288 and Windsor intersection.
So that's some kind of arrangement.
It still is fluid, it still is in planning stage, but that will be covered.
Now on the east side, the communities will have some kind of access to loop 288, and
then if they take right out from there, they'll be able to get to Sherman and use Sherman
to get back to Kingsrow if they want, and if they want to continue, that's fine.
And then they'll have some kind of arrangement for left turn as well.
So this is...that's why it's difficult to explain, because it's fluid, and whatever
we are suggesting is right now it's in the planning stage, and TextDOT is actually planning
on that.
It's conceptual, basically.
So they are coordinating on those planning efforts on how this connectivity would work.
But we understand better on the west side than the east side of the Kingsrow right now,
based on the information we have.
If I could add your question, though, directly about the connection to Cooper Creek.
So as Farhan, if you could go back to the slide that has the yellow connection that
shows from 288, that one right there.
So right now, what we have at a minimum, we need to add this connection to the mobility
plan so that TextDOT will honor our connection from Loop 288 up to Ferris.
We know as the remaining balance of properties develop, that there may be additional collector
streets or other roadway networks from a residential standpoint that are introduced as part of
those residential subdivisions that could potentially also have those connections to
Cooper Creek.
So right now, we're trying to address the minimum need, which is to be able to amend
the mobility plan to establish at least the extension of Windsor from Loop 288 all the
way up to Ferris.
We have had plats submitted in the past with property owners that are kind of to the south
and east of there and looking at their roadway network layouts.
They understand the opportunities for connectivity in the ports of Cooper Creek.
When I look at this graphic here, back when Windsor was designated as a secondary arterial,
we had a secondary arterial connecting to another secondary arterial.
Right now, we're focused on the minimum need as it relates to that Windsor extension.
Also as part of our planning efforts, we were trying to address some of the access challenges
that are at Hodges Elementary as well.
So we were trying to take care of the immediate need so that TextDOT respects our need to
have that Windsor connection and is able to design the US 380 connector accordingly to
make sure that we can get our Windsor connection there.
But again, as subsequent properties develop in the area, we are always looking at the
roadway networks that are being provided within those developments, including whether or not
additional collectors are needed.
Yeah.
So I mean, that's the process.
If I mean, once this proposal goes through and then if this amendment is approved, then
TextDOT will be able to coordinate further on both sides of the community, at least on
the east side, and how the connectivity could be improved.
And as Tina mentioned, as the developments come, there will be more possibilities on
how the transportation system would develop over there.
Sure.
Okay.
I'll stop talking.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
Does TextDOT have any requirements on either the classification or the width or the planned
number of lanes, et cetera, of a mobility plan roadway in order to grant an interchange
with a planned freeway?
No, they don't have requirement.
They had their feedback during the discussions, and then internally city had discussions based
on what would be the best.
We wanted to provide, as I said, we wanted to provide comprehensive solutions instead
of just auto-oriented.
So the thought that we need to have multi-use path, we need to have pedestrians there, we
need to have accessibility to bikers, bike users, that was instrumental in going in the
direction of major collector.
Okay.
Because with collector, we won't be able to achieve that.
Okay.
And can you talk me through, with the institution of this major collector, why the right-of-way
is the same as a secondary arterial as opposed to somewhere between the 60 and 110 feet?
Well, it's the way we have to read the classification.
Yes, secondary arterial has the right-of-way, but secondary arterial would have higher speeds.
And with those high speeds based on the Tech Start standards, and then also universal standards
that are being used for bike users and what is safe to have bike lanes on certain facilities,
anything above 35 is questionable when it comes to safety, bike user safety.
So if we have, regardless of the street section, if we have secondary arterial on prevailing
speeds of secondary arterials, we won't be able to achieve that on-street bike lane facilities
that we want to provide, versus major collector, we would be able to do that.
So hence, lowering down the classification so that we could use the lower speed and be
able to provide access to other modes versus just having...
I think I understand the intent behind it.
My question is, why did we land at 110 feet of right-of-way instead of 80 or 90?
From reading many of the public comments, it seems like the concern is that you have
a small segment here designated as a major collector with a wider right-of-way and the
proposed alignment, or sorry, the proposed cross-section to me looks identical to roads
that we have built or are building like Mayhill and Hickory Creek Road in the south and that
sort of thing.
You've got 11-foot lanes and that sort of thing.
So just help me understand why to fulfill those needs, which I understand, we chose
to go to 110 feet instead of something a little bit less than that.
Look, so in this case, the number of lanes will be a driving factor as well.
So for example, we are not saying that number of lanes will be three in each direction.
It will be two in each direction, and then based on that, we will be able to define how
the traffic would act.
And then on top of that, there'll be a possibility of providing bike lanes.
When you add up, and with all the easements required, when you add up all of those things,
that is the right-of-way we are coming up with.
If we don't want to provide on-street bike facility, bike lanes, then it could be reduced
and yet we could still have major collector, but we wanted to achieve certain goals when
it comes to this facility, and I think adding those amenities, when we add those amenities,
that's what it boils down to.
Okay.
And then last, I seem to recall in the -- if you can go back to the map that shows the
proposed alignment.
It could be --
That one.
Okay.
And if you recall, this is probably two, two and a half years ago that some subdivision
plots came through for the R6 zoned parcels to the east of here, kind of on the west side
of Cooper Creek and southeast of Hodge Elementary.
Can you help me understand what the vested rights and phasing of -- were those subdivision
plots ever finalized, and if so, do they have a right?
They weren't.
In fact, those projects were never finished, and the plots have not been approved or further
acted upon, and that property, and I know we've been in conversations with them and
working with them also through this alignment because we know how it affects their property
as well.
Okay.
So, as far as we look at the map, there's no -- sorry, I'm trying to choose my words
correctly here.
There's no legal hurdles that would make it difficult if the alignment in the future moved
further to the east, as far as the connection to the north-south roadway network.
Is that correct?
So, I think it's -- I was going to say, I think that's a great question.
I know we've been conversing with that applicant.
I guess I don't recall if their plots were withdrawn or if they just have taken no further
action on them.
Haley and Angie, if you could possibly look that up, I would appreciate it.
But I know we have been in communication with that particular property owner because they
were -- I know we had been working with them in the past regarding a roadway network that
provided for collector streets that would improve the connectivity because I know they
-- I seem to recall they were requesting some relief with respect to -- what is it -- Silverdome
and Ferris and some improvements associated with that.
They also knew that the 380 connector was impacting their site layout as well.
And so, I know at one point in time, I think they withdrew, but I don't know if they've
complete --
We're looking at it.
She's looking at it.
Okay.
So, but they have not -- bottom line, they have not progressed any further with our plot
projects because I know we have been in conversation with them.
Okay.
Yeah, that helps.
But if we could look it up, I know with our mobility plan roads, as development applications
come in, we have the freedom to adjust.
I think it's plus or minus 1,000 feet.
That's correct.
It's a mobility plan.
Right.
If we could understand what the distance currently is between Ferris and Cooper Creek over there
so that I would have some understanding of what the flexibility is in the future.
I'd appreciate that.
We could circle back.
We can take that measurement.
Yeah, we can take that and provide that information to you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thanks.
Other questions at the moment?
Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
So, in your estimation, when will there be some certainty on the TxDOT end of where that
-- how that's going to go?
Yes.
They are in the final design stage now, and I have that same question as well because,
you know, if the alignment change, the previous alignment change, but how sure we are that
they will not change again.
So, yes, the answer is that they're in the final design stage, and they have shared their
design schematics with us, and we are confident that there won't be changes in this process.
And if there are, then we'll have to apply, go through the process again.
But since they're in the final design stage, that shows that their chances are lower.
By the way, those preliminary -- that preliminary plat application has been withdrawn.
Of the one Commissioner approved?
Yes.
Okay.
Commissioner Thacker.
Thank you, Chair.
Can you kind of explain to me a little bit just, like, what a major collector looks like?
Like, I want to know what it actually looks like when you're operating on it.
Pruitt had asked, you know, in my mind, I'm thinking Mayhill.
I, like, immediately thought about that when I thought about building a new, like, some
type of collector.
What is it going to -- what, you know, what does it look like?
Do you have an example of one, or can you --
Yeah.
So, for instance, McKinney is a secondary arterial, and then in the urban core, near
downtown area in the urban core, it acts like a major collector.
It's lower speed, it's relatively lower speed, and would act as major collector, versus if
it goes out of the urban core, it starts -- you know, the traffic flow is more of like a secondary
arterial.
So that would be a good example, and we have internally discussed that as well, that what
would be a good project that resembles major collector.
As Tina mentioned, that there'll be an opportunity for us that once we add this facilities -- I
have written so many audit reports on many requests, citizen requests, where I mentioned
that this road is a secondary arterial, but it functions as a collector because of that
reason, because we have a void in between these two functional classification systems.
Either we are going secondary arterial, which is higher speed, relatively higher speed,
or we are going collector, which is relatively lower, and there are shades of gray.
There are some which are in the middle, and we'll have opportunity to improve, maybe to
look at those -- to revisit those streets and roads and say, are they really collector,
or do we need to improve these segments?
And it will also help us assess level of service on those facilities and see how they are performing.
That's going to be a major piece of communication for those neighborhoods, for them to be able
to visualize what it's going to look like, because it's not just about the speed limit
you set, it's the opportunity for a car to go a certain speed limit.
So that's the kind of questions they'll want answers to.
And that is the objective, that's our objective as well, when we are lowering it from secondary
arterial, that's the prime objective, that how do we make sure that it is not at a higher
speed level, but at lower speed levels, and we can also accommodate other modes to enhance
the safety and connectivity, overall connectivity.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Sure.
Of course.
Do you know what the zoning is on where this connects through on the undeveloped parcels?
We have some, maybe Tina could, or maybe Hayley or Tina could talk about it.
I was going to say, if you give me a moment, I can pull up a zoning map and we can look
at that for you.
Also, I have the answer to Commissioner Pruitt's question about the distance, if you're interested
in.
Oh, of course.
Yes.
Okay.
So the distance that you were asking about between Ferris and Cooper Creek, it's just
under a half a mile to get measurement on Google Maps.
So it's about 2,100 linear feet, and so just, like I said, just under a half a mile, a little
more than a third of a mile, but that's the distance that we're working with in that area.
So that's why I made the comment earlier about, you know, as plats get submitted, we would
continue to work with the developers in identifying if there's any additional collector streets
that need to be added.
Right now, we're just trying to take care of the minimum need because of not knowing
how the remaining balance of the properties in those areas could develop.
Thank you, Tina.
Hi, Hayley.
Hi.
So I have the zoning map pulled up here.
So the property that it would cross, potentially, we could have SC, R6, R3, or R4 zoning on
it, or portions of all of those.
Okay.
Gotcha.
And it would -- so it's connecting through and up to R3s, correct?
Yes.
Yeah, that's the connection that we're seeing on that other map.
Yes.
Yeah, with the current proposed alignment, it would be something like this.
Gotcha.
Okay.
Thank you for doing that.
Of course.
Other questions?
Commissioner Villarreal?
Sorry, I meant to ask this earlier.
I understand we're under some time urgency, considering we're trying to keep up with text
out here.
But considering the pushback from the community, would there be any major shortcoming if we
decided to postpone to allow for those traffic -- the traffic safety installments, including
stop signs to be in place prior to us approving this change?
We had -- I wanted to touch on this as well, that we have three -- we have been following
the public engagement process before this session, and then we had around three neighborhood
meetings.
We have received feedback from those meetings as well.
We have noted their concerns regarding safety, regarding overall connectivity.
The community on east side mostly is interested in how the overall connectivity would be,
and then how this would impact their community.
The community on west side of Loop 288 is concerned about their safety and how the traffic
-- new, induced traffic would impact their community, and then also what kind of traffic
calming measures would be there -- would be deployed through these interventions.
So when it comes to public feedback, we have already been receiving that, and we would
be actively trying to implement some of those interventions or deploy those interventions
as they are needed there.
As it comes to more public engagement sessions, I think we could certainly continue to work
on that with -- based on reaching out to public, but how it may change this winter connection,
this would be probably -- this may not change the nature of the connectivity that we are
trying to provide.
So we could continue by -- when we deploy these interventions, we'll reach out to public
in some fashion, maybe through virtual sessions with them, and then get more feedback, but
I think it would be the best, in the interest of all stakeholders, including public, that
we continue with this, because Tech Start is in final design stage, they are designing
their landing of this connector, and we need to make sure that we provide them some kind
of plan that -- what we are planning to do when it comes to connectivity, and this amendment
alludes to that.
>> And also I want to add, we need to remember the safety component associated with it.
So we do need to move -- time is important on this to be able to get this minimum connection
established.
I understand your concern about trying to get the mitigation methods in place.
We do need to have extensive public engagement with the community also to get their feedback,
make sure that they are generally agreeable to any calming methods that we would propose
on Windsor west of Luke 288, but we're working with a very short time window here that if
we are not successful in getting this connection shown on our mobility plan here in the very
near future, we don't want to lose out on the opportunity to be able to provide this
safer connection while Tech Start is designing the plans, because absent this connection
being shown on our mobility plan, then Tech Start does not have to honor any wishes that
we have in trying to accommodate this in the future.
So it's very imminent that we take action on this to be able to at least get this minimum
connection established.
Know that we are very sensitive and concerned as well about any potential implications on
additional traffic that would be on Windsor west of Luke 288.
To Farhan's point, again, the commitment is there at least from transportation services
and the planning team and the rest of development services to work on getting those improvements
deployed sooner than later.
If there are funding implications associated with that, then we have to work with council
on that as well.
So I don't have control of all of that other than to say that we hear the community, we
understand their concerns, particularly for Windsor west of Luke 288, and making sure
that we get any calming measures put forth in place for that.
And, you know, as we go, once these amendments are approved, Tech Start will essentially
start coordinating on each side of the community and also make sure that this plan that we
are giving, this is accommodated into their design, which is the most important part,
which is the most important aspect of their design.
Otherwise, it's going to be a bypass that will be elevated and just landing near King's
Row and won't have this underpass for Windsor.
So that's what essentially we are trying to hope that we get that.
This is, again, just a line on the map for now, but at least it ensures that it gets
through in Tech Start's designs, in final design, and we have an opportunity to have
some say when it comes to overall enhancement of mobility.
Commissioner Tiger.
Thank you, Chair.
Just one other thing I want everyone to consider is where they are going to potentially build
High School 5, if it's going to be further north of there, or either way, if it's going
to be further north of where King's Row is at or if it's on the other side of 377, there's
going to be, with high schools, there's always more traffic because the kids have licenses.
So it's just something to consider that if you have them coming out of those neighborhoods,
the ones that are north of there, and then they're coming out and maybe going again towards
377, or even if they're moving, excuse me, further north, that's going to put a lot of
pressure on those frontage roads right there in front of King's Row if there's not another
way for them to navigate out of there.
I don't know where High School 5 is.
I didn't know if you maybe knew that.
No, I'm not sure, and we'll have to look into that, but again, not only the high school
but other developments that will come along this corridor would impact the traffic patterns,
and that's why losing the true connection of King's Row is the major issue here.
If we lose that, we are losing it, like it or not, because the bypass is landing near
King's Row and there is no way there will be a continuation of King's Row through or
at grade intersection at King's Row.
So that's given.
So with that, if we do nothing, then it will be even more a disastrous situation because
then we have development coming and then we have all these traffic trips coming due to
developments or school or whatnot, and then if we don't have interconnection, we lost
it.
What we are trying to achieve here is that we build this connection through a bypass
and have this extended connectivity available in future and regardless of what kind of developments
are coming.
So that will ensure because King's Row would be right in, right out, and it will not be
a through street, and that's one of the issues.
What is Ferris Road on the mobility plan?
I think it's Collector.
I think connectivity is great.
I'm hung up on the new classification.
That's where I'm hung.
I think connectivity and safety and enhanced mobility, all of those elements would be there.
I mean, the structure of the street of a major Collector versus the secondary arterial, it's
the same design.
I'm struggling with, I guess, why we're doing that.
I mean, I know you're saying it's for more bike lanes and whatnot.
I just don't know that that's the right thing to do here.
That's where I'm having a problem.
I think the connectivity is great.
I'm just not sure what we're inviting by reclassifying it is my problem.
Do you have in your PowerPoint slide deck, Farhan, I seem to recall we have the options
of what it potentially could look like that might help be able to address your concern
to understand and then also I think we had a slide that shows how the major Collector
compares to a Collector versus a secondary arterial as well because we had shared some
of that information with the community.
So here were some possible options again, because we're so focused on trying to accommodate
the bicycle and pedestrian options that these are three possible cross sections that we
were looking at as it relates to Windsor.
So hence that additional right of way that's needed because we were trying to in all three
of these options, there are actually dedicated bike lanes to be able to accommodate the cyclist.
You can see the number of lanes allocated to vehicles is slightly different.
Some also factor in landscaping included within that.
So but the focus again is being a safer connection, trying to address the needs of the community
because one of the things that we've heard significantly is the needs to address the
bicycle community in addition to the pedestrians.
The other thing is when we did the neighborhood or season, we text dot had their public meeting
last summer.
The community didn't like what was being shown at Kings Row at that time either.
The text dot was not taking in consideration a Windsor connection.
They were taking into how to make the Kings Row situation better.
And so that the community didn't like that either.
And so it was they they were also very concerned with how bicyclists were being accommodated
under that design as well.
So you know, we have put a lot of time and effort in identifying what we believe is in
best interest of the community to provide that safer alternative connection.
We know that Kings Row is a significant challenge today.
And so here we have the opportunity to provide a much safer alternative for the community
and to be able to address the community's concerns as well that we heard last summer.
So I don't think we're going to have a solution that is going to appease everybody in our
public engagement that we've had with the two meetings and some of the written feedback
that we've included in in your backup.
We've received favorable remarks.
Are folks 100 percent satisfied?
No.
I don't know.
We won't have 100 percent satisfaction.
So that's where we are providing our best technical expertise and recommendations forth
on what we believe is appropriate to have a much safer connection at Loop 288.
Anybody else?
OK.
Thank you very much.
Seeing the regular meeting.
I think what we will do is break real quick because dinner's here.
Let's go get our dinner and we'll come in to the last of our agenda.
So let's recess at 6 p.m.
OK.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
[ Silence ]
>> Thank you, and we welcome you back from our short recess.
I'll call us back to order at 6, 10 p.m.
We have one more item in works.
Actually, we have a couple more in work session.
One more on this agenda, and it is 5C DCA 240006.
Mia is here to present that item.
Hi, Mia.
[ Inaudible ]
In the work session, I just have a brief summary
of the proposed amendments and the intent behind this code amendment for you.
In the regular session, I do plan on going over the amendments,
but, of course, that has been provided in your backup,
so I'll take any questions at the end of this.
So just a brief summary over the existing regulations for donation boxes.
We have the use shown in our table of allowable uses,
but if you look across the board, it is not shown to be permitted
in any of the zoning districts.
It does have use-specific standards attached to it,
but, again, by not being permitted, those are kind of --
that existing use-specific standard is kind of mute at this point.
The definition of donation boxes is a portable container
for the acceptance of donations operated by a non-governmental entity,
a for-profit company, or a non-for-profit organization
that can be emptied and readily moved.
That definition for more or less is staying the same.
There are going to be some amendments to the existing DDC subsection 5.4(b).
Currently, that regulation just states that donation box
shall not restrict the use or access to any parking spaces
that are required for the principal use on that lot.
And, again, that is something that we'd like to continue,
but it's going to be revised.
The proposal will revise that section to add more of those regulations.
And the reason that we're bringing this forward
is because of some recent legal precedent
against strict unreasonable regulations of other cities
in the North Texas area for donation boxes.
And so we know that our existing regulations pose challenges,
and we want to try to propose this code amendment to rectify that.
And so with the proposal, we are amending the table of allowable uses,
the general standards for accessory uses,
the additional standards specific to donation box uses,
as well as the definition.
And the reason behind this is to allow for the use of donation boxes
as accessory related to appropriate uses,
establish you specific standards given the unique charitable use
and operational nature of the donation boxes.
We want to ensure compliance with recently established legal precedents,
as I mentioned on the slide before.
We also want to strengthen the enforcement ability of donation box regulations
to ensure compliance with the standards that we are proposing
and ensure our code and compliance and enforcement team
has the necessary tools to make sure that those are kept in a good condition
and located where they're supposed to be located.
And then finally, we want to be proposing these changes
to be consistent with the DDC's purpose statement
of promoting the overall health and safety and general welfare
of these cities' inhabitants.
As this is a city-initiated amendment, we are recommending approval.
And at this time, I will take any questions or comments that you have.
Thank you, Mia.
Mia, is there a cost for registration, I assume?
That has not been determined yet,
but there most likely will be a minor permit fee.
And a cost for renewal as well, then?
Yes.
And then as it relates to 3D in the red line,
you mentioned an authorization form if the owner of the box
is not the same as the owner of the property.
Are we providing that authorization form?
Yes, and similar with some of our development applications,
we do require that that form be filled out,
just expressing that even if you aren't the applicant,
a lot of times it's the developer,
or in this case it will be probably the charitable operator.
If they aren't the same as the property owner,
we want to make sure that the property owner has given consent
for those to be placed on there.
Yeah, I just want to make sure we had a consistent form,
that everybody's filling out the same form and getting it notarized.
Okay, perfect.
Questions, Commissioner Perot?
Just one really quick.
Usually I'm good at parsing language, but I had a hard time with this one.
Did staff think about the situation where a benefiting nonprofit
would get permission from a different business entity on a particular property
to place a donation box on the behalf of the nonprofit,
and were there any concerns with that, or does that make sense?
Normally you would expect it to be next to a particular goodwill center or something,
but say for instance that they didn't have the space,
or the parking lot layout didn't allow that,
and they talk to their neighbor, and their neighbor says,
"Oh yeah, you can put it back here."
How would that situation be handled with the proposed language?
Yeah, so with the registration it's going to be based on the property owner,
so we need to know who's operating it, who is responsible for maintaining it,
picking those items up, and the property owner.
We need all that contact information.
As far as the use, because it's supposed to be an accessory to appropriate uses,
if it was a church, for example, that they didn't have enough space, as you described,
but a neighbor of the church was maybe a single-family residential home,
it would have to go on the church property.
The church wouldn't be able to give permission for it to be on the neighboring property
if it's not zoned for it.
Sure, but if it were a neighboring commercial property that was an appropriate accessory use,
this application process would be amenable to that?
Yes, as long as we have the correct contact information
and property owner authorization for that property, yes.
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions on this for me?
Thank you very much.
Okay, that gets us through our agenda for this evening.
So we've got one work session report, and that is 3APZ24088,
and that's receive a report, hold a discussion regarding municipal utility districts
in the areas around the city of Dutton corporate limits.
Hello, Chairman.
Hi, good evening, Commission. It's a pleasure to be back with you.
I wanted to go over this request we had following an annexation and rezoning
that happened back in 2023 at the corner of US 380 and Thomas Egan.
If you'll remember, it's directly across from the Legends mud.
It's just on the west side of Thomas Egan.
So just a quick background, what is a mud?
So it's a municipal utility district.
This is a special district that's created in order to build infrastructure on a development.
It has a special taxing entity, and it's got its own board of directors
that authorizes issuance of bonds and the budget for that mud.
So it's created in one of two ways, either through the Texas legislature
or through a petition to the TCEQ.
And in that petitioning phase, that's where the city of Denton gets involved.
They have to submit their application to us or their petition to us.
And we do have the ability to annex the muds after the repayment of bonds.
So muds in Denton.
So the history of muds in Denton, we've had seven petitions to date.
You can see they're in bold.
We have Legends and Meadows.
We've had development agreements with each of those.
And then La La Ranch and Rocky Top are two of the ones that also had a portion of them
that were created through the Texas legislature.
We're aware of additional nine muds shown below,
and we are in talks with three of those currently about potential agreements.
That would be Hickory Creek, Ponder Farms, and Sanctuary.
So what do these muds mean for Denton?
So you can see here the listing of all of the muds of which we're aware.
It's a little over 9,000 acres of land and the proposed 34,000 units.
We estimate that population to be almost 110,000 people over a 30- or 40-year timeline.
So obviously, the city of Denton will see some impacts from these muds in the way of utilities,
transportation, and public safety impacts.
And so how is Denton addressing the muds?
We had a mud policy that was adopted in 2022.
This came before this board.
I think there was a work session following adoption.
So that policy really sets forth the goals, considerations, and conditions for creation of the muds.
It also provides a framework for us to have the development agreement conversations with them
and then our preferences for utility services and emergency services and others.
So what are the benefits to the city?
So the fact that the city of Denton is a full-service city,
meaning that we provide water, wastewater, solid waste, electricity,
that's a benefit to us in the discussions with these muds because they want our services
and that allows us to have some influence over them in the form of development agreements.
So if you look at the policy, we talk about how we enter into those development agreements
and we have the ability to have these muds billed to our Denton standards, our building codes,
and then we have some additional influence over annexing those muds in the future.
Haley, go over the land planning.
All right.
Just a couple of slides to address kind of how all of that relates to our land planning for the city of Denton.
So as you are probably aware, we have no real control over land use in the ETJ.
The same goes for the county.
There are a few limited exceptions like where we have non-annexation agreements
that stipulate that you can continue an agricultural or single-family use
until you decide to do something else and then you have to voluntarily annex into the city.
So as Charlie indicated, those development agreements are really our tool
to try to incentivize these mud developments to annex into the city.
When we adopted our comprehensive plan update and our new future land use map in 2022,
we did shade all of the areas in our ETJ predominantly with rural areas designation or an agricultural designation.
That is not binding on anyone in the ETJ, including these muds in any way.
So although you see the shading on the map, it doesn't mean that they have to comply with that
as someone in the city limits would or someone under a non-annexation agreement who's wanting to annex and then receive zoning.
So when 2022, the city council did make the decision that they wanted to at least acknowledge the existence of muds on our future land use map.
So if you look in the comprehensive plan, you'll see some areas in the ETJ that are shaded pale yellow.
Those are muds that we had already known were approved at that point in time.
And then the areas in the ETJ that are outlined in the kind of dark pink, purplish color on the map
were those muds that were still pending some sort of approval at that time, but we knew they were most likely coming.
So another thing that we did in 2022 that kind of helped spur this request for this work session discussion
was expand those areas of industrial development on the west side of the city adjacent to our ETJ.
So the areas that I've outlined in orange on the map are areas where we were very intentional at that time
in expanding the light industrial areas on the north side of US 380 and on the south side, the more intensive industrial commerce designation.
That was a decision that was made because we knew we were a growing city.
We want to provide adequate areas for employment uses.
And so that west side of the city continuing those existing designations to the north and to the west was a very conscious decision.
It was also partially driven by the inset map where you see all the blue dots with red circles around them.
Those are gas wells that exist in the city today and we do have restrictions that don't permit single family and other protected uses within 500 feet of those.
So it makes it very difficult for the side of the city to develop as any sort of school or residential use or other things that are classified as protected.
So that was another reason that industrial was a good fit because those can coexist with gas wells
and be right next to them as long as they're complying with the fire code basically.
How that affects our ETJ or how the ETJ plays into that.
If you look at the map, you will see some of the hatched areas that are ETJ.
For example, up here in this area, you see it's blue hatching.
So it is an ETJ. You might wonder why did we give it the industrial designation.
Those are areas where we either have non annexation agreements in place.
So we know at some point in time when someone looks to develop that, they'll have to come into the city.
And at that point, we would look for their zoning to comply with the future land use map.
And the same thing here on the south side.
So we did shade some of those ETJ areas adjacent to these muds in different colors that could in the future result in situations where we do have single family adjacent to industrial uses.
But again, as I mentioned, council made the conscious decision we want to acknowledge that the muds exist.
But we aren't necessarily going to let those affect the way that we want to see the city grow and how we want our economic growth to occur in these areas.
And with that, I will hand it back over to Charlie.
Yeah. Lastly, I just wanted to go over a few of the additional planning efforts that the city of Denton is undertaking related to buds.
So on the water wastewater side, they're going through a master planning effort.
They're anticipating future needs as a result of the muds.
And then they're also coordinating with the muds to secure easements and construct infrastructure for the future.
On the fire side, we are negotiating fire agreements with them.
Muds are providing funding through these in the way of capital improvements and and additionally through a tax.
And they also are dedicating land to future fire stations.
So we have support on the west side of town.
And then lastly, transportation planning, the mobility plan does go out in the area where the muds are located.
I mean, we're coordinating with the county and other regional partners on the roadway networks in these areas.
Yeah. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair.
Charlie, how does I guess city leadership when it comes to creating these mud agreements directly or indirectly affect maybe the taxation that gets levity against those that live in these muds?
Whenever we go through and we're talking about these on these, you know, improvements they're going to make and they're obviously going to pay us back for some of the services we provide.
Is there are there direct ways that we affect how how that muds going to go through and pass along that cost to those taxpayers in that district?
Is there indirect ways that we do that?
Anything inside you can give me within there?
No, I would say that the city doesn't have much of an impact over the taxing amount set by the mud.
That would be under its board of directors, possibly indirectly through the infrastructure that's required from them and how we coordinate with other muds in the area.
But directly there wouldn't be.
There's no we don't have any type of higher level of service or there's nothing that we're either cheapening or making more expensive by working directly with the mud, so to speak.
No, no, that wouldn't be. Thanks.
Thank you. Any other questions for Commissioner Cole?
Thank you, Charlie.
We saw how many of those muds there are.
How many of those in your, if you could guesstimate, are we doing water agreements with for a city that didn't supply water?
The city didn't supply water of the ones that I'm aware of. We've got just the one, right, Scott? Legend's the only water supplied so far?
Yeah, but we're on the talks with those other three that I've shown.
Thank you.
Commissioner Perot? Thank you, Chair. On that topic of utility provision and cooperation,
I've been confused for a few years now on the responsibility or flexibility the city has with respect to our CCN coverage area.
So can you help me understand when a developer comes in for a mud application, if they're within our CCN, do we have to provide utilities to them if they ask?
Can we decline? Who sets the CCN's boundaries and that sort of thing?
Yeah, so if they provide the connection, then we would provide water services to them in our CCN. As far as the petition goes, we have 90 days to respond,
and then we would have to provide them water or means within the next four and a half or five years, I think it specifies.
Okay. And help me understand, I guess, some of these are our traditional sort of single family subdivision type designs, some of them might be a little bit different.
I know maybe not with MUDs, but with other ETGA developments, we've had interesting disagreements or conflicts between our roadway standards and the county's standards and who's going to maintain them.
What is the benefit to the city for a MUD to develop their internal roadway network to our standards?
Like, why is that important? For future maintenance of that roadway.
So, for instance, if the city were to annex that property in the future, then it would be designed to the city of Denton standards today and then we would maintain that in the future.
Okay, so it's future looking if annexation was requested, and we were accepting of it, then that wouldn't be a barrier to maintenance perspective. Okay, thank you.
Any other questions?
The one question we did not answer is who sets the CCN? I believe it's the Public Utilities Commission.
Charlie, thank you. Yeah, very much and Haley. Thank you.
Okay, with that, I will adjourn our work session at 630 p.m. We will reconvene in council chambers for our regular meeting as soon as possible.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, May 15 2024.
Thank you for your patience as we start a little bit late for a regular meeting and with our quorum present, we will start our meeting at 641 p.m.
First item on our agenda is the Pudge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.
Thank you. For those here and watching, I just wanted to mention that Item 5A, which is the SUP off of Teasley, that item is going to be postponed until our May 29th meeting.
So I just wanted to mention that ahead of time in case people were here or tuning in for Item 5A, S23-0006, that item is going to be postponed.
First item of business is consider approval of our minutes for April 24th.
Commissioner Villarreal. Move approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion?
Okay, let's go ahead and vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 7-0. Next we have our consent agenda.
Got one item on our consent agenda. Commissioner Villarreal. Move approval to consent agenda. Commissioner Thagger.
A second. We've got a first and a second for approval of consent agenda. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0. That'll move us to our items for individual consideration. First is 4A, FP240008, and Bryce is here for presentation. Hello.
This is final plat, 240008. This is for an approximately 48-acre lot in the city's ETJ Division 1. It'll be approximately 38 single-family residential lots as well as one HOA lot.
Currently, the plat does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff has no issue with the requested extension to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. I'll stand for any questions.
Thank you, Bryce. Any questions? Okay, I do not see any. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Cole.
I make a motion to... I can't even read that date on there.
I believe it was June 12th.
I have my glasses.
June 12th.
June 12th, postponement.
Extensions.
Okay, thank you. Commissioner Thagger.
A second.
Okay, we've got a first and a second, and I will reread this motion to make sure it's right, Commissioner Cole, to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024.
Yes.
Okay.
Any discussion?
Okay, let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0. That will take us to 4-B, FP2-30031. Cameron is here to present this item tonight. Hello.
Good evening, Chair and Commission. Cameron Robertson, Principal Planner. I will be presenting items 4-B through 4-F this evening.
So this is FP2-30031A. This is for a final plot for the Mayhill addition, lots 1 and 2, block 1. It's approximately 32 acres. It's on the west side of Mayhill Road, just south of Foster Road.
Currently, it does not meet staff's criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the second request extension to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. I can stand for any questions.
Thank you, Cameron. Any questions for Cameron?
I did. So do you want me to call him back in? Okay. Okay, yeah. It appears Commissioner Cole has recused himself an item earlier than he was supposed to, so we're going to just see if we can bring him back before we vote on this item.
Hello, Commissioner Cole. Okay. That is okay. Commissioner Pruitt.
I move to approve the applicant requested extension to a date certain of June 12th, 2024.
Okay, Commissioner Villarreal. Second. Okay, we've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote, please.
The motion will carry 7-0. Now we're going to ask Commissioner Cole to exit. He's going to be recused from items 4C through 4F this evening. And Cameron is back to here, 4C, FP2, 40012.
Thank you so much, Chair. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch Phase 1A. It's approximately 53 acres. It's north of Robson Ranch Road, just west of Interstate 35 West. It is for 95 single-family residential lots, as well as 10 HOA lots.
It currently does not meet staff's criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the first extension request of a date certain of June 12th, 2024. And I can stand for any questions. Thank you very much, Cameron. Any questions for Cameron?
Commissioner Thaggard? I make a motion to give them the extension by a date certain of June 12th, 2024. Thank you. Commissioner Perdomo?
I second. Thank you. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0. That will take us to 4D, FP2, 40013. Thank you so much. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch Phase 1B. It is approximately 53 acres. It will consist of 180 single-family lots and 8 HOA lots.
Currently, it does not meet the criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the first extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. And I can stand for any questions. Thanks, Cameron. Questions? Thank you.
Commissioner Perdomo? I move to grant the extension by the date of June 12th, 2024. Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal? Second. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. Any discussion here? Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0. That will take us to 4E, FP2, 40014. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch Phase 1C. It's approximately 66 acres. It is consisting of 287 single-family residential lots as well as 10 HOA lots.
Currently, it does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the first extension request to a date certain June 12th, 2024. And I can stand for any questions. Thank you, Cameron. Questions? Commissioner Villarreal? I move approval to the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. Thank you. Commissioner Perdomo? I second. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. Any questions? Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0. That will take us to 4F, FP2, 40015. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch Phase 1D. It is approximately 56 acres. It's consisting of 185 single-family residential lots and 8 HOA lots.
Currently, it does not meet the criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the first extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. And I can stand for any questions. Thank you, Cameron. Do not see any questions. Commissioner Villarreal? I move approval to the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024.
Commissioner Thaggard? I second. We've got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion carries 6-0. We'll invite Commissioner Cole back in for 4G, FP2, 40017. And Mia is here for presentation. Good evening, Chair. Hi.
This item is a final plot for Jefferson-Mayhill addition. This site is just under 40 acres located west of Mayhill Road, approximately 850 feet south of Roy Road. At this time, the plot does not meet all of our criteria for approval, so we are recommending denial. However, staff has no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to June 12th, 2024. At this time, I will take any questions you have. Thanks, Mia. Any questions?
Do not see any. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal? I move approval to the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. Commissioner Thaggard? I second. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12th, 2024. Any discussion? Okay, let's vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0. That will take us to our public hearings for this evening. The first is 5A, S230006. I will open the public hearing, but as I stated earlier, the applicant is requesting to postpone this item to the May 29th meeting.
So we will not have a presentation on that. Chair can look for a motion to postpone. More discussion? Commissioner Villarreal? I move postponement to the date certain of May 29th, 2024. Commissioner Thaggard? I second.
Okay, we've got a motion on the floor to postpone this item to a date certain of May 29th, 2024, leaving the public hearing open. Any discussion? Okay, let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0. That will bring us to 5B, MPA 240001. I will go ahead and open the public hearing, and Farhan is making his way down for presentation. Good evening.
Good evening, Commissioner. Farhan Butt, Deputy Director, Transportation Services.
This is a city-initiated comprehensive plan amendment to modify 22.
This is a city-initiated comprehensive plan amendment to modify 2022 mobility plan for three elements.
The two elements include to extend Windsor across loop 288, connecting Ferris Road as a slow speed major collector with a bike facility, 110 feet of right-of-way, and a major collector roadway classification, and minor alignment changes for 380 connector.
And before I go into the details of these proposed amendment elements, I would like to touch upon mobility plan a little bit.
Mobility plan and also the background of this East Windsor connector project, how it has been evolving in our mobility plan.
Mobility plan is basically a long-range plan that identifies location and type of roadway facilities, including bike facilities and pedestrian facilities, that are needed to meet the long-term growth within the city.
It also guides transportation investments. It also informs property owners and public about where the location of major projects would be or their general intended location.
It also ensures that city has the opportunity to coordinate with Tech Start and DCTA and other public agencies when it comes to transportation planning perspectives.
The plan hinges on three elements, including roadway alignments, needed right-of-way, and then, of course, the roadway design standards.
When it comes to East Windsor Road background, it has been there in the mobility plan since 1999.
The roadway component of Denton Mobility Plan in 1999 included extension of East Windsor across Loop 288 connecting to Silver Dome.
And then in 2006, mobility plan amendment included a realignment of East Windsor connecting it to the Cooper Creek instead of Silver Dome.
And then we see that from 2006 to 2022 onwards, we see it as a secondary arterial extending across Loop 288 and connecting to Cooper Creek.
And in 2022, it was removed from – the Windsor extension was removed, and also, you know, it was classified – the Windsor Road was classified as a collector, and then with the Kings Road maintained as a collector as well.
And so in that scenario, the Kings Road was the only collector that was going across Loop 288 through an intersection and providing connectivity and had all the pressure, you know, that the induced traffic flow would insert from all both sides of the community, communities across the Loop 288.
So that was until 2022, and then through this proposal, mobility plan amendment proposal, we are proposing three elements to this amendment.
The first one is to extend Windsor across Loop 288 connecting to Ferris Road as a slow-speed major collector with 110-foot right-of-way.
The second is add a major collector roadway classification into our mobility plan, and the minor alignment changes for – the third one is minor alignment changes for 380 connector, US 380 connector.
When it comes to East Windsor extension, it is – it will be an add-grade intersection across Loop 288 and a rather low-speed major collector with 110-foot of right-of-way.
It allows safer alternative for all users. It's not going to be just for cars. It will be accommodating other modes of travel, including pedestrians, bike users.
At the same time, we have Kings Road that will maintain as a collector, 65-foot wide, and then, you know, the further 380, you know, this bypass that is – that TXTOT is building.
Because of that, there will be other – there will be opportunities for coordination on transportation systems on both sides of the Loop 288.
So this amendment is suggesting that we are restoring the extension that was planned since 1999 to the 2022 mobility plan, but it's just that we are suggesting that it should be major collector, and then it should be connected to Firestore.
Consideration a Windsor connection, they were taking into how to make the Kings Road situation better, and so – but the community didn't like that either, and so it was – they were also very concerned with how bicyclists were being accommodated under that design as well.
So, you know, we have put a lot of time and effort in identifying what we believe is in best interest of the community to provide that safer alternative connection.
We know that Kings Road is a significant challenge today, and so here we have the opportunity to provide a much safer alternative for the community and to be able to address the community's concerns as well that we heard last summer.
So I don't think we're going to have a solution that is going to appease everybody. In our public engagement that we've had with the two meetings and some of the written feedback that we've included in your backup, we've received favorable remarks.
Are folks 100% satisfied? No, but honestly, I don't – you know, we won't have 100% satisfaction, so that's where we are providing our best technical expertise and recommendations forth on what we believe is appropriate to have a much safer connection at Loop 288.
Anybody else? Okay. Thank you very much. See you in the regular meeting.
I think what we will do is break real quick because dinner is here. Let's go get our dinner, and we'll come in to the last of our agenda. So let's recess at 6 p.m.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you and we welcome you back from our short recess. I'll call us back to order at 6-10 p.m. We have one more item in works – actually, we have a couple more in work session. One more on this agenda, and it is 5C DCA 240006. Mia is here to present that item. Hi, Mia.
Hi.
In the work session, I just have a brief summary of the proposed amendments and the intent behind this code amendment for you. In the regular session, I do plan on going over the amendments, but of course, that has been provided in your backup, so I'll take any questions at the end of this.
So, just a brief summary over the existing regulations for donation boxes. We have the use shown in our table of allowable uses, but if you look across the board, it is not shown to be permitted in any of the zoning districts. It does have use specific standards attached to it, but again, by not being permitted, those are kind of – that existing use specific standard is kind of mute at this point.
The definition of donation boxes is a portable container for the acceptance of donations operated by a non-governmental entity, a for-profit company, or a non-for-profit organization that can be emptied and readily moved. That definition for more or less is staying the same.
There are going to be some amendments to the existing DDC subsection 5.44(b). Currently, that regulation just states that donation box shall not restrict the use or access to any parking spaces that are required for the principal use on that lot, and again, that is something that we'd like to continue, but it's going to be revised.
The proposal will revise that section to add more of those regulations, and the reason that we're bringing this forward is because of some recent legal precedent against strict unreasonable regulations of other cities in the North Texas area for donation boxes, and so we know that our existing regulations pose challenges, and we want to try to propose this code amendment to rectify that.
And so, with the proposal, we are amending the table of allowable uses, the general standards for accessory uses, the additional standards specific to donation box uses, as well as the definition, and the reason behind this is to allow for the use of donation boxes as accessory related to appropriate uses, establish you specific standards given the unique charitable use and operational nature of the donation boxes.
We want to ensure compliance with recently established legal precedents, as I mentioned on the slide before.
We also want to strengthen the enforcement ability of donation box regulations to ensure compliance with the standards that we are proposing, and ensure our code and compliance and enforcement team has the necessary tools to make sure that those are kept in a good condition and located where they're supposed to be located.
And then finally we want to be proposing these changes to be consistent with the DDC purpose statement of promoting the overall health and safety and general welfare of the city's inhabitants, as this is a city initiated amendment we are recommending approval.
And at this time I will take any questions or comments that you have.
Thank you.
Is there a cost for registration, I assume that has not been determined yet but they're most likely will be a permanent minor minor permit fee and a cost for renewal as well.
Yes.
And then, with, as it relates to 3D and from the red line.
You mentioned authorization form if the owner of the box is not the same as the owner of the property. Are we providing that authorization form.
Yes, so we, and similar with our some of our development applications we do require that that form be filled out just expressing that even if you aren't the applicant a lot of times it's the developer or in this case it will be the probably the charitable operator.
If they aren't the same as the property owner we want to make sure that the property owner has has given consent for those to be placed on.
I just want to make sure we had a consistent form that everybody's filling up the same form getting it notarized. Okay, yes, perfect.
Questions Commissioner per.
Just one really quick.
Usually I'm good at parsing language but I had a hard time with this one.
Did staff think about the situation where a benefiting nonprofit would get permission from a different business entity on a particular property to place a donation back box on the behalf of the nonprofit.
And were there any concerns with that or does that make sense. Normally you would expect it to be next to a particular Goodwill Center or something, but say for instance that they didn't have the space or the parking lot layout didn't allow that.
And they talked to their neighbor and their neighbor says oh yeah you can put it back here.
How would that situation be handled with the proposed. Yeah, so, so with the with the registration it's going to be based on the property owner so we need to know who's operating it who is responsible for maintaining it picking those items up and the property owner we need all that
contact contact information as far as the use. If it's because it's supposed to be an accessory to appropriate uses. If it was a church, for example, that they didn't have enough space as you described, but they, the neighbor of the church was maybe a single family
residential home that wouldn't they, it would have to go on the church property it wouldn't be able to the church wouldn't be able to give permission for it to be on the neighboring property if it's not zoned for it. Sure, but if it were a neighboring commercial property that was an appropriate accessory use this application process would be amenable to that.
Yes, as long as we have the correct confirmation or contact information and property owner authorization for that property. Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other questions on this for me.
Thank you very much.
Okay, that gets us through our agenda for this evening so we've got one work session report, and that is three a PZ 24088. And that's receive a report hold a discussion regarding municipal utility districts in the areas around the city of Denton corporate limits.
Hi, good evening commission it's pleasure to be back with you wanted to go over this request we had following a annexation and rezoning that happened back in 2023 at the corner of us 380 and Thomas Egan.
If you remember is directly across from the legends mud is just on the west side of Thomas Egan.
So just a quick background what is a mud. So it's a municipal utility district is a special district that's created in order to build infrastructure on a development, it has a special taxing entity.
And it's got its own board of directors that authorizes issuance of bonds and the budget for that mud. So it's created in one of two ways, either through the Texas legislature or through a petition to the TCQ.
And in that petitioning phase that's where the city didn't gets involved. They have to submit their application to us, or their petition to us.
We have the ability to annex the muds after the repayment of bonds.
So muds and didn't so the history of muds and didn't we've had seven petitions to date, you can see there in bold we have legends and Meadows.
We've had development agreements with each of those. And then, La La Ranch and rocky top are two of the ones that also had a portion of them that were created through the Texas legislature.
We are aware of additional nine muds shown below, and we are in talks with three of those currently about potential agreements that would be Hickory Creek pond or farms and sanctuary.
So what do these mean muds mean for Denton, so you can see here the listing of all of the muds, of which we're aware. It's a little over 9000 acres of land and a proposed 34,000 units, we estimate that population to be almost 110,000 people over a 30 or 40 year timeline.
Hopefully, City of Den will see some impacts from these muds in the way of utilities, transportation and public safety impacts.
And so, how is then addressing the muds. We had a mud policy that was adopted in 2022. This came before this board I think there was a work session following adoption. So that policy really sets forth the goals considerations and creates conditions for
the implementation of the muds. It also provides a framework for us to have the development agreement conversations with them, and then our preferences for utility services and emergency services and others.
So, what are the benefits to the city. So, the fact that the city of Denton is a full service city meaning that we provide water wastewater solid waste electricity.
So that's a benefit to us in the discussions with these muds, because they, they want our services and that allows us to have some some influence over them in the form of development agreements.
So that's part of the policy. We talked about there how how we enter into those development agreements and we have the ability to have these muds build to our standards are building codes. And then we have some additional influence over annexing those months in the future.
The land plan.
Alright, just a couple of slides to address kind of how all of that relates to our land planning for the city of Denton.
So, as you are probably aware we have no real control over land use in the county in the ETJ the same goes for the county there are a few limited exceptions like where we have non annexation agreements that stipulate that you can continue an agricultural
single family use until you decide to do something else and then you have to voluntarily annex into the city.
So, as Charlie indicated those development agreements are really our tool to try to incentivize these mud developments to annex into the city.
So, when we adopted our comprehensive plan update in our new future land use map in 2022. We did shade all of the areas in our ETJ, predominantly with rural areas designation or, or an agricultural designation that is not binding on anyone in the
use muds in any way. So you though, although you see the shading on the map it doesn't mean that they have to comply with that as someone in the city limits would, or someone under a non annexation agreement who's wanting to annex and then receive zoning.
So, when 2022 the city council did make the decision that they wanted to at least acknowledge the existence of months on our future land use map so if you look in the comprehensive plan you'll see some areas in the, in the ETJ that are shaded pale yellow
areas that we had already known were approved at that point in time. And then the areas in the ETJ that are outlined in the kind of dark pink, purplish color on the map for those muds that were still pending some sort of approval at that time but we knew they were, they were most likely coming.
So another thing that we did in 2022 that that kind of helped spur this request for this work session discussion was expand those areas of industrial development on the west side of the city adjacent to our ETJ.
So the areas that I've outlined in orange on the map are areas where we were very intentional at that time and expanding the light industrial areas on the north side of US 380 and on the south side, the more intensive industrial commerce designation.
That was a decision that was made because we knew we were growing city we want to provide adequate areas for employment uses.
And so that west side of the city continuing those existing designations to the north and to the west was a very conscious decision. It was also partially driven by the inset map where you see all the blue dots with red circles around them.
Those are gas wells that exist in the city today and we do have restrictions that don't permit single family and other protected uses within 500 feet of those.
So it makes it very difficult for the side of the city to develop as any sort of, you know, school or residential use or other things that are classified as protected.
So that was another reason that industrial was a good fit because those can coexist with gas wells and, you know, be right next to them as long as they're complying with the fire code basically.
How that affects our ETJ or how the ETJ plays into that. If you look at the map you will see some of the hatched areas that are ETJ. For example, up here in this area you see it's blue hatching so it is in the ETJ.
You might wonder why did we give it the industrial designation. Those are areas where we either have non annexation agreements in place so we know at some point in time when someone looks to develop that they'll have to come into the city and at that point we would look for their zoning to comply with the future land use map.
And the same thing here on the south side. So we did shade some of those ETJ areas adjacent to these muds in different colors that could in the future result in situations where we do have single family adjacent to industrial uses.
But again, as I mentioned, council made the conscious decision we want to acknowledge that the muds exist, but we aren't necessarily going to let those affect the way that we want to see the city grow and how we want our economic growth to occur in these areas.
And with that I will hand it back over to Charlie.
Yeah, lastly I just wanted to go over a few additional planning efforts that the city of Denton is undertaking related to buds. So on the water wastewater side they're going through a master planning effort.
They're anticipating future needs as a result of the muds, and then they're also coordinating with the muds to secure easements and construct infrastructure for the future on the fire side, we are negotiating fire agreements with them.
We're providing funding through these in the way of capital improvements and adults and additionally through attacks, and they also are dedicating land to future fire stations so we have support on the west side of town.
We're coordinating with the city transportation planning on the mobility plan does go out in the area where the muds are located. I mean we're coordinating with the county and other regional partners on the roadway networks in these areas.
Yeah.
Charlie, how does, I guess, city leadership. When it comes to creating these mud agreements directly or indirectly affect maybe the taxation that gets levity and those that live in these muds.
Whenever we go through and we're talking about these on these, you know, improvements they're going to make and they're obviously going to pay us back for some of the services or provide is there are there direct ways that we affect how how that muds
go through and pass along that cost to those taxpayers in that district, is there indirect ways that we do that. And inside you can give me within there. No, I would say that the city doesn't have much of an impact over the taxing amount set by the mud,
that would be under its Board of Directors, possibly indirectly through the infrastructure that's required from them and how we coordinate with other months in the area but directly there wouldn't be.
There's no, we don't have any type of higher level of service or, you know, there's nothing that we're either cheapening or making more expensive by working directly with a mud, so to speak.
No, no, that wouldn't be.
Thanks.
Thank you. Any other questions for Commissioner Cole.
Thank you, Charlie.
We saw how many of those muds there are.
How many of those in your, if you could guesstimate, are we doing water agreements with for city and didn't supply water.
The city didn't supplied water of the ones that I'm aware of. We've got just the one right Scott legends the only water supplied.
Thank you. On that, that topic of utility provision and cooperation.
I've been confused for a few years now on the responsibility or flexibility the city has with respect to our CCN coverage area.
So, can you help me understand when a developer comes in for a mud application.
Is there within our CCN, do we have to provide utilities to them if they ask, can we decline who sets the CCN boundaries and that sort of thing. Yeah, so if, if, so if they, they provide the connection, then we would provide water services to them in our CCN.
So the question goes, we have 90 days to respond and then we would have to provide them water or means within the next four and a half or five years I think it specifies.
Okay.
Help, help me understand I guess some of these are our traditional sort of single family subdivision type designs some of them might be a little bit different. I know, maybe not with muds but with other.
ETGA developments we've had interesting disagreements or conflicts between our roadway standards and the county standards and who's going to maintain them.
What, what is the benefit to the city for a mud to to develop their internal roadway network to our standards, like what, why is that important for future maintenance of that roadway.
So, for instance if the city were to annex that property in the future then it would be designed to the city of Denton standards today and then we would maintain that in the future.
Okay, so it's future looking. If annexation was requested, and we were accepting of it, then that wouldn't be a barrier to maintenance perspective.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions.
The one question we did not answer is who sets the CC and I believe it's the Public Utilities Commission.
Charlie Thank you. Yeah, very much and Haley. Thank you.
Okay, with that, I will adjourn our work session at 630pm we will reconvene in council chambers for our regular meeting as soon as possible.
Thank you.
Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning commission meeting for Wednesday.
May 15th 2024 thank you for your patience as we start a little bit late for a regular meeting and with our core and present we will start our meeting at 641pm first item on our agenda is the Pudge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flags.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible thank you for those here and watching I just wanted to mention that item 5a which is the SUP off of Teasley that item is going to be postponed until our May 29th meeting so I just wanted to mention that ahead of time in case people were interested in that item.
I wanted to mention that item 5a which is the SUP off of Teasley that item is going to be postponed until our May 29th meeting so I just wanted to mention that ahead of time in case people were here or tuning in for item 5a as 230006 that item is going to be postponed.
First item of business is consider approval of our minutes for April 24th Commissioner Villarreal approval Commissioner Cole second got a first and a second for approval.
That motion carries 7 0 next we have our consent agenda.
One item on our consent agenda Commissioner Villarreal.
Move approval to consent agenda Commissioner Thacker.
A second.
We've got a first and a second for approval of consent agenda.
Any discussion.
Okay let's vote please.
That motion carries 7 0 that'll move us to our items for individual consideration first is for a FP 240008 and Bryce is here for presentation.
Hello.
This is final plat 240008 this is for an approximately 48 acre lot and the city's ETJ division one it'll be approximately 38 single family residential lots as well as one HOA lot currently the plot does not meet our criteria for approval but staff has no issue with the
requested extension to a date certain of June 12 2024.
I'll stand for any questions.
Thank you.
Any questions.
Do not see any thank you very much.
Commissioner Cole.
Extension extension.
Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Thacker.
A second.
Okay we've got a first and a second and I will reread this motion to make sure it's right Commissioner Cole to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12.
2024 Yes.
Okay.
Any discussion.
Okay, let's go ahead and vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0 that will take us to 4B FP 230031 Cameron is here to present this item tonight. Hello. Good evening Chair and Commission Cameron Robertson Principal Planner, I will be presenting items 4B through 4F this evening.
So this is FP 230031A this is for a final plot for the Mayhill addition lots one and two block one it's approximately 32 acres it's on the west side of Mayhill Road, just south of Foster Road.
Currently it does not meet staff's criteria for approval but staff has no objection to the second request extension to a date certain of June 12 2024.
I can stand for any questions.
Thank you Cameron any questions for Cameron.
Did.
So do you want me to call him back in.
Okay.
Yeah, it appears Commissioner Cole has recused himself an item early or than he was supposed to so we're going to just see if we can bring him back before we vote on this item.
I think Kathy has.
Hello Commissioner Cole.
Okay.
That is okay, Commissioner Pruitt.
I move to approve the applicant requested extension to a date certain of June 12 2024.
Commissioner really real second. Okay, we've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12 2024.
Any discussion.
Okay, let's vote please.
Okay, so the motion will carry seven zero. Now we're going to ask Commissioner Cole to exit. He's going to be recused from items for see through for F.
This evening, and Cameron is back to here for CFP to 40012.
Thank you so much, sir. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch phase one a it's approximately 53 acres. It's north of Robson Ranch Road just west of interstate 35 West.
This is for 95 single family residential lots as well as 10 HOA lots. Currently does not meet staff's approval for a criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the first extension request of a date certain of June 12 2024.
And I can stand for any questions. Thank you very much, Cameron. Any questions for Cameron.
I make a motion to give them the extension by date certain of June 12 2024. Thank you, Commissioner.
I second. Thank you. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12 2024. Any discussion.
Okay, let's vote please.
That motion carries six zero that will take us to for DFP two four zero zero one three. Thank you so much. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch phase one B is approximately 53 acres. It will consist of 180 single family lots and eight HOA lots currently it does not meet the criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the to the first extension request to a date certain of June 12 2024.
And I can stand for any questions. Thanks, Cameron. Questions.
Okay, thank you. Commissioner Pedro.
I move to grant the extension by the date of June 12 2024. Thank you, Commissioner Villarreal.
I second. I've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12 2024. Any discussion here. Okay, let's vote please.
That motion carries six zero that will take us to for EFP two four zero zero one four. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch phase one C. It's approximately 66 acres. It is consisting of 287 single family residential lots as well as 10 HOA lots currently does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff has no objection of the first extension request to a date certain June 12 2024. And I can stand for any questions. Thank you, Cameron. Questions.
Thank you. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval the extension request to a date certain of June 12 2024. Thank you, Commissioner Pedro. I second. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12 2024. Any questions.
Please. That motion carries six zero that will take us to for FFP two four zero zero one five. This is a final plot for Hunter Ranch phase one D. It is approximately 56 acres. I'm consisting of 185 single family residential lots and eight HOA lots currently does not meet the criteria for approval, but
staff has no objection to the first extension request to a date certain June 12 2024. And I can stand for any questions. Thank you, Cameron. Do not see any questions. Commissioner Villarreal. I move approval the extension request to a date certain of June 12 2024.
Commissioner Thacker. I second. Got a first and a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of June 12 2024. Any discussion. Okay, let's vote please.
That motion carries six zero will invite Commissioner Cole back in for five for GFP two four zero zero one seven and Mia is here for presentation.
Good evening, Chair. Hi. Mission behind senior planner. This item is a final plot for Jefferson Mayhill edition. This site is just under 40 acres located west of Mayhill Road, approximately 850 feet south of Roy Road. At this time the plot does not meet all of our criteria for approval so we are recommended denial.
However, staff has no objection to the requested extension which could be granted to June 12 2024. At this time I will take any questions you have any questions.
Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal. Move approval the extension request to date certain June 12 2024. Commissioner Thacker. I second. We've got a first and a second to grant the extension request to a date certain of June 12 2024. Any discussion. Okay, let's vote please.
That motion carries seven zero that will take us to our public hearings for this evening. The first is five a s two three zero zero zero six. I will open the public hearing it but as I stated earlier, the applicant is requesting to postpone this item to the May 29 meeting.
So we will not have a presentation on that share and look for a motion to postpone. More discussion, Commissioner Villarreal. I move postponement to the date certain of May 29 2024. Commissioner Thacker. I second. Okay, we've got a motion on the floor to postpone this item to a date certain of May 29 2024, leaving the public hearing open.
Any discussion. Okay, let's go ahead and vote please.
That motion carries seven zero that will bring us to five B MPA 240001. I will go ahead and open the public hearing and Farhan is making his way down for presentation.
Good evening.
Good evening, Commission for on but deputy director transportation services.
This is a city initiated comprehensive plan amendment to modify 22.
Sorry about that.
Open up the other presentation.
This is a city initiated comprehensive plan amendment to modify 2022 mobility plan.
For three elements.
The elements include extend to extend been there across loop 288 connecting first road as a slow speed major collector with a bike facility, 110, 110 feet of right of way, and a major collector roadway classification and minor alignment changes for 380 connector.
And before I go into the details of these proposed amendment elements. I would like to touch upon mobility plan, a little bit mobility plan and also the background of this East Windsor connector project, how it has been evolving in into our in our mobility plan.
Mobility plan is basically a long range plan that identifies location and type of road with facilities, including by bike facilities and pedestrian facilities that are needed to for for long term to meet the long term growth within the city.
It also guides transportation investments. It also informs property owners and public about where the location of major projects would be our general, their general intended intended location.
The city has the opportunity to coordinate with tech start in DCT and other public agencies when it comes to transportation planning perspectives. It hinges on the plan hinges on three, three elements, including roadway alignments, the needed right of way.
And then of course, the roadway design standards.
When it comes to East Windsor Road background, you know it has been there in the mobility plan since 1999, the roadway component of Denton mobility plan in 1999 included extension of East Windsor across loop 288 connecting to silver dome.
Then in 2006 mobility plan amendment included a realignment of East Windsor connecting it to Cooper Creek, instead of silver dome. And then we see that from 2006 to 2022 onwards we see it as a secondary arterial extending across loop 288 and connecting to Cooper Creek.
And in 2022 it was removed from the wind, the Windsor extension was removed. And also, you know, it was the, it was classified at the Windsor Road was classified as a collector, and then with the Kings Row maintained as a collector as well.
And so, in that scenario the Kings Row Kings Row was the only collector that was going across loop 288 to an intersection and providing connectivity and had all the pressure, you know that the traffic, the induced traffic flow would insert from all those all both sides of the community
communities on on across the loop 288. So so that was until 2022. And then to this proposal mobility plan amendment proposal we are proposing three elements to this amendment.
The first one is to extend Windsor across loop 288 connecting to Faris Road as a slow speed major collector with 110 foot right of way.
The second is add a major collector roadway classification into our mobility plan, and the minor alignment changes for the third one is minor alignment changes for 380 connector us 380 connector.
When it comes to East Windsor extension, it is, it will be at great intersection across loop 288, and a rather low speed major collector with 110 foot of right away.
It allows safer alternative for all users, it's not going to be just for cars. It will be accommodating other modes of travel including pedestrians bike users.
At the same time we have Kings Road that will maintain as a collector 65 foot wide, and then, you know, the further 380.
You know this bypass that is that text art is building.
Because of that there will be other, there will be opportunities for coordination on transportation systems on both sides of the loop 288.
So, this amendment is suggesting that we are restoring the extension that was planned since 1999 to the 2022 mobility plan, but it's just that we are suggesting that it should be major collector, and then it should be connected to fire so.
So what essentially, you know the difference the difference between the two different two functional classification is not much, except when it comes to right of way and relatively low speed and the way it, it would attract induced traffic.
For instance collector road would be typically 30 to 35 miles per hour, and it will be collecting traffic from residential users rural streets and commercial users, and would connect to our deals.
The major collector would function the same way, it will connect all these communities residential rural commercial and industrial, but in this case it will have a wider right of way under 10 feet of right of way total right of way and then posted speed would be 35 miles per hour.
So, when it comes to minor alignment, previously tech starts us 380 connector was landing south of Windsor, and now with minor with the new design schematics that we are getting from text or this will be letting landing.
380 connector would be landing close to Kingsrow north of Windsor. And so that essentially would be another change that or another amendment that we are requesting, and this will shift roughly about 1500 feet to to correspond to text arts plan, and then
it does not in any way alter the roadway width or classification.
So, these amendments are complying to the are meeting the approval criteria, DDC 2.7 point one point D, and which essentially, you know two of two of the criterion items entails to that if the change if there are changes that take place after the council has adopted
any any plan item then, and based on the original findings made upon plan adoption, then we could just go with these amendments and the second one also entails that if these changes have the character or condition changes on at ground, then you know it would until the approval of the criteria.
And so these two elements, these three elements are complying to these disapproval criteria, and further the alignment of 380 connector has moved north so so that also is necessary that this change should be depicted in the mobility plan as well.
We had North East area community engagement that that whole engagement process determined that the community is also looking for better design connectivity.
You know, around loop 288 and then also they were not very much satisfied with Kingsrow level of service when it comes to level of service on Kingsrow. There were some concerns there. There was also desire to have better pedestrian and, and
other modes of travel possibility of having other modes of travel on this corridor.
The East Windsor extension that we are proposing would enhance the overall mobility, the connectivity for the communities on both sides of loop 288, it will provide safe access to all modes of travel, including pedestrians, bike users, and autos.
It will provide enhanced, you know, enhance connectivity the transportation or mobility community connectivity to the to the communities on both sides.
When it comes to future land use, you know, East Windsor extends across loop 288 on neighborhoods that have mixed use commercial use, and it will be, you know, those neighborhoods will also be able to benefit from this project.
When it comes to mobility plan goals, goals three, goal three, which is enhanced regional mobility and coordination is satisfied, which means that tech start will be able to coordinate all the area roadways when it comes to to enhancing the connectivity of the
areas, mobility options in the area. And also, it will also provide East Windsor will also provide safe multimodal access to the users in the communities.
It also satisfied or achieves the goal seven, which is implement complete streets strategies on roadways in Denton, which primarily would, would be linked to sufficient right of way access and safety features that will accommodate flexible design in the in the
neighborhoods, or in for the community.
And goal eight promote a friendly active transportation system in Denton, which is the prime objective of having 110 foot square foot 110 feet street section, which entails that there will be multi use path on both sides of this facility and then it will also facilitate
other modes of travel not only auto auto travels specifically bike users and pedestrians.
And through extensive public outreach process for this amendment. We had a newspaper ad in on April 28 property posted.
March 31 mailed notices for 200 foot 200 foot public notices mail 19 of them, 56 of them for 500 foot feet courtesy notices were mailed. We had, you know, when it comes to responses.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet. We did not get any response for within 200 feet.
- Good evening. My name is Roger Cox. I live at 3912 Deer Forest Drive. I am a recipient of the 200 foot notice by mail. I did not respond by mail because I didn't think that I would be able to put in writing the experiences that we had at Hodge.
It was just recommended that most of us were in agreement with what was being proposed and I would say to you that we're trying to reinstate or the city is initiating trying to reinstate what was already set up in 1999.
But I would say to you that from 2006 is what we should be trying to initiate, which is a negotiated between property owners and the people that own those properties still own them today.
And the people that are all going to be affected by this proximity-wise are all the players that were in agreement with the 2006 alignment. And I'm speaking about the east alignment tie-in to Ferris Road.
And I'm sorry, I don't have the diagram to show you what I'm talking about, but the east end of Windsor was to go over to Cooper Creek.
Okay, and that was the conceptual plan. They were going to bring Ferris down to Windsor, and they were also going to bring down Deer Forest, I believe is the name of the street, and they were going to bring that and tie that into Windsor as well.
And you have hundreds of homes that are in process, those lots, and you're going to bring all of that traffic back through the existing neighborhood if you tie it in at Ferris.
Whereas the streets, if they bring it across to the Windsor extension going off to the east, now you're going to bring in the ability to have future development with Cooper Creek and all of that property out in that area and to the north.
And so I'm in opposition of the east tie-in of Windsor to Ferris Road.
And that was resolved. I bought my property in '98, and we went through all this process, and all of the property owners were in agreement that that's what we were going to do, that's what we wanted.
That would allow that property owners existing, that they wouldn't have all of the additional traffic brought right in on top of what was existing that's been that way for 20 plus years.
So I would encourage you to ask for the alignment of this to be re-examined before you submit it on, even though it's a conceptual plan that we're just trying to get back to the crossing of Luke 288.
There's more to it than that. There's a whole lot more to that.
We should have already had this bridge. That money was used for Northwestern Boulevard more than 20 years ago, and it was bond money that was reallocated to another road, but we can get into all that later.
But that's my, my point is, please don't approve it, even conceptually to be tied that way. That's not what we agreed to. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Mr Cox, thank you for speaking. Commissioner Pruitt, did you have a question for?
I do.
For Mr Cox?
Mr Cox.
I'm sorry. We've got a question for you if you don't mind coming back to the podium, please. Thank you.
First of all, thank you for participating in the public input process and coming tonight.
I'm wondering if you can express what you think the biggest concerns for connecting to Ferris as opposed to Cooper Creek were.
I gather that perhaps it was, how are we going to drain traffic from future development south of Kings Row? There's too many Kings out here. But if it was something different than that, please let me know because that's my assumption right now is how are we going to drain the traffic from the areas southeast of Hodge Elementary to Loop 288.
Well, I was like, "Dear Forrester," I'm sorry, I don't have a map. It would make more sense.
Hang on just a minute. Haley or Farhan, can you bring up a map while we talk about it, please?
Yeah, we're going to go ahead and bring a map up as you're answering that so we can...
There's one that's actually even showing what's been approved now as far as the lots on Kings Row there. Is it this one? Yeah, no, that one. That one right there.
Okay, thank you, Farhan.
I'm sorry. In the word "Kings," you see "in." That's...
"Dear Forest." And that was to extend down to what it was to stay on the east side of Loop 288. So that would have been a street that would have ended up tying into the new extension of Windsor.
So that takes all of the traffic that would be going across on Kings Row. That would be draining into the Windsor extension.
And then Ferris itself would come down and it would also connect. But then you would have it going across.
So you would have two ways of getting it tied into Windsor, which, conceptually, what they're talking about with TxDOT now is that there's going to be service roads.
So then you'll have two ways of getting the existing or already underway designed mobility out of that existing neighborhood.
Now, I understand that they want to tie Windsor into Ferris because they have a severe problem with Silverdome Road.
I think it's maintained by the county. And there is a large increase in residences on Silverdome now that haven't been there.
And if you've driven down that street, I think they're trying to solve getting that traffic off of that by tying it in this way.
So it solves the problem where you don't have to fix that street because you don't have all that traffic on it.
That's a save five cents to owe $10 later, the way I see it. So it gives you better connectivity.
In my opinion, with Cooper Creek being the end result because then now all of that property that gets built out,
it has Windsor to connect to both sides between the proposed connector 380.
You've got something that's major going all the way across as opposed to it going up.
And then you're going to end up having to branch off of Windsor.
So I don't know if that's really how to answer your question.
No, that helps. Thank you very much.
All right. Thank you. Any other questions?
Any other questions for Mr. Cox? Thank you very much.
This is a public hearing. I don't have any other cards in front of me, but come on down to speak.
Hello. Thank you.
Hi, Brian Bentley, 2528 Jamestown Lane in Texas.
I live up here in Idiots Hill in the northeast sector.
I first have to say that I have to oppose what is in front of you tonight
because there are technical errors in your complete packet.
There is errors in the proposal that was put on the overhead screen.
Proposal one does not match exhibit seven in your packet.
And I served on the PNZ, so I know if you approve this,
you're approving everything that is inside your packet.
And there is a problem with that.
The problem with that is let's talk about exhibit.
I see it's exhibit proposal one.
If you look at proposal one in the notes, which they're asking you to approve,
it does say that Windsor will be at grade, which means there will be a red light at it.
In the neighborhood discussions, city staff says,
"Well, we're going to put service roads and we're going to close King's Row."
They can't guarantee that.
That is with the state, so they cannot guarantee that.
Now let's back up a little further.
Along about 2012, when I was on the PNZ,
we had a plat in front of us on the northeast side of Loop 288.
And the plat got sent back because there were some technical issues with the plat.
But at the same time, city staff brought out that the applicant for the plat would be required
to help fund a bridge over Loop 288 at Windsor.
So here's this poor guy.
He's not poor, but here's this guy.
And he's basically told by the city at that time if he wanted a plat on the northeast side,
he was going to have to fork out a bunch of money and help pay for a bridge
to connect Windsor over Loop 288, so he never comes back.
Well, what are we doing now?
Who's going to pay for this new intersection at Windsor?
How was that fair to that man who tried to plat years ago?
That was originally supposed to be a bridge.
Now let's look at one of my other oppositions to this is how many red lights.
Loop 288 was supposed to be a way around town.
If you live in the northeast side of town, you have three options to get to I-35.
Both hospitals are on I-35.
You've got University.
Lord knows you cannot get through Razor Ranch.
I avoid University and Razor Ranch.
I don't even shop at Razor Ranch.
I hate it.
You've got the South Loop of 288, which during our time that we did our planning
for zoning, staff said, well, we just need to put more retail
and everything right up there along 288.
Look how many red lights we now have got.
Look how many apartments we've put in there that are not even open yet.
We already have a red light plan for Dutch's at Loop 288 that's not installed yet.
Now we want to put another red light at Windsor.
There's no guarantee that King's Row will be void of a red light.
You know, and I'm going to throw Ron Magita under the bus.
He told us during those meetings, well, we've already screwed up South Loop 288
with the red light issue, so why not just go ahead with it?
And you noticed on their plan, they want to put more mixed use all the way up to King's Row.
So we're going to just close off Denton, the northeast side, to nothing but red lights
that take you 20 minutes to get to 35, which is, it's terrible.
So, but the point is, in this packet, they're asking you to approve not only that yellow line
that they say they want, because they put the notation, and as I know, and you know,
any notation in this packet becomes the law of the land if it gets passed.
And they've already put the notation in there about what they're going to do
at the intersection of Windsor.
And we've not had any discussion about Windsor, the red lights,
and they cannot guarantee what the state is going to do.
So I'm through.
Thank you, Mr. Bentley. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.
Okay, this is a public hearing. I don't have any other cards in front of me.
Is there anyone else wishing to speak?
Okay, seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing, and we'll open the floor for discussion.
Farron, did you have something to say?
No.
Okay, okay. You were standing there, so I didn't know if you wanted to make your way up to the podium or not.
Okay.
Chair can entertain a motion, discussion at this time?
I think Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair.
Real quickly, Farron, just so everybody in the room understands,
and I make sure that I'm not misunderstanding,
the issue with the current lights on Loop 288 north of 380,
will there be main lanes of travel between 380 east of Loop 288
and I-35 on the northwest side of town without a light in between
once TxDOT's plans are finished with the 380 connector?
No, we had some traffic simulation, and also some traffic analysis.
I would invite our city traffic engineer, Chandra, to address this question.
Last slide over here.
Good evening, Chair and Commission.
Chandra, city traffic engineer, City of Trenton.
So, Eric, with your question related to the lights,
with this project, all lights at Loop 288 north of 380 will be removed.
They will be building main lanes, and the current project will also build the frontage roads.
As you see it on the side with purple is the side path.
On either side will be the new frontage roads, goes all the way from this project location,
north of Windsor, all the way to 35, and further on the new project section beyond 35
for the western Loop 288 extension.
So there won't be any light.
King's Row connection is gone with this project.
So this will turn into a frontage with a lower speed similar to the south section on 380.
So this will be the only light.
Majority of the traffic that's currently using 288 coming from the east will use this 380 bypass.
All the truck traffic between 380 to 35 will use this proposed 380 connector all the way to 35.
Thank you.
Just a couple thoughts, if you'll permit me.
Of course.
You know, what I've seen and heard, no more questions.
You can sit down.
Thank you, Chandra.
From the public.
There's concern about would this be expanding Windsor west of 288, and the answer is no.
What will it mean with future routing of traffic up toward Ferris Road instead of Carupa Creek?
You know, this is somewhat making lemonade out of lemons.
What I don't appreciate is the messaging of some of this.
You know, let's call it what it is.
When we talk about adding connectivity, it's not adding connectivity.
It's taking a crossing away at King's Row and moving that down to Windsor.
That makes perfect sense.
We're not going to get it at King's Row.
That's fine.
Just say it, right?
You know, there were several public comments concerned about connecting this to Ferris Road instead of Cooper Creek.
I'll just point out that when we passed the mobility and most recent mobility plan, there was a lot of effort to reduce the classification of Cooper Creek Road in that plan.
And now it's like, oh, wait, no, we want it to go back there.
So it's a little bit inconsistent.
Maybe it's different people giving feedback.
I don't know.
But as I look at the map, aligning it right now as the current plan, which can always be amended to Ferris Road has certain benefits, right?
It would provide that connectivity or rather move the connectivity maybe before TechStop finishes and cuts off King's Row, hopefully.
And it would do so probably earlier than if it were still going out to Cooper Creek.
I also see that while our wildlife corridor and associated plans doesn't permeate into the donut hole of ETJ up there in the future, if there is a lot of development up in this area and there's more of a need for an actual four lane road, which scares me, I'll be honest, then by locating it further to the west,
we are reducing the sort of induced development demand based on existing infrastructure right near to the very environmentally sensitive areas.
It doesn't end up crossing as many wildlife corridors, et cetera, by being further toward Ferris.
And then last, I also recall in the mobility plan discussions that we had, gosh, was it two years ago now?
There were calls from council at the time that what we're concerned about why they put safety first was a lot of these really wide high speed roads and the feedback from different staff, so I'm not holding anybody accountable here, was that, well, we really need those high speed arterials because if we just collect, sorry, if we just connect collector roadways that are designed to be slower to a high speed
freeway type or rural highway type of road, drivers will not pay attention and they will speed and drive recklessly anyway.
I had a problem with that assessment and I see, well, I don't really understand the need for 110 feet and I'm worried about putting four lanes up here when we really don't need it. I do look forward to an embracing of the idea that we can have city roads that are slow and safe.
And then we have grade separated fast mobility roads and we don't have as much in between. To one of the public's comments about we've messed up on South 288 because there's a stoplight every 20 feet, right?
That type of development is not conducive to high speed travel or safe mobility.
And so I, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Villarreal. Thank you, Chair. I was just wondering if staff could, for folks watching and for the record, I know there was a lot of concern regarding traffic impact of the potential connection on, especially the West Windsor side.
If you could explain your commitment to putting in the traffic calming devices, the stop signs, etc. on West Windsor, as well as the time sensitive need for us to pass this now, because I came in with a lot of apprehension, you know, leaning towards voting no until I heard both that commitment and the time sensitivity factor that's associated with this.
I think, you know, what we are doing is we are working with the city of Tenton, you know, transportation services and development services and city of Tenton, you know, we are committed to addressing, to deploying interventions for traffic calming, to enhance safety, to improve mobility in that West Park, and on the East side as well.
And that's a commitment. We have been directed to address those issues before the construction. You know, as we speak, we are looking into several audits, already we have conducted three or four audits, and we are planning to go into other locations.
We met with school principal as well, to have, you know, engaged discussion on how safety could be improved along the school. So as a holistic approach, we will look into that, we are committed to that, and we will provide all those measures.
I believe I was the one who addressed the timing aspect, so I'll take that for this evening. So, yes, the timing is imminent on us being able to address our needs on the Windsor connection.
So as Farhan has explained this evening and myself earlier in work session, we continue to work with TxDOT regarding the U.S. 380 connector. Because of the pace of which TxDOT is moving at with designing the various roadway improvements, it's imperative that we get the Windsor connection shown on our mobility plan very quickly, so that they can respect our need to have the 380 connector designed in a way that will be able to allow us to have the extension of Windsor.
Absent that, they don't have to respect any need for Windsor connection because it's not currently shown on our mobility plan. So that's why we are trying to work feverishly on addressing the need to have at a minimum this Windsor connection on our mobility plan.
Anything else? Okay. Farhan, while you're up there, can you address just something that Commissioner Pruitt had brought up regarding King's Row? Okay, so on our mobility plan, King's Row was the connection.
That was the, that's what we were envisioning as a city, that that would be the connection from one side of the loop to the other side of the loop.
Is it because of TxDOT that that is now not happening? Is that what is the catalyst for this?
That is correct. Because the way if you look at this schematic, if you look at the bypass, the US 380 connector, before it was landing south of Windsor in previous schematics. Now this is the final design schematic we have received from TxDOT, and according to this, this bypass is landing very close to, it's close to King's Row.
And so that's why it will change the geometrics of King's Row, the design of King's Row would be going from a through continuous street with that great intersection at Loop 288 to right in right out.
And with this geometric design changes, it will be especially, you know, the bypass landing so close to King's Row, it will change the characteristics of this collector.
And that's why, you know, once we lose this through intersection that was at grade, and not having Windsor on our mobility plan as Tina mentioned, we will miss the opportunity because then essentially TxDOT will finalize the design without any connection across.
And at a later stage, if we go, it will be impossible to change the design because of so many complexities involved. So we are trying to take this opportunity to address this issue later on.
Right now it's just a snapshot in time, it's fluid, it's in the planning stage, but at the same time we are trying to make sure that we show it as a connection, and we get it into a TxDOT design process.
And not that you probably have the answer to this, but if you had a range, when do you think this is on the plan? Obviously this is going to have to go to a bar that I would think.
That's something I would not be able to answer because I don't know. It's dependent on TxDOT's process. There are other processes involved, but as soon as we have the lead date from TxDOT, we'll be able to address this question.
Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions for staff?
We've got a motion on the floor. Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair. I'll move approval as presented. I'll just say we are in good hands with the staff that we have now. We have someone here in front of us who has years of experience dealing with the second most scary, immovable Department of Transportation
in our great United States of America. And I think, you know, while this may not be exciting to everybody, it's a necessary step. I would much prefer to have connectivity and at least through access on Windsor and Kingsrow and Stewart, et cetera.
But all those things cost money and we are limited in how much we can sway TxDOT. So I move approval.
Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Thaggard.
I'm going to second, and just for the record, I kind of want to echo what Commissioner Pruitt said. You know, TxDOT's bringing the cars here. We have to figure out a way to make that as safe as we can for Denton. So I second.
Appreciate that. We've got a first and a second on the floor. Any discussion?
Okay, I'll just say a couple of things. I want to first thank people for coming out today to speak. All the communication that we have received in email with comments from the neighborhood meetings. Thank you, staff, for having those neighborhood meetings.
I think they're imperative and it needs to continue particularly with the west side of Windsor to get that speed down and mitigation in place sooner than later, for sure. Yeah.
As I stated in work session, I still have a problem with this new type of road that we're roadway that we're bringing in this major collector. I don't think that Windsor on the east side of the loop needs to be 110 feet.
I think that's inviting a more road than I would like to see there. And it collecting to Ferris, which is, you know, not performing well now.
And and I, I don't see how that even works together. To be honest with you, I would love to see Windsor continue to be called a collector. I don't agree with this new type that we want to call it on that side of the loop.
That is my struggle. That is why I'm not going to be able to send this for my personal vote to a recommendation for city council because I'm, I'm hung up on that new type of roadway.
So I will put that out there. Is there any other discussion? Okay, let's go ahead and vote. We've got a first and a second for approval.
Okay, that motion will carry a five to that will take us to our last public hearing item for the evening. That is five c dca two four zero zero zero six. I will open the public hearing and invite Mia here for presentation. Hello.
Good evening chair, members of the commission. Mia Heinz, senior planner. And this item is a code amendment related to donation boxes for DDC.
Just to sorry about that. Yes. Okay, broad overview of the existing conditions related to donation boxes went over this a little bit in work session but right now we currently have donation boxes listed as a use within our DDC.
But as you can see on this image here we do not show that it is permitted in any of our zoning districts. We do have you specific standards but again not being permitted.
Those specific standards are moot and so as a part of with this amendment we are proposing to adjust the table of allowed uses to allow the donation boxes to be placed in certain zoning districts associated with appropriate uses as well as amend those use specific standards to define a donation box currently it is a portable container for the acceptance of donations operated by a non governmental entity a for profit company or a non for profit organization that can be empty.
The definition also currently includes that such uses shall be accessory to a primary business on the same lot. And then currently the only use specific standard within our DDC is that these receptacle shall not restrict the use or access to any parking spaces that are required for the principal use on the lot.
A good small background of the donation boxes as a topic within the city of Denton. The 2002 development code did not address donation boxes. The city's position at the time with the introduction and with them becoming more popular were that they were only allowed as an accessory use secondary to certain primary uses.
That stance was challenged in 2016. And then later a code amendment was discussed by the city council in 2017 but there was no consensus to adopt a new regulations at the time so our current standards are what we have our 2002 DDC did not address donation boxes.
We are aware of some legal precedent that has been set across or with four other North Texas City specifically Arlington's code regulations were challenged.
Where the courts upheld their, their regulations requiring permitting and spacing and setback requirements for these receptacles, but they did reject the restrict limitation and placement of these boxes and areas of, or two areas of low traffic and low visibility.
Additionally Mansfield similar issues courts upheld current regulations require requiring permit but rejected the zoning prohibitions and unreasonable setbacks and limited visibility so in adopting regulations for this donation box we took that into consideration to make sure that the regulations
that we adopted were not too narrow to specific or too restrictive of this use and also were allowed for these to be placed in areas of high visibility where they could be used to their their charitable nature.
So just to go over these amendments there are four major parts. Again, the first is an amendment to the DDC table of allowed uses to essentially allow donation boxes in every district, but there are some.
Because this is an accessory use there are some associated are uses that they are associated with their only permitted to be associated with certain uses.
And the, the second amendment is to DDC section 5.4 point three general standards for accessory uses where we are essentially allowing for donation boxes to be included in the list of items that are exempt from the front and side yard.
They still have to adhere to setbacks for the front and side yard, but given again that that prohibit or the court ruling that these should not be restricted to only areas of low visibility we do want to allow them to be in the front yards still adhering to setbacks.
So between the building in the in the property line they're still would would still be permitted.
As far as the third major amendments that would be to the additional standards for this specific use. I won't go through all of these in detail unless you'd like for me to they're included in your backup.
But in general this sub part beat one as general standards to fit the accessory nature of this use encourages proper placement and storage of the items and ensures compatible count and size of the structure so we've used.
Again some of the existing language that we have in our DDC regarding maintenance of items setbacks location, the number we wanted to make sure that it was tied to something with the principal use on the lot.
The size of the principal use being 50,000 square feet or less would be would permit at least one donation box and then it's it's basically a step level of the more 50 50,000 square feet, you get one more all the way up to three we wanted to allow for areas and uses with high traffic those
larger big box maybe uses where maybe one box wouldn't be sufficient for it would or would cause maintenance or upkeep issues, but we also didn't want these to be lining the entire parking row so we have to put a cap somewhere but again wanted to be fair with with how they were permitted.
The other thing I wanted to mention that is that we are proposing that these uses be or permitted to be accessory to again in all zoning districts but only associated with those are not associated with those uses listed under residential uses household living.
And then also not those uses listed under the industrial uses category in the table 5.2 a.
Second, the support be to adopt specific placement and design criteria for to ensure compatible placement and limit points of conflict.
Point sub point sub part be point three establishes registration and registration and permitting requirements on an annual basis, establish our points up point before establishes or proposes maintenance and upkeep standards just to make sure that they are
built up effectively and making sure that they are maintained and emptied appropriate at appropriate times.
And then some part be five establishes a specific process for the removal of the notation boxes when deemed a nuisance.
The last amendment or proposed amendment with this, or on this topic is to the definition subsection 9.2. Essentially the core of the definition is staying the same what we removed with this amendment is such uses shall be accessory to a primary
business on the same lot. We basically incorporated that into the use specific standards so we wanted to remove that piece from the definition for the sake of redundancy.
So with that, this is a city initiated code amendment and so staff is recommending approval as it meets our, that's it. These are not short term rentals. This is donation boxes, it does meet our criteria for approval within our DC.
And so staff is recommending approval. After that we are planning on going to city council with a public hearing and adoption on June for 2024.
That concludes my presentation and at this time I will answer any questions you have.
Any questions for staff at this point.
Okay, thank you. This is a public hearing. I don't have any cards in front of me for this item is there anyone wishing to speak on this item.
Come on down.
State your name and address you know how the drill goes.
Welcome back this.
I'm in Lake 2528 Jamestown, Lake Denton, Texas, 76209. I had no idea. I didn't look at the agenda to notice that this was on for tonight so I was just kind of caught off guard here.
And I'm not saying that what they're proposing sounds bad. But, you know, I said here and tried to read through everything she presented so fast.
I just don't understand why we got to have donation boxes permitted in all zoning districts in residential zoning districts.
But then comes the problem about the history of Denton. Let's see if we back up 10, 15 years, we had a code enforcement department that worked proactively.
We had a code enforcement department that had I think 15, 16 employees for about 80,000 people.
Then we had a great city manager who came in and just obliterated code enforcement.
And now I think we only have three or four working in code enforcement and we have like 150,000 people now coming up.
So I want to know who's going to enforce all these boxes and why do we have to be the city that allows for profit boxes.
You know, the idea of donation boxes is good for charity. But why are we doing all this?
The history of these donation boxes is they had to be permitted. They had to be in a certain spot that could only be so close together.
You know, our old rules worked when they were enforced, but they're no longer enforced. And now what's proposed is just a free for all for these boxes.
That's the way I see it. So, hey, you know, this city has cut code enforcement down to a at complaint only level, at complaint only.
So nobody's going to enforce these boxes so they can write all the rules they want to.
But it ain't going to happen because there's not enough staff to do it and there's not, you know, there's no will to put anything in behind all these rules and regulations.
So it's like our landscaping. Have you all noticed that lately how there is because there's nobody enforcing landscaping. Look around Loop 288.
Look at how much stuff has died out and is dead and is not getting replanted. Why are we even requiring landscaping?
Why is the PNC requiring landscaping in our in our percentages? It's a joke because it dies out. It's not required to be replanted because we don't have anybody in the city working it and the city has no will to work it.
So that's why I look at this. Thank you.
This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Okay, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor to discussion or emotion.
Yeah, go ahead. No, go ahead, Tina. Mia, could you please explain also once again regarding how we're addressing the donation boxes within residential zoning district because that may have been missed in your presentation.
Yeah, correct. I did not go over too much in detail. But essentially what we are proposing with the permissions across the board, including a residential districts, is to allow for them to be associated with uses that are also included across the board.
One that comes to mind is like religious assemblies. So we would want to permit a religious assembly that may be located in R1, R2, to have the ability to have this accessory use.
But we have within our specific standards restricted them from being accessory to some of those other less intense, more sensitive uses within those residential districts. So like single family residential homes, a donation box would not be allowed to be accessory to that use.
Thank you for clarifying that. Yeah, and just, you know, I appreciate the thoughts shared. I think we do have to have rules and regulations in our code. That's why we write code. That's how we can make decisions in the city.
I think we have great staff that does a tremendous job of keeping up with keeping our code current with regard to litigation that has happened, so that we are proactive in that and not reactive to that.
And I actually think our code enforcement does the best job that they possibly can. They don't have an easy one. So I will leave it there. And Commissioner Villarreal has a motion.
I move approval of the stated code enforcement as written. Sorry, code amendment change. I had code enforcement on my mind. Thank you, Commissioner Cole. Second. Okay, we've got a first and a second for approval. Is there any discussion?
Okay, let's go ahead and vote, please.
Okay, that motion carries seven is zero. That will take us to our planning and zoning matrix and I will turn the floor over to Tina.
Thank you, Charles.
Okay. So as you know, sometimes my matrix lists are a little lengthy. So tonight's no different. So a couple of things looking at the table that was in your packet wanted to give you an update regarding removing the minimum, removing minimum parking requirements from the DDC.
I know it's been linked to us doing the citywide parking study. So I'm happy to report that the citywide parking study has officially kicked off. So we'll be working on that over the next several months. And then depending upon the outcomes associated with that in the subsequent council direction, then we'll circle back to this item that's been on our list for a while.
Regarding the discussion related potential developments on the western side of the city in the ETJ. So I feel like we accomplished that tonight. Unless the commission objects, we're going to go ahead and pull this one off the list. So I didn't hear any need for additional discussion earlier in work session.
Also, you'll see on your matrix. We had discussion related to PNC reconsideration process and a proposed ordinance amendment. We had noted that for the summer. We're actually trying to bring that to you at your next meeting on May 29th.
So as well as we have a portion in the ordinance that relates to citizen participation. And so given that we've had the DDC, the 2019 DDC in place now for about five years. We, we know that those are two areas that we could do some cleanup on that portion of the ordinance, particularly the citizen participation, maybe make it a little more meaningful where folks might want to utilize it.
But then also adopting a more formal PNC reconsideration process since our ordinance does not address that and we normally just follow rules from council on that. So that that is going to be on your agenda here. Hopefully in the next two weeks is our plan.
As you're well aware of, we have some other major projects that we've got going on. So one of them is short term runnels. So you thought you were done with short term runnels. You are not. So given the changing legal landscape associated with this.
We have been, or we have decided that we are going to send property owner notification to all property owners within zoning districts that currently allow short term rentals as of right now, as well as the zoning districts that we're proposing to modify and or allow short term
rentals with them and they will property owners will be receiving a mailed postcard. So we are sending out about 30,000 postcards citywide to property owners that are within those zoning districts. This is to let them know of the ordinance amendments that we're ranking.
Given the ever changing legal landscape on this and as a result of this written notification, we are going to bring the zoning case back to the planning and zoning commission on the 29th of May.
I know the commission has already provided a recommendation on this and so you will have same presentation being given again to you in two weeks for your consideration. So we are still moving forward with trying to hit our June 4th city council date.
But we feel it's necessary to come back to the planning and zoning commission and provide this written mail notice to the public for those that have not taken advantage of any of the other means of which we have done so much on trying to communicate that we are working on this.
The other thing in case you know of anybody that has questions about what we're doing as it relates to short term rentals, we are hosting a town hall meeting on May 23rd at 630 p.m. at our Development Services Center building. So folks are more than welcome to come and participate in that town hall.
And know that we continue to maintain our Discuss Deton website that's had this project on there as well. Angie Manglaris and Matt Bodine on our team have done a tremendous job in trying to make sure that we have as much information that is posted on that website and communicated out.
And if folks have questions, they're more than welcome to contact our team on that item. So but wanted to give you a heads up that that is coming back on your next agenda.
Design downtown debt and plan. We continue to work on that. And this past Thursday, we had our final edit event and we had I believe 68 participants in our public engagement for that workshop event.
So we felt like we had great turnout and we appreciate everybody who came out provided their feedback on the recommendations that we were putting forth. And also one of these was for the public to tell us where we the city should prioritize spending monies as it relates to those various action items.
So we'll be looking forward and presenting the results to the commission on that know that we are targeting July for a public hearing with the planning and zoning commission for adoption of this plan. So the team's working very diligently behind the scenes to try and make sure that happens.
But we're hoping that we can have this area plan completed by the end of the summer. So fingers crossed that we're able to bring that to you in July and we'll continue to keep you updated on on the status of that project.
Southeast Denton area plan. So June is going to be a busy month where this project is concerned. You all are included in that in that busyness. So we will have steering committee meetings. I believe we have a PNC work session that we're trying to make sure that we have happen.
We're also looking at potentially having public hearing consideration for adoption of the Southeast Denton plan. And in June, we also have some additional public engagement that we've worked in on that. So Mia and Julie continue to work very diligently and on this project.
But we're really looking forward on bringing this project to hopefully a close here where we'll have your public hearing for adoption and in the later part of June and being able to afford that on to counsel in July for adoption.
So Tim, I don't know. You might be rolling off and right about the right time. So but nonetheless, it's been an exciting project as we've worked on that. But know that we will be calling upon you and you'll be doing some heavy lifting potentially in June as it relates to that project.
In terms of agenda items that this body had seen that counsel's taken action on since your last meeting. This was one that you have not had involvement in but could potentially someday. And that was we had an annexation on Trinity Road.
On Trinity Road. Oh gosh north of fish trap road my correct Haley everything north the north of road or north of drawn a blank on that my apologies but we noticed the Trinity Road annexation but something that we've been working on and so that that process or that property was successfully annexed into the city.
And then it's possible that a zoning case could come forth out of that not sure what that property owner is going to do exactly as it relates to that but but nonetheless that that was accomplished.
And last on my list but not least is a huge thank you and shout out to Commissioner Tim Smith we greatly appreciate all of your service that you've given the city of Denton, your, your thoroughness and always being prepared and participating in the discussions you'll be greatly missed it's been a great pleasure getting to know you and I know we've given Margie a certificate to be able to share with you as well and if any other commissioners have any comments but again thank you for your service.
Thank you, Tina. I appreciate it.
Is there anything for the matrix.
Okay, so for concluding items Oh, did you have something for the matrix. Yeah, just for like, given the discussions that we had on mobility plan amendment tonight.
We have legal limitations based on recent state law for right of way dedication for roadways, as well as perimeter street improvements.
This is something that I think we all kind of know how that works but given recent state legislation I'd like to better understand what what our limitations are in that respect.
Is that clear enough for you, Tina. Yeah, yes.
Excellent. Anything else for the matrix.
Okay.
Concluding items so the big one of the evening is to echo what Tina just said which is to thank Commissioner Smith for all your years of service.
Your dedication and preparedness and and everything you brought to this role over the years is is exemplary and really really appreciate you it's been an honor to serve with you over all these years.
You've been a tremendous vice chair, could not have asked for a better one over these years.
Thank you very much you will be greatly missed. Certainly wish you and your new family all the best.
As you step into the role of being a parent. Congratulations on that.
The city does have a certificate of appreciation this certificate is awarded to Tim Smith in recognition of your seven years of service to the planning and zoning Commission, hopefully down the road we'll get to do it again.
Thank you, my friend. Thank you Marge I appreciate it.
I do have some final words if that's possible to share course so I did take my oath of office, a week before my wedding in 2017.
And so it's just full circle of life to take it take my last seat on the dais, a week almost a week after my daughter was born, which is awesome so a couple of quick thank yous.
I want to say thank you to former mayor and Councilman Watts for first appointing me in 2017.
And thank you to Mayor Hudson for continuing that appointment moving forward.
I also want to, you know, give a big shout out to former commissioners that I have been able to serve with firstly, Jim strange who was the chair, when I first stepped on to the commission.
Took his time out of his busy day to sit down with me at DJs brew house and just kind of show me the ropes a little bit and I thought that was always special and then obviously to to Andrew Roselle as well who served as chair for most of my time on the commission.
And Andrew is a great friend and confidence, and was was really always blessed to be able to serve alongside him.
And then some other notable folks, Matt Pernada, Councilman Beck, Larry Beck for putting up with me sitting next to them and I will say, those three probably voted.
Contra to my to myself as many times we voted in alignment.
But I think I think I think I always learned that there was a great way to be able to show democracy and action of being able to say we don't agree, very often.
We're great friends, and we can still be very civil and have great relationships and that was always special for me. Big thanks to city staff. Haley, Cameron Mia, Angie, Tina Scott Kathy I mean Kathy got me got me chicken enchiladas tonight I was all about it.
I was pumped. Ron wherever he's at in the sandals and swim shorts down the coast somewhere. Big thanks to him. You guys have been awesome to work alongside, and I appreciate it.
A big thanks to some of the community of the developers that we've worked with as well.
I think it was amazing to work kind of with and against them at times. But in every moment once again understand that disagreement does not mean a disapproval of character and so people like Greg Johnson Amy visit.
Allison Lee Ramsey brand Martino. Some folks that have been awesome to work alongside. And then to you guys. Thank you very much, especially to Jason, and to Eric. Eric I think I've learned more about city and planning development by sitting next to you just through
the process. They're white papers you read man I just I mean, guys in the middle of sessions and he's just like looking through like Harvard business stuff I'm like I don't know what you're looking at Margie.
You've been, you've been my FDR and I've been your Eleanor Roosevelt as we've just gone through into subsequent terms that are totally against the Constitution but you know we are, we're just all about it.
Just a second. And I know it's I'm already going long winded but I'm gonna go a little bit longer if I can so a few things I want to share with you guys.
Just, you know, here in the commission as well as for those who are the hundreds that are in the audience and the thousands that are probably not watching on TV at home.
I want to share them anyways they may be wisdom. They may be ramblings of a sleep deprived new dad, but I guess we'll find out and see which one they are afterwards but didn't is honestly it's an interesting and beast when it comes to growth and
development.
It can seem like from the outside that we are really no different than any other rapidly growing suburb on the fringe of the DFW Metroplex, but we need to understand that we are.
This can best be exemplified I think through understanding our three primary stakeholders that exists. First, we have the universities, a major employer primary component of what makes them unique and weird.
The arts, the music, the athletics, the intellect, the inspiration, the innovation, the culture that the youth of the universities, bring into the city make them done.
It makes it fun loud boisterous flamboyant completely abnormal and normal at the same time.
And it's really that stakeholder of the universities is a big player. Secondly, our neighborhoods and our residents, the culture that's spurned by that university influence seeps into the nature of what it is to truly be a detonate and being a third generation
homeless. And then obviously my grandmother, the queen, the Rose, if you will, from the cherry orchard and Rose costumes and the adoptive spot on Sherman to the, I mean the lady drove around and El Camino and did garage sale like for 40 years in this town.
And they get to make the city weird and happy to be able to add a fourth generation of my daughter to be here as well for that. Nowhere else in North Texas can you sit down at a nice date night restaurant and be next to somebody in a suit.
And then on the other side of you is somebody with fishnets and green hair and a nose ring and we all get along and love each other and we'd have it no other way.
The residents of city of the city of dinner or that second stakeholder and that third one is our business community.
And I know we have a thriving small business community, but I'm not really talking about them I'm talking about our major employers those, the Peterbilt target touch your pack when co flowers acne and many others.
They are that economic development entity that we want to attract. They bring in jobs and tax revenue and community reinvestment that allows us to continue to be that healthy Berg, that we are, and that we want to be in the future.
Now with all this said, I don't want to seem like I'm just doting on these three different areas and try to pander to the crowd.
The stakeholders have their own detractions as they have as much in additions. And first I'd like to say the universities in our education system.
Didn't ISD UNT WNCTC.
They make up over 180 square miles of our city.
Now that's not all the city limits, but it does add to the point that I do want to make and that is, I would argue for a town of our size.
That we have more non taxable public institutional land than any other city in North Texas, and that the lack of ad valorem taxes that are able to be levied.
While yes, 60,000 plus students does create a lot of sales tax.
That is a burden that gets passed on to the other two stakeholders that we, we mentioned.
Business community, those who usually have to take the brunt of this tax burden that gets passed on to them pound for pound probably don't pay as much in taxes as our residents do, but they do have to lift that heavy load at times.
And our major employers are the ones that create the economic prosperity in the city.
Many times.
They kind of are the first people that looked at to be able to go get that tax revenue back.
I think that while a fair share is fully acceptable, our development and business community can sometimes forget the reason why they may have to pony up for development that the student population, the resident culture will help you attract and retain workers with a great quality of life.
And at the end of the day, the cost of doing business can be more and can be painful.
But remember, it's remember what it's affording you.
And lastly, to our residents, no one likes paying taxes. We haven't since 1776. I don't think that's going to change anytime soon.
But the hardest thing I've seen in my time on this commission is the overwhelming desire to stop all growth and development and debt.
That as new businesses and developments look to build in our infill, as well as our fringe areas, we've seen that vile nature of not in my backyard or stay the same, come out. And the fact of the matter is what you have in love today is not guaranteed for the future.
And that as my head coach in high school, Joey Florence, athletic director for didn't ISD now used to preach to us that you either get better or you get worse. You never stay the same. And my hope is that our residents and us commissioners will remember this.
So on that note, I'll summarize my long winded soliloquy with a few two pieces of information that my father, retired Air Force colonel, who took a very serious job on by raising me and my brothers used to pass on to me and as one of my greatest mentors in life.
He's given me plenty of bits of wisdom, some of which I listened to some of which I wish I'd listened to now that I have my own kid I kind of like dang early five years old but I know what exactly my dad was talking about I want to smite you.
But with that, let me share these and this will hopefully bring it to focus on trying to say. First, he always said the measure of a man was found in their reputation, one, and in their resilience to and that Denton's reputation is one of creativity, innovation and being unashamedly novel.
And we can use this reputation to push us forward into the fast changing world we are encountering with our current growth and our development. And to you, my fellow commissioners both now as well as in the future, the changes that we want that we see on this dais may not be what you want may not ultimately
be what you think that should happen. You may want to see no change, but I would encourage you to trust that the reputation of Denton to make to take new additions that come and use our collective reputation to make it holy like nothing we've ever seen before.
Because we've always done it. And then lastly on resilience, I use my father's second bit of wisdom which is just a militaristic saying, it's apropos nonetheless but adapter die in a military sense it continues the idea that no plan survives contact with the enemy.
And that's Mike Tyson said everyone's got plans to get punched in the mouth. Change is hard. Change is scary. But ultimately change is coming didn't have to draw on its unending resiliency to push through the struggles we face universities will enroll more
students, the businesses will continue to be attracted to our space and our quality of life, and our residents will generally fuss about all of us. So to my fellow commissioners now and those to follow continue to be the representation of our resiliency.
It's an open belief and an open mind, but remember change is not the end. It's just the beginning of something greater. So, thank you. Thank you for the recognition. Now I'm gonna go home and get some sleep.
Any other concluding comments.
Who can follow Commissioner approved. Thank you. I just want to thank Tim, personally, I remember I reached out to Tim before I was even appointed to this body.
He was gracious with his time and not just to be there, but to really listen and try to understand why I was calling in to PNC meetings during the middle of coven, because I had nothing better to do right.
I think you and the members and chairs like Roselle that you mentioned before you have done an amazing job at keeping this commission focused on the issues and the questions to ask, and not focused on pet peeves or political differences
and members. So I thank you for that because I think that that sets an example that we should try to uphold, even in the midst of things that are not like that in the rest of the city. So thank you.
Sorry. Yeah. I welcome people to come back to Tim, but very briefly, congratulations to Cameron, even though she's left now, or maybe I just didn't catch it a year ago, but I noticed she said she was principal planner now.
So if that is a recent promotion, congrats. I don't know.
I was gonna say me has been promoted but I think I had shared that so that we had promoted me at a senior planner so okay.
Anyone else wishing to speak tonight.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you again.
We'll be missed. With that I will close our meeting at 817pm.