Oct 09, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2024-10-09 5:00 PM

This is our work session and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.05 p.m. First item on our work session agenda is citizen comment on consent agenda. Is there anyone wishing to speak on consent? Okay. Seeing none, we'll go ahead with our next item on the agenda, which is clarification for tonight's agenda in our public meeting. The first being the minutes from September 25th. Questions for staff on the minutes? Okay. How about anything on consent? We do have five plats there. Need anything brought forward? Okay. Items for individual consideration. We have one, and that's for a PP240006. Sean will give us that summary. Hi, Sean. Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. Let me get that pulled up here. All right, so PP240006, this is a preliminary plat for large property off Marshall Road. It is not yet ready for approval. We're working through a number of elements, so we are recommending no, but we do not object to their request for an extension, which could be granted to October 23rd, 2024. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Sean. I'll play Commissioner Villarreal, because I know he will want to know. First extension, I think? Yes, ma'am. Yeah? Okay. Okay. Perfect. Wanted to clarify that. Any questions then on that? Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Public hearing items, 5A, staff is requesting that item be postponed. My question to you, are we opening that public hearing for that item? Yes, ma'am. We are. And leaving that open? Okay. Questions before we move on from commission? No? Okay, then 5B is similar. Staff is requesting the item be postponed until the 23rd. So same, we will open the public hearing, and then we'll look for a motion to postpone that until the 23rd. Okay. Then next will be 5C, AESA 240001. Here is Christy for presentation in our work session. Thank you. I'm Christy Upton, environmental compliance coordinator, and tonight I will be presenting an alternative ESA plan for a project called Grand Parkside. This is seeking approval for an alternative ESA plan for modifications to 1.46 acres of what is currently identified as undeveloped floodplain. The resulting floodplain will meet the Dinton's criteria for approval for flood control, will be landscaped using native grasses, flowering plants, and trees, and will include one rain garden. Sorry about that. And to provide you more information about the site, this is going to be a residential development. There was a preliminary plat that was approved on August 14th. The residential is R6. This is US 377 here, and this is Hobson Lane, and this development will result in disturbances to this area of what is currently identified as undeveloped floodplain. I do want to go into a little bit of why I am using my words carefully here. This is currently unstudied floodplain, which means that FEMA kind of put on a map where they believed the 1% flood would occur, and a flood would occur in a 1% chance of that event. This area not having been studied before really just kind of is an understanding that with further engineered design and further engineered study of that land, that area might change. The limits of that floodplain might change. And so in our code, in our Denton Development Code, as of today, it does not identify or doesn't acknowledge those drainage studies as an update to the location, the extent of these undeveloped floodplains. So currently today we have to follow that FEMA 1%, what is currently on FEMA's map. And so this land is generally in its natural state, and that's identified as undeveloped floodplain. The project will be filling in that land, but in exchange for the removal of that undeveloped floodplain designation from that area, the developer is offered up to use native grasses and much of the area that is going to be the common space for this residential development. But in addition to that, acknowledging that residential runoff has pollutants, ubiquitous pollutants that come off of properties, and acknowledging that has designed into the drainage, the overall drainage of this area to intercept the sheep flow off of residential properties. The interception of that with that rain garden, the idea or the concept of these rain gardens is that the sheep flow will be concentrated, enter into that rain garden, will get infiltrated through the soils, and the pollutants will get sequestered there in that area of the rain garden. And then what's exiting the rain garden to the storm drainage will result in something that will be of higher quality storm water runoff. So there were notifications sent out, and we received one response in favor of the project, and staff has written a set of recommendations as in your backup, namely to ensure the establishment of the rain garden and the establishment of those native grasses prior to the final walkthrough of the project by environmental services to confirm everything has been established as it was listed in the plan. And then also one neighborhood sign prior to the issuance of building permits. I started adding this because we do want residents to know what their future neighboring property is going to look like, just so that there's not questions in the future. And with that, that will be the end of that project. Any questions for me? Commissioner Villarreal. Thank you, Chair. And this may be a question for the applicant later today. Are they going to be here today by chance? You know, I didn't receive any communications from them confirming, but typically the engineer record does show. So I imagine. Gotcha. But I can check with him in a few minutes when I finish this presentation. Sure. And just checking here, I see that during your presentation, you mentioned they reached out to folks in the community that didn't hold a community meeting. Correct. In the backup, it says that they reached out to anyone who wanted to discuss the project. Did that mean they were waiting for people to reach out first before they reached out to the community? The communication to me was that the property owner, the current property owner, he went door to door or called neighbors and had a conversation with them. Okay. And they felt that was sufficient. Gotcha. For this project. Thank you. Along those lines, I read that the backup that he, and the list of neighbors that he talked to, feedback at all from those conversations? I didn't see that. I did not receive any feedback myself. The only response I received was that one response from a property owner, yes. So we don't know what transpired with their conversation, I guess. Correct. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Thacker. Thank you, Chair. So yeah, a couple of issues. So I would love to know what their feedback was. I don't understand the point in reaching out to the community and asking them what their thoughts are and something if we're not recording the thoughts. Okay. You're in city office and you don't know what they said. Correct. So I mean, that's the kind of information that we need. I would imagine more than one of them asked what a rain garden was. So can you try to explain that to me again? Sure. Sure. Because to me, it just, it seems like a bunch of sitting water that could be around kids and animals. And I mean, in my own neighborhood, we had two West Nile reports. I just kind of want to know. I understand. Yes. So they followed what's called I Swim. And there is a drawing here at the bottom of this, this exhibit to show you what that what the profile of these rain gardens are. I Swim or I'm sorry, I used an acronym there, I apologize, Integrated Stormwater Management. And the city of Denton is a participant in the Integrated Stormwater Management program. And this is something that the North Central Texas Council of Governments put together. So many years ago, all these surrounding communities got together and recognized that we needed more specifications more standards like this in order to design these integrated stormwater systems. And our drainage review follows the I Swim manuals and this is just taking straight from the I Swim. So the idea of these rain gardens is to not hold the water for more than 24 to 48 hours. Mesquite larvae cannot grow for they need longer than that in order for an egg to hatch into an adult. So the opportunity for mosquitoes to emerge from these type of structures is very low. It does require maintenance. So if there is standing water for any longer than 24 to 48 hours, then that would trigger for us to say to the HOA that they will need to go out there and perform maintenance. So if we have three days of rain and it's 100 degrees outside and everybody's on vacation, what do we do? That's a good question. That's July in Texas. I think the engineer, if he is here, will be able to explain a little bit more about his final design. The final engineering designs have not gone through review, but they will be following the standard. Three days of rain is -- and even with three days of rain or large rain events, these systems are designed to drain after the rain finishes within that 24 to 48 hours. OK? >> You OK? Yep. You're good. OK. Thank you. Commissioner Fedora? >> Yep. >> To follow up on Commissioner Haggard, can you describe a little bit more what the context is with the maintenance of the area? >> Mm-hmm. Yes. So maintenance typically is inspecting in some period of time, like quarterly, for trash and debris, and removing that typically does not include removing vegetation or mowing the vegetation unless there's clogging. And then if there's clogging of the soils, when I say clogging, it means clogging of the soil so that that rain, as it enters those rain gardens, is expected to drain. And if it's not, it's most likely it's clogged, right? And so vegetation would probably have to be removed at that time. And then they would have to replant that vegetation to reestablish what is intended to be the final product. Commissioner Pruitt? >> Just so I make sure I'm following, the language in the three-year monitoring period and then the 85 percent trigger, I seem to see that more and more often. So is that our best understanding of what should be sufficient for these types of applications? And have we had experience yet, or is that sort of the new bar that we're setting recently and what we believe it's high enough? Does that make sense? >> You're asking about the three-year period before environmental services accepts the final landscaping. So this is a standard we've actually been following for at least the six years that I've been working here. So we've been putting it into each and every one of these alternative ESA plans we present to you. We did also, I believe, about two years ago put that into the Denton Development Code, so we created a standard for each of these applications that we intend to have that procedure in place. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Question back to these educational signs, since this is the first time I think I've read that. What would that be? >> We haven't come up with the final design. >> Okay. >> Yes. So the applicant and I will work together to come up with a final design at the civil plant. >> Okay. Yeah, and I think I saw on this one where -- I think it's different than what we just looked at, because this said one, I think this one said two. I know we have two on the next one. >> Correct. Yes. >> It's just one on this one? >> Correct. >> I assume it has to do because of the size of the area. >> Yes, it's up to this body if you want to propose to make a change to the number of signs that is always open to discussion. I felt like one sign near the rain garden would help explain that, you know, what they're anticipating. >> Yeah. Yeah, and I just want -- here it says two, so I don't know if you want to change it on your slide or if this is a slide that's coming from the other one we're going to discuss shortly. >> Oh, I apologize. I missed that. >> Okay. >> That's on me. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Anybody else questions on this one? Okay. Then I know you're going to stay right up there because we've got another one, and that is going to be 5D AESA 240002. >> If there's no objections, this one looks and feels a lot like the other because we prepared both of them about the same time. So I'm going to be glossing over a lot of the information that was just shared. Is that okay? >> Yeah, because we're going to go over the full report in the public hearing. >> Okay. >> Unless anyone has. >> So this one will be -- >> We can do more specific questions, too, after your summary, sure. >> Absolutely. So in this project, this one will be for DENTEX, which received approval for -- I'll go over that in a minute. But this is for modifications to 29.9 acres of undeveloped flood plain. And the mitigation is very similar. This is the property. There was an amendment to the comprehensive plan and the zoning in August that this body saw, I believe, in July timeframe. And it's at the northeast of the intersection of John Payne Parkway and Johnson Road. The field assessments, again, confirmed that this is undeveloped flood plain, but, again, it's been agricultural land for quite some time. So the value, the ecological value of this is pretty low. And again, it's unstudied flood plain. So it has that same kind of, you know, extent parameters to it in that as they studied it, they found it was -- it's much different. The geometry of these flood plains is much different. The mitigation plan reads very similarly in that there will be establishment of post-construction of that flood plain, there's going to be native grasses, flowering plants and trees. And then they proposed three rain gardens. And forgive me if I didn't fix the slide in the last one, because I think they went from two to three. And so there was a little bit of number changes going on, sorry. And then the plant selections were determined based upon the final -- expected final hydrological conditions. And this one I want to stress a little bit more, because here we have a defined channel as a final product through the stem of this development. And that stem is going to be channeling water or transferring water through, which means that there could be water within that channel for a longer period of time. So hydrologically, some of these plants needed to -- this plant selection was -- it was necessary to go through the exercise of understanding that so that they selected the right kind of plants for the right conditions. Moisture soils, plants that can survive in those moisture soils. And then the notifications, I have received no responses. The property owner did choose to do the same kind of procedures where they went and just discussed this with the neighbors. And then I did receive a couple of inquiries from property owners nearby who had received notifications, but no one sent in a specifically a response. And then the recommendations should read very much the same caveat of the three rain gardens. I'll fix that. And with that, I'll take any questions. >> Okay. Questions on this one? You probably have asked all our questions. I guess I'll just follow up on what we did discuss with Commissioner Thaggard's concern. You said there would be more water, but not necessarily standing water, where we'd have to be concerned here with regard to mosquitoes, or like -- I assume that was thought about or discussed or -- >> These channels, if -- >> They should be moving, correct? >> They should be moving. >> Yeah. >> So the intention there is to have these channels move the water through until it exits the property. One of those things that can happen, and so I want to give you like a full picture here. These are going to be earthen channels. And so one of those things that can happen with earthen channels is that you get scouring, and that scouring can cause holes, you know, kind of like these little low areas that hold water for a longer period of time. We see that scouring occurring a lot more in the old way of managing channels and earthen channels, which is that, you know, you keep it mowed as state and you keep those low grasses there, and those grasses, when they're kept short, the roots are no longer than the grass that's above it, which means that there's really no root structure to hold the soils for long periods of time, especially in stressful events like high rain events. With this type of proposed revegetation plan, what we anticipate seeing, I can't say that there wouldn't be some movement in the beginning especially, but what we anticipate seeing is that these taller grasses will result in longer roots, and those longer roots will be able to hold the soil more effectively. That's our goal, and that's what we're trying to get these developers to. Commissioner Thagger. Thank you, Chair. The word "unstudied" is making me unsettled, so can we, and I think it would make, I mean, and I'm looking at this property, I mean, it's mass, I mean, you're saying you talk to neighbors. Where? You know, I mean, it's massive, laying out, unless I've just pulled up the wrong thing from my backup. Is this what you're asking about, the notifications? So these notifications were sent to the property owners within that 200-foot buffer and the 500-foot buffer. Okay. Yes. Going back to the word "unstudied" and making me unsettled, I think that there's just so much "what if," right? We hope that the roots will do this, and it's really not studied. I think that that's, if you look at this development and how detailed it is, the fact that we're kind of, and I mean, I hate to even bring this up, but you think about, you know, like the hurricanes we're experiencing right now, which I know that, you know, that's definitely not going to happen anywhere local, but it's unexpected. We don't know when all of a sudden we're just going to get this hellacious amount of rain, and even things that are studied, we don't know, you know, what the outcomes are going to be. I just wonder if maybe we shouldn't just have a little bit more prudence in studying what would be better. I see. And I understand, but I also, what I'm hearing is you might be layering two different concepts in here when you're asking this question. I hope I'm correct. Is that for us? Okay. Okay, so the concept of unstudied floodplain is because it is a theoretical, informational study that was performed by FEMA. What they did to create those 1% unstudied floodplains is because they don't have enough information in hand. And Tina, if anyone else has anything else to add to color to this, let me know. I'm not an engineer, but I've discussed this with our engineers a couple of times. So I'm just trying to restate what I think I understand. So are you thinking the rain garden is unstudied when she says unstudied? I'm thinking on the last two items that I keep hearing words like unstudied and theoretical, and that is going to be something- Because the unstudied floodplain is just that. It's because it's on a map that says this is floodplain. And you have to treat it as floodplain unless you go to FEMA and get that revised. So it's unstudied because we don't have any, like, they don't have any working knowledge in the city that it's floodplain. So it's termed unstudied because it says on the map that it's a floodplain. So I'm going to let you all hammer that out a little easier, but I think you're hearing unstudied and I think you're thinking that it has to do with the mitigation. And I don't think it has to do with the mitigation because they're using iSwim, which is definitely studied. Does that help? I don't know. I don't know if that helps or clarifies things. It's just on the stake here, I really do just kind of want to understand it a little bit better. So- Yeah, it's just trying to clarify, I think clarify words and what they relate to. Thank you. Thank you very much. You'll take it from there. Tina, it looks like you have something to add. No, I was just going to, correct me if I'm wrong, but with the unstudied floodplain, it's basically taking into consideration a certain storm event and the existing topographical information that's available based upon the grades that are there and then FEMA assigning what is considered the floodplain. When we have projects, when their civil engineering plans are submitted, they do further analysis and including taking consideration their water runoff calculations to see if any additional modifications or adjustments need to be made where there's additional protection that needs to be put in place. So if they were thinking that the water was actually going to rise higher than the designated floodplain area, then in all likelihood, they're taking that into consideration in their design, whether they're retaining water for a limited period of time to slow it down before it enters into a channel or if additional improvements have to be done, but that's factored into the engineering design. But I think, correct me if I'm wrong, but what we're getting at here is we have these ESA areas that have been analyzed and are needing to be altered. And so our code allows for alternate options to be provided for, to allow for somebody to be able to acceptably modify that ESA area. And so the rain gardens are one aspect or one tool that we have in the toolbox that we're also able to utilize in order to be able to address the water runoff. And in some extent, the rain gardens also assist with water quality because to the point of an integrated stormwater system, with the I-swim manual, it took into consideration various different tools that are available to be able to address stormwater runoff, both the amount of water running off, but then also the quality of the water running off on property. And so in this case, and correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the rain garden would also be able to help address a water quality issue because of the plant materials that are being allowed for within that rain garden. And so we're trying to address to some extent some water quality, but also the water runoff aspect that is associated with this property being developed. Correct. Did I get that right? Yes. I think I would add one more element to help maybe kind of visualize this. Unstudied is pre-anybody doing anything with the land. Studied would be pre-development, but better understanding of what's actually on the land. And that would be, so then you take that studied floodplain, any modifications to that studied floodplain is the post-development study of that floodplain so that the final product is throughout, you're showing where that, where the measured 100-year flood is anticipated to rise to. Okay. Okay. Any other questions for Kristy at this point? I mean, we're going to get the full presentation, so. Thank you. If you think of something, none. Okay. Thank you, Kristy. To our next public hearing, that is going to be 5EZ240013. Hi, Ashley. Good evening. Ashley Eckstead, Associate Planner. This is Z243I35RV Supercenter. This is a request to rezone approximately 0.36 acres of land from a general office zoning district to a highway corridor zoning district. This is currently undeveloped, but it will be plotted as part of the existing RV sales use to the south and the east. The purpose of this rezoning request is to address the non-conformities on that RV sales use lot. The building that is adjacent to the subject property is constructed about 0.85 feet over the property line, and that use is not permitted in geo-zoning, and additionally, it does not meet the required 10-foot setback requirement in HC zoning. Staff does recommend approval, and I'm happy to answer any questions. I have a question. Were there any fines associated with the negligence of them building this? There wasn't. So for the, these, so it was this building and then this building adjacent to it here. We did require an inspection from a structural engineer, so he went out there and inspected that and then required several large improvements to the structure and the foundation. So they did those and then got another inspection report that they were now structurally sound. Okay. So, okay. I think that's interesting. Do we not have, do we not have that in the city, like, you don't get in trouble when you do this kind of thing? I mean, I know they're going through a big process now, which, I mean, yeah. I'm not sure if building safety has, so these were permits that he should have gotten, so I'm not sure if building safety has anything like that, but I don't believe that we required it. Yeah, I think it's good on the vendor that it was the vendor who was doing electrical work, right, that pulled the permit as he should and said, "Oh, the permits will never pulled." Fascinating. And you're not even on your land. Yeah, I find that remarkable, honestly. Any questions for Ashley on this? That's pretty straightforward, but okay, thank you very much. Okay, that will take us to then 5F, PD 240004. Julie is here for that item. Good evening. All right, Julie Wyatt, I'm presenting PD 244. Julie is on McKinney. Just a summary, you'll be happy to answer any questions if you'd like, but this is a rezoning from R3 district to PD R6 district to facilitate the development of 119 zero lot line dwellings on 12 acres. When we were talking about this, we kind of talked about why a PD, and this is one of those lots that a PD really fits because of the unusual lot shape and configuration. It is very long and narrow. It's over 2,000 feet long, and then at its narrowest, it's about 250 feet wide. So the lot dimensions, there's also some encumbrances related to electrical utility easements on the site, so that further squeezes the property. So those lot dimensions and encumbrances kind of create a unique situation for this property. And then the use, it's zero lot line homes. It's not something we typically see within the city of Denton. It's a smaller lot, platted as single family, but one of the structure walls will sit on the property line for one side, and then the other opposite side would have a setback. So it's something we don't see often within the city of Denton. We are recommending approval of the request because it complies with the criteria for approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions. One thing I failed to mention is where it is. It is on McKinney. It spans between McKinney and Paisley on the east side of town, just inside the loop. I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> My question is, do we have for Julie, Commissioner Villarreal. >> Thank you, Chair. Real quick, did they do a traffic impact study? >> They did, yes. >> Okay. >> That was reviewed and approved. Yes, sir. >> Gotcha. And what did that show the impact on the area? >> It really showed the impact that they really needed to address was turning into the site. So if anybody's driven on McKinney, you know it can be challenging to take a left-hand turn. And so they will be required to construct a dedicated left turn into the property to address those trips, those trips going inside. They also did an analysis and just to show you kind of where the traffic distribution is in the area. So they kind of anticipated that the traffic would be dispersed throughout the area, McKinney being a secondary arterial with a variety of signalized intersections, and then Paisley, a collector roadway. So they anticipate that that traffic would be dispersed both on Paisley and McKinney to hit those signalized intersections but also to make sure that they address any trips inside with that left turn lane. >> Thank you. >> You bet. Any questions for Julie on this? >> It seems so dense for this little piece of land in a very populated area, 119, it's like 10 units an acre. It's a lot that have in and out McKinney and Paisley the way they would have it. Yeah, I mean I know it's just a rendering, right, that we're looking at. This is not becoming part of anything. I assume the drawing that we have -- >> The PD, it is a PD, so -- >> Yeah, so it's just taking, it's just usage once a log is not allowed. >> So they would need to substantially comply with that PD document and the development standards that they've prepared. >> I guess I don't know how else you're putting that many units on that piece of land. This land is for sale, correct? Do we know? >> The applicant will be here, they will probably -- >> Believe it is. >> -- be able to answer that. >> Okay. Any other questions? Yep, Commissioner Pruitt. Not that there's an answer here, but just as we can bring it up in the public meeting given the density concerns, if there's a way that we could find out what the density of the fountains of Denton immediately adjacent is, just so we kind of understand. >> This is the fountains. I have that. I'll get it for you. >> Great. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Julie. >> Thank you. >> Move on. Look forward to the full presentation. >> Okay, I think that is our last item on the agenda for our public meeting. We do have a work session. I am guessing that that's going to take a considerable amount of time, that discussion. Can we break super quick, go get your food, otherwise I think you're not going to have an opportunity to eat it. So let's do that. We'll go ahead and take a quick recess at 542. Let's just get back here for that discussion as soon as we can. >> Thank you for allowing us that recess. Let's call us back to order at 552 p.m. We've got one work session report left. It is 3APZ24204. Receive a report, hold a discussion, give staff direction regarding amending the proposed land uses in the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan north of FM 1173, west of Highway 35, south of Ganser, generally east of Mosh Branch. I guess I'll turn it to Cameron. I didn't know if it was you or Tina. >> Actually, I'm going to start this. >> Okay. You got it. >> So this evening we have on your agenda to have a conversation regarding potential change to our future land use map. We have received a zoning petition that is inconsistent with the future land use recommendations. We have to be careful this evening not to discuss the merits of the requested zoning change. We will be able to provide you kind of a high level overview of the uses that are generally being requested. But we wanted to have this discussion first with all of you to see -- to gain some level of consensus as to whether or not we should consider amendments to the future land use map in this area of town. Because what is being requested, as Cameron will walk through with you, is very different than what our future land use recommendations are today. And so therefore have significant implications on our future land use map that truly warrant that broader conversation about whether or not we should consider those changes. It also would give the applicant some direction moving forward as to whether or not they need to submit a future land use map amendment, if you will, a comprehensive plan amendment. But also our city manager's office was wanting us to engage in this conversation with the commission and ultimately council and have council weigh in on this before that application if anything is submitted if the application -- or excuse me, if the applicant deems to submit one. So with that -- oh, I guess lastly I would add it's not every day we have this situation arise. And so most of the time when we have a comprehensive plan amendment that is submitted, it is smaller in scale, may not have as significant of an impact on other land planning efforts within the area. And so hence why also we felt it was appropriate to have this work session conversation. So I'll turn it over to Cameron. >> Thank you, Tina. >> Oh, sorry. >> No, go ahead. >> Yep. >> Perfect. So just a quick background before I dive into the options that were sent to y'all earlier this week, 1877 Journey, which is a 501(c)(3), received a donation of approximately 70 acres to develop a micro home community for chronically homeless individuals along FM 1173 near the railroad. It would support -- have support services such as a medical clinic, also have some commercial uses that would help with some skill development as well. The plan development application for this proposed development was submitted in June 2024. The property is located in the Denton City limits. It does have the ETJ to the north and the west of the property. And then has existing light industrial to the south as well as the east and then that northeast. The proposed uses, as Tina stated, are in conflict with our current and anticipated future land uses. It would necessitate a comprehensive plan amendment as well as a zoning change. So as I stated, because of that significant inconsistency with our future land use map, staff is looking for a broader discussion to occur this evening. First is, is it appropriate to consider changing our future land use map to allow residential uses in that area? And then if we allow those residential uses, there is broader implications to that surrounding area. The feedback that is needed this evening is whether the commission is supportive of changing the future land use recommendation for the area of the city and then providing that feedback to city council. So before I jump in to the different options that I'm going to be presenting, there are some things to consider. The first is staff looked at whether it is appropriate to evaluate potential land use changes north of Barthold Road and west of I-35. What's highlighted in the blue is that existing industrial and commercial uses that are developed to the south and the east of that subject property and then Barthold Road as part of the 2022 mobility plan was determined to be a primary arterial. So essentially a regional corridor leading to the city of Crum. If it were appropriate to use residential uses, we'd have to consider the retail and commercial service uses that are needed for that area. And then in addition to, there are potential economic impacts to the city if the land is converted to residential. Commercial properties usually require more city services and they typically generate less revenue for cities as compared to that industrial use. Some additional considerations are the city also has no land use authority within the city's ETJ. The city can land plan for those certain land uses if they are to annex into the city. The exception is an executed non-annexation agreement, which generally limits the property owners to a single family at five acres or agricultural. In terms of more intensive land use designation, we see that along I-35 and north of FM 1173. In 2022, highlighted in yellow, we did have an annexation of approximately 83 acre parcel, which was rezoned to Light Industrial. And then we also had a 54 acre parcel, which was just south of Barthold Road, rezoned to Light Industrial as well. And then there's existing highway corridor and mixed use regional. And lastly, with the future land use was updated in March 2022, there was a decision to designate the land west of I-35 as Light Industrial, given feedback during a zoning case that was at city council regarding a trucking business that was looking to rezone east of I-35. So before I jump in, just want to show kind of the existing conditions. You see that industrial south of FM 1173, and you see that existing industrial commercial along the I-35 corridor. And then you have our future land use showing all of that as Light Industrial. So option one, which is sitting in front of y'all on a map, is a low residential community mixed use land use located north of FM 1173, predominantly west of I-35. So I wanted to highlight in terms of CRUM, the city of CRUM, their current land uses do show single family resident north of FM 1173 and then south of FM 1173. They're showing that mixed multifamily and retail commercial uses. We're looking at low residential primarily, not only due to the city of CRUM to our east, but also just some of that, the residential use currently as part of that proposed development. Also with it being in the NAA, if they were looking to do a non-annexation agreement, we'd be looking at single family or agricultural. I wanted to highlight the area in pink here, that 186 acres. That would be that community mixed use. We need support services to the area if development residential is to develop. But we also have those existing industrial uses along FM 1173 and south of FM 1173. So it would be a lot more visible in that Ganzard Road area. Option two is a mixture of low residential and moderate residential and community mixed use. We're showing that moderate residential along FM 1173 since there would be higher intensity uses within that proposed development, but also would be able to better coexist with that light industrial use to the south. In addition, it would be that good transition into CRUM where it's showing that multi-family and that retail and commercial kind of at the entrance of that city. And then lastly, we do have that moderate residential showing that full 1,400 acres. And this would, if that NAA were to annex into the city, they would just benefit from a slightly more intense land use in the future. Option four, there is the option four of just status quo, not changing anything in that future land use map. In this instance, the best practice would be for the applicant to come forward with their own comprehensive plan amendment, depending on what they feel is the most appropriate land use for that property. And then they would have that zoning request as well. Some next steps in terms of work sessions, if this work session is needing to be continued, it would be continued to Wednesday, November 13th. And then staff is planning to go to the Tuesday, December 3rd city council work session. That's all I have. Question, I guess, where are you going, is it a work session with council as well? Correct. December 3rd? Yes. Okay. To, I guess, bring forward like our discussion and then to them and get their feedback on it? Yes. Okay. Correct. We anticipated that city council would probably want to know what your feedback is as a commission. Okay. Other question before, I'll get to it in a second, have you talked to CRUM at all? No, we've been, we have been receiving emails from CRUM, the city of CRUM, some residents who are very concerned about the proposed development. I don't want to run into too much detail about that. No, I know, and we can't do that. I meant the city of CRUM. Not necessarily. No, just residents. Okay. Okay. Where would we like to start? Commissioner Pruitt? Just a couple quick factual questions. I know recently talks with CRUM that, that helps. Was there any communication with CRUM during the 2040 plan update when we coded that all light industrial, sort of some history that would help here? Sure thing. So, no, I do not recall us having any conversations with the city of CRUM. What I do recall though is when we were looking at how best to address the Northwest quadrant of the city and designate as industrial, that the fact that there are residents within CRUM was brought up, I believe it was commissioner, former commissioner Cole, who had raised that question. And at that time, you know, the consensus was that we would designate the area west of I-35 as light industrial. Okay. Thank you. The yeah, I don't want to take up too much time. I'm for the existing flume as is. It seems a little bit like wagging the tail, wagging the dog by its tail. I'm very sensitive to the desire to see a great community and it's sort of a marriage of opportunity. The question is whether that marriage is the right place. Yeah, so, you know, as I look at it, right, I guess a couple questions, I know the comp plan talks in several places about there being, you know, a lot of already agreed to zoned land or planned land for low residential in the MPCs, both Hunter Cole as well as the north of town, and it sort of talks toward the idea that, well, there's a lot there, so we may not need a ton more. Is that still staff's conclusion from that or is this coming from, hey, we need a ton more single family residential land because of XYZ? So that's a great question. You know, when we update the future land use map in the comprehensive plan, you know, we provide a level of analysis included within that, but it's a high level analysis, right? We've talked in the past about how the comprehensive plan is more of that 30,000 foot level policy direction based upon our analysis at that time and what we were designating on the future land use map. We believed that we would have an appropriate amount of land in all likelihood designated for residential uses, but we also know conditions change, right? And so in this case, we have a property owner who's received land that's interested in developing it in a certain manner, and as a result, it has, it could potentially influence other outcomes than associated with the land in the area, and you could have that situation occur any time throughout the city. The other thing I'll add is, you know, state law says that if you're going to rezone property, that you should rezone it in accordance with your comprehensive plan, so that's why we also wanted to have this conversation. Okay. Yeah, so I'll just expand a little bit and then let, I want to hear everybody else, but I think that community mixed use section on your map is about two and a half miles walk from the southern portion of this, so that's pretty far in July. I understand, you know, that we need to be sensitive to our neighbors and comprehend that, but at the same time, my recollection of that past discussion was light industrial, you know, while the buildings are large, the impacts that they have to surrounding areas are less intense than a huge shopping center or high-density residential development, et cetera, et cetera. I'm also very keen to agree with the sort of fiscal implications of adding quite a large segment of a type of residential development that other parts of the city have to subsidize, and I'm also nervous about this ETGA thing, and maybe I'll just stop here and if there's any feedback staff has on, I understand functionally that we don't have land use control. What I don't understand, if you can share, is what practical implication the future land use designations have in the flume. So for instance, if I'm a developer and I have a piece of land, sorry, not in the flume, in the ETGA. If I'm a developer and I have a piece of land very near the city in the ETGA, say it borders on one side, right, I can go develop that to the county's regulations with our subdivision regulations if it's an ETGA one and be done, right? Or I can talk to the city and say, hey, should I annex to you so that I pay a bunch of taxes and a bunch of impact fees and in return, I have to have risk of going through this process. So I don't really understand where the carrot is for how a particular land use designation within the ETGA helps us achieve what we're actually putting on the map. Does that make sense? Yes. So I believe I understand your question. So we had this, I don't know if you recall, we had this conversation also when we were updating the comprehensive plan because we had the whole conversation regarding how much area do we shade green versus other colors, right, to acknowledge other land uses. But the challenge is, in the ETGA, you're absolutely correct. We have absolutely no land use authority. Somebody could come and develop their property as they see fit and they have to comply with our subdivision regulations for ETGA one and then also county standards that might apply. If a property owner were to want to annex into the city, then that's where any shading that we have on the future land use map pertaining to land use is where we engage in that conversation and say, you know, we are interested in this type of development happening in this area of our community based upon these land use designation categories that we made. So they can choose to continue with annexation. They will have a subsequent zoning case that they will file. We would evaluate that zoning case in accordance with the land use recommendations that we have on the map. So that's I mean, that's how that would play out. You're welcome. >> That's all for now. Thank you. >> Okay. Okay. Let's go next. Anybody? Mm-hmm. Commissioner Villarreal. >> Thank you, Chair. And I agree with a lot of Vice Chair Pruitt's points here. I, you know, I took a look at this year. I drove down Bartle and talked to some of the property owners there and without getting into details of what's going here, I find it difficult to approve one of these without listening to the applicant first. I'm currently in favor of the current flume, so option four is where I'm at right now. You know, let them come to us with the proposal, let them discuss why they think it needs to be changed and why it needs to be altered. I don't want to put the cart before the horse. Is that your metaphor? No, you said wagging the dog by the tail. I don't want to do that. Well, I want to hear the applicant come here first before we make this decision. >> Yeah, I think the difficulty that probably we're all having, because I'm in agreement with Vice Chair Pruitt and Commissioner Villarreal at this point, because we can't really discuss what we're supposed to really be discussing. You know, what we're discussing not at all why this is before us and why it would make sense to do option one, two, or three. Option one doesn't even look like it would work for the thing that we're not talking about. So, I -- yeah, I think that's the difficulty here right now is because we're not really discussing anything specific. We're -- you know, the way we've got it, you know, worded on our agenda, I mean, this is what we can discuss, which I understand, but it makes it very difficult to discuss because we have nothing concrete. We have some ideas of why we're discussing this, but we can't really discuss it. So, we can't really ask questions and true concerns as to how we could make a decision of option one, two, or three. So, you know, is there any other -- for this applicant that you have before you that we're not discussing, the only of -- their only option would be to come before us with an application for comprehensive plan amendment and a zoning change. Is that correct? There's no other option. Correct. So, they could submit a zoning application without a comprehensive plan amendment, but then we're -- as I mentioned earlier, you know, state law says that if we're going to have zoning, then we should be practicing zoning in accordance or evaluating zoning in accordance with our comprehensive plan. So -- I just want to know if there was another -- if they had another -- Right. So, that option is available. You know, the other thing to take into consideration, if I could offer, is, you know, they could come forth with a proposed comprehensive plan amendment and then, depending -- and their zoning case, depending upon how the end result of that is, may then cause the city to have to come back and evaluate its future land use recommendations within this area. Because if the commission and ultimately council determine that residential uses are appropriate within this area, then I would anticipate that we would be having a subsequent conversation. So, we were hoping to be able to at least have this high-level conversation to be able to address whether or not residential uses in general are appropriate. And so, hence why we brought this forth to initiate that conversation. Okay. But we can't really have that conversation, I don't think, because, again, we can't really ask specific things as far as what's before you, and I completely understand that. The thing is, is, you know, the comprehensive plan that we have currently was not just flippantly put together. So, I think if we had thought that low residential would belong there, that probably would have been something that was discussed, and that wasn't even on the radar of when we were discussing the future land use map as we have it, so, again, that's why it's just, like, a lot of these don't make sense. I'm going to let other commissioners talk, yeah, Commissioner Thaggard. Thank you, Chair, and maybe we already reviewed this and I'm sorry if I missed something here. It seems like such, like, an arbitrary, like, little spot in a sea of blue from the original plan. So, can you please explain to me one more time, like, what the impetus was for modifying the original plan? For modifying the future land use map? Yes. So, the property is approximately seven acres, so staff felt that it would have a larger implication if it were to change on the surrounding land uses moving forward, but also due to the fact that it'd be located next to light industrial use. Okay. And the current owner, or is this -- I need to understand this piece of land particularly a little bit better. I think she missed the first part of your presentation. Yeah, read right here. This is what? This is the background. Okay, sorry. Yep. Sorry. And this material was also included in the AIS that we provided in your packet, but in short, we have an applicant who has received land that you're interested in developing a micro home community to be able to assist with persons that are experiencing homelessness, also being able to provide those support services and commercial services to be able to help with skill development for those residents. So, as a result of us receiving that application and knowing that it significantly differs from our land use plan recommendations in this area, ultimately, we're going to be having a city council or a conversation with city council about the appropriateness of residential spaces within this area, and we wanted to get the commission's feedback first. Is there any way that we could bring this back and talk about more than just option one, two, and three? Are we allowed to have that discussion, or is that not a discussion that we can have? I really don't know. So, we're posted to discuss -- Exactly what we're doing right now. Yes, correct. I think it's within our -- I'm looking at the caption one more time. Yeah, and I know today we can't, but I guess what I'm asking for is can we restate it at a future work session to include this and possibly be able to discuss the reason that we're actually having this discussion? Basically, how far deep in the details can we get without compromising the public hearing associated with the zoning change? Correct. Right. And maybe we can't, and that's why we can't do anything more than what was stated earlier by Vice Chair Prudence, Commissioner Riel, where we would just have to let the applicant come forward. So -- I think that's where we're at. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Prudence. Yeah, I'm in agreement as well. I just think that there's just a lot of limited information before making a recommendation on any proposed changes, so I agree to just remain as is under the current law. Commissioner Thagat, I didn't actually get your opinion of options in when you had the floor. Do you -- And I'm very -- I don't want to put you on the spot -- I'm very familiar with now that -- Yep. -- I definitely think that incorporating -- again, I think we need to have a full picture of what's going on. I feel like not discussing what the families in Crum that are backing up to this piece of property, how they feel about it, because any email that you've gotten, I've heard in conversation. So I just -- I do -- I think that there's -- I think that there's a bigger picture here. We need more -- we need to look at it a little bit deeper. So what they're asking us today is, you're not ready to say we should change the future land use as -- is that correct? Correct. Okay, so -- Yeah, I'm with -- I'm with Jordan. Yeah. I'm for option four right now. Yeah, yeah. So I mean, that's where we all are, unfortunately, just because, again, it's -- there's unanswered specific questions that we probably all would want to be able to go forward and say any of these options are good, because honestly, again, you never did we discuss low residential in this area. It doesn't even make sense. You know, I'm not saying -- this doesn't make sense. What we're not talking about, what I'm saying is this, that you've printed for us, doesn't make sense. And it continues to not, you know, again, we would just be, you know, I don't know, you know, what is this? This one is proposed moderate residential, but again, you know, nothing that was ever talked about in detail when we did this future land use, you know, look not that even that long ago. So, yeah, I don't know if that helps, hurts, or what you want to do going forward. I'm going to let you all probably go back to the drawing board and see if there is any way that maybe we could have this conversation again that could help you all help the applicant, because obviously, that's what you're trying to do here, and that makes perfect sense. But I think what you're asking us all to do is an impossible task, and I think that's what just -- was just showed, that you've got a unanimous commission here who cannot move forward with any of these options right now. So if you all can get with legal, if there is a way that we can have another discussion, I think we all would be on board for having another discussion if there are things that we -- you know, if it's worth that, or if we just have to have the applicant move forward. So go back. I was going to say, let us circle back with our legal team and find out if we can have any greater level of detail of conversation and what that might look like, and if we can, then we'll bring it back for the commission's discussion. And then, if not, then we'll move forward so far with the feedback that we have, which is very clear that the commission's not comfortable with amending the future land use plan at this time, because you want to see additional information regarding the request. Because the next available option could be that we go ahead and move forward with the applicant processing their zoning case and then also submitting a comprehensive plan amendment in considering that option, but we have committed to having the conversation with city council as well. Sure. So we'll figure out what our options are. Okay. Great. Okay. Thank you very much, Kim. Thank you. We appreciate it. With that, I'll go ahead and adjourn our work session at 621 p.m., and we will reconvene in council chambers as close to 630 as possible. Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, October 9th, 2024. For the core and present, I'll call us to order at 635 p.m. Sorry for our tardiness, and thank you for your patience. First item on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. 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. For the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one and indivisible. Right. Our first item of business is consider the approval of our minutes from the September 25th meeting. Commissioner Villarreal. Move approval. Commissioner Pedro. Second. Okay. Any discussion? Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. That will take us to our consent agenda this evening. Commissioner Villarreal. Move approval. Commissioner Thaggard. Approve. Second. Second? Yeah, thank you. We've got a first and a second to approve the consent agenda, so no discussion. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. That will take us to item for individual consideration. We have 1-2-day. It is 4-A, PP240006. Sean is here for presentation. Hello. Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. Let me just go ahead and get my presentation loaded here. There we go. All right. 1-2-4. All right. So this is a preliminary plat, PP240006, the RM2 Denton edition, approximately 363 acre plat. At this time, they do not meet our criteria for approval, so staff is recommending denial, but staff has no objection to request extension, which will be granted to a date certain of October 23rd, 2024, and this is their first request for an extension. Happy to stand for any questions. Thank you. Sean? Questions for Sean? I didn't get an answer in the work session, though. Okay. Thank you very much. Commissioner Villarreal. We've approved the extension request to a date certain of October 23rd, 2024. Thank you. Commissioner Thaggard. Second. We have a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of October 23rd, 2024 discussion. Okay. Let's vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. That will take us to our public hearings today, first being 5AMPA240002. It was listed on the agenda that staff is requesting this item be postponed until the October 23rd P&Z meeting. I will open that public hearing and look to my fellow commissioners for a move to postpone. Commissioner Villarreal. We've approved the postponement request to a date certain of October 23rd, 2024. Thank you. Commissioner Perdomo? I second. Okay. With that public hearing left open, we've got a motion on the floor to approve the postponement until a date certain of October 23rd. Any discussion? Okay. Let's vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. That will take us to 5B, MPA240004. With similar posting on the agenda, staff is requesting this item be postponed until October 23rd. I will go ahead and open that public hearing. Commissioner Villarreal. Move approval of the postponement request to a date certain of October 23rd, 2024. Thank you. Commissioner Thaggard? Second. We've got a first and a second to postpone this item to October 23rd with the public hearing being left open on that item. Discussion? Okay. Let's vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. That will take us to 5C, AESA240001. Christy is here for presentation. I will open that public hearing. Thank you, Commissioners. Christy Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and tonight I will be presenting an alternative ESA plan for Grand Parkside. Alternative ESA plans are a proposal for a mitigation plan for environmentally sensitive areas. When a development is proposing to encroach into or deviate from protection requirements that are listed in the Denton Development Code to protect those environmentally sensitive areas, this is a flexible and discretionary process by which the Commissioners make a recommendation to the City Council for an ordinance that will be adopted approving this plan and adopting it for enactment by the property owner. As you know, the Commission has an opportunity to weigh in and to make any modifications to the recommendations that the staff made tonight. So this particular project will be seeking to modify 1.46 acres of what is referred to as undeveloped floodplain. The resulting floodplain will result in meeting the criteria for approval for drainage and flood control. It will be landscaped using native grasses, flowers, trees, and include one rain garden. And staff is recommending approval. The site is northeast of the intersection of Country Club Road and Hobson Lane, US 377 is here in the corner to give you reference of overall the property. The preliminary plot was approved in August, and this is for approximately 19 acres of a residentially zoned property. The resulting development will result in the reconstruction of this area of land that is currently considered undeveloped floodplain. So there's no riparian vegetation, there's really no native vegetation on this land. This was previously a rural use, and this open space, because of the shape of the land, is considered by FEMA to be an approximate location of the 100-year floodplain. This area has been studied since this plan was put together, and that study of the floodplain shows that there's really not a 1% floodplain on the property. Post-construction, this area will have a different drainage pattern than it's shown today. The mitigation plan post the construction of that floodplain will result in floodplain with native grasses, flowering plants, and trees. There will be one rain garden that will be installed on this common area lot near the central east side of the property. Rain gardens are designed to intercept residential runoff and both slow down the water, uptake pollutants, and to further improve ecological services to the area. I want to go over a little bit the conventional design of a residential development's drainage patterns. So in this particular development, the drainage pattern is that it receives flow from a little bit northeast of this rain garden, and then would traverse across the property, enter into a storm drain, and then would be discharged directly into the drainage soil along Hopson Lane. In this mitigation plan, they're proposing to install this rain garden, which is anticipated to help improve the stormwater runoff. One of the issues with residential properties, as all residential properties, there's discharges of pollutants, dog waste in the yard is an example. The bacteria gets picked up by the rainwater and gets discharged directly to the next discharge point. When you install something like these structures, the anticipated result is that it intercepts that flow, and then causes for the rainwater to slow down, get infiltrated through the soils, where the bacteria from that dog waste, we get sequestered into the soils, break down further, and then it's no longer a discharge of concern to the storm drainage system. There were notifications sent to the surrounding property owners, and we did receive, staff received one response from a property owner in favor of the project. This is the staff's recommendations. This is in your backup to kind of give you some highlights. These recommendations are to ensure that the project is completed, as is described in the alternative ESA plan document, that there will be an acceptance period, so a growth period of the vegetation, and then an acceptance by environmental services. I apologize. I did not get a chance to update this slide, but environmental services is proposing requirement of one educational sign on the property. The remainder of this is just the follow-up of ensuring the lifelong maintenance of the rain garden and the other vegetation that's being proposed across the property. With that, I'll take any questions. Thank you, Kristi. Questions for staff? No? I think we probably asked them all at work session. Thank you. The applicant is here if you wanted to ask him any questions. Excellent. Yeah, I was going to say I do have a card from the applicant, Thomas Fletcher. Good evening. Good evening, Chair and commissioners. Thomas Fletcher with Kimley-Horn, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas. I am the applicant for the owners of this tract of land. I did hear that there were some questions regarding the neighborhood outreach, so I did want to get up and talk about that briefly and then see if there were any additional questions that you may have regarding the project. I do want to thank Kristi for her support and help through this process. I know anytime we do the alternate ESA, we're trying to provide benefit that may not be there present today. This particular project is undeveloped floodplain ESA. It is currently a pasture or pasture grasses, primarily zoysia, so with the mitigation plan, we are proposing to bring in more native plant material, the rain garden, and provide some ecological benefit that may not necessarily be there today. The owners of this tract of land, Mr. Vanderlaan and Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith actually lives across the street from this tract of land and has good relationships with all the surrounding owners. So when we talked about neighborhood outreach and whether we wanted to do a neighborhood meeting or something like that, because most of the surrounding property owners aren't within an HOA, we decided that we would put a letter together kind of explaining this request along with the exhibit that shows the overall improvements that we are proposing. And I've got a copy of that letter here. I don't know if you want to utilize the screen to look at it or not, but the exhibit that we provided them was the exhibit that's in your package that shows the rain garden and the open areas. Mr. Vanderlaan did reach out to the neighbors individually and had conversations with them. He let them know that if they had any additional questions, they could give me a call and I'd be happy to speak with them. I did receive one call from the neighbor that's directly to the east, Mr. Weingart, and he had some concerns, really just kind of wanted to understand the development, what was being developed, how drainage was being accounted for. So I walked him through that process. I let him know that we're, we haven't, well, we're in the process of starting the construction plans and we would do the design through that process and we'll show all the drainage patterns, how we're accounting for offsite runoff. And I let him know that within a few weeks, we should have some additional information and I would give him a call to further answer his questions and meet with him if he would like to meet. But the outreach was done by Mr. Vanderlaan and I did speak with one of the neighbors and didn't get any other requests for additional information. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding this request. - Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. Any questions? Okay. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Thank you for that explanation as well. Yeah. - Absolutely. - That's great info. - Thank you. Appreciate it. - Okay. This is a public hearing. I don't have any other cards in front of me for this item, but you are welcome to speak and you can fill a card out later if there is anyone else wishing to speak on this. Okay. With that, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and open the dance for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Pruitt. - I'll move approval as presented. - Great. I will second that. The first and a second for approval as presented. Is there any discussion? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion will carry five, zero. Our next public hearing item is 5D AESA 240002. Go ahead and open that public hearing. Christy's here for presentation of that item. And with your permission, I will summarize some of this a little bit more quickly since there's a lot of similarities between this plan and the previous one. That's okay with everyone? Okay. - Yeah, I think it gets the specifics of this property is certainly, I think, fine with everyone. - Okay. All right. So this particular one is for a property that is called Dentex. This is at the northeast corner of the intersection of John Payne and Johnson Road. And it was a subject of a amended comprehensive plan and zoning case that was approved in August for 52 acres of residential property and 21 acres of commercial residential high density. The alternative ESA plan is really focusing on the residential property. So we will dial in on that. The field assessment, again, we received information supporting that there's no riparian vegetation. This was, for years, has been used as an agricultural use and the floodplain is generally in its natural state, so hence we were regulating it as undeveloped floodplain because it hasn't been modified or filled in in the past. So the mitigation plan is, again, to establish native grasses, flowering plants, trees across the property. I wanted to dial in a little bit on the plant selections here. We carefully discussed plant discussions with this particular property because that spine there is actually a drainage, it's going to be a drainage swale when the construction is finished. And that conveyance of the water through the property, the lowest point in that conveyance will remain moist soils. And so we made sure that the selection of the native grasses and flowering plants is appropriate for the type of soils that are, you know, the final environment that these plants will be growing in. The applicant is also proposing three rain gardens on this property. There will be one at the western corner near the center of the property and this one a little bit northeast of the other two. And that rain garden will follow the same design standards as described in the previous public hearing. Again, notifications were made and staff did not receive any formal responses. We did receive a few inquiries about the project and responded to those in kind. And then the recommendations are very similar to the last public hearing. Here, actually two signs are being requested and other than that, you know, just following through with making sure that the product is installed as described and then that there is a plan for post-construction of the development. And with that, I'll stand for any questions on this one. Great. Thank you, Lucy. Any questions? Commissioner Pruitt? Thank you, Chair. Just one, I noticed that the current, you know, ESA would flow under two of the roadways within the proposed ESA plan. I also noticed that it's on our wildlife corridor plan. Are there, I would assume that there's some sort of culvert under the roads or something for drainage. Are there any best practices that we employ when a road is crossing an area that's on the wildlife mitigation plan to make sure that we're not allowing that infrastructure to cut off that plan? Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes sense. However, there is no conversations being had with the applicants about this at this time because the wildlife corridor concept has not been implemented into a plan. So until there is a plan or a policy set, staff does not have the authority to really go there with the applicants, happy to share any information that we can find and we can ask nicely if they're interested in implementing any of that, but at this time, that's about as far as we can go. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else for Christie? Okay. I do have another card for Mr. Fletcher, and I will let him come up and speak to this. Good evening. Thomas Fletcher, Kimley Horne, 6160 Warren Parkway. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you on this project as well. Commissioner Pruitt, just to, I guess, address your question that you had for Christie, those two roadway crossings, due to the amount of flow, there will be multiple barrel box culverts. If I'm not mistaken, we've already gone through and done our downstream assessment, our clomer that has been approved through the city process. I believe they're five by fives, like a triple. So there should be, when you install the box culvert, they're installed at the flow line, so animals moving through that corridor will have the ability, it's not going to be some small pipe that would prevent them from crossing through that area or cause them to go around onto the road to where they could get hit or something like that. So it should be able to adequately allow animals, wildlife to maneuver through that area. As far as the neighborhood meeting, when we went through, this property was under a restrictive covenant. We went through the process to annex and then zone. When we went through zoning, country lakes north, phase five B is what's adjacent to us to the south. It's a relatively newer development. There's a lot of houses in there that are still builder owned. When we did the zoning, what we did is we went through and we took letters and information on the project and kind of hand delivered that, took that around to all the owner occupied houses. So we took a similar approach with this. We prepared a letter, which I have, and then we prepared several exhibits. We showed the ESA exhibit, but we also showed, with our development, we've got a ZCP that's under review right now, and one of the things that we have to look at is there's a street tree requirement, and when you have developments, you, a lot of times because of the number of street trees that are required with driveways and other things that impact your ability to place those street trees, you end up placing them in open spaces. So not only are we doing the ESA mitigation that has the three rain gardens, we're also doing additional tree plantings that are going to be along that corridor. We have the trail. The trail isn't part of the mitigation, but we've been working with the Parks Department, and I know they wanted to have a corridor through here because there's parkland to our, to our east that we're adjacent to. So we had information. I did talk to one homeowner. It was a relatively new homeowner. He was a, on the fire department, I believe in Flower Mound. I don't recall his name, but he called, left me a voicemail. I called him back and we talked. I explained the project to him and answered, I believe I adequately answered all his questions. He appreciated the additional information. That was, actually that was through email correspondence, and I did provide that to the city. So didn't have any other inquiries on the project, but happy to answer any questions that you may have. There are going to be two retention ponds. Those will be wet ponds. So those will also provide a water quality and a habitat benefit to the project also. And appreciate your time tonight and happy to answer any, any questions. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher. Any questions? Yeah. Thank you, and while I have you up there, thank you for that correspondence. It was shared with us and yeah, you went back and forth a few times with this resident and his questions and it was great. It was, yeah, you provided him a lot of information and we couldn't ask for anything more than that. Thank you very much. Absolutely. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it. This is a public hearing. I don't have any other cards on this item. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item? Okay. Seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion. Commission approved. I'll move approval as presented. Commissioner Fagarin? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Let me just say before we vote, great presentation, Christy, Mr. Fletcher, the information you provided us in the reports were extensive and very detailed and this is always a hard concept to explain and understand and between the two of you, you presented it beautifully and it was easy to understand and so we know exactly what is happening here and what we're voting on. So thank you very much for that. First and a second for approval. Anything else before we vote? Okay. Let's go ahead and vote, please. That motion carries 5-0. That will take us to public hearing 5E, Z-240013. Ashley is here for presentation. I will open the public hearing. Good evening, Chair, members of the commission. Ashley Eckstead, Associate Planner. This is Z-2413, I-35 RV Supercenter. This is a request to rezone approximately 0.36 acres of land from a general office zoning district to a highway corridor zoning district. This property is currently undeveloped but it will be plotted as part of the existing RV sales use to the south and the east. The purpose of this rezoning is to address the nonconformities on that RV sales use lot and those are nonconforming land use and zoning setback requirements. The future land use is light industrial and light industrial does support associated supporting uses such as retail and the purpose of the HC zoning district is to provide high intensity commercial uses along the city's busiest and most visible thoroughfares and highly visible commercial corridors and this is along I-35E. It does meet the criteria for approval. It's consistent with the goals and policies of the future land use map, the comprehensive plan and it's also consistent with the HC zoning purpose statement. It's not expected to generate adverse impacts and it's not expected to have adverse impacts on surrounding properties. Notification was done. I posted in the newspaper and on the website and the sign was posted on the property. We mailed out notices to everyone within 500 feet and we did not receive any responses in opposition or in favor. Staff does recommend approval as it meets our criteria for approval and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much Ashley. Commissioner Villarreal. Thank you Chair. Thank you Ashley. I meant to ask this during the work session but if this isn't approved today would the strip of property remain nonconforming going forward and would they I guess they could still operate on the property line but they couldn't expand past their current? Correct. And we haven't discussed in detail what would happen if this wasn't approved but they could continue nonconforming but since we did make them get the permits for the buildings we didn't want to approve a permit for a building across the property line. So we haven't had detailed discussions yet of what would occur if this weren't to be approved. Gotcha. Thank you. Any other questions for Ashley? Yeah and you said they did oh Commissioner Perot go ahead. Thank you Chair. It may just be the the registration of the lines on GIS but when I went back and looked at this it looks like a parcel either within the same use or just to the south is has a PD with you know something like that is it helped me understand is that attached to the same owner operator or is that a separate parcel and it just looks like it's overlapping the parking lot? So that is part of the same RV sales use and that was a PD from 2007 and it required it was for this RV sales use it required 50 foot pavement in the display areas along 35 and landscaping. Okay so I guess my question with that information is are we setting up a situation where once they do a minor replat we'll still have split zoning within a parcel or is there some reason why that's not a concern here and so we're not asking for a rezoning of that PD in addition to this? So at the time that that when that PD was implemented RV sales wasn't permitted in that zoning district along that portion so it is PDHC now and it's just an overlay for that additional landscaping and pavement so it's really all the same RV sales use and HC zoning so we did not consider rezoning that portion as well. Okay that makes sense thank you. Any other questions? And you did say in work session that their buildings are now up to code and they have their permit to be operating slap on the wrist don't do that. Okay thank you this is a public hearing I don't have any cards in front of me for this item but is there anyone wishing to speak on this item? Okay seeing none I'm gonna go ahead and close that public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion. I will go ahead and do it I will move approval of the item as presented. Commissioner Pruitt. Second. We've got a first and a second for approval any discussion on that? Okay let's go ahead and vote please. That motion carries for one. That will move us to our final public hearing item tonight and that is 5F PD 240004. That public hearing was left open from our meeting on September 25th and Julie is here for presentation. Good evening Julie Wyatt let me pull up the presentation. All right good evening I'm presenting to you PD 240004 villages on McKinney. So the request before you is to rezone about 12 acres from R3 to PD6. The intent is to facilitate the development of 119 zero lot line dwellings on about 12 acres. The project property is located between McKinney and Paisley spanning that those two streets. It's about 250 feet wide at its narrowest and about 2000 feet long. So it's got an unusual configuration. McKinney East McKinney is a secondary arterial Paisley is a collector road. So before we get too far into the request I want to talk a little bit about the site data because as I just mentioned it is a bit unusual as we talked about in the work session. So I have a map of the property here. Not only is it really long and narrow but it also has a public utility easement running along the east side that's 42 feet wide which narrows the availability for developable area. On the other side of that on the east side of that easement is a drainage channel. You can see what that looks like in this photograph right here. You could see that the overhead power lines as well as that drainage channel. And this photograph just shows kind of from Paisley just how narrow that property is. So the applicant as I mentioned is proposing 119 zero lot line dwellings. They would be platted on individual lots so the use would be really a single family use. It's really those design considerations that are a little different. Each lot as they're proposed or each dwelling would have four parking spaces on each lot plus guest parking, off-street guest parking in the common area centrally located. If you look at the lot configuration here you'll see that the driveway is a little different than what we normally see in front entry driveways. Staff talked to the applicant and we wanted to make sure that we had as much uninterrupted sidewalk as possible along the street. So that's why they skinned up those driveways at the right of way still allowing cars to maneuver in and out but pinching it a little bit so we've got more sidewalk for safe pedestrian passage. As I mentioned the lot is long and we've got that easement along the east side. They did work with our parks department and DME to allow a 10 foot wide trail throughout that utility easement that would be open to the public maintained by the HOA. It would connect to the sidewalk on McKinney and then the sidewalk on Paisley as well as some internal connections to the public sidewalk in the development. They are also proposing to limit the number of stories on the structures to two stories maximum. You'll see on your screen we have what they're intending or what they would like to build in terms of one of the potential elevations. Also because of the narrowness there's a little difference in the street. So as we mentioned this is a PD and in PDs you do get to make some modifications to those minimum standards and in this instance it's related to the street design. So first of all because it is a really long street we did work with the applicant and they are proposing to have three traffic calming devices, speed cushions on the north and south side of the development as well as a traffic circle in the center to make sure people aren't just zooming through that long street. The street section is a little different than what we typically see within the city of Denton so they coordinated with our engineering group to provide a narrower street section. Typically neighborhood streets have a 55 foot wide street section and that accommodates 33 feet back of curb to back of curb. They are proposing to 51 feet so that would be 29 feet back of curb to back of curb. As part of that they would have to limit the parking to just one side of the street. That would still leave sufficient room for emergency vehicles as well as cars to maneuver through the site. That was another reason that we worked with them on that off street parking to make sure that there was adequate parking for guests or Amazon delivery, that sort of thing. Also as I mentioned in the work session, they did submit a TIA, it was approved and as part of that they will have to construct a left turn lane into the site onto McKinney to ensure that cars turning into the site get out of those travel lanes and are able to maneuver safely into the property. They submitted a landscape plan and that would be a part of the ordinance if approved. It includes landscape entry features on the south side and the north side to soften the entrance into the development, to add some visual interest and to make it a nice gateway into the development. They're also proposing to modify the landscaping standards on each lot so typically we require a certain number of landscaping in the front yard and backyard as well as a lot tree in the city of Denton. Because of the narrow lots it really wouldn't all fit and we really did try to get that lot tree but we felt like it was probably best just to have street trees. Once again that also calms traffic to have those street trees so they are proposing to have a street tree plus a 10% landscape area in the front yard. They're also proposing plaza area and central space in the central area right here. And the development is proposing 10% open space. So as we analyze this request we first looked at infill. So this lot is one of those lots that sort of remained or it kind of grew all around it but this lot remained and we looked at the comprehensive plan and what it says about infill and the goal LU1 talks about growing compactly that we should in order to achieve sound sustainable growth we should have compact development patterns. This property is located one and a half miles from downtown and about three quarter mile from loop 288 so it's definitely within our heart of our city. It's one of those infill lots so it's consistent with that infill goal of the comprehensive plan. So at the time of development it will kind of close that gap in the neighborhood fabric allowing some of those streets to continue and to have more connectivity through the area. It's also consistent with goal LU3 which is residential products that could be suitable infill in single family neighborhoods and that could include things like town homes, four plexus, du plexus and other types of low to moderate density housing. This is a product type we don't often see in Denton. We talked about it today of the areas where we have developments that are similar to this but I'm not aware that we have anything really exactly like this within the city of Denton. It's more akin to what we see maybe in a town home but this does provide an alternative housing type where someone who wants to own a home but have maybe a smaller lot with less maintenance and maybe not share a wall with their neighbor. It also is consistent with our housing and urban design goals in that it provides that once again that diverse housing stock, those different options for residential development. And it's also consistent with our urban design principles, things like providing that pedestrian safety with the off street trail and the driveways, improving the overall connectivity, having another connection between McKinney and Paisley as well as extending those adjacent neighborhood streets. It is surrounded by those existing established neighborhoods and it also provides that active recreation for residents. But as we've mentioned in other projects and what we talked about in the work session, there are competing interests within the comprehensive plan. There are things that we have to balance. So it conforms to our infill, our housing, our urban design standards but it is not consistent with our future land use map on just broad strokes in that it is low residential and low residential is intended for single family neighborhoods 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre. But it's important to know that the future land use map is that high policy direction. It doesn't necessarily account for specific site characteristics or encumbrances or context. And so it is something that we always look at first. It's one of the first things we look at when we talk about a project. It's a really good reference point for an analysis. But it's not our only consideration because we do have other goals within the comprehensive plan that aren't always encompassed by the future land use. And that's particularly relevant in infill situations. Commissioner Pruitt, you asked about densities at the work session. I just dropped this in because I had a spreadsheet. Looked at the overall densities of the adjacent developments. We have the residential developments along right here. The Maple Leaf Homes, that's a townhome development right along McKinney. The density is consistent with this proposal. The multi-family adjacent to and south of the development, those are a little bit denser. You can see we've got anywhere from 16 to 20 dwelling units per acre. Public outreach was sent out, and this map's a little out of date because I received some letters today, but we right now, I believe, have 12 letters in opposition, and that comes to 12.44% in opposition. Just know that doesn't reach that threshold of 20%, but it is a little different than what you see on your screen. The applicant also had two neighborhood meetings. I was able to attend one. There were concerns about things like traffic, visual impacts, and the applicant is here to be able to speak more about that. So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. It is scheduled for our city council next week, and as I said, the applicant is here. Thank you, Julie. Commissioner Perot. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Just one, just to make sure I'm doing the math right, and if you want to defer to the applicant, that's fine as well. I believe in our code, the R6-based district allows things like duplexes and fourplexes. Is that correct? It does. It has more residential uses within it. And so I'm just trying to, it sounds like a lot of homes in a smaller area, but I'm trying to think through, well, maybe there are some areas in town where there may be a street or two of duplexes, for instance. And so if that were true, I would think that the lots would be twice as big, right? Because it would have a two-family home on it. And then we would be looking at, instead of 120 lots over 10 acres, it would be like 60 lots over 10 acres. And the equivalent lot size, as I was looking at, and I know I'm probably not accounting for streets and everything, but it looks like somewhere between 5,000 and 6,000 square feet would be the effective area. Does that sound roughly within the ballpark? I tried to do that math as well, and you got a lot further than I did, so I can sit down and try to work it out for you. If other commissioners want a specific answer, that would be great. I don't need one. I'm just trying to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly, in that you could think of it as an R6 duplex development, except that we're allowing individual families to own their own home. Is that an accurate statement? Just between, yeah. Yes. I think that's accurate. I'll just say you can own a town home as well. Any other questions for Julie? Thank you. Thank you. But we may. So stay close. I do not have a card from the applicant. Is the applicant wishing to speak, Julie? She has a presentation and then I'll put it up right now. In that case, then I will allow that to happen. Here we go. Hi there. If you'll give us your name, you can begin your presentation. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Rob Dakey and I'm here with my colleague, Alexa Knight, who will also be participating in the presentation this evening. I am a land use attorney and civil engineer in Texas. We work around the state and have been asked to help with this project by our client, OAM Denton. So I won't spend much time on this. I think everyone's familiar with where we're at in space. The one thing I do like about this slide is it shows the mixed orientation of the single family lots that surround the periphery of this project. You'll see a mix of side lots as well as rear yards primarily on the east side of the project. But single family is not the only use of budding this property. We also have a little under half of the western boundary is adjacent to multifamily. One of the things that we feel like is really a pro for this project is it's a very rational step down in land use intensity, moving from the multifamily, which is present on the west, to a more dense single family detached product and then into the traditional detached existing subdivision to the east. As was mentioned, this is currently zoned R3. We're asking to go to PDR 6. And one other point I'll make on this slide is the thing that jumps out when you look at this is the width of the tract. There's 245 feet, very little to work with, and we'll talk a little more on how a significant portion of that's not even usable, which is really what drives an awful lot of this conversation. So we have a constrained site. It's difficult. Someone approaches us and says, "What should we do here?" The first thing we do is look at the comp plan. And as Ms. Wya mentioned, there appears to be a policy preference expressed in the comp plan for a certain amount of density, particularly in infill situations. I think all of us would agree it doesn't make sense to go in and push density everywhere throughout the city, but there are situations where taking a context-sensitive approach that may be the right decision. Our contention is that this is one of those. I think that paragraph on the lower right is really, really powerful, and I almost never read from a slide, but I want to read this because I think it's so on point for our situation. The city should take every opportunity to ensure that gaps in the neighborhood fabric occur in infill development, as the development of vacant or deteriorated properties will be encouraged, complementing the scale and character of each neighborhood. Infill development creates opportunities for more compact forms of development and affordable housing options, types of residential product that could be suitable infill, include single family neighborhoods as well as well-designed townhomes, quad apartments, duplexes, and other types. I think in many respects, what we're proposing is similar to a townhome, but it does provide that detachment. We're finding more and more that there's a market, certainly there's a townhome market. This is a little different in that it gives that little extra privacy that you don't have with a shared wall. My suspicion, I don't know this, but my suspicion is that this three-legged stool that's on this slide really serves as the policy basis for the preference for some level of density in an infill context. While some of that is always driven by geometry, and we certainly have that issue here, we also have the three legs of the fiscal stool. We want stable services, we want low density, we want low taxes. The reality is you get to pick two of those, it's just not a way to pick all three of those. Our contention is that applied responsibly, done with high design standards, this is the right use for this property for all of these reasons. Existing conditions, I mentioned we have 245 feet to work with. Along the eastern border running north-south, we have a concrete drainage channel, as well as high tension DME power lines for safety reasons. There's all kinds of controls and restrictions that go around those lines, which further constrains the developability of the site, and it really crams us into a tough situation. Also, back to the policy question just for one second, you'll note there's been some vandalism in that home in the upper right. I think it's an unfortunate sign of the times, but when we have these kinds of undeveloped parcels with development activity all around them, you have a lot of activity, but you have illicit activity that may take place on that open land. Again, going back to the genesis of some of those policy concerns in the comp plan, I think this is certainly a contributor is trying to impede these types of things from happening. With that, I'm going to turn this over to my colleague, Alexa Knight. Much shorter, Alexa Knight with Day Key Law, 322 West Walnut, Salina, Texas. What we have in front of us is an aerial view. Bird's eye view of the tract and the proposed development that's shown there in the center in the green. As Rob discussed, we have the multifamily, the fountains of Denton to the west of the tract. We have the substation at our front door to the south of the tract. That boarded up home is immediately to the right front of the entry. The R7 zoning is that vacant land that's right there, and then there's the single family on the north, west, and east side of the tract. We have been in the planning process and have not taken this lightly by any means over the past seven months. We've been into the city for the past five months. We've had two neighborhood meetings, as Ms. Wyatt has mentioned. In the very first one, I mentioned to the neighbors who attended, I said, "It's really great that you were members and residents of the city of Denton, because it's great for you, maybe not as much fun for the developer," because the city of Denton really does scrutinize or have the applicant scrutinize their plan when you come through with a PD. It's not just a straight zoning, it's a PD that has a concept plan. Our team has put together a TIA, the drainage analysis, and then also the tree protection plan, all of which the comments have been approved and all associated with this PD. As a result, when we originally came into the city, we did have a town home product on this also. We had a much more broader land use. Since we had the neighborhood meetings, since we've worked with staff, we've paired that back, so it's just a single family detached home product. We felt with the density and the drainage situation that this was more amenable, so we have 119 zero lot line units, not town home units, but this was a slide from our presentation to the neighbors. We've limited the building height to a maximum of two stories within that 40-foot height, which is the same for R3 or R6 zoning. The majority of the lots are 2,000 square feet. We do have some, about 37% of the lots are anywhere from 1850 to 2,000 square feet. That is because while this site looks perfectly rectangular, it's not. It's kind of like this, where there's a pinch point on the south side. If you're going to have more dense product, that's the place to have it, because that's where you have the other zoning categories with the multifamily and R7 zoning. As we talked about also, this just provides the city to provide their community another type of development. Not everybody wants to live in multifamily. Not everybody wants to have a large lot where I have to come home and I've got to mow on the weekends, but yet you want to own your own home. It does provide something that perhaps the city doesn't quite offer at this point. Sometimes this is important to the neighbors that we have this, that the waste management services will be a curbside for the development. This is a slide of rendering of what the front entry would look like. We have well-manned landscaped. Again, this is a benefit of doing a PD. All of these things are already vetted as far as what it's going to look like. This is the land plan that's in your packet, actually, that goes along with the PD. One of the things that we, when we met with the neighbors, there was a lot of discussion about traffic and connection. As you all well know, that when we put together a land plan, we just don't slap a bunch of buildings down on the land. We look at the comp plan first. We look at all the restrictions associated with the tract. We've gone through those, which is the drainage easement on the east. That purple line represents the DME restriction on that major overhead power line that goes through there. We have two existing streets from the neighborhood that stub up to the eastern property line that we must connect to. We have to have right-of-way that comes through the tract. Then on the west side, we also have another power line. While it's not on our property, it affects the development of our property. Initially, when we made application and we met with DME, we asked for a variance to be able to encroach into those easements, and we were denied that. That's why the variances to staff on a more narrow street came through. We do provide in this plan 27.5% open space, single family detached does not have any open space requirement. We do have the additional about 45 spaces of parking, because we've also added parking on the west side of the street in addition to the 20 lots that Julie mentioned. We're continuing the connectivity north and south with that 10-foot trail, and then also along the east McKinney Street on the shared path. This is just a rendering of a cross-section through the tract. This is the least constrained portion, which is along the northern side. When we met with the neighbors, we showed three different cross-sections. It was full disclosure. We talked about the least constrained to the north through the cross-section where the traffic circle is, and then also the most constrained section. One of the important things that we felt for the community and to make it a walkable community is we kept the landscape islands there six-foot wide so we could have those street trees, maintaining a five-foot sidewalk, and then also a 20-foot front yard setback. We've also heard the opposition from some of the neighbors about the potential for overcrowding the schools. One of the great opportunities here is limit urban sprawl. You have this infill tract. If we have a single family zero lot line development, how great would it be to be able to walk your kids to school right around the corner? We looked at the Alexander Elementary School, and they're actually operating at 78 percent capacity. There is capacity there for the school. This is a slide for the TIA. If anybody has specific questions, we have our civil engineer here, and we also have our traffic engineer to answer any specific questions. As I mentioned earlier, we did do a TIA. We barely tipped the requirement actually to do a TIA, but one was done. All the levels of service are to par with the city, and the developer will be constructing a left turn lane into the project. There will be additional pavement that will be built in order to accommodate that. Again, continuing the connectivity, we're dedicating that frontage along East McKinney to be able to accommodate the city's shared path connection, which will connect this track to downtown. Again, a mile and a half, that's perfect to bike, walk. It fits that urban infill. Then we're also providing the connectivity north and south, so if you need to get to the school, that's a great opportunity too. This is an elevation that was part of our packet, just saying that we've upgraded the elevations with the development standards, again, a positive for doing a PD. With that, we're here. The whole team is here for any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Questions at the moment for the applicant? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. It's probably for you since you mentioned the history of your development timeline. Yes. I wonder if you could comment and let us know ... It's no secret that I'm nervous about carving our city up into PDs when it's not necessary. I feel like maybe this one is in order to achieve this product. I'm sorry. I have to translate between developer speak and people speak. Are there any residential zoning districts that we have in our town that would allow you to achieve the price point that you're aiming for for these, or would the minimum lot sizes and open space requirements make it impossible to do that, essentially? That's a good question. That was the very first time we sat down, we looked at the code, we looked at all the different zoning sections, and when we had a pre-application meeting, it didn't fit in a specific box. But I think, again, it's probably a benefit to the neighbors because we had to do the PD. There was so much work that the developer ended up having to pay us to do, and to vet. I feel like every stone has been turned with regard to the drainage and the trees, et cetera. It's actually a benefit, I think. Okay. Thank you. Question. Staff didn't know the answer to this, but you may. Is the lot for sale, or is it under contract, or do you know? The lots will be sold individually. I mean, it's tracked. It is. It's currently owned. It's not under contract by somebody else. Okay. Because it does have a for sale sign on it. Is that a former for sale sign from a while back? Correct. Yes. Yeah. I know. Okay. Okay. Anybody else right now for the applicant? No? Thank you. Thank you. Julie, question. Did you talk to Solid Waste? I know she mentioned that they have curbside. I'm just wondering, have they looked at this? Yes. Solid Waste reviewed it. What kind of truck are they bringing through there? When you look at here, it would be our normal Solid Waste trucks. Okay. With the restriction of the parking to one side, actually, the travel lanes would be a little wider than the 55 feet with parking on both sides. So it really, and that was something that we worked with with FHIR and our transportation folks is to make sure that there was sufficient space for emergency vehicles, Solid Waste, all of those. So, yes. Okay. And I know we did the TIA. You know, there's a significant blind spot on Paisley with regard to, particularly, if you're coming on, I think it's Long Meadow onto Paisley. This particular tract of land juts out forward in front of that, which obviously there's no cars coming there now because it's undeveloped, but obviously there will be. Did anyone discuss that, think about that? Paisley's not gonna have any mitigation, correct? I'm sorry? Paisley's not gonna have any mitigation, correct? Correct. Correct. I'll call the applicant. Sure. Of course. Yeah. Please. Now, Julie, how do I get back to my presentation? Does that help? Okay. I'm gonna just click on one of these. Okay. So... This one. There you go. Okay. So, we did look at the line, our engineers did look at the line of sight, and as you can see here on Paisley, the lots don't start until further back, and so there's tree preservation there. Oh, sure. So, between the tree preservation and the fact that there are no units there, that line of sight is open. As open as it can be. Right. Given the geometry. That's what I'm saying. The topography doesn't change. It still is... Yeah. Correct. I think the people in this development would be fine. It's the people that aren't gonna be able to see this because it's in front of them. Okay. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Pedrone, question for the applicant or... Either applicant or staff. Okay. Yeah, go ahead. It's regarding the parking. So, if I understand correctly, just so I can visualize it appropriately, parking is recommended to be on one side of the street so travel can move freely on the other sides. Is that correct? Correct. In the event that, you know, that's not respected and parking occurs on both sides, what happens? For, let's say, service vehicles, so emergency services or our city services. I would assume, and Hillary or Tina may want to jump in, but that would be an enforcement issue with the police. Not necessarily with enforcement, but accessibility. So, let's say that parking is on one side of the street and let's say that's not necessarily respected by all the residents and parking occurs on the other side of the street. Does that then limit accessibility to emergency services or city services because of the narrowness? So, in my opinion, no, and the reason being is because the street pavement under this PD is 33 feet in width, or 30... 29 feet. 29 feet. Okay. So, hold on. Let me redo my math. Right. So, you're still able to maintain at least one travel lane through there if there was two cars parked on either side. So, I assume 29 foot wide pavement width with eight feet being allocated on either side for parking. So, that's 16. So, I came up with 29 minus 16 is 13 feet. So, 13 feet is actually wider than a typical travel lane on a street. So, like in some of our other residential neighborhoods, it's comparable to a fire truck or other solid ways having to maneuver through those neighborhoods. Thanks. Okay, Commissioner Thaggert for the applicant or... Okay. Thank you, Chair. You'd mentioned talking to Alexander Elementary School and saying that they were... At what capacity, again, did they report? I didn't speak with them. I just was online with regard to their 23, 24 data, and they said in there it stated that it was 78%. Okay. I wonder, based on the data that you found, if they considered the substantial budget cuts that have come as a result of ESSER dissolving and them having to pull a lot of professionals out of there, particularly with a lot of the students that are high needs in that area. So, I'm just wondering if 78%, like what that may have been based on, I'd have to look at that data, but I was just wondering because I'm always asking about, as a former principal and teacher, I'm always asking about the schools and what the impact of having that many more children going to that elementary school could look like for those teachers and for that staff. Thank you for answering that. Commissioner Pedro, you have another question? Oh, yeah. Go ahead. Just kind of to add to Commissioner Thaggard's question, there was a comment made about the likelihood of increasing pedestrian traffic to the schools and, I guess, mitigating some of the traffic concerns that the development could bring. Is there any data or have there been studies that have been conducted that says on average how much pedestrian traffic schools or residences in a certain proximity to the schools would generate? So, is it something that we're hoping for or is there data that would support a residential neighborhood this close to the school? There's a likelihood of X amount of percentage of people walking. I'm not aware of any studies. What we do, I try to do with the development and with the review process just to make sure that there's a safe walking route to schools, and so that's really kind of what we were looking at in terms of this project. As far as then what does that translate to, I'm not aware of any. I was going to say I'm not aware of any studies either. To Julie's point, with any single family residential subdivision, we try to ensure that we've had adequate sidewalks that are provided throughout so that if families do want the option to be able to walk to nearby schools, that they're provided a safe opportunity to be able to do so. Seeing no one else wishing to ask questions at the moment, we'll move on with the public hearing. I'm going to start in front of me by George Terry. Hello if you'll state your name. Your time will begin. My name is George Terry. I live at 2308 Eagle Nest. On that map you see a white line with a circle at the end of it in the middle of that property. That's me right next to the property line. I have several questions. One is first and foremost as we talked about a neighborhood hearing, now I'm not saying it didn't take place, but I live right next door to it and I was never notified of it. First I've heard of it is when they mentioned it right here. I'm not saying it did not happen. I'm saying I wasn't notified and that bothers me. Second thing is, and this is my big one, I've got several, but I've got a big one. We had power lines there, the high power transmission lines, which they moved a couple hundred yards east, and they cut telephone poles down and it's just a local telephone line service. Now when we moved in we had no problem with the setback. We couldn't build anything within 40 feet. Well I called today and they said 42.6 inches, but still 40 feet. How far back are these houses going to be from the property line? Now if we're 40 feet on one side and they only, I've been told 10 and I've been told 13. Either way, let's go with 15, why are they getting 25 more feet use of their property than we are? It's the same power line. Now I've been up P&Z several times since they've cut it down and because when we moved in we knew it was there. It was no problem. We moved in knowing that. But when they cut it down, I went up there several times to ask for a quick claim. And P&Z staff, including again today, told me all I would be doing is wasting my time, money, and effort because once the city gets the setback they don't give it up. I was told that again today. I don't like the idea that you're preferring these people over us. We've been there for, in my case, 40 years. Now I've had to build everything and I live in the end of cul-de-sac, that's my fault, but the 40 foot takes away a tremendous amount of my property. So when I build a shed or whatever, if you notice everything is 40 feet away. If you go out there and you look right down the line and see all the houses, everything is 40 feet away and they're on a straight line because everybody got as close as they could to that 40 foot and built that way. Don't like that. Next thing is, the street, I know what you're saying, the street's too narrow. You get, and they will park on both sides, are you kidding me? I was a mailman, retired being a mailman, retired other thing. Rarely in a less than, I don't want to say a poor neighborhood. I don't mean it that way, but they will park on both sides. We never had one that didn't do that. Now in the high rent areas where you got 200 foot lots, we didn't have that problem, but in this small stuff, they park on both sides of the street and you're not going to tell me that they're going to be able to get a trash truck or whatever through there because people don't park right next to the curb. Quite often they'll come out a foot or two. That takes up that much more space. I just don't see that being feasible. Next thing is density. If you look, I believe all the traditional houses there have like three and a half or something, I saw it up there a minute ago, whereas they're asking for what on this density per? What's the density that they're asking? The correct density per acre I think is about 10. 10. Okay. Totally different than what we're there. Now you talk about the apartment and that's true. That's the front part of their property. They got it open on the other side where it hasn't been developed, but for the back half, more than half in fact, you've got families been there for a long time and when the apartments went in, we agreed to it because they agreed to do two things, one they stayed 40 foot back from the fence line. That was agreement made to put those apartments in. Second thing they did is they made sure that there was no windows facing the houses upstairs. I'm going to ask you to finish up, just because your time is in it, I'm going to ask you to wrap up. Your point, go ahead. Well, I saw a picture there that there are going to be windows on the back. The apartments didn't do that and they agreed to be 40 feet away. By the way, the walk into school is a disaster now. Our fences are constantly being knocked down because the kids don't want to walk all the way around. You'd literally knock the fence down, make holes in it and go through as a shortcut going to school. Do you really think adding 130, 116 families is going to cut down on that? They're not going to walk all the way around, would you? Thank you. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I will ask, I guess the applicant this question, how was the neighborhood meeting advertised? We were given all the names and addresses for the 200 and 500 foot notification and the mailing was sent out, mailed it. He should have gotten one, he's definitely, he's right there in the middle. Thank you. I don't have any other cards in front of me wishing to speak, but this is a public hearing, so please feel free to do so and you can fill one out later. Mr. Lee, you know the drill. Yes. My name is Charles Lee. I'm going to just keep it short. I mean, it's a tough sell because of the geometry and I just feel like you guys are just trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Maybe just like not all land just can be developed because it is, you're trying to pack a lot of people in and a long narrow piece of property and I get the developer's point of view, if you cut down on density, it just might not be profitable just to build anything there. So maybe it's just not meant to be to be developed and maybe it's just better just put a nice park in there with some trees. The city does have eminent domain powers and you could just take it over and just build a nice park out of it, put some trees in there, a walking park and that's pretty much all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Lee. Is there anyone else wishing to speak? Yep. Yep. Come on down. Just state your name and your time will begin and you can fill out a card afterward. Hi. Hi. My name's Patricia Wood. I live on Paisley Street just down. I actually have your card now wishing to speak but please go right ahead. Okay. Thank you. I agree with both the first, especially the speaker that spoke first. That's going to be a huge problem. He's very much correct on how people park. I just want to add to what he said, there's a lot of working people in our neighborhoods. There's a lot of construction equipment, a lot of trailers, things like that and that takes a lot of room on the streets. I'm very concerned about that. I'm just right on the edge of that 200 yard whatever so I had no idea on the public meetings or anything. I think they need to include a lot more neighbors because it impacts us down the street as well. The school is horrendous as far as traffic. I got off work early yesterday at three o'clock right when school let out. I sat there for 15 minutes and couldn't get through on Paisley. So we're adding another 116 houses with how many kids now? I don't even think they're going to be able to get in their neighborhood to get home. They are around that time of day. Another thing I hear is restriction on space. I've heard it multiple times from all these people, no room for trees, no room for, you got concerns about garbage people picking up, the mail people, emergency equipment. Your numbers match but I don't see that happening. I would suggest, I love the idea of these single family smaller homes. I love that idea of mobile housing but I think why don't you put the houses on one side, make the street wider, have a nice walking path, you got your drainage, you don't have to worry about that. Call it a day. I know it's less money for these folks but I think you need to consider the people who have been there 30, 40, 50 years and there's a lot of us there. Thank you. >> Thank you for sharing your thoughts, appreciate it. Next card I have is Barbara Whitson, hello, if you'll state your name your time will begin. >> Barbara Whitson and the address I'm talking about is 2605 East McKinney Street, it's right next door on McKinney Street on the other side of the culvert and they want to put 119 units next to it, two story and that would be a solid wall next to my property and I do not want and I'm opposing it and also whenever you put 119 units there, that's going to be at least 238 vehicles that's been going either McKinney Street or Audre Lane and they want to go in and knock down all the trees and we plant them and how long does it take for the trees to grow? Many years and we've already restricted to two days a week for water and now they want to put a lot more houses all over Denton and I don't see an end to it but anyway, I'm opposing to it being built next door to my property. Thank you. >> Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item, come on down. Hi there, if you'll give us your name, your time will begin. >> Hi, I'm Matt Meraki. >> You can bring that up if you'd like to. >> Appreciate it. Thank you guys for your time today. I live over on 2416 Long Meadow, I know we kind of talked a little bit about Long Meadow right there being next to Paisley, I talked to a few of my neighbors and I took a couple of notes just from what they wanted to say, they couldn't make it tonight, so I just wanted to bring it up. One of the biggest things that they're worried about is the 119 units there, are they going to be used for rentals or short term rentals? Is that something that could possibly come in the future? Nothing against single family homeowners, I think that they're just a different breed. I think that whenever you get renters, especially around the colleges and everything, they treat the properties differently. We're talking about those narrow roads as well and saying how there's a rule that they're going to park on one side, but I do definitely feel like that will be broken as well. That just kind of leads to the main point, some people are bringing up with traffic concerns and safety. The increase in vehicles just from the 119 additional houses is just going to cause local streets, not just Long Meadow, not just the road that they're building, but mainly Paisley and McKinney. We're looking at two roads that are just one single lane each and just both side traffic. I know there's talking about building that left lane to go into this development as well. Will that be considering widening the street on McKinney as well because it just doesn't seem feasible? We have so much traffic coming from 288. We have so much traffic trying to get to the highway. We have people going on Woodrow coming from Chapel, just trying to get over to back to their homes and it's already congested. I'll talk about the school as well, people were very concerned about just the safety over there. Two, three o'clock every day, traffic goes right in front of my house just for the car lines. The overflow goes into the neighborhoods right above in the streets right above because people just park their cars and let their kids walk straight to the cars there, so they're just constantly going across the streets and everything. The idea of having a road straight from McKinney to Paisley into these homes, we've already had people this past year, just homeless, whether it be somebody and they're talking about the vandalism of that house on that side there that's kind of run down. People are a little worried that is that going to come to our neighborhoods as easier access? That was just one thing brought up. Infrastructure was just something else people were talking about too, just water, electricity, everything, utilities over there with 119, trash, pickup, fire trucks, everything over there is already in place, is that something that we can maintain with the additional units? A lot of people around me were worried about the environmental right there, the birds. There's a lot of natural birds around there. They've made nests, there's wildlife over there. They're just wondering how this is going to impact that and if there's been an environmental study done or anything about that, how this is going to impact it. Then lastly, it's just to the community. Our neighborhood right here, it's quiet. It's nice having that elementary school right there. They just put up that new playground. Everyone loves to go there and just hang out after work and everything. It's really nice and quiet and having these extra 119 units kind of brings up some worries. What's that going to be like? Just even with development, how much traffic is that going to be? What's the noise going to be like? While they're building everything, how hard do you have these heavy utility vehicles in the area? A couple of the concerns brought up and then I think ... Oh yeah, I already said this, but the rentals, they're just wondering just as a solution, is a moratorium allowed? Is there some sort of situation where you could say, "Hey, you purchased this property. You have to live there for six months to a year or two years and there can't be short-term rentals like Airbnbs," or something like that, because I mean, Den's becoming this great tourist place. I mean, we're having so many things here now. We're getting a lot of people coming in from out of town, but it's the neighborhood there and it being impacted by people coming from out. Thank you guys. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Yeah, I guess just to address those, I mean, short-term rentals would certainly be something that would be allowed. I think I saw that actually in the PD and there would be nothing restricting these units, these garden homes, for I guess lack of a better word, I'm not zero lot line homes, from being rentals, right? They can be, I mean, there's going to be no HOA in place that is going to restrict that, I don't think to my knowledge. And certainly we as a city can't restrict if somebody can rent their property or not. I don't have any other cards in front of me. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item who has not already? Okay, seeing none, I will go ahead and close the public hearing and I will open the floor for a motion or discussion. I'm going to look at my notes in the meantime. Commissioner Villareal. Thank you, Chair. Really appreciate the presentation. Due to the fact that it does not conform with the future land use map and concerns regarding traffic and the neighboring folks here in the community, I'm going to move to deny this application. Okay. We have a motion on the floor to deny. Do we have a second? All Commissioner Prud'homme? I second. Okay. We've got a first and a second to deny discussion. Commissioner Prud'homme is on the floor. Thank you, Chair. A couple, a couple of questions, I think for staff, these are more just general planning questions. I heard a lot of concerns from the community about, I think Commissioner Villareal summed it up about traffic and safety and that sort of thing. If we look at sort of a even apples to oranges measurement of a future where this as proposed gets built versus a future where an additional, call it 120 students are enrolled in Alexander Elementary, but they're living further away, which one would you anticipate to create more traffic and more of a burden to the community? Well, the comprehensive plan talks about Infill as being something that the city desires because it is already served by existing roadways, utility, schools, services, it also puts residents closer to where we have those facilities and services, so it's something that the comprehensive plan talks about as a more desired way to grow. In terms of specifically, I don't know if I could predict how any individual resident would behave in terms of driving their kid to school versus walking. Once again, it is something that we do try to always look at with a development and a proposal as to how it connects to those existing sidewalks, pedestrian areas, and you know, for instance, the utility easement, whenever we have one in a development, we always try to get a trail through it because it does allow more direct access through those linear corridors. So as far as specifically, I don't think I can answer it, but generally, you know, Infill situations are something that the comprehensive plan looks favorably upon. And then just a procedural question, if this body were to deny this application, I guess that would be a recommendation of denial, and then if city council also denied it, then that would trigger the, is it a one-year or two-year clock before they can come back with a plan that's substantially different? One year, unless, yes, unless it's substantially different. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'll just say, you know, everybody needs to vote how they feel led. I just want, my concern is that we all understand what the trade-offs are. And so the trade-offs to saying no to this are basically saying that we don't want homes at this price point in this neighborhood. And so the question is, well, why? And if not here, where? You know, there already are homes just northwest of Alexander, sort of on Mack Place, Mack Drive, that little half-circle area that are 35-foot wide lots. They're technically R4. They're not conforming, but to me, the density here and the feel of the neighborhood is not wildly different, and it'll give more people an opportunity at home ownership. So thank you. Thank you. The motion on the floor is to deny. Is there any other discussion? Yeah, I'll just say a few words. I'm not against infill development. I think this piece of property is super difficult, the way it's configured. I think density feels different depending on how the lot is laid out, and it sure seems like we are just trying to force this in there, because what have we done? We're making up different setbacks that we don't have for other people. We are having a use that we don't even have described, I don't think, right now in our development code. So I'm all for trying to make things work, but to me, it's just trying to force this in there, and effectively, we're changing the zoning on this. That's what this request is, is a PDR6 zoning. There could be less density here. It's not going to be as profitable for the landowner. That's the bottom line for it, unfortunately. I'm not against houses going in here. The walkability factor is good. It's trying to cram 119 units into this oddly shaped lot to be able to cram 119 units in. I don't even know how these people are going to maneuver on a busy timeframe when trying to go to work, how they're getting in and out of here. Truly, you've got a straight line, you're either going out to Paisley or you're going out to McKinney, neither of which is ideal at certain times of day for making any kind of move right or left. We don't have traffic lights. We've got site constraints on Paisley. I mean, drive that. That is a site constraint now. If you're on Long Meadow, you're basically kind of like, "Okay, I think I can go." This is just adding more to that. Again, I'm not against infill. I'm not against trying to put some residential here. This feels extremely forced to me. With what we've heard and what we know and what we can see as proposed, it's not anything I can get behind as it's presented. Commissioner Villarreal. Thank you, Chair. Just to echo some of those points, yeah, fully support the creation of more townhome neighborhoods. I live in a townhome in the villages of Carmel, very much love my townhome, but our goal is to not maximize the profits for each parcel. Our goal is to make sure it conforms with the current use of the land, it conforms with the future land use map. This just doesn't do that, so with that, I really do think this plan just doesn't make sense for the area. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Perdo. Just to provide some additional context with my thoughts, I agree. There are elements of this proposal that I think are really exciting and refreshing. There are opportunities for homeownership that may not exist currently, because it's difficult for many of our residents to achieve. I like that this is brought forth. I like some of the elements of this proposal. It's just, I agree with Chair Ellis, I think it's just too much, given the context of the size. Okay, and just speak one other point that I forgot. The dream of homeownership, obviously, is something that many people strive for. The issue with this is, most likely at the price point it would be, it would be inviting an immense amount of investors in our town that has a lot of rental need because of our universities. There's nothing to say that that would be 119 single family homeowners who are going to reside there, unfortunately. Okay, there is a motion on the floor to deny. Is there any further discussion? Okay, let's go ahead and vote on the board, please. That motion will carry 4-1. That will take us to our planning and zoning matrix. I will turn that over to Tina. I was counting commissioners to make sure we saw the court. Oh yeah, we sure did. Let's see. Two weeks ago, when I gave the matrix report, I shared with the commission that we would be doing a report on multifamily housing counts, properties that are entitled, versus units under construction, what have you, that's taken us a little longer to pull that data together. We were anticipating later this month that your August 23rd, or excuse me, October 23rd, not August, but in all likelihood that's going to be November, so just wanted to give you an update on that. There's no city council actions to report since their last meeting in terms of zoning and development cases. There was a new commissioner appointed. Unfortunately, she was not able to join us this evening, but Commissioner Lillian Prado Carrillo is going to be joining the commission as well. That concludes my report. Thank you. Anything to add to the matrix? Commissioner Pruitt. Thank you, Chair. Two things. First one, brief, I'll just throw it on there. If perhaps council does approve this application next week, then I think we need sort of an update on the mobility plan in this area of town. There's a lot of things going on, be it the concrete trail grant award, the approval from the bond, and actually I think it was some city funds and trip funds for the sidewalk along McKinney. I'd like to see a method, again, contingent on this going forward through council, to extend that trail connectivity across McKinney Street down toward the concrete trail, specifically just let's plan it before we sink a bunch of capital money into it and then have to rip it up and redo it to achieve that, if that makes sense. And then secondly, I think given some of our discussions at our work session today, I would like to see a broader discussion about how sort of communal living or those types of solutions with small homes could be achieved. My research into this is that that was basically punted during the 2019 code development, and I'm sure Commissioner Ellis could give me more details, but it was a sticky wicket, and so we just said, okay, well, if we do this, it has to be a PD. I think there's various concerns about where communities of lower income allowing people to get up and transition from hard times should go or shouldn't go, but ultimately unless we set forward some clear development regulations of this is what it has to be and this is how it has to function and this is how it has to be sensitive to surrounding neighbors, if we leave it as you have to do a PD, I'm concerned that it's just never going to happen or maybe it wouldn't happen in places that would give those people reasonable access to things they need. So I recognize that's a big ask, it's still a sticky wicket. Are you asking for a work session, discussing tiny homes? Yes, and specifically how could we move forward to making them buy right in some manner within some zoning district? In some manner. Okay. Sure. Anything else for the matrix? Tina, I guess with just what you said about it taking some time to gather that data for multifamily, you said it would be November, okay? Not sure what's on our agenda between now and then, but that was my whole goal for asking about it because I know we have been getting backlogged and things have been getting postponed that are going to have to do with multifamily coming forward, so I'm hoping there's not a whole lot between then and now. Yeah, we're just trying to consistently replicate the data and working through our limited data tracking sources, and so wanting to make sure that the data we do provide you all is as close as factual as we can and so that's been our challenge with respect to that. So it's not that we're not trying to provide it, it's just we're trying to work through having consistent application each time we pull the data, so. Understood. Thank you. Just had a fair summary, Haley, so yes. Okay, appreciate that. Any concluding items? Okay, with that, I'll go ahead and adjourn our meeting at 8 16 p.m. Thank you.