Good afternoon at 4.31 p.m. this Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025, I will call this meeting
of the work session for the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission to order with
a quorum present.
Our first item is any citizen comments on the consent agenda.
I don't see anyone wishing to speak on those.
Next we have clarification for items on the agenda.
Any questions on the item, on the consent agenda from the commission members?
No, okay.
Individual consideration items, there were one update here.
Any questions on the calendar?
Staff does a pretty good job of this, but sometimes we've caught a few things.
Okay, let's go ahead and take a look at the consent, I mean, individual consideration
item, first one.
The plat, correct?
Yes, sorry.
Good afternoon, Angie Manglars, Assistant Planning Director.
This is a final plat for the reserve at Brush Creek.
It is a plan development with the base zoning of R4.
At this time, this final plat is not meeting our criteria for approval.
Staff is recommending denial, but does not have any objection to the request of extension,
which could be granted to November 17th.
This would be their second extension request, and I'm happy to answer any questions you
all may have.
Any questions?
I don't see any, thank you.
Then the second item, 4C, FR250020, good afternoon, Julie.
I'm presenting FR250020, it is a replat of the Eden Village development located just
on the west side of Loop 288, south of Audra.
It is a fourplex development, triplex and fourplex development.
They have addressed all of staff's comments, so I don't know if you received that email
this afternoon, but staff modified their recommendation to approval, and I will be happy to answer
any questions.
Any questions on this?
The updated plat was sent by email, so okay, I don't see anything, thank you, Julie.
Brings us to our public hearings, item 5A, HL250002.
Good afternoon, Cameron Robertson, Historic Preservation Officer.
For many of y'all, this is the first time you're seeing a historic landmark designation
come through, so I just wanted to do a brief education portion, and then I'll go into my
summary slide.
Just to give you all some background of what a historic landmark is defined as within the
city of Denton, it is officially recognized by the city for its outstanding architectural,
archaeological, cultural, social, economic, political, historical significance, so it
can be any one of those things.
Presently, the city of Denton does have 68 local historic landmark designations, three
of those which actually came forward to the P&Z during 2024.
It is a zoning action, so it is a three-step process.
It has already gone to the Historic Landmark Commission, it is now coming forward to the
Planning and Zoning Commission, and then it will later go to the city council.
Just some benefits of historic landmark designations, it does appreciate a greater rate.
Staff has actually done research for this, and it is true, a lot of the times people
hear that it's rumor, but it's actually the case.
It is eligible for a local historic tax exemption here in Denton, and there's also that visible
recognition of the plaque on the property.
It does also encourage better design, as sometimes, depending on the work that's being done, the
Historic Landmark Commission does review those projects.
It protects from swift demolition, and then it also increases community pride and awareness.
The request for this evening is a historic landmark designation for 3316 Roselon Drive.
It does meet approval criteria 359 and 11 from our Denton Development Code.
It is the zoning of R4, so that residential zoning.
It meets our goal CC2 of the Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as well as goal number one, policy 1.3
of our 2019 Historic Preservation Plan, so staff is recommending approval, as it does
apply with the criteria from the Denton Development Code, as well as our two individual plans.
Any questions on this item?
Commissioner MacDuff?
Yes, I'm concerned that this was one of the founders of the Lions Club in Denton, and
so I just wanted to get that out there.
You know, that's of concern to me.
Not really a concern, but I appreciate putting it in there and giving us a perspective and
historical perspective on that.
My question is, did the owners come to you to make this request, and this was owner driven?
Yes.
In the e-commit that we had today, there were several, one of the neighbors said there were
some other houses in that same circle that could qualify as well on Roselon.
That was an interesting point.
Original four home locations that came in late, so it caught my eye.
But are there cases where the city identifies homes that might qualify for historical designations?
That's a great question.
So each month in front of the Historic Landmark Commission, the staff does bring forward a
reoccurring item where the Historic Landmark Commission can bring forward properties that
they believe are eligible for historic designation at the local level.
If everyone on the commission does agree that it needs to be added to the list, then staff,
myself as a historic preservation officer, sends a letter of designation interest to
the property owner, and then the property owner usually at that point tells staff whether
or not they want to pursue it, or they usually ask for additional information, at which point
staff does additional education and training, and then they can decide whether or not they
want to pursue the designation.
Is that on a cycle, or do you all do that on a cycle, where you identify?
It's just each month, if HLC brings forward a property that they're interested in designating.
Thank you.
Anything else?
I don't see anything.
Thank you very much, Cameron.
It brings us to second public hearing, PDA 0002.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt.
So tonight I'm presenting PDA 25-2, it's for a charter school.
Just a quick summary of the proposal.
So this is in Plan Development 139, it's about 15 acres.
It's located on the south side of Vintage, east of 35W.
The PD was approved in 1991, so it's one of our older PDs in the city.
And the purpose of the request tonight is to modify an approved site plan for the charter
school.
In 2020, the school came to the city and went through this process to lay out the site.
They have made some changes to their site plan, including removing about four and a
half acres from the north side of the site, reducing the building footprint and open space.
They are removing the high school for the time being, and then reconfiguring the parking
and access.
So really it is just related to that site plan.
Staff does recommend approval of the proposal as it does meet the criteria for approval,
and I will be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Dyer?
I'm going to assume that the applicant is obviously aware of the apartments in the new
travel gas station area that's going to be there, and they must, I'm assuming they must
be okay with that.
Having, you know, putting a school next to that, like does that, any of our planning
and zoning, like the buffers and things like that, does that conflict with it?
I mean, I know you were recommending, so everything must be good, right?
It meets all setback requirements and buffering requirements.
The apartments are there, so they are aware of that, and then they have been communicating
and regarding the other elements to the PD and that commercial use.
They went through the TIA process because they did a TIA in 2020, but a lot's changed
in the area, the multifamily and the commercial.
That's why I asked the question, because 2020, that's five years ago, and those items, you
know, the apartments and the travel center may not have been on the horizon then.
That is exactly right, and so that's why we had them update that TIA to bring in that
additional background traffic.
Does that answer your question?
Is that good?
Okay, good.
Anything else?
I don't see anything else.
Thank you, Julie.
All right.
Thank you.
That brings us to our last public hearing tonight, PD250004.
Hello again.
Angie Manglaris.
This is PD250004, Brush Creek Center.
Want to give a little bit of context on this one.
We just talked about the reserve at Brush Creek Final Platt, so this is a request for
a rezoning that is the remainder of that overall parent tract.
The subject property today is located at the intersection of Brush Creek and US377, two
primary arterials.
It is currently zoned Residential 1, and they are requesting to rezone to Plan Development
Suburban Corridor.
It's 2.63 acres of land, and really the purpose of the PD overlay is to provide additional
use restrictions and development standards to ensure compatibility in the area.
Initially, the Brush Creek project actually did come in as one zoning request for the
residential portion and the suburban corridor portion, and the Planning and Zoning Commission
in 2023 remanded it back to the applicant to take a closer look at what could be done,
including buffers and use standards, and so the applicant came back, or they came back
in two different waves, first the residential and now the commercial remainder.
So overall, this does comply with our criteria for approval.
It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and that neighborhood mixed use designation.
Staff is recommending approval, and I do have a longer presentation to go through during
regular session, but I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have now.
Any questions? Commissioner MacDuff? Yes, what were the neighbors' concerns when
this first went through, and then we opted for an overlay plan development?
Sure, so when this first came through in 2023, it was for the entire 18-acre tract.
Approximately 15 acres of those were residential, and primarily along this -- I mean, you can
see here what is now designated as PDR 4.
They were requesting, I believe it was an R6 zoning district at that time, which was
a little bit more dense than what is found in the ETJ as you continue to travel east
on Brush Creek Road.
So a lot of the concerns were related to that new residential use and some of the buffering
between existing homes and new homes.
So the applicant came back last year with a PDE for that residential portion.
The zoning district was residential R4 with a slightly larger lot size than what you would
see under today's R4 or standard R4 and some additional buffering.
They did choose to leave that commercial corner out, have had several neighborhood meetings.
Some of the concerns were what uses could be allowed there.
They are requesting suburban corridor, which does allow for some more intensive uses.
It is designed to be along roadways like Fort Worth Drive, a more high-traffic corridor.
And so by way of this PDE overlay, the applicant is restricting approximately -- I think it's
15 uses, and those are typically the more intensive uses that are allowed on suburban
corridor.
So it reduces some of those incompatibilities by ensuring those more intensive land uses
can't go in.
>> Okay.
Any other questions?
I don't see any.
Thank you.
That brings us to our work sessions for this afternoon.
First item is 3A, PZ25-189, report, discussion, and suggestions or recommendations on the
City of Denton criteria design criteria manual update.
>> Good afternoon.
I'm Brett Bourgeois, the City Engineer, and I'm here today to talk to you about our proposed
changes to the design criteria manual for the City of Denton.
So quick overview.
I know a lot of you are new, first time going through this process, so we have an outreach
plan that we like to do, kind of go through the background of what the criteria manuals
are, discuss some of the highlights of the updates that we're proposing and what our
next steps are.
These are very technical documents that are used to design all the different infrastructure
for the city.
So with that in mind, we have a whole staff of technical experts from the city on hand
to answer any questions that you may have that I cannot answer myself.
So the first thing we want to do is kind of discuss our public outreach plan.
It's a very lengthy process because we're impacting not only capital projects, but also
development projects.
We need buy-in from all the different boards and commissions, and so we started this process
off in September.
We sent a notice out to the development community that we are starting this revisions to our
criteria manual.
Today, or this morning, we had a developer town hall where we presented some of the highlights
of the revisions.
We're here today to present to you some of those highlights as well.
On Friday, we'll be posting the revised document online to solicit public comment and feedback
from the development community and other engineering communities.
In November, we'll be presenting to the Texas Society of Professional Engineers, as well
as publishing in the newspaper for a public hearing for the adoption of it.
We'll go to Mobility Committee, BUB, and then finally City Council in December with an effective
date, planned effective date of January 1st.
So it's kind of a big push to get all the information out of what we're proposing.
So a little background on how we do this.
So the criteria manuals touch many departments, if not all departments within the city.
So we had a series of meetings in September where we brought together representatives
from all the different departments, directors, and their technical staff.
We walked through all the proposed, all the criteria manuals.
We had, throughout the year and the course of the time, we collect comments from the
different departments and different community that we keep track of.
We've made all those edits.
We said this is what it would look like, based on all the comments you'll have.
Let's talk about it.
Let's go through these comments, see ones that work or are conflict with each other.
So a series of those meetings.
We got a draft document together.
Now we are going out for public comment with that draft document and then we're doing all
the public outreach, posting online newspaper articles, and then we're going to bring it
to all the boards and commissions and city council for public hearing and adoption.
The city of Denton has multiple governing documents.
So there is a hierarchy to these governing documents.
The top document is the Denton Development Code that sets all the regulations and policies
and procedures for zoning, subdivisions, different regulations, et cetera.
Once that's mainly what you guys all see right with all the planners bringing all that stuff
forward.
Once all that's been approved, they go into design and that's where our design document
comes in where we say this is the type of pipe you need to have.
This is the slope we need it to be.
This is what you need to consider for your traffic, for your whatever it is.
So we go into a much more technical side of the document, the design process.
Beyond that, when we go to construction, we have what are called construction specifications.
We maintain those as well that says, okay, well, this is how you actually build it now.
This is the way you're supposed to install it.
This is the way that it's supposed to be checked.
This is the standards of the materials that we need to meet, all that kind of technical
information.
And then we also have and maintain a standard set of standard details which show how they're
actually supposed to construct it.
So we have guidance, we have requirements, we have technical guidance, and we also have
graphical pictures of how it's actually supposed to be installed and constructed.
So all these documents work together.
They all kind of touch different aspects of the development or of a project life cycle.
And so the one that we're talking about today is the criteria manual, second one down.
So getting to some of the quick highlights.
The Solid Waste Criteria Manual only had one revision this year, it's looking at having
side load for their enclosures for the properties that they have restrictions, they can't get
in front load.
They removed that a few years ago.
They found that they do have restrictions on some properties still, so we need to get
that flexibility for developments that have side load for their garbage collection.
For the Stormwater Criteria Manual, we received a lot of feedback from the development community
about why do we only use reinforced concrete pipe?
Why don't we allow other products?
We did a series of brought in vendors with their products.
We talked to other municipalities, we went and saw them and saw how they install it,
how they operate, got their feedback on it.
And after a series of conversations and meetings, we decided to allow polypropylene pipe, which
is an alternative to reinforced concrete.
This we hope will drive the lower costs overall, because now there's competition in the marketplace.
Polypropylene pipe is generally less expensive than reinforced concrete, and we feel very
confident it's going to be an equally good product.
Then also one of the other revisions that we have this year is that last round we went
through, we recommended improvements for larger developments over one acre in size, we asked
them to consider treating the water quality of the runoff separately.
So we have detention, then we have water quality, so we have a flood protection and then a water
quality aspect, before everything was all combined together.
We recommended last revision, hey, start considering these two things separately, because that's
the regional requirement with I-SWEM, and that's the direction the EPA is going with
the federal requirements, and we have an MS4 permit with the federal government that we
need to match EPA requirements.
So we put this out of the recommendation.
Now we're coming around saying, okay, this is now going to be a requirement, it's going
to put us in line with the regional guidance and in line with the future EPA update.
So we're just kind of getting a little bit ahead of the horse, a little bit ahead of
the curve, but we're in line with the regional requirements there.
The transportation criteria manual had a pretty big revision this year.
We added some new roadway collections.
We did some discussion on how to handle school areas.
We removed the bike ped traffic impact analysis that we added a couple of years ago, a couple
of revisions ago, mainly because it's not industry standard and no one really knew how
to apply and how to effectively use it.
It was something we created to see if we can improve bike ped access.
We can do that other way.
So we took that out.
It was just a conflicting requirement and our criteria, and we updated other sections
on on-street parking and traffic calming measures.
For the water waste water, we had a pretty big overhaul, not on the technical side, but
of the readability and the organization of it.
So a lot of the edits are mainly just changing how the document is read and the order of
things.
It's mostly the same technical side.
On the technical stuff that did change is that we are asking for geotechnical reports
and we're asking for cathodic protection design.
So soils have corrosive materials, it degrades pipe over time.
You can put a cathodic protection on that extends the life of the like the metal ductile
iron pipes, et cetera.
So we've asked for that to be included in the requirements.
We've also did some lift station improvements to provide better design site design requirements
for lift stations.
For the street lights, one of the things that we we did, we added a new street light pole
that was asked for by the developers.
We included that in here and we also have clarified the process for adding and removing
street lighting and then we also added a new section to the criteria manual this year,
one on the environmentally sensitive areas.
This is information that was mainly stored just in staff's brains and made it hard if
we ever have staff turnover.
We don't have a clear way to have this written out, so we went through and we wrote this
all out, how to identify an environmentally sensitive area, how to treat it, how to design
for it, what you have to do.
So that was a whole new section that was added to the criteria manual this year.
Again, this slide is actually old as of this morning because we did finish the internal
revisions so that's where we're going to be posting it online on Friday.
We are asking for public feedback.
We are going to be presenting to all these different agencies.
The next one up is going to be the Texas Society of Professional Engineers, which is a professional
organization of engineers and then we're going to all the different boards and committees
with an adoption of effective date of January 1st as our goal.
I'll stand for any questions.
This is the first time since a few new members, so I'll just let everybody know that this
is one of my favorite work sessions of the year, if you can imagine so.
This is where the rubber meets the road, I'll put it that way.
Commissioner McDuff?
I figured we'd hear from you first.
Well, this is a lot of engineer speak, but I do understand it conceptually and I appreciate
the importance of it and the thoroughness of your staff and you, sir.
We certainly do.
I guess if we could go back to that, the continuum, how this relates to the development codes,
that slide and I'm going to just ask a question, would the comprehensive plan be the block
to the left?
Yes, it would probably be one of the guiding document that leads to the development codes.
That would be another block above the comprehensive plan, correct?
Okay, excellent, excellent.
My other comment, just in general, how does this translate, this document, if you could
just give an overall answer, how does this translate to the quality of life for our citizens?
It provides long lasting infrastructure that increases the effectiveness of government
funds.
We're looking for having good quality of life, long lasting infrastructure that is good steward
of government funds to ensure public safety.
I might include that in here in one of the opening paragraphs.
I was interested in reading that and then just from what the work, if I may, Chair Pruitt,
I want to get my comments in before you launch off.
I'd like for us to focus on the ESA, I'm proud of us for putting that in there.
We've talked about that point in every proposal that we've considered because it's important
with all the growth, the environment's important to all of us and so I certainly appreciate
having that in there.
It's four feet, I'm going to ask a specific question, is four feet the distance from,
tell me what the four feet is.
Is that just a standard measurement?
It says it should not, the protective fencing and then it talks about a minimum of four
feet.
Four feet is included several spots.
I do not have the answer off the top of my head.
We can get the response back to you on that with our technical expert in the environmental
side.
I was just trying to think what size four feet is, not too big, maybe six feet might be better
but it seems a little short.
I can only speculate, I'm not the expert on that field so I can definitely get a comment
back to you or written response back to you if that works.
Sure, we're very interested in that and I think as a commission it's come up several
times.
Understandable.
Thank you.
Yes, Commissioner Riggs?
So we were actually discussing that in the DCRC, the four foot, and my understanding
is it's along the fence lines and that's so that it can be surveyed and so essentially
you can't survey it if you can't walk through it so essentially that's the minimum space
that would be needed in order to do that.
Hi, I'm Jennifer Avesi from Environmental Services and Sustainability.
I drafted that section with my supervisor, Joetta Daly, the reason we did pick that four
foot buffer is for surveying and for the width for equipment.
It's very similar to the amount of space that is required for trenching, for silt fencing.
So it really is a maintenance consideration, that buffer space.
Can I follow up to that?
I have another question for you.
So without it being the four foot, then it could be wider so essentially we're kind of
narrowing them down to a minimum amount that they can disturb with the four foot.
Yes.
Okay, perfect.
Thank you.
That's it.
I have one more question.
Please go.
So on the polypropylene pipe, that's not polyethylene, right?
No.
Okay.
Polypropylene.
So we did look at other pipes.
One of the other common ones is HDPE, high density polyethylene pipe, does not perform
as well as polypropylene.
So when we did look at them, the polypropylene is a much better product we feel and other
municipalities have also accepted that as an alternative side of the polyethylene, HDPE
or concrete.
Okay, thanks.
Yep.
Any other questions?
A couple.
Well, first of all, congratulations.
Thank you.
I think the last at least four years that we've had an update, it's been dumpster central
and it's always been longer, wider, bigger.
We want dumpster statues everywhere and now this is some additional flexibility.
So I thank you for that.
I think when we look at these documents, we have to be mindful that best laid intentions
do cost money and we don't want to inadvertently increase the cost of living in our city even
more than it already is.
I also took a trip recently to a couple different cities and saw dumpsters on wheels, believe
it or not.
They were about half size of your typical metal dumpster and they were poly something.
I couldn't claim to know what type of polymer or plastic they were, but it was an interesting
adaptation they had to work around some of their unique challenges.
I noticed in the storm water updates that there was a provision for inspections during
the development phase to provide a stop work order in certain conditions without getting
into specific projects.
Does that give us the necessary tools with lessons learned recently to be able to address
drainage problems during the development phase when they do occur?
Yeah, I believe so.
That's part of the intention of it is that we have a watershed inspections department
that is responsible and they maintain that contractors and developments are following
the proper storm water prevention processes.
This gives us some more teeth and more written down documentation that we have the ability
to enforce those requirements if they're not being followed.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
In a similar vein, I think we've all learned a little bit of a thing or two about what
happens when a detention area is not maintained.
In that section, it didn't really change that much as far as the maintenance agreements
and that sort of thing.
Did staff talk in this cycle about potential ways in the future to make sure that that
maintenance happens?
I know that we're limited by staff capacity for inspections and that sort of thing.
What's our thinking of that going forward?
So you're absolutely right on that thought process.
The reason we put that, so what Commissioner or Chair Pruitt mentioned is that in the last
revision of the criteria manual, we created and included a storm water maintenance agreement.
So whenever a private development comes in and puts in a privately owned and operated
flood control structure as a detention pond, previously they'd put it in and walk away
and nobody knew who owned it, nobody knew who maintained it, nobody was maintaining
it, and we had no ability to come in and fix it.
So now we have a new document or new requirement in from our last revision almost two years
ago that says any development that's going to have a private detention pond, the attention
to an agreement says we understand that we own this, we're going to provide you an operation
and maintenance manual that we keep on staff, that we keep on hand, that they're required
to maintain and operate it appropriately, and if they don't, the city can come in and
fix it and recover costs as necessary.
So we did put that in, so a lot of the ones that we're seeing that have come up in the
last couple months are old ones that are grandfathered in, so it's very hard for us to go back and
require existing properties to adopt a new standard.
So that's kind of the gray area going forward, we shouldn't be seeing any of those anymore
since that revision went in last time.
So we don't anticipate any future problems similar to what we've had.
At least in developments that come new.
Correct.
So we've got a 40 or 50 year time period between now and when most of them are updated.
Yeah we're trying to figure out how do we address those ones and make them equitable
and fair to make standards.
That's good to hear.
And then last, I'd just like to hear some more information on the pedestrian bike removal
of that travel demand analysis.
My understanding before was that it was really designed to catch situations where you have
a development that you would expect an increased amount of activity of those modes, where there
were existing gaps in the network adjacent or nearby to the proposed development so that
we could treat modes of travel other than driving more similar to how we treat driving.
Totally understood that hey if that was just too confusing for people and I'm not against
removing it, I just want to understand, you mentioned we have other ways that we can handle
that, what's the process there and help me understand what that looks like so that our
community is not concerned about the removal.
Good evening committee and chair.
Chandra, city traffic engineer.
So we have streamlined the traffic studies right now.
We ask for generation numbers when the development comes in and then we go for a traffic scoping
meeting with the developers and then we catch all those and if it's a multi-family, if it's
next to a railroad, then there will be more people using pedestrians who will commute
back and forth so we catch them and we follow the mobility plan that identifies where the
bike trails, side paths need so we ask for the ten foot or five feet, all those will
be captured in the scoping meeting.
Okay and sorry to push on this, it's just this is the type of thing that can lose institutional
knowledge as years go forward and you know people change over, is that process within
that scoping meeting captured within a checklist or anything?
Yes, we have a broad range of checklists.
Okay and that includes specifically the ped and bike expected?
For connectivity and we take a look at where bike lanes are that needs to be continued
with side paths that needs to be made connections.
Okay, very good, thank you.
And then just one last question, not transportation related.
On the issue of detention ponds and maybe this is something to think about going forward,
I know there's been a lot of discussion lately about what type of vegetation is best serves
both the environmental needs of or the engineering needs of detention to reduce clogging and
that sort of thing but also meets the environmental goals of the community.
I didn't see anything specifically in there about you know the more native plantings and
where things like that should be focused because my take is the i-swim document really looks
more at what's necessary from a flow restriction perspective and doesn't necessarily look at
the native plantings aspect of things.
Is that something staff has considered or might consider going forward?
So one of those things that's kind of hard to quantify and calculate because every different
type of material has a different what's called a Manning's number in terms of how it restricts
or modifies the flow of water.
So usually on detention structure, flood control structures, you're looking for erosion protection,
not necessarily for native growth or different types of vegetation unless you're doing like
a wetland project or some sort of vernal pool or something like that.
So you're looking more for erosion prevention, something that can germinate pretty quickly,
provide stability to the soil slopes and the slopes are in such a way that it's able to
be mowed and maintained.
So I think that's a good idea, I think that's something we can definitely consider and see
if we can make any recommendations on that but we basically try to follow the engineering
standards of i-swim of we need to prevent these slopes from eroding over time and clogging
the drains.
Okay.
Yeah, understood.
I think we do a pretty good job of making sure that the engineering requirements are
met because that's kind of the silo where these criteria manuals live.
I would just say maybe especially as this gets forward to council, there may be some
more interest at that level to get two birds with one stone, if you will.
Yeah, we're here to receive comments and make edits.
So all your comments, we will go back and watch this and make sure that we can make
edits and updates as necessary and bring revised documents forward if that...
Okay.
Sorry, our floodplain administrator has a comment on this.
Good evening, Mike Linder, floodplain administrator.
I think something that speaks maybe a little bit to the concern there, in the additional
water quality requirements that are included here, what that really does is give developers
a lot more options to address that.
Previously, they were forced to...if they were doing detention, really the only method
that was open to them was extended detention where you're holding onto that water for a
longer time to allow the sediment to settle out, draining through these very small openings,
which lead to a lot of the clogging problems that we've seen.
So by kind of splitting these separately to say you can address the water quality elsewhere
on your site through something like a rain garden or a filter strip, or I think there's
something like 32 different options listed out in the I-swim manual, and a lot of those
do have more focus on the plantings and the vegetation because they're designed for infiltration
and water treatment rather than just a flood control structure to protect downstream.
So definitely we can look at incorporating more native plantings throughout the manual,
but I think that change will speak a little bit to that concern.
Okay.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
I think the reason I bring it up is just that there's a fairly sizable percentage of area
that ends up being used for detention, and so if there's an opportunity to, without putting
additional cost on the development, but just to guide things toward we know X is what's
typically done, if we do Y we can achieve those goals, but actually improve some other
things that we want to.
I don't know the details of that, but I'd be interested to see if there are opportunities
to get multi-use out of those land areas.
Absolutely.
I just wanted to comment on that.
One of the things that we, the intent of this change also, part of what this change we're
hoping to do is that because we were requiring, the old criteria required them to hold the
water longer, they were oversizing the detention ponds, so the detention ponds had to be larger
because they had to hold the water for a longer period of time.
By separating those two out you can have the water quality treatment of bio-soils and infiltration
gardens, rain gardens, et cetera, separately, and you can reduce the size of the detention
pond now.
So we're hoping to find that balance where we can reduce the detention pond size, but
also treat the water quality at the same time, so we're aware of that.
Okay.
That's good.
And I said that was the last, but I lied, there's one more.
This is more just future direction, it's not in scope for this year's updates, but at various
times in the past I've heard that there have been interests in providing for regional detention
solutions in order to remove some of the barriers of infill, especially as we've done our downtown
plan, and we have the stormwater master plan thing still going on.
Is that a goal that we're still looking toward and we're just not quite there yet?
That is something that we are looking, that we're working on, and it's not in the criteria
manual per se.
Generally regional detention is a capital project because it's affecting multiple properties.
We do have several in the city and we are currently working on another one right now.
So we do have regional detention, they follow the same general guide design requirements
of detention ponds are just much larger and bringing flows in from other areas.
So we do prefer regional detention, but those are generally a capital project and the city
would be the ones building that and then getting cost recovery from developers as they contribute
to it with their flows.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Any other questions?
Oh, I'm sorry.
If you could come up to the mic, sorry, just for the video.
Hello, I'm Maria Ferraro with Watershed Protection.
We just wanted to add that in the environmentally sensitive areas design criteria section eight
that we're adding, we do have in the appendices, we added a vegetation list and that includes
the different types of vegetation, including wetland that may add some clarification and
help with that native seeding mix.
Very good.
Thank you.
Any other questions from the commission?
Commissioner McDuff?
Yes.
Any other questions?
Question, please.
Am I correct in knowing that this is an assimilation of the manuals that have been in several departments,
spread over several departments?
Yes, that was originally the case a couple of years ago.
Last year, our last revision we did, we combined all those documents into one to mirror what
we have in the tenant development code and provide a more cohesive unified document and
so that's what we've been going forward with.
Yeah, that's great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Vicks?
Yeah, I just have a couple comments and then one question, so I think it would definitely
be good if you listed the water quality kind of trade-offs that you're doing in the future
presentations because I know that you'll get asked that.
Okay.
But also, I had a question on the TIAs, it used to be 100 trips, now it's 50 trips.
What was the driving force for that?
I'm trying to decide between who's going to answer that question.
Good evening, Chair and Commissioner.
This is Rakibul Alam, the transportation planner.
So our checklist has this 50 trips threshold, but our TIA was kind of outdated, so you want
to just be consistent with the TIA.
Thank you.
Consistency is good.
Thank you.
I don't see any other questions.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
That brings us to our second work session item, sorry, the PZ25204, hold the discussion,
give staff direction regarding Craver Ranch plan development.
Good afternoon, Chair and Commission members.
Charlie Rosadal, interim director of development services.
This item for you today is to introduce the Craver Ranch development, to go over some
of the deal points for a project and operating agreement, and then the developer has represented
us here as well, and they'll be doing a presentation.
Just so you can see down here below, some of the items will be coming before PNZ and
City Council in the future.
The project and operating agreements will go before City Council on December 2nd.
You'll see a plan development zoning case, comprehensive plan amendments, and a mobility
plan amendment come before this body on the November 19th meeting.
And just see it down here in the lower right section, just to give the PNZ a little background
on how the agreements work, we have with the developer.
So we would have a project agreement, what's typically considered a development agreement,
with the developer, and then they also are intending, they have created and intend to
use a municipal management district for the operation of the ranch itself and the project.
And then the developer would construct projects and then be reimbursed through the district.
So this is an overview of the project site.
You can see it's in northern Denton, just south of the Lake Ray Roberts Dam.
It's bordered by FM 2164 on the west, well, it's 2153, and you can see 455 here as well.
And then on the southern border, it's Gribble Springs and Sheppard Road.
A little background on the property itself.
So Craver Ranch was annexed into the city in 2008 and 2009.
In total, it's 2,870 acres.
This project in particular is 2,500 acres.
The developer is Old Prosper Partners.
We began this process with them in November of 2024.
And then the city council took action in March of 2025 to approve consent for a resolution
for creation of the municipal management district at the legislature.
That consent was contingent on them doing a development agreement with the city so that
we can ensure that we walk through the various things that would be needed for the development.
So we've been meeting with them since March to go over these different negotiating terms.
And we've conducted studies related to these as well as a fiscal impact study, facilities
study, a travel demand model in water and wastewater.
And a few of these studies are still being finalized.
So a little background on what a municipal management district is.
It's a separate political subdivision that's created to use property taxes or collect assessments
from property owners within a district to fund infrastructure.
So this one in particular will levy assessments for properties within the district.
And it was created by the Texas legislature.
So using the district, the developer would front the cost for the public infrastructure
and then be reimbursed through the district.
And then those revenues that they receive from the assessments would go back to pay
the bonds that are used within that district.
Again, this is a 2,500 acre development.
In total, they're proposing just under 9,200 residential units.
You can see the breakout here between single townhome, zero lot line and multifamily units.
In addition to that, they're proposing 1.2 million square feet of commercial space.
And then this property also is segmented into two independent school districts on the western
portion of the property as it's Sager independent school district.
And then on the eastern portion of the property, it's then independent school district.
But the entirety of the property is within the city limits of Denton.
In total, they're proposing $462 million in public infrastructure and have a 17 year construction
timeline.
Infrastructure that's being proposed for this development for water, they would use existing
infrastructure.
The city has a transmission line that runs from the Lake Roberts treatment plant down
to loop 288.
So they would connect to that water line for their initial phases.
And then in the future in the city's capital plan, we have another transmission line that's
proposed to go across the property.
We've been working with them to provide easements for that line.
And then they would connect to that line for future phases of the development.
Because of the number of units for this too, it requires an elevated storage tank, which
the developer would construct at their cost.
And then the city would maintain that infrastructure after it's created.
On the wastewater side, the developer would install a sewer line down to a planned Clear
Creek interceptor that the city has, and the city would maintain the wastewater infrastructure
following the installation.
On the roadway side, the developer would construct the roadways within the project and the city
would maintain those roadways after construction, except for the fact that the district would
maintain the landscaping within those roadways.
The roadways surrounding the property are owned by TxDOT or Denton County.
But the developer would have to do traffic impacts analysis to determine the capacity
of those roadways and the initial travel demand model appears to have the capacity to support
the development, but they would do TIAs with each phase of development and make a determination
on if any additional improvements are required.
For drainage, the developer is required to install drainage infrastructure.
So they would have drainage infrastructure within the roadways, and then they would also
have detention and drainage that they would need on site.
The city would maintain the drainage infrastructure within the right-of-way.
You can see here a little more in detail about what the water and wastewater projects are.
So here in this top picture, you can see the 60-inch water line that's being proposed from
the water treatment plants that would cross the property, and then that elevated storage
tank is proposed on the west portion of the property.
On the wastewater side, the city is already have plans and design for this Clear Creek
Interceptor.
I'm sorry, this is the lower picture.
The city is in design on this Clear Creek Interceptor and has a proposed treatment plant
at Clear Creek, and so the developer would construct wastewater facilities from the project
site up here into the north down to that Clear Creek Interceptor.
On the park side, so the development is required under the Parksland Dedication Ordinance to
dedicate 67 acres of parkland, but in total, they're proposing to have 380 acres of park
space within the development.
A large portion of that is within the central park, so it's a 358-acre central park.
And then there's an additional city park on the western portion of the property, and then
you can see here in yellow the three neighborhood parks that are being proposed.
Also, they're proposing to include 13.5 miles of trail systems and 18.5 miles of shared
use paths along the roadways.
Not shown on this is additional amenities, including pocket parks and private HOA amenities
that would be included as well.
I will mention that in total, they'll meet the city's 10-minute walk goal by having different
park systems throughout the entire site.
On the park side, the developer is required to construct and maintain all of the park
systems.
So the mowing the grass in the parks, the maintaining the landscaping within the parks,
that would be all funded through the development and not a cost to the city.
On the central park itself, in total, it's 358 acres, 338 of that is within a flowage
easement.
The flowage easement is for the release of the dam at Lake Ray Roberts.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has an easement through the property that restricts what can
be built within that.
And so the main point of that flowage easement is there's no habitable structures.
But there can be park amenities within there with approval by the Corps.
It's important to note that that's -- so a lot of this flowage easement is outside of
the 100-year floodplain.
So 181 acres of that is outside of what we typically consider floodplain.
So they have the ability also to work with the Corps of Engineers to reduce that.
But there will be a minimum of 250 acres within that central park.
This commission will see more detail on the zoning request as it comes forward in November.
But at a high level, they're proposing a moderate density residential with mixed use at key intersections
throughout the development that you can see here in the different shading on the map.
They're also proposing to generally follow the development code with some additional deviations
and enhancements that include standards for zero lot line homes.
They have an established mix of residential uses with maximum numbers and dimensions for
lot sizes that the developer will have in their presentation.
They also have established increases for landscaping, fencing, and building standards.
And they're providing for unique roadway cross-sections.
In addition to the zoning change, this commission will consider a comprehensive plan amendment
and mobility plan amendments.
So the comprehensive plan amendment is to change it from the agricultural use that it
received when it was annexed into the city to match the zoning that's being proposed.
And then the mobility plan amendment is to correct for a deviation on this portion of
the design that you can see here.
The original mobility plan amendment had this east-west roadway going through this large
floodplain area that would have required a large bridge expanse to cross it.
So the developer is proposing to move this roadway further south and then cross at a
different point of this floodplain.
In addition to that, the travel demand model that was done supports the ability to make
that change.
So overall, what are the benefits to the city?
In the agreements that we've negotiated, they would have funding contributions of $7.5 million
to the city that you can see here, $2.5 million for emergency services, $2 million for a public
works facility to be located near this area in the future, and then $3 million towards
the city's affordable housing program.
In total, land conveyance of 48.5 acres, so that would be six acres for fire stations,
and then 42.5 acres for parks outside of the flow of easement.
It's important to note here that the additional parks and trail systems would have a public
access easement, so while they would not be deeded over to the city, they would be publicly
accessible for anybody in the area to use.
And then also, I'll point out that they're doing 315 acres more than what's required
by the Parkland Dedication Ordinance.
Again, I mentioned that 13.5 miles of trails, they are providing for a right of way for
our water line, and then constructing the elevated storage tank.
Also, they're generally following the city's typical development process with those few
deviations that I mentioned on the zoning slide.
And then the economic benefits is they're providing 9,200 homes for the city, 1.2 million
square feet of commercial space, over $5 billion in assessed value at build out, and an approximate
$38 million in net revenue to the city over 40 years.
So next steps, the developer representative will come up and present, and then we'll have
an opportunity for questions.
But we're seeking this commission's feedback on this as the item moves forward.
This will come back before the board on November 19th for the Zoning Comprehensive and Mobility
Plan public hearings.
And then on December 2nd, city council will consider the agreements, and then the Zoning
Comprehensive Plan and Mobility Plan.
And with that, I'll let Alexa Knight come and go through their slides.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman, commissioners.
My name is Alexa Knight.
I'm with Dakey Law in representing Old Prosper Partners on this zoning case.
So thank you for your time this evening.
We know that it is valuable time, but this is a very large and complicated project which
has a lot of moving parts.
Charlie and I have been herding cats on both sides with regard to all the various pieces
associated with it.
So I'm going to give an overview, try not to repeat what Charlie has said because he's
done a very detailed report, but we do have the entire development team here.
So if you have specific questions on engineering, traffic, environmental, what have you, developer,
we've got somebody here to be able to answer those questions for you.
Okay, so this is a vicinity map and just shows the 2,500 acres which, as Charlie said, is
in the northern part of the city of Denton.
It is within the full purpose city limits, and it was annexed back in 2008 and 2009.
When it is fully built out, it's a $5.1 billion value project.
It's not small potatoes, it's something to be taken seriously for certain.
It's going to be like nothing else that you all have seen with regard to a well-planned
master plan community.
And what that means, it's building that fabric for that overall community.
It's creating a sense of place.
It's creating that sense of place where people may come in at entry level and be able to
move up and stay within the community.
It's not, you know, what we don't want people to do is to move away, right?
We want people to stay and remain in the community.
And some of the benefits of that is having a trail system.
We're heavy on public parks, open space, community centers, public schools, supporting retail
and fire and police stations.
Charlie pointed out the infrastructure, the roadway infrastructure that's around it.
You have what we believe will be the outer loop coming to the south of it.
And then we have 2164 on the west, I-35 even further west, and then 2153 on the east and
coming along the north side.
Along the southern side is Shepherd and Gribble Springs Road.
With regard to not repeating things, I do want to repeat these because they are worth
repeating.
These are the benefits for supporting this master plan community.
It is a benefit for the city and the surrounding community and the developer.
It's a win-win for everybody.
And why I say that for the community and for the City of Denton also is because with the
master plan community, we are able to do all the planning, majority of the planning up
front, right?
The City of Denton has a lot of requirements for a developer when they come in just for
a zoning case.
It's not like other municipalities where you just come in and ask for a zoning case.
There's a lot of due diligence up front.
And so because of that, we had a couple of community meetings.
Even though the surrounding acreage and neighbors are in the ETJ, we've invited them and we
had a good turnout for both meetings.
Not everybody was a repeat.
And so we were able to explain to them what a master plan community is, what would be
coming.
And so with an approval of a master plan community, you know what you're going to get.
The city knows what they're going to get for the next 20 years.
It's not piece milled, it's not cut up in a hundred different, you know, a hundred acre
parcels and you're, because that's difficult for a city, right?
Trying to weave that plan together that you want to see.
If you have the opportunity that a developer is able to spend the dollars to come in and
do all the due diligence up front and plan that community, you know, that's better for
the city also.
So that's what we define as smart growth.
The neighbors know what is being planned next door.
It's a well thought out and designed community with an HOA within heavy on the green space
and parkland and open space.
It has the, we'll be bringing in the, the utility service to the area and at build out,
we will be $5.1 billion in total assessed value, 1.2 billion in debt and tax revenue.
And at build out annually, it'll be a $30.3 million tax revenue for the city.
The funding contributions that the developer is doing on top of he escrowed close to $600,000
to pay for the city consultants to help analyze all of the agreements, all of the studies
and everything.
On top of that, there's seven and a half million in police and fire to me equates to two and
a half million for police and fire, two million for public works, but there'll be an offsite
facility, three million to affordable housing.
On top of that, there are land gifts.
So two fire stations, total of six acres, the city parkland again, the requirement is
only 67 acres, but the dedication would be just over 380, 13 and a half miles of trails
easement for water transmission line, elevated storage tank.
And this number is already outdated.
It's actually 16 million for an offsite wastewater improvements.
There are two trunk lines that come up to the south portion of the tract.
All right.
Planning and zoning.
So this is your bread and butter, your comprehensive plan, which was approved back in 2022.
This is a picture of that.
This yellow star represents where the property is.
As you can see, it's shown as ag and that's what it's been sitting on the books since
2008 and nine.
So in everything that's crosshatched, that's around it, that all represents ETJ.
So we are the northern portion of it.
Council member Beck had a question and concern last night that came up with regard to, you
know, the leapfrog development.
And what he was referring to was, you know, this piece right here, because the development
today to the city comes out to here.
So it was an interesting point, went home, did a little bit more due diligence on that,
pulled up the city GIS system and all this flow down here.
I mean, this is basically riddled with floodplain.
So with regard to the leapfrog, it's the existing edge of development today leaping over a bunch
of floodplain.
And then we are the next logical development area.
So the next 2500 acres up to the north.
So this is a slide that we showed to the neighbors and we explained everything that goes along
with zoning.
It is, again, just the tip of the iceberg here in the city of Denton and there's quite
a bit that goes along with it.
We had, as Charlie mentioned, the pre-application meeting a year ago.
We submitted a zoning application.
And then with that, obviously, because it's shown as ag and it's RR, it will be rezoning
to a PD, the comp plan has to be changed.
So we have a comp plan amendment.
We also have a thoroughfare plan amendment that I'll touch on.
We've done our traffic assessment, the TSC was approved.
We have the environmental assessment that was also approved.
And then we have two agreements, the project agreement and the operating agreement that
goes along with the deal and with the district.
That's not the last you'll see of us with each phase we come through.
Of course, we'll have the traffic, the drainage environment assessment and the civil engineering
and the final plat for each phase.
The zoning that's proposed there, we have low density with the R4 and then we have moderate
density of R7.
Then we have the neighborhood commercial.
And then along the more the greater arterials, we'll have the regional commercial.
The rooftops have to come first, then you have to have the commercial.
One for a good master plan community would like to have the commercial embedded into
the community so that you're not having to get in your car and drive to services.
All right.
This is our development plan, which again shows the different zoning categories here,
the R4 and R7.
It is a residential community and we have 26 phases in here.
We take for granted because we do this on a daily basis, but 2,500 acres is quite a
bit and that's again one of the things that we told the neighbors is you're looking at
a 20 year life as far as build out in here.
It's not like this is going to plunk down tomorrow and you're going to have 7,000 single
family rooftops out there.
The underwriting is about 400 homes per year and that of course depends on market demand.
One of the important things to note of a quality master plan community like this is it's providing
the fabric of land use within the community and it's creating that community.
It is adding to the City of Denton and everything that the City of Denton residents want in their
communities.
So that has to do with the trail system and the open parks and the open space and importantly
we want to provide a variety of residential products.
So that includes town homes and it includes the multi-family.
We have about 1,500 multi-family units.
We've set that cap on it.
That's about four multi-family deals.
Certainly wouldn't start off the bat.
It would start with single family homes.
We have the three school districts, two school districts, three schools.
We have the elementary shown down here for DISD, the middle school up here and then this
is the Sanger Elementary School over here.
The Central Park runs through here.
There's also a beautiful open space, that green space so it runs along the western side
of the property as well.
These are some of the architectural product types that you might see.
These represent 50, 60, and 70 foot wide lots.
These could represent the 40 foot wide lots.
This is a cottage product with a central esplanade.
As the project becomes more developed, this could be options for the different town homes
and live work components.
The commercial, this is a scale.
Again, as the project develops, this is some of the multi-family product that could be
envisioned for the project.
Those will be embedded in the MN zoning locations.
This is really the crown jewel for the project and that has to do with the parks.
We have over 483 acres of green space so that includes, the green space includes the open
space, the park land and it excludes any of the additional trails and the neighborhood
pocket parks that Charlie discussed.
We are meeting the requirement of the half mile radius of every home.
I think that's an excellent requirement within a community, especially one of this size.
We don't want people to spend a lot of time in their cars, like when they come home, let's
get out, let's get on to the shared bike paths, whether you're running or walking or riding
your bike, you can navigate your way through this community.
The dash line represents the 13 and a half miles of trail space.
I also shared with the community when we had the meetings, I used to run quite a bit and
run marathons and then got into trail running.
I live in the city of Dallas and I'd have to commute an hour to be able to find a trail
system.
To be able to have this sort of amenity in your backyard where you can get out on the
sidewalk and then go find a trail, that's a huge amenity.
We have identified on here the school sites in blue.
These represent the private amenity centers.
This is the over 102 acres of green space on the western side.
The eastern side, this is the 338 acre central park.
These green areas represent the public parks also, as do these smaller yellow, which is
about 12 acres total.
We had a couple meetings with the parks department and we really wanted to focus on the central
park area, and one of the things that, this was actually a slide that we used with the
neighbors because it's hard to envision what 338 acres is for the lay person, right?
That's the size of 256 football fields.
It's a huge area.
This picture is taken where the yellow star is located, so right in the center here.
I'll get to the thoroughfare plan amendment, but this is the reason why we're asking for
the thoroughfare plan amendment, is this beautiful central park area.
When we met with the parks department, they too were having difficulty understanding the
concept of the size and what you could really do with this acreage.
This is not the plan.
This is an exercise only to figure out, okay, well, what can we fit in there?
This is within that 20 acres of uplands area.
One of the things that was very important for the parks department was to have a rec
center up here, the ability to have one, and that's a 60,000 square foot building.
That too is not very small, and that's what's represented right here, plenty of area for
parking around it, but that way you have ball fields here, soccer fields, amphitheater over
here, other parking, trail systems all through along here, trail heads.
This is a plan that satisfied the parks department that in the future that we could work together
when we plan out each phase, lot out each phase, that we can then take this to the parks
board, they would take this to the parks board with regard to a plan specific to that park
area.
These are examples that we showed the community with regard to trail heads, and this represents
the half mile radius around each home, and we certainly meet that, and with regard to
the active and passive different amenities that could be envisioned within the overall
project.
This is the mobility plan and the thoroughfare plan that would come before you.
What's in the upper left hand corner there represents that is your thoroughfare plan,
and so it's a nicely gridded out H of arterials.
Well unfortunately that H goes right through that central park, right through that pond
at the widest point.
From an environmental perspective, you don't want that.
From a land planning perspective, you don't want that.
So you want something that's a little softer, more curvilinear, slows traffic down, so that's
why this road is the way it is, and this orange piece here is the portion that's outside the
1,000 foot buffer that the city code allows you to move the roadways, and so that is the
portion that would need a variance, and city staff is supporting that.
We run our TTIA in addition to a TDM associated with all the trips out here, and this does
not cause any problem with those.
These are the typical cross sections.
The biggest thing I want to show this group of course is the 10 foot shared use pathways
that we have in both of these roadway cross sections.
You'll also notice that on the 65 foot right of way on the collector sections, that 10
foot shared path actually goes outside of the right of way, so we are adding to the
right of way.
So we have 65 feet of right of way, but then we're adding a 10 foot landscape buffer outside
of that that would be covered under an easement, and what that allows is you don't have to
crowd everything, you don't have to crowd that 10 foot shared path way in your right
of way, but it allows us to meander around trees as we go out there and we do the planning
of each one of the phases, and it's wide enough for everybody to bike, run, walk, and utilize
those throughout the project.
And finally I'm going to hit this again, the benefit of this master plan community, I mean
it's really going to be something excellent.
It is smart growth, it is something good for the city because you all know exactly what
you're getting.
And again it's a 20 year build out, you don't have to look at 25 different applications
and try to dovetail that into something that you want to see as part of your comp plan.
Again at build out you've got $5.1 billion of total assessed value, and then $30.3 million
annually coming in to the city.
Gifting contributions, $7.5 million, and then for the city we're gifting these land areas
again 67 acres of that should be only what's required for parkland, but we're giving over
380 acres, 13.5 miles of trails, 6 acres for the fire and police stations, those would
be joint facilities, and $16 million with offsite utilities.
So with that we're here to answer any questions that you may all have.
Thank you.
Questions?
Commissioner Riggs.
So I just want full disclosure, the firm I work for is helping out with the traffic impact
analysis on this, and so I don't feel like I need to get up and leave the room since
we're not voting on anything tonight, but I'm just not going to have any comments.
Thank you.
Commissioner McDade?
This is a whole lot, but I was wondering on the 3 million that you were, you're donating
$3 million to the city for affordable housing, or will you have affordable housing in your
plans?
It's a donation to the city affordable housing fund so that you can use it as you see fit.
But you will have multifamily out there?
Yes, ma'am, in addition to town home product, yes.
Commissioner McDuff?
Well, I agree with Commissioner McDate, it's a lot, it's about everything I can see except
a Nordstrom's and a bigger Dillard's, and if it had that I'd be glad.
But I will say that just again commenting, Chair Pruitt, on our thread that we've been
talking about, and that is the tiny homes and the different types of houses and different
models and a thread throughout our discussion since I've been on the commission, and the
need for more town homes and not so many multifamily builds.
Many of our citizens feel like we have enough multifamily builds, and it's time to focus
down and get a townhouse, so I'm just sharing that, that we might, instead of 15, 15 multifamily
units, we might come a little closer and have some more town homes, a few more than 584.
Thank you for that.
Commissioner Meyer?
I would like to second Commissioner McDuff's thoughts as well, because that was one of
the things I noticed.
1,500 multifamily units is a lot, especially when we hear from the citizens that they're
tired of apartments, and I think currently, even though we don't have numbers, it seems
like there are a lot of empty apartment units now, and I know we can't predict the future
on what's happening and what the needs of the community are going to be, especially
when you're looking at a 17-year build timeframe.
But definitely, you hear, not only in North Texas, not only in Denton County, but even
throughout the United States, that our younger generation, and I bought my first house when
I was 20.
And I know that's odd, that's not the norm, but that was in 1992 when I paid like $34,000
for a house.
Now, granted, I didn't.
My ex-husband and I, we were one income family and only made like $25,000 a year with a kid,
but that's what it was back then.
We're trying to figure out a way to work with the home builders,
because I've sat in the industry that I work in, I've sat in enough meetings and
discussions that part of the problem with the cost of housing
that's gone up is because the cost of land is going up.
And so trying to figure out a way where cities and developers and
builders can work to have affordable housing where our younger generation.
because this is really going to be the kids in elementary school.
This is going to be your first time home buyers.
So we're really looking at these kids that don't even know they're going to build a house.
And making sure that when they hit their 20s and 30s, that there is something that they can build.
And that they're not just having to get an apartment, because that's the only thing they can afford.
I'm not a huge fan of the zero lot line personally,
just because then you look out into a sea of rooftops.
So again, it's finding that balance of making sure that you are,
a developer's making the money on their return, because there is that aspect of it.
But also making sure that people can afford it.
I noticed that, I know it has the Denton County outer loop,
but it's in the maps here, it's being called the proposed regional outer loop.
Are we for sure that's where the location is going to be?
And it's not going to interfere with this development.
And that when you're building some of these houses, you're not going to be,
their backyards aren't going to be looking at.
>> So we have our traffic engineer here and she can speak to that, but no, we are not for sure.
No one is for certain where the alignments are.
>> Where it's going to end up at?
>> Right, this is a slide that Wes would put together that shows the options for the loop.
But we feel strongly that it'll probably be on the southern route, but no one knows 100%.
>> So A could go right through the middle of it, is that what I'm seeing?
>> Correct.
>> I have not seen an exact alignment on that.
This is still a feasibility.
>> Yeah, sorry, if you could come to the mic, please.
>> So when, I guess I need to get closer to the mic.
All right, so this is still in the feasibility stage.
Once it passes the feasibility stage, that's when they select the alignment and then go into schematic.
I have not seen exactly where that A is because it's a broad range.
Like even when they're looking at it, it's not like, oh, this is our 200 foot section.
They're looking at a five to 1,000 foot section.
It's kind of a massive location.
>> So when you're looking at the phases, like on slide five, when you're comparing it to this map, if, depending on the route,
that could be like phase 15, phase 13, 14, 9.
Does that mean that if TechStat decides that's the route that you're going to be working as a developer,
working with the city and might have to reconfigure what that could potentially look like?
>> Potentially, but once a route's selected, they go to schematic phase.
During the schematic phase, the engineers work with the developments alongside the city and things get changed.
From experience, the state loop 288 alignment was changed several times to avoid the developments that were in there.
>> And my next question, I think this is my final one.
This might be a question for city staff as well as kind of for the developer.
We're looking at 15,000 homes between Hunter and Coal Ranch and
now another potential 9,100, almost 9,200 units here in Craver.
Are we projecting that the growth, I mean I know we grow by about 100 people a day in Denton County.
But are we looking that we're going to be able to sustain three large developments between Landmark, Coal Ranch, and now Craver?
>> Yeah, so this area was identified as part of the future comprehensive plan.
This is an area within the city, so with regard to the housing, then yes,
it was contemplated that this area would develop in the future.
And then I will also add to that there's some additional
pressure from development external to the city too that we have along with the muds and stuff.
So we are bringing an update to the comprehensive plan amendment in the next couple of years and
we'll be looking at all of that information again as well.
>> You mean external, like the developers are demanding, like we need more space, like?
>> No, no, like external, outside of city limits.
We've got areas in Denton County that are on our periphery that are developing as well.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Mm-hm.
>> I'd also want to add, with regard to this community, a couple things.
So creating that fabric that I talked about in the sense of place is providing also the different product types.
So the 1,500 multifamily units, while it may sound like a lot of units, that really is only four deals.
And over the 2,500 acres and the different MN zones here, which is where that multifamily would go.
That's the reason why we chose that.
I mean, it could have been a lot, I mean, a lot of deals you come in and it's a heck of a lot larger.
And so having all those different product types was important for us to have in the community.
With regard to looking at, one of the things I discussed last night with council is,
let's look at the macro here in the United States of what's happening.
And if you look at the coasts of west and the east coast, while some of those states are wonderful and
sure to live in, they're very expensive, and the land is very expensive.
It's expensive to do business, it's expensive to live.
So we have been seeing and experiencing here in Texas that influx of people.
And North Denton is, I mean, it's coming.
So to support the other two master plan communities and this one, they're in different regions,
there are different reasons why that each would succeed.
But again, we're underwriting 400 units a year, it's not a bajillion units either.
So as with any sort of development, they complement one another and
the reasons why you may want to live in one and I might want to live in another.
>> Excuse me, my name is Jim Knight, my company is the engineer for the project.
I wanted to add a couple things to help.
We, and Jennifer addressed this appropriately on that proposed outer loop alignment.
What we do know is that the crossing at I-35 is at Milam Road.
The crossing at Milam Road does not allow the path to go north of where we have it
shown on the map, so we know for a fact where it's gonna cross.
Now, it's just the geometry that lays it out there.
The other thing I would suggest on the multifamily, and Mrs.
Knight is correct, is our current performer,
we don't show any multifamily in here being delivered for ten years.
I mean, she addressed it earlier in presentation, this is against a single
family driven, but we need the breadth of product to be able to keep it a vibrant and
fabric driven community.
Thank you.
>> Other questions, Commissioner Ketchersid, is that appropriate?
I'm sorry, this is our first meeting together, so.
>> No, Ketchersid is right.
>> Very good.
So, my question is, you had said that there's a lot of green space.
Where it's at, how is that going to stay green?
Like, where's the water gonna come from?
>> As far as where's the water gonna come from,
can you explain a little bit more what you mean there?
>> Well, there's a lot of parks, right?
So we're gonna have to water the grass,
keep those things green for it to be green space.
>> I understand.
Yeah, so the development is proposing to have wells that would
be used for irrigation only on the property.
>> Very good, thank you.
>> Yeah, and we do have the option in our agreements to have reclaimed water.
So part of the, thank you for that, Alexa.
So part of the strategy for water utility team is when we're constructing or
making improvements to our current treatment plants.
That we would allow for purple pipe or to be reclaimed water to be used for irrigation.
So the long term plan for the city is that we would, at the treatment plants,
run pipe back up to allow that water to be used for irrigation.
>> Very good, thank you.
>> I got a couple, you mentioned that the perimeter streets
that are on the border between city and county land.
The reason I wanna poke at this is just that we've had situations in our southern
border where nobody really knew who was gonna
maintain the street and it went for decades without being maintained at all.
Obviously, this would have a lot more eyes on it and
there's a developer agreement and that sort of thing.
Has that been talked about with the county yet or is that still in flux?
>> Yeah, so we've actually been talking with the developer about this.
What would happen on at least the county's portion of roadways adjacent to
the property is the developer would construct improvements adjacent to
the property to the textile roadways to the west and east of the property.
The traffic demand modeling shows just a few hundred trips in between those
sections, so the improvements would be limited to the areas adjacent to
the property and to the east and west to 2153 and 2164.
>> Okay, but they're both textile roadways, they're not county roads.
>> Yeah, just the southern boundary is a county road, so
it's Gribble Springs and Shepherd Road here.
>> Okay, thank you.
If you could go back to your infrastructure slide.
We had all the bullets of, yes, perfect.
Just so that we can all learn how this is different or the same as, I think,
one of the, like a county mud municipal utility district that you mentioned.
Could you briefly cover how this would be different
if in 2008 this land was not annexed?
And we were sitting here learning about a county mud proposal that was in the ETJ.
>> Yeah, I think the biggest difference would be property tax collection.
So that's the obvious one.
So the fact that this is in the city limits,
it would be subject to the city property tax and that's a revenue source for us.
This is within our certificate of convenience and necessity.
So that means that the city has an obligation to provide water and
wastewater service to the area.
So what we've been doing with municipal utility districts in the recent past is
that one of our goals as a city is to promote regionalism and
to prevent the use of groundwater for developments to use for their potable water.
And so one of our strategies is to work with communities that are going to develop on
the edge of our city limits to get into agreements with them so
that we can have them use city services where it's applicable.
So in the instance of this, where it's different is they're helping to construct
some of the infrastructure to get there.
But other than that, the larger difference is the fact that they're part of the city.
There'll be a fabric of the city of Denton in the future and
that we collect property tax from it.
>> Okay, and am I correct in imagining that maybe it's different with different
developer agreements, but in that case, the waterline, for instance,
would be the developer's responsibility to build out to the property,
to the subject property?
>> So it depends.
So the responsibility of the developer is if it's in the city's impact fee
schedule, then if they construct improvements on that schedule,
then it would be eligible for impact fee credits.
If it wasn't something that the city plans to build, then it wouldn't be.
>> Okay, and then when you say, obviously we wouldn't get city tax revenue,
the roadways and drainage, that would not be the city's liability for
maintenance and replacement as well, right?
>> Yeah, it would be cut, well, mostly in the mud districts, then the municipal
utility district itself would fund the maintenance of the drainage and
roadway infrastructure.
>> Thank you.
The, okay, a couple comments concerning the comp plan.
I appreciate your comments on what you view as smart growth and
leapfrog development.
All the conversations I've seen here at PNZ and
council in the last ten years have been about how we don't want leapfrog
development and therefore we try to make sure that we're allowing development
closer to town, has that policy changed?
>> No, I don't think the policy has changed.
I think this one is different in the instance that this was annexed as part of
the city and intended to be developed in the future.
There's the area that's within the southern portion north of the city,
that area in the ETJ, but the city in 2008, 2009 took action
specifically to annex this portion of the city with the intent that it was going to
develop in the future.
>> Okay, and sorry.
>> And I'll just, if I can, I'll just add a little bit more.
Even in the infrastructure portion, with the improvements to the Lake Ray Roberts
treatment plant, the transmission line that's running in the northern part of
the city through this property, and the Clear Creek interceptor that's being
developed, it's with the intention that we are seeing development pressure
to the north of Lute 288, and then especially along the I-35 corridor.
So we're seeing that that's a trend in development going that way, and
this is, so the city's preparing for that to become a reality in the future.
>> Okay.
>> [INAUDIBLE]
>> Okay, with regard to the leapfrog development.
And I apologize for, when we come see you, we will have a proper map that really
shows, I mean, it really blows it up and shows this area.
And so what I meant by leapfrog development, yes,
it seems like it's a leapfrog development.
But when this was annexed in 2008 and 9, they basically went up the roadway here
and went 1,000 feet on either side of the roadway, right, and
just grabbed those little parcels.
But all of this area is in, there's a huge amount of floodplain here, so
it's not developable, so we are the next development.
So it's really not leapfrog development, it's the next acreage to be developed.
Which is why I think the city annexed it and
why they envisioned that it would be developed.
Now it's been sitting on the books as ag for 17 years, but now there's an opportunity
to take in all 2,500 acres as a revenue generating service for your city.
>> Okay.
No, I appreciate that.
I think I would just like some clarification,
not right now, but in the future from staff, our comp plan says,
in the land use element, it says the availability of green field land coupled
with the demand for large single family detached dwelling residential subdivisions
has facilitated development that outwardly expanded the suburban fringe
at a relatively low density and intensity.
This trend has resulted in a land use pattern that has tended to further extend
distances between where people live, work, and shop, resulting in a rate of land
consumption and sprawl which grew faster than the underlying growth of the population,
producing an unsustainable trend that is costly for the city and taxpayers alike.
Meanwhile, considerably more vacant land exists within the present city limits,
both unplatted tracks and already planned and approved master plan communities
than can be absorbed by the city's projected population growth over the next
two decades and beyond.
So like you said, maybe that's false now, I don't know.
But I would just like some staff response to that over the next few weeks.
- We'll bring it back with a comprehensive plan amendment discussion.
- And yeah, I did want to, just for our commission understanding,
a lot of these terms get confusing and I'm probably the worst about just
throwing out a term.
Certainly, everybody's free to define terms however they want.
But the American Planning Association, how they define smart growth as they say,
compact transit accessible pedestrian oriented mixed use development patterns
and land reuse epitomize the application of principles of smart growth.
In contrast to prevalent development practices, smart growth reinforces
a larger share of regional growth within central cities, urbanized areas,
inner suburbs and areas that are already served by infrastructure, I think it goes on.
So just for context of some other definitions.
Yeah, I'll say this looks like a superbly designed sort of bedroom residential
community that a lot of people would want to live in that I have no problem with that.
The concern I have is from a fiscal perspective, so I'll be interested to see
once that fiscal analysis is complete and really see what that looks like
from a bottoms up roll up of can we afford to maintain the streets
and replace them when they fail.
- Okay. - So thank you.
Any other questions from the commission or comments?
Commissioner MacDuff.
- I just want to make sure that our comment, my comment and Commissioner Dyer's comment
about the ratio of the town homes versus the multifamily is included in the staff
commentary that we'll see later on.
- Yeah, I think Haley will have that note.
Yeah, and I do want to make another comment too that I think those are maximums
in the zoning ordinance.
And so as this thing builds out over the next 20 years that it's not necessarily
set that yes, there will be this exact number of multifamily.
That's a maximum so there could be no multifamily in this project as it moves forward.
- Okay, not seeing any other questions.
Thank you very much.
That concludes our work sessions for this afternoon at 6.11 p.m. we will break for dinner
and we'll be back in council chambers at 6.30.
Thank you.
- Good evening.
At 6.33 p.m. this Wednesday, October 22nd, 2025, I will call the regular meeting of the
Denton Planning and Zoning Commission to order.
Our first order of business is to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance to the US and
Texas Flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
- I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
- I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
- I pledge allegiance to the 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.
That brings us to item 2, PZ 25-197, consider approval of the planning and zoning minutes
from October 8th.
Any questions or motion from the commission?
Commissioner McDade?
Motion to approve.
That's a motion to approve.
And Commissioner Riggs?
I second.
Seeing no questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 7-0.
Brings us to our consent agenda, item 3A, FR 25-001-0A, is the only item.
Any questions or a motion on the consent agenda?
Commissioner Riggs?
Make a motion to approve the consent agenda.
And Commissioner Garland?
And I second to move forward with the consent agenda.
With the motion as second, seeing no other questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 7-0.
Brings us to our items for individual consideration PZ 25-196.
So this item is just consideration of your calendar for next year.
We did our best to keep meetings on the second and fourth Tuesdays, which was the pattern
we had this year, but there are a few exceptions for holidays accommodating for the school
district spring break and things of that sort.
But if you all have any concerns with the calendar, we can consider making modifications
to it as needed.
Any questions?
Just to clarify, just for the record, I believe you said on Tuesdays, but I think you meant
Wednesdays.
Yes, you're correct.
We almost got an update to the council, the first city to have dueling councils.
Okay.
Any other questions or a motion?
Commissioner Dyer?
I make a motion that we approve the 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission as it sits before us.
And the calendar, right?
The calendar.
What did I, did I not say calendar?
Just to approve the commission.
Oh, sorry.
I think.
Yes.
Yes, calendar.
Okay.
Commissioner Garland.
And I second the approval of the 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission calendar.
Thank you.
With a motion and a second and no questions, I call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 7-0, brings us to our second item for individual consideration, FP250028.
Welcome Angie.
Good evening chair and members of the commission.
Angie Manglaris, assistant planning director here to present FP250028.
This is a final plat for the reserve at Brush Creek.
It is a single family residential subdivision situated the northeast corner of Brush Creek
and US377.
At this time, the final plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval, but staff
has no objection to the requested extension that could be granted to date certain of November
17th.
I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have.
Any questions from the commission?
Or a motion?
Commissioner Dyer.
I make a motion that we go ahead and delay the approval of this to deny it today, but
to go ahead and approve the extension for November 17th.
Commissioner Riggs.
I second that.
Very good.
Seeing no more questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes 7-0.
Brings us to our last item of individual consideration.
Commissioner McDade, if you want to recuse, you may.
At the record show, Commissioner McDade is recusing herself and Commissioner Riggs as
well on item 4C, FR25-0020.
Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, presenting FR2520.
This is a replat of a four-plex development located just west of Loop 288, south of Audra.
Originally, in your packet, the staff recommended denial with a proposed extension.
However, staff and the applicant worked together and they resolved all comments, and so staff
has modified the recommendation to approval.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Glad to see this coming through, it's been a while.
Yeah, I'm not sure which one of these will be three-plexes and four-plexes, but I will
point out that this is very near to our 2,000 square foot minimum proposed for DDC amendments
for the townhomes, and so the parking requirement that we have for sale townhomes does limit
how small of a townhome you can build for purchase.
Any other?
Commissioner McDuff.
Oh, yes, I'd like to agree with the staff and make a motion to approve the request by
ECM Eden Village LP.
Make that approval, please.
And Commissioner Ketreson.
I'll second that.
Very well.
Seeing no questions further, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 5-0 with two recusals.
Let the record show that Commissioner Riggs and Commissioner McDade are rejoining us for
our first public hearing, item 5A, HL 25-0002.
Thank you, Chair and Commission, Cameron Robertson, Historic Preservation Officer.
This is for a historic landmark designation of 3316 Roseland Drive.
The property is located at the northeast corner of Roseland Drive and Roseland Circle.
The owner is Lee Ann Todd.
Construction dates range from approximately 1870s to the 1960s in a multi-phase construction.
As I stated, this is a request for a historic landmark designation.
It is zoned R4, and it is a single-family residence.
Just to go through some photos of the property itself, this shows on the left-hand side that
front south facade and the rear north facades, the east and west facades of the property,
south and west facade view of the property, because it's pretty large, and then the circa
1960s pool and cabana in the rear.
This is a survey of the property, which it is the one that is bordered in red.
I did look at the Denton Development Code section 2.9.4b, specifically stating that
3316 Roseland Drive meets following criteria of 3, 5, 9, and 11.
I'm not going to read those out loud.
They were in your backup packet, but looking at approval criteria 3 and 9, it's really
concentrated more on that architectural style.
The home itself has a lot of Victorian influences for architecture, ranging from that late Victorian
vernacular to those mid-century influences.
You can see the example of the Italianate and the Greek Revival, which was highlighted
a little bit more in your backup packet, but you can see both of those influences on that
3316 Roseland Drive property.
As I stated in the criteria 9, it is that cumulative history of architecture over time.
In criteria 5, it was constructed in three phases.
We have that side gabled hall and parlor type residence, which is that pre-1880.
We have a vernacular addition that was added to that front south facade, which is highlighted
in that center photo, which is 1880 to 1910.
Then we have that influence of the Greek and Italianate Revival addition at that front facade,
with some additional architectural detailing along the roof and the eaves.
In addition, we have that pool and cabana construction in the rear in the 1960s.
We're also looking at criteria 11.
Dr. Harold Brenholtz, he is the eighth owner of this property, or he was the eighth owner
of this property.
He taught at North Texas State University, which is now University of North Texas.
He was a professor of education from 1923 to 1960.
He actually helped launch the school's education doctoral program.
He was one of the original organizers of the Denton Lions Club, which is an international
service club.
He also served the Denton community as a scoutmaster.
You can see the arrows pointing to him in some of the photos and just some of the different
articles in the staff directory.
Looking not only at the criteria, staff analysis also looked at the 2019 Historic Preservation
Plan, goal number one, policy 1.3, which looks at prioritizing and designing eligible buildings
and areas for potential landmarks and historic districts.
Then also our Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, goal CC2, which preserves and maintain the
unique character of Denton.
There was public outreach done, both newspaper, website, property sign posted.
We did receive one response in favor, as you all got that email earlier today.
Staff is recommending approval for the property at 3316 Rose Lawn Drive, as the designation
is consistent with the goals and objectives of our Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, as
well as the Denton Development Code and our 2019 Historic Preservation Plan.
Historic Landmark Commission did review this, and they recommended approval for zero.
It will go forward to City Council on December 2nd.
I can stand for any questions.
The applicant is here if you have any questions for her as well.
Any questions from the commission?
This is a public hearing.
I will open the public hearing at this time.
I don't have any cards filled out to speak yet, but it is a public hearing.
You're welcome to come down and share your thoughts if you want to, for anyone here.
Seeing no one ... It's up to you.
Okay.
I'll close the public hearing at this time.
Any questions before ... Okay.
Commissioner McDuff?
I'm proud to make a motion to agree with the staff and our historical landmark officer
for the approval of the recommendation to the City Council regarding a request by Lee
and Todd, the property owner, for historic landmark designation in accordance with Section
2.9.4 of the Denton Development Code for the property located at 3316 Roseland Drive.
Commissioner Garland?
I will second the motion to approve staff recommendation.
You have a beautiful home.
Any other discussion from the commission?
Yeah, I'll just say I have conflicted thoughts with many of the historic preservation applications,
not because I don't believe in historic preservation, but because I want to make sure we're focusing
our energy on places that will yield public benefit from an educational or appreciation
perspective.
I think the history of the historic designations of many of the older homes on Oak and Hickory
Street is a great testament to something that I would gander to say almost everybody in
our community knows about, right, because it's so visible.
But in this case, it's, you know, there's not really a, it's not in central Denton,
it's not, doesn't have any redevelopment potential really, and so I think that it's a fair application
of the tools that we have to make sure that unique architecture stays in good repair.
Seeing no other questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes 7-0.
That brings us to our second public hearing item, PDA 25-0002.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, Principal Planner with the City of Denton, and I am presenting PDA 25-2,
which is a charter school.
So the request before you is a plan development amendment to one of our older PDs, PD 139.
The purpose of it is to allow a use that's been approved to move forward with development
of the property.
In 2020, the site plan was approved for a charter school through this plan development
amendment process.
However, there have been some changes.
They want to modify that site plan, and so they're coming back to you in order to do
so.
So they are proposing to modify the site plan that was approved, which includes removing
approximately 4.4 acres, reducing the building footprint and open space, removing the proposed
high school for now.
They may put that in later phases, and then reconfigure the parking and access areas.
The subject property is located on the south side of Vintage, just east of 35W.
Just a little bit of background about PD 139, it is one of our older PDs.
As I mentioned, it was established in 1991 as a 450-acre business village, and that permitted
the proposed institutional use.
It's been amended several times since it was originally created.
First of all, the Vintage neighborhood, just to the east of the subject property.
There was a request for gas well development, and that was approved.
And then the proposed charter school in 2020.
Since 2020, there's also been a multifamily development approved, just adjacent to the
west of the subject property, and a commercial use.
It's under development now, but it is proposed for that corner at 35 and Vintage.
It's also important to note that the 450 acres has shrunk, and that 213 of those acres have
been rezoned out of the PD and into just based zoning districts.
So the request before you, sorry, there's a lot on this slide, but just wanted to allow
you to kind of compare what was approved and what they're proposing.
We won't go a lot into the approved plan, but you could see the campus took up a much
larger footprint, included a high school at that time.
They extended all the way north to Vintage.
There was a driveway access point to Vintage, which will remain in the revision, as well
as one access point to John Payne.
The proposed plan, which is on the right, would meet all PD setbacks, building heights,
not coverage.
They are only proposing the K-8 at this time.
Once again, the high school may come forward, but it would require another plan development
amendment.
They are proposing 130 spaces.
There are a lot more spaces shown on the site plan.
Those are ghosted in, kind of grayed out, and that's just to see where that parking
would potentially go with the high school.
And then, as I mentioned, there's also space for that high school, as well as athletic
fields, to support that.
Access has changed a little bit in that there is still that same access point on the north
side, but then there are two proposed access points on John Payne, which allows vehicle
circulation.
And just to point out, John Payne isn't there right now.
It is a mobility plan road.
It's intended for a secondary arterial.
This is kind of the first leg of it on the north side.
It will eventually connect south.
So this is kind of the first part of it in this area.
And then you could see the buildings, the proposed buildings, outlined in blue, as well
as the play area.
The line in pink shows kind of where those drive aisles are.
A little bit about transportation and traffic management, because it's always something
that comes up, especially when we're talking about schools.
They did update their TIA that was originally approved in 2020.
There have been some changes in the area, as we discussed in work session.
The multifamily has been constructed.
There's commercial development.
Just a lot of differences in the area.
So they needed to update that TIA.
Our transportation folks have reviewed it and approved it.
And those lines in red are the system improvements that they need to make for this project.
So they rely on those turn lanes to allow parents or people entering the site to get
out of those lanes of traffic so they can make safe turning movements.
So both a left turn lane and a right turn lane off of Vintage onto John Payne.
And then two turn lanes into the school site off of John Payne.
And then one on John Payne, as one would turn right onto Vintage.
It's important to note that they have looked at the circulation on site.
The Northern driveway would not be available to parents during drop off or pick up.
That is something that they are going to disallow.
And that the parents will have to navigate through a loop system off of the John Payne
exit or entrance.
And you can see that they've done that analysis for the queuing to ensure that there's sufficient
space.
The criteria for approval for a plan development amendment are in subchapter two.
We won't go over all of them today because it is really kind of just that site plan approval.
But it is consistent with the criteria for approval, both the general and specific.
And just kind of highlighting that, it's consistent with our Denton 2040 comprehensive plan, both
in the future land use as well as in our economic vitality goals and our mobility policies.
It meets the PD development standards, provides that adequate roadway improvements, that queuing
the traffic management.
Any future additions to the site would require additional public hearings or potentially
zoning the property out of the PD if that's what they choose to do in the future.
And then it just provides another educational opportunity in this part of Denton.
So when you look at the DISD schools, there's not a lot of them are just really close.
So it'll provide an additional educational opportunity.
Public outreach was sent out.
We didn't receive any letters back.
I believe there was a comment that was provided today and was sent to you in favor of the
request.
And so staff recommends approval of the request as it complies with the applicable criteria.
If it moves forward tonight with a recommendation, it would go to city council public hearing
on November 18th, so next month.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
The applicant is also here and will be available to answer any questions.
Any questions for staff?
I will open the public hearing at this time.
Yeah, Commissioner MacDuff.
Yes, I'm sure it's in here.
I can't recall it immediately, but why are we removing the proposed high school?
It's just something that they're not.
They're phasing the project.
They do anticipate, and the applicant is here, they do anticipate that it will come in the
future.
It's just this first phase.
They're not ready to move forward with those plans just yet.
Okay, thank you.
And I have a question, Julie.
I'm just trying to make sure I'm interpreting the PD development plan correctly.
Because the northern, I believe north is up on the site plan, right?
Correct.
Because the northern lot, that lot two is segmented out for later, normally I think
we wouldn't require perimeter street improvements on a lot that's not being developed.
In this case, are we requiring that sidewalk along that eastern driveway to be done with
this phase?
That is a great question, yes.
With this development, they will have to build half of John Payne Road and dedicate the necessary
right of way.
They'll also have to build that sidewalk, the pedestrian pathway from vintage to their
entrance to their property to provide the connectivity for students if students were
local.
Okay, thank you.
This is a public hearing.
I don't have any cards filled out at this time, but if anybody would like to say something,
you're welcome to.
I actually have a question for the applicant if you'd like to come up just to answer a
question.
You're welcome to share it more as well, if you could identify yourself.
Yes, my name's Matthew Bull, how are you doing today, sir?
You may not be aware of this because it's in esoteric details of how code gets developed,
but a couple of years ago at the request of the Denton Independent School District, we
actually increased the number of parking spaces that we require for various school types.
Then we made sure that we had a provision in the code to allow schools to provide alternate
documentation if they didn't need that many parking spaces, for instance.
Was that brought up during the development process with staff, and was that something
you pursued or chose not to?
It has not been brought up with me yet, but if that was something that I could honestly
talk to Mr. Westlake about and make sure that we have everything that you all need for that.
To be clear, I trust you all to decide the right things.
I just don't want to inadvertently increase the cost of education by building parking spaces
that aren't needed.
No, we want to do whatever we want, this has been a long time coming for us.
I don't know if you all know the whole history of Denton Classical, but this is not the first
location we've purchased, and so we're excited to be here, we're excited to grow, and we're
excited to move forward with the next steps for our students, so yes.
Any questions for the applicant?
I haven't seen any.
Thank you very much.
Thank you so much.
Any other members of the public wanting to speak, not seeing any movement, I'll close
the public hearing and open the floor.
We have a motion, Commissioner Riggs.
Yes, I'll make a motion to recommend this to council as recommended by staff.
And Commissioner MacDuff.
Yes, I'll second that motion to Commissioner Riggs.
Very good, I'll just say I'm glad that this is able to move forward, glad that the sidewalk
provision is there, I do yearn for a day when the backs of residential subdivisions would
have permeability so that people wouldn't have to walk around onto Vintage to get here,
but that was a while ago that that was decided.
Not seeing any other questions, sorry.
Yes, on the board is the agenda item, and we have a motion to approve.
Yeah, I think it updated when the motion was made.
Any other questions?
Not seeing any, I'll call for a vote on the board.
And that item passes 7-0, brings us to our last public hearing of the evening.
Item 5C, PD25-0004.
Okay, good evening Chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglaris, Assistant Planning Director
here to present PD25-0004, Brush Creek Center.
A little bit of background on this project, this is a request to rezone from Residential
1 to plan development with a base zoning of suburban corridor.
This is a plan development overlay, so with this they are imposing some additional conditions
upon themselves, but it's not that detailed site plan like we just saw with the charter
school plan development.
This is a 2.63 acre site, it is located at the northeast intersection of US 377 and Brush
Creek Road.
Currently, it is unimproved and consists of open pasture.
It is part of a larger 18 acre tract that is situated at that northeast corner.
The remainder is zoned PDR4 and that zoning change occurred late last year.
The future land use, we'll get more into it, but it is designated as neighborhood mixed
use and surrounding it is existing PD to the east, north, and west, as well as some R2
to the south.
This is situated at the northeast intersection of US 377 and Brush Creek Road.
US 377 is a north-south roadway owned and maintained by TechStat.
It is designated as a primary arterial with a planned build out of six lanes undivided.
And Brush Creek Road runs east-west.
It is situated along the south of the property line.
It is also designated as a primary arterial and will serve as a regional east-west connection
throughout the entire city, ultimately connecting to I-35W.
Staff did review this project against our criteria for approval and do find that it
meets these criteria.
More specifically, this particular area is primarily designated neighborhood mixed use.
It does call for the predominant use to be residential, but also notes that local serving
retail and service uses are appropriate in this area, particularly where there are areas
of future development as we see this area of the city continue to grow.
This will provide neighborhood serving retail and services that are critical to achieving
our balance and accessible neighborhoods.
The SC Zoning District is designed to be situated along moderate to high intensity corridors
and provide commercial, office, and retail uses.
As part of this PD overlay, they are prohibiting the more intensive land uses that would otherwise
be allowed in the Suburban Corridor Zoning District, helping to ensure compatibility
between that future use and existing and developing single-family residential in the vicinity
of the project.
This is an example of what you found in your backup as part of the PD overlay standards.
So the intent of the PD overlay is really to ensure that this is consistent with land
use patterns that you would expect to find along US 377 and won't introduce any incompatible
activities to the area.
The applicant is proposing to explicitly prohibit about 15 land uses in the SC Zoning District
that are typically associated with a little bit higher intensity.
So those uses that you see in that third column there are being prohibited from being developed
on this particular property, whereas they would otherwise be allowable in the SC Zoning
District.
Additionally, the applicant has provided some provisions for the location of the dumpster
enclosure and screening, ensuring that it's a minimum of 75 feet away from any residential
structure in addition to our typical screening requirements.
It does provide for a 10-foot landscape buffer along the northbound shoulder of 377 that
needs to be outside of the right-of-way, as well as any future public utility easements,
and does allow for continuity of existing roadway conditions for non-motorized users
of US 377.
Public outreach was conducted in accordance with state law, as well as city ordinances.
We did receive three responses in favor.
Those were one owner who owns multiple parcels within the area.
The applicant did hold three neighborhood meetings since April of 2025 of this year.
And staff is recommending approval of this request as it complies with their criteria
for approval.
It is tentatively scheduled for city council on December 2nd, and I'm happy to answer any
questions you may have.
The applicant is also here and I believe has a brief presentation for you all.
Okay.
Any questions for staff at this time?
I don't see it.
I will open the public hearing at this time and ask Mr. Trey Jacobson, is that correct?
You can come down.
And as the applicant representative, you and whoever else would like to speak on behalf
of the applicant have a total of 20 minutes, however you want to divvy that up.
Well thank you, Chair.
I promise not to take that 20 minutes from you, just Chair and members of the commission.
My name is Trey Jacobson.
I'm a land use consultant, and for the record, I'm addressed at 124 East Edgewood Place in
San Antonio, Texas.
And I'm representing the prospective buyer and developer of this site.
I should also mention we have the consulting engineers from Anhard here if there's any
particular questions that you may have.
Angie did such a good job with her presentation, I'm going to go ahead and really skip to the
aspects of it.
I did want to stress that while this is not yet a future major intersection, this is where
two major thoroughfares are going to cross and it will be in the not too distant future.
So just stepping back from a land use standpoint, the fact that it is at that major intersection
and as it's consistent with the future land use plans, there's no environmentally sensitive
areas in it.
This kind of makes it, just from a pure land use standpoint, a perfect commercial corner,
which is one of the things that has attracted the interest in this project.
And we're simply looking at more of a highway, as you would see on Forward Drive, a highway
oriented commercial retail center.
I can't tell you who's going to be there, and I don't know the exact configuration,
and we needed that flexibility as this site is ultimately developed.
And that's why we originally went with straight SC.
Now we ultimately rolled that back to a PD overlay, because we agree, in fact, we propose
that there's a lot of incompatibility.
So this is more like SC light, as we were proposing it.
But as this is a conceptual site plan that we've been working with the neighborhood on,
this shows that two entry points that are permissible, given the entryways, as well
as the right of way dedications that are ultimately going to be required, there's a lot of infrastructure
that's ultimately going to be built, including roadway and turn lane expansion from 377.
We have to build the north half of Brush Creek, again, as a major arterial, and improve it
along with all the pedestrian mobility and landscaping that's going to go on.
That will be part of this project.
This shows a single 13,700 square foot building.
Now this is just meant to be a contemplative analysis around how much could theoretically
you put on the site with all the required parking, and for a sense of scale, if you're
wondering what that looks like, that's like a Walgreens, a CVS, a Trader Joe's.
That's the size.
So that's the maximum potential.
But that's really not what's envisioned here.
We're envisioning more of a multi-tenant retail with upgraded aesthetics to it.
We let our architectural team run wild.
This is one concept.
This is another concept.
This just shows a four bay type of approach.
Just to, again, this is not ultimately what it's going to look like, or how we could ultimately
defect.
This one shows the division between the two buildings.
So there's a lot of flexibility that could ultimately take place.
So we already talked about the PD overlay.
If you're familiar with the Viridian project, which is at 500 Fort Worth Drive, this is also
SC zoning.
This is a straight SC.
But this kind of gives you a sense of a comparable sized type of project like that to give you
a sense of flavor for how it would fit in with the site.
I think it's important to talk about the community engagement, and Angie mentioned in her presentation
we had a number of meetings.
We've been engaging with the community all the way back to January in this, including
surveys of the neighbors within 500 feet, asking them for their input on their concerns
on the site.
We've taken those.
We worked with them in designing the site, explaining how this is done.
We also went through some of the zoning options, hearing what their concerns are around land
use and compatibility.
A lot of the -- a number of the uses that are on the list of what are prohibited uses
actually came from the neighbors, and we really appreciated all their engagement.
And even we had a meeting just a few weeks ago as this was starting to head to P&Z.
So the list, I think, was already shown to -- and it's in your packet.
I won't belabor that.
I'm happy to go back if you'd like.
And we just talked about some of the development standards.
So I don't want to take any more time, but really, Angie did such a great job with the
presentation.
So if you could answer any questions, you all might have.
Any questions from the commission?
Commissioner MacDuff?
Yes, I just have a comment, and of course, yes, certainly the staff has done a great
job on this.
I think this is an exemplary model for use of an overlay plan development.
So thank you, Mr. Jacobson, for this.
I appreciate that.
And certainly a relevant way to address the neighbors' concerns.
This is a public hearing.
If anyone else would like to come and speak, you're welcome to -- oh, I'm sorry, is this
Andrew Belter?
Yes, this is Andrew Belter.
I'm going to consult an engineer for this, and I'm just here to answer any questions
you have on the engineering side of things.
Thank you.
Appreciate you being here.
Any questions for the applicant's engineering representative?
I don't see any.
Thank you.
With that, I will close the public hearing.
We have a motion on the board.
Commissioner Garland?
I would like to make a motion to approve the zoning change as recommended by city staff.
Thank you.
And Commissioner Ketreson?
I second.
Commissioner Garland?
Thank you.
So we have a motion to approve on the board.
Any discussion?
Yeah, I don't have a problem with this.
I'll just say that we should be careful when we describe the list of uses that are stripped
out from a -- when we describe the stripped-out uses as more intense, I would not expect multifamily
housing to be more intense than a 24-hour automotive fuel sales, for instance.
I understand that happens because of negotiations with nearby property owners, but let's just
be careful how we message that.
Any other questions on the commission?
Not seeing any.
We'll call for a vote on the board.
And the item passes 7-0.
Thank you.
That brings us to item 6A, the planning and zoning commission matrix.
Good evening.
With respect to the matrix, I believe we captured all of the recently requested items on there,
so we will get to work on addressing those.
A couple of council updates for you all.
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was recently presented at 380 -- along the 380
corridor was approved by council, as well as the two recent zoning change requests for
Suburban Corridor up at Loop 288 and Sherman.
Those were approved as well.
And then last night, we were very happy to get a unanimous approval from council for
the downtown rezoning, so a great step forward for our Design Downtown Denton plan and its
implementation.
And then one item I did want to note for everyone, because I don't know if you heard the discussions
after the work session, you all received an invitation this evening that was forwarded
to the city for an event associated with the landmark development.
Because that event is not a public type event that the city can post a notice of possible
quorum for, we would ask that you all monitor yourselves if you choose to go and make sure
that four of you are not in attendance at the same time at that meeting.
So limit it to only three of you should you choose to go to the event, please.
And that is all I have.
And I believe that event is probably a come and go sort of thing.
So just to avoid any extended discussions or roaming quorums, would it be appropriate
for us to notify the secretary if we plan to go so that she can monitor if there's an
issue?
I just, I don't necessarily want to, I'm happy to, but I don't want to suggest that people
should contact me if I'm setting up an issue then.
I mean, I would say it's a come and go, I don't know, because I've been to some of their
events when they opened up like Pecan Square, Treeline, sometimes they say a few words and
they talk about things.
So I mean, it is four to seven, that's three hours, that is a long event, but I don't,
it could go either way.
Okay.
Sure, so yes, if you all do want to email myself or Kathy, we can let you know if we
hear from more than three who plan to attend.
And in that instance, I would just ask that those of you that are present kind of coordinate
amongst yourselves to see who would be willing to step out.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
Any items to add to the matrix from the commission?
Seeing none, that brings us to item seven, concluding items.
Any concluding items to remind us of?
I have one, early voting, I believe, is going on now until through Saturday the 30th.
I'm going to mess this up, I should have booked this up, I apologize.
Somebody who's more civic than me, tell me what the right thing is.
I believe it's through next Friday, through the 31st of October, and then election day
is on November 4th.
So do your duty and privilege as you may.
Seeing nothing else, I will adjourn our meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Thank you everyone.
At seven, eight.