Oct 16, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2019-10-16 4:30 PM

Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session for October 16th, 2019. I'll call the meeting to order at 435, seeing that we do have a quorum. Let the records show that Margie Ellis is absent at the start of the meeting. The first item for review and for business is item 1A, which is an update to the new format under House Bill 3167, I believe Richard has the presentation. >> Thank you, I'll be brief. I just wanted to just highlight, if you recall we had discussed a few weeks back, maybe it was a month or so ago, regarding the impacts of House Bill 3167 and the 30 day shot clock with respect to platting. And then the specific findings that we would need to make if we were to deny a plat. And so tonight, while we have just one item that's under the shot clock, they did meet all of the requirements, so there was no recommendation of denial. But I just wanted to highlight in your backup, if you'll note with the plats where we typically just had a straightforward AIS. What we've created was sort of a review criteria checklist, if you will, that outlines whether it's been met, not met, or not applicable. And then if it's met, those reasons why, when and if we do get one for denial, those will be the reasons for that denial. So it's clear you can see up front as to what the specific criteria are. So I just wanted to point that out, that we'll be using this sort of format as we move forward with plats. >> Thank you, Richard. The next item of business is item 1B, which is to receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the changes to gas wells and subchapter eight of the EDC. And so, who is presenting this? >> Haley. >> Haley. It's worth noting to the commissioners, if I understand this correctly, that there will be an opportunity for questions and answers of city attorneys. If the attorneys deem that that might be a closed meeting discussion to be had, we'll just refer that question later to the agenda and come back to it in a closed meeting. So I think it's open to any questions, but we might be given counsel to withhold those to a closed meeting if we need it. So that's on your agenda as a closed meeting. It might or might not happen, depending on this discussion. Thanks, Haley. >> All right, so I don't know if all of you are familiar with gas wells or not. So I wanted to start with just kind of a quick run down of where the code is today with gas well setbacks. So the code establishes two primary types of setbacks. The gas well drilling and production site setback is shown here on the left, and that is a measurement taken from the edge of a pad site to any protected use. We'll look at what those numbers are later, but essentially it's 501,000 depending on the zoning and the case with the production site. The second type of setback is what's called a reverse setback, that's what we'll be primarily discussing this evening. That is a setback measurement that's taken from a protected use that's developing in proximity to a gas well pad site. So those are typically 250 feet in the code today. There is a- >> Mr. Beck. >> Yes, sir. >> So why are those two numbers different? >> My understanding is- >> This is more of an education than anything else. >> Well, and I was not here when this ordinance was adopted. My understanding is that the thought process is when a gas well site is developing, the protected uses around it are already established. So there should be room there for it to stay further away from those uses than say if a gas well site is already existing and a homeowner knowingly wants to come in and build a protected use in close proximity to it. So the numbers range from 1,000 to 250 across the board generally. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. And then there's a third type of setback that you'll see when we look at that, that's called a minimum setback. As it's written today, that is the minimum distance that a gas well site has to maintain from a protected use after a variance or some other type of relief is approved by either, there's multiple instances. There's certain cases it can be approved by staff, other times it goes to ZBA, and then there's also opportunity for all of the property owners of protected uses to provide a waiver. And that could get them down as low as 250 feet in some instances. >> So a little bit more background for you all. This has been through extensive conversation with city council to date. We've had three work sessions. Originally in September of 2018, council asked for a discussion to come to them regarding how Denton compares to other cities and how our setbacks relate compared to others in the area. So that occurred last September, again in July, they requested that that come back for further discussion. And at that time, council reached a general consensus that the reverse setback, the one I referred to that's the measured protected use to pad site, should be increased from 250 feet to 500 feet. And so that was the direction given to staff was to start working towards a code amendment to increase our reverse setback to 500 feet. As recently as August 27th, we brought forward what those changes would look like to council. So if we increase that, what the code amendments would look like, as well as some other issues that staff had identified, such as the possible need for a variance if that setback increases 250 feet, as well as the creation of nonconformities. So those discussions were brought to council in August, and they generally gave direction to one, try to craft language that would prevent the creation of nonconformities as much as possible. And two, to pursue a combination of the variance options that we presented to them. So I'll outline those for you in more depth as we go through this. >> Haley, if I can interrupt real fast. As, I don't know if you can answer this. Do we have the authority as a city to increase the reverse setbacks? Is that within our authority? >> I believe it is, but I may defer to legal counsel on that. I believe as a zoning regulation we have that authority. Is that correct, Jerry? >> We do have some limitations on that and I don't know, do you want to address those now or do you want to do that at a later time? >> Aaron Leal, City Attorney. The, you know, normally setbacks are zoning regulation and we have that authority. I know with respect to setbacks involving gas wells, they come under, we do have a limitation under House Bill 40 which says that we're allowed to impose reasonable setbacks. We don't know what that means, it's not defined in the code. So there is that limitation on the zoning side, or zoning authority with respect to gas wells and their setbacks. Reverse setbacks apply to the protected uses. They're not gas wells, so House Bill 40 doesn't impact, so it's just a normal zoning analysis. At the same time, which if it gets to there, we also, as I explained during the work session on July the 16th, there is a takings analysis that we also take into account, into consideration. I explained that at length to council and I'm free to do that as well here. But that would be a separate limitation on the setbacks. At some point, you know, we run into takings issues. >> So if I understand correctly, the initial setback, the 500,000, is a limitation on new construction. It's a limitation on the oil companies or the gas companies. >> Yes. >> Reverse setbacks are a limitation on development, not the gas companies. >> That is correct. >> Is there any anticipation, it doesn't seem like the fracking groups or the momentum that was gathered behind HV 40 would come into play. Because this particular is not against that industry. It's against every other development that might want to encroach on the reverse setback limit. >> That is correct. It would apply just to protected uses, which goes beyond residential houses. It includes other types of protected, other types of uses. >> Okay. >> But yes, you are correct. >> Thank you very much. >> All right, so there are four primary topics that we'll get into today. One is the increase of the reverse setbacks. Second is those non-conformities that would be created that I alluded to. Third would be the variance options that I just referenced and what council has directed staff to do there. And then fourth would be some changes to how measurements are taken to certain uses such as parks that aren't clearly defined in the ordinance today. So here is a summary of where we're at with our current gas well ordinance. Setbacks, as I mentioned, are broken down into the drilling and production site setback that applies to the gas well operator. The minimum setback that the operator can get to if they have a variance or some sort of waiver. And then the reverse setback that's applicable to those protected uses developing near a gas well. It's further bifurcated between zoning districts. So the setbacks are broken down for new gas well sites and non-industrial districts versus industrial districts. And then for existing gas well sites, it's also broken down the same way, industrial versus non-industrial zoning. So those setbacks range anywhere from 1,000 feet for a new drilling and production site in a non-industrial district, down to as low as 250 feet in the industrial districts and for the reverse setbacks. Back in the summer when we brought this forward to council and they wanted an analysis of different setback possibilities. We initially went through several land use analysis with them showing different scenarios and what land area would be affected by these. Ultimately, the 500 feet is what they settled on. So you can see that would increase the amount of acreage impacted by reverse setbacks by just over 2,600 acres. And that's a total of 888 additional parcels of land that would be affected by that versus where we're at today with 573. >> The increase is 2,600 or is the delta that's 600? >> Right, this is the base number, this is what's in addition to that. >> So it'd be an additional 2,600. >> 4,200, 4,200, 4,200, 4,200, 4,200, 4,200, 4,200. >> Yep, current. >> Has this, Commissioner Beck. >> We're 4,200, wait, so we're above 1,800, we're another 800 and change, does the delta, I'm just trying to understand the deltas here. >> Everything 500 and beyond has the 250 base number netted out. So this is the increase beyond the 1,800 that we're at today. >> So the 2,630 is above. >> Commissioner Beck, can you come to the mic, yeah. >> The 2,630 is above the 1,800. >> Correct. >> So it's. >> It's an additional 2,600 acres. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. So the parcels affected, the 888, that's, of course, an additional on top of the 573. So another, talking about 1,300, 1,400 parcels that are affected. Specifically, when talking about affected parcels, are these parcels that have development that's already against those setbacks? Is there any delineation between what. >> This particular analysis didn't have any delineation. >> It just had every guess well put the different setbacks on there. >> As you can see here on the map, our GIS team just ran these various buffers that council was considering against all existing gas well sites that are in the city limits. >> Okay. >> Of course, the setbacks being zoning don't apply to wells in the ETJ, but this is the analysis city wide from every gas well site that we have. >> I'd be interested to see, I don't know if it's necessary, but I'd be interested to see if GIS can take it a step further to see what parcels have developed, what parcels aren't developed, meaning with. >> We have that analysis and I can get that emailed out to you. >> Just so we just have an idea because we're looking at if there's already, if we increase it to 500 foot setback but there's already a housing development that's next to the 250 or it's 300 feet setback already. Increasing to 500 doesn't really necessarily affect that parcel, so to speak, but if of those 1,400 parcels, 1,000 of them are undeveloped. So then we're talking about undeveloped land at that point in time, and so I'd like to know what that number would be. >> Correct, and we have that analysis. We may be able to dig through the O drive and find it if we want, but if not, we can email it. >> We can include it as part of the, we can email it in advance, but I think we might hit to some of that when we get into, because it's really a two fold. It's those that want to develop, but it's also those that are already existing, and if something happens to that property, their ability to rebuild. >> Gotcha. >> And those numbers we do have. >> Yes. >> Okay, all right, thanks. >> I'll hold the question. >> Okay. >> All right. So I just wanted to give you guys a little bit of background about where council was at with this decision, and so this is what those changes would look like in the code. If we look at that same summary table, across the board, the reverse would be increased from 250 to 500. We are proposing to introduce a new type of setback called the reverse minimum setback, so same thing as what the gas well operator has. Because of the risk of a takings claim, we wanted to offer the opportunity for a variance or a waiver. And so this would be that minimum number that that variance or other waiver could reduce it down to, would be the 250 that they're already at today. >> Commissioner Burnetta. >> Can you give us an example of what would be something that a developer might use to qualify for that reverse minimum setback? >> There are specific criteria that I'll get into for what that would look like. There's hardship criteria if it goes to ZBA, and then there's other criteria that we've applied if it is something that staff could potentially approve. So I can get into that a little bit later in the presentation. >> Okay, thank you very much. >> All right, so the second topic that, like I said, as we worked through this and started analyzing this, we realized there would be a substantial potential increase in the amount of nonconformities. We have some properties nonconforming to the 250 foot reverse setback today. But of course, if that increases another 250 feet, there's a substantial amount of property that could be affected. At the time we introduced those numbers, council directed us to try to add language to the code that would prevent creating nonconformities. So there is some concern with this about certain nonconforming uses and structures being treated differently than others that staff has. Legal also has similar concerns, but this is the draft language that we would bring forward if you all choose to recommend and council chooses to pursue this option. And that would provide that the adoption of the increased setback shall not cause existing legally established protected uses to become nonconforming. Such protected uses shall be deemed a lawful site feature lot or structure, provided that the use is not closer than 250 feet from the existing gas well. So this would not change anything for things that are within the 250 foot nonconforming as it is today. We would further define legally established to include any lawfully existing protected use structure or site feature, or any lot that is part of a project, as defined in Texas Local Government Code Chapter 245, that has filed a preliminary plat or general development plan that has not expired as of the effective date. So that would capture projects that are in review with staff today, or that perhaps have a preliminary plat approved by you all but haven't final platted yet, and would allow those to continue moving forward. And then we would also propose adding language that no additional improvements be added to these lots that would decrease the current setback. >> Looks like there was a question. >> Maybe, yeah, Commissioner Beck. >> So what we're talking about here is whether that fraction of the 888 properties would go into conforming or rather nonconforming. >> Not necessarily. So this is the background data for that. So as it is today, we have 349 total protected uses that we were able to identify that are nonconforming to the 250 foot reverse setback. Those would not be changed with this language. With the proposed 500, there would be 1,240 total protected uses on the ground today that would be potentially nonconforming to the 500 foot. If we were to add this language to the code and allow those to be considered legally nonconforming, that difference would be 891 nonconformities that would be, in essence, prevented by this language being added into the code, if that makes sense. So what we looked at earlier was strictly a count of the number of parcels that fell within that setback. This is a further analysis that our GIS team conducted to identify those that have single family, multi family, a park, a school, a church, any of the protected uses existing on them today. >> And that's the 751? >> The 751 is the total of those protected uses that excludes Robeson Ranch. So Robeson Ranch has its own gas well setbacks applicable. So when they ran the initial analysis, it included all of those and then I asked them to go back and net out Robeson because this wouldn't affect them. So 751 would be the total outside of Robeson Ranch that would not become nonconforming if this language were adopted. >> And what was Robeson Ranch's setbacks? >> They have a 100 foot separation requirement written into their zoning documents. >> They have a 100 foot reverse or? >> I believe it's just phrased as a separation distance between homes and gas well parks as they're called in their documents. So Robeson is actually a plant development. >> So if I am understanding that, that's less than the 250 state minimum requirement then. >> There's not a state minimum requirement, because it is less than the 250. >> Who is the source of the 250 then? >> That's Denton's current ordinance. >> Okay. >> Did you want to add something? >> I'm apparently out back again. I can give you some history on that. The reverse setback was not implemented until 2010. It was August 2010, I think it was 2010-196. That's when the reverse setback came into being. Before then, the only separation distance was per the fire code, and that's 100 feet from the well. And so a lot of these houses are going to be less than the 250 that we implemented. That's why we came with the 250 reverse setback, because pre-2010, as the city was growing, residential subdivisions, especially on the south side, they started encroaching into existing gas wells. And so they instituted the reverse setback. But there are a lot of residential subdivisions that predate the 2010 reverse setback that are subject to that 100-foot separation distance. So that's just a little bit of background so you can understand about the 250 that was implemented in 2010. And there's a lot of development that already existed before then. Yes, sir. The 250 was initially an arbitrary number? I don't know, I was not here in 2010. I know that it was proposed to be changed in 2015 to 500. At that time, during the public hearings, I don't remember about P&Z, I know definitely at City Council. There were various developers, surface owners, real estate brokers that came out and started, complained or were concerned about the 500-foot setback when they raised the takings claim. At those public hearings. Is the 500 being proposed an arbitrary number? I'm wondering the research or the methodology, why are we coming up with these numbers? I know that Haley will get a little bit more in depth on that as far as how the council got to that number. And she can explain that to you. Christian or Bec? This is sort of a lead-in to that next one, so I'm not sure who the right person is to ask. And I'll wait for most of my questions when you get to that section. But if the justification for 100 or 500 feet is based on, in that one example, the firefighter's needs and codes. Then how are, if they wanted to move to 500 feet for the firefighting needs, then how are we within that? Or our ongoing setback distances? >> Are you saying that the fire codes change 500 feet? >> If the fire codes are saying that they need 500 feet. >> Then I'd say 100. >> 100, but let's say, so the fire codes are 100 feet. And then they, but there was a, you were saying that there was a desire to move from the fire codes to 500 feet. Is that what I heard? >> No, that was a city zoning setback in Greece to 500 that was proposed at that time. >> And the rationale was for what reason at that time? >> It's my understanding that one of the reasons why the reverse setback came back was because of the increased development to the south side where a lot of the existing gas well parks are at. And there was also the incident, well I shouldn't say incident, but the SUP involving McKenna Park, the gas wells that the range resources wanted to develop across from McKenna Park. That was the trigger event that caused council to consider a larger setback than what the fire code requires. The fire code is not interested in setbacks, they're interested in maximum distance between an ignition source, like a gas well or a gas well tank battery. To various types of uses, it doesn't say house, but it just various types of uses and 100 is the minimum. In some cases it's 300, but that's all we had. It wasn't that the council purposely designed to have the 100 foot setback. The fire code is the fire code, it's always been there, and that was just the rule that we used in addition to the gas well ordinance. Back then, the fire department, the fire marshal specifically, was the one who would process the gas well permit applications. And the planning department would process the plats, gas well plats. So that's the only thing that was there, but the purpose was, again, for fire safety purposes, not necessarily for the zoning, which came in 2010. >> I'll reserve the rest of my questions for the later section. >> Okay, do you have a question? >> Yes, if we can go back to slide eight, I just wanted to, I have a question. Because reading this a few times, this looks to me just like a standard kind of grandfather clause. It says no, legal does not recommend adding this provision. Can you give us a little background on that note? >> Well, and I may have to let Aaron speak to that a little bit more. In general, the concern is that we would have, as this table shows, we would have existing non-conformities. And I have a graphic, actually, that shows this a little bit better. So in this example, we looked at what's non-conforming today. Those are the lots that are in red. What would be non-conforming to the 500, were this language not added, would be those in orange. So in general, zoning and our land use plans seek to decrease non-conformities over time. So there's concern, number one, that we would be allowing the continuance of non-conformities. But then the issue becomes the issue of these lots being treated different than those lots when they're all not meeting the standard. So you would have, if something were to happen in this instance and a tornado came through, say the lots that are in red that are non-conforming wouldn't be allowed to rebuild their homes. Those that are in orange, if this language were added, would be able to rebuild. So just the complication created by telling one person on one side of the road, you can rebuild your home, but the other person, your neighbor, can't. Because we wrote some language into the code that allowed them to not be non-conforming. And legal has further analysis of that that I can certainly let Erin provide. But in general, those were the concerns from development services staff with this potential language. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Does the state or does any, do they have a minimum recommendations for these setbacks? >> They do not, it's fine to say. >> They do not, so it's just arbitrary, we just kind of arbitrarily make up your own setbacks. >> Correct, and the setbacks vary across cities and across the state. It seems that the range of 250 to 300 is fairly common in some instances. I know Fort Worth has a 600 foot. Cities have various setbacks, we kind of fall in the middle of those ranges. >> Okay, thanks. >> Commissioner Cole. >> So my home happens to be in 250 of Gaswell, has been for 15 years, so if my house burns down or gets hit by a tornado, you're telling me I'm not going to be able to rebuild a house. >> Commissioner Cole, is your mic on? >> Yeah, sorry about that. >> Thank you, thank you. >> But, I mean, is that the jest of it? >> Potentially, yeah, if you are non-conforming, the way the code is written in non-conforming use, if it's destroyed by more than 50%, it cannot be rebuilt. And a house that's been there for 70 years cannot be rebuilt. >> We'd have to look at that particular case and see the timeline, but if it's non-conforming, that's the way the code is written. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. There's not a way to grandfather in non-conforming, even if there is a destruction. Where is that, within the letter of the law, where is that coming from? Is it coming from, is that the definition of the 50%, is that coming from Texas local government code? Is that coming from our development code, is that? >> That's within our development code. Is there not a way for us to amend the development code to where we could, in this scenario, saying that if your structure existed before the setback, making you non-conforming, does get destroyed. You have the ability to rebuild, or does it allow us to go past what the code is at the point in time we develop, because it was existing prior to the code being changed? Is that something we should talk about in close, rather than? >> What do you think? >> Sorry, Aaron. >> I'm sorry, Aaron. >> One thing that hasn't been discussed, remember, with non-conformities, it applies across the city. And so, if it's a- >> We can't specify the non-conformity for oil and gas setbacks, if non-conformity means a non-conformity. >> Because then, now you're treating different types of uses differently, those that are going to stay non-conforming. Now you've got a special class of non-conformities that we're going to allow to continue to rebuild. You're creating that scenario, and we have non-conformities all over the city. >> Yeah, sure. >> As long as they can continue to be used. But at some point, if they are destroyed by a fire or a tornado, and it's more than 50% and- >> And there's some non-conformities that are extremely good for safety reasons, like a building before the ADA was put in place and whatnot, and then those kinds of things where you need to abide by the code and be conforming at that point. >> And so that's where Haley's coming from, that you're now starting to treat non-conformities differently. You're only special if you live within so many feet of a gas well, but you're not special if you're elsewhere in the city. >> Yeah, I'd hate to split hairs down code on that, but I understand, I can see why Commissioner Cole's upset. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Thanks, Haley. >> I think that pretty much touches on everything I had for non-conformities, unless you guys have other questions. >> Chris Rebek. >> So are we going to touch on the rationales for the distances being proposed? >> Because that was sort of implied earlier. >> The, well, the rationale, as I said, council did- >> For the actual number. >> To my understanding, there isn't necessarily, if you're looking for a scientific basis or something like that, there simply isn't one. >> But what was the basis for council's decision on 500 feet is what I'm asking. >> It was based on this land use analysis and a desire to be somewhat similar to a Fort Worth study that established that a 600 foot setback from a wellhead in the city of Fort Worth could be considered a safe distance. Fort Worth's measurements are taken from wellhead to structure, ours are from pad site to structure. So when you run the numbers 500 feet from the pad site boundary as we measure it is roughly similar to the 600 feet from a wellhead. That was really the only further analysis beyond the land use data and just numbers that were discussed. >> And that's essentially a density argument that Fort Worth wanted a certain density on a minimum or maximum density of wellheads in these kinds of properties? >> No, no, in Fort Worth it's the same thing. They have a setback between a residential protected use that's considered for safety reasons a setback from the gas well itself. The only difference there is how they take their measurement. Theirs is from wellhead, ours is from pad site boundary, so typically the wellheads are in- >> So I guess what I'm asking, and I'm sorry, I shouldn't have interrupted, I guess what I'm asking is the rationale for whether it's we're cloning Fort Worth's 600 feet as our 500 feet or whether there's some other measure is the rationale for the particular distance safety, density, air quality, health and water effects, what's the rationale for the number? >> I believe it would be a mixture of all of those things, just speaking from what council has brought up at air quality, safety. All of those things were discussed, there's not data to solidify what those numbers would be. So we're basing it on the study from Fort Worth that was the closest comparable study that's been done. >> But there's nothing limiting us to following that Fort Worth study, is there? I mean- >> In terms of 600 versus 500? >> In terms of rationale. We're not, there's no requirement that we need to follow that Fort Worth study. >> Certainly not. >> And so then, this may be more of a question for legal and less for city planning. But what are our requirements in terms of takings, in terms of health and safety, in terms of fire code? What is the requirements of the city to these various stakeholders? >> Well, fire code I believe is a 100 foot standard. And as far as safety, this is all home rule authority that is the basis for these setbacks that are established. And I think Haley's right, I think there's a number of different factors that entered into the regulatory mindset. I don't know what Fort Worth, what theory predominated in their analysis or calculation. I don't really even know what theory, there was one theory alone that predominated with respect to dentin. I think it was a combination of different factors as Haley indicated. >> So do we have particular requirements in our city code or that govern our actions that would impact on this number that we need to follow? In other words, do we have a responsibility to say, if there's a study that says 1,000 foot is the better distance or half a mile is the better distance for a particular rationale. Is there a legal requirement that we should, must follow a particular rationale? >> Well, I think we would follow a given rationale if there were one that we could count on as being definitive for all situations. But there are a variety of studies that are out there, and a lot of them come to different conclusions. >> And so if there is a variety of studies, we throw up our hands and we say, well, there's a variety of studies and we're not going to do anything? >> No, I don't think that's what I said. >> No, I'm not trying to pin you down to that. >> Right, yeah, I think that the council spent a good long time and very carefully considered a number of factors in coming up with these numbers. I think that there are some people who would like to revisit those numbers for one reason or another. And I think that this is part of what this process is all about. It's part of the governmental process of determining what numbers are the most appropriate for the reverse setbacks. And that's not to say that one is per se better than the other. I think it's just part of the governmental process. >> And if it does help, the information was presented to council regarding what the cost and time frame would be for Denton to conduct its own study, similar to what Fort Worth did. And they, at the time, have chosen not to move forward with that effort. But that information was presented to them as an option that if we wanted that basis based on our own data, such a study could be conducted, but they've chosen not to move forward with that to date. >> So if council has moved this issue back to our work study group for us to make clarifications and decisions about, what is it that, is council simply asking whether 500 is a number that we can agree to? >> So if I could interject, on November 6th, this is going to come back to us for our official recommendation and vote back to council. So this is just the introductory conversation about what's happening at the city level. In a month from now or two weeks from now, we will actually make a recommendation that goes to the city council for them to actually vote to change this. As part of the development code amendment process, we're required to hold two public hearings, one at Planning and Zoning Commission, one at City Council. So rather than bring this to you all cold on November 6th, which is the tentative date for public hearing, Richard decided it would be best to have an introductory work session like this to brief you all on where we're at, what council has discussed to date. So that when you see a draft ordinance or a draft of the code amendment before you on the 6th, you have a little background data to base that decision on. >> And I appreciate everyone clarifying because this is my second event here, so thank you. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> Yeah, and I just kind of wanted to kind of reset real quick because with regards to Commissioner Beck's questions. There is no study that sets a number, right? I think Colorado has their setback somewhere about 1,200 feet. Fort Worth is at 600 compared to us, Fort Worth's production is significantly less dense than Denton. We know that this is air, and air doesn't stop blowing particulates after 1,000 feet, which is the problem. Right now, we have 1,000 for the setbacks, not the reverse setbacks. What we're looking at right now on this screen is simply how close we can put new developments to an existing well. And the numbers we're looking at are primarily based not on science but on how much it would affect people who are already living in this town compared to their proximity, right? >> This is simply an analysis of how many parcels are within those acreages. >> Okay, all right. And I just wanted to kind of get to that because as somebody who's son has asthma, it's kind of a big deal. And I know that 500 isn't going to be far enough. I know that 500, according to some things that I've seen, isn't necessarily far enough to be safe in the event of a fire. But what we're doing is attempting to, I guess, put a little bit of additional distance from where we are right now, I think, all right? >> It's definitely a discussion. >> Okay, all right, thanks. >> Commissioner Beck. >> And I want to beat a slightly related dead horse here a little bit. If we are having a discussion about 500 and the ramifications of that and then there are rationales that come forward in the future that say, well, we do need the other 500 or we need another 1,000, so we need to push it out to 1,500. We'll be revisiting this discussion at a future date with essentially the same arguments, the same amount of taking, the same amount of owns, the same amount of developments. But we will have allowed non-conformities to then, I mean, they won't have occurred by our 500 foot rule or 200 foot rule, but they will occur in a hypothetical 1,500 foot rule. And it's not like we're not thinking about those things. So I guess I urge us to think about those things a little bit. >> Any other questions right now? I assume you have more slides. >> Yes, all right. So I think you got the gist of the non-conformities. Again, this is the language council directed us to add. There are concerns on the staff and the legal department side with that. But this is the draft language that would come forward to you all on the 6th as it is today. So the third option or the third aspect of this code amendment that I wanted to touch on would be the variance options. As I mentioned earlier, for gas well operators, if say the 1,000 foot setback applies to them, they have three different options to apply for a reduction in that. One of those is a staff option where if they have multiple production sites, they can basically put in writing that they will limit or close operations at one site and will be able to add more wells at a different site. So that's one variance option for them. They can also go to ZBA to seek a reduction down to the minimum setback if they meet the hardship criteria. Or they could get a waiver signed by 100% of the owners of protected uses within the setback to reduce that number. So operators, as it stands, have three different choices they can go to if they need to seek relief from the 1,000 foot setback. So with increasing the reverse setback from 250 to 500 to help with the potential takings claims that Legal has mentioned, we're introducing two options for a protected use developer or owner to seek similar reductions. So the first of those options for them would be to go to ZBA through the standard hardship variance process. That could reduce the reverse setback from 500 down to 250 which we again establish is that reverse minimum setback. They would have to be able to prove that they meet all of the hardship criteria that exist in our code today. So prove that there are special circumstances on their property, that there would be no adverse impacts to the city or the surrounding area. That there's reasonableness to their request based upon the conditions in the area. And in addition to those, we would introduce some specific criteria for protected uses. And those would be the reasonable use of the surface of their property by the owner or developer. The availability of alternative site designs or subdivision layouts. So if someone was bringing forward a subdivision and saying we need to reduce this so that we can add ten more lots, did they look at other options? Are there ways that they could reconfigure the site that wouldn't render the need for that reduction? And then finally, compatibility with existing gas well development site plans or plats. Almost all of the sites within the city have a gas well plat on them today that establishes the access routes to the pad site. That's something that we can't take away. Our code doesn't allow us to do that. It stipulates that when someone plats within a gas well plat, they have to provide for similar, the same access or some alternative that the operators approve, so we would honor that same thing here and ensure that access to the site is maintained. And just so you all know, a ZBA vote for a variance would require a three quarters vote. All of their decisions require six out of seven members to grant that variance. >> Commissioner Smith. >> So back to Commissioner Cole's question then, they'll say that a fire does burn down his building, his home. But do you mean that he can go apply for a ZBA approval for it? >> No, a variance would be for someone developing a new use site, it could not help a non-conformity. >> Why is that? Why is there a delineation then of, you can go down to 250 if you're building new, but you can't be down to 250 if you're a non-conformity. I get it, if Jason's house was 100 feet away from the gas well, I'd get that because it's past the minimum reverse setback, but why the difference there? >> Is that a closed session conversation? >> It's not necessarily a closed session conversation, but you know. >> You just think I'm an idiot, Jerry, I know. >> No, it sort of gets into the rationale of legal nonconformities. The whole idea of legal nonconformities is that you want, eventually, all properties to fall within the regulations of the municipality. And part of that is you're anticipating that some of them are going to go away. You don't apologize for that. Sometimes that happens. You don't impose a regulation on someone as an ex post facto law that they can't meet while living in a particular location. And so due process requires that you permit them to remain in place under the laws that they came in under. That's simply a requirement. And but that's not still the case when, I don't know, somebody's sign falls down or their house falls down or burns down or what have you. The expectation is that they will rebuild under the new standard, whatever that is. And so if you provide some other method for them to come back in permissively, that's something that's above and beyond the ordinary application of the legally nonconforming use standard. >> Okay, Mr. Anderson. >> I agree, thank you, by the way. I agree, but I kind of disagree with you at the same time. Because if you're in a subdivision, and all of a sudden we do set back at 500 and that becomes a nonconformity. You have a house in the middle of a subdivision that burns down. We're not going to allow them to rebuild. So you're going to have a couple of vacant lots between homes. That just doesn't seem right to me. I mean, that's just my personal opinion. I think they should be allowed to rebuild in a neighborhood. I just don't understand. >> And that's certainly where individual city ordinances come in for those decisions to be made. The limitation for legally nonconforming use is kind of a one-sided limitation. It sets a floor, not a ceiling. And so we have to allow in zoning regulations for legally nonconforming uses if the regulations change to make an existing structure nonconforming. They're legally nonconforming as a matter of due process. But there's no constitutional standard that sets a ceiling for that or otherwise limits it. Yeah, you can set a standard that does provide some protection along those lines. You could even, for that matter, rezone everybody if you want to. But there's a number of ways of dealing with that. But it's not part of the legally nonconforming calculus. >> So Haley, as a matter of discussion, it seems like this language is super ambiguous. And I would love to see if the city could actually square this up to measurable items that we could see what hardship is. There's special reasonableness, reasonable availability of alternative site designs based on who's assessment availability. I don't know if this is the actual language being used for hardship process. But my two cents would be, let's clarify what the person has to do to meet the hardship. And it's an equal field for everybody, rather than having this in different city employees. It just adds an array of approval abilities for hardships. >> We can certainly try to further clarify these additional criteria for this. The standard hardship criteria would be a bit more of an amendment because those are standards applicable to variances across the board in the city. >> And that's the language we use in our city? >> Yes, and Jerry, can you attest to, is that similar to what state law requires? Is it not the standard- >> Which language are we talking about here? >> The special circumstances and reasonableness based on a condition. >> I don't remember what the criteria are. >> I believe ours are similar to the state center, but we can look into it. Just so you know, that change would affect across the board rather than just this particular instance. >> Understood, it seems like a moving target. >> Yeah, it is rather vague, but at the same time somewhat hard to prove that you meet those standards. >> The other variance option that council kind of directed us to move forward with was similar to what operators are allowed. And that if they can meet certain criteria, staff can approve a reduction in setback that isn't all the way down to the minimum. It's to 50% of the difference between the minimum and the required. So for an operator that has a 1,000 foot setback and the minimum is 500, we can get it to 675, not all the way to 500, through the staff process. So this would be similar in that if they can meet these criteria, staff could allow for a reduction down to 375 feet. So half of the difference between 500 and 250. And in these cases, the administrative relief could only be granted if they can prove that the reverse setback would result in 50% or less of the subject property being buildable. And if they have applied all of the applicable alternative development standards that we are proposing to allow for. So what that looks like is in the code as it is today, if you remember for residential subdivisions, we offer a cluster subdivision design where basically the minimum lot sizes are reduced from 7,000 in some zoning districts down to 2,000, 2,500. The setbacks are reduced for the lot, so it basically allows for a much denser type of subdivision. So for residential, that could be applied and all of the cluster subdivision standards could be utilized without having to rezone your property to PD, which is the standard for city-wide. >> Commissioner Panetta. >> Yeah, I have a question, I don't see it in here. My understanding is right now production is actually dropping in the area in terms of fracking and stuff. Do we have anything in place that addresses whether or not wells are capped, closed, that kind of thing going forward? Would we reevaluate it or is it, once there's ever been a well there, it will always be applied? >> These standards are applicable to gas wells that are existing and in production, active wells, if you will. Once a well is plugged and abandoned, the code currently does not have any setback requirements at all. That's something that we know is a gap in our existing ordinance, but it's not within the scope of what council directed us to do with this. But these standards essentially go away once a well is plugged and a site is abandoned and remediated in accordance with state law. >> Okay, thank you. >> Commissioner Cole. >> Thank you, Chair. So what about the properties that years ago the city annexed and gave special agreements on setbacks? Do those go away that were negotiated during annexation with property owners? Or how does that work? >> I guess I'm not aware of- >> I think what you may be talking about is the non-annexation agreements? >> During annexation agreements, yes. >> But they were non-annexation agreements, these were for- >> So they were annexed, but during annexation negotiations, asked for certain setbacks and were given certain setbacks. >> I'm not familiar with that, are you? >> Aaron Lialigan, City Attorney. I'm not familiar with that actual type of provision being inserted as part of the annexations. The majority of the annexations that occurred that didn't get NAAs were the involuntary annexations, which were completed for the most part. Then we had three different areas of the city that had a special negotiations per state statute, but most of those dealt with municipal services, at least a lot of the bargaining and some were given that. As far as during those discussions where we had discussed anything about setbacks and gas wells, that didn't come into that discussion. I was involved in the past, not the 2010, but the 2015, 2016. >> Okay. >> Three, two. >> If it's something that old, I'm not as familiar with that. I know the majority of the annexations that are pending, or I'm sorry, that were completed. >> And those that are pending via non-annexation agreements, 2000 on is what I'm familiar with. >> That were given, granted. >> And that may certainly be the case. I mean, I know we can ask work with staff to try to find those annexation ordinances and maybe they can get together with you offline to see if they can have some easier learning than that. >> All I want to know is, does this supersede that? If that exists. >> It depends on the facts at hand. If they were annexed into the city, and there was no development, and then we instituted the 250 foot setbacks with the 500, and then development comes, they're going to be caught by, or subject to the 500 or the 250 foot setback. >> And maybe that what you're referring to is the master plan communities, the Colen Hunter ranches. And they did have some gas well setback provisions that were negotiated and established within those MPC regulations, but that's after they were already annexed into the city. And so, that was a process that was set up by ordinance to allow for that in the event that you have a master plan community like those were that provided for a variety of uses and to have some customized standards that applied for very, very large comprehensive developments, and so that was consistent with the ordinances that existed at the time. But no, they could not be subjected to the MPC process unless and until they came into the city as part of an annexation. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Jerry, for that. >> To clarify Commissioner Cole's question though, this would not override an MPC agreement. >> No, until they think of the MPC as a separate DDC and they're subject to their own rules. >> That's helpful, thank you. Back to you, Haley. >> Yeah, so where we're at with this is the staff variance possibility would apply if more than 50% of the site is affected by the reverse setback. And then for residential subdivisions, they would additionally have to at least attempt applying our cluster subdivision standards to maintain as much buildability back as possible, and then for any other protected use that isn't a residential subdivision, we would allow for certain reductions in addition to the minor modifications that the code already allows staff to approve. So that would be a 20% increase in building height and building coverage to give them essentially more density on the lot. And then a decrease by 20% in the minimum parking and minimum unit size. And then if this combination of standards does not yield them a comparable result or a desirable result, they could still go through the ZBA hardship process if they felt they had a hardship case. And this is just an example of kind of what that would look like. This is a site off of Windsor where the property is owned by a church in this instance, which is a protected use. They have a gas well site that immediately adjoins their property. The red buffer shows what that 250 foot setback looks like today. It encumbers 39% of their property. If there was a 500 foot setback applicable, that would be the green circle. That would encumber 96% of their property. So they would meet that 50% threshold to be considered for a staff reduction. So staff could, in theory, reduce that as low as 375 feet and gain them almost 30% of their property back into developability. So if that were enough for them to develop, they could move forward under that perhaps. If not, they could go to ZBA for further reduction. >> Mr. Beck. >> So in that picture, can you flip back? There we go. In the 50% reduction orange line, the 375, I know these are kind of cartoon eyeballs and not precise surveys. But that one house in the southwest corner that's basically on the property line would then also become non-conforming? >> Are you referring to the houses down here? So yes, if the 500 foot reverse setback were adopted and the language that we looked at earlier is not added to the code, yes, the homes and the lots that are within this green radius would become non-conforming. If you all choose to recommend and council adopts that language that we looked at earlier that would essentially prevent them from becoming non-conforming to the 500, then they would be considered legally conforming uses still as they are today to the 250. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. And then the fourth and final topic for this work session is some clarification on how reverse setbacks are measured, particularly at parks. So a public park is a protected use. Basically the DDC defines that the reverse setback measurement is taken from either the closest point of the proposed structure to be occupied by a protected use in a straight line to the closest boundary designated for the gas well site or for a residential subdivision plot it has to be taken from the undeveloped residential lot boundary to the closest boundary designated for the gas well site. For something such as a park that doesn't have occupied structures typically, that leaves it very vague as to where those measurements are taken. In the past this wasn't necessarily an issue. Very few of our parks are even touched by the 250 foot, but with the 500 foot we did find McKenna Park in particular is significantly within that 500 foot setback. So staff is proposing to add some clarifying language to state that for the purpose of a setback measurement at public parks, a structure shall be considered any improvement such as a building, playground equipment, pool, splash pad, clearly delineated ball field or court or pavilion. This would not include flat work such as parking lots, sidewalks or trails. Just to show you where this concern came from, again McKenna Park was the driver for this. They are 9% of the park is within the 250 foot today, but there's no improvements in that area. With the 500 foot, 40% of the park would be encumbered by the setback and they do have improvements such as the ball court and some pavilions that are within there. So we wanted to make sure we understood for our parks department moving forward what this would mean as they possibly have other park line dedicated or developed in proximity to Gasswells on the south side of town. And then additionally we are seeking some guidance from you all. We would also recommend extending the same measurement technique to other similar protected uses that have outdoor recreation components such as schools, multi-family daycares. It's currently not addressed in our code. They would be measured to the building since that's the occupable structure. But that is one area where we were kind of considering back and forth on which way to take this and it seems most consistent that we would extend the same protection for other outdoor recreation uses. But I wanted to get some feedback from you all on that before we add that language into the code. I don't know if anyone has any thoughts on that one. It would seem reasonable to extend it if we're looking at parks to outdoor spaces at schools and the like. Okay. Then we can certainly bring back a red line of the code that includes that measurement technique. And again, just as a reminder, the next steps for this would be the dual public hearing process. So as it is now, we are planning to notice the public hearing for the November 6th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting and then subsequently to City Council on November 19th if you all make a recommendation on the 6th. And that is all I have for you guys so I'm happy to answer other questions. We have some questions. Christian or Bec? So can we flip back to that picture just for a second that you showed me, Kenna Park. So we're talking about playground equipment and everything as being the site from which we measure. Do we have language in our code that delineates use? Is there a difference in the trail on the, what do you call, what's the green space that runs between the lakes? The green belt, thank you. I knew this green was in there somehow. The green belt primarily trail, maybe some outhouses or whatever, some parking. Is there a distinction between use, that kind of outdoor recreational use and outdoor recreational use say at a school or a hospital playground or something like that where there's clearly a group of our citizens that are maybe more vulnerable than bicyclists going between the lakes? Flat work as we've got it proposed would be excluded altogether because flat work doesn't constitute a structure and the code did specify a structure so we went with that same thought process so as it stands a trail regardless of whether it's at a park or a school or anywhere else wouldn't be, the measurement wouldn't be taken to that. I meant more for apples to apples so if we choose a structure, the outhouse, the whatever improvement counts as an improvement, do we have rules in our code such that we delineate typical use or would this, would we just be giving a blanket to all such outdoor kind of development? I think I see what you're saying. So the primary use of the property would still have to be one of the defined protected uses so if it's a playground at a daycare then yes with this measurement technique we could measure to the playground at a daycare versus if an office building had a playground outside because kids occasionally go there with their employees. The office building is not a protected use so that wouldn't affect that particular playground. Does that answer your question? That answers my question. Thank you. Commissioner Panetta, you still have a question? Give me a second. Yep. Do you have more slides or is this the conclusion? No, that was it. But the one question I had at the beginning I still have now and I certainly appreciate especially knowing Commissioner Panetta's family situation, the health risks of this but I'm struggling to understand the rationale. It does, I wish I had more information about the precipice of what took place to change this and moreover probably the legality of removing 4400 acres of property owner's property from use, not only for their investment, personal or otherwise, but also taking that off the tax rolls and the cost to the city and I think where I am is a tension of understanding the health which I think is valid but maybe undetermined from the data that I've heard today to the aspect of the economic factors going into this and is there a legitimate takings issue of someone who's owned property for a long time because if you look at all those dots, that heat map, we're expanding from a red circle to an orange circle which might not seem like a lot but obviously it's 4400 acres. Where does council fall on that and where does city legal fall on at least the takings force and are we allowed to remove their ability to use their property? I will defer to Gary on that one. Well, you know, your question about economic impact really applies to all zoning regulations if you think about it. Anytime we impose any kind of a zoning regulation, it has to be supported by our goals of the health and welfare of the community in general and that's established by statute and so the justification for doing that I guess is the studies that indicate at least some connection between the activities and some negative health impacts. Now, as we all know, you know, pollutants don't just stop and turn around and go home after a certain distance, you know, you have to set something as a standard, the laws go to demand that we establish a bright line as to what's legal and what's illegal at a certain point in time but the reality is it's going to be a gradient of some kind and I think that's part of, you know, what the concern is here with, you know, say for example with the legally nonconforming use debate that we had here. Yes, we have the fairness concerns on the one hand but on the other hand, if it's legitimately a health concern, does that health concern go away or is that still a legitimate issue for regulation if we're looking out for the health and safety of our citizens and so there's certainly arguments on both sides, you know, neither I nor our department are trying to advocate for one side or the other, you know, we're trying to provide a support role for whatever the city feels is an appropriate regulation through this legislative process but I think that would be the justification, those are the concerns that we're looking at, it's a balancing of health and safety, you know, versus property rights. Is there an issue of takings? It could be, it depends on if it goes too far, Mr. Lansford I guess has a little bit better analysis than - Sorry, Trey Lansford, deputy city attorney. Regarding takings is that when enacting something like this, using our police power to promote the health, safety and welfare is that we have to have a rational basis to do so. So what we're looking at is a challenge in a situation such as this as to where do we set this line, where are we going to put the setback. City Council has directed staff at this moment to kind of base our decision upon the Fort Worth study that was done because we don't have one of our own but the Fort Worth study would support a line at 500 feet which is what's being proposed now. Now where we move that line, the risk of a taking claim is going to come to was it reasonable or not. Did you have a rational basis to take my property in exercising your police power to do so? I guess fundamentally I have a question because both attorneys have now stated that we need to set a line, there's a requirement that we set a line. We have a line. So I don't - it doesn't seem like we need to set a line. The question is we are moving a line and where are we moving it to and my I guess prevailing question is why are we moving the line? And I think anecdotally we could come up with a lot of different ideas. There's a Fort Worth study, there's anecdotes of health concerns but there's - why did this come back up to city council? Does anyone have that answer of like the origination of this actually becoming an issue again? Because it seems like in 2015 it was density on the south side of town was like well we need to control this in 2015. Is this all about coal ranch, hunter ranch that this is now being brought up again or what's the precipice? This started last year, there had been a request by a couple council members wanting to revisit the reverse setback issue - or setbacks and reverse setbacks. They had a work session over at PD during one of their Monday luncheons and there were only six there and I can't remember who was absent and so they split as to whether or not they wanted to go forward and propose any amendments. After that sometime in the late spring before council member Duff came off the board and was replaced by Jesse Davis, the council discussed this again and there was a consensus to move forward to have the discussion. And so that's how this came to - and during that discussion as Haley presented earlier the dates, the council came and asked a lot of questions. We gave a very detailed presentation including the takings claim and they felt comfortable with following the Fort Worth study and the Fort Worth and their ordinance has been seen as a model for the other communities to have, they have a very great relationship with the gas well industry as well as trying to protect their citizens and so that study - and I can't speak for Dr. Banks who talked about that study but what I do recall is one that would be something more generally acceptable in the community. We know that there are studies - I'm familiar with all the studies that the industry puts out as well as the environmental groups put out. They are - they're directly opposite of each other and so with the takings claims and where we set this, we need to have something out there that's kind of closer to support why we're doing this. If it is the decision of this PNC to go forward and recommend to council to have the 500 foot setback, then we'll proceed or your recommendation could be nothing. This is why it's here before you and you're going to have those discussions. And so that's why the Fort Worth is more or less looked as a good model in the state and that's why we chose to do that. It weighed in air quality and tried to come up with a good distance. There's, as Haley explained, 600 foot from the gas well, ours is 500 because there's usually in a 300 by 300 foot, you're going to have 100 feet extra room inside. So that's how this all came to you. And so in any kind of takings claim, we're going to have to rely on something, some type of scientific evidence because that study is air quality. So we're going to have to rely on scientific evidence, which is the Fort Worth study to support our decision in a takings claim. We could win, but even though we win, we could still end up paying and so that's the - and I know Drake is our condemnation attorney, he can go into in-depth and talk to you until the rooster starts crowing in the morning, but that's more or less how we got here, how the council came to this, why we're using the Fort Worth study as a basis to support our amendment, assuming that is what you recommend and that's now what's before and I'm hoping that helps clarify some things for you about this whole process. It's definitely part of the context to me, so thank you. Commissioner Burnett, I know you're next. Yeah. So a few thoughts on this. Ideally, I think my problem has always been not as much the reverse setbacks as the setbacks now. Unfortunately, we already have what we have. I 100% support increasing reverse setbacks because I think we need to kind of limit the amount - the proximity new developments have to Wells, especially when as we get further along, we're going to have situations like we had with that developmental Windsor that was right up against - right up against the setbacks. The problem that I have on this is, you know, the whole thing about preventing new non-conformities. We kind of fall back on this thing like what happens if somebody's house burns down. Now, we know that in reality, you know, we have just a couple of thousand properties that might be subjected to that. There's no way that a couple of thousand houses are all going to burn down and only be one or two. I just - I have a problem with the intransigence of saying we can't allow that person to go before ZBA or something to rebuild their existing house, especially if they - if that is a choice that they're making that that house already exists close to, you know, a well. I 100% support, you know, extending the setbacks. I just have a problem on taking somebody's house, you know, that they've lived in forever. And I would hope that, you know, we could possibly revisit that, you know, in this regulation because I think that'd make a huge difference in terms of, you know, people supporting the extension of those setbacks. And we can certainly take a look at that with the planning staff. I know that there's some provisions out there that may get to where you want to be, however, but it would apply throughout the city. I think the legal interest we have is that it's applied uniformly to all nonconforming uses and structures, not just a certain segment and start creating special classes. So we'll work with the planning staff, and I think we do have a solution or something to address that that we can propose, so - and hopefully we can come back during the - on November 6th. I don't know if there's a work session schedule, and maybe we can propose something like that. Okay. Commissioner Stewart. Thank you, Chair. I don't know if we're able to bring back at least a study on what the claims process would be like and then what the costs would be, just if we put this in a presentation and say that, you know, if we have a taking claim, then how much could that cost the city if we do this? Just an estimation of that. Any type of research you have on that, that would be appreciated. Well, I mean, the - We don't have to get into it now, just for the sake of time. Right. Well, just the property values, we're going to be - I mean, that's going to be expert testimony based on the time of the take and everything, that they're going to have an appraiser, we're going to have an appraiser. I honestly couldn't give you an approximation of what that would be. I can tell you, if it's something that's going to go all the way to trial, you're looking at easily six digits worth of attorney's fees. At least being able to put some slide in there talking about addressing the taking claims would be appreciated. Maybe not hard numbers, but something - Are you talking about litigation? Are you talking about asking for a variance before ZBA, the appropriate application fees, or are you talking about those kinds of costs? No, yeah. I'm talking about variance, and the variance is denied, then go into a taking claim at that point in time. What is that process? Giving us some sort of feedback, okay, if there is a property owner who's upset that the setback has now increased to 250 feet from where it was before, and then that's - they come and make a claim that you're taking my land, be able to talk to that process of what that looks like from a city legal standpoint, and how that could affect us as a city from having to defend ourselves. That's all I ask. So, thanks. Chris, you're back. So, I have a question sort of similar, and that is, what's our exposure if we are aware or suspect that there are risks, and we purposely keep our setbacks smaller than those? And are we exposed to any legal liability? So we have this legal liability of takings. Are we exposed to legal liability if we choose to do nothing, and when we're aware of - even if there are some variations in studies? And I'm not sure - Yeah, and I don't know if you want to step in. I think my only point that I would want to make is there's the potential that exists for any zoning regulation, of it being too much, and so there's the potential for that going forward, and so this is one particular - this is probably one that's a little bit more intensive than, say, for example, a zoning use classification, but do you have any other thoughts on that? I think he's good. I think his question is different. Yeah, my question is different than that. My question is, if we're aware - I'm going to make a hypothetical. If we're aware that Denton is sitting on a nuclear waste dump and we do nothing, then what is our liability as a city if we allow flats to be built and homes to be built near a hazard - do we expose ourselves to liability? Going back, I could answer the first question you had - at 250, and same thing with the gas well setbacks, we're already in that position of a takings claim. With the reverse setbacks, at 250, our experience has been since 2010, and more so after 2015, that developers have come in and have accepted that 250 and have developed around it and designed their developments to comply, so it could be that that's an acceptable level for the development community and for the city, because we haven't had any claims brought to us on the 250 foot setback. I can't tell you what it will be in the 500, maybe it'll be the same, maybe not. It all boils down to what risk level is acceptable for this body to recommend and the City Council to accept. That's what it boils down to. What is the level of risk you're willing to incur, and as Trey said, the higher the setback, the increase in risk - that's all, and I'm trying to sum it up as probably as succinct as I can. And there are risks on both sides, you know, and even bringing the case, if you're a property owner, there's a risk that you could lose and be out a lot of money because of that, and still wind up with no relief. So I'm going to go ahead and interject, just for the sake of time, and knowing we're going to have a work session on this in a couple of weeks, Commissioner Pernod, one more question in order to move on. And I just wanted to clarify, I believe Commissioner Beck's question was actually different. What I heard him asking was, say we do nothing and leave everything at 250, and 10,000 kids within, you know, that are less than 500 feet away get cancer. If we didn't do anything, is the City at some point liable or, you know, for negligence in not moving to that? That sounded like the question you asked me. That's my question. Okay. Now, I don't know that we would be, because I would think that that would be some other suit, but the question is, if we don't take a basic measure to at least add a little bit of extra safety, are we negligent by leaving things as they are? You know, when people ask me these hypotheticals, I usually, my first response is, anybody can file a lawsuit. In this kind of a case, in which you presented, like if children get sick, get some kind of cancer or something like that, and they file the lawsuit against the City because they claim that they didn't protect us, there's going to be, it's going to be a battle of experts as to whether or not the cancer that they sustained was approximately caused or directly caused by the gas wells that are operating and was this, and then in addition to that would be, you know, what was the normal, what's a good distance, and so that boils down to, you're going to have a lot of experts in that lawsuit, and it will ultimately depend on what a jury decides, and so it's not an easy answer to ask, but it is not an easy case. I can tell you, like if you go back to, I know from the '90s and watching movies, Civil Suit, I think, which is John Travolta, it's going to be something that intense where there's going to be a lot of expert testimony and scientific evidence to demonstrate the plaintiffs will have to come forward and demonstrate that it was caused by this activity, and then after then, next show that the City was negligent in trying to address and stop that, so it is a complex litigation, is what I'm trying to say. The outcome will depend on the evidence and what the jury decides. And I think part of the question was presuming that that sort of standard or causal relationship exists, like with the nuclear area, for example, that there's a definite harm that will result that gets ignored deliberately, and that's really a different standard, and that speaks to what Mr. Lansford was talking about earlier, do we have a reasonable basis for our regulations that we put into place, or our failure to impose regulations, and we base that upon the knowledge that we have at this time. I don't think that there's any court that's going to impose a crystal ball requirement upon the City to know something that's unknown. Great discussion. I think it will be a lively one and helpful one on November 6th at that time. For the sake of what I imagine many people expecting a meeting to start at 6.30 in chambers, what I'd like to propose is we break for a brief dinner. We finish dinner while listening to a presentation by Christie to finish up our work session reports 1C, and if there is no opposition, the Chair moves that we take the agenda out of order after the work session items and move item F, which is the Brush Creek Apartments, to the top and hold presentation on that. As time permits, hear the other ones in work session. If time doesn't permit, we'll listen to the other items in public session at that time so we can try to hit a 6.30 hit for the council chambers. Is there any issue with that for anyone? Okay, perfect. So at this time, I'd like to break for five minutes to gather a quick meal and come back. It is 5.55. Thank you. We are back. Open the meeting back up at 6.04 and invite Christie for presentation on environmentally sensitive areas. Thank you. And Christie Upton, Environmental Compliance Coordinator, and I wanted to tell you I am really happy to be here tonight to share with you this criteria manual. We've been working on it for over a year, and I'm excited to reach the culmination and take it to adoption. So for starters, we wanted to let you know that the City adopted a set of regulations to protect and preserve the environmentally sensitive areas, and we've identified this as a pragmatic way to protect the City's water infrastructure and provide for green infrastructure. And the green infrastructure is a long-term strategy to protect the City's assets and support clean water. In 2018, the City Council adopted updates to the ESA ordinance, and with the updates to the ordinance, they directed staff to develop a criteria manual. Staff identified objectives that would support our goal of providing better understanding and the processes by which the regulations are applied. The criteria manual is a little different than the other criteria manuals because we do include a lot of information that provides the reader with better knowledge of the ecological -- the ecology that the ESA regulations are based in. To start the document, we considered the audience, which the criteria manual would be reaching, and we identified two different groups, both residents and property owners, who we aim to provide an explanation of what the ESAs are, how those property owners could benefit from the ESAs that are within that property, and how they can maintain those ESAs and the benefits that the ESAs offer. And the other group that we identified was the development community, which we designed the criteria manual to provide this group with guidance on how to develop the property from conception of that development to completion. So we tried to go in chronology and how we developed this criteria manual, the first section was dedicated to explaining why the City of Denton chose to protect these ESAs, and then we highlighted some of those ways that the ESAs provide ecological services, including how the vegetation can stabilize the drainage ways, natural areas are also known to uptake and neutralize pollutants, and how that can reduce those pollutants from entering into a drinking water supply, and natural areas serve as a resource for the community by providing monetary benefits and promoting community health and wellness. There are four distinct ESAs that Denton Development Code identifies, and in this section we provide a more detailed description of the characteristics and list examples of those ESAs, and we discussed the general protection requirements for each one of those types, and where we identified needed more specific information to be provided on those protection requirements, we tried to go into some more of those details. After that, we created a section on how to identify the ESA on private property. When a development applicant comes in and they're looking at what criteria they would need to consider when they're taking that project forward, one of those things is that we guide them to identify ESAs. We have the official ESA map and we guide them to that. Where we have ESAs identified on their property, the next step is to proceed with an ESA field assessment. Those ESA field assessments help to either confirm or sometimes we identify that the map is incorrect and that we can move forward with removing that from the map. The next step is where those ESAs are identified on private property, and the development applicant needs to consider how to comply with the regulations. This section speaks to the protection requirements and what the developer would need to consider. This section also provides guidance on how to develop the site that encompasses the ESAs in a way that protects those ESAs during the construction, and the guidance was written in a manner to highlight elements that are commonly encountered, and we also wanted to emphasize that each site is different. There's different elements to consider, and not all elements that are written in this guidance would apply to every site. Where the development community cannot conform to some aspect of the development code, the developer must request for flexibility allowed in the DDC by applying for what's called an alternative ESA plan. This section was written as guidance on how to create a meaningful, incomprehensible alternative ESA plan, and we focused on what would be pertinent information, how the applicant could find data that would allow the applicant to create comparable information, what was the ecological services that was provided that the development applicant would be removing, and how that could be incorporated into the mitigation, and then how the mitigation could be implemented and completed. In the final section, we wanted to recognize that any natural area within or abutting a urbanized area is likely going to need some human intervention at some point, and over the years we have received requests and guidance on maintenance, and we tried to summarize the guidance that we have provided in the past in this section. Moving forward, we have already presented on this criteria manual a few times, and we are going to be presenting this information again a couple of times in the next month coming up, and we have published the criteria manual online. We have not received any written comments back as of yet. We will be leaving that document up until a little before the December 3rd public hearing and adoption of the ordinance to adopt the criteria manual, and lastly, we have identified some future considerations. You may know that the criteria manuals will be revised on an annual basis, and in future revisions, we would like to add an SLP on field assessments. It would provide both explanation on how these forms are filled out, but also would help understand what the ESA field assessment is trying to explain. And then the other one would be a property owner's guide, which would focus on the vegetation, the native vegetation that could be supporting a habitat within the particular ESAs. Questions? Any questions? Commissioner Beck. So, you said you had no feedback on our websites or your websites, and none of the professional societies have provided any feedback either? None of yet. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Christy. As we move into the actual agenda for this evening, is there any updates or edits to the minutes on October 2nd? And then is there any initial issues with the proposed calendar for 2020? Looks like it's first and third week meetings all next year. Just in your backup, I legislate. If there is, we will consider and vote on that in chambers. So with that, we're going to move into the public hearings. Like I mentioned earlier, we're going to go out of order and go to item 5F, which is Z18-0013C. I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation, and then as time permits, we'll listen to other items in work session. If time does not permit, we will listen to those items in public hearing. With that, I'll turn it over to Ms. Jackson. Thank you. I'm just waiting. It wants to save it. Okay. Okay, Z18-0013, Brush Creek Apartments, is a request to rezone 6.71 acres of land from rural residential to mixed use neighborhood MN, and to rezone 11.359 acres of land from residential one, R1, to mixed use neighborhood MN. That 18.069 acre site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Brush Creek, which is right here, and US 377 Fort Worth Drive. Here you can see the current zoning map, which shows the R1 and the RR designations as proposed. This is what the zoning map would look like if this were approved. As you can see, it's following a trend of MN zoning districts along the US 377 corridor. A concept plan was included in your backup. I want to note that this is a conceptual concept plan. The site has not been designed yet. The purpose of this concept plan was for the traffic impact analysis to present worst case scenarios for the purpose of traffic generation. As you can see, we've got multifamily per this concept plan along this portion of it, and then at the hard corner of Brush Creek and 377 are proposed commercial areas. We have seven criteria for zoning approval, which I'll go into in more detail. The first criteria is neighborhood is that the requested zoning designation complies with the future land use designation of neighborhood mixed use. The locations with this designation, a diverse mix of housing types and densities may be accommodated. Most of the types of commercial uses in this type of designation are convenience stores, small restaurants, personal service facilities like dry cleaners and nail shops and things like that, daycare centers and small offices. Moderate to high density residential uses are also permitted in areas with this designation. The building should be appropriate scale and intensity to complement the surrounding neighborhood. Criteria two is that is consistent with relevant small area plans. There is no small area plan in place for this site. Criteria three is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district. The purpose statement of the MN zoning district is to provide compatibility between higher intensity mixed use areas and adjacent residential and commercial areas. The district is intended to contribute to a vibrant environment for pedestrians and bicyclists and includes varying densities of residential uses, neighborhoods serving retail, restaurants, commercial and office uses that are sensitive to the surrounding built and natural context and scale and form. And note that's very similar to the goals of the future land use designation. Criteria four is that there have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change. Both US 377 and Brush Creek Road right now are unimproved two lane roads. TexDOT has begun the process of widening US 377 to the south of this site. I'm sure you've run into the traffic issues right now just south of the I-35 overpass along Fort Worth Drive. Once the full site length of 377 has been improved, the traffic on the roadway will increase correspondingly. Additionally, current zoning of the site is not concurrent with the future land use designation of neighborhood mixed use. The designation was part of our 2015 update to the future land use map and as you know just very recently within the past month our new zoning code went into effect. When we transitioned the zoning, we transitioned to the closest zoning to what is already there. So while the current zoning is not concurrent with the future land use designation of the site, if this zoning is approved it will then be concurrent. The intensity of new development permitted by the required zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to surrounding areas. Impacts to the surrounding road network are anticipated as a result of this development. However, requirements such as perimeter street improvements and impact fees coupled with capital improvements on Brush Creek and the widening of US 377 Fort Worth Drive will offset the traffic generation. The applicant completed a traffic impact analysis or TIA pursuit to this rezoning request. The TIA makes the following recommendation, pending the timeframe for the proposed widening of 377 it is recommended that the southbound turn lanes be installed on US 377. So southbound turn lanes at this intersection and at driveway number 4 which is located right here. So coming this way we would have a turn lane here and a turn lane here. The southbound left turn bays at the respective intersection should be constructed in coordination upon completion of the development. Any additional improvements such as traffic signals and the widening of the road would be completed with the improvement of 377. And Cindy, do we have a timeline on the improvement of 377 outside with the required and Brush Creek? We do not have a timeline for 377. I do know that they are in the process of acquiring right of way right now. I have heard from different property owners along 377. And Brush Creek, I was told that is a ten year timeframe. Okay. Thank you. Let's see. Water and wastewater, public water is available to the site and wastewater will be extended to the site from the east along Brush Creek. There is capacity within the system to serve the proposal. With regards to parks, the subject property is located approximately 1,032.9 feet south from the proposed park at the corner of Bonnie Bray and Allred Road. This distance conforms to the park's goal of a ten minute walk to a park. Schools. There's been a lot of concern expressed about the impact this development may have on the Argyle ISD. The district has indicated that a new elementary school as well as additions to the high school are anticipated by 2022 or 2023. We expect this timeline would coincide with the anticipated completion of phase one because they have to go through many, this is just the first step of a very long process they have to go through before they even start development of the site. So we anticipate by the time phase one is complete, the school should be complete as well and be able to handle the students that are generated. Cindy, we have a letter from the superintendent of Argyle ISD. Yes. Was she aware of the timeline? She seemed adamant about lack of capacity, but it seems like the city somehow has interpreted that differently. The city has, I requested from Argyle ISD the formulas they used to calculate student population for development and I did not receive them. What we did when we got this letter was we kind of worked backwards to see what their calculations were and as I noted in my staff report, their calculations are quite a bit larger than the calculations DISD uses. So there's a discrepancy there. I've been talking with the assistant to the superintendent, however, I haven't talked to the superintendent herself, so I can't really give you a good answer to that question otherwise. Okay. Thank you. Fire station, the subject property is approximately 1.8 miles from fire station number seven and that is within the eight minute or less response time boundary. And there was no error in assigning the current zoning district. Public notification, now I've got several slides that are addressing public notification. This first slide shows the actual notification response within the 200 foot boundary. We received no responses in opposition within the 200 foot boundary which is within the city. You'll note that this site is on the edge of the ETJ. We did receive responses from the ETJ, however, we did not include them on this map. We received two responses in favor which you can see here and here and that comprises 10% of the area within the 200 foot boundary. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting. I put the details of the neighborhood meeting into your backup. There were quite a few concerns expressed about this particular project including the appropriateness of the site for this location. The density, the height of the buildings, traffic, schools, among others. Now this notification map shows the responses we have received within two miles of the subject site, within two miles of the subject site we received in opposition 41 and you can see in the red they're right here. And in favor we received two which are the two that we already spoke about. In the ETJ we also received two that are in support which you can see here and here. And in the ETJ within two miles we received 15 against which you can see the purple. >> And Cindy when was that last updated? We are still gathering opposition. >> We are still gathering. The map was last updated at 2 p.m. today. I handed out two sets of responses to you. The first set of responses in the binder clip, the very thick one, is reflected on the map. It's not reflected in the staff report. And then the very thin that I gave out to you is what I've received since 2 p.m. >> And just to let the commission know, if you haven't checked the email, there's about 12 more oppositions that have come in after 430. Those we have not obviously reviewed so anything coming after 430 is not going to be considered. >> No. >> These or those? >> I checked my email and I'm still receiving them. They've been coming in as I've been at this meeting. Those will be all calculated and put onto the map that goes to city council. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> I just have a question. So looking at this, it looks like there's maybe what half a dozen properties that are within 200 feet. Is that right? >> Mm-hmm. >> Okay. And on those we had one or two that were in support, right? >> Two in support representing 10% of the area within 200 feet. >> Okay. And the ones that were in support, do we know if they have a financial interest in the property that's-- >> No, they don't. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Now, this is the overall responses that we received. We received from within the city in opposition 42 as of 2 o'clock plus whatever I've given out to you and what's in my email. I've received two in favor, which you can see the subject's not right here. Two in favor are the two that are within 200 feet. In the city of Denton, extraterritorial jurisdiction or ETJ, in opposition we have 15 and in favor we have two. And then in the city of Argyle, we have six in opposition. The city of Flower Mound, we have one in opposition. And the city of Crum, we have one in opposition. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. The ETJ oppositions, they don't count into the calculation for the super majority requirement? >> No. The only things that count into the calculation for super majority requirement is in the 200 foot area. >> Okay. I know the properties that were in the ETJ that were in the 200 foot area, am I wrong with that? >> They do not count. We are required by law to use only those that are on the certified tax rule and that would be within the city. >> Okay. But even though there are properties letting it within the 200, if they're not in the city, they don't count. >> That's right. We have made note of them. But that's not counted in the opposition within 200 feet. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Okay, staff recommendation is approval, is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton plan and complies with the zoning criteria for approval as I just went through. That concludes my presentation. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. I have no questions for Cindy, but just something to bring up for the sake of time. We've done this before whenever we've had highly attended meetings for certain items. Possibly because we do have another, I think we have what, item G, item H or so that we have on the agenda. Is there a possibility for us to pull F and put it towards the end so we can get the other items out of the way and use F at the very end just in case it does take a long time and we don't have? >> Yeah. So G and H are city reports. >> Okay. >> And so the only ones after this item will be city reports. >> Okay. >> Before that, it's four final replats that would have been on consent if it was any other approval process and then a short variance. >> Okay. Thanks. Is there any other questions? So I think it's worth noting for the commissioners as well as the new commissioners, maybe particularly, they provided a concept map, but we are not looking at that concept map for the purpose of this. It's extraneous to the point of land use. So just for the sake of questions in the public and our discussion internally, it's a rezone to MN with every possible land use within MN. They provided a concept plan. They're not held to that. So if we were to prove it, thinking those apartments look awesome, they're not held to that. They can put in the convenience store or dry cleaning, whatever else they wanted to put in. So for the sake of our review, our look is does all the land uses or any of the land uses within MN work for this property? We're not specifically looking at apartments. Sometimes we can get convoluted about the TIA, about the apartments, and everything about apartments, but it's not -- this item is not looking at apartments. It's looking at the land use within MN, specifically on the rezone. So hopefully we can tailor the discussion specifically to that and not get in the weeds about the developer, the apartments, or what they might promise to put there. We're not binding that to this discussion. Seeing no other questions on this item, I'm going to close the work session at 631. We'll reconvene in council chambers at 640, and we'll stick to the original agenda order at 640 in council chambers. Ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning public hearing for October 16th. Appreciate the patience. We'll get started, and I'll call this meeting to order at 647. Seeing that we have a quorum, let the record show that Commissioner Ellis is absent this evening. The first item of business is to stand, if able, and I give the pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The next item of business is to consider the minutes from October 2nd, 2019. Commissioner Smith? Motion for approval. Approval? Yeah, motion for approval. We have a first for approval, Commissioner Pernetta? Second the motion. We have a first and a second for approval of the minutes. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 5-0 with one recuse. The next item of business is the consent agenda. Commissioner Smith? Motion for approval. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Pernetta? Second the motion. We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is items for individual consideration. We have one item for a consider approval for our calendar. Commissioner Smith? Motion for approval. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Pernetta? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on the calendar? All the dates look good. Perfect. With that, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. That brings us to our public hearing items. The first item is 5A FR-19-18. I will invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. I'm presenting to you a residential reef plot for two lots within the Old North Park Phase 2 subdivision. The lots in question are here with the hatching on it. These lots were originally plotted in 2015 for a single family residential neighborhood. In order to ensure adequate vehicular circulation and emergency access, a temporary access easement was placed upon these lots at that time. Since then, the entire neighborhood, all phases of the subdivision have been constructed. The streets are now punched through the way they were intended to. There's adequate circulation and emergency vehicle access, and so they're removing that temporary access easement. That's why they're here tonight, is just to remove that temporary access easement to develop the lots as they were intended with single family uses. I'll stand for any questions. Any questions? I do not see any. Thanks, Julie. Thomas Fletcher is the applicant that is here. Is Mr. Fletcher wanting to speak? Good evening, Commissioners. Thomas Fletcher, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas. Didn't really have anything to add, just wanted to be here in case there were any questions that needed to be answered. I don't see any questions at this time. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on the item, they certainly do so. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. I turn to the dais for discussion on our motion. Commissioner Pernetta? Motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Anderson? I second. Thanks. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 5B, FR19-19. I'll invite Sean Jacobson for a presentation, and I will open the public hearing. Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Sean Jacobson, assistant planner with the City of Denton. Presenting tonight a request by Gordon Meredith of Denton Community Development on behalf of Jimmie and Sandra Cross for approval of a final replat of lot 19R, block 6 of the College View addition. This would be a residential replat of lots 19 and 20 of block 6 of the College View edition. These are two existing lots, each .1744 acre, and they are proposed to be replatted to make 1.347 acre lot, with the purpose of building a new residence on that property. Light 19 is currently vacant, and lot 20 is developed with a house and a shed. Both lots are in the R-4 zoning district, which sets a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet, and the proposed replat would create a lot that would meet that minimum standard. It also meets all other requirements of the DDC, and therefore staff is recommending approval. We did, because this is a replat of a residential property, we sent out notices both to 200 feet and to all those living in the current subdivision. We received two responses in support, which I gave to you before the start of the meeting. This is from the property owner. With that, we recommend approval, and I'll stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Sean. I don't see any questions this time. This is a public hearing. Anyone wish to speak? We certainly do so. I don't see any cards, but we do have two submissions for this item. Both are in favor. One is Ken Frissy of Justin, Texas, and the other is Jimmy Cross of Denton. That was the only feedback I've gotten on this item. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this replat? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith. >> Motion for approval. >> We have a first for approval. Commissioner Pernetta. >> Second the motion. >> We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 5C, FR 19-24, and this is Sean's item again. I'll invite him for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening again, Chair and members of the commission. The request here is by John Cox of Eagle Surveying on behalf of Jim Heritage LP for approval of a replat of lot 1 block A of the Colorado addition to remove easements created by previous platts. This is an approximately 9.84 acre property currently undeveloped. It's in the LI zoning district. The replat would create lot 1 R block A, which would meet the 5,000 square foot minimum lot size of the light industrial zoning district this lot is located in. It would meet all established requirements of the DDC and therefore staff is recommending approval. With that I'll stand for questions. I do not see any questions. Sorry, the screen is slow to load. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and turn the dais for discussion. Or motion. Commissioner Smith. Motion to approve. We have a motion for approval. Commissioner Pernetta. I second the motion. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 5D, FR 19-25. This is Sean Jacobson again. I'll invite you to present and I'll open the public hearing. Good evening again, Chair and members of the commission. This is a request by John Cox of EGLE Surveying again on behalf of GMLP for a replat of lot 9BR-2 Block C, the Shady Oaks Industrial Edition. The purpose of this replat is also to remove easements that were established by PLAT. This is an approximately 4.61 acre property that is currently vacant. The lot that would be created, lot 9BR-2A, would meet the minimum lot size and other standards of the LI zoning district. And the proposed replat meets all of the requirements of the DDC, therefore staff is recommending approval. With that I'll stand for any questions. I do not see any. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith. Motion to approve. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 5E, V19-2, I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing. Okay. Once again, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. And I'm presenting V19-2, Haven at Dougherty. The request is to hold a public hearing and consider an approval of a variance from the City of Denton's transportation design criteria manual, section 2.2.2. The subject property is outlined here in yellow. It's located on the north side of East Dougherty Street, about 285 feet west of Johnson Street right here. The requested variance is to permit a driveway that's 69 feet from an existing driveway where typically a 100-foot separation would be required. Just some background. This property and this development is being reviewed under the 2002 Denton Development Code. There are some specific site characteristics to the parcel. It's a triangular parcel. It has a railroad corridor that forms that western boundary. It has an existing self-service storage used to the east. It's a small self-service storage facility, it's about 30 units. It's in an urban infill context. It's near Dallas Drive. And East Dougherty is classified as a collector, not because of the mobility plan. It's not one of those roadways that you see on that mobility plan map, but rather that's due to the surrounding zoning and anticipated development in the area. The proposed development on the site, it's an 8.87-acre multifamily development. That's going to include 132 dwelling units, 466 parking spaces, and an amenity center. As part of that, they are proposing three full-access driveways, one to the north on Collins Street, and then two to the south onto Dougherty, and then one exit-only driveway on Dougherty. And that's to ensure adequate emergency access. So here is an exhibit that the applicant proposed. Here is an existing driveway for that self-service storage use. It's located here, and that red arrow points to it. 69 feet from that, they are proposing that full-access driveway here for the multifamily use. That will be gated. It will be a controlled-access driveway. Here's their other driveway. There's a full-access driveway for visitor access, and then there's that proposed exit-only. Here's an aerial view of that. If you can see, it's a little small, but there's that existing driveway for that self-service storage use. So the Criteria Manual outlines the criteria for approval for this type of variance. First, is it -- would it -- granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public's safety, health, or welfare, or injurious to other property. Second, for background, the minimum driveway separation is intended to provide for safety, as well as to reduce vehicular conflicts that could arise during turning movements. Spacing requirements increase with roadway speeds, so think a residential neighborhood would be a 10-foot spacing, whereas an arterial, a very large arterial, would be 200 feet spacing. Collectors usually require 100 feet of spacing. The requested 69 feet would not be injurious to other property, and our engineering department has reviewed this and has determined it would not be injurious to other property or reduce the roadway function, particularly because the adjacent self-service storage use actually generates very few trips, about nine per day. And also, East Doherty is really a low-traffic street. It really kind of only goes from Johnson Street to, I believe, Myrtle. So it's a pretty limited street, low traffic. The conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other property. This is a narrow, that triangular parcel. It's in a redeveloping area, so there's some existing development that could conflict with the new development in the area. And that railroad corridor to the west really restricts the full access along the western portion of the boundary, kind of restricts how they can develop the site. Because of the particular physical surrounding shape or topographical condition of the specific property involved, a particular hardship of the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the subdivision regulations is carried out. Once again, the building placement and those access points have to be determined due to that railroad corridor and the restriction of that access in that area. That's why they're proposing it in the location that they are. And the variance will not in any manner vary the provisions of Denton Plan 2030, the Denton Development Code, the Denton Mobility Plan, except that those documents may be amended in the manner prescribed by law. This road is not one of the Mobility Plan roads. It's not intended to vary from the provisions of the Denton Plan 2030 or that Mobility Plan. The reduction in the minimum drive approach separation would not modify the street classification of East Doherty or introduce new design standards that would be incompatible with the comprehensive plan. And finally, the special or peculiar conditions upon which the request is based did not result from or were not created by the act or commission of the owner. Once again, it really is created because of that railroad corridor and the site characteristics and narrowness of the site. So based upon the criteria for approval and staff's analysis, engineering has no objection to the proposed variance and staff recommends approval because it does meet the criteria for approval. I'll stand for any questions. Thank you, Julie. I do not see any. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak on this item may certainly do so. I do not have any cards, so seeing no movement in the crowd, I will close the public hearing. Commissioner Pernetta. Motion to approve. We have a motion for approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 5F, Z18-0013C. I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and open the public hearing. Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department. I'm here to present to you zoning case Z18-0013, which is a request to rezone 6.71 acres from rural residential to mixed use neighborhood and to rezone approximately 11.359 acres of land from residential one to mixed use neighborhood. The 18.069 site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Brush Creek and Fort Worth Drive, US 377. Here you can see the current zoning map, and the site as it is currently zoned are R and R1. Should this be approved, this is what the zoning map would look like with MN, and you can see it is following a trend of MN along the 377 corridor. This is a concept plan that the applicant had created for the purposes of the traffic impact analysis. This is conceptual only. This is not how the site is going to be developed, and I just put it here just to show you that the site can be developed as desired. We have seven zoning criteria for approval in section 2.7.2D. Criteria one is that the site must be compliant with the future land use designation of the Denton Plan 2030. The land use designation is neighborhood mixed use. The intent of a neighborhood mixed use is that it is suited primarily for single family development, but where neighborhoods serving retail and services are critical to achieving balanced neighborhoods, diverse mix of housing types, and densities may also be accommodated in these locations, provided that the buildings are of appropriate scale and intensity to complement the surrounding neighborhood. Criteria two is that the site be consistent with relevant small area plans. There are no small area plans for this site. Criteria three is that it be consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district. The purpose statement of the MN district is to provide compatibility between high intensity mixed use areas and adjacent residential areas. The proposed rezoning is pursuant to the development of a mixed use development, which will include both multi-family and neighborhood serving commercial uses, and will serve as a transition between large lot residential and the 377 corridor. Number four is there have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change. Both US 377 and Brush Creek Road are unimproved two lane roads. TxDOT has begun the process of widening US 377 to the south of this site. As the full length of seat 377 has been improved, the traffic on the roadway will correspondingly increase. Additionally, the current zoning of the site is not concurrent with the future land use designation of neighborhood mixed use. Criteria five is the intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts on the surrounding areas. Number one is streets. Both Brush Creek Road and US 377 are designated as primary arterials on the mobility plan. The TIA completed by the applicant recommends southbound turn lane, turn left turn base installed at the Brush Creek intersection and driveway four as shown on the concept plan. TxDOT took into account the future land use designation of the site. As it's designing US 377 the improvements, as such the road design anticipates the additional traffic generated by the proposed development on this site. Water and wastewater, public water service is available to the public. Public wastewater will be extended to the site from the east along Brush Creek. There is a capacity within the system to serve the proposal. Regarding parks, the subject property is located within 1032.9 feet approximately south from a proposed park at the corner of Bonnie Bray and Allred Road. This distance conforms to the park's goal of a 10-minute walk to a park. Schools, the proposed development is located within the attendance zone of the Argyle ISD. The district has indicated that a new elementary school and additions to the high school are anticipated by 2022 or 2023. This timeline would coincide with the expected completion of phase one of the proposed development and as such should be able to, the new school and additions should be able to accommodate the additional students from this site. Fire station, the subject property is approximately 1.8 miles from fire station number seven and within the eight minute or less response time boundary. Criteria six, there was an error in establishing the current zoning district. There was no error in establishing the current zoning district. I've got several slides to show you public notification. The first one just shows you within the 200 and 500 foot area, which is our notification area, responses within the 200 foot area, we've received two in favor, which you can see here and here. We did receive responses from this area right here in opposition, however they are not located within the city limits and are not counted on the response map for the 200 foot. This is because of the fact that we are limited by state regulation to send out notifications only to those people who are on the city tax roll and count those properties. People in the ETJ obviously are not on the city tax roll so they did not receive a notice and correspondingly their response does not count within the 200 foot response area. Second is public notice within two miles of the subject site and we have here in opposition from within the city, we've got 41 and you can see them all right in here, excuse me, they're all right in here in the green, this is city limits, this is in green. We had two in favor, which I already discussed and none neutral. From within the ETJ in opposition we had 15, which you can see in all purple and in favor we had two and neutral zero. Now this is taking in all the responses received to this particular request. From within the city in opposition we received 42 and in favor two. Within the ETJ we received in opposition 15 and in favor two. Let's see, this I deleted but it didn't show up. All responses received from other cities, we've received six in opposition and none in favor or neutral. From the city of Flower Mound we received one in opposition and from the city of Crum we received one in opposition and the map is color coded and you can, it's kind of hard to see it because it's such a large area. Staff recommends approval of this zoning request, it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton plan 2030 and complies with the zoning criteria for approval and that concludes my presentation. Thank you Cindy. The applicant is present if you have questions. Perfect. So this is a public hearing, there will be opportunity for everyone to speak but before we start I just wanted to have a couple housekeeping things said that hopefully will be helpful over the next potentially several hours. First is I mentioned this in work session, I just want to remind the commission as well as anyone in attendance that we are looking at only a zoning case tonight. There was a concept plan that you saw that had apartments. I would urge the commission to look at just the zoning of MN and the uses within MN when we think through the zoning, the applicant is not held to that concept map, it's simply what he intends to build but once it gets rezoned there could be another cell, another buyer come in and so we are simply looking at the zoning case tonight so if we can focus on that I think it would be helpful and then as we have questions I'm going to ask that the commission holds questions of the developer, the applicant or staff till the end if you just jot down your questions instead of coming back and forth to the podium we'll just do one set of large questions that the public brings to our attention at the end instead of going back and forth and then in accordance with our Robert's Rules training what we attempt to do is as soon as we close public hearing get a motion on a table before discussion. Typically we have a lot of discussion then look for a motion, I'm going to ask this evening that we motion, second that motion and then engage in the necessary discussion at that time just for the sake of progress and then for the audience a couple things that I want to ensure you're aware of is we are not the final recommending body for this decision. There are some things that come before P&Z that we, it ends with us, this is not one of those items so whatever the vote is this evening from our commission it will go to city council for a vote so if we have a recommendation of denial it still goes to city council and they will have an independent decision from us with a recommendation to consider as well as an approval if we approve this project it's just a recommendation to city council so for whatever happens tonight there potentially will be another evening of your time that might be useful when city council hears this. Last thing is we received not an insignificant amount of letters and emails from the public. We have and have had the opportunity to review everything that received before 4.30 so if it came in after 4.30 which we're still getting some in right now we have not reviewed it, it will be for city council to review so it's not going unnoticed it's just we haven't had time to review the ones that came in within the last ten minutes, lastly I have a stack of 54 cards and we ran out of blue ones, the white ones denote to me that you're a non speaking individual or you wish not to speak rather so when I get to the white cards I might just ask if you're wishing to speak or not because I just don't know because of the colour and I'm not trying to be rude and then lastly in a public hearing item the public each individual has four minutes to speak, there will be a timer on all the screens and then I have a timer here it starts green with 30 seconds left it goes yellow with 10 seconds left it goes red just for the sake of everyone's time and consideration if we could pay attention to the colours at four minutes I'm going to try politely to cut you off at that point. So before we hop into the applicant it looks like Mr. Smith has something to say. Just a question of Cindy, you mentioned in work session we didn't have time to ask but you said there was discrepancies between how Argyle ISD calculates their student capacity versus Denton ISD, can you talk a little bit about that, what do you mean by that because you mentioned it briefly. Let me get my notes. Where does the Denton ISD calculation come from, I guess not to, I know it's the context of what RISD the city has but I guess I want to make sure that the Denton ISD calculation isn't flawed versus the Argyles or vice versa. Now I did request the formulas used from Argyle ISD to find out how they calculate their student population impacts and I was unable to get it. We did get a letter from the superintendent which is in your backup and we used that letter as a way to try to backwards calculate how they calculate their student population projections. Now Dentons actually has a student generation rate of 0.23 per non-substitized department unit. It appeared to us that AISD had a student generation rate of between 0.49 to 0.78 students per non-substitized department unit. From a development department standpoint, is 0.4 or 0.78, is that outside of the realm, is it having that calculation, I mean the 0.23 from Denton ISD is that-- Is that industry standards within here? I did not go to different school districts to find out what their generation rate was. All I can tell you is what the differences are between DISD and AISD and again that's really not hard and fast. The city of Denton is a college town so usually not a lot of kids in those units. There's also a little more manufacturing and whatnot here in town so maybe there's not more single family residential that's being used and so an Argyle being more of a bedroom community than it is a business community so to speak, there might be a higher rate there. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it, Cindy. Sure. Thank you, Cindy. Seeing no other questions for staff at this point, I invite Bill Dahlstrom to present. Mr. Dahlstrom, as the applicant, you have 10 minutes to present if you could state your name and address for the record. No, that's not it. I'm sorry, I'm looking for it. It should be right in the middle of the screen. Here it is. There you go. Mr. Chair, Mr. Commissioners, my name is Bill Dahlstrom, 2323 Ross Avenue in Dallas. I'm here on behalf of the applicant, MMRQ Land. Mr. Madge with MMRQ is here as well as our engineer to address any specific questions and as you said, Mr. Chair, we are here asking for a zoning change to the MN District. It's been a real privilege to represent MMRQ. They have tried to be a good corporate representative for the city. They have done several things in conjunction with the city and the city staff. They voluntarily annexed a portion of their property to the city, subjected themselves to the zoning. They've agreed to extend utilities which will open up further development in the area and they've abandoned a gas well on the property as well, which again pursues to the city's comprehensive plan. That's something that the comp plan is promoting in order to provide more developable land. But as you said, we're here basically asking for a change in zoning to the MN District. Basically, what we're trying to do is what's required of us, that is to bring a zoning application to you that is in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan. That's all we're trying to do is bring an application to you that is in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan, which is the lowest level mixed use district in the city's zoning ordinance. There are two other zoning districts in the city's zoning ordinance, the new zoning ordinance that are mixed use, but they are more intense and allow more intensive uses. We are coming in with what we think is reasonable. We're basically trying to follow through with the city policy, the city direction. The city's comprehensive plan is what guides this zoning case. As Cindy said, we conform to those regulations. Again, we conform to the future land use map designation of neighborhood mixed use. This is again repeating what Cindy showed you, but the location of the property and the designation on the future land use map. There are various goals and objectives within the comprehensive plan that have been identified that we satisfy encouraging compact growth at centers and corridors. This area, if you looked at the comprehensive plan, that pink area, what we used to call in my old planning school is a node that's not a corridor. It's more of a compact area for growth in that area. I believe the extension of Brush Creek has a lot to do with that location of this neighborhood mixed use area. Gas well and pipeline impact and compatibility, again, reducing the areas devoted to and impacted by drilling and production can improve development capacity. That's what we have done. That's what Mr. Madge has done by abandoning a gas well. Actually, I don't know what happened to that slide. But here's the mobility plan, again, shows the extension of the Brush Creek Road, which again intersects just south of our property. Again, it provides the location of two major thoroughfares that would provide the activity area that justifies this neighborhood mixed use area. And as Cindy showed earlier, there is a pattern already for properties on the street going to the mixed use districts. Again, to quote staff, staff recommends approval of this request as it complies with the criteria in the Denton Development Code and is consistent with the overall goals and objectives in the Denton Plan 2030. Again, it conforms to the Denton City's comprehensive plan. We meet all the criteria, as Cindy said, for the ones that apply. Obviously, the small area doesn't apply. The ones that apply, we do satisfy. It's consistent with this future land use plan. It's consistent with the purposes of the zoning district and the changes are warranted. I know there are several issues raised concerning traffic, concerning impact on the school, concerning the actual land uses themselves. As far as the land uses themselves go, we are requesting a zoning change that would allow the uses permitted in the MN district. You are correct, Mr. Chair. That site plan that we submitted was a concept plan that we needed to use to base a TIA traffic impact analysis off of. It's not part of this application. We agree with Cindy as far as the school comments go. We think the AISD stats are on the high side based on our experiences. We don't see equations or percentages that high in these types of multifamily residential. This residential is going to consist of, if we get it approved and continue this route, 70% single family, 25% two-family, a two-bedroom, 70% one-bedroom, 25% two-bedroom and maybe 5% three-bedroom. We aren't proposing a large multifamily complex that would accommodate a lot of students. It's been in our experience that the number of students generated from a development like this is far, far less than what's shown or identified in the letter from the school district. Again, the traffic impact analysis shows that at full build out, we would be required to put in two left turn lanes off of 377, one into Brush Creek, one into one of our entrances. We think in order to comply with the city's comprehensive plan and further the city's comprehensive plan, the policy that was approved by the city for mixed use neighborhood at this location, we think this is consistent with that. We aren't asking for the more intensive districts, we're asking for the lowest intensive mixed use district. Again, in order to comply with the city's comprehensive plan, we respectfully request a recommendation of approval. Again, Mr. Madges here, our engineer is here and I'm here to answer the questions you may have. I appreciate the presentation. We do have some questions. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. I think when it comes down to your statement and your comment about the city staff makes recommendation to approve this, we as a commission have voted for approval of items that the city staff has recommended denial of. We've voted for approval of things or we've denied things that the city staff has recommended approval of. I think what always comes down to for us is going to be the public input as well as what comes down to actual land use around there. I think it's going to be pretty hard for me and I'm speaking for myself here, but I'm sure many of the commissioners would agree that pretty hard for me to get on board with this project. I'd like to give you some time to try to change my mind, but the way I see it now is that area, the land surrounding it, while maybe 10 years from now is in fill with an argyle and fill with a 100 coal ranch out to the west, Denton creeps further south, that you can start seeing multifamily around there 10 years from now. I don't think that, not necessarily that your project will be done next year, probably done in three years or so, four years, knowing development works, but I just don't think the timing is right, but I'd give you the chance to maybe change my mind. I really do appreciate that comment and I do understand the comment, I really do. The issue is under 211 of the state, local government code, we're trying to do zoning in accordance with the comprehensive plan. That's basically all we're doing. We don't have any other choice under the way the comprehensive plan is designed. That decision was made by the city to designate this area as a neighborhood mixed use area. We're basically trying to conform to what the city has directed us to do. We've already been looking at the 2030 plan as it is and there's been times where we've gone against what the flume says. We understand as a commission that maybe the future land use map isn't always right and we've actually voted against it plenty of other times in the past. I understand you're going by what the city stated back when that process started in 2012 and wrapped up in 2015 and stating what things would be like then, but I would probably argue that economics has changed, demographics has changed, the population in Argyle has certainly changed over the last four or five years and many of these citizens in the room would probably tell you. Thank you. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Mr. Chair, could I reserve my last few minutes for rebuttal? Absolutely. Thank you. Do you want to do that now or do you want to? Oh, no, after the other speakers speak. Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Commissioner Prieta. Thank you. In kind of piggybacking off what Commissioner Smith said, we normally try and come into these with a pretty open mind. Having said that, right now, between the stack that we have here and the fact that I'd roughly count over 90 people that have showed up in opposition to this, it's going to be very hard I think for the commission to vote for this and that's not that I think that this is inherently a bad idea. One of the things that I think we do have a big issue with is the community is not on board with it, which I think would also create more difficulty in getting it approved by city council. With that in mind, one of the things I'd like to ask and I don't know if I know the applicant isn't here right now. The applicant is here. Oh, okay. Yes, sir. One of the things that I would loosely suggest is it possible to withdraw right now, kind of get with the community, see if you can work out something that would kind of get them a little bit more on board with what we're going. I understand we're talking just about a zoning, right, that right now everybody's looking at a huge apartment complex and going no, no, no, we can't have this, but all we're talking about is the idea of something going in there, but I would hope that maybe we could figure out a way to get more community buy-in with it, which would make it a lot easier to get a yes vote from here, and then definitely a yes vote for city council, because as it stands right now, I mean, 90 people were looking at about four hours worth of conversation. I think when people stick around for two hours to talk, they tend to entrench a little bit. Maybe if we could regroup, it might be easier to find something that we could approve on, and that would not require a supermajority of city council. I would suggest that. I think that might be probably a more fruitful way to move forward and ensure that you guys have a successful outcome in the future. I will ask my client, yes, sir. Thank you. Again, appreciate that comment. Commissioner Cole. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to echo my fellow commissioners on this. This is going to be a ... I almost don't think this is going to happen for you tonight. I have many reasons of opposition, too many to ... I mean, we've got a lot of speakers tonight, but if there's something to get you ... You can read the tea leaves, man. If I could go consult my client, I'll be right back. Yeah, if you wouldn't take a minute, that'd be great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. I guess one question we had, and we don't have a problem doing something to expedite tonight, but what in general, what direction would we be going if ... What else is there for us to come back with that might satisfy the commission? That's a good question. It's worth noting that there would be potentially two options. There's a withdrawal, which would be a more permanent decision. You'd go through the reapplication. You'd start over. I understand. Whether we could look to postpone, if there's a delay to be asked. I understand your question. I'll let Commissioner Pereta maybe speak to that. Yeah, I'm thinking more in terms of a substantive solution. Understood. Commissioner Pereta. My point is, looking to the future of what's going to go out there, we kind of know where this trip is going to be in the long term. Right now, like I said, I would say a postponement or something to work something out with the neighbors at large to see if you can get more buy-in from them, because here's the deal. Right now, with this amount of opposition, it would wind up being most likely a no from us, which requires a super majority at City Council, which means that you're denied. At that point, it puts off you guys doing something for a couple of years, as opposed to maybe getting something that they're more amenable to do it in a closer timeframe. On that one, I would leave it to you guys to work out with the community. I'll defer to Larry in terms of what can be done. I perfectly understand. I'm thinking more in terms of a substantive solution. In a lot of communities, I work with their plan development options. Like procedurally what you would submit right now to move on? Exactly. I'll defer to Council. I would recommend to the Commission not give any feedback without conducting the public hearing and following it through. I think that this is an appropriate thing to put back to staff. If there's any desire to postpone or withdraw or what have you, allow the applicant to work with staff and come up with something reasonable. I don't think it's fair or appropriate for the Commission to offer suggestions without hearing all of the evidence from the people that have come here tonight. I would recommend that you not attempt to give any kind of feedback without hearing everything here, but instead kick it back to the staff to work with the applicant. I'll do respect, but we just need to know what's at the end of the tunnel. There's a mechanism to get to a compromise, and I don't know there is yet. I'm not asking for a substantive direction, just a procedural direction. Is there a tool out there -- Do you postpone, withdraw, or what that step would be? Is that the question? No. The next step, because we're agreeable to postpone. My question is, is there a tool, like in other communities, we have planned development districts where we can modify and reach a conclusion with uses and densities, development standards that everybody can agree to? That's the question. Is there something along those lines that we can pursue? I'm going to interject here and ask Richard to maybe speak in so we can do in the immediacy. We are under the 2019 DDC, so there's a number of other options that are available to us. One of those options could be, if you would seek a postponement, we could ideally hold another or a series of community meetings and look at whether you convert this application to a straight MN, from a straight MN to a PD, that may address buffer or some other concerns that the residents may have with respect to height or some other, whatever it may be. I don't know every single concern, but there are tools that could be available, I think, to potentially address some of the concerns. That's what we're looking for. Thank you. Based on that, we're agreeable to postpone it a month, six weeks, I mean, to give us -- Just one second. Just one second. Do we have the timeline in the city to postpone it? I would say at least six weeks. Okay. So it needs to be at least six weeks to get it through the city and then agenda. Oh, okay. That's right, because it's a change in the application. What's the next meeting? That's the -- We've all taken time out of our days to come here to make sure we have a voice. We really do like to have a voice tonight. I certainly understand, I'm not closing that option down. It is worth noting, first, we can't have banter between the dais and the individuals out there. You're not mic'd up, for one. Two, if we postpone, you're going to come out another night for another public hearing. So I understand that, and we will open the public hearing for anyone who wishes to speak. That right is not going to be taken from anyone in this room this evening. That's not what we're discussing about closing down the public testimony this evening. We're discussing a postponement of a decision this evening, potentially, and that would have to be a vote from the dais. So our meetings are December 11th or January 8th? Or we can postpone to a date uncertain? All right, let me -- One second, please. Mr. Chair, I think we believe the most flexible thing for the city and everybody would be to a date uncertain so that we can have as much time as we need to work on these issues and then re-notify. Okay. I appreciate that. At this time, that vote would be taken after the public hearing's closed, and then we'd reopen the public hearing because we'll re-notice it, correct? So if there's no other -- Do you have a question for the applicant, Christopher Smith? Yes. We have one more question for you, and then we'll go to the public hearing. Christopher Smith. Thank you, Chair. No, you were asking about just substance and whatnot, and I get the PD direction that Richard -- That's what you're looking for. Yes. I guess if you're wanting to know from a standpoint of -- and because of what Council said, I won't necessarily what exactly we're looking for, but I could tell you more in depth maybe what I think my issue is with this, and it's the density part. And so if you're going to reconsider going to a PD to be able to adjust the buffers and the height restrictions and everything else that are outside of the conformance of MN, that's totally understandable. You can definitely come back with that. You probably still run into the same stone walls personally with me because of the density issue. I think the density is not right. Now, do I think that it needs to go to an R1 or an R2 where you have one or two units per acre? No. I think that something that is a higher density, a four or six unit maybe, I don't think multifamily makes sense in my mind for this project. But that's just my two cents. Before you move on, we get public hearings. That allows us to research those. Yeah. Correct. Thank you. Appreciate it. I don't see any other questions for you. Thank you. Thank you. Because this is a public hearing, we have these cards. If you have not filled out a card, we ask that you would. If not, I think we do have some extra blue cards now. If not, when everyone's done, you can walk up and speak. So we'll just go through these. I apologize in advance if I mispronounce any names. But the first one I have here is Brian Trail. It's Brian Trail here. I'll call him in a little bit. Is there anyone in the overflow? Okay. We'll put him to the side for a second. Next is JP Jensen. And then after JP, we're going to call Mike Block. I need you to state your name and address for the record. And you have four minutes. I won't need that long. JP Jensen, 2304 Chipping Campton Road, Argyle, actually in the city of Denton, with the Argyle address. I agree with some of the commissioners that the density that would be created with the addition of the units or with the zoning change that would allow the density is overwhelming at this time. I think that maybe in a few years once those roads are expanded and there's better access and safety, et cetera, in addition to that, I think the school system would be overburdened. It's already overburdened. In your packets, you notice there are a number from the -- excuse me -- from the superintendent from Argyle ISD said there's a number of units that are lots that are under constructs, under development, finished and are planned. So there's lots of housing opportunities coming down Argyle's way, and it's going to fill up the school system from that standpoint. In addition to that, I happen -- although I'm not within 200 feet of the subject property, I do live in a neighborhood that's around it and in the city. I do have to access 377 and Brush Creek Road, and right now there's plenty of traffic on those roads. Well taken from the presentation that there's going to be expansion of those thoroughfares, but that's down the road and so to speak, and when as and if that might happen, then this particular application might be better received because it can accommodate that as well. Also, the city of -- the Argyle ISD at that point might have more facilities to accommodate more students, and the last thing we want -- although I'm an empty nester at this point, I do have grandkids in the school system at Argyle, and I would not like to see an overpopulation of the student-teacher ratio increasing just because of this zoning change at this time. So I appreciate what the commissioners have voiced so far tonight, and I would hope that the applicant would reconsider, you know, how this presentation -- or what they might come back to you with. So thank you for your time, and I appreciate it. Thank you. I am Mike Block. I live at 4993 Kiowa Trail. I do live within 200 feet. I'm in the ETJ, and I just don't understand why this area being considered for apartments is being considered an area that's surrounded by -- is designated as a rural area. Since we're in the ETJ, we're basically like farmland. We have farm animals, we have horse barns, we have -- there's all kinds of animals that back right up to this property, and to us, it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make any sense at all. But thank you, Commissioner Smith. Thank you -- I don't know how to pronounce your name -- Pranetta. Thank you, Commissioner Pranetta. Thank you, Commissioner Cole. I agree with you guys and everything you said. I really do appreciate that. And what it comes down to is the area's just not ready for this. It's not. Yeah, and the zoning -- the zoning to me doesn't seem to be following a trend. To me, it seems more like spot zoning to me, just plopping, you know, some apartments right into the -- into that area. No buffer zone. I mean, we're going to have apartments with balconies with people looking into our yard, you know, where we're used to privacy. I've been there for 20 years, so this just doesn't make any sense at all. I'm not seeing any timelines on Highway 377 as far as when that road is going to be completed, but we just had two mothers and two daughters die on that road because of the traffic, and it's a terrible tragedy. That's a quarter mile away from this apartment complex, you know, so there's been a lot of accidents on that road. Let's see. Other concerns, light pollution, noise pollution, decreased property values. Who's going to want to buy my house, you know, as a horse property when there's four story apartments, you know, right behind it? You know, we've already had those storage facilities go up. We had no say in that because that's ETJ. Those things just plopped up one day, and we're like, hey, what's going on? You know, we had no notification or anything. I know it's state law that you guys are not required to notify us being in the ETJ, but it would be a really nice courtesy if you guys would notify us. I mean, I know it's something that -- it just would be a really nice neighborly, you know, courtesy to be notified. I know the signs are your notification, but it would be nice to be personally notified too. As far as those two -- the two people that are basically wanting this approved within the 200-foot zone, I believe they do have a financial interest because that basically is going to be commercial land. Those people own a lot of land right there, so how can that not be a financial interest? I mean, they're going to -- you know, that land is going to be developed, and they're going to make money off of it because -- and they want development, they want apartments. So anyway, my wife -- I submitted a letter with my wife. She couldn't be here tonight with her. She's opposed to this, and anyway, we both adamantly oppose this rezoning and we oppose especially apartments going in here. Thank you. Thank you. So the next one that I can call is Tara Higgins, and then followed by Court Higgins. Tara, if you could state your name and address for the record. Yes, sir. My name is Tara Higgins. I live at 4951 Kiowa Trail, and it's actually directly behind that property in question. I was told -- You can turn the camera on upstairs. Anyway, I live directly behind this property in question. So as you can see, that is the fence line right here. There are no trees. Oh, sorry. There are no trees. There's no buffer whatsoever, and I understand that we're ETJ and therefore don't get a notification about the zoning change request, but it would have been nice to know before not finding out through the grapevine. There are six other homes, as you can see, that are affected. It's not just me. So anything that you build this, by the way, is what a four-story building looks like. I know they don't want to necessarily put apartments there. They don't have a plan, or so they say, but this is what a four-story building looks like, and this is the view from my backyard right now. I own one acre, and as Mike just said, the only people approving of the zoning change are big landowners, so they stand to gain. Our property value will decline, and even with a shiny, pretty, and brand-new building of any kind, it will affect the marketability of our homes negatively. Also, I was an I-1-1 dispatcher for the county and have taken many, many calls of noise complaints from any area, whether it's an apartment or business, and disturbance calls. This will put a strain on Denton PD, because this requires a two-unit response, and again, crime statistics will rise negatively and will put a strain on my, or negatively impact my property value. At the July and August mobility committee meeting and residence meeting, your very own city engineers said, rather adamantly and passionate, that the infrastructure is not in place. The streets are not in place, sewer's not in place, there is no room for growth at this time. I understand Brush Creek and Fort Worth Drive will be widened, but that's not in place, and it's already overloaded per your own engineers. Not even two weeks after that, apparently, the developer, along with another developer in the area, made a deal with the city to go in together to split the cost to run the necessary sewer lines, so I guess money does talk. I'm sorry, that's just not right for the little homeowner in the area. The character and overall setup of the homes along Brush Creek Road, Hamilton, Wood Creek, and Hills of Argyle. The property in question with this zoning change will, is far from consistent with the existing character of the area. And I don't know how much time I still have. - A minute and 10. - Okay, thank you. So, this does not even conform to your own vision, as per your development code, that the specific use will be compatible with, and not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property, nor significantly diminish or impair property values within the immediate vicinity. So, this alone should make you vote no to the zoning change request. And like I said, I'm not opposed to development going in, but not in form of a four story or higher building, or something that will impact my property value and quality of life, sir, gentlemen. Thank you. - Thank you very much. Next will be Court Higgins, followed by Latham Jones. If you could just state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes. - Court Higgins, 4951 Kyle O'Trail. I'm not 200 feet from this property, I am this property. And I back up right in the middle of this property, on it, as my wife showed you on there. I apologize, y'all, I'm not here in uniform to impress y'all, I just came from a funeral from another retired firefighter, so I got here as soon as I could. I wanna talk about just, this apartment complex is gonna reduce my property value. As everybody else in this county, our property values keep being skyrocketed by Denton County and the way things are being bought and sold around here. And that's all well and fine. I go and argue every year, my property value, they keep going up with it. I keep fighting it, trying to drive it down. And one day, I'm gonna get to a point where I am gonna wanna move or try to sell, and this is gonna take out a major part of my value that I've earned. I built that house with me and my daughter on it, and I don't expect I'll get my value out of it for what I've got into it because of this. As far as some other things, best, and I could be wrong about this, to the best of my knowledge, as far as 377, there's no public plans, except maybe extremely long-range plans for 377 to come down that far right now to be improved. As far as I know, it's gonna stop right now at 1830 and maybe go to vintage when vintage is increased. So you're talking a long time before that infrastructure gets here on 377 to take care of that. As other people have already said, I'm a firefighter, I go on wrecks on there all the time. It's horrible already, and it's not like I'm gonna get a worship by this department in there. So thank you. Thank you. Next is Latham Jones, and then followed by, I believe it's Dr. Talia Wright. Good evening, Commissioners. My name's Latham Jones. I live at 2400 Cavendish Lane in Argyle. And I've been trying to look over the 2030 plan, and it's 415 pages, so I didn't read it all. But I did try to look at the map, and as far as I could tell, I didn't see that future zoning on that map, but maybe that's changed since then. But what it does talk about is a balanced growth and not taking away from a character. And there was a lot about that in there. And I think probably if you look at all the numerous huge apartment complexes that Denton's built just in the last year or two, I think if you're gonna have balance and character and you wanna have all different kinds of places to live and all that, then I mean it seems like the apartments, honestly for now, it seems like they would have met the need. You know, I could be wrong, but as far as the, oh, I was gonna break something up on the sewer that's supposed to be sufficient for that. You know, we live in a whole neighborhood that surrounds that, and we're in the city of Denton, and we're still on septic, so you know, I mean, I don't know, and so it seems like we would get sewer maybe before that. And then on the schools, you know, I think that's a big thing because I think most of the people live in Argyle because of the school. And I have two kids that went all the way from kindergarten through high school there, and I think the formula that they use for Denton schools I'm pretty sure has no correlation whatsoever to Argyle schools. You know, I don't know, I think Denton's up to five high schools, four, five high schools? Anyway, you know, there's one in Argyle, and I think probably the number of the people that will live in the apartments instead of being North Texas students or something are just single families. I mean, I think they're gonna have kids because they go to Argyle schools. I think that's gonna be the attraction. So it's gonna change things quite a bit, but and I think they're building schools and adding portables and they're doing everything as fast as they can. I just don't think they can handle it right now. So you know, I know it's gonna develop along 377 eventually, and I mean, I would even suggest I'm sure there's gonna, you know, hopefully there'll be a little bit of retail and a little, you know, I don't know what, but I think probably as Commissioner Smith said, the density is just kind of wrong right there right now. Thank you very much. Dr. Plainright, if you could just state your name and address for the record and the next one will be Sam Slovak. My name is Talena Wright. My residence is 2016 Walden Boulevard in Flower Mound, Texas. I am the Argyle School Superintendent and as the Argyle School Superintendent, I want you to be aware of the concerns and the impact that rezoning and initial zoning and use classification at Brush Creek in 377 is going to have on Argyle ISD. You are aware that the property is in Denton, but it's in Argyle ISD. Argyle ISD has parts of five different municipalities in it. The main concerns that I have regarding the rezoning and initial zoning and use classification, which would allow a phase one, 256 unit complex and a phase two, 100 unit complex for a total of 356 units are regarding capacity in the AISD schools and transportation challenges. Repeating, capacity and transportation challenges within the schools as well as not meeting the requirement of the Denton growth plan, which states that the goal is to keep growth centralized. Building apartments outside the city does not centralize the growth. We're a 4A school district with 3,452 students. Many of the students are transported each day by bus. There are 20 routes currently that travel a portion of 377 each day in the morning and again in the afternoon. There are four midday routes daily. Five routes travel on or near Brush Creek in the morning and again in the afternoon. There are 1,667 registered riders in the morning and 1,712 registered riders in the afternoon. The apartment complex could bring over 500 cars, even up to 700 cars into the area. I did hear tonight what the percentage was on one bedroom, two bedroom, and three bedroom. I had not heard that up until tonight. The growth in Argyle ISD is currently over 11% a year. It's considered a fast growth school district. In 2017, the voters passed a bond, but the third elementary will not even be possibly ready before 22 or maybe even 23. We have to sell the third issue of the bonds in order to build it. The middle school and the high school are scheduled to flip in 21, but we just got the building permit last Friday for that construction, so it may not be ready in the fall of 21. The district's facilities cannot accommodate the number of students that a 356 unit apartment would bring. This number could be anywhere up around 175, even up to 250 students. It's clearly obvious that with the number of students that Argyle already has, the limited and crowded facilities and the number of developments already approved, Argyle's not ready for this kind of change. I wasn't asked how we figured the yield. I will be glad to answer that question for anyone. Harvest yield has gone as high as one student per residence. Harvest has 2,720 lots. That's one of our biggest developments. Canyon Falls, 1,240 lots. Trailwood Terrace, 310, Lakes of Argyle, 138, the Oaks, 108, 1590, Waterbrook, 265, Pepper Creek, 50, Montecino, 199. Those are already all approved. Right now the Argyle ISD cannot handle this from a capacity standpoint and from a transportation standpoint. Thank you. I appreciate your listening. Dr. Wright, we actually have a question for you. Dr. Wright, could you come back up? Just one second, Mr. Slovak. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. I asked Cindy earlier about the calculation that the Dent ISD uses and they said 0.23 students per unit in a multi-family unit. What is Argyle ISD's calculations? I'm not even mentioning it by development. Do you guys have a standard? Can you speak into the mic, please? It depends on which development that you're talking about. Does Argyle ISD, I guess, have a standard or is it just decided by development? The demographer figures it by the development. For example, in harvest, which I just read how many homes, there's like 2,740 lots there. That yield has gone as high as 1.0 for us now, 1.0. That's an unheard of yield. There's no specific one-time formula. It's based on the size of the home. It's based on how many homes that you're putting on an acre. If you're putting one home on 0.5 acre, then the yield is less. The yield at Montalcino is much less than harvest, but the yield at the Yokes is 0.6. It differs. Okay. I just didn't know if the ISD had a standard. Canyon Falls is 0.83 right now. Okay. I just didn't know if the ISD had a standard. So thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Slovak, if you could just say your name and I just... I'm Sam Slovak, I live at 4905 Argyle Lane. The proposal for this zoning change before this committee is to really to force a high-density, low-income, multi-story apartment complex with a company commercial strip among the several prestigious neighborhoods in Denton, the city of Denton. The average home in these three areas is $600,000, and to dump a large apartment complex as being talked about will have irreparable damage to the value of these homes and the quality of life in these neighborhoods. This Denton 2030 plan, in my humble opinion, is seriously flawed in assuming the need for mixed commercial and multi-family residential development among this area of very prestigious rural neighborhoods in southwest Denton. I doubt that the members of this planning committee, nor the staff members, or the city council members would welcome the desolation of their homes by an abutment of a facility such as being proposed here. This along with the fact that the city has proposed to put a six-lane highway down Brush Creek represents really a malevolent attack on the neighborhoods that we live in. The platitudes in your 2030 plan touting conservation development that retains the rural character and protects the open space and greenways and enhances value rings very hollow in the platitudes that are in that plan. I and many in this room implore you to reject this zoning change. Do not destroy our neighborhoods and I, for one, will make clear to every member on this council of this body and the members of the city council to reject this proposal. It is ill-conceived and does not add quality stability for our neighborhoods. Thank you, we have a question for you, sir. We do have a question for you, Commissioner Pernetta. It wasn't so much a question, I just wanted to make sure that everyone in the room was aware that we had already discussed with the developer the idea of going back and coming back with something more suited to the community. That was basically just the point I wanted to make real quick. Thank you, Commissioner Pernetta. The next is Sharon Cox, followed by, I'm going to say Denny Cox, but it could be Dennis. If you could just state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes. Good evening. My name is Sharon Cox and we have lived in the city of Denton at 8008 Wood Creek Circle for more than 28 years. We built our house in the city of Denton because we love the area and the neighborhood and we so appreciate all of you. I know you're highly paid to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission, so I appreciate all that you do and listening to us, but we feel strongly that a multi-use complex on Brush Creek and 377 will not only devastate our area homes, but all of several and many of Denton's outstanding neighborhoods and our schools. We live in front of the creek that runs parallel to Brush Creek and this zoning proposal will thoroughly, well, it has major, major impact on the flooding of that area. We consistently face flooding. We have had our picnic tables, our trampoline, and even two concrete benches float down the creek into the Country Club and on into Hickory Creek. We have seen it over the 28 years we've lived there. We have seen that creek turn into the Mississippi River at least five or six times. If you need pictures, I can show you photos. We have big rains. Also you need to look at Brush Creek on heavy rains. The people in our neighborhood can testify to this. You cannot cross Brush Creek or drive on Brush Creek because of the flooding that goes from the proposed zoning through to our creek and into our backyards. Also the apartment complex or whatever is on there needs to consider our environment. We have coyotes. We have cranes. We have a neighborhood bobcat that sleeps on my husband's track and raccoons and deers and owls and so much more. You need to also consider the environment in one of the prettiest areas of the city of Denton. And again, thank you so much. We appreciate your service. Thank you. Next is Dennis Cox, followed by Dick Shan House. I'm Dennis Cox. I live at 8008 Wood Creek Circle, Argyle. One of the houses that's in the area that required written notice, I think there's five houses that required written notice, and I received mine and I almost threw it away because it said "Dear Occupant." I think that's how they see us as occupants. They don't see us as family members. They don't see us as citizens in the community. They see us as a stepping stone for them to overcome, to build their complex and then move to another city and another development. And I think they saw y'all as pawns until tonight. And I appreciate all of y'all's work. I appreciate y'all listening to all of us and everything. I know it's probably been a pretty grueling day for you, but I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Dick Shan House, followed by David Grineer. My name is Dick Shan House. I live at 8001 Wood Creek Circle in Argyle, right across the street from Dennis and Sharon. And the speakers tonight have laid out exactly how all of us in that neighborhood feel about how pretty and rural and enjoyable that whole community is out there, that whole area. So I just, I'd like to voice my opposition against an apartment complex coming in to change so much about that rural community from a standpoint of schools and congestion and perhaps increases in crime and traffic. And I'm wondering if regarding the park within a 10 minute walk of the apartment complex, whether those kids walking to that park would have to cross 377 to do it. I yield my time to anybody else who wants to speak in addition to me. And I do appreciate you guys and your time tonight. Thank you. Appreciate being here. Thank you. I'm not gonna try again. I assume you're David? Yeah. Perfect. After that will be Linda Puckett. Maybe you can say your name and address for the record. It's David Grineer, 3312 Clubview Drive, and excuse my poor penmanship for the, it's not your fault, it's mine. But thank you for the commission for letting us speak. I'm within the 500 foot area of this development and I'll respect everyone's time just because as you know, people sort of say the same things over and over and over again, so I'll respect that in everyone's time. But I just want to emphasize a couple things and one is what people have been talking about is the nature and the character of that area and the development and that sticking in apartment complex high density housing does not fit with the characteristic of that particular area, nor the commercial development along 377 that might go in. No disrespect to gray cuts and nail salons, but that kind of commercial development, there's plenty of that around and that definitely detracts from the area and from why people have moved to that part of Argyle/Denton. And also just want to, again, talking about the schools, and we talked about the number of students and the over capacity of the Argyle School District, I just want to mention one thing, and I'm not an expert on this, but it's the pain for those students. There is a local burden for, the local tax rate for sending kids to the public schools. The tax rate that's in the packet that's going to be generated by this complex, you know, based on estimates of the number of kids that might come out of this complex and go to the schools, is not going to, it's not going to sustain those kids and the portion of those taxes that are going to go and pay for the kids to go to Argyle School District, which means that the burden is picked up by the taxpayers of Argyle. And we're a rural community where our tax base is property tax, individual property tax, and not business tax that pays for that. So that's a burden that will be shifted to us, essentially subsidizing the students that come out of the apartment complex. And again, just want to emphasize the potential impact with noise, light, pollution, all those things that go in with high density housing, you know, as well as diminished property values, which a zoning change that would diminish the property values, especially those affected around the surrounding areas, would be, you know, regulatory taking in a way where, you know, the zoning change in itself would directly affect our property values in future sales. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Linda Puckett here. Following her will be Jacqueline Wendell. My name's Linda Puckett. I live on Fincher Road in Argyle. I want to appreciate your thoughtful consideration on this. I am somewhat disappointed this is not going to a vote. I would appreciate a denial at this level in order to, I believe, make AS have the City Council have a super majority. I think that was the most appropriate action. I think that it's really kind of depriving everyone of their time, but I do appreciate everyone's comments. I would like to kind of go on what Mr. Smith said about how the yields on non-subsidized apartments are very different in Denton as opposed to what they would be in an apartment in Argyle. And the fact is that we don't have any information on apartments in Argyle because there's no apartments in Argyle. So even in your development plan, which seems to be the Bible, it says that 25 percent of Denton's population is between the ages of 18 to 24. Also single childless people are attracted to Denton because of its vibrant downtown nightlife and scene, and there is a lot of industry here. Denton County is one of the biggest, well, the biggest employers. I'd also like to talk about the yields. Now, the yields are very high in Argyle because it's a very desirable school district. Part of the reason why the yields, though, are still fairly low is people have children. They graduate. They stay in their homes because they are homeowners. They have roots there. They have neighbors there. And I'm not denigrating people that live in apartments, but you rarely get to know your neighbors in apartments. They are a more transitory population. You are not going to have people kind of age out and retire in the home and not have children in the school district. I think that it's laughable that he says it's going to be 75 percent one bedroom. Why would you ever want to live in the middle of nowhere, nowhere close to a grocery store, a gas station, anywhere to have anything done? You live in Argyle because it's rural, because you like trees and space, and it's a great school district. That apartment complex, it was going to be a magnet for people to come to this ISD and 75 percent one bedroom. I don't think there's any apartment complex and didn't at 75 percent one bedroom. I'd also like to point out that Cindy Jackson used the local government code as a limiting. She said that they were limited to notify people in the ETJ right next to this development. That is not correct. Local government code in that section is giving the minimum standards for notification. I don't even live near this complex, but it offends me that people that would butt right up to it just because they're in the ETJ were not notified. She's talking out of both sides of her mouth when she says that we have to notify within 200 feet within the city limits only, but as a courtesy did it 500 feet. Which is it? Are you limited by the local government code or are you not? The people in the ETJ deserve notification too that are next to this. I'd also like to say too that this was R1. This is one dwelling per acre. We just had a bond election in Argyle that barely passed. It passed by under 50 votes. That land was projected to have 18 families there and to even increase it by a planned development to as low as 100 or 200 is going to be an undue burden on the school district and it's just not fitting with ... Thank you. This is Jacqueline Wendel followed by David Wendel. Do you need to state your name and address? You have four minutes. Yes, sir. My name is Jacqueline Wendel and I'm a resident at 4981 Kiowa Trail located directly behind the property of interest. I'm going to read the email that I sent to Cindy today. A year and a half ago my husband and I moved our family into this house thinking it would be our forever home. We came from the busy and overpopulated city of Plano and we're related to find a property near the rural town of Argyle. It had everything we were looking for in a home. A large lot located on a quiet cul-de-sac in the Argyle school district and most importantly it provided us with the privacy we were denied in Plano. Fast forward to a couple of months ago when we first heard about the proposed rezoning of the land directly behind us. On social media, might I add, because we are not within city limits so they're not required by law to notify us of what's going on even though we'll be one of several houses impacted the most by the change. Apartments. The developers want to build two to four story apartments less than 100 yards from our home, from where our children play, from where our farm animals are housed. People will be in and out all hours of the day and night, some of whom will have the ability to look into our yard with who knows what intentions, invading our privacy and potentially risking our safety. The thoughts that have raced through my mind over the past two months make me sick to my stomach. The things that my husband and I worked so hard for just blatantly stomped on. For financial gain of course. We made a lifetime investment when buying this property and I promise you we would have never bought this house knowing that the apartments could be built behind it. But then why would that have ever been a concern? The property is owned for single family homes on acre lots. You're changing the rules of the game and quite frankly it's not fair. And now the thought of selling our forever home has crossed my mind but you know what's really upsetting? It's doubtful that we would recoup our investment because our property value will be significantly diminished in the event that this rezoning is approved. So it's a no win situation for us whether we stay or leave. But let me step off my soap box for a moment and talk about, or should I say reiterate, some of the other problems that will come from this wonderful project. These proposed apartments will feed into Argyle schools. The school districts are known for its exceptional academics as well as its low student to teacher ratio. Argyle is already growing at a rapid rate and struggling to accommodate the growth in its student population. How is it going to handle an immediate influx of potentially hundreds of children when it's essentially already maxed out? And what about police and fire? It currently takes 10 to 15 minutes for a 911 call to be answered in this area. How are they going to deal with a sudden increase in population and call volume? Or the traffic? The roads in Argyle and South Dent need improvement as is. There are streets located in multiple jurisdictions needing repair and widening. So what happens when there are hundreds of more cars on the roads that can hardly accommodate the current traffic in the region? This rezoning will bring nothing to the area but more crime, more traffic and more people than the city and the Argyle school district can handle. If you ask me it's an easy decision. Try the rezoning and the potential for brush creek apartments and let this area continue to be a quiet small community that prides itself on beautiful rural character and small town lifestyle. Thank you. Thank you. Next is David Wendell followed by Vince Schreiber. I need you to state your name and address for the record. David Wendell. I live with my wife at 4981 Kiowa trail. My house backs up to the proposed property. I wasn't notified about any of this because they don't have to. Because they don't care about us. This is just a money grab for them. They want to put as much as they can in a small area. They didn't come talk to any of us. I don't know if you all know, but they had to have an informational hearing to let us know about this. The people that showed up, they showed up 30 minutes late to that from wherever they flew in because they don't care. This isn't, these are my neighbors. This is our community. They're not a part of that. And so somebody said earlier that's just how they look at it. I do appreciate y'all being against it, just the idea of it seems silly I know. And I'm glad you all see that. The kind of bummer is, like I work for the Dallas fire department. I had to pay quite a bit of money to be here today because today's my shift. So I don't appreciate that. I don't know how much longer this is going to go on for. It's already been rescheduled a couple times. My wife is super high strung. So just the talk of this ruins my day. So I do appreciate, but I don't want to do this every six weeks. You know what I mean? I have to get a babysitter for my four-year-old and my 18-month-old because I don't want someone to be able to look into my backyard and watch them play. And real quick, I'm not a super smart dude. I don't know about yields and all that kind of stuff, but I'm a lieutenant for the Dallas fire department. I work downtown. I know a couple things about apartments, crime. The majority of violent crime in Dallas is in apartments. That's not where the majority of people live, but that's where the majority of violent crime is. I saw a little blurb up there on station 7, 1.8 miles away, less than eight minutes. Oh, that's awesome. I'm sure they don't know. And you know, it's too bad they didn't come to our street because we have Chief Higgins that lives on our street. He could have told them anything they wanted to know. He's a battalion chief in the city of Denton. If this building caught on fire, he'd be the one directing the firefighters on how to put it out. He's right there at the top. Too bad they didn't come talk to him. He could have answered some questions. But if an apartment caught on fire in Denton, station 7 has one fire engine, one ambulance. So they could be there super quick. They're not going to do anything. Do you know in Dallas, if an apartment catches on fire in Dallas, that's a two-alarm response. Four fire engines, four trucks, three battalion chiefs, a deputy chief, EMS supervisor, an ambulance. That's over 40 people. And it's different cities, but we have NIMS standards and we're not that different. So I'm sure they did do the research, so they might be able to answer that question on what kind of response it would take to get all that to an apartment fire. I don't know. But I think that's pretty much all I got. I appreciate y'all, and I appreciate y'all being against it. Hopefully we don't do this every two months. That's my one thing. Appreciate that. And I appreciate your service. Thank you. Next is Vince Shriver, followed by Kevin Fasciane, station name and address for the record. Vince Shriver, 4990 Kiowa Trails. I'm also in the unincorporated part of Denton, so I did not get the notification on this rezoning. I'm going to go a little bit off script tonight, since everybody's kind of talked a little bit about what my thoughts have been, and again, I want to echo Mr. Smith, thank you so much for your support, Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Pernetta, Commissioner Cole. I appreciate you guys taking a look and assisting the developer and kind of reconsidering how they want to approach this. And that's kind of what I want to go off script and talk a little bit about is I think there's a great opportunity that we are going to see, and everybody in this room knows from my neighbors and everyone, we're going to see growth in the Argyle area. I think it's a great opportunity for this particular property, and as one of my neighbors and I were talking about this evening, it would be a great opportunity for us to be able to walk down somewhere that's got a nice little coffee shop and fits the tranquil nature of the area to be able to say, hey, this is an area we walk our kids down, it becomes a Saturday event, and we get to look at something that one of the developers built, took pride in and said, hey, this is something that I added and added a tremendous amount of value to the area that I'm developing. That seems to be missing at the moment, so I would definitely encourage somehow the developer tonight to take a look at how he could do that, reach out to the local community, take the recommendation by this commission, take the recommendation that we provided during the feedback session that we had, and figure out a way to as a community, because that's really what we're talking about here, not just an apartment complex that they want to drop in on top of our farm animals, on top of where we don't have the infrastructure from the street standpoint, we don't have the infrastructure from the schools contrary to what their reports say, work with the community to come up with a plan that we can all get behind and that when they decide to break ground, the community wants to be there and say, hey, you know what, this is something we all got involved in and we're proud to have you here as one of our partners. Right now, nobody in our community feels that this is a partnership, this is something we want to chase out of our community. There's a prime opportunity here for to change that around if they decide to take that initiative, and I know my community, given that opportunity, we would embrace the right development and we'd embrace the right opportunity to enhance where we live. So thank you. Evening commissioners. Kevin Fassian, 4805 Argyle Lane, and City of Denton. First of all, as a former elected public official, thank you for your service, you're what makes this happen and we truly appreciate your service. In consideration of time, I'm not going to rehash all the points. I will introduce one point I don't know that was brought up yet, and one of the elements in changing the zoning, element number one, is that the use of this land complement the surrounding areas. And given that a vote doesn't appear likely tonight that it'll be postponed, I just ask you to remember that when this is brought up before you again, that clearly you've heard from the community, and whatever use we put to this land, let's make sure it does complement what's already around it, and that we maintain the beauty of this area of Denton and Argyle. Thank you. Next is Judy Folkerson, followed by Gary Davis. Is Judy here? Okay. I'll go on record as you're opposed to this? Yes, sir. Okay. Gary Davis. Is Gary here? Okay, next here will be David Yoder. Thank you, Commissioner. My name's Gary Davis. I live at 970 Brush Creek Road, and what used to be a really nice little road is now going to be a freeway. It seems like all of this falls into build it, and they will come. Well, we're going to put the mobility plans as to come through, and then go across 377 to 35W. We understand that. If you look in the ETJ area on the west side of 377, there's a huge number of homes that are already on the plans to be put there, and the reason I know that is my son-in-law's the civil engineer for it. If you just continue on south from that same point, housing tracks after housing tracks. I know you can't do much about that. But then this one starts doubling down. We've got a few things that are facing 377, but we've got an awful lot of apartments, an awful lot of multifamily, and I thank you very much for acknowledging that, the commissioners. I work for the city of Keller, so I'm in these riveting meetings all the time. I heard more consideration given by you fellows than I hope nobody from Keller is watching this tonight. That's my thing. We're being dumped on. They're bringing the six-lane highway through, and I live right on the road. It's going to come up close to our front door. Right now, people in the neighborhood such as Cox's, they walk it every day. They walk by my house and stroll up and down there. That's going to go away. Used to let my grandkids ride the golf cart up and down the road and over on the Kyle Trail. That's going away. All the housing and all of the people that are going to go zooming up, you know the drill. I know you got the message, and I just appreciate you considering all of that. I think it can wait. Coming back in six weeks, again, living in this environment, I don't know what that'll do for you. I would rather see you take 90 days and get with us and come up with a better plan. At least they wouldn't be told, "Hit the road," even though that's what we'd like to say. I think it's a longer process than what you're giving it. Thank you for your time. No disrespect, I have to leave, and it's not because I'm angry. Thank you so much. Thanks for being here. Next is David Yoder, followed by Allison Prather. If you could state your name and address for the record. My name is David Yoder. I live at 940 and 950 Brush Creek Road in Argyle, Texas. We're David and Kathy Yoder, and we have lived on Brush Creek Road since 1985. We moved here when there were only 10 houses on all of Brush Creek. Kiowa Trails, Wood Creek Circle, the Hills of Argyle, Country Club Village, and all subdivisions built after 1985. We have worked tirelessly with the project developers, Den County and Citi, to create and maintain a rural community that supported our rural atmosphere and lifestyle. This is not about social status or economics. It's about the inappropriateness of inserting a two-, three-, and four-story multifamily apartment complex, immediately abutting a rural community made up of one to five-acre homes and ranchettes. Within a one-mile radius of the corner of Highway 377 and Brush Creek Road, there are zero homes on less than one-acre lots, period. It's about safety and traffic flow, as currently designed, this apartment complex site plan has 352 units, 646 parking spaces, and four exits. The northernmost exit is 135 feet south of Bonnie Bray. Sage Brook, a 150-acre development with 497 proposed lots, is currently in annexation and zoning with the City of Denton. This development will also exit onto Highway 377 at Brush Creek and Bonnie Bray. These two developments will increase the daily trips to well over 10,000. The widening of Brush Creek Road and 377 and the installation of traffic lights at both have no definitive completion date at this time. Both traffic lights will require synchronization with a very active railroad crossing. The proposed zoning request of the property from RR and R1 to MN mixed-use neighborhood is not consistent or conducive with many of the values espoused in the Denton Development Plan 2030. In community vision statement, land use overview and the Denton Development Code. Rezoning of this property to MN mixed-use without maintaining the appropriate scale and intensity of the surrounding neighborhood defalues the neighborhood, destroys community and is inconsistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Denton Plan. Ensuring that buildings are of the appropriate scale and intensity to complement the surrounding neighborhood environment is critical. The planning and zoning staff analysis material is misleading and incomplete. Traffic analysis is incomplete because it does not take into consideration the additional planned development of Sagebrook Subdivision at 377 and Bonnie Bray. Parks, access to the proposed parks at the corner of Bonnie Bray and Allred Road will require children to cross a very busy four-lane highway and active railroad tracks to access the park. The stated walking distance is 1,033 feet, is misleading and raises significant and potential deadly safety concerns not addressed by staff. Dr. Wright has answered the question on schools. My recommendation is denial of this request. Thank you very much. Thank you. I would also like to note that the two commercial properties that they identify are both setbacks and do not include the first part which is in the city limits. They're built in the ETJ and therefore they are not out as commercial properties. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Allison Prather followed by Perry Dyer. If you would just state your name and address for record. My name is Allison Prather. I live at 4921 Kyle Wittrell. Thank you for hearing me tonight. My husband and I are in opposition to the rezoning of this property. Our property backs up to this property would be our backyard basically. Noise pollution, light pollution, not to mention people walking their dogs down our street and allowing their animals to defecate in our yards, that would be messes to clean up. We enjoy our sunsets if there's a four story, anything back there. We would not see the sunsets. It's very quiet and tranquil out there. We would lose our quiet and our tranquility if this was rezoned. The zoning needs to stay one acre residential as it is now to complement the neighborhood and leave the ... People move out there and live out there for a reason. They want it to be like it is now. They don't want big changes coming. Thank you very much for listening to me. Thank you very much. Next is Perry Dyer followed by Leon Dade. Leon Dade. Good evening. Thank you for your time. Perry Dyer, 4800 Snow Shield Court, Argyle, Texas or Denton, however it's worded out for the mail there. Our area is very unique and the reason I moved out there two years ago was because of that uniqueness. We live in a very small town out in Northern California and the reason we lived there and liked it is because it is a small town. The people who are moving to these areas want that. They are understanding that it takes 10 minutes to go to a grocery store. It takes 10 minutes to go to a gas station. It takes 10 minutes to get about anywhere from where we are. We don't need instantaneous access. We don't want that. That's not why we moved there. As Lieutenant from the fire department talked about, response times. My neighbor's house, unfortunately Donna had to leave, burnt down last year. To the ground, 100 percent, if an apartment complex catches fire, that's going to take all the resources for our area to deal with that. Anybody else? I'm sorry. We've got to bring somebody else in from another division and department to bring it in. It takes bold vision from you guys, from the city council, to stand up to just making it another town, just like everywhere else. You drive through all these neighborhoods, they're identical. There's this. There's that. There's apartments. There's small houses. There's all the same businesses. It takes vision on your guys' part to say, "No, we're going to allow something to stay rural, something to stay unique, and have charm." That's what brings people to the area, makes people want to be there. In 20 years, maybe that's why people want to still come, is because they see that vision, they have that uniqueness. If people want apartments, they can go just down the road, find apartments. They're all over the place. We don't need to make ourselves just like every other area. Thank you for your time. After Mr. Dade, we'll have Pam Harrington, Ms. Dade. I'm sorry. He was walking right towards me. I just made a bad assumption. It's quite all right. My apologies. No, that's quite all right. I need to state your name and address for the record. My name is Leona McDade, and I live at 116 Stonecrest Road, Argyle, Texas. I am also a parent in the school district, believe it or not, I am, raising our grandson. I do have some very serious concerns about the proposed apartment complex. I know a lot of people have said a lot of things. I'm not going to take the time to repeat it, but I will say that I agree with pretty much 100 percent everything that everybody has said. Put that on the record for that. We opened up a new elementary campus this fall to relieve overcrowding in our previous elementary school, which almost reached 1,000 students last year. We now have that second elementary open, which has given some relief. We have a third one, hopefully, that will open up in 2022 that is part of the bond election that was passed in 2017. But all that is based on the current projections by our demographer and do not include this apartment complex. If I did some numbers here, which I thought you might be interested in hearing. Denton ISD has 40 schools. I might be off by one or two. Argyle ISD has five. We are one-eighth the size of Denton. Denton ISD has, as of 2018, which I could find, 28,628 students. Argyle ISD, as of now, has 3,454, also one-eighth the amount of students. Interesting how that worked out. If you look at, and I've revised some of my projections here based on what I've heard this evening, but I'm going to give you a range. If we get 150 students from this apartment complex, that's four and a half percent of Argyle ISD's student population. If we get 200 students, it's six percent. If we get 300 students, it's nine percent. We can't absorb any of that. Push forward now to Denton ISD. If Denton ISD had to absorb this apartment complex, four and a half percent of their student population would be 1,288 students, six percent, 1,700, nine percent, 2,500, if it was truly that, all clustered in one attendance zone. But either way, if you put that many students in our school district, we're going to have to build another elementary school. There's no doubt that we'd have to. We don't have the funds. We don't have the bonding capacity that Denton ISD has. We do not have the infrastructure. We do not have the commercial tax base in order to float another bond election. Our next one we're looking at is about 2023 at the earliest, and that would have to include additional schools other than the one elementary, excuse me, the one elementary that's planned. And this all takes into account what we already know is coming to Argyle ISD, excuse me. If this apartment complex were approved, it would definitely overburden the resources of Argyle ISD. There's absolutely no doubt in my mind, along with the quality of education in our school district, which is primarily, honestly, well, not primarily, but one of the big reasons that people move, including myself, to Argyle is for the school district, and it's also for the ruralness of the community. As Denton ISD does, Argyle ISD depends on a professional demographer to give us our projections. And as this property right now is zoned one acre lots, that's how we have determined our bond. It has determined the number of schools we build and when the needs of the schools are going to occur. I just have one little quick statement. Okay. I appreciate the work that all of you are doing, absolutely, that you serve. I encourage you to drive to the area and look at what already exists there and how whatever decision you decide to make will impact that area. And I also respectfully request that you deny this rezoning request and relook at your comp plan regarding this area and not allow multifamily in there at all. Thank you. Thank you. Pam Arrington, followed by Susan Apple. Hi, I'm Pamela Arrington, 3121 Stone Crop Trail. And I do live in the city of Denton Argyle ISD. I'm representing Argyle ISD as the communications director as well as a parent resident. I'd like to start by adding to what Dr. Wright communicated regarding the growth in the district. Argyle ISD currently has 923 vacant lots available to build on right now. And there are 4,400 future planned lots. There's groundwork underway on more than 1,165 lots. And there are several developments underway as well. And just looking at those numbers right there shows you that as a district growing at over 11% annually, we just don't have the ability or the capacity to take on an apartment complex of this size. It's obvious with that number of students, Argyle ISD does have limited and crowded facilities. The number of developments already approved. Argyle ISD is not ready for the initial zoning and rezoning requested at this time for this apartment complex. All right, moving on. Approving the zoning and rezoning of the land at 377 and Brush Creek for apartments contradicts the following points in the City of Denton's growth plan. In the land use overview, it states the concern of a trend referred to as spreading out. The trend leads to longer commutes, greater levels of congestion and strained environment, fiscal resources and challenges for public services and facilities to keep up with the demands of this rapidly enlarging development footprint. It goes on to state that in response to the public input that led to the community vision statement, that it is the intention of the land use, well, it is the intention to reverse this trend by encouraging thoughtful and resourceful development investment, supporting more compact and interconnected land use patterns, providing walkability, biking. Is this, I think we need to analyze this and ask ourselves, is this really encouraging thoughtful and resourceful development investment by approving this apartment complex at the corner of 377 and Brush Creek? When it's mentioned by the representative that works for the developer, providing walkability to the residents at this apartment complex and biking to a nearby park outstated by other residents, would mean that those bikers and those walkers would not only have to cross a busy highway 377, but also the safety concern of the railroad, which the railroad really hasn't been mentioned much, which I'm surprised by as a parent having to drive my students to and from school every day and to all of their activities, I use 377 as my main mode of transportation and I know the parents out there that have to cross the railroad tracks every single day know that that adds to the commute time. When you add 500 extra vehicles on that roadway that are having to travel across that railroad, your commute time is going to even increase more and then of course you're going to have more accidents, therefore increasing the need for the fire and the police. All right, so again, there are a lot of concerns. We've heard a lot of the concerns we've had here tonight. Our motto or one of our mottos in Argyle is we are Argyle and that's because we all support each other. We support the school district, we support the community members, the small businesses and you know our voices have been heard and we just ask that the developers work together with us, work together and opening those lines of communication, listening to our concerns and our voices and supporting the city's growth plan and the vision of Argyle. Thank you so much. Thank you. We actually have a question for you. We have a question for you, Mr. Smith. Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Chair. Mrs. Arrington, I meant to mention this earlier when your superintendent spoke, but I think the school density piece is one thing that's really driving a lot of the comments I have to make tonight about this project and my affinity towards it, but if I can make one recommendation to Argyle ISD with both of you guys listening in here now, this should be a really good chance for you guys as an ISD to build a standard for your density of developments coming in. With as much growth as could be coming in Argyle here soon, I don't think from a planning standpoint going case by case and development by development is smart and it gives the city of Denton the opportunity to say, "Well, we think that their number calculation is flawed." So I would encourage the ISD to begin a standardization of your density if you can. I know it's hard to do because not every development is the exact same, but at least trying something rather than saying, "Well, this neighborhood is this way. This neighborhood is that way." The marker was within 10 students of the projection. Absolutely. Spot on. Okay. Just a recommendation. Knowing how the city of Denton has reacted to your numbers, how the city of Denton has grown over the last 15 years or so and the way that we've done development and growth up here, I would encourage Argyle as Denton is not going to stop seeping down into your ISD. So if the demographer, if it's efficient for them to go case by case, understood. But I think it might be a time to build some sort of standardization or some codified way of being able to quantify that. Next. Dr. Wright, since you're not mic'd up, I want to caution against commissioners that engage in the audience. For the sake of answering your question, Dr. Wright, can you come back up to the mic? Interestingly enough, I actually have an appointment with the demographer tomorrow afternoon and I do appreciate your insightful comments regarding this, Mr. Smith, and I will discuss it thoroughly with the demographer. Thank you. Tell them hi for me. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Susan Apple, followed by James Vogel-Gessonck. There's no way I'm close. Ms. Apple, if you could state your name and address, I'd appreciate it. My name is Susan Apple. I live at 8,000 Wood Creek Circle, Argyle, Texas. However, we are in the city of Denton, the city annexed our cul-de-sac in 1979. We've been in the same home for 26 years. Our cul-de-sac is zoned R1 and all of the lots are over one acre. Y'all have messed me up because I had one speech to give and then with the careful conversations that y'all have had, which I appreciate very much, it's kind of changed my focus a little bit. I have to agree with the previous folks who said that they would really like a denial tonight. This was the first notice I got for the September 18th public hearing. Since the developer failed to put signs up and I had to let the planner know that the signs had not put up because apparently they didn't follow up, that meeting was rescheduled to this meeting, which was on October the 2nd. We never got a really good reason for why October the 2nd didn't happen, but then we got our third notice for tonight's meeting. So I really don't have a lot of excitement about coming back again. I think this is kind of ridiculous. Let's see, I'll try to-- we actually, after we complained that there were no signs up and they had to reschedule that meeting, then we complained that they had held no neighborhood meeting. It's been my experience that developers are encouraged, especially when it's such a huge up zone like this, to have a meeting so that they don't meet with daggers and foul words. After we complained that there was no neighborhood meeting, that we had had no contact with the developers, two days prior to a meeting being scheduled we got a piece of paper in the mail that said there was a neighborhood meeting. Also, in my experience, neighborhood meetings are held in the neighborhood. This neighborhood meeting was scheduled 15 miles away. Forty of us, approximately 40 of us, drove the 15 miles to the meeting, which was scheduled at 6.30, and as someone else mentioned, the developers arrived after 7 o'clock. They brought with them no materials, no pictures, nothing that you normally would see at a neighborhood meeting. They were actually overconfident when asked questions. Their responses were, "I don't know," or, "We haven't thought about that. We just did that concept plan to get the traffic study going." They would not answer any questions. They were quite joking, they were condescending, and they did not lend themselves to a friendly neighborhood relationship. Again, aside from that would be more meetings, I also don't see them being touchy-feely with the neighbors because they've proven at that meeting we asked for them to reach out to us. Again, we gave them our names, our addresses, our emails. No one has heard from those developers since, and I'm sure they're quite shocked to come in here tonight because someone said they didn't read the tea leaves. They don't have the ability to read the tea leaves. It was clear that they thought this was going to be a slam dunk. Staff recommends approval because it's deemed consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Denton Plan. I'm going to have to talk really fast, yet it's the exact opposite of the off-stated. The Denton Plan is like nobody read it. It says over and over and over again, "We want to be consistent. We don't want any encroach. We don't want leapfrog development," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. In closing, I served on this board for six years. I served as the chair. I know that your eyes are probably glazing over at this point, but this is important, and I hate for all these fine people who have been put through what we've already been put through the developer's fault to have to continue this charade for something that's clearly inappropriate for the neighborhood. I would appreciate a denial, at least consider a denial. Thank you for your time. If you could state your name and pronounce your last name, it would be helpful, and then your address for the record. James A. Vogelgesang, 1805 Warwick Crescent Court, Hills of Argyle. There's not much I can add to what everybody said here. I think you understand where all these people are coming from and their reasons. I worked all my life to get the house that I have in Hills of Argyle, and I don't want to see it destroyed either. I think as far as the Denton plan, when she went through the six points, I found an error or disagreement I had with five of them that weren't consistent with what that plan said in far as my interpretation. I think you have a choice tonight, and I hope you do the right thing. I do appreciate your time staying here, but you need to vote this thing no tonight. This is not going to be a six-week process. They're not going to come back in six weeks with anything any different than what you've seen. This is going to take a while. Disapprove it, send them back to the drawn boards, and have them come up with a different plan. That's what I challenge you to do tonight, is just do the right thing and say, "Nope, wrong answer," and bring them back again. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Pernitta. I just want to get a clarification real quick. If there were a motion to deny, what's the minimum turnaround time for them to come back with something else, once again? If there's a denial by city council, I believe it's a six-month or a year, I'd have to check unless it's a substantially different proposal. In this instance, it would either be less land area or a different zoning category. It would still be kicking the can down the road, but it would be kicking the can down the road a year from now. At least. I'm going to confirm that in the code right now. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Richard, just to follow up on that, because we were talking about earlier, the motion to postpone within that, to let them go back and possibly bring back a PD rather than an MN. You're saying that there was a denial that they can go back, and a substantially different application would be coming back with a brand new zoning of a PD rather than an MN, correct? Essentially, the denial and the postponement, the only difference between those two things is time. Correct. If this went with a recommendation of denial, then it would go as a supermajority to city council. If council were to deny it, it would have to be a substantially different proposal. The next card I have is for Ashley Nguyen. Can I speak with you for her, if you have her, please? Sure. Absolutely. If you could just stage your name and address for the record. Okay. My name is Peaches Smith. I live at 2812 Newport Avenue in Denton, Texas. My daughter Ashley and my son-in-law Suvin Nguyen live at 231 407 in Argyle. They just moved there two years ago. They have three children. They've been bombarded basically by the expansion of 407, the expansion of 377. They moved there from Irving to be in a small town to raise their children. My daughter grew up in a small town. My son-in-law grew up in the city. They have farm animals. They love the school. My son-in-law, which is surprising, he's a firefighter in Richardson, Texas. I can't believe he turned into a little farmer. But apartment complexes, and I know I've lived in them, people do not take the same care and concern not only for their home, they don't take the same care and concern for their children. They don't take the same care and concern for their community or their schools. I'm not doubting anyone that in apartments I've lived in them, but that's a fact of life. And Argyle, I just hate to see it be turned into something it's never meant to be. It's a beautiful small town place that I, like my children grew up in. My kids grew up in a small town. They had farm animals. They went to a small school. I was very active in the school, active with my children, and in an apartment complex, especially with looming right over every other house, I just pray that y'all reject it. Thank you. Thank you. Richard, can you clarify the question that Mr. Smith had earlier? I just wanted to, and I'll read right from the code. This is on limitation of subsequent similar applications accepted city council's request. Following denial of an application, an application that is the same or substantially similar will be accepted with a one year of a previous denial. For the purpose of this provision, substantially similar shall mean any application that is not materially different in terms of the proposed development or activities related to the reasons for denial of the previously submitted application as determined by the director. As a part two to this subsection F, the waiting period may be waived by the decision making body provided that A, there is a substantial change of circumstances or new information available relevant to the issues or facts considered during the previous application review, or the new application is materially different from the previous application as determined by the director. I mean, I can tell you right now, it would have to be substantially different, a different zoning category for even consideration. Okay, so once again, minimum one year, but if they came back with like a PD, we could waive that one year if they had something that was amenable to the community within six months. It could be a PD, it could be a suburban court, I mean there's a number of- It just could not be- An MN. An MN, right. Okay, all right. Or substantially similar. All right. So the next card I have is Keith Whitehouse, see here. Hello, my name's Keith Whitehouse, I live on 1120 Brush Creek Road, along with my neighbors David Yoder and Gary Davis who spoke earlier. So I appreciate your gentleman's time this evening. I think this proposal is clearly not in the way that the community was originally designed. I moved there 15 years ago when it was just a semi-rural area. I think that's the charm of that community and it continues to be that way. I think you've heard time and time again this evening that the infrastructure is not created well enough to really support those sets of apartments. And I don't really see that happening until there's a four-lane or six-lane road going down 377 Andor Brush Creek Road. So it's already dangerous as it is, you know? So it is a- I just can't emphasize how dangerous it is, we've had a lot of accidents down at Fairway Acres, you know, Vantage Road and, you know, Hills of Argyle entrances and those, that's not going to get any better if those roads aren't expanded and created properly. And it's- I think it's clearly good that we've heard the superintendent here tonight talk about the infrastructure, the schools, et cetera, and the fire department. So I think it's really clear that to me that this has not been a- that the apartments aren't in the really good design plan. So I think you gentlemen have all kind of spoke out for that, I appreciate it. You know, I just relish the time when that bridge was out on Brush Creek for several years. It was nice and quiet there. We like it nice and quiet there and we wish to keep it nice and quiet there. So again, I think bottom line is that is the infrastructure is not there and it is a semi-rural area. That's the way we'd like to keep it. Thank you. Thank you. Is Brian Trail back, I called his name a couple hours ago, I'll assume he's gone. Okay, as I mentioned earlier, I have a stack of white cards that I don't know if you all are wishing to speak or not. So I'm just going to ask if you want to speak, if you don't want to speak, I'll just read your stance, support or oppose into the record. The first one I have is Steven Lepot, are you wishing to speak or do you just want to go into records opposed? Come on down. Thank you very much for taking the time to listen to me, I appreciate it. I actually grew up in Argyle. I was here in 1977. Can you just state your name and address for the record? Oh, I'm sorry, Steven Lepot, it's 2104 Winthrop Hill. Thank you. All right, yeah, so we moved out here in 1977, grew up here, grew up in Argyle School District, moved away for about ten years or so. Lived in a very high developed area over in Frisco and Dallas, Addison area. So once I got married, had kids, I thought, where are we going to go where we can get a nice rural environment, put a lot of effort in researching. And the substance that I was looking for, we have to have something, some kind of reference to figure out where we're going to go, some information. Zoning is one of the biggest, one of the best ways to figure out what the development plan is between the city and the residents. And knowing this area, I knew what the plan was, we looked at the zoning laws, we looked at the zoning for Denton and also Argyle, put a lot of research in them, I really did a lot of research. And it was quite a bit of, it took us a long time to get moved out here, to get established, put a lot of effort into it, I want to raise my kids here, my family. And there's all kinds of things I can plan for, I mean, that's how we live as humans, we plan for, we get insurance for coverage, we do a lot of research to plan for our family, for safety, for future growth development. I feel like we did everything we could possibly do, and we get out here and all of a sudden I see these proposals for zoning changes, I feel like that's the only thing in life that I haven't been able to plan for. We did all our research and here we are and all of a sudden we have a lot of zoning changes. And anyway, there's a lot of great knowledge here, I mean, I could go on and on for four hours and get specifics, but I think that's already been done. So it's kind of for me just a personal, since you already heard, you know everything, heard everything. So it's just kind of a personal, we've put a lot, I know a lot of people have moved out here, have put years into an effort in establishing their residence and the schools. And I can say the zoning is one thing, just to be able to go in and change the zoning. And there's a handful of people, I'm sure there's a few people that are going to really benefit while the whole rest of the community ends up in a disadvantage, quite a big disadvantage. So I don't know how else you can go to plan, but anyway, I really appreciate you listening to us and I know there's a lot more people who would love to be here tonight. But it's obviously we're doing the best we can, so I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thanks for your time. Donna Parfetti, Donna Parfetti, great. She was post, she is from Argyle, 47085, yeah, I'm not sure about that one. And then I have, I believe, Mike Block, I think that was his name, I have a letter from him, his wife just wanted to read in the record. It says, committee members, I live within 200 feet of the proposed rezoning for the Brush Creek Apartments, item Z18-00113. I am strongly opposed to the zoning change and the apartments. Considering it's surrounded by a designated rural area, I do not agree on building apartments at this time. Thank you for your consideration, Robin E. Block. The next card I have is Carrie Johnson. Thank you, opposed, Larry and Sue Johnson, opposed, Cheryl McWilliams, are you wishing to speak? Yeah, absolutely. Come on down. Hi, I want to thank you guys and just reiterate, or not reiterate, but just to say that everything that is said tonight. If I could get your, I apologize. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, it's Cheryl McWilliams, 2765 Skyview Lane, Argyle, Texas. Everybody here has said everything that I've had on my mind and my heart about this rezoning change and really what I want to say is, you know, there's been several people that have asked you guys to consider voting for that tonight. I hope that is something that you guys take into consideration is to go ahead and step forward in voting on this tonight and not delaying this any further. Thank you. Thank you. Susan Fasciani, opposed, Trey Fulkerson, are you wishing to speak or are you opposed? We have Brandon Paffley, he is opposed, John King, he's opposed, Frank Boddy, opposed, thank you, Bev and Wayne Beeler, are you wishing to speak, okay, you all are opposed, Stacey Schnabel, Schnabel, opposed, Alexander Allen, opposed, Jessica Russell, is opposed, Amy Fanning, opposed, Shane Tatum, he's opposed, Lane Tidwell, opposed, Justin Jensen, are you wishing to speak? Sure. Absolutely. If you could just say your name and address, you have four minutes. Justin Jensen, 3237 Clubview Drive, just from what it is, 11 acres, 11 residents to become 350, I don't think it's right, I don't think it's fair to the students, I don't think it's fair to the teachers, to severely stress that. I want to thank you guys with Denton, I happened to serve on the Argyle for a while, economic development, but I've been very impressed with you guys and very appreciative of you trying to shut this down. Please don't let them just kick this can down the road, please don't waste all of our time coming back out here again, and I thank you for your time. Thank you. Terry Boas, opposed, Lucinda Boas, opposed, John Prather, opposed, James Andrews, opposed, Andy Faceon, Faceon, opposed, Leo Faceon, and I apologize if I'm mispronouncing it, opposed, are you wishing to speak? You are wishing to speak? No. Okay. Commissioner Pernetta, you want to interject? No. Okay, perfect. Brett Reed, opposed, Steve Alcorn, he is, it's actually marked blank, so that's marked blank, Sam Slayton, okay, perfect, Jennifer Lane, marked as opposed, Brandy Mansfield, marked as opposed, oh, do you want to speak, please? Brandy Mansfield, and I'm 3101 Hornbeam Street. I spent over a year researching where we wanted to live before we picked Argyle, and the reasons we did it are for all the other reasons that people have stated today. One thing that I find interesting is when you go to Argyle Intermediate or Argyle High School, or I mean, Argyle Intermediate or the middle school, you have to go over the train tracks, and then there's a sign that's posted that says no left-hand turns during the morning at drop-off, and no left-hand turns in the afternoon during pick-up, and the reason for that is there is no lights at those areas, and to even get right out of those schools, you have to wait there for a while, and if, God forbid, any parent decides to not follow those rules and try to make a left on that in the morning, they are immediately, you know, not liked, but so this adding more people into that whole scenario is just completely unacceptable on top of, it's dangerous, so I just wanted to add that. Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Cassimira Ray, opposed, Kim Jones, she's marked opposed, Tina Brewer, she's marked opposed, Ricky Wood, OK, please do, if you could just state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes. >> Rick Wood, 8011 Wood Creek Circle in Argyle, Texas, Denton City Limits, Denton, Texas. I just want to, I'll go on record as opposed, and I want to say and encourage the commissioners, and I really appreciate your positions and the work you put in on this, but I want to go on record to encourage that you vote this down now. These guys will come back with, you know, a slightly altered plan, we'll do this again, it feels like we're under assault, they're building a six-lane brush creek out of a two-lane brush creek, you know, I've been to two or three of these meetings in the past couple of months, either about the road or this property, and I think you should put this one to bed, these guys are serial developers, they have over a hundred shell companies, cross-development, there's a hundred different LLCs that they've formed, the people in Wiley had the same thing happen to them except they built the apartment complex, and it's a disaster, the residents, you know, there's people going to lose their city council seats because of it, I just want to go on record as strong opposition, my neighbors, good people, and we're all pretty passionate about where we live. Thank you very much. The next card I have is Amanda Falvey-Wood, okay, thank you, Mark's supposed, and Colin Brooks, okay, he's marked opposed. That is all the cards I have, is there anyone, this is a public hearing, is there anyone who would like to speak who hasn't had an opportunity or hasn't filled out a card? Okay, so at this point, Mr. Dahlstrom, you requested at the very beginning your excess time to be granted, and so I want to provide you those three minutes. My legs got tied up there, no, I had, I guess, three extra minutes, but in the interest of time, I won't go through my rebuttal, I've got a lot of comments, again, we respectfully request that we postpone this indefinitely to allow us to go back to the drawing board and to continue actually working with the neighborhoods like we want to, so thank you. Thank you. This is a public hearing, anyone wishing to speak on the item may certainly do so. Seeing none, I am going to close the public hearing and turn it to the dais for any questions they might have, discussion or motion? Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. The indefinitely, how long can we, does it indefinitely give us, I know we were looking, it was just because we were just confused on dates, but that indefinitely. It could be indefinitely, literally indefinitely. It could essentially come to an impasse where they just ask to move forward, but whether that's two weeks, a month, three months, I mean, it's anybody's guess. Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, Chair. First of all, this is my third meeting on the commission, so bear with me for a second, but anyway, I would like to thank Mr. Dahlstrom and the MMRQ people for coming out and giving your speech and representing it, and thank each of you for coming out and speaking. It's not about voicing your concerns about your city, I can hear the passion and your love for your city and your property and your voices, but I agree with each of you regarding your concerns about the infrastructure of the schools and the nature of the beauty of the country. I lived in the country in a PowerPoint for 12 years, so I can really, I can feel you. Along with you don't see this being a good fit for the community, and after hearing your concerns and speaking in opposition and the reading of all the cards, I just recommend we go ahead and put this matter to bed and take a vote on it tonight instead of kicking it down the road. Thank you very much, and I'll see you next time. [Applause] >> I have a few moments to say a few things before I offer the motion, or just the motion? >> No, you have the floor since you've asked for a motion. I'll go ahead and offer, put forth the motion to postpone indefinitely then. >> Okay, we have a first for a motion to postpone, do we have a second? Seeing none, motion fails. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Yeah, I have a question for the city. >> Can you raise your mic, please? >> I have a question for the city. If we had postponed, are there additional requirements for additional community meetings, or have the existing requirements for community meetings been met and would continue to have been met? >> Excuse me, the DDC has the community meetings as optional, however, if that, I mean, the motion did fail, however, to me, the direction was that there would be multiple community meetings to try to work to a resolution. >> Okay, and I have a second question for the city, and that is, if this is voted down at this point, the surrounding areas on the street itself are MN, correct? Wasn't that in the city's presentation? >> To the, there are some MN to the north and south, I believe. >> Okay, and how would that impact the city's decision to have a completely unrelated application go in that interstitial, like if they can't be MN because it has to be substantially different, how does that impact? >> We would have to look, I would want to say right off the cuff of how we would treat a future category, it would all depend, I mean, there's a multitude that they could look to include in that area. >> After a year, they can come back in, right? >> A year later, I mean, if it were to go all the way to council, council were to deny, 365 days later, they could apply again for MN. >> Commissioner Cole, we're going to have to wait on you since you have a motion on the table. It's Commissioner Smith. >> I'd like to make a motion to deny. >> We have a first for denial, Commissioner Panetta. >> I'll second the motion. >> We have a first and a second for denial, do you no longer want to speak? >> This is what I was wanting to do is get this, put this to bed, I mean, the applicant, they deserve a quick, painless death, it shouldn't linger, I mean, I don't see the facts on the ground changing in six months. That's what I view, or a year even. >> Thank you, Commissioner, Commissioner Panetta. >> Yeah, so I just kind of wanted to go over a few things and kind of cover my thoughts on the odyssey that this has been for tonight, and do you know why I second in this motion? So just a little background, I moved up to Denton in like in 1992, and back then Denton was this little island far away from everything, and the drive to Fort Worth was this serene thing with just greenness and cows, and now when I go down there, it's beige-brown rooftops, and every now and then, we have the opportunity up here to actually shape what's actually going to be happening in the community going forward. We had a very successful negotiation heading to the northeast very recently, where we were able to preserve some rural, as opposed to going into a very dense apartment-type situation. What I'd hoped would happen would be that the developer could get back together with the community, and we could work out something that would be amenable, because you look at 377, we all know that there's going to be change coming at some point. The question is how do we manage that change, and how do we preserve the spirit of what people want in that area, and that's what I'd like to see. To the developer, the reason I'm kind of going with a denial on this one was when we looked at a postponement, and the idea of a postponement indefinitely meant it could be six months, indefinitely meant it could be six weeks, one of the things that I didn't want to see happen would be a situation where in a month something comes back, and because of time constraints and because of the burden put on a community that wants to speak for itself, if we came back and instead of over 100 people, we had 20. Through the process of just attrition, we wound up not getting a true sense of what the community wanted. Hopefully we can look at a denial as an opportunity to come back with something that would be more fitting, and possibly also more profitable for you guys, because we know that the right thing out there, based on what we've seen in other communities, can still turn a lot of money while making everybody happy and preserving the spirit. I'm going to be voting to deny this. We know this will come back, because the people still own the property, and hopefully the next thing we see will be something that is in keeping with what the community wants. Thank you. Questioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. I didn't really say much with my denial, I don't think I really need to, I think we've all talked about it in circles. Honestly, I think this project was kind of doomed from the start, and so I've got no problem with development, even if it's surrounded by rural land, we've voted on plenty of other projects that have had development that have been surrounded by farmland, I just don't agree with the density, and I hope that this denial will show to the applicant that if you come back with a less dense project, something that's essentially different, even coming back with a PD that changes, it's not the MN, so it is substantially different underneath the denial rules, that you could probably bring back something that's a little more amenable to the rest of the neighborhood, and something that hopefully tonight our comments have given you direction of what we think we're amenable to as well, what we think is right for the city. So, thanks. I don't see any other discussion, but before we put this to a vote, I just wanted to say one thing, I haven't spoken yet on this. First, I've said to several of you that I've talked on the phone and emailed that you being here is important, and so hiring a babysitter, I have a sick two-year-old at home right now, I sympathize with you, and doing all the things sacrificially to be here is important. It helps contextualize our ignorance, potentially, on the area that you all call home, and so thanks for spending three hours with us and sharing your own personal perspectives on this. It shapes how we can best cultivate our city, and we had an interesting tension today because it's City of Denton, but Argyle ISD, and so as much as we're appointed by city officials for the City of Denton, we also wanna be good neighbors to Argyle ISD and the other jurisdictions that we share, and I think just I might bring up after you all leave the potential to see if there's any way we can nuance ETJ notices. There might be opportunities. I know there's a lot of notification laws, but it seems like you have five houses, you could just hand-deliver five pieces. But I appreciate that feedback for this evening. I appreciate all the work that our city staff does. I know Cindy has been working hard on this to go through the analysis, and I'm certain that there's a lot of hard work, and answering emails and phone calls that she got, I just respectfully disagree with the analysis that was completed on the property. I've spent four years on P&Z, and I have a long history of being frustrated with the future land use map. We call it the flume. It doesn't make sense, and I've asked for it to be updated, because it's not in alignment with what's actually on the ground happening. For instance, north of Lute 288 on Sherman Drive, it says that should all be rural, and that's not what's taking place, and so it seems as though the flume is not helpful across the board in understanding where the trajectory of our city's going. And with that, the mobility plan shows that all that will be expanded. Brush Creek, I think, is a 10-year project, 377 might be a little bit quicker than that. But the future land use map, if you're going to go by that, is assuming the future of the mobility plan. And so it seems as though if Brush Creek becomes a six-lane road, and 377 is built out, we need to assess what the property on the ground is at that point. And so I don't know what happens to P&Z 10 years from now on that intersection, but I think tonight it's not an apartment. And with that, I've also complained significantly about the amount of zoning we get to do on this commission and not a lot of planning. And so by title, I enjoy both aspects, planning and zoning, and tonight the commission gets the rare opportunity to actually plan for our city. And so in that way, we can protect it in a significant way. So my motion, or my support will be for denial this evening, and I appreciate all your time coming out this evening. Seeing no other discussion, I'm going to call for a vote on the board. Please remember that a vote to approve is to deny. So the green button is deny. It's a negative motion, so it gets confusing. With that, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Real fast, this goes to council. It doesn't die here. So the advocacy needs to continue. It's now in council's hand going forward. At this time, I'm going to call a break for the... Oh, Richard, what's going on? Just wanted to announce here, I know some of you have gotten the notice, some have not, but for those that are in attendance this evening, this is scheduled to go to city council November 5th. The only reason that it would not go to November 5th is if for some reason the applicant would ask for a withdrawal or even a postponement. But again, this was noticed, so it will be on the agenda regardless for November 5th at city council. With that, I'm going to call for a 10-minute break to clear the room. Thank you. Thank you for the quick recess. I'll call the meeting back to order at 945. The next item of business is item 5G, DCA 19-0012, and I'll invite Haley Zagorski for a presentation and open the public hearing. This is a proposed approvement for the medical use standards. The request before you is to consider making a recommendation to the city council regarding revisions to subchapter 5 of the 2019 Denton Development Code to amend the use specific standards for medical offices and medical clinics within the mixed use regional district. Looking at this map, you can see the darker purple color on the map represents the MR district. This was transitioned from the RCCN and RCCD districts under the 2002 code, primarily is located along arterial roadways and major highway interchanges at our regional centers. It's worth noting that both of Denton's major hospitals and all of their surrounding supportive uses such as offices and clinics are located within the MR district, and I called those out on the map with the black stars. The DDC defines a medical clinic as an establishment that provides for medical or surgical services primarily on an outpatient basis. It can be either walk-in or appointment-based operations. Examples would be an ambulatory surgical center, a renal disease facility for dialysis, outpatient services, and freestanding ERs. Medical offices, on the other hand, are more appointment-based, your typical dentist and doctor's office type operations where you can have consultations and appointments for any sort of medicinal purposes. Looking back at the 2002 code and the RCCN and RCCD district, medical clinics were permitted by right with no limitations. Medical offices were limited to no more than 10,000 square feet of floor area only in RCCN. Within RCCD, they were permitted by right. Within the 2019 code, it seems that we inadvertently placed limitations on those that would make a lot of those existing facilities nonconforming. So we're looking to correct that this evening. So we're looking to take away the 10,000 square foot size limitation per lot for medical clinics. The only limitation on those within MR would be that the main entries and ambulance loading zones not face residential zoning categories. We do have several instances across the city where MR abuts residential uses, so we felt it is important to maintain that. And then medical office, we would propose to remove all of the limitations within the MR district to allow those to be permitted by right again, as they were under RCCD. So this is just a snapshot of what you had in your backup with related to the code amendments. Just a very minimal redlining there. As I mentioned, medical clinic would still have the loading zone restriction. Medical offices would now be permitted by right. So staff is recommending approval of this request, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Haley. I don't see any questions. This is a public hearing. If anyone wishes to speak, they may certainly do so. We've got two nos in the room. With that, I will close the public hearing. Commissioner Panetta. >> Motion to approve. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Second the motion. >> We have a first and a second for approval. Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 5H DCA 19-0013. I'll invite Richard Kinone to present, open the public hearing, and allow Commissioner Cole to step away. >> Chair Commissioners, the item in front of you this evening is just a simply housekeeping item, for lack of a better way to put it. What it does is it creates a subsection, it creates a different subsection within 1.7 which deals with transition from prior regulations. And essentially what this does is this just incorporates the existing MPCs into the 2019 DDC as Appendix C. And this one slide for the most part sums it up, the ordinance DCA 18-0009U was recently adopted. This is the ordinance that adopted the new zoning map. What I've highlighted there is paragraph two of section two which recognizes the MPCs and the ordinances that govern them. The transition table which was attached to that ordinance, as you can see highlighted in yellow, MPC remained MPC, it didn't transfer to any other district. And so really what this does is adds this language, which is essentially a mirror of what was in that paragraph two of section two of the ordinance. Recognizes the four existing MPCs that we have, and those ordinances governing them. And essentially puts it a place to keep those within the DDC as a reference as opposed to having to search all over for them somewhere else. That's really all that does. Thank you for the presentation. I don't see any questions. This is a public hearing. Anyone wish to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith? >> Motion to approve. >> We have a first. Commissioner Anderson? >> I second the vote. >> We have a first and a second for approval. Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries five, zero, one, or Cusal. I invite Commissioner Cole back to the dais, and we'll go to the next item for business, item 6A, the planning and zoning matrix. I will turn to Richard for reports, and then open it for additional items or questions. >> Just a quick update. Council did approve the Alt ESA last night for Fisher 59, so that was approved. That was just sort of an update on some past action. Just wanted to update a couple things. As I mentioned, we do have the 2019 code now in effect for about two weeks. We have the new zoning map uploaded, updated on the interactive website through our GIS, so all of that is up to date. I also wanted to, while we're on the new code, we did get notice from the Texas APA that we have won an award for best practices. So we will be at the state conference in a few weeks to accept that award on behalf of the- >> When do our bonus checks come in? >> I was wondering, where is our invite? >> In a year. >> In a year? >> In a year. The only other item I wanted to touch base or highlight, and I think I brought this up at the last, the previous work session or previous council meeting, is part of the budget year, council did approve funds for an update to the comprehensive plan. I think we talked about that the last meeting. So we are in the process of getting that RFP out. So the first part again will be to really do a thorough analysis of what we did, what we didn't do. But I think this is a good opportunity in the next year to really put some kind of roll up our sleeves and really take a hard look at what some of these land use categories and where those designations are. Do they still make sense, and how do we want to grow? So that planning will come back in a little while and in full force for the most part. I mean, this is really the guiding document that we refer to on a lot of our particular decisions for zoning. But that will be back in the very near future. That was all I had. >> Thanks for the update, Christopher Smith. >> Not to take Chair Rozelle's thunder here, but I was thinking this earlier. >> That's never a good way to start a sentence. >> But we need to do something about the ETJ notifications. I brought that up in a different time, Richard, for a different case, probably about 18 months to two years ago. And I don't know how it fell off the matrix or if it was addressed and I just wasn't paying attention. But we need to do something about the ETJ notification, especially if you're right there. If you're within that 200 foot boundary, you're right there. I know by law it's not required, but the law is a set of minimums, am I correct, Jerry? It's not a set of things that we have to follow to the letter, it's a set of minimums. We can go above and beyond the minimum. It doesn't seem like it's that hard if we can see that there are domiciles that are within that 500 foot buffer or just the 200 foot buffer that they can't count for the majority notice, for the supermajority requirement. But they can still get a notification. >> Sure, did I understand that the sentencing, courtesy notifications though? >> That's what I thought I heard Cindy say. >> Yeah, I believe that the courtesy notice, there's two notices that go out. It's the 200 foot notice goes to those property owners within the city. The 500 foot notice- >> Still goes within the EPA? >> Goes 500 feet around to the, and I think the gentleman had made a statement about the occupant. And the reason it states occupant- >> So really it was they threw it away, they just weren't paying attention. >> Yeah, and in fact, I think the Chair had mentioned that one time where he almost threw the postcard away. >> Can we see the, can we next time make this the matrix item? Can we see what the notifications look like? >> Certainly. >> I've never, I've never, I take it back, I have seen them because I've had zoning stuff happen there. But show those postcards that I hadn't seen in a while. But is there a way that we can give feedback possibly at a work session and say, hey, here's some ways we can make it look a little bit more attention grabbing rather than just being the standard junk mail look alike. >> I will include that either at our next work session or the following. Charlie in our office has been really working on revamping a lot of that. Almost going to a color coded model where it's easily recognizable. So you'll notice the sign, if it's a rezoning, it might be blue, if it's an SUV, it might be red. And so just try to brand it a little bit more and make it a little bit more user friendly and identifiable. But let me coordinate with him and, but I will add that to the matrix to bring that. >> Thanks. >> But yeah, the city limits ones are taking off municipal tax roll, which obviously is not going to be ETJ. So they're going to have to figure out a different way to do the courtesy notifications. And as I think Mr. Smith pointed out the Strong versus Grand Prairie case says that they can't count for anything if they're not in the city limits. >> Yeah, and I get that part and that's fine. But we can't pull from the county tax rolls? >> I'm sure you'd pull it from anything if it's going to be a courtesy notification. I mean, whatever is the easiest way to do it or the best way. >> Yeah, I know at one point, sorry, we were looking at even the municipal water bills, I think, for the 500 foot notice. Part of the issue then is in some of the rural areas where they might be on well. >> Well, yeah, but you know, DCAD, you could find that stuff pretty quickly I think, so. >> I understand the 200, 500 foot rule in a city, but like I said earlier, I lived in Palo Point for 12 years and I lived on three and a quarter acres. And if we use the 200 or 500 foot rule, I had frontage of 350 feet. So if you do 200 feet, only myself was going to be getting the notification. So I think if it's in a rural community, I think we should look outside that. I agree with Commissioner Smith down there as well. >> I think that the notification, by the way, goes from your property line, not from like your domicile, so to speak. Does that make sense? >> Right, no, but I mean, from my property line to my next property line. >> So still. >> Well, I had 345 feet of frontage. And on one side and 285 feet on the other side. >> Oh yeah. >> So I would have been the only one who got a notification. >> Oh yeah. >> You know, so. >> Commissioner Panetta. >> Actually, I think I've thrown away a notice from fireside once, but, and this. My bad, I think my wife pulled it out of the recycle bin. >> Anyway, so revisiting the conversation about the setbacks. I know we had questions about why we had the distances that we had. And obviously, you know, there were questions about, you know, science, etc. It was suggested that at a future occasion, we invite Dr. Zachariah Hildebrand to discuss their studies with regards to fracking and safe distances to speak to the commission, if we could get that on there. That might be helpful in giving us a little context in what we're talking about. I mean, that's all I had. >> Commissioner Beck, I'm redrawing the request. Perfect. Richard, you have an update to my item about the city initiated rezoning. Work session date 11/20. Is that just a, are you just going to give us an update or are we actually starting to look at those properties we skipped over previously? >> I think it'll be a little bit of both. Sort of an update where we are as well as gearing up to do the sort of the round three, if you will. >> Perfect. Any other items for the matrix? >> I just want to consult with Aaron, with the city attorney on Dr. Hildebrand. I just want to make sure that there's not an issue with that. But I will get an answer right away and respond back as soon as I can. >> Thank you. Seeing no other discussion, I'll close the hearing at 10 PM. Thank you.