Good afternoon at five o'clock on Wednesday, November 19th, welcome to the City of Denton's
planning and zoning work session.
Our first item is comments on the consent agenda for members of the public.
I don't see anybody wanting to, moves us on to our clarification for consent agenda.
So today there's only one item on the consent agenda.
Any questions on that?
No?
Okay.
And then items for individual consideration.
Yeah, go ahead and come up.
There's a few modifications as we go forward.
This is a preliminary spot, 25-004, this is for approximately 181 acres, site located
approximately 5,800 feet north of Robson Ranch and directly west of I-35 West.
It is for landmark phase two, it will be 313 single family residential lots, three HOA
lots, a school lot and neighborhood park lot.
Staff does recommend denial for this preliminary plat at the time as it does not comply with
our criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to the extension date of December
17th.
I don't see any questions.
Thank you.
Item 4B, FP25-0028.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Angie Manglars, Assistant Planning Director.
This is a final plat for the reserves at Brush Creek.
It is a 42 lot residential subdivision situated at the northeast corner of US 377 and Brush
Creek Road.
At this time, staff is recommending denial, but has no objection to the requested extension
to a date certain of December 17th.
Happy to answer any questions.
Any questions?
Nope.
Thank you.
Brings us to 4C, FP25-0034.
Thank you.
This is a final plat for Project Transpyr.
It is an approximately 8.9 acre tract of land situated on the north side of US 380, approximately
300 feet east of Geesling Road.
At this time, the final plot does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff has no
objection to the requested extension to a date certain of December 17th.
Happy to answer any questions.
I don't see any.
Thank you.
4D is Julie with FP25-0031.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt.
I'm presenting FP25-31.
This is a final plat for a multifamily development located on the north side of Sycamore, just
east of downtown in the rail trail.
Right now they have some items that they do need to address in order for staff to recommend
approval and meet that technical requirement.
So we are recommending denial, however, we have no objection to the extension to December
17th.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
I don't see any.
Thank you.
Next item, FP25-0032.
Good evening.
This is also a final plat for FP25-32.
This property is located on the east side of Bonnie Bray, north of University in Windsor.
Right now they have some items that they do need to address in order to meet that technical
requirement.
So staff is recommending approval, however, we have no objection to the extension to
December 17th.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Just to confirm, I think you may have misspoke.
You said staff is recommending approval or denial?
Denial.
I'm sorry.
Yes, denial.
Yes.
I'm so sorry.
That's okay.
I just, sometimes I mishear things.
Any questions on this one?
Nope.
Okay.
Thank you.
That's 4F FP25-0036.
Good evening chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.
This item is a final plat for giving grace addition.
The property is located just south of East McKinney, approximately 900 feet east, I'm
sorry, east of Mayhill Road and the property itself is just under 16 acres.
At this time, the plat is not ready for approval.
They do have some things to address and so we are recommending denial, but we have no
objection to their requested extension, which could be granted to a date certain of December
17th.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
I don't see any.
Thank you, Mia.
That brings us to FP25-0033.
This is a final plat for the Harris addition.
The property is just under 92 acres, located just west of I-35, approximately 1700 feet
south of North Loop 288.
Similarly, we are recommending denial as they do not meet all of our criteria for approval,
but staff has no objection to the requested extension to December 17th.
Any questions?
I don't see any.
That brings us to FR25-0023.
This is a final -- Mia Hines, senior planner, I didn't do that the last time.
Covering for Sean, this is a final plat for Hasler addition.
The property is just over 14 acres, located on the east side of North Locust, near the
intersection of Beale Street and North Locust Street.
This was the extension request that came to you guys a little after 430, I believe, this
afternoon.
So they did get that extension request in.
Staff is recommending denial of this final plat, but we have no objection to their requested
extension to December 17th.
I don't see anything.
That brings us to 4I-PP25-5.
Mia Hines, senior planner, filling in for Aaron, who is no longer with us.
This item is a final plat for the Roselon Meadows.
The property is just -- or almost 6.5 acres, located north of Roselon Drive, east of the
existing Bonneberry Street, west of the future South Bonneberry Street.
At this time, the plat is not meeting all of our criteria for approval, so we are recommending
denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension to December 17th.
Any questions for this one?
I don't see any.
Last item, 4J-FP25-35.
Sorry.
Yes.
You're going to go ahead.
I'll step out because I have a conflict with this item.
Very good.
Just a minute.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Ashley Eckstead, associate planner.
This is a final plat for Jefferson North Elm.
It's approximately 26 acres at the intersection of Locust and Elm.
Originally in your backup, this was an extension request.
They were able to satisfy all the outstanding comments, so we are now recommending approval
as it complies with the criteria for approval.
Happy to answer any questions.
I guess I have one on this, if it's in order.
Do we have an update in the process of this, because I know the public was interested in
the parks agreement with the land and that sort of thing?
Where are we in that process?
When this went to city council, the PD for approval, council directed staff to work to
preserve the house that was on the property, so the parks worked on that, and the way that
ended up was the park will actually be dedicated to the county, and the county will keep the
house.
Okay.
All right.
Any other questions?
No?
Okay.
Yeah.
All right.
That brings us to our public hearings.
I guess Mia, do you want to come up for the first three?
This is the comprehensive plan amendment, CA 25-1, mobility plan, and the PD.
All right.
Sorry, since you're so complete, let me just get this in before.
I'll just ask that as we're reviewing this information, I think there's going to be some
members of the public here tonight, so I want to have most of the discussion out in the
public hearing, but especially if there's questions that you have that weren't able
to get in over email specifically that would require staff to go figure out and bring back
information for the hearing, please make sure we make those at this last minute.
Thank you, Chair.
Mia Hines, Senior Planner.
This item, or I'm going to give one presentation for the comprehensive plan amendment, the
mobility plan amendment, and the plan development related to the Craver Ranch development.
I wanted to start off just with this work session, just a brief summary, but I wanted
to give you guys a little history of the project first and then jump into the summary of the
cases themselves.
The existing land use on this site is agriculture.
This property, 2,500 acres, was annexed from 2008 to 2009.
At the time of that annexation, development of the property was anticipated, but the Denton
future land use map did not designate this area for anything beyond agriculture.
Similarly, the minor update of the Denton 2040 plan did not establish a different land
use for this property besides agriculture.
When the developers approached us about potentially doing a municipal management district, which
for your information, I'm sure you guys are familiar with it, but it is a special purpose
district with the power to levy taxes, issue bonds, and charge assessments to property
owners for infrastructure costs for the MMD and the developments that occur within it.
When the applicants approached us about that, we sort of walked them through the process
of the things that would be necessary to get to the development type that they were proposing,
and that has come with the applications that you are considering this evening, including
the comprehensive plan, the mobility plan, and the PD.
We also have been in discussions with them about comprehensive studies related to water,
sewer, and traffic needs for this area and the developments they are proposing, as well
as connectivity throughout.
Some of the things that we need to keep in mind from a regional standpoint and how this
property is sort of, one, has the applicant's interest and the developer's interest and
why staff is, one of the reasons why staff is willing to support this is because there
are some regional trends and regional developments that we're seeing, specifically that MMD,
the creation of that, and then the progress of TechStats Regional Outer Loop, recently
completed in the Collin County area and sort of working its way west over to the Denton
area.
So, with that, what we are considering this evening is a comprehensive plan amendment
to change the future land use designation on this property from agriculture to master
plan community.
There is a mobility plan application on this property to shift a portion of the proposed
east-west alignment that goes through Craver Ranch, a slightly south to avoid a floodplain
crossing, and then there is also a rezoning application to rezone this area from rural
residential to a PD with a mix of R4, R7, MN, and MR to allow for the development of
residential commercial, some public facilities, parks, and open space.
Staff is recommending approval of this application and a full detailed presentation, of course,
will be provided in the full session.
You have your backup as well, but I'll gladly answer any questions that you guys have at
this time.
Commissioner McDuff?
Yes, Mia.
I'd like for you to talk about the relationship of these proposals to the Outer Loop, the
TechStats and the Outer Loop.
So here is the latest alignment options for the Ditton County portion of the regional
Outer Loop.
As you can see, this is the Craver property that's here in the red.
Our mobility plan shows preferred almost alignment just south of this area, and then what we
have been in talks with TechStat is that it seems to be the most likely alignment to occur
as well, but they are still in the process of going through the environmental assessments
and finalizing these alignments.
So just in relation to where the Outer Loop is, this is the Craver property, and these
are the potential alignments that are currently proposed and being discussed.
Another question, if I may.
I was looking on the Googling, as I call it, to see if I could, if the open hearings were
done.
It seems like they are.
There were three possibilities.
I think they were done in October.
Is that correct?
September, I believe.
Was it September?
So we're done on the open hearings from the public.
Yes.
Okay.
Thanks.
Commissioner Dyer.
When you say that this Craver Ranch property was annexed in 2008-2009, are you meaning
it was part of the city limits, that this became part of the city limits back then in
2008-2009?
Correct.
So the city knew that eventually this was going to become some sort of residential area
at some point, when they make that step.
Yes.
I believe development was anticipated at that time, and that was partially the reason for
wanting to annex the property.
A lot of the emails and the e-comments that we have been given talk about the leap, is
it leapfrogging?
Can you please explain and define that for us?
Because I believe, if I remember correctly, when the developer came to our workshop a
couple of weeks ago, that was discussed, and there was a reason why they didn't feel like,
and I don't remember if it was the city that explained this, or if it was the developer,
why this wasn't your traditional leapfrog area that most people felt that it was.
So can you kind of explain what leapfrog is, and then does this fit that or not?
Sure.
So I think the concept of leap, or what most people refer to as leapfrog development, I
think there's different definitions depending on who you ask.
But the concept is basically a density of development skipping across, within the city,
but skipping across areas that could be developed.
So as opposed to growing outwardly in a way that as this property grows, the adjacent
property develops, and then the adjacent, and then the adjacent, leapfrog development
is typically defined as you have development over here, and then you have development in
a completely different area, and a development in a completely different area, and the connection
between those is far and not ideal.
In this case, the developer was the person who brought that term up and then explained
that the floodplain in the area and that is surrounding East Sherman Drive makes it a
little bit challenging for the properties within this area along East Sherman Drive
to develop.
And so as far as having a large area of land that is owned by one single property owner,
and is a right forward development, this would be the next largest property to do that with.
That's not significantly encumbered by floodplain and difficult to develop in that manner.
So this is the next logical place where development would take place.
I think that there are small parcels along 428 that could develop their smaller areas,
but in terms of mass scale development and master planning out an area, this would be
the next largest area.
So somebody who's newer, I've only been, what, on here nine months, I think?
I'm not, you know, this is a big development, probably the biggest one that, you know, we've
seen in a while outside of the Hunter and Coal Ranch developments.
Was this leapfrogging because you have a lot of land between some of the areas there on
the south end of Denton all the way to, like, Robeson Ranch Row?
Was this a top, I mean, did that set precedent that this would be okay for this community?
Do you see what I'm kind of saying?
I don't want to say it set precedent, but it's not uncommon because, like you mentioned,
we do have master plan communities that are kind of not on islands, but they're distance
from the city center, and we have different densities, and it's set up that way.
So the City of Denton has seen this in the past?
Yes.
Okay.
Sure.
Yeah.
Just to add that to me is exactly correct.
I would say the city did see the same thing happen with Robeson.
As you're familiar with, you know, that came into the city in 1999, I believe, and was
literally over five miles from the nearest part of the city limits.
So this isn't unheard of, I would say, especially with this type of large-scale development,
because it does take so long for the planning for that development to occur, for the infrastructure
planning that's needed and the infrastructure extensions that are needed.
So it's not unheard of when you have these large tracks that someone is able to acquire
and wants to master plan at this scale to see something like this occur, just because
this isn't happening tomorrow or even next year.
It will be many years down the road, but they're just trying to get those entitlements in place
to allow them to begin that process.
So we have seen that with Robeson, Hunter, Cole, all of those properties.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner McDade?
Just a clarification.
The comprehensive plan amendment and the mobility plan amendment have to occur before you can
get to the rezoning?
So ideally, because the way that, yeah, the way that we plan and the way that we base
our zoning decisions is on policy documents like the comprehensive plan and the PD.
So if the body feels that the comprehensive plan should be changed to master plan and
that the mobility plan amendment policies should be changed, then the zoning can be
changed to be aligned with those things.
I'm sure we'll get into it more, but just to clarify the specific question of leapfrog
and what everybody was meaning, it sounds like the comments, sorry, let me back up.
Because we have this situation where we have a lot of ETJ land between the parcel that
we're considering tonight and sort of the developed portion of the city.
Are we talking about it's the next logical parcel within the city limits?
Yes.
Okay.
Large, yeah.
So there's, but there's a decent amount of land between there and the developed part
of the city that's not within the city of limits that could also develop within the
ETJ.
I'll add, just throw it out there.
We have also received development inquiry for some of these parcels along East Sherman
Drive.
They're just, they're not the ones that are before you this evening.
Okay.
Sorry.
Go ahead.
Continue.
Oh, that's it?
I'm sorry.
Any questions?
Yes, please do.
So Haley said that part of this was looking at the infrastructure.
We definitely received some comments regarding that and the travel.
What went into looking at that infrastructure to make sure it was able to handle all of
these trips?
I will start off and then hand it a little bit to my experts here.
So we did a traffic demand model with this application and the mobility plan to determine
or using the proposed densities and anticipated population growth and all that stuff to determine
if the roadways within and around the area would be sufficient to support that.
There's also been in discussions with our water and wastewater departments or utility
departments about the infrastructure and things that would be needed in, I believe, in accordance
with the MMD.
A development and operating agreement will be coming forward to city council to sort
of solidify those things.
That's the things that we've done and we've been in talks with with these application
and for any more detail I'd have to look at our experts.
So you said that you've also received inquiries along the route.
Do we put that in with the traffic analysis?
So when I say inquiries, I'll say, and I don't want to be off posting, but I'll say like
pre-application conferences and just questions about the potential development of those properties.
So those, I think, those have not been included because they are not far along.
That's like the before you even apply for anything and your concepts.
We know that people are interested in developing these properties, Haley.
I would say to the degree that a specific development has been considered, they were
not included.
So like a specific number of lots, as we know in this, was not included for any of those.
But there are base assumptions made based on zoning and general development trends in
the area.
Very good.
Thank you.
Commissioner Garland.
I apologize if this has already been addressed or if maybe I'm also getting ahead of myself.
But just to understand, just to keep things super simple, do we build first and then widen
the roads after or do we widen the roads before and then build?
Like what's?
Yeah, I'm going to look to Chandra from our transportation team to help answer that question.
Good evening, Commissioner.
Chandra, city traffic engineer.
So the development the team proposed is they will be building as they go along.
So during phase one, they will do the improvements to the roadway capacities and they will widen
roadway as needed as the phases grow.
So it won't be before, but as they go along with their phases.
I guess my concern is, and maybe we can talk about this more in depth later, is I personally
drive down Sherman, take a right on the loop, trying to get to 35 to get to South Dallas
every single morning.
And usually the most challenging part of my commute is getting down Sherman and onto the
loop.
And it's just so heavily congested as it stands now.
And so that was kind of my concern along with what, you know, a lot of I think the feedback
and the emails that we received is this is already such a jammed up area as it currently
exists.
So if we just start adding a lot more cars in that space and, you know, what does that
look like?
So there are several projects that's going along in the area.
Sherman is planned to be widened by Tech Start and also Loop 288 at the interchange.
The Loop 288, they have a connector project that's coming from 380 all the way to 35.
And the Loop 288 Western extension.
And then this development did their traffic modeling for the entire area based on all
the potential growths that was projected by the NCT-COG for this area.
And they modeled out.
And with their developments, they will classify into what are the on-street, which is within
the Craver Ranch property development, and off-sites, what they need to do on the perimeter
streets.
So they are identifying it.
The study is not complete yet.
So they are modeling it.
But so far, based on Phase 1 results, they meet the adequate capacities, what they're
proposing and what they will be building.
I can't find it right now, but I thought I remembered in the AIS that Tech Start currently
has no plans to widen either 2164 or 428.
Did I read that wrong?
It's 2165, it's 2164.
It's an error on the exhibit, but 2164 is actually widened by the county.
I'm not sure if the capacity improvements, but they are building, widening the roadway
with shoulders.
And FM 428, it's a free flow with 65 miles per hour.
But as that Loop 288 project comes along, but there is no funding identified.
So are any of those projects in Tech Start's 10-year CIP plan going forward?
They are projecting, but no funding identified.
There are plans, but there is no concrete construction timelines.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions, pieces of information that would help everyone once we get in there?
Commissioner McDuff?
I'm just overwhelmed by all this, I'll tell you that, and the impact in reading these
concerns after I studied all my materials.
I'm just going to make a point here, Chair Pruitt, but it talks about the fiscal responsibilities
transportation traffic and environmental impacts.
So we've talked a little bit about traffic, now I'm going to shift to environmental impacts.
And there were some concerns on the rezoning about environmental protections, wildlife
crossing, buffers to perfect, wetlands, you know, we talk about this at every one of our
meetings, and then strict controls on water resistance surface coverage.
And I know we talked about parks and water resources at our last meeting for this project,
but I'd like to just ask that question, Mia, would you address some of those concerns about
the environment, please?
Yes, ma'am.
So I didn't pull up the PD development plan, and I'll go back to that a little bit to show,
or at least the open space plan.
And here's our ESA map within this area showing some floodplain related habitat, or sorry,
floodplain related ESA going through the property.
That is what was uncovered with the field assessment that was done this year.
I believe with each phase they will have to continue that study to make sure that they
are not encroaching upon the sensitive areas that's been established.
And then in their PD plan, in their open space plan, they do have these areas designated
for open space and park space.
So they are proposing to leave a lot of that area open to open space and park space.
Okay.
And then just to piggyback on a question from last week to remind us again, I believe, Keith,
you ask this question, Commissioner Keith, talk about how we're going to water all of
that.
May I, if you will, water all that green spice here?
Charlie, do you want to speak to us maybe some of the discussions with regard to water?
Yeah, good evening.
Charlie Rosendahl, interim director of development services.
So as far as irrigation goes, they are planning to have wells to assist with irrigation.
But part of the city's overall plan to help with water conservation is related to reclaimed
water.
So with the city going into planning for new wastewater treatment facilities, reclaimed
water will be a component of that with the intention of sending that reclaimed water
back.
So the agreement that we have with the developer is that when we provide reclaimed water to
the site, then they'll be able to use that for their irrigation purposes.
So any of the treated wastewater that comes down into the plant would then be able to
be used for irrigation.
So Charlie, I read about the reclaimed water, but can you share like the water treatment
plant is a few miles from here?
So that water gets treated, and then how do they get back to this area to use for irrigation?
Yeah, pump back up.
So they're going to have to construct gravity sewer lines down into our interceptor.
And then on the interceptors, the city's plan is to run reclaimed water within those easements
back up the sewer system.
And so that's how it would get pumped back up to the site.
So basically an entire second water supply piping system would go from the water treatment
plant all the way back up to this development, and it would be used mostly for public area
irrigation, or is it going to like go to all the homes?
I'm not sure how deep the irrigation would have been probably dependent on where the
infrastructure is placed, but with the intention of being the largest users of irrigation would
be the area that's targeted.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sorry, I stepped on your time, but please go ahead if you have something else.
No, I appreciate that because you certainly intellect on these kinds of things, Chair
Pruitt.
I'm just going to segue into the next topic that's important to us, and that is water
and drinking water resources.
And I know we've considered the water and the wastewater treatment plan before.
Commissioner Riggs isn't here to ask that question.
So would you like to comment on that, please?
Sorry, Commissioner McDuff, is there something specifically about the water that you'd like
to hear more about?
I just want to make sure we get plenty of this information with the public and the public
hearing.
Oh, I see.
Well, I know we talked about putting another plant over there, correct?
On that side, pumping station?
So as far as water goes, you can't see it on the map here, but right here is the Lake
Ray Roberts Dam.
The city has a water treatment facility at that location already.
And then there would be plans to use existing infrastructure that runs down from that plant
to the city for the first few phases of the development, the first 4,000 homes roughly.
And then the city also has plans to go from that treatment facility having a large transmission
main that we've actually worked with the developer to provide easements for the city.
So it's a cost saving measure for the city to run that transmission main across the development
that will serve future phases of this development, but also serve all of the western side of
the city up and down 35.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions, requests for information once we get there?
Let's try to, yeah, Commissioner Dyer.
I just have a procedural question.
There's three items in front of us.
Are you going to tackle one at a time and we vote one at a time, or is it going to be
we get all of the information and then we go boom, boom, boom?
So I'll leave it to this chair's discretion, but staff's idea for it was to just present
it all as one presentation, it would go Comprehensive Plan, Mobility Plan, and PD.
Staff's recommendation will be at the sort of end of each section, but we would prefer
to get through the presentation and then open it up for discussion and action afterwards.
Yeah, I think open to the commission for what you would all prefer.
My feeling is that the mobility amendment is something that can be taken a little bit
separately, but I understand they're all tied together.
So what I'm understanding is you have like a single presentation that would open for
all of them.
Okay.
So we can call all the items, get the staff presentation.
And then have the public comments all at the same time?
I feel like it's going to get very confusing, probably for me, but also for the public if
just everybody talks on everything.
So what I was thinking of is maybe we call all the items, then hold public hearing on
Mobility Plan, vote on that, public hearing on Comprehensive Plan amendment, vote on that,
and then zoning change and vote on that.
I just was kind of curious so I could know how this would work.
But with that said, I will tell the members of the public that, look, we're doing these
as three steps so that you don't only have three minutes to say everything if you have
a lot of points, but if you veer off about talking about the things that we're actually
considering and about to vote on, then we're going to say, okay, thank you.
Please come back at another time to talk about that.
That was my thought.
So keep their comments to whatever topic we're talking about?
Exactly.
And so they may come up three times throughout the night?
Maybe.
I think most people may have only submitted two things or three.
What is staff feeling on this?
Well, our thought, especially after seeing the e-comments, was most people tend to have
one very robust opinion and then they repeated it on each item, not knowing where to put
it.
So that, in our mind, kind of supported if we just did all of it at once and let everyone
address each thing.
It certainly needs to be three individual votes by you all.
But that was our thought.
It seemed most of the comments were coming in and were just general concern about everything.
So I'm not sure.
We can certainly go either way at your discretion.
Yeah.
I mean, I guess my concern is if we have sort of free-for-all comments, then maybe some
of the things get lost in the shuffle, instead of sort of trying to concentrate the issues
on the specific amendment.
Sure.
I would also say, and Hilary, feel free to jump in here, whatever we decide to do for
the public, I believe we need to extend that same courtesy to the applicant.
So that group of applicants will get 20 minutes on each item, potentially, or 20 minutes on
all of them.
So I would just say, we need to pick a path and be consistent across it for public and
applicant.
Okay.
It won't really take 20 minutes on all of them, will it?
I say knock it all out at once.
All out at once?
All out at once.
Okay.
And then we have our separate vote.
Okay.
I'm good with that.
I will take copious notes and we'll try to all sort of remind each other of what the
issues were once we move on to motions and discussion.
So yeah, so basically, I'll call it at the same time, treat it all at once, and we'll
figure out how to play pick-up sticks.
Yeah.
If we're allowed to do that, I say, get it all.
Yeah.
Okay.
Yes.
I appreciate you bringing that up because I was asking Kathy about ordering breakfast.
But the other thing, because I did read all the e-comments, is there was a cut and paste
all the way through, and then they wrote an email.
So I had a cover email and then three e-comments with the same dialogue.
And so this is observation.
I did want to mention, if I may, that Clay Riggs is not coming.
He's not feeling well.
Oh dear.
I did get a reply.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
Any other questions on this before we take a break?
Not seeing any.
Thank you, Mia.
Thank you.
And at 541-
Sure.
Did you-
I'm sorry.
Did you want to break and grab food, or we do have other public hearing items to discuss
as well?
We can do either, though.
The food is here if you'd like to take that break.
Let's take a six-minute break and grab food, and then have a relaxed eating time to finish
our other public hearings.
So we'll come back at 547.
Good afternoon.
At 549 p.m., we're back from our recess, and that brings us to the next public hearing
item within our work session, item 5D, MPC 25-1.
As stated, this is MPC 25001.
This is approximately 19.6 acres looking to be rezoned to include a part of the Hunter
Ranch MPC and amend both the development plan map as well as Exhibit C through E, which
two of those you received yesterday.
It is a rezoning of a master plan community MPC to an MPC with a mixed-use regional-based
zoning district.
Currently, the MPC that it's zoned as is not enforceable by the city, so this will correct
that.
We did look at the 2040 comprehensive plan, and based off that, it does comply with all
criteria for approval, so staff is recommending approval.
Any questions on this item?
Commissioner MacDuff?
I'm having my...
I have notes here.
What is planned for this site?
So it would be added as an MR mixed-use regional.
This is part of phase four of Hunter Ranch, which is going to include mixed-use and residential.
We don't know exactly what that looks like.
We're only in phase two, beginning phase two for our landmarks, as this is a long-year
multi-phase project.
All right, thanks.
We can get into it in the public hearing, but I'm interested to hear more why the request
is MR instead of MN, given the split right now on east and west of the roadway.
Does that make sense?
So why it's being proposed for MR versus MN in the Hunter Ranch?
Since the land adjacent to it, north and west of here, is essentially MPC/MN, right?
Understood.
Okay.
And there's a roadway to the east of it, so we can talk about that more, but just be thinking
about that.
Yeah.
Okay.
I don't see anything else.
Dr. Dyer?
It says that this is being requested by the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas.
Yes.
That's correct.
So not by Hillwood?
Correct.
Is it going to...
I was trying to figure out, like, is this like a religious community?
Is this...
So it is currently owned by the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas, but the hope is for Hunter
Ranch to purchase it, but they have to go through the rezoning before they can purchase
this property.
And as stated, the MPC zoning district, it's literally just MPC, which we don't have that
in our code, so it's not enforceable zoning.
So if the Episcopal Church were to, you know, not sell the Hunter Ranch and were to develop
it just currently as is, the city could not enforce anything on that property.
Okay.
That brings us to our next public hearing, which is Item 5E, S25-10.
Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission, Ashley Eckstead, Associate Planner.
This is a request for a specific use permit to allow group home use on approximately .4
acres of land located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Sandpiper Drive and
Abbots Lane.
This group home would be an assisted living facility that provides 24/7 care to up to
six residents at a time.
The existing zoning is R3, and the future land use is low residential.
Staff will be recommending approval, and I have a longer presentation for the meeting
also.
If there are any questions.
Yes, this is my neighborhood.
Just wondering for information for the public hearing, how many other group homes are in
Southridge?
I believe there are three, or there's no other group homes in Southridge.
There are three other community homes.
Community homes?
Okay.
SUPs?
Those are permitted by right in residential zoning.
Community homes.
Okay.
And where are they?
There is, so there's the one immediately to the south of this on Abbots.
There's one on Skylark, and there's one on Chapel.
That might be something to share in the public in the open meeting.
Okay.
Thanks.
Okay.
Anything else?
Okay.
Thank you, Ashley.
That brings us to 5F, S25-13.
Ashley Eckstead, I'll be presenting this one for Erin.
This is a specific use permit request to permit medium impact manufacturing.
They will be producing household insulation in one suite in an existing building, and
that suite is circled in red here on this map.
This is located west of Worthington Drive, south of Shiler Street.
It is consistent with the Denton 2040 Comprehensive Plan, and staff will be recommending approval,
and I'm happy to answer any questions.
I don't see any.
Thank you.
Brings us to 5G, DCA 25-0002.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt.
All right, I'm presenting DCA 25-2 legislative updates to you this evening, so we'll just
summarize it.
I'll go into more detail at the regular session.
The proposal in front of you tonight is to amend the Denton Development Code in response
to legislation that was adopted with the 89th legislature.
There were really three bills that we have found that apply to our Denton Development
Code and really require this amendment.
One is related to occupancy of dwelling units, another is related to home-based businesses,
and then finally, notification and procedures.
Specifically, the legislature has removed specific cities' ability to limit occupancy
based upon familial status, so that is requiring an update.
Also, distinguishing between No Impact and then all other home-based businesses.
And then finally, clarifying the protest procedures for zoning changes, which would increase residential
development or modify some or all zoning districts, both in the notification and protest procedures.
Staff is recommending approval because it is needed to be in compliance with the state.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
I may rely on Haley and Hillary to give me some backup.
They know a little more nuance about two of the items, so I may call on them.
Questions?
Commissioner McDuff?
This is a point of information.
Director Haley, I think you were talking about this in the work session presentation that
this was on the horizon.
Am I remembering correctly?
Thank you.
Anything else?
I don't see anything.
Thank you, Julie.
And that brings us to the point in our agenda when we would normally have work session items,
but we don't have any work session items today.
So, at 5.58, we will recess from our work session and reconvene at 6.30 in the council
chambers.
Thank you.
Good evening.
At 6.31 p.m. this Wednesday, November 19th, I will call our regular session to order with
the quorum present.
Our first order of business is to say 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.
Honor the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag.
Is there a, there's one item on the consent agenda, is there a motion for, or questions?
Commissioner Dia?
I would like to make a motion that we approve the final plat of lots 1XR and 21R block A
and lot 1XR block 1 of Hunter Ranch phase 1A.
And Commissioner MacDuff?
Yes, I'd like to second that motion.
Very good.
Seeing no questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0, brings us to item 4A, PP25-0004.
Good evening, Chair, Commission, Cameron Robertson, Principal Planner.
This is a preliminary plat for landmark phase 2 north.
The approximately 181 acres is located north of Robeson Ranch, west of I-35 west.
Staff has recommended denial of this preliminary plat at this time, as it does not meet our
established criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to a requested extension
of December 17, 2025.
I can stand for any questions.
Any questions or a motion?
Commissioner Ketchersett?
A motion to approve the extension to certain of December 17, 2025.
And Commissioner Garland?
And I'll second that with the approval of staff.
And seeing no questions, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0, brings us to 4B, FP25-0028B.
Good evening, Chair, members of the Commission, Angie Manglaris, Assistant Planning Director,
here to present FP25-0028.
This is a final plat for approximately 15 acres of land for single-family residential
subdivisions owned to PDR4, generally located at the northeast intersection of US377 and
Brush Creek Road.
At this time, staff is recommending denial, but has no objection to the requested extension
to a date certain of December 17.
Happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner MacDuff?
Yes, I'd like to make a motion to concur with the recommendation of staff for approval,
and this would be a third extension to a date certain of December 17, 2025.
Approval of the extension?
Yes.
Okay.
Commissioner Garland?
And I will second that motion.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0, brings us to 4C, FP25-34.
Thank you, Chair.
Angie Manglaris, Assistant Planning Director, this is a final plat for approximately eight
acres of land, generally located on the north side of US380, approximately 300 feet east
of Giesling Road.
At this time, the plat does not meet our criteria for approval, but staff has no objection to
the requested extension to a date certain of December 17.
Happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Dio?
I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve the requested extension to
a date certain of December 17, 2025.
Commissioner Kichersen?
I second the motion.
Very good.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That brings us to 4D, FP25-31.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt, Principal Planner.
The request before you is a final plat for approximately four acre site to facilitate
a multifamily development.
Subject property is located on the north side of East Sycamore at Exposition Street.
At this time, the plat does not meet our established criteria for approval, and therefore staff
recommends denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension to December 17.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Dyer?
I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve the requested extension to
a date certain of December 17, 2025.
Commissioner McDade?
I second that motion.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That passes 6-0, brings us to 4E, FP25-32.
This is a final plat for about a six and a half acre tract located on the east side of
Bonnie Bray, north of Windsor.
Right now, the final plat does not meet our criteria for approval.
However, staff has no objection to the requested extension to December 17th.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Kestrelson?
A motion to approve the requested extension date certain of December 17, 2025.
Commissioner Dyer?
I will second that motion.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0, brings us to item 4F, FP25-36.
Evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.
This item is a final plat for giving great sedition.
The property is located just south of East McKinney, approximately 900 feet east of Mayhill
Road.
At this time, the plat is not meeting all of our criteria for approval, so staff is
recommending a denial.
However, we have no objection to the requested extension to December 17, 2025.
I'll be happy to answer any questions you have.
Thank you.
Commissioner MacDuff?
Yes, I want to make the motion to agree with the staff's recommendation for denial of this
request and also approval of the first extension to a date certain of December 17, 2025.
Commissioner Ketresen?
I second that motion.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0, brings us to 4F, FP25-36.
I'm sorry, FP25-33.
4G.
Evening again, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.
This item is a final plat for the Harris addition, approximately 92 acres located just west
of I-35, approximately 1700 feet south of North Loop 288.
At this time, this plat is not meeting all of the established criteria for approval,
so we are recommending denial.
However, staff has no objections to the requested extension to December 17, 2025.
Happy to answer any questions you have.
Commissioner Garland?
I would like to make a motion to approve based on staff's recommendation and extend to December
17, 2025.
Motion to continue, and Commissioner Dio?
I will second that motion.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0.
Next up is item 4H, FR25-23.
Evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.
This is a final replat for Hazler addition, just under 15 acres located on the east side
of North Locust Street, near the intersection of Ville Street and North Locust Street.
At this time, they are not meeting all of our criteria for approval, so staff is recommending
denial.
An extension request was not included in the backup, but was provided to this body earlier
today, and staff has no objection to that requested extension to December 17, 2025.
Happy to answer any questions you have at this time.
Commissioner Dio?
I would like to make a motion that we do staff's recommendation to extend the applicant's request
through the 17th of December, 2025.
Commissioner Ketcham?
I second that motion.
Seeing no discussion, call for a vote on the board.
That was fun.
That item passes 6-0, brings us to item 4J, FP25-35, yes, sorry, -5.
Evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.
This is a preliminary plat for Roselon Meadows located just north of Roselon Drive, east
of the existing South Bonneberry Street and west of the future South Bonneberry Street.
The property itself is about six and a half acres, and at this time, the plat is not meeting
all of our criteria for approval, so staff is recommending denial, but we have no objection
to the requested extension to December 17, 2025.
Happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner Ketcham?
A motion to approve the extension to date certain of December 17, 2025.
And Commissioner Dio?
I would like to second that motion.
Seeing no discussion, call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 6-0, brings us to our last individual consideration, item FP25-35.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Ashley Eckstead, associate planner.
Sorry, we have one recusal from Commissioner McDade for this item.
This is FP25-35.
This is a final plat for Jefferson North Elm, an approximately 26-acre site at the intersection
of North Elm and North Locust Street.
Originally, this was an extension request.
We sent out the revised plat on Monday of this week, and they have now satisfied the
criteria for approval, and staff does recommend approval of this final plat.
Happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner McDuff?
Yes, I'd like to make a motion to agree with staff's recommendation for approval of this
final plat.
And Commissioner Ketcham?
I second that motion.
Very good.
Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes 5-0 with one abstention.
And the record show, Commissioner McDade is joining us again for our first public hearing
tonight for 5A, B, and C. I'm actually going to call all three of these simultaneously
because staff has a presentation that will cover all three.
Then we will hear from the applicant again on all three.
And then we'll have the public hearing, and we will combine that as well.
So that's how we're going to take this, and then the commission will consider each item
individually for a vote after the public hearing.
So this is item 5A CA25-1, 5B PD25-3, and 5C MPA25-3A.
I'll go ahead and open all three public hearings for those same items, CA25-1, PD25-3, and
MPA25-3 as well.
Chair, with your permission, Charlie Rosendahl, interim director of development services,
at the request of the developer in order to be able to coordinate some of the answers
that we've received from the commission, they've asked to table this item until the next planning
and zoning commission meeting.
So, we... I mean... So, what Haley and I just discussed... I think we're going to have to,
, can I have some clarification?
Is the request to table to a date certain or continue to... Was there direction as far
as that?
Yeah, I think we can bring this back at the next planning and zoning commission meeting
on December 17th.
So, you know, we're certainly... So, let me just get some advice from legal so that everybody's
on the same page here.
If we were... We already opened the public hearing, so if we continue to have the hearing
and people are able to speak, you're saying that the individuals who spoke tonight would
not have the opportunity to speak in the December meeting? Is that the way this works?
So, it is a little bit sticky. Oh, pardon me. Our past practice has been that once the
public hearing is open, a member of the public has a opportunity to comment. So, I believe
the way we've handled it in the past is that if people want to comment now, they're very
much welcome to. And, yeah. I'm sorry, to finish the thought that generally speaking,
because we only allow one public comment per public hearing item, then that would be your
comment time.
Okay. So, when an applicant has an item on the agenda, it requires notice to put something
on the agenda. They always have the option to ask for a continuance, but it is the board's
discretion as to whether to grant that or not.
Right. And you have discretion. You have opened the public hearing. If we postpone, we would
leave it open, and you have discretion to go ahead and take public comment tonight if
you want to.
So, my preference is to go ahead and hear this item. We have many members of the public
who have come to share their views. I don't think it's necessarily fair to them to ask
them to find child care for another night and come out another time. But the request
has been made. So, without objection, I think we'll go ahead and open the item and hear
it. But I think the Commission is aware of the applicant's request, so that we can...
Well, let me ask one more question. Did we receive any information as to why the continuance
was requested?
Yeah. I think we received a number of questions ahead of the Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting, and then we haven't had the chance to coordinate answers on those questions.
Some of them are development-specific. So, in order to give us some additional time to
answer those questions, we've asked for the continuance.
Okay. Understood. Yeah. Commissioner McTuff?
It's a question for my own clarification. Are we tabling all three proposals?
Yes.
All three because they're related?
Correct.
Thank you.
Like I said, unless the Commission feels otherwise, I feel like we should hear from the public
since they took this evening out to come.
Yeah. So, if we could go ahead and have the staff presentation. I understand the applicant's
request, and certainly, I think the Commission will take that to heart that there's additional
information that they believe would help inform the public or other people. I'm not sure who
all asked these questions that we weren't able to get to, but I just want to make sure
that we get... If this is someone's only opportunity to speak at the public hearing, I want to
make sure they have that opportunity. So, with that, let's go ahead and have the presentation.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
Evening, Chair, members of the Commission, Mia Hines, Senior Planner. This is one presentation
for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, CA 25-1, MPA 25-03, the Mobility Plan Amendment, and
the Plan Development, PD 25-0003.
So, to give you a brief overview of what we're looking at here, again, this is three separate
requests, the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Mobility Plan Thoroughfare Map Amendment,
and a rezoning to a PD. The property is just under 2,500 acres. The existing Future Land
Use Map designation for this area is rural areas. The proposed Future Land Use Map that
the applicant has requested is Master Plan Community. The existing zoning for the property
is rural residential, and the proposed zoning is a plan development with a mix of R4, R7,
MN, and MR. And the requested Mobility Plan Thoroughfare Map Amendment is to realign a
portion of a proposed secondary arterial within the Craver Project.
I did want to keep some things or have some things at the top of your mind as I talk through
this presentation, and sort of lay a groundwork of staff's thought process behind this. This
is a large acre tract with a unified ownership, so it presents a sort of opportunity to master
plan a significant property, so a size property within the city limits. The Craver Ranch Municipal
Management District was approved by the state legislation this past legislation session,
and so that is an instrument for funding for utilities and public infrastructure. And then
additionally, the TxDOT regional outer loop is making progress in Collin County, and studies
and analysis for the Denton County portion of that outer loop are coming to fruition
as well. Alignments are being finalized, and there are some other things that are feeding
into the sort of interest in staff's analysis of this area.
So a brief history, we went over this a little bit in a work session. The property itself
is currently being used for agriculture. In 2008, however, and 2009, the property went
through an annexation in anticipation of a development of this kind. At the time, the
city annexed the property, wanting to have a little bit more land use control because,
as you know, property can develop in the ETJ, and the city may be responsible for providing
utilities and things to that property, but we will have no land use control in those
instances. So we were aware of that at the time, but the 2030 plan really didn't designate
a future land use designation beyond agriculture for this property. Similarly, the minor update
that didn't 2040 plan didn't look into this property much further beyond the existing
agricultural use. So when the applicants came forward to staff with their development proposal,
we sort of walked them through some of the things that would have to occur, that being
the applications that you see before you this evening.
In addition to these applications, staff is having ongoing conversations regarding water
and sewer needs for the property as well as traffic analysis has been performed for this
development to ensure proper connectivity and infrastructure and utilities would be
provided for the density. I mentioned that Craver Ranch Municipal Management District
a little earlier in the previous slide, and just to remind you guys, that is a special
purpose district with the power to levy taxes, issue bonds, and charge assessments to property
owners for infrastructure costs for the MMD. And as a part of that, they have to go through
an operating agreement and a development agreement with the city that would discuss the utilities
and things needed to provide services for this area, as well as areas developing around
this site within the city's ETJ.
So a little bit of talking about the progress that TechStat is making in the Denton County
Regional Outer Loop. What's shown on your screen is the Denton County segment of that
outer loop, but this is a regional thing, and they have just recently completed work in
Collin County. So these next couple of slides will walk you through some of the development
that we've seen occur around the portions of the outer loop that have been completed
both in Collin County and on the Denton County side. Just to give you an idea of where the
Craver Project is in relation to this outer loop, here it is highlighted in red, and currently
the alignment options has one alignment going through the property and some going to the
south of the property.
As far as, like I said, regional trends that we've seen developing around the east outer
loop, specifically in Collin County area where this roadway is completed, we see a similar
type of subdivisions popping up as the planned development that we are considering this evening.
This specifically, or this map is specifically Salinas Master Plan Community Map. Again,
as you can see, it's not uncommon around the outer loop and other regions for the want
to master plan out these projects. The single-family sort of residential subdivisions with a little
bit of mixed uses, some multifamily in there, mixed densities is what we're seeing developing
around the outer loop in the Collin County area. Similarly, in the Denton County area,
this is an excerpt from the Aubrey Mobility Map. You can see some subdivisions popping
up around where their desired option of the outer loop is, similar in form and fashion
to what we are considering this evening. Clearly, there's a market for it, there's a demand
for it, and this is not an uncommon sort of trend that we're seeing around the outer loop
in Collin and Denton County. With regards to existing conditions on the property, the
larger map is the FEMA floodplain map showing you where, or the portions of the FEMA floodplain.
The map to the right at the top is the current zoning map showing you that it is all rural
residential and the properties surrounding it that are within the city limits are also
zonal residential. Then the map down below is the mobility plan map showing you where
the secondary arterials are throughout the property as well as the primary arterial along
the east end there, west end there. The first application, the comprehensive plan amendment,
this is a request to change the future land use designation from agriculture to master
plan community. The image on the left is the current future land use map and then the image
on the right is what they are proposing to change to. The master plan community flume
is guided by separate development approvals which establishes the land uses, densities
and intensities of development and character. Ideally, developments that are proposed under
this flume would have a mix of uses that balance residential and non-residential uses and provide
connectivity to other developments throughout the city.
We put the request up against the city's criteria for approval and ultimately we felt that the
regional planning and development trends that we've seen, specifically what I've pointed
out with the development of the outer loop, it does provide for us a need to develop this
area or to think at least critically a little bit about this area beyond the agricultural
use. We know that the demand is there. We know that the outer loop is coming and this
is sort of an opportunity for us as a city with this application to plan for this area.
Additionally, that master plan community flume would encourage or promote the consideration
of existing and proposed infrastructure both for this property as well as property surrounding
this area in both the city's limits and the city's ETJ where we have a responsibility
but again not land use control there. MPCs do encourage development of a mix of land
spaces in a way that includes the provision of additional public services and facilities
and as you'll see with the proposed plan development for this MPC or this proposed MPC this evening,
they do have a provision of some public community facilities, some open park spaces and things
that we wouldn't otherwise get with the agricultural designation or a residential development without
the PD. So with that, staff is recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendment
as it does comply with the criteria and that is basically the conclusion of my presentation
for the comprehensive plan amendment piece. The next request is the mobility plan amendment.
The existing thoroughfare plan shows secondary arterials by east-west going through the property.
And the requested proposed thoroughfare plan would realign a portion, this portion highlighted
in green or circled in green, just south or slightly south to avoid a floodplain crossing
which I will show you on this map here. So as you can see there are existing environmentally
sensitive areas in this area mostly related to the floodplain and that east-west connection
crosses right through there. Similarly, that's that floodplain area, it crosses right through
there so ideally or the request in itself is to realign that east-west connection so
that a portion of it is south and you avoid sort of crossing the floodplain at the widest
point there. The mobility plan does allow for administrative approval of alignment deviations
up to 1,000 feet so typically staff and transportation team does have that discretion. In this case
where they are proposing to move it in order to completely avoid that floodplain, it does
have to go beyond 1,000 feet so they are requesting again just a shift for this section of that
alignment to the south to avoid that crossing. We likewise put this up against the criteria
for approval. Similarly, feel that the region planning efforts and development trends in
this area and with regard to the outer loop does serve a need to look at this roadway.
We do know that development is coming in this area and the consideration of the realignment
of this roadway considers the floodplain a need to minimize the disturbance of that area.
Ultimately, it also minimizes long-term maintenance costs for the city as this is one less bridge
that the city would have to take care of later on. With that staff is recommending approval
of the mobility plan amendment as it does meet our criteria for approval and that concludes
my portion of the mobility plan application this evening.
The next and last application is a rezoning to a plan development. Again, that existing
zoning is rural residential. The proposed zoning is a plan development with a base zoning
of R4, R7, mixed-use neighborhood and mixed-use regional. The property in itself and with
all of these phases is proposed to be developed over a course of about 20 years and that includes
the development of uses such as a mix of residential. I'll go through that mix in the next slide.
Some commercial spaces, some parks and open spaces, community facilities, public infrastructure
and public facilities as well. The proposed land use breakdown that's included in the
PD reflects about 1.3 million square feet of commercial space. The residential or proposed
residential units are broken up, ultimately giving an overall density of about 3.6 units
per acre. As far as single-family residential units, they are proposing to include just
over 7,000. Single-family residential units, 1,084 zero lot line or town home units and
within 1,015 multifamily units with the stipulation within the PD that those multifamily units
could be reallocated as zero lot line or town home units depending on the market and things
at that time. Just to give a little bit more flexibility and still allow the PD to have
the mix of housing, but it doesn't have to all be developed as multifamily. The caveat
is that the unit specified within the PD cannot be exceeded, so the maximum units that are
specified in there cannot be exceeded. As far as landscaping and screening, they are
proposing to require a six-foot tall solid masonry wall on any lot backing or siding
onto any arterial or collector. Additionally, they are requiring a masonry wrought iron
or tubular fence wall be constructed on areas backing to open space with a landscape buffer
if wrought iron is used. Then they are prohibiting residential fences within the front yard within
the development. For street cross-sections, they are proposing a slightly different or
not a slightly, they're proposing a more specified version of cross-sections within
this PD including landscaping medians and 10-foot wide side paths on both sides for
secondary arterials and collectors. In this case, they are meeting all of our right of
way dimensions that are provided for in our mobility plan. The only or the main differences
is just regarding the design. Then also within the collector, occasionally we allow for a
10-foot side path on one side and an 8-foot side path on one side. This would tie all
collectors to requiring a 10-foot wide side path on both sides of the collector. As far
as community facilities, the property is proposing about 360 total acres of park land, 181 of
those are outside of the flood plain. This includes four amenity centers and approximately
13.5 miles of public trails. They are proposing to reserve some land for Denton ISD and Sanger
ISD schools. Of course, the development and construction of those will be in coordination
with those schools. They're also proposing to construct or reserve land for public facilities
specifically to Denton public safety facilities and those will be joint police and fire facilities
as well as the construction of infrastructure to serve this development. Additionally or
lastly they are proposing some special sign standards that would ultimately allow for
unique monument type of signs to identify the Craver Ranch development. Those would
be no larger than 150 square feet in sign area and no higher than 20 feet. That includes
like any monument, any sort of fancy waterfalls. I've seen a lot of interesting residential
subdivision signs that they could propose in this case and this would allow for those
to occur. With this request, we put up against the criteria for approval. Again, that regional
impact of the outer loop and the development inquiries around that regional improvements
is top of mind for staff in this case. The PD in itself also is a development plan that
considers the floodplain and ESA and minimizes the disturbance of those areas. It plans around
them and it preserves them for parks and open spaces in other case. The proposal does include
that mix of housing which helps reach the city's goal for housing needs with regard
to demand and housing type as it offers both single family residential and town homes so
they attach and detached style, housing types for all markets in size. The PD also proposes
development over 20 year plan, proposing a rational phasing plan in this case starting
most likely at the southeast corner and then expanding northeast, northwest. Also the PD
requires the construction of amenities and public facilities to support the proposed
density. They are proposing to dedicate park space and park land in excess of what we would
typically require I believe for this area. Again, you saw the community facilities and
things that are being proposed, all intended to provide an amenity no further than a 10
minute walk from every residence that they provide within this community. We sent out
public notifications for this case, the comprehensive plan, the mobility plan as well as the PD.
Up until I think maybe the signs were posted this past weekend, we hadn't really received
much feedback in opposition or in favor of the proposal. Just this week, we received
a few e-comments and three written comments in response in opposition to the proposals.
The applicant did hold two neighborhood meetings. It's my understanding that it was largely
attended by members or residents and property owners in the ETJ and their concerns were
more so related to the impacts to their property with regard to the mobility plan alignments
and things of that nature. With that, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning request
contingent upon the approval of the comprehensive plan amendment and mobility plan amendment
in this case. The PD is consistent with a master plan community future land use designation
and the realignment of the mobility plan or the portion of the mobility plan thoroughfare
map that secondary arterial would be needed for the PD to move forward as well. That pretty
much concludes my presentation. Just a reminder slide to let you guys know that this is three
items. That comprehensive plan amendment is to go from agricultural future land use designation
to master plan community future land use designation. The mobility plan amendment is to realign
a portion of the proposed east-west secondary arterial south of the flood plain. Everything
else is staying the same with regard to classification and things of that nature. Then the zoning
change is a change request from rural residential to a plan development with all those base
zoning districts and those details of the PD that I mentioned throughout the presentation.
That concludes my presentation. At this time, I will happily answer any questions you have.
Thank you, Mia. Do we have any questions from the commission before we hear from the public
of staff? Just to clarify again and to say again, I'm hearing that staff is recommending
approval of all these three proposals. Thank you. Another point for you, just procedural,
are we thinking ... Do we need a motion to table these proposals? It's always within
order in Robert's rules to make a motion for that. My hope is that we can hear from
members of the public who would like to speak since it was posted on the agenda, and then
we can get to the motion after that. Thank you, Chair Pruitt.
Any other questions of staff? Just a couple, Mia. One, on the notification, can you go
back to the notification slide? My understanding is our practice is to notify within the city
limits for the 200 foot, and then the 500 foot is by utility addresses, but we don't
actually serve this area from an electrical perspective. Can you explain what notifications
went out? There is a list of addresses. I will need to check to confirm where we pulled
those from, but there is a list of 500 foot property courtesy notifications that we sent
out. I believe some of those were received by members of the ETJ.
Do you have additional information on that? Yes. Good evening, Commission. Charlie Rosendahl,
Interim Director of Development Services. We send out notifications. GI staff pulls
a list together, 200 foot to property owners based on the latest DCAD parcel rule, and
then 500 foot goes out to the resident, which is the address within 500 feet, as well as
any utility address within 500 feet. Okay. One is just addressed to resident at the address?
Yes. That's the 500 foot postcard. Do we send those notifications to addresses
that are not in the city limits, or is it just the city limits?
For this one, we pulled addresses within the ETJ as well.
Thank you. That answers my question, because I thought our normal practice was just within
the city, and since this parcel is surrounded by ETJ.
200 foot is just within city limits, because it has to be based on the city's tax rule.
Okay. But the 500 foot that we did included ETJ addresses.
Yes. I believe for this project it did. Okay. Thank you. Then my second question, Mia. First
of all, I appreciate staff getting the fiscal report finished in time to send out with the
agenda last week. That report, as well as the comprehensive plan when it talks about
doing fiscal analysis, says this report aims to provide city leadership with a framework
for understanding the fiscal implications of the proposed expansion and for sharing or
shaping negotiations with the developer. I guess my question is, in this case, did the
fiscal analysis shape the discussions between staff and the developer in how that works?
I'll leave that to Charlie. I think the discussions with the developer did shape the proposals
in the PD, but I'll leave to Charlie on the fiscal impact analysis shaping those discussions
before. Okay. Thank you.
One of the considerations when this item was first brought forward was the fiscal impact.
We have been working with a consulting firm called AECOM to do the fiscal impact analysis
to see what the impact is to the city of Denton. When we did get the initial impact, we did
look at things like one of the items that it's included is a land contribution for
a future public works facility. In the negotiations with this developer in the development agreement,
that item has been included, including a number of other items.
Okay. Just from my understanding and the board, I'm assuming that came out before the agenda
was posted, because I hadn't seen the fiscal analysis before then. You're saying you had
a copy of it. How far back did you receive that copy?
We received a preliminary analysis from AECOM prior to the work sessions that were completed
last month or the month before. Okay. So about five, six weeks ago, something
like that. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. Thank you.
Yeah. We received it ahead of that work session. I just want to be clear, not just at the work
session. Okay. Thank you. I don't see any other questions.
This is a public hearing that I've opened, like we stated before, because our rules of
order state that residents may speak one time at a public hearing. If this ends up getting
continued to next month, then you would have the opportunity to speak tonight if you would
like, and then you would have the opportunity to come back if you didn't speak when it's
continued, if that does happen. That same rules of procedure, I believe, applies to
the applicant, speaking as well. Is that valid? Great. That's a great question. So buried within
our chapter two of the code of ordinances, we do have a public hearing procedure that
talks about initial presentations and ability to rebut, and subject to thoughtful determination
rather than legal advice on the dais. My thought is that if the applicant's proposal changes
in a material way, that it would be appropriate for them to have another presentation period
to explain that and that members of the public would then get a fresh comment period to respond.
If the project does not change, I think that what you initially stated would be correct
that the applicant has presented once, the public has commented once, and anyone who
hasn't commented would be welcome to at that subsequent meeting. Okay. Thank you for that.
I think I understand that. I'm going to say it again just so that you can make sure I
understand and maybe everybody else can understand. And that is that if no material change in
the proposal happens between now and when this item is continued until, if it's continued,
then what I said previously is correct. So both the applicant and members of the public
could either speak tonight or wait until it's continued and come back and speak. However,
if there is a material change to the application, then by making that change, both the applicant
would be able to speak a second time as well as the members of the public. Correct. Okay.
Are we on board? Thank you. So with that, it is a public hearing, so if the applicant
would like to speak, you may with those things explained. Thank you for your patience. If
you could state your name and address, you'll have 20 minutes combined between different
members of the applicant representative. Good evening, Chairman, commissioners. My name
is Alexa Knight, one with Dakey Law, 322 West Walnut, Salina. Apologize for the confusion.
There was just a lot of that we could hear on the TV. There were a lot of questions with
the commission, and so that's the reason why we asked for the tabling. But knowing your
interest in hearing the public and having everybody's here this evening, we'd like to
just go ahead and proceed. So please disregard the tabling comments. So with that, I'm going
to close the meeting. Good evening again. We have our entire development team here this
evening, so if there are any questions after this, which it sounds like there'll be quite
a few, with regard to finances, engineering, planning, or traffic, we have all the professionals
here. They'll be able to answer your questions. So I'd like to get started. This is a map
of the course of aerial of the city of Denton, and the red dash line represents your city
limits. The yellow star represents the 2,500 acres master plan community that we're calling
Craver Ranch development. Why is this important? It's a 2,500 acre master plan community. It's
one of the largest contiguous areas owned by a single entity remaining within the city
of limits. What that does for you as a municipality is to be able to, the land mass right there
in and of itself, and the single developer that you're able to negotiate with, you're
much easier to be able to plan cohesively versus if this came in piecemeal. If you had
25, 100 acre applications, it's much harder to get what you want from a planning perspective
done. So that being said, the 2,500 acres once built out would be a $5.1 billion assessed
value project. It's going to be a well appointed and planned and monetized community with trail
systems, public parks, open space, those are different here in the city of Denton, as you
well know, community centers, public schools, supporting retail, fire, police stations.
The proposed alignment is shown on this plan. We've heard from staff with regard to that.
We know that the intersection at Milam Road there on I-35 is a connecting point, so that
makes this southern route the route that the outer loop would take. If it was easy, anyone
could do it, right? But it's not. There's a lot that goes with regard to planning. The
developers spent two years to this point just to get us here tonight. And obviously tonight
with the question of tabling, we thought that perhaps there was even more questions. But
we feel confident in the presentation and the material that we have this evening to
be able to take you to the place where you can support the three different applications
that we have before you. So it started back in two years ago with the planning purposes,
but we came to city council. Your city council approved the creation of an MMD along with
an operating agreement and a project agreement. That is what we've been working on with staff
for the past year, then our government passed legislation to allow for that MMD to become.
So that is the fiscal ability for us to be able to create a master plan community like
this because you can't just go through 2,500 acres of development without something like
that. So after that happened, then that was when we were able to come in with our zoning
case. And because of our zoning case, we have a comp plan amendment that Mia went through
and the thoroughfare plan amendments, all three dovetail together, all three of which
we will be voting on this evening. This is the city of Denton. It is not easy. Your staff
has worked diligently with us. They have turned over every single stone we feel. We've had
a thorough analysis of the different applications included in that additional studies. We have
the drainage study. We have the environmental assessment study that was done. We invited
in and hosted staff out onto the property so that they could walk the property and ask
any sort of questions, see it for themselves, understand what is out there. Additionally,
environmental staff went out a secondary time. The ranch hand took them through the site
and they were able to concentrate. They had some questions with regard to the western
portion of the floodplain. As Ms. Hines represented that we held two neighborhood meetings, there
were different people that came to each one. It wasn't the same people coming to the same
two both meetings, so that was a good information session for everybody. In addition, we had
the traffic assessment study. This is beyond the typical TIA, which will be coming forward
with each phase of development. This request was specifically for the city engineers asking
Westwood Engineering to run the city's traffic demand model. That's something that's a 48-hour
turnaround each time that they run those things. That's also not a... That's not an insignificant
engineering analysis. Okay, so our first application that we have
into you is the Comp Plan Amendment. As you've seen, the Feature Land Use Plan, or FLAM actually,
is up before you. Let's start from the beginning. Sound planning takes time, and the city has
been in that process. They started by involuntary annexing this acreage back in 2008 and 2009,
and voluntarily annexed. In 2018, the water distribution system was updated for additional
demand within this area. The 2022 thoroughfare plan also reflects three secondary arterials
with which times went through. Each one carries 29,000 trips per day. That is not for agricultural
land use. That's moving people. That's moving vehicles. The city has been planning for that
growth. In your backup material, we provided information from RSI. T. Wilson will be speaking
this evening about Dr. Perryman's economic report also. We also discussed it in our workshop
with you all. Growth is coming. It's expensive to run a business and to live on the coasts.
Business has always been open for business. We've been inviting businesses to come here,
so that growth has come and is continuing to come. You will have read in your RSI study
that the supply is less than at equilibrium, so that means that the housing stock is not
there. As I said, planning doesn't happen overnight. It's taking two years just to get
to this point. Once the zoning gets approved, then we have to go through all the iterations
of the traffic studies, the environmental studies, the civil engineering associated
with each section. You need time to be able to plan for this. It's not like it's just
going to happen tomorrow. The DFW region has seen the substantial growth as I mentioned
northward into Collin and Denton counties. As was mentioned, TxDOT is responding to
this growth by studying and preparing for that regional outer loop. This amendment to
bring the future land use plan into alignment with all of the city's planning that they've
done to date. The second application that's before you is a thoroughfare plan. It's a
mobility plan amendment. This one shows the city's thoroughfare plan in the upper quadrant,
and you see the green dashed lines. Again, those are those secondary arterials, which
carry 29,000 trips per day. The only deviation that we have here, because your code does
allow for 1,000-foot deviation within where it's shown on the thoroughfare plan, is that
small section that's in orange. That's the only deviation. The reason being that we are
asking for that, as you can see the green line, is the thoroughfare plan shows it going
directly through the floodplain and environmental sensitive area. This is the reason why we
were asking for that variance. From an engineering perspective, you want to cross that floodplain
in the environmental area at 90 degrees and try to minimize that location. This picture
was taken when staff was actually out on the site with us. Again, it's the beauty of this
sort of thing that you wouldn't want to bring that roadway horizontally through that floodplain
and environmentally sensitive area. The third and final application that's before you this
evening with regard to this master plan is the zoning. We're taking it from RR, which
is a placeholder when it was involuntarily annexed back in 2008, and we're taking it
to a planned development. Something of this size needs to have a PD on it. You wouldn't
want to just do a cohesive R4 zoning, because that allows the flexibility and the planning
over the next 20 years as this comes through. As was also mentioned, the majority of our
neighbors are within the city ETJ. Anything that's green on this map reflects the land
that is actually in the city limits. A master plan community provides a fabric of land use
within the community and allows transitioning of densities. We have over 7,000 single family
homes, over a thousand townhome and zero lot lines. Since our workshop that we had with
you a few weeks back, we heard you and we reduced our multifamily units by 500, so that
of this magnitude and this size, that reference is probably only three multifamily housing
units or developments within this 2,500 acres. We'll also have two elementary schools, one
for Sanger and one for Denton ISD and one Denton middle school. Again, the quality master
plan community, which will have trail systems, which I'll go through in a second, will link
each individual home with the pocket parks throughout and really be a green and heavily
amenitized community. Something that we took for granted, the development team, because
we do this on a daily basis, is not recognizing the longevity of a project like this. At its
best, you're looking at a 20 year build out. This is not something that's going to be plopped
on the ground and all this infrastructure is going to be developed. That's the worst
thing you can do from a civil engineering perspective is build all the roadways, all
the infrastructure and have nobody using it. You want to phase it. That's the best for
your infrastructure. Within this plan, we show multiple phases with a 20 year build
out, taking us to 2040, a variety of residential products offered to encourage people to stay
within the community while their economic standing evolves. You might be young right
out of college. You might only be in a zero lot line home or perhaps an apartment up to
having something, a much larger lot, a yard space, dog family, what have you. I'm just
going to run through these architectural product types. These are the same that you saw in
the workshop, but these are representative of what the different lot sizes and product
types that could be developed out here. This is the town home and live work, so more of
the urban, something future, not something day one by any means. Also some of the neighborhood
commercial perspectives. This is the land contribution plan. This is another reason
why you have a bird in the hand with this developer. Again, you have the 2,500 acres
and you have a single developer that you have the opportunity to negotiate all of these
things. That is what your staff has done working with us on this project over the past year.
This is a green and heavily amenitized park land open space plan. Out of the 2,500 acres,
we have over 463 acres of combined green space or open space. That excludes the additional
trails and the neighborhood parks. The planners have not had the opportunity to plan out each
individual phase and within each one of those, there will have neighborhood parks associated
with that. A reminder that your code only requires us to dedicate 67 acres of parkland,
so clearly we are well over that amount. In addition, what the developer is giving are
two fire stations at six acres. City parkland is over 360 acres. The trail system to date
is only 13 and a half miles. It will definitely increase as, again, those planners are able
to plan out each one of these phases. In addition, there is right of way for the water line transmission
that will be running east and west through this area, elevated water storage tank and
a donation of two school sites. All of that takes land. That has been donated by the developer.
Just so it puts you in perspective for you, I needed this myself. What does 338 acres
represent? Well, that's equivalent of almost 256 football fields put together, so quite
a large area. Again, we have ponds within that central park area as you see here. These
are examples of trail heads that we'll have along the trail system. This just represents
that we are meeting and exceeding the city code with regard to all the circles represent
the half mile radius that's required of each one of the homes. The benefit of this master
plan community is a benefit for really for all. It's for the city, it's for the surrounding
community and it's for the developer. Once you have a master plan community, you know
what you're getting. You have the 2,500 acres, you have a development plan that's associated
with that zoning case, and so everyone can feel comfortable about what's coming down
the pike. Again, it's one of the large continuous property owners with a single ownership, and
it's a well thought out and designed master plan which has not only the district maintaining
the parkland, but also HOA opportunity to be maintaining that green space also. Heavy
on the green space, and most importantly is self-funded by this MMD. It's not the city
having to fund for this infrastructure. Again, in capping at build out, it's a $5.1 billion
total assessed value with $1.2 billion in dent and tax revenue. That's not discussing
the city and what happens with the school districts also. Funding contributions in addition
to the land is $7.5 million. $3 million is to affordable housing. $2 million is for an
offsite public works facility for the region, not just for this project, and then $2.5 million
towards police and fire services. On top of that, the developer will be granting land,
six acres of fire stations, the 360 acres for parkland, the 13.5 mile trail system,
and easements for the water transmission line, elevated storage tank, and also $16 million
worth of offsite wastewater. So that's all I have this evening, but I'd like to have,
we also have T. Wilson that will be coming up. Zoe Thompson will be coming up to speak
on behalf of Dr. Ray Perryman's economic study. Sure. Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners.
Zoe Thompson with T. Wilson. We're a financial consultant for the developer. Thank you, Alexa,
and thank you, Seth, for your wonderful presentations and for the concise but really well done summary
of all of the work that has gone into this project over the past two years. As a result
of all of this, sorry, all of the benefit and all of the work that has gone in, we wanted
to quantify it. We wanted to say this is more than just an assessed, thank you, this is
more than just assessed value that we're adding to Denton. We're adding secondary tertiary
impacts. We're adding jobs. There's going to be more spending and so much more activity
in business that will result from this development. And so how do we quantify that? It's hard
to quantify 350 acres. It's hard to quantify how great of an impact that a development
of this scale has on a community. So we went to the best economists that we could find.
Ray Perryman has over 40 years of experience in the industry and he has a PhD from Rice
University. And then we asked him to prepare the economic and fiscal impact analysis that
shows just the gross benefit. He looked not only at assessed value and tax benefits but
also at the total expenditures, the total additional dollars that would change hands
as a result of this development, the total gross product, goods and services that would
come, the total increase in personal income of employees in the community, in the city
of Denton and surrounding it, and also the jobs that would come as a result of this community.
So some of these things are mentioned here on this slide. But this is going to be a catalyst
for growth for Denton, a catalyst for not just growth but for additional economic activity.
And so in the words of Ray Perryman, Craver Ranch should be an excellent addition to the
local economy, both from the activity it will generate as well as its role in supporting
residents and commercial resources consistent with anticipated growth in the area. You know,
in the analysis, he states that this area, the Metroplex here, is one of the third fastest
growing Metroplexes. So as Alexis said, growth is coming. And this project, there's so much,
you know, the Parkland, so much thought, so much time that has gone into it that will
ultimately meet the growth that is coming to Denton in a way that is uniform, in a way
that, you know, you can do with 2,500 acres that you can't do with other things. And,
you know, it's going to have temporary benefits during the construction period, as noted here,
50 million in temporary tax benefits during the construction period, including sales,
also 30,800 drops for the city of Denton alone, some additional drops outside of the city
during the construction period, but also permanent benefits after, you know, cumulative 18.2
billion in gross product and, you know, permanent tax benefits of 38.6 million for the city
of Denton. So this, you know, the impact study, Ray Berryman, he just kind of wanted to represent
that this product is more than just buildings and more than just land that we're giving
to the city of Denton, but it's going to spur economic activity that enhances the quality
of life for the community, for the city of Denton, but also at the regional level and
the state level. And that was the findings in the analysis. So just wanted to summarize
that for you all.
Thank you. Is that it for your presentation?
Yes, sir. And we have slides to answer any questions. And, of course, everybody else
here to answer questions.
Thank you. Questions for the applicant from the commission? Yeah. Commissioner Dyer.
When looking at the parks and the trail systems, will that just be utilized by the residents
within Craver Ranch or will that be accessible to anybody in the area?
It will be accessible to anybody in the area. Only the amenity centers, which will be internal
to the site, would be reserved for residents only, but otherwise everything else is for
the public. Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions? I have a couple, I guess. One, could you explain, one thing I noticed
in the text amendment of the PD regulations was that the majority of commercial uses are
omitted and stricken out, as well as I think ADUs being prohibited for the residential
areas. But then when I heard you speak, you were saying that this master planned method
allows you to add flexibility. I'm trying to understand who wants there to be less allowed
uses between the city or the applicant and how that gives flexibility.
Sure. Thank you for that question because a lot of municipalities are the ones usually
telling us, don't bring us the kitchen sink. Be succinct. What do you want? And therefore,
that's the reason why we paired it back. Happy to add back in uses if you so like. We can
certainly do that, but we paired it back to the general retail for the neighborhood and
the commercial. The general retail has all the different sizing, so those are allowed
in there. We just kind of paired back the things that we thought maybe were not something
that would be well received within a master plan community. But again, open to receiving
if you would like us to add something back in.
And my understanding is, I'm not sure what the business relationship is, but as the developer,
you would have some private contract control over what businesses were allowed there and
what homes were allowed to be built and that sort of thing as well, just to control the
initial build out. Is that correct?
So those parcels would be, once the rooftops are there, that would be sold to a retail
developer and yes, that they would work and bring in, come to the city with their plan
with regard to what would be in that MN or MR designation and yes, work through their
leasing agent with regard to what the uses would end up going in there.
And then lastly, since you brought up once the rooftops are there, when I was looking
at the fiscal impact analysis, it actually projected the commercial absorption and build
out earlier than the residential, like all of the commercial was built after 10 years,
where it was about half or a little over half of the residential and then the remainder
of the residential got built out after that. I've always heard the reverse is usually what
happens. Can you help explain that?
Yeah, absolutely. And usually that is the case, right? So this was our best guess. We
were asked to put that summary together. So that's what the developer thought, that once
there's 4,000 single family homes on the ground, it's time to put some commercial in there.
Now, whether or not it all ends up at that time, like it's underwritten now, that's a
conservative way, but you're right. It probably will change and half of that commercial might
come on later on. But today, when we're sitting here today at a zoning process, that's what
we think it's going to be, but you're right. It will change.
Thank you. Commissioner Garland. Thank you. I appreciate the various different
kind of housing types that you've mentioned in the plan. Do you mind kind of elaborating
on sort of the price point of kind of where the price point range sort of starts and starts
and stops? Absolutely. But I'd like the developer to
come up in response to that. Good evening, Commissioner. Kevin Lazarus
with Old Prosper Partners. As far as the housing price points, depending on the different lot
sizes and the different home sizes, we think that there's going to be a pretty broad variety
of home prices, beginning probably in the low 300,000s and then extending up to about
650, 700,000 in today's dollars. Depending on, and I don't know what the future holds
as far as pricing price movements up or down. Okay. And this may be a silly question, but
are you working with different, I don't know, kind of like developers or like how does that
work exactly? Yeah. So we are the developer and we'll be
the ones that put all the infrastructure in. And then we're working with various home builders
to kind of gauge their interest on different lot sizes and kind of market depth and what
the market needs in terms of like how we're crafting our plan and our density.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the commission
before we hear from the public? Oh, yes. I want to comment that the proposals are very
thorough. I believe the presentations that we've seen from the developers are very thorough.
And I believe the last time we did hear from the developers and we had many, many points
of input and I appreciate your adding those in to these proposals and we had some concerns
about types of homes, types of dwellings, too many apartments, too many apartments,
that kind of thing, multifamily. So I appreciate that. One of the things that threads through
this for me is use of resources, use of resources of all types. Can someone comment on the use
of water and the wastewater studies that have been done, the proposals?
I'm Jim Knight, KFM engineering. I thought I was going to get by without any questions.
We're actually the property is both staff and Alexa mentioned was specifically annexed
by the city in the early 2000s and they did it because it's immediately adjacent to the
city's water treatment facility and it's a perfect example for master development. We
are dedicating land for the city to build as part of their water transmission system
a 60 inch water line through the property and the developer is designing and building
an elevated storage tank that will service not only this property but the entire area
at no cost to the city. So there is no additional cost to the city for the water system for
the services area. We're within both the chairman mentioned earlier about two miles of the existing
water treatment plant. Actually it's very, very close. We've worked very closely with
the city staff on the wastewater as well. We talked about multiple options and we are
actually following the city's recommendation and we're building a gravity system to tie
to the Clear Creek wastewater system that is moving forward through the city process
right now that will connect to the city's wastewater treatment plant. That will allow
the city to increase the land areas that can capture into the wastewater system at no cost.
So the developer is spending roughly $100 million in water and wastewater infrastructure
that will benefit the city outside the development. In addition, and I believe staff mentioned
this as well, is we are working with the city that once the city's wastewater treatment
plant is in place and they have wastewater reuse created, we're going to accept that
wastewater reuse, that non-potable water, to take our public areas so that we reduce
the impact of the city's water system. This will likely be the most sustainable water
and wastewater community in Denton.
Okay, thank you. So you're going to, I'm just concerned that I'm going to have enough water
in Southridge.
For everyone, you know. We worked with city staff, and Charlie Rosendahl mentioned this
earlier, I believe, and staff has talked about it. We are going to drill water wells to take
care of all of our irrigation, the public open areas, until the city has the reuse water
there so that we don't have a demand on the city's potable water system. So we're specifically
reducing the water demands and we're working on the wastewater reuse for recycling and
the reuse of that material.
Thank you.
Yes ma'am.
Any other questions on the commission? Okay. Thank you. The next card I have to speak is
Winter Anderson. I'm sorry, or is it Venter? I'm not certain. Please excuse my pronunciation.
It's Venter. Thank you. I happen to be the daughter of Mary Denny, who is one of the
founding families of the Craver Ranch, and it is a privilege to stand before you and
have my brother stand behind me. Having spent a number of years on the Craver as a child
and as a grown adult running cattle, I understand that the needs for water on that property
are going to be exorbitant for the families who are there. And while I genuinely understand
the importance of reuse of the water that's going to be coming out of the wastewater facilities,
where will the initial water come from? The State of Texas has notified us that our aquifers,
whether it be Woodbine or Trinity, are significantly low. Deeper, bigger wells are not the solution.
And I would like to ask our developer to consider an engineered wetland. An engineered wetland
that would use 19 phenotypic plants to absolutely purify and clean the water, like the North
Texas Water and Municipal District does at the John Bunker Sands Wetlands. I think that
there are additional things that they can do to enhance this property, to make sure
that we are good stewards of this land, and that we are understanding that not only do
we have that risk, but we're also worried about Bolliver Water and the other water entities
out there who have already declared that they do not have a 180-day water supply. And right
now they are our current water providers. My home, our ranch, is directly across the
street on the balance of the Craver Ranch acreage. And I can tell you right now that
water shortages are going to be a problem if it isn't somehow addressed in advance.
And I would very much like this board to consider how this developer, as beautiful and comprehensive
as our plan is, is going to engage in a water preservation process as well as a reuse process.
Thank you so much for your time. Thank you. Next card I have is from Brian
Denny. I'll reserve my time until the 17th. Just so maybe everybody didn't hear, when
the applicant came up, they stated that they're no longer asking for a continuous to December.
So tonight is it. We're back to the original plan. If you can state your name and address,
you'll have four minutes. My name is Brian William Denny. I live at
8684 FM 2153. I was born in Flow Hospital, May 30th, 1977, and my mother is the only
child of Kenneth Craver and Lois Skiles. My family has been in Denton, Texas since the
1880s. I want it on the record that I am absolutely not unaware that progress and growth and all
of these fantastic things that come with our city, having done what it has done over the
last 50 years. I know all of this is coming. Well, I'm sure most of the people in this
room do. My perspective and opinion is I just want it to be done well and properly. If anything
over the last 50 years has shown us that sometimes things get missed and things get skipped and
things get jumped around and jumped over. Water, as my sister brought up a second ago,
is a massive, massive thing. For me in particular, being across the street in that top northeast
corner, the roads are a massive thing to me. How much is the city going to take of the
roads that we have existing now? The board of directors that have been assigned to this
municipal district, according to the law that was passed and signed by the governor here
recently, it says in there that they have the ability and will appoint a board of directors
to their nonprofit that will help the further development. I'm looking forward to seeing
what they come up with and who they come up with in regards to putting that together.
Again, I know this is coming, but I want it to be done well and I want it to be done properly.
Thank you. The next card I have is from Mark Laird. If
you can state your name and address, you'll have four minutes.
Yes. My name is Mark Laird. I live at 1328 Girls Springs Road, San Diego, Texas, 76266.
I'd like to disclose I am an employee of the city of Denton, but tonight I am speaking
to you as a county resident. I'm in opposition of this development here. I understand it.
I understand the growth and need. Some of my disagreements that I have with the development
is the type of zoning that they have. The zoning doesn't look like it transitions from
existing what's next to what is proposed. A lot of the property that it's adjacent to
is rural residential. Some of the properties that zone that they have is MR and MN. I think
it's some of these areas that are shown as MR and MN as a benefit is back to rural residential
or residential one or at least at the minimum or two. I understand the purpose of MR zoning
and MN zoning. I feel that if that's the use and need of the area, that they'd be pushed
further into the property instead of being outside of the border. One of the things that
I'd like to see included if it's not included already include chapter 7.7.6, a landscape
buffer, 7.7.8 walls and fences and screening, 7.10.6 building height and transition areas.
I don't want somebody looking in my front yard eating at a restaurant across the street
from me. The other important thing is exterior lighting. I think that's very important. The
development code in these chapters only references city zoning property. If the rewarding could
be put and be respective to the county residents adjacent to it, I think that would be really
appropriate to do. The other issue I have and this is strictly related to my property
exactly is that the north-south road that they're proposing in the mobility plan runs
to my front yard and the Gribble Springs Road also runs across my front yard as well. Given
the connection point, the intersection and spacing of what they have proposed doesn't
meet the city's requirements for those types of roads, for that kind of intersection of
the spacing. Not to mention that Gribble Springs Road is a 1950 judge-appointed, established
rural road for that purpose and this Denton City Limits is located along the north line
of that road and not inside of it. I have any questions for you guys. I'd be happy to
answer them. Thank you. I don't see anything. Thank you. The next card I have is from Patricia
Adams. You're welcome to come up, state your name and address and you'll have four minutes.
Good evening. My name is Patricia Adams. I live at 0046 FM 2153 Aubrey, Texas. I, too,
am an ATJ and I have a lot to say, so I'm going to say it as quickly as I can here with
my three minutes. My concerns are, one is when I look at comprehensive plans and I look
at the comprehensive plan process and I look at what state law says, I'm a lawyer, this
is a practice area of mine. Comprehensive plans usually come about after you've had
many stakeholder meetings and you have had input and citizen meetings and then you talk
about what can be used. In the staff report, it says there is no documented discussion
from the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan adoption process regarding the future land use of the
area beyond the current agricultural designation. At the bottom, it says the comp plan amendment
is not a change to existing zoning of any property within this subject boundary nor
does it render any property non-conforming. It's not a change to zoning, but chapter 211
of the local government code says you zone in accordance with your comprehensive plan.
You be for a comprehensive plan retrofit. This was not an amendment that got vetted
or that anyone gave any input on, that it should be this type of density in this area.
This was simply here, we want to zone it this way, we know we have to do a comp plan amendment
because state law requires it, so we're going to ask you to retrofit that for us. That's
my problem. The density up here, I live up here, I travel this area, I didn't get any
kind of notice, I just happened to see the signs, so I appreciate that Denton puts the
signs up. As far as the mobility is concerned, what was referred to by one of the developers
represented as a deviation, one of these roads deviation, that's my house next to this deviation.
So it doesn't run through my front property, but it runs through right next to my fence
line, I believe, based on what I can tell from the map. I live in the Lake Ray Roberts
zoning district. We have minimum five acre tracks, that's what we have to have. I have
a little over five, my neighbors have 10 and 15 acres. So this road, 2153, has no shoulders.
2164, no shoulders. It's a textile road. So we're at Textile's Mercy, it took us three
years to get a two lane bridge rebuilt. Three years. Our road was closed. So to hear that,
well, you know, it's kind of wasteful to go ahead and put that infrastructure in upfront
because nobody's going to use it. Well, why don't we just wait until it's dilapidated
so much that we have to rebuild it and close it down for three years, and people can't
get around. So the deviation is next to my home. That's my personal issue in it. My
bigger issue is that you have a comprehensive plan and you have a process to go through
so that people can participate. No one got to participate because there was no thought.
And the speaker, staff speaker said 2030, no comment, 2040, no comment. Agricultural.
All of a sudden we get some legislation that allows a special district that is a taxing
unit. You're allowing a city to move in out there. They're going to tax. They're going
to put parks, businesses, schools, trails. They're going to dedicate land to the city.
And that's wonderful. But this commission's job in reviewing these is to look at the land
use. Is it consistent with your future land and comprehensive plan? You don't have any
direction on that because there was no analysis done. And then is your zoning consistent with
that? I don't have any idea because we don't have anything in the comprehensive plan. This
is agricultural. So it's absolutely not consistent unless you go ahead and approve the comprehensive
plan amendment and then they're going to piggyback off of that. And that's what we will live
with. So I'm opposed to this and I am not anti-development in the least. It is part
of my practice area and I love seeing development go in. But this is just wrong. Thank you.
Next card I have is for Adam Adams. I live at 10046 FM 2153. I would like to just say
ditto what my wife said because it sounds a lot better than what I was going to say.
But I do work for a city, a local city, and I just want to reiterate the deviation you
talked about is correct. It is basically deviating right into my yard. But that's not it. It
really is the road situation. Working with the city and I'm working in the public infrastructure
area. TextDOT is chasing their tail everywhere they go right now. And they can't keep up
with development. I mean that's the development can be so much quicker than TextDOT. And we
have a massive problem. I know there's no easy solutions but I really would the phasing
of the road. I understand the developer doesn't want to phase it because they're not using
it because it's expensive. So they don't want to do the infrastructure prior to the buildings
coming in. But they really need to look at the impact of the road outside of their development.
The city I'm working for also is dealing with that issue as well because development comes
in but the city or in this case the entity, the state doesn't have the ability to do the
adequate road repairs and improvements for the development that just came in. And I can
just tell you the past up there, there's a road up there called Running Bear Lane. It's
the connection between this part of Denton to Ray Roberts and whatever. And it's already
a nightmare. And I cannot imagine the traffic impact here. I understand the TIA is a later
phase. But anyway I would like, I'm against it as well just because I think there needs
to be some more studying on this especially with the mobility aspects. Thank you very
much.
Thank you. Next card I have is from Liam Gaum Wakefield. Come up and state your name and
address. You'll have four minutes. Hello. My name is Liam Gaum Wakefield. My address
is 411 Ponder Avenue, Denton, Texas. My worry about this is will this development be able
to pay for itself? It said it brought in a certain amount of money but it was that a
net when it comes to the 40 year life of the infrastructure, like the roads, the electricity,
the water. And I appreciate all the infrastructure in park and like land, like for schools and
police and fire. But unless, this is probably not going to be a popular statement to this
crowd tonight. But the less dense this development is, the less likely it is to pay for itself.
In the long run. And I don't like my rent going to subsidize green field developments.
And that's not even bringing up the fact everybody's talking about the road. Text dot does text
dot things and we're all at their mercy. But my worry is this is going to be very hard
to service with public transportation. Like we already have, like let alone, like GoZone's
going to struggle to get up there, let alone fix route. And one way to fix that would be
to make that almost a self-sufficient neighborhood with groceries. I don't know exactly which
uses were not permitted. Probably groceries allowed, but I don't know. But I would also
think that allowing ADUs would also be a good thing for flexibility. But that's just, people
should be able to use their land for what they want to. But I also don't like this because
it's sort of leapfrogging the development of everything. If this was right next to,
like right next to the loop 288 or something, I wouldn't have as much issue with this. But
since it's so far out in its East Sherman, like so far up North East Sherman, or it's
going to come down I-35, and it's going to be all car traffic, that's one of my other
concerns. It's like there's no way, like it's going to be really hard to get, for people
to get around without a car. So it limits the amount of, the type of people that can
live out there. But I guess, and also having it be walkable up there, I do appreciate also
the 10 foot side paths. And there's a lot of good work done into this. I want to say
I appreciate that, but like I am just really torn because of the location of it. And like
didn't we have like Hartley Field issue around this area as well? Like to the South right?
And it feels weird to say no to that and then say yes to this. But I yield the remainder
of my time. Next card I have is from Susan Smith. If you come down and state your name
and address, you'll have four minutes. Thank you. Hello, my name is Susan Smith and I live
at 7736 FM 428 Denton, Texas. And I am in opposition to this project because I am worried
about the traffic that it is going to force onto 428. And we're experiencing a lot of
traffic problems on 428 right now. Anyway, I can hardly turn left when I'm trying to
get off of my property in the morning. And even getting to this meeting at night was
difficult. There's a lot of development in the process right now going on. There's
a Gavi Ranch that's going to bring in 253 more houses. There's another development that's
trying to start across the street. There's all kinds of things going on in this area.
And I am worried about the size of this development being something like a small city. And that
is going to force more traffic onto 428. And I don't know how it's going to handle it.
428, I don't know, did that go out? No. Okay. 428 is a very dangerous road and I live just
south. In fact, Clear Creek goes through my property. And I mean, if you follow the traffic,
there are tremendous problems with Clear Creek with fatalities, very, very significant issues
there. And until 428 is widened, and I don't know when that's going to be, but I really
feel like you have to deal with the mobility issues before you load all these people in.
And I know it's going to be a significant amount of time, but I think there has to be
some way that needs to be concurrent so that you're not stranding people in their own homes.
The other problem I have is I do think some of the plans look beautiful, but I think that
it is not following the 2040 comprehensive plan. And I think leaping from rural residential
to R7 is excessive, along with too much multifamily. And I think you're just going to, you're just
going to lock everybody in and something needs to be done with you guys doing your planning.
We need to figure out a way to make all of this work so that we can move. And that those
are my issues. So anyway, thank you.
Thank you. Next card I have is from Ned Woodbridge. Good evening. I'm Ned Woodbridge of the North
Denton Neighborhood Association, and I live at 3596 Hartley Field Road, Denton. Please
vote no for these proposals. I have time to address only two of the many, many concerns
of the residents in North Denton. First point, staff analysis acknowledges that this project
is in violation of the comprehensive plan in a number of ways. So oddly argues that
the comp plan should be amended, not the project. We argue the 2040 comp plan has adopted recently
remains as valid as ever to guide future growth of Denton and should not be amended. Why?
The principal tenant of the plan is that policy should promote infill of Denton and discourage
suburban sprawl. Doing otherwise will hollow out the Denton downtown, instead promoting
investment away from it. Unfortunately, this is exactly what we are seeing happen. A second
reason is that the suburban sprawl has been shown conclusively to be an, to be uneconomic
for a city. I'll get back to that. The city is supposed to use the 2040 comprehensive
plan as a template for development. The plan states on page 2-3, and I quote, in our rural
fringe areas of the city, in the extraterritorial jurisdiction, we see contiguous stage growth,
which is fiscally and environmentally sound, reduces fragmentation and sprawl, discourages
premature development, and conserves the city's environmental and natural resources. It goes
on to say, and I quote, while the land use element does not speak to impede approved
developments in outlying areas, it does support rational stage development in the fringe and
discourage approval of additional large scale plan developments until currently approved
developments approach build out. All you have to do is look at a map to see this is not
contiguous by any stretch of the imagination and is leapfrog development. To argue otherwise
is really a stretch and specious. This is a long way from any other major development,
and the ETJ, by the way, is included in that definition of contiguous, as I read. Second
point, so anyway, I guess I should finish by saying the comprehensive plan just explicitly
and appropriately rejects the Craven Rance proposal. Second point, this pattern of development
long term may be devastating to city finances and impose significant burdens on the taxpayers
and community members. On this recommendation, on this, I recommend that you read analyses
by Charles Marrone of Strong Towns and his case studies of many mid-sized cities that
found suburban sprawl to virtually bankrupt those cities as cost, the cost to maintain
and rebuild the infrastructure over time far exceeded the tax revenues received. Instead,
he argues, a policy of infill is economic and produces vital towns, just like our Denton
2040 plan dictates. The staff report says that the MMD will take some of that burden
off the city. Nonetheless, won't the city now have to build a whole new waste treatment
plan and piping to the development without water supplying water? While maintenance costs
and replacement costs may be borne in part by the residents of the MMD, I can promise
you residents will not anticipate the true burden in advance. It is unconscionable that
you, the PNZ, vote for this without fully understanding who will carry what burden and
whether that is fair. There are just too many issues. We need economic analysis. By the
way, addressing an earlier, something I heard in the staff in the earlier meeting, Textot
told me emphatically at their last public meeting that they have no plans to expand
FM 428, which is already a huge problem. Level of service five, that's the worst, the highest
and worst level of service, traffic service. So anyway, again, please vote no on really
all three. Thank you. Thank you. Next card I have is from Mr. Clay Thurmond. You can
come down and state your name and address. You'll have four minutes. Clay Thurmond, 1524
Snyder Street, Denton. And I've been before this body several times over the past few
decades arguing for open and green space. And this plan does offer quite a bit to be
desired, I think. However, I have some other problems which have been stated by, Ned took
some of my comments straight out of my mouth. I am concerned as it does with the 2040 plan
that we were calling for contiguous development, not trying to leapfrog or fragment, and here
I'm seeing us fragmenting. I'm usually concerned about fragmenting of green space, but I'm
seeing we're fragmenting our urban space as well. As people have said, leapfrogging
and sprawl, I think we're just increasing that. The mobility concerns, I have those
too from the streets, public transport. When they talk about affordable housing, I'm wondering
just what that definition of affordable is and how people that don't have the use of
a car are going to get from there to wherever else they need to go. And also this does increase
our car traffic and our pollution and everything from that. I'm sad to hear that 428 is not
going to be widened. Fiscal burden on taxpayers is something else has been addressed by other
speakers of us possibly subsidizing these other developments, and I am concerned about
that. But what I originally came here for, and all those were in my mind as I was preparing
to come here, was the environmental impacts. And one of the things that I've, when I was
reading through some of the materials, I did not see anything addressing our wildlife corridors.
And just two years ago, we met, I was part of a working group to create the wildlife
corridors, and I'm not seeing anything addressing that. And it looks like TXDOTS is going to
come right on top of one of those corridors. When we did the corridors, we extrapolated
out into the county. So that is another thing that I'm concerned about, and I would like
to see addressed if this goes forward. Otherwise, I have some, and I think as you've heard from
the crowd, I think there's a lot of concerns about this being a physically viable product
for the rest of the taxpayers here in Denton. Thank you.
Thank you. Did you have a question? No.
May I have a comment?
On specifically on the...
Public hearing comment?
On Clay's comments? Okay.
One of the e-comments that we got was talking about the long-term vision of the environment
and incorporate a meaningful environment, environmental protection. We did talk about
that in work session, and we are concerned with that, the wildlife crossings, the buffers
to protect the wetlands. So there was some good answers, I thought, that came from the
staff, the developers. So we might want to hear that, but we did visit that.
Next card I have is from Olivia Lilly.
Hi.
Name and address, and you have four minutes.
Olivia Lilly, 1630 Sheppard Road, Aubrey, Texas. I wasn't prepared to speak tonight,
but after listening to the presentation and a few of my neighbors, I believe, our property
is across the street from this proposed development. We did not get any type of notice. We try
to stay connected with everything that's going on in our neighborhood. So we knew about this
meeting and a previous meeting, but we never got a notice, nor would we have, I don't believe,
because we are in the county, and none of this touches us exactly. We're on Sheppard
above that dotted arrow. And that's what I want to talk about first, is that that dotted
arrow line is representative of what would be one of the proposed outer loop routes.
Previously, I believe, in the first person that spoke from staff showed the outer loop.
What TextDOT has shown us are the proposed route A and route B, everything that you guys
talked about, has said that that is where it's going to go and that it's going to connect
to Milam Road. That is not what the residents have been told. It has been told to us that
that decision has not been made and will not be made until 2026, I believe. We had another
phone call today about that, actually, and so that the north route, the A route, would
go through this development. For us that live out there that have been going to the meetings
for the proposed outer loop for the last 20 years or so, we feel like we've been lied
to, maybe, and that how could you be proposing this development with the city when the outer
loop may be bisecting your development? And one of the arguments that all of us residents
have had out there was that this is one landowner that would be affected by the outer loop.
And in all of our interviews, we were told it still might go there and that the engineers
are looking at that. And so our concern had been, why would you affect all of the residents
that have lived here? And then I'm going to back up a little bit. My children, we are
fourth or fifth generation out there. We live on 300 acres. We are actually broken up under
one giant family, so we're a small 300 acres. But all of our cousins live out there. My
mother-in-law's grandfather was the master gardener at TWU. We are all farmers. We have
cattle. We have crops. Our goal was to pass on to our children. And now we're thinking
we might have schools across the street from us and a highway going through our land. So
we've been in arguments with the outer loop situation, recognizing that it's going to
go somewhere out here. But then it turns out that this developer has been in communication
or owners with a developer with communication with the city and working some deals to give
back money and so forth when we actually don't even have a paved road out by us because it
doesn't get enough traffic on that road because there's exactly two driveways. There was talk
about wildlife because of the development that's been coming north from 288 and on.
For us on our acreage, we have an issue with the feral pigs and all kinds of wildlife that
is being pushed up because we don't have enough open land. And I actually happen to be a licensed
architect in the state of Texas. I am for development. I am for building houses. I love
some custom home residential. But I hate sprawl. I do a lot in community service with the city
of Denton. And we need to do things for our city residents in the city. And I believe
in infill instead of the sprawl. And I 100% believe that you're leapfrogging, creating
a mini city outside of a larger city. Thank you.
Thank you. Sorry. It's a planning and zoning hearing, not a sporting event. So we can laugh,
but let's keep the ruckusness down. This is a public hearing. I have a white card from
an Elizabeth Seymour that typically is used to signal support or opposition, but neither
box is checked. So just for the record, if you filled this out and you'd like to have
that clear on the minutes of the meeting, if you could signify that at some point, that
would help. But it is a public hearing, so you don't have to have filled out a card ahead
of time. You're welcome to come and speak if you would like and then just fill out a
card afterwards. Come on up. Same drill, name and address and you'll have four minutes.
Hi, my name's Elizabeth Seymour. I own property on Shepparger Road. I am one that is a big
one and the devil of the details. We went to the community meetings and just as this
architect just said, who's across my street neighbor that I've never met, she stated
right when the developers, they proposed their pictures and you can look in Mia Hines' slides
and the first thing it says is A goes right through that development. So why are we prematurely
making the decision leapfrogging and doing this when automatically everybody thinks right
now that it's going to go to B or B2. So that is a concern that we have. I think it's premature
to make that decision in regards to zoning if we don't even know what tax cost is going
to do, especially when they have a molasses pace. The next thing I have is look at 380.
So I grew up in Denton. I'm a Ryan High graduate. My husband's been here since the '80s. We
live in Forest Ridge. We have property. We are Dentonites and I watched my high school
friends who lived out on 380 and there was this little old Indian smoke shop in an agricultural
area. You cannot drive 380 without having severe traffic. We know that the deaths are
high out there. We know that everybody put up Savannah and all these other neighborhoods
very quickly and look at the disaster that it is in regards to traffic and fatalities
just alone. That's a traffic issue. So I think there's a concern that we have that
this area already has 29,000 per day per their engineer's calculations of people on the roads.
The next thing that I asked at this community meeting was how many people are actually going
to be in this community? They said, "Oh, average family of three." No, it's not an average
family of three. It's an average family of four, maybe more. So if I have 7,000 housing
units, there's four people to a family on average. You're talking 28,000 maybe, I don't
know, 30,000 people in this area. Again, we don't have the road and we don't have the
traffic capabilities to deal with that. We already don't have it and we're still rural
out there. I would also like to talk about the agricultural effects. We have cattle and
I'm a beekeeper. I'm your local beekeeper and I provide honey and I do all those things.
So I care about the agriculture. I care about the water. My husband hunts. My husband, the
boys, they fish out there. We kill tons of feral pigs out there. That's all going to
continue to just keep going north. I hate to say it, but you're not going to have some
crazy man out there with a gun who's shooting in the middle of the neighborhood because
there's wild boar tearing up your sod and your grass. So that is an issue that's continuing
to go on. The comment about drilling wells, I'm not a water expert, but it's very hard
for me to understand we're going to fix the water problem by drilling wells for possibly
28,000 people that are just north of us, especially when there's a water shortage already. I think
that it's the population, it's the traffic, it's the taxes. It's all these things that
are coming in that are going to affect landowners, homeowners, and people that live there. I
think it's too premature to get ahead before TxDOT says it's going to be B, B2, or Road
A. I'm hoping it's Road A because then they can figure out what they want to do with it.
The rest of us won't be as impacted, but we all have a place here of how we're going
to be impacted by it. Do not Dallas my Denton. Thank you.
This is a public hearing. If anybody else would like to speak, you're certainly more
than welcome to. I see possible movement. Yes, I see movement. Come on down.
Good evening. My name is Bridget Marshall. I live at 3539 Pine Trail, Denton. I have
many other concerns about this development besides the traffic issues I discussed in
my emails to you and am strongly opposed to all three Craver Ranch proposals. The comprehensive
plan is the blueprint for development in Denton. It was created with the input of the public,
the planning staff, and the city government. It is updated every several years by a thoughtful
and inclusive process. Most importantly, it has strong support in the community. I'd like
to reiterate what Ned Woodbridge said about the comprehensive plan in the rural fringe
areas in the ETJ. On page 2-3 and throughout the document, it states, "In our rural fringes
areas of the city in the ETJ, we see contiguous stage growth, which is fiscally and environmentally
sound, reduces fragmentation and sprawl, discourages premature development, and conserves the city's
environmental and natural resources. Conservation development, which retains rural character,
protects open space and greenways, enhances development value, and provides greater land
use pattern choices to landowners. While the land use element does not seek to impede approved
developments in outlying areas, it does support rational stage development in the fringe,
and it discourages approval of additional large-scale planned developments until currently
approved developments approach build out." On page 2-14, it specifically talks about
managing growth at the edge and states, "Conservation development is an approach to the design of
rural residential subdivisions, which is highly suited to agricultural fringe areas where
the retention of rural character and open space is desired." Item 2.14 states, "Protect
rural character and scenic open space at the city's edge to promote the achievement of
the preferred growth concept, preferred land preservation plan, and the flum. Craver Ranch
clearly violates the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The land use description for Master Plan Community
in the Comprehensive Plan mentions providing connectivity to other developments throughout
the city. Craver Ranch will not provide connectivity to other developments throughout the city due
to its remote location. It violates the Comprehensive Plan by leapfrogging development, which creates
fragmentation and sprawl, the exact things that the Comprehensive Plan deems undesirable."
From page 2-1, the consequences of the sprawl trend has been experienced in longer auto
trip lengths, greater levels of congestion, strained environmental and fiscal resources,
and challenges for public services and facilities to keep up with the demands of this rapidly
enlarging development footprint. The Denton Development Code under Chapter 1 clearly gives
instructions to implement the city's Comprehensive Plan and other tenants. These two are being
ignored. Why is another MPC needed and in such a remote location? Denton has several
MPCs, including the Hunter Cole Ranches, the Hills of Denton near I-35 north of Loop 288,
and another one north of Discovery Park with much better accessibility to transportation
and businesses. With Craver Ranch, there is no connection to pedestrian and bicycle networks,
to transit, shared spaces, or local businesses, and retail businesses won't be built until
much later phases in the project. It will be an island unto itself.
As you can see, Craver Ranch violates the Comprehensive Plan and the DDC and is not
an example of the type of smart growth the Comprehensive Plan advocates for the Outer
French. I ask that you please deny Craver Ranch's three proposals and adhere to the
current 2040 Comprehensive Plan's tenants. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Any other members of the public wanting to speak before I close the public
hearing? Yeah, come on up. State your name and address and you have four minutes.
My name is Beth Leonard and I live at 3470 Shepherd Road. I can sit on my front porch
every day and look at the beautiful Craver Ranch and their historic houses right across
from me. I've enjoyed the opportunity to live out there for over a decade. One of my
biggest complaints about development, which I'm not anti-development, is when there is
not a master plan. I also commend all of the master planners here and whoever else was
involved in coming up with something that isn't piecemeal and that there is a master
plan and a bigger vision. I think that's really important. I really commend that effort. However,
I can tell with everything that's been said here tonight that there's a lot of perhaps
missed steps, perhaps some greater concerns that maybe haven't been fully fleshed out
of the people that live out there. Many of the people who spoke here tonight have lived
out there way longer than myself. I came into their community, but most of the people that
surround me have been there for generations and they're watching this outer loop, big
master plan development encroach on everything that has been special to their family. Just
out of respect for that, I think it's cause for pause to take into consideration the concerns
of the community and to not perhaps forever not do anything to the Craver Ranch, but to
make sure that the community that surrounds it is more involved and has all of their concerns
addressed. I'm not here to say to vote for or against it. I'm just saying that with everything
said here tonight that there's reasons to perhaps pause and take into consideration the obstacles
and concerns of the community, which clearly have not been fully addressed. Thank you.
This is a public hearing. Anyone else? Not seeing anyone, I will close the public hearing
for... I'm sorry, I take that back. There's part of our rules and procedures for public
hearings wherein the applicant after the public has spoken has the option, if they would like,
to come up and address any of the issues in a rebuttal phase. You don't have to take this.
If you don't choose to take it, then the public hearing will be closed. If you would like
to take it, then only the members who spoke in the first phase of the public hearing may
come up for only one minute to have the last word to address anything. So it's your decision
as to whether you'd like to do that or not. Question, is it one minute per item like our
engineer would like to speak and then also I would like to address? Sorry, the one minute
is for the members of the public. The applicant, I believe, gets a total of two minutes. Okay.
There were lots of issues raised, so we'll do... It's five minutes reasonable? Yes. I'd
like the engineer to also address some items. Sure, come on. Some of the items I just wanted
to address was that I would like to go back to the variance. The only piece for the thoroughfare
plan variance is in orange. That's internal to the site. It is not external to the site,
so it is not affecting anybody but future residents within the property. I did not mention
that we are minding all the environmental corridors. Those are set aside, so we have
done that. With regard to the water and everything, I would like our engineer to address that.
Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to address that and a couple of other things. As Alexa just mentioned,
all the roadways proposed are within the property. We are not impacting any property off outside
of this property at all. From a transportation plan, we've done three separate transportation
studies using the exact models provided to us by the city. The city staff challenged
us to go back and change those again. We've modified them three times to show that every
time that the existing roadway system would work and we would be able to make the roadway
improvements as the project went forward. That's been the way projects have been built
forever, and that's the way every project's been done in Denton as well. Additionally,
from the water standpoint, we are drilling wells to use water from 2,200 feet deep, not
from the city's water system, for the irrigation of the open spaces and natural areas. But
we've also agreed with the city, as soon as the city's current wastewater treatment facility
is upgraded to use wastewater reuse, we will accept that on the site to make this a very
sustainable environmentally sensitive project. I will additionally say there's been questions
about the infrastructure and the cost of it. The city engaged their own economic analysis,
and after all the, the city consultant said that after all the maintenance was taken care
of and all the infrastructure was taken care of, there was over $106 million of in surplus
tax revenue to the city after all maintenance items were taken care of. Our actual study
shows that it's more than $35 million a year, not over 40 years. So there's a significant
economic benefit to the city overall. Thank you.
Thank you. Yeah. So members of the public, if you spoke the first time, you may come
down for up to one minute more. I would ask though that your comments need to be restricted
to the subjects that the applicant addressed. So that includes the infrastructure costs
and tax or fiscal impacts. That includes the well water used for irrigation of public spaces
and then being replaced with gray water after that. And that includes, what was the first
thing? Yes, the wildlife corridors and the environmental impacts as well as the mobility
plan road, just clarification that it's the orange segment in the middle of the property
that is changing and only the roadways within the property would be improved. Yes. So yes,
if you spoke the last time and you'd like, then you can come down for one minute.
Sir, well, I appreciate that those wells will go down 2,200 feet. I have run cattle on the
Craver for a long time and the wells that are presently there are absolutely dry and
of no use. My concern is that according to Mia who spoke earlier, there is going to be
a large trend of these kinds of developments coming in through this corridor. The Trinity
and Woodburn aquifers are already exceedingly low and have been on the V climb for decades.
How is this going to adversely affect the balance of those who are needing that water
in our wells for our agricultural use in your perimeter who are now going to be taxed even
greater on the volume of water available because of the possibly temporary nature of the wells
you're digging now? And what would be the retirement date and the remediation processes
for these wells once they were installed? Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like
to address? Hello. I guess to go more on I guess the infrastructure costs, but I guess,
again, torn on this, but one thing that would make me feel a bit better on this would be
looking into ways, like I know it brings in more, but that's if the development goes the
way and we don't know that there's no guarantee on the economic development of this with trends.
You never see the one that gets you, like for economic conditions, but instead of doing
lighted signals at intersections like roundabouts and the such, I don't know how much that pencils
out for you and willingness to talk to DCTA to work out for public transit because if
you can't get to work, if you work in the city and you don't have a car in that, I mean
that's also the city, if you work in downtown and you don't have a car, you can't really
live in Craver Ranch if that happens. Thank you. I see. Okay. Was it Brian? Mark. Mark.
Mark. Okay. Thank you. With all due respect, I did notice that you guys are attempting
to address the mobility plan, but you guys do have a PD and when you have a PD, the roads
and those improvements listed within that PD is taken for the gospel. And so part of
the PD, you show these roads in these locations and so they do cause effect. They affect my
property as well. And so that was my concern I presented to you. And so my issue is with
the development of the adoption of the PD and the roads that are within it, it doesn't
really have any adjustment for flexibility to it. So that's all I have. Thanks. Sorry,
I have just one question. I remember from your earlier comment that you live on the
border. Yes. Is that north of this property? My property, looking at this map, if you see
where the Gribble Springs Road, where the letter S is, at this bottom right-hand corner.
Ah, yes. Gribble Springs Road. Got it. If you see that little, where the S is, my property
is at that intersection where the three roads intersect. And so at those three roads intersections,
if you look at the DIT and development code, the requirements for spacing, for those types
of intersections, for those types of roads, that doesn't work. Okay. What was being proposed
and that's my concern. So thank you. Thank you. Yeah, there's, I think. It's Ned, correct?
Ned Woodbridge again. To address some of the economic issues. As a former corporate CFO,
I always laugh when someone would come to me and say, but look at the revenues we're
going to generate on this, with no mention of the costs. That's what I heard today on
that presentation earlier. I did hear a little bit of the discussion just now that maintenance
costs, but that's just a small part of it. If you, again, I point you to Chuck Morrone's
analysis at Strong Towns. You go and look. Yes, next year, year one, after the infrastructure
is developed, there's very little maintenance. But what happens when all that has to be replaced?
That's where the major cost comes in and that's a burden on the city or in an MMP. Maybe it's
a burden on the people who live there. I don't know which. That was my point earlier. Anyhow,
be careful about how you read what you're hearing because I have great skepticism on
that. The second thing is, please be wary about, we need to solve that water problem.
That water needs to come from the dam or whatever, not from wells. Thank you.
Again, Patricia Adams. Okay, so sticking with the topics that we're to discuss, all I heard
after all the responses from the people who live out there that are worried about traffic
and other impacts and just putting 28,000 to 30,000 people on the roads was money. Money,
money. This is how much benefit it is, how much everybody's going to make. Y'all are
here tonight to determine land use and zoning and I ask that you focus on that and that
we apply those standards and not the money. Thank you.
Thank you. Would anyone else? Yes. I'm just going to make a follow up question
about the water. Again, Olivia Lilly. Our grandparent's well is dry and we have two
wells on our property that we put in ourselves because we had to, to live there. We are tapped
into the Trinity. It is 1800 feet down and it's been said out in our area, every time
somebody goes and sells a larger portion of land, how many wells are going to go on those
properties? It's just adding more straws to the same drink. And so water is a problem
for all of us in Texas. It's going to be a big problem out there. I understand that's
your solution. I don't think it's a longterm solution. Thank you.
Okay. But anyone else who spoke before like to have the one minute? I don't see anyone.
Thank you. With that, I will close the public hearing. Sorry. 5A CA25-1 PD25-3 for B and
MPA25-3A for C and close those public hearings at this time. Open it up for discussion or
questions of staff from the commission. Yes. Commissioner McTade.
A question from staff regarding changes and amendments to the comprehensive plan. What
are the steps in the process? I'll start and then Haley can add or correct
me if I'm wrong. We do have this process as an application process where a property
owner can request to have an amendment that is an application process that we have posted
on our website as well as provided for in our DDC. Subsequently, and I think more familiarly
probably what we've seen is they're typically staff initiated where it's a policy, we've
been given direction from the PNC or city council to further explore an area more or
we've been receiving significant development inquiry. And again, we've received some type
of direction to take on a staff initiated change to the comprehensive plan amendment.
The most recent one I can think about if I can throw that in there that you all heard
was the corridor on 380 on the east side of town. So the comprehensive plan amendments
have come before you and that's the most recent one I can think of.
Yes. Go ahead. Excuse me. So part of the process is a public
hearing? Yes. This is part of the process.
And this would be the process. Thank you. If I could, I would just add everything Mia
said is correct. The code does allow for this process to be initiated by city staff, by
the planning and zoning commission, by city council or by a landowner or their representative.
So we are following that process. It is utilized maybe not as frequently as the zoning tool,
but these come before you all a handful of times per year. And it follows the same process
that you're familiar with in zoning where we encourage the neighborhood outreach, but
it's not strictly required. They have a public hearing at PNC and then it goes to city council
with your recommendation and council is the final decision maker. I'm also at a public
hearing. Thank you. Commissioner Dyer.
For city staff, just to kind of piggyback on commissioner McDade's question. Obviously
this area was annexed into the city limits in 2008, 2009 with the intention that in the
future it was going to be a large development. So, um, is staff able to say why it was not
included in the 2030 or the 2040 plan if staff already knew that this wasn't the intention?
I'm not, I'm not sure. Um, that's what my reference in the backup was as far as no documented
discussion on, on why there is in the minutes of when this was annexed, there is discussion
that development wasn't anticipated. Um, that's there, but as far as why it wasn't considered
in the didn't 2030 or, um, um, in, in that plan, I'm not sure. And then I think the didn't
2040 plan was a minor update. So if you look across the feature land use, um, map, a lot
of those designations are the same where they've carried over trends and transition to what
we would then we now call them in the didn't 2040.
Okay. Thank you. Um, just to add to that net a little more light, often, um, if development
is not eminent or has not been applied for at that time, um, the staff P and Z council
or the consultants helping us on plans will default to what the existing land use is as
a placeholder until such time as something comes along. So to me, his point, those future
land use map updates that were made with the 2040 plan were very limited in scope to those
areas where development interest had been expressed at that time or may have already
occurred in the map was not updated, um, previously. So very limited in scope.
And I'm curious if staff can answer this. Cause that was one thing I thought of, you
know, you look at, for example, landmark where that property was purchased in the eighties.
And so that took almost 40 years. I mean, 30, 34, 35 years for it to come to the plan
and do what, you know, we're doing right now with Craver Ranch. So if you think about it,
you know, 2008, 2009 to 2025, you know, that's essentially 17 years ago. So maybe, you know,
with staff thinking that this, we got like 10 more years, we can do it at the next review,
you know, cause you review that every five years. So that's why I was just kind of curious
like, you know, what that discussion was. Sure. And, and to me at this point, I don't
believe there was any specific discussion with that limited scale update of the plan,
um, from the 2030 to the 2040 plan. Um, the agriculture use is often just a placeholder
knowing that that's the existing use and the land can stay with that. It's the same thing
that happens when properties annexed into the city. It automatically is assigned an agriculture
zoning for that purpose as a placeholder until development occurs. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner
Kettresett. So I would like to hear more about the Gribble Springs road intersection and
how that may or may not be, you know, encode. Um, so I'll look to Chandra, um, our transportation,
um, from our transportation team. Um, I speak to the current alignments on the mobility
planets, which are seeing there, um, that has that, that crossing. It's a sort of realignment
of Gribble Springs road, um, and shepherd road to be one. Um, and then the primary or
secondary arterial that's shown that, uh, intersects it, but I'll defer to Chandra.
Good evening commissioner Chandra city traffic engineer. The road that is shown in our mobility
plan actually intersects, uh, as a straight connecting road. Uh, it will be a connecting
road either to the north of Gribble Springs, or it could be shifted. Staff has the authority
to shift the roadway 1000 feet and there is a mound going on the north south road. So
it could be shifted for the east as well. So it's not a, um, set on stone. These are
just a 30 foot, 30,000 foot level lines on a map. So this could be shifted either way
and uh, planned, uh, as the phasing and the development happens.
I think maybe some of the, just to clarify some of the confusion is when I hear intersection
spacing conflict, I think a point of an intersection is nearby another point, but I'm not sure
I understand where that other point is. Are you familiar enough with the area to speak
to that? Yes. Okay. So as you see, uh, this dotted green lines, that is the actual, uh,
lines on our mobility plan. So the PD changes to say, uh, it's shifting to like a blue lines,
right? So it shift us within 1000 feet. They could do that. That is, uh, legally allowed,
but if it's more than 1000 feet, that's where they're doing this PD change from it's crossing
that, uh, floodplain. So they're shifting 1900 feet approximately. So that's why that
roadway change, this gray line has come forward because it's more than the thousand feet shift.
But if they want to move this blue line that's connecting here, little up north, that is
doable. So every line that is shown, it's really, uh, a road that is needed. It doesn't
have to be on Gribble Springs. It could go north, it could go south, it could go east
or west within the 1000 feet limit. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Uh, I'm going to bring it
back to the, the last question Mia. Um, because I, I just want to get a little bit more clarity.
I know none of us woke up yesterday in 2013 or 2014 when the public process was ongoing
for the 2030 plan. Uh, it, it seems to me, and I think one of the public members of the
public actually read a portion of the plan that specifically says, um, we, we should
essentially encourage the existing MPCs, which I'm aware of Hunter Coal and then, um, what's
the one on, on the northeast side of the loop and 35 Hills of Denton. Um, are, are those
built out now? I do not believe so. I know Hills of Denton has not. Um, I don't believe
that they started construction. And then, uh, what were the other ones? Landmark is
under construction. Um, coal is under construction. They're kind of just getting started, right?
Right. Okay. So, so I understand the process of updating the comp plan and I could understand,
I completely understand why the, the 2040 plan update just left that as is. It wasn't
a major point that we looked at, but the 2030 plan wrote that language that says we should
encourage these before we go afar. And, and so my, my confusion and I appreciate staff's
answers. I think there was one answer that, well, with within this process of a limited
to sort of the, the comprehensive plan amendment of a public hearing notice and then pass,
we wouldn't suggest changing the vision statement or, or that type of verbiage, right? Because
that's sort of a more fundamental change. Um, I'm just confused. Like, do you see or
does staff see this as an example of what the text in the comp plan is saying that we
should fill up these existing MPCs before? Yeah. Yeah. So in, in my analysis, I tried
to capture the, the, there, there are somewhat of competing goals in a Denton 2040 plan and
it's not, um, inherently competing. It's, it's based on the subject or the property
of the development that you're talking about at the time. Um, like this one is helping
us achieve some housing goals. It's helping us achieve some open space goals. It's helping
us achieve some development goals that are in the comprehensive plan. Um, but it does,
it does speak to some of the sprawls, some of the things that we've heard, um, um, this,
this evening. Um, so, um, always Haley to add something here, but I think, I think that
the, that, that staff acknowledges that there's some, some conflict here and we have an application
at hand that we're, we're trying to take advantage of an opportunity that's coming forward, or
we're recommending approval of taking advantage of an opportunity that's coming forward, um,
with this development of a property. Those properties, like we mentioned earlier, the
other, uh, MPCs are developing. Um, there's zoning changes with them. There's active projects
that are going on with those. So staff is in the meantime also encouraging the growth
and the, and the actual, um, construction of those and processing that, um, through
this is an application that we have on hand that we feel is, is, is also helping us meet
and achieve some of those goals within the, the comprehensive plan. And the reason that
the, the comprehensive plan amendment is a part of this also is cause that is, needs
to be a part of the discussion. Do we feel that the, the master plan community future
land use designation here is, is appropriate? And if, and, and, and in the context the applicant
has presented their full idea in this case, and not just the blanket, do we feel that
MPC is appropriate? Okay. If that makes sense. Yeah. Thank you. Questions or discussion?
Commissioner Dyer. Um, I know that I asked this, um, in our workshop, but just to, um,
you know, and for the crowd and those watching that may not have been watching the workshop,
can you please just address the whole leapfrog thing? Um, cause I know we talked about it
a couple of weeks ago when this was first introduced to us, um, to start, you know,
giving us some background information and just examples of Denton going a little bit
farther out from the center of the city and doing that typical, you know, growth where
you started, started the center and kind of work your way out. Why there have been some,
you know, different developments like a ropes and ranch, like a coal ranch hunter landmark,
you know, all of that. Um, if you could just kind of address that place. Yeah. So clearly
this is a 2,500 acre property that is on the Northern edge of the city. It is farther.
It is far from the city center. That's, that's not something that we're saying is not the
case. Um, there are some other things to consider though. This is the, with the 2,500 acres,
it's one property owner. So it's allowing us the opportunity to, um, um, deal with one
property owner in the full development of this property. It's not, um, that the properties
between that property and the city of Denton, um, are not developing. There is some challenges
with developing those properties. There's floodplain that crosses through there. Um,
but we have received interest and inquiries in the development of those properties. So
while this is, this is kind of remote to the, uh, the city of Denton, um, it, it isn't,
it is holding, uh, are offering things that are, are able to support the, the development
and the residents that is proposing. Um, so it is kind of proposing to be a community
within itself. Um, but it does also, um, like I said, an opportunity to develop with, with
one property owner and then, um, um, it, this is not to say that the properties between this
development and the, the core city of Denton wouldn't develop, um, as well. Thank you.
Everybody's quiet tonight. Uh, Commissioner MacDuff. I will say, uh, I knew this was coming.
I didn't know that we'd be considering it this, in November, this time of year, you
know, we first started talking about it October. Well, that said, I think that Mia, Miss Hines,
you've done a good job in addressing these concerns. What I hear, I heard two big things
besides the, the resource concerns, I'll call them, uh, the outer loop in the mobility.
I'm not sure if we've addressed that fully, but also the thing that struck me the most,
and I think Brian Denny has gone, has left the building, right? Miss Anderson, what he
said struck me and I thought about that today. Uh, and he said, I just want this development
to be done well and proper, properly to honor my mother's legacy. So I think what we have
to say is, are all these things, can we get these in line with, can we bring these concerns
in, can we address them so that Mary Denny's legacy is honored well and properly?
I would say the, the proposal as it is before you tonight is, is what it is. I think I'd
have to defer to the applicant on any, um, changes on the, on the plan.
Absolutely. Thank you.
Sure. So I'll just remind the commission that as we deliberate, our opportunity now
is to explain, um, if there are specific or long-term planning things, whatever it is
that, um, that we like about this or that we are concerned about, let's, let's make
those clear to staff, um, so that they can, uh, take that feedback in, in the future,
um, for, for this and others. Um, I'll, I'll say a few things. I, I really appreciate,
um, staff, you know, clarifying, hey, it's a difficult application and, and there are
some things like develop, like planning out the 2,500 acres at once allows you to do some
unique things. Um, and, and when you look at our comprehensive plan, there's, there's
a lot of goals, right? There's, and so a large application like this is going to help
in many of those. It may be contrary to some of them as well. Um, and, and I appreciate
you saying that because I'm going to try to be very specific about, um, what concerns
I have, not just in this and that concern, but in this is my concern because I believe
it should be a higher priority than some of the other goals, right? And I imagine that's
a, that's an iterative process to understand what the direction is. Um, so, so I'll try
to go quickly. Um, but I have a few things here. So, um, appreciate the, the staff presentation
showing kind of the, the other development in the, um, Collin County portion of the outer
loop and some of the things around Salina. Like my feeling when I read the comprehensive
plan and I talked to other people in Denton is that we're not dreaming of becoming a city
like Salina. Um, TextDOT is going to do what TextDOT does. Uh, I think this is a prime
example of, um, uh, quite honestly, TextDOT carrying through a very long-term planning
process. Um, but we've seen that they're saying, well, we're still considering these
other roads and we're going to do an environmental clearance and then make a decision. Um, at
the same time, Texas is one of the few state DOTs that has the ability to do its own environmental
clearance instead of the federal government doing that. Um, and it seems obvious to me
that, that the, the end goal is known by people in certain rooms and not explained openly
in the open meetings that TextDOT has. And so I'm sorry for that, but we don't have any
power over TextDOT. Um, that's also a concern for me because we don't have power over them,
which means that all the connecting roads between the developed portion of Denton and
the Craver Ranch, um, we cannot help our residents deal with that, right? Short of no longer
having budget crunches and having to freeze staff salaries, which we did this year, uh,
so that we can hire more lobbyists to go to Austin and beg for more transportation money
that we don't have any control. Um, the, there was something that I want to address in, in
the staff backup, um, where mobility plan, uh, showing these roadways was talked about
as one of the reasons why now this area is ready for development. There's a very circular
process. Um, I'm happy to be corrected in the future because I don't think it should
happen this way, but what I've seen is that we put lines on a map and as shown by the
mobility plan amendment, they're not always exactly where they make sense to go. Um, but
we, we put those lines there, yes, to some extent for planning, but also because if we
draw lines there, we can put them in our 10 year CIP, which then justifies a impact fee
study so that we can collect enough money to build them. Um, and, and so this, it's
the circular process of, you don't want to be behind on impact fees. So you put the lines
on the, on the map, even if it's designated as rural and you know, if it stays rural,
you'll never build it, right? But you do those so that you can raise impact fees so that you
can get money and build them. And then when you build them or you plan to build them,
well, of course it shouldn't be rural anymore. Um, so, so transportation planning wags the
tail of land use planning in Texas and I don't think that's the way it should be. Um, the,
the thing I would say just overall that is the highest priority for me, I've heard it
from several residents, but I don't know about the commission as a whole is the fiscal concerns.
Um, I understand a study was done. I understand that this process started two years ago to
develop this plan. And then I understand that, Oh, we got the fiscal impact study maybe six
weeks ago. That's backwards. And I understand, I say that understanding that you can't have
everything figured out at the beginning. But when I read our comprehensive plan, it says
the purpose for doing conservation development at the fringe for doing infill for doing additional
housing types, all these types of things that are actions in our comprehensive plan. One
of the main reasons why that was done is to grow Denton in a way that makes us more fiscally
strong in the future instead of less. Okay. Uh, and, and there's a whole lot of that in
the first chapter introduction of the comprehensive plan to back that up. Um, as I look at this
particular, uh, fiscal analysis and just so everybody's aware of the way this happens
with very large developments like this, um, the developer basically pays for a third party
company to do the analysis on their plan. Um, so, so the analysis was done not by the
city and not by the applicant, but by someone else who, who was paid to, to do it as contract
work. Um, when I look at that, I see several shortcomings that do concern me, right? Um,
I'll just say that in general, it, it pretends like costs in the future are going to be the
same that they have been in the past for the city, um, per some metric. One of the, um,
just as an example of this, right back when we were doing the 2019 bond package, um, there
were questions about, okay, how does this, uh, how does some of the roadway projects
pencil out and are we going to be able to afford maintaining them? Um, so there was
some discussion then about how much do we spend on maintenance? And the, the response
that we got from staff was, well, um, not all of our roadways of the 1600 lane miles
are being maintained. Um, and, but for the ones that are being maintained because they're
in good enough repair that small maintenance would give them a longer life, um, would,
uh, would, were costing roughly 6,000 or $11,000 a year amortized to maintain. So, so this
fiscal analysis, just because of the methodology, which is very clearly laid out, um, assumes
that these roads, uh, are going to cost $4,300 a year to maintain, right? And not only that,
but call it $9,000 a year in 2019 with construction inflation for roads is more like 15 or 16,000
a year. Um, so, so I look at all those things and I add up these numbers and the end result
I get is a, uh, roughly, you know, call it 300 to $400 million deficit, um, at the end
of this period that somebody has to pay. And, uh, as, as we heard, some members of the public
are nervous about that. So to me that's a very high priority. Um, the challenge is how
do we build a community that our residents like, enjoy, where we don't have to start
raising and raising taxes to start rebuilding roads and pipes, um, in the future. And, and
in order to do that, we have to start the process of considering new development from
the perspective of how can we achieve these things that residents want while also achieving,
um, better fiscal stability so that we're not asking our children to pay for things.
So commissioner catcher said, it seems to me like there's a lot of things that are unanswered
still including this Gribble Springs road intersection. So I motion to table this certain
of December 17th, uh, 2025 meeting.
Let me just ask a procedural question for a public hearing. Once we've had the public
hearing and we closed the public hearing, if we continue it before a vote, is it just
come back as a item for individual consideration and we vote on it then?
Well chair, um, I would say you have discretion to reopen the public hearing because, um,
everyone who would need to be noticed that the public hearing was still happening at
December 17th this year in the room. Um, and that would be my recommendation.
Okay. Thank you. So with that we have a motion to, um, table, uh, to a date certain of December
17th. Is that your intention? Okay.
Yes. Oh, um, all of the items. Let's see. Let me pull them up.
Yeah. The five, five a, b and c. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Dyer.
Can I just ask what additional information you're hoping to get between now and then
to be able to do a vote? Well, so I asked the question about Gribble
Springs and I didn't actually get an answer from that, um, for sure. Um, and I think we
still maybe could get a little bit more clarification on the water, um, usage because we had another
person come up, you know, and reiterate how they're having water issues right now. And
I think maybe we could revisit that as well with more information.
Is there a second for the motion? Not seeing one. We'll, uh, we'll continue and be open
for a, for a motion or more discussion. I, I think honestly, um, uh, commissioner McDade.
Okay. So there's just for clarification, there's the comprehensive plan map amendment, which
changes the future land use from rural, uh, individually, right? But, but two of them
are technically amendments to the comprehensive plan because the mobility plan is a component
of it. Um, okay. Okay. So five a, um, to, uh, amend the comprehensive plan for a future
land use designation from rural residential to, or from agriculture to master plan community.
Okay. Is there a second for the motion? Commissioner Dyer. Sorry. I will second that, um, motion
to go ahead and approve that we, um, move the current designation of agriculture to
the, um, I'm losing it. Master plan community, future land use. But I've, are we going to
have a discussion just a little bit more? Cause there's a couple of things I'd like
to say. Okay. So, um, actually with all three, I feel very comfortable, um, voting in favor
of them. I read all the emails that I got and I heard everything and this is where it's
hard because you're balancing out all these homeowners needs and the community needs and
the property owners needs. And one of the things, some of the things I would like to
say is this is a level of trust between a developer in a city that we as a board in
voting for this is, is giving you. And I would really hope that both the city and the developer
would listen to the citizens comments because these are your neighbors. And as you heard,
some of these individuals have been here for generations. And when you have a development
of this size, I mean, I live in an area right now. I live in ropes and ranch and we have
ropes and ranch and we have what North Lake is doing across the street and we now have
landmarks. So I'm in it. I I'm in where you guys may be in the next five to 10 years,
um, when you get to it. So, so I do have a heart for that. So I would really encourage
the city staff and the developer to work together. Um, and the city council, I know city council's
not here, but work with your city, um, elected officials, work with your county elected officials,
work with your state elected officials, because obviously Craver ranch is not the only, this
is the largest in that area, but there are other smaller developments coming. Even, you
know, Ms Mia said that they've got other applicants who have been, you know, talking about developing
some of the other neighboring areas on this road, figure out a way that water and road
can be met. The needs can be met without it before it becomes a problem because this isn't
going to be built for three years and it's not like you're going to have, you know, 9,000
door fronts in five years. Like this is a, you know, from today until it's done, you're
talking like a 20 year process, but be forward thinking and please find a way to get all
of this done. So these people sitting in the audience, the homeowners who are watching
on the internet and those who are not making it and future homeowners, because some of
these people are going to sell their lands. There's, there's vacant lands. There's a vacant
land across the street. That's for sale. That's going to be purchased one day and built on.
So just be good, be good neighbors and figure out a way for the city to support citizens
for the developer of Craver to make sure that everybody can kind of find a way so that the
hardship is not so hard. Any other? Like I said, this is our opportunity to explain what
we like and what we don't. Okay. Okay. With that, seeing no further discussion, I'll call
for a vote on the board. That item passes four to two. We still have two other items
that we need a motion for. I'll ask that we go ahead and I'll just do it. I will move
that we adopt the proposed mobility plan amendment for this. While I'm not in favor of the rest
of this plan, thank you. I, I see this as honestly just cleaning it up regardless of
whether this, uh, this development happens or not. Uh, this, this mobility plan shouldn't
have a line going through, uh, the sideways on a flood point. Uh, commissioner Macduff.
Oh, yes. I will second, uh, that motion to approve the thoroughfare map of the 2022 mobility
plan amendment. Any discussion? Not seeing any. I'll call for a vote on the board. That
item passes a five one and we're open for, uh, more discussion or emotion for the remaining
public hearing commissioner Dyer. I would like to make a motion that we move to approve
this area going from rural residential to a plan development district. Commissioner
catcher said, I second that any discussion, no comments. Yeah, I'll just say, um, this
will be a continuation of, um, suburban growth in Northern Denton and Collin County. Uh,
it will cause Denton to have to raise taxes significantly 40 or 50 years from now and
our children will be paying for it. Uh, commissioner Garland. Um, I will go ahead and say that
I have to be honest that I have received a lot of pressure from people outside of our
community to pass this, um, which is something that immediately makes me suspicious when
I feel like there are outside pressures. Um, especially when it's evident that there isn't,
there doesn't seem to be a lot of community support. Um, I think that the neighbors made
some extremely valid concerns tonight with regards to water and the environmental impact.
Um, as it sits, I love the idea of a master plan community. Um, I thought the homes were
beautiful. I thought everything looked great. Um, it looks like somewhere I would want to
live, but I do think that there is quite a bit that still needs quite a few discussions
that need to be have and need to be had. And, um, yeah, it's just, there's a lot I live.
Um, I commute down Sherman, I turn right on the loop and in an effort to make a commute
to South Dallas every single day. And so I battle that traffic as it exists now. And
so I do think everybody is very valid in their concerns of what that impact of just having
so many people in a space is going to look like. Um, and so, yeah, we'll see any other
discussion, not seeing any, I'll call for a vote on the board. That item passes four
to two. Um, I'm going to call a five minute recess just to let the commission stretch
their legs and let the room empty out. We will reconvene at nine 34 PM. And with the
record in present, we will reconvene after the recess, brings us to item five D, uh,
MPC 25 dash one.
This is a rezoning for approximately 19.6 acres from master plan community zoning district
to a master plan committee with a mixed use, uh, regional based zoning district. Um, it
will also amend the Hunter ranch MPC development map as well as, uh, related exhibits. Uh,
the zoning is currently surrounded by that coal ranch MPC to the North and the West.
And then the landmark, um, now or landmark, futurely known as Hunter ranch, uh, MPC at,
to the South East and Northeast. Uh, currently the property is open pasture and it does have
confirmed and potential ESAs on site. Um, the current zoning, which is that master plan
community district is not enforceable by the city because it does not have a base zoning
district. Um, the total acreage, uh, would be approximately within that Hunter and, uh,
ranch MPC would now be, uh, approximately 3,187 acres. Uh, staff did look at the approval
criteria within the Hunter ranch MPC in section 2.4.5 E. Um, one of the areas I want to focus
on is that Denton 2040 plan. Um, the future land use for this area is that master plan
community, uh, which does apply to large scale multi-phase developments, which is the, uh,
the Hunter ranch MPC is one of those. Um, it does, as I stated, add that approximately
19.6 acres to the Hunter ranch MPC development plan, but it does remain consistent with that
future land use map. Um, additionally, um, it is consistent with action item two dot
11 dot one, um, by allowing or providing a mix of housing types and uses. Public outreach
was done, um, in the newspaper website and signs were posted on November 6th. Um, mail
notices were sent to that 200 foot, um, area and that 500 foot buffer. We did not receive
any responses. Staff is recommending approval of the request as it complies with that criteria
section 2.4.5 E of the Hunter ranch MPC for approval of all applications. And this is
scheduled to go to city council on December 16th. Um, and I do want to invite the applicant
to come up to address that, uh, request of that MR based zoning that was, uh, brought
up during work session. Thank you. Let me go ahead and open the public hearing at this
time for MPC 25 dash one and you can come on up. Good morning commissioners. Andrew
Piper with Hillwood communities, a 3000 Turtle Creek Boulevard Dallas, Texas. Um, so this
is a unique opportunity for us. Uh, this tract is owned by the diocese of Dallas. Um, we
have the property under contract. Uh, we hope to close, uh, hopefully with, with the zoning
that's consistent with our MPC. Um, so the MR zoning, uh, is really, we feel consistent
with the zoning up and down the highway, uh, and the, um, the setback from 35. Um, can
I put the map back on? Yes. So you can see the dark purple is MR. Um, we do have some
MN to the West, you know, whether, whether this is MR, uh, or not, we're still adjacent
to MN with our current MR zoning. Um, this piece of property is unique in that it sits
in the Northwest corner of future, all red, um, interchange on 35. Um, currently that's
already an overpass. There's no on off ramps. Tech stats plans include a full interchange
there. Um, that would, uh, once that's complete, um, those are four intersections, excuse me,
four corners, uh, solely in the, um, city of Denton. This has the opportunity to really
be one of the largest intersections in the city. Um, and certainly south of, of the city.
Um, so this, this MR zoning we feel is consistent with not only the property around us, but
also what's coming in terms of these four intersections. Um, because of this property,
we can now kind of curve John Payne a little bit and make that Northwest corner a little
bit larger. And so with that larger intersection, having consistent zoning in that whole Northwest
quadrant, we think is, is, uh, is vital and it gives us the best flexibility to create
a good commercial corridor. So, um, it is at a future phase, you know, largely will
be dependent on 35 improvements being complete before we get there. Um, so more to come,
but, um, the MR zoning, we think is, is the best fit.
Okay. Any questions from the commission? I'll try to keep this quick. I, I'm trying to,
I really don't like having to read tea leaves. You know, I'm reading tea leaves from staff
on previous items. I, is it really just that the plan of this is a big shopping center
and you need MR because MN has the front parking requirement that you don't have front parking?
Like, like, is that it? It's just, we're, we're building like razor ranch version 17.
Yeah, I would say, yeah, with the addition of this property, there could be this Northwest
corner, um, you know, could be split MR and MN. And so you just have this artificial divide
in the middle of the corner that would, you know, create some inconsistency with uses
and prohibit some, um, you see what I'm saying? I mean, there's a line demarcation of zoning
between MN and MR, uh, now in that Northwest corner, um, which is a very active corner.
So do you not see? I actually, I need your help cause I don't see it. Yeah. Cause what
I understand is that there's a roadway to the east of the subject parcel and there will
be an extended and rerouted John Payne road to the south. Yeah. And the adjacent MR zoning
is to the east across the North South road and everything else is MN around it. North
Southwest. Is that correct? Sorry, I was looking at the screen while you, can you maybe just
repeat your question? So, so maybe I was looking at it wrong and please educate me. Yeah. Okay.
This helps, I think. So, so are we saying that the, the small property between the subject
rectangle and the West and South up until you hit the dashed red and green lines is
already MR? Correct. Okay. And so now with that, that answers my question. When I looked
at the map, it looked like it was MN to me. So, well, there is some MN at some point to
the North. Yeah. But, but between this subject property and the planned intersection location.
Is that what you're referring to? Yeah. Yeah. Cause it's just, when everything's orange,
it's because of the MPC coloring. The purple shades of purple is probably the best reference.
Okay. So really both sides of the highway. Is this dark purple? Sorry. Well, and this,
this one's kind of not very good. I, I think I understand now. So thank you. Yeah. So it's
really just consistency really up and down. I mean, the sites, about around a thousand
feet setback from the highway, which is that MR zoning up and down, but really both sides
of the highway exceeds a thousand feet. So it's really kind of consistent with our frontage
up and down. Okay. 35. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? After I made a fool of myself
not understanding the map, I guess it's a good thing I'm not in cartography commissioner
Dyer and, and it says a public hearing. If anybody would like to speak, you're welcome
to come down. Not seeing any motion that will close the public hearing. Thank you. Commissioner
Dyer. I would like to go ahead and make a motion that we approve the rezoning of a master
plan community to an mixed use MR region. Very good. Commissioner catcher said I second
that motion. Okay. Any other questions? Discussion? Seeing none. I'll call for a vote on the board.
That item passes six zero moves us to item five E as 25 dash 10. Good evening chair members
of the commission. Ashley exit associate planner. This is S 25 10 joyful journey group home.
This is a request for a specific use permit to allow a group home use on approximately
0.4 acres of land located on the southwest corner of sandpiper drive and Abbott's lane.
The existing zoning is our three and the future land use is low residential as discussed in
the work session. There are other similar uses in this neighborhood. There are other
community homes. There is one to the south of this parcel and there's also a community
home on Skylark and on chapel. There are no other group homes in this neighborhood. This
business will provide 24/7 care to a maximum of six residents. That care will include things
like assistance with meals, medication management, and daily living activities in a home like
setting. They will not be proposing any exterior alterations to the existing single family
structure. These residents do not drive. So any vehicular traffic will consist of staff
and visitors. It does meet the criteria for approval. It's consistent with the dead in
40 comprehensive plan. It's compatible with the surrounding area. It's not expected to
generate adverse fiscal impacts and utilities and infrastructure already serving the property.
It does meet the low residential future land use which includes single family neighborhoods.
It also complies with other goals of the plan including developing a housing stock that
means the needs of all residents and encouraging the development of options for senior housing
with a variety of unit types and cost choices. As we're posted in the newspaper on the website
and signs were posted on the property, we mailed out notices to everyone within 500
feet. We have received two responses in favor shown here on the map in blue for a total
of around 11% of the land area within 200 feet and the applicant also held two neighborhood
meetings. Staff does recommend approval with the conditions in your backup. The next step
is this is scheduled for city council on December 16th. Happy to answer any questions and the
applicant is also here for questions. Any questions for staff? No. At this time I will
open the public hearing. I have one card wishing to speak for Marcel Huffman. Hi. I'm Marcel
Huffman. I live at 11620 Airway Boulevard in Roanoke. This is my home. So a joyful journey
is has been in operation for 14 years on the Abbott's Lane in Denton. Not a lot of people
were even aware that this exists. It's a small home. We have six residents and we're looking
to expand and use the home actually right next door and have an additional six residents.
So I spend my days with the elderly helping them with various needs and this is a growing
need in the community. I have requests all the time for people to come and take residency
but unfortunately we just don't have the beds. So this is as our population you talk about
growth all evening. 70% of our population is aging out and most of them do need help
at some point and not all families can provide that. So that's where we step in. We provide
the assistance and the care that they need in a loving home environment so that they
can essentially age in place. So I'm open to questions. Any questions? Okay. Thank you.
This is a public hearing. If you'd like to speak on this item you're more than willing
or more than welcome. Seeing no movement I will close the public hearing. Open the floor
for discussion or motion. Commissioner Garland. I would like to make a motion to approve.
Commissioner McDade. I will second that motion. It's a motion to recommend approval. Anymore
discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board. That item passes 6-0. Brings
us to item 5F, S25-13. Ashley Eckstad, Associate Planner. This is S25-13, Milo Installation.
This is a request for a specific use permit for a medium impact manufacturing use to permit
household insulation production in one suite in an existing building. This is located west
of Worthington Drive and south of Shuler Street. The material used to produce this insulation
is biodegradable, all natural and made from milled grain sorghum seeds. The production
process is said to sound like an air compressor and smell like popcorn or baked bread. The
entire production process will be done inside of the existing structure. So the noises and
smells will not be heard or smelled outside of the building. It does meet the criteria
for approval. It's consistent with the goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the LI Zoning
District Statement. It's not expected to generate adverse impacts and utilities and infrastructure
are already in place. The LI Purpose Statement provides for light manufacturing, assembling
and fabrication. This is considered a medium impact manufacturing use due to the use of
raw materials in the production process. It is low intensity manufacturing and in an existing
industrial area. This map on the screen shows some of the surrounding uses. There's auto
repair, low impact manufacturing, outdoor storage and office uses in this area. The
light industrial future land use provides for light industrial and supporting commercial
uses and activities. So it does conform to the phone goals and purpose. It also achieves
our goals of growing compactly and improving the city's job to worker ratio. Signs were
posted in the newspaper on the website and a sign was posted on the property. We mailed
out notices to everyone within 500 feet. We have not received any responses in opposition
or in favor. Staff does recommend approval with their conditions in your backup and this
item is scheduled for City Council on December 2nd. Happy to answer any questions.
Any questions? Commissioner Dyer? What's the condition that staff is recommending?
So the conditions are that it's limited to the 4,500 square feet within suite 100. They
can't alter the building or any areas of the building without a new SUP.
Okay. Thank you. I will open the public hearing at this time. You're welcome to come down
and speak if you'd like. I don't see any movement, so I will close the public hearing and open
the floor for discussion or a motion or questions for staff. Commissioner Dyer?
I would like to make a motion that we go ahead and approve the special use permit with the...
I just lost the word. Staff recommended...
The staff recommended... Conditions. Conditions was a word that my brain just went blank on.
Yes. Commissioner Garland?
And I will second that. Very good. Not seeing any more discussion. I'll call
for a vote on the board. That item passes 6-0 and brings us to our last public hearing
of the night, item 5G DCA 25-2.
Good evening, Julie Wyatt, presenting DCA 25-2 legislative updates. As we discussed
in the work session, the purpose of this DDC text amendment is to address conflicts in
the code with new state law that was adopted with the 89th regular session of the legislature.
There's three bills that really impacted the Denton Development Code. The first one is
Senate Bill 1567. It applied to cities that had a population of less than 250,000, but
also had a university that had an enrollment greater than 20,000. Denton falls within that.
It prohibits regulating the number of occupants of a dwelling unit based upon age, familial
status, occupation, relationship status, or relation, but it does allow occupancy regulations
related to the square footage of a bedroom. In particular, each bedroom in a dwelling
that is 70 square feet could have one person, and then an additional 120 square feet would
allow for two people. That would be the basis of the occupancy. That conflicts with our
current Denton Development Code, which states that a maximum of four unrelated persons may
occupy a dwelling. The proposed change would strike that language, which is inconsistent
with state law, and really using that state law straightforwardly as that basis for occupancy
in the city of Denton. We're also proposing to change our definition of bedroom so that
it gives a little more clarity as what could be considered a bedroom, using that international
building code as well as the square footage, and then also changing our definition of family
to remove that familial relationship, just so it's nice and consistent with all state
law. The second bill is Senate Bill 2464. This is related to home-based businesses,
and it establishes a no-impact home-based business, and it says cities may not prohibit
the operation of those no-impact home businesses. Those are things that would not generate any
on-street traffic, would not create any negative impacts, or even be visible from the street.
For all other home-based businesses, it wouldn't fall within that no-impact home-based business.
Cities can prohibit specific uses, but we cannot require the rezoning or installation
of fire sprinklers in a single family or duplex. We can also regulate fire and building code,
health and sanitation, transportation or traffic control, waste, pollution, and noise. Use
is incompatible with residential neighborhoods scale, that is, the home-based business needs
to be secondary to the dwelling unit, and limitation on prohibition for alcohol sales,
so we're living and sexually-oriented businesses. The proposed changes would update our table
of allowed uses to allow home-based businesses across our zoning districts, and then also
provide additional standards and our use-specific standards to update them so that they're consistent
with that state law. Providing for those things that the city can regulate, and also for that
no-impact home-based business. Also providing the definition of no-impact home-based business
based upon the state law definition. Then finally, House Bill 24. This is related
to notification and protest requirements. This is probably the one you're going to see
the most here. It establishes some different levels of notification. First, we have a comprehensive
zoning change that is defined as a city-initiated zoning change that would allow more housing
and applies to one or more zoning districts, would be an adoption of a new zoning code
or map that implies to the entire city, or adoption of a zoning overlay that allows more
housing and is along a major roadway, highway, or transit corridor. Comprehensive zoning
changes only would require the newspaper and website notice, then they would be exempt
from any protest. That would be that 20% of property owners within 200 feet of the subject
property. Other zoning changes, which allow additional housing or meet specific standards
for mixed-use development, would follow the previous practice for notice, but would require
written notice of at least 60% of property within 200 feet of the subject site. If it
reaches that threshold, a majority of city council members, for example, four out of
seven members or four out of five members who are present at a meeting, would be required
to approve that. All other zoning changes, so if it was from HI to LI, would remain the
same process. Our DDC updates are really just updating our defined protest procedures so
that they are, and notification procedures so that they are consistent with this requirement.
The proposal meets the criteria for approval. It's consistent with the comprehensive plan.
It doesn't conflict with other provisions, and they are needed to ensure consistency
with state law. Public outreach was sent out, and staff recommends approval as it is consistent
with state law and the criteria for approval. It is tentatively scheduled for December 16th
if it moves forward tonight, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Questions for staff? I will open the public hearing. If anyone would like to speak on
this item, you're welcome to. I see no motion, but I see laughs, so I will close the public
hearing. Yeah. Commissioner Ketcham said. A motion approval for the proposals to the
DDC. And Commissioner Garland? And I second that motion.
I have a question/comment, Julie. For the first item, 1567 for occupancy, can you help
me understand why we didn't just do a simple red line like that doesn't exist anymore and
why we - it seems like every opportunity we have to simplify our code, we add more stuff.
And I look at the additional specificity of a bedroom, and it's not this and this and
this, and it is this, and you have to have so many square feet per person for occupancy,
and I don't think that's ever going to be enforceable, right? Like, it's a home.
Well, we did meet with our building safety group to discuss just that, especially the
enforceability. And that's really why we came up with the revision to the bedroom definition,
to be more consistent with the International Residential Code, so that all of these items
marry. They have minimum requirements for a bedroom to be considered a bedroom. It has
to have egress, and it has to have a minimum 70 square feet. So it really did align quite
nicely. We also added a provision that the bedrooms need to be labeled on the building
plans so that we as a city can understand what rooms in a home would be considered a
bedroom. As far as applicability, yeah, we don't issue certificates of occupancy for
residential dwellings, but there could be situations where maybe our code of ordinances
talks about overcrowding, where there could be a health and safety issue that the city
would need to address. And in that case, having some parameters in which we can look at to
see if we're following our policies and regulations and to make sure that we can apply them fairly
is with the intent of having this. Thank you for that. I appreciate that honest
explanation. I wish that... I'll just say two years ago the DCRC said we don't like
these silly occupancy limits that have roots in classist and racist histories, and we didn't
do anything until state law changed, and now all of a sudden we do something. It's not
a big deal. It's just I don't understand why we can't move faster than that. So any other
comments or questions from the commission? Chair, I would just add you'd be surprised
how many conversations we've already had to have, and you rely on the standard for various
things that people have attempted to do, knowing that this law has been passed. So the numeric
standards are helpful, and we are finding them to help with enforcement issues for concerns
that have been raised already. Please come to me and surprise me instead
of me flailing and trying to guess why we are supporting things. Any other questions?
Yes, Commissioner McDade. With the changes to the wording to the code,
the living room could be a sleeping area. People can sleep in the living room, right?
Well, hold on. Let me check my definition. Make sure I don't misquote it. All right.
So it's really kind of two parts to that. So a bedroom can mean any room used predominantly
as a sleeping room other than a living room, family room, dining room, kitchen, bathroom,
closets or utility room. And the reason for that is how we define a dwelling is you have
to have sleeping area, you have to have sanitation, you have to have a place to cook, and you
have to have a place to live. So those parts of the house that are really needed to be
considered a dwelling are ones that are exempted from that. But things like dens or studies,
bathroom room like that, media room, those could be changed to a bedroom provided that
they have the proper egress and then the square footage.
Any other questions? Okay. Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That item passes
6-0. Brings us to our Planning and Zoning Commission matrix.
Yes, I don't believe we had any changes to the matrix this time. A few council updates
just last night. We had three cases that you all have recently seen that were approved.
The zoning change on McKinney Street that came to you all as MN but you recommended
R7 was approved as R7. And then the plan development at the corner of Brush Creek and 377 was approved
as well as the plan development amendment for that charter school on Vintage near I-35W.
And one other thing I did want to note since our last meeting in October, Erin Stanley
has left the city of Denton to go work for the much larger and more exciting city of
Boston. So we're very sad to see her go but happy for that opportunity for her to go be
a planner in the city of Boston. So just wanted to let you all know why you were seeing various
other staff in place of Erin on the agenda tonight.
Any additions to the matrix? Yes, Commissioner McDonough.
Yes, I did have something else to say. Obviously, I still need to discuss the best practices
for responding to developer and city inquiries. So I'm just wondering if I'm not saying let's
do it next week at our next meeting. But anyway, I'd like to move that.
Yes, I do believe we have that as well as the notification item coming next month.
Great. Thank you for taking note of that. Any other matrix items? Not seeing any. Brings
us to item 7, concluding items. Anyone have any concluding items? Ah, Commissioner Dreier.
I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving. Yes, very good. With no objection, I will
We'll adjourn our meeting at 10, 12 p.m.