WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.000
 Good afternoon, at 5.33 p.m. on Wednesday, January 14th, with the quorum present, we'll

00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:20.120
 call this work session of the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission to order.

00:00:20.120 --> 00:00:31.340
 Our first item is any in-person comments on the Consent Agenda, are there any?

00:00:31.340 --> 00:00:34.680
 Not seeing any.

00:00:34.680 --> 00:00:43.240
 We will go to the clarification of the items in the agenda, so any questions on the Consent

00:00:43.240 --> 00:00:45.120
 Agenda?

00:00:45.120 --> 00:00:47.360
 No?

00:00:47.360 --> 00:00:51.360
 Okay.

00:00:51.360 --> 00:01:02.360
 Items for individual consideration, there was one that got emailed out to us, but yeah,

00:01:02.360 --> 00:01:19.960
 so for A, Mia.

00:01:19.960 --> 00:01:36.200
 Good afternoon, Chair, any presentation on this?

00:01:36.200 --> 00:01:42.760
 The Item 4A, the individual consideration, FP25-28.

00:01:42.760 --> 00:01:48.080
 Mia Hines, Senior Planner, filling in for Angie, to present this plat, this is the reserves

00:01:48.080 --> 00:01:55.440
 at Brush Creek, a final plat that is for about 15.5 acres for a property located on the north

00:01:55.440 --> 00:02:00.960
 side of Brush Creek Road, approximately 392 feet east of US 377.

00:02:00.960 --> 00:02:04.780
 At this time, the plat is not meeting all of our criteria for approval, so we will be

00:02:04.780 --> 00:02:09.840
 recommending denial, however, we have no objection to the requested extension to February 11th,

00:02:09.840 --> 00:02:10.840
 2026.

00:02:10.840 --> 00:02:14.320
 I haven't answered any questions on this one.

00:02:14.320 --> 00:02:16.020
 Any questions?

00:02:16.020 --> 00:02:18.720
 Is this our third extension?

00:02:18.720 --> 00:02:22.200
 I believe it is the fifth.

00:02:22.200 --> 00:02:26.840
 How many are they allowed?

00:02:26.840 --> 00:02:30.600
 They are allowed as many as they would like.

00:02:30.600 --> 00:02:32.600
 Okay.

00:02:32.600 --> 00:02:39.320
 They are allowed to request as many as they would like?

00:02:39.320 --> 00:02:47.440
 Does the reasoning matter, there are certain things they have to get ready?

00:02:47.440 --> 00:02:55.160
 With this particular one, the reserves at Brush Creek have been working through some

00:02:55.160 --> 00:02:59.680
 agreements regarding the funding of the Brush Creek improvements that will be coming through

00:02:59.680 --> 00:03:05.920
 with that CIP, and that's just been taking a little bit of time to get together.

00:03:05.920 --> 00:03:10.720
 Our approvals of the civil engineering plans are contingent upon that finalized agreement,

00:03:10.720 --> 00:03:14.800
 and the approval of the final plat is contingent upon those civil engineering plans.

00:03:14.800 --> 00:03:19.780
 At this time, that's the only item to be worked out, but our recommendation will remain the

00:03:19.780 --> 00:03:21.600
 same until such time it is.

00:03:21.600 --> 00:03:22.600
 Okay.

00:03:22.600 --> 00:03:23.600
 I'm just curious.

00:03:23.600 --> 00:03:24.600
 Okay.

00:03:24.600 --> 00:03:25.600
 Anything else?

00:03:25.600 --> 00:03:26.600
 No?

00:03:26.600 --> 00:03:34.480
 Okay, thank you, Mia.

00:03:34.480 --> 00:03:40.200
 Next item, I think, is also Mia's, FP25-38.

00:03:40.200 --> 00:03:41.280
 Yes.

00:03:41.280 --> 00:03:44.960
 This is a final plat for the Hickory Grove multifamily addition.

00:03:44.960 --> 00:03:49.360
 This is just over a 40-acre property located on the north side of West University Drive,

00:03:49.360 --> 00:03:54.720
 approximately 200, 2,800 feet west of Goldenhofe Drive.

00:03:54.720 --> 00:03:59.040
 Similarly, they are not meeting all of our criteria for approval at this time, but we

00:03:59.040 --> 00:04:04.280
 have no objection to the request extension to a date certain of February 11th, 2026,

00:04:04.280 --> 00:04:07.400
 and this is their first extension request for this item.

00:04:07.400 --> 00:04:08.400
 Okay.

00:04:08.400 --> 00:04:09.880
 Any questions?

00:04:09.880 --> 00:04:10.880
 No.

00:04:10.880 --> 00:04:13.540
 Thank you.

00:04:13.540 --> 00:04:19.080
 Next up is PP25-5.

00:04:19.080 --> 00:04:20.480
 This item is a...

00:04:20.480 --> 00:04:23.280
 Mia Hines, senior planner, filling in for Sean.

00:04:23.280 --> 00:04:26.680
 This item is a preliminary plat for Roselon Meadows.

00:04:26.680 --> 00:04:31.160
 This just about six-and-a-half-point-acre site is located on the north side of Roselon

00:04:31.160 --> 00:04:34.960
 Drive east of the existing South Bonneberry Street.

00:04:34.960 --> 00:04:40.200
 Similarly, they are not meeting all of our criteria for approval at this time.

00:04:40.200 --> 00:04:45.580
 This was the extension request that came in later in the day, so they have submitted that

00:04:45.580 --> 00:04:49.600
 extension request and staff has no objection to that, which could be granted to February

00:04:49.600 --> 00:04:50.600
 11th, 2026.

00:04:50.600 --> 00:04:51.600
 Sorry.

00:04:51.600 --> 00:05:01.800
 That will be fixed for the regular session, the date there.

00:05:01.800 --> 00:05:02.800
 Okay.

00:05:02.800 --> 00:05:03.800
 Third.

00:05:03.800 --> 00:05:04.800
 Third extension on this item.

00:05:04.800 --> 00:05:05.800
 Yes.

00:05:05.800 --> 00:05:06.800
 I did read that up there.

00:05:06.800 --> 00:05:08.640
 I don't know if I missed it on the other one I asked about.

00:05:08.640 --> 00:05:11.640
 It wasn't on that one.

00:05:11.640 --> 00:05:12.640
 Okay.

00:05:12.640 --> 00:05:13.640
 Yeah.

00:05:13.640 --> 00:05:14.640
 Okay.

00:05:14.640 --> 00:05:15.640
 Any questions?

00:05:15.640 --> 00:05:16.640
 I don't see any.

00:05:16.640 --> 00:05:17.640
 Thank you.

00:05:17.640 --> 00:05:19.960
 Brings us to our public hearings.

00:05:19.960 --> 00:05:22.880
 The first item is Z25-18.

00:05:22.880 --> 00:05:36.360
 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Bryce VanArsdale, assistant planner.

00:05:36.360 --> 00:05:44.160
 This is Z25-0018.

00:05:44.160 --> 00:05:49.840
 This is a request to rezone approximately 0.74 acres from residential three to residential

00:05:49.840 --> 00:05:50.980
 seven.

00:05:50.980 --> 00:05:55.760
 This property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bolivar Street

00:05:55.760 --> 00:05:57.760
 and Taliaferro Street.

00:05:57.760 --> 00:06:03.040
 Generally, this request is consistent with the low residential future land use map designation

00:06:03.040 --> 00:06:09.000
 as well as the comprehensive plan and development code, the development code.

00:06:09.000 --> 00:06:10.560
 Staff is recommending approval.

00:06:10.560 --> 00:06:14.800
 One thing to note with this request is that while this request does provide for greater

00:06:14.800 --> 00:06:19.160
 density than we typically expect within a low residential future land use map designated

00:06:19.160 --> 00:06:24.960
 area, it is consistent with the development pattern of the area over time, which has several

00:06:24.960 --> 00:06:29.960
 different uses in the area, such as single-family, duplexes, quadplexes, multi-family, and some

00:06:29.960 --> 00:06:31.800
 supporting commercial uses as well.

00:06:31.800 --> 00:06:35.880
 I have a longer presentation that I'll present at the public hearing, but I'm happy to stand

00:06:35.880 --> 00:06:37.880
 for any questions.

00:06:37.880 --> 00:06:42.000
 I don't see any.

00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:44.000
 Thank you, Joyce.

00:06:44.000 --> 00:06:53.640
 Our second public hearing will be 5B CA25-5.

00:06:53.640 --> 00:07:02.880
 Chair, there is a joint presentation for this item and the next item if you want to call

00:07:02.880 --> 00:07:03.880
 those.

00:07:03.880 --> 00:07:04.880
 Sure.

00:07:04.880 --> 00:07:18.240
 Item 5B, the comprehensive plan amendment is to change the comprehensive plan and future

00:07:18.240 --> 00:07:24.840
 land use designation from agricultural flume and low residential flume to regional mixed

00:07:24.840 --> 00:07:31.320
 use for a property located just north of West University Drive, south of that Legends Ranch,

00:07:31.320 --> 00:07:37.280
 Hickory Grove mud area in the city's ECJ.

00:07:37.280 --> 00:07:41.000
 This if you kind of recall some of the other items that we've heard, comprehensive plan

00:07:41.000 --> 00:07:48.120
 items that we've heard is just to the west of that item or those properties.

00:07:48.120 --> 00:07:53.520
 The property itself is just under 25 acres and then the second request for this is a

00:07:53.520 --> 00:08:09.960
 rezoning from RR and R2 to that is incorrect that actually should be suburban corridor.

00:08:09.960 --> 00:08:10.960
 Let's use this slide.

00:08:10.960 --> 00:08:12.240
 Sorry about that.

00:08:12.240 --> 00:08:16.920
 So the first request is a comprehensive plan amendment from the agriculture and low residential

00:08:16.920 --> 00:08:21.600
 future land use designation to the regional mixed use future land use designation and

00:08:21.600 --> 00:08:28.600
 then the zoning request is a request to change from zoning of R2 to the suburban corridor

00:08:28.600 --> 00:08:29.600
 district.

00:08:29.600 --> 00:08:34.040
 The purpose of these requests is to entitle the property for anticipated commercial development

00:08:34.040 --> 00:08:40.680
 given the Hickory Grove also known as the Legends Ranch municipal utility district to

00:08:40.680 --> 00:08:44.520
 the north within the city's ETJ.

00:08:44.520 --> 00:08:48.840
 I won't go over the history too much in detail as we've kind of been discussing this item

00:08:48.840 --> 00:08:53.340
 over the past couple of meetings but just to give you a brief reminder that municipal

00:08:53.340 --> 00:08:57.900
 utility district to the north of this property is a special purpose district created to provide

00:08:57.900 --> 00:09:02.660
 essential services such as water, waste water and drainage to areas outside the city limits.

00:09:02.660 --> 00:09:08.000
 This property or the subject property for this item was identified within that mud development

00:09:08.000 --> 00:09:12.720
 agreement for future commercial and so at this time the applicant is just following

00:09:12.720 --> 00:09:19.040
 suit with the proper entitlements for that to occur for them to develop the property

00:09:19.040 --> 00:09:20.200
 with commercial land use.

00:09:20.200 --> 00:09:24.040
 I do have a more in depth presentation in the normal or in the regular session but I'm

00:09:24.040 --> 00:09:29.520
 happy to answer any questions that you all have at this time.

00:09:29.520 --> 00:09:32.520
 Anybody?

00:09:32.520 --> 00:09:39.720
 Half of a question Commissioner Dyer?

00:09:39.720 --> 00:09:47.600
 This is the one at our last meeting in December where we were talking with people from the

00:09:47.600 --> 00:09:53.200
 roads department and they were talking about text out and all the turns and we voted on

00:09:53.200 --> 00:09:54.200
 all that stuff.

00:09:54.200 --> 00:09:56.800
 This is just another extension of that?

00:09:56.800 --> 00:09:57.800
 This is that same area.

00:09:57.800 --> 00:09:58.800
 Okay.

00:09:58.800 --> 00:09:59.800
 Awesome.

00:09:59.800 --> 00:10:00.800
 This is that property right here.

00:10:00.800 --> 00:10:01.800
 Okay.

00:10:01.800 --> 00:10:02.800
 Thank you.

00:10:02.800 --> 00:10:13.980
 Anything else?

00:10:13.980 --> 00:10:24.160
 That's our last public hearing and we do not have any work session reports.

00:10:24.160 --> 00:10:25.160
 Sorry.

00:10:25.160 --> 00:10:27.840
 No, we don't.

00:10:27.840 --> 00:10:28.840
 This week.

00:10:28.840 --> 00:10:41.940
 At 543 p.m. we will recess and reconvene at 630 in council chambers for the regular session.

00:10:41.940 --> 00:10:46.280
 Thank you.

00:10:46.280 --> 00:10:47.280
 Good evening.

00:10:47.280 --> 00:10:51.640
 It's 630 p.m. on this Wednesday, January 14th.

00:10:51.640 --> 00:10:55.640
 With the quorum present I will call our regular meeting to order.

00:10:55.640 --> 00:10:59.600
 Our first order of business is to stand and say the Pledge Allegiance to the U.S. and

00:10:59.600 --> 00:11:00.600
 Texas Flag.

00:11:00.600 --> 00:11:07.600
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

00:11:07.600 --> 00:11:19.840
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

00:11:19.840 --> 00:11:33.880
 Under the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one indivisible.

00:11:33.880 --> 00:11:40.520
 Brings us to our first action item 2A, PZ 26-252.

00:11:40.520 --> 00:11:45.800
 Consider approval of the December 17th planning and zoning meeting minutes.

00:11:45.800 --> 00:11:49.120
 Open the floor for a motion or discussion.

00:11:49.120 --> 00:11:50.120
 Commissioner Riggs?

00:11:50.120 --> 00:11:52.440
 I'll make a motion to approve.

00:11:52.440 --> 00:11:53.440
 Commissioner Garland?

00:11:53.440 --> 00:11:55.520
 I will second that.

00:11:55.520 --> 00:12:09.320
 Motion to approve by Commissioner Riggs, seconded by Garland, I'll call for a vote on the board.

00:12:09.320 --> 00:12:12.680
 That item passes 6-0.

00:12:12.680 --> 00:12:19.220
 Brings us to our consent agenda.

00:12:19.220 --> 00:12:22.720
 Open the floor for a motion.

00:12:22.720 --> 00:12:23.720
 Commissioner Garland?

00:12:23.720 --> 00:12:26.240
 Motion to approve the consent agenda.

00:12:26.240 --> 00:12:27.720
 And Commissioner Dyer?

00:12:27.720 --> 00:12:29.040
 I second that motion.

00:12:29.040 --> 00:12:32.000
 It's a motion and a second.

00:12:32.000 --> 00:12:41.640
 Not seeing any discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.

00:12:41.640 --> 00:12:44.360
 That item passes 6-0.

00:12:44.360 --> 00:12:53.160
 Brings us to our first item for individual consideration for a FP 25-28 for final plat

00:12:53.160 --> 00:12:57.640
 at the reserve at Brush Creek.

00:12:57.640 --> 00:13:06.880
 Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.

00:13:06.880 --> 00:13:11.560
 This item is a final plat for the reserves at Brush Creek.

00:13:11.560 --> 00:13:17.720
 The property is approximately 15.437 acres, located just on the north side of Brush Creek

00:13:17.720 --> 00:13:22.120
 Road, approximately 392 feet east of US 377.

00:13:22.120 --> 00:13:25.840
 At this time, the plat is not meeting all of our criteria for approval, so we are recommending

00:13:25.840 --> 00:13:26.840
 denial.

00:13:26.840 --> 00:13:30.460
 However, staff has no objection to the requested extension, which could be granted to a date

00:13:30.460 --> 00:13:33.400
 certain of February 11, 2026.

00:13:33.400 --> 00:13:36.440
 This would be the fifth extension for this plat.

00:13:36.440 --> 00:13:40.280
 At this time, I'll happily answer any questions we have.

00:13:40.280 --> 00:13:42.480
 Any questions?

00:13:42.480 --> 00:13:43.480
 Not seeing any.

00:13:43.480 --> 00:13:45.160
 Commissioner Dyer?

00:13:45.160 --> 00:13:50.240
 I will make a motion that we approve the request for an extension to February 11th.

00:13:50.240 --> 00:13:51.240
 Commissioner Garland?

00:13:51.240 --> 00:13:53.240
 I will second that motion.

00:13:53.240 --> 00:13:54.920
 Motion and a second.

00:13:54.920 --> 00:14:02.600
 Seeing no discussion, I'll call for a vote on the board.

00:14:02.600 --> 00:14:04.960
 That item passes 6-0.

00:14:04.960 --> 00:14:13.200
 4B, FP 25-38 is the final plat for Hickory Grove.

00:14:13.200 --> 00:14:16.560
 Evening again, Mia Hines, senior planner.

00:14:16.560 --> 00:14:20.160
 This item is a final plat for the Hickory Grove multi-family addition.

00:14:20.160 --> 00:14:27.000
 The property is 41.39 acres, located just north of West University Drive, US 380, and

00:14:27.000 --> 00:14:30.520
 approximately 2,800 feet west of Golden Hoof Drive.

00:14:30.520 --> 00:14:34.000
 At this time, the plat is not meeting all of our criteria for approval, so we are recommending

00:14:34.000 --> 00:14:35.000
 denial.

00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:39.120
 However, we have no objections to the requested extension, which could be granted to a date

00:14:39.120 --> 00:14:43.720
 certain of February 11th, 2026, and this would be their first extension for this property.

00:14:43.720 --> 00:14:47.760
 Happy to answer any questions.

00:14:47.760 --> 00:14:49.640
 Any questions or a motion?

00:14:49.640 --> 00:14:50.640
 Commissioner Garland?

00:14:50.640 --> 00:14:56.600
 Motion to approve denial and grant the extension based on staff recommendations.

00:14:56.600 --> 00:14:57.600
 Sorry.

00:14:57.600 --> 00:14:58.600
 Oh, sorry.

00:14:58.600 --> 00:15:01.160
 For the extension or to deny it?

00:15:01.160 --> 00:15:02.880
 Yes, for the extension.

00:15:02.880 --> 00:15:03.880
 Okay.

00:15:03.880 --> 00:15:09.280
 Motion to continue to February 11th, and Commissioner Ketcham said?

00:15:09.280 --> 00:15:10.280
 I second that.

00:15:10.280 --> 00:15:11.280
 Okay.

00:15:11.280 --> 00:15:13.400
 We have a motion and a second.

00:15:13.400 --> 00:15:19.720
 Call for a vote on the board.

00:15:19.720 --> 00:15:22.840
 That item passes 6-0.

00:15:22.840 --> 00:15:30.360
 Brings us to 4C, PP25-5B, preliminary plat for Roselon Meadows.

00:15:30.360 --> 00:15:34.360
 Good evening again, Mia Hines, Senior Planner.

00:15:34.360 --> 00:15:39.200
 This is a preliminary plat for the Roselon Meadows subdivision.

00:15:39.200 --> 00:15:45.160
 The property is approximately 6.494 acres, generally located just north of Roselon Drive

00:15:45.160 --> 00:15:53.720
 and east of South Bonneberry Street and west of the future Bonneberry Street.

00:15:53.720 --> 00:15:57.160
 At this time, the preliminary plat does not meet all of our criteria for approval, so

00:15:57.160 --> 00:15:59.160
 staff is recommending denial.

00:15:59.160 --> 00:16:03.480
 The applicants did get an extension request in later this afternoon, which was forwarded

00:16:03.480 --> 00:16:05.080
 to this body.

00:16:05.080 --> 00:16:09.240
 So staff has no objection to that requested extension, which could be granted to a date

00:16:09.240 --> 00:16:14.020
 certain of February 11th, 2026, and this would be their third extension for this property.

00:16:14.020 --> 00:16:18.240
 I'm happy to answer any questions that you have at this time.

00:16:18.240 --> 00:16:19.240
 Not seeing any.

00:16:19.240 --> 00:16:20.240
 Commissioner Riggs?

00:16:20.240 --> 00:16:26.280
 I'll make a motion to approve the extension to date certain February 11th, 2026.

00:16:26.280 --> 00:16:27.280
 Commissioner Garland?

00:16:27.280 --> 00:16:30.200
 And I will second that motion.

00:16:30.200 --> 00:16:31.200
 Okay.

00:16:31.200 --> 00:16:39.640
 Seeing a motion and a second, I'll call for a vote on the board.

00:16:39.640 --> 00:16:41.840
 That item passes 6-0.

00:16:41.840 --> 00:16:45.600
 Brings us to our first public hearing, Z25-18.

00:16:45.600 --> 00:16:53.520
 Good evening, Chair, members of the commission, Bryce VanArsdale, Assistant Planner.

00:16:53.520 --> 00:16:57.240
 This is Z25-18, Denton Duplexes.

00:16:57.240 --> 00:17:02.600
 This is a request to rezone approximately 0.74 acres from residential 3 to residential

00:17:02.600 --> 00:17:03.600
 7.

00:17:03.600 --> 00:17:08.240
 This site is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Bolivar and Taliaferro

00:17:08.240 --> 00:17:12.320
 streets, and this purpose is to allow for the development of duplexes.

00:17:12.320 --> 00:17:16.360
 The surrounding area is comprised of a variety of housing types, such as duplexes, single

00:17:16.360 --> 00:17:23.180
 family, quadplexes, multifamilies, all some supporting uses, supporting commercial uses.

00:17:23.180 --> 00:17:27.040
 The current zoning is residential 3, which comes with a minimum lot size of 10,000 square

00:17:27.040 --> 00:17:31.980
 feet and some associated setbacks with a 40-foot maximum building height.

00:17:31.980 --> 00:17:37.440
 The requested zoning district of residential 7 has a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet,

00:17:37.440 --> 00:17:41.160
 some similar setbacks, as well as a 40-foot maximum building height.

00:17:41.160 --> 00:17:47.320
 In regard to the Denton 2040 comprehensive plan and the future land use map, this area

00:17:47.320 --> 00:17:49.080
 is designated as low residential.

00:17:49.080 --> 00:17:54.040
 Typically, this would be predominantly single family areas with appropriately scaled commercial

00:17:54.040 --> 00:17:55.520
 uses.

00:17:55.520 --> 00:18:00.440
 This designation does come with a maximum density of five dwelling units per acre.

00:18:00.440 --> 00:18:04.600
 This request does provide for a little bit more than that, but it is consistent with

00:18:04.600 --> 00:18:08.040
 the development patterns of the neighborhood around it.

00:18:08.040 --> 00:18:12.720
 A few goals that this accomplishes that are in the comprehensive plan are land use goal

00:18:12.720 --> 00:18:18.360
 one, which is to grow compactly, land use goal three, to grow our assets, which is strengthening

00:18:18.360 --> 00:18:22.240
 and maintaining our current neighborhoods, as well as housing in neighborhoods goal one,

00:18:22.240 --> 00:18:27.160
 which is to develop and maintain a diverse housing stock, both in choices, costs, as

00:18:27.160 --> 00:18:30.240
 well as location.

00:18:30.240 --> 00:18:36.920
 With regard to the Denton development code, this request is in consistency with the R7

00:18:36.920 --> 00:18:37.920
 district purpose statement.

00:18:37.920 --> 00:18:42.040
 It maintains the existing character of the neighborhood, it addresses the need for missing

00:18:42.040 --> 00:18:47.880
 middle housing, and it is compatible with the surrounding area.

00:18:47.880 --> 00:18:52.960
 The criteria for approval is that this request is consistent with the R7 purpose statement.

00:18:52.960 --> 00:18:58.400
 It is generally consistent with the comprehensive plan and the future land use map goals and

00:18:58.400 --> 00:19:01.480
 the objectives set forth in those plans.

00:19:01.480 --> 00:19:06.280
 This proposed zoning and development would be compatible with the area surrounding the

00:19:06.280 --> 00:19:07.520
 city.

00:19:07.520 --> 00:19:10.080
 This project was notified in accordance to state statute.

00:19:10.080 --> 00:19:15.880
 We received four letters in opposition, which totaled 11.8%.

00:19:15.880 --> 00:19:19.600
 District does recommend approval of this, as it does meet the criteria set forth in

00:19:19.600 --> 00:19:22.120
 the Denton development code.

00:19:22.120 --> 00:19:23.200
 I'm happy to stand for any questions.

00:19:23.200 --> 00:19:28.200
 I do note the applicant is also here and has a presentation as well.

00:19:28.200 --> 00:19:30.200
 Any questions for staff at this time?

00:19:30.200 --> 00:19:31.200
 Yeah.

00:19:31.200 --> 00:19:32.200
 Commissioner Riggs.

00:19:32.200 --> 00:19:37.800
 I know you received four letters in opposition, but that was actually two people?

00:19:37.800 --> 00:19:38.800
 That is correct.

00:19:38.800 --> 00:19:39.800
 Okay.

00:19:39.800 --> 00:19:43.440
 So three of those letters are from a property owner who owns three properties within the

00:19:43.440 --> 00:19:48.160
 200 foot buffer area, and then there's a second property owner.

00:19:48.160 --> 00:19:49.160
 Okay.

00:19:49.160 --> 00:19:50.160
 All right.

00:19:50.160 --> 00:19:54.920
 And then how many duplexes could be put on this property?

00:19:54.920 --> 00:19:59.840
 So the concept plan, which is not at all set in stone, shows four duplex lots.

00:19:59.840 --> 00:20:02.720
 Whenever they get to that point, they will be reviewed to Denton development code standards,

00:20:02.720 --> 00:20:06.720
 which have their own landscaping, buffering, parking, all that sort of stuff will need

00:20:06.720 --> 00:20:13.720
 to be met by each individual lot on its own.

00:20:13.720 --> 00:20:14.720
 Okay.

00:20:14.720 --> 00:20:16.160
 I will open the public hearing at this time.

00:20:16.160 --> 00:20:25.920
 I don't see any more questions, Bryce, and I'll call up the applicant, Ms. Amy Bissett.

00:20:25.920 --> 00:20:29.920
 Good evening, Chair Pruitt, commissioners.

00:20:29.920 --> 00:20:30.920
 Happy New Year.

00:20:30.920 --> 00:20:36.920
 Give me just one moment to pull up a brief presentation, and we'll get started.

00:20:36.920 --> 00:20:46.440
 My name is Amy Bissett, 109 North Elm, Denton 76201.

00:20:46.440 --> 00:20:52.160
 As Bryce shared with you, we are proposing a duplex development on the corner of Bolivar

00:20:52.160 --> 00:20:53.400
 and Talia Farrow.

00:20:53.400 --> 00:20:56.200
 It's roughly three quarters of an acre.

00:20:56.200 --> 00:21:02.280
 Bryce is predominantly a single-family neighborhood, although there is a mix of duplexes and some

00:21:02.280 --> 00:21:09.340
 multifamily housing integrated in the surrounding area as well.

00:21:09.340 --> 00:21:13.760
 As Bryce also covered, I want to zoom out a little bit so you can see the development

00:21:13.760 --> 00:21:16.320
 pattern and zoning.

00:21:16.320 --> 00:21:21.800
 In this area, it's generally north of Sherman Drive along Elm and Locust, and there's a

00:21:21.800 --> 00:21:27.240
 mix of R3 zoning, R7 zoning, which is the pattern in the brown, and a little bit of

00:21:27.240 --> 00:21:31.480
 R4 zoning mixed in there as well.

00:21:31.480 --> 00:21:36.600
 An aerial overview of how the surrounding area is developed, you'll see our site outlined

00:21:36.600 --> 00:21:44.280
 in yellow, and then all of the areas outlined in red are duplex or multifamily-type developments,

00:21:44.280 --> 00:21:48.200
 and those outlined in blue are commercial developments.

00:21:48.200 --> 00:21:55.640
 While this is a single-family neighborhood in terms of the future land use plan, there

00:21:55.640 --> 00:22:03.000
 is an existing context here that this development would be considered consistent in terms of

00:22:03.000 --> 00:22:07.200
 scale and compatibility with the surrounding land uses.

00:22:07.200 --> 00:22:12.400
 I do also want to share a sentiment from the property owner, who is our client.

00:22:12.400 --> 00:22:13.560
 They're not a developer.

00:22:13.560 --> 00:22:18.760
 They're a family who has decided to make their first real estate investment here in the Denton

00:22:18.760 --> 00:22:20.120
 community.

00:22:20.120 --> 00:22:28.040
 They wish to develop a project that is compatible, that is nice in appearance and attractive

00:22:28.040 --> 00:22:35.960
 to neighbors, with patios and yards, and is scaled appropriately with the surrounding

00:22:35.960 --> 00:22:37.760
 context.

00:22:37.760 --> 00:22:42.200
 The concept plan, Commissioner Riggs, your question about how many duplexes can go on

00:22:42.200 --> 00:22:50.100
 this site, we did a concept planning exercise, and based on just the dimensional standards

00:22:50.100 --> 00:22:56.920
 associated with the R7 zoning district, there is no way to get more than four duplex buildings

00:22:56.920 --> 00:22:59.800
 on this site, which would be a total of eight units here.

00:22:59.800 --> 00:23:07.000
 You can see the way that we have it oriented in order to meet DDC requirements, those buildings

00:23:07.000 --> 00:23:13.580
 would face Taliaferro Street, and then we would provide access off of Bolivar to a shared

00:23:13.580 --> 00:23:19.120
 access easement across the four lots, and each lot would have four off-street parking spaces,

00:23:19.120 --> 00:23:24.580
 which does meet the DDC parking requirements as well.

00:23:24.580 --> 00:23:29.120
 We did hold two neighborhood meetings virtually in December.

00:23:29.120 --> 00:23:31.920
 Approximately 250 invitations were mailed.

00:23:31.920 --> 00:23:37.320
 We had a couple of attendees, one at each meeting, and then a couple of others who expressed

00:23:37.320 --> 00:23:40.340
 some interest that we followed up with.

00:23:40.340 --> 00:23:43.960
 We did hear a few concerns that I'm happy to share with you.

00:23:43.960 --> 00:23:50.440
 The first was increased traffic on these neighborhood streets, so I've provided the trip generation

00:23:50.440 --> 00:23:53.440
 tables on the next page for you to see.

00:23:53.440 --> 00:23:58.920
 The second concern is an increase in on-street parking and the current right-of-way width

00:23:58.920 --> 00:24:02.800
 to allow for room for on-street parking.

00:24:02.800 --> 00:24:08.080
 We do know that the developer, the property owner, will be required to dedicate right-of-way

00:24:08.080 --> 00:24:15.240
 along Taliaferro to widen that street, and early meetings with the city have indicated

00:24:15.240 --> 00:24:22.080
 that some improvements associated with Taliaferro may be required as well.

00:24:22.080 --> 00:24:27.880
 We have parked each lot with four off-street parking spaces as well.

00:24:27.880 --> 00:24:32.720
 We also heard some concerns about the removal of trees, and we did a preliminary tree preservation

00:24:32.720 --> 00:24:40.860
 plan and are currently showing preserving 14 of the 21 trees on-site.

00:24:40.860 --> 00:24:45.600
 Here are the trip generation tables that come directly from the Institute of Transportation

00:24:45.600 --> 00:24:47.600
 Engineers manual.

00:24:47.600 --> 00:24:54.280
 We anticipate a total of 58 trips per day that is entering and exiting the development

00:24:54.280 --> 00:25:00.560
 with a peak hour number of four in the morning within one hour and five in the evening within

00:25:00.560 --> 00:25:03.560
 one hour.

00:25:03.560 --> 00:25:04.560
 And that is all I have.

00:25:04.560 --> 00:25:10.200
 I'm happy to answer any questions, and thank you for your time.

00:25:10.200 --> 00:25:17.880
 Questions for the speaker at this time?

00:25:17.880 --> 00:25:18.880
 I've got one.

00:25:18.880 --> 00:25:24.200
 I think there's...is there a bus route that goes by here on Elm Street, is that right?

00:25:24.200 --> 00:25:27.520
 I believe there is, but I'd have to look it up just to be sure exactly where that stop

00:25:27.520 --> 00:25:28.520
 is.

00:25:28.520 --> 00:25:29.520
 That's fine.

00:25:29.520 --> 00:25:30.520
 Thank you.

00:25:30.520 --> 00:25:31.520
 Thank you.

00:25:31.520 --> 00:25:45.140
 Next up, we have Denise Galeta, if you come up and state your name and address, you'll

00:25:45.140 --> 00:25:46.140
 have four minutes.

00:25:46.140 --> 00:25:51.280
 My name is Denise Galeta, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak here tonight.

00:25:51.280 --> 00:25:56.000
 And I'm talking about Talia Farrow and Bolivar Streets.

00:25:56.000 --> 00:26:00.200
 I respectfully oppose the rezoning request.

00:26:00.200 --> 00:26:04.320
 The property is located within an established residential neighborhood that has long been

00:26:04.320 --> 00:26:09.920
 characterized by low density development consistent with R3 zoning.

00:26:09.920 --> 00:26:14.600
 The existing zoning reflects the scale, rhythm, and expectations of the surrounding homes,

00:26:14.600 --> 00:26:20.080
 many of which were built with the understanding that nearby parcels would remain compatible

00:26:20.080 --> 00:26:22.760
 in density and intensity.

00:26:22.760 --> 00:26:28.680
 Rezoning this site to R7 represents a significant increase in density that is out of character

00:26:28.680 --> 00:26:31.360
 with this immediate area.

00:26:31.360 --> 00:26:36.040
 While growth and housing diversity are important goals in Denton, they must be balanced with

00:26:36.040 --> 00:26:42.520
 neighborhood compatibility, infrastructure capacity, and long-term planning consistency.

00:26:42.520 --> 00:26:47.860
 So this rezoning would introduce a density jump that surrounding streets were not designated

00:26:47.860 --> 00:26:48.860
 to support.

00:26:48.860 --> 00:26:53.840
 Bolivar and Talia Farrow are narrow streets, and I know they mentioned they would widen

00:26:53.840 --> 00:26:56.200
 Talia Farrow.

00:26:56.200 --> 00:27:01.040
 And they already experience congestion from on-street parking, service vehicles, and daily

00:27:01.040 --> 00:27:02.840
 neighborhood traffic.

00:27:02.840 --> 00:27:08.920
 And increased density will inevitably bring more cars, more parking demand, and more traffic

00:27:08.920 --> 00:27:09.920
 conflicts.

00:27:09.920 --> 00:27:16.720
 Particularly like North Elm Street, which is so heavily driven there, I'm scared to

00:27:16.720 --> 00:27:17.720
 walk on the street.

00:27:17.720 --> 00:27:19.240
 They drive so fast down there.

00:27:19.240 --> 00:27:23.520
 But second, the proposed rezoning was setting the precedent.

00:27:23.520 --> 00:27:28.960
 Approving R7 zoning on a small infill parcel surrounded by R3 zoning opens the door for

00:27:28.960 --> 00:27:32.200
 similar requests elsewhere in the neighborhood.

00:27:32.200 --> 00:27:37.040
 Over time, this can lead to piecemeal erosion of the established zoning patterns, undermining

00:27:37.040 --> 00:27:40.920
 the purpose of Denton's zoning framework and comprehensive plan.

00:27:40.920 --> 00:27:45.280
 And third, the compatibility is not just about building height or setbacks.

00:27:45.280 --> 00:27:48.680
 It's about scale, livability, and quality of life.

00:27:48.680 --> 00:27:54.580
 Higher density development on this site could affect privacy, noise levels, stormwater runoff,

00:27:54.580 --> 00:27:59.200
 and tree canopy, all of which are important to the character and environmental health

00:27:59.200 --> 00:28:01.560
 of the neighborhood.

00:28:01.560 --> 00:28:07.000
 And then also note that Denton has other areas, particularly along major corridors, and already

00:28:07.000 --> 00:28:12.120
 high density zones, where R7 development is more appropriate and better supported by the

00:28:12.120 --> 00:28:17.120
 infrastructure, transit access, and existing land use patterns.

00:28:17.120 --> 00:28:23.040
 This site, however, sits within a transitional residential block, and it's not highly density

00:28:23.040 --> 00:28:24.880
 area.

00:28:24.880 --> 00:28:27.080
 And I'm not opposed to rezoning.

00:28:27.080 --> 00:28:29.160
 It's not against housing.

00:28:29.160 --> 00:28:34.120
 It's just a request that it should be thoughtful, contextual, and consistent with adopted plans

00:28:34.120 --> 00:28:36.640
 and existing neighborhoods.

00:28:36.640 --> 00:28:41.920
 And the current R3 zoning already allows for residential development that respects the

00:28:41.920 --> 00:28:47.520
 surrounding homes while still providing flexibility for thoughtful in-built.

00:28:47.520 --> 00:28:50.760
 There are duplexes along Bolivar.

00:28:50.760 --> 00:28:55.160
 There has been no compelling justification presented that demonstrates why the existing

00:28:55.160 --> 00:29:01.200
 zoning is inadequate or why this level of density is necessary at this specific location.

00:29:01.200 --> 00:29:09.280
 I mean, when I think of eight units and 16 parking spots, and people parking on the street,

00:29:09.280 --> 00:29:12.600
 it's just a lot of traffic.

00:29:12.600 --> 00:29:17.720
 So for these reasons, neighborhood compatibility, infrastructure concerns, precedence, and planning

00:29:17.720 --> 00:29:22.840
 consistency, I respectfully ask the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend denial

00:29:22.840 --> 00:29:26.240
 of this rezoning request from three to seven.

00:29:26.240 --> 00:29:31.640
 And I thank you for your time, and appreciate you listening to me.

00:29:31.640 --> 00:29:35.040
 Thank you.

00:29:35.040 --> 00:29:40.040
 Next up, I have Joe Langham.

00:29:40.040 --> 00:29:44.200
 I knew you wouldn't get my name right.

00:29:44.200 --> 00:29:45.200
 I'm Joe Langham.

00:29:45.200 --> 00:29:47.320
 I'm the guy that sent in three.

00:29:47.320 --> 00:29:50.400
 I have the maps gone.

00:29:50.400 --> 00:29:54.320
 I'm right there on the front line, so I've got the house right across the street on the

00:29:54.320 --> 00:29:56.760
 corner of Bolivar and Fane.

00:29:56.760 --> 00:30:01.600
 I've got the lot next door to that, so I'm right there where that's all going to come

00:30:01.600 --> 00:30:02.600
 out.

00:30:02.600 --> 00:30:07.640
 And then I own the house on Fane, the only one that has an address on Fane.

00:30:07.640 --> 00:30:11.560
 I already have too much traffic.

00:30:11.560 --> 00:30:13.480
 There's no place for anybody to go there.

00:30:13.480 --> 00:30:17.560
 You have the residents, but where are all the visitors and all the friends going to

00:30:17.560 --> 00:30:18.560
 go?

00:30:18.560 --> 00:30:23.280
 They're going to come right out there on Bolivar that's already been skinned down because they're

00:30:23.280 --> 00:30:24.280
 trying to control the speed.

00:30:24.280 --> 00:30:32.440
 Well, now you're going to put in this many more, and it's just too much for the neighborhood.

00:30:32.440 --> 00:30:33.440
 Basically single-family.

00:30:33.440 --> 00:30:36.400
 They speak of commercial, which is over on Elm.

00:30:36.400 --> 00:30:44.280
 They speak of other duplexes that were built by Russell Trapp 30, 40 years ago, where they

00:30:44.280 --> 00:30:51.680
 had two houses, two lots, so they put in the duplex with shared walls, so it's much more

00:30:51.680 --> 00:30:55.800
 of an impact than it's being presented to you.

00:30:55.800 --> 00:31:05.680
 I just don't ... I'd say a duplex going there, but to put four duplexes on it, I find it

00:31:05.680 --> 00:31:09.480
 disappointing that we're even up here suggesting this.

00:31:09.480 --> 00:31:14.880
 It's just way too much for the neighborhood, way too much for me.

00:31:14.880 --> 00:31:22.440
 I see what happens in the street on Bolivar now, and to add, to put more on it, I just,

00:31:22.440 --> 00:31:26.040
 I can't see it happening.

00:31:26.040 --> 00:31:27.040
 Just too many.

00:31:27.040 --> 00:31:34.240
 That's all I've got to say, no need to keep repeating too many, so I appreciate you.

00:31:34.240 --> 00:31:39.160
 Thank you.

00:31:39.160 --> 00:31:43.600
 This is a public hearing, if anybody else would like to speak, you're more than welcome

00:31:43.600 --> 00:31:44.600
 to.

00:31:44.600 --> 00:31:47.600
 Come on down.

00:31:47.600 --> 00:31:54.120
 State your name and address, and you'll have four minutes.

00:31:54.120 --> 00:31:55.120
 Okay.

00:31:55.120 --> 00:31:56.120
 My name's Sam Bunn.

00:31:56.120 --> 00:32:00.280
 I'm at 2312 Bolivar, literally right next door to this lot.

00:32:00.280 --> 00:32:03.960
 This is my first time seeing any of the plans.

00:32:03.960 --> 00:32:06.000
 We've actually talked with the developer before.

00:32:06.000 --> 00:32:09.360
 He seems like a nice enough guy.

00:32:09.360 --> 00:32:15.140
 When we spoke to him, we'd said that we had three basic requests.

00:32:15.140 --> 00:32:23.080
 We moved in with a single story home next to us, so we asked him if he could plan to

00:32:23.080 --> 00:32:28.120
 keep it single story, which looks like he has, which is great.

00:32:28.120 --> 00:32:30.280
 All we want to do is preserve our privacy.

00:32:30.280 --> 00:32:32.920
 We have an active garden in our backyard.

00:32:32.920 --> 00:32:36.180
 We're out there nonstop.

00:32:36.180 --> 00:32:38.480
 We also asked him to preserve his made trees.

00:32:38.480 --> 00:32:41.920
 This looked like he's made an effort for that.

00:32:41.920 --> 00:32:49.480
 He says 14 out of 21, so are these four inch trees, or are they the 80-year-old oaks that

00:32:49.480 --> 00:32:51.640
 make our neighborhood special?

00:32:51.640 --> 00:32:57.280
 You can't ... 80-year-old oaks.

00:32:57.280 --> 00:33:02.360
 It's terrible because just up the street at the Evers farmstead, they just ripped out

00:33:02.360 --> 00:33:04.400
 all of those oak trees.

00:33:04.400 --> 00:33:07.680
 This is dentin, y'all.

00:33:07.680 --> 00:33:16.320
 So the third thing for us was just if they did build tall, to not put any windows on

00:33:16.320 --> 00:33:18.360
 our sides.

00:33:18.360 --> 00:33:26.360
 We've discussed about having a privacy fence too, but just seeing the plans, I got 16 cars

00:33:26.360 --> 00:33:29.840
 pointed at my house now.

00:33:29.840 --> 00:33:39.280
 And that is ... I moved into next to a single family home, not four duplexes with 16 cars

00:33:39.280 --> 00:33:41.160
 pointed at my house.

00:33:41.160 --> 00:33:43.560
 This is insane.

00:33:43.560 --> 00:33:44.560
 I'm a new homeowner.

00:33:44.560 --> 00:33:49.880
 I bought this home three years ago, and it's a true starter home for us.

00:33:49.880 --> 00:33:56.040
 It was $250,000, and we made that on $20 an hour.

00:33:56.040 --> 00:33:57.380
 We scrimped and saved for 10 years.

00:33:57.380 --> 00:34:02.220
 I moved here from California 10 years ago to buy a home.

00:34:02.220 --> 00:34:04.080
 My wife also.

00:34:04.080 --> 00:34:17.440
 We decided this was our dream, and so I don't have a problem with developers making money.

00:34:17.440 --> 00:34:22.840
 He needs to recoup his investment, and I understand that, but I don't want 16 cars pointed at

00:34:22.840 --> 00:34:24.880
 my house.

00:34:24.880 --> 00:34:30.000
 The neighborhood, the streets are so congested the way it is, they have to pass single file.

00:34:30.000 --> 00:34:34.120
 We have to wait for other cars to get out of the way so you can move through.

00:34:34.120 --> 00:34:37.560
 And my house, it's all right in front of my house.

00:34:37.560 --> 00:34:40.080
 We don't have sidewalks.

00:34:40.080 --> 00:34:41.360
 There's kids all over the neighborhoods.

00:34:41.360 --> 00:34:44.960
 We have kids who are running through our neighborhoods, through our yards.

00:34:44.960 --> 00:34:51.680
 We know these kids, and where are they supposed to go?

00:34:51.680 --> 00:35:02.080
 And I guess I'm a little disappointed seeing the plan, but yeah, I think I've made my voice

00:35:02.080 --> 00:35:03.080
 heard.

00:35:03.080 --> 00:35:08.080
 Thank you for your time.

00:35:08.080 --> 00:35:09.080
 Thank you.

00:35:09.080 --> 00:35:13.440
 Anyone else before I close the public hearing?

00:35:13.440 --> 00:35:14.440
 Not seeing anybody.

00:35:14.440 --> 00:35:20.960
 I'll close the public hearing, open the floor for any questions of staff or discussion.

00:35:20.960 --> 00:35:26.800
 Or a motion.

00:35:26.800 --> 00:35:27.800
 Commissioner Riggs?

00:35:27.800 --> 00:35:28.800
 Yeah.

00:35:28.800 --> 00:35:29.800
 I have a question for staff.

00:35:29.800 --> 00:35:38.920
 I'm looking, sorry, I'm looking at the duplexes on Elm and the parking lot basically behind

00:35:38.920 --> 00:35:39.920
 it.

00:35:39.920 --> 00:35:46.080
 And it looks like for those four duplexes, they have, I don't know, like over 25 spots.

00:35:46.080 --> 00:35:51.120
 Is there, I guess this is just the bare minimum for the zoning, according to that plan?

00:35:51.120 --> 00:35:56.320
 I believe those were developed in 2017, prior to the 2019 development code update.

00:35:56.320 --> 00:36:01.120
 I couldn't tell you the duplex parking off the top of my head, but the 16 is what would

00:36:01.120 --> 00:36:06.160
 be required with our current zoning code, and with that, they would be allowed, if needed,

00:36:06.160 --> 00:36:09.360
 to go up to 125% of that, but those have additional standards.

00:36:09.360 --> 00:36:16.040
 So that 16 is what they are proposing.

00:36:16.040 --> 00:36:17.040
 Commissioner Dyer?

00:36:17.040 --> 00:36:23.200
 To kind of piggyback on that, I know we're not approving a plat, but are there going to

00:36:23.200 --> 00:36:28.080
 be like garages attached to these duplexes, or is it just the parking lot behind them?

00:36:28.080 --> 00:36:30.800
 I think I would leave that up to the applicant.

00:36:30.800 --> 00:36:37.440
 As far as I'm aware, it would just be the parking, is that correct?

00:36:37.440 --> 00:36:42.240
 Our client has not done architectural design yet, because we're only at zoning.

00:36:42.240 --> 00:36:47.920
 I believe that they are hoping to get at least a one-car garage back there, but also have

00:36:47.920 --> 00:36:55.160
 space for a backyard that correlates with each unit, but I've not seen architectural

00:36:55.160 --> 00:36:57.080
 plans.

00:36:57.080 --> 00:37:01.360
 Speaking of which, this is a non-binding concept plan as well.

00:37:01.360 --> 00:37:09.240
 We did a couple of layouts to show potentially how the site could function, but the layout

00:37:09.240 --> 00:37:14.320
 is not locked in by the zoning change.

00:37:14.320 --> 00:37:15.320
 Okay.

00:37:15.320 --> 00:37:19.420
 I'm just kind of curious, maybe this is more for staff.

00:37:19.420 --> 00:37:23.520
 If residents have a concern about the amount of parking, and we've already got the four

00:37:23.520 --> 00:37:32.040
 duplexes here to the east of this area, and they have way more parking, what is it in

00:37:32.040 --> 00:37:39.280
 the development code for developers that if you go to this designation, the zoning designation,

00:37:39.280 --> 00:37:44.520
 that it will not impact the street traffic as much?

00:37:44.520 --> 00:37:48.920
 What would the developer be beholden to?

00:37:48.920 --> 00:37:53.200
 Just to understand your question correctly, the zoning designation does not change the

00:37:53.200 --> 00:37:54.560
 parking requirement.

00:37:54.560 --> 00:37:59.680
 There will be, with the ZCP, the Zoning Compliance Plan, as well as civil engineering plans,

00:37:59.680 --> 00:38:03.640
 there's a TIA, as well as a trip gen analysis, which we'll go hand in hand with those, and

00:38:03.640 --> 00:38:07.080
 those will relate to any of the right of way stuff that needs to be done.

00:38:07.080 --> 00:38:13.560
 Even if they were put back into three single family lots, they would still have the same

00:38:13.560 --> 00:38:16.480
 parking requirements as four duplexes?

00:38:16.480 --> 00:38:18.440
 The parking is dictated by the use.

00:38:18.440 --> 00:38:23.040
 The duplex comes with it where there's four spots assigned to that, and with the single

00:38:23.040 --> 00:38:25.920
 family that will change based on the use of the parking requirement.

00:38:25.920 --> 00:38:30.600
 And I guess maybe that's kind of what I'm asking in a roundabout way, is with this designation,

00:38:30.600 --> 00:38:37.720
 especially we know there are going to be duplexes, what kind of parking, does it change the parking

00:38:37.720 --> 00:38:42.600
 restriction that they will have to abide by?

00:38:42.600 --> 00:38:45.240
 The zoning designation will not change that.

00:38:45.240 --> 00:38:49.800
 The use that they decide to go with the developer, that will dictate what their parking requirement

00:38:49.800 --> 00:38:50.800
 is.

00:38:50.800 --> 00:38:51.800
 Okay.

00:38:51.800 --> 00:38:56.200
 Commissioner Garland.

00:38:56.200 --> 00:39:01.760
 I was wondering if you could speak to, or the applicant could speak to, I know you said

00:39:01.760 --> 00:39:08.520
 that the design kind of wasn't set, but there's four duplexes, that's eight units.

00:39:08.520 --> 00:39:14.280
 Can you speak to how many bedrooms are going to be in each unit, or kind of what the thinking

00:39:14.280 --> 00:39:15.280
 is on that?

00:39:15.280 --> 00:39:24.880
 So when we prepared our concept plan, our client gave us a few templates to work with

00:39:24.880 --> 00:39:31.200
 in terms of duplex layouts and bedrooms.

00:39:31.200 --> 00:39:37.920
 And based on our current plan, those are very narrow duplexes, so you're looking at a maximum

00:39:37.920 --> 00:39:45.600
 of two bedrooms within that, just because the width of each frontage is too narrow to

00:39:45.600 --> 00:39:48.680
 support more than that.

00:39:48.680 --> 00:39:53.600
 If the zoning is approved, they might decide to go with a wider plan, but that would be

00:39:53.600 --> 00:39:55.940
 fewer lots and fewer units.

00:39:55.940 --> 00:40:02.680
 This is just, the concept planning was an exercise to determine for their understanding

00:40:02.680 --> 00:40:04.440
 what could go here.

00:40:04.440 --> 00:40:05.440
 Okay.

00:40:05.440 --> 00:40:13.040
 So eight units and then two bedrooms, probably max per unit, is what we would be looking

00:40:13.040 --> 00:40:14.040
 at.

00:40:14.040 --> 00:40:18.280
 I think always kind of the concern is, Denton, is this is a college town, and we always think

00:40:18.280 --> 00:40:24.480
 that students, that's four bedroom house, that's four students, four cars to each house.

00:40:24.480 --> 00:40:33.000
 And so is there a way that you could kind of cap each unit and say each unit is a two-car

00:40:33.000 --> 00:40:37.640
 maximum, or have you kind of gotten that far ahead in sort of the planning?

00:40:37.640 --> 00:40:40.320
 We have not gotten that far ahead.

00:40:40.320 --> 00:40:46.040
 So what we're operating under is the Denton Development Code parking requirements, which

00:40:46.040 --> 00:40:48.920
 gives us essentially a minimum and a maximum.

00:40:48.920 --> 00:40:54.200
 And like Bryce said, we could go up to 125% of that maximum, so we might be able to get

00:40:54.200 --> 00:40:56.080
 a couple more spaces in there.

00:40:56.080 --> 00:41:00.740
 If you look at the site, that is the number of spaces that will fit.

00:41:00.740 --> 00:41:06.160
 The way that we laid it out, we pushed the duplexes to Tally of Pharaohs so that there

00:41:06.160 --> 00:41:11.520
 was a room for a backyard and for a garage, a single car garage to accompany each one

00:41:11.520 --> 00:41:16.080
 of those, because that was the desire of our client.

00:41:16.080 --> 00:41:21.920
 But in terms of restricting the number of cars or the number of parking, I don't know

00:41:21.920 --> 00:41:27.000
 that there's a way to do that, except maybe in a lease agreement, so you're allocated

00:41:27.000 --> 00:41:32.800
 these two parking spaces, and that's it.

00:41:32.800 --> 00:41:36.840
 But if it was a single-family home and they had guests, they would park on the street

00:41:36.840 --> 00:41:37.840
 as well.

00:41:37.840 --> 00:41:44.000
 So being able to regulate that really comes down to regulating the city regulating on-street

00:41:44.000 --> 00:41:46.080
 parking in this neighborhood.

00:41:46.080 --> 00:41:47.080
 Okay.

00:41:47.080 --> 00:41:50.640
 Thank you.

00:41:50.640 --> 00:41:53.640
 Any other questions?

00:41:53.640 --> 00:42:00.640
 I guess I have one, Bryce.

00:42:00.640 --> 00:42:08.040
 I saw the history as far as when it had transitioned to under the '69 code.

00:42:08.040 --> 00:42:15.640
 There was talk about existing homes being built in this area, having some understanding

00:42:15.640 --> 00:42:18.520
 of the expectation of the neighborhood.

00:42:18.520 --> 00:42:24.200
 Has there been recent development here, or was it all prior to 1980 kind of timeframe?

00:42:24.200 --> 00:42:25.200
 Sure.

00:42:25.200 --> 00:42:31.680
 So since 1980, I believe it was 1995, we saw some quadplexes go in, and I don't have my

00:42:31.680 --> 00:42:32.680
 backup in front of me.

00:42:32.680 --> 00:42:38.000
 I believe it was 2017, the duplexes directly behind the lot went in, and the development

00:42:38.000 --> 00:42:40.440
 has kind of come in more or less waves over the years.

00:42:40.440 --> 00:42:41.440
 Okay.

00:42:41.440 --> 00:42:44.760
 But the single-family homes within this neighborhood were prior to that.

00:42:44.760 --> 00:42:52.960
 Those were first, and the more intense uses came afterwards, yes, sir.

00:42:52.960 --> 00:42:53.960
 Okay.

00:42:53.960 --> 00:42:54.960
 Okay.

00:42:54.960 --> 00:42:55.960
 Anything else?

00:42:55.960 --> 00:42:56.960
 Okay.

00:42:56.960 --> 00:43:00.840
 Thank you.

00:43:00.840 --> 00:43:03.840
 Discussion or emotion?

00:43:03.840 --> 00:43:06.880
 Okay.

00:43:06.880 --> 00:43:09.880
 I will move approval on this, and I'll just say a couple things.

00:43:09.880 --> 00:43:24.900
 I think when we see these type of lots within a neighborhood, change is nervous.

00:43:24.900 --> 00:43:27.040
 I get that.

00:43:27.040 --> 00:43:30.800
 At the same time, we're talking about less than an acre.

00:43:30.800 --> 00:43:35.840
 We're not talking about a 10-acre subdivision or more, right?

00:43:35.840 --> 00:43:44.280
 So I guess I just feel like the amount of change here would be consistent with the previous

00:43:44.280 --> 00:43:49.320
 pattern of incrementally providing these additional housing types.

00:43:49.320 --> 00:43:58.360
 I don't think there's a mandate or a desire to restrict the number of homes here.

00:43:58.360 --> 00:44:03.680
 It's right on a bus corridor between Discovery Park and downtown.

00:44:03.680 --> 00:44:09.640
 It seems like it ticks all the boxes as far as allowing more people to live closer to

00:44:09.640 --> 00:44:14.120
 schools, to retail options, etc.

00:44:14.120 --> 00:44:20.160
 So with that, I'll move approval as staffed presented.

00:44:20.160 --> 00:44:26.800
 Oh, sorry, Commissioner Riggs?

00:44:26.800 --> 00:44:36.640
 I have to say, I'm torn on this one because I know we do have a desire and our future

00:44:36.640 --> 00:44:42.920
 plans are to basically do these type of infill lots and try to get some affordable housing

00:44:42.920 --> 00:44:47.240
 and those types of things, but also hearing from the residents, particularly the ones

00:44:47.240 --> 00:44:53.880
 right next door, you do have an expectation when you buy into a subdivision that the use

00:44:53.880 --> 00:45:10.400
 right next door, she's not just going to change overnight, so I'm undecided on this.

00:45:10.400 --> 00:45:11.960
 I would agree with Commissioner Riggs.

00:45:11.960 --> 00:45:19.680
 I know we talk a lot about the amount of infill lots within the city that still need to be

00:45:19.680 --> 00:45:21.040
 developed.

00:45:21.040 --> 00:45:28.280
 We talk a lot about finding ways for affordable housing, but I understand the concerns about

00:45:28.280 --> 00:45:34.280
 the amount of parking that this could put in this community on smaller streets.

00:45:34.280 --> 00:45:42.080
 We heard this several months ago on another, right around the corner from this, in another

00:45:42.080 --> 00:45:48.960
 area, and so I'm torn.

00:45:48.960 --> 00:45:55.400
 I guess I have another question for staff, Bryce.

00:45:55.400 --> 00:46:00.440
 I know the city is currently doing a citywide parking study.

00:46:00.440 --> 00:46:09.000
 Are we looking at tools and policies which could address existing on-street parking issues

00:46:09.000 --> 00:46:10.640
 within that?

00:46:10.640 --> 00:46:16.360
 I think I'll have to defer to Angie on that one.

00:46:16.360 --> 00:46:19.340
 And Charlie's even more in the know than I am, and he's coming down.

00:46:19.340 --> 00:46:24.960
 I know the citywide parking study is evaluating several different facets of parking, but I'll

00:46:24.960 --> 00:46:26.960
 defer to Mr. Riggs.

00:46:26.960 --> 00:46:27.960
 Hi.

00:46:27.960 --> 00:46:28.960
 Good evening, Commission.

00:46:28.960 --> 00:46:31.280
 Charlie Rizonol, Interim Director of Development Services.

00:46:31.280 --> 00:46:35.720
 As it relates to neighborhood parking, a lot of the recommendations around the citywide

00:46:35.720 --> 00:46:43.360
 parking study are related to residential permits, and those are targeted in areas near the universities

00:46:43.360 --> 00:46:44.360
 primarily.

00:46:44.360 --> 00:46:52.240
 In addition to that, that would be an intermediate phase of the study, so that wouldn't be an

00:46:52.240 --> 00:46:55.800
 immediate action item out of that study.

00:46:55.800 --> 00:46:56.800
 Okay.

00:46:56.800 --> 00:47:01.720
 But we are going to learn about some of those tools as a result of that.

00:47:01.720 --> 00:47:02.720
 Is that correct?

00:47:02.720 --> 00:47:03.720
 Yeah.

00:47:03.720 --> 00:47:04.720
 Yeah.

00:47:04.720 --> 00:47:08.920
 Residential parking permits was an action item out of that.

00:47:08.920 --> 00:47:15.000
 And do those types of tools regulate only new development, or do they regulate the street

00:47:15.000 --> 00:47:19.160
 parking for surrounding the existing developed lots?

00:47:19.160 --> 00:47:27.240
 I guess my question is when you regulate parking on new development, that doesn't have the

00:47:27.240 --> 00:47:34.600
 potential to change existing residences that may be using the on-street parking, but some

00:47:34.600 --> 00:47:38.320
 of these tools may have the potential to improve that.

00:47:38.320 --> 00:47:40.200
 Is that a valid statement?

00:47:40.200 --> 00:47:41.200
 Yeah.

00:47:41.200 --> 00:47:48.560
 I would think that's accurate, but like I said, the study found that primarily the on-street

00:47:48.560 --> 00:47:54.780
 parking issues were targeted more around the universities, but a residential parking permit

00:47:54.780 --> 00:48:00.600
 is an action item out of there, which would require on-street parking to have some type

00:48:00.600 --> 00:48:02.680
 of residential permit associated with it.

00:48:02.680 --> 00:48:03.680
 Okay.

00:48:03.680 --> 00:48:04.680
 Thank you.

00:48:04.680 --> 00:48:05.680
 Did you have something else?

00:48:05.680 --> 00:48:06.680
 Okay.

00:48:06.680 --> 00:48:11.720
 Yeah, Commissioner Dyer.

00:48:11.720 --> 00:48:17.680
 So if this doesn't pass, what options does the owner have?

00:48:17.680 --> 00:48:24.560
 So any of the uses developed by the ESCP process within the R3 zoning district, which typically

00:48:24.560 --> 00:48:29.800
 be limited to single-family housing as well as some supporting commercial uses such as

00:48:29.800 --> 00:48:34.260
 lower impact general retail or things of that nature.

00:48:34.260 --> 00:48:39.760
 So instead of duplexes, the owner could put a retail space in there is what you're saying?

00:48:39.760 --> 00:48:41.320
 I think I misspoke on that.

00:48:41.320 --> 00:48:42.320
 I don't believe it's retail.

00:48:42.320 --> 00:48:43.320
 Okay.

00:48:43.320 --> 00:48:46.640
 But there are supporting uses that can go within that zoning district that are not residential

00:48:46.640 --> 00:48:49.640
 as well.

00:48:49.640 --> 00:48:50.640
 Can you give us some examples?

00:48:50.640 --> 00:48:53.480
 I'm going to have to defer to Andy on that one.

00:48:53.480 --> 00:48:54.480
 Sure.

00:48:54.480 --> 00:48:58.920
 So just to clarify, there's not commercial, like a typical commercial use in the R3 zoning

00:48:58.920 --> 00:49:01.120
 district that you could expect by right.

00:49:01.120 --> 00:49:08.960
 Some things allowed in R3 are single-family homes, community homes, daycare, a community

00:49:08.960 --> 00:49:17.520
 service facility, some agricultural uses in private schools, typically lower intensity

00:49:17.520 --> 00:49:19.560
 or residential.

00:49:19.560 --> 00:49:22.680
 So if this weren't to pass and they didn't pursue a different rezoning, those would be

00:49:22.680 --> 00:49:24.160
 what they were limited to.

00:49:24.160 --> 00:49:27.840
 Of course, the applicant could also still decide to move this application forward to

00:49:27.840 --> 00:49:34.840
 counsel who would have the ultimate vote.

00:49:34.840 --> 00:49:42.040
 I guess, Bryce, just so that everybody can do the mental geometry, I'm thinking it looked

00:49:42.040 --> 00:49:50.520
 like this parcel is a little bit more than 200 feet wide, and with R3 with a 10,000 square

00:49:50.520 --> 00:49:54.600
 foot minimum lot size, you're probably looking at no more than three lots.

00:49:54.600 --> 00:49:55.600
 Correct.

00:49:55.600 --> 00:49:58.840
 So there's 32,000 square feet, which allow three lots.

00:49:58.840 --> 00:49:59.840
 Okay.

00:49:59.840 --> 00:50:00.840
 Thank you.

00:50:00.840 --> 00:50:01.840
 Yeah.

00:50:01.840 --> 00:50:02.840
 Commissioner Ketchers said?

00:50:02.840 --> 00:50:03.840
 So I heard you right.

00:50:03.840 --> 00:50:12.840
 You said three lots, but we're saying four.

00:50:12.840 --> 00:50:13.840
 Sorry.

00:50:13.840 --> 00:50:21.360
 As usual, I'm confusing people, and I apologize.

00:50:21.360 --> 00:50:27.000
 What I was attempting to do was explain that if the zoning change were not approved and

00:50:27.000 --> 00:50:34.040
 the applicant still wanted to redevelop the property by right, what they could build,

00:50:34.040 --> 00:50:38.840
 I believe, would be approximately three single family homes.

00:50:38.840 --> 00:50:44.000
 Amy, do you want to address that so I don't put words in your mouth?

00:50:44.000 --> 00:50:45.000
 And I have one more quick one.

00:50:45.000 --> 00:50:49.200
 They could also get an SUP, correct, to build duplexes?

00:50:49.200 --> 00:50:50.200
 Not in R3.

00:50:50.200 --> 00:50:51.840
 That's not allowed.

00:50:51.840 --> 00:50:58.040
 So we actually had all of these conversations with our client before we chose the path forward

00:50:58.040 --> 00:51:00.480
 that we chose.

00:51:00.480 --> 00:51:08.120
 I believe we could get two lots in, one that fronts Bolliver and one that fronts Taliaferro.

00:51:08.120 --> 00:51:16.640
 I would like to point out that those two lots could each have a main house and an ADU, accessory

00:51:16.640 --> 00:51:17.640
 dwelling unit.

00:51:17.640 --> 00:51:23.080
 So you're getting a similar density in that regard.

00:51:23.080 --> 00:51:28.680
 We also discussed going with an R4 zoning with a specific use permit.

00:51:28.680 --> 00:51:33.680
 What we have found, we've looked at several of these lots over the last six months with

00:51:33.680 --> 00:51:34.680
 property owners.

00:51:34.680 --> 00:51:41.680
 What we have found is that an R4 with an SUP to get a couple of duplexes in is financially

00:51:41.680 --> 00:51:47.800
 infeasible because the SUP process alone is about $75,000.

00:51:47.800 --> 00:51:48.800
 And it's all at risk.

00:51:48.800 --> 00:51:52.920
 You've got to do full engineering plans, landscape plans, tree preservation plans.

00:51:52.920 --> 00:51:56.360
 And so that was just not an option for them.

00:51:56.360 --> 00:52:00.360
 They're a family who's cash funding this zoning change.

00:52:00.360 --> 00:52:10.040
 And so when we looked at the variable options and we went to a pre-application meeting with

00:52:10.040 --> 00:52:18.920
 the city with the pattern of R7 zoning around the area, we felt that it was consistent with

00:52:18.920 --> 00:52:22.560
 the goals of the comprehensive plan and the surrounding context.

00:52:22.560 --> 00:52:26.360
 And so that's why we went with the R7 zoning.

00:52:26.360 --> 00:52:30.960
 R4 with an SUP is an alternative, but it is not one that we would take because they simply

00:52:30.960 --> 00:52:32.680
 wouldn't spend that money.

00:52:32.680 --> 00:52:35.640
 However, I do want to say one more thing.

00:52:35.640 --> 00:52:40.120
 You guys see me up here frequently and we're a local zoning consultant.

00:52:40.120 --> 00:52:45.880
 What I can do is commit to ongoing neighborhood engagement and working with the neighbors.

00:52:45.880 --> 00:52:50.440
 Specifically, this is the first time we've heard the concern about the cars aiming towards

00:52:50.440 --> 00:52:52.540
 the neighboring house.

00:52:52.540 --> 00:52:58.440
 That is a concern and it's one that I think that it's our responsibility to address along

00:52:58.440 --> 00:53:02.120
 with just ongoing neighborhood concerns.

00:53:02.120 --> 00:53:07.320
 If this were to move forward and we move into design, I would personally commit that we

00:53:07.320 --> 00:53:13.120
 would remain involved with the neighborhood to gain feedback over time to do our best

00:53:13.120 --> 00:53:15.960
 to make this something that is compatible with them.

00:53:15.960 --> 00:53:16.960
 Thank you.

00:53:16.960 --> 00:53:17.960
 Commissioner Riggs.

00:53:17.960 --> 00:53:24.200
 Yeah, this is actually, excuse me, I've got something for staff.

00:53:24.200 --> 00:53:29.600
 So with this being, if this were to be approved, it would be a residential use next to a residential

00:53:29.600 --> 00:53:30.740
 use.

00:53:30.740 --> 00:53:35.300
 So is there any kind of screening requirements, particularly for the concern about the parking

00:53:35.300 --> 00:53:36.300
 lots?

00:53:36.300 --> 00:53:39.160
 So there's not any buffering requirements for these two adjacent uses.

00:53:39.160 --> 00:53:42.280
 If the developer does choose to do something along that nature, that's between them the

00:53:42.280 --> 00:53:46.320
 neighborhood engagement, but there's nothing in the development code which will require

00:53:46.320 --> 00:53:47.320
 that.

00:53:47.320 --> 00:53:48.320
 Okay.

00:53:48.320 --> 00:53:55.360
 So that would just, that wouldn't be part of this decision.

00:53:55.360 --> 00:53:59.720
 Correct.

00:53:59.720 --> 00:54:01.440
 Commissioner Ketchers had?

00:54:01.440 --> 00:54:08.280
 Would it be possible to have a community benefits agreement, like on a postpone and then come

00:54:08.280 --> 00:54:12.760
 back and present that with this?

00:54:12.760 --> 00:54:16.060
 I think those are typically much larger legal agreements.

00:54:16.060 --> 00:54:19.560
 Something like this is, it's not really feasible.

00:54:19.560 --> 00:54:25.400
 Because I think part of the hold up here is that even though we trust that this will get

00:54:25.400 --> 00:54:32.440
 done, once the zoning change has happened, you can do this by right with really nothing

00:54:32.440 --> 00:54:33.680
 stopping you.

00:54:33.680 --> 00:54:39.680
 Yeah, and I would say that's probably the way we should consider all of our deliberations

00:54:39.680 --> 00:54:43.840
 whenever we're talking about zoning changes is they have, at this point, they haven't

00:54:43.840 --> 00:54:46.560
 done the due diligence to figure out exactly what needs to happen.

00:54:46.560 --> 00:55:08.800
 So this just leaves all the options on the table for that zoning.

00:55:08.800 --> 00:55:14.500
 I think though, that being said, I do think we have overall goals to try to find affordable

00:55:14.500 --> 00:55:18.440
 housing and find these info lots.

00:55:18.440 --> 00:55:22.840
 I think I'm okay with it and just understand that I do think the developer will continue

00:55:22.840 --> 00:55:25.840
 to work with you all.

00:55:25.840 --> 00:55:34.600
 Yeah, I guess I'll say just to the concern about what specifically would happen, we have

00:55:34.600 --> 00:55:44.920
 the Denton Development Code for a reason in order to set the requirements for equitable

00:55:44.920 --> 00:55:48.880
 development in these cases.

00:55:48.880 --> 00:55:58.320
 So if there's a concern that the commission has about what is required or allowed by right

00:55:58.320 --> 00:56:05.600
 in these types of cases, then I think it's certainly within our purview to ask DCRC to

00:56:05.600 --> 00:56:14.360
 look at that and especially if there's a specific concern that keeps coming up.

00:56:14.360 --> 00:56:23.720
 But I think that trying to create a specific plan for every 0.7 acre lot in the city, we

00:56:23.720 --> 00:56:30.320
 would need 18 planning and zoning commissions that meet once a week perhaps.

00:56:30.320 --> 00:56:31.320
 Commissioner Dyer.

00:56:31.320 --> 00:56:39.800
 I mean, I agree with what you're saying and with Commissioner Riggs.

00:56:39.800 --> 00:56:47.640
 If we pass this, well, yes, we have a gentlelady's agreement that she will work with the community.

00:56:47.640 --> 00:56:53.000
 It's not a guarantee because in the end, the owner owns the land and he can do what they

00:56:53.000 --> 00:56:56.320
 want to do with the land according to how it's zoned.

00:56:56.320 --> 00:57:03.920
 Yes, we have been talking so much in this body in the Development Code Review Committee.

00:57:03.920 --> 00:57:10.880
 City Council has been talking about the infill lots and the affordable housing and trying,

00:57:10.880 --> 00:57:16.720
 you know, balancing that with the neighborhood's concern when there is one of these empty lots

00:57:16.720 --> 00:57:23.240
 and it's got to get developed because I would have to imagine a developed lot is a whole

00:57:23.240 --> 00:57:29.080
 lot better to live next to than a vacant lot.

00:57:29.080 --> 00:57:37.480
 But at some point, we have to think about these things when you're in such a zone that's

00:57:37.480 --> 00:57:44.160
 mainly single family homes when the city has these lots that every single lot can't always

00:57:44.160 --> 00:57:51.720
 be built this way and we don't want to set the precedent that every time it comes.

00:57:51.720 --> 00:57:53.360
 So it's a balancing act.

00:57:53.360 --> 00:57:57.800
 In this one, I will probably vote in favor of the zoning change.

00:57:57.800 --> 00:58:04.000
 I would like to impress upon Mr. Van Arsdell that to take the notes of what the community

00:58:04.000 --> 00:58:12.720
 has so when you're working with the developer, with the owners, that the parking is, you

00:58:12.720 --> 00:58:17.360
 know, first and foremost because it's going to come back in front of us and it will eventually

00:58:17.360 --> 00:58:18.360
 come back.

00:58:18.360 --> 00:58:21.160
 You know, it will go up in front of the City Council as well.

00:58:21.160 --> 00:58:24.720
 And to make sure because we'll have another public hearing and I'm sure all of these people

00:58:24.720 --> 00:58:28.100
 and potentially more will be back.

00:58:28.100 --> 00:58:32.760
 So we want to make sure that their concerns are heard for the next round.

00:58:32.760 --> 00:58:34.680
 Commissioner Riggs?

00:58:34.680 --> 00:58:38.440
 Yeah, I was going to make another point.

00:58:38.440 --> 00:58:46.080
 It was mentioned here tonight, but, you know, one of the things is if it stays residential,

00:58:46.080 --> 00:58:51.120
 Chair Pruitt to your point, you could put three individual lots on there and then they

00:58:51.120 --> 00:58:53.400
 would also could put in ADU.

00:58:53.400 --> 00:58:56.960
 So you essentially end up with two units on a lot, which sounds like that would probably

00:58:56.960 --> 00:58:58.480
 be the plan.

00:58:58.480 --> 00:59:06.240
 And now no dedicated parking, so definitely all that parking would be on the street.

00:59:06.240 --> 00:59:19.400
 So we do need a motion tonight.

00:59:19.400 --> 00:59:22.480
 I can go for it again, sure.

00:59:22.480 --> 00:59:29.200
 I'll move that we approve the staff recommended change to R7 for this lot.

00:59:29.200 --> 00:59:30.200
 Commissioner Riggs?

00:59:30.200 --> 00:59:31.880
 I second.

00:59:31.880 --> 00:59:36.620
 Any other questions?

00:59:36.620 --> 00:59:37.620
 Not seeing any.

00:59:37.620 --> 00:59:49.960
 I'll call for a vote on the board.

00:59:49.960 --> 00:59:53.800
 And that item passes five one.

00:59:53.800 --> 01:00:01.040
 That brings us to both our second and third public hearings.

01:00:01.040 --> 01:00:09.360
 We're going to hold concurrently because they're on the same lot boundaries.

01:00:09.360 --> 01:00:17.360
 Sorry, CA25-5 and Z25-22.

01:00:17.360 --> 01:00:25.880
 Evening, Chair, members of the commission, Mia Hines, senior planner.

01:00:25.880 --> 01:00:30.760
 This is one presentation for two separate items, so they will require two separate votes.

01:00:30.760 --> 01:00:34.920
 And that is comprehensive plan amendment 25-5 and zoning case 25-22.

01:00:34.920 --> 01:00:37.400
 Again, this is two requests.

01:00:37.400 --> 01:00:41.040
 The property itself is just under 25 acres.

01:00:41.040 --> 01:00:45.560
 The existing future land use designation for this property is agriculture and low residential.

01:00:45.560 --> 01:00:48.880
 The proposed future land use designation for this property is regional mixed use.

01:00:48.880 --> 01:00:52.520
 And I'll get into some details about that request here in a second.

01:00:52.520 --> 01:00:57.440
 The existing zoning is residential two or R2, and the proposed zoning is suburban corridor

01:00:57.440 --> 01:01:01.960
 or SC, and that will follow, again, the comprehensive plan discussion.

01:01:01.960 --> 01:01:08.640
 The purpose of these requests is to entitle the property for anticipated commercial development

01:01:08.640 --> 01:01:11.920
 in terms of the hickory growth development to the north of this property.

01:01:11.920 --> 01:01:16.480
 I'm going over this slide in a couple of presentations that we've had recently, but the history of

01:01:16.480 --> 01:01:20.040
 this project is that it is undeveloped land.

01:01:20.040 --> 01:01:25.580
 In the Denton plan 2030, the future land use designation was all rural areas.

01:01:25.580 --> 01:01:30.060
 And then with a minor update of the Denton 2040 plan, we changed that to agricultural

01:01:30.060 --> 01:01:35.200
 flume and a low residential flume, which covers just a little bit of the northern half of

01:01:35.200 --> 01:01:44.520
 that westernmost tract there that you see there on the screen west of Golden Hill Drive.

01:01:44.520 --> 01:01:50.520
 The hickory growth municipal utility district does not include this lot, but it did call

01:01:50.520 --> 01:01:55.240
 out for future commercial on the subject property.

01:01:55.240 --> 01:01:59.320
 Just in terms of recent applications that we've seen related to that development and

01:01:59.320 --> 01:02:04.920
 sort of in line with how we've gotten here to this application this evening, the mud

01:02:04.920 --> 01:02:10.880
 was created in 2022, an amendment to the agreement to include some additional multi-family units

01:02:10.880 --> 01:02:15.440
 to the west of this subject property was approved in August 2024, and then some zoning changes

01:02:15.440 --> 01:02:19.920
 and entitlements have come before this body, as well as city council over the past couple

01:02:19.920 --> 01:02:22.380
 of months.

01:02:22.380 --> 01:02:26.280
 So that agriculture or that comprehensive plan amendment is that first part of the request.

01:02:26.280 --> 01:02:30.160
 Here to the left is the existing future land use designation, showing again that agriculture

01:02:30.160 --> 01:02:34.520
 and a little bit of that low residential to the north of that westernmost tract.

01:02:34.520 --> 01:02:39.080
 The proposed future land use designation would be regional mixed use, which would encompass

01:02:39.080 --> 01:02:41.680
 the entire subject area.

01:02:41.680 --> 01:02:44.880
 The area highlighted to that west there is the application that you guys considered a

01:02:44.880 --> 01:02:52.500
 little while ago, approved yesterday evening, I believe, for the regional mixed use future

01:02:52.500 --> 01:02:53.640
 land use designation.

01:02:53.640 --> 01:02:58.040
 So along this corridor we do see some more regional mixed use designation, and then to

01:02:58.040 --> 01:03:02.920
 the north we have that low residential that's being developed as a part of that mud.

01:03:02.920 --> 01:03:08.280
 The regional mixed use future land use designation is intended to apply to areas that serve as

01:03:08.280 --> 01:03:10.480
 regional destinations within Denton.

01:03:10.480 --> 01:03:15.280
 This does include residential, commercial, office entertainment, and other uses except

01:03:15.280 --> 01:03:19.040
 for industrial, at the highest level of scale and density within the city.

01:03:19.040 --> 01:03:23.860
 I just wanted to show this graph here to sort of show you where we have some of our clusters

01:03:23.860 --> 01:03:28.400
 of regional mixed use, particularly around the intersections of some of our major thoroughfares

01:03:28.400 --> 01:03:36.280
 being US 380 and I-35 north, as well as along just some of those major highway corridors.

01:03:36.280 --> 01:03:38.200
 And so this is the subject property here.

01:03:38.200 --> 01:03:44.280
 This would be sort of one more small cluster of regional mixed use.

01:03:44.280 --> 01:03:47.720
 We did put this request up against the criteria for approval and ultimately found that it

01:03:47.720 --> 01:03:51.560
 meets our criteria, specifically the regional planning and development trends that we see

01:03:51.560 --> 01:03:57.520
 in this area does reflect the need to plan for development of the area beyond agriculture.

01:03:57.520 --> 01:04:01.800
 Additionally, the request is compatible with existing and proposed development occurring

01:04:01.800 --> 01:04:07.400
 within the city and in the city's ETJ, providing for a land use and a retail or commercial

01:04:07.400 --> 01:04:10.720
 service that doesn't currently exist within this corridor.

01:04:10.720 --> 01:04:14.600
 And then finally, the regional mixed use is intended to encourage development at the highest

01:04:14.600 --> 01:04:19.360
 density along the major corridor, which is US 380.

01:04:19.360 --> 01:04:22.840
 Here you've seen this image before, just showing some of the regional development trends

01:04:22.840 --> 01:04:24.640
 that we've seen in the area.

01:04:24.640 --> 01:04:30.720
 This aerial imagery here to the left is from 2021, showing very little development in this

01:04:30.720 --> 01:04:31.720
 area.

01:04:31.720 --> 01:04:39.600
 This on the right is from 2025, showing some of those muds in the ETJ2 and the ETJ1 being

01:04:39.600 --> 01:04:42.680
 under construction with single family residential developments.

01:04:42.680 --> 01:04:46.920
 We had that case just to the west of the subject property come forward for a more moderate

01:04:46.920 --> 01:04:50.800
 density residential style developments and multifamily.

01:04:50.800 --> 01:04:55.440
 And then further east along that corridor, we've seen a significant increase in the amount

01:04:55.440 --> 01:04:57.960
 of industrial and warehouse uses.

01:04:57.960 --> 01:05:00.280
 So there's been jobs that's brought to the area.

01:05:00.280 --> 01:05:02.280
 There's been some rooftops that's been brought to this area.

01:05:02.280 --> 01:05:07.080
 And then of course, there's a sort of retail center on the east side of I-35.

01:05:07.080 --> 01:05:12.280
 So we are seeing that regional growth happening along the western edge of our city.

01:05:12.280 --> 01:05:16.080
 And this is in line with what we're seeing there.

01:05:16.080 --> 01:05:20.040
 With that, staff is recommending approval of the comprehensive plan amendments.

01:05:20.040 --> 01:05:24.800
 And that pretty much concludes my presentation on the comprehensive plan piece.

01:05:24.800 --> 01:05:29.680
 As for the zoning case, the current zoning is shown on the image to the left.

01:05:29.680 --> 01:05:34.160
 That is R2 for both subject properties.

01:05:34.160 --> 01:05:37.160
 And then the requested zoning change is two suburban corridor.

01:05:37.160 --> 01:05:39.560
 That is the image on the right.

01:05:39.560 --> 01:05:44.360
 A main difference within these districts is that R2 is a primary residential district.

01:05:44.360 --> 01:05:49.480
 And the SC district primarily allows for commercial land uses.

01:05:49.480 --> 01:05:55.160
 We did put this request up against our criteria for approval and found that it does meet our

01:05:55.160 --> 01:05:56.160
 criteria.

01:05:56.160 --> 01:06:00.800
 Currently, the proposal is intended to allow the property to develop according to the prior

01:06:00.800 --> 01:06:04.440
 approvals which anticipated future commercial for this property.

01:06:04.440 --> 01:06:08.880
 The proposal is also intended to allow development to be compatible with surrounding development

01:06:08.880 --> 01:06:10.440
 in the ETJ.

01:06:10.440 --> 01:06:14.560
 Generally, this is consistent with the goals and policies of the proposed future land use

01:06:14.560 --> 01:06:18.280
 map amendment that is before you this evening as well.

01:06:18.280 --> 01:06:22.640
 And then the regional growth trends that I talked about with the comprehensive plan amendment

01:06:22.640 --> 01:06:28.760
 again, indicates a need for some zoning that allows for commercial and retail services

01:06:28.760 --> 01:06:32.920
 within this area with all the growth that we're seeing out that way.

01:06:32.920 --> 01:06:38.280
 That suburban corridor district is intended to provide moderate to high-intensity commercial

01:06:38.280 --> 01:06:42.560
 office and retail uses along high-traffic corridors like US 380.

01:06:42.560 --> 01:06:46.920
 It's also intended to elevate building and landscape design, have buildings oriented towards

01:06:46.920 --> 01:06:52.160
 the street, and provide appropriate buffering for adjacent neighborhoods, which we do have

01:06:52.160 --> 01:06:55.040
 just adjacent to this site to the north.

01:06:55.040 --> 01:07:00.600
 The SC district isn't primarily auto-oriented, which is fitting for the US 380 corridor,

01:07:00.600 --> 01:07:09.240
 but is intended to also provide a safe environment for pedestrian and cyclists for future developments.

01:07:09.240 --> 01:07:11.440
 Just a little zoning district comparison.

01:07:11.440 --> 01:07:14.520
 So the column here is the R2 column.

01:07:14.520 --> 01:07:18.180
 That is the existing zoning and some of the standards that come with that.

01:07:18.180 --> 01:07:26.280
 Some of these two are some of the other zoning options and districts that we tossed around

01:07:26.280 --> 01:07:32.060
 to see if they would be a better fit in this area, and ultimately we landed on the SC.

01:07:32.060 --> 01:07:36.360
 The main differences that I want to point out to you is related to the building scale

01:07:36.360 --> 01:07:41.800
 and the permitted uses that are different within these two zoning districts, or across

01:07:41.800 --> 01:07:43.520
 these zoning districts, rather.

01:07:43.520 --> 01:07:48.900
 So in the R2 zoning districts, we have a max 40-foot building height, and the SC zoning

01:07:48.900 --> 01:07:51.800
 district, we have a max 55-foot building height.

01:07:51.800 --> 01:07:56.960
 The highway corridor districts, actually the Hickory Grove development agreement specifies

01:07:56.960 --> 01:08:01.600
 that properties that are adjacent along US 380 should be developed according to the highway

01:08:01.600 --> 01:08:04.120
 corridor development standards.

01:08:04.120 --> 01:08:11.480
 We ended up going with the suburban corridor zoning because of the scale that is slightly

01:08:11.480 --> 01:08:15.360
 more appropriate when adjacent to some of those single-family residential lots that

01:08:15.360 --> 01:08:16.760
 we see to the north.

01:08:16.760 --> 01:08:22.840
 Additionally, as far as uses go, the primary use for the existing zoning is residential

01:08:22.840 --> 01:08:25.440
 in agriculture versus the urban corridor.

01:08:25.440 --> 01:08:27.880
 The primary uses are commercial.

01:08:27.880 --> 01:08:33.360
 Specific use permits or multifamily residential could be allowed with specific use permits.

01:08:33.360 --> 01:08:37.760
 The applicant has stated that their intent is to develop the site with commercial, but

01:08:37.760 --> 01:08:43.240
 if that were to change and a greater residential density were to be proposed, that would, of

01:08:43.240 --> 01:08:48.160
 course, have to come before this body with a specific use permit.

01:08:48.160 --> 01:08:55.280
 So not to recapture too much on this slide, just to remind you of the history of this,

01:08:55.280 --> 01:09:02.400
 this was a future commercial was anticipated for the development of this property.

01:09:02.400 --> 01:09:08.040
 With both of these cases, we did send out notifications within property owners within

01:09:08.040 --> 01:09:14.400
 200-foot, 500-foot buffer, and we have received none in response, no responses as of the making

01:09:14.400 --> 01:09:17.000
 of this presentation.

01:09:17.000 --> 01:09:21.160
 With that, staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request in conjunction with

01:09:21.160 --> 01:09:24.760
 that comprehensive plan amendment request.

01:09:24.760 --> 01:09:28.620
 And this is just a reminder that these are two separate items, a comprehensive plan amendment

01:09:28.620 --> 01:09:32.480
 to change the future land use designation from agriculture and low residential future

01:09:32.480 --> 01:09:36.800
 land use designation to regional mixed use future land use designation, and then a separate

01:09:36.800 --> 01:09:41.680
 item is the zoning change to change the zoning from R2 to suburban corridor for both of

01:09:41.680 --> 01:09:43.560
 these properties.

01:09:43.560 --> 01:09:44.560
 That concludes my presentation.

01:09:44.560 --> 01:09:48.240
 I will happily take any questions that you have at this time, and the applicant is here

01:09:48.240 --> 01:09:50.680
 also if you have any questions for him.

01:09:50.680 --> 01:09:51.680
 Thank you.

01:09:51.680 --> 01:09:59.040
 At this time, I will open the public hearing for both of these items, which is CA 25-5

01:09:59.040 --> 01:10:01.920
 and Z25-22.

01:10:01.920 --> 01:10:06.960
 Any questions for staff at this time?

01:10:06.960 --> 01:10:07.960
 Not seeing any.

01:10:07.960 --> 01:10:09.400
 Thank you.

01:10:09.400 --> 01:10:11.640
 With that, I'll call the applicant.

01:10:11.640 --> 01:10:15.120
 He has a card, Mr. Thomas Future?

01:10:15.120 --> 01:10:16.120
 Future?

01:10:16.120 --> 01:10:17.120
 Fletcher.

01:10:17.120 --> 01:10:18.120
 Fletcher.

01:10:18.120 --> 01:10:21.800
 I apparently am mistaking L's for U's, I apologize.

01:10:21.800 --> 01:10:22.800
 No worries.

01:10:22.800 --> 01:10:24.800
 Good evening, Chairman and Commissioners.

01:10:24.800 --> 01:10:27.680
 I appreciate the opportunity to be with you tonight.

01:10:27.680 --> 01:10:31.720
 Thomas Fletcher, 6161 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas.

01:10:31.720 --> 01:10:34.000
 I am the consultant for the applicant.

01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:40.720
 I just wanted to be available to answer questions, but I did want to share a couple of things.

01:10:40.720 --> 01:10:45.400
 We didn't have a neighborhood meeting, but we sent out letters to everyone within the

01:10:45.400 --> 01:10:49.220
 200 and the 500-foot notification distance.

01:10:49.220 --> 01:10:54.240
 The adjacent property owners, there's a couple of existing residences.

01:10:54.240 --> 01:11:00.720
 There's properties, undeveloped properties to the south that are undeveloped but are

01:11:00.720 --> 01:11:03.200
 proposed for future development.

01:11:03.200 --> 01:11:08.020
 Then we have the Hickory Grove Municipal Utility District, which is the residential development

01:11:08.020 --> 01:11:11.600
 that is currently under construction just to the north.

01:11:11.600 --> 01:11:16.560
 All of the homeowners within the notification are still owned by the home builders, and

01:11:16.560 --> 01:11:19.880
 there's really not an established HOA yet.

01:11:19.880 --> 01:11:24.600
 I did send out notifications, a letter that explained what we're doing, what we're proposing

01:11:24.600 --> 01:11:28.840
 along with the map that shows that I, at this time, have not gotten any.

01:11:28.840 --> 01:11:33.040
 I provided my phone number and my email, I haven't gotten any responses or any questions,

01:11:33.040 --> 01:11:37.920
 which looks like it's consistent with what the city staff has found as well.

01:11:37.920 --> 01:11:43.040
 When we did the overall project, this is not within the district boundaries of the mud,

01:11:43.040 --> 01:11:47.880
 but the original owner did purchase all the property and work to entitle it together,

01:11:47.880 --> 01:11:51.660
 so they did look at it as a master plan community.

01:11:51.660 --> 01:11:57.880
 With this portion of the project being along US 380, envision that as commercial land in

01:11:57.880 --> 01:11:59.560
 the future.

01:11:59.560 --> 01:12:04.040
 Now that the residential development has been developing and they're starting to get homeowners,

01:12:04.040 --> 01:12:10.800
 they're starting to get inquiries on the commercial, and now is the time that we wanted to go and

01:12:10.800 --> 01:12:17.160
 get the zoning in place to start working towards the vision of this complete master plan community

01:12:17.160 --> 01:12:21.320
 with retail services adjacent to the development.

01:12:21.320 --> 01:12:26.000
 When we did the preliminary plat for the overall development, we did include these tracks.

01:12:26.000 --> 01:12:27.480
 Those were shown.

01:12:27.480 --> 01:12:32.520
 We looked at and determined what utilities were going to be necessary to support the

01:12:32.520 --> 01:12:36.400
 developments when we did the water study for the overall development.

01:12:36.400 --> 01:12:42.380
 We looked at this as commercial, so from a utility perspective, that was taken into consideration.

01:12:42.380 --> 01:12:45.960
 When we did the traffic impact analysis as part of the preliminary plat, we looked at

01:12:45.960 --> 01:12:48.080
 this as commercial as well.

01:12:48.080 --> 01:12:53.440
 If this gets approved and we go forward with commercial, depending on the requirements

01:12:53.440 --> 01:12:59.080
 of the DDC, we may end up having to update traffic impact analysis for given users to

01:12:59.080 --> 01:13:03.120
 determine if any additional improvements are required.

01:13:03.120 --> 01:13:08.400
 As part of that TIA, there are provisions that we have to do as far as turn lanes and

01:13:08.400 --> 01:13:09.960
 some other improvements.

01:13:09.960 --> 01:13:14.600
 That has been factored in and is considered as part of this, but I appreciate your time

01:13:14.600 --> 01:13:15.600
 tonight.

01:13:15.600 --> 01:13:19.200
 I just wanted to be available in case there were questions that you had, and happy to

01:13:19.200 --> 01:13:21.000
 stand for any questions.

01:13:21.000 --> 01:13:25.360
 Any questions of the applicant?

01:13:25.360 --> 01:13:30.920
 I guess I have one.

01:13:30.920 --> 01:13:32.160
 If you don't know, that's fine.

01:13:32.160 --> 01:13:45.000
 I can check with staff, or maybe we just don't know yet, but the Thomas J. Egan Road that's

01:13:45.000 --> 01:13:52.520
 on the eastern side of this sort of parallels the Golden Hoof.

01:13:52.520 --> 01:14:02.160
 I said it, that's not Hope, Golden Hoof Drive, but they look fairly close to each other.

01:14:02.160 --> 01:14:09.400
 Are there future plans to expand the Thomas J. Egan, or is really the Golden Hoof the

01:14:09.400 --> 01:14:14.800
 main entrance to this area as well as the residential portion of the mud?

01:14:14.800 --> 01:14:21.000
 Golden Hoof is a secondary arterial on the mobility plan, so it will eventually get expanded.

01:14:21.000 --> 01:14:28.440
 Adjacent to our property, the first phases that we've developed, we have built our half

01:14:28.440 --> 01:14:31.240
 section of Thomas J. Egan.

01:14:31.240 --> 01:14:35.520
 We've widened that and we've added sidewalks, so if you look just to the north of where

01:14:35.520 --> 01:14:41.840
 this tract is, there is improvements to Thomas J. Egan that have been made.

01:14:41.840 --> 01:14:48.120
 With development of the commercial on the corner, there will also have to be improvements.

01:14:48.120 --> 01:14:54.200
 In our TIA, our phase five of our residential development, so if the commercial doesn't

01:14:54.200 --> 01:15:01.160
 develop prior to the portion of the residential that's at the southwest corner of Jackson

01:15:01.160 --> 01:15:07.140
 and Egan Road, if that residential develops first, they have to build a right turn lane

01:15:07.140 --> 01:15:11.000
 onto Egan and a right turn lane onto US 380.

01:15:11.000 --> 01:15:14.120
 That was identified in the TIA.

01:15:14.120 --> 01:15:18.160
 If the commercial develops first, then they have to do their perimeter road improvements,

01:15:18.160 --> 01:15:24.040
 but as part of the development, there will be additional improvements to Egan, and ultimately

01:15:24.040 --> 01:15:28.160
 Egan will be developed as a secondary arterial.

01:15:28.160 --> 01:15:32.000
 I believe I've got that correct as secondary and not primary.

01:15:32.000 --> 01:15:40.520
 Then Golden Hoof, part of the reason that it is closer to Egan at the intersection is

01:15:40.520 --> 01:15:46.240
 because Golden Hoof was an existing road at the connection of US 380, and because there's

01:15:46.240 --> 01:15:52.920
 existing residents that connect to that, when we were looking at what was appropriate for

01:15:52.920 --> 01:15:59.160
 the development, we wanted to maintain their access, so we connect there, but if you look

01:15:59.160 --> 01:16:05.040
 at the overall residential plan, it starts curving to the northwest and then connects

01:16:05.040 --> 01:16:10.760
 at Jackson, further away from Egan, so that there's more separation there.

01:16:10.760 --> 01:16:14.880
 Okay, thank you.

01:16:14.880 --> 01:16:18.880
 I don't see any more questions, thank you.

01:16:18.880 --> 01:16:20.920
 Thank you, appreciate your time.

01:16:20.920 --> 01:16:24.600
 This is a public hearing, so if anyone else would like to speak, you're more than welcome

01:16:24.600 --> 01:16:26.100
 to.

01:16:26.100 --> 01:16:30.120
 Not seeing anyone, I'll close the public hearing.

01:16:30.120 --> 01:16:32.560
 Open the floor for discussion.

01:16:32.560 --> 01:16:36.120
 Commissioner Ketcham said.

01:16:36.120 --> 01:16:38.280
 I motion to approve.

01:16:38.280 --> 01:16:39.280
 Commissioner Dyer?

01:16:39.280 --> 01:16:42.280
 I second that motion.

01:16:42.280 --> 01:16:43.280
 Okay.

01:16:43.280 --> 01:16:44.280
 Yes, yeah.

01:16:44.280 --> 01:16:49.280
 So I motion to approve Z25-0022.

01:16:49.280 --> 01:16:50.280
 Okay.

01:16:50.280 --> 01:16:58.040
 I think we want it in the opposite order.

01:16:58.040 --> 01:17:01.560
 I think we want the comprehensive plan amendment.

01:17:01.560 --> 01:17:14.800
 Can we make a motion on both items and vote on both items?

01:17:14.800 --> 01:17:15.800
 Okay.

01:17:15.800 --> 01:17:16.800
 Yeah.

01:17:16.800 --> 01:17:17.800
 So let's try that.

01:17:17.800 --> 01:17:22.520
 I think it'll just be cleaner, Commissioner Riggs, if we just go one by one.

01:17:22.520 --> 01:17:23.520
 Commissioner Ketcham said.

01:17:23.520 --> 01:17:29.240
 Okay, I motion to approve CA25-0005.

01:17:29.240 --> 01:17:31.520
 And Commissioner Dyer?

01:17:31.520 --> 01:17:39.080
 I second that motion to make a recommendation to the City Council to approve the comprehensive

01:17:39.080 --> 01:17:43.880
 plan amendment.

01:17:43.880 --> 01:17:44.880
 Any discussion?

01:17:44.880 --> 01:17:54.800
 Yeah, I'll just say I have full faith in our staff to be able to apply our rules and regulations.

01:17:54.800 --> 01:18:01.600
 I have heartache about this entire corridor because I haven't heard people asking for

01:18:01.600 --> 01:18:06.280
 more of 380 east of town to happen west of town also.

01:18:06.280 --> 01:18:14.880
 I understand that that's not the way that quote unquote it's usually done in Texas.

01:18:14.880 --> 01:18:20.800
 And so it's a big rock to push upon.

01:18:20.800 --> 01:18:27.960
 You know, ultimately, I think the city has control over land use, and we don't have control

01:18:27.960 --> 01:18:30.360
 over a textile roadway.

01:18:30.360 --> 01:18:37.360
 And so when we're looking at safety implications and the future traffic flow, the only tool

01:18:37.360 --> 01:18:43.480
 we have is to influence the land use.

01:18:43.480 --> 01:18:46.040
 Not seeing any more questions?

01:18:46.040 --> 01:18:54.560
 Call for a vote on the board.

01:18:54.560 --> 01:18:57.660
 That item passes 5-1.

01:18:57.660 --> 01:19:03.640
 And I'll take a motion for the second hearing.

01:19:03.640 --> 01:19:06.800
 Commissioner Ketcham said.

01:19:06.800 --> 01:19:13.280
 I motion to approve the zoning change 0022.

01:19:13.280 --> 01:19:14.280
 And Commissioner Riggs?

01:19:14.280 --> 01:19:15.280
 I second.

01:19:15.280 --> 01:19:17.320
 Very good.

01:19:17.320 --> 01:19:21.240
 Any other questions or comments?

01:19:21.240 --> 01:19:22.240
 Not seeing any.

01:19:22.240 --> 01:19:30.300
 I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:19:30.300 --> 01:19:33.880
 And that item passes 5-1.

01:19:33.880 --> 01:19:34.960
 Thank you, sir.

01:19:34.960 --> 01:19:45.680
 That brings us to item 6A, planning and zoning commission project matrix.

01:19:45.680 --> 01:19:46.680
 Thank you, Chair.

01:19:46.680 --> 01:19:51.960
 So at our December meeting, we added several items to the matrix, which you should see

01:19:51.960 --> 01:19:58.320
 reflected in your backup, including upcoming discussions on the comprehensive plan, further

01:19:58.320 --> 01:20:04.440
 discussion on zoning and annexation, some updates on apartment vacancy levels, a request

01:20:04.440 --> 01:20:10.920
 to 380 study, explanation of the financial tool staff uses, and explanation on why various

01:20:10.920 --> 01:20:12.920
 departments don't attend all meetings.

01:20:12.920 --> 01:20:15.480
 So we've captured all of those.

01:20:15.480 --> 01:20:21.420
 And we'll continue to work through our matrix at future work sessions and upcoming meetings.

01:20:21.420 --> 01:20:27.840
 But happy to add any more if we would like, or yeah, further discussion.

01:20:27.840 --> 01:20:34.200
 Any items to add to the matrix from the commission?

01:20:34.200 --> 01:20:39.440
 I think that sounds like plenty for staff to get through.

01:20:39.440 --> 01:20:40.960
 Yeah.

01:20:40.960 --> 01:20:46.120
 It is a lot.

01:20:46.120 --> 01:20:50.360
 I do want to add something not urgent, but I think it's important to talk through this

01:20:50.360 --> 01:20:55.700
 as we get to the comprehensive plan in the future to the update.

01:20:55.700 --> 01:21:07.300
 And that is I think we need a continuation of the state bill discussion, specifically

01:21:07.300 --> 01:21:16.260
 on SB 840 from this previous session.

01:21:16.260 --> 01:21:20.600
 Thank you.

01:21:20.600 --> 01:21:26.160
 I think the commission would benefit from an understanding of not only what the current

01:21:26.160 --> 01:21:33.000
 status is, but what we expect to happen based on historical trends of how these bracketed

01:21:33.000 --> 01:21:42.800
 bills operate by 2030, and to give us a rational appreciation for what is coming so that we

01:21:42.800 --> 01:21:49.760
 can adjust to that beforehand instead of afterwards.

01:21:49.760 --> 01:21:52.000
 Not seeing any else.

01:21:52.000 --> 01:21:53.000
 Close that item.

01:21:53.000 --> 01:21:58.560
 And that brings us to item 7, concluding items.

01:21:58.560 --> 01:22:00.640
 Anyone have any concluding items?

01:22:00.640 --> 01:22:03.640
 Yep.

01:22:03.640 --> 01:22:07.560
 Wanted to give you all an update on some items that council considered at their meeting last

01:22:07.560 --> 01:22:10.800
 night that you all considered at your December meeting.

01:22:10.800 --> 01:22:14.840
 The ADU and town home amendments did pass.

01:22:14.840 --> 01:22:18.320
 Planning and Zoning Commission, you all had recommended approval of the amendments with

01:22:18.320 --> 01:22:24.360
 the modification that an additional ADU per lot could be added with an SUP and less within

01:22:24.360 --> 01:22:27.480
 a mile and a half of the downtown square district.

01:22:27.480 --> 01:22:30.080
 City council passed that with a modification.

01:22:30.080 --> 01:22:35.480
 So removing that mile and a half buffer, but you can get the additional ADU with an SUP.

01:22:35.480 --> 01:22:37.920
 So those passed yesterday.

01:22:37.920 --> 01:22:44.160
 As well as the Hickory Grove, the companion case that we saw last month, the comp plan

01:22:44.160 --> 01:22:46.820
 and the mobility plan passed last night.

01:22:46.820 --> 01:22:51.240
 The zoning case will be considered at the February 3rd meeting.

01:22:51.240 --> 01:22:57.800
 The Craver Estates Zoning District or Redistrict passed as well, so that was further north

01:22:57.800 --> 01:23:00.240
 closer to Lake Ray Roberts.

01:23:00.240 --> 01:23:06.400
 As well as the modular data center SUP and the special sign district for Hunter Ranch.

01:23:06.400 --> 01:23:11.760
 All of those were considered at their meeting last night and that's all I have.

01:23:11.760 --> 01:23:15.680
 Any other concluding items?

01:23:15.680 --> 01:23:21.400
 Seeing none, without objection, I will adjourn our meeting at 743 PM.

01:23:21.400 --> 01:23:23.400
 Thank you.