Nov 20, 2019 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2019-11-20 5:00 PM

Hello and welcome to the City of Denton planning and zoning meeting for Wednesday November 20th. This is our work session and with a quorum present I will call us to order at 5 o 7 p.m. Let it be noted that chair Roselle is absent from tonight's meeting and at this time Commissioner Smith is absent. To clarify agenda public hearing item B is being pulled from tonight's agenda so we will not be considering that today. It will be re-noticed and most likely on the December 11th December 11th meeting. Now let's get into our agenda we don't have any work session reports so we will go to consent agenda. Any questions on consent? Yeah so I know on the consent agenda there's the two properties north of North Lakes. I have a couple of questions about those. Let's take one at a time because they might be different people. Okay so Haley I think you've got the first consent. Well they're sort of both the same question so I'm just gonna have Julie if you wouldn't mind listening in as well and and both of these questions relate and I think to the the properties and distances regarding setbacks for these properties and there's a caveat to that which is in light of last night's vote so this actually might be more of a question for Cynthia but and what are the distances for this apartment complex and for the school and I know that unfortunately that's two different people but that's essentially the same question. What are the what are the distances to the building especially vis-a-vis the 250 and as of last night 500 but realizing that we have different criteria for when rules are applied so I mean what are what are the implications of all that together for these two properties? So both of these flats do reflect compliance with the 250 foot reverse setback that was in place at the time of their application. Last night's vote although the ordinance was approved there is a 14-day lag time between adoption of an ordinance and its effective date so that will go into full effect 14 days from last night and I believe there was a clause written into the ordinance for projects that are in the queue currently to remain under the code that they started under so anything that was currently under review with staff would be able to stay with the 250 foot reverse setback to the completion of that project. For the A2 option that was discussed last night or elsewhere in the code? That was in the ordinance itself. Okay. There was a clause in there but and Cynthia I don't know if you have anything else to add on that I think that was the just of that one clause in the ordinance? No, that's correct. Okay. And do we that the they're with they're outside the 250 for the proposed plan for construction of these buildings and I mean this is I think especially Jermaine because we're just we would discuss this last night I know it's 14 days and if it was just something weird like a sign or something where it it's a rule change but it's inconsequential I'd be I wouldn't be so pushy but we're the reason there was a rule changes this is a noxious use and so I'm concerned about residences and children. Certainly and both projects are meeting the 250 foot reverse setback. For their proposed building constructions? Correct. And are they outside the 500? I'm not certain on the school the buildings may be on the school I can let Julie speak to that those are separate applications though from the plot the plots reflect the 250 foot setback the multifamily I don't recall the exact numbers off the top of my head they have an agreement with the operator that was part of their specific use permit last year and their setbacks are a little bit higher than the 250 I just don't know the exact number I think it was in the range of three to four hundred feet to the buildings but but they they meet or exceed the 250 foot requirement. And this is now maybe it's still following on but this may be a more of a question for does this mean that we are creating before construction a legally non-conforming structure which seems like we're trying to minimize that and yet we're we're doing it on purpose here. Well in the ordinance as Haley mentioned in section three of the ordinance that was approved last night it does call out those plats that were submitted before the ordinance was approved and those don't have to comply with the new setback. And I just want to caution that the gas well ordinance is not on the agenda for this evening's meeting. Yeah no I'm not I'm not discussing the the actual ordinance itself I'm this is particularly just the setbacks and these particular plats but thank you for your caution. And we don't have any again this I guess a legal question we don't have any special consideration for the types of use there's no difference in a noxious use in any other kind of use. Because I'm concerned about future liability issues to be honest not only the health of the children but then financially liability issues if we find that we're within the 500 and we knew we did it before we allowed construction. Again the gas well setback is not on the agenda for this evening. It's not germane to this problem even though the setback is from the gas wells. These plats meet the technical requirements of the code though in state law does obligate the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve plats that meet the code. All right thank you. Commissioner Pernau. This is the same line of questioning I just kind of wanted to verify if you could check before we present on this one if I remember correctly the we were looking at 250 feet from the edge of the pad and at the time of the you know the actual active well and everything was 450 feet when we discussed it that time we talked about the idea that if they were ever to drill you know if they were ever to like you know open up close farther on the pad closer to the house closer to the property is that the well owners would would basically have to submit a request to the city to get approval on that one correct so so based on and I don't want to make you know I don't want to make the setbacks the part of the question I just want to ask so based on what we what we're at right now if they were to attempt that basically our existing setbacks would would prevent that right and I believe you're referencing the specific use permit for this site we looked at the pad site to the east of there that may expand in the future yes so when and if that pad site is the operator seeks to expand that site they would have to come in they're located in a floodplain so they have enhanced scrutiny on that site they would actually require a specific use permit a watershed protection permit they would have to obtain waivers from all of the protected use owners that are within their required setback which would be 500 feet in this instance because they're an existing pad in a non industrial district so everyone within that 500 foot radius would have to sign a waiver and then they would have to get through those additional steps the the watershed protection permit SUP and then the gas well site plan process okay thank you very much anybody else on this one okay thanks hey Julie I did have a quick question on the high school plot thank you I saw a note on there that I guess prior to final plant we need an AESA on there is that correct if they were going to impact the alternate the ESA right now their plans are not proposing to impact the ESA so that okay so it's not right now it's going to be out of it if they did okay if their site plan did change and they they were going to impact it then yes prior to final plot they would have to get okay but it is not anything that's being done now no that's what I wanted to clarify thank you anybody else on that one okay items for individual consideration we do have a general development plan that is recommended for denial that is Haley again so you don't see these very often but this is a general development plan which I like to think of kind of the pre-preliminary plat for larger projects that want to do a little enhanced planning on the front end so this particular GDP is for the same site that we have the rezoning to plan development request later this evening this application came in almost concurrently with that plan development rezoning and it was just a little bit ahead of the curve and because the site does not have that zoning in place yet this general development plan cannot be approved until that zoning is approved if the zoning is approved so this item is before you tonight because of the shot clock bill that requires that within so many days of it being submitted that it be brought forward for approval denial so staff is recommending denial solely because it does not have that zoning in place yet to allow this lot size and density of housing Commissioner Smith thank you chair if we'd recommend the denial then does it does this then continue on to to City Council for that or they have to withdraw and reapply if the zoning does pass those kinds of things what's the what's the denial process in regards I get the shot clock reasoning but what's the process from here on out certainly so the GDP is a planning and zoning Commission approval so if you were tonight it's like yes it will come back before you the process should ultimately be their zoning goes through council if it is approved then they would submit this plan back to staff and say you put it on your next agenda we have 15 days to get it back to you all for you to reconsider and approve at that time if the zoning is in place not to belabor why why do we do GPs again this is the first time I've ever seen one three years up in here so GDP is what do we have them what do we use them for well it's no longer a process that's in the 2019 code this project came in under the old code before that October 1st effective date of the 2019 well they come back up within whenever they get denied and they come back in then they'll have to come back underneath in the 2019 code then because my understanding is because the way state law is written they can stay under that code because they have the opportunity to take whatever time they need to get the plan into compliance with whatever we the findings were for denial and then if they meet those they can come back in and continue forward and then the GDP is just for more advanced pre planning essentially pre essentially it was a tool in the O2 code like I said pre preliminary plat just to give you know an additional high-level look at utilities street layout and things like that just to allow that extra level of planning Haley along that line of thinking so if they're applying for rezoning for a zoning designation in our new code how is it that we're then still going to be looking at it from the old code it does seem like we've this project is being looked at from from both codes and it's it's confusing to me of how we could be on the old code if we're actually dealing with a zoning designation that didn't exist in the old code correct and I certainly understand that their zoning application actually initially came in for districts under the O2 code it fell within this transitional period where we could not notice for a rezoning under the code that was no longer in effect after October 1 so we worked with the applicant to create the best tool to get them the same end result and that turned out to be the plan development in the new DDC so there are the overall intent is to comply with the 2019 code there are certain facets of the O2 code that they are vested in the GDP was already in process so we elected to allow that to continue forward because like I said it's essentially a preliminary plat just a little bit less detail but particularly the tree preservation requirements will be looked at under the 2002 code because chapter 245 of the local government code specifically allows that to be vested in so based on their date of application they have the ability to pick and choose essentially components of each code since we were in that transitional period okay so yeah I guess that's where my question was going so they can yes certain elements under 245 different pieces can be pulled from the old code they had the choice between which which of those they wanted to go with so tree preservation is essentially the only code element that is from the O2 code everything else they're intending to meet the 2019 code through the PD process and then like I said the GDP was just their existing application it was the first thing in the door so under the shot clock bill we needed to let that continue forward but that process won't exist in the future for other projects okay I may have more when we revisit this item Commissioner Beck yeah so can you remind me of the difference between the tree code in the two different versions I do have some more detail on that in the PD presentation but essentially everything was different different types of tree classifications different minimum preservation requirements for the trees are you gonna go over that I do have more detail on that in the PD presentation for later so then I'll hold my questions till then okay thank you Haley okay moving on to our public hearing items our first is a final replat and that is marked good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a planner in the development service department this evening I have for your consideration the replat of the Golden Triangle edition and I stand for any questions that you have I assume this is just for redevelopment of them all right I believe so yeah okay thank you oh I'm sorry Commissioner we're not tearing down them all right no sir okay thanks all righty thank you okay item B is being pulled as I had said Commissioner Smith for your unification since you're a little bit late item B of our public hearing is being pulled and renoticed for our December 11th meeting okay item C is Julie all right good evening I'm Julie Wyatt and I'm presenting S 19 3 Oxford at Sherman the request before you is to consider a specific use permit for a multifamily development the subject property is about 12 acres it is currently undeveloped and it is situated between loop 288 to the north and poinsettia Boulevard to the south some background on the property in 2002 the property was zoned CMG during the citywide rezoning in 2019 it transitioned to SC due to the submittal timing this is another one of those it's in that transition between the 2002 code and the 2019 code the property is or the project is subject to the 2002 Denton development code regulations but multifamily work dwellings require an SUP in both the CMG which was the previous zoning and the current zoning of SC so here's the subject property right here outlined in black you can see that SC zoning just to take a look at what the surrounding zoning pattern is there's r7 to the south at the townhome development at r6 just a little further south than that adjacent to it to the east is an r4 subdivision currently under construction there are there's a multifamily development in MN to the west of the property and the property that is kind of to the northwest of the subject site is currently undeveloped but commercial development will be developed in the near future at that location the SUP criteria for approval and in the 2002 Denton development code is in sub chapter 6 I won't read all of these to you they're in your backup as well as the code we'll just go over some of the highlights of that analysis and that that criteria for approval in more detail so first of all we always look at the Denton plan 2030 when we when we start analyzing a proposal in this case the future land use is community mixed use the intent of that is to provide a mix of uses more commercial service and then some more high density development or residential uses and to complement the commercial center so really to to encourage a diversity of use to to have a more dynamic development pattern in these areas multifamily is consistent with the future land use map once again first of all it is a complementary residential use for mixed use districts it's often found in mixed use districts and within that larger future land use designation there are variations and in this instance because it's really close to a residential area a residential use like multifamily would maintain that residential character along that edge where those where the the residential of us that that mixed use center I you all seen this slide before the dent plan 2030 also talks about the growth projections for Denton and that by 2030 our our projected population will be a little over 200,000 people in order to accommodate all those of those residents there will need to be new housing units and as part of that multifamily multifamily is an appropriate use and is something we want to see and kind of our urbanized areas and in those strategic locations next to arterials places like loop 288 where there's proximity to existing residential also schools and shopping so so this this this area is really consistent with what the comp plan calls for to look a little more specifically about what they're proposing want to talk about the site plan so the the site is kind of a triangular shape if they are proposing eight three-story buildings and those are outlined in purple the proposal is oriented toward loop 288 so the main entrance to the development would be off of loop 288 they are proposing three access points with controlled access the full in and out access adjacent to loop 288 and then two exit only points one to the adjacent future commercial development that would be the most direct access to FM 428 to Sherman Drive and then another exit only point on to point study up they are proposing a community pool with a clubhouse also some open space areas one that would include a fire pit and and outdoor eating also proposing a dog park in this location that would be controlled access for the dogs excuse me Julie commissioner Bernetta yeah I just have a question when I'm looking at the aerial map and the you know the notification and response map it includes the the yellow outline includes that little section that goes out to Sherman yes the notification got a little overzealous it actually was over notified okay so yes there the little the notification map included this little section here which was in addition to the subject property so in the actual subject property is just that part outlined in yellow okay so we're voting we're just going on that spot right correct yes sir thank you very much there is there are additional open a meaningful open space areas one here adjacent to that single-family neighborhood kind of separating this residential building from from that that single-family lot and then and then in this location they're also proposing some one-story garages those are outlined in yellow and you can see that they're a lot of those are centered on on adjacent to poinsettia to allow that sort of visual buffer to set those residential backs that the the taller residential buildings back a little further from the existing development that the three-story residential buildings are set back a minimum of 101 feet from the south property line and then about 49 feet from the east property line and the proposal does meet the the minimum parking regulations the landscape plan shows that they are proposing 163 new large canopy trees at maturity that would be about 200,000 square feet of canopy as as part of that they're proposing 47 large canopy trees along the southern edge and that is in addition to the required 24 street trees those are actually medium canopy trees those are a little smaller they're proposing some additional large canopy trees to make sure there's that visual buffer between the existing residential and the proposal there's also as I mentioned that open space area adjacent to between the development and that adjacent single-family lot and that would include a landscape buffer that's required for the code I'm sure Commissioner back so on that regard and you can use this map or the other map but I noticed one of the conflicts that you had was trees and I don't know if you're gonna address that but are there there's no ways of attaining the standard since I believe you said they were below the standard for trees no they actually meet not only the 2002 tree code requirements they actually meet the 2019 requirements a lot of the trees on the site were kind of fence line trees most of them were secondary trees and they actually meet both both codes on that my mistake thank you but a lot but tree preservation is important in this line because a lot of their preserved trees are these fence line trees that are existing right here so they're maintaining those existing trees to provide that that good buffer between them and the single-family residential there is a perimeter fence around the subject property it's going to be a combination if approved of ornamental metal board-on-board cedar and masonry columns and one place I want you to zoom into is that the the property line adjacent to poinsettia they are proposing board-on-board cedar fence with recesses and projections and it's a little hard to see but the the fence actually kind of goes in and out to allow landscaping planting areas I mean to break up kind of the monotony of a really long fence and although we really like that visual interest we do have concerns about the durability of those materials and so staff is actually recommending a condition that that fence either be a wrought iron with with a a evergreen shrub a screening device along that that perimeter or a masonry wall here are their sample elevations and this this one shows a little bit better about what they're proposing for that south fence line but they are proposing three-story buildings with a neutral color palette balconies or patios are in 100% of their units awnings decorative wall lighting and a variety of recesses and projections are going to provide relief reduce that bulk of those buildings also the appearance of the stairwells those are their appearance is minimized from the exterior of those buildings there is if this is approved there will be another item or another project that will come before you and that's an alternative development plan because it's under the 2002 code there is that alternative development plan a provision that if they need a deviation from one of the subchapter 13 requirements there are two first a project greater than three acres has to have a public or private street system the way they're laying out their buildings and proposing they've actually got tuck under garages and all of their buildings so it kind of breaks up that long private street system so they would need an alternative development plan to deviate from that provision and then also the code prohibits garages between the the buildings and the street in this instance the garage is really work in in in order to set those residential buildings back to have those one-story buildings closer to that existing neighborhood so the proposal does meet the requirements for an ADP it'll come back before you if this is approved by it by City Council a TIA was submitted and approved as a as a part of this request as part of it they did provide trip generation there there their estimates show that there would be about 1,800 trips generated per 24-hour weekday and that would be 113 in the morning peak and then 133 in the evening peak they also as part of the TIA looked at sort of the total build out of that corner once that commercial piece comes in their estimate is that it would be about 3,600 trips per day Julie on that note I know it it was mentioned in there that they took into consideration the future commercial development in the existing homes what about the single-family developments that are effectively on both sides of the development were those considered at all I believe it was all considered as part of it they actually sort of melded a lot of the data because the Harvest Hill all of the data from the Harvest Hill subdivision and the trips generated from that also the TIA that was prepared for the palladium development that adjacent multifamily development and sort of took all of that into consideration when they were developing this got a new development on the other side of 428 the J the development actually they did because poinsettia is actually going to punch across FM 428 so if you look at a map and that is part of their analysis of that of that so this is not a road yet but it it will if it's not yet we may have really old aerial but I don't think it's a road yet but this is actually going to punch across and and part of their analysis of this intersection of poinsettia and FM 428 took into account that that that movement across that intersection and in fact their their analysis by their analysis they feel that once all of this is kind of developed that that the the intersection of poinsettia and Sherman FM 428 will meet the warrants for a signal oh there's no question yeah okay so so it really it was considered as part of it the single-family homes that are going in on that corner yeah the whole development because this is actually supposed to be commercial as well so there's gonna be a lot going on in this in this area completely agree okay thanks but that was a great segue into talking about intersections so their TIA's it's been a lot of time talking about those intersections first was well first a little bit of background so they're given a grade a to F depending on the delay that that drivers experience at those intersections a being the least amount of delay like 10 seconds or less I believe and then F being a substantial delay 50 seconds or more so in their analysis of loop FM or loop 288 in FM 428 you know that that intersection because it's a pretty complicated intersection but it ran the gamut from a to F the the the straight going traffic on FM 428 was the most free-flowing but then those those cars exiting the the loop and having any left-turn movements really had substantial delays I believe up until four minutes of delays so so that that intersection currently meets the warrants for signal I talked to engineering it is supposed to be installed within the next six to eight months they they know that this is a really tough intersection for those residents in that area and so as an interim step they're going to be installing for always stops within in December that I believe the first couple of weeks in December is when they say they're estimated to be installed so so that is forthcoming and that'll be an interim step for that signal and then as you mentioned the FM 428 in Poinsettia that westbound traffic that especially is turning left onto FM 428 Sherman Drive or at some point what could potentially go straight that is that is those drivers are experiencing the most difficult turning movement especially in the morning the evening as it as a interim step the recommendation is to restripe that road to have a dedicated left turn lane and then sort of a bifurcate the left turning movements or the right turning movements who would go north on that road and that will help ease it until until that meets that warrants for the light and when is that planned June it would be with the development of the project yeah it would be the design would happen during platting and development if it was approved Commissioner Beck Sherman 428 is that's a text dot road is that correct I believe I believe it is it is text dot outside of the loop if it's still text on inside the loop it should be converting over to the city pretty soon and are we widen widening that to accommodate all the development on either side that are being proposed there's not a plan to do that with inside the loop there are also perimeter street improvements that would be required as if this is approved the developer would would construct kind of a spur off of the off of the entrance ramp for loop 288 connecting down to point study a here to provide that sort of looping circulation pattern so if this was approved there would be a spur sort of the beginnings of the acts of the frontage roads for loop 288 that would be constructed in front of the proposed Julie while we're on the discussion of points Etta it seems to me with that multifamily the palladium that went in did we not have some kind of restriction there that there would be no parking on points Etta I don't know if there is a restriction of no parking it is a gated community there is a they do have a screening wall there I don't know how I remember the discussion I just don't know necessarily what I'm trying to recall I believe I think there was on street parking already existing if I'm trying to I'm trying to recall off memory but what I think we did was we did not permit them to include off-street parking I'm sorry on street parking to count towards meeting their parking requirement but we didn't change anything for point said yeah okay can we maybe Claire can you look that up in between if you have a minute sure I'm just curious I know there's no signage there now for on street but you know it's getting really dense in there right now and filling up fast and so I know that was a conversation we had with the residents about their concern for people parking on the street guests in these multifamilies if they can't find guest parking I know the conversation was had I just don't recall what ended up being approved so what I can find out I appreciate them thanks all right other infrastructure there is a public water and sewer available they would have to extend an eight-inch water line along that north loop 288 the part that they're building that that frontage road Waterworks Park is pretty near the proposal but it is still about 3,500 linear feet from the subject property and the sidewalks not not always there so the applicant is proposing some on-site recreational amenities we talked about on the pool dog park and open space they would have to comply with all park dedication and development fees when they when they would final plat or and pull any building permits it is within the Wilson elementary Strickland middle school and Ryan high school attendance zones according to DISD the amount of elementary students would would stress the capacity at Wilson elementary but Strickland and Ryan have the capacity for additional students Wilson elementary is also being is about to be reconstructed as well so there's a lot kind of going on in that area so Julie with regard to that because we have this issue on another development we're going to be talking about about how we don't have the capacity in the existing zoned elementary school so how does the city consider that when when examining a project like this we look at all factors associated with it and it kind of and especially in this one because there are improvements coming to that Wilson elementary but you know it's one factor we look at as sort of the myriad of criteria for approval so you know it does and and when DISD comes to you and says it would stress capacity or for this other development that we're going to discuss they'd have to be rezoned do you work in collaboration I mean how how how is DISD gonna accommodate these kids we do try to work in collaboration with them to let them know what's coming so that as they plan for the future they can make sure that they have you know adequate facilities so we're pretty in constant contact with those things get approved and if things get rolling the communication will be such so things can be drawn accordingly okay mr. Beck so I'm not exact same same issue it was a little unclear is are they stressing the existing pre-construction Wilson or the stressing the post-construction Wilson you know it he wasn't really clear on which one it was but I know they are right in the middle of the the reconstruction of the entire building so you know as part of their planning process they're they're looking at all of them are our properties in those projects that are coming forward all right public outreach was done for the proposal it did have the are required notifications we have received two letters in opposition neither of those were are within the 200 foot boundary from the subject property and one letter in favor that is within 200 feet it's about in this location they did have a neighborhood meeting over in July I wasn't able to attend there was a conflict but and we did ask him to hold in another neighborhood meeting but they they did decline to have that Julie did you get any information from them regarding what was transpired at the meeting there were only five who showed up and they you know according to the applicant there really wasn't a lot of concern with it with with the proposal so and that seems to be consistent with what I've heard because they just haven't heard a lot from from the residents around there so based upon the criteria for approval staff does recommend approval our recommendation includes a sort of listing of what the site plan landscape plan and elevations have that if approved they would they could build eight three-story buildings with them in any Center and Clubhouse and the 19 accessory structures that includes both excuse me the garages as well as some carport some covered parking they're proposing 200 and sorry I have a typo 248 dwelling units with a density of about 20.15 dwelling units per acre they they're proposing 460 parking spaces with which those that meets our parking requirements and the site specifies a total of 67 percent lock coverage and 33% landscape area and then the open space areas are to include a minimum of 12 seating spaces Julie sorry can you go yeah actually yeah right there I'm having a hard time with the line the recommendation line where it says increases greater than 5% somehow my brain is not that sentence is not working for me so would you mind explaining that so up to what point so if there for just for just numbers two through four and and this is because we want to get some specificity as to what they can and can't do that it would allow staff to approve increases up to five percent of the the 248 dwelling units or parking spaces or that lock coverage so there would only be that that minimum of 5% that staff could approve and then any decrease in that amount staff could approve but anything over the 5% it would have to go back through the public hearing process right and that's why that line doesn't make any sense to me because that's not what it says yeah if I may just add though that 5% it's still under the maximum that's allowed or minimum depending which one you're looking at so it's not that we're going above what the code allows it's just for this development and so commissioner yeah I just agree very vice-chair we probably change that wording I know that's not what's codifying at all I just it increases greater than 5% of the amount specified requirements two through four provided a lot of requirements the DDC I met okay so that means it technically reads up to us is that it's saying that well if we increase it by 20% does that make sense yeah I read it over and over again how many times and it's like yeah I'm not we I will I will make sure that that's a little clear they also proposing a minimum of eight dogway stations in the open space areas and then I want to make sure we codified that 71 large and medium canopy trees along that southern boundary that's a really important edge Commissioner Smith thank you sir first year first time I think I've ever really seen before we've we've been codifying kind of the site plan stuff they've been giving within this is that the unusual that we're doing that I mean I know this is an SEP it's not really a zoning issue of course but it's more of an SEP to be able to use in that in that zoning district but codifying hey give us this this preliminary site plan kind of and we're now codifying what you give us preliminarily it seems a little weird but well when when these site plans because they're they're on pretty large pieces of paper and there's a lot of small writing when they're shrunk down to fit on an ordinance they're illegible oftentimes so the point is to kind of have a text sort of laying out just the broad brushstrokes of what they're proposing so that future future planners and and and development of those in the development services department can figure out what we what was actually approved okay you guys didn't include anything on in that recommend or I guess yeah in that recommendation I don't see anything maybe it's in the slide you're about to get to which is the landscaping okay yeah so we do recommend approval but we are proposing some conditions that they that they're that the landscaping is intended to comply with the DDC and and that they need to comply with the landscaping and the site plan the parking area light fixtures can be determined at building permit but we want to make sure that they're at a at a level that is is provide safety for for the residents of the development but also that they're that they're not shining on the adjacent residential so we're we're asking that those be capped at 14 feet and then also the perimeter fencing materials you can finish your sentence oh just just that recommendation for the the wrought iron with the screening hedge or the the fencing materials of the masonry so I saw this in the staff analysis the staff recommendation you had the site plan requirements and then you had staff recommends approval ASB with following conditions it's it's just worded weird Julie just this our staff recommendations these three things plus the site plan pieces above yes okay thank you yes it's yes thank you yes the answer is yes we're also proposing the additional condition that within 30 days of council approval that they do come forward to the planning and zoning Commission with the ADP to deviate from those two provisions that we talked about earlier and that and then not withstanding the limited administrative approvals that 5% the city reserves the right to require approval by ordinance of any amendments to the SUP the attached site plan the elements described in order that they do have to comply with the site plan that they're that they're proposing we have notified of them of the conditions I think they were a little concerned about the perimeter fence provision that that we recommended but the applicant will be here tonight to talk to you and to answer any questions mr. Smith was the concern with the fence materials well I think they were they really you know they I think they thought a lot about that that board on board cedar and that this the sort of undulations of it to allow those landscaping areas and that was something that they really felt felt that they wanted to do and and and I did get their perspective and we understand but we do want to make sure that we have durable materials along our rights away and that that they stay nice for a really long time and so those were conversations we had throughout the review and so you know I don't know where they'll land but but that was just something that staff felt pretty strongly about how many feet of fencing is it that we're talking about that's it's pretty it's pretty long I'm just looking at it from a cost perspective that we're being wrought iron and wrought iron and see your board on board isn't too dissimilar but masonry if they're wanting something that is not transparent at all masonry goes up quite a bit in cost and so I hate to be I believe that that property nine was over about a thousand feet so it was it's a long span okay okay thanks thank you okay thanks Julie if I can just add in we have the ordnance Haley was gracious enough to pull it the ordinance from palladium there were seven conditions in total one the site plan required exterior building materials maintain the muted earth tone 12 foot setback from the property lines six foot ironically six foot decorative masonry wall with street trees and then here was no on-street parking for tenants is permitted and then the project should not be eligible for any on-street parking credits and then there was a limitation on the connection to the north to the commercial development so those were the seven conditions that were placed on that property for approval so they didn't really place the restriction on parking on points that you drive but it was for the development itself okay so when we say that the on-street parking was not permitted for tenants that doesn't exclude guests but but we're but when we're making that count the impact is the calculation in terms of how many parking spots they are projecting that they won't have on the property yes yes so all of all of what would have been required is is contained within the the property or the boundaries of their site okay thank you right that takes us to our next public hearing which is it's Julie again all right all right this is the 1912 Mockingbird single-family residential and the request before you is to rezone about 2.6 acres from r2 to r4 district the property is outlined here in yellow it's a flag-shaped piece of property the surrounding development is existing seeing suburban style single-family neighborhoods there are a few remaining large parcels nearby you can see adjacent to the property and north of Audre there's some some large parcels that still remain and the majority of the trees on site are fence line trees along the perimeter you kind of see the shadow of them there and then per the applicant the purpose is to develop nine single-family residential buildings so this is the current zoning map here you could see the surrounding zoning the subject property is outlined in black there is r2 on the subject property as well as north of Audre surrounding the subject property on the east and south and west is r4 and then as you get closer to the loop toward the east you could see it gets it gets a little more dense development with r7 and then MN if the request was approved this would be the zoning map it would extend that existing r4 to the subject property having having that kind of extension of it and and the continuation of that r4 district to the north so the the 2019 Denton Development Code has a lot more criteria for approval for a zoning case than the 2002 Denton Development Code we have the general criteria as well as then the criteria that are specific to that project type it's all outlined in your staff report I won't go over every single one we'll just go over the ones that are the most most pertinent to the request the the general approval criteria for all applications today we're going to be talking about mostly number three the consistency with the comprehensive plan and other applicable plans and then also eight minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property for the specific zoning criteria for approval we'll be talking about few more of those and those are outlined there in bold so first when we talked about the the first general criterion and then the zoning criterion a that has to do with our comprehensive plan so the subject property has is in an area designated for low density residential typically we see this it's intended for single family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre due to the new provisions within that within the Denton Development Code that minimum lot size instead of the density that shorthand density that we had in the 2002 code the minimum lot size for our four which is what they're proposing is 7,000 square feet which is which is if you just did the gross lot coverage with the with the or I'm sorry lot size with the with the acreage square footage you would get about six dwelling units per acre but that wouldn't include all the streets you would have to do any open space detention so although this is doesn't precisely conform to that low residential maximum density this does meet the overall goals of the of the didn't plan 2030 and most importantly is that it provides that infill development to provide for that compact development pattern that is part of the vision statement as well as our preferred growth concept criterion eight talks about minimizing impacts to the surrounding property the proposed r4 is consistent with the surrounding neighbor existing neighborhoods in both use because it's a primarily single-family zoning district as well as development scale so we did an analysis of the surrounding plots and looked at how those neighborhoods that have developed over the last decades around the subject property it's here out it's here it has a star on it the typical lot sizes surrounding the property range anywhere from about six thousand square feet to about 7,500 square feet so the proposed r4 with the minimum 7,000 square foot lot size is really consistent with what's around there and in use they are proposing single-family uses r4 does allow duplexes in townhomes but those we have to have to acquire an SUP so it would require additional scrutiny it would require public hearing and approval by City Council so Julie on that note that's the biggest concern I have with making this change you know so an SUP doesn't really necessarily keep townhomes or duplexes from developing I mean it's not a you know a way to not have them in there so is there any way that we can restrict this development to being single-family detached have you considered that I mean is I understand that it changes things to a PD but that's my main concern is that there's really no way to keep those what what taking it from r2 to r4 does with certain things because general office is also allowed in r4 within SUP but again it's not it's not a tool to regulate zoning it's it's I think that what you're just trying to think it through because we don't have that residential mixed-use overlay provision in the code anymore it most likely would have to go to a PD which I don't know would if that whether or not we would actually proceed under this application or a new probably re-noticed that was just a concern I wanted to bring up and maybe get yeah your thoughts on and others thoughts on well when staff did our analysis when you really look and this is this is the surrounding area and this is it's a little broader view of just the subject property it really is kind of that north east side of town I mean you could see that r4 is really the the most consistent and the most the predominant zoning district in that area so anything that would be developed in this property would be consistent with what the the surrounding zoning is and what those uses and development scale would be so this is really close to Commissioner Ellis's question and that is if they were to go back and seek a special use permit would we then generally not be in favor because it wouldn't be consistent I mean this is my this was my concern in reading this is is the use is not limited to the advertise the mean the advertised use that we're describing for you know that we're gonna put seven homes in here but we can't control that wait if if they did want to do one of those uses the duplex or townhome it would be it would require additional analysis by staff and so at this point I can't tell you if staff would recommend denial or approval because we want to go through the criteria for approval especially you know our SUPs have a lot of detail associated with them and so if they were to come back and want to do one of those uses we would want to see that level of detail to see what the compatibility would be with those adjacent properties so until we saw that specific specific project I don't think I could give you a you know what we would what we would recommend I mean we when we did look and we looked at this this properties come back back and forth between various iterations not necessarily with this applicant but over the course of the last two years a lot just like a lot of these infill sites there was one iteration of I think townhomes that we did see and that was something we were not we were not supportive of and we were clear with that I think that's ultimately what brought it to what you have here today and again as Julie mentioned we were comfortable allowing it those uses as an SGP they go to this body obviously if this body recommends denial then it goes to City Council for ultimate decision but it would require a super majority at that point can I follow up on that if if they but they can go back and apply for a PD or something else that would sort of given the comments of at least some of us here in this meeting error potentially tonight they could still come back in and have a way of infilling that would be single family enforced in some way they wouldn't be precluded from developing would they if we deny if it if it was denied it would go to for denied tonight it would go to council as a as it did not in a recommendation of denial which would require a super majority vote and then it would be up to council to decide whether or not it beats the merits of the criteria for a rezoning I guess what I'm saying is if they accepted our denial does the developer then have the opportunity to come back with something else I mean they they could with they could withdraw their application we saw that with agave ranch there's a recommendation of a denial they modify their plan and then and then came back with a different request that's certainly not an option for them but that's that's up to them okay thank you Commissioner Anderson thank you would this be no avoid because it right there it says multifamily dwellings would not be permitted I mean multifamily dwellings are duplexes and quadplexes am I correct our code actually does separate those uses so multifamily is is this as a use separate from duplexes we actually have a duplex use we have a triplex a fourplex and then a a townhome use and those are separate and have different you specific standards as well as zoning districts are permitted in or require an SCP or prohibited in because it says you know you're trying to keep the neighborhoods the same as the other and I'm looking at the map and everything around it are all single-family dwellings and I mean I would be for this if it was all single-family dwellings but I do not like trying to put in town homes or duplexes in a in a little small area where everything else around it is single-family dwelling and and when we analyzed it looking at that that are for and requiring that SUP that you know having that have to go through the additional public hearing process additional scrutiny that really the use that's permitted by right that they would be that single-family home it just seems like we're leaving that SUP in there is like a little loophole that somebody can jump through I mean if we just said hey this is gonna be no multifamily dwellings I'd have no issue with it but when you put it you know you're leaving it in there that we require an SUP well there's a little loophole that says you know what we approve it's not you know you can come back a little bit a little bit later and sit there and go hey I'd like to follow the SUP and I'd like for this to be a multifamily dwelling you know that's kind of not what we really would vote for well I would vote for well yes they could come back and and and submit an SUP for duplexes or town homes but once again the multi-family use is is a separate use it is it is prohibited in r4 it's you couldn't get an SUP for multi-family in r4 it's not permitted then why would we even have that on there then just just to let y'all know that it is a prohibited use within r4 I did get a lot of calls from residents that had concerns that there would be multi-family and so I wanted to make sure it was really clear that multi-family is not a permitted use in our floor because I did read some of the comments that people you know are opposed to that and if I would live there I'd be opposed myself sure okay thank you if I can just help clarify which Julie get some water I think part of the confusion we've had multiple projects on mockingbird unfortunately called mockingbird multi-family and so I think there's a lot of confusion that this was a multi-family project that was highly contested by a lot of the residents in the area yeah but I also think some of those comments were that they didn't want townhomes or duplexes which they do have on that corner of Audra so that's the most concerning thing here is that we didn't try to maybe get get them into a PD to be able to put that restriction on it just because of you know we did that in in most other developments that we've approved along Audra with you know there's so much going on in that neighborhood so at any rate we'll keep the discussion rolling because yeah time is of the essence Commissioner pernetta no I just want to clarify because and find out what I'm missing because because right now all we're approving is a development that we single-family if they wanted townhomes or duplexes they would have to come back for the SCP and we would have to agree to that or is this well tend to this what's on the table tonight is just a zoning change right right okay that's it to our for right okay that's what we're considering all right okay zoning criteria E and F talks about the intensity of development that is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding properties or neighborhood in transportation due to the limited number of homes that could be constructed if this given the constraints of our for district it would only create about 90 trips per day and and so that would not trigger a TIA roadway impact fees would be determined by the number of dwelling units and projected trip vehicle trips and that that those roadway impact fees are are used to make improvements related to the mobility plan water and wastewater because this is an infill area they do have roadway and they have water and sewer available to the site of course tap and impact fees would be would be applicable once the property develops and then there are the the property is located about a mile from Milan Park and once again the park dedication and development fees would be paid with plotting and building permits public outreach was done they had a neighborhood meeting that about five residents came some concerns had to do with the trees on the property and meeting the tree preservation and then also spacing from any any access facing from Audra there was notification sent out the newspaper signs posted as well as the mailings we've received nine responses in opposition for or within that for a 200-foot boundary and they're they're shown here in red we've received zero in favor and then zero neutral so based upon the criteria for approval staff recommends approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions and the applicant will be here this evening I don't see any more at this time though thank you thank you Julie you bet yeah I think at this time we're gonna break for dinner before we hear our last public hearing discussion so I will call recess at 610 welcome back to our planning in zoning Commission work session we are back from recess I will call us back to order at 616 and invite Haley up to talk about our final public hearing item all right good evening this is a plan development request for a project being called Ryan way the request is to consider rezoning the subject property that's approximately 36 and a half acres from residential to or our to district to plan development you can see the site outlined in yellow on the map it's located on the north side of Ryan Road just east of Monte Carlo Lane so this is just a quick shot of what our current map looks like which is r2 and then the proposal for plan development this is the site layout for the subject property that's kind of the detail plan if you will and the new plan development regulations so what we have here are a hundred and fifty four residential lots and five HOA lots the HOA lots are shown in green on this map there is a plugged gas well within the site it was plugged last August it's located in this general location as designated by the star it would be within an HOA lot so that nothing would be constructed over the top of the well and the property it has several connections where streets have been stubbed out to it over time as surrounding development occurs so we have the Ridgemont subdivision here on the south side and then Teasley trails surrounding it to the north and east Monte Carlo Lane was stubbed out when Ridgemont developed and then again when Teasley trails develop so that connects to the north and south this would provide that final missing leg and then Mizzen Lane was stubbed out when the final phase of Teasley trails developed and that is coming into the property from the east additionally it would have a direct connection to Ryan Road here at what's shown on this plan is Street E as the other component of a plan development in the new code aside from the map itself is the development standards so those were provided to you in your backup I'll go through some of the major differences between the proposed PD and the R4 district that it was based upon so in terms of permitted uses the proposed PD would only permit single-family detached dwellings and then all of the accessory and temporary uses that are permitted in our R4 district so this table is just a snapshot of everything in our use table that's permitted in our force you can see is excluding townhomes duplexes group homes schools churches wide variety of things also excluding gas wells so it's important to note that if this is approved that that drill site would remain plugged there wouldn't be any possibility for future gas well development within the property looking at the proposed zoning standards so again it was based on the R4 district so I did a comparison of the differences between their proposal and the base of R4 the minimum lot area is one of the larger differences so they are proposing smaller lots than what R4 would typically permit they're proposing that 10 of the lots or up to 10 of the lots be as small as 5,000 square feet the remainder of the lots would have a minimum area of 5,750 square feet R4 as a just citywide is a 7,000 square foot minimum similar lot width 50 feet they are proposing an increase in minimum lot depth from 80 feet to 100 feet the setbacks are generally consistent they did add in an additional minimum garage setback of 20 feet and then for side yards they are proposing 10 foot as opposed to 20 foot when you're abutting a street so the corner lots would have a slightly smaller side yard than R4 would typically have and then again rear yards they are proposing those be larger so they propose the increase of a 15 foot rear rear yard setback building height would remain the same at 40 feet building coverage they're proposing 60% as opposed to 50% so that's a 10% increase street trees they're proposing the code standard of 1 per 30 linear feet on all of the common area lots and then to to prevent any inconsistency of trees being kind of clustered together on lot lines they're proposing that for the residential lots that simply be one street tree per lot as opposed to 1 per 30 feet in terms of yard trees the 2019 DDC requires one yard tree for single-family residential lots they're proposing an increase in that so each internal lot would have one additional yard tree a front yard and a rear yard tree and then corner lots would have three additional trees beyond the code minimum because they would have two side yard trees provided on that corner they are proposing a slight change in one of our site design standards the DDC has a required three foot offset between the front building wall in the garage they're proposing decreasing that to 12 inches and then for tree preservation as we touched on earlier they they did apply for their original application at the time when the 02 code was still in effect so they did gain vesting under state law for that purpose for tree preservation it's one of the things specifically allowed and the vesting require regulations in 245 so under the 2002 DDC they would be required to preserve a minimum of 20% of quality trees and 10% of secondary trees so secondary trees are things like mesquite hackberry boat arc and then quality trees is essentially everything else and the minimum size for all of those is 6 inches DBH so everything under 6 inches wouldn't count 2019 DDC again as I mentioned it created different tree classification so now we have we're called heritage trees those are the larger trees over 18 inches as well as any post oak that 6 inches or greater and then quality trees are pretty much consistent with the old code with the exception that those small post oaks are pulled out and that's a minimum 30% preservation requirement they the 2019 tree code does allow that if you have quality inherited trees on set you don't have to preserve any secondary trees so that's another key difference there oh and then the other item I wanted to point out that didn't make it into the table is that the DDC requires a minimum of 5% open space when you have more than 10 residential lots they are proposing a minimum of 15% open space throughout the entire neighborhood so as Julie showed with her items the code now has general criteria for all applications those were gone through in detail in your backup so I'll just hit some of the highlights the project was found to be consistent with all aspects of the 2019 DDC except for the exceptions that we just discussed which are allowed through the PD process there are no prior approvals or other agreements that apply to the site no phasing is proposed with this development the development is not expected to generate adverse environmental or fiscal impacts and there is adequate infrastructure available to the site so I'll spend a little more time with each of the PD criteria for approval we'll go through each of these in turn so criterion one is compliance with the Denton plan 2030 again this site is in an area designated on the future land use map as low residential typically that calls for single family development at a density of one to four dwelling units per acre some of the other criteria that low density residential looks at though are development contiguous to existing developed areas to avoid sprawl that's one of the larger tenants of the comprehensive plans that we fill in all of these kind of vacant places within the city before sprawling outwards it also calls for new development and established residential areas to respond to the existing development pattern and design so we'll look at that a little more in depth as we go through in terms of how this is consistent but I wanted to focus on density for a second this development would be at approximately 4.2 dwelling units per acre so it's just over that fourth four unit per acre threshold however when you look at the density in this area and I've kind of labeled those numbers for surrounding subdivisions on the map here you'll see we do have a lot of larger lot subdivisions in the one to you know the one to two dwelling unit per acre range west of the site but as you continue down Ryan Road towards Teasley Lane and towards this area that's designated for community mixed use density is naturally increased over time with these developments for example the latest phase of Teasley trails came in at 4.4 dwelling units per acre and then we just had multifamily approved here at this intersection that's at 20 units per acre so this tends to follow that natural progression and is generally consistent with the area I wanted to touch on some other aspects of the Denton plan 2030 that are applicable here the plan features what's called the preferred growth concept and what this did was encourage kind of clustering walkable design again trying to deter that sprawl that I just spoke about so this this does meet a lot of those requirements it is increasing walkability in the area by providing now sidewalk and street connectivity through these neighborhoods it is again encouraging walkability close to this community mixed use center so these residents would have direct paths through these neighborhoods to any retail that develops here at that intersection and then again the comprehensive plan one of its main policy goals and actions for residential areas was infill so it encourages the development of vacant or deteriorated properties and it encourages that that be consistent in scaling character with existing neighborhoods so again the density that's proposed here does fall within what we find in this area already the second criteria is compliance with the Denton development code so I won't go through this in in detail again but same table again they're proposing just these specific deviations from the 2019 DDC everything else they would follow so I wanted to touch on the tree preservation again for just a second the DDC PD procedures if you read through them do say that there should not be deviations from tree preservation requirements within a PD however we have the conflicting aspect here of vesting under state and under chapter 245 of the local government code allowing them to vest in prior tree code regulations so because of their date of application they are allowed to vest in the o2 code and they're not proposing to deviate from the 2002 code just meet that tree preservation requirement instead of 2019 the third criterion is providing greater greater building design amenities and connectivity one of the the major components to their proposal that was discussed at the neighborhood meetings was building materials as we've talked about many times before under House Bill 2439 the city can no longer enforce those regulations so the developer did indicate to the the residents and it was in early drafts of their PD documents that they wanted would it willingly impose a 40% minimum masonry standard on these homes the DDC minimum standard is 25% so it was above and beyond that threshold however we did ask them to exclude that from the PD regulations because it would not be enforceable by the city but it is something that they indicated they were willing to impose through deed restrictions on the property in terms of amenities again open spaces the main amenity being proposed with this PD they're proposing minimum 15% open space for tree preservation buffering between their neighborhood and existing neighborhoods and just general community use and enjoyment the DDC minimum is 5% so they're above and beyond that and then in terms of connectivity again this would provide that missing link in Monte Carlo to allow Ridgemont residents and means of accessing Teasley Lane that they've not previously had and then it would provide connections to Teasley trails at Misen Lane as well as Monte Carlo the fourth criterion is specific to residential uses whether there is compatible building use and it's consistent with the character of the area this is the same use that surrounds the property on all sides so of course the single-family use would be compatible with other single-family uses as we looked at earlier it is consistent with the density of this area and that trend we see from west to east Commissioner Anderson correct and that's what they've offered yes and the developer is here this evening so he can speak to that further if you have other questions trying to get through this quickly so we can get out there to the meeting in terms of additional buffering and compatibility with the neighborhood if you look at their plan they do have those HOA lots all around the perimeter of the site where they intend to preserve existing trees to provide additional space between the backyards of these homes and that was a major concern that came up at the neighborhood meetings that all of the neighbors had requested was that buffer space there criterion 5 is applicable to non-residential uses so that's not being considered tonight criterion 6 is the provision of public facilities I'll try to breeze through these pretty quickly DISD was able to provide us with their expected student generation rates for McMath Middle School and Denton High School they indicated they have adequate capacity this is currently zoned for Ryan Elementary and they indicated that that school would not have capacity to serve the the expected students from this development however they indicated it's possible that they can rezone that to other schools in the area such as Sam Houston Elementary that do have adequate capacity in terms of fire and law enforcement it is well within the eight minute or less response time boundary for fire station 6 that's located on Teasley Lane I did talk to the Denton Police Department and they were intending to prepare a crime report for you all to see what's actually going on in this area but due to a change in software they weren't able to get that to us in time but they indicated that in general with this type of residential development they would not expect to see a significant or negative impact on their response times and they wouldn't expect to see any increase in crime or nuisance from these single-family homes water and wastewater are available to the site and would be looped throughout their internal street system to connect to the points that are stubbed out to their site looking at streets again as I mentioned they would provide connection to all of the street stubs that have been provided to this property at Mizzen Lane in Monte Carlo Ryan Road they would have right away dedication requirements there it's not been determined whether they would have any actual improvements to make to Ryan Road because we just on November 5th had the bond election where improvements for Ryan Road to become three lanes were approved and that's now become a CIP project so it's possible that they would pay roadway impact fees and lose in lieu of improvements our city engineer indicated construction on Ryan can be expected to begin as early as 2023 and there was a traffic assessment done for this that was provided to you all Ryan Road at the intersections here at Monte Carlo their future Street E and the street through Teasley trails operated at a level of service C today generally this is not expected to decrease that level of service at those intersections and once construction to three lanes is complete on Ryan it's expected to be operational at a level of service a or B at these intersections this is within 500 feet of Lake Forest Park which meets the park department's goal of a 10-minute walk to a park from residential developments they will have park dedication and development fees when they reach the platting and permitting phases of development notification was sent about this request just since we've been here this evening I've received one additional that I'll read into the record at the meeting so I'm actually since I made this up to 11 responses in opposition four of those are outside that 200 foot buffer that total is still right at 3.9 percent and then we have two responses in favor so far that's at 15.7 percent so staff is recommending approval of this request as we found it to comply with our criteria for approval and if it gets through this hearing tonight its next stop would be City Council on December 17th thank you Haley okay with that I will close our work session at 6 33 and we will reconvene as soon as possible in council chambers good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday November 20th with a quorum present I will call us to order at 651 p.m. thank you all for your patience first item on our agenda is to stand if you are able and give pledge to the u.s. and Texas flags okay we do have some agenda clarifications for this evening there are two items being pulled from the agenda tonight item 4b which is the Denton Grove apartments that is being pulled and will be renoticed and is planned for our December 11th meeting for consideration also we are pulling item 4e which is PD 19 3 the development titled Ryan way I believe there's many of you here to speak on that but that item is being pulled it will be renoticed and it will be considered here on 12 11 so if you want Scott McDonald is here if you need further information as to anything with regarding that going forward so with that we will go to our consent the GDP is being heard under individual consideration it is not a public hearing item however to clarify staff is recommending denial for that at this point being pulled is item 4e PD 19 3 so I'm , okay thank you for your patience once again let's move to our consent agenda commissioner back yeah I'd like to make a motion to pull items 2a and 2b for individual consideration okay there's a motion on the floor to pull the two items from the consent agenda to individual consideration is there a second Commissioner Cole okay we have a motion on the floor to pull the two items on consent agenda to individual consideration we will take a vote on the board okay that item passes 5 1 so now what we will do is consider a motion for item PP 19 16 that's the preliminary plat Windsor apartments we'll entertain a motion commissioner back a motion to approve commissioner prunella a second we have a motion on the floor to approve individual considered Windsor apartments preliminary plat let's call for a vote on the board that motion carries five one next is to consider a motion for the preliminary plat Bonnie Bray high school addition Commissioner Anderson make a motion to approve Commissioner Smith second we have a motion on the floor for a preliminary plat approval Bonnie Bray high school addition let's take a vote on the board that motion carries five one our next item for individual consideration is GDP 19 to a and I will invite Haley up good evening this request is for a general development plan for the Ryan way edition this request came in concurrently with the plan development and under state law we are required to bring forward plat items within a certain time frame however that that kind of puts the cart in front of the horse here because this property does not have zoning until that plan development gets through planning and Zoning Commission and City Council so for that reason alone that it does not meet the zoning requirements that are on the ground today which is the r2 district staff is recommending denial of this GDP at this time I'm happy to stand for any questions you only have Commissioner Smith okay okay I do not see any questions okay at this time we can open the floor for a motion Commissioner Smith motion to approve the denial okay we have a motion on the floor to deny so a vote yes would be to deny the GDP that is the motion on the floor any discussion let's call for a vote on the board that motion carries six zero that moves us to our public hearing items public hearing item 4a fr 1912 Golden Triangle Edition final replant I will open the public hearing and call up Mark Laird good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a planner with the Development Service Department this evening I have for your consideration the final replant of Golden Triangle Edition I stand for any questions that you may have any questions Commissioners I don't see any Mark thank you very much thank you Commissioner Pernitta Commissioner Smith second okay we have a motion on the floor to approve the replant Golden Triangle Edition any discussion okay let's call for a vote on the board that motion carries six zero and just as a point of order I had opened the public hearing for that item but did not close it so I hereby close the public hearing for item 4a that brings us to item 4c s 193 I will open the public hearing and invite Julie Wyatt for presentation good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I'm presenting s 193 Oxford at Sherman so the request before you is for a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings the subject property is outlined here in yellow it's about 12.33 acres it's currently undeveloped it is situated between loop 288 to the north and poinsettia to the south a little background on the subject property in 2002 it was on CMG during the citywide rezoning this year we adopted a new development code and zoning districts and so that CMG transition to SC district that suburban corridor due to the submittal timing the proposal is subject to the 2002 didn't development code regulations and so it was reviewed and is being analyzed under that code however just to let you know multifamily dwellings require a specific use permit in both districts the criteria for approval are in subchapter 6 of the 2002 didn't development code there's a long list of the criteria I won't read them all it is all in your backup but we're gonna go over some some specific parts of that criteria for approval as we discuss the proposal so the subject property has a future land use designation of community mixed use that is intended to promote a mix of uses both commercial as well as the complementary residential uses some moderate to high density housing to support any retail or service uses in in those mixed use districts the intent is to encourage a diverse of use diversity of uses close together to increase vitality and to create a sense of place and to also encourage multimodal transportation allow people to walk a multifamily development is consistent with the community mixed use future land use designation first it provides that complementary residential use it's often found in mixed use districts and in this case as we look at that the broader area and how the community mixed use future land use element fits within this part of Denton this this proposed as multifamily would provide a residential character on that edge of the community mixed use to be to be more consistent with the adjacent residential properties Denton plan 2030 also talks about how Denton's gonna grow in 2030 the projected population is going to be over 200,000 and with that we'll need additional housing units and multifamily is part of that mix for we'll need about 12,000 new multifamily units this property and properties like it or are are appropriate for those strategic locations for multifamily because it's adjacent to an arterial loop 288 but it's also close to schools to residential areas and other amenities it encourages that more compact development pattern and prevents a sprawl now we'll zoom in a little bit closer to what the site plan is proposing so it's sort of a triangular shaped lot it is the the front entrance of the proposed multifamily development is oriented toward loop 288 so the full access entrance is on is going to be on a spur that would be constructed off of that that that entrance ramp to loop 288 they're proposing eight three-story buildings three access points with controlled access gates so once again that that full access point on loop 288 there would be an exit only through the future commercial that would be that direct point to FM 428 Sherman Drive and then also an exit only onto point study to the south they are proposing a community pool in the center of the of the development with a amenity center clubhouse there's also a proposed outdoor eating area with a fire pit they're proposing a dog park on the west side here in this location and also other open space areas one here and one here fencing landscaping and one story garages would be would be constructed along point said it points idiot and if this is approved and that would be in this location you can see those orange boxes those are those one-story garages that would provide a little a more visually appealing view from that road because it would set the the larger taller building set back from from points edit points Eddie actually a hundred and one feet from that roadway it would allow that that development scale to gradually increase from the road and then if the proposal does meet the the minimum parking regulations for multifamily they had they provided a landscape plan as part of this specific use permit as as proposed they would plant 163 new large canopy trees at maturity that would create about two hundred thousand square feet of canopy forty seven of those large canopy trees are proposed for this southern edge once again that's closer to those existing neighborhoods so we want to make sure that we're really sensitive to that to that boundary in that edge so they're proposing forty seven large canopy trees this would be in addition to the twenty four required street trees they're proposing those to be medium canopy and then they are also proposing an open space area as well as that the required buffer on the eastern edge of the property that's adjacent to a single family lot want to make sure that we're sensitive to that to that compatibility in that location as well we'll zoom in a little closer first here is that eastern property line buffer that includes a combination of plantings as well as tree preservation so there's already some some foliage there to go ahead and start that buffer they're also proposing a perimeter fence those materials are a combination of ornamental metal board on board cedar and masonry want to take a little bit harder look at the at the proposed fencing on on that southern edge they are proposing a that board on board cedar it would have recesses and projections so it would kind of it would it would undulate in and then out to allow planting area to allow those trees to be planted and while you know this this would break up the monotony of the fence line and would create visual interest staff does have concerns about the durability of those of that material and so we're recommending a condition that that they either use a masonry wall or wrought iron with with some sort of leafy shrub hedge in order to screen provide screening for those cars and that use here's some sample elevations this this gives you a little bit better visual of what that proposed fence would look like there's that board on board cedar fence and they are proposing as I said the three-story buildings with a neutral color palette balconies or patios on 100% of the dwelling units awnings decorative wall lighting and a variety of recesses and projections would provide that changes in relief and reduce the visual bulk of those buildings also the stairwells would be the visual of the visual impacts of those stairwells would be minimized as part of the SUP they also would have to if this was approved obtain approval from this Commission for an alternative development plan because this was reviewed under the 2002 code that ADP was a process within that 2002 code there are two provisions and in sub chapter 13 those site design requirements that based upon their submittal they they needed flexibility from one would be the private street system they've got some tuck under garages and their buildings and so it sort of reduces that that private street system the the street trees and that that linear cohesive street system and then also where they're proposing those garages on that south bond boundary once again they are going to be if approved along poinsettia that allows that that more separation between the taller three-story buildings and the adjacent residential properties that does not meet the 2002 didn't development code so they're going to be asking for relief from that from from the planning and zoning Commission it does meet the criteria for approval so if this is approved it would come back to you as part of the review of the the project they did submit a traffic impact analysis and that was approved through our engineering group they provided trip generation within that the subject property would generate about 1800 trips per a 24-hour day weekday morning peak would be 113 trips evening peak would be 133 trips total build out of the property and that would include this property as well as the commercial on the corner would be 3600 trips per day so it would be a lot of trips at that corner at the TIA also analyze area intersections and they give letter grades a to F on the delay that that motorists experience at those intersections loop 288 and FM 428 is probably no surprise that at some times and in some directions that intersection has an F and in particular ramps with left turning movement so if you were exiting the loop and maybe turning left onto FM 428 to go north that you would experience a significant delay and that would be an F the the motorists just staying on FM 428 experience less delay because of they don't have a signal there this intersection has met the warrants for a signal for quite a while and that is intended to be installed within the next six to eight months engineering is aware of the concerns of this intersection is so is an interim step they are going to be installing always stops pretty soon in December is what they've what they've told me another intersection that they looked out was FM 428 and poinsettia that westbound left turn lane left turn when you think if you're on poinsettia and you're going turning left to get on to Sherman that that would be the most difficult turning movement and it creates significant delays that the the analysis of this intersection indicated that that with with the build out of the area a signal is going to be warranted in that location in the future now is an interim step the TIA recommended a restriping of that intersection to allow that protected left to get to allow some a little more free movement in that intersection there would also be perimeter street improvements associated with the development if approved they the developer would would construct a spur off of this loop 288 entrance ramp that would then connect down to poinsettia providing that that circulation pattern and it would be 25 feet of pavement that they would construct it really is the beginning of a frontage road for loop 288 water and wastewater are available however an extension of an 8-inch waterline would be required with any improvements on loop 288 Waterworks Park is is is close to the subject property but it is still 3,500 linear feet from the subject property and the sidewalks are not great to get there so so the applicant is proposing those on-site recreational facilities for the residents park dedication and development fees would be required with development of the site it is near Wilson Elementary Strickland Middle and Ryan High School according to DISD the the elementary the number of elementary students generated by this would put it put a strain on Wilson Elementary it's it's it's being reconstructed right now but Strickland and Ryan have the capacity for additional students there was public outreach associated with the proposal they did have a neighborhood meeting in July 10 on July 10th of this year we did ask them to hold in a second neighborhood meeting they did decline that and then there was there there was a newspaper ad placed in in accordance with our regulations as well as postings on the property and mailed notices we've received two letters in opposition thus far those aren't within the 200 foot boundary of the subject property and we've received one letter in favor so in work session we went over the recommendation and it was a little confusing so I've tried to maybe clarify it a bit we're gonna do it backwards this time so staff recommends approval of a specific use permit with the following conditions that the landscape in the landscaping in the attached landscape plan reflects that intent to comply with the DDC requirements for the the parking landscaping street trees and minimum landscaping tree canopy areas and compatible ability buffers minor alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings may be approved by city staff provided that the final landscaping as planted complies with the attached site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations as well as the DDC parking area light fixtures can be determined at building permit but can't exceed 14 feet in height we want to make sure the parking lot is well lit so that it stays safe for the residents of of any community but we want to make sure that it doesn't shine and become a nuisance on the adjacent residential properties so we're recommending that height be limited at 14 feet and then perimeter fencing materials as I said staff has concerns about that board on board cedar so they would be limited to masonry or wrought iron and any wrought iron fencing we want to make sure that still there's adequate screening so we're requesting that that an additional hedge be placed be planted to to make sure that there's adequate screening the fourth condition that within 30 days of council approval that ADP for those two deviations would come back before the the planning and zoning Commission and then notwithstanding the limited administrative approvals in conditions 1 2 & 3 the city reserves the right to require approval by ordinance of any amendments to the SUP the attached site plan and the elements just described in the next section including those reference it referenced in conditions 1 2 & 3 so the next section would be we're really outlines kind of it provides a text support to the site plan and a landscape plan and those elevations as we talked about in work session as as these site plans are reproduced and shrunk they become really illegible so this sort of just provides that tech support so as as you know future planners look at this that they know what what was required so so this does put into into this recommendation however that staff could approve a reduction in the number of dwelling units or associated parking lots or lot coverage that that if the if the project shrunk staff could could recommend or could approve that but any increases over 5% would have to go back through the public hearing process so staff could record could approve administratively a 5% increase I did the math on it it would be 12 dwelling units essentially this this if approved would give staff that that little bit of flexibility so that if some things change that they wouldn't have to necessarily go back through the public hearing process if the intensity of the project did not change but then it lays out what they're proposing eight three-story buildings the amenity center and clubhouse and the 19 accessory structures that includes both the garages and carports 248 dwelling units 460 parking spaces lot coverage of 67% and then those open spaces with 12 seating areas eight dogway stations 71 large can't large and medium canopy trees on that southern edge we want to make sure that that we get that codified and then those sample belt building elevations just with that neutral color palette and just kind of talking through what those architectural design elements are so that's that is a staff presentation the applicant is here and I will stand for any question we do have a question thank you Julie Commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so on page 16 I think it is the the yeah that's the one so their pool I just forgot to ask you about this in work session their pool their little green space is in lieu of the fact that they don't really have a 10-minute walk is that correct well and and it isn't part of well it does it is for the benefit of their residents right now there isn't a park within 10 minutes our parks department is actually updating their parks master plan and that includes a trail system and so that is part of their goal is to get that 10-minute walk to the park these these holes where there's not that 10-minute walk to the park those are the areas that they're going to be looking at adding additional parkland however you know when as part of their development they are also adding those additional amenities to provide those recreational activities for their for their residents and on that same slide when you spoke with the district with the DISD did they object or they simply said that would stress Wilson they just simply said they would stress that they didn't provide an objection just that it would it would stress Wilson elementary okay thank you sure Julie I have a couple of questions just to clear up so the points that a restriping we talked about a bit in work session is that something the applicant is going to do it would be designed and and installed as part of the platting and development and it would be something the applicant and it at what stage in the development would that happen the design would happen during the civil engineering the review of the civil plans for public improvements and then and then in terms of the timing of the installation it would be either concurrent with or prior to development of the side it would just depend on how that's structured with their hold harmless and development agreements okay and then back to what you rewrote up there can I can we go to that slide please I got close I think so I'm assuming what you're trying to say is you'll staff will have the ability to approve up to 5% otherwise is that correct yes okay that's how we have to restate it then because it still reads greater than 5% which could be anything yes I apologize nope just wanted to clarify all right staff shall have the ability to prove up to 5% percent of anything the good thank you Julie I don't see any questions at this time this is a public hearing I don't have any cards up here but anyone wishing to speak may do so now anyone wishing to speak on this item okay seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor to a motion Commissioner Smith make a motion for to approve with staff recommendations Commissioner Prunetta second the motion is there any discussion we have a motion in a second on the floor to approve seeing no discussion I'll call for a vote on the board that motion carries 6-0 that takes us to our next public hearing item for DZ 1912 I will open the public hearing and invite Julie Wyatt back up here for presentation all right this this next item is Z 1912 mockingbird single-family residential the request before you is the applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 2.6 acres from our 2 district to our 4 district the subject property is outlined in yellow it's this flag shaped area the surrounding development pattern includes existing suburban style single-family neighborhoods there are some remaining larger parcels adjacent to you and nearby you can see across Audre and then adjacent to the subject property the majority of trees on the site are fence line trees particularly in the southern edge of the site per the applicant the purpose is to develop 9 single-family residential dwellings the this map here shows the current zoning map you could see the r2 district the subject property is is outlined in black and then that that r2 district surrounding it r4 district is to the west and south and east of the subject property the proposed zoning map would extend that existing r4 into the subject property continuing that existing zoning pattern the criteria for approval is in sub chapter 2 of the Denton development code the 2019 Denton development code there are general and specific criteria we won't go over all of them we're just going to go over some specific items for the general we're really going to talk about numbers 3 & 8 talking about the comprehensive plan and then adverse impacts and then for the specific criteria we'll go a little more in depth and talk about more of those criteria so first we're going to talk about general criterion 1 and in zoning criteria a that that has to do with our comprehensive plan didn't plan 2030 the site is designated low density residential that is intended for single-family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre the proposed r 4 district our our 2019 code kind of transitioned from what we what we typically saw in the 2002 code are just those gross densities for single-family neighborhoods now gone to a minimum lot size that r4 district permits a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet which if you just took the gross square footage of 7,000 and applied that to the gross square footage of an acre you could get about six lots into an acre but that wouldn't account for any right-of-way dedication so you really couldn't get six lots in there but but when just looking at that gross acreage it doesn't really precisely meet that low density residential but because the comprehensive plan talks about infill development and the need to the need to fill in that the interior parts of the city and to to encourage that compact development pattern and reduce sprawl it does meet the overall goals of the of the the comprehensive plan general criterion for is is minimizing adverse impacts on the surrounding property r4 is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods in both use and development scale it is not anticipated to create adverse impacts we did kind of an analysis of what was surrounding particularly those areas that had been platted and developed in the last three decades or so and those lot sizes those are typically single-family neighborhoods with lot sizes ranging anywhere from about 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet so so the minimum lot size in our four of 7,000 square feet is about in the middle of that so it is consistent with that that development pattern and then also they are proposing the single-family uses we talked about in work session that there are additional uses that could be permitted with a specific use permit in r4 a specific use permit would require an additional application from from the developer and or the property owner and it would require a recommendation from the planning and zoning Commission after a public hearing and approval from council so it would add additional scrutiny for any duplexes or town homes so but but single-family houses are permitted by right an expansion of the existing r4 district is really just a logical extension of this existing zoning pattern as you can see this is that just a zoomed out view of the area you could see how this r4 is kind of this beige color this really does just extend it and kind of just just continue that that pattern zoning criterion C is consistent with consistency with the purpose statement the r4 district is intended to accommodate a variety of housing types on lots encouraged to design to encourage walking and to neighborhoods serving retail and other amenities and parks such as parks and school facilities the request is consistent with the purpose statement as the applicant has stated the intent is to develop single-family dwellings once again town homes and duplexes would require the additional approval from council through the public hearing process and multi-family dwellings because it was something that came up a lot when when I heard from the surrounding residents they are not permitted in r4 that that use is not a permitted use even with an SUP zoning criteria E and F talks about the intensity of the development and that it's not expected to and create significantly adverse impacts to surrounding properties or neighborhood we analyze the the public infrastructure you know this is an infill area so that there are existing roads and water and wastewater water surrounding the property as far as from transportation due to the limited number of houses that they could get on the property with the with the dimensional requirements in the of our seven it it would generate about 90 trips per day which would not which would not trigger a TIA however if they if this was approved and they did move forward with development roadway impact fees would be would be required at development of the site there's water and wastewater available to the site and tap and impact fees would once again be be required with development the subject properties about a mile from Milan Park and Park dedication and development fees would be paid with the platting and building permits public outreach for the for the development included the applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting they had about five residents attend and they talked about things like tree preservation as well as driveway spacing or I'm sorry access spacing from the odder intersection there was also staff was placed the newspaper ad in accordance with our regulations as well as the notices and then that were mailed to properties within 200 and 500 feet and then there was sign a sign posted on the property we've received nine responses in opposition for within that 200 foot boundary and you can see them shown here we have not received any in favor or any neutral so based upon the criteria for approval staff recommends approval of the request the applicant is here and I'll be happy to stand for any questions we do have a question Commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so I'm not sure if this is a city or legal question but if we in can we have language in a recommendation that discourages anything other than single family I know the zoning allows for uses other than single family but can we be on record as saying we discourage that or is that just simply not allowed it's nothing that we couldn't enforce it would just be a suggestion and there I don't know that it would really mean any or carry any any weight with respect to it it's not it's not something that would it would just be I guess text in there that would wouldn't mean anything other than it's discouraged but they would still have to go through a public a public hearing process for anything other than single family so it would come back in front of this board I'm sorry this Commission for for review and recommendation and ultimately the City Council it would get noticed just like a rezoning case okay thank you but what we are voting on tonight is the request is to rezone to our four okay Julie at this time I don't see any more questions thank you okay do you have several cards on this item and the first one I have is the applicant I will call up Amy Bissett good evening commissioners give me just a moment to pull up my presentation it's brief but I do want to be able to show you a few things my name is Amy Bissett I am with Northbridge consultants 212 South Elm Street here in Denton I represent the applicant and the property owner who is here in the room tonight and can also be available to answer any questions we also have the engineer in the room as well and as Julie has already shared with you I'm going to be very brief with this the applicant does intend to subdivide into nine lots they're generous sized lots currently 7,000 square feet to 8,800 almost 9,000 square feet with a private street that has no connectivity into the adjacent adjacent neighborhoods and it would be HOA maintained both the street and the detention pond and common areas and we did hold two neighborhood meetings including one in October where we had five neighbors in attendance at that point in time two concept plans were presented to the neighbors and they did vote essentially and agree on one of the concept plans which is what the property owner intends to do I will walk you through it very briefly and point out the reasons that they liked this plan better than the other one that was presented the first is that the lot depth of the southern lots lots number five and six on the screen and is 140 feet what that does for the neighbors to the south is provide additional privacy in that they're essentially one neighbor from their backyard rather than more than one and you can see where I have kind of darkened the property lines to the south it is our four just to the south of this this particular neighborhood to the north and it is r2 above this property and the very intentionally on this concept plan the access drive as well as the detention pond and the common areas have been placed to the north in order to provide a buffer to the residents to the north the the residents prefer preferred private street versus a public right-of-way in order to minimize traffic and so that's how the concept plan is being designed currently and then and there was a very intentional decision to increase both the width and the depth of the lots to preserve to create an opportunity to preserve the trees along the fence line on both the eastern side and the southern side of the property and that's where most of the trees lie a tree preservation plan will be required at platting and there will be tree preservation required so this just affords plenty of room to make sure that that privacy is maintained I do want to point out and as Julie did but I want to kind of put a little bit of perspective on it you can see the the red star which is where our property is located I want to kind of give you the perspective of where this is in the city so you've got mingo Road to the north loop take 288 to the east and McKinney to the south in terms of the boundaries so you can view this as a segment or a quadrant of the city and you can see that the majority of what's here today is already zoned are four in fact I went through and kind of highlighted it for you to see you know it's it is most certainly the existing development pattern today and while there is some lower density are to primarily to the north of this property and this is definitely consistent with the pattern that has developed today and it is an infill development so developing in a compact way is consistent with the Denton plan and then I also pulled the the future land use plan to show that what's designated as low density residential on the future land use plan encompasses all of that are for today and technically are for would be considered low density although it's probably at the very top end of that and our actual density would be about 3.46 units per acre based on the proposal and I do recognize that there were concerns raised during the work session today and I want to address those directly I I recognize that the concern primarily is that the property owner can come in and rezone as are for today and then come back with a proposal for town homes or duplexes or something that is a higher density than what's being presented here and the what would be required for the for the developer or the property owner to do that would be to come back for a specific use permit which is the exact same process that we're undergoing tonight for a zoning change comes to public hearing we'd be back here in front of you being held accountable for the fact that we said we were gonna put in nine lots and now we're proposing something different you would look back at us and say we told you we didn't want that and so it is not only just a public hearing process just like tonight but it's under much more scrutiny than tonight because in order to apply for a specific use permit we would have to do a traffic impact analysis and show the impact that we're having to all of the infrastructure in the in the surrounding area we'd have to be able to show that our density could be supported in terms of the traffic and as you can see we've got one way in and out here and low density surrounding us and the the density and the scale would be looked at the height would be looked at and I would have to stand up here and justify all of that for you this is a 2.6 acre lot there's really not room here to do anything other than a handful of single-family lots we do have some conceptual elevations this is what the property owner and developer envisions just generally speaking in terms of a range of housing options from 2,000 square feet and up and with that I will be happy to answer any questions I have one Amy um how would our three change this I think that it would probably lower the number of lots that the property owner would like to be able to do and you know this is a very small development and that just the infrastructure to put in the scroll back up here now you've got a significant amount of infrastructure here to support nine lots already with the private drive in and the in the private street and then the required detention pond and I just don't know financially whether or not it would work if if the costs associated with providing the access and the drainage for the development would support the number of lots that are three would allow but we do have the engineer as well as the property owner here that might be able to want maybe want to speak to that directly yeah and the reason for my question is really just neighborhood protection I'm not worried about necessarily you may be changing your concept but if for some reason the project didn't make in that it sells and it's in our for designation that's what we're voting on here so yeah if anyone wants to speak to that that would be great also I had a question regarding you want with Allison engineering group and when we first looked at this property and we were considering our four that was back when we were at the four units per acre density and over to two point six acres we were looking at ten units and the property owner thought that ten was gonna be really tough to be able to make a profitable development out here once we said okay well we're we're no longer density based zoning we're now going to the minimum lot size I can't get you ten I mean that's what he wanted me to do he wanted me to get ten because that's what he was hoping for within our four zoning the best I could get out of here was nine and part of why we did and Amy touched on this part of why we presented the private street concept with a slightly smaller road section a more of a fire lane concept is it allowed the lots to remain larger still doesn't get us a tenth lot which is what we would have loved to have been able to get but it lets these lots really feel generously sized so the nine lots in a 2.6 acre tract nine homes on a 2.6 acre tract is really the it's kind of the least we need to make this development feasible so that's why we have what we are presenting in front of you okay thank you yeah there's another question that sure it's for Commissioner Smith yeah thanks vice chair Jason Amy have we looked on this problem it's a private street but but for fire and emergency services getting in and out of there it's a one way in one way out so that gives me with the appropriate fire turn around we'll turn around there but I didn't know how wide those those streets were gonna be it's set up for fire lane requirements what the city didn't fire lane requirements is again we we are not we haven't run that by for approval yeah we do that at a time of platting right so and not to think that you guys would just that if that I would hate for the city to come back and say no those aren't wide enough right and then that ruins engineering and the plan then the development falls through and now we've got an r4 zone area we do have we do have a second concept with the 60 foot right-of-way which is a local street with the very large cul-de-sac at the end and we're still able to maintain our nine lots it just those the four lots on the west side there they shrink and so instead of being the the eight thousand I can't see that far away eighty six hundred square feet they shrink down to seventy two hundred seventy four hundred square feet and so that's where the that's where the extra space for the right-of-way there is a plan B exactly city street full cul-de-sac 60 foot right-of-way something something still nine lots exactly thank you commissioner Anderson this says private streets are these gonna be dedicated to the city or who's gonna maintain the streets if it goes the private street it would be HOA maintained just like the HOA common lot that has the it's labeled up there detention pond and then just the landscaping in the common area a lot would all be HOA maintained so there would be nine owners participants in a homeowners Association but they're built a city code built a city code okay Amy you might be able to answer the other question that I had it had to do with there's a structure on the lot like in that panhandle area does that belong to the house that it sits behind or does that actually belong on this property sir can you come to the podium please thank you believe it's a storage shed that belongs to the property does it belong to your property so it's not that person that okay that's what I want to know if they were affected thank you very much okay I don't see any other questions at this time thank you I do have other cards wishing to speak the first one I have speaking in opposition is Jose Montoya haven't lived in the area for over 30 years sir if you could say your name and address for the record 3,000 eight Beverly right on the corner one up from the 133 feet that was mentioned earlier thank you on your proposed access I'm glad to see that you decided to go to Audreau however Audreau is already narrow what are the plans to widen that would be one the other is there are no sidewalks so if you're talking about making it user-friendly you'd have to redo the last part of Mockingbird to Audreau to make it walkable there is a house across the street from mine Katie corner I'm wondering is that part of the long-range plan to have that I buy out because then you would increase the size of your 2.6 to over 3 which means more houses across the street from mine I already collect cities neighbors trash on my property since I'd have a fence area they decide to dump their trash there I would like to see it if you're going to have the same kind of development with only nine lots have it maintained so it does not deter from the rest of the neighborhood we have elderly people living in the area who walk and would like to maintain that same walking area thank you Richard can you address it all future Mockingbird in that there do you have any of that information or maybe Julie I'm not aware of any plans right now to improve Mockingbird okay thank you next card I have speaking in opposition is Teddy Williams I live at 3204 and it's the lane and bear with me because I've never done this before okay I need to ask you a question because I'm lost I've been trying to follow this and I've been to all the meetings and the story has changed why does it need to go from our two to our four if he only intends to build nine houses I'm trying to understand that it has to do with parameters in the development code so in order to build the nine houses it has to be a r4 per the engineer but what about part of the city well the city follows the development go ahead Julie I think I can answer that so under current zoning the minimum lot size was would be 16,000 square feet so they're proposing the r4 to to to develop with those 7,000 square foot lot so it's depending on the lot size okay so the other thing I need to before I the other thing is I want to know if everything falls through and he sells and this is our and y'all vote for it to be an r4 does that mean that townhomes apartments and all that can come in because that's a major concern the r4 designation does allow duplexes town homes group home with with a specific use permit that would have to come back before planning and zoning in City Council well it'd be a public hearing process okay so right now I guess what I'm understanding because in all in the other two meetings I've heard two different things right now he is proposing and you guys would agree to nine houses am I understanding that correctly what we are considering today is simply the rezoning of from r2 to r4 that is all that our vote is today what we're seeing from the applicant is the concept plan that they have in mind to develop if they get the rezoning a request okay well what earlier gentleman said was true it's dangerous there's no sidewalks on Audra there's barely there's no sidewalks where he's proposing to build so it's really not going to be safe for the children or the elderly okay there's r4 was intended to encourage walking to parks and retail from what I understand there's no park some mile away so it'd be really tough for a five-year-old to to walk that far there's no stores so I'm trying to understand the concept of why it needs to be r4 it's not safe Mockingbird is dangerous and Audra is dangerous enough as it is there's no police enforcement people go 40 and 50 miles an hour down a 30 mile an hour street I'm on it every day I see it it and to add if he put in let's just say nine houses to start with that's probably going to be at least 30 at least 30 cars because they're going to have teenagers at least 30 to 60 more cars on two streets that are already overused I don't know if I'm saying that right but it it's just dangerous it's not and if you add more then none of us are going to be safe and like he said there's elderly there's young kids I watch the kids standing watch waiting for the buses on the street already people come flying down that street the stop sign is not even very far from where the original entrance was intended I don't know where it's going to be now I watch people slam on their brakes as it is now I can only imagine what it's going to be like if we have tons more people move in so I don't I mean I just I don't understand because if our floor was really intended to encourage these things they don't exist we don't have a school that close we don't have any retail I don't even I don't understand why it needs to be rezoned it was a I moved in because it was a quiet safe neighborhood and it seems like it's going to change and that's pretty scary so I don't know I that's just my thought and we absolutely appreciate you sharing your comments thank you for listening of course thank you okay the next card I have speaking in opposition is BJ Edwards good evening if you could state your name and address yes beat BJ Edwards $2,000 lane Denton thank you my family has some property adjacent to this we do oppose the zone change I understand that our for is all that other base creeping right in and going further north and let's go ahead and suck that up to R2 is fine the developer the purchaser bought it to make money to put as many addresses in there as he can whether he stacks them up or spreads them out and I oppose that and I think I've my family has the entire East boundary of this development and then some but as the lady was speaking over here on their drive their approach in and out there's a three-way stop sign right there that is there's always Rex right there and there's probably not 200 feet from that driveway to the three-way stop there's just that one house there on that corner but I oppose it and I'm definitely afraid of changing the zoning so they can come back later and ask for another one and end up sticking those apartments in there we've got a quiet neighborhood and there's no crime to speak of in that area you go down into the R4 areas and the crime picks up we don't it's quite nice there now I do oppose it in the tension pond right there I think that is for if we have rain and stuff this has always been a flood area in the photo if you can see there's a terrace there to deflect the water from flooding so it doesn't run exactly the way that detention pond is it'll probably be a continuing problem and the little bit of trees and stuff that we have there in that fence line we'd sure like to keep them some of those pecan trees and stuff for 100 plus years old I do oppose it I know it won't be safe I feel like the crime will go up in that area as far as foot traffic and stuff we do have a lot of people around there young and old and they feel pretty safe right now and I'm just afraid it's the more addresses we stick in there and they they're saying nine now but you know if you have to guard down that nine could jump into 40 pretty quick when they go to multi dwellings and that's the whole concept is to get more addresses multi-family dwellings are not allowed in in our four zoning district well what was it they could come back later and ask for the what town homes and duplexes are allowed yeah and how many is there would it only be nine I just feel like if it's done that's a bait and switch I just don't trust it I do totally oppose I thank you folks for letting me speak my piece I am worried about the crime I'm worried about the theft the theft rate will go up the more people you cram into a small area right now we've got a nice boundary where all those larger lots you're talking about are still are too but they're being sucked up by our four we'd like to kind of keep it that way if we can if we have a say so it at all if we're being if we're being heard I don't know if this is just a formality and we already know what we're going to do there or not I know how things go thank you for allowing me to speak if you have any questions for me or I'll just go sit down I do not see any questions at this moment thank you thank you for coming out I do have another card here wishing to speak in opposition Carol Coulter you take your time Carol Coulter I live at 2913 Howard Court which is about three blocks away from from the site we're talking about and I'm also here to represent mrs. Victoria Pena whose property is most of the property on the west side of this side that we've been talking about so I just have to say that we love our little pasture over there it has been there for a long time it's got beautiful trees it's got a beautiful view and and I hate to see it go but I know that it's one of those things that progress comes along I am opposed because I feel that we do have a big problem on Audra we have a big problem on mockingbird I've been out gathering signatures for opposition and I've been almost run over several times just because there's no sidewalk at all so when you walk along there you take your life in your hands believe me but it was worth it I was very in impressed to do this and I feel that it's very important if we're going to have to have houses there I want it to be a as few as possible and so if we do two to an acre instead of four to an acre I think it will make the neighborhood much nicer and less dense and I'm not for the density I am a longtime neighbor I've lived in the neighborhood 30 years and I know that change is coming but I hope that the change would include lots of improvements for the road and for the traffic that is this is going to generate more if we do go to this to the fore then it opens the door I agree with the gentleman who just spoke it opens the door so that if we talk about town homes or if we talk about new plexus that's going to be more traffic on on our road I want to make one more point that has a positive and a negative and I'd like to congratulate Julie on her work and on how much I have enjoyed talking with her and learning about this project and how positive she is and her letter to us and I appreciate that I have one negative and that is the letter said we are changing the zoning from r2 to r4 now I have a computer and I can get online and I can go look it up with the city of Denton but there was no definition in the letter for what that means and many people who don't have an access to a computer or don't know how to research things might not know so that would be helpful in the future for that to be clarified because you know we heard all kinds of things about what a r4 is and so I thought I'd better look it up okay thank you for listening thank you for coming out to speak I don't have any more blue cards to speak I have a few cards not wishing to speak but let me know if you change your mind and you would like to come down to speak you're more than welcome to do so Raylin Samuelson is in opposition Tim Randolph is not wanting to speak but is in opposition did he want to speak Tim did you want to speak I just want to reiterate what BJ said the guy that used to own this place was like a father to me I know more about this property than anybody in this room I promise you and I I'm just scared of the traffic and the coming out of that place right there that stop sign at Mockingbird and Alder that's just going to be a mess in my opinion but I oppose it very much thank you thank you mr. Randolph I have another card not wishing to speak but is in opposition Dolores Montoya and that is all the cards that I have is there anyone in the audience who did not fill out a card but would like to come down and speak on this item you can name and address it's in the 500 foot buffer of this and also have a property at 3008 Terry Court I'm in favor for them because if they do a specific use permit to go higher density with townhomes you heard the opposition it's gonna be a favorless fight to to grant that so with the HOA maintain when I houses I believe it's good for the community really do because there's no ways over there so having that in that area would be nice and that's it thank you thank you for coming out is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item anyone else wishing to speak okay seeing none I will close the public hearing on this item and open the floor for motion or discussion commissioner Smith thank you best chair I'm gonna make a motion to approve with staff recommendations right there was our staff members a solid motion to prove them reason for this I think that the density isn't too indifferent from a lot of the properties that are surrounding this I don't think that that from knowing that area as I do driving and living in that area nine houses I don't think is gonna add traffic burdens that really need to be a warranted and in the multifamily the duplex triplex anything else in there knowing that we have a have an SUP that's gonna be available as a as a safeguard against that I can tell you now that if someone if this project does fall through for whatever reasons that's if an SUP comes back in front of this Commission or any other Commission iteration after this they'll be very easy no to throw out there just because of the surrounding neighborhoods that are there so I think this is safely changing to a density that is workable and will be permanent so a motion to approve motion on the floor to approve Commissioner pernetta a second okay we have a motion on the floor to approve the zoning change to our for is there any discussion okay well I'm gonna say just a few words because I unfortunately cannot get on board to do this and it's mainly for neighborhood protection it's not that I actually really like the concept of the infill as it was presented but without the neighborhood protection in there that opens the door with a duplex or townhome or group home possibility with our for it doesn't work for me because you know I've seen it before we're not voting on a concept plan we're voting on a zoning change so I will not be able to support this item is there any more discussion okay let's call for a vote on the board that motion will carry for two congratulations okay that moves us okay our last public hearing item has been pulled that leaves us to our planning and zoning Commission matrix I will turn it over to Richard just wanted to provide excuse me brief update one City Council last night approved the two text amendments that we heard at the last meeting one with respect to the criteria manual language adding that back in as well as the clarification language for the overlay districts that converted to PD those both are approved 7-0 the gas well ordinance as we sort of discussed earlier or at least mentioned was was approved 5-2 so that will be in effect in 14 days from from yesterday and was that approved with the I'm sorry that was that was that replaced on it or how was that it was it was presented to them with the three options the initial option that that council had directed staff to prepare staffs recommendation and then the planning and zoning Commission recommendation so what they approved it was with all of staff recommendations so that was option two which essentially allowed for all non-conforming structures albeit non-conforming for gas wells or something else if they are destroyed greater than 50% to go in front of ZBA to ask for the ability to rebuild so that was approved last night so that will be in effect not just for gas wells but for all non-conformities and once we get that signed ordinance I'll provide a copy just so everyone everyone has that I know we had discussed there was a lot of debate over the last few weeks about additional items to be discussed about the gas wells there is a as part of the work session on 12-3 council will be bringing that that will be presented to them and so they will discuss that and and vote at that point in time whether or not they want to hear or bring back any further items with respect to gas wells to a work session the only thing that did get added to that was a setback regarding plugged wells so I don't know what will come out of that but that will be a discussion on 12-3 so certainly you can watch that but I will provide an update again on on the the 11th with respect to what what that outcome was just quickly on the on the matrix I did provide somewhat of an update on the the removal of that equipment as the de-energized substation I know Brent our manager from energy to reached out to TMPA they did not give him a specific date but he is going to continue to ask well I'll keep that on until we have a a for sure update we do have on the 11th this next meeting a work session on the notifications in the ETJ will also have the dual notifications and I don't remember the ladies name tonight but she raised a great point and so I'd like to also include that as part of that discussion on notification to probably provide a little bit we try to do some of a more of a description of what's going on but I think sometimes as planners we talk planner speak and just sort of plain language is exactly what they're trying to do in very simple terms so we'll include that as part of that that work session for the next meeting okay we've got a couple wishing to speak Commissioner Smith I was gonna mention I was gonna ask about the ETJ I had a couple phone calls for the item be tonight that were folks who are in the TJ are never noticed for that because they're in the TJ and so excited to hear about that so thank you just and just to let you know about that item that you're getting people need TJ are calling about that so commissioner back thank you I share yeah no I really encourage you to do the additional language like we heard tonight I think that'll be really helpful do you think that would be something that I know we're gonna discuss it but is that something that we're considering all notifications for the simplified language or just the ETJ it would for me it would be for all know if all notifications that I would encourage that and and then do we have any considering the 14-day lag for the for the new ordinance do we have any idea how many properties might fall under that or is that really something we need to discuss at a later time in that window I mean I guess so much how many properties will I think our initial estimation was yeah how many projects underway that might run that might overlap that 14-day lag I'm just curious I'm not sure because we just had our submittals come in yesterday was a deadline I don't think there I'd have to know that's fine I can provide that I can provide that for the next that would be helpful thank you anybody else anything for the matrix Richard if I could um or we could get an update I know we've talked mockingbird before is there something you can I just don't remember about like a future mobility on that and all that you know things are happening right there we've approved a whole lot up and down Audra if this gets approved this is just another you know so just maybe some kind of an update to what's going on there obviously I know we're gonna be years away from that but even just what the future plan is would be yes certainly I'll provide that I know at one point and I think it was mockingbird but I don't recall it so I don't I didn't want to speak too much to it but but there were some improvements that they were doing with respect to the safe route to schools but I'll I'll reach out to CIP and see if there's anything yeah and then also as a suggestion if possible maybe on these developments these re zones where staffs recommending approval and you know that traffic is certainly an issue maybe in the presentation what the future will be would be great to add to the presentation that just gives a little bit more knowledge to the people who instead of just saying traffic's horrible and we all know it's horrible you know whether a TIA was performed or not you know we got a lot of TIA stuff with regard to the multifamily you know and that was good information but on these kind of things just even mentioned in the in the presentation be great okay seeing nothing else I will say happy Thanksgiving to everybody here in Washington and I will close our meeting at 812 thank you