1 00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:03,800 Hello and welcome to the City of Denton planning and zoning meeting for 2 00:00:03,800 --> 00:00:08,940 Wednesday November 20th. This is our work session and with a quorum present I 3 00:00:08,940 --> 00:00:15,460 will call us to order at 5 o 7 p.m. Let it be noted that chair Roselle is 4 00:00:15,460 --> 00:00:21,200 absent from tonight's meeting and at this time Commissioner Smith is absent. 5 00:00:21,200 --> 00:00:31,160 To clarify agenda public hearing item B is being pulled from tonight's agenda so 6 00:00:31,160 --> 00:00:36,560 we will not be considering that today. It will be re-noticed and most likely on 7 00:00:36,560 --> 00:00:43,840 the December 11th December 11th meeting. Now let's get into our agenda we don't 8 00:00:43,840 --> 00:00:51,640 have any work session reports so we will go to consent agenda. Any questions on 9 00:00:51,640 --> 00:01:01,320 consent? Yeah so I know on the consent agenda there's the two properties north 10 00:01:01,320 --> 00:01:06,880 of North Lakes. I have a couple of questions about those. Let's take one 11 00:01:06,880 --> 00:01:10,880 at a time because they might be different people. Okay so Haley I think 12 00:01:10,880 --> 00:01:21,280 you've got the first consent. Well they're sort of both the same question so 13 00:01:21,280 --> 00:01:25,440 I'm just gonna have Julie if you wouldn't mind listening in as well and 14 00:01:25,440 --> 00:01:34,040 and both of these questions relate and I think to the the properties and 15 00:01:34,040 --> 00:01:40,480 distances regarding setbacks for these properties and there's a caveat to that 16 00:01:40,480 --> 00:01:45,360 which is in light of last night's vote so this actually might be more of a 17 00:01:45,360 --> 00:01:54,240 question for Cynthia but and what are the distances for this apartment complex 18 00:01:54,240 --> 00:01:59,040 and for the school and I know that unfortunately that's two different 19 00:01:59,040 --> 00:02:01,800 people but that's essentially the same question. What are the what are the 20 00:02:01,800 --> 00:02:08,480 distances to the building especially vis-a-vis the 250 and as of last night 500 21 00:02:08,480 --> 00:02:13,520 but realizing that we have different criteria for when rules are applied so I 22 00:02:13,520 --> 00:02:16,400 mean what are what are the implications of all that together for these two 23 00:02:16,400 --> 00:02:21,320 properties? So both of these flats do reflect compliance with the 250 foot 24 00:02:21,320 --> 00:02:26,000 reverse setback that was in place at the time of their application. Last night's 25 00:02:26,000 --> 00:02:30,680 vote although the ordinance was approved there is a 14-day lag time between 26 00:02:30,680 --> 00:02:34,080 adoption of an ordinance and its effective date so that will go into full 27 00:02:34,080 --> 00:02:39,000 effect 14 days from last night and I believe there was a clause written into 28 00:02:39,000 --> 00:02:42,960 the ordinance for projects that are in the queue currently to remain under the 29 00:02:42,960 --> 00:02:48,120 code that they started under so anything that was currently under review with 30 00:02:48,120 --> 00:02:52,360 staff would be able to stay with the 250 foot reverse setback to the 31 00:02:52,360 --> 00:02:56,760 completion of that project. For the A2 option that was discussed last night or 32 00:02:56,760 --> 00:03:02,000 elsewhere in the code? That was in the ordinance itself. Okay. There was a clause 33 00:03:02,000 --> 00:03:05,600 in there but and Cynthia I don't know if you have anything else to add on that I 34 00:03:05,600 --> 00:03:09,200 think that was the just of that one clause in the ordinance? No, that's correct. 35 00:03:09,200 --> 00:03:19,360 Okay. And do we that the they're with they're outside the 250 for the proposed 36 00:03:19,360 --> 00:03:25,440 plan for construction of these buildings and I mean this is I think especially 37 00:03:25,440 --> 00:03:30,000 Jermaine because we're just we would discuss this last night I know it's 14 38 00:03:30,000 --> 00:03:34,280 days and if it was just something weird like a sign or something where it it's a 39 00:03:34,280 --> 00:03:40,240 rule change but it's inconsequential I'd be I wouldn't be so pushy but we're the 40 00:03:40,240 --> 00:03:45,400 reason there was a rule changes this is a noxious use and so I'm concerned about 41 00:03:45,400 --> 00:03:53,240 residences and children. Certainly and both projects are meeting the 250 foot 42 00:03:53,240 --> 00:03:58,600 reverse setback. For their proposed building constructions? Correct. And are 43 00:03:58,600 --> 00:04:05,760 they outside the 500? I'm not certain on the school the buildings may be on the 44 00:04:05,760 --> 00:04:09,040 school I can let Julie speak to that those are separate applications though 45 00:04:09,040 --> 00:04:14,600 from the plot the plots reflect the 250 foot setback the multifamily I don't 46 00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:17,160 recall the exact numbers off the top of my head they have an agreement with the 47 00:04:17,160 --> 00:04:21,120 operator that was part of their specific use permit last year and their setbacks 48 00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:24,240 are a little bit higher than the 250 I just don't know the exact number I think 49 00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:28,720 it was in the range of three to four hundred feet to the buildings but but 50 00:04:28,720 --> 00:04:34,280 they they meet or exceed the 250 foot requirement. And this is now maybe it's 51 00:04:34,280 --> 00:04:37,720 still following on but this may be a more of a question for does this mean 52 00:04:37,720 --> 00:04:43,600 that we are creating before construction a legally non-conforming structure which 53 00:04:43,600 --> 00:04:47,600 seems like we're trying to minimize that and yet we're we're doing it on purpose 54 00:04:47,600 --> 00:04:53,760 here. Well in the ordinance as Haley mentioned in section three of the 55 00:04:53,760 --> 00:04:56,840 ordinance that was approved last night it does call out those plats that were 56 00:04:56,840 --> 00:05:00,720 submitted before the ordinance was approved and those don't have to comply 57 00:05:00,720 --> 00:05:07,240 with the new setback. And I just want to caution that the gas well ordinance is 58 00:05:07,240 --> 00:05:10,960 not on the agenda for this evening's meeting. Yeah no I'm not I'm not 59 00:05:10,960 --> 00:05:16,000 discussing the the actual ordinance itself I'm this is particularly just the 60 00:05:16,000 --> 00:05:23,120 setbacks and these particular plats but thank you for your caution. 61 00:05:23,800 --> 00:05:26,400 And we don't have any again this I guess a legal question we don't have any 62 00:05:26,400 --> 00:05:33,160 special consideration for the types of use there's no difference in a noxious 63 00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:42,360 use in any other kind of use. Because I'm concerned about future liability issues 64 00:05:42,360 --> 00:05:46,040 to be honest not only the health of the children but then financially liability 65 00:05:46,040 --> 00:05:50,760 issues if we find that we're within the 500 and we knew we did it before we 66 00:05:50,760 --> 00:05:57,200 allowed construction. Again the gas well setback is not on the agenda for this 67 00:05:57,200 --> 00:05:59,480 evening. 68 00:05:59,480 --> 00:06:09,960 It's not germane to this problem even though the setback is from the gas wells. 69 00:06:09,960 --> 00:06:13,560 These plats meet the technical requirements of the code though in 70 00:06:13,560 --> 00:06:17,320 state law does obligate the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve plats that 71 00:06:17,320 --> 00:06:28,320 meet the code. All right thank you. Commissioner Pernau. This is the same line 72 00:06:28,320 --> 00:06:32,960 of questioning I just kind of wanted to verify if you could check before we 73 00:06:32,960 --> 00:06:38,000 present on this one if I remember correctly the we were looking at 250 feet 74 00:06:38,000 --> 00:06:45,200 from the edge of the pad and at the time of the you know the actual active well 75 00:06:45,200 --> 00:06:52,480 and everything was 450 feet when we discussed it that time we talked about 76 00:06:52,480 --> 00:06:57,680 the idea that if they were ever to drill you know if they were ever to like you 77 00:06:57,680 --> 00:07:02,040 know open up close farther on the pad closer to the house closer to the 78 00:07:02,040 --> 00:07:09,160 property is that the well owners would would basically have to submit a request 79 00:07:09,160 --> 00:07:16,040 to the city to get approval on that one correct so so based on and I don't want 80 00:07:16,040 --> 00:07:20,200 to make you know I don't want to make the setbacks the part of the question I 81 00:07:20,200 --> 00:07:25,720 just want to ask so based on what we what we're at right now if they were to 82 00:07:25,720 --> 00:07:33,640 attempt that basically our existing setbacks would would prevent that right 83 00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:39,000 and I believe you're referencing the specific use permit for this site we 84 00:07:39,000 --> 00:07:43,320 looked at the pad site to the east of there that may expand in the future yes 85 00:07:43,320 --> 00:07:48,880 so when and if that pad site is the operator seeks to expand that site they 86 00:07:48,880 --> 00:07:52,840 would have to come in they're located in a floodplain so they have enhanced 87 00:07:52,840 --> 00:07:55,720 scrutiny on that site they would actually require a specific use permit a 88 00:07:55,720 --> 00:08:00,440 watershed protection permit they would have to obtain waivers from all of the 89 00:08:00,440 --> 00:08:04,000 protected use owners that are within their required setback which would be 90 00:08:04,000 --> 00:08:07,520 500 feet in this instance because they're an existing pad in a non 91 00:08:07,520 --> 00:08:11,800 industrial district so everyone within that 500 foot radius would have to sign 92 00:08:11,800 --> 00:08:15,400 a waiver and then they would have to get through those additional steps the the 93 00:08:15,400 --> 00:08:19,760 watershed protection permit SUP and then the gas well site plan process okay thank 94 00:08:19,760 --> 00:08:26,320 you very much anybody else on this one okay thanks 95 00:08:26,320 --> 00:08:40,720 hey Julie I did have a quick question on the high school plot thank you I saw a 96 00:08:40,720 --> 00:08:46,160 note on there that I guess prior to final plant we need an AESA on there is 97 00:08:46,160 --> 00:08:56,760 that correct if they were going to impact the alternate the ESA right now 98 00:08:56,760 --> 00:09:01,840 their plans are not proposing to impact the ESA so that okay so it's not right 99 00:09:01,840 --> 00:09:05,520 now it's going to be out of it if they did okay if their site plan did change 100 00:09:05,520 --> 00:09:09,040 and they they were going to impact it then yes prior to final plot they would 101 00:09:09,040 --> 00:09:12,640 have to get okay but it is not anything that's being done now no that's what I 102 00:09:12,640 --> 00:09:22,360 wanted to clarify thank you anybody else on that one okay items for individual 103 00:09:22,360 --> 00:09:30,680 consideration we do have a general development plan that is recommended for 104 00:09:30,680 --> 00:09:45,240 denial that is Haley again so you don't see these very often but this is a 105 00:09:45,240 --> 00:09:49,640 general development plan which I like to think of kind of the pre-preliminary 106 00:09:49,640 --> 00:09:53,360 plat for larger projects that want to do a little enhanced planning on the front 107 00:09:53,360 --> 00:09:59,840 end so this particular GDP is for the same site that we have the rezoning to 108 00:09:59,840 --> 00:10:06,240 plan development request later this evening this application came in almost 109 00:10:06,240 --> 00:10:10,480 concurrently with that plan development rezoning and it was just a little bit 110 00:10:10,480 --> 00:10:14,960 ahead of the curve and because the site does not have that zoning in place yet 111 00:10:14,960 --> 00:10:18,960 this general development plan cannot be approved until that zoning is approved 112 00:10:18,960 --> 00:10:22,680 if the zoning is approved so this item is before you tonight because of the 113 00:10:22,680 --> 00:10:27,040 shot clock bill that requires that within so many days of it being submitted that 114 00:10:27,040 --> 00:10:31,680 it be brought forward for approval denial so staff is recommending denial 115 00:10:31,680 --> 00:10:36,120 solely because it does not have that zoning in place yet to allow this lot 116 00:10:36,120 --> 00:10:42,200 size and density of housing Commissioner Smith thank you chair if we'd recommend 117 00:10:42,200 --> 00:10:47,920 the denial then does it does this then continue on to to City Council for that 118 00:10:47,920 --> 00:10:50,920 or they have to withdraw and reapply if the zoning does pass those kinds of 119 00:10:50,920 --> 00:10:53,840 things what's the what's the denial process in regards I get the shot clock 120 00:10:53,840 --> 00:10:58,000 reasoning but what's the process from here on out certainly so the GDP is a 121 00:10:58,000 --> 00:11:02,760 planning and zoning Commission approval so if you were tonight it's like yes it 122 00:11:02,760 --> 00:11:06,840 will come back before you the process should ultimately be their zoning goes 123 00:11:06,840 --> 00:11:10,200 through council if it is approved then they would submit this plan back to staff 124 00:11:10,200 --> 00:11:13,520 and say you put it on your next agenda we have 15 days to get it back to you 125 00:11:13,520 --> 00:11:17,880 all for you to reconsider and approve at that time if the zoning is in place not 126 00:11:17,880 --> 00:11:21,680 to belabor why why do we do GPs again this is the first time I've ever seen 127 00:11:21,680 --> 00:11:25,360 one three years up in here so GDP is what do we have them what do we use them 128 00:11:25,360 --> 00:11:29,960 for well it's no longer a process that's in the 2019 code this project came in 129 00:11:29,960 --> 00:11:33,840 under the old code before that October 1st effective date of the 2019 well 130 00:11:33,840 --> 00:11:36,760 they come back up within whenever they get denied and they come back in then 131 00:11:36,760 --> 00:11:40,560 they'll have to come back underneath in the 2019 code then because my 132 00:11:40,560 --> 00:11:44,400 understanding is because the way state law is written they can stay under that 133 00:11:44,400 --> 00:11:47,960 code because they have the opportunity to take whatever time they need to get 134 00:11:47,960 --> 00:11:51,960 the plan into compliance with whatever we the findings were for denial and then 135 00:11:51,960 --> 00:11:55,840 if they meet those they can come back in and continue forward and then the GDP 136 00:11:55,840 --> 00:11:59,880 is just for more advanced pre planning essentially pre essentially it was a 137 00:11:59,880 --> 00:12:03,760 tool in the O2 code like I said pre preliminary plat just to give you know an 138 00:12:03,760 --> 00:12:08,400 additional high-level look at utilities street layout and things like that just 139 00:12:08,400 --> 00:12:16,520 to allow that extra level of planning Haley along that line of thinking so if 140 00:12:16,520 --> 00:12:25,040 they're applying for rezoning for a zoning designation in our new code how 141 00:12:25,040 --> 00:12:33,920 is it that we're then still going to be looking at it from the old code it does 142 00:12:33,920 --> 00:12:39,320 seem like we've this project is being looked at from from both codes and it's 143 00:12:39,320 --> 00:12:43,800 it's confusing to me of how we could be on the old code if we're actually dealing 144 00:12:43,800 --> 00:12:47,520 with a zoning designation that didn't exist in the old code correct and I 145 00:12:47,520 --> 00:12:50,640 certainly understand that their zoning application actually initially came in 146 00:12:50,640 --> 00:12:56,580 for districts under the O2 code it fell within this transitional period where we 147 00:12:56,580 --> 00:12:59,400 could not notice for a rezoning under the code that was no longer in effect 148 00:12:59,400 --> 00:13:03,080 after October 1 so we worked with the applicant to create the best tool to get 149 00:13:03,080 --> 00:13:07,000 them the same end result and that turned out to be the plan development in the new 150 00:13:07,000 --> 00:13:13,560 DDC so there are the overall intent is to comply with the 2019 code there are 151 00:13:13,560 --> 00:13:18,480 certain facets of the O2 code that they are vested in the GDP was already in 152 00:13:18,480 --> 00:13:22,320 process so we elected to allow that to continue forward because like I said 153 00:13:22,320 --> 00:13:26,160 it's essentially a preliminary plat just a little bit less detail but 154 00:13:26,160 --> 00:13:30,400 particularly the tree preservation requirements will be looked at under the 155 00:13:30,400 --> 00:13:34,440 2002 code because chapter 245 of the local government code specifically 156 00:13:34,440 --> 00:13:40,520 allows that to be vested in so based on their date of application they have the 157 00:13:40,520 --> 00:13:44,920 ability to pick and choose essentially components of each code since we were in 158 00:13:44,920 --> 00:13:49,240 that transitional period okay so yeah I guess that's where my question was going 159 00:13:49,240 --> 00:13:55,160 so they can yes certain elements under 245 different pieces can be pulled from 160 00:13:55,160 --> 00:13:58,520 the old code they had the choice between which which of those they wanted to go 161 00:13:58,520 --> 00:14:02,880 with so tree preservation is essentially the only code element that is from the 162 00:14:02,880 --> 00:14:06,600 O2 code everything else they're intending to meet the 2019 code through 163 00:14:06,600 --> 00:14:12,640 the PD process and then like I said the GDP was just their existing application 164 00:14:12,640 --> 00:14:15,680 it was the first thing in the door so under the shot clock bill we needed to 165 00:14:15,680 --> 00:14:19,280 let that continue forward but that process won't exist in the future for 166 00:14:19,280 --> 00:14:24,080 other projects okay I may have more when we revisit this item 167 00:14:24,080 --> 00:14:28,960 Commissioner Beck yeah so can you remind me of the difference between the tree 168 00:14:28,960 --> 00:14:34,140 code in the two different versions I do have some more detail on that in the PD 169 00:14:34,140 --> 00:14:38,320 presentation but essentially everything was different different types of tree 170 00:14:38,320 --> 00:14:42,360 classifications different minimum preservation requirements for the trees 171 00:14:42,360 --> 00:14:47,120 are you gonna go over that I do have more detail on that in the PD presentation 172 00:14:47,120 --> 00:14:56,520 for later so then I'll hold my questions till then okay thank you Haley okay 173 00:14:56,520 --> 00:15:03,440 moving on to our public hearing items our first is a final replat and that is 174 00:15:03,440 --> 00:15:05,640 marked 175 00:15:05,640 --> 00:15:22,960 good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a planner in the development service 176 00:15:22,960 --> 00:15:26,760 department this evening I have for your consideration the replat of the Golden 177 00:15:26,760 --> 00:15:38,400 Triangle edition and I stand for any questions that you have I assume this is 178 00:15:38,400 --> 00:15:43,880 just for redevelopment of them all right I believe so yeah okay thank you oh I'm 179 00:15:43,880 --> 00:16:00,400 sorry Commissioner we're not tearing down them all right no sir okay thanks all righty thank you okay 180 00:16:00,400 --> 00:16:05,960 item B is being pulled as I had said Commissioner Smith for your unification 181 00:16:05,960 --> 00:16:10,360 since you're a little bit late item B of our public hearing is being pulled and 182 00:16:10,360 --> 00:16:19,240 renoticed for our December 11th meeting okay item C is Julie 183 00:16:19,240 --> 00:16:38,840 all right good evening I'm Julie Wyatt and I'm presenting S 19 3 Oxford at 184 00:16:38,840 --> 00:16:43,760 Sherman the request before you is to consider a specific use permit for a 185 00:16:43,760 --> 00:16:48,760 multifamily development the subject property is about 12 acres it is 186 00:16:48,760 --> 00:16:53,960 currently undeveloped and it is situated between loop 288 to the north and 187 00:16:53,960 --> 00:17:02,240 poinsettia Boulevard to the south some background on the property in 2002 the 188 00:17:02,240 --> 00:17:09,040 property was zoned CMG during the citywide rezoning in 2019 it transitioned 189 00:17:09,040 --> 00:17:14,120 to SC due to the submittal timing this is another one of those it's in that 190 00:17:14,120 --> 00:17:20,600 transition between the 2002 code and the 2019 code the property is or the project 191 00:17:20,600 --> 00:17:25,520 is subject to the 2002 Denton development code regulations but 192 00:17:25,520 --> 00:17:30,560 multifamily work dwellings require an SUP in both the CMG which was the previous 193 00:17:30,560 --> 00:17:35,160 zoning and the current zoning of SC so here's the subject property right here 194 00:17:35,160 --> 00:17:39,080 outlined in black you can see that SC zoning just to take a look at what the 195 00:17:39,080 --> 00:17:43,000 surrounding zoning pattern is there's r7 to the south at the townhome 196 00:17:43,000 --> 00:17:49,520 development at r6 just a little further south than that adjacent to it to the 197 00:17:49,520 --> 00:17:55,240 east is an r4 subdivision currently under construction there are there's a 198 00:17:55,240 --> 00:17:59,360 multifamily development in MN to the west of the property and the property 199 00:17:59,360 --> 00:18:04,080 that is kind of to the northwest of the subject site is currently undeveloped 200 00:18:04,080 --> 00:18:09,240 but commercial development will be developed in the near future at that 201 00:18:09,240 --> 00:18:16,120 location the SUP criteria for approval and in the 2002 Denton development code 202 00:18:16,120 --> 00:18:20,920 is in sub chapter 6 I won't read all of these to you they're in your backup as 203 00:18:20,920 --> 00:18:24,880 well as the code we'll just go over some of the highlights of that analysis and 204 00:18:24,880 --> 00:18:29,080 that that criteria for approval in more detail so first of all we always look at 205 00:18:29,080 --> 00:18:34,080 the Denton plan 2030 when we when we start analyzing a proposal in this case 206 00:18:34,080 --> 00:18:38,200 the future land use is community mixed use the intent of that is to provide a 207 00:18:38,200 --> 00:18:44,000 mix of uses more commercial service and then some more high density development 208 00:18:44,000 --> 00:18:50,120 or residential uses and to complement the commercial center so really to to 209 00:18:50,120 --> 00:18:56,120 encourage a diversity of use to to have a more dynamic development pattern in 210 00:18:56,120 --> 00:19:02,120 these areas multifamily is consistent with the future land use map once again 211 00:19:02,120 --> 00:19:05,400 first of all it is a complementary residential use for mixed use districts 212 00:19:05,400 --> 00:19:11,680 it's often found in mixed use districts and within that larger future land use 213 00:19:11,680 --> 00:19:16,040 designation there are variations and in this instance because it's really close 214 00:19:16,040 --> 00:19:21,520 to a residential area a residential use like multifamily would maintain that 215 00:19:21,520 --> 00:19:27,040 residential character along that edge where those where the the residential 216 00:19:27,040 --> 00:19:33,400 of us that that mixed use center I you all seen this slide before the dent plan 217 00:19:33,400 --> 00:19:38,880 2030 also talks about the growth projections for Denton and that by 2030 218 00:19:38,880 --> 00:19:44,440 our our projected population will be a little over 200,000 people in order to 219 00:19:44,440 --> 00:19:49,240 accommodate all those of those residents there will need to be new housing units 220 00:19:49,240 --> 00:19:54,080 and as part of that multifamily multifamily is an appropriate use and 221 00:19:54,080 --> 00:19:57,200 is something we want to see and kind of our urbanized areas and in those 222 00:19:57,200 --> 00:20:02,640 strategic locations next to arterials places like loop 288 where there's 223 00:20:02,640 --> 00:20:08,720 proximity to existing residential also schools and shopping so so this this 224 00:20:08,720 --> 00:20:15,560 this area is really consistent with what the comp plan calls for to look a little 225 00:20:15,560 --> 00:20:18,920 more specifically about what they're proposing want to talk about the site 226 00:20:18,920 --> 00:20:24,640 plan so the the site is kind of a triangular shape if they are proposing 227 00:20:24,640 --> 00:20:29,880 eight three-story buildings and those are outlined in purple the proposal is 228 00:20:29,880 --> 00:20:35,000 oriented toward loop 288 so the main entrance to the development would be off 229 00:20:35,000 --> 00:20:41,000 of loop 288 they are proposing three access points with controlled access the 230 00:20:41,000 --> 00:20:48,760 full in and out access adjacent to loop 288 and then two exit only points one 231 00:20:48,760 --> 00:20:52,680 to the adjacent future commercial development that would be the most 232 00:20:52,680 --> 00:20:59,400 direct access to FM 428 to Sherman Drive and then another exit only point on to 233 00:20:59,400 --> 00:21:05,380 point study up they are proposing a community pool with a clubhouse also 234 00:21:05,380 --> 00:21:10,080 some open space areas one that would include a fire pit and and outdoor 235 00:21:10,080 --> 00:21:15,760 eating also proposing a dog park in this location that would be controlled access 236 00:21:15,760 --> 00:21:20,000 for the dogs excuse me Julie commissioner Bernetta yeah I just have a 237 00:21:20,000 --> 00:21:25,840 question when I'm looking at the aerial map and the you know the notification and 238 00:21:25,840 --> 00:21:30,880 response map it includes the the yellow outline includes that little section that 239 00:21:30,880 --> 00:21:36,560 goes out to Sherman yes the notification got a little overzealous it actually was 240 00:21:36,560 --> 00:21:42,100 over notified okay so yes there the little the notification map included 241 00:21:42,100 --> 00:21:46,880 this little section here which was in addition to the subject property so in 242 00:21:46,880 --> 00:21:51,800 the actual subject property is just that part outlined in yellow okay so we're 243 00:21:51,800 --> 00:21:55,040 voting we're just going on that spot right correct yes sir thank you very 244 00:21:55,040 --> 00:22:01,440 much there is there are additional open a meaningful open space areas one here 245 00:22:01,440 --> 00:22:05,840 adjacent to that single-family neighborhood kind of separating this 246 00:22:05,840 --> 00:22:10,840 residential building from from that that single-family lot and then and then in 247 00:22:10,840 --> 00:22:15,520 this location they're also proposing some one-story garages those are 248 00:22:15,520 --> 00:22:19,640 outlined in yellow and you can see that they're a lot of those are centered on 249 00:22:19,640 --> 00:22:24,400 on adjacent to poinsettia to allow that sort of visual buffer to set those 250 00:22:24,400 --> 00:22:28,120 residential backs that the the taller residential buildings back a little 251 00:22:28,120 --> 00:22:34,320 further from the existing development that the three-story residential buildings 252 00:22:34,320 --> 00:22:40,520 are set back a minimum of 101 feet from the south property line and then about 253 00:22:40,520 --> 00:22:45,120 49 feet from the east property line and the proposal does meet the the minimum 254 00:22:45,120 --> 00:22:51,520 parking regulations the landscape plan shows that they are proposing 163 new 255 00:22:51,520 --> 00:22:56,760 large canopy trees at maturity that would be about 200,000 square feet of 256 00:22:56,760 --> 00:23:03,840 canopy as as part of that they're proposing 47 large canopy trees along 257 00:23:03,840 --> 00:23:08,080 the southern edge and that is in addition to the required 24 street trees 258 00:23:08,080 --> 00:23:11,040 those are actually medium canopy trees those are a little smaller they're 259 00:23:11,040 --> 00:23:14,560 proposing some additional large canopy trees to make sure there's that visual 260 00:23:14,560 --> 00:23:19,440 buffer between the existing residential and the proposal there's also as I 261 00:23:19,440 --> 00:23:23,600 mentioned that open space area adjacent to between the development and that 262 00:23:23,600 --> 00:23:30,040 adjacent single-family lot and that would include a landscape buffer that's 263 00:23:30,040 --> 00:23:36,240 required for the code I'm sure Commissioner back so on that regard and 264 00:23:36,240 --> 00:23:40,120 you can use this map or the other map but I noticed one of the conflicts that 265 00:23:40,120 --> 00:23:45,120 you had was trees and I don't know if you're gonna address that but are there 266 00:23:45,120 --> 00:23:50,840 there's no ways of attaining the standard since I believe you said they 267 00:23:50,840 --> 00:23:55,600 were below the standard for trees no they actually meet not only the 2002 268 00:23:55,600 --> 00:24:01,120 tree code requirements they actually meet the 2019 requirements a lot of the 269 00:24:01,120 --> 00:24:05,040 trees on the site were kind of fence line trees most of them were secondary 270 00:24:05,040 --> 00:24:10,520 trees and they actually meet both both codes on that my mistake thank you but a 271 00:24:10,520 --> 00:24:13,800 lot but tree preservation is important in this line because a lot of their 272 00:24:13,800 --> 00:24:16,760 preserved trees are these fence line trees that are existing right here so 273 00:24:16,760 --> 00:24:20,720 they're maintaining those existing trees to provide that that good buffer between 274 00:24:20,720 --> 00:24:25,320 them and the single-family residential there is a perimeter fence around the 275 00:24:25,320 --> 00:24:28,920 subject property it's going to be a combination if approved of ornamental 276 00:24:28,920 --> 00:24:34,360 metal board-on-board cedar and masonry columns and one place I want you to zoom 277 00:24:34,360 --> 00:24:39,200 into is that the the property line adjacent to poinsettia they are 278 00:24:39,200 --> 00:24:43,680 proposing board-on-board cedar fence with recesses and projections and it's 279 00:24:43,680 --> 00:24:49,080 a little hard to see but the the fence actually kind of goes in and out to 280 00:24:49,080 --> 00:24:54,000 allow landscaping planting areas I mean to break up kind of the monotony of a 281 00:24:54,000 --> 00:24:58,320 really long fence and although we really like that visual interest we do have 282 00:24:58,320 --> 00:25:01,480 concerns about the durability of those materials and so staff is actually 283 00:25:01,480 --> 00:25:06,880 recommending a condition that that fence either be a wrought iron with with a a 284 00:25:06,880 --> 00:25:16,640 evergreen shrub a screening device along that that perimeter or a masonry wall 285 00:25:16,640 --> 00:25:21,040 here are their sample elevations and this this one shows a little bit better 286 00:25:21,040 --> 00:25:25,800 about what they're proposing for that south fence line but they are proposing 287 00:25:25,800 --> 00:25:30,600 three-story buildings with a neutral color palette balconies or patios are in 288 00:25:30,600 --> 00:25:36,400 100% of their units awnings decorative wall lighting and a variety of recesses 289 00:25:36,400 --> 00:25:40,960 and projections are going to provide relief reduce that bulk of those 290 00:25:40,960 --> 00:25:46,280 buildings also the appearance of the stairwells those are their appearance is 291 00:25:46,280 --> 00:25:53,120 minimized from the exterior of those buildings there is if this is approved 292 00:25:53,120 --> 00:25:58,160 there will be another item or another project that will come before you and 293 00:25:58,160 --> 00:26:02,480 that's an alternative development plan because it's under the 2002 code there 294 00:26:02,480 --> 00:26:07,000 is that alternative development plan a provision that if they need a deviation 295 00:26:07,000 --> 00:26:12,280 from one of the subchapter 13 requirements there are two first a 296 00:26:12,280 --> 00:26:16,280 project greater than three acres has to have a public or private street system 297 00:26:16,280 --> 00:26:19,080 the way they're laying out their buildings and proposing they've actually 298 00:26:19,080 --> 00:26:24,040 got tuck under garages and all of their buildings so it kind of breaks up that 299 00:26:24,040 --> 00:26:29,440 long private street system so they would need an alternative development plan to 300 00:26:29,440 --> 00:26:36,440 deviate from that provision and then also the code prohibits garages between 301 00:26:36,440 --> 00:26:41,680 the the buildings and the street in this instance the garage is really work in in 302 00:26:41,680 --> 00:26:45,720 in order to set those residential buildings back to have those one-story 303 00:26:45,720 --> 00:26:50,000 buildings closer to that existing neighborhood so the proposal does meet 304 00:26:50,000 --> 00:26:53,920 the requirements for an ADP it'll come back before you if this is approved by 305 00:26:53,920 --> 00:27:01,360 it by City Council a TIA was submitted and approved as a as a part of this 306 00:27:01,360 --> 00:27:07,320 request as part of it they did provide trip generation there there their 307 00:27:07,320 --> 00:27:13,680 estimates show that there would be about 1,800 trips generated per 24-hour weekday 308 00:27:13,680 --> 00:27:19,000 and that would be 113 in the morning peak and then 133 in the evening peak 309 00:27:19,000 --> 00:27:22,920 they also as part of the TIA looked at sort of the total build out of that 310 00:27:22,920 --> 00:27:27,360 corner once that commercial piece comes in their estimate is that it would be 311 00:27:27,360 --> 00:27:35,480 about 3,600 trips per day Julie on that note I know it it was mentioned in there 312 00:27:35,480 --> 00:27:39,880 that they took into consideration the future commercial development in the 313 00:27:39,880 --> 00:27:45,800 existing homes what about the single-family developments that are 314 00:27:45,800 --> 00:27:50,520 effectively on both sides of the development were those considered at all 315 00:27:50,520 --> 00:27:55,560 I believe it was all considered as part of it they actually sort of melded a lot 316 00:27:55,560 --> 00:28:01,320 of the data because the Harvest Hill all of the data from the Harvest Hill 317 00:28:01,320 --> 00:28:05,960 subdivision and the trips generated from that also the TIA that was prepared for 318 00:28:05,960 --> 00:28:11,400 the palladium development that adjacent multifamily development and sort of took 319 00:28:11,400 --> 00:28:16,320 all of that into consideration when they were developing this got a new 320 00:28:16,320 --> 00:28:22,480 development on the other side of 428 the J the development actually they did 321 00:28:22,480 --> 00:28:27,880 because poinsettia is actually going to punch across FM 428 so if you look at a 322 00:28:27,880 --> 00:28:41,840 map and that is part of their analysis of that of that so this is not a road 323 00:28:41,840 --> 00:28:46,560 yet but it it will if it's not yet we may have really old aerial but I don't 324 00:28:46,560 --> 00:28:51,360 think it's a road yet but this is actually going to punch across and and 325 00:28:51,360 --> 00:28:55,920 part of their analysis of this intersection of poinsettia and FM 428 326 00:28:55,920 --> 00:29:01,440 took into account that that that movement across that intersection and in 327 00:29:01,440 --> 00:29:07,920 fact their their analysis by their analysis they feel that once all of this 328 00:29:07,920 --> 00:29:13,520 is kind of developed that that the the intersection of poinsettia and Sherman FM 329 00:29:13,520 --> 00:29:18,960 428 will meet the warrants for a signal oh there's no question yeah okay so so 330 00:29:18,960 --> 00:29:23,240 it really it was considered as part of it the single-family homes that are 331 00:29:23,240 --> 00:29:26,040 going in on that corner yeah the whole development because this is 332 00:29:26,040 --> 00:29:29,080 actually supposed to be commercial as well so there's gonna be a lot going on 333 00:29:29,080 --> 00:29:36,640 in this in this area completely agree okay thanks but that was a great segue 334 00:29:36,640 --> 00:29:40,600 into talking about intersections so their TIA's it's been a lot of time 335 00:29:40,600 --> 00:29:45,920 talking about those intersections first was well first a little bit of 336 00:29:45,920 --> 00:29:54,000 background so they're given a grade a to F depending on the delay that that 337 00:29:54,000 --> 00:29:59,080 drivers experience at those intersections a being the least amount of delay like 338 00:29:59,080 --> 00:30:04,480 10 seconds or less I believe and then F being a substantial delay 50 seconds or 339 00:30:04,480 --> 00:30:13,560 more so in their analysis of loop FM or loop 288 in FM 428 you know that that 340 00:30:13,560 --> 00:30:16,800 intersection because it's a pretty complicated intersection but it ran the 341 00:30:16,800 --> 00:30:23,600 gamut from a to F the the the straight going traffic on FM 428 was the most 342 00:30:23,600 --> 00:30:28,960 free-flowing but then those those cars exiting the the loop and having any 343 00:30:28,960 --> 00:30:33,800 left-turn movements really had substantial delays I believe up until 344 00:30:33,800 --> 00:30:38,720 four minutes of delays so so that that intersection currently meets the 345 00:30:38,720 --> 00:30:42,120 warrants for signal I talked to engineering it is supposed to be 346 00:30:42,120 --> 00:30:47,120 installed within the next six to eight months they they know that this is a 347 00:30:47,120 --> 00:30:52,000 really tough intersection for those residents in that area and so as an 348 00:30:52,000 --> 00:30:57,320 interim step they're going to be installing for always stops within in 349 00:30:57,320 --> 00:31:00,880 December that I believe the first couple of weeks in December is when they say 350 00:31:00,880 --> 00:31:04,760 they're estimated to be installed so so that is forthcoming and that'll be an 351 00:31:04,760 --> 00:31:10,000 interim step for that signal and then as you mentioned the FM 428 in Poinsettia 352 00:31:10,000 --> 00:31:16,880 that westbound traffic that especially is turning left onto FM 428 Sherman Drive 353 00:31:16,880 --> 00:31:21,340 or at some point what could potentially go straight that is that is those 354 00:31:21,340 --> 00:31:25,320 drivers are experiencing the most difficult turning movement especially in 355 00:31:25,320 --> 00:31:30,840 the morning the evening as it as a interim step the recommendation is to 356 00:31:30,840 --> 00:31:35,520 restripe that road to have a dedicated left turn lane and then sort of a 357 00:31:35,520 --> 00:31:39,660 bifurcate the left turning movements or the right turning movements who would go 358 00:31:39,660 --> 00:31:43,960 north on that road and that will help ease it until until that meets that 359 00:31:43,960 --> 00:31:48,240 warrants for the light and when is that planned June it would be with the 360 00:31:48,240 --> 00:31:51,920 development of the project yeah it would be the design would happen during 361 00:31:51,920 --> 00:31:58,160 platting and development if it was approved Commissioner Beck Sherman 428 362 00:31:58,160 --> 00:32:02,840 is that's a text dot road is that correct I believe I believe it is it is 363 00:32:02,840 --> 00:32:06,640 text dot outside of the loop if it's still text on inside the loop it should 364 00:32:06,640 --> 00:32:12,640 be converting over to the city pretty soon and are we widen widening that to 365 00:32:12,640 --> 00:32:17,560 accommodate all the development on either side that are being proposed 366 00:32:17,560 --> 00:32:26,760 there's not a plan to do that with inside the loop there are also perimeter 367 00:32:26,760 --> 00:32:30,960 street improvements that would be required as if this is approved the 368 00:32:30,960 --> 00:32:37,520 developer would would construct kind of a spur off of the off of the entrance 369 00:32:37,520 --> 00:32:42,480 ramp for loop 288 connecting down to point study a here to provide that sort 370 00:32:42,480 --> 00:32:47,400 of looping circulation pattern so if this was approved there would be a spur 371 00:32:47,400 --> 00:32:53,200 sort of the beginnings of the acts of the frontage roads for loop 288 that 372 00:32:53,200 --> 00:32:57,680 would be constructed in front of the proposed Julie while we're on the 373 00:32:57,680 --> 00:33:04,120 discussion of points Etta it seems to me with that multifamily the palladium that 374 00:33:04,120 --> 00:33:08,200 went in did we not have some kind of restriction there that there would be no 375 00:33:08,200 --> 00:33:13,640 parking on points Etta I don't know if there is a restriction of no parking it 376 00:33:13,640 --> 00:33:18,600 is a gated community there is a they do have a screening wall there I don't know 377 00:33:18,600 --> 00:33:24,720 how I remember the discussion I just don't know necessarily what I'm trying 378 00:33:24,720 --> 00:33:31,040 to recall I believe I think there was on street parking already existing if I'm 379 00:33:31,040 --> 00:33:34,080 trying to I'm trying to recall off memory but what I think we did was we 380 00:33:34,080 --> 00:33:39,040 did not permit them to include off-street parking I'm sorry on street 381 00:33:39,040 --> 00:33:43,080 parking to count towards meeting their parking requirement but we didn't change 382 00:33:43,080 --> 00:33:47,400 anything for point said yeah okay can we maybe Claire can you look that up in 383 00:33:47,400 --> 00:33:50,320 between if you have a minute sure I'm just curious I know there's no signage 384 00:33:50,320 --> 00:33:54,960 there now for on street but you know it's getting really dense in there right 385 00:33:54,960 --> 00:34:01,480 now and filling up fast and so I know that was a conversation we had with the 386 00:34:01,480 --> 00:34:05,760 residents about their concern for people parking on the street guests in these 387 00:34:05,760 --> 00:34:10,520 multifamilies if they can't find guest parking I know the conversation was had 388 00:34:10,520 --> 00:34:15,440 I just don't recall what ended up being approved so what I can find out I 389 00:34:15,440 --> 00:34:24,320 appreciate them thanks all right other infrastructure there is a public water 390 00:34:24,320 --> 00:34:27,680 and sewer available they would have to extend an eight-inch water line along 391 00:34:27,680 --> 00:34:33,960 that north loop 288 the part that they're building that that frontage road 392 00:34:33,960 --> 00:34:39,920 Waterworks Park is pretty near the proposal but it is still about 3,500 393 00:34:39,920 --> 00:34:44,680 linear feet from the subject property and the sidewalks not not always there 394 00:34:44,680 --> 00:34:49,560 so the applicant is proposing some on-site recreational amenities we talked 395 00:34:49,560 --> 00:34:56,080 about on the pool dog park and open space they would have to comply with all park 396 00:34:56,080 --> 00:35:01,040 dedication and development fees when they when they would final plat or and 397 00:35:01,040 --> 00:35:06,040 pull any building permits it is within the Wilson elementary Strickland middle 398 00:35:06,040 --> 00:35:12,680 school and Ryan high school attendance zones according to DISD the amount of 399 00:35:12,680 --> 00:35:17,600 elementary students would would stress the capacity at Wilson elementary but 400 00:35:17,600 --> 00:35:21,240 Strickland and Ryan have the capacity for additional students Wilson elementary 401 00:35:21,240 --> 00:35:24,960 is also being is about to be reconstructed as well so there's a lot 402 00:35:24,960 --> 00:35:28,640 kind of going on in that area so Julie with regard to that because we have this 403 00:35:28,640 --> 00:35:31,800 issue on another development we're going to be talking about about how we don't 404 00:35:31,800 --> 00:35:38,600 have the capacity in the existing zoned elementary school so how does the city 405 00:35:38,600 --> 00:35:45,640 consider that when when examining a project like this we look at all factors 406 00:35:45,640 --> 00:35:49,640 associated with it and it kind of and especially in this one because there are 407 00:35:49,640 --> 00:35:56,220 improvements coming to that Wilson elementary but you know it's one factor 408 00:35:56,220 --> 00:36:02,000 we look at as sort of the myriad of criteria for approval so you know it does 409 00:36:02,000 --> 00:36:06,960 and and when DISD comes to you and says it would stress capacity or for this 410 00:36:06,960 --> 00:36:13,400 other development that we're going to discuss they'd have to be rezoned do you 411 00:36:13,400 --> 00:36:18,680 work in collaboration I mean how how how is DISD gonna accommodate these kids we 412 00:36:18,680 --> 00:36:22,140 do try to work in collaboration with them to let them know what's coming so 413 00:36:22,140 --> 00:36:26,520 that as they plan for the future they can make sure that they have you know 414 00:36:26,520 --> 00:36:33,840 adequate facilities so we're pretty in constant contact with those things get 415 00:36:33,840 --> 00:36:37,720 approved and if things get rolling the communication will be such so things can 416 00:36:37,720 --> 00:36:43,760 be drawn accordingly okay mr. Beck so I'm not exact same same issue it was a 417 00:36:43,760 --> 00:36:48,760 little unclear is are they stressing the existing pre-construction Wilson or the 418 00:36:48,760 --> 00:36:55,520 stressing the post-construction Wilson you know it he wasn't really clear on 419 00:36:55,520 --> 00:36:59,440 which one it was but I know they are right in the middle of the the 420 00:36:59,440 --> 00:37:03,900 reconstruction of the entire building so you know as part of their planning 421 00:37:03,900 --> 00:37:08,040 process they're they're looking at all of them are our properties in those 422 00:37:08,040 --> 00:37:11,520 projects that are coming forward 423 00:37:14,040 --> 00:37:20,280 all right public outreach was done for the proposal it did have the are required 424 00:37:20,280 --> 00:37:28,200 notifications we have received two letters in opposition neither of those 425 00:37:28,200 --> 00:37:32,160 were are within the 200 foot boundary from the subject property and one 426 00:37:32,160 --> 00:37:37,520 letter in favor that is within 200 feet it's about in this location they did 427 00:37:37,520 --> 00:37:42,240 have a neighborhood meeting over in July I wasn't able to attend there was a 428 00:37:42,240 --> 00:37:46,280 conflict but and we did ask him to hold in another neighborhood meeting but they 429 00:37:46,280 --> 00:37:50,320 they did decline to have that Julie did you get any information from them 430 00:37:50,320 --> 00:37:53,960 regarding what was transpired at the meeting there were only five who showed 431 00:37:53,960 --> 00:37:57,400 up and they you know according to the applicant there really wasn't a lot of 432 00:37:57,400 --> 00:38:04,640 concern with it with with the proposal so and that seems to be consistent with 433 00:38:04,640 --> 00:38:07,400 what I've heard because they just haven't heard a lot from from the 434 00:38:07,400 --> 00:38:13,440 residents around there so based upon the criteria for approval staff does 435 00:38:13,440 --> 00:38:19,040 recommend approval our recommendation includes a sort of listing of what the 436 00:38:19,040 --> 00:38:24,660 site plan landscape plan and elevations have that if approved they would they 437 00:38:24,660 --> 00:38:28,040 could build eight three-story buildings with them in any Center and Clubhouse 438 00:38:28,040 --> 00:38:33,400 and the 19 accessory structures that includes both excuse me the garages as 439 00:38:33,400 --> 00:38:39,880 well as some carport some covered parking they're proposing 200 and sorry 440 00:38:39,880 --> 00:38:46,440 I have a typo 248 dwelling units with a density of about 20.15 dwelling units per 441 00:38:46,440 --> 00:38:52,840 acre they they're proposing 460 parking spaces with which those that meets our 442 00:38:52,840 --> 00:38:58,480 parking requirements and the site specifies a total of 67 percent lock 443 00:38:58,480 --> 00:39:05,280 coverage and 33% landscape area and then the open space areas are to include a 444 00:39:05,280 --> 00:39:10,560 minimum of 12 seating spaces Julie sorry can you go yeah actually yeah right 445 00:39:10,560 --> 00:39:15,280 there I'm having a hard time with the line the recommendation line where it 446 00:39:15,280 --> 00:39:20,960 says increases greater than 5% somehow my brain is not that sentence is not 447 00:39:20,960 --> 00:39:25,720 working for me so would you mind explaining that so up to what point so 448 00:39:25,720 --> 00:39:31,760 if there for just for just numbers two through four and and this is because we 449 00:39:31,760 --> 00:39:37,120 want to get some specificity as to what they can and can't do that it would 450 00:39:37,120 --> 00:39:46,360 allow staff to approve increases up to five percent of the the 248 dwelling 451 00:39:46,360 --> 00:39:50,760 units or parking spaces or that lock coverage so there would only be that 452 00:39:50,760 --> 00:39:56,480 that minimum of 5% that staff could approve and then any decrease in that 453 00:39:56,480 --> 00:40:00,560 amount staff could approve but anything over the 5% it would have to go back 454 00:40:00,560 --> 00:40:05,200 through the public hearing process right and that's why that line doesn't make 455 00:40:05,200 --> 00:40:08,200 any sense to me because that's not what it says yeah if I may just add though 456 00:40:08,200 --> 00:40:13,440 that 5% it's still under the maximum that's allowed or minimum depending 457 00:40:13,440 --> 00:40:16,760 which one you're looking at so it's not that we're going above what the code 458 00:40:16,760 --> 00:40:23,400 allows it's just for this development and so commissioner yeah I just agree 459 00:40:23,400 --> 00:40:27,800 very vice-chair we probably change that wording I know that's not what's 460 00:40:27,800 --> 00:40:30,800 codifying at all I just it increases greater than 5% of the amount specified 461 00:40:30,800 --> 00:40:35,440 requirements two through four provided a lot of requirements the DDC I met okay 462 00:40:35,440 --> 00:40:38,560 so that means it technically reads up to us is that it's saying that well if we 463 00:40:38,560 --> 00:40:50,600 increase it by 20% does that make sense yeah I read it over and over again how 464 00:40:50,600 --> 00:40:58,920 many times and it's like yeah I'm not we I will I will make sure that that's a 465 00:40:58,920 --> 00:41:05,880 little clear they also proposing a minimum of eight dogway stations in the 466 00:41:05,880 --> 00:41:11,520 open space areas and then I want to make sure we codified that 71 large and 467 00:41:11,520 --> 00:41:14,720 medium canopy trees along that southern boundary that's a really important edge 468 00:41:14,720 --> 00:41:18,640 Commissioner Smith thank you sir first year first time I think I've ever 469 00:41:18,640 --> 00:41:22,960 really seen before we've we've been codifying kind of the site plan stuff 470 00:41:22,960 --> 00:41:26,800 they've been giving within this is that the unusual that we're doing that I mean 471 00:41:26,800 --> 00:41:30,560 I know this is an SEP it's not really a zoning issue of course but it's more of 472 00:41:30,560 --> 00:41:35,600 an SEP to be able to use in that in that zoning district but codifying hey 473 00:41:35,600 --> 00:41:39,680 give us this this preliminary site plan kind of and we're now codifying what you 474 00:41:39,680 --> 00:41:44,600 give us preliminarily it seems a little weird but well when when these site 475 00:41:44,600 --> 00:41:47,880 plans because they're they're on pretty large pieces of paper and there's a lot 476 00:41:47,880 --> 00:41:52,440 of small writing when they're shrunk down to fit on an ordinance they're 477 00:41:52,440 --> 00:41:57,200 illegible oftentimes so the point is to kind of have a text sort of laying out 478 00:41:57,200 --> 00:42:03,120 just the broad brushstrokes of what they're proposing so that future future 479 00:42:03,120 --> 00:42:08,880 planners and and and development of those in the development services 480 00:42:08,880 --> 00:42:13,080 department can figure out what we what was actually approved okay you guys 481 00:42:13,080 --> 00:42:17,400 didn't include anything on in that recommend or I guess yeah in that 482 00:42:17,400 --> 00:42:21,240 recommendation I don't see anything maybe it's in the slide you're about to 483 00:42:21,240 --> 00:42:27,680 get to which is the landscaping okay yeah so we do recommend approval but we 484 00:42:27,680 --> 00:42:34,840 are proposing some conditions that they that they're that the landscaping is 485 00:42:34,840 --> 00:42:43,080 intended to comply with the DDC and and that they need to comply with the 486 00:42:43,080 --> 00:42:48,640 landscaping and the site plan the parking area light fixtures can be 487 00:42:48,640 --> 00:42:52,560 determined at building permit but we want to make sure that they're at a at 488 00:42:52,560 --> 00:42:59,240 a level that is is provide safety for for the residents of the development 489 00:42:59,240 --> 00:43:04,360 but also that they're that they're not shining on the adjacent residential so 490 00:43:04,360 --> 00:43:09,060 we're we're asking that those be capped at 14 feet and then also the perimeter 491 00:43:09,060 --> 00:43:14,920 fencing materials you can finish your sentence oh just just that recommendation 492 00:43:14,920 --> 00:43:20,240 for the the wrought iron with the screening hedge or the the fencing 493 00:43:20,240 --> 00:43:24,200 materials of the masonry so I saw this in the staff analysis the staff 494 00:43:24,200 --> 00:43:27,800 recommendation you had the site plan requirements and then you had staff 495 00:43:27,800 --> 00:43:32,480 recommends approval ASB with following conditions it's it's just worded weird 496 00:43:32,480 --> 00:43:36,400 Julie just this our staff recommendations these three things plus 497 00:43:36,400 --> 00:43:41,960 the site plan pieces above yes okay thank you yes it's yes thank you yes the 498 00:43:41,960 --> 00:43:48,160 answer is yes we're also proposing the additional condition that within 30 days 499 00:43:48,160 --> 00:43:50,880 of council approval that they do come forward to the planning and zoning 500 00:43:50,880 --> 00:43:54,920 Commission with the ADP to deviate from those two provisions that we talked 501 00:43:54,920 --> 00:44:01,520 about earlier and that and then not withstanding the limited administrative 502 00:44:01,520 --> 00:44:06,280 approvals that 5% the city reserves the right to require approval by ordinance 503 00:44:06,280 --> 00:44:13,520 of any amendments to the SUP the attached site plan the elements described in order 504 00:44:13,520 --> 00:44:16,840 that they do have to comply with the site plan that they're that they're 505 00:44:16,840 --> 00:44:22,120 proposing we have notified of them of the conditions I think they were a little 506 00:44:22,120 --> 00:44:26,440 concerned about the perimeter fence provision that that we recommended but 507 00:44:26,440 --> 00:44:32,200 the applicant will be here tonight to talk to you and to answer any questions 508 00:44:32,200 --> 00:44:36,800 mr. Smith was the concern with the fence materials well I think they were they 509 00:44:36,800 --> 00:44:42,480 really you know they I think they thought a lot about that that board on 510 00:44:42,480 --> 00:44:46,160 board cedar and that this the sort of undulations of it to allow those 511 00:44:46,160 --> 00:44:49,320 landscaping areas and that was something that they really felt felt that they 512 00:44:49,320 --> 00:44:54,240 wanted to do and and and I did get their perspective and we understand but we do 513 00:44:54,240 --> 00:44:57,960 want to make sure that we have durable materials along our rights away and that 514 00:44:57,960 --> 00:45:03,720 that they stay nice for a really long time and so those were conversations we 515 00:45:03,720 --> 00:45:08,440 had throughout the review and so you know I don't know where they'll land but 516 00:45:08,440 --> 00:45:11,800 but that was just something that staff felt pretty strongly about how many feet 517 00:45:11,800 --> 00:45:16,000 of fencing is it that we're talking about that's it's pretty it's pretty long 518 00:45:16,000 --> 00:45:20,400 I'm just looking at it from a cost perspective that we're being wrought 519 00:45:20,400 --> 00:45:25,440 iron and wrought iron and see your board on board isn't too dissimilar but 520 00:45:25,440 --> 00:45:31,000 masonry if they're wanting something that is not transparent at all masonry 521 00:45:31,000 --> 00:45:35,040 goes up quite a bit in cost and so I hate to be I believe that that property 522 00:45:35,040 --> 00:45:43,800 nine was over about a thousand feet so it was it's a long span okay okay thanks 523 00:45:43,800 --> 00:45:55,740 thank you okay thanks Julie if I can just add in we have the ordnance Haley was 524 00:45:55,740 --> 00:46:00,960 gracious enough to pull it the ordinance from palladium there were seven 525 00:46:00,960 --> 00:46:05,640 conditions in total one the site plan required exterior building materials 526 00:46:05,640 --> 00:46:11,240 maintain the muted earth tone 12 foot setback from the property lines six foot 527 00:46:11,240 --> 00:46:16,460 ironically six foot decorative masonry wall with street trees and then here was 528 00:46:16,460 --> 00:46:20,200 no on-street parking for tenants is permitted and then the project should 529 00:46:20,200 --> 00:46:23,160 not be eligible for any on-street parking credits and then there was a 530 00:46:23,160 --> 00:46:27,320 limitation on the connection to the north to the commercial development so 531 00:46:27,320 --> 00:46:31,640 those were the seven conditions that were placed on that property for approval 532 00:46:31,640 --> 00:46:34,520 so they didn't really place the restriction on parking on points that 533 00:46:34,520 --> 00:46:45,480 you drive but it was for the development itself okay so when we say that the 534 00:46:45,480 --> 00:46:50,720 on-street parking was not permitted for tenants that doesn't exclude guests but 535 00:46:50,720 --> 00:46:55,120 but we're but when we're making that count the impact is the calculation in 536 00:46:55,120 --> 00:46:58,840 terms of how many parking spots they are projecting that they won't have on the 537 00:46:58,840 --> 00:47:04,040 property yes yes so all of all of what would have been required is is contained 538 00:47:04,040 --> 00:47:09,680 within the the property or the boundaries of their site okay thank you 539 00:47:09,680 --> 00:47:21,800 right that takes us to our next public hearing which is it's Julie again 540 00:47:25,560 --> 00:47:31,240 all right 541 00:47:31,240 --> 00:47:41,500 all right this is the 1912 Mockingbird single-family residential and the 542 00:47:41,500 --> 00:47:47,720 request before you is to rezone about 2.6 acres from r2 to r4 district the 543 00:47:47,720 --> 00:47:52,240 property is outlined here in yellow it's a flag-shaped piece of property the 544 00:47:52,240 --> 00:47:55,920 surrounding development is existing seeing suburban style single-family 545 00:47:55,920 --> 00:48:00,920 neighborhoods there are a few remaining large parcels nearby you can see 546 00:48:00,920 --> 00:48:04,880 adjacent to the property and north of Audre there's some some large parcels 547 00:48:04,880 --> 00:48:10,080 that still remain and the majority of the trees on site are fence line trees 548 00:48:10,080 --> 00:48:13,760 along the perimeter you kind of see the shadow of them there and then per the 549 00:48:13,760 --> 00:48:19,680 applicant the purpose is to develop nine single-family residential buildings so 550 00:48:19,680 --> 00:48:24,160 this is the current zoning map here you could see the surrounding zoning the 551 00:48:24,160 --> 00:48:29,320 subject property is outlined in black there is r2 on the subject property as 552 00:48:29,320 --> 00:48:34,600 well as north of Audre surrounding the subject property on the east and south 553 00:48:34,600 --> 00:48:40,920 and west is r4 and then as you get closer to the loop toward the east you 554 00:48:40,920 --> 00:48:48,120 could see it gets it gets a little more dense development with r7 and then MN if 555 00:48:48,120 --> 00:48:52,120 the request was approved this would be the zoning map it would extend that 556 00:48:52,120 --> 00:49:01,880 existing r4 to the subject property having having that kind of extension of 557 00:49:01,880 --> 00:49:10,440 it and and the continuation of that r4 district to the north so the the 2019 558 00:49:10,440 --> 00:49:14,120 Denton Development Code has a lot more criteria for approval for a zoning case 559 00:49:14,120 --> 00:49:18,400 than the 2002 Denton Development Code we have the general criteria as well as 560 00:49:18,400 --> 00:49:23,960 then the criteria that are specific to that project type it's all outlined in 561 00:49:23,960 --> 00:49:27,480 your staff report I won't go over every single one we'll just go over the ones 562 00:49:27,480 --> 00:49:33,560 that are the most most pertinent to the request the the general approval 563 00:49:33,560 --> 00:49:37,280 criteria for all applications today we're going to be talking about mostly 564 00:49:37,280 --> 00:49:41,400 number three the consistency with the comprehensive plan and other applicable 565 00:49:41,400 --> 00:49:46,000 plans and then also eight minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property 566 00:49:46,000 --> 00:49:50,120 for the specific zoning criteria for approval we'll be talking about few more 567 00:49:50,120 --> 00:49:56,720 of those and those are outlined there in bold so first when we talked about the 568 00:49:56,720 --> 00:50:01,840 the first general criterion and then the zoning criterion a that has to do with 569 00:50:01,840 --> 00:50:06,120 our comprehensive plan so the subject property has is in an area designated 570 00:50:06,120 --> 00:50:11,280 for low density residential typically we see this it's intended for single 571 00:50:11,280 --> 00:50:17,160 family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre due to the new provisions 572 00:50:17,160 --> 00:50:20,640 within that within the Denton Development Code that minimum lot size 573 00:50:20,640 --> 00:50:26,400 instead of the density that shorthand density that we had in the 2002 code the 574 00:50:26,400 --> 00:50:32,880 minimum lot size for our four which is what they're proposing is 7,000 square 575 00:50:32,880 --> 00:50:39,520 feet which is which is if you just did the gross lot coverage with the with the 576 00:50:39,520 --> 00:50:44,560 or I'm sorry lot size with the with the acreage square footage you would get 577 00:50:44,560 --> 00:50:48,080 about six dwelling units per acre but that wouldn't include all the streets you 578 00:50:48,080 --> 00:50:53,320 would have to do any open space detention so although this is doesn't 579 00:50:53,320 --> 00:50:58,760 precisely conform to that low residential maximum density this does 580 00:50:58,760 --> 00:51:03,720 meet the overall goals of the of the didn't plan 2030 and most importantly is 581 00:51:03,720 --> 00:51:07,720 that it provides that infill development to provide for that compact development 582 00:51:07,720 --> 00:51:11,320 pattern that is part of the vision statement as well as our preferred growth 583 00:51:11,320 --> 00:51:17,860 concept criterion eight talks about minimizing impacts to the surrounding 584 00:51:17,860 --> 00:51:22,680 property the proposed r4 is consistent with the surrounding neighbor existing 585 00:51:22,680 --> 00:51:28,160 neighborhoods in both use because it's a primarily single-family zoning district 586 00:51:28,160 --> 00:51:35,080 as well as development scale so we did an analysis of the surrounding plots and 587 00:51:35,080 --> 00:51:38,760 looked at how those neighborhoods that have developed over the last decades 588 00:51:38,760 --> 00:51:44,600 around the subject property it's here out it's here it has a star on it the 589 00:51:44,600 --> 00:51:48,000 typical lot sizes surrounding the property range anywhere from about six 590 00:51:48,000 --> 00:51:52,800 thousand square feet to about 7,500 square feet so the proposed r4 with the 591 00:51:52,800 --> 00:51:56,640 minimum 7,000 square foot lot size is really consistent with what's around 592 00:51:56,640 --> 00:52:03,520 there and in use they are proposing single-family uses r4 does allow duplexes 593 00:52:03,520 --> 00:52:08,200 in townhomes but those we have to have to acquire an SUP so it would require 594 00:52:08,200 --> 00:52:11,380 additional scrutiny it would require public hearing and approval by City 595 00:52:11,380 --> 00:52:16,640 Council so Julie on that note that's the biggest concern I have with making this 596 00:52:16,640 --> 00:52:23,120 change you know so an SUP doesn't really necessarily keep townhomes or duplexes 597 00:52:23,120 --> 00:52:28,440 from developing I mean it's not a you know a way to not have them in there so 598 00:52:28,440 --> 00:52:33,600 is there any way that we can restrict this development to being single-family 599 00:52:33,600 --> 00:52:39,040 detached have you considered that I mean is I understand that it changes things 600 00:52:39,040 --> 00:52:48,480 to a PD but that's my main concern is that there's really no way to keep those 601 00:52:48,480 --> 00:52:53,120 what what taking it from r2 to r4 does with certain things because general 602 00:52:53,120 --> 00:52:59,160 office is also allowed in r4 within SUP but again it's not it's not a tool to 603 00:52:59,160 --> 00:53:06,640 regulate zoning it's it's I think that what you're just trying to think it 604 00:53:06,640 --> 00:53:11,720 through because we don't have that residential mixed-use overlay provision 605 00:53:11,720 --> 00:53:18,400 in the code anymore it most likely would have to go to a PD which I don't know 606 00:53:18,400 --> 00:53:24,800 would if that whether or not we would actually proceed under this application 607 00:53:24,800 --> 00:53:32,200 or a new probably re-noticed that was just a concern I wanted to bring up and 608 00:53:32,200 --> 00:53:38,680 maybe get yeah your thoughts on and others thoughts on well when staff did 609 00:53:38,680 --> 00:53:42,560 our analysis when you really look and this is this is the surrounding area and 610 00:53:42,560 --> 00:53:46,000 this is it's a little broader view of just the subject property it really is 611 00:53:46,000 --> 00:53:51,520 kind of that north east side of town I mean you could see that r4 is really the 612 00:53:51,520 --> 00:53:57,040 the most consistent and the most the predominant zoning district in that 613 00:53:57,040 --> 00:54:00,800 area so anything that would be developed in this property would be consistent with 614 00:54:00,800 --> 00:54:06,120 what the the surrounding zoning is and what those uses and development scale 615 00:54:06,120 --> 00:54:15,720 would be so this is really close to Commissioner Ellis's question and that 616 00:54:15,720 --> 00:54:22,080 is if they were to go back and seek a special use permit would we then 617 00:54:22,080 --> 00:54:27,120 generally not be in favor because it wouldn't be consistent I mean this is my 618 00:54:27,120 --> 00:54:33,200 this was my concern in reading this is is the use is not limited to the 619 00:54:33,200 --> 00:54:39,480 advertise the mean the advertised use that we're describing for you know that 620 00:54:39,480 --> 00:54:46,200 we're gonna put seven homes in here but we can't control that wait if if they 621 00:54:46,200 --> 00:54:51,160 did want to do one of those uses the duplex or townhome it would be it would 622 00:54:51,160 --> 00:54:56,020 require additional analysis by staff and so at this point I can't tell you if 623 00:54:56,020 --> 00:54:59,240 staff would recommend denial or approval because we want to go through the 624 00:54:59,240 --> 00:55:04,000 criteria for approval especially you know our SUPs have a lot of detail 625 00:55:04,000 --> 00:55:08,120 associated with them and so if they were to come back and want to do one of those 626 00:55:08,120 --> 00:55:13,000 uses we would want to see that level of detail to see what the compatibility 627 00:55:13,000 --> 00:55:21,000 would be with those adjacent properties so until we saw that specific specific 628 00:55:21,000 --> 00:55:25,520 project I don't think I could give you a you know what we would what we would 629 00:55:25,520 --> 00:55:36,080 recommend I mean we when we did look and we looked at this this properties come 630 00:55:36,080 --> 00:55:42,240 back back and forth between various iterations not necessarily with this 631 00:55:42,240 --> 00:55:45,680 applicant but over the course of the last two years a lot just like a lot of 632 00:55:45,680 --> 00:55:51,040 these infill sites there was one iteration of I think townhomes that we 633 00:55:51,040 --> 00:55:57,760 did see and that was something we were not we were not supportive of and we 634 00:55:57,760 --> 00:56:01,080 were clear with that I think that's ultimately what brought it to what you 635 00:56:01,080 --> 00:56:05,880 have here today and again as Julie mentioned we were comfortable allowing it 636 00:56:05,880 --> 00:56:10,660 those uses as an SGP they go to this body obviously if this body recommends 637 00:56:10,660 --> 00:56:15,240 denial then it goes to City Council for ultimate decision but it would require a 638 00:56:15,240 --> 00:56:24,720 super majority at that point can I follow up on that if if they but they 639 00:56:24,720 --> 00:56:30,160 can go back and apply for a PD or something else that would sort of given 640 00:56:30,160 --> 00:56:36,760 the comments of at least some of us here in this meeting error potentially tonight 641 00:56:36,760 --> 00:56:43,520 they could still come back in and have a way of infilling that would be single 642 00:56:43,520 --> 00:56:47,240 family enforced in some way they wouldn't be precluded from developing 643 00:56:47,240 --> 00:56:54,080 would they if we deny if it if it was denied it would go to for denied tonight 644 00:56:54,080 --> 00:56:57,520 it would go to council as a as it did not in a recommendation of denial which 645 00:56:57,520 --> 00:57:01,740 would require a super majority vote and then it would be up to council to decide 646 00:57:01,740 --> 00:57:07,060 whether or not it beats the merits of the criteria for a rezoning I guess what 647 00:57:07,060 --> 00:57:13,160 I'm saying is if they accepted our denial does the developer then have the 648 00:57:13,160 --> 00:57:16,400 opportunity to come back with something else I mean they they could with they 649 00:57:16,400 --> 00:57:21,020 could withdraw their application we saw that with 650 00:57:25,160 --> 00:57:31,240 agave ranch there's a recommendation of a denial they modify their plan and then 651 00:57:31,240 --> 00:57:34,520 and then came back with a different request that's certainly not an option 652 00:57:34,520 --> 00:57:37,840 for them but that's that's up to them okay thank you 653 00:57:37,840 --> 00:57:42,000 Commissioner Anderson thank you would this be no avoid because it right there 654 00:57:42,000 --> 00:57:47,520 it says multifamily dwellings would not be permitted I mean multifamily dwellings 655 00:57:47,520 --> 00:57:53,240 are duplexes and quadplexes am I correct our code actually does separate those 656 00:57:53,240 --> 00:58:00,220 uses so multifamily is is this as a use separate from duplexes we actually have 657 00:58:00,220 --> 00:58:05,240 a duplex use we have a triplex a fourplex and then a a townhome use and 658 00:58:05,240 --> 00:58:11,560 those are separate and have different you specific standards as well as zoning 659 00:58:11,560 --> 00:58:15,600 districts are permitted in or require an SCP or prohibited in because it says you 660 00:58:15,600 --> 00:58:18,320 know you're trying to keep the neighborhoods the same as the other and 661 00:58:18,320 --> 00:58:22,720 I'm looking at the map and everything around it are all single-family dwellings 662 00:58:22,720 --> 00:58:26,600 and I mean I would be for this if it was all single-family dwellings but I do not 663 00:58:26,600 --> 00:58:32,960 like trying to put in town homes or duplexes in a in a little small area 664 00:58:32,960 --> 00:58:38,320 where everything else around it is single-family dwelling and and when we 665 00:58:38,320 --> 00:58:43,360 analyzed it looking at that that are for and requiring that SUP that you know 666 00:58:43,360 --> 00:58:47,240 having that have to go through the additional public hearing process 667 00:58:47,240 --> 00:58:52,040 additional scrutiny that really the use that's permitted by right that they would 668 00:58:52,040 --> 00:58:55,920 be that single-family home it just seems like we're leaving that SUP in there is 669 00:58:55,920 --> 00:59:01,360 like a little loophole that somebody can jump through I mean if we just said hey 670 00:59:01,360 --> 00:59:07,000 this is gonna be no multifamily dwellings I'd have no issue with it but 671 00:59:07,000 --> 00:59:11,080 when you put it you know you're leaving it in there that we require an SUP well 672 00:59:11,080 --> 00:59:14,600 there's a little loophole that says you know what we approve it's not you know 673 00:59:14,600 --> 00:59:17,200 you can come back a little bit a little bit later and sit there and go hey I'd 674 00:59:17,200 --> 00:59:21,080 like to follow the SUP and I'd like for this to be a multifamily dwelling you 675 00:59:21,080 --> 00:59:25,120 know that's kind of not what we really would vote for well I would vote for 676 00:59:25,120 --> 00:59:32,040 well yes they could come back and and and submit an SUP for duplexes or town 677 00:59:32,040 --> 00:59:37,360 homes but once again the multi-family use is is a separate use it is it is 678 00:59:37,360 --> 00:59:43,080 prohibited in r4 it's you couldn't get an SUP for multi-family in r4 it's not 679 00:59:43,080 --> 00:59:47,440 permitted then why would we even have that on there then just just to let 680 00:59:47,440 --> 00:59:53,040 y'all know that it is a prohibited use within r4 I did get a lot of calls from 681 00:59:53,040 --> 00:59:57,720 residents that had concerns that there would be multi-family and so I wanted to 682 00:59:57,720 --> 01:00:00,880 make sure it was really clear that multi-family is not a permitted use in 683 01:00:00,880 --> 01:00:04,800 our floor because I did read some of the comments that people you know are 684 01:00:04,800 --> 01:00:09,120 opposed to that and if I would live there I'd be opposed myself sure okay 685 01:00:09,120 --> 01:00:14,160 thank you if I can just help clarify which Julie get some water I think part 686 01:00:14,160 --> 01:00:19,480 of the confusion we've had multiple projects on mockingbird unfortunately 687 01:00:19,480 --> 01:00:25,080 called mockingbird multi-family and so I think there's a lot of confusion that 688 01:00:25,080 --> 01:00:30,120 this was a multi-family project that was highly contested by a lot of the 689 01:00:30,120 --> 01:00:35,160 residents in the area yeah but I also think some of those comments were that 690 01:00:35,160 --> 01:00:39,320 they didn't want townhomes or duplexes which they do have on that corner of 691 01:00:39,320 --> 01:00:44,520 Audra so that's the most concerning thing here is that we didn't try to maybe 692 01:00:44,520 --> 01:00:51,000 get get them into a PD to be able to put that restriction on it just because of 693 01:00:51,000 --> 01:00:55,200 you know we did that in in most other developments that we've approved along 694 01:00:55,200 --> 01:01:00,000 Audra with you know there's so much going on in that neighborhood so at any 695 01:01:00,000 --> 01:01:03,440 rate we'll keep the discussion rolling because yeah time is of the essence 696 01:01:03,440 --> 01:01:07,400 Commissioner pernetta no I just want to clarify because and find out what I'm 697 01:01:07,400 --> 01:01:11,040 missing because because right now all we're approving is a development that we 698 01:01:11,040 --> 01:01:14,720 single-family if they wanted townhomes or duplexes they would have to come back 699 01:01:14,720 --> 01:01:17,960 for the SCP and we would have to agree to that or is this well tend to this 700 01:01:17,960 --> 01:01:23,360 what's on the table tonight is just a zoning change right right okay that's it 701 01:01:23,360 --> 01:01:30,400 to our for right okay that's what we're considering all right okay zoning 702 01:01:30,400 --> 01:01:35,120 criteria E and F talks about the intensity of development that is not 703 01:01:35,120 --> 01:01:39,080 expected to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding properties or 704 01:01:39,080 --> 01:01:43,760 neighborhood in transportation due to the limited number of homes that could 705 01:01:43,760 --> 01:01:48,080 be constructed if this given the constraints of our for district it would 706 01:01:48,080 --> 01:01:53,440 only create about 90 trips per day and and so that would not trigger a TIA 707 01:01:53,440 --> 01:01:57,120 roadway impact fees would be determined by the number of dwelling units and 708 01:01:57,120 --> 01:02:01,600 projected trip vehicle trips and that that those roadway impact fees are are 709 01:02:01,600 --> 01:02:05,120 used to make improvements related to the mobility plan water and wastewater 710 01:02:05,120 --> 01:02:09,120 because this is an infill area they do have roadway and they have water and 711 01:02:09,120 --> 01:02:12,760 sewer available to the site of course tap and impact fees would be would be 712 01:02:12,760 --> 01:02:18,560 applicable once the property develops and then there are the the property is 713 01:02:18,560 --> 01:02:22,200 located about a mile from Milan Park and once again the park dedication and 714 01:02:22,200 --> 01:02:26,520 development fees would be paid with plotting and building permits public 715 01:02:26,520 --> 01:02:30,400 outreach was done they had a neighborhood meeting that about five 716 01:02:30,400 --> 01:02:35,560 residents came some concerns had to do with the trees on the property and 717 01:02:35,560 --> 01:02:41,600 meeting the tree preservation and then also spacing from any any access facing 718 01:02:41,600 --> 01:02:49,600 from Audra there was notification sent out the newspaper signs posted as well 719 01:02:49,600 --> 01:02:54,720 as the mailings we've received nine responses in opposition for or within 720 01:02:54,720 --> 01:03:00,360 that for a 200-foot boundary and they're they're shown here in red we've received 721 01:03:00,360 --> 01:03:04,520 zero in favor and then zero neutral so based upon the criteria for approval 722 01:03:04,520 --> 01:03:09,680 staff recommends approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions and the 723 01:03:09,680 --> 01:03:15,240 applicant will be here this evening I don't see any more at this time though 724 01:03:15,240 --> 01:03:20,460 thank you thank you Julie you bet yeah I think at this time we're gonna break 725 01:03:20,460 --> 01:03:24,840 for dinner before we hear our last public hearing discussion so I will call 726 01:03:24,840 --> 01:03:27,800 recess at 610 727 01:03:27,800 --> 01:03:37,760 welcome back to our planning in zoning Commission work session we are back from 728 01:03:37,760 --> 01:03:43,880 recess I will call us back to order at 616 and invite Haley up to talk about 729 01:03:43,880 --> 01:03:48,320 our final public hearing item all right good evening this is a plan development 730 01:03:48,320 --> 01:03:54,840 request for a project being called Ryan way the request is to consider rezoning 731 01:03:54,840 --> 01:03:58,680 the subject property that's approximately 36 and a half acres from 732 01:03:58,680 --> 01:04:02,800 residential to or our to district to plan development you can see the site 733 01:04:02,800 --> 01:04:06,520 outlined in yellow on the map it's located on the north side of Ryan Road 734 01:04:06,520 --> 01:04:13,480 just east of Monte Carlo Lane so this is just a quick shot of what our current 735 01:04:13,480 --> 01:04:21,160 map looks like which is r2 and then the proposal for plan development this is 736 01:04:21,160 --> 01:04:25,940 the site layout for the subject property that's kind of the detail plan if you 737 01:04:25,940 --> 01:04:31,760 will and the new plan development regulations so what we have here are a 738 01:04:31,760 --> 01:04:37,780 hundred and fifty four residential lots and five HOA lots the HOA lots are 739 01:04:37,780 --> 01:04:41,520 shown in green on this map there is a plugged gas well within the site it was 740 01:04:41,520 --> 01:04:46,020 plugged last August it's located in this general location as designated by the 741 01:04:46,020 --> 01:04:50,040 star it would be within an HOA lot so that nothing would be constructed over 742 01:04:50,040 --> 01:04:55,320 the top of the well and the property it has several connections where streets 743 01:04:55,320 --> 01:04:59,320 have been stubbed out to it over time as surrounding development occurs so we 744 01:04:59,320 --> 01:05:03,840 have the Ridgemont subdivision here on the south side and then Teasley trails 745 01:05:03,840 --> 01:05:07,940 surrounding it to the north and east Monte Carlo Lane was stubbed out when 746 01:05:07,940 --> 01:05:11,840 Ridgemont developed and then again when Teasley trails develop so that connects 747 01:05:11,840 --> 01:05:15,500 to the north and south this would provide that final missing leg and then 748 01:05:15,500 --> 01:05:19,320 Mizzen Lane was stubbed out when the final phase of Teasley trails developed 749 01:05:19,320 --> 01:05:23,840 and that is coming into the property from the east additionally it would have 750 01:05:23,840 --> 01:05:29,800 a direct connection to Ryan Road here at what's shown on this plan is Street E 751 01:05:29,800 --> 01:05:34,520 as the other component of a plan development in the new code aside from 752 01:05:34,520 --> 01:05:39,120 the map itself is the development standards so those were provided to you 753 01:05:39,120 --> 01:05:42,800 in your backup I'll go through some of the major differences between the 754 01:05:42,800 --> 01:05:48,800 proposed PD and the R4 district that it was based upon so in terms of permitted 755 01:05:48,800 --> 01:05:53,200 uses the proposed PD would only permit single-family detached dwellings and 756 01:05:53,200 --> 01:05:57,160 then all of the accessory and temporary uses that are permitted in our R4 757 01:05:57,160 --> 01:06:02,600 district so this table is just a snapshot of everything in our use table that's 758 01:06:02,600 --> 01:06:07,760 permitted in our force you can see is excluding townhomes duplexes group homes 759 01:06:07,760 --> 01:06:12,920 schools churches wide variety of things also excluding gas wells so it's 760 01:06:12,920 --> 01:06:16,120 important to note that if this is approved that that drill site would 761 01:06:16,120 --> 01:06:19,120 remain plugged there wouldn't be any possibility for future gas well 762 01:06:19,120 --> 01:06:25,400 development within the property looking at the proposed zoning standards so 763 01:06:25,400 --> 01:06:28,800 again it was based on the R4 district so I did a comparison of the differences 764 01:06:28,800 --> 01:06:34,480 between their proposal and the base of R4 the minimum lot area is one of the 765 01:06:34,480 --> 01:06:37,640 larger differences so they are proposing smaller lots than what R4 would 766 01:06:37,640 --> 01:06:42,480 typically permit they're proposing that 10 of the lots or up to 10 of the lots 767 01:06:42,480 --> 01:06:46,240 be as small as 5,000 square feet the remainder of the lots would have a 768 01:06:46,240 --> 01:06:53,920 minimum area of 5,750 square feet R4 as a just citywide is a 7,000 square foot 769 01:06:53,920 --> 01:06:58,600 minimum similar lot width 50 feet they are proposing an increase in minimum 770 01:06:58,600 --> 01:07:03,360 lot depth from 80 feet to 100 feet the setbacks are generally consistent they 771 01:07:03,360 --> 01:07:08,960 did add in an additional minimum garage setback of 20 feet and then for side 772 01:07:08,960 --> 01:07:13,400 yards they are proposing 10 foot as opposed to 20 foot when you're abutting 773 01:07:13,400 --> 01:07:17,800 a street so the corner lots would have a slightly smaller side yard than R4 would 774 01:07:17,800 --> 01:07:21,880 typically have and then again rear yards they are proposing those be larger so 775 01:07:21,880 --> 01:07:27,040 they propose the increase of a 15 foot rear rear yard setback building height 776 01:07:27,040 --> 01:07:30,520 would remain the same at 40 feet building coverage they're proposing 60% 777 01:07:30,520 --> 01:07:35,400 as opposed to 50% so that's a 10% increase street trees they're proposing 778 01:07:35,400 --> 01:07:39,840 the code standard of 1 per 30 linear feet on all of the common area lots and 779 01:07:39,840 --> 01:07:45,320 then to to prevent any inconsistency of trees being kind of clustered together on 780 01:07:45,320 --> 01:07:48,600 lot lines they're proposing that for the residential lots that simply be one 781 01:07:48,600 --> 01:07:55,240 street tree per lot as opposed to 1 per 30 feet in terms of yard trees the 2019 782 01:07:55,240 --> 01:07:59,520 DDC requires one yard tree for single-family residential lots they're 783 01:07:59,520 --> 01:08:03,760 proposing an increase in that so each internal lot would have one additional 784 01:08:03,760 --> 01:08:07,720 yard tree a front yard and a rear yard tree and then corner lots would have 785 01:08:07,720 --> 01:08:10,680 three additional trees beyond the code minimum because they would have two side 786 01:08:10,680 --> 01:08:16,320 yard trees provided on that corner they are proposing a slight change in one of 787 01:08:16,320 --> 01:08:19,900 our site design standards the DDC has a required three foot offset between the 788 01:08:19,900 --> 01:08:23,040 front building wall in the garage they're proposing decreasing that to 12 789 01:08:23,040 --> 01:08:29,480 inches and then for tree preservation as we touched on earlier they they did 790 01:08:29,480 --> 01:08:33,280 apply for their original application at the time when the 02 code was still in 791 01:08:33,280 --> 01:08:37,600 effect so they did gain vesting under state law for that purpose for tree 792 01:08:37,600 --> 01:08:40,560 preservation it's one of the things specifically allowed and the vesting 793 01:08:40,560 --> 01:08:47,120 require regulations in 245 so under the 2002 DDC they would be required to 794 01:08:47,120 --> 01:08:51,600 preserve a minimum of 20% of quality trees and 10% of secondary trees so 795 01:08:51,600 --> 01:08:56,320 secondary trees are things like mesquite hackberry boat arc and then quality 796 01:08:56,320 --> 01:09:00,680 trees is essentially everything else and the minimum size for all of those is 6 797 01:09:00,680 --> 01:09:07,280 inches DBH so everything under 6 inches wouldn't count 2019 DDC again as I 798 01:09:07,280 --> 01:09:10,720 mentioned it created different tree classification so now we have we're 799 01:09:10,720 --> 01:09:15,360 called heritage trees those are the larger trees over 18 inches as well as 800 01:09:15,360 --> 01:09:19,680 any post oak that 6 inches or greater and then quality trees are pretty much 801 01:09:19,680 --> 01:09:22,480 consistent with the old code with the exception that those small post oaks are 802 01:09:22,480 --> 01:09:29,660 pulled out and that's a minimum 30% preservation requirement they the 2019 803 01:09:29,660 --> 01:09:33,960 tree code does allow that if you have quality inherited trees on set you don't 804 01:09:33,960 --> 01:09:38,800 have to preserve any secondary trees so that's another key difference there oh 805 01:09:38,800 --> 01:09:42,720 and then the other item I wanted to point out that didn't make it into the 806 01:09:42,720 --> 01:09:47,440 table is that the DDC requires a minimum of 5% open space when you have more than 807 01:09:47,440 --> 01:09:51,360 10 residential lots they are proposing a minimum of 15% open space throughout the 808 01:09:51,360 --> 01:09:57,000 entire neighborhood so as Julie showed with her items the code now has general 809 01:09:57,000 --> 01:10:00,480 criteria for all applications those were gone through in detail in your backup so 810 01:10:00,480 --> 01:10:04,360 I'll just hit some of the highlights the project was found to be consistent with 811 01:10:04,360 --> 01:10:08,680 all aspects of the 2019 DDC except for the exceptions that we just discussed 812 01:10:08,680 --> 01:10:13,680 which are allowed through the PD process there are no prior approvals or other 813 01:10:13,680 --> 01:10:17,600 agreements that apply to the site no phasing is proposed with this development 814 01:10:17,600 --> 01:10:21,160 the development is not expected to generate adverse environmental or fiscal 815 01:10:21,160 --> 01:10:26,280 impacts and there is adequate infrastructure available to the site so 816 01:10:26,280 --> 01:10:30,120 I'll spend a little more time with each of the PD criteria for approval we'll go 817 01:10:30,120 --> 01:10:34,840 through each of these in turn so criterion one is compliance with the 818 01:10:34,840 --> 01:10:39,720 Denton plan 2030 again this site is in an area designated on the future land use 819 01:10:39,720 --> 01:10:43,440 map as low residential typically that calls for single family development at 820 01:10:43,440 --> 01:10:47,640 a density of one to four dwelling units per acre some of the other criteria that 821 01:10:47,640 --> 01:10:51,960 low density residential looks at though are development contiguous to existing 822 01:10:51,960 --> 01:10:55,240 developed areas to avoid sprawl that's one of the larger tenants of the 823 01:10:55,240 --> 01:10:59,400 comprehensive plans that we fill in all of these kind of vacant places within the 824 01:10:59,400 --> 01:11:03,720 city before sprawling outwards it also calls for new development and 825 01:11:03,720 --> 01:11:06,960 established residential areas to respond to the existing development pattern and 826 01:11:06,960 --> 01:11:10,520 design so we'll look at that a little more in depth as we go through in terms 827 01:11:10,520 --> 01:11:14,480 of how this is consistent but I wanted to focus on density for a second this 828 01:11:14,480 --> 01:11:19,840 development would be at approximately 4.2 dwelling units per acre so it's just 829 01:11:19,840 --> 01:11:23,600 over that fourth four unit per acre threshold however when you look at the 830 01:11:23,600 --> 01:11:26,520 density in this area and I've kind of labeled those numbers for surrounding 831 01:11:26,520 --> 01:11:30,200 subdivisions on the map here you'll see we do have a lot of larger lot 832 01:11:30,200 --> 01:11:34,400 subdivisions in the one to you know the one to two dwelling unit per acre range 833 01:11:34,400 --> 01:11:38,680 west of the site but as you continue down Ryan Road towards Teasley Lane and 834 01:11:38,680 --> 01:11:42,460 towards this area that's designated for community mixed use density is naturally 835 01:11:42,460 --> 01:11:46,200 increased over time with these developments for example the latest phase 836 01:11:46,200 --> 01:11:50,240 of Teasley trails came in at 4.4 dwelling units per acre and then we just had 837 01:11:50,240 --> 01:11:53,160 multifamily approved here at this intersection that's at 20 units per acre 838 01:11:53,160 --> 01:11:56,680 so this tends to follow that natural progression and is generally consistent 839 01:11:56,680 --> 01:12:02,680 with the area I wanted to touch on some other aspects of the Denton plan 2030 840 01:12:02,680 --> 01:12:07,000 that are applicable here the plan features what's called the preferred 841 01:12:07,000 --> 01:12:12,600 growth concept and what this did was encourage kind of clustering walkable 842 01:12:12,600 --> 01:12:17,640 design again trying to deter that sprawl that I just spoke about so this this 843 01:12:17,640 --> 01:12:20,980 does meet a lot of those requirements it is increasing walkability in the area by 844 01:12:20,980 --> 01:12:25,120 providing now sidewalk and street connectivity through these neighborhoods 845 01:12:25,120 --> 01:12:31,120 it is again encouraging walkability close to this community mixed use center 846 01:12:31,120 --> 01:12:34,240 so these residents would have direct paths through these neighborhoods to any 847 01:12:34,240 --> 01:12:38,320 retail that develops here at that intersection and then again the 848 01:12:38,320 --> 01:12:42,040 comprehensive plan one of its main policy goals and actions for residential 849 01:12:42,040 --> 01:12:46,860 areas was infill so it encourages the development of vacant or deteriorated 850 01:12:46,860 --> 01:12:51,760 properties and it encourages that that be consistent in scaling character with 851 01:12:51,760 --> 01:12:55,600 existing neighborhoods so again the density that's proposed here does fall 852 01:12:55,600 --> 01:13:01,400 within what we find in this area already the second criteria is compliance with 853 01:13:01,400 --> 01:13:05,680 the Denton development code so I won't go through this in in detail again but 854 01:13:05,680 --> 01:13:10,160 same table again they're proposing just these specific deviations from the 2019 855 01:13:10,160 --> 01:13:16,140 DDC everything else they would follow so I wanted to touch on the tree 856 01:13:16,140 --> 01:13:20,840 preservation again for just a second the DDC PD procedures if you read through 857 01:13:20,840 --> 01:13:24,040 them do say that there should not be deviations from tree preservation 858 01:13:24,040 --> 01:13:28,340 requirements within a PD however we have the conflicting aspect here of vesting 859 01:13:28,340 --> 01:13:33,160 under state and under chapter 245 of the local government code allowing them to 860 01:13:33,160 --> 01:13:37,320 vest in prior tree code regulations so because of their date of application they 861 01:13:37,320 --> 01:13:41,400 are allowed to vest in the o2 code and they're not proposing to deviate from 862 01:13:41,400 --> 01:13:47,480 the 2002 code just meet that tree preservation requirement instead of 2019 863 01:13:47,480 --> 01:13:52,580 the third criterion is providing greater greater building design amenities and 864 01:13:52,580 --> 01:13:56,840 connectivity one of the the major components to their proposal that was 865 01:13:56,840 --> 01:14:01,120 discussed at the neighborhood meetings was building materials as we've talked 866 01:14:01,120 --> 01:14:05,460 about many times before under House Bill 2439 the city can no longer enforce 867 01:14:05,460 --> 01:14:10,640 those regulations so the developer did indicate to the the residents and it was 868 01:14:10,640 --> 01:14:14,000 in early drafts of their PD documents that they wanted would it willingly 869 01:14:14,000 --> 01:14:19,040 impose a 40% minimum masonry standard on these homes the DDC minimum standard is 870 01:14:19,040 --> 01:14:23,320 25% so it was above and beyond that threshold however we did ask them to 871 01:14:23,320 --> 01:14:26,160 exclude that from the PD regulations because it would not be enforceable by 872 01:14:26,160 --> 01:14:29,520 the city but it is something that they indicated they were willing to impose 873 01:14:29,520 --> 01:14:34,960 through deed restrictions on the property in terms of amenities again open 874 01:14:34,960 --> 01:14:38,280 spaces the main amenity being proposed with this PD they're proposing minimum 875 01:14:38,280 --> 01:14:42,720 15% open space for tree preservation buffering between their neighborhood and 876 01:14:42,720 --> 01:14:46,680 existing neighborhoods and just general community use and enjoyment the DDC 877 01:14:46,680 --> 01:14:50,780 minimum is 5% so they're above and beyond that and then in terms of 878 01:14:50,780 --> 01:14:53,880 connectivity again this would provide that missing link in Monte Carlo to 879 01:14:53,880 --> 01:14:57,560 allow Ridgemont residents and means of accessing Teasley Lane that they've not 880 01:14:57,560 --> 01:15:02,200 previously had and then it would provide connections to Teasley trails at Misen 881 01:15:02,200 --> 01:15:07,520 Lane as well as Monte Carlo the fourth criterion is specific to residential 882 01:15:07,520 --> 01:15:11,200 uses whether there is compatible building use and it's consistent with the 883 01:15:11,200 --> 01:15:15,360 character of the area this is the same use that surrounds the property on all 884 01:15:15,360 --> 01:15:18,120 sides so of course the single-family use would be compatible with other 885 01:15:18,120 --> 01:15:22,080 single-family uses as we looked at earlier it is consistent with the 886 01:15:22,080 --> 01:15:25,600 density of this area and that trend we see from west to east Commissioner 887 01:15:25,600 --> 01:15:28,000 Anderson 888 01:15:28,000 --> 01:15:46,800 correct and that's what they've offered yes and the developer is here this 889 01:15:46,800 --> 01:15:51,640 evening so he can speak to that further if you have other questions trying to 890 01:15:51,640 --> 01:15:56,040 get through this quickly so we can get out there to the meeting in terms of 891 01:15:56,040 --> 01:15:59,320 additional buffering and compatibility with the neighborhood if you look at 892 01:15:59,320 --> 01:16:02,200 their plan they do have those HOA lots all around the perimeter of the site 893 01:16:02,200 --> 01:16:05,200 where they intend to preserve existing trees to provide additional space 894 01:16:05,200 --> 01:16:09,400 between the backyards of these homes and that was a major concern that came up at 895 01:16:09,400 --> 01:16:12,200 the neighborhood meetings that all of the neighbors had requested was that 896 01:16:12,200 --> 01:16:16,680 buffer space there criterion 5 is applicable to non-residential uses so 897 01:16:16,680 --> 01:16:21,120 that's not being considered tonight criterion 6 is the provision of public 898 01:16:21,120 --> 01:16:25,080 facilities I'll try to breeze through these pretty quickly DISD was able to 899 01:16:25,080 --> 01:16:28,680 provide us with their expected student generation rates for McMath Middle 900 01:16:28,680 --> 01:16:31,360 School and Denton High School they indicated they have adequate capacity 901 01:16:31,360 --> 01:16:35,360 this is currently zoned for Ryan Elementary and they indicated that that 902 01:16:35,360 --> 01:16:38,640 school would not have capacity to serve the the expected students from this 903 01:16:38,640 --> 01:16:42,200 development however they indicated it's possible that they can rezone that to 904 01:16:42,200 --> 01:16:45,800 other schools in the area such as Sam Houston Elementary that do have 905 01:16:45,800 --> 01:16:52,400 adequate capacity in terms of fire and law enforcement it is well within the 906 01:16:52,400 --> 01:16:55,040 eight minute or less response time boundary for fire station 6 that's 907 01:16:55,040 --> 01:16:59,360 located on Teasley Lane I did talk to the Denton Police Department and they 908 01:16:59,360 --> 01:17:02,440 were intending to prepare a crime report for you all to see what's actually going 909 01:17:02,440 --> 01:17:05,840 on in this area but due to a change in software they weren't able to get that 910 01:17:05,840 --> 01:17:10,640 to us in time but they indicated that in general with this type of residential 911 01:17:10,640 --> 01:17:13,760 development they would not expect to see a significant or negative impact on 912 01:17:13,760 --> 01:17:17,640 their response times and they wouldn't expect to see any increase in crime or 913 01:17:17,640 --> 01:17:22,640 nuisance from these single-family homes water and wastewater are available to 914 01:17:22,640 --> 01:17:25,840 the site and would be looped throughout their internal street system to connect 915 01:17:25,840 --> 01:17:30,820 to the points that are stubbed out to their site looking at streets again as 916 01:17:30,820 --> 01:17:34,160 I mentioned they would provide connection to all of the street stubs 917 01:17:34,160 --> 01:17:38,560 that have been provided to this property at Mizzen Lane in Monte Carlo Ryan Road 918 01:17:38,560 --> 01:17:41,760 they would have right away dedication requirements there it's not been 919 01:17:41,760 --> 01:17:45,160 determined whether they would have any actual improvements to make to Ryan Road 920 01:17:45,160 --> 01:17:49,920 because we just on November 5th had the bond election where improvements for 921 01:17:49,920 --> 01:17:53,560 Ryan Road to become three lanes were approved and that's now become a CIP 922 01:17:53,560 --> 01:17:57,600 project so it's possible that they would pay roadway impact fees and lose in lieu 923 01:17:57,600 --> 01:18:02,280 of improvements our city engineer indicated construction on Ryan can be 924 01:18:02,280 --> 01:18:06,760 expected to begin as early as 2023 and there was a traffic assessment done for 925 01:18:06,760 --> 01:18:10,480 this that was provided to you all Ryan Road at the intersections here at Monte 926 01:18:10,480 --> 01:18:15,360 Carlo their future Street E and the street through Teasley trails operated 927 01:18:15,360 --> 01:18:19,240 at a level of service C today generally this is not expected to decrease that 928 01:18:19,240 --> 01:18:22,900 level of service at those intersections and once construction to three lanes is 929 01:18:22,900 --> 01:18:26,620 complete on Ryan it's expected to be operational at a level of service a or 930 01:18:26,620 --> 01:18:32,160 B at these intersections this is within 500 feet of Lake Forest Park which meets 931 01:18:32,160 --> 01:18:35,280 the park department's goal of a 10-minute walk to a park from residential 932 01:18:35,280 --> 01:18:38,780 developments they will have park dedication and development fees when they 933 01:18:38,780 --> 01:18:44,120 reach the platting and permitting phases of development notification was sent 934 01:18:44,120 --> 01:18:48,000 about this request just since we've been here this evening I've received one 935 01:18:48,000 --> 01:18:51,960 additional that I'll read into the record at the meeting so I'm actually 936 01:18:51,960 --> 01:18:57,360 since I made this up to 11 responses in opposition four of those are outside that 937 01:18:57,360 --> 01:19:02,120 200 foot buffer that total is still right at 3.9 percent and then we have two 938 01:19:02,120 --> 01:19:08,740 responses in favor so far that's at 15.7 percent so staff is recommending 939 01:19:08,740 --> 01:19:12,000 approval of this request as we found it to comply with our criteria for approval 940 01:19:12,000 --> 01:19:15,400 and if it gets through this hearing tonight its next stop would be City 941 01:19:15,400 --> 01:19:26,080 Council on December 17th thank you Haley okay with that I will close our work 942 01:19:26,080 --> 01:19:33,880 session at 6 33 and we will reconvene as soon as possible in council chambers 943 01:19:33,880 --> 01:19:42,840 good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning Commission 944 01:19:42,840 --> 01:19:48,520 meeting for Wednesday November 20th with a quorum present I will call us to order 945 01:19:48,520 --> 01:19:54,600 at 651 p.m. thank you all for your patience first item on our agenda is to 946 01:19:54,600 --> 01:19:59,600 stand if you are able and give pledge to the u.s. and Texas flags 947 01:20:24,600 --> 01:20:34,880 okay we do have some agenda clarifications for this evening there 948 01:20:34,880 --> 01:20:41,720 are two items being pulled from the agenda tonight item 4b which is the 949 01:20:41,720 --> 01:20:48,920 Denton Grove apartments that is being pulled and will be renoticed and is 950 01:20:48,920 --> 01:20:55,600 planned for our December 11th meeting for consideration also we are pulling 951 01:20:55,600 --> 01:21:04,280 item 4e which is PD 19 3 the development titled Ryan way I believe there's many 952 01:21:04,280 --> 01:21:08,480 of you here to speak on that but that item is being pulled it will be 953 01:21:08,480 --> 01:21:18,760 renoticed and it will be considered here on 12 11 so if you want Scott McDonald 954 01:21:18,760 --> 01:21:25,060 is here if you need further information as to anything with regarding that going 955 01:21:25,060 --> 01:21:37,320 forward so with that we will go to our consent the GDP is being heard under 956 01:21:37,320 --> 01:21:43,320 individual consideration it is not a public hearing item however to clarify 957 01:21:43,320 --> 01:22:01,840 staff is recommending denial for that at this point being pulled is item 4e PD 19 958 01:22:01,840 --> 01:22:22,040 3 so 959 01:22:31,840 --> 01:22:33,840 I'm 960 01:23:01,840 --> 01:23:04,840 , 961 01:23:31,840 --> 01:23:51,600 okay thank you for your patience once again let's move to our consent agenda 962 01:23:51,600 --> 01:23:56,200 commissioner back yeah I'd like to make a motion to pull items 2a and 2b for 963 01:23:56,200 --> 01:24:00,940 individual consideration okay there's a motion on the floor to pull the two 964 01:24:00,940 --> 01:24:05,960 items from the consent agenda to individual consideration is there a 965 01:24:05,960 --> 01:24:08,420 second 966 01:24:08,420 --> 01:24:24,440 Commissioner Cole okay we have a motion on the floor to pull the two items on 967 01:24:24,440 --> 01:24:29,680 consent agenda to individual consideration we will take a vote on the 968 01:24:29,680 --> 01:24:31,880 board 969 01:24:48,160 --> 01:25:00,960 okay that item passes 5 1 so now what we will do is consider a motion for item PP 970 01:25:00,960 --> 01:25:08,640 19 16 that's the preliminary plat Windsor apartments we'll entertain a 971 01:25:08,640 --> 01:25:21,880 motion commissioner back a motion to approve commissioner prunella a second 972 01:25:21,880 --> 01:25:27,560 we have a motion on the floor to approve individual considered Windsor 973 01:25:27,560 --> 01:25:52,440 apartments preliminary plat let's call for a vote on the board that motion 974 01:25:52,440 --> 01:26:01,200 carries five one next is to consider a motion for the preliminary plat Bonnie 975 01:26:01,200 --> 01:26:06,560 Bray high school addition Commissioner Anderson make a motion to approve 976 01:26:06,560 --> 01:26:11,760 Commissioner Smith second we have a motion on the floor for a preliminary 977 01:26:11,760 --> 01:26:18,640 plat approval Bonnie Bray high school addition let's take a vote on the board 978 01:26:22,440 --> 01:26:38,080 that motion carries five one our next item for individual consideration is GDP 979 01:26:38,080 --> 01:26:54,320 19 to a and I will invite Haley up good evening this request is for a general 980 01:26:54,320 --> 01:26:59,880 development plan for the Ryan way edition this request came in concurrently 981 01:26:59,880 --> 01:27:03,320 with the plan development and under state law we are required to bring forward 982 01:27:03,320 --> 01:27:07,840 plat items within a certain time frame however that that kind of puts the cart 983 01:27:07,840 --> 01:27:10,640 in front of the horse here because this property does not have zoning until that 984 01:27:10,640 --> 01:27:14,720 plan development gets through planning and Zoning Commission and City Council so 985 01:27:14,720 --> 01:27:18,320 for that reason alone that it does not meet the zoning requirements that are on 986 01:27:18,320 --> 01:27:22,040 the ground today which is the r2 district staff is recommending denial of 987 01:27:22,040 --> 01:27:28,240 this GDP at this time I'm happy to stand for any questions you only have 988 01:27:28,520 --> 01:27:42,880 Commissioner Smith okay okay I do not see any questions okay at this time we 989 01:27:42,880 --> 01:27:48,440 can open the floor for a motion Commissioner Smith motion to approve the 990 01:27:48,440 --> 01:27:59,960 denial okay we have a motion on the floor to deny so a vote yes would be to 991 01:27:59,960 --> 01:28:06,960 deny the GDP that is the motion on the floor any discussion let's call for a 992 01:28:06,960 --> 01:28:09,560 vote on the board 993 01:28:18,960 --> 01:28:28,240 that motion carries six zero that moves us to our public hearing items public 994 01:28:28,240 --> 01:28:38,000 hearing item 4a fr 1912 Golden Triangle Edition final replant I will open the 995 01:28:38,000 --> 01:28:52,160 public hearing and call up Mark Laird good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a 996 01:28:52,160 --> 01:28:55,200 planner with the Development Service Department this evening I have for your 997 01:28:55,200 --> 01:29:00,440 consideration the final replant of Golden Triangle Edition I stand for any 998 01:29:00,440 --> 01:29:07,160 questions that you may have any questions Commissioners I don't see any 999 01:29:07,160 --> 01:29:14,360 Mark thank you very much thank you Commissioner Pernitta Commissioner Smith 1000 01:29:14,360 --> 01:29:20,160 second okay we have a motion on the floor to approve the replant Golden 1001 01:29:20,160 --> 01:29:27,680 Triangle Edition any discussion okay let's call for a vote on the board 1002 01:29:37,160 --> 01:29:59,240 that motion carries six zero and just as a point of order I had opened the 1003 01:29:59,240 --> 01:30:03,440 public hearing for that item but did not close it so I hereby close the public 1004 01:30:03,440 --> 01:30:16,280 hearing for item 4a that brings us to item 4c s 193 I will open the public 1005 01:30:16,280 --> 01:30:39,640 hearing and invite Julie Wyatt for presentation good evening I'm Julie 1006 01:30:39,640 --> 01:30:44,360 Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I'm presenting s 193 Oxford 1007 01:30:44,360 --> 01:30:48,600 at Sherman so the request before you is for a specific use permit for 1008 01:30:48,600 --> 01:30:53,840 multifamily dwellings the subject property is outlined here in yellow it's 1009 01:30:53,840 --> 01:30:59,620 about 12.33 acres it's currently undeveloped it is situated between loop 1010 01:30:59,620 --> 01:31:06,520 288 to the north and poinsettia to the south a little background on the subject 1011 01:31:06,520 --> 01:31:12,960 property in 2002 it was on CMG during the citywide rezoning this year we 1012 01:31:12,960 --> 01:31:17,640 adopted a new development code and zoning districts and so that CMG 1013 01:31:17,640 --> 01:31:23,560 transition to SC district that suburban corridor due to the submittal timing the 1014 01:31:23,560 --> 01:31:29,360 proposal is subject to the 2002 didn't development code regulations and so it 1015 01:31:29,360 --> 01:31:34,160 was reviewed and is being analyzed under that code however just to let you know 1016 01:31:34,160 --> 01:31:41,340 multifamily dwellings require a specific use permit in both districts the 1017 01:31:41,340 --> 01:31:45,600 criteria for approval are in subchapter 6 of the 2002 didn't development code 1018 01:31:45,600 --> 01:31:49,320 there's a long list of the criteria I won't read them all it is all in your 1019 01:31:49,320 --> 01:31:55,280 backup but we're gonna go over some some specific parts of that criteria for 1020 01:31:55,280 --> 01:32:00,680 approval as we discuss the proposal so the subject property has a future land 1021 01:32:00,680 --> 01:32:05,040 use designation of community mixed use that is intended to promote a mix of 1022 01:32:05,040 --> 01:32:09,180 uses both commercial as well as the complementary residential uses some 1023 01:32:09,180 --> 01:32:15,640 moderate to high density housing to support any retail or service uses in 1024 01:32:15,640 --> 01:32:20,520 in those mixed use districts the intent is to encourage a diverse of use 1025 01:32:20,520 --> 01:32:26,360 diversity of uses close together to increase vitality and to create a sense 1026 01:32:26,360 --> 01:32:30,520 of place and to also encourage multimodal transportation allow people 1027 01:32:30,520 --> 01:32:35,680 to walk a multifamily development is consistent with the community mixed use 1028 01:32:35,680 --> 01:32:39,880 future land use designation first it provides that complementary residential 1029 01:32:39,880 --> 01:32:45,640 use it's often found in mixed use districts and in this case as we look at 1030 01:32:45,640 --> 01:32:49,600 that the broader area and how the community mixed use future land use 1031 01:32:49,600 --> 01:32:56,920 element fits within this part of Denton this this proposed as multifamily would 1032 01:32:56,920 --> 01:33:02,100 provide a residential character on that edge of the community mixed use to be to 1033 01:33:02,100 --> 01:33:08,200 be more consistent with the adjacent residential properties Denton plan 2030 1034 01:33:08,200 --> 01:33:13,560 also talks about how Denton's gonna grow in 2030 the projected population is 1035 01:33:13,560 --> 01:33:18,480 going to be over 200,000 and with that we'll need additional housing units and 1036 01:33:18,480 --> 01:33:24,360 multifamily is part of that mix for we'll need about 12,000 new multifamily 1037 01:33:24,360 --> 01:33:30,520 units this property and properties like it or are are appropriate for those 1038 01:33:30,520 --> 01:33:36,440 strategic locations for multifamily because it's adjacent to an arterial 1039 01:33:36,440 --> 01:33:43,600 loop 288 but it's also close to schools to residential areas and other amenities 1040 01:33:43,600 --> 01:33:47,880 it encourages that more compact development pattern and prevents a 1041 01:33:47,880 --> 01:33:53,960 sprawl now we'll zoom in a little bit closer to what the site plan is 1042 01:33:53,960 --> 01:34:00,160 proposing so it's sort of a triangular shaped lot it is the the front entrance 1043 01:34:00,160 --> 01:34:05,520 of the proposed multifamily development is oriented toward loop 288 so the full 1044 01:34:05,520 --> 01:34:11,920 access entrance is on is going to be on a spur that would be constructed off of 1045 01:34:11,920 --> 01:34:19,280 that that that entrance ramp to loop 288 they're proposing eight three-story 1046 01:34:19,280 --> 01:34:24,120 buildings three access points with controlled access gates so once again 1047 01:34:24,120 --> 01:34:29,520 that that full access point on loop 288 there would be an exit only through the 1048 01:34:29,520 --> 01:34:34,560 future commercial that would be that direct point to FM 428 Sherman Drive and 1049 01:34:34,560 --> 01:34:42,400 then also an exit only onto point study to the south they are proposing a 1050 01:34:42,400 --> 01:34:48,780 community pool in the center of the of the development with a amenity center 1051 01:34:48,780 --> 01:34:52,760 clubhouse there's also a proposed outdoor eating area with a fire pit 1052 01:34:52,760 --> 01:34:58,000 they're proposing a dog park on the west side here in this location and also 1053 01:34:58,000 --> 01:35:04,420 other open space areas one here and one here fencing landscaping and one story 1054 01:35:04,420 --> 01:35:10,960 garages would be would be constructed along point said it points idiot and if 1055 01:35:10,960 --> 01:35:14,800 this is approved and that would be in this location you can see those orange 1056 01:35:14,800 --> 01:35:22,560 boxes those are those one-story garages that would provide a little a more 1057 01:35:22,560 --> 01:35:29,360 visually appealing view from that road because it would set the the larger 1058 01:35:29,360 --> 01:35:33,520 taller building set back from from points edit points Eddie actually a 1059 01:35:33,520 --> 01:35:37,680 hundred and one feet from that roadway it would allow that that development scale 1060 01:35:37,680 --> 01:35:43,120 to gradually increase from the road and then if the proposal does meet the the 1061 01:35:43,120 --> 01:35:48,400 minimum parking regulations for multifamily they had they provided a 1062 01:35:48,400 --> 01:35:54,080 landscape plan as part of this specific use permit as as proposed they would 1063 01:35:54,080 --> 01:36:00,400 plant 163 new large canopy trees at maturity that would create about two 1064 01:36:00,400 --> 01:36:05,760 hundred thousand square feet of canopy forty seven of those large canopy trees 1065 01:36:05,760 --> 01:36:09,440 are proposed for this southern edge once again that's closer to those existing 1066 01:36:09,440 --> 01:36:12,960 neighborhoods so we want to make sure that we're really sensitive to that to 1067 01:36:12,960 --> 01:36:16,840 that boundary in that edge so they're proposing forty seven large canopy trees 1068 01:36:16,840 --> 01:36:20,640 this would be in addition to the twenty four required street trees they're 1069 01:36:20,640 --> 01:36:25,880 proposing those to be medium canopy and then they are also proposing an open 1070 01:36:25,880 --> 01:36:31,280 space area as well as that the required buffer on the eastern edge of the 1071 01:36:31,280 --> 01:36:34,320 property that's adjacent to a single family lot want to make sure that we're 1072 01:36:34,320 --> 01:36:39,520 sensitive to that to that compatibility in that location as well we'll zoom in a 1073 01:36:39,520 --> 01:36:45,880 little closer first here is that eastern property line buffer that includes a 1074 01:36:45,880 --> 01:36:50,760 combination of plantings as well as tree preservation so there's already some 1075 01:36:50,760 --> 01:36:56,280 some foliage there to go ahead and start that buffer they're also proposing a 1076 01:36:56,280 --> 01:37:01,360 perimeter fence those materials are a combination of ornamental metal board 1077 01:37:01,360 --> 01:37:06,240 on board cedar and masonry want to take a little bit harder look at the at the 1078 01:37:06,240 --> 01:37:13,320 proposed fencing on on that southern edge they are proposing a that board on 1079 01:37:13,320 --> 01:37:17,560 board cedar it would have recesses and projections so it would kind of it would 1080 01:37:17,560 --> 01:37:23,680 it would undulate in and then out to allow planting area to allow those trees 1081 01:37:23,680 --> 01:37:28,920 to be planted and while you know this this would break up the monotony of the 1082 01:37:28,920 --> 01:37:32,800 fence line and would create visual interest staff does have concerns about 1083 01:37:32,800 --> 01:37:37,520 the durability of those of that material and so we're recommending a condition 1084 01:37:37,520 --> 01:37:43,280 that that they either use a masonry wall or wrought iron with with some sort of 1085 01:37:43,280 --> 01:37:48,920 leafy shrub hedge in order to screen provide screening for those cars and that 1086 01:37:48,920 --> 01:37:55,440 use here's some sample elevations this this gives you a little bit better 1087 01:37:55,440 --> 01:37:59,120 visual of what that proposed fence would look like there's that board on board 1088 01:37:59,120 --> 01:38:03,480 cedar fence and they are proposing as I said the three-story buildings with a 1089 01:38:03,480 --> 01:38:08,160 neutral color palette balconies or patios on 100% of the dwelling units 1090 01:38:08,160 --> 01:38:12,440 awnings decorative wall lighting and a variety of recesses and projections would 1091 01:38:12,440 --> 01:38:17,480 provide that changes in relief and reduce the visual bulk of those 1092 01:38:17,480 --> 01:38:23,080 buildings also the stairwells would be the visual of the visual impacts of 1093 01:38:23,080 --> 01:38:30,240 those stairwells would be minimized as part of the SUP they also would have to 1094 01:38:30,240 --> 01:38:35,960 if this was approved obtain approval from this Commission for an alternative 1095 01:38:35,960 --> 01:38:40,560 development plan because this was reviewed under the 2002 code that ADP 1096 01:38:40,560 --> 01:38:45,400 was a process within that 2002 code there are two provisions and in sub 1097 01:38:45,400 --> 01:38:49,120 chapter 13 those site design requirements that based upon their 1098 01:38:49,120 --> 01:38:53,720 submittal they they needed flexibility from one would be the private street 1099 01:38:53,720 --> 01:38:57,000 system they've got some tuck under garages and their buildings and so it 1100 01:38:57,000 --> 01:39:02,440 sort of reduces that that private street system the the street trees and that 1101 01:39:02,440 --> 01:39:07,840 that linear cohesive street system and then also where they're proposing those 1102 01:39:07,840 --> 01:39:13,360 garages on that south bond boundary once again they are going to be if approved 1103 01:39:13,360 --> 01:39:18,800 along poinsettia that allows that that more separation between the taller 1104 01:39:18,800 --> 01:39:22,800 three-story buildings and the adjacent residential properties that does not 1105 01:39:22,800 --> 01:39:27,200 meet the 2002 didn't development code so they're going to be asking for relief 1106 01:39:27,200 --> 01:39:30,480 from that from from the planning and zoning Commission it does meet the 1107 01:39:30,480 --> 01:39:35,920 criteria for approval so if this is approved it would come back to you as 1108 01:39:35,920 --> 01:39:41,000 part of the review of the the project they did submit a traffic impact analysis 1109 01:39:41,000 --> 01:39:45,520 and that was approved through our engineering group they provided trip 1110 01:39:45,520 --> 01:39:51,040 generation within that the subject property would generate about 1800 1111 01:39:51,040 --> 01:39:57,600 trips per a 24-hour day weekday morning peak would be 113 trips evening peak 1112 01:39:57,600 --> 01:40:01,960 would be 133 trips total build out of the property and that would include this 1113 01:40:01,960 --> 01:40:07,520 property as well as the commercial on the corner would be 3600 trips per day so 1114 01:40:07,520 --> 01:40:12,520 it would be a lot of trips at that corner at the TIA also analyze area 1115 01:40:12,520 --> 01:40:17,960 intersections and they give letter grades a to F on the delay that that 1116 01:40:17,960 --> 01:40:23,800 motorists experience at those intersections loop 288 and FM 428 is 1117 01:40:23,800 --> 01:40:28,280 probably no surprise that at some times and in some directions that intersection 1118 01:40:28,280 --> 01:40:32,960 has an F and in particular ramps with left turning movement so if you were 1119 01:40:32,960 --> 01:40:38,240 exiting the loop and maybe turning left onto FM 428 to go north that you would 1120 01:40:38,240 --> 01:40:43,920 experience a significant delay and that would be an F the the motorists just 1121 01:40:43,920 --> 01:40:52,360 staying on FM 428 experience less delay because of they don't have a signal 1122 01:40:52,360 --> 01:40:56,880 there this intersection has met the warrants for a signal for quite a while 1123 01:40:56,880 --> 01:41:01,160 and that is intended to be installed within the next six to eight months 1124 01:41:01,160 --> 01:41:05,440 engineering is aware of the concerns of this intersection is so is an interim 1125 01:41:05,440 --> 01:41:10,760 step they are going to be installing always stops pretty soon in December is 1126 01:41:10,760 --> 01:41:14,880 what they've what they've told me another intersection that they looked 1127 01:41:14,880 --> 01:41:21,120 out was FM 428 and poinsettia that westbound left turn lane left turn when 1128 01:41:21,120 --> 01:41:25,040 you think if you're on poinsettia and you're going turning left to get on to 1129 01:41:25,040 --> 01:41:29,080 Sherman that that would be the most difficult turning movement and it 1130 01:41:29,080 --> 01:41:36,200 creates significant delays that the the analysis of this intersection indicated 1131 01:41:36,200 --> 01:41:41,160 that that with with the build out of the area a signal is going to be warranted 1132 01:41:41,160 --> 01:41:47,920 in that location in the future now is an interim step the TIA recommended a 1133 01:41:47,920 --> 01:41:52,400 restriping of that intersection to allow that protected left to get to allow 1134 01:41:52,400 --> 01:41:57,320 some a little more free movement in that intersection there would also be 1135 01:41:57,320 --> 01:42:01,840 perimeter street improvements associated with the development if approved they 1136 01:42:01,840 --> 01:42:09,120 the developer would would construct a spur off of this loop 288 entrance ramp 1137 01:42:09,120 --> 01:42:14,680 that would then connect down to poinsettia providing that that circulation 1138 01:42:14,680 --> 01:42:18,880 pattern and it would be 25 feet of pavement that they would construct it 1139 01:42:18,880 --> 01:42:24,480 really is the beginning of a frontage road for loop 288 water and wastewater 1140 01:42:24,480 --> 01:42:29,040 are available however an extension of an 8-inch waterline would be required with 1141 01:42:29,040 --> 01:42:35,160 any improvements on loop 288 Waterworks Park is is is close to the subject 1142 01:42:35,160 --> 01:42:39,520 property but it is still 3,500 linear feet from the subject property and the 1143 01:42:39,520 --> 01:42:45,680 sidewalks are not great to get there so so the applicant is proposing those 1144 01:42:45,680 --> 01:42:50,080 on-site recreational facilities for the residents park dedication and 1145 01:42:50,080 --> 01:42:54,440 development fees would be required with development of the site it is near 1146 01:42:54,440 --> 01:42:59,120 Wilson Elementary Strickland Middle and Ryan High School according to DISD the 1147 01:42:59,120 --> 01:43:02,640 the elementary the number of elementary students generated by this would put it 1148 01:43:02,640 --> 01:43:06,280 put a strain on Wilson Elementary it's it's it's being reconstructed right now 1149 01:43:06,280 --> 01:43:12,760 but Strickland and Ryan have the capacity for additional students there was public 1150 01:43:12,760 --> 01:43:16,760 outreach associated with the proposal they did have a neighborhood meeting in 1151 01:43:16,760 --> 01:43:21,800 July 10 on July 10th of this year we did ask them to hold in a second 1152 01:43:21,800 --> 01:43:27,040 neighborhood meeting they did decline that and then there was there there was 1153 01:43:27,040 --> 01:43:32,800 a newspaper ad placed in in accordance with our regulations as well as postings 1154 01:43:32,800 --> 01:43:37,160 on the property and mailed notices we've received two letters in opposition 1155 01:43:37,160 --> 01:43:41,600 thus far those aren't within the 200 foot boundary of the subject property 1156 01:43:41,600 --> 01:43:47,120 and we've received one letter in favor so in work session we went over the 1157 01:43:47,120 --> 01:43:50,480 recommendation and it was a little confusing so I've tried to maybe clarify 1158 01:43:50,480 --> 01:43:57,040 it a bit we're gonna do it backwards this time so staff recommends approval 1159 01:43:57,040 --> 01:44:00,840 of a specific use permit with the following conditions that the landscape 1160 01:44:00,840 --> 01:44:04,940 in the landscaping in the attached landscape plan reflects that intent to 1161 01:44:04,940 --> 01:44:09,560 comply with the DDC requirements for the the parking landscaping street trees and 1162 01:44:09,560 --> 01:44:14,240 minimum landscaping tree canopy areas and compatible ability buffers minor 1163 01:44:14,240 --> 01:44:18,680 alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings may be approved by 1164 01:44:18,680 --> 01:44:22,600 city staff provided that the final landscaping as planted complies with the 1165 01:44:22,600 --> 01:44:27,000 attached site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations as well as the 1166 01:44:27,000 --> 01:44:33,320 DDC parking area light fixtures can be determined at building permit but can't 1167 01:44:33,320 --> 01:44:37,280 exceed 14 feet in height we want to make sure the parking lot is well lit so that 1168 01:44:37,280 --> 01:44:42,120 it stays safe for the residents of of any community but we want to make sure 1169 01:44:42,120 --> 01:44:45,920 that it doesn't shine and become a nuisance on the adjacent residential 1170 01:44:45,920 --> 01:44:50,720 properties so we're recommending that height be limited at 14 feet and then 1171 01:44:50,720 --> 01:44:55,800 perimeter fencing materials as I said staff has concerns about that board on 1172 01:44:55,800 --> 01:45:00,000 board cedar so they would be limited to masonry or wrought iron and any wrought 1173 01:45:00,000 --> 01:45:02,960 iron fencing we want to make sure that still there's adequate screening so we're 1174 01:45:02,960 --> 01:45:08,720 requesting that that an additional hedge be placed be planted to to make sure 1175 01:45:08,720 --> 01:45:13,840 that there's adequate screening the fourth condition that within 30 days of 1176 01:45:13,840 --> 01:45:18,880 council approval that ADP for those two deviations would come back before the 1177 01:45:18,880 --> 01:45:22,760 the planning and zoning Commission and then notwithstanding the limited 1178 01:45:22,760 --> 01:45:26,760 administrative approvals in conditions 1 2 & 3 the city reserves the right to 1179 01:45:26,760 --> 01:45:31,000 require approval by ordinance of any amendments to the SUP the attached site 1180 01:45:31,000 --> 01:45:37,120 plan and the elements just described in the next section including those 1181 01:45:37,120 --> 01:45:46,000 reference it referenced in conditions 1 2 & 3 so the next section would be we're 1182 01:45:46,000 --> 01:45:50,960 really outlines kind of it provides a text support to the site plan and a 1183 01:45:50,960 --> 01:45:56,520 landscape plan and those elevations as we talked about in work session as as 1184 01:45:56,520 --> 01:46:01,560 these site plans are reproduced and shrunk they become really illegible so 1185 01:46:01,560 --> 01:46:06,760 this sort of just provides that tech support so as as you know future planners 1186 01:46:06,760 --> 01:46:12,640 look at this that they know what what was required so so this does put into 1187 01:46:12,640 --> 01:46:19,020 into this recommendation however that staff could approve a reduction in the 1188 01:46:19,020 --> 01:46:24,160 number of dwelling units or associated parking lots or lot coverage that that 1189 01:46:24,160 --> 01:46:28,720 if the if the project shrunk staff could could recommend or could approve that 1190 01:46:28,720 --> 01:46:33,880 but any increases over 5% would have to go back through the public hearing 1191 01:46:33,880 --> 01:46:39,560 process so staff could record could approve administratively a 5% increase I 1192 01:46:39,560 --> 01:46:44,120 did the math on it it would be 12 dwelling units essentially this this if 1193 01:46:44,120 --> 01:46:48,660 approved would give staff that that little bit of flexibility so that if some 1194 01:46:48,660 --> 01:46:51,680 things change that they wouldn't have to necessarily go back through the public 1195 01:46:51,680 --> 01:46:56,560 hearing process if the intensity of the project did not change but then it lays 1196 01:46:56,560 --> 01:47:00,160 out what they're proposing eight three-story buildings the amenity center 1197 01:47:00,160 --> 01:47:03,720 and clubhouse and the 19 accessory structures that includes both the 1198 01:47:03,720 --> 01:47:12,960 garages and carports 248 dwelling units 460 parking spaces lot coverage of 67% 1199 01:47:12,960 --> 01:47:18,840 and then those open spaces with 12 seating areas eight dogway stations 71 1200 01:47:18,840 --> 01:47:22,240 large can't large and medium canopy trees on that southern edge we want to 1201 01:47:22,240 --> 01:47:26,640 make sure that that we get that codified and then those sample belt building 1202 01:47:26,640 --> 01:47:31,480 elevations just with that neutral color palette and just kind of talking through 1203 01:47:31,480 --> 01:47:36,320 what those architectural design elements are so that's that is a staff 1204 01:47:36,320 --> 01:47:41,400 presentation the applicant is here and I will stand for any question we do have a 1205 01:47:41,400 --> 01:47:47,160 question thank you Julie Commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so on page 16 I 1206 01:47:47,160 --> 01:47:53,000 think it is the the yeah that's the one so their pool I just forgot to ask you 1207 01:47:53,000 --> 01:47:57,480 about this in work session their pool their little green space is in lieu of 1208 01:47:57,480 --> 01:48:01,000 the fact that they don't really have a 10-minute walk is that correct well and 1209 01:48:01,000 --> 01:48:08,240 and it isn't part of well it does it is for the benefit of their residents right 1210 01:48:08,240 --> 01:48:13,640 now there isn't a park within 10 minutes our parks department is actually 1211 01:48:13,640 --> 01:48:17,840 updating their parks master plan and that includes a trail system and so that is 1212 01:48:17,840 --> 01:48:22,600 part of their goal is to get that 10-minute walk to the park these these 1213 01:48:22,600 --> 01:48:25,560 holes where there's not that 10-minute walk to the park those are the areas 1214 01:48:25,560 --> 01:48:29,240 that they're going to be looking at adding additional parkland however you 1215 01:48:29,240 --> 01:48:33,440 know when as part of their development they are also adding those additional 1216 01:48:33,440 --> 01:48:37,100 amenities to provide those recreational activities for their for their 1217 01:48:37,100 --> 01:48:42,440 residents and on that same slide when you spoke with the district with the DISD 1218 01:48:42,440 --> 01:48:47,360 did they object or they simply said that would stress Wilson they just simply 1219 01:48:47,360 --> 01:48:50,480 said they would stress that they didn't provide an objection just that it would 1220 01:48:50,480 --> 01:48:56,200 it would stress Wilson elementary okay thank you sure Julie I have a couple of 1221 01:48:56,200 --> 01:49:01,120 questions just to clear up so the points that a restriping we talked about a bit 1222 01:49:01,120 --> 01:49:05,520 in work session is that something the applicant is going to do it would be 1223 01:49:05,520 --> 01:49:09,920 designed and and installed as part of the platting and development and it would 1224 01:49:09,920 --> 01:49:13,560 be something the applicant and it at what stage in the development would that 1225 01:49:13,560 --> 01:49:17,160 happen the design would happen during the civil engineering the review of the 1226 01:49:17,160 --> 01:49:21,480 civil plans for public improvements and then and then in terms of the timing of 1227 01:49:21,480 --> 01:49:27,680 the installation it would be either concurrent with or prior to development 1228 01:49:27,680 --> 01:49:30,600 of the side it would just depend on how that's structured with their hold 1229 01:49:30,600 --> 01:49:35,720 harmless and development agreements okay and then back to what you rewrote up 1230 01:49:35,720 --> 01:49:42,240 there can I can we go to that slide please I got close I think so I'm 1231 01:49:42,240 --> 01:49:45,920 assuming what you're trying to say is you'll staff will have the ability to 1232 01:49:45,920 --> 01:49:51,920 approve up to 5% otherwise is that correct yes okay that's how we have to 1233 01:49:51,920 --> 01:49:58,320 restate it then because it still reads greater than 5% which could be anything 1234 01:49:58,320 --> 01:50:05,200 yes I apologize nope just wanted to clarify all right staff shall have the 1235 01:50:05,200 --> 01:50:13,280 ability to prove up to 5% percent of anything the good thank you Julie I don't 1236 01:50:13,280 --> 01:50:18,320 see any questions at this time this is a public hearing I don't have any cards up 1237 01:50:18,320 --> 01:50:27,280 here but anyone wishing to speak may do so now anyone wishing to speak on this 1238 01:50:27,280 --> 01:50:35,040 item okay seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor to a 1239 01:50:35,040 --> 01:50:40,000 motion Commissioner Smith make a motion for to approve with staff recommendations 1240 01:50:40,000 --> 01:50:48,000 Commissioner Prunetta second the motion is there any discussion we have a motion 1241 01:50:48,000 --> 01:50:53,720 in a second on the floor to approve seeing no discussion I'll call for a 1242 01:50:53,720 --> 01:51:08,880 vote on the board that motion carries 6-0 that takes us to our next public 1243 01:51:08,880 --> 01:51:17,520 hearing item for DZ 1912 I will open the public hearing and invite Julie Wyatt 1244 01:51:17,520 --> 01:51:39,100 back up here for presentation all right this this next item is Z 1912 1245 01:51:39,100 --> 01:51:45,560 mockingbird single-family residential the request before you is the applicant 1246 01:51:45,560 --> 01:51:50,880 is requesting to rezone approximately 2.6 acres from our 2 district to our 4 1247 01:51:50,880 --> 01:51:55,360 district the subject property is outlined in yellow it's this flag shaped 1248 01:51:55,360 --> 01:52:00,600 area the surrounding development pattern includes existing suburban style 1249 01:52:00,600 --> 01:52:06,280 single-family neighborhoods there are some remaining larger parcels adjacent 1250 01:52:06,280 --> 01:52:09,480 to you and nearby you can see across Audre and then adjacent to the subject 1251 01:52:09,480 --> 01:52:13,760 property the majority of trees on the site are fence line trees particularly 1252 01:52:13,760 --> 01:52:18,640 in the southern edge of the site per the applicant the purpose is to develop 9 1253 01:52:18,640 --> 01:52:25,200 single-family residential dwellings the this map here shows the current zoning 1254 01:52:25,200 --> 01:52:30,000 map you could see the r2 district the subject property is is outlined in black 1255 01:52:30,000 --> 01:52:34,960 and then that that r2 district surrounding it r4 district is to the 1256 01:52:34,960 --> 01:52:41,040 west and south and east of the subject property the proposed zoning map would 1257 01:52:41,040 --> 01:52:46,320 extend that existing r4 into the subject property continuing that existing zoning 1258 01:52:46,320 --> 01:52:54,320 pattern the criteria for approval is in sub chapter 2 of the Denton development 1259 01:52:54,320 --> 01:53:00,040 code the 2019 Denton development code there are general and specific criteria 1260 01:53:00,040 --> 01:53:04,320 we won't go over all of them we're just going to go over some specific items for 1261 01:53:04,320 --> 01:53:07,720 the general we're really going to talk about numbers 3 & 8 talking about the 1262 01:53:07,720 --> 01:53:12,920 comprehensive plan and then adverse impacts and then for the specific 1263 01:53:12,920 --> 01:53:18,680 criteria we'll go a little more in depth and talk about more of those criteria so 1264 01:53:18,680 --> 01:53:23,320 first we're going to talk about general criterion 1 and in zoning criteria a 1265 01:53:23,320 --> 01:53:27,920 that that has to do with our comprehensive plan didn't plan 2030 the 1266 01:53:27,920 --> 01:53:32,360 site is designated low density residential that is intended for 1267 01:53:32,360 --> 01:53:37,400 single-family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre the proposed r 1268 01:53:37,400 --> 01:53:42,520 4 district our our 2019 code kind of transitioned from what we what we 1269 01:53:42,520 --> 01:53:47,320 typically saw in the 2002 code are just those gross densities for single-family 1270 01:53:47,320 --> 01:53:53,120 neighborhoods now gone to a minimum lot size that r4 district permits a minimum 1271 01:53:53,120 --> 01:53:58,080 lot size of 7,000 square feet which if you just took the gross square footage 1272 01:53:58,080 --> 01:54:03,320 of 7,000 and applied that to the gross square footage of an acre you could get 1273 01:54:03,320 --> 01:54:08,080 about six lots into an acre but that wouldn't account for any right-of-way 1274 01:54:08,080 --> 01:54:11,680 dedication so you really couldn't get six lots in there but but when just 1275 01:54:11,680 --> 01:54:16,120 looking at that gross acreage it doesn't really precisely meet that low density 1276 01:54:16,120 --> 01:54:22,840 residential but because the comprehensive plan talks about infill 1277 01:54:22,840 --> 01:54:27,640 development and the need to the need to fill in that the interior parts of the 1278 01:54:27,640 --> 01:54:35,280 city and to to encourage that compact development pattern and reduce sprawl it 1279 01:54:35,280 --> 01:54:43,760 does meet the overall goals of the of the the comprehensive plan general 1280 01:54:43,760 --> 01:54:49,080 criterion for is is minimizing adverse impacts on the surrounding property r4 1281 01:54:49,080 --> 01:54:53,360 is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods in both use and 1282 01:54:53,360 --> 01:54:59,720 development scale it is not anticipated to create adverse impacts we did kind of 1283 01:54:59,720 --> 01:55:02,960 an analysis of what was surrounding particularly those areas that had been 1284 01:55:02,960 --> 01:55:08,720 platted and developed in the last three decades or so and those lot sizes those 1285 01:55:08,720 --> 01:55:11,680 are typically single-family neighborhoods with lot sizes ranging 1286 01:55:11,680 --> 01:55:16,440 anywhere from about 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet so so the 1287 01:55:16,440 --> 01:55:21,280 minimum lot size in our four of 7,000 square feet is about in the middle of 1288 01:55:21,280 --> 01:55:26,800 that so it is consistent with that that development pattern and then also they 1289 01:55:26,800 --> 01:55:31,660 are proposing the single-family uses we talked about in work session that there 1290 01:55:31,660 --> 01:55:36,360 are additional uses that could be permitted with a specific use permit in 1291 01:55:36,360 --> 01:55:42,920 r4 a specific use permit would require an additional application from from the 1292 01:55:42,920 --> 01:55:48,680 developer and or the property owner and it would require a recommendation from 1293 01:55:48,680 --> 01:55:51,920 the planning and zoning Commission after a public hearing and approval from 1294 01:55:51,920 --> 01:55:56,600 council so it would add additional scrutiny for any duplexes or town homes 1295 01:55:56,600 --> 01:56:01,400 so but but single-family houses are permitted by right an expansion of the 1296 01:56:01,400 --> 01:56:05,840 existing r4 district is really just a logical extension of this existing zoning 1297 01:56:05,840 --> 01:56:12,800 pattern as you can see this is that just a zoomed out view of the area you could 1298 01:56:12,800 --> 01:56:17,520 see how this r4 is kind of this beige color this really does just extend it 1299 01:56:17,520 --> 01:56:27,120 and kind of just just continue that that pattern zoning criterion C is consistent 1300 01:56:27,120 --> 01:56:31,320 with consistency with the purpose statement the r4 district is intended to 1301 01:56:31,320 --> 01:56:35,940 accommodate a variety of housing types on lots encouraged to design to encourage 1302 01:56:35,940 --> 01:56:41,140 walking and to neighborhoods serving retail and other amenities and parks 1303 01:56:41,140 --> 01:56:46,360 such as parks and school facilities the request is consistent with the purpose 1304 01:56:46,360 --> 01:56:49,600 statement as the applicant has stated the intent is to develop single-family 1305 01:56:49,600 --> 01:56:53,360 dwellings once again town homes and duplexes would require the additional 1306 01:56:53,360 --> 01:56:57,240 approval from council through the public hearing process and multi-family 1307 01:56:57,240 --> 01:57:01,440 dwellings because it was something that came up a lot when when I heard from the 1308 01:57:01,440 --> 01:57:06,600 surrounding residents they are not permitted in r4 that that use is not a 1309 01:57:06,600 --> 01:57:13,200 permitted use even with an SUP zoning criteria E and F talks about the 1310 01:57:13,200 --> 01:57:17,640 intensity of the development and that it's not expected to and create 1311 01:57:17,640 --> 01:57:22,240 significantly adverse impacts to surrounding properties or neighborhood we 1312 01:57:22,240 --> 01:57:26,560 analyze the the public infrastructure you know this is an infill area so that 1313 01:57:26,560 --> 01:57:30,680 there are existing roads and water and wastewater water surrounding the 1314 01:57:30,680 --> 01:57:36,200 property as far as from transportation due to the limited number of houses that 1315 01:57:36,200 --> 01:57:41,000 they could get on the property with the with the dimensional requirements in the 1316 01:57:41,000 --> 01:57:48,120 of our seven it it would generate about 90 trips per day which would not which 1317 01:57:48,120 --> 01:57:53,520 would not trigger a TIA however if they if this was approved and they did move 1318 01:57:53,520 --> 01:57:59,040 forward with development roadway impact fees would be would be required at 1319 01:57:59,040 --> 01:58:03,760 development of the site there's water and wastewater available to the site and 1320 01:58:03,760 --> 01:58:09,280 tap and impact fees would once again be be required with development the subject 1321 01:58:09,280 --> 01:58:13,480 properties about a mile from Milan Park and Park dedication and development fees 1322 01:58:13,480 --> 01:58:18,720 would be paid with the platting and building permits public outreach for the 1323 01:58:18,720 --> 01:58:22,240 for the development included the applicant did hold a neighborhood 1324 01:58:22,240 --> 01:58:28,920 meeting they had about five residents attend and they talked about things like 1325 01:58:28,920 --> 01:58:35,880 tree preservation as well as driveway spacing or I'm sorry access spacing from 1326 01:58:35,880 --> 01:58:43,200 the odder intersection there was also staff was placed the newspaper ad in 1327 01:58:43,200 --> 01:58:47,840 accordance with our regulations as well as the notices and then that were mailed 1328 01:58:47,840 --> 01:58:52,640 to properties within 200 and 500 feet and then there was sign a sign posted on 1329 01:58:52,640 --> 01:58:57,040 the property we've received nine responses in opposition for within that 1330 01:58:57,040 --> 01:59:03,360 200 foot boundary and you can see them shown here we have not received any in 1331 01:59:03,360 --> 01:59:09,320 favor or any neutral so based upon the criteria for approval staff recommends 1332 01:59:09,320 --> 01:59:13,000 approval of the request the applicant is here and I'll be happy to stand for any 1333 01:59:13,000 --> 01:59:17,720 questions we do have a question Commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so 1334 01:59:17,720 --> 01:59:24,880 I'm not sure if this is a city or legal question but if we in can we have 1335 01:59:24,880 --> 01:59:33,880 language in a recommendation that discourages anything other than single 1336 01:59:33,880 --> 01:59:41,180 family I know the zoning allows for uses other than single family but can we be 1337 01:59:41,180 --> 01:59:50,760 on record as saying we discourage that or is that just simply not allowed it's 1338 01:59:50,760 --> 01:59:55,560 nothing that we couldn't enforce it would just be a suggestion and there I 1339 01:59:55,560 --> 02:00:02,440 don't know that it would really mean any or carry any any weight with respect to 1340 02:00:02,440 --> 02:00:07,960 it it's not it's not something that would it would just be I guess text in 1341 02:00:07,960 --> 02:00:11,720 there that would wouldn't mean anything other than it's discouraged but they 1342 02:00:11,720 --> 02:00:16,380 would still have to go through a public a public hearing process for anything 1343 02:00:16,380 --> 02:00:19,720 other than single family so it would come back in front of this board I'm 1344 02:00:19,720 --> 02:00:23,800 sorry this Commission for for review and recommendation and ultimately the City 1345 02:00:23,800 --> 02:00:30,440 Council it would get noticed just like a rezoning case okay thank you but what we 1346 02:00:30,440 --> 02:00:38,800 are voting on tonight is the request is to rezone to our four okay Julie at this 1347 02:00:38,800 --> 02:00:44,600 time I don't see any more questions thank you okay do you have several cards 1348 02:00:44,600 --> 02:00:52,320 on this item and the first one I have is the applicant I will call up Amy Bissett 1349 02:00:52,320 --> 02:01:02,080 good evening commissioners give me just a moment to pull up my presentation it's 1350 02:01:02,080 --> 02:01:06,040 brief but I do want to be able to show you a few things 1351 02:01:15,160 --> 02:01:20,680 my name is Amy Bissett I am with Northbridge consultants 212 South Elm 1352 02:01:20,680 --> 02:01:25,400 Street here in Denton I represent the applicant and the property owner who is 1353 02:01:25,400 --> 02:01:29,840 here in the room tonight and can also be available to answer any questions we 1354 02:01:29,840 --> 02:01:34,840 also have the engineer in the room as well and as Julie has already shared 1355 02:01:34,840 --> 02:01:39,080 with you I'm going to be very brief with this the applicant does intend to 1356 02:01:39,080 --> 02:01:44,520 subdivide into nine lots they're generous sized lots currently 7,000 1357 02:01:44,520 --> 02:01:51,260 square feet to 8,800 almost 9,000 square feet with a private street that has no 1358 02:01:51,260 --> 02:01:56,840 connectivity into the adjacent adjacent neighborhoods and it would be HOA 1359 02:01:56,840 --> 02:02:02,280 maintained both the street and the detention pond and common areas and we 1360 02:02:02,280 --> 02:02:07,160 did hold two neighborhood meetings including one in October where we had 1361 02:02:07,160 --> 02:02:12,480 five neighbors in attendance at that point in time two concept plans were 1362 02:02:12,480 --> 02:02:19,760 presented to the neighbors and they did vote essentially and agree on one of the 1363 02:02:19,760 --> 02:02:25,160 concept plans which is what the property owner intends to do I will walk you 1364 02:02:25,160 --> 02:02:29,360 through it very briefly and point out the reasons that they liked this plan 1365 02:02:29,360 --> 02:02:34,080 better than the other one that was presented the first is that the lot 1366 02:02:34,080 --> 02:02:41,200 depth of the southern lots lots number five and six on the screen and is 140 1367 02:02:41,200 --> 02:02:46,160 feet what that does for the neighbors to the south is provide additional privacy 1368 02:02:46,160 --> 02:02:52,760 in that they're essentially one neighbor from their backyard rather than more 1369 02:02:52,760 --> 02:02:58,000 than one and you can see where I have kind of darkened the property lines to 1370 02:02:58,000 --> 02:03:04,400 the south it is our four just to the south of this this particular neighborhood 1371 02:03:04,400 --> 02:03:12,040 to the north and it is r2 above this property and the very intentionally on 1372 02:03:12,040 --> 02:03:16,320 this concept plan the access drive as well as the detention pond and the 1373 02:03:16,320 --> 02:03:20,440 common areas have been placed to the north in order to provide a buffer to 1374 02:03:20,440 --> 02:03:26,680 the residents to the north the the residents prefer preferred private 1375 02:03:26,680 --> 02:03:32,240 street versus a public right-of-way in order to minimize traffic and so that's 1376 02:03:32,240 --> 02:03:39,240 how the concept plan is being designed currently and then and there was a very 1377 02:03:39,240 --> 02:03:44,800 intentional decision to increase both the width and the depth of the lots to 1378 02:03:44,800 --> 02:03:49,480 preserve to create an opportunity to preserve the trees along the fence line 1379 02:03:49,480 --> 02:03:54,360 on both the eastern side and the southern side of the property and that's 1380 02:03:54,360 --> 02:03:58,480 where most of the trees lie a tree preservation plan will be required at 1381 02:03:58,480 --> 02:04:02,000 platting and there will be tree preservation required so this just 1382 02:04:02,000 --> 02:04:09,280 affords plenty of room to make sure that that privacy is maintained I do want to 1383 02:04:09,280 --> 02:04:13,840 point out and as Julie did but I want to kind of put a little bit of perspective 1384 02:04:13,840 --> 02:04:20,640 on it you can see the the red star which is where our property is located I want 1385 02:04:20,640 --> 02:04:25,080 to kind of give you the perspective of where this is in the city so you've got 1386 02:04:25,080 --> 02:04:30,120 mingo Road to the north loop take 288 to the east and McKinney to the south in 1387 02:04:30,120 --> 02:04:34,800 terms of the boundaries so you can view this as a segment or a quadrant of the 1388 02:04:34,800 --> 02:04:39,840 city and you can see that the majority of what's here today is already zoned are 1389 02:04:39,840 --> 02:04:44,520 four in fact I went through and kind of highlighted it for you to see you know 1390 02:04:44,520 --> 02:04:48,840 it's it is most certainly the existing development pattern today and while 1391 02:04:48,840 --> 02:04:53,600 there is some lower density are to primarily to the north of this property 1392 02:04:53,600 --> 02:04:58,680 and this is definitely consistent with the pattern that has developed today and 1393 02:04:58,680 --> 02:05:03,600 it is an infill development so developing in a compact way is 1394 02:05:03,600 --> 02:05:09,400 consistent with the Denton plan and then I also pulled the the future land use 1395 02:05:09,400 --> 02:05:14,720 plan to show that what's designated as low density residential on the future 1396 02:05:14,720 --> 02:05:22,000 land use plan encompasses all of that are for today and technically are for 1397 02:05:22,000 --> 02:05:26,000 would be considered low density although it's probably at the very top end of 1398 02:05:26,000 --> 02:05:32,280 that and our actual density would be about 3.46 units per acre based on the 1399 02:05:32,280 --> 02:05:37,680 proposal and I do recognize that there were concerns raised during the work 1400 02:05:37,680 --> 02:05:42,680 session today and I want to address those directly I I recognize that the 1401 02:05:42,680 --> 02:05:47,520 concern primarily is that the property owner can come in and rezone as are for 1402 02:05:47,520 --> 02:05:53,000 today and then come back with a proposal for town homes or duplexes or something 1403 02:05:53,000 --> 02:05:58,760 that is a higher density than what's being presented here and the what would 1404 02:05:58,760 --> 02:06:03,240 be required for the for the developer or the property owner to do that would be 1405 02:06:03,240 --> 02:06:08,440 to come back for a specific use permit which is the exact same process that 1406 02:06:08,440 --> 02:06:12,800 we're undergoing tonight for a zoning change comes to public hearing we'd be 1407 02:06:12,800 --> 02:06:16,200 back here in front of you being held accountable for the fact that we said 1408 02:06:16,200 --> 02:06:20,360 we were gonna put in nine lots and now we're proposing something different you 1409 02:06:20,360 --> 02:06:25,480 would look back at us and say we told you we didn't want that and so it is not 1410 02:06:25,480 --> 02:06:29,560 only just a public hearing process just like tonight but it's under much more 1411 02:06:29,560 --> 02:06:35,360 scrutiny than tonight because in order to apply for a specific use permit we 1412 02:06:35,360 --> 02:06:39,320 would have to do a traffic impact analysis and show the impact that we're 1413 02:06:39,320 --> 02:06:44,440 having to all of the infrastructure in the in the surrounding area we'd have to 1414 02:06:44,440 --> 02:06:50,080 be able to show that our density could be supported in terms of the traffic and 1415 02:06:50,080 --> 02:06:55,520 as you can see we've got one way in and out here and low density surrounding us 1416 02:06:55,520 --> 02:07:00,560 and the the density and the scale would be looked at the height would be looked 1417 02:07:00,560 --> 02:07:06,760 at and I would have to stand up here and justify all of that for you this is a 1418 02:07:06,760 --> 02:07:13,120 2.6 acre lot there's really not room here to do anything other than a handful 1419 02:07:13,120 --> 02:07:22,400 of single-family lots we do have some conceptual elevations this is what the 1420 02:07:22,400 --> 02:07:27,280 property owner and developer envisions just generally speaking in terms of a 1421 02:07:27,280 --> 02:07:33,920 range of housing options from 2,000 square feet and up and with that I will 1422 02:07:33,920 --> 02:07:49,400 be happy to answer any questions I have one Amy um how would our three change 1423 02:07:49,400 --> 02:08:01,920 this I think that it would probably lower the number of lots that the property 1424 02:08:01,920 --> 02:08:06,240 owner would like to be able to do and you know this is a very small development 1425 02:08:06,240 --> 02:08:12,080 and that just the infrastructure to put in the scroll back up here now you've 1426 02:08:12,080 --> 02:08:15,720 got a significant amount of infrastructure here to support nine lots 1427 02:08:15,720 --> 02:08:21,120 already with the private drive in and the in the private street and then the 1428 02:08:21,120 --> 02:08:27,040 required detention pond and I just don't know financially whether or not it would 1429 02:08:27,040 --> 02:08:32,940 work if if the costs associated with providing the access and the drainage 1430 02:08:32,940 --> 02:08:38,560 for the development would support the number of lots that are three would 1431 02:08:38,560 --> 02:08:42,600 allow but we do have the engineer as well as the property owner here that 1432 02:08:42,600 --> 02:08:46,040 might be able to want maybe want to speak to that directly yeah and the reason for 1433 02:08:46,040 --> 02:08:48,320 my question is really just neighborhood protection I'm not worried about 1434 02:08:48,320 --> 02:08:52,440 necessarily you may be changing your concept but if for some reason the 1435 02:08:52,440 --> 02:08:56,560 project didn't make in that it sells and it's in our for designation that's what 1436 02:08:56,560 --> 02:09:01,040 we're voting on here so yeah if anyone wants to speak to that that would be 1437 02:09:01,040 --> 02:09:08,640 great also I had a question regarding you want with Allison engineering group 1438 02:09:08,640 --> 02:09:11,960 and when we first looked at this property and we were considering our four 1439 02:09:11,960 --> 02:09:16,840 that was back when we were at the four units per acre density and over to two 1440 02:09:16,840 --> 02:09:21,400 point six acres we were looking at ten units and the property owner thought 1441 02:09:21,400 --> 02:09:25,520 that ten was gonna be really tough to be able to make a profitable development 1442 02:09:25,520 --> 02:09:31,200 out here once we said okay well we're we're no longer density based zoning 1443 02:09:31,200 --> 02:09:35,600 we're now going to the minimum lot size I can't get you ten I mean that's what 1444 02:09:35,600 --> 02:09:39,080 he wanted me to do he wanted me to get ten because that's what he was hoping 1445 02:09:39,080 --> 02:09:44,760 for within our four zoning the best I could get out of here was nine and part 1446 02:09:44,760 --> 02:09:48,800 of why we did and Amy touched on this part of why we presented the private 1447 02:09:48,800 --> 02:09:54,400 street concept with a slightly smaller road section a more of a fire lane 1448 02:09:54,400 --> 02:09:58,520 concept is it allowed the lots to remain larger still doesn't get us a tenth lot 1449 02:09:58,520 --> 02:10:02,520 which is what we would have loved to have been able to get but it lets these 1450 02:10:02,520 --> 02:10:12,880 lots really feel generously sized so the nine lots in a 2.6 acre tract nine homes 1451 02:10:12,880 --> 02:10:19,960 on a 2.6 acre tract is really the it's kind of the least we need to make this 1452 02:10:19,960 --> 02:10:24,800 development feasible so that's why we have what we are presenting in front of 1453 02:10:24,800 --> 02:10:28,880 you okay thank you yeah there's another question that sure it's for 1454 02:10:28,880 --> 02:10:33,320 Commissioner Smith yeah thanks vice chair Jason Amy have we looked on this 1455 02:10:33,320 --> 02:10:36,640 problem it's a private street but but for fire and emergency services getting 1456 02:10:36,640 --> 02:10:40,760 in and out of there it's a one way in one way out so that gives me with the 1457 02:10:40,760 --> 02:10:44,080 appropriate fire turn around we'll turn around there but I didn't know how wide 1458 02:10:44,080 --> 02:10:47,640 those those streets were gonna be it's set up for fire lane requirements what 1459 02:10:47,640 --> 02:10:51,640 the city didn't fire lane requirements is again we we are not we haven't run 1460 02:10:51,640 --> 02:10:58,240 that by for approval yeah we do that at a time of platting right so and not to 1461 02:10:58,240 --> 02:11:01,560 think that you guys would just that if that I would hate for the city to come 1462 02:11:01,560 --> 02:11:04,480 back and say no those aren't wide enough right and then that ruins 1463 02:11:04,480 --> 02:11:07,720 engineering and the plan then the development falls through and now we've 1464 02:11:07,720 --> 02:11:13,020 got an r4 zone area we do have we do have a second concept with the 60 foot 1465 02:11:13,020 --> 02:11:16,680 right-of-way which is a local street with the very large cul-de-sac at the 1466 02:11:16,680 --> 02:11:22,000 end and we're still able to maintain our nine lots it just those the four lots on 1467 02:11:22,000 --> 02:11:28,240 the west side there they shrink and so instead of being the the eight thousand I 1468 02:11:28,240 --> 02:11:31,640 can't see that far away eighty six hundred square feet they shrink down to 1469 02:11:31,640 --> 02:11:35,280 seventy two hundred seventy four hundred square feet and so that's where the 1470 02:11:35,280 --> 02:11:39,720 that's where the extra space for the right-of-way there is a plan B exactly 1471 02:11:39,720 --> 02:11:44,960 city street full cul-de-sac 60 foot right-of-way something something still 1472 02:11:44,960 --> 02:11:53,960 nine lots exactly thank you commissioner Anderson this says private streets are 1473 02:11:53,960 --> 02:11:57,320 these gonna be dedicated to the city or who's gonna maintain the streets if it 1474 02:11:57,320 --> 02:12:01,720 goes the private street it would be HOA maintained just like the HOA common lot 1475 02:12:01,720 --> 02:12:06,680 that has the it's labeled up there detention pond and then just the 1476 02:12:06,680 --> 02:12:09,560 landscaping in the common area a lot would all be HOA maintained so there 1477 02:12:09,560 --> 02:12:14,040 would be nine owners participants in a homeowners Association but they're built 1478 02:12:14,040 --> 02:12:22,320 a city code built a city code okay Amy you might be able to answer the other 1479 02:12:22,320 --> 02:12:27,680 question that I had it had to do with there's a structure on the lot like in 1480 02:12:27,680 --> 02:12:32,800 that panhandle area does that belong to the house that it sits behind or does 1481 02:12:32,800 --> 02:12:36,680 that actually belong on this property 1482 02:12:40,320 --> 02:12:45,400 sir can you come to the podium please thank you 1483 02:12:45,400 --> 02:12:54,120 believe it's a storage shed that belongs to the property does it belong to your 1484 02:12:54,120 --> 02:12:58,600 property so it's not that person that okay that's what I want to know if they 1485 02:12:58,600 --> 02:13:05,440 were affected thank you very much okay I don't see any other questions at this 1486 02:13:05,440 --> 02:13:12,920 time thank you I do have other cards wishing to speak the first one I have 1487 02:13:12,920 --> 02:13:18,160 speaking in opposition is Jose Montoya 1488 02:13:18,160 --> 02:13:32,600 haven't lived in the area for over 30 years sir if you could say your name and 1489 02:13:32,600 --> 02:13:37,480 address for the record 3,000 eight Beverly right on the corner one up from 1490 02:13:37,480 --> 02:13:45,760 the 133 feet that was mentioned earlier thank you on your proposed access I'm 1491 02:13:45,760 --> 02:13:49,760 glad to see that you decided to go to Audreau however Audreau is already 1492 02:13:49,760 --> 02:13:55,440 narrow what are the plans to widen that would be one the other is there are no 1493 02:13:55,440 --> 02:14:00,520 sidewalks so if you're talking about making it user-friendly you'd have to 1494 02:14:00,520 --> 02:14:07,200 redo the last part of Mockingbird to Audreau to make it walkable there is a 1495 02:14:07,200 --> 02:14:14,280 house across the street from mine Katie corner I'm wondering is that part of the 1496 02:14:14,280 --> 02:14:20,160 long-range plan to have that I buy out because then you would increase the size 1497 02:14:20,160 --> 02:14:25,720 of your 2.6 to over 3 which means more houses across the street from mine I 1498 02:14:25,720 --> 02:14:34,680 already collect cities neighbors trash on my property since I'd have a fence 1499 02:14:34,680 --> 02:14:40,040 area they decide to dump their trash there I would like to see it if you're 1500 02:14:40,040 --> 02:14:46,200 going to have the same kind of development with only nine lots have it 1501 02:14:46,200 --> 02:14:50,960 maintained so it does not deter from the rest of the neighborhood we have 1502 02:14:50,960 --> 02:14:55,920 elderly people living in the area who walk and would like to maintain that same 1503 02:14:55,920 --> 02:15:04,200 walking area thank you Richard can you address it all future Mockingbird in 1504 02:15:04,200 --> 02:15:11,840 that there do you have any of that information or maybe Julie I'm not aware 1505 02:15:11,840 --> 02:15:24,480 of any plans right now to improve Mockingbird okay thank you next card I 1506 02:15:24,480 --> 02:15:43,000 have speaking in opposition is Teddy Williams I live at 3204 and it's the lane 1507 02:15:43,000 --> 02:15:48,640 and bear with me because I've never done this before okay I need to ask you a 1508 02:15:48,640 --> 02:15:51,720 question because I'm lost I've been trying to follow this and I've been to 1509 02:15:51,720 --> 02:15:56,400 all the meetings and the story has changed why does it need to go from our 1510 02:15:56,400 --> 02:16:00,920 two to our four if he only intends to build nine houses I'm trying to 1511 02:16:00,920 --> 02:16:06,440 understand that it has to do with parameters in the development code so in 1512 02:16:06,440 --> 02:16:13,320 order to build the nine houses it has to be a r4 per the engineer but what about 1513 02:16:13,320 --> 02:16:23,280 part of the city well the city follows the development go ahead Julie I think I 1514 02:16:23,280 --> 02:16:28,160 can answer that so under current zoning the minimum lot size was would be 16,000 1515 02:16:28,160 --> 02:16:35,400 square feet so they're proposing the r4 to to to develop with those 7,000 square 1516 02:16:35,400 --> 02:16:38,860 foot lot so it's depending on the lot size 1517 02:16:42,860 --> 02:16:48,720 okay so the other thing I need to before I the other thing is I want to know if 1518 02:16:48,720 --> 02:16:54,280 everything falls through and he sells and this is our and y'all vote for it to 1519 02:16:54,280 --> 02:17:00,240 be an r4 does that mean that townhomes apartments and all that can come in 1520 02:17:00,240 --> 02:17:05,960 because that's a major concern the r4 designation does allow duplexes town 1521 02:17:05,960 --> 02:17:11,760 homes group home with with a specific use permit that would have to come back 1522 02:17:11,760 --> 02:17:15,960 before planning and zoning in City Council 1523 02:17:15,960 --> 02:17:25,120 well it'd be a public hearing process okay so right now I guess what I'm 1524 02:17:25,120 --> 02:17:28,740 understanding because in all in the other two meetings I've heard two 1525 02:17:28,740 --> 02:17:33,960 different things right now he is proposing and you guys would agree to 1526 02:17:33,960 --> 02:17:39,360 nine houses am I understanding that correctly what we are considering today 1527 02:17:39,360 --> 02:17:47,440 is simply the rezoning of from r2 to r4 that is all that our vote is today what 1528 02:17:47,440 --> 02:17:52,600 we're seeing from the applicant is the concept plan that they have in mind to 1529 02:17:52,600 --> 02:17:57,760 develop if they get the rezoning a request okay well what earlier gentleman 1530 02:17:57,760 --> 02:18:03,680 said was true it's dangerous there's no sidewalks on Audra there's barely there's 1531 02:18:03,680 --> 02:18:08,840 no sidewalks where he's proposing to build so it's really not going to be 1532 02:18:08,840 --> 02:18:15,420 safe for the children or the elderly okay there's r4 was intended to 1533 02:18:15,420 --> 02:18:21,800 encourage walking to parks and retail from what I understand there's no park 1534 02:18:21,800 --> 02:18:27,400 some mile away so it'd be really tough for a five-year-old to to walk that far 1535 02:18:27,400 --> 02:18:33,760 there's no stores so I'm trying to understand the concept of why it needs 1536 02:18:33,760 --> 02:18:40,680 to be r4 it's not safe Mockingbird is dangerous and Audra is dangerous enough 1537 02:18:40,680 --> 02:18:47,360 as it is there's no police enforcement people go 40 and 50 miles an hour down a 1538 02:18:47,360 --> 02:18:57,080 30 mile an hour street I'm on it every day I see it it and to add if he put in 1539 02:18:57,080 --> 02:19:03,600 let's just say nine houses to start with that's probably going to be at least 30 1540 02:19:03,600 --> 02:19:09,200 at least 30 cars because they're going to have teenagers at least 30 to 60 more 1541 02:19:09,200 --> 02:19:15,080 cars on two streets that are already overused I don't know if I'm saying that 1542 02:19:15,080 --> 02:19:23,520 right but it it's just dangerous it's not and if you add more then none of us 1543 02:19:23,520 --> 02:19:28,640 are going to be safe and like he said there's elderly there's young kids I 1544 02:19:28,640 --> 02:19:34,200 watch the kids standing watch waiting for the buses on the street already people 1545 02:19:34,200 --> 02:19:41,320 come flying down that street the stop sign is not even very far from where the 1546 02:19:41,320 --> 02:19:47,080 original entrance was intended I don't know where it's going to be now I watch 1547 02:19:47,080 --> 02:19:52,200 people slam on their brakes as it is now I can only imagine what it's going to be 1548 02:19:52,200 --> 02:19:58,480 like if we have tons more people move in so I don't I mean I just I don't 1549 02:19:58,480 --> 02:20:01,960 understand because if our floor was really intended to encourage these 1550 02:20:01,960 --> 02:20:06,360 things they don't exist we don't have a school that close we don't have any 1551 02:20:06,360 --> 02:20:15,360 retail I don't even I don't understand why it needs to be rezoned it was a I 1552 02:20:15,360 --> 02:20:21,000 moved in because it was a quiet safe neighborhood and it seems like it's 1553 02:20:21,000 --> 02:20:29,160 going to change and that's pretty scary so I don't know I that's just my thought 1554 02:20:29,160 --> 02:20:33,520 and we absolutely appreciate you sharing your comments thank you for listening of 1555 02:20:33,520 --> 02:20:43,480 course thank you okay the next card I have speaking in opposition is BJ 1556 02:20:43,480 --> 02:20:56,080 Edwards good evening if you could state your name and address yes beat BJ 1557 02:20:56,080 --> 02:21:03,000 Edwards $2,000 lane Denton thank you my family has some property adjacent to 1558 02:21:03,000 --> 02:21:09,840 this we do oppose the zone change I understand that our for is all that 1559 02:21:09,840 --> 02:21:14,280 other base creeping right in and going further north and let's go ahead and 1560 02:21:14,280 --> 02:21:21,400 suck that up to R2 is fine the developer the purchaser bought it to 1561 02:21:21,400 --> 02:21:26,080 make money to put as many addresses in there as he can whether he stacks them 1562 02:21:26,080 --> 02:21:37,120 up or spreads them out and I oppose that and I think I've my family has the 1563 02:21:37,120 --> 02:21:42,880 entire East boundary of this development and then some but as the lady was 1564 02:21:42,880 --> 02:21:47,680 speaking over here on their drive their approach in and out there's a three-way 1565 02:21:47,680 --> 02:21:51,960 stop sign right there that is there's always Rex right there and there's 1566 02:21:51,960 --> 02:21:56,880 probably not 200 feet from that driveway to the three-way stop there's just that 1567 02:21:56,880 --> 02:22:04,000 one house there on that corner but I oppose it and I'm definitely afraid of 1568 02:22:04,000 --> 02:22:09,720 changing the zoning so they can come back later and ask for another one and 1569 02:22:09,720 --> 02:22:14,560 end up sticking those apartments in there we've got a quiet neighborhood and 1570 02:22:14,560 --> 02:22:20,680 there's no crime to speak of in that area you go down into the R4 areas and 1571 02:22:20,680 --> 02:22:30,560 the crime picks up we don't it's quite nice there now I do oppose it in the 1572 02:22:30,560 --> 02:22:35,280 tension pond right there I think that is for if we have rain and stuff this has 1573 02:22:35,280 --> 02:22:39,560 always been a flood area in the photo if you can see there's a terrace there to 1574 02:22:39,560 --> 02:22:47,640 deflect the water from flooding so it doesn't run exactly the way that 1575 02:22:47,640 --> 02:22:53,080 detention pond is it'll probably be a continuing problem and the little bit of 1576 02:22:53,080 --> 02:22:56,560 trees and stuff that we have there in that fence line we'd sure like to keep 1577 02:22:56,560 --> 02:23:05,000 them some of those pecan trees and stuff for 100 plus years old I do oppose it I 1578 02:23:05,000 --> 02:23:12,240 know it won't be safe I feel like the crime will go up in that area as far as 1579 02:23:12,240 --> 02:23:18,320 foot traffic and stuff we do have a lot of people around there young and old and 1580 02:23:18,320 --> 02:23:22,800 they feel pretty safe right now and I'm just afraid it's the more addresses we 1581 02:23:22,800 --> 02:23:26,960 stick in there and they they're saying nine now but you know if you have to 1582 02:23:26,960 --> 02:23:31,880 guard down that nine could jump into 40 pretty quick when they go to multi 1583 02:23:31,880 --> 02:23:37,320 dwellings and that's the whole concept is to get more addresses multi-family 1584 02:23:37,320 --> 02:23:43,760 dwellings are not allowed in in our four zoning district well what was it they 1585 02:23:43,760 --> 02:23:49,000 could come back later and ask for the what town homes and duplexes are allowed 1586 02:23:49,000 --> 02:24:02,840 yeah and how many is there would it only be nine I just feel like if it's done 1587 02:24:02,840 --> 02:24:08,840 that's a bait and switch I just don't trust it I do totally oppose I thank you 1588 02:24:08,840 --> 02:24:13,200 folks for letting me speak my piece I am worried about the crime I'm worried 1589 02:24:13,200 --> 02:24:18,280 about the theft the theft rate will go up the more people you cram into a small 1590 02:24:18,280 --> 02:24:22,960 area right now we've got a nice boundary where all those larger lots you're 1591 02:24:22,960 --> 02:24:30,160 talking about are still are too but they're being sucked up by our four we'd 1592 02:24:30,160 --> 02:24:34,120 like to kind of keep it that way if we can if we have a say so it at all if 1593 02:24:34,120 --> 02:24:38,440 we're being if we're being heard I don't know if this is just a formality 1594 02:24:38,440 --> 02:24:43,720 and we already know what we're going to do there or not I know how things go 1595 02:24:43,720 --> 02:24:50,080 thank you for allowing me to speak if you have any questions for me or I'll 1596 02:24:50,080 --> 02:24:55,240 just go sit down I do not see any questions at this moment thank you thank 1597 02:24:55,240 --> 02:25:02,920 you for coming out I do have another card here wishing to speak in opposition 1598 02:25:02,920 --> 02:25:24,120 Carol Coulter you take your time Carol Coulter I live at 2913 Howard Court which 1599 02:25:24,120 --> 02:25:32,200 is about three blocks away from from the site we're talking about and I'm also 1600 02:25:32,200 --> 02:25:39,920 here to represent mrs. Victoria Pena whose property is most of the property 1601 02:25:39,920 --> 02:25:49,440 on the west side of this side that we've been talking about so I just have to say 1602 02:25:49,440 --> 02:25:55,280 that we love our little pasture over there it has been there for a long time 1603 02:25:55,280 --> 02:26:01,840 it's got beautiful trees it's got a beautiful view and and I hate to see it 1604 02:26:01,840 --> 02:26:07,200 go but I know that it's one of those things that progress comes along I am 1605 02:26:07,200 --> 02:26:15,120 opposed because I feel that we do have a big problem on Audra we have a big 1606 02:26:15,120 --> 02:26:21,040 problem on mockingbird I've been out gathering signatures for opposition and 1607 02:26:21,040 --> 02:26:27,200 I've been almost run over several times just because there's no sidewalk at all 1608 02:26:27,200 --> 02:26:32,480 so when you walk along there you take your life in your hands believe me but 1609 02:26:32,480 --> 02:26:39,400 it was worth it I was very in impressed to do this and I feel that it's very 1610 02:26:39,400 --> 02:26:49,100 important if we're going to have to have houses there I want it to be a as few as 1611 02:26:49,100 --> 02:26:55,400 possible and so if we do two to an acre instead of four to an acre I think it 1612 02:26:55,400 --> 02:27:01,720 will make the neighborhood much nicer and less dense and I'm not for the 1613 02:27:01,720 --> 02:27:11,400 density I am a longtime neighbor I've lived in the neighborhood 30 years and I 1614 02:27:11,400 --> 02:27:18,240 know that change is coming but I hope that the change would include lots of 1615 02:27:18,240 --> 02:27:24,200 improvements for the road and for the traffic that is this is going to 1616 02:27:24,200 --> 02:27:30,920 generate more if we do go to this to the fore then it opens the door I agree with 1617 02:27:30,920 --> 02:27:35,640 the gentleman who just spoke it opens the door so that if we talk about town 1618 02:27:35,640 --> 02:27:39,840 homes or if we talk about new plexus that's going to be more traffic on on 1619 02:27:39,840 --> 02:27:46,040 our road I want to make one more point that has a positive and a negative and 1620 02:27:46,040 --> 02:27:53,280 I'd like to congratulate Julie on her work and on how much I have enjoyed 1621 02:27:53,280 --> 02:27:58,620 talking with her and learning about this project and how positive she is and her 1622 02:27:58,620 --> 02:28:05,320 letter to us and I appreciate that I have one negative and that is the letter 1623 02:28:05,320 --> 02:28:12,680 said we are changing the zoning from r2 to r4 now I have a computer and I can get 1624 02:28:12,680 --> 02:28:16,740 online and I can go look it up with the city of Denton but there was no 1625 02:28:16,740 --> 02:28:23,440 definition in the letter for what that means and many people who don't have an 1626 02:28:23,440 --> 02:28:29,000 access to a computer or don't know how to research things might not know so 1627 02:28:29,000 --> 02:28:35,760 that would be helpful in the future for that to be clarified because you know we 1628 02:28:35,760 --> 02:28:40,240 heard all kinds of things about what a r4 is and so I thought I'd better look it 1629 02:28:40,240 --> 02:28:49,480 up okay thank you for listening thank you for coming out to speak I don't have 1630 02:28:49,480 --> 02:28:55,880 any more blue cards to speak I have a few cards not wishing to speak but let 1631 02:28:55,880 --> 02:28:58,400 me know if you change your mind and you would like to come down to speak you're 1632 02:28:58,400 --> 02:29:06,360 more than welcome to do so Raylin Samuelson is in opposition Tim 1633 02:29:06,360 --> 02:29:15,240 Randolph is not wanting to speak but is in opposition did he want to speak Tim 1634 02:29:15,240 --> 02:29:31,720 did you want to speak I just want to reiterate what BJ said the guy that 1635 02:29:31,720 --> 02:29:36,000 used to own this place was like a father to me I know more about this property 1636 02:29:36,000 --> 02:29:43,840 than anybody in this room I promise you and I I'm just scared of the traffic and 1637 02:29:43,840 --> 02:29:50,520 the coming out of that place right there that stop sign at Mockingbird and Alder 1638 02:29:50,520 --> 02:29:57,520 that's just going to be a mess in my opinion but I oppose it very much thank 1639 02:29:57,520 --> 02:30:05,040 you thank you mr. Randolph I have another card not wishing to speak but is 1640 02:30:05,040 --> 02:30:13,160 in opposition Dolores Montoya and that is all the cards that I have is there 1641 02:30:13,160 --> 02:30:16,560 anyone in the audience who did not fill out a card but would like to come down 1642 02:30:16,560 --> 02:30:20,080 and speak on this item 1643 02:30:20,080 --> 02:30:27,400 you can 1644 02:30:32,280 --> 02:30:43,280 name and address it's in the 500 foot buffer of this and also have a property 1645 02:30:43,280 --> 02:30:51,640 at 3008 Terry Court I'm in favor for them because if they do a specific use 1646 02:30:51,640 --> 02:30:56,880 permit to go higher density with townhomes you heard the opposition it's 1647 02:30:56,880 --> 02:31:03,360 gonna be a favorless fight to to grant that so with the HOA maintain when I 1648 02:31:03,360 --> 02:31:08,080 houses I believe it's good for the community really do because there's no 1649 02:31:08,080 --> 02:31:14,080 ways over there so having that in that area would be nice and that's it thank 1650 02:31:14,080 --> 02:31:20,400 you thank you for coming out is there anyone else wishing to speak on this 1651 02:31:20,400 --> 02:31:28,280 item anyone else wishing to speak okay seeing none I will close the public 1652 02:31:28,280 --> 02:31:36,000 hearing on this item and open the floor for motion or discussion commissioner 1653 02:31:36,000 --> 02:31:41,160 Smith thank you best chair I'm gonna make a motion to approve with staff 1654 02:31:41,160 --> 02:31:44,760 recommendations right there was our staff members a solid motion to prove 1655 02:31:44,760 --> 02:31:52,120 them reason for this I think that the density isn't too indifferent from a lot 1656 02:31:52,120 --> 02:31:57,080 of the properties that are surrounding this I don't think that that from 1657 02:31:57,080 --> 02:32:04,000 knowing that area as I do driving and living in that area nine houses I don't 1658 02:32:04,000 --> 02:32:10,280 think is gonna add traffic burdens that really need to be a warranted and in the 1659 02:32:10,280 --> 02:32:14,120 multifamily the duplex triplex anything else in there knowing that we have a 1660 02:32:14,120 --> 02:32:19,040 have an SUP that's gonna be available as a as a safeguard against that I can tell 1661 02:32:19,040 --> 02:32:23,000 you now that if someone if this project does fall through for whatever reasons 1662 02:32:23,000 --> 02:32:27,480 that's if an SUP comes back in front of this Commission or any other Commission 1663 02:32:27,480 --> 02:32:32,840 iteration after this they'll be very easy no to throw out there just because 1664 02:32:32,840 --> 02:32:36,080 of the surrounding neighborhoods that are there so I think this is safely 1665 02:32:36,080 --> 02:32:41,560 changing to a density that is workable and will be permanent so a motion to 1666 02:32:41,560 --> 02:32:48,640 approve motion on the floor to approve Commissioner pernetta a second okay we 1667 02:32:48,640 --> 02:32:55,760 have a motion on the floor to approve the zoning change to our for is there any 1668 02:32:55,760 --> 02:33:04,600 discussion okay well I'm gonna say just a few words because I unfortunately cannot 1669 02:33:04,600 --> 02:33:09,560 get on board to do this and it's mainly for neighborhood protection it's not that 1670 02:33:09,560 --> 02:33:15,200 I actually really like the concept of the infill as it was presented but 1671 02:33:15,200 --> 02:33:19,840 without the neighborhood protection in there that opens the door with a duplex 1672 02:33:19,840 --> 02:33:25,960 or townhome or group home possibility with our for it doesn't work for me 1673 02:33:25,960 --> 02:33:31,400 because you know I've seen it before we're not voting on a concept plan we're 1674 02:33:31,400 --> 02:33:38,040 voting on a zoning change so I will not be able to support this item is there 1675 02:33:38,040 --> 02:33:45,880 any more discussion okay let's call for a vote on the board 1676 02:33:45,880 --> 02:34:06,760 that motion will carry for two congratulations okay that moves us okay 1677 02:34:06,760 --> 02:34:12,360 our last public hearing item has been pulled that leaves us to our planning and 1678 02:34:12,360 --> 02:34:17,520 zoning Commission matrix I will turn it over to Richard just wanted to provide 1679 02:34:17,520 --> 02:34:24,120 excuse me brief update one City Council last night approved the two text 1680 02:34:24,120 --> 02:34:27,760 amendments that we heard at the last meeting one with respect to the criteria 1681 02:34:27,760 --> 02:34:32,460 manual language adding that back in as well as the clarification language for 1682 02:34:32,460 --> 02:34:38,520 the overlay districts that converted to PD those both are approved 7-0 the gas 1683 02:34:38,520 --> 02:34:44,400 well ordinance as we sort of discussed earlier or at least mentioned was was 1684 02:34:44,400 --> 02:34:51,680 approved 5-2 so that will be in effect in 14 days from from yesterday and was 1685 02:34:51,680 --> 02:34:56,240 that approved with the I'm sorry that was that was that replaced on it or how 1686 02:34:56,240 --> 02:35:01,640 was that it was it was presented to them with the three options the initial 1687 02:35:01,640 --> 02:35:07,520 option that that council had directed staff to prepare staffs recommendation 1688 02:35:07,520 --> 02:35:12,040 and then the planning and zoning Commission recommendation so what they 1689 02:35:12,040 --> 02:35:17,040 approved it was with all of staff recommendations so that was option two 1690 02:35:17,040 --> 02:35:22,400 which essentially allowed for all non-conforming structures albeit 1691 02:35:22,400 --> 02:35:26,800 non-conforming for gas wells or something else if they are destroyed 1692 02:35:26,800 --> 02:35:33,600 greater than 50% to go in front of ZBA to ask for the ability to rebuild so 1693 02:35:33,600 --> 02:35:37,120 that was approved last night so that will be in effect not just for gas wells 1694 02:35:37,120 --> 02:35:42,360 but for all non-conformities and once we get that signed ordinance I'll provide a 1695 02:35:42,360 --> 02:35:47,360 copy just so everyone everyone has that I know we had discussed there was a lot 1696 02:35:47,360 --> 02:35:52,880 of debate over the last few weeks about additional items to be discussed about 1697 02:35:52,880 --> 02:35:59,640 the gas wells there is a as part of the work session on 12-3 council will be 1698 02:35:59,640 --> 02:36:04,360 bringing that that will be presented to them and so they will discuss that and 1699 02:36:04,360 --> 02:36:08,840 and vote at that point in time whether or not they want to hear or bring back 1700 02:36:08,840 --> 02:36:13,200 any further items with respect to gas wells to a work session the only thing 1701 02:36:13,200 --> 02:36:20,600 that did get added to that was a setback regarding plugged wells so I don't know 1702 02:36:20,600 --> 02:36:26,440 what will come out of that but that will be a discussion on 12-3 so certainly you 1703 02:36:26,440 --> 02:36:31,040 can watch that but I will provide an update again on on the the 11th with 1704 02:36:31,040 --> 02:36:39,180 respect to what what that outcome was just quickly on the on the matrix I did 1705 02:36:39,180 --> 02:36:43,320 provide somewhat of an update on the the removal of that equipment as the 1706 02:36:43,320 --> 02:36:49,160 de-energized substation I know Brent our manager from energy to reached out to 1707 02:36:49,160 --> 02:36:54,320 TMPA they did not give him a specific date but he is going to continue to ask 1708 02:36:54,320 --> 02:37:00,640 well I'll keep that on until we have a a for sure update we do have on the 11th 1709 02:37:00,640 --> 02:37:07,440 this next meeting a work session on the notifications in the ETJ will also have 1710 02:37:07,440 --> 02:37:12,440 the dual notifications and I don't remember the ladies name tonight but she 1711 02:37:12,440 --> 02:37:16,520 raised a great point and so I'd like to also include that as part of that 1712 02:37:16,520 --> 02:37:21,760 discussion on notification to probably provide a little bit we try to do some of 1713 02:37:21,760 --> 02:37:25,920 a more of a description of what's going on but I think sometimes as planners we 1714 02:37:25,920 --> 02:37:31,400 talk planner speak and just sort of plain language is exactly what they're 1715 02:37:31,400 --> 02:37:36,480 trying to do in very simple terms so we'll include that as part of that that 1716 02:37:36,480 --> 02:37:41,840 work session for the next meeting okay we've got a couple wishing to speak 1717 02:37:41,840 --> 02:37:46,440 Commissioner Smith I was gonna mention I was gonna ask about the ETJ I had a 1718 02:37:46,440 --> 02:37:50,760 couple phone calls for the item be tonight that were folks who are in the 1719 02:37:50,760 --> 02:37:55,400 TJ are never noticed for that because they're in the TJ and so excited to hear 1720 02:37:55,400 --> 02:37:59,960 about that so thank you just and just to let you know about that item that you're 1721 02:37:59,960 --> 02:38:05,360 getting people need TJ are calling about that so commissioner back thank you I 1722 02:38:05,360 --> 02:38:11,680 share yeah no I really encourage you to do the additional language like 1723 02:38:11,680 --> 02:38:14,520 we heard tonight I think that'll be really helpful do you think that would 1724 02:38:14,520 --> 02:38:18,200 be something that I know we're gonna discuss it but is that something that 1725 02:38:18,200 --> 02:38:22,880 we're considering all notifications for the simplified language or just the ETJ 1726 02:38:22,880 --> 02:38:26,940 it would for me it would be for all know if all notifications that I would 1727 02:38:26,940 --> 02:38:32,320 encourage that and and then do we have any considering the 14-day lag for the 1728 02:38:32,320 --> 02:38:38,160 for the new ordinance do we have any idea how many properties might fall under 1729 02:38:38,160 --> 02:38:43,040 that or is that really something we need to discuss at a later time in that 1730 02:38:43,040 --> 02:38:52,680 window I mean I guess so much how many properties will I think our initial 1731 02:38:52,680 --> 02:38:58,520 estimation was yeah how many projects underway that might run that might 1732 02:38:58,520 --> 02:39:05,080 overlap that 14-day lag I'm just curious I'm not sure because we just had our 1733 02:39:05,080 --> 02:39:09,040 submittals come in yesterday was a deadline I don't think there I'd have to 1734 02:39:09,040 --> 02:39:13,520 know that's fine I can provide that I can provide that for the next that 1735 02:39:13,520 --> 02:39:19,800 would be helpful thank you anybody else anything for the matrix 1736 02:39:19,800 --> 02:39:27,120 Richard if I could um or we could get an update I know we've talked mockingbird 1737 02:39:27,120 --> 02:39:31,120 before is there something you can I just don't remember about like a future 1738 02:39:31,120 --> 02:39:35,440 mobility on that and all that you know things are happening right there we've 1739 02:39:35,440 --> 02:39:39,600 approved a whole lot up and down Audra if this gets approved this is just 1740 02:39:39,600 --> 02:39:45,440 another you know so just maybe some kind of an update to what's going on there 1741 02:39:45,440 --> 02:39:48,920 obviously I know we're gonna be years away from that but even just what the 1742 02:39:48,920 --> 02:39:52,360 future plan is would be yes certainly I'll provide that I know at one point 1743 02:39:52,360 --> 02:39:55,960 and I think it was mockingbird but I don't recall it so I don't I didn't want 1744 02:39:55,960 --> 02:39:58,760 to speak too much to it but but there were some improvements that they were 1745 02:39:58,760 --> 02:40:03,320 doing with respect to the safe route to schools but I'll I'll reach out to CIP 1746 02:40:03,320 --> 02:40:08,600 and see if there's anything yeah and then also as a suggestion if possible 1747 02:40:08,600 --> 02:40:12,840 maybe on these developments these re zones where staffs recommending approval 1748 02:40:12,840 --> 02:40:19,160 and you know that traffic is certainly an issue maybe in the presentation what 1749 02:40:19,160 --> 02:40:23,720 the future will be would be great to add to the presentation that just gives a 1750 02:40:23,720 --> 02:40:26,640 little bit more knowledge to the people who instead of just saying traffic's 1751 02:40:26,640 --> 02:40:30,600 horrible and we all know it's horrible you know whether a TIA was performed or 1752 02:40:30,600 --> 02:40:35,480 not you know we got a lot of TIA stuff with regard to the multifamily you know 1753 02:40:35,480 --> 02:40:38,280 and that was good information but on these kind of things just even 1754 02:40:38,280 --> 02:40:44,440 mentioned in the in the presentation be great okay seeing nothing else I will 1755 02:40:44,440 --> 02:40:48,840 say happy Thanksgiving to everybody here in Washington and I will close our 1756 02:40:48,840 --> 02:40:53,040 meeting at 812 thank you