WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.800 Hello and welcome to the City of Denton planning and zoning meeting for 00:00:03.800 --> 00:00:08.940 Wednesday November 20th. This is our work session and with a quorum present I 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 00:00:15.460 --> 00:00:21.200 absent from tonight's meeting and at this time Commissioner Smith is absent. 00:00:21.200 --> 00:00:31.160 To clarify agenda public hearing item B is being pulled from tonight's agenda so 00:00:31.160 --> 00:00:36.560 we will not be considering that today. It will be re-noticed and most likely on 00:00:36.560 --> 00:00:43.840 the December 11th December 11th meeting. Now let's get into our agenda we don't 00:00:43.840 --> 00:00:51.640 have any work session reports so we will go to consent agenda. Any questions on 00:00:51.640 --> 00:01:01.320 consent? Yeah so I know on the consent agenda there's the two properties north 00:01:01.320 --> 00:01:06.880 of North Lakes. I have a couple of questions about those. Let's take one 00:01:06.880 --> 00:01:10.880 at a time because they might be different people. Okay so Haley I think 00:01:10.880 --> 00:01:21.280 you've got the first consent. Well they're sort of both the same question so 00:01:21.280 --> 00:01:25.440 I'm just gonna have Julie if you wouldn't mind listening in as well and 00:01:25.440 --> 00:01:34.040 and both of these questions relate and I think to the the properties and 00:01:34.040 --> 00:01:40.480 distances regarding setbacks for these properties and there's a caveat to that 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 00:01:45.360 --> 00:01:54.240 question for Cynthia but and what are the distances for this apartment complex 00:01:54.240 --> 00:01:59.040 and for the school and I know that unfortunately that's two different 00:01:59.040 --> 00:02:01.800 people but that's essentially the same question. What are the what are the 00:02:01.800 --> 00:02:08.480 distances to the building especially vis-a-vis the 250 and as of last night 500 00:02:08.480 --> 00:02:13.520 but realizing that we have different criteria for when rules are applied so I 00:02:13.520 --> 00:02:16.400 mean what are what are the implications of all that together for these two 00:02:16.400 --> 00:02:21.320 properties? So both of these flats do reflect compliance with the 250 foot 00:02:21.320 --> 00:02:26.000 reverse setback that was in place at the time of their application. Last night's 00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:30.680 vote although the ordinance was approved there is a 14-day lag time between 00:02:30.680 --> 00:02:34.080 adoption of an ordinance and its effective date so that will go into full 00:02:34.080 --> 00:02:39.000 effect 14 days from last night and I believe there was a clause written into 00:02:39.000 --> 00:02:42.960 the ordinance for projects that are in the queue currently to remain under the 00:02:42.960 --> 00:02:48.120 code that they started under so anything that was currently under review with 00:02:48.120 --> 00:02:52.360 staff would be able to stay with the 250 foot reverse setback to the 00:02:52.360 --> 00:02:56.760 completion of that project. For the A2 option that was discussed last night or 00:02:56.760 --> 00:03:02.000 elsewhere in the code? That was in the ordinance itself. Okay. There was a clause 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 00:03:05.600 --> 00:03:09.200 think that was the just of that one clause in the ordinance? No, that's correct. 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 00:03:19.360 --> 00:03:25.440 plan for construction of these buildings and I mean this is I think especially 00:03:25.440 --> 00:03:30.000 Jermaine because we're just we would discuss this last night I know it's 14 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 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 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 00:03:45.400 --> 00:03:53.240 residences and children. Certainly and both projects are meeting the 250 foot 00:03:53.240 --> 00:03:58.600 reverse setback. For their proposed building constructions? Correct. And are 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 00:04:05.760 --> 00:04:09.040 school I can let Julie speak to that those are separate applications though 00:04:09.040 --> 00:04:14.600 from the plot the plots reflect the 250 foot setback the multifamily I don't 00:04:14.600 --> 00:04:17.160 recall the exact numbers off the top of my head they have an agreement with the 00:04:17.160 --> 00:04:21.120 operator that was part of their specific use permit last year and their setbacks 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 00:04:24.240 --> 00:04:28.720 it was in the range of three to four hundred feet to the buildings but but 00:04:28.720 --> 00:04:34.280 they they meet or exceed the 250 foot requirement. And this is now maybe it's 00:04:34.280 --> 00:04:37.720 still following on but this may be a more of a question for does this mean 00:04:37.720 --> 00:04:43.600 that we are creating before construction a legally non-conforming structure which 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 00:04:47.600 --> 00:04:53.760 here. Well in the ordinance as Haley mentioned in section three of the 00:04:53.760 --> 00:04:56.840 ordinance that was approved last night it does call out those plats that were 00:04:56.840 --> 00:05:00.720 submitted before the ordinance was approved and those don't have to comply 00:05:00.720 --> 00:05:07.240 with the new setback. And I just want to caution that the gas well ordinance is 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 00:05:10.960 --> 00:05:16.000 discussing the the actual ordinance itself I'm this is particularly just the 00:05:16.000 --> 00:05:23.120 setbacks and these particular plats but thank you for your caution. 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 00:05:26.400 --> 00:05:33.160 special consideration for the types of use there's no difference in a noxious 00:05:33.160 --> 00:05:42.360 use in any other kind of use. Because I'm concerned about future liability issues 00:05:42.360 --> 00:05:46.040 to be honest not only the health of the children but then financially liability 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 00:05:50.760 --> 00:05:57.200 allowed construction. Again the gas well setback is not on the agenda for this 00:05:57.200 --> 00:05:59.480 evening. 00:05:59.480 --> 00:06:09.960 It's not germane to this problem even though the setback is from the gas wells. 00:06:09.960 --> 00:06:13.560 These plats meet the technical requirements of the code though in 00:06:13.560 --> 00:06:17.320 state law does obligate the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve plats that 00:06:17.320 --> 00:06:28.320 meet the code. All right thank you. Commissioner Pernau. This is the same line 00:06:28.320 --> 00:06:32.960 of questioning I just kind of wanted to verify if you could check before we 00:06:32.960 --> 00:06:38.000 present on this one if I remember correctly the we were looking at 250 feet 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 00:06:45.200 --> 00:06:52.480 and everything was 450 feet when we discussed it that time we talked about 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 00:06:57.680 --> 00:07:02.040 know open up close farther on the pad closer to the house closer to the 00:07:02.040 --> 00:07:09.160 property is that the well owners would would basically have to submit a request 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 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 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 00:07:25.720 --> 00:07:33.640 attempt that basically our existing setbacks would would prevent that right 00:07:33.640 --> 00:07:39.000 and I believe you're referencing the specific use permit for this site we 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 00:07:43.320 --> 00:07:48.880 so when and if that pad site is the operator seeks to expand that site they 00:07:48.880 --> 00:07:52.840 would have to come in they're located in a floodplain so they have enhanced 00:07:52.840 --> 00:07:55.720 scrutiny on that site they would actually require a specific use permit a 00:07:55.720 --> 00:08:00.440 watershed protection permit they would have to obtain waivers from all of the 00:08:00.440 --> 00:08:04.000 protected use owners that are within their required setback which would be 00:08:04.000 --> 00:08:07.520 500 feet in this instance because they're an existing pad in a non 00:08:07.520 --> 00:08:11.800 industrial district so everyone within that 500 foot radius would have to sign 00:08:11.800 --> 00:08:15.400 a waiver and then they would have to get through those additional steps the the 00:08:15.400 --> 00:08:19.760 watershed protection permit SUP and then the gas well site plan process okay thank 00:08:19.760 --> 00:08:26.320 you very much anybody else on this one okay thanks 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 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 00:08:46.160 --> 00:08:56.760 that correct if they were going to impact the alternate the ESA right now 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 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 00:09:05.520 --> 00:09:09.040 and they they were going to impact it then yes prior to final plot they would 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 00:09:12.640 --> 00:09:22.360 wanted to clarify thank you anybody else on that one okay items for individual 00:09:22.360 --> 00:09:30.680 consideration we do have a general development plan that is recommended for 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 00:09:45.240 --> 00:09:49.640 general development plan which I like to think of kind of the pre-preliminary 00:09:49.640 --> 00:09:53.360 plat for larger projects that want to do a little enhanced planning on the front 00:09:53.360 --> 00:09:59.840 end so this particular GDP is for the same site that we have the rezoning to 00:09:59.840 --> 00:10:06.240 plan development request later this evening this application came in almost 00:10:06.240 --> 00:10:10.480 concurrently with that plan development rezoning and it was just a little bit 00:10:10.480 --> 00:10:14.960 ahead of the curve and because the site does not have that zoning in place yet 00:10:14.960 --> 00:10:18.960 this general development plan cannot be approved until that zoning is approved 00:10:18.960 --> 00:10:22.680 if the zoning is approved so this item is before you tonight because of the 00:10:22.680 --> 00:10:27.040 shot clock bill that requires that within so many days of it being submitted that 00:10:27.040 --> 00:10:31.680 it be brought forward for approval denial so staff is recommending denial 00:10:31.680 --> 00:10:36.120 solely because it does not have that zoning in place yet to allow this lot 00:10:36.120 --> 00:10:42.200 size and density of housing Commissioner Smith thank you chair if we'd recommend 00:10:42.200 --> 00:10:47.920 the denial then does it does this then continue on to to City Council for that 00:10:47.920 --> 00:10:50.920 or they have to withdraw and reapply if the zoning does pass those kinds of 00:10:50.920 --> 00:10:53.840 things what's the what's the denial process in regards I get the shot clock 00:10:53.840 --> 00:10:58.000 reasoning but what's the process from here on out certainly so the GDP is a 00:10:58.000 --> 00:11:02.760 planning and zoning Commission approval so if you were tonight it's like yes it 00:11:02.760 --> 00:11:06.840 will come back before you the process should ultimately be their zoning goes 00:11:06.840 --> 00:11:10.200 through council if it is approved then they would submit this plan back to staff 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 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 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 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 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 00:11:29.960 --> 00:11:33.840 under the old code before that October 1st effective date of the 2019 well 00:11:33.840 --> 00:11:36.760 they come back up within whenever they get denied and they come back in then 00:11:36.760 --> 00:11:40.560 they'll have to come back underneath in the 2019 code then because my 00:11:40.560 --> 00:11:44.400 understanding is because the way state law is written they can stay under that 00:11:44.400 --> 00:11:47.960 code because they have the opportunity to take whatever time they need to get 00:11:47.960 --> 00:11:51.960 the plan into compliance with whatever we the findings were for denial and then 00:11:51.960 --> 00:11:55.840 if they meet those they can come back in and continue forward and then the GDP 00:11:55.840 --> 00:11:59.880 is just for more advanced pre planning essentially pre essentially it was a 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 00:12:03.760 --> 00:12:08.400 additional high-level look at utilities street layout and things like that just 00:12:08.400 --> 00:12:16.520 to allow that extra level of planning Haley along that line of thinking so if 00:12:16.520 --> 00:12:25.040 they're applying for rezoning for a zoning designation in our new code how 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 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 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 00:12:43.800 --> 00:12:47.520 with a zoning designation that didn't exist in the old code correct and I 00:12:47.520 --> 00:12:50.640 certainly understand that their zoning application actually initially came in 00:12:50.640 --> 00:12:56.580 for districts under the O2 code it fell within this transitional period where we 00:12:56.580 --> 00:12:59.400 could not notice for a rezoning under the code that was no longer in effect 00:12:59.400 --> 00:13:03.080 after October 1 so we worked with the applicant to create the best tool to get 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 00:13:07.000 --> 00:13:13.560 DDC so there are the overall intent is to comply with the 2019 code there are 00:13:13.560 --> 00:13:18.480 certain facets of the O2 code that they are vested in the GDP was already in 00:13:18.480 --> 00:13:22.320 process so we elected to allow that to continue forward because like I said 00:13:22.320 --> 00:13:26.160 it's essentially a preliminary plat just a little bit less detail but 00:13:26.160 --> 00:13:30.400 particularly the tree preservation requirements will be looked at under the 00:13:30.400 --> 00:13:34.440 2002 code because chapter 245 of the local government code specifically 00:13:34.440 --> 00:13:40.520 allows that to be vested in so based on their date of application they have the 00:13:40.520 --> 00:13:44.920 ability to pick and choose essentially components of each code since we were in 00:13:44.920 --> 00:13:49.240 that transitional period okay so yeah I guess that's where my question was going 00:13:49.240 --> 00:13:55.160 so they can yes certain elements under 245 different pieces can be pulled from 00:13:55.160 --> 00:13:58.520 the old code they had the choice between which which of those they wanted to go 00:13:58.520 --> 00:14:02.880 with so tree preservation is essentially the only code element that is from the 00:14:02.880 --> 00:14:06.600 O2 code everything else they're intending to meet the 2019 code through 00:14:06.600 --> 00:14:12.640 the PD process and then like I said the GDP was just their existing application 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 00:14:15.680 --> 00:14:19.280 let that continue forward but that process won't exist in the future for 00:14:19.280 --> 00:14:24.080 other projects okay I may have more when we revisit this item 00:14:24.080 --> 00:14:28.960 Commissioner Beck yeah so can you remind me of the difference between the tree 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 00:14:34.140 --> 00:14:38.320 presentation but essentially everything was different different types of tree 00:14:38.320 --> 00:14:42.360 classifications different minimum preservation requirements for the trees 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 00:14:47.120 --> 00:14:56.520 for later so then I'll hold my questions till then okay thank you Haley okay 00:14:56.520 --> 00:15:03.440 moving on to our public hearing items our first is a final replat and that is 00:15:03.440 --> 00:15:05.640 marked 00:15:05.640 --> 00:15:22.960 good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a planner in the development service 00:15:22.960 --> 00:15:26.760 department this evening I have for your consideration the replat of the Golden 00:15:26.760 --> 00:15:38.400 Triangle edition and I stand for any questions that you have I assume this is 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 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 00:16:00.400 --> 00:16:05.960 item B is being pulled as I had said Commissioner Smith for your unification 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 00:16:10.360 --> 00:16:19.240 renoticed for our December 11th meeting okay item C is Julie 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 00:16:38.840 --> 00:16:43.760 Sherman the request before you is to consider a specific use permit for a 00:16:43.760 --> 00:16:48.760 multifamily development the subject property is about 12 acres it is 00:16:48.760 --> 00:16:53.960 currently undeveloped and it is situated between loop 288 to the north and 00:16:53.960 --> 00:17:02.240 poinsettia Boulevard to the south some background on the property in 2002 the 00:17:02.240 --> 00:17:09.040 property was zoned CMG during the citywide rezoning in 2019 it transitioned 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 00:17:14.120 --> 00:17:20.600 transition between the 2002 code and the 2019 code the property is or the project 00:17:20.600 --> 00:17:25.520 is subject to the 2002 Denton development code regulations but 00:17:25.520 --> 00:17:30.560 multifamily work dwellings require an SUP in both the CMG which was the previous 00:17:30.560 --> 00:17:35.160 zoning and the current zoning of SC so here's the subject property right here 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 00:17:39.080 --> 00:17:43.000 surrounding zoning pattern is there's r7 to the south at the townhome 00:17:43.000 --> 00:17:49.520 development at r6 just a little further south than that adjacent to it to the 00:17:49.520 --> 00:17:55.240 east is an r4 subdivision currently under construction there are there's a 00:17:55.240 --> 00:17:59.360 multifamily development in MN to the west of the property and the property 00:17:59.360 --> 00:18:04.080 that is kind of to the northwest of the subject site is currently undeveloped 00:18:04.080 --> 00:18:09.240 but commercial development will be developed in the near future at that 00:18:09.240 --> 00:18:16.120 location the SUP criteria for approval and in the 2002 Denton development code 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 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 00:18:24.880 --> 00:18:29.080 that that criteria for approval in more detail so first of all we always look at 00:18:29.080 --> 00:18:34.080 the Denton plan 2030 when we when we start analyzing a proposal in this case 00:18:34.080 --> 00:18:38.200 the future land use is community mixed use the intent of that is to provide a 00:18:38.200 --> 00:18:44.000 mix of uses more commercial service and then some more high density development 00:18:44.000 --> 00:18:50.120 or residential uses and to complement the commercial center so really to to 00:18:50.120 --> 00:18:56.120 encourage a diversity of use to to have a more dynamic development pattern in 00:18:56.120 --> 00:19:02.120 these areas multifamily is consistent with the future land use map once again 00:19:02.120 --> 00:19:05.400 first of all it is a complementary residential use for mixed use districts 00:19:05.400 --> 00:19:11.680 it's often found in mixed use districts and within that larger future land use 00:19:11.680 --> 00:19:16.040 designation there are variations and in this instance because it's really close 00:19:16.040 --> 00:19:21.520 to a residential area a residential use like multifamily would maintain that 00:19:21.520 --> 00:19:27.040 residential character along that edge where those where the the residential 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 00:19:33.400 --> 00:19:38.880 2030 also talks about the growth projections for Denton and that by 2030 00:19:38.880 --> 00:19:44.440 our our projected population will be a little over 200,000 people in order to 00:19:44.440 --> 00:19:49.240 accommodate all those of those residents there will need to be new housing units 00:19:49.240 --> 00:19:54.080 and as part of that multifamily multifamily is an appropriate use and 00:19:54.080 --> 00:19:57.200 is something we want to see and kind of our urbanized areas and in those 00:19:57.200 --> 00:20:02.640 strategic locations next to arterials places like loop 288 where there's 00:20:02.640 --> 00:20:08.720 proximity to existing residential also schools and shopping so so this this 00:20:08.720 --> 00:20:15.560 this area is really consistent with what the comp plan calls for to look a little 00:20:15.560 --> 00:20:18.920 more specifically about what they're proposing want to talk about the site 00:20:18.920 --> 00:20:24.640 plan so the the site is kind of a triangular shape if they are proposing 00:20:24.640 --> 00:20:29.880 eight three-story buildings and those are outlined in purple the proposal is 00:20:29.880 --> 00:20:35.000 oriented toward loop 288 so the main entrance to the development would be off 00:20:35.000 --> 00:20:41.000 of loop 288 they are proposing three access points with controlled access the 00:20:41.000 --> 00:20:48.760 full in and out access adjacent to loop 288 and then two exit only points one 00:20:48.760 --> 00:20:52.680 to the adjacent future commercial development that would be the most 00:20:52.680 --> 00:20:59.400 direct access to FM 428 to Sherman Drive and then another exit only point on to 00:20:59.400 --> 00:21:05.380 point study up they are proposing a community pool with a clubhouse also 00:21:05.380 --> 00:21:10.080 some open space areas one that would include a fire pit and and outdoor 00:21:10.080 --> 00:21:15.760 eating also proposing a dog park in this location that would be controlled access 00:21:15.760 --> 00:21:20.000 for the dogs excuse me Julie commissioner Bernetta yeah I just have a 00:21:20.000 --> 00:21:25.840 question when I'm looking at the aerial map and the you know the notification and 00:21:25.840 --> 00:21:30.880 response map it includes the the yellow outline includes that little section that 00:21:30.880 --> 00:21:36.560 goes out to Sherman yes the notification got a little overzealous it actually was 00:21:36.560 --> 00:21:42.100 over notified okay so yes there the little the notification map included 00:21:42.100 --> 00:21:46.880 this little section here which was in addition to the subject property so in 00:21:46.880 --> 00:21:51.800 the actual subject property is just that part outlined in yellow okay so we're 00:21:51.800 --> 00:21:55.040 voting we're just going on that spot right correct yes sir thank you very 00:21:55.040 --> 00:22:01.440 much there is there are additional open a meaningful open space areas one here 00:22:01.440 --> 00:22:05.840 adjacent to that single-family neighborhood kind of separating this 00:22:05.840 --> 00:22:10.840 residential building from from that that single-family lot and then and then in 00:22:10.840 --> 00:22:15.520 this location they're also proposing some one-story garages those are 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 00:22:19.640 --> 00:22:24.400 on adjacent to poinsettia to allow that sort of visual buffer to set those 00:22:24.400 --> 00:22:28.120 residential backs that the the taller residential buildings back a little 00:22:28.120 --> 00:22:34.320 further from the existing development that the three-story residential buildings 00:22:34.320 --> 00:22:40.520 are set back a minimum of 101 feet from the south property line and then about 00:22:40.520 --> 00:22:45.120 49 feet from the east property line and the proposal does meet the the minimum 00:22:45.120 --> 00:22:51.520 parking regulations the landscape plan shows that they are proposing 163 new 00:22:51.520 --> 00:22:56.760 large canopy trees at maturity that would be about 200,000 square feet of 00:22:56.760 --> 00:23:03.840 canopy as as part of that they're proposing 47 large canopy trees along 00:23:03.840 --> 00:23:08.080 the southern edge and that is in addition to the required 24 street trees 00:23:08.080 --> 00:23:11.040 those are actually medium canopy trees those are a little smaller they're 00:23:11.040 --> 00:23:14.560 proposing some additional large canopy trees to make sure there's that visual 00:23:14.560 --> 00:23:19.440 buffer between the existing residential and the proposal there's also as I 00:23:19.440 --> 00:23:23.600 mentioned that open space area adjacent to between the development and that 00:23:23.600 --> 00:23:30.040 adjacent single-family lot and that would include a landscape buffer that's 00:23:30.040 --> 00:23:36.240 required for the code I'm sure Commissioner back so on that regard and 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 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 00:23:45.120 --> 00:23:50.840 there's no ways of attaining the standard since I believe you said they 00:23:50.840 --> 00:23:55.600 were below the standard for trees no they actually meet not only the 2002 00:23:55.600 --> 00:24:01.120 tree code requirements they actually meet the 2019 requirements a lot of the 00:24:01.120 --> 00:24:05.040 trees on the site were kind of fence line trees most of them were secondary 00:24:05.040 --> 00:24:10.520 trees and they actually meet both both codes on that my mistake thank you but a 00:24:10.520 --> 00:24:13.800 lot but tree preservation is important in this line because a lot of their 00:24:13.800 --> 00:24:16.760 preserved trees are these fence line trees that are existing right here so 00:24:16.760 --> 00:24:20.720 they're maintaining those existing trees to provide that that good buffer between 00:24:20.720 --> 00:24:25.320 them and the single-family residential there is a perimeter fence around the 00:24:25.320 --> 00:24:28.920 subject property it's going to be a combination if approved of ornamental 00:24:28.920 --> 00:24:34.360 metal board-on-board cedar and masonry columns and one place I want you to zoom 00:24:34.360 --> 00:24:39.200 into is that the the property line adjacent to poinsettia they are 00:24:39.200 --> 00:24:43.680 proposing board-on-board cedar fence with recesses and projections and it's 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 00:24:49.080 --> 00:24:54.000 allow landscaping planting areas I mean to break up kind of the monotony of a 00:24:54.000 --> 00:24:58.320 really long fence and although we really like that visual interest we do have 00:24:58.320 --> 00:25:01.480 concerns about the durability of those materials and so staff is actually 00:25:01.480 --> 00:25:06.880 recommending a condition that that fence either be a wrought iron with with a a 00:25:06.880 --> 00:25:16.640 evergreen shrub a screening device along that that perimeter or a masonry wall 00:25:16.640 --> 00:25:21.040 here are their sample elevations and this this one shows a little bit better 00:25:21.040 --> 00:25:25.800 about what they're proposing for that south fence line but they are proposing 00:25:25.800 --> 00:25:30.600 three-story buildings with a neutral color palette balconies or patios are in 00:25:30.600 --> 00:25:36.400 100% of their units awnings decorative wall lighting and a variety of recesses 00:25:36.400 --> 00:25:40.960 and projections are going to provide relief reduce that bulk of those 00:25:40.960 --> 00:25:46.280 buildings also the appearance of the stairwells those are their appearance is 00:25:46.280 --> 00:25:53.120 minimized from the exterior of those buildings there is if this is approved 00:25:53.120 --> 00:25:58.160 there will be another item or another project that will come before you and 00:25:58.160 --> 00:26:02.480 that's an alternative development plan because it's under the 2002 code there 00:26:02.480 --> 00:26:07.000 is that alternative development plan a provision that if they need a deviation 00:26:07.000 --> 00:26:12.280 from one of the subchapter 13 requirements there are two first a 00:26:12.280 --> 00:26:16.280 project greater than three acres has to have a public or private street system 00:26:16.280 --> 00:26:19.080 the way they're laying out their buildings and proposing they've actually 00:26:19.080 --> 00:26:24.040 got tuck under garages and all of their buildings so it kind of breaks up that 00:26:24.040 --> 00:26:29.440 long private street system so they would need an alternative development plan to 00:26:29.440 --> 00:26:36.440 deviate from that provision and then also the code prohibits garages between 00:26:36.440 --> 00:26:41.680 the the buildings and the street in this instance the garage is really work in in 00:26:41.680 --> 00:26:45.720 in order to set those residential buildings back to have those one-story 00:26:45.720 --> 00:26:50.000 buildings closer to that existing neighborhood so the proposal does meet 00:26:50.000 --> 00:26:53.920 the requirements for an ADP it'll come back before you if this is approved by 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 00:27:01.360 --> 00:27:07.320 request as part of it they did provide trip generation there there their 00:27:07.320 --> 00:27:13.680 estimates show that there would be about 1,800 trips generated per 24-hour weekday 00:27:13.680 --> 00:27:19.000 and that would be 113 in the morning peak and then 133 in the evening peak 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 00:27:22.920 --> 00:27:27.360 corner once that commercial piece comes in their estimate is that it would be 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 00:27:35.480 --> 00:27:39.880 that they took into consideration the future commercial development in the 00:27:39.880 --> 00:27:45.800 existing homes what about the single-family developments that are 00:27:45.800 --> 00:27:50.520 effectively on both sides of the development were those considered at all 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 00:27:55.560 --> 00:28:01.320 of the data because the Harvest Hill all of the data from the Harvest Hill 00:28:01.320 --> 00:28:05.960 subdivision and the trips generated from that also the TIA that was prepared for 00:28:05.960 --> 00:28:11.400 the palladium development that adjacent multifamily development and sort of took 00:28:11.400 --> 00:28:16.320 all of that into consideration when they were developing this got a new 00:28:16.320 --> 00:28:22.480 development on the other side of 428 the J the development actually they did 00:28:22.480 --> 00:28:27.880 because poinsettia is actually going to punch across FM 428 so if you look at a 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 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 00:28:46.560 --> 00:28:51.360 think it's a road yet but this is actually going to punch across and and 00:28:51.360 --> 00:28:55.920 part of their analysis of this intersection of poinsettia and FM 428 00:28:55.920 --> 00:29:01.440 took into account that that that movement across that intersection and in 00:29:01.440 --> 00:29:07.920 fact their their analysis by their analysis they feel that once all of this 00:29:07.920 --> 00:29:13.520 is kind of developed that that the the intersection of poinsettia and Sherman FM 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 00:29:18.960 --> 00:29:23.240 it really it was considered as part of it the single-family homes that are 00:29:23.240 --> 00:29:26.040 going in on that corner yeah the whole development because this is 00:29:26.040 --> 00:29:29.080 actually supposed to be commercial as well so there's gonna be a lot going on 00:29:29.080 --> 00:29:36.640 in this in this area completely agree okay thanks but that was a great segue 00:29:36.640 --> 00:29:40.600 into talking about intersections so their TIA's it's been a lot of time 00:29:40.600 --> 00:29:45.920 talking about those intersections first was well first a little bit of 00:29:45.920 --> 00:29:54.000 background so they're given a grade a to F depending on the delay that that 00:29:54.000 --> 00:29:59.080 drivers experience at those intersections a being the least amount of delay like 00:29:59.080 --> 00:30:04.480 10 seconds or less I believe and then F being a substantial delay 50 seconds or 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 00:30:13.560 --> 00:30:16.800 intersection because it's a pretty complicated intersection but it ran the 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 00:30:23.600 --> 00:30:28.960 free-flowing but then those those cars exiting the the loop and having any 00:30:28.960 --> 00:30:33.800 left-turn movements really had substantial delays I believe up until 00:30:33.800 --> 00:30:38.720 four minutes of delays so so that that intersection currently meets the 00:30:38.720 --> 00:30:42.120 warrants for signal I talked to engineering it is supposed to be 00:30:42.120 --> 00:30:47.120 installed within the next six to eight months they they know that this is a 00:30:47.120 --> 00:30:52.000 really tough intersection for those residents in that area and so as an 00:30:52.000 --> 00:30:57.320 interim step they're going to be installing for always stops within in 00:30:57.320 --> 00:31:00.880 December that I believe the first couple of weeks in December is when they say 00:31:00.880 --> 00:31:04.760 they're estimated to be installed so so that is forthcoming and that'll be an 00:31:04.760 --> 00:31:10.000 interim step for that signal and then as you mentioned the FM 428 in Poinsettia 00:31:10.000 --> 00:31:16.880 that westbound traffic that especially is turning left onto FM 428 Sherman Drive 00:31:16.880 --> 00:31:21.340 or at some point what could potentially go straight that is that is those 00:31:21.340 --> 00:31:25.320 drivers are experiencing the most difficult turning movement especially in 00:31:25.320 --> 00:31:30.840 the morning the evening as it as a interim step the recommendation is to 00:31:30.840 --> 00:31:35.520 restripe that road to have a dedicated left turn lane and then sort of a 00:31:35.520 --> 00:31:39.660 bifurcate the left turning movements or the right turning movements who would go 00:31:39.660 --> 00:31:43.960 north on that road and that will help ease it until until that meets that 00:31:43.960 --> 00:31:48.240 warrants for the light and when is that planned June it would be with the 00:31:48.240 --> 00:31:51.920 development of the project yeah it would be the design would happen during 00:31:51.920 --> 00:31:58.160 platting and development if it was approved Commissioner Beck Sherman 428 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 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 00:32:06.640 --> 00:32:12.640 be converting over to the city pretty soon and are we widen widening that to 00:32:12.640 --> 00:32:17.560 accommodate all the development on either side that are being proposed 00:32:17.560 --> 00:32:26.760 there's not a plan to do that with inside the loop there are also perimeter 00:32:26.760 --> 00:32:30.960 street improvements that would be required as if this is approved the 00:32:30.960 --> 00:32:37.520 developer would would construct kind of a spur off of the off of the entrance 00:32:37.520 --> 00:32:42.480 ramp for loop 288 connecting down to point study a here to provide that sort 00:32:42.480 --> 00:32:47.400 of looping circulation pattern so if this was approved there would be a spur 00:32:47.400 --> 00:32:53.200 sort of the beginnings of the acts of the frontage roads for loop 288 that 00:32:53.200 --> 00:32:57.680 would be constructed in front of the proposed Julie while we're on the 00:32:57.680 --> 00:33:04.120 discussion of points Etta it seems to me with that multifamily the palladium that 00:33:04.120 --> 00:33:08.200 went in did we not have some kind of restriction there that there would be no 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 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 00:33:18.600 --> 00:33:24.720 how I remember the discussion I just don't know necessarily what I'm trying 00:33:24.720 --> 00:33:31.040 to recall I believe I think there was on street parking already existing if I'm 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 00:33:34.080 --> 00:33:39.040 did not permit them to include off-street parking I'm sorry on street 00:33:39.040 --> 00:33:43.080 parking to count towards meeting their parking requirement but we didn't change 00:33:43.080 --> 00:33:47.400 anything for point said yeah okay can we maybe Claire can you look that up in 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 00:33:50.320 --> 00:33:54.960 there now for on street but you know it's getting really dense in there right 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 00:34:01.480 --> 00:34:05.760 residents about their concern for people parking on the street guests in these 00:34:05.760 --> 00:34:10.520 multifamilies if they can't find guest parking I know the conversation was had 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 00:34:15.440 --> 00:34:24.320 appreciate them thanks all right other infrastructure there is a public water 00:34:24.320 --> 00:34:27.680 and sewer available they would have to extend an eight-inch water line along 00:34:27.680 --> 00:34:33.960 that north loop 288 the part that they're building that that frontage road 00:34:33.960 --> 00:34:39.920 Waterworks Park is pretty near the proposal but it is still about 3,500 00:34:39.920 --> 00:34:44.680 linear feet from the subject property and the sidewalks not not always there 00:34:44.680 --> 00:34:49.560 so the applicant is proposing some on-site recreational amenities we talked 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 00:34:56.080 --> 00:35:01.040 dedication and development fees when they when they would final plat or and 00:35:01.040 --> 00:35:06.040 pull any building permits it is within the Wilson elementary Strickland middle 00:35:06.040 --> 00:35:12.680 school and Ryan high school attendance zones according to DISD the amount of 00:35:12.680 --> 00:35:17.600 elementary students would would stress the capacity at Wilson elementary but 00:35:17.600 --> 00:35:21.240 Strickland and Ryan have the capacity for additional students Wilson elementary 00:35:21.240 --> 00:35:24.960 is also being is about to be reconstructed as well so there's a lot 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 00:35:28.640 --> 00:35:31.800 issue on another development we're going to be talking about about how we don't 00:35:31.800 --> 00:35:38.600 have the capacity in the existing zoned elementary school so how does the city 00:35:38.600 --> 00:35:45.640 consider that when when examining a project like this we look at all factors 00:35:45.640 --> 00:35:49.640 associated with it and it kind of and especially in this one because there are 00:35:49.640 --> 00:35:56.220 improvements coming to that Wilson elementary but you know it's one factor 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 00:36:02.000 --> 00:36:06.960 and and when DISD comes to you and says it would stress capacity or for this 00:36:06.960 --> 00:36:13.400 other development that we're going to discuss they'd have to be rezoned do you 00:36:13.400 --> 00:36:18.680 work in collaboration I mean how how how is DISD gonna accommodate these kids we 00:36:18.680 --> 00:36:22.140 do try to work in collaboration with them to let them know what's coming so 00:36:22.140 --> 00:36:26.520 that as they plan for the future they can make sure that they have you know 00:36:26.520 --> 00:36:33.840 adequate facilities so we're pretty in constant contact with those things get 00:36:33.840 --> 00:36:37.720 approved and if things get rolling the communication will be such so things can 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 00:36:43.760 --> 00:36:48.760 little unclear is are they stressing the existing pre-construction Wilson or the 00:36:48.760 --> 00:36:55.520 stressing the post-construction Wilson you know it he wasn't really clear on 00:36:55.520 --> 00:36:59.440 which one it was but I know they are right in the middle of the the 00:36:59.440 --> 00:37:03.900 reconstruction of the entire building so you know as part of their planning 00:37:03.900 --> 00:37:08.040 process they're they're looking at all of them are our properties in those 00:37:08.040 --> 00:37:11.520 projects that are coming forward 00:37:14.040 --> 00:37:20.280 all right public outreach was done for the proposal it did have the are required 00:37:20.280 --> 00:37:28.200 notifications we have received two letters in opposition neither of those 00:37:28.200 --> 00:37:32.160 were are within the 200 foot boundary from the subject property and one 00:37:32.160 --> 00:37:37.520 letter in favor that is within 200 feet it's about in this location they did 00:37:37.520 --> 00:37:42.240 have a neighborhood meeting over in July I wasn't able to attend there was a 00:37:42.240 --> 00:37:46.280 conflict but and we did ask him to hold in another neighborhood meeting but they 00:37:46.280 --> 00:37:50.320 they did decline to have that Julie did you get any information from them 00:37:50.320 --> 00:37:53.960 regarding what was transpired at the meeting there were only five who showed 00:37:53.960 --> 00:37:57.400 up and they you know according to the applicant there really wasn't a lot of 00:37:57.400 --> 00:38:04.640 concern with it with with the proposal so and that seems to be consistent with 00:38:04.640 --> 00:38:07.400 what I've heard because they just haven't heard a lot from from the 00:38:07.400 --> 00:38:13.440 residents around there so based upon the criteria for approval staff does 00:38:13.440 --> 00:38:19.040 recommend approval our recommendation includes a sort of listing of what the 00:38:19.040 --> 00:38:24.660 site plan landscape plan and elevations have that if approved they would they 00:38:24.660 --> 00:38:28.040 could build eight three-story buildings with them in any Center and Clubhouse 00:38:28.040 --> 00:38:33.400 and the 19 accessory structures that includes both excuse me the garages as 00:38:33.400 --> 00:38:39.880 well as some carport some covered parking they're proposing 200 and sorry 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 00:38:46.440 --> 00:38:52.840 acre they they're proposing 460 parking spaces with which those that meets our 00:38:52.840 --> 00:38:58.480 parking requirements and the site specifies a total of 67 percent lock 00:38:58.480 --> 00:39:05.280 coverage and 33% landscape area and then the open space areas are to include a 00:39:05.280 --> 00:39:10.560 minimum of 12 seating spaces Julie sorry can you go yeah actually yeah right 00:39:10.560 --> 00:39:15.280 there I'm having a hard time with the line the recommendation line where it 00:39:15.280 --> 00:39:20.960 says increases greater than 5% somehow my brain is not that sentence is not 00:39:20.960 --> 00:39:25.720 working for me so would you mind explaining that so up to what point so 00:39:25.720 --> 00:39:31.760 if there for just for just numbers two through four and and this is because we 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 00:39:37.120 --> 00:39:46.360 allow staff to approve increases up to five percent of the the 248 dwelling 00:39:46.360 --> 00:39:50.760 units or parking spaces or that lock coverage so there would only be that 00:39:50.760 --> 00:39:56.480 that minimum of 5% that staff could approve and then any decrease in that 00:39:56.480 --> 00:40:00.560 amount staff could approve but anything over the 5% it would have to go back 00:40:00.560 --> 00:40:05.200 through the public hearing process right and that's why that line doesn't make 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 00:40:08.200 --> 00:40:13.440 that 5% it's still under the maximum that's allowed or minimum depending 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 00:40:16.760 --> 00:40:23.400 allows it's just for this development and so commissioner yeah I just agree 00:40:23.400 --> 00:40:27.800 very vice-chair we probably change that wording I know that's not what's 00:40:27.800 --> 00:40:30.800 codifying at all I just it increases greater than 5% of the amount specified 00:40:30.800 --> 00:40:35.440 requirements two through four provided a lot of requirements the DDC I met okay 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 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 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 00:40:58.920 --> 00:41:05.880 little clear they also proposing a minimum of eight dogway stations in the 00:41:05.880 --> 00:41:11.520 open space areas and then I want to make sure we codified that 71 large and 00:41:11.520 --> 00:41:14.720 medium canopy trees along that southern boundary that's a really important edge 00:41:14.720 --> 00:41:18.640 Commissioner Smith thank you sir first year first time I think I've ever 00:41:18.640 --> 00:41:22.960 really seen before we've we've been codifying kind of the site plan stuff 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 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 00:41:30.560 --> 00:41:35.600 an SEP to be able to use in that in that zoning district but codifying hey 00:41:35.600 --> 00:41:39.680 give us this this preliminary site plan kind of and we're now codifying what you 00:41:39.680 --> 00:41:44.600 give us preliminarily it seems a little weird but well when when these site 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 00:41:47.880 --> 00:41:52.440 of small writing when they're shrunk down to fit on an ordinance they're 00:41:52.440 --> 00:41:57.200 illegible oftentimes so the point is to kind of have a text sort of laying out 00:41:57.200 --> 00:42:03.120 just the broad brushstrokes of what they're proposing so that future future 00:42:03.120 --> 00:42:08.880 planners and and and development of those in the development services 00:42:08.880 --> 00:42:13.080 department can figure out what we what was actually approved okay you guys 00:42:13.080 --> 00:42:17.400 didn't include anything on in that recommend or I guess yeah in that 00:42:17.400 --> 00:42:21.240 recommendation I don't see anything maybe it's in the slide you're about to 00:42:21.240 --> 00:42:27.680 get to which is the landscaping okay yeah so we do recommend approval but we 00:42:27.680 --> 00:42:34.840 are proposing some conditions that they that they're that the landscaping is 00:42:34.840 --> 00:42:43.080 intended to comply with the DDC and and that they need to comply with the 00:42:43.080 --> 00:42:48.640 landscaping and the site plan the parking area light fixtures can be 00:42:48.640 --> 00:42:52.560 determined at building permit but we want to make sure that they're at a at 00:42:52.560 --> 00:42:59.240 a level that is is provide safety for for the residents of the development 00:42:59.240 --> 00:43:04.360 but also that they're that they're not shining on the adjacent residential so 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 00:43:09.060 --> 00:43:14.920 fencing materials you can finish your sentence oh just just that recommendation 00:43:14.920 --> 00:43:20.240 for the the wrought iron with the screening hedge or the the fencing 00:43:20.240 --> 00:43:24.200 materials of the masonry so I saw this in the staff analysis the staff 00:43:24.200 --> 00:43:27.800 recommendation you had the site plan requirements and then you had staff 00:43:27.800 --> 00:43:32.480 recommends approval ASB with following conditions it's it's just worded weird 00:43:32.480 --> 00:43:36.400 Julie just this our staff recommendations these three things plus 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 00:43:41.960 --> 00:43:48.160 answer is yes we're also proposing the additional condition that within 30 days 00:43:48.160 --> 00:43:50.880 of council approval that they do come forward to the planning and zoning 00:43:50.880 --> 00:43:54.920 Commission with the ADP to deviate from those two provisions that we talked 00:43:54.920 --> 00:44:01.520 about earlier and that and then not withstanding the limited administrative 00:44:01.520 --> 00:44:06.280 approvals that 5% the city reserves the right to require approval by ordinance 00:44:06.280 --> 00:44:13.520 of any amendments to the SUP the attached site plan the elements described in order 00:44:13.520 --> 00:44:16.840 that they do have to comply with the site plan that they're that they're 00:44:16.840 --> 00:44:22.120 proposing we have notified of them of the conditions I think they were a little 00:44:22.120 --> 00:44:26.440 concerned about the perimeter fence provision that that we recommended but 00:44:26.440 --> 00:44:32.200 the applicant will be here tonight to talk to you and to answer any questions 00:44:32.200 --> 00:44:36.800 mr. Smith was the concern with the fence materials well I think they were they 00:44:36.800 --> 00:44:42.480 really you know they I think they thought a lot about that that board on 00:44:42.480 --> 00:44:46.160 board cedar and that this the sort of undulations of it to allow those 00:44:46.160 --> 00:44:49.320 landscaping areas and that was something that they really felt felt that they 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 00:44:54.240 --> 00:44:57.960 want to make sure that we have durable materials along our rights away and that 00:44:57.960 --> 00:45:03.720 that they stay nice for a really long time and so those were conversations we 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 00:45:08.440 --> 00:45:11.800 but that was just something that staff felt pretty strongly about how many feet 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 00:45:16.000 --> 00:45:20.400 I'm just looking at it from a cost perspective that we're being wrought 00:45:20.400 --> 00:45:25.440 iron and wrought iron and see your board on board isn't too dissimilar but 00:45:25.440 --> 00:45:31.000 masonry if they're wanting something that is not transparent at all masonry 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 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 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 00:45:55.740 --> 00:46:00.960 gracious enough to pull it the ordinance from palladium there were seven 00:46:00.960 --> 00:46:05.640 conditions in total one the site plan required exterior building materials 00:46:05.640 --> 00:46:11.240 maintain the muted earth tone 12 foot setback from the property lines six foot 00:46:11.240 --> 00:46:16.460 ironically six foot decorative masonry wall with street trees and then here was 00:46:16.460 --> 00:46:20.200 no on-street parking for tenants is permitted and then the project should 00:46:20.200 --> 00:46:23.160 not be eligible for any on-street parking credits and then there was a 00:46:23.160 --> 00:46:27.320 limitation on the connection to the north to the commercial development so 00:46:27.320 --> 00:46:31.640 those were the seven conditions that were placed on that property for approval 00:46:31.640 --> 00:46:34.520 so they didn't really place the restriction on parking on points that 00:46:34.520 --> 00:46:45.480 you drive but it was for the development itself okay so when we say that the 00:46:45.480 --> 00:46:50.720 on-street parking was not permitted for tenants that doesn't exclude guests but 00:46:50.720 --> 00:46:55.120 but we're but when we're making that count the impact is the calculation in 00:46:55.120 --> 00:46:58.840 terms of how many parking spots they are projecting that they won't have on the 00:46:58.840 --> 00:47:04.040 property yes yes so all of all of what would have been required is is contained 00:47:04.040 --> 00:47:09.680 within the the property or the boundaries of their site okay thank you 00:47:09.680 --> 00:47:21.800 right that takes us to our next public hearing which is it's Julie again 00:47:25.560 --> 00:47:31.240 all right 00:47:31.240 --> 00:47:41.500 all right this is the 1912 Mockingbird single-family residential and the 00:47:41.500 --> 00:47:47.720 request before you is to rezone about 2.6 acres from r2 to r4 district the 00:47:47.720 --> 00:47:52.240 property is outlined here in yellow it's a flag-shaped piece of property the 00:47:52.240 --> 00:47:55.920 surrounding development is existing seeing suburban style single-family 00:47:55.920 --> 00:48:00.920 neighborhoods there are a few remaining large parcels nearby you can see 00:48:00.920 --> 00:48:04.880 adjacent to the property and north of Audre there's some some large parcels 00:48:04.880 --> 00:48:10.080 that still remain and the majority of the trees on site are fence line trees 00:48:10.080 --> 00:48:13.760 along the perimeter you kind of see the shadow of them there and then per the 00:48:13.760 --> 00:48:19.680 applicant the purpose is to develop nine single-family residential buildings so 00:48:19.680 --> 00:48:24.160 this is the current zoning map here you could see the surrounding zoning the 00:48:24.160 --> 00:48:29.320 subject property is outlined in black there is r2 on the subject property as 00:48:29.320 --> 00:48:34.600 well as north of Audre surrounding the subject property on the east and south 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 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 00:48:48.120 --> 00:48:52.120 the request was approved this would be the zoning map it would extend that 00:48:52.120 --> 00:49:01.880 existing r4 to the subject property having having that kind of extension of 00:49:01.880 --> 00:49:10.440 it and and the continuation of that r4 district to the north so the the 2019 00:49:10.440 --> 00:49:14.120 Denton Development Code has a lot more criteria for approval for a zoning case 00:49:14.120 --> 00:49:18.400 than the 2002 Denton Development Code we have the general criteria as well as 00:49:18.400 --> 00:49:23.960 then the criteria that are specific to that project type it's all outlined in 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 00:49:27.480 --> 00:49:33.560 that are the most most pertinent to the request the the general approval 00:49:33.560 --> 00:49:37.280 criteria for all applications today we're going to be talking about mostly 00:49:37.280 --> 00:49:41.400 number three the consistency with the comprehensive plan and other applicable 00:49:41.400 --> 00:49:46.000 plans and then also eight minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property 00:49:46.000 --> 00:49:50.120 for the specific zoning criteria for approval we'll be talking about few more 00:49:50.120 --> 00:49:56.720 of those and those are outlined there in bold so first when we talked about the 00:49:56.720 --> 00:50:01.840 the first general criterion and then the zoning criterion a that has to do with 00:50:01.840 --> 00:50:06.120 our comprehensive plan so the subject property has is in an area designated 00:50:06.120 --> 00:50:11.280 for low density residential typically we see this it's intended for single 00:50:11.280 --> 00:50:17.160 family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre due to the new provisions 00:50:17.160 --> 00:50:20.640 within that within the Denton Development Code that minimum lot size 00:50:20.640 --> 00:50:26.400 instead of the density that shorthand density that we had in the 2002 code the 00:50:26.400 --> 00:50:32.880 minimum lot size for our four which is what they're proposing is 7,000 square 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 00:50:39.520 --> 00:50:44.560 or I'm sorry lot size with the with the acreage square footage you would get 00:50:44.560 --> 00:50:48.080 about six dwelling units per acre but that wouldn't include all the streets you 00:50:48.080 --> 00:50:53.320 would have to do any open space detention so although this is doesn't 00:50:53.320 --> 00:50:58.760 precisely conform to that low residential maximum density this does 00:50:58.760 --> 00:51:03.720 meet the overall goals of the of the didn't plan 2030 and most importantly is 00:51:03.720 --> 00:51:07.720 that it provides that infill development to provide for that compact development 00:51:07.720 --> 00:51:11.320 pattern that is part of the vision statement as well as our preferred growth 00:51:11.320 --> 00:51:17.860 concept criterion eight talks about minimizing impacts to the surrounding 00:51:17.860 --> 00:51:22.680 property the proposed r4 is consistent with the surrounding neighbor existing 00:51:22.680 --> 00:51:28.160 neighborhoods in both use because it's a primarily single-family zoning district 00:51:28.160 --> 00:51:35.080 as well as development scale so we did an analysis of the surrounding plots and 00:51:35.080 --> 00:51:38.760 looked at how those neighborhoods that have developed over the last decades 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 00:51:44.600 --> 00:51:48.000 typical lot sizes surrounding the property range anywhere from about six 00:51:48.000 --> 00:51:52.800 thousand square feet to about 7,500 square feet so the proposed r4 with the 00:51:52.800 --> 00:51:56.640 minimum 7,000 square foot lot size is really consistent with what's around 00:51:56.640 --> 00:52:03.520 there and in use they are proposing single-family uses r4 does allow duplexes 00:52:03.520 --> 00:52:08.200 in townhomes but those we have to have to acquire an SUP so it would require 00:52:08.200 --> 00:52:11.380 additional scrutiny it would require public hearing and approval by City 00:52:11.380 --> 00:52:16.640 Council so Julie on that note that's the biggest concern I have with making this 00:52:16.640 --> 00:52:23.120 change you know so an SUP doesn't really necessarily keep townhomes or duplexes 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 00:52:28.440 --> 00:52:33.600 is there any way that we can restrict this development to being single-family 00:52:33.600 --> 00:52:39.040 detached have you considered that I mean is I understand that it changes things 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 00:52:48.480 --> 00:52:53.120 what what taking it from r2 to r4 does with certain things because general 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 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 00:53:06.640 --> 00:53:11.720 through because we don't have that residential mixed-use overlay provision 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 00:53:18.400 --> 00:53:24.800 would if that whether or not we would actually proceed under this application 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 00:53:32.200 --> 00:53:38.680 maybe get yeah your thoughts on and others thoughts on well when staff did 00:53:38.680 --> 00:53:42.560 our analysis when you really look and this is this is the surrounding area and 00:53:42.560 --> 00:53:46.000 this is it's a little broader view of just the subject property it really is 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 00:53:51.520 --> 00:53:57.040 the most consistent and the most the predominant zoning district in that 00:53:57.040 --> 00:54:00.800 area so anything that would be developed in this property would be consistent with 00:54:00.800 --> 00:54:06.120 what the the surrounding zoning is and what those uses and development scale 00:54:06.120 --> 00:54:15.720 would be so this is really close to Commissioner Ellis's question and that 00:54:15.720 --> 00:54:22.080 is if they were to go back and seek a special use permit would we then 00:54:22.080 --> 00:54:27.120 generally not be in favor because it wouldn't be consistent I mean this is my 00:54:27.120 --> 00:54:33.200 this was my concern in reading this is is the use is not limited to the 00:54:33.200 --> 00:54:39.480 advertise the mean the advertised use that we're describing for you know that 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 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 00:54:51.160 --> 00:54:56.020 require additional analysis by staff and so at this point I can't tell you if 00:54:56.020 --> 00:54:59.240 staff would recommend denial or approval because we want to go through the 00:54:59.240 --> 00:55:04.000 criteria for approval especially you know our SUPs have a lot of detail 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 00:55:08.120 --> 00:55:13.000 uses we would want to see that level of detail to see what the compatibility 00:55:13.000 --> 00:55:21.000 would be with those adjacent properties so until we saw that specific specific 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 00:55:25.520 --> 00:55:36.080 recommend I mean we when we did look and we looked at this this properties come 00:55:36.080 --> 00:55:42.240 back back and forth between various iterations not necessarily with this 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 00:55:45.680 --> 00:55:51.040 these infill sites there was one iteration of I think townhomes that we 00:55:51.040 --> 00:55:57.760 did see and that was something we were not we were not supportive of and we 00:55:57.760 --> 00:56:01.080 were clear with that I think that's ultimately what brought it to what you 00:56:01.080 --> 00:56:05.880 have here today and again as Julie mentioned we were comfortable allowing it 00:56:05.880 --> 00:56:10.660 those uses as an SGP they go to this body obviously if this body recommends 00:56:10.660 --> 00:56:15.240 denial then it goes to City Council for ultimate decision but it would require a 00:56:15.240 --> 00:56:24.720 super majority at that point can I follow up on that if if they but they 00:56:24.720 --> 00:56:30.160 can go back and apply for a PD or something else that would sort of given 00:56:30.160 --> 00:56:36.760 the comments of at least some of us here in this meeting error potentially tonight 00:56:36.760 --> 00:56:43.520 they could still come back in and have a way of infilling that would be single 00:56:43.520 --> 00:56:47.240 family enforced in some way they wouldn't be precluded from developing 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 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 00:56:57.520 --> 00:57:01.740 would require a super majority vote and then it would be up to council to decide 00:57:01.740 --> 00:57:07.060 whether or not it beats the merits of the criteria for a rezoning I guess what 00:57:07.060 --> 00:57:13.160 I'm saying is if they accepted our denial does the developer then have the 00:57:13.160 --> 00:57:16.400 opportunity to come back with something else I mean they they could with they 00:57:16.400 --> 00:57:21.020 could withdraw their application we saw that with 00:57:25.160 --> 00:57:31.240 agave ranch there's a recommendation of a denial they modify their plan and then 00:57:31.240 --> 00:57:34.520 and then came back with a different request that's certainly not an option 00:57:34.520 --> 00:57:37.840 for them but that's that's up to them okay thank you 00:57:37.840 --> 00:57:42.000 Commissioner Anderson thank you would this be no avoid because it right there 00:57:42.000 --> 00:57:47.520 it says multifamily dwellings would not be permitted I mean multifamily dwellings 00:57:47.520 --> 00:57:53.240 are duplexes and quadplexes am I correct our code actually does separate those 00:57:53.240 --> 00:58:00.220 uses so multifamily is is this as a use separate from duplexes we actually have 00:58:00.220 --> 00:58:05.240 a duplex use we have a triplex a fourplex and then a a townhome use and 00:58:05.240 --> 00:58:11.560 those are separate and have different you specific standards as well as zoning 00:58:11.560 --> 00:58:15.600 districts are permitted in or require an SCP or prohibited in because it says you 00:58:15.600 --> 00:58:18.320 know you're trying to keep the neighborhoods the same as the other and 00:58:18.320 --> 00:58:22.720 I'm looking at the map and everything around it are all single-family dwellings 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 00:58:26.600 --> 00:58:32.960 like trying to put in town homes or duplexes in a in a little small area 00:58:32.960 --> 00:58:38.320 where everything else around it is single-family dwelling and and when we 00:58:38.320 --> 00:58:43.360 analyzed it looking at that that are for and requiring that SUP that you know 00:58:43.360 --> 00:58:47.240 having that have to go through the additional public hearing process 00:58:47.240 --> 00:58:52.040 additional scrutiny that really the use that's permitted by right that they would 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 00:58:55.920 --> 00:59:01.360 like a little loophole that somebody can jump through I mean if we just said hey 00:59:01.360 --> 00:59:07.000 this is gonna be no multifamily dwellings I'd have no issue with it but 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 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 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 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 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 00:59:25.120 --> 00:59:32.040 well yes they could come back and and and submit an SUP for duplexes or town 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 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 00:59:43.080 --> 00:59:47.440 permitted then why would we even have that on there then just just to let 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 00:59:53.040 --> 00:59:57.720 residents that had concerns that there would be multi-family and so I wanted to 00:59:57.720 --> 01:00:00.880 make sure it was really clear that multi-family is not a permitted use in 01:00:00.880 --> 01:00:04.800 our floor because I did read some of the comments that people you know are 01:00:04.800 --> 01:00:09.120 opposed to that and if I would live there I'd be opposed myself sure okay 01:00:09.120 --> 01:00:14.160 thank you if I can just help clarify which Julie get some water I think part 01:00:14.160 --> 01:00:19.480 of the confusion we've had multiple projects on mockingbird unfortunately 01:00:19.480 --> 01:00:25.080 called mockingbird multi-family and so I think there's a lot of confusion that 01:00:25.080 --> 01:00:30.120 this was a multi-family project that was highly contested by a lot of the 01:00:30.120 --> 01:00:35.160 residents in the area yeah but I also think some of those comments were that 01:00:35.160 --> 01:00:39.320 they didn't want townhomes or duplexes which they do have on that corner of 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 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 01:00:51.000 --> 01:00:55.200 you know we did that in in most other developments that we've approved along 01:00:55.200 --> 01:01:00.000 Audra with you know there's so much going on in that neighborhood so at any 01:01:00.000 --> 01:01:03.440 rate we'll keep the discussion rolling because yeah time is of the essence 01:01:03.440 --> 01:01:07.400 Commissioner pernetta no I just want to clarify because and find out what I'm 01:01:07.400 --> 01:01:11.040 missing because because right now all we're approving is a development that we 01:01:11.040 --> 01:01:14.720 single-family if they wanted townhomes or duplexes they would have to come back 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 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 01:01:23.360 --> 01:01:30.400 to our for right okay that's what we're considering all right okay zoning 01:01:30.400 --> 01:01:35.120 criteria E and F talks about the intensity of development that is not 01:01:35.120 --> 01:01:39.080 expected to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding properties or 01:01:39.080 --> 01:01:43.760 neighborhood in transportation due to the limited number of homes that could 01:01:43.760 --> 01:01:48.080 be constructed if this given the constraints of our for district it would 01:01:48.080 --> 01:01:53.440 only create about 90 trips per day and and so that would not trigger a TIA 01:01:53.440 --> 01:01:57.120 roadway impact fees would be determined by the number of dwelling units and 01:01:57.120 --> 01:02:01.600 projected trip vehicle trips and that that those roadway impact fees are are 01:02:01.600 --> 01:02:05.120 used to make improvements related to the mobility plan water and wastewater 01:02:05.120 --> 01:02:09.120 because this is an infill area they do have roadway and they have water and 01:02:09.120 --> 01:02:12.760 sewer available to the site of course tap and impact fees would be would be 01:02:12.760 --> 01:02:18.560 applicable once the property develops and then there are the the property is 01:02:18.560 --> 01:02:22.200 located about a mile from Milan Park and once again the park dedication and 01:02:22.200 --> 01:02:26.520 development fees would be paid with plotting and building permits public 01:02:26.520 --> 01:02:30.400 outreach was done they had a neighborhood meeting that about five 01:02:30.400 --> 01:02:35.560 residents came some concerns had to do with the trees on the property and 01:02:35.560 --> 01:02:41.600 meeting the tree preservation and then also spacing from any any access facing 01:02:41.600 --> 01:02:49.600 from Audra there was notification sent out the newspaper signs posted as well 01:02:49.600 --> 01:02:54.720 as the mailings we've received nine responses in opposition for or within 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 01:03:00.360 --> 01:03:04.520 zero in favor and then zero neutral so based upon the criteria for approval 01:03:04.520 --> 01:03:09.680 staff recommends approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions and the 01:03:09.680 --> 01:03:15.240 applicant will be here this evening I don't see any more at this time though 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 01:03:20.460 --> 01:03:24.840 for dinner before we hear our last public hearing discussion so I will call 01:03:24.840 --> 01:03:27.800 recess at 610 01:03:27.800 --> 01:03:37.760 welcome back to our planning in zoning Commission work session we are back from 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 01:03:43.880 --> 01:03:48.320 our final public hearing item all right good evening this is a plan development 01:03:48.320 --> 01:03:54.840 request for a project being called Ryan way the request is to consider rezoning 01:03:54.840 --> 01:03:58.680 the subject property that's approximately 36 and a half acres from 01:03:58.680 --> 01:04:02.800 residential to or our to district to plan development you can see the site 01:04:02.800 --> 01:04:06.520 outlined in yellow on the map it's located on the north side of Ryan Road 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 01:04:13.480 --> 01:04:21.160 map looks like which is r2 and then the proposal for plan development this is 01:04:21.160 --> 01:04:25.940 the site layout for the subject property that's kind of the detail plan if you 01:04:25.940 --> 01:04:31.760 will and the new plan development regulations so what we have here are a 01:04:31.760 --> 01:04:37.780 hundred and fifty four residential lots and five HOA lots the HOA lots are 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 01:04:41.520 --> 01:04:46.020 plugged last August it's located in this general location as designated by the 01:04:46.020 --> 01:04:50.040 star it would be within an HOA lot so that nothing would be constructed over 01:04:50.040 --> 01:04:55.320 the top of the well and the property it has several connections where streets 01:04:55.320 --> 01:04:59.320 have been stubbed out to it over time as surrounding development occurs so we 01:04:59.320 --> 01:05:03.840 have the Ridgemont subdivision here on the south side and then Teasley trails 01:05:03.840 --> 01:05:07.940 surrounding it to the north and east Monte Carlo Lane was stubbed out when 01:05:07.940 --> 01:05:11.840 Ridgemont developed and then again when Teasley trails develop so that connects 01:05:11.840 --> 01:05:15.500 to the north and south this would provide that final missing leg and then 01:05:15.500 --> 01:05:19.320 Mizzen Lane was stubbed out when the final phase of Teasley trails developed 01:05:19.320 --> 01:05:23.840 and that is coming into the property from the east additionally it would have 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 01:05:29.800 --> 01:05:34.520 as the other component of a plan development in the new code aside from 01:05:34.520 --> 01:05:39.120 the map itself is the development standards so those were provided to you 01:05:39.120 --> 01:05:42.800 in your backup I'll go through some of the major differences between the 01:05:42.800 --> 01:05:48.800 proposed PD and the R4 district that it was based upon so in terms of permitted 01:05:48.800 --> 01:05:53.200 uses the proposed PD would only permit single-family detached dwellings and 01:05:53.200 --> 01:05:57.160 then all of the accessory and temporary uses that are permitted in our R4 01:05:57.160 --> 01:06:02.600 district so this table is just a snapshot of everything in our use table that's 01:06:02.600 --> 01:06:07.760 permitted in our force you can see is excluding townhomes duplexes group homes 01:06:07.760 --> 01:06:12.920 schools churches wide variety of things also excluding gas wells so it's 01:06:12.920 --> 01:06:16.120 important to note that if this is approved that that drill site would 01:06:16.120 --> 01:06:19.120 remain plugged there wouldn't be any possibility for future gas well 01:06:19.120 --> 01:06:25.400 development within the property looking at the proposed zoning standards so 01:06:25.400 --> 01:06:28.800 again it was based on the R4 district so I did a comparison of the differences 01:06:28.800 --> 01:06:34.480 between their proposal and the base of R4 the minimum lot area is one of the 01:06:34.480 --> 01:06:37.640 larger differences so they are proposing smaller lots than what R4 would 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 01:06:42.480 --> 01:06:46.240 be as small as 5,000 square feet the remainder of the lots would have a 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 01:06:53.920 --> 01:06:58.600 minimum similar lot width 50 feet they are proposing an increase in minimum 01:06:58.600 --> 01:07:03.360 lot depth from 80 feet to 100 feet the setbacks are generally consistent they 01:07:03.360 --> 01:07:08.960 did add in an additional minimum garage setback of 20 feet and then for side 01:07:08.960 --> 01:07:13.400 yards they are proposing 10 foot as opposed to 20 foot when you're abutting 01:07:13.400 --> 01:07:17.800 a street so the corner lots would have a slightly smaller side yard than R4 would 01:07:17.800 --> 01:07:21.880 typically have and then again rear yards they are proposing those be larger so 01:07:21.880 --> 01:07:27.040 they propose the increase of a 15 foot rear rear yard setback building height 01:07:27.040 --> 01:07:30.520 would remain the same at 40 feet building coverage they're proposing 60% 01:07:30.520 --> 01:07:35.400 as opposed to 50% so that's a 10% increase street trees they're proposing 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 01:07:39.840 --> 01:07:45.320 then to to prevent any inconsistency of trees being kind of clustered together on 01:07:45.320 --> 01:07:48.600 lot lines they're proposing that for the residential lots that simply be one 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 01:07:55.240 --> 01:07:59.520 DDC requires one yard tree for single-family residential lots they're 01:07:59.520 --> 01:08:03.760 proposing an increase in that so each internal lot would have one additional 01:08:03.760 --> 01:08:07.720 yard tree a front yard and a rear yard tree and then corner lots would have 01:08:07.720 --> 01:08:10.680 three additional trees beyond the code minimum because they would have two side 01:08:10.680 --> 01:08:16.320 yard trees provided on that corner they are proposing a slight change in one of 01:08:16.320 --> 01:08:19.900 our site design standards the DDC has a required three foot offset between the 01:08:19.900 --> 01:08:23.040 front building wall in the garage they're proposing decreasing that to 12 01:08:23.040 --> 01:08:29.480 inches and then for tree preservation as we touched on earlier they they did 01:08:29.480 --> 01:08:33.280 apply for their original application at the time when the 02 code was still in 01:08:33.280 --> 01:08:37.600 effect so they did gain vesting under state law for that purpose for tree 01:08:37.600 --> 01:08:40.560 preservation it's one of the things specifically allowed and the vesting 01:08:40.560 --> 01:08:47.120 require regulations in 245 so under the 2002 DDC they would be required to 01:08:47.120 --> 01:08:51.600 preserve a minimum of 20% of quality trees and 10% of secondary trees so 01:08:51.600 --> 01:08:56.320 secondary trees are things like mesquite hackberry boat arc and then quality 01:08:56.320 --> 01:09:00.680 trees is essentially everything else and the minimum size for all of those is 6 01:09:00.680 --> 01:09:07.280 inches DBH so everything under 6 inches wouldn't count 2019 DDC again as I 01:09:07.280 --> 01:09:10.720 mentioned it created different tree classification so now we have we're 01:09:10.720 --> 01:09:15.360 called heritage trees those are the larger trees over 18 inches as well as 01:09:15.360 --> 01:09:19.680 any post oak that 6 inches or greater and then quality trees are pretty much 01:09:19.680 --> 01:09:22.480 consistent with the old code with the exception that those small post oaks are 01:09:22.480 --> 01:09:29.660 pulled out and that's a minimum 30% preservation requirement they the 2019 01:09:29.660 --> 01:09:33.960 tree code does allow that if you have quality inherited trees on set you don't 01:09:33.960 --> 01:09:38.800 have to preserve any secondary trees so that's another key difference there oh 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 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 01:09:47.440 --> 01:09:51.360 10 residential lots they are proposing a minimum of 15% open space throughout the 01:09:51.360 --> 01:09:57.000 entire neighborhood so as Julie showed with her items the code now has general 01:09:57.000 --> 01:10:00.480 criteria for all applications those were gone through in detail in your backup so 01:10:00.480 --> 01:10:04.360 I'll just hit some of the highlights the project was found to be consistent with 01:10:04.360 --> 01:10:08.680 all aspects of the 2019 DDC except for the exceptions that we just discussed 01:10:08.680 --> 01:10:13.680 which are allowed through the PD process there are no prior approvals or other 01:10:13.680 --> 01:10:17.600 agreements that apply to the site no phasing is proposed with this development 01:10:17.600 --> 01:10:21.160 the development is not expected to generate adverse environmental or fiscal 01:10:21.160 --> 01:10:26.280 impacts and there is adequate infrastructure available to the site so 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 01:10:30.120 --> 01:10:34.840 through each of these in turn so criterion one is compliance with the 01:10:34.840 --> 01:10:39.720 Denton plan 2030 again this site is in an area designated on the future land use 01:10:39.720 --> 01:10:43.440 map as low residential typically that calls for single family development at 01:10:43.440 --> 01:10:47.640 a density of one to four dwelling units per acre some of the other criteria that 01:10:47.640 --> 01:10:51.960 low density residential looks at though are development contiguous to existing 01:10:51.960 --> 01:10:55.240 developed areas to avoid sprawl that's one of the larger tenants of the 01:10:55.240 --> 01:10:59.400 comprehensive plans that we fill in all of these kind of vacant places within the 01:10:59.400 --> 01:11:03.720 city before sprawling outwards it also calls for new development and 01:11:03.720 --> 01:11:06.960 established residential areas to respond to the existing development pattern and 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 01:11:10.520 --> 01:11:14.480 of how this is consistent but I wanted to focus on density for a second this 01:11:14.480 --> 01:11:19.840 development would be at approximately 4.2 dwelling units per acre so it's just 01:11:19.840 --> 01:11:23.600 over that fourth four unit per acre threshold however when you look at the 01:11:23.600 --> 01:11:26.520 density in this area and I've kind of labeled those numbers for surrounding 01:11:26.520 --> 01:11:30.200 subdivisions on the map here you'll see we do have a lot of larger lot 01:11:30.200 --> 01:11:34.400 subdivisions in the one to you know the one to two dwelling unit per acre range 01:11:34.400 --> 01:11:38.680 west of the site but as you continue down Ryan Road towards Teasley Lane and 01:11:38.680 --> 01:11:42.460 towards this area that's designated for community mixed use density is naturally 01:11:42.460 --> 01:11:46.200 increased over time with these developments for example the latest phase 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 01:11:50.240 --> 01:11:53.160 multifamily approved here at this intersection that's at 20 units per acre 01:11:53.160 --> 01:11:56.680 so this tends to follow that natural progression and is generally consistent 01:11:56.680 --> 01:12:02.680 with the area I wanted to touch on some other aspects of the Denton plan 2030 01:12:02.680 --> 01:12:07.000 that are applicable here the plan features what's called the preferred 01:12:07.000 --> 01:12:12.600 growth concept and what this did was encourage kind of clustering walkable 01:12:12.600 --> 01:12:17.640 design again trying to deter that sprawl that I just spoke about so this this 01:12:17.640 --> 01:12:20.980 does meet a lot of those requirements it is increasing walkability in the area by 01:12:20.980 --> 01:12:25.120 providing now sidewalk and street connectivity through these neighborhoods 01:12:25.120 --> 01:12:31.120 it is again encouraging walkability close to this community mixed use center 01:12:31.120 --> 01:12:34.240 so these residents would have direct paths through these neighborhoods to any 01:12:34.240 --> 01:12:38.320 retail that develops here at that intersection and then again the 01:12:38.320 --> 01:12:42.040 comprehensive plan one of its main policy goals and actions for residential 01:12:42.040 --> 01:12:46.860 areas was infill so it encourages the development of vacant or deteriorated 01:12:46.860 --> 01:12:51.760 properties and it encourages that that be consistent in scaling character with 01:12:51.760 --> 01:12:55.600 existing neighborhoods so again the density that's proposed here does fall 01:12:55.600 --> 01:13:01.400 within what we find in this area already the second criteria is compliance with 01:13:01.400 --> 01:13:05.680 the Denton development code so I won't go through this in in detail again but 01:13:05.680 --> 01:13:10.160 same table again they're proposing just these specific deviations from the 2019 01:13:10.160 --> 01:13:16.140 DDC everything else they would follow so I wanted to touch on the tree 01:13:16.140 --> 01:13:20.840 preservation again for just a second the DDC PD procedures if you read through 01:13:20.840 --> 01:13:24.040 them do say that there should not be deviations from tree preservation 01:13:24.040 --> 01:13:28.340 requirements within a PD however we have the conflicting aspect here of vesting 01:13:28.340 --> 01:13:33.160 under state and under chapter 245 of the local government code allowing them to 01:13:33.160 --> 01:13:37.320 vest in prior tree code regulations so because of their date of application they 01:13:37.320 --> 01:13:41.400 are allowed to vest in the o2 code and they're not proposing to deviate from 01:13:41.400 --> 01:13:47.480 the 2002 code just meet that tree preservation requirement instead of 2019 01:13:47.480 --> 01:13:52.580 the third criterion is providing greater greater building design amenities and 01:13:52.580 --> 01:13:56.840 connectivity one of the the major components to their proposal that was 01:13:56.840 --> 01:14:01.120 discussed at the neighborhood meetings was building materials as we've talked 01:14:01.120 --> 01:14:05.460 about many times before under House Bill 2439 the city can no longer enforce 01:14:05.460 --> 01:14:10.640 those regulations so the developer did indicate to the the residents and it was 01:14:10.640 --> 01:14:14.000 in early drafts of their PD documents that they wanted would it willingly 01:14:14.000 --> 01:14:19.040 impose a 40% minimum masonry standard on these homes the DDC minimum standard is 01:14:19.040 --> 01:14:23.320 25% so it was above and beyond that threshold however we did ask them to 01:14:23.320 --> 01:14:26.160 exclude that from the PD regulations because it would not be enforceable by 01:14:26.160 --> 01:14:29.520 the city but it is something that they indicated they were willing to impose 01:14:29.520 --> 01:14:34.960 through deed restrictions on the property in terms of amenities again open 01:14:34.960 --> 01:14:38.280 spaces the main amenity being proposed with this PD they're proposing minimum 01:14:38.280 --> 01:14:42.720 15% open space for tree preservation buffering between their neighborhood and 01:14:42.720 --> 01:14:46.680 existing neighborhoods and just general community use and enjoyment the DDC 01:14:46.680 --> 01:14:50.780 minimum is 5% so they're above and beyond that and then in terms of 01:14:50.780 --> 01:14:53.880 connectivity again this would provide that missing link in Monte Carlo to 01:14:53.880 --> 01:14:57.560 allow Ridgemont residents and means of accessing Teasley Lane that they've not 01:14:57.560 --> 01:15:02.200 previously had and then it would provide connections to Teasley trails at Misen 01:15:02.200 --> 01:15:07.520 Lane as well as Monte Carlo the fourth criterion is specific to residential 01:15:07.520 --> 01:15:11.200 uses whether there is compatible building use and it's consistent with the 01:15:11.200 --> 01:15:15.360 character of the area this is the same use that surrounds the property on all 01:15:15.360 --> 01:15:18.120 sides so of course the single-family use would be compatible with other 01:15:18.120 --> 01:15:22.080 single-family uses as we looked at earlier it is consistent with the 01:15:22.080 --> 01:15:25.600 density of this area and that trend we see from west to east Commissioner 01:15:25.600 --> 01:15:28.000 Anderson 01:15:28.000 --> 01:15:46.800 correct and that's what they've offered yes and the developer is here this 01:15:46.800 --> 01:15:51.640 evening so he can speak to that further if you have other questions trying to 01:15:51.640 --> 01:15:56.040 get through this quickly so we can get out there to the meeting in terms of 01:15:56.040 --> 01:15:59.320 additional buffering and compatibility with the neighborhood if you look at 01:15:59.320 --> 01:16:02.200 their plan they do have those HOA lots all around the perimeter of the site 01:16:02.200 --> 01:16:05.200 where they intend to preserve existing trees to provide additional space 01:16:05.200 --> 01:16:09.400 between the backyards of these homes and that was a major concern that came up at 01:16:09.400 --> 01:16:12.200 the neighborhood meetings that all of the neighbors had requested was that 01:16:12.200 --> 01:16:16.680 buffer space there criterion 5 is applicable to non-residential uses so 01:16:16.680 --> 01:16:21.120 that's not being considered tonight criterion 6 is the provision of public 01:16:21.120 --> 01:16:25.080 facilities I'll try to breeze through these pretty quickly DISD was able to 01:16:25.080 --> 01:16:28.680 provide us with their expected student generation rates for McMath Middle 01:16:28.680 --> 01:16:31.360 School and Denton High School they indicated they have adequate capacity 01:16:31.360 --> 01:16:35.360 this is currently zoned for Ryan Elementary and they indicated that that 01:16:35.360 --> 01:16:38.640 school would not have capacity to serve the the expected students from this 01:16:38.640 --> 01:16:42.200 development however they indicated it's possible that they can rezone that to 01:16:42.200 --> 01:16:45.800 other schools in the area such as Sam Houston Elementary that do have 01:16:45.800 --> 01:16:52.400 adequate capacity in terms of fire and law enforcement it is well within the 01:16:52.400 --> 01:16:55.040 eight minute or less response time boundary for fire station 6 that's 01:16:55.040 --> 01:16:59.360 located on Teasley Lane I did talk to the Denton Police Department and they 01:16:59.360 --> 01:17:02.440 were intending to prepare a crime report for you all to see what's actually going 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 01:17:05.840 --> 01:17:10.640 to us in time but they indicated that in general with this type of residential 01:17:10.640 --> 01:17:13.760 development they would not expect to see a significant or negative impact on 01:17:13.760 --> 01:17:17.640 their response times and they wouldn't expect to see any increase in crime or 01:17:17.640 --> 01:17:22.640 nuisance from these single-family homes water and wastewater are available to 01:17:22.640 --> 01:17:25.840 the site and would be looped throughout their internal street system to connect 01:17:25.840 --> 01:17:30.820 to the points that are stubbed out to their site looking at streets again as 01:17:30.820 --> 01:17:34.160 I mentioned they would provide connection to all of the street stubs 01:17:34.160 --> 01:17:38.560 that have been provided to this property at Mizzen Lane in Monte Carlo Ryan Road 01:17:38.560 --> 01:17:41.760 they would have right away dedication requirements there it's not been 01:17:41.760 --> 01:17:45.160 determined whether they would have any actual improvements to make to Ryan Road 01:17:45.160 --> 01:17:49.920 because we just on November 5th had the bond election where improvements for 01:17:49.920 --> 01:17:53.560 Ryan Road to become three lanes were approved and that's now become a CIP 01:17:53.560 --> 01:17:57.600 project so it's possible that they would pay roadway impact fees and lose in lieu 01:17:57.600 --> 01:18:02.280 of improvements our city engineer indicated construction on Ryan can be 01:18:02.280 --> 01:18:06.760 expected to begin as early as 2023 and there was a traffic assessment done for 01:18:06.760 --> 01:18:10.480 this that was provided to you all Ryan Road at the intersections here at Monte 01:18:10.480 --> 01:18:15.360 Carlo their future Street E and the street through Teasley trails operated 01:18:15.360 --> 01:18:19.240 at a level of service C today generally this is not expected to decrease that 01:18:19.240 --> 01:18:22.900 level of service at those intersections and once construction to three lanes is 01:18:22.900 --> 01:18:26.620 complete on Ryan it's expected to be operational at a level of service a or 01:18:26.620 --> 01:18:32.160 B at these intersections this is within 500 feet of Lake Forest Park which meets 01:18:32.160 --> 01:18:35.280 the park department's goal of a 10-minute walk to a park from residential 01:18:35.280 --> 01:18:38.780 developments they will have park dedication and development fees when they 01:18:38.780 --> 01:18:44.120 reach the platting and permitting phases of development notification was sent 01:18:44.120 --> 01:18:48.000 about this request just since we've been here this evening I've received one 01:18:48.000 --> 01:18:51.960 additional that I'll read into the record at the meeting so I'm actually 01:18:51.960 --> 01:18:57.360 since I made this up to 11 responses in opposition four of those are outside that 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 01:19:02.120 --> 01:19:08.740 responses in favor so far that's at 15.7 percent so staff is recommending 01:19:08.740 --> 01:19:12.000 approval of this request as we found it to comply with our criteria for approval 01:19:12.000 --> 01:19:15.400 and if it gets through this hearing tonight its next stop would be City 01:19:15.400 --> 01:19:26.080 Council on December 17th thank you Haley okay with that I will close our work 01:19:26.080 --> 01:19:33.880 session at 6 33 and we will reconvene as soon as possible in council chambers 01:19:33.880 --> 01:19:42.840 good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning Commission 01:19:42.840 --> 01:19:48.520 meeting for Wednesday November 20th with a quorum present I will call us to order 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 01:19:54.600 --> 01:19:59.600 stand if you are able and give pledge to the u.s. and Texas flags 01:20:24.600 --> 01:20:34.880 okay we do have some agenda clarifications for this evening there 01:20:34.880 --> 01:20:41.720 are two items being pulled from the agenda tonight item 4b which is the 01:20:41.720 --> 01:20:48.920 Denton Grove apartments that is being pulled and will be renoticed and is 01:20:48.920 --> 01:20:55.600 planned for our December 11th meeting for consideration also we are pulling 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 01:21:04.280 --> 01:21:08.480 of you here to speak on that but that item is being pulled it will be 01:21:08.480 --> 01:21:18.760 renoticed and it will be considered here on 12 11 so if you want Scott McDonald 01:21:18.760 --> 01:21:25.060 is here if you need further information as to anything with regarding that going 01:21:25.060 --> 01:21:37.320 forward so with that we will go to our consent the GDP is being heard under 01:21:37.320 --> 01:21:43.320 individual consideration it is not a public hearing item however to clarify 01:21:43.320 --> 01:22:01.840 staff is recommending denial for that at this point being pulled is item 4e PD 19 01:22:01.840 --> 01:22:22.040 3 so 01:22:31.840 --> 01:22:33.840 I'm 01:23:01.840 --> 01:23:04.840 , 01:23:31.840 --> 01:23:51.600 okay thank you for your patience once again let's move to our consent agenda 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 01:23:56.200 --> 01:24:00.940 individual consideration okay there's a motion on the floor to pull the two 01:24:00.940 --> 01:24:05.960 items from the consent agenda to individual consideration is there a 01:24:05.960 --> 01:24:08.420 second 01:24:08.420 --> 01:24:24.440 Commissioner Cole okay we have a motion on the floor to pull the two items on 01:24:24.440 --> 01:24:29.680 consent agenda to individual consideration we will take a vote on the 01:24:29.680 --> 01:24:31.880 board 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 01:25:00.960 --> 01:25:08.640 19 16 that's the preliminary plat Windsor apartments we'll entertain a 01:25:08.640 --> 01:25:21.880 motion commissioner back a motion to approve commissioner prunella a second 01:25:21.880 --> 01:25:27.560 we have a motion on the floor to approve individual considered Windsor 01:25:27.560 --> 01:25:52.440 apartments preliminary plat let's call for a vote on the board that motion 01:25:52.440 --> 01:26:01.200 carries five one next is to consider a motion for the preliminary plat Bonnie 01:26:01.200 --> 01:26:06.560 Bray high school addition Commissioner Anderson make a motion to approve 01:26:06.560 --> 01:26:11.760 Commissioner Smith second we have a motion on the floor for a preliminary 01:26:11.760 --> 01:26:18.640 plat approval Bonnie Bray high school addition let's take a vote on the board 01:26:22.440 --> 01:26:38.080 that motion carries five one our next item for individual consideration is GDP 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 01:26:54.320 --> 01:26:59.880 development plan for the Ryan way edition this request came in concurrently 01:26:59.880 --> 01:27:03.320 with the plan development and under state law we are required to bring forward 01:27:03.320 --> 01:27:07.840 plat items within a certain time frame however that that kind of puts the cart 01:27:07.840 --> 01:27:10.640 in front of the horse here because this property does not have zoning until that 01:27:10.640 --> 01:27:14.720 plan development gets through planning and Zoning Commission and City Council so 01:27:14.720 --> 01:27:18.320 for that reason alone that it does not meet the zoning requirements that are on 01:27:18.320 --> 01:27:22.040 the ground today which is the r2 district staff is recommending denial of 01:27:22.040 --> 01:27:28.240 this GDP at this time I'm happy to stand for any questions you only have 01:27:28.520 --> 01:27:42.880 Commissioner Smith okay okay I do not see any questions okay at this time we 01:27:42.880 --> 01:27:48.440 can open the floor for a motion Commissioner Smith motion to approve the 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 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 01:28:06.960 --> 01:28:09.560 vote on the board 01:28:18.960 --> 01:28:28.240 that motion carries six zero that moves us to our public hearing items public 01:28:28.240 --> 01:28:38.000 hearing item 4a fr 1912 Golden Triangle Edition final replant I will open the 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 01:28:52.160 --> 01:28:55.200 planner with the Development Service Department this evening I have for your 01:28:55.200 --> 01:29:00.440 consideration the final replant of Golden Triangle Edition I stand for any 01:29:00.440 --> 01:29:07.160 questions that you may have any questions Commissioners I don't see any 01:29:07.160 --> 01:29:14.360 Mark thank you very much thank you Commissioner Pernitta Commissioner Smith 01:29:14.360 --> 01:29:20.160 second okay we have a motion on the floor to approve the replant Golden 01:29:20.160 --> 01:29:27.680 Triangle Edition any discussion okay let's call for a vote on the board 01:29:37.160 --> 01:29:59.240 that motion carries six zero and just as a point of order I had opened the 01:29:59.240 --> 01:30:03.440 public hearing for that item but did not close it so I hereby close the public 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 01:30:16.280 --> 01:30:39.640 hearing and invite Julie Wyatt for presentation good evening I'm Julie 01:30:39.640 --> 01:30:44.360 Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I'm presenting s 193 Oxford 01:30:44.360 --> 01:30:48.600 at Sherman so the request before you is for a specific use permit for 01:30:48.600 --> 01:30:53.840 multifamily dwellings the subject property is outlined here in yellow it's 01:30:53.840 --> 01:30:59.620 about 12.33 acres it's currently undeveloped it is situated between loop 01:30:59.620 --> 01:31:06.520 288 to the north and poinsettia to the south a little background on the subject 01:31:06.520 --> 01:31:12.960 property in 2002 it was on CMG during the citywide rezoning this year we 01:31:12.960 --> 01:31:17.640 adopted a new development code and zoning districts and so that CMG 01:31:17.640 --> 01:31:23.560 transition to SC district that suburban corridor due to the submittal timing the 01:31:23.560 --> 01:31:29.360 proposal is subject to the 2002 didn't development code regulations and so it 01:31:29.360 --> 01:31:34.160 was reviewed and is being analyzed under that code however just to let you know 01:31:34.160 --> 01:31:41.340 multifamily dwellings require a specific use permit in both districts the 01:31:41.340 --> 01:31:45.600 criteria for approval are in subchapter 6 of the 2002 didn't development code 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 01:31:49.320 --> 01:31:55.280 backup but we're gonna go over some some specific parts of that criteria for 01:31:55.280 --> 01:32:00.680 approval as we discuss the proposal so the subject property has a future land 01:32:00.680 --> 01:32:05.040 use designation of community mixed use that is intended to promote a mix of 01:32:05.040 --> 01:32:09.180 uses both commercial as well as the complementary residential uses some 01:32:09.180 --> 01:32:15.640 moderate to high density housing to support any retail or service uses in 01:32:15.640 --> 01:32:20.520 in those mixed use districts the intent is to encourage a diverse of use 01:32:20.520 --> 01:32:26.360 diversity of uses close together to increase vitality and to create a sense 01:32:26.360 --> 01:32:30.520 of place and to also encourage multimodal transportation allow people 01:32:30.520 --> 01:32:35.680 to walk a multifamily development is consistent with the community mixed use 01:32:35.680 --> 01:32:39.880 future land use designation first it provides that complementary residential 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 01:32:45.640 --> 01:32:49.600 that the broader area and how the community mixed use future land use 01:32:49.600 --> 01:32:56.920 element fits within this part of Denton this this proposed as multifamily would 01:32:56.920 --> 01:33:02.100 provide a residential character on that edge of the community mixed use to be to 01:33:02.100 --> 01:33:08.200 be more consistent with the adjacent residential properties Denton plan 2030 01:33:08.200 --> 01:33:13.560 also talks about how Denton's gonna grow in 2030 the projected population is 01:33:13.560 --> 01:33:18.480 going to be over 200,000 and with that we'll need additional housing units and 01:33:18.480 --> 01:33:24.360 multifamily is part of that mix for we'll need about 12,000 new multifamily 01:33:24.360 --> 01:33:30.520 units this property and properties like it or are are appropriate for those 01:33:30.520 --> 01:33:36.440 strategic locations for multifamily because it's adjacent to an arterial 01:33:36.440 --> 01:33:43.600 loop 288 but it's also close to schools to residential areas and other amenities 01:33:43.600 --> 01:33:47.880 it encourages that more compact development pattern and prevents a 01:33:47.880 --> 01:33:53.960 sprawl now we'll zoom in a little bit closer to what the site plan is 01:33:53.960 --> 01:34:00.160 proposing so it's sort of a triangular shaped lot it is the the front entrance 01:34:00.160 --> 01:34:05.520 of the proposed multifamily development is oriented toward loop 288 so the full 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 01:34:11.920 --> 01:34:19.280 that that that entrance ramp to loop 288 they're proposing eight three-story 01:34:19.280 --> 01:34:24.120 buildings three access points with controlled access gates so once again 01:34:24.120 --> 01:34:29.520 that that full access point on loop 288 there would be an exit only through the 01:34:29.520 --> 01:34:34.560 future commercial that would be that direct point to FM 428 Sherman Drive and 01:34:34.560 --> 01:34:42.400 then also an exit only onto point study to the south they are proposing a 01:34:42.400 --> 01:34:48.780 community pool in the center of the of the development with a amenity center 01:34:48.780 --> 01:34:52.760 clubhouse there's also a proposed outdoor eating area with a fire pit 01:34:52.760 --> 01:34:58.000 they're proposing a dog park on the west side here in this location and also 01:34:58.000 --> 01:35:04.420 other open space areas one here and one here fencing landscaping and one story 01:35:04.420 --> 01:35:10.960 garages would be would be constructed along point said it points idiot and if 01:35:10.960 --> 01:35:14.800 this is approved and that would be in this location you can see those orange 01:35:14.800 --> 01:35:22.560 boxes those are those one-story garages that would provide a little a more 01:35:22.560 --> 01:35:29.360 visually appealing view from that road because it would set the the larger 01:35:29.360 --> 01:35:33.520 taller building set back from from points edit points Eddie actually a 01:35:33.520 --> 01:35:37.680 hundred and one feet from that roadway it would allow that that development scale 01:35:37.680 --> 01:35:43.120 to gradually increase from the road and then if the proposal does meet the the 01:35:43.120 --> 01:35:48.400 minimum parking regulations for multifamily they had they provided a 01:35:48.400 --> 01:35:54.080 landscape plan as part of this specific use permit as as proposed they would 01:35:54.080 --> 01:36:00.400 plant 163 new large canopy trees at maturity that would create about two 01:36:00.400 --> 01:36:05.760 hundred thousand square feet of canopy forty seven of those large canopy trees 01:36:05.760 --> 01:36:09.440 are proposed for this southern edge once again that's closer to those existing 01:36:09.440 --> 01:36:12.960 neighborhoods so we want to make sure that we're really sensitive to that to 01:36:12.960 --> 01:36:16.840 that boundary in that edge so they're proposing forty seven large canopy trees 01:36:16.840 --> 01:36:20.640 this would be in addition to the twenty four required street trees they're 01:36:20.640 --> 01:36:25.880 proposing those to be medium canopy and then they are also proposing an open 01:36:25.880 --> 01:36:31.280 space area as well as that the required buffer on the eastern edge of the 01:36:31.280 --> 01:36:34.320 property that's adjacent to a single family lot want to make sure that we're 01:36:34.320 --> 01:36:39.520 sensitive to that to that compatibility in that location as well we'll zoom in a 01:36:39.520 --> 01:36:45.880 little closer first here is that eastern property line buffer that includes a 01:36:45.880 --> 01:36:50.760 combination of plantings as well as tree preservation so there's already some 01:36:50.760 --> 01:36:56.280 some foliage there to go ahead and start that buffer they're also proposing a 01:36:56.280 --> 01:37:01.360 perimeter fence those materials are a combination of ornamental metal board 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 01:37:06.240 --> 01:37:13.320 proposed fencing on on that southern edge they are proposing a that board on 01:37:13.320 --> 01:37:17.560 board cedar it would have recesses and projections so it would kind of it would 01:37:17.560 --> 01:37:23.680 it would undulate in and then out to allow planting area to allow those trees 01:37:23.680 --> 01:37:28.920 to be planted and while you know this this would break up the monotony of the 01:37:28.920 --> 01:37:32.800 fence line and would create visual interest staff does have concerns about 01:37:32.800 --> 01:37:37.520 the durability of those of that material and so we're recommending a condition 01:37:37.520 --> 01:37:43.280 that that they either use a masonry wall or wrought iron with with some sort of 01:37:43.280 --> 01:37:48.920 leafy shrub hedge in order to screen provide screening for those cars and that 01:37:48.920 --> 01:37:55.440 use here's some sample elevations this this gives you a little bit better 01:37:55.440 --> 01:37:59.120 visual of what that proposed fence would look like there's that board on board 01:37:59.120 --> 01:38:03.480 cedar fence and they are proposing as I said the three-story buildings with a 01:38:03.480 --> 01:38:08.160 neutral color palette balconies or patios on 100% of the dwelling units 01:38:08.160 --> 01:38:12.440 awnings decorative wall lighting and a variety of recesses and projections would 01:38:12.440 --> 01:38:17.480 provide that changes in relief and reduce the visual bulk of those 01:38:17.480 --> 01:38:23.080 buildings also the stairwells would be the visual of the visual impacts of 01:38:23.080 --> 01:38:30.240 those stairwells would be minimized as part of the SUP they also would have to 01:38:30.240 --> 01:38:35.960 if this was approved obtain approval from this Commission for an alternative 01:38:35.960 --> 01:38:40.560 development plan because this was reviewed under the 2002 code that ADP 01:38:40.560 --> 01:38:45.400 was a process within that 2002 code there are two provisions and in sub 01:38:45.400 --> 01:38:49.120 chapter 13 those site design requirements that based upon their 01:38:49.120 --> 01:38:53.720 submittal they they needed flexibility from one would be the private street 01:38:53.720 --> 01:38:57.000 system they've got some tuck under garages and their buildings and so it 01:38:57.000 --> 01:39:02.440 sort of reduces that that private street system the the street trees and that 01:39:02.440 --> 01:39:07.840 that linear cohesive street system and then also where they're proposing those 01:39:07.840 --> 01:39:13.360 garages on that south bond boundary once again they are going to be if approved 01:39:13.360 --> 01:39:18.800 along poinsettia that allows that that more separation between the taller 01:39:18.800 --> 01:39:22.800 three-story buildings and the adjacent residential properties that does not 01:39:22.800 --> 01:39:27.200 meet the 2002 didn't development code so they're going to be asking for relief 01:39:27.200 --> 01:39:30.480 from that from from the planning and zoning Commission it does meet the 01:39:30.480 --> 01:39:35.920 criteria for approval so if this is approved it would come back to you as 01:39:35.920 --> 01:39:41.000 part of the review of the the project they did submit a traffic impact analysis 01:39:41.000 --> 01:39:45.520 and that was approved through our engineering group they provided trip 01:39:45.520 --> 01:39:51.040 generation within that the subject property would generate about 1800 01:39:51.040 --> 01:39:57.600 trips per a 24-hour day weekday morning peak would be 113 trips evening peak 01:39:57.600 --> 01:40:01.960 would be 133 trips total build out of the property and that would include this 01:40:01.960 --> 01:40:07.520 property as well as the commercial on the corner would be 3600 trips per day so 01:40:07.520 --> 01:40:12.520 it would be a lot of trips at that corner at the TIA also analyze area 01:40:12.520 --> 01:40:17.960 intersections and they give letter grades a to F on the delay that that 01:40:17.960 --> 01:40:23.800 motorists experience at those intersections loop 288 and FM 428 is 01:40:23.800 --> 01:40:28.280 probably no surprise that at some times and in some directions that intersection 01:40:28.280 --> 01:40:32.960 has an F and in particular ramps with left turning movement so if you were 01:40:32.960 --> 01:40:38.240 exiting the loop and maybe turning left onto FM 428 to go north that you would 01:40:38.240 --> 01:40:43.920 experience a significant delay and that would be an F the the motorists just 01:40:43.920 --> 01:40:52.360 staying on FM 428 experience less delay because of they don't have a signal 01:40:52.360 --> 01:40:56.880 there this intersection has met the warrants for a signal for quite a while 01:40:56.880 --> 01:41:01.160 and that is intended to be installed within the next six to eight months 01:41:01.160 --> 01:41:05.440 engineering is aware of the concerns of this intersection is so is an interim 01:41:05.440 --> 01:41:10.760 step they are going to be installing always stops pretty soon in December is 01:41:10.760 --> 01:41:14.880 what they've what they've told me another intersection that they looked 01:41:14.880 --> 01:41:21.120 out was FM 428 and poinsettia that westbound left turn lane left turn when 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 01:41:25.040 --> 01:41:29.080 Sherman that that would be the most difficult turning movement and it 01:41:29.080 --> 01:41:36.200 creates significant delays that the the analysis of this intersection indicated 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 01:41:41.160 --> 01:41:47.920 in that location in the future now is an interim step the TIA recommended a 01:41:47.920 --> 01:41:52.400 restriping of that intersection to allow that protected left to get to allow 01:41:52.400 --> 01:41:57.320 some a little more free movement in that intersection there would also be 01:41:57.320 --> 01:42:01.840 perimeter street improvements associated with the development if approved they 01:42:01.840 --> 01:42:09.120 the developer would would construct a spur off of this loop 288 entrance ramp 01:42:09.120 --> 01:42:14.680 that would then connect down to poinsettia providing that that circulation 01:42:14.680 --> 01:42:18.880 pattern and it would be 25 feet of pavement that they would construct it 01:42:18.880 --> 01:42:24.480 really is the beginning of a frontage road for loop 288 water and wastewater 01:42:24.480 --> 01:42:29.040 are available however an extension of an 8-inch waterline would be required with 01:42:29.040 --> 01:42:35.160 any improvements on loop 288 Waterworks Park is is is close to the subject 01:42:35.160 --> 01:42:39.520 property but it is still 3,500 linear feet from the subject property and the 01:42:39.520 --> 01:42:45.680 sidewalks are not great to get there so so the applicant is proposing those 01:42:45.680 --> 01:42:50.080 on-site recreational facilities for the residents park dedication and 01:42:50.080 --> 01:42:54.440 development fees would be required with development of the site it is near 01:42:54.440 --> 01:42:59.120 Wilson Elementary Strickland Middle and Ryan High School according to DISD the 01:42:59.120 --> 01:43:02.640 the elementary the number of elementary students generated by this would put it 01:43:02.640 --> 01:43:06.280 put a strain on Wilson Elementary it's it's it's being reconstructed right now 01:43:06.280 --> 01:43:12.760 but Strickland and Ryan have the capacity for additional students there was public 01:43:12.760 --> 01:43:16.760 outreach associated with the proposal they did have a neighborhood meeting in 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 01:43:21.800 --> 01:43:27.040 neighborhood meeting they did decline that and then there was there there was 01:43:27.040 --> 01:43:32.800 a newspaper ad placed in in accordance with our regulations as well as postings 01:43:32.800 --> 01:43:37.160 on the property and mailed notices we've received two letters in opposition 01:43:37.160 --> 01:43:41.600 thus far those aren't within the 200 foot boundary of the subject property 01:43:41.600 --> 01:43:47.120 and we've received one letter in favor so in work session we went over the 01:43:47.120 --> 01:43:50.480 recommendation and it was a little confusing so I've tried to maybe clarify 01:43:50.480 --> 01:43:57.040 it a bit we're gonna do it backwards this time so staff recommends approval 01:43:57.040 --> 01:44:00.840 of a specific use permit with the following conditions that the landscape 01:44:00.840 --> 01:44:04.940 in the landscaping in the attached landscape plan reflects that intent to 01:44:04.940 --> 01:44:09.560 comply with the DDC requirements for the the parking landscaping street trees and 01:44:09.560 --> 01:44:14.240 minimum landscaping tree canopy areas and compatible ability buffers minor 01:44:14.240 --> 01:44:18.680 alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings may be approved by 01:44:18.680 --> 01:44:22.600 city staff provided that the final landscaping as planted complies with the 01:44:22.600 --> 01:44:27.000 attached site plan in terms of buffer and open space locations as well as the 01:44:27.000 --> 01:44:33.320 DDC parking area light fixtures can be determined at building permit but can't 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 01:44:37.280 --> 01:44:42.120 it stays safe for the residents of of any community but we want to make sure 01:44:42.120 --> 01:44:45.920 that it doesn't shine and become a nuisance on the adjacent residential 01:44:45.920 --> 01:44:50.720 properties so we're recommending that height be limited at 14 feet and then 01:44:50.720 --> 01:44:55.800 perimeter fencing materials as I said staff has concerns about that board on 01:44:55.800 --> 01:45:00.000 board cedar so they would be limited to masonry or wrought iron and any wrought 01:45:00.000 --> 01:45:02.960 iron fencing we want to make sure that still there's adequate screening so we're 01:45:02.960 --> 01:45:08.720 requesting that that an additional hedge be placed be planted to to make sure 01:45:08.720 --> 01:45:13.840 that there's adequate screening the fourth condition that within 30 days of 01:45:13.840 --> 01:45:18.880 council approval that ADP for those two deviations would come back before the 01:45:18.880 --> 01:45:22.760 the planning and zoning Commission and then notwithstanding the limited 01:45:22.760 --> 01:45:26.760 administrative approvals in conditions 1 2 & 3 the city reserves the right to 01:45:26.760 --> 01:45:31.000 require approval by ordinance of any amendments to the SUP the attached site 01:45:31.000 --> 01:45:37.120 plan and the elements just described in the next section including those 01:45:37.120 --> 01:45:46.000 reference it referenced in conditions 1 2 & 3 so the next section would be we're 01:45:46.000 --> 01:45:50.960 really outlines kind of it provides a text support to the site plan and a 01:45:50.960 --> 01:45:56.520 landscape plan and those elevations as we talked about in work session as as 01:45:56.520 --> 01:46:01.560 these site plans are reproduced and shrunk they become really illegible so 01:46:01.560 --> 01:46:06.760 this sort of just provides that tech support so as as you know future planners 01:46:06.760 --> 01:46:12.640 look at this that they know what what was required so so this does put into 01:46:12.640 --> 01:46:19.020 into this recommendation however that staff could approve a reduction in the 01:46:19.020 --> 01:46:24.160 number of dwelling units or associated parking lots or lot coverage that that 01:46:24.160 --> 01:46:28.720 if the if the project shrunk staff could could recommend or could approve that 01:46:28.720 --> 01:46:33.880 but any increases over 5% would have to go back through the public hearing 01:46:33.880 --> 01:46:39.560 process so staff could record could approve administratively a 5% increase I 01:46:39.560 --> 01:46:44.120 did the math on it it would be 12 dwelling units essentially this this if 01:46:44.120 --> 01:46:48.660 approved would give staff that that little bit of flexibility so that if some 01:46:48.660 --> 01:46:51.680 things change that they wouldn't have to necessarily go back through the public 01:46:51.680 --> 01:46:56.560 hearing process if the intensity of the project did not change but then it lays 01:46:56.560 --> 01:47:00.160 out what they're proposing eight three-story buildings the amenity center 01:47:00.160 --> 01:47:03.720 and clubhouse and the 19 accessory structures that includes both the 01:47:03.720 --> 01:47:12.960 garages and carports 248 dwelling units 460 parking spaces lot coverage of 67% 01:47:12.960 --> 01:47:18.840 and then those open spaces with 12 seating areas eight dogway stations 71 01:47:18.840 --> 01:47:22.240 large can't large and medium canopy trees on that southern edge we want to 01:47:22.240 --> 01:47:26.640 make sure that that we get that codified and then those sample belt building 01:47:26.640 --> 01:47:31.480 elevations just with that neutral color palette and just kind of talking through 01:47:31.480 --> 01:47:36.320 what those architectural design elements are so that's that is a staff 01:47:36.320 --> 01:47:41.400 presentation the applicant is here and I will stand for any question we do have a 01:47:41.400 --> 01:47:47.160 question thank you Julie Commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so on page 16 I 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 01:47:53.000 --> 01:47:57.480 about this in work session their pool their little green space is in lieu of 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 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 01:48:08.240 --> 01:48:13.640 now there isn't a park within 10 minutes our parks department is actually 01:48:13.640 --> 01:48:17.840 updating their parks master plan and that includes a trail system and so that is 01:48:17.840 --> 01:48:22.600 part of their goal is to get that 10-minute walk to the park these these 01:48:22.600 --> 01:48:25.560 holes where there's not that 10-minute walk to the park those are the areas 01:48:25.560 --> 01:48:29.240 that they're going to be looking at adding additional parkland however you 01:48:29.240 --> 01:48:33.440 know when as part of their development they are also adding those additional 01:48:33.440 --> 01:48:37.100 amenities to provide those recreational activities for their for their 01:48:37.100 --> 01:48:42.440 residents and on that same slide when you spoke with the district with the DISD 01:48:42.440 --> 01:48:47.360 did they object or they simply said that would stress Wilson they just simply 01:48:47.360 --> 01:48:50.480 said they would stress that they didn't provide an objection just that it would 01:48:50.480 --> 01:48:56.200 it would stress Wilson elementary okay thank you sure Julie I have a couple of 01:48:56.200 --> 01:49:01.120 questions just to clear up so the points that a restriping we talked about a bit 01:49:01.120 --> 01:49:05.520 in work session is that something the applicant is going to do it would be 01:49:05.520 --> 01:49:09.920 designed and and installed as part of the platting and development and it would 01:49:09.920 --> 01:49:13.560 be something the applicant and it at what stage in the development would that 01:49:13.560 --> 01:49:17.160 happen the design would happen during the civil engineering the review of the 01:49:17.160 --> 01:49:21.480 civil plans for public improvements and then and then in terms of the timing of 01:49:21.480 --> 01:49:27.680 the installation it would be either concurrent with or prior to development 01:49:27.680 --> 01:49:30.600 of the side it would just depend on how that's structured with their hold 01:49:30.600 --> 01:49:35.720 harmless and development agreements okay and then back to what you rewrote up 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 01:49:42.240 --> 01:49:45.920 assuming what you're trying to say is you'll staff will have the ability to 01:49:45.920 --> 01:49:51.920 approve up to 5% otherwise is that correct yes okay that's how we have to 01:49:51.920 --> 01:49:58.320 restate it then because it still reads greater than 5% which could be anything 01:49:58.320 --> 01:50:05.200 yes I apologize nope just wanted to clarify all right staff shall have the 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 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 01:50:18.320 --> 01:50:27.280 here but anyone wishing to speak may do so now anyone wishing to speak on this 01:50:27.280 --> 01:50:35.040 item okay seeing none I will close the public hearing and open the floor to a 01:50:35.040 --> 01:50:40.000 motion Commissioner Smith make a motion for to approve with staff recommendations 01:50:40.000 --> 01:50:48.000 Commissioner Prunetta second the motion is there any discussion we have a motion 01:50:48.000 --> 01:50:53.720 in a second on the floor to approve seeing no discussion I'll call for a 01:50:53.720 --> 01:51:08.880 vote on the board that motion carries 6-0 that takes us to our next public 01:51:08.880 --> 01:51:17.520 hearing item for DZ 1912 I will open the public hearing and invite Julie Wyatt 01:51:17.520 --> 01:51:39.100 back up here for presentation all right this this next item is Z 1912 01:51:39.100 --> 01:51:45.560 mockingbird single-family residential the request before you is the applicant 01:51:45.560 --> 01:51:50.880 is requesting to rezone approximately 2.6 acres from our 2 district to our 4 01:51:50.880 --> 01:51:55.360 district the subject property is outlined in yellow it's this flag shaped 01:51:55.360 --> 01:52:00.600 area the surrounding development pattern includes existing suburban style 01:52:00.600 --> 01:52:06.280 single-family neighborhoods there are some remaining larger parcels adjacent 01:52:06.280 --> 01:52:09.480 to you and nearby you can see across Audre and then adjacent to the subject 01:52:09.480 --> 01:52:13.760 property the majority of trees on the site are fence line trees particularly 01:52:13.760 --> 01:52:18.640 in the southern edge of the site per the applicant the purpose is to develop 9 01:52:18.640 --> 01:52:25.200 single-family residential dwellings the this map here shows the current zoning 01:52:25.200 --> 01:52:30.000 map you could see the r2 district the subject property is is outlined in black 01:52:30.000 --> 01:52:34.960 and then that that r2 district surrounding it r4 district is to the 01:52:34.960 --> 01:52:41.040 west and south and east of the subject property the proposed zoning map would 01:52:41.040 --> 01:52:46.320 extend that existing r4 into the subject property continuing that existing zoning 01:52:46.320 --> 01:52:54.320 pattern the criteria for approval is in sub chapter 2 of the Denton development 01:52:54.320 --> 01:53:00.040 code the 2019 Denton development code there are general and specific criteria 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 01:53:04.320 --> 01:53:07.720 the general we're really going to talk about numbers 3 & 8 talking about the 01:53:07.720 --> 01:53:12.920 comprehensive plan and then adverse impacts and then for the specific 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 01:53:18.680 --> 01:53:23.320 first we're going to talk about general criterion 1 and in zoning criteria a 01:53:23.320 --> 01:53:27.920 that that has to do with our comprehensive plan didn't plan 2030 the 01:53:27.920 --> 01:53:32.360 site is designated low density residential that is intended for 01:53:32.360 --> 01:53:37.400 single-family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre the proposed r 01:53:37.400 --> 01:53:42.520 4 district our our 2019 code kind of transitioned from what we what we 01:53:42.520 --> 01:53:47.320 typically saw in the 2002 code are just those gross densities for single-family 01:53:47.320 --> 01:53:53.120 neighborhoods now gone to a minimum lot size that r4 district permits a minimum 01:53:53.120 --> 01:53:58.080 lot size of 7,000 square feet which if you just took the gross square footage 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 01:54:03.320 --> 01:54:08.080 about six lots into an acre but that wouldn't account for any right-of-way 01:54:08.080 --> 01:54:11.680 dedication so you really couldn't get six lots in there but but when just 01:54:11.680 --> 01:54:16.120 looking at that gross acreage it doesn't really precisely meet that low density 01:54:16.120 --> 01:54:22.840 residential but because the comprehensive plan talks about infill 01:54:22.840 --> 01:54:27.640 development and the need to the need to fill in that the interior parts of the 01:54:27.640 --> 01:54:35.280 city and to to encourage that compact development pattern and reduce sprawl it 01:54:35.280 --> 01:54:43.760 does meet the overall goals of the of the the comprehensive plan general 01:54:43.760 --> 01:54:49.080 criterion for is is minimizing adverse impacts on the surrounding property r4 01:54:49.080 --> 01:54:53.360 is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods in both use and 01:54:53.360 --> 01:54:59.720 development scale it is not anticipated to create adverse impacts we did kind of 01:54:59.720 --> 01:55:02.960 an analysis of what was surrounding particularly those areas that had been 01:55:02.960 --> 01:55:08.720 platted and developed in the last three decades or so and those lot sizes those 01:55:08.720 --> 01:55:11.680 are typically single-family neighborhoods with lot sizes ranging 01:55:11.680 --> 01:55:16.440 anywhere from about 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet so so the 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 01:55:21.280 --> 01:55:26.800 that so it is consistent with that that development pattern and then also they 01:55:26.800 --> 01:55:31.660 are proposing the single-family uses we talked about in work session that there 01:55:31.660 --> 01:55:36.360 are additional uses that could be permitted with a specific use permit in 01:55:36.360 --> 01:55:42.920 r4 a specific use permit would require an additional application from from the 01:55:42.920 --> 01:55:48.680 developer and or the property owner and it would require a recommendation from 01:55:48.680 --> 01:55:51.920 the planning and zoning Commission after a public hearing and approval from 01:55:51.920 --> 01:55:56.600 council so it would add additional scrutiny for any duplexes or town homes 01:55:56.600 --> 01:56:01.400 so but but single-family houses are permitted by right an expansion of the 01:56:01.400 --> 01:56:05.840 existing r4 district is really just a logical extension of this existing zoning 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 01:56:12.800 --> 01:56:17.520 see how this r4 is kind of this beige color this really does just extend it 01:56:17.520 --> 01:56:27.120 and kind of just just continue that that pattern zoning criterion C is consistent 01:56:27.120 --> 01:56:31.320 with consistency with the purpose statement the r4 district is intended to 01:56:31.320 --> 01:56:35.940 accommodate a variety of housing types on lots encouraged to design to encourage 01:56:35.940 --> 01:56:41.140 walking and to neighborhoods serving retail and other amenities and parks 01:56:41.140 --> 01:56:46.360 such as parks and school facilities the request is consistent with the purpose 01:56:46.360 --> 01:56:49.600 statement as the applicant has stated the intent is to develop single-family 01:56:49.600 --> 01:56:53.360 dwellings once again town homes and duplexes would require the additional 01:56:53.360 --> 01:56:57.240 approval from council through the public hearing process and multi-family 01:56:57.240 --> 01:57:01.440 dwellings because it was something that came up a lot when when I heard from the 01:57:01.440 --> 01:57:06.600 surrounding residents they are not permitted in r4 that that use is not a 01:57:06.600 --> 01:57:13.200 permitted use even with an SUP zoning criteria E and F talks about the 01:57:13.200 --> 01:57:17.640 intensity of the development and that it's not expected to and create 01:57:17.640 --> 01:57:22.240 significantly adverse impacts to surrounding properties or neighborhood we 01:57:22.240 --> 01:57:26.560 analyze the the public infrastructure you know this is an infill area so that 01:57:26.560 --> 01:57:30.680 there are existing roads and water and wastewater water surrounding the 01:57:30.680 --> 01:57:36.200 property as far as from transportation due to the limited number of houses that 01:57:36.200 --> 01:57:41.000 they could get on the property with the with the dimensional requirements in the 01:57:41.000 --> 01:57:48.120 of our seven it it would generate about 90 trips per day which would not which 01:57:48.120 --> 01:57:53.520 would not trigger a TIA however if they if this was approved and they did move 01:57:53.520 --> 01:57:59.040 forward with development roadway impact fees would be would be required at 01:57:59.040 --> 01:58:03.760 development of the site there's water and wastewater available to the site and 01:58:03.760 --> 01:58:09.280 tap and impact fees would once again be be required with development the subject 01:58:09.280 --> 01:58:13.480 properties about a mile from Milan Park and Park dedication and development fees 01:58:13.480 --> 01:58:18.720 would be paid with the platting and building permits public outreach for the 01:58:18.720 --> 01:58:22.240 for the development included the applicant did hold a neighborhood 01:58:22.240 --> 01:58:28.920 meeting they had about five residents attend and they talked about things like 01:58:28.920 --> 01:58:35.880 tree preservation as well as driveway spacing or I'm sorry access spacing from 01:58:35.880 --> 01:58:43.200 the odder intersection there was also staff was placed the newspaper ad in 01:58:43.200 --> 01:58:47.840 accordance with our regulations as well as the notices and then that were mailed 01:58:47.840 --> 01:58:52.640 to properties within 200 and 500 feet and then there was sign a sign posted on 01:58:52.640 --> 01:58:57.040 the property we've received nine responses in opposition for within that 01:58:57.040 --> 01:59:03.360 200 foot boundary and you can see them shown here we have not received any in 01:59:03.360 --> 01:59:09.320 favor or any neutral so based upon the criteria for approval staff recommends 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 01:59:13.000 --> 01:59:17.720 questions we do have a question Commissioner Beck yes thank you chair so 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 01:59:24.880 --> 01:59:33.880 language in a recommendation that discourages anything other than single 01:59:33.880 --> 01:59:41.180 family I know the zoning allows for uses other than single family but can we be 01:59:41.180 --> 01:59:50.760 on record as saying we discourage that or is that just simply not allowed it's 01:59:50.760 --> 01:59:55.560 nothing that we couldn't enforce it would just be a suggestion and there I 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 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 02:00:07.960 --> 02:00:11.720 there that would wouldn't mean anything other than it's discouraged but they 02:00:11.720 --> 02:00:16.380 would still have to go through a public a public hearing process for anything 02:00:16.380 --> 02:00:19.720 other than single family so it would come back in front of this board I'm 02:00:19.720 --> 02:00:23.800 sorry this Commission for for review and recommendation and ultimately the City 02:00:23.800 --> 02:00:30.440 Council it would get noticed just like a rezoning case okay thank you but what we 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 02:00:38.800 --> 02:00:44.600 time I don't see any more questions thank you okay do you have several cards 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 02:00:52.320 --> 02:01:02.080 good evening commissioners give me just a moment to pull up my presentation it's 02:01:02.080 --> 02:01:06.040 brief but I do want to be able to show you a few things 02:01:15.160 --> 02:01:20.680 my name is Amy Bissett I am with Northbridge consultants 212 South Elm 02:01:20.680 --> 02:01:25.400 Street here in Denton I represent the applicant and the property owner who is 02:01:25.400 --> 02:01:29.840 here in the room tonight and can also be available to answer any questions we 02:01:29.840 --> 02:01:34.840 also have the engineer in the room as well and as Julie has already shared 02:01:34.840 --> 02:01:39.080 with you I'm going to be very brief with this the applicant does intend to 02:01:39.080 --> 02:01:44.520 subdivide into nine lots they're generous sized lots currently 7,000 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 02:01:51.260 --> 02:01:56.840 connectivity into the adjacent adjacent neighborhoods and it would be HOA 02:01:56.840 --> 02:02:02.280 maintained both the street and the detention pond and common areas and we 02:02:02.280 --> 02:02:07.160 did hold two neighborhood meetings including one in October where we had 02:02:07.160 --> 02:02:12.480 five neighbors in attendance at that point in time two concept plans were 02:02:12.480 --> 02:02:19.760 presented to the neighbors and they did vote essentially and agree on one of the 02:02:19.760 --> 02:02:25.160 concept plans which is what the property owner intends to do I will walk you 02:02:25.160 --> 02:02:29.360 through it very briefly and point out the reasons that they liked this plan 02:02:29.360 --> 02:02:34.080 better than the other one that was presented the first is that the lot 02:02:34.080 --> 02:02:41.200 depth of the southern lots lots number five and six on the screen and is 140 02:02:41.200 --> 02:02:46.160 feet what that does for the neighbors to the south is provide additional privacy 02:02:46.160 --> 02:02:52.760 in that they're essentially one neighbor from their backyard rather than more 02:02:52.760 --> 02:02:58.000 than one and you can see where I have kind of darkened the property lines to 02:02:58.000 --> 02:03:04.400 the south it is our four just to the south of this this particular neighborhood 02:03:04.400 --> 02:03:12.040 to the north and it is r2 above this property and the very intentionally on 02:03:12.040 --> 02:03:16.320 this concept plan the access drive as well as the detention pond and the 02:03:16.320 --> 02:03:20.440 common areas have been placed to the north in order to provide a buffer to 02:03:20.440 --> 02:03:26.680 the residents to the north the the residents prefer preferred private 02:03:26.680 --> 02:03:32.240 street versus a public right-of-way in order to minimize traffic and so that's 02:03:32.240 --> 02:03:39.240 how the concept plan is being designed currently and then and there was a very 02:03:39.240 --> 02:03:44.800 intentional decision to increase both the width and the depth of the lots to 02:03:44.800 --> 02:03:49.480 preserve to create an opportunity to preserve the trees along the fence line 02:03:49.480 --> 02:03:54.360 on both the eastern side and the southern side of the property and that's 02:03:54.360 --> 02:03:58.480 where most of the trees lie a tree preservation plan will be required at 02:03:58.480 --> 02:04:02.000 platting and there will be tree preservation required so this just 02:04:02.000 --> 02:04:09.280 affords plenty of room to make sure that that privacy is maintained I do want to 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:04:44.520 --> 02:04:48.840 it's it is most certainly the existing development pattern today and while 02:04:48.840 --> 02:04:53.600 there is some lower density are to primarily to the north of this property 02:04:53.600 --> 02:04:58.680 and this is definitely consistent with the pattern that has developed today and 02:04:58.680 --> 02:05:03.600 it is an infill development so developing in a compact way is 02:05:03.600 --> 02:05:09.400 consistent with the Denton plan and then I also pulled the the future land use 02:05:09.400 --> 02:05:14.720 plan to show that what's designated as low density residential on the future 02:05:14.720 --> 02:05:22.000 land use plan encompasses all of that are for today and technically are for 02:05:22.000 --> 02:05:26.000 would be considered low density although it's probably at the very top end of 02:05:26.000 --> 02:05:32.280 that and our actual density would be about 3.46 units per acre based on the 02:05:32.280 --> 02:05:37.680 proposal and I do recognize that there were concerns raised during the work 02:05:37.680 --> 02:05:42.680 session today and I want to address those directly I I recognize that the 02:05:42.680 --> 02:05:47.520 concern primarily is that the property owner can come in and rezone as are for 02:05:47.520 --> 02:05:53.000 today and then come back with a proposal for town homes or duplexes or something 02:05:53.000 --> 02:05:58.760 that is a higher density than what's being presented here and the what would 02:05:58.760 --> 02:06:03.240 be required for the for the developer or the property owner to do that would be 02:06:03.240 --> 02:06:08.440 to come back for a specific use permit which is the exact same process that 02:06:08.440 --> 02:06:12.800 we're undergoing tonight for a zoning change comes to public hearing we'd be 02:06:12.800 --> 02:06:16.200 back here in front of you being held accountable for the fact that we said 02:06:16.200 --> 02:06:20.360 we were gonna put in nine lots and now we're proposing something different you 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 02:06:25.480 --> 02:06:29.560 only just a public hearing process just like tonight but it's under much more 02:06:29.560 --> 02:06:35.360 scrutiny than tonight because in order to apply for a specific use permit we 02:06:35.360 --> 02:06:39.320 would have to do a traffic impact analysis and show the impact that we're 02:06:39.320 --> 02:06:44.440 having to all of the infrastructure in the in the surrounding area we'd have to 02:06:44.440 --> 02:06:50.080 be able to show that our density could be supported in terms of the traffic and 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 02:06:55.520 --> 02:07:00.560 and the the density and the scale would be looked at the height would be looked 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 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 02:07:13.120 --> 02:07:22.400 of single-family lots we do have some conceptual elevations this is what the 02:07:22.400 --> 02:07:27.280 property owner and developer envisions just generally speaking in terms of a 02:07:27.280 --> 02:07:33.920 range of housing options from 2,000 square feet and up and with that I will 02:07:33.920 --> 02:07:49.400 be happy to answer any questions I have one Amy um how would our three change 02:07:49.400 --> 02:08:01.920 this I think that it would probably lower the number of lots that the property 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 02:08:06.240 --> 02:08:12.080 and that just the infrastructure to put in the scroll back up here now you've 02:08:12.080 --> 02:08:15.720 got a significant amount of infrastructure here to support nine lots 02:08:15.720 --> 02:08:21.120 already with the private drive in and the in the private street and then the 02:08:21.120 --> 02:08:27.040 required detention pond and I just don't know financially whether or not it would 02:08:27.040 --> 02:08:32.940 work if if the costs associated with providing the access and the drainage 02:08:32.940 --> 02:08:38.560 for the development would support the number of lots that are three would 02:08:38.560 --> 02:08:42.600 allow but we do have the engineer as well as the property owner here that 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 02:08:46.040 --> 02:08:48.320 my question is really just neighborhood protection I'm not worried about 02:08:48.320 --> 02:08:52.440 necessarily you may be changing your concept but if for some reason the 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 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 02:09:01.040 --> 02:09:08.640 great also I had a question regarding you want with Allison engineering group 02:09:08.640 --> 02:09:11.960 and when we first looked at this property and we were considering our four 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 02:09:16.840 --> 02:09:21.400 point six acres we were looking at ten units and the property owner thought 02:09:21.400 --> 02:09:25.520 that ten was gonna be really tough to be able to make a profitable development 02:09:25.520 --> 02:09:31.200 out here once we said okay well we're we're no longer density based zoning 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 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 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 02:09:44.760 --> 02:09:48.800 of why we did and Amy touched on this part of why we presented the private 02:09:48.800 --> 02:09:54.400 street concept with a slightly smaller road section a more of a fire lane 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 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 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 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 02:10:19.960 --> 02:10:24.800 development feasible so that's why we have what we are presenting in front of 02:10:24.800 --> 02:10:28.880 you okay thank you yeah there's another question that sure it's for 02:10:28.880 --> 02:10:33.320 Commissioner Smith yeah thanks vice chair Jason Amy have we looked on this 02:10:33.320 --> 02:10:36.640 problem it's a private street but but for fire and emergency services getting 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 02:10:40.760 --> 02:10:44.080 appropriate fire turn around we'll turn around there but I didn't know how wide 02:10:44.080 --> 02:10:47.640 those those streets were gonna be it's set up for fire lane requirements what 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 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 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 02:11:01.560 --> 02:11:04.480 back and say no those aren't wide enough right and then that ruins 02:11:04.480 --> 02:11:07.720 engineering and the plan then the development falls through and now we've 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 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 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 02:11:22.000 --> 02:11:28.240 the west side there they shrink and so instead of being the the eight thousand I 02:11:28.240 --> 02:11:31.640 can't see that far away eighty six hundred square feet they shrink down to 02:11:31.640 --> 02:11:35.280 seventy two hundred seventy four hundred square feet and so that's where the 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 02:11:39.720 --> 02:11:44.960 city street full cul-de-sac 60 foot right-of-way something something still 02:11:44.960 --> 02:11:53.960 nine lots exactly thank you commissioner Anderson this says private streets are 02:11:53.960 --> 02:11:57.320 these gonna be dedicated to the city or who's gonna maintain the streets if it 02:11:57.320 --> 02:12:01.720 goes the private street it would be HOA maintained just like the HOA common lot 02:12:01.720 --> 02:12:06.680 that has the it's labeled up there detention pond and then just the 02:12:06.680 --> 02:12:09.560 landscaping in the common area a lot would all be HOA maintained so there 02:12:09.560 --> 02:12:14.040 would be nine owners participants in a homeowners Association but they're built 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 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 02:12:27.680 --> 02:12:32.800 that panhandle area does that belong to the house that it sits behind or does 02:12:32.800 --> 02:12:36.680 that actually belong on this property 02:12:40.320 --> 02:12:45.400 sir can you come to the podium please thank you 02:12:45.400 --> 02:12:54.120 believe it's a storage shed that belongs to the property does it belong to your 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 02:12:58.600 --> 02:13:05.440 were affected thank you very much okay I don't see any other questions at this 02:13:05.440 --> 02:13:12.920 time thank you I do have other cards wishing to speak the first one I have 02:13:12.920 --> 02:13:18.160 speaking in opposition is Jose Montoya 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 02:13:32.600 --> 02:13:37.480 address for the record 3,000 eight Beverly right on the corner one up from 02:13:37.480 --> 02:13:45.760 the 133 feet that was mentioned earlier thank you on your proposed access I'm 02:13:45.760 --> 02:13:49.760 glad to see that you decided to go to Audreau however Audreau is already 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 02:13:55.440 --> 02:14:00.520 sidewalks so if you're talking about making it user-friendly you'd have to 02:14:00.520 --> 02:14:07.200 redo the last part of Mockingbird to Audreau to make it walkable there is a 02:14:07.200 --> 02:14:14.280 house across the street from mine Katie corner I'm wondering is that part of the 02:14:14.280 --> 02:14:20.160 long-range plan to have that I buy out because then you would increase the size 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 02:14:25.720 --> 02:14:34.680 already collect cities neighbors trash on my property since I'd have a fence 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 02:14:40.040 --> 02:14:46.200 going to have the same kind of development with only nine lots have it 02:14:46.200 --> 02:14:50.960 maintained so it does not deter from the rest of the neighborhood we have 02:14:50.960 --> 02:14:55.920 elderly people living in the area who walk and would like to maintain that same 02:14:55.920 --> 02:15:04.200 walking area thank you Richard can you address it all future Mockingbird in 02:15:04.200 --> 02:15:11.840 that there do you have any of that information or maybe Julie I'm not aware 02:15:11.840 --> 02:15:24.480 of any plans right now to improve Mockingbird okay thank you next card I 02:15:24.480 --> 02:15:43.000 have speaking in opposition is Teddy Williams I live at 3204 and it's the lane 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 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 02:15:51.720 --> 02:15:56.400 all the meetings and the story has changed why does it need to go from our 02:15:56.400 --> 02:16:00.920 two to our four if he only intends to build nine houses I'm trying to 02:16:00.920 --> 02:16:06.440 understand that it has to do with parameters in the development code so in 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 02:16:13.320 --> 02:16:23.280 part of the city well the city follows the development go ahead Julie I think I 02:16:23.280 --> 02:16:28.160 can answer that so under current zoning the minimum lot size was would be 16,000 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 02:16:35.400 --> 02:16:38.860 foot lot so it's depending on the lot size 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 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 02:16:54.280 --> 02:17:00.240 be an r4 does that mean that townhomes apartments and all that can come in 02:17:00.240 --> 02:17:05.960 because that's a major concern the r4 designation does allow duplexes town 02:17:05.960 --> 02:17:11.760 homes group home with with a specific use permit that would have to come back 02:17:11.760 --> 02:17:15.960 before planning and zoning in City Council 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 02:17:25.120 --> 02:17:28.740 understanding because in all in the other two meetings I've heard two 02:17:28.740 --> 02:17:33.960 different things right now he is proposing and you guys would agree to 02:17:33.960 --> 02:17:39.360 nine houses am I understanding that correctly what we are considering today 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 02:17:47.440 --> 02:17:52.600 we're seeing from the applicant is the concept plan that they have in mind to 02:17:52.600 --> 02:17:57.760 develop if they get the rezoning a request okay well what earlier gentleman 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 02:18:03.680 --> 02:18:08.840 no sidewalks where he's proposing to build so it's really not going to be 02:18:08.840 --> 02:18:15.420 safe for the children or the elderly okay there's r4 was intended to 02:18:15.420 --> 02:18:21.800 encourage walking to parks and retail from what I understand there's no park 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 02:18:27.400 --> 02:18:33.760 there's no stores so I'm trying to understand the concept of why it needs 02:18:33.760 --> 02:18:40.680 to be r4 it's not safe Mockingbird is dangerous and Audra is dangerous enough 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:19:28.640 --> 02:19:34.200 watch the kids standing watch waiting for the buses on the street already people 02:19:34.200 --> 02:19:41.320 come flying down that street the stop sign is not even very far from where the 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 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 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 02:19:58.480 --> 02:20:01.960 understand because if our floor was really intended to encourage these 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 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 02:20:15.360 --> 02:20:21.000 moved in because it was a quiet safe neighborhood and it seems like it's 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 02:20:29.160 --> 02:20:33.520 and we absolutely appreciate you sharing your comments thank you for listening of 02:20:33.520 --> 02:20:43.480 course thank you okay the next card I have speaking in opposition is BJ 02:20:43.480 --> 02:20:56.080 Edwards good evening if you could state your name and address yes beat BJ 02:20:56.080 --> 02:21:03.000 Edwards $2,000 lane Denton thank you my family has some property adjacent to 02:21:03.000 --> 02:21:09.840 this we do oppose the zone change I understand that our for is all that 02:21:09.840 --> 02:21:14.280 other base creeping right in and going further north and let's go ahead and 02:21:14.280 --> 02:21:21.400 suck that up to R2 is fine the developer the purchaser bought it to 02:21:21.400 --> 02:21:26.080 make money to put as many addresses in there as he can whether he stacks them 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 02:21:37.120 --> 02:21:42.880 entire East boundary of this development and then some but as the lady was 02:21:42.880 --> 02:21:47.680 speaking over here on their drive their approach in and out there's a three-way 02:21:47.680 --> 02:21:51.960 stop sign right there that is there's always Rex right there and there's 02:21:51.960 --> 02:21:56.880 probably not 200 feet from that driveway to the three-way stop there's just that 02:21:56.880 --> 02:22:04.000 one house there on that corner but I oppose it and I'm definitely afraid of 02:22:04.000 --> 02:22:09.720 changing the zoning so they can come back later and ask for another one and 02:22:09.720 --> 02:22:14.560 end up sticking those apartments in there we've got a quiet neighborhood and 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 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 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 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 02:22:39.560 --> 02:22:47.640 deflect the water from flooding so it doesn't run exactly the way that 02:22:47.640 --> 02:22:53.080 detention pond is it'll probably be a continuing problem and the little bit of 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 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 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 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 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 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 02:23:26.960 --> 02:23:31.880 guard down that nine could jump into 40 pretty quick when they go to multi 02:23:31.880 --> 02:23:37.320 dwellings and that's the whole concept is to get more addresses multi-family 02:23:37.320 --> 02:23:43.760 dwellings are not allowed in in our four zoning district well what was it they 02:23:43.760 --> 02:23:49.000 could come back later and ask for the what town homes and duplexes are allowed 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 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 02:24:08.840 --> 02:24:13.200 folks for letting me speak my piece I am worried about the crime I'm worried 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 02:24:18.280 --> 02:24:22.960 area right now we've got a nice boundary where all those larger lots you're 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 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 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 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 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 02:24:50.080 --> 02:24:55.240 just go sit down I do not see any questions at this moment thank you thank 02:24:55.240 --> 02:25:02.920 you for coming out I do have another card here wishing to speak in opposition 02:25:02.920 --> 02:25:24.120 Carol Coulter you take your time Carol Coulter I live at 2913 Howard Court which 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 02:25:32.200 --> 02:25:39.920 here to represent mrs. Victoria Pena whose property is most of the property 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 02:25:49.440 --> 02:25:55.280 that we love our little pasture over there it has been there for a long time 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 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 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 02:26:15.120 --> 02:26:21.040 problem on mockingbird I've been out gathering signatures for opposition and 02:26:21.040 --> 02:26:27.200 I've been almost run over several times just because there's no sidewalk at all 02:26:27.200 --> 02:26:32.480 so when you walk along there you take your life in your hands believe me but 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 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 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 02:26:55.400 --> 02:27:01.720 will make the neighborhood much nicer and less dense and I'm not for the 02:27:01.720 --> 02:27:11.400 density I am a longtime neighbor I've lived in the neighborhood 30 years and I 02:27:11.400 --> 02:27:18.240 know that change is coming but I hope that the change would include lots of 02:27:18.240 --> 02:27:24.200 improvements for the road and for the traffic that is this is going to 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 02:27:30.920 --> 02:27:35.640 the gentleman who just spoke it opens the door so that if we talk about town 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 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 02:27:46.040 --> 02:27:53.280 I'd like to congratulate Julie on her work and on how much I have enjoyed 02:27:53.280 --> 02:27:58.620 talking with her and learning about this project and how positive she is and her 02:27:58.620 --> 02:28:05.320 letter to us and I appreciate that I have one negative and that is the letter 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 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 02:28:16.740 --> 02:28:23.440 definition in the letter for what that means and many people who don't have an 02:28:23.440 --> 02:28:29.000 access to a computer or don't know how to research things might not know so 02:28:29.000 --> 02:28:35.760 that would be helpful in the future for that to be clarified because you know we 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 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 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 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 02:28:58.400 --> 02:29:06.360 more than welcome to do so Raylin Samuelson is in opposition Tim 02:29:06.360 --> 02:29:15.240 Randolph is not wanting to speak but is in opposition did he want to speak Tim 02:29:15.240 --> 02:29:31.720 did you want to speak I just want to reiterate what BJ said the guy that 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 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 02:29:43.840 --> 02:29:50.520 the coming out of that place right there that stop sign at Mockingbird and Alder 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 02:29:57.520 --> 02:30:05.040 you thank you mr. Randolph I have another card not wishing to speak but is 02:30:05.040 --> 02:30:13.160 in opposition Dolores Montoya and that is all the cards that I have is there 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 02:30:16.560 --> 02:30:20.080 and speak on this item 02:30:20.080 --> 02:30:27.400 you can 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 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 02:30:51.640 --> 02:30:56.880 permit to go higher density with townhomes you heard the opposition it's 02:30:56.880 --> 02:31:03.360 gonna be a favorless fight to to grant that so with the HOA maintain when I 02:31:03.360 --> 02:31:08.080 houses I believe it's good for the community really do because there's no 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 02:31:14.080 --> 02:31:20.400 you thank you for coming out is there anyone else wishing to speak on this 02:31:20.400 --> 02:31:28.280 item anyone else wishing to speak okay seeing none I will close the public 02:31:28.280 --> 02:31:36.000 hearing on this item and open the floor for motion or discussion commissioner 02:31:36.000 --> 02:31:41.160 Smith thank you best chair I'm gonna make a motion to approve with staff 02:31:41.160 --> 02:31:44.760 recommendations right there was our staff members a solid motion to prove 02:31:44.760 --> 02:31:52.120 them reason for this I think that the density isn't too indifferent from a lot 02:31:52.120 --> 02:31:57.080 of the properties that are surrounding this I don't think that that from 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 02:32:04.000 --> 02:32:10.280 think is gonna add traffic burdens that really need to be a warranted and in the 02:32:10.280 --> 02:32:14.120 multifamily the duplex triplex anything else in there knowing that we have a 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 02:32:19.040 --> 02:32:23.000 you now that if someone if this project does fall through for whatever reasons 02:32:23.000 --> 02:32:27.480 that's if an SUP comes back in front of this Commission or any other Commission 02:32:27.480 --> 02:32:32.840 iteration after this they'll be very easy no to throw out there just because 02:32:32.840 --> 02:32:36.080 of the surrounding neighborhoods that are there so I think this is safely 02:32:36.080 --> 02:32:41.560 changing to a density that is workable and will be permanent so a motion to 02:32:41.560 --> 02:32:48.640 approve motion on the floor to approve Commissioner pernetta a second okay we 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 02:32:55.760 --> 02:33:04.600 discussion okay well I'm gonna say just a few words because I unfortunately cannot 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 02:33:09.560 --> 02:33:15.200 I actually really like the concept of the infill as it was presented but 02:33:15.200 --> 02:33:19.840 without the neighborhood protection in there that opens the door with a duplex 02:33:19.840 --> 02:33:25.960 or townhome or group home possibility with our for it doesn't work for me 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 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 02:33:38.040 --> 02:33:45.880 any more discussion okay let's call for a vote on the board 02:33:45.880 --> 02:34:06.760 that motion will carry for two congratulations okay that moves us okay 02:34:06.760 --> 02:34:12.360 our last public hearing item has been pulled that leaves us to our planning and 02:34:12.360 --> 02:34:17.520 zoning Commission matrix I will turn it over to Richard just wanted to provide 02:34:17.520 --> 02:34:24.120 excuse me brief update one City Council last night approved the two text 02:34:24.120 --> 02:34:27.760 amendments that we heard at the last meeting one with respect to the criteria 02:34:27.760 --> 02:34:32.460 manual language adding that back in as well as the clarification language for 02:34:32.460 --> 02:34:38.520 the overlay districts that converted to PD those both are approved 7-0 the gas 02:34:38.520 --> 02:34:44.400 well ordinance as we sort of discussed earlier or at least mentioned was was 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 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 02:34:56.240 --> 02:35:01.640 was that it was it was presented to them with the three options the initial 02:35:01.640 --> 02:35:07.520 option that that council had directed staff to prepare staffs recommendation 02:35:07.520 --> 02:35:12.040 and then the planning and zoning Commission recommendation so what they 02:35:12.040 --> 02:35:17.040 approved it was with all of staff recommendations so that was option two 02:35:17.040 --> 02:35:22.400 which essentially allowed for all non-conforming structures albeit 02:35:22.400 --> 02:35:26.800 non-conforming for gas wells or something else if they are destroyed 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 02:35:33.600 --> 02:35:37.120 that was approved last night so that will be in effect not just for gas wells 02:35:37.120 --> 02:35:42.360 but for all non-conformities and once we get that signed ordinance I'll provide a 02:35:42.360 --> 02:35:47.360 copy just so everyone everyone has that I know we had discussed there was a lot 02:35:47.360 --> 02:35:52.880 of debate over the last few weeks about additional items to be discussed about 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 02:35:59.640 --> 02:36:04.360 bringing that that will be presented to them and so they will discuss that and 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 02:36:08.840 --> 02:36:13.200 any further items with respect to gas wells to a work session the only thing 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 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 02:36:26.440 --> 02:36:31.040 can watch that but I will provide an update again on on the the 11th with 02:36:31.040 --> 02:36:39.180 respect to what what that outcome was just quickly on the on the matrix I did 02:36:39.180 --> 02:36:43.320 provide somewhat of an update on the the removal of that equipment as the 02:36:43.320 --> 02:36:49.160 de-energized substation I know Brent our manager from energy to reached out to 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 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 02:37:00.640 --> 02:37:07.440 this next meeting a work session on the notifications in the ETJ will also have 02:37:07.440 --> 02:37:12.440 the dual notifications and I don't remember the ladies name tonight but she 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 02:37:16.520 --> 02:37:21.760 discussion on notification to probably provide a little bit we try to do some of 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 02:37:25.920 --> 02:37:31.400 talk planner speak and just sort of plain language is exactly what they're 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 02:37:36.480 --> 02:37:41.840 work session for the next meeting okay we've got a couple wishing to speak 02:37:41.840 --> 02:37:46.440 Commissioner Smith I was gonna mention I was gonna ask about the ETJ I had a 02:37:46.440 --> 02:37:50.760 couple phone calls for the item be tonight that were folks who are in the 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 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 02:37:59.960 --> 02:38:05.360 getting people need TJ are calling about that so commissioner back thank you I 02:38:05.360 --> 02:38:11.680 share yeah no I really encourage you to do the additional language like 02:38:11.680 --> 02:38:14.520 we heard tonight I think that'll be really helpful do you think that would 02:38:14.520 --> 02:38:18.200 be something that I know we're gonna discuss it but is that something that 02:38:18.200 --> 02:38:22.880 we're considering all notifications for the simplified language or just the ETJ 02:38:22.880 --> 02:38:26.940 it would for me it would be for all know if all notifications that I would 02:38:26.940 --> 02:38:32.320 encourage that and and then do we have any considering the 14-day lag for the 02:38:32.320 --> 02:38:38.160 for the new ordinance do we have any idea how many properties might fall under 02:38:38.160 --> 02:38:43.040 that or is that really something we need to discuss at a later time in that 02:38:43.040 --> 02:38:52.680 window I mean I guess so much how many properties will I think our initial 02:38:52.680 --> 02:38:58.520 estimation was yeah how many projects underway that might run that might 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 02:39:05.080 --> 02:39:09.040 submittals come in yesterday was a deadline I don't think there I'd have to 02:39:09.040 --> 02:39:13.520 know that's fine I can provide that I can provide that for the next that 02:39:13.520 --> 02:39:19.800 would be helpful thank you anybody else anything for the matrix 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 02:39:27.120 --> 02:39:31.120 before is there something you can I just don't remember about like a future 02:39:31.120 --> 02:39:35.440 mobility on that and all that you know things are happening right there we've 02:39:35.440 --> 02:39:39.600 approved a whole lot up and down Audra if this gets approved this is just 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 02:39:45.440 --> 02:39:48.920 obviously I know we're gonna be years away from that but even just what the 02:39:48.920 --> 02:39:52.360 future plan is would be yes certainly I'll provide that I know at one point 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 02:39:55.960 --> 02:39:58.760 to speak too much to it but but there were some improvements that they were 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 02:40:03.320 --> 02:40:08.600 and see if there's anything yeah and then also as a suggestion if possible 02:40:08.600 --> 02:40:12.840 maybe on these developments these re zones where staffs recommending approval 02:40:12.840 --> 02:40:19.160 and you know that traffic is certainly an issue maybe in the presentation what 02:40:19.160 --> 02:40:23.720 the future will be would be great to add to the presentation that just gives a 02:40:23.720 --> 02:40:26.640 little bit more knowledge to the people who instead of just saying traffic's 02:40:26.640 --> 02:40:30.600 horrible and we all know it's horrible you know whether a TIA was performed or 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 02:40:35.480 --> 02:40:38.280 and that was good information but on these kind of things just even 02:40:38.280 --> 02:40:44.440 mentioned in the in the presentation be great okay seeing nothing else I will 02:40:44.440 --> 02:40:48.840 say happy Thanksgiving to everybody here in Washington and I will close our 02:40:48.840 --> 02:40:53.040 meeting at 812 thank you