1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,860
 Welcome to the planning and zoning commission work session for Wednesday, December 11, 2019.

2
00:00:10,860 --> 00:00:16,360
 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 338.

3
00:00:16,360 --> 00:00:20,920
 Let the record show that currently Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Panetta are absent.

4
00:00:20,920 --> 00:00:26,680
 The first item of business this evening is work session item 1A, which will be a report

5
00:00:26,680 --> 00:00:43,320
 and discussion followed or following a presentation by Hunter Cole Ranch Master Plan.

6
00:00:43,320 --> 00:00:44,320
 Good afternoon.

7
00:00:44,320 --> 00:00:51,280
 Today, what we'll be presenting is sort of an overview of the MPC amendments for the

8
00:00:51,280 --> 00:00:53,400
 Hunter and Cole Ranch MPCs.

9
00:00:53,400 --> 00:01:00,680
 I know we've kind of talked briefly about it just in sort of in passing that this will

10
00:01:00,680 --> 00:01:02,240
 be coming forward.

11
00:01:02,240 --> 00:01:07,320
 We did go to council last week with the work session, so what you'll be hearing tonight

12
00:01:07,320 --> 00:01:12,020
 is essentially almost the exact same, the only modification.

13
00:01:12,020 --> 00:01:18,680
 We won't really be diving into the agreements associated with the special taxing district

14
00:01:18,680 --> 00:01:22,720
 because that's nothing that would come in front of P&Z.

15
00:01:22,720 --> 00:01:27,520
 But more so on amendments to the existing zoning district.

16
00:01:27,520 --> 00:01:34,040
 So the first part of the presentation will be done by OC Vest from Stratford Land representing

17
00:01:34,040 --> 00:01:41,640
 Cole MPC and Brian Karlock with Hillwood representing Hunter Ranch MPC.

18
00:01:41,640 --> 00:01:45,440
 Once they're done, I'll kind of get up and go through some of the items that we had as

19
00:01:45,440 --> 00:01:50,160
 well as some of the discussion items that we had with council where we were initially

20
00:01:50,160 --> 00:01:54,400
 seeking direction and then that should be it.

21
00:01:54,400 --> 00:01:58,600
 Thank you, Richard.

22
00:01:58,600 --> 00:02:07,280
 Mr. Chairman, members of the Udenton Planning and Zoning Commission.

23
00:02:07,280 --> 00:02:08,280
 My name is OC Vest.

24
00:02:08,280 --> 00:02:16,040
 I'm a partner with Stratford Land at 5949 Sherry Lane Suite, 800 Dallas, Texas.

25
00:02:16,040 --> 00:02:23,640
 We're here tonight representing the MT Cole Family Partnership and SLF Cole property for

26
00:02:23,640 --> 00:02:34,120
 the Cole Ranch, which is about 3,169 acres in Denton and I'm also here joined by Mr.

27
00:02:34,120 --> 00:02:41,880
 Brian Karlock with Hillwood who will be representing Hillwood and the Hunter Ranch property, about

28
00:02:41,880 --> 00:02:47,400
 3,179 acres, slightly larger, for the Hunter Ranch project.

29
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:49,080
 We're going to do this kind of in tandem.

30
00:02:49,080 --> 00:02:52,880
 I'm going to go through the first part of the presentation and then bring Brian up to

31
00:02:52,880 --> 00:02:54,480
 do more of the vision.

32
00:02:54,480 --> 00:02:59,600
 I'm going to talk about kind of what the existing conditions are out there today and why we're

33
00:02:59,600 --> 00:03:02,160
 here today.

34
00:03:02,160 --> 00:03:06,000
 And Mr. Chairman, tell me what the protocol or you'd prefer, whether you want to ask questions

35
00:03:06,000 --> 00:03:09,960
 along the way or wait until the end, happy either way.

36
00:03:09,960 --> 00:03:16,000
 Yeah, I think preferably at the end would be just for the sake of the presentation but

37
00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:20,040
 I'm happy to entertain questions that are super pertinent at the time.

38
00:03:20,040 --> 00:03:27,480
 Sounds good.

39
00:03:27,480 --> 00:03:31,000
 Generally the agenda we're going to try to follow here this afternoon, project background,

40
00:03:31,000 --> 00:03:32,000
 that's what I will do.

41
00:03:32,000 --> 00:03:37,400
 Brian will come up for the vision and as Richard mentioned, the agreements are really the city

42
00:03:37,400 --> 00:03:43,240
 agreements that we're talking to related to the MMD district, the improvement district,

43
00:03:43,240 --> 00:03:48,720
 that will actually, you know, build some of the infrastructure for Cullen Hunter Ranch.

44
00:03:48,720 --> 00:03:50,320
 We do have some brief slides on that.

45
00:03:50,320 --> 00:03:55,320
 We can touch on that at the very end if you'd like, but as Richard said, those won't be

46
00:03:55,320 --> 00:03:57,820
 coming to P&Z for action.

47
00:03:57,820 --> 00:04:00,880
 So that be at your election.

48
00:04:00,880 --> 00:04:09,880
 Just a snapshot of this is actually from Hunter Ranch at I-35, looking north and west.

49
00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:10,880
 Here's a project timeline.

50
00:04:10,880 --> 00:04:15,020
 It gives you an idea how long we've been at this.

51
00:04:15,020 --> 00:04:21,240
 Hunter Ranch was actually annexed into the city in 2001, 18 years ago.

52
00:04:21,240 --> 00:04:24,940
 Cole was annexed in five years later in 2006.

53
00:04:24,940 --> 00:04:32,680
 Both were subsequently zoned, MPC zoning very soon thereafter in 2008.

54
00:04:32,680 --> 00:04:40,000
 If you recall, and I don't think anybody on the P&Z today was there in 2008, but in 2006

55
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:44,520
 when we annexed into the city, there was no MPC zoning.

56
00:04:44,520 --> 00:04:51,040
 So we worked with the then city director of planning and city staff to develop that zoning

57
00:04:51,040 --> 00:04:57,440
 category so that we would have a mechanism to control large tracts of land that need

58
00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:02,520
 flexible zoning so that they have the ability to adapt over time.

59
00:05:02,520 --> 00:05:07,720
 Once that zoning ordinance was created, Cole Ranch was one of the first applications for

60
00:05:07,720 --> 00:05:08,720
 that MPC zoning.

61
00:05:08,720 --> 00:05:14,520
 I think Hills of Denton on the north side was next and then Hunter also came in very

62
00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:15,520
 soon after that.

63
00:05:15,520 --> 00:05:22,440
 So we created a zoning district in order to match up with the size of property that we

64
00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:25,240
 all had.

65
00:05:25,240 --> 00:05:33,160
 Fast forward to July 13 of 2018 and the discussions there, we felt like we had a good plan of

66
00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:37,200
 development, but what we didn't have is a way to finance infrastructure.

67
00:05:37,200 --> 00:05:40,480
 We didn't have a financing plan for the ranches.

68
00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:46,280
 So we started talking to city leadership about how we do that.

69
00:05:46,280 --> 00:05:51,420
 Our experience and Hillwood's experience is on all these large master plan communities,

70
00:05:51,420 --> 00:05:56,560
 you have some sort of special financing district to help you do that.

71
00:05:56,560 --> 00:05:58,560
 Takes a variety of shapes and forms.

72
00:05:58,560 --> 00:06:01,380
 There's all different ways of doing it.

73
00:06:01,380 --> 00:06:06,240
 We always try to look at what the needs are and fit the program to what the needs are

74
00:06:06,240 --> 00:06:09,760
 so you have a real custom fit.

75
00:06:09,760 --> 00:06:15,240
 Started that conversation with Mayor Watts in July 13 of 2018 with a tour of the Veridian

76
00:06:15,240 --> 00:06:20,800
 project in Arlington, which is a very similar structure to what we're proposing for Cole

77
00:06:20,800 --> 00:06:21,800
 and Hunter.

78
00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:25,720
 It's a successful project, if you've never seen it, I encourage you to drive through

79
00:06:25,720 --> 00:06:26,720
 and look at it.

80
00:06:26,720 --> 00:06:31,080
 It was developed by the Johnson Development Company out of Houston in partnership with

81
00:06:31,080 --> 00:06:33,000
 the city of Arlington.

82
00:06:33,000 --> 00:06:38,880
 We had the Arlington mayor, Jeff Williams, one-on-one conversations with Mayor Watts

83
00:06:38,880 --> 00:06:44,320
 to talk about pros and cons of the different districts, how the zoning is set up.

84
00:06:44,320 --> 00:06:50,800
 And I think it was a really good place for us to start the conversation on where to go

85
00:06:50,800 --> 00:06:53,880
 and how to do it.

86
00:06:53,880 --> 00:07:00,760
 So since that time we've had a series of meetings, city council work sessions that culminated

87
00:07:00,760 --> 00:07:07,560
 in February 12 of the city council agreeing to allow us to go to the state legislature

88
00:07:07,560 --> 00:07:14,060
 to create these improvement districts, very, very similar again to what Veridian had done.

89
00:07:14,060 --> 00:07:20,960
 In June of 17, 2019, both bills were approved by the state legislature.

90
00:07:20,960 --> 00:07:25,700
 One for Hunter, one for Cole, they're almost identical except for the legal description

91
00:07:25,700 --> 00:07:28,720
 that describes each property.

92
00:07:28,720 --> 00:07:36,160
 Those bills, however, do not take effect until we have city agreements that talk about how

93
00:07:36,160 --> 00:07:39,720
 the governance is going to work, how the districts are going to work, and then all the project

94
00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:42,880
 agreement items that go along with that.

95
00:07:42,880 --> 00:07:48,980
 That's the body of documents that we talk about as being the city agreements.

96
00:07:48,980 --> 00:07:55,080
 That work has been done, and since then we have been working on those agreements, and

97
00:07:55,080 --> 00:08:01,040
 what happened very soon after that was we realized there were some changes in our existing

98
00:08:01,040 --> 00:08:07,660
 zoning that were going to be necessary in order to move the projects forward.

99
00:08:07,660 --> 00:08:15,880
 Number one being the gas well ordinance and the new city development code.

100
00:08:15,880 --> 00:08:21,400
 So there were several things that happened along the way that are really the reason why

101
00:08:21,400 --> 00:08:24,740
 we're here talking about an MPC amendment.

102
00:08:24,740 --> 00:08:31,160
 To follow the timeline further on, December 3rd, we had the work session last week.

103
00:08:31,160 --> 00:08:36,240
 January 8th is where we'd like to target planning and zoning for approval of the MPC, and then

104
00:08:36,240 --> 00:08:40,640
 January 28th of 2020 for final city council.

105
00:08:40,640 --> 00:08:45,120
 Current timeline that we're working real hard to stay on.

106
00:08:45,120 --> 00:08:50,040
 Again, kind of the objective of what we're trying to do is provide the governance for

107
00:08:50,040 --> 00:08:54,160
 how we develop two large master plan communities.

108
00:08:54,160 --> 00:08:59,000
 We believe that doing them together makes a lot of sense, not only from our side, but

109
00:08:59,000 --> 00:09:03,320
 there's a lot of efficiencies with the city, I think, as well, and we'll show you that

110
00:09:03,320 --> 00:09:10,800
 in maps further into the development.

111
00:09:10,800 --> 00:09:13,200
 Probably a map that doesn't need much explanation.

112
00:09:13,200 --> 00:09:19,560
 The red area is the two sites together, about 6,400 acres in the southwest quadrant of the

113
00:09:19,560 --> 00:09:20,560
 city.

114
00:09:20,560 --> 00:09:25,200
 Coal Ranch, again, 3169, Hunter Ranch, 3179.

115
00:09:25,200 --> 00:09:30,300
 A lot of people ask, okay, in the Coal Ranch, I see this big out parcel, what is that?

116
00:09:30,300 --> 00:09:35,200
 That's the McCutcheon property who own that property, and they are not in the city and

117
00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:36,960
 not zoned.

118
00:09:36,960 --> 00:09:43,520
 So that's a piece that we work around.

119
00:09:43,520 --> 00:09:50,880
 Again, just to kind of confirm the current status, both properties have annexed into

120
00:09:50,880 --> 00:09:57,640
 the city, both have master plan communities zoning on them today from 2008, and both have

121
00:09:57,640 --> 00:10:04,680
 an approved development plan map that's required as a part of the MPC zoning process.

122
00:10:04,680 --> 00:10:09,760
 What we do not have for either of these projects is infrastructure available to this area.

123
00:10:09,760 --> 00:10:13,720
 And of course, that's what we're trying to solve.

124
00:10:13,720 --> 00:10:17,360
 So again, why is an MPC amendment needed?

125
00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:22,720
 First of all, to increase the gas well setbacks from where we are to what the city is going

126
00:10:22,720 --> 00:10:26,260
 towards with their new gas well ordinance.

127
00:10:26,260 --> 00:10:29,720
 Last week we thought that was a done deal, but evidently it's not, and there's still

128
00:10:29,720 --> 00:10:32,320
 some more work to be done on that.

129
00:10:32,320 --> 00:10:33,320
 That's fine.

130
00:10:33,320 --> 00:10:34,320
 I think that's great.

131
00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:39,760
 But we're here proposing gas well setbacks that are consistent with the ordinance that

132
00:10:39,760 --> 00:10:43,600
 the city passed originally.

133
00:10:43,600 --> 00:10:46,680
 Just to put it very briefly and plainly.

134
00:10:46,680 --> 00:10:54,740
 We're also adopting the 2019 DDC as our governing documents for projects going forward.

135
00:10:54,740 --> 00:11:02,400
 The vested rights that we have on our properties today are the 2002 DDC with about 49 amendments.

136
00:11:02,400 --> 00:11:07,360
 And what we realized after working with Richard's staff for a couple of weeks was it just wasn't

137
00:11:07,360 --> 00:11:08,720
 workable.

138
00:11:08,720 --> 00:11:15,640
 We couldn't even find a copy of what the 2002 DDC looked like in 2008.

139
00:11:15,640 --> 00:11:22,000
 So it made a lot of sense for us to bring the project forward, forget that vested right,

140
00:11:22,000 --> 00:11:24,200
 and to adopt the 29 DDC.

141
00:11:24,200 --> 00:11:29,240
 Now we are offering some changes because we do think there's some modifications that need

142
00:11:29,240 --> 00:11:35,280
 to be reworked in order to fit a master plan community, so we'll talk about that later.

143
00:11:35,280 --> 00:11:41,640
 We also think that it creates a much better coordinated master plan between the two properties.

144
00:11:41,640 --> 00:11:46,220
 If we do this right, you really won't be able to tell the difference between coal ranch

145
00:11:46,220 --> 00:11:48,040
 and hunter ranch on the ground.

146
00:11:48,040 --> 00:12:06,060
 You'll feel like one big master plan community is a great addition to the city of death.

147
00:12:06,060 --> 00:12:10,960
 As we talked about before, the development plan map is a part of the approval of the

148
00:12:10,960 --> 00:12:14,480
 master plan community zoning.

149
00:12:14,480 --> 00:12:18,440
 So why are we suggesting a change to that as well?

150
00:12:18,440 --> 00:12:24,600
 On the left, you can see what our two existing development plan maps look like put together.

151
00:12:24,600 --> 00:12:29,820
 Very disjointed, the land uses don't line up, the roads don't line up, the open space

152
00:12:29,820 --> 00:12:32,520
 areas don't make any sense.

153
00:12:32,520 --> 00:12:38,520
 And it's just obvious that they were both designed at different times and designed in

154
00:12:38,520 --> 00:12:41,140
 an isolated fashion.

155
00:12:41,140 --> 00:12:46,160
 If you look at the map on the right, that's a simple diagrammatic version of what we think

156
00:12:46,160 --> 00:12:48,680
 the land uses should be.

157
00:12:48,680 --> 00:12:50,600
 Makes a lot more sense.

158
00:12:50,600 --> 00:12:59,160
 It gathers intensity and density uses along I-35 and loop 288 where they're more appropriate.

159
00:12:59,160 --> 00:13:05,640
 And steps the density down as you go to the west to be sensitive to ropes and ranch and

160
00:13:05,640 --> 00:13:11,100
 our neighboring ranch community members on the west side.

161
00:13:11,100 --> 00:13:16,440
 In the middle is more mixed use and where we transition from the higher intensity uses

162
00:13:16,440 --> 00:13:19,780
 to the lower intensity uses.

163
00:13:19,780 --> 00:13:23,560
 You see that the street pattern makes a lot more sense.

164
00:13:23,560 --> 00:13:31,160
 Now you all of a sudden see logical intersections like ropes and ranch road in I-35, all red

165
00:13:31,160 --> 00:13:38,100
 road, a new interchange that DOT will be constructing in the near future.

166
00:13:38,100 --> 00:13:42,160
 And the interchange with 2449 and I-35.

167
00:13:42,160 --> 00:13:49,800
 Loop 288 also creates new interchange and grade separated opportunities in that area.

168
00:13:49,800 --> 00:13:55,920
 So with the extension of all red east and west to Lively Robe, we're providing a second

169
00:13:55,920 --> 00:14:01,840
 point of access for ropes and ranch should they decide to take advantage of that.

170
00:14:01,840 --> 00:14:09,800
 And the improvements of 2449 to the west also provide increased connectivity for ropes and

171
00:14:09,800 --> 00:14:11,800
 neighbors to the west.

172
00:14:11,800 --> 00:14:18,600
 So I think the map is pretty demonstrative that it improves tremendously from where we

173
00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:24,440
 were to where we are today.

174
00:14:24,440 --> 00:14:33,720
 Now we're going to get into the vision and ask Mr. Brian Carlock to come up and keep

175
00:14:33,720 --> 00:14:35,720
 going.

176
00:14:35,720 --> 00:14:39,200
 Good afternoon.

177
00:14:39,200 --> 00:14:40,200
 Brian Carlock.

178
00:14:40,200 --> 00:14:41,200
 I'm with Hillwood.

179
00:14:41,200 --> 00:14:44,920
 I wish we had a little more time to talk a little bit about our companies, probably both

180
00:14:44,920 --> 00:14:47,560
 Stratford and Hillwood.

181
00:14:47,560 --> 00:14:51,000
 I never take for granted that anybody knows who Hillwood is.

182
00:14:51,000 --> 00:14:55,280
 Probably folks in Denton have heard of Hillwood and are kind of familiar with what we've done

183
00:14:55,280 --> 00:14:58,160
 to your south along I-35.

184
00:14:58,160 --> 00:15:01,440
 But I'm with Hillwood communities, we're a division of Hillwood.

185
00:15:01,440 --> 00:15:04,440
 All we focus on is master plan community development.

186
00:15:04,440 --> 00:15:09,080
 We do most of our lot development and large master plans, kind of like this, in major

187
00:15:09,080 --> 00:15:10,680
 Texas markets.

188
00:15:10,680 --> 00:15:15,760
 So we're excited to finally -- we've owned this property for a long time, so we're finally

189
00:15:15,760 --> 00:15:21,280
 excited to really have the market more come to us, and hopefully the entitlements and

190
00:15:21,280 --> 00:15:26,400
 infrastructure challenges have a way to kind of get solved so we can create this awesome

191
00:15:26,400 --> 00:15:30,160
 community.

192
00:15:30,160 --> 00:15:31,160
 OC spoke to this.

193
00:15:31,160 --> 00:15:37,800
 This is loosely very much a similar representation to the development plan map that OC just talked

194
00:15:37,800 --> 00:15:39,400
 about.

195
00:15:39,400 --> 00:15:45,020
 This has a little more enhancement to really stress some other attributes beyond infrastructure

196
00:15:45,020 --> 00:15:47,880
 of roadways and consistent land uses.

197
00:15:47,880 --> 00:15:51,980
 This also probably highlights a little bit more of this unique opportunity that these

198
00:15:51,980 --> 00:15:58,760
 two properties have to create these amazing kind of linear linkages kind of to and through

199
00:15:58,760 --> 00:16:03,680
 the property, connecting properties to the west that will one day be within the corporate

200
00:16:03,680 --> 00:16:09,420
 limits all the way through the east, there's really two or three major linear green belts

201
00:16:09,420 --> 00:16:14,520
 that allow access all the way to the east side of the town.

202
00:16:14,520 --> 00:16:19,600
 Amazing things will happen within the master plan, Hunter and Cole.

203
00:16:19,600 --> 00:16:25,800
 Using these green belts, a lot of the vision really is to create a world class, very walkable

204
00:16:25,800 --> 00:16:32,200
 mix of uses, you know, community, walkability is key, leveraging the key assets that we

205
00:16:32,200 --> 00:16:36,840
 have on the property, both linear green belts, the pilot knob and the upland habitat that

206
00:16:36,840 --> 00:16:41,740
 everybody's probably familiar with, primarily on Hunter Ranch are things that we're embracing

207
00:16:41,740 --> 00:16:45,840
 and kind of bringing in to the master plan and using them because we think that really

208
00:16:45,840 --> 00:16:51,680
 is the most special thing about the property is the walkability and the linear linkages

209
00:16:51,680 --> 00:16:55,120
 through these green belts.

210
00:16:55,120 --> 00:16:56,760
 This is kind of a next step down.

211
00:16:56,760 --> 00:17:00,600
 This isn't the development map plan, but this is kind of what we consider the master plan

212
00:17:00,600 --> 00:17:06,780
 if you want to start peeling the onion back behind MR, MN, R7, R5, R4.

213
00:17:06,780 --> 00:17:12,700
 This is kind of our thought of maybe how this thing develops.

214
00:17:12,700 --> 00:17:17,260
 And actually, if you even compare the two, this one to this one, this one again peeling

215
00:17:17,260 --> 00:17:22,240
 the onion back a little bit, I will go back to this to talk about one thing we really

216
00:17:22,240 --> 00:17:27,240
 like about this zoning map, the way it looks and feels and the way at least it's been structured

217
00:17:27,240 --> 00:17:34,400
 in the current proposed amendment and mini DDC that we're kind of putting together with

218
00:17:34,400 --> 00:17:37,680
 staff is it does allow some flexibility.

219
00:17:37,680 --> 00:17:43,040
 We're really creating zones of land uses that we believe make sense.

220
00:17:43,040 --> 00:17:48,520
 In developing Alliance now for over 40 years or close to 40 years now, what we do know

221
00:17:48,520 --> 00:17:55,880
 is that we just don't know how the next 5, 10, 20, 35 and 40 years will really lay out.

222
00:17:55,880 --> 00:18:01,240
 We think there's certainly some responsibility to put some bumpers around these large land

223
00:18:01,240 --> 00:18:06,440
 uses, but we never want to get caught in a position to where we have an opportunity for

224
00:18:06,440 --> 00:18:12,000
 corporate campus, an office project, a residential project, really so unique, everybody wants

225
00:18:12,000 --> 00:18:18,280
 it to happen, but for some reason the zoning doesn't line up and it delays the project.

226
00:18:18,280 --> 00:18:23,200
 Somebody say just for example, a Google campus wanted to come to Denton and be on our Hunter

227
00:18:23,200 --> 00:18:26,960
 Ranch project and they thought it was going to take two or three more years to get the

228
00:18:26,960 --> 00:18:27,960
 zoning approved.

229
00:18:27,960 --> 00:18:31,920
 They're never going to pursue a project like that with us.

230
00:18:31,920 --> 00:18:38,440
 Part of what we're putting together is a plan that is very thoughtful, but it's also flexible.

231
00:18:38,440 --> 00:18:43,160
 You can kind of see that just from the large chunky nature of these land uses, different

232
00:18:43,160 --> 00:18:47,200
 from what OC showed you before, which is the existing zoning.

233
00:18:47,200 --> 00:18:52,040
 Anyway, pulling this back a little bit, you can kind of see just the representations of

234
00:18:52,040 --> 00:19:00,240
 color, even take the frontage along I-35, while it might be MR by zoning category, you

235
00:19:00,240 --> 00:19:04,760
 can see if you can kind of distinguish the colors, you can kind of see that it is a mix

236
00:19:04,760 --> 00:19:12,200
 of uses from high intensity commercial to office, mixed use, some residential.

237
00:19:12,200 --> 00:19:14,200
 It is a mix of uses.

238
00:19:14,200 --> 00:19:19,520
 The residential that we would propose in anything that's MR would be a higher density residential,

239
00:19:19,520 --> 00:19:23,440
 something that makes sense, you would want to live in an area when creating these live

240
00:19:23,440 --> 00:19:24,440
 work play.

241
00:19:24,440 --> 00:19:30,040
 This isn't where your 10,000 square foot lot type communities go, but we think it important

242
00:19:30,040 --> 00:19:32,520
 to be able to create that live work play.

243
00:19:32,520 --> 00:19:37,440
 As you transition to the west, logically you can tell because it changes patterns from

244
00:19:37,440 --> 00:19:43,280
 oranges to yellows, we're trying to be responsible off to the west as we have neighbors that

245
00:19:43,280 --> 00:19:45,480
 may be more rural, at least at this point.

246
00:19:45,480 --> 00:19:51,260
 We do match up very nicely with the density, we think, with Robeson Ranch, everybody may

247
00:19:51,260 --> 00:19:59,240
 or may not be familiar, in 2010 Hunter Ranch brought an amendment to our MPC through.

248
00:19:59,240 --> 00:20:03,800
 That amendment dealt mainly with gas wells, but it also dealt a lot with Robeson Ranch,

249
00:20:03,800 --> 00:20:08,320
 so one thing to understand, if you dig too deep into the document, you'll see that we're

250
00:20:08,320 --> 00:20:14,680
 really honoring the obligations that we made to Robeson Ranch in 2010, and those were setbacks,

251
00:20:14,680 --> 00:20:19,920
 they had gas well provisions in them, they had lot size provisions in them, things like

252
00:20:19,920 --> 00:20:23,840
 that, so we're honoring all those obligations, I don't believe Osie mentioned it, but we

253
00:20:23,840 --> 00:20:27,880
 did have a town hall meeting with Robeson several weeks ago and really went through

254
00:20:27,880 --> 00:20:32,600
 the whole plan with them and it was, I think, received very well.

255
00:20:32,600 --> 00:20:38,720
 But in here too, just to highlight the green, linear linkages, the existing tree coverage,

256
00:20:38,720 --> 00:20:45,240
 pilot knob, you can see really the project ends up being about 1/3 open space, both planned

257
00:20:45,240 --> 00:20:52,120
 and existing through ESA and greenspace, and so that's, well, and the other thing impacting

258
00:20:52,120 --> 00:20:55,800
 the open space is certainly the gas wells and gas well setbacks, and we'll talk about

259
00:20:55,800 --> 00:20:59,320
 that here in a moment.

260
00:20:59,320 --> 00:21:04,600
 Education, four elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school is what's been programmed,

261
00:21:04,600 --> 00:21:09,520
 we've been working very closely with the school district for years now on, really, the number

262
00:21:09,520 --> 00:21:15,080
 of schools they need, and at least right now, their projected locations, they already own

263
00:21:15,080 --> 00:21:20,520
 the high school and they already own one middle school, as we go over time and we really finally

264
00:21:20,520 --> 00:21:24,480
 find the right place to put the other middle school and the other elementary schools, we'll

265
00:21:24,480 --> 00:21:26,200
 certainly work with them.

266
00:21:26,200 --> 00:21:30,360
 We treat elementary schools and other schools within the community, you know, as valuable

267
00:21:30,360 --> 00:21:36,040
 as parks and amenity centers and pools, it's just a key fundamental part.

268
00:21:36,040 --> 00:21:43,480
 We love them, we always, we love the interaction between the HOAs and the parent associations,

269
00:21:43,480 --> 00:21:47,680
 this one in the bottom right corner is a Denton ISD elementary school we just finished in

270
00:21:47,680 --> 00:21:52,200
 our project, happens to be in the city of Little Elm, but it's in the eastern side of

271
00:21:52,200 --> 00:21:58,120
 a DISD, the one in the top right is one we recently finished down in Houston, we've probably

272
00:21:58,120 --> 00:22:04,360
 done six elementary schools across the state of Texas, so we're really familiar with school

273
00:22:04,360 --> 00:22:07,800
 districts, the value they bring, for sure the on-site schools that they bring, and it really

274
00:22:07,800 --> 00:22:12,680
 makes us way into our planning principles, making sure they are walkable and in the right

275
00:22:12,680 --> 00:22:15,680
 locations.

276
00:22:15,680 --> 00:22:20,120
 A little bit about the residential character, this is a bit of an array, of course, of housing

277
00:22:20,120 --> 00:22:26,160
 product, and it really represents, from a single family standpoint, largely the array

278
00:22:26,160 --> 00:22:30,480
 of housing that we're talking about in both projects.

279
00:22:30,480 --> 00:22:38,760
 You can see in the bottom right, townhomes, up to probably in the bottom left is a, probably

280
00:22:38,760 --> 00:22:44,760
 on a 90-foot lot down in our Austin project, this represents housing pricing, at least

281
00:22:44,760 --> 00:22:51,880
 in Texas vernacular, probably in the 300,000 up to probably 750,000 in that range.

282
00:22:51,880 --> 00:22:56,400
 If you look at all the economics that are driving the fiscal impact studies and everything

283
00:22:56,400 --> 00:23:01,980
 else going on with the city right now, with Hunter and Cole, we're assuming a $350,000

284
00:23:01,980 --> 00:23:05,640
 average home price when we kind of start the project.

285
00:23:05,640 --> 00:23:11,080
 We think it'll be, once everything gets lined up, infrastructure-wise, agreement-wise, we're

286
00:23:11,080 --> 00:23:14,680
 probably four or five years before you really would see the first home in either one of

287
00:23:14,680 --> 00:23:19,600
 these projects, but this is really the array of housing, so really from a townhome all

288
00:23:19,600 --> 00:23:23,760
 the way up to kind of more of an estate lot, I guess, is what we're talking about.

289
00:23:23,760 --> 00:23:27,760
 There's also multi-family that we'll talk about in a minute as a part of this project,

290
00:23:27,760 --> 00:23:33,720
 but our idea is to be able to offer, really, housing for everybody, good quality housing

291
00:23:33,720 --> 00:23:36,080
 for almost everybody.

292
00:23:36,080 --> 00:23:40,140
 Practically speaking, that'll probably be high 200,000s up to kind of whatever you want

293
00:23:40,140 --> 00:23:45,240
 to spend, but not intended to be at all a first-time homebuyer project exclusively.

294
00:23:45,240 --> 00:23:50,560
 On the other side, it's not intended to be a state million-dollar home project either.

295
00:23:50,560 --> 00:23:56,280
 I'm going to ask Robert Folzen-Logan to talk a little bit.

296
00:23:56,280 --> 00:23:59,320
 The commercial mixed use is an important part of this project.

297
00:23:59,320 --> 00:24:03,680
 It's a large part of this project, barely both projects.

298
00:24:03,680 --> 00:24:10,360
 Robert runs all of the Hillwood mixed use commercial projects in North Texas, whether

299
00:24:10,360 --> 00:24:15,200
 it's North Dallas or Alliance, so Robert's going to take you through a few of the details

300
00:24:15,200 --> 00:24:19,920
 on some of the mixed use.

301
00:24:19,920 --> 00:24:29,200
 Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to be a part of the session.

302
00:24:29,200 --> 00:24:31,560
 As Brian said, my name's Robert Folzen-Logan.

303
00:24:31,560 --> 00:24:38,920
 I'm senior vice president with Hillwood Development, so we're the sister company to Hillwood communities

304
00:24:38,920 --> 00:24:47,160
 on the commercial mixed use side, and we are celebrating Alliance's 30th year on Thursday,

305
00:24:47,160 --> 00:24:51,520
 and you know, outlining properties from there gets you to the 40-year that Brian spoke of,

306
00:24:51,520 --> 00:24:56,880
 but if you're not familiar with it, that's the 26,000 acres in and around Alliance Airport.

307
00:24:56,880 --> 00:25:03,120
 And for me personally, I've been focused on the benchmarking, planning, and ultimately

308
00:25:03,120 --> 00:25:09,640
 master development of all of our mixed use projects for the past 14 years or so.

309
00:25:09,640 --> 00:25:14,100
 And I tell you that because it is representative of the projects I'm going to go through here

310
00:25:14,100 --> 00:25:22,920
 today and having the fortune to work through several different demographics and stages

311
00:25:22,920 --> 00:25:28,000
 and markets, which leads to really our approach to all of our mixed use projects now, including

312
00:25:28,000 --> 00:25:29,000
 Hunter.

313
00:25:29,000 --> 00:25:34,680
 Those include three really core mixed use projects, one being Alliance Town Center.

314
00:25:34,680 --> 00:25:44,480
 So that's the 900 acres, Belks, JCPenney's, down off of Harris Trace Parkway, Circle T,

315
00:25:44,480 --> 00:25:52,680
 which is represented here, very unique, one-of-a-kind in terms of corporate campus, very slow, heavily

316
00:25:52,680 --> 00:25:58,400
 geared off of DFW Airport, but I put it in here because ultimately it has the same planning

317
00:25:58,400 --> 00:26:04,120
 principles and the hope of getting some corporate users over time.

318
00:26:04,120 --> 00:26:08,680
 Eight, it happens to cut through the eastern cross timbers and have some of the beauty

319
00:26:08,680 --> 00:26:11,840
 and uniqueness that Hunter reached us from an environmental perspective.

320
00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:19,080
 And then thirdly is Frisco Station, which I've set up and planned and managed since about

321
00:26:19,080 --> 00:26:20,080
 five years from now.

322
00:26:20,080 --> 00:26:27,660
 And it's a representation of we are a 30-plus year perspective that the Hillwood Commercial

323
00:26:27,660 --> 00:26:32,000
 Group and certainly vested in the 35W corridor.

324
00:26:32,000 --> 00:26:35,920
 We were fortunate to go back to Frisco, which is interesting.

325
00:26:35,920 --> 00:26:41,880
 Mr. Perot set up the area whenever he did EDS down on 121 almost 30 years ago.

326
00:26:41,880 --> 00:26:47,920
 So we're back there seeing how 30-year in density and scale changes over time.

327
00:26:47,920 --> 00:26:54,640
 So all three of those are sort of baked into how do you future proof a mixed use community

328
00:26:54,640 --> 00:27:00,860
 and have the right sustainable bones in them so that it is sustainable 30 years from now.

329
00:27:00,860 --> 00:27:04,800
 So just background to what I'm going to walk through here in a minute, doesn't mean that

330
00:27:04,800 --> 00:27:11,200
 it's exactly dentin, but hopefully represents scale and time.

331
00:27:11,200 --> 00:27:16,600
 So circle T, we talked about this way.

332
00:27:16,600 --> 00:27:24,600
 So here's a representation of the corporate tenant, which we think over time as 114 continues

333
00:27:24,600 --> 00:27:27,760
 to build out from a commercial growth node and 35W.

334
00:27:27,760 --> 00:27:32,320
 So you think about everything that's happening in Denton Alliance 114.

335
00:27:32,320 --> 00:27:37,400
 We believe over time that there certainly will be opportunities for larger corporate

336
00:27:37,400 --> 00:27:38,400
 users.

337
00:27:38,400 --> 00:27:41,000
 Schwab, which you may have heard about recently.

338
00:27:41,000 --> 00:27:44,000
 They're moving their headquarters here from the west coast.

339
00:27:44,000 --> 00:27:52,440
 It's roughly 600,000 plus square feet, 6,000 employees, fairly low FAR, but surrounded

340
00:27:52,440 --> 00:27:57,480
 by lake and amenities integrated into our open space system.

341
00:27:57,480 --> 00:28:03,120
 Flip over to this is a Frisco building that we built, opened up a couple of years ago.

342
00:28:03,120 --> 00:28:09,920
 There's a second one similar to it, a little bit higher FAR in the .23 up to 7, 8 stories,

343
00:28:09,920 --> 00:28:15,680
 but much more urban majority glazing and you can't see it, but it's got the same parks

344
00:28:15,680 --> 00:28:20,600
 and trails principles with a trailhead over here that leads into a 30-acre park system.

345
00:28:20,600 --> 00:28:25,600
 But they're really two different scales.

346
00:28:25,600 --> 00:28:26,600
 Alliance Town Center.

347
00:28:26,600 --> 00:28:32,040
 So now I'm going back to a much more suburban market, but same planning principles, whatever

348
00:28:32,040 --> 00:28:38,720
 we set out 15 years ago to organize the 900-acre Alliance Town Center.

349
00:28:38,720 --> 00:28:47,520
 The idea of putting flexible but efficient infrastructure grid types, zoning, which allows

350
00:28:47,520 --> 00:28:53,120
 us to move with the market, but still keep the same quality and planning principles with

351
00:28:53,120 --> 00:28:55,880
 integration of parks and trails amenities.

352
00:28:55,880 --> 00:29:01,000
 And in this case, you're looking at 400 acres north of Harris Trace Parkway.

353
00:29:01,000 --> 00:29:05,320
 It looks fairly low density, but there is, over time, we'll be almost 2 million square

354
00:29:05,320 --> 00:29:07,000
 feet of office.

355
00:29:07,000 --> 00:29:14,080
 We have 600, 900 multifamily urban living units on the ground today and a couple more

356
00:29:14,080 --> 00:29:19,880
 projects in the future, a hospital district to the north that includes Texas Health Resources

357
00:29:19,880 --> 00:29:21,240
 and Cook Children's.

358
00:29:21,240 --> 00:29:27,000
 There's a hotel, Marriott down here, and all of it's integrated on Bluestem Park, which

359
00:29:27,000 --> 00:29:32,400
 is, in this case, a 14-acre restored prairie that we did with the Ladybird Johnson Group

360
00:29:32,400 --> 00:29:34,360
 out of Austin.

361
00:29:34,360 --> 00:29:38,800
 And then in the middle here is the FAA headquarters, which right now is the tallest building.

362
00:29:38,800 --> 00:29:40,920
 And the point here is it's down the street.

363
00:29:40,920 --> 00:29:41,920
 You can drive through it.

364
00:29:41,920 --> 00:29:47,920
 You can get a sense of it, and you don't see it, but even our office project that I sit

365
00:29:47,920 --> 00:29:53,960
 in today is fairly traditional Class A suburban office, which would be representative of what

366
00:29:53,960 --> 00:29:57,280
 would likely come to Hunter in the short term.

367
00:29:57,280 --> 00:30:02,280
 But we plan it in such a way that if and when you can support structured parking, then you

368
00:30:02,280 --> 00:30:09,400
 can begin to go vertical, but still maintain all of the planning and integration principles.

369
00:30:09,400 --> 00:30:16,000
 Hospitality, obviously it'll become important as the commercial grows over time, and again,

370
00:30:16,000 --> 00:30:18,240
 thinking 10, 20, 30 years.

371
00:30:18,240 --> 00:30:22,820
 This is an AC Marriott in Residence Inn project in Frisco that you can drive by and see and

372
00:30:22,820 --> 00:30:23,820
 walk through today.

373
00:30:23,820 --> 00:30:24,820
 Very urban.

374
00:30:24,820 --> 00:30:31,720
 In this case, it sits on top and anchors a park called the Bend in a trail system.

375
00:30:31,720 --> 00:30:35,420
 Flip back to same planning principles.

376
00:30:35,420 --> 00:30:42,160
 This is a Marriott project that Hillwood owns and maintains in Alliance Town Center.

377
00:30:42,160 --> 00:30:48,560
 This case, same amenities, same rooms, just more spread out and on a different parks and

378
00:30:48,560 --> 00:30:52,160
 trail system.

379
00:30:52,160 --> 00:30:58,480
 Jumping over to urban living, so as Brian said, certainly we have a number of units

380
00:30:58,480 --> 00:31:04,720
 as part of the project in Hunter Ranch and believe that, again, back to how do you support

381
00:31:04,720 --> 00:31:07,080
 corporate housing.

382
00:31:07,080 --> 00:31:12,800
 This is an important piece of having that mix of housing, so this is a couple of projects

383
00:31:12,800 --> 00:31:14,880
 in the Alliance Town Center.

384
00:31:14,880 --> 00:31:21,720
 We have also watched how good planning over time can generate and change urban living

385
00:31:21,720 --> 00:31:27,440
 markets, so Alliance Town Center, our first project there in 2008, which was an unfortunate

386
00:31:27,440 --> 00:31:33,160
 time to open it up, but that's what we did, is called Monterra Village, so it's 18 units

387
00:31:33,160 --> 00:31:35,480
 an acre, still very high quality.

388
00:31:35,480 --> 00:31:37,520
 We were pushing the market.

389
00:31:37,520 --> 00:31:44,640
 Fast forward, virtually all of our 2,500 units we have at Alliance Town Center today are

390
00:31:44,640 --> 00:31:53,600
 of a roughly 24, 26 units an acre on 12 acres, three to four stories, but pushed up to the

391
00:31:53,600 --> 00:31:59,640
 street to create an urban, walkable environment, but still surface-parked inside the donut,

392
00:31:59,640 --> 00:32:05,080
 if you will, highly amenitized, but all connected through the parks and trails system to the

393
00:32:05,080 --> 00:32:07,680
 other uses.

394
00:32:07,680 --> 00:32:12,920
 Now go to what you hope to have a decade, a couple from now.

395
00:32:12,920 --> 00:32:17,680
 This is a Hillwood project in Frisco called Station House.

396
00:32:17,680 --> 00:32:23,520
 Y'all are all familiar with the Texas donut style of urban living, so take the same 300

397
00:32:23,520 --> 00:32:29,840
 seats at Alliance Town Center, push it onto five acres, and go vertical with a structured

398
00:32:29,840 --> 00:32:32,800
 parking, and Station House is a good representation of that.

399
00:32:32,800 --> 00:32:37,400
 And then to the extreme is, this is a, to the far right is a project called Sky House

400
00:32:37,400 --> 00:32:40,400
 that opened up a couple of months ago in Frisco Station.

401
00:32:40,400 --> 00:32:50,680
 It's a 25-story, 311-feet-ish, four-rent, sky-rise project, and not to say that this

402
00:32:50,680 --> 00:32:57,080
 will come to Hunter Ranch anytime soon, but the reason this is here is the 15-20,000 people

403
00:32:57,080 --> 00:33:05,160
 through J.P. Morgan, Chase, Toyota, Liberty Mutual, who moved into the 121 D&T corridor,

404
00:33:05,160 --> 00:33:06,600
 you know, just two years ago.

405
00:33:06,600 --> 00:33:12,720
 So that type of demographic in corporate relocation is driving a different type of user, which

406
00:33:12,720 --> 00:33:15,800
 led us to be able to build this project.

407
00:33:15,800 --> 00:33:23,120
 But again, the main point is, scale and flexibility has, you know, with the right planning principles,

408
00:33:23,120 --> 00:33:25,520
 pays off over time.

409
00:33:25,520 --> 00:33:28,600
 Excuse me.

410
00:33:28,600 --> 00:33:30,360
 This is a picture of Alliance Town Center retail.

411
00:33:30,360 --> 00:33:35,800
 I really only put this in here, and again, you can drive by and see it, just to, I'm

412
00:33:35,800 --> 00:33:45,760
 sorry, whatever this stuff is, just to illustrate, you can do good suburban retail with the right

413
00:33:45,760 --> 00:33:50,960
 quality even before you can go dense with the right controls, and we are very proud

414
00:33:50,960 --> 00:33:58,000
 of our CCRs and controls that we put on all of our properties, so within the 26,000 acres,

415
00:33:58,000 --> 00:34:03,720
 we have 19 commercial HOAs, I personally sit on every design review board, and hopefully

416
00:34:03,720 --> 00:34:07,960
 if you drive down 35W, you see the difference on the left side, the east side, and the right

417
00:34:07,960 --> 00:34:14,080
 side, and that's just through good quality landscape lighting signage controls that ultimately

418
00:34:14,080 --> 00:34:20,520
 integrate the housing and commercial uses together into a cohesive community, and we've

419
00:34:20,520 --> 00:34:27,160
 been doing that with Brian and the community's team for many, many years, and finally, this

420
00:34:27,160 --> 00:34:32,120
 is the office that I'm in, so again, a good representation of class A, still a little

421
00:34:32,120 --> 00:34:38,160
 more suburban office product that's likely more representative of Hunter Ranch in the

422
00:34:38,160 --> 00:34:44,040
 short term, so with that, really just trying to give you a glimpse of how the commercial

423
00:34:44,040 --> 00:34:49,080
 mixed use side is looking at Hunter Ranch, and how we believe it ultimately will lead

424
00:34:49,080 --> 00:35:01,360
 to the right community with the housing piece, thank you.

425
00:35:01,360 --> 00:35:06,440
 So kind of back to Hunter Ranch, and Cole Ranch specifically, I've mentioned the green

426
00:35:06,440 --> 00:35:11,160
 belts and the linear linkages are really the key fundamental part of the master planning,

427
00:35:11,160 --> 00:35:16,000
 so kind of want to walk you through that, kind of in steps, so this is a series of slides

428
00:35:16,000 --> 00:35:22,760
 that kind of build on each other, you can see there's 915 acres of just lake and ESA

429
00:35:22,760 --> 00:35:30,400
 streams and buffer, load in there, ESA upland habitat, sometimes it's good just to toggle

430
00:35:30,400 --> 00:35:36,440
 back and forth to see where they occur, so we do both properties have ESA upland habitat,

431
00:35:36,440 --> 00:35:41,760
 most of the Cole properties ESA upland is actually within kind of the lake and ESA stream

432
00:35:41,760 --> 00:35:46,320
 buffers, different from Hunter Ranch, so if you're familiar with pilot knob and a series

433
00:35:46,320 --> 00:35:55,480
 of knobs just west of I-35, you can see those that pop up there, that take us to about 1,250

434
00:35:55,480 --> 00:35:58,600
 acres in total.

435
00:35:58,600 --> 00:36:04,120
 The next impact it just is, is the gas wells, so gas wells and gas well buffers, then takes

436
00:36:04,120 --> 00:36:11,440
 you it's really another 600 plus acres is what you can kind of see again, I'll just

437
00:36:11,440 --> 00:36:18,160
 toggle just so you can see, and again obviously it's green space so it is what it is, but

438
00:36:18,160 --> 00:36:22,840
 the buffer areas and we'll talk about the amount of buffer and how much land that takes

439
00:36:22,840 --> 00:36:28,000
 up here in just a little bit and why, but we've developed in North Texas for a long

440
00:36:28,000 --> 00:36:32,760
 time, the Barnett Shale has always been up here, we have participated and have been involved

441
00:36:32,760 --> 00:36:37,000
 in projects that we have owned the minerals and drilled, maybe we own the surface, somebody

442
00:36:37,000 --> 00:36:41,160
 else owns the minerals and is drilling, so we really feel like we've gotten pretty creative

443
00:36:41,160 --> 00:36:46,640
 with how to use that buffer area around there, we're sensitive to what you can and you can't

444
00:36:46,640 --> 00:36:53,280
 do in the setbacks for sure, what you'll see actually happens and part of our HOA lifestyle

445
00:36:53,280 --> 00:36:59,080
 programming within our master plans, we'll use those buffer areas for really more passive

446
00:36:59,080 --> 00:37:03,120
 pick up activities, even if it wasn't programmed through our lifestyle directors, that very

447
00:37:03,120 --> 00:37:08,720
 creative baseball coach or soccer coach will use those areas for pick up practices on a

448
00:37:08,720 --> 00:37:14,760
 given Tuesday or Wednesday night, so it really is additive in value. This one doesn't add

449
00:37:14,760 --> 00:37:19,120
 any more open space, but I think it's interesting to see where the natural existing tree canopies

450
00:37:19,120 --> 00:37:24,480
 are, so just kind of back and forth and by design they're in the ESA's, the buffer streams

451
00:37:24,480 --> 00:37:31,000
 and end up on habitats. And lastly is where we drop in, I'll just do that so you can see

452
00:37:31,000 --> 00:37:37,360
 where they emerge, city parks, neighborhood parks, dog parks and pocket parks, included

453
00:37:37,360 --> 00:37:41,340
 in our agreements, these other agreements that we're talking about that are conditions

454
00:37:41,340 --> 00:37:47,720
 to make the MMD really be enacted, part of those agreements we're agreeing on what land

455
00:37:47,720 --> 00:37:53,760
 we're giving, what are the standards of development, both infrastructure and architectural, part

456
00:37:53,760 --> 00:37:59,880
 of that is how much open space and parks are we donating, so just to kind of break it down,

457
00:37:59,880 --> 00:38:06,120
 we're giving a 50 acre, 54 acre park, city park, Cole's given a 50 acre park, 104 acres

458
00:38:06,120 --> 00:38:11,320
 of that, neighborhood parks, we're both giving in yellow there, you can see, two neighborhood

459
00:38:11,320 --> 00:38:15,240
 parks each, so a total of four neighborhood parks. All right, now those are designed to

460
00:38:15,240 --> 00:38:23,560
 be adjacent to the elementary schools, that's in concert and coordination with Denton ISD,

461
00:38:23,560 --> 00:38:28,960
 we find some synergies, I guess, your parks department and the ISD is fine with doing

462
00:38:28,960 --> 00:38:33,320
 it that way and I think it's a great use of that land. And then we'll each do dog parks,

463
00:38:33,320 --> 00:38:37,440
 we'll show you some images in a minute, we just finished dog park in Little Elm in our

464
00:38:37,440 --> 00:38:41,560
 other project, which is fantastic. And then pocket parks, these are half acre to acre

465
00:38:41,560 --> 00:38:45,860
 parks all over the community, they're really owned by the HOA, but they are open space

466
00:38:45,860 --> 00:38:49,920
 that will certainly add to that kind of every night park when you just want to walk down

467
00:38:49,920 --> 00:38:55,880
 the block and visit with the neighbors or have the kids kick around in the grass. Consistent

468
00:38:55,880 --> 00:39:00,280
 with the objectives of the city and certainly our major planning principles, it's important

469
00:39:00,280 --> 00:39:03,880
 that these parks are not, there's not a lot of them, but they are also walkable and within

470
00:39:03,880 --> 00:39:08,480
 range of really throughout the community. You have this half mile or 10 minute walk

471
00:39:08,480 --> 00:39:12,720
 concept, so this is really just an overlay to say that everywhere you are within the

472
00:39:12,720 --> 00:39:18,480
 community, you're well covered in very near parks. Trails in other parts, so you got all

473
00:39:18,480 --> 00:39:22,120
 these green spaces, you got all these linkages, what are you doing with it? You're doing parks

474
00:39:22,120 --> 00:39:26,760
 of course, but you really got to tie it together. Right now, our project proposes and it's actually

475
00:39:26,760 --> 00:39:31,000
 kind of in our agreements that we're building this magnitude of a trail system and it totals

476
00:39:31,000 --> 00:39:36,160
 about 58 miles, clearly far exceeding any kind of requirement or anything that's even

477
00:39:36,160 --> 00:39:41,960
 on your master trail plan at this point. But we think it's just a key part of actually

478
00:39:41,960 --> 00:39:46,920
 using those green belts to put people on 10 foot trails and six foot trails to tie these

479
00:39:46,920 --> 00:39:55,000
 parks and schools, live works, places together by foot and by bike and that's what you get

480
00:39:55,000 --> 00:39:59,840
 with these trails. And everything I'm talking about, by the way, is public. I will talk

481
00:39:59,840 --> 00:40:04,680
 about that in an amendment, but everything we're talking about building is public to

482
00:40:04,680 --> 00:40:10,120
 Denton residents. So as we're going through our design and our visioning for the community,

483
00:40:10,120 --> 00:40:13,600
 every project we do, not one single one is even close to being, yes sir.

484
00:40:13,600 --> 00:40:19,080
 Before you keep going a little bit further and away from this, so just back to what you're

485
00:40:19,080 --> 00:40:24,120
 showing on greenways and parks there, how much buffer are you guys, and this is really

486
00:40:24,120 --> 00:40:28,720
 preliminary and there's no site plan or anything given down right now, but how much buffer

487
00:40:28,720 --> 00:40:34,600
 are you guys giving around 288 and 35W for that green space? It kind of looks like from

488
00:40:34,600 --> 00:40:37,880
 what you're seeing on the map here is a lot of this green space is buttoned up right against

489
00:40:37,880 --> 00:40:40,360
 288. I mean, is that...

490
00:40:40,360 --> 00:40:43,800
 288 green space. I mean, some of it is obviously ESA and it's green space. No matter if we

491
00:40:43,800 --> 00:40:46,120
 wanted it there or not, it certainly is green space.

492
00:40:46,120 --> 00:40:47,960
 I don't know that we're proposing it.

493
00:40:47,960 --> 00:40:52,240
 Further north there along next to the airport and all that area, I mean, how much of that,

494
00:40:52,240 --> 00:40:55,720
 you know, that green space is obviously devoted to green space, but how much of that around

495
00:40:55,720 --> 00:41:00,000
 that do you think would actually be turning to develop a land with residential being developed

496
00:41:00,000 --> 00:41:01,000
 into there?

497
00:41:01,000 --> 00:41:03,160
 Well, nothing in green on the map is going to be developed.

498
00:41:03,160 --> 00:41:07,040
 No, I get that part, but obviously you're going to want to put residential near green

499
00:41:07,040 --> 00:41:13,120
 space. That makes more sense. So I guess with seeing as much green space there is along

500
00:41:13,120 --> 00:41:17,320
 specifically talking about the ESA area and a lot of the green space up there along the

501
00:41:17,320 --> 00:41:23,840
 north part of 288 and real near the airport, just concerns and questions about residential

502
00:41:23,840 --> 00:41:27,760
 development around that. Do you guys have plans or thoughts in regards to kind of that

503
00:41:27,760 --> 00:41:30,720
 section as of right now and how much residential would develop around that?

504
00:41:30,720 --> 00:41:35,280
 Yeah, a little bit and not to avoid the question at all, but you'll see kind of a little visual

505
00:41:35,280 --> 00:41:39,600
 fly through that we're going to do and the fly through actually flies over that area.

506
00:41:39,600 --> 00:41:43,680
 And that being a part of coal ranch, I'll certainly at OC speak on behalf of coal ranch

507
00:41:43,680 --> 00:41:47,300
 and maybe some visions there, but I think we'll fly over that area and we can push pause

508
00:41:47,300 --> 00:41:50,440
 and talk about it when we get there. That's okay. Yeah. Cause there are some, a little

509
00:41:50,440 --> 00:41:54,840
 bit of constraints, honestly, and I don't know if it shows up on any of our maps, but

510
00:41:54,840 --> 00:41:59,160
 there's this A-clud zone as it relates to the Denton airport that extends south. So

511
00:41:59,160 --> 00:42:03,400
 there are some restrictions. It doesn't prohibit based on where that is in proximity to the

512
00:42:03,400 --> 00:42:08,040
 runway. It doesn't restrict residential from occurring, but it certainly has some requirements

513
00:42:08,040 --> 00:42:09,660
 on that. Sure. I guess I'm just speaking more along

514
00:42:09,660 --> 00:42:14,920
 the consistency of what you see on 288 currently existing and how, how much residential buffer

515
00:42:14,920 --> 00:42:18,240
 there is currently along 288. There is no, there's almost no residential that's right

516
00:42:18,240 --> 00:42:22,200
 there along it. And so an idea of what you guys are preliminary looking at for that residential

517
00:42:22,200 --> 00:42:25,440
 development. If we're going to look at it later, we can address it later.

518
00:42:25,440 --> 00:42:29,320
 Most, and again, consistent with our vision, we're trying to really make sure we keep the

519
00:42:29,320 --> 00:42:34,960
 highest intensities and largely no residential. As a matter of fact, we've been talking with

520
00:42:34,960 --> 00:42:41,720
 the planning staff about the prohibition of along 288 and along 35, a prohibition zone

521
00:42:41,720 --> 00:42:46,400
 for no residential so that nobody ever does it right now. There's a map floating around.

522
00:42:46,400 --> 00:42:50,200
 First Richard, yeah, anyway, you may not have even taken a look at it yet, but I know we've

523
00:42:50,200 --> 00:42:56,680
 talked a little bit about this idea of no matter what 600 foot off of 288 or 35 prohibited,

524
00:42:56,680 --> 00:43:00,640
 even if the underlying zoning allows some form of residential, that not being able to

525
00:43:00,640 --> 00:43:03,760
 do residential. I don't know if that addresses the question in general.

526
00:43:03,760 --> 00:43:08,520
 Yeah, that actually addresses it perfectly. So that works. Thank you, appreciate it.

527
00:43:08,520 --> 00:43:14,320
 Trails, see, so again, with our master planning and visioning for this project, no projects

528
00:43:14,320 --> 00:43:18,240
 the same. Certainly with Denton, what we're really looking into is really how do we become

529
00:43:18,240 --> 00:43:23,960
 more of Denton. Denton is a very unique city. It's large. It's got the universities. It's

530
00:43:23,960 --> 00:43:29,240
 certainly got a culture of music and art and some really special characteristics. So the

531
00:43:29,240 --> 00:43:34,400
 goal is, well, how do we create spaces within these projects that really relate to those,

532
00:43:34,400 --> 00:43:43,080
 you know, inherent Denton characteristics. So again, we have all this parks, park space

533
00:43:43,080 --> 00:43:47,240
 and open space. Kind of what do we do with it? These are images of communities that we

534
00:43:47,240 --> 00:43:53,240
 have developed. I think representative in terms of scale and maybe uniqueness for some

535
00:43:53,240 --> 00:43:59,920
 of what we've done, you see trails and bridges top left, very simply down on the left, playgrounds

536
00:43:59,920 --> 00:44:05,000
 that are this one happens to be a part of a 30 acre community park that we developed

537
00:44:05,000 --> 00:44:10,480
 top right again, play activity and bottom right to really interesting amenity in a public

538
00:44:10,480 --> 00:44:16,080
 park that we did in harvest, which is in North Lake, just down 35. And amazingly, it's probably

539
00:44:16,080 --> 00:44:19,800
 one of the most simple structures we've ever done and probably the most beloved structure

540
00:44:19,800 --> 00:44:24,600
 we've ever done. It's just this area of unprogrammed space where people can do whatever they want

541
00:44:24,600 --> 00:44:30,600
 to do. So it's really amazing. We really try to make a point of not over programming. A

542
00:44:30,600 --> 00:44:33,520
 couple of other areas that we've done that are public. This is a fish camp on a lake

543
00:44:33,520 --> 00:44:38,920
 down in Houston. We just opened the two park, two right images are a dog park that we just

544
00:44:38,920 --> 00:44:44,200
 opened in our project called Union Park in Little Lamb. And these things are just hugely

545
00:44:44,200 --> 00:44:48,720
 popular. Everybody loves dogs as it turns out, and we've committed to doing, you know,

546
00:44:48,720 --> 00:44:55,120
 at least one on each project. Public trails, the 58 miles of trails are all public. There'll

547
00:44:55,120 --> 00:45:01,160
 be easements overlaid guaranteeing public access to Denton. It'll be a combination of different

548
00:45:01,160 --> 00:45:06,280
 styles of trails, as you can see here, different widths. And being sensitive to the ESA, we'll

549
00:45:06,280 --> 00:45:12,000
 run trails through and up through. There'll be different material types. There'll also

550
00:45:12,000 --> 00:45:16,780
 be private amenities. These are some examples of our current active projects that are going

551
00:45:16,780 --> 00:45:21,840
 on really in Texas, but we pride ourselves on creativity. We partner with the greatest

552
00:45:21,840 --> 00:45:26,780
 planners that we can find. We do almost all our work with a great firm called TBG. Mark

553
00:45:26,780 --> 00:45:32,720
 Meyers here from TBG, senior principal. And we just really insist on the most creative

554
00:45:32,720 --> 00:45:37,680
 thoughts that we can afford. Again, these are private amenities. The only thing that's

555
00:45:37,680 --> 00:45:42,480
 really private between these two projects, given that it's the municipal management district,

556
00:45:42,480 --> 00:45:46,960
 which is this public entity, which is what we're trying to create this financing tool.

557
00:45:46,960 --> 00:45:51,480
 The equal and opposite effect of creating that district is that everything is public,

558
00:45:51,480 --> 00:45:56,160
 except these private amenities. So think about this. If you have to have a fob, a key control

559
00:45:56,160 --> 00:46:00,320
 fob to get into it, that's the only thing that's private in these communities. And that's

560
00:46:00,320 --> 00:46:06,240
 far different than a lot of the big master plan communities. And you can just take images.

561
00:46:06,240 --> 00:46:11,140
 Quite proud of what we've done. The top right one just won best amenities center in Austin.

562
00:46:11,140 --> 00:46:16,960
 We just opened it about six months ago. So I'm going to walk you through a little bit

563
00:46:16,960 --> 00:46:22,560
 of an animation. This is don't get focused, please, on the building and the architecture.

564
00:46:22,560 --> 00:46:27,120
 These are just masses of buildings, you'll be able to distinguish residential from probably

565
00:46:27,120 --> 00:46:33,160
 multifamily from office. We'll stop and pause and talk a little bit about that area up north

566
00:46:33,160 --> 00:46:39,120
 of 288. But I think you'll enjoy this if I can figure out how to do it. Oh, I got to

567
00:46:39,120 --> 00:46:51,720
 go to I can do it. I've got a teenager, I can do this. Oh, boy. Let me see if I can

568
00:46:51,720 --> 00:47:02,000
 pause this. Okay. Okay. All right. Let's see if we can do this here. Again, everybody's

569
00:47:02,000 --> 00:47:06,280
 got their perspective here. We're going to zoom down and I'll be stopping it from time

570
00:47:06,280 --> 00:47:11,260
 to time and we'll talk about different things. Again, we're going to be flying in here from

571
00:47:11,260 --> 00:47:16,920
 the south. We're looking north on I-35. Pretty much everything in color is hunter ranch and

572
00:47:16,920 --> 00:47:22,720
 coal ranch. Even from coming in here, you really see the dominant nature of the uplands

573
00:47:22,720 --> 00:47:28,120
 habitat. And you'll see really all the planning goes around it. If you get into the documents

574
00:47:28,120 --> 00:47:33,700
 again, you'll see that we're making commitments on preservation of upland habitat. Broad general

575
00:47:33,700 --> 00:47:39,560
 numbers just so you know. I think we're going to be required by 2019 DDC to maintain or

576
00:47:39,560 --> 00:47:46,340
 to preserve I think 30% broadly depending on the land use. We're committing to conserving

577
00:47:46,340 --> 00:47:51,940
 and preserving 55% of our upland ESAs. So really about double what the requirements are.

578
00:47:51,940 --> 00:48:01,120
 We think it's hugely important. You'll see some labels that come up. I'll stop here because

579
00:48:01,120 --> 00:48:05,840
 every Robeson Ranch resident on the planet has asked us when the first grocery store

580
00:48:05,840 --> 00:48:13,300
 is going to be coming in. So never can promise anything. Most likely based on existing where

581
00:48:13,300 --> 00:48:18,880
 we will probably first start our project where infrastructure is, where intersections are.

582
00:48:18,880 --> 00:48:23,780
 We see this northwest corner kind of being hopefully a grosser anchored power center

583
00:48:23,780 --> 00:48:34,780
 right here on the northwest corner. As you make your way north, you'll see different

584
00:48:34,780 --> 00:48:41,760
 uses and that's by design in that MR zone. We just flew over a multi-family project starting

585
00:48:41,760 --> 00:48:47,060
 to get into really this all red I-35 intersection which we see being probably one of our key

586
00:48:47,060 --> 00:48:54,620
 nodes for mixed use live work play. Again, this is not intended to be an exact location

587
00:48:54,620 --> 00:48:59,180
 for all of this product but is intended to give you how we think the project can develop.

588
00:48:59,180 --> 00:49:05,460
 Really nussling projects. You can see here this might be an office building really between

589
00:49:05,460 --> 00:49:13,080
 the knobs. I-35 will fly over all the intersections by the way. So these intersections aren't

590
00:49:13,080 --> 00:49:18,020
 exactly clear but this is really the way they'll be. The all reds will go underneath them.

591
00:49:18,020 --> 00:49:21,580
 So now we kind of turn around on this animation. We're flying due south and we're going to

592
00:49:21,580 --> 00:49:27,580
 fly over Pilot Knob. Pilot Knob is the northernmost upland habitat but you can see how we're really

593
00:49:27,580 --> 00:49:33,780
 kind of embracing Pilot Knob. You'll start to see the trail systems start to emerge that

594
00:49:33,780 --> 00:49:40,580
 will run up and through Pilot Knob. So you may have noticed a little helicopter kind

595
00:49:40,580 --> 00:49:48,980
 of come in. In our zoning request is heliport, helipads with SUP. You just didn't have a

596
00:49:48,980 --> 00:49:53,980
 category for it. We certainly see and I'm sure everybody can kind of see really this

597
00:49:53,980 --> 00:50:00,100
 mobility need that may not be exactly here right now in full force but certainly coming.

598
00:50:00,100 --> 00:50:07,780
 Hillwood's a major partner with Uber, Uber Elevate. Our company happens to be Avid Aviators

599
00:50:07,780 --> 00:50:12,700
 as it turns out. We use our aircraft as a key marketing tool when we're marketing to

600
00:50:12,700 --> 00:50:18,660
 different companies showing them different opportunities throughout. So with SUP we're

601
00:50:18,660 --> 00:50:23,900
 proposing that we have the ability to do heliport, helipad. We'll certainly come back and get

602
00:50:23,900 --> 00:50:27,900
 with you all and certainly have to ask for approval from the city. FAA ultimately will

603
00:50:27,900 --> 00:50:34,340
 have to approve something like this but it wasn't addressed in your current DDC. So we're

604
00:50:34,340 --> 00:50:40,340
 working our way again south through the hills. This is actually an almost exact topographic

605
00:50:40,340 --> 00:50:49,380
 representation of the elevation of the hills including tree masses. Again a use kind of

606
00:50:49,380 --> 00:50:58,580
 position in between the upland ESA's. And then you kind of get into some residential

607
00:50:58,580 --> 00:51:03,060
 on the far west. So right now we're on the far west side of Hunter Ranch coming right

608
00:51:03,060 --> 00:51:08,820
 off of Robeson Ranch Road. There's a major green belt you see here. This is actually

609
00:51:08,820 --> 00:51:17,660
 the future Robeson Ranch just to kind of get you oriented. Again don't criticize our houses.

610
00:51:17,660 --> 00:51:24,180
 These are just really intended to be masses. But it does represent you kind of see the

611
00:51:24,180 --> 00:51:28,060
 elementary school and other things that are really feeding off of these green belts. This

612
00:51:28,060 --> 00:51:33,460
 is an existing lake. Middle school, elementary school, leveraging that. I just flew over

613
00:51:33,460 --> 00:51:39,600
 a park. I mentioned two 50 acre parks. Generally speaking, Cole's 50, ours is 54. We're trying

614
00:51:39,600 --> 00:51:42,780
 to find the right place to locate that. We've committed to work with the city parks department

615
00:51:42,780 --> 00:51:47,420
 in time to locate those at the right spots. We have the ultimate obligation to do it and

616
00:51:47,420 --> 00:51:52,100
 we will do it and we're going to work with the parks as this project develops. But we

617
00:51:52,100 --> 00:51:59,980
 love the idea of doing it along these green belts. High school already owned by the ISD.

618
00:51:59,980 --> 00:52:04,180
 And now actually you see 2449 down here on the bottom side of the slide. We're now flying

619
00:52:04,180 --> 00:52:10,780
 really into Cole. You'll see another lake that starts to emerge here and kind of how

620
00:52:10,780 --> 00:52:15,780
 we're using that lake to put again another community park potentially as well as the

621
00:52:15,780 --> 00:52:32,540
 schools. See if I can get this going here. So again, just to get you aligned here, now

622
00:52:32,540 --> 00:52:37,780
 we're really looking southeast. The roadway you see here, this is 288, the future 288,

623
00:52:37,780 --> 00:52:41,940
 Pilot Knob over here and I-35 here. So this is that future loop. I think this is the area

624
00:52:41,940 --> 00:52:47,000
 maybe you're referring to north of 288. Again, you'll have a major intersection here off

625
00:52:47,000 --> 00:52:52,500
 of 288. So the idea is to create these mixed use nodes. But it has a fair amount of residential

626
00:52:52,500 --> 00:53:04,180
 just as we want this project to be as walkable as possible. And we'll actually head into

627
00:53:04,180 --> 00:53:10,500
 that neighborhood we were just talking about. We'll fly north into it. So you see retail

628
00:53:10,500 --> 00:53:15,780
 right there at the intersection then going back into a residential community. We'll come

629
00:53:15,780 --> 00:53:24,740
 upon a park area. Could be an HOA park, public access, but maintained by the HOA. Lastly,

630
00:53:24,740 --> 00:53:30,700
 we'll just fly right back down I-35. Pilot Knob to the right. Hunter Ranch exists on the

631
00:53:30,700 --> 00:53:42,540
 east side of I-35 as well. But we think that's a pretty good way to maybe demonstrate the

632
00:53:42,540 --> 00:53:46,000
 different qualities of the project and maybe how we're planning around them. All we know

633
00:53:46,000 --> 00:53:50,900
 is anything that we're showing is not exactly how it's going to happen. As I mentioned,

634
00:53:50,900 --> 00:53:54,460
 we would never have predicted how Alliance would develop if we really said it's going

635
00:53:54,460 --> 00:53:59,420
 to develop exactly this way over a 40-year period. But we think that's actually not a

636
00:53:59,420 --> 00:54:13,820
 bad vision. Okay. I think we're about done here. Well, let's talk about gas wells. So

637
00:54:13,820 --> 00:54:19,300
 existing entitlements on coal and hunter are a little bit different. But generally speaking,

638
00:54:19,300 --> 00:54:25,780
 Hunter Ranch has setback requirements in our existing zoning, 250 feet from the wellhead,

639
00:54:25,780 --> 00:54:34,580
 and coal is 200 feet from the wellhead. We are limited to 19 pad sites, and coal has

640
00:54:34,580 --> 00:54:41,900
 15 pad sites. Some of the pad sites have been drilled. Some have not. Where we have revised

641
00:54:41,900 --> 00:54:46,500
 proposal means really where we are, we believe, with staff and conversations with council

642
00:54:46,500 --> 00:54:51,460
 where we believe we are. And this is largely intended to pretty much mirror the approval

643
00:54:51,460 --> 00:54:57,900
 y'all did or the city did just recently, which is largely the 500 foot setback from the gas

644
00:54:57,900 --> 00:55:06,780
 pad edge for protected uses. We're also agreeing to reduce the number of allowed pads from

645
00:55:06,780 --> 00:55:13,300
 19 to 14. That's on Hunter. So we're finding ways to really reduce the need for 19. And

646
00:55:13,300 --> 00:55:18,740
 we've selected five that we're going to take off our approved list. But all in all, not

647
00:55:18,740 --> 00:55:24,000
 to minimize or even I really probably need to stress that it really by going from that

648
00:55:24,000 --> 00:55:32,980
 200 and 250 from the gas well to the 500 from gas pad site, these what will be, you know,

649
00:55:32,980 --> 00:55:39,460
 25 or so pad sites, it really encumbers the property almost another 700 acres of unusable

650
00:55:39,460 --> 00:55:45,140
 land. We're doing it willingly and knowingly, I guess, but it really isn't an insignificant

651
00:55:45,140 --> 00:55:49,940
 matter. I don't know how many of y'all really done the math on it, but that's 700 additional

652
00:55:49,940 --> 00:55:54,860
 acres that really is taken out of play for development. Some of that is actually along

653
00:55:54,860 --> 00:56:00,540
 Greenbelch or maybe might infringe into an ESA. So I'm not saying 697 additional developable

654
00:56:00,540 --> 00:56:08,780
 acres were impacted, but most of it is. So to round this up, the MPC, really the key

655
00:56:08,780 --> 00:56:14,700
 parts of the MPC amendment that will be coming through relates to the gas well setback largely

656
00:56:14,700 --> 00:56:21,780
 we're accepting the ordinance that was approved just recently. Ends up being over 600 acres

657
00:56:21,780 --> 00:56:27,300
 of impact and we're going to reduce our gas well count, allowed gas pads from what it

658
00:56:27,300 --> 00:56:32,900
 is down five. So we're going to get rid of five. You know, from the land use standpoint,

659
00:56:32,900 --> 00:56:38,140
 like OC mentioned, 2002 ordinances, I think it's been amended 47 times, we were kind of

660
00:56:38,140 --> 00:56:43,820
 willingly and knowingly going to amend and live by the 2019 DDC, which I think is going

661
00:56:43,820 --> 00:56:48,180
 to be easier for staff, it's going to be easier for us as a developer to navigate the next

662
00:56:48,180 --> 00:56:52,300
 40 years. If we can't find those amendments today, I'm not sure we're going to find them

663
00:56:52,300 --> 00:56:56,380
 in 20 or 30 years. So it probably is the right thing to do and it brings all of our standards

664
00:56:56,380 --> 00:57:02,580
 and requirements up to 2019 as well. There were some antiquated 2002 as amended that

665
00:57:02,580 --> 00:57:07,260
 probably somebody might be able to take advantage of, maybe some standards that might not make

666
00:57:07,260 --> 00:57:13,180
 some sense today. So we're agreeing to bring those up to 2019. Really greater focus of

667
00:57:13,180 --> 00:57:17,660
 commercial and mixed use along the highways versus where it was previously kind of scattered

668
00:57:17,660 --> 00:57:23,980
 and chopped. Overall reduction in density. I'll get to a slide in a minute, but there's

669
00:57:23,980 --> 00:57:28,980
 several thousand units that we're agreeing to reduce from our zoned entitled residential

670
00:57:28,980 --> 00:57:36,940
 units. We're bringing it down several thousand units. Parkland trail significantly greater

671
00:57:36,940 --> 00:57:40,860
 than currently required and certainly will exceed the city standards. The development

672
00:57:40,860 --> 00:57:45,060
 plan map just makes a lot of sense. It's more usable now. We think it's more flexible. And

673
00:57:45,060 --> 00:57:50,980
 again, with jumping up to 2019 DDC, all those old zoning categories that are currently in

674
00:57:50,980 --> 00:57:56,700
 place now with the existing zoning would be recategorized and we're using current 2019

675
00:57:56,700 --> 00:58:04,820
 vernacular like MN, MR, R7 and things like that. I think we're going to skip all this

676
00:58:04,820 --> 00:58:09,080
 and just know that we have these other city agreements. Like OC mentioned, the legislation

677
00:58:09,080 --> 00:58:14,740
 says even though the legislature passed it, it won't take effect until the city of Denton

678
00:58:14,740 --> 00:58:21,940
 and developer agree on these key items. MPC is something we need to do. So we're working

679
00:58:21,940 --> 00:58:26,140
 on the MPC amendment. It's just going to be required. The legislation very specifically

680
00:58:26,140 --> 00:58:30,540
 mentions these bottom three items that have to be agreed to before we can utilize the

681
00:58:30,540 --> 00:58:36,540
 tools of the MMD. So I don't think we need to hit these. This is a hangover from the

682
00:58:36,540 --> 00:58:41,140
 meeting we had with council, unless you would like to talk about any of this. But again,

683
00:58:41,140 --> 00:58:46,580
 this is a slide we used for council. But speaking to the residential density, you can see we

684
00:58:46,580 --> 00:58:57,460
 went from an entitled -- sorry, what is it? 24,000 to 19. So about 5,000 lot reduction

685
00:58:57,460 --> 00:59:04,700
 in our entitled rights as we have right now with our MPC. And probably Richard will go

686
00:59:04,700 --> 00:59:09,060
 through the steps. This is a little bit of a moving target as of our -- about two hours

687
00:59:09,060 --> 00:59:15,180
 ago. But this is close to what we're targeting. We will see you all again hopefully in January.

688
00:59:15,180 --> 00:59:19,560
 We do have a meeting for sure next week with city council primarily to talk about maybe

689
00:59:19,560 --> 00:59:23,100
 any comments that come out of this work session today. But also we're going to talk about

690
00:59:23,100 --> 00:59:27,300
 those other agreements, the technical nature of the operating agreement, the project agreement

691
00:59:27,300 --> 00:59:31,540
 and the consent agreement, which are really more related to the MUD district as it turns

692
00:59:31,540 --> 00:59:37,500
 out. I think that's it for you all. Obviously we're here to answer any questions. I think

693
00:59:37,500 --> 00:59:40,020
 Richard was going to go through a few items as well.

694
00:59:40,020 --> 00:59:44,900
 >> Yeah, before we call Richard up, what I want to do is try to wrap up any questions

695
00:59:44,900 --> 00:59:49,060
 that are relevant to this presentation. If they're here and we have questions later,

696
00:59:49,060 --> 00:59:54,820
 certainly ask. But if there's questions now, while this presentation is up, I'd love to

697
00:59:54,820 --> 00:59:58,220
 take them now. Does anyone have any questions? Chris or Beck?

698
00:59:58,220 --> 01:00:06,420
 >> Thank you very much, Chair. So on the green area setbacks around the gas wells, how much

699
01:00:06,420 --> 01:00:11,340
 of that are we sort of double dipping for our park space and our ESA space?

700
01:00:11,340 --> 01:00:16,060
 >> None. Yeah. It's just an additional fact that we put up about the additional open space.

701
01:00:16,060 --> 01:00:21,260
 We're not getting any city park credit. We're not using it for city parks. It's not part

702
01:00:21,260 --> 01:00:28,860
 of the ESA credit. There are some gas wells that might be near, maybe when you reach out

703
01:00:28,860 --> 01:00:34,820
 500 feet, maybe some of that 500 foot radius reaches into an ESA, if that's maybe part

704
01:00:34,820 --> 01:00:40,440
 of your question. But no city park is a part of it and we're not getting any land donation

705
01:00:40,440 --> 01:00:46,220
 or city park land benefit or credit for that area.

706
01:00:46,220 --> 01:00:52,620
 >> Sort of related question to that is you mentioned sort of like sort of halfway through

707
01:00:52,620 --> 01:01:01,140
 your presentation that these unplanned, you know, coach usage of --

708
01:01:01,140 --> 01:01:04,880
 >> The buffer areas, how we're using them? Right.

709
01:01:04,880 --> 01:01:11,740
 >> Is that something that you envision all these green spaces, buffers, to be used? Because

710
01:01:11,740 --> 01:01:15,860
 I'm a little trepidatious about that because the point is to have people not have regular

711
01:01:15,860 --> 01:01:17,740
 use of buffer areas.

712
01:01:17,740 --> 01:01:22,020
 >> It is. I mean, but human nature, it's open space, right? So you never want to encourage

713
01:01:22,020 --> 01:01:25,860
 somebody from not using open space. What we've all agreed to and I think your ordinance even

714
01:01:25,860 --> 01:01:30,720
 speaks to it is that we won't do structures. You can't do park structures in it. All these

715
01:01:30,720 --> 01:01:35,060
 neighborhood parks and city parks that we're talking about, you know, you can't do them

716
01:01:35,060 --> 01:01:39,700
 within the gas well buffers. But I think human nature, and I encourage it, too. I mean, we're

717
01:01:39,700 --> 01:01:43,740
 going to landscape it. It will be nice turf grass. The idea of you and your son going

718
01:01:43,740 --> 01:01:48,980
 out and throwing the football in that great big giant 30 plus acre area that we just created

719
01:01:48,980 --> 01:01:53,900
 as a buffer outside of a wall and the landscape trees. I mean, it's really just human nature,

720
01:01:53,900 --> 01:01:58,900
 excuse me, to go to it. We won't be programmed. There won't be anything built. We won't do

721
01:01:58,900 --> 01:02:04,700
 ball fields necessarily to, you know, make people go there to practice. It will just

722
01:02:04,700 --> 01:02:07,740
 be what people do with open space.

723
01:02:07,740 --> 01:02:16,340
 And so for the area around the knobs, the corporate development area in between the

724
01:02:16,340 --> 01:02:22,300
 knobs, you were saying that, I mean, it looked like from the flyover that that was going

725
01:02:22,300 --> 01:02:27,580
 to be part of the business development region where you wanted sort of the class A buildings

726
01:02:27,580 --> 01:02:35,900
 and whatnot. But it seemed like there was a lot of interdigitation, which in some sense

727
01:02:35,900 --> 01:02:42,020
 is pleasant to have into an ESA, but it's pleasant for the humans. I worry about the

728
01:02:42,020 --> 01:02:43,860
 impact on the ESA itself.

729
01:02:43,860 --> 01:02:48,460
 Yeah. And recognize we're staying away from the ESA. Nothing we showed was in an ESA,

730
01:02:48,460 --> 01:02:54,380
 certainly near the ESA, but not in an ESA. We were protected or protecting the ESA as

731
01:02:54,380 --> 01:02:56,780
 we're required to do.

732
01:02:56,780 --> 01:03:00,940
 So that was just sort of my false impression that you had that spread of those campuses

733
01:03:00,940 --> 01:03:01,940
 out into those.

734
01:03:01,940 --> 01:03:06,540
 Those were kind of outside of the ESA zone. So we drop in the mapped ESAs that are part

735
01:03:06,540 --> 01:03:10,380
 of the city mapping program, right? And we'll go out and field determine where they really

736
01:03:10,380 --> 01:03:16,260
 are at some point. But we take the ESAs as they're on the city websites, drop them in.

737
01:03:16,260 --> 01:03:20,900
 That was part of the animation. So the task for our team and certainly the animator was

738
01:03:20,900 --> 01:03:26,180
 to stay out of those areas we told them to stay out of, which was the ESAs. So I think

739
01:03:26,180 --> 01:03:31,500
 what you were seeing was areas that were developing up close to the wooded areas, but not into

740
01:03:31,500 --> 01:03:33,220
 the protected parts of the ESA.

741
01:03:33,220 --> 01:03:34,220
 Okay. Yeah.

742
01:03:34,220 --> 01:03:35,220
 Thank you.

743
01:03:35,220 --> 01:03:40,700
 We think it's actually certainly a positive, whether it's a residential or a campus. Robert

744
01:03:40,700 --> 01:03:45,340
 can tell you when we were developing and are developing Circle T Ranch, he showed some images

745
01:03:45,340 --> 01:03:51,020
 there. That was one of the key drivers of getting, you know, Deloitte, Schwab, Fidelity.

746
01:03:51,020 --> 01:03:55,180
 Those guys there was that kind of setting with rolling hills and trees and lakes. That's

747
01:03:55,180 --> 01:03:56,180
 really very desirable.

748
01:03:56,180 --> 01:04:00,460
 I certainly agree with you that that sort of development with lots of green space in

749
01:04:00,460 --> 01:04:06,060
 the development is really pleasant for humans. And it's something that we all aspire to.

750
01:04:06,060 --> 01:04:14,340
 Again, it was sort of the flip side of the impact on the ESAs themselves. I think to

751
01:04:14,340 --> 01:04:20,380
 have that good human interaction, you want to green up your commercial space rather than

752
01:04:20,380 --> 01:04:24,460
 concrete up your ESAs to get the interdigitation.

753
01:04:24,460 --> 01:04:28,100
 And as I said, we're following everything we need to follow. We're staying away from

754
01:04:28,100 --> 01:04:32,820
 the ESAs as we need to. So anything that was interpreted from the animation about going

755
01:04:32,820 --> 01:04:36,780
 in and developing in the trees, that's just not, that wasn't the intent. The intent was

756
01:04:36,780 --> 01:04:41,620
 we're going to live by our requirements that we're proposing with the ESA in terms of preservation.

757
01:04:41,620 --> 01:04:45,900
 So yeah, I understand your point though.

758
01:04:45,900 --> 01:04:51,260
 Senior, other questions for this presentation or team? I have one as Richard makes his way

759
01:04:51,260 --> 01:04:56,140
 up. When you're going through to slide 31 on my packet at slide 20, there's a footnote

760
01:04:56,140 --> 01:05:01,940
 that says gas well buffer anchorages are subject to potential change due to gas well site reclamation.

761
01:05:01,940 --> 01:05:10,860
 Right there. Well, is that the 19.14? It's on every slide. It is. Are you buying that

762
01:05:10,860 --> 01:05:18,180
 back from the property owners? We're the property owners. Exactly. We shut them down. So what

763
01:05:18,180 --> 01:05:24,740
 we know is that in time, it may be just economically infeasible or we may choose not to drill in

764
01:05:24,740 --> 01:05:29,340
 certain places. So we're just saying that, hey, if we shut in a well or don't drill on

765
01:05:29,340 --> 01:05:34,660
 a pad site fully, that if we shut it down, then that's a good thing, right? And everybody

766
01:05:34,660 --> 01:05:39,980
 probably agrees less drilling is better regarding, you know, impact. So the idea on that note

767
01:05:39,980 --> 01:05:44,460
 was just saying we may not even drill all these or in time we may shut them in. So things

768
01:05:44,460 --> 01:05:49,300
 shown as gas pad sites and buffers may go away. Gotcha. Okay. Thanks for that clarification.

769
01:05:49,300 --> 01:05:56,380
 Yes. Thank you, Chair. So exactly the flip of that again. So, you know, it would be nice

770
01:05:56,380 --> 01:06:01,780
 to see some of these go away in terms of their human impact. I don't care about the natural

771
01:06:01,780 --> 01:06:08,100
 gas petroleum economy impact per se, but in terms of residential and commercial areas.

772
01:06:08,100 --> 01:06:15,180
 But are we also saying that sort of the flip of the chair's question that if market forces

773
01:06:15,180 --> 01:06:20,540
 dictate you're going to increase the number of well heads? No, not at all. Not at all.

774
01:06:20,540 --> 01:06:24,980
 We're limiting ourselves to what we're saying here. Hunter will have 14 pads. We currently

775
01:06:24,980 --> 01:06:30,700
 have 19. We're going to reduce it to 14. Cole has 15. They're keeping their 15. We're never

776
01:06:30,700 --> 01:06:35,260
 going up. If we do, we'll come in and ask the city for approval. I've never seen the

777
01:06:35,260 --> 01:06:39,740
 need to come back and ask for another pad site. If we do, we go through the city process

778
01:06:39,740 --> 01:06:43,980
 of asking for one. But the idea and we spent a lot of time because we have our own drilling

779
01:06:43,980 --> 01:06:48,220
 energy company. So we're pretty good at this, I guess, in terms of hopefully predicting

780
01:06:48,220 --> 01:06:51,620
 the area we need. Because the last thing we want to do is come in and ask for another

781
01:06:51,620 --> 01:06:56,620
 pad site, right? So right now we think this is all we'll ever need. We're living by it.

782
01:06:56,620 --> 01:07:00,580
 We're agreeing to it. So no, we will not, we don't have, we have no plans to come in

783
01:07:00,580 --> 01:07:06,620
 and ask for more pads. And the opposite may be true. We may be shutting in pads over time,

784
01:07:06,620 --> 01:07:10,800
 depending on the natural gas market. And I apologize for interrupting you. And then sort

785
01:07:10,800 --> 01:07:18,820
 of the density of the well heads on these existing 34 pads. You know, I'm not a gas

786
01:07:18,820 --> 01:07:24,180
 guy. So I don't know how close in the density of them. I just don't. I don't know it. We'll

787
01:07:24,180 --> 01:07:28,540
 have a permit through the city of Denton to do certain things. And we'll certainly live

788
01:07:28,540 --> 01:07:36,860
 by that permit. So I wish I knew more. Any other questions? Great. Thank you for your

789
01:07:36,860 --> 01:07:57,500
 presentation. Break or just go right through it? You're good, Richard. Ready to go? Let's

790
01:07:57,500 --> 01:08:03,420
 go for it. So just want to kind of give an overview of some of the, some of the key points

791
01:08:03,420 --> 01:08:07,060
 that I'll hit on, uh, get into a little bit of the background, although they've already

792
01:08:07,060 --> 01:08:11,700
 touched on some of that. I'll look at some of our existing policies with respect to land

793
01:08:11,700 --> 01:08:17,540
 use within our comp plan. Um, the start to focus on the development plan amendments as

794
01:08:17,540 --> 01:08:22,900
 it relates to the 2019 DDC, uh, some major changes as it relates to use comparisons.

795
01:08:22,900 --> 01:08:27,100
 Uh, again, some of those comparisons will be from the 2019 code, but also what they're

796
01:08:27,100 --> 01:08:35,620
 permitted to do in the 2008 version of the 2002 DDC that currently governs the MPC. Um,

797
01:08:35,620 --> 01:08:40,820
 get into a, a little bit about the density and intensity analysis, uh, ESA upland tree

798
01:08:40,820 --> 01:08:46,140
 preservation canopy and, and gas flow setbacks. So one thing I just wanted to start off with

799
01:08:46,140 --> 01:08:51,580
 is, is this slide and some numbers. And, and so when we first started looking at this and,

800
01:08:51,580 --> 01:08:56,460
 and just trying to wrap our, wrap our, our, our hands around it and really our mind around

801
01:08:56,460 --> 01:09:01,140
 just how big this project is and how it fits in with the city, you know, kind of looking

802
01:09:01,140 --> 01:09:06,100
 at where does the city fit in also with, with, with what's going on just in the region. Um,

803
01:09:06,100 --> 01:09:10,980
 and so it's interesting. Um, you know, last month I was at the Texas APA conference and

804
01:09:10,980 --> 01:09:16,180
 they said approximately 1400 people are moving into Texas daily. 700 of those are moving

805
01:09:16,180 --> 01:09:21,700
 within the, into the Metro, into the Metroplex. And then USA today had come out with an article

806
01:09:21,700 --> 01:09:29,900
 that ranked Denton the 25th in terms of population, 25th in the nation in, in terms of growth.

807
01:09:29,900 --> 01:09:33,180
 I think there was Dallas morning news came out with an article, whether it was this week

808
01:09:33,180 --> 01:09:38,340
 or the week before, um, very similar. Um, but we were actually ranked number two. There

809
01:09:38,340 --> 01:09:43,780
 are a number of factors that they looked at, population housing, job creation, new business

810
01:09:43,780 --> 01:09:48,500
 development. I think Longmont, Colorado was number one, Denton was two in the nation.

811
01:09:48,500 --> 01:09:54,260
 And so, uh, and then the Metroplex overall was, was, saw the greatest gains, uh, in that

812
01:09:54,260 --> 01:10:01,420
 eight year period from 2010 to 2018. And so it doesn't look like, um, it's going to stop,

813
01:10:01,420 --> 01:10:06,780
 um, anytime soon. But what's interesting about this project also in terms of how we looked

814
01:10:06,780 --> 01:10:12,900
 at just the approach for the 2019 DDC and a lot of what we went through, uh, with that,

815
01:10:12,900 --> 01:10:17,060
 while we, we kind of knew about the MPCs, we really didn't talk that much about these

816
01:10:17,060 --> 01:10:22,300
 areas as it related to the, to the 2019 DDC. And, and that's why I kind of have up their

817
01:10:22,300 --> 01:10:26,780
 plan versus managed growth. And so I think with the 2019 DDC, that's why I want to make

818
01:10:26,780 --> 01:10:32,580
 that distinction. A lot of the test cases that we ran with respect to increasing heights,

819
01:10:32,580 --> 01:10:37,460
 multifamily, we really looked at making sure that we were preserving or protecting some

820
01:10:37,460 --> 01:10:42,020
 of the existing single family neighborhoods in the city. And so looking at this in, in

821
01:10:42,020 --> 01:10:48,940
 And that kind of in that context really looks at truly doing a master plan community.

822
01:10:48,940 --> 01:10:53,780
 And so while we kind of zoned and created these regulations that were spread across

823
01:10:53,780 --> 01:11:01,740
 the city, we thought it really makes sense to really tailor that and focus on this area

824
01:11:01,740 --> 01:11:14,580
 specifically and getting out of the old code and really coming into what we recently adopted

825
01:11:14,580 --> 01:11:16,700
 for the 2019 code.

826
01:11:16,700 --> 01:11:21,340
 Again, so this is just a little bit of the background that they've already hit on it.

827
01:11:21,340 --> 01:11:25,620
 But again, these NPCs were created in 2008.

828
01:11:25,620 --> 01:11:28,860
 And as I mentioned, there were a number of iterations of the DDC.

829
01:11:28,860 --> 01:11:31,820
 And within 2008, there were a number of iterations.

830
01:11:31,820 --> 01:11:38,980
 And so even just trying to figure out what code they can go under and what's allowed,

831
01:11:38,980 --> 01:11:42,860
 it was almost impossible to do.

832
01:11:42,860 --> 01:11:45,020
 We spent hours and hours and hours.

833
01:11:45,020 --> 01:11:50,780
 And when we really looked at it, everything we were trying to do was get to the 2019 code.

834
01:11:50,780 --> 01:11:55,400
 And so that was really the decision of why don't we just look at using that and creating

835
01:11:55,400 --> 01:11:58,340
 sort of a mini DDC.

836
01:11:58,340 --> 01:12:03,820
 One of the first things we looked at, obviously with anything, is the comp plan and what does

837
01:12:03,820 --> 01:12:04,820
 it say.

838
01:12:04,820 --> 01:12:08,900
 And so there's a policy specifically to 2.11, promote development of master plan communities

839
01:12:08,900 --> 01:12:12,340
 that is consistent with long-term vision of the preferred growth concept.

840
01:12:12,340 --> 01:12:21,460
 And then 2.11.1 gets into, sort of enumerates a number of other tasks essentially in facilitating

841
01:12:21,460 --> 01:12:24,800
 revisions to the mix of the approved NPCs.

842
01:12:24,800 --> 01:12:28,340
 And so what I thought was interesting, there were some earlier discussions that we had

843
01:12:28,340 --> 01:12:35,380
 even with council last year, in how is what they're proposing relate to the land use map.

844
01:12:35,380 --> 01:12:38,900
 And what I thought was interesting, the more I read this and sort of pondered on it, when

845
01:12:38,900 --> 01:12:45,300
 you really looked at the land use map, and I'll put it in this context, if you really

846
01:12:45,300 --> 01:12:50,260
 look at the 2030 map, while we created these policies and recognized that the NPCs need

847
01:12:50,260 --> 01:12:56,020
 to be, they really should be updated and improved, we didn't necessarily map it that way.

848
01:12:56,020 --> 01:13:06,340
 And so we used essentially the 2008 NPCs, and while you could see that they are disconnected,

849
01:13:06,340 --> 01:13:11,900
 I think it's important to pay attention to the map, but again, I think it's hard to really

850
01:13:11,900 --> 01:13:18,500
 land use such a large master plan community on a very specific type basis.

851
01:13:18,500 --> 01:13:24,660
 This was in comparison, so when the 2008 NPCs were put in place, we were under the 2020

852
01:13:24,660 --> 01:13:32,380
 comp plan, again, very different than where we are 2030, again, not knocking the 2030,

853
01:13:32,380 --> 01:13:39,260
 but even just looking at some of the uses around 35 and where the loop.

854
01:13:39,260 --> 01:13:42,220
 We've got a lot of residential, and I don't know if that necessarily is probably the best

855
01:13:42,220 --> 01:13:47,620
 use at those two highway intersections.

856
01:13:47,620 --> 01:13:51,820
 In order to amend the NPC, there's essentially, it's either a major amendment or a minor.

857
01:13:51,820 --> 01:13:53,740
 We got one question, Commissioner Beck.

858
01:13:53,740 --> 01:13:56,100
 Could you flip back to that slide for a second?

859
01:13:56,100 --> 01:14:00,620
 So the reason I interrupt you, and I apologize for that, is just it's germane to this section

860
01:14:00,620 --> 01:14:01,620
 right here.

861
01:14:01,620 --> 01:14:12,580
 And that is, it was residential, it was agricultural, the extensions along the 35 corridor and whatnot.

862
01:14:12,580 --> 01:14:21,500
 So the development of this region, does that not lead to essentially additional industrial

863
01:14:21,500 --> 01:14:29,700
 business islands outside of our main downtown use area?

864
01:14:29,700 --> 01:14:37,060
 And so are we sort of creating little organelles of business throughout our cell of our city?

865
01:14:37,060 --> 01:14:42,780
 I think to be honest, I think that's kind of where this, if you look at this preferred

866
01:14:42,780 --> 01:14:46,380
 concept, that's kind of what it speaks to, is creating these distinct areas.

867
01:14:46,380 --> 01:14:51,660
 I think the challenge that we have always is developing in and around the downtown is

868
01:14:51,660 --> 01:14:58,620
 while we allow for, even in the 2019 code, we allow for multi-family by right in MN,

869
01:14:58,620 --> 01:15:03,020
 particularly in MR, but more so MN, which is a lot of the area around the university

870
01:15:03,020 --> 01:15:05,980
 that probably could use redeveloping.

871
01:15:05,980 --> 01:15:09,260
 The max height is 65 feet.

872
01:15:09,260 --> 01:15:13,820
 But in order to get from 41 feet to 65 feet, you got to go through an SGP.

873
01:15:13,820 --> 01:15:18,980
 And so I think there are sort of these, we kind of ratchet it down where someone may

874
01:15:18,980 --> 01:15:24,100
 not want to go through the whole public hearing process just to develop multi-family or redevelop

875
01:15:24,100 --> 01:15:27,300
 to push that density closer to the core.

876
01:15:27,300 --> 01:15:33,660
 And so what we have is, while we want to achieve that, not necessarily all of our policies

877
01:15:33,660 --> 01:15:35,220
 speak to that.

878
01:15:35,220 --> 01:15:41,360
 And so I think what's different here is we've already have this MPC that's established.

879
01:15:41,360 --> 01:15:46,380
 The biggest change is, and we'll get through that, is what the original focus on was really

880
01:15:46,380 --> 01:15:51,740
 creating this more of a single, heavy, heavy single family, where I think now what we have

881
01:15:51,740 --> 01:15:58,580
 is a much more balanced approach.

882
01:15:58,580 --> 01:16:03,300
 And so again, looking at that development plan amendment and looking at those bullet

883
01:16:03,300 --> 01:16:08,980
 points, if you will, from Policy 211, a mix of housing types, again, these were what the

884
01:16:08,980 --> 01:16:12,140
 MPC should focus on, these revisions.

885
01:16:12,140 --> 01:16:15,420
 And again, a mix of housing types to reflect changing demographics, and so that's kind

886
01:16:15,420 --> 01:16:16,420
 of where we are.

887
01:16:16,420 --> 01:16:19,300
 I think we even addressed that as part of the 2019 DDC.

888
01:16:19,300 --> 01:16:22,540
 I won't read every single in detail.

889
01:16:22,540 --> 01:16:26,660
 Appropriate siting of schools, civic buildings, and community amenities.

890
01:16:26,660 --> 01:16:30,660
 And so I think when you saw their proposal, there was obviously an overall increase in

891
01:16:30,660 --> 01:16:33,320
 open space, better location of school sites.

892
01:16:33,320 --> 01:16:38,700
 I think even in the old MPC, there were some school sites within the airport overlay that

893
01:16:38,700 --> 01:16:40,380
 really shouldn't be there.

894
01:16:40,380 --> 01:16:43,820
 So there's just an overall improvement.

895
01:16:43,820 --> 01:16:50,500
 I think what's really key to this is the adjacency to the existing transportation system.

896
01:16:50,500 --> 01:16:57,420
 And so rather than what we're trying to do now is go in and modify and widen roads and

897
01:16:57,420 --> 01:17:01,440
 deal with that growth that we have on our local network.

898
01:17:01,440 --> 01:17:07,300
 This is -- we're planning for it, so we know what's coming, we're right-sizing it right

899
01:17:07,300 --> 01:17:08,460
 off the bat.

900
01:17:08,460 --> 01:17:14,340
 And so there's not a concern of having to go in 10, 15 years later, acquire right-of-way,

901
01:17:14,340 --> 01:17:19,500
 close off streets, and have some of the gridlock that we have now from a lack of poor planning

902
01:17:19,500 --> 01:17:20,780
 in the past.

903
01:17:20,780 --> 01:17:27,820
 And so that's another -- again, how we're meeting those tasks.

904
01:17:27,820 --> 01:17:30,700
 Conservation development, where appropriate, I think that the increased preservation of

905
01:17:30,700 --> 01:17:35,820
 the ESA habitat obviously speaks to that, as well as some modifications and inclusion

906
01:17:35,820 --> 01:17:37,820
 of the cluster subdivision.

907
01:17:37,820 --> 01:17:42,300
 Again, focusing on that compact mixed-use walkable development pattern, having that

908
01:17:42,300 --> 01:17:47,860
 network of trails link everything, again, integrating those area-wide networks.

909
01:17:47,860 --> 01:17:54,020
 I think they've talked to approximately 52 or 56 miles of trails.

910
01:17:54,020 --> 01:17:59,180
 And then developable acreage that is in balance of overall development in the city.

911
01:17:59,180 --> 01:18:07,220
 I think when we look at some of the uses, particularly the corporate office parks, not

912
01:18:07,220 --> 01:18:11,580
 too many other places in the city do we have the ability for that.

913
01:18:11,580 --> 01:18:16,720
 And so I think when we look at that, as well as a planned network, I mean, 35W, they've

914
01:18:16,720 --> 01:18:22,500
 fast-forwarded the widening of that, as well as the service roads.

915
01:18:22,500 --> 01:18:29,180
 And so I think, again, it goes back to truly planning, planning for integrating those types

916
01:18:29,180 --> 01:18:34,020
 of uses within the city.

917
01:18:34,020 --> 01:18:40,900
 So looking at that balance, Hunter Ranch Sub-District, just to give you an idea of that current versus

918
01:18:40,900 --> 01:18:41,900
 proposed.

919
01:18:41,900 --> 01:18:46,860
 Again, 84% residential, whereas now we're at about 38%.

920
01:18:46,860 --> 01:18:51,860
 And so again, balancing, kind of balancing the scales, I think, a little more towards

921
01:18:51,860 --> 01:18:52,860
 the mixed-use.

922
01:18:52,860 --> 01:18:58,860
 Again, greater potential for employment and sales tax, and again, buffering residential

923
01:18:58,860 --> 01:19:04,260
 by that mixed-use along 35 and the loop.

924
01:19:04,260 --> 01:19:10,060
 Similar with coal, again, the proposed mix is much more balanced and in line with that

925
01:19:10,060 --> 01:19:18,300
 policy 211, correcting the 2002 DDC actually prohibited schools and residential districts.

926
01:19:18,300 --> 01:19:23,780
 And so when you see that current versus proposed, it's not that they're not going to have schools.

927
01:19:23,780 --> 01:19:27,780
 They're now just permitted in those residential districts, as opposed to having zoned them

928
01:19:27,780 --> 01:19:30,380
 specifically their own category.

929
01:19:30,380 --> 01:19:34,780
 But again, you see that much more balanced, balanced mix.

930
01:19:34,780 --> 01:19:43,740
 Some of the major changes in uses, again, this is looking at from the 2008 to the 2019.

931
01:19:43,740 --> 01:19:46,580
 I'm not going to hit on every single one of these.

932
01:19:46,580 --> 01:19:52,300
 But probably some of the key ones, especially that we discussed with council, one was allowing

933
01:19:52,300 --> 01:20:01,020
 multifamily in R7 without an SUP, allowing single-family in the MR district with limitations

934
01:20:01,020 --> 01:20:05,780
 of 60% net developable acreage.

935
01:20:05,780 --> 01:20:11,740
 There were some additional concerns that was previously touched on regarding that location

936
01:20:11,740 --> 01:20:14,620
 to the interstate that I think we're working through.

937
01:20:14,620 --> 01:20:19,460
 And so ultimately when this comes back, we'll address that some more.

938
01:20:19,460 --> 01:20:25,980
 Removing some retail limitations, again, allowing the schools, and then we do have some prohibitions

939
01:20:25,980 --> 01:20:36,220
 of RV parks, motels, major automotive repair, again, really focusing on kind of how we want

940
01:20:36,220 --> 01:20:41,980
 this area to develop, again, not looking at it, casting a wide net like our current zoning

941
01:20:41,980 --> 01:20:46,940
 code does and has to for the lack of a better way to put it.

942
01:20:46,940 --> 01:20:53,820
 Looking at allowing for solar collectors as a principle and wind energy conversion systems

943
01:20:53,820 --> 01:20:56,260
 within the MR, again, with an SUP.

944
01:20:56,260 --> 01:21:03,340
 SUP would require P&Z recommendation, council approval.

945
01:21:03,340 --> 01:21:08,700
 Modifying the accessory dwellings, allowing them in all districts with some limitations

946
01:21:08,700 --> 01:21:10,980
 further than what we have today.

947
01:21:10,980 --> 01:21:15,560
 So limiting the accessory dwellings to only one bedroom or less.

948
01:21:15,560 --> 01:21:24,940
 But then allowing outdoor storage in MR with specific standards currently, it's not permitted.

949
01:21:24,940 --> 01:21:33,580
 Again, with temporary uses, rather than have this nondescript what they are, really enumerating

950
01:21:33,580 --> 01:21:35,660
 that list.

951
01:21:35,660 --> 01:21:42,020
 And then allowing for open air market, parking for model homes, sales and leasing office.

952
01:21:42,020 --> 01:21:45,820
 And then one thing we discussed, and I think they hit on as they talked about their commercial

953
01:21:45,820 --> 01:21:52,140
 and mixed-use properties, is limiting seasonal sales to the property owner's association.

954
01:21:52,140 --> 01:21:57,100
 That way we don't have multiple tenants and everybody having different seasonal sales

955
01:21:57,100 --> 01:21:59,940
 that they can control it a little more.

956
01:21:59,940 --> 01:22:08,940
 And so that would be an application that would come in from the property owner association.

957
01:22:08,940 --> 01:22:15,100
 They hit again on the heliport helipad, again, both of these only in the MN and MR with an

958
01:22:15,100 --> 01:22:16,100
 SUP.

959
01:22:16,100 --> 01:22:21,660
 Again, we didn't really have any major concerns with the proposed modifications.

960
01:22:21,660 --> 01:22:24,820
 Again, we're looking at this as we're planning for it.

961
01:22:24,820 --> 01:22:30,180
 So again, we're not putting these provisions in for protection.

962
01:22:30,180 --> 01:22:34,580
 We're already planning for it and it's intended.

963
01:22:34,580 --> 01:22:41,460
 Looking at the density analysis, again, you start to see that ratio mix, but more importantly,

964
01:22:41,460 --> 01:22:47,980
 you see the overall reduction in proposed units, both from multi-family and single-family

965
01:22:47,980 --> 01:22:51,460
 from both than what's currently permitted.

966
01:22:51,460 --> 01:22:55,820
 So I think, again, you have to-- this isn't a brand new-- well, it's essentially a new

967
01:22:55,820 --> 01:22:56,820
 project.

968
01:22:56,820 --> 01:23:02,060
 It's really not because they do have some rights already that are allowed.

969
01:23:02,060 --> 01:23:07,780
 And so again, it is a substantial reduction in what's permitted today.

970
01:23:07,780 --> 01:23:15,780
 One of the requested changes was reducing the minimum lot width in R7 from 50 to 40.

971
01:23:15,780 --> 01:23:22,560
 And I think they kind of showed that in their image of some of the housing models.

972
01:23:22,560 --> 01:23:28,460
 Our concern always has been when reducing the 40-- reducing it to a 40-foot lot width

973
01:23:28,460 --> 01:23:32,900
 is we still have the provision in there with the two-car garage can't exceed 40% of the

974
01:23:32,900 --> 01:23:33,900
 front of the house.

975
01:23:33,900 --> 01:23:40,140
 So once you factor in setbacks, you can never have a two-car garage on a 40-foot wide lot

976
01:23:40,140 --> 01:23:42,100
 that's front-facing.

977
01:23:42,100 --> 01:23:43,740
 And so we discussed that.

978
01:23:43,740 --> 01:23:45,700
 They're well aware of it.

979
01:23:45,700 --> 01:23:49,100
 And really what that would do is push the parking, whether it would be alley-loaded

980
01:23:49,100 --> 01:23:54,300
 or set the garage well behind the front of the house.

981
01:23:54,300 --> 01:24:00,340
 And so again, when you look at that in terms of an urban context, if it is delivered, it's

982
01:24:00,340 --> 01:24:01,340
 planned.

983
01:24:01,340 --> 01:24:02,340
 This is what's intended.

984
01:24:02,340 --> 01:24:05,820
 Again, we didn't really have a concern with that.

985
01:24:05,820 --> 01:24:09,180
 One of the other components was looking at a zero lot line.

986
01:24:09,180 --> 01:24:15,100
 You kind of see the diagram here that provides for a-- again, still a 10-foot separation

987
01:24:15,100 --> 01:24:18,420
 between the buildings, but allowing for a 4-foot maintenance easement.

988
01:24:18,420 --> 01:24:24,020
 Again, that would be for whatever would be needed-- window change, outpainting, a variety

989
01:24:24,020 --> 01:24:26,700
 of things.

990
01:24:26,700 --> 01:24:36,220
 Height analysis-- one of the proposed changes, again, is in the MN, increasing it from 65

991
01:24:36,220 --> 01:24:40,900
 to 100 and not requiring an SGP for that increased height.

992
01:24:40,900 --> 01:24:47,020
 The current DDC requires in MN a SGP from 41 feet to 65.

993
01:24:47,020 --> 01:24:52,420
 MR, they're proposing it to increase from 100 to 200.

994
01:24:52,420 --> 01:24:56,300
 Different standards-- anything over 100 requires an SGP.

995
01:24:56,300 --> 01:25:02,380
 Again, I think when you look at this, there's a number of other provisions in the DDC.

996
01:25:02,380 --> 01:25:08,980
 One that we're modifying as part of this, it's section 710-5 in the current-- in the

997
01:25:08,980 --> 01:25:11,220
 2019 DDC.

998
01:25:11,220 --> 01:25:17,500
 We expanded on a provision that we previously had that talked about transition-- building

999
01:25:17,500 --> 01:25:21,280
 height transition when adjacent to single family.

1000
01:25:21,280 --> 01:25:27,540
 The modification that we did here that's actually more stringent than what the 2019 code would

1001
01:25:27,540 --> 01:25:30,500
 be, where we're headed.

1002
01:25:30,500 --> 01:25:34,180
 Currently single-family detached is permitted in MN.

1003
01:25:34,180 --> 01:25:39,060
 That building height transition only comes into play if it's adjacent to a residential

1004
01:25:39,060 --> 01:25:40,620
 zone district.

1005
01:25:40,620 --> 01:25:45,940
 And so while you can still do by right single-family in MN, you could put a 100-foot tall building

1006
01:25:45,940 --> 01:25:52,060
 next to it without that building height transition standards coming into play.

1007
01:25:52,060 --> 01:25:58,940
 What we had proposed and had sent to them earlier in the week or last week was modifying

1008
01:25:58,940 --> 01:26:04,060
 that where it would still apply to the residential district, obviously the R4 or 6 or 7, but within

1009
01:26:04,060 --> 01:26:05,060
 those districts themselves.

1010
01:26:05,060 --> 01:26:10,580
 So within the MN, within the MR, now requiring that building height transition within the

1011
01:26:10,580 --> 01:26:11,740
 district itself.

1012
01:26:11,740 --> 01:26:16,220
 So it'd be to the district if it's not outside of it or abutting it, but then to the residential

1013
01:26:16,220 --> 01:26:22,100
 development within the MR or MN.

1014
01:26:22,100 --> 01:26:27,060
 This is just a height comparison of what they're currently allowed to have today.

1015
01:26:27,060 --> 01:26:32,180
 So in Hunter, the max height goes from 35 feet up to 100.

1016
01:26:32,180 --> 01:26:36,980
 In Cole, if you remember, the old CMG had no height limitation.

1017
01:26:36,980 --> 01:26:42,780
 So whether they could, again, some of this will be controlled by the location approximate

1018
01:26:42,780 --> 01:26:44,700
 to the airport.

1019
01:26:44,700 --> 01:26:48,020
 But again, you see the changes.

1020
01:26:48,020 --> 01:26:51,500
 One thing I wanted to point out here, and I kind of have my first two bullet points

1021
01:26:51,500 --> 01:26:58,180
 under consideration, when you really look at the NR10, 15, and 20 under Hunter, these

1022
01:26:58,180 --> 01:27:04,560
 were sub-districts that were created that were essentially multi-family districts.

1023
01:27:04,560 --> 01:27:11,140
 And so while we talk about the MPCs being these walkable urban environments, the standards

1024
01:27:11,140 --> 01:27:13,740
 that are put in place really don't allow for that.

1025
01:27:13,740 --> 01:27:18,900
 And so within 35 feet, I mean, you're essentially building a two-story garden-style walk-up

1026
01:27:18,900 --> 01:27:23,900
 that we have everywhere else with the sprawled parking lot.

1027
01:27:23,900 --> 01:27:29,380
 And so really, it almost forces, you know, the old standards really forced that as opposed

1028
01:27:29,380 --> 01:27:33,580
 to being able to be creative, provide for integrated parking.

1029
01:27:33,580 --> 01:27:39,980
 You just can't do that within 35 feet of height.

1030
01:27:39,980 --> 01:27:44,620
 One of the other proposed amendments is to the cluster subdivision.

1031
01:27:44,620 --> 01:27:50,260
 Again, because this is going to have a multiple property owners/homeowners association, one

1032
01:27:50,260 --> 01:28:01,220
 of the proposed changes that they're proposing is one, to increase the number of units on

1033
01:28:01,220 --> 01:28:10,740
 a shared driveway, but reducing the minimum drive area and really only having two parking

1034
01:28:10,740 --> 01:28:17,820
 spaces on-site that would be in a garage with one off-site space on-street.

1035
01:28:17,820 --> 01:28:23,860
 And so really what that would do is it almost self-governs it to an extent where you don't

1036
01:28:23,860 --> 01:28:29,580
 have parking within the driveway because you just can't get out.

1037
01:28:29,580 --> 01:28:35,380
 Now while we did have some initial concerns with this, what they have agreed to is limit

1038
01:28:35,380 --> 01:28:44,320
 that to 15% of the net developable acreage within the R7, MN, and MR sub-districts unless

1039
01:28:44,320 --> 01:28:45,320
 it was age-restricted.

1040
01:28:45,320 --> 01:28:50,900
 So if it would be 55 and older, typically at least what I'm familiar with, not too

1041
01:28:50,900 --> 01:28:56,340
 many 55 and older couples have more than two vehicles.

1042
01:28:56,340 --> 01:29:01,300
 Again, governed by an HOA.

1043
01:29:01,300 --> 01:29:05,620
 Upland habitat, I think what you'll see is when this ultimately comes back, this will

1044
01:29:05,620 --> 01:29:07,580
 be modified again.

1045
01:29:07,580 --> 01:29:10,420
 They hinted to that already and showed some of that.

1046
01:29:10,420 --> 01:29:18,380
 But some of the biggest changes is under the -- again, they're under the 2008 version of

1047
01:29:18,380 --> 01:29:30,740
 the 2002, 2019 DDC required an increase from non-residential ESA preservation from 0-30%.

1048
01:29:30,740 --> 01:29:33,460
 And then in residential, they had it at 55.

1049
01:29:33,460 --> 01:29:39,140
 They're looking at actually maintaining an overall ESA preservation of 55%.

1050
01:29:39,140 --> 01:29:42,260
 I suspect it might even be a little higher.

1051
01:29:42,260 --> 01:29:47,380
 But again, we're looking at really pulling -- one of the items that council had discussed

1052
01:29:47,380 --> 01:29:55,480
 is really pulling these areas out of the zoning and just identifying exactly what's anticipated.

1053
01:29:55,480 --> 01:30:01,140
 And so I think part of that question earlier about kind of eating away at these, they've

1054
01:30:01,140 --> 01:30:08,060
 already sort of self-imposed a limitation much greater than what the code would even

1055
01:30:08,060 --> 01:30:12,420
 allow for.

1056
01:30:12,420 --> 01:30:18,100
 Looking at tree canopy and preservation, the new tree code, obviously everyone hopefully

1057
01:30:18,100 --> 01:30:23,180
 is familiar with, requires a minimum of 30% of the DBH and the mitigation for payment

1058
01:30:23,180 --> 01:30:24,740
 or planning.

1059
01:30:24,740 --> 01:30:33,500
 One of the items that they had proposed, again, is increasing actually that minimum to 35%.

1060
01:30:33,500 --> 01:30:37,100
 And then if you remember, there was sort of a multiplier.

1061
01:30:37,100 --> 01:30:41,500
 So for every inch that you took -- that you removed of a heritage tree, it was a replacement

1062
01:30:41,500 --> 01:30:44,980
 -- the replacement rate was 2.5%.

1063
01:30:44,980 --> 01:30:46,660
 They've agreed to up theirs to 3.

1064
01:30:46,660 --> 01:30:55,380
 So again, putting more value, if you will, on heritage trees that would be out there

1065
01:30:55,380 --> 01:31:00,100
 and requiring obviously much more mitigation if they were to take those down.

1066
01:31:00,100 --> 01:31:06,260
 But this just gives you a bare, bare minimum of looking at what the current MPC, what the

1067
01:31:06,260 --> 01:31:12,060
 minimum canopy would be, and then looking at the future minimum canopy.

1068
01:31:12,060 --> 01:31:14,820
 I suspect this number will be much higher.

1069
01:31:14,820 --> 01:31:20,900
 One of the other provisions that they built into their amendment is for single-family

1070
01:31:20,900 --> 01:31:25,900
 residential, the current 2019 DDC requires one shade tree.

1071
01:31:25,900 --> 01:31:31,460
 For those, our four or six subdivisions, they've agreed to double that to two shade trees per

1072
01:31:31,460 --> 01:31:32,460
 lot.

1073
01:31:32,460 --> 01:31:37,200
 So again, I think we'll see a much -- I think this number will be much greater than what

1074
01:31:37,200 --> 01:31:40,300
 we're planning for.

1075
01:31:40,300 --> 01:31:46,660
 Where a lot of the discussion obviously even today has already gone to is gas wells and

1076
01:31:46,660 --> 01:31:48,820
 pad sites.

1077
01:31:48,820 --> 01:31:55,820
 So what this shows you is the -- under the MPC, what's currently there, what's existing,

1078
01:31:55,820 --> 01:32:00,860
 what's platted and undeveloped and allowed, undeveloped existing wells, undrilled wells.

1079
01:32:00,860 --> 01:32:05,460
 So for coal, I'll start there on the bottom only because they have 15.

1080
01:32:05,460 --> 01:32:06,660
 That's what the MPC has.

1081
01:32:06,660 --> 01:32:07,660
 That's what they have.

1082
01:32:07,660 --> 01:32:11,060
 There's no undeveloped platted well sites.

1083
01:32:11,060 --> 01:32:16,820
 They do have some undrilled wells, but again, those would -- that -- there's 38 existing,

1084
01:32:16,820 --> 01:32:21,220
 so 24 additional wells could be -- could be drilled.

1085
01:32:21,220 --> 01:32:23,980
 Hunter, the MPC allows for 19.

1086
01:32:23,980 --> 01:32:30,460
 They have five existing sites, four unplatted but undeveloped, and then an additional 10

1087
01:32:30,460 --> 01:32:34,220
 that are allowed that are undeveloped.

1088
01:32:34,220 --> 01:32:35,500
 That number may reduce to five.

1089
01:32:35,500 --> 01:32:38,860
 Again, they're going to reduce it overall to five.

1090
01:32:38,860 --> 01:32:42,500
 It may come from -- it may come from this column.

1091
01:32:42,500 --> 01:32:43,500
 It may come from this column.

1092
01:32:43,500 --> 01:32:44,780
 It may come from that column.

1093
01:32:44,780 --> 01:32:51,020
 I think that's where we're working out those final details now, but when this ultimately

1094
01:32:51,020 --> 01:32:57,740
 comes back to you, that will be -- that will be -- that will be established.

1095
01:32:57,740 --> 01:33:04,500
 And so looking at just the gas well regulations, this gives you an idea of what the current

1096
01:33:04,500 --> 01:33:08,300
 -- what the current MPC has.

1097
01:33:08,300 --> 01:33:16,860
 So there's -- there were four well sites that had a setback of 750 or 500 with written approval

1098
01:33:16,860 --> 01:33:18,780
 from the well head to structure.

1099
01:33:18,780 --> 01:33:25,060
 Again, this is the -- this was a 2010 amendment, but that was done prior to the 2010 gas well

1100
01:33:25,060 --> 01:33:26,860
 amendments that increased the reverse setback.

1101
01:33:26,860 --> 01:33:31,060
 So you can imagine going through the DD -- the various versions of the DDC and trying to

1102
01:33:31,060 --> 01:33:32,940
 figure all of this out.

1103
01:33:32,940 --> 01:33:36,620
 But then, again, looking at the absolute minimum, again, these are -- these are fire codes.

1104
01:33:36,620 --> 01:33:40,560
 So currently, they're about 100 feet from the well head.

1105
01:33:40,560 --> 01:33:47,460
 Looking at their proposed four sites at 750 from the well head or 500 with written approval,

1106
01:33:47,460 --> 01:33:52,780
 again, these are very similar language to exactly what's in the code today.

1107
01:33:52,780 --> 01:34:00,140
 Five and then any new well sites would be 1,000 or 500 feet with written approval from

1108
01:34:00,140 --> 01:34:01,140
 the property owner.

1109
01:34:01,140 --> 01:34:06,620
 So again, they're proposing to follow the exact standards that are -- that were recently

1110
01:34:06,620 --> 01:34:12,020
 approved, but will be reconsidered.

1111
01:34:12,020 --> 01:34:21,460
 On coal, again, very similar with them since there are no new wells, it's really the reverse

1112
01:34:21,460 --> 01:34:31,380
 setback, and so the biggest change is measuring that from the -- from the pad site.

1113
01:34:31,380 --> 01:34:35,820
 And so just to give you an idea, again, they had those kind of -- that number, but just

1114
01:34:35,820 --> 01:34:41,900
 to give you an idea of what's out there in terms of existing wells and kind of this example

1115
01:34:41,900 --> 01:34:44,380
 map that we put together.

1116
01:34:44,380 --> 01:34:49,860
 So overall, looking at the proposed amendment reduces the single-family residential lots

1117
01:34:49,860 --> 01:34:55,780
 by 29%, so again, lessening -- overall lessening that impact of where they are today, and then

1118
01:34:55,780 --> 01:34:59,620
 reducing the number of well sites.

1119
01:34:59,620 --> 01:35:05,180
 Increasing tree canopy obviously assists with sequestering air pollution, but again, looking

1120
01:35:05,180 --> 01:35:11,340
 at these 20 existing pad sites, we looked at kind of the gross area, pad site area,

1121
01:35:11,340 --> 01:35:17,180
 and when you really looked at that setback, what that actual area is that's encumbered

1122
01:35:17,180 --> 01:35:22,420
 outside of the well site, it's just under two acres, 1.7 acres, and so again, now taking

1123
01:35:22,420 --> 01:35:29,700
 that setback out, so it goes from .03% of the overall -- both sites together to almost

1124
01:35:29,700 --> 01:35:33,340
 11% that are now -- that are now captured.

1125
01:35:33,340 --> 01:35:40,220
 So while there's a number of increases, this is probably, I think, the most dramatic out

1126
01:35:40,220 --> 01:35:45,580
 of -- out of all of the changes, again, 11% of the land.

1127
01:35:45,580 --> 01:35:51,100
 And so one -- when we finished with council, we had a number of sort of considerations

1128
01:35:51,100 --> 01:35:56,260
 that we went through with them, and one was our seven lot with reduction, and whether

1129
01:35:56,260 --> 01:35:59,660
 or not there was any real concern with that.

1130
01:35:59,660 --> 01:36:03,820
 We didn't really hear from council that had a huge concern.

1131
01:36:03,820 --> 01:36:09,140
 Now, that might change, but at least at the meeting, the feedback that we got, there was

1132
01:36:09,140 --> 01:36:13,980
 no real concern with that, really, either for the parking.

1133
01:36:13,980 --> 01:36:21,420
 Most of the discussion had to do, obviously, with calling the ESA area out specifically,

1134
01:36:21,420 --> 01:36:28,700
 and then most of the discussion was around allowing that single family in MR, particularly

1135
01:36:28,700 --> 01:36:31,260
 with that increased height.

1136
01:36:31,260 --> 01:36:37,640
 I think the provisions that we're putting in hopefully will address some of those concerns,

1137
01:36:37,640 --> 01:36:40,700
 the modification of that height transition.

1138
01:36:40,700 --> 01:36:46,580
 While we did talk about it, while I kind of went back afterwards and looked at it, that's

1139
01:36:46,580 --> 01:36:48,540
 when we started making those adjustments.

1140
01:36:48,540 --> 01:36:53,880
 So council hasn't quite seen what that language means, but again, looking at it as it compares

1141
01:36:53,880 --> 01:37:01,860
 to what we currently have in the 2019 code, it would only apply if it abuts a residential

1142
01:37:01,860 --> 01:37:02,860
 district.

1143
01:37:02,860 --> 01:37:09,980
 So in the MR to MN, it wouldn't apply.

1144
01:37:09,980 --> 01:37:15,180
 Then again, not requiring the height, while there were some that had concerns over this,

1145
01:37:15,180 --> 01:37:22,740
 again, we looked at this as, again, this is what we're planning for, for this area.

1146
01:37:22,740 --> 01:37:28,300
 When we talked about the height, particularly for the MR currently and MN, most of our test

1147
01:37:28,300 --> 01:37:32,640
 cases that we looked at were really within the city.

1148
01:37:32,640 --> 01:37:34,740
 How would these impact existing single family neighborhoods?

1149
01:37:34,740 --> 01:37:35,740
 Currently, there are none there.

1150
01:37:35,740 --> 01:37:36,740
 We have one question, Commissioner Ellis.

1151
01:37:36,740 --> 01:37:37,740
 Yep, and I'm done.

1152
01:37:37,740 --> 01:37:38,740
 Thank you, Chair.

1153
01:37:38,740 --> 01:37:42,760
 Richard, it's actually on this.

1154
01:37:42,760 --> 01:37:49,220
 So with that increased height, so there's a piece in Hunter in the very southwest that's

1155
01:37:49,220 --> 01:37:55,340
 an MN piece that abuts to an R4.

1156
01:37:55,340 --> 01:37:56,340
 Did you?

1157
01:37:56,340 --> 01:37:57,340
 Yep.

1158
01:37:57,340 --> 01:38:04,580
 I think that's Robes and Ranch that it's facing, I think, that piece, right?

1159
01:38:04,580 --> 01:38:05,580
 R4.

1160
01:38:05,580 --> 01:38:06,580
 Correct.

1161
01:38:06,580 --> 01:38:07,580
 Correct.

1162
01:38:07,580 --> 01:38:10,740
 It's actually subject to that height transition.

1163
01:38:10,740 --> 01:38:20,340
 So the height transition is the first from zero, and again, it's property line.

1164
01:38:20,340 --> 01:38:24,780
 So if it's abutting that district, so from their property line, the MN property line.

1165
01:38:24,780 --> 01:38:29,700
 So the max height in our single family districts is 40 feet.

1166
01:38:29,700 --> 01:38:36,380
 And so for the first 50 feet, it's 40 feet, can't exceed 40 feet.

1167
01:38:36,380 --> 01:38:42,380
 The next 50 feet, I want to say I think it's the next 50 feet, the max height is 65.

1168
01:38:42,380 --> 01:38:47,560
 And so you start to slowly taper up or transition up.

1169
01:38:47,560 --> 01:38:53,660
 And so at 100 feet, again, we're following kind of what we previously had in the code,

1170
01:38:53,660 --> 01:38:57,460
 but really defining it a little bit more, because we had it add 15 feet for this, but

1171
01:38:57,460 --> 01:39:02,080
 really, it's 60, I mean, 40 plus 15 is 60.

1172
01:39:02,080 --> 01:39:06,100
 So why don't we just say 65 as opposed to adding the numbers?

1173
01:39:06,100 --> 01:39:11,460
 And so we're just much more explicit about it, as well as working on updating a graphic

1174
01:39:11,460 --> 01:39:14,780
 to show what that transition is.

1175
01:39:14,780 --> 01:39:17,860
 So again, that would be that 100 feet.

1176
01:39:17,860 --> 01:39:23,660
 So within that 100 feet separation, the building couldn't reach that, couldn't maximize.

1177
01:39:23,660 --> 01:39:28,700
 Now depending on the width or depth of that lot, they may never be able to, it may not

1178
01:39:28,700 --> 01:39:37,540
 work given the setback and other site constraints.

1179
01:39:37,540 --> 01:39:40,620
 Any other questions on this presentation?

1180
01:39:40,620 --> 01:39:45,060
 Or did this presentation elicit any other questions in general for this work session

1181
01:39:45,060 --> 01:39:46,060
 item?

1182
01:39:46,060 --> 01:39:47,060
 Christian Beck.

1183
01:39:47,060 --> 01:39:48,980
 Thank you, Chair.

1184
01:39:48,980 --> 01:39:57,260
 So on the tree ordinances, you mentioned they voluntarily proposing going up to three inches.

1185
01:39:57,260 --> 01:40:04,980
 Do we have, I mean, because this is a budding upland at ESAs and wooded property, but they're

1186
01:40:04,980 --> 01:40:17,140
 only required to preserve certain amounts, is there, what are we doing that's encouraging

1187
01:40:17,140 --> 01:40:21,300
 development to retain rather than replace?

1188
01:40:21,300 --> 01:40:24,780
 Because replacement is not as good as retention.

1189
01:40:24,780 --> 01:40:32,220
 I think what we'll see in sort of the next iteration is really, is when we really look

1190
01:40:32,220 --> 01:40:37,120
 at these ESA areas, it will be very specific.

1191
01:40:37,120 --> 01:40:43,220
 So they may not have a, they may not be under a zoning district, if you will.

1192
01:40:43,220 --> 01:40:49,580
 So it'll be specific as to what that area is and how, and the percentage amount.

1193
01:40:49,580 --> 01:40:55,420
 So that won't, the guesswork essentially will be out of it, if that makes any sense.

1194
01:40:55,420 --> 01:41:02,580
 Because right now there, you can, it varies between 50% or 55% if it's residential, 30%

1195
01:41:02,580 --> 01:41:05,580
 for non-residential.

1196
01:41:05,580 --> 01:41:10,720
 They're looking at calling out each specific upland area.

1197
01:41:10,720 --> 01:41:18,540
 So area A or area B, area C would be 70% or 60%.

1198
01:41:18,540 --> 01:41:22,220
 Whatever that area is, that will be called out.

1199
01:41:22,220 --> 01:41:27,980
 And then for the rest of the property, it would be the standard 2019 tree ordinance

1200
01:41:27,980 --> 01:41:30,660
 for the rest of the two properties rather?

1201
01:41:30,660 --> 01:41:36,100
 So anything that falls out, so if there were to be some trees that say there would be some

1202
01:41:36,100 --> 01:41:40,700
 encroachment into that upland habitat, anything that would kind of fall in would essentially

1203
01:41:40,700 --> 01:41:43,700
 get looked at as part of that tree preservation.

1204
01:41:43,700 --> 01:41:49,840
 And so what they're proposing though is a minimum of 35% preservation as opposed to

1205
01:41:49,840 --> 01:41:52,500
 the 30.

1206
01:41:52,500 --> 01:42:01,120
 And then any larger tree, the mitigation rate would be higher.

1207
01:42:01,120 --> 01:42:06,420
 It goes from two and a half inches per one inch to three inches per one inch for mitigation.

1208
01:42:06,420 --> 01:42:10,420
 In addition, the replacement trees, well we have a minimum of two inches, they have agreed

1209
01:42:10,420 --> 01:42:19,500
 to up that to three inches, so they've increased the standards, they've self-imposed that on

1210
01:42:19,500 --> 01:42:20,500
 themselves.

1211
01:42:20,500 --> 01:42:26,980
 And I have an additional question.

1212
01:42:26,980 --> 01:42:34,220
 I was glad to see that we have these changes that are being proposed to allow for solar.

1213
01:42:34,220 --> 01:42:38,140
 Is that rooftop solar, field solar, what are we doing in that regard?

1214
01:42:38,140 --> 01:42:48,860
 I think these are really looking at it as a large solar, again it would be with an SGP,

1215
01:42:48,860 --> 01:42:55,020
 but any large solar, really as a primary use.

1216
01:42:55,020 --> 01:43:03,140
 And so it wouldn't be an accessory to a building, this would be a primary use solar collection.

1217
01:43:03,140 --> 01:43:08,100
 Okay.

1218
01:43:08,100 --> 01:43:09,100
 Thank you.

1219
01:43:09,100 --> 01:43:13,300
 Any other questions for Richard or others here?

1220
01:43:13,300 --> 01:43:14,380
 Commissioner Ellis.

1221
01:43:14,380 --> 01:43:15,380
 Thank you, Chair.

1222
01:43:15,380 --> 01:43:16,380
 Just real quick.

1223
01:43:16,380 --> 01:43:21,820
 So January 8th, effectively we are seeing this again as far as recommending a council,

1224
01:43:21,820 --> 01:43:22,820
 correct?

1225
01:43:22,820 --> 01:43:31,660
 Yeah, so what we're anticipating now is potentially holding the public hearing on January 8th.

1226
01:43:31,660 --> 01:43:42,160
 And so when this comes to you, you will have about 1,000 pages of maybe less, but essentially

1227
01:43:42,160 --> 01:43:47,380
 a 29-- two versions of the 2019 DDC.

1228
01:43:47,380 --> 01:43:52,140
 Hunter and Cole are very, very-- they're almost identical.

1229
01:43:52,140 --> 01:43:58,300
 The only real difference between the two is that Cole has a portion of their site that's

1230
01:43:58,300 --> 01:44:04,060
 with LI where Hunter doesn't, and so if it doesn't apply, we've taken some-- we've just

1231
01:44:04,060 --> 01:44:06,580
 said let's remove it to avoid the confusion.

1232
01:44:06,580 --> 01:44:09,980
 And so we may try to whittle that down even further.

1233
01:44:09,980 --> 01:44:14,740
 There are some provisions, in fact Cynthia and I were just talking earlier, there are

1234
01:44:14,740 --> 01:44:19,120
 some provisions that are being-- that are made part of the operating agreements and

1235
01:44:19,120 --> 01:44:26,020
 project agreements, specifically as it relates to utilities, that we may end up just pulling

1236
01:44:26,020 --> 01:44:30,700
 a good portion of the utility language out of the mini-DDC if it's already being addressed

1237
01:44:30,700 --> 01:44:36,780
 in one of the operating agreements to avoid those conflicting provisions.

1238
01:44:36,780 --> 01:44:44,140
 And Richard, will the staff provide a summary of changes to help guide us through the document

1239
01:44:44,140 --> 01:44:45,140
 as--

1240
01:44:45,140 --> 01:44:52,100
 Yeah, what I anticipate doing is really having a-- for lack of a better way to put it, almost

1241
01:44:52,100 --> 01:44:57,760
 the term sheet, which really highlights some of the major changes, kind of hitting where

1242
01:44:57,760 --> 01:45:00,740
 I-- some of the items I hit today.

1243
01:45:00,740 --> 01:45:06,820
 But there are some additional minor tweaks, one being like perimeter fences is one where

1244
01:45:06,820 --> 01:45:10,420
 we allow wood perimeter fences facing rights of way.

1245
01:45:10,420 --> 01:45:16,540
 They're proposing to prohibit wood, so it would either be wrought iron, brick masonry,

1246
01:45:16,540 --> 01:45:22,300
 or combination thereof, so I'll hit on-- I'll hit all of those changes.

1247
01:45:22,300 --> 01:45:33,420
 But here, I really just focused on some of those major, kind of policy type items.

1248
01:45:33,420 --> 01:45:34,420
 Any other questions?

1249
01:45:34,420 --> 01:45:39,860
 Well, I appreciate, Richard, your presentation and Hillward and Schachtford land for being

1250
01:45:39,860 --> 01:45:40,860
 here.

1251
01:45:40,860 --> 01:45:41,860
 Thank you for your presentations.

1252
01:45:41,860 --> 01:45:46,860
 We still have an abundance of work to do in one hour.

1253
01:45:46,860 --> 01:45:52,100
 So what I'd like to do, if it's copacetic with the commission, is if we can get through

1254
01:45:52,100 --> 01:45:58,260
 the consent and individual, we'll take a break and then come back with food and go into the

1255
01:45:58,260 --> 01:45:59,260
 public hearing.

1256
01:45:59,260 --> 01:46:00,260
 Is that agreeable?

1257
01:46:00,260 --> 01:46:01,260
 Anyone starving?

1258
01:46:01,260 --> 01:46:02,260
 Perfect.

1259
01:46:02,260 --> 01:46:10,380
 So clarification on agenda items, the thing to point out is on public hearing 5A, that's

1260
01:46:10,380 --> 01:46:19,460
 being postponed, and individual consideration, item 4D, they have approved the necessary

1261
01:46:19,460 --> 01:46:22,900
 items for that to be an approval this evening, not a denial, correct?

1262
01:46:22,900 --> 01:46:25,060
 That is correct.

1263
01:46:25,060 --> 01:46:27,820
 That's item 4D.

1264
01:46:27,820 --> 01:46:29,600
 Our backup says it's recommended for denial.

1265
01:46:29,600 --> 01:46:35,200
 They have satisfied everything for an approval this evening.

1266
01:46:35,200 --> 01:46:40,340
 With that, is there any changes or notes besides the one we received this evening to the minutes?

1267
01:46:40,340 --> 01:46:44,900
 From November 6th or November 20th?

1268
01:46:44,900 --> 01:46:48,020
 Seeing none, we'll go into consent.

1269
01:46:48,020 --> 01:46:50,500
 There are five items on the consent.

1270
01:46:50,500 --> 01:46:55,740
 Does anyone have any discussion items or questions to ask staff of any of these items?

1271
01:46:55,740 --> 01:46:57,180
 Chris or Beck?

1272
01:46:57,180 --> 01:46:59,100
 Yes, thank you, Chair.

1273
01:46:59,100 --> 01:47:07,820
 On 3B, if this is the one, this is the industrial one, along the creek.

1274
01:47:07,820 --> 01:47:14,820
 Is that, if I've got my, let me just make sure, let me look at the map.

1275
01:47:14,820 --> 01:47:15,820
 Yes.

1276
01:47:15,820 --> 01:47:18,780
 So, can I have some questions about that?

1277
01:47:18,780 --> 01:47:19,780
 Yeah.

1278
01:47:19,780 --> 01:47:23,940
 Hailey will create us now a problem.

1279
01:47:23,940 --> 01:47:24,940
 Oh.

1280
01:47:24,940 --> 01:47:25,940
 Congratulations.

1281
01:47:25,940 --> 01:47:37,380
 Sorry, Mr. Cole, I had a note and a text drafted for you, and just totally ignored that.

1282
01:47:37,380 --> 01:47:38,580
 I didn't hit send.

1283
01:47:38,580 --> 01:47:42,420
 It's drafted and not sent.

1284
01:47:42,420 --> 01:47:45,420
 That's terrible.

1285
01:47:45,420 --> 01:47:47,820
 Chris or Beck, your question for this plaque?

1286
01:47:47,820 --> 01:47:51,700
 Yeah, so, oh.

1287
01:47:51,700 --> 01:47:56,500
 It's right there along the drainage and creek bed, especially in the west part of the plaque,

1288
01:47:56,500 --> 01:48:01,420
 and I guess, I can't quite tell because I'm not used to reading these.

1289
01:48:01,420 --> 01:48:07,620
 What's the elevation out of the creek bed, and what's the potential for both flooding

1290
01:48:07,620 --> 01:48:18,860
 of the use and in drainage of industrial materials into the creek, both directions of sort of

1291
01:48:18,860 --> 01:48:23,100
 trying to keep the thing separate?

1292
01:48:23,100 --> 01:48:25,860
 Are you referencing the drainage easement?

1293
01:48:25,860 --> 01:48:31,900
 Mostly on that side, but sort of all along how it would impact the property just to itself.

1294
01:48:31,900 --> 01:48:34,340
 Just trying to look at the contours here.

1295
01:48:34,340 --> 01:48:43,680
 It looks like there is, let's see, approximately 622 would be the elevation over here, 614.

1296
01:48:43,680 --> 01:48:48,940
 On the other side of the creek, it appears to go down as low as 608 in the middle of

1297
01:48:48,940 --> 01:48:55,300
 the channel, so there's a pretty significant change in grade throughout the creek itself.

1298
01:48:55,300 --> 01:48:59,640
 In terms of drainage, they are required to comply with all of the city's standards for

1299
01:48:59,640 --> 01:49:04,420
 drainage, so there couldn't be any negative impacts to adjacent properties.

1300
01:49:04,420 --> 01:49:08,500
 They can drain to the flood plain if they meet certain standards for not increasing

1301
01:49:08,500 --> 01:49:13,340
 the flow to the creek too substantially or too rapidly, so they will have to detain on

1302
01:49:13,340 --> 01:49:16,420
 site if they can't meet the standards for drainage into the creek.

1303
01:49:16,420 --> 01:49:21,060
 In terms of potential pollutants on site, we do have a stormwater quality group that

1304
01:49:21,060 --> 01:49:22,060
 does inspections.

1305
01:49:22,060 --> 01:49:26,820
 They require industrial pretreatment of anything that might be released from the site, and

1306
01:49:26,820 --> 01:49:29,820
 of course the state regulates that as well.

1307
01:49:29,820 --> 01:49:31,420
 Okay.

1308
01:49:31,420 --> 01:49:32,420
 Thank you.

1309
01:49:32,420 --> 01:49:33,420
 Thanks, Haley.

1310
01:49:33,420 --> 01:49:40,620
 Is there any other questions for consent agenda items?

1311
01:49:40,620 --> 01:49:43,140
 Okay.

1312
01:49:43,140 --> 01:49:45,820
 Great.

1313
01:49:45,820 --> 01:49:53,260
 So on the individual consideration items, items 4A, B, C, D, and E, item 4A, our staff

1314
01:49:53,260 --> 01:50:01,020
 recommend denial, 4B is denial, 4C is denial or postponement, D is now an approval, and

1315
01:50:01,020 --> 01:50:03,240
 E is an approval.

1316
01:50:03,240 --> 01:50:08,180
 Happy to walk through or ask staff to walk through any of these if we need clarification.

1317
01:50:08,180 --> 01:50:10,220
 Commissioner Ellis?

1318
01:50:10,220 --> 01:50:11,220
 Thank you, Chair.

1319
01:50:11,220 --> 01:50:16,460
 Any other clarification on E?

1320
01:50:16,460 --> 01:50:19,380
 That is Julie.

1321
01:50:19,380 --> 01:50:41,780
 Let me pull that up so I can -- here we go.

1322
01:50:41,780 --> 01:50:42,780
 All right.

1323
01:50:42,780 --> 01:50:43,780
 Yes, ma'am.

1324
01:50:43,780 --> 01:50:47,660
 So Julie, actually, my confusion was with the analysis, so when you do the chart, you

1325
01:50:47,660 --> 01:50:54,340
 know, it had to do with the -- applying applicable standards, DDC, it's note number four, it's

1326
01:50:54,340 --> 01:51:00,580
 got met and not met on there, and both are checked, and so I was confused.

1327
01:51:00,580 --> 01:51:05,260
 So is that something that was handled, or is there a condition on it, or --

1328
01:51:05,260 --> 01:51:06,260
 Yes.

1329
01:51:06,260 --> 01:51:08,580
 All DDC requirements were met.

1330
01:51:08,580 --> 01:51:14,140
 The one issue was that condition that staff recommended on the preliminary plat.

1331
01:51:14,140 --> 01:51:15,220
 Okay, and it's been --

1332
01:51:15,220 --> 01:51:16,220
 Everything else has been met.

1333
01:51:16,220 --> 01:51:17,220
 Yes, ma'am.

1334
01:51:17,220 --> 01:51:18,220
 Thank you very much.

1335
01:51:18,220 --> 01:51:19,220
 You bet.

1336
01:51:19,220 --> 01:51:24,940
 Commissioner Bec, do you have questions on an item?

1337
01:51:24,940 --> 01:51:25,940
 I'll pass.

1338
01:51:25,940 --> 01:51:29,560
 Thank you.

1339
01:51:29,560 --> 01:51:34,580
 Any other questions or inquiries on the individual items for consideration?

1340
01:51:34,580 --> 01:51:35,580
 Great.

1341
01:51:35,580 --> 01:51:41,020
 And obviously we'll have an opportunity when we take votes to discuss them further in chambers

1342
01:51:41,020 --> 01:51:42,020
 if needed.

1343
01:51:42,020 --> 01:51:47,820
 Just point of order, I did skip over, when I was clarifying the agenda item, item work

1344
01:51:47,820 --> 01:51:54,180
 session 1B, that's to receive a report, hold discussion, and give staff direction for the

1345
01:51:54,180 --> 01:51:55,180
 public notices.

1346
01:51:55,180 --> 01:51:57,700
 We're going to do that as time permits, Charlie.

1347
01:51:57,700 --> 01:52:02,700
 We'll see if we have time coming back, or we will -- if we need to reschedule, we'll

1348
01:52:02,700 --> 01:52:05,660
 work something out, yep.

1349
01:52:05,660 --> 01:52:11,140
 So with that, let's take a 10-minute break, then we'll come back and finish up the public

1350
01:52:11,140 --> 01:52:12,140
 hearings.

1351
01:52:12,140 --> 01:52:13,140
 It is 5.30.

1352
01:52:13,140 --> 01:52:21,140
 5.40, I'll call the meeting back to order after that break and move into our public

1353
01:52:21,140 --> 01:52:22,420
 hearing items.

1354
01:52:22,420 --> 01:52:25,440
 Item 5A has been postponed to a date uncertain.

1355
01:52:25,440 --> 01:52:38,340
 That brings us to 5B, S19-3B, and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation.

1356
01:52:38,340 --> 01:52:56,700
 All right, this one might look familiar.

1357
01:52:56,700 --> 01:53:00,060
 We actually talked about this at the November 20th meeting.

1358
01:53:00,060 --> 01:53:05,560
 I believe Commissioner Preneta was quite prescient in one of his questions about the notification,

1359
01:53:05,560 --> 01:53:11,100
 because when we went back and just did a -- make sure that all the notifications were done

1360
01:53:11,100 --> 01:53:16,060
 correctly after the meeting, we discovered that there was one that did not actually go

1361
01:53:16,060 --> 01:53:17,780
 out.

1362
01:53:17,780 --> 01:53:19,500
 So this is actually coming back to you.

1363
01:53:19,500 --> 01:53:25,740
 So it allowed us to re-notice the project to make sure that we met all of the -- not

1364
01:53:25,740 --> 01:53:28,740
 only the state requirements, but the city's requirements for notifications.

1365
01:53:28,740 --> 01:53:34,020
 So this is a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings.

1366
01:53:34,020 --> 01:53:38,340
 The subject property is 12 acres, and it's currently undeveloped.

1367
01:53:38,340 --> 01:53:43,420
 As I said before, this came before this commission on November 20th of this year.

1368
01:53:43,420 --> 01:53:46,980
 It was recommended for approval at this time.

1369
01:53:46,980 --> 01:53:50,500
 There haven't been any modifications to this request, so it really is the same thing you

1370
01:53:50,500 --> 01:53:51,940
 saw before.

1371
01:53:51,940 --> 01:53:55,820
 So I'll leave it up to you if you want me to go through the entire presentation again

1372
01:53:55,820 --> 01:54:01,140
 or just talk about the public notification piece.

1373
01:54:01,140 --> 01:54:04,780
 Does anyone want her to go through the presentation again?

1374
01:54:04,780 --> 01:54:05,780
 Let's just skip to the notifications.

1375
01:54:05,780 --> 01:54:06,780
 >> All right.

1376
01:54:06,780 --> 01:54:11,740
 So I just wanted to let you know the notification was sent to the newspaper as well as the mailing

1377
01:54:11,740 --> 01:54:13,580
 was sent out again.

1378
01:54:13,580 --> 01:54:16,020
 We received five in opposition.

1379
01:54:16,020 --> 01:54:22,260
 Two of those responses are not within the 200-foot boundary, and two in favor.

1380
01:54:22,260 --> 01:54:26,780
 And just to let you know, staff is recommending approval of the request with some conditions.

1381
01:54:26,780 --> 01:54:32,940
 One, that they comply with the landscape plan that is reflected in the staff report and

1382
01:54:32,940 --> 01:54:35,600
 in your backup material.

1383
01:54:35,600 --> 01:54:39,420
 There could be some minor modifications for plant locations, but generally it needs to

1384
01:54:39,420 --> 01:54:42,940
 meet that landscape plan and the Denton Development Code.

1385
01:54:42,940 --> 01:54:46,340
 We did add a condition about parking light fixtures to make sure that they were capped

1386
01:54:46,340 --> 01:54:50,500
 at 14 feet to provide adequate parking in the park and adequate lighting in the parking

1387
01:54:50,500 --> 01:54:54,900
 lot, but to ensure that it didn't unnecessarily shine on the neighbors.

1388
01:54:54,900 --> 01:54:59,420
 And then the perimeter fencing materials to be limited to either masonry or wrought iron

1389
01:54:59,420 --> 01:55:00,420
 with screening.

1390
01:55:00,420 --> 01:55:01,420
 >> Julie, we have a question.

1391
01:55:01,420 --> 01:55:02,420
 Commissioner Smith.

1392
01:55:02,420 --> 01:55:03,700
 >> Thank you, Chair.

1393
01:55:03,700 --> 01:55:07,380
 On the notifications, we did have some notifications from the previous notice.

1394
01:55:07,380 --> 01:55:09,380
 Are we including those into this as well?

1395
01:55:09,380 --> 01:55:13,420
 I just, for re-noticing, I don't have the rules and carrying them over and all that

1396
01:55:13,420 --> 01:55:14,420
 kind of stuff.

1397
01:55:14,420 --> 01:55:15,420
 >> You are correct.

1398
01:55:15,420 --> 01:55:18,100
 I included all of those, and those will go forward to council as well.

1399
01:55:18,100 --> 01:55:19,100
 >> She wanted to confirm.

1400
01:55:19,100 --> 01:55:21,140
 >> That was great, yes.

1401
01:55:21,140 --> 01:55:24,740
 And then as part of this request, there is an alternative development plan that will have

1402
01:55:24,740 --> 01:55:31,100
 to come back before you for a couple of deviations from the 2002 subchapter 13.

1403
01:55:31,100 --> 01:55:34,820
 So that is part of the conditions as well.

1404
01:55:34,820 --> 01:55:39,740
 And then also as part of the recommendation, we did have some questions at the last BNZ

1405
01:55:39,740 --> 01:55:41,980
 meeting about the wording of some of that recommendation.

1406
01:55:41,980 --> 01:55:45,660
 So this gives us an opportunity to make sure we've got that cleaned up.

1407
01:55:45,660 --> 01:55:50,540
 So we went back and looked at that, and the underlying portion is the part that we've

1408
01:55:50,540 --> 01:55:55,500
 changed that staff will have the ability to approve increases up to and including 5% of

1409
01:55:55,500 --> 01:56:02,580
 any amount in the amount in requirements 2 through 4 below there, provided that all applicable

1410
01:56:02,580 --> 01:56:05,140
 requirements of the DDC are met.

1411
01:56:05,140 --> 01:56:09,420
 Increases greater than 5% would require a new specific use permit.

1412
01:56:09,420 --> 01:56:13,340
 So hopefully that clears it up because it was a little unclear on the 20th.

1413
01:56:13,340 --> 01:56:18,220
 That's all I have, and I'll stand for any questions.

1414
01:56:18,220 --> 01:56:19,220
 >> I don't see any.

1415
01:56:19,220 --> 01:56:20,620
 Thanks, Julie.

1416
01:56:20,620 --> 01:56:33,660
 Next item is 5C PD19-3B, and I'll invite Haley Cegerski for presentation.

1417
01:56:33,660 --> 01:56:50,620
 All right, good evening.

1418
01:56:50,620 --> 01:56:52,260
 This may also look familiar.

1419
01:56:52,260 --> 01:56:55,260
 We ran through it at work session last time, but the item was ultimately pulled due to

1420
01:56:55,260 --> 01:56:56,540
 notification errors.

1421
01:56:56,540 --> 01:57:02,600
 So we will go through the full endeavor tonight and then have the full public hearing.

1422
01:57:02,600 --> 01:57:08,620
 So the request before you is a rezoning from the R2 district on just over 34 acres of property

1423
01:57:08,620 --> 01:57:14,420
 and R3 district on 2.34 acres to plan development for the entire 36 acres.

1424
01:57:14,420 --> 01:57:17,580
 The property is located here where you see the yellow outline.

1425
01:57:17,580 --> 01:57:21,620
 It's just on the north side of Ryan Road.

1426
01:57:21,620 --> 01:57:26,060
 This is simply a look at the current zoning map, so you can see the majority of the property

1427
01:57:26,060 --> 01:57:31,340
 is R2, and then this little northern dogleg of the property is currently zoned R3.

1428
01:57:31,340 --> 01:57:36,780
 The entire site would convert to plan development if this were approved.

1429
01:57:36,780 --> 01:57:39,900
 So as part of the plan development, there's really two critical pieces.

1430
01:57:39,900 --> 01:57:44,620
 There's the zoning documents that outline the regulations for the PD, and then there's

1431
01:57:44,620 --> 01:57:48,080
 the map that shows where everything's going and how it's laid out.

1432
01:57:48,080 --> 01:57:52,140
 So this is the site layout for the proposed subdivision.

1433
01:57:52,140 --> 01:57:56,300
 It didn't fit properly without turning the orientation, so north is to the left side

1434
01:57:56,300 --> 01:58:00,060
 of the screen here, but you can see how that orientation looks here on the aerial.

1435
01:58:00,060 --> 01:58:04,420
 Overall, there would be 154 residential lots.

1436
01:58:04,420 --> 01:58:06,240
 There are five HOA lots proposed.

1437
01:58:06,240 --> 01:58:08,980
 Those are outlined in green on the map.

1438
01:58:08,980 --> 01:58:12,940
 There is a plugged gas well within the site that is located here approximately where that

1439
01:58:12,940 --> 01:58:14,260
 star is on the map.

1440
01:58:14,260 --> 01:58:18,060
 That would be within an HOA common area.

1441
01:58:18,060 --> 01:58:22,180
 And then circled in orange are the points of connectivity where the future residents

1442
01:58:22,180 --> 01:58:23,820
 of this could have access.

1443
01:58:23,820 --> 01:58:27,700
 So there would be one direct access to Ryan Road, shown here.

1444
01:58:27,700 --> 01:58:32,060
 And then there are three existing streets stubbed out to this property today.

1445
01:58:32,060 --> 01:58:35,020
 So Mizzen Lane would connect from the east side of the property.

1446
01:58:35,020 --> 01:58:37,540
 That's from the Teasley Trail subdivision.

1447
01:58:37,540 --> 01:58:41,260
 And then currently Monte Carlo is stubbed out on both the south and north sides to this

1448
01:58:41,260 --> 01:58:42,500
 property.

1449
01:58:42,500 --> 01:58:46,100
 So there would be the direct connectivity to complete Monte Carlo Lane so that we no

1450
01:58:46,100 --> 01:58:53,040
 longer have two separate pieces of street with the same name that don't connect.

1451
01:58:53,040 --> 01:58:57,380
 So the other critical piece to a plan development are those development regulations that I referenced

1452
01:58:57,380 --> 01:58:58,660
 earlier.

1453
01:58:58,660 --> 01:59:01,540
 So first we'll look at the uses that are proposed within the PD.

1454
01:59:01,540 --> 01:59:06,980
 This table shows all of the uses that are within the base R4 district in our code, which

1455
01:59:06,980 --> 01:59:10,020
 is kind of the underlying zoning for this PD.

1456
01:59:10,020 --> 01:59:13,180
 And then the column in the middle shows what's proposed with the PD.

1457
01:59:13,180 --> 01:59:17,860
 So the proposal is to only allow single family detached dwellings, but then also allow any

1458
01:59:17,860 --> 01:59:22,460
 of the accessory and temporary uses that are permitted within the R4 district in case anyone

1459
01:59:22,460 --> 01:59:27,260
 needed, you know, during construction, allow a field and construction office on site, things

1460
01:59:27,260 --> 01:59:31,460
 of that nature, the standard accessory and temporary uses that would be permitted within

1461
01:59:31,460 --> 01:59:34,980
 any residential district.

1462
01:59:34,980 --> 01:59:38,760
 The more critical piece where there are a few more changes that we want to look at in

1463
01:59:38,760 --> 01:59:42,900
 more depth are in the proposed development standards for the PD.

1464
01:59:42,900 --> 01:59:45,900
 So this table was in your staff analysis.

1465
01:59:45,900 --> 01:59:50,020
 It's outlined here and I tried to color code it as best I could to show in red what are

1466
01:59:50,020 --> 01:59:54,580
 decreases from the R4 standards and in green what would be increases.

1467
01:59:54,580 --> 01:59:58,300
 So some of the major changes that I wanted to call your attention to would be in the

1468
01:59:58,300 --> 01:59:59,900
 minimum lot area.

1469
01:59:59,900 --> 02:00:02,780
 So the R4 district has a 7,000 square foot minimum.

1470
02:00:02,780 --> 02:00:05,740
 They are proposing for these lots to be slightly smaller.

1471
02:00:05,740 --> 02:00:09,340
 Up to 10 of the lots could be as small as 5,000 square feet.

1472
02:00:09,340 --> 02:00:14,940
 All of the other lots would have a minimum area of 5,750 square feet.

1473
02:00:14,940 --> 02:00:21,700
 Some of the other larger changes, you'd see there is an increase in minimum lot depth

1474
02:00:21,700 --> 02:00:25,640
 from 80 feet in R4 to 100 feet in the proposed PD.

1475
02:00:25,640 --> 02:00:28,300
 Minimum garage setback, they're proposing at least 20 feet there.

1476
02:00:28,300 --> 02:00:29,900
 There's not a standard in R4 for that.

1477
02:00:29,900 --> 02:00:35,820
 It would just be whatever the front or the side yard is, depending on how the garage is

1478
02:00:35,820 --> 02:00:36,820
 oriented.

1479
02:00:36,820 --> 02:00:40,220
 They are proposing that the side yard on corner lots could go as low as 10 feet.

1480
02:00:40,220 --> 02:00:43,300
 In R4 it is 20, so that's a slight decrease.

1481
02:00:43,300 --> 02:00:47,900
 They're proposing building coverage, be allowed to go up to 60% as opposed to 50%.

1482
02:00:47,900 --> 02:00:54,340
 But then some of the other larger, more significant changes, landscaping for this, they're proposing

1483
02:00:54,340 --> 02:00:56,380
 to increase landscape standards.

1484
02:00:56,380 --> 02:01:00,780
 Single family homes citywide just have a requirement for one yard tree, it can be front or rear.

1485
02:01:00,780 --> 02:01:04,900
 They're proposing both a front and a rear yard tree on each lot, and then corner lots

1486
02:01:04,900 --> 02:01:10,580
 have an additional two trees, so up to four trees on the corner lots.

1487
02:01:10,580 --> 02:01:16,580
 And then overall open space, they're proposing, as opposed to the DDC's minimum of 5% for

1488
02:01:16,580 --> 02:01:21,540
 a subdivision, they're proposing a minimum of 15% open space for the subdivision.

1489
02:01:21,540 --> 02:01:24,060
 And then the other piece is tree preservation.

1490
02:01:24,060 --> 02:01:29,460
 So if you remember on our last agenda, there was a general development plan for this subdivision.

1491
02:01:29,460 --> 02:01:34,780
 That was submitted prior to the 2019 DDC going into full effect, so that allowed them certain

1492
02:01:34,780 --> 02:01:37,820
 vesting privileges under the 02 development code.

1493
02:01:37,820 --> 02:01:42,900
 The only one of those that they have indicated they wish to reserve for themselves is with

1494
02:01:42,900 --> 02:01:44,820
 regards to tree preservation.

1495
02:01:44,820 --> 02:01:49,620
 So their PD is indicating that they would, at a minimum, meet the 2002 tree preservation

1496
02:01:49,620 --> 02:01:53,380
 requirements for a single family subdivision, that could, of course, go above and beyond

1497
02:01:53,380 --> 02:01:57,640
 that, once they get into the details of laying out the subdivision.

1498
02:01:57,640 --> 02:02:02,100
 So that, at a minimum, would be 20% of all quality trees and 10% of all secondary trees

1499
02:02:02,100 --> 02:02:06,420
 preserved.

1500
02:02:06,420 --> 02:02:10,620
 If you noticed, within our 2019 DDC, we have general provisions applicable to all things,

1501
02:02:10,620 --> 02:02:13,820
 so we'll go through those very briefly and then look in more detail at the PD approval

1502
02:02:13,820 --> 02:02:15,580
 criteria.

1503
02:02:15,580 --> 02:02:17,060
 So each of these was outlined in your backup.

1504
02:02:17,060 --> 02:02:19,620
 I'll just hit the highlights.

1505
02:02:19,620 --> 02:02:24,380
 With regards to this, the project was found to be consistent with all DDC and comprehensive

1506
02:02:24,380 --> 02:02:29,060
 plan requirements, except for these deviations that we explicitly looked at on the table

1507
02:02:29,060 --> 02:02:31,580
 that they're proposing to change with the PD.

1508
02:02:31,580 --> 02:02:34,500
 There are no prior approvals or other agreements applicable to the site.

1509
02:02:34,500 --> 02:02:39,360
 They're not proposing phasing, so those conditions did not apply.

1510
02:02:39,360 --> 02:02:44,020
 Staff did not find any potential for adverse environmental or fiscal impacts, and we did

1511
02:02:44,020 --> 02:02:49,700
 find that there's adequate infrastructure available to be extended throughout the subdivision.

1512
02:02:49,700 --> 02:02:53,340
 So there are six specific criteria for approval of a PD, and I'll go through each one of

1513
02:02:53,340 --> 02:02:56,000
 these in turn.

1514
02:02:56,000 --> 02:03:00,060
 So the first criteria is, rather, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

1515
02:03:00,060 --> 02:03:05,380
 So looking at this area, you'll see that most of this property and all the surrounding

1516
02:03:05,380 --> 02:03:07,340
 area are designated as low residential.

1517
02:03:07,340 --> 02:03:10,580
 Our comprehensive plan indicates that that is intended for one to four dwelling units

1518
02:03:10,580 --> 02:03:11,580
 per acre.

1519
02:03:11,580 --> 02:03:17,300
 It also has goals such as providing development contiguous to existing development to limit

1520
02:03:17,300 --> 02:03:22,700
 sprawl and calling for development within established residential areas to be responsive

1521
02:03:22,700 --> 02:03:27,060
 to what's around it, to be consistent with that scale of development.

1522
02:03:27,060 --> 02:03:31,340
 So when you look at the density of this proposed subdivision, even though the 2019 code does

1523
02:03:31,340 --> 02:03:36,140
 not regulate by density, it works out to be about 4.23 dwelling units per acre.

1524
02:03:36,140 --> 02:03:39,020
 So that's just above that one to four units per acre.

1525
02:03:39,020 --> 02:03:42,140
 So then we took a deeper dive to see, is it consistent with what's in the area?

1526
02:03:42,140 --> 02:03:46,300
 Does it still have a potential to meet the low residential designation?

1527
02:03:46,300 --> 02:03:51,700
 And what we found is that as you travel from west to east on Ryan Road, density tends to

1528
02:03:51,700 --> 02:03:54,980
 increase as you get closer to Teasley and Ryan.

1529
02:03:54,980 --> 02:03:59,500
 So some of the existing subdivisions to the west of this are as low as 1.5 units per acre.

1530
02:03:59,500 --> 02:04:03,660
 As you get closer, we have 3.7 units per acre in the Ridgemont subdivision.

1531
02:04:03,660 --> 02:04:08,660
 Teasley trails varies and goes from an average of three on the north end to as much as 4.4

1532
02:04:08,660 --> 02:04:12,380
 on the southern end where the newer phases are.

1533
02:04:12,380 --> 02:04:15,860
 And then as you hit this corner, if you recall, the SGP for multifamily here at the corner

1534
02:04:15,860 --> 02:04:18,940
 was up to 20 units per acre.

1535
02:04:18,940 --> 02:04:21,940
 So we do see that transition and this falls within the realm of that.

1536
02:04:21,940 --> 02:04:27,860
 So we did find it to be consistent with those goals of the comprehensive plan.

1537
02:04:27,860 --> 02:04:31,460
 Just looking in more detail at some of the other underlying factors within the comp plan,

1538
02:04:31,460 --> 02:04:34,500
 there is what's called a preferred growth concept.

1539
02:04:34,500 --> 02:04:41,660
 So this calls for things like cluster development, compact developments with increased walkability.

1540
02:04:41,660 --> 02:04:45,060
 So this would provide those connectivities for increased pedestrian connections between

1541
02:04:45,060 --> 02:04:46,560
 these neighborhoods.

1542
02:04:46,560 --> 02:04:50,460
 And again, looking at infill within our residential areas to encourage us to fill in the city

1543
02:04:50,460 --> 02:04:52,080
 center before we sprawl outwards.

1544
02:04:52,080 --> 02:04:56,860
 So this again would fill in a gap between these two neighborhoods where the streets

1545
02:04:56,860 --> 02:04:59,100
 were intended to connect and just haven't done so yet.

1546
02:04:59,100 --> 02:05:03,420
 This would provide for that connectivity.

1547
02:05:03,420 --> 02:05:05,780
 The second criteria is compliance with the DDC.

1548
02:05:05,780 --> 02:05:10,940
 Again, they are proposing to comply with all aspects of the 2019 DDC except for the standards

1549
02:05:10,940 --> 02:05:14,940
 that are specifically listed here that vary from those standards.

1550
02:05:14,940 --> 02:05:20,020
 There are a few things in the 2019 code that it calls out that you cannot deviate from

1551
02:05:20,020 --> 02:05:21,020
 with the PD.

1552
02:05:21,020 --> 02:05:25,220
 That includes ESA regulations, gas well regulations and tree preservation.

1553
02:05:25,220 --> 02:05:28,240
 They're proposing no variation from ESA or gas well standards.

1554
02:05:28,240 --> 02:05:31,980
 And again, with tree preservation, this is a bit of a unique case because they did have

1555
02:05:31,980 --> 02:05:33,600
 vesting in the 2002 code.

1556
02:05:33,600 --> 02:05:39,660
 So they're proposing to meet those standards that are applicable to them.

1557
02:05:39,660 --> 02:05:43,380
 The third criteria is whether it provides for a greater building design, greater level

1558
02:05:43,380 --> 02:05:46,060
 of amenities and greater connectivity.

1559
02:05:46,060 --> 02:05:51,140
 So looking at building design, the PD doesn't specifically have any standards related to

1560
02:05:51,140 --> 02:05:52,380
 building materials or design.

1561
02:05:52,380 --> 02:05:55,240
 They would meet the standards of the code.

1562
02:05:55,240 --> 02:05:59,060
 Under House Bill 2439, the city can no longer regulate building materials as you all are

1563
02:05:59,060 --> 02:06:00,360
 aware of.

1564
02:06:00,360 --> 02:06:05,380
 But the developer did indicate at their neighborhood meetings that they intend to impose a 40% minimum

1565
02:06:05,380 --> 02:06:07,580
 masonry via deed restrictions on these properties.

1566
02:06:07,580 --> 02:06:11,620
 So that would go into the HOA documents and deed restrictions to control what is built

1567
02:06:11,620 --> 02:06:13,000
 in the future.

1568
02:06:13,000 --> 02:06:15,920
 That's not something that staff included in our recommendation.

1569
02:06:15,920 --> 02:06:18,740
 And we actually asked them to take it out of the PD document itself because the city

1570
02:06:18,740 --> 02:06:21,740
 would not be able to enforce those standards.

1571
02:06:21,740 --> 02:06:29,540
 That is in excess of the 25% minimum masonry that was in the DDC prior to House Bill 2439.

1572
02:06:29,540 --> 02:06:34,400
 Again in terms of amenities, the PD document references things such as the green space

1573
02:06:34,400 --> 02:06:37,320
 with walking trails and benches.

1574
02:06:37,320 --> 02:06:42,140
 The DDC standard is a 5% minimum for any subdivision with 10 units or more.

1575
02:06:42,140 --> 02:06:48,220
 We're proposing a minimum of 15% open space for tree preservation and community use.

1576
02:06:48,220 --> 02:06:53,340
 And then finally with connectivity, we did find that with the connections to the existing

1577
02:06:53,340 --> 02:06:57,020
 street stubs as well as sidewalk connections that would go along with those, this would

1578
02:06:57,020 --> 02:07:01,380
 improve auto and pedestrian connectivity between this subdivision and the surrounding subdivisions.

1579
02:07:01,380 --> 02:07:03,740
 Haley, can I ask you a question?

1580
02:07:03,740 --> 02:07:04,740
 Yes, sir.

1581
02:07:04,740 --> 02:07:07,900
 You mentioned the 40% masonry requirement.

1582
02:07:07,900 --> 02:07:13,500
 There's no way to enforce that or hold them that.

1583
02:07:13,500 --> 02:07:14,500
 They're saying that they're committing to do that.

1584
02:07:14,500 --> 02:07:15,500
 Correct.

1585
02:07:15,500 --> 02:07:16,500
 They committed to the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting that they would be doing that, but

1586
02:07:16,500 --> 02:07:19,220
 it's not something that we as a city could impose on them.

1587
02:07:19,220 --> 02:07:22,740
 So it's simply in here for informational purposes for you all.

1588
02:07:22,740 --> 02:07:24,980
 Is there an HOA can't enforce that, correct?

1589
02:07:24,980 --> 02:07:25,980
 Correct.

1590
02:07:25,980 --> 02:07:29,260
 And that's what they're proposing is to put it in those deed documents that the HOA could

1591
02:07:29,260 --> 02:07:30,260
 enforce.

1592
02:07:30,260 --> 02:07:33,260
 Thank you, Chair.

1593
02:07:33,260 --> 02:07:38,380
 Just to follow on because I think I had the same question and that is you asked to remove

1594
02:07:38,380 --> 02:07:44,820
 that language because of a lack of enforcement, but their intention is at some level of hierarchy,

1595
02:07:44,820 --> 02:07:46,820
 the HOA, to keep those requirements.

1596
02:07:46,820 --> 02:07:47,820
 Correct.

1597
02:07:47,820 --> 02:07:48,820
 Okay.

1598
02:07:48,820 --> 02:07:49,820
 Thank you.

1599
02:07:49,820 --> 02:07:50,820
 Correct.

1600
02:07:50,820 --> 02:07:51,820
 We didn't want it in an ordinance, a zoning ordinance for the city because it would be

1601
02:07:51,820 --> 02:07:56,140
 unenforceable.

1602
02:07:56,140 --> 02:08:00,020
 The fourth criteria is for residential uses, whether it's compatible in terms of buildings,

1603
02:08:00,020 --> 02:08:01,900
 uses, and character of the area.

1604
02:08:01,900 --> 02:08:05,980
 Again, the proposed single-family subdivision is what's found to be comparable to what's

1605
02:08:05,980 --> 02:08:07,820
 around it in terms of the density.

1606
02:08:07,820 --> 02:08:10,900
 It's the same use as all of the surrounding properties.

1607
02:08:10,900 --> 02:08:15,560
 The plan and the standards reflect HOA lots around the perimeter of the subdivision.

1608
02:08:15,560 --> 02:08:19,060
 So even though the uses are consistent and the code would not require buffering between

1609
02:08:19,060 --> 02:08:22,740
 those, they are proposing to provide those open green spaces for tree preservation and

1610
02:08:22,740 --> 02:08:25,860
 buffering between the lots.

1611
02:08:25,860 --> 02:08:28,080
 The fifth criteria relates to non-residential uses.

1612
02:08:28,080 --> 02:08:31,700
 There are none of those proposed within this PD, so it's not applicable.

1613
02:08:31,700 --> 02:08:35,060
 And then the sixth criterion is the provision of public facilities.

1614
02:08:35,060 --> 02:08:40,380
 So in terms of schools, this would be within the attendance zone for Ryan Elementary, McMath

1615
02:08:40,380 --> 02:08:42,420
 Middle, and Denton High School.

1616
02:08:42,420 --> 02:08:46,540
 These are the expected student generation rates that Denton ISD provided to us.

1617
02:08:46,540 --> 02:08:51,140
 Both McMath Middle and Denton High have capacity for this expected student generation.

1618
02:08:51,140 --> 02:08:55,220
 Ryan Elementary currently does not have capacity for that, but Denton ISD asked that we keep

1619
02:08:55,220 --> 02:08:57,020
 them informed of the status of this case.

1620
02:08:57,020 --> 02:09:01,940
 If it is approved, then they would look at rezoning this area into another nearby school,

1621
02:09:01,940 --> 02:09:07,540
 Sam Houston Elementary, that has plenty of capacity for these students.

1622
02:09:07,540 --> 02:09:12,580
 In terms of fire, this is within an eight-minute response time boundary for the fire station

1623
02:09:12,580 --> 02:09:13,580
 up here on Teasley.

1624
02:09:13,580 --> 02:09:15,580
 That's fire station six.

1625
02:09:15,580 --> 02:09:19,420
 And then one of the other criteria is law enforcement, so I reached out to Denton PD.

1626
02:09:19,420 --> 02:09:23,340
 They indicated that they don't have any significant problems in this area with crime or response

1627
02:09:23,340 --> 02:09:30,740
 time, and they didn't expect that these 154 homes would have any negative impact on that.

1628
02:09:30,740 --> 02:09:34,540
 Looking at water and wastewater infrastructure, the blue lines on the map are existing water

1629
02:09:34,540 --> 02:09:35,820
 lines, red are sewer lines.

1630
02:09:35,820 --> 02:09:39,340
 You can see there are stubs provided at all of the surrounding streets for them to tie

1631
02:09:39,340 --> 02:09:43,660
 into and extend within the subdivision.

1632
02:09:43,660 --> 02:09:47,660
 Looking at streets, I mentioned earlier that there were existing street stubs to this,

1633
02:09:47,660 --> 02:09:51,900
 so Monte Carlo Lane, again, stubs out currently at the south edge of the property as well

1634
02:09:51,900 --> 02:09:53,380
 as the north edge.

1635
02:09:53,380 --> 02:09:57,140
 The DDC does require connectivity to all existing perimeter streets.

1636
02:09:57,140 --> 02:10:02,060
 Their layout does propose providing that connectivity both at Monte Carlo and at Mizzen Lane here

1637
02:10:02,060 --> 02:10:03,740
 on the east.

1638
02:10:03,740 --> 02:10:07,700
 I wanted to point out the circumstances in which the city engineer does have the right

1639
02:10:07,700 --> 02:10:11,020
 to vary from that requirement because there is significant neighborhood opposition to

1640
02:10:11,020 --> 02:10:14,380
 Monte Carlo Lane being extended through the property.

1641
02:10:14,380 --> 02:10:21,660
 So if this would require crossing a significant physical barrier or ESA, if the extension

1642
02:10:21,660 --> 02:10:25,760
 would be to an existing development that was designed in such a way that connection would

1643
02:10:25,760 --> 02:10:31,180
 never likely occur, that is not the case here because the street stubs were provided, if

1644
02:10:31,180 --> 02:10:34,620
 the extension would be to a government property or public utility that would have restricted

1645
02:10:34,620 --> 02:10:39,420
 vehicular access, again, that is not the case here, and then would the connection or extension

1646
02:10:39,420 --> 02:10:44,140
 be to a property that is developed or zoned for a use whose level and type of traffic

1647
02:10:44,140 --> 02:10:48,620
 would be incompatible with the proposed development, and again, that is not the case because all

1648
02:10:48,620 --> 02:10:51,740
 of the surrounding uses in this case are the same.

1649
02:10:51,740 --> 02:10:53,580
 So it does not meet these criteria.

1650
02:10:53,580 --> 02:10:57,740
 The developer is voluntarily complying with the code requirements, but I wanted you all

1651
02:10:57,740 --> 02:11:02,380
 to have that information in light of the neighborhood oppositions that you have received.

1652
02:11:02,380 --> 02:11:04,380
 Thank you, Chair.

1653
02:11:04,380 --> 02:11:11,000
 We will probably get into this a little more, but in light of the number of interactions

1654
02:11:11,000 --> 02:11:19,540
 from the public, what sort of traffic flow mitigation efforts are we allowed by code

1655
02:11:19,540 --> 02:11:26,500
 to implement, to manage flow?

1656
02:11:26,500 --> 02:11:29,800
 There are traffic calming measures that could be imposed, the plan that you have before

1657
02:11:29,800 --> 02:11:34,180
 you reflects an intent to work with our city engineer to find a traffic calming measure

1658
02:11:34,180 --> 02:11:38,340
 that could be utilized on the street, but at this point they have not gotten that granular

1659
02:11:38,340 --> 02:11:42,340
 and looking at this, but there are things such as the bump outs in the roadway that

1660
02:11:42,340 --> 02:11:47,540
 are actually shown on the plan as one thing that can be used to calm the speed of traffic.

1661
02:11:47,540 --> 02:11:50,420
 Speed bumps I think are discouraged a little bit more by our city engineer, but that is

1662
02:11:50,420 --> 02:11:54,280
 another option that could be utilized so they can work with our city engineering staff to

1663
02:11:54,280 --> 02:11:59,300
 design those if it is something that is identified as a need here and they have not expressed

1664
02:11:59,300 --> 02:12:02,660
 an intent to do so, to proactively look into those measures.

1665
02:12:02,660 --> 02:12:03,660
 Thank you.

1666
02:12:03,660 --> 02:12:10,620
 Haley, I have not driven back into that neighborhood, that Monte Carlo right now is currently going

1667
02:12:10,620 --> 02:12:15,540
 into what I imagine is a temporary barrier, it is fully stubbed out, it is not a curb

1668
02:12:15,540 --> 02:12:20,300
 turn on a road, it looks like the road can continue like a general stub out, correct?

1669
02:12:20,300 --> 02:12:21,900
 Well there are actually two scenarios here.

1670
02:12:21,900 --> 02:12:26,700
 So Monte Carlo does have that dead end with a barricade on the south side, on the north

1671
02:12:26,700 --> 02:12:31,620
 side when this phase of Teasley trails was platted, not knowing when this site would develop,

1672
02:12:31,620 --> 02:12:36,140
 they actually got an easement from the current property owner of this site to put in a temporary

1673
02:12:36,140 --> 02:12:40,900
 turnaround for fire purposes because this was such a long dead end street that it generated

1674
02:12:40,900 --> 02:12:43,860
 that need for emergency services.

1675
02:12:43,860 --> 02:12:47,540
 So there is a cul-de-sac on this northern stub that would be removed as part of this

1676
02:12:47,540 --> 02:12:54,620
 development for the extension to occur, but it was platted as a temporary access easement.

1677
02:12:54,620 --> 02:12:57,700
 I don't know if you have mapped these responses.

1678
02:12:57,700 --> 02:13:03,100
 Is it equal distribution from each, they're both Monte Carlo streets, equal distribution

1679
02:13:03,100 --> 02:13:08,820
 from the north and the south in terms of opposition of continuing it?

1680
02:13:08,820 --> 02:13:11,660
 There is some opposition on both sides, but it is largely from the south side.

1681
02:13:11,660 --> 02:13:12,660
 Oh, from the south side?

1682
02:13:12,660 --> 02:13:17,500
 Yeah, and I do have that map in here.

1683
02:13:17,500 --> 02:13:21,220
 Looking at the other street that they would connect to, Ryan Road of course, they will

1684
02:13:21,220 --> 02:13:24,780
 be providing the required right-of-way dedications on Ryan Road.

1685
02:13:24,780 --> 02:13:29,820
 In the November bond election, Ryan was part of that and it was approved to be expanded

1686
02:13:29,820 --> 02:13:32,020
 to a three-lane roadway.

1687
02:13:32,020 --> 02:13:35,700
 So that construction is expected to begin in 2023.

1688
02:13:35,700 --> 02:13:40,380
 The developer did a preliminary traffic assessment for this request and found that Ryan Road

1689
02:13:40,380 --> 02:13:45,740
 is operating today in this area at a level of service C, which is within the city's acceptable

1690
02:13:45,740 --> 02:13:47,780
 parameters for streets.

1691
02:13:47,780 --> 02:13:52,780
 And with this development as well as all of the other ongoing developments in this area,

1692
02:13:52,780 --> 02:13:56,380
 so the multi-family that's down here at the corner, some additional commercial development

1693
02:13:56,380 --> 02:14:00,540
 here and other single-family subdivisions that are platted on Ryan Road, they found

1694
02:14:00,540 --> 02:14:04,060
 that that level of service would be maintained at a C with these developments.

1695
02:14:04,060 --> 02:14:07,400
 Once that construction is completed to three lanes, that is expected to increase to a level

1696
02:14:07,400 --> 02:14:10,940
 of service A or B.

1697
02:14:10,940 --> 02:14:17,100
 The other elements of criteria six include parks, so of course we have Lake Forest Park

1698
02:14:17,100 --> 02:14:18,540
 across Ryan Road.

1699
02:14:18,540 --> 02:14:22,900
 It's approximately 500 feet from the property, so well within the 10-minute walk to a park

1700
02:14:22,900 --> 02:14:23,900
 goal.

1701
02:14:23,900 --> 02:14:27,180
 And this development will be obligated to provide for the standard park dedication and

1702
02:14:27,180 --> 02:14:32,180
 development.

1703
02:14:32,180 --> 02:14:59,620
 All right, so this is the map that you requested, Chairman Rosell.

1704
02:14:59,620 --> 02:15:04,380
 So notifications were provided regarding this case.

1705
02:15:04,380 --> 02:15:09,060
 As of 2 o'clock today when this presentation was put together, I had 34 total opposition

1706
02:15:09,060 --> 02:15:10,060
 responses.

1707
02:15:10,060 --> 02:15:11,060
 That has gone up to 36.

1708
02:15:11,060 --> 02:15:14,060
 I have two additional that I can read into the record at tonight's public hearing that

1709
02:15:14,060 --> 02:15:16,500
 came in during the work session.

1710
02:15:16,500 --> 02:15:19,340
 So these numbers would now be increased to 36 total.

1711
02:15:19,340 --> 02:15:25,780
 Ten of those are outside the 200-foot buffer, so we're at 13.46% opposition within that

1712
02:15:25,780 --> 02:15:26,780
 200-foot radius.

1713
02:15:26,780 --> 02:15:32,140
 We do have two property owners who expressed to be in favor of this request, and those

1714
02:15:32,140 --> 02:15:33,140
 are shown here in green.

1715
02:15:33,140 --> 02:15:39,180
 So you can see there were a few on the northern side, but largely south and to the west of

1716
02:15:39,180 --> 02:15:43,220
 the development is the opposition so far.

1717
02:15:43,220 --> 02:15:46,340
 So staff is recommending approval of this request as we found it to comply with the

1718
02:15:46,340 --> 02:15:50,340
 general criteria and the PD criteria for approval.

1719
02:15:50,340 --> 02:15:54,140
 And if this gets through the commission tonight, its next step would be city council next week

1720
02:15:54,140 --> 02:15:55,140
 for a public hearing.

1721
02:15:55,140 --> 02:15:57,980
 Happy to stand for any questions.

1722
02:15:57,980 --> 02:15:59,740
 Any questions for Haley?

1723
02:15:59,740 --> 02:16:05,540
 Thank you very much, Haley.

1724
02:16:05,540 --> 02:16:12,420
 Next item for business is item 5D, SD19-1A.

1725
02:16:12,420 --> 02:16:15,420
 Cindy Jackson.

1726
02:16:15,420 --> 02:16:25,420
 Cindy Jackson.

1727
02:16:25,420 --> 02:16:46,420
 Cindy Jackson.

1728
02:16:46,420 --> 02:17:05,540
 I mean, who's going to hit Brian on the head?

1729
02:17:05,540 --> 02:17:22,760
 Cindy, it is all yours.

1730
02:17:22,760 --> 02:17:23,760
 Okay.

1731
02:17:23,760 --> 02:17:24,760
 Thank you.

1732
02:17:24,760 --> 02:17:31,540
 SD19-0001 is a request to amend the special sign district for the First United Methodist

1733
02:17:31,540 --> 02:17:36,020
 Church to permit wall signs as provided in the sign code.

1734
02:17:36,020 --> 02:17:44,660
 The sign district was originally approved in January 2010 and amended in 2012.

1735
02:17:44,660 --> 02:17:49,780
 The 4.17 acre site is located at 201 South Locust, you can see here.

1736
02:17:49,780 --> 02:17:54,940
 It is between Mulberry and Sycamore Street.

1737
02:17:54,940 --> 02:18:02,620
 Again, this is a criteria for approval of a special sign district or to amend a special

1738
02:18:02,620 --> 02:18:03,620
 sign district.

1739
02:18:03,620 --> 02:18:09,260
 I've got it all listed here but I'm going to go into it in detail.

1740
02:18:09,260 --> 02:18:14,020
 Criteria one, that it provides a comprehensive plan for signs that would be clearly superior

1741
02:18:14,020 --> 02:18:17,100
 to what would be allowed without the plan.

1742
02:18:17,100 --> 02:18:21,420
 Subject site is designated as downtown Denton on the future land use map.

1743
02:18:21,420 --> 02:18:24,340
 It's in close proximity to the courthouse square.

1744
02:18:24,340 --> 02:18:31,540
 The area is a pedestrian-oriented district which has a certain vitality which encourages

1745
02:18:31,540 --> 02:18:35,900
 the pedestrians to explore the area.

1746
02:18:35,900 --> 02:18:43,380
 Signage is one of those aspects in a downtown area which adds to the vitality of an area

1747
02:18:43,380 --> 02:18:47,340
 and encourages pedestrians to explore other parts of the city.

1748
02:18:47,340 --> 02:18:52,900
 The signage that is proposed would contribute to this type of atmosphere.

1749
02:18:52,900 --> 02:19:00,100
 Criteria two, the proposal would be compatible with surrounded properties in considering

1750
02:19:00,100 --> 02:19:04,260
 whether a district and sign plan is compatible and clearly superior.

1751
02:19:04,260 --> 02:19:09,420
 The commission and council shall consider but are not limited to considering the following.

1752
02:19:09,420 --> 02:19:16,700
 One is scale, the relationship between the compatibility of the sign scale, site scale

1753
02:19:16,700 --> 02:19:19,180
 and the scale of the buildings.

1754
02:19:19,180 --> 02:19:24,180
 This proposal is to permit signage not addressed by the special sign district but is regulated

1755
02:19:24,180 --> 02:19:26,060
 by the sign code.

1756
02:19:26,060 --> 02:19:31,300
 The site is in a business corridor adjacent to the downtown square.

1757
02:19:31,300 --> 02:19:37,380
 All signage in this location is regulated by the sign code as would be the signs that

1758
02:19:37,380 --> 02:19:39,540
 we are talking about tonight.

1759
02:19:39,540 --> 02:19:45,420
 And therefore they should be compatible with the nearby buildings.

1760
02:19:45,420 --> 02:19:47,060
 Criteria two is color.

1761
02:19:47,060 --> 02:19:51,420
 The relationship between the compatibility of sign color to the color of the nearby buildings

1762
02:19:51,420 --> 02:19:58,340
 and landscaping, the degree to which sign colors are complementary to its surroundings.

1763
02:19:58,340 --> 02:20:05,160
 While the building, as you can see, is a neutral base and as such is compatible with all colors.

1764
02:20:05,160 --> 02:20:10,420
 We don't have an approved color scheme for the downtown area.

1765
02:20:10,420 --> 02:20:15,460
 As such, the color of signs should be compatible with the surrounding areas.

1766
02:20:15,460 --> 02:20:16,460
 This is a church.

1767
02:20:16,460 --> 02:20:24,540
 I anticipate they're going to have neon green or future or anything like that on there.

1768
02:20:24,540 --> 02:20:29,420
 Material, materials of the signs and how they relate to the surroundings.

1769
02:20:29,420 --> 02:20:32,460
 The proposed wall signs are an applique sign.

1770
02:20:32,460 --> 02:20:38,260
 If you look at this, it looks, you can see that the definition of the bricks behind it,

1771
02:20:38,260 --> 02:20:42,140
 it looks like it's a painted on sign.

1772
02:20:42,140 --> 02:20:47,500
 There are painted signs located in the downtown area and as such these types of signs would

1773
02:20:47,500 --> 02:20:48,500
 not be out of place.

1774
02:20:48,500 --> 02:20:52,420
 This is the type of wall sign that the church is proposing to use.

1775
02:20:52,420 --> 02:20:57,740
 These are semi-permanent in nature and they can be removed as desired.

1776
02:20:57,740 --> 02:21:01,660
 All other signage that is not regulated by the special sign district must conform to

1777
02:21:01,660 --> 02:21:06,820
 the regulations of the sign code and these do conform.

1778
02:21:06,820 --> 02:21:12,700
 Shape, the shape and design of the signs and how they relate to the surroundings.

1779
02:21:12,700 --> 02:21:19,220
 The proposed wall signs are rectangular which is a standard shape for signs.

1780
02:21:19,220 --> 02:21:24,160
 You can see a couple of them here that were already approved as part of the special sign

1781
02:21:24,160 --> 02:21:26,580
 district.

1782
02:21:26,580 --> 02:21:31,740
 The signs won't damage the overall environment of the area or the building and all other

1783
02:21:31,740 --> 02:21:36,260
 signage must conform to the requirements of the sign code.

1784
02:21:36,260 --> 02:21:41,620
 With regards to landscaping, the relationship of the signs to the landscaping, signage won't

1785
02:21:41,620 --> 02:21:46,100
 be located near featured landscaping.

1786
02:21:46,100 --> 02:21:51,560
 Traffic safety and traffic circulation, the impact of the signs on the driver's view to

1787
02:21:51,560 --> 02:21:57,980
 which obstructions, to which view obstructions are created or improved and so on.

1788
02:21:57,980 --> 02:22:01,820
 The proposed wall signage will not create obstructions.

1789
02:22:01,820 --> 02:22:09,480
 Any other signage that the church wants to put on the site will have to comply with the

1790
02:22:09,480 --> 02:22:18,720
 requirements of the sign code which requires them to not obstruct or driver's view or cause

1791
02:22:18,720 --> 02:22:24,980
 any conflicts with other signage traffic signs.

1792
02:22:24,980 --> 02:22:31,500
 Illumination, the impact and compatibility of sign illumination within the district and

1793
02:22:31,500 --> 02:22:38,940
 in relationship to neighboring properties, the avoidance of glare and light pollution.

1794
02:22:38,940 --> 02:22:41,060
 Proposed wall signs are not illuminated.

1795
02:22:41,060 --> 02:22:47,700
 Any other signs that the church may want to put on the site will have to comply with the

1796
02:22:47,700 --> 02:22:53,220
 requirements of the sign code with regards to light and glare.

1797
02:22:53,220 --> 02:22:58,660
 Integration, how the signs in the district are integrated into a unified development

1798
02:22:58,660 --> 02:23:04,580
 concept with topography and so on.

1799
02:23:04,580 --> 02:23:12,100
 These regulations state that the request is not being used merely to avoid or gain a variance

1800
02:23:12,100 --> 02:23:15,760
 for a sign or the sign regulations.

1801
02:23:15,760 --> 02:23:24,260
 The applicant is requesting to be permitted to put signs on the site which are regulated

1802
02:23:24,260 --> 02:23:28,980
 by the sign code but which the special sign district is silent about.

1803
02:23:28,980 --> 02:23:37,020
 So there's no interest in trying to do a variance to the sign code.

1804
02:23:37,020 --> 02:23:42,420
 They will be required to comply with the sign code itself.

1805
02:23:42,420 --> 02:23:46,140
 Does not violate the spirit or intent of the sign codes.

1806
02:23:46,140 --> 02:23:51,700
 Again, they're going to have to follow the regulations of the sign code if the proposed

1807
02:23:51,700 --> 02:23:55,020
 sign is not addressed in the special sign district.

1808
02:23:55,020 --> 02:23:58,820
 So they're not trying to avoid any regulations.

1809
02:23:58,820 --> 02:24:01,680
 Complies with the requirements of this section.

1810
02:24:01,680 --> 02:24:06,980
 Proposed signage complies with the section 33-14 of the code of ordinances and any proposed

1811
02:24:06,980 --> 02:24:16,140
 signage will have to comply with section 33 of the code of ordinances as amended.

1812
02:24:16,140 --> 02:24:21,240
 Notification we did send out, we had a newspaper ad and the property was posted.

1813
02:24:21,240 --> 02:24:29,620
 We mailed newspaper notices, 29 newspaper notices within 200 feet and 399 courtesy notices

1814
02:24:29,620 --> 02:24:32,180
 within 500 feet.

1815
02:24:32,180 --> 02:24:36,580
 We received no responses in opposition.

1816
02:24:36,580 --> 02:24:38,460
 We received two in favor.

1817
02:24:38,460 --> 02:24:41,940
 One is in your packet and I handed one out to you.

1818
02:24:41,940 --> 02:24:50,940
 The land area represented by the people who are in favor represents 3% of the area within

1819
02:24:50,940 --> 02:24:52,980
 the 200 foot buffer.

1820
02:24:52,980 --> 02:24:56,980
 A neighborhood meeting was not held.

1821
02:24:56,980 --> 02:25:00,980
 Staff recommends approval of this request to amend the special sign district for the

1822
02:25:00,980 --> 02:25:06,060
 first United Methodist church to permit any provision of the sign code that is not addressed

1823
02:25:06,060 --> 02:25:10,980
 by the special sign district to be governed by chapter 33 as amended.

1824
02:25:10,980 --> 02:25:14,660
 That concludes my presentation.

1825
02:25:14,660 --> 02:25:16,820
 >> Any questions for senate commissioner Ellis.

1826
02:25:16,820 --> 02:25:17,820
 >> Thank you, chair.

1827
02:25:17,820 --> 02:25:18,820
 Okay.

1828
02:25:18,820 --> 02:25:20,700
 So what is the purpose of the special sign district?

1829
02:25:20,700 --> 02:25:24,980
 >> The purpose of the special sign district is to permit them to have banner signs year

1830
02:25:24,980 --> 02:25:31,780
 round and it also provides for the signs that I showed you in the pictures and they are

1831
02:25:31,780 --> 02:25:38,140
 in your packet as well as future -- they've got a plan for future signage which includes

1832
02:25:38,140 --> 02:25:42,260
 an electronic message board along Locust street.

1833
02:25:42,260 --> 02:25:43,700
 >> And that's the special sign district.

1834
02:25:43,700 --> 02:25:44,700
 >> That's correct.

1835
02:25:44,700 --> 02:25:45,700
 >> Right.

1836
02:25:45,700 --> 02:25:47,100
 So what are we actually doing here?

1837
02:25:47,100 --> 02:25:51,860
 Well when you have a special sign district you can't have any signs except what is in

1838
02:25:51,860 --> 02:25:53,900
 the special sign district.

1839
02:25:53,900 --> 02:25:58,540
 So what we're doing here is the applicant is requesting to be allowed to put additional

1840
02:25:58,540 --> 02:26:07,340
 signs as allowed by the code that their special sign district is silent on.

1841
02:26:07,340 --> 02:26:10,620
 >> So it's basically we're negating the special sign district.

1842
02:26:10,620 --> 02:26:12,020
 That's how I read it.

1843
02:26:12,020 --> 02:26:17,420
 >> No, because we're still allowing them the banner signs.

1844
02:26:17,420 --> 02:26:22,660
 >> The banner signs are allowed for only a period of three months and they want them

1845
02:26:22,660 --> 02:26:24,740
 to be able to use them year round.

1846
02:26:24,740 --> 02:26:25,740
 >> I see.

1847
02:26:25,740 --> 02:26:26,740
 Okay.

1848
02:26:26,740 --> 02:26:27,740
 >> Any other questions?

1849
02:26:27,740 --> 02:26:30,180
 Christian or Bec?

1850
02:26:30,180 --> 02:26:40,340
 >> So the surrounding businesses and properties in the region, have they used similar signage

1851
02:26:40,340 --> 02:26:43,060
 even if it's just for three months?

1852
02:26:43,060 --> 02:26:44,060
 >> Banner signs?

1853
02:26:44,060 --> 02:26:48,540
 >> Well the kind of signs that you were describing in the presentation.

1854
02:26:48,540 --> 02:26:49,540
 >> Wall signs?

1855
02:26:49,540 --> 02:26:57,220
 There are wall signs in the Locust street corridor as well as in the downtown court.

1856
02:26:57,220 --> 02:27:00,540
 >> And they have to get SSD approval on that?

1857
02:27:00,540 --> 02:27:03,780
 >> No, they don't because it's permitted in the sign code.

1858
02:27:03,780 --> 02:27:05,580
 >> It's specifically permitted.

1859
02:27:05,580 --> 02:27:13,900
 >> But because they have, the church has an SSD, we have to amend it to permit them to

1860
02:27:13,900 --> 02:27:22,020
 have additional signage as permitted by chapter 33 of the code of ordinances.

1861
02:27:22,020 --> 02:27:25,540
 >> So are we going to be establishing sort of an exception that other businesses will

1862
02:27:25,540 --> 02:27:27,100
 want to make use of?

1863
02:27:27,100 --> 02:27:28,100
 >> No.

1864
02:27:28,100 --> 02:27:32,220
 This is just for this site.

1865
02:27:32,220 --> 02:27:37,020
 As far as I'm aware, there is not another special sign district in this area.

1866
02:27:37,020 --> 02:27:42,980
 I'm aware of one, this one, and Unicorn Lake has a special sign district.

1867
02:27:42,980 --> 02:27:47,580
 I believe those are the only two that we've got, aren't they?

1868
02:27:47,580 --> 02:27:54,380
 >> Yeah, the auto dealer, James Wood and Razor Ranch.

1869
02:27:54,380 --> 02:27:58,420
 >> That's right.

1870
02:27:58,420 --> 02:28:03,980
 >> Is there a reason this property is just not being removed from a special sign district?

1871
02:28:03,980 --> 02:28:08,420
 >> Because they still want to take advantage of the banner signs that are allowed all year

1872
02:28:08,420 --> 02:28:11,620
 long instead of just for three months for the entire year.

1873
02:28:11,620 --> 02:28:17,180
 >> They just want to be signed out, like they just want signs all the time, like they love

1874
02:28:17,180 --> 02:28:18,180
 signs.

1875
02:28:18,180 --> 02:28:20,940
 >> I wouldn't think so, no.

1876
02:28:20,940 --> 02:28:25,620
 In their application, they said that they wanted to add like traffic direction signs

1877
02:28:25,620 --> 02:28:28,780
 and special event signs and things like that.

1878
02:28:28,780 --> 02:28:29,780
 >> Okay.

1879
02:28:29,780 --> 02:28:32,580
 Any other questions for Cindy?

1880
02:28:32,580 --> 02:28:35,620
 All right, thank you very much.

1881
02:28:35,620 --> 02:28:42,500
 Next item is 5ES19-12B, it's Julie Wyatt.

1882
02:28:42,500 --> 02:29:01,620
 >> All right, so Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city of Denton and I'm presenting

1883
02:29:01,620 --> 02:29:05,420
 S19-12 to you, Denton Grove Apartments.

1884
02:29:05,420 --> 02:29:10,180
 The request before you is for a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings.

1885
02:29:10,180 --> 02:29:15,100
 The subject property is located adjacent to loot 288, it's here outlined in yellow, it's

1886
02:29:15,100 --> 02:29:18,260
 just to the west of loot 288, south of McKinney.

1887
02:29:18,260 --> 02:29:21,540
 It's about a 15-acre tract.

1888
02:29:21,540 --> 02:29:26,560
 The request was submitted prior to October 1st of this year, so it is being reviewed

1889
02:29:26,560 --> 02:29:30,580
 under the 2002 regulations.

1890
02:29:30,580 --> 02:29:36,280
 And then the City Council has also weighed in on this project as part of a resolution

1891
02:29:36,280 --> 02:29:41,980
 for no objection for the construction of affordable and market rate housing.

1892
02:29:41,980 --> 02:29:47,300
 But this council action does not negate PNZ's recommendation for approval or denial as part

1893
02:29:47,300 --> 02:29:50,960
 of this SUP request.

1894
02:29:50,960 --> 02:29:59,260
 So as I said, the project is being reviewed under the 2002 code due to the project timing.

1895
02:29:59,260 --> 02:30:04,620
 Here's just a map that shows what the 2002 zoning was, which is CMG.

1896
02:30:04,620 --> 02:30:09,980
 It is transitioned to SC, and multifamily is permitted in both of those zoning districts

1897
02:30:09,980 --> 02:30:15,500
 with approval of a specific use permit.

1898
02:30:15,500 --> 02:30:18,020
 Here is what this proposed site plan looks like.

1899
02:30:18,020 --> 02:30:24,820
 They are proposing 12 buildings, one community center, a community pool and pavilion, various

1900
02:30:24,820 --> 02:30:29,420
 playgrounds, as well as an enclosed dog park.

1901
02:30:29,420 --> 02:30:36,200
 All in, it is 276 dwelling units, about 18 dwelling units per acre.

1902
02:30:36,200 --> 02:30:40,780
 In order to support those dwelling units, they are proposing 568 parking spaces in addition

1903
02:30:40,780 --> 02:30:43,180
 to bicycle racks.

1904
02:30:43,180 --> 02:30:48,820
 This project is proposing 61% lot coverage and 39% landscape area.

1905
02:30:48,820 --> 02:30:53,300
 And those open spaces are provided throughout the site, once again includes those playgrounds,

1906
02:30:53,300 --> 02:30:59,180
 the dog park, barbecue, grill and picnic space, and that's about 11% of the site.

1907
02:30:59,180 --> 02:31:01,060
 Here's the landscape plan.

1908
02:31:01,060 --> 02:31:04,740
 Just to point out some of the features of it, they are proposing landscape islands within

1909
02:31:04,740 --> 02:31:12,820
 the parking area, 39 street trees along loop 288 and Dutchess, as well as those bicycle

1910
02:31:12,820 --> 02:31:18,500
 racks located in this location and about in this location.

1911
02:31:18,500 --> 02:31:22,740
 There is also a buffer on the west side of the property adjacent to that commercial use

1912
02:31:22,740 --> 02:31:27,580
 that includes 24 trees and 100 shrubs.

1913
02:31:27,580 --> 02:31:30,020
 Here's what the sample building elevations would look like.

1914
02:31:30,020 --> 02:31:35,460
 They are proposing some earth tone colors, some muted colors with various balconies and

1915
02:31:35,460 --> 02:31:44,020
 building materials, as well as articulation offsets from those facades.

1916
02:31:44,020 --> 02:31:48,020
 The criteria for approval in the 2002 debt and development code is in subchapter 6.

1917
02:31:48,020 --> 02:31:51,620
 I won't read all of these to you, but it is in your backup material.

1918
02:31:51,620 --> 02:31:54,960
 And we're just going to hit some of those requirements.

1919
02:31:54,960 --> 02:32:00,260
 So first, the comprehensive plan, the subject property is in a community mixed use area,

1920
02:32:00,260 --> 02:32:06,740
 future land use designation, intended to promote a mix of uses where the predominant uses are

1921
02:32:06,740 --> 02:32:12,740
 commercial and service, but where residential uses such as higher density, multi-family

1922
02:32:12,740 --> 02:32:17,340
 type uses are appropriate as they complement those commercial uses.

1923
02:32:17,340 --> 02:32:21,140
 We want those -- we want those diverse uses to be located close to each other because

1924
02:32:21,140 --> 02:32:26,860
 we want to encourage dynamic development and walkability, so we want different modes of

1925
02:32:26,860 --> 02:32:27,860
 transportation.

1926
02:32:27,860 --> 02:32:32,180
 We want a compact development, and multi-family is consistent with the future land use because

1927
02:32:32,180 --> 02:32:37,900
 it does provide that necessary residential component of mixed use.

1928
02:32:37,900 --> 02:32:41,020
 In this instance, it also provides that physical buffer.

1929
02:32:41,020 --> 02:32:46,700
 There is residential to the west of the subject property, and it does add that transition

1930
02:32:46,700 --> 02:32:55,500
 area between the residential to the west and loop 288, that commercial corridor there.

1931
02:32:55,500 --> 02:32:58,640
 As part of your backup, I know this is a little hard to read, but as part of your backup,

1932
02:32:58,640 --> 02:33:03,900
 we did do a comparison of the 2002 and 2019 code.

1933
02:33:03,900 --> 02:33:09,380
 For elements such as lot coverage, landscape area, building height, density, unit size

1934
02:33:09,380 --> 02:33:15,540
 and parking, as well as overall tree canopy, the proposal met not only the 2002 code but

1935
02:33:15,540 --> 02:33:18,060
 also the 2019 code.

1936
02:33:18,060 --> 02:33:20,980
 There were two elements that they didn't quite meet.

1937
02:33:20,980 --> 02:33:22,620
 One would be the tree preservation.

1938
02:33:22,620 --> 02:33:30,140
 The 2019 code requires generally 30% preservation of protected trees.

1939
02:33:30,140 --> 02:33:37,420
 They're proposing 27% preservation of quality trees as well as 50% of the secondary trees

1940
02:33:37,420 --> 02:33:41,520
 on site, so they don't quite meet the 2019 regulations.

1941
02:33:41,520 --> 02:33:43,120
 And then the street trees.

1942
02:33:43,120 --> 02:33:47,460
 We did increase the street tree requirements as part of the 2019 code, and they're proposing

1943
02:33:47,460 --> 02:33:54,740
 to meet those 2002 regulations, which includes the 39 street trees.

1944
02:33:54,740 --> 02:33:57,580
 The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding development.

1945
02:33:57,580 --> 02:34:03,300
 There is multifamily adjacent just to the west of the site, as well it is in a diverse

1946
02:34:03,300 --> 02:34:09,300
 commercial corridor with some undeveloped land, some future park space, retail area,

1947
02:34:09,300 --> 02:34:14,780
 some office, and then other not only existing multifamily projects, but multifamily projects

1948
02:34:14,780 --> 02:34:20,900
 that are proposed and you've seen recently.

1949
02:34:20,900 --> 02:34:26,980
 We did an analysis of the infrastructure of the site and what could support the development.

1950
02:34:26,980 --> 02:34:32,140
 The applicant also submitted a TIA as part of the analysis of this site, and it has been

1951
02:34:32,140 --> 02:34:34,860
 approved by our engineering group.

1952
02:34:34,860 --> 02:34:41,020
 We're anticipating that the use would generate about 2,000 trips a day, 125 morning peak,

1953
02:34:41,020 --> 02:34:42,900
 146 evening peak.

1954
02:34:42,900 --> 02:34:49,380
 As part of the TIA recommendations, there is some restriping proposed for Dutchess,

1955
02:34:49,380 --> 02:34:51,220
 and that would restripe it.

1956
02:34:51,220 --> 02:34:57,700
 There's enough pavement there to allow a dedicated left turn and a dedicated right turn onto

1957
02:34:57,700 --> 02:35:02,660
 loop 288 to allow that intersection to function a little better.

1958
02:35:02,660 --> 02:35:07,900
 Additionally, with this proposal, if constructed, this intersection would meet the warrants

1959
02:35:07,900 --> 02:35:14,140
 for a signal, and they would have to participate in any cost that their impact generated for

1960
02:35:14,140 --> 02:35:15,140
 that signal.

1961
02:35:15,140 --> 02:35:16,140
 >> Julie, quick question.

1962
02:35:16,140 --> 02:35:22,020
 What would be the timeline for the construction of the signal, and two, are those 2,000 trips

1963
02:35:22,020 --> 02:35:28,500
 equally split between the loop 288 access and the Dutchess access, or how does that

1964
02:35:28,500 --> 02:35:29,500
 break down?

1965
02:35:29,500 --> 02:35:32,900
 >> Access is -- that's a great question about access.

1966
02:35:32,900 --> 02:35:37,940
 So there are two access points -- let me go back to the site plan that might explain it

1967
02:35:37,940 --> 02:35:39,300
 a little better.

1968
02:35:39,300 --> 02:35:41,420
 So there are two access points for the proposal.

1969
02:35:41,420 --> 02:35:45,540
 A full access to the south, directly onto Dutchess.

1970
02:35:45,540 --> 02:35:48,940
 There is also one access point onto loop 288.

1971
02:35:48,940 --> 02:35:55,540
 The one on loop 288 only allows a right in, right out, as well as a left turn in.

1972
02:35:55,540 --> 02:35:58,020
 If you're going north on the loop, you could turn left in it.

1973
02:35:58,020 --> 02:36:06,820
 There is not the ability to turn left out of the development onto loop 288.

1974
02:36:06,820 --> 02:36:10,060
 Which does affect the trip distribution.

1975
02:36:10,060 --> 02:36:17,020
 In terms of the signal timing, that would -- I've reached out to engineering and I haven't

1976
02:36:17,020 --> 02:36:23,660
 gotten a firm answer on that, but that as development in this area does commence and

1977
02:36:23,660 --> 02:36:32,140
 does move forward, there will be payment into a fund that will then provide for that construction

1978
02:36:32,140 --> 02:36:33,400
 of the signal.

1979
02:36:33,400 --> 02:36:36,260
 So there is not a firm date of when that signal would be installed.

1980
02:36:36,260 --> 02:36:37,260
 >> Commissioner Bec.

1981
02:36:37,260 --> 02:36:39,580
 >> Thank you, chair.

1982
02:36:39,580 --> 02:36:47,060
 So if we put a light there, then just across the bridge we have the existing light?

1983
02:36:47,060 --> 02:36:49,740
 South to the south?

1984
02:36:49,740 --> 02:37:01,340
 >> At least I can't remember the -- >> Shady oaks, thank you.

1985
02:37:01,340 --> 02:37:06,620
 >> That feels like it's really tight for two adjacent lights.

1986
02:37:06,620 --> 02:37:12,140
 >> And Dutchess is actually intended to at some point punch through all the way to Colorado.

1987
02:37:12,140 --> 02:37:18,460
 So Dutchess will be a connector, an additional connector connecting loop 288 to closer toward

1988
02:37:18,460 --> 02:37:19,460
 the city center.

1989
02:37:19,460 --> 02:37:25,100
 So it is anticipated to have more traffic because it will provide that east-west connection

1990
02:37:25,100 --> 02:37:27,140
 from the loop toward the west.

1991
02:37:27,140 --> 02:37:33,300
 So that should generate more traffic as well as just the development of that area.

1992
02:37:33,300 --> 02:37:37,540
 >> Thank you.

1993
02:37:37,540 --> 02:37:42,700
 >> As we talked about, there is the access to the site, the limited access to the loop,

1994
02:37:42,700 --> 02:37:44,580
 but the full access to Dutchess.

1995
02:37:44,580 --> 02:37:51,580
 There are also pedestrian and transit facilities, not only that would be installed as a result

1996
02:37:51,580 --> 02:37:54,820
 of this development, but also that are in place with DCTA.

1997
02:37:54,820 --> 02:37:59,380
 So they would have to extend an eight-foot sidewalk along Dutchess as well as a five-foot

1998
02:37:59,380 --> 02:38:04,900
 sidewalk along to loop 288 on their site, on their perimeter.

1999
02:38:04,900 --> 02:38:12,100
 And then there are two bus stops for DCTA didn't connect route 4 within the area.

2000
02:38:12,100 --> 02:38:19,120
 This map shows where that is, and that is about a quarter-mile walk.

2001
02:38:19,120 --> 02:38:21,220
 There is water near the property.

2002
02:38:21,220 --> 02:38:23,820
 There is a 20-inch that actually runs through the site.

2003
02:38:23,820 --> 02:38:28,700
 They can't tap onto that, so they will have to extend an eight-inch line along north loop

2004
02:38:28,700 --> 02:38:33,100
 288 as well as extend a 12-inch on Dutchess Drive.

2005
02:38:33,100 --> 02:38:37,260
 They can tap onto the existing wastewater on the site.

2006
02:38:37,260 --> 02:38:43,140
 Park fees and credits would be required at permitting.

2007
02:38:43,140 --> 02:38:49,180
 The site is about 130 feet from a city-acquired open space, but it is currently undeveloped.

2008
02:38:49,180 --> 02:38:51,940
 It's actually across loop 288.

2009
02:38:51,940 --> 02:38:57,140
 They would have to dedicate -- they would have to comply with all park dedication as

2010
02:38:57,140 --> 02:39:02,080
 well as park development fees as part of development of the site.

2011
02:39:02,080 --> 02:39:06,700
 There are also on-site recreational facilities like that that enclose Dog Park, the playgrounds

2012
02:39:06,700 --> 02:39:09,220
 as well as the pool area.

2013
02:39:09,220 --> 02:39:14,980
 It is -- the site is intended to generate about 34 elementary, 14 middle, and 17 high

2014
02:39:14,980 --> 02:39:19,380
 school students, and that is in the Rivera Elementary, Myers Middle School, and Ryan

2015
02:39:19,380 --> 02:39:21,940
 High School attendance boundary.

2016
02:39:21,940 --> 02:39:24,940
 There is fire station near the site.

2017
02:39:24,940 --> 02:39:29,140
 A notification was sent out.

2018
02:39:29,140 --> 02:39:37,220
 We have received opposition letters that will -- that do total 29% of the property within

2019
02:39:37,220 --> 02:39:38,980
 200 feet of the site.

2020
02:39:38,980 --> 02:39:44,500
 So approval of this request at this time at City Council would require a supermajority

2021
02:39:44,500 --> 02:39:46,720
 vote, which would be six out of seven.

2022
02:39:46,720 --> 02:39:49,260
 They did have a neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago.

2023
02:39:49,260 --> 02:39:50,860
 There were about five attendees.

2024
02:39:50,860 --> 02:39:56,820
 They talked about things like traffic, just land use compatibility, and they are having

2025
02:39:56,820 --> 02:40:00,420
 ongoing conversations with the applicant.

2026
02:40:00,420 --> 02:40:04,180
 Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request with the

2027
02:40:04,180 --> 02:40:12,460
 condition that it does seek an alternative development plan after approval from council.

2028
02:40:12,460 --> 02:40:17,540
 Once again, this is one of those sites that will need that deviation from subchapter 13.

2029
02:40:17,540 --> 02:40:23,460
 And that typical condition we see with SUPs is that they need to comply with the landscape

2030
02:40:23,460 --> 02:40:24,460
 plan.

2031
02:40:24,460 --> 02:40:27,740
 They could substitute some landscaping elements out, but they would still have to meet those

2032
02:40:27,740 --> 02:40:28,740
 minimum requirements.

2033
02:40:28,740 --> 02:40:29,740
 >> Commissioner Smith.

2034
02:40:29,740 --> 02:40:31,220
 >> Thank you, chair.

2035
02:40:31,220 --> 02:40:37,140
 This is -- this project is approved for affordable housing credits for the build, correct?

2036
02:40:37,140 --> 02:40:40,040
 >> Well, the applicant can speak more in depth about that.

2037
02:40:40,040 --> 02:40:43,900
 They did receive that recommendation from council.

2038
02:40:43,900 --> 02:40:49,020
 They'll now have to -- my understanding with the process, they now have to complete their

2039
02:40:49,020 --> 02:40:53,060
 application in order to see if they get those tax credits.

2040
02:40:53,060 --> 02:40:57,700
 But the applicant is here and he'll be able to talk about it.

2041
02:40:57,700 --> 02:41:00,340
 >> Thank you.

2042
02:41:00,340 --> 02:41:04,980
 >> And that's it as far as staff's presentation on this item.

2043
02:41:04,980 --> 02:41:07,300
 Do we -- >> Thanks, Julie.

2044
02:41:07,300 --> 02:41:11,340
 Real fast, can you enlighten me on the ordinance you referenced on your first slide and the

2045
02:41:11,340 --> 02:41:14,460
 implication of what that is?

2046
02:41:14,460 --> 02:41:16,820
 And if there's no inflation, why you had mentioned it?

2047
02:41:16,820 --> 02:41:17,820
 >> I'm sorry?

2048
02:41:17,820 --> 02:41:20,100
 >> Can you just tell me about that resolution?

2049
02:41:20,100 --> 02:41:21,100
 What does that mean?

2050
02:41:21,100 --> 02:41:22,100
 >> Sure.

2051
02:41:22,100 --> 02:41:29,560
 When a developer wants to seek tax credits for an affordable housing project, prior to

2052
02:41:29,560 --> 02:41:37,500
 submitting for that -- that application for that, they do have to seek a resolution or

2053
02:41:37,500 --> 02:41:41,660
 some sort of approval from a council of a municipality in order to move forward with

2054
02:41:41,660 --> 02:41:42,860
 their application.

2055
02:41:42,860 --> 02:41:45,060
 So that's something that they did this fall.

2056
02:41:45,060 --> 02:41:49,140
 And that resolution number is just kind of giving you a project history of what's happened

2057
02:41:49,140 --> 02:41:50,140
 on this.

2058
02:41:50,140 --> 02:41:53,140
 They went to council then, and they recommended approval of that.

2059
02:41:53,140 --> 02:41:56,960
 >> So they come to -- to clarify, they come to council, get approval to seek that, and

2060
02:41:56,960 --> 02:42:00,620
 then if that's approved or not approved, then they go through the traditional channels back

2061
02:42:00,620 --> 02:42:01,620
 up to council?

2062
02:42:01,620 --> 02:42:02,620
 >> Correct.

2063
02:42:02,620 --> 02:42:03,620
 >> Okay.

2064
02:42:03,620 --> 02:42:06,300
 >> So that resolution does not approve that land use.

2065
02:42:06,300 --> 02:42:07,300
 It doesn't approve the SEP.

2066
02:42:07,300 --> 02:42:09,420
 They still have to go through that process.

2067
02:42:09,420 --> 02:42:10,420
 >> Great.

2068
02:42:10,420 --> 02:42:11,420
 Commissioner Ellis.

2069
02:42:11,420 --> 02:42:13,300
 >> Thank you, Chair.

2070
02:42:13,300 --> 02:42:14,380
 Just a quick question on that.

2071
02:42:14,380 --> 02:42:22,420
 So the no objection that you've got in there is to not object to seeking those credits?

2072
02:42:22,420 --> 02:42:23,620
 >> Correct.

2073
02:42:23,620 --> 02:42:26,900
 >> Not the no objection to a proposed development.

2074
02:42:26,900 --> 02:42:27,900
 >> Correct.

2075
02:42:27,900 --> 02:42:28,900
 Correct.

2076
02:42:28,900 --> 02:42:29,900
 Thank you.

2077
02:42:29,900 --> 02:42:30,900
 >> Great.

2078
02:42:30,900 --> 02:42:31,900
 Any other questions?

2079
02:42:31,900 --> 02:42:39,220
 Speaking of no objection, if there is none, would it be agreeable to the commission to

2080
02:42:39,220 --> 02:42:44,580
 hear Item 5F in council chambers about the DDC update?

2081
02:42:44,580 --> 02:42:45,580
 Great.

2082
02:42:45,580 --> 02:42:47,900
 So is Charlie still here?

2083
02:42:47,900 --> 02:42:48,900
 Thanks for hanging out.

2084
02:42:48,900 --> 02:42:51,200
 We're going to push you to next meeting.

2085
02:42:51,200 --> 02:42:52,200
 Sorry about that.

2086
02:42:52,200 --> 02:42:58,780
 We're going to go ahead and close the work session at 630, and I'll ask commissioners

2087
02:42:58,780 --> 02:43:00,780
 to be in chambers in five minutes.

2088
02:43:00,780 --> 02:43:01,780
 Thank you.

2089
02:43:01,780 --> 02:43:06,540
 >> Ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission session for

2090
02:43:06,540 --> 02:43:09,460
 Wednesday, December 11th, 2019.

2091
02:43:09,460 --> 02:43:11,260
 I appreciate the patience.

2092
02:43:11,260 --> 02:43:14,700
 We will open the meeting at 639.

2093
02:43:14,700 --> 02:43:17,460
 The first item of business is to stand if able and give a pledge of allegiance to the

2094
02:43:17,460 --> 02:43:18,460
 US and Texas flag.

2095
02:43:18,460 --> 02:43:27,460
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

2096
02:43:27,460 --> 02:43:34,980
 for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

2097
02:43:34,980 --> 02:43:44,680
 all, on earth and on earth as one, with liberty and justice for all, one state under God,

2098
02:43:44,680 --> 02:43:46,300
 one nation.

2099
02:43:46,300 --> 02:43:54,540
 >> The next item of business is to consider the approval of our minutes.

2100
02:43:54,540 --> 02:43:55,780
 We'll take this in two separate votes.

2101
02:43:55,780 --> 02:44:01,940
 The first one will be the minutes from November 6th, 2019.

2102
02:44:01,940 --> 02:44:04,860
 Commissioner Pernetta.

2103
02:44:04,860 --> 02:44:07,740
 >> First, Commissioner Ellis.

2104
02:44:07,740 --> 02:44:08,740
 >> Second.

2105
02:44:08,740 --> 02:44:09,740
 >> We have a first and a second.

2106
02:44:09,740 --> 02:44:10,740
 Any discussion?

2107
02:44:10,740 --> 02:44:21,220
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote of the board.

2108
02:44:21,220 --> 02:44:23,300
 Motion carries 7-0.

2109
02:44:23,300 --> 02:44:29,300
 The next is November 20th, 2019 minutes.

2110
02:44:29,300 --> 02:44:30,300
 Commissioner Ellis.

2111
02:44:30,300 --> 02:44:33,300
 >> I move approval.

2112
02:44:33,300 --> 02:44:34,980
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

2113
02:44:34,980 --> 02:44:35,980
 >> Second.

2114
02:44:35,980 --> 02:44:36,980
 >> We have a first and a second.

2115
02:44:36,980 --> 02:44:37,980
 Any discussion?

2116
02:44:37,980 --> 02:44:48,060
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote of the board.

2117
02:44:48,060 --> 02:44:50,580
 Motion carries 6-0 with one recuse.

2118
02:44:50,580 --> 02:44:53,060
 The next item of business is our consent agenda.

2119
02:44:53,060 --> 02:44:59,620
 The chair will entertain a motion or discussion on any of the items.

2120
02:44:59,620 --> 02:45:01,620
 Commissioner Ellis.

2121
02:45:01,620 --> 02:45:03,820
 >> I move approval.

2122
02:45:03,820 --> 02:45:04,980
 >> We have a first for approval.

2123
02:45:04,980 --> 02:45:08,700
 I think I saw Commissioner Pernetta up there.

2124
02:45:08,700 --> 02:45:09,700
 >> Second.

2125
02:45:09,700 --> 02:45:11,460
 >> Can you click that button?

2126
02:45:11,460 --> 02:45:14,820
 We have a first and a second for approval.

2127
02:45:14,820 --> 02:45:15,820
 Any discussion?

2128
02:45:15,820 --> 02:45:25,300
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote of the board.

2129
02:45:25,300 --> 02:45:26,300
 Motion carries 7-0.

2130
02:45:26,300 --> 02:45:29,860
 The next item of business is our individual consideration items.

2131
02:45:29,860 --> 02:45:33,540
 The first one is item 4A, MP 19-18.

2132
02:45:33,540 --> 02:45:34,540
 Staff recommends denial.

2133
02:45:34,540 --> 02:45:40,140
 Is there any motion or discussion?

2134
02:45:40,140 --> 02:45:41,140
 Commissioner Smith.

2135
02:45:41,140 --> 02:45:42,140
 >> Motion to deny.

2136
02:45:42,140 --> 02:45:43,980
 >> We have a motion to deny.

2137
02:45:43,980 --> 02:45:44,980
 Commissioner Pernetta.

2138
02:45:44,980 --> 02:45:45,980
 >> Second.

2139
02:45:45,980 --> 02:45:48,340
 >> We have a first and a second for denial.

2140
02:45:48,340 --> 02:45:50,460
 Any discussion?

2141
02:45:50,460 --> 02:45:52,500
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

2142
02:45:52,500 --> 02:46:04,380
 First for clarification, a vote yes is a vote to deny.

2143
02:46:04,380 --> 02:46:05,380
 Motion carries 7-0.

2144
02:46:05,380 --> 02:46:10,260
 The next item is 4B, PP 19-35A.

2145
02:46:10,260 --> 02:46:11,260
 Staff recommends denial.

2146
02:46:11,260 --> 02:46:12,260
 >> Excuse me?

2147
02:46:12,260 --> 02:46:13,260
 >> Yes, Commissioner.

2148
02:46:13,260 --> 02:46:21,980
 >> The applicant has submitted a request for a 30-day extension after this report was written.

2149
02:46:21,980 --> 02:46:30,780
 And so your options are either to approve the request for an extension or deny it.

2150
02:46:30,780 --> 02:46:36,020
 That would bring them to the January 8th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting or to deny the

2151
02:46:36,020 --> 02:46:40,940
 plat with conditions or approve the plat with conditions.

2152
02:46:40,940 --> 02:46:41,940
 >> Perfect.

2153
02:46:41,940 --> 02:46:44,940
 Thank you for that clarification.

2154
02:46:44,940 --> 02:46:45,940
 >> Yep.

2155
02:46:45,940 --> 02:46:50,420
 Would it be a motion to postpone a date certain or would it be a motion to approve a 30-day

2156
02:46:50,420 --> 02:46:51,420
 extension?

2157
02:46:51,420 --> 02:46:55,060
 >> It would be to a date certain of the 8th, right?

2158
02:46:55,060 --> 02:46:56,060
 >> Correct.

2159
02:46:56,060 --> 02:46:57,700
 >> Okay, just the way City Jackson referred.

2160
02:46:57,700 --> 02:47:01,340
 So motion to postpone to date certain of January 8th.

2161
02:47:01,340 --> 02:47:04,500
 >> We have a first, Commissioner Pernetta.

2162
02:47:04,500 --> 02:47:05,500
 >> Second the motion.

2163
02:47:05,500 --> 02:47:06,500
 >> We have a first and a second.

2164
02:47:06,500 --> 02:47:08,380
 Any discussion?

2165
02:47:08,380 --> 02:47:09,620
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

2166
02:47:21,420 --> 02:47:25,740
 >> The next item is 4C.

2167
02:47:25,740 --> 02:47:29,900
 Staff recommends either denial or the same postponement to January 8th.

2168
02:47:29,900 --> 02:47:31,900
 Commissioner Smith?

2169
02:47:31,900 --> 02:47:35,260
 >> Motion to postpone the date certain of January 8th.

2170
02:47:35,260 --> 02:47:36,260
 >> Commissioner Pernetta?

2171
02:47:36,260 --> 02:47:37,260
 >> Second.

2172
02:47:37,260 --> 02:47:38,260
 >> We have a first and a second.

2173
02:47:38,260 --> 02:47:39,260
 Any discussion?

2174
02:47:39,260 --> 02:47:49,140
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

2175
02:47:49,140 --> 02:47:50,140
 Motion carries 7-0.

2176
02:47:50,140 --> 02:47:54,820
 Next item is 4D FP 19-32.

2177
02:47:54,820 --> 02:47:55,820
 Staff recommends approval.

2178
02:47:55,820 --> 02:47:56,820
 Commissioner Smith?

2179
02:47:56,820 --> 02:47:59,380
 >> Motion to approve.

2180
02:47:59,380 --> 02:48:00,380
 >> Commissioner Ellis?

2181
02:48:00,380 --> 02:48:01,380
 >> Second.

2182
02:48:01,380 --> 02:48:02,900
 >> We have a first and a second for approval.

2183
02:48:02,900 --> 02:48:03,900
 Any discussion?

2184
02:48:03,900 --> 02:48:15,860
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

2185
02:48:15,860 --> 02:48:20,420
 Motion carries 6-1.

2186
02:48:20,420 --> 02:48:25,740
 The last item for individual consideration is item 4E PP 19-13.

2187
02:48:25,740 --> 02:48:26,740
 Staff recommends approval.

2188
02:48:26,740 --> 02:48:27,740
 Commissioner Smith?

2189
02:48:27,740 --> 02:48:28,740
 >> Motion to approve.

2190
02:48:28,740 --> 02:48:29,740
 >> We have a first for approval.

2191
02:48:29,740 --> 02:48:30,740
 Commissioner Ellis?

2192
02:48:30,740 --> 02:48:31,740
 >> Second.

2193
02:48:31,740 --> 02:48:32,740
 >> We have a first and a second for approval.

2194
02:48:32,740 --> 02:48:33,740
 Any discussion?

2195
02:48:33,740 --> 02:48:34,740
 Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.

2196
02:48:34,740 --> 02:48:51,360
 Motion carries 7-0.

2197
02:48:51,360 --> 02:48:53,680
 That brings us to our public hearing items.

2198
02:48:53,680 --> 02:48:58,380
 Item 5A, if you'll note in the agenda, the staff has postponed this item to a date uncertain

2199
02:48:58,380 --> 02:49:00,740
 so we'll not be hearing that item this evening.

2200
02:49:00,740 --> 02:49:04,060
 That brings us to our next and first public hearing item.

2201
02:49:04,060 --> 02:49:13,220
 Item 5B, that's S19-0003B, by Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing.

2202
02:49:13,220 --> 02:49:23,620
 >> Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton.

2203
02:49:23,620 --> 02:49:27,660
 Did you want to go over the presentation like we did at work session or do we want to go

2204
02:49:27,660 --> 02:49:31,260
 through the full presentation?

2205
02:49:31,260 --> 02:49:33,340
 >> I think a summary presentation would be adequate.

2206
02:49:33,340 --> 02:49:34,660
 >> Okay, great.

2207
02:49:34,660 --> 02:49:40,780
 So this project looks familiar to you because it did come before you on November 20th, just

2208
02:49:40,780 --> 02:49:41,780
 last month.

2209
02:49:41,780 --> 02:49:44,700
 It is S19-3, Oxford at Sherman.

2210
02:49:44,700 --> 02:49:48,500
 So the request is for a specific use permit for multi-family dwellings.

2211
02:49:48,500 --> 02:49:50,860
 The subject property is outlined here in yellow.

2212
02:49:50,860 --> 02:49:52,460
 It's about a 12-acre site.

2213
02:49:52,460 --> 02:49:54,160
 It's currently undeveloped.

2214
02:49:54,160 --> 02:49:58,620
 As I said, it was originally presented on the 20th of November and it was recommended

2215
02:49:58,620 --> 02:50:00,860
 for approval at that time.

2216
02:50:00,860 --> 02:50:05,460
 After that public hearing, staff discovered that there was a notification error.

2217
02:50:05,460 --> 02:50:09,820
 One of the public notifications was not mailed out.

2218
02:50:09,820 --> 02:50:13,180
 So we had to re-notice it and that's why we're here today.

2219
02:50:13,180 --> 02:50:16,140
 However, there have been no changes to the project.

2220
02:50:16,140 --> 02:50:20,460
 It is the same as the original request.

2221
02:50:20,460 --> 02:50:26,060
 So just to go over the public outreach portion because that is why we're here today, a newspaper

2222
02:50:26,060 --> 02:50:31,620
 ad was placed on November 24th for this meeting.

2223
02:50:31,620 --> 02:50:32,980
 The property was also posted.

2224
02:50:32,980 --> 02:50:37,900
 There were also notices mailed that included all within the 200-foot boundary.

2225
02:50:37,900 --> 02:50:39,660
 We've received five in opposition.

2226
02:50:39,660 --> 02:50:47,500
 Two of those responses are not within the 200-foot boundary, but those three represent 1%.

2227
02:50:47,500 --> 02:50:48,860
 And then two in favor.

2228
02:50:48,860 --> 02:50:53,100
 They did also have a neighborhood meeting over the summer.

2229
02:50:53,100 --> 02:50:58,180
 So based upon the criteria for approval in subchapter six of the 2002 Denton Development

2230
02:50:58,180 --> 02:51:03,020
 Code, staff does recommend approval of the SUP with some conditions.

2231
02:51:03,020 --> 02:51:07,500
 First, that the landscaping plan does need to be consistent with what is provided in

2232
02:51:07,500 --> 02:51:09,180
 your backup material.

2233
02:51:09,180 --> 02:51:15,900
 There can be some substitutions for some specific plants, but they do need to comply.

2234
02:51:15,900 --> 02:51:20,940
 The parking area light fixtures do need to be capped at a 14-foot height to make sure

2235
02:51:20,940 --> 02:51:25,820
 there's adequate lighting, but that there's not impacts to adjacent property owners as

2236
02:51:25,820 --> 02:51:27,380
 far as glare.

2237
02:51:27,380 --> 02:51:31,460
 And that perimeter fencing material should be limited to masonry or wrought iron.

2238
02:51:31,460 --> 02:51:36,060
 And if it is wrought iron, that they make sure there is some sort of evergreen hedge

2239
02:51:36,060 --> 02:51:39,020
 there to make sure that there's adequate screening.

2240
02:51:39,020 --> 02:51:44,460
 Additionally, there is an alternative development plan that the applicant will have to pursue

2241
02:51:44,460 --> 02:51:46,700
 as a part of this request.

2242
02:51:46,700 --> 02:51:52,100
 We'll need to come forward with that 30 days after if this is approved by council.

2243
02:51:52,100 --> 02:51:57,540
 And that is to deviate from two provisions within subchapter 13 of the 2002 Denton Development

2244
02:51:57,540 --> 02:51:59,300
 Code.

2245
02:51:59,300 --> 02:52:05,740
 And then also to comply with the site plan, the landscape plan, and elevations that would

2246
02:52:05,740 --> 02:52:09,580
 be attached to the ordinance if it's approved.

2247
02:52:09,580 --> 02:52:16,660
 This provision does allow staff to make some minor modifications, up to 5% increase in

2248
02:52:16,660 --> 02:52:21,900
 a couple of the provisions, but any increases over 5% in things like the number of dwelling

2249
02:52:21,900 --> 02:52:28,020
 units, parking spaces, or the square footage of lot coverage would require another specific

2250
02:52:28,020 --> 02:52:29,020
 use permit.

2251
02:52:29,020 --> 02:52:33,580
 But they are proposing eight, we'll go over the site plan just quickly, just to refresh

2252
02:52:33,580 --> 02:52:34,580
 your memory.

2253
02:52:34,580 --> 02:52:38,220
 They are proposing eight three-story buildings.

2254
02:52:38,220 --> 02:52:43,820
 They are oriented toward Loop 288, the buildings are outlined there in purple.

2255
02:52:43,820 --> 02:52:50,060
 Three access points are proposed, full access along Loop 288, and then exit only, one to

2256
02:52:50,060 --> 02:52:57,060
 the future commercial lot there at the quarter of Loop 288 in Sherman, and then one exit

2257
02:52:57,060 --> 02:53:01,300
 only to Poinsettia to the south.

2258
02:53:01,300 --> 02:53:06,060
 They're also proposing some site amenities, some open space areas, community pool with

2259
02:53:06,060 --> 02:53:09,060
 the amenity center and clubhouse, that's shown here in yellow.

2260
02:53:09,060 --> 02:53:13,660
 That's in the center of the proposal, just to make sure it's separated from those existing

2261
02:53:13,660 --> 02:53:15,860
 neighborhood areas.

2262
02:53:15,860 --> 02:53:21,260
 They're also proposing outdoor eating area with a fire pit, and then also a dog park

2263
02:53:21,260 --> 02:53:24,460
 in this location.

2264
02:53:24,460 --> 02:53:30,940
 There is fencing and landscaping, along with one-story garages proposed along Poinsettia.

2265
02:53:30,940 --> 02:53:36,300
 And then the three-story residential buildings would be set back at a minimum of 101 feet

2266
02:53:36,300 --> 02:53:42,720
 from Poinsettia, as well as 49 feet from the property line to the east.

2267
02:53:42,720 --> 02:53:46,020
 And the proposal also meets parking regulations.

2268
02:53:46,020 --> 02:53:50,100
 So with that, I'll stand for any questions, and the applicant is here, I believe, to answer

2269
02:53:50,100 --> 02:53:51,100
 any questions as well.

2270
02:53:51,100 --> 02:53:52,100
 >> Thank you, Julie.

2271
02:53:52,100 --> 02:53:53,100
 I do not see any questions.

2272
02:53:53,100 --> 02:53:54,100
 >> Great.

2273
02:53:54,100 --> 02:53:55,100
 Thank you.

2274
02:53:55,100 --> 02:54:01,100
 >> This is a public hearing, anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so on this item.

2275
02:54:01,100 --> 02:54:12,860
 I don't have any cards filled out right now, but happy to welcome anyone who wants to speak.

2276
02:54:12,860 --> 02:54:13,860
 Okay.

2277
02:54:13,860 --> 02:54:17,620
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn to the days for discussion or motion.

2278
02:54:17,620 --> 02:54:18,620
 Commissioner Pernetta?

2279
02:54:18,620 --> 02:54:19,620
 >> I motion to approve.

2280
02:54:19,620 --> 02:54:21,620
 >> We have a first for approval.

2281
02:54:21,620 --> 02:54:22,620
 Commissioner Smith?

2282
02:54:22,620 --> 02:54:23,620
 >> Second.

2283
02:54:23,620 --> 02:54:25,260
 >> We have a first and a second for approval.

2284
02:54:25,260 --> 02:54:28,660
 Is there any discussion on the item?

2285
02:54:28,660 --> 02:54:36,220
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

2286
02:54:36,220 --> 02:54:38,180
 Motion carries 7-0.

2287
02:54:38,180 --> 02:54:46,020
 The next item of business is item 5C, PD-19-003B, I'll invite Hayley Zagorski for presentation

2288
02:54:46,020 --> 02:54:59,540
 and open the public hearing.

2289
02:54:59,540 --> 02:55:13,420
 >> Good evening.

2290
02:55:13,420 --> 02:55:19,300
 This is a request for rezoning to plan development, so the specific request before you is to consider

2291
02:55:19,300 --> 02:55:23,140
 a rezoning from both R2 and R3 districts.

2292
02:55:23,140 --> 02:55:28,500
 R2 makes up approximately 34 acres of the subject property, R3 makes up just over 2

2293
02:55:28,500 --> 02:55:29,500
 acres.

2294
02:55:29,500 --> 02:55:32,780
 The proposal is to rezone all 36 acres to plan development.

2295
02:55:32,780 --> 02:55:36,140
 The subject property is outlined in yellow on this map, and you can see it's located

2296
02:55:36,140 --> 02:55:42,020
 on the north side of Ryan Road between the Ridgemont and Teasley Trail subdivisions.

2297
02:55:42,020 --> 02:55:46,260
 These maps show you what the current zoning map is today, so you can see the majority

2298
02:55:46,260 --> 02:55:51,100
 of the property being R2 in yellow, and then the northernmost portion of the property being

2299
02:55:51,100 --> 02:55:54,500
 the slightly darker yellow, which is the R3 district.

2300
02:55:54,500 --> 02:56:00,340
 If this is approved by the city council, then the entire property would be rezoned to plan

2301
02:56:00,340 --> 02:56:02,740
 development.

2302
02:56:02,740 --> 02:56:06,740
 There are two primary aspects to a PD, so it's not just a straight zoning, it comes

2303
02:56:06,740 --> 02:56:08,820
 with more detail.

2304
02:56:08,820 --> 02:56:12,660
 There are development regulations that are approved as part of a PD that specify any

2305
02:56:12,660 --> 02:56:17,620
 unique standards that would apply just to this development that aren't present citywide,

2306
02:56:17,620 --> 02:56:21,780
 and then there is the site layout that shows how those proposed uses and things would be

2307
02:56:21,780 --> 02:56:27,020
 arranged, how traffic would flow through the site, and those more detailed almost site

2308
02:56:27,020 --> 02:56:29,380
 plan type elements.

2309
02:56:29,380 --> 02:56:34,980
 So the proposal for this particular PD includes 154 residential lots.

2310
02:56:34,980 --> 02:56:39,180
 It includes five HOA lots that are shown in green on this map.

2311
02:56:39,180 --> 02:56:43,760
 Some other key features to the site, there was a gas well on the site that's been plugged

2312
02:56:43,760 --> 02:56:48,300
 within the last year that's generally located here where the star is shown that would be

2313
02:56:48,300 --> 02:56:53,780
 within an HOA lot, so nothing would be built over the top of it, and then there are multiple

2314
02:56:53,780 --> 02:56:56,300
 points of connectivity proposed with this plan.

2315
02:56:56,300 --> 02:57:01,300
 So there is one point of connectivity directly to Ryan Road, shown here, and then there is

2316
02:57:01,300 --> 02:57:05,300
 a connection to Mizzen Lane, it's important to note north is the left side of the screen

2317
02:57:05,300 --> 02:57:07,740
 in this instance, so this is actually the east side of the property here where it would

2318
02:57:07,740 --> 02:57:11,620
 connect to Mizzen Lane that is stubbed from Teasley Trails, and then on the north and

2319
02:57:11,620 --> 02:57:15,740
 south side to the property, Monte Carlo Lane was stubbed out to this site as a part of

2320
02:57:15,740 --> 02:57:20,500
 the developments of both the Ridgemont neighborhood to the south and Teasley Trails to the north.

2321
02:57:20,500 --> 02:57:25,220
 As we discussed at work session, existing conditions for these stubs in Ridgemont, that

2322
02:57:25,220 --> 02:57:29,620
 is just a dead end with a barricade, and Teasley Trails, there is currently a cul-de-sac if

2323
02:57:29,620 --> 02:57:31,300
 you drive out there today.

2324
02:57:31,300 --> 02:57:35,180
 The cul-de-sac itself is actually located on the property that is the subject of this

2325
02:57:35,180 --> 02:57:39,340
 rezoning case tonight, that was plotted as a temporary access easement because the length

2326
02:57:39,340 --> 02:57:44,240
 of that cul-de-sac called for a turnaround for emergency services purposes at that time,

2327
02:57:44,240 --> 02:57:49,760
 so that was provided as a temporary means of having a turnaround there.

2328
02:57:49,760 --> 02:57:55,140
 So the other key element of a PD are the development standards, like I referenced earlier, so this

2329
02:57:55,140 --> 02:57:59,740
 chart is intended to show you how the uses within this PD would compare to the standard

2330
02:57:59,740 --> 02:58:04,300
 R4 district, which is the closest comparable based district for what's proposed.

2331
02:58:04,300 --> 02:58:10,940
 So whereas R4 permits a variety of uses, this would only permit, the only primary use that

2332
02:58:10,940 --> 02:58:13,740
 would be permitted would be single family detached dwellings.

2333
02:58:13,740 --> 02:58:17,220
 They're also proposing to allow for any of the accessory and temporary uses that are

2334
02:58:17,220 --> 02:58:21,580
 allowed within the R4 district so that these residents could enjoy those same benefits

2335
02:58:21,580 --> 02:58:25,860
 if they, for example, wanted a home occupation or an accessory dwelling unit in the future

2336
02:58:25,860 --> 02:58:30,500
 or if during construction there's need for a field or construction office on site.

2337
02:58:30,500 --> 02:58:35,400
 Those could be allowed with the same permissions they have citywide in R4.

2338
02:58:35,400 --> 02:58:40,180
 The other piece to this are the actual development standards, so for the most part this development

2339
02:58:40,180 --> 02:58:43,220
 is proposing to comply with the 2019 DDC.

2340
02:58:43,220 --> 02:58:48,440
 There are a few changes that they're requesting as part of this PD.

2341
02:58:48,440 --> 02:58:53,660
 So this chart shows the proposed development standards outlined in yellow, the R4 district

2342
02:58:53,660 --> 02:58:58,140
 in the middle, and then over here we see the difference between those standards, red indicating

2343
02:58:58,140 --> 02:59:01,580
 a decrease from the R4 standard, green being an increase.

2344
02:59:01,580 --> 02:59:03,360
 I'll just hit some of the highlights of that.

2345
02:59:03,360 --> 02:59:06,460
 They're all outlined in more detail in your backup.

2346
02:59:06,460 --> 02:59:10,180
 The minimum lot area is one of the key deviations that's requested.

2347
02:59:10,180 --> 02:59:12,800
 R4 requires 7,000 square foot minimum.

2348
02:59:12,800 --> 02:59:16,700
 They're proposing that no more than 10 lots within the subdivision could be as small as

2349
02:59:16,700 --> 02:59:23,460
 5,000 square feet, all others would have a minimum lot area of 5,750.

2350
02:59:23,460 --> 02:59:27,220
 Some of the other key changes, lot depth would be increased in this subdivision.

2351
02:59:27,220 --> 02:59:30,540
 They're proposing 100 foot as opposed to 80 foot standard.

2352
02:59:30,540 --> 02:59:36,300
 They're proposing an increased garage setback, citywide there's not a specific garage setback.

2353
02:59:36,300 --> 02:59:40,700
 They are proposing some decreases in terms of the side yard on a corner lot as opposed

2354
02:59:40,700 --> 02:59:41,700
 to being 20 feet.

2355
02:59:41,700 --> 02:59:45,500
 They would propose as low as 10, not to say it could not go higher.

2356
02:59:45,500 --> 02:59:49,740
 And then the other things I wanted to hit are landscaping and tree code.

2357
02:59:49,740 --> 02:59:54,180
 So they submitted a general development plan before they submitted for the rezoning of

2358
02:59:54,180 --> 02:59:55,180
 this site.

2359
02:59:55,180 --> 02:59:59,180
 The GDP itself is a document that allows for vesting as it's a plat type document.

2360
02:59:59,180 --> 03:00:04,780
 So under subchapter 245 of the local government code, they do have the right to vest in certain

2361
03:00:04,780 --> 03:00:07,660
 provisions from the 2002 development code.

2362
03:00:07,660 --> 03:00:11,340
 The only one that they've expressed an interest in vesting in is tree preservation, which

2363
03:00:11,340 --> 03:00:13,660
 they are allowed to do so by state law.

2364
03:00:13,660 --> 03:00:19,980
 So rather than meeting the 2019 minimum of 30% of heritage and quality trees for preservation,

2365
03:00:19,980 --> 03:00:23,900
 their minimum standard would be 20% quality trees and 10% secondary trees.

2366
03:00:23,900 --> 03:00:28,180
 That's not to say they couldn't, of course, preserve more of those if they find the ability

2367
03:00:28,180 --> 03:00:31,800
 to do so once they get into the site grading and those details.

2368
03:00:31,800 --> 03:00:36,780
 In terms of landscaping, citywide there is a requirement in the 2019 code for one yard

2369
03:00:36,780 --> 03:00:37,780
 tree.

2370
03:00:37,780 --> 03:00:40,060
 It can be located anywhere within a single family lot.

2371
03:00:40,060 --> 03:00:44,020
 They're proposing to increase that standard to provide for increased tree canopy over

2372
03:00:44,020 --> 03:00:45,020
 time.

2373
03:00:45,020 --> 03:00:48,060
 So they would have one front yard tree and one rear yard tree in all lots.

2374
03:00:48,060 --> 03:00:52,460
 And then corner lots would have an additional two trees required in the side yard.

2375
03:00:52,460 --> 03:00:57,580
 And then overall the city standard is 5% minimum open space for single family subdivisions.

2376
03:00:57,580 --> 03:01:02,340
 They're proposing to increase that minimum to 15%.

2377
03:01:02,340 --> 03:01:05,560
 So there are two sets of criteria for approval that were outlined in your backup.

2378
03:01:05,560 --> 03:01:10,060
 The first of those is the general criteria that applies to all applications made under

2379
03:01:10,060 --> 03:01:11,060
 the DDC.

2380
03:01:11,060 --> 03:01:15,220
 I won't go into those in detail to spare some time this evening, but the highlights

2381
03:01:15,220 --> 03:01:18,540
 of that is that it's generally in compliance with all of these.

2382
03:01:18,540 --> 03:01:22,460
 The project is consistent with the DDC and comprehensive plan requirements, except for

2383
03:01:22,460 --> 03:01:26,580
 those specific changes that are requested as part of the PD.

2384
03:01:26,580 --> 03:01:30,900
 There's no prior approvals or phasing proposed here, so those criteria were not applicable.

2385
03:01:30,900 --> 03:01:35,820
 The development was not found to have any expected adverse environmental or fiscal impact

2386
03:01:35,820 --> 03:01:36,940
 for the city.

2387
03:01:36,940 --> 03:01:41,940
 And there is adequate infrastructure, which we'll look at in a little more detail.

2388
03:01:41,940 --> 03:01:45,100
 So there are six criteria for approval specific to PDs.

2389
03:01:45,100 --> 03:01:49,180
 I'll go through each of these in more detail at this time.

2390
03:01:49,180 --> 03:01:53,860
 So the first of those criteria is consistency with the Denton Plan 2030.

2391
03:01:53,860 --> 03:01:57,860
 The first thing we look at in the comp plan is generally the future land use map.

2392
03:01:57,860 --> 03:02:01,960
 This entire area of town is designated primarily for low residential.

2393
03:02:01,960 --> 03:02:04,740
 That typically means one to four dwelling units an acre.

2394
03:02:04,740 --> 03:02:09,900
 There are some additional goals of that future land use area that include having development

2395
03:02:09,900 --> 03:02:14,420
 contiguous to existing developed areas to avoid sprawl, having new development that

2396
03:02:14,420 --> 03:02:19,420
 is within the context and sensitive to existing development patterns.

2397
03:02:19,420 --> 03:02:21,060
 So we dug a little bit deeper here.

2398
03:02:21,060 --> 03:02:27,060
 This site itself would come in at approximately 4.23 units per acre, so just over that four.

2399
03:02:27,060 --> 03:02:31,420
 But when you look at the general trend in this area, you see on Ryan Road, we go from

2400
03:02:31,420 --> 03:02:35,980
 lower density such as one and a half units per acre to the west of here in the Montecito

2401
03:02:35,980 --> 03:02:37,460
 subdivision.

2402
03:02:37,460 --> 03:02:41,220
 And as you get closer to the corner, Teasley Trails, newest phases, are actually closer

2403
03:02:41,220 --> 03:02:42,740
 to four and a half units per acre.

2404
03:02:42,740 --> 03:02:46,060
 So the smaller lots such as we see in this development.

2405
03:02:46,060 --> 03:02:49,540
 And then once you hit that hard corner, the future land use map transitions to community

2406
03:02:49,540 --> 03:02:53,580
 mixed use where we see things like the recently approved multifamily development that will

2407
03:02:53,580 --> 03:02:55,340
 be at about 20 units per acre.

2408
03:02:55,340 --> 03:02:59,740
 So this is well within the existing development pattern for this area and within those goals

2409
03:02:59,740 --> 03:03:01,780
 of the comp plan.

2410
03:03:01,780 --> 03:03:06,340
 Additionally, the comprehensive plan is based on what's called a preferred growth concept.

2411
03:03:06,340 --> 03:03:11,500
 So this concept, city-wide, is intended to encourage compact growth clustered around

2412
03:03:11,500 --> 03:03:17,440
 distinct locations, limiting sprawl, so really filling in the city center before we expand

2413
03:03:17,440 --> 03:03:21,740
 outward at our edges, increasing walkability and trails.

2414
03:03:21,740 --> 03:03:25,980
 And so when looking at this, this does meet one of the policy and action goals of that

2415
03:03:25,980 --> 03:03:30,180
 that is specific to residential, which is infill within residential areas.

2416
03:03:30,180 --> 03:03:34,260
 So this development does kind of fill in that gap between existing subdivisions along Ryan

2417
03:03:34,260 --> 03:03:38,380
 Road and Woodfall within this criteria.

2418
03:03:38,380 --> 03:03:41,300
 The second criteria for approval is compliance with the DDC.

2419
03:03:41,300 --> 03:03:46,100
 I won't go through this table again in detail, but as we looked at, they are proposing compliance

2420
03:03:46,100 --> 03:03:49,500
 with all provisions of the DDC except for those that are specifically outlined in this

2421
03:03:49,500 --> 03:03:54,060
 chart where there's either an increase or decrease from the proposed standards.

2422
03:03:54,060 --> 03:03:58,940
 The code has three specific areas where a PD is not allowed deviations.

2423
03:03:58,940 --> 03:04:04,940
 That's our ESA standards, environmentally-sensitive areas, gas well standards, and tree preservation.

2424
03:04:04,940 --> 03:04:08,380
 There are no proposed changes with this to ESA or gas wells.

2425
03:04:08,380 --> 03:04:12,980
 Again, with tree preservation, they are claiming vesting under the 2002 code, so they'll be

2426
03:04:12,980 --> 03:04:18,380
 complying with that as opposed to the 2019 standards.

2427
03:04:18,380 --> 03:04:23,300
 Area three is with regards to whether the PD provides for greater building design amenities

2428
03:04:23,300 --> 03:04:26,380
 and connectivity than what we would normally see.

2429
03:04:26,380 --> 03:04:31,380
 So with regards to building design, they will follow the 2019 DDC standards for single family

2430
03:04:31,380 --> 03:04:35,980
 in terms of architecture, such as not repeating elevations on homes adjacent to each other

2431
03:04:35,980 --> 03:04:38,620
 and things like that.

2432
03:04:38,620 --> 03:04:42,580
 At one point in time, the developer did have some standards written into this PD regarding

2433
03:04:42,580 --> 03:04:44,380
 minimum masonry.

2434
03:04:44,380 --> 03:04:49,140
 If you all remember with House Bill 2439, the cities in Texas have lost the ability

2435
03:04:49,140 --> 03:04:53,140
 to regulate building materials, so we asked them to take out those standards as they would

2436
03:04:53,140 --> 03:04:54,140
 not be enforceable.

2437
03:04:54,140 --> 03:04:58,220
 However, the developer did indicate at both of their neighborhood meetings that they intend

2438
03:04:58,220 --> 03:05:03,420
 to self-impose a 40% minimum masonry standard on this development through their deed restrictions.

2439
03:05:03,420 --> 03:05:08,060
 So the HOA documents and deed restrictions filed on this property will mandate that builders

2440
03:05:08,060 --> 03:05:13,220
 comply with that minimum masonry standard, but that's not something the city can enforce.

2441
03:05:13,220 --> 03:05:16,980
 That is higher than the city-wide standard that we did put in place with the 2019 code

2442
03:05:16,980 --> 03:05:20,140
 though, which was 25%.

2443
03:05:20,140 --> 03:05:25,220
 In terms of amenities, again, they're proposing 15% minimum open space that would be utilized

2444
03:05:25,220 --> 03:05:29,900
 for tree preservation, buffering between the proposed lots and existing lots, as well as

2445
03:05:29,900 --> 03:05:31,300
 just general community use.

2446
03:05:31,300 --> 03:05:34,660
 They speak to things like trails and benches within the PD document.

2447
03:05:34,660 --> 03:05:38,820
 The city standard is 5%, so they are in excess of that.

2448
03:05:38,820 --> 03:05:40,900
 The third element being connectivity.

2449
03:05:40,900 --> 03:05:44,600
 This development would improve auto and pedestrian connectivity in this area.

2450
03:05:44,600 --> 03:05:48,300
 As we looked at earlier, they're connecting to all of the street stubs that were provided

2451
03:05:48,300 --> 03:05:51,420
 to this property as the surrounding areas developed.

2452
03:05:51,420 --> 03:05:56,140
 By providing those connections at Monte Carlo and Misen, they're achieving that cross-connectivity

2453
03:05:56,140 --> 03:06:00,940
 that's desired between residential neighborhoods that increases options for not only residents

2454
03:06:00,940 --> 03:06:06,340
 that live there, but also for emergency responders trying to reach the property.

2455
03:06:06,340 --> 03:06:09,120
 The fourth criteria is rather for residential use.

2456
03:06:09,120 --> 03:06:13,460
 There's compatibility of buildings, uses, and character of the area.

2457
03:06:13,460 --> 03:06:17,740
 This being a single-family use, there's no expected nuisance or anything generated here

2458
03:06:17,740 --> 03:06:21,340
 that wouldn't be found within the surrounding single-family neighborhood, so it is consistent

2459
03:06:21,340 --> 03:06:24,780
 in terms of use and density, as we saw earlier.

2460
03:06:24,780 --> 03:06:29,420
 The plan and standards do reflect the addition of HOA lots around the perimeter of the subdivision,

2461
03:06:29,420 --> 03:06:34,340
 so the DDC does not require buffering between the same use, so single-family to single-family.

2462
03:06:34,340 --> 03:06:38,460
 Normally, lots could butt up against each other directly.

2463
03:06:38,460 --> 03:06:42,060
 They're proposing to provide those buffers around the edge to preserve trees and provide

2464
03:06:42,060 --> 03:06:46,620
 some separation between these lots and existing lots.

2465
03:06:46,620 --> 03:06:52,420
 The fifth criteria does not apply, as there are no non-residential uses proposed here.

2466
03:06:52,420 --> 03:06:57,540
 And the sixth and final criteria that has several subcomponents is rather there is adequate

2467
03:06:57,540 --> 03:07:00,380
 provision of public facilities to support the development.

2468
03:07:00,380 --> 03:07:03,980
 The first of those categories is with respect to schools.

2469
03:07:03,980 --> 03:07:08,700
 Currently, Denton ISD indicated that this area would be in the attendance zone for Ryan

2470
03:07:08,700 --> 03:07:11,820
 Elementary, McMath Middle School, and Denton High School.

2471
03:07:11,820 --> 03:07:15,360
 McMath Middle School and Denton High School have adequate capacity to support the expected

2472
03:07:15,360 --> 03:07:17,780
 student generation from this neighborhood.

2473
03:07:17,780 --> 03:07:21,700
 Ryan Elementary currently is at capacity and could not handle additional students.

2474
03:07:21,700 --> 03:07:26,500
 However, Denton ISD indicated that that wouldn't be an issue because the other nearby elementary

2475
03:07:26,500 --> 03:07:30,620
 school, Sam Houston, has adequate capacity, so they would simply zone this into that attendance

2476
03:07:30,620 --> 03:07:34,340
 zone if this were approved.

2477
03:07:34,340 --> 03:07:39,140
 In terms of fire and law enforcement, the fire department generally has an eight-minute

2478
03:07:39,140 --> 03:07:43,060
 response time or less boundary that they seek to go by.

2479
03:07:43,060 --> 03:07:47,380
 There is an existing fire station, fire station number six up here on Teasley.

2480
03:07:47,380 --> 03:07:51,020
 This would be well within that eight-minute response time boundary, either via Teasley

2481
03:07:51,020 --> 03:07:53,300
 Lane or coming from Ryan Road.

2482
03:07:53,300 --> 03:07:58,260
 I spoke to Denton PD with regards to law enforcement in this area.

2483
03:07:58,260 --> 03:08:05,060
 They identified no significant problems in this area with respect to either nuisances

2484
03:08:05,060 --> 03:08:06,340
 or crime rates.

2485
03:08:06,340 --> 03:08:10,780
 They also spoke to me about their response time and indicated that this general area

2486
03:08:10,780 --> 03:08:14,660
 of town falls well within their standard for response times, and they don't anticipate

2487
03:08:14,660 --> 03:08:21,580
 that 154 additional homes would cause any effect on that.

2488
03:08:21,580 --> 03:08:26,060
 With respect to water and wastewater utilities, this map shows the lines that are in the area

2489
03:08:26,060 --> 03:08:27,060
 today.

2490
03:08:27,060 --> 03:08:30,620
 The blue lines being water lines, the red lines within the streets being existing sewer

2491
03:08:30,620 --> 03:08:31,620
 lines.

2492
03:08:31,620 --> 03:08:35,860
 Again, when these subdivisions developed, they were required to provide connectivity

2493
03:08:35,860 --> 03:08:40,300
 to this property for future connections, so there are existing stubs in Monte Carlo Lane,

2494
03:08:40,300 --> 03:08:44,700
 Mizzen Lane, as well as lines along Ryan Road that they can tie into to circulate water

2495
03:08:44,700 --> 03:08:48,500
 and wastewater through the site.

2496
03:08:48,500 --> 03:08:53,260
 Then finally, with respect to streets, I broke this into two components to look at the neighborhood

2497
03:08:53,260 --> 03:08:55,720
 streets and then Ryan Road itself.

2498
03:08:55,720 --> 03:09:00,620
 With regards to neighborhood street connections, again, as we saw, Monte Carlo and Mizzen were

2499
03:09:00,620 --> 03:09:04,020
 both stubbed to this property with the intent of future connection.

2500
03:09:04,020 --> 03:09:07,580
 The DDC does require that connection, and the applicant is proposing to provide all

2501
03:09:07,580 --> 03:09:10,600
 of those connection points.

2502
03:09:10,600 --> 03:09:13,820
 Because of the large amount of neighborhood opposition, I wanted to provide you all with

2503
03:09:13,820 --> 03:09:20,020
 the criteria that are in the DDC for when the city's engineer can allow for deviation

2504
03:09:20,020 --> 03:09:23,460
 from that code requirement, so there's four specific instances.

2505
03:09:23,460 --> 03:09:27,060
 The first of those being whether there's a significant physical barrier or environmentally

2506
03:09:27,060 --> 03:09:28,780
 sensitive area that would be crossed.

2507
03:09:28,780 --> 03:09:31,540
 That is not the case in this instance.

2508
03:09:31,540 --> 03:09:35,540
 The second, rather, the extension or connection would be to an existing development that was

2509
03:09:35,540 --> 03:09:39,980
 designed in such a way that connection would not likely be to ever occur.

2510
03:09:39,980 --> 03:09:43,460
 That's not the case here since the street stubs were provided to this property.

2511
03:09:43,460 --> 03:09:47,460
 Third, rather, the extension or connection would be to a government property or public

2512
03:09:47,460 --> 03:09:50,340
 utility to which vehicle access is restricted.

2513
03:09:50,340 --> 03:09:52,940
 That's not the case as this is all privately owned.

2514
03:09:52,940 --> 03:09:56,820
 And then the fourth criteria is rather the extension or connection would be to a property

2515
03:09:56,820 --> 03:10:01,580
 that is developed or zoned for a use whose level and type of traffic would be incompatible

2516
03:10:01,580 --> 03:10:03,820
 with the proposed development.

2517
03:10:03,820 --> 03:10:06,160
 All development in this area is single family.

2518
03:10:06,160 --> 03:10:08,780
 There's no incompatibility there.

2519
03:10:08,780 --> 03:10:12,900
 That would apply in terms where say an industrial property was being asked to stub to a residential

2520
03:10:12,900 --> 03:10:17,700
 site and you obviously wouldn't want the truck traffic going through the residential neighborhood.

2521
03:10:17,700 --> 03:10:22,380
 So this development did not meet any of those circumstances, and again the developer is proposing

2522
03:10:22,380 --> 03:10:26,540
 to provide all of the required street connections.

2523
03:10:26,540 --> 03:10:30,260
 With respect to Ryan Road, this development when it gets to platting will be required

2524
03:10:30,260 --> 03:10:35,340
 to dedicate the necessary right of way for the full width of Ryan Road.

2525
03:10:35,340 --> 03:10:40,060
 In the November bond election, there were improvements to Ryan Road that were approved.

2526
03:10:40,060 --> 03:10:43,540
 That will be for Ryan to be expanded to a three-lane section.

2527
03:10:43,540 --> 03:10:47,020
 That construction is expected to begin in 2023.

2528
03:10:47,020 --> 03:10:51,260
 The developer did a preliminary traffic assessment, they'll go through the full TIA during the

2529
03:10:51,260 --> 03:10:52,980
 platting process.

2530
03:10:52,980 --> 03:10:57,260
 That assessment found Ryan Road in the vicinity of this development to be operating a level

2531
03:10:57,260 --> 03:11:02,660
 of service C. The city's standard for acceptability is level service D, so that is within that.

2532
03:11:02,660 --> 03:11:07,620
 They analyzed the expected traffic from this development as well as four other developments

2533
03:11:07,620 --> 03:11:12,280
 that are in the process that were identified, being the multi-family development here.

2534
03:11:12,280 --> 03:11:16,200
 There is a dollar store that will be under construction here in front of Walmart.

2535
03:11:16,200 --> 03:11:19,740
 They looked at the new Parkview subdivision across the street, as well as the Creekside

2536
03:11:19,740 --> 03:11:23,300
 subdivision under construction further down Ryan.

2537
03:11:23,300 --> 03:11:26,860
 All of that combined, Ryan Road would still be expected to operate at a level of service

2538
03:11:26,860 --> 03:11:30,660
 C, so there's no impact that would be seen there.

2539
03:11:30,660 --> 03:11:34,140
 Once Ryan is expanded to those three lanes, that level of service would increase to an

2540
03:11:34,140 --> 03:11:37,140
 A or a B.

2541
03:11:37,140 --> 03:11:41,420
 And then finally, with respect to parks, our Parks Department has a goal for a 10-minute

2542
03:11:41,420 --> 03:11:43,740
 walk to a park for residential development.

2543
03:11:43,740 --> 03:11:49,020
 This subdivision would be approximately 500 feet from Lake Forest Park, so well within

2544
03:11:49,020 --> 03:11:53,460
 that 10-minute walk time, this development will be providing for park dedication and

2545
03:11:53,460 --> 03:11:59,260
 development fees when they get through the planning and permitting process.

2546
03:11:59,260 --> 03:12:02,380
 Notification was provided, if you recall, this was actually on our previous agenda,

2547
03:12:02,380 --> 03:12:04,580
 so notices were actually sent out twice.

2548
03:12:04,580 --> 03:12:09,740
 All of those notices have been totaled together, and since your packet went out on Friday,

2549
03:12:09,740 --> 03:12:14,060
 I received a handful of other responses over the weekend, and early this week, those were

2550
03:12:14,060 --> 03:12:18,700
 handed out to you all during the work session, and then two additional responses came in

2551
03:12:18,700 --> 03:12:21,700
 during the work session, and I have those available and can read them into the record

2552
03:12:21,700 --> 03:12:22,700
 if you wish.

2553
03:12:22,700 --> 03:12:28,340
 They were both in opposition and were outside the 200-foot buffer.

2554
03:12:28,340 --> 03:12:34,340
 So total, I have 36 responses in opposition, 10 of those being outside the 200-foot radius.

2555
03:12:34,340 --> 03:12:41,540
 Within the 200-foot radius, we're at 13.46% opposition and 16.1% in favor from two property

2556
03:12:41,540 --> 03:12:42,820
 owners.

2557
03:12:42,820 --> 03:12:46,980
 The applicant did hold two neighborhood meetings, one in September, one in October, with fairly

2558
03:12:46,980 --> 03:12:51,460
 high attendance at both 23 people at the first meeting, 18 at the second.

2559
03:12:51,460 --> 03:12:54,900
 There were a multitude of concerns expressed at those meetings that are described in more

2560
03:12:54,900 --> 03:12:58,620
 detail in your backup.

2561
03:12:58,620 --> 03:13:02,300
 Staff is recommending approval of this request, as we found it to comply with all of the criteria

2562
03:13:02,300 --> 03:13:07,020
 for approval, as well as the PD-specific criteria for approval.

2563
03:13:07,020 --> 03:13:10,100
 After this meeting, the next step would be a public hearing at City Council that's been

2564
03:13:10,100 --> 03:13:14,460
 noticed for December 17th, and I'm happy to stand for any questions.

2565
03:13:14,460 --> 03:13:17,500
 Thank you for the presentation, Hayley.

2566
03:13:17,500 --> 03:13:19,140
 I don't see any questions.

2567
03:13:19,140 --> 03:13:20,380
 I just have one.

2568
03:13:20,380 --> 03:13:27,620
 When looking at the streets, we talked several commission meetings ago about the potential

2569
03:13:27,620 --> 03:13:32,260
 for signaling on Teasley Lane.

2570
03:13:32,260 --> 03:13:37,700
 With the connectivity to the north, into that neighborhood, was there any further discussion

2571
03:13:37,700 --> 03:13:43,220
 or does this put any increased threshold numbers on getting the light at Ranch Man Boulevard

2572
03:13:43,220 --> 03:13:44,860
 or Hunters Creek Road?

2573
03:13:44,860 --> 03:13:48,820
 How does the traffic interplay with that connectivity impact Teasley?

2574
03:13:48,820 --> 03:13:51,620
 I know we talked about Ryan, but how does it impact Teasley?

2575
03:13:51,620 --> 03:13:52,620
 Certainly.

2576
03:13:52,620 --> 03:13:55,500
 They do anticipate that some traffic from this neighborhood will go through Teasley

2577
03:13:55,500 --> 03:13:59,980
 Trails to get directly to Teasley, as opposed to going to Ryan.

2578
03:13:59,980 --> 03:14:05,620
 This particular traffic study didn't show that we would meet any warrants for signals

2579
03:14:05,620 --> 03:14:06,620
 there.

2580
03:14:06,620 --> 03:14:09,980
 Of course, Teasley being a text-dot roadway, the city is looking at all of the developments

2581
03:14:09,980 --> 03:14:13,900
 occurring in this area comprehensively to see if any of those intersections can meet

2582
03:14:13,900 --> 03:14:16,460
 the signal warrants that text-dot has set forth.

2583
03:14:16,460 --> 03:14:20,020
 But at this time, I don't believe any of them have been identified to meet the warrants.

2584
03:14:20,020 --> 03:14:21,020
 Okay.

2585
03:14:21,020 --> 03:14:22,020
 Thank you.

2586
03:14:22,020 --> 03:14:26,020
 I do not see any other questions.

2587
03:14:26,020 --> 03:14:27,020
 Commissioner Beck.

2588
03:14:27,020 --> 03:14:28,020
 Yes.

2589
03:14:28,020 --> 03:14:29,020
 Thank you, Chair.

2590
03:14:29,020 --> 03:14:35,540
 We briefly touched on this in the work session, but can you talk about the kinds of traffic

2591
03:14:35,540 --> 03:14:41,500
 calming opportunities that we have for Monte Carlo in particular?

2592
03:14:41,500 --> 03:14:42,500
 Certainly.

2593
03:14:42,500 --> 03:14:47,300
 Let's see if I can get back to the site plan here.

2594
03:14:47,300 --> 03:14:49,740
 Traffic calming was something discussed at the neighborhood meetings.

2595
03:14:49,740 --> 03:14:53,340
 The engineer for this project is here tonight, and he can speak more to what those specific

2596
03:14:53,340 --> 03:14:55,700
 options that they've looked at would be.

2597
03:14:55,700 --> 03:14:59,580
 They did just reflect on the plan to put it on the record, the intent to provide some

2598
03:14:59,580 --> 03:15:02,740
 mechanism for traffic calming on Monte Carlo.

2599
03:15:02,740 --> 03:15:07,140
 That could include things like the bump outs in the street that would narrow the travel

2600
03:15:07,140 --> 03:15:11,540
 lanes and as the lanes narrow, people just tend to move slower because you feel more

2601
03:15:11,540 --> 03:15:12,540
 confined.

2602
03:15:12,540 --> 03:15:15,100
 That's one common option in residential areas.

2603
03:15:15,100 --> 03:15:19,420
 Other things such as speed humps or putting stop signs at one of the intersections, those

2604
03:15:19,420 --> 03:15:21,380
 could certainly be looked at as well.

2605
03:15:21,380 --> 03:15:25,620
 That would be done typically in the process when they get to Platting and during their

2606
03:15:25,620 --> 03:15:29,780
 civil engineering plans when they would do that full traffic impact analysis to determine

2607
03:15:29,780 --> 03:15:33,940
 where the best point for that would be.

2608
03:15:33,940 --> 03:15:34,940
 Thank you, Hayley.

2609
03:15:34,940 --> 03:15:37,940
 I don't see other questions.

2610
03:15:37,940 --> 03:15:39,740
 The applicant is here this evening as well.

2611
03:15:39,740 --> 03:15:40,740
 Yes, ma'am.

2612
03:15:40,740 --> 03:15:41,740
 They're first up.

2613
03:15:41,740 --> 03:15:45,340
 We do have a lot of cards for individuals who are wanting to speak and not wishing to

2614
03:15:45,340 --> 03:15:46,340
 speak.

2615
03:15:46,340 --> 03:15:47,340
 I'll get to these in just a minute.

2616
03:15:47,340 --> 03:15:50,580
 If you are wanting to speak and you want to fill out a card, you're more than welcome

2617
03:15:50,580 --> 03:15:54,580
 to do so, or you will be free to talk here in a little bit.

2618
03:15:54,580 --> 03:15:57,780
 To start, we'll have the applicant come up and speak.

2619
03:15:57,780 --> 03:15:59,820
 There's one of two applicants speaking.

2620
03:15:59,820 --> 03:16:01,340
 First is Jim Strange.

2621
03:16:01,340 --> 03:16:06,260
 You'll have up to 10 minutes, and then Thomas Fletcher can have the other 10 minutes for

2622
03:16:06,260 --> 03:16:07,260
 presentation.

2623
03:16:07,260 --> 03:16:08,260
 Okay.

2624
03:16:08,260 --> 03:16:13,140
 If you could just state your name and address for the record, you know the drill.

2625
03:16:13,140 --> 03:16:14,900
 Thank you.

2626
03:16:14,900 --> 03:16:20,380
 Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.

2627
03:16:20,380 --> 03:16:24,620
 Jim Strange, 3613 Falcon Court here in Denton, Texas.

2628
03:16:24,620 --> 03:16:29,620
 I've been in the building and development business for 30 years here in Denton.

2629
03:16:29,620 --> 03:16:35,220
 Over that history, I've had the opportunity to work on lots of different projects as well

2630
03:16:35,220 --> 03:16:36,220
 as serve publicly.

2631
03:16:36,220 --> 03:16:40,140
 I served six years on the building standards board and six years on this board.

2632
03:16:40,140 --> 03:16:45,060
 So I've had the opportunity to do a lot here in our city.

2633
03:16:45,060 --> 03:16:50,380
 As it relates to this project, I began working on this back in December of '18, where the

2634
03:16:50,380 --> 03:16:54,900
 first significant issue we had to deal with was it had an existing gas well that was producing.

2635
03:16:54,900 --> 03:16:57,460
 It also had a compressor on site.

2636
03:16:57,460 --> 03:17:03,180
 The compressor was burning between 25% to 50% of the gas that was produced on site.

2637
03:17:03,180 --> 03:17:09,140
 So there were some environmental concerns, and at that time, the setback was 250 feet.

2638
03:17:09,140 --> 03:17:13,540
 So really, my first hurdle was what we were going to do with a gas well, and in January

2639
03:17:13,540 --> 03:17:16,580
 this year, made the decision to try to buy it out.

2640
03:17:16,580 --> 03:17:18,540
 It took quite a bit of time to do that.

2641
03:17:18,540 --> 03:17:22,820
 Finally, in the spring of this year, we were able to get all the parties involved to come

2642
03:17:22,820 --> 03:17:28,460
 to consensus to do that, and then unfortunately, it took about six months to get through that

2643
03:17:28,460 --> 03:17:34,020
 process before the well was actually capped in August, and then in September, we got the

2644
03:17:34,020 --> 03:17:38,820
 Railroad Commission letter back that had been approved and done correctly, and that environmental

2645
03:17:38,820 --> 03:17:43,820
 concern was eliminated.

2646
03:17:43,820 --> 03:17:47,700
 Knew this was going to be a tough development because it's an infill site, and there's

2647
03:17:47,700 --> 03:17:50,820
 neighbors that have moved in recently to our east, and then there are neighbors that have

2648
03:17:50,820 --> 03:17:55,460
 been there for 20 years, which makes it a challenge for folks that are accustomed to

2649
03:17:55,460 --> 03:17:59,900
 things being a certain way for a certain period of time.

2650
03:17:59,900 --> 03:18:05,860
 We did two neighborhood meetings, as Haley said, made a number of changes to our project

2651
03:18:05,860 --> 03:18:08,060
 over those couple meetings.

2652
03:18:08,060 --> 03:18:13,380
 We've had Thomas Fletcher's been available, and I know he's had some calls and emails

2653
03:18:13,380 --> 03:18:19,380
 and texts with some of the neighbors as we've continued to try to work with them and effectively

2654
03:18:19,380 --> 03:18:22,860
 be a good neighbor as best we could.

2655
03:18:22,860 --> 03:18:28,380
 Some of the main things that we've changed from our first neighborhood meeting, we were

2656
03:18:28,380 --> 03:18:31,580
 originally looking at an NR6 and NR4 to straight zoning.

2657
03:18:31,580 --> 03:18:36,180
 There were concerns about the number of lots that we could do, concerns of what the uses

2658
03:18:36,180 --> 03:18:41,820
 were in NR6 being duplexes and so forth, so we backed up a little bit and then resubmitted

2659
03:18:41,820 --> 03:18:42,820
 with a PD.

2660
03:18:42,820 --> 03:18:48,460
 That allowed us to put a lot of restrictions on this project and hopefully give some, for

2661
03:18:48,460 --> 03:18:51,780
 those neighbors that were concerned about those things, some piece of maximum number

2662
03:18:51,780 --> 03:18:57,500
 of lots and what the uses would be.

2663
03:18:57,500 --> 03:19:02,660
 We also, from those meetings, we originally had deep lots, which is pretty typical that

2664
03:19:02,660 --> 03:19:05,100
 you go lot line to lot line backing up.

2665
03:19:05,100 --> 03:19:10,020
 A number of the neighbors were concerned about trees that weren't on their property that

2666
03:19:10,020 --> 03:19:12,380
 they had come to enjoy over the years.

2667
03:19:12,380 --> 03:19:19,140
 So we, as you see from our concept plan, voluntarily basically put a buffer around the entire subdivision.

2668
03:19:19,140 --> 03:19:24,900
 That allowed the trees that were on our property that backed up to the existing neighborhood

2669
03:19:24,900 --> 03:19:30,200
 for those to be put in a conservation easement, they'll be maintained by a homeowner association,

2670
03:19:30,200 --> 03:19:34,220
 so those trees will be permanently protected.

2671
03:19:34,220 --> 03:19:41,740
 And then we, because of some of the changes, and Haley went over this, I'll hit it quickly,

2672
03:19:41,740 --> 03:19:46,060
 we changed the, put some restrictions in for building material standards.

2673
03:19:46,060 --> 03:19:48,140
 I understand we have to do that through deed restrictions.

2674
03:19:48,140 --> 03:19:51,260
 We will do that.

2675
03:19:51,260 --> 03:19:56,700
 And then we voluntarily increased the tree plantings within our site.

2676
03:19:56,700 --> 03:20:00,980
 We've got about 60 feet of topography change from high to low, which is going to make it

2677
03:20:00,980 --> 03:20:02,260
 pretty difficult in the middle.

2678
03:20:02,260 --> 03:20:06,540
 So our best next step was to enhance the tree plantings.

2679
03:20:06,540 --> 03:20:11,580
 And Thomas can probably go through some of the numbers in greater detail, but essentially

2680
03:20:11,580 --> 03:20:17,220
 over what's required, we're about 150% over what's required.

2681
03:20:17,220 --> 03:20:21,980
 We've also tried to work with the neighbors to address some of the through traffic.

2682
03:20:21,980 --> 03:20:26,260
 We obviously have to connect to the existing street stubs.

2683
03:20:26,260 --> 03:20:28,540
 We don't have choice on that.

2684
03:20:28,540 --> 03:20:33,460
 It's part of our city code, but we are looking at options through top stop signs and traffic

2685
03:20:33,460 --> 03:20:37,780
 calling measures to do what we can and be a good neighbor.

2686
03:20:37,780 --> 03:20:43,220
 And with that, I'm going to turn over to Thomas Fletcher with Kimley Horne and provide additional

2687
03:20:43,220 --> 03:20:44,220
 details.

2688
03:20:44,220 --> 03:20:47,820
 I'll sit up here front if you have some questions, I'd be happy to stand for questions now or

2689
03:20:47,820 --> 03:20:49,220
 after our full presentation.

2690
03:20:49,220 --> 03:20:53,660
 I don't see any questions yet, so welcome Mr. Fletcher.

2691
03:20:53,660 --> 03:20:55,100
 Good evening commissioners.

2692
03:20:55,100 --> 03:21:02,020
 My name is Thomas Fletcher with Kimley Horne, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas 75034.

2693
03:21:02,020 --> 03:21:05,260
 Appreciate the opportunity to come before you tonight with this project.

2694
03:21:05,260 --> 03:21:09,020
 I've got a quick presentation for you.

2695
03:21:09,020 --> 03:21:12,340
 Again, this is just the existing zoning map.

2696
03:21:12,340 --> 03:21:14,140
 I won't go into it in detail.

2697
03:21:14,140 --> 03:21:19,820
 I know Haley had kind of gone through all the surrounding uses and showed that what

2698
03:21:19,820 --> 03:21:25,860
 we are proposing is compatible with the surrounding uses with the low density residential.

2699
03:21:25,860 --> 03:21:32,980
 We're at 4.2 units, which is slightly above the goal of four, but it's compatible with

2700
03:21:32,980 --> 03:21:37,580
 the surrounding uses and kind of acts as a transition as you go closer to Teasley trails

2701
03:21:37,580 --> 03:21:40,740
 and the Ryan Road intersection.

2702
03:21:40,740 --> 03:21:42,300
 Here's the aerial of the site.

2703
03:21:42,300 --> 03:21:45,540
 There are trees located within the property.

2704
03:21:45,540 --> 03:21:49,180
 You've got some scattered nice mature oak trees.

2705
03:21:49,180 --> 03:21:53,660
 There's some other scattered trees and then you have some pretty large tree clusters that

2706
03:21:53,660 --> 03:21:56,020
 are on the western side of the property.

2707
03:21:56,020 --> 03:22:01,700
 If you look at our large open space, you will see that we've strategically placed that where

2708
03:22:01,700 --> 03:22:05,460
 we can maximize our tree preservation.

2709
03:22:05,460 --> 03:22:09,300
 This also shows some of the developments around us.

2710
03:22:09,300 --> 03:22:14,300
 Teasley trails to our east, to our north, Ridgemont addition to our south, Montecito

2711
03:22:14,300 --> 03:22:17,740
 Dilser to the southwest.

2712
03:22:17,740 --> 03:22:22,340
 You can see Parkview to the south of Ryan Road that's currently under construction.

2713
03:22:22,340 --> 03:22:29,500
 And then there's also the Hunters Creek Apartments that was recently approved via SUP that's in

2714
03:22:29,500 --> 03:22:31,940
 process as well.

2715
03:22:31,940 --> 03:22:32,940
 So here's our layout.

2716
03:22:32,940 --> 03:22:37,220
 It kind of shows, what we try to show here is where our open spaces are.

2717
03:22:37,220 --> 03:22:41,940
 And as Jim pointed out, when we had the original neighborhood meeting, it was really, we were

2718
03:22:41,940 --> 03:22:46,740
 requesting a straight zoning request, didn't have a lot of information, got a lot of feedback

2719
03:22:46,740 --> 03:22:53,220
 from the residents, negative feedback, concerns, uses, were we going to say we're doing detached

2720
03:22:53,220 --> 03:22:58,980
 residential and then come in with townhome or something that was of higher density.

2721
03:22:58,980 --> 03:23:02,700
 So we went back, we looked at it, we've had discussions with the city, we came in with

2722
03:23:02,700 --> 03:23:04,460
 the planned development.

2723
03:23:04,460 --> 03:23:06,540
 And this is some of the things that we show.

2724
03:23:06,540 --> 03:23:10,300
 We've got the buffer around the entire neighborhood.

2725
03:23:10,300 --> 03:23:16,040
 We're calling for a privacy fence adjacent to the adjacent, the existing development.

2726
03:23:16,040 --> 03:23:20,780
 We're showing where that existing tree preservation would be located.

2727
03:23:20,780 --> 03:23:27,300
 And then we've got the minimum building standards that we're going to put in with the deed restrictions,

2728
03:23:27,300 --> 03:23:31,540
 the additional tree, yard trees.

2729
03:23:31,540 --> 03:23:36,380
 And just some of the things that we've added to the project to try and be a good neighbor

2730
03:23:36,380 --> 03:23:39,860
 and hopefully appease some of the concerns.

2731
03:23:39,860 --> 03:23:42,580
 The site does have moderate to steep topography.

2732
03:23:42,580 --> 03:23:47,640
 There's a lot of fall across the site, which when you get into the design, you have to

2733
03:23:47,640 --> 03:23:50,140
 take that into account for drainage reasons.

2734
03:23:50,140 --> 03:23:56,900
 I do know at both of the neighborhood meetings, the neighbors located in the northwest corner

2735
03:23:56,900 --> 03:24:03,460
 of Ridgemont addition currently have a large amount of offsite water that's currently coming

2736
03:24:03,460 --> 03:24:05,540
 through their properties.

2737
03:24:05,540 --> 03:24:07,860
 We did explain and kind of go through the processes.

2738
03:24:07,860 --> 03:24:11,500
 We go through the design process, meet the subdivision ordinance.

2739
03:24:11,500 --> 03:24:15,700
 We'll have to pick up that water, convey it in an underground storm sewer system, take

2740
03:24:15,700 --> 03:24:19,900
 it to our detention pond where it would then connect to an underground system that would

2741
03:24:19,900 --> 03:24:21,900
 tie into the existing system there.

2742
03:24:21,900 --> 03:24:27,340
 So some of the issues that they're experiencing now when this project develops will actually

2743
03:24:27,340 --> 03:24:31,460
 improve because there will be less runoff directed towards those lots.

2744
03:24:31,460 --> 03:24:37,180
 So we do think that's important and a benefit of the project.

2745
03:24:37,180 --> 03:24:42,900
 Another thing that we also offered in discussions with the neighbors to the west is they were

2746
03:24:42,900 --> 03:24:47,860
 concerned that there were some areas along the current fence line that really didn't

2747
03:24:47,860 --> 03:24:53,140
 have any existing mature trees and felt like that with this development then they were

2748
03:24:53,140 --> 03:24:54,820
 going to be seeing in the backyard.

2749
03:24:54,820 --> 03:24:59,980
 So we've proposed some additional tree plantings in this open space buffer where there's currently

2750
03:24:59,980 --> 03:25:04,680
 not existing mature trees.

2751
03:25:04,680 --> 03:25:08,540
 This is just an aerial showing Ryan Road where we would be connecting.

2752
03:25:08,540 --> 03:25:11,540
 You can kind of see the existing connections there.

2753
03:25:11,540 --> 03:25:16,220
 Our connection would be in the midpoint of the tract.

2754
03:25:16,220 --> 03:25:22,540
 The proposed development of Ryan Road is for a three lane roadway with a continuous turn

2755
03:25:22,540 --> 03:25:28,220
 lane which would be essentially classified as a collector and the spacing and everything

2756
03:25:28,220 --> 03:25:31,060
 with that works out for that.

2757
03:25:31,060 --> 03:25:35,500
 Here's the existing, you can see kind of in the middle of the screen to your right, that's

2758
03:25:35,500 --> 03:25:39,240
 the existing tree preservation within Teasley Trails.

2759
03:25:39,240 --> 03:25:45,960
 It's also located where our open space is where we would have contiguous open space.

2760
03:25:45,960 --> 03:25:52,660
 One of the things I wanted to talk about with the trees is that so with the PD we're proposing

2761
03:25:52,660 --> 03:25:57,780
 a requirement for a rear yard tree and then additional trees on the corner of the lots.

2762
03:25:57,780 --> 03:26:01,900
 The other thing in the current code, the minimum tree size is two inch.

2763
03:26:01,900 --> 03:26:06,020
 We have proposed a three inch tree for all trees within the development and then we've

2764
03:26:06,020 --> 03:26:08,500
 also proposed trees around the detention pond.

2765
03:26:08,500 --> 03:26:12,060
 So when you take the number of the lots, you take the number of the corner lots, the additional

2766
03:26:12,060 --> 03:26:17,220
 trees, you look at the trees that we've added adjacent to Montecito, the trees that would

2767
03:26:17,220 --> 03:26:24,680
 be added as part of the detention ponds, we're going to have over 1,626 caliper inches of

2768
03:26:24,680 --> 03:26:27,340
 trees within this development.

2769
03:26:27,340 --> 03:26:34,540
 If you compare that to the 2019 code, the 2019 code would have only required 582.

2770
03:26:34,540 --> 03:26:41,980
 So we've got we've got 930 additional caliper inches that is in the form of additional trees

2771
03:26:41,980 --> 03:26:45,780
 and larger trees that we're proposing with this development.

2772
03:26:45,780 --> 03:26:50,020
 So I did want to did want to point that out because we think that's going to provide value

2773
03:26:50,020 --> 03:26:55,020
 to the community and to the to all the residents of the development.

2774
03:26:55,020 --> 03:27:01,460
 This is just some images of the gas well back in March of 2019 when the gas well was still

2775
03:27:01,460 --> 03:27:05,740
 in operation, you can see the compressor, the tank battery, and the well head.

2776
03:27:05,740 --> 03:27:09,740
 The middle picture is when they were going through the process of capping the well and

2777
03:27:09,740 --> 03:27:14,020
 then the picture to the right is with the well completely capped and all the all the

2778
03:27:14,020 --> 03:27:19,020
 equipment and everything removed from the site.

2779
03:27:19,020 --> 03:27:24,860
 So the minimum building standards, as was discussed, the developer has committed to

2780
03:27:24,860 --> 03:27:30,700
 deed restrict the building standards to a minimum of 40% of the total net exterior wall

2781
03:27:30,700 --> 03:27:36,260
 area of each elevation and basically if you go through there it kind of talks about what

2782
03:27:36,260 --> 03:27:41,340
 would be excluded as far as windows and doors and how that was how that would be set up

2783
03:27:41,340 --> 03:27:46,660
 in the language for that but you know that was I know that was important and it came

2784
03:27:46,660 --> 03:27:51,060
 up in several of the neighborhood meetings as far as you know all the surrounding homes

2785
03:27:51,060 --> 03:27:56,500
 or masonry and construction and and they want to maintain that quality and we want to maintain

2786
03:27:56,500 --> 03:28:01,380
 that quality and that value so that was that was a commitment that the developer made to

2787
03:28:01,380 --> 03:28:04,180
 the to the neighbors.

2788
03:28:04,180 --> 03:28:08,760
 So traffic impact you know I won't go through all this I'll be happy to answer questions

2789
03:28:08,760 --> 03:28:10,420
 regarding the traffic memo.

2790
03:28:10,420 --> 03:28:15,140
 I think Haley did a great job kind of going through that and explaining that but overall

2791
03:28:15,140 --> 03:28:21,100
 community benefits the plan development standards are beneficial to the development of surrounding

2792
03:28:21,100 --> 03:28:25,780
 neighbors in the city because they they really create a higher level of standard they they

2793
03:28:25,780 --> 03:28:31,460
 create building standards that the city can't currently regulate the development cap the

2794
03:28:31,460 --> 03:28:37,180
 gas well which is an environmental benefit to the overall development we utilize neighborhood

2795
03:28:37,180 --> 03:28:40,900
 meetings to try and take into account the neighbor concerns and try to address them

2796
03:28:40,900 --> 03:28:47,340
 as best we can and then you know we don't want to detract from the existing home values

2797
03:28:47,340 --> 03:28:53,160
 by doing materials that aren't consistent with those surrounding uses 15% open space

2798
03:28:53,160 --> 03:28:59,300
 the tree plantings we talked about tree preservation and then the visual harmony and really that's

2799
03:28:59,300 --> 03:29:05,020
 it I mean I I will appreciate the opportunity to stand before you and we'll be happy to

2800
03:29:05,020 --> 03:29:09,460
 answer any questions that you may have appreciate the presentation we do have a question I'm

2801
03:29:09,460 --> 03:29:14,900
 not sure which one it's for but it's from Commissioner Smith nature Thomas Jim either

2802
03:29:14,900 --> 03:29:19,660
 one of you guys can answer but just for everyone in the audience to know because we were talking

2803
03:29:19,660 --> 03:29:24,020
 about three years at best until Ryan Road has begun to be worked on underneath the new

2804
03:29:24,020 --> 03:29:30,620
 bond that was elected talking about from date of approval at City Council for this this

2805
03:29:30,620 --> 03:29:36,340
 rezone all the way to plotting everything else to the day that you guys get first resident

2806
03:29:36,340 --> 03:29:41,580
 moving into that place you're talking about four years correct so the if we're talking

2807
03:29:41,580 --> 03:29:47,460
 about the zoning getting approved at City Council in December next week then we would

2808
03:29:47,460 --> 03:29:52,860
 go into a preliminary plat process so we would have to prepare the preliminary plat make

2809
03:29:52,860 --> 03:29:58,620
 that application it would go through the city process for approval generally with the new

2810
03:29:58,620 --> 03:30:04,200
 regulations that looks like about a 45 day process once the preliminary plat is approved

2811
03:30:04,200 --> 03:30:11,420
 we have a TIA that has to be done we have to prepare the construction plans we have

2812
03:30:11,420 --> 03:30:18,300
 to prepare the final plat so usually with that the timeframe for a final plat and construction

2813
03:30:18,300 --> 03:30:23,100
 plans is generally six to eight months so now we're talking about ten months for approval

2814
03:30:23,100 --> 03:30:27,020
 to go to construction we still have to bid the job we have to do three-way contracts

2815
03:30:27,020 --> 03:30:32,840
 to get our pre-con so usually you're looking at probably ten to eleven months before you're

2816
03:30:32,840 --> 03:30:39,100
 breaking ground usually on a site this size the construction process is a fourteen to

2817
03:30:39,100 --> 03:30:44,540
 sixteen month process so that's getting you pretty close to two years or a little almost

2818
03:30:44,540 --> 03:30:49,180
 two and a half years and then depending on the velocity we're talking about a hundred

2819
03:30:49,180 --> 03:30:54,140
 and fifty four homes that I think most builders their programs are probably running eight

2820
03:30:54,140 --> 03:30:59,340
 to ten homes per month maybe a little less than that maybe a little more than that so

2821
03:30:59,340 --> 03:31:05,540
 you know you have that time frame it could be it could be twenty months across the you

2822
03:31:05,540 --> 03:31:11,720
 know for the development to build out and sell all the homes so I mean I think the four

2823
03:31:11,720 --> 03:31:17,500
 year time frame long answer yeah the question was four years absolutely for all the homes

2824
03:31:17,500 --> 03:31:21,780
 to be built out Jim you want to answer that next time or what just kidding Thomas thank

2825
03:31:21,780 --> 03:31:28,980
 you I appreciate it I don't see any other questions presentation this is a public hearing

2826
03:31:28,980 --> 03:31:34,860
 I do have several cards to run through these as efficiently as possible I will call the

2827
03:31:34,860 --> 03:31:39,580
 first card and then kind of let the next person know they're about to to be up next forgive

2828
03:31:39,580 --> 03:31:45,020
 me in advance if I have trouble reading or pronouncing any names the first I have is

2829
03:31:45,020 --> 03:31:53,140
 Matt went hold followed by Jacob Scott and Mr. went holding you a purse the mic I just

2830
03:31:53,140 --> 03:31:56,140
 need you to state your name and address for the record and then everyone will have four

2831
03:31:56,140 --> 03:32:07,020
 minutes to speak my name is Matt went hold and I live at 1405 San Marino Lane and I prepared

2832
03:32:07,020 --> 03:32:21,040
 some notes here you know they got a lot of time they weren't squeezed down to four minutes

2833
03:32:21,040 --> 03:32:25,700
 we should not get all the downside of this change a legacy neighborhood should not be

2834
03:32:25,700 --> 03:32:31,600
 damaged in order to build a new one the new neighborhood should not get a free option

2835
03:32:31,600 --> 03:32:38,980
 at our expense turning Monte Carlo Lane into a steeply downhill drag strip is physically

2836
03:32:38,980 --> 03:32:46,220
 dangerous to residents people looking at their phones are not watching where they're going

2837
03:32:46,220 --> 03:32:52,420
 a 20 year old traffic plan that does not take in the new technology of GPS and people looking

2838
03:32:52,420 --> 03:32:59,220
 at their cell phones is too old and so if we're going to go with a 20 year old traffic

2839
03:32:59,220 --> 03:33:09,700
 study technology let's stay with the 20 year old r2 zoning and be consistent the new neighborhood

2840
03:33:09,700 --> 03:33:15,320
 already has three access points in three different cardinal directions without connecting Monte

2841
03:33:15,320 --> 03:33:23,220
 Carlo Lane I don't think the city staff has told you guys house deeply downhill Monte

2842
03:33:23,220 --> 03:33:30,620
 Carlo Lane will be and whether there's if we put traffic calming bumps it'll send cars

2843
03:33:30,620 --> 03:33:39,860
 airborne into houses this is crazy the city staff has left out the topography this is

2844
03:33:39,860 --> 03:33:47,900
 not connecting two level on the same plane streets this is given people a running head

2845
03:33:47,900 --> 03:33:54,260
 start to come downhill at a very high rate of speed looking at their phone may be directed

2846
03:33:54,260 --> 03:34:00,340
 to our neighborhood which they are not familiar with for the GPS shortcuts for Teasley and

2847
03:34:00,340 --> 03:34:10,300
 also Walmart cut through we need to bring all of the facts into this and not just presentation

2848
03:34:10,300 --> 03:34:19,340
 that favors the developers we can live with the Ryan only access that we have now we unalterably

2849
03:34:19,340 --> 03:34:26,380
 oppose a decision that does not conform to reality common sense or goodwill now also

2850
03:34:26,380 --> 03:34:35,740
 there's many references to the DDC the Denton Development Code and punching Monte Cristo

2851
03:34:35,740 --> 03:34:44,820
 Lane through making it a through street violates two parts of the code 1.2.1 promote the health

2852
03:34:44,820 --> 03:34:54,020
 and safety and general welfare of the city's inhabitants 1.2.5 improved mobility for all

2853
03:34:54,020 --> 03:35:04,020
 modes of transportation and promote traffic safety this is to make Monte Carlo Lane a

2854
03:35:04,020 --> 03:35:10,100
 through street and essentially we're asking to be left alone by this new neighborhood

2855
03:35:10,100 --> 03:35:17,040
 and to preserve our dead end and this is the goal of this commission preserving and protecting

2856
03:35:17,040 --> 03:35:27,580
 existing neighborhoods community amenities in our case the community amenity is the cul-de-sac

2857
03:35:27,580 --> 03:35:33,780
 and I challenge the police and the fire chief to come walk the ground note the downhill

2858
03:35:33,780 --> 03:35:41,140
 run and then give this neighborhood in writing on city letterhead signed by them that this

2859
03:35:41,140 --> 03:35:46,300
 connectivity is necessary because when the city traffic engineer looked at it I could

2860
03:35:46,300 --> 03:35:55,820
 see that he was stunned by the amount the geographical downhill race and he recommended

2861
03:35:55,820 --> 03:36:10,720
 that we suggest to you that we just stay with the dead end so the 20 year old traffic study

2862
03:36:10,720 --> 03:36:19,180
 no law is not taking into account cell phones GPS so if we got to stick with a 20 year old

2863
03:36:19,180 --> 03:36:27,740
 technology then the land ownership needs to stay with 20 year old zoning R2 thank you

2864
03:36:27,740 --> 03:36:31,580
 appreciate you being here I don't see any other questions or any questions next will

2865
03:36:31,580 --> 03:36:43,020
 be Jacob Scott followed by Beverly Hoke Steinle even wrote a pronunciation out for me and

2866
03:36:43,020 --> 03:36:47,340
 I still messed up I apologize mr. Scott if you could state your name and address for

2867
03:36:47,340 --> 03:36:54,860
 the record Jacob Scott 1400 San Marino Lane didn't Texas 762 10 my house the mailbox is

2868
03:36:54,860 --> 03:36:58,660
 within the 200 foot mark but the rest of the house isn't so I don't know how that falls

2869
03:36:58,660 --> 03:37:05,740
 in that anyways I digress so quoting exhibit 2 from the staff analysis quote the southwest

2870
03:37:05,740 --> 03:37:10,340
 corner of the subject properties located approximately 500 linear feet from Lake Forest Park walking

2871
03:37:10,340 --> 03:37:13,980
 along Ryan Road and Duffy way this would be approximately a two to three minute walk distance

2872
03:37:13,980 --> 03:37:18,700
 meets the park department's goal of ten minutes walking to a park in quote so this shows that

2873
03:37:18,700 --> 03:37:23,460
 the development is within ten minute walk to Lake Forest Park without going through

2874
03:37:23,460 --> 03:37:29,740
 the Ridgemont edition development it's not mentioned in that discussion quoting the same

2875
03:37:29,740 --> 03:37:35,180
 exhibit to staff analysis the single family subdivision is expected to generate approximately

2876
03:37:35,180 --> 03:37:39,500
 fifteen hundred and forty seven daily trips a hundred and fourteen during the a.m. peak

2877
03:37:39,500 --> 03:37:44,700
 hour a hundred and fifty four during the p.m. peak hour the traffic analysis completed by

2878
03:37:44,700 --> 03:37:48,340
 Kimberly Horn indicates although the proposed film it would increase daily traffic along

2879
03:37:48,340 --> 03:37:52,460
 Ryan Road this subdivision alone would not decrease the level of service on the roadway

2880
03:37:52,460 --> 03:37:57,860
 end quote shows Ryan what road can handle the extra cars but the main point I wanted

2881
03:37:57,860 --> 03:38:02,380
 to make there was just the numbers of fifteen hundred and forty seven daily trips from this

2882
03:38:02,380 --> 03:38:08,860
 new development so mentioning quoting the PD traffic analysis which was exhibit ten they

2883
03:38:08,860 --> 03:38:13,500
 estimate approximately sixty percent of the runway development to utilize Monte Carlo

2884
03:38:13,500 --> 03:38:18,940
 Lane as the most attractive access point to Ryan Road and then it continues on to say

2885
03:38:18,940 --> 03:38:24,140
 sixty nine trips from runway development use Monte Carlo Lane during peak hour which would

2886
03:38:24,140 --> 03:38:29,580
 be one vehicle every fifty two seconds and that will be a noticeable increase in traffic

2887
03:38:29,580 --> 03:38:34,660
 for the existing houses along Monte Carlo Lane they acknowledge but there's no indication

2888
03:38:34,660 --> 03:38:40,380
 it will impact the delay of actually turning off of Monte Carlo on to Ryan end quote so

2889
03:38:40,380 --> 03:38:45,580
 if we take the sixty percent of the expected fifteen hundred and forty seven daily trips

2890
03:38:45,580 --> 03:38:50,740
 that's going to be about nine hundred extra trips a day down Monte Carlo I can count on

2891
03:38:50,740 --> 03:38:57,180
 probably two hands how many cars drive through that on a day to day during peak hour instead

2892
03:38:57,180 --> 03:39:04,540
 of it being like quadruple the amount so it doesn't really provide any measurable benefit

2893
03:39:04,540 --> 03:39:08,820
 to offset the nine hundred extra cars a day going down our street versus us being able

2894
03:39:08,820 --> 03:39:12,660
 to get to Teasley Lane I've never thought to myself man I wish I had connection to Teasley

2895
03:39:12,660 --> 03:39:19,220
 Lane it's never been an issue for me and then also just noting the nearest fire station

2896
03:39:19,220 --> 03:39:24,260
 is to the north of the development so most likely the any emergency vehicles would be

2897
03:39:24,260 --> 03:39:29,580
 utilizing moon sail to the north to connect through the northern portion of Monte Carlo

2898
03:39:29,580 --> 03:39:33,820
 and that's the direction they'll be coming from and additionally the nearest hospital

2899
03:39:33,820 --> 03:39:38,340
 saying ambulance comes has to pick up a passenger as I'll call it they will have to leave back

2900
03:39:38,340 --> 03:39:43,380
 to the north to go to Denton region which is the closest hospital so there's not a lot

2901
03:39:43,380 --> 03:39:47,940
 of reason to connect to Monte Carlo to the south additionally there is that street E

2902
03:39:47,940 --> 03:39:52,700
 as it's labeled that's within about a hundred hundred and fifty feet from the existing Monte

2903
03:39:52,700 --> 03:39:57,900
 Carlo Lane it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to put two streets that close together

2904
03:39:57,900 --> 03:40:03,940
 so my main ask is Monte Carlo has been or Ridgemont addition has been a cold sex style

2905
03:40:03,940 --> 03:40:08,740
 neighborhood for better part of 20 years over 20 years and it's something that we've known

2906
03:40:08,740 --> 03:40:12,560
 and loved a lot of us paid a premium to get into this neighborhood I have two toddlers

2907
03:40:12,560 --> 03:40:16,460
 that are running around the neighborhood all the time and we don't have a lot of traffic

2908
03:40:16,460 --> 03:40:19,700
 and they're able to do that we moved from a development that did have a lot of traffic

2909
03:40:19,700 --> 03:40:25,980
 specifically for that reason so if we're adding this many more trips an hour it makes me concerned

2910
03:40:25,980 --> 03:40:32,060
 to let my kids run around in the front yard so I ask please do not allow the stub out

2911
03:40:32,060 --> 03:40:38,360
 on the southern end of Monte Carlo into the runway division or try to take at least at

2912
03:40:38,360 --> 03:40:43,780
 minimum a more effective traffic calming measure like a traffic circle or stop signs the little

2913
03:40:43,780 --> 03:40:50,180
 bump outs will not do anything to slow people coming down a 60-foot hill so something more

2914
03:40:50,180 --> 03:40:56,140
 rigid a physical barrier in my opinion needs to be there and I thank you thank you very

2915
03:40:56,140 --> 03:41:04,140
 much next is Beverly followed by Mike Steinle Evita state your name address for the record

2916
03:41:04,140 --> 03:41:13,660
 good evening I'm Beverly Hoke Steinle I live at 3819 Monte Carlo Lane so if Monte Carlo

2917
03:41:13,660 --> 03:41:20,260
 Lane goes through when I'm looking at the map I see that behind my house there will

2918
03:41:20,260 --> 03:41:27,500
 be a new 31 foot highway and in front of my house there will be it so in fact the three

2919
03:41:27,500 --> 03:41:34,860
 or five or six eight houses that are actually on Monte Carlo Lane will see a lot of traffic

2920
03:41:34,860 --> 03:41:41,660
 both behind and in front we've just had some new neighbors move in on both sides of us

2921
03:41:41,660 --> 03:41:48,500
 with children it's the first time that I've seen kids playing basketball in the yards

2922
03:41:48,500 --> 03:41:56,380
 and I really like the way this neighborhood feels right now and I believe that with the

2923
03:41:56,380 --> 03:42:05,540
 three planned egresses that I already see on the map I am very strongly opposed to having

2924
03:42:05,540 --> 03:42:11,580
 Monte Carlo go all the way through also with all of the developments that are happening

2925
03:42:11,580 --> 03:42:19,460
 along Ryan Road I see my backyard bird population absolutely plummeting we've lost an entire

2926
03:42:19,460 --> 03:42:28,460
 forest across the road and so these are just some of my concerns as a homeowner and I hope

2927
03:42:28,460 --> 03:42:37,260
 that we can reconsider and be able to keep Monte Carlo Lane stuffed as it is thank you

2928
03:42:37,260 --> 03:42:44,980
 thank you next is Mike Steinle followed by Holly Kramer I'm Mike Steinle I live at 3819

2929
03:42:44,980 --> 03:42:49,020
 Monte Carlo Lane and just real quickly I wanted to bring out something that I haven't heard

2930
03:42:49,020 --> 03:42:55,900
 in the presentation forgive me I can't remember the names of all these new subdivisions but

2931
03:42:55,900 --> 03:43:01,940
 we've been on the street for 10 years and I think in the last five years has been Teasley

2932
03:43:01,940 --> 03:43:08,860
 trails and then the one across the street and then the one down by the the elementary

2933
03:43:08,860 --> 03:43:16,300
 school and then between those are two new ones that are being under construction there's

2934
03:43:16,300 --> 03:43:21,020
 no homes in there yet and and then in one right across the street from us so those are

2935
03:43:21,020 --> 03:43:25,900
 three new subdivisions that haven't even been populated yet so the impact and just in the

2936
03:43:25,900 --> 03:43:31,500
 sheer density and the load on Ryan Road and on the neighborhood and the loss of green

2937
03:43:31,500 --> 03:43:38,500
 space has been really dramatic so I would urge you to figure out if there's some sort

2938
03:43:38,500 --> 03:43:45,100
 of variance for the code that that street Monte Carlo could be preserved as is thank

2939
03:43:45,100 --> 03:43:56,980
 you thank you hello everyone my name is Holly Kranzer yes and I reside at 1424 Montevideo

2940
03:43:56,980 --> 03:44:02,900
 court I'm on a corner lot that faces Montevideo but the side of my house that is most vulnerable

2941
03:44:02,900 --> 03:44:07,900
 is on Monte Carlo and it is most vulnerable because that happens to be my bedrooms that

2942
03:44:07,900 --> 03:44:13,060
 is my place of sanctuary that's where I come home at night I rest my head hopefully quietly

2943
03:44:13,060 --> 03:44:18,300
 safely just like the children in our neighborhood as Miss Steinwell pointed out in the last

2944
03:44:18,300 --> 03:44:24,500
 eight years that I have resided here I've seen our empty nesting neighbors move out

2945
03:44:24,500 --> 03:44:30,500
 younger families with younger much younger children are moving in we have a little Mayberry

2946
03:44:30,500 --> 03:44:37,000
 we have no cars in the street these kids are allowed to ride their tricycles bicycles families

2947
03:44:37,000 --> 03:44:41,900
 are pushing strollers around with babies and the one neighbor that we have she rides her

2948
03:44:41,900 --> 03:44:48,860
 little pink Minnie Mouse car I fear the day that when they connect if you connect because

2949
03:44:48,860 --> 03:44:55,300
 it's up to you Monte Carlo to the north end one of those 1500 people are going to hit

2950
03:44:55,300 --> 03:45:01,220
 that little girl or her brothers or one of any of our many children who are now populating

2951
03:45:01,220 --> 03:45:07,220
 and will populate this neighborhood additionally I do I oppose this obviously I would not come

2952
03:45:07,220 --> 03:45:12,540
 up here and point these things out my neighbors have done a great job I do recommend or suggest

2953
03:45:12,540 --> 03:45:17,300
 perhaps consider closing it off capping it off and extending that green space that I

2954
03:45:17,300 --> 03:45:24,140
 saw on a map make that a park make it a pedestrian way to connect their neighborhood to ours

2955
03:45:24,140 --> 03:45:30,620
 to continue on to Wigley's dog park great place by the way great planning the Denton

2956
03:45:30,620 --> 03:45:35,780
 y'all want trails y'all want green space I think that would be a perfect compromise so

2957
03:45:35,780 --> 03:45:40,340
 far we have not really heard any great benefits of connecting the north end to the south end

2958
03:45:40,340 --> 03:45:45,860
 of Monte Carlo other than it's just a perk for the new neighbors there would be a negative

2959
03:45:45,860 --> 03:45:50,580
 or neutral impact to emergency services because those fire trucks are not going to be flying

2960
03:45:50,580 --> 03:45:56,860
 through a very highly condensed neighborhood because there's going to be cars piled up

2961
03:45:56,860 --> 03:46:01,760
 in the streets if you have not seen one of these neighborhoods lately drive through one

2962
03:46:01,760 --> 03:46:05,540
 I drive through one as a cut through every day from 7-eleven to my neighborhood there's

2963
03:46:05,540 --> 03:46:11,780
 no kids out there it's desolate because it's obviously too dangerous for kids to play in

2964
03:46:11,780 --> 03:46:17,660
 the front of their yards because the driveways are short there are two car garages one storage

2965
03:46:17,660 --> 03:46:22,380
 for the lawnmower once for one mom or dad's car the other one is the parents is either

2966
03:46:22,380 --> 03:46:27,820
 in driveway and maybe the juvenile 16 year old his cars in the street these neighborhoods

2967
03:46:27,820 --> 03:46:33,340
 are loaded with cars and so there is gonna be a lot of property damage that's also gonna

2968
03:46:33,340 --> 03:46:39,260
 be the longest extension in the biggest radius people are gonna find that as a shortcut and

2969
03:46:39,260 --> 03:46:43,820
 it is so I'll wrap it up because I was gonna repeat myself but um thank you very much for

2970
03:46:43,820 --> 03:46:49,140
 considering and let me speak tonight thank you thank you for being here next is Brett

2971
03:46:49,140 --> 03:46:55,820
 Blackstone followed by Claude Dryery if you just state your name and address for the record

2972
03:46:55,820 --> 03:47:00,900
 you have four minutes I'm Brett Blackstone 4000 Cross Trees Drive I was one of the few

2973
03:47:00,900 --> 03:47:08,780
 that voted or sent in a ballot in favor of the project when it was announced that the

2974
03:47:08,780 --> 03:47:15,900
 project was gonna come about I had two real concerns my property backs up to the west

2975
03:47:15,900 --> 03:47:23,900
 facing into the Harry Castle tract and that there was considerable amount of trees behind

2976
03:47:23,900 --> 03:47:30,220
 my property and I was concerned about the status of those trees and expressed that at

2977
03:47:30,220 --> 03:47:39,500
 the meetings that were provided to us and I found that the developers were very responsive

2978
03:47:39,500 --> 03:47:45,220
 to my concerns about the trees the other thing that I was very concerned about was House

2979
03:47:45,220 --> 03:47:52,620
 Bill 2439 and the impact that that would have on the possibility of the type of housing

2980
03:47:52,620 --> 03:48:05,740
 that would go in there having the developer to verbally to commit to minimum standards

2981
03:48:05,740 --> 03:48:13,820
 I think was very very nice for us and so those are just two of the things that I wanted to

2982
03:48:13,820 --> 03:48:21,980
 bring out that I thought were worth considering and for that I'm in favor of the project thank

2983
03:48:21,980 --> 03:48:31,860
 you thank you next is Claude Dreire followed by Leslie Yamashita Claude Dreire 3520 Monte

2984
03:48:31,860 --> 03:48:37,540
 Carlo Lane thank you very much for hearing me I I agree with everybody who lives down

2985
03:48:37,540 --> 03:48:43,980
 the hill that Monte Carlo it will become a very very busy street if they cut through

2986
03:48:43,980 --> 03:48:48,460
 traffic already because Teasley at night if right now it backs all the way all the way

2987
03:48:48,460 --> 03:48:54,260
 up to the library in the evening so people are already cutting through Teasley trails

2988
03:48:54,260 --> 03:48:58,740
 you know cutting and going out that way to get over to Ryan in the future if they connect

2989
03:48:58,740 --> 03:49:03,680
 all the way through Monte Carlo they're going to cut over on moon sail make that quick left

2990
03:49:03,680 --> 03:49:09,460
 hand turn and then speed right over the hill you know in Monte Carlo the second is the

2991
03:49:09,460 --> 03:49:16,420
 density the density of of that neighborhood I live in Teasley trails the density already

2992
03:49:16,420 --> 03:49:21,740
 is something that I would not think should have been approved because the size of the

2993
03:49:21,740 --> 03:49:27,220
 garages are so small you can't get the two cars in the garage unless they're very small

2994
03:49:27,220 --> 03:49:32,860
 cars you can't fit a full-size pickup so it ends up on the in the driveway or in the street

2995
03:49:32,860 --> 03:49:37,900
 well if you have two cars in the driveway my wife is disabled we can't walk Teasley

2996
03:49:37,900 --> 03:49:43,780
 trails because there's car the cars cover the sidewalks the sidewalks are taken and

2997
03:49:43,780 --> 03:49:49,860
 if you look at the number of cars that are parked in Teasley trails on the street and

2998
03:49:49,860 --> 03:49:56,080
 you're going to increase the density and in this neighborhood from 7,000 7,500 square

2999
03:49:56,080 --> 03:50:02,700
 foot your lots cut down to 5,000 square foot lots you're not going to have sidewalks to

3000
03:50:02,700 --> 03:50:07,340
 be able to walk on the park they'll be parked on also too there's other two two other things

3001
03:50:07,340 --> 03:50:12,980
 from the in Teasley trails we've got an amenity center and a swimming pool and you know it's

3002
03:50:12,980 --> 03:50:21,020
 all nicely done it's going to be as if these do connect it'll be seamless for them to be

3003
03:50:21,020 --> 03:50:27,580
 able to come in and not be part of our HOA and use our amenity center so it'd be nice

3004
03:50:27,580 --> 03:50:39,020
 not to have Monte Carlo connect all the way through and then the yeah so yeah right so

3005
03:50:39,020 --> 03:50:45,540
 the density I think the density would be insane to put that many houses in there you're just

3006
03:50:45,540 --> 03:50:49,700
 going to have cars on the street and if the cars on the street do cause a danger for the

3007
03:50:49,700 --> 03:50:55,820
 kids in our neighborhood already so that's about all the time I'm going to take but thank

3008
03:50:55,820 --> 03:51:09,500
 you for hearing me I'm not a very good speaker next we Leslie followed by Jill Cruz Leslie

3009
03:51:09,500 --> 03:51:15,940
 Amashina 1404 San Marino Lane my husband Randy and I moved into Ridgemont 18 years ago when

3010
03:51:15,940 --> 03:51:21,420
 we were looking for a home for our to raise our family we had the choice of Hickory Creek

3011
03:51:21,420 --> 03:51:29,660
 at about 250 homes we found Ridgemont it's about 75 homes two ways one way in one way

3012
03:51:29,660 --> 03:51:36,420
 out nice small community to raise to raise children to get to know your neighbors we

3013
03:51:36,420 --> 03:51:44,000
 have a good mix of retired retired folks and young children now someone's Haley brought

3014
03:51:44,000 --> 03:51:48,900
 up the fact that this new neighborhood should be sensitive to the existing residential established

3015
03:51:48,900 --> 03:51:55,060
 neighborhoods but opening up Monte Carlo is not being sensitive to our well-established

3016
03:51:55,060 --> 03:52:01,300
 20 year old neighborhood people have have told you the numbers that are going to be

3017
03:52:01,300 --> 03:52:06,820
 coming through I have lived and worked in Denton for the last 30 years lived in this

3018
03:52:06,820 --> 03:52:11,260
 neighborhood for 20 18 and I can tell you just getting out of our neighborhood right

3019
03:52:11,260 --> 03:52:18,180
 now to go to work you have to sit there for maybe 8 to 10 minutes sometimes just to get

3020
03:52:18,180 --> 03:52:23,540
 out of our neighborhood without these this this drive-through right now so it's going

3021
03:52:23,540 --> 03:52:30,380
 to get even worse people are already taking chances cutting through it's getting dangerous

3022
03:52:30,380 --> 03:52:35,540
 already with the amount of traffic that's on Ryan Road Haley also mentioned that they

3023
03:52:35,540 --> 03:52:41,100
 did a study that there shouldn't be any significant impact of crime but I bear to differ if you

3024
03:52:41,100 --> 03:52:46,660
 look at the numbers from Hickory Creek Hickory Creek is just over there by McNair Elementary

3025
03:52:46,660 --> 03:52:51,900
 they've been in this they've been established about as long as the Ridgemont and they have

3026
03:52:51,900 --> 03:52:58,140
 225 to 250 homes in that neighborhood which is what ours would be if you opened up Monte

3027
03:52:58,140 --> 03:53:06,100
 Carlo and it became a great big humongous merged neighborhood now in the last six years

3028
03:53:06,100 --> 03:53:10,760
 our neighborhood has had eight crimes and our my information is being taken from the

3029
03:53:10,760 --> 03:53:16,700
 communitycrime.com powered by Lexus Nexus database in conjunction with in conjunction with Denton

3030
03:53:16,700 --> 03:53:24,260
 PD our neighborhood has eight crimes and that's small crime someone stole the hubcaps so something

3031
03:53:24,260 --> 03:53:30,580
 out of a car that was unlocked Hickory Creek has had six times that many crimes and it's

3032
03:53:30,580 --> 03:53:36,980
 been elevated it's aggravated aggravated assault so six times and it's just in the numbers

3033
03:53:36,980 --> 03:53:43,180
 you you are bringing the numbers into our neighborhood so our crime is going to go up

3034
03:53:43,180 --> 03:53:47,300
 people are going to get hurt things are going to get stolen and it's not going to be our

3035
03:53:47,300 --> 03:53:52,620
 nice little neighborhood we had the decision 18 years ago live in a big neighborhood or

3036
03:53:52,620 --> 03:54:01,540
 choose a smaller one don't take our decision from us thank you thank you next is Jill Cruz

3037
03:54:01,540 --> 03:54:12,500
 followed by Steven Flowers if you just state your name and address for the record you have

3038
03:54:12,500 --> 03:54:19,420
 four minutes yes Jill Cruz I'm at 1404 Montevideo Court and I don't have much more to add than

3039
03:54:19,420 --> 03:54:25,860
 any of the other people who spoke before me I am opposing the opening of Monte Carlo for

3040
03:54:25,860 --> 03:54:31,900
 every valid reason that everyone before me spoke to not to waste any more time thank

3041
03:54:31,900 --> 03:54:39,300
 you thank you next is Steven Flowers followed by Jody Williamson hello Steven Flowers I

3042
03:54:39,300 --> 03:54:45,580
 go by ward my middle name 3811 Monte Carlo I would like to echo of course everything

3043
03:54:45,580 --> 03:54:53,660
 everyone said about opening Monte Carlo as a throughput as a throughway the the key things

3044
03:54:53,660 --> 03:54:59,020
 and I Tim I really liked your question or your clarification about four years to build

3045
03:54:59,020 --> 03:55:03,860
 the subdivision however we have multiple as Mike mentioned we have multiple subdivisions

3046
03:55:03,860 --> 03:55:10,300
 in progress now that have zero homes open yet and so the the fear I have is it is that

3047
03:55:10,300 --> 03:55:16,460
 we probably should consider this again in four years versus today because we still have

3048
03:55:16,460 --> 03:55:20,500
 all of these that are already planned growth they're already zoned they're in development

3049
03:55:20,500 --> 03:55:26,340
 but they're not yet there's no homes open Ryan Road Teasley Road Teasley Road alone

3050
03:55:26,340 --> 03:55:32,220
 is as you all know if you've been down that way is backed up beyond belief I don't know

3051
03:55:32,220 --> 03:55:37,140
 how we could do any traffic analysis based on homes that aren't even open yet based on

3052
03:55:37,140 --> 03:55:43,580
 multiple subdivisions Parkview and the other down Ryan that aren't even open yet on Ryan

3053
03:55:43,580 --> 03:55:50,380
 I don't think three lanes is enough for Ryan if you were to introduce this project as well

3054
03:55:50,380 --> 03:55:55,820
 and I'm assuming three lanes is two lanes in a turn lane is that correct I mean maybe

3055
03:55:55,820 --> 03:56:02,140
 five lanes would work with two you know to each way with a turn lane at some point with

3056
03:56:02,140 --> 03:56:08,500
 this type of development requirement but without those developments that are already already

3057
03:56:08,500 --> 03:56:13,980
 approved already passed zoning we we just don't have the infrastructure to support this

3058
03:56:13,980 --> 03:56:21,660
 today obviously opposed because of the the Monte Carlo direct path across the front of

3059
03:56:21,660 --> 03:56:26,860
 my house and and our neighbors with with children but I think enough's been said about that

3060
03:56:26,860 --> 03:56:42,420
 thank you very much next is Jody Williamson hello everybody my name is Jody Williamson

3061
03:56:42,420 --> 03:56:50,780
 my address is 745 Seville Road in Denton I live in the Montecito del Sur section abutting

3062
03:56:50,780 --> 03:56:56,200
 this property I'd like to start off before I speak my opposition with a question for

3063
03:56:56,200 --> 03:57:04,380
 Haley she showed a slide up at the top that said 36 people were opposed to this development

3064
03:57:04,380 --> 03:57:12,620
 10 of which live outside of the 200 for a total of 13.46% two were in favor for a percentage

3065
03:57:12,620 --> 03:57:19,520
 of 16.2% or something how does that math work it's based on linear feet of adjacent property

3066
03:57:19,520 --> 03:57:24,680
 so if you have more linear feet abutting the 200 feet you'd have one property that has

3067
03:57:24,680 --> 03:57:31,340
 80% potentially if it owns all the adjacent land next to it it's not calculated by per

3068
03:57:31,340 --> 03:57:36,780
 unit it is a measurement of feet adjacent to that boundary okay I'd still be interested

3069
03:57:36,780 --> 03:57:42,740
 in seeing those numbers because our property alone has 203 feet and our next door neighbor

3070
03:57:42,740 --> 03:57:50,220
 has twice that much because they own two pieces of land so I'm not real sure I'm buying that

3071
03:57:50,220 --> 03:57:54,300
 anyhow to go on in addition to some of the density concerns that have been brought up

3072
03:57:54,300 --> 03:58:00,500
 today our opposition is a little bit different and that is because of where we live there

3073
03:58:00,500 --> 03:58:06,020
 are two neighbors the Williamson's and the McDonald's who live in Montecito del Sur and

3074
03:58:06,020 --> 03:58:13,740
 we back up to this property we live on half acre lots and an R2 our houses are about six

3075
03:58:13,740 --> 03:58:19,980
 hundred seven hundred thousand dollars this new development as it is proposed shows four

3076
03:58:19,980 --> 03:58:26,460
 houses backing up to the back of my house while we appreciate a lot of the items that

3077
03:58:26,460 --> 03:58:31,900
 the developer and the engineer have put forward to try and ease some of the pain to those

3078
03:58:31,900 --> 03:58:36,540
 of us who are existing neighbors it really isn't going to help us we don't have any

3079
03:58:36,540 --> 03:58:43,580
 existing trees so what we will end up with is a buffer of green area that people can

3080
03:58:43,580 --> 03:58:49,580
 now walk behind directly behind our house and then we'll be looking into the backyard

3081
03:58:49,580 --> 03:58:53,780
 the 40% masonry requirement is really nice but I'm sure that'll be on the front of their

3082
03:58:53,780 --> 03:58:58,580
 houses and not in the back and again because of the way our homes are situated on these

3083
03:58:58,580 --> 03:59:03,660
 streets we'll be looking directly into the backyard where likely families with small

3084
03:59:03,660 --> 03:59:09,020
 children and lots of things in their yard are going to live in addition to this my next

3085
03:59:09,020 --> 03:59:13,660
 door neighbor just spent twenty five thousand dollars to put in a wrought iron fence that

3086
03:59:13,660 --> 03:59:19,820
 runs the distance of their backyard and this was done because we were told by the owner

3087
03:59:19,820 --> 03:59:24,780
 of this property that it would never be developed now obviously the property owner can change

3088
03:59:24,780 --> 03:59:29,660
 his mind and he has his right to develop it but that's really kind of a sad situation

3089
03:59:29,660 --> 03:59:36,860
 for us we remain opposed unless a couple of things are accomplished one of them would

3090
03:59:36,860 --> 03:59:41,700
 be to change the lot sizes whether they're changed throughout the development or simply

3091
03:59:41,700 --> 03:59:46,500
 behind our property I don't understand what the difference is between four homes at seventy

3092
03:59:46,500 --> 03:59:52,140
 five thousand dollars each or two at a hundred and fifty if you're talking land values does

3093
03:59:52,140 --> 03:59:56,380
 it make any sense to me another thing that could be done is there's a gray wall that

3094
03:59:56,380 --> 04:00:01,540
 goes around the Newman property currently so that his entire family will be protected

3095
04:00:01,540 --> 04:00:07,940
 from this new development why not put it around ours and protect us as well thank you for

3096
04:00:07,940 --> 04:00:14,500
 listening thank you miss Williamson I just want to just one thing I misspoke in my clarification

3097
04:00:14,500 --> 04:00:18,900
 of the calculation it's not linear feed it is actual square footage that falls within

3098
04:00:18,900 --> 04:00:25,300
 the 200 feet but to maybe make it more clear can I have Haley can you show the actual breakdown

3099
04:00:25,300 --> 04:00:38,140
 just for our edification do you want to see the map or the spreadsheet with the calculations

3100
04:00:38,140 --> 04:00:52,020
 the map I think is helpful yes so the area within the 200 feet is what's highlighted

3101
04:00:52,020 --> 04:00:57,380
 in either green or red to indicate support or opposition so so it looks like miss Williamson

3102
04:00:57,380 --> 04:01:01,780
 your entire property and your neighbors property is all highlighted red and it's part of that

3103
04:01:01,780 --> 04:01:15,700
 calculation right I said I just want to make your property is on that diagonal in the cul-de-sac

3104
04:01:15,700 --> 04:01:25,700
 correct okay I think it is shown all and Haley can verify the actual calculation but what

3105
04:01:25,700 --> 04:01:32,660
 we're saying is that the owner of the land immediately gets the majority of the votes

3106
04:01:32,660 --> 04:01:37,660
 just because he owns the land that backs up to it is that correct that's really what we're

3107
04:01:37,660 --> 04:01:42,740
 saying here well I think everybody who lives around it is against it except the man who

3108
04:01:42,740 --> 04:01:47,660
 owns the property it's worth noting just a clarification the threshold for opposition

3109
04:01:47,660 --> 04:01:56,860
 is 20% correct so the the opposition right now is 13 is it 13 and a half is that current

3110
04:01:56,860 --> 04:02:00,860
 that was as of this afternoon I can recalculate if we want to take a break and let me tabulate

3111
04:02:00,860 --> 04:02:05,220
 all the addresses that are that have cards here tonight I'm not sure if they're reflected

3112
04:02:05,220 --> 04:02:10,260
 on the spreadsheet again if you're talking about sheer numbers of residents you've got

3113
04:02:10,260 --> 04:02:20,860
 26 but then 200 feet that say no and two yeah just to clarify the only bearing that this

3114
04:02:20,860 --> 04:02:24,660
 number has is whether the City Council has to have a supermajority vote for approval

3115
04:02:24,660 --> 04:02:30,140
 or not it's a state law requires we calculate the the percentages opposed within a 200-foot

3116
04:02:30,140 --> 04:02:35,060
 radius based on land area if that number is over 20% then six out of seven on council

3117
04:02:35,060 --> 04:02:38,340
 would have to vote for approval that's the only bearing that that number has on any results

3118
04:02:38,340 --> 04:02:43,060
 so I understand that that meets your criteria but I hope that all of you understand that

3119
04:02:43,060 --> 04:02:48,300
 that's just total yes I think that's clear our commission that it is more homeowners

3120
04:02:48,300 --> 04:02:59,220
 in opposition than than in favor we understand that yeah that's all the cards I have for

3121
04:02:59,220 --> 04:03:03,300
 individuals to speak that's not to say that if you want to speak and haven't you're not

3122
04:03:03,300 --> 04:03:07,940
 able to while I'm waiting for any of those I want to read in the following cards into

3123
04:03:07,940 --> 04:03:12,660
 the record these are individuals who filled out cards but elected not to speak I want

3124
04:03:12,660 --> 04:03:21,380
 to read them into the record Jean man is in opposition Selena man opposition Keith Gansler

3125
04:03:21,380 --> 04:03:30,380
 opposition Beverly spoke Mike spoke Richard worth is in support Michelle McDonald opposition

3126
04:03:30,380 --> 04:03:39,100
 Danny Dutmer is in opposition Rebecca or is in support Ray Maori is in opposition Donna

3127
04:03:39,100 --> 04:03:49,140
 D span the span D Spain is in opposition perfect are they wider those white perfect can you

3128
04:03:49,140 --> 04:04:04,980
 bring them up or can thank you this is Sherry brand in opposition and Neil brand in opposition

3129
04:04:04,980 --> 04:04:13,460
 Christian back you have a question yes thank you chair this is a city I guess a lot of

3130
04:04:13,460 --> 04:04:20,380
 the comments are about the sort of straight through pass of that piece of Monte Carlo

3131
04:04:20,380 --> 04:04:29,000
 in the new development do by our code can we have a 90 degree turn and jog that piece

3132
04:04:29,000 --> 04:04:33,900
 of Monte Carlo left to right west or east a little bit in order to act as a traffic

3133
04:04:33,900 --> 04:04:44,260
 calming mechanism is that allowed if we could if we could refrain from if we have refrain

3134
04:04:44,260 --> 04:04:49,300
 from the audience speaking I appreciate that Haley so when there is a 90 degree turn it

3135
04:04:49,300 --> 04:04:55,180
 does merit a change in street name so if that were to occur and the the road came into the

3136
04:04:55,180 --> 04:04:58,900
 property and then turned that the street going east and west would have to be named something

3137
04:04:58,900 --> 04:05:06,500
 different we ran the traps on that to see what issues it would cause if we had a Monte

3138
04:05:06,500 --> 04:05:10,500
 Carlo lane to the north and Teasley trails in a Monte Carlo lane to the south the fire

3139
04:05:10,500 --> 04:05:14,700
 department would require that one of those be renamed which would require replating one

3140
04:05:14,700 --> 04:05:20,660
 of those subdivisions to rename the dedicated street so it could be done but it's not likely

3141
04:05:20,660 --> 04:05:25,460
 that all of the homeowners that are have property on that street would ever all be in favor

3142
04:05:25,460 --> 04:05:30,760
 of a street name change given the implications that would have just for their personal records

3143
04:05:30,760 --> 04:05:36,380
 and changing their address but it that is the option of of how that would work if that

3144
04:05:36,380 --> 04:05:44,580
 were to occur okay thank you Haley so so Haley can you clarify that because right now there's

3145
04:05:44,580 --> 04:05:50,580
 in looking at the Google Maps there's a Monte Carlo lane coming right off Ryan there's a

3146
04:05:50,580 --> 04:05:58,020
 Monte Carlo lane off moonsail lane and there's also a Monte Carlo lane off Spinnaker so right

3147
04:05:58,020 --> 04:06:02,580
 now there's three portions of Monte Carlo how is that persisting without what you just

3148
04:06:02,580 --> 04:06:09,140
 said of a name change so I'm not sure the one off of Spinnaker is that here to the it's

3149
04:06:09,140 --> 04:06:16,740
 directly north of Monte Carlo so my understanding is because this this street doesn't have that

3150
04:06:16,740 --> 04:06:21,380
 90-degree bend it's probably all named Monte Carlo this street was allowed to be named

3151
04:06:21,380 --> 04:06:25,940
 Monte Carlo when it platted later than this subdivision because I'm sorry this is Monte

3152
04:06:25,940 --> 04:06:31,780
 Carlo here because the intent was that these would all connect at one point in time the

3153
04:06:31,780 --> 04:06:38,060
 fire department for emergency purposes can't allow streets that don't connect I'm not sure

3154
04:06:38,060 --> 04:06:42,660
 if something happened within Teasley trails and those don't connect I could look into

3155
04:06:42,660 --> 04:06:45,740
 that but what was conveyed to me from the fire department is if it were to be a permanent

3156
04:06:45,740 --> 04:06:50,220
 condition where the streets would not connect as intended with these street stubs they would

3157
04:06:50,220 --> 04:06:57,100
 require one of those to be renamed okay Commissioner Smith thank you Chair Haley one quick question

3158
04:06:57,100 --> 04:07:03,660
 the or two I have two questions but one for you the we've seen a lot of Ryan projects

3159
04:07:03,660 --> 04:07:09,700
 come up and I think that as we slowly start seeing them and we did Hunter's Creek and

3160
04:07:09,700 --> 04:07:16,980
 we've done we did the couple of ones further down Ryan recently as these projects come

3161
04:07:16,980 --> 04:07:25,220
 up and we're doing TIAs how is traffic incorporating projects that are approved under construction

3162
04:07:25,220 --> 04:07:30,820
 but don't have current traffic being generated from the site into their calculation are they

3163
04:07:30,820 --> 04:07:35,500
 are they not because from I remember from TIAs it's it is it's true traffic and they're

3164
04:07:35,500 --> 04:07:39,940
 looking also they're incorporating number of houses in the area but I can't remember

3165
04:07:39,940 --> 04:07:44,900
 what the gray area is on houses number of houses or units that are approved but not

3166
04:07:44,900 --> 04:07:51,380
 currently existing yeah so the in this instance at least that we staff specifically requested

3167
04:07:51,380 --> 04:07:56,620
 they incorporate all of the known future lots along Ryan Road so all of those new developments

3168
04:07:56,620 --> 04:08:01,580
 on Ryan were incorporated into this TIA those calculations when there's not existing traffic

3169
04:08:01,580 --> 04:08:06,660
 counts and they did go out and take traffic counts this fall for this TIA so those are

3170
04:08:06,660 --> 04:08:12,420
 recent existing counts that they're utilizing everything that's not yet built and occupied

3171
04:08:12,420 --> 04:08:17,660
 is assessed based on the international traffic engineers ratios assigned to single-family

3172
04:08:17,660 --> 04:08:20,980
 homes or whatever they are including they're including the non-existing units but that

3173
04:08:20,980 --> 04:08:25,020
 were approved under construction so that's what I thought that was but wanted to hear

3174
04:08:25,020 --> 04:08:30,260
 it out loud from you on that so that's one that's one there because of that there's

3175
04:08:30,260 --> 04:08:39,260
 so many projects in in current construction that I wonder how it stays a class C how it

3176
04:08:39,260 --> 04:08:44,500
 stays a grading C underneath the grading that was given during the bond it just seems that

3177
04:08:44,500 --> 04:08:49,620
 it just it seems like there's a lot of give then for it to stay a C if there's that many

3178
04:08:49,620 --> 04:08:54,220
 units that are it's already currently a C as it is now that many more units are added

3179
04:08:54,220 --> 04:09:00,500
 it's still gonna stay a C any shedding light on that what not being a traffic engineer

3180
04:09:00,500 --> 04:09:05,420
 I wouldn't want to try to explain what goes into that analysis but I believe Thomas indicated

3181
04:09:05,420 --> 04:09:08,580
 that he could speak to the analysis that Thomas come on up I got another question for you

3182
04:09:08,580 --> 04:09:16,380
 so that's all good you and Jim Jim I need to translate for you into shorter simpler

3183
04:09:16,380 --> 04:09:22,700
 things for my simple brain so the basically when the traffic impact analysis is done they

3184
04:09:22,700 --> 04:09:26,940
 as Haley mentioned they would go out and take traffic counts to establish the baseline the

3185
04:09:26,940 --> 04:09:31,700
 existing traffic in each direction then they take and look at all the proposed development

3186
04:09:31,700 --> 04:09:37,060
 use the ITE manual to determine the future counts and then they run their models so they

3187
04:09:37,060 --> 04:09:41,260
 set up the system all the connections the traffic within their models and then within

3188
04:09:41,260 --> 04:09:46,300
 that model that model generates a level of service based on the capacity of the road

3189
04:09:46,300 --> 04:09:52,220
 and the current road configuration now there are areas of Ryan Road that have kind of been

3190
04:09:52,220 --> 04:09:57,620
 piece milled together so there might be the level of services the type of the road there

3191
04:09:57,620 --> 04:10:03,140
 might be some issues with the quality of the drive or whatever but that doesn't affect

3192
04:10:03,140 --> 04:10:08,940
 the overall level of service and then what they did is basically knowing that the improvements

3193
04:10:08,940 --> 04:10:13,860
 are coming to Teasley Trails or Teasley Lane and then also Ryan Road then looked at the

3194
04:10:13,860 --> 04:10:19,300
 model with all these developments included to see what that future level of service would

3195
04:10:19,300 --> 04:10:26,960
 be and then when they ran it it was kind of right there at the high B low A so that was

3196
04:10:26,960 --> 04:10:34,080
 reported back to the staff good quick question on the Monte Carlo piece okay I get the name

3197
04:10:34,080 --> 04:10:38,860
 change for the 90 degree angle and all that good stuff from the way it looks the neighborhood

3198
04:10:38,860 --> 04:10:44,660
 has multiple points of entry and it would seem that you would have to make a decision

3199
04:10:44,660 --> 04:10:48,780
 of favoring either the northern neighborhood that you connect into or the southern neighborhood

3200
04:10:48,780 --> 04:10:55,500
 because Monte Carlo really you for fire for fire purposes you would need to have some

3201
04:10:55,500 --> 04:10:59,620
 sort of connection that's other than just that one new road that you would create off

3202
04:10:59,620 --> 04:11:04,040
 that one slender piece connecting down to Ryan that the property current connect currently

3203
04:11:04,040 --> 04:11:08,800
 connects to we're only voting on a zoning issue tonight so this is really not even this

3204
04:11:08,800 --> 04:11:14,220
 really isn't a germane conversation even though I know I understand the traffic is a big concern

3205
04:11:14,220 --> 04:11:19,460
 traffic's really not the conversation tonight it's a zone issue that we're really talking

3206
04:11:19,460 --> 04:11:23,380
 about here but is there a chance from the way you're looking at it as an engineer is

3207
04:11:23,380 --> 04:11:28,820
 there a chance for you to build a roadmap within that in the put in the preliminary

3208
04:11:28,820 --> 04:11:35,580
 planning process preliminary planning process a lot of peas in there Thomas is there a way

3209
04:11:35,580 --> 04:11:40,780
 for you guys to build the roadways in there that wouldn't include the connections there

3210
04:11:40,780 --> 04:11:45,340
 or that affect other areas with that effect with that effect with that effect utilities

3211
04:11:45,340 --> 04:11:48,940
 or other things as well if we don't stop it if we don't connect the Stubbs in on that

3212
04:11:48,940 --> 04:11:54,220
 now are you saying don't connect at all or within that connection turn at 90 so that

3213
04:11:54,220 --> 04:12:01,260
 it's not a straight through doing either either either or is it is there is a possible engineering

3214
04:12:01,260 --> 04:12:09,620
 solution to do that if the all the staff departments were to sign off on that got it so but to

3215
04:12:09,620 --> 04:12:14,860
 go back to the original point I did make tonight's not about roadways and traffic and how the

3216
04:12:14,860 --> 04:12:20,340
 cow it looks it's about the zoning but you do you are saying that there is a possibility

3217
04:12:20,340 --> 04:12:24,780
 absolutely we could we could look at that further with staff that I would heavily encourage

3218
04:12:24,780 --> 04:12:28,980
 the both of you to seriously take a look at it and of course we're gonna see it again

3219
04:12:28,980 --> 04:12:33,980
 in the preliminary plot but would love to see it so and I'll stall as Jim comes down

3220
04:12:33,980 --> 04:12:43,580
 to probably say something we've heard that concerns from the city I mean the neighborhood

3221
04:12:43,580 --> 04:12:47,980
 we've shared those with the city we're working on some possible alternatives at the end of

3222
04:12:47,980 --> 04:12:52,420
 the day we don't get to decide those things at the end of the day the city is going to

3223
04:12:52,420 --> 04:12:56,660
 be the one that tells us how we connect the streets whether it's nineties whether there's

3224
04:12:56,660 --> 04:13:00,500
 other things that we can do we've spent the time and the money to try to present some

3225
04:13:00,500 --> 04:13:06,220
 alternatives presented those to staff and if they're alternative we're happy to do them

3226
04:13:06,220 --> 04:13:09,780
 but at the end of the day I don't want to stand before this commission and make a promise

3227
04:13:09,780 --> 04:13:14,580
 to do something that I don't have the authority or the power to make the final call so we're

3228
04:13:14,580 --> 04:13:19,740
 happy to continue to try to be a good neighbor and minimize the effect but on this one this

3229
04:13:19,740 --> 04:13:23,940
 is not our call on the other ones I've done all I can on our call but I can't on this

3230
04:13:23,940 --> 04:13:28,220
 one but we will do what we can in the city will I'm personally not asking you on the

3231
04:13:28,220 --> 04:13:33,100
 record to make a promise to that I'm more or less given direction that would would would

3232
04:13:33,100 --> 04:13:36,580
 appreciate it we see when we see the preliminary apply for this project if we do approve it

3233
04:13:36,580 --> 04:13:41,580
 tonight for the zoning that at least an attempt had been made or something I would love to

3234
04:13:41,580 --> 04:13:45,300
 see an option where it's not they're not connected or at least there's some way of of turning

3235
04:13:45,300 --> 04:13:49,740
 it connecting it back to Street C that goes back to the front of Teasley trails so something

3236
04:13:49,740 --> 04:13:57,900
 like that yeah thanks it's all I got Mr. Ellis thank you chair it's along the same line but

3237
04:13:57,900 --> 04:14:02,180
 I think I'm gonna go to hailing Thomas because I think you answered most of my questions

3238
04:14:02,180 --> 04:14:09,420
 I basically wanted to see if there was a workaround can you elaborate on hurdles other than name

3239
04:14:09,420 --> 04:14:16,100
 change of streets are you allowed to do that so again we ran through the processes that

3240
04:14:16,100 --> 04:14:21,100
 would be required for the street to not connect based on those four criteria that I went over

3241
04:14:21,100 --> 04:14:26,380
 earlier the staff cannot approve the street not connecting at all that's not within the

3242
04:14:26,380 --> 04:14:30,740
 parameters that the code the council recently adopted allows us to do that would require

3243
04:14:30,740 --> 04:14:35,420
 the applicant to request a variance that would have to go to the Board of Adjustment and

3244
04:14:35,420 --> 04:14:41,100
 there would have to be a hardship for the zoning Board of Adjustment to approve that

3245
04:14:41,100 --> 04:14:46,580
 and I just want to clarify the the site layout that you all see is going to become part of

3246
04:14:46,580 --> 04:14:52,180
 the PD ordinance so the layout is tied to the ordinance and is germane to the conversation

3247
04:14:52,180 --> 04:15:02,900
 this evening okay so I'm going to further than go to Thomas so if we get through the

3248
04:15:02,900 --> 04:15:09,420
 approval of this PD and we can't change because it doesn't sound like we can if we're incorporating

3249
04:15:09,420 --> 04:15:16,700
 the plan that's in front of us can you talk about the concerns with the downhill is that

3250
04:15:16,700 --> 04:15:21,780
 going to change with development so the within the current city of Denton development code

3251
04:15:21,780 --> 04:15:28,580
 within the subdivision ordinance there's minimum and maximum street slopes there's also a requirement

3252
04:15:28,580 --> 04:15:38,620
 that all intersections do not exceed two percent in slope for ADA reasons so another thing

3253
04:15:38,620 --> 04:15:44,780
 to point out is that previously the city of Denton did not typically require or want stop

3254
04:15:44,780 --> 04:15:52,500
 signs within residential subdivisions here recently that has changed and the direction

3255
04:15:52,500 --> 04:15:58,020
 and indication is that the city does want stop signs within residential subdivisions

3256
04:15:58,020 --> 04:16:03,620
 so if there is a concern about speed on the street there's the opportunity to place stop

3257
04:16:03,620 --> 04:16:09,020
 signs at all of these intersections or whichever intersections make the most sense to slow

3258
04:16:09,020 --> 04:16:15,300
 that traffic down coming through there different types of traffic calming we do the bump outs

3259
04:16:15,300 --> 04:16:21,520
 that have the the mountable curb with the stamped and stained concrete there's other

3260
04:16:21,520 --> 04:16:28,980
 different types we've talked about the speed humps I know that the city's transportation

3261
04:16:28,980 --> 04:16:35,020
 team in the past is that's not one that they they desire I think it creates more issues

3262
04:16:35,020 --> 04:16:40,340
 than problems that it solves so I mean we would definitely look at that and how we can

3263
04:16:40,340 --> 04:16:46,180
 address that I think that the the minimum and maximum slope requirements are going to

3264
04:16:46,180 --> 04:16:51,900
 drive that design I think stop signs I think traffic calming we can certainly we're showing

3265
04:16:51,900 --> 04:16:55,980
 a traffic calming measure on the southern end we could we could add one to the northern

3266
04:16:55,980 --> 04:17:01,580
 end as well so that we're adding a series of elements that's going to help slow that

3267
04:17:01,580 --> 04:17:06,300
 traffic and control that traffic through that through that proposed development.

3268
04:17:06,300 --> 04:17:08,300
 Commissioner Pernitta.

3269
04:17:08,300 --> 04:17:17,980
 My question is for Haley so just to to address a few things I know there was a question that

3270
04:17:17,980 --> 04:17:25,260
 came up about the number of residents that were opposing this right now we're at 13.46%

3271
04:17:25,260 --> 04:17:30,820
 you mentioned that you know you would recalculate based on everything that came in today so

3272
04:17:30,820 --> 04:17:36,140
 when that recalculation goes through and if we take into account the number of cards that

3273
04:17:36,140 --> 04:17:42,060
 have been submitted to that and I guess you know account for how many are within 200 feet

3274
04:17:42,060 --> 04:17:48,740
 etc. regardless of you know what we vote today I mean would that have would that final tally

3275
04:17:48,740 --> 04:17:53,740
 be included before you go to city council to determine whether or not they correct okay

3276
04:17:53,740 --> 04:17:59,660
 so even though we even though we're only seeing 13.46% if by the time it goes to city council

3277
04:17:59,660 --> 04:18:04,780
 you're at 20% it would require the supermajority right correct and we have it as a spreadsheet

3278
04:18:04,780 --> 04:18:08,060
 like I said so we can can calculate those on the fly so even if people attend the council

3279
04:18:08,060 --> 04:18:11,660
 meeting that aren't here this evening and voice opposition we can we can take that into

3280
04:18:11,660 --> 04:18:17,020
 account to inform the council of other supermajorities required okay so so then that's that's a recourse

3281
04:18:17,020 --> 04:18:21,180
 that the residents have right now they have one more chance to discuss this before city

3282
04:18:21,180 --> 04:18:28,620
 council to require that the other couple of things that I did want to clarify that I heard

3283
04:18:28,620 --> 04:18:32,860
 you correctly on generally speaking you know one of the disclaimers that we would give

3284
04:18:32,860 --> 04:18:38,780
 everybody tonight is that we're not voting on you know a plat we're looking at a zoning

3285
04:18:38,780 --> 04:18:42,100
 so what we're looking at isn't generally speaking going to be something that we would consider

3286
04:18:42,100 --> 04:18:46,340
 but you're saying but because it's a PD what we're actually the plan that we're looking

3287
04:18:46,340 --> 04:18:57,580
 at right now it goes toward this consideration correct this this exhibit there is that is

3288
04:18:57,580 --> 04:19:02,660
 certainly in more detail for you to look at in your backup this is part of the PD the

3289
04:19:02,660 --> 04:19:07,420
 PD standards and the code require there to be the zoning document that outlines the regulations

3290
04:19:07,420 --> 04:19:14,340
 as well as the the map of what the proposal is okay so generally speaking when we would

3291
04:19:14,340 --> 04:19:21,300
 get a you know a plat approval later later on what we're looking at right now would have

3292
04:19:21,300 --> 04:19:26,540
 to basically be close to what they spent on the plat approval right is that the correct

3293
04:19:26,540 --> 04:19:30,780
 it's kind of a conceptual level preliminary if you if you want to think of it that way

3294
04:19:30,780 --> 04:19:34,300
 they'll still have to go through the full plotting process but it will have to be in

3295
04:19:34,300 --> 04:19:40,740
 general conformance to what's attached to the ordinance okay and then once again because

3296
04:19:40,740 --> 04:19:45,540
 I just wanted to cover this because almost all the concerns happen to be about traffic

3297
04:19:45,540 --> 04:19:50,460
 and speed and everything and the idea of basically mitigating that with stop signs right now which

3298
04:19:50,460 --> 04:19:55,020
 would reduce the flow of traffic because it which makes sense because they don't connect

3299
04:19:55,020 --> 04:20:00,180
 right now anyway you could put two stop signs out there and it would pretty much you know

3300
04:20:00,180 --> 04:20:07,420
 keep you close so so that process would take place with staff would that be a staff recommendation

3301
04:20:07,420 --> 04:20:13,580
 or how do we how would that be those traffic calming measures or anything within the right

3302
04:20:13,580 --> 04:20:17,900
 of way would be part of the civil engineering plan process which typically takes place in

3303
04:20:17,900 --> 04:20:21,860
 between preliminary and final plat so a final plat doesn't come before you all until the

3304
04:20:21,860 --> 04:20:28,140
 civil engineering plans have been completed and meet all of the requirements so it if

3305
04:20:28,140 --> 04:20:32,220
 you wanted to codify it if there were recommendations put in place for specific measures those become

3306
04:20:32,220 --> 04:20:37,540
 part of the ordinance and within become absolute requirements of the development okay thank

3307
04:20:37,540 --> 04:20:41,580
 you I think that was all the questions that I heard raised thank you I know we're need

3308
04:20:41,580 --> 04:20:47,100
 deep in discussion real fast but I wanted to pause to make sure that we we didn't needful

3309
04:20:47,100 --> 04:20:51,220
 for the public hearing I still have another card to read in and then we'll close public

3310
04:20:51,220 --> 04:20:56,720
 hearing and then continue the further discussion so I have a card from Randy Yamashita that

3311
04:20:56,720 --> 04:21:06,980
 is in opposition and one more Ryan Montcalm who's in opposition this is a public hearing

3312
04:21:06,980 --> 04:21:10,740
 I want to make sure of anyone who wishes to speak does have an opportunity to do so now

3313
04:21:10,740 --> 04:21:19,340
 would be the time is there anyone else wanting to speak yes sir indeed to state your name

3314
04:21:19,340 --> 04:21:27,060
 and address for the record you have four minutes my name is Danny Dubmer I live on 3823 Monte

3315
04:21:27,060 --> 04:21:35,220
 Carlo Lane I'm the neighbor of Bevin Mike here we moved in August of 2018 me and my

3316
04:21:35,220 --> 04:21:43,340
 wife we have a little 22 month old son who's always out in the front while we try and keep

3317
04:21:43,340 --> 04:21:47,860
 him out of the street as much as we can he's gonna get older and start to get daring and

3318
04:21:47,860 --> 04:21:53,260
 that concerns me I have a little nephew a little niece another little nephew they're

3319
04:21:53,260 --> 04:22:04,220
 gonna be coming over playing I live closer to Ryan so if you guys put you guys if you

3320
04:22:04,220 --> 04:22:09,220
 connect it and you put a stop sign at that connection they're still gonna be getting

3321
04:22:09,220 --> 04:22:15,660
 up to speed we still we I have we have neighbors in the neighborhood already who can get up

3322
04:22:15,660 --> 04:22:22,340
 to 40 miles an hour going past our our house right now so it may seem like a great solution

3323
04:22:22,340 --> 04:22:30,820
 sitting here in the chambers but for me hanging out with my son out front it's gonna change

3324
04:22:30,820 --> 04:22:40,620
 so and I know Haley had mentioned there's a new neighbors on the other side of Bevin

3325
04:22:40,620 --> 04:22:48,580
 Mike they have I think four kids and they're out there every single day and they're riding

3326
04:22:48,580 --> 04:22:54,700
 bikes up and down the street all that they're they're gonna they can't just be sitting out

3327
04:22:54,700 --> 04:23:02,380
 there playing like that if this happens so I would urge you to consider that more than

3328
04:23:02,380 --> 04:23:10,940
 just throwing up some stop signs is probably not gonna be a solution for me at least so

3329
04:23:10,940 --> 04:23:17,460
 and I I do appreciate the developer doing everything he can especially on the back side

3330
04:23:17,460 --> 04:23:24,180
 of our house because it's kind of my sanctuary I got a you know a couple chairs out back

3331
04:23:24,180 --> 04:23:29,940
 there and enjoyed all the trees so I appreciate you creating a buffer zone and all that my

3332
04:23:29,940 --> 04:23:37,020
 biggest concern is the safety of my child we plan on having at least one more and we

3333
04:23:37,020 --> 04:23:41,920
 don't feel like moving anytime soon so I just urge you to consider that so I appreciate

3334
04:23:41,920 --> 04:23:51,740
 it thanks for being here is there anyone else wishing to speak this evening okay with that

3335
04:23:51,740 --> 04:23:56,100
 I will close the public hearing and turn it back to the day is for further discussion

3336
04:23:56,100 --> 04:24:03,740
 Mr. back I appreciate you waiting thank you chair so I'm unclear how much if this layout

3337
04:24:03,740 --> 04:24:08,580
 is a pseudo preliminary plat as it were and I realize that's that's not precise language

3338
04:24:08,580 --> 04:24:19,500
 it's just informative what how much variation can we make on it at final plat time I mean

3339
04:24:19,500 --> 04:24:28,140
 and would a a 90 degree dogleg be beyond that or some other significant property change

3340
04:24:28,140 --> 04:24:35,860
 be beyond what's allowed I'm gonna let Richard answer the question if if it's if it's the

3341
04:24:35,860 --> 04:24:42,900
 Commission's desire to request any changes or modifications to the site layout now now

3342
04:24:42,900 --> 04:24:50,640
 would be the time so once once this assuming the PD moves forward just assume council passes

3343
04:24:50,640 --> 04:24:58,700
 it as is then then this this is that pre preliminary plat if you will this is the site plan for

3344
04:24:58,700 --> 04:25:04,500
 all intents purposes so short of coming back and doing them an amendment to the PD to change

3345
04:25:04,500 --> 04:25:10,140
 that once this moves forward the final plat would reflect whatever design ultimately is

3346
04:25:10,140 --> 04:25:17,060
 approved as part of the PD so if I could just clarify essentially if we approve that sort

3347
04:25:17,060 --> 04:25:22,180
 of map that's on the screen right now we're basically going to have that map going forward

3348
04:25:22,180 --> 04:25:37,500
 correct okay thank you any questions or other discussion doesn't seem like any but I have

3349
04:25:37,500 --> 04:25:48,140
 some questions for you Haley well namely one and then I would like to echo some points

3350
04:25:48,140 --> 04:25:56,220
 made and provide some insight but Jacob Scott at 1400 San Marino said his mailbox is in

3351
04:25:56,220 --> 04:26:01,860
 the 200 foot can you verify that he his opposition was recorded he had mentioned he didn't know

3352
04:26:01,860 --> 04:26:07,380
 how that sliver worked out certainly it's our GIS group just buffers from the property

3353
04:26:07,380 --> 04:26:11,320
 boundary so even if just the tiniest corner of a property is clipped by it that portion

3354
04:26:11,320 --> 04:26:16,740
 counts it would count it wouldn't be his entire property it would be whatever sliver bigger

3355
04:26:16,740 --> 04:26:21,020
 small of that property was within 200 feet correct that's the way the law is written

3356
04:26:21,020 --> 04:26:30,140
 great and then more generally just speaking maybe thinking out loud given what has been

3357
04:26:30,140 --> 04:26:35,860
 said about Monte Carlo and what we've talked about it seems like one solution would be

3358
04:26:35,860 --> 04:26:42,980
 to prove the PD get it going and then the developers can ask for variance through ZBA

3359
04:26:42,980 --> 04:26:49,660
 that'd be on their own volition to do so correct correct and I believe that variance would

3360
04:26:49,660 --> 04:26:54,780
 be needed prior to this so that the map could reflect those changes I'm looking to Richard

3361
04:26:54,780 --> 04:27:04,180
 and Cynthia to confirm that Mr. Chair I just I wanted to clarify what the DDC actually

3362
04:27:04,180 --> 04:27:10,540
 calls this site layout they call it a development plan map and that's what you'd be approving

3363
04:27:10,540 --> 04:27:22,260
 with the standards of the PD so in order to to change it as Haley said it would have to

3364
04:27:22,260 --> 04:27:29,980
 go through a different process and I just wanted to point it out point out that the

3365
04:27:29,980 --> 04:27:38,660
 criteria for approval for PDs number three is that the PD provides greater connectivity

3366
04:27:38,660 --> 04:27:46,860
 than a development that's not zone PD so that's something else to consider that this would

3367
04:27:46,860 --> 04:27:54,460
 this project would essentially exceed our standards and in addition to the criteria

3368
04:27:54,460 --> 04:28:08,580
 that that Haley pointed out for the City engineer to I guess not allow a direct connection I

3369
04:28:08,580 --> 04:28:13,740
 appreciate the information I'm not sure my question got was clarified I believe the process

3370
04:28:13,740 --> 04:28:20,260
 if that were if the developer or the property owner wished to seek a variance from the street

3371
04:28:20,260 --> 04:28:25,300
 connectivity requirement in the code I believe that the most appropriate process would be

3372
04:28:25,300 --> 04:28:29,860
 that this zoning process that includes the development plan map be paused so that the

3373
04:28:29,860 --> 04:28:33,940
 variance can be sought if that is approved by the ZBA then the plan could be changed

3374
04:28:33,940 --> 04:28:41,420
 to reflect what ZBA approved but again that is a variance is a hardship there would have

3375
04:28:41,420 --> 04:28:47,420
 to be a hardship something unique to the property that merits ZBA approving a variance from

3376
04:28:47,420 --> 04:28:53,740
 the code standard like a gigantic hill possibly it like I said I think a lot more effort would

3377
04:28:53,740 --> 04:28:58,020
 need to be put into the the street design on the engineers part to to potentially justify

3378
04:28:58,020 --> 04:29:09,700
 a variance okay I so if I understand you correctly in order to potentially change the roads that

3379
04:29:09,700 --> 04:29:17,300
 has to be a variance has to be applied for before anything gets approved at P&Z for the

3380
04:29:17,300 --> 04:29:23,500
 road to not connect if the connection is some variable option that again we would need to

3381
04:29:23,500 --> 04:29:27,420
 see plans for our engineering staff would need to review those plans for the road to

3382
04:29:27,420 --> 04:29:32,740
 say connect and jog 90 degrees like was thrown out right that could be something again that

3383
04:29:32,740 --> 04:29:36,260
 the plan would need to be modified to reflect those changes before this goes to counseling

3384
04:29:36,260 --> 04:29:40,980
 gets incorporated into an ordinance but as long as the connection is provided I don't

3385
04:29:40,980 --> 04:29:46,100
 know that the variance would be needed it's if the street were not to connect at all the

3386
04:29:46,100 --> 04:29:50,220
 road requires the connection because the street was stubbed to the property okay so here's

3387
04:29:50,220 --> 04:29:55,020
 what what I think is potential solution Haley you tell me how this potentially gets done

3388
04:29:55,020 --> 04:30:02,800
 if it's if it's in favor of the commission to do so Monte Carlo gets connected into this

3389
04:30:02,800 --> 04:30:08,860
 development and immediately turns I'm looking at the site plan it turns west on street A

3390
04:30:08,860 --> 04:30:16,860
 and then goes up to street C which leaves street B as a full cul-de-sac in the middle

3391
04:30:16,860 --> 04:30:21,540
 that I would think provides the developer four additional developer developable lots

3392
04:30:21,540 --> 04:30:26,180
 which hopefully incentivizes them to reroute I don't think they have an opposition to that

3393
04:30:26,180 --> 04:30:28,980
 to begin with it sounds like they were just following the city direction but it seems

3394
04:30:28,980 --> 04:30:33,500
 like the developer could get four additional lots and Monte Carlo does get connected yet

3395
04:30:33,500 --> 04:30:38,740
 it just takes longer which de-incentivizes people to race on a hill or go directly through

3396
04:30:38,740 --> 04:30:45,220
 if that was agreeable to everyone including this commission which I have no idea what

3397
04:30:45,220 --> 04:30:51,140
 would need to be what needs to happen in order to jog that street provide them a cul-de-sac

3398
04:30:51,140 --> 04:30:58,500
 on street B and potentially give them four new lots I guess step one would be the developer

3399
04:30:58,500 --> 04:31:02,260
 would need to have the plan redrawn to reflect that to see what that would look like would

3400
04:31:02,260 --> 04:31:07,020
 it modify the lot count within the subdivision and the other standards in the PD and then

3401
04:31:07,020 --> 04:31:12,380
 on our end we would we would need to do more research into what would be needed for Monte

3402
04:31:12,380 --> 04:31:17,420
 Carlo because for emergency service purposes like I said the having multiple streets that

3403
04:31:17,420 --> 04:31:22,120
 don't connect name the same thing creates a potential hazard for for a fire truck or

3404
04:31:22,120 --> 04:31:27,980
 an ambulance trying to reach a home so in order to alleviate that like I said the initial

3405
04:31:27,980 --> 04:31:31,020
 response I got from the fire department is one of the streets would need to be renamed

3406
04:31:31,020 --> 04:31:34,940
 that would require replatting one of those existing street segments which all of the

3407
04:31:34,940 --> 04:31:40,540
 homeowners would have to sign off on not to say that is the only option I can certainly

3408
04:31:40,540 --> 04:31:44,180
 try to track down if there are other options there but that's that's what I found out

3409
04:31:44,180 --> 04:31:48,420
 so far okay I'm gonna let that percolate my brain for a little bit Commissioner Ellis

3410
04:31:48,420 --> 04:31:53,220
 thank you chair so to continue with this conversation I mean you're effectively saying the code

3411
04:31:53,220 --> 04:31:59,740
 reads where the it has to be a straight line connection no that the property has to connect

3412
04:31:59,740 --> 04:32:03,420
 to existing streets so any existing street that abuts the property they have to connect

3413
04:32:03,420 --> 04:32:09,380
 to it does not stipulate how that connection has to occur the issue here is both the subdivision

3414
04:32:09,380 --> 04:32:13,020
 north and south were platted with streets named Monte Carlo Lane that connect in roughly

3415
04:32:13,020 --> 04:32:18,260
 a straight line so when a plan was proposed to staff that showed a straight line connection

3416
04:32:18,260 --> 04:32:23,140
 our engineers said that makes perfect sense it meets the fire department's need for those

3417
04:32:23,140 --> 04:32:29,060
 roads to connect and have continuity so that's not say additional options can't be looked

3418
04:32:29,060 --> 04:32:36,140
 at okay so you're so if north Monte Carlo connects south Monte Carlo connects into the

3419
04:32:36,140 --> 04:32:44,380
 new development can the new development not use Monte Carlo and turn the street or no

3420
04:32:44,380 --> 04:32:48,540
 I need to look into that more typically the standard I've seen applied is that at a 90

3421
04:32:48,540 --> 04:32:53,820
 degree bend a street name change has to occur okay what if it's 85 degrees I'm not sure

3422
04:32:53,820 --> 04:33:00,720
 like I said I'd have to look into that further okay okay Mr. Anderson thank you chair thank

3423
04:33:00,720 --> 04:33:06,500
 you chair I don't know if this is even a solution but if you're looking at the map on the right

3424
04:33:06,500 --> 04:33:11,420
 side you see the little square box the little square ring the whole neighborhood they're

3425
04:33:11,420 --> 04:33:17,140
 doing a great job by outlining with the green where Monte Carlo comes up from the from the

3426
04:33:17,140 --> 04:33:21,100
 citizens neighborhood if you just didn't connect it there and like you said you had a north

3427
04:33:21,100 --> 04:33:24,700
 Monte Carlo because right now the if there was a fire in their neighborhood right now

3428
04:33:24,700 --> 04:33:28,940
 they would have to go all the way down Teasley and come back up ryan road so if you didn't

3429
04:33:28,940 --> 04:33:34,660
 even intersect it there connect Monte Carlo there just made it more green space and just

3430
04:33:34,660 --> 04:33:39,980
 let Monte Carlo connect from the north side and they could come through moon cell or whatever

3431
04:33:39,980 --> 04:33:44,220
 those other streets are called that that would that would suffice wouldn't it I mean that

3432
04:33:44,220 --> 04:33:48,020
 would suffice the emergency services that would be the one option that would generate

3433
04:33:48,020 --> 04:33:54,580
 the developer having to apply for the variance this is the way the code is written if there's

3434
04:33:54,580 --> 04:33:58,580
 a road that touches your property you are obligated to connect to it and extend it through

3435
04:33:58,580 --> 04:34:02,860
 your property to the next adjoining property so they have to provide a connection there

3436
04:34:02,860 --> 04:34:08,360
 to that street in some configuration how likely is the city to do you know I mean do you know

3437
04:34:08,360 --> 04:34:14,140
 how likely the city is to grant that variance it goes to the board of adjustment they have

3438
04:34:14,140 --> 04:34:18,980
 very strict criteria through state law that stipulate there has to be a physical hardship

3439
04:34:18,980 --> 04:34:23,420
 on the property that is unique to this property and applies to no other properties in the

3440
04:34:23,420 --> 04:34:28,620
 area it's a pretty hard threshold to meet typically so I can't hazard a guess as to

3441
04:34:28,620 --> 04:34:32,620
 how that would work because I wouldn't cause any more redrawing of the plats and all that

3442
04:34:32,620 --> 04:34:36,860
 stuff because the streets lined up right there it would just be just not connecting on the

3443
04:34:36,860 --> 04:34:46,700
 south end you know okay thanks. Can I hop in real fast? Haley you've been a rock star

3444
04:34:46,700 --> 04:34:52,980
 I appreciate it I have a question for either Jim or Thomas he pointed you Thomas you're

3445
04:34:52,980 --> 04:35:03,780
 up Thomas you've heard my crazy idea you've heard Mr Anderson's crazy idea you've heard

3446
04:35:03,780 --> 04:35:09,260
 all of these things what is because here's here's my attention it seems like the citizens

3447
04:35:09,260 --> 04:35:16,020
 have legitimate concern about the traffic flow of Monte Carlo I have a legitimate concern

3448
04:35:16,020 --> 04:35:21,780
 that it's not the developers issues and so there's this tension where I'm not inclined

3449
04:35:21,780 --> 04:35:27,900
 to quote unquote punish a developer for trying to act within the city code that we've created

3450
04:35:27,900 --> 04:35:34,500
 but I also have no inclination to disregard all the citizens feedback of what they experience

3451
04:35:34,500 --> 04:35:40,540
 every day that I don't and so there's the tension there what is your feeling about the

3452
04:35:40,540 --> 04:35:44,180
 things that you've heard in the timelines of these these projects whether it's variants

3453
04:35:44,180 --> 04:35:49,060
 or postponing to come back to the plat that turns and figure out what to do with road

3454
04:35:49,060 --> 04:35:52,860
 changes there's a lot of different things what's your gut on what you like to see and

3455
04:35:52,860 --> 04:35:56,900
 is it just move forward as is because you're meeting all the requirements what do you what

3456
04:35:56,900 --> 04:36:04,220
 are you thinking right now so on your suggestion with turning the street 90 degrees so typically

3457
04:36:04,220 --> 04:36:09,780
 what happens when you create a knuckle street you end up with a pie-shaped lot so it's less

3458
04:36:09,780 --> 04:36:16,540
 efficient so in your scenario where you talked about probably adding two to four lots the

3459
04:36:16,540 --> 04:36:21,980
 reality is is if we turn the street and knuckle the street we're probably going to lose a

3460
04:36:21,980 --> 04:36:28,820
 couple lots because you're creating pie-shaped lots regarding going through the zba process

3461
04:36:28,820 --> 04:36:33,640
 I would really kind of defer that to Jim to see if that I mean I don't I mean it sounds

3462
04:36:33,640 --> 04:36:38,580
 like just listening to Haley listening to the process when I look at the site when I

3463
04:36:38,580 --> 04:36:46,380
 look at the topography when we did Teasley trails I was the engineer on that project

3464
04:36:46,380 --> 04:36:52,580
 at one point the Teasley trails was going to build the road connection down to Monte

3465
04:36:52,580 --> 04:36:58,700
 Carlo so when Mr. Newman dedicated the street easement for the temporary cul-de-sac the

3466
04:36:58,700 --> 04:37:02,540
 agreement at the time was to dedicate the right-of-way for Monte Carlo to be built at

3467
04:37:02,540 --> 04:37:09,180
 that time at that time Teasley trails didn't include the old mobile home park that became

3468
04:37:09,180 --> 04:37:13,260
 part of the project when that added to the project there was no longer a need to build

3469
04:37:13,260 --> 04:37:18,980
 the road all the way through so we have looked at the engineering aspect of can we get from

3470
04:37:18,980 --> 04:37:26,420
 point a to point B and meet the city's criteria and we can so as far as that goes it sounded

3471
04:37:26,420 --> 04:37:32,900
 like based on the threshold to allow a zba approval it would be a hard I mean even if

3472
04:37:32,900 --> 04:37:39,100
 we went through that process it sounds like that there's not certainty there so from

3473
04:37:39,100 --> 04:37:44,180
 a from a layout standpoint if we're looking at alternates other than what we're currently

3474
04:37:44,180 --> 04:37:48,620
 proposing then I think the knuckle in the road would probably be the most realistic

3475
04:37:48,620 --> 04:38:18,140
 alternate I'm not sure if that would you know satisfy the residents or not and I mean

3476
04:38:18,140 --> 04:38:26,980
 so so when you when you talk about doing a true cul-de-sac that takes up because of

3477
04:38:26,980 --> 04:38:31,380
 the fire requirements it takes up a significant amount of land so really if you were looking

3478
04:38:31,380 --> 04:38:37,460
 at doing something you would probably knuckle here so the traffic would turn come around

3479
04:38:37,460 --> 04:38:42,300
 in the knuckle right here as well the other thing you have to look at and consider is

3480
04:38:42,300 --> 04:38:47,820
 all this drainage is coming down so you still have to have connectivity of infrastructure

3481
04:38:47,820 --> 04:38:53,500
 so even if we get rid of the road we have to bring the sewer through we have to be bring

3482
04:38:53,500 --> 04:38:59,700
 the storm sewer through so it's a lot easier for city to take on facilities for maintenance

3483
04:38:59,700 --> 04:39:04,180
 purposes that are located within a street than if they're located within easements

3484
04:39:04,180 --> 04:39:10,460
 on people's side yards so I mean from an overall I mean I hear the residents concern this is

3485
04:39:10,460 --> 04:39:16,020
 certainly something that could be looked at but from a you know it creates an additional

3486
04:39:16,020 --> 04:39:20,900
 infrastructure requirement an issue that would create easements with city infrastructure

3487
04:39:20,900 --> 04:39:27,820
 located inside yards which could potentially create future issues that would have to be

3488
04:39:27,820 --> 04:39:33,780
 addressed great I appreciate the sketch that's helpful that's all I had on who Commissioner

3489
04:39:33,780 --> 04:39:40,500
 Smith who his question will be directing to Thomas would you be open to a post moment

3490
04:39:40,500 --> 04:39:46,300
 to be able to at least try to see if a see if a an engineering change to this otherwise

3491
04:39:46,300 --> 04:39:50,660
 if not I mean just we'll we'll we'll take a vote on it but would you would you even

3492
04:39:50,660 --> 04:39:56,900
 want would you even want to do that Mr. developer Mr. engineers that does something like this

3493
04:39:56,900 --> 04:40:01,180
 I mean if you look at what we've sketched out we're currently looking at yeah it's

3494
04:40:01,180 --> 04:40:05,940
 better than we're currently looking at yeah and I I agree with your sentiments of that

3495
04:40:05,940 --> 04:40:10,060
 I think the engineering of it all makes it about ten times harder and probably a lot

3496
04:40:10,060 --> 04:40:14,900
 more expensive and makes lots not nearly attractive because they're gonna have to put you have

3497
04:40:14,900 --> 04:40:19,740
 to take side yards and start putting in storm drainage easements to that which doesn't sound

3498
04:40:19,740 --> 04:40:26,300
 like a really great thing for this project but you know I think I think I think public

3499
04:40:26,300 --> 04:40:30,780
 safety is a pretty important thing too how many lots based on your sketch I have a four

3500
04:40:30,780 --> 04:40:36,780
 chairs and two yeah I would you turn a knuckle like that it would probably reduce the overall

3501
04:40:36,780 --> 04:40:43,780
 lot count by two in that area for each knuckle for each knuckle well two total okay one one

3502
04:40:43,780 --> 04:40:47,780
 per knuckle I mean we'd have to lay it out because we're we're designing it for a building

3503
04:40:47,780 --> 04:40:53,460
 pad for the house but I would say that with this layout there would be a minimum of two

3504
04:40:53,460 --> 04:40:59,420
 lots that would be lost now with the easement for the sanitary sewer and the storm sewer

3505
04:40:59,420 --> 04:41:10,300
 it could possibly be up to four my recollection is all the drainage is from west to east so

3506
04:41:10,300 --> 04:41:14,540
 I can have the floor back now or do you want it back well I mean he's still he's he's

3507
04:41:14,540 --> 04:41:18,540
 interrupted yeah I know I appreciate it so would you be open for a post moment if we

3508
04:41:18,540 --> 04:41:22,980
 were to look at that though just to give you a chance even if you brought it if you brought

3509
04:41:22,980 --> 04:41:27,860
 it back exactly as I say look it's not engineeringly possible and I hate I hate to delay you on

3510
04:41:27,860 --> 04:41:32,740
 it well we've been delayed a couple times already just for the record we were originally

3511
04:41:32,740 --> 04:41:38,000
 to be on the November the 6th P&Z and I think that was the night of the gas well ordinance

3512
04:41:38,000 --> 04:41:43,140
 and we were asked if we'd voluntarily move we did and then we were on for the 19th and

3513
04:41:43,140 --> 04:41:50,100
 there was a notice error so we've we've moved a couple times I know Christmas is right around

3514
04:41:50,100 --> 04:41:53,740
 the corner so the likelihood that we will be back here will be sometime in probably

3515
04:41:53,740 --> 04:42:00,060
 January at the earliest if that's the purview of the commission for us to go try to do additional

3516
04:42:00,060 --> 04:42:06,540
 work to do that I don't want to stand before you and be unreasonable say no I will tell

3517
04:42:06,540 --> 04:42:10,940
 you we've spent a tremendous amount of time working on it to get it to this point we offer

3518
04:42:10,940 --> 04:42:16,920
 traffic calling measures we've done what the city has asked us to do but if that's the

3519
04:42:16,920 --> 04:42:21,680
 purview this commission that you all want us to go back and and and pull it tonight

3520
04:42:21,680 --> 04:42:27,900
 and do some more engineering I will do that it's certainly not my first choice because

3521
04:42:27,900 --> 04:42:32,580
 of the reasons I've already said but if that's the purview this commission you ask us to

3522
04:42:32,580 --> 04:42:39,900
 do it I'll agree to do it okay thank you Mr. Anderson thank you one more time this is for

3523
04:42:39,900 --> 04:42:46,180
 the engineer sergeant and I hate to it feels like we're punishing the developer Jim for

3524
04:42:46,180 --> 04:42:51,460
 something that the city did and and that's not right but another solution may be and

3525
04:42:51,460 --> 04:42:55,320
 I'm sitting here looking at the pictures of the other neighborhoods and stuff and there's

3526
04:42:55,320 --> 04:42:59,380
 a lot of curved streets instead of a straight shot where people can pick up is there a way

3527
04:42:59,380 --> 04:43:05,180
 you can curve the street make it like a little s street instead of just a straight shot you

3528
04:43:05,180 --> 04:43:09,980
 know that tends to have people slow down so right because of the short distance between

3529
04:43:09,980 --> 04:43:15,920
 the two connection points and the minimum radius requirements when you do your development

3530
04:43:15,920 --> 04:43:22,580
 and we're in an infill situation it would really be hard to add curvature to the streets

3531
04:43:22,580 --> 04:43:27,860
 the other thing that that might do is would affect the buffer around the neighborhoods

3532
04:43:27,860 --> 04:43:33,020
 because when you start adding the curves to get your lot depth it starts kind of trickling

3533
04:43:33,020 --> 04:43:38,500
 through the site so I would say that adding curves to this particular piece of property

3534
04:43:38,500 --> 04:43:43,540
 would be challenging with the topo and the geometry constraints I'm just trying to come

3535
04:43:43,540 --> 04:43:47,060
 up with a solution for the developer and the citizen in the residents of the neighborhood

3536
04:43:47,060 --> 04:44:04,060
 so they can all you know have a happy neighborhood so at this time the public meeting has closed

3537
04:44:04,060 --> 04:44:10,420
 so unfortunately there wouldn't be the opportunity thank you so right now the chair will entertain

3538
04:44:10,420 --> 04:44:18,220
 a motion or further discussion kicher smith I'm gonna make a motion to approve see what

3539
04:44:18,220 --> 04:44:24,200
 happens I think the project I think the infill makes sense in this area that this is a zoning

3540
04:44:24,200 --> 04:44:28,700
 change I don't I don't know if the map that we're currently looking at is the the best

3541
04:44:28,700 --> 04:44:32,700
 possible option but I think the developer is working with what they've been given with

3542
04:44:32,700 --> 04:44:37,940
 I think it'd be a little bit too punitive to to make them have to go through and wait

3543
04:44:37,940 --> 04:44:50,740
 a little bit longer so I'm gonna make a motion to approve we have a first for approval so

3544
04:44:50,740 --> 04:44:58,340
 I like I've mentioned I have some some extraordinary tension here and and to be honest a lot of

3545
04:44:58,340 --> 04:45:04,220
 it is ultimately going to be folks at the city I think city stuff is a lot of good work

3546
04:45:04,220 --> 04:45:10,500
 and they they work their tails off but the idea that we have three segments of Monte

3547
04:45:10,500 --> 04:45:17,300
 Carlo Lane currently and yet the developer is told that he couldn't change the road because

3548
04:45:17,300 --> 04:45:25,020
 it would cause Monte Carlo issues is beyond my my logic and I'm looking at Haley I don't

3549
04:45:25,020 --> 04:45:34,060
 know if it's you I don't don't take this directly but I'm having significant issues with the

3550
04:45:34,060 --> 04:45:39,100
 city telling because it seems to come down to that that the the city said we can't change

3551
04:45:39,100 --> 04:45:46,180
 names when there is literally three Monte Carlos so the developer comes in says okay

3552
04:45:46,180 --> 04:45:51,740
 see what you've told us they get delayed they come to us they've made concessions it appears

3553
04:45:51,740 --> 04:46:01,140
 to the neighborhood but yet because of this city's decision we I feel inclined to like

3554
04:46:01,140 --> 04:46:05,940
 postpone this and I just that is a compute so on one hand I have what the citizens feel

3555
04:46:05,940 --> 04:46:09,980
 about the speed trap and on the other hand I feel like we have developers who've been

3556
04:46:09,980 --> 04:46:14,740
 in our town for decades doing exactly what the city told them it's not an easy it's not

3557
04:46:14,740 --> 04:46:21,580
 an easy decision for me personally but with that I'm gonna second the vote to push it

3558
04:46:21,580 --> 04:46:27,380
 to a vote so we can get a vote on record and we'll see what happens but it's with it's

3559
04:46:27,380 --> 04:46:33,740
 without it's not with great concern or an easy decision that I necessarily support this

3560
04:46:33,740 --> 04:46:38,660
 I think it's a it's a bad situation that the city happened to put our planning and zoning

3561
04:46:38,660 --> 04:46:42,740
 in on on this one so with that we have a first and a second is there any other discussion

3562
04:46:42,740 --> 04:46:48,900
 Christian Ellis thank you chair I just want to say a couple of things because I really

3563
04:46:48,900 --> 04:46:54,940
 think this is a really good infill proposal but it's got some flaws that I really want

3564
04:46:54,940 --> 04:47:03,660
 reworked and I know that that the developer and engineer have done what the city has asked

3565
04:47:03,660 --> 04:47:08,740
 but it's hard for me to discount what the community has expressed without trying to

3566
04:47:08,740 --> 04:47:15,780
 at least work through that so yeah I was really hoping for a postponement just to see what

3567
04:47:15,780 --> 04:47:23,420
 Thomas could do on the plan so unfortunately I would have to vote against what's on the

3568
04:47:23,420 --> 04:47:29,380
 table right now and again I think it's a really good infill proposal I think it just needs

3569
04:47:29,380 --> 04:47:37,600
 some tweaks Christian Bernetta I'm pretty much repeating almost exactly what Commissioner

3570
04:47:37,600 --> 04:47:43,260
 Ellis said I like the idea I like the proposal I think it I actually do think it makes sense

3571
04:47:43,260 --> 04:47:49,100
 for the zoning if it wasn't a situation where the vote that we're having to do right now

3572
04:47:49,100 --> 04:47:56,180
 wasn't simply for the zoning I'd be you know a yes on this one because you know I think

3573
04:47:56,180 --> 04:48:02,700
 right now my my conflict is that because it's a PD and because the vote for the zoning is

3574
04:48:02,700 --> 04:48:10,620
 tied to you know what we're ultimately strapped to on the map is an issue given the safety

3575
04:48:10,620 --> 04:48:16,260
 concerns of the citizens and given basically you know what it looks like or valid concerns

3576
04:48:16,260 --> 04:48:23,340
 on that I have to vote no on this one I was kind of hoping that nobody would second the

3577
04:48:23,340 --> 04:48:30,060
 motion and we could we could at least go you know to it to you know to a postponement to

3578
04:48:30,060 --> 04:48:35,060
 see if something could be you know be resolved and if not then then you know vote on the

3579
04:48:35,060 --> 04:48:41,820
 merit of that but yeah I mean I admire the plan I admire the work that you did I you

3580
04:48:41,820 --> 04:48:48,180
 know I think it's kind of I don't know what the adjective would be that I could actually

3581
04:48:48,180 --> 04:48:54,860
 say yeah there we go you know that you know that ultimately you're kind of hobbled by

3582
04:48:54,860 --> 04:49:02,580
 you know basically city you know regulations but but you know I'm with Commissioner Ellis

3583
04:49:02,580 --> 04:49:10,620
 on this one and I apologize I'm sorry Christian back yeah I actually just wanted to reiterate

3584
04:49:10,620 --> 04:49:15,940
 the same thing so I'm not going to that I like I like the backfill and unfortunately

3585
04:49:15,940 --> 04:49:21,940
 the safety concerns bother me greatly and I don't blame you for it so we do have a first

3586
04:49:21,940 --> 04:49:25,260
 and a second I don't see any other discussion we'll take this is the vote you vote on the

3587
04:49:25,260 --> 04:49:38,980
 board well hold on last minute Mr. Strange we'll go back and redesign we'll take a continuance

3588
04:49:38,980 --> 04:49:43,860
 and we'll go spend some more engineering time we'll get with staff and we'll try to come

3589
04:49:43,860 --> 04:49:51,620
 up with a another solution I mean we've worked too hard on this project to get this far and

3590
04:49:51,620 --> 04:49:54,820
 take a chance to be in voted down I don't know where some of the other commissioners

3591
04:49:54,820 --> 04:50:00,820
 are obviously I'd prefer to have a 7-0 vote and move forward with that but we've been

3592
04:50:00,820 --> 04:50:06,540
 put in a really bad position and I don't think it's right that we continue to get delayed

3593
04:50:06,540 --> 04:50:12,020
 but also don't want to take a year's worth of work and effort and all the other concessions

3594
04:50:12,020 --> 04:50:19,160
 we've done and flush it down the drain so I'd request that we be moved to the next

3595
04:50:19,160 --> 04:50:23,180
 available planning and zoning commission we'll get with staff starting tomorrow we'll see

3596
04:50:23,180 --> 04:50:30,860
 what other designs we can do and work with the city engineering department thank you

3597
04:50:30,860 --> 04:50:36,060
 Jim Christopher Smith Jim you you wouldn't want to see if there is an approval and if

3598
04:50:36,060 --> 04:50:40,300
 this approval fails then there probably would be a mo it sounds like a lot of the commissioners

3599
04:50:40,300 --> 04:50:45,420
 would would probably then bring up a motion to to postpone if that's an option for us

3600
04:50:45,420 --> 04:50:50,840
 to do if this motion would fail and then there'd be another motion put forward for a continuance

3601
04:50:50,840 --> 04:50:55,180
 and we'll do that so if you want to move forward with your motion to approve we'll

3602
04:50:55,180 --> 04:50:58,340
 see where it goes I would like to hold I would like to hold my motion for an approval and

3603
04:50:58,340 --> 04:51:14,500
 see how the vote goes okay I see no other discussion we'll take it to a vote

3604
04:51:14,500 --> 04:51:24,460
 motion carries four three with that our next item of business is item 5d but before we

3605
04:51:24,460 --> 04:51:32,780
 move on I want to take a ten minute break to let the room clear it is 848 welcome back

3606
04:51:32,780 --> 04:51:37,620
 to the planning zoning commissioned thank you for that break I'll reopen the public

3607
04:51:37,620 --> 04:51:48,500
 hearing or the meeting at 859 the next item for business is item 5d sd 19-001 a I'll

3608
04:51:48,500 --> 04:51:57,220
 invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and open the public hearing happy for you tonight

3609
04:51:57,220 --> 04:52:02,300
 a request for approval of an amendment to the special sign district for the first united

3610
04:52:02,300 --> 04:52:14,260
 methodist church the site is located at 201 South Locust Street between Mulberry and sycamore

3611
04:52:14,260 --> 04:52:21,340
 the sign district was originally approved in January 2010 the criteria for approval

3612
04:52:21,340 --> 04:52:28,380
 of a special sign district or to amend a special sign district is in section 33 18 of the sign

3613
04:52:28,380 --> 04:52:36,980
 code and here is a listing right here it relates to compatibility scale color material shape

3614
04:52:36,980 --> 04:52:44,980
 landscaping traffic safety and circulation illumination and integration into the district

3615
04:52:44,980 --> 04:52:53,620
 the proposal complies with all of these requirements as noted in your backup notification went

3616
04:52:53,620 --> 04:53:02,780
 out we sent out 29 public notices within 200 feet of the site and 399 courtesy notices

3617
04:53:02,780 --> 04:53:10,700
 within 500 feet of the site we received two responses in favor of the request which composed

3618
04:53:10,700 --> 04:53:16,380
 or which comprised three percent of the area within the 200 foot buffer a neighborhood

3619
04:53:16,380 --> 04:53:21,980
 meeting has not been held staff recommends approval of this request to amend the special

3620
04:53:21,980 --> 04:53:27,440
 sign district for the first united methodist church to permit any provision of the sign

3621
04:53:27,440 --> 04:53:32,560
 code that is not addressed by the special sign district to be governed by chapter 33

3622
04:53:32,560 --> 04:53:38,300
 as amended that concludes my presentation and the applicant is present if you have any questions

3623
04:53:38,300 --> 04:53:43,980
 perfect thank you Cindy this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on the item may certainly

3624
04:53:43,980 --> 04:53:51,180
 do so Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Cindy I didn't have a quick question and one that

3625
04:53:51,180 --> 04:53:56,700
 we didn't have time to talk about work session so are the other buildings in the area governed

3626
04:53:56,700 --> 04:54:02,660
 by the sign code everybody is is it used to the same sign code that's correct and effectively

3627
04:54:02,660 --> 04:54:09,180
 the only reason they have a special sign district is to hang their is for their banners that

3628
04:54:09,180 --> 04:54:14,600
 banners that you see along the front of the street that they have out all year long different

3629
04:54:14,600 --> 04:54:19,860
 types of banners so banners are typically only permitted for three months of the year

3630
04:54:19,860 --> 04:54:28,700
 but their special sign district permits them all year okay great I don't see other questions

3631
04:54:28,700 --> 04:54:43,000
 thanks Cindy Oh Commissioner Beck oh thank you Cindy so this is just for the church yes

3632
04:54:43,000 --> 04:54:49,420
 and it's basically as we briefly talked about it basically prevents them or allows them

3633
04:54:49,420 --> 04:54:58,780
 to not come and seek special permission for new banners it no not new banners it basically

3634
04:54:58,780 --> 04:55:04,660
 the banner part of this has already been approved it was approved in 2010 because this is a

3635
04:55:04,660 --> 04:55:09,820
 special sign district they can't have any signage except what is permitted by the special

3636
04:55:09,820 --> 04:55:16,940
 sign district and they would like to put up signs that advertise their daycare and they

3637
04:55:16,940 --> 04:55:22,580
 want to put up signs that would advertise special ministries and they are unable to

3638
04:55:22,580 --> 04:55:28,020
 do that without amending their sign code every time they're the special sign district every

3639
04:55:28,020 --> 04:55:35,620
 time they want to do this so what our proposal for them is to allow them to put up signs

3640
04:55:35,620 --> 04:55:43,100
 per the sign code whose provisions are silent in the special sign district right now there

3641
04:55:43,100 --> 04:55:48,980
 is a copy of the two ordinances for the special sign district in your backup and it permits

3642
04:55:48,980 --> 04:55:59,900
 banner signs a few wall signs and a plan for future signage so if it permits wall signs

3643
04:55:59,900 --> 04:56:06,260
 but they're requesting permission to get wall signs only permits two or three wall signs

3644
04:56:06,260 --> 04:56:17,660
 they want to put up a few more a couple more okay thank you sir okay so on the same note

3645
04:56:17,660 --> 04:56:22,260
 so let's say there wasn't a special sign district let's just pretend how many signs could they

3646
04:56:22,260 --> 04:56:29,700
 have up I could have as many as they want that was what I wanted to know thank you I

3647
04:56:29,700 --> 04:56:33,940
 believe that is all the questions we have for you okay this is a public hearing anyone

3648
04:56:33,940 --> 04:56:43,260
 wishing to speak may certainly do so seeing that there seeing that there is no one wishing

3649
04:56:43,260 --> 04:56:50,340
 to speak I'll close the public hearing commissioner Smith I'll make a motion to approve we have

3650
04:56:50,340 --> 04:56:55,020
 a first question for that I'll second the motion we have a first and a second for approval

3651
04:56:55,020 --> 04:57:08,500
 any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries seven zero

3652
04:57:08,500 --> 04:57:16,580
 the next item of business is item five e s 19 - 12 be I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation

3653
04:57:16,580 --> 04:57:34,260
 and open the public hearing good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of

3654
04:57:34,260 --> 04:57:46,460
 Denton and I am presenting s 1912 Denton Grove apartments the request is for a specific use

3655
04:57:46,460 --> 04:57:52,620
 permit to allow multifamily dwellings on a about 15 acre site the subject properties

3656
04:57:52,620 --> 04:57:58,700
 outlined in yellow it's adjacent to loop 288 just west of loop 288 south of McKinney McKinney

3657
04:57:58,700 --> 04:58:04,260
 is right here on the project the the proposal was submitted prior to October 1st of this

3658
04:58:04,260 --> 04:58:11,620
 year so so it is following the 2002 Denton development code standards and that would

3659
04:58:11,620 --> 04:58:19,180
 require an SUP for multifamily developments also to let you know city council did did

3660
04:58:19,180 --> 04:58:25,300
 approve a resolution earlier this year of no objection to the construction of affordable

3661
04:58:25,300 --> 04:58:31,220
 and mixed and market rate housing at this location however just want to let you know

3662
04:58:31,220 --> 04:58:36,860
 that council action does not negate the planning and zoning commission's recommendation regarding

3663
04:58:36,860 --> 04:58:43,780
 the land use the SUP and then councils approval of that SUP so that that's a separate process

3664
04:58:43,780 --> 04:58:51,300
 altogether so a comparison of the 2002 zoning map in the current 2019 zoning map subject

3665
04:58:51,300 --> 04:58:57,180
 property is outlined in black in 2002 it has a zoning it had a zoning designation of CMG

3666
04:58:57,180 --> 04:59:02,060
 that's what this project was reviewed under that transitioned as of October 1st of this

3667
04:59:02,060 --> 04:59:09,180
 year to SC CMG was somewhat similar to our SC zoning and once again it does require that

3668
04:59:09,180 --> 04:59:17,020
 SUP for multifamily I'll go over the site plan briefly they are proposing 12 multifamily

3669
04:59:17,020 --> 04:59:22,460
 buildings there are a mixture of two and three story I believe the two story buildings would

3670
04:59:22,460 --> 04:59:26,780
 be one two-story building here and one two-story building here and the rest would be three

3671
04:59:26,780 --> 04:59:34,980
 story except for the amenity center which I believe is one story there is a as I said

3672
04:59:34,980 --> 04:59:40,620
 the community center here in the central location of the site and that's the leasing office

3673
04:59:40,620 --> 04:59:46,300
 they're also proposing a community pool and pavilion playgrounds as well as a dog park

3674
04:59:46,300 --> 04:59:53,380
 in this location down here the total would be 276 dwelling units which comes out to about

3675
04:59:53,380 --> 04:59:59,580
 18 dwelling units per acre the associated parking is 568 seven five hundred and sixty

3676
04:59:59,580 --> 05:00:05,260
 eight spaces and they are also proposing to add bicycle racks in that in a central location

3677
05:00:05,260 --> 05:00:12,020
 near the the amenities this proposal includes 61% lot coverage which is all impervious surface

3678
05:00:12,020 --> 05:00:18,740
 per that 2002 DDC requirement and then 39% landscape area I mean just a little further

3679
05:00:18,740 --> 05:00:25,580
 on that open space those open spaces would be 11% of the of the site the landscape plan

3680
05:00:25,580 --> 05:00:31,580
 does include landscape islands within the five hundred and sixty eight parking spaces

3681
05:00:31,580 --> 05:00:36,660
 and you can kind of see the landscape islands and in caps spread throughout the site they're

3682
05:00:36,660 --> 05:00:44,060
 also proposing 39 Street trees along Dutchess Drive and loop 288 so meeting that 2002 Street

3683
05:00:44,060 --> 05:00:52,620
 tree requirement and they're also proposing a buffer along a along the the west side of

3684
05:00:52,620 --> 05:00:58,980
 the property adjacent to that commercial development next to it that would include 24 trees and

3685
05:00:58,980 --> 05:01:05,140
 100 shrubs per the code these are their sample building elevations they are proposing sort

3686
05:01:05,140 --> 05:01:11,700
 of a muted color palette with a mixture of balconies and patios that's criteria for approval

3687
05:01:11,700 --> 05:01:18,340
 as in subchapter six of the 2002 debt and development code and we'll just go over the

3688
05:01:18,340 --> 05:01:24,140
 most germane parts of that first of all the dent plan 2030 so does the proposal meet the

3689
05:01:24,140 --> 05:01:30,100
 comprehensive plan this is within a community community mixed use area it's actually in

3690
05:01:30,100 --> 05:01:36,260
 the cusp of community mixed use and moderate density residential but the but the community

3691
05:01:36,260 --> 05:01:41,380
 mixed use is the predominant future land use designation is intended to promote a mix of

3692
05:01:41,380 --> 05:01:47,660
 uses where commercial uses are are the main use commercial and service uses but residential

3693
05:01:47,660 --> 05:01:54,140
 can serve as a complementary use to support the the commercial development the intent

3694
05:01:54,140 --> 05:02:00,740
 is to encourage diverse uses close to each other to to encourage multimodal transportation

3695
05:02:00,740 --> 05:02:05,420
 and to really create vibrant centers within the city multifamily is consistent with this

3696
05:02:05,420 --> 05:02:09,860
 future land use designation because it does provide that supporting a residential use

3697
05:02:09,860 --> 05:02:13,260
 which is really needed for commercial areas.

3698
05:02:13,260 --> 05:02:19,540
 Additionally just from a compatibility standpoint this this proposed multifamily would provide

3699
05:02:19,540 --> 05:02:26,060
 that physical buffer along loop 288 from the the continued residential development that

3700
05:02:26,060 --> 05:02:32,180
 that moderate residential development off to the west although this is being reviewed

3701
05:02:32,180 --> 05:02:37,100
 under 2002 debt and development code we did compare it with the 2019 it's something we

3702
05:02:37,100 --> 05:02:42,900
 just adopted so we we wanted to see how those two things stacked up in terms of elements

3703
05:02:42,900 --> 05:02:49,740
 like lot coverage landscape area building high density unit size parking and overall

3704
05:02:49,740 --> 05:02:57,820
 tree canopy the proposal met both the 2002 and the 2019 codes the the two deviations

3705
05:02:57,820 --> 05:03:02,740
 would be tree preservation we did adopt new tree preservation requirements this year which

3706
05:03:02,740 --> 05:03:08,140
 require essentially 30 percent preservation of protected trees they're proposing to preserve

3707
05:03:08,140 --> 05:03:14,580
 27 percent of quality trees and 50 percent of secondary trees so not quite hitting that

3708
05:03:14,580 --> 05:03:20,940
 that 30 percent of the quality trees and then the street trees we also increased our street

3709
05:03:20,940 --> 05:03:27,780
 tree standards this year they are proposing to meet the the the previous standard of 45

3710
05:03:27,780 --> 05:03:33,540
 not every 45 linear feet so it doesn't quite meet those street trees street tree standards

3711
05:03:33,540 --> 05:03:42,300
 in in the 2019 code as we kind of talked touch briefly on the compatibility with the surrounding

3712
05:03:42,300 --> 05:03:47,900
 uses if you look around the the aerial and the surrounding uses you have multifamily

3713
05:03:47,900 --> 05:03:52,460
 to the west as well as some office development you also have some undeveloped commercial

3714
05:03:52,460 --> 05:03:59,460
 to the south and a bank across the street there's also some open space that will be

3715
05:03:59,460 --> 05:04:04,820
 improved or developed at some point some additional undeveloped commercial around and then and

3716
05:04:04,820 --> 05:04:10,220
 then there was actually a multifamily development that was approved as an SUP just to the northeast

3717
05:04:10,220 --> 05:04:15,260
 of the site so it's really is a mixed use area it is it is on the loop the loop is a

3718
05:04:15,260 --> 05:04:21,260
 commercial corridor within the city of Denton so there there are commercial commercial uses

3719
05:04:21,260 --> 05:04:26,660
 but this is sort of transitioning into that mixed use bringing in that residential component

3720
05:04:26,660 --> 05:04:33,900
 in this area not quite as heavy commercial as you see just south on on the loop and then

3721
05:04:33,900 --> 05:04:41,340
 the SUP does does want to ensure that the use would not create any offensive odors fumes

3722
05:04:41,340 --> 05:04:47,300
 dust noise or vibration because this is a residential use that's not intended or expected

3723
05:04:47,300 --> 05:04:57,060
 to create either any of those there was a TIA prepared as as as for analysis for this

3724
05:04:57,060 --> 05:05:03,300
 project the applicant did and that was reviewed and approved by our engineering group their

3725
05:05:03,300 --> 05:05:08,740
 analysis showed that there would be about 2000 trips per day generated from the the

3726
05:05:08,740 --> 05:05:16,460
 multifamily development morning peak of 125 trips and then evening of 146 trips the TIA

3727
05:05:16,460 --> 05:05:22,220
 did have some recommendations first there is sufficient pavement width on on Dutchess

3728
05:05:22,220 --> 05:05:29,740
 to to allow restriping as a result of this project to allow both a dedicated left and

3729
05:05:29,740 --> 05:05:38,460
 right turn lane from Dutchess on to loop 288 and then also once this project is is if it's

3730
05:05:38,460 --> 05:05:43,980
 approved and then constructed that intersection would meet the warrants for a signal and they

3731
05:05:43,980 --> 05:05:51,900
 would have to contribute to that signal there it touches in loop 288 access was analyzed

3732
05:05:51,900 --> 05:05:59,340
 as part of the request they are they are proposing two access points one that would access directly

3733
05:05:59,340 --> 05:06:08,020
 on to loop 288 that it allows due to the median openings allows a right in right out as well

3734
05:06:08,020 --> 05:06:17,140
 as a left in it does not permit the left out so so it's it's not quite full access at the

3735
05:06:17,140 --> 05:06:23,060
 at the loop 288 entrance point and then to the south off of Dutchess there is that would

3736
05:06:23,060 --> 05:06:28,180
 be a full entrance and exit point the applicant is here and he does have more information

3737
05:06:28,180 --> 05:06:33,340
 regarding specific information regarding trip distribution in that TIA so he'll be able

3738
05:06:33,340 --> 05:06:38,100
 to share that information with you as part of the development they would also have to

3739
05:06:38,100 --> 05:06:42,820
 extend sidewalks one an eight foot sidewalk on Dutchess and then a five foot sidewalk

3740
05:06:42,820 --> 05:06:53,660
 on loop 288 there's also a there's there's also a bus transit available in the area DCTA

3741
05:06:53,660 --> 05:07:01,100
 didn't connect route four is within a quarter mile both to the north and south of the project

3742
05:07:01,100 --> 05:07:05,860
 there's water and sewer available they cannot tap into the 20 inch water on the site they

3743
05:07:05,860 --> 05:07:13,220
 would have to extend water both along loop 288 and Dutchess but they could they could

3744
05:07:13,220 --> 05:07:19,460
 access that 18 inch wastewater line that does flow through their site additionally impact

3745
05:07:19,460 --> 05:07:26,860
 fees would be required at development there is a open space that the city owns across

3746
05:07:26,860 --> 05:07:33,940
 loop 288 from the site but it is undeveloped but the applicant is proposing on-site amenities

3747
05:07:33,940 --> 05:07:42,820
 like that like that dog park that is fenced the playground areas in the pool area there

3748
05:07:42,820 --> 05:07:48,980
 are schools there the project would generate approximately 34 elementary students 14 middle

3749
05:07:48,980 --> 05:07:54,020
 school students and 17 high school students and there is a fire station within the eight

3750
05:07:54,020 --> 05:08:00,100
 minute or less response time boundary a notification was sent out on the property or on the project

3751
05:08:00,100 --> 05:08:10,860
 there we have received responses in opposition that do equal 29 percent of the property in

3752
05:08:10,860 --> 05:08:16,260
 within that 200 foot boundary so approval of this request would require a super majority

3753
05:08:16,260 --> 05:08:22,060
 at City Council they did have a neighborhood meeting a couple of weeks ago there were four

3754
05:08:22,060 --> 05:08:27,020
 attendees I believe and they and they talked about traffic and about appropriateness of

3755
05:08:27,020 --> 05:08:32,580
 land use and they have continued the conversation they did have a conference call with the applicant

3756
05:08:32,580 --> 05:08:38,900
 a couple of days ago so they've been communicating with the applicant.

3757
05:08:38,900 --> 05:08:42,820
 Staff does recommend approval of the request because it does meet the criteria for approval

3758
05:08:42,820 --> 05:08:48,740
 for an SUP but there are conditions that we are proposing one that that they will have

3759
05:08:48,740 --> 05:08:53,940
 to seek that an alternative development plan for a couple of areas where they would like

3760
05:08:53,940 --> 05:08:58,260
 to deviate from SUP chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code that will have to come back

3761
05:08:58,260 --> 05:09:03,900
 before you so if this is approved by City Council you'll see this again and for for

3762
05:09:03,900 --> 05:09:07,500
 that alternative development plan they'll also need to comply with the landscape plan

3763
05:09:07,500 --> 05:09:11,780
 as they've proposed they can make some small alterations with the planting materials but

3764
05:09:11,780 --> 05:09:17,780
 they'll have to generally comply with it will determine the parking area light fixtures

3765
05:09:17,780 --> 05:09:22,660
 at building permit they will have to meet all Denton Development Code requirements.

3766
05:09:22,660 --> 05:09:28,340
 And then there's some and then we also have a provision in the recommendation that allows

3767
05:09:28,340 --> 05:09:33,980
 staff to approve reductions in things like lot coverage or an increase in landscape area

3768
05:09:33,980 --> 05:09:38,960
 or a decrease in the number of dwelling units with the associated parking this also would

3769
05:09:38,960 --> 05:09:45,820
 allow if approved staff to approve increases up to and including five percent of the the

3770
05:09:45,820 --> 05:09:51,860
 dwelling units and the the parking spaces in the in the lot coverage square footage

3771
05:09:51,860 --> 05:09:56,100
 provided it still remains within the Denton Development Code regulations anything over

3772
05:09:56,100 --> 05:10:02,080
 five percent change those that small modification would require a new SUP if it's approved as

3773
05:10:02,080 --> 05:10:09,060
 it's as it's proposed and and the the rest of the provisions lay out what those specific

3774
05:10:09,060 --> 05:10:14,400
 site plan requirements are that is because ordinances when those site plans are reproduced

3775
05:10:14,400 --> 05:10:18,640
 for ordinances they're really difficult to read so the text just sort of lays out the

3776
05:10:18,640 --> 05:10:22,380
 the provisions and the and the specifications of what they've proposed.

3777
05:10:22,380 --> 05:10:26,780
 So that concludes my presentation I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here.

3778
05:10:26,780 --> 05:10:29,140
 We do have a couple questions Mr. Ellis.

3779
05:10:29,140 --> 05:10:33,160
 Thank you Chair Julie can you go back to your slide about schools because that has got to

3780
05:10:33,160 --> 05:10:40,820
 be a typo or there's no way that 34 elementary students is right for this development that

3781
05:10:40,820 --> 05:10:47,580
 cannot be right that is based upon Denton ISD's let me let me check the staff report

3782
05:10:47,580 --> 05:11:13,700
 make sure I'm not not a chance hold on you are correct thank you 83 elementary school

3783
05:11:13,700 --> 05:11:20,060
 students yes thank you staff report is correct it's 83 elementary school students a 30 middle

3784
05:11:20,060 --> 05:11:26,860
 school students and then 44 high school students and that that's based upon Denton ISD's formula

3785
05:11:26,860 --> 05:11:31,500
 that seems yes that seems more in line you are correct okay thank you for clarifying

3786
05:11:31,500 --> 05:11:38,100
 you bet Christian back thank you chair so are they being given credit for 10-minute

3787
05:11:38,100 --> 05:11:44,140
 walk for that green space across 288 or not I'm confused on that I would imagine that

3788
05:11:44,140 --> 05:11:48,220
 that would not meet our requirements for a 10-minute to a walk park just because it's

3789
05:11:48,220 --> 05:11:53,740
 still you still have the loop 288 barrier there's not really there's not an easy pedestrian

3790
05:11:53,740 --> 05:11:58,620
 route to it of course as the crow flies it meets it but really walking to it would probably

3791
05:11:58,620 --> 05:12:02,980
 take much longer than 10 minutes and there is broken you know there's there's not a complete

3792
05:12:02,980 --> 05:12:09,780
 sidewalk there but the site does provide those on-site amenities to allow play space for

3793
05:12:09,780 --> 05:12:15,340
 children there's two playgrounds the pool area there's some meaningful open space not

3794
05:12:15,340 --> 05:12:24,500
 just if you'll look at the site plan so to the south they have just just open space in

3795
05:12:24,500 --> 05:12:30,540
 this location in this location it's also fenced so so if if kids were going to just run and

3796
05:12:30,540 --> 05:12:34,940
 play frisbee or throw the ball it would be fenced to keep kids to make sure they're corralled

3797
05:12:34,940 --> 05:12:40,540
 so there is a there is some meaningful open space for active and passive recreation on

3798
05:12:40,540 --> 05:12:46,300
 the site so those those green areas to the south or what are being considered for for

3799
05:12:46,300 --> 05:12:52,540
 that sort of recreational green area activity and not really the the 10-minute walk requirement

3800
05:12:52,540 --> 05:12:58,860
 at this point that that park is not probably because it just seems like a field we haven't

3801
05:12:58,860 --> 05:13:03,820
 done anything with haven't done anything with it no now once that signal is installed at

3802
05:13:03,820 --> 05:13:08,020
 duchess and that field is improved it certainly could be something that would provide recreation

3803
05:13:08,020 --> 05:13:12,820
 for the residents not only at this location but surrounding properties but you are correct

3804
05:13:12,820 --> 05:13:20,980
 right now we're not we're potentially considering that a crosswalk right there over to a park

3805
05:13:20,980 --> 05:13:27,780
 well what if when that signal is installed at duchess it will provide you know a light

3806
05:13:27,780 --> 05:13:34,900
 that could provide a safe pedestrian passageway across loop 288 i would not advocate anyone

3807
05:13:34,900 --> 05:13:41,500
 crossing loop 288 at duchess right now yeah nor would i thank you thank you i don't see

3808
05:13:41,500 --> 05:13:45,740
 other questions thanks julie this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly

3809
05:13:45,740 --> 05:13:57,460
 do so i do have a couple cards uh the first is thomas crowe sure yeah and when you say

3810
05:13:57,460 --> 05:14:03,860
 y'all you mean you and john yes okay so the only two cards i have is uh john rainy and

3811
05:14:03,860 --> 05:14:10,060
 kent key uh and we spoke previously john rainy wanted to yield his time uh to kent key so

3812
05:14:10,060 --> 05:14:22,820
 uh the chair will allow kent key to speak for eight minutes

3813
05:14:22,820 --> 05:14:28,560
 thank you for letting me speak tonight i'm kent key 3100 triple crown court here in denton

3814
05:14:28,560 --> 05:14:36,100
 and i am a resident of denton have been for only 60 years so i've tried to develop the

3815
05:14:36,100 --> 05:14:42,820
 city the way that you see the city today i mean i i've been part of that influence i

3816
05:14:42,820 --> 05:14:48,320
 i feel like i've developed a lot of subdivisions thousands of lots and a lot of commercial

3817
05:14:48,320 --> 05:14:58,220
 work i am the one can we i'm gonna put up some stuff i'm the one that is the opposition

3818
05:14:58,220 --> 05:15:06,340
 all the way around them so me and my partners own everything in red and i sold a lot to

3819
05:15:06,340 --> 05:15:16,140
 the bank over there so we own 34 acres out there and that is a we feel like a prime becoming

3820
05:15:16,140 --> 05:15:20,620
 now after all these years we've owned it a long time but after all these years it's now

3821
05:15:20,620 --> 05:15:26,020
 becoming a prime commercial spot office we're building we built the denton record chronicle

3822
05:15:26,020 --> 05:15:32,820
 out there we own that and we have other businesses slated i have three or four other uh businesses

3823
05:15:32,820 --> 05:15:37,260
 that i'm working on right now then you're you're going to see plats come before you

3824
05:15:37,260 --> 05:15:44,340
 to break that up into businesses out there the owner of the property and i have known

3825
05:15:44,340 --> 05:15:49,180
 each other a long time since we bought it back in the i bought mine in the late 80s

3826
05:15:49,180 --> 05:15:55,500
 he bought his in the early 90s and he and his name is dennis coop and he and i've known

3827
05:15:55,500 --> 05:16:01,300
 each other a long time that is always supposed to have been a commercial corridor over there

3828
05:16:01,300 --> 05:16:05,940
 and that's what i thought it was going to be until i just happened to see the signs

3829
05:16:05,940 --> 05:16:11,100
 about a week week and a half ago the signs popped up that something was changing out

3830
05:16:11,100 --> 05:16:18,660
 there and so when i investigated i found out that it was a low income housing project that

3831
05:16:18,660 --> 05:16:24,580
 was going to go up and i became concerned about that not not that we don't need low

3832
05:16:24,580 --> 05:16:29,740
 income housing we need low income housing and you guys are going to see a lot of low

3833
05:16:29,740 --> 05:16:34,500
 income housing projects come before you already have and you're going to see a lot more because

3834
05:16:34,500 --> 05:16:40,020
 there's some studies out right now that show developers like us that denton is prime for

3835
05:16:40,020 --> 05:16:46,980
 low income housing so i'm all about low income housing i put the street in i put duchess

3836
05:16:46,980 --> 05:16:52,100
 in i donated the land and i paid for the road to go in when southwest housing was putting

3837
05:16:52,100 --> 05:17:04,060
 the subdivision right back here in the back if you could zoom down on me please so john

3838
05:17:04,060 --> 05:17:11,380
 and i paid for this road right here all the way back to our property and we supported

3839
05:17:11,380 --> 05:17:18,700
 this low income housing of southwest housing that went in and it's 270 some odd units i

3840
05:17:18,700 --> 05:17:23,060
 believe so i think that is and we've been a very good neighbor to them and they've been

3841
05:17:23,060 --> 05:17:27,900
 a very good neighbor to us so it's been it's that's been a very good relationship when

3842
05:17:27,900 --> 05:17:33,660
 i found out about this since i have hadn't had much time to study it you know i asked

3843
05:17:33,660 --> 05:17:38,580
 the developers and they weren't going to have a neighborhood meeting they had turned that

3844
05:17:38,580 --> 05:17:43,060
 down because they didn't think there would be any opposition to it i don't think i think

3845
05:17:43,060 --> 05:17:49,060
 they thought it was undeveloped land around it and there probably wasn't any opposition

3846
05:17:49,060 --> 05:17:56,740
 but they we asked for that and they and they gave us a low i mean they gave us some time

3847
05:17:56,740 --> 05:18:03,140
 to talk to them they asked us what we wanted you know what our what do you want or trade

3848
05:18:03,140 --> 05:18:07,060
 you know what what can we do and i was like well i just really want to know about the

3849
05:18:07,060 --> 05:18:11,300
 project right now i mean i've only known about a week i need to know a little bit more about

3850
05:18:11,300 --> 05:18:19,420
 it before i know what i think so i asked john to go do a little bit of studying for us and

3851
05:18:19,420 --> 05:18:26,980
 so we did started looking into low income housing in denton and when we pull up the

3852
05:18:26,980 --> 05:18:34,940
 low income housing chart in denton it's this chart and this shows a pretty good scattering

3853
05:18:34,940 --> 05:18:41,260
 of low income housing how it's scattered around the interior of the loop this is loop 288

3854
05:18:41,260 --> 05:18:45,460
 the highway coming through and you can see there's a good spattering this is right off

3855
05:18:45,460 --> 05:18:54,060
 of the the website that the city supplies for that but when you drill down to it and

3856
05:18:54,060 --> 05:19:01,780
 you start getting into the minutiae of the low income housing like these dots over here

3857
05:19:01,780 --> 05:19:09,340
 are a duplex so there's two these out here around are single family or duplex low income

3858
05:19:09,340 --> 05:19:18,140
 housing there's no density no concentration so when i drilled into it a little deeper

3859
05:19:18,140 --> 05:19:24,200
 i found out that with this approval of this project if this project gets approved which

3860
05:19:24,200 --> 05:19:34,500
 is right here we will have over a thousand units concentrated in district five in one

3861
05:19:34,500 --> 05:19:42,100
 little area so i think i'm all about low income housing but i don't think we ought to have

3862
05:19:42,100 --> 05:19:47,780
 it all in one area it should be diversified throughout the city this is how we got into

3863
05:19:47,780 --> 05:19:55,060
 trouble years ago in the 70s and 80s when we had projects so we do not want that i don't

3864
05:19:55,060 --> 05:19:59,580
 want that i don't think the city wants that and i don't think the city recognizes that

3865
05:19:59,580 --> 05:20:08,240
 the concentration of low income housing is all in one area look at the numbers this is

3866
05:20:08,240 --> 05:20:19,900
 their proposal 274 or 276 this one that we supported was 264 there's a brand new one

3867
05:20:19,900 --> 05:20:29,820
 that's 322 another one 120 and another one 120 down here that's a lot of low income housing

3868
05:20:29,820 --> 05:20:36,780
 concentration and no diversification there's nothing over here on the north side there's

3869
05:20:36,780 --> 05:20:42,780
 nothing on the west side why do we have to why are we putting it all in one area that's

3870
05:20:42,780 --> 05:20:49,780
 what the sup that you're voting on tonight is about it's because you guys and the council

3871
05:20:49,780 --> 05:21:00,060
 control the development of the city and you all have the power to control what goes on

3872
05:21:00,060 --> 05:21:08,660
 here and that's why in the development code it has an sup on multifamily housing to go

3873
05:21:08,660 --> 05:21:15,300
 in here so it's up to you whether we allow multifamily housing and increase the density

3874
05:21:15,300 --> 05:21:21,260
 and increase the location of what we're doing here this is one of our main quarters loop

3875
05:21:21,260 --> 05:21:27,660
 288 is one of our stellar parts and it is developing along here but it is developing

3876
05:21:27,660 --> 05:21:33,860
 commercially the hospitals are over here closed doctor's offices are wanting to go in veterinary

3877
05:21:33,860 --> 05:21:38,300
 clinics I've got a vet that we're talking to about building them an office building

3878
05:21:38,300 --> 05:21:46,140
 over here those kind of things are the way that I see and my partners see John Rainey's

3879
05:21:46,140 --> 05:21:50,300
 one of my partners Bill Patterson is one of my partners over there and Tony Clark is one

3880
05:21:50,300 --> 05:21:55,980
 of my partners over there they all are in opposition to this as I am and it really wasn't

3881
05:21:55,980 --> 05:22:03,180
 that I was in opposition to it until I started looking at the density of it and it was kind

3882
05:22:03,180 --> 05:22:09,140
 of eye opener to me maybe you all have studied that but I'm gonna bet probably not and didn't

3883
05:22:09,140 --> 05:22:14,660
 realize that we were concentrating it all in one area I called and talked to a council

3884
05:22:14,660 --> 05:22:19,660
 person that's in charge of this area he had no idea that it was concentrated that deep

3885
05:22:19,660 --> 05:22:26,460
 in his district and I think he was awakened a little bit the other day when we talked

3886
05:22:26,460 --> 05:22:35,820
 about that so that's a real issue that I have you know I'm a developer I developed it's

3887
05:22:35,820 --> 05:22:40,340
 an oxymoron that I would be here speaking against the development so it has to be pretty

3888
05:22:40,340 --> 05:22:44,940
 strong I don't usually come before you guys I usually send my engineers but tonight I

3889
05:22:44,940 --> 05:22:50,780
 felt like it was important for me to be here and talk about how we're developing the city

3890
05:22:50,780 --> 05:22:58,740
 and I believe this is a crucial point it's a crucial time we need it we want the ped

3891
05:22:58,740 --> 05:23:03,500
 corps is a I researched them too I think they're a great company they're the company that we

3892
05:23:03,500 --> 05:23:09,180
 would want to develop this kind of project in Denton I think they do a good job they

3893
05:23:09,180 --> 05:23:13,940
 have a long history there's nothing not one thing against the developer for what they

3894
05:23:13,940 --> 05:23:21,020
 do I think it's the wrong location the wrong piece of land and the concentration is already

3895
05:23:21,020 --> 05:23:30,100
 too deep to add more into that area so that is my that's my one of my biggest concerns

3896
05:23:30,100 --> 05:23:40,020
 is Ellis you brought up while ago as as you caught as we quickly went through those slides

3897
05:23:40,020 --> 05:23:47,180
 the schools but the school the number of kids that come out of a thousand units right there

3898
05:23:47,180 --> 05:23:54,060
 that are going to those schools is horrendous it will take a lot more schools concentrated

3899
05:23:54,060 --> 05:24:01,180
 in that district to take care of those children over there so for that reason I'm opposed

3900
05:24:01,180 --> 05:24:13,680
 to it and I think it's contrary to our I know that this is why I told you that multifamily

3901
05:24:13,680 --> 05:24:22,980
 is a component of that area I think it can be and I think it could even be on that side

3902
05:24:22,980 --> 05:24:29,500
 if it was pushed back and the front was left commercial maybe Dutchess was less commercial

3903
05:24:29,500 --> 05:24:36,460
 and there was a strip in the back and maybe it's 75 units or or less I'm not trying to

3904
05:24:36,460 --> 05:24:42,180
 crush be a dream crusher for them over there but I'm I'm very concerned that we're really

3905
05:24:42,180 --> 05:24:48,720
 way too dense and way too concentrated in low-income housing and low-income housing

3906
05:24:48,720 --> 05:24:56,500
 over here I just don't want Denton and Southeast Denton to be known for low-income housing

3907
05:24:56,500 --> 05:25:03,380
 I don't think I think we're labeling and I think that's wrong so I'm I'm opposed to it

3908
05:25:03,380 --> 05:25:08,060
 for those reasons I'm also opposed to it for a reason that you pointed out while ago which

3909
05:25:08,060 --> 05:25:13,500
 was walkability there's no walkability to this so every single person that lives here

3910
05:25:13,500 --> 05:25:19,540
 is going to get in their car and start up their car to go somewhere we have a huge problem

3911
05:25:19,540 --> 05:25:26,740
 right now on Dutchess it's a dead-end Street it's not put through yet we have a huge problem

3912
05:25:26,740 --> 05:25:33,220
 when they try to cross book 288 and turn left cannot build tells me Bill Patterson tells

3913
05:25:33,220 --> 05:25:38,180
 me that his people have struggled with that all the time right now adding 2,000 trips

3914
05:25:38,180 --> 05:25:44,340
 is like a no-go I mean I don't know how you add 2,000 trips when it doesn't work already

3915
05:25:44,340 --> 05:25:50,860
 so anyway those are the reasons that we are opposed to it tonight I have several others

3916
05:25:50,860 --> 05:25:55,940
 but I run out of my time and their time I got a question for you so maybe in your question

3917
05:25:55,940 --> 05:26:00,500
 you can give the other points Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you mr. key are

3918
05:26:00,500 --> 05:26:07,260
 you familiar with the resolution that the City Council passed I am and I want I became

3919
05:26:07,260 --> 05:26:13,620
 aware of that through my research after I saw the signs so that was that's actually just

3920
05:26:13,620 --> 05:26:19,780
 a resolution that they said they they did not approve it the council did not approve

3921
05:26:19,780 --> 05:26:26,820
 that with that resolution they just said that they thought that it would go that it could

3922
05:26:26,820 --> 05:26:31,900
 go in that site however I don't think the City Council was privy to the numbers I just

3923
05:26:31,900 --> 05:26:37,380
 showed you before they did that I do have one other question I heard you all I heard

3924
05:26:37,380 --> 05:26:45,020
 Julie I think say well go that there was another multifamily project just approved on Virgil's

3925
05:26:45,020 --> 05:26:50,740
 site right down the street is that low-income too I think it's market rate that's market

3926
05:26:50,740 --> 05:26:56,140
 rate yeah okay that's a different animal you know market rate is a different animal than

3927
05:26:56,140 --> 05:27:02,860
 low-income housing and I I know we need low-income housing we are gonna get besieged with it

3928
05:27:02,860 --> 05:27:06,820
 low-income housing we're gonna have a lot of developers coming forward with low-income

3929
05:27:06,820 --> 05:27:12,100
 housing because the studies that are out right now that's why these guys are here they freely

3930
05:27:12,100 --> 05:27:16,060
 admitted that to me the other day so you're gonna see a lot of it and you're gonna see

3931
05:27:16,060 --> 05:27:23,420
 a lot I just don't want this or the next 30 projects to go in another one-mile segment

3932
05:27:23,420 --> 05:27:28,980
 it just seems crazy to me well I appreciate you being here and speaking on behalf of your

3933
05:27:28,980 --> 05:27:38,220
 group thank you and since I want first this time would I have a chance to have a rebuttal

3934
05:27:38,220 --> 05:27:42,700
 depending on what the developer has to say well we don't want to go back and forth all

3935
05:27:42,700 --> 05:27:51,260
 night but we might be able to find a question for you to bring you back down Thomas Crowe

3936
05:27:51,260 --> 05:27:57,020
 and John so together you all have 20 minutes I'm happy if you want to split that however

3937
05:27:57,020 --> 05:28:02,300
 you'll like tonight all right thank you good evening mr. chairman members of commission

3938
05:28:02,300 --> 05:28:07,760
 city staff I'm John Cornelson president of evolving Texas 420 Throckmorton Fort Worth

3939
05:28:07,760 --> 05:28:13,220
 Texas and we worked with the ped corps for some time now and this is the first time that

3940
05:28:13,220 --> 05:28:20,220
 I've met Tom who is their executive vice president has been for 25 years and he flew down tonight

3941
05:28:20,220 --> 05:28:24,580
 just for this meeting and this project is important to us we've worked extensively with

3942
05:28:24,580 --> 05:28:30,940
 the staff for a long time on this you mentioned the resolution no objection which was passed

3943
05:28:30,940 --> 05:28:36,100
 it was unanimous with one abstention because of an absence but that was approved as a necessary

3944
05:28:36,100 --> 05:28:40,780
 first step this is the following step and so that's why you're here tonight to try

3945
05:28:40,780 --> 05:28:45,220
 to get this approved I would just you know kind of would like to defend a little bit

3946
05:28:45,220 --> 05:28:49,960
 about not having a neighborhood meeting through all of our conversations with city staff over

3947
05:28:49,960 --> 05:28:53,580
 the course of this project it did come up a couple of times about you know typically

3948
05:28:53,580 --> 05:28:57,300
 this is done and then I agree with that we'd have neighborhood meetings on many of our

3949
05:28:57,300 --> 05:29:03,020
 projects personally I love them because it creates feedback and it shows engagement and

3950
05:29:03,020 --> 05:29:07,540
 and it always results in a better project but in this particular case we looked at the

3951
05:29:07,540 --> 05:29:13,780
 site as you mentioned we had the public hearing with the resolution no objection with no objection

3952
05:29:13,780 --> 05:29:19,980
 we did put our signs up about a month ago November 5th heard nothing until the day before

3953
05:29:19,980 --> 05:29:26,060
 your last hearing whenever we we found out we had opposition and so immediately you know

3954
05:29:26,060 --> 05:29:30,000
 we scrambled the jets and said we have to take care of this fortunately we had a notice

3955
05:29:30,000 --> 05:29:34,340
 error which caused us to be pulled from the last agenda and we said great let's have a

3956
05:29:34,340 --> 05:29:38,500
 meeting and I just I appreciate the neighbors for all showing up I mean everyone showed

3957
05:29:38,500 --> 05:29:43,500
 up people across the street in favor of us people against us and I felt like we had good

3958
05:29:43,500 --> 05:29:48,540
 dialogue about the project and and you know as Kent mentioned really their main interest

3959
05:29:48,540 --> 05:29:55,100
 to that point was to understand you know what was going on so you know after kind of that

3960
05:29:55,100 --> 05:30:00,180
 meeting we kind of had a follow-up conversation with them and they basically said we really

3961
05:30:00,180 --> 05:30:05,480
 think that you need to postpone this for a month because we would like to negotiate further

3962
05:30:05,480 --> 05:30:09,540
 on some improvements and so we asked what those were and and and I would like to address

3963
05:30:09,540 --> 05:30:14,560
 those since he didn't get to I'll go ahead and cover the ones that I know of and and

3964
05:30:14,560 --> 05:30:19,900
 specifically we talked about traffic they're very concerned about traffic specifically

3965
05:30:19,900 --> 05:30:25,500
 on Dutchess Lane and and we agree that a traffic signal is something that is wanted there with

3966
05:30:25,500 --> 05:30:30,940
 the timeline of this project how it works you know residents won't be here until 2022

3967
05:30:30,940 --> 05:30:36,380
 so there's time but as part of this project we are contributing a hundred and thirteen

3968
05:30:36,380 --> 05:30:41,140
 thousand dollars to the traffic signal it's a four hundred thousand dollar traffic signal

3969
05:30:41,140 --> 05:30:45,140
 we are contributing another I think it's three hundred and twenty thousand dollars of traffic

3970
05:30:45,140 --> 05:30:51,460
 impact fees you know roadway impact fees to help to get that constructed I would like

3971
05:30:51,460 --> 05:30:56,100
 to pass out one quick exhibit if I may because it's also I think helpful for another part

3972
05:30:56,100 --> 05:30:59,100
 of the conversation.

3973
05:30:59,100 --> 05:31:17,420
 So this is an exhibit that really shows the north end of our property as part of our initial

3974
05:31:17,420 --> 05:31:24,380
 conversation with our neighbors there was consideration to move the entire project north

3975
05:31:24,380 --> 05:31:29,340
 and they would like for us to shift it all the way north this hundred and seventy five

3976
05:31:29,340 --> 05:31:33,740
 feet that you see because it's owned by the same you know property owner that we're buying

3977
05:31:33,740 --> 05:31:38,660
 from but in fact that's not the case the little the small piece south of the jack in the box

3978
05:31:38,660 --> 05:31:44,460
 is owned by our seller but the other property is as part of the larger tract to the north

3979
05:31:44,460 --> 05:31:50,420
 of it so really shifting the entire project to the north was not an option however after

3980
05:31:50,420 --> 05:31:54,020
 talking to them and understanding their concern for Dutchess and understanding the timing

3981
05:31:54,020 --> 05:32:00,460
 of the traffic which I think if I'm not mistaken we still don't have an answer so when this

3982
05:32:00,460 --> 05:32:05,300
 signal is going to happen what we would like to propose is that if we're approved we would

3983
05:32:05,300 --> 05:32:11,340
 work with our seller who will give us permission to construct a temporary drive that will connect

3984
05:32:11,340 --> 05:32:16,300
 over to these existing drives that you see here which will provide some relief this would

3985
05:32:16,300 --> 05:32:22,380
 be an exit only and we want it to be temporary because it has to be gated and then later

3986
05:32:22,380 --> 05:32:26,580
 on we'd rather just close that gate right and not have to have that kind of extra access

3987
05:32:26,580 --> 05:32:31,140
 point but once the signal is in and perhaps it'll be in before we build which would be

3988
05:32:31,140 --> 05:32:36,980
 ideal then we would not have to build it but we're willing to do that and I felt like this

3989
05:32:36,980 --> 05:32:40,740
 is an opportunity that we're trying to say how can we you know contribute to the real

3990
05:32:40,740 --> 05:32:46,100
 challenges that our neighbors see with this development I think the other concern we heard

3991
05:32:46,100 --> 05:32:51,460
 was around fencing specifically at the southwest corner they're concerned about the visibility

3992
05:32:51,460 --> 05:32:55,060
 of their project and didn't want us to put up a wood fence that might fall down over

3993
05:32:55,060 --> 05:33:00,900
 time and we're putting up a wrought iron style aluminum fence you know powder coated and

3994
05:33:00,900 --> 05:33:06,300
 also as you mentioned the landscaping and the park areas and so I think they were satisfied

3995
05:33:06,300 --> 05:33:10,900
 with that so I'm thankful for that and then the last comment was really the biggest one

3996
05:33:10,900 --> 05:33:15,860
 was to kind of change the style of the development they really didn't want multifamily along

3997
05:33:15,860 --> 05:33:22,940
 Dutchess and you know my point on that is that if you can look at our overall site plan

3998
05:33:22,940 --> 05:33:27,940
 we have one building that's within that 200 foot of Dutchess really because we have I

3999
05:33:27,940 --> 05:33:35,940
 say 200 it's actually more like 160 feet the rest of it is open space grass trees dog park

4000
05:33:35,940 --> 05:33:41,140
 going to be a detention pond and that sort of thing so in my opinion that creates a really

4001
05:33:41,140 --> 05:33:46,620
 nice buffer to for people to have visibility visibility corridor and a great place to live

4002
05:33:46,620 --> 05:33:54,740
 and work so that's our attempt to to really address their concerns and and I would suggest

4003
05:33:54,740 --> 05:34:00,740
 you know they offered this morning they talked about us possibly extending again to negotiate

4004
05:34:00,740 --> 05:34:05,620
 further and to work on something that would work if there's something concrete that they

4005
05:34:05,620 --> 05:34:09,540
 could bring forward tonight I'd love to hear it we would we're willing I think we've proven

4006
05:34:09,540 --> 05:34:14,800
 that to try to work with them to come up with a quality development but to to put out parcels

4007
05:34:14,800 --> 05:34:21,300
 along 288 to put out parcels along Dutchess and then to put us in the back corner you

4008
05:34:21,300 --> 05:34:26,180
 know at a project that's one-third the size is is kind of a deal-breaker for us it just

4009
05:34:26,180 --> 05:34:31,420
 doesn't work I would like to point out one thing on the exhibit that you see in front

4010
05:34:31,420 --> 05:34:37,300
 of you the with the idea of putting out parcels along loop 288 I think this has actually been

4011
05:34:37,300 --> 05:34:41,500
 tried this project this actual property I think has been on the market for four years

4012
05:34:41,500 --> 05:34:46,220
 and another person had it under contract and they tried to try to do that they tried to

4013
05:34:46,220 --> 05:34:52,300
 do commercial up front and what you see is there's a 75 foot easement that is for overhead

4014
05:34:52,300 --> 05:34:58,140
 power line there's a 20 inch sanitary sewer line and I think think a 20 inch water line

4015
05:34:58,140 --> 05:35:03,820
 transmission line so those basically kill any type of traditional development you can

4016
05:35:03,820 --> 05:35:08,060
 see the jack in the box which is had to deal with this and it's basically squished all

4017
05:35:08,060 --> 05:35:11,620
 the way up again I think their dumpster is like right on the edge of that easement they're

4018
05:35:11,620 --> 05:35:16,340
 accessing it from the back and they end up with a lot of concrete and not a lot of landscaping

4019
05:35:16,340 --> 05:35:21,700
 as opposed to us which our proposed development will provide twice as much almost twice as

4020
05:35:21,700 --> 05:35:28,740
 much landscaping as is required almost twice as much open space as is required in fact

4021
05:35:28,740 --> 05:35:33,180
 I'd like to offer as a an additional condition that we would like for you to put on our project

4022
05:35:33,180 --> 05:35:38,500
 with approval noticing in the presentation how we are not meeting the street tree requirement

4023
05:35:38,500 --> 05:35:43,740
 under 2019 we would like to go ahead and offer to add those trees in and meet that requirement

4024
05:35:43,740 --> 05:35:51,140
 so go from 39 to 56 and add 17 more you know at the end of the day you know I think that

4025
05:35:51,140 --> 05:35:54,500
 whether these guys believe it or not Pedcor is a good neighbor I've worked with them for

4026
05:35:54,500 --> 05:36:00,700
 years they are the number one developer of this type of product in the country and they

4027
05:36:00,700 --> 05:36:05,780
 are not a developer that buys and flips it they operate it they own and operate 24,000

4028
05:36:05,780 --> 05:36:09,920
 units so I think they're going to work to make this a successful project that'll stand

4029
05:36:09,920 --> 05:36:20,020
 out for the city of Denton I'd like to turn it over to Tom to say a few closing words

4030
05:36:20,020 --> 05:36:27,820
 I think Kent covered everything very well I'll say that I think our opposition noted

4031
05:36:27,820 --> 05:36:34,160
 the apartment complex next to us Rosemont at Pecan Creek is a good development it's

4032
05:36:34,160 --> 05:36:39,660
 been a good neighbor for a couple decades but then he went on to say that affordable

4033
05:36:39,660 --> 05:36:46,340
 housing when concentrated isn't a good thing I have found through 24 years of experience

4034
05:36:46,340 --> 05:36:50,940
 that these developments are no different than any market rate apartment complex what really

4035
05:36:50,940 --> 05:36:55,420
 makes a difference is who's managing them Pedcor manages all these properties and will

4036
05:36:55,420 --> 05:36:59,940
 continue to manage these properties and I would say the same thing about a market rate

4037
05:36:59,940 --> 05:37:04,100
 community it doesn't make a difference whether it's market rate or tax credit these people

4038
05:37:04,100 --> 05:37:08,260
 are an important part of our social fabric they work in the medical facilities their

4039
05:37:08,260 --> 05:37:15,220
 entry level people coming out of schools this is a big university town there's lots of folks

4040
05:37:15,220 --> 05:37:21,060
 that make incomes anywhere from 20 let's say to $57,000 that you know and you work with

4041
05:37:21,060 --> 05:37:28,420
 every day so to put this connotation that they can't live harmoniously in a community

4042
05:37:28,420 --> 05:37:35,300
 together is kind of a ridiculous comment in my opinion and I know that this isn't an affordable

4043
05:37:35,300 --> 05:37:40,580
 housing question to begin with this is really a land use thing so I'll leave it at that

4044
05:37:40,580 --> 05:37:47,700
 but we have been in business for over 30 years we do this across the country we're in it

4045
05:37:47,700 --> 05:37:51,860
 for the long term that's what's important for us our financing requires that we're in

4046
05:37:51,860 --> 05:37:58,220
 it for the long term many of you may know the tax credit program it basically requires

4047
05:37:58,220 --> 05:38:04,220
 the developer to be with the development for the 18 years we also have a lot of investors

4048
05:38:04,220 --> 05:38:09,060
 lenders we have the state housing authority that looks over our shoulders and they come

4049
05:38:09,060 --> 05:38:14,460
 out and do annual audits every year to make sure that there's nothing out of whack physically

4050
05:38:14,460 --> 05:38:18,820
 at the site or in the units themselves they also look at our files make sure that we're

4051
05:38:18,820 --> 05:38:24,180
 renting to people that truly are in those income brackets and we're not allowing other

4052
05:38:24,180 --> 05:38:28,820
 people into the units so there's tremendous oversight in this program much more than you

4053
05:38:28,820 --> 05:38:35,380
 would find in any multi-family apartment community or frankly any single-family subdivision so

4054
05:38:35,380 --> 05:38:40,380
 I'll leave it at that and answer any questions you might have I appreciate it thank you Commissioner

4055
05:38:40,380 --> 05:38:47,300
 Smith thank you if you were to do this without the tax credits if this was not affordable

4056
05:38:47,300 --> 05:38:54,300
 not an affordable living apartment complex it's just regular old market rate complex

4057
05:38:54,300 --> 05:39:01,140
 would it be a feasible project not at these rents that the trade-off is we reduce our

4058
05:39:01,140 --> 05:39:07,980
 rents down from market rate rents by hundreds of dollars and let's say you just the rent

4059
05:39:07,980 --> 05:39:11,260
 you just the rent to affect the fact that it's not you're not getting tax rates right

4060
05:39:11,260 --> 05:39:14,620
 because basically you're saying is the tax rates are what you're then passing on savings

4061
05:39:14,620 --> 05:39:18,740
 to the renters the less ease because you're you're not having to pay as much why would

4062
05:39:18,740 --> 05:39:22,460
 they have to pay as much and that's the purpose of the affordable housing you adjust the rents

4063
05:39:22,460 --> 05:39:28,820
 is there anything you just engineering wise about the current project right now to make

4064
05:39:28,820 --> 05:39:33,180
 it more feasible if this were a market rate project rather than affordable housing project

4065
05:39:33,180 --> 05:39:39,140
 if I was doing an affordable housing a project I might have nicer countertops nicer cabinets

4066
05:39:39,140 --> 05:39:44,020
 I would spend more money if I was trying to hit that part of the market rate apartment

4067
05:39:44,020 --> 05:39:50,700
 complex let's say an a a type building if I was trying to do a B I would say that I

4068
05:39:50,700 --> 05:39:55,180
 wouldn't change anything I would grade our apartment somewhere around a B plus okay thank

4069
05:39:55,180 --> 05:40:05,080
 you I don't see any other questions I do have a yes sir I just want to add one thing and

4070
05:40:05,080 --> 05:40:09,540
 I meant to say this earlier but I just want to appreciate staff for all their work there's

4071
05:40:09,540 --> 05:40:14,220
 been a lot going on with staff and even Julie stepping in for Karina when she was gone suddenly

4072
05:40:14,220 --> 05:40:19,440
 with her baby but it's just want to say that I appreciate staff working so well with us

4073
05:40:19,440 --> 05:40:25,820
 over the past almost year so thank you guys this is public hearing anyone wishing to speak

4074
05:40:25,820 --> 05:40:32,300
 may certainly do so seeing none I'll close the public hearing but I do have a question

4075
05:40:32,300 --> 05:40:47,620
 Mr. Key if you could come back down trying to drive at the the heart of the opposition

4076
05:40:47,620 --> 05:40:52,900
 I think you're articulating and saying the primary reason but also some secondary reasons

4077
05:40:52,900 --> 05:41:00,300
 if this is a market rate apartment complex what changes in your estimation about your

4078
05:41:00,300 --> 05:41:07,780
 disposition to the project well I think he misstated my position a little bit he said

4079
05:41:07,780 --> 05:41:17,500
 that I didn't want I wanted commercial on Dutchess that's not correct I think that I think commercial

4080
05:41:17,500 --> 05:41:27,300
 should be on loop 288 and on Dutchess so that's that's where I would differ with him the seventy

4081
05:41:27,300 --> 05:41:33,660
 foot high line that goes through there is a workaround I mean we work around that stuff

4082
05:41:33,660 --> 05:41:38,980
 all the time you all know where heritage car wash is on that operated for 20 years had

4083
05:41:38,980 --> 05:41:42,300
 a 70 foot easement right through the middle of it and I'm ventured to say none of you

4084
05:41:42,300 --> 05:41:49,700
 even knew it so it can be any any of that can be worked around for commercial work so

4085
05:41:49,700 --> 05:41:58,260
 I'm not I can buy that front and I guarantee you I can market it and I can fill it up but

4086
05:41:58,260 --> 05:42:08,180
 what I would rather see I don't care if it's income assisted housing which I don't I mean

4087
05:42:08,180 --> 05:42:13,980
 it's a lower end product obviously and I know he said it was a B minus I would say maybe

4088
05:42:13,980 --> 05:42:21,420
 it's more like a C to a D as compared to a market rent higher end product they don't

4089
05:42:21,420 --> 05:42:25,860
 have the money they don't have the money to be able to do that so but that's where the

4090
05:42:25,860 --> 05:42:31,080
 money comes in is from this federal subsidy from them the tax credits are what the whole

4091
05:42:31,080 --> 05:42:35,180
 deal is about obviously they can't do the project without the tax credits it doesn't

4092
05:42:35,180 --> 05:42:38,740
 make sense it's not a marketable deal they can't pay the money that they're paying for

4093
05:42:38,740 --> 05:42:43,060
 that side without the tax credits they have to have it because it's upfront money that

4094
05:42:43,060 --> 05:42:51,740
 they get so that's a real that's a real thing but I'm about how the city develops not just

4095
05:42:51,740 --> 05:42:56,140
 about how my land develops over there I'm about how the city develops and the better

4096
05:42:56,140 --> 05:43:00,960
 look for the city I think we all agree that razor ranch is coming along nicely that's

4097
05:43:00,960 --> 05:43:06,900
 a much nicer area out there we had that years ago on loop 288 going through there and now

4098
05:43:06,900 --> 05:43:13,740
 that loop 288 has expanded we have the opportunity to be able to take that type of development

4099
05:43:13,740 --> 05:43:21,780
 through there and if we stack apartments in there luxury or no not or not apart are not

4100
05:43:21,780 --> 05:43:30,420
 luxury apartments subsidized housing I don't see that being a as a desirable area as the

4101
05:43:30,420 --> 05:43:34,780
 razor ranch area that we're looking at right now but we have the opportunity to make it

4102
05:43:34,780 --> 05:43:41,020
 that way and I just say I would ask you guys to seize that opportunity because sir back

4103
05:43:41,020 --> 05:43:45,540
 you have a question actually was a following from your your question chair and and that

4104
05:43:45,540 --> 05:43:50,860
 is if a market rate apartment complex were to go in there would you have objection to

4105
05:43:50,860 --> 05:43:58,700
 a market rate apartment complex going into that lot on the on 288 or that's a 15 acre

4106
05:43:58,700 --> 05:44:07,140
 side so retail cannot go on 15 acres so it's going to have to have some component of housing

4107
05:44:07,140 --> 05:44:13,860
 on there you know market rate housing subsidized housing it could be either one in the back

4108
05:44:13,860 --> 05:44:21,100
 of it I'm opposed to it being the whole 15 acres and now then if they move it to that

4109
05:44:21,100 --> 05:44:27,900
 side it would be more like 17 18 acres the proposals that they had asked us for and they

4110
05:44:27,900 --> 05:44:34,660
 did there I mean these guys are good to work with and I think I've said pedcor is a good

4111
05:44:34,660 --> 05:44:40,860
 company they are a very good company we know that I researched them they're good I just

4112
05:44:40,860 --> 05:44:48,060
 think it's the wrong piece of land for our city and that's my opinion it's my partner's

4113
05:44:48,060 --> 05:44:55,420
 opinion and you can take it for that we'll find out what your opinion is here in a minute

4114
05:44:55,420 --> 05:45:06,940
 thank you sure I think I have a question for Cynthia can you can you enlighten us on the

4115
05:45:06,940 --> 05:45:12,700
 resolution I know it speaks to approximately this area and I know it speaks to no objection

4116
05:45:12,700 --> 05:45:18,180
 of the project and I know I know it doesn't speak to the SUP per se or density or anything

4117
05:45:18,180 --> 05:45:24,180
 like that but could you explain what it actually does speak to please certainly what that what

4118
05:45:24,180 --> 05:45:30,220
 the resolution does is say that the city doesn't object to the application for the tax credits

4119
05:45:30,220 --> 05:45:46,980
 I got a question for the applicant if I may is there anything prohibiting from your application

4120
05:45:46,980 --> 05:45:55,100
 to receive incentives having some sort of retail lower first floor we have some apartments

4121
05:45:55,100 --> 05:46:02,340
 in town that have like first floor like retail components is maybe I'm speaking out of turn

4122
05:46:02,340 --> 05:46:07,740
 or maybe it's certainly from a position of ignorance but is that something you can consider

4123
05:46:07,740 --> 05:46:15,540
 or we can't claim credits on that first floor that so it would render the apartment complex

4124
05:46:15,540 --> 05:46:25,140
 and feasible again okay that makes sense thank you well there's no other questions or anyone

4125
05:46:25,140 --> 05:46:31,900
 wanting to discuss so the chair only say entertain a motion at this this point and we can from

4126
05:46:31,900 --> 05:46:42,220
 there discuss and progress this along Commissioner Beck motion to approve we have a motion to

4127
05:46:42,220 --> 05:46:51,980
 approve on the floor Christian Pernetta would that motion include the amendment to meet

4128
05:46:51,980 --> 05:46:57,380
 the tree requirements that were bought up by the kisser back yeah I'm really glad you

4129
05:46:57,380 --> 05:47:02,620
 brought that up I was not sure I meant to ask chair this earlier so I'm glad you brought

4130
05:47:02,620 --> 05:47:11,380
 that up what can can we approve the motion with the offering of the applicant or must

4131
05:47:11,380 --> 05:47:16,500
 we approve the written one no no you can you can make a motion to approve with the addition

4132
05:47:16,500 --> 05:47:21,460
 of the 17 trees then then I would like to amend my motion to approve with the addition

4133
05:47:21,460 --> 05:47:28,740
 of the additional trees okay and and sass recommendations yes and stuff recommendations

4134
05:47:28,740 --> 05:47:43,820
 great we have a first Mr. Pernetta I'll second enthusiastically he says we have a first and

4135
05:47:43,820 --> 05:47:48,740
 a second for approval is there any discussion on the matter

4136
05:47:48,740 --> 05:48:03,860
 so because it was twenty nine percent this will require super majority vote yeah yes

4137
05:48:03,860 --> 05:48:09,780
 Christian Smith I personally it's gonna be hard for me to vote for this project I think

4138
05:48:09,780 --> 05:48:14,060
 it's a I think I think affordable housing is an important thing that we needed to have

4139
05:48:14,060 --> 05:48:18,940
 in the city I spent time I was in the leadership didn't focusing on the affordable housing

4140
05:48:18,940 --> 05:48:25,100
 issue we have in the city I've also because I've done a lot of research on this I've seen

4141
05:48:25,100 --> 05:48:30,620
 a lot of research that's had to do with concentration of affordable housing in areas and the reason

4142
05:48:30,620 --> 05:48:35,820
 why in the 60s 70s and 80s we had we had bad parts of town we had projects with things

4143
05:48:35,820 --> 05:48:43,100
 that caused economic depressive areas and I'm afraid of seeing that area go that way even

4144
05:48:43,100 --> 05:48:48,620
 though services like served in or right down the road from there and that would that would

4145
05:48:48,620 --> 05:48:57,820
 meet that need it's it's hard for me to impact one area of the city that much and so on top

4146
05:48:57,820 --> 05:49:04,460
 of that just it it seems like this has been more of a discussion of what is the most economically

4147
05:49:04,460 --> 05:49:08,380
 feasible thing for us to do to build a cheap product with the least with the least amount

4148
05:49:08,380 --> 05:49:13,020
 of cost in because our tax credits I just don't feel good about it don't feel good about the

4149
05:49:13,020 --> 05:49:20,460
 project in general so I think it's gonna be a no for me we have a first and a second for

4150
05:49:20,460 --> 05:49:24,700
 approval of this project I don't see anyone else wishing to discuss we'll take a vote

4151
05:49:24,700 --> 05:49:45,980
 on the board. Motion fails four three the chair will entertain another motion. Commissioner

4152
05:49:45,980 --> 05:49:54,540
 Smith make a motion to deny. We have a motion on the table to deny. Commissioner Cole. Second

4153
05:49:55,340 --> 05:49:59,020
 we have a first and a second for denial is there any discussion

4154
05:49:59,020 --> 05:50:12,540
 just to clarify with staff on this motion to deny if it passes which I'm gonna read the tea

4155
05:50:12,540 --> 05:50:19,660
 leaves here the applicant can still proceed to counsel with the exact same super majority

4156
05:50:19,660 --> 05:50:26,700
 requirement yes so whether we approve it or deny it they would have the option to go to counsel

4157
05:50:26,700 --> 05:50:32,380
 and get a super majority vote correct correct if they decided not to go to counsel they would

4158
05:50:32,380 --> 05:50:37,420
 have to bring a project back that is substantially different within a year or they have to wait a

4159
05:50:37,420 --> 05:50:42,060
 year or they have they have the option to bring back a substantially different project if what

4160
05:50:42,060 --> 05:50:48,860
 happens if they choose not to go to counsel the substantial change provision doesn't come in

4161
05:50:48,860 --> 05:50:54,220
 unless it goes to counsel and is denied if I'm thinking of that correctly so they could come

4162
05:50:54,220 --> 05:50:59,740
 back with a change to the project which I I think if if they elected not to go to counsel they

4163
05:50:59,740 --> 05:51:04,700
 probably would if they came back would have a change to it it would just come back like a

4164
05:51:04,700 --> 05:51:10,860
 a new just a new project would be a notification so it would be kind of a time time limit on that

4165
05:51:10,860 --> 05:51:15,500
 no no time limit okay thank you for that clarification we have a first and a second

4166
05:51:15,500 --> 05:51:20,940
 for denial is there any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board

4167
05:51:20,940 --> 05:51:25,100
 and again as a reminder a vote yes is a vote to deny

4168
05:51:25,100 --> 05:51:35,900
 the motion to deny carries four to three

4169
05:51:39,020 --> 05:51:46,220
 the next item of business is item 5f dca 19-23 I will

4170
05:51:46,220 --> 05:51:53,340
 invite Julie Wyeth for presentation and open the public hearing

4171
05:51:53,340 --> 05:52:07,340
 all right

4172
05:52:09,980 --> 05:52:19,340
 let me find my presentation

4173
05:52:19,340 --> 05:52:33,340
 didn't make it on the desktop

4174
05:52:39,020 --> 05:52:47,580
 here we go

4175
05:52:47,580 --> 05:53:02,460
 all right so this is dca 19-3 offices in r7 so this is a proposed text amendment to the 2019

4176
05:53:02,460 --> 05:53:09,420
 that the newly adopted dent development code regarding specifically to amend sub chapter

4177
05:53:09,420 --> 05:53:13,580
 5 regarding the table of allowed uses and also the use but specific standards

4178
05:53:13,580 --> 05:53:19,660
 related to administrative professional and government offices and also medical offices in

4179
05:53:19,660 --> 05:53:26,620
 the r7 district this is a staff initiated code amendment to a remedy the creation of non-conforming

4180
05:53:26,620 --> 05:53:33,180
 uses and structures with the adoption of the 2019 ddc and as we talked about with the with

4181
05:53:33,180 --> 05:53:39,100
 the adoption of the 2019 ddc and creating that document it was a very large complex document

4182
05:53:39,100 --> 05:53:43,260
 we knew there were going to be some tweaks that we would need to move forward this is one of those

4183
05:53:43,260 --> 05:53:47,740
 tweaks that that we're moving forward with so just to give you a little bit of background

4184
05:53:47,740 --> 05:53:55,260
 part of the part of the intent of the the new code was to sort of simplify some of our zoning

4185
05:53:55,260 --> 05:54:01,180
 district to compress some of our of our zoning districts that were in the 2002 code to kind of

4186
05:54:01,180 --> 05:54:10,300
 streamline the code as part of that dd the 2019 ddc removed dr1 downtown residential one and also

4187
05:54:10,300 --> 05:54:18,060
 nrmu 12 in favor of the mn district the mn district was is is our mixed use neighborhood district it

4188
05:54:18,060 --> 05:54:25,100
 permits a variety of commercial as well as higher density residential uses and it's a really good

4189
05:54:25,500 --> 05:54:32,300
 district near our neighborhood areas but as we were implementing and as we were looking at the map

4190
05:54:32,300 --> 05:54:37,660
 as we were transitioning those zoning districts we realized that there was kind of a missing piece

4191
05:54:37,660 --> 05:54:45,340
 to our zoning districts and that was sort of a a a not purely residential zoning district a zoning

4192
05:54:45,340 --> 05:54:51,260
 district that would allow some mix of densities and some some small scale commercial uses that

4193
05:54:51,260 --> 05:54:56,220
 were really limited to kind of bridge that gap between our purely residential districts

4194
05:54:56,220 --> 05:55:03,820
 and the more intense mn district so that's how r7 was born r7 was created to create that transition

4195
05:55:03,820 --> 05:55:10,780
 not quite residential not quite fully mixed use kind of in those areas that are more maybe

4196
05:55:10,780 --> 05:55:18,940
 infill or kind of that transitional context you know we want to provide that mix of residential

4197
05:55:18,940 --> 05:55:25,180
 and also the low impact commercial uses within close proximity to neighborhoods we want to make

4198
05:55:25,180 --> 05:55:30,540
 sure that we we're creating walkable spaces so things like day-to-day services or maybe

4199
05:55:30,540 --> 05:55:36,300
 some office uses are appropriate near residential areas provided that they're that that low impact

4200
05:55:36,300 --> 05:55:42,700
 and and as long as they're developed in a scale that is in harmony with those residential areas

4201
05:55:43,740 --> 05:55:52,140
 the transition table transitioned that nrmu 12 and the dr1 to r7 because those were the districts

4202
05:55:52,140 --> 05:56:01,820
 that were most closely aligned but there were some some areas where where it didn't quite align and

4203
05:56:01,820 --> 05:56:06,780
 have created some issues and in two of those areas are administrative professional and government

4204
05:56:06,780 --> 05:56:12,140
 offices and medical offices so just to give you some of the broad guidelines of what those are

4205
05:56:12,140 --> 05:56:18,300
 administrative offices are essentially office buildings it might be something like a real estate

4206
05:56:18,300 --> 05:56:25,500
 office or an insurance office or travel agency a law office something like that and then medical

4207
05:56:25,500 --> 05:56:30,140
 offices we had a code amendment a few years ago to introduce medical offices to make sure we were

4208
05:56:30,140 --> 05:56:35,580
 really clear on what a medical office was and it really is your your pediatrician your dentist your

4209
05:56:35,580 --> 05:56:40,780
 general practitioner kind of those just just your doctor's offices it's not it's not a clinic or a

4210
05:56:40,780 --> 05:56:44,220
 hospital it's it's a place where you make an appointment and go visit the doctor

4211
05:56:44,220 --> 05:56:54,300
 um so i want to go over the comparison of how 2002 treated those two uses and how our 2019 code

4212
05:56:54,300 --> 05:57:01,260
 treated those two uses and specifically regarding the nrmu 12 the dr1 and then the r7 districts

4213
05:57:01,260 --> 05:57:07,180
 so for the the administrative and professional offices in nrmu 12 it was permitted by right but

4214
05:57:07,180 --> 05:57:14,460
 he couldn't be more than 12 or 10 000 square feet of gross floor area in dr1 it wasn't permitted

4215
05:57:14,460 --> 05:57:22,460
 r7 only permits it with a specific use permit and it can't be more than 10 000 square feet of gross

4216
05:57:22,460 --> 05:57:30,620
 floor area so it really does limit it what it was permitted back in in in 2002 for medical offices

4217
05:57:30,620 --> 05:57:34,620
 they were it was consistent with what the professional offices was it was permitted but

4218
05:57:34,620 --> 05:57:40,700
 no more than 10 000 square foot limitation it wasn't permitted in dr1 it is not permitted in

4219
05:57:40,700 --> 05:57:46,860
 r7 and the result of that has been some issues with the implement implementation of the code

4220
05:57:46,860 --> 05:57:54,060
 we have some existing medical office and professional office uses by our by our land use

4221
05:57:54,060 --> 05:58:00,620
 analysis about 54 parcels that were made either non-conforming and would have to follow the

4222
05:58:00,620 --> 05:58:05,900
 non-conforming standards when it comes to medical offices or for those professional offices that now

4223
05:58:05,900 --> 05:58:12,620
 require an sup if they wanted to to kind of modernize and and and and rebuild a facility

4224
05:58:12,620 --> 05:58:16,620
 they they would have to get an sup so it would have to be an additional approval

4225
05:58:16,620 --> 05:58:23,660
 and and these are uses that have in some places been been there and operational and and good

4226
05:58:23,660 --> 05:58:30,380
 neighbors for for decades so and now they're now they're rendered non-conforming it was not staff's

4227
05:58:30,380 --> 05:58:35,500
 intention to make these uses non-conforming or to limit their ability to modernize their facilities

4228
05:58:35,500 --> 05:58:43,420
 so what we're proposing is a text amendment to address this issue but we want to address it in a

4229
05:58:43,420 --> 05:58:54,460
 responsible way and so we're proposing to to permit professional offices in r7 with use specific

4230
05:58:54,460 --> 05:59:01,980
 standards those are going to require a revision if approved to to the existing use specific standards

4231
05:59:01,980 --> 05:59:07,980
 to remove r7 from the provision that administrative professional and government office uses shall not

4232
05:59:07,980 --> 05:59:15,020
 exceed 10 000 square feet per lot we would keep that in place for zoning districts r3 to r6

4233
05:59:15,020 --> 05:59:21,100
 but then when you get to r7 we're proposing the following use specific standard that anything

4234
05:59:21,100 --> 05:59:27,500
 greater any use greater than 10 000 square feet would require a specific use permit unless it was

4235
05:59:27,500 --> 05:59:32,620
 located in arterial because those are the places that you typically see commercial development

4236
05:59:32,620 --> 05:59:39,260
 someplace like teasley lane or loop 288 so that is our proposed language for the professional

4237
05:59:39,260 --> 05:59:44,220
 offices and we're really proposing to do the same thing for medical office to go ahead and permit

4238
05:59:44,220 --> 05:59:49,980
 that in r7 but once again provide that use specific standard we want to make sure there's guard rails

4239
05:59:49,980 --> 05:59:55,420
 we don't want 20 000 square foot uses within neighborhoods we want to make sure that there

4240
05:59:55,420 --> 06:00:01,100
 there is limitation to that and really that is more that is consistent with what was what was

4241
06:00:01,100 --> 06:00:08,300
 really permitted in 2002 so um so we had findings regarding that so you know r7 is kind of a distinct

4242
06:00:08,300 --> 06:00:14,700
 district and that it really could fit under a lot of future land use designations so you know our

4243
06:00:14,700 --> 06:00:20,140
 our comprehensive plan has these these overarching future land use designations things like business

4244
06:00:20,140 --> 06:00:26,140
 innovation or moderate density residential or community mixed use and depending on the context

4245
06:00:26,140 --> 06:00:33,020
 of any of that of any of those places r7 could kind of fit within that so so to allow this code

4246
06:00:33,020 --> 06:00:38,700
 amendment to allow what is really a low impact use into r7 makes sense in terms of a comp plan

4247
06:00:38,700 --> 06:00:44,060
 the proposal would allow for more vibrant development but we want to once again make

4248
06:00:44,060 --> 06:00:47,660
 sure those constraints are there to ensure compatibility that's why we're proposing the

4249
06:00:47,660 --> 06:00:53,980
 sup for larger facilities we also felt like and and this came to our attention recently because we

4250
06:00:53,980 --> 06:00:58,620
 we've heard we heard from from one property owner in particular and then we did our analysis and

4251
06:00:58,620 --> 06:01:04,060
 realized it really affected a lot more um that you know how do how do we address this because

4252
06:01:04,060 --> 06:01:09,340
 you know one way could have just been say well just rezone to mn but we were we were concerned

4253
06:01:09,340 --> 06:01:14,460
 about that especially given the number of properties that you know by rezoning to mn and

4254
06:01:14,460 --> 06:01:19,980
 the intensity that mn has may not be appropriate in all places it could introduce additional uses

4255
06:01:19,980 --> 06:01:24,380
 or development scale that really wouldn't be compatible so we felt like this approach

4256
06:01:24,380 --> 06:01:35,420
 would be the most um uh surgical and targeted and and um and uh um conservative to just because

4257
06:01:35,420 --> 06:01:40,620
 office uses are really typically low impact you know they're they're often that nine to five during

4258
06:01:40,620 --> 06:01:44,380
 the week you don't get a whole lot of you know it's not like a 7-eleven where people are coming and

4259
06:01:44,380 --> 06:01:48,620
 going all the time but this would be the most limited approach and it really is more consistent

4260
06:01:48,620 --> 06:01:56,300
 with that 2002 code this map shows that r7 that is that is with that is near arterials and you can

4261
06:01:56,300 --> 06:02:02,460
 see really r7 is often found near arterials anyway because it does it is consistent with those previous

4262
06:02:02,460 --> 06:02:10,060
 zoning designations of nrmu 12 and then that dr1 so based upon our findings staff recommends approval

4263
06:02:10,060 --> 06:02:14,220
 of the text amendment and i'll stand for any questions thank you julie we do have a couple

4264
06:02:14,220 --> 06:02:21,260
 questions commissioner beck thank you chair uh julie so i have two questions one uh and this is

4265
06:02:21,260 --> 06:02:27,660
 i'm sure just a trivial answer but i assume this includes veterinary practices because i'm i'm only

4266
06:02:27,660 --> 06:02:32,220
 asking because it's there's sort of an agricultural role to veterinary let me let me get my code hold

4267
06:02:32,220 --> 06:02:38,460
 on okay and i was just curious because they often need green space and property that dentists and

4268
06:02:38,460 --> 06:02:43,100
 other professional buildings don't need i anticipated you would ask about like hair salons

4269
06:02:43,100 --> 06:02:48,380
 didn't anticipate veterinary so let me look i can't and i love your surgical pun by the way

4270
06:02:48,380 --> 06:03:00,460
 veterinary veterinary is a separate use and it is not permitted in r7

4271
06:03:00,460 --> 06:03:02,540
 and this code amendment would not change that

4272
06:03:02,540 --> 06:03:13,020
 this is probably beyond the pale but is there a reason why it's so distinct is it the agriculturally

4273
06:03:13,020 --> 06:03:19,340
 sort of use of veterinary you know i could i i could see that there could be different impacts

4274
06:03:19,340 --> 06:03:26,140
 with veterinary there you know one could there could be variations within the veterinary world

4275
06:03:26,140 --> 06:03:31,500
 where it could just be dogs and cats but it also could go to maybe more animal large animals so

4276
06:03:31,500 --> 06:03:36,860
 that might be why that's a distinction in the code okay and my second question actually probably

4277
06:03:36,860 --> 06:03:43,820
 goes to either richard or cynthia and and are we not actually just essentially requesting a

4278
06:03:43,820 --> 06:03:53,500
 a special district the way we said we couldn't do for gas wells at trying to cover commissioner

4279
06:03:53,500 --> 06:04:02,220
 roselle's amendment several votes ago we said we didn't want to do things like that

4280
06:04:03,100 --> 06:04:09,180
 because we didn't want to create new restrictions new zones all the time that the city was against

4281
06:04:09,180 --> 06:04:16,140
 creating special uses like that and this feels very similar to creating a a medical professional

4282
06:04:16,140 --> 06:04:24,540
 special case and and you know if there's a distinction i i would like to understand that

4283
06:04:24,540 --> 06:04:31,260
 distinction just so i can clarify you're suggesting this is comparable to the creation of new non

4284
06:04:31,260 --> 06:04:36,460
 conformities of the gas we're discussing taking properties out of non-conformities and making

4285
06:04:36,460 --> 06:04:43,420
 them conforming which is at least some of the desire of previous votes and it feels at least

4286
06:04:43,420 --> 06:04:55,740
 we're overlapping some of that intent so if we can do that here why can't we do that with other uses

4287
06:04:58,460 --> 06:05:01,980
 well if i understand it correctly the non-conformity wasn't a matter of land use that was a

4288
06:05:01,980 --> 06:05:08,940
 a blanket any land use there this is specific to a land use item yeah i think there's the

4289
06:05:08,940 --> 06:05:16,060
 distinction is there's a non-conformity for a use non-conformity for a a setback so that the

4290
06:05:16,060 --> 06:05:22,460
 difference here is um it's a it's a measurable standard essentially you can get a variance

4291
06:05:22,460 --> 06:05:28,700
 a variance on um you can't get a use variance

4292
06:05:28,700 --> 06:05:40,780
 so the cure the cure the cure for this if they would have to be a a rezoning we had issues with

4293
06:05:40,780 --> 06:05:46,300
 supporting a rezoning in these instances because if it went to mn it could easily without having

4294
06:05:46,300 --> 06:05:52,780
 to do a pd it introduces a whole number of uses um including multifamily by right if it goes a

4295
06:05:52,780 --> 06:05:58,220
 suburban corridor there's a number of other um well it might be appropriate in some areas

4296
06:05:58,220 --> 06:06:02,700
 abutting right up against single family it may not and so that's where we looked at

4297
06:06:02,700 --> 06:06:08,700
 really tailoring this more on a use perspective as opposed to a cure that might be from a

4298
06:06:08,700 --> 06:06:15,260
 a non-conformity resulting as a setback with respect to a building or or some other site

4299
06:06:15,260 --> 06:06:21,900
 feature if that makes sense if i'm understanding the question correctly

4300
06:06:21,900 --> 06:06:30,700
 i think before i respond i'm probably gonna have to think and bring this up maybe at future

4301
06:06:30,700 --> 06:06:35,500
 discussions about future items that might come up so i think i'll just leave it there for now

4302
06:06:35,500 --> 06:06:43,260
 commissioner alice thank you chair julie with regard to um we talk about if it's greater than

4303
06:06:43,260 --> 06:06:52,380
 10 000 it needs an sup unless it's located on an arterial or what do you have yeah on the mobility

4304
06:06:52,380 --> 06:06:59,340
 plan so that is whether or not the road is complete or not correct correct so are we not

4305
06:06:59,340 --> 06:07:07,020
 possibly setting ourselves up for an issue you know how long roads take to come into play

4306
06:07:07,980 --> 06:07:16,460
 do we need to leave the sup in there to possibly safeguard something if the arterial is not there

4307
06:07:16,460 --> 06:07:22,780
 yet i'm i'm throwing that out there i don't know if that was considered because we have a lot of

4308
06:07:22,780 --> 06:07:30,940
 arterials that are incomplete you know we felt just like because offices really are one of the

4309
06:07:30,940 --> 06:07:37,180
 lower impact uses that we have within the in the code um maybe for something like retail you know

4310
06:07:37,180 --> 06:07:43,420
 for instance in r7 a retail requires an sup and in that instance i can see that that is that's an

4311
06:07:43,420 --> 06:07:51,900
 appropriate um that's appropriate to keep in place but but because the nature of offices we really

4312
06:07:51,900 --> 06:07:56,940
 didn't have any concern about it and that's not my concern either it's just the size because

4313
06:07:56,940 --> 06:08:03,340
 effectively you're saying anything any size could go in there if it's on an arterial that's that's

4314
06:08:03,340 --> 06:08:10,700
 what that reads yes so for me the concern is more on putting a massive development before an

4315
06:08:10,700 --> 06:08:18,220
 infrastructure you know the roads there and then if we don't require an sup are we setting ourselves

4316
06:08:18,220 --> 06:08:24,780
 up for some issues that we have no control over i don't know it's not so it's not the use i have

4317
06:08:24,780 --> 06:08:30,940
 an issue with okay zone at all it's just giving the blanket you can build 20,000 square foot office

4318
06:08:30,940 --> 06:08:36,460
 if whether the roads there are not as long as it's on the future mobility plan as an arterial

4319
06:08:36,460 --> 06:08:40,460
 so that's that's why i'm bringing it up as a concern just didn't know if it was floated around

4320
06:08:40,460 --> 06:08:46,940
 staff at all yeah and i think when we did that and maybe if the map if we go back to the map helps

4321
06:08:46,940 --> 06:08:53,340
 there weren't that many parcels that of r7 that were on that were on arterials um probably the

4322
06:08:53,340 --> 06:09:02,700
 majority were on maybe this is a bad example easily 12 to how many did you say it's 112 to

4323
06:09:02,700 --> 06:09:11,180
 1000 112 properties of r7 are within 100 feet of arterial and there's a thousand other r7 properties

4324
06:09:11,180 --> 06:09:17,580
 am i reading that correctly yes yes so 10 percent we don't know how many of the 112s are

4325
06:09:18,860 --> 06:09:23,660
 developed or not developed you know a lot of them are developed because of the nature of r7 it's

4326
06:09:23,660 --> 06:09:30,060
 often found in sort of our urban core um so you know when i when i when i you know reviewed the

4327
06:09:30,060 --> 06:09:35,820
 map and and and looked at that zoning district specifically a lot of it is developed within

4328
06:09:35,820 --> 06:09:40,940
 within the city um you know there are the one that was brought to our attention

4329
06:09:41,660 --> 06:09:48,860
 because teasley is being expanded you know there's right of way um that is um being that right of way

4330
06:09:48,860 --> 06:09:53,020
 is being expanded and so it's it's creating a situation where they're having to redevelop

4331
06:09:53,020 --> 06:09:58,220
 the site and so you know there are there are potential where redevelopment would happen

4332
06:09:58,220 --> 06:10:02,940
 on those arterials that are that are currently under construction as well

4333
06:10:06,140 --> 06:10:14,220
 christopher neta yeah i just want to make sure i understand uh what's allowed in r7 right now so

4334
06:10:14,220 --> 06:10:21,260
 so right now for r7 any commercial requires an sup right and we're simply adding in uh you know

4335
06:10:21,260 --> 06:10:33,500
 medical use to those that are allowed with an sup it's a variety i would say r7 is not a commercial

4336
06:10:33,500 --> 06:10:40,140
 heavy district right so um for instance daycares are permitted by right which makes sense in r7

4337
06:10:40,140 --> 06:10:48,780
 but general retail requires the sup so if you want to put a 7-eleven in r7 you'd have to get an sup

4338
06:10:48,780 --> 06:10:55,500
 so yes this proposal would just just um move forward for those those offices in the medical

4339
06:10:55,500 --> 06:11:00,780
 offices to allow them by right with those you specific standards is this kind of low impact

4340
06:11:00,780 --> 06:11:05,420
 like so like a bank or a real estate office or something like that it wouldn't even be a bank

4341
06:11:05,420 --> 06:11:10,620
 a bank is a separate use a bank often has a maybe a drive-through so that might be something you

4342
06:11:10,620 --> 06:11:15,340
 want to think about limiting in that area so that is actually a separate use all right thank you

4343
06:11:15,340 --> 06:11:22,300
 christopher back yeah so thank thank you for bringing that up commissioner prunetta um is

4344
06:11:22,300 --> 06:11:30,380
 are these standalone commercial uses or we are talking about strip centers at the edge of

4345
06:11:30,860 --> 06:11:38,460
 development or what are we allowing by saying that we can just do this now i mean if i if i have

4346
06:11:38,460 --> 06:11:46,540
 seven things in a row i can have four doctors and three lawyers and i mean all right i guess i'm

4347
06:11:46,540 --> 06:11:55,100
 trying to understand what are the ramifications of the blanket allowance on an arterial or on

4348
06:11:55,100 --> 06:12:03,260
 if we vote yes okay so within um you know if it's not an arterial as proposed anything over

4349
06:12:03,260 --> 06:12:08,220
 10 000 square feet would require a specific use permit so it would require additional scrutiny

4350
06:12:08,220 --> 06:12:12,620
 it would have to come here would have to get approval from council um if it was pulled out

4351
06:12:12,620 --> 06:12:20,300
 to the to the um to an arterial so someplace like on the loop or teesley it would be permitted if

4352
06:12:20,300 --> 06:12:26,940
 r7 is adjacent to it um by right provided that it meets all buffers that it has to meet all

4353
06:12:26,940 --> 06:12:32,620
 landscaping you know all the site design requirements so i don't know how each of them

4354
06:12:32,620 --> 06:12:38,060
 would look it really is this is just in terms of that use and then we have development standards

4355
06:12:38,060 --> 06:12:50,220
 associated with r7 so um for example um i made a note of it so i could so in r7 um the maximum

4356
06:12:50,220 --> 06:12:55,660
 lot coverage or the maximum building coverage is 65 so that keeps that keeps it small because the

4357
06:12:55,660 --> 06:13:02,060
 building has to be can only be 65 of that lot and then the maximum building height would be 40 feet

4358
06:13:02,060 --> 06:13:07,420
 so the development standards are also in place those dimensional requirements to make sure that

4359
06:13:07,420 --> 06:13:13,020
 the scale is compatible with the with the surrounding development okay thank you julie

4360
06:13:13,020 --> 06:13:19,340
 commissioner panetta yeah and i just want to clarify so so right now we're trying to remedy

4361
06:13:19,340 --> 06:13:25,500
 the fact that uh you know our our updates have rendered a number of existing properties non-conforming

4362
06:13:25,500 --> 06:13:33,100
 right correct do they already have sups in place or the sup wasn't a requirement so for for

4363
06:13:33,100 --> 06:13:38,140
 professional offices the sup wasn't requirement pre wasn't required previously it was just permitted

4364
06:13:38,140 --> 06:13:47,180
 by right um and then medical offices were permitted so now those aren't permitted at all so so yes no

4365
06:13:47,180 --> 06:13:52,700
 they don't have the sup okay and and by doing this are we going to require them to apply for

4366
06:13:52,700 --> 06:13:58,140
 an sup or by right because they already existed um we would apply you know we would technically

4367
06:13:58,140 --> 06:14:03,340
 kind of grandfather them in well the dentin development code speaks to that if if a use

4368
06:14:03,340 --> 06:14:09,660
 that was permitted that was in place and legally existing prior to the adoption of the 2000 or 2019

4369
06:14:09,660 --> 06:14:15,740
 dentin development code that net the use now requires an sup they're not considered non-conforming

4370
06:14:16,300 --> 06:14:21,660
 but if if something happened to their property where they wanted to tear it down and build a

4371
06:14:21,660 --> 06:14:28,460
 new modern facility if if if the adjacent road expanded they would at that point they would have

4372
06:14:28,460 --> 06:14:35,260
 to get an sup in order to to build an office that had been there previously okay thank you

4373
06:14:35,260 --> 06:14:41,180
 chrissie alice thank you chair so just a little more clarity on the it says use is greater than

4374
06:14:41,180 --> 06:14:49,420
 10 000 so that's the the whole development so if we have five doctors they would in a complex

4375
06:14:49,420 --> 06:14:55,900
 10 000 total on a lot on a lot if they're if it's like a connected but divided building

4376
06:14:55,900 --> 06:15:03,660
 yes right correct now they could come in and separately probably own and then that

4377
06:15:03,660 --> 06:15:07,260
 would be different they would have to be 10 000 a piece they would have to meet all access

4378
06:15:07,260 --> 06:15:15,180
 requirements and and plot and lot widths and sizes okay i did not see any other questions

4379
06:15:15,180 --> 06:15:21,820
 one acre would a one acre site would be on about a 25 to 28 oh thank you

4380
06:15:21,820 --> 06:15:28,700
 like with your with the limitations of the just with the code yeah

4381
06:15:30,460 --> 06:15:37,420
 uh this is a public hearing uh i i have uh two cards uh for for you pam are you wishing to speak

4382
06:15:37,420 --> 06:15:43,660
 are you going to read in the record as as support or are you are you wishing to speak

4383
06:15:43,660 --> 06:15:49,740
 sure come on down well both cards cover that so we're okay

4384
06:15:49,740 --> 06:15:57,580
 if you could just state your name and address you'll have four minutes to speak

4385
06:15:58,380 --> 06:16:05,500
 pam rudley and my husband and i and our kids have rules family limited which owns the property a

4386
06:16:05,500 --> 06:16:14,780
 property on teesley 3490 teesley um our property we have lost the first 25 feet of our frontage

4387
06:16:14,780 --> 06:16:19,900
 because of the utility easements and the state taking over some of our property

4388
06:16:20,460 --> 06:16:29,180
 so now our dental office our patients are laying down and their feet are going to be 20 feet from

4389
06:16:29,180 --> 06:16:35,820
 the front of the road so that's really dangerous and we have already had probably eight cars go

4390
06:16:35,820 --> 06:16:40,140
 off the road and into the neighbor across the street and i don't want them coming into our

4391
06:16:40,140 --> 06:16:46,540
 building we can't get up and run fast because we're laying down so it's just not safe for us to be

4392
06:16:46,540 --> 06:16:53,020
 there we already had engineering done the architecture done to build a new office

4393
06:16:53,020 --> 06:17:01,660
 in our 1.75 acres that we have um we are just north of teesley trail the property you were

4394
06:17:01,660 --> 06:17:11,820
 talking about earlier and um we we have a long skinny 1.75 acres so we would like to build a new

4395
06:17:11,820 --> 06:17:17,100
 office in the middle of that piece of property further back from the road and then build a

4396
06:17:17,100 --> 06:17:24,940
 second office back behind that as well they're very residential and nature looking um they are

4397
06:17:24,940 --> 06:17:31,980
 we have been working on this for two years and already had everything all ready to go and then

4398
06:17:31,980 --> 06:17:37,180
 all of this changed so we've already 100 grand into engineering and architecture

4399
06:17:39,020 --> 06:17:42,540
 we just want a safer place for our patients a little bit further back

4400
06:17:42,540 --> 06:17:47,900
 and it's because the city's taken and city and state have taken over the frontage of our property

4401
06:17:47,900 --> 06:17:57,020
 so it's just not safe for us to be there once that new road is finished um and as we understood it

4402
06:17:57,020 --> 06:18:06,300
 when we met with julie and our engineer in this replanting that came effective october one there

4403
06:18:06,300 --> 06:18:11,420
 now is no longer a place for medical and dental offices you all completely left us out of your

4404
06:18:11,420 --> 06:18:18,060
 plan so i assume you still want a dentist to go to and a physician to go to so you need to tweak

4405
06:18:18,060 --> 06:18:23,340
 your plan a little bit so that you can still go to the doctor and the dentist so we're just asking

4406
06:18:23,340 --> 06:18:29,420
 you to make sure you include us we are on a main road we just want a safer location for our patients

4407
06:18:29,420 --> 06:18:39,260
 and for our staff um ours is under the 10 000 square feet of business property it is also

4408
06:18:39,260 --> 06:18:45,580
 combination residential which is what we were zoned in our mu 12 we have apartments on the

4409
06:18:45,580 --> 06:18:52,780
 second floor um so i just want to make sure that you include doctors and dentists and we would like

4410
06:18:52,780 --> 06:19:00,620
 to have a safe space to take care of our people thank you thank you this is public hearing anyone

4411
06:19:00,620 --> 06:19:08,700
 else wishing to speak i don't see anyone here i may certainly do some seeing none i'll close the

4412
06:19:08,700 --> 06:19:13,820
 public hearing commissioner smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval commissioner

4413
06:19:13,820 --> 06:19:21,260
 pernetta second we have a first and a second for approval um i have a discussion point i think

4414
06:19:21,260 --> 06:19:28,300
 commissioner alice brings up a valid point it's not very many properties but i could envision

4415
06:19:28,300 --> 06:19:33,980
 a a world in which someone could find our mobility plan an arterial that's like a two-lane

4416
06:19:33,980 --> 06:19:40,780
 junkie road and go and build a massive office not maybe that's not in their best interest to do that

4417
06:19:40,780 --> 06:19:45,420
 because they wouldn't be able to get cars there but it is odd that if they're on a primary or

4418
06:19:45,420 --> 06:19:52,700
 secondary arterial they get free reign and so i'm wondering maybe this is back to the commissioner

4419
06:19:52,700 --> 06:19:59,340
 smith we can just take my recommendation would be take that after the the uh comma out that

4420
06:19:59,340 --> 06:20:06,700
 anything over 10 000 square feet requires an sqp uh without the condition that they're free to do

4421
06:20:06,700 --> 06:20:11,100
 whatever they want with if it's on an arterial or if it's a planned arterial accept the front line

4422
06:20:11,100 --> 06:20:15,420
 a minute commissioner pernetta would you accept that as well as second second yes

4423
06:20:15,420 --> 06:20:18,700
 thank you for the consideration is there any discussion on that

4424
06:20:18,700 --> 06:20:22,700
 is the motion cleared everyone

4425
06:20:22,700 --> 06:20:31,580
 could chair restate the the the syntax please yeah let me pull up the language or

4426
06:20:31,580 --> 06:20:36,780
 mr smith whoever is appropriate uh that can get quicker

4427
06:20:40,620 --> 06:20:46,540
 so so my recommendation oh you have it yeah i have it okay um i'm gonna make a motion to approve uh

4428
06:20:46,540 --> 06:20:52,540
 that this uh this amendment be changed uh but scratching out uses greater than saying that's

4429
06:20:52,540 --> 06:20:56,940
 gonna say uses greater than 10 000 square feet require a specific use permit pursuant to sub

4430
06:20:56,940 --> 06:21:03,100
 section 2.5 to 0.2 specific use permit and then i'm striking out the comma unless located on

4431
06:21:03,100 --> 06:21:07,900
 an arterial roadway as designated by the city's mobility plan i i will uh i want to make a motion

4432
06:21:07,900 --> 06:21:15,660
 to accept this change with everything before the comma is that clear christopher thank you

4433
06:21:15,660 --> 06:21:21,980
 that's thank you mr smith yes uh everything would require an sup right commissioner alice

4434
06:21:21,980 --> 06:21:28,940
 thank you i just was wanting richard's two cents is that does that make sense i mean effectively

4435
06:21:28,940 --> 06:21:34,540
 we're just anything over 10 000 square feet would require right yeah whether yeah i just wanted to

4436
06:21:34,540 --> 06:21:41,340
 confirm i know they had some play i just wanted to see so if she was aware if the if the sqp if

4437
06:21:41,340 --> 06:21:45,900
 they were going to be required to have an sqp but i think they their plan is under 10 000 square feet

4438
06:21:45,900 --> 06:21:51,180
 i just wanted to make sure she understood the commercial is under 10 000 square feet but if

4439
06:21:51,180 --> 06:21:56,140
 you add in the residential it's more than oh he tried to pick that up

4440
06:21:59,900 --> 06:22:04,860
 so does that mean just the commercial under 10

4441
06:22:04,860 --> 06:22:12,860
 yeah it would just be the office perfect i think you're good mr chair we didn't have that under

4442
06:22:12,860 --> 06:22:20,620
 the microphone so so the resident was was uh explaining that her property is the commercial

4443
06:22:20,620 --> 06:22:25,900
 portion is under 10 000 but she has a residential component that would push it above 10 000

4444
06:22:25,900 --> 06:22:31,900
 city staff's confirming that that would not require an sqp uh because the 10 000 only applies to the

4445
06:22:31,900 --> 06:22:37,980
 commercial portion of the property thank you chair we have a first and a second for approval

4446
06:22:37,980 --> 06:22:43,020
 any other discussion scene nine i'll call for a vote on the board

4447
06:22:49,100 --> 06:22:55,980
 motion carries seven zero the next item and final item for this evening is item six a the matrix i

4448
06:22:55,980 --> 06:23:02,940
 will turn uh the floor over to richard and then uh we'll have questions

4449
06:23:02,940 --> 06:23:16,620
 just a just a quick update i know we had on here um discussion on city initiated rezoning

4450
06:23:16,620 --> 06:23:22,460
 just given the amount of agenda items obviously we didn't hear that um but we will look to bring

4451
06:23:22,460 --> 06:23:29,660
 that back uh in in january again plan accordingly along around the um the two mpcs i imagine

4452
06:23:29,660 --> 06:23:35,900
 we'll probably have an earlier start as well when we bring those um actual amendments forward

4453
06:23:35,900 --> 06:23:40,700
 when we have the full um thousand pages of of associated text with that

4454
06:23:43,100 --> 06:23:48,700
 with respect to the i still have we're still waiting to hear back from from on that on that

4455
06:23:48,700 --> 06:23:54,060
 black substation so as soon as i find that out i'll just send an email around um and then on

4456
06:23:54,060 --> 06:23:59,740
 mockingbird uh still working with with engineering currently right now there are no plans um for

4457
06:23:59,740 --> 06:24:04,780
 mockingbird um but that's not to say there there won't be so i think it's just something that that

4458
06:24:04,780 --> 06:24:10,540
 we're monitoring um but again we're trying what we're trying to do is create a a map i think i

4459
06:24:10,540 --> 06:24:16,060
 mentioned this before um so that when projects are brought forward we can start to identify all of

4460
06:24:16,060 --> 06:24:23,420
 the um capital projects there's there's the data now that shows what's what's kind of currently

4461
06:24:23,420 --> 06:24:28,780
 underway but what we're trying to do that now is provide that so we can start to forecast and see

4462
06:24:28,780 --> 06:24:34,060
 what's planned in the net in those five-year horizons and then tie that into these projects

4463
06:24:34,060 --> 06:24:40,140
 so as it comes forward if it is an r7 on an arterial and it's only two lanes but yet we know

4464
06:24:40,540 --> 06:24:44,300
 there's a cip project funded and they're start going to start construction in two years

4465
06:24:44,300 --> 06:24:48,860
 those are things we want to be able to start to have um as as we bring these projects forward

4466
06:24:48,860 --> 06:24:54,460
 that was all i had commissioner smith thank you chair um one thing i was brought up and we're

4467
06:24:54,460 --> 06:25:01,340
 talking a lot about that that's easily project out there tonight uh in regards to tis and t and the

4468
06:25:01,340 --> 06:25:05,660
 traffic going through and taking into account projects that are already currently existing

4469
06:25:07,100 --> 06:25:11,820
 and making sure they're counting those approved homes but not constructed homes into those numbers

4470
06:25:11,820 --> 06:25:16,860
 is that can we get any information if the isds are doing the same thing as well

4471
06:25:16,860 --> 06:25:21,740
 because one thing that it's also being brought up there is that if we're seeing you know apartment

4472
06:25:21,740 --> 06:25:27,020
 complex and and phil happening along ryan or and whatever the next ryan's going to be in the next

4473
06:25:27,020 --> 06:25:34,940
 10 years do we does the does the isd keep a running tally of of approved but not constructed so they

4474
06:25:34,940 --> 06:25:40,220
 can give effective numbers for how many students are going to be added to that school in that area

4475
06:25:40,220 --> 06:25:45,020
 just because that could be an issue where stuff like ryan blows up and they say by project yeah

4476
06:25:45,020 --> 06:25:49,260
 this is fine it's going to add this amount of students and just this project alone is good

4477
06:25:49,260 --> 06:25:53,100
 but when compounded with five other projects that have improved in the last 18 months

4478
06:25:53,100 --> 06:25:57,180
 it could not be good and i'd hate to have it where four years from now three years from now

4479
06:25:57,180 --> 06:26:01,740
 they're adding i'm just talking about even looking at just the that that ryan area the

4480
06:26:01,740 --> 06:26:07,020
 projects we've approved we've probably added 500 elementary students in that area

4481
06:26:07,020 --> 06:26:13,740
 does the isd know that yeah well i'll confirm it my understanding just going back to that presentation

4482
06:26:13,740 --> 06:26:18,460
 we had maybe a year was a while back um i didn't remember anything specifically from that

4483
06:26:18,460 --> 06:26:22,140
 presentation that made me think that they were keeping a running tally of approved but not

4484
06:26:22,140 --> 06:26:28,140
 constructed units i believe they do i just don't know how they calculate it how they plan as to

4485
06:26:28,140 --> 06:26:32,380
 when it's gonna i mean right because if the plaque gets approved obviously it takes some time to

4486
06:26:32,380 --> 06:26:38,700
 build a build a school um homes can it varies but we'll get that answer okay yeah we don't need a

4487
06:26:38,700 --> 06:26:43,580
 work session presentation but more just an answer just what do they do if it's a yes they keep tally

4488
06:26:43,580 --> 06:26:48,620
 cool i trust them on that then thank you chris charles thank you chair richard i don't want to

4489
06:26:48,620 --> 06:26:53,580
 forget about um charlie's presentation that we didn't get so can you make sure that that gets

4490
06:26:53,580 --> 06:26:59,900
 thank you and um any updates with regard to city council vote that we need to be privy to

4491
06:26:59,900 --> 06:27:05,740
 sorry i know it's late

4492
06:27:05,740 --> 06:27:16,620
 i don't know that we had any items i'm drawing a blank that we've had any items since the last

4493
06:27:17,980 --> 06:27:23,660
 there there were some items that we had that we that didn't move forward because we had they were

4494
06:27:23,660 --> 06:27:29,500
 pulled or or they were the items we heard tonight that we renoticed but i don't believe that we had

4495
06:27:29,500 --> 06:27:34,460
 taken anything um since the last meeting and i know there's the reconsideration do you know when

4496
06:27:34,460 --> 06:27:45,100
 that's happening um probably in in the 28th of january okay that's the plan i know we there was

4497
06:27:45,100 --> 06:27:50,700
 a discussion about it um the first meeting in january but yet there we had also concern with

4498
06:27:50,700 --> 06:27:55,580
 sending out the notices for that over the holiday and getting misplaced um so right now the plan is

4499
06:27:55,580 --> 06:28:02,540
 to have that um on for the 28th okay thank you chris you're back uh thank you chair this this

4500
06:28:02,540 --> 06:28:07,500
 falls directly off commissioner ellis's question and and that is are we going to see that come back

4501
06:28:07,500 --> 06:28:14,460
 before us no that that just goes back to uh anytime there's a reconsideration um it essentially

4502
06:28:14,460 --> 06:28:20,380
 starts it over at at council it doesn't start it all the way back at at p&z um what it does is it

4503
06:28:20,380 --> 06:28:28,940
 just reconsiders the council vote okay thank you seeing no other questions or additions to add to

4504
06:28:28,940 --> 06:28:34,940
 the matrix i will call this meeting to a close at 10 36 thank you