WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.860 Welcome to the planning and zoning commission work session for Wednesday, December 11, 2019. 00:00:10.860 --> 00:00:16.360 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 338. 00:00:16.360 --> 00:00:20.920 Let the record show that currently Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Panetta are absent. 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 00:00:26.680 --> 00:00:43.320 and discussion followed or following a presentation by Hunter Cole Ranch Master Plan. 00:00:43.320 --> 00:00:44.320 Good afternoon. 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 00:00:51.280 --> 00:00:53.400 Hunter and Cole Ranch MPCs. 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 00:01:00.680 --> 00:01:02.240 be coming forward. 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 00:01:07.320 --> 00:01:12.020 is essentially almost the exact same, the only modification. 00:01:12.020 --> 00:01:18.680 We won't really be diving into the agreements associated with the special taxing district 00:01:18.680 --> 00:01:22.720 because that's nothing that would come in front of P&Z. 00:01:22.720 --> 00:01:27.520 But more so on amendments to the existing zoning district. 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 00:01:34.040 --> 00:01:41.640 Cole MPC and Brian Karlock with Hillwood representing Hunter Ranch MPC. 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 00:01:45.440 --> 00:01:50.160 well as some of the discussion items that we had with council where we were initially 00:01:50.160 --> 00:01:54.400 seeking direction and then that should be it. 00:01:54.400 --> 00:01:58.600 Thank you, Richard. 00:01:58.600 --> 00:02:07.280 Mr. Chairman, members of the Udenton Planning and Zoning Commission. 00:02:07.280 --> 00:02:08.280 My name is OC Vest. 00:02:08.280 --> 00:02:16.040 I'm a partner with Stratford Land at 5949 Sherry Lane Suite, 800 Dallas, Texas. 00:02:16.040 --> 00:02:23.640 We're here tonight representing the MT Cole Family Partnership and SLF Cole property for 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. 00:02:34.120 --> 00:02:41.880 Brian Karlock with Hillwood who will be representing Hillwood and the Hunter Ranch property, about 00:02:41.880 --> 00:02:47.400 3,179 acres, slightly larger, for the Hunter Ranch project. 00:02:47.400 --> 00:02:49.080 We're going to do this kind of in tandem. 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 00:02:52.880 --> 00:02:54.480 do more of the vision. 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 00:02:59.600 --> 00:03:02.160 here today. 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 00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:09.960 along the way or wait until the end, happy either way. 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 00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:20.040 I'm happy to entertain questions that are super pertinent at the time. 00:03:20.040 --> 00:03:27.480 Sounds good. 00:03:27.480 --> 00:03:31.000 Generally the agenda we're going to try to follow here this afternoon, project background, 00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:32.000 that's what I will do. 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 00:03:37.400 --> 00:03:43.240 agreements that we're talking to related to the MMD district, the improvement district, 00:03:43.240 --> 00:03:48.720 that will actually, you know, build some of the infrastructure for Cullen Hunter Ranch. 00:03:48.720 --> 00:03:50.320 We do have some brief slides on that. 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 00:03:55.320 --> 00:03:57.820 coming to P&Z for action. 00:03:57.820 --> 00:04:00.880 So that be at your election. 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. 00:04:09.880 --> 00:04:10.880 Here's a project timeline. 00:04:10.880 --> 00:04:15.020 It gives you an idea how long we've been at this. 00:04:15.020 --> 00:04:21.240 Hunter Ranch was actually annexed into the city in 2001, 18 years ago. 00:04:21.240 --> 00:04:24.940 Cole was annexed in five years later in 2006. 00:04:24.940 --> 00:04:32.680 Both were subsequently zoned, MPC zoning very soon thereafter in 2008. 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 00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:44.520 when we annexed into the city, there was no MPC zoning. 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 00:04:51.040 --> 00:04:57.440 category so that we would have a mechanism to control large tracts of land that need 00:04:57.440 --> 00:05:02.520 flexible zoning so that they have the ability to adapt over time. 00:05:02.520 --> 00:05:07.720 Once that zoning ordinance was created, Cole Ranch was one of the first applications for 00:05:07.720 --> 00:05:08.720 that MPC zoning. 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 00:05:14.520 --> 00:05:15.520 soon after that. 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 00:05:22.440 --> 00:05:25.240 all had. 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 00:05:33.160 --> 00:05:37.200 development, but what we didn't have is a way to finance infrastructure. 00:05:37.200 --> 00:05:40.480 We didn't have a financing plan for the ranches. 00:05:40.480 --> 00:05:46.280 So we started talking to city leadership about how we do that. 00:05:46.280 --> 00:05:51.420 Our experience and Hillwood's experience is on all these large master plan communities, 00:05:51.420 --> 00:05:56.560 you have some sort of special financing district to help you do that. 00:05:56.560 --> 00:05:58.560 Takes a variety of shapes and forms. 00:05:58.560 --> 00:06:01.380 There's all different ways of doing it. 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 00:06:06.240 --> 00:06:09.760 so you have a real custom fit. 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 00:06:15.240 --> 00:06:20.800 project in Arlington, which is a very similar structure to what we're proposing for Cole 00:06:20.800 --> 00:06:21.800 and Hunter. 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 00:06:25.720 --> 00:06:26.720 and look at it. 00:06:26.720 --> 00:06:31.080 It was developed by the Johnson Development Company out of Houston in partnership with 00:06:31.080 --> 00:06:33.000 the city of Arlington. 00:06:33.000 --> 00:06:38.880 We had the Arlington mayor, Jeff Williams, one-on-one conversations with Mayor Watts 00:06:38.880 --> 00:06:44.320 to talk about pros and cons of the different districts, how the zoning is set up. 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 00:06:50.800 --> 00:06:53.880 and how to do it. 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 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 00:07:07.560 --> 00:07:14.060 to create these improvement districts, very, very similar again to what Veridian had done. 00:07:14.060 --> 00:07:20.960 In June of 17, 2019, both bills were approved by the state legislature. 00:07:20.960 --> 00:07:25.700 One for Hunter, one for Cole, they're almost identical except for the legal description 00:07:25.700 --> 00:07:28.720 that describes each property. 00:07:28.720 --> 00:07:36.160 Those bills, however, do not take effect until we have city agreements that talk about how 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 00:07:39.720 --> 00:07:42.880 agreement items that go along with that. 00:07:42.880 --> 00:07:48.980 That's the body of documents that we talk about as being the city agreements. 00:07:48.980 --> 00:07:55.080 That work has been done, and since then we have been working on those agreements, and 00:07:55.080 --> 00:08:01.040 what happened very soon after that was we realized there were some changes in our existing 00:08:01.040 --> 00:08:07.660 zoning that were going to be necessary in order to move the projects forward. 00:08:07.660 --> 00:08:15.880 Number one being the gas well ordinance and the new city development code. 00:08:15.880 --> 00:08:21.400 So there were several things that happened along the way that are really the reason why 00:08:21.400 --> 00:08:24.740 we're here talking about an MPC amendment. 00:08:24.740 --> 00:08:31.160 To follow the timeline further on, December 3rd, we had the work session last week. 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 00:08:36.240 --> 00:08:40.640 January 28th of 2020 for final city council. 00:08:40.640 --> 00:08:45.120 Current timeline that we're working real hard to stay on. 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 00:08:50.040 --> 00:08:54.160 how we develop two large master plan communities. 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 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 00:09:03.320 --> 00:09:10.800 in maps further into the development. 00:09:10.800 --> 00:09:13.200 Probably a map that doesn't need much explanation. 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 00:09:19.560 --> 00:09:20.560 city. 00:09:20.560 --> 00:09:25.200 Coal Ranch, again, 3169, Hunter Ranch, 3179. 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? 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 00:09:35.200 --> 00:09:36.960 not zoned. 00:09:36.960 --> 00:09:43.520 So that's a piece that we work around. 00:09:43.520 --> 00:09:50.880 Again, just to kind of confirm the current status, both properties have annexed into 00:09:50.880 --> 00:09:57.640 the city, both have master plan communities zoning on them today from 2008, and both have 00:09:57.640 --> 00:10:04.680 an approved development plan map that's required as a part of the MPC zoning process. 00:10:04.680 --> 00:10:09.760 What we do not have for either of these projects is infrastructure available to this area. 00:10:09.760 --> 00:10:13.720 And of course, that's what we're trying to solve. 00:10:13.720 --> 00:10:17.360 So again, why is an MPC amendment needed? 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 00:10:22.720 --> 00:10:26.260 towards with their new gas well ordinance. 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 00:10:29.720 --> 00:10:32.320 some more work to be done on that. 00:10:32.320 --> 00:10:33.320 That's fine. 00:10:33.320 --> 00:10:34.320 I think that's great. 00:10:34.320 --> 00:10:39.760 But we're here proposing gas well setbacks that are consistent with the ordinance that 00:10:39.760 --> 00:10:43.600 the city passed originally. 00:10:43.600 --> 00:10:46.680 Just to put it very briefly and plainly. 00:10:46.680 --> 00:10:54.740 We're also adopting the 2019 DDC as our governing documents for projects going forward. 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. 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 00:11:07.360 --> 00:11:08.720 workable. 00:11:08.720 --> 00:11:15.640 We couldn't even find a copy of what the 2002 DDC looked like in 2008. 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, 00:11:22.000 --> 00:11:24.200 and to adopt the 29 DDC. 00:11:24.200 --> 00:11:29.240 Now we are offering some changes because we do think there's some modifications that need 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. 00:11:35.280 --> 00:11:41.640 We also think that it creates a much better coordinated master plan between the two properties. 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 00:11:46.220 --> 00:11:48.040 and hunter ranch on the ground. 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. 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 00:12:10.960 --> 00:12:14.480 master plan community zoning. 00:12:14.480 --> 00:12:18.440 So why are we suggesting a change to that as well? 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. 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 00:12:29.820 --> 00:12:32.520 areas don't make any sense. 00:12:32.520 --> 00:12:38.520 And it's just obvious that they were both designed at different times and designed in 00:12:38.520 --> 00:12:41.140 an isolated fashion. 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 00:12:46.160 --> 00:12:48.680 the land uses should be. 00:12:48.680 --> 00:12:50.600 Makes a lot more sense. 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. 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 00:13:05.640 --> 00:13:11.100 our neighboring ranch community members on the west side. 00:13:11.100 --> 00:13:16.440 In the middle is more mixed use and where we transition from the higher intensity uses 00:13:16.440 --> 00:13:19.780 to the lower intensity uses. 00:13:19.780 --> 00:13:23.560 You see that the street pattern makes a lot more sense. 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 00:13:31.160 --> 00:13:38.100 road, a new interchange that DOT will be constructing in the near future. 00:13:38.100 --> 00:13:42.160 And the interchange with 2449 and I-35. 00:13:42.160 --> 00:13:49.800 Loop 288 also creates new interchange and grade separated opportunities in that area. 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 00:13:55.920 --> 00:14:01.840 point of access for ropes and ranch should they decide to take advantage of that. 00:14:01.840 --> 00:14:09.800 And the improvements of 2449 to the west also provide increased connectivity for ropes and 00:14:09.800 --> 00:14:11.800 neighbors to the west. 00:14:11.800 --> 00:14:18.600 So I think the map is pretty demonstrative that it improves tremendously from where we 00:14:18.600 --> 00:14:24.440 were to where we are today. 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 00:14:33.720 --> 00:14:35.720 going. 00:14:35.720 --> 00:14:39.200 Good afternoon. 00:14:39.200 --> 00:14:40.200 Brian Carlock. 00:14:40.200 --> 00:14:41.200 I'm with Hillwood. 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 00:14:44.920 --> 00:14:47.560 Stratford and Hillwood. 00:14:47.560 --> 00:14:51.000 I never take for granted that anybody knows who Hillwood is. 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 00:14:55.280 --> 00:14:58.160 to your south along I-35. 00:14:58.160 --> 00:15:01.440 But I'm with Hillwood communities, we're a division of Hillwood. 00:15:01.440 --> 00:15:04.440 All we focus on is master plan community development. 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 00:15:09.080 --> 00:15:10.680 Texas markets. 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 00:15:15.760 --> 00:15:21.280 excited to really have the market more come to us, and hopefully the entitlements and 00:15:21.280 --> 00:15:26.400 infrastructure challenges have a way to kind of get solved so we can create this awesome 00:15:26.400 --> 00:15:30.160 community. 00:15:30.160 --> 00:15:31.160 OC spoke to this. 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 00:15:37.800 --> 00:15:39.400 about. 00:15:39.400 --> 00:15:45.020 This has a little more enhancement to really stress some other attributes beyond infrastructure 00:15:45.020 --> 00:15:47.880 of roadways and consistent land uses. 00:15:47.880 --> 00:15:51.980 This also probably highlights a little bit more of this unique opportunity that these 00:15:51.980 --> 00:15:58.760 two properties have to create these amazing kind of linear linkages kind of to and through 00:15:58.760 --> 00:16:03.680 the property, connecting properties to the west that will one day be within the corporate 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 00:16:09.420 --> 00:16:14.520 that allow access all the way to the east side of the town. 00:16:14.520 --> 00:16:19.600 Amazing things will happen within the master plan, Hunter and Cole. 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 00:16:25.800 --> 00:16:32.200 mix of uses, you know, community, walkability is key, leveraging the key assets that we 00:16:32.200 --> 00:16:36.840 have on the property, both linear green belts, the pilot knob and the upland habitat that 00:16:36.840 --> 00:16:41.740 everybody's probably familiar with, primarily on Hunter Ranch are things that we're embracing 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 00:16:45.840 --> 00:16:51.680 is the most special thing about the property is the walkability and the linear linkages 00:16:51.680 --> 00:16:55.120 through these green belts. 00:16:55.120 --> 00:16:56.760 This is kind of a next step down. 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 00:17:00.600 --> 00:17:06.780 if you want to start peeling the onion back behind MR, MN, R7, R5, R4. 00:17:06.780 --> 00:17:12.700 This is kind of our thought of maybe how this thing develops. 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 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 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 00:17:27.240 --> 00:17:34.400 in the current proposed amendment and mini DDC that we're kind of putting together with 00:17:34.400 --> 00:17:37.680 staff is it does allow some flexibility. 00:17:37.680 --> 00:17:43.040 We're really creating zones of land uses that we believe make sense. 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 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. 00:17:55.880 --> 00:18:01.240 We think there's certainly some responsibility to put some bumpers around these large land 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 00:18:06.440 --> 00:18:12.000 corporate campus, an office project, a residential project, really so unique, everybody wants 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. 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 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 00:18:26.960 --> 00:18:27.960 zoning approved. 00:18:27.960 --> 00:18:31.920 They're never going to pursue a project like that with us. 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. 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 00:18:43.160 --> 00:18:47.200 from what OC showed you before, which is the existing zoning. 00:18:47.200 --> 00:18:52.040 Anyway, pulling this back a little bit, you can kind of see just the representations of 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 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 00:19:04.760 --> 00:19:12.200 of uses from high intensity commercial to office, mixed use, some residential. 00:19:12.200 --> 00:19:14.200 It is a mix of uses. 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, 00:19:19.520 --> 00:19:23.440 something that makes sense, you would want to live in an area when creating these live 00:19:23.440 --> 00:19:24.440 work play. 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 00:19:30.040 --> 00:19:32.520 to be able to create that live work play. 00:19:32.520 --> 00:19:37.440 As you transition to the west, logically you can tell because it changes patterns from 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 00:19:43.280 --> 00:19:45.480 may be more rural, at least at this point. 00:19:45.480 --> 00:19:51.260 We do match up very nicely with the density, we think, with Robeson Ranch, everybody may 00:19:51.260 --> 00:19:59.240 or may not be familiar, in 2010 Hunter Ranch brought an amendment to our MPC through. 00:19:59.240 --> 00:20:03.800 That amendment dealt mainly with gas wells, but it also dealt a lot with Robeson Ranch, 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 00:20:08.320 --> 00:20:14.680 really honoring the obligations that we made to Robeson Ranch in 2010, and those were setbacks, 00:20:14.680 --> 00:20:19.920 they had gas well provisions in them, they had lot size provisions in them, things like 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 00:20:23.840 --> 00:20:27.880 did have a town hall meeting with Robeson several weeks ago and really went through 00:20:27.880 --> 00:20:32.600 the whole plan with them and it was, I think, received very well. 00:20:32.600 --> 00:20:38.720 But in here too, just to highlight the green, linear linkages, the existing tree coverage, 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 00:20:45.240 --> 00:20:52.120 and existing through ESA and greenspace, and so that's, well, and the other thing impacting 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 00:20:55.800 --> 00:20:59.320 that here in a moment. 00:20:59.320 --> 00:21:04.600 Education, four elementary schools, two middle schools, one high school is what's been programmed, 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 00:21:09.520 --> 00:21:15.080 of schools they need, and at least right now, their projected locations, they already own 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 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 00:21:24.480 --> 00:21:26.200 certainly work with them. 00:21:26.200 --> 00:21:30.360 We treat elementary schools and other schools within the community, you know, as valuable 00:21:30.360 --> 00:21:36.040 as parks and amenity centers and pools, it's just a key fundamental part. 00:21:36.040 --> 00:21:43.480 We love them, we always, we love the interaction between the HOAs and the parent associations, 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 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 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 00:21:58.120 --> 00:22:04.360 done six elementary schools across the state of Texas, so we're really familiar with school 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 00:22:07.800 --> 00:22:12.680 makes us way into our planning principles, making sure they are walkable and in the right 00:22:12.680 --> 00:22:15.680 locations. 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 00:22:20.120 --> 00:22:26.160 product, and it really represents, from a single family standpoint, largely the array 00:22:26.160 --> 00:22:30.480 of housing that we're talking about in both projects. 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 00:22:38.760 --> 00:22:44.760 on a 90-foot lot down in our Austin project, this represents housing pricing, at least 00:22:44.760 --> 00:22:51.880 in Texas vernacular, probably in the 300,000 up to probably 750,000 in that range. 00:22:51.880 --> 00:22:56.400 If you look at all the economics that are driving the fiscal impact studies and everything 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 00:23:01.980 --> 00:23:05.640 average home price when we kind of start the project. 00:23:05.640 --> 00:23:11.080 We think it'll be, once everything gets lined up, infrastructure-wise, agreement-wise, we're 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 00:23:14.680 --> 00:23:19.600 these projects, but this is really the array of housing, so really from a townhome all 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. 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, 00:23:27.760 --> 00:23:33.720 but our idea is to be able to offer, really, housing for everybody, good quality housing 00:23:33.720 --> 00:23:36.080 for almost everybody. 00:23:36.080 --> 00:23:40.140 Practically speaking, that'll probably be high 200,000s up to kind of whatever you want 00:23:40.140 --> 00:23:45.240 to spend, but not intended to be at all a first-time homebuyer project exclusively. 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. 00:23:50.560 --> 00:23:56.280 I'm going to ask Robert Folzen-Logan to talk a little bit. 00:23:56.280 --> 00:23:59.320 The commercial mixed use is an important part of this project. 00:23:59.320 --> 00:24:03.680 It's a large part of this project, barely both projects. 00:24:03.680 --> 00:24:10.360 Robert runs all of the Hillwood mixed use commercial projects in North Texas, whether 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 00:24:15.200 --> 00:24:19.920 on some of the mixed use. 00:24:19.920 --> 00:24:29.200 Mr. Chairman, commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to be a part of the session. 00:24:29.200 --> 00:24:31.560 As Brian said, my name's Robert Folzen-Logan. 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 00:24:38.920 --> 00:24:47.160 on the commercial mixed use side, and we are celebrating Alliance's 30th year on Thursday, 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, 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. 00:24:56.880 --> 00:25:03.120 And for me personally, I've been focused on the benchmarking, planning, and ultimately 00:25:03.120 --> 00:25:09.640 master development of all of our mixed use projects for the past 14 years or so. 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 00:25:14.100 --> 00:25:22.920 today and having the fortune to work through several different demographics and stages 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 00:25:28.000 --> 00:25:29.000 Hunter. 00:25:29.000 --> 00:25:34.680 Those include three really core mixed use projects, one being Alliance Town Center. 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, 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 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 00:25:58.400 --> 00:26:04.120 principles and the hope of getting some corporate users over time. 00:26:04.120 --> 00:26:08.680 Eight, it happens to cut through the eastern cross timbers and have some of the beauty 00:26:08.680 --> 00:26:11.840 and uniqueness that Hunter reached us from an environmental perspective. 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 00:26:19.080 --> 00:26:20.080 five years from now. 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 00:26:27.660 --> 00:26:32.000 Group and certainly vested in the 35W corridor. 00:26:32.000 --> 00:26:35.920 We were fortunate to go back to Frisco, which is interesting. 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. 00:26:41.880 --> 00:26:47.920 So we're back there seeing how 30-year in density and scale changes over time. 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 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. 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 00:27:04.800 --> 00:27:11.200 it's exactly dentin, but hopefully represents scale and time. 00:27:11.200 --> 00:27:16.600 So circle T, we talked about this way. 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 00:27:24.600 --> 00:27:27.760 to build out from a commercial growth node and 35W. 00:27:27.760 --> 00:27:32.320 So you think about everything that's happening in Denton Alliance 114. 00:27:32.320 --> 00:27:37.400 We believe over time that there certainly will be opportunities for larger corporate 00:27:37.400 --> 00:27:38.400 users. 00:27:38.400 --> 00:27:41.000 Schwab, which you may have heard about recently. 00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:44.000 They're moving their headquarters here from the west coast. 00:27:44.000 --> 00:27:52.440 It's roughly 600,000 plus square feet, 6,000 employees, fairly low FAR, but surrounded 00:27:52.440 --> 00:27:57.480 by lake and amenities integrated into our open space system. 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. 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, 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 00:28:15.680 --> 00:28:20.600 and trails principles with a trailhead over here that leads into a 30-acre park system. 00:28:20.600 --> 00:28:25.600 But they're really two different scales. 00:28:25.600 --> 00:28:26.600 Alliance Town Center. 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 00:28:32.040 --> 00:28:38.720 we set out 15 years ago to organize the 900-acre Alliance Town Center. 00:28:38.720 --> 00:28:47.520 The idea of putting flexible but efficient infrastructure grid types, zoning, which allows 00:28:47.520 --> 00:28:53.120 us to move with the market, but still keep the same quality and planning principles with 00:28:53.120 --> 00:28:55.880 integration of parks and trails amenities. 00:28:55.880 --> 00:29:01.000 And in this case, you're looking at 400 acres north of Harris Trace Parkway. 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 00:29:05.320 --> 00:29:07.000 feet of office. 00:29:07.000 --> 00:29:14.080 We have 600, 900 multifamily urban living units on the ground today and a couple more 00:29:14.080 --> 00:29:19.880 projects in the future, a hospital district to the north that includes Texas Health Resources 00:29:19.880 --> 00:29:21.240 and Cook Children's. 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 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 00:29:32.400 --> 00:29:34.360 out of Austin. 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. 00:29:38.800 --> 00:29:40.920 And the point here is it's down the street. 00:29:40.920 --> 00:29:41.920 You can drive through it. 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 00:29:47.920 --> 00:29:53.960 in today is fairly traditional Class A suburban office, which would be representative of what 00:29:53.960 --> 00:29:57.280 would likely come to Hunter in the short term. 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 00:30:02.280 --> 00:30:09.400 can begin to go vertical, but still maintain all of the planning and integration principles. 00:30:09.400 --> 00:30:16.000 Hospitality, obviously it'll become important as the commercial grows over time, and again, 00:30:16.000 --> 00:30:18.240 thinking 10, 20, 30 years. 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 00:30:22.820 --> 00:30:23.820 walk through today. 00:30:23.820 --> 00:30:24.820 Very urban. 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. 00:30:31.720 --> 00:30:35.420 Flip back to same planning principles. 00:30:35.420 --> 00:30:42.160 This is a Marriott project that Hillwood owns and maintains in Alliance Town Center. 00:30:42.160 --> 00:30:48.560 This case, same amenities, same rooms, just more spread out and on a different parks and 00:30:48.560 --> 00:30:52.160 trail system. 00:30:52.160 --> 00:30:58.480 Jumping over to urban living, so as Brian said, certainly we have a number of units 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 00:31:04.720 --> 00:31:07.080 corporate housing. 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 00:31:12.800 --> 00:31:14.880 in the Alliance Town Center. 00:31:14.880 --> 00:31:21.720 We have also watched how good planning over time can generate and change urban living 00:31:21.720 --> 00:31:27.440 markets, so Alliance Town Center, our first project there in 2008, which was an unfortunate 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 00:31:33.160 --> 00:31:35.480 an acre, still very high quality. 00:31:35.480 --> 00:31:37.520 We were pushing the market. 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 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 00:31:53.600 --> 00:31:59.640 street to create an urban, walkable environment, but still surface-parked inside the donut, 00:31:59.640 --> 00:32:05.080 if you will, highly amenitized, but all connected through the parks and trails system to the 00:32:05.080 --> 00:32:07.680 other uses. 00:32:07.680 --> 00:32:12.920 Now go to what you hope to have a decade, a couple from now. 00:32:12.920 --> 00:32:17.680 This is a Hillwood project in Frisco called Station House. 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 00:32:23.520 --> 00:32:29.840 seats at Alliance Town Center, push it onto five acres, and go vertical with a structured 00:32:29.840 --> 00:32:32.800 parking, and Station House is a good representation of that. 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 00:32:37.400 --> 00:32:40.400 that opened up a couple of months ago in Frisco Station. 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 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 00:32:57.080 --> 00:33:05.160 through J.P. Morgan, Chase, Toyota, Liberty Mutual, who moved into the 121 D&T corridor, 00:33:05.160 --> 00:33:06.600 you know, just two years ago. 00:33:06.600 --> 00:33:12.720 So that type of demographic in corporate relocation is driving a different type of user, which 00:33:12.720 --> 00:33:15.800 led us to be able to build this project. 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, 00:33:23.120 --> 00:33:25.520 pays off over time. 00:33:25.520 --> 00:33:28.600 Excuse me. 00:33:28.600 --> 00:33:30.360 This is a picture of Alliance Town Center retail. 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 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 00:33:45.760 --> 00:33:50.960 quality even before you can go dense with the right controls, and we are very proud 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, 00:33:58.000 --> 00:34:03.720 we have 19 commercial HOAs, I personally sit on every design review board, and hopefully 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 00:34:07.960 --> 00:34:14.080 side, and that's just through good quality landscape lighting signage controls that ultimately 00:34:14.080 --> 00:34:20.520 integrate the housing and commercial uses together into a cohesive community, and we've 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 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 00:34:32.120 --> 00:34:38.160 more suburban office product that's likely more representative of Hunter Ranch in the 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 00:34:44.040 --> 00:34:49.080 mixed use side is looking at Hunter Ranch, and how we believe it ultimately will lead 00:34:49.080 --> 00:35:01.360 to the right community with the housing piece, thank you. 00:35:01.360 --> 00:35:06.440 So kind of back to Hunter Ranch, and Cole Ranch specifically, I've mentioned the green 00:35:06.440 --> 00:35:11.160 belts and the linear linkages are really the key fundamental part of the master planning, 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 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 00:35:22.760 --> 00:35:30.400 streams and buffer, load in there, ESA upland habitat, sometimes it's good just to toggle 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, 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 00:35:41.760 --> 00:35:46.320 buffers, different from Hunter Ranch, so if you're familiar with pilot knob and a series 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 00:35:55.480 --> 00:35:58.600 acres in total. 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 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 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 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 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 00:36:28.000 --> 00:36:32.760 time, the Barnett Shale has always been up here, we have participated and have been involved 00:36:32.760 --> 00:36:37.000 in projects that we have owned the minerals and drilled, maybe we own the surface, somebody 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 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 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 00:36:53.280 --> 00:36:59.080 programming within our master plans, we'll use those buffer areas for really more passive 00:36:59.080 --> 00:37:03.120 pick up activities, even if it wasn't programmed through our lifestyle directors, that very 00:37:03.120 --> 00:37:08.720 creative baseball coach or soccer coach will use those areas for pick up practices on a 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 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 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 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 00:37:31.000 --> 00:37:37.360 where they emerge, city parks, neighborhood parks, dog parks and pocket parks, included 00:37:37.360 --> 00:37:41.340 in our agreements, these other agreements that we're talking about that are conditions 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 00:37:47.720 --> 00:37:53.760 we're giving, what are the standards of development, both infrastructure and architectural, part 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, 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 00:38:06.120 --> 00:38:11.320 of that, neighborhood parks, we're both giving in yellow there, you can see, two neighborhood 00:38:11.320 --> 00:38:15.240 parks each, so a total of four neighborhood parks. All right, now those are designed to 00:38:15.240 --> 00:38:23.560 be adjacent to the elementary schools, that's in concert and coordination with Denton ISD, 00:38:23.560 --> 00:38:28.960 we find some synergies, I guess, your parks department and the ISD is fine with doing 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, 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 00:38:37.440 --> 00:38:41.560 other project, which is fantastic. And then pocket parks, these are half acre to acre 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 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 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 00:38:55.880 --> 00:39:00.280 with the objectives of the city and certainly our major planning principles, it's important 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 00:39:03.880 --> 00:39:08.480 range of really throughout the community. You have this half mile or 10 minute walk 00:39:08.480 --> 00:39:12.720 concept, so this is really just an overlay to say that everywhere you are within the 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 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 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 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 00:39:31.000 --> 00:39:36.160 about 58 miles, clearly far exceeding any kind of requirement or anything that's even 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 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 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 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 00:39:59.840 --> 00:40:04.680 about that in an amendment, but everything we're talking about building is public to 00:40:04.680 --> 00:40:10.120 Denton residents. So as we're going through our design and our visioning for the community, 00:40:10.120 --> 00:40:13.600 every project we do, not one single one is even close to being, yes sir. 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 00:40:19.080 --> 00:40:24.120 showing on greenways and parks there, how much buffer are you guys, and this is really 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 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 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 00:40:37.880 --> 00:40:40.360 288. I mean, is that... 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 00:40:43.800 --> 00:40:46.120 wanted it there or not, it certainly is green space. 00:40:46.120 --> 00:40:47.960 I don't know that we're proposing it. 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, 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 00:40:55.720 --> 00:41:00.000 that do you think would actually be turning to develop a land with residential being developed 00:41:00.000 --> 00:41:01.000 into there? 00:41:01.000 --> 00:41:03.160 Well, nothing in green on the map is going to be developed. 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 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 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 00:41:17.320 --> 00:41:23.840 north part of 288 and real near the airport, just concerns and questions about residential 00:41:23.840 --> 00:41:27.760 development around that. Do you guys have plans or thoughts in regards to kind of that 00:41:27.760 --> 00:41:30.720 section as of right now and how much residential would develop around that? 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:42:03.400 --> 00:42:08.040 runway. It doesn't restrict residential from occurring, but it certainly has some requirements 00:42:08.040 --> 00:42:09.660 on that. Sure. I guess I'm just speaking more along 00:42:09.660 --> 00:42:14.920 the consistency of what you see on 288 currently existing and how, how much residential buffer 00:42:14.920 --> 00:42:18.240 there is currently along 288. There is no, there's almost no residential that's right 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 00:42:22.200 --> 00:42:25.440 development. If we're going to look at it later, we can address it later. 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 00:42:29.320 --> 00:42:34.960 highest intensities and largely no residential. As a matter of fact, we've been talking with 00:42:34.960 --> 00:42:41.720 the planning staff about the prohibition of along 288 and along 35, a prohibition zone 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. 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 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, 00:42:56.680 --> 00:43:00.640 even if the underlying zoning allows some form of residential, that not being able to 00:43:00.640 --> 00:43:03.760 do residential. I don't know if that addresses the question in general. 00:43:03.760 --> 00:43:08.520 Yeah, that actually addresses it perfectly. So that works. Thank you, appreciate it. 00:43:08.520 --> 00:43:14.320 Trails, see, so again, with our master planning and visioning for this project, no projects 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 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 00:43:23.960 --> 00:43:29.240 certainly got a culture of music and art and some really special characteristics. So the 00:43:29.240 --> 00:43:34.400 goal is, well, how do we create spaces within these projects that really relate to those, 00:43:34.400 --> 00:43:43.080 you know, inherent Denton characteristics. So again, we have all this parks, park space 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 00:43:47.240 --> 00:43:53.240 have developed. I think representative in terms of scale and maybe uniqueness for some 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 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 00:44:05.000 --> 00:44:10.480 top right again, play activity and bottom right to really interesting amenity in a public 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 00:44:16.080 --> 00:44:19.800 one of the most simple structures we've ever done and probably the most beloved structure 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 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 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 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 00:44:38.920 --> 00:44:44.200 opened in our project called Union Park in Little Lamb. And these things are just hugely 00:44:44.200 --> 00:44:48.720 popular. Everybody loves dogs as it turns out, and we've committed to doing, you know, 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 00:44:55.120 --> 00:45:01.160 be easements overlaid guaranteeing public access to Denton. It'll be a combination of different 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 00:45:06.280 --> 00:45:12.000 run trails through and up through. There'll be different material types. There'll also 00:45:12.000 --> 00:45:16.780 be private amenities. These are some examples of our current active projects that are going 00:45:16.780 --> 00:45:21.840 on really in Texas, but we pride ourselves on creativity. We partner with the greatest 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 00:45:26.780 --> 00:45:32.720 Meyers here from TBG, senior principal. And we just really insist on the most creative 00:45:32.720 --> 00:45:37.680 thoughts that we can afford. Again, these are private amenities. The only thing that's 00:45:37.680 --> 00:45:42.480 really private between these two projects, given that it's the municipal management district, 00:45:42.480 --> 00:45:46.960 which is this public entity, which is what we're trying to create this financing tool. 00:45:46.960 --> 00:45:51.480 The equal and opposite effect of creating that district is that everything is public, 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 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 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. 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. 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 00:46:16.960 --> 00:46:22.560 of an animation. This is don't get focused, please, on the building and the architecture. 00:46:22.560 --> 00:46:27.120 These are just masses of buildings, you'll be able to distinguish residential from probably 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 00:47:16.920 --> 00:47:22.720 coal ranch. Even from coming in here, you really see the dominant nature of the uplands 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 00:47:28.120 --> 00:47:33.700 again, you'll see that we're making commitments on preservation of upland habitat. Broad general 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 00:47:39.560 --> 00:47:46.340 to preserve I think 30% broadly depending on the land use. We're committing to conserving 00:47:46.340 --> 00:47:51.940 and preserving 55% of our upland ESAs. So really about double what the requirements are. 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 00:48:01.120 --> 00:48:05.840 every Robeson Ranch resident on the planet has asked us when the first grocery store 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 00:48:13.300 --> 00:48:18.880 we will probably first start our project where infrastructure is, where intersections are. 00:48:18.880 --> 00:48:23.780 We see this northwest corner kind of being hopefully a grosser anchored power center 00:48:23.780 --> 00:48:34.780 right here on the northwest corner. As you make your way north, you'll see different 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 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 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 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. 00:48:59.180 --> 00:49:05.460 Really nussling projects. You can see here this might be an office building really between 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 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. 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 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 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 00:49:33.780 --> 00:49:40.580 will run up and through Pilot Knob. So you may have noticed a little helicopter kind 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 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 00:49:53.980 --> 00:50:00.100 mobility need that may not be exactly here right now in full force but certainly coming. 00:50:00.100 --> 00:50:07.780 Hillwood's a major partner with Uber, Uber Elevate. Our company happens to be Avid Aviators 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 00:50:12.700 --> 00:50:18.660 different companies showing them different opportunities throughout. So with SUP we're 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 00:50:23.900 --> 00:50:27.900 with you all and certainly have to ask for approval from the city. FAA ultimately will 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 00:50:34.340 --> 00:50:40.340 working our way again south through the hills. This is actually an almost exact topographic 00:50:40.340 --> 00:50:49.380 representation of the elevation of the hills including tree masses. Again a use kind of 00:50:49.380 --> 00:50:58.580 position in between the upland ESA's. And then you kind of get into some residential 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 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 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. 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 00:51:24.180 --> 00:51:28.060 elementary school and other things that are really feeding off of these green belts. This 00:51:28.060 --> 00:51:33.460 is an existing lake. Middle school, elementary school, leveraging that. I just flew over 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 00:52:10.780 --> 00:52:15.780 we're using that lake to put again another community park potentially as well as the 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 00:52:32.540 --> 00:52:37.780 we're really looking southeast. The roadway you see here, this is 288, the future 288, 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 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 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 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 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 00:53:10.500 --> 00:53:15.780 right there at the intersection then going back into a residential community. We'll come 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, 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 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 00:53:42.540 --> 00:53:46.000 different qualities of the project and maybe how we're planning around them. All we know 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, 00:53:50.900 --> 00:53:54.460 we would never have predicted how Alliance would develop if we really said it's going 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 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 00:54:13.820 --> 00:54:19.300 existing entitlements on coal and hunter are a little bit different. But generally speaking, 00:54:19.300 --> 00:54:25.780 Hunter Ranch has setback requirements in our existing zoning, 250 feet from the wellhead, 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 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 00:54:41.900 --> 00:54:46.500 proposal means really where we are, we believe, with staff and conversations with council 00:54:46.500 --> 00:54:51.460 where we believe we are. And this is largely intended to pretty much mirror the approval 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 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 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 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 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 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, 00:55:32.980 --> 00:55:39.460 25 or so pad sites, it really encumbers the property almost another 700 acres of unusable 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 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 00:55:49.940 --> 00:55:54.860 acres that really is taken out of play for development. Some of that is actually along 00:55:54.860 --> 00:56:00.540 Greenbelch or maybe might infringe into an ESA. So I'm not saying 697 additional developable 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 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 00:56:14.700 --> 00:56:21.780 we're accepting the ordinance that was approved just recently. Ends up being over 600 acres 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 00:56:56.380 --> 00:57:02.580 and requirements up to 2019 as well. There were some antiquated 2002 as amended that 00:57:02.580 --> 00:57:07.260 probably somebody might be able to take advantage of, maybe some standards that might not make 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 00:57:13.180 --> 00:57:17.660 commercial and mixed use along the highways versus where it was previously kind of scattered 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 00:57:23.980 --> 00:57:28.980 several thousand units that we're agreeing to reduce from our zoned entitled residential 00:57:28.980 --> 00:57:36.940 units. We're bringing it down several thousand units. Parkland trail significantly greater 00:57:36.940 --> 00:57:40.860 than currently required and certainly will exceed the city standards. The development 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 00:57:45.060 --> 00:57:50.980 again, with jumping up to 2019 DDC, all those old zoning categories that are currently in 00:57:50.980 --> 00:57:56.700 place now with the existing zoning would be recategorized and we're using current 2019 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 00:58:04.820 --> 00:58:09.080 and just know that we have these other city agreements. Like OC mentioned, the legislation 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 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 00:58:21.940 --> 00:58:26.140 on the MPC amendment. It's just going to be required. The legislation very specifically 00:58:26.140 --> 00:58:30.540 mentions these bottom three items that have to be agreed to before we can utilize the 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 00:59:23.100 --> 00:59:27.300 those other agreements, the technical nature of the operating agreement, the project agreement 00:59:27.300 --> 00:59:31.540 and the consent agreement, which are really more related to the MUD district as it turns 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 00:59:37.500 --> 00:59:40.020 Richard was going to go through a few items as well. 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 00:59:44.900 --> 00:59:49.060 that are relevant to this presentation. If they're here and we have questions later, 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 00:59:54.820 --> 00:59:58.220 take them now. Does anyone have any questions? Chris or Beck? 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 01:00:06.420 --> 01:00:11.340 of that are we sort of double dipping for our park space and our ESA space? 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. 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 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 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 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 01:00:40.440 --> 01:00:46.220 or city park land benefit or credit for that area. 01:00:46.220 --> 01:00:52.620 >> Sort of related question to that is you mentioned sort of like sort of halfway through 01:00:52.620 --> 01:01:01.140 your presentation that these unplanned, you know, coach usage of -- 01:01:01.140 --> 01:01:04.880 >> The buffer areas, how we're using them? Right. 01:01:04.880 --> 01:01:11.740 >> Is that something that you envision all these green spaces, buffers, to be used? Because 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 01:01:15.860 --> 01:01:17.740 use of buffer areas. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 01:01:58.900 --> 01:02:04.700 ball fields necessarily to, you know, make people go there to practice. It will just 01:02:04.700 --> 01:02:07.740 be what people do with open space. 01:02:07.740 --> 01:02:16.340 And so for the area around the knobs, the corporate development area in between the 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 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 01:02:27.580 --> 01:02:35.900 and whatnot. But it seemed like there was a lot of interdigitation, which in some sense 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 01:02:42.020 --> 01:02:43.860 impact on the ESA itself. 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, 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 01:02:54.380 --> 01:02:56.780 we're required to do. 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 01:03:00.940 --> 01:03:01.940 out into those. 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 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 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. 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 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 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 01:03:31.500 --> 01:03:33.220 the protected parts of the ESA. 01:03:33.220 --> 01:03:34.220 Okay. Yeah. 01:03:34.220 --> 01:03:35.220 Thank you. 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 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 01:03:45.340 --> 01:03:51.020 there. That was one of the key drivers of getting, you know, Deloitte, Schwab, Fidelity. 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 01:03:55.180 --> 01:03:56.180 really very desirable. 01:03:56.180 --> 01:04:00.460 I certainly agree with you that that sort of development with lots of green space in 01:04:00.460 --> 01:04:06.060 the development is really pleasant for humans. And it's something that we all aspire to. 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 01:04:14.340 --> 01:04:20.380 have that good human interaction, you want to green up your commercial space rather than 01:04:20.380 --> 01:04:24.460 concrete up your ESAs to get the interdigitation. 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 01:04:28.100 --> 01:04:32.820 the ESAs as we need to. So anything that was interpreted from the animation about going 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 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. 01:04:41.620 --> 01:04:45.900 So yeah, I understand your point though. 01:04:45.900 --> 01:04:51.260 Senior, other questions for this presentation or team? I have one as Richard makes his way 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 01:05:34.660 --> 01:05:39.980 probably agrees less drilling is better regarding, you know, impact. So the idea on that note 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 01:05:44.460 --> 01:05:49.300 shown as gas pad sites and buffers may go away. Gotcha. Okay. Thanks for that clarification. 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 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 01:06:01.780 --> 01:06:08.100 gas petroleum economy impact per se, but in terms of residential and commercial areas. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 01:06:43.980 --> 01:06:48.220 energy company. So we're pretty good at this, I guess, in terms of hopefully predicting 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 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. 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 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, 01:07:06.620 --> 01:07:10.800 depending on the natural gas market. And I apologize for interrupting you. And then sort 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 01:08:11.700 --> 01:08:17.540 use within our comp plan. Um, the start to focus on the development plan amendments as 01:08:17.540 --> 01:08:22.900 it relates to the 2019 DDC, uh, some major changes as it relates to use comparisons. 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 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, 01:08:35.620 --> 01:08:40.820 get into a, a little bit about the density and intensity analysis, uh, ESA upland tree 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 01:09:10.980 --> 01:09:16.180 they said approximately 1400 people are moving into Texas daily. 700 of those are moving 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 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. 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 01:09:33.180 --> 01:09:38.340 or the week before, um, very similar. Um, but we were actually ranked number two. There 01:09:38.340 --> 01:09:43.780 are a number of factors that they looked at, population housing, job creation, new business 01:09:43.780 --> 01:09:48.500 development. I think Longmont, Colorado was number one, Denton was two in the nation. 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 01:10:26.780 --> 01:10:32.580 that distinction. A lot of the test cases that we ran with respect to increasing heights, 01:10:32.580 --> 01:10:37.460 multifamily, we really looked at making sure that we were preserving or protecting some 01:10:37.460 --> 01:10:42.020 of the existing single family neighborhoods in the city. And so looking at this in, in 01:10:42.020 --> 01:10:48.940 And that kind of in that context really looks at truly doing a master plan community. 01:10:48.940 --> 01:10:53.780 And so while we kind of zoned and created these regulations that were spread across 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 01:11:01.740 --> 01:11:14.580 specifically and getting out of the old code and really coming into what we recently adopted 01:11:14.580 --> 01:11:16.700 for the 2019 code. 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. 01:11:21.340 --> 01:11:25.620 But again, these NPCs were created in 2008. 01:11:25.620 --> 01:11:28.860 And as I mentioned, there were a number of iterations of the DDC. 01:11:28.860 --> 01:11:31.820 And within 2008, there were a number of iterations. 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, 01:11:38.980 --> 01:11:42.860 it was almost impossible to do. 01:11:42.860 --> 01:11:45.020 We spent hours and hours and hours. 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. 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 01:11:55.400 --> 01:11:58.340 sort of a mini DDC. 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 01:12:03.820 --> 01:12:04.820 it say. 01:12:04.820 --> 01:12:08.900 And so there's a policy specifically to 2.11, promote development of master plan communities 01:12:08.900 --> 01:12:12.340 that is consistent with long-term vision of the preferred growth concept. 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 01:12:21.460 --> 01:12:24.800 revisions to the mix of the approved NPCs. 01:12:24.800 --> 01:12:28.340 And so what I thought was interesting, there were some earlier discussions that we had 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. 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 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 01:12:45.300 --> 01:12:50.260 look at the 2030 map, while we created these policies and recognized that the NPCs need 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. 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, 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 01:13:11.900 --> 01:13:18.500 land use such a large master plan community on a very specific type basis. 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 01:13:24.660 --> 01:13:32.380 comp plan, again, very different than where we are 2030, again, not knocking the 2030, 01:13:32.380 --> 01:13:39.260 but even just looking at some of the uses around 35 and where the loop. 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 01:13:42.220 --> 01:13:47.620 use at those two highway intersections. 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. 01:13:51.820 --> 01:13:53.740 We got one question, Commissioner Beck. 01:13:53.740 --> 01:13:56.100 Could you flip back to that slide for a second? 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 01:14:00.620 --> 01:14:01.620 right here. 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. 01:14:12.580 --> 01:14:21.500 So the development of this region, does that not lead to essentially additional industrial 01:14:21.500 --> 01:14:29.700 business islands outside of our main downtown use area? 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? 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 01:14:42.780 --> 01:14:46.380 concept, that's kind of what it speaks to, is creating these distinct areas. 01:14:46.380 --> 01:14:51.660 I think the challenge that we have always is developing in and around the downtown is 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, 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 01:15:03.020 --> 01:15:05.980 that probably could use redeveloping. 01:15:05.980 --> 01:15:09.260 The max height is 65 feet. 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. 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 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 01:15:24.100 --> 01:15:27.300 to push that density closer to the core. 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 01:15:33.660 --> 01:15:35.220 speak to that. 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. 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 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 01:15:51.740 --> 01:15:58.580 is a much more balanced approach. 01:15:58.580 --> 01:16:03.300 And so again, looking at that development plan amendment and looking at those bullet 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 01:16:08.980 --> 01:16:12.140 MPC should focus on, these revisions. 01:16:12.140 --> 01:16:15.420 And again, a mix of housing types to reflect changing demographics, and so that's kind 01:16:15.420 --> 01:16:16.420 of where we are. 01:16:16.420 --> 01:16:19.300 I think we even addressed that as part of the 2019 DDC. 01:16:19.300 --> 01:16:22.540 I won't read every single in detail. 01:16:22.540 --> 01:16:26.660 Appropriate siting of schools, civic buildings, and community amenities. 01:16:26.660 --> 01:16:30.660 And so I think when you saw their proposal, there was obviously an overall increase in 01:16:30.660 --> 01:16:33.320 open space, better location of school sites. 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 01:16:38.700 --> 01:16:40.380 really shouldn't be there. 01:16:40.380 --> 01:16:43.820 So there's just an overall improvement. 01:16:43.820 --> 01:16:50.500 I think what's really key to this is the adjacency to the existing transportation system. 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 01:16:57.420 --> 01:17:01.440 deal with that growth that we have on our local network. 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 01:17:07.300 --> 01:17:08.460 off the bat. 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, 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 01:17:19.500 --> 01:17:20.780 in the past. 01:17:20.780 --> 01:17:27.820 And so that's another -- again, how we're meeting those tasks. 01:17:27.820 --> 01:17:30.700 Conservation development, where appropriate, I think that the increased preservation of 01:17:30.700 --> 01:17:35.820 the ESA habitat obviously speaks to that, as well as some modifications and inclusion 01:17:35.820 --> 01:17:37.820 of the cluster subdivision. 01:17:37.820 --> 01:17:42.300 Again, focusing on that compact mixed-use walkable development pattern, having that 01:17:42.300 --> 01:17:47.860 network of trails link everything, again, integrating those area-wide networks. 01:17:47.860 --> 01:17:54.020 I think they've talked to approximately 52 or 56 miles of trails. 01:17:54.020 --> 01:17:59.180 And then developable acreage that is in balance of overall development in the city. 01:17:59.180 --> 01:18:07.220 I think when we look at some of the uses, particularly the corporate office parks, not 01:18:07.220 --> 01:18:11.580 too many other places in the city do we have the ability for that. 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 01:18:16.720 --> 01:18:22.500 fast-forwarded the widening of that, as well as the service roads. 01:18:22.500 --> 01:18:29.180 And so I think, again, it goes back to truly planning, planning for integrating those types 01:18:29.180 --> 01:18:34.020 of uses within the city. 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 01:18:40.900 --> 01:18:41.900 proposed. 01:18:41.900 --> 01:18:46.860 Again, 84% residential, whereas now we're at about 38%. 01:18:46.860 --> 01:18:51.860 And so again, balancing, kind of balancing the scales, I think, a little more towards 01:18:51.860 --> 01:18:52.860 the mixed-use. 01:18:52.860 --> 01:18:58.860 Again, greater potential for employment and sales tax, and again, buffering residential 01:18:58.860 --> 01:19:04.260 by that mixed-use along 35 and the loop. 01:19:04.260 --> 01:19:10.060 Similar with coal, again, the proposed mix is much more balanced and in line with that 01:19:10.060 --> 01:19:18.300 policy 211, correcting the 2002 DDC actually prohibited schools and residential districts. 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. 01:19:23.780 --> 01:19:27.780 They're now just permitted in those residential districts, as opposed to having zoned them 01:19:27.780 --> 01:19:30.380 specifically their own category. 01:19:30.380 --> 01:19:34.780 But again, you see that much more balanced, balanced mix. 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. 01:19:43.740 --> 01:19:46.580 I'm not going to hit on every single one of these. 01:19:46.580 --> 01:19:52.300 But probably some of the key ones, especially that we discussed with council, one was allowing 01:19:52.300 --> 01:20:01.020 multifamily in R7 without an SUP, allowing single-family in the MR district with limitations 01:20:01.020 --> 01:20:05.780 of 60% net developable acreage. 01:20:05.780 --> 01:20:11.740 There were some additional concerns that was previously touched on regarding that location 01:20:11.740 --> 01:20:14.620 to the interstate that I think we're working through. 01:20:14.620 --> 01:20:19.460 And so ultimately when this comes back, we'll address that some more. 01:20:19.460 --> 01:20:25.980 Removing some retail limitations, again, allowing the schools, and then we do have some prohibitions 01:20:25.980 --> 01:20:36.220 of RV parks, motels, major automotive repair, again, really focusing on kind of how we want 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 01:20:41.980 --> 01:20:46.940 code does and has to for the lack of a better way to put it. 01:20:46.940 --> 01:20:53.820 Looking at allowing for solar collectors as a principle and wind energy conversion systems 01:20:53.820 --> 01:20:56.260 within the MR, again, with an SUP. 01:20:56.260 --> 01:21:03.340 SUP would require P&Z recommendation, council approval. 01:21:03.340 --> 01:21:08.700 Modifying the accessory dwellings, allowing them in all districts with some limitations 01:21:08.700 --> 01:21:10.980 further than what we have today. 01:21:10.980 --> 01:21:15.560 So limiting the accessory dwellings to only one bedroom or less. 01:21:15.560 --> 01:21:24.940 But then allowing outdoor storage in MR with specific standards currently, it's not permitted. 01:21:24.940 --> 01:21:33.580 Again, with temporary uses, rather than have this nondescript what they are, really enumerating 01:21:33.580 --> 01:21:35.660 that list. 01:21:35.660 --> 01:21:42.020 And then allowing for open air market, parking for model homes, sales and leasing office. 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 01:21:45.820 --> 01:21:52.140 and mixed-use properties, is limiting seasonal sales to the property owner's association. 01:21:52.140 --> 01:21:57.100 That way we don't have multiple tenants and everybody having different seasonal sales 01:21:57.100 --> 01:21:59.940 that they can control it a little more. 01:21:59.940 --> 01:22:08.940 And so that would be an application that would come in from the property owner association. 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 01:22:15.100 --> 01:22:16.100 SUP. 01:22:16.100 --> 01:22:21.660 Again, we didn't really have any major concerns with the proposed modifications. 01:22:21.660 --> 01:22:24.820 Again, we're looking at this as we're planning for it. 01:22:24.820 --> 01:22:30.180 So again, we're not putting these provisions in for protection. 01:22:30.180 --> 01:22:34.580 We're already planning for it and it's intended. 01:22:34.580 --> 01:22:41.460 Looking at the density analysis, again, you start to see that ratio mix, but more importantly, 01:22:41.460 --> 01:22:47.980 you see the overall reduction in proposed units, both from multi-family and single-family 01:22:47.980 --> 01:22:51.460 from both than what's currently permitted. 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 01:22:55.820 --> 01:22:56.820 project. 01:22:56.820 --> 01:23:02.060 It's really not because they do have some rights already that are allowed. 01:23:02.060 --> 01:23:07.780 And so again, it is a substantial reduction in what's permitted today. 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. 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. 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 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 01:23:32.900 --> 01:23:33.900 front of the house. 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 01:23:40.140 --> 01:23:42.100 that's front-facing. 01:23:42.100 --> 01:23:43.740 And so we discussed that. 01:23:43.740 --> 01:23:45.700 They're well aware of it. 01:23:45.700 --> 01:23:49.100 And really what that would do is push the parking, whether it would be alley-loaded 01:23:49.100 --> 01:23:54.300 or set the garage well behind the front of the house. 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 01:24:00.340 --> 01:24:01.340 planned. 01:24:01.340 --> 01:24:02.340 This is what's intended. 01:24:02.340 --> 01:24:05.820 Again, we didn't really have a concern with that. 01:24:05.820 --> 01:24:09.180 One of the other components was looking at a zero lot line. 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 01:24:15.100 --> 01:24:18.420 between the buildings, but allowing for a 4-foot maintenance easement. 01:24:18.420 --> 01:24:24.020 Again, that would be for whatever would be needed-- window change, outpainting, a variety 01:24:24.020 --> 01:24:26.700 of things. 01:24:26.700 --> 01:24:36.220 Height analysis-- one of the proposed changes, again, is in the MN, increasing it from 65 01:24:36.220 --> 01:24:40.900 to 100 and not requiring an SGP for that increased height. 01:24:40.900 --> 01:24:47.020 The current DDC requires in MN a SGP from 41 feet to 65. 01:24:47.020 --> 01:24:52.420 MR, they're proposing it to increase from 100 to 200. 01:24:52.420 --> 01:24:56.300 Different standards-- anything over 100 requires an SGP. 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. 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 01:25:08.980 --> 01:25:11.220 2019 DDC. 01:25:11.220 --> 01:25:17.500 We expanded on a provision that we previously had that talked about transition-- building 01:25:17.500 --> 01:25:21.280 height transition when adjacent to single family. 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 01:25:27.540 --> 01:25:30.500 be, where we're headed. 01:25:30.500 --> 01:25:34.180 Currently single-family detached is permitted in MN. 01:25:34.180 --> 01:25:39.060 That building height transition only comes into play if it's adjacent to a residential 01:25:39.060 --> 01:25:40.620 zone district. 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 01:25:45.940 --> 01:25:52.060 next to it without that building height transition standards coming into play. 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 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 01:26:04.060 --> 01:26:05.060 those districts themselves. 01:26:05.060 --> 01:26:10.580 So within the MN, within the MR, now requiring that building height transition within the 01:26:10.580 --> 01:26:11.740 district itself. 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 01:26:16.220 --> 01:26:22.100 development within the MR or MN. 01:26:22.100 --> 01:26:27.060 This is just a height comparison of what they're currently allowed to have today. 01:26:27.060 --> 01:26:32.180 So in Hunter, the max height goes from 35 feet up to 100. 01:26:32.180 --> 01:26:36.980 In Cole, if you remember, the old CMG had no height limitation. 01:26:36.980 --> 01:26:42.780 So whether they could, again, some of this will be controlled by the location approximate 01:26:42.780 --> 01:26:44.700 to the airport. 01:26:44.700 --> 01:26:48.020 But again, you see the changes. 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 01:26:51.500 --> 01:26:58.180 under consideration, when you really look at the NR10, 15, and 20 under Hunter, these 01:26:58.180 --> 01:27:04.560 were sub-districts that were created that were essentially multi-family districts. 01:27:04.560 --> 01:27:11.140 And so while we talk about the MPCs being these walkable urban environments, the standards 01:27:11.140 --> 01:27:13.740 that are put in place really don't allow for that. 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 01:27:18.900 --> 01:27:23.900 that we have everywhere else with the sprawled parking lot. 01:27:23.900 --> 01:27:29.380 And so really, it almost forces, you know, the old standards really forced that as opposed 01:27:29.380 --> 01:27:33.580 to being able to be creative, provide for integrated parking. 01:27:33.580 --> 01:27:39.980 You just can't do that within 35 feet of height. 01:27:39.980 --> 01:27:44.620 One of the other proposed amendments is to the cluster subdivision. 01:27:44.620 --> 01:27:50.260 Again, because this is going to have a multiple property owners/homeowners association, one 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 01:28:01.220 --> 01:28:10.740 a shared driveway, but reducing the minimum drive area and really only having two parking 01:28:10.740 --> 01:28:17.820 spaces on-site that would be in a garage with one off-site space on-street. 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 01:28:23.860 --> 01:28:29.580 have parking within the driveway because you just can't get out. 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 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 01:28:44.320 --> 01:28:45.320 it was age-restricted. 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 01:28:50.900 --> 01:28:56.340 many 55 and older couples have more than two vehicles. 01:28:56.340 --> 01:29:01.300 Again, governed by an HOA. 01:29:01.300 --> 01:29:05.620 Upland habitat, I think what you'll see is when this ultimately comes back, this will 01:29:05.620 --> 01:29:07.580 be modified again. 01:29:07.580 --> 01:29:10.420 They hinted to that already and showed some of that. 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 01:29:18.380 --> 01:29:30.740 the 2002, 2019 DDC required an increase from non-residential ESA preservation from 0-30%. 01:29:30.740 --> 01:29:33.460 And then in residential, they had it at 55. 01:29:33.460 --> 01:29:39.140 They're looking at actually maintaining an overall ESA preservation of 55%. 01:29:39.140 --> 01:29:42.260 I suspect it might even be a little higher. 01:29:42.260 --> 01:29:47.380 But again, we're looking at really pulling -- one of the items that council had discussed 01:29:47.380 --> 01:29:55.480 is really pulling these areas out of the zoning and just identifying exactly what's anticipated. 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 01:30:01.140 --> 01:30:08.060 already sort of self-imposed a limitation much greater than what the code would even 01:30:08.060 --> 01:30:12.420 allow for. 01:30:12.420 --> 01:30:18.100 Looking at tree canopy and preservation, the new tree code, obviously everyone hopefully 01:30:18.100 --> 01:30:23.180 is familiar with, requires a minimum of 30% of the DBH and the mitigation for payment 01:30:23.180 --> 01:30:24.740 or planning. 01:30:24.740 --> 01:30:33.500 One of the items that they had proposed, again, is increasing actually that minimum to 35%. 01:30:33.500 --> 01:30:37.100 And then if you remember, there was sort of a multiplier. 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 01:30:41.500 --> 01:30:44.980 -- the replacement rate was 2.5%. 01:30:44.980 --> 01:30:46.660 They've agreed to up theirs to 3. 01:30:46.660 --> 01:30:55.380 So again, putting more value, if you will, on heritage trees that would be out there 01:30:55.380 --> 01:31:00.100 and requiring obviously much more mitigation if they were to take those down. 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 01:31:06.260 --> 01:31:12.060 minimum canopy would be, and then looking at the future minimum canopy. 01:31:12.060 --> 01:31:14.820 I suspect this number will be much higher. 01:31:14.820 --> 01:31:20.900 One of the other provisions that they built into their amendment is for single-family 01:31:20.900 --> 01:31:25.900 residential, the current 2019 DDC requires one shade tree. 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 01:31:31.460 --> 01:31:32.460 lot. 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 01:31:37.200 --> 01:31:40.300 we're planning for. 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 01:31:46.660 --> 01:31:48.820 pad sites. 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, 01:31:55.820 --> 01:32:00.860 what's platted and undeveloped and allowed, undeveloped existing wells, undrilled wells. 01:32:00.860 --> 01:32:05.460 So for coal, I'll start there on the bottom only because they have 15. 01:32:05.460 --> 01:32:06.660 That's what the MPC has. 01:32:06.660 --> 01:32:07.660 That's what they have. 01:32:07.660 --> 01:32:11.060 There's no undeveloped platted well sites. 01:32:11.060 --> 01:32:16.820 They do have some undrilled wells, but again, those would -- that -- there's 38 existing, 01:32:16.820 --> 01:32:21.220 so 24 additional wells could be -- could be drilled. 01:32:21.220 --> 01:32:23.980 Hunter, the MPC allows for 19. 01:32:23.980 --> 01:32:30.460 They have five existing sites, four unplatted but undeveloped, and then an additional 10 01:32:30.460 --> 01:32:34.220 that are allowed that are undeveloped. 01:32:34.220 --> 01:32:35.500 That number may reduce to five. 01:32:35.500 --> 01:32:38.860 Again, they're going to reduce it overall to five. 01:32:38.860 --> 01:32:42.500 It may come from -- it may come from this column. 01:32:42.500 --> 01:32:43.500 It may come from this column. 01:32:43.500 --> 01:32:44.780 It may come from that column. 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 01:32:51.020 --> 01:32:57.740 comes back to you, that will be -- that will be -- that will be established. 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 01:33:04.500 --> 01:33:08.300 -- what the current MPC has. 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 01:33:16.860 --> 01:33:18.780 from the well head to structure. 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 01:33:25.060 --> 01:33:26.860 amendments that increased the reverse setback. 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 01:33:31.060 --> 01:33:32.940 figure all of this out. 01:33:32.940 --> 01:33:36.620 But then, again, looking at the absolute minimum, again, these are -- these are fire codes. 01:33:36.620 --> 01:33:40.560 So currently, they're about 100 feet from the well head. 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, 01:33:47.460 --> 01:33:52.780 again, these are very similar language to exactly what's in the code today. 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 01:34:00.140 --> 01:34:01.140 the property owner. 01:34:01.140 --> 01:34:06.620 So again, they're proposing to follow the exact standards that are -- that were recently 01:34:06.620 --> 01:34:12.020 approved, but will be reconsidered. 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 01:34:21.460 --> 01:34:31.380 setback, and so the biggest change is measuring that from the -- from the pad site. 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 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 01:34:41.900 --> 01:34:44.380 map that we put together. 01:34:44.380 --> 01:34:49.860 So overall, looking at the proposed amendment reduces the single-family residential lots 01:34:49.860 --> 01:34:55.780 by 29%, so again, lessening -- overall lessening that impact of where they are today, and then 01:34:55.780 --> 01:34:59.620 reducing the number of well sites. 01:34:59.620 --> 01:35:05.180 Increasing tree canopy obviously assists with sequestering air pollution, but again, looking 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, 01:35:11.340 --> 01:35:17.180 and when you really looked at that setback, what that actual area is that's encumbered 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 01:35:22.420 --> 01:35:29.700 that setback out, so it goes from .03% of the overall -- both sites together to almost 01:35:29.700 --> 01:35:33.340 11% that are now -- that are now captured. 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 01:35:40.220 --> 01:35:45.580 of -- out of all of the changes, again, 11% of the land. 01:35:45.580 --> 01:35:51.100 And so one -- when we finished with council, we had a number of sort of considerations 01:35:51.100 --> 01:35:56.260 that we went through with them, and one was our seven lot with reduction, and whether 01:35:56.260 --> 01:35:59.660 or not there was any real concern with that. 01:35:59.660 --> 01:36:03.820 We didn't really hear from council that had a huge concern. 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 01:36:09.140 --> 01:36:13.980 no real concern with that, really, either for the parking. 01:36:13.980 --> 01:36:21.420 Most of the discussion had to do, obviously, with calling the ESA area out specifically, 01:36:21.420 --> 01:36:28.700 and then most of the discussion was around allowing that single family in MR, particularly 01:36:28.700 --> 01:36:31.260 with that increased height. 01:36:31.260 --> 01:36:37.640 I think the provisions that we're putting in hopefully will address some of those concerns, 01:36:37.640 --> 01:36:40.700 the modification of that height transition. 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 01:36:46.580 --> 01:36:48.540 when we started making those adjustments. 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 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 01:37:01.860 --> 01:37:02.860 district. 01:37:02.860 --> 01:37:09.980 So in the MR to MN, it wouldn't apply. 01:37:09.980 --> 01:37:15.180 Then again, not requiring the height, while there were some that had concerns over this, 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. 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 01:37:28.300 --> 01:37:32.640 cases that we looked at were really within the city. 01:37:32.640 --> 01:37:34.740 How would these impact existing single family neighborhoods? 01:37:34.740 --> 01:37:35.740 Currently, there are none there. 01:37:35.740 --> 01:37:36.740 We have one question, Commissioner Ellis. 01:37:36.740 --> 01:37:37.740 Yep, and I'm done. 01:37:37.740 --> 01:37:38.740 Thank you, Chair. 01:37:38.740 --> 01:37:42.760 Richard, it's actually on this. 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 01:37:49.220 --> 01:37:55.340 an MN piece that abuts to an R4. 01:37:55.340 --> 01:37:56.340 Did you? 01:37:56.340 --> 01:37:57.340 Yep. 01:37:57.340 --> 01:38:04.580 I think that's Robes and Ranch that it's facing, I think, that piece, right? 01:38:04.580 --> 01:38:05.580 R4. 01:38:05.580 --> 01:38:06.580 Correct. 01:38:06.580 --> 01:38:07.580 Correct. 01:38:07.580 --> 01:38:10.740 It's actually subject to that height transition. 01:38:10.740 --> 01:38:20.340 So the height transition is the first from zero, and again, it's property line. 01:38:20.340 --> 01:38:24.780 So if it's abutting that district, so from their property line, the MN property line. 01:38:24.780 --> 01:38:29.700 So the max height in our single family districts is 40 feet. 01:38:29.700 --> 01:38:36.380 And so for the first 50 feet, it's 40 feet, can't exceed 40 feet. 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. 01:38:42.380 --> 01:38:47.560 And so you start to slowly taper up or transition up. 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, 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 01:38:57.460 --> 01:39:02.080 really, it's 60, I mean, 40 plus 15 is 60. 01:39:02.080 --> 01:39:06.100 So why don't we just say 65 as opposed to adding the numbers? 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 01:39:11.460 --> 01:39:14.780 to show what that transition is. 01:39:14.780 --> 01:39:17.860 So again, that would be that 100 feet. 01:39:17.860 --> 01:39:23.660 So within that 100 feet separation, the building couldn't reach that, couldn't maximize. 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 01:39:28.700 --> 01:39:37.540 work given the setback and other site constraints. 01:39:37.540 --> 01:39:40.620 Any other questions on this presentation? 01:39:40.620 --> 01:39:45.060 Or did this presentation elicit any other questions in general for this work session 01:39:45.060 --> 01:39:46.060 item? 01:39:46.060 --> 01:39:47.060 Christian Beck. 01:39:47.060 --> 01:39:48.980 Thank you, Chair. 01:39:48.980 --> 01:39:57.260 So on the tree ordinances, you mentioned they voluntarily proposing going up to three inches. 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 01:40:04.980 --> 01:40:17.140 only required to preserve certain amounts, is there, what are we doing that's encouraging 01:40:17.140 --> 01:40:21.300 development to retain rather than replace? 01:40:21.300 --> 01:40:24.780 Because replacement is not as good as retention. 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 01:40:32.220 --> 01:40:37.120 at these ESA areas, it will be very specific. 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. 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. 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. 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% 01:41:02.580 --> 01:41:05.580 for non-residential. 01:41:05.580 --> 01:41:10.720 They're looking at calling out each specific upland area. 01:41:10.720 --> 01:41:18.540 So area A or area B, area C would be 70% or 60%. 01:41:18.540 --> 01:41:22.220 Whatever that area is, that will be called out. 01:41:22.220 --> 01:41:27.980 And then for the rest of the property, it would be the standard 2019 tree ordinance 01:41:27.980 --> 01:41:30.660 for the rest of the two properties rather? 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 01:41:36.100 --> 01:41:40.700 encroachment into that upland habitat, anything that would kind of fall in would essentially 01:41:40.700 --> 01:41:43.700 get looked at as part of that tree preservation. 01:41:43.700 --> 01:41:49.840 And so what they're proposing though is a minimum of 35% preservation as opposed to 01:41:49.840 --> 01:41:52.500 the 30. 01:41:52.500 --> 01:42:01.120 And then any larger tree, the mitigation rate would be higher. 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. 01:42:06.420 --> 01:42:10.420 In addition, the replacement trees, well we have a minimum of two inches, they have agreed 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 01:42:19.500 --> 01:42:20.500 themselves. 01:42:20.500 --> 01:42:26.980 And I have an additional question. 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. 01:42:34.220 --> 01:42:38.140 Is that rooftop solar, field solar, what are we doing in that regard? 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, 01:42:48.860 --> 01:42:55.020 but any large solar, really as a primary use. 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. 01:43:03.140 --> 01:43:08.100 Okay. 01:43:08.100 --> 01:43:09.100 Thank you. 01:43:09.100 --> 01:43:13.300 Any other questions for Richard or others here? 01:43:13.300 --> 01:43:14.380 Commissioner Ellis. 01:43:14.380 --> 01:43:15.380 Thank you, Chair. 01:43:15.380 --> 01:43:16.380 Just real quick. 01:43:16.380 --> 01:43:21.820 So January 8th, effectively we are seeing this again as far as recommending a council, 01:43:21.820 --> 01:43:22.820 correct? 01:43:22.820 --> 01:43:31.660 Yeah, so what we're anticipating now is potentially holding the public hearing on January 8th. 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 01:43:42.160 --> 01:43:47.380 a 29-- two versions of the 2019 DDC. 01:43:47.380 --> 01:43:52.140 Hunter and Cole are very, very-- they're almost identical. 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 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 01:44:04.060 --> 01:44:06.580 said let's remove it to avoid the confusion. 01:44:06.580 --> 01:44:09.980 And so we may try to whittle that down even further. 01:44:09.980 --> 01:44:14.740 There are some provisions, in fact Cynthia and I were just talking earlier, there are 01:44:14.740 --> 01:44:19.120 some provisions that are being-- that are made part of the operating agreements and 01:44:19.120 --> 01:44:26.020 project agreements, specifically as it relates to utilities, that we may end up just pulling 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 01:44:30.700 --> 01:44:36.780 in one of the operating agreements to avoid those conflicting provisions. 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 01:44:44.140 --> 01:44:45.140 as-- 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 01:44:52.100 --> 01:44:57.760 the term sheet, which really highlights some of the major changes, kind of hitting where 01:44:57.760 --> 01:45:00.740 I-- some of the items I hit today. 01:45:00.740 --> 01:45:06.820 But there are some additional minor tweaks, one being like perimeter fences is one where 01:45:06.820 --> 01:45:10.420 we allow wood perimeter fences facing rights of way. 01:45:10.420 --> 01:45:16.540 They're proposing to prohibit wood, so it would either be wrought iron, brick masonry, 01:45:16.540 --> 01:45:22.300 or combination thereof, so I'll hit on-- I'll hit all of those changes. 01:45:22.300 --> 01:45:33.420 But here, I really just focused on some of those major, kind of policy type items. 01:45:33.420 --> 01:45:34.420 Any other questions? 01:45:34.420 --> 01:45:39.860 Well, I appreciate, Richard, your presentation and Hillward and Schachtford land for being 01:45:39.860 --> 01:45:40.860 here. 01:45:40.860 --> 01:45:41.860 Thank you for your presentations. 01:45:41.860 --> 01:45:46.860 We still have an abundance of work to do in one hour. 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 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 01:45:58.260 --> 01:45:59.260 public hearing. 01:45:59.260 --> 01:46:00.260 Is that agreeable? 01:46:00.260 --> 01:46:01.260 Anyone starving? 01:46:01.260 --> 01:46:02.260 Perfect. 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 01:46:10.380 --> 01:46:19.460 being postponed, and individual consideration, item 4D, they have approved the necessary 01:46:19.460 --> 01:46:22.900 items for that to be an approval this evening, not a denial, correct? 01:46:22.900 --> 01:46:25.060 That is correct. 01:46:25.060 --> 01:46:27.820 That's item 4D. 01:46:27.820 --> 01:46:29.600 Our backup says it's recommended for denial. 01:46:29.600 --> 01:46:35.200 They have satisfied everything for an approval this evening. 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? 01:46:40.340 --> 01:46:44.900 From November 6th or November 20th? 01:46:44.900 --> 01:46:48.020 Seeing none, we'll go into consent. 01:46:48.020 --> 01:46:50.500 There are five items on the consent. 01:46:50.500 --> 01:46:55.740 Does anyone have any discussion items or questions to ask staff of any of these items? 01:46:55.740 --> 01:46:57.180 Chris or Beck? 01:46:57.180 --> 01:46:59.100 Yes, thank you, Chair. 01:46:59.100 --> 01:47:07.820 On 3B, if this is the one, this is the industrial one, along the creek. 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. 01:47:14.820 --> 01:47:15.820 Yes. 01:47:15.820 --> 01:47:18.780 So, can I have some questions about that? 01:47:18.780 --> 01:47:19.780 Yeah. 01:47:19.780 --> 01:47:23.940 Hailey will create us now a problem. 01:47:23.940 --> 01:47:24.940 Oh. 01:47:24.940 --> 01:47:25.940 Congratulations. 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. 01:47:37.380 --> 01:47:38.580 I didn't hit send. 01:47:38.580 --> 01:47:42.420 It's drafted and not sent. 01:47:42.420 --> 01:47:45.420 That's terrible. 01:47:45.420 --> 01:47:47.820 Chris or Beck, your question for this plaque? 01:47:47.820 --> 01:47:51.700 Yeah, so, oh. 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, 01:47:56.500 --> 01:48:01.420 and I guess, I can't quite tell because I'm not used to reading these. 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 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 01:48:18.860 --> 01:48:23.100 trying to keep the thing separate? 01:48:23.100 --> 01:48:25.860 Are you referencing the drainage easement? 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. 01:48:31.900 --> 01:48:34.340 Just trying to look at the contours here. 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. 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 01:48:48.940 --> 01:48:55.300 the channel, so there's a pretty significant change in grade throughout the creek itself. 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 01:48:59.640 --> 01:49:04.420 drainage, so there couldn't be any negative impacts to adjacent properties. 01:49:04.420 --> 01:49:08.500 They can drain to the flood plain if they meet certain standards for not increasing 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 01:49:13.340 --> 01:49:16.420 site if they can't meet the standards for drainage into the creek. 01:49:16.420 --> 01:49:21.060 In terms of potential pollutants on site, we do have a stormwater quality group that 01:49:21.060 --> 01:49:22.060 does inspections. 01:49:22.060 --> 01:49:26.820 They require industrial pretreatment of anything that might be released from the site, and 01:49:26.820 --> 01:49:29.820 of course the state regulates that as well. 01:49:29.820 --> 01:49:31.420 Okay. 01:49:31.420 --> 01:49:32.420 Thank you. 01:49:32.420 --> 01:49:33.420 Thanks, Haley. 01:49:33.420 --> 01:49:40.620 Is there any other questions for consent agenda items? 01:49:40.620 --> 01:49:43.140 Okay. 01:49:43.140 --> 01:49:45.820 Great. 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 01:49:53.260 --> 01:50:01.020 recommend denial, 4B is denial, 4C is denial or postponement, D is now an approval, and 01:50:01.020 --> 01:50:03.240 E is an approval. 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. 01:50:08.180 --> 01:50:10.220 Commissioner Ellis? 01:50:10.220 --> 01:50:11.220 Thank you, Chair. 01:50:11.220 --> 01:50:16.460 Any other clarification on E? 01:50:16.460 --> 01:50:19.380 That is Julie. 01:50:19.380 --> 01:50:41.780 Let me pull that up so I can -- here we go. 01:50:41.780 --> 01:50:42.780 All right. 01:50:42.780 --> 01:50:43.780 Yes, ma'am. 01:50:43.780 --> 01:50:47.660 So Julie, actually, my confusion was with the analysis, so when you do the chart, you 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 01:50:54.340 --> 01:51:00.580 got met and not met on there, and both are checked, and so I was confused. 01:51:00.580 --> 01:51:05.260 So is that something that was handled, or is there a condition on it, or -- 01:51:05.260 --> 01:51:06.260 Yes. 01:51:06.260 --> 01:51:08.580 All DDC requirements were met. 01:51:08.580 --> 01:51:14.140 The one issue was that condition that staff recommended on the preliminary plat. 01:51:14.140 --> 01:51:15.220 Okay, and it's been -- 01:51:15.220 --> 01:51:16.220 Everything else has been met. 01:51:16.220 --> 01:51:17.220 Yes, ma'am. 01:51:17.220 --> 01:51:18.220 Thank you very much. 01:51:18.220 --> 01:51:19.220 You bet. 01:51:19.220 --> 01:51:24.940 Commissioner Bec, do you have questions on an item? 01:51:24.940 --> 01:51:25.940 I'll pass. 01:51:25.940 --> 01:51:29.560 Thank you. 01:51:29.560 --> 01:51:34.580 Any other questions or inquiries on the individual items for consideration? 01:51:34.580 --> 01:51:35.580 Great. 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 01:51:41.020 --> 01:51:42.020 if needed. 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 01:51:47.820 --> 01:51:54.180 session 1B, that's to receive a report, hold discussion, and give staff direction for the 01:51:54.180 --> 01:51:55.180 public notices. 01:51:55.180 --> 01:51:57.700 We're going to do that as time permits, Charlie. 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 01:52:02.700 --> 01:52:05.660 work something out, yep. 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 01:52:11.140 --> 01:52:12.140 hearings. 01:52:12.140 --> 01:52:13.140 It is 5.30. 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 01:52:21.140 --> 01:52:22.420 hearing items. 01:52:22.420 --> 01:52:25.440 Item 5A has been postponed to a date uncertain. 01:52:25.440 --> 01:52:38.340 That brings us to 5B, S19-3B, and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation. 01:52:38.340 --> 01:52:56.700 All right, this one might look familiar. 01:52:56.700 --> 01:53:00.060 We actually talked about this at the November 20th meeting. 01:53:00.060 --> 01:53:05.560 I believe Commissioner Preneta was quite prescient in one of his questions about the notification, 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 01:53:11.100 --> 01:53:16.060 correctly after the meeting, we discovered that there was one that did not actually go 01:53:16.060 --> 01:53:17.780 out. 01:53:17.780 --> 01:53:19.500 So this is actually coming back to you. 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 01:53:25.740 --> 01:53:28.740 only the state requirements, but the city's requirements for notifications. 01:53:28.740 --> 01:53:34.020 So this is a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings. 01:53:34.020 --> 01:53:38.340 The subject property is 12 acres, and it's currently undeveloped. 01:53:38.340 --> 01:53:43.420 As I said before, this came before this commission on November 20th of this year. 01:53:43.420 --> 01:53:46.980 It was recommended for approval at this time. 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 01:53:50.500 --> 01:53:51.940 saw before. 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 01:53:55.820 --> 01:54:01.140 or just talk about the public notification piece. 01:54:01.140 --> 01:54:04.780 Does anyone want her to go through the presentation again? 01:54:04.780 --> 01:54:05.780 Let's just skip to the notifications. 01:54:05.780 --> 01:54:06.780 >> All right. 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 01:54:11.740 --> 01:54:13.580 was sent out again. 01:54:13.580 --> 01:54:16.020 We received five in opposition. 01:54:16.020 --> 01:54:22.260 Two of those responses are not within the 200-foot boundary, and two in favor. 01:54:22.260 --> 01:54:26.780 And just to let you know, staff is recommending approval of the request with some conditions. 01:54:26.780 --> 01:54:32.940 One, that they comply with the landscape plan that is reflected in the staff report and 01:54:32.940 --> 01:54:35.600 in your backup material. 01:54:35.600 --> 01:54:39.420 There could be some minor modifications for plant locations, but generally it needs to 01:54:39.420 --> 01:54:42.940 meet that landscape plan and the Denton Development Code. 01:54:42.940 --> 01:54:46.340 We did add a condition about parking light fixtures to make sure that they were capped 01:54:46.340 --> 01:54:50.500 at 14 feet to provide adequate parking in the park and adequate lighting in the parking 01:54:50.500 --> 01:54:54.900 lot, but to ensure that it didn't unnecessarily shine on the neighbors. 01:54:54.900 --> 01:54:59.420 And then the perimeter fencing materials to be limited to either masonry or wrought iron 01:54:59.420 --> 01:55:00.420 with screening. 01:55:00.420 --> 01:55:01.420 >> Julie, we have a question. 01:55:01.420 --> 01:55:02.420 Commissioner Smith. 01:55:02.420 --> 01:55:03.700 >> Thank you, Chair. 01:55:03.700 --> 01:55:07.380 On the notifications, we did have some notifications from the previous notice. 01:55:07.380 --> 01:55:09.380 Are we including those into this as well? 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 01:55:13.420 --> 01:55:14.420 kind of stuff. 01:55:14.420 --> 01:55:15.420 >> You are correct. 01:55:15.420 --> 01:55:18.100 I included all of those, and those will go forward to council as well. 01:55:18.100 --> 01:55:19.100 >> She wanted to confirm. 01:55:19.100 --> 01:55:21.140 >> That was great, yes. 01:55:21.140 --> 01:55:24.740 And then as part of this request, there is an alternative development plan that will have 01:55:24.740 --> 01:55:31.100 to come back before you for a couple of deviations from the 2002 subchapter 13. 01:55:31.100 --> 01:55:34.820 So that is part of the conditions as well. 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 01:55:39.740 --> 01:55:41.980 meeting about the wording of some of that recommendation. 01:55:41.980 --> 01:55:45.660 So this gives us an opportunity to make sure we've got that cleaned up. 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 01:55:50.540 --> 01:55:55.500 changed that staff will have the ability to approve increases up to and including 5% of 01:55:55.500 --> 01:56:02.580 any amount in the amount in requirements 2 through 4 below there, provided that all applicable 01:56:02.580 --> 01:56:05.140 requirements of the DDC are met. 01:56:05.140 --> 01:56:09.420 Increases greater than 5% would require a new specific use permit. 01:56:09.420 --> 01:56:13.340 So hopefully that clears it up because it was a little unclear on the 20th. 01:56:13.340 --> 01:56:18.220 That's all I have, and I'll stand for any questions. 01:56:18.220 --> 01:56:19.220 >> I don't see any. 01:56:19.220 --> 01:56:20.620 Thanks, Julie. 01:56:20.620 --> 01:56:33.660 Next item is 5C PD19-3B, and I'll invite Haley Cegerski for presentation. 01:56:33.660 --> 01:56:50.620 All right, good evening. 01:56:50.620 --> 01:56:52.260 This may also look familiar. 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 01:56:55.260 --> 01:56:56.540 notification errors. 01:56:56.540 --> 01:57:02.600 So we will go through the full endeavor tonight and then have the full public hearing. 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 01:57:08.620 --> 01:57:14.420 and R3 district on 2.34 acres to plan development for the entire 36 acres. 01:57:14.420 --> 01:57:17.580 The property is located here where you see the yellow outline. 01:57:17.580 --> 01:57:21.620 It's just on the north side of Ryan Road. 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 01:57:26.060 --> 01:57:31.340 is R2, and then this little northern dogleg of the property is currently zoned R3. 01:57:31.340 --> 01:57:36.780 The entire site would convert to plan development if this were approved. 01:57:36.780 --> 01:57:39.900 So as part of the plan development, there's really two critical pieces. 01:57:39.900 --> 01:57:44.620 There's the zoning documents that outline the regulations for the PD, and then there's 01:57:44.620 --> 01:57:48.080 the map that shows where everything's going and how it's laid out. 01:57:48.080 --> 01:57:52.140 So this is the site layout for the proposed subdivision. 01:57:52.140 --> 01:57:56.300 It didn't fit properly without turning the orientation, so north is to the left side 01:57:56.300 --> 01:58:00.060 of the screen here, but you can see how that orientation looks here on the aerial. 01:58:00.060 --> 01:58:04.420 Overall, there would be 154 residential lots. 01:58:04.420 --> 01:58:06.240 There are five HOA lots proposed. 01:58:06.240 --> 01:58:08.980 Those are outlined in green on the map. 01:58:08.980 --> 01:58:12.940 There is a plugged gas well within the site that is located here approximately where that 01:58:12.940 --> 01:58:14.260 star is on the map. 01:58:14.260 --> 01:58:18.060 That would be within an HOA common area. 01:58:18.060 --> 01:58:22.180 And then circled in orange are the points of connectivity where the future residents 01:58:22.180 --> 01:58:23.820 of this could have access. 01:58:23.820 --> 01:58:27.700 So there would be one direct access to Ryan Road, shown here. 01:58:27.700 --> 01:58:32.060 And then there are three existing streets stubbed out to this property today. 01:58:32.060 --> 01:58:35.020 So Mizzen Lane would connect from the east side of the property. 01:58:35.020 --> 01:58:37.540 That's from the Teasley Trail subdivision. 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 01:58:41.260 --> 01:58:42.500 property. 01:58:42.500 --> 01:58:46.100 So there would be the direct connectivity to complete Monte Carlo Lane so that we no 01:58:46.100 --> 01:58:53.040 longer have two separate pieces of street with the same name that don't connect. 01:58:53.040 --> 01:58:57.380 So the other critical piece to a plan development are those development regulations that I referenced 01:58:57.380 --> 01:58:58.660 earlier. 01:58:58.660 --> 01:59:01.540 So first we'll look at the uses that are proposed within the PD. 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 01:59:06.980 --> 01:59:10.020 is kind of the underlying zoning for this PD. 01:59:10.020 --> 01:59:13.180 And then the column in the middle shows what's proposed with the PD. 01:59:13.180 --> 01:59:17.860 So the proposal is to only allow single family detached dwellings, but then also allow any 01:59:17.860 --> 01:59:22.460 of the accessory and temporary uses that are permitted within the R4 district in case anyone 01:59:22.460 --> 01:59:27.260 needed, you know, during construction, allow a field and construction office on site, things 01:59:27.260 --> 01:59:31.460 of that nature, the standard accessory and temporary uses that would be permitted within 01:59:31.460 --> 01:59:34.980 any residential district. 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 01:59:38.760 --> 01:59:42.900 more depth are in the proposed development standards for the PD. 01:59:42.900 --> 01:59:45.900 So this table was in your staff analysis. 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 01:59:50.020 --> 01:59:54.580 decreases from the R4 standards and in green what would be increases. 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 01:59:58.300 --> 01:59:59.900 minimum lot area. 01:59:59.900 --> 02:00:02.780 So the R4 district has a 7,000 square foot minimum. 02:00:02.780 --> 02:00:05.740 They are proposing for these lots to be slightly smaller. 02:00:05.740 --> 02:00:09.340 Up to 10 of the lots could be as small as 5,000 square feet. 02:00:09.340 --> 02:00:14.940 All of the other lots would have a minimum area of 5,750 square feet. 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 02:00:21.700 --> 02:00:25.640 from 80 feet in R4 to 100 feet in the proposed PD. 02:00:25.640 --> 02:00:28.300 Minimum garage setback, they're proposing at least 20 feet there. 02:00:28.300 --> 02:00:29.900 There's not a standard in R4 for that. 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 02:00:35.820 --> 02:00:36.820 oriented. 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. 02:00:40.220 --> 02:00:43.300 In R4 it is 20, so that's a slight decrease. 02:00:43.300 --> 02:00:47.900 They're proposing building coverage, be allowed to go up to 60% as opposed to 50%. 02:00:47.900 --> 02:00:54.340 But then some of the other larger, more significant changes, landscaping for this, they're proposing 02:00:54.340 --> 02:00:56.380 to increase landscape standards. 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. 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 02:01:04.900 --> 02:01:10.580 have an additional two trees, so up to four trees on the corner lots. 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 02:01:16.580 --> 02:01:21.540 a subdivision, they're proposing a minimum of 15% open space for the subdivision. 02:01:21.540 --> 02:01:24.060 And then the other piece is tree preservation. 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. 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 02:01:34.780 --> 02:01:37.820 vesting privileges under the 02 development code. 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 02:01:42.900 --> 02:01:44.820 regards to tree preservation. 02:01:44.820 --> 02:01:49.620 So their PD is indicating that they would, at a minimum, meet the 2002 tree preservation 02:01:49.620 --> 02:01:53.380 requirements for a single family subdivision, that could, of course, go above and beyond 02:01:53.380 --> 02:01:57.640 that, once they get into the details of laying out the subdivision. 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 02:02:02.100 --> 02:02:06.420 preserved. 02:02:06.420 --> 02:02:10.620 If you noticed, within our 2019 DDC, we have general provisions applicable to all things, 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 02:02:13.820 --> 02:02:15.580 criteria. 02:02:15.580 --> 02:02:17.060 So each of these was outlined in your backup. 02:02:17.060 --> 02:02:19.620 I'll just hit the highlights. 02:02:19.620 --> 02:02:24.380 With regards to this, the project was found to be consistent with all DDC and comprehensive 02:02:24.380 --> 02:02:29.060 plan requirements, except for these deviations that we explicitly looked at on the table 02:02:29.060 --> 02:02:31.580 that they're proposing to change with the PD. 02:02:31.580 --> 02:02:34.500 There are no prior approvals or other agreements applicable to the site. 02:02:34.500 --> 02:02:39.360 They're not proposing phasing, so those conditions did not apply. 02:02:39.360 --> 02:02:44.020 Staff did not find any potential for adverse environmental or fiscal impacts, and we did 02:02:44.020 --> 02:02:49.700 find that there's adequate infrastructure available to be extended throughout the subdivision. 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 02:02:53.340 --> 02:02:56.000 these in turn. 02:02:56.000 --> 02:03:00.060 So the first criteria is, rather, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 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 02:03:05.380 --> 02:03:07.340 area are designated as low residential. 02:03:07.340 --> 02:03:10.580 Our comprehensive plan indicates that that is intended for one to four dwelling units 02:03:10.580 --> 02:03:11.580 per acre. 02:03:11.580 --> 02:03:17.300 It also has goals such as providing development contiguous to existing development to limit 02:03:17.300 --> 02:03:22.700 sprawl and calling for development within established residential areas to be responsive 02:03:22.700 --> 02:03:27.060 to what's around it, to be consistent with that scale of development. 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 02:03:31.340 --> 02:03:36.140 not regulate by density, it works out to be about 4.23 dwelling units per acre. 02:03:36.140 --> 02:03:39.020 So that's just above that one to four units per acre. 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? 02:03:42.140 --> 02:03:46.300 Does it still have a potential to meet the low residential designation? 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 02:03:51.700 --> 02:03:54.980 increase as you get closer to Teasley and Ryan. 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. 02:03:59.500 --> 02:04:03.660 As you get closer, we have 3.7 units per acre in the Ridgemont subdivision. 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 02:04:08.660 --> 02:04:12.380 on the southern end where the newer phases are. 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 02:04:15.860 --> 02:04:18.940 was up to 20 units per acre. 02:04:18.940 --> 02:04:21.940 So we do see that transition and this falls within the realm of that. 02:04:21.940 --> 02:04:27.860 So we did find it to be consistent with those goals of the comprehensive plan. 02:04:27.860 --> 02:04:31.460 Just looking in more detail at some of the other underlying factors within the comp plan, 02:04:31.460 --> 02:04:34.500 there is what's called a preferred growth concept. 02:04:34.500 --> 02:04:41.660 So this calls for things like cluster development, compact developments with increased walkability. 02:04:41.660 --> 02:04:45.060 So this would provide those connectivities for increased pedestrian connections between 02:04:45.060 --> 02:04:46.560 these neighborhoods. 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 02:04:50.460 --> 02:04:52.080 center before we sprawl outwards. 02:04:52.080 --> 02:04:56.860 So this again would fill in a gap between these two neighborhoods where the streets 02:04:56.860 --> 02:04:59.100 were intended to connect and just haven't done so yet. 02:04:59.100 --> 02:05:03.420 This would provide for that connectivity. 02:05:03.420 --> 02:05:05.780 The second criteria is compliance with the DDC. 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 02:05:10.940 --> 02:05:14.940 that are specifically listed here that vary from those standards. 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 02:05:20.020 --> 02:05:21.020 with the PD. 02:05:21.020 --> 02:05:25.220 That includes ESA regulations, gas well regulations and tree preservation. 02:05:25.220 --> 02:05:28.240 They're proposing no variation from ESA or gas well standards. 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 02:05:31.980 --> 02:05:33.600 vesting in the 2002 code. 02:05:33.600 --> 02:05:39.660 So they're proposing to meet those standards that are applicable to them. 02:05:39.660 --> 02:05:43.380 The third criteria is whether it provides for a greater building design, greater level 02:05:43.380 --> 02:05:46.060 of amenities and greater connectivity. 02:05:46.060 --> 02:05:51.140 So looking at building design, the PD doesn't specifically have any standards related to 02:05:51.140 --> 02:05:52.380 building materials or design. 02:05:52.380 --> 02:05:55.240 They would meet the standards of the code. 02:05:55.240 --> 02:05:59.060 Under House Bill 2439, the city can no longer regulate building materials as you all are 02:05:59.060 --> 02:06:00.360 aware of. 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 02:06:05.380 --> 02:06:07.580 masonry via deed restrictions on these properties. 02:06:07.580 --> 02:06:11.620 So that would go into the HOA documents and deed restrictions to control what is built 02:06:11.620 --> 02:06:13.000 in the future. 02:06:13.000 --> 02:06:15.920 That's not something that staff included in our recommendation. 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 02:06:18.740 --> 02:06:21.740 would not be able to enforce those standards. 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. 02:06:29.540 --> 02:06:34.400 Again in terms of amenities, the PD document references things such as the green space 02:06:34.400 --> 02:06:37.320 with walking trails and benches. 02:06:37.320 --> 02:06:42.140 The DDC standard is a 5% minimum for any subdivision with 10 units or more. 02:06:42.140 --> 02:06:48.220 We're proposing a minimum of 15% open space for tree preservation and community use. 02:06:48.220 --> 02:06:53.340 And then finally with connectivity, we did find that with the connections to the existing 02:06:53.340 --> 02:06:57.020 street stubs as well as sidewalk connections that would go along with those, this would 02:06:57.020 --> 02:07:01.380 improve auto and pedestrian connectivity between this subdivision and the surrounding subdivisions. 02:07:01.380 --> 02:07:03.740 Haley, can I ask you a question? 02:07:03.740 --> 02:07:04.740 Yes, sir. 02:07:04.740 --> 02:07:07.900 You mentioned the 40% masonry requirement. 02:07:07.900 --> 02:07:13.500 There's no way to enforce that or hold them that. 02:07:13.500 --> 02:07:14.500 They're saying that they're committing to do that. 02:07:14.500 --> 02:07:15.500 Correct. 02:07:15.500 --> 02:07:16.500 They committed to the neighbors at the neighborhood meeting that they would be doing that, but 02:07:16.500 --> 02:07:19.220 it's not something that we as a city could impose on them. 02:07:19.220 --> 02:07:22.740 So it's simply in here for informational purposes for you all. 02:07:22.740 --> 02:07:24.980 Is there an HOA can't enforce that, correct? 02:07:24.980 --> 02:07:25.980 Correct. 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 02:07:29.260 --> 02:07:30.260 enforce. 02:07:30.260 --> 02:07:33.260 Thank you, Chair. 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 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, 02:07:44.820 --> 02:07:46.820 the HOA, to keep those requirements. 02:07:46.820 --> 02:07:47.820 Correct. 02:07:47.820 --> 02:07:48.820 Okay. 02:07:48.820 --> 02:07:49.820 Thank you. 02:07:49.820 --> 02:07:50.820 Correct. 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 02:07:51.820 --> 02:07:56.140 unenforceable. 02:07:56.140 --> 02:08:00.020 The fourth criteria is for residential uses, whether it's compatible in terms of buildings, 02:08:00.020 --> 02:08:01.900 uses, and character of the area. 02:08:01.900 --> 02:08:05.980 Again, the proposed single-family subdivision is what's found to be comparable to what's 02:08:05.980 --> 02:08:07.820 around it in terms of the density. 02:08:07.820 --> 02:08:10.900 It's the same use as all of the surrounding properties. 02:08:10.900 --> 02:08:15.560 The plan and the standards reflect HOA lots around the perimeter of the subdivision. 02:08:15.560 --> 02:08:19.060 So even though the uses are consistent and the code would not require buffering between 02:08:19.060 --> 02:08:22.740 those, they are proposing to provide those open green spaces for tree preservation and 02:08:22.740 --> 02:08:25.860 buffering between the lots. 02:08:25.860 --> 02:08:28.080 The fifth criteria relates to non-residential uses. 02:08:28.080 --> 02:08:31.700 There are none of those proposed within this PD, so it's not applicable. 02:08:31.700 --> 02:08:35.060 And then the sixth criterion is the provision of public facilities. 02:08:35.060 --> 02:08:40.380 So in terms of schools, this would be within the attendance zone for Ryan Elementary, McMath 02:08:40.380 --> 02:08:42.420 Middle, and Denton High School. 02:08:42.420 --> 02:08:46.540 These are the expected student generation rates that Denton ISD provided to us. 02:08:46.540 --> 02:08:51.140 Both McMath Middle and Denton High have capacity for this expected student generation. 02:08:51.140 --> 02:08:55.220 Ryan Elementary currently does not have capacity for that, but Denton ISD asked that we keep 02:08:55.220 --> 02:08:57.020 them informed of the status of this case. 02:08:57.020 --> 02:09:01.940 If it is approved, then they would look at rezoning this area into another nearby school, 02:09:01.940 --> 02:09:07.540 Sam Houston Elementary, that has plenty of capacity for these students. 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 02:09:12.580 --> 02:09:13.580 up here on Teasley. 02:09:13.580 --> 02:09:15.580 That's fire station six. 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. 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 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. 02:09:30.740 --> 02:09:34.540 Looking at water and wastewater infrastructure, the blue lines on the map are existing water 02:09:34.540 --> 02:09:35.820 lines, red are sewer lines. 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 02:09:39.340 --> 02:09:43.660 into and extend within the subdivision. 02:09:43.660 --> 02:09:47.660 Looking at streets, I mentioned earlier that there were existing street stubs to this, 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 02:09:51.900 --> 02:09:53.380 as the north edge. 02:09:53.380 --> 02:09:57.140 The DDC does require connectivity to all existing perimeter streets. 02:09:57.140 --> 02:10:02.060 Their layout does propose providing that connectivity both at Monte Carlo and at Mizzen Lane here 02:10:02.060 --> 02:10:03.740 on the east. 02:10:03.740 --> 02:10:07.700 I wanted to point out the circumstances in which the city engineer does have the right 02:10:07.700 --> 02:10:11.020 to vary from that requirement because there is significant neighborhood opposition to 02:10:11.020 --> 02:10:14.380 Monte Carlo Lane being extended through the property. 02:10:14.380 --> 02:10:21.660 So if this would require crossing a significant physical barrier or ESA, if the extension 02:10:21.660 --> 02:10:25.760 would be to an existing development that was designed in such a way that connection would 02:10:25.760 --> 02:10:31.180 never likely occur, that is not the case here because the street stubs were provided, if 02:10:31.180 --> 02:10:34.620 the extension would be to a government property or public utility that would have restricted 02:10:34.620 --> 02:10:39.420 vehicular access, again, that is not the case here, and then would the connection or extension 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 02:10:44.140 --> 02:10:48.620 would be incompatible with the proposed development, and again, that is not the case because all 02:10:48.620 --> 02:10:51.740 of the surrounding uses in this case are the same. 02:10:51.740 --> 02:10:53.580 So it does not meet these criteria. 02:10:53.580 --> 02:10:57.740 The developer is voluntarily complying with the code requirements, but I wanted you all 02:10:57.740 --> 02:11:02.380 to have that information in light of the neighborhood oppositions that you have received. 02:11:02.380 --> 02:11:04.380 Thank you, Chair. 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 02:11:11.000 --> 02:11:19.540 from the public, what sort of traffic flow mitigation efforts are we allowed by code 02:11:19.540 --> 02:11:26.500 to implement, to manage flow? 02:11:26.500 --> 02:11:29.800 There are traffic calming measures that could be imposed, the plan that you have before 02:11:29.800 --> 02:11:34.180 you reflects an intent to work with our city engineer to find a traffic calming measure 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 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 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. 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 02:11:50.420 --> 02:11:54.280 another option that could be utilized so they can work with our city engineering staff to 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 02:11:59.300 --> 02:12:02.660 an intent to do so, to proactively look into those measures. 02:12:02.660 --> 02:12:03.660 Thank you. 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 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 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? 02:12:20.300 --> 02:12:21.900 Well there are actually two scenarios here. 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 02:12:26.700 --> 02:12:31.620 side when this phase of Teasley trails was platted, not knowing when this site would develop, 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 02:12:36.140 --> 02:12:40.900 turnaround for fire purposes because this was such a long dead end street that it generated 02:12:40.900 --> 02:12:43.860 that need for emergency services. 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 02:12:47.540 --> 02:12:54.620 development for the extension to occur, but it was platted as a temporary access easement. 02:12:54.620 --> 02:12:57.700 I don't know if you have mapped these responses. 02:12:57.700 --> 02:13:03.100 Is it equal distribution from each, they're both Monte Carlo streets, equal distribution 02:13:03.100 --> 02:13:08.820 from the north and the south in terms of opposition of continuing it? 02:13:08.820 --> 02:13:11.660 There is some opposition on both sides, but it is largely from the south side. 02:13:11.660 --> 02:13:12.660 Oh, from the south side? 02:13:12.660 --> 02:13:17.500 Yeah, and I do have that map in here. 02:13:17.500 --> 02:13:21.220 Looking at the other street that they would connect to, Ryan Road of course, they will 02:13:21.220 --> 02:13:24.780 be providing the required right-of-way dedications on Ryan Road. 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 02:13:29.820 --> 02:13:32.020 to a three-lane roadway. 02:13:32.020 --> 02:13:35.700 So that construction is expected to begin in 2023. 02:13:35.700 --> 02:13:40.380 The developer did a preliminary traffic assessment for this request and found that Ryan Road 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 02:13:45.740 --> 02:13:47.780 parameters for streets. 02:13:47.780 --> 02:13:52.780 And with this development as well as all of the other ongoing developments in this area, 02:13:52.780 --> 02:13:56.380 so the multi-family that's down here at the corner, some additional commercial development 02:13:56.380 --> 02:14:00.540 here and other single-family subdivisions that are platted on Ryan Road, they found 02:14:00.540 --> 02:14:04.060 that that level of service would be maintained at a C with these developments. 02:14:04.060 --> 02:14:07.400 Once that construction is completed to three lanes, that is expected to increase to a level 02:14:07.400 --> 02:14:10.940 of service A or B. 02:14:10.940 --> 02:14:17.100 The other elements of criteria six include parks, so of course we have Lake Forest Park 02:14:17.100 --> 02:14:18.540 across Ryan Road. 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 02:14:22.900 --> 02:14:23.900 goal. 02:14:23.900 --> 02:14:27.180 And this development will be obligated to provide for the standard park dedication and 02:14:27.180 --> 02:14:32.180 development. 02:14:32.180 --> 02:14:59.620 All right, so this is the map that you requested, Chairman Rosell. 02:14:59.620 --> 02:15:04.380 So notifications were provided regarding this case. 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 02:15:09.060 --> 02:15:10.060 responses. 02:15:10.060 --> 02:15:11.060 That has gone up to 36. 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 02:15:14.060 --> 02:15:16.500 came in during the work session. 02:15:16.500 --> 02:15:19.340 So these numbers would now be increased to 36 total. 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 02:15:25.780 --> 02:15:26.780 200-foot radius. 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 02:15:32.140 --> 02:15:33.140 are shown here in green. 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 02:15:39.180 --> 02:15:43.220 the development is the opposition so far. 02:15:43.220 --> 02:15:46.340 So staff is recommending approval of this request as we found it to comply with the 02:15:46.340 --> 02:15:50.340 general criteria and the PD criteria for approval. 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 02:15:54.140 --> 02:15:55.140 for a public hearing. 02:15:55.140 --> 02:15:57.980 Happy to stand for any questions. 02:15:57.980 --> 02:15:59.740 Any questions for Haley? 02:15:59.740 --> 02:16:05.540 Thank you very much, Haley. 02:16:05.540 --> 02:16:12.420 Next item for business is item 5D, SD19-1A. 02:16:12.420 --> 02:16:15.420 Cindy Jackson. 02:16:15.420 --> 02:16:25.420 Cindy Jackson. 02:16:25.420 --> 02:16:46.420 Cindy Jackson. 02:16:46.420 --> 02:17:05.540 I mean, who's going to hit Brian on the head? 02:17:05.540 --> 02:17:22.760 Cindy, it is all yours. 02:17:22.760 --> 02:17:23.760 Okay. 02:17:23.760 --> 02:17:24.760 Thank you. 02:17:24.760 --> 02:17:31.540 SD19-0001 is a request to amend the special sign district for the First United Methodist 02:17:31.540 --> 02:17:36.020 Church to permit wall signs as provided in the sign code. 02:17:36.020 --> 02:17:44.660 The sign district was originally approved in January 2010 and amended in 2012. 02:17:44.660 --> 02:17:49.780 The 4.17 acre site is located at 201 South Locust, you can see here. 02:17:49.780 --> 02:17:54.940 It is between Mulberry and Sycamore Street. 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 02:18:02.620 --> 02:18:03.620 sign district. 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. 02:18:09.260 --> 02:18:14.020 Criteria one, that it provides a comprehensive plan for signs that would be clearly superior 02:18:14.020 --> 02:18:17.100 to what would be allowed without the plan. 02:18:17.100 --> 02:18:21.420 Subject site is designated as downtown Denton on the future land use map. 02:18:21.420 --> 02:18:24.340 It's in close proximity to the courthouse square. 02:18:24.340 --> 02:18:31.540 The area is a pedestrian-oriented district which has a certain vitality which encourages 02:18:31.540 --> 02:18:35.900 the pedestrians to explore the area. 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 02:18:43.380 --> 02:18:47.340 and encourages pedestrians to explore other parts of the city. 02:18:47.340 --> 02:18:52.900 The signage that is proposed would contribute to this type of atmosphere. 02:18:52.900 --> 02:19:00.100 Criteria two, the proposal would be compatible with surrounded properties in considering 02:19:00.100 --> 02:19:04.260 whether a district and sign plan is compatible and clearly superior. 02:19:04.260 --> 02:19:09.420 The commission and council shall consider but are not limited to considering the following. 02:19:09.420 --> 02:19:16.700 One is scale, the relationship between the compatibility of the sign scale, site scale 02:19:16.700 --> 02:19:19.180 and the scale of the buildings. 02:19:19.180 --> 02:19:24.180 This proposal is to permit signage not addressed by the special sign district but is regulated 02:19:24.180 --> 02:19:26.060 by the sign code. 02:19:26.060 --> 02:19:31.300 The site is in a business corridor adjacent to the downtown square. 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 02:19:37.380 --> 02:19:39.540 we are talking about tonight. 02:19:39.540 --> 02:19:45.420 And therefore they should be compatible with the nearby buildings. 02:19:45.420 --> 02:19:47.060 Criteria two is color. 02:19:47.060 --> 02:19:51.420 The relationship between the compatibility of sign color to the color of the nearby buildings 02:19:51.420 --> 02:19:58.340 and landscaping, the degree to which sign colors are complementary to its surroundings. 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. 02:20:05.160 --> 02:20:10.420 We don't have an approved color scheme for the downtown area. 02:20:10.420 --> 02:20:15.460 As such, the color of signs should be compatible with the surrounding areas. 02:20:15.460 --> 02:20:16.460 This is a church. 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. 02:20:24.540 --> 02:20:29.420 Material, materials of the signs and how they relate to the surroundings. 02:20:29.420 --> 02:20:32.460 The proposed wall signs are an applique sign. 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, 02:20:38.260 --> 02:20:42.140 it looks like it's a painted on sign. 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 02:20:47.500 --> 02:20:48.500 not be out of place. 02:20:48.500 --> 02:20:52.420 This is the type of wall sign that the church is proposing to use. 02:20:52.420 --> 02:20:57.740 These are semi-permanent in nature and they can be removed as desired. 02:20:57.740 --> 02:21:01.660 All other signage that is not regulated by the special sign district must conform to 02:21:01.660 --> 02:21:06.820 the regulations of the sign code and these do conform. 02:21:06.820 --> 02:21:12.700 Shape, the shape and design of the signs and how they relate to the surroundings. 02:21:12.700 --> 02:21:19.220 The proposed wall signs are rectangular which is a standard shape for signs. 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 02:21:24.160 --> 02:21:26.580 district. 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 02:21:31.740 --> 02:21:36.260 signage must conform to the requirements of the sign code. 02:21:36.260 --> 02:21:41.620 With regards to landscaping, the relationship of the signs to the landscaping, signage won't 02:21:41.620 --> 02:21:46.100 be located near featured landscaping. 02:21:46.100 --> 02:21:51.560 Traffic safety and traffic circulation, the impact of the signs on the driver's view to 02:21:51.560 --> 02:21:57.980 which obstructions, to which view obstructions are created or improved and so on. 02:21:57.980 --> 02:22:01.820 The proposed wall signage will not create obstructions. 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 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 02:22:18.720 --> 02:22:24.980 any conflicts with other signage traffic signs. 02:22:24.980 --> 02:22:31.500 Illumination, the impact and compatibility of sign illumination within the district and 02:22:31.500 --> 02:22:38.940 in relationship to neighboring properties, the avoidance of glare and light pollution. 02:22:38.940 --> 02:22:41.060 Proposed wall signs are not illuminated. 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 02:22:47.700 --> 02:22:53.220 requirements of the sign code with regards to light and glare. 02:22:53.220 --> 02:22:58.660 Integration, how the signs in the district are integrated into a unified development 02:22:58.660 --> 02:23:04.580 concept with topography and so on. 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 02:23:12.100 --> 02:23:15.760 for a sign or the sign regulations. 02:23:15.760 --> 02:23:24.260 The applicant is requesting to be permitted to put signs on the site which are regulated 02:23:24.260 --> 02:23:28.980 by the sign code but which the special sign district is silent about. 02:23:28.980 --> 02:23:37.020 So there's no interest in trying to do a variance to the sign code. 02:23:37.020 --> 02:23:42.420 They will be required to comply with the sign code itself. 02:23:42.420 --> 02:23:46.140 Does not violate the spirit or intent of the sign codes. 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 02:23:51.700 --> 02:23:55.020 sign is not addressed in the special sign district. 02:23:55.020 --> 02:23:58.820 So they're not trying to avoid any regulations. 02:23:58.820 --> 02:24:01.680 Complies with the requirements of this section. 02:24:01.680 --> 02:24:06.980 Proposed signage complies with the section 33-14 of the code of ordinances and any proposed 02:24:06.980 --> 02:24:16.140 signage will have to comply with section 33 of the code of ordinances as amended. 02:24:16.140 --> 02:24:21.240 Notification we did send out, we had a newspaper ad and the property was posted. 02:24:21.240 --> 02:24:29.620 We mailed newspaper notices, 29 newspaper notices within 200 feet and 399 courtesy notices 02:24:29.620 --> 02:24:32.180 within 500 feet. 02:24:32.180 --> 02:24:36.580 We received no responses in opposition. 02:24:36.580 --> 02:24:38.460 We received two in favor. 02:24:38.460 --> 02:24:41.940 One is in your packet and I handed one out to you. 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 02:24:50.940 --> 02:24:52.980 the 200 foot buffer. 02:24:52.980 --> 02:24:56.980 A neighborhood meeting was not held. 02:24:56.980 --> 02:25:00.980 Staff recommends approval of this request to amend the special sign district for the 02:25:00.980 --> 02:25:06.060 first United Methodist church to permit any provision of the sign code that is not addressed 02:25:06.060 --> 02:25:10.980 by the special sign district to be governed by chapter 33 as amended. 02:25:10.980 --> 02:25:14.660 That concludes my presentation. 02:25:14.660 --> 02:25:16.820 >> Any questions for senate commissioner Ellis. 02:25:16.820 --> 02:25:17.820 >> Thank you, chair. 02:25:17.820 --> 02:25:18.820 Okay. 02:25:18.820 --> 02:25:20.700 So what is the purpose of the special sign district? 02:25:20.700 --> 02:25:24.980 >> The purpose of the special sign district is to permit them to have banner signs year 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 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 02:25:38.140 --> 02:25:42.260 an electronic message board along Locust street. 02:25:42.260 --> 02:25:43.700 >> And that's the special sign district. 02:25:43.700 --> 02:25:44.700 >> That's correct. 02:25:44.700 --> 02:25:45.700 >> Right. 02:25:45.700 --> 02:25:47.100 So what are we actually doing here? 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 02:25:51.860 --> 02:25:53.900 the special sign district. 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 02:25:58.540 --> 02:26:07.340 signs as allowed by the code that their special sign district is silent on. 02:26:07.340 --> 02:26:10.620 >> So it's basically we're negating the special sign district. 02:26:10.620 --> 02:26:12.020 That's how I read it. 02:26:12.020 --> 02:26:17.420 >> No, because we're still allowing them the banner signs. 02:26:17.420 --> 02:26:22.660 >> The banner signs are allowed for only a period of three months and they want them 02:26:22.660 --> 02:26:24.740 to be able to use them year round. 02:26:24.740 --> 02:26:25.740 >> I see. 02:26:25.740 --> 02:26:26.740 Okay. 02:26:26.740 --> 02:26:27.740 >> Any other questions? 02:26:27.740 --> 02:26:30.180 Christian or Bec? 02:26:30.180 --> 02:26:40.340 >> So the surrounding businesses and properties in the region, have they used similar signage 02:26:40.340 --> 02:26:43.060 even if it's just for three months? 02:26:43.060 --> 02:26:44.060 >> Banner signs? 02:26:44.060 --> 02:26:48.540 >> Well the kind of signs that you were describing in the presentation. 02:26:48.540 --> 02:26:49.540 >> Wall signs? 02:26:49.540 --> 02:26:57.220 There are wall signs in the Locust street corridor as well as in the downtown court. 02:26:57.220 --> 02:27:00.540 >> And they have to get SSD approval on that? 02:27:00.540 --> 02:27:03.780 >> No, they don't because it's permitted in the sign code. 02:27:03.780 --> 02:27:05.580 >> It's specifically permitted. 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 02:27:13.900 --> 02:27:22.020 have additional signage as permitted by chapter 33 of the code of ordinances. 02:27:22.020 --> 02:27:25.540 >> So are we going to be establishing sort of an exception that other businesses will 02:27:25.540 --> 02:27:27.100 want to make use of? 02:27:27.100 --> 02:27:28.100 >> No. 02:27:28.100 --> 02:27:32.220 This is just for this site. 02:27:32.220 --> 02:27:37.020 As far as I'm aware, there is not another special sign district in this area. 02:27:37.020 --> 02:27:42.980 I'm aware of one, this one, and Unicorn Lake has a special sign district. 02:27:42.980 --> 02:27:47.580 I believe those are the only two that we've got, aren't they? 02:27:47.580 --> 02:27:54.380 >> Yeah, the auto dealer, James Wood and Razor Ranch. 02:27:54.380 --> 02:27:58.420 >> That's right. 02:27:58.420 --> 02:28:03.980 >> Is there a reason this property is just not being removed from a special sign district? 02:28:03.980 --> 02:28:08.420 >> Because they still want to take advantage of the banner signs that are allowed all year 02:28:08.420 --> 02:28:11.620 long instead of just for three months for the entire year. 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 02:28:17.180 --> 02:28:18.180 signs. 02:28:18.180 --> 02:28:20.940 >> I wouldn't think so, no. 02:28:20.940 --> 02:28:25.620 In their application, they said that they wanted to add like traffic direction signs 02:28:25.620 --> 02:28:28.780 and special event signs and things like that. 02:28:28.780 --> 02:28:29.780 >> Okay. 02:28:29.780 --> 02:28:32.580 Any other questions for Cindy? 02:28:32.580 --> 02:28:35.620 All right, thank you very much. 02:28:35.620 --> 02:28:42.500 Next item is 5ES19-12B, it's Julie Wyatt. 02:28:42.500 --> 02:29:01.620 >> All right, so Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city of Denton and I'm presenting 02:29:01.620 --> 02:29:05.420 S19-12 to you, Denton Grove Apartments. 02:29:05.420 --> 02:29:10.180 The request before you is for a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings. 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 02:29:15.100 --> 02:29:18.260 just to the west of loot 288, south of McKinney. 02:29:18.260 --> 02:29:21.540 It's about a 15-acre tract. 02:29:21.540 --> 02:29:26.560 The request was submitted prior to October 1st of this year, so it is being reviewed 02:29:26.560 --> 02:29:30.580 under the 2002 regulations. 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 02:29:36.280 --> 02:29:41.980 for no objection for the construction of affordable and market rate housing. 02:29:41.980 --> 02:29:47.300 But this council action does not negate PNZ's recommendation for approval or denial as part 02:29:47.300 --> 02:29:50.960 of this SUP request. 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. 02:29:59.260 --> 02:30:04.620 Here's just a map that shows what the 2002 zoning was, which is CMG. 02:30:04.620 --> 02:30:09.980 It is transitioned to SC, and multifamily is permitted in both of those zoning districts 02:30:09.980 --> 02:30:15.500 with approval of a specific use permit. 02:30:15.500 --> 02:30:18.020 Here is what this proposed site plan looks like. 02:30:18.020 --> 02:30:24.820 They are proposing 12 buildings, one community center, a community pool and pavilion, various 02:30:24.820 --> 02:30:29.420 playgrounds, as well as an enclosed dog park. 02:30:29.420 --> 02:30:36.200 All in, it is 276 dwelling units, about 18 dwelling units per acre. 02:30:36.200 --> 02:30:40.780 In order to support those dwelling units, they are proposing 568 parking spaces in addition 02:30:40.780 --> 02:30:43.180 to bicycle racks. 02:30:43.180 --> 02:30:48.820 This project is proposing 61% lot coverage and 39% landscape area. 02:30:48.820 --> 02:30:53.300 And those open spaces are provided throughout the site, once again includes those playgrounds, 02:30:53.300 --> 02:30:59.180 the dog park, barbecue, grill and picnic space, and that's about 11% of the site. 02:30:59.180 --> 02:31:01.060 Here's the landscape plan. 02:31:01.060 --> 02:31:04.740 Just to point out some of the features of it, they are proposing landscape islands within 02:31:04.740 --> 02:31:12.820 the parking area, 39 street trees along loop 288 and Dutchess, as well as those bicycle 02:31:12.820 --> 02:31:18.500 racks located in this location and about in this location. 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 02:31:22.740 --> 02:31:27.580 that includes 24 trees and 100 shrubs. 02:31:27.580 --> 02:31:30.020 Here's what the sample building elevations would look like. 02:31:30.020 --> 02:31:35.460 They are proposing some earth tone colors, some muted colors with various balconies and 02:31:35.460 --> 02:31:44.020 building materials, as well as articulation offsets from those facades. 02:31:44.020 --> 02:31:48.020 The criteria for approval in the 2002 debt and development code is in subchapter 6. 02:31:48.020 --> 02:31:51.620 I won't read all of these to you, but it is in your backup material. 02:31:51.620 --> 02:31:54.960 And we're just going to hit some of those requirements. 02:31:54.960 --> 02:32:00.260 So first, the comprehensive plan, the subject property is in a community mixed use area, 02:32:00.260 --> 02:32:06.740 future land use designation, intended to promote a mix of uses where the predominant uses are 02:32:06.740 --> 02:32:12.740 commercial and service, but where residential uses such as higher density, multi-family 02:32:12.740 --> 02:32:17.340 type uses are appropriate as they complement those commercial uses. 02:32:17.340 --> 02:32:21.140 We want those -- we want those diverse uses to be located close to each other because 02:32:21.140 --> 02:32:26.860 we want to encourage dynamic development and walkability, so we want different modes of 02:32:26.860 --> 02:32:27.860 transportation. 02:32:27.860 --> 02:32:32.180 We want a compact development, and multi-family is consistent with the future land use because 02:32:32.180 --> 02:32:37.900 it does provide that necessary residential component of mixed use. 02:32:37.900 --> 02:32:41.020 In this instance, it also provides that physical buffer. 02:32:41.020 --> 02:32:46.700 There is residential to the west of the subject property, and it does add that transition 02:32:46.700 --> 02:32:55.500 area between the residential to the west and loop 288, that commercial corridor there. 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, 02:32:58.640 --> 02:33:03.900 we did do a comparison of the 2002 and 2019 code. 02:33:03.900 --> 02:33:09.380 For elements such as lot coverage, landscape area, building height, density, unit size 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 02:33:15.540 --> 02:33:18.060 also the 2019 code. 02:33:18.060 --> 02:33:20.980 There were two elements that they didn't quite meet. 02:33:20.980 --> 02:33:22.620 One would be the tree preservation. 02:33:22.620 --> 02:33:30.140 The 2019 code requires generally 30% preservation of protected trees. 02:33:30.140 --> 02:33:37.420 They're proposing 27% preservation of quality trees as well as 50% of the secondary trees 02:33:37.420 --> 02:33:41.520 on site, so they don't quite meet the 2019 regulations. 02:33:41.520 --> 02:33:43.120 And then the street trees. 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 02:33:47.460 --> 02:33:54.740 to meet those 2002 regulations, which includes the 39 street trees. 02:33:54.740 --> 02:33:57.580 The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding development. 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 02:34:03.300 --> 02:34:09.300 commercial corridor with some undeveloped land, some future park space, retail area, 02:34:09.300 --> 02:34:14.780 some office, and then other not only existing multifamily projects, but multifamily projects 02:34:14.780 --> 02:34:20.900 that are proposed and you've seen recently. 02:34:20.900 --> 02:34:26.980 We did an analysis of the infrastructure of the site and what could support the development. 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 02:34:32.140 --> 02:34:34.860 approved by our engineering group. 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, 02:34:41.020 --> 02:34:42.900 146 evening peak. 02:34:42.900 --> 02:34:49.380 As part of the TIA recommendations, there is some restriping proposed for Dutchess, 02:34:49.380 --> 02:34:51.220 and that would restripe it. 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 02:34:57.700 --> 02:35:02.660 loop 288 to allow that intersection to function a little better. 02:35:02.660 --> 02:35:07.900 Additionally, with this proposal, if constructed, this intersection would meet the warrants 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 02:35:14.140 --> 02:35:15.140 that signal. 02:35:15.140 --> 02:35:16.140 >> Julie, quick question. 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 02:35:22.020 --> 02:35:28.500 equally split between the loop 288 access and the Dutchess access, or how does that 02:35:28.500 --> 02:35:29.500 break down? 02:35:29.500 --> 02:35:32.900 >> Access is -- that's a great question about access. 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 02:35:37.940 --> 02:35:39.300 a little better. 02:35:39.300 --> 02:35:41.420 So there are two access points for the proposal. 02:35:41.420 --> 02:35:45.540 A full access to the south, directly onto Dutchess. 02:35:45.540 --> 02:35:48.940 There is also one access point onto loop 288. 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. 02:35:55.540 --> 02:35:58.020 If you're going north on the loop, you could turn left in it. 02:35:58.020 --> 02:36:06.820 There is not the ability to turn left out of the development onto loop 288. 02:36:06.820 --> 02:36:10.060 Which does affect the trip distribution. 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 02:36:17.020 --> 02:36:23.660 gotten a firm answer on that, but that as development in this area does commence and 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 02:36:32.140 --> 02:36:33.400 of the signal. 02:36:33.400 --> 02:36:36.260 So there is not a firm date of when that signal would be installed. 02:36:36.260 --> 02:36:37.260 >> Commissioner Bec. 02:36:37.260 --> 02:36:39.580 >> Thank you, chair. 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? 02:36:47.060 --> 02:36:49.740 South to the south? 02:36:49.740 --> 02:37:01.340 >> At least I can't remember the -- >> Shady oaks, thank you. 02:37:01.340 --> 02:37:06.620 >> That feels like it's really tight for two adjacent lights. 02:37:06.620 --> 02:37:12.140 >> And Dutchess is actually intended to at some point punch through all the way to Colorado. 02:37:12.140 --> 02:37:18.460 So Dutchess will be a connector, an additional connector connecting loop 288 to closer toward 02:37:18.460 --> 02:37:19.460 the city center. 02:37:19.460 --> 02:37:25.100 So it is anticipated to have more traffic because it will provide that east-west connection 02:37:25.100 --> 02:37:27.140 from the loop toward the west. 02:37:27.140 --> 02:37:33.300 So that should generate more traffic as well as just the development of that area. 02:37:33.300 --> 02:37:37.540 >> Thank you. 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, 02:37:42.700 --> 02:37:44.580 but the full access to Dutchess. 02:37:44.580 --> 02:37:51.580 There are also pedestrian and transit facilities, not only that would be installed as a result 02:37:51.580 --> 02:37:54.820 of this development, but also that are in place with DCTA. 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 02:37:59.380 --> 02:38:04.900 sidewalk along to loop 288 on their site, on their perimeter. 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. 02:38:12.100 --> 02:38:19.120 This map shows where that is, and that is about a quarter-mile walk. 02:38:19.120 --> 02:38:21.220 There is water near the property. 02:38:21.220 --> 02:38:23.820 There is a 20-inch that actually runs through the site. 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 02:38:28.700 --> 02:38:33.100 288 as well as extend a 12-inch on Dutchess Drive. 02:38:33.100 --> 02:38:37.260 They can tap onto the existing wastewater on the site. 02:38:37.260 --> 02:38:43.140 Park fees and credits would be required at permitting. 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. 02:38:49.180 --> 02:38:51.940 It's actually across loop 288. 02:38:51.940 --> 02:38:57.140 They would have to dedicate -- they would have to comply with all park dedication as 02:38:57.140 --> 02:39:02.080 well as park development fees as part of development of the site. 02:39:02.080 --> 02:39:06.700 There are also on-site recreational facilities like that that enclose Dog Park, the playgrounds 02:39:06.700 --> 02:39:09.220 as well as the pool area. 02:39:09.220 --> 02:39:14.980 It is -- the site is intended to generate about 34 elementary, 14 middle, and 17 high 02:39:14.980 --> 02:39:19.380 school students, and that is in the Rivera Elementary, Myers Middle School, and Ryan 02:39:19.380 --> 02:39:21.940 High School attendance boundary. 02:39:21.940 --> 02:39:24.940 There is fire station near the site. 02:39:24.940 --> 02:39:29.140 A notification was sent out. 02:39:29.140 --> 02:39:37.220 We have received opposition letters that will -- that do total 29% of the property within 02:39:37.220 --> 02:39:38.980 200 feet of the site. 02:39:38.980 --> 02:39:44.500 So approval of this request at this time at City Council would require a supermajority 02:39:44.500 --> 02:39:46.720 vote, which would be six out of seven. 02:39:46.720 --> 02:39:49.260 They did have a neighborhood meeting a couple weeks ago. 02:39:49.260 --> 02:39:50.860 There were about five attendees. 02:39:50.860 --> 02:39:56.820 They talked about things like traffic, just land use compatibility, and they are having 02:39:56.820 --> 02:40:00.420 ongoing conversations with the applicant. 02:40:00.420 --> 02:40:04.180 Based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request with the 02:40:04.180 --> 02:40:12.460 condition that it does seek an alternative development plan after approval from council. 02:40:12.460 --> 02:40:17.540 Once again, this is one of those sites that will need that deviation from subchapter 13. 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 02:40:23.460 --> 02:40:24.460 plan. 02:40:24.460 --> 02:40:27.740 They could substitute some landscaping elements out, but they would still have to meet those 02:40:27.740 --> 02:40:28.740 minimum requirements. 02:40:28.740 --> 02:40:29.740 >> Commissioner Smith. 02:40:29.740 --> 02:40:31.220 >> Thank you, chair. 02:40:31.220 --> 02:40:37.140 This is -- this project is approved for affordable housing credits for the build, correct? 02:40:37.140 --> 02:40:40.040 >> Well, the applicant can speak more in depth about that. 02:40:40.040 --> 02:40:43.900 They did receive that recommendation from council. 02:40:43.900 --> 02:40:49.020 They'll now have to -- my understanding with the process, they now have to complete their 02:40:49.020 --> 02:40:53.060 application in order to see if they get those tax credits. 02:40:53.060 --> 02:40:57.700 But the applicant is here and he'll be able to talk about it. 02:40:57.700 --> 02:41:00.340 >> Thank you. 02:41:00.340 --> 02:41:04.980 >> And that's it as far as staff's presentation on this item. 02:41:04.980 --> 02:41:07.300 Do we -- >> Thanks, Julie. 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 02:41:11.340 --> 02:41:14.460 implication of what that is? 02:41:14.460 --> 02:41:16.820 And if there's no inflation, why you had mentioned it? 02:41:16.820 --> 02:41:17.820 >> I'm sorry? 02:41:17.820 --> 02:41:20.100 >> Can you just tell me about that resolution? 02:41:20.100 --> 02:41:21.100 What does that mean? 02:41:21.100 --> 02:41:22.100 >> Sure. 02:41:22.100 --> 02:41:29.560 When a developer wants to seek tax credits for an affordable housing project, prior to 02:41:29.560 --> 02:41:37.500 submitting for that -- that application for that, they do have to seek a resolution or 02:41:37.500 --> 02:41:41.660 some sort of approval from a council of a municipality in order to move forward with 02:41:41.660 --> 02:41:42.860 their application. 02:41:42.860 --> 02:41:45.060 So that's something that they did this fall. 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 02:41:49.140 --> 02:41:50.140 on this. 02:41:50.140 --> 02:41:53.140 They went to council then, and they recommended approval of that. 02:41:53.140 --> 02:41:56.960 >> So they come to -- to clarify, they come to council, get approval to seek that, and 02:41:56.960 --> 02:42:00.620 then if that's approved or not approved, then they go through the traditional channels back 02:42:00.620 --> 02:42:01.620 up to council? 02:42:01.620 --> 02:42:02.620 >> Correct. 02:42:02.620 --> 02:42:03.620 >> Okay. 02:42:03.620 --> 02:42:06.300 >> So that resolution does not approve that land use. 02:42:06.300 --> 02:42:07.300 It doesn't approve the SEP. 02:42:07.300 --> 02:42:09.420 They still have to go through that process. 02:42:09.420 --> 02:42:10.420 >> Great. 02:42:10.420 --> 02:42:11.420 Commissioner Ellis. 02:42:11.420 --> 02:42:13.300 >> Thank you, Chair. 02:42:13.300 --> 02:42:14.380 Just a quick question on that. 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? 02:42:22.420 --> 02:42:23.620 >> Correct. 02:42:23.620 --> 02:42:26.900 >> Not the no objection to a proposed development. 02:42:26.900 --> 02:42:27.900 >> Correct. 02:42:27.900 --> 02:42:28.900 Correct. 02:42:28.900 --> 02:42:29.900 Thank you. 02:42:29.900 --> 02:42:30.900 >> Great. 02:42:30.900 --> 02:42:31.900 Any other questions? 02:42:31.900 --> 02:42:39.220 Speaking of no objection, if there is none, would it be agreeable to the commission to 02:42:39.220 --> 02:42:44.580 hear Item 5F in council chambers about the DDC update? 02:42:44.580 --> 02:42:45.580 Great. 02:42:45.580 --> 02:42:47.900 So is Charlie still here? 02:42:47.900 --> 02:42:48.900 Thanks for hanging out. 02:42:48.900 --> 02:42:51.200 We're going to push you to next meeting. 02:42:51.200 --> 02:42:52.200 Sorry about that. 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 02:42:58.780 --> 02:43:00.780 to be in chambers in five minutes. 02:43:00.780 --> 02:43:01.780 Thank you. 02:43:01.780 --> 02:43:06.540 >> Ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission session for 02:43:06.540 --> 02:43:09.460 Wednesday, December 11th, 2019. 02:43:09.460 --> 02:43:11.260 I appreciate the patience. 02:43:11.260 --> 02:43:14.700 We will open the meeting at 639. 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 02:43:17.460 --> 02:43:18.460 US and Texas flag. 02:43:18.460 --> 02:43:27.460 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic 02:43:27.460 --> 02:43:34.980 for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 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, 02:43:44.680 --> 02:43:46.300 one nation. 02:43:46.300 --> 02:43:54.540 >> The next item of business is to consider the approval of our minutes. 02:43:54.540 --> 02:43:55.780 We'll take this in two separate votes. 02:43:55.780 --> 02:44:01.940 The first one will be the minutes from November 6th, 2019. 02:44:01.940 --> 02:44:04.860 Commissioner Pernetta. 02:44:04.860 --> 02:44:07.740 >> First, Commissioner Ellis. 02:44:07.740 --> 02:44:08.740 >> Second. 02:44:08.740 --> 02:44:09.740 >> We have a first and a second. 02:44:09.740 --> 02:44:10.740 Any discussion? 02:44:10.740 --> 02:44:21.220 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote of the board. 02:44:21.220 --> 02:44:23.300 Motion carries 7-0. 02:44:23.300 --> 02:44:29.300 The next is November 20th, 2019 minutes. 02:44:29.300 --> 02:44:30.300 Commissioner Ellis. 02:44:30.300 --> 02:44:33.300 >> I move approval. 02:44:33.300 --> 02:44:34.980 >> Commissioner Pernetta. 02:44:34.980 --> 02:44:35.980 >> Second. 02:44:35.980 --> 02:44:36.980 >> We have a first and a second. 02:44:36.980 --> 02:44:37.980 Any discussion? 02:44:37.980 --> 02:44:48.060 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote of the board. 02:44:48.060 --> 02:44:50.580 Motion carries 6-0 with one recuse. 02:44:50.580 --> 02:44:53.060 The next item of business is our consent agenda. 02:44:53.060 --> 02:44:59.620 The chair will entertain a motion or discussion on any of the items. 02:44:59.620 --> 02:45:01.620 Commissioner Ellis. 02:45:01.620 --> 02:45:03.820 >> I move approval. 02:45:03.820 --> 02:45:04.980 >> We have a first for approval. 02:45:04.980 --> 02:45:08.700 I think I saw Commissioner Pernetta up there. 02:45:08.700 --> 02:45:09.700 >> Second. 02:45:09.700 --> 02:45:11.460 >> Can you click that button? 02:45:11.460 --> 02:45:14.820 We have a first and a second for approval. 02:45:14.820 --> 02:45:15.820 Any discussion? 02:45:15.820 --> 02:45:25.300 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote of the board. 02:45:25.300 --> 02:45:26.300 Motion carries 7-0. 02:45:26.300 --> 02:45:29.860 The next item of business is our individual consideration items. 02:45:29.860 --> 02:45:33.540 The first one is item 4A, MP 19-18. 02:45:33.540 --> 02:45:34.540 Staff recommends denial. 02:45:34.540 --> 02:45:40.140 Is there any motion or discussion? 02:45:40.140 --> 02:45:41.140 Commissioner Smith. 02:45:41.140 --> 02:45:42.140 >> Motion to deny. 02:45:42.140 --> 02:45:43.980 >> We have a motion to deny. 02:45:43.980 --> 02:45:44.980 Commissioner Pernetta. 02:45:44.980 --> 02:45:45.980 >> Second. 02:45:45.980 --> 02:45:48.340 >> We have a first and a second for denial. 02:45:48.340 --> 02:45:50.460 Any discussion? 02:45:50.460 --> 02:45:52.500 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 02:45:52.500 --> 02:46:04.380 First for clarification, a vote yes is a vote to deny. 02:46:04.380 --> 02:46:05.380 Motion carries 7-0. 02:46:05.380 --> 02:46:10.260 The next item is 4B, PP 19-35A. 02:46:10.260 --> 02:46:11.260 Staff recommends denial. 02:46:11.260 --> 02:46:12.260 >> Excuse me? 02:46:12.260 --> 02:46:13.260 >> Yes, Commissioner. 02:46:13.260 --> 02:46:21.980 >> The applicant has submitted a request for a 30-day extension after this report was written. 02:46:21.980 --> 02:46:30.780 And so your options are either to approve the request for an extension or deny it. 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 02:46:36.020 --> 02:46:40.940 plat with conditions or approve the plat with conditions. 02:46:40.940 --> 02:46:41.940 >> Perfect. 02:46:41.940 --> 02:46:44.940 Thank you for that clarification. 02:46:44.940 --> 02:46:45.940 >> Yep. 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 02:46:50.420 --> 02:46:51.420 extension? 02:46:51.420 --> 02:46:55.060 >> It would be to a date certain of the 8th, right? 02:46:55.060 --> 02:46:56.060 >> Correct. 02:46:56.060 --> 02:46:57.700 >> Okay, just the way City Jackson referred. 02:46:57.700 --> 02:47:01.340 So motion to postpone to date certain of January 8th. 02:47:01.340 --> 02:47:04.500 >> We have a first, Commissioner Pernetta. 02:47:04.500 --> 02:47:05.500 >> Second the motion. 02:47:05.500 --> 02:47:06.500 >> We have a first and a second. 02:47:06.500 --> 02:47:08.380 Any discussion? 02:47:08.380 --> 02:47:09.620 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 02:47:21.420 --> 02:47:25.740 >> The next item is 4C. 02:47:25.740 --> 02:47:29.900 Staff recommends either denial or the same postponement to January 8th. 02:47:29.900 --> 02:47:31.900 Commissioner Smith? 02:47:31.900 --> 02:47:35.260 >> Motion to postpone the date certain of January 8th. 02:47:35.260 --> 02:47:36.260 >> Commissioner Pernetta? 02:47:36.260 --> 02:47:37.260 >> Second. 02:47:37.260 --> 02:47:38.260 >> We have a first and a second. 02:47:38.260 --> 02:47:39.260 Any discussion? 02:47:39.260 --> 02:47:49.140 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 02:47:49.140 --> 02:47:50.140 Motion carries 7-0. 02:47:50.140 --> 02:47:54.820 Next item is 4D FP 19-32. 02:47:54.820 --> 02:47:55.820 Staff recommends approval. 02:47:55.820 --> 02:47:56.820 Commissioner Smith? 02:47:56.820 --> 02:47:59.380 >> Motion to approve. 02:47:59.380 --> 02:48:00.380 >> Commissioner Ellis? 02:48:00.380 --> 02:48:01.380 >> Second. 02:48:01.380 --> 02:48:02.900 >> We have a first and a second for approval. 02:48:02.900 --> 02:48:03.900 Any discussion? 02:48:03.900 --> 02:48:15.860 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 02:48:15.860 --> 02:48:20.420 Motion carries 6-1. 02:48:20.420 --> 02:48:25.740 The last item for individual consideration is item 4E PP 19-13. 02:48:25.740 --> 02:48:26.740 Staff recommends approval. 02:48:26.740 --> 02:48:27.740 Commissioner Smith? 02:48:27.740 --> 02:48:28.740 >> Motion to approve. 02:48:28.740 --> 02:48:29.740 >> We have a first for approval. 02:48:29.740 --> 02:48:30.740 Commissioner Ellis? 02:48:30.740 --> 02:48:31.740 >> Second. 02:48:31.740 --> 02:48:32.740 >> We have a first and a second for approval. 02:48:32.740 --> 02:48:33.740 Any discussion? 02:48:33.740 --> 02:48:34.740 Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. 02:48:34.740 --> 02:48:51.360 Motion carries 7-0. 02:48:51.360 --> 02:48:53.680 That brings us to our public hearing items. 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 02:48:58.380 --> 02:49:00.740 so we'll not be hearing that item this evening. 02:49:00.740 --> 02:49:04.060 That brings us to our next and first public hearing item. 02:49:04.060 --> 02:49:13.220 Item 5B, that's S19-0003B, by Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing. 02:49:13.220 --> 02:49:23.620 >> Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton. 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 02:49:27.660 --> 02:49:31.260 through the full presentation? 02:49:31.260 --> 02:49:33.340 >> I think a summary presentation would be adequate. 02:49:33.340 --> 02:49:34.660 >> Okay, great. 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 02:49:40.780 --> 02:49:41.780 last month. 02:49:41.780 --> 02:49:44.700 It is S19-3, Oxford at Sherman. 02:49:44.700 --> 02:49:48.500 So the request is for a specific use permit for multi-family dwellings. 02:49:48.500 --> 02:49:50.860 The subject property is outlined here in yellow. 02:49:50.860 --> 02:49:52.460 It's about a 12-acre site. 02:49:52.460 --> 02:49:54.160 It's currently undeveloped. 02:49:54.160 --> 02:49:58.620 As I said, it was originally presented on the 20th of November and it was recommended 02:49:58.620 --> 02:50:00.860 for approval at that time. 02:50:00.860 --> 02:50:05.460 After that public hearing, staff discovered that there was a notification error. 02:50:05.460 --> 02:50:09.820 One of the public notifications was not mailed out. 02:50:09.820 --> 02:50:13.180 So we had to re-notice it and that's why we're here today. 02:50:13.180 --> 02:50:16.140 However, there have been no changes to the project. 02:50:16.140 --> 02:50:20.460 It is the same as the original request. 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 02:50:26.060 --> 02:50:31.620 ad was placed on November 24th for this meeting. 02:50:31.620 --> 02:50:32.980 The property was also posted. 02:50:32.980 --> 02:50:37.900 There were also notices mailed that included all within the 200-foot boundary. 02:50:37.900 --> 02:50:39.660 We've received five in opposition. 02:50:39.660 --> 02:50:47.500 Two of those responses are not within the 200-foot boundary, but those three represent 1%. 02:50:47.500 --> 02:50:48.860 And then two in favor. 02:50:48.860 --> 02:50:53.100 They did also have a neighborhood meeting over the summer. 02:50:53.100 --> 02:50:58.180 So based upon the criteria for approval in subchapter six of the 2002 Denton Development 02:50:58.180 --> 02:51:03.020 Code, staff does recommend approval of the SUP with some conditions. 02:51:03.020 --> 02:51:07.500 First, that the landscaping plan does need to be consistent with what is provided in 02:51:07.500 --> 02:51:09.180 your backup material. 02:51:09.180 --> 02:51:15.900 There can be some substitutions for some specific plants, but they do need to comply. 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 02:51:20.940 --> 02:51:25.820 there's adequate lighting, but that there's not impacts to adjacent property owners as 02:51:25.820 --> 02:51:27.380 far as glare. 02:51:27.380 --> 02:51:31.460 And that perimeter fencing material should be limited to masonry or wrought iron. 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 02:51:36.060 --> 02:51:39.020 there to make sure that there's adequate screening. 02:51:39.020 --> 02:51:44.460 Additionally, there is an alternative development plan that the applicant will have to pursue 02:51:44.460 --> 02:51:46.700 as a part of this request. 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. 02:51:52.100 --> 02:51:57.540 And that is to deviate from two provisions within subchapter 13 of the 2002 Denton Development 02:51:57.540 --> 02:51:59.300 Code. 02:51:59.300 --> 02:52:05.740 And then also to comply with the site plan, the landscape plan, and elevations that would 02:52:05.740 --> 02:52:09.580 be attached to the ordinance if it's approved. 02:52:09.580 --> 02:52:16.660 This provision does allow staff to make some minor modifications, up to 5% increase in 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 02:52:21.900 --> 02:52:28.020 units, parking spaces, or the square footage of lot coverage would require another specific 02:52:28.020 --> 02:52:29.020 use permit. 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 02:52:33.580 --> 02:52:34.580 your memory. 02:52:34.580 --> 02:52:38.220 They are proposing eight three-story buildings. 02:52:38.220 --> 02:52:43.820 They are oriented toward Loop 288, the buildings are outlined there in purple. 02:52:43.820 --> 02:52:50.060 Three access points are proposed, full access along Loop 288, and then exit only, one to 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 02:52:57.060 --> 02:53:01.300 only to Poinsettia to the south. 02:53:01.300 --> 02:53:06.060 They're also proposing some site amenities, some open space areas, community pool with 02:53:06.060 --> 02:53:09.060 the amenity center and clubhouse, that's shown here in yellow. 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 02:53:13.660 --> 02:53:15.860 neighborhood areas. 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 02:53:21.260 --> 02:53:24.460 in this location. 02:53:24.460 --> 02:53:30.940 There is fencing and landscaping, along with one-story garages proposed along Poinsettia. 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 02:53:36.300 --> 02:53:42.720 from Poinsettia, as well as 49 feet from the property line to the east. 02:53:42.720 --> 02:53:46.020 And the proposal also meets parking regulations. 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 02:53:50.100 --> 02:53:51.100 any questions as well. 02:53:51.100 --> 02:53:52.100 >> Thank you, Julie. 02:53:52.100 --> 02:53:53.100 I do not see any questions. 02:53:53.100 --> 02:53:54.100 >> Great. 02:53:54.100 --> 02:53:55.100 Thank you. 02:53:55.100 --> 02:54:01.100 >> This is a public hearing, anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so on this item. 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. 02:54:12.860 --> 02:54:13.860 Okay. 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. 02:54:17.620 --> 02:54:18.620 Commissioner Pernetta? 02:54:18.620 --> 02:54:19.620 >> I motion to approve. 02:54:19.620 --> 02:54:21.620 >> We have a first for approval. 02:54:21.620 --> 02:54:22.620 Commissioner Smith? 02:54:22.620 --> 02:54:23.620 >> Second. 02:54:23.620 --> 02:54:25.260 >> We have a first and a second for approval. 02:54:25.260 --> 02:54:28.660 Is there any discussion on the item? 02:54:28.660 --> 02:54:36.220 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. 02:54:36.220 --> 02:54:38.180 Motion carries 7-0. 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 02:54:46.020 --> 02:54:59.540 and open the public hearing. 02:54:59.540 --> 02:55:13.420 >> Good evening. 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 02:55:19.300 --> 02:55:23.140 a rezoning from both R2 and R3 districts. 02:55:23.140 --> 02:55:28.500 R2 makes up approximately 34 acres of the subject property, R3 makes up just over 2 02:55:28.500 --> 02:55:29.500 acres. 02:55:29.500 --> 02:55:32.780 The proposal is to rezone all 36 acres to plan development. 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 02:55:36.140 --> 02:55:42.020 on the north side of Ryan Road between the Ridgemont and Teasley Trail subdivisions. 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 02:55:46.260 --> 02:55:51.100 of the property being R2 in yellow, and then the northernmost portion of the property being 02:55:51.100 --> 02:55:54.500 the slightly darker yellow, which is the R3 district. 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 02:56:00.340 --> 02:56:02.740 development. 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 02:56:06.740 --> 02:56:08.820 with more detail. 02:56:08.820 --> 02:56:12.660 There are development regulations that are approved as part of a PD that specify any 02:56:12.660 --> 02:56:17.620 unique standards that would apply just to this development that aren't present citywide, 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 02:56:21.780 --> 02:56:27.020 arranged, how traffic would flow through the site, and those more detailed almost site 02:56:27.020 --> 02:56:29.380 plan type elements. 02:56:29.380 --> 02:56:34.980 So the proposal for this particular PD includes 154 residential lots. 02:56:34.980 --> 02:56:39.180 It includes five HOA lots that are shown in green on this map. 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 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 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 02:56:53.780 --> 02:56:56.300 points of connectivity proposed with this plan. 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 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 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 02:57:07.740 --> 02:57:11.620 connect to Mizzen Lane that is stubbed from Teasley Trails, and then on the north and 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 02:57:15.740 --> 02:57:20.500 the developments of both the Ridgemont neighborhood to the south and Teasley Trails to the north. 02:57:20.500 --> 02:57:25.220 As we discussed at work session, existing conditions for these stubs in Ridgemont, that 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 02:57:29.620 --> 02:57:31.300 you drive out there today. 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 02:57:35.180 --> 02:57:39.340 rezoning case tonight, that was plotted as a temporary access easement because the length 02:57:39.340 --> 02:57:44.240 of that cul-de-sac called for a turnaround for emergency services purposes at that time, 02:57:44.240 --> 02:57:49.760 so that was provided as a temporary means of having a turnaround there. 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 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 02:57:59.740 --> 02:58:04.300 R4 district, which is the closest comparable based district for what's proposed. 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 02:58:10.940 --> 02:58:13.740 would be permitted would be single family detached dwellings. 02:58:13.740 --> 02:58:17.220 They're also proposing to allow for any of the accessory and temporary uses that are 02:58:17.220 --> 02:58:21.580 allowed within the R4 district so that these residents could enjoy those same benefits 02:58:21.580 --> 02:58:25.860 if they, for example, wanted a home occupation or an accessory dwelling unit in the future 02:58:25.860 --> 02:58:30.500 or if during construction there's need for a field or construction office on site. 02:58:30.500 --> 02:58:35.400 Those could be allowed with the same permissions they have citywide in R4. 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 02:58:40.180 --> 02:58:43.220 is proposing to comply with the 2019 DDC. 02:58:43.220 --> 02:58:48.440 There are a few changes that they're requesting as part of this PD. 02:58:48.440 --> 02:58:53.660 So this chart shows the proposed development standards outlined in yellow, the R4 district 02:58:53.660 --> 02:58:58.140 in the middle, and then over here we see the difference between those standards, red indicating 02:58:58.140 --> 02:59:01.580 a decrease from the R4 standard, green being an increase. 02:59:01.580 --> 02:59:03.360 I'll just hit some of the highlights of that. 02:59:03.360 --> 02:59:06.460 They're all outlined in more detail in your backup. 02:59:06.460 --> 02:59:10.180 The minimum lot area is one of the key deviations that's requested. 02:59:10.180 --> 02:59:12.800 R4 requires 7,000 square foot minimum. 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 02:59:16.700 --> 02:59:23.460 5,000 square feet, all others would have a minimum lot area of 5,750. 02:59:23.460 --> 02:59:27.220 Some of the other key changes, lot depth would be increased in this subdivision. 02:59:27.220 --> 02:59:30.540 They're proposing 100 foot as opposed to 80 foot standard. 02:59:30.540 --> 02:59:36.300 They're proposing an increased garage setback, citywide there's not a specific garage setback. 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 02:59:40.700 --> 02:59:41.700 to being 20 feet. 02:59:41.700 --> 02:59:45.500 They would propose as low as 10, not to say it could not go higher. 02:59:45.500 --> 02:59:49.740 And then the other things I wanted to hit are landscaping and tree code. 02:59:49.740 --> 02:59:54.180 So they submitted a general development plan before they submitted for the rezoning of 02:59:54.180 --> 02:59:55.180 this site. 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. 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 03:00:04.780 --> 03:00:07.660 provisions from the 2002 development code. 03:00:07.660 --> 03:00:11.340 The only one that they've expressed an interest in vesting in is tree preservation, which 03:00:11.340 --> 03:00:13.660 they are allowed to do so by state law. 03:00:13.660 --> 03:00:19.980 So rather than meeting the 2019 minimum of 30% of heritage and quality trees for preservation, 03:00:19.980 --> 03:00:23.900 their minimum standard would be 20% quality trees and 10% secondary trees. 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 03:00:28.180 --> 03:00:31.800 to do so once they get into the site grading and those details. 03:00:31.800 --> 03:00:36.780 In terms of landscaping, citywide there is a requirement in the 2019 code for one yard 03:00:36.780 --> 03:00:37.780 tree. 03:00:37.780 --> 03:00:40.060 It can be located anywhere within a single family lot. 03:00:40.060 --> 03:00:44.020 They're proposing to increase that standard to provide for increased tree canopy over 03:00:44.020 --> 03:00:45.020 time. 03:00:45.020 --> 03:00:48.060 So they would have one front yard tree and one rear yard tree in all lots. 03:00:48.060 --> 03:00:52.460 And then corner lots would have an additional two trees required in the side yard. 03:00:52.460 --> 03:00:57.580 And then overall the city standard is 5% minimum open space for single family subdivisions. 03:00:57.580 --> 03:01:02.340 They're proposing to increase that minimum to 15%. 03:01:02.340 --> 03:01:05.560 So there are two sets of criteria for approval that were outlined in your backup. 03:01:05.560 --> 03:01:10.060 The first of those is the general criteria that applies to all applications made under 03:01:10.060 --> 03:01:11.060 the DDC. 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 03:01:15.220 --> 03:01:18.540 of that is that it's generally in compliance with all of these. 03:01:18.540 --> 03:01:22.460 The project is consistent with the DDC and comprehensive plan requirements, except for 03:01:22.460 --> 03:01:26.580 those specific changes that are requested as part of the PD. 03:01:26.580 --> 03:01:30.900 There's no prior approvals or phasing proposed here, so those criteria were not applicable. 03:01:30.900 --> 03:01:35.820 The development was not found to have any expected adverse environmental or fiscal impact 03:01:35.820 --> 03:01:36.940 for the city. 03:01:36.940 --> 03:01:41.940 And there is adequate infrastructure, which we'll look at in a little more detail. 03:01:41.940 --> 03:01:45.100 So there are six criteria for approval specific to PDs. 03:01:45.100 --> 03:01:49.180 I'll go through each of these in more detail at this time. 03:01:49.180 --> 03:01:53.860 So the first of those criteria is consistency with the Denton Plan 2030. 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. 03:01:57.860 --> 03:02:01.960 This entire area of town is designated primarily for low residential. 03:02:01.960 --> 03:02:04.740 That typically means one to four dwelling units an acre. 03:02:04.740 --> 03:02:09.900 There are some additional goals of that future land use area that include having development 03:02:09.900 --> 03:02:14.420 contiguous to existing developed areas to avoid sprawl, having new development that 03:02:14.420 --> 03:02:19.420 is within the context and sensitive to existing development patterns. 03:02:19.420 --> 03:02:21.060 So we dug a little bit deeper here. 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. 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 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 03:02:35.980 --> 03:02:37.460 subdivision. 03:02:37.460 --> 03:02:41.220 And as you get closer to the corner, Teasley Trails, newest phases, are actually closer 03:02:41.220 --> 03:02:42.740 to four and a half units per acre. 03:02:42.740 --> 03:02:46.060 So the smaller lots such as we see in this development. 03:02:46.060 --> 03:02:49.540 And then once you hit that hard corner, the future land use map transitions to community 03:02:49.540 --> 03:02:53.580 mixed use where we see things like the recently approved multifamily development that will 03:02:53.580 --> 03:02:55.340 be at about 20 units per acre. 03:02:55.340 --> 03:02:59.740 So this is well within the existing development pattern for this area and within those goals 03:02:59.740 --> 03:03:01.780 of the comp plan. 03:03:01.780 --> 03:03:06.340 Additionally, the comprehensive plan is based on what's called a preferred growth concept. 03:03:06.340 --> 03:03:11.500 So this concept, city-wide, is intended to encourage compact growth clustered around 03:03:11.500 --> 03:03:17.440 distinct locations, limiting sprawl, so really filling in the city center before we expand 03:03:17.440 --> 03:03:21.740 outward at our edges, increasing walkability and trails. 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 03:03:25.980 --> 03:03:30.180 that is specific to residential, which is infill within residential areas. 03:03:30.180 --> 03:03:34.260 So this development does kind of fill in that gap between existing subdivisions along Ryan 03:03:34.260 --> 03:03:38.380 Road and Woodfall within this criteria. 03:03:38.380 --> 03:03:41.300 The second criteria for approval is compliance with the DDC. 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 03:03:46.100 --> 03:03:49.500 with all provisions of the DDC except for those that are specifically outlined in this 03:03:49.500 --> 03:03:54.060 chart where there's either an increase or decrease from the proposed standards. 03:03:54.060 --> 03:03:58.940 The code has three specific areas where a PD is not allowed deviations. 03:03:58.940 --> 03:04:04.940 That's our ESA standards, environmentally-sensitive areas, gas well standards, and tree preservation. 03:04:04.940 --> 03:04:08.380 There are no proposed changes with this to ESA or gas wells. 03:04:08.380 --> 03:04:12.980 Again, with tree preservation, they are claiming vesting under the 2002 code, so they'll be 03:04:12.980 --> 03:04:18.380 complying with that as opposed to the 2019 standards. 03:04:18.380 --> 03:04:23.300 Area three is with regards to whether the PD provides for greater building design amenities 03:04:23.300 --> 03:04:26.380 and connectivity than what we would normally see. 03:04:26.380 --> 03:04:31.380 So with regards to building design, they will follow the 2019 DDC standards for single family 03:04:31.380 --> 03:04:35.980 in terms of architecture, such as not repeating elevations on homes adjacent to each other 03:04:35.980 --> 03:04:38.620 and things like that. 03:04:38.620 --> 03:04:42.580 At one point in time, the developer did have some standards written into this PD regarding 03:04:42.580 --> 03:04:44.380 minimum masonry. 03:04:44.380 --> 03:04:49.140 If you all remember with House Bill 2439, the cities in Texas have lost the ability 03:04:49.140 --> 03:04:53.140 to regulate building materials, so we asked them to take out those standards as they would 03:04:53.140 --> 03:04:54.140 not be enforceable. 03:04:54.140 --> 03:04:58.220 However, the developer did indicate at both of their neighborhood meetings that they intend 03:04:58.220 --> 03:05:03.420 to self-impose a 40% minimum masonry standard on this development through their deed restrictions. 03:05:03.420 --> 03:05:08.060 So the HOA documents and deed restrictions filed on this property will mandate that builders 03:05:08.060 --> 03:05:13.220 comply with that minimum masonry standard, but that's not something the city can enforce. 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 03:05:16.980 --> 03:05:20.140 though, which was 25%. 03:05:20.140 --> 03:05:25.220 In terms of amenities, again, they're proposing 15% minimum open space that would be utilized 03:05:25.220 --> 03:05:29.900 for tree preservation, buffering between the proposed lots and existing lots, as well as 03:05:29.900 --> 03:05:31.300 just general community use. 03:05:31.300 --> 03:05:34.660 They speak to things like trails and benches within the PD document. 03:05:34.660 --> 03:05:38.820 The city standard is 5%, so they are in excess of that. 03:05:38.820 --> 03:05:40.900 The third element being connectivity. 03:05:40.900 --> 03:05:44.600 This development would improve auto and pedestrian connectivity in this area. 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 03:05:48.300 --> 03:05:51.420 to this property as the surrounding areas developed. 03:05:51.420 --> 03:05:56.140 By providing those connections at Monte Carlo and Misen, they're achieving that cross-connectivity 03:05:56.140 --> 03:06:00.940 that's desired between residential neighborhoods that increases options for not only residents 03:06:00.940 --> 03:06:06.340 that live there, but also for emergency responders trying to reach the property. 03:06:06.340 --> 03:06:09.120 The fourth criteria is rather for residential use. 03:06:09.120 --> 03:06:13.460 There's compatibility of buildings, uses, and character of the area. 03:06:13.460 --> 03:06:17.740 This being a single-family use, there's no expected nuisance or anything generated here 03:06:17.740 --> 03:06:21.340 that wouldn't be found within the surrounding single-family neighborhood, so it is consistent 03:06:21.340 --> 03:06:24.780 in terms of use and density, as we saw earlier. 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, 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. 03:06:34.340 --> 03:06:38.460 Normally, lots could butt up against each other directly. 03:06:38.460 --> 03:06:42.060 They're proposing to provide those buffers around the edge to preserve trees and provide 03:06:42.060 --> 03:06:46.620 some separation between these lots and existing lots. 03:06:46.620 --> 03:06:52.420 The fifth criteria does not apply, as there are no non-residential uses proposed here. 03:06:52.420 --> 03:06:57.540 And the sixth and final criteria that has several subcomponents is rather there is adequate 03:06:57.540 --> 03:07:00.380 provision of public facilities to support the development. 03:07:00.380 --> 03:07:03.980 The first of those categories is with respect to schools. 03:07:03.980 --> 03:07:08.700 Currently, Denton ISD indicated that this area would be in the attendance zone for Ryan 03:07:08.700 --> 03:07:11.820 Elementary, McMath Middle School, and Denton High School. 03:07:11.820 --> 03:07:15.360 McMath Middle School and Denton High School have adequate capacity to support the expected 03:07:15.360 --> 03:07:17.780 student generation from this neighborhood. 03:07:17.780 --> 03:07:21.700 Ryan Elementary currently is at capacity and could not handle additional students. 03:07:21.700 --> 03:07:26.500 However, Denton ISD indicated that that wouldn't be an issue because the other nearby elementary 03:07:26.500 --> 03:07:30.620 school, Sam Houston, has adequate capacity, so they would simply zone this into that attendance 03:07:30.620 --> 03:07:34.340 zone if this were approved. 03:07:34.340 --> 03:07:39.140 In terms of fire and law enforcement, the fire department generally has an eight-minute 03:07:39.140 --> 03:07:43.060 response time or less boundary that they seek to go by. 03:07:43.060 --> 03:07:47.380 There is an existing fire station, fire station number six up here on Teasley. 03:07:47.380 --> 03:07:51.020 This would be well within that eight-minute response time boundary, either via Teasley 03:07:51.020 --> 03:07:53.300 Lane or coming from Ryan Road. 03:07:53.300 --> 03:07:58.260 I spoke to Denton PD with regards to law enforcement in this area. 03:07:58.260 --> 03:08:05.060 They identified no significant problems in this area with respect to either nuisances 03:08:05.060 --> 03:08:06.340 or crime rates. 03:08:06.340 --> 03:08:10.780 They also spoke to me about their response time and indicated that this general area 03:08:10.780 --> 03:08:14.660 of town falls well within their standard for response times, and they don't anticipate 03:08:14.660 --> 03:08:21.580 that 154 additional homes would cause any effect on that. 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 03:08:26.060 --> 03:08:27.060 today. 03:08:27.060 --> 03:08:30.620 The blue lines being water lines, the red lines within the streets being existing sewer 03:08:30.620 --> 03:08:31.620 lines. 03:08:31.620 --> 03:08:35.860 Again, when these subdivisions developed, they were required to provide connectivity 03:08:35.860 --> 03:08:40.300 to this property for future connections, so there are existing stubs in Monte Carlo Lane, 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 03:08:44.700 --> 03:08:48.500 and wastewater through the site. 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 03:08:53.260 --> 03:08:55.720 streets and then Ryan Road itself. 03:08:55.720 --> 03:09:00.620 With regards to neighborhood street connections, again, as we saw, Monte Carlo and Mizzen were 03:09:00.620 --> 03:09:04.020 both stubbed to this property with the intent of future connection. 03:09:04.020 --> 03:09:07.580 The DDC does require that connection, and the applicant is proposing to provide all 03:09:07.580 --> 03:09:10.600 of those connection points. 03:09:10.600 --> 03:09:13.820 Because of the large amount of neighborhood opposition, I wanted to provide you all with 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 03:09:20.020 --> 03:09:23.460 from that code requirement, so there's four specific instances. 03:09:23.460 --> 03:09:27.060 The first of those being whether there's a significant physical barrier or environmentally 03:09:27.060 --> 03:09:28.780 sensitive area that would be crossed. 03:09:28.780 --> 03:09:31.540 That is not the case in this instance. 03:09:31.540 --> 03:09:35.540 The second, rather, the extension or connection would be to an existing development that was 03:09:35.540 --> 03:09:39.980 designed in such a way that connection would not likely be to ever occur. 03:09:39.980 --> 03:09:43.460 That's not the case here since the street stubs were provided to this property. 03:09:43.460 --> 03:09:47.460 Third, rather, the extension or connection would be to a government property or public 03:09:47.460 --> 03:09:50.340 utility to which vehicle access is restricted. 03:09:50.340 --> 03:09:52.940 That's not the case as this is all privately owned. 03:09:52.940 --> 03:09:56.820 And then the fourth criteria is rather the extension or connection would be to a property 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 03:10:01.580 --> 03:10:03.820 with the proposed development. 03:10:03.820 --> 03:10:06.160 All development in this area is single family. 03:10:06.160 --> 03:10:08.780 There's no incompatibility there. 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 03:10:12.900 --> 03:10:17.700 site and you obviously wouldn't want the truck traffic going through the residential neighborhood. 03:10:17.700 --> 03:10:22.380 So this development did not meet any of those circumstances, and again the developer is proposing 03:10:22.380 --> 03:10:26.540 to provide all of the required street connections. 03:10:26.540 --> 03:10:30.260 With respect to Ryan Road, this development when it gets to platting will be required 03:10:30.260 --> 03:10:35.340 to dedicate the necessary right of way for the full width of Ryan Road. 03:10:35.340 --> 03:10:40.060 In the November bond election, there were improvements to Ryan Road that were approved. 03:10:40.060 --> 03:10:43.540 That will be for Ryan to be expanded to a three-lane section. 03:10:43.540 --> 03:10:47.020 That construction is expected to begin in 2023. 03:10:47.020 --> 03:10:51.260 The developer did a preliminary traffic assessment, they'll go through the full TIA during the 03:10:51.260 --> 03:10:52.980 platting process. 03:10:52.980 --> 03:10:57.260 That assessment found Ryan Road in the vicinity of this development to be operating a level 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. 03:11:02.660 --> 03:11:07.620 They analyzed the expected traffic from this development as well as four other developments 03:11:07.620 --> 03:11:12.280 that are in the process that were identified, being the multi-family development here. 03:11:12.280 --> 03:11:16.200 There is a dollar store that will be under construction here in front of Walmart. 03:11:16.200 --> 03:11:19.740 They looked at the new Parkview subdivision across the street, as well as the Creekside 03:11:19.740 --> 03:11:23.300 subdivision under construction further down Ryan. 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 03:11:26.860 --> 03:11:30.660 C, so there's no impact that would be seen there. 03:11:30.660 --> 03:11:34.140 Once Ryan is expanded to those three lanes, that level of service would increase to an 03:11:34.140 --> 03:11:37.140 A or a B. 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 03:11:41.420 --> 03:11:43.740 walk to a park for residential development. 03:11:43.740 --> 03:11:49.020 This subdivision would be approximately 500 feet from Lake Forest Park, so well within 03:11:49.020 --> 03:11:53.460 that 10-minute walk time, this development will be providing for park dedication and 03:11:53.460 --> 03:11:59.260 development fees when they get through the planning and permitting process. 03:11:59.260 --> 03:12:02.380 Notification was provided, if you recall, this was actually on our previous agenda, 03:12:02.380 --> 03:12:04.580 so notices were actually sent out twice. 03:12:04.580 --> 03:12:09.740 All of those notices have been totaled together, and since your packet went out on Friday, 03:12:09.740 --> 03:12:14.060 I received a handful of other responses over the weekend, and early this week, those were 03:12:14.060 --> 03:12:18.700 handed out to you all during the work session, and then two additional responses came in 03:12:18.700 --> 03:12:21.700 during the work session, and I have those available and can read them into the record 03:12:21.700 --> 03:12:22.700 if you wish. 03:12:22.700 --> 03:12:28.340 They were both in opposition and were outside the 200-foot buffer. 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. 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 03:12:41.540 --> 03:12:42.820 owners. 03:12:42.820 --> 03:12:46.980 The applicant did hold two neighborhood meetings, one in September, one in October, with fairly 03:12:46.980 --> 03:12:51.460 high attendance at both 23 people at the first meeting, 18 at the second. 03:12:51.460 --> 03:12:54.900 There were a multitude of concerns expressed at those meetings that are described in more 03:12:54.900 --> 03:12:58.620 detail in your backup. 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 03:13:02.300 --> 03:13:07.020 for approval, as well as the PD-specific criteria for approval. 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 03:13:10.100 --> 03:13:14.460 noticed for December 17th, and I'm happy to stand for any questions. 03:13:14.460 --> 03:13:17.500 Thank you for the presentation, Hayley. 03:13:17.500 --> 03:13:19.140 I don't see any questions. 03:13:19.140 --> 03:13:20.380 I just have one. 03:13:20.380 --> 03:13:27.620 When looking at the streets, we talked several commission meetings ago about the potential 03:13:27.620 --> 03:13:32.260 for signaling on Teasley Lane. 03:13:32.260 --> 03:13:37.700 With the connectivity to the north, into that neighborhood, was there any further discussion 03:13:37.700 --> 03:13:43.220 or does this put any increased threshold numbers on getting the light at Ranch Man Boulevard 03:13:43.220 --> 03:13:44.860 or Hunters Creek Road? 03:13:44.860 --> 03:13:48.820 How does the traffic interplay with that connectivity impact Teasley? 03:13:48.820 --> 03:13:51.620 I know we talked about Ryan, but how does it impact Teasley? 03:13:51.620 --> 03:13:52.620 Certainly. 03:13:52.620 --> 03:13:55.500 They do anticipate that some traffic from this neighborhood will go through Teasley 03:13:55.500 --> 03:13:59.980 Trails to get directly to Teasley, as opposed to going to Ryan. 03:13:59.980 --> 03:14:05.620 This particular traffic study didn't show that we would meet any warrants for signals 03:14:05.620 --> 03:14:06.620 there. 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 03:14:09.980 --> 03:14:13.900 occurring in this area comprehensively to see if any of those intersections can meet 03:14:13.900 --> 03:14:16.460 the signal warrants that text-dot has set forth. 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. 03:14:20.020 --> 03:14:21.020 Okay. 03:14:21.020 --> 03:14:22.020 Thank you. 03:14:22.020 --> 03:14:26.020 I do not see any other questions. 03:14:26.020 --> 03:14:27.020 Commissioner Beck. 03:14:27.020 --> 03:14:28.020 Yes. 03:14:28.020 --> 03:14:29.020 Thank you, Chair. 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 03:14:35.540 --> 03:14:41.500 calming opportunities that we have for Monte Carlo in particular? 03:14:41.500 --> 03:14:42.500 Certainly. 03:14:42.500 --> 03:14:47.300 Let's see if I can get back to the site plan here. 03:14:47.300 --> 03:14:49.740 Traffic calming was something discussed at the neighborhood meetings. 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 03:14:53.340 --> 03:14:55.700 options that they've looked at would be. 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 03:14:59.580 --> 03:15:02.740 mechanism for traffic calming on Monte Carlo. 03:15:02.740 --> 03:15:07.140 That could include things like the bump outs in the street that would narrow the travel 03:15:07.140 --> 03:15:11.540 lanes and as the lanes narrow, people just tend to move slower because you feel more 03:15:11.540 --> 03:15:12.540 confined. 03:15:12.540 --> 03:15:15.100 That's one common option in residential areas. 03:15:15.100 --> 03:15:19.420 Other things such as speed humps or putting stop signs at one of the intersections, those 03:15:19.420 --> 03:15:21.380 could certainly be looked at as well. 03:15:21.380 --> 03:15:25.620 That would be done typically in the process when they get to Platting and during their 03:15:25.620 --> 03:15:29.780 civil engineering plans when they would do that full traffic impact analysis to determine 03:15:29.780 --> 03:15:33.940 where the best point for that would be. 03:15:33.940 --> 03:15:34.940 Thank you, Hayley. 03:15:34.940 --> 03:15:37.940 I don't see other questions. 03:15:37.940 --> 03:15:39.740 The applicant is here this evening as well. 03:15:39.740 --> 03:15:40.740 Yes, ma'am. 03:15:40.740 --> 03:15:41.740 They're first up. 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 03:15:45.340 --> 03:15:46.340 speak. 03:15:46.340 --> 03:15:47.340 I'll get to these in just a minute. 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 03:15:50.580 --> 03:15:54.580 to do so, or you will be free to talk here in a little bit. 03:15:54.580 --> 03:15:57.780 To start, we'll have the applicant come up and speak. 03:15:57.780 --> 03:15:59.820 There's one of two applicants speaking. 03:15:59.820 --> 03:16:01.340 First is Jim Strange. 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 03:16:06.260 --> 03:16:07.260 presentation. 03:16:07.260 --> 03:16:08.260 Okay. 03:16:08.260 --> 03:16:13.140 If you could just state your name and address for the record, you know the drill. 03:16:13.140 --> 03:16:14.900 Thank you. 03:16:14.900 --> 03:16:20.380 Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners. 03:16:20.380 --> 03:16:24.620 Jim Strange, 3613 Falcon Court here in Denton, Texas. 03:16:24.620 --> 03:16:29.620 I've been in the building and development business for 30 years here in Denton. 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 03:16:35.220 --> 03:16:36.220 as serve publicly. 03:16:36.220 --> 03:16:40.140 I served six years on the building standards board and six years on this board. 03:16:40.140 --> 03:16:45.060 So I've had the opportunity to do a lot here in our city. 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 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. 03:16:54.900 --> 03:16:57.460 It also had a compressor on site. 03:16:57.460 --> 03:17:03.180 The compressor was burning between 25% to 50% of the gas that was produced on site. 03:17:03.180 --> 03:17:09.140 So there were some environmental concerns, and at that time, the setback was 250 feet. 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 03:17:13.540 --> 03:17:16.580 this year, made the decision to try to buy it out. 03:17:16.580 --> 03:17:18.540 It took quite a bit of time to do that. 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 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 03:17:28.460 --> 03:17:34.020 process before the well was actually capped in August, and then in September, we got the 03:17:34.020 --> 03:17:38.820 Railroad Commission letter back that had been approved and done correctly, and that environmental 03:17:38.820 --> 03:17:43.820 concern was eliminated. 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 03:17:47.700 --> 03:17:50.820 neighbors that have moved in recently to our east, and then there are neighbors that have 03:17:50.820 --> 03:17:55.460 been there for 20 years, which makes it a challenge for folks that are accustomed to 03:17:55.460 --> 03:17:59.900 things being a certain way for a certain period of time. 03:17:59.900 --> 03:18:05.860 We did two neighborhood meetings, as Haley said, made a number of changes to our project 03:18:05.860 --> 03:18:08.060 over those couple meetings. 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 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 03:18:19.380 --> 03:18:22.860 be a good neighbor as best we could. 03:18:22.860 --> 03:18:28.380 Some of the main things that we've changed from our first neighborhood meeting, we were 03:18:28.380 --> 03:18:31.580 originally looking at an NR6 and NR4 to straight zoning. 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 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 03:18:41.820 --> 03:18:42.820 with a PD. 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 03:18:48.460 --> 03:18:51.780 those neighbors that were concerned about those things, some piece of maximum number 03:18:51.780 --> 03:18:57.500 of lots and what the uses would be. 03:18:57.500 --> 03:19:02.660 We also, from those meetings, we originally had deep lots, which is pretty typical that 03:19:02.660 --> 03:19:05.100 you go lot line to lot line backing up. 03:19:05.100 --> 03:19:10.020 A number of the neighbors were concerned about trees that weren't on their property that 03:19:10.020 --> 03:19:12.380 they had come to enjoy over the years. 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. 03:19:19.140 --> 03:19:24.900 That allowed the trees that were on our property that backed up to the existing neighborhood 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, 03:19:30.200 --> 03:19:34.220 so those trees will be permanently protected. 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, 03:19:41.740 --> 03:19:46.060 we changed the, put some restrictions in for building material standards. 03:19:46.060 --> 03:19:48.140 I understand we have to do that through deed restrictions. 03:19:48.140 --> 03:19:51.260 We will do that. 03:19:51.260 --> 03:19:56.700 And then we voluntarily increased the tree plantings within our site. 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 03:20:00.980 --> 03:20:02.260 pretty difficult in the middle. 03:20:02.260 --> 03:20:06.540 So our best next step was to enhance the tree plantings. 03:20:06.540 --> 03:20:11.580 And Thomas can probably go through some of the numbers in greater detail, but essentially 03:20:11.580 --> 03:20:17.220 over what's required, we're about 150% over what's required. 03:20:17.220 --> 03:20:21.980 We've also tried to work with the neighbors to address some of the through traffic. 03:20:21.980 --> 03:20:26.260 We obviously have to connect to the existing street stubs. 03:20:26.260 --> 03:20:28.540 We don't have choice on that. 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 03:20:33.460 --> 03:20:37.780 calling measures to do what we can and be a good neighbor. 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 03:20:43.220 --> 03:20:44.220 details. 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 03:20:47.820 --> 03:20:49.220 after our full presentation. 03:20:49.220 --> 03:20:53.660 I don't see any questions yet, so welcome Mr. Fletcher. 03:20:53.660 --> 03:20:55.100 Good evening commissioners. 03:20:55.100 --> 03:21:02.020 My name is Thomas Fletcher with Kimley Horne, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas 75034. 03:21:02.020 --> 03:21:05.260 Appreciate the opportunity to come before you tonight with this project. 03:21:05.260 --> 03:21:09.020 I've got a quick presentation for you. 03:21:09.020 --> 03:21:12.340 Again, this is just the existing zoning map. 03:21:12.340 --> 03:21:14.140 I won't go into it in detail. 03:21:14.140 --> 03:21:19.820 I know Haley had kind of gone through all the surrounding uses and showed that what 03:21:19.820 --> 03:21:25.860 we are proposing is compatible with the surrounding uses with the low density residential. 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 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 03:21:37.580 --> 03:21:40.740 and the Ryan Road intersection. 03:21:40.740 --> 03:21:42.300 Here's the aerial of the site. 03:21:42.300 --> 03:21:45.540 There are trees located within the property. 03:21:45.540 --> 03:21:49.180 You've got some scattered nice mature oak trees. 03:21:49.180 --> 03:21:53.660 There's some other scattered trees and then you have some pretty large tree clusters that 03:21:53.660 --> 03:21:56.020 are on the western side of the property. 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 03:22:01.700 --> 03:22:05.460 we can maximize our tree preservation. 03:22:05.460 --> 03:22:09.300 This also shows some of the developments around us. 03:22:09.300 --> 03:22:14.300 Teasley trails to our east, to our north, Ridgemont addition to our south, Montecito 03:22:14.300 --> 03:22:17.740 Dilser to the southwest. 03:22:17.740 --> 03:22:22.340 You can see Parkview to the south of Ryan Road that's currently under construction. 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 03:22:29.500 --> 03:22:31.940 process as well. 03:22:31.940 --> 03:22:32.940 So here's our layout. 03:22:32.940 --> 03:22:37.220 It kind of shows, what we try to show here is where our open spaces are. 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 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 03:22:46.740 --> 03:22:53.220 from the residents, negative feedback, concerns, uses, were we going to say we're doing detached 03:22:53.220 --> 03:22:58.980 residential and then come in with townhome or something that was of higher density. 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 03:23:02.700 --> 03:23:04.460 the planned development. 03:23:04.460 --> 03:23:06.540 And this is some of the things that we show. 03:23:06.540 --> 03:23:10.300 We've got the buffer around the entire neighborhood. 03:23:10.300 --> 03:23:16.040 We're calling for a privacy fence adjacent to the adjacent, the existing development. 03:23:16.040 --> 03:23:20.780 We're showing where that existing tree preservation would be located. 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, 03:23:27.300 --> 03:23:31.540 the additional tree, yard trees. 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 03:23:36.380 --> 03:23:39.860 and hopefully appease some of the concerns. 03:23:39.860 --> 03:23:42.580 The site does have moderate to steep topography. 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 03:23:47.640 --> 03:23:50.140 take that into account for drainage reasons. 03:23:50.140 --> 03:23:56.900 I do know at both of the neighborhood meetings, the neighbors located in the northwest corner 03:23:56.900 --> 03:24:03.460 of Ridgemont addition currently have a large amount of offsite water that's currently coming 03:24:03.460 --> 03:24:05.540 through their properties. 03:24:05.540 --> 03:24:07.860 We did explain and kind of go through the processes. 03:24:07.860 --> 03:24:11.500 We go through the design process, meet the subdivision ordinance. 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 03:24:15.700 --> 03:24:19.900 it to our detention pond where it would then connect to an underground system that would 03:24:19.900 --> 03:24:21.900 tie into the existing system there. 03:24:21.900 --> 03:24:27.340 So some of the issues that they're experiencing now when this project develops will actually 03:24:27.340 --> 03:24:31.460 improve because there will be less runoff directed towards those lots. 03:24:31.460 --> 03:24:37.180 So we do think that's important and a benefit of the project. 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 03:24:42.900 --> 03:24:47.860 concerned that there were some areas along the current fence line that really didn't 03:24:47.860 --> 03:24:53.140 have any existing mature trees and felt like that with this development then they were 03:24:53.140 --> 03:24:54.820 going to be seeing in the backyard. 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 03:24:59.980 --> 03:25:04.680 not existing mature trees. 03:25:04.680 --> 03:25:08.540 This is just an aerial showing Ryan Road where we would be connecting. 03:25:08.540 --> 03:25:11.540 You can kind of see the existing connections there. 03:25:11.540 --> 03:25:16.220 Our connection would be in the midpoint of the tract. 03:25:16.220 --> 03:25:22.540 The proposed development of Ryan Road is for a three lane roadway with a continuous turn 03:25:22.540 --> 03:25:28.220 lane which would be essentially classified as a collector and the spacing and everything 03:25:28.220 --> 03:25:31.060 with that works out for that. 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 03:25:35.500 --> 03:25:39.240 the existing tree preservation within Teasley Trails. 03:25:39.240 --> 03:25:45.960 It's also located where our open space is where we would have contiguous open space. 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 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. 03:25:57.780 --> 03:26:01.900 The other thing in the current code, the minimum tree size is two inch. 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 03:26:06.020 --> 03:26:08.500 also proposed trees around the detention pond. 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 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 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 03:26:24.680 --> 03:26:27.340 trees within this development. 03:26:27.340 --> 03:26:34.540 If you compare that to the 2019 code, the 2019 code would have only required 582. 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 03:26:41.980 --> 03:26:45.780 and larger trees that we're proposing with this development. 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 03:26:50.020 --> 03:26:55.020 to the community and to the to all the residents of the development. 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 03:27:01.460 --> 03:27:05.740 in operation, you can see the compressor, the tank battery, and the well head. 03:27:05.740 --> 03:27:09.740 The middle picture is when they were going through the process of capping the well and 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 03:27:14.020 --> 03:27:19.020 equipment and everything removed from the site. 03:27:19.020 --> 03:27:24.860 So the minimum building standards, as was discussed, the developer has committed to 03:27:24.860 --> 03:27:30.700 deed restrict the building standards to a minimum of 40% of the total net exterior wall 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 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 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 03:27:46.660 --> 03:27:51.060 up in several of the neighborhood meetings as far as you know all the surrounding homes 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 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 03:28:01.380 --> 03:28:04.180 the to the neighbors. 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 03:28:08.760 --> 03:28:10.420 regarding the traffic memo. 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 03:28:15.140 --> 03:28:21.100 community benefits the plan development standards are beneficial to the development of surrounding 03:28:21.100 --> 03:28:25.780 neighbors in the city because they they really create a higher level of standard they they 03:28:25.780 --> 03:28:31.460 create building standards that the city can't currently regulate the development cap the 03:28:31.460 --> 03:28:37.180 gas well which is an environmental benefit to the overall development we utilize neighborhood 03:28:37.180 --> 03:28:40.900 meetings to try and take into account the neighbor concerns and try to address them 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 03:28:47.340 --> 03:28:53.160 by doing materials that aren't consistent with those surrounding uses 15% open space 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:29:24.020 --> 03:29:30.620 bond that was elected talking about from date of approval at City Council for this this 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 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 03:29:41.580 --> 03:29:47.460 about the zoning getting approved at City Council in December next week then we would 03:29:47.460 --> 03:29:52.860 go into a preliminary plat process so we would have to prepare the preliminary plat make 03:29:52.860 --> 03:29:58.620 that application it would go through the city process for approval generally with the new 03:29:58.620 --> 03:30:04.200 regulations that looks like about a 45 day process once the preliminary plat is approved 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 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 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 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 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 03:30:32.840 --> 03:30:39.100 breaking ground usually on a site this size the construction process is a fourteen to 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 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 03:30:49.180 --> 03:30:54.140 and fifty four homes that I think most builders their programs are probably running eight 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 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 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 03:31:11.720 --> 03:31:17.500 year time frame long answer yeah the question was four years absolutely for all the homes 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:32:21.040 --> 03:32:25.700 we should not get all the downside of this change a legacy neighborhood should not be 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 03:32:31.600 --> 03:32:38.980 at our expense turning Monte Carlo Lane into a steeply downhill drag strip is physically 03:32:38.980 --> 03:32:46.220 dangerous to residents people looking at their phones are not watching where they're going 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 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 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 03:33:09.700 --> 03:33:15.320 already has three access points in three different cardinal directions without connecting Monte 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 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 03:33:30.620 --> 03:33:39.860 airborne into houses this is crazy the city staff has left out the topography this is 03:33:39.860 --> 03:33:47.900 not connecting two level on the same plane streets this is given people a running head 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 03:33:54.260 --> 03:34:00.340 to our neighborhood which they are not familiar with for the GPS shortcuts for Teasley and 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 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 03:34:19.340 --> 03:34:26.380 oppose a decision that does not conform to reality common sense or goodwill now also 03:34:26.380 --> 03:34:35.740 there's many references to the DDC the Denton Development Code and punching Monte Cristo 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 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 03:34:54.020 --> 03:35:04.020 modes of transportation and promote traffic safety this is to make Monte Carlo Lane a 03:35:04.020 --> 03:35:10.100 through street and essentially we're asking to be left alone by this new neighborhood 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 03:35:17.040 --> 03:35:27.580 existing neighborhoods community amenities in our case the community amenity is the cul-de-sac 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 03:35:33.780 --> 03:35:41.140 run and then give this neighborhood in writing on city letterhead signed by them that this 03:35:41.140 --> 03:35:46.300 connectivity is necessary because when the city traffic engineer looked at it I could 03:35:46.300 --> 03:35:55.820 see that he was stunned by the amount the geographical downhill race and he recommended 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 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 03:36:19.180 --> 03:36:27.740 technology then the land ownership needs to stay with 20 year old zoning R2 thank you 03:36:27.740 --> 03:36:31.580 appreciate you being here I don't see any other questions or any questions next will 03:36:31.580 --> 03:36:43.020 be Jacob Scott followed by Beverly Hoke Steinle even wrote a pronunciation out for me and 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 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 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 03:36:58.660 --> 03:37:05.740 in that anyways I digress so quoting exhibit 2 from the staff analysis quote the southwest 03:37:05.740 --> 03:37:10.340 corner of the subject properties located approximately 500 linear feet from Lake Forest Park walking 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 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 03:37:18.700 --> 03:37:23.460 the development is within ten minute walk to Lake Forest Park without going through 03:37:23.460 --> 03:37:29.740 the Ridgemont edition development it's not mentioned in that discussion quoting the same 03:37:29.740 --> 03:37:35.180 exhibit to staff analysis the single family subdivision is expected to generate approximately 03:37:35.180 --> 03:37:39.500 fifteen hundred and forty seven daily trips a hundred and fourteen during the a.m. peak 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 03:37:44.700 --> 03:37:48.340 Kimberly Horn indicates although the proposed film it would increase daily traffic along 03:37:48.340 --> 03:37:52.460 Ryan Road this subdivision alone would not decrease the level of service on the roadway 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 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 03:38:02.380 --> 03:38:08.860 new development so mentioning quoting the PD traffic analysis which was exhibit ten they 03:38:08.860 --> 03:38:13.500 estimate approximately sixty percent of the runway development to utilize Monte Carlo 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 03:38:18.940 --> 03:38:24.140 sixty nine trips from runway development use Monte Carlo Lane during peak hour which would 03:38:24.140 --> 03:38:29.580 be one vehicle every fifty two seconds and that will be a noticeable increase in traffic 03:38:29.580 --> 03:38:34.660 for the existing houses along Monte Carlo Lane they acknowledge but there's no indication 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 03:38:40.380 --> 03:38:45.580 if we take the sixty percent of the expected fifteen hundred and forty seven daily trips 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 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 03:38:57.180 --> 03:39:04.540 of it being like quadruple the amount so it doesn't really provide any measurable benefit 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 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 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 03:39:19.220 --> 03:39:24.260 is to the north of the development so most likely the any emergency vehicles would be 03:39:24.260 --> 03:39:29.580 utilizing moon sail to the north to connect through the northern portion of Monte Carlo 03:39:29.580 --> 03:39:33.820 and that's the direction they'll be coming from and additionally the nearest hospital 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 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 03:39:43.380 --> 03:39:47.940 of reason to connect to Monte Carlo to the south additionally there is that street E 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:40:38.360 --> 03:40:43.780 minimum a more effective traffic calming measure like a traffic circle or stop signs the little 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 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 03:40:56.140 --> 03:41:04.140 much next is Beverly followed by Mike Steinle Evita state your name address for the record 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:42:05.540 --> 03:42:11.580 Monte Carlo go all the way through also with all of the developments that are happening 03:42:11.580 --> 03:42:19.460 along Ryan Road I see my backyard bird population absolutely plummeting we've lost an entire 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:43:08.860 --> 03:43:16.300 school and then between those are two new ones that are being under construction there's 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 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 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 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 03:43:38.500 --> 03:43:45.100 of variance for the code that that street Monte Carlo could be preserved as is thank 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 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 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 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 03:44:13.060 --> 03:44:18.300 safely just like the children in our neighborhood as Miss Steinwell pointed out in the last 03:44:18.300 --> 03:44:24.500 eight years that I have resided here I've seen our empty nesting neighbors move out 03:44:24.500 --> 03:44:30.500 younger families with younger much younger children are moving in we have a little Mayberry 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 03:44:37.000 --> 03:44:41.900 are pushing strollers around with babies and the one neighbor that we have she rides her 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 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 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 03:45:01.220 --> 03:45:07.220 and will populate this neighborhood additionally I do I oppose this obviously I would not come 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 03:45:12.540 --> 03:45:17.300 perhaps consider closing it off capping it off and extending that green space that I 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 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 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 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 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 03:45:45.860 --> 03:45:50.580 or neutral impact to emergency services because those fire trucks are not going to be flying 03:45:50.580 --> 03:45:56.860 through a very highly condensed neighborhood because there's going to be cars piled up 03:45:56.860 --> 03:46:01.760 in the streets if you have not seen one of these neighborhoods lately drive through one 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 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 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 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 03:46:22.380 --> 03:46:27.820 in driveway and maybe the juvenile 16 year old his cars in the street these neighborhoods 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 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 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 03:46:43.820 --> 03:46:49.140 considering and let me speak tonight thank you thank you for being here next is Brett 03:46:49.140 --> 03:46:55.820 Blackstone followed by Claude Dryery if you just state your name and address for the record 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 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 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 03:47:15.900 --> 03:47:23.900 facing into the Harry Castle tract and that there was considerable amount of trees behind 03:47:23.900 --> 03:47:30.220 my property and I was concerned about the status of those trees and expressed that at 03:47:30.220 --> 03:47:39.500 the meetings that were provided to us and I found that the developers were very responsive 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 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 03:47:52.620 --> 03:48:05.740 that would go in there having the developer to verbally to commit to minimum standards 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 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 03:48:21.980 --> 03:48:31.860 you thank you next is Claude Dreire followed by Leslie Yamashita Claude Dreire 3520 Monte 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 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 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 03:48:48.460 --> 03:48:54.260 up to the library in the evening so people are already cutting through Teasley trails 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 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 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 03:49:09.460 --> 03:49:16.420 density the density of of that neighborhood I live in Teasley trails the density already 03:49:16.420 --> 03:49:21.740 is something that I would not think should have been approved because the size of the 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 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 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 03:49:37.900 --> 03:49:43.780 trails because there's car the cars cover the sidewalks the sidewalks are taken and 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:51:29.660 --> 03:51:36.420 out nice small community to raise to raise children to get to know your neighbors we 03:51:36.420 --> 03:51:44.000 have a good mix of retired retired folks and young children now someone's Haley brought 03:51:44.000 --> 03:51:48.900 up the fact that this new neighborhood should be sensitive to the existing residential established 03:51:48.900 --> 03:51:55.060 neighborhoods but opening up Monte Carlo is not being sensitive to our well-established 03:51:55.060 --> 03:52:01.300 20 year old neighborhood people have have told you the numbers that are going to be 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 03:52:06.820 --> 03:52:11.260 neighborhood for 20 18 and I can tell you just getting out of our neighborhood right 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 03:52:18.180 --> 03:52:23.540 out of our neighborhood without these this this drive-through right now so it's going 03:52:23.540 --> 03:52:30.380 to get even worse people are already taking chances cutting through it's getting dangerous 03:52:30.380 --> 03:52:35.540 already with the amount of traffic that's on Ryan Road Haley also mentioned that they 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 03:52:41.100 --> 03:52:46.660 look at the numbers from Hickory Creek Hickory Creek is just over there by McNair Elementary 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 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 03:52:58.140 --> 03:53:06.100 Carlo and it became a great big humongous merged neighborhood now in the last six years 03:53:06.100 --> 03:53:10.760 our neighborhood has had eight crimes and our my information is being taken from the 03:53:10.760 --> 03:53:16.700 communitycrime.com powered by Lexus Nexus database in conjunction with in conjunction with Denton 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 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 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 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 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 03:53:47.300 --> 03:53:52.620 nice little neighborhood we had the decision 18 years ago live in a big neighborhood or 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 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 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 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 03:54:25.860 --> 03:54:31.900 every valid reason that everyone before me spoke to not to waste any more time thank 03:54:31.900 --> 03:54:39.300 you thank you next is Steven Flowers followed by Jody Williamson hello Steven Flowers I 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 03:54:45.580 --> 03:54:53.660 everyone said about opening Monte Carlo as a throughput as a throughway the the key things 03:54:53.660 --> 03:54:59.020 and I Tim I really liked your question or your clarification about four years to build 03:54:59.020 --> 03:55:03.860 the subdivision however we have multiple as Mike mentioned we have multiple subdivisions 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 03:55:10.300 --> 03:55:16.460 we probably should consider this again in four years versus today because we still have 03:55:16.460 --> 03:55:20.500 all of these that are already planned growth they're already zoned they're in development 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 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 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 03:55:37.140 --> 03:55:43.580 multiple subdivisions Parkview and the other down Ryan that aren't even open yet on Ryan 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 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 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 03:56:02.140 --> 03:56:08.500 this type of development requirement but without those developments that are already already 03:56:08.500 --> 03:56:13.980 approved already passed zoning we we just don't have the infrastructure to support this 03:56:13.980 --> 03:56:21.660 today obviously opposed because of the the Monte Carlo direct path across the front of 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 03:56:26.860 --> 03:56:42.420 thank you very much next is Jody Williamson hello everybody my name is Jody Williamson 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 03:57:36.780 --> 03:57:42.740 in seeing those numbers because our property alone has 203 feet and our next door neighbor 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 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 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 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 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 03:58:13.740 --> 03:58:19.980 hundred seven hundred thousand dollars this new development as it is proposed shows four 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 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 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 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 03:58:43.580 --> 03:58:49.580 now walk behind directly behind our house and then we'll be looking into the backyard 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 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 03:58:58.580 --> 03:59:03.660 streets we'll be looking directly into the backyard where likely families with small 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 03:59:09.020 --> 03:59:13.660 door neighbor just spent twenty five thousand dollars to put in a wrought iron fence that 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 03:59:19.820 --> 03:59:24.780 of this property that it would never be developed now obviously the property owner can change 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 03:59:29.660 --> 03:59:36.860 for us we remain opposed unless a couple of things are accomplished one of them would 03:59:36.860 --> 03:59:41.700 be to change the lot sizes whether they're changed throughout the development or simply 03:59:41.700 --> 03:59:46.500 behind our property I don't understand what the difference is between four homes at seventy 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 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 03:59:56.380 --> 04:00:01.540 goes around the Newman property currently so that his entire family will be protected 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 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 04:00:14.500 --> 04:00:18.900 of the calculation it's not linear feed it is actual square footage that falls within 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:01:42.740 --> 04:01:47.660 owns the property it's worth noting just a clarification the threshold for opposition 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 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 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 04:02:05.220 --> 04:02:10.260 on the spreadsheet again if you're talking about sheer numbers of residents you've got 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 04:02:20.860 --> 04:02:24.660 number has is whether the City Council has to have a supermajority vote for approval 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:03:07.940 --> 04:03:12.660 the record these are individuals who filled out cards but elected not to speak I want 04:03:12.660 --> 04:03:21.380 to read them into the record Jean man is in opposition Selena man opposition Keith Gansler 04:03:21.380 --> 04:03:30.380 opposition Beverly spoke Mike spoke Richard worth is in support Michelle McDonald opposition 04:03:30.380 --> 04:03:39.100 Danny Dutmer is in opposition Rebecca or is in support Ray Maori is in opposition Donna 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 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 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 04:04:13.460 --> 04:04:20.380 the comments are about the sort of straight through pass of that piece of Monte Carlo 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:05:10.500 --> 04:05:14.700 department would require that one of those be renamed which would require replating one 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 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 04:05:25.460 --> 04:05:30.760 of a street name change given the implications that would have just for their personal records 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 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 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 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 04:05:58.020 --> 04:06:02.580 now there's three portions of Monte Carlo how is that persisting without what you just 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 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 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 04:06:21.380 --> 04:06:25.940 Monte Carlo when it platted later than this subdivision because I'm sorry this is Monte 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 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 04:06:38.060 --> 04:06:42.660 if something happened within Teasley trails and those don't connect I could look into 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 04:06:45.740 --> 04:06:50.220 condition where the streets would not connect as intended with these street stubs they would 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 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 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 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 04:07:16.980 --> 04:07:25.220 up and we're doing TIAs how is traffic incorporating projects that are approved under construction 04:07:25.220 --> 04:07:30.820 but don't have current traffic being generated from the site into their calculation are they 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 04:07:35.500 --> 04:07:39.940 looking also they're incorporating number of houses in the area but I can't remember 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 04:07:44.900 --> 04:07:51.380 currently existing yeah so the in this instance at least that we staff specifically requested 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 04:07:56.620 --> 04:08:01.580 on Ryan were incorporated into this TIA those calculations when there's not existing traffic 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 04:08:06.660 --> 04:08:12.420 recent existing counts that they're utilizing everything that's not yet built and occupied 04:08:12.420 --> 04:08:17.660 is assessed based on the international traffic engineers ratios assigned to single-family 04:08:17.660 --> 04:08:20.980 homes or whatever they are including they're including the non-existing units but that 04:08:20.980 --> 04:08:25.020 were approved under construction so that's what I thought that was but wanted to hear 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:09:16.380 --> 04:09:22.700 things for my simple brain so the basically when the traffic impact analysis is done they 04:09:22.700 --> 04:09:26.940 as Haley mentioned they would go out and take traffic counts to establish the baseline the 04:09:26.940 --> 04:09:31.700 existing traffic in each direction then they take and look at all the proposed development 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 04:09:37.060 --> 04:09:41.260 set up the system all the connections the traffic within their models and then within 04:09:41.260 --> 04:09:46.300 that model that model generates a level of service based on the capacity of the road 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 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 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 04:10:03.140 --> 04:10:08.940 the overall level of service and then what they did is basically knowing that the improvements 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 04:10:13.860 --> 04:10:19.300 model with all these developments included to see what that future level of service would 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 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 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 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 04:10:44.660 --> 04:10:48.780 of favoring either the northern neighborhood that you connect into or the southern neighborhood 04:10:48.780 --> 04:10:55.500 because Monte Carlo really you for fire for fire purposes you would need to have some 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 04:10:59.620 --> 04:11:04.040 that one slender piece connecting down to Ryan that the property current connect currently 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 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 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 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 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 04:11:28.820 --> 04:11:35.580 planning process preliminary planning process a lot of peas in there Thomas is there a way 04:11:35.580 --> 04:11:40.780 for you guys to build the roadways in there that wouldn't include the connections there 04:11:40.780 --> 04:11:45.340 or that affect other areas with that effect with that effect with that effect utilities 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:12:20.340 --> 04:12:24.780 absolutely we could we could look at that further with staff that I would heavily encourage 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 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 04:12:33.980 --> 04:12:43.580 to probably say something we've heard that concerns from the city I mean the neighborhood 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 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 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 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 04:13:00.500 --> 04:13:06.220 alternatives presented those to staff and if they're alternative we're happy to do them 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:14:21.100 --> 04:14:26.380 earlier the staff cannot approve the street not connecting at all that's not within the 04:14:26.380 --> 04:14:30.740 parameters that the code the council recently adopted allows us to do that would require 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 04:14:35.420 --> 04:14:41.100 there would have to be a hardship for the zoning Board of Adjustment to approve that 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 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 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 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 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 04:15:16.700 --> 04:15:21.780 going to change with development so the within the current city of Denton development code 04:15:21.780 --> 04:15:28.580 within the subdivision ordinance there's minimum and maximum street slopes there's also a requirement 04:15:28.580 --> 04:15:38.620 that all intersections do not exceed two percent in slope for ADA reasons so another thing 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 04:15:44.780 --> 04:15:52.500 signs within residential subdivisions here recently that has changed and the direction 04:15:52.500 --> 04:15:58.020 and indication is that the city does want stop signs within residential subdivisions 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 04:16:03.620 --> 04:16:09.020 signs at all of these intersections or whichever intersections make the most sense to slow 04:16:09.020 --> 04:16:15.300 that traffic down coming through there different types of traffic calming we do the bump outs 04:16:15.300 --> 04:16:21.520 that have the the mountable curb with the stamped and stained concrete there's other 04:16:21.520 --> 04:16:28.980 different types we've talked about the speed humps I know that the city's transportation 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 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 04:16:40.340 --> 04:16:46.180 address that I think that the the minimum and maximum slope requirements are going to 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 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 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 04:17:01.580 --> 04:17:06.300 traffic and control that traffic through that through that proposed development. 04:17:06.300 --> 04:17:08.300 Commissioner Pernitta. 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 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% 04:17:25.260 --> 04:17:30.820 you mentioned that you know you would recalculate based on everything that came in today so 04:17:30.820 --> 04:17:36.140 when that recalculation goes through and if we take into account the number of cards that 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 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 04:17:48.740 --> 04:17:53.740 be included before you go to city council to determine whether or not they correct okay 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 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 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 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 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 04:18:17.020 --> 04:18:21.180 that the residents have right now they have one more chance to discuss this before city 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 04:18:28.620 --> 04:18:32.860 you correctly on generally speaking you know one of the disclaimers that we would give 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 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 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 04:18:46.340 --> 04:18:57.580 at right now it goes toward this consideration correct this this exhibit there is that is 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 04:19:02.660 --> 04:19:07.420 PD standards and the code require there to be the zoning document that outlines the regulations 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 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 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 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 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 04:19:34.300 --> 04:19:40.740 general conformance to what's attached to the ordinance okay and then once again because 04:19:40.740 --> 04:19:45.540 I just wanted to cover this because almost all the concerns happen to be about traffic 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 04:19:50.460 --> 04:19:55.020 would reduce the flow of traffic because it which makes sense because they don't connect 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 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 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 04:20:13.580 --> 04:20:17.900 of way would be part of the civil engineering plan process which typically takes place in 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 04:20:21.860 --> 04:20:28.140 civil engineering plans have been completed and meet all of the requirements so it if 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 04:20:32.220 --> 04:20:37.540 part of the ordinance and within become absolute requirements of the development okay thank 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 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 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 04:20:51.220 --> 04:20:56.720 hearing and then continue the further discussion so I have a card from Randy Yamashita that 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:21:47.860 --> 04:21:53.260 that concerns me I have a little nephew a little niece another little nephew they're 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:23:10.940 --> 04:23:17.460 and I I do appreciate the developer doing everything he can especially on the back side 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:24:19.500 --> 04:24:28.140 and would a a 90 degree dogleg be beyond that or some other significant property change 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 04:24:35.860 --> 04:24:42.900 Commission's desire to request any changes or modifications to the site layout now now 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 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 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 04:25:04.500 --> 04:25:10.140 that once this moves forward the final plat would reflect whatever design ultimately is 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:26:01.860 --> 04:26:07.380 how that sliver worked out certainly it's our GIS group just buffers from the property 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 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 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 04:26:21.020 --> 04:26:30.140 great and then more generally just speaking maybe thinking out loud given what has been 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:27:29.980 --> 04:27:38.660 criteria for approval for PDs number three is that the PD provides greater connectivity 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 04:27:46.860 --> 04:27:54.460 this project would essentially exceed our standards and in addition to the criteria 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 04:28:08.580 --> 04:28:13.740 appreciate the information I'm not sure my question got was clarified I believe the process 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 04:28:20.260 --> 04:28:25.300 connectivity requirement in the code I believe that the most appropriate process would be 04:28:25.300 --> 04:28:29.860 that this zoning process that includes the development plan map be paused so that the 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 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 04:28:41.420 --> 04:28:47.420 to be a hardship something unique to the property that merits ZBA approving a variance from 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 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 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 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 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 04:29:23.500 --> 04:29:27.420 see plans for our engineering staff would need to review those plans for the road to 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 04:29:32.740 --> 04:29:36.260 the plan would need to be modified to reflect those changes before this goes to counseling 04:29:36.260 --> 04:29:40.980 gets incorporated into an ordinance but as long as the connection is provided I don't 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 04:29:46.100 --> 04:29:50.220 road requires the connection because the street was stubbed to the property okay so here's 04:29:50.220 --> 04:29:55.020 what what I think is potential solution Haley you tell me how this potentially gets done 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 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 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 04:30:16.860 --> 04:30:21.540 that I would think provides the developer four additional developer developable lots 04:30:21.540 --> 04:30:26.180 which hopefully incentivizes them to reroute I don't think they have an opposition to that 04:30:26.180 --> 04:30:28.980 to begin with it sounds like they were just following the city direction but it seems 04:30:28.980 --> 04:30:33.500 like the developer could get four additional lots and Monte Carlo does get connected yet 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 04:30:38.740 --> 04:30:45.220 if that was agreeable to everyone including this commission which I have no idea what 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 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 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 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 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 04:31:12.380 --> 04:31:17.420 Carlo because for emergency service purposes like I said the having multiple streets that 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 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 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 04:31:31.020 --> 04:31:34.940 that would require replatting one of those existing street segments which all of the 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 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 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 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 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 04:31:59.740 --> 04:32:03.420 to existing streets so any existing street that abuts the property they have to connect 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 04:32:09.380 --> 04:32:13.020 north and south were platted with streets named Monte Carlo Lane that connect in roughly 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 04:32:18.260 --> 04:32:23.140 our engineers said that makes perfect sense it meets the fire department's need for those 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 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 04:32:36.140 --> 04:32:44.380 new development can the new development not use Monte Carlo and turn the street or no 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 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 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 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 04:33:06.500 --> 04:33:11.420 side you see the little square box the little square ring the whole neighborhood they're 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 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 04:33:21.100 --> 04:33:24.700 Monte Carlo because right now the if there was a fire in their neighborhood right now 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 04:33:28.940 --> 04:33:34.660 even intersect it there connect Monte Carlo there just made it more green space and just 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 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 04:33:44.220 --> 04:33:48.020 would suffice the emergency services that would be the one option that would generate 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 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 04:33:58.580 --> 04:34:02.860 your property to the next adjoining property so they have to provide a connection there 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 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 04:34:14.140 --> 04:34:18.980 very strict criteria through state law that stipulate there has to be a physical hardship 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:35:09.260 --> 04:35:16.020 have legitimate concern about the traffic flow of Monte Carlo I have a legitimate concern 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 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 04:35:27.900 --> 04:35:34.500 but I also have no inclination to disregard all the citizens feedback of what they experience 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 04:35:40.540 --> 04:35:44.180 things that you've heard in the timelines of these these projects whether it's variants 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 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 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 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 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 04:36:09.780 --> 04:36:16.540 efficient so in your scenario where you talked about probably adding two to four lots the 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 04:36:21.980 --> 04:36:28.820 couple lots because you're creating pie-shaped lots regarding going through the zba process 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 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 04:36:38.580 --> 04:36:46.380 look at the topography when we did Teasley trails I was the engineer on that project 04:36:46.380 --> 04:36:52.580 at one point the Teasley trails was going to build the road connection down to Monte 04:36:52.580 --> 04:36:58.700 Carlo so when Mr. Newman dedicated the street easement for the temporary cul-de-sac the 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:37:32.900 --> 04:37:39.100 we went through that process it sounds like that there's not certainty there so from 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 04:37:44.180 --> 04:37:48.620 proposing then I think the knuckle in the road would probably be the most realistic 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 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 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 04:38:31.380 --> 04:38:37.460 at doing something you would probably knuckle here so the traffic would turn come around 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 04:38:42.300 --> 04:38:47.820 all this drainage is coming down so you still have to have connectivity of infrastructure 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 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 04:38:59.700 --> 04:39:04.180 purposes that are located within a street than if they're located within easements 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 04:39:10.460 --> 04:39:16.020 certainly something that could be looked at but from a you know it creates an additional 04:39:16.020 --> 04:39:20.900 infrastructure requirement an issue that would create easements with city infrastructure 04:39:20.900 --> 04:39:27.820 located inside yards which could potentially create future issues that would have to be 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:41:50.100 --> 04:41:53.740 the corner so the likelihood that we will be back here will be sometime in probably 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:43:05.180 --> 04:43:09.980 know that tends to have people slow down so right because of the short distance between 04:43:09.980 --> 04:43:15.920 the two connection points and the minimum radius requirements when you do your development 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 04:43:22.580 --> 04:43:27.860 the other thing that that might do is would affect the buffer around the neighborhoods 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 04:43:33.020 --> 04:43:38.500 through the site so I would say that adding curves to this particular piece of property 04:43:38.500 --> 04:43:43.540 would be challenging with the topo and the geometry constraints I'm just trying to come 04:43:43.540 --> 04:43:47.060 up with a solution for the developer and the citizen in the residents of the neighborhood 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 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 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 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 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 04:44:28.700 --> 04:44:32.700 possible option but I think the developer is working with what they've been given with 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:45:39.100 --> 04:45:46.180 names when there is literally three Monte Carlos so the developer comes in says okay 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:46:27.380 --> 04:46:33.740 without it's not with great concern or an easy decision that I necessarily support this 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 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 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 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 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 04:47:03.660 --> 04:47:08.740 but it's hard for me to discount what the community has expressed without trying to 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 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 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 04:47:29.380 --> 04:47:37.600 some tweaks Christian Bernetta I'm pretty much repeating almost exactly what Commissioner 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 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 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 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 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 04:48:10.620 --> 04:48:16.260 concerns of the citizens and given basically you know what it looks like or valid concerns 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:48:54.860 --> 04:49:02.580 you know basically city you know regulations but but you know I'm with Commissioner Ellis 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:50:19.160 --> 04:50:23.180 available planning and zoning commission we'll get with staff starting tomorrow we'll see 04:50:23.180 --> 04:50:30.860 what other designs we can do and work with the city engineering department thank you 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:51:32.780 --> 04:51:37.620 to the planning zoning commissioned thank you for that break I'll reopen the public 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 04:51:48.500 --> 04:51:57.220 invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and open the public hearing happy for you tonight 04:51:57.220 --> 04:52:02.300 a request for approval of an amendment to the special sign district for the first united 04:52:02.300 --> 04:52:14.260 methodist church the site is located at 201 South Locust Street between Mulberry and sycamore 04:52:14.260 --> 04:52:21.340 the sign district was originally approved in January 2010 the criteria for approval 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 04:52:28.380 --> 04:52:36.980 code and here is a listing right here it relates to compatibility scale color material shape 04:52:36.980 --> 04:52:44.980 landscaping traffic safety and circulation illumination and integration into the district 04:52:44.980 --> 04:52:53.620 the proposal complies with all of these requirements as noted in your backup notification went 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 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 04:53:10.700 --> 04:53:16.380 or which comprised three percent of the area within the 200 foot buffer a neighborhood 04:53:16.380 --> 04:53:21.980 meeting has not been held staff recommends approval of this request to amend the special 04:53:21.980 --> 04:53:27.440 sign district for the first united methodist church to permit any provision of the sign 04:53:27.440 --> 04:53:32.560 code that is not addressed by the special sign district to be governed by chapter 33 04:53:32.560 --> 04:53:38.300 as amended that concludes my presentation and the applicant is present if you have any questions 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:54:14.600 --> 04:54:19.860 types of banners so banners are typically only permitted for three months of the year 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 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 04:54:43.000 --> 04:54:49.420 and it's basically as we briefly talked about it basically prevents them or allows them 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 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 04:55:04.660 --> 04:55:09.820 special sign district they can't have any signage except what is permitted by the special 04:55:09.820 --> 04:55:16.940 sign district and they would like to put up signs that advertise their daycare and they 04:55:16.940 --> 04:55:22.580 want to put up signs that would advertise special ministries and they are unable to 04:55:22.580 --> 04:55:28.020 do that without amending their sign code every time they're the special sign district every 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 04:55:35.620 --> 04:55:43.100 per the sign code whose provisions are silent in the special sign district right now there 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 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 04:55:59.900 --> 04:56:06.260 but they're requesting permission to get wall signs only permits two or three wall signs 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 04:57:46.460 --> 04:57:52.620 permit to allow multifamily dwellings on a about 15 acre site the subject properties 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 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 04:58:04.260 --> 04:58:11.620 year so so it is following the 2002 Denton development code standards and that would 04:58:11.620 --> 04:58:19.180 require an SUP for multifamily developments also to let you know city council did did 04:58:19.180 --> 04:58:25.300 approve a resolution earlier this year of no objection to the construction of affordable 04:58:25.300 --> 04:58:31.220 and mixed and market rate housing at this location however just want to let you know 04:58:31.220 --> 04:58:36.860 that council action does not negate the planning and zoning commission's recommendation regarding 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 04:58:43.780 --> 04:58:51.300 altogether so a comparison of the 2002 zoning map in the current 2019 zoning map subject 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 04:58:57.180 --> 04:59:02.060 that's what this project was reviewed under that transitioned as of October 1st of this 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 04:59:09.180 --> 04:59:17.020 SUP for multifamily I'll go over the site plan briefly they are proposing 12 multifamily 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 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 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 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 04:59:40.620 --> 04:59:46.300 they're also proposing a community pool and pavilion playgrounds as well as a dog park 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 04:59:53.380 --> 04:59:59.580 18 dwelling units per acre the associated parking is 568 seven five hundred and sixty 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 05:00:05.260 --> 05:00:12.020 near the the amenities this proposal includes 61% lot coverage which is all impervious surface 05:00:12.020 --> 05:00:18.740 per that 2002 DDC requirement and then 39% landscape area I mean just a little further 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 05:00:25.580 --> 05:00:31.580 does include landscape islands within the five hundred and sixty eight parking spaces 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 05:00:36.660 --> 05:00:44.060 also proposing 39 Street trees along Dutchess Drive and loop 288 so meeting that 2002 Street 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 05:00:52.620 --> 05:00:58.980 the property adjacent to that commercial development next to it that would include 24 trees and 05:00:58.980 --> 05:01:05.140 100 shrubs per the code these are their sample building elevations they are proposing sort 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 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 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 05:01:24.140 --> 05:01:30.100 comprehensive plan this is within a community community mixed use area it's actually in 05:01:30.100 --> 05:01:36.260 the cusp of community mixed use and moderate density residential but the but the community 05:01:36.260 --> 05:01:41.380 mixed use is the predominant future land use designation is intended to promote a mix of 05:01:41.380 --> 05:01:47.660 uses where commercial uses are are the main use commercial and service uses but residential 05:01:47.660 --> 05:01:54.140 can serve as a complementary use to support the the commercial development the intent 05:01:54.140 --> 05:02:00.740 is to encourage diverse uses close to each other to to encourage multimodal transportation 05:02:00.740 --> 05:02:05.420 and to really create vibrant centers within the city multifamily is consistent with this 05:02:05.420 --> 05:02:09.860 future land use designation because it does provide that supporting a residential use 05:02:09.860 --> 05:02:13.260 which is really needed for commercial areas. 05:02:13.260 --> 05:02:19.540 Additionally just from a compatibility standpoint this this proposed multifamily would provide 05:02:19.540 --> 05:02:26.060 that physical buffer along loop 288 from the the continued residential development that 05:02:26.060 --> 05:02:32.180 that moderate residential development off to the west although this is being reviewed 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 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 05:02:42.900 --> 05:02:49.740 like lot coverage landscape area building high density unit size parking and overall 05:02:49.740 --> 05:02:57.820 tree canopy the proposal met both the 2002 and the 2019 codes the the two deviations 05:02:57.820 --> 05:03:02.740 would be tree preservation we did adopt new tree preservation requirements this year which 05:03:02.740 --> 05:03:08.140 require essentially 30 percent preservation of protected trees they're proposing to preserve 05:03:08.140 --> 05:03:14.580 27 percent of quality trees and 50 percent of secondary trees so not quite hitting that 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 05:03:20.940 --> 05:03:27.780 tree standards this year they are proposing to meet the the the previous standard of 45 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 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 05:03:42.300 --> 05:03:47.900 uses if you look around the the aerial and the surrounding uses you have multifamily 05:03:47.900 --> 05:03:52.460 to the west as well as some office development you also have some undeveloped commercial 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 05:03:59.460 --> 05:04:04.820 improved or developed at some point some additional undeveloped commercial around and then and 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 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 05:04:15.260 --> 05:04:21.260 commercial corridor within the city of Denton so there there are commercial commercial uses 05:04:21.260 --> 05:04:26.660 but this is sort of transitioning into that mixed use bringing in that residential component 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 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 05:04:41.340 --> 05:04:47.300 dust noise or vibration because this is a residential use that's not intended or expected 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 05:04:57.060 --> 05:05:03.300 project the applicant did and that was reviewed and approved by our engineering group their 05:05:03.300 --> 05:05:08.740 analysis showed that there would be about 2000 trips per day generated from the the 05:05:08.740 --> 05:05:16.460 multifamily development morning peak of 125 trips and then evening of 146 trips the TIA 05:05:16.460 --> 05:05:22.220 did have some recommendations first there is sufficient pavement width on on Dutchess 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 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 05:05:38.460 --> 05:05:43.980 approved and then constructed that intersection would meet the warrants for a signal and they 05:05:43.980 --> 05:05:51.900 would have to contribute to that signal there it touches in loop 288 access was analyzed 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 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 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 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 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 05:06:28.180 --> 05:06:33.340 regarding specific information regarding trip distribution in that TIA so he'll be able 05:06:33.340 --> 05:06:38.100 to share that information with you as part of the development they would also have to 05:06:38.100 --> 05:06:42.820 extend sidewalks one an eight foot sidewalk on Dutchess and then a five foot sidewalk 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 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 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 05:07:05.860 --> 05:07:13.220 would have to extend water both along loop 288 and Dutchess but they could they could 05:07:13.220 --> 05:07:19.460 access that 18 inch wastewater line that does flow through their site additionally impact 05:07:19.460 --> 05:07:26.860 fees would be required at development there is a open space that the city owns across 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 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 05:07:42.820 --> 05:07:48.980 are schools there the project would generate approximately 34 elementary students 14 middle 05:07:48.980 --> 05:07:54.020 school students and 17 high school students and there is a fire station within the eight 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 05:08:00.100 --> 05:08:10.860 there we have received responses in opposition that do equal 29 percent of the property in 05:08:10.860 --> 05:08:16.260 within that 200 foot boundary so approval of this request would require a super majority 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 05:08:22.060 --> 05:08:27.020 attendees I believe and they and they talked about traffic and about appropriateness of 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 05:08:32.580 --> 05:08:38.900 a couple of days ago so they've been communicating with the applicant. 05:08:38.900 --> 05:08:42.820 Staff does recommend approval of the request because it does meet the criteria for approval 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 05:08:48.740 --> 05:08:53.940 to seek that an alternative development plan for a couple of areas where they would like 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 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 05:09:03.900 --> 05:09:07.500 that alternative development plan they'll also need to comply with the landscape plan 05:09:07.500 --> 05:09:11.780 as they've proposed they can make some small alterations with the planting materials but 05:09:11.780 --> 05:09:17.780 they'll have to generally comply with it will determine the parking area light fixtures 05:09:17.780 --> 05:09:22.660 at building permit they will have to meet all Denton Development Code requirements. 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 05:09:28.340 --> 05:09:33.980 staff to approve reductions in things like lot coverage or an increase in landscape area 05:09:33.980 --> 05:09:38.960 or a decrease in the number of dwelling units with the associated parking this also would 05:09:38.960 --> 05:09:45.820 allow if approved staff to approve increases up to and including five percent of the the 05:09:45.820 --> 05:09:51.860 dwelling units and the the parking spaces in the in the lot coverage square footage 05:09:51.860 --> 05:09:56.100 provided it still remains within the Denton Development Code regulations anything over 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 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 05:10:09.060 --> 05:10:14.400 site plan requirements are that is because ordinances when those site plans are reproduced 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 05:10:18.640 --> 05:10:22.380 the provisions and the and the specifications of what they've proposed. 05:10:22.380 --> 05:10:26.780 So that concludes my presentation I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here. 05:10:26.780 --> 05:10:29.140 We do have a couple questions Mr. Ellis. 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:11:26.860 --> 05:11:31.500 that seems yes that seems more in line you are correct okay thank you for clarifying 05:11:31.500 --> 05:11:38.100 you bet Christian back thank you chair so are they being given credit for 10-minute 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 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 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 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 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 05:12:02.980 --> 05:12:09.780 sidewalk there but the site does provide those on-site amenities to allow play space for 05:12:09.780 --> 05:12:15.340 children there's two playgrounds the pool area there's some meaningful open space not 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 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 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 05:12:34.940 --> 05:12:40.540 so there is a there is some meaningful open space for active and passive recreation on 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 05:12:46.300 --> 05:12:52.540 that sort of recreational green area activity and not really the the 10-minute walk requirement 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 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 05:13:03.820 --> 05:13:08.020 duchess and that field is improved it certainly could be something that would provide recreation 05:13:08.020 --> 05:13:12.820 for the residents not only at this location but surrounding properties but you are correct 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 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 05:13:27.780 --> 05:13:34.900 that could provide a safe pedestrian passageway across loop 288 i would not advocate anyone 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 05:13:41.500 --> 05:13:45.740 other questions thanks julie this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly 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 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 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 05:14:10.060 --> 05:14:22.820 uh the chair will allow kent key to speak for eight minutes 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:15:20.620 --> 05:15:26.020 becoming a prime commercial spot office we're building we built the denton record chronicle 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:17:33.660 --> 05:17:38.580 the developers and they weren't going to have a neighborhood meeting they had turned that 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 05:17:43.060 --> 05:17:49.060 they thought it was undeveloped land around it and there probably wasn't any opposition 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:18:54.060 --> 05:19:01.780 you start getting into the minutiae of the low income housing like these dots over here 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 05:19:09.340 --> 05:19:18.140 housing there's no density no concentration so when i drilled into it a little deeper 05:19:18.140 --> 05:19:24.200 i found out that with this approval of this project if this project gets approved which 05:19:24.200 --> 05:19:34.500 is right here we will have over a thousand units concentrated in district five in one 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:20:29.820 --> 05:20:36.780 concentration and no diversification there's nothing over here on the north side there's 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:21:27.660 --> 05:21:33.860 commercially the hospitals are over here closed doctor's offices are wanting to go in veterinary 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:23:09.180 --> 05:23:13.940 have a long history there's nothing not one thing against the developer for what they 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 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 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 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 05:23:47.180 --> 05:23:54.060 that are going to those schools is horrendous it will take a lot more schools concentrated 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 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 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 05:24:22.980 --> 05:24:29.500 if it was pushed back and the front was left commercial maybe Dutchess was less commercial 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 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 05:24:42.180 --> 05:24:48.720 way too dense and way too concentrated in low-income housing and low-income housing 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 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 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 05:25:08.060 --> 05:25:13.500 was walkability there's no walkability to this so every single person that lives here 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:25:55.940 --> 05:26:00.500 you can give the other points Commissioner Ellis thank you chair thank you mr. key are 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 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 05:26:13.620 --> 05:26:19.780 a resolution that they said they they did not approve it the council did not approve 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:27:02.860 --> 05:27:06.820 low-income housing we're gonna have a lot of developers coming forward with low-income 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:27:57.020 --> 05:28:02.300 you'll like tonight all right thank you good evening mr. chairman members of commission 05:28:02.300 --> 05:28:07.760 city staff I'm John Cornelson president of evolving Texas 420 Throckmorton Fort Worth 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 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 05:28:20.220 --> 05:28:24.580 just for this meeting and this project is important to us we've worked extensively with 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 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 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 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 05:28:45.220 --> 05:28:49.960 about not having a neighborhood meeting through all of our conversations with city staff over 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 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 05:28:57.300 --> 05:29:03.020 projects personally I love them because it creates feedback and it shows engagement and 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 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 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 05:29:19.980 --> 05:29:26.060 your last hearing whenever we we found out we had opposition and so immediately you know 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 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 05:29:34.340 --> 05:29:38.500 meeting and I just I appreciate the neighbors for all showing up I mean everyone showed 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 05:29:43.500 --> 05:29:48.540 dialogue about the project and and you know as Kent mentioned really their main interest 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 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 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 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 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 05:30:14.560 --> 05:30:19.900 specifically we talked about traffic they're very concerned about traffic specifically 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 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 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 05:30:36.380 --> 05:30:41.140 thousand dollars to the traffic signal it's a four hundred thousand dollar traffic signal 05:30:41.140 --> 05:30:45.140 we are contributing another I think it's three hundred and twenty thousand dollars of traffic 05:30:45.140 --> 05:30:51.460 impact fees you know roadway impact fees to help to get that constructed I would like 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 05:30:56.100 --> 05:30:59.100 of the conversation. 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 05:31:17.420 --> 05:31:24.380 conversation with our neighbors there was consideration to move the entire project north 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 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 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 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 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 05:31:50.420 --> 05:31:54.020 talking to them and understanding their concern for Dutchess and understanding the timing 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 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 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 05:32:11.340 --> 05:32:16.300 over to these existing drives that you see here which will provide some relief this would 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 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 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 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 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 05:32:40.740 --> 05:32:46.100 challenges that our neighbors see with this development I think the other concern we heard 05:32:46.100 --> 05:32:51.460 was around fencing specifically at the southwest corner they're concerned about the visibility 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:33:41.140 --> 05:33:46.620 nice buffer to for people to have visibility visibility corridor and a great place to live 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 05:33:54.740 --> 05:34:00.740 you know they offered this morning they talked about us possibly extending again to negotiate 05:34:00.740 --> 05:34:05.620 further and to work on something that would work if there's something concrete that they 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:34:37.300 --> 05:34:41.500 tried this project this actual property I think has been on the market for four years 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 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 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 05:34:58.140 --> 05:35:03.820 transmission line so those basically kill any type of traditional development you can 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 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 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 05:35:16.340 --> 05:35:21.700 as opposed to us which our proposed development will provide twice as much almost twice as 05:35:21.700 --> 05:35:28.740 much landscaping as is required almost twice as much open space as is required in fact 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 05:35:33.180 --> 05:35:38.500 with approval noticing in the presentation how we are not meeting the street tree requirement 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:36:20.020 --> 05:36:27.820 I think Kent covered everything very well I'll say that I think our opposition noted 05:36:27.820 --> 05:36:34.160 the apartment complex next to us Rosemont at Pecan Creek is a good development it's 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 05:36:39.660 --> 05:36:46.340 housing when concentrated isn't a good thing I have found through 24 years of experience 05:36:46.340 --> 05:36:50.940 that these developments are no different than any market rate apartment complex what really 05:36:50.940 --> 05:36:55.420 makes a difference is who's managing them Pedcor manages all these properties and will 05:36:55.420 --> 05:36:59.940 continue to manage these properties and I would say the same thing about a market rate 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 05:37:04.100 --> 05:37:08.260 are an important part of our social fabric they work in the medical facilities their 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 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 05:37:21.060 --> 05:37:28.420 every day so to put this connotation that they can't live harmoniously in a community 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:38:04.220 --> 05:38:09.060 lenders we have the state housing authority that looks over our shoulders and they come 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 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 05:38:18.820 --> 05:38:24.180 renting to people that truly are in those income brackets and we're not allowing other 05:38:24.180 --> 05:38:28.820 people into the units so there's tremendous oversight in this program much more than you 05:38:28.820 --> 05:38:35.380 would find in any multi-family apartment community or frankly any single-family subdivision so 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 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 05:38:47.300 --> 05:38:54.300 not an affordable living apartment complex it's just regular old market rate complex 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:39:22.460 --> 05:39:28.820 is there anything you just engineering wise about the current project right now to make 05:39:28.820 --> 05:39:33.180 it more feasible if this were a market rate project rather than affordable housing project 05:39:33.180 --> 05:39:39.140 if I was doing an affordable housing a project I might have nicer countertops nicer cabinets 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 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 05:39:50.700 --> 05:39:55.180 wouldn't change anything I would grade our apartment somewhere around a B plus okay thank 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:40:47.620 --> 05:40:52.900 I think you're articulating and saying the primary reason but also some secondary reasons 05:40:52.900 --> 05:41:00.300 if this is a market rate apartment complex what changes in your estimation about your 05:41:00.300 --> 05:41:07.780 disposition to the project well I think he misstated my position a little bit he said 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:43:41.020 --> 05:43:45.540 you have a question actually was a following from your your question chair and and that 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:45:46.980 --> 05:45:55.100 to receive incentives having some sort of retail lower first floor we have some apartments 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 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 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 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 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 05:46:31.900 --> 05:46:42.220 there discuss and progress this along Commissioner Beck motion to approve we have a motion to 05:46:42.220 --> 05:46:51.980 approve on the floor Christian Pernetta would that motion include the amendment to meet 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 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 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 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 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 05:47:21.460 --> 05:47:28.740 of the additional trees okay and and sass recommendations yes and stuff recommendations 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 05:47:43.820 --> 05:47:48.740 a second for approval is there any discussion on the matter 05:47:48.740 --> 05:48:03.860 so because it was twenty nine percent this will require super majority vote yeah yes 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:49:24.700 --> 05:49:45.980 on the board. Motion fails four three the chair will entertain another motion. Commissioner 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 05:49:55.340 --> 05:49:59.020 we have a first and a second for denial is there any discussion 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 05:50:12.540 --> 05:50:19.660 leaves here the applicant can still proceed to counsel with the exact same super majority 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:51:20.940 --> 05:51:25.100 and again as a reminder a vote yes is a vote to deny 05:51:25.100 --> 05:51:35.900 the motion to deny carries four to three 05:51:39.020 --> 05:51:46.220 the next item of business is item 5f dca 19-23 I will 05:51:46.220 --> 05:51:53.340 invite Julie Wyeth for presentation and open the public hearing 05:51:53.340 --> 05:52:07.340 all right 05:52:09.980 --> 05:52:19.340 let me find my presentation 05:52:19.340 --> 05:52:33.340 didn't make it on the desktop 05:52:39.020 --> 05:52:47.580 here we go 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 05:53:02.460 --> 05:53:09.420 that the newly adopted dent development code regarding specifically to amend sub chapter 05:53:09.420 --> 05:53:13.580 5 regarding the table of allowed uses and also the use but specific standards 05:53:13.580 --> 05:53:19.660 related to administrative professional and government offices and also medical offices in 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:54:45.340 --> 05:54:51.260 district that would allow some mix of densities and some some small scale commercial uses that 05:54:51.260 --> 05:54:56.220 were really limited to kind of bridge that gap between our purely residential districts 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 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 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 05:55:18.940 --> 05:55:25.180 and also the low impact commercial uses within close proximity to neighborhoods we want to make 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 05:55:30.540 --> 05:55:36.300 some office uses are appropriate near residential areas provided that they're that that low impact 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 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 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 05:56:01.820 --> 05:56:06.780 have created some issues and in two of those areas are administrative professional and government 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 05:56:12.140 --> 05:56:18.300 administrative offices are essentially office buildings it might be something like a real estate 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 05:57:30.620 --> 05:57:34.620 they were it was consistent with what the professional offices was it was permitted but 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 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 05:57:46.860 --> 05:57:54.060 we have some existing medical office and professional office uses by our by our land use 05:57:54.060 --> 05:58:00.620 analysis about 54 parcels that were made either non-conforming and would have to follow the 05:58:00.620 --> 05:58:05.900 non-conforming standards when it comes to medical offices or for those professional offices that now 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 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 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 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 05:58:30.380 --> 05:58:35.500 intention to make these uses non-conforming or to limit their ability to modernize their facilities 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 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 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 05:59:01.980 --> 05:59:07.980 to remove r7 from the provision that administrative professional and government office uses shall not 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 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 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 05:59:27.500 --> 05:59:32.620 located in arterial because those are the places that you typically see commercial development 05:59:32.620 --> 05:59:39.260 someplace like teasley lane or loop 288 so that is our proposed language for the professional 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:00:14.700 --> 06:00:20.140 our comprehensive plan has these these overarching future land use designations things like business 06:00:20.140 --> 06:00:26.140 innovation or moderate density residential or community mixed use and depending on the context 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 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 06:00:38.700 --> 06:00:44.060 the proposal would allow for more vibrant development but we want to once again make 06:00:44.060 --> 06:00:47.660 sure those constraints are there to ensure compatibility that's why we're proposing the 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 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 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 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 06:01:09.340 --> 06:01:14.460 about that especially given the number of properties that you know by rezoning to mn and 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 06:01:19.980 --> 06:01:24.380 or development scale that really wouldn't be compatible so we felt like this approach 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:02:38.460 --> 06:02:43.100 other professional buildings don't need i anticipated you would ask about like hair salons 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 06:02:48.380 --> 06:03:00.460 veterinary veterinary is a separate use and it is not permitted in r7 06:03:00.460 --> 06:03:02.540 and this code amendment would not change that 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 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 06:03:19.340 --> 06:03:26.140 with veterinary there you know one could there could be variations within the veterinary world 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 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 06:03:36.860 --> 06:03:43.820 goes to either richard or cynthia and and are we not actually just essentially requesting a 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 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 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 06:04:09.180 --> 06:04:16.140 creating special uses like that and this feels very similar to creating a a medical professional 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 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 06:04:31.260 --> 06:04:36.460 conformities of the gas we're discussing taking properties out of non-conformities and making 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:05:22.460 --> 06:05:28.700 a variance on um you can't get a use variance 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:06:15.260 --> 06:06:21.900 feature if that makes sense if i'm understanding the question correctly 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:09:35.820 --> 06:09:40.940 within the city um you know there are the one that was brought to our attention 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 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 06:09:53.020 --> 06:09:58.220 the site and so you know there are there are potential where redevelopment would happen 06:09:58.220 --> 06:10:02.940 on those arterials that are that are currently under construction as well 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:11:15.340 --> 06:11:22.300 christopher back yeah so thank thank you for bringing that up commissioner prunetta um is 06:11:22.300 --> 06:11:30.380 are these standalone commercial uses or we are talking about strip centers at the edge of 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 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 06:11:46.540 --> 06:11:55.100 trying to understand what are the ramifications of the blanket allowance on an arterial or on 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 06:12:03.260 --> 06:12:08.220 10 000 square feet would require a specific use permit so it would require additional scrutiny 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:13:02.060 --> 06:13:07.420 so the development standards are also in place those dimensional requirements to make sure that 06:13:07.420 --> 06:13:13.020 the scale is compatible with the with the surrounding development okay thank you julie 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 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 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 06:13:33.100 --> 06:13:38.140 professional offices the sup wasn't requirement pre wasn't required previously it was just permitted 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:14:55.900 --> 06:15:03.660 yes right correct now they could come in and separately probably own and then that 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 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 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 06:15:21.820 --> 06:15:28.700 like with your with the limitations of the just with the code yeah 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 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 06:15:43.660 --> 06:15:49.740 sure come on down well both cards cover that so we're okay 06:15:49.740 --> 06:15:57.580 if you could just state your name and address you'll have four minutes to speak 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 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 06:16:14.780 --> 06:16:19.900 because of the utility easements and the state taking over some of our property 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 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 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 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 06:16:46.540 --> 06:16:53.020 there we already had engineering done the architecture done to build a new office 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 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 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 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 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 06:17:31.980 --> 06:17:37.180 all of this changed so we've already 100 grand into engineering and architecture 06:17:39.020 --> 06:17:42.540 we just want a safer place for our patients a little bit further back 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:19:08.700 --> 06:19:13.820 public hearing commissioner smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval commissioner 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:20:11.100 --> 06:20:15.420 a minute commissioner pernetta would you accept that as well as second second yes 06:20:15.420 --> 06:20:18.700 thank you for the consideration is there any discussion on that 06:20:18.700 --> 06:20:22.700 is the motion cleared everyone 06:20:22.700 --> 06:20:31.580 could chair restate the the the syntax please yeah let me pull up the language or 06:20:31.580 --> 06:20:36.780 mr smith whoever is appropriate uh that can get quicker 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 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 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 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 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 06:21:07.900 --> 06:21:15.660 to accept this change with everything before the comma is that clear christopher thank you 06:21:15.660 --> 06:21:21.980 that's thank you mr smith yes uh everything would require an sup right commissioner alice 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 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 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 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 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 06:21:51.180 --> 06:21:56.140 you add in the residential it's more than oh he tried to pick that up 06:21:59.900 --> 06:22:04.860 so does that mean just the commercial under 10 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 06:22:12.860 --> 06:22:20.620 the microphone so so the resident was was uh explaining that her property is the commercial 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 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 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 06:22:37.980 --> 06:22:43.020 any other discussion scene nine i'll call for a vote on the board 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 06:22:55.980 --> 06:23:02.940 will turn uh the floor over to richard and then uh we'll have questions 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 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 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 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 06:23:35.900 --> 06:23:40.700 when we have the full um thousand pages of of associated text with that 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 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 06:23:54.060 --> 06:23:59.740 mockingbird uh still working with with engineering currently right now there are no plans um for 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:25:01.340 --> 06:25:05.660 traffic going through and taking into account projects that are already currently existing 06:25:07.100 --> 06:25:11.820 and making sure they're counting those approved homes but not constructed homes into those numbers 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:25:49.260 --> 06:25:53.100 but when compounded with five other projects that have improved in the last 18 months 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 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 06:26:01.740 --> 06:26:07.020 projects we've approved we've probably added 500 elementary students in that area 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 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 06:26:18.460 --> 06:26:22.140 presentation that made me think that they were keeping a running tally of approved but not 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:26:59.900 --> 06:27:05.740 sorry i know it's late 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 06:28:28.940 --> 06:28:34.940 the matrix i will call this meeting to a close at 10 36 thank you