Jan 08, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-01-08 4:30 PM

January 08, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission
Full Transcript

26511 words Download SRT Download VTT
             good afternoon and welcome to the planning and zoning commission work
 session for Wednesday January 8th 2020 it is 431 and seeing that we have a
 quorum I'll call this meeting to order let the record show that Commissioner
 Anderson and Commissioner Pernetta are absent at this time a little bit of
 clarification on the agenda we'll get into in a little bit but just to give
 you a heads up we're gonna reorder some things so here's what we're doing I'll
 go back over it once you get the work session reports done but since we're
 here consent agenda item 3b and individual consideration item 4g are
 dependent on a passing vote of item 5c so rather than pulling those two items
 from consent and individual and taking those out of order after the public
 hearing we're just gonna go public hearing first this evening so we'll go
 5b 5c to start the meeting and chambers then we're going to come back to the
 consent and then we'll do the individuals so this evening will
 actually end on the individual consideration going into the matrix so
 we're just flipping the two public hearings to the front just for the sake
 of how those are stacked for the approvals and then we can we'll go
 through that again when we go through item 2 on the work session but to begin
 this evening what you good mr. Smith's cause of problems to begin the evening
 we will go through a report and discussion on the city's extra
 territorial jurisdiction and I think Haley has presentation to begin so this
 is a little out of the ordinary you wouldn't typically have kind of an
 advanced presentation like this on a project but because it is unique and we
 did talk to the City Council about this project yesterday we wanted to bring it
 before you all as well and just give you a heads up of a potential annexation
 zoning and plot that will be coming your way in the very near future so I will do
 just a very brief overview of the project and then the development team is
 actually here to present in a little more detail on what their proposal will
 be so the project that we'll be looking at is called sagebrook it is located as
 I mentioned primarily in our ETJ it is outlined in yellow here the entire
 property it's about 146 acres located on the south side of all Red Road the very
 south terminus of Bonnie Bray and also but the railroad tracks along Fort Worth
 Drive about 135 acres of the property are in the ETJ they're not covered by a
 non annexation agreement unlike a lot of our ETJ is and then there are about 10
 acres of the property that are inside the city limits that were part of a
 strip annexation many years ago when the city was annexing property down Fort
 Worth Drive currently on the property it's primarily an agricultural use there
 was a single-family home that you can see here on the aerial and then there
 was a gas well on this property at one point in time in anticipation of this
 development that well has been plugged the the 10 acres that are in the city
 limits are currently zoned r6 the future land use for this area is split the
 portions that are closest to Bonnie Bray and Fort Worth Drive or neighborhood
 mixed use so a little bit more intensive higher density multi-family type uses
 would be typical there or neighborhood services so some light commercial uses
 and then the remainder of the property is designated as a rural area so the
 I'll let the development team go into this more but this is an overview of
 what their proposal would be approximately 491 single-family homes at
 a density of about 3.36 units per acre the lots are designed to have a minimum
 square footage of 6,000 square feet and meet the r6 standards if that are six
 were to just extend across the entirety of the property some of the benefits
 that the city could see from this project annexing and developing in the
 city as opposed to the ETJ would be right-of-way dedication for the future
 extension of brush Creek that is a an arterial on our mobility plan that's
 designated to go across this property they would construct two lanes of that
 road as part of this development there are also in negotiations with the
 railroad to eliminate the currently rather unsafe crossing here at Bonnie
 Bray and relocate that crossing down here to brush Creek once it exists once
 that is extended as I mentioned the gas well was plugged that's to be located
 here on an HOA lot so that nothing would be built over top of the well and then in
 addition there's about a little over 14 acres of land down here about 14 acres
 our floodplain they would be looking to dedicate that to the city as a as a park
 there would be a trail that you can see in the lightly hatched area that would
 go through this property and then traverse through the central median
 trail through the development up to the city's future Southwest Park chair
 mr. Beck is this development of brush Creek going to be dependent on the
 development of the adjacent property where there's a barn or something in the
 image yeah ultimately brush Creek unless there there's a bond election for the
 road to be constructed all at once through a CFP project it would be
 constructed as development occurs out here but this would be a significant
 portion of the roadway that we could get right of way for if this development
 were to move forward so do we have a little bit of a chicken and an egg I
 mean are we developing the road and anticipate I mean you see my issue is if
 we're gonna if the road needs to develop on out to 35 the way I seem to recall
 the plan being correct I mean do we we have a chicken and egg issue where the
 road needs to be there or the housing neighborhood needs to justify the road
 or I mean I see an order dependency issue well that the brush Creek would be
 their primary access to this property if you've been on all red it's it's a
 gravel road at best so they do need brush Creek for acts for safe access to
 their property to have multiple points of access for emergency services but
 that is the typical order of development that as properties develop mobility plan
 roadways get dedicated and constructed like I said unless the city happens to
 have a bond election for this and and approve a CIP to go in and acquire all
 the right-of-way and build the road in one fell swoop which typically doesn't
 occur okay thank you Haley going off that question a little bit we had the
 presentation last meeting of all red being the road that goes over I-35 and
 to the new ranches this looks like brush Creek is going to intercept that and
 not a mobility plan brush Creek is the kind of new loop that extends eastward
 around the city can you remind me how brush Creek and all red merge here yeah
 and Richard may have a little more knowledge that since Hunter and Cole
 ranch yeah the so the hunter and Cole ranch properties actually just to the
 north because it kind of wraps around on this side so that segment of brush Creek
 will will ultimately connect up to to what is now a portion of already in
 connecting to 35 the the outer loop actually will still connect will not
 connect at brush Creek it will actually connect at vintage I think that would be
 the the next exit to the north for interchange to the north okay so I
 imagine brush Creek and all red will be a T it wouldn't be like a brush Creek
 doesn't turn into all red it just terminates it already correct I think it
 will it'll and it might be that whether or not that becomes brush Creek however
 we name it and then all red just becomes more of a local road really just to get
 to the park and to go north that makes sense
 so the last thing I have before I let them come up and give you a little more
 detail if you happen to watch the council work session you saw that part
 of the discussion was that there were really three options for how this could
 develop it could move forward primarily in the county we could potentially
 enter into a pre annexation development agreement for this property to remain in
 the county that annex in the future or it could go through kind of the standard
 process of annexing and then zoning and then platting as we would normally see
 and the council did provide direction yesterday that they would prefer to see
 this move forward through that standard process to ensure the you know the
 maximum public hearings and transparency through our standard process or what's
 achieved here as this moves forward so I anticipate that that's what you all will
 see once they get through annexation you'll see the future pieces of this
 moving forward but at this time I'd like to invite Randy and Rob up to talk you
 through more of the details of their proposal if I could just quickly add why
 this is on on work session if you recall when when when the Commission got the
 zoning application as a result of the Creekside development agreement there
 are a lot of questions on you know because it was sort of already decided
 and and I think a lot of members felt almost with their back against the wall
 and almost forced to approve it and so really the intent was we weren't sure
 where council was going to go with direction but at least wanted the
 Commission to be advised of what that what it was up front while it was being
 while it was being considered so that's why that's why it was put on the work
 session yes thank you Richard and thank you PNZ for allowing me to be here this
 evening Rob Bettencourt with Zana is also present and I wanted to know you
 have a long agenda and a long night ahead of you so I'm going to try to be
 as quick as possible and chair please feel free to ask questions whenever you
 need to okay so thank you Richard for that summary you know the the we did do
 this presentation yesterday for council to get that direction like Haley
 summarized there and again the Zana and Rob had looked at this property two
 years ago and put it under contract and as of today it stands that the contract
 will expire at the end of April and so we were kind of getting down to the wire
 what process are we going to go through with the city the part of the condition
 of the contract was that it was it was going to be purchased as long as it was
 entitled for its intended use and so that's the reason we came in and had the
 discussion with council and with you today to figure out what how exactly can
 we get about that and that feedback was very helpful and I look forward to
 getting some feedback from the Commission tonight the location of the
 property you know again yes in the ETJ and you know kind of an isolated donut
 area here of ETJ land that would be brought into the city of Denton looking
 at that from an aerial perspective I wanted to also show the dividing line
 between the school districts that separates Argyle ISD from Denton ISD in
 this area and so these three 491 homes their families would go to Denton ISD
 schools and here's a picture of all red currently going out to 35 and so I have
 an alignment schematic that I can show you that a little bit more detail there
 how that looks the circled areas of what Haley mentioned the gas walls plugged
 and the improvements will be removed and we did get approval from Union Pacific
 Railroad to relocate this crossing at Bonnie Bray because it is a challenge
 crossing to this location here at Brush Creek and so all those things over the
 past several months those are things that we've been working through actually
 the past year we've been working on all those this aerial here shows the the 14
 acres of floodplain that's in the southwest corner of the property the
 the property itself is average about 3,000 feet long and then about 2,000 or
 so feet north to south the slope of the land it generally falls down to this
 floodplain and then it makes its way into Lewisville Lake and it's not heavily
 treed the northern half is predominantly Mesquite and the southern areas and
 you'll see on the plan we're preserving the the tree stands in those areas and
 then the floodplain how it matches up with the existing zoning with Hunter
 Cole Ranch the NPC zoning the base is r7 we would be proposing r6 consistent
 with that like Haley was talking about extending the r6 zoning across our
 property and we've talked about doing a plan development zoning when we come
 through at the time of that of the entitlements all right project details
 here's the the land plan Brush Creek would cross right here over the railroad
 and then we make our way through the property what we have done here is a
 lined along the southern portion of the property next to the floodplain so this
 creates 18 acres of green way on this side of the Brush Creek extension and
 I'll talk about that we're proposing to dedicate that to the city for the park
 land dedication requirements and then Brush Creek would continue and all red
 would tee into it at this point Bonnie Bray's intersection would go away so
 Bonnie Bray would stop at this point to end go west onto all red so it's not a
 dead end it's just it would be a 90 degree turn there an entrance here on
 all red and our main entrance is would be on Brush Creek here is there's an
 existing pond in the southeast corner that's a feature we want to preserve
 along with the mature trees in this area and an amenity center with the pool and
 clubhouse the entrance being in this location the north side the developer
 has agreed to put in two lanes of the Brush Creek Street section across the
 frontage per phase as the site develops and the phasing of this basically big
 breaks it up into the quadrants phase one would be down here I think this is
 phase two up here phase three and then phase four so looking at some of the
 other public benefits in regards to open space and a little bit more detail over
 15% of the site is in open space and the features would include the the trail
 that's going to be open to the public to access Southwest Park from the Green
 Belt of along Brush Creek and we would also have trail connections along the
 the common area lots zooming in or showing this the spine this what Haley
 talked about the curvilinear Boulevard effect Street this the property didn't
 have while it had floodplain and some mature trees and we're preserving those
 there wasn't any more significant environmental features that we could
 work around that would make it you know unique and from a design standpoint we
 want to work with what the land is offering us and so here we wanted to
 create a bull a Green Boulevard if you will that allows the public to access
 Southwest Park which is a regional park so to speak by connecting the trail
 system from the Green Belt up through our property into Southwest and we felt
 like an an ex walking experience going through a landscaped environment in the
 middle of the development would be most beneficial would be preferred would be
 something that the residents and the community would enjoy and so this street
 section here shows that the median the minimum width of this meandering median
 is 37 feet and within it is a 10-foot trail like I said that would be in a
 public pedestrian access easement and so the 10-foot trail would come off of
 Brush Creek would cross in a protected area the intersections in order to get
 into the median these this hatching here signifies a raised intersection to act
 as a traffic calming and slowdown traffic and it would also be enhanced
 pavement on that as well and this is enhanced landscaping so having these
 design features at the key intersections also helps protect the
 pedestrian walking ability there as they go through the intersection to get to
 Southwest Park and just a broader picture of what that looks like and I've
 highlighted there in magenta and this would eventually tie into the trails
 being extended from the hunter coal development and I can show you that in a
 future slide I have that and then private space private open space is at
 nine point four acres you've seen the pool we have enhanced landscaping trail
 sorry signage masonry walls and tree preservation the base zoning that we
 would propose is our six it's consistent with the dimensional requirements of our
 six and again our density is three point three six units per acre one of the
 public benefits from an infrastructure standpoint is the extension this hundred
 and twenty foot right away of brush Creek it's about 3,000 feet long that we
 would be dedicating with this development it's about nine point two
 acres and again the two lanes that we would be constructing with this we've
 done a TIA and 10% of the traffic of brush Creek can be attributed to the
 full build out of this development and this is the street section of brush
 Creek that is in the city's on the city's website for the bond program that
 was approved showing what that would look like we would these are the two
 lanes that we would build and in the future the bike lane would come in and
 then the southern portion would also come in and just showing on the I don't
 think this is the thoroughfare plan map but showing the bond program that was
 approved here along the creek and then how this 3,000 feet of road would help
 link together the future extension of brush Creek tie it back into all red and
 getting over to 35 our sites our site is about a quarter mile from the
 intersection with 35 this talking about what I had mentioned briefly already the
 the railroad crossing would be relocated to this location and that's what that
 would look like now there is an agreement for preliminary engineering
 that has been sent to the city it's it is being reviewed has not been executed
 yet but that is something we're continuing to work on how that would
 talk about how the crossing is designed what components are needed and things
 like that in this area has there been any talk about a signal light at that
 intersection or the thresholds to get a signal light at that intersection I know
 we had a project unrelated to the to you at that intersection and a signal light
 was a point of residents concern with development going in at brush Creek in
 377 so I'd be curious of any insight you have on I don't recall exactly what the
 TIA says about the signalized the need for it to being signalized I can look
 into that I don't Rob do you remember if it said it needed to be signalized at
 full build out or if I think it's really when more around here is developed that
 it would warrant the signal hello guys Rob that incur here was ain't land
 development yeah in talking and coordinating the projects with Todd
 Estes and according to the traffic study so there would be that would be
 signalized it's at some point but it's not something that gets triggered that
 gets triggered via the trip generations of this project so it is ultimately I
 think a part of his Todd closely that's part of a cog it'd be part of a part of
 a cog funded program okay quite a ways down the road thank you and I think the
 last component of the infrastructure benefit that this project would provide
 is the extension of a sewer line sewer is not currently available right at the
 door of the site so we do have to extend it about 3,000 feet this is showing our
 site is here and this white line would show how we would come over here to the
 east to the graveyard interceptor along the Country Club area and then bring
 that about 3,300 feet to our site and then through our development is we would
 extend the sewer and sub that out to the west for it to be extended for future
 development to the west because this line the sewer basin it equates to about
 580 acres that can go into this line and you know sage brick is only you know a
 quarter of that the tree preservation areas this is in the exhibits that we
 provided that would ultimately come before you and as part of our zoning and
 everything the trees that we're preserving would be 30% and that meets
 the city's requirement of what is required to be preserved this is the
 timeline of what we have gone through since December of 2018 and again this
 was this is why we are here we were working on an agreement weren't sure how
 with the land being in ETJ what was the best method for bringing it to the city
 for approval and you know we've got that feedback yesterday looking forward to
 the discussion today and then these are all the studies and analyses that we've
 done over the course of the last 12 months or so and then the land use Haley
 touched on this too the the the mixed use being right here and then the rural
 areas I think that's five acre lots or something like that next to moderate
 residential and hunter coal ranch it seems like it is somewhat of an abrupt
 change in density and what we're proposing would allow for a more
 appropriate transition going from an r7 which I think is 10 units per acre to
 3.3 units per acre over to 377 would be more consistent with planning practices
 to you know when especially being along the railroad and I'm not sure why
 initially it was designated for rural areas but I I believe it has something
 to do with it being in the ETJ at the time the land use map was created and
 this is showing brush Creek going through here and that connection it's
 again a four-lane road going through a rural area the overall thoroughfare plan
 showing the key intersections with 35w and how close our site is to that to
 that intersection there and the connection that eventually from 2499
 motorist will be able to get all the way to 35 so while it's not necessarily the
 south loop it is a very significant and traffic carrier once it is developed
 package the plans for hunter coal ranch that we have seen most recently are here
 on the screen showing the r7 and how they're transitioning as they get to
 the main corridors and the thoroughfares and that we would propose the same thing
 on the other side as we transition to 377 and how this kind of fits into the
 context of the developed area or once it is developed I mean and then the green
 ways being in the floodplain it provides an opportunity for linkages with trails
 and other recreation and and of course detention and drainage and so this is
 showing here's our site this is showing the parks map for hunter coal and then
 the trails over here on this right side and how we would be able to extend those
 trails to provide a more of a direct access for pedestrians to get to
 Southwest Park through the sage brook development instead of having to go
 around or through the commercial area they could come through sage brook and
 up that way so we think it would be a very beneficial experience for you know
 any enthusiast or enthuse activists or active enthusiasts that wants to take
 advantage of the trail system so that concludes my portion of just walking
 through this we look forward to coming back in the future with a formal
 application and I welcome any feedback I don't see any okay thank you very much
 thanks for being here thank you the next item for business is work session item
 1b which is to receive a report regarding public hearing notifications
 and Charlie's here he's been here for two meetings for this one so thanks for
 being patient with us and look forward to your presentation thank you happy to
 be here with you today so we wanted to bring public hearing notifications back
 to you guys there was a request on the matrix about notifications in the ETJ
 but there's also been some other discussion around notifications as we've
 had projects come forward so wanted to bring this back to you guys let you know
 what changes we've made recently and then seek your direction on some of those
 items just so quickly on background in May we made the change in the 500 foot
 notices from sending those to addresses with the appraisal district to addresses
 based on the city's utility records so we're getting more accurate addresses so
 some of those dcat addresses didn't translate well to the postal service so
 we were getting a lot of return mail on the postcards for 500 foot notices
 especially in areas with multifamily complexes or duplexes so these this
 change has helped out with those going to the individuals the current resident
 those dwelling units and then in September we switched from sending the
 200 foot notices out to property owners by certified mail that is now being done
 by regular first-class mail so just to go over a notification procedures we've
 been through this before but the legal requirement by the local government code
 is that we send a notice to owners on the certified most recent certified tax
 rule within 200 foot of a subject property and that we post that in the
 local newspaper what the city of Denton does above and beyond that is that we
 send those legal notices by mail we also send a courtesy postcard out to the
 addresses current resident within 500 foot of the property we have applicants
 post signs on the property we include that information on the city's website
 and then those fees for the signs and the mailings are then charged back to
 the applicant we do have a note down here on the bottom though that only
 those owners within 200 feet are eligible to meet that 20% super
 majority vote limit so we send that courtesy notice but it's it's not
 towards the super majority does the individuals then 200 feet also get the
 500 foot courtesy notice so they're duly noticed or is that excluded it they do
 if they also occupy the home so if it's a property owner that may live out of
 state they'll get the 200 foot letter but then there if they're renting then
 the renter would get the 500 foot postcard so we have a matrix here of
 exactly how and for what different projects the the notice gets mailed so
 here we have city limits the ETJ and then outside the city limits so you can
 see here that the property owner for all of these project types listed on the top
 here are sent a letter then the occupants are sent a postcard and all of
 them except for a replat or a vacating plat and which and then in the instance
 of ETJ and then outside of the city limits the only only notice that sent is
 a letter to property owners and the ETJ that's by local government code any
 questions on that one Christian back so one of the drawbacks I guess to sending
 deep to surrounding ETJ is the cost of the mailings is that the the primary
 inhibitor to why we don't do courtesy cards I mean I what does it cost us to
 send what it's hard to estimate because it's gonna be project dependent but I
 mean are there estimates on what it would cost us to send postcards to
 surrounding ETJ occupants because you've got none across the board on those as to
 the history of why they're not included probably because they don't have a stake
 in the change that's being requested on the property it would be my assumption
 and I don't know that for a fact but then the 69 it's 69 cents for a postcard
 so it would be dependent on how many dwelling units or structures are in that
 vicinity but one wouldn't imagine that was prohibitive they send postcards
 probably less than $50 in most cases unless it's like a multifamily unit or
 something that's the reason I asked those questions is we've had a number of
 complaints about various stakeholders whether or not they have standing or not
 complaining to us that they weren't notified and so and it would seem
 reasonable to propose to council that we do some extending extension of our
 notification system if only for a CYA kind of reasons yeah I'll interject here
 I certainly understand where you're coming from with all due respect to our
 ETJ and county neighbors our commission is the city of Denton our council city
 of Denton our primary concern is the residents of the city of Denton and
 there there's gonna be a sign in the yard they're gonna be the newspaper it's
 not like they're blind from the notification but to what extent do we go
 out of our way to notify people who we are not being appointed to or elected to
 in some cases to represent that'd be my position I wouldn't be an advocate to
 start giving all these people additional notifications that they already have
 access to just just to touch on I think Charlie was right I think where the the
 500 grew out of the 200 requirement that's in the local government code that
 requires the notice to be sent to those on the tax rolls and then the 500 I
 think just grew beyond that to go beyond the requirement but again we're still
 limited to the 200 for that 20% but again yeah it never was extended to the
 TGA okay yeah so here's the the other topics that we've we've talked about is
 the structure of the letters and postcards just a little bit discussion we
 just had on notifying individuals in the TGA and then the final topic that we
 heard you guys discussing that we wanted to bring forward is the mailing of a
 single letter in the instances where something's coming forward with an SUP
 and a zoning change so I wanted to go over those individually so right now on
 the left side here these two items you can see this is what we currently this
 is the sign that's posted on the property and then this is what the notice
 or the 500 foot courtesy notice looks like the letters just a pretty standard
 letters to city of Denton logo on it so here's what we've been working towards so
 right here in the bottom right you would see this is what a sign would look like
 with that letter changing depending on the project that's being submitted then
 you would get a postcard in the mail with similar branding so hopefully if
 you're within 500 foot of a property you'll have seen the sign and then
 hopefully you'll recognize and not pitch this in the trash I think is a lot of
 the concern we've heard that if it's more generic this this could be just
 thrown away without really reading it so this would be the postcard and then
 we've been working with our mail vendor we can get an open window on the letter
 so that we would have a similar branding on the front of the letter so if you're
 a property owner you would get that as well but I'd be happy to take any
 comments you guys have on letters layout anything you have heard or would like
 to see I think this is a tremendous step forward kudos to the design team for
 working on this and obviously these are design concepts but just for
 clarification the bottom right would be the new two by three signage on the
 street right the top one that that's the current street signage right notice of
 public hearing that large one yes okay that has project number name the new one
 just has project number is project name deliberately left off or is that just a
 concept thing I mean it can be added on there I think the thought was you would
 have you would find the product the the point is to funnel people who want more
 information towards towards the website so we're we're working you can pull up
 the active project on the on the website if you go to this web address here on
 the bottom it'll pull up your active projects page and you can look at what
 project is there and get more info on dates from that point but we can
 certainly add the project name on there no I appreciate the rationale the only
 other thing that I would throw out there into the ether is understanding what
 called action you want them to do and if it's to go to the website maybe put the
 website above the phone number okay because when I look at that I'm thinking
 if I have questions I'm gonna call I don't really answers that number you
 might be increasing call volume unintentionally that's my only
 feedback I think great no other feedback Haley's like yes yeah you should
 definitely go to website so this was the the ETJ item whether whether we should
 begin sending those to the ETJ or not yeah thanks I wanted to have this
 brought in front of I brought up to the matrix whenever we saw this the last
 couple projects and I've seen it on projects ever since I've done the
 Commission and I agree with you chair I understand like we were not we're not
 representatives of those who are in the ETJ because we're not that's not our
 stakes not held there but I still think that that giving some sort of
 notifications to those who are in the ETJ because they're being directly at
 their their landowners and as a private property you know rights guy your you
 are making decisions that's going to possibly affect their their land value
 their their quality of life at least giving them notification of what's going
 on even though they don't have a voting say necessarily in the city of Denton we
 don't represent them they're in the ETJ they should still be able to be known so
 they can come and voice their opinion about what's going on next to their land
 and so I get there's an extra cost but that's that's the reason why I brought up
 the first place and I wanted to hear it and I would like to make recommendation
 for City Council to take a look at this and see if we can start notifying ETJ
 residents sure Alice thank you chair I guess my only thought on that is they
 can come and give their opinion but they would not be considered part of any kind
 of percentage of opposition so I would hate for us to to be thinking giving
 them the thought that they do I don't you know that that's just a concern I
 would have yes they can come and give their thoughts but they're not going to
 generate a supermajority they're not going to have any kind of power because
 they're in the ETJ so I don't know if sending them a notification would make
 them think that they have a little bit more what are the differences between
 the 200 and the 500 foot letters and the 200 foot notification states something
 along those lines right the supermajority piece or does it not at all
 just no it's always the notification so there is no difference between the
 notifications at all really the letter it has the piece of paper where you can
 send in opposition not to show up but you can send it in and it describes in a
 little more detail in the letter that we can't fit on the postcard the
 postcards more of a notice this is happening this is the date and time if
 you want more information this is the address I think that the Commissioner
 Alice's points are valid I still think that they would rather be notified rather
 than having to catch a sign and you've heard some people come in front of us
 who you know we had that project that was over there off May Hill and Mills
 Road where for some reason there's some property back there that's within the
 500 foot boundary but it's still in the ETJ even though it's dang near right in
 the middle of the city for the most part and so why was I never noticed I don't
 know what to tell you just we didn't notice you. Commissioner Beck. Yes thank you
 Chair. Yeah I have to agree with Commissioner Smith on this one I don't
 think it hurts especially if you're at 500 feet to say hey we're doing a thing
 that doesn't give you any rights to change it or influence our decision
 we're simply saying we're doing a thing and I think that's a neighborly action
 especially if the costs aren't prohibitive I mean I can understand
 there being a cost issue that we should keep our eye on and if it got extreme or
 was impinging on budgets or something that's one thing but simply a postcard
 saying something is happening feels like just courtesy if anything else. Thank you.
 Yes my thoughts maybe to go a step further what I already stated is the 500
 foot notification is already a courtesy we don't have to do that we arbitrarily
 decided 500 feet and so there seems to be a very logical end to where we send
 out notifications that would be the city border if we start sending ETJ the
 logical conclusion to be well why don't we send the courtesy to a thousand feet
 I mean they're probably if they're in the same neighborhood and but they're
 past 500 feet but they're the same neighborhood that certainly applies to
 them so now we need to probably notice based on neighborhood or regions and now
 I think the logical end of how courteous the city could be has to be to a point
 and where do we get that point obviously is where we're discussing it it seems as
 though a logical one would be the bounds of our city especially since we're not
 legally required to tell them it's in a newspaper it's online and there's a large
 sign of the property and I would argue that if it is significantly imposing on
 to their property that means they probably know the property they drive
 by it which would logically conclude especially their signage they would have
 seen it and so I yeah they have come and complained about that in the past and
 somehow they did show up right they heard so they were effectively noticed
 it wasn't the same way their apparent neighbor was but if they showed up to a
 meeting I would argue that the grapevine or whatever notification is out there is
 is a measurably to some effect that's what I would say
 Mr. Smith the the neighborhood meetings how are those how the developers usually
 getting getting neighborhood meeting lists out is that are they are they
 taking the same list we're sitting off for notifications and using that as
 well okay that's another thought process just saying that if the if they're
 going through with with what you know Andrew said we think we've heard
 complaints before where it's been you know we've we didn't find out about till
 the developer told us instead of the city telling us and so I didn't know if
 they're getting into the notification they're they're sending out their
 neighborhood meeting notifications the same list we're sending out then that's
 perfectly fine I just want to make sure they weren't notifying ETJ clients and
 we were and ETJ residents and we weren't well and then that could be the case
 too because they send the neighborhood meeting out ahead of time while they're
 still going through the review process before maybe a meeting date is scheduled
 so it could be that they get that first notice from the developer because the
 intent I think in the neighborhood meetings is to try to work out any issues
 or make any accommodations so one way to combat this exact issue of where do we
 stop and how much it costs and what is to recommend that we kind of note how
 many people are in the ETJ at the 500 foot level so if we if we left our
 limits at 500 feet which is the courtesy limit you were describing then we say
 well in 500 feet there are 30 homes of which 15 are inside our jurisdiction so
 we're hitting 50 percent notification at that level and we could if we just kind
 of track that we we could see oh well that's only we are always getting 90
 percent notification regardless of the boundaries or we're only ever getting 10
 percent notification because we keep hitting these weird fingers where it's
 ETJ and or I mean just data tracking feels like it would answer that question
 of how much courtesy notice we'd actually be requesting if we asked for a blanket
 500 foot regardless of city boundaries and so I would encourage us to perhaps
 look at those numbers to see how many ETJ people were actually in the last few
 projects are not getting notified it feels like it would be a useful number to
 answer these kinds of questions. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you
 chair maybe just one and I don't know you looked into this how creative can you
 get per project or do we do we just need to have this hard set we're gonna draw
 this radius 200 and 500 feet so I'll bring an example there there was a year
 or two ago a project a zoning change that came right at the front entrance of
 a massive master plan community and you know the circles drawn and I don't know
 about a street and a half got a notification even though this whole
 project was coming through the entrance of that subdivision that affected a ton
 of people to me that's you know that circle needed to be more you know not a
 circle and more an oval to notify more people in the neighborhood I don't know
 if that's even a thing that we could be creative about that was just one thing
 that stuck with me about people who came and spoke and how you know angry they
 were that they weren't notified they're in the same subdivision and we're
 notifying one homeowner that has this undeveloped land and then about a street
 and a half of the hundreds and hundreds of homeowners that were in that
 neighborhood so again I'm throwing that out to you as as as this project manager
 here it can you get creative per project or not or is that just cost prohibited
 time prohibited you could so the the GIS tool I mean it's an automatic thing so
 you draw the borders of the property and then it spits out the addresses so
 anything that deviates from that would be additional time additional staff time
 to complete but I would also say if we were to you know be more creative and
 the way we do that it would want to be within some kind of guidelines so that
 you know in this specific so it can be applied multiple times and it's not a
 staff decision at that point when to extend that boundary and when not to
 extend that boundary yeah where do we stop that line I know I mean there there
 seems to not be an easy answer just but that but that's I think why this keeps
 coming to our matrix because it's like we want a broader discussion because and
 then maybe it can't be fixed any more than I mean we're making steps the
 postcard change and all that it's great it really is but it doesn't solve that
 fact and maybe it can't be of those people who feel like we're excluding
 them for some reason and again I'm not sure you know if there is an easy fix to
 that so I'm gonna interject one more time I hope this last one on this one
 topic because I feel like I'm talking more than usual I am NOT a proponent of
 introducing new concepts and multiple variables because then back to tracking
 we don't know what variable was the determinant of change and so to your
 point if we have a new signage and it's the project you're talking about
 theoretically everyone impacted would have driven by the sign right if there's
 that impactful for the neighborhood that you're by the sign so what I would like
 to see is if this signs more effective what I wouldn't what I'd hesitate to
 say is change the sign and change notification area and say great
 everything's working well in reality we don't know if it was the increased
 notifications or the sign itself change so what my recommendation would be is let's
 implement one variable the new design and then measure if that's successful or
 not if we start finding the same issues nine months a year from now then we say
 okay we need an additional thing because it's one variable that way we're dealing
 with one not one X not an X and a Y in this equation that'd be my two cents
 because else yeah real quick chair and thank you for that and that makes sense
 yes and this was before we changed the sign and when we had the puny little
 sign that we used to put out on the on the lot so absolutely it's a great point
 yeah yeah Christian back and this isn't off of that can you flip back to the
 sign models real quick are we going to have different kind of notifications
 that are not Z that are some other letter for other kind of notifications
 yeah so there's going to be a letter code for these notifications right so an
 SGP would be maybe an S we haven't determined that yet but yeah there would
 be a different letter depending on what the project type is in color yeah oh and
 color there we go yeah loving this so so on that I'll just come back it sounds
 like maybe this is a an item that we did we bring back again with after maybe a
 change is that is that what I'm hearing or do we want to push this forward to
 City Council is a recommended change I think clear direction on that I guess
 we take an informal vote here but Christian I mean not to say that no hey
 the City Council we want to direct you to make a change but has the City
 Council seen this presentation that so I would I would almost want to say let the
 City Council depict it from there if the City Council doesn't feel like it's that
 big of a of an issue we can build I can deal with people complaining they didn't
 get a notification there in the ETJ and if we're gonna move forward with changing
 it to fancy new colors and whatnot like like Richards got designed over there
 that's what he spends his time doing walks around the Home Depot the in the
 painting the paint section he's like yeah trying to figure out what color he's
 gonna make his signs but but if we're gonna make a change okay that's better
 nothing but if City Council wants to there was some discussion about it we'd
 like to start notifying the ETJ folks not a direction to make a change but if
 they agree with us then yeah I'd like to see something but so for the purpose of
 answering this question or let me just do the informal show of hands does does
 this Commission please raise your hand if you believe that we should help
 encourage council along and notifying ETJ individuals so I have to think that we
 should encourage who does not want to encourage City Council to notify ETJ
 individuals right what do you clarification of the question okay so
 Charlie I would just bring that to the Commission is split on notifying ETJ
 individuals thank you chair however I would love to see that I mean for you to
 go forward or put in front of them the new post you know the new letter code
 and the new sign and bringing all that consistent I I think that is a great you
 know to chair's point I think that's a great first step in seeing how effective
 that is as we have our public hearings and maybe this comes up again with regard
 of reaching further but we might as well try to implement a piece at a time yeah
 so that that's a great point at some point we'll probably have a work session
 with City Council to discuss the new notifications and how that's going to
 work with them and at that point we can talk about the ETJ and the discussion
 that we had here let them know what the discussion this committee had and see
 their thoughts on that as well as our next item here on the rezoning SGP combo
 Fisher so thank you chair so is there an order dependency I mean do we have to
 make recommendations to city or to council rather or count I mean there's
 no order dependency in terms of this progressing forward is there this is it
 seems like an informative discussion that we can staff can take to council
 let them know what we are thinking and they make the decision that was thank
 you yeah it's very informal all right and then so the last item here is the
 discussion that I think you guys have talked about before is when a rezoning
 case and an SGP case come forward that those are two separate letters for each
 of those that go to so they go out twice so you get one letter for an SGP and you
 get another letter for rezoning or if you're in the 500 foot you get a postcard
 and a separate postcard instead I think the discussion was can we combine those
 so if the Commission felt that it would be a better notification for individuals
 where a zoning a rezoning and an SGP case are coming forward at the same time
 to send that is a single notice to those individuals
 thank you chair yes I love that idea because what happens is they send an
 email on one of the things they got and you know that they're opposing action
 said we don't know it but in all likelihood they are in opposition of
 both and it should be noted as such so yeah I would love to see that that
 combination if we can do it that absolutely happened with a very
 contentious case where a neighbor went around and had got signatures and it got
 to I mean we were had to take two breaks at council to do the calculation it was
 nineteen point six percent and while there were some folks that were you know
 they told me they're against both I said well we can't count unless we have a
 written opposition and so it has caused problems yeah and because the issue is
 is the public really doesn't understand that those are two different things they
 think when they you know send the email or you know make the phone call in
 opposition that it is the package deal and and they should know it's a package
 and so you know and if it's a package then it comes in a package and not two
 separate things that looks you know where one they could have thrown away
 thinking oh I already saw this I already wrote my response so yeah I definitely
 like that idea because you're back yes I concur with Commissioner Ellis I mean I
 presume the model would be something like you haven't back to our letters you
 have a Z slash S as opposed to just a Z and just an S kind of that and maybe do
 we need to have a double checkbox or a single checkbox for support of opposition
 I'm not trying to be glib here I'm not sure what we need to do legally so can
 we simultaneously notice they have two different votes so they should be
 separate okay thank you so thank you for that clarification I am in
 agreement with Commissioner Allison Christian Beck on this my question would
 be does this solve the response to both if they got a joint letter and they
 have that bottom section or however that is when they fill it out would we file
 it as a opposition to both it would would would consolidate and solve the
 problem that we're facing is my question that our thought what it would be a are
 you in opposition of the zoning the SCP or both and then we would have
 additional language in the letter describing the difference between I feel
 like people sometimes don't understand the zoning from a citizen's perspective
 or an SUV and so we would a little more detail on why there are two different
 ones okay in very plain speak of course so they would they would then have a
 duplicate checkbox in which they could in one single effort oppose both right
 great then I'm for this is anyone against this okay then I think it's this
 one's more unanimous to encourage council to consider okay and then just
 quickly the next steps we'll find a time probably after the completion of our our
 notification changes that we can take this all forward to City Council and
 have that discussion with them so we'll get on their calendar at some point in
 the next couple of months and then provide you guys an update at what when
 that time is going to be what's the proposed timeline for the new notifications
 what is what's the thought process for those to be implemented and executed so
 we want to take that forward like we gave everyone an opportunity here to have
 that discussion about before it goes into effect so that we would bring that
 forward to City Council too so we could probably get on there I think they're
 booked on work sessions maybe in the middle of March right now so at that
 point we can bring the new notices forward to them and then if they're in
 agreement then we could implement that very quickly great thank you okay going
 into the agenda for this evening to clarify it first the first item will be
 our minutes I got clarification before our meeting tonight that I wanted to
 spurs to the commission that there is no requirement for a recusal of a minutes
 vote based on an absence so even if you were absent you can still vote on the
 minutes as just an action not that you're accurately saying the minutes are
 correct but you can vote on that action and so going forward that might simplify
 the vote we can just take one vote for multiple minutes even though there was
 absences everyone can take participation in the minutes votes going forward so
 just want to clarify that and then and practice of how the order will go this
 evening we're going to skip ahead to the public hearings now item 5a is a
 requested postponement to February 5th we will I will open the public hearing
 and then take a vote we'll leave the public hearing open on this item so we
 won't hear a presentation but we will open the public hearing for the vote it
 will come back next month the next item for business is 5b this is Haley's
 presentation
 good evening so this is a proposed amendment to the 2019 DDC regarding the
 use regulations for temporary batch plants so the request before you this
 evening will be to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to
 the council apologize for the typo there regarding amending subchapter 5 use
 specific regulations related to specific use permit requirements for temporary
 concrete and asphalt batching plants this is a staff initiated amendment for
 some background a concrete or asphalt batching plant is defined in the DDC as
 a temporary facility where asphalt or concrete or its ingredients or products
 or ground mixed or otherwise prepared for use on site or for transportation to
 another site these are things that we typically see when there's either a
 large public street project or a residential subdivision where all the
 streets are being poured at once or even sometimes for very large-scale
 commercial development so we do receive multiple permit applications for these
 within a year typically prior to October 1 under the 2002 code a temporary batch
 plant was permitted by right in any zoning district there is a time
 limitation on those you can get up to three permits for a period of 60 days
 each within a year and then there were standards regarding compliance with tceq
 standards nuisance prevention separation distances required from schools and
 residences none of those regulations changed in the 2019 DDC the same time
 periods are in place and those same standards were carried forward and and
 put in subchapter 5 the major change was the 2019 code applied a specific use
 permit across the board so for a permit that's only valid for 60 days we require
 an SUP application that can take 60 to 90 days to get through that process so
 with recent applications we've received a lot of pushback from people not not
 willing to do that so they opt for trucking the pavement in or something
 else as opposed to putting up the batch plant so this proposed amendments would
 main would kind of take us back to the 2002 code keep all of the standards that
 the same way they are now no changes to timeframes or operational standards make
 the batch plant by right if it's for an on-site facility so if you're putting in
 a batch plant to put streets in for a subdivision that could still be allowed
 by right as it was since 2002 but if you are proposing to have an off-site batch
 plant that may be providing concrete and trucking it to multiple projects at one
 time we would require the SUP for that because it is more traffic intensive
 operation that may need some further analysis so this is the language that we
 would propose adding so the use table in sub chapter 5 would just have all of the
 S plus is replaced with P plus when you go to those you specific standards
 referenced by that plus sign there would be a new section 6 that would have
 additional approval required for off-site temporary batch plants and would
 then inform you that an SUP is required for any facility which is making the
 product for transportation to another site other than where the batch
 facility is located so staff is recommending approval of this request I'm
 happy to answer any questions you may have
 Michelle's thank you chair so Haley is is there a way of people doing this and
 and and we don't know about it and they don't come for an SEP if it's just
 allowed by right I mean have we given some thought to that that there is still
 a permit required through a building inspections department so if if one of
 our inspectors or complaint was issued you know saying there's a batch plant
 here and we looked and saw there wasn't a permit then we could take enforcement
 action on that right so they could get a permit that says they're not doing this
 transporting to other sites but they could possibly do it anyway after
 getting that permit they could we would only know if there was a complaint
 correct yeah yeah since the 2002 codes been in effect though there's not been a
 an SUP requirement for any batch plant so on-site or off-site it's just been a
 the same permit you get your state permit and then you come to the city and
 get your operating permit okay and do we do any inspection inspecting of those
 permits or I think watershed gets involved as part of the TCEQ permit but
 on this on the state ones were essentially exempt from from enforcing
 any zoning actions this really gets into those subdivisions rather than having you
 know a number of cement trucks parking up or going through a hole it would
 essentially require every single family subdivision get an SGP and how long the
 permit for I'm 60 days okay Christian back so my question falls from the tail
 of Commissioner else's questions is I think it's reasonable actually probably
 cuts down on pollution to have a localized temporary batch plant pouring
 for local uses but how do we prevent them from what are the mechanisms that
 prevent them from running out of capacity and shipping their cement out
 to me how it follows up from this discussion but how are we stopping them
 from shipping out their company but there is the 60-day time limit so they
 couldn't be doing it for very long if they if they did try to do that but at
 that point I think it would just be an enforcement issue if someone if a
 neighbor complained that there's a lot of trucks going in and out of the site
 or something like that then our inspectors would be able to go out and
 and determine what's happening I mean I've never sat really and watched a
 construction is there enough is there enough opportunities for interaction
 that we would catch most of that or really this is a loophole that they
 would they can slide in because we don't have very much inspection I think if the
 typically engineering public works inspections are out there when they're
 doing a poor to do those inspections daily I think and if all of a sudden the
 concrete wasn't being poured but rather being trucked out I think we would it
 would definitely be noticed thank you guys any other questions for Haley great
 Haley you have the next one as well item 5c v19 - 3
 so this is actually the first of three items that you'll see for the Denton
 County Emergency Operations Center this evening this is a subdivision variance
 request so that does require a public hearing this project is has been
 reviewed under the 2002 DDC because of the time in which you know they came in
 during that interim period and elected to follow the 2002 code so the subject
 property is outlined in yellow on the map it's on the south side of Karina
 Street and on the West West side of Kimberly their variances include not
 having right-of-way dedication on Kimberly Drive and then along with that
 not constructing the sidewalks on Kimberly and so we'll look at the the
 rationale for those requests but first I wanted to give you a little bit of
 background under the 2002 code as I mentioned which is why you all are
 seeing the variance request the site in total is just over five acres in 2009 it
 was actually plotted as two separate lots it was anticipated at that time
 that all of this would develop as the properties along 288 have with you know
 a small grocery store restaurants things of that nature that development never
 occurred and so this has been vacant for many years now so at this point in time
 it's it's really an infill parcel everything around it has developed this
 is the last remaining vacant parcel in this area both Karina and Kimberly are
 designated as collectors on our mobility plan up to this intersection
 Karina currently dead ends into the famous off FEMA building which is
 adjacent to this dead ends into their driveway the subject property here they
 will be making the limited improvements that are required for their portion of
 Karina here including a sidewalk on Kimberly however what we have today is
 south of the Karina intersection up to that point it's built as a collector with
 65 feet of right-of-way south of there we only have 24 and a half feet of
 pavement within 35 feet of right-of-way that was dedicated to the city and built
 at the time that FEMA's offices were constructed in 2003 in 2008 even though
 this right-of-way came almost up to the property line and the paving came to the
 property line when the senior living facility here was plotted in 2008 they
 were not required to continue that street southwards because it wasn't on
 the mobility plan so that essentially determined that Karina would never go
 any further south at that point in time in 2009 when the Denton Spencer edition
 platted and showed those two lots as I showed you there the PNC at that time
 approved a variance for this road to be cul-de-sac here the variance was for the
 length of the cul-de-sac because the code says those can't be over 150 feet
 long however since those two lots never developed that cul-de-sac never came to
 fruition so at this time Denton County is requesting to not have to not dedicate
 that additional right-of-way not construct the paving and sidewalk
 improvements on Kimberly just to discuss the process a little bit there is a
 preliminary plat on your consent agenda this evening if the subdivision
 variances are approved then it will meet all the technical requirements of the
 code but without those variances the preliminary plat cannot be approved as
 it is so the specific variance requests are from two provisions in 35 20 2 which
 speaks to right-of-way dedication so typically public right-of-way has to be
 dedicated for all streets that serve more three or more residential lots or
 any commercial or industrial lot that is the right-of-way width is determined by
 the transportation criteria manual in this instance if Kimberly were to
 continue south at the full right-of-way that it is north of Carina that would
 require 65 feet of right-of-way total so there would be 30 additional feet
 necessary and then 20.2.L1 specifies that when there's an existing street
 adjacent to or within a tract that is of inadequate width that the additional
 right-of-way that's required by the transportation criteria manual be
 provided as I referenced earlier Denton County is requesting that they not have
 to dedicate any additional right-of-way for Kimberly that they maintain the
 pavement at its current width which is 24 and a half feet that additionally they
 provide a barricade just south of their southernmost driveway their driveway is
 sized so that vehicles could turn around there if they reached the end of the
 street and realize they couldn't go any further and further cities engineering
 staff is recommending that they also beyond that barricade to the south tear
 up the existing paving all utilities would remain in place but with the
 pavement gone there would be easier access to those utilities and it would
 just provide that extra visual for drivers knowing hey there's there's no
 street beyond this barricade and then 35.20.3 speaks to sidewalk
 requirements all development shall either within right-of-way or easement
 provide sidewalk or bicycle facilities in accordance with the transportation
 criteria manual in this case a five-foot sidewalk would typically be required on
 the street like Kimberly Denton County is requesting to not construct that
 sidewalk on Kimberly so they're the site plan due to the configuration of the
 property I had to orient a little strangely so north is to the left side
 of the screen just looking at those on their plan orange is the right-of-way for
 Kimberly as it is today they're requesting to maintain that width as it
 is the shaded portion shows where our city engineering staff is requesting
 that pavement be removed the red area here shows where that barricade would be
 installed just south of their driveway the blue circle shows that oversized
 driveway when I put up the building elevations you'll see there's there's
 five very large bay doors there for fire trucks and other similar emergency
 operation vehicles which necessitates the width of this driveway so there'd be
 adequate room for turnarounds there for standard cars and then the purple line
 shows where we would typically have that sidewalk adjacent to the street and they
 are requesting to not provide the sidewalk on Kimberly
 Michelle's thank you chair Haley so we're requesting that they remove that
 pavement are we requesting what they do with that the area would just be
 maintained as grass at that point so access it would still be city right-of-way
 so we could get to all the utilities that are in there there's water and
 sewer facilities there okay so it would just be city right-of-way but instead of
 pavement it would be natural yeah so there are several criteria for approval
 that are run through the first is that the granting of the variants would not
 be detrimental to public safety health or welfare or injurious to any other
 property as I mentioned before Kimberly Street is not a mobility plan roadway
 south of Karina it's not going to ever extend beyond this property because of
 the existing development pattern and the way that platting has occurred over time
 the previously approved cul-de-sac was never constructed the area just didn't
 develop as was intended so Kimberly South of Karina currently functions and serves
 only these two sites it's essentially a driveway for FEMA at this point in time
 so it would be a dual driveway for FEMA and Denton County if this were to be
 approved it's not functioning as a city street and there are no changes proposed
 here that would affect FEMA's access to that roadway at all so it wouldn't be
 injurious to the other properties using the street the second condition is that
 the conditions were upon which the requests for the variants are based are
 unique to the property as I mentioned earlier this the site is relatively
 unique for this part of town off of loop 288 there's not a lot of undeveloped
 property in this area it is an infill development and Kimberly as I just
 mentioned it's really only a driveway it's a fairly unique situation that we
 have a city street that's only serving two commercial sites like this so there
 are fairly unique conditions surrounding how Kimberly Drive has developed and how
 it's unfortunately never going to continue south as it may have one time
 been intended to do the third condition because of the particular physical
 surrounding shape and topography that there is a hardship to the owner if the
 code were enforced in this case it would actually be a safety concern for Denton
 County they do intend to have fire trucks large emergency response vehicles
 that would go out in times of natural disaster so they see it as a public
 safety concern to encourage pedestrian or vehicular activity on a street where
 they're you know you only have two to three hundred feet before trucks are
 going to be pulling out of here potentially at rapid speeds to respond
 to emergencies so in an attempt to discourage that activity and people
 parking on the roadway as they do on Kimberly north of Karina they're
 requesting that it be maintained narrowly to visually look like the
 driveway that it functions as and if the road were required to be improved they
 would have to go back to where we were in 2009 and seek a variance for that
 street to be a dead end of over 150 feet in length the fourth condition is that
 the variance will not in any manner vary from the provisions of the comprehensive
 plan in this case the mobility plan does not show Kimberly Drive as a street
 south of Karina so it's just a local street there's no no variation from the
 mobility plan with this request and then finally that the conditions upon which
 the variance request is based did not result from an act of the owner in this
 case Denton County is just just now purchasing the property they've not been
 party to the what's occurred up to this point that's resulted in the current
 street conditions so this was not an act of their creation our traffic engineering
 department has no objections to the proposed variance so staff is
 recommending approval of the request as we found it to meet the criteria we do
 recommend the condition that our city engineer requested that the pavement be
 removed beyond the barricade south of Denton County southernmost driveway
 mr. Ellis thank you chair does the applicant know of the condition yes
 there have been discussions with them and they're not opposed to some practice
 excavation for their employees to go out there and take a nice any other
 questions great thanks Haley and just for the sake of efficiency Haley can you
 go over your preliminary plot for this as well now certainly we're just giving
 back to the consent agenda now because that believe that was the last public
 hearing yes because 5d has been pulled so we hop back to consent this is item
 3b yes this is the preliminary plot for the lot we were just looking at rather
 than the two lots that were originally preliminary plotted they're combining it
 into one with the approval of the variances this evening this plot would
 meet all the technical requirements of the code happy to answer any questions
 you all may have about it I don't see any since we're on the consent agenda does
 any commissioners have questions about any of the consent items there's several
 on here but we can pull some if you want a presentation on any going around going
 once okay great so this evening will follow the same pattern we go public
 hearing consent agenda and then the individual consideration and then for
 the individual consideration items we will be hearing each one because there
 are some that have a recommendation for denial and want to provide if anyone
 needed to speak against that to us give them the opportunity and chambers to do
 so but we'll have abbreviated presentations for those items so they
 don't you know delay progress too long so with that let's just hop into the
 individual items so the first one is 4a mark Laird good evening my name is mark
 Laird I'm a planner of the development service department this evening I have
 for your review and consideration the modern plot of Perales addition staff is
 recommending denial of this plot based on the details listed in the report here
 stand for any questions so any questions on this and going forward mark or Richard
 the denial is simply the procedure in which something is missing they have to
 get the denial to get pushed back to redo that correct my understanding that
 process right correct we have to have it this one's a little different in in
 minor class are typically an administratively approved plot so
 typically these are these are approved at a staff level however staff cannot
 deny a administratively approved we can only approve an administratively approved
 we can't deny them so that's why it's coming that's why the minor plats coming
 to the Commission for consideration interestingly enough once they correct
 it it still has to now come back to PNC for approval because you were the ones
 that in accordance with the new bill that was passed that's very logical okay
 great and so does the pattern for these new plots preliminary final and minor
 that come to us this is going to be the general presentation or then in public
 hearing if there is someone who wishes to speak and would not even a public
 hearing is just right right right I'm in yeah any questions for this one great
 thanks mark thank you next one is 4b PP 19 - 27 this is Haley's item
 all right so similar to what mark went through this is the location of the
 property at sycamore and Elm Street this is a preliminary plat intended for
 townhome development it would be in two phases in this case staff is
 recommending denial of the preliminary plat for the reasons that were detailed
 in your staff report however the applicant has requested an extension of
 this to the February 5th 2020 agenda to allow them more time to work through the
 staff comments that they were given and I can stand for any questions
 mr. Smith nature that isn't running against the shot clock and maybe maybe
 this is a good time to help explain difference maybe here what what has
 shot clock and what doesn't so this is a shot clock applicable class we can
 provide it we provide an extension on the shot clock I thought that after the
 30 days we had voted is that so it has to come before you within 30 days the
 applicant does have the right to request one extension not to exceed 30 days
 so appreciate Haley only question I have is from the agenda maybe I'm missing
 this I found it super helpful on the actual agenda the motion being done by
 staff so like item 3 no 4d which is yours it says request an extension of
 February 5th but this item for B doesn't say that Cathy and I have been
 pondering over why that didn't carry forward if you look in the backup it
 actually printed out in the caption it just didn't make it onto the agenda and
 we're not sure how that occurred not a big deal it was really helpful to know
 which ones were that was our intent was helpful with that but any questions for
 this item all right item 4c Cindy Jackson PP 19 - 35 be
 and this one is similar to Haley's in that PP 19 0035 be you did you did
 actually approve a 30-day extension back in December and the applicant has not
 submitted anything since you have approved the 30-day extension as such it
 does not meet the requirements as noted in your your backup and staff is
 recommending denial all right any questions on this fantastic thanks
 Cindy next is back to Haley item 4d FP 19 - 31
 so this is a final plan for the Northgate edition that's located at
 Sherman and 288 you can see the property in yellow on the map the final plan is
 for six commercial lots again staff is recommending denial of the plan at this
 time for the reasons detailed in your backup and again the applicant has
 requested that 30-day extension to the February 5th 2020 agenda happy to answer
 any questions you may have Haley have a question not on this plot but rather
 this overall process how is it being received by developers to go through
 this is it I understand I've never filed one of these I don't know that the old
 process and the timing of it are they obviously they're aware that they're
 recommending denial or asking for a postponement can you interpret like
 their response to these new rules from the way they have to do the process I
 don't know Richard you look like you might want to jump in there I don't think
 anyone I don't think any of them really are in favor of it okay I think some of
 the improvements that we had made over the last year year and a half I don't
 think we were one of those that really dragged our feet on getting a plat
 approved but it's obviously caused a lot of inconvenience I think part of the
 challenge also is every city seems to be doing it differently I heard one one
 instance today I won't mention the municipality similar to us they have
 five days to respond but that staff doesn't even look at the response they
 still take it as a denial and so it's just it's caused a lot of issues I was
 gonna follow with that obviously this is across all municipalities in Texas are
 we doing enough creatively to still be attractive and competitive in the
 timeline perspective from the other municipalities you talked to you I think
 so okay I think the fact that we have the the facilitators involved as well I
 think has helped out tremendously and sort of lighten the load a little bit
 even for planning staff with managing projects with multiple great variables
 we do have some middle calendars on our website now as well that if they look at
 the calendar they'll see what their target dates are for submittal resubmittal
 and then P&Z ultimately so it at least gives predictability yeah okay good the
 next item is item 4e this is back to Cindy Jackson FP 19 - 33
 staff is recommending denial of FP 19 0 0 3 3 50 Fisher 59 it does not comply
 with the requirements as noted in your backup the applicant has requested a
 30-day extension to enable him to address the the comments and bring it
 into compliance and that would take it bring it to the February 5th meeting is
 the city allowed to recommend postponement they're all these
 postponements are recommended denial but they're requesting postponement is the
 city has to recommend denial and then they can just attach that the applicants
 wanting to postpone mr. chair what the staff is giving you as options they're
 recommending denial of the plat for reasons but the applicant has submitted
 a request for an extension so they're just giving you the option I appreciate
 that I think I understand the option I'm just wondering if the staff has the
 authority to recommend postponements don't want to take their recognition in
 consideration why would we give them postponement if staff is recommending
 denial I'm wondering if staff has the authority to recommend a postponement if
 they do I take the weight of a recommended denial more the staff does
 not have the authority to recommend right the applicant has to ask for it
 gotcha and can only and can only add right perfect that that helps okay thank
 you sure no no no I might have asked the confusion
 okay next one up we're just going through these for F Julie Wyatt ADP 19
 - zero zero eleven good evening
 Julie Wyatt senior planner at the city of Denton and I am presenting ADP 1911
 Haven at Doherty the request before you is for an alternative development plan
 for multi-family development located north of Doherty just west of Johnson
 Street between the railroad tracks and Johnson Street you may you may remember
 this you've seen a couple of plats for this one as well as a variance the
 purpose is to deviate from sub chapter 13 of the 2002 Denton Development Code
 you have a few of these coming forward tonight so we're just going to briefly
 remind you about what an alternative development plan is so sub chapter 13 of
 the 2002 Denton Development Code had included all the site design
 requirements for a development where how the building should be oriented where
 street trees should be placed that sort of thing but the sub chapter 13 also
 provides this flexible discretionary process for when they really can't meet
 those requirements it allows them to ask for deviations from those codes
 provided that they meet the intent and the criteria for approval so that's what
 we're doing here tonight on this on this proposal so under the 2002 city what are
 under the 2002 code the project had a DCG zoning a transition to MN for 2019
 due to project timing this was reviewed under the 2002 code which is why the ADP
 is going forward the 2019 code does not have that process in it as I said this
 is for a proposed multifamily development apart from the deviations
 they meet all sub chapter 13 requirements they are proposing to be
 oriented toward Doherty at you're probably familiar with that with that
 ring road in it with the the access primarily off of Doherty but additional
 access off of Collins so there are two provisions they are proposing to deviate
 from one that at least 50% of the front yard of the of the front yard frontage
 should have buildings along that that line so that the the property has 546
 feet of linear feet along Doherty if they follow the code exactly that would
 require 230 273 linear feet of buildings within 20 feet of that right-of-way line
 of Doherty so they are requesting a deviation from that they're also
 requesting a deviation from the private street system so projects over three
 acres multifamily projects over three acres in the 2002 code required a a
 public or private street system that had specific design requirements that they
 had to have on either side of it it had to have the the curb and then a planting
 area and then a sidewalk they are requesting a deviation from that to move
 that curb the sidewalk area closer to the curb closer to those parking spaces
 to provide a landing area for residents as they exit their cars so we'll look a
 little closer at what they're proposing so this is this is that frontage along
 Doherty Street in blue were the three buildings and they comprise the 227
 feet of structure that are located between 19 and 41 feet from the property
 line and as an alternative to that and as as part of their process or project
 they are they have 29 street trees along that area so the intent of this of this
 requirement is to push parking away from the street to pull those buildings
 forward to activate that street to define that street edge to create that
 room of that that public sphere and the 2002 code really relied on buildings
 relied on structures to meet to meet that requirement but that requirement
 can be met with lots of different ways it could be met through there's things
 like trees or public art or street furniture and in this instance those
 trees really define that edge provide those vertical elements along the street
 and increase that comfort of for pedestrians that are going to be
 walking along Doherty Street and the second provision was for that design of
 that internal street system so this this project does provide a lot of
 legibility through this the side it does provide for clear pathways that vehicles
 can follow and it is a gated community so there's not a lot of connectivity
 between this project and adjacent developments so so although they've got
 that clear pathway that that intent requires or intent the intent of that
 requirement they have asked for that deviation to allow that sidewalk to be
 pulled closer to the the parking spaces to allow that landing space so as the
 residents are exiting their cars they won't have to walk through any grass
 they could just land on the sidewalk with their school books or their
 groceries and head into their their dwelling units so there's criteria for
 approval and sub chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code first is it
 preserve existing neighborhoods this is in a redeveloping area near the city
 center so the proposed development would provide unnecessary housing near our
 downtown area and some of our university areas assure quality development this
 intent is not to lower design standards but just to facilitate the development
 particularly on this site where it's kind of a skinny site and it's nestled up
 against those those railroad tracks apart from the request all other
 requirements have been met for sub chapter 13 to reduce sprawl this is an
 urban infill so it's not contributing to sprawl in the city there is
 necessary infrastructure available and it's also near DCTA transit this has
 kind of become a little bit of a hub for student housing and there is transit
 near there so it's a good location for this kind of density and then it results
 in a high quality development that provision for the 50% of the front yard
 building frontage to have buildings within 20 feet of the front property
 line as I said the intent is to enclose that space to create vibrancy and
 pedestrian comfort along our public right-of-ways in this case the
 combination of those buildings along there and those street trees really do
 enclose that space and meet the intent of the code and then for the provision of
 the private street design with the plantings between the buildings instead
 of between the parking lot and the sidewalk it does allow for that landing
 area while they're still are providing those clear pathways within their drive
 aisles so staff through our analysis recommends approval as the deviations do
 meet the criteria for approval and I'll stand for any question I do not see me
 I think Julie so at this time we have three items left but we're gonna take a
 quick break for some food it is 6.03 we will reconvene at 6.15 thank you
 welcome back to the planning and zoning Commission work session it is 6.14 the
 next item for business is item 4 G ADP 19 - 0 0 8 this ties into the other items
 we've heard about this but I'll turn it over to Haley to talk about the ADP all
 right so this is the the third of the items for the emergency operation center
 it's an alternative development plan request we've seen the site before this
 evening of course I'm at the southwest corner of Karina and Kimberly they do
 have multiple ADP request relating to parking in front of the building parking
 lot landscaping and then street tree and overall tree canopy requirements so
 specifically and the first of the request is for parking to be located in
 front of the building that sub chapter 13 required parking to the side or rear
 of a building unless you were along an arterial roadway they're requesting to
 have 30 vehicle spaces located along Karina Street primarily for visitors to
 the facility the second request is with relationship to site overall tree
 canopy requirements within the ECC district there was a 30% tree canopy
 requirement with all 64 trees they were planting on the site they would be at
 just over 20% there are no trees existing on the site today to help
 contribute to that canopy third or street tree requirements that under the
 2002 code were required along all street frontages at a rate of one tree per 45
 linear feet they were to be located between the sidewalk and the street in
 this case 18 street trees are required they are providing those 18 trees on
 site but due to utility locations along Karina and their desire to to keep
 Kimberly as it is they're proposing to provide those 18 trees within other
 locations on the site and we'll look at those in just a moment fourth is for
 parking lot canopy the DDC required a minimum of 15 percent canopy coverage
 within all parking lots they have 54 percent tree canopy that will be
 provided in their northern visitor lot however the the side lot along the
 internal driveway on the east side of the facility will have 0% canopy
 coverage and the request is driven by a need to have a secure parking lot there
 and have a clearance for vehicles to enter and exit the facility and then
 finally when you do have front parking the code requires a very specific
 combination of landscaping elements in front of that parking lot that's a 15
 foot wide area with a landscaped berm one large tree for every 40 feet and then
 either zero scaping three foot high shrub row or a three foot high wall again
 there are existing utilities there along Karina as well as drainage so they can't
 provide that exact combination what they will have is a approximately 50 foot
 wide area that will be entirely grassy and there's approximately a seven foot
 slope upwards from the sidewalk towards the parking lot so they they meet the
 intent of the berm with that change in elevation and they will provide a five
 foot wide planting bed with evergreen shrubs and trees along the edge of the
 parking lot so here's all of those elements laid out on the site the dark
 green circle show you their alternative street tree locations so along Karina
 they've just pushed those trees back closer to the parking lot and then
 they're providing some along their internal driveway and then some along
 the south side of their property and orange is that a visitor parking lot in
 front of the building this is the secured employee and equipment parking
 area where they're requesting to not provide any tree canopy and again
 overall they'll be at just over 20% canopy which is a significant increase
 from the conditions today with zero percent canopy
 yes so their property it's covered by the text box here extends all the way to
 where the street is dead-ended today so they're they're not making any changes
 on that southernmost leg of the property they anticipate they may need that for
 something in the future but for now they're leaving it just vacant grass as
 it is so they will have some of their landscaping improvements south of that
 barricade but that's still within their property boundaries you're welcome this
 is just a view of what the building would look like from Karina Street so
 they do meet all of the other code requirements for site design and
 building design this is what it would look like along Kimberly this is showing
 the what the need for that overly large driveway on Kimberly is for these five
 vehicle bays for fire trucks and other large-scale equipment as Julie went
 through their several criteria for approval for an ADP first is
 preservation of existing neighborhoods this will simply be a continuation of
 the existing county and federal offices that are located in this part of the
 city many of the developments in this area do have front parking so it's not
 out of character with what they've requested and as I mentioned the site
 does have 0% canopy today so it would be improvement to this area of town with
 the tree canopy that they would be providing second is assuring quality
 development fits with the character of Denton again this is consistent with the
 development pattern in this area and the office style development that's occurred
 here that's intended to request or to facilitate the development of a rather
 unique use within an infill parcel and apart from their requested deviations
 they are meeting all other code requirements and the third criteria for
 approval is that it focused new development to activity centers to curb
 strip development this is not contributing to strip development anyway
 it is an infill parcel and is the one of the only undeveloped parcels in this
 area of town and then rather there is infrastructure capable of accommodating
 the development there are utilities in place the they will be making
 improvements to Karina Street and then Kimberly as it exists today is adequate
 to serve their development as well as the FEMA site and then finally ensuring
 that their alternative proposal result in an overall high quality development
 again the front parking request is intended to provide security for their
 employee lot and their equipment lot separate from the vehicle spaces it's
 not intended to detract from the city's development standards with relation to
 the parking lot and site tree canopy their request is increasing the
 conditions on the site overall it is an improvement and the request within that
 parking lot is specifically as I mentioned to help maintain security and
 maneuverability for street trees they are providing all the required trees
 simply in alternative locations and then with relation to parking lot screening
 they're exceeding the requirement for the width of that screening area that
 are providing the shrubs and trees and the parking lot is elevated above the
 sidewalk so it does help reduce the visibility as a berm would have done so
 staff is recommending approval of this request and I can stand for any questions
 I do not see any thank you very much next item is 4h ADP 19-7 and this is
 Julie Wyatt
 last ADP for the night all right so this is ADP 19-7 Oxford at Sherman the
 request before you is an alternative development plan for another multifamily
 development this one you also have seen before it had an SUP come before you
 last month and it is it is on twelve point three three acres situated between
 poinsettia and loop 288 kind of in the northeast side of town under the 2002
 zoning the subject property had a zoning of CMG it transitioned to SC with the
 2019 code but due to this the the project timing it is reviewed under the
 2002 code which is why that ADP is going for it coming forward and as I said you
 saw a specific use permit for this project in in December it it was
 approved by City Council in last month and one of the conditions of that
 approval was that they had to come forward with their ADP after the SUP was
 completed so that's what they're doing today and the approval of the SUP
 included a site plan a landscape plan and elevations and what you're seeing
 today is consistent with what you saw in December with one change and I'll point
 that out to you so they are proposing two deviations from subchapter 13 of the
 2002 code the first is that accessory structures such as carports in garages
 cannot be located between the primary buildings and the right-of-way they are
 proposing to place garages along points that a one one-story garages that was a
 design feature that was in order to move those residential those taller buildings
 farther away from the existing neighborhoods and so so that that
 requires approval of that deviation and the other is is the private street
 system that we talked about earlier and they have a similar design element that
 the previous project has had what was that that landing that the sidewalk be
 closer to the to the parking spaces so just to look at their site plan the the
 residential buildings that are closest to poinsettia are here outlined in purple
 and the garages that I talked about are outlined in yellow and you can see that
 they are between those those taller residential structures and the right-of-way
 and then the green the green arrows kind of show what what that private street
 system how cars vehicles move to that site and and and we'll look a little
 closer as to how they are specifically designed but their circulation there
 their drive aisles do create a clear pathway for vehicles and allows
 legibility and residents to move through the site and understand where they're
 going and how to get around look a little closer at the landscape plan to
 show what that private street system is what those design elements are so here
 you can see they've got the the parking spaces with that sidewalk and then the
 planting area between the sidewalk and the buildings so the criteria for
 approval are to first preserve existing neighborhoods this multifamily is in a
 transition area between loop 288 and existing residential and so it does the
 proposal it does meet that criteria to assure quality development this request
 is not to lower design standards but to really kind of implement some of those
 design elements that were approved with that SUP in addition that that SUP
 provided additional scrutiny and approval from City Council to focus new
 activity new development activity centers this is in a mixed-use area and
 it's not encouraging strip development it's a logical continuation of the
 existing development pattern and there is a necessary infrastructure to
 accommodate the request or it will be constructed with the development and does
 it result in a high quality development that meets the intent of the standards
 the garage location does provide that buffer area and a transition between the
 existing residential the existing neighborhoods and the taller newer
 buildings the garages will be designed with a residential architecture standard
 you know pitched roofs and as well as those garage doors will face inward so
 they won't face toward the street and then as part of City Council's approval
 of the SUP they also required a masonry wall along points at us so there will be
 additional screening of those garages with that masonry wall and street trees
 and landscaping along that right-of-way the private streets design they are
 providing that private street but those design elements are what they're
 requesting a deviation from it does create provide clear pathways but allows
 that landing area a little bit easier to to live with for those residents so it
 does meet the criteria for approval and I'll stand for any questions
 Christian back thank you chair did they keep that in and out variegating wall
 that we discussed previously council did not approve a variation from that so
 they just required the additional masonry requirement so they'll have to
 design it as it was proposed okay thank you you bet great thank you very much
 the last item for our work session is item 4 I this is Haley's a grisky again
 zcp 19 - 5 all right I will try to keep this brief and then we can go into
 additional detail this evening if we need to sounds great so this is a site
 plan for a multifamily development within razor ranch the site is just over
 11 acres located on the north side of Crescent east of East Park Boulevard a
 little bit of background relating to the staff recommendation this property their
 final plot was approved by P&Z last year this development and what you see on the
 site plan is all of lot 4 block a and then a very tiny point zero five acre
 portion of what was lot 5 on that final plat so part of staff's recommendation is
 that we do an amending final plat to clean up those lot lines and scoot that
 property boundary north so that all 11.1 acres are within one lot razor
 ranch is unique in that site plans are required to come before the Commission
 that it has to include a site plan landscape plan and building elevations
 the razor overlay provides criteria for approval for that that it comply with
 the conceptual or schematic plan for the overlay district approved by council
 that it provide for compatible arrangement of buildings that wouldn't
 adversely affect anything outside of the district that the site plan have
 adequate and safe vehicular circulation and that it comply with all other
 sections of the overlay this particular piece has a base zoning of NRM you that's
 a neighborhood residential mixed use from the 2002 code within the razor
 overlay it's within the south mixed-use sub-district which is largely intended
 for residential uses so multifamily is a permitted use and this follows the
 recently adopted exhibit c2a standards from the family development their site
 plan has three driveway locations circled in red there are seven buildings
 on the site with just over 133,000 square feet it's 333 dwelling units they
 do have on-site amenities in the central area of circled in purple that includes
 a pool cabana community outdoor spaces and a grill they're within the lot
 coverage open space height and parking requirements of the overlay district in
 terms of landscaping they do meet all of the minimum percentages required they
 meet the minimum street tree count a couple of unique features I wanted to
 highlight for you are the buffer that they're providing on the eastern
 boundary single-family is the permitted use adjoining this so they did have to
 provide that 10-foot wide landscape buffer and then the areas in orange or
 some enhanced landscaping that will frame the entry to the site this is just
 a colored rendering to show you what those landscape areas look like in
 relation to the buildings and then I'll skim through these pretty quickly these
 this is building one and two that would be along East Park Boulevard they meet
 all of the material and color requirements for razor as well as the
 requirement for minimum window and door percentages these are the back two
 buildings that would be along the internal private drive these are the
 internal buildings and then I've also included here the garages the garage
 doors do face inward to the site so this is the view from the adjoining
 properties and then this is the the main entry building building five so you can
 see the leasing center will be the central focus in between those two
 landscape areas that I pointed out Steph is recommending approval with one
 condition that an amending final plat to increase the size of lot for block a to
 the eleven point one acre shown here be approved and filed with Denton County
 prior to any permits being issued for the site. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You
 Chair. Haley what's the process for an amending final plan? That is an
 administratively approved plan. Any other questions for this item? Great thank you
 very much Haley. At this time that concludes our work session at 630 I'll
 close the meeting we will reconvene at 635 in council chambers. Good evening
 ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning and zoning Commission meeting
 for January 8th 2020 it is 637 I'll call the meeting to order seeing that we do
 have a quorum let the record show that Commissioner Pernetta and Commissioner
 Anderson are absent from this evening's meeting. The first item on the agenda is
 to stand and give a Pledge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flag if able.
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and indivisible. Next item of business is to consider approval of the
 planning and zoning Commission minutes for December 11th 2019 Commissioner Smith.
 Motion to approve. We have a first for approval Commissioner Ellis. Second. We
 have a first and a second for approval any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for
 vote on the board. Motion carries five two or five zero and just for a point of
 clarification on tonight's agenda we have a couple changes in the order so I
 want to keep you apprised of those changes. There are two items item 3b and
 item 4g that are both in the consent and individual consideration items that are
 dependent on a public hearing item to be heard first. So for the sake of
 efficiency we're going to jump to the public hearing items first so we'll go
 items five and then back to the consent on three and then finish with individual
 considerations on four so we'll go the five items then back to three and then
 to four and on the public hearing items five a will open the public hearing but
 the applicant is requesting a postponement so there's not going to be
 a presentation on that this evening and item 5d has been pulled from
 consideration so this evening we'll do 5a for postponement 5b 5c and then we'll
 jump back into the consent and then individual consideration so with that we
 will begin on item 5a z-19 - 0 0 14 a I will open the public hearing and request
 a motion to postpone Commissioner Smith make a motion to postpone to date
 certain February 5th 2020 we have a first for a postponement to date certain
 February 5th 2020 Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a second for
 the postpone of this item any discussions seeing none I'll call for a
 vote on the board motion carries five zero the next item for business is item
 5b DCA 19 - 0 0 2 7 I will open the public here and invite Haley's
 to Gursky for presentation good evening this is a code amendment related to
 temporary batch plants the request before you is to hold a public hearing
 and consider making the recommendation to the City Council regarding revisions
 to subchapter 5 of the 2019 Denton development code related to the specific
 use permits requirements and use specific standards for temporary concrete and
 asphalt batch plants this is a staff initiated amendment to the DC a concrete
 and asphalt batching plant is defined as a temporary facility where asphalt or
 concrete or its ingredients or products are ground mixed or otherwise prepared
 either for use on site or transportation to another site temporary batch plants
 are something that we see permit request for multiple times per year they're
 typically associated either with large public street projects residential
 subdivisions where multiple streets are being poured at one time or with large
 scale commercial or mixed-use projects this is just a comparison of use
 permissions and limitations on these facilities in 2002 in the 2002 DDC
 rather the this use was permitted by right in all zoning districts there were
 performance standards associated with that there was also a time limit that
 limited these to only three permits per year for up to 60 days each the
 standards included compliance with TCEQ standards nuisance prevention separation
 distances from schools and residences among other things that time frame or
 time limit and those standards are staying the same we're not proposing any
 changes those were carried forward directly from the O2 code into the 2019
 code the change with 2019 was that in all zoning districts and SUP was
 required for a temporary batch plant so for a 60-day operational permit you were
 required to go through a process that took 60 to 90 days staff felt that that
 was somewhat unnecessary for these temporary uses so what we're bringing
 forward is a proposal to change that SUP requirement to only be for those
 facilities where they're batching concrete or asphalt and transporting it
 off-site perhaps to multiple sites because there is an increased traffic
 impact to the surrounding area at that point for on-site batch plants we'll
 propose that it be changed back to permitted by you or permitted by right
 with the use specific standards this is what that change would look like the the
 table with the SSMPs and the DDC that you've seen all of the S pluses for
 temporary batch plants would be changed to a P plus in that table and then when
 you went to the use specific standards that are cross-referenced there you
 would see the additional text here in red so there would be a subsection six
 that requires additional approval for off-site temporary batch plants and that
 would be that SUP requirement that I mentioned staff is recommending
 approval and I'm happy to stand for any questions
 Haley I don't see any questions at this time it is a public hearing though
 anyone wishing to speak on this matter can certainly do so is anyone wishing to
 speak on this item seeing none I will close the public hearing
 Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a motion for approval
 Commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion
 seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries five zero the next
 item of business is item 5 cv 19 - 0 0 0 3 I'll open the public hearing and
 invite back Haley's your ski for presentation
 good evening again this is the first of three items related to the Denton County
 Emergency Operations Center the request before you is to hold a public hearing
 and consider approval of variances from the 2002 DDC specifically the
 transportation standards and subchapter 20 the subject property is located at
 the intersection of Karina and Kimberly Street the requested variances relate to
 right-of-way dedication and sidewalk construction along Kimberly Drive this
 as I mentioned was reviewed reviewed under the 2002 DDC there is a preliminary
 plant in ADP also on your agenda this evening the site is just over five acres
 a little bit of history it was originally preliminary planted in 2009 it
 was intended to be developed as to commercial lot similar to how the other
 lots along 288 have developed with fast food grocery stores typical commercial
 uses that development never occurred so this is now an infill parcel where
 development surrounds it on all sides a little additional information here
 Karina and Kimberly are both designated as collectors on a mobility plan those
 are the black dotted lines that you see on the map those designations end at
 this intersection however beyond this point Karina dead ends into FEMA's
 driveway and then south of Karina Street Kimberly currently has 24 and a half feet
 of pavement width 35 foot of right-of-way that was dedicated to the
 city when the FEMA office building was developed in 2003 in 2008 a plaque came
 in for a property just south of here for the Spencer Manor senior community at
 that time additional right-of-way was not requested for Kimberly Street to
 continue southward because it was not a mobility plan roadway so that at that
 time assured that Kimberly would not be continuing south in 2009 when that
 Spencer edition preliminary plaque came in the P&Z approved a variance at that
 time to allow Kimberly to remain as a cul-de-sac the variance was needed
 because the length of the cul-de-sac exceeding 150 feet Denton County is
 requesting at this time because that development never occurred and those
 applications have since expired that they be allowed to leave Kimberly Drive
 as it is today with no additional right-of-way paving or sidewalk this is
 just a look at the preliminary plaque that's on the consent agenda this
 evening that plaque cannot be approved without these variances so the variances
 are related to three specific code provisions and 35 20 2 there's two
 requirements speaking to right-of-way dedication the first requires the public
 right-of-way be dedicated for all streets that serve more than three
 residential lots or any commercial or industrial lot that right-of-way width
 is specified in the criteria manual if this road were to continue south at its
 current street section north of Karina that would require 65 feet of right-of-way
 width so 30 additional feet from this development and then 35 20 dot 2 L 1
 just reiterates that requirement that whenever there's an existing street
 adjacent to a property that's of inadequate width that additional
 right-of-way be dedicated at that time Denton County again is requesting for no
 additional right-of-way dedication on Kimberly maintaining the current street
 width at 24 and a half feet providing a barricade just south of their driveway to
 indicate that the road will not continue south and turnaround movements could be
 accommodated in their driveway that they're proposing staff is further
 recommending that the existing paving be removed all the utilities and right-of-way
 would be maintained in place as they are today but that paving would be removed to
 assure that if those at barricades were ever moved people didn't traverse down a
 600 foot roadway and have no means of turnaround and then finally related to
 the sidewalks 35 20 2 3 B requires that sidewalk be provided within a dedicated
 right-of-way or easement in this case that would be a five-foot sidewalk and
 Denton County is requesting to not construct that on Kimberly there's a
 look at their site plan north is oriented towards the left side of the
 screen here the area in orange is the existing right-of-way and paving for
 Kimberly that would remain as is up to this point where that barricade is
 circled in red the shaded area would be where our city engineering staff has
 requested that paving be removed just to eliminate the possibility of people
 getting down there and not having a way of turning around this area circled in
 blue indicates that enlarged driveway that not only accommodates the emergency
 vehicles from this facility but also turnaround movements if someone did
 travel down Kimberly and need to get back out without reversing the entire
 distance the area in purple is that where that sidewalk would normally be
 required again that'd be five feet in width in this case they're requesting to
 not construct that sidewalk I'll go through the criteria for approval for
 the subdivision variance the first being whether it's detrimental to public
 safety health or welfare or injurious to other properties this not being a
 mobility plan roadway there was no expectation that it would ever continue
 to the south beyond this property existing development patterns have
 assured that that would not occur the previously approved cul-de-sac as I
 mentioned was never never developed so at this time those applications have
 expired and we have to seek a new variance of some sort for this roadway
 Kimberly south of Karina is currently serving as essentially a driveway for
 the FEMA offices and this parcel of land and with what they've proposed there
 would be no changes that would affect FEMA as their driveways are all north
 of where the paving would be removed there would be no injurious effect to
 them with this development second being that the request for the variance be
 based upon some feature unique to the property again as I mentioned this is an
 infill development site they're surrounded by development there's not a
 whole lot of options for them in terms of acquiring more property to to have
 adequate width to dedicate that right-of-way Kimberly south of Karina as
 I mentioned is functioning as a driveway so this would not be a change to that
 and the conditions surrounding Kimberly are fairly unique as we looked at the
 platting history here and how over time plat's assured that this road would never
 emute never go further south the third criteria is whether there are particular
 physical surroundings shape or topography features that would create a
 particular hardship for the owner if the code were enforced strictly in this case
 it creates a safety concern for Denton County this is an emergency operation
 facility where they would have large fire trucks and other emergency vehicles
 exiting to respond to emergencies they are seeking to discourage pedestrian and
 vehicular activity on Kimberly and keep the road at its current width to
 discourage people from parking on it if you look just north of their North of
 Karina Street rather it's parking all up and down Kimberly they're looking to
 avoid that here so that there's adequate maneuverability space for their vehicles
 and further to discourage pedestrians from wandering down here and potentially
 being in the way of those vehicles when they need to exit the facility and if
 the road were required to be improved they would still have to seek a variance
 because of the length of that roadway exceeding 150 feet without a turnaround
 finally rather the variance will in any manner vary from the provisions of our
 comprehensive plan as I mentioned the collector Street designation ends at
 Kimberly this is simply a local street and it's functioning as a driveway so
 there would be no variation from the plan and rather there's peculiar
 conditions that resulted from the actions of the owner in this case Denton
 County is a relatively new owner of the property the conditions associated with
 this were not in any way created by them they've evolved over the last couple of
 decades as development occurred our traffic engineering division has no
 objection to this proposed variance staff is recommending approval with the
 condition that the paving south of that barricade be removed and I'm happy to
 stand for any questions thank you we do have one question mr. Beck yes thank you
 it can you flip back to I think it's seven the plan there you go so that front
 area up to the north is the new public area public parking area for that small
 piece of Kimberly do you need a little sidewalk there or we're able to get
 around regulations for like whatever five or six feet of sidewalk because
 that's a public parking area yes that area there they do have internal
 sidewalks that would get people either to the building or up on the opposite
 side of the property you can see here they are providing sidewalk connection to
 the Karina Street sidewalk so there's there's still pedestrian pathways okay
 thank you very much thank you Haley that's the only questions I see here
 this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on this matter can certainly do
 so seeing none I'll close the public hearing
 mr. Smith make a motion to approve with staff recommendations we have a first
 mr. Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing
 none I'll call for a vote on the board before I do you did say with conditions
 okay thank you call for a vote on the board motion carries five zero that
 concludes the public hearing items for this evening we will now go back in the
 agenda to the consent the chair will entertain a discussion or motion on the
 consent agenda coaster Smith make a motion to approve the consent agenda we
 have a first for approval mr. Ellis second we have a first and a second for
 approval of the consent agenda any discussion seeing none I'll call for a
 vote on the board
 motion carries five zero the next item of business moves us into individual
 consideration items we start with 4 a NP 19 - 17 I'll invite Mark Laird for
 presentation
 good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a player with the plan department this
 evening I have for your review and consideration honor plaid paralysis
 addition case number MP 19 - 0 0 1 7 staff is recommending to now of the
 plat based on the step the details presented in the staff report I stand
 for any questions you may have appreciate that mark any questions this
 is not a public hearing but if anyone's wishing to speak on this we can
 certainly hear them this evening okay seen none the chair will oh Christian
 Smith I make a motion to deny we have a motion for denial
 Christian Cole second we have a first and a second for denial any discussion
 seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board
 motion carries five zero the next item of business is item 4 B PP 19 -
 27 I'll invite Haley Zygursky for presentation
 all right good evening this is a preliminary plat for the Elm Street
 townhomes located at the corner of sycamore and Elm Street this is the
 preliminary plat again it's intended for townhome development in two phases at
 this time staff is recommending denial of the preliminary plat for the reasons
 that are detailed in your staff report however the applicant has requested a
 one-time 30-day extension that would take them to the February 5th 2020 agenda
 to allow them time to resolve the staff comments and I can stand for any
 questions thanks Haley I don't see any like previous item this is not a public
 hearing but certainly open to hearing one who wants to speak on the item okay
 seeing none we can turn to a discussion or a motion
 Christian Smith make a motion to extend the extension make a motion to give the
 extension for 30 days how should this motion be approved the approved you
 thank you legal make a motion to approve the extension for 30 days to February
 5th 2020 okay we have a motion to postpone till February 5th 2020
 commissioner Cole second we have a first and second for the postponement any
 discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board
 motion carries five zero next item for business is 4c pp 19 - 35 B I'll invite
 Cindy Jackson for presentation
 thank you this is a request for approval of pp 1935 a preliminary plot for the
 excuse me Stuart Ridge subdivision the applicant
 requested a 30-day extension last month which was approved we have not received
 anything back from the applicant since that approval of the extension the plot
 does not comply with our standards as noted in your backup and staff is
 recommending denial the applicant is president if you have questions of him
 thank you I don't see any other quite I don't see questions besides with the new
 rules is a second 30-day extension an option is that possible or is it just a
 one-time 30-day there's just one 30-day extension okay so the only option we
 have this point is to recommend denial yes that's correct but the applicant can
 come back anytime with the plaque that complies with the the required standards
 for your consideration great thank you I don't see any questions if the
 applicants wanted to speak we can certainly listen if not okay so with that
 mr. Christian Beck motion to deny we have a motion to deny Commissioner Smith
 second we have a first and a second for denial any discussion seeing none I'll
 call for a vote on the board the motion to deny carries at 5-0 the next item for
 business is item 4d FP 19 - 31 and I'll invite Haley Zygursky back for
 presentation
 good evening this is a final plot for the Northgate addition it's located at
 the intersection of Sherman and loop 288 this is the final plan it features six
 lots intended for commercial development at this time staff is
 recommending denial of the final plan for the reasons that are outlined in
 your staff report the applicant has requested a 30-day extension which would
 put it on the February 5th 2020 agenda and I'm happy to answer any questions
 thanks Haley I don't see any questions if anyone's wishing to speak certainly
 listen okay Christian Smith make a motion to approve 30-day extension we
 have a first for approval of 30-day extension to February 5th 2020 meeting
 Christian Cole second we have a first and a second for the extension of the
 postponement to February 5th any discussion seeing none I'll call for a
 vote on the board motion carries 5-0 next item business is item 4d FP 19 - 33
 I'll give a minute for Christian Cole to step away and I'll invite city Jackson
 for presentation
 thank you chairman this is the plaque for a lot to block a of the Fisher 59
 edition the staff is recommending denial of this request based upon those reasons
 detailed in your staff report the applicant however is requesting a 30-day
 extension to the February 5th planning and zoning Commission meeting to give
 them the opportunity to comply with all requirements thank you Cindy I don't see
 any questions I appreciate the presentation is anyone in attendance
 wanting to speak on this item see none I'll turn to the day is for a discussion
 or motion Christian Smith motion to approve a 30-day extension we have a
 first for postponement Christian Ellis second we have a first and a second to
 postpone to this February 5th 2020 meeting any discussion seeing none I'll
 call for a vote on the board
 motion carries 4-0 with one recuse next on a business is item 4f 80p 19 - 11 on
 by Julie white for presentation
 good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am
 presenting 80 p 19 11 Haven at Doherty the request is for an alternative
 development plan for a multifamily development on about 8.87 acres the
 subject property is located on the north side of Doherty just west of Johnson
 Street it has a zoning of MN but due to this project timing it is being reviewed
 under the 2002 code which is the code that has the ADP process in it so the as
 I said the request is for a multifamily development apart from the deviations
 that they have requested they do meet all other sub chapter 13 requirements
 and sub chapter 13 was that is the the chapter that that goes over the site
 design requirements things like building orientation where parking parking lots
 can be located and those sorts of considerations so there are two two
 deviations they're requesting the first is that at least fifty percent of the
 front yard frontage shall have buildings within 20 feet of the front property line
 or within 30 feet of a curb of a private street the subject property has 546 feet
 linear feet of frontage along Doherty Street in order to meet this requirement
 that would require 270 linear 273 linear feet of buildings within 20 feet of that
 front property line as they're proposing they're they're proposing about 227 feet
 of structure located between 17 19 and 41 feet of the front property line the
 section the second deviation is for the private street system the projects over
 three acres require a private street system or public street system within the
 development it has specific design guidelines one of those is a landscape
 area between between the curb of the parking lot and the sidewalk they're
 requesting a deviation that that sidewalk be moved closer to that curb to
 allow a landing area for residents so first we'll look at the the buildings
 near the the front property line this is the the orientation toward Doherty Street
 the the squares are in or the boxes are in the blue and those are the buildings
 and then and then here is that front property they are proposing those three
 buildings which would be about 227 feet of structure located between 19 and 41
 feet from the property line the intent of this code requirement is to enclose
 that that street to push the parking away from the street and to just provide
 more activity toward the right of way the 2002 code really relied on structures
 in order to meet this requirement but it could be it could be met with with lots
 of different elements in this case there they have the street trees that are
 defining that street edge enclosing that street providing a more comfortable path
 for pedestrians along Doherty Street so they do meet that intent of that
 requirement the second deviation that they're asking for is for the design of
 the public the private street system the intent of this requirement is to provide
 legibility so that residents can move to the side and have clear pathways for
 vehicles and pedestrians they do provide that that system however they are asking
 for a deviation and that is to move that sidewalk closer to the curb so so
 residents can exit their cars and have a more easy pedestrian pathway the
 criteria for approval in sub chapter 13 of the 2002 Dent development code first
 is it preserve existing neighborhoods this is in a redeveloping area and so
 the the proposal is consistent with the types of development we want to see in
 this area and that is that are emerging this is kind of needed density near our
 downtown areas a sure quality development this isn't intended to lower the
 standards but just they're meeting all other sub chapter 13 requirements but
 just to allow that the site to flow better and to work better to focus new
 development and activity centers this is urban infill so it's not contributing to
 sprawl there is existing infrastructure that can accommodate the development in
 the area in fact it's near transit so it's in a really good location for this
 type of use and that the results it results in a high quality development
 meeting the intent of the standards first for that that front yard frontage
 the intent as I said was to enclose that space create vibrancy and pedestrian
 comfort those street trees along there will meet the intent of that code
 requirement and then the design of the private street system we want to make
 sure that there are clear pathways for vehicles and pedestrians they do provide
 that they've just kind of modified the design to make sure that it's more
 comfortable for residents to use so based upon the criteria for approval
 staff does recommend approval and I'll stand for any questions thank you Julie
 I don't see any questions this is not a public hearing but is individual
 considerations so if there's anyone wanting to speak on the item we can
 certainly hear that okay if not chair will listen to any discussion or motion
 coaster Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval
 commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any
 discussion seeing none I'll call for voting the board
 motion carries for one next item of business is item 4g ADP 19 - 8 and I'll
 invite Haley Zygursky for presentation
 good evening again this is the last of the three items related to the Denton
 County Emergency Operations Center the request is for an alternative
 development plan for the property which is located at again at the corner of
 Karina and Kimberly there are several components to this request related to
 multiple aspects of sub chapter 13 of our 2002 DDC that includes parking in
 front of the building parking lot screening and landscaping requirements
 and as well as our tree canopy and street tree requirements looking at
 those in a little more detail the code required that parking be to the side or
 rear of a building unless it was located along an arterial in this case it
 Karina is a collector Street and they're requesting visitor parking for 30
 vehicles to be located along Karina the second request is related to tree
 canopy in the ECC district which this was zoned in 2002 it did have a
 requirement for 30% tree canopy on the overall site they are planting 64 trees
 on site which would get them to just over 20% tree canopy the third request
 is with regard to street tree locations the code required street trees at a rate
 of one tree for every 45 linear feet to be located between the sidewalk and the
 street for both of their street frontages that would total 18 trees they
 are providing those trees on site in alternative locations due to existing
 utilities that are located along the right of way of both streets the fourth
 request is with regard to canopy coverage and parking lots the code
 required all parking lots to have 15% canopy coverage the northern lot for
 visitors would have 54% canopy coverage but the there is an eastern parking lot
 for secure employee and equipment parking that would have 0% canopy
 coverage and then finally with regards to landscaping screening when you do
 have front parking the code requires a specific combination of landscape
 elements a 15 foot wide area with a landscape berm one large tree for every
 40 linear feet and then either zero escaping 3 feet high evergreen shrubs or
 a 3 foot high wall in this case due to utilities and drainage they have pushed
 the parking back they would have an approximately 50 foot wide landscape
 area that would feature a 5 foot wide planting bed directly behind the parking
 or in front of the parking lot that would have evergreen shrubs and trees
 spaced approximately every 43 linear feet and there is a natural slope to
 this area of about 7 feet increase from the sidewalk to the parking lot that
 would provide a similar effect as the berm would have so this is a look at all
 of those elements combined on their landscape plan the area in orange is
 that front parking lot so again north is to the left side of the screen this
 would be approximately 30 spaces for visitors to the facility the area in red
 is that secure employee lot there would be gates on either of these driveways
 the intent of not having landscaping within this parking lot is one for
 security purposes and then second for maneuverability these this is the
 backside of those five vehicle bays so they they do need increased
 maneuverability and access for large equipment through this lot the dark
 green circles show the alternative location of those 18 street trees along
 Karina they were pushed back out of the way of utilities and drainage features
 that will go here and then other trees were located to the east and south side
 to the property and then again this light green area shows that 50-foot
 wide area where they are providing trees and shrubs and there is a natural
 increase in elevation that functions similar to how that berm would have to
 provide a visual separation from the street or sidewalk to the parking lot
 this is a look at that building um so this would be the view from Karina
 Street and then this is the side that fronts Kimberly so again you can see
 those five large vehicle bays that necessitate the need for that more open
 design for the employee parking lot as well as the need for that wider driveway
 that we looked at earlier again we'll run through the criteria for approval of
 an ADP the first being preservation of existing neighborhoods this is a county
 facility there there are multiple other county facilities in this area as well
 as the FEMA facility so it's in line with the uses that have developed here
 most of the developments in this area especially those along the loop do have
 front parking so this wouldn't be inconsistent with site design in the
 area and the site does have 0% canopy coverage today there are no trees on
 site so the the landscaping that they are proposing would be a substantial
 improvement although it doesn't hit the mark at 30 percent that the code
 requires second rather it assures quality development that fits with the
 character as I mentioned this is an infill site it is consistent with the
 development pattern of this area and apart from the requested deviations they
 are meeting all other requirements of the code the third criteria is rather it
 focuses new development to activity centers to curb strip development it does
 that with this being an infill site it expands the county's kind of complex of
 facilities that they've put along loop 288 and it is infilling a site within
 our city limits rather than sprawling towards the outer edges of the city
 fourth rather the there's infrastructure can capable of accommodating the
 development Karina Street that will have the minor improvements of a sidewalk
 being added there other than that is adequate for this Kimberly as we looked
 at earlier with the variance is adequate to serve the two facilities that it that
 it serves as a driveway for and then there are existing water and sewer
 utilities available and finally rather the developers alternative proposal
 would result in a high quality development that meets the intent of the
 design standards in sub chapter 13 with regards to front parking the request is
 simply intended for security purposes to separate guests from the employees and
 the large equipment with regards to the site and parking lot tree canopy
 requirements the request is providing a substantial increase from conditions
 today but it does allow them to to facilitate a secure employee lot and an
 equipment lot for the the items that are required at an emergency operation
 center with respect to street trees they're providing the required number of
 trees simply in alternative locations to avoid conflicts with utilities and
 easements and then with regard to parking lot screening again they're
 providing a layer area much larger than what would be required by the code it
 does have trees and shrubs not exactly at the ratio required by the code but
 as many as they could fit in the area and there is a natural elevation there
 that reduces visibility from the sidewalk so staff is recommending of the
 request approval of the request and I can stand for any questions thank you
 Haley I don't see any questions at this time if anyone's wishing to speak on
 this item we'll certainly listen okay with that chair will entertain any
 discussion or motion on the item commissioner Ellis I move approval we
 have a first for approval Commissioner Smith second we have a first and a
 second for approval any discussion seeing none I'll call for vote on the
 board motion carries 5-0 next item of business is item 4H ADP 19 - 7 and Julie
 Wyatt is here to present good evening this is ADP 18-7 Oxford at Sherman the
 request is for an alternative development plan for a multifamily
 development on 12 acres the site is situated between loop 288 and poinsettia
 and the south I'm sorry in the northeast part of town it has a current 2019
 zoning is SC the previous zoning was CMG due to the project timing it is being
 reviewed under the 2002 code which is why it's going forward with this ADP
 um so this may look familiar it was a specific use permit it came before the
 planning and zoning Commission in December and then went forward to City
 Council and was approved by City Council the site plan landscape plan and
 elevations were approved by City Council late last year they are requesting two
 deviations from the the sub chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code the 2002
 code this this ADP is actually part of the of the requirement the ordinance one
 of the conditions of that ordinance that they come forward with this so they're
 they're meeting that requirement of that ordinance but the first one was that
 accessory structures such as carports cannot be located along the public
 right-of-way so between those primary structures the residential structures in
 the right-of-way they're proposing a single-story garages along poinsettia
 that's in order to push those residential structures further away from
 those existing neighborhoods the second requirement is for that the design of
 that public street system much like the previous ADP that they are requesting
 that deviation to allow that landscaping behind that sidewalk here is the site
 plan that you saw in December the the purple boxes show where those
 residential buildings on the south side of the property will be located and then
 the yellow boxes are those garages they are located along the right-of-way they
 are those one-story garages that provide that buffer area along the street and
 then the the arrows in green that's that private street and we'll sit down the
 next slide we'll see how that is that design deviates from the requirements so
 sub chapter 13 requires that between the curb of the parking lot and the sidewalk
 there should be a landscape area the applicant is is requesting a deviation
 to allow that sidewalk along that curb line of the of this of the parking lot
 in order to provide that landing area for residents as they exit their cars
 then that that landscape area would be provided between that sidewalk and the
 building the criteria for approval are in sub chapter 13 preserve existing
 neighborhoods is the first this is a multifamily development in a
 transition area between loop 280 and existing residential so it provides a
 buffer between the high activity of loop 288 in the existing neighborhoods assure
 quality development this intent is not to lower design standards but would
 facilitate the development of the site and in particular some of those design
 interventions that that assist in the in the mitigation of any potential
 nuisances particularly visual for for this site so it is these are design
 elements that are important to that specific use permit and once again it
 did go the through the additional scrutiny of that SUP and has been
 approved by council focus new development activity centers this is a
 mixed-use area so it's not encouraging that strip development and it is a
 logical continuation of the existing development pattern there is necessary
 infrastructure in place in the area will be constructed as a result of the
 development and does the does the project result in a high quality
 development meeting the intent of the standards the garage the intent to not
 put the garages next to the street is to to minimize any visual impacts of those
 garages and to move those buildings the primary structures closer to the street
 in this location and in this instance it makes sense to put the garages in this
 location there one story they have a residential design with pitched roofs
 the the garage doors are facing inwards so that those visual impacts wouldn't
 be there for the garage doors but it does allow that buffer area along the
 right-of-way furthermore City Council did require a masonry wall along
 poinsettia so it does add that additional screening for those garages
 for the private street design the antennas provide those clear pathways
 for residents they are meeting that they are providing those pathways they're
 just asking for a deviation in the land in the design to provide that landing
 area for residents so based upon the criteria for approval staff does
 recommend approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions thanks Julie
 I don't see any questions thanks if anyone's wishing to speak on item 4H
 certainly listen if not and seeing none I will turn to Commissioner Smith move to
 approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a
 second for approval so we have a first and second for approval of item 4H any
 discussion seeing none I call for a vote on the board motion carries 5-0 next
 item of business is item 4I ZCP 19-5 I'll invite Haley Zygursky for
 presentation
 good evening this is a request for a site plan within the razor ranch overlay
 district the use would be multifamily the property is outlined in yellow on
 the map it's located on the north side of Crescent Street east of East Park
 Boulevard it is just over 11 acres in size with regards to the property
 dimensions the the site plans that you have before you show a property that
 combines all of lot 4 block a of the razor ranch east edition with a very
 small portion approximately 0.05 acres of lot 5 block a and that that was
 intended to allow them to reach the 333 dwelling units that they desired and
 stay within the 30 dwelling unit per acre maximum of the base zoning district so
 staff is recommending a condition of approval on this item and that be that
 an amending final plat to increase the size of lot 4 block a to the 11.1 acres
 shown here be approved prior to or be filed prior to the issuance of a
 building permit just a little background for those of you who may not have seen a
 razor ranch site plan the overlay district requires the site plans go
 through the planning and zoning Commission rather than being approved by
 staff the site plans are required by the overlay district to contain a site plan
 landscape plan and building elevations the overlay district provides four
 criteria for approval that the plans substantially comply with the concept or
 schematic plan approved by the City Council that the plan provide for a
 compatible arrangement of buildings and uses that wouldn't adversely affect
 adjoining neighborhoods and properties that the site plan provide for adequate
 and safe vehicular circulation and that the plan comply with all other
 requirements of the overlay district so looking at the the concept or schematic
 plan for razor ranch this area is part of what's known as the south mixed use
 district of the overlay that's an area intended for residential and office type
 uses primarily the base zoning is an RMU district from the 2002 code so
 multifamily is a permitted use here if you remember last year development
 standards for architecture and landscaping were adopted for this
 district those are housed in exhibit C2A of the overlay so looking at the site
 plan there are three driveway entrances the primary entrance being on East Park
 Boulevard again in this case north is oriented towards the left side of your
 screen so East Park would have the main entrance and then there would be
 secondary entrances and exits onto Crescent Street and then on to a private
 driveway that's north of the property the areas in blue are these seven
 buildings that are proposed total of a hundred and thirty three thousand one
 hundred and ninety three square feet there are three hundred and thirty three
 dwelling units within these seven buildings the area in purple shows the
 primary location for on-site amenities that will include a pool cabanas
 outdoor community spaces as well as grills the site is well within the lot
 coverage and open space requirements of the district it the buildings are within
 the maximum height of 65 feet and they are providing 532 parking spaces some of
 you may remember within razor ranch they have to meet the city's minimum for
 parking but they can go above and beyond without having to do any additional
 items like seeking an ADP like other sites would have so they they're within
 that requirement as well this is the landscape plan as you can see in the
 table it does meet all of the minimum requirements for landscape and tree
 canopy as well as street trees two of the features I wanted to point out to
 you all are the the buffer that's shown here in light green adjoining property
 to the west is intended for single-family development so a ten foot
 wide buffer was required and has been provided on this plan and then the areas
 in orange are the enhanced landscape features that they're providing at the
 entry to really frame that main driveway as you drive up to towards the
 policing center this is a colored rendering that was provided by the
 architect to give you a better idea of how the landscaping is laid out
 throughout this area and again you can see the primary amenity center here in
 the center of the development so the there I'll walk through briefly the
 building elevations this is building one and two so these would be the two L
 shaped buildings along East Park this would be the East Park side of the
 buildings this is the side that would be viewed from either Crescent or that
 northern private driveway the buildings are proposed with brick and stone veneer
 as well as fiber cement siding those are all materials permitted in the overlay
 district that meets the neutral color palette requirement the razor overlay
 seeks to have a consistent theming of earth tone and gray tones throughout so
 they meet that and they also meet the minimum window and door requirements the
 overlay requires 20% windows and doors on all street sides 10% on all others
 their minimums are at 23% and 13% respectively these are the the back to L
 shape building so this would be along a private drive and as well as this side
 you would see from Crescent Street so again with the consistent theming of
 colors and materials this is buildings the internal building so these would be
 inside around the pool area again continuing the architectural theme I've
 also provided here as a snapshot of what the garages would look like there are
 garages along the private driveway so the backside of those would be what's
 visible from those future single-family homes all the garage doors would face
 inward and this is building five which would really be that main central focus
 as you drive into the side off of East Park Boulevard you would see the leasing
 office with an increased amount of glass there to provide for that open space and
 this would be framed on either side by those enhanced landscaping areas that I
 showed earlier staff is recommending approval of the request with the
 condition again that the end amending final plot to increase the size of lot
 four block a of the razor range east edition to 11.1 acres be approved and
 filed with Denton County prior to building permit issuance I'm happy to
 stand for any questions thank you very much Haley there is no questions like
 the other items if anyone's wishing to speak on this we'll certainly listen
 Krister Smith move to approve with staff conditions we have a first with the
 conditions commissioner Cole second we have a second with the conditions with
 the first and a second seeing no discussion call for vote on the board
 motion carries five zero continuing back into the order of the agenda we've
 already done five public hearings and so we will now jump back to item six our
 concluding item which is the PNC matrix I will turn the floor to Richard for an
 update and then open to questions or comments with respect to excuse me with
 respect to the obviously we had the notification discussion we still have
 the original work session item that was scheduled for the city initiated
 rezoning's we've sort of moved that will be coming back we're also in the
 process of holistically bringing I know we've been bringing a number of
 amendments to the DDC sort of updates we're now looking at just doing sort of
 a holistic maybe maybe bringing a chapter or the whole DDC at once to make
 some of those those minor adjustments or corrections the the only other items I
 wanted to update is just council actions on on the items that were before the
 Commission on 1217 the PD was approved for Ryan way if you recall there was a
 discussion regarding the alignment what was ultimately approved one was the open
 space area there was the council had required that or condition the approval
 that those be in a conservation easement that was that was essentially proffered
 or discussed by the applicant in addition they agreed to put a an emergency
 access gate at that at the entrance so there there would not be that direct
 connection with the condition that it be built upon a completely improved right
 of way the concern was and council members related to other ones where
 there were a community had was gated as soon as everyone moved in and then
 within a few a year a few years later they were petitioning council to remove
 that that access gate and so the condition was that that right of way be
 be improved as it would be a normal street and then have those gates
 installed the only other the SGP in rezoning was approved for the substation
 and then last night the I'm sorry and the r7 the medical office that was that
 was also approved I'm sorry last night other than that that's all I have great
 anyone have any questions are needing to add anything to the matrix this evening
 all right with that that concludes our agenda for this evening I close the
 meeting at 729

        
Back to Meeting