1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:10,360
 good afternoon and welcome to the planning and zoning commission work

2
00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:16,660
 session for Wednesday January 8th 2020 it is 431 and seeing that we have a

3
00:00:16,660 --> 00:00:20,820
 quorum I'll call this meeting to order let the record show that Commissioner

4
00:00:20,820 --> 00:00:25,080
 Anderson and Commissioner Pernetta are absent at this time a little bit of

5
00:00:25,080 --> 00:00:29,720
 clarification on the agenda we'll get into in a little bit but just to give

6
00:00:29,720 --> 00:00:36,020
 you a heads up we're gonna reorder some things so here's what we're doing I'll

7
00:00:36,020 --> 00:00:39,800
 go back over it once you get the work session reports done but since we're

8
00:00:39,800 --> 00:00:47,160
 here consent agenda item 3b and individual consideration item 4g are

9
00:00:47,160 --> 00:00:53,880
 dependent on a passing vote of item 5c so rather than pulling those two items

10
00:00:53,880 --> 00:00:57,560
 from consent and individual and taking those out of order after the public

11
00:00:57,560 --> 00:01:00,800
 hearing we're just gonna go public hearing first this evening so we'll go

12
00:01:00,800 --> 00:01:09,360
 5b 5c to start the meeting and chambers then we're going to come back to the

13
00:01:09,360 --> 00:01:13,120
 consent and then we'll do the individuals so this evening will

14
00:01:13,120 --> 00:01:16,640
 actually end on the individual consideration going into the matrix so

15
00:01:16,640 --> 00:01:19,760
 we're just flipping the two public hearings to the front just for the sake

16
00:01:19,760 --> 00:01:25,180
 of how those are stacked for the approvals and then we can we'll go

17
00:01:25,180 --> 00:01:29,520
 through that again when we go through item 2 on the work session but to begin

18
00:01:29,520 --> 00:01:39,680
 this evening what you good mr. Smith's cause of problems to begin the evening

19
00:01:39,680 --> 00:01:45,360
 we will go through a report and discussion on the city's extra

20
00:01:45,360 --> 00:02:01,760
 territorial jurisdiction and I think Haley has presentation to begin so this

21
00:02:01,760 --> 00:02:05,080
 is a little out of the ordinary you wouldn't typically have kind of an

22
00:02:05,080 --> 00:02:09,480
 advanced presentation like this on a project but because it is unique and we

23
00:02:09,480 --> 00:02:13,800
 did talk to the City Council about this project yesterday we wanted to bring it

24
00:02:13,800 --> 00:02:18,180
 before you all as well and just give you a heads up of a potential annexation

25
00:02:18,180 --> 00:02:24,200
 zoning and plot that will be coming your way in the very near future so I will do

26
00:02:24,200 --> 00:02:27,560
 just a very brief overview of the project and then the development team is

27
00:02:27,560 --> 00:02:30,920
 actually here to present in a little more detail on what their proposal will

28
00:02:30,920 --> 00:02:36,800
 be so the project that we'll be looking at is called sagebrook it is located as

29
00:02:36,800 --> 00:02:41,440
 I mentioned primarily in our ETJ it is outlined in yellow here the entire

30
00:02:41,440 --> 00:02:46,360
 property it's about 146 acres located on the south side of all Red Road the very

31
00:02:46,360 --> 00:02:51,480
 south terminus of Bonnie Bray and also but the railroad tracks along Fort Worth

32
00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:57,400
 Drive about 135 acres of the property are in the ETJ they're not covered by a

33
00:02:57,400 --> 00:03:02,440
 non annexation agreement unlike a lot of our ETJ is and then there are about 10

34
00:03:02,440 --> 00:03:05,920
 acres of the property that are inside the city limits that were part of a

35
00:03:05,920 --> 00:03:10,160
 strip annexation many years ago when the city was annexing property down Fort

36
00:03:10,160 --> 00:03:15,820
 Worth Drive currently on the property it's primarily an agricultural use there

37
00:03:15,820 --> 00:03:19,320
 was a single-family home that you can see here on the aerial and then there

38
00:03:19,320 --> 00:03:23,040
 was a gas well on this property at one point in time in anticipation of this

39
00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:28,680
 development that well has been plugged the the 10 acres that are in the city

40
00:03:28,680 --> 00:03:34,600
 limits are currently zoned r6 the future land use for this area is split the

41
00:03:34,600 --> 00:03:37,320
 portions that are closest to Bonnie Bray and Fort Worth Drive or neighborhood

42
00:03:37,320 --> 00:03:42,200
 mixed use so a little bit more intensive higher density multi-family type uses

43
00:03:42,200 --> 00:03:46,680
 would be typical there or neighborhood services so some light commercial uses

44
00:03:46,680 --> 00:03:52,720
 and then the remainder of the property is designated as a rural area so the

45
00:03:52,720 --> 00:03:56,800
 I'll let the development team go into this more but this is an overview of

46
00:03:56,800 --> 00:04:01,080
 what their proposal would be approximately 491 single-family homes at

47
00:04:01,080 --> 00:04:06,080
 a density of about 3.36 units per acre the lots are designed to have a minimum

48
00:04:06,080 --> 00:04:10,000
 square footage of 6,000 square feet and meet the r6 standards if that are six

49
00:04:10,000 --> 00:04:15,600
 were to just extend across the entirety of the property some of the benefits

50
00:04:15,600 --> 00:04:18,640
 that the city could see from this project annexing and developing in the

51
00:04:18,640 --> 00:04:23,040
 city as opposed to the ETJ would be right-of-way dedication for the future

52
00:04:23,040 --> 00:04:26,960
 extension of brush Creek that is a an arterial on our mobility plan that's

53
00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:30,800
 designated to go across this property they would construct two lanes of that

54
00:04:30,800 --> 00:04:34,600
 road as part of this development there are also in negotiations with the

55
00:04:34,600 --> 00:04:38,480
 railroad to eliminate the currently rather unsafe crossing here at Bonnie

56
00:04:38,480 --> 00:04:42,400
 Bray and relocate that crossing down here to brush Creek once it exists once

57
00:04:42,400 --> 00:04:46,720
 that is extended as I mentioned the gas well was plugged that's to be located

58
00:04:46,720 --> 00:04:51,320
 here on an HOA lot so that nothing would be built over top of the well and then in

59
00:04:51,320 --> 00:04:55,680
 addition there's about a little over 14 acres of land down here about 14 acres

60
00:04:55,680 --> 00:05:00,280
 our floodplain they would be looking to dedicate that to the city as a as a park

61
00:05:00,280 --> 00:05:03,600
 there would be a trail that you can see in the lightly hatched area that would

62
00:05:03,600 --> 00:05:06,720
 go through this property and then traverse through the central median

63
00:05:06,720 --> 00:05:12,080
 trail through the development up to the city's future Southwest Park chair

64
00:05:12,080 --> 00:05:21,800
 mr. Beck is this development of brush Creek going to be dependent on the

65
00:05:21,800 --> 00:05:25,920
 development of the adjacent property where there's a barn or something in the

66
00:05:25,920 --> 00:05:30,660
 image yeah ultimately brush Creek unless there there's a bond election for the

67
00:05:30,660 --> 00:05:34,040
 road to be constructed all at once through a CFP project it would be

68
00:05:34,040 --> 00:05:37,360
 constructed as development occurs out here but this would be a significant

69
00:05:37,360 --> 00:05:40,840
 portion of the roadway that we could get right of way for if this development

70
00:05:40,840 --> 00:05:44,600
 were to move forward so do we have a little bit of a chicken and an egg I

71
00:05:44,600 --> 00:05:49,520
 mean are we developing the road and anticipate I mean you see my issue is if

72
00:05:49,520 --> 00:05:53,640
 we're gonna if the road needs to develop on out to 35 the way I seem to recall

73
00:05:53,640 --> 00:05:57,440
 the plan being correct I mean do we we have a chicken and egg issue where the

74
00:05:57,440 --> 00:06:01,600
 road needs to be there or the housing neighborhood needs to justify the road

75
00:06:01,600 --> 00:06:06,440
 or I mean I see an order dependency issue well that the brush Creek would be

76
00:06:06,440 --> 00:06:10,100
 their primary access to this property if you've been on all red it's it's a

77
00:06:10,100 --> 00:06:15,400
 gravel road at best so they do need brush Creek for acts for safe access to

78
00:06:15,400 --> 00:06:19,200
 their property to have multiple points of access for emergency services but

79
00:06:19,200 --> 00:06:22,880
 that is the typical order of development that as properties develop mobility plan

80
00:06:22,880 --> 00:06:26,880
 roadways get dedicated and constructed like I said unless the city happens to

81
00:06:26,880 --> 00:06:31,280
 have a bond election for this and and approve a CIP to go in and acquire all

82
00:06:31,280 --> 00:06:34,800
 the right-of-way and build the road in one fell swoop which typically doesn't

83
00:06:34,800 --> 00:06:40,880
 occur okay thank you Haley going off that question a little bit we had the

84
00:06:40,880 --> 00:06:47,360
 presentation last meeting of all red being the road that goes over I-35 and

85
00:06:47,360 --> 00:06:53,160
 to the new ranches this looks like brush Creek is going to intercept that and

86
00:06:53,160 --> 00:06:58,560
 not a mobility plan brush Creek is the kind of new loop that extends eastward

87
00:06:58,560 --> 00:07:03,600
 around the city can you remind me how brush Creek and all red merge here yeah

88
00:07:03,600 --> 00:07:06,880
 and Richard may have a little more knowledge that since Hunter and Cole

89
00:07:06,880 --> 00:07:11,080
 ranch yeah the so the hunter and Cole ranch properties actually just to the

90
00:07:11,080 --> 00:07:15,680
 north because it kind of wraps around on this side so that segment of brush Creek

91
00:07:15,680 --> 00:07:20,640
 will will ultimately connect up to to what is now a portion of already in

92
00:07:20,640 --> 00:07:25,400
 connecting to 35 the the outer loop actually will still connect will not

93
00:07:25,400 --> 00:07:33,600
 connect at brush Creek it will actually connect at vintage I think that would be

94
00:07:33,600 --> 00:07:38,040
 the the next exit to the north for interchange to the north okay so I

95
00:07:38,040 --> 00:07:43,000
 imagine brush Creek and all red will be a T it wouldn't be like a brush Creek

96
00:07:43,000 --> 00:07:47,280
 doesn't turn into all red it just terminates it already correct I think it

97
00:07:47,280 --> 00:07:53,160
 will it'll and it might be that whether or not that becomes brush Creek however

98
00:07:53,160 --> 00:07:57,080
 we name it and then all red just becomes more of a local road really just to get

99
00:07:57,080 --> 00:08:00,520
 to the park and to go north that makes sense

100
00:08:00,520 --> 00:08:05,520
 so the last thing I have before I let them come up and give you a little more

101
00:08:05,520 --> 00:08:09,320
 detail if you happen to watch the council work session you saw that part

102
00:08:09,320 --> 00:08:11,840
 of the discussion was that there were really three options for how this could

103
00:08:11,840 --> 00:08:15,960
 develop it could move forward primarily in the county we could potentially

104
00:08:15,960 --> 00:08:20,120
 enter into a pre annexation development agreement for this property to remain in

105
00:08:20,120 --> 00:08:23,320
 the county that annex in the future or it could go through kind of the standard

106
00:08:23,320 --> 00:08:27,360
 process of annexing and then zoning and then platting as we would normally see

107
00:08:27,360 --> 00:08:30,520
 and the council did provide direction yesterday that they would prefer to see

108
00:08:30,520 --> 00:08:33,920
 this move forward through that standard process to ensure the you know the

109
00:08:33,920 --> 00:08:37,160
 maximum public hearings and transparency through our standard process or what's

110
00:08:37,160 --> 00:08:41,240
 achieved here as this moves forward so I anticipate that that's what you all will

111
00:08:41,240 --> 00:08:44,120
 see once they get through annexation you'll see the future pieces of this

112
00:08:44,120 --> 00:08:49,440
 moving forward but at this time I'd like to invite Randy and Rob up to talk you

113
00:08:49,440 --> 00:08:56,320
 through more of the details of their proposal if I could just quickly add why

114
00:08:56,320 --> 00:09:03,400
 this is on on work session if you recall when when when the Commission got the

115
00:09:03,400 --> 00:09:08,760
 zoning application as a result of the Creekside development agreement there

116
00:09:08,760 --> 00:09:12,920
 are a lot of questions on you know because it was sort of already decided

117
00:09:12,920 --> 00:09:16,800
 and and I think a lot of members felt almost with their back against the wall

118
00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:21,280
 and almost forced to approve it and so really the intent was we weren't sure

119
00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:24,880
 where council was going to go with direction but at least wanted the

120
00:09:24,880 --> 00:09:29,040
 Commission to be advised of what that what it was up front while it was being

121
00:09:29,040 --> 00:09:32,360
 while it was being considered so that's why that's why it was put on the work

122
00:09:32,360 --> 00:09:38,440
 session yes thank you Richard and thank you PNZ for allowing me to be here this

123
00:09:38,440 --> 00:09:43,840
 evening Rob Bettencourt with Zana is also present and I wanted to know you

124
00:09:43,840 --> 00:09:46,800
 have a long agenda and a long night ahead of you so I'm going to try to be

125
00:09:46,800 --> 00:09:51,720
 as quick as possible and chair please feel free to ask questions whenever you

126
00:09:51,720 --> 00:09:59,220
 need to okay so thank you Richard for that summary you know the the we did do

127
00:09:59,220 --> 00:10:02,240
 this presentation yesterday for council to get that direction like Haley

128
00:10:02,240 --> 00:10:08,840
 summarized there and again the Zana and Rob had looked at this property two

129
00:10:08,840 --> 00:10:15,120
 years ago and put it under contract and as of today it stands that the contract

130
00:10:15,120 --> 00:10:20,200
 will expire at the end of April and so we were kind of getting down to the wire

131
00:10:20,200 --> 00:10:25,120
 what process are we going to go through with the city the part of the condition

132
00:10:25,120 --> 00:10:30,180
 of the contract was that it was it was going to be purchased as long as it was

133
00:10:30,180 --> 00:10:34,200
 entitled for its intended use and so that's the reason we came in and had the

134
00:10:34,200 --> 00:10:39,520
 discussion with council and with you today to figure out what how exactly can

135
00:10:39,520 --> 00:10:44,360
 we get about that and that feedback was very helpful and I look forward to

136
00:10:44,360 --> 00:10:49,280
 getting some feedback from the Commission tonight the location of the

137
00:10:49,280 --> 00:10:55,840
 property you know again yes in the ETJ and you know kind of an isolated donut

138
00:10:55,840 --> 00:11:01,080
 area here of ETJ land that would be brought into the city of Denton looking

139
00:11:01,080 --> 00:11:05,160
 at that from an aerial perspective I wanted to also show the dividing line

140
00:11:05,160 --> 00:11:11,200
 between the school districts that separates Argyle ISD from Denton ISD in

141
00:11:11,200 --> 00:11:16,880
 this area and so these three 491 homes their families would go to Denton ISD

142
00:11:16,880 --> 00:11:23,800
 schools and here's a picture of all red currently going out to 35 and so I have

143
00:11:23,800 --> 00:11:28,040
 an alignment schematic that I can show you that a little bit more detail there

144
00:11:28,040 --> 00:11:32,680
 how that looks the circled areas of what Haley mentioned the gas walls plugged

145
00:11:32,680 --> 00:11:39,120
 and the improvements will be removed and we did get approval from Union Pacific

146
00:11:39,120 --> 00:11:43,000
 Railroad to relocate this crossing at Bonnie Bray because it is a challenge

147
00:11:43,000 --> 00:11:48,440
 crossing to this location here at Brush Creek and so all those things over the

148
00:11:48,440 --> 00:11:52,400
 past several months those are things that we've been working through actually

149
00:11:52,400 --> 00:11:56,960
 the past year we've been working on all those this aerial here shows the the 14

150
00:11:56,960 --> 00:12:00,880
 acres of floodplain that's in the southwest corner of the property the

151
00:12:00,880 --> 00:12:06,920
 the property itself is average about 3,000 feet long and then about 2,000 or

152
00:12:06,920 --> 00:12:11,920
 so feet north to south the slope of the land it generally falls down to this

153
00:12:11,920 --> 00:12:16,800
 floodplain and then it makes its way into Lewisville Lake and it's not heavily

154
00:12:16,800 --> 00:12:21,960
 treed the northern half is predominantly Mesquite and the southern areas and

155
00:12:21,960 --> 00:12:26,400
 you'll see on the plan we're preserving the the tree stands in those areas and

156
00:12:26,400 --> 00:12:32,020
 then the floodplain how it matches up with the existing zoning with Hunter

157
00:12:32,020 --> 00:12:37,680
 Cole Ranch the NPC zoning the base is r7 we would be proposing r6 consistent

158
00:12:37,680 --> 00:12:41,840
 with that like Haley was talking about extending the r6 zoning across our

159
00:12:41,840 --> 00:12:48,200
 property and we've talked about doing a plan development zoning when we come

160
00:12:48,200 --> 00:12:52,520
 through at the time of that of the entitlements all right project details

161
00:12:52,520 --> 00:12:57,600
 here's the the land plan Brush Creek would cross right here over the railroad

162
00:12:57,600 --> 00:13:03,080
 and then we make our way through the property what we have done here is a

163
00:13:03,080 --> 00:13:07,520
 lined along the southern portion of the property next to the floodplain so this

164
00:13:07,520 --> 00:13:12,800
 creates 18 acres of green way on this side of the Brush Creek extension and

165
00:13:12,800 --> 00:13:17,600
 I'll talk about that we're proposing to dedicate that to the city for the park

166
00:13:17,600 --> 00:13:22,080
 land dedication requirements and then Brush Creek would continue and all red

167
00:13:22,080 --> 00:13:27,120
 would tee into it at this point Bonnie Bray's intersection would go away so

168
00:13:27,120 --> 00:13:32,560
 Bonnie Bray would stop at this point to end go west onto all red so it's not a

169
00:13:32,560 --> 00:13:38,520
 dead end it's just it would be a 90 degree turn there an entrance here on

170
00:13:38,520 --> 00:13:43,720
 all red and our main entrance is would be on Brush Creek here is there's an

171
00:13:43,720 --> 00:13:46,880
 existing pond in the southeast corner that's a feature we want to preserve

172
00:13:46,880 --> 00:13:51,640
 along with the mature trees in this area and an amenity center with the pool and

173
00:13:51,640 --> 00:13:57,760
 clubhouse the entrance being in this location the north side the developer

174
00:13:57,760 --> 00:14:03,440
 has agreed to put in two lanes of the Brush Creek Street section across the

175
00:14:03,440 --> 00:14:09,080
 frontage per phase as the site develops and the phasing of this basically big

176
00:14:09,080 --> 00:14:14,440
 breaks it up into the quadrants phase one would be down here I think this is

177
00:14:14,440 --> 00:14:19,800
 phase two up here phase three and then phase four so looking at some of the

178
00:14:19,800 --> 00:14:23,980
 other public benefits in regards to open space and a little bit more detail over

179
00:14:23,980 --> 00:14:29,200
 15% of the site is in open space and the features would include the the trail

180
00:14:29,200 --> 00:14:33,680
 that's going to be open to the public to access Southwest Park from the Green

181
00:14:33,680 --> 00:14:40,440
 Belt of along Brush Creek and we would also have trail connections along the

182
00:14:40,440 --> 00:14:47,160
 the common area lots zooming in or showing this the spine this what Haley

183
00:14:47,160 --> 00:14:51,920
 talked about the curvilinear Boulevard effect Street this the property didn't

184
00:14:51,920 --> 00:14:55,840
 have while it had floodplain and some mature trees and we're preserving those

185
00:14:55,840 --> 00:14:59,880
 there wasn't any more significant environmental features that we could

186
00:14:59,880 --> 00:15:04,840
 work around that would make it you know unique and from a design standpoint we

187
00:15:04,840 --> 00:15:08,200
 want to work with what the land is offering us and so here we wanted to

188
00:15:08,200 --> 00:15:15,600
 create a bull a Green Boulevard if you will that allows the public to access

189
00:15:15,600 --> 00:15:21,360
 Southwest Park which is a regional park so to speak by connecting the trail

190
00:15:21,360 --> 00:15:26,360
 system from the Green Belt up through our property into Southwest and we felt

191
00:15:26,360 --> 00:15:33,760
 like an an ex walking experience going through a landscaped environment in the

192
00:15:33,760 --> 00:15:38,960
 middle of the development would be most beneficial would be preferred would be

193
00:15:38,960 --> 00:15:42,720
 something that the residents and the community would enjoy and so this street

194
00:15:42,720 --> 00:15:48,440
 section here shows that the median the minimum width of this meandering median

195
00:15:48,440 --> 00:15:53,880
 is 37 feet and within it is a 10-foot trail like I said that would be in a

196
00:15:53,880 --> 00:16:00,480
 public pedestrian access easement and so the 10-foot trail would come off of

197
00:16:00,480 --> 00:16:05,800
 Brush Creek would cross in a protected area the intersections in order to get

198
00:16:05,800 --> 00:16:13,320
 into the median these this hatching here signifies a raised intersection to act

199
00:16:13,320 --> 00:16:18,920
 as a traffic calming and slowdown traffic and it would also be enhanced

200
00:16:18,920 --> 00:16:23,240
 pavement on that as well and this is enhanced landscaping so having these

201
00:16:23,240 --> 00:16:28,240
 design features at the key intersections also helps protect the

202
00:16:28,240 --> 00:16:34,280
 pedestrian walking ability there as they go through the intersection to get to

203
00:16:34,280 --> 00:16:40,360
 Southwest Park and just a broader picture of what that looks like and I've

204
00:16:40,360 --> 00:16:45,000
 highlighted there in magenta and this would eventually tie into the trails

205
00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:50,040
 being extended from the hunter coal development and I can show you that in a

206
00:16:50,040 --> 00:16:56,240
 future slide I have that and then private space private open space is at

207
00:16:56,240 --> 00:17:00,800
 nine point four acres you've seen the pool we have enhanced landscaping trail

208
00:17:00,800 --> 00:17:08,640
 sorry signage masonry walls and tree preservation the base zoning that we

209
00:17:08,640 --> 00:17:12,800
 would propose is our six it's consistent with the dimensional requirements of our

210
00:17:12,800 --> 00:17:20,680
 six and again our density is three point three six units per acre one of the

211
00:17:20,680 --> 00:17:24,400
 public benefits from an infrastructure standpoint is the extension this hundred

212
00:17:24,400 --> 00:17:29,520
 and twenty foot right away of brush Creek it's about 3,000 feet long that we

213
00:17:29,520 --> 00:17:33,480
 would be dedicating with this development it's about nine point two

214
00:17:33,480 --> 00:17:37,440
 acres and again the two lanes that we would be constructing with this we've

215
00:17:37,440 --> 00:17:46,000
 done a TIA and 10% of the traffic of brush Creek can be attributed to the

216
00:17:46,000 --> 00:17:51,560
 full build out of this development and this is the street section of brush

217
00:17:51,560 --> 00:17:58,200
 Creek that is in the city's on the city's website for the bond program that

218
00:17:58,200 --> 00:18:01,160
 was approved showing what that would look like we would these are the two

219
00:18:01,160 --> 00:18:05,080
 lanes that we would build and in the future the bike lane would come in and

220
00:18:05,080 --> 00:18:11,000
 then the southern portion would also come in and just showing on the I don't

221
00:18:11,000 --> 00:18:14,960
 think this is the thoroughfare plan map but showing the bond program that was

222
00:18:14,960 --> 00:18:21,920
 approved here along the creek and then how this 3,000 feet of road would help

223
00:18:21,920 --> 00:18:26,320
 link together the future extension of brush Creek tie it back into all red and

224
00:18:26,320 --> 00:18:31,280
 getting over to 35 our sites our site is about a quarter mile from the

225
00:18:31,280 --> 00:18:38,480
 intersection with 35 this talking about what I had mentioned briefly already the

226
00:18:38,480 --> 00:18:43,480
 the railroad crossing would be relocated to this location and that's what that

227
00:18:43,480 --> 00:18:46,600
 would look like now there is an agreement for preliminary engineering

228
00:18:46,600 --> 00:18:52,120
 that has been sent to the city it's it is being reviewed has not been executed

229
00:18:52,120 --> 00:18:56,480
 yet but that is something we're continuing to work on how that would

230
00:18:56,480 --> 00:19:00,360
 talk about how the crossing is designed what components are needed and things

231
00:19:00,360 --> 00:19:05,320
 like that in this area has there been any talk about a signal light at that

232
00:19:05,320 --> 00:19:10,720
 intersection or the thresholds to get a signal light at that intersection I know

233
00:19:10,720 --> 00:19:16,440
 we had a project unrelated to the to you at that intersection and a signal light

234
00:19:16,440 --> 00:19:20,440
 was a point of residents concern with development going in at brush Creek in

235
00:19:20,440 --> 00:19:26,240
 377 so I'd be curious of any insight you have on I don't recall exactly what the

236
00:19:26,240 --> 00:19:32,000
 TIA says about the signalized the need for it to being signalized I can look

237
00:19:32,000 --> 00:19:36,840
 into that I don't Rob do you remember if it said it needed to be signalized at

238
00:19:36,840 --> 00:19:42,360
 full build out or if I think it's really when more around here is developed that

239
00:19:42,360 --> 00:19:46,760
 it would warrant the signal hello guys Rob that incur here was ain't land

240
00:19:46,760 --> 00:19:50,440
 development yeah in talking and coordinating the projects with Todd

241
00:19:50,440 --> 00:19:54,120
 Estes and according to the traffic study so there would be that would be

242
00:19:54,120 --> 00:19:58,080
 signalized it's at some point but it's not something that gets triggered that

243
00:19:58,080 --> 00:20:03,240
 gets triggered via the trip generations of this project so it is ultimately I

244
00:20:03,240 --> 00:20:07,560
 think a part of his Todd closely that's part of a cog it'd be part of a part of

245
00:20:07,560 --> 00:20:16,320
 a cog funded program okay quite a ways down the road thank you and I think the

246
00:20:16,320 --> 00:20:20,120
 last component of the infrastructure benefit that this project would provide

247
00:20:20,120 --> 00:20:25,080
 is the extension of a sewer line sewer is not currently available right at the

248
00:20:25,080 --> 00:20:30,640
 door of the site so we do have to extend it about 3,000 feet this is showing our

249
00:20:30,640 --> 00:20:34,960
 site is here and this white line would show how we would come over here to the

250
00:20:34,960 --> 00:20:39,880
 east to the graveyard interceptor along the Country Club area and then bring

251
00:20:39,880 --> 00:20:45,680
 that about 3,300 feet to our site and then through our development is we would

252
00:20:45,680 --> 00:20:50,240
 extend the sewer and sub that out to the west for it to be extended for future

253
00:20:50,240 --> 00:20:54,680
 development to the west because this line the sewer basin it equates to about

254
00:20:54,680 --> 00:21:00,880
 580 acres that can go into this line and you know sage brick is only you know a

255
00:21:00,880 --> 00:21:07,600
 quarter of that the tree preservation areas this is in the exhibits that we

256
00:21:07,600 --> 00:21:10,640
 provided that would ultimately come before you and as part of our zoning and

257
00:21:10,640 --> 00:21:14,920
 everything the trees that we're preserving would be 30% and that meets

258
00:21:14,920 --> 00:21:19,380
 the city's requirement of what is required to be preserved this is the

259
00:21:19,380 --> 00:21:25,360
 timeline of what we have gone through since December of 2018 and again this

260
00:21:25,360 --> 00:21:29,840
 was this is why we are here we were working on an agreement weren't sure how

261
00:21:29,840 --> 00:21:34,440
 with the land being in ETJ what was the best method for bringing it to the city

262
00:21:34,440 --> 00:21:39,040
 for approval and you know we've got that feedback yesterday looking forward to

263
00:21:39,040 --> 00:21:44,220
 the discussion today and then these are all the studies and analyses that we've

264
00:21:44,220 --> 00:21:51,080
 done over the course of the last 12 months or so and then the land use Haley

265
00:21:51,080 --> 00:21:57,720
 touched on this too the the the mixed use being right here and then the rural

266
00:21:57,720 --> 00:22:02,240
 areas I think that's five acre lots or something like that next to moderate

267
00:22:02,240 --> 00:22:06,320
 residential and hunter coal ranch it seems like it is somewhat of an abrupt

268
00:22:06,320 --> 00:22:10,680
 change in density and what we're proposing would allow for a more

269
00:22:10,680 --> 00:22:15,840
 appropriate transition going from an r7 which I think is 10 units per acre to

270
00:22:15,840 --> 00:22:22,800
 3.3 units per acre over to 377 would be more consistent with planning practices

271
00:22:22,800 --> 00:22:27,440
 to you know when especially being along the railroad and I'm not sure why

272
00:22:27,440 --> 00:22:32,120
 initially it was designated for rural areas but I I believe it has something

273
00:22:32,120 --> 00:22:37,120
 to do with it being in the ETJ at the time the land use map was created and

274
00:22:37,120 --> 00:22:40,600
 this is showing brush Creek going through here and that connection it's

275
00:22:40,600 --> 00:22:45,480
 again a four-lane road going through a rural area the overall thoroughfare plan

276
00:22:45,480 --> 00:22:50,440
 showing the key intersections with 35w and how close our site is to that to

277
00:22:50,440 --> 00:22:55,820
 that intersection there and the connection that eventually from 2499

278
00:22:55,820 --> 00:23:00,700
 motorist will be able to get all the way to 35 so while it's not necessarily the

279
00:23:00,700 --> 00:23:08,000
 south loop it is a very significant and traffic carrier once it is developed

280
00:23:08,000 --> 00:23:16,120
 package the plans for hunter coal ranch that we have seen most recently are here

281
00:23:16,120 --> 00:23:20,440
 on the screen showing the r7 and how they're transitioning as they get to

282
00:23:20,440 --> 00:23:25,000
 the main corridors and the thoroughfares and that we would propose the same thing

283
00:23:25,000 --> 00:23:30,400
 on the other side as we transition to 377 and how this kind of fits into the

284
00:23:30,400 --> 00:23:35,680
 context of the developed area or once it is developed I mean and then the green

285
00:23:35,680 --> 00:23:40,440
 ways being in the floodplain it provides an opportunity for linkages with trails

286
00:23:40,440 --> 00:23:46,640
 and other recreation and and of course detention and drainage and so this is

287
00:23:46,640 --> 00:23:52,880
 showing here's our site this is showing the parks map for hunter coal and then

288
00:23:52,880 --> 00:23:58,360
 the trails over here on this right side and how we would be able to extend those

289
00:23:58,360 --> 00:24:01,920
 trails to provide a more of a direct access for pedestrians to get to

290
00:24:01,920 --> 00:24:06,200
 Southwest Park through the sage brook development instead of having to go

291
00:24:06,200 --> 00:24:10,320
 around or through the commercial area they could come through sage brook and

292
00:24:10,320 --> 00:24:14,400
 up that way so we think it would be a very beneficial experience for you know

293
00:24:14,400 --> 00:24:21,580
 any enthusiast or enthuse activists or active enthusiasts that wants to take

294
00:24:21,580 --> 00:24:26,720
 advantage of the trail system so that concludes my portion of just walking

295
00:24:26,720 --> 00:24:31,480
 through this we look forward to coming back in the future with a formal

296
00:24:31,480 --> 00:24:42,200
 application and I welcome any feedback I don't see any okay thank you very much

297
00:24:42,200 --> 00:24:47,560
 thanks for being here thank you the next item for business is work session item

298
00:24:47,560 --> 00:24:53,000
 1b which is to receive a report regarding public hearing notifications

299
00:24:53,000 --> 00:24:57,200
 and Charlie's here he's been here for two meetings for this one so thanks for

300
00:24:57,200 --> 00:25:01,040
 being patient with us and look forward to your presentation thank you happy to

301
00:25:01,040 --> 00:25:11,160
 be here with you today so we wanted to bring public hearing notifications back

302
00:25:11,160 --> 00:25:18,360
 to you guys there was a request on the matrix about notifications in the ETJ

303
00:25:18,360 --> 00:25:23,120
 but there's also been some other discussion around notifications as we've

304
00:25:23,120 --> 00:25:27,560
 had projects come forward so wanted to bring this back to you guys let you know

305
00:25:27,560 --> 00:25:32,160
 what changes we've made recently and then seek your direction on some of those

306
00:25:32,160 --> 00:25:39,760
 items just so quickly on background in May we made the change in the 500 foot

307
00:25:39,760 --> 00:25:47,000
 notices from sending those to addresses with the appraisal district to addresses

308
00:25:47,000 --> 00:25:52,000
 based on the city's utility records so we're getting more accurate addresses so

309
00:25:52,000 --> 00:25:58,160
 some of those dcat addresses didn't translate well to the postal service so

310
00:25:58,160 --> 00:26:02,760
 we were getting a lot of return mail on the postcards for 500 foot notices

311
00:26:02,760 --> 00:26:10,600
 especially in areas with multifamily complexes or duplexes so these this

312
00:26:10,600 --> 00:26:14,400
 change has helped out with those going to the individuals the current resident

313
00:26:14,400 --> 00:26:19,960
 those dwelling units and then in September we switched from sending the

314
00:26:19,960 --> 00:26:24,200
 200 foot notices out to property owners by certified mail that is now being done

315
00:26:24,200 --> 00:26:34,400
 by regular first-class mail so just to go over a notification procedures we've

316
00:26:34,400 --> 00:26:38,720
 been through this before but the legal requirement by the local government code

317
00:26:38,720 --> 00:26:45,320
 is that we send a notice to owners on the certified most recent certified tax

318
00:26:45,320 --> 00:26:50,640
 rule within 200 foot of a subject property and that we post that in the

319
00:26:50,640 --> 00:26:56,440
 local newspaper what the city of Denton does above and beyond that is that we

320
00:26:56,440 --> 00:27:02,720
 send those legal notices by mail we also send a courtesy postcard out to the

321
00:27:02,720 --> 00:27:09,980
 addresses current resident within 500 foot of the property we have applicants

322
00:27:09,980 --> 00:27:15,000
 post signs on the property we include that information on the city's website

323
00:27:15,000 --> 00:27:21,320
 and then those fees for the signs and the mailings are then charged back to

324
00:27:21,320 --> 00:27:26,000
 the applicant we do have a note down here on the bottom though that only

325
00:27:26,000 --> 00:27:33,720
 those owners within 200 feet are eligible to meet that 20% super

326
00:27:33,720 --> 00:27:38,240
 majority vote limit so we send that courtesy notice but it's it's not

327
00:27:38,240 --> 00:27:43,080
 towards the super majority does the individuals then 200 feet also get the

328
00:27:43,080 --> 00:27:48,120
 500 foot courtesy notice so they're duly noticed or is that excluded it they do

329
00:27:48,120 --> 00:27:55,920
 if they also occupy the home so if it's a property owner that may live out of

330
00:27:55,920 --> 00:28:00,680
 state they'll get the 200 foot letter but then there if they're renting then

331
00:28:00,680 --> 00:28:10,920
 the renter would get the 500 foot postcard so we have a matrix here of

332
00:28:10,920 --> 00:28:18,640
 exactly how and for what different projects the the notice gets mailed so

333
00:28:18,640 --> 00:28:24,600
 here we have city limits the ETJ and then outside the city limits so you can

334
00:28:24,600 --> 00:28:30,080
 see here that the property owner for all of these project types listed on the top

335
00:28:30,080 --> 00:28:36,160
 here are sent a letter then the occupants are sent a postcard and all of

336
00:28:36,160 --> 00:28:43,080
 them except for a replat or a vacating plat and which and then in the instance

337
00:28:43,080 --> 00:28:49,520
 of ETJ and then outside of the city limits the only only notice that sent is

338
00:28:49,520 --> 00:28:57,360
 a letter to property owners and the ETJ that's by local government code any

339
00:28:57,360 --> 00:29:04,080
 questions on that one Christian back so one of the drawbacks I guess to sending

340
00:29:04,080 --> 00:29:10,440
 deep to surrounding ETJ is the cost of the mailings is that the the primary

341
00:29:10,440 --> 00:29:17,240
 inhibitor to why we don't do courtesy cards I mean I what does it cost us to

342
00:29:17,240 --> 00:29:22,800
 send what it's hard to estimate because it's gonna be project dependent but I

343
00:29:22,800 --> 00:29:26,640
 mean are there estimates on what it would cost us to send postcards to

344
00:29:26,640 --> 00:29:35,440
 surrounding ETJ occupants because you've got none across the board on those as to

345
00:29:35,440 --> 00:29:40,040
 the history of why they're not included probably because they don't have a stake

346
00:29:40,040 --> 00:29:44,960
 in the change that's being requested on the property it would be my assumption

347
00:29:44,960 --> 00:29:50,840
 and I don't know that for a fact but then the 69 it's 69 cents for a postcard

348
00:29:50,840 --> 00:29:55,240
 so it would be dependent on how many dwelling units or structures are in that

349
00:29:55,240 --> 00:30:01,880
 vicinity but one wouldn't imagine that was prohibitive they send postcards

350
00:30:01,880 --> 00:30:08,400
 probably less than $50 in most cases unless it's like a multifamily unit or

351
00:30:08,400 --> 00:30:12,680
 something that's the reason I asked those questions is we've had a number of

352
00:30:12,680 --> 00:30:18,700
 complaints about various stakeholders whether or not they have standing or not

353
00:30:18,700 --> 00:30:24,760
 complaining to us that they weren't notified and so and it would seem

354
00:30:24,760 --> 00:30:30,920
 reasonable to propose to council that we do some extending extension of our

355
00:30:30,920 --> 00:30:36,640
 notification system if only for a CYA kind of reasons yeah I'll interject here

356
00:30:36,640 --> 00:30:42,200
 I certainly understand where you're coming from with all due respect to our

357
00:30:42,200 --> 00:30:47,220
 ETJ and county neighbors our commission is the city of Denton our council city

358
00:30:47,220 --> 00:30:50,480
 of Denton our primary concern is the residents of the city of Denton and

359
00:30:50,480 --> 00:30:53,920
 there there's gonna be a sign in the yard they're gonna be the newspaper it's

360
00:30:53,920 --> 00:30:58,240
 not like they're blind from the notification but to what extent do we go

361
00:30:58,240 --> 00:31:02,720
 out of our way to notify people who we are not being appointed to or elected to

362
00:31:02,720 --> 00:31:08,760
 in some cases to represent that'd be my position I wouldn't be an advocate to

363
00:31:08,760 --> 00:31:13,280
 start giving all these people additional notifications that they already have

364
00:31:13,280 --> 00:31:22,480
 access to just just to touch on I think Charlie was right I think where the the

365
00:31:22,480 --> 00:31:26,920
 500 grew out of the 200 requirement that's in the local government code that

366
00:31:26,920 --> 00:31:31,440
 requires the notice to be sent to those on the tax rolls and then the 500 I

367
00:31:31,440 --> 00:31:39,640
 think just grew beyond that to go beyond the requirement but again we're still

368
00:31:39,640 --> 00:31:44,960
 limited to the 200 for that 20% but again yeah it never was extended to the

369
00:31:44,960 --> 00:31:55,080
 TGA okay yeah so here's the the other topics that we've we've talked about is

370
00:31:55,080 --> 00:32:01,280
 the structure of the letters and postcards just a little bit discussion we

371
00:32:01,280 --> 00:32:06,440
 just had on notifying individuals in the TGA and then the final topic that we

372
00:32:06,440 --> 00:32:10,280
 heard you guys discussing that we wanted to bring forward is the mailing of a

373
00:32:10,280 --> 00:32:14,720
 single letter in the instances where something's coming forward with an SUP

374
00:32:14,720 --> 00:32:21,440
 and a zoning change so I wanted to go over those individually so right now on

375
00:32:21,440 --> 00:32:26,400
 the left side here these two items you can see this is what we currently this

376
00:32:26,400 --> 00:32:32,580
 is the sign that's posted on the property and then this is what the notice

377
00:32:32,580 --> 00:32:39,160
 or the 500 foot courtesy notice looks like the letters just a pretty standard

378
00:32:39,160 --> 00:32:46,480
 letters to city of Denton logo on it so here's what we've been working towards so

379
00:32:46,480 --> 00:32:50,000
 right here in the bottom right you would see this is what a sign would look like

380
00:32:50,000 --> 00:32:55,320
 with that letter changing depending on the project that's being submitted then

381
00:32:55,320 --> 00:33:00,400
 you would get a postcard in the mail with similar branding so hopefully if

382
00:33:00,400 --> 00:33:05,240
 you're within 500 foot of a property you'll have seen the sign and then

383
00:33:05,240 --> 00:33:09,320
 hopefully you'll recognize and not pitch this in the trash I think is a lot of

384
00:33:09,320 --> 00:33:13,920
 the concern we've heard that if it's more generic this this could be just

385
00:33:13,920 --> 00:33:19,480
 thrown away without really reading it so this would be the postcard and then

386
00:33:19,480 --> 00:33:23,800
 we've been working with our mail vendor we can get an open window on the letter

387
00:33:23,800 --> 00:33:28,560
 so that we would have a similar branding on the front of the letter so if you're

388
00:33:28,560 --> 00:33:34,440
 a property owner you would get that as well but I'd be happy to take any

389
00:33:34,440 --> 00:33:39,040
 comments you guys have on letters layout anything you have heard or would like

390
00:33:39,040 --> 00:33:45,600
 to see I think this is a tremendous step forward kudos to the design team for

391
00:33:45,600 --> 00:33:49,520
 working on this and obviously these are design concepts but just for

392
00:33:49,520 --> 00:33:55,080
 clarification the bottom right would be the new two by three signage on the

393
00:33:55,080 --> 00:34:02,480
 street right the top one that that's the current street signage right notice of

394
00:34:02,480 --> 00:34:07,480
 public hearing that large one yes okay that has project number name the new one

395
00:34:07,480 --> 00:34:13,520
 just has project number is project name deliberately left off or is that just a

396
00:34:13,520 --> 00:34:21,880
 concept thing I mean it can be added on there I think the thought was you would

397
00:34:21,880 --> 00:34:26,000
 have you would find the product the the point is to funnel people who want more

398
00:34:26,000 --> 00:34:32,280
 information towards towards the website so we're we're working you can pull up

399
00:34:32,280 --> 00:34:37,400
 the active project on the on the website if you go to this web address here on

400
00:34:37,400 --> 00:34:41,400
 the bottom it'll pull up your active projects page and you can look at what

401
00:34:41,400 --> 00:34:46,560
 project is there and get more info on dates from that point but we can

402
00:34:46,560 --> 00:34:51,840
 certainly add the project name on there no I appreciate the rationale the only

403
00:34:51,840 --> 00:34:57,000
 other thing that I would throw out there into the ether is understanding what

404
00:34:57,000 --> 00:35:00,360
 called action you want them to do and if it's to go to the website maybe put the

405
00:35:00,360 --> 00:35:04,960
 website above the phone number okay because when I look at that I'm thinking

406
00:35:04,960 --> 00:35:09,360
 if I have questions I'm gonna call I don't really answers that number you

407
00:35:09,360 --> 00:35:12,360
 might be increasing call volume unintentionally that's my only

408
00:35:12,360 --> 00:35:21,080
 feedback I think great no other feedback Haley's like yes yeah you should

409
00:35:21,080 --> 00:35:32,760
 definitely go to website so this was the the ETJ item whether whether we should

410
00:35:32,760 --> 00:35:43,080
 begin sending those to the ETJ or not yeah thanks I wanted to have this

411
00:35:43,080 --> 00:35:47,760
 brought in front of I brought up to the matrix whenever we saw this the last

412
00:35:47,760 --> 00:35:51,040
 couple projects and I've seen it on projects ever since I've done the

413
00:35:51,040 --> 00:35:55,320
 Commission and I agree with you chair I understand like we were not we're not

414
00:35:55,320 --> 00:35:58,760
 representatives of those who are in the ETJ because we're not that's not our

415
00:35:58,760 --> 00:36:03,260
 stakes not held there but I still think that that giving some sort of

416
00:36:03,260 --> 00:36:07,440
 notifications to those who are in the ETJ because they're being directly at

417
00:36:07,440 --> 00:36:13,560
 their their landowners and as a private property you know rights guy your you

418
00:36:13,560 --> 00:36:18,920
 are making decisions that's going to possibly affect their their land value

419
00:36:18,920 --> 00:36:24,440
 their their quality of life at least giving them notification of what's going

420
00:36:24,440 --> 00:36:28,120
 on even though they don't have a voting say necessarily in the city of Denton we

421
00:36:28,120 --> 00:36:32,540
 don't represent them they're in the ETJ they should still be able to be known so

422
00:36:32,540 --> 00:36:35,760
 they can come and voice their opinion about what's going on next to their land

423
00:36:35,760 --> 00:36:39,880
 and so I get there's an extra cost but that's that's the reason why I brought up

424
00:36:39,880 --> 00:36:42,400
 the first place and I wanted to hear it and I would like to make recommendation

425
00:36:42,400 --> 00:36:46,800
 for City Council to take a look at this and see if we can start notifying ETJ

426
00:36:46,800 --> 00:36:55,280
 residents sure Alice thank you chair I guess my only thought on that is they

427
00:36:55,280 --> 00:36:59,900
 can come and give their opinion but they would not be considered part of any kind

428
00:36:59,900 --> 00:37:07,640
 of percentage of opposition so I would hate for us to to be thinking giving

429
00:37:07,640 --> 00:37:10,960
 them the thought that they do I don't you know that that's just a concern I

430
00:37:10,960 --> 00:37:14,920
 would have yes they can come and give their thoughts but they're not going to

431
00:37:14,920 --> 00:37:18,120
 generate a supermajority they're not going to have any kind of power because

432
00:37:18,120 --> 00:37:24,080
 they're in the ETJ so I don't know if sending them a notification would make

433
00:37:24,080 --> 00:37:28,480
 them think that they have a little bit more what are the differences between

434
00:37:28,480 --> 00:37:33,360
 the 200 and the 500 foot letters and the 200 foot notification states something

435
00:37:33,360 --> 00:37:36,360
 along those lines right the supermajority piece or does it not at all

436
00:37:36,360 --> 00:37:40,520
 just no it's always the notification so there is no difference between the

437
00:37:40,520 --> 00:37:46,080
 notifications at all really the letter it has the piece of paper where you can

438
00:37:46,080 --> 00:37:50,280
 send in opposition not to show up but you can send it in and it describes in a

439
00:37:50,280 --> 00:37:53,920
 little more detail in the letter that we can't fit on the postcard the

440
00:37:53,920 --> 00:37:59,160
 postcards more of a notice this is happening this is the date and time if

441
00:37:59,160 --> 00:38:05,680
 you want more information this is the address I think that the Commissioner

442
00:38:05,680 --> 00:38:09,600
 Alice's points are valid I still think that they would rather be notified rather

443
00:38:09,600 --> 00:38:13,160
 than having to catch a sign and you've heard some people come in front of us

444
00:38:13,160 --> 00:38:17,320
 who you know we had that project that was over there off May Hill and Mills

445
00:38:17,320 --> 00:38:20,840
 Road where for some reason there's some property back there that's within the

446
00:38:20,840 --> 00:38:25,300
 500 foot boundary but it's still in the ETJ even though it's dang near right in

447
00:38:25,300 --> 00:38:30,800
 the middle of the city for the most part and so why was I never noticed I don't

448
00:38:30,800 --> 00:38:36,240
 know what to tell you just we didn't notice you. Commissioner Beck. Yes thank you

449
00:38:36,240 --> 00:38:39,880
 Chair. Yeah I have to agree with Commissioner Smith on this one I don't

450
00:38:39,880 --> 00:38:43,880
 think it hurts especially if you're at 500 feet to say hey we're doing a thing

451
00:38:43,880 --> 00:38:49,280
 that doesn't give you any rights to change it or influence our decision

452
00:38:49,280 --> 00:38:55,160
 we're simply saying we're doing a thing and I think that's a neighborly action

453
00:38:55,160 --> 00:38:58,960
 especially if the costs aren't prohibitive I mean I can understand

454
00:38:58,960 --> 00:39:04,040
 there being a cost issue that we should keep our eye on and if it got extreme or

455
00:39:04,040 --> 00:39:09,800
 was impinging on budgets or something that's one thing but simply a postcard

456
00:39:09,800 --> 00:39:15,640
 saying something is happening feels like just courtesy if anything else. Thank you.

457
00:39:15,640 --> 00:39:21,160
 Yes my thoughts maybe to go a step further what I already stated is the 500

458
00:39:21,160 --> 00:39:25,720
 foot notification is already a courtesy we don't have to do that we arbitrarily

459
00:39:25,720 --> 00:39:31,520
 decided 500 feet and so there seems to be a very logical end to where we send

460
00:39:31,520 --> 00:39:35,560
 out notifications that would be the city border if we start sending ETJ the

461
00:39:35,560 --> 00:39:38,320
 logical conclusion to be well why don't we send the courtesy to a thousand feet

462
00:39:38,320 --> 00:39:41,840
 I mean they're probably if they're in the same neighborhood and but they're

463
00:39:41,840 --> 00:39:45,040
 past 500 feet but they're the same neighborhood that certainly applies to

464
00:39:45,040 --> 00:39:48,760
 them so now we need to probably notice based on neighborhood or regions and now

465
00:39:48,760 --> 00:39:54,320
 I think the logical end of how courteous the city could be has to be to a point

466
00:39:54,320 --> 00:39:58,080
 and where do we get that point obviously is where we're discussing it it seems as

467
00:39:58,080 --> 00:40:01,760
 though a logical one would be the bounds of our city especially since we're not

468
00:40:01,760 --> 00:40:07,240
 legally required to tell them it's in a newspaper it's online and there's a large

469
00:40:07,240 --> 00:40:11,080
 sign of the property and I would argue that if it is significantly imposing on

470
00:40:11,080 --> 00:40:13,520
 to their property that means they probably know the property they drive

471
00:40:13,520 --> 00:40:16,760
 by it which would logically conclude especially their signage they would have

472
00:40:16,760 --> 00:40:21,880
 seen it and so I yeah they have come and complained about that in the past and

473
00:40:21,880 --> 00:40:27,360
 somehow they did show up right they heard so they were effectively noticed

474
00:40:27,360 --> 00:40:31,120
 it wasn't the same way their apparent neighbor was but if they showed up to a

475
00:40:31,120 --> 00:40:35,880
 meeting I would argue that the grapevine or whatever notification is out there is

476
00:40:35,880 --> 00:40:40,320
 is a measurably to some effect that's what I would say

477
00:40:40,320 --> 00:40:45,560
 Mr. Smith the the neighborhood meetings how are those how the developers usually

478
00:40:45,560 --> 00:40:48,660
 getting getting neighborhood meeting lists out is that are they are they

479
00:40:48,660 --> 00:40:51,160
 taking the same list we're sitting off for notifications and using that as

480
00:40:51,160 --> 00:40:55,140
 well okay that's another thought process just saying that if the if they're

481
00:40:55,140 --> 00:40:58,760
 going through with with what you know Andrew said we think we've heard

482
00:40:58,760 --> 00:41:02,120
 complaints before where it's been you know we've we didn't find out about till

483
00:41:02,120 --> 00:41:05,000
 the developer told us instead of the city telling us and so I didn't know if

484
00:41:05,000 --> 00:41:07,200
 they're getting into the notification they're they're sending out their

485
00:41:07,200 --> 00:41:09,680
 neighborhood meeting notifications the same list we're sending out then that's

486
00:41:09,680 --> 00:41:13,040
 perfectly fine I just want to make sure they weren't notifying ETJ clients and

487
00:41:13,040 --> 00:41:17,120
 we were and ETJ residents and we weren't well and then that could be the case

488
00:41:17,120 --> 00:41:21,200
 too because they send the neighborhood meeting out ahead of time while they're

489
00:41:21,200 --> 00:41:26,840
 still going through the review process before maybe a meeting date is scheduled

490
00:41:26,840 --> 00:41:30,480
 so it could be that they get that first notice from the developer because the

491
00:41:30,480 --> 00:41:34,360
 intent I think in the neighborhood meetings is to try to work out any issues

492
00:41:34,360 --> 00:41:42,200
 or make any accommodations so one way to combat this exact issue of where do we

493
00:41:42,200 --> 00:41:49,600
 stop and how much it costs and what is to recommend that we kind of note how

494
00:41:49,600 --> 00:41:55,680
 many people are in the ETJ at the 500 foot level so if we if we left our

495
00:41:55,680 --> 00:41:59,800
 limits at 500 feet which is the courtesy limit you were describing then we say

496
00:41:59,800 --> 00:42:08,160
 well in 500 feet there are 30 homes of which 15 are inside our jurisdiction so

497
00:42:08,160 --> 00:42:13,480
 we're hitting 50 percent notification at that level and we could if we just kind

498
00:42:13,480 --> 00:42:17,920
 of track that we we could see oh well that's only we are always getting 90

499
00:42:17,920 --> 00:42:24,880
 percent notification regardless of the boundaries or we're only ever getting 10

500
00:42:24,880 --> 00:42:28,320
 percent notification because we keep hitting these weird fingers where it's

501
00:42:28,320 --> 00:42:33,840
 ETJ and or I mean just data tracking feels like it would answer that question

502
00:42:33,840 --> 00:42:40,480
 of how much courtesy notice we'd actually be requesting if we asked for a blanket

503
00:42:40,480 --> 00:42:46,720
 500 foot regardless of city boundaries and so I would encourage us to perhaps

504
00:42:46,720 --> 00:42:52,080
 look at those numbers to see how many ETJ people were actually in the last few

505
00:42:52,080 --> 00:42:57,320
 projects are not getting notified it feels like it would be a useful number to

506
00:42:57,320 --> 00:43:06,720
 answer these kinds of questions. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you

507
00:43:06,720 --> 00:43:11,200
 chair maybe just one and I don't know you looked into this how creative can you

508
00:43:11,200 --> 00:43:16,840
 get per project or do we do we just need to have this hard set we're gonna draw

509
00:43:16,840 --> 00:43:23,560
 this radius 200 and 500 feet so I'll bring an example there there was a year

510
00:43:23,560 --> 00:43:30,480
 or two ago a project a zoning change that came right at the front entrance of

511
00:43:30,480 --> 00:43:38,160
 a massive master plan community and you know the circles drawn and I don't know

512
00:43:38,160 --> 00:43:43,600
 about a street and a half got a notification even though this whole

513
00:43:43,600 --> 00:43:47,760
 project was coming through the entrance of that subdivision that affected a ton

514
00:43:47,760 --> 00:43:52,680
 of people to me that's you know that circle needed to be more you know not a

515
00:43:52,680 --> 00:43:57,060
 circle and more an oval to notify more people in the neighborhood I don't know

516
00:43:57,060 --> 00:44:01,920
 if that's even a thing that we could be creative about that was just one thing

517
00:44:01,920 --> 00:44:06,840
 that stuck with me about people who came and spoke and how you know angry they

518
00:44:06,840 --> 00:44:09,760
 were that they weren't notified they're in the same subdivision and we're

519
00:44:09,760 --> 00:44:15,400
 notifying one homeowner that has this undeveloped land and then about a street

520
00:44:15,400 --> 00:44:18,880
 and a half of the hundreds and hundreds of homeowners that were in that

521
00:44:18,880 --> 00:44:24,520
 neighborhood so again I'm throwing that out to you as as as this project manager

522
00:44:24,520 --> 00:44:28,880
 here it can you get creative per project or not or is that just cost prohibited

523
00:44:28,880 --> 00:44:37,200
 time prohibited you could so the the GIS tool I mean it's an automatic thing so

524
00:44:37,200 --> 00:44:41,480
 you draw the borders of the property and then it spits out the addresses so

525
00:44:41,480 --> 00:44:47,760
 anything that deviates from that would be additional time additional staff time

526
00:44:47,760 --> 00:44:55,760
 to complete but I would also say if we were to you know be more creative and

527
00:44:55,760 --> 00:44:59,960
 the way we do that it would want to be within some kind of guidelines so that

528
00:44:59,960 --> 00:45:04,320
 you know in this specific so it can be applied multiple times and it's not a

529
00:45:04,320 --> 00:45:08,200
 staff decision at that point when to extend that boundary and when not to

530
00:45:08,200 --> 00:45:12,520
 extend that boundary yeah where do we stop that line I know I mean there there

531
00:45:12,520 --> 00:45:17,600
 seems to not be an easy answer just but that but that's I think why this keeps

532
00:45:17,600 --> 00:45:23,360
 coming to our matrix because it's like we want a broader discussion because and

533
00:45:23,360 --> 00:45:27,280
 then maybe it can't be fixed any more than I mean we're making steps the

534
00:45:27,280 --> 00:45:33,080
 postcard change and all that it's great it really is but it doesn't solve that

535
00:45:33,080 --> 00:45:38,600
 fact and maybe it can't be of those people who feel like we're excluding

536
00:45:38,600 --> 00:45:43,640
 them for some reason and again I'm not sure you know if there is an easy fix to

537
00:45:43,640 --> 00:45:48,520
 that so I'm gonna interject one more time I hope this last one on this one

538
00:45:48,520 --> 00:45:53,760
 topic because I feel like I'm talking more than usual I am NOT a proponent of

539
00:45:53,760 --> 00:45:58,320
 introducing new concepts and multiple variables because then back to tracking

540
00:45:58,320 --> 00:46:03,760
 we don't know what variable was the determinant of change and so to your

541
00:46:03,760 --> 00:46:07,600
 point if we have a new signage and it's the project you're talking about

542
00:46:07,600 --> 00:46:11,720
 theoretically everyone impacted would have driven by the sign right if there's

543
00:46:11,720 --> 00:46:14,520
 that impactful for the neighborhood that you're by the sign so what I would like

544
00:46:14,520 --> 00:46:18,440
 to see is if this signs more effective what I wouldn't what I'd hesitate to

545
00:46:18,440 --> 00:46:21,480
 say is change the sign and change notification area and say great

546
00:46:21,480 --> 00:46:24,160
 everything's working well in reality we don't know if it was the increased

547
00:46:24,160 --> 00:46:28,480
 notifications or the sign itself change so what my recommendation would be is let's

548
00:46:28,480 --> 00:46:32,680
 implement one variable the new design and then measure if that's successful or

549
00:46:32,680 --> 00:46:36,160
 not if we start finding the same issues nine months a year from now then we say

550
00:46:36,160 --> 00:46:40,040
 okay we need an additional thing because it's one variable that way we're dealing

551
00:46:40,040 --> 00:46:44,360
 with one not one X not an X and a Y in this equation that'd be my two cents

552
00:46:44,360 --> 00:46:48,160
 because else yeah real quick chair and thank you for that and that makes sense

553
00:46:48,160 --> 00:46:52,120
 yes and this was before we changed the sign and when we had the puny little

554
00:46:52,120 --> 00:46:56,800
 sign that we used to put out on the on the lot so absolutely it's a great point

555
00:46:56,800 --> 00:47:00,920
 yeah yeah Christian back and this isn't off of that can you flip back to the

556
00:47:00,920 --> 00:47:07,520
 sign models real quick are we going to have different kind of notifications

557
00:47:07,520 --> 00:47:11,120
 that are not Z that are some other letter for other kind of notifications

558
00:47:11,120 --> 00:47:15,680
 yeah so there's going to be a letter code for these notifications right so an

559
00:47:15,680 --> 00:47:20,880
 SGP would be maybe an S we haven't determined that yet but yeah there would

560
00:47:20,880 --> 00:47:27,120
 be a different letter depending on what the project type is in color yeah oh and

561
00:47:27,120 --> 00:47:46,880
 color there we go yeah loving this so so on that I'll just come back it sounds

562
00:47:46,880 --> 00:47:54,280
 like maybe this is a an item that we did we bring back again with after maybe a

563
00:47:54,280 --> 00:47:59,680
 change is that is that what I'm hearing or do we want to push this forward to

564
00:47:59,680 --> 00:48:06,840
 City Council is a recommended change I think clear direction on that I guess

565
00:48:06,840 --> 00:48:11,400
 we take an informal vote here but Christian I mean not to say that no hey

566
00:48:11,400 --> 00:48:15,000
 the City Council we want to direct you to make a change but has the City

567
00:48:15,000 --> 00:48:20,440
 Council seen this presentation that so I would I would almost want to say let the

568
00:48:20,440 --> 00:48:23,040
 City Council depict it from there if the City Council doesn't feel like it's that

569
00:48:23,040 --> 00:48:27,520
 big of a of an issue we can build I can deal with people complaining they didn't

570
00:48:27,520 --> 00:48:31,120
 get a notification there in the ETJ and if we're gonna move forward with changing

571
00:48:31,120 --> 00:48:34,800
 it to fancy new colors and whatnot like like Richards got designed over there

572
00:48:34,800 --> 00:48:39,200
 that's what he spends his time doing walks around the Home Depot the in the

573
00:48:39,200 --> 00:48:42,320
 painting the paint section he's like yeah trying to figure out what color he's

574
00:48:42,320 --> 00:48:48,200
 gonna make his signs but but if we're gonna make a change okay that's better

575
00:48:48,200 --> 00:48:51,520
 nothing but if City Council wants to there was some discussion about it we'd

576
00:48:51,520 --> 00:48:54,980
 like to start notifying the ETJ folks not a direction to make a change but if

577
00:48:54,980 --> 00:49:02,000
 they agree with us then yeah I'd like to see something but so for the purpose of

578
00:49:02,000 --> 00:49:08,880
 answering this question or let me just do the informal show of hands does does

579
00:49:08,880 --> 00:49:15,120
 this Commission please raise your hand if you believe that we should help

580
00:49:15,120 --> 00:49:23,400
 encourage council along and notifying ETJ individuals so I have to think that we

581
00:49:23,400 --> 00:49:29,900
 should encourage who does not want to encourage City Council to notify ETJ

582
00:49:29,900 --> 00:49:40,080
 individuals right what do you clarification of the question okay so

583
00:49:40,080 --> 00:49:45,080
 Charlie I would just bring that to the Commission is split on notifying ETJ

584
00:49:45,080 --> 00:49:52,520
 individuals thank you chair however I would love to see that I mean for you to

585
00:49:52,520 --> 00:49:58,040
 go forward or put in front of them the new post you know the new letter code

586
00:49:58,040 --> 00:50:03,240
 and the new sign and bringing all that consistent I I think that is a great you

587
00:50:03,240 --> 00:50:06,760
 know to chair's point I think that's a great first step in seeing how effective

588
00:50:06,760 --> 00:50:12,520
 that is as we have our public hearings and maybe this comes up again with regard

589
00:50:12,520 --> 00:50:19,200
 of reaching further but we might as well try to implement a piece at a time yeah

590
00:50:19,200 --> 00:50:23,440
 so that that's a great point at some point we'll probably have a work session

591
00:50:23,440 --> 00:50:29,800
 with City Council to discuss the new notifications and how that's going to

592
00:50:29,800 --> 00:50:33,440
 work with them and at that point we can talk about the ETJ and the discussion

593
00:50:33,440 --> 00:50:39,180
 that we had here let them know what the discussion this committee had and see

594
00:50:39,180 --> 00:50:44,680
 their thoughts on that as well as our next item here on the rezoning SGP combo

595
00:50:44,680 --> 00:50:50,480
 Fisher so thank you chair so is there an order dependency I mean do we have to

596
00:50:50,480 --> 00:50:55,720
 make recommendations to city or to council rather or count I mean there's

597
00:50:55,720 --> 00:51:00,360
 no order dependency in terms of this progressing forward is there this is it

598
00:51:00,360 --> 00:51:04,400
 seems like an informative discussion that we can staff can take to council

599
00:51:04,400 --> 00:51:08,480
 let them know what we are thinking and they make the decision that was thank

600
00:51:08,480 --> 00:51:14,960
 you yeah it's very informal all right and then so the last item here is the

601
00:51:14,960 --> 00:51:19,480
 discussion that I think you guys have talked about before is when a rezoning

602
00:51:19,480 --> 00:51:25,520
 case and an SGP case come forward that those are two separate letters for each

603
00:51:25,520 --> 00:51:32,000
 of those that go to so they go out twice so you get one letter for an SGP and you

604
00:51:32,000 --> 00:51:36,480
 get another letter for rezoning or if you're in the 500 foot you get a postcard

605
00:51:36,480 --> 00:51:42,520
 and a separate postcard instead I think the discussion was can we combine those

606
00:51:42,520 --> 00:51:48,240
 so if the Commission felt that it would be a better notification for individuals

607
00:51:48,240 --> 00:51:53,080
 where a zoning a rezoning and an SGP case are coming forward at the same time

608
00:51:53,080 --> 00:51:57,720
 to send that is a single notice to those individuals

609
00:51:57,720 --> 00:52:02,720
 thank you chair yes I love that idea because what happens is they send an

610
00:52:02,720 --> 00:52:08,520
 email on one of the things they got and you know that they're opposing action

611
00:52:08,520 --> 00:52:12,400
 said we don't know it but in all likelihood they are in opposition of

612
00:52:12,400 --> 00:52:15,920
 both and it should be noted as such so yeah I would love to see that that

613
00:52:15,920 --> 00:52:22,720
 combination if we can do it that absolutely happened with a very

614
00:52:22,720 --> 00:52:28,280
 contentious case where a neighbor went around and had got signatures and it got

615
00:52:28,280 --> 00:52:33,440
 to I mean we were had to take two breaks at council to do the calculation it was

616
00:52:33,440 --> 00:52:38,840
 nineteen point six percent and while there were some folks that were you know

617
00:52:38,840 --> 00:52:42,000
 they told me they're against both I said well we can't count unless we have a

618
00:52:42,000 --> 00:52:49,000
 written opposition and so it has caused problems yeah and because the issue is

619
00:52:49,000 --> 00:52:52,600
 is the public really doesn't understand that those are two different things they

620
00:52:52,600 --> 00:52:56,480
 think when they you know send the email or you know make the phone call in

621
00:52:56,480 --> 00:53:01,280
 opposition that it is the package deal and and they should know it's a package

622
00:53:01,280 --> 00:53:07,160
 and so you know and if it's a package then it comes in a package and not two

623
00:53:07,160 --> 00:53:10,640
 separate things that looks you know where one they could have thrown away

624
00:53:10,640 --> 00:53:15,000
 thinking oh I already saw this I already wrote my response so yeah I definitely

625
00:53:15,000 --> 00:53:20,280
 like that idea because you're back yes I concur with Commissioner Ellis I mean I

626
00:53:20,280 --> 00:53:25,200
 presume the model would be something like you haven't back to our letters you

627
00:53:25,200 --> 00:53:32,240
 have a Z slash S as opposed to just a Z and just an S kind of that and maybe do

628
00:53:32,240 --> 00:53:38,560
 we need to have a double checkbox or a single checkbox for support of opposition

629
00:53:38,560 --> 00:53:49,360
 I'm not trying to be glib here I'm not sure what we need to do legally so can

630
00:53:49,360 --> 00:53:53,200
 we simultaneously notice they have two different votes so they should be

631
00:53:53,200 --> 00:53:59,240
 separate okay thank you so thank you for that clarification I am in

632
00:53:59,240 --> 00:54:02,760
 agreement with Commissioner Allison Christian Beck on this my question would

633
00:54:02,760 --> 00:54:10,240
 be does this solve the response to both if they got a joint letter and they

634
00:54:10,240 --> 00:54:14,640
 have that bottom section or however that is when they fill it out would we file

635
00:54:14,640 --> 00:54:19,600
 it as a opposition to both it would would would consolidate and solve the

636
00:54:19,600 --> 00:54:26,440
 problem that we're facing is my question that our thought what it would be a are

637
00:54:26,440 --> 00:54:31,440
 you in opposition of the zoning the SCP or both and then we would have

638
00:54:31,440 --> 00:54:37,080
 additional language in the letter describing the difference between I feel

639
00:54:37,080 --> 00:54:43,280
 like people sometimes don't understand the zoning from a citizen's perspective

640
00:54:43,280 --> 00:54:47,920
 or an SUV and so we would a little more detail on why there are two different

641
00:54:47,920 --> 00:54:55,040
 ones okay in very plain speak of course so they would they would then have a

642
00:54:55,040 --> 00:55:01,560
 duplicate checkbox in which they could in one single effort oppose both right

643
00:55:01,560 --> 00:55:09,400
 great then I'm for this is anyone against this okay then I think it's this

644
00:55:09,400 --> 00:55:13,960
 one's more unanimous to encourage council to consider okay and then just

645
00:55:13,960 --> 00:55:20,000
 quickly the next steps we'll find a time probably after the completion of our our

646
00:55:20,000 --> 00:55:24,000
 notification changes that we can take this all forward to City Council and

647
00:55:24,000 --> 00:55:27,480
 have that discussion with them so we'll get on their calendar at some point in

648
00:55:27,480 --> 00:55:31,720
 the next couple of months and then provide you guys an update at what when

649
00:55:31,720 --> 00:55:39,220
 that time is going to be what's the proposed timeline for the new notifications

650
00:55:39,220 --> 00:55:44,920
 what is what's the thought process for those to be implemented and executed so

651
00:55:44,920 --> 00:55:49,520
 we want to take that forward like we gave everyone an opportunity here to have

652
00:55:49,520 --> 00:55:53,680
 that discussion about before it goes into effect so that we would bring that

653
00:55:53,680 --> 00:55:58,000
 forward to City Council too so we could probably get on there I think they're

654
00:55:58,000 --> 00:56:02,600
 booked on work sessions maybe in the middle of March right now so at that

655
00:56:02,600 --> 00:56:06,040
 point we can bring the new notices forward to them and then if they're in

656
00:56:06,040 --> 00:56:16,280
 agreement then we could implement that very quickly great thank you okay going

657
00:56:16,280 --> 00:56:23,040
 into the agenda for this evening to clarify it first the first item will be

658
00:56:23,040 --> 00:56:26,960
 our minutes I got clarification before our meeting tonight that I wanted to

659
00:56:26,960 --> 00:56:34,880
 spurs to the commission that there is no requirement for a recusal of a minutes

660
00:56:34,880 --> 00:56:41,240
 vote based on an absence so even if you were absent you can still vote on the

661
00:56:41,240 --> 00:56:46,160
 minutes as just an action not that you're accurately saying the minutes are

662
00:56:46,160 --> 00:56:50,960
 correct but you can vote on that action and so going forward that might simplify

663
00:56:50,960 --> 00:56:53,960
 the vote we can just take one vote for multiple minutes even though there was

664
00:56:53,960 --> 00:56:59,760
 absences everyone can take participation in the minutes votes going forward so

665
00:56:59,760 --> 00:57:05,000
 just want to clarify that and then and practice of how the order will go this

666
00:57:05,000 --> 00:57:11,480
 evening we're going to skip ahead to the public hearings now item 5a is a

667
00:57:11,480 --> 00:57:18,280
 requested postponement to February 5th we will I will open the public hearing

668
00:57:18,280 --> 00:57:22,320
 and then take a vote we'll leave the public hearing open on this item so we

669
00:57:22,320 --> 00:57:26,920
 won't hear a presentation but we will open the public hearing for the vote it

670
00:57:26,920 --> 00:57:33,480
 will come back next month the next item for business is 5b this is Haley's

671
00:57:33,480 --> 00:57:36,200
 presentation

672
00:57:41,520 --> 00:57:57,120
 good evening so this is a proposed amendment to the 2019 DDC regarding the

673
00:57:57,120 --> 00:58:01,600
 use regulations for temporary batch plants so the request before you this

674
00:58:01,600 --> 00:58:05,520
 evening will be to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to

675
00:58:05,520 --> 00:58:10,840
 the council apologize for the typo there regarding amending subchapter 5 use

676
00:58:10,840 --> 00:58:15,160
 specific regulations related to specific use permit requirements for temporary

677
00:58:15,160 --> 00:58:20,960
 concrete and asphalt batching plants this is a staff initiated amendment for

678
00:58:20,960 --> 00:58:25,240
 some background a concrete or asphalt batching plant is defined in the DDC as

679
00:58:25,240 --> 00:58:29,440
 a temporary facility where asphalt or concrete or its ingredients or products

680
00:58:29,440 --> 00:58:33,680
 or ground mixed or otherwise prepared for use on site or for transportation to

681
00:58:33,680 --> 00:58:37,440
 another site these are things that we typically see when there's either a

682
00:58:37,440 --> 00:58:40,960
 large public street project or a residential subdivision where all the

683
00:58:40,960 --> 00:58:44,040
 streets are being poured at once or even sometimes for very large-scale

684
00:58:44,040 --> 00:58:49,320
 commercial development so we do receive multiple permit applications for these

685
00:58:49,320 --> 00:58:56,360
 within a year typically prior to October 1 under the 2002 code a temporary batch

686
00:58:56,360 --> 00:59:00,480
 plant was permitted by right in any zoning district there is a time

687
00:59:00,480 --> 00:59:05,040
 limitation on those you can get up to three permits for a period of 60 days

688
00:59:05,040 --> 00:59:09,320
 each within a year and then there were standards regarding compliance with tceq

689
00:59:09,320 --> 00:59:13,200
 standards nuisance prevention separation distances required from schools and

690
00:59:13,200 --> 00:59:18,600
 residences none of those regulations changed in the 2019 DDC the same time

691
00:59:18,600 --> 00:59:22,520
 periods are in place and those same standards were carried forward and and

692
00:59:22,520 --> 00:59:27,800
 put in subchapter 5 the major change was the 2019 code applied a specific use

693
00:59:27,800 --> 00:59:31,800
 permit across the board so for a permit that's only valid for 60 days we require

694
00:59:31,800 --> 00:59:37,320
 an SUP application that can take 60 to 90 days to get through that process so

695
00:59:37,320 --> 00:59:42,520
 with recent applications we've received a lot of pushback from people not not

696
00:59:42,520 --> 00:59:45,240
 willing to do that so they opt for trucking the pavement in or something

697
00:59:45,240 --> 00:59:50,400
 else as opposed to putting up the batch plant so this proposed amendments would

698
00:59:50,400 --> 00:59:55,640
 main would kind of take us back to the 2002 code keep all of the standards that

699
00:59:55,640 --> 01:00:00,080
 the same way they are now no changes to timeframes or operational standards make

700
01:00:00,080 --> 01:00:05,040
 the batch plant by right if it's for an on-site facility so if you're putting in

701
01:00:05,040 --> 01:00:08,840
 a batch plant to put streets in for a subdivision that could still be allowed

702
01:00:08,840 --> 01:00:13,440
 by right as it was since 2002 but if you are proposing to have an off-site batch

703
01:00:13,440 --> 01:00:16,720
 plant that may be providing concrete and trucking it to multiple projects at one

704
01:00:16,720 --> 01:00:20,120
 time we would require the SUP for that because it is more traffic intensive

705
01:00:20,120 --> 01:00:26,400
 operation that may need some further analysis so this is the language that we

706
01:00:26,400 --> 01:00:30,240
 would propose adding so the use table in sub chapter 5 would just have all of the

707
01:00:30,240 --> 01:00:33,960
 S plus is replaced with P plus when you go to those you specific standards

708
01:00:33,960 --> 01:00:37,680
 referenced by that plus sign there would be a new section 6 that would have

709
01:00:37,680 --> 01:00:41,480
 additional approval required for off-site temporary batch plants and would

710
01:00:41,480 --> 01:00:46,640
 then inform you that an SUP is required for any facility which is making the

711
01:00:46,640 --> 01:00:50,880
 product for transportation to another site other than where the batch

712
01:00:50,880 --> 01:00:55,480
 facility is located so staff is recommending approval of this request I'm

713
01:00:55,480 --> 01:00:59,320
 happy to answer any questions you may have

714
01:00:59,320 --> 01:01:08,360
 Michelle's thank you chair so Haley is is there a way of people doing this and

715
01:01:08,360 --> 01:01:12,560
 and and we don't know about it and they don't come for an SEP if it's just

716
01:01:12,560 --> 01:01:17,440
 allowed by right I mean have we given some thought to that that there is still

717
01:01:17,440 --> 01:01:21,080
 a permit required through a building inspections department so if if one of

718
01:01:21,080 --> 01:01:24,360
 our inspectors or complaint was issued you know saying there's a batch plant

719
01:01:24,360 --> 01:01:27,000
 here and we looked and saw there wasn't a permit then we could take enforcement

720
01:01:27,000 --> 01:01:31,980
 action on that right so they could get a permit that says they're not doing this

721
01:01:31,980 --> 01:01:36,680
 transporting to other sites but they could possibly do it anyway after

722
01:01:36,680 --> 01:01:40,760
 getting that permit they could we would only know if there was a complaint

723
01:01:40,760 --> 01:01:47,200
 correct yeah yeah since the 2002 codes been in effect though there's not been a

724
01:01:47,200 --> 01:01:52,680
 an SUP requirement for any batch plant so on-site or off-site it's just been a

725
01:01:52,680 --> 01:01:55,440
 the same permit you get your state permit and then you come to the city and

726
01:01:55,440 --> 01:02:01,160
 get your operating permit okay and do we do any inspection inspecting of those

727
01:02:01,160 --> 01:02:07,800
 permits or I think watershed gets involved as part of the TCEQ permit but

728
01:02:07,800 --> 01:02:13,280
 on this on the state ones were essentially exempt from from enforcing

729
01:02:13,280 --> 01:02:18,560
 any zoning actions this really gets into those subdivisions rather than having you

730
01:02:18,560 --> 01:02:23,280
 know a number of cement trucks parking up or going through a hole it would

731
01:02:23,280 --> 01:02:28,560
 essentially require every single family subdivision get an SGP and how long the

732
01:02:28,560 --> 01:02:35,640
 permit for I'm 60 days okay Christian back so my question falls from the tail

733
01:02:35,640 --> 01:02:39,920
 of Commissioner else's questions is I think it's reasonable actually probably

734
01:02:39,920 --> 01:02:43,720
 cuts down on pollution to have a localized temporary batch plant pouring

735
01:02:43,720 --> 01:02:48,920
 for local uses but how do we prevent them from what are the mechanisms that

736
01:02:48,920 --> 01:02:53,920
 prevent them from running out of capacity and shipping their cement out

737
01:02:53,920 --> 01:02:59,120
 to me how it follows up from this discussion but how are we stopping them

738
01:02:59,120 --> 01:03:04,080
 from shipping out their company but there is the 60-day time limit so they

739
01:03:04,080 --> 01:03:08,200
 couldn't be doing it for very long if they if they did try to do that but at

740
01:03:08,200 --> 01:03:10,920
 that point I think it would just be an enforcement issue if someone if a

741
01:03:10,920 --> 01:03:13,280
 neighbor complained that there's a lot of trucks going in and out of the site

742
01:03:13,280 --> 01:03:16,360
 or something like that then our inspectors would be able to go out and

743
01:03:16,360 --> 01:03:20,720
 and determine what's happening I mean I've never sat really and watched a

744
01:03:20,720 --> 01:03:26,280
 construction is there enough is there enough opportunities for interaction

745
01:03:26,280 --> 01:03:30,560
 that we would catch most of that or really this is a loophole that they

746
01:03:30,560 --> 01:03:35,080
 would they can slide in because we don't have very much inspection I think if the

747
01:03:35,080 --> 01:03:39,760
 typically engineering public works inspections are out there when they're

748
01:03:39,760 --> 01:03:44,640
 doing a poor to do those inspections daily I think and if all of a sudden the

749
01:03:44,640 --> 01:03:50,440
 concrete wasn't being poured but rather being trucked out I think we would it

750
01:03:50,440 --> 01:03:58,320
 would definitely be noticed thank you guys any other questions for Haley great

751
01:03:58,320 --> 01:04:04,160
 Haley you have the next one as well item 5c v19 - 3

752
01:04:07,880 --> 01:04:11,880
 so this is actually the first of three items that you'll see for the Denton

753
01:04:11,880 --> 01:04:16,000
 County Emergency Operations Center this evening this is a subdivision variance

754
01:04:16,000 --> 01:04:20,480
 request so that does require a public hearing this project is has been

755
01:04:20,480 --> 01:04:24,160
 reviewed under the 2002 DDC because of the time in which you know they came in

756
01:04:24,160 --> 01:04:29,160
 during that interim period and elected to follow the 2002 code so the subject

757
01:04:29,160 --> 01:04:32,280
 property is outlined in yellow on the map it's on the south side of Karina

758
01:04:32,280 --> 01:04:39,640
 Street and on the West West side of Kimberly their variances include not

759
01:04:39,640 --> 01:04:43,600
 having right-of-way dedication on Kimberly Drive and then along with that

760
01:04:43,600 --> 01:04:47,240
 not constructing the sidewalks on Kimberly and so we'll look at the the

761
01:04:47,240 --> 01:04:50,680
 rationale for those requests but first I wanted to give you a little bit of

762
01:04:50,680 --> 01:04:54,160
 background under the 2002 code as I mentioned which is why you all are

763
01:04:54,160 --> 01:05:00,920
 seeing the variance request the site in total is just over five acres in 2009 it

764
01:05:00,920 --> 01:05:04,320
 was actually plotted as two separate lots it was anticipated at that time

765
01:05:04,320 --> 01:05:08,120
 that all of this would develop as the properties along 288 have with you know

766
01:05:08,120 --> 01:05:12,320
 a small grocery store restaurants things of that nature that development never

767
01:05:12,320 --> 01:05:16,400
 occurred and so this has been vacant for many years now so at this point in time

768
01:05:16,400 --> 01:05:19,720
 it's it's really an infill parcel everything around it has developed this

769
01:05:19,720 --> 01:05:26,240
 is the last remaining vacant parcel in this area both Karina and Kimberly are

770
01:05:26,240 --> 01:05:29,960
 designated as collectors on our mobility plan up to this intersection

771
01:05:29,960 --> 01:05:34,600
 Karina currently dead ends into the famous off FEMA building which is

772
01:05:34,600 --> 01:05:39,560
 adjacent to this dead ends into their driveway the subject property here they

773
01:05:39,560 --> 01:05:42,960
 will be making the limited improvements that are required for their portion of

774
01:05:42,960 --> 01:05:47,880
 Karina here including a sidewalk on Kimberly however what we have today is

775
01:05:47,880 --> 01:05:51,840
 south of the Karina intersection up to that point it's built as a collector with

776
01:05:51,840 --> 01:05:55,680
 65 feet of right-of-way south of there we only have 24 and a half feet of

777
01:05:55,680 --> 01:06:00,480
 pavement within 35 feet of right-of-way that was dedicated to the city and built

778
01:06:00,480 --> 01:06:06,040
 at the time that FEMA's offices were constructed in 2003 in 2008 even though

779
01:06:06,040 --> 01:06:10,240
 this right-of-way came almost up to the property line and the paving came to the

780
01:06:10,240 --> 01:06:15,160
 property line when the senior living facility here was plotted in 2008 they

781
01:06:15,160 --> 01:06:17,800
 were not required to continue that street southwards because it wasn't on

782
01:06:17,800 --> 01:06:22,580
 the mobility plan so that essentially determined that Karina would never go

783
01:06:22,580 --> 01:06:26,960
 any further south at that point in time in 2009 when the Denton Spencer edition

784
01:06:26,960 --> 01:06:32,040
 platted and showed those two lots as I showed you there the PNC at that time

785
01:06:32,040 --> 01:06:36,360
 approved a variance for this road to be cul-de-sac here the variance was for the

786
01:06:36,360 --> 01:06:39,280
 length of the cul-de-sac because the code says those can't be over 150 feet

787
01:06:39,280 --> 01:06:43,360
 long however since those two lots never developed that cul-de-sac never came to

788
01:06:43,360 --> 01:06:48,840
 fruition so at this time Denton County is requesting to not have to not dedicate

789
01:06:48,840 --> 01:06:51,200
 that additional right-of-way not construct the paving and sidewalk

790
01:06:51,200 --> 01:06:57,560
 improvements on Kimberly just to discuss the process a little bit there is a

791
01:06:57,560 --> 01:07:00,960
 preliminary plat on your consent agenda this evening if the subdivision

792
01:07:00,960 --> 01:07:03,680
 variances are approved then it will meet all the technical requirements of the

793
01:07:03,680 --> 01:07:07,600
 code but without those variances the preliminary plat cannot be approved as

794
01:07:07,600 --> 01:07:15,760
 it is so the specific variance requests are from two provisions in 35 20 2 which

795
01:07:15,760 --> 01:07:19,280
 speaks to right-of-way dedication so typically public right-of-way has to be

796
01:07:19,280 --> 01:07:23,200
 dedicated for all streets that serve more three or more residential lots or

797
01:07:23,200 --> 01:07:27,000
 any commercial or industrial lot that is the right-of-way width is determined by

798
01:07:27,000 --> 01:07:30,600
 the transportation criteria manual in this instance if Kimberly were to

799
01:07:30,600 --> 01:07:34,280
 continue south at the full right-of-way that it is north of Carina that would

800
01:07:34,280 --> 01:07:38,760
 require 65 feet of right-of-way total so there would be 30 additional feet

801
01:07:38,760 --> 01:07:45,120
 necessary and then 20.2.L1 specifies that when there's an existing street

802
01:07:45,120 --> 01:07:49,880
 adjacent to or within a tract that is of inadequate width that the additional

803
01:07:49,880 --> 01:07:52,520
 right-of-way that's required by the transportation criteria manual be

804
01:07:52,520 --> 01:07:56,860
 provided as I referenced earlier Denton County is requesting that they not have

805
01:07:56,860 --> 01:08:00,280
 to dedicate any additional right-of-way for Kimberly that they maintain the

806
01:08:00,280 --> 01:08:04,520
 pavement at its current width which is 24 and a half feet that additionally they

807
01:08:04,520 --> 01:08:08,720
 provide a barricade just south of their southernmost driveway their driveway is

808
01:08:08,720 --> 01:08:11,560
 sized so that vehicles could turn around there if they reached the end of the

809
01:08:11,560 --> 01:08:15,780
 street and realize they couldn't go any further and further cities engineering

810
01:08:15,780 --> 01:08:20,600
 staff is recommending that they also beyond that barricade to the south tear

811
01:08:20,600 --> 01:08:23,680
 up the existing paving all utilities would remain in place but with the

812
01:08:23,680 --> 01:08:26,720
 pavement gone there would be easier access to those utilities and it would

813
01:08:26,720 --> 01:08:30,000
 just provide that extra visual for drivers knowing hey there's there's no

814
01:08:30,000 --> 01:08:35,920
 street beyond this barricade and then 35.20.3 speaks to sidewalk

815
01:08:35,920 --> 01:08:39,760
 requirements all development shall either within right-of-way or easement

816
01:08:39,760 --> 01:08:43,920
 provide sidewalk or bicycle facilities in accordance with the transportation

817
01:08:43,920 --> 01:08:47,680
 criteria manual in this case a five-foot sidewalk would typically be required on

818
01:08:47,680 --> 01:08:51,040
 the street like Kimberly Denton County is requesting to not construct that

819
01:08:51,040 --> 01:08:56,360
 sidewalk on Kimberly so they're the site plan due to the configuration of the

820
01:08:56,360 --> 01:08:59,200
 property I had to orient a little strangely so north is to the left side

821
01:08:59,200 --> 01:09:04,000
 of the screen just looking at those on their plan orange is the right-of-way for

822
01:09:04,000 --> 01:09:07,760
 Kimberly as it is today they're requesting to maintain that width as it

823
01:09:07,760 --> 01:09:11,320
 is the shaded portion shows where our city engineering staff is requesting

824
01:09:11,320 --> 01:09:17,080
 that pavement be removed the red area here shows where that barricade would be

825
01:09:17,080 --> 01:09:20,600
 installed just south of their driveway the blue circle shows that oversized

826
01:09:20,600 --> 01:09:24,080
 driveway when I put up the building elevations you'll see there's there's

827
01:09:24,080 --> 01:09:27,560
 five very large bay doors there for fire trucks and other similar emergency

828
01:09:27,560 --> 01:09:31,480
 operation vehicles which necessitates the width of this driveway so there'd be

829
01:09:31,480 --> 01:09:35,680
 adequate room for turnarounds there for standard cars and then the purple line

830
01:09:35,680 --> 01:09:38,480
 shows where we would typically have that sidewalk adjacent to the street and they

831
01:09:38,480 --> 01:09:43,400
 are requesting to not provide the sidewalk on Kimberly

832
01:09:43,400 --> 01:09:46,880
 Michelle's thank you chair Haley so we're requesting that they remove that

833
01:09:46,880 --> 01:09:51,960
 pavement are we requesting what they do with that the area would just be

834
01:09:51,960 --> 01:09:55,240
 maintained as grass at that point so access it would still be city right-of-way

835
01:09:55,240 --> 01:09:58,000
 so we could get to all the utilities that are in there there's water and

836
01:09:58,000 --> 01:10:02,040
 sewer facilities there okay so it would just be city right-of-way but instead of

837
01:10:02,040 --> 01:10:09,320
 pavement it would be natural yeah so there are several criteria for approval

838
01:10:09,320 --> 01:10:12,280
 that are run through the first is that the granting of the variants would not

839
01:10:12,280 --> 01:10:16,320
 be detrimental to public safety health or welfare or injurious to any other

840
01:10:16,320 --> 01:10:20,640
 property as I mentioned before Kimberly Street is not a mobility plan roadway

841
01:10:20,640 --> 01:10:24,960
 south of Karina it's not going to ever extend beyond this property because of

842
01:10:24,960 --> 01:10:28,120
 the existing development pattern and the way that platting has occurred over time

843
01:10:28,120 --> 01:10:32,640
 the previously approved cul-de-sac was never constructed the area just didn't

844
01:10:32,640 --> 01:10:38,720
 develop as was intended so Kimberly South of Karina currently functions and serves

845
01:10:38,720 --> 01:10:42,040
 only these two sites it's essentially a driveway for FEMA at this point in time

846
01:10:42,040 --> 01:10:45,160
 so it would be a dual driveway for FEMA and Denton County if this were to be

847
01:10:45,160 --> 01:10:50,520
 approved it's not functioning as a city street and there are no changes proposed

848
01:10:50,520 --> 01:10:53,280
 here that would affect FEMA's access to that roadway at all so it wouldn't be

849
01:10:53,280 --> 01:10:58,560
 injurious to the other properties using the street the second condition is that

850
01:10:58,560 --> 01:11:02,560
 the conditions were upon which the requests for the variants are based are

851
01:11:02,560 --> 01:11:06,440
 unique to the property as I mentioned earlier this the site is relatively

852
01:11:06,440 --> 01:11:09,880
 unique for this part of town off of loop 288 there's not a lot of undeveloped

853
01:11:09,880 --> 01:11:15,040
 property in this area it is an infill development and Kimberly as I just

854
01:11:15,040 --> 01:11:18,400
 mentioned it's really only a driveway it's a fairly unique situation that we

855
01:11:18,400 --> 01:11:22,600
 have a city street that's only serving two commercial sites like this so there

856
01:11:22,600 --> 01:11:26,440
 are fairly unique conditions surrounding how Kimberly Drive has developed and how

857
01:11:26,440 --> 01:11:31,280
 it's unfortunately never going to continue south as it may have one time

858
01:11:31,280 --> 01:11:36,860
 been intended to do the third condition because of the particular physical

859
01:11:36,860 --> 01:11:41,520
 surrounding shape and topography that there is a hardship to the owner if the

860
01:11:41,520 --> 01:11:46,640
 code were enforced in this case it would actually be a safety concern for Denton

861
01:11:46,640 --> 01:11:50,880
 County they do intend to have fire trucks large emergency response vehicles

862
01:11:50,880 --> 01:11:54,720
 that would go out in times of natural disaster so they see it as a public

863
01:11:54,720 --> 01:11:59,000
 safety concern to encourage pedestrian or vehicular activity on a street where

864
01:11:59,000 --> 01:12:02,240
 they're you know you only have two to three hundred feet before trucks are

865
01:12:02,240 --> 01:12:05,200
 going to be pulling out of here potentially at rapid speeds to respond

866
01:12:05,200 --> 01:12:11,280
 to emergencies so in an attempt to discourage that activity and people

867
01:12:11,280 --> 01:12:14,640
 parking on the roadway as they do on Kimberly north of Karina they're

868
01:12:14,640 --> 01:12:18,080
 requesting that it be maintained narrowly to visually look like the

869
01:12:18,080 --> 01:12:23,200
 driveway that it functions as and if the road were required to be improved they

870
01:12:23,200 --> 01:12:26,280
 would have to go back to where we were in 2009 and seek a variance for that

871
01:12:26,280 --> 01:12:32,480
 street to be a dead end of over 150 feet in length the fourth condition is that

872
01:12:32,480 --> 01:12:36,800
 the variance will not in any manner vary from the provisions of the comprehensive

873
01:12:36,800 --> 01:12:41,480
 plan in this case the mobility plan does not show Kimberly Drive as a street

874
01:12:41,480 --> 01:12:46,000
 south of Karina so it's just a local street there's no no variation from the

875
01:12:46,000 --> 01:12:51,480
 mobility plan with this request and then finally that the conditions upon which

876
01:12:51,480 --> 01:12:56,160
 the variance request is based did not result from an act of the owner in this

877
01:12:56,160 --> 01:12:59,680
 case Denton County is just just now purchasing the property they've not been

878
01:12:59,680 --> 01:13:02,920
 party to the what's occurred up to this point that's resulted in the current

879
01:13:02,920 --> 01:13:09,120
 street conditions so this was not an act of their creation our traffic engineering

880
01:13:09,120 --> 01:13:12,440
 department has no objections to the proposed variance so staff is

881
01:13:12,440 --> 01:13:16,280
 recommending approval of the request as we found it to meet the criteria we do

882
01:13:16,280 --> 01:13:21,040
 recommend the condition that our city engineer requested that the pavement be

883
01:13:21,040 --> 01:13:25,680
 removed beyond the barricade south of Denton County southernmost driveway

884
01:13:25,680 --> 01:13:30,880
 mr. Ellis thank you chair does the applicant know of the condition yes

885
01:13:30,880 --> 01:13:34,600
 there have been discussions with them and they're not opposed to some practice

886
01:13:34,600 --> 01:13:40,280
 excavation for their employees to go out there and take a nice any other

887
01:13:40,280 --> 01:13:47,400
 questions great thanks Haley and just for the sake of efficiency Haley can you

888
01:13:47,400 --> 01:13:52,640
 go over your preliminary plot for this as well now certainly we're just giving

889
01:13:52,640 --> 01:13:59,800
 back to the consent agenda now because that believe that was the last public

890
01:13:59,800 --> 01:14:08,280
 hearing yes because 5d has been pulled so we hop back to consent this is item

891
01:14:08,280 --> 01:14:13,920
 3b yes this is the preliminary plot for the lot we were just looking at rather

892
01:14:13,920 --> 01:14:16,620
 than the two lots that were originally preliminary plotted they're combining it

893
01:14:16,620 --> 01:14:20,800
 into one with the approval of the variances this evening this plot would

894
01:14:20,800 --> 01:14:24,480
 meet all the technical requirements of the code happy to answer any questions

895
01:14:24,480 --> 01:14:31,880
 you all may have about it I don't see any since we're on the consent agenda does

896
01:14:31,880 --> 01:14:38,560
 any commissioners have questions about any of the consent items there's several

897
01:14:38,560 --> 01:14:45,080
 on here but we can pull some if you want a presentation on any going around going

898
01:14:45,080 --> 01:14:50,360
 once okay great so this evening will follow the same pattern we go public

899
01:14:50,360 --> 01:14:55,280
 hearing consent agenda and then the individual consideration and then for

900
01:14:55,280 --> 01:14:59,880
 the individual consideration items we will be hearing each one because there

901
01:14:59,880 --> 01:15:04,040
 are some that have a recommendation for denial and want to provide if anyone

902
01:15:04,040 --> 01:15:09,080
 needed to speak against that to us give them the opportunity and chambers to do

903
01:15:09,080 --> 01:15:12,920
 so but we'll have abbreviated presentations for those items so they

904
01:15:12,920 --> 01:15:19,880
 don't you know delay progress too long so with that let's just hop into the

905
01:15:19,880 --> 01:15:39,880
 individual items so the first one is 4a mark Laird good evening my name is mark

906
01:15:39,880 --> 01:15:43,880
 Laird I'm a planner of the development service department this evening I have

907
01:15:43,880 --> 01:15:51,720
 for your review and consideration the modern plot of Perales addition staff is

908
01:15:51,720 --> 01:15:59,240
 recommending denial of this plot based on the details listed in the report here

909
01:15:59,240 --> 01:16:08,720
 stand for any questions so any questions on this and going forward mark or Richard

910
01:16:08,720 --> 01:16:13,440
 the denial is simply the procedure in which something is missing they have to

911
01:16:13,440 --> 01:16:17,960
 get the denial to get pushed back to redo that correct my understanding that

912
01:16:17,960 --> 01:16:22,560
 process right correct we have to have it this one's a little different in in

913
01:16:22,560 --> 01:16:26,560
 minor class are typically an administratively approved plot so

914
01:16:26,560 --> 01:16:31,440
 typically these are these are approved at a staff level however staff cannot

915
01:16:31,440 --> 01:16:37,000
 deny a administratively approved we can only approve an administratively approved

916
01:16:37,000 --> 01:16:41,000
 we can't deny them so that's why it's coming that's why the minor plats coming

917
01:16:41,000 --> 01:16:48,960
 to the Commission for consideration interestingly enough once they correct

918
01:16:48,960 --> 01:16:54,320
 it it still has to now come back to PNC for approval because you were the ones

919
01:16:54,320 --> 01:17:04,560
 that in accordance with the new bill that was passed that's very logical okay

920
01:17:04,560 --> 01:17:09,680
 great and so does the pattern for these new plots preliminary final and minor

921
01:17:09,680 --> 01:17:15,360
 that come to us this is going to be the general presentation or then in public

922
01:17:15,360 --> 01:17:18,960
 hearing if there is someone who wishes to speak and would not even a public

923
01:17:18,960 --> 01:17:26,720
 hearing is just right right right I'm in yeah any questions for this one great

924
01:17:26,720 --> 01:17:35,960
 thanks mark thank you next one is 4b PP 19 - 27 this is Haley's item

925
01:17:39,680 --> 01:17:53,440
 all right so similar to what mark went through this is the location of the

926
01:17:53,440 --> 01:17:58,280
 property at sycamore and Elm Street this is a preliminary plat intended for

927
01:17:58,280 --> 01:18:02,660
 townhome development it would be in two phases in this case staff is

928
01:18:02,660 --> 01:18:05,960
 recommending denial of the preliminary plat for the reasons that were detailed

929
01:18:05,960 --> 01:18:09,480
 in your staff report however the applicant has requested an extension of

930
01:18:09,480 --> 01:18:14,520
 this to the February 5th 2020 agenda to allow them more time to work through the

931
01:18:14,520 --> 01:18:18,760
 staff comments that they were given and I can stand for any questions

932
01:18:18,760 --> 01:18:24,040
 mr. Smith nature that isn't running against the shot clock and maybe maybe

933
01:18:24,040 --> 01:18:27,440
 this is a good time to help explain difference maybe here what what has

934
01:18:27,440 --> 01:18:32,280
 shot clock and what doesn't so this is a shot clock applicable class we can

935
01:18:32,280 --> 01:18:34,920
 provide it we provide an extension on the shot clock I thought that after the

936
01:18:34,920 --> 01:18:40,000
 30 days we had voted is that so it has to come before you within 30 days the

937
01:18:40,000 --> 01:18:43,800
 applicant does have the right to request one extension not to exceed 30 days

938
01:18:43,800 --> 01:18:49,100
 so appreciate Haley only question I have is from the agenda maybe I'm missing

939
01:18:49,100 --> 01:18:54,780
 this I found it super helpful on the actual agenda the motion being done by

940
01:18:54,780 --> 01:19:03,880
 staff so like item 3 no 4d which is yours it says request an extension of

941
01:19:03,880 --> 01:19:08,640
 February 5th but this item for B doesn't say that Cathy and I have been

942
01:19:08,640 --> 01:19:11,680
 pondering over why that didn't carry forward if you look in the backup it

943
01:19:11,680 --> 01:19:14,720
 actually printed out in the caption it just didn't make it onto the agenda and

944
01:19:14,720 --> 01:19:19,440
 we're not sure how that occurred not a big deal it was really helpful to know

945
01:19:19,440 --> 01:19:28,320
 which ones were that was our intent was helpful with that but any questions for

946
01:19:28,320 --> 01:19:37,880
 this item all right item 4c Cindy Jackson PP 19 - 35 be

947
01:19:59,320 --> 01:20:10,760
 and this one is similar to Haley's in that PP 19 0035 be you did you did

948
01:20:10,760 --> 01:20:18,240
 actually approve a 30-day extension back in December and the applicant has not

949
01:20:18,240 --> 01:20:23,640
 submitted anything since you have approved the 30-day extension as such it

950
01:20:23,640 --> 01:20:28,680
 does not meet the requirements as noted in your your backup and staff is

951
01:20:28,680 --> 01:20:34,480
 recommending denial all right any questions on this fantastic thanks

952
01:20:34,480 --> 01:20:41,800
 Cindy next is back to Haley item 4d FP 19 - 31

953
01:20:53,680 --> 01:20:57,080
 so this is a final plan for the Northgate edition that's located at

954
01:20:57,080 --> 01:21:03,120
 Sherman and 288 you can see the property in yellow on the map the final plan is

955
01:21:03,120 --> 01:21:07,280
 for six commercial lots again staff is recommending denial of the plan at this

956
01:21:07,280 --> 01:21:11,080
 time for the reasons detailed in your backup and again the applicant has

957
01:21:11,080 --> 01:21:15,920
 requested that 30-day extension to the February 5th 2020 agenda happy to answer

958
01:21:15,920 --> 01:21:21,080
 any questions you may have Haley have a question not on this plot but rather

959
01:21:21,080 --> 01:21:28,520
 this overall process how is it being received by developers to go through

960
01:21:28,520 --> 01:21:33,360
 this is it I understand I've never filed one of these I don't know that the old

961
01:21:33,360 --> 01:21:38,000
 process and the timing of it are they obviously they're aware that they're

962
01:21:38,000 --> 01:21:43,200
 recommending denial or asking for a postponement can you interpret like

963
01:21:43,200 --> 01:21:49,120
 their response to these new rules from the way they have to do the process I

964
01:21:49,120 --> 01:21:52,680
 don't know Richard you look like you might want to jump in there I don't think

965
01:21:52,680 --> 01:21:58,600
 anyone I don't think any of them really are in favor of it okay I think some of

966
01:21:58,600 --> 01:22:03,700
 the improvements that we had made over the last year year and a half I don't

967
01:22:03,700 --> 01:22:06,960
 think we were one of those that really dragged our feet on getting a plat

968
01:22:06,960 --> 01:22:16,680
 approved but it's obviously caused a lot of inconvenience I think part of the

969
01:22:16,680 --> 01:22:25,120
 challenge also is every city seems to be doing it differently I heard one one

970
01:22:25,120 --> 01:22:30,240
 instance today I won't mention the municipality similar to us they have

971
01:22:30,240 --> 01:22:35,760
 five days to respond but that staff doesn't even look at the response they

972
01:22:35,760 --> 01:22:41,600
 still take it as a denial and so it's just it's caused a lot of issues I was

973
01:22:41,600 --> 01:22:45,600
 gonna follow with that obviously this is across all municipalities in Texas are

974
01:22:45,600 --> 01:22:50,560
 we doing enough creatively to still be attractive and competitive in the

975
01:22:50,560 --> 01:22:54,160
 timeline perspective from the other municipalities you talked to you I think

976
01:22:54,160 --> 01:22:59,440
 so okay I think the fact that we have the the facilitators involved as well I

977
01:22:59,440 --> 01:23:03,320
 think has helped out tremendously and sort of lighten the load a little bit

978
01:23:03,320 --> 01:23:09,440
 even for planning staff with managing projects with multiple great variables

979
01:23:09,440 --> 01:23:13,760
 we do have some middle calendars on our website now as well that if they look at

980
01:23:13,760 --> 01:23:17,320
 the calendar they'll see what their target dates are for submittal resubmittal

981
01:23:17,320 --> 01:23:23,320
 and then P&Z ultimately so it at least gives predictability yeah okay good the

982
01:23:23,320 --> 01:23:30,440
 next item is item 4e this is back to Cindy Jackson FP 19 - 33

983
01:23:40,840 --> 01:23:49,320
 staff is recommending denial of FP 19 0 0 3 3 50 Fisher 59 it does not comply

984
01:23:49,320 --> 01:23:55,680
 with the requirements as noted in your backup the applicant has requested a

985
01:23:55,680 --> 01:24:01,600
 30-day extension to enable him to address the the comments and bring it

986
01:24:01,600 --> 01:24:08,240
 into compliance and that would take it bring it to the February 5th meeting is

987
01:24:08,240 --> 01:24:11,080
 the city allowed to recommend postponement they're all these

988
01:24:11,080 --> 01:24:14,640
 postponements are recommended denial but they're requesting postponement is the

989
01:24:14,640 --> 01:24:19,080
 city has to recommend denial and then they can just attach that the applicants

990
01:24:19,080 --> 01:24:26,800
 wanting to postpone mr. chair what the staff is giving you as options they're

991
01:24:26,800 --> 01:24:32,080
 recommending denial of the plat for reasons but the applicant has submitted

992
01:24:32,080 --> 01:24:36,720
 a request for an extension so they're just giving you the option I appreciate

993
01:24:36,720 --> 01:24:41,720
 that I think I understand the option I'm just wondering if the staff has the

994
01:24:41,720 --> 01:24:45,080
 authority to recommend postponements don't want to take their recognition in

995
01:24:45,080 --> 01:24:48,560
 consideration why would we give them postponement if staff is recommending

996
01:24:48,560 --> 01:24:52,840
 denial I'm wondering if staff has the authority to recommend a postponement if

997
01:24:52,840 --> 01:24:56,700
 they do I take the weight of a recommended denial more the staff does

998
01:24:56,700 --> 01:25:01,400
 not have the authority to recommend right the applicant has to ask for it

999
01:25:01,400 --> 01:25:07,920
 gotcha and can only and can only add right perfect that that helps okay thank

1000
01:25:07,920 --> 01:25:14,080
 you sure no no no I might have asked the confusion

1001
01:25:14,080 --> 01:25:21,640
 okay next one up we're just going through these for F Julie Wyatt ADP 19

1002
01:25:21,640 --> 01:25:32,680
 - zero zero eleven good evening

1003
01:25:32,680 --> 01:25:42,680
 Julie Wyatt senior planner at the city of Denton and I am presenting ADP 1911

1004
01:25:42,680 --> 01:25:47,880
 Haven at Doherty the request before you is for an alternative development plan

1005
01:25:47,880 --> 01:25:55,840
 for multi-family development located north of Doherty just west of Johnson

1006
01:25:55,840 --> 01:25:59,080
 Street between the railroad tracks and Johnson Street you may you may remember

1007
01:25:59,080 --> 01:26:04,380
 this you've seen a couple of plats for this one as well as a variance the

1008
01:26:04,380 --> 01:26:09,080
 purpose is to deviate from sub chapter 13 of the 2002 Denton Development Code

1009
01:26:09,080 --> 01:26:12,640
 you have a few of these coming forward tonight so we're just going to briefly

1010
01:26:12,640 --> 01:26:16,480
 remind you about what an alternative development plan is so sub chapter 13 of

1011
01:26:16,480 --> 01:26:21,100
 the 2002 Denton Development Code had included all the site design

1012
01:26:21,100 --> 01:26:26,080
 requirements for a development where how the building should be oriented where

1013
01:26:26,080 --> 01:26:30,920
 street trees should be placed that sort of thing but the sub chapter 13 also

1014
01:26:30,920 --> 01:26:35,600
 provides this flexible discretionary process for when they really can't meet

1015
01:26:35,600 --> 01:26:39,800
 those requirements it allows them to ask for deviations from those codes

1016
01:26:39,800 --> 01:26:44,120
 provided that they meet the intent and the criteria for approval so that's what

1017
01:26:44,120 --> 01:26:51,240
 we're doing here tonight on this on this proposal so under the 2002 city what are

1018
01:26:51,240 --> 01:26:58,880
 under the 2002 code the project had a DCG zoning a transition to MN for 2019

1019
01:26:58,880 --> 01:27:03,840
 due to project timing this was reviewed under the 2002 code which is why the ADP

1020
01:27:03,840 --> 01:27:10,360
 is going forward the 2019 code does not have that process in it as I said this

1021
01:27:10,360 --> 01:27:14,280
 is for a proposed multifamily development apart from the deviations

1022
01:27:14,280 --> 01:27:18,280
 they meet all sub chapter 13 requirements they are proposing to be

1023
01:27:18,280 --> 01:27:21,960
 oriented toward Doherty at you're probably familiar with that with that

1024
01:27:21,960 --> 01:27:26,480
 ring road in it with the the access primarily off of Doherty but additional

1025
01:27:26,480 --> 01:27:32,120
 access off of Collins so there are two provisions they are proposing to deviate

1026
01:27:32,120 --> 01:27:38,760
 from one that at least 50% of the front yard of the of the front yard frontage

1027
01:27:38,760 --> 01:27:48,760
 should have buildings along that that line so that the the property has 546

1028
01:27:48,760 --> 01:27:53,840
 feet of linear feet along Doherty if they follow the code exactly that would

1029
01:27:53,840 --> 01:28:01,080
 require 230 273 linear feet of buildings within 20 feet of that right-of-way line

1030
01:28:01,080 --> 01:28:06,000
 of Doherty so they are requesting a deviation from that they're also

1031
01:28:06,000 --> 01:28:11,060
 requesting a deviation from the private street system so projects over three

1032
01:28:11,060 --> 01:28:16,000
 acres multifamily projects over three acres in the 2002 code required a a

1033
01:28:16,000 --> 01:28:20,640
 public or private street system that had specific design requirements that they

1034
01:28:20,640 --> 01:28:27,840
 had to have on either side of it it had to have the the curb and then a planting

1035
01:28:27,840 --> 01:28:32,360
 area and then a sidewalk they are requesting a deviation from that to move

1036
01:28:32,360 --> 01:28:36,360
 that curb the sidewalk area closer to the curb closer to those parking spaces

1037
01:28:36,360 --> 01:28:43,360
 to provide a landing area for residents as they exit their cars so we'll look a

1038
01:28:43,360 --> 01:28:47,320
 little closer at what they're proposing so this is this is that frontage along

1039
01:28:47,320 --> 01:28:53,920
 Doherty Street in blue were the three buildings and they comprise the 227

1040
01:28:53,920 --> 01:28:57,960
 feet of structure that are located between 19 and 41 feet from the property

1041
01:28:57,960 --> 01:29:05,280
 line and as an alternative to that and as as part of their process or project

1042
01:29:05,280 --> 01:29:10,680
 they are they have 29 street trees along that area so the intent of this of this

1043
01:29:10,680 --> 01:29:16,160
 requirement is to push parking away from the street to pull those buildings

1044
01:29:16,160 --> 01:29:21,400
 forward to activate that street to define that street edge to create that

1045
01:29:21,400 --> 01:29:26,960
 room of that that public sphere and the 2002 code really relied on buildings

1046
01:29:26,960 --> 01:29:30,600
 relied on structures to meet to meet that requirement but that requirement

1047
01:29:30,600 --> 01:29:33,760
 can be met with lots of different ways it could be met through there's things

1048
01:29:33,760 --> 01:29:38,560
 like trees or public art or street furniture and in this instance those

1049
01:29:38,560 --> 01:29:42,560
 trees really define that edge provide those vertical elements along the street

1050
01:29:42,560 --> 01:29:46,120
 and increase that comfort of for pedestrians that are going to be

1051
01:29:46,120 --> 01:29:52,800
 walking along Doherty Street and the second provision was for that design of

1052
01:29:52,800 --> 01:29:56,480
 that internal street system so this this project does provide a lot of

1053
01:29:56,480 --> 01:30:01,320
 legibility through this the side it does provide for clear pathways that vehicles

1054
01:30:01,320 --> 01:30:06,800
 can follow and it is a gated community so there's not a lot of connectivity

1055
01:30:06,800 --> 01:30:11,720
 between this project and adjacent developments so so although they've got

1056
01:30:11,720 --> 01:30:17,560
 that clear pathway that that intent requires or intent the intent of that

1057
01:30:17,560 --> 01:30:22,400
 requirement they have asked for that deviation to allow that sidewalk to be

1058
01:30:22,400 --> 01:30:26,800
 pulled closer to the the parking spaces to allow that landing space so as the

1059
01:30:26,800 --> 01:30:30,260
 residents are exiting their cars they won't have to walk through any grass

1060
01:30:30,260 --> 01:30:34,600
 they could just land on the sidewalk with their school books or their

1061
01:30:34,600 --> 01:30:40,400
 groceries and head into their their dwelling units so there's criteria for

1062
01:30:40,400 --> 01:30:43,480
 approval and sub chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code first is it

1063
01:30:43,480 --> 01:30:48,200
 preserve existing neighborhoods this is in a redeveloping area near the city

1064
01:30:48,200 --> 01:30:53,600
 center so the proposed development would provide unnecessary housing near our

1065
01:30:53,600 --> 01:30:58,800
 downtown area and some of our university areas assure quality development this

1066
01:30:58,800 --> 01:31:04,440
 intent is not to lower design standards but just to facilitate the development

1067
01:31:04,440 --> 01:31:08,360
 particularly on this site where it's kind of a skinny site and it's nestled up

1068
01:31:08,360 --> 01:31:12,160
 against those those railroad tracks apart from the request all other

1069
01:31:12,160 --> 01:31:18,160
 requirements have been met for sub chapter 13 to reduce sprawl this is an

1070
01:31:18,160 --> 01:31:24,560
 urban infill so it's not contributing to sprawl in the city there is

1071
01:31:24,560 --> 01:31:28,760
 necessary infrastructure available and it's also near DCTA transit this has

1072
01:31:28,760 --> 01:31:32,200
 kind of become a little bit of a hub for student housing and there is transit

1073
01:31:32,200 --> 01:31:36,520
 near there so it's a good location for this kind of density and then it results

1074
01:31:36,520 --> 01:31:41,520
 in a high quality development that provision for the 50% of the front yard

1075
01:31:41,520 --> 01:31:45,000
 building frontage to have buildings within 20 feet of the front property

1076
01:31:45,000 --> 01:31:50,080
 line as I said the intent is to enclose that space to create vibrancy and

1077
01:31:50,080 --> 01:31:53,720
 pedestrian comfort along our public right-of-ways in this case the

1078
01:31:53,720 --> 01:31:57,680
 combination of those buildings along there and those street trees really do

1079
01:31:57,680 --> 01:32:01,640
 enclose that space and meet the intent of the code and then for the provision of

1080
01:32:01,640 --> 01:32:06,800
 the private street design with the plantings between the buildings instead

1081
01:32:06,800 --> 01:32:11,800
 of between the parking lot and the sidewalk it does allow for that landing

1082
01:32:11,800 --> 01:32:15,280
 area while they're still are providing those clear pathways within their drive

1083
01:32:15,280 --> 01:32:22,800
 aisles so staff through our analysis recommends approval as the deviations do

1084
01:32:22,800 --> 01:32:28,400
 meet the criteria for approval and I'll stand for any question I do not see me

1085
01:32:28,400 --> 01:32:32,920
 I think Julie so at this time we have three items left but we're gonna take a

1086
01:32:32,920 --> 01:32:42,760
 quick break for some food it is 6.03 we will reconvene at 6.15 thank you

1087
01:32:42,760 --> 01:32:52,120
 welcome back to the planning and zoning Commission work session it is 6.14 the

1088
01:32:52,120 --> 01:32:58,520
 next item for business is item 4 G ADP 19 - 0 0 8 this ties into the other items

1089
01:32:58,520 --> 01:33:02,920
 we've heard about this but I'll turn it over to Haley to talk about the ADP all

1090
01:33:02,920 --> 01:33:07,840
 right so this is the the third of the items for the emergency operation center

1091
01:33:07,840 --> 01:33:12,040
 it's an alternative development plan request we've seen the site before this

1092
01:33:12,040 --> 01:33:15,400
 evening of course I'm at the southwest corner of Karina and Kimberly they do

1093
01:33:15,400 --> 01:33:19,400
 have multiple ADP request relating to parking in front of the building parking

1094
01:33:19,400 --> 01:33:24,520
 lot landscaping and then street tree and overall tree canopy requirements so

1095
01:33:24,520 --> 01:33:28,640
 specifically and the first of the request is for parking to be located in

1096
01:33:28,640 --> 01:33:32,320
 front of the building that sub chapter 13 required parking to the side or rear

1097
01:33:32,320 --> 01:33:36,480
 of a building unless you were along an arterial roadway they're requesting to

1098
01:33:36,480 --> 01:33:41,360
 have 30 vehicle spaces located along Karina Street primarily for visitors to

1099
01:33:41,360 --> 01:33:47,000
 the facility the second request is with relationship to site overall tree

1100
01:33:47,000 --> 01:33:51,920
 canopy requirements within the ECC district there was a 30% tree canopy

1101
01:33:51,920 --> 01:33:55,720
 requirement with all 64 trees they were planting on the site they would be at

1102
01:33:55,720 --> 01:33:59,360
 just over 20% there are no trees existing on the site today to help

1103
01:33:59,360 --> 01:34:05,320
 contribute to that canopy third or street tree requirements that under the

1104
01:34:05,320 --> 01:34:09,720
 2002 code were required along all street frontages at a rate of one tree per 45

1105
01:34:09,720 --> 01:34:14,080
 linear feet they were to be located between the sidewalk and the street in

1106
01:34:14,080 --> 01:34:18,000
 this case 18 street trees are required they are providing those 18 trees on

1107
01:34:18,000 --> 01:34:23,360
 site but due to utility locations along Karina and their desire to to keep

1108
01:34:23,360 --> 01:34:27,480
 Kimberly as it is they're proposing to provide those 18 trees within other

1109
01:34:27,480 --> 01:34:32,280
 locations on the site and we'll look at those in just a moment fourth is for

1110
01:34:32,280 --> 01:34:36,560
 parking lot canopy the DDC required a minimum of 15 percent canopy coverage

1111
01:34:36,560 --> 01:34:42,040
 within all parking lots they have 54 percent tree canopy that will be

1112
01:34:42,040 --> 01:34:45,840
 provided in their northern visitor lot however the the side lot along the

1113
01:34:45,840 --> 01:34:48,880
 internal driveway on the east side of the facility will have 0% canopy

1114
01:34:48,880 --> 01:34:54,520
 coverage and the request is driven by a need to have a secure parking lot there

1115
01:34:54,520 --> 01:34:58,960
 and have a clearance for vehicles to enter and exit the facility and then

1116
01:34:58,960 --> 01:35:02,600
 finally when you do have front parking the code requires a very specific

1117
01:35:02,600 --> 01:35:06,880
 combination of landscaping elements in front of that parking lot that's a 15

1118
01:35:06,880 --> 01:35:11,660
 foot wide area with a landscaped berm one large tree for every 40 feet and then

1119
01:35:11,660 --> 01:35:16,040
 either zero scaping three foot high shrub row or a three foot high wall again

1120
01:35:16,040 --> 01:35:20,280
 there are existing utilities there along Karina as well as drainage so they can't

1121
01:35:20,280 --> 01:35:24,140
 provide that exact combination what they will have is a approximately 50 foot

1122
01:35:24,140 --> 01:35:28,520
 wide area that will be entirely grassy and there's approximately a seven foot

1123
01:35:28,520 --> 01:35:31,800
 slope upwards from the sidewalk towards the parking lot so they they meet the

1124
01:35:31,800 --> 01:35:35,280
 intent of the berm with that change in elevation and they will provide a five

1125
01:35:35,280 --> 01:35:38,480
 foot wide planting bed with evergreen shrubs and trees along the edge of the

1126
01:35:38,480 --> 01:35:43,760
 parking lot so here's all of those elements laid out on the site the dark

1127
01:35:43,760 --> 01:35:47,480
 green circle show you their alternative street tree locations so along Karina

1128
01:35:47,480 --> 01:35:50,560
 they've just pushed those trees back closer to the parking lot and then

1129
01:35:50,560 --> 01:35:53,360
 they're providing some along their internal driveway and then some along

1130
01:35:53,360 --> 01:35:57,680
 the south side of their property and orange is that a visitor parking lot in

1131
01:35:57,680 --> 01:36:01,320
 front of the building this is the secured employee and equipment parking

1132
01:36:01,320 --> 01:36:06,200
 area where they're requesting to not provide any tree canopy and again

1133
01:36:06,200 --> 01:36:09,680
 overall they'll be at just over 20% canopy which is a significant increase

1134
01:36:09,680 --> 01:36:13,780
 from the conditions today with zero percent canopy

1135
01:36:13,780 --> 01:36:29,800
 yes so their property it's covered by the text box here extends all the way to

1136
01:36:29,800 --> 01:36:34,160
 where the street is dead-ended today so they're they're not making any changes

1137
01:36:34,160 --> 01:36:37,640
 on that southernmost leg of the property they anticipate they may need that for

1138
01:36:37,640 --> 01:36:40,960
 something in the future but for now they're leaving it just vacant grass as

1139
01:36:40,960 --> 01:36:44,560
 it is so they will have some of their landscaping improvements south of that

1140
01:36:44,560 --> 01:36:51,520
 barricade but that's still within their property boundaries you're welcome this

1141
01:36:51,520 --> 01:36:54,640
 is just a view of what the building would look like from Karina Street so

1142
01:36:54,640 --> 01:36:57,220
 they do meet all of the other code requirements for site design and

1143
01:36:57,220 --> 01:37:01,280
 building design this is what it would look like along Kimberly this is showing

1144
01:37:01,280 --> 01:37:05,840
 the what the need for that overly large driveway on Kimberly is for these five

1145
01:37:05,840 --> 01:37:11,840
 vehicle bays for fire trucks and other large-scale equipment as Julie went

1146
01:37:11,840 --> 01:37:14,520
 through their several criteria for approval for an ADP first is

1147
01:37:14,520 --> 01:37:18,560
 preservation of existing neighborhoods this will simply be a continuation of

1148
01:37:18,560 --> 01:37:21,400
 the existing county and federal offices that are located in this part of the

1149
01:37:21,400 --> 01:37:25,240
 city many of the developments in this area do have front parking so it's not

1150
01:37:25,240 --> 01:37:29,000
 out of character with what they've requested and as I mentioned the site

1151
01:37:29,000 --> 01:37:33,120
 does have 0% canopy today so it would be improvement to this area of town with

1152
01:37:33,120 --> 01:37:38,200
 the tree canopy that they would be providing second is assuring quality

1153
01:37:38,200 --> 01:37:42,600
 development fits with the character of Denton again this is consistent with the

1154
01:37:42,600 --> 01:37:46,040
 development pattern in this area and the office style development that's occurred

1155
01:37:46,040 --> 01:37:50,240
 here that's intended to request or to facilitate the development of a rather

1156
01:37:50,240 --> 01:37:54,600
 unique use within an infill parcel and apart from their requested deviations

1157
01:37:54,600 --> 01:37:59,720
 they are meeting all other code requirements and the third criteria for

1158
01:37:59,720 --> 01:38:02,320
 approval is that it focused new development to activity centers to curb

1159
01:38:02,320 --> 01:38:05,480
 strip development this is not contributing to strip development anyway

1160
01:38:05,480 --> 01:38:09,200
 it is an infill parcel and is the one of the only undeveloped parcels in this

1161
01:38:09,200 --> 01:38:14,360
 area of town and then rather there is infrastructure capable of accommodating

1162
01:38:14,360 --> 01:38:17,880
 the development there are utilities in place the they will be making

1163
01:38:17,880 --> 01:38:21,880
 improvements to Karina Street and then Kimberly as it exists today is adequate

1164
01:38:21,880 --> 01:38:27,360
 to serve their development as well as the FEMA site and then finally ensuring

1165
01:38:27,360 --> 01:38:30,520
 that their alternative proposal result in an overall high quality development

1166
01:38:30,520 --> 01:38:34,960
 again the front parking request is intended to provide security for their

1167
01:38:34,960 --> 01:38:38,440
 employee lot and their equipment lot separate from the vehicle spaces it's

1168
01:38:38,440 --> 01:38:43,920
 not intended to detract from the city's development standards with relation to

1169
01:38:43,920 --> 01:38:47,560
 the parking lot and site tree canopy their request is increasing the

1170
01:38:47,560 --> 01:38:51,680
 conditions on the site overall it is an improvement and the request within that

1171
01:38:51,680 --> 01:38:55,000
 parking lot is specifically as I mentioned to help maintain security and

1172
01:38:55,000 --> 01:38:58,720
 maneuverability for street trees they are providing all the required trees

1173
01:38:58,720 --> 01:39:02,640
 simply in alternative locations and then with relation to parking lot screening

1174
01:39:02,640 --> 01:39:06,480
 they're exceeding the requirement for the width of that screening area that

1175
01:39:06,480 --> 01:39:10,320
 are providing the shrubs and trees and the parking lot is elevated above the

1176
01:39:10,320 --> 01:39:14,520
 sidewalk so it does help reduce the visibility as a berm would have done so

1177
01:39:14,520 --> 01:39:19,800
 staff is recommending approval of this request and I can stand for any questions

1178
01:39:20,240 --> 01:39:28,880
 I do not see any thank you very much next item is 4h ADP 19-7 and this is

1179
01:39:28,880 --> 01:39:31,720
 Julie Wyatt

1180
01:39:31,720 --> 01:39:45,640
 last ADP for the night all right so this is ADP 19-7 Oxford at Sherman the

1181
01:39:45,640 --> 01:39:49,000
 request before you is an alternative development plan for another multifamily

1182
01:39:49,000 --> 01:39:53,720
 development this one you also have seen before it had an SUP come before you

1183
01:39:53,720 --> 01:40:00,520
 last month and it is it is on twelve point three three acres situated between

1184
01:40:00,520 --> 01:40:09,120
 poinsettia and loop 288 kind of in the northeast side of town under the 2002

1185
01:40:09,120 --> 01:40:15,040
 zoning the subject property had a zoning of CMG it transitioned to SC with the

1186
01:40:15,040 --> 01:40:21,300
 2019 code but due to this the the project timing it is reviewed under the

1187
01:40:21,300 --> 01:40:27,560
 2002 code which is why that ADP is going for it coming forward and as I said you

1188
01:40:27,560 --> 01:40:32,560
 saw a specific use permit for this project in in December it it was

1189
01:40:32,560 --> 01:40:39,280
 approved by City Council in last month and one of the conditions of that

1190
01:40:39,280 --> 01:40:44,040
 approval was that they had to come forward with their ADP after the SUP was

1191
01:40:44,040 --> 01:40:48,600
 completed so that's what they're doing today and the approval of the SUP

1192
01:40:48,600 --> 01:40:52,320
 included a site plan a landscape plan and elevations and what you're seeing

1193
01:40:52,320 --> 01:40:56,280
 today is consistent with what you saw in December with one change and I'll point

1194
01:40:56,280 --> 01:41:02,640
 that out to you so they are proposing two deviations from subchapter 13 of the

1195
01:41:02,640 --> 01:41:08,200
 2002 code the first is that accessory structures such as carports in garages

1196
01:41:08,200 --> 01:41:13,000
 cannot be located between the primary buildings and the right-of-way they are

1197
01:41:13,000 --> 01:41:18,240
 proposing to place garages along points that a one one-story garages that was a

1198
01:41:18,240 --> 01:41:22,440
 design feature that was in order to move those residential those taller buildings

1199
01:41:22,440 --> 01:41:27,080
 farther away from the existing neighborhoods and so so that that

1200
01:41:27,080 --> 01:41:30,960
 requires approval of that deviation and the other is is the private street

1201
01:41:30,960 --> 01:41:35,040
 system that we talked about earlier and they have a similar design element that

1202
01:41:35,040 --> 01:41:39,720
 the previous project has had what was that that landing that the sidewalk be

1203
01:41:39,720 --> 01:41:47,480
 closer to the to the parking spaces so just to look at their site plan the the

1204
01:41:47,480 --> 01:41:52,000
 residential buildings that are closest to poinsettia are here outlined in purple

1205
01:41:52,000 --> 01:41:56,800
 and the garages that I talked about are outlined in yellow and you can see that

1206
01:41:56,800 --> 01:42:01,120
 they are between those those taller residential structures and the right-of-way

1207
01:42:01,120 --> 01:42:06,600
 and then the green the green arrows kind of show what what that private street

1208
01:42:06,600 --> 01:42:12,800
 system how cars vehicles move to that site and and and we'll look a little

1209
01:42:12,800 --> 01:42:17,560
 closer as to how they are specifically designed but their circulation there

1210
01:42:17,560 --> 01:42:22,320
 their drive aisles do create a clear pathway for vehicles and allows

1211
01:42:22,320 --> 01:42:26,280
 legibility and residents to move through the site and understand where they're

1212
01:42:26,280 --> 01:42:32,240
 going and how to get around look a little closer at the landscape plan to

1213
01:42:32,240 --> 01:42:37,920
 show what that private street system is what those design elements are so here

1214
01:42:37,920 --> 01:42:44,040
 you can see they've got the the parking spaces with that sidewalk and then the

1215
01:42:44,040 --> 01:42:48,320
 planting area between the sidewalk and the buildings so the criteria for

1216
01:42:48,320 --> 01:42:52,400
 approval are to first preserve existing neighborhoods this multifamily is in a

1217
01:42:52,400 --> 01:42:57,240
 transition area between loop 288 and existing residential and so it does the

1218
01:42:57,240 --> 01:43:02,840
 proposal it does meet that criteria to assure quality development this request

1219
01:43:02,840 --> 01:43:07,400
 is not to lower design standards but to really kind of implement some of those

1220
01:43:07,400 --> 01:43:12,920
 design elements that were approved with that SUP in addition that that SUP

1221
01:43:12,920 --> 01:43:17,840
 provided additional scrutiny and approval from City Council to focus new

1222
01:43:17,840 --> 01:43:21,720
 activity new development activity centers this is in a mixed-use area and

1223
01:43:21,720 --> 01:43:26,120
 it's not encouraging strip development it's a logical continuation of the

1224
01:43:26,120 --> 01:43:30,680
 existing development pattern and there is a necessary infrastructure to

1225
01:43:30,680 --> 01:43:34,920
 accommodate the request or it will be constructed with the development and does

1226
01:43:34,920 --> 01:43:38,360
 it result in a high quality development that meets the intent of the standards

1227
01:43:38,360 --> 01:43:42,940
 the garage location does provide that buffer area and a transition between the

1228
01:43:42,940 --> 01:43:46,760
 existing residential the existing neighborhoods and the taller newer

1229
01:43:46,760 --> 01:43:52,840
 buildings the garages will be designed with a residential architecture standard

1230
01:43:52,840 --> 01:43:57,000
 you know pitched roofs and as well as those garage doors will face inward so

1231
01:43:57,000 --> 01:44:01,840
 they won't face toward the street and then as part of City Council's approval

1232
01:44:01,840 --> 01:44:06,440
 of the SUP they also required a masonry wall along points at us so there will be

1233
01:44:06,440 --> 01:44:10,680
 additional screening of those garages with that masonry wall and street trees

1234
01:44:10,680 --> 01:44:15,200
 and landscaping along that right-of-way the private streets design they are

1235
01:44:15,200 --> 01:44:18,080
 providing that private street but those design elements are what they're

1236
01:44:18,080 --> 01:44:23,720
 requesting a deviation from it does create provide clear pathways but allows

1237
01:44:23,720 --> 01:44:29,680
 that landing area a little bit easier to to live with for those residents so it

1238
01:44:29,680 --> 01:44:33,280
 does meet the criteria for approval and I'll stand for any questions

1239
01:44:33,280 --> 01:44:39,760
 Christian back thank you chair did they keep that in and out variegating wall

1240
01:44:39,760 --> 01:44:45,560
 that we discussed previously council did not approve a variation from that so

1241
01:44:45,560 --> 01:44:49,680
 they just required the additional masonry requirement so they'll have to

1242
01:44:49,680 --> 01:44:56,440
 design it as it was proposed okay thank you you bet great thank you very much

1243
01:44:56,440 --> 01:45:02,600
 the last item for our work session is item 4 I this is Haley's a grisky again

1244
01:45:02,600 --> 01:45:12,160
 zcp 19 - 5 all right I will try to keep this brief and then we can go into

1245
01:45:12,160 --> 01:45:16,620
 additional detail this evening if we need to sounds great so this is a site

1246
01:45:16,620 --> 01:45:20,920
 plan for a multifamily development within razor ranch the site is just over

1247
01:45:20,920 --> 01:45:26,360
 11 acres located on the north side of Crescent east of East Park Boulevard a

1248
01:45:26,360 --> 01:45:30,800
 little bit of background relating to the staff recommendation this property their

1249
01:45:30,800 --> 01:45:35,360
 final plot was approved by P&Z last year this development and what you see on the

1250
01:45:35,360 --> 01:45:40,240
 site plan is all of lot 4 block a and then a very tiny point zero five acre

1251
01:45:40,240 --> 01:45:45,680
 portion of what was lot 5 on that final plat so part of staff's recommendation is

1252
01:45:45,680 --> 01:45:48,320
 that we do an amending final plat to clean up those lot lines and scoot that

1253
01:45:48,320 --> 01:45:55,120
 property boundary north so that all 11.1 acres are within one lot razor

1254
01:45:55,120 --> 01:45:58,120
 ranch is unique in that site plans are required to come before the Commission

1255
01:45:58,120 --> 01:46:02,000
 that it has to include a site plan landscape plan and building elevations

1256
01:46:02,000 --> 01:46:06,280
 the razor overlay provides criteria for approval for that that it comply with

1257
01:46:06,280 --> 01:46:09,840
 the conceptual or schematic plan for the overlay district approved by council

1258
01:46:09,840 --> 01:46:12,480
 that it provide for compatible arrangement of buildings that wouldn't

1259
01:46:12,480 --> 01:46:15,760
 adversely affect anything outside of the district that the site plan have

1260
01:46:15,760 --> 01:46:18,800
 adequate and safe vehicular circulation and that it comply with all other

1261
01:46:18,800 --> 01:46:24,680
 sections of the overlay this particular piece has a base zoning of NRM you that's

1262
01:46:24,680 --> 01:46:28,480
 a neighborhood residential mixed use from the 2002 code within the razor

1263
01:46:28,480 --> 01:46:31,960
 overlay it's within the south mixed-use sub-district which is largely intended

1264
01:46:31,960 --> 01:46:36,800
 for residential uses so multifamily is a permitted use and this follows the

1265
01:46:36,800 --> 01:46:42,360
 recently adopted exhibit c2a standards from the family development their site

1266
01:46:42,360 --> 01:46:46,080
 plan has three driveway locations circled in red there are seven buildings

1267
01:46:46,080 --> 01:46:51,360
 on the site with just over 133,000 square feet it's 333 dwelling units they

1268
01:46:51,360 --> 01:46:54,920
 do have on-site amenities in the central area of circled in purple that includes

1269
01:46:54,920 --> 01:46:59,120
 a pool cabana community outdoor spaces and a grill they're within the lot

1270
01:46:59,120 --> 01:47:04,520
 coverage open space height and parking requirements of the overlay district in

1271
01:47:04,520 --> 01:47:09,360
 terms of landscaping they do meet all of the minimum percentages required they

1272
01:47:09,360 --> 01:47:12,480
 meet the minimum street tree count a couple of unique features I wanted to

1273
01:47:12,480 --> 01:47:15,480
 highlight for you are the buffer that they're providing on the eastern

1274
01:47:15,480 --> 01:47:18,960
 boundary single-family is the permitted use adjoining this so they did have to

1275
01:47:18,960 --> 01:47:22,920
 provide that 10-foot wide landscape buffer and then the areas in orange or

1276
01:47:22,920 --> 01:47:27,360
 some enhanced landscaping that will frame the entry to the site this is just

1277
01:47:27,360 --> 01:47:30,400
 a colored rendering to show you what those landscape areas look like in

1278
01:47:30,400 --> 01:47:34,360
 relation to the buildings and then I'll skim through these pretty quickly these

1279
01:47:34,360 --> 01:47:37,360
 this is building one and two that would be along East Park Boulevard they meet

1280
01:47:37,360 --> 01:47:41,080
 all of the material and color requirements for razor as well as the

1281
01:47:41,080 --> 01:47:45,700
 requirement for minimum window and door percentages these are the back two

1282
01:47:45,700 --> 01:47:49,520
 buildings that would be along the internal private drive these are the

1283
01:47:49,520 --> 01:47:53,540
 internal buildings and then I've also included here the garages the garage

1284
01:47:53,540 --> 01:47:56,880
 doors do face inward to the site so this is the view from the adjoining

1285
01:47:56,880 --> 01:48:02,320
 properties and then this is the the main entry building building five so you can

1286
01:48:02,320 --> 01:48:05,240
 see the leasing center will be the central focus in between those two

1287
01:48:05,240 --> 01:48:09,800
 landscape areas that I pointed out Steph is recommending approval with one

1288
01:48:09,800 --> 01:48:14,000
 condition that an amending final plat to increase the size of lot for block a to

1289
01:48:14,000 --> 01:48:17,760
 the eleven point one acre shown here be approved and filed with Denton County

1290
01:48:17,760 --> 01:48:21,480
 prior to any permits being issued for the site. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You

1291
01:48:21,480 --> 01:48:26,060
 Chair. Haley what's the process for an amending final plan? That is an

1292
01:48:26,060 --> 01:48:32,300
 administratively approved plan. Any other questions for this item? Great thank you

1293
01:48:32,300 --> 01:48:37,240
 very much Haley. At this time that concludes our work session at 630 I'll

1294
01:48:37,240 --> 01:48:49,720
 close the meeting we will reconvene at 635 in council chambers. Good evening

1295
01:48:49,720 --> 01:48:53,280
 ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning and zoning Commission meeting

1296
01:48:53,280 --> 01:48:58,680
 for January 8th 2020 it is 637 I'll call the meeting to order seeing that we do

1297
01:48:58,680 --> 01:49:02,280
 have a quorum let the record show that Commissioner Pernetta and Commissioner

1298
01:49:02,280 --> 01:49:07,320
 Anderson are absent from this evening's meeting. The first item on the agenda is

1299
01:49:07,320 --> 01:49:13,080
 to stand and give a Pledge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flag if able.

1300
01:49:23,280 --> 01:49:41,880
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and indivisible. Next item of business is to consider approval of the

1301
01:49:41,880 --> 01:49:47,360
 planning and zoning Commission minutes for December 11th 2019 Commissioner Smith.

1302
01:49:47,360 --> 01:49:52,700
 Motion to approve. We have a first for approval Commissioner Ellis. Second. We

1303
01:49:52,700 --> 01:49:57,040
 have a first and a second for approval any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for

1304
01:49:57,040 --> 01:50:10,040
 vote on the board. Motion carries five two or five zero and just for a point of

1305
01:50:10,040 --> 01:50:14,240
 clarification on tonight's agenda we have a couple changes in the order so I

1306
01:50:14,240 --> 01:50:20,840
 want to keep you apprised of those changes. There are two items item 3b and

1307
01:50:20,840 --> 01:50:26,240
 item 4g that are both in the consent and individual consideration items that are

1308
01:50:26,240 --> 01:50:30,880
 dependent on a public hearing item to be heard first. So for the sake of

1309
01:50:30,880 --> 01:50:37,480
 efficiency we're going to jump to the public hearing items first so we'll go

1310
01:50:37,480 --> 01:50:42,360
 items five and then back to the consent on three and then finish with individual

1311
01:50:42,360 --> 01:50:48,080
 considerations on four so we'll go the five items then back to three and then

1312
01:50:48,080 --> 01:50:54,080
 to four and on the public hearing items five a will open the public hearing but

1313
01:50:54,080 --> 01:50:56,780
 the applicant is requesting a postponement so there's not going to be

1314
01:50:56,780 --> 01:51:02,320
 a presentation on that this evening and item 5d has been pulled from

1315
01:51:02,320 --> 01:51:09,160
 consideration so this evening we'll do 5a for postponement 5b 5c and then we'll

1316
01:51:09,160 --> 01:51:14,000
 jump back into the consent and then individual consideration so with that we

1317
01:51:14,000 --> 01:51:22,440
 will begin on item 5a z-19 - 0 0 14 a I will open the public hearing and request

1318
01:51:22,440 --> 01:51:26,720
 a motion to postpone Commissioner Smith make a motion to postpone to date

1319
01:51:26,720 --> 01:51:30,960
 certain February 5th 2020 we have a first for a postponement to date certain

1320
01:51:30,960 --> 01:51:35,640
 February 5th 2020 Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a second for

1321
01:51:35,640 --> 01:51:40,800
 the postpone of this item any discussions seeing none I'll call for a

1322
01:51:40,800 --> 01:51:54,080
 vote on the board motion carries five zero the next item for business is item

1323
01:51:54,080 --> 01:52:00,120
 5b DCA 19 - 0 0 2 7 I will open the public here and invite Haley's

1324
01:52:00,120 --> 01:52:12,880
 to Gursky for presentation good evening this is a code amendment related to

1325
01:52:12,880 --> 01:52:17,560
 temporary batch plants the request before you is to hold a public hearing

1326
01:52:17,560 --> 01:52:21,000
 and consider making the recommendation to the City Council regarding revisions

1327
01:52:21,000 --> 01:52:25,440
 to subchapter 5 of the 2019 Denton development code related to the specific

1328
01:52:25,440 --> 01:52:29,040
 use permits requirements and use specific standards for temporary concrete and

1329
01:52:29,040 --> 01:52:35,000
 asphalt batch plants this is a staff initiated amendment to the DC a concrete

1330
01:52:35,000 --> 01:52:38,680
 and asphalt batching plant is defined as a temporary facility where asphalt or

1331
01:52:38,680 --> 01:52:42,200
 concrete or its ingredients or products are ground mixed or otherwise prepared

1332
01:52:42,200 --> 01:52:47,560
 either for use on site or transportation to another site temporary batch plants

1333
01:52:47,560 --> 01:52:50,760
 are something that we see permit request for multiple times per year they're

1334
01:52:50,760 --> 01:52:54,760
 typically associated either with large public street projects residential

1335
01:52:54,760 --> 01:52:58,960
 subdivisions where multiple streets are being poured at one time or with large

1336
01:52:58,960 --> 01:53:04,480
 scale commercial or mixed-use projects this is just a comparison of use

1337
01:53:04,480 --> 01:53:10,320
 permissions and limitations on these facilities in 2002 in the 2002 DDC

1338
01:53:10,320 --> 01:53:14,280
 rather the this use was permitted by right in all zoning districts there were

1339
01:53:14,280 --> 01:53:18,200
 performance standards associated with that there was also a time limit that

1340
01:53:18,200 --> 01:53:23,480
 limited these to only three permits per year for up to 60 days each the

1341
01:53:23,480 --> 01:53:27,640
 standards included compliance with TCEQ standards nuisance prevention separation

1342
01:53:27,640 --> 01:53:32,200
 distances from schools and residences among other things that time frame or

1343
01:53:32,200 --> 01:53:35,400
 time limit and those standards are staying the same we're not proposing any

1344
01:53:35,400 --> 01:53:39,560
 changes those were carried forward directly from the O2 code into the 2019

1345
01:53:39,560 --> 01:53:44,160
 code the change with 2019 was that in all zoning districts and SUP was

1346
01:53:44,160 --> 01:53:48,320
 required for a temporary batch plant so for a 60-day operational permit you were

1347
01:53:48,320 --> 01:53:53,200
 required to go through a process that took 60 to 90 days staff felt that that

1348
01:53:53,200 --> 01:53:57,440
 was somewhat unnecessary for these temporary uses so what we're bringing

1349
01:53:57,440 --> 01:54:01,800
 forward is a proposal to change that SUP requirement to only be for those

1350
01:54:01,800 --> 01:54:04,960
 facilities where they're batching concrete or asphalt and transporting it

1351
01:54:04,960 --> 01:54:08,880
 off-site perhaps to multiple sites because there is an increased traffic

1352
01:54:08,880 --> 01:54:13,120
 impact to the surrounding area at that point for on-site batch plants we'll

1353
01:54:13,120 --> 01:54:16,560
 propose that it be changed back to permitted by you or permitted by right

1354
01:54:16,560 --> 01:54:21,680
 with the use specific standards this is what that change would look like the the

1355
01:54:21,680 --> 01:54:27,000
 table with the SSMPs and the DDC that you've seen all of the S pluses for

1356
01:54:27,000 --> 01:54:30,440
 temporary batch plants would be changed to a P plus in that table and then when

1357
01:54:30,440 --> 01:54:33,240
 you went to the use specific standards that are cross-referenced there you

1358
01:54:33,240 --> 01:54:37,520
 would see the additional text here in red so there would be a subsection six

1359
01:54:37,520 --> 01:54:42,080
 that requires additional approval for off-site temporary batch plants and that

1360
01:54:42,080 --> 01:54:46,440
 would be that SUP requirement that I mentioned staff is recommending

1361
01:54:46,440 --> 01:54:49,720
 approval and I'm happy to stand for any questions

1362
01:54:49,720 --> 01:54:52,800
 Haley I don't see any questions at this time it is a public hearing though

1363
01:54:52,800 --> 01:54:58,720
 anyone wishing to speak on this matter can certainly do so is anyone wishing to

1364
01:54:58,720 --> 01:55:03,040
 speak on this item seeing none I will close the public hearing

1365
01:55:03,040 --> 01:55:07,000
 Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a motion for approval

1366
01:55:07,000 --> 01:55:12,560
 Commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion

1367
01:55:12,560 --> 01:55:24,440
 seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries five zero the next

1368
01:55:24,440 --> 01:55:30,960
 item of business is item 5 cv 19 - 0 0 0 3 I'll open the public hearing and

1369
01:55:30,960 --> 01:55:35,120
 invite back Haley's your ski for presentation

1370
01:55:35,120 --> 01:55:42,160
 good evening again this is the first of three items related to the Denton County

1371
01:55:42,160 --> 01:55:46,800
 Emergency Operations Center the request before you is to hold a public hearing

1372
01:55:46,800 --> 01:55:52,360
 and consider approval of variances from the 2002 DDC specifically the

1373
01:55:52,360 --> 01:55:56,560
 transportation standards and subchapter 20 the subject property is located at

1374
01:55:56,560 --> 01:56:00,800
 the intersection of Karina and Kimberly Street the requested variances relate to

1375
01:56:00,800 --> 01:56:07,680
 right-of-way dedication and sidewalk construction along Kimberly Drive this

1376
01:56:07,680 --> 01:56:15,360
 as I mentioned was reviewed reviewed under the 2002 DDC there is a preliminary

1377
01:56:15,360 --> 01:56:21,120
 plant in ADP also on your agenda this evening the site is just over five acres

1378
01:56:21,120 --> 01:56:25,840
 a little bit of history it was originally preliminary planted in 2009 it

1379
01:56:25,840 --> 01:56:29,600
 was intended to be developed as to commercial lot similar to how the other

1380
01:56:29,600 --> 01:56:34,080
 lots along 288 have developed with fast food grocery stores typical commercial

1381
01:56:34,080 --> 01:56:38,560
 uses that development never occurred so this is now an infill parcel where

1382
01:56:38,560 --> 01:56:44,240
 development surrounds it on all sides a little additional information here

1383
01:56:44,240 --> 01:56:48,240
 Karina and Kimberly are both designated as collectors on a mobility plan those

1384
01:56:48,240 --> 01:56:51,960
 are the black dotted lines that you see on the map those designations end at

1385
01:56:51,960 --> 01:56:56,400
 this intersection however beyond this point Karina dead ends into FEMA's

1386
01:56:56,400 --> 01:57:01,400
 driveway and then south of Karina Street Kimberly currently has 24 and a half feet

1387
01:57:01,400 --> 01:57:05,440
 of pavement width 35 foot of right-of-way that was dedicated to the

1388
01:57:05,440 --> 01:57:10,560
 city when the FEMA office building was developed in 2003 in 2008 a plaque came

1389
01:57:10,560 --> 01:57:14,920
 in for a property just south of here for the Spencer Manor senior community at

1390
01:57:14,920 --> 01:57:18,920
 that time additional right-of-way was not requested for Kimberly Street to

1391
01:57:18,920 --> 01:57:24,360
 continue southward because it was not a mobility plan roadway so that at that

1392
01:57:24,360 --> 01:57:29,120
 time assured that Kimberly would not be continuing south in 2009 when that

1393
01:57:29,120 --> 01:57:33,160
 Spencer edition preliminary plaque came in the P&Z approved a variance at that

1394
01:57:33,160 --> 01:57:37,440
 time to allow Kimberly to remain as a cul-de-sac the variance was needed

1395
01:57:37,440 --> 01:57:42,000
 because the length of the cul-de-sac exceeding 150 feet Denton County is

1396
01:57:42,000 --> 01:57:45,200
 requesting at this time because that development never occurred and those

1397
01:57:45,200 --> 01:57:49,340
 applications have since expired that they be allowed to leave Kimberly Drive

1398
01:57:49,340 --> 01:57:54,760
 as it is today with no additional right-of-way paving or sidewalk this is

1399
01:57:54,760 --> 01:57:57,720
 just a look at the preliminary plaque that's on the consent agenda this

1400
01:57:57,720 --> 01:58:03,320
 evening that plaque cannot be approved without these variances so the variances

1401
01:58:03,320 --> 01:58:08,280
 are related to three specific code provisions and 35 20 2 there's two

1402
01:58:08,280 --> 01:58:11,840
 requirements speaking to right-of-way dedication the first requires the public

1403
01:58:11,840 --> 01:58:14,520
 right-of-way be dedicated for all streets that serve more than three

1404
01:58:14,520 --> 01:58:18,200
 residential lots or any commercial or industrial lot that right-of-way width

1405
01:58:18,200 --> 01:58:22,240
 is specified in the criteria manual if this road were to continue south at its

1406
01:58:22,240 --> 01:58:25,840
 current street section north of Karina that would require 65 feet of right-of-way

1407
01:58:25,840 --> 01:58:31,960
 width so 30 additional feet from this development and then 35 20 dot 2 L 1

1408
01:58:31,960 --> 01:58:35,480
 just reiterates that requirement that whenever there's an existing street

1409
01:58:35,480 --> 01:58:38,560
 adjacent to a property that's of inadequate width that additional

1410
01:58:38,560 --> 01:58:43,560
 right-of-way be dedicated at that time Denton County again is requesting for no

1411
01:58:43,560 --> 01:58:47,720
 additional right-of-way dedication on Kimberly maintaining the current street

1412
01:58:47,720 --> 01:58:52,360
 width at 24 and a half feet providing a barricade just south of their driveway to

1413
01:58:52,360 --> 01:58:56,520
 indicate that the road will not continue south and turnaround movements could be

1414
01:58:56,520 --> 01:59:00,160
 accommodated in their driveway that they're proposing staff is further

1415
01:59:00,160 --> 01:59:04,360
 recommending that the existing paving be removed all the utilities and right-of-way

1416
01:59:04,360 --> 01:59:07,480
 would be maintained in place as they are today but that paving would be removed to

1417
01:59:07,480 --> 01:59:11,000
 assure that if those at barricades were ever moved people didn't traverse down a

1418
01:59:11,000 --> 01:59:15,680
 600 foot roadway and have no means of turnaround and then finally related to

1419
01:59:15,680 --> 01:59:21,760
 the sidewalks 35 20 2 3 B requires that sidewalk be provided within a dedicated

1420
01:59:21,760 --> 01:59:24,680
 right-of-way or easement in this case that would be a five-foot sidewalk and

1421
01:59:24,680 --> 01:59:29,840
 Denton County is requesting to not construct that on Kimberly there's a

1422
01:59:29,840 --> 01:59:32,560
 look at their site plan north is oriented towards the left side of the

1423
01:59:32,560 --> 01:59:36,280
 screen here the area in orange is the existing right-of-way and paving for

1424
01:59:36,280 --> 01:59:39,920
 Kimberly that would remain as is up to this point where that barricade is

1425
01:59:39,920 --> 01:59:44,080
 circled in red the shaded area would be where our city engineering staff has

1426
01:59:44,080 --> 01:59:48,120
 requested that paving be removed just to eliminate the possibility of people

1427
01:59:48,120 --> 01:59:52,320
 getting down there and not having a way of turning around this area circled in

1428
01:59:52,320 --> 01:59:56,420
 blue indicates that enlarged driveway that not only accommodates the emergency

1429
01:59:56,420 --> 01:59:59,920
 vehicles from this facility but also turnaround movements if someone did

1430
01:59:59,920 --> 02:00:03,120
 travel down Kimberly and need to get back out without reversing the entire

1431
02:00:03,120 --> 02:00:07,200
 distance the area in purple is that where that sidewalk would normally be

1432
02:00:07,200 --> 02:00:11,560
 required again that'd be five feet in width in this case they're requesting to

1433
02:00:11,560 --> 02:00:16,720
 not construct that sidewalk I'll go through the criteria for approval for

1434
02:00:16,720 --> 02:00:20,080
 the subdivision variance the first being whether it's detrimental to public

1435
02:00:20,080 --> 02:00:24,400
 safety health or welfare or injurious to other properties this not being a

1436
02:00:24,400 --> 02:00:27,240
 mobility plan roadway there was no expectation that it would ever continue

1437
02:00:27,240 --> 02:00:30,580
 to the south beyond this property existing development patterns have

1438
02:00:30,580 --> 02:00:34,320
 assured that that would not occur the previously approved cul-de-sac as I

1439
02:00:34,320 --> 02:00:38,480
 mentioned was never never developed so at this time those applications have

1440
02:00:38,480 --> 02:00:41,840
 expired and we have to seek a new variance of some sort for this roadway

1441
02:00:41,840 --> 02:00:46,280
 Kimberly south of Karina is currently serving as essentially a driveway for

1442
02:00:46,280 --> 02:00:50,680
 the FEMA offices and this parcel of land and with what they've proposed there

1443
02:00:50,680 --> 02:00:53,920
 would be no changes that would affect FEMA as their driveways are all north

1444
02:00:53,920 --> 02:00:58,800
 of where the paving would be removed there would be no injurious effect to

1445
02:00:58,800 --> 02:01:03,440
 them with this development second being that the request for the variance be

1446
02:01:03,440 --> 02:01:07,240
 based upon some feature unique to the property again as I mentioned this is an

1447
02:01:07,240 --> 02:01:09,760
 infill development site they're surrounded by development there's not a

1448
02:01:09,760 --> 02:01:13,440
 whole lot of options for them in terms of acquiring more property to to have

1449
02:01:13,440 --> 02:01:17,880
 adequate width to dedicate that right-of-way Kimberly south of Karina as

1450
02:01:17,880 --> 02:01:21,000
 I mentioned is functioning as a driveway so this would not be a change to that

1451
02:01:21,000 --> 02:01:25,040
 and the conditions surrounding Kimberly are fairly unique as we looked at the

1452
02:01:25,040 --> 02:01:29,040
 platting history here and how over time plat's assured that this road would never

1453
02:01:29,040 --> 02:01:34,920
 emute never go further south the third criteria is whether there are particular

1454
02:01:34,920 --> 02:01:39,440
 physical surroundings shape or topography features that would create a

1455
02:01:39,440 --> 02:01:44,680
 particular hardship for the owner if the code were enforced strictly in this case

1456
02:01:44,680 --> 02:01:48,440
 it creates a safety concern for Denton County this is an emergency operation

1457
02:01:48,440 --> 02:01:51,560
 facility where they would have large fire trucks and other emergency vehicles

1458
02:01:51,560 --> 02:01:56,000
 exiting to respond to emergencies they are seeking to discourage pedestrian and

1459
02:01:56,000 --> 02:02:00,720
 vehicular activity on Kimberly and keep the road at its current width to

1460
02:02:00,720 --> 02:02:04,440
 discourage people from parking on it if you look just north of their North of

1461
02:02:04,440 --> 02:02:07,720
 Karina Street rather it's parking all up and down Kimberly they're looking to

1462
02:02:07,720 --> 02:02:11,000
 avoid that here so that there's adequate maneuverability space for their vehicles

1463
02:02:11,000 --> 02:02:14,360
 and further to discourage pedestrians from wandering down here and potentially

1464
02:02:14,360 --> 02:02:18,360
 being in the way of those vehicles when they need to exit the facility and if

1465
02:02:18,360 --> 02:02:22,320
 the road were required to be improved they would still have to seek a variance

1466
02:02:22,320 --> 02:02:27,560
 because of the length of that roadway exceeding 150 feet without a turnaround

1467
02:02:27,560 --> 02:02:32,800
 finally rather the variance will in any manner vary from the provisions of our

1468
02:02:32,800 --> 02:02:37,160
 comprehensive plan as I mentioned the collector Street designation ends at

1469
02:02:37,160 --> 02:02:40,960
 Kimberly this is simply a local street and it's functioning as a driveway so

1470
02:02:40,960 --> 02:02:44,600
 there would be no variation from the plan and rather there's peculiar

1471
02:02:44,600 --> 02:02:49,080
 conditions that resulted from the actions of the owner in this case Denton

1472
02:02:49,080 --> 02:02:52,440
 County is a relatively new owner of the property the conditions associated with

1473
02:02:52,440 --> 02:02:55,360
 this were not in any way created by them they've evolved over the last couple of

1474
02:02:55,360 --> 02:02:59,700
 decades as development occurred our traffic engineering division has no

1475
02:02:59,700 --> 02:03:02,940
 objection to this proposed variance staff is recommending approval with the

1476
02:03:02,940 --> 02:03:07,840
 condition that the paving south of that barricade be removed and I'm happy to

1477
02:03:07,840 --> 02:03:12,520
 stand for any questions thank you we do have one question mr. Beck yes thank you

1478
02:03:12,520 --> 02:03:19,000
 it can you flip back to I think it's seven the plan there you go so that front

1479
02:03:19,000 --> 02:03:25,000
 area up to the north is the new public area public parking area for that small

1480
02:03:25,000 --> 02:03:30,720
 piece of Kimberly do you need a little sidewalk there or we're able to get

1481
02:03:30,720 --> 02:03:34,340
 around regulations for like whatever five or six feet of sidewalk because

1482
02:03:34,340 --> 02:03:40,560
 that's a public parking area yes that area there they do have internal

1483
02:03:40,560 --> 02:03:44,360
 sidewalks that would get people either to the building or up on the opposite

1484
02:03:44,360 --> 02:03:47,040
 side of the property you can see here they are providing sidewalk connection to

1485
02:03:47,040 --> 02:03:50,400
 the Karina Street sidewalk so there's there's still pedestrian pathways okay

1486
02:03:50,400 --> 02:03:54,840
 thank you very much thank you Haley that's the only questions I see here

1487
02:03:54,840 --> 02:03:58,560
 this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on this matter can certainly do

1488
02:03:58,560 --> 02:04:05,440
 so seeing none I'll close the public hearing

1489
02:04:05,440 --> 02:04:10,080
 mr. Smith make a motion to approve with staff recommendations we have a first

1490
02:04:10,080 --> 02:04:15,800
 mr. Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing

1491
02:04:15,800 --> 02:04:19,560
 none I'll call for a vote on the board before I do you did say with conditions

1492
02:04:19,560 --> 02:04:32,840
 okay thank you call for a vote on the board motion carries five zero that

1493
02:04:32,840 --> 02:04:37,880
 concludes the public hearing items for this evening we will now go back in the

1494
02:04:37,880 --> 02:04:44,040
 agenda to the consent the chair will entertain a discussion or motion on the

1495
02:04:44,040 --> 02:04:48,480
 consent agenda coaster Smith make a motion to approve the consent agenda we

1496
02:04:48,480 --> 02:04:53,640
 have a first for approval mr. Ellis second we have a first and a second for

1497
02:04:53,640 --> 02:04:58,640
 approval of the consent agenda any discussion seeing none I'll call for a

1498
02:04:58,640 --> 02:05:01,040
 vote on the board

1499
02:05:01,040 --> 02:05:12,000
 motion carries five zero the next item of business moves us into individual

1500
02:05:12,000 --> 02:05:19,520
 consideration items we start with 4 a NP 19 - 17 I'll invite Mark Laird for

1501
02:05:19,520 --> 02:05:22,040
 presentation

1502
02:05:22,040 --> 02:05:35,920
 good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a player with the plan department this

1503
02:05:35,920 --> 02:05:40,800
 evening I have for your review and consideration honor plaid paralysis

1504
02:05:40,800 --> 02:05:47,640
 addition case number MP 19 - 0 0 1 7 staff is recommending to now of the

1505
02:05:47,640 --> 02:05:53,760
 plat based on the step the details presented in the staff report I stand

1506
02:05:53,760 --> 02:06:00,920
 for any questions you may have appreciate that mark any questions this

1507
02:06:00,920 --> 02:06:04,360
 is not a public hearing but if anyone's wishing to speak on this we can

1508
02:06:04,360 --> 02:06:11,920
 certainly hear them this evening okay seen none the chair will oh Christian

1509
02:06:11,920 --> 02:06:19,080
 Smith I make a motion to deny we have a motion for denial

1510
02:06:19,080 --> 02:06:26,280
 Christian Cole second we have a first and a second for denial any discussion

1511
02:06:26,280 --> 02:06:30,880
 seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board

1512
02:06:34,360 --> 02:06:46,400
 motion carries five zero the next item of business is item 4 B PP 19 -

1513
02:06:46,400 --> 02:06:53,600
 27 I'll invite Haley Zygursky for presentation

1514
02:06:53,600 --> 02:07:03,360
 all right good evening this is a preliminary plat for the Elm Street

1515
02:07:03,360 --> 02:07:07,680
 townhomes located at the corner of sycamore and Elm Street this is the

1516
02:07:07,680 --> 02:07:12,040
 preliminary plat again it's intended for townhome development in two phases at

1517
02:07:12,040 --> 02:07:15,320
 this time staff is recommending denial of the preliminary plat for the reasons

1518
02:07:15,320 --> 02:07:19,360
 that are detailed in your staff report however the applicant has requested a

1519
02:07:19,360 --> 02:07:23,600
 one-time 30-day extension that would take them to the February 5th 2020 agenda

1520
02:07:23,600 --> 02:07:27,280
 to allow them time to resolve the staff comments and I can stand for any

1521
02:07:27,280 --> 02:07:31,880
 questions thanks Haley I don't see any like previous item this is not a public

1522
02:07:31,880 --> 02:07:38,680
 hearing but certainly open to hearing one who wants to speak on the item okay

1523
02:07:38,680 --> 02:07:41,600
 seeing none we can turn to a discussion or a motion

1524
02:07:41,600 --> 02:07:46,920
 Christian Smith make a motion to extend the extension make a motion to give the

1525
02:07:46,920 --> 02:07:49,960
 extension for 30 days how should this motion be approved the approved you

1526
02:07:49,960 --> 02:07:52,760
 thank you legal make a motion to approve the extension for 30 days to February

1527
02:07:52,760 --> 02:08:00,840
 5th 2020 okay we have a motion to postpone till February 5th 2020

1528
02:08:00,840 --> 02:08:05,040
 commissioner Cole second we have a first and second for the postponement any

1529
02:08:05,040 --> 02:08:10,080
 discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board

1530
02:08:10,080 --> 02:08:22,960
 motion carries five zero next item for business is 4c pp 19 - 35 B I'll invite

1531
02:08:22,960 --> 02:08:26,600
 Cindy Jackson for presentation

1532
02:08:30,960 --> 02:08:47,360
 thank you this is a request for approval of pp 1935 a preliminary plot for the

1533
02:08:47,360 --> 02:08:54,600
 excuse me Stuart Ridge subdivision the applicant

1534
02:08:54,600 --> 02:08:59,840
 requested a 30-day extension last month which was approved we have not received

1535
02:08:59,840 --> 02:09:05,000
 anything back from the applicant since that approval of the extension the plot

1536
02:09:05,000 --> 02:09:08,600
 does not comply with our standards as noted in your backup and staff is

1537
02:09:08,600 --> 02:09:14,200
 recommending denial the applicant is president if you have questions of him

1538
02:09:14,200 --> 02:09:19,440
 thank you I don't see any other quite I don't see questions besides with the new

1539
02:09:19,440 --> 02:09:27,120
 rules is a second 30-day extension an option is that possible or is it just a

1540
02:09:27,120 --> 02:09:32,240
 one-time 30-day there's just one 30-day extension okay so the only option we

1541
02:09:32,240 --> 02:09:37,880
 have this point is to recommend denial yes that's correct but the applicant can

1542
02:09:37,880 --> 02:09:43,480
 come back anytime with the plaque that complies with the the required standards

1543
02:09:43,480 --> 02:09:49,320
 for your consideration great thank you I don't see any questions if the

1544
02:09:49,320 --> 02:09:57,080
 applicants wanted to speak we can certainly listen if not okay so with that

1545
02:09:57,080 --> 02:10:04,240
 mr. Christian Beck motion to deny we have a motion to deny Commissioner Smith

1546
02:10:04,240 --> 02:10:09,920
 second we have a first and a second for denial any discussion seeing none I'll

1547
02:10:09,920 --> 02:10:21,920
 call for a vote on the board the motion to deny carries at 5-0 the next item for

1548
02:10:21,920 --> 02:10:28,280
 business is item 4d FP 19 - 31 and I'll invite Haley Zygursky back for

1549
02:10:28,280 --> 02:10:30,720
 presentation

1550
02:10:30,720 --> 02:10:38,600
 good evening this is a final plot for the Northgate addition it's located at

1551
02:10:38,600 --> 02:10:44,840
 the intersection of Sherman and loop 288 this is the final plan it features six

1552
02:10:44,840 --> 02:10:48,000
 lots intended for commercial development at this time staff is

1553
02:10:48,000 --> 02:10:50,760
 recommending denial of the final plan for the reasons that are outlined in

1554
02:10:50,760 --> 02:10:54,600
 your staff report the applicant has requested a 30-day extension which would

1555
02:10:54,600 --> 02:10:58,120
 put it on the February 5th 2020 agenda and I'm happy to answer any questions

1556
02:10:58,120 --> 02:11:04,040
 thanks Haley I don't see any questions if anyone's wishing to speak certainly

1557
02:11:04,040 --> 02:11:12,760
 listen okay Christian Smith make a motion to approve 30-day extension we

1558
02:11:12,760 --> 02:11:17,200
 have a first for approval of 30-day extension to February 5th 2020 meeting

1559
02:11:17,200 --> 02:11:22,040
 Christian Cole second we have a first and a second for the extension of the

1560
02:11:22,040 --> 02:11:26,040
 postponement to February 5th any discussion seeing none I'll call for a

1561
02:11:26,040 --> 02:11:39,800
 vote on the board motion carries 5-0 next item business is item 4d FP 19 - 33

1562
02:11:39,800 --> 02:11:47,320
 I'll give a minute for Christian Cole to step away and I'll invite city Jackson

1563
02:11:47,320 --> 02:11:49,840
 for presentation

1564
02:11:56,200 --> 02:12:01,880
 thank you chairman this is the plaque for a lot to block a of the Fisher 59

1565
02:12:01,880 --> 02:12:08,040
 edition the staff is recommending denial of this request based upon those reasons

1566
02:12:08,040 --> 02:12:13,960
 detailed in your staff report the applicant however is requesting a 30-day

1567
02:12:13,960 --> 02:12:18,520
 extension to the February 5th planning and zoning Commission meeting to give

1568
02:12:18,520 --> 02:12:24,200
 them the opportunity to comply with all requirements thank you Cindy I don't see

1569
02:12:24,200 --> 02:12:27,760
 any questions I appreciate the presentation is anyone in attendance

1570
02:12:27,760 --> 02:12:34,960
 wanting to speak on this item see none I'll turn to the day is for a discussion

1571
02:12:34,960 --> 02:12:38,640
 or motion Christian Smith motion to approve a 30-day extension we have a

1572
02:12:38,640 --> 02:12:42,560
 first for postponement Christian Ellis second we have a first and a second to

1573
02:12:42,560 --> 02:12:49,220
 postpone to this February 5th 2020 meeting any discussion seeing none I'll

1574
02:12:49,220 --> 02:12:52,360
 call for a vote on the board

1575
02:12:54,520 --> 02:13:11,640
 motion carries 4-0 with one recuse next on a business is item 4f 80p 19 - 11 on

1576
02:13:11,640 --> 02:13:17,120
 by Julie white for presentation

1577
02:13:20,640 --> 02:13:28,760
 good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am

1578
02:13:28,760 --> 02:13:34,040
 presenting 80 p 19 11 Haven at Doherty the request is for an alternative

1579
02:13:34,040 --> 02:13:38,640
 development plan for a multifamily development on about 8.87 acres the

1580
02:13:38,640 --> 02:13:42,980
 subject property is located on the north side of Doherty just west of Johnson

1581
02:13:42,980 --> 02:13:49,080
 Street it has a zoning of MN but due to this project timing it is being reviewed

1582
02:13:49,080 --> 02:13:57,040
 under the 2002 code which is the code that has the ADP process in it so the as

1583
02:13:57,040 --> 02:14:01,440
 I said the request is for a multifamily development apart from the deviations

1584
02:14:01,440 --> 02:14:06,160
 that they have requested they do meet all other sub chapter 13 requirements

1585
02:14:06,160 --> 02:14:11,000
 and sub chapter 13 was that is the the chapter that that goes over the site

1586
02:14:11,000 --> 02:14:15,400
 design requirements things like building orientation where parking parking lots

1587
02:14:15,400 --> 02:14:20,960
 can be located and those sorts of considerations so there are two two

1588
02:14:20,960 --> 02:14:25,440
 deviations they're requesting the first is that at least fifty percent of the

1589
02:14:25,440 --> 02:14:30,240
 front yard frontage shall have buildings within 20 feet of the front property line

1590
02:14:30,240 --> 02:14:36,760
 or within 30 feet of a curb of a private street the subject property has 546 feet

1591
02:14:36,760 --> 02:14:41,800
 linear feet of frontage along Doherty Street in order to meet this requirement

1592
02:14:41,800 --> 02:14:47,320
 that would require 270 linear 273 linear feet of buildings within 20 feet of that

1593
02:14:47,320 --> 02:14:52,920
 front property line as they're proposing they're they're proposing about 227 feet

1594
02:14:52,920 --> 02:14:58,720
 of structure located between 17 19 and 41 feet of the front property line the

1595
02:14:58,720 --> 02:15:02,840
 section the second deviation is for the private street system the projects over

1596
02:15:02,840 --> 02:15:07,400
 three acres require a private street system or public street system within the

1597
02:15:07,400 --> 02:15:11,800
 development it has specific design guidelines one of those is a landscape

1598
02:15:11,800 --> 02:15:16,800
 area between between the curb of the parking lot and the sidewalk they're

1599
02:15:16,800 --> 02:15:20,800
 requesting a deviation that that sidewalk be moved closer to that curb to

1600
02:15:20,800 --> 02:15:27,400
 allow a landing area for residents so first we'll look at the the buildings

1601
02:15:27,400 --> 02:15:32,320
 near the the front property line this is the the orientation toward Doherty Street

1602
02:15:32,320 --> 02:15:37,440
 the the squares are in or the boxes are in the blue and those are the buildings

1603
02:15:37,440 --> 02:15:43,040
 and then and then here is that front property they are proposing those three

1604
02:15:43,040 --> 02:15:48,640
 buildings which would be about 227 feet of structure located between 19 and 41

1605
02:15:48,640 --> 02:15:53,680
 feet from the property line the intent of this code requirement is to enclose

1606
02:15:53,680 --> 02:15:58,600
 that that street to push the parking away from the street and to just provide

1607
02:15:58,600 --> 02:16:06,080
 more activity toward the right of way the 2002 code really relied on structures

1608
02:16:06,080 --> 02:16:11,000
 in order to meet this requirement but it could be it could be met with with lots

1609
02:16:11,000 --> 02:16:14,800
 of different elements in this case there they have the street trees that are

1610
02:16:14,800 --> 02:16:21,880
 defining that street edge enclosing that street providing a more comfortable path

1611
02:16:21,880 --> 02:16:25,800
 for pedestrians along Doherty Street so they do meet that intent of that

1612
02:16:25,800 --> 02:16:30,960
 requirement the second deviation that they're asking for is for the design of

1613
02:16:30,960 --> 02:16:35,480
 the public the private street system the intent of this requirement is to provide

1614
02:16:35,480 --> 02:16:39,920
 legibility so that residents can move to the side and have clear pathways for

1615
02:16:39,920 --> 02:16:45,300
 vehicles and pedestrians they do provide that that system however they are asking

1616
02:16:45,300 --> 02:16:49,840
 for a deviation and that is to move that sidewalk closer to the curb so so

1617
02:16:49,840 --> 02:16:56,400
 residents can exit their cars and have a more easy pedestrian pathway the

1618
02:16:56,400 --> 02:17:00,720
 criteria for approval in sub chapter 13 of the 2002 Dent development code first

1619
02:17:00,720 --> 02:17:05,320
 is it preserve existing neighborhoods this is in a redeveloping area and so

1620
02:17:05,320 --> 02:17:09,640
 the the proposal is consistent with the types of development we want to see in

1621
02:17:09,640 --> 02:17:14,000
 this area and that is that are emerging this is kind of needed density near our

1622
02:17:14,000 --> 02:17:18,640
 downtown areas a sure quality development this isn't intended to lower the

1623
02:17:18,640 --> 02:17:23,720
 standards but just they're meeting all other sub chapter 13 requirements but

1624
02:17:23,720 --> 02:17:28,920
 just to allow that the site to flow better and to work better to focus new

1625
02:17:28,920 --> 02:17:32,880
 development and activity centers this is urban infill so it's not contributing to

1626
02:17:32,880 --> 02:17:38,040
 sprawl there is existing infrastructure that can accommodate the development in

1627
02:17:38,040 --> 02:17:41,680
 the area in fact it's near transit so it's in a really good location for this

1628
02:17:41,680 --> 02:17:45,560
 type of use and that the results it results in a high quality development

1629
02:17:45,560 --> 02:17:49,960
 meeting the intent of the standards first for that that front yard frontage

1630
02:17:49,960 --> 02:17:54,160
 the intent as I said was to enclose that space create vibrancy and pedestrian

1631
02:17:54,160 --> 02:17:57,520
 comfort those street trees along there will meet the intent of that code

1632
02:17:57,520 --> 02:18:01,280
 requirement and then the design of the private street system we want to make

1633
02:18:01,280 --> 02:18:06,160
 sure that there are clear pathways for vehicles and pedestrians they do provide

1634
02:18:06,160 --> 02:18:09,400
 that they've just kind of modified the design to make sure that it's more

1635
02:18:09,400 --> 02:18:13,480
 comfortable for residents to use so based upon the criteria for approval

1636
02:18:13,480 --> 02:18:17,280
 staff does recommend approval and I'll stand for any questions thank you Julie

1637
02:18:17,280 --> 02:18:24,640
 I don't see any questions this is not a public hearing but is individual

1638
02:18:24,640 --> 02:18:27,440
 considerations so if there's anyone wanting to speak on the item we can

1639
02:18:27,440 --> 02:18:36,040
 certainly hear that okay if not chair will listen to any discussion or motion

1640
02:18:36,040 --> 02:18:40,280
 coaster Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval

1641
02:18:40,280 --> 02:18:43,760
 commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any

1642
02:18:43,760 --> 02:18:49,440
 discussion seeing none I'll call for voting the board

1643
02:18:49,440 --> 02:19:06,800
 motion carries for one next item of business is item 4g ADP 19 - 8 and I'll

1644
02:19:06,800 --> 02:19:10,440
 invite Haley Zygursky for presentation

1645
02:19:10,440 --> 02:19:18,540
 good evening again this is the last of the three items related to the Denton

1646
02:19:18,540 --> 02:19:22,880
 County Emergency Operations Center the request is for an alternative

1647
02:19:22,880 --> 02:19:26,440
 development plan for the property which is located at again at the corner of

1648
02:19:26,440 --> 02:19:31,000
 Karina and Kimberly there are several components to this request related to

1649
02:19:31,000 --> 02:19:35,600
 multiple aspects of sub chapter 13 of our 2002 DDC that includes parking in

1650
02:19:35,600 --> 02:19:38,960
 front of the building parking lot screening and landscaping requirements

1651
02:19:38,960 --> 02:19:43,760
 and as well as our tree canopy and street tree requirements looking at

1652
02:19:43,760 --> 02:19:48,080
 those in a little more detail the code required that parking be to the side or

1653
02:19:48,080 --> 02:19:52,120
 rear of a building unless it was located along an arterial in this case it

1654
02:19:52,120 --> 02:19:57,120
 Karina is a collector Street and they're requesting visitor parking for 30

1655
02:19:57,120 --> 02:20:02,600
 vehicles to be located along Karina the second request is related to tree

1656
02:20:02,600 --> 02:20:07,760
 canopy in the ECC district which this was zoned in 2002 it did have a

1657
02:20:07,760 --> 02:20:12,400
 requirement for 30% tree canopy on the overall site they are planting 64 trees

1658
02:20:12,400 --> 02:20:17,600
 on site which would get them to just over 20% tree canopy the third request

1659
02:20:17,600 --> 02:20:21,560
 is with regard to street tree locations the code required street trees at a rate

1660
02:20:21,560 --> 02:20:25,400
 of one tree for every 45 linear feet to be located between the sidewalk and the

1661
02:20:25,400 --> 02:20:29,840
 street for both of their street frontages that would total 18 trees they

1662
02:20:29,840 --> 02:20:33,840
 are providing those trees on site in alternative locations due to existing

1663
02:20:33,840 --> 02:20:38,360
 utilities that are located along the right of way of both streets the fourth

1664
02:20:38,360 --> 02:20:41,800
 request is with regard to canopy coverage and parking lots the code

1665
02:20:41,800 --> 02:20:46,280
 required all parking lots to have 15% canopy coverage the northern lot for

1666
02:20:46,280 --> 02:20:50,680
 visitors would have 54% canopy coverage but the there is an eastern parking lot

1667
02:20:50,680 --> 02:20:54,700
 for secure employee and equipment parking that would have 0% canopy

1668
02:20:54,700 --> 02:20:59,560
 coverage and then finally with regards to landscaping screening when you do

1669
02:20:59,560 --> 02:21:02,760
 have front parking the code requires a specific combination of landscape

1670
02:21:02,760 --> 02:21:07,360
 elements a 15 foot wide area with a landscape berm one large tree for every

1671
02:21:07,360 --> 02:21:12,880
 40 linear feet and then either zero escaping 3 feet high evergreen shrubs or

1672
02:21:12,880 --> 02:21:17,960
 a 3 foot high wall in this case due to utilities and drainage they have pushed

1673
02:21:17,960 --> 02:21:21,320
 the parking back they would have an approximately 50 foot wide landscape

1674
02:21:21,320 --> 02:21:24,840
 area that would feature a 5 foot wide planting bed directly behind the parking

1675
02:21:24,840 --> 02:21:28,240
 or in front of the parking lot that would have evergreen shrubs and trees

1676
02:21:28,240 --> 02:21:32,360
 spaced approximately every 43 linear feet and there is a natural slope to

1677
02:21:32,360 --> 02:21:36,000
 this area of about 7 feet increase from the sidewalk to the parking lot that

1678
02:21:36,000 --> 02:21:41,160
 would provide a similar effect as the berm would have so this is a look at all

1679
02:21:41,160 --> 02:21:44,880
 of those elements combined on their landscape plan the area in orange is

1680
02:21:44,880 --> 02:21:48,840
 that front parking lot so again north is to the left side of the screen this

1681
02:21:48,840 --> 02:21:53,640
 would be approximately 30 spaces for visitors to the facility the area in red

1682
02:21:53,640 --> 02:21:57,240
 is that secure employee lot there would be gates on either of these driveways

1683
02:21:57,240 --> 02:22:02,440
 the intent of not having landscaping within this parking lot is one for

1684
02:22:02,440 --> 02:22:07,280
 security purposes and then second for maneuverability these this is the

1685
02:22:07,280 --> 02:22:11,000
 backside of those five vehicle bays so they they do need increased

1686
02:22:11,000 --> 02:22:15,600
 maneuverability and access for large equipment through this lot the dark

1687
02:22:15,600 --> 02:22:19,800
 green circles show the alternative location of those 18 street trees along

1688
02:22:19,800 --> 02:22:22,840
 Karina they were pushed back out of the way of utilities and drainage features

1689
02:22:22,840 --> 02:22:26,400
 that will go here and then other trees were located to the east and south side

1690
02:22:26,400 --> 02:22:31,280
 to the property and then again this light green area shows that 50-foot

1691
02:22:31,280 --> 02:22:35,040
 wide area where they are providing trees and shrubs and there is a natural

1692
02:22:35,040 --> 02:22:38,160
 increase in elevation that functions similar to how that berm would have to

1693
02:22:38,160 --> 02:22:42,720
 provide a visual separation from the street or sidewalk to the parking lot

1694
02:22:42,720 --> 02:22:46,720
 this is a look at that building um so this would be the view from Karina

1695
02:22:46,720 --> 02:22:50,800
 Street and then this is the side that fronts Kimberly so again you can see

1696
02:22:50,800 --> 02:22:55,140
 those five large vehicle bays that necessitate the need for that more open

1697
02:22:55,140 --> 02:22:58,320
 design for the employee parking lot as well as the need for that wider driveway

1698
02:22:58,320 --> 02:23:03,640
 that we looked at earlier again we'll run through the criteria for approval of

1699
02:23:03,640 --> 02:23:08,000
 an ADP the first being preservation of existing neighborhoods this is a county

1700
02:23:08,000 --> 02:23:11,580
 facility there there are multiple other county facilities in this area as well

1701
02:23:11,580 --> 02:23:14,960
 as the FEMA facility so it's in line with the uses that have developed here

1702
02:23:14,960 --> 02:23:19,120
 most of the developments in this area especially those along the loop do have

1703
02:23:19,120 --> 02:23:22,120
 front parking so this wouldn't be inconsistent with site design in the

1704
02:23:22,120 --> 02:23:26,880
 area and the site does have 0% canopy coverage today there are no trees on

1705
02:23:26,880 --> 02:23:30,760
 site so the the landscaping that they are proposing would be a substantial

1706
02:23:30,760 --> 02:23:33,880
 improvement although it doesn't hit the mark at 30 percent that the code

1707
02:23:33,880 --> 02:23:38,840
 requires second rather it assures quality development that fits with the

1708
02:23:38,840 --> 02:23:42,440
 character as I mentioned this is an infill site it is consistent with the

1709
02:23:42,440 --> 02:23:45,840
 development pattern of this area and apart from the requested deviations they

1710
02:23:45,840 --> 02:23:51,160
 are meeting all other requirements of the code the third criteria is rather it

1711
02:23:51,160 --> 02:23:55,160
 focuses new development to activity centers to curb strip development it does

1712
02:23:55,160 --> 02:23:59,320
 that with this being an infill site it expands the county's kind of complex of

1713
02:23:59,320 --> 02:24:04,280
 facilities that they've put along loop 288 and it is infilling a site within

1714
02:24:04,280 --> 02:24:08,560
 our city limits rather than sprawling towards the outer edges of the city

1715
02:24:08,560 --> 02:24:12,880
 fourth rather the there's infrastructure can capable of accommodating the

1716
02:24:12,880 --> 02:24:17,040
 development Karina Street that will have the minor improvements of a sidewalk

1717
02:24:17,040 --> 02:24:21,360
 being added there other than that is adequate for this Kimberly as we looked

1718
02:24:21,360 --> 02:24:25,200
 at earlier with the variance is adequate to serve the two facilities that it that

1719
02:24:25,200 --> 02:24:28,240
 it serves as a driveway for and then there are existing water and sewer

1720
02:24:28,240 --> 02:24:34,120
 utilities available and finally rather the developers alternative proposal

1721
02:24:34,120 --> 02:24:37,120
 would result in a high quality development that meets the intent of the

1722
02:24:37,120 --> 02:24:41,720
 design standards in sub chapter 13 with regards to front parking the request is

1723
02:24:41,720 --> 02:24:45,080
 simply intended for security purposes to separate guests from the employees and

1724
02:24:45,080 --> 02:24:49,880
 the large equipment with regards to the site and parking lot tree canopy

1725
02:24:49,880 --> 02:24:53,480
 requirements the request is providing a substantial increase from conditions

1726
02:24:53,480 --> 02:24:59,920
 today but it does allow them to to facilitate a secure employee lot and an

1727
02:24:59,920 --> 02:25:03,840
 equipment lot for the the items that are required at an emergency operation

1728
02:25:03,840 --> 02:25:07,400
 center with respect to street trees they're providing the required number of

1729
02:25:07,400 --> 02:25:10,820
 trees simply in alternative locations to avoid conflicts with utilities and

1730
02:25:10,820 --> 02:25:14,360
 easements and then with regard to parking lot screening again they're

1731
02:25:14,360 --> 02:25:18,020
 providing a layer area much larger than what would be required by the code it

1732
02:25:18,020 --> 02:25:21,960
 does have trees and shrubs not exactly at the ratio required by the code but

1733
02:25:21,960 --> 02:25:25,660
 as many as they could fit in the area and there is a natural elevation there

1734
02:25:25,660 --> 02:25:30,320
 that reduces visibility from the sidewalk so staff is recommending of the

1735
02:25:30,320 --> 02:25:34,880
 request approval of the request and I can stand for any questions thank you

1736
02:25:34,880 --> 02:25:39,240
 Haley I don't see any questions at this time if anyone's wishing to speak on

1737
02:25:39,240 --> 02:25:46,440
 this item we'll certainly listen okay with that chair will entertain any

1738
02:25:46,440 --> 02:25:51,240
 discussion or motion on the item commissioner Ellis I move approval we

1739
02:25:51,240 --> 02:25:54,760
 have a first for approval Commissioner Smith second we have a first and a

1740
02:25:54,760 --> 02:25:59,640
 second for approval any discussion seeing none I'll call for vote on the

1741
02:25:59,640 --> 02:26:16,680
 board motion carries 5-0 next item of business is item 4H ADP 19 - 7 and Julie

1742
02:26:16,680 --> 02:26:30,180
 Wyatt is here to present good evening this is ADP 18-7 Oxford at Sherman the

1743
02:26:30,180 --> 02:26:32,780
 request is for an alternative development plan for a multifamily

1744
02:26:32,780 --> 02:26:38,160
 development on 12 acres the site is situated between loop 288 and poinsettia

1745
02:26:38,160 --> 02:26:45,440
 and the south I'm sorry in the northeast part of town it has a current 2019

1746
02:26:45,440 --> 02:26:51,720
 zoning is SC the previous zoning was CMG due to the project timing it is being

1747
02:26:51,720 --> 02:26:56,680
 reviewed under the 2002 code which is why it's going forward with this ADP

1748
02:26:56,680 --> 02:27:01,500
 um so this may look familiar it was a specific use permit it came before the

1749
02:27:01,500 --> 02:27:04,760
 planning and zoning Commission in December and then went forward to City

1750
02:27:04,760 --> 02:27:09,320
 Council and was approved by City Council the site plan landscape plan and

1751
02:27:09,320 --> 02:27:16,240
 elevations were approved by City Council late last year they are requesting two

1752
02:27:16,240 --> 02:27:23,160
 deviations from the the sub chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code the 2002

1753
02:27:23,160 --> 02:27:29,840
 code this this ADP is actually part of the of the requirement the ordinance one

1754
02:27:29,840 --> 02:27:33,960
 of the conditions of that ordinance that they come forward with this so they're

1755
02:27:33,960 --> 02:27:37,440
 they're meeting that requirement of that ordinance but the first one was that

1756
02:27:37,440 --> 02:27:42,640
 accessory structures such as carports cannot be located along the public

1757
02:27:42,640 --> 02:27:46,080
 right-of-way so between those primary structures the residential structures in

1758
02:27:46,080 --> 02:27:50,400
 the right-of-way they're proposing a single-story garages along poinsettia

1759
02:27:50,400 --> 02:27:54,400
 that's in order to push those residential structures further away from

1760
02:27:54,400 --> 02:27:59,480
 those existing neighborhoods the second requirement is for that the design of

1761
02:27:59,480 --> 02:28:04,760
 that public street system much like the previous ADP that they are requesting

1762
02:28:04,760 --> 02:28:11,980
 that deviation to allow that landscaping behind that sidewalk here is the site

1763
02:28:11,980 --> 02:28:17,920
 plan that you saw in December the the purple boxes show where those

1764
02:28:17,920 --> 02:28:21,680
 residential buildings on the south side of the property will be located and then

1765
02:28:21,680 --> 02:28:26,720
 the yellow boxes are those garages they are located along the right-of-way they

1766
02:28:26,720 --> 02:28:32,280
 are those one-story garages that provide that buffer area along the street and

1767
02:28:32,280 --> 02:28:36,700
 then the the arrows in green that's that private street and we'll sit down the

1768
02:28:36,700 --> 02:28:42,720
 next slide we'll see how that is that design deviates from the requirements so

1769
02:28:42,720 --> 02:28:48,720
 sub chapter 13 requires that between the curb of the parking lot and the sidewalk

1770
02:28:48,720 --> 02:28:53,600
 there should be a landscape area the applicant is is requesting a deviation

1771
02:28:53,600 --> 02:29:00,280
 to allow that sidewalk along that curb line of the of this of the parking lot

1772
02:29:00,280 --> 02:29:03,720
 in order to provide that landing area for residents as they exit their cars

1773
02:29:03,720 --> 02:29:08,960
 then that that landscape area would be provided between that sidewalk and the

1774
02:29:08,960 --> 02:29:15,200
 building the criteria for approval are in sub chapter 13 preserve existing

1775
02:29:15,200 --> 02:29:18,080
 neighborhoods is the first this is a multifamily development in a

1776
02:29:18,080 --> 02:29:22,360
 transition area between loop 280 and existing residential so it provides a

1777
02:29:22,360 --> 02:29:27,760
 buffer between the high activity of loop 288 in the existing neighborhoods assure

1778
02:29:27,760 --> 02:29:31,600
 quality development this intent is not to lower design standards but would

1779
02:29:31,600 --> 02:29:35,280
 facilitate the development of the site and in particular some of those design

1780
02:29:35,280 --> 02:29:42,720
 interventions that that assist in the in the mitigation of any potential

1781
02:29:42,720 --> 02:29:48,000
 nuisances particularly visual for for this site so it is these are design

1782
02:29:48,000 --> 02:29:51,980
 elements that are important to that specific use permit and once again it

1783
02:29:51,980 --> 02:29:55,040
 did go the through the additional scrutiny of that SUP and has been

1784
02:29:55,040 --> 02:29:58,960
 approved by council focus new development activity centers this is a

1785
02:29:58,960 --> 02:30:02,720
 mixed-use area so it's not encouraging that strip development and it is a

1786
02:30:02,720 --> 02:30:08,000
 logical continuation of the existing development pattern there is necessary

1787
02:30:08,000 --> 02:30:11,800
 infrastructure in place in the area will be constructed as a result of the

1788
02:30:11,800 --> 02:30:15,360
 development and does the does the project result in a high quality

1789
02:30:15,360 --> 02:30:20,160
 development meeting the intent of the standards the garage the intent to not

1790
02:30:20,160 --> 02:30:24,280
 put the garages next to the street is to to minimize any visual impacts of those

1791
02:30:24,280 --> 02:30:29,640
 garages and to move those buildings the primary structures closer to the street

1792
02:30:29,640 --> 02:30:33,880
 in this location and in this instance it makes sense to put the garages in this

1793
02:30:33,880 --> 02:30:38,520
 location there one story they have a residential design with pitched roofs

1794
02:30:38,520 --> 02:30:43,720
 the the garage doors are facing inwards so that those visual impacts wouldn't

1795
02:30:43,720 --> 02:30:47,600
 be there for the garage doors but it does allow that buffer area along the

1796
02:30:47,600 --> 02:30:52,360
 right-of-way furthermore City Council did require a masonry wall along

1797
02:30:52,360 --> 02:30:55,960
 poinsettia so it does add that additional screening for those garages

1798
02:30:55,960 --> 02:31:00,480
 for the private street design the antennas provide those clear pathways

1799
02:31:00,480 --> 02:31:04,160
 for residents they are meeting that they are providing those pathways they're

1800
02:31:04,160 --> 02:31:07,960
 just asking for a deviation in the land in the design to provide that landing

1801
02:31:07,960 --> 02:31:12,080
 area for residents so based upon the criteria for approval staff does

1802
02:31:12,080 --> 02:31:15,880
 recommend approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions thanks Julie

1803
02:31:15,880 --> 02:31:20,720
 I don't see any questions thanks if anyone's wishing to speak on item 4H

1804
02:31:20,720 --> 02:31:30,480
 certainly listen if not and seeing none I will turn to Commissioner Smith move to

1805
02:31:30,480 --> 02:31:34,240
 approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a

1806
02:31:34,240 --> 02:31:39,280
 second for approval so we have a first and second for approval of item 4H any

1807
02:31:39,280 --> 02:31:52,480
 discussion seeing none I call for a vote on the board motion carries 5-0 next

1808
02:31:52,480 --> 02:31:59,400
 item of business is item 4I ZCP 19-5 I'll invite Haley Zygursky for

1809
02:31:59,400 --> 02:32:01,920
 presentation

1810
02:32:09,320 --> 02:32:14,200
 good evening this is a request for a site plan within the razor ranch overlay

1811
02:32:14,200 --> 02:32:19,800
 district the use would be multifamily the property is outlined in yellow on

1812
02:32:19,800 --> 02:32:23,080
 the map it's located on the north side of Crescent Street east of East Park

1813
02:32:23,080 --> 02:32:29,560
 Boulevard it is just over 11 acres in size with regards to the property

1814
02:32:29,560 --> 02:32:34,120
 dimensions the the site plans that you have before you show a property that

1815
02:32:34,120 --> 02:32:39,040
 combines all of lot 4 block a of the razor ranch east edition with a very

1816
02:32:39,040 --> 02:32:46,080
 small portion approximately 0.05 acres of lot 5 block a and that that was

1817
02:32:46,080 --> 02:32:50,120
 intended to allow them to reach the 333 dwelling units that they desired and

1818
02:32:50,120 --> 02:32:55,240
 stay within the 30 dwelling unit per acre maximum of the base zoning district so

1819
02:32:55,240 --> 02:32:58,480
 staff is recommending a condition of approval on this item and that be that

1820
02:32:58,480 --> 02:33:03,160
 an amending final plat to increase the size of lot 4 block a to the 11.1 acres

1821
02:33:03,160 --> 02:33:07,080
 shown here be approved prior to or be filed prior to the issuance of a

1822
02:33:07,080 --> 02:33:12,560
 building permit just a little background for those of you who may not have seen a

1823
02:33:12,560 --> 02:33:16,720
 razor ranch site plan the overlay district requires the site plans go

1824
02:33:16,720 --> 02:33:19,080
 through the planning and zoning Commission rather than being approved by

1825
02:33:19,080 --> 02:33:23,960
 staff the site plans are required by the overlay district to contain a site plan

1826
02:33:23,960 --> 02:33:29,120
 landscape plan and building elevations the overlay district provides four

1827
02:33:29,120 --> 02:33:33,040
 criteria for approval that the plans substantially comply with the concept or

1828
02:33:33,040 --> 02:33:36,320
 schematic plan approved by the City Council that the plan provide for a

1829
02:33:36,320 --> 02:33:39,520
 compatible arrangement of buildings and uses that wouldn't adversely affect

1830
02:33:39,520 --> 02:33:43,000
 adjoining neighborhoods and properties that the site plan provide for adequate

1831
02:33:43,000 --> 02:33:46,720
 and safe vehicular circulation and that the plan comply with all other

1832
02:33:46,720 --> 02:33:52,880
 requirements of the overlay district so looking at the the concept or schematic

1833
02:33:52,880 --> 02:33:56,440
 plan for razor ranch this area is part of what's known as the south mixed use

1834
02:33:56,440 --> 02:34:01,400
 district of the overlay that's an area intended for residential and office type

1835
02:34:01,400 --> 02:34:06,600
 uses primarily the base zoning is an RMU district from the 2002 code so

1836
02:34:06,600 --> 02:34:11,000
 multifamily is a permitted use here if you remember last year development

1837
02:34:11,000 --> 02:34:13,660
 standards for architecture and landscaping were adopted for this

1838
02:34:13,660 --> 02:34:19,840
 district those are housed in exhibit C2A of the overlay so looking at the site

1839
02:34:19,840 --> 02:34:24,160
 plan there are three driveway entrances the primary entrance being on East Park

1840
02:34:24,160 --> 02:34:27,960
 Boulevard again in this case north is oriented towards the left side of your

1841
02:34:27,960 --> 02:34:31,440
 screen so East Park would have the main entrance and then there would be

1842
02:34:31,440 --> 02:34:35,200
 secondary entrances and exits onto Crescent Street and then on to a private

1843
02:34:35,200 --> 02:34:39,800
 driveway that's north of the property the areas in blue are these seven

1844
02:34:39,800 --> 02:34:43,000
 buildings that are proposed total of a hundred and thirty three thousand one

1845
02:34:43,000 --> 02:34:46,080
 hundred and ninety three square feet there are three hundred and thirty three

1846
02:34:46,080 --> 02:34:49,840
 dwelling units within these seven buildings the area in purple shows the

1847
02:34:49,840 --> 02:34:53,560
 primary location for on-site amenities that will include a pool cabanas

1848
02:34:53,560 --> 02:34:58,360
 outdoor community spaces as well as grills the site is well within the lot

1849
02:34:58,360 --> 02:35:02,880
 coverage and open space requirements of the district it the buildings are within

1850
02:35:02,880 --> 02:35:08,320
 the maximum height of 65 feet and they are providing 532 parking spaces some of

1851
02:35:08,320 --> 02:35:11,800
 you may remember within razor ranch they have to meet the city's minimum for

1852
02:35:11,800 --> 02:35:16,120
 parking but they can go above and beyond without having to do any additional

1853
02:35:16,120 --> 02:35:20,280
 items like seeking an ADP like other sites would have so they they're within

1854
02:35:20,280 --> 02:35:25,400
 that requirement as well this is the landscape plan as you can see in the

1855
02:35:25,400 --> 02:35:28,400
 table it does meet all of the minimum requirements for landscape and tree

1856
02:35:28,400 --> 02:35:32,400
 canopy as well as street trees two of the features I wanted to point out to

1857
02:35:32,400 --> 02:35:36,800
 you all are the the buffer that's shown here in light green adjoining property

1858
02:35:36,800 --> 02:35:40,320
 to the west is intended for single-family development so a ten foot

1859
02:35:40,320 --> 02:35:44,160
 wide buffer was required and has been provided on this plan and then the areas

1860
02:35:44,160 --> 02:35:46,840
 in orange are the enhanced landscape features that they're providing at the

1861
02:35:46,840 --> 02:35:50,200
 entry to really frame that main driveway as you drive up to towards the

1862
02:35:50,200 --> 02:35:54,040
 policing center this is a colored rendering that was provided by the

1863
02:35:54,040 --> 02:35:57,240
 architect to give you a better idea of how the landscaping is laid out

1864
02:35:57,240 --> 02:36:00,720
 throughout this area and again you can see the primary amenity center here in

1865
02:36:00,720 --> 02:36:06,320
 the center of the development so the there I'll walk through briefly the

1866
02:36:06,320 --> 02:36:10,200
 building elevations this is building one and two so these would be the two L

1867
02:36:10,200 --> 02:36:13,880
 shaped buildings along East Park this would be the East Park side of the

1868
02:36:13,880 --> 02:36:16,640
 buildings this is the side that would be viewed from either Crescent or that

1869
02:36:16,640 --> 02:36:21,920
 northern private driveway the buildings are proposed with brick and stone veneer

1870
02:36:21,920 --> 02:36:24,960
 as well as fiber cement siding those are all materials permitted in the overlay

1871
02:36:24,960 --> 02:36:28,920
 district that meets the neutral color palette requirement the razor overlay

1872
02:36:28,920 --> 02:36:32,520
 seeks to have a consistent theming of earth tone and gray tones throughout so

1873
02:36:32,520 --> 02:36:36,480
 they meet that and they also meet the minimum window and door requirements the

1874
02:36:36,480 --> 02:36:40,720
 overlay requires 20% windows and doors on all street sides 10% on all others

1875
02:36:40,720 --> 02:36:47,640
 their minimums are at 23% and 13% respectively these are the the back to L

1876
02:36:47,640 --> 02:36:52,320
 shape building so this would be along a private drive and as well as this side

1877
02:36:52,320 --> 02:36:55,520
 you would see from Crescent Street so again with the consistent theming of

1878
02:36:55,520 --> 02:37:01,320
 colors and materials this is buildings the internal building so these would be

1879
02:37:01,320 --> 02:37:05,560
 inside around the pool area again continuing the architectural theme I've

1880
02:37:05,560 --> 02:37:09,560
 also provided here as a snapshot of what the garages would look like there are

1881
02:37:09,560 --> 02:37:13,640
 garages along the private driveway so the backside of those would be what's

1882
02:37:13,640 --> 02:37:17,080
 visible from those future single-family homes all the garage doors would face

1883
02:37:17,080 --> 02:37:23,000
 inward and this is building five which would really be that main central focus

1884
02:37:23,000 --> 02:37:26,200
 as you drive into the side off of East Park Boulevard you would see the leasing

1885
02:37:26,200 --> 02:37:31,640
 office with an increased amount of glass there to provide for that open space and

1886
02:37:31,640 --> 02:37:34,640
 this would be framed on either side by those enhanced landscaping areas that I

1887
02:37:34,640 --> 02:37:39,240
 showed earlier staff is recommending approval of the request with the

1888
02:37:39,240 --> 02:37:42,480
 condition again that the end amending final plot to increase the size of lot

1889
02:37:42,480 --> 02:37:47,320
 four block a of the razor range east edition to 11.1 acres be approved and

1890
02:37:47,320 --> 02:37:50,920
 filed with Denton County prior to building permit issuance I'm happy to

1891
02:37:50,920 --> 02:37:57,880
 stand for any questions thank you very much Haley there is no questions like

1892
02:37:57,880 --> 02:38:02,040
 the other items if anyone's wishing to speak on this we'll certainly listen

1893
02:38:02,040 --> 02:38:07,720
 Krister Smith move to approve with staff conditions we have a first with the

1894
02:38:07,720 --> 02:38:12,480
 conditions commissioner Cole second we have a second with the conditions with

1895
02:38:12,480 --> 02:38:18,200
 the first and a second seeing no discussion call for vote on the board

1896
02:38:18,200 --> 02:38:30,080
 motion carries five zero continuing back into the order of the agenda we've

1897
02:38:30,080 --> 02:38:36,640
 already done five public hearings and so we will now jump back to item six our

1898
02:38:36,640 --> 02:38:41,560
 concluding item which is the PNC matrix I will turn the floor to Richard for an

1899
02:38:41,560 --> 02:38:48,600
 update and then open to questions or comments with respect to excuse me with

1900
02:38:48,600 --> 02:38:53,640
 respect to the obviously we had the notification discussion we still have

1901
02:38:53,640 --> 02:38:57,960
 the original work session item that was scheduled for the city initiated

1902
02:38:57,960 --> 02:39:03,400
 rezoning's we've sort of moved that will be coming back we're also in the

1903
02:39:03,400 --> 02:39:07,560
 process of holistically bringing I know we've been bringing a number of

1904
02:39:07,560 --> 02:39:11,480
 amendments to the DDC sort of updates we're now looking at just doing sort of

1905
02:39:11,480 --> 02:39:19,040
 a holistic maybe maybe bringing a chapter or the whole DDC at once to make

1906
02:39:19,040 --> 02:39:24,560
 some of those those minor adjustments or corrections the the only other items I

1907
02:39:24,560 --> 02:39:29,400
 wanted to update is just council actions on on the items that were before the

1908
02:39:29,400 --> 02:39:36,560
 Commission on 1217 the PD was approved for Ryan way if you recall there was a

1909
02:39:36,560 --> 02:39:44,560
 discussion regarding the alignment what was ultimately approved one was the open

1910
02:39:44,560 --> 02:39:49,760
 space area there was the council had required that or condition the approval

1911
02:39:49,760 --> 02:39:54,240
 that those be in a conservation easement that was that was essentially proffered

1912
02:39:54,240 --> 02:39:59,840
 or discussed by the applicant in addition they agreed to put a an emergency

1913
02:39:59,840 --> 02:40:05,240
 access gate at that at the entrance so there there would not be that direct

1914
02:40:05,240 --> 02:40:13,640
 connection with the condition that it be built upon a completely improved right

1915
02:40:13,640 --> 02:40:19,320
 of way the concern was and council members related to other ones where

1916
02:40:19,320 --> 02:40:24,760
 there were a community had was gated as soon as everyone moved in and then

1917
02:40:24,760 --> 02:40:29,600
 within a few a year a few years later they were petitioning council to remove

1918
02:40:29,600 --> 02:40:34,240
 that that access gate and so the condition was that that right of way be

1919
02:40:34,240 --> 02:40:37,320
 be improved as it would be a normal street and then have those gates

1920
02:40:37,320 --> 02:40:43,900
 installed the only other the SGP in rezoning was approved for the substation

1921
02:40:43,900 --> 02:40:52,200
 and then last night the I'm sorry and the r7 the medical office that was that

1922
02:40:52,200 --> 02:40:59,480
 was also approved I'm sorry last night other than that that's all I have great

1923
02:40:59,480 --> 02:41:04,640
 anyone have any questions are needing to add anything to the matrix this evening

1924
02:41:04,640 --> 02:41:08,680
 all right with that that concludes our agenda for this evening I close the

1925
02:41:08,680 --> 02:41:12,600
 meeting at 729