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