WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.360 good afternoon and welcome to the planning and zoning commission work 00:00:10.360 --> 00:00:16.660 session for Wednesday January 8th 2020 it is 431 and seeing that we have a 00:00:16.660 --> 00:00:20.820 quorum I'll call this meeting to order let the record show that Commissioner 00:00:20.820 --> 00:00:25.080 Anderson and Commissioner Pernetta are absent at this time a little bit of 00:00:25.080 --> 00:00:29.720 clarification on the agenda we'll get into in a little bit but just to give 00:00:29.720 --> 00:00:36.020 you a heads up we're gonna reorder some things so here's what we're doing I'll 00:00:36.020 --> 00:00:39.800 go back over it once you get the work session reports done but since we're 00:00:39.800 --> 00:00:47.160 here consent agenda item 3b and individual consideration item 4g are 00:00:47.160 --> 00:00:53.880 dependent on a passing vote of item 5c so rather than pulling those two items 00:00:53.880 --> 00:00:57.560 from consent and individual and taking those out of order after the public 00:00:57.560 --> 00:01:00.800 hearing we're just gonna go public hearing first this evening so we'll go 00:01:00.800 --> 00:01:09.360 5b 5c to start the meeting and chambers then we're going to come back to the 00:01:09.360 --> 00:01:13.120 consent and then we'll do the individuals so this evening will 00:01:13.120 --> 00:01:16.640 actually end on the individual consideration going into the matrix so 00:01:16.640 --> 00:01:19.760 we're just flipping the two public hearings to the front just for the sake 00:01:19.760 --> 00:01:25.180 of how those are stacked for the approvals and then we can we'll go 00:01:25.180 --> 00:01:29.520 through that again when we go through item 2 on the work session but to begin 00:01:29.520 --> 00:01:39.680 this evening what you good mr. Smith's cause of problems to begin the evening 00:01:39.680 --> 00:01:45.360 we will go through a report and discussion on the city's extra 00:01:45.360 --> 00:02:01.760 territorial jurisdiction and I think Haley has presentation to begin so this 00:02:01.760 --> 00:02:05.080 is a little out of the ordinary you wouldn't typically have kind of an 00:02:05.080 --> 00:02:09.480 advanced presentation like this on a project but because it is unique and we 00:02:09.480 --> 00:02:13.800 did talk to the City Council about this project yesterday we wanted to bring it 00:02:13.800 --> 00:02:18.180 before you all as well and just give you a heads up of a potential annexation 00:02:18.180 --> 00:02:24.200 zoning and plot that will be coming your way in the very near future so I will do 00:02:24.200 --> 00:02:27.560 just a very brief overview of the project and then the development team is 00:02:27.560 --> 00:02:30.920 actually here to present in a little more detail on what their proposal will 00:02:30.920 --> 00:02:36.800 be so the project that we'll be looking at is called sagebrook it is located as 00:02:36.800 --> 00:02:41.440 I mentioned primarily in our ETJ it is outlined in yellow here the entire 00:02:41.440 --> 00:02:46.360 property it's about 146 acres located on the south side of all Red Road the very 00:02:46.360 --> 00:02:51.480 south terminus of Bonnie Bray and also but the railroad tracks along Fort Worth 00:02:51.480 --> 00:02:57.400 Drive about 135 acres of the property are in the ETJ they're not covered by a 00:02:57.400 --> 00:03:02.440 non annexation agreement unlike a lot of our ETJ is and then there are about 10 00:03:02.440 --> 00:03:05.920 acres of the property that are inside the city limits that were part of a 00:03:05.920 --> 00:03:10.160 strip annexation many years ago when the city was annexing property down Fort 00:03:10.160 --> 00:03:15.820 Worth Drive currently on the property it's primarily an agricultural use there 00:03:15.820 --> 00:03:19.320 was a single-family home that you can see here on the aerial and then there 00:03:19.320 --> 00:03:23.040 was a gas well on this property at one point in time in anticipation of this 00:03:23.040 --> 00:03:28.680 development that well has been plugged the the 10 acres that are in the city 00:03:28.680 --> 00:03:34.600 limits are currently zoned r6 the future land use for this area is split the 00:03:34.600 --> 00:03:37.320 portions that are closest to Bonnie Bray and Fort Worth Drive or neighborhood 00:03:37.320 --> 00:03:42.200 mixed use so a little bit more intensive higher density multi-family type uses 00:03:42.200 --> 00:03:46.680 would be typical there or neighborhood services so some light commercial uses 00:03:46.680 --> 00:03:52.720 and then the remainder of the property is designated as a rural area so the 00:03:52.720 --> 00:03:56.800 I'll let the development team go into this more but this is an overview of 00:03:56.800 --> 00:04:01.080 what their proposal would be approximately 491 single-family homes at 00:04:01.080 --> 00:04:06.080 a density of about 3.36 units per acre the lots are designed to have a minimum 00:04:06.080 --> 00:04:10.000 square footage of 6,000 square feet and meet the r6 standards if that are six 00:04:10.000 --> 00:04:15.600 were to just extend across the entirety of the property some of the benefits 00:04:15.600 --> 00:04:18.640 that the city could see from this project annexing and developing in the 00:04:18.640 --> 00:04:23.040 city as opposed to the ETJ would be right-of-way dedication for the future 00:04:23.040 --> 00:04:26.960 extension of brush Creek that is a an arterial on our mobility plan that's 00:04:26.960 --> 00:04:30.800 designated to go across this property they would construct two lanes of that 00:04:30.800 --> 00:04:34.600 road as part of this development there are also in negotiations with the 00:04:34.600 --> 00:04:38.480 railroad to eliminate the currently rather unsafe crossing here at Bonnie 00:04:38.480 --> 00:04:42.400 Bray and relocate that crossing down here to brush Creek once it exists once 00:04:42.400 --> 00:04:46.720 that is extended as I mentioned the gas well was plugged that's to be located 00:04:46.720 --> 00:04:51.320 here on an HOA lot so that nothing would be built over top of the well and then in 00:04:51.320 --> 00:04:55.680 addition there's about a little over 14 acres of land down here about 14 acres 00:04:55.680 --> 00:05:00.280 our floodplain they would be looking to dedicate that to the city as a as a park 00:05:00.280 --> 00:05:03.600 there would be a trail that you can see in the lightly hatched area that would 00:05:03.600 --> 00:05:06.720 go through this property and then traverse through the central median 00:05:06.720 --> 00:05:12.080 trail through the development up to the city's future Southwest Park chair 00:05:12.080 --> 00:05:21.800 mr. Beck is this development of brush Creek going to be dependent on the 00:05:21.800 --> 00:05:25.920 development of the adjacent property where there's a barn or something in the 00:05:25.920 --> 00:05:30.660 image yeah ultimately brush Creek unless there there's a bond election for the 00:05:30.660 --> 00:05:34.040 road to be constructed all at once through a CFP project it would be 00:05:34.040 --> 00:05:37.360 constructed as development occurs out here but this would be a significant 00:05:37.360 --> 00:05:40.840 portion of the roadway that we could get right of way for if this development 00:05:40.840 --> 00:05:44.600 were to move forward so do we have a little bit of a chicken and an egg I 00:05:44.600 --> 00:05:49.520 mean are we developing the road and anticipate I mean you see my issue is if 00:05:49.520 --> 00:05:53.640 we're gonna if the road needs to develop on out to 35 the way I seem to recall 00:05:53.640 --> 00:05:57.440 the plan being correct I mean do we we have a chicken and egg issue where the 00:05:57.440 --> 00:06:01.600 road needs to be there or the housing neighborhood needs to justify the road 00:06:01.600 --> 00:06:06.440 or I mean I see an order dependency issue well that the brush Creek would be 00:06:06.440 --> 00:06:10.100 their primary access to this property if you've been on all red it's it's a 00:06:10.100 --> 00:06:15.400 gravel road at best so they do need brush Creek for acts for safe access to 00:06:15.400 --> 00:06:19.200 their property to have multiple points of access for emergency services but 00:06:19.200 --> 00:06:22.880 that is the typical order of development that as properties develop mobility plan 00:06:22.880 --> 00:06:26.880 roadways get dedicated and constructed like I said unless the city happens to 00:06:26.880 --> 00:06:31.280 have a bond election for this and and approve a CIP to go in and acquire all 00:06:31.280 --> 00:06:34.800 the right-of-way and build the road in one fell swoop which typically doesn't 00:06:34.800 --> 00:06:40.880 occur okay thank you Haley going off that question a little bit we had the 00:06:40.880 --> 00:06:47.360 presentation last meeting of all red being the road that goes over I-35 and 00:06:47.360 --> 00:06:53.160 to the new ranches this looks like brush Creek is going to intercept that and 00:06:53.160 --> 00:06:58.560 not a mobility plan brush Creek is the kind of new loop that extends eastward 00:06:58.560 --> 00:07:03.600 around the city can you remind me how brush Creek and all red merge here yeah 00:07:03.600 --> 00:07:06.880 and Richard may have a little more knowledge that since Hunter and Cole 00:07:06.880 --> 00:07:11.080 ranch yeah the so the hunter and Cole ranch properties actually just to the 00:07:11.080 --> 00:07:15.680 north because it kind of wraps around on this side so that segment of brush Creek 00:07:15.680 --> 00:07:20.640 will will ultimately connect up to to what is now a portion of already in 00:07:20.640 --> 00:07:25.400 connecting to 35 the the outer loop actually will still connect will not 00:07:25.400 --> 00:07:33.600 connect at brush Creek it will actually connect at vintage I think that would be 00:07:33.600 --> 00:07:38.040 the the next exit to the north for interchange to the north okay so I 00:07:38.040 --> 00:07:43.000 imagine brush Creek and all red will be a T it wouldn't be like a brush Creek 00:07:43.000 --> 00:07:47.280 doesn't turn into all red it just terminates it already correct I think it 00:07:47.280 --> 00:07:53.160 will it'll and it might be that whether or not that becomes brush Creek however 00:07:53.160 --> 00:07:57.080 we name it and then all red just becomes more of a local road really just to get 00:07:57.080 --> 00:08:00.520 to the park and to go north that makes sense 00:08:00.520 --> 00:08:05.520 so the last thing I have before I let them come up and give you a little more 00:08:05.520 --> 00:08:09.320 detail if you happen to watch the council work session you saw that part 00:08:09.320 --> 00:08:11.840 of the discussion was that there were really three options for how this could 00:08:11.840 --> 00:08:15.960 develop it could move forward primarily in the county we could potentially 00:08:15.960 --> 00:08:20.120 enter into a pre annexation development agreement for this property to remain in 00:08:20.120 --> 00:08:23.320 the county that annex in the future or it could go through kind of the standard 00:08:23.320 --> 00:08:27.360 process of annexing and then zoning and then platting as we would normally see 00:08:27.360 --> 00:08:30.520 and the council did provide direction yesterday that they would prefer to see 00:08:30.520 --> 00:08:33.920 this move forward through that standard process to ensure the you know the 00:08:33.920 --> 00:08:37.160 maximum public hearings and transparency through our standard process or what's 00:08:37.160 --> 00:08:41.240 achieved here as this moves forward so I anticipate that that's what you all will 00:08:41.240 --> 00:08:44.120 see once they get through annexation you'll see the future pieces of this 00:08:44.120 --> 00:08:49.440 moving forward but at this time I'd like to invite Randy and Rob up to talk you 00:08:49.440 --> 00:08:56.320 through more of the details of their proposal if I could just quickly add why 00:08:56.320 --> 00:09:03.400 this is on on work session if you recall when when when the Commission got the 00:09:03.400 --> 00:09:08.760 zoning application as a result of the Creekside development agreement there 00:09:08.760 --> 00:09:12.920 are a lot of questions on you know because it was sort of already decided 00:09:12.920 --> 00:09:16.800 and and I think a lot of members felt almost with their back against the wall 00:09:16.800 --> 00:09:21.280 and almost forced to approve it and so really the intent was we weren't sure 00:09:21.280 --> 00:09:24.880 where council was going to go with direction but at least wanted the 00:09:24.880 --> 00:09:29.040 Commission to be advised of what that what it was up front while it was being 00:09:29.040 --> 00:09:32.360 while it was being considered so that's why that's why it was put on the work 00:09:32.360 --> 00:09:38.440 session yes thank you Richard and thank you PNZ for allowing me to be here this 00:09:38.440 --> 00:09:43.840 evening Rob Bettencourt with Zana is also present and I wanted to know you 00:09:43.840 --> 00:09:46.800 have a long agenda and a long night ahead of you so I'm going to try to be 00:09:46.800 --> 00:09:51.720 as quick as possible and chair please feel free to ask questions whenever you 00:09:51.720 --> 00:09:59.220 need to okay so thank you Richard for that summary you know the the we did do 00:09:59.220 --> 00:10:02.240 this presentation yesterday for council to get that direction like Haley 00:10:02.240 --> 00:10:08.840 summarized there and again the Zana and Rob had looked at this property two 00:10:08.840 --> 00:10:15.120 years ago and put it under contract and as of today it stands that the contract 00:10:15.120 --> 00:10:20.200 will expire at the end of April and so we were kind of getting down to the wire 00:10:20.200 --> 00:10:25.120 what process are we going to go through with the city the part of the condition 00:10:25.120 --> 00:10:30.180 of the contract was that it was it was going to be purchased as long as it was 00:10:30.180 --> 00:10:34.200 entitled for its intended use and so that's the reason we came in and had the 00:10:34.200 --> 00:10:39.520 discussion with council and with you today to figure out what how exactly can 00:10:39.520 --> 00:10:44.360 we get about that and that feedback was very helpful and I look forward to 00:10:44.360 --> 00:10:49.280 getting some feedback from the Commission tonight the location of the 00:10:49.280 --> 00:10:55.840 property you know again yes in the ETJ and you know kind of an isolated donut 00:10:55.840 --> 00:11:01.080 area here of ETJ land that would be brought into the city of Denton looking 00:11:01.080 --> 00:11:05.160 at that from an aerial perspective I wanted to also show the dividing line 00:11:05.160 --> 00:11:11.200 between the school districts that separates Argyle ISD from Denton ISD in 00:11:11.200 --> 00:11:16.880 this area and so these three 491 homes their families would go to Denton ISD 00:11:16.880 --> 00:11:23.800 schools and here's a picture of all red currently going out to 35 and so I have 00:11:23.800 --> 00:11:28.040 an alignment schematic that I can show you that a little bit more detail there 00:11:28.040 --> 00:11:32.680 how that looks the circled areas of what Haley mentioned the gas walls plugged 00:11:32.680 --> 00:11:39.120 and the improvements will be removed and we did get approval from Union Pacific 00:11:39.120 --> 00:11:43.000 Railroad to relocate this crossing at Bonnie Bray because it is a challenge 00:11:43.000 --> 00:11:48.440 crossing to this location here at Brush Creek and so all those things over the 00:11:48.440 --> 00:11:52.400 past several months those are things that we've been working through actually 00:11:52.400 --> 00:11:56.960 the past year we've been working on all those this aerial here shows the the 14 00:11:56.960 --> 00:12:00.880 acres of floodplain that's in the southwest corner of the property the 00:12:00.880 --> 00:12:06.920 the property itself is average about 3,000 feet long and then about 2,000 or 00:12:06.920 --> 00:12:11.920 so feet north to south the slope of the land it generally falls down to this 00:12:11.920 --> 00:12:16.800 floodplain and then it makes its way into Lewisville Lake and it's not heavily 00:12:16.800 --> 00:12:21.960 treed the northern half is predominantly Mesquite and the southern areas and 00:12:21.960 --> 00:12:26.400 you'll see on the plan we're preserving the the tree stands in those areas and 00:12:26.400 --> 00:12:32.020 then the floodplain how it matches up with the existing zoning with Hunter 00:12:32.020 --> 00:12:37.680 Cole Ranch the NPC zoning the base is r7 we would be proposing r6 consistent 00:12:37.680 --> 00:12:41.840 with that like Haley was talking about extending the r6 zoning across our 00:12:41.840 --> 00:12:48.200 property and we've talked about doing a plan development zoning when we come 00:12:48.200 --> 00:12:52.520 through at the time of that of the entitlements all right project details 00:12:52.520 --> 00:12:57.600 here's the the land plan Brush Creek would cross right here over the railroad 00:12:57.600 --> 00:13:03.080 and then we make our way through the property what we have done here is a 00:13:03.080 --> 00:13:07.520 lined along the southern portion of the property next to the floodplain so this 00:13:07.520 --> 00:13:12.800 creates 18 acres of green way on this side of the Brush Creek extension and 00:13:12.800 --> 00:13:17.600 I'll talk about that we're proposing to dedicate that to the city for the park 00:13:17.600 --> 00:13:22.080 land dedication requirements and then Brush Creek would continue and all red 00:13:22.080 --> 00:13:27.120 would tee into it at this point Bonnie Bray's intersection would go away so 00:13:27.120 --> 00:13:32.560 Bonnie Bray would stop at this point to end go west onto all red so it's not a 00:13:32.560 --> 00:13:38.520 dead end it's just it would be a 90 degree turn there an entrance here on 00:13:38.520 --> 00:13:43.720 all red and our main entrance is would be on Brush Creek here is there's an 00:13:43.720 --> 00:13:46.880 existing pond in the southeast corner that's a feature we want to preserve 00:13:46.880 --> 00:13:51.640 along with the mature trees in this area and an amenity center with the pool and 00:13:51.640 --> 00:13:57.760 clubhouse the entrance being in this location the north side the developer 00:13:57.760 --> 00:14:03.440 has agreed to put in two lanes of the Brush Creek Street section across the 00:14:03.440 --> 00:14:09.080 frontage per phase as the site develops and the phasing of this basically big 00:14:09.080 --> 00:14:14.440 breaks it up into the quadrants phase one would be down here I think this is 00:14:14.440 --> 00:14:19.800 phase two up here phase three and then phase four so looking at some of the 00:14:19.800 --> 00:14:23.980 other public benefits in regards to open space and a little bit more detail over 00:14:23.980 --> 00:14:29.200 15% of the site is in open space and the features would include the the trail 00:14:29.200 --> 00:14:33.680 that's going to be open to the public to access Southwest Park from the Green 00:14:33.680 --> 00:14:40.440 Belt of along Brush Creek and we would also have trail connections along the 00:14:40.440 --> 00:14:47.160 the common area lots zooming in or showing this the spine this what Haley 00:14:47.160 --> 00:14:51.920 talked about the curvilinear Boulevard effect Street this the property didn't 00:14:51.920 --> 00:14:55.840 have while it had floodplain and some mature trees and we're preserving those 00:14:55.840 --> 00:14:59.880 there wasn't any more significant environmental features that we could 00:14:59.880 --> 00:15:04.840 work around that would make it you know unique and from a design standpoint we 00:15:04.840 --> 00:15:08.200 want to work with what the land is offering us and so here we wanted to 00:15:08.200 --> 00:15:15.600 create a bull a Green Boulevard if you will that allows the public to access 00:15:15.600 --> 00:15:21.360 Southwest Park which is a regional park so to speak by connecting the trail 00:15:21.360 --> 00:15:26.360 system from the Green Belt up through our property into Southwest and we felt 00:15:26.360 --> 00:15:33.760 like an an ex walking experience going through a landscaped environment in the 00:15:33.760 --> 00:15:38.960 middle of the development would be most beneficial would be preferred would be 00:15:38.960 --> 00:15:42.720 something that the residents and the community would enjoy and so this street 00:15:42.720 --> 00:15:48.440 section here shows that the median the minimum width of this meandering median 00:15:48.440 --> 00:15:53.880 is 37 feet and within it is a 10-foot trail like I said that would be in a 00:15:53.880 --> 00:16:00.480 public pedestrian access easement and so the 10-foot trail would come off of 00:16:00.480 --> 00:16:05.800 Brush Creek would cross in a protected area the intersections in order to get 00:16:05.800 --> 00:16:13.320 into the median these this hatching here signifies a raised intersection to act 00:16:13.320 --> 00:16:18.920 as a traffic calming and slowdown traffic and it would also be enhanced 00:16:18.920 --> 00:16:23.240 pavement on that as well and this is enhanced landscaping so having these 00:16:23.240 --> 00:16:28.240 design features at the key intersections also helps protect the 00:16:28.240 --> 00:16:34.280 pedestrian walking ability there as they go through the intersection to get to 00:16:34.280 --> 00:16:40.360 Southwest Park and just a broader picture of what that looks like and I've 00:16:40.360 --> 00:16:45.000 highlighted there in magenta and this would eventually tie into the trails 00:16:45.000 --> 00:16:50.040 being extended from the hunter coal development and I can show you that in a 00:16:50.040 --> 00:16:56.240 future slide I have that and then private space private open space is at 00:16:56.240 --> 00:17:00.800 nine point four acres you've seen the pool we have enhanced landscaping trail 00:17:00.800 --> 00:17:08.640 sorry signage masonry walls and tree preservation the base zoning that we 00:17:08.640 --> 00:17:12.800 would propose is our six it's consistent with the dimensional requirements of our 00:17:12.800 --> 00:17:20.680 six and again our density is three point three six units per acre one of the 00:17:20.680 --> 00:17:24.400 public benefits from an infrastructure standpoint is the extension this hundred 00:17:24.400 --> 00:17:29.520 and twenty foot right away of brush Creek it's about 3,000 feet long that we 00:17:29.520 --> 00:17:33.480 would be dedicating with this development it's about nine point two 00:17:33.480 --> 00:17:37.440 acres and again the two lanes that we would be constructing with this we've 00:17:37.440 --> 00:17:46.000 done a TIA and 10% of the traffic of brush Creek can be attributed to the 00:17:46.000 --> 00:17:51.560 full build out of this development and this is the street section of brush 00:17:51.560 --> 00:17:58.200 Creek that is in the city's on the city's website for the bond program that 00:17:58.200 --> 00:18:01.160 was approved showing what that would look like we would these are the two 00:18:01.160 --> 00:18:05.080 lanes that we would build and in the future the bike lane would come in and 00:18:05.080 --> 00:18:11.000 then the southern portion would also come in and just showing on the I don't 00:18:11.000 --> 00:18:14.960 think this is the thoroughfare plan map but showing the bond program that was 00:18:14.960 --> 00:18:21.920 approved here along the creek and then how this 3,000 feet of road would help 00:18:21.920 --> 00:18:26.320 link together the future extension of brush Creek tie it back into all red and 00:18:26.320 --> 00:18:31.280 getting over to 35 our sites our site is about a quarter mile from the 00:18:31.280 --> 00:18:38.480 intersection with 35 this talking about what I had mentioned briefly already the 00:18:38.480 --> 00:18:43.480 the railroad crossing would be relocated to this location and that's what that 00:18:43.480 --> 00:18:46.600 would look like now there is an agreement for preliminary engineering 00:18:46.600 --> 00:18:52.120 that has been sent to the city it's it is being reviewed has not been executed 00:18:52.120 --> 00:18:56.480 yet but that is something we're continuing to work on how that would 00:18:56.480 --> 00:19:00.360 talk about how the crossing is designed what components are needed and things 00:19:00.360 --> 00:19:05.320 like that in this area has there been any talk about a signal light at that 00:19:05.320 --> 00:19:10.720 intersection or the thresholds to get a signal light at that intersection I know 00:19:10.720 --> 00:19:16.440 we had a project unrelated to the to you at that intersection and a signal light 00:19:16.440 --> 00:19:20.440 was a point of residents concern with development going in at brush Creek in 00:19:20.440 --> 00:19:26.240 377 so I'd be curious of any insight you have on I don't recall exactly what the 00:19:26.240 --> 00:19:32.000 TIA says about the signalized the need for it to being signalized I can look 00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:36.840 into that I don't Rob do you remember if it said it needed to be signalized at 00:19:36.840 --> 00:19:42.360 full build out or if I think it's really when more around here is developed that 00:19:42.360 --> 00:19:46.760 it would warrant the signal hello guys Rob that incur here was ain't land 00:19:46.760 --> 00:19:50.440 development yeah in talking and coordinating the projects with Todd 00:19:50.440 --> 00:19:54.120 Estes and according to the traffic study so there would be that would be 00:19:54.120 --> 00:19:58.080 signalized it's at some point but it's not something that gets triggered that 00:19:58.080 --> 00:20:03.240 gets triggered via the trip generations of this project so it is ultimately I 00:20:03.240 --> 00:20:07.560 think a part of his Todd closely that's part of a cog it'd be part of a part of 00:20:07.560 --> 00:20:16.320 a cog funded program okay quite a ways down the road thank you and I think the 00:20:16.320 --> 00:20:20.120 last component of the infrastructure benefit that this project would provide 00:20:20.120 --> 00:20:25.080 is the extension of a sewer line sewer is not currently available right at the 00:20:25.080 --> 00:20:30.640 door of the site so we do have to extend it about 3,000 feet this is showing our 00:20:30.640 --> 00:20:34.960 site is here and this white line would show how we would come over here to the 00:20:34.960 --> 00:20:39.880 east to the graveyard interceptor along the Country Club area and then bring 00:20:39.880 --> 00:20:45.680 that about 3,300 feet to our site and then through our development is we would 00:20:45.680 --> 00:20:50.240 extend the sewer and sub that out to the west for it to be extended for future 00:20:50.240 --> 00:20:54.680 development to the west because this line the sewer basin it equates to about 00:20:54.680 --> 00:21:00.880 580 acres that can go into this line and you know sage brick is only you know a 00:21:00.880 --> 00:21:07.600 quarter of that the tree preservation areas this is in the exhibits that we 00:21:07.600 --> 00:21:10.640 provided that would ultimately come before you and as part of our zoning and 00:21:10.640 --> 00:21:14.920 everything the trees that we're preserving would be 30% and that meets 00:21:14.920 --> 00:21:19.380 the city's requirement of what is required to be preserved this is the 00:21:19.380 --> 00:21:25.360 timeline of what we have gone through since December of 2018 and again this 00:21:25.360 --> 00:21:29.840 was this is why we are here we were working on an agreement weren't sure how 00:21:29.840 --> 00:21:34.440 with the land being in ETJ what was the best method for bringing it to the city 00:21:34.440 --> 00:21:39.040 for approval and you know we've got that feedback yesterday looking forward to 00:21:39.040 --> 00:21:44.220 the discussion today and then these are all the studies and analyses that we've 00:21:44.220 --> 00:21:51.080 done over the course of the last 12 months or so and then the land use Haley 00:21:51.080 --> 00:21:57.720 touched on this too the the the mixed use being right here and then the rural 00:21:57.720 --> 00:22:02.240 areas I think that's five acre lots or something like that next to moderate 00:22:02.240 --> 00:22:06.320 residential and hunter coal ranch it seems like it is somewhat of an abrupt 00:22:06.320 --> 00:22:10.680 change in density and what we're proposing would allow for a more 00:22:10.680 --> 00:22:15.840 appropriate transition going from an r7 which I think is 10 units per acre to 00:22:15.840 --> 00:22:22.800 3.3 units per acre over to 377 would be more consistent with planning practices 00:22:22.800 --> 00:22:27.440 to you know when especially being along the railroad and I'm not sure why 00:22:27.440 --> 00:22:32.120 initially it was designated for rural areas but I I believe it has something 00:22:32.120 --> 00:22:37.120 to do with it being in the ETJ at the time the land use map was created and 00:22:37.120 --> 00:22:40.600 this is showing brush Creek going through here and that connection it's 00:22:40.600 --> 00:22:45.480 again a four-lane road going through a rural area the overall thoroughfare plan 00:22:45.480 --> 00:22:50.440 showing the key intersections with 35w and how close our site is to that to 00:22:50.440 --> 00:22:55.820 that intersection there and the connection that eventually from 2499 00:22:55.820 --> 00:23:00.700 motorist will be able to get all the way to 35 so while it's not necessarily the 00:23:00.700 --> 00:23:08.000 south loop it is a very significant and traffic carrier once it is developed 00:23:08.000 --> 00:23:16.120 package the plans for hunter coal ranch that we have seen most recently are here 00:23:16.120 --> 00:23:20.440 on the screen showing the r7 and how they're transitioning as they get to 00:23:20.440 --> 00:23:25.000 the main corridors and the thoroughfares and that we would propose the same thing 00:23:25.000 --> 00:23:30.400 on the other side as we transition to 377 and how this kind of fits into the 00:23:30.400 --> 00:23:35.680 context of the developed area or once it is developed I mean and then the green 00:23:35.680 --> 00:23:40.440 ways being in the floodplain it provides an opportunity for linkages with trails 00:23:40.440 --> 00:23:46.640 and other recreation and and of course detention and drainage and so this is 00:23:46.640 --> 00:23:52.880 showing here's our site this is showing the parks map for hunter coal and then 00:23:52.880 --> 00:23:58.360 the trails over here on this right side and how we would be able to extend those 00:23:58.360 --> 00:24:01.920 trails to provide a more of a direct access for pedestrians to get to 00:24:01.920 --> 00:24:06.200 Southwest Park through the sage brook development instead of having to go 00:24:06.200 --> 00:24:10.320 around or through the commercial area they could come through sage brook and 00:24:10.320 --> 00:24:14.400 up that way so we think it would be a very beneficial experience for you know 00:24:14.400 --> 00:24:21.580 any enthusiast or enthuse activists or active enthusiasts that wants to take 00:24:21.580 --> 00:24:26.720 advantage of the trail system so that concludes my portion of just walking 00:24:26.720 --> 00:24:31.480 through this we look forward to coming back in the future with a formal 00:24:31.480 --> 00:24:42.200 application and I welcome any feedback I don't see any okay thank you very much 00:24:42.200 --> 00:24:47.560 thanks for being here thank you the next item for business is work session item 00:24:47.560 --> 00:24:53.000 1b which is to receive a report regarding public hearing notifications 00:24:53.000 --> 00:24:57.200 and Charlie's here he's been here for two meetings for this one so thanks for 00:24:57.200 --> 00:25:01.040 being patient with us and look forward to your presentation thank you happy to 00:25:01.040 --> 00:25:11.160 be here with you today so we wanted to bring public hearing notifications back 00:25:11.160 --> 00:25:18.360 to you guys there was a request on the matrix about notifications in the ETJ 00:25:18.360 --> 00:25:23.120 but there's also been some other discussion around notifications as we've 00:25:23.120 --> 00:25:27.560 had projects come forward so wanted to bring this back to you guys let you know 00:25:27.560 --> 00:25:32.160 what changes we've made recently and then seek your direction on some of those 00:25:32.160 --> 00:25:39.760 items just so quickly on background in May we made the change in the 500 foot 00:25:39.760 --> 00:25:47.000 notices from sending those to addresses with the appraisal district to addresses 00:25:47.000 --> 00:25:52.000 based on the city's utility records so we're getting more accurate addresses so 00:25:52.000 --> 00:25:58.160 some of those dcat addresses didn't translate well to the postal service so 00:25:58.160 --> 00:26:02.760 we were getting a lot of return mail on the postcards for 500 foot notices 00:26:02.760 --> 00:26:10.600 especially in areas with multifamily complexes or duplexes so these this 00:26:10.600 --> 00:26:14.400 change has helped out with those going to the individuals the current resident 00:26:14.400 --> 00:26:19.960 those dwelling units and then in September we switched from sending the 00:26:19.960 --> 00:26:24.200 200 foot notices out to property owners by certified mail that is now being done 00:26:24.200 --> 00:26:34.400 by regular first-class mail so just to go over a notification procedures we've 00:26:34.400 --> 00:26:38.720 been through this before but the legal requirement by the local government code 00:26:38.720 --> 00:26:45.320 is that we send a notice to owners on the certified most recent certified tax 00:26:45.320 --> 00:26:50.640 rule within 200 foot of a subject property and that we post that in the 00:26:50.640 --> 00:26:56.440 local newspaper what the city of Denton does above and beyond that is that we 00:26:56.440 --> 00:27:02.720 send those legal notices by mail we also send a courtesy postcard out to the 00:27:02.720 --> 00:27:09.980 addresses current resident within 500 foot of the property we have applicants 00:27:09.980 --> 00:27:15.000 post signs on the property we include that information on the city's website 00:27:15.000 --> 00:27:21.320 and then those fees for the signs and the mailings are then charged back to 00:27:21.320 --> 00:27:26.000 the applicant we do have a note down here on the bottom though that only 00:27:26.000 --> 00:27:33.720 those owners within 200 feet are eligible to meet that 20% super 00:27:33.720 --> 00:27:38.240 majority vote limit so we send that courtesy notice but it's it's not 00:27:38.240 --> 00:27:43.080 towards the super majority does the individuals then 200 feet also get the 00:27:43.080 --> 00:27:48.120 500 foot courtesy notice so they're duly noticed or is that excluded it they do 00:27:48.120 --> 00:27:55.920 if they also occupy the home so if it's a property owner that may live out of 00:27:55.920 --> 00:28:00.680 state they'll get the 200 foot letter but then there if they're renting then 00:28:00.680 --> 00:28:10.920 the renter would get the 500 foot postcard so we have a matrix here of 00:28:10.920 --> 00:28:18.640 exactly how and for what different projects the the notice gets mailed so 00:28:18.640 --> 00:28:24.600 here we have city limits the ETJ and then outside the city limits so you can 00:28:24.600 --> 00:28:30.080 see here that the property owner for all of these project types listed on the top 00:28:30.080 --> 00:28:36.160 here are sent a letter then the occupants are sent a postcard and all of 00:28:36.160 --> 00:28:43.080 them except for a replat or a vacating plat and which and then in the instance 00:28:43.080 --> 00:28:49.520 of ETJ and then outside of the city limits the only only notice that sent is 00:28:49.520 --> 00:28:57.360 a letter to property owners and the ETJ that's by local government code any 00:28:57.360 --> 00:29:04.080 questions on that one Christian back so one of the drawbacks I guess to sending 00:29:04.080 --> 00:29:10.440 deep to surrounding ETJ is the cost of the mailings is that the the primary 00:29:10.440 --> 00:29:17.240 inhibitor to why we don't do courtesy cards I mean I what does it cost us to 00:29:17.240 --> 00:29:22.800 send what it's hard to estimate because it's gonna be project dependent but I 00:29:22.800 --> 00:29:26.640 mean are there estimates on what it would cost us to send postcards to 00:29:26.640 --> 00:29:35.440 surrounding ETJ occupants because you've got none across the board on those as to 00:29:35.440 --> 00:29:40.040 the history of why they're not included probably because they don't have a stake 00:29:40.040 --> 00:29:44.960 in the change that's being requested on the property it would be my assumption 00:29:44.960 --> 00:29:50.840 and I don't know that for a fact but then the 69 it's 69 cents for a postcard 00:29:50.840 --> 00:29:55.240 so it would be dependent on how many dwelling units or structures are in that 00:29:55.240 --> 00:30:01.880 vicinity but one wouldn't imagine that was prohibitive they send postcards 00:30:01.880 --> 00:30:08.400 probably less than $50 in most cases unless it's like a multifamily unit or 00:30:08.400 --> 00:30:12.680 something that's the reason I asked those questions is we've had a number of 00:30:12.680 --> 00:30:18.700 complaints about various stakeholders whether or not they have standing or not 00:30:18.700 --> 00:30:24.760 complaining to us that they weren't notified and so and it would seem 00:30:24.760 --> 00:30:30.920 reasonable to propose to council that we do some extending extension of our 00:30:30.920 --> 00:30:36.640 notification system if only for a CYA kind of reasons yeah I'll interject here 00:30:36.640 --> 00:30:42.200 I certainly understand where you're coming from with all due respect to our 00:30:42.200 --> 00:30:47.220 ETJ and county neighbors our commission is the city of Denton our council city 00:30:47.220 --> 00:30:50.480 of Denton our primary concern is the residents of the city of Denton and 00:30:50.480 --> 00:30:53.920 there there's gonna be a sign in the yard they're gonna be the newspaper it's 00:30:53.920 --> 00:30:58.240 not like they're blind from the notification but to what extent do we go 00:30:58.240 --> 00:31:02.720 out of our way to notify people who we are not being appointed to or elected to 00:31:02.720 --> 00:31:08.760 in some cases to represent that'd be my position I wouldn't be an advocate to 00:31:08.760 --> 00:31:13.280 start giving all these people additional notifications that they already have 00:31:13.280 --> 00:31:22.480 access to just just to touch on I think Charlie was right I think where the the 00:31:22.480 --> 00:31:26.920 500 grew out of the 200 requirement that's in the local government code that 00:31:26.920 --> 00:31:31.440 requires the notice to be sent to those on the tax rolls and then the 500 I 00:31:31.440 --> 00:31:39.640 think just grew beyond that to go beyond the requirement but again we're still 00:31:39.640 --> 00:31:44.960 limited to the 200 for that 20% but again yeah it never was extended to the 00:31:44.960 --> 00:31:55.080 TGA okay yeah so here's the the other topics that we've we've talked about is 00:31:55.080 --> 00:32:01.280 the structure of the letters and postcards just a little bit discussion we 00:32:01.280 --> 00:32:06.440 just had on notifying individuals in the TGA and then the final topic that we 00:32:06.440 --> 00:32:10.280 heard you guys discussing that we wanted to bring forward is the mailing of a 00:32:10.280 --> 00:32:14.720 single letter in the instances where something's coming forward with an SUP 00:32:14.720 --> 00:32:21.440 and a zoning change so I wanted to go over those individually so right now on 00:32:21.440 --> 00:32:26.400 the left side here these two items you can see this is what we currently this 00:32:26.400 --> 00:32:32.580 is the sign that's posted on the property and then this is what the notice 00:32:32.580 --> 00:32:39.160 or the 500 foot courtesy notice looks like the letters just a pretty standard 00:32:39.160 --> 00:32:46.480 letters to city of Denton logo on it so here's what we've been working towards so 00:32:46.480 --> 00:32:50.000 right here in the bottom right you would see this is what a sign would look like 00:32:50.000 --> 00:32:55.320 with that letter changing depending on the project that's being submitted then 00:32:55.320 --> 00:33:00.400 you would get a postcard in the mail with similar branding so hopefully if 00:33:00.400 --> 00:33:05.240 you're within 500 foot of a property you'll have seen the sign and then 00:33:05.240 --> 00:33:09.320 hopefully you'll recognize and not pitch this in the trash I think is a lot of 00:33:09.320 --> 00:33:13.920 the concern we've heard that if it's more generic this this could be just 00:33:13.920 --> 00:33:19.480 thrown away without really reading it so this would be the postcard and then 00:33:19.480 --> 00:33:23.800 we've been working with our mail vendor we can get an open window on the letter 00:33:23.800 --> 00:33:28.560 so that we would have a similar branding on the front of the letter so if you're 00:33:28.560 --> 00:33:34.440 a property owner you would get that as well but I'd be happy to take any 00:33:34.440 --> 00:33:39.040 comments you guys have on letters layout anything you have heard or would like 00:33:39.040 --> 00:33:45.600 to see I think this is a tremendous step forward kudos to the design team for 00:33:45.600 --> 00:33:49.520 working on this and obviously these are design concepts but just for 00:33:49.520 --> 00:33:55.080 clarification the bottom right would be the new two by three signage on the 00:33:55.080 --> 00:34:02.480 street right the top one that that's the current street signage right notice of 00:34:02.480 --> 00:34:07.480 public hearing that large one yes okay that has project number name the new one 00:34:07.480 --> 00:34:13.520 just has project number is project name deliberately left off or is that just a 00:34:13.520 --> 00:34:21.880 concept thing I mean it can be added on there I think the thought was you would 00:34:21.880 --> 00:34:26.000 have you would find the product the the point is to funnel people who want more 00:34:26.000 --> 00:34:32.280 information towards towards the website so we're we're working you can pull up 00:34:32.280 --> 00:34:37.400 the active project on the on the website if you go to this web address here on 00:34:37.400 --> 00:34:41.400 the bottom it'll pull up your active projects page and you can look at what 00:34:41.400 --> 00:34:46.560 project is there and get more info on dates from that point but we can 00:34:46.560 --> 00:34:51.840 certainly add the project name on there no I appreciate the rationale the only 00:34:51.840 --> 00:34:57.000 other thing that I would throw out there into the ether is understanding what 00:34:57.000 --> 00:35:00.360 called action you want them to do and if it's to go to the website maybe put the 00:35:00.360 --> 00:35:04.960 website above the phone number okay because when I look at that I'm thinking 00:35:04.960 --> 00:35:09.360 if I have questions I'm gonna call I don't really answers that number you 00:35:09.360 --> 00:35:12.360 might be increasing call volume unintentionally that's my only 00:35:12.360 --> 00:35:21.080 feedback I think great no other feedback Haley's like yes yeah you should 00:35:21.080 --> 00:35:32.760 definitely go to website so this was the the ETJ item whether whether we should 00:35:32.760 --> 00:35:43.080 begin sending those to the ETJ or not yeah thanks I wanted to have this 00:35:43.080 --> 00:35:47.760 brought in front of I brought up to the matrix whenever we saw this the last 00:35:47.760 --> 00:35:51.040 couple projects and I've seen it on projects ever since I've done the 00:35:51.040 --> 00:35:55.320 Commission and I agree with you chair I understand like we were not we're not 00:35:55.320 --> 00:35:58.760 representatives of those who are in the ETJ because we're not that's not our 00:35:58.760 --> 00:36:03.260 stakes not held there but I still think that that giving some sort of 00:36:03.260 --> 00:36:07.440 notifications to those who are in the ETJ because they're being directly at 00:36:07.440 --> 00:36:13.560 their their landowners and as a private property you know rights guy your you 00:36:13.560 --> 00:36:18.920 are making decisions that's going to possibly affect their their land value 00:36:18.920 --> 00:36:24.440 their their quality of life at least giving them notification of what's going 00:36:24.440 --> 00:36:28.120 on even though they don't have a voting say necessarily in the city of Denton we 00:36:28.120 --> 00:36:32.540 don't represent them they're in the ETJ they should still be able to be known so 00:36:32.540 --> 00:36:35.760 they can come and voice their opinion about what's going on next to their land 00:36:35.760 --> 00:36:39.880 and so I get there's an extra cost but that's that's the reason why I brought up 00:36:39.880 --> 00:36:42.400 the first place and I wanted to hear it and I would like to make recommendation 00:36:42.400 --> 00:36:46.800 for City Council to take a look at this and see if we can start notifying ETJ 00:36:46.800 --> 00:36:55.280 residents sure Alice thank you chair I guess my only thought on that is they 00:36:55.280 --> 00:36:59.900 can come and give their opinion but they would not be considered part of any kind 00:36:59.900 --> 00:37:07.640 of percentage of opposition so I would hate for us to to be thinking giving 00:37:07.640 --> 00:37:10.960 them the thought that they do I don't you know that that's just a concern I 00:37:10.960 --> 00:37:14.920 would have yes they can come and give their thoughts but they're not going to 00:37:14.920 --> 00:37:18.120 generate a supermajority they're not going to have any kind of power because 00:37:18.120 --> 00:37:24.080 they're in the ETJ so I don't know if sending them a notification would make 00:37:24.080 --> 00:37:28.480 them think that they have a little bit more what are the differences between 00:37:28.480 --> 00:37:33.360 the 200 and the 500 foot letters and the 200 foot notification states something 00:37:33.360 --> 00:37:36.360 along those lines right the supermajority piece or does it not at all 00:37:36.360 --> 00:37:40.520 just no it's always the notification so there is no difference between the 00:37:40.520 --> 00:37:46.080 notifications at all really the letter it has the piece of paper where you can 00:37:46.080 --> 00:37:50.280 send in opposition not to show up but you can send it in and it describes in a 00:37:50.280 --> 00:37:53.920 little more detail in the letter that we can't fit on the postcard the 00:37:53.920 --> 00:37:59.160 postcards more of a notice this is happening this is the date and time if 00:37:59.160 --> 00:38:05.680 you want more information this is the address I think that the Commissioner 00:38:05.680 --> 00:38:09.600 Alice's points are valid I still think that they would rather be notified rather 00:38:09.600 --> 00:38:13.160 than having to catch a sign and you've heard some people come in front of us 00:38:13.160 --> 00:38:17.320 who you know we had that project that was over there off May Hill and Mills 00:38:17.320 --> 00:38:20.840 Road where for some reason there's some property back there that's within the 00:38:20.840 --> 00:38:25.300 500 foot boundary but it's still in the ETJ even though it's dang near right in 00:38:25.300 --> 00:38:30.800 the middle of the city for the most part and so why was I never noticed I don't 00:38:30.800 --> 00:38:36.240 know what to tell you just we didn't notice you. Commissioner Beck. Yes thank you 00:38:36.240 --> 00:38:39.880 Chair. Yeah I have to agree with Commissioner Smith on this one I don't 00:38:39.880 --> 00:38:43.880 think it hurts especially if you're at 500 feet to say hey we're doing a thing 00:38:43.880 --> 00:38:49.280 that doesn't give you any rights to change it or influence our decision 00:38:49.280 --> 00:38:55.160 we're simply saying we're doing a thing and I think that's a neighborly action 00:38:55.160 --> 00:38:58.960 especially if the costs aren't prohibitive I mean I can understand 00:38:58.960 --> 00:39:04.040 there being a cost issue that we should keep our eye on and if it got extreme or 00:39:04.040 --> 00:39:09.800 was impinging on budgets or something that's one thing but simply a postcard 00:39:09.800 --> 00:39:15.640 saying something is happening feels like just courtesy if anything else. Thank you. 00:39:15.640 --> 00:39:21.160 Yes my thoughts maybe to go a step further what I already stated is the 500 00:39:21.160 --> 00:39:25.720 foot notification is already a courtesy we don't have to do that we arbitrarily 00:39:25.720 --> 00:39:31.520 decided 500 feet and so there seems to be a very logical end to where we send 00:39:31.520 --> 00:39:35.560 out notifications that would be the city border if we start sending ETJ the 00:39:35.560 --> 00:39:38.320 logical conclusion to be well why don't we send the courtesy to a thousand feet 00:39:38.320 --> 00:39:41.840 I mean they're probably if they're in the same neighborhood and but they're 00:39:41.840 --> 00:39:45.040 past 500 feet but they're the same neighborhood that certainly applies to 00:39:45.040 --> 00:39:48.760 them so now we need to probably notice based on neighborhood or regions and now 00:39:48.760 --> 00:39:54.320 I think the logical end of how courteous the city could be has to be to a point 00:39:54.320 --> 00:39:58.080 and where do we get that point obviously is where we're discussing it it seems as 00:39:58.080 --> 00:40:01.760 though a logical one would be the bounds of our city especially since we're not 00:40:01.760 --> 00:40:07.240 legally required to tell them it's in a newspaper it's online and there's a large 00:40:07.240 --> 00:40:11.080 sign of the property and I would argue that if it is significantly imposing on 00:40:11.080 --> 00:40:13.520 to their property that means they probably know the property they drive 00:40:13.520 --> 00:40:16.760 by it which would logically conclude especially their signage they would have 00:40:16.760 --> 00:40:21.880 seen it and so I yeah they have come and complained about that in the past and 00:40:21.880 --> 00:40:27.360 somehow they did show up right they heard so they were effectively noticed 00:40:27.360 --> 00:40:31.120 it wasn't the same way their apparent neighbor was but if they showed up to a 00:40:31.120 --> 00:40:35.880 meeting I would argue that the grapevine or whatever notification is out there is 00:40:35.880 --> 00:40:40.320 is a measurably to some effect that's what I would say 00:40:40.320 --> 00:40:45.560 Mr. Smith the the neighborhood meetings how are those how the developers usually 00:40:45.560 --> 00:40:48.660 getting getting neighborhood meeting lists out is that are they are they 00:40:48.660 --> 00:40:51.160 taking the same list we're sitting off for notifications and using that as 00:40:51.160 --> 00:40:55.140 well okay that's another thought process just saying that if the if they're 00:40:55.140 --> 00:40:58.760 going through with with what you know Andrew said we think we've heard 00:40:58.760 --> 00:41:02.120 complaints before where it's been you know we've we didn't find out about till 00:41:02.120 --> 00:41:05.000 the developer told us instead of the city telling us and so I didn't know if 00:41:05.000 --> 00:41:07.200 they're getting into the notification they're they're sending out their 00:41:07.200 --> 00:41:09.680 neighborhood meeting notifications the same list we're sending out then that's 00:41:09.680 --> 00:41:13.040 perfectly fine I just want to make sure they weren't notifying ETJ clients and 00:41:13.040 --> 00:41:17.120 we were and ETJ residents and we weren't well and then that could be the case 00:41:17.120 --> 00:41:21.200 too because they send the neighborhood meeting out ahead of time while they're 00:41:21.200 --> 00:41:26.840 still going through the review process before maybe a meeting date is scheduled 00:41:26.840 --> 00:41:30.480 so it could be that they get that first notice from the developer because the 00:41:30.480 --> 00:41:34.360 intent I think in the neighborhood meetings is to try to work out any issues 00:41:34.360 --> 00:41:42.200 or make any accommodations so one way to combat this exact issue of where do we 00:41:42.200 --> 00:41:49.600 stop and how much it costs and what is to recommend that we kind of note how 00:41:49.600 --> 00:41:55.680 many people are in the ETJ at the 500 foot level so if we if we left our 00:41:55.680 --> 00:41:59.800 limits at 500 feet which is the courtesy limit you were describing then we say 00:41:59.800 --> 00:42:08.160 well in 500 feet there are 30 homes of which 15 are inside our jurisdiction so 00:42:08.160 --> 00:42:13.480 we're hitting 50 percent notification at that level and we could if we just kind 00:42:13.480 --> 00:42:17.920 of track that we we could see oh well that's only we are always getting 90 00:42:17.920 --> 00:42:24.880 percent notification regardless of the boundaries or we're only ever getting 10 00:42:24.880 --> 00:42:28.320 percent notification because we keep hitting these weird fingers where it's 00:42:28.320 --> 00:42:33.840 ETJ and or I mean just data tracking feels like it would answer that question 00:42:33.840 --> 00:42:40.480 of how much courtesy notice we'd actually be requesting if we asked for a blanket 00:42:40.480 --> 00:42:46.720 500 foot regardless of city boundaries and so I would encourage us to perhaps 00:42:46.720 --> 00:42:52.080 look at those numbers to see how many ETJ people were actually in the last few 00:42:52.080 --> 00:42:57.320 projects are not getting notified it feels like it would be a useful number to 00:42:57.320 --> 00:43:06.720 answer these kinds of questions. Any other thoughts? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you 00:43:06.720 --> 00:43:11.200 chair maybe just one and I don't know you looked into this how creative can you 00:43:11.200 --> 00:43:16.840 get per project or do we do we just need to have this hard set we're gonna draw 00:43:16.840 --> 00:43:23.560 this radius 200 and 500 feet so I'll bring an example there there was a year 00:43:23.560 --> 00:43:30.480 or two ago a project a zoning change that came right at the front entrance of 00:43:30.480 --> 00:43:38.160 a massive master plan community and you know the circles drawn and I don't know 00:43:38.160 --> 00:43:43.600 about a street and a half got a notification even though this whole 00:43:43.600 --> 00:43:47.760 project was coming through the entrance of that subdivision that affected a ton 00:43:47.760 --> 00:43:52.680 of people to me that's you know that circle needed to be more you know not a 00:43:52.680 --> 00:43:57.060 circle and more an oval to notify more people in the neighborhood I don't know 00:43:57.060 --> 00:44:01.920 if that's even a thing that we could be creative about that was just one thing 00:44:01.920 --> 00:44:06.840 that stuck with me about people who came and spoke and how you know angry they 00:44:06.840 --> 00:44:09.760 were that they weren't notified they're in the same subdivision and we're 00:44:09.760 --> 00:44:15.400 notifying one homeowner that has this undeveloped land and then about a street 00:44:15.400 --> 00:44:18.880 and a half of the hundreds and hundreds of homeowners that were in that 00:44:18.880 --> 00:44:24.520 neighborhood so again I'm throwing that out to you as as as this project manager 00:44:24.520 --> 00:44:28.880 here it can you get creative per project or not or is that just cost prohibited 00:44:28.880 --> 00:44:37.200 time prohibited you could so the the GIS tool I mean it's an automatic thing so 00:44:37.200 --> 00:44:41.480 you draw the borders of the property and then it spits out the addresses so 00:44:41.480 --> 00:44:47.760 anything that deviates from that would be additional time additional staff time 00:44:47.760 --> 00:44:55.760 to complete but I would also say if we were to you know be more creative and 00:44:55.760 --> 00:44:59.960 the way we do that it would want to be within some kind of guidelines so that 00:44:59.960 --> 00:45:04.320 you know in this specific so it can be applied multiple times and it's not a 00:45:04.320 --> 00:45:08.200 staff decision at that point when to extend that boundary and when not to 00:45:08.200 --> 00:45:12.520 extend that boundary yeah where do we stop that line I know I mean there there 00:45:12.520 --> 00:45:17.600 seems to not be an easy answer just but that but that's I think why this keeps 00:45:17.600 --> 00:45:23.360 coming to our matrix because it's like we want a broader discussion because and 00:45:23.360 --> 00:45:27.280 then maybe it can't be fixed any more than I mean we're making steps the 00:45:27.280 --> 00:45:33.080 postcard change and all that it's great it really is but it doesn't solve that 00:45:33.080 --> 00:45:38.600 fact and maybe it can't be of those people who feel like we're excluding 00:45:38.600 --> 00:45:43.640 them for some reason and again I'm not sure you know if there is an easy fix to 00:45:43.640 --> 00:45:48.520 that so I'm gonna interject one more time I hope this last one on this one 00:45:48.520 --> 00:45:53.760 topic because I feel like I'm talking more than usual I am NOT a proponent of 00:45:53.760 --> 00:45:58.320 introducing new concepts and multiple variables because then back to tracking 00:45:58.320 --> 00:46:03.760 we don't know what variable was the determinant of change and so to your 00:46:03.760 --> 00:46:07.600 point if we have a new signage and it's the project you're talking about 00:46:07.600 --> 00:46:11.720 theoretically everyone impacted would have driven by the sign right if there's 00:46:11.720 --> 00:46:14.520 that impactful for the neighborhood that you're by the sign so what I would like 00:46:14.520 --> 00:46:18.440 to see is if this signs more effective what I wouldn't what I'd hesitate to 00:46:18.440 --> 00:46:21.480 say is change the sign and change notification area and say great 00:46:21.480 --> 00:46:24.160 everything's working well in reality we don't know if it was the increased 00:46:24.160 --> 00:46:28.480 notifications or the sign itself change so what my recommendation would be is let's 00:46:28.480 --> 00:46:32.680 implement one variable the new design and then measure if that's successful or 00:46:32.680 --> 00:46:36.160 not if we start finding the same issues nine months a year from now then we say 00:46:36.160 --> 00:46:40.040 okay we need an additional thing because it's one variable that way we're dealing 00:46:40.040 --> 00:46:44.360 with one not one X not an X and a Y in this equation that'd be my two cents 00:46:44.360 --> 00:46:48.160 because else yeah real quick chair and thank you for that and that makes sense 00:46:48.160 --> 00:46:52.120 yes and this was before we changed the sign and when we had the puny little 00:46:52.120 --> 00:46:56.800 sign that we used to put out on the on the lot so absolutely it's a great point 00:46:56.800 --> 00:47:00.920 yeah yeah Christian back and this isn't off of that can you flip back to the 00:47:00.920 --> 00:47:07.520 sign models real quick are we going to have different kind of notifications 00:47:07.520 --> 00:47:11.120 that are not Z that are some other letter for other kind of notifications 00:47:11.120 --> 00:47:15.680 yeah so there's going to be a letter code for these notifications right so an 00:47:15.680 --> 00:47:20.880 SGP would be maybe an S we haven't determined that yet but yeah there would 00:47:20.880 --> 00:47:27.120 be a different letter depending on what the project type is in color yeah oh and 00:47:27.120 --> 00:47:46.880 color there we go yeah loving this so so on that I'll just come back it sounds 00:47:46.880 --> 00:47:54.280 like maybe this is a an item that we did we bring back again with after maybe a 00:47:54.280 --> 00:47:59.680 change is that is that what I'm hearing or do we want to push this forward to 00:47:59.680 --> 00:48:06.840 City Council is a recommended change I think clear direction on that I guess 00:48:06.840 --> 00:48:11.400 we take an informal vote here but Christian I mean not to say that no hey 00:48:11.400 --> 00:48:15.000 the City Council we want to direct you to make a change but has the City 00:48:15.000 --> 00:48:20.440 Council seen this presentation that so I would I would almost want to say let the 00:48:20.440 --> 00:48:23.040 City Council depict it from there if the City Council doesn't feel like it's that 00:48:23.040 --> 00:48:27.520 big of a of an issue we can build I can deal with people complaining they didn't 00:48:27.520 --> 00:48:31.120 get a notification there in the ETJ and if we're gonna move forward with changing 00:48:31.120 --> 00:48:34.800 it to fancy new colors and whatnot like like Richards got designed over there 00:48:34.800 --> 00:48:39.200 that's what he spends his time doing walks around the Home Depot the in the 00:48:39.200 --> 00:48:42.320 painting the paint section he's like yeah trying to figure out what color he's 00:48:42.320 --> 00:48:48.200 gonna make his signs but but if we're gonna make a change okay that's better 00:48:48.200 --> 00:48:51.520 nothing but if City Council wants to there was some discussion about it we'd 00:48:51.520 --> 00:48:54.980 like to start notifying the ETJ folks not a direction to make a change but if 00:48:54.980 --> 00:49:02.000 they agree with us then yeah I'd like to see something but so for the purpose of 00:49:02.000 --> 00:49:08.880 answering this question or let me just do the informal show of hands does does 00:49:08.880 --> 00:49:15.120 this Commission please raise your hand if you believe that we should help 00:49:15.120 --> 00:49:23.400 encourage council along and notifying ETJ individuals so I have to think that we 00:49:23.400 --> 00:49:29.900 should encourage who does not want to encourage City Council to notify ETJ 00:49:29.900 --> 00:49:40.080 individuals right what do you clarification of the question okay so 00:49:40.080 --> 00:49:45.080 Charlie I would just bring that to the Commission is split on notifying ETJ 00:49:45.080 --> 00:49:52.520 individuals thank you chair however I would love to see that I mean for you to 00:49:52.520 --> 00:49:58.040 go forward or put in front of them the new post you know the new letter code 00:49:58.040 --> 00:50:03.240 and the new sign and bringing all that consistent I I think that is a great you 00:50:03.240 --> 00:50:06.760 know to chair's point I think that's a great first step in seeing how effective 00:50:06.760 --> 00:50:12.520 that is as we have our public hearings and maybe this comes up again with regard 00:50:12.520 --> 00:50:19.200 of reaching further but we might as well try to implement a piece at a time yeah 00:50:19.200 --> 00:50:23.440 so that that's a great point at some point we'll probably have a work session 00:50:23.440 --> 00:50:29.800 with City Council to discuss the new notifications and how that's going to 00:50:29.800 --> 00:50:33.440 work with them and at that point we can talk about the ETJ and the discussion 00:50:33.440 --> 00:50:39.180 that we had here let them know what the discussion this committee had and see 00:50:39.180 --> 00:50:44.680 their thoughts on that as well as our next item here on the rezoning SGP combo 00:50:44.680 --> 00:50:50.480 Fisher so thank you chair so is there an order dependency I mean do we have to 00:50:50.480 --> 00:50:55.720 make recommendations to city or to council rather or count I mean there's 00:50:55.720 --> 00:51:00.360 no order dependency in terms of this progressing forward is there this is it 00:51:00.360 --> 00:51:04.400 seems like an informative discussion that we can staff can take to council 00:51:04.400 --> 00:51:08.480 let them know what we are thinking and they make the decision that was thank 00:51:08.480 --> 00:51:14.960 you yeah it's very informal all right and then so the last item here is the 00:51:14.960 --> 00:51:19.480 discussion that I think you guys have talked about before is when a rezoning 00:51:19.480 --> 00:51:25.520 case and an SGP case come forward that those are two separate letters for each 00:51:25.520 --> 00:51:32.000 of those that go to so they go out twice so you get one letter for an SGP and you 00:51:32.000 --> 00:51:36.480 get another letter for rezoning or if you're in the 500 foot you get a postcard 00:51:36.480 --> 00:51:42.520 and a separate postcard instead I think the discussion was can we combine those 00:51:42.520 --> 00:51:48.240 so if the Commission felt that it would be a better notification for individuals 00:51:48.240 --> 00:51:53.080 where a zoning a rezoning and an SGP case are coming forward at the same time 00:51:53.080 --> 00:51:57.720 to send that is a single notice to those individuals 00:51:57.720 --> 00:52:02.720 thank you chair yes I love that idea because what happens is they send an 00:52:02.720 --> 00:52:08.520 email on one of the things they got and you know that they're opposing action 00:52:08.520 --> 00:52:12.400 said we don't know it but in all likelihood they are in opposition of 00:52:12.400 --> 00:52:15.920 both and it should be noted as such so yeah I would love to see that that 00:52:15.920 --> 00:52:22.720 combination if we can do it that absolutely happened with a very 00:52:22.720 --> 00:52:28.280 contentious case where a neighbor went around and had got signatures and it got 00:52:28.280 --> 00:52:33.440 to I mean we were had to take two breaks at council to do the calculation it was 00:52:33.440 --> 00:52:38.840 nineteen point six percent and while there were some folks that were you know 00:52:38.840 --> 00:52:42.000 they told me they're against both I said well we can't count unless we have a 00:52:42.000 --> 00:52:49.000 written opposition and so it has caused problems yeah and because the issue is 00:52:49.000 --> 00:52:52.600 is the public really doesn't understand that those are two different things they 00:52:52.600 --> 00:52:56.480 think when they you know send the email or you know make the phone call in 00:52:56.480 --> 00:53:01.280 opposition that it is the package deal and and they should know it's a package 00:53:01.280 --> 00:53:07.160 and so you know and if it's a package then it comes in a package and not two 00:53:07.160 --> 00:53:10.640 separate things that looks you know where one they could have thrown away 00:53:10.640 --> 00:53:15.000 thinking oh I already saw this I already wrote my response so yeah I definitely 00:53:15.000 --> 00:53:20.280 like that idea because you're back yes I concur with Commissioner Ellis I mean I 00:53:20.280 --> 00:53:25.200 presume the model would be something like you haven't back to our letters you 00:53:25.200 --> 00:53:32.240 have a Z slash S as opposed to just a Z and just an S kind of that and maybe do 00:53:32.240 --> 00:53:38.560 we need to have a double checkbox or a single checkbox for support of opposition 00:53:38.560 --> 00:53:49.360 I'm not trying to be glib here I'm not sure what we need to do legally so can 00:53:49.360 --> 00:53:53.200 we simultaneously notice they have two different votes so they should be 00:53:53.200 --> 00:53:59.240 separate okay thank you so thank you for that clarification I am in 00:53:59.240 --> 00:54:02.760 agreement with Commissioner Allison Christian Beck on this my question would 00:54:02.760 --> 00:54:10.240 be does this solve the response to both if they got a joint letter and they 00:54:10.240 --> 00:54:14.640 have that bottom section or however that is when they fill it out would we file 00:54:14.640 --> 00:54:19.600 it as a opposition to both it would would would consolidate and solve the 00:54:19.600 --> 00:54:26.440 problem that we're facing is my question that our thought what it would be a are 00:54:26.440 --> 00:54:31.440 you in opposition of the zoning the SCP or both and then we would have 00:54:31.440 --> 00:54:37.080 additional language in the letter describing the difference between I feel 00:54:37.080 --> 00:54:43.280 like people sometimes don't understand the zoning from a citizen's perspective 00:54:43.280 --> 00:54:47.920 or an SUV and so we would a little more detail on why there are two different 00:54:47.920 --> 00:54:55.040 ones okay in very plain speak of course so they would they would then have a 00:54:55.040 --> 00:55:01.560 duplicate checkbox in which they could in one single effort oppose both right 00:55:01.560 --> 00:55:09.400 great then I'm for this is anyone against this okay then I think it's this 00:55:09.400 --> 00:55:13.960 one's more unanimous to encourage council to consider okay and then just 00:55:13.960 --> 00:55:20.000 quickly the next steps we'll find a time probably after the completion of our our 00:55:20.000 --> 00:55:24.000 notification changes that we can take this all forward to City Council and 00:55:24.000 --> 00:55:27.480 have that discussion with them so we'll get on their calendar at some point in 00:55:27.480 --> 00:55:31.720 the next couple of months and then provide you guys an update at what when 00:55:31.720 --> 00:55:39.220 that time is going to be what's the proposed timeline for the new notifications 00:55:39.220 --> 00:55:44.920 what is what's the thought process for those to be implemented and executed so 00:55:44.920 --> 00:55:49.520 we want to take that forward like we gave everyone an opportunity here to have 00:55:49.520 --> 00:55:53.680 that discussion about before it goes into effect so that we would bring that 00:55:53.680 --> 00:55:58.000 forward to City Council too so we could probably get on there I think they're 00:55:58.000 --> 00:56:02.600 booked on work sessions maybe in the middle of March right now so at that 00:56:02.600 --> 00:56:06.040 point we can bring the new notices forward to them and then if they're in 00:56:06.040 --> 00:56:16.280 agreement then we could implement that very quickly great thank you okay going 00:56:16.280 --> 00:56:23.040 into the agenda for this evening to clarify it first the first item will be 00:56:23.040 --> 00:56:26.960 our minutes I got clarification before our meeting tonight that I wanted to 00:56:26.960 --> 00:56:34.880 spurs to the commission that there is no requirement for a recusal of a minutes 00:56:34.880 --> 00:56:41.240 vote based on an absence so even if you were absent you can still vote on the 00:56:41.240 --> 00:56:46.160 minutes as just an action not that you're accurately saying the minutes are 00:56:46.160 --> 00:56:50.960 correct but you can vote on that action and so going forward that might simplify 00:56:50.960 --> 00:56:53.960 the vote we can just take one vote for multiple minutes even though there was 00:56:53.960 --> 00:56:59.760 absences everyone can take participation in the minutes votes going forward so 00:56:59.760 --> 00:57:05.000 just want to clarify that and then and practice of how the order will go this 00:57:05.000 --> 00:57:11.480 evening we're going to skip ahead to the public hearings now item 5a is a 00:57:11.480 --> 00:57:18.280 requested postponement to February 5th we will I will open the public hearing 00:57:18.280 --> 00:57:22.320 and then take a vote we'll leave the public hearing open on this item so we 00:57:22.320 --> 00:57:26.920 won't hear a presentation but we will open the public hearing for the vote it 00:57:26.920 --> 00:57:33.480 will come back next month the next item for business is 5b this is Haley's 00:57:33.480 --> 00:57:36.200 presentation 00:57:41.520 --> 00:57:57.120 good evening so this is a proposed amendment to the 2019 DDC regarding the 00:57:57.120 --> 00:58:01.600 use regulations for temporary batch plants so the request before you this 00:58:01.600 --> 00:58:05.520 evening will be to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to 00:58:05.520 --> 00:58:10.840 the council apologize for the typo there regarding amending subchapter 5 use 00:58:10.840 --> 00:58:15.160 specific regulations related to specific use permit requirements for temporary 00:58:15.160 --> 00:58:20.960 concrete and asphalt batching plants this is a staff initiated amendment for 00:58:20.960 --> 00:58:25.240 some background a concrete or asphalt batching plant is defined in the DDC as 00:58:25.240 --> 00:58:29.440 a temporary facility where asphalt or concrete or its ingredients or products 00:58:29.440 --> 00:58:33.680 or ground mixed or otherwise prepared for use on site or for transportation to 00:58:33.680 --> 00:58:37.440 another site these are things that we typically see when there's either a 00:58:37.440 --> 00:58:40.960 large public street project or a residential subdivision where all the 00:58:40.960 --> 00:58:44.040 streets are being poured at once or even sometimes for very large-scale 00:58:44.040 --> 00:58:49.320 commercial development so we do receive multiple permit applications for these 00:58:49.320 --> 00:58:56.360 within a year typically prior to October 1 under the 2002 code a temporary batch 00:58:56.360 --> 00:59:00.480 plant was permitted by right in any zoning district there is a time 00:59:00.480 --> 00:59:05.040 limitation on those you can get up to three permits for a period of 60 days 00:59:05.040 --> 00:59:09.320 each within a year and then there were standards regarding compliance with tceq 00:59:09.320 --> 00:59:13.200 standards nuisance prevention separation distances required from schools and 00:59:13.200 --> 00:59:18.600 residences none of those regulations changed in the 2019 DDC the same time 00:59:18.600 --> 00:59:22.520 periods are in place and those same standards were carried forward and and 00:59:22.520 --> 00:59:27.800 put in subchapter 5 the major change was the 2019 code applied a specific use 00:59:27.800 --> 00:59:31.800 permit across the board so for a permit that's only valid for 60 days we require 00:59:31.800 --> 00:59:37.320 an SUP application that can take 60 to 90 days to get through that process so 00:59:37.320 --> 00:59:42.520 with recent applications we've received a lot of pushback from people not not 00:59:42.520 --> 00:59:45.240 willing to do that so they opt for trucking the pavement in or something 00:59:45.240 --> 00:59:50.400 else as opposed to putting up the batch plant so this proposed amendments would 00:59:50.400 --> 00:59:55.640 main would kind of take us back to the 2002 code keep all of the standards that 00:59:55.640 --> 01:00:00.080 the same way they are now no changes to timeframes or operational standards make 01:00:00.080 --> 01:00:05.040 the batch plant by right if it's for an on-site facility so if you're putting in 01:00:05.040 --> 01:00:08.840 a batch plant to put streets in for a subdivision that could still be allowed 01:00:08.840 --> 01:00:13.440 by right as it was since 2002 but if you are proposing to have an off-site batch 01:00:13.440 --> 01:00:16.720 plant that may be providing concrete and trucking it to multiple projects at one 01:00:16.720 --> 01:00:20.120 time we would require the SUP for that because it is more traffic intensive 01:00:20.120 --> 01:00:26.400 operation that may need some further analysis so this is the language that we 01:00:26.400 --> 01:00:30.240 would propose adding so the use table in sub chapter 5 would just have all of the 01:00:30.240 --> 01:00:33.960 S plus is replaced with P plus when you go to those you specific standards 01:00:33.960 --> 01:00:37.680 referenced by that plus sign there would be a new section 6 that would have 01:00:37.680 --> 01:00:41.480 additional approval required for off-site temporary batch plants and would 01:00:41.480 --> 01:00:46.640 then inform you that an SUP is required for any facility which is making the 01:00:46.640 --> 01:00:50.880 product for transportation to another site other than where the batch 01:00:50.880 --> 01:00:55.480 facility is located so staff is recommending approval of this request I'm 01:00:55.480 --> 01:00:59.320 happy to answer any questions you may have 01:00:59.320 --> 01:01:08.360 Michelle's thank you chair so Haley is is there a way of people doing this and 01:01:08.360 --> 01:01:12.560 and and we don't know about it and they don't come for an SEP if it's just 01:01:12.560 --> 01:01:17.440 allowed by right I mean have we given some thought to that that there is still 01:01:17.440 --> 01:01:21.080 a permit required through a building inspections department so if if one of 01:01:21.080 --> 01:01:24.360 our inspectors or complaint was issued you know saying there's a batch plant 01:01:24.360 --> 01:01:27.000 here and we looked and saw there wasn't a permit then we could take enforcement 01:01:27.000 --> 01:01:31.980 action on that right so they could get a permit that says they're not doing this 01:01:31.980 --> 01:01:36.680 transporting to other sites but they could possibly do it anyway after 01:01:36.680 --> 01:01:40.760 getting that permit they could we would only know if there was a complaint 01:01:40.760 --> 01:01:47.200 correct yeah yeah since the 2002 codes been in effect though there's not been a 01:01:47.200 --> 01:01:52.680 an SUP requirement for any batch plant so on-site or off-site it's just been a 01:01:52.680 --> 01:01:55.440 the same permit you get your state permit and then you come to the city and 01:01:55.440 --> 01:02:01.160 get your operating permit okay and do we do any inspection inspecting of those 01:02:01.160 --> 01:02:07.800 permits or I think watershed gets involved as part of the TCEQ permit but 01:02:07.800 --> 01:02:13.280 on this on the state ones were essentially exempt from from enforcing 01:02:13.280 --> 01:02:18.560 any zoning actions this really gets into those subdivisions rather than having you 01:02:18.560 --> 01:02:23.280 know a number of cement trucks parking up or going through a hole it would 01:02:23.280 --> 01:02:28.560 essentially require every single family subdivision get an SGP and how long the 01:02:28.560 --> 01:02:35.640 permit for I'm 60 days okay Christian back so my question falls from the tail 01:02:35.640 --> 01:02:39.920 of Commissioner else's questions is I think it's reasonable actually probably 01:02:39.920 --> 01:02:43.720 cuts down on pollution to have a localized temporary batch plant pouring 01:02:43.720 --> 01:02:48.920 for local uses but how do we prevent them from what are the mechanisms that 01:02:48.920 --> 01:02:53.920 prevent them from running out of capacity and shipping their cement out 01:02:53.920 --> 01:02:59.120 to me how it follows up from this discussion but how are we stopping them 01:02:59.120 --> 01:03:04.080 from shipping out their company but there is the 60-day time limit so they 01:03:04.080 --> 01:03:08.200 couldn't be doing it for very long if they if they did try to do that but at 01:03:08.200 --> 01:03:10.920 that point I think it would just be an enforcement issue if someone if a 01:03:10.920 --> 01:03:13.280 neighbor complained that there's a lot of trucks going in and out of the site 01:03:13.280 --> 01:03:16.360 or something like that then our inspectors would be able to go out and 01:03:16.360 --> 01:03:20.720 and determine what's happening I mean I've never sat really and watched a 01:03:20.720 --> 01:03:26.280 construction is there enough is there enough opportunities for interaction 01:03:26.280 --> 01:03:30.560 that we would catch most of that or really this is a loophole that they 01:03:30.560 --> 01:03:35.080 would they can slide in because we don't have very much inspection I think if the 01:03:35.080 --> 01:03:39.760 typically engineering public works inspections are out there when they're 01:03:39.760 --> 01:03:44.640 doing a poor to do those inspections daily I think and if all of a sudden the 01:03:44.640 --> 01:03:50.440 concrete wasn't being poured but rather being trucked out I think we would it 01:03:50.440 --> 01:03:58.320 would definitely be noticed thank you guys any other questions for Haley great 01:03:58.320 --> 01:04:04.160 Haley you have the next one as well item 5c v19 - 3 01:04:07.880 --> 01:04:11.880 so this is actually the first of three items that you'll see for the Denton 01:04:11.880 --> 01:04:16.000 County Emergency Operations Center this evening this is a subdivision variance 01:04:16.000 --> 01:04:20.480 request so that does require a public hearing this project is has been 01:04:20.480 --> 01:04:24.160 reviewed under the 2002 DDC because of the time in which you know they came in 01:04:24.160 --> 01:04:29.160 during that interim period and elected to follow the 2002 code so the subject 01:04:29.160 --> 01:04:32.280 property is outlined in yellow on the map it's on the south side of Karina 01:04:32.280 --> 01:04:39.640 Street and on the West West side of Kimberly their variances include not 01:04:39.640 --> 01:04:43.600 having right-of-way dedication on Kimberly Drive and then along with that 01:04:43.600 --> 01:04:47.240 not constructing the sidewalks on Kimberly and so we'll look at the the 01:04:47.240 --> 01:04:50.680 rationale for those requests but first I wanted to give you a little bit of 01:04:50.680 --> 01:04:54.160 background under the 2002 code as I mentioned which is why you all are 01:04:54.160 --> 01:05:00.920 seeing the variance request the site in total is just over five acres in 2009 it 01:05:00.920 --> 01:05:04.320 was actually plotted as two separate lots it was anticipated at that time 01:05:04.320 --> 01:05:08.120 that all of this would develop as the properties along 288 have with you know 01:05:08.120 --> 01:05:12.320 a small grocery store restaurants things of that nature that development never 01:05:12.320 --> 01:05:16.400 occurred and so this has been vacant for many years now so at this point in time 01:05:16.400 --> 01:05:19.720 it's it's really an infill parcel everything around it has developed this 01:05:19.720 --> 01:05:26.240 is the last remaining vacant parcel in this area both Karina and Kimberly are 01:05:26.240 --> 01:05:29.960 designated as collectors on our mobility plan up to this intersection 01:05:29.960 --> 01:05:34.600 Karina currently dead ends into the famous off FEMA building which is 01:05:34.600 --> 01:05:39.560 adjacent to this dead ends into their driveway the subject property here they 01:05:39.560 --> 01:05:42.960 will be making the limited improvements that are required for their portion of 01:05:42.960 --> 01:05:47.880 Karina here including a sidewalk on Kimberly however what we have today is 01:05:47.880 --> 01:05:51.840 south of the Karina intersection up to that point it's built as a collector with 01:05:51.840 --> 01:05:55.680 65 feet of right-of-way south of there we only have 24 and a half feet of 01:05:55.680 --> 01:06:00.480 pavement within 35 feet of right-of-way that was dedicated to the city and built 01:06:00.480 --> 01:06:06.040 at the time that FEMA's offices were constructed in 2003 in 2008 even though 01:06:06.040 --> 01:06:10.240 this right-of-way came almost up to the property line and the paving came to the 01:06:10.240 --> 01:06:15.160 property line when the senior living facility here was plotted in 2008 they 01:06:15.160 --> 01:06:17.800 were not required to continue that street southwards because it wasn't on 01:06:17.800 --> 01:06:22.580 the mobility plan so that essentially determined that Karina would never go 01:06:22.580 --> 01:06:26.960 any further south at that point in time in 2009 when the Denton Spencer edition 01:06:26.960 --> 01:06:32.040 platted and showed those two lots as I showed you there the PNC at that time 01:06:32.040 --> 01:06:36.360 approved a variance for this road to be cul-de-sac here the variance was for the 01:06:36.360 --> 01:06:39.280 length of the cul-de-sac because the code says those can't be over 150 feet 01:06:39.280 --> 01:06:43.360 long however since those two lots never developed that cul-de-sac never came to 01:06:43.360 --> 01:06:48.840 fruition so at this time Denton County is requesting to not have to not dedicate 01:06:48.840 --> 01:06:51.200 that additional right-of-way not construct the paving and sidewalk 01:06:51.200 --> 01:06:57.560 improvements on Kimberly just to discuss the process a little bit there is a 01:06:57.560 --> 01:07:00.960 preliminary plat on your consent agenda this evening if the subdivision 01:07:00.960 --> 01:07:03.680 variances are approved then it will meet all the technical requirements of the 01:07:03.680 --> 01:07:07.600 code but without those variances the preliminary plat cannot be approved as 01:07:07.600 --> 01:07:15.760 it is so the specific variance requests are from two provisions in 35 20 2 which 01:07:15.760 --> 01:07:19.280 speaks to right-of-way dedication so typically public right-of-way has to be 01:07:19.280 --> 01:07:23.200 dedicated for all streets that serve more three or more residential lots or 01:07:23.200 --> 01:07:27.000 any commercial or industrial lot that is the right-of-way width is determined by 01:07:27.000 --> 01:07:30.600 the transportation criteria manual in this instance if Kimberly were to 01:07:30.600 --> 01:07:34.280 continue south at the full right-of-way that it is north of Carina that would 01:07:34.280 --> 01:07:38.760 require 65 feet of right-of-way total so there would be 30 additional feet 01:07:38.760 --> 01:07:45.120 necessary and then 20.2.L1 specifies that when there's an existing street 01:07:45.120 --> 01:07:49.880 adjacent to or within a tract that is of inadequate width that the additional 01:07:49.880 --> 01:07:52.520 right-of-way that's required by the transportation criteria manual be 01:07:52.520 --> 01:07:56.860 provided as I referenced earlier Denton County is requesting that they not have 01:07:56.860 --> 01:08:00.280 to dedicate any additional right-of-way for Kimberly that they maintain the 01:08:00.280 --> 01:08:04.520 pavement at its current width which is 24 and a half feet that additionally they 01:08:04.520 --> 01:08:08.720 provide a barricade just south of their southernmost driveway their driveway is 01:08:08.720 --> 01:08:11.560 sized so that vehicles could turn around there if they reached the end of the 01:08:11.560 --> 01:08:15.780 street and realize they couldn't go any further and further cities engineering 01:08:15.780 --> 01:08:20.600 staff is recommending that they also beyond that barricade to the south tear 01:08:20.600 --> 01:08:23.680 up the existing paving all utilities would remain in place but with the 01:08:23.680 --> 01:08:26.720 pavement gone there would be easier access to those utilities and it would 01:08:26.720 --> 01:08:30.000 just provide that extra visual for drivers knowing hey there's there's no 01:08:30.000 --> 01:08:35.920 street beyond this barricade and then 35.20.3 speaks to sidewalk 01:08:35.920 --> 01:08:39.760 requirements all development shall either within right-of-way or easement 01:08:39.760 --> 01:08:43.920 provide sidewalk or bicycle facilities in accordance with the transportation 01:08:43.920 --> 01:08:47.680 criteria manual in this case a five-foot sidewalk would typically be required on 01:08:47.680 --> 01:08:51.040 the street like Kimberly Denton County is requesting to not construct that 01:08:51.040 --> 01:08:56.360 sidewalk on Kimberly so they're the site plan due to the configuration of the 01:08:56.360 --> 01:08:59.200 property I had to orient a little strangely so north is to the left side 01:08:59.200 --> 01:09:04.000 of the screen just looking at those on their plan orange is the right-of-way for 01:09:04.000 --> 01:09:07.760 Kimberly as it is today they're requesting to maintain that width as it 01:09:07.760 --> 01:09:11.320 is the shaded portion shows where our city engineering staff is requesting 01:09:11.320 --> 01:09:17.080 that pavement be removed the red area here shows where that barricade would be 01:09:17.080 --> 01:09:20.600 installed just south of their driveway the blue circle shows that oversized 01:09:20.600 --> 01:09:24.080 driveway when I put up the building elevations you'll see there's there's 01:09:24.080 --> 01:09:27.560 five very large bay doors there for fire trucks and other similar emergency 01:09:27.560 --> 01:09:31.480 operation vehicles which necessitates the width of this driveway so there'd be 01:09:31.480 --> 01:09:35.680 adequate room for turnarounds there for standard cars and then the purple line 01:09:35.680 --> 01:09:38.480 shows where we would typically have that sidewalk adjacent to the street and they 01:09:38.480 --> 01:09:43.400 are requesting to not provide the sidewalk on Kimberly 01:09:43.400 --> 01:09:46.880 Michelle's thank you chair Haley so we're requesting that they remove that 01:09:46.880 --> 01:09:51.960 pavement are we requesting what they do with that the area would just be 01:09:51.960 --> 01:09:55.240 maintained as grass at that point so access it would still be city right-of-way 01:09:55.240 --> 01:09:58.000 so we could get to all the utilities that are in there there's water and 01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:02.040 sewer facilities there okay so it would just be city right-of-way but instead of 01:10:02.040 --> 01:10:09.320 pavement it would be natural yeah so there are several criteria for approval 01:10:09.320 --> 01:10:12.280 that are run through the first is that the granting of the variants would not 01:10:12.280 --> 01:10:16.320 be detrimental to public safety health or welfare or injurious to any other 01:10:16.320 --> 01:10:20.640 property as I mentioned before Kimberly Street is not a mobility plan roadway 01:10:20.640 --> 01:10:24.960 south of Karina it's not going to ever extend beyond this property because of 01:10:24.960 --> 01:10:28.120 the existing development pattern and the way that platting has occurred over time 01:10:28.120 --> 01:10:32.640 the previously approved cul-de-sac was never constructed the area just didn't 01:10:32.640 --> 01:10:38.720 develop as was intended so Kimberly South of Karina currently functions and serves 01:10:38.720 --> 01:10:42.040 only these two sites it's essentially a driveway for FEMA at this point in time 01:10:42.040 --> 01:10:45.160 so it would be a dual driveway for FEMA and Denton County if this were to be 01:10:45.160 --> 01:10:50.520 approved it's not functioning as a city street and there are no changes proposed 01:10:50.520 --> 01:10:53.280 here that would affect FEMA's access to that roadway at all so it wouldn't be 01:10:53.280 --> 01:10:58.560 injurious to the other properties using the street the second condition is that 01:10:58.560 --> 01:11:02.560 the conditions were upon which the requests for the variants are based are 01:11:02.560 --> 01:11:06.440 unique to the property as I mentioned earlier this the site is relatively 01:11:06.440 --> 01:11:09.880 unique for this part of town off of loop 288 there's not a lot of undeveloped 01:11:09.880 --> 01:11:15.040 property in this area it is an infill development and Kimberly as I just 01:11:15.040 --> 01:11:18.400 mentioned it's really only a driveway it's a fairly unique situation that we 01:11:18.400 --> 01:11:22.600 have a city street that's only serving two commercial sites like this so there 01:11:22.600 --> 01:11:26.440 are fairly unique conditions surrounding how Kimberly Drive has developed and how 01:11:26.440 --> 01:11:31.280 it's unfortunately never going to continue south as it may have one time 01:11:31.280 --> 01:11:36.860 been intended to do the third condition because of the particular physical 01:11:36.860 --> 01:11:41.520 surrounding shape and topography that there is a hardship to the owner if the 01:11:41.520 --> 01:11:46.640 code were enforced in this case it would actually be a safety concern for Denton 01:11:46.640 --> 01:11:50.880 County they do intend to have fire trucks large emergency response vehicles 01:11:50.880 --> 01:11:54.720 that would go out in times of natural disaster so they see it as a public 01:11:54.720 --> 01:11:59.000 safety concern to encourage pedestrian or vehicular activity on a street where 01:11:59.000 --> 01:12:02.240 they're you know you only have two to three hundred feet before trucks are 01:12:02.240 --> 01:12:05.200 going to be pulling out of here potentially at rapid speeds to respond 01:12:05.200 --> 01:12:11.280 to emergencies so in an attempt to discourage that activity and people 01:12:11.280 --> 01:12:14.640 parking on the roadway as they do on Kimberly north of Karina they're 01:12:14.640 --> 01:12:18.080 requesting that it be maintained narrowly to visually look like the 01:12:18.080 --> 01:12:23.200 driveway that it functions as and if the road were required to be improved they 01:12:23.200 --> 01:12:26.280 would have to go back to where we were in 2009 and seek a variance for that 01:12:26.280 --> 01:12:32.480 street to be a dead end of over 150 feet in length the fourth condition is that 01:12:32.480 --> 01:12:36.800 the variance will not in any manner vary from the provisions of the comprehensive 01:12:36.800 --> 01:12:41.480 plan in this case the mobility plan does not show Kimberly Drive as a street 01:12:41.480 --> 01:12:46.000 south of Karina so it's just a local street there's no no variation from the 01:12:46.000 --> 01:12:51.480 mobility plan with this request and then finally that the conditions upon which 01:12:51.480 --> 01:12:56.160 the variance request is based did not result from an act of the owner in this 01:12:56.160 --> 01:12:59.680 case Denton County is just just now purchasing the property they've not been 01:12:59.680 --> 01:13:02.920 party to the what's occurred up to this point that's resulted in the current 01:13:02.920 --> 01:13:09.120 street conditions so this was not an act of their creation our traffic engineering 01:13:09.120 --> 01:13:12.440 department has no objections to the proposed variance so staff is 01:13:12.440 --> 01:13:16.280 recommending approval of the request as we found it to meet the criteria we do 01:13:16.280 --> 01:13:21.040 recommend the condition that our city engineer requested that the pavement be 01:13:21.040 --> 01:13:25.680 removed beyond the barricade south of Denton County southernmost driveway 01:13:25.680 --> 01:13:30.880 mr. Ellis thank you chair does the applicant know of the condition yes 01:13:30.880 --> 01:13:34.600 there have been discussions with them and they're not opposed to some practice 01:13:34.600 --> 01:13:40.280 excavation for their employees to go out there and take a nice any other 01:13:40.280 --> 01:13:47.400 questions great thanks Haley and just for the sake of efficiency Haley can you 01:13:47.400 --> 01:13:52.640 go over your preliminary plot for this as well now certainly we're just giving 01:13:52.640 --> 01:13:59.800 back to the consent agenda now because that believe that was the last public 01:13:59.800 --> 01:14:08.280 hearing yes because 5d has been pulled so we hop back to consent this is item 01:14:08.280 --> 01:14:13.920 3b yes this is the preliminary plot for the lot we were just looking at rather 01:14:13.920 --> 01:14:16.620 than the two lots that were originally preliminary plotted they're combining it 01:14:16.620 --> 01:14:20.800 into one with the approval of the variances this evening this plot would 01:14:20.800 --> 01:14:24.480 meet all the technical requirements of the code happy to answer any questions 01:14:24.480 --> 01:14:31.880 you all may have about it I don't see any since we're on the consent agenda does 01:14:31.880 --> 01:14:38.560 any commissioners have questions about any of the consent items there's several 01:14:38.560 --> 01:14:45.080 on here but we can pull some if you want a presentation on any going around going 01:14:45.080 --> 01:14:50.360 once okay great so this evening will follow the same pattern we go public 01:14:50.360 --> 01:14:55.280 hearing consent agenda and then the individual consideration and then for 01:14:55.280 --> 01:14:59.880 the individual consideration items we will be hearing each one because there 01:14:59.880 --> 01:15:04.040 are some that have a recommendation for denial and want to provide if anyone 01:15:04.040 --> 01:15:09.080 needed to speak against that to us give them the opportunity and chambers to do 01:15:09.080 --> 01:15:12.920 so but we'll have abbreviated presentations for those items so they 01:15:12.920 --> 01:15:19.880 don't you know delay progress too long so with that let's just hop into the 01:15:19.880 --> 01:15:39.880 individual items so the first one is 4a mark Laird good evening my name is mark 01:15:39.880 --> 01:15:43.880 Laird I'm a planner of the development service department this evening I have 01:15:43.880 --> 01:15:51.720 for your review and consideration the modern plot of Perales addition staff is 01:15:51.720 --> 01:15:59.240 recommending denial of this plot based on the details listed in the report here 01:15:59.240 --> 01:16:08.720 stand for any questions so any questions on this and going forward mark or Richard 01:16:08.720 --> 01:16:13.440 the denial is simply the procedure in which something is missing they have to 01:16:13.440 --> 01:16:17.960 get the denial to get pushed back to redo that correct my understanding that 01:16:17.960 --> 01:16:22.560 process right correct we have to have it this one's a little different in in 01:16:22.560 --> 01:16:26.560 minor class are typically an administratively approved plot so 01:16:26.560 --> 01:16:31.440 typically these are these are approved at a staff level however staff cannot 01:16:31.440 --> 01:16:37.000 deny a administratively approved we can only approve an administratively approved 01:16:37.000 --> 01:16:41.000 we can't deny them so that's why it's coming that's why the minor plats coming 01:16:41.000 --> 01:16:48.960 to the Commission for consideration interestingly enough once they correct 01:16:48.960 --> 01:16:54.320 it it still has to now come back to PNC for approval because you were the ones 01:16:54.320 --> 01:17:04.560 that in accordance with the new bill that was passed that's very logical okay 01:17:04.560 --> 01:17:09.680 great and so does the pattern for these new plots preliminary final and minor 01:17:09.680 --> 01:17:15.360 that come to us this is going to be the general presentation or then in public 01:17:15.360 --> 01:17:18.960 hearing if there is someone who wishes to speak and would not even a public 01:17:18.960 --> 01:17:26.720 hearing is just right right right I'm in yeah any questions for this one great 01:17:26.720 --> 01:17:35.960 thanks mark thank you next one is 4b PP 19 - 27 this is Haley's item 01:17:39.680 --> 01:17:53.440 all right so similar to what mark went through this is the location of the 01:17:53.440 --> 01:17:58.280 property at sycamore and Elm Street this is a preliminary plat intended for 01:17:58.280 --> 01:18:02.660 townhome development it would be in two phases in this case staff is 01:18:02.660 --> 01:18:05.960 recommending denial of the preliminary plat for the reasons that were detailed 01:18:05.960 --> 01:18:09.480 in your staff report however the applicant has requested an extension of 01:18:09.480 --> 01:18:14.520 this to the February 5th 2020 agenda to allow them more time to work through the 01:18:14.520 --> 01:18:18.760 staff comments that they were given and I can stand for any questions 01:18:18.760 --> 01:18:24.040 mr. Smith nature that isn't running against the shot clock and maybe maybe 01:18:24.040 --> 01:18:27.440 this is a good time to help explain difference maybe here what what has 01:18:27.440 --> 01:18:32.280 shot clock and what doesn't so this is a shot clock applicable class we can 01:18:32.280 --> 01:18:34.920 provide it we provide an extension on the shot clock I thought that after the 01:18:34.920 --> 01:18:40.000 30 days we had voted is that so it has to come before you within 30 days the 01:18:40.000 --> 01:18:43.800 applicant does have the right to request one extension not to exceed 30 days 01:18:43.800 --> 01:18:49.100 so appreciate Haley only question I have is from the agenda maybe I'm missing 01:18:49.100 --> 01:18:54.780 this I found it super helpful on the actual agenda the motion being done by 01:18:54.780 --> 01:19:03.880 staff so like item 3 no 4d which is yours it says request an extension of 01:19:03.880 --> 01:19:08.640 February 5th but this item for B doesn't say that Cathy and I have been 01:19:08.640 --> 01:19:11.680 pondering over why that didn't carry forward if you look in the backup it 01:19:11.680 --> 01:19:14.720 actually printed out in the caption it just didn't make it onto the agenda and 01:19:14.720 --> 01:19:19.440 we're not sure how that occurred not a big deal it was really helpful to know 01:19:19.440 --> 01:19:28.320 which ones were that was our intent was helpful with that but any questions for 01:19:28.320 --> 01:19:37.880 this item all right item 4c Cindy Jackson PP 19 - 35 be 01:19:59.320 --> 01:20:10.760 and this one is similar to Haley's in that PP 19 0035 be you did you did 01:20:10.760 --> 01:20:18.240 actually approve a 30-day extension back in December and the applicant has not 01:20:18.240 --> 01:20:23.640 submitted anything since you have approved the 30-day extension as such it 01:20:23.640 --> 01:20:28.680 does not meet the requirements as noted in your your backup and staff is 01:20:28.680 --> 01:20:34.480 recommending denial all right any questions on this fantastic thanks 01:20:34.480 --> 01:20:41.800 Cindy next is back to Haley item 4d FP 19 - 31 01:20:53.680 --> 01:20:57.080 so this is a final plan for the Northgate edition that's located at 01:20:57.080 --> 01:21:03.120 Sherman and 288 you can see the property in yellow on the map the final plan is 01:21:03.120 --> 01:21:07.280 for six commercial lots again staff is recommending denial of the plan at this 01:21:07.280 --> 01:21:11.080 time for the reasons detailed in your backup and again the applicant has 01:21:11.080 --> 01:21:15.920 requested that 30-day extension to the February 5th 2020 agenda happy to answer 01:21:15.920 --> 01:21:21.080 any questions you may have Haley have a question not on this plot but rather 01:21:21.080 --> 01:21:28.520 this overall process how is it being received by developers to go through 01:21:28.520 --> 01:21:33.360 this is it I understand I've never filed one of these I don't know that the old 01:21:33.360 --> 01:21:38.000 process and the timing of it are they obviously they're aware that they're 01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:43.200 recommending denial or asking for a postponement can you interpret like 01:21:43.200 --> 01:21:49.120 their response to these new rules from the way they have to do the process I 01:21:49.120 --> 01:21:52.680 don't know Richard you look like you might want to jump in there I don't think 01:21:52.680 --> 01:21:58.600 anyone I don't think any of them really are in favor of it okay I think some of 01:21:58.600 --> 01:22:03.700 the improvements that we had made over the last year year and a half I don't 01:22:03.700 --> 01:22:06.960 think we were one of those that really dragged our feet on getting a plat 01:22:06.960 --> 01:22:16.680 approved but it's obviously caused a lot of inconvenience I think part of the 01:22:16.680 --> 01:22:25.120 challenge also is every city seems to be doing it differently I heard one one 01:22:25.120 --> 01:22:30.240 instance today I won't mention the municipality similar to us they have 01:22:30.240 --> 01:22:35.760 five days to respond but that staff doesn't even look at the response they 01:22:35.760 --> 01:22:41.600 still take it as a denial and so it's just it's caused a lot of issues I was 01:22:41.600 --> 01:22:45.600 gonna follow with that obviously this is across all municipalities in Texas are 01:22:45.600 --> 01:22:50.560 we doing enough creatively to still be attractive and competitive in the 01:22:50.560 --> 01:22:54.160 timeline perspective from the other municipalities you talked to you I think 01:22:54.160 --> 01:22:59.440 so okay I think the fact that we have the the facilitators involved as well I 01:22:59.440 --> 01:23:03.320 think has helped out tremendously and sort of lighten the load a little bit 01:23:03.320 --> 01:23:09.440 even for planning staff with managing projects with multiple great variables 01:23:09.440 --> 01:23:13.760 we do have some middle calendars on our website now as well that if they look at 01:23:13.760 --> 01:23:17.320 the calendar they'll see what their target dates are for submittal resubmittal 01:23:17.320 --> 01:23:23.320 and then P&Z ultimately so it at least gives predictability yeah okay good the 01:23:23.320 --> 01:23:30.440 next item is item 4e this is back to Cindy Jackson FP 19 - 33 01:23:40.840 --> 01:23:49.320 staff is recommending denial of FP 19 0 0 3 3 50 Fisher 59 it does not comply 01:23:49.320 --> 01:23:55.680 with the requirements as noted in your backup the applicant has requested a 01:23:55.680 --> 01:24:01.600 30-day extension to enable him to address the the comments and bring it 01:24:01.600 --> 01:24:08.240 into compliance and that would take it bring it to the February 5th meeting is 01:24:08.240 --> 01:24:11.080 the city allowed to recommend postponement they're all these 01:24:11.080 --> 01:24:14.640 postponements are recommended denial but they're requesting postponement is the 01:24:14.640 --> 01:24:19.080 city has to recommend denial and then they can just attach that the applicants 01:24:19.080 --> 01:24:26.800 wanting to postpone mr. chair what the staff is giving you as options they're 01:24:26.800 --> 01:24:32.080 recommending denial of the plat for reasons but the applicant has submitted 01:24:32.080 --> 01:24:36.720 a request for an extension so they're just giving you the option I appreciate 01:24:36.720 --> 01:24:41.720 that I think I understand the option I'm just wondering if the staff has the 01:24:41.720 --> 01:24:45.080 authority to recommend postponements don't want to take their recognition in 01:24:45.080 --> 01:24:48.560 consideration why would we give them postponement if staff is recommending 01:24:48.560 --> 01:24:52.840 denial I'm wondering if staff has the authority to recommend a postponement if 01:24:52.840 --> 01:24:56.700 they do I take the weight of a recommended denial more the staff does 01:24:56.700 --> 01:25:01.400 not have the authority to recommend right the applicant has to ask for it 01:25:01.400 --> 01:25:07.920 gotcha and can only and can only add right perfect that that helps okay thank 01:25:07.920 --> 01:25:14.080 you sure no no no I might have asked the confusion 01:25:14.080 --> 01:25:21.640 okay next one up we're just going through these for F Julie Wyatt ADP 19 01:25:21.640 --> 01:25:32.680 - zero zero eleven good evening 01:25:32.680 --> 01:25:42.680 Julie Wyatt senior planner at the city of Denton and I am presenting ADP 1911 01:25:42.680 --> 01:25:47.880 Haven at Doherty the request before you is for an alternative development plan 01:25:47.880 --> 01:25:55.840 for multi-family development located north of Doherty just west of Johnson 01:25:55.840 --> 01:25:59.080 Street between the railroad tracks and Johnson Street you may you may remember 01:25:59.080 --> 01:26:04.380 this you've seen a couple of plats for this one as well as a variance the 01:26:04.380 --> 01:26:09.080 purpose is to deviate from sub chapter 13 of the 2002 Denton Development Code 01:26:09.080 --> 01:26:12.640 you have a few of these coming forward tonight so we're just going to briefly 01:26:12.640 --> 01:26:16.480 remind you about what an alternative development plan is so sub chapter 13 of 01:26:16.480 --> 01:26:21.100 the 2002 Denton Development Code had included all the site design 01:26:21.100 --> 01:26:26.080 requirements for a development where how the building should be oriented where 01:26:26.080 --> 01:26:30.920 street trees should be placed that sort of thing but the sub chapter 13 also 01:26:30.920 --> 01:26:35.600 provides this flexible discretionary process for when they really can't meet 01:26:35.600 --> 01:26:39.800 those requirements it allows them to ask for deviations from those codes 01:26:39.800 --> 01:26:44.120 provided that they meet the intent and the criteria for approval so that's what 01:26:44.120 --> 01:26:51.240 we're doing here tonight on this on this proposal so under the 2002 city what are 01:26:51.240 --> 01:26:58.880 under the 2002 code the project had a DCG zoning a transition to MN for 2019 01:26:58.880 --> 01:27:03.840 due to project timing this was reviewed under the 2002 code which is why the ADP 01:27:03.840 --> 01:27:10.360 is going forward the 2019 code does not have that process in it as I said this 01:27:10.360 --> 01:27:14.280 is for a proposed multifamily development apart from the deviations 01:27:14.280 --> 01:27:18.280 they meet all sub chapter 13 requirements they are proposing to be 01:27:18.280 --> 01:27:21.960 oriented toward Doherty at you're probably familiar with that with that 01:27:21.960 --> 01:27:26.480 ring road in it with the the access primarily off of Doherty but additional 01:27:26.480 --> 01:27:32.120 access off of Collins so there are two provisions they are proposing to deviate 01:27:32.120 --> 01:27:38.760 from one that at least 50% of the front yard of the of the front yard frontage 01:27:38.760 --> 01:27:48.760 should have buildings along that that line so that the the property has 546 01:27:48.760 --> 01:27:53.840 feet of linear feet along Doherty if they follow the code exactly that would 01:27:53.840 --> 01:28:01.080 require 230 273 linear feet of buildings within 20 feet of that right-of-way line 01:28:01.080 --> 01:28:06.000 of Doherty so they are requesting a deviation from that they're also 01:28:06.000 --> 01:28:11.060 requesting a deviation from the private street system so projects over three 01:28:11.060 --> 01:28:16.000 acres multifamily projects over three acres in the 2002 code required a a 01:28:16.000 --> 01:28:20.640 public or private street system that had specific design requirements that they 01:28:20.640 --> 01:28:27.840 had to have on either side of it it had to have the the curb and then a planting 01:28:27.840 --> 01:28:32.360 area and then a sidewalk they are requesting a deviation from that to move 01:28:32.360 --> 01:28:36.360 that curb the sidewalk area closer to the curb closer to those parking spaces 01:28:36.360 --> 01:28:43.360 to provide a landing area for residents as they exit their cars so we'll look a 01:28:43.360 --> 01:28:47.320 little closer at what they're proposing so this is this is that frontage along 01:28:47.320 --> 01:28:53.920 Doherty Street in blue were the three buildings and they comprise the 227 01:28:53.920 --> 01:28:57.960 feet of structure that are located between 19 and 41 feet from the property 01:28:57.960 --> 01:29:05.280 line and as an alternative to that and as as part of their process or project 01:29:05.280 --> 01:29:10.680 they are they have 29 street trees along that area so the intent of this of this 01:29:10.680 --> 01:29:16.160 requirement is to push parking away from the street to pull those buildings 01:29:16.160 --> 01:29:21.400 forward to activate that street to define that street edge to create that 01:29:21.400 --> 01:29:26.960 room of that that public sphere and the 2002 code really relied on buildings 01:29:26.960 --> 01:29:30.600 relied on structures to meet to meet that requirement but that requirement 01:29:30.600 --> 01:29:33.760 can be met with lots of different ways it could be met through there's things 01:29:33.760 --> 01:29:38.560 like trees or public art or street furniture and in this instance those 01:29:38.560 --> 01:29:42.560 trees really define that edge provide those vertical elements along the street 01:29:42.560 --> 01:29:46.120 and increase that comfort of for pedestrians that are going to be 01:29:46.120 --> 01:29:52.800 walking along Doherty Street and the second provision was for that design of 01:29:52.800 --> 01:29:56.480 that internal street system so this this project does provide a lot of 01:29:56.480 --> 01:30:01.320 legibility through this the side it does provide for clear pathways that vehicles 01:30:01.320 --> 01:30:06.800 can follow and it is a gated community so there's not a lot of connectivity 01:30:06.800 --> 01:30:11.720 between this project and adjacent developments so so although they've got 01:30:11.720 --> 01:30:17.560 that clear pathway that that intent requires or intent the intent of that 01:30:17.560 --> 01:30:22.400 requirement they have asked for that deviation to allow that sidewalk to be 01:30:22.400 --> 01:30:26.800 pulled closer to the the parking spaces to allow that landing space so as the 01:30:26.800 --> 01:30:30.260 residents are exiting their cars they won't have to walk through any grass 01:30:30.260 --> 01:30:34.600 they could just land on the sidewalk with their school books or their 01:30:34.600 --> 01:30:40.400 groceries and head into their their dwelling units so there's criteria for 01:30:40.400 --> 01:30:43.480 approval and sub chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code first is it 01:30:43.480 --> 01:30:48.200 preserve existing neighborhoods this is in a redeveloping area near the city 01:30:48.200 --> 01:30:53.600 center so the proposed development would provide unnecessary housing near our 01:30:53.600 --> 01:30:58.800 downtown area and some of our university areas assure quality development this 01:30:58.800 --> 01:31:04.440 intent is not to lower design standards but just to facilitate the development 01:31:04.440 --> 01:31:08.360 particularly on this site where it's kind of a skinny site and it's nestled up 01:31:08.360 --> 01:31:12.160 against those those railroad tracks apart from the request all other 01:31:12.160 --> 01:31:18.160 requirements have been met for sub chapter 13 to reduce sprawl this is an 01:31:18.160 --> 01:31:24.560 urban infill so it's not contributing to sprawl in the city there is 01:31:24.560 --> 01:31:28.760 necessary infrastructure available and it's also near DCTA transit this has 01:31:28.760 --> 01:31:32.200 kind of become a little bit of a hub for student housing and there is transit 01:31:32.200 --> 01:31:36.520 near there so it's a good location for this kind of density and then it results 01:31:36.520 --> 01:31:41.520 in a high quality development that provision for the 50% of the front yard 01:31:41.520 --> 01:31:45.000 building frontage to have buildings within 20 feet of the front property 01:31:45.000 --> 01:31:50.080 line as I said the intent is to enclose that space to create vibrancy and 01:31:50.080 --> 01:31:53.720 pedestrian comfort along our public right-of-ways in this case the 01:31:53.720 --> 01:31:57.680 combination of those buildings along there and those street trees really do 01:31:57.680 --> 01:32:01.640 enclose that space and meet the intent of the code and then for the provision of 01:32:01.640 --> 01:32:06.800 the private street design with the plantings between the buildings instead 01:32:06.800 --> 01:32:11.800 of between the parking lot and the sidewalk it does allow for that landing 01:32:11.800 --> 01:32:15.280 area while they're still are providing those clear pathways within their drive 01:32:15.280 --> 01:32:22.800 aisles so staff through our analysis recommends approval as the deviations do 01:32:22.800 --> 01:32:28.400 meet the criteria for approval and I'll stand for any question I do not see me 01:32:28.400 --> 01:32:32.920 I think Julie so at this time we have three items left but we're gonna take a 01:32:32.920 --> 01:32:42.760 quick break for some food it is 6.03 we will reconvene at 6.15 thank you 01:32:42.760 --> 01:32:52.120 welcome back to the planning and zoning Commission work session it is 6.14 the 01:32:52.120 --> 01:32:58.520 next item for business is item 4 G ADP 19 - 0 0 8 this ties into the other items 01:32:58.520 --> 01:33:02.920 we've heard about this but I'll turn it over to Haley to talk about the ADP all 01:33:02.920 --> 01:33:07.840 right so this is the the third of the items for the emergency operation center 01:33:07.840 --> 01:33:12.040 it's an alternative development plan request we've seen the site before this 01:33:12.040 --> 01:33:15.400 evening of course I'm at the southwest corner of Karina and Kimberly they do 01:33:15.400 --> 01:33:19.400 have multiple ADP request relating to parking in front of the building parking 01:33:19.400 --> 01:33:24.520 lot landscaping and then street tree and overall tree canopy requirements so 01:33:24.520 --> 01:33:28.640 specifically and the first of the request is for parking to be located in 01:33:28.640 --> 01:33:32.320 front of the building that sub chapter 13 required parking to the side or rear 01:33:32.320 --> 01:33:36.480 of a building unless you were along an arterial roadway they're requesting to 01:33:36.480 --> 01:33:41.360 have 30 vehicle spaces located along Karina Street primarily for visitors to 01:33:41.360 --> 01:33:47.000 the facility the second request is with relationship to site overall tree 01:33:47.000 --> 01:33:51.920 canopy requirements within the ECC district there was a 30% tree canopy 01:33:51.920 --> 01:33:55.720 requirement with all 64 trees they were planting on the site they would be at 01:33:55.720 --> 01:33:59.360 just over 20% there are no trees existing on the site today to help 01:33:59.360 --> 01:34:05.320 contribute to that canopy third or street tree requirements that under the 01:34:05.320 --> 01:34:09.720 2002 code were required along all street frontages at a rate of one tree per 45 01:34:09.720 --> 01:34:14.080 linear feet they were to be located between the sidewalk and the street in 01:34:14.080 --> 01:34:18.000 this case 18 street trees are required they are providing those 18 trees on 01:34:18.000 --> 01:34:23.360 site but due to utility locations along Karina and their desire to to keep 01:34:23.360 --> 01:34:27.480 Kimberly as it is they're proposing to provide those 18 trees within other 01:34:27.480 --> 01:34:32.280 locations on the site and we'll look at those in just a moment fourth is for 01:34:32.280 --> 01:34:36.560 parking lot canopy the DDC required a minimum of 15 percent canopy coverage 01:34:36.560 --> 01:34:42.040 within all parking lots they have 54 percent tree canopy that will be 01:34:42.040 --> 01:34:45.840 provided in their northern visitor lot however the the side lot along the 01:34:45.840 --> 01:34:48.880 internal driveway on the east side of the facility will have 0% canopy 01:34:48.880 --> 01:34:54.520 coverage and the request is driven by a need to have a secure parking lot there 01:34:54.520 --> 01:34:58.960 and have a clearance for vehicles to enter and exit the facility and then 01:34:58.960 --> 01:35:02.600 finally when you do have front parking the code requires a very specific 01:35:02.600 --> 01:35:06.880 combination of landscaping elements in front of that parking lot that's a 15 01:35:06.880 --> 01:35:11.660 foot wide area with a landscaped berm one large tree for every 40 feet and then 01:35:11.660 --> 01:35:16.040 either zero scaping three foot high shrub row or a three foot high wall again 01:35:16.040 --> 01:35:20.280 there are existing utilities there along Karina as well as drainage so they can't 01:35:20.280 --> 01:35:24.140 provide that exact combination what they will have is a approximately 50 foot 01:35:24.140 --> 01:35:28.520 wide area that will be entirely grassy and there's approximately a seven foot 01:35:28.520 --> 01:35:31.800 slope upwards from the sidewalk towards the parking lot so they they meet the 01:35:31.800 --> 01:35:35.280 intent of the berm with that change in elevation and they will provide a five 01:35:35.280 --> 01:35:38.480 foot wide planting bed with evergreen shrubs and trees along the edge of the 01:35:38.480 --> 01:35:43.760 parking lot so here's all of those elements laid out on the site the dark 01:35:43.760 --> 01:35:47.480 green circle show you their alternative street tree locations so along Karina 01:35:47.480 --> 01:35:50.560 they've just pushed those trees back closer to the parking lot and then 01:35:50.560 --> 01:35:53.360 they're providing some along their internal driveway and then some along 01:35:53.360 --> 01:35:57.680 the south side of their property and orange is that a visitor parking lot in 01:35:57.680 --> 01:36:01.320 front of the building this is the secured employee and equipment parking 01:36:01.320 --> 01:36:06.200 area where they're requesting to not provide any tree canopy and again 01:36:06.200 --> 01:36:09.680 overall they'll be at just over 20% canopy which is a significant increase 01:36:09.680 --> 01:36:13.780 from the conditions today with zero percent canopy 01:36:13.780 --> 01:36:29.800 yes so their property it's covered by the text box here extends all the way to 01:36:29.800 --> 01:36:34.160 where the street is dead-ended today so they're they're not making any changes 01:36:34.160 --> 01:36:37.640 on that southernmost leg of the property they anticipate they may need that for 01:36:37.640 --> 01:36:40.960 something in the future but for now they're leaving it just vacant grass as 01:36:40.960 --> 01:36:44.560 it is so they will have some of their landscaping improvements south of that 01:36:44.560 --> 01:36:51.520 barricade but that's still within their property boundaries you're welcome this 01:36:51.520 --> 01:36:54.640 is just a view of what the building would look like from Karina Street so 01:36:54.640 --> 01:36:57.220 they do meet all of the other code requirements for site design and 01:36:57.220 --> 01:37:01.280 building design this is what it would look like along Kimberly this is showing 01:37:01.280 --> 01:37:05.840 the what the need for that overly large driveway on Kimberly is for these five 01:37:05.840 --> 01:37:11.840 vehicle bays for fire trucks and other large-scale equipment as Julie went 01:37:11.840 --> 01:37:14.520 through their several criteria for approval for an ADP first is 01:37:14.520 --> 01:37:18.560 preservation of existing neighborhoods this will simply be a continuation of 01:37:18.560 --> 01:37:21.400 the existing county and federal offices that are located in this part of the 01:37:21.400 --> 01:37:25.240 city many of the developments in this area do have front parking so it's not 01:37:25.240 --> 01:37:29.000 out of character with what they've requested and as I mentioned the site 01:37:29.000 --> 01:37:33.120 does have 0% canopy today so it would be improvement to this area of town with 01:37:33.120 --> 01:37:38.200 the tree canopy that they would be providing second is assuring quality 01:37:38.200 --> 01:37:42.600 development fits with the character of Denton again this is consistent with the 01:37:42.600 --> 01:37:46.040 development pattern in this area and the office style development that's occurred 01:37:46.040 --> 01:37:50.240 here that's intended to request or to facilitate the development of a rather 01:37:50.240 --> 01:37:54.600 unique use within an infill parcel and apart from their requested deviations 01:37:54.600 --> 01:37:59.720 they are meeting all other code requirements and the third criteria for 01:37:59.720 --> 01:38:02.320 approval is that it focused new development to activity centers to curb 01:38:02.320 --> 01:38:05.480 strip development this is not contributing to strip development anyway 01:38:05.480 --> 01:38:09.200 it is an infill parcel and is the one of the only undeveloped parcels in this 01:38:09.200 --> 01:38:14.360 area of town and then rather there is infrastructure capable of accommodating 01:38:14.360 --> 01:38:17.880 the development there are utilities in place the they will be making 01:38:17.880 --> 01:38:21.880 improvements to Karina Street and then Kimberly as it exists today is adequate 01:38:21.880 --> 01:38:27.360 to serve their development as well as the FEMA site and then finally ensuring 01:38:27.360 --> 01:38:30.520 that their alternative proposal result in an overall high quality development 01:38:30.520 --> 01:38:34.960 again the front parking request is intended to provide security for their 01:38:34.960 --> 01:38:38.440 employee lot and their equipment lot separate from the vehicle spaces it's 01:38:38.440 --> 01:38:43.920 not intended to detract from the city's development standards with relation to 01:38:43.920 --> 01:38:47.560 the parking lot and site tree canopy their request is increasing the 01:38:47.560 --> 01:38:51.680 conditions on the site overall it is an improvement and the request within that 01:38:51.680 --> 01:38:55.000 parking lot is specifically as I mentioned to help maintain security and 01:38:55.000 --> 01:38:58.720 maneuverability for street trees they are providing all the required trees 01:38:58.720 --> 01:39:02.640 simply in alternative locations and then with relation to parking lot screening 01:39:02.640 --> 01:39:06.480 they're exceeding the requirement for the width of that screening area that 01:39:06.480 --> 01:39:10.320 are providing the shrubs and trees and the parking lot is elevated above the 01:39:10.320 --> 01:39:14.520 sidewalk so it does help reduce the visibility as a berm would have done so 01:39:14.520 --> 01:39:19.800 staff is recommending approval of this request and I can stand for any questions 01:39:20.240 --> 01:39:28.880 I do not see any thank you very much next item is 4h ADP 19-7 and this is 01:39:28.880 --> 01:39:31.720 Julie Wyatt 01:39:31.720 --> 01:39:45.640 last ADP for the night all right so this is ADP 19-7 Oxford at Sherman the 01:39:45.640 --> 01:39:49.000 request before you is an alternative development plan for another multifamily 01:39:49.000 --> 01:39:53.720 development this one you also have seen before it had an SUP come before you 01:39:53.720 --> 01:40:00.520 last month and it is it is on twelve point three three acres situated between 01:40:00.520 --> 01:40:09.120 poinsettia and loop 288 kind of in the northeast side of town under the 2002 01:40:09.120 --> 01:40:15.040 zoning the subject property had a zoning of CMG it transitioned to SC with the 01:40:15.040 --> 01:40:21.300 2019 code but due to this the the project timing it is reviewed under the 01:40:21.300 --> 01:40:27.560 2002 code which is why that ADP is going for it coming forward and as I said you 01:40:27.560 --> 01:40:32.560 saw a specific use permit for this project in in December it it was 01:40:32.560 --> 01:40:39.280 approved by City Council in last month and one of the conditions of that 01:40:39.280 --> 01:40:44.040 approval was that they had to come forward with their ADP after the SUP was 01:40:44.040 --> 01:40:48.600 completed so that's what they're doing today and the approval of the SUP 01:40:48.600 --> 01:40:52.320 included a site plan a landscape plan and elevations and what you're seeing 01:40:52.320 --> 01:40:56.280 today is consistent with what you saw in December with one change and I'll point 01:40:56.280 --> 01:41:02.640 that out to you so they are proposing two deviations from subchapter 13 of the 01:41:02.640 --> 01:41:08.200 2002 code the first is that accessory structures such as carports in garages 01:41:08.200 --> 01:41:13.000 cannot be located between the primary buildings and the right-of-way they are 01:41:13.000 --> 01:41:18.240 proposing to place garages along points that a one one-story garages that was a 01:41:18.240 --> 01:41:22.440 design feature that was in order to move those residential those taller buildings 01:41:22.440 --> 01:41:27.080 farther away from the existing neighborhoods and so so that that 01:41:27.080 --> 01:41:30.960 requires approval of that deviation and the other is is the private street 01:41:30.960 --> 01:41:35.040 system that we talked about earlier and they have a similar design element that 01:41:35.040 --> 01:41:39.720 the previous project has had what was that that landing that the sidewalk be 01:41:39.720 --> 01:41:47.480 closer to the to the parking spaces so just to look at their site plan the the 01:41:47.480 --> 01:41:52.000 residential buildings that are closest to poinsettia are here outlined in purple 01:41:52.000 --> 01:41:56.800 and the garages that I talked about are outlined in yellow and you can see that 01:41:56.800 --> 01:42:01.120 they are between those those taller residential structures and the right-of-way 01:42:01.120 --> 01:42:06.600 and then the green the green arrows kind of show what what that private street 01:42:06.600 --> 01:42:12.800 system how cars vehicles move to that site and and and we'll look a little 01:42:12.800 --> 01:42:17.560 closer as to how they are specifically designed but their circulation there 01:42:17.560 --> 01:42:22.320 their drive aisles do create a clear pathway for vehicles and allows 01:42:22.320 --> 01:42:26.280 legibility and residents to move through the site and understand where they're 01:42:26.280 --> 01:42:32.240 going and how to get around look a little closer at the landscape plan to 01:42:32.240 --> 01:42:37.920 show what that private street system is what those design elements are so here 01:42:37.920 --> 01:42:44.040 you can see they've got the the parking spaces with that sidewalk and then the 01:42:44.040 --> 01:42:48.320 planting area between the sidewalk and the buildings so the criteria for 01:42:48.320 --> 01:42:52.400 approval are to first preserve existing neighborhoods this multifamily is in a 01:42:52.400 --> 01:42:57.240 transition area between loop 288 and existing residential and so it does the 01:42:57.240 --> 01:43:02.840 proposal it does meet that criteria to assure quality development this request 01:43:02.840 --> 01:43:07.400 is not to lower design standards but to really kind of implement some of those 01:43:07.400 --> 01:43:12.920 design elements that were approved with that SUP in addition that that SUP 01:43:12.920 --> 01:43:17.840 provided additional scrutiny and approval from City Council to focus new 01:43:17.840 --> 01:43:21.720 activity new development activity centers this is in a mixed-use area and 01:43:21.720 --> 01:43:26.120 it's not encouraging strip development it's a logical continuation of the 01:43:26.120 --> 01:43:30.680 existing development pattern and there is a necessary infrastructure to 01:43:30.680 --> 01:43:34.920 accommodate the request or it will be constructed with the development and does 01:43:34.920 --> 01:43:38.360 it result in a high quality development that meets the intent of the standards 01:43:38.360 --> 01:43:42.940 the garage location does provide that buffer area and a transition between the 01:43:42.940 --> 01:43:46.760 existing residential the existing neighborhoods and the taller newer 01:43:46.760 --> 01:43:52.840 buildings the garages will be designed with a residential architecture standard 01:43:52.840 --> 01:43:57.000 you know pitched roofs and as well as those garage doors will face inward so 01:43:57.000 --> 01:44:01.840 they won't face toward the street and then as part of City Council's approval 01:44:01.840 --> 01:44:06.440 of the SUP they also required a masonry wall along points at us so there will be 01:44:06.440 --> 01:44:10.680 additional screening of those garages with that masonry wall and street trees 01:44:10.680 --> 01:44:15.200 and landscaping along that right-of-way the private streets design they are 01:44:15.200 --> 01:44:18.080 providing that private street but those design elements are what they're 01:44:18.080 --> 01:44:23.720 requesting a deviation from it does create provide clear pathways but allows 01:44:23.720 --> 01:44:29.680 that landing area a little bit easier to to live with for those residents so it 01:44:29.680 --> 01:44:33.280 does meet the criteria for approval and I'll stand for any questions 01:44:33.280 --> 01:44:39.760 Christian back thank you chair did they keep that in and out variegating wall 01:44:39.760 --> 01:44:45.560 that we discussed previously council did not approve a variation from that so 01:44:45.560 --> 01:44:49.680 they just required the additional masonry requirement so they'll have to 01:44:49.680 --> 01:44:56.440 design it as it was proposed okay thank you you bet great thank you very much 01:44:56.440 --> 01:45:02.600 the last item for our work session is item 4 I this is Haley's a grisky again 01:45:02.600 --> 01:45:12.160 zcp 19 - 5 all right I will try to keep this brief and then we can go into 01:45:12.160 --> 01:45:16.620 additional detail this evening if we need to sounds great so this is a site 01:45:16.620 --> 01:45:20.920 plan for a multifamily development within razor ranch the site is just over 01:45:20.920 --> 01:45:26.360 11 acres located on the north side of Crescent east of East Park Boulevard a 01:45:26.360 --> 01:45:30.800 little bit of background relating to the staff recommendation this property their 01:45:30.800 --> 01:45:35.360 final plot was approved by P&Z last year this development and what you see on the 01:45:35.360 --> 01:45:40.240 site plan is all of lot 4 block a and then a very tiny point zero five acre 01:45:40.240 --> 01:45:45.680 portion of what was lot 5 on that final plat so part of staff's recommendation is 01:45:45.680 --> 01:45:48.320 that we do an amending final plat to clean up those lot lines and scoot that 01:45:48.320 --> 01:45:55.120 property boundary north so that all 11.1 acres are within one lot razor 01:45:55.120 --> 01:45:58.120 ranch is unique in that site plans are required to come before the Commission 01:45:58.120 --> 01:46:02.000 that it has to include a site plan landscape plan and building elevations 01:46:02.000 --> 01:46:06.280 the razor overlay provides criteria for approval for that that it comply with 01:46:06.280 --> 01:46:09.840 the conceptual or schematic plan for the overlay district approved by council 01:46:09.840 --> 01:46:12.480 that it provide for compatible arrangement of buildings that wouldn't 01:46:12.480 --> 01:46:15.760 adversely affect anything outside of the district that the site plan have 01:46:15.760 --> 01:46:18.800 adequate and safe vehicular circulation and that it comply with all other 01:46:18.800 --> 01:46:24.680 sections of the overlay this particular piece has a base zoning of NRM you that's 01:46:24.680 --> 01:46:28.480 a neighborhood residential mixed use from the 2002 code within the razor 01:46:28.480 --> 01:46:31.960 overlay it's within the south mixed-use sub-district which is largely intended 01:46:31.960 --> 01:46:36.800 for residential uses so multifamily is a permitted use and this follows the 01:46:36.800 --> 01:46:42.360 recently adopted exhibit c2a standards from the family development their site 01:46:42.360 --> 01:46:46.080 plan has three driveway locations circled in red there are seven buildings 01:46:46.080 --> 01:46:51.360 on the site with just over 133,000 square feet it's 333 dwelling units they 01:46:51.360 --> 01:46:54.920 do have on-site amenities in the central area of circled in purple that includes 01:46:54.920 --> 01:46:59.120 a pool cabana community outdoor spaces and a grill they're within the lot 01:46:59.120 --> 01:47:04.520 coverage open space height and parking requirements of the overlay district in 01:47:04.520 --> 01:47:09.360 terms of landscaping they do meet all of the minimum percentages required they 01:47:09.360 --> 01:47:12.480 meet the minimum street tree count a couple of unique features I wanted to 01:47:12.480 --> 01:47:15.480 highlight for you are the buffer that they're providing on the eastern 01:47:15.480 --> 01:47:18.960 boundary single-family is the permitted use adjoining this so they did have to 01:47:18.960 --> 01:47:22.920 provide that 10-foot wide landscape buffer and then the areas in orange or 01:47:22.920 --> 01:47:27.360 some enhanced landscaping that will frame the entry to the site this is just 01:47:27.360 --> 01:47:30.400 a colored rendering to show you what those landscape areas look like in 01:47:30.400 --> 01:47:34.360 relation to the buildings and then I'll skim through these pretty quickly these 01:47:34.360 --> 01:47:37.360 this is building one and two that would be along East Park Boulevard they meet 01:47:37.360 --> 01:47:41.080 all of the material and color requirements for razor as well as the 01:47:41.080 --> 01:47:45.700 requirement for minimum window and door percentages these are the back two 01:47:45.700 --> 01:47:49.520 buildings that would be along the internal private drive these are the 01:47:49.520 --> 01:47:53.540 internal buildings and then I've also included here the garages the garage 01:47:53.540 --> 01:47:56.880 doors do face inward to the site so this is the view from the adjoining 01:47:56.880 --> 01:48:02.320 properties and then this is the the main entry building building five so you can 01:48:02.320 --> 01:48:05.240 see the leasing center will be the central focus in between those two 01:48:05.240 --> 01:48:09.800 landscape areas that I pointed out Steph is recommending approval with one 01:48:09.800 --> 01:48:14.000 condition that an amending final plat to increase the size of lot for block a to 01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:17.760 the eleven point one acre shown here be approved and filed with Denton County 01:48:17.760 --> 01:48:21.480 prior to any permits being issued for the site. Commissioner Ellis. Thank You 01:48:21.480 --> 01:48:26.060 Chair. Haley what's the process for an amending final plan? That is an 01:48:26.060 --> 01:48:32.300 administratively approved plan. Any other questions for this item? Great thank you 01:48:32.300 --> 01:48:37.240 very much Haley. At this time that concludes our work session at 630 I'll 01:48:37.240 --> 01:48:49.720 close the meeting we will reconvene at 635 in council chambers. Good evening 01:48:49.720 --> 01:48:53.280 ladies and gentlemen welcome to the planning and zoning Commission meeting 01:48:53.280 --> 01:48:58.680 for January 8th 2020 it is 637 I'll call the meeting to order seeing that we do 01:48:58.680 --> 01:49:02.280 have a quorum let the record show that Commissioner Pernetta and Commissioner 01:49:02.280 --> 01:49:07.320 Anderson are absent from this evening's meeting. The first item on the agenda is 01:49:07.320 --> 01:49:13.080 to stand and give a Pledge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flag if able. 01:49:23.280 --> 01:49:41.880 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one and indivisible. Next item of business is to consider approval of the 01:49:41.880 --> 01:49:47.360 planning and zoning Commission minutes for December 11th 2019 Commissioner Smith. 01:49:47.360 --> 01:49:52.700 Motion to approve. We have a first for approval Commissioner Ellis. Second. We 01:49:52.700 --> 01:49:57.040 have a first and a second for approval any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for 01:49:57.040 --> 01:50:10.040 vote on the board. Motion carries five two or five zero and just for a point of 01:50:10.040 --> 01:50:14.240 clarification on tonight's agenda we have a couple changes in the order so I 01:50:14.240 --> 01:50:20.840 want to keep you apprised of those changes. There are two items item 3b and 01:50:20.840 --> 01:50:26.240 item 4g that are both in the consent and individual consideration items that are 01:50:26.240 --> 01:50:30.880 dependent on a public hearing item to be heard first. So for the sake of 01:50:30.880 --> 01:50:37.480 efficiency we're going to jump to the public hearing items first so we'll go 01:50:37.480 --> 01:50:42.360 items five and then back to the consent on three and then finish with individual 01:50:42.360 --> 01:50:48.080 considerations on four so we'll go the five items then back to three and then 01:50:48.080 --> 01:50:54.080 to four and on the public hearing items five a will open the public hearing but 01:50:54.080 --> 01:50:56.780 the applicant is requesting a postponement so there's not going to be 01:50:56.780 --> 01:51:02.320 a presentation on that this evening and item 5d has been pulled from 01:51:02.320 --> 01:51:09.160 consideration so this evening we'll do 5a for postponement 5b 5c and then we'll 01:51:09.160 --> 01:51:14.000 jump back into the consent and then individual consideration so with that we 01:51:14.000 --> 01:51:22.440 will begin on item 5a z-19 - 0 0 14 a I will open the public hearing and request 01:51:22.440 --> 01:51:26.720 a motion to postpone Commissioner Smith make a motion to postpone to date 01:51:26.720 --> 01:51:30.960 certain February 5th 2020 we have a first for a postponement to date certain 01:51:30.960 --> 01:51:35.640 February 5th 2020 Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a second for 01:51:35.640 --> 01:51:40.800 the postpone of this item any discussions seeing none I'll call for a 01:51:40.800 --> 01:51:54.080 vote on the board motion carries five zero the next item for business is item 01:51:54.080 --> 01:52:00.120 5b DCA 19 - 0 0 2 7 I will open the public here and invite Haley's 01:52:00.120 --> 01:52:12.880 to Gursky for presentation good evening this is a code amendment related to 01:52:12.880 --> 01:52:17.560 temporary batch plants the request before you is to hold a public hearing 01:52:17.560 --> 01:52:21.000 and consider making the recommendation to the City Council regarding revisions 01:52:21.000 --> 01:52:25.440 to subchapter 5 of the 2019 Denton development code related to the specific 01:52:25.440 --> 01:52:29.040 use permits requirements and use specific standards for temporary concrete and 01:52:29.040 --> 01:52:35.000 asphalt batch plants this is a staff initiated amendment to the DC a concrete 01:52:35.000 --> 01:52:38.680 and asphalt batching plant is defined as a temporary facility where asphalt or 01:52:38.680 --> 01:52:42.200 concrete or its ingredients or products are ground mixed or otherwise prepared 01:52:42.200 --> 01:52:47.560 either for use on site or transportation to another site temporary batch plants 01:52:47.560 --> 01:52:50.760 are something that we see permit request for multiple times per year they're 01:52:50.760 --> 01:52:54.760 typically associated either with large public street projects residential 01:52:54.760 --> 01:52:58.960 subdivisions where multiple streets are being poured at one time or with large 01:52:58.960 --> 01:53:04.480 scale commercial or mixed-use projects this is just a comparison of use 01:53:04.480 --> 01:53:10.320 permissions and limitations on these facilities in 2002 in the 2002 DDC 01:53:10.320 --> 01:53:14.280 rather the this use was permitted by right in all zoning districts there were 01:53:14.280 --> 01:53:18.200 performance standards associated with that there was also a time limit that 01:53:18.200 --> 01:53:23.480 limited these to only three permits per year for up to 60 days each the 01:53:23.480 --> 01:53:27.640 standards included compliance with TCEQ standards nuisance prevention separation 01:53:27.640 --> 01:53:32.200 distances from schools and residences among other things that time frame or 01:53:32.200 --> 01:53:35.400 time limit and those standards are staying the same we're not proposing any 01:53:35.400 --> 01:53:39.560 changes those were carried forward directly from the O2 code into the 2019 01:53:39.560 --> 01:53:44.160 code the change with 2019 was that in all zoning districts and SUP was 01:53:44.160 --> 01:53:48.320 required for a temporary batch plant so for a 60-day operational permit you were 01:53:48.320 --> 01:53:53.200 required to go through a process that took 60 to 90 days staff felt that that 01:53:53.200 --> 01:53:57.440 was somewhat unnecessary for these temporary uses so what we're bringing 01:53:57.440 --> 01:54:01.800 forward is a proposal to change that SUP requirement to only be for those 01:54:01.800 --> 01:54:04.960 facilities where they're batching concrete or asphalt and transporting it 01:54:04.960 --> 01:54:08.880 off-site perhaps to multiple sites because there is an increased traffic 01:54:08.880 --> 01:54:13.120 impact to the surrounding area at that point for on-site batch plants we'll 01:54:13.120 --> 01:54:16.560 propose that it be changed back to permitted by you or permitted by right 01:54:16.560 --> 01:54:21.680 with the use specific standards this is what that change would look like the the 01:54:21.680 --> 01:54:27.000 table with the SSMPs and the DDC that you've seen all of the S pluses for 01:54:27.000 --> 01:54:30.440 temporary batch plants would be changed to a P plus in that table and then when 01:54:30.440 --> 01:54:33.240 you went to the use specific standards that are cross-referenced there you 01:54:33.240 --> 01:54:37.520 would see the additional text here in red so there would be a subsection six 01:54:37.520 --> 01:54:42.080 that requires additional approval for off-site temporary batch plants and that 01:54:42.080 --> 01:54:46.440 would be that SUP requirement that I mentioned staff is recommending 01:54:46.440 --> 01:54:49.720 approval and I'm happy to stand for any questions 01:54:49.720 --> 01:54:52.800 Haley I don't see any questions at this time it is a public hearing though 01:54:52.800 --> 01:54:58.720 anyone wishing to speak on this matter can certainly do so is anyone wishing to 01:54:58.720 --> 01:55:03.040 speak on this item seeing none I will close the public hearing 01:55:03.040 --> 01:55:07.000 Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a motion for approval 01:55:07.000 --> 01:55:12.560 Commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion 01:55:12.560 --> 01:55:24.440 seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries five zero the next 01:55:24.440 --> 01:55:30.960 item of business is item 5 cv 19 - 0 0 0 3 I'll open the public hearing and 01:55:30.960 --> 01:55:35.120 invite back Haley's your ski for presentation 01:55:35.120 --> 01:55:42.160 good evening again this is the first of three items related to the Denton County 01:55:42.160 --> 01:55:46.800 Emergency Operations Center the request before you is to hold a public hearing 01:55:46.800 --> 01:55:52.360 and consider approval of variances from the 2002 DDC specifically the 01:55:52.360 --> 01:55:56.560 transportation standards and subchapter 20 the subject property is located at 01:55:56.560 --> 01:56:00.800 the intersection of Karina and Kimberly Street the requested variances relate to 01:56:00.800 --> 01:56:07.680 right-of-way dedication and sidewalk construction along Kimberly Drive this 01:56:07.680 --> 01:56:15.360 as I mentioned was reviewed reviewed under the 2002 DDC there is a preliminary 01:56:15.360 --> 01:56:21.120 plant in ADP also on your agenda this evening the site is just over five acres 01:56:21.120 --> 01:56:25.840 a little bit of history it was originally preliminary planted in 2009 it 01:56:25.840 --> 01:56:29.600 was intended to be developed as to commercial lot similar to how the other 01:56:29.600 --> 01:56:34.080 lots along 288 have developed with fast food grocery stores typical commercial 01:56:34.080 --> 01:56:38.560 uses that development never occurred so this is now an infill parcel where 01:56:38.560 --> 01:56:44.240 development surrounds it on all sides a little additional information here 01:56:44.240 --> 01:56:48.240 Karina and Kimberly are both designated as collectors on a mobility plan those 01:56:48.240 --> 01:56:51.960 are the black dotted lines that you see on the map those designations end at 01:56:51.960 --> 01:56:56.400 this intersection however beyond this point Karina dead ends into FEMA's 01:56:56.400 --> 01:57:01.400 driveway and then south of Karina Street Kimberly currently has 24 and a half feet 01:57:01.400 --> 01:57:05.440 of pavement width 35 foot of right-of-way that was dedicated to the 01:57:05.440 --> 01:57:10.560 city when the FEMA office building was developed in 2003 in 2008 a plaque came 01:57:10.560 --> 01:57:14.920 in for a property just south of here for the Spencer Manor senior community at 01:57:14.920 --> 01:57:18.920 that time additional right-of-way was not requested for Kimberly Street to 01:57:18.920 --> 01:57:24.360 continue southward because it was not a mobility plan roadway so that at that 01:57:24.360 --> 01:57:29.120 time assured that Kimberly would not be continuing south in 2009 when that 01:57:29.120 --> 01:57:33.160 Spencer edition preliminary plaque came in the P&Z approved a variance at that 01:57:33.160 --> 01:57:37.440 time to allow Kimberly to remain as a cul-de-sac the variance was needed 01:57:37.440 --> 01:57:42.000 because the length of the cul-de-sac exceeding 150 feet Denton County is 01:57:42.000 --> 01:57:45.200 requesting at this time because that development never occurred and those 01:57:45.200 --> 01:57:49.340 applications have since expired that they be allowed to leave Kimberly Drive 01:57:49.340 --> 01:57:54.760 as it is today with no additional right-of-way paving or sidewalk this is 01:57:54.760 --> 01:57:57.720 just a look at the preliminary plaque that's on the consent agenda this 01:57:57.720 --> 01:58:03.320 evening that plaque cannot be approved without these variances so the variances 01:58:03.320 --> 01:58:08.280 are related to three specific code provisions and 35 20 2 there's two 01:58:08.280 --> 01:58:11.840 requirements speaking to right-of-way dedication the first requires the public 01:58:11.840 --> 01:58:14.520 right-of-way be dedicated for all streets that serve more than three 01:58:14.520 --> 01:58:18.200 residential lots or any commercial or industrial lot that right-of-way width 01:58:18.200 --> 01:58:22.240 is specified in the criteria manual if this road were to continue south at its 01:58:22.240 --> 01:58:25.840 current street section north of Karina that would require 65 feet of right-of-way 01:58:25.840 --> 01:58:31.960 width so 30 additional feet from this development and then 35 20 dot 2 L 1 01:58:31.960 --> 01:58:35.480 just reiterates that requirement that whenever there's an existing street 01:58:35.480 --> 01:58:38.560 adjacent to a property that's of inadequate width that additional 01:58:38.560 --> 01:58:43.560 right-of-way be dedicated at that time Denton County again is requesting for no 01:58:43.560 --> 01:58:47.720 additional right-of-way dedication on Kimberly maintaining the current street 01:58:47.720 --> 01:58:52.360 width at 24 and a half feet providing a barricade just south of their driveway to 01:58:52.360 --> 01:58:56.520 indicate that the road will not continue south and turnaround movements could be 01:58:56.520 --> 01:59:00.160 accommodated in their driveway that they're proposing staff is further 01:59:00.160 --> 01:59:04.360 recommending that the existing paving be removed all the utilities and right-of-way 01:59:04.360 --> 01:59:07.480 would be maintained in place as they are today but that paving would be removed to 01:59:07.480 --> 01:59:11.000 assure that if those at barricades were ever moved people didn't traverse down a 01:59:11.000 --> 01:59:15.680 600 foot roadway and have no means of turnaround and then finally related to 01:59:15.680 --> 01:59:21.760 the sidewalks 35 20 2 3 B requires that sidewalk be provided within a dedicated 01:59:21.760 --> 01:59:24.680 right-of-way or easement in this case that would be a five-foot sidewalk and 01:59:24.680 --> 01:59:29.840 Denton County is requesting to not construct that on Kimberly there's a 01:59:29.840 --> 01:59:32.560 look at their site plan north is oriented towards the left side of the 01:59:32.560 --> 01:59:36.280 screen here the area in orange is the existing right-of-way and paving for 01:59:36.280 --> 01:59:39.920 Kimberly that would remain as is up to this point where that barricade is 01:59:39.920 --> 01:59:44.080 circled in red the shaded area would be where our city engineering staff has 01:59:44.080 --> 01:59:48.120 requested that paving be removed just to eliminate the possibility of people 01:59:48.120 --> 01:59:52.320 getting down there and not having a way of turning around this area circled in 01:59:52.320 --> 01:59:56.420 blue indicates that enlarged driveway that not only accommodates the emergency 01:59:56.420 --> 01:59:59.920 vehicles from this facility but also turnaround movements if someone did 01:59:59.920 --> 02:00:03.120 travel down Kimberly and need to get back out without reversing the entire 02:00:03.120 --> 02:00:07.200 distance the area in purple is that where that sidewalk would normally be 02:00:07.200 --> 02:00:11.560 required again that'd be five feet in width in this case they're requesting to 02:00:11.560 --> 02:00:16.720 not construct that sidewalk I'll go through the criteria for approval for 02:00:16.720 --> 02:00:20.080 the subdivision variance the first being whether it's detrimental to public 02:00:20.080 --> 02:00:24.400 safety health or welfare or injurious to other properties this not being a 02:00:24.400 --> 02:00:27.240 mobility plan roadway there was no expectation that it would ever continue 02:00:27.240 --> 02:00:30.580 to the south beyond this property existing development patterns have 02:00:30.580 --> 02:00:34.320 assured that that would not occur the previously approved cul-de-sac as I 02:00:34.320 --> 02:00:38.480 mentioned was never never developed so at this time those applications have 02:00:38.480 --> 02:00:41.840 expired and we have to seek a new variance of some sort for this roadway 02:00:41.840 --> 02:00:46.280 Kimberly south of Karina is currently serving as essentially a driveway for 02:00:46.280 --> 02:00:50.680 the FEMA offices and this parcel of land and with what they've proposed there 02:00:50.680 --> 02:00:53.920 would be no changes that would affect FEMA as their driveways are all north 02:00:53.920 --> 02:00:58.800 of where the paving would be removed there would be no injurious effect to 02:00:58.800 --> 02:01:03.440 them with this development second being that the request for the variance be 02:01:03.440 --> 02:01:07.240 based upon some feature unique to the property again as I mentioned this is an 02:01:07.240 --> 02:01:09.760 infill development site they're surrounded by development there's not a 02:01:09.760 --> 02:01:13.440 whole lot of options for them in terms of acquiring more property to to have 02:01:13.440 --> 02:01:17.880 adequate width to dedicate that right-of-way Kimberly south of Karina as 02:01:17.880 --> 02:01:21.000 I mentioned is functioning as a driveway so this would not be a change to that 02:01:21.000 --> 02:01:25.040 and the conditions surrounding Kimberly are fairly unique as we looked at the 02:01:25.040 --> 02:01:29.040 platting history here and how over time plat's assured that this road would never 02:01:29.040 --> 02:01:34.920 emute never go further south the third criteria is whether there are particular 02:01:34.920 --> 02:01:39.440 physical surroundings shape or topography features that would create a 02:01:39.440 --> 02:01:44.680 particular hardship for the owner if the code were enforced strictly in this case 02:01:44.680 --> 02:01:48.440 it creates a safety concern for Denton County this is an emergency operation 02:01:48.440 --> 02:01:51.560 facility where they would have large fire trucks and other emergency vehicles 02:01:51.560 --> 02:01:56.000 exiting to respond to emergencies they are seeking to discourage pedestrian and 02:01:56.000 --> 02:02:00.720 vehicular activity on Kimberly and keep the road at its current width to 02:02:00.720 --> 02:02:04.440 discourage people from parking on it if you look just north of their North of 02:02:04.440 --> 02:02:07.720 Karina Street rather it's parking all up and down Kimberly they're looking to 02:02:07.720 --> 02:02:11.000 avoid that here so that there's adequate maneuverability space for their vehicles 02:02:11.000 --> 02:02:14.360 and further to discourage pedestrians from wandering down here and potentially 02:02:14.360 --> 02:02:18.360 being in the way of those vehicles when they need to exit the facility and if 02:02:18.360 --> 02:02:22.320 the road were required to be improved they would still have to seek a variance 02:02:22.320 --> 02:02:27.560 because of the length of that roadway exceeding 150 feet without a turnaround 02:02:27.560 --> 02:02:32.800 finally rather the variance will in any manner vary from the provisions of our 02:02:32.800 --> 02:02:37.160 comprehensive plan as I mentioned the collector Street designation ends at 02:02:37.160 --> 02:02:40.960 Kimberly this is simply a local street and it's functioning as a driveway so 02:02:40.960 --> 02:02:44.600 there would be no variation from the plan and rather there's peculiar 02:02:44.600 --> 02:02:49.080 conditions that resulted from the actions of the owner in this case Denton 02:02:49.080 --> 02:02:52.440 County is a relatively new owner of the property the conditions associated with 02:02:52.440 --> 02:02:55.360 this were not in any way created by them they've evolved over the last couple of 02:02:55.360 --> 02:02:59.700 decades as development occurred our traffic engineering division has no 02:02:59.700 --> 02:03:02.940 objection to this proposed variance staff is recommending approval with the 02:03:02.940 --> 02:03:07.840 condition that the paving south of that barricade be removed and I'm happy to 02:03:07.840 --> 02:03:12.520 stand for any questions thank you we do have one question mr. Beck yes thank you 02:03:12.520 --> 02:03:19.000 it can you flip back to I think it's seven the plan there you go so that front 02:03:19.000 --> 02:03:25.000 area up to the north is the new public area public parking area for that small 02:03:25.000 --> 02:03:30.720 piece of Kimberly do you need a little sidewalk there or we're able to get 02:03:30.720 --> 02:03:34.340 around regulations for like whatever five or six feet of sidewalk because 02:03:34.340 --> 02:03:40.560 that's a public parking area yes that area there they do have internal 02:03:40.560 --> 02:03:44.360 sidewalks that would get people either to the building or up on the opposite 02:03:44.360 --> 02:03:47.040 side of the property you can see here they are providing sidewalk connection to 02:03:47.040 --> 02:03:50.400 the Karina Street sidewalk so there's there's still pedestrian pathways okay 02:03:50.400 --> 02:03:54.840 thank you very much thank you Haley that's the only questions I see here 02:03:54.840 --> 02:03:58.560 this is a public hearing anyone wishing to speak on this matter can certainly do 02:03:58.560 --> 02:04:05.440 so seeing none I'll close the public hearing 02:04:05.440 --> 02:04:10.080 mr. Smith make a motion to approve with staff recommendations we have a first 02:04:10.080 --> 02:04:15.800 mr. Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any discussion seeing 02:04:15.800 --> 02:04:19.560 none I'll call for a vote on the board before I do you did say with conditions 02:04:19.560 --> 02:04:32.840 okay thank you call for a vote on the board motion carries five zero that 02:04:32.840 --> 02:04:37.880 concludes the public hearing items for this evening we will now go back in the 02:04:37.880 --> 02:04:44.040 agenda to the consent the chair will entertain a discussion or motion on the 02:04:44.040 --> 02:04:48.480 consent agenda coaster Smith make a motion to approve the consent agenda we 02:04:48.480 --> 02:04:53.640 have a first for approval mr. Ellis second we have a first and a second for 02:04:53.640 --> 02:04:58.640 approval of the consent agenda any discussion seeing none I'll call for a 02:04:58.640 --> 02:05:01.040 vote on the board 02:05:01.040 --> 02:05:12.000 motion carries five zero the next item of business moves us into individual 02:05:12.000 --> 02:05:19.520 consideration items we start with 4 a NP 19 - 17 I'll invite Mark Laird for 02:05:19.520 --> 02:05:22.040 presentation 02:05:22.040 --> 02:05:35.920 good evening my name is Mark Laird I'm a player with the plan department this 02:05:35.920 --> 02:05:40.800 evening I have for your review and consideration honor plaid paralysis 02:05:40.800 --> 02:05:47.640 addition case number MP 19 - 0 0 1 7 staff is recommending to now of the 02:05:47.640 --> 02:05:53.760 plat based on the step the details presented in the staff report I stand 02:05:53.760 --> 02:06:00.920 for any questions you may have appreciate that mark any questions this 02:06:00.920 --> 02:06:04.360 is not a public hearing but if anyone's wishing to speak on this we can 02:06:04.360 --> 02:06:11.920 certainly hear them this evening okay seen none the chair will oh Christian 02:06:11.920 --> 02:06:19.080 Smith I make a motion to deny we have a motion for denial 02:06:19.080 --> 02:06:26.280 Christian Cole second we have a first and a second for denial any discussion 02:06:26.280 --> 02:06:30.880 seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board 02:06:34.360 --> 02:06:46.400 motion carries five zero the next item of business is item 4 B PP 19 - 02:06:46.400 --> 02:06:53.600 27 I'll invite Haley Zygursky for presentation 02:06:53.600 --> 02:07:03.360 all right good evening this is a preliminary plat for the Elm Street 02:07:03.360 --> 02:07:07.680 townhomes located at the corner of sycamore and Elm Street this is the 02:07:07.680 --> 02:07:12.040 preliminary plat again it's intended for townhome development in two phases at 02:07:12.040 --> 02:07:15.320 this time staff is recommending denial of the preliminary plat for the reasons 02:07:15.320 --> 02:07:19.360 that are detailed in your staff report however the applicant has requested a 02:07:19.360 --> 02:07:23.600 one-time 30-day extension that would take them to the February 5th 2020 agenda 02:07:23.600 --> 02:07:27.280 to allow them time to resolve the staff comments and I can stand for any 02:07:27.280 --> 02:07:31.880 questions thanks Haley I don't see any like previous item this is not a public 02:07:31.880 --> 02:07:38.680 hearing but certainly open to hearing one who wants to speak on the item okay 02:07:38.680 --> 02:07:41.600 seeing none we can turn to a discussion or a motion 02:07:41.600 --> 02:07:46.920 Christian Smith make a motion to extend the extension make a motion to give the 02:07:46.920 --> 02:07:49.960 extension for 30 days how should this motion be approved the approved you 02:07:49.960 --> 02:07:52.760 thank you legal make a motion to approve the extension for 30 days to February 02:07:52.760 --> 02:08:00.840 5th 2020 okay we have a motion to postpone till February 5th 2020 02:08:00.840 --> 02:08:05.040 commissioner Cole second we have a first and second for the postponement any 02:08:05.040 --> 02:08:10.080 discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board 02:08:10.080 --> 02:08:22.960 motion carries five zero next item for business is 4c pp 19 - 35 B I'll invite 02:08:22.960 --> 02:08:26.600 Cindy Jackson for presentation 02:08:30.960 --> 02:08:47.360 thank you this is a request for approval of pp 1935 a preliminary plot for the 02:08:47.360 --> 02:08:54.600 excuse me Stuart Ridge subdivision the applicant 02:08:54.600 --> 02:08:59.840 requested a 30-day extension last month which was approved we have not received 02:08:59.840 --> 02:09:05.000 anything back from the applicant since that approval of the extension the plot 02:09:05.000 --> 02:09:08.600 does not comply with our standards as noted in your backup and staff is 02:09:08.600 --> 02:09:14.200 recommending denial the applicant is president if you have questions of him 02:09:14.200 --> 02:09:19.440 thank you I don't see any other quite I don't see questions besides with the new 02:09:19.440 --> 02:09:27.120 rules is a second 30-day extension an option is that possible or is it just a 02:09:27.120 --> 02:09:32.240 one-time 30-day there's just one 30-day extension okay so the only option we 02:09:32.240 --> 02:09:37.880 have this point is to recommend denial yes that's correct but the applicant can 02:09:37.880 --> 02:09:43.480 come back anytime with the plaque that complies with the the required standards 02:09:43.480 --> 02:09:49.320 for your consideration great thank you I don't see any questions if the 02:09:49.320 --> 02:09:57.080 applicants wanted to speak we can certainly listen if not okay so with that 02:09:57.080 --> 02:10:04.240 mr. Christian Beck motion to deny we have a motion to deny Commissioner Smith 02:10:04.240 --> 02:10:09.920 second we have a first and a second for denial any discussion seeing none I'll 02:10:09.920 --> 02:10:21.920 call for a vote on the board the motion to deny carries at 5-0 the next item for 02:10:21.920 --> 02:10:28.280 business is item 4d FP 19 - 31 and I'll invite Haley Zygursky back for 02:10:28.280 --> 02:10:30.720 presentation 02:10:30.720 --> 02:10:38.600 good evening this is a final plot for the Northgate addition it's located at 02:10:38.600 --> 02:10:44.840 the intersection of Sherman and loop 288 this is the final plan it features six 02:10:44.840 --> 02:10:48.000 lots intended for commercial development at this time staff is 02:10:48.000 --> 02:10:50.760 recommending denial of the final plan for the reasons that are outlined in 02:10:50.760 --> 02:10:54.600 your staff report the applicant has requested a 30-day extension which would 02:10:54.600 --> 02:10:58.120 put it on the February 5th 2020 agenda and I'm happy to answer any questions 02:10:58.120 --> 02:11:04.040 thanks Haley I don't see any questions if anyone's wishing to speak certainly 02:11:04.040 --> 02:11:12.760 listen okay Christian Smith make a motion to approve 30-day extension we 02:11:12.760 --> 02:11:17.200 have a first for approval of 30-day extension to February 5th 2020 meeting 02:11:17.200 --> 02:11:22.040 Christian Cole second we have a first and a second for the extension of the 02:11:22.040 --> 02:11:26.040 postponement to February 5th any discussion seeing none I'll call for a 02:11:26.040 --> 02:11:39.800 vote on the board motion carries 5-0 next item business is item 4d FP 19 - 33 02:11:39.800 --> 02:11:47.320 I'll give a minute for Christian Cole to step away and I'll invite city Jackson 02:11:47.320 --> 02:11:49.840 for presentation 02:11:56.200 --> 02:12:01.880 thank you chairman this is the plaque for a lot to block a of the Fisher 59 02:12:01.880 --> 02:12:08.040 edition the staff is recommending denial of this request based upon those reasons 02:12:08.040 --> 02:12:13.960 detailed in your staff report the applicant however is requesting a 30-day 02:12:13.960 --> 02:12:18.520 extension to the February 5th planning and zoning Commission meeting to give 02:12:18.520 --> 02:12:24.200 them the opportunity to comply with all requirements thank you Cindy I don't see 02:12:24.200 --> 02:12:27.760 any questions I appreciate the presentation is anyone in attendance 02:12:27.760 --> 02:12:34.960 wanting to speak on this item see none I'll turn to the day is for a discussion 02:12:34.960 --> 02:12:38.640 or motion Christian Smith motion to approve a 30-day extension we have a 02:12:38.640 --> 02:12:42.560 first for postponement Christian Ellis second we have a first and a second to 02:12:42.560 --> 02:12:49.220 postpone to this February 5th 2020 meeting any discussion seeing none I'll 02:12:49.220 --> 02:12:52.360 call for a vote on the board 02:12:54.520 --> 02:13:11.640 motion carries 4-0 with one recuse next on a business is item 4f 80p 19 - 11 on 02:13:11.640 --> 02:13:17.120 by Julie white for presentation 02:13:20.640 --> 02:13:28.760 good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I am 02:13:28.760 --> 02:13:34.040 presenting 80 p 19 11 Haven at Doherty the request is for an alternative 02:13:34.040 --> 02:13:38.640 development plan for a multifamily development on about 8.87 acres the 02:13:38.640 --> 02:13:42.980 subject property is located on the north side of Doherty just west of Johnson 02:13:42.980 --> 02:13:49.080 Street it has a zoning of MN but due to this project timing it is being reviewed 02:13:49.080 --> 02:13:57.040 under the 2002 code which is the code that has the ADP process in it so the as 02:13:57.040 --> 02:14:01.440 I said the request is for a multifamily development apart from the deviations 02:14:01.440 --> 02:14:06.160 that they have requested they do meet all other sub chapter 13 requirements 02:14:06.160 --> 02:14:11.000 and sub chapter 13 was that is the the chapter that that goes over the site 02:14:11.000 --> 02:14:15.400 design requirements things like building orientation where parking parking lots 02:14:15.400 --> 02:14:20.960 can be located and those sorts of considerations so there are two two 02:14:20.960 --> 02:14:25.440 deviations they're requesting the first is that at least fifty percent of the 02:14:25.440 --> 02:14:30.240 front yard frontage shall have buildings within 20 feet of the front property line 02:14:30.240 --> 02:14:36.760 or within 30 feet of a curb of a private street the subject property has 546 feet 02:14:36.760 --> 02:14:41.800 linear feet of frontage along Doherty Street in order to meet this requirement 02:14:41.800 --> 02:14:47.320 that would require 270 linear 273 linear feet of buildings within 20 feet of that 02:14:47.320 --> 02:14:52.920 front property line as they're proposing they're they're proposing about 227 feet 02:14:52.920 --> 02:14:58.720 of structure located between 17 19 and 41 feet of the front property line the 02:14:58.720 --> 02:15:02.840 section the second deviation is for the private street system the projects over 02:15:02.840 --> 02:15:07.400 three acres require a private street system or public street system within the 02:15:07.400 --> 02:15:11.800 development it has specific design guidelines one of those is a landscape 02:15:11.800 --> 02:15:16.800 area between between the curb of the parking lot and the sidewalk they're 02:15:16.800 --> 02:15:20.800 requesting a deviation that that sidewalk be moved closer to that curb to 02:15:20.800 --> 02:15:27.400 allow a landing area for residents so first we'll look at the the buildings 02:15:27.400 --> 02:15:32.320 near the the front property line this is the the orientation toward Doherty Street 02:15:32.320 --> 02:15:37.440 the the squares are in or the boxes are in the blue and those are the buildings 02:15:37.440 --> 02:15:43.040 and then and then here is that front property they are proposing those three 02:15:43.040 --> 02:15:48.640 buildings which would be about 227 feet of structure located between 19 and 41 02:15:48.640 --> 02:15:53.680 feet from the property line the intent of this code requirement is to enclose 02:15:53.680 --> 02:15:58.600 that that street to push the parking away from the street and to just provide 02:15:58.600 --> 02:16:06.080 more activity toward the right of way the 2002 code really relied on structures 02:16:06.080 --> 02:16:11.000 in order to meet this requirement but it could be it could be met with with lots 02:16:11.000 --> 02:16:14.800 of different elements in this case there they have the street trees that are 02:16:14.800 --> 02:16:21.880 defining that street edge enclosing that street providing a more comfortable path 02:16:21.880 --> 02:16:25.800 for pedestrians along Doherty Street so they do meet that intent of that 02:16:25.800 --> 02:16:30.960 requirement the second deviation that they're asking for is for the design of 02:16:30.960 --> 02:16:35.480 the public the private street system the intent of this requirement is to provide 02:16:35.480 --> 02:16:39.920 legibility so that residents can move to the side and have clear pathways for 02:16:39.920 --> 02:16:45.300 vehicles and pedestrians they do provide that that system however they are asking 02:16:45.300 --> 02:16:49.840 for a deviation and that is to move that sidewalk closer to the curb so so 02:16:49.840 --> 02:16:56.400 residents can exit their cars and have a more easy pedestrian pathway the 02:16:56.400 --> 02:17:00.720 criteria for approval in sub chapter 13 of the 2002 Dent development code first 02:17:00.720 --> 02:17:05.320 is it preserve existing neighborhoods this is in a redeveloping area and so 02:17:05.320 --> 02:17:09.640 the the proposal is consistent with the types of development we want to see in 02:17:09.640 --> 02:17:14.000 this area and that is that are emerging this is kind of needed density near our 02:17:14.000 --> 02:17:18.640 downtown areas a sure quality development this isn't intended to lower the 02:17:18.640 --> 02:17:23.720 standards but just they're meeting all other sub chapter 13 requirements but 02:17:23.720 --> 02:17:28.920 just to allow that the site to flow better and to work better to focus new 02:17:28.920 --> 02:17:32.880 development and activity centers this is urban infill so it's not contributing to 02:17:32.880 --> 02:17:38.040 sprawl there is existing infrastructure that can accommodate the development in 02:17:38.040 --> 02:17:41.680 the area in fact it's near transit so it's in a really good location for this 02:17:41.680 --> 02:17:45.560 type of use and that the results it results in a high quality development 02:17:45.560 --> 02:17:49.960 meeting the intent of the standards first for that that front yard frontage 02:17:49.960 --> 02:17:54.160 the intent as I said was to enclose that space create vibrancy and pedestrian 02:17:54.160 --> 02:17:57.520 comfort those street trees along there will meet the intent of that code 02:17:57.520 --> 02:18:01.280 requirement and then the design of the private street system we want to make 02:18:01.280 --> 02:18:06.160 sure that there are clear pathways for vehicles and pedestrians they do provide 02:18:06.160 --> 02:18:09.400 that they've just kind of modified the design to make sure that it's more 02:18:09.400 --> 02:18:13.480 comfortable for residents to use so based upon the criteria for approval 02:18:13.480 --> 02:18:17.280 staff does recommend approval and I'll stand for any questions thank you Julie 02:18:17.280 --> 02:18:24.640 I don't see any questions this is not a public hearing but is individual 02:18:24.640 --> 02:18:27.440 considerations so if there's anyone wanting to speak on the item we can 02:18:27.440 --> 02:18:36.040 certainly hear that okay if not chair will listen to any discussion or motion 02:18:36.040 --> 02:18:40.280 coaster Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval 02:18:40.280 --> 02:18:43.760 commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval any 02:18:43.760 --> 02:18:49.440 discussion seeing none I'll call for voting the board 02:18:49.440 --> 02:19:06.800 motion carries for one next item of business is item 4g ADP 19 - 8 and I'll 02:19:06.800 --> 02:19:10.440 invite Haley Zygursky for presentation 02:19:10.440 --> 02:19:18.540 good evening again this is the last of the three items related to the Denton 02:19:18.540 --> 02:19:22.880 County Emergency Operations Center the request is for an alternative 02:19:22.880 --> 02:19:26.440 development plan for the property which is located at again at the corner of 02:19:26.440 --> 02:19:31.000 Karina and Kimberly there are several components to this request related to 02:19:31.000 --> 02:19:35.600 multiple aspects of sub chapter 13 of our 2002 DDC that includes parking in 02:19:35.600 --> 02:19:38.960 front of the building parking lot screening and landscaping requirements 02:19:38.960 --> 02:19:43.760 and as well as our tree canopy and street tree requirements looking at 02:19:43.760 --> 02:19:48.080 those in a little more detail the code required that parking be to the side or 02:19:48.080 --> 02:19:52.120 rear of a building unless it was located along an arterial in this case it 02:19:52.120 --> 02:19:57.120 Karina is a collector Street and they're requesting visitor parking for 30 02:19:57.120 --> 02:20:02.600 vehicles to be located along Karina the second request is related to tree 02:20:02.600 --> 02:20:07.760 canopy in the ECC district which this was zoned in 2002 it did have a 02:20:07.760 --> 02:20:12.400 requirement for 30% tree canopy on the overall site they are planting 64 trees 02:20:12.400 --> 02:20:17.600 on site which would get them to just over 20% tree canopy the third request 02:20:17.600 --> 02:20:21.560 is with regard to street tree locations the code required street trees at a rate 02:20:21.560 --> 02:20:25.400 of one tree for every 45 linear feet to be located between the sidewalk and the 02:20:25.400 --> 02:20:29.840 street for both of their street frontages that would total 18 trees they 02:20:29.840 --> 02:20:33.840 are providing those trees on site in alternative locations due to existing 02:20:33.840 --> 02:20:38.360 utilities that are located along the right of way of both streets the fourth 02:20:38.360 --> 02:20:41.800 request is with regard to canopy coverage and parking lots the code 02:20:41.800 --> 02:20:46.280 required all parking lots to have 15% canopy coverage the northern lot for 02:20:46.280 --> 02:20:50.680 visitors would have 54% canopy coverage but the there is an eastern parking lot 02:20:50.680 --> 02:20:54.700 for secure employee and equipment parking that would have 0% canopy 02:20:54.700 --> 02:20:59.560 coverage and then finally with regards to landscaping screening when you do 02:20:59.560 --> 02:21:02.760 have front parking the code requires a specific combination of landscape 02:21:02.760 --> 02:21:07.360 elements a 15 foot wide area with a landscape berm one large tree for every 02:21:07.360 --> 02:21:12.880 40 linear feet and then either zero escaping 3 feet high evergreen shrubs or 02:21:12.880 --> 02:21:17.960 a 3 foot high wall in this case due to utilities and drainage they have pushed 02:21:17.960 --> 02:21:21.320 the parking back they would have an approximately 50 foot wide landscape 02:21:21.320 --> 02:21:24.840 area that would feature a 5 foot wide planting bed directly behind the parking 02:21:24.840 --> 02:21:28.240 or in front of the parking lot that would have evergreen shrubs and trees 02:21:28.240 --> 02:21:32.360 spaced approximately every 43 linear feet and there is a natural slope to 02:21:32.360 --> 02:21:36.000 this area of about 7 feet increase from the sidewalk to the parking lot that 02:21:36.000 --> 02:21:41.160 would provide a similar effect as the berm would have so this is a look at all 02:21:41.160 --> 02:21:44.880 of those elements combined on their landscape plan the area in orange is 02:21:44.880 --> 02:21:48.840 that front parking lot so again north is to the left side of the screen this 02:21:48.840 --> 02:21:53.640 would be approximately 30 spaces for visitors to the facility the area in red 02:21:53.640 --> 02:21:57.240 is that secure employee lot there would be gates on either of these driveways 02:21:57.240 --> 02:22:02.440 the intent of not having landscaping within this parking lot is one for 02:22:02.440 --> 02:22:07.280 security purposes and then second for maneuverability these this is the 02:22:07.280 --> 02:22:11.000 backside of those five vehicle bays so they they do need increased 02:22:11.000 --> 02:22:15.600 maneuverability and access for large equipment through this lot the dark 02:22:15.600 --> 02:22:19.800 green circles show the alternative location of those 18 street trees along 02:22:19.800 --> 02:22:22.840 Karina they were pushed back out of the way of utilities and drainage features 02:22:22.840 --> 02:22:26.400 that will go here and then other trees were located to the east and south side 02:22:26.400 --> 02:22:31.280 to the property and then again this light green area shows that 50-foot 02:22:31.280 --> 02:22:35.040 wide area where they are providing trees and shrubs and there is a natural 02:22:35.040 --> 02:22:38.160 increase in elevation that functions similar to how that berm would have to 02:22:38.160 --> 02:22:42.720 provide a visual separation from the street or sidewalk to the parking lot 02:22:42.720 --> 02:22:46.720 this is a look at that building um so this would be the view from Karina 02:22:46.720 --> 02:22:50.800 Street and then this is the side that fronts Kimberly so again you can see 02:22:50.800 --> 02:22:55.140 those five large vehicle bays that necessitate the need for that more open 02:22:55.140 --> 02:22:58.320 design for the employee parking lot as well as the need for that wider driveway 02:22:58.320 --> 02:23:03.640 that we looked at earlier again we'll run through the criteria for approval of 02:23:03.640 --> 02:23:08.000 an ADP the first being preservation of existing neighborhoods this is a county 02:23:08.000 --> 02:23:11.580 facility there there are multiple other county facilities in this area as well 02:23:11.580 --> 02:23:14.960 as the FEMA facility so it's in line with the uses that have developed here 02:23:14.960 --> 02:23:19.120 most of the developments in this area especially those along the loop do have 02:23:19.120 --> 02:23:22.120 front parking so this wouldn't be inconsistent with site design in the 02:23:22.120 --> 02:23:26.880 area and the site does have 0% canopy coverage today there are no trees on 02:23:26.880 --> 02:23:30.760 site so the the landscaping that they are proposing would be a substantial 02:23:30.760 --> 02:23:33.880 improvement although it doesn't hit the mark at 30 percent that the code 02:23:33.880 --> 02:23:38.840 requires second rather it assures quality development that fits with the 02:23:38.840 --> 02:23:42.440 character as I mentioned this is an infill site it is consistent with the 02:23:42.440 --> 02:23:45.840 development pattern of this area and apart from the requested deviations they 02:23:45.840 --> 02:23:51.160 are meeting all other requirements of the code the third criteria is rather it 02:23:51.160 --> 02:23:55.160 focuses new development to activity centers to curb strip development it does 02:23:55.160 --> 02:23:59.320 that with this being an infill site it expands the county's kind of complex of 02:23:59.320 --> 02:24:04.280 facilities that they've put along loop 288 and it is infilling a site within 02:24:04.280 --> 02:24:08.560 our city limits rather than sprawling towards the outer edges of the city 02:24:08.560 --> 02:24:12.880 fourth rather the there's infrastructure can capable of accommodating the 02:24:12.880 --> 02:24:17.040 development Karina Street that will have the minor improvements of a sidewalk 02:24:17.040 --> 02:24:21.360 being added there other than that is adequate for this Kimberly as we looked 02:24:21.360 --> 02:24:25.200 at earlier with the variance is adequate to serve the two facilities that it that 02:24:25.200 --> 02:24:28.240 it serves as a driveway for and then there are existing water and sewer 02:24:28.240 --> 02:24:34.120 utilities available and finally rather the developers alternative proposal 02:24:34.120 --> 02:24:37.120 would result in a high quality development that meets the intent of the 02:24:37.120 --> 02:24:41.720 design standards in sub chapter 13 with regards to front parking the request is 02:24:41.720 --> 02:24:45.080 simply intended for security purposes to separate guests from the employees and 02:24:45.080 --> 02:24:49.880 the large equipment with regards to the site and parking lot tree canopy 02:24:49.880 --> 02:24:53.480 requirements the request is providing a substantial increase from conditions 02:24:53.480 --> 02:24:59.920 today but it does allow them to to facilitate a secure employee lot and an 02:24:59.920 --> 02:25:03.840 equipment lot for the the items that are required at an emergency operation 02:25:03.840 --> 02:25:07.400 center with respect to street trees they're providing the required number of 02:25:07.400 --> 02:25:10.820 trees simply in alternative locations to avoid conflicts with utilities and 02:25:10.820 --> 02:25:14.360 easements and then with regard to parking lot screening again they're 02:25:14.360 --> 02:25:18.020 providing a layer area much larger than what would be required by the code it 02:25:18.020 --> 02:25:21.960 does have trees and shrubs not exactly at the ratio required by the code but 02:25:21.960 --> 02:25:25.660 as many as they could fit in the area and there is a natural elevation there 02:25:25.660 --> 02:25:30.320 that reduces visibility from the sidewalk so staff is recommending of the 02:25:30.320 --> 02:25:34.880 request approval of the request and I can stand for any questions thank you 02:25:34.880 --> 02:25:39.240 Haley I don't see any questions at this time if anyone's wishing to speak on 02:25:39.240 --> 02:25:46.440 this item we'll certainly listen okay with that chair will entertain any 02:25:46.440 --> 02:25:51.240 discussion or motion on the item commissioner Ellis I move approval we 02:25:51.240 --> 02:25:54.760 have a first for approval Commissioner Smith second we have a first and a 02:25:54.760 --> 02:25:59.640 second for approval any discussion seeing none I'll call for vote on the 02:25:59.640 --> 02:26:16.680 board motion carries 5-0 next item of business is item 4H ADP 19 - 7 and Julie 02:26:16.680 --> 02:26:30.180 Wyatt is here to present good evening this is ADP 18-7 Oxford at Sherman the 02:26:30.180 --> 02:26:32.780 request is for an alternative development plan for a multifamily 02:26:32.780 --> 02:26:38.160 development on 12 acres the site is situated between loop 288 and poinsettia 02:26:38.160 --> 02:26:45.440 and the south I'm sorry in the northeast part of town it has a current 2019 02:26:45.440 --> 02:26:51.720 zoning is SC the previous zoning was CMG due to the project timing it is being 02:26:51.720 --> 02:26:56.680 reviewed under the 2002 code which is why it's going forward with this ADP 02:26:56.680 --> 02:27:01.500 um so this may look familiar it was a specific use permit it came before the 02:27:01.500 --> 02:27:04.760 planning and zoning Commission in December and then went forward to City 02:27:04.760 --> 02:27:09.320 Council and was approved by City Council the site plan landscape plan and 02:27:09.320 --> 02:27:16.240 elevations were approved by City Council late last year they are requesting two 02:27:16.240 --> 02:27:23.160 deviations from the the sub chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code the 2002 02:27:23.160 --> 02:27:29.840 code this this ADP is actually part of the of the requirement the ordinance one 02:27:29.840 --> 02:27:33.960 of the conditions of that ordinance that they come forward with this so they're 02:27:33.960 --> 02:27:37.440 they're meeting that requirement of that ordinance but the first one was that 02:27:37.440 --> 02:27:42.640 accessory structures such as carports cannot be located along the public 02:27:42.640 --> 02:27:46.080 right-of-way so between those primary structures the residential structures in 02:27:46.080 --> 02:27:50.400 the right-of-way they're proposing a single-story garages along poinsettia 02:27:50.400 --> 02:27:54.400 that's in order to push those residential structures further away from 02:27:54.400 --> 02:27:59.480 those existing neighborhoods the second requirement is for that the design of 02:27:59.480 --> 02:28:04.760 that public street system much like the previous ADP that they are requesting 02:28:04.760 --> 02:28:11.980 that deviation to allow that landscaping behind that sidewalk here is the site 02:28:11.980 --> 02:28:17.920 plan that you saw in December the the purple boxes show where those 02:28:17.920 --> 02:28:21.680 residential buildings on the south side of the property will be located and then 02:28:21.680 --> 02:28:26.720 the yellow boxes are those garages they are located along the right-of-way they 02:28:26.720 --> 02:28:32.280 are those one-story garages that provide that buffer area along the street and 02:28:32.280 --> 02:28:36.700 then the the arrows in green that's that private street and we'll sit down the 02:28:36.700 --> 02:28:42.720 next slide we'll see how that is that design deviates from the requirements so 02:28:42.720 --> 02:28:48.720 sub chapter 13 requires that between the curb of the parking lot and the sidewalk 02:28:48.720 --> 02:28:53.600 there should be a landscape area the applicant is is requesting a deviation 02:28:53.600 --> 02:29:00.280 to allow that sidewalk along that curb line of the of this of the parking lot 02:29:00.280 --> 02:29:03.720 in order to provide that landing area for residents as they exit their cars 02:29:03.720 --> 02:29:08.960 then that that landscape area would be provided between that sidewalk and the 02:29:08.960 --> 02:29:15.200 building the criteria for approval are in sub chapter 13 preserve existing 02:29:15.200 --> 02:29:18.080 neighborhoods is the first this is a multifamily development in a 02:29:18.080 --> 02:29:22.360 transition area between loop 280 and existing residential so it provides a 02:29:22.360 --> 02:29:27.760 buffer between the high activity of loop 288 in the existing neighborhoods assure 02:29:27.760 --> 02:29:31.600 quality development this intent is not to lower design standards but would 02:29:31.600 --> 02:29:35.280 facilitate the development of the site and in particular some of those design 02:29:35.280 --> 02:29:42.720 interventions that that assist in the in the mitigation of any potential 02:29:42.720 --> 02:29:48.000 nuisances particularly visual for for this site so it is these are design 02:29:48.000 --> 02:29:51.980 elements that are important to that specific use permit and once again it 02:29:51.980 --> 02:29:55.040 did go the through the additional scrutiny of that SUP and has been 02:29:55.040 --> 02:29:58.960 approved by council focus new development activity centers this is a 02:29:58.960 --> 02:30:02.720 mixed-use area so it's not encouraging that strip development and it is a 02:30:02.720 --> 02:30:08.000 logical continuation of the existing development pattern there is necessary 02:30:08.000 --> 02:30:11.800 infrastructure in place in the area will be constructed as a result of the 02:30:11.800 --> 02:30:15.360 development and does the does the project result in a high quality 02:30:15.360 --> 02:30:20.160 development meeting the intent of the standards the garage the intent to not 02:30:20.160 --> 02:30:24.280 put the garages next to the street is to to minimize any visual impacts of those 02:30:24.280 --> 02:30:29.640 garages and to move those buildings the primary structures closer to the street 02:30:29.640 --> 02:30:33.880 in this location and in this instance it makes sense to put the garages in this 02:30:33.880 --> 02:30:38.520 location there one story they have a residential design with pitched roofs 02:30:38.520 --> 02:30:43.720 the the garage doors are facing inwards so that those visual impacts wouldn't 02:30:43.720 --> 02:30:47.600 be there for the garage doors but it does allow that buffer area along the 02:30:47.600 --> 02:30:52.360 right-of-way furthermore City Council did require a masonry wall along 02:30:52.360 --> 02:30:55.960 poinsettia so it does add that additional screening for those garages 02:30:55.960 --> 02:31:00.480 for the private street design the antennas provide those clear pathways 02:31:00.480 --> 02:31:04.160 for residents they are meeting that they are providing those pathways they're 02:31:04.160 --> 02:31:07.960 just asking for a deviation in the land in the design to provide that landing 02:31:07.960 --> 02:31:12.080 area for residents so based upon the criteria for approval staff does 02:31:12.080 --> 02:31:15.880 recommend approval of the request and I'll stand for any questions thanks Julie 02:31:15.880 --> 02:31:20.720 I don't see any questions thanks if anyone's wishing to speak on item 4H 02:31:20.720 --> 02:31:30.480 certainly listen if not and seeing none I will turn to Commissioner Smith move to 02:31:30.480 --> 02:31:34.240 approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a 02:31:34.240 --> 02:31:39.280 second for approval so we have a first and second for approval of item 4H any 02:31:39.280 --> 02:31:52.480 discussion seeing none I call for a vote on the board motion carries 5-0 next 02:31:52.480 --> 02:31:59.400 item of business is item 4I ZCP 19-5 I'll invite Haley Zygursky for 02:31:59.400 --> 02:32:01.920 presentation 02:32:09.320 --> 02:32:14.200 good evening this is a request for a site plan within the razor ranch overlay 02:32:14.200 --> 02:32:19.800 district the use would be multifamily the property is outlined in yellow on 02:32:19.800 --> 02:32:23.080 the map it's located on the north side of Crescent Street east of East Park 02:32:23.080 --> 02:32:29.560 Boulevard it is just over 11 acres in size with regards to the property 02:32:29.560 --> 02:32:34.120 dimensions the the site plans that you have before you show a property that 02:32:34.120 --> 02:32:39.040 combines all of lot 4 block a of the razor ranch east edition with a very 02:32:39.040 --> 02:32:46.080 small portion approximately 0.05 acres of lot 5 block a and that that was 02:32:46.080 --> 02:32:50.120 intended to allow them to reach the 333 dwelling units that they desired and 02:32:50.120 --> 02:32:55.240 stay within the 30 dwelling unit per acre maximum of the base zoning district so 02:32:55.240 --> 02:32:58.480 staff is recommending a condition of approval on this item and that be that 02:32:58.480 --> 02:33:03.160 an amending final plat to increase the size of lot 4 block a to the 11.1 acres 02:33:03.160 --> 02:33:07.080 shown here be approved prior to or be filed prior to the issuance of a 02:33:07.080 --> 02:33:12.560 building permit just a little background for those of you who may not have seen a 02:33:12.560 --> 02:33:16.720 razor ranch site plan the overlay district requires the site plans go 02:33:16.720 --> 02:33:19.080 through the planning and zoning Commission rather than being approved by 02:33:19.080 --> 02:33:23.960 staff the site plans are required by the overlay district to contain a site plan 02:33:23.960 --> 02:33:29.120 landscape plan and building elevations the overlay district provides four 02:33:29.120 --> 02:33:33.040 criteria for approval that the plans substantially comply with the concept or 02:33:33.040 --> 02:33:36.320 schematic plan approved by the City Council that the plan provide for a 02:33:36.320 --> 02:33:39.520 compatible arrangement of buildings and uses that wouldn't adversely affect 02:33:39.520 --> 02:33:43.000 adjoining neighborhoods and properties that the site plan provide for adequate 02:33:43.000 --> 02:33:46.720 and safe vehicular circulation and that the plan comply with all other 02:33:46.720 --> 02:33:52.880 requirements of the overlay district so looking at the the concept or schematic 02:33:52.880 --> 02:33:56.440 plan for razor ranch this area is part of what's known as the south mixed use 02:33:56.440 --> 02:34:01.400 district of the overlay that's an area intended for residential and office type 02:34:01.400 --> 02:34:06.600 uses primarily the base zoning is an RMU district from the 2002 code so 02:34:06.600 --> 02:34:11.000 multifamily is a permitted use here if you remember last year development 02:34:11.000 --> 02:34:13.660 standards for architecture and landscaping were adopted for this 02:34:13.660 --> 02:34:19.840 district those are housed in exhibit C2A of the overlay so looking at the site 02:34:19.840 --> 02:34:24.160 plan there are three driveway entrances the primary entrance being on East Park 02:34:24.160 --> 02:34:27.960 Boulevard again in this case north is oriented towards the left side of your 02:34:27.960 --> 02:34:31.440 screen so East Park would have the main entrance and then there would be 02:34:31.440 --> 02:34:35.200 secondary entrances and exits onto Crescent Street and then on to a private 02:34:35.200 --> 02:34:39.800 driveway that's north of the property the areas in blue are these seven 02:34:39.800 --> 02:34:43.000 buildings that are proposed total of a hundred and thirty three thousand one 02:34:43.000 --> 02:34:46.080 hundred and ninety three square feet there are three hundred and thirty three 02:34:46.080 --> 02:34:49.840 dwelling units within these seven buildings the area in purple shows the 02:34:49.840 --> 02:34:53.560 primary location for on-site amenities that will include a pool cabanas 02:34:53.560 --> 02:34:58.360 outdoor community spaces as well as grills the site is well within the lot 02:34:58.360 --> 02:35:02.880 coverage and open space requirements of the district it the buildings are within 02:35:02.880 --> 02:35:08.320 the maximum height of 65 feet and they are providing 532 parking spaces some of 02:35:08.320 --> 02:35:11.800 you may remember within razor ranch they have to meet the city's minimum for 02:35:11.800 --> 02:35:16.120 parking but they can go above and beyond without having to do any additional 02:35:16.120 --> 02:35:20.280 items like seeking an ADP like other sites would have so they they're within 02:35:20.280 --> 02:35:25.400 that requirement as well this is the landscape plan as you can see in the 02:35:25.400 --> 02:35:28.400 table it does meet all of the minimum requirements for landscape and tree 02:35:28.400 --> 02:35:32.400 canopy as well as street trees two of the features I wanted to point out to 02:35:32.400 --> 02:35:36.800 you all are the the buffer that's shown here in light green adjoining property 02:35:36.800 --> 02:35:40.320 to the west is intended for single-family development so a ten foot 02:35:40.320 --> 02:35:44.160 wide buffer was required and has been provided on this plan and then the areas 02:35:44.160 --> 02:35:46.840 in orange are the enhanced landscape features that they're providing at the 02:35:46.840 --> 02:35:50.200 entry to really frame that main driveway as you drive up to towards the 02:35:50.200 --> 02:35:54.040 policing center this is a colored rendering that was provided by the 02:35:54.040 --> 02:35:57.240 architect to give you a better idea of how the landscaping is laid out 02:35:57.240 --> 02:36:00.720 throughout this area and again you can see the primary amenity center here in 02:36:00.720 --> 02:36:06.320 the center of the development so the there I'll walk through briefly the 02:36:06.320 --> 02:36:10.200 building elevations this is building one and two so these would be the two L 02:36:10.200 --> 02:36:13.880 shaped buildings along East Park this would be the East Park side of the 02:36:13.880 --> 02:36:16.640 buildings this is the side that would be viewed from either Crescent or that 02:36:16.640 --> 02:36:21.920 northern private driveway the buildings are proposed with brick and stone veneer 02:36:21.920 --> 02:36:24.960 as well as fiber cement siding those are all materials permitted in the overlay 02:36:24.960 --> 02:36:28.920 district that meets the neutral color palette requirement the razor overlay 02:36:28.920 --> 02:36:32.520 seeks to have a consistent theming of earth tone and gray tones throughout so 02:36:32.520 --> 02:36:36.480 they meet that and they also meet the minimum window and door requirements the 02:36:36.480 --> 02:36:40.720 overlay requires 20% windows and doors on all street sides 10% on all others 02:36:40.720 --> 02:36:47.640 their minimums are at 23% and 13% respectively these are the the back to L 02:36:47.640 --> 02:36:52.320 shape building so this would be along a private drive and as well as this side 02:36:52.320 --> 02:36:55.520 you would see from Crescent Street so again with the consistent theming of 02:36:55.520 --> 02:37:01.320 colors and materials this is buildings the internal building so these would be 02:37:01.320 --> 02:37:05.560 inside around the pool area again continuing the architectural theme I've 02:37:05.560 --> 02:37:09.560 also provided here as a snapshot of what the garages would look like there are 02:37:09.560 --> 02:37:13.640 garages along the private driveway so the backside of those would be what's 02:37:13.640 --> 02:37:17.080 visible from those future single-family homes all the garage doors would face 02:37:17.080 --> 02:37:23.000 inward and this is building five which would really be that main central focus 02:37:23.000 --> 02:37:26.200 as you drive into the side off of East Park Boulevard you would see the leasing 02:37:26.200 --> 02:37:31.640 office with an increased amount of glass there to provide for that open space and 02:37:31.640 --> 02:37:34.640 this would be framed on either side by those enhanced landscaping areas that I 02:37:34.640 --> 02:37:39.240 showed earlier staff is recommending approval of the request with the 02:37:39.240 --> 02:37:42.480 condition again that the end amending final plot to increase the size of lot 02:37:42.480 --> 02:37:47.320 four block a of the razor range east edition to 11.1 acres be approved and 02:37:47.320 --> 02:37:50.920 filed with Denton County prior to building permit issuance I'm happy to 02:37:50.920 --> 02:37:57.880 stand for any questions thank you very much Haley there is no questions like 02:37:57.880 --> 02:38:02.040 the other items if anyone's wishing to speak on this we'll certainly listen 02:38:02.040 --> 02:38:07.720 Krister Smith move to approve with staff conditions we have a first with the 02:38:07.720 --> 02:38:12.480 conditions commissioner Cole second we have a second with the conditions with 02:38:12.480 --> 02:38:18.200 the first and a second seeing no discussion call for vote on the board 02:38:18.200 --> 02:38:30.080 motion carries five zero continuing back into the order of the agenda we've 02:38:30.080 --> 02:38:36.640 already done five public hearings and so we will now jump back to item six our 02:38:36.640 --> 02:38:41.560 concluding item which is the PNC matrix I will turn the floor to Richard for an 02:38:41.560 --> 02:38:48.600 update and then open to questions or comments with respect to excuse me with 02:38:48.600 --> 02:38:53.640 respect to the obviously we had the notification discussion we still have 02:38:53.640 --> 02:38:57.960 the original work session item that was scheduled for the city initiated 02:38:57.960 --> 02:39:03.400 rezoning's we've sort of moved that will be coming back we're also in the 02:39:03.400 --> 02:39:07.560 process of holistically bringing I know we've been bringing a number of 02:39:07.560 --> 02:39:11.480 amendments to the DDC sort of updates we're now looking at just doing sort of 02:39:11.480 --> 02:39:19.040 a holistic maybe maybe bringing a chapter or the whole DDC at once to make 02:39:19.040 --> 02:39:24.560 some of those those minor adjustments or corrections the the only other items I 02:39:24.560 --> 02:39:29.400 wanted to update is just council actions on on the items that were before the 02:39:29.400 --> 02:39:36.560 Commission on 1217 the PD was approved for Ryan way if you recall there was a 02:39:36.560 --> 02:39:44.560 discussion regarding the alignment what was ultimately approved one was the open 02:39:44.560 --> 02:39:49.760 space area there was the council had required that or condition the approval 02:39:49.760 --> 02:39:54.240 that those be in a conservation easement that was that was essentially proffered 02:39:54.240 --> 02:39:59.840 or discussed by the applicant in addition they agreed to put a an emergency 02:39:59.840 --> 02:40:05.240 access gate at that at the entrance so there there would not be that direct 02:40:05.240 --> 02:40:13.640 connection with the condition that it be built upon a completely improved right 02:40:13.640 --> 02:40:19.320 of way the concern was and council members related to other ones where 02:40:19.320 --> 02:40:24.760 there were a community had was gated as soon as everyone moved in and then 02:40:24.760 --> 02:40:29.600 within a few a year a few years later they were petitioning council to remove 02:40:29.600 --> 02:40:34.240 that that access gate and so the condition was that that right of way be 02:40:34.240 --> 02:40:37.320 be improved as it would be a normal street and then have those gates 02:40:37.320 --> 02:40:43.900 installed the only other the SGP in rezoning was approved for the substation 02:40:43.900 --> 02:40:52.200 and then last night the I'm sorry and the r7 the medical office that was that 02:40:52.200 --> 02:40:59.480 was also approved I'm sorry last night other than that that's all I have great 02:40:59.480 --> 02:41:04.640 anyone have any questions are needing to add anything to the matrix this evening 02:41:04.640 --> 02:41:08.680 all right with that that concludes our agenda for this evening I close the 02:41:08.680 --> 02:41:12.600 meeting at 729