Feb 05, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-02-05 5:00 PM

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session for Wednesday, February 5th, 2020. I'll call the meeting to order at 5.02, seeing that we do have a quorum. Let the record show that Commissioner Pernitta is absent. This evening we're just working through the agenda. There's not any reports tonight, so we'll hop right into just the working agenda for this evening. The first thing is the minutes. Is there any edits or comments on the January 22nd minutes? If you see some before the meeting, let us know in the meeting, the public hearing. And then we'll move into consent agenda, and I know we do have some specific questions on individual items, so the first one is 3A, which is Cindy Jackson, and we do have some questions for you on 3A. You did have some questions? Yes. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So Cindy, my first question is about the ESA area in the southeast of the territory over near Roselon, and it looks like based on that we're potentially running -- hold up the wrong -- this would be phase one, that we're potentially running afoul of some flooding issues, and I know that the city recognized that it seemed to match code, and we're recommending approval, but I have some concerns about the way that the preliminary plat and the phasing are arranged around those wetlands and some of the environmental-sensitive areas, and I guess my question was more along the lines of -- can you refresh my memory, because I could -- maybe I just missed it, what their tree canopy retention was, and -- Sure. Well, they're under the old code. I understand. Thank you. So what they're doing, their tree canopy is the ESA, the 50% ESA that they are preserving. All that ESA that they are preserving will count as their tree canopy. So this is sort of where I got a little confused. So they're only counting the existing trees that they're saving in the floodplain and in the ESA, and they're not being required to do -- I know that's in our new tree ordinance, but they're not voluntarily putting anything in the street areas and the frontages? Oh, they will have to put street trees in, definitely, and they will have to meet the tree canopy requirements that are in the zoning district. They are NR4 -- they're under NR4 regulations, so they will have to comply with the NR4 regulations for a lot coverage entry canopy. And for the floodplain, do you have the map that shows the boundaries of that? I was a little confused on where those floodplain boundaries were, and how far into the ESA they extended. If I can find track it, I can bring it up for you. I believe the plat has the boundaries based on the format. Okay. Let me keep looking. Sorry. I thought I had my plat in here and I don't. If this is accurate, I'm showing the document, attachment 51673BB9, I can use that, but I guess I was a little concerned, especially on the southern boundary, that you get right up into phase -- you get pretty close to phase three there, and I'm concerned about that development on that side of the watershed as well. I just don't want to flood out people's homes right there, because there's obviously a slow down in the creek bed right there, because you can see the ox bows and stuff. And that happens all over Denton, and I'm just a little concerned for flooding of future residents. Well, they are going to have to comply with the drainage standards that we have in place, and the drainage standards don't allow any increase in downstream flow, so that shouldn't affect the surrounding areas, and I believe they're doing a Clomar right now. The applicant can -- if you want, the applicant can answer that better than I can, but they're doing -- I believe they're doing Clomar right now, and to reclaim some of that floodplain as well. So, as a point of ignorance, can you educate me what a Clomar is? A Clomar is a conditional letter of map revision approved by FEMA that allows them to go in and reclaim some of the floodplain and raise the floodplain up so that it meets finished floor standards and bring it out of the floodplain. So, okay. It's -- well, I see phases four and two and one all taking away drainage and dropping it on parts of phases one and three, and I feel like we're asking for an unfortunate circumstance to happen on that one. I feel uncomfortable with that, and then if you look at the gas well of the adjacent property up in phase four, that's a 300-foot boundary, and I know we can't apply our 500-foot boundary, but you know I'm going to ask about it. Yes. So, it looks like the 500-foot boundary is going to be that first row of western homes in phase four. Well, actually -- go ahead. Actually, I did do the measurements, and the 500-foot boundary is not going to hit any of the homes at all. Okay. That's -- It's open space that it's hitting. It's gratifying. I like hearing that. And I know that the applicant right now is working on capping the gas well that is closest to the west of the site, the northwest of the site. There's a gas well up there, and he is working on getting that capped. Okay. Awesome. That's useful information. Thank you. That's all my questions, Chair. Thank you. Any other questions for 3A? Question 3B, FP 19-21, is there questions for this? Yes, Chair. I had a question. I'll invite Julie Wyatt for this. All right. I'm ready. How can I help? So on -- what's the name of the road? Westgate Drive. I know there's -- according to the map, there was a buried pipeline, so I presume buildings are not going to go along that area. Correct. And there is a -- there's a public utility easement, which probably implies various kinds of conduit through the middle of the property. Correct. And then we have the -- my standard question about the distance from the gas wells. So I guess -- do we have an idea where they -- the Denton ISD plans on putting the buildings? You bet. So the building -- the main building will be -- is proposed for this general area. There are additional outbuildings, there are some field houses, there are additional athletic structures that are kind of oriented on a north-south axis in this area. There's band practice fields and other practice fields scattered throughout the site. In terms of the gas well setback, so the gas well is located in this area. And it does reference that pad site. No buildings are within 250 feet, and then also I measured it as well, and no buildings are within 500 feet as well. So this is -- this is in that provision within that gas well ordinance where if it was existing, if that plat was moving forward, it would follow the previous guidelines, it would be considered conforming. However, there aren't any structures within 500 feet -- buildings within 500 feet. That's useful as well. And you are correct. There aren't -- buildings are not allowed on top of easements. You can put parking or some other element, but the buildings aren't allowed on any easements. Okay. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. You bet. Thank you, Julie. Moving on, is there any questions for item 3C, 3D, or 3E? Great. So that takes us to items for individual consideration. The first item is item 4A, PP19-00278. I will invite Haley up for her presentation. All right. The PP19-0027 is the Elm Street Townhomes Preliminary Plat. This project is located at the corner of Sycamore and Elm Street, just south of downtown. Currently it is not meeting the technical requirements of the DDC, so staff is recommending denial. Previously, you all had approved a 30-day extension for this plat, and they did not come forward with any revisions to the project in that time. So staff is recommending denial. I'm happy to answer any questions. Great. Have we heard from them at all? I don't believe so. Okay. Is the procedure just to deny and let it sit until they come back? Yes. Once it's denied, they can resubmit, and then there is a requirement within 15 days that we would bring that plat back to you all for either denial or approval. Okay. Great. Commissioner Beck. So I think it's what the Chair just asked, so they have a 15-day window in which to get out of jail? Does it work? No. They can come back whenever they would like to. I don't believe there's a time frame assigned in the local government code. So once it's denied, they can take weeks, months, however long they need to revise the plat. Once they submit it back to staff, we have 15 days to get it to you all for consideration. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, Chair. I have a question. I haven't seen this one before. Can you tell me what the cross streets are? Yes. This is Sycamore. This is Elm Street. I believe there was a car wash on this portion of the property at one point in time that's been torn down. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I don't see any other questions. Thank you. Next item is 4B, also Haley. Yes. So this is a preliminary plat for Eagle Cove. The intended use is single family. This is on the south side of Dutchess Drive. So just to the east of 288, it's kind of a mirror image of the property that's north of there. It is being recommended for denial at this time. However, they did submit a request for a 30-day extension that would bring it back to you all on March 4th. Any questions? Chris, you're back. Thank you, Chair. Haley, so as I was reading through this, it looked like there was a number of unmet things in the table. And if it's within your purview, how likely is it that they'll be able to meet those needs in the timeframe allotted to them if we give them an extension? It's feasible. We've met with them. Their largest concerns or issues, I would say, are with trees at this point in time. Their tree survey showed them not meeting the standards of the code. I think there were just some misunderstandings on their part in how the ESA and tree codes play together. So they now have an understanding of that based on a meeting that Richard and I had with them recently. And I expect they'll be resubmitting soon to try and meet this timeline. Okay, and no, I think that answers my question. Thank you. I don't see any other questions. Thanks, Haley. Thank you. The next item is item 4C. It is Cindy Jackson's item, it's FP19-33B. Thank you, FP19-33 is a request for approval of the final plat for Fisher 59 lot 2 block A. Staff is recommending approval of this plat with conditions regarding the Associated Alternative Environmentally Sensitive Area Plan, AESA 20-0001. The plan should be modified to actually reflect the boundaries of the final plat and it must be approved prior to the filing of this plat with the county. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So help me through the paperwork and just the wording in the staff report was denial, but then the recommendation is approval, is that because there's conditions on it, is that how that's working? Yes. But in the report, the ESA was for not their property? Well, what they did when they had their ESA approved, they actually had some of the remediation mitigation outside of their property boundary. So they have to go back and they have to rework their alternate, their mitigation to have it all on their site and not the adjacent property owner's site. You will be seeing this shortly, we are working on this right now. So following on from that point, do we have a chicken and egg ordering problem? Do we have to approve one thing before another? Because it feels like we're being recommended for approval before we see, at least before we've seen their final ESA plan. Well, that is why it's conditionally approved and we won't file it until you have it, you have approved the ESA plan. We can't, this is one of the shot clot items, they had a 30 day extension that they requested to work on this problem and in the past 30 days we have worked with the applicant to determine what they need to do to bring it, their alt ESA plan into compliance. So they're working on that, they have submitted it, we have it scheduled for the next planning and zoning commission meeting. And in the meantime, if it's not approved, then we can't file the plaque. So if we see their ESA plan and we approve that, then is there any problems to them submitting this plan after that to get it in the right order? Well, because of the fact we didn't recognize the problem until after they submitted the plaque and the plaque was on a shot clock, this is how we're trying to address it. I don't know, I feel uncomfortable making a judgment where a chunk of it is missing. Well, actually, a chunk of it is not missing. It complies with everything as it's required to with the exception of their alt ESA. That is why it's conditionally approved, which you can do per the new legislation with the shot clock plaque requirement and when they meet those conditions then we can file the plaque. I guess I just don't feel comfortable with doing that but thank you. Can you elaborate under old conditions before the shot clock wouldn't have place, this procedure would have been different? Exactly. We wouldn't have brought it before you. We're only doing this with the conditional approval because this is the only way to navigate the ESA being needed to be separately approved but still have the city respond to the shot clock put on to you by the state of Texas. So maybe to Commissioner Beck's point, this is not the process that the city has. This is our way of navigating through the new code. This is the solution that Texas gave us with their foresight. Yeah, I understand the chair's careful navigation of what we are forced to deal with. I think the biggest impediment to this is the ESA. The rest of it felt fairly boilerplate but if the ESA isn't in alignment and especially because they were including bits and pieces of other people's properties beforehand, I understand what we're dealing with and it's not our fault, it's not the city's fault. Maybe it's not even the applicant's fault. I don't know if Cindy can address that. But it feels like we're being asked to make a decision about a thing that like you said or actually Cindy said, we wouldn't have seen before because the ducks would have been properly in a row. So I feel uncomfortable with a goose before a duck here. And the ducks were properly in a row until they submitted this plot application and we determined that there was a problem with the AESA. So there's no way to give a shot clock allowable deferment to after the fact, there's no mechanism for that? Maybe Cynthia, can you? It's very unfortunate. Can you address that we don't have any other options, I don't believe. Commissioner Beck, the chair and Cindy are correct. This is the procedure. They've already been given a 30 day extension. So we have to take action on it. And as was stated, the city can approve the plat with the condition that they get approval of the AESA. Any other questions on this item? Commissioner Anderson? Thank you, chair. What are the repercussions if they do not follow through with the requirements of the what they're asking for? You know, what we were recommending? Well, the purpose of this plat is fire code related. You see this drive right here. This is the second point of access for the development here. And fire is waiting for them to get this plat approved so they can build their second point of access and be in compliance with the fire code. So that's it? That's the whole purpose of the plat. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Thank you. To maybe ask the question a different way, how long does the conditional approval last before they can approve the AESA? I'm not sure. There's two years from approval from the approval of a plat till when they have to file it or record it with the county is two years. And they cannot construct anything until that plat has been filed? They have some, they will not be able to open the building until then. Okay. Great. Any other questions on this item? Okay. Great. I'll invite Commissioner Colback in if he can hear me, I don't know where he stepped out to. Okay. But item 4D has been pulled from tonight's agenda. We will not be addressing or considering item 4D, that ADP. That brings us to our public hearings. The first item is item 5A, which is postponed from the January 22nd meeting. It is presented by Sean Jacobson. The floor is yours, sir. Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner at the Department of Development Services. Request we're presenting tonight is Z1913 Cambridge Brook. This is a request to zone from a planned development to an R6 zoning on approximately 59.24 acres. As you can see, the subject property is just off South Bonnie Bray Street. To the north we have the Rourke Branch Natural Area. To the south is the future Southwest Park. To the west is actually a hunter ranch land that's designated for future mixed use development. To the west we have a number of large lot single family residences. We have a ESA and flood plain along that northern boundary, trees clustered to the east. The purpose of this rezoning request, the applicant stated, is to develop 203 single family residential dwellings. As you can see here, this is the concept plan that the applicant has presented. Important part of this request is the history of the zoning on this site. In 1991, City Council created PD 139, which included this site, and the concept plan for that called for a number of possible uses on this site, which included residential dwelling at up to 20 units per dwelling units per acre. In 1999, City Council approved a plan development amendment, which included a new concept plan, which allowed for attached single family dwellings, so town homes, at up to 12 dwelling units per acre on this site. There were minor changes, but essentially that's where we are today. At this point, the applicant could go in and develop town homes at 12 dwelling units per acre. However, they're requesting this rezoning to R6 out of the PD. The maximum density that would be allowable based on the R6 minimum lot size would be 7.2 dwelling units per acre, and the applicant's proposed plan, which of course you're not held to in zoning, but their proposed plan would actually have a result of only 3.4 dwelling units per acre. As you can see, the zoning here currently, PD and other elements of that PD, you can see to the north there, the original vintage PD, transition would be to R6. So we have general approval criteria that apply to all development applications, and as in detail in your backup, this does meet those. We will touch more detail on a few of them, but primarily we want to focus on the criteria that specifically apply to zoning requests, and for this case, the particularly important items are A, E, and F. So as you know, one of the most important things is consistency with the comprehensive plan, and that encompasses general criteria one and zoning specific criteria A, and future land use map is a key part of that. It designates this site as low-density residential, which is intended for up to four dwelling units per acre. R6 does not precisely conform to that, but if you consider right now, it could be developed at up to 12 dwelling units per acre. The fact that this moves the permissible development much closer to what's called for by the comprehensive plan, we really are consistent with that, and of course the applicant's proposal would actually bring it directly in line. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So I'm a little confused because if this is our map, we've got rural to the east, we've got our park to the south, we've got moderate residential. So it sort of feels like, and this is not meant to be pejorative, but we're cherry-picking to make it match the northwest, where this is just a hodgepodge of properties and it feels like we're not being consistent with the surrounding areas, maybe, is sort of my concern. So perspective on this, as I explained, right now what could be developed there would be up to 12 dwelling units per acre. So what this request is doing is actually bringing the possible density on that site lower than what is currently permitted. So it's actually bringing that more closely in line with what the comprehensive plan calls for in that area. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Cole. So Sean, what you're saying is, is this deal here reduces their density quite a bit. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. And also, if, with Commissioner Cole, the transition from a rural area to moderate residential, that natural, if we do the gradient, would be a low residential type, is that an appropriate kind of gradation from rural to moderate? Absolutely. So essentially you would have rural, and then we would have, depending on how it's developed, low to moderate, and then, as I said, potentially on the hunter ranch development, then a mixed use development that would be at a higher. And I do, oh, I'm sorry, I do want to take one point. So future land use map is not the only part of the comprehensive plan that we want to consider that. I mean, it's an important element, but part of what we also want to consider with this is that zoning out of the PD means that all future development on this site will be held to 2019 DDC standards. Right now we'd be using a mix of standards from previous development codes, including the 1988 landscape code. So it is very much in line with the comprehensive plan to actually be able to apply the development standards that were designed to meet that comprehensive plan. Beyond that, then we're also bringing housing directly adjacent to a future park, which accomplishes our desire to create more functional neighborhoods. And an additional point, so just thinking about comprehensive plan, when this was approved in 1991, city council determined that it met the comprehensive plan at that time, and it did. I actually went back and found it. When the plan development amendment was approved in 1999, and lower the density, city council said that met comprehensive plan at the time, and it did. It's only with this most recent comprehensive plan that the future land use designation has called for low residential. And at the time that was made, we had already approved 12 dwelling units per acre. That was, you know, the whole flow was much closer to that level, and it was actually put in place by what we see on the future land use map now. Chris Rebecca? Yeah. So when the city made those decisions in the past, did we have a park there at the moment when those plans were made? At the time, I don't know precisely when that park was put in place. I don't believe in 1991 that that would have been most likely an open natural area. And can you refresh my memory? I'm not as familiar. What's in the government institutional area, and what's the plan for that? So right now, there is a new fire station there that's also proposed for development of a new police facility and a training center there, as well as I believe an indoor shooting range. Thank you. Okay. So overall, it's our assessment that this does meet the goals of the comprehensive plan. Also want to look specifically at general criteria on seven, minimizing adverse environmental impact. So as I mentioned before, one of the important things about this zoning change is that it takes us out of the various PD-related standards and puts everything under the 2019 standards, which means that the ESA and flood plan on the site get the full protection of our current 2019 standards. That also for tree code, again, we're bringing that up to current instead of what was applicable in 1988. So in terms of minimizing adverse environmental impact, this is a great upgrade in terms of the standards that this development will be held to. Moving on to general criteria on eight, minimizing adverse impacts on the surrounding property. Again, we're looking at the fact that this represents a significant reduction in the permissible density that can be developed on the site. So in terms of any adverse impacts that you'd be concerned about with density, this request is to reduce that. And so that would really be in line with minimizing adverse impacts. And again, holding it to 2019 standards, including open space standards, which applies to any development, 5% open space, landscaping standards that would be consistent with what any other property in the area would be held to. We also want to look at specific zoning criteria, E and F, so how this proposed development, how this zoning change would potentially affect the public infrastructure in the area. So a TIA was conducted focused specifically on the intersection of South Bonnie Bray and the access road that would be put in place for this development. They determined that this development was likely to generate about 1,995 daily trips and that that future intersection would function at a level of service A, the highest level of service possible and would not require any additional lanes in order to do so. They would also be required to pay any and all applicable impact fees at the time they move forward with plaque. Water and wastewater, public water is available directly to the site. Wastewater almost gets there and it would be at their expense to extend that in order to serve the property. And of course, they'd be subject to all tap and meter fees. They would also be responsible for any applicable perimeter street improvements on South Bonnie Bray Street. And the access road would be, they'd be putting that into the south between the park and their property. So again, we're looking at the impact on public infrastructure. We're not expecting any negative, they'd be paying for fees to cover that. In terms of schools, I contacted Denton ISD and was able to find out at the expected, used their generation calculator and as you can see there, the expected students, students that are expected to be generated by this development would be much less than the additional capacity that was available for each school in the last year. And then of course, on parks, we have a park just to the south there, so this would be well within our desired radius. We're putting a neighborhood right next to a park where they can use that and of course, park dedication development fees would be required at Platte and building permits. So overall, this staff would say that this does meet the criteria. We did public outreach, newspaper, property mailing notices. We received no responses in favor or against. We also, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting that was on Monday and so I gave you all the notes from that. Two citizens attended, they had some questions about the timing of the construction as well as the size of the lots, the potential, you know, the expected cost of the building. Essentially, they were wanting, it seemed like they were wanting to determine that the house would be of similar value, properties would be similar to their properties at Meadows of Hickory Creek. They did not express opposition and I would say they were neutral to support it. So taking this, all this together, staff does recommend approval as this complies with the general criterion section 245E and the specific criterion section 272D. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner, can you go back to, please go back to slide 16. No, sorry, one forward, there you go. The boundary, the 200 foot buffer, the 500 foot buffer, are we doing it from the center of the property that we're talking about? No, that's done from the outer boundary. Outer, okay, because what it looks like is how close it is, it looks like it's from the center but okay, thank you. No, it's just a very large property. Appreciate it, yeah. Yes, sir. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Sean, I'm curious, do you have any thought to manufactured housing, which I believe changing to R6 opens up with an SUP if I'm correct. An SUP, of course, would require that that come back before this body and before city council. Oh, I know. It's just, as we were always told, it's not really a tool to keep something from not happening but keeping it, you know, with some conditions on it. So we would certainly, we would certainly have, they would have to meet a significantly high bar for that in terms of how that would fit with the neighborhood not having adverse impacts of our specific use permit criteria are fairly strong in that area. But you guys as a staff did not discuss that? That was not something that I spent great amount of detail on, but I know that if that came in, we would review that carefully and look at the impacts of that on the surrounding properties. Commissioner Beck. So if they're moving to, if we rezone, then the 2019 codes for everything apply, is that what you were saying? Yes. So can you, do you, do you have quickly on your slides what their, what their tree canopy numbers were for that because that's a little bit of a green area there? I don't have the exact tree canopy. There is a significant amount of trees and under the 2019 DDC, they would be required to preserve either a minimum of 30% or if they had a significant preservation area within ESA, then they would have a minimum preservation of 20% of all protected trees and they would also then have mitigation requirements for the remainder of the protected trees. So based on the layout, I guess one of my concerns is based on the layout, there's obviously flood plain issues along the creek bed there and ESAs and green corridors that habitat that sort of thing, between, so one of my issues is the sandwiching of this property between the proposed facility in the north and then the park in the south, just it feels like this does not fit well in that overall architecture because you're tearing out things adjacent to a natural area and then you're leaving a strip of terrain and then a government, I don't know. It feels like it's not a consistent flow, even if it's maybe legal, it feels like it's out of place a little bit. So I would highlight that what this zoning change would allow us to do is actually provide a much greater degree of protection for those natural areas than we would be able to exercise right now under the terms of the plan development. So this is actually allowing us to put more of it. So for instance, the flood plain, we're able to enforce, they cannot infringe upon that. We'd actually put that, I believe in a flood, in an easement in that area and similarly with the ESA, we'd be able to use our current protections for those areas to make sure that those were protected and not infringed upon. So we're really getting a greater degree of protection for those natural areas. I would also point out that there's certainly a benefit to having neighborhood access to natural areas. Thank you, Sean. Sean, what's the most intense use they can build by right now? The only use that they can build right now is townhomes and it can be up to 12 to 1 units per acre. How many acres, I mean how many townhomes could be built right now? So I'm sorry, I should have had, I believe I may have put this in the back up. No worries, we can do it and if you could just pull up the public. Absolutely. I'm just curious about, I understand that this is zoning, but they're going to build 200 homes? They're proposing 230 residences, yes, sir. It seems like they could build 400 plus townhomes. So and I want to make sure I'm clear, within the PD or once they zone out? Yeah, within the PD right now, townhomes, they can do 12 dwelling units per acre. They're reducing it down to seven. So almost double. Yes. They have the right to build almost double the intensity than what we're trying to get them down to, if I understand that correctly. Which they're actually requesting them move down to, yes, sir. Right and they're not, once you go to R6, the highest density is 7.2 dwelling units per acre. They're proposing theoretically 2.3, did I read that right? Yes. And I would clarify additionally, that estimate is if every possible square foot in that property could be fully developed, which will not be the case based on the ESA entry preservation. Understood. Is there any other questions for Sean? Perfect. Thank you for the presentation. The next item is item 5B, Z19-11A. I'll invite Cindy Jackson for the presentation. Thank you. We have for you a request to rezone approximately 16.79 acres of land from Suburban Corridor Zoning District and Residential 2, R2 Zoning District to the Residential 4 Zoning District. The site is located between Country Club Drive to the west and the railroad to the east. And we've got Hickory Creek here to the south. This is a request to rezone, as I said, 16.79 acres of land. The purpose of the rezoning is single family subdivision, phase 2 of a single family subdivision. Phase 1, Country Club Estates, you approved the preliminary plat for this recently. And the preliminary plat for phase 1 has 130 lots. We have proposed approximately 53 lots for phase 2. And I want to note that the access for phase 2 will actually be taken from phase 1. You will see here there's two entries for phase 1. The southernmost entry is the access for phase 2. Here you see the current zoning map. You see the site is currently SC, Suburban Corridor, and R2. Recently the site transitioned that SC was originally CMG, Community Mixed Use General, and the R2 was NR2. The proposed zoning map, if this is approved, will be an extension of the R4 that is located to the north right now. As Sean noted, we have general approval criteria for all applications. I went into detail on how this site complies with those regulations and I'm going to focus more on the zoning criteria. >> Commissioner Smith, thank you, Chair. Cindy, what was the history of why that CMG was there out there in that residential kind of rural area? >> You know, I don't have why it was zoned CMG. I know in your backup I have the history of all of the different rezoning that had taken place and I don't have why it was rezoned to CMG, I'm sorry. >> I can find out for you if you want before-- >> I just wanted to-- I'll see what-- I thought I missed it in the backup so I'm going to go see it and I'm going to re-read through it and if I have more questions I'll ask it in public. >> Okay. >> So thanks. I appreciate it. >> The first criteria is whether or not it complies with the future land use designation. The future land use designation for this site is a mix. It is both low density residential as well as a neighborhood mixed use. The site complies with the low density residential designation. They are proposing only four dwelling units per acre which is the maximum density permitted in the low density. It also applies to transition areas between established single family neighborhoods and mixed use or commercial areas. This is actually adjacent to-- the entire subdivision is adjacent to an SC zone area so it would eventually provide a transition between SC and then NR4 and then the low density and rural areas that are to the south. This also applies to transition area-- well, that's transition areas and key corridors. I do want to note that this site is relatively undeveloped right now so the recent approval of the CIP plan for Hickory Creek will enable this area to open up for development and you'll see more development in this area in the future. There are no smaller area plans for this location. The purpose statement of the R4 district is to accommodate a variety of housing uses and housing types on lots to encourage walking to neighborhood serving retail. Well, as I discussed, it is adjacent to the SC zoning district. Eventually someday there will be neighborhood serving retail in this area, however, it's not there right now. The R4 district therefore satisfies this locational requirement. And the significant change in the area to warrant the zoning change is actually the future improvement of Hickory Creek. Hickory Creek is planned to be realigned from this curvilinear type alignment that you see to a straight shot across the southern portion to Brush Creek and this is actually going to make it much easier for people to get in here and to get this developed. Per the traffic analysis for phase one and phase two, Country Club Road must be widened by one lane each direction to accommodate the southbound traffic and a southbound left turn lane that will be required when-- prior to occupancy of the homes in phase two. Country Club Road is designated as the secondary arterial. It's got an ultimate right of way of 110 feet and the right of way will be dedicated at the final plat stage equal to half of what is required for the frontage of this site. Water and wastewater services are available to the site. There is capacity within the system to serve the proposal. No extensions of public utilities will be required to support phase two. The park is located approximately 1.25 miles. It's Cross Timbers Park to the east that is the closest park right now. Again, the-- as was mentioned previously, the Parks and Rec Department are updating their parks master plan and they may be looking at this area with regards to parks in the future. >> Mr. Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. Cindy, so if that park requirement didn't change before homes went in, they'd be required to build with playgrounds and park sort of facilities within the property? Is that correct? >> No, no. Phase two is they dedicate park fees that will be used for future parks. >> Okay. >> Right. The park fee is based on acreage with the-- and on-- with the building permit by dwelling unit. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Schools, I contacted the DISD regarding this site. This phase two will generate approximately 13 elementary students, seven medical school students and eight high school students. They stated that Ryan Elementary will not be able to accommodate these additional students so they will likely attend Borman Elementary School. The fire station is fire station number six located on Teasley Lane and it is located within the eight minutes or less time response boundary. Information was sent out and we received three notices in favor of this property request. One of the notice is actually from the applicant who owns the property or surrounding it and that brings the in favor percentage to 61%. If you take out the property owner, the percentage in favor goes down to 5%. We received none in opposition. A neighborhood meeting was not held. There's so few property owners around this area that the applicant's representative actually went around and talked to each property owner individually. >> Thank you, Mr. Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. This is a complete aside. I think it's the first time I've ever seen where we had road or easement running through the middle of the buffer so we don't-- that-- that-- because that's a road right there, right, so I guess I just-- my own edification, I never knew that 200-- there's 100 feet of road there or whatever it is, it wouldn't be 100 feet, that big old road. But there's a big chunk of road that runs there, 100 feet of road and easement on either-- right away on either side of that, that's-- takes up a big old chunk, but I guess I just never knew that. >> So were you talking about this right here? >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's actually a railroad. >> Oh, it's railroad. Okay. Still, same thing. I've never seen it before where it's done that, so I guess I just didn't know. So it doesn't matter, just it's-- >> Yeah. >> Don't go further than that. Okay. Thanks. >> Staff recommends approval of the request as it is basically compatible with the surrounding property and is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030. >> Mr. Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. The backup doesn't have the reason-- the history of why it was SC, so-- >> Okay. I'll look at it for you. >> I thought I would have caught it when I read it this weekend, but yeah. If you can just find out-- >> I sure will. >> Want to know why it was SC in the first place. >> Mm-hmm. >> All it says in there is that there was-- it was-- a change was made in 2011. There's a final platyper in 2012. >> Yeah. >> So what? >> The plat in 2012 was for a park. When I looked at-- >> And park would have fallen on a CMG at that time? >> Yeah. Well, you can park everywhere. >> Yeah. I'm guessing could. >> Yeah. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. >> Didn't know. >> Yeah. >> Why I would have had to change the CMG then for it to be a park. >> Right. It was Hickory Park. >> Right. It was supposed to be a water-based park. >> I'm sorry. >> Because there's-- >> Park's department. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. If you can just find out the history. >> Sure. >> I'd appreciate it. Thanks. >> So Cindy, I have a question. On slide 10, you talked about the obligations to widen Country Club Road by one lane. >> Either side, yeah. >> Yeah. So that's widening Country Club on either side, one lane, for the duration of their property line or just by the entrances? >> It would be for their frontage. >> Okay. So next question. What is the city's plan on Country Club if we are about to bring in Hickory Creek? Is the city planning on widening-- first of all, is Country Club a city street? Is that a text dot? >> Text dot. >> Is there any plans for-- oh, I already know the answer. Is there any plans for text dot to widen that and the timeline of it? I know we've done light studies at Ryan in 1830 for a signal light there that was at that time denied. I'd like to know the plans for Country Club expansion if you don't have that. Because I'm concerned specifically in that area on-- I'm reminded of Ryan Road right now. Ryan Road, for those who don't drive it, has been piece milled together by the developments that have gone in. And so you go from a two lane to a four lane to a turn lane and you're kind of S-curving almost the duration of that entire street. And I find that particularly dangerous on Country Club because the speed limit is 45 there. And right where Hickory Creek hits Country Club right now is a very dangerous S-curve already in the road. And so in my mind, I'm thinking at speed, you're going through an S-curve at 45 right into another alignment of roads. I'm not a fan of all that S-turning at 45 miles an hour. Again, Hickory Creek will be realigned to be perpendicular to Country Club as it shows here. And this will go away. No, I understand that. The S-curve I'm talking about is just north of that right where your icon was or cursor. It's on Country Club. There's a S-bend on Country Club right near the Hickory Creek. So even if Hickory Creek was realigned, if Textodd or the city doesn't do anything with Country Club, that is a potential danger to drivers. Ryan Road is already crazy enough and you're going 30. And we're about to up the game a little bit at 45 miles an hour. So I'd be extremely interested in the prioritization that Textodd has about this intersection and the expansion of Country Club the entire way, not just in front of that development. Okay. That's what I was thinking. Any other questions for Cindy on this? Thank you very much, Cindy. Thank you. The next item is also you, Cindy, it's item 5C, Z-19-14B. Okay, this is a request to rezone 0.154 acres from residential 4R4 to mixed use neighborhood MN to bring a commercial parking lot into compliance with the 2019 Denton Code. The subject property is located generally at 311 Janney Street, approximately 172 feet north of McKinney Street. This request is due to a code compliance issue. The parking lot was constructed without permits and is not a permitted use in the R4 district. If this request is approved, the applicant will have to replat the site into one lot. This parking lot is part of the site for the Yale Law Office. It's an additional parking lot that they use. So they will have to replat this into one lot and they will have to look and see what they need to do to bring it into compliance with standards. This shows the current map, zoning map. You can see that the MN district is along the north side of McKinney Street, east of Janney and this would be an extension of the MN district to the north to this lot. The MN district was transitioned from NRMU 12, I believe, no, NRMU and the NR4 district was transitioned to R4 recently. And this shows the proposed zoning map and you can see it's an extension. As mentioned previously, we have general approval criteria for all applications. This site complies with all of those approval criteria as detailed in your backup. I will focus on the zoning criteria in Section 272D. With regards to the Denton Plan 2030, the site has multiple designations, government institutional, downtown compatibility area and low residential. The site complies with the downtown compatibility area. This designation actually applies to residential and commercial areas adjacent to the downtown core and it provides a transition between the downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods to preserve the character of the area through use, the use of context sensitive development. There are no small area plans for this particular site. Criteria three, consistent with the purpose statement of the zoning district. The MN district is provided to support compatibility between higher intensity mixed use areas and adjacent residential and commercial areas which you can see all along the north side of McKinney Street. This MN district in this location satisfies the locational requirements. It's going to be located between the lower intensity R4 district to the north and the East McKinney Street corridor to the south. There have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change. Well past few years we have seen a few rezonings approved for this area right here right across the street to the east. This site was rezoned from neighborhood residential 4 NR4 and NRMU along the McKinney Street frontage with the remainder rezoned to neighborhood 6 with an overlay. In 2017 that portion of the site that was zoned NR6 was rezoned NRMU 12 with an overlay. The two rezoning applications changed the nature of the area from single family to residential and for that reason this request actually complies with the surrounding development now. It's Justice Plaza, it's just recently a couple buildings have just recently been completed there. Streets, the parking lot has been in this location for several years. We don't anticipate that it will further impact any traffic in the area. There has been no issues thus far so we don't anticipate any future issues. With regards to water and waste water, since the use is a non-habitable use and it's just a parking lot, it doesn't require access to water and waste water. And the same with parks, it's non-habitable and will not require access to parks. With schools, it will not affect the student population and the subject property is a 1.2 class from fire station number two on McKinney Street within the eight minutes or less response time. We sent out notifications, we received back six in favor of this request totaling 38% of the property within the 200 foot boundary. We also had the applicant also had a neighborhood meeting on January 21st. One person showed up before the meeting started, indicated they had no problems for it and left and we had no other -- nobody else attended the meeting. Staff recommends approval of this request, it is compatible with the surrounding property and is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Denton plan 2030. That concludes my presentation. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair, so okay, I guess I'm a little confused because in the documents I was reading, staff was recommending denial? >> No, that was error. We were originally recommending denial and decided we were going to recommend approval and it was changed on the AIS but not the staff analysis. >> Ah, okay. I guess I mixed up the documentation. >> Yeah, I understand that. I apologize for that confusion. >> Any other questions for Cindy? Commissioner Alice. >> Thank you, Chair. Cindy, earlier you mentioned they have to replat it together. Does that need to be a condition of this? >> I don't know. Can we condition zoning on platting? >> I don't necessarily think it needs to be a condition. They still have a code enforcement action that will not be resolved until they straighten that out. >> Okay, so they wouldn't have an approved parking lot without replatting it? >> Correct. They're going to have to replat to bring it into one lot and then meet the new standards of the code. This is really step one. >> Okay. Yeah, they have been operating incorrectly for quite a long time. >> Any other questions? Thank you very much, Cindy. >> Sure. Item is 5D, DCA 19-24A, and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for a presentation. >> All right, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I'm presenting DCA 19-24A, ECIS and platting. I got very lucky in that we had a prime example as to why we needed this code amendment tonight. So we'll go over this quickly, and I'll happily answer any questions you have regarding it. So the request is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council regarding a proposed revision to subchapter two, the administration and procedures subchapter related to alternative environmentally sensitive area plans and platting. This is a staff-initiated code amendment to remedy conflicting regulations in the 2019 DDC. So some background on ECIS, I know you all are pretty familiar with them. They are certain areas with ecological value. As you know, they're mapped on our city's mapping system, and it can create physical constraints for a site because development is limited within ESAs. You cannot impact those ESAs or disturb them without additional approvals through the alternative ESA plan process and dual public hearing process and approval by city council. The alternative ESA plan is necessary to provide relief from the ESA regulations in targeted specific instances, particularly on some complex sites that we have, where it really does restrict development or maybe connectivity. Typically all ESA plans include mitigation, which is something that you discussed tonight with Cindy's plat. Often it will kind of change the map, so maybe an ESA area would be removed for something like a roadway in one area, but then additional ESA would be added in an additional area, so that would be mapped. And as I said, it does require approval from city council through the dual public hearing process. Our 2002 Dinton Development Code didn't have a lot of standards or process regarding alternative ESAs other than it had to follow what is essentially the zoning process. So the 2019 Dinton Development Code memorialized some of those processes and procedures and criteria for approval, and one of those is it requires concurrent review of a plat with consideration of an alternative ESA plan. And there are issues regarding this, and in one instance it's plat. So as you talked about tonight, the general criteria for approval, that plat must comply with the Dinton Development Code, including ESA regulations. Plats which propose to encroach into ESAs cannot satisfy that criterion without an approved alternative ESA plan. Alternative ESA plans, since they do follow the dual public hearing process, can take often several months to complete. There's typically some back and forth where we get that mitigation settled. But under the Texas Local Government Code, that shot clock item, plats have to be approved or denied within 30 days. So therefore, that submittal concurrency is difficult and is conflicting because plats can't be approved with that alternative ESA, but they also can't meet that shot clock requirement. So essentially, requiring plats be submitted that have to be denied, and it creates additional submittals and fees for applicants. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Okay, on that note, we just discussed that we were going to approve one. Conditionally. Conditionally. And it's really something we want to avoid. That seems conflicting, what you said there and what we just discussed, so can someone clear it up, please? Well, and with the plat that you saw tonight, kind of that conditional approval was sort of a -- it was something to make it work. What we'd like to do is clear up that and just not require that concurrent plats submittal. We do allow for the conditional approval of plats, but if we can avoid that, I think we'd prefer to just go ahead and have outright approval or denial. In these instances, we would prefer to kind of roll it back to the old way. In this instance, with the shot clock, we just were sort of limited. And the previous one was approved with conditions because they'd already been denied and it was being brought back within 30 days, right? Right. So that was even a more unique situation than this is generally covering. Correct. Correct. And this is that general process. Of course, there's going to be limited variations on the process, but from a general standpoint, we don't want to just create plats that would either have to be conditionally approved or denied. General issues resulting from new procedures, now we have the plan development process in the debt and development code where we didn't have that in 2002. If a PD includes a unique layout, something like a cluster development, a plat which conforms to that layout could not be approved until the PD is approved. Alternative ESA plans cannot be approved through the PD process. It has to follow its own separate process. We want to make sure we look at those individually. And so you can't approve the PD without the alternative ESA, but you can't submit the plat without-- or you can't submit the alternative ESA plan without the plat. And the plat can't be approved until the PD is approved. So it really gets these applicants and these projects in a catch-22. So what we want to do is really avoid this conflict and not create these difficult situations where plats get caught in either a cycle of denial or conditional approvals. And so we would-- we recommend to just strike that language altogether, just to remove that provision for platting concurrent with alternative ESAs. We did review this proposal against the criteria for approval for a debt and development code tax amendment. And we have some findings. First of all, the proposal maintains the review and approval process for alternative ESA plans. It doesn't negate that. It doesn't water down our alternate ESA plans, regulations, criteria for approval. But it does allow for more logical submittal timing, just more of a logical development process. The shot clock is really one of those items that did kind of bring this to the fore, that applicants are required to submit an unnecessary plat that could not meet the criteria for approval, which resulting in a plat denial with additional submittals and meetings and fees. So we really just want to avoid that from a policy standpoint. And you know, as we stated before with all of these code amendments, the debt and development code was a massive undertaking and it was a really complex document. And so this really is just a further refinement of that 2019 debt and development code. As it's being implemented, we're finding conflicts that maybe we need to resolve with that implementation. And I'll stand for any questions. >> Mr. Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. So you sort of started down the path of one of my questions and that was the effect of eliminating 2A3. And I understand that we're trying to eliminate the catch 22 chicken and egg problem and it's exactly what I brought up earlier about, you know, can we, should we approve this for that earlier item? But so one of the advantages of having the plat before the ESA is you kind of have a vague feeling for what the intention of the developer is for that area when you're trying to understand the ramifications of altering the ESA. And so I don't think we've gotten, I'm not sure this just shifts the burden to the ESA by removing the plat. So I'm concerned that in the process, is there a way to have a non-plat plat or a provisional plat or something where you have an idea of what's going into the plan without it being a shot clock plat? >> Well, and that is, you know, in some instances, maybe a preliminary plat is something that they want to propose. You know, what we wanted to do was to kind of leave it open ended and in those unique circumstances where an alternative ESA is, those relief procedures are being sought. We want to provide flexibility in that timing and that progression of the project. So that is something that we talked about because the applicant does need to have an understanding of what they're proposing and what's on the ground before, you know, really even an alternative ESA can be reviewed or considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. So, you know, on the typical development process, the very first step that an applicant will do is if there is an ESA, a possible ESA on a site, they'll do an ESA assessment just to determine if it's there and what the boundaries are. We'll have several meetings with an applicant to see what they're proposing. For instance, I'm working on a plan development right now where they are wanting to potentially impact an ESA and we've had several meetings with them. We've looked at their layout and then we've looked at the ESA, the limits of that ESA in relationship to that. So it doesn't, the alternative ESA typically doesn't spring from nowhere. There's a continuing conversation with staff in order to ensure that that ESA is in fact there, what the limits are and then what their proposal is going to be. So I understand for most development and developers and people are trying to work with a piece of property that 90% of the time just the sheer churn is going to give you what you want but I'm worried about the edge cases where you have a recalcitrant developer who wants to cut it right at the edge and do the minimum and that ends up creating a problem where you see my issues there. Sure. That is a concern. We always have those additional steps within the development process. Within platting you also have civil plans, you have tree preservation plans and then you have public infrastructure. So there's a lot of steps in the process where if there are concerns about those edges of those ESAs or potential impacts that you could stop and say hang on, we need to tap the brakes. If this is the direction you want to go, you're going to have to go through this additional scrutiny. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Schultz. Thank you, Chair. So Julie, I definitely understand why we're proposing this and it's the state that's really made this difficult. I guess what I want to know is there was a reason that we put it in there in the first place so what was the intent of wanting to run them concurrently and are we losing what that intent was? I mean, is this the best we can do to just eliminate it? I've had difficulty discovering that because actually when I went back and reviewed the ordinance, the ESA update that was done I believe in 2017 and then that subsequent update that took the tree preservation and ESA altogether, it didn't include this provision. Yeah. So we didn't have anything in writing in the old code that said run them concurrently. We just ran them concurrently, right, is just I guess. And there was a feeling at that time that it should, platting and ESA should run together and that's not necessarily a bad thing but conditions have changed with that shot clock and with the introduction of the PDs as a tool in our toolbox. They're kind of making that process difficult and kind of untenable. It's not that platting couldn't run with it. It's just from a broad perspective in general requiring it all the time. It's just difficult to implement and require. Okay. So we don't remember really discussing this as a staff that we want, hey, we want this put in the code. It just -- Unless Richard remembers a specific conversation. I've searched my brain. I really don't recall. I don't remember discussing it in the subcommittee at all. When we first started talking about it, I didn't think it was even in the code. Any other questions for Julie? Great. So that is our last item for the work session. Before we break, I wanted to just let you all know of an ordinance change for your edification because it might come up. Did council vote on this? Is this how they got voted? So council voted on this and it's now implemented. So the change is it now allows individuals to speak a second time at public hearing under a condition. Not everyone speaks twice. But I want to let you all know what the code or the ordinance says just so as we know if someone came back up and spoke, that might be permittable. It says only those speakers who previously provided input on a specific item will be permitted to provide a final rebuttal of up to two minutes per speakers. Speakers will have the opportunity to make a single final rebuttal after hearing the applicant's rebuttal as set forth in this section referenced here. So if a speaker comes up and gives three minutes of testimony, the applicant then comes up to say something back to them. The citizen has the final say with those two minutes. And so if they're rebutting something from the applicant, and they've already spoken, they're able to have an additional two minutes. So with that, I will close the work session at 618, we'll reconvene at 635 in council chambers. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for February 5th, 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 639. Just let the record reflect that Commissioner Panetta is absent from us this evening. The first item of business is to stand if able and provide a Pledge of Allegiance to the US and Texas flag. >> Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honored by the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Honored by the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Honored by the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. >> The next item of business is to consider the approval of our minutes from January 22nd. Mr. Smith, Mr. Anderson, we have a first and a second for approval, any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0 with one absent. The next item of business is our consent agenda. Mr. Ellis? >> I move approval. >> We have a first for approval of the consent agenda, Mr. Smith? >> Second. >> We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. The next item for business is item 4A, PP19-0027A. I'll invite Haley Zagirsky for presentation. >> Good evening. This is the preliminary plan for the Elm Street townhome addition. It's located at the southwest corner of Sycamore and Elm Street. Staff is recommending denial of this plant for the reasons outlined in your backup. A 30-day extension has already been granted for this plant and they failed to reconcile all the comments during that time. So we are recommending denial. Stand for any questions? >> I do not see any questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Smith? >> Make a motion and deny. >> We have a first for deny. Mr. Anderson? >> I second. >> We have a first and a second to deny. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. The motion to deny carries 6-0. The next item for business is item 4B, PP19-38, and I'll invite Haley back up for presentation. >> Good evening. The request before you is a preliminary plan for the Eagle Cove addition. This is located on the south side of Dutchess Drive, west of Loop 288. Staff is recommending denial for the reasons that are outlined in your backup, however, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension which would put the plant back on the March 4th agenda. >> Thank you. I don't see any questions. Commissioner Beck? >> I make a motion to deny. >> We have a motion to deny. Is there a second? Seeing none, motion fails. Commissioner Smith? >> I make a motion to approve the extension to date certain March 4th, 2020. >> We have a first for a postponement. Commissioner Anderson? >> I second the motion. >> We have a first and a second to postpone to a date certain of March 4th. Is there any discussion? >> I see none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 5-1. Next item of business is item 4C, FP 19-33B. Commissioner Cole, are you? Thank you very much. This item is presented by Cindy Jackson. >> Thank you. This is a request for approval of the final plat of Fisher 59, lot 2 block A. The site is located on the north side of University and west of Marsh Branch. Staff recommends approval of this plat with the following conditions regarding the associated AESA plan, AESA 20-0001. The AESA must be modified to reflect the boundaries of the final plat and the AESA must be approved prior to the filing of this plat with the county. That completes my presentation. >> Thank you, Cindy. We do have a question for Commissioner Beck? >> Thank you, Chair. Cindy, I'm just going to be careful here. The conditions are that if the future FEB 19th alternative ESA plan does not carry, then that's the condition for this plan and it would also not carry. Is that correct? >> That's right. We wouldn't be able to file it if the AESA was not approved. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I do not see any other questions. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Anderson? >> No motion. >> New motion, no? >> Yes. >> I make a motion to approve. >> We have a first, Commissioner Smith? >> Second. >> We have a first and a second for approval in the discussion. And Commissioner Anderson, just to clarify, you're approving with those conditions? >> With conditions, yes. >> And you're good with that second, Commissioner Smith? We have no discussion. We'll call for a vote to approve with conditions on the board. Motion carries 5-0 with one recusal. I'll invite Commissioner Cole to rejoin us. Item 4B is being pulled from tonight's consideration. So that moves us to the public hearing items beginning with 5A, Z19-13B. I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the public hearing. >> Thank you, good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner with the Department of Development Services. The item I'm presenting tonight is Z19-13, the Cambridge Brook Project. The request before you tonight is to rezone from a planned development to an R6 district on approximately 59.24 acres. This property is located just to the east of South Bonnie Bray. To the north, there is a natural area along Rourke Branch Creek. To the south is an area designated for the future Southwest Park. You have large lot single-family development to the east. And to the west is vacant land that is designated as part of the Hunter Ranch Master Plan Community for future mixed-use development. We have trees to the east of that property, a floodplain and ESA crossing the boundary at the north. The applicant has stated their proposed intent with this rezoning is to be able to develop 203 detached single-family residences. The concept plan the applicant has provided, you can see there before you. For this case, it's important to be aware of the site zoning history. In 1991, City Council included this property in PD 139, which was approved. The concept plan for that PD for the subject property authorized a mix of possible uses, which included residential up to 20 dwelling units per acre, among others. In 1999, a plan development amendment was approved, which included a change to the concept plan for this area, which called for the sole possible development to be attached single-family at maximum permitted density of 12 dwelling units per acre. Other than some minor amendments since then, that's where we are today. The applicant could develop the property with town homes at 12 dwelling units per acre. However, the applicant is requesting this rezoning to residential R6 based on the minimum lot size in R6. The maximum permitted density after this rezoning would be 7.2 dwelling units per acre, which because you asked about it earlier, I just want to note under the PD, that would be a total of 710 units that could develop. After this, it would be a total of 390 units, and of course, the applicant is proposing 203, which is a density of 3.4 dwelling units per acre. As you can see here, the current state, the PD, and then it would be, if this was approved, R6 zoning. So we have general criteria under the development code that apply to all development applications, and based on our review, we've determined that this case meets all of those criteria, but we will discuss some of those items in more detail. I want to focus primarily on the specific criteria for zoning case approval or denial, and the most relevant items in those criteria are A, E, and F. So we'll jump into that. One of the most important things that we consider with the rezoning request is that it's compatible with the comprehensive plan, Denton Plan 2030, and one key element of that is our future land use map. The subject property is designated as low-density residential, and Denton Plan 2030 tells us that calls for a maximum of four dwelling units per acre. The R6 zoning proposed would not precisely conform to that, however, currently, it could be developed as discussed at 12 dwelling units per acre. So the reduction to a maximum of 7.2 dwelling units per acre brings it much closer to what the future land use map calls for, and therefore, we would consider that it's compatible with the intent. It's moving much closer to it with this decision. The future land use map is not the only thing in the comprehensive plan, though. It's important to also recognize that by zoning out of the PD to a standard R6 district, that brings this site under the jurisdiction of all of the standards of the current 2019 DDC, rather than the mix of standards that would apply under the PD, and because the 2019 DDC was designed to align with the goals and intent of Denton Plan 2030, requiring that this property meet those standards really helps bring this property in line with the comprehensive plan. Additionally, it would help to achieve a 2030 plan goal, LU5, by bringing a neighborhood close to parks, make more functional neighborhoods. A last point is just to be aware of a little bit of the history of the approvals on this site. When this was approved in 1991, City Council determined that the comprehensive plan at the time, this was an appropriate density, and that was actually 20 dwelling units per acre. In 1999, the Plan Development Amendment, City Council determined that 12 dwelling units per acre, perfectly consistent with the comprehensive plan, future land use at the time. It was only the most recent comprehensive plan in which the future land use map moved out of step with what was already approved for this property. I think that's just good to be aware of, as we're considering the overall compatibility of this request with the comprehensive plan, and we would say that it is compatible with the comprehensive plan. Next I want to look at general criterion seven. It's particularly important for this site that's minimizing adverse environmental impacts, because we do have ESA and a significant amount of tree canopy on the site. It's important to note that by zoning out of the PD, we ensure that the most current standards in the 2019 DDC for protection of ESA and tree canopy would be applied to this site. Currently, we'd be applying a mix of standards on the PD, including the 1988 landscape code. So we're raising the standard of protection for our natural environment significantly with this, if this is approved. And good to be aware of that, this request would help to minimize adverse environmental impacts of development on this site. General criterion eight, very important to consider the potential adverse impacts on surrounding property. And the key point here is that this is represents, this request would represent a reduction in possible density. So any negative impacts you'd be concerned about due to density would be naturally reduced by this request because it represents a significant reduction. And of course, again, we're bringing it into being held with the standard, the 2019 DDC, which includes higher landscape standards, open space standards, and essentially ensures that it'd be held with similar standards to the properties around it as they develop. Zoning criteria E and F, and this is where we look at the potential impact of this request on the public infrastructure around the property. The TIA that was done with this project determined that the intersection that would come between the site access road in South Bonnebury, it'd be expected to see about 1,995 daily trips generated by this site. And it's expected to perform at a level of service A, which is the highest possible level of service with no additional turn lanes needed. In terms of water and wastewater, water is already available to the site. Water line comes close and bringing that to serve the property would be at the expense of the applicant. And finally, perimeter street improvements, the site access road as well as any perimeter street improvements to South Bonnebury would need to be constructed to meet city of Denton standards. In terms of schools, I was able to get in touch with Denton ISD and use their student generation calculator, and then they were also able to give me kind of the current capacity at the schools that would be affected. As you can see, the students expected to be generated would be significantly less than the available capacity in each of those schools. Finally, on parks, of course, the Southwest Park is headed and designed to go in directly across the street from where this request has been made, so you'd have a neighborhood well within a 10-minute walk of a park, and they would have to pay all applicable park education and development fees, time of planning and building permits. So I also want to touch on just the notification. We did send out letters and postcards with 200-500-foot limits. We didn't receive any response for or against. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting, which was attended by two individuals. They had some questions about the expected price that these properties would sell at, the size of the lots, kind of the construction timeline. They seemed satisfied with the answers they received and were neutral to support of when they left. Taking all this together, staff recommends approval of the request as it complies with both the general criteria in section 2.45E and the specific zoning criteria in section 272D for approval. With that, I'll stand for any questions you have. >> Thank you. Shawn, I do have a question. Commissioner Beck? >> Yes, thank you, Chair. I forgot to ask you this earlier, but with the zoning change, if it's approved to R6, any subsequent development would have to go through the normal planning and development process. Is that correct? >> That is absolutely correct, sir. >> Okay, thank you. >> I did not see any other questions. Thank you for the presentation. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. We do have a card from the applicant, so I'll invite Jerry Silo, I'm guessing, up for speaking. If he just states your name and address for the record, you'll be provided up to 10 minutes. >> Good evening, my name is Jerry Silo, I'm with the JBI partners, 2121 Midway Road in Carrollton. We do represent the applicant on this request this evening. Appreciate everybody's time this evening, especially considering the weather change. So I'm going to be as brief as I can. Jeff goes through a very detailed analysis, provides the commission with a lot of information up ahead. My goal here is to touch on a couple points that were brought up during the briefing session and maybe alleviate some concerns, just to give you a little brief synopsis of where we are and how we got here. This is the property shown up there in the orange outline is the Cambridge Brook neighborhood, south of Vintage on the west side of Bonnie Bray, I-35W is just to the west. 59 acres. While the zoning allows for a much higher density, the configuration, the lotting configuration, the street pattern that's shown on the drawing here, we have worked with our client to come up with a plan to develop the property. We fully anticipate that a plan very similar to this, if not identical to this, will be coming forward as a preliminary plan and a final plan. And as Sean indicated, we're proposing 203 homes that may be 200 and maybe 205 when we get to ultimate platting, but it's going to be right there, plus or minus one or two, which is 3.4 homes to the acre, which qualifies as the low density, irrespective of what the zoning designation allows for. That 3.4 to the acre, those 200 homes, that is a 71% decrease from what the zoning currently allows out there, which is 710 townhomes. And with that, there is a proportional decrease in the traffic on Bonnebrae, because that's where everything's going to hit, eventually up to Vintage or down south. So a 71% decrease in traffic from what is allowed at that zoning today. As Sean indicated, the level of service that we would be hitting at that intersection with our development is level of service A. We cannot get any better than that. It's only going to get worse if there's more homes. The school district, we are well within the capacity of the elementary school, the middle school, and the high school, same thing, the existing zoning would have that much proportional more impact on the school district. So we feel those are all benefits, not only to the community, but the associated entities with the community. We are asking for the R6 zoning, we're not asking for a plan development, we're not asking for anything special. We're very comfortable with Denton's development requirements and their standards. We had an ESA assessment back in March of 2019, we went out on the property, walked the site, what we are proposing with the design, we are avoiding all of the ESAs, the major one being the creek itself. There was questions, points brought up regarding the master plan and how this proposal related to the master plan. As you remember on the master plan, I'm not going to go back to you, but I-35, this area over here is primarily designated for medium intensity residential. And the area to the east of us is designated for low intensity residential. And so from that typical transition, you would go from medium to on the west side, low in the middle, sorry, and rural on east of Bonnie Bray. So in our head, that's a very logical transition from the rural on east of Bonnie Bray to the more intensive development along I-35, that transition of the low intensity in between. With respect to north-south transition, on the north side of the creek, we have police stations, fire stations, indoor shooting range. That's all sort of governmental that we really don't have control over. But if I have a park on the south side of me and a major ESA on the north side of me, I'm not sure what else would be more appropriate in that transition area besides a low density residential neighborhood. Obviously, in my opinion, commercial, industrial, none of that's appropriate. Some type of residential is appropriate from a land use perspective. And I think low intensity residential, as we're proposing, makes the most sense in terms of that type of interaction between those uses there. To address one of the commissioner's question regarding, even though we're zoning into the R6, it allows for manufactured housing with an SUP, that is not our intent at all. Our client's going to be building homes on site, just like every other home out in this area. The homes to be built are going to be very compatible to those built in the vintage and the Meadows neighborhoods to the north. This is a little more detail of the concept plan. With regards to the emphasis on the environmental sensitive area up here at the north end with the creek, the tree stands, those are a benefit to us. JBI has a process we call smart design. We try to find the best parts of the property and make sure that we emphasize them. If you go back here in the vintage neighborhood, you look up here with the creek, what they did in the olden days was they backed lots to that open space. So the only people that are really getting a benefit from that open space are the people that back up to that open space. What we have done is we have, for the most part, sited and run streets down to emphasize those open spaces so that on these streets as you go down, this is the top of the hill that goes down to the creek, everybody that drives down these streets, their view corridor is the tree stands and the creeks at the bottom end of the hill. We think that is a better design for the neighborhood versus the few people that back up to the creek. Yes, our client would get a few more lot premiums by selling those lots against the creek, but we think overall we are creating a better neighborhood by doing the design the way we do it. And we do that throughout, whether it is this project or any other project that JBI is involved with. But that is what we try to focus on. We are trying to make the best thing that we can so that our client has the best product that they can market and sell because it is a competitive world and they have to compete with every other single family neighborhood out there. So why should people come here? We can have 20 people that back up to the creek or we can have 203 people that have access to the creek. We think that latter solution is a better solution for the neighborhood. With that, I will end my presentation and be happy to answer any questions you may have. I appreciate you being here, I don't see any questions at this time. Thank you. This is a public hearing, anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn it for discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith? Move to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Anderson? I second the motion. We have a first and a second for approval. Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Congratulations. Next item of business is item 5B, Z-19-11A. I will invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and open the public hearing. Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, I'm Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department. I have before you tonight Z-19-0011, Country Club Terrace Phase 2. This is a request to rezone approximately 16.79 acres of land from the SC Suburban Corridor District to the R-2 Residential District, excuse me, and the R-2 Residential District to the R-4 Zoning District. The subject property is located between Country Club Drive to the west, the railroad to the east, and it's approximately 318 feet north of Hickory Creek Road. This is a phasing plan for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the site. Before you tonight is Phase 2 with 53 lots. Eliminate plot for Phase 1 was approved by this Commission recently. You'll note that the site does not have frontage along Country Club and it takes its access through Phase 1. That's preserving the ESA that is on this southern and western side. Here you see the current zoning map. The site is zone SC and R-2 currently and they're proposing continuation of the R-4 that is located to the north. I had a question during the work session regarding the origins of the SC and the CMG that it was originally. Thank you to my coworkers who looked it up for me. They had the answer before I even finished my presentation at work session. The CMG was actually the product of the 2002 city-wide rezoning. It was zone CMG to match the future land use designation of the site. We have general criteria for approval of all applications and I covered all of this in your backup and it does comply with these regulations. I'm going to focus on the zoning criteria for approval in section 272D. First up is the Denton Pond 2030 requirement to comply with the future land use designation of the site. This site has got two designations. One is low residential and one is neighborhood mixed use. This request complies with the low density residential designation which is intended for suburban development up to four one and two story single family dwelling units per acre complies with that requirement. Also this particular zoning district is considered a transition zoning district between the higher intensity zoning districts such as commercial areas or higher intensity residential and more rural areas to the south and this site complies with that as well. The second criteria consistent with relevant small area plans. There are no small area plans for this site. The third criteria is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district. The R4 zoning district is intended to accommodate a variety of housing types on lots designed to encourage walking to neighborhood serving retail and other amenities such as parks and school facilities while also serving as a transition area between established single family neighborhoods and mixed use neighborhoods. The R4 district in this location satisfies this locational criteria. This site is located south. The entire subdivision is located south of property zone SC and will serve as a transition between future commercial development and the SC district. There are no mixed use or commercial neighborhoods in the area right now. However once the residential development starts developing in this area we'll start seeing some commercial development come in. Therefore there has been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change. The significant change in the area is the recently approved CIP project for the improvement of Hickory Creek Road. When the Hickory Creek improvement project is completed it has the potential to open the entire area up for development. During the work session you asked a question regarding text dot plans for Country Club. Coincidentally the applicant met with text dot today so he will be able to address that for you when he makes his presentation. Criteria five is the intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding areas. Per the traffic impact analysis for both phase one and phase two Country Club Road will have to be widened by one lane in both directions to accommodate a south bound left turn lane at the southern entrance to phase one prior to the occupancy of homes in phase two. Country Club Road is designated as a secondary arterial with an ultimate right of way of a hundred and ten feet. Right of way will be dedicated at the final plat stage equal to half that required with the frontage of the site. There is a CIP project in the planning stages to improve Hickory Creek Road to the south of the site which will enable the improved overall access to the area and the applicant will speak to improvements anticipated on Country Club. With regards to water and waste water services they are available to the site and there is capacity within the system to serve this development. No extensions of public utilities will be required for phase two. The subject property is located 1.25 miles from Cross Timbers Park meaning it does not conform with the park department's goal of a ten minute walk to a park. This is as a result of this area in particular is relatively undeveloped and parks department is in the process of updating their parks master plan. As this site develops and they get more parks fees I anticipate there will be parks closer to this site. Criteria five, schools. We contacted the Denton Independent School District and per their formula this proposal for phase two would generate approximately 13 elementary students, seven middle school students and eight high school students. A DISD representative has stated that Ryan Elementary will not be able to accommodate these additional students and they will probably attend Borman Elementary. The fire station is approximately 3.8 miles away, fire station number six on Teasley Lane and that is within the eight minute or less response time boundary. We sent out notices within 200 and 500 feet of the site. We did receive three responses back in favor of this request. One of the notices was from the property owner and this green that encompassed the site to the west and the south is the property owner's land. That brings the response rate up to 61% in favor of this proposal within the 200 foot boundary. If you take out the property owner's land that takes it to 5% of the land within the 200 foot boundary that are in favor. We received nothing in opposition. A neighborhood meeting was not held. The applicant actually spoke to the property owners and told them about the project. Staff recommends approval of this request. It is compatible with the surrounding property and is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Denton plan. That concludes my presentation. The applicant is present to answer questions. Thank you very much, Cindy, I don't see any questions at this time. Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. I do have one card. It is Thomas Fletcher. If you just state your name and address for the record, you will be provided up to ten minutes to speak. Good evening, Chair and commissioners. My name is Thomas Fletcher with Kimley Horne. I am the engineer for the applicant, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you tonight on this project. This overall exhibit and before you right now just kind of shows the overall area with the portion of the track that is actually part of the zoning request. As we get into the next slide, what this shows, the actual property that is owned by the applicant is just right at 57 total acres. The majority of that property is located within the floodplain. When we went through and we looked at doing the zoning application request, we looked at it and we said, well, there's really no need to rezone the portion of the property that's not located outside of the floodplain. So as we met with staff and looked at the project, we made our application for that portion of the area that could be developed. The proposed 53 lots is located on just under 17 acres. That's a 3.2 density. So it's R4 zoning, which allows up to four units per acre. But the proposal with the site plan there is 3.2 units per acre. The other thing I'd like to point out, the R4 minimum lot size, the lot area is a 7,000 square foot lot area. With this proposal, our average lot size is about 8,600 square feet. So we've already gone through and done enough work on the site to lay the tract out because we were in the process of doing the construction plans on the site to the north. In order to make sure that we had adequate utility and access, we had to go and do some planning adequate for this site to know the layout and the actual number of lots and the average square footage. So the R4 is an average or a minimum of 7,000. Our proposed average is 8,600 square feet on the lot size. In addition to that, the minimum rear yard area on an R4 zoning district is 10 feet. Our minimum is 25 and our typical is 45. So we've got oversized lots that are going to provide a much larger yard for the residents. Another thing I'd like to point out, the two different colors of the green, we had a meeting earlier with the Parks Department with Gary Packin and we talked to them about their long range plans. They're in the planning process for their master parks plan, regional trails. And what we discussed with them was doing a parkland dedication of the land that's in the lighter colored green to the city. We met with them to see if they would have interest in that land. It does fit with their parks master plan. That is one of the corridors that they would like to do is a regional trail along Hickory Creek. So this is in line with that. It provides land that helps kind of create that corridor so that they can provide that regional trail. And that the regional trail would kind of, it would start kind of going up to the to the northwest and enter, you know, head that direction where they've got other parks and improvements planned. And wanted to go through with that, you know, go over that with you because the Parks Department is interested in acquiring or accepting that land as a park dedication. This is just showing the topography, everything from the site kind of drains. There is a tributary that runs kind of on the eastern portion of the site. There's a little bit of the area of the site that drains back to the west, goes through a culvert under Country Club Road and then south to Hickory Creek. Hickory Creek, Hickory Creek follows Hickory Creek Road just on the south side of the roadway. I would imagine that when Hickory Creek Road is realigned, that would possibly improve some of the floodplain limits in this area because that's kind of a an impediment to the floodplain. So once that gets removed, it may provide some benefits to the and reduction of the floodplain. Some of the comments or questions that came up in the work session with regard to transportation, we have done a traffic impact analysis. When we did the traffic impact analysis for phase one, we were contemplating the phase two part of the project. So we included that within the study. Within that study, it showed the need for a left turn lane to access this development. So we've gone through and actually have started the construction plans for that left turn lane. The left turn lane would be constructed with the phase one development. So it would be in place prior to the phase two development. I did have a meeting with TexDOT today to go over this. The TexDOT did make us aware that they do have plans to improve Country Club Road to four lane divided roadway. We were told that the schematic has been completed and is available to review on their website. The engineers that we were meeting with, they weren't sure of a timeframe for that. But generally, once the schematic is done, they enter the right of way acquisition. And then once it's funded, then they can move forward with construction. So don't have a timeframe on the construction, but can tell you it's four lane divided roadway and the schematic is complete for that. And the development of these projects would provide a significant portion of the right of way for this section of roadway. Another thing on the access to the site, the tracks that we're currently developing currently have four drives. With this development, there would be two drives. So we would eliminate two of those drives. So you would have less access points to Country Club Road. We are making localized improvements to the road system and then that's where we're entering the traffic, having the traffic enter the roadway. Another thing we've already done is we've gone through and we've done the tree survey for this site. If you look at this, this includes the overall track, not just what's included as part of the zoning. But within the overall track and looking at what trees would be removed for the development, we are proposing over 75% tree preservation with a lot, a significant portion of those trees being located in the land that we're working with the city to donate as parkland. So also on this exhibit, you'll see that we are showing the trees along Country Club Road to be removed. We don't necessarily need to remove those with this project unless there's visibility or safety reasons to do so. What we wanted to do is make sure that when we looked at our calculation that we, knowing that Country Club Road will be widened, that we took that into account with our tree preservation calculations. So even with those trees being removed, over 75% tree preservation. So really the community benefits, oversized lots compared to the R4 minimums, FM1830 improvements with left turn lane and widening, tree preservation greater than 75%, parkland dedication that would be in excess of 30 acres. There's no ESA impacts proposed. There are ESA on the overall project and we're staying out of those areas. And then the existing gas wells that are around or within this area are over 1,500 feet from the development. So there's no, from a gas well standpoint, what we're proposing is well in excess of the current ordinance. With that, that concludes my presentation and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Fletcher, I do not see any questions. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for a motion or discussion. Commissioner Smith. Move to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. Congratulations. Next item of business is item 5CZ19-14B. I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and open the public hearing. Thank you, again, for the record, I'm Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department and I have before you today Z19-0014, Janney Street. It's a request to rezone 0.154 acre lot from residential R4 district to the mixed use MN district to bring an existing commercial parking lot into compliance with the 2019 Denton Development Code. The subject property is located at 311 Janney Street, approximately 172 feet north of East McKinney Street. Here you can see the current zoning map on the left and you can see the site is adjacent to an MN zoning district that runs along the length of the north side of McKinney Street. If this is approved, this will be a continuation of the MN to the north onto the subject site. We have general criteria for approval of all applications. I went through an analysis of this to show you that this complies with all of that criteria in your backup. We have zoning criteria for approval that I will focus on in Section 272D of the Denton Development Code. Criteria one, does the site comply with the Denton Plan 2030 land use designation? The site has several designations due to its location, its designated government institutional, downtown compatibility area and low residential. This site complies with the downtown compatibility area. This area, downtown compatibility, applies to residential and commercial areas adjacent to the downtown core and it provides a transition between downtown and surrounding areas and neighborhoods to preserve the character of the area through the use of context-sensitive development. Criteria two, is it consistent with relevant small area plans and there are no small area plans for this location? Criteria three, is it consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district? The MN district is provided to support compatibility between higher intensity mixed use areas and adjacent residential and commercial areas. This MN district proposed in this location satisfies the locational requirement. It will be located between the lower intensity R4 zoning to the north and East McKinney Street corridor to the south. Criteria four, have there been or will there be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change? The changes that have happened in the area have occurred in the past few years, specifically rezoning of this site. This site was originally R4 residential and it was rezoned to neighborhood residential 6 with an overlay. In 2017, that portion of the site zoned NR6 was rezoned to NRMU 12 with an overlay. We had the transition for the Denton Development Code this year. This site transitioned to PDMN on the south side and PDR7 on the north side. The change of use on this corner across the street from residential to more mixed use commercial is what kind of opened the door for this kind of proposal to be recommended for approval. It is compatible with the surrounding area to the east and the south and the southwest. Criteria five, the intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding areas. With regards to streets, the parking lot has been in this location for several years. It has not had adverse effect as of yet and it's not expected to have an adverse effect in the future. Water and wastewater, the parking lot does not require the access to water and wastewater and will not necessitate the need for extension of services. With regards to location of parks, since the parking lot is not habitable, it does not require access to parks. With regards to schools, this parking lot will not affect the student population. With regards to the fire station location, the subject property is approximately 1.2 miles from fire station number two located at 2209 East McKinney Street and that is within the eight minute or less response time boundary. We did send out notices within 200 and 500 feet. I just handed you at the day as another notice that the applicant brought in another response that was in favor of this request. I have not had time to calculate the increase in the percentage of land area within 200 feet. However, that will be done prior to the city council meeting. As it stands with the six that we did have prior to this meeting, the land area in favor of this request within the 200 foot boundary is 38%. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting on January 21st. One person attended and that was before the meeting started and stated they had no issues with the proposed rezoning. Staff recommends approval of this request. It is compatible with the surrounding property and is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030. That concludes my presentation and the applicant is present if you have any questions. >> Thank you, Cindy. I don't have any questions for you. I appreciate the presentation. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may do so. I do have one card. Roger Yale. >> I'm the applicant. >> Perfect. If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have ten minutes to speak. >> Thank you, sir. My name is Roger Yale. My business address is 1417 East McKinney Street, which is the property immediately to the south of this parking lot. With regard to the percentage of folks that were in favor, I went and walked the neighborhood after we didn't have a meeting and knocked on every door, there were approximately eight potentials. I got six of them that agreed. The other two simply said we're not signing anything, not we're for it, not we're against it, we're simply not going to sign anything. My wife and I are the majority owners of the remaining property and that we own the MN property that is the subject of this location adjacent to it, then immediately to the west there's a street called Heady Street. On either side of Heady Street we've built two contemporary buildings in the past year that were in this zoning and they would be in the range of the 200 feet. We've also talked to all of the neighbors and believe that we're compatible and we'd ask the board to approve this. >> Thank you for being here. I don't see any questions for you at this time. Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson. >> I make a motion to approve. >> We have a motion for approval. Commissioner Smith. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second for approval. Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. Just wanted to say a couple words on this because this particular area I've had some comments on because I've been concerned for a long time about the encroachment of these commercial projects on this single family affordable neighborhood in our city. So I'm not a big fan of the rezoning request. I do understand that the owner has been misusing the property as a parking lot for some time. And I do understand that it's not going to be a single family home site again. So I will be voting to support this, though I have not been a fan in the past of supporting these rezones in this area. And I'm certainly a fan of bringing the property to code compliance. >> Any other discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 5B, DCA-19-24A, followed by Julie Wyatt for presentation. And open the public hearing. >> Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I'm presenting DCA-19-24A, ESA's and Platting. The request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city council regarding a proposed revision to subchapter 2 of the Denton Development Code that is the administration and procedures subchapter, and it's related to alternative environmentally sensitive area plans and platting. This is a staff-initiated code amendment to remedy some conflicting regulations within the DDC. ESAs are areas in the city that have ecological value. They are mapped, and that map does create constraints on lots. Those cannot impact or disturb those ESAs without approval through the alternative ESA plan process. That alternative ESA plan process provides relief from those regulations. Sometimes it is necessary on complex sites to consider the alternative ESA plan proposals. They typically involve mitigation. It's often a discussion with staff and provides mitigation with that alternative ESA plan. It does require city council approval through the dual public hearing process, so those do actually come before the Planning and Zoning Commission and on to city council for final approval. The 2002 Denton Development Code didn't have a whole lot of specificity regarding alternative ESA plans, so the 2019 code did add a little more in terms of process and criteria for approval. As part of that 2019 DDC adoption, there was a requirement for a concurrent review of a plat with consideration of an alternative ESA plan. There are issues associated with this, and in two particular places we'll talk about tonight. First of all, platts. When we talk about platts, they all have to meet the general criteria for approval and any specific criteria for approval, and one of those criterion is they must comply with the DDC, and that includes the ESA regulations. Platts, which propose encroachments on those ESAs, cannot satisfy the criteria for approval without an alternative ESA plan. Alternative ESA plans, because they require the dual public hearing process, often have a much longer time to get through the process and get approved. It can take several months, but under the shot clock provisions with the state of Texas, platts have to be approved within 30 days of a complete submittal. Therefore, these concurrent submittal requirements ensure that platts are going to be denied, typically denied, at the Planning and Zoning Commission because they can't meet the criteria for approval. And then regarding plan developments, so with the 2019 DDC we have PDs in our toolbox, something we didn't have within the 2002 Denton Development Code. If a PD does include a unique lot layout and something like a cluster subdivision or subchapter 7, or I'm sorry, 8 also has something like auto courts, those platts associated with those PDs could not be approved until that PD is approved because the lots have to conform to the underlying zoning. Alternative ESA plans cannot be approved as part of a PD approval. It has to go as a separate, but can be a parallel process. We really want to make sure that we, they have the scrutiny and that individual attention that they need. But that creates a catch-22 because a plat can't be approved until the PD is approved. But the PD can't be approved without alternative ESA plan approval. And then alternative ESA plan approval can't be submitted without a plat. So it really just creates some circular logic there for all of these processes. So as a result, staff is recommending a modification to the text of the Denton Development Code, and that really is just to strike that language requiring that concurrent submittal of a plat. Doesn't mean an applicant can't do that. Sometimes it may make sense for a development, but it would just strike it as that requirement across the board. We reviewed the request in association with the criteria for approval, and our findings were that the proposal maintains the review and approval process for alternative ESA plans. So it doesn't minimize our regulations or water down the fact that if an applicant does want to impact an ESA, they still have to get that alternative ESA plan approval. But it would just allow logical submittal timing, depending on the application. That shot clock that was enacted over the summer by the State of Texas really does kind of change the calculus for some of these provisions. And this concurrent submittal essentially requires applicants to submit an unnecessary plat. It just may not meet the final results. And so therefore, it would result in a plat denial or conditional approvals or some other mechanism that would just keep it going. And so we're proposing just to break that coupling and the connection of those two. And then this proposal is really just a further refinement of that 2019 Denton Development Code. It was a really big process, a lot of complicated matters were discussed and put into place with that code. And as it's being implemented, we're finding some little tweaks that we need to further refine. So this is just a part of that process. So that concludes my presentation. Staff does recommend approval, and I'll stand for any questions. Thank you, Julie. I don't see any questions. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith? Move to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0. The next and final item for this evening is the Plaint and Zoning Commission Project Matrix. I will turn the floor over to Richard for an update, and then we can discuss and question. Just a brief update in regards to the two items that were requested last meeting. We're working on getting that information, so we'll have a written response, both from traffic engineering, and I know Charlie is working on pulling together some of the information on the noticing about the opt-in. So we put it on there just in order to keep track of it, but hopefully you should have a written, at least a short memo explaining that, so we'll email that out. The only other items I just wanted to update on, some council items that were approved last night, and one postponed, the text amendments, the various text amendments that we had were approved. One, we did not move forward with respect to the criteria manual, so we're still working through that text. People will probably most likely come back to P&Z prior to going to council. The SUP that was voted down, I guess that was three meetings ago, two meetings ago, council considered that item last night. That's the reason the ADP was pulled off of the agenda. While the public hearing was held and closed, they postponed the vote until next week. There are a number of amendments to the motion to approve some of those, including funding a traffic signal, additional funds for parks, among others. So we're working through that final language of the ordinance. It was requested by the mayor that because there were so many changes, he didn't feel comfortable moving it forward without seeing it written, and that was essentially his reason for making the motion to postpone, which ultimately was approved 5-2. So I'll have an update at the next meeting as to the status of that. With that, I'll be happy to answer any additional questions. Thanks, Richard. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Richard, I did have a question. You said the amendment that was pulled, was that the handbook consolidation? Correct. It was the handbook, the ESA criteria. I think there's just some language that we want to make sure legal is comfortable with and the various departments that are associated with it. So you're going to bring that back? Correct. Yes. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. It's almost the exact same question. Were there particular concerns? I haven't watched the video of yesterday. Were there particular concerns that Council had about consolidating the... That item did not move forward. We pulled it prior to going to Council. Just completely pulled it. Okay. Thank you. Any other items for the matrix? I will close the meeting at 7 40. Thank you