WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.640
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work

00:00:08.640 --> 00:00:12.120
 session for Wednesday, February 5th, 2020.

00:00:12.120 --> 00:00:15.840
 I'll call the meeting to order at 5.02, seeing that we do have a quorum.

00:00:15.840 --> 00:00:19.120
 Let the record show that Commissioner Pernitta is absent.

00:00:19.120 --> 00:00:20.720
 This evening we're just working through the agenda.

00:00:20.720 --> 00:00:26.080
 There's not any reports tonight, so we'll hop right into just the working agenda for

00:00:26.080 --> 00:00:27.080
 this evening.

00:00:27.080 --> 00:00:28.360
 The first thing is the minutes.

00:00:28.360 --> 00:00:35.680
 Is there any edits or comments on the January 22nd minutes?

00:00:35.680 --> 00:00:40.320
 If you see some before the meeting, let us know in the meeting, the public hearing.

00:00:40.320 --> 00:00:44.760
 And then we'll move into consent agenda, and I know we do have some specific questions

00:00:44.760 --> 00:00:50.120
 on individual items, so the first one is 3A, which is Cindy Jackson, and we do have some

00:00:50.120 --> 00:01:12.520
 questions for you on 3A.

00:01:12.520 --> 00:01:14.000
 You did have some questions?

00:01:14.000 --> 00:01:15.000
 Yes.

00:01:15.000 --> 00:01:16.000
 Commissioner Beck.

00:01:16.000 --> 00:01:18.800
 Thank you, Chair.

00:01:18.800 --> 00:01:29.160
 So Cindy, my first question is about the ESA area in the southeast of the territory over

00:01:29.160 --> 00:01:42.160
 near Roselon, and it looks like based on that we're potentially running -- hold up the wrong

00:01:42.160 --> 00:01:49.360
 -- this would be phase one, that we're potentially running afoul of some flooding issues, and

00:01:49.360 --> 00:02:00.400
 I know that the city recognized that it seemed to match code, and we're recommending approval,

00:02:00.400 --> 00:02:08.880
 but I have some concerns about the way that the preliminary plat and the phasing are arranged

00:02:08.880 --> 00:02:17.740
 around those wetlands and some of the environmental-sensitive areas, and I guess my question was more along

00:02:17.740 --> 00:02:25.360
 the lines of -- can you refresh my memory, because I could -- maybe I just missed it,

00:02:25.360 --> 00:02:30.000
 what their tree canopy retention was, and --

00:02:30.000 --> 00:02:31.000
 Sure.

00:02:31.000 --> 00:02:35.320
 Well, they're under the old code.

00:02:35.320 --> 00:02:36.320
 I understand.

00:02:36.320 --> 00:02:37.320
 Thank you.

00:02:37.320 --> 00:02:46.240
 So what they're doing, their tree canopy is the ESA, the 50% ESA that they are preserving.

00:02:46.240 --> 00:02:51.920
 All that ESA that they are preserving will count as their tree canopy.

00:02:51.920 --> 00:02:56.120
 So this is sort of where I got a little confused.

00:02:56.120 --> 00:03:02.400
 So they're only counting the existing trees that they're saving in the floodplain and

00:03:02.400 --> 00:03:09.760
 in the ESA, and they're not being required to do -- I know that's in our new tree ordinance,

00:03:09.760 --> 00:03:14.960
 but they're not voluntarily putting anything in the street areas and the frontages?

00:03:14.960 --> 00:03:19.740
 Oh, they will have to put street trees in, definitely, and they will have to meet the

00:03:19.740 --> 00:03:25.040
 tree canopy requirements that are in the zoning district.

00:03:25.040 --> 00:03:33.320
 They are NR4 -- they're under NR4 regulations, so they will have to comply with the NR4 regulations

00:03:33.320 --> 00:03:36.880
 for a lot coverage entry canopy.

00:03:36.880 --> 00:03:43.840
 And for the floodplain, do you have the map that shows the boundaries of that?

00:03:43.840 --> 00:03:50.400
 I was a little confused on where those floodplain boundaries were, and how far into the ESA

00:03:50.400 --> 00:03:51.400
 they extended.

00:03:51.400 --> 00:03:55.680
 If I can find track it, I can bring it up for you.

00:03:55.680 --> 00:03:59.960
 I believe the plat has the boundaries based on the format.

00:03:59.960 --> 00:04:00.960
 Okay.

00:04:00.960 --> 00:04:03.960
 Let me keep looking.

00:04:03.960 --> 00:04:04.960
 Sorry.

00:04:04.960 --> 00:04:22.400
 I thought I had my plat in here and I don't.

00:04:22.400 --> 00:04:38.000
 If this is accurate, I'm showing the document, attachment 51673BB9, I can use that, but I

00:04:38.000 --> 00:04:42.480
 guess I was a little concerned, especially on the southern boundary, that you get right

00:04:42.480 --> 00:04:52.080
 up into phase -- you get pretty close to phase three there, and I'm concerned about that

00:04:52.080 --> 00:05:00.480
 development on that side of the watershed as well.

00:05:00.480 --> 00:05:07.000
 I just don't want to flood out people's homes right there, because there's obviously a slow

00:05:07.000 --> 00:05:12.280
 down in the creek bed right there, because you can see the ox bows and stuff.

00:05:12.280 --> 00:05:16.720
 And that happens all over Denton, and I'm just a little concerned for flooding of future

00:05:16.720 --> 00:05:17.720
 residents.

00:05:17.720 --> 00:05:25.440
 Well, they are going to have to comply with the drainage standards that we have in place,

00:05:25.440 --> 00:05:36.440
 and the drainage standards don't allow any increase in downstream flow, so that shouldn't

00:05:36.440 --> 00:05:46.120
 affect the surrounding areas, and I believe they're doing a Clomar right now.

00:05:46.120 --> 00:05:51.840
 The applicant can -- if you want, the applicant can answer that better than I can, but they're

00:05:51.840 --> 00:05:56.800
 doing -- I believe they're doing Clomar right now, and to reclaim some of that floodplain

00:05:56.800 --> 00:05:57.800
 as well.

00:05:57.800 --> 00:06:01.680
 So, as a point of ignorance, can you educate me what a Clomar is?

00:06:01.680 --> 00:06:09.560
 A Clomar is a conditional letter of map revision approved by FEMA that allows them to go in

00:06:09.560 --> 00:06:15.520
 and reclaim some of the floodplain and raise the floodplain up so that it meets finished

00:06:15.520 --> 00:06:21.560
 floor standards and bring it out of the floodplain.

00:06:21.560 --> 00:06:23.600
 So, okay.

00:06:23.600 --> 00:06:31.040
 It's -- well, I see phases four and two and one all taking away drainage and dropping

00:06:31.040 --> 00:06:40.360
 it on parts of phases one and three, and I feel like we're asking for an unfortunate

00:06:40.360 --> 00:06:42.840
 circumstance to happen on that one.

00:06:42.840 --> 00:06:51.840
 I feel uncomfortable with that, and then if you look at the gas well of the adjacent property

00:06:51.840 --> 00:07:01.080
 up in phase four, that's a 300-foot boundary, and I know we can't apply our 500-foot boundary,

00:07:01.080 --> 00:07:02.840
 but you know I'm going to ask about it.

00:07:02.840 --> 00:07:03.840
 Yes.

00:07:03.840 --> 00:07:09.560
 So, it looks like the 500-foot boundary is going to be that first row of western homes

00:07:09.560 --> 00:07:10.560
 in phase four.

00:07:10.560 --> 00:07:14.240
 Well, actually -- go ahead.

00:07:14.240 --> 00:07:20.440
 Actually, I did do the measurements, and the 500-foot boundary is not going to hit any

00:07:20.440 --> 00:07:23.200
 of the homes at all.

00:07:23.200 --> 00:07:25.200
 Okay.

00:07:25.200 --> 00:07:26.200
 That's --

00:07:26.200 --> 00:07:28.000
 It's open space that it's hitting.

00:07:28.000 --> 00:07:29.000
 It's gratifying.

00:07:29.000 --> 00:07:30.000
 I like hearing that.

00:07:30.000 --> 00:07:37.840
 And I know that the applicant right now is working on capping the gas well that is closest

00:07:37.840 --> 00:07:43.740
 to the west of the site, the northwest of the site.

00:07:43.740 --> 00:07:49.520
 There's a gas well up there, and he is working on getting that capped.

00:07:49.520 --> 00:07:50.520
 Okay.

00:07:50.520 --> 00:07:51.520
 Awesome.

00:07:51.520 --> 00:07:52.520
 That's useful information.

00:07:52.520 --> 00:07:55.520
 Thank you.

00:07:55.520 --> 00:07:56.520
 That's all my questions, Chair.

00:07:56.520 --> 00:07:57.520
 Thank you.

00:07:57.520 --> 00:08:03.200
 Any other questions for 3A?

00:08:03.200 --> 00:08:08.400
 Question 3B, FP 19-21, is there questions for this?

00:08:08.400 --> 00:08:09.400
 Yes, Chair.

00:08:09.400 --> 00:08:10.400
 I had a question.

00:08:10.400 --> 00:08:34.120
 I'll invite Julie Wyatt for this.

00:08:34.120 --> 00:08:45.840
 All right.

00:08:45.840 --> 00:08:46.840
 I'm ready.

00:08:46.840 --> 00:08:47.840
 How can I help?

00:08:47.840 --> 00:08:51.800
 So on -- what's the name of the road?

00:08:51.800 --> 00:08:52.800
 Westgate Drive.

00:08:52.800 --> 00:08:58.600
 I know there's -- according to the map, there was a buried pipeline, so I presume buildings

00:08:58.600 --> 00:09:01.160
 are not going to go along that area.

00:09:01.160 --> 00:09:02.360
 Correct.

00:09:02.360 --> 00:09:09.920
 And there is a -- there's a public utility easement, which probably implies various kinds

00:09:09.920 --> 00:09:12.240
 of conduit through the middle of the property.

00:09:12.240 --> 00:09:13.240
 Correct.

00:09:13.240 --> 00:09:21.160
 And then we have the -- my standard question about the distance from the gas wells.

00:09:21.160 --> 00:09:28.800
 So I guess -- do we have an idea where they -- the Denton ISD plans on putting the buildings?

00:09:28.800 --> 00:09:30.800
 You bet.

00:09:30.800 --> 00:09:37.280
 So the building -- the main building will be -- is proposed for this general area.

00:09:37.280 --> 00:09:44.960
 There are additional outbuildings, there are some field houses, there are additional athletic

00:09:44.960 --> 00:09:51.040
 structures that are kind of oriented on a north-south axis in this area.

00:09:51.040 --> 00:09:57.120
 There's band practice fields and other practice fields scattered throughout the site.

00:09:57.120 --> 00:10:03.160
 In terms of the gas well setback, so the gas well is located in this area.

00:10:03.160 --> 00:10:05.680
 And it does reference that pad site.

00:10:05.680 --> 00:10:10.480
 No buildings are within 250 feet, and then also I measured it as well, and no buildings

00:10:10.480 --> 00:10:12.800
 are within 500 feet as well.

00:10:12.800 --> 00:10:20.920
 So this is -- this is in that provision within that gas well ordinance where if it was existing,

00:10:20.920 --> 00:10:25.160
 if that plat was moving forward, it would follow the previous guidelines, it would be

00:10:25.160 --> 00:10:26.440
 considered conforming.

00:10:26.440 --> 00:10:30.960
 However, there aren't any structures within 500 feet -- buildings within 500 feet.

00:10:30.960 --> 00:10:32.240
 That's useful as well.

00:10:32.240 --> 00:10:33.240
 And you are correct.

00:10:33.240 --> 00:10:35.560
 There aren't -- buildings are not allowed on top of easements.

00:10:35.560 --> 00:10:41.080
 You can put parking or some other element, but the buildings aren't allowed on any easements.

00:10:41.080 --> 00:10:42.080
 Okay.

00:10:42.080 --> 00:10:43.080
 Thank you so much.

00:10:43.080 --> 00:10:44.080
 I appreciate it.

00:10:44.080 --> 00:10:45.080
 You bet.

00:10:45.080 --> 00:10:48.080
 Thank you, Julie.

00:10:48.080 --> 00:10:57.120
 Moving on, is there any questions for item 3C, 3D, or 3E?

00:10:57.120 --> 00:10:58.120
 Great.

00:10:58.120 --> 00:11:03.240
 So that takes us to items for individual consideration.

00:11:03.240 --> 00:11:08.280
 The first item is item 4A, PP19-00278.

00:11:08.280 --> 00:11:23.560
 I will invite Haley up for her presentation.

00:11:23.560 --> 00:11:31.120
 All right.

00:11:31.120 --> 00:11:36.920
 The PP19-0027 is the Elm Street Townhomes Preliminary Plat.

00:11:36.920 --> 00:11:43.320
 This project is located at the corner of Sycamore and Elm Street, just south of downtown.

00:11:43.320 --> 00:11:47.240
 Currently it is not meeting the technical requirements of the DDC, so staff is recommending

00:11:47.240 --> 00:11:48.240
 denial.

00:11:48.240 --> 00:11:53.240
 Previously, you all had approved a 30-day extension for this plat, and they did not

00:11:53.240 --> 00:11:55.880
 come forward with any revisions to the project in that time.

00:11:55.880 --> 00:11:57.880
 So staff is recommending denial.

00:11:57.880 --> 00:11:59.520
 I'm happy to answer any questions.

00:11:59.520 --> 00:12:00.520
 Great.

00:12:00.520 --> 00:12:02.520
 Have we heard from them at all?

00:12:02.520 --> 00:12:05.000
 I don't believe so.

00:12:05.000 --> 00:12:06.000
 Okay.

00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:09.400
 Is the procedure just to deny and let it sit until they come back?

00:12:09.400 --> 00:12:10.400
 Yes.

00:12:10.400 --> 00:12:14.160
 Once it's denied, they can resubmit, and then there is a requirement within 15 days that

00:12:14.160 --> 00:12:18.000
 we would bring that plat back to you all for either denial or approval.

00:12:18.000 --> 00:12:19.000
 Okay.

00:12:19.000 --> 00:12:20.000
 Great.

00:12:20.000 --> 00:12:21.000
 Commissioner Beck.

00:12:21.000 --> 00:12:25.280
 So I think it's what the Chair just asked, so they have a 15-day window in which to get

00:12:25.280 --> 00:12:26.280
 out of jail?

00:12:26.280 --> 00:12:27.280
 Does it work?

00:12:27.280 --> 00:12:28.280
 No.

00:12:28.280 --> 00:12:29.680
 They can come back whenever they would like to.

00:12:29.680 --> 00:12:32.080
 I don't believe there's a time frame assigned in the local government code.

00:12:32.080 --> 00:12:36.160
 So once it's denied, they can take weeks, months, however long they need to revise the

00:12:36.160 --> 00:12:37.160
 plat.

00:12:37.160 --> 00:12:40.520
 Once they submit it back to staff, we have 15 days to get it to you all for consideration.

00:12:40.520 --> 00:12:41.520
 Okay.

00:12:41.520 --> 00:12:42.520
 Thank you for the clarification.

00:12:42.520 --> 00:12:43.520
 Commissioner Anderson.

00:12:43.520 --> 00:12:44.520
 Thank you, Chair.

00:12:44.520 --> 00:12:45.520
 I have a question.

00:12:45.520 --> 00:12:46.520
 I haven't seen this one before.

00:12:46.520 --> 00:12:49.040
 Can you tell me what the cross streets are?

00:12:49.040 --> 00:12:50.040
 Yes.

00:12:50.040 --> 00:12:51.040
 This is Sycamore.

00:12:51.040 --> 00:12:52.040
 This is Elm Street.

00:12:52.040 --> 00:12:55.520
 I believe there was a car wash on this portion of the property at one point in time that's

00:12:55.520 --> 00:12:56.520
 been torn down.

00:12:56.520 --> 00:12:57.520
 Okay.

00:12:57.520 --> 00:12:58.520
 Thank you.

00:12:58.520 --> 00:12:59.520
 Okay.

00:12:59.520 --> 00:13:02.320
 I don't see any other questions.

00:13:02.320 --> 00:13:03.320
 Thank you.

00:13:03.320 --> 00:13:06.320
 Next item is 4B, also Haley.

00:13:06.320 --> 00:13:07.320
 Yes.

00:13:07.320 --> 00:13:10.800
 So this is a preliminary plat for Eagle Cove.

00:13:10.800 --> 00:13:13.360
 The intended use is single family.

00:13:13.360 --> 00:13:15.880
 This is on the south side of Dutchess Drive.

00:13:15.880 --> 00:13:20.600
 So just to the east of 288, it's kind of a mirror image of the property that's north

00:13:20.600 --> 00:13:22.400
 of there.

00:13:22.400 --> 00:13:24.400
 It is being recommended for denial at this time.

00:13:24.400 --> 00:13:27.760
 However, they did submit a request for a 30-day extension that would bring it back to you

00:13:27.760 --> 00:13:29.720
 all on March 4th.

00:13:29.720 --> 00:13:31.040
 Any questions?

00:13:31.040 --> 00:13:33.080
 Chris, you're back.

00:13:33.080 --> 00:13:34.080
 Thank you, Chair.

00:13:34.080 --> 00:13:39.880
 Haley, so as I was reading through this, it looked like there was a number of unmet things

00:13:39.880 --> 00:13:43.080
 in the table.

00:13:43.080 --> 00:13:49.900
 And if it's within your purview, how likely is it that they'll be able to meet those needs

00:13:49.900 --> 00:13:55.320
 in the timeframe allotted to them if we give them an extension?

00:13:55.320 --> 00:13:56.640
 It's feasible.

00:13:56.640 --> 00:13:57.640
 We've met with them.

00:13:57.640 --> 00:14:03.600
 Their largest concerns or issues, I would say, are with trees at this point in time.

00:14:03.600 --> 00:14:06.680
 Their tree survey showed them not meeting the standards of the code.

00:14:06.680 --> 00:14:10.280
 I think there were just some misunderstandings on their part in how the ESA and tree codes

00:14:10.280 --> 00:14:11.600
 play together.

00:14:11.600 --> 00:14:14.760
 So they now have an understanding of that based on a meeting that Richard and I had

00:14:14.760 --> 00:14:15.760
 with them recently.

00:14:15.760 --> 00:14:21.120
 And I expect they'll be resubmitting soon to try and meet this timeline.

00:14:21.120 --> 00:14:28.160
 Okay, and no, I think that answers my question.

00:14:28.160 --> 00:14:29.160
 Thank you.

00:14:29.160 --> 00:14:31.680
 I don't see any other questions.

00:14:31.680 --> 00:14:32.680
 Thanks, Haley.

00:14:32.680 --> 00:14:33.680
 Thank you.

00:14:33.680 --> 00:14:35.120
 The next item is item 4C.

00:14:35.120 --> 00:14:43.720
 It is Cindy Jackson's item, it's FP19-33B.

00:14:43.720 --> 00:14:54.120
 Thank you, FP19-33 is a request for approval of the final plat for Fisher 59 lot 2 block

00:14:54.120 --> 00:15:00.480
 A. Staff is recommending approval of this plat with conditions regarding the Associated

00:15:00.480 --> 00:15:08.000
 Alternative Environmentally Sensitive Area Plan, AESA 20-0001.

00:15:08.000 --> 00:15:13.640
 The plan should be modified to actually reflect the boundaries of the final plat and it must

00:15:13.640 --> 00:15:17.960
 be approved prior to the filing of this plat with the county.

00:15:17.960 --> 00:15:20.960
 Commissioner Beck.

00:15:20.960 --> 00:15:21.960
 Thank you, Chair.

00:15:21.960 --> 00:15:29.040
 So help me through the paperwork and just the wording in the staff report was denial,

00:15:29.040 --> 00:15:32.760
 but then the recommendation is approval, is that because there's conditions on it, is

00:15:32.760 --> 00:15:35.000
 that how that's working?

00:15:35.000 --> 00:15:36.000
 Yes.

00:15:36.000 --> 00:15:41.000
 But in the report, the ESA was for not their property?

00:15:41.000 --> 00:15:49.600
 Well, what they did when they had their ESA approved, they actually had some of the remediation

00:15:49.600 --> 00:15:54.760
 mitigation outside of their property boundary.

00:15:54.760 --> 00:16:00.720
 So they have to go back and they have to rework their alternate, their mitigation to have

00:16:00.720 --> 00:16:04.340
 it all on their site and not the adjacent property owner's site.

00:16:04.340 --> 00:16:08.040
 You will be seeing this shortly, we are working on this right now.

00:16:08.040 --> 00:16:11.640
 So following on from that point, do we have a chicken and egg ordering problem?

00:16:11.640 --> 00:16:14.320
 Do we have to approve one thing before another?

00:16:14.320 --> 00:16:20.520
 Because it feels like we're being recommended for approval before we see, at least before

00:16:20.520 --> 00:16:22.440
 we've seen their final ESA plan.

00:16:22.440 --> 00:16:28.760
 Well, that is why it's conditionally approved and we won't file it until you have it, you

00:16:28.760 --> 00:16:31.360
 have approved the ESA plan.

00:16:31.360 --> 00:16:37.800
 We can't, this is one of the shot clot items, they had a 30 day extension that they requested

00:16:37.800 --> 00:16:42.400
 to work on this problem and in the past 30 days we have worked with the applicant to

00:16:42.400 --> 00:16:47.840
 determine what they need to do to bring it, their alt ESA plan into compliance.

00:16:47.840 --> 00:16:52.000
 So they're working on that, they have submitted it, we have it scheduled for the next planning

00:16:52.000 --> 00:16:54.240
 and zoning commission meeting.

00:16:54.240 --> 00:17:01.480
 And in the meantime, if it's not approved, then we can't file the plaque.

00:17:01.480 --> 00:17:10.920
 So if we see their ESA plan and we approve that, then is there any problems to them submitting

00:17:10.920 --> 00:17:14.080
 this plan after that to get it in the right order?

00:17:14.080 --> 00:17:18.080
 Well, because of the fact we didn't recognize the problem until after they submitted the

00:17:18.080 --> 00:17:27.360
 plaque and the plaque was on a shot clock, this is how we're trying to address it.

00:17:27.360 --> 00:17:32.200
 I don't know, I feel uncomfortable making a judgment where a chunk of it is missing.

00:17:32.200 --> 00:17:34.360
 Well, actually, a chunk of it is not missing.

00:17:34.360 --> 00:17:39.960
 It complies with everything as it's required to with the exception of their alt ESA.

00:17:39.960 --> 00:17:45.600
 That is why it's conditionally approved, which you can do per the new legislation with the

00:17:45.600 --> 00:17:51.320
 shot clock plaque requirement and when they meet those conditions then we can file the

00:17:51.320 --> 00:17:55.440
 plaque.

00:17:55.440 --> 00:18:00.640
 I guess I just don't feel comfortable with doing that but thank you.

00:18:00.640 --> 00:18:08.320
 Can you elaborate under old conditions before the shot clock wouldn't have place, this procedure

00:18:08.320 --> 00:18:09.320
 would have been different?

00:18:09.320 --> 00:18:10.320
 Exactly.

00:18:10.320 --> 00:18:12.640
 We wouldn't have brought it before you.

00:18:12.640 --> 00:18:16.680
 We're only doing this with the conditional approval because this is the only way to navigate

00:18:16.680 --> 00:18:22.720
 the ESA being needed to be separately approved but still have the city respond to the shot

00:18:22.720 --> 00:18:25.320
 clock put on to you by the state of Texas.

00:18:25.320 --> 00:18:30.700
 So maybe to Commissioner Beck's point, this is not the process that the city has.

00:18:30.700 --> 00:18:35.000
 This is our way of navigating through the new code.

00:18:35.000 --> 00:18:39.080
 This is the solution that Texas gave us with their foresight.

00:18:39.080 --> 00:18:49.720
 Yeah, I understand the chair's careful navigation of what we are forced to deal with.

00:18:49.720 --> 00:18:54.360
 I think the biggest impediment to this is the ESA.

00:18:54.360 --> 00:19:01.120
 The rest of it felt fairly boilerplate but if the ESA isn't in alignment and especially

00:19:01.120 --> 00:19:06.600
 because they were including bits and pieces of other people's properties beforehand,

00:19:06.600 --> 00:19:10.800
 I understand what we're dealing with and it's not our fault, it's not the city's fault.

00:19:10.800 --> 00:19:12.960
 Maybe it's not even the applicant's fault.

00:19:12.960 --> 00:19:16.000
 I don't know if Cindy can address that.

00:19:16.000 --> 00:19:20.360
 But it feels like we're being asked to make a decision about a thing that like you said

00:19:20.360 --> 00:19:24.280
 or actually Cindy said, we wouldn't have seen before because the ducks would have been properly

00:19:24.280 --> 00:19:25.280
 in a row.

00:19:25.280 --> 00:19:28.520
 So I feel uncomfortable with a goose before a duck here.

00:19:28.520 --> 00:19:33.840
 And the ducks were properly in a row until they submitted this plot application and we

00:19:33.840 --> 00:19:37.500
 determined that there was a problem with the AESA.

00:19:37.500 --> 00:19:44.480
 So there's no way to give a shot clock allowable deferment to after the fact, there's no mechanism

00:19:44.480 --> 00:19:45.480
 for that?

00:19:45.480 --> 00:19:46.480
 Maybe Cynthia, can you?

00:19:46.480 --> 00:19:47.480
 It's very unfortunate.

00:19:47.480 --> 00:19:50.640
 Can you address that we don't have any other options, I don't believe.

00:19:50.640 --> 00:19:57.160
 Commissioner Beck, the chair and Cindy are correct.

00:19:57.160 --> 00:19:58.160
 This is the procedure.

00:19:58.160 --> 00:20:00.360
 They've already been given a 30 day extension.

00:20:00.360 --> 00:20:03.240
 So we have to take action on it.

00:20:03.240 --> 00:20:10.840
 And as was stated, the city can approve the plat with the condition that they get approval

00:20:10.840 --> 00:20:18.040
 of the AESA.

00:20:18.040 --> 00:20:19.600
 Any other questions on this item?

00:20:19.600 --> 00:20:20.600
 Commissioner Anderson?

00:20:20.600 --> 00:20:21.600
 Thank you, chair.

00:20:21.600 --> 00:20:28.440
 What are the repercussions if they do not follow through with the requirements of the

00:20:28.440 --> 00:20:29.440
 what they're asking for?

00:20:29.440 --> 00:20:31.680
 You know, what we were recommending?

00:20:31.680 --> 00:20:40.160
 Well, the purpose of this plat is fire code related.

00:20:40.160 --> 00:20:42.440
 You see this drive right here.

00:20:42.440 --> 00:20:46.600
 This is the second point of access for the development here.

00:20:46.600 --> 00:20:52.120
 And fire is waiting for them to get this plat approved so they can build their second point

00:20:52.120 --> 00:20:55.300
 of access and be in compliance with the fire code.

00:20:55.300 --> 00:20:56.300
 So that's it?

00:20:56.300 --> 00:20:59.300
 That's the whole purpose of the plat.

00:20:59.300 --> 00:21:00.300
 Okay.

00:21:00.300 --> 00:21:01.300
 Thank you for clarifying.

00:21:01.300 --> 00:21:02.300
 Thank you.

00:21:02.300 --> 00:21:07.200
 To maybe ask the question a different way, how long does the conditional approval last

00:21:07.200 --> 00:21:10.120
 before they can approve the AESA?

00:21:10.120 --> 00:21:11.120
 I'm not sure.

00:21:11.120 --> 00:21:16.080
 There's two years from approval from the approval of a plat till when they have to file it or

00:21:16.080 --> 00:21:17.600
 record it with the county is two years.

00:21:17.600 --> 00:21:20.760
 And they cannot construct anything until that plat has been filed?

00:21:20.760 --> 00:21:24.800
 They have some, they will not be able to open the building until then.

00:21:24.800 --> 00:21:25.800
 Okay.

00:21:25.800 --> 00:21:26.800
 Great.

00:21:26.800 --> 00:21:28.760
 Any other questions on this item?

00:21:28.760 --> 00:21:29.760
 Okay.

00:21:29.760 --> 00:21:30.760
 Great.

00:21:30.760 --> 00:21:38.060
 I'll invite Commissioner Colback in if he can hear me, I don't know where he stepped

00:21:38.060 --> 00:21:39.060
 out to.

00:21:39.060 --> 00:21:40.060
 Okay.

00:21:40.060 --> 00:21:42.600
 But item 4D has been pulled from tonight's agenda.

00:21:42.600 --> 00:21:50.240
 We will not be addressing or considering item 4D, that ADP.

00:21:50.240 --> 00:21:53.520
 That brings us to our public hearings.

00:21:53.520 --> 00:21:59.700
 The first item is item 5A, which is postponed from the January 22nd meeting.

00:21:59.700 --> 00:22:01.560
 It is presented by Sean Jacobson.

00:22:01.560 --> 00:22:06.080
 The floor is yours, sir.

00:22:06.080 --> 00:22:21.360
 Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

00:22:21.360 --> 00:22:25.720
 Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner at the Department of Development Services.

00:22:25.720 --> 00:22:29.560
 Request we're presenting tonight is Z1913 Cambridge Brook.

00:22:29.560 --> 00:22:38.040
 This is a request to zone from a planned development to an R6 zoning on approximately 59.24 acres.

00:22:38.040 --> 00:22:42.400
 As you can see, the subject property is just off South Bonnie Bray Street.

00:22:42.400 --> 00:22:45.200
 To the north we have the Rourke Branch Natural Area.

00:22:45.200 --> 00:22:48.360
 To the south is the future Southwest Park.

00:22:48.360 --> 00:22:53.680
 To the west is actually a hunter ranch land that's designated for future mixed use development.

00:22:53.680 --> 00:22:56.920
 To the west we have a number of large lot single family residences.

00:22:56.920 --> 00:23:03.800
 We have a ESA and flood plain along that northern boundary, trees clustered to the east.

00:23:03.800 --> 00:23:10.820
 The purpose of this rezoning request, the applicant stated, is to develop 203 single family residential

00:23:10.820 --> 00:23:11.820
 dwellings.

00:23:11.820 --> 00:23:19.080
 As you can see here, this is the concept plan that the applicant has presented.

00:23:19.080 --> 00:23:22.960
 Important part of this request is the history of the zoning on this site.

00:23:22.960 --> 00:23:29.560
 In 1991, City Council created PD 139, which included this site, and the concept plan for

00:23:29.560 --> 00:23:34.680
 that called for a number of possible uses on this site, which included residential dwelling

00:23:34.680 --> 00:23:37.240
 at up to 20 units per dwelling units per acre.

00:23:37.240 --> 00:23:43.560
 In 1999, City Council approved a plan development amendment, which included a new concept plan,

00:23:43.560 --> 00:23:49.720
 which allowed for attached single family dwellings, so town homes, at up to 12 dwelling units per

00:23:49.720 --> 00:23:51.760
 acre on this site.

00:23:51.760 --> 00:23:54.200
 There were minor changes, but essentially that's where we are today.

00:23:54.200 --> 00:23:58.280
 At this point, the applicant could go in and develop town homes at 12 dwelling units per

00:23:58.280 --> 00:23:59.280
 acre.

00:23:59.280 --> 00:24:03.520
 However, they're requesting this rezoning to R6 out of the PD.

00:24:03.520 --> 00:24:08.480
 The maximum density that would be allowable based on the R6 minimum lot size would be

00:24:08.480 --> 00:24:13.120
 7.2 dwelling units per acre, and the applicant's proposed plan, which of course you're not

00:24:13.120 --> 00:24:17.880
 held to in zoning, but their proposed plan would actually have a result of only 3.4 dwelling

00:24:17.880 --> 00:24:18.880
 units per acre.

00:24:18.880 --> 00:24:24.640
 As you can see, the zoning here currently, PD and other elements of that PD, you can

00:24:24.640 --> 00:24:30.520
 see to the north there, the original vintage PD, transition would be to R6.

00:24:30.520 --> 00:24:36.040
 So we have general approval criteria that apply to all development applications, and

00:24:36.040 --> 00:24:38.880
 as in detail in your backup, this does meet those.

00:24:38.880 --> 00:24:43.000
 We will touch more detail on a few of them, but primarily we want to focus on the criteria

00:24:43.000 --> 00:24:48.000
 that specifically apply to zoning requests, and for this case, the particularly important

00:24:48.000 --> 00:24:49.560
 items are A, E, and F.

00:24:49.560 --> 00:24:56.680
 So as you know, one of the most important things is consistency with the comprehensive

00:24:56.680 --> 00:25:02.320
 plan, and that encompasses general criteria one and zoning specific criteria A, and future

00:25:02.320 --> 00:25:04.160
 land use map is a key part of that.

00:25:04.160 --> 00:25:10.480
 It designates this site as low-density residential, which is intended for up to four dwelling units

00:25:10.480 --> 00:25:11.480
 per acre.

00:25:11.480 --> 00:25:17.640
 R6 does not precisely conform to that, but if you consider right now, it could be developed

00:25:17.640 --> 00:25:19.720
 at up to 12 dwelling units per acre.

00:25:19.720 --> 00:25:26.360
 The fact that this moves the permissible development much closer to what's called for by the comprehensive

00:25:26.360 --> 00:25:30.200
 plan, we really are consistent with that, and of course the applicant's proposal would

00:25:30.200 --> 00:25:31.920
 actually bring it directly in line.

00:25:31.920 --> 00:25:32.920
 Commissioner Beck.

00:25:32.920 --> 00:25:34.080
 Thank you, Chair.

00:25:34.080 --> 00:25:40.520
 So I'm a little confused because if this is our map, we've got rural to the east, we've

00:25:40.520 --> 00:25:43.440
 got our park to the south, we've got moderate residential.

00:25:43.440 --> 00:25:49.800
 So it sort of feels like, and this is not meant to be pejorative, but we're cherry-picking

00:25:49.800 --> 00:25:56.920
 to make it match the northwest, where this is just a hodgepodge of properties and it

00:25:56.920 --> 00:26:06.200
 feels like we're not being consistent with the surrounding areas, maybe, is sort of my

00:26:06.200 --> 00:26:09.160
 concern.

00:26:09.160 --> 00:26:17.120
 So perspective on this, as I explained, right now what could be developed there would be

00:26:17.120 --> 00:26:19.360
 up to 12 dwelling units per acre.

00:26:19.360 --> 00:26:24.880
 So what this request is doing is actually bringing the possible density on that site

00:26:24.880 --> 00:26:27.940
 lower than what is currently permitted.

00:26:27.940 --> 00:26:32.080
 So it's actually bringing that more closely in line with what the comprehensive plan calls

00:26:32.080 --> 00:26:35.880
 for in that area.

00:26:35.880 --> 00:26:36.880
 Okay.

00:26:36.880 --> 00:26:37.880
 Thank you.

00:26:37.880 --> 00:26:39.720
 Commissioner Cole.

00:26:39.720 --> 00:26:46.400
 So Sean, what you're saying is, is this deal here reduces their density quite a bit.

00:26:46.400 --> 00:26:47.400
 Yes, sir.

00:26:47.400 --> 00:26:48.400
 Yes, sir.

00:26:48.400 --> 00:26:56.640
 And also, if, with Commissioner Cole, the transition from a rural area to moderate residential,

00:26:56.640 --> 00:27:02.540
 that natural, if we do the gradient, would be a low residential type, is that an appropriate

00:27:02.540 --> 00:27:05.160
 kind of gradation from rural to moderate?

00:27:05.160 --> 00:27:06.160
 Absolutely.

00:27:06.160 --> 00:27:11.560
 So essentially you would have rural, and then we would have, depending on how it's developed,

00:27:11.560 --> 00:27:17.320
 low to moderate, and then, as I said, potentially on the hunter ranch development, then a mixed

00:27:17.320 --> 00:27:19.820
 use development that would be at a higher.

00:27:19.820 --> 00:27:25.280
 And I do, oh, I'm sorry, I do want to take one point.

00:27:25.280 --> 00:27:29.360
 So future land use map is not the only part of the comprehensive plan that we want to

00:27:29.360 --> 00:27:30.360
 consider that.

00:27:30.360 --> 00:27:34.400
 I mean, it's an important element, but part of what we also want to consider with this

00:27:34.400 --> 00:27:39.560
 is that zoning out of the PD means that all future development on this site will be held

00:27:39.560 --> 00:27:42.280
 to 2019 DDC standards.

00:27:42.280 --> 00:27:47.000
 Right now we'd be using a mix of standards from previous development codes, including

00:27:47.000 --> 00:27:49.440
 the 1988 landscape code.

00:27:49.440 --> 00:27:54.840
 So it is very much in line with the comprehensive plan to actually be able to apply the development

00:27:54.840 --> 00:27:59.240
 standards that were designed to meet that comprehensive plan.

00:27:59.240 --> 00:28:03.760
 Beyond that, then we're also bringing housing directly adjacent to a future park, which

00:28:03.760 --> 00:28:08.080
 accomplishes our desire to create more functional neighborhoods.

00:28:08.080 --> 00:28:12.400
 And an additional point, so just thinking about comprehensive plan, when this was approved

00:28:12.400 --> 00:28:17.160
 in 1991, city council determined that it met the comprehensive plan at that time, and it

00:28:17.160 --> 00:28:18.160
 did.

00:28:18.160 --> 00:28:19.160
 I actually went back and found it.

00:28:19.160 --> 00:28:24.080
 When the plan development amendment was approved in 1999, and lower the density, city council

00:28:24.080 --> 00:28:27.120
 said that met comprehensive plan at the time, and it did.

00:28:27.120 --> 00:28:32.500
 It's only with this most recent comprehensive plan that the future land use designation has

00:28:32.500 --> 00:28:34.880
 called for low residential.

00:28:34.880 --> 00:28:39.700
 And at the time that was made, we had already approved 12 dwelling units per acre.

00:28:39.700 --> 00:28:45.120
 That was, you know, the whole flow was much closer to that level, and it was actually

00:28:45.120 --> 00:28:48.240
 put in place by what we see on the future land use map now.

00:28:48.240 --> 00:28:49.240
 Chris Rebecca?

00:28:49.240 --> 00:28:50.240
 Yeah.

00:28:50.240 --> 00:28:54.200
 So when the city made those decisions in the past, did we have a park there at the moment

00:28:54.200 --> 00:28:56.280
 when those plans were made?

00:28:56.280 --> 00:28:59.800
 At the time, I don't know precisely when that park was put in place.

00:28:59.800 --> 00:29:05.920
 I don't believe in 1991 that that would have been most likely an open natural area.

00:29:05.920 --> 00:29:07.640
 And can you refresh my memory?

00:29:07.640 --> 00:29:08.640
 I'm not as familiar.

00:29:08.640 --> 00:29:11.920
 What's in the government institutional area, and what's the plan for that?

00:29:11.920 --> 00:29:16.960
 So right now, there is a new fire station there that's also proposed for development

00:29:16.960 --> 00:29:22.680
 of a new police facility and a training center there, as well as I believe an indoor shooting

00:29:22.680 --> 00:29:24.400
 range.

00:29:24.400 --> 00:29:27.400
 Thank you.

00:29:27.400 --> 00:29:29.160
 Okay.

00:29:29.160 --> 00:29:37.700
 So overall, it's our assessment that this does meet the goals of the comprehensive plan.

00:29:37.700 --> 00:29:41.200
 Also want to look specifically at general criteria on seven, minimizing adverse environmental

00:29:41.200 --> 00:29:42.200
 impact.

00:29:42.200 --> 00:29:46.280
 So as I mentioned before, one of the important things about this zoning change is that it

00:29:46.280 --> 00:29:53.520
 takes us out of the various PD-related standards and puts everything under the 2019 standards,

00:29:53.520 --> 00:29:59.280
 which means that the ESA and flood plan on the site get the full protection of our current

00:29:59.280 --> 00:30:00.280
 2019 standards.

00:30:00.280 --> 00:30:05.480
 That also for tree code, again, we're bringing that up to current instead of what was applicable

00:30:05.480 --> 00:30:07.380
 in 1988.

00:30:07.380 --> 00:30:12.040
 So in terms of minimizing adverse environmental impact, this is a great upgrade in terms of

00:30:12.040 --> 00:30:16.640
 the standards that this development will be held to.

00:30:16.640 --> 00:30:20.480
 Moving on to general criteria on eight, minimizing adverse impacts on the surrounding property.

00:30:20.480 --> 00:30:25.300
 Again, we're looking at the fact that this represents a significant reduction in the

00:30:25.300 --> 00:30:28.380
 permissible density that can be developed on the site.

00:30:28.380 --> 00:30:33.720
 So in terms of any adverse impacts that you'd be concerned about with density, this request

00:30:33.720 --> 00:30:35.440
 is to reduce that.

00:30:35.440 --> 00:30:39.040
 And so that would really be in line with minimizing adverse impacts.

00:30:39.040 --> 00:30:45.160
 And again, holding it to 2019 standards, including open space standards, which applies to any

00:30:45.160 --> 00:30:50.000
 development, 5% open space, landscaping standards that would be consistent with what any other

00:30:50.000 --> 00:30:52.280
 property in the area would be held to.

00:30:52.280 --> 00:31:00.400
 We also want to look at specific zoning criteria, E and F, so how this proposed development,

00:31:00.400 --> 00:31:05.640
 how this zoning change would potentially affect the public infrastructure in the area.

00:31:05.640 --> 00:31:10.520
 So a TIA was conducted focused specifically on the intersection of South Bonnie Bray and

00:31:10.520 --> 00:31:13.720
 the access road that would be put in place for this development.

00:31:13.720 --> 00:31:19.280
 They determined that this development was likely to generate about 1,995 daily trips

00:31:19.280 --> 00:31:24.080
 and that that future intersection would function at a level of service A, the highest level

00:31:24.080 --> 00:31:28.800
 of service possible and would not require any additional lanes in order to do so.

00:31:28.800 --> 00:31:33.400
 They would also be required to pay any and all applicable impact fees at the time they

00:31:33.400 --> 00:31:35.520
 move forward with plaque.

00:31:35.520 --> 00:31:39.680
 Water and wastewater, public water is available directly to the site.

00:31:39.680 --> 00:31:43.640
 Wastewater almost gets there and it would be at their expense to extend that in order

00:31:43.640 --> 00:31:44.640
 to serve the property.

00:31:44.640 --> 00:31:48.880
 And of course, they'd be subject to all tap and meter fees.

00:31:48.880 --> 00:31:53.440
 They would also be responsible for any applicable perimeter street improvements on South Bonnie

00:31:53.440 --> 00:31:54.960
 Bray Street.

00:31:54.960 --> 00:31:59.680
 And the access road would be, they'd be putting that into the south between the park and their

00:31:59.680 --> 00:32:00.680
 property.

00:32:00.680 --> 00:32:04.320
 So again, we're looking at the impact on public infrastructure.

00:32:04.320 --> 00:32:09.880
 We're not expecting any negative, they'd be paying for fees to cover that.

00:32:09.880 --> 00:32:15.840
 In terms of schools, I contacted Denton ISD and was able to find out at the expected,

00:32:15.840 --> 00:32:21.760
 used their generation calculator and as you can see there, the expected students, students

00:32:21.760 --> 00:32:26.080
 that are expected to be generated by this development would be much less than the additional

00:32:26.080 --> 00:32:29.440
 capacity that was available for each school in the last year.

00:32:29.440 --> 00:32:32.960
 And then of course, on parks, we have a park just to the south there, so this would be

00:32:32.960 --> 00:32:34.920
 well within our desired radius.

00:32:34.920 --> 00:32:38.920
 We're putting a neighborhood right next to a park where they can use that and of course,

00:32:38.920 --> 00:32:44.680
 park dedication development fees would be required at Platte and building permits.

00:32:44.680 --> 00:32:49.520
 So overall, this staff would say that this does meet the criteria.

00:32:49.520 --> 00:32:54.080
 We did public outreach, newspaper, property mailing notices.

00:32:54.080 --> 00:32:58.520
 We received no responses in favor or against.

00:32:58.520 --> 00:33:03.600
 We also, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting that was on Monday and so I gave you

00:33:03.600 --> 00:33:06.240
 all the notes from that.

00:33:06.240 --> 00:33:12.240
 Two citizens attended, they had some questions about the timing of the construction as well

00:33:12.240 --> 00:33:18.200
 as the size of the lots, the potential, you know, the expected cost of the building.

00:33:18.200 --> 00:33:20.680
 Essentially, they were wanting, it seemed like they were wanting to determine that the

00:33:20.680 --> 00:33:25.000
 house would be of similar value, properties would be similar to their properties at Meadows

00:33:25.000 --> 00:33:26.000
 of Hickory Creek.

00:33:26.000 --> 00:33:33.400
 They did not express opposition and I would say they were neutral to support it.

00:33:33.400 --> 00:33:39.120
 So taking this, all this together, staff does recommend approval as this complies with the

00:33:39.120 --> 00:33:43.680
 general criterion section 245E and the specific criterion section 272D.

00:33:43.680 --> 00:33:46.160
 With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

00:33:46.160 --> 00:33:47.160
 Commissioner Anderson.

00:33:47.160 --> 00:33:50.920
 Commissioner, can you go back to, please go back to slide 16.

00:33:50.920 --> 00:33:54.160
 No, sorry, one forward, there you go.

00:33:54.160 --> 00:33:58.760
 The boundary, the 200 foot buffer, the 500 foot buffer, are we doing it from the center

00:33:58.760 --> 00:34:01.240
 of the property that we're talking about?

00:34:01.240 --> 00:34:03.160
 No, that's done from the outer boundary.

00:34:03.160 --> 00:34:06.760
 Outer, okay, because what it looks like is how close it is, it looks like it's from the

00:34:06.760 --> 00:34:07.760
 center but okay, thank you.

00:34:07.760 --> 00:34:09.600
 No, it's just a very large property.

00:34:09.600 --> 00:34:10.600
 Appreciate it, yeah.

00:34:10.600 --> 00:34:11.600
 Yes, sir.

00:34:11.600 --> 00:34:12.600
 Commissioner Ellis.

00:34:12.600 --> 00:34:13.600
 Thank you, Chair.

00:34:13.600 --> 00:34:19.160
 Sean, I'm curious, do you have any thought to manufactured housing, which I believe changing

00:34:19.160 --> 00:34:24.440
 to R6 opens up with an SUP if I'm correct.

00:34:24.440 --> 00:34:29.680
 An SUP, of course, would require that that come back before this body and before city

00:34:29.680 --> 00:34:30.680
 council.

00:34:30.680 --> 00:34:31.680
 Oh, I know.

00:34:31.680 --> 00:34:36.400
 It's just, as we were always told, it's not really a tool to keep something from not happening

00:34:36.400 --> 00:34:40.520
 but keeping it, you know, with some conditions on it.

00:34:40.520 --> 00:34:47.040
 So we would certainly, we would certainly have, they would have to meet a significantly

00:34:47.040 --> 00:34:51.240
 high bar for that in terms of how that would fit with the neighborhood not having adverse

00:34:51.240 --> 00:34:57.520
 impacts of our specific use permit criteria are fairly strong in that area.

00:34:57.520 --> 00:35:00.240
 But you guys as a staff did not discuss that?

00:35:00.240 --> 00:35:06.480
 That was not something that I spent great amount of detail on, but I know that if that

00:35:06.480 --> 00:35:13.200
 came in, we would review that carefully and look at the impacts of that on the surrounding

00:35:13.200 --> 00:35:14.200
 properties.

00:35:14.200 --> 00:35:15.560
 Commissioner Beck.

00:35:15.560 --> 00:35:26.200
 So if they're moving to, if we rezone, then the 2019 codes for everything apply, is that

00:35:26.200 --> 00:35:27.640
 what you were saying?

00:35:27.640 --> 00:35:28.640
 Yes.

00:35:28.640 --> 00:35:37.120
 So can you, do you, do you have quickly on your slides what their, what their tree canopy

00:35:37.120 --> 00:35:42.000
 numbers were for that because that's a little bit of a green area there?

00:35:42.000 --> 00:35:44.040
 I don't have the exact tree canopy.

00:35:44.040 --> 00:35:49.520
 There is a significant amount of trees and under the 2019 DDC, they would be required

00:35:49.520 --> 00:35:55.360
 to preserve either a minimum of 30% or if they had a significant preservation area within

00:35:55.360 --> 00:36:00.280
 ESA, then they would have a minimum preservation of 20% of all protected trees and they would

00:36:00.280 --> 00:36:07.080
 also then have mitigation requirements for the remainder of the protected trees.

00:36:07.080 --> 00:36:14.460
 So based on the layout, I guess one of my concerns is based on the layout, there's obviously

00:36:14.460 --> 00:36:22.440
 flood plain issues along the creek bed there and ESAs and green corridors that habitat

00:36:22.440 --> 00:36:28.920
 that sort of thing, between, so one of my issues is the sandwiching of this property

00:36:28.920 --> 00:36:36.360
 between the proposed facility in the north and then the park in the south, just it feels

00:36:36.360 --> 00:36:45.520
 like this does not fit well in that overall architecture because you're tearing out things

00:36:45.520 --> 00:36:52.480
 adjacent to a natural area and then you're leaving a strip of terrain and then a government,

00:36:52.480 --> 00:36:53.480
 I don't know.

00:36:53.480 --> 00:36:59.200
 It feels like it's not a consistent flow, even if it's maybe legal, it feels like it's

00:36:59.200 --> 00:37:01.160
 out of place a little bit.

00:37:01.160 --> 00:37:06.080
 So I would highlight that what this zoning change would allow us to do is actually provide

00:37:06.080 --> 00:37:10.640
 a much greater degree of protection for those natural areas than we would be able to exercise

00:37:10.640 --> 00:37:13.580
 right now under the terms of the plan development.

00:37:13.580 --> 00:37:16.240
 So this is actually allowing us to put more of it.

00:37:16.240 --> 00:37:21.600
 So for instance, the flood plain, we're able to enforce, they cannot infringe upon that.

00:37:21.600 --> 00:37:26.720
 We'd actually put that, I believe in a flood, in an easement in that area and similarly

00:37:26.720 --> 00:37:31.320
 with the ESA, we'd be able to use our current protections for those areas to make sure that

00:37:31.320 --> 00:37:33.880
 those were protected and not infringed upon.

00:37:33.880 --> 00:37:39.320
 So we're really getting a greater degree of protection for those natural areas.

00:37:39.320 --> 00:37:44.840
 I would also point out that there's certainly a benefit to having neighborhood access to

00:37:44.840 --> 00:37:47.840
 natural areas.

00:37:47.840 --> 00:37:48.840
 Thank you, Sean.

00:37:48.840 --> 00:37:53.480
 Sean, what's the most intense use they can build by right now?

00:37:53.480 --> 00:38:00.800
 The only use that they can build right now is townhomes and it can be up to 12 to 1 units

00:38:00.800 --> 00:38:01.800
 per acre.

00:38:01.800 --> 00:38:07.040
 How many acres, I mean how many townhomes could be built right now?

00:38:07.040 --> 00:38:12.440
 So I'm sorry, I should have had, I believe I may have put this in the back up.

00:38:12.440 --> 00:38:14.880
 No worries, we can do it and if you could just pull up the public.

00:38:14.880 --> 00:38:15.880
 Absolutely.

00:38:15.880 --> 00:38:21.040
 I'm just curious about, I understand that this is zoning, but they're going to build

00:38:21.040 --> 00:38:22.720
 200 homes?

00:38:22.720 --> 00:38:24.800
 They're proposing 230 residences, yes, sir.

00:38:24.800 --> 00:38:28.520
 It seems like they could build 400 plus townhomes.

00:38:28.520 --> 00:38:35.160
 So and I want to make sure I'm clear, within the PD or once they zone out?

00:38:35.160 --> 00:38:41.040
 Yeah, within the PD right now, townhomes, they can do 12 dwelling units per acre.

00:38:41.040 --> 00:38:43.960
 They're reducing it down to seven.

00:38:43.960 --> 00:38:44.960
 So almost double.

00:38:44.960 --> 00:38:45.960
 Yes.

00:38:45.960 --> 00:38:50.120
 They have the right to build almost double the intensity than what we're trying to get

00:38:50.120 --> 00:38:51.920
 them down to, if I understand that correctly.

00:38:51.920 --> 00:38:54.200
 Which they're actually requesting them move down to, yes, sir.

00:38:54.200 --> 00:38:58.680
 Right and they're not, once you go to R6, the highest density is 7.2 dwelling units per

00:38:58.680 --> 00:38:59.680
 acre.

00:38:59.680 --> 00:39:03.200
 They're proposing theoretically 2.3, did I read that right?

00:39:03.200 --> 00:39:04.200
 Yes.

00:39:04.200 --> 00:39:09.000
 And I would clarify additionally, that estimate is if every possible square foot in that property

00:39:09.000 --> 00:39:14.640
 could be fully developed, which will not be the case based on the ESA entry preservation.

00:39:14.640 --> 00:39:15.640
 Understood.

00:39:15.640 --> 00:39:18.400
 Is there any other questions for Sean?

00:39:18.400 --> 00:39:19.400
 Perfect.

00:39:19.400 --> 00:39:23.840
 Thank you for the presentation.

00:39:23.840 --> 00:39:27.880
 The next item is item 5B, Z19-11A.

00:39:27.880 --> 00:39:55.960
 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for the presentation.

00:39:55.960 --> 00:39:56.960
 Thank you.

00:39:56.960 --> 00:40:04.920
 We have for you a request to rezone approximately 16.79 acres of land from Suburban Corridor

00:40:04.920 --> 00:40:11.280
 Zoning District and Residential 2, R2 Zoning District to the Residential 4 Zoning District.

00:40:11.280 --> 00:40:19.840
 The site is located between Country Club Drive to the west and the railroad to the east.

00:40:19.840 --> 00:40:27.880
 And we've got Hickory Creek here to the south.

00:40:27.880 --> 00:40:33.840
 This is a request to rezone, as I said, 16.79 acres of land.

00:40:33.840 --> 00:40:41.000
 The purpose of the rezoning is single family subdivision, phase 2 of a single family subdivision.

00:40:41.000 --> 00:40:48.240
 Phase 1, Country Club Estates, you approved the preliminary plat for this recently.

00:40:48.240 --> 00:40:52.260
 And the preliminary plat for phase 1 has 130 lots.

00:40:52.260 --> 00:40:58.160
 We have proposed approximately 53 lots for phase 2.

00:40:58.160 --> 00:41:05.240
 And I want to note that the access for phase 2 will actually be taken from phase 1.

00:41:05.240 --> 00:41:09.680
 You will see here there's two entries for phase 1.

00:41:09.680 --> 00:41:20.920
 The southernmost entry is the access for phase 2.

00:41:20.920 --> 00:41:23.680
 Here you see the current zoning map.

00:41:23.680 --> 00:41:29.800
 You see the site is currently SC, Suburban Corridor, and R2.

00:41:29.800 --> 00:41:37.600
 Recently the site transitioned that SC was originally CMG, Community Mixed Use General,

00:41:37.600 --> 00:41:40.160
 and the R2 was NR2.

00:41:40.160 --> 00:41:47.800
 The proposed zoning map, if this is approved, will be an extension of the R4 that is located

00:41:47.800 --> 00:41:53.680
 to the north right now.

00:41:53.680 --> 00:41:58.360
 As Sean noted, we have general approval criteria for all applications.

00:41:58.360 --> 00:42:03.800
 I went into detail on how this site complies with those regulations and I'm going to focus

00:42:03.800 --> 00:42:05.560
 more on the zoning criteria.

00:42:05.560 --> 00:42:07.680
 >> Commissioner Smith, thank you, Chair.

00:42:07.680 --> 00:42:11.800
 Cindy, what was the history of why that CMG was there out there in that residential kind

00:42:11.800 --> 00:42:16.800
 of rural area?

00:42:16.800 --> 00:42:21.320
 >> You know, I don't have why it was zoned CMG.

00:42:21.320 --> 00:42:27.080
 I know in your backup I have the history of all of the different rezoning that had taken

00:42:27.080 --> 00:42:34.680
 place and I don't have why it was rezoned to CMG, I'm sorry.

00:42:34.680 --> 00:42:40.600
 >> I can find out for you if you want before--

00:42:40.600 --> 00:42:46.840
 >> I just wanted to-- I'll see what-- I thought I missed it in the backup so I'm going to

00:42:46.840 --> 00:42:49.400
 go see it and I'm going to re-read through it and if I have more questions I'll ask

00:42:49.400 --> 00:42:50.400
 it in public.

00:42:50.400 --> 00:42:51.400
 >> Okay.

00:42:51.400 --> 00:42:52.400
 >> So thanks.

00:42:52.400 --> 00:42:53.400
 I appreciate it.

00:42:53.400 --> 00:42:59.880
 >> The first criteria is whether or not it complies with the future land use designation.

00:42:59.880 --> 00:43:03.400
 The future land use designation for this site is a mix.

00:43:03.400 --> 00:43:08.360
 It is both low density residential as well as a neighborhood mixed use.

00:43:08.360 --> 00:43:11.680
 The site complies with the low density residential designation.

00:43:11.680 --> 00:43:19.040
 They are proposing only four dwelling units per acre which is the maximum density permitted

00:43:19.040 --> 00:43:21.920
 in the low density.

00:43:21.920 --> 00:43:25.880
 It also applies to transition areas between established single family neighborhoods and

00:43:25.880 --> 00:43:29.960
 mixed use or commercial areas.

00:43:29.960 --> 00:43:38.200
 This is actually adjacent to-- the entire subdivision is adjacent to an SC zone area

00:43:38.200 --> 00:43:46.600
 so it would eventually provide a transition between SC and then NR4 and then the low density

00:43:46.600 --> 00:43:50.240
 and rural areas that are to the south.

00:43:50.240 --> 00:43:56.920
 This also applies to transition area-- well, that's transition areas and key corridors.

00:43:56.920 --> 00:44:08.400
 I do want to note that this site is relatively undeveloped right now so the recent approval

00:44:08.400 --> 00:44:18.440
 of the CIP plan for Hickory Creek will enable this area to open up for development and you'll

00:44:18.440 --> 00:44:23.680
 see more development in this area in the future.

00:44:23.680 --> 00:44:27.040
 There are no smaller area plans for this location.

00:44:27.040 --> 00:44:33.280
 The purpose statement of the R4 district is to accommodate a variety of housing uses and

00:44:33.280 --> 00:44:38.040
 housing types on lots to encourage walking to neighborhood serving retail.

00:44:38.040 --> 00:44:42.760
 Well, as I discussed, it is adjacent to the SC zoning district.

00:44:42.760 --> 00:44:47.480
 Eventually someday there will be neighborhood serving retail in this area, however, it's

00:44:47.480 --> 00:44:50.000
 not there right now.

00:44:50.000 --> 00:44:58.760
 The R4 district therefore satisfies this locational requirement.

00:44:58.760 --> 00:45:03.280
 And the significant change in the area to warrant the zoning change is actually the

00:45:03.280 --> 00:45:06.000
 future improvement of Hickory Creek.

00:45:06.000 --> 00:45:15.400
 Hickory Creek is planned to be realigned from this curvilinear type alignment that you see

00:45:15.400 --> 00:45:23.980
 to a straight shot across the southern portion to Brush Creek and this is actually going

00:45:23.980 --> 00:45:32.240
 to make it much easier for people to get in here and to get this developed.

00:45:32.240 --> 00:45:38.280
 Per the traffic analysis for phase one and phase two, Country Club Road must be widened

00:45:38.280 --> 00:45:45.040
 by one lane each direction to accommodate the southbound traffic and a southbound left

00:45:45.040 --> 00:45:53.080
 turn lane that will be required when-- prior to occupancy of the homes in phase two.

00:45:53.080 --> 00:45:57.360
 Country Club Road is designated as the secondary arterial.

00:45:57.360 --> 00:46:02.520
 It's got an ultimate right of way of 110 feet and the right of way will be dedicated at

00:46:02.520 --> 00:46:11.040
 the final plat stage equal to half of what is required for the frontage of this site.

00:46:11.040 --> 00:46:13.880
 Water and wastewater services are available to the site.

00:46:13.880 --> 00:46:16.920
 There is capacity within the system to serve the proposal.

00:46:16.920 --> 00:46:22.080
 No extensions of public utilities will be required to support phase two.

00:46:22.080 --> 00:46:26.840
 The park is located approximately 1.25 miles.

00:46:26.840 --> 00:46:31.000
 It's Cross Timbers Park to the east that is the closest park right now.

00:46:31.000 --> 00:46:37.600
 Again, the-- as was mentioned previously, the Parks and Rec Department are updating their

00:46:37.600 --> 00:46:46.960
 parks master plan and they may be looking at this area with regards to parks in the

00:46:46.960 --> 00:46:47.960
 future.

00:46:47.960 --> 00:46:48.960
 >> Mr. Beck.

00:46:48.960 --> 00:46:49.960
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:46:49.960 --> 00:46:58.640
 Cindy, so if that park requirement didn't change before homes went in, they'd be required

00:46:58.640 --> 00:47:03.600
 to build with playgrounds and park sort of facilities within the property?

00:47:03.600 --> 00:47:04.600
 Is that correct?

00:47:04.600 --> 00:47:05.600
 >> No, no.

00:47:05.600 --> 00:47:13.200
 Phase two is they dedicate park fees that will be used for future parks.

00:47:13.200 --> 00:47:14.200
 >> Okay.

00:47:14.200 --> 00:47:15.200
 >> Right.

00:47:15.200 --> 00:47:21.720
 The park fee is based on acreage with the-- and on-- with the building permit by dwelling

00:47:21.720 --> 00:47:22.720
 unit.

00:47:22.720 --> 00:47:23.720
 >> Okay.

00:47:23.720 --> 00:47:26.720
 Thank you.

00:47:26.720 --> 00:47:32.920
 >> Schools, I contacted the DISD regarding this site.

00:47:32.920 --> 00:47:38.160
 This phase two will generate approximately 13 elementary students, seven medical school

00:47:38.160 --> 00:47:41.360
 students and eight high school students.

00:47:41.360 --> 00:47:45.800
 They stated that Ryan Elementary will not be able to accommodate these additional students

00:47:45.800 --> 00:47:49.880
 so they will likely attend Borman Elementary School.

00:47:49.880 --> 00:47:54.820
 The fire station is fire station number six located on Teasley Lane and it is located

00:47:54.820 --> 00:48:00.080
 within the eight minutes or less time response boundary.

00:48:00.080 --> 00:48:09.560
 Information was sent out and we received three notices in favor of this property request.

00:48:09.560 --> 00:48:14.880
 One of the notice is actually from the applicant who owns the property or surrounding it and

00:48:14.880 --> 00:48:19.120
 that brings the in favor percentage to 61%.

00:48:19.120 --> 00:48:26.160
 If you take out the property owner, the percentage in favor goes down to 5%.

00:48:26.160 --> 00:48:28.480
 We received none in opposition.

00:48:28.480 --> 00:48:30.240
 A neighborhood meeting was not held.

00:48:30.240 --> 00:48:36.120
 There's so few property owners around this area that the applicant's representative actually

00:48:36.120 --> 00:48:39.400
 went around and talked to each property owner individually.

00:48:39.400 --> 00:48:41.840
 >> Thank you, Mr. Smith.

00:48:41.840 --> 00:48:42.840
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:48:42.840 --> 00:48:43.840
 This is a complete aside.

00:48:43.840 --> 00:48:49.120
 I think it's the first time I've ever seen where we had road or easement running through

00:48:49.120 --> 00:48:53.000
 the middle of the buffer so we don't-- that-- that-- because that's a road right there,

00:48:53.000 --> 00:49:00.720
 right, so I guess I just-- my own edification, I never knew that 200-- there's 100 feet of

00:49:00.720 --> 00:49:04.480
 road there or whatever it is, it wouldn't be 100 feet, that big old road.

00:49:04.480 --> 00:49:07.920
 But there's a big chunk of road that runs there, 100 feet of road and easement on either--

00:49:07.920 --> 00:49:12.080
 right away on either side of that, that's-- takes up a big old chunk, but I guess I just

00:49:12.080 --> 00:49:13.080
 never knew that.

00:49:13.080 --> 00:49:14.080
 >> So were you talking about this right here?

00:49:14.080 --> 00:49:15.080
 >> Yeah.

00:49:15.080 --> 00:49:16.080
 >> Oh, that's actually a railroad.

00:49:16.080 --> 00:49:17.080
 >> Oh, it's railroad.

00:49:17.080 --> 00:49:18.080
 Okay.

00:49:18.080 --> 00:49:19.080
 Still, same thing.

00:49:19.080 --> 00:49:22.080
 I've never seen it before where it's done that, so I guess I just didn't know.

00:49:22.080 --> 00:49:23.320
 So it doesn't matter, just it's--

00:49:23.320 --> 00:49:24.320
 >> Yeah.

00:49:24.320 --> 00:49:25.320
 >> Don't go further than that.

00:49:25.320 --> 00:49:26.320
 Okay.

00:49:26.320 --> 00:49:27.320
 Thanks.

00:49:27.320 --> 00:49:33.560
 >> Staff recommends approval of the request as it is basically compatible with the surrounding

00:49:33.560 --> 00:49:39.960
 property and is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030.

00:49:39.960 --> 00:49:40.960
 >> Mr. Smith.

00:49:40.960 --> 00:49:41.960
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:49:41.960 --> 00:49:45.440
 The backup doesn't have the reason-- the history of why it was SC, so--

00:49:45.440 --> 00:49:46.440
 >> Okay.

00:49:46.440 --> 00:49:47.440
 I'll look at it for you.

00:49:47.440 --> 00:49:50.440
 >> I thought I would have caught it when I read it this weekend, but yeah.

00:49:50.440 --> 00:49:51.440
 If you can just find out--

00:49:51.440 --> 00:49:52.440
 >> I sure will.

00:49:52.440 --> 00:49:53.880
 >> Want to know why it was SC in the first place.

00:49:53.880 --> 00:49:54.880
 >> Mm-hmm.

00:49:54.880 --> 00:49:57.920
 >> All it says in there is that there was-- it was-- a change was made in 2011.

00:49:57.920 --> 00:50:00.720
 There's a final platyper in 2012.

00:50:00.720 --> 00:50:01.720
 >> Yeah.

00:50:01.720 --> 00:50:02.720
 >> So what?

00:50:02.720 --> 00:50:06.100
 >> The plat in 2012 was for a park.

00:50:06.100 --> 00:50:07.100
 When I looked at--

00:50:07.100 --> 00:50:09.160
 >> And park would have fallen on a CMG at that time?

00:50:09.160 --> 00:50:10.160
 >> Yeah.

00:50:10.160 --> 00:50:11.160
 Well, you can park everywhere.

00:50:11.160 --> 00:50:12.160
 >> Yeah.

00:50:12.160 --> 00:50:13.160
 I'm guessing could.

00:50:13.160 --> 00:50:14.160
 >> Yeah.

00:50:14.160 --> 00:50:15.160
 Mm-hmm.

00:50:15.160 --> 00:50:16.160
 Mm-hmm.

00:50:16.160 --> 00:50:17.160
 >> Didn't know.

00:50:17.160 --> 00:50:18.160
 >> Yeah.

00:50:18.160 --> 00:50:19.160
 >> Why I would have had to change the CMG then for it to be a park.

00:50:19.160 --> 00:50:20.160
 >> Right.

00:50:20.160 --> 00:50:21.160
 It was Hickory Park.

00:50:21.160 --> 00:50:22.160
 >> Right.

00:50:22.160 --> 00:50:23.160
 It was supposed to be a water-based park.

00:50:23.160 --> 00:50:24.160
 >> I'm sorry.

00:50:24.160 --> 00:50:25.160
 >> Because there's--

00:50:25.160 --> 00:50:26.160
 >> Park's department.

00:50:26.160 --> 00:50:27.160
 >> Yeah.

00:50:27.160 --> 00:50:28.160
 >> Yeah.

00:50:28.160 --> 00:50:29.160
 If you can just find out the history.

00:50:29.160 --> 00:50:30.160
 >> Sure.

00:50:30.160 --> 00:50:31.160
 >> I'd appreciate it.

00:50:31.160 --> 00:50:32.160
 Thanks.

00:50:32.160 --> 00:50:35.720
 >> So Cindy, I have a question.

00:50:35.720 --> 00:50:42.960
 On slide 10, you talked about the obligations to widen Country Club Road by one lane.

00:50:42.960 --> 00:50:45.920
 >> Either side, yeah.

00:50:45.920 --> 00:50:47.560
 >> Yeah.

00:50:47.560 --> 00:50:55.780
 So that's widening Country Club on either side, one lane, for the duration of their

00:50:55.780 --> 00:51:01.320
 property line or just by the entrances?

00:51:01.320 --> 00:51:03.320
 >> It would be for their frontage.

00:51:03.320 --> 00:51:04.320
 >> Okay.

00:51:04.320 --> 00:51:07.560
 So next question.

00:51:07.560 --> 00:51:14.760
 What is the city's plan on Country Club if we are about to bring in Hickory Creek?

00:51:14.760 --> 00:51:19.560
 Is the city planning on widening-- first of all, is Country Club a city street?

00:51:19.560 --> 00:51:20.840
 Is that a text dot?

00:51:20.840 --> 00:51:21.840
 >> Text dot.

00:51:21.840 --> 00:51:24.120
 >> Is there any plans for-- oh, I already know the answer.

00:51:24.120 --> 00:51:28.440
 Is there any plans for text dot to widen that and the timeline of it?

00:51:28.440 --> 00:51:35.000
 I know we've done light studies at Ryan in 1830 for a signal light there that was at

00:51:35.000 --> 00:51:36.000
 that time denied.

00:51:36.000 --> 00:51:42.880
 I'd like to know the plans for Country Club expansion if you don't have that.

00:51:42.880 --> 00:51:48.660
 Because I'm concerned specifically in that area on-- I'm reminded of Ryan Road right

00:51:48.660 --> 00:51:50.640
 now.

00:51:50.640 --> 00:51:56.320
 Ryan Road, for those who don't drive it, has been piece milled together by the developments

00:51:56.320 --> 00:51:57.480
 that have gone in.

00:51:57.480 --> 00:52:03.600
 And so you go from a two lane to a four lane to a turn lane and you're kind of S-curving

00:52:03.600 --> 00:52:06.080
 almost the duration of that entire street.

00:52:06.080 --> 00:52:10.800
 And I find that particularly dangerous on Country Club because the speed limit is 45

00:52:10.800 --> 00:52:11.800
 there.

00:52:11.800 --> 00:52:18.400
 And right where Hickory Creek hits Country Club right now is a very dangerous S-curve

00:52:18.400 --> 00:52:20.400
 already in the road.

00:52:20.400 --> 00:52:26.120
 And so in my mind, I'm thinking at speed, you're going through an S-curve at 45 right

00:52:26.120 --> 00:52:29.560
 into another alignment of roads.

00:52:29.560 --> 00:52:37.320
 I'm not a fan of all that S-turning at 45 miles an hour.

00:52:37.320 --> 00:52:46.240
 Again, Hickory Creek will be realigned to be perpendicular to Country Club as it shows

00:52:46.240 --> 00:52:47.240
 here.

00:52:47.240 --> 00:52:49.560
 And this will go away.

00:52:49.560 --> 00:52:51.240
 No, I understand that.

00:52:51.240 --> 00:52:57.960
 The S-curve I'm talking about is just north of that right where your icon was or cursor.

00:52:57.960 --> 00:52:59.760
 It's on Country Club.

00:52:59.760 --> 00:53:06.080
 There's a S-bend on Country Club right near the Hickory Creek.

00:53:06.080 --> 00:53:09.400
 So even if Hickory Creek was realigned, if Textodd or the city doesn't do anything with

00:53:09.400 --> 00:53:14.840
 Country Club, that is a potential danger to drivers.

00:53:14.840 --> 00:53:18.960
 Ryan Road is already crazy enough and you're going 30.

00:53:18.960 --> 00:53:22.220
 And we're about to up the game a little bit at 45 miles an hour.

00:53:22.220 --> 00:53:30.040
 So I'd be extremely interested in the prioritization that Textodd has about this intersection and

00:53:30.040 --> 00:53:35.800
 the expansion of Country Club the entire way, not just in front of that development.

00:53:35.800 --> 00:53:36.800
 Okay.

00:53:36.800 --> 00:53:43.100
 That's what I was thinking.

00:53:43.100 --> 00:53:47.840
 Any other questions for Cindy on this?

00:53:47.840 --> 00:53:48.840
 Thank you very much, Cindy.

00:53:48.840 --> 00:53:49.840
 Thank you.

00:53:49.840 --> 00:54:06.760
 The next item is also you, Cindy, it's item 5C, Z-19-14B.

00:54:06.760 --> 00:54:30.840
 Okay, this is a request to rezone 0.154 acres from residential 4R4 to mixed use neighborhood

00:54:30.840 --> 00:54:38.320
 MN to bring a commercial parking lot into compliance with the 2019 Denton Code.

00:54:38.320 --> 00:54:44.520
 The subject property is located generally at 311 Janney Street, approximately 172 feet

00:54:44.520 --> 00:54:47.000
 north of McKinney Street.

00:54:47.000 --> 00:54:49.920
 This request is due to a code compliance issue.

00:54:49.920 --> 00:54:55.200
 The parking lot was constructed without permits and is not a permitted use in the R4 district.

00:54:55.200 --> 00:55:00.800
 If this request is approved, the applicant will have to replat the site into one lot.

00:55:00.800 --> 00:55:07.600
 This parking lot is part of the site for the Yale Law Office.

00:55:07.600 --> 00:55:10.100
 It's an additional parking lot that they use.

00:55:10.100 --> 00:55:16.560
 So they will have to replat this into one lot and they will have to look and see what

00:55:16.560 --> 00:55:23.600
 they need to do to bring it into compliance with standards.

00:55:23.600 --> 00:55:26.440
 This shows the current map, zoning map.

00:55:26.440 --> 00:55:33.400
 You can see that the MN district is along the north side of McKinney Street, east of

00:55:33.400 --> 00:55:40.000
 Janney and this would be an extension of the MN district to the north to this lot.

00:55:40.000 --> 00:55:55.280
 The MN district was transitioned from NRMU 12, I believe, no, NRMU and the NR4 district

00:55:55.280 --> 00:56:04.160
 was transitioned to R4 recently.

00:56:04.160 --> 00:56:08.360
 And this shows the proposed zoning map and you can see it's an extension.

00:56:08.360 --> 00:56:12.560
 As mentioned previously, we have general approval criteria for all applications.

00:56:12.560 --> 00:56:18.440
 This site complies with all of those approval criteria as detailed in your backup.

00:56:18.440 --> 00:56:24.840
 I will focus on the zoning criteria in Section 272D.

00:56:24.840 --> 00:56:30.760
 With regards to the Denton Plan 2030, the site has multiple designations, government

00:56:30.760 --> 00:56:36.520
 institutional, downtown compatibility area and low residential.

00:56:36.520 --> 00:56:42.480
 The site complies with the downtown compatibility area.

00:56:42.480 --> 00:56:47.600
 This designation actually applies to residential and commercial areas adjacent to the downtown

00:56:47.600 --> 00:56:52.440
 core and it provides a transition between the downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods

00:56:52.440 --> 00:57:02.120
 to preserve the character of the area through use, the use of context sensitive development.

00:57:02.120 --> 00:57:06.560
 There are no small area plans for this particular site.

00:57:06.560 --> 00:57:11.280
 Criteria three, consistent with the purpose statement of the zoning district.

00:57:11.280 --> 00:57:17.080
 The MN district is provided to support compatibility between higher intensity mixed use areas and

00:57:17.080 --> 00:57:23.520
 adjacent residential and commercial areas which you can see all along the north side

00:57:23.520 --> 00:57:26.080
 of McKinney Street.

00:57:26.080 --> 00:57:30.960
 This MN district in this location satisfies the locational requirements.

00:57:30.960 --> 00:57:36.880
 It's going to be located between the lower intensity R4 district to the north and the

00:57:36.880 --> 00:57:44.680
 East McKinney Street corridor to the south.

00:57:44.680 --> 00:57:49.720
 There have been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change.

00:57:49.720 --> 00:57:57.360
 Well past few years we have seen a few rezonings approved for this area right here right across

00:57:57.360 --> 00:58:00.160
 the street to the east.

00:58:00.160 --> 00:58:08.080
 This site was rezoned from neighborhood residential 4 NR4 and NRMU along the McKinney Street frontage

00:58:08.080 --> 00:58:12.880
 with the remainder rezoned to neighborhood 6 with an overlay.

00:58:12.880 --> 00:58:23.000
 In 2017 that portion of the site that was zoned NR6 was rezoned NRMU 12 with an overlay.

00:58:23.000 --> 00:58:30.120
 The two rezoning applications changed the nature of the area from single family to residential

00:58:30.120 --> 00:58:36.800
 and for that reason this request actually complies with the surrounding development

00:58:36.800 --> 00:58:37.800
 now.

00:58:37.800 --> 00:58:46.040
 It's Justice Plaza, it's just recently a couple buildings have just recently been completed

00:58:46.040 --> 00:58:47.040
 there.

00:58:47.040 --> 00:58:51.560
 Streets, the parking lot has been in this location for several years.

00:58:51.560 --> 00:58:56.680
 We don't anticipate that it will further impact any traffic in the area.

00:58:56.680 --> 00:59:03.000
 There has been no issues thus far so we don't anticipate any future issues.

00:59:03.000 --> 00:59:08.960
 With regards to water and waste water, since the use is a non-habitable use and it's just

00:59:08.960 --> 00:59:13.000
 a parking lot, it doesn't require access to water and waste water.

00:59:13.000 --> 00:59:20.920
 And the same with parks, it's non-habitable and will not require access to parks.

00:59:20.920 --> 00:59:26.600
 With schools, it will not affect the student population and the subject property is a 1.2

00:59:26.600 --> 00:59:31.080
 class from fire station number two on McKinney Street within the eight minutes or less response

00:59:31.080 --> 00:59:32.080
 time.

00:59:32.080 --> 00:59:42.400
 We sent out notifications, we received back six in favor of this request totaling 38% of

00:59:42.400 --> 00:59:47.160
 the property within the 200 foot boundary.

00:59:47.160 --> 00:59:54.600
 We also had the applicant also had a neighborhood meeting on January 21st.

00:59:54.600 --> 00:59:59.480
 One person showed up before the meeting started, indicated they had no problems for it and

00:59:59.480 --> 01:00:07.880
 left and we had no other -- nobody else attended the meeting.

01:00:07.880 --> 01:00:11.680
 Staff recommends approval of this request, it is compatible with the surrounding property

01:00:11.680 --> 01:00:15.840
 and is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the Denton plan 2030.

01:00:15.840 --> 01:00:18.840
 That concludes my presentation.

01:00:18.840 --> 01:00:19.840
 >> Commissioner Beck.

01:00:19.840 --> 01:00:27.120
 >> Thank you, Chair, so okay, I guess I'm a little confused because in the documents

01:00:27.120 --> 01:00:31.120
 I was reading, staff was recommending denial?

01:00:31.120 --> 01:00:34.640
 >> No, that was error.

01:00:34.640 --> 01:00:39.640
 We were originally recommending denial and decided we were going to recommend approval

01:00:39.640 --> 01:00:43.920
 and it was changed on the AIS but not the staff analysis.

01:00:43.920 --> 01:00:44.920
 >> Ah, okay.

01:00:44.920 --> 01:00:48.440
 I guess I mixed up the documentation.

01:00:48.440 --> 01:00:49.440
 >> Yeah, I understand that.

01:00:49.440 --> 01:00:52.880
 I apologize for that confusion.

01:00:52.880 --> 01:00:54.360
 >> Any other questions for Cindy?

01:00:54.360 --> 01:00:55.480
 Commissioner Alice.

01:00:55.480 --> 01:00:57.160
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:00:57.160 --> 01:01:01.360
 Cindy, earlier you mentioned they have to replat it together.

01:01:01.360 --> 01:01:04.840
 Does that need to be a condition of this?

01:01:04.840 --> 01:01:05.840
 >> I don't know.

01:01:05.840 --> 01:01:10.920
 Can we condition zoning on platting?

01:01:10.920 --> 01:01:14.520
 >> I don't necessarily think it needs to be a condition.

01:01:14.520 --> 01:01:18.760
 They still have a code enforcement action that will not be resolved until they straighten

01:01:18.760 --> 01:01:19.760
 that out.

01:01:19.760 --> 01:01:23.000
 >> Okay, so they wouldn't have an approved parking lot without replatting it?

01:01:23.000 --> 01:01:24.000
 >> Correct.

01:01:24.000 --> 01:01:26.400
 They're going to have to replat to bring it into one lot and then meet the new standards

01:01:26.400 --> 01:01:27.400
 of the code.

01:01:27.400 --> 01:01:28.400
 This is really step one.

01:01:28.400 --> 01:01:29.400
 >> Okay.

01:01:29.400 --> 01:01:35.240
 Yeah, they have been operating incorrectly for quite a long time.

01:01:35.240 --> 01:01:36.240
 >> Any other questions?

01:01:36.240 --> 01:01:38.760
 Thank you very much, Cindy.

01:01:38.760 --> 01:01:39.760
 >> Sure.

01:01:39.760 --> 01:02:02.120
 Item is 5D, DCA 19-24A, and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for a presentation.

01:02:02.120 --> 01:02:14.000
 >> All right, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I'm presenting

01:02:14.000 --> 01:02:17.800
 DCA 19-24A, ECIS and platting.

01:02:17.800 --> 01:02:22.520
 I got very lucky in that we had a prime example as to why we needed this code amendment tonight.

01:02:22.520 --> 01:02:28.720
 So we'll go over this quickly, and I'll happily answer any questions you have regarding it.

01:02:28.720 --> 01:02:32.920
 So the request is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to city

01:02:32.920 --> 01:02:39.480
 council regarding a proposed revision to subchapter two, the administration and procedures subchapter

01:02:39.480 --> 01:02:44.160
 related to alternative environmentally sensitive area plans and platting.

01:02:44.160 --> 01:02:50.320
 This is a staff-initiated code amendment to remedy conflicting regulations in the 2019

01:02:50.320 --> 01:02:51.360
 DDC.

01:02:51.360 --> 01:02:54.160
 So some background on ECIS, I know you all are pretty familiar with them.

01:02:54.160 --> 01:02:57.520
 They are certain areas with ecological value.

01:02:57.520 --> 01:03:03.840
 As you know, they're mapped on our city's mapping system, and it can create physical

01:03:03.840 --> 01:03:08.640
 constraints for a site because development is limited within ESAs.

01:03:08.640 --> 01:03:14.480
 You cannot impact those ESAs or disturb them without additional approvals through the alternative

01:03:14.480 --> 01:03:21.040
 ESA plan process and dual public hearing process and approval by city council.

01:03:21.040 --> 01:03:27.200
 The alternative ESA plan is necessary to provide relief from the ESA regulations in targeted

01:03:27.200 --> 01:03:34.080
 specific instances, particularly on some complex sites that we have, where it really does restrict

01:03:34.080 --> 01:03:37.440
 development or maybe connectivity.

01:03:37.440 --> 01:03:41.120
 Typically all ESA plans include mitigation, which is something that you discussed tonight

01:03:41.120 --> 01:03:43.320
 with Cindy's plat.

01:03:43.320 --> 01:03:48.880
 Often it will kind of change the map, so maybe an ESA area would be removed for something

01:03:48.880 --> 01:03:54.400
 like a roadway in one area, but then additional ESA would be added in an additional area,

01:03:54.400 --> 01:03:55.840
 so that would be mapped.

01:03:55.840 --> 01:03:59.200
 And as I said, it does require approval from city council through the dual public hearing

01:03:59.200 --> 01:04:00.880
 process.

01:04:00.880 --> 01:04:06.480
 Our 2002 Dinton Development Code didn't have a lot of standards or process regarding alternative

01:04:06.480 --> 01:04:11.000
 ESAs other than it had to follow what is essentially the zoning process.

01:04:11.000 --> 01:04:15.340
 So the 2019 Dinton Development Code memorialized some of those processes and procedures and

01:04:15.340 --> 01:04:20.360
 criteria for approval, and one of those is it requires concurrent review of a plat with

01:04:20.360 --> 01:04:24.120
 consideration of an alternative ESA plan.

01:04:24.120 --> 01:04:28.800
 And there are issues regarding this, and in one instance it's plat.

01:04:28.800 --> 01:04:33.160
 So as you talked about tonight, the general criteria for approval, that plat must comply

01:04:33.160 --> 01:04:38.080
 with the Dinton Development Code, including ESA regulations.

01:04:38.080 --> 01:04:43.280
 Plats which propose to encroach into ESAs cannot satisfy that criterion without an approved

01:04:43.280 --> 01:04:44.280
 alternative ESA plan.

01:04:44.280 --> 01:04:48.360
 Alternative ESA plans, since they do follow the dual public hearing process, can take

01:04:48.360 --> 01:04:49.960
 often several months to complete.

01:04:49.960 --> 01:04:58.000
 There's typically some back and forth where we get that mitigation settled.

01:04:58.000 --> 01:05:02.240
 But under the Texas Local Government Code, that shot clock item, plats have to be approved

01:05:02.240 --> 01:05:03.960
 or denied within 30 days.

01:05:03.960 --> 01:05:11.440
 So therefore, that submittal concurrency is difficult and is conflicting because plats

01:05:11.440 --> 01:05:16.680
 can't be approved with that alternative ESA, but they also can't meet that shot clock

01:05:16.680 --> 01:05:17.680
 requirement.

01:05:17.680 --> 01:05:24.280
 So essentially, requiring plats be submitted that have to be denied, and it creates additional

01:05:24.280 --> 01:05:27.400
 submittals and fees for applicants.

01:05:27.400 --> 01:05:28.400
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:05:28.400 --> 01:05:29.400
 Thank you, Chair.

01:05:29.400 --> 01:05:34.280
 Okay, on that note, we just discussed that we were going to approve one.

01:05:34.280 --> 01:05:35.280
 Conditionally.

01:05:35.280 --> 01:05:36.280
 Conditionally.

01:05:36.280 --> 01:05:39.200
 And it's really something we want to avoid.

01:05:39.200 --> 01:05:43.760
 That seems conflicting, what you said there and what we just discussed, so can someone

01:05:43.760 --> 01:05:46.520
 clear it up, please?

01:05:46.520 --> 01:05:50.760
 Well, and with the plat that you saw tonight, kind of that conditional approval was sort

01:05:50.760 --> 01:05:56.360
 of a -- it was something to make it work.

01:05:56.360 --> 01:06:00.760
 What we'd like to do is clear up that and just not require that concurrent plats submittal.

01:06:00.760 --> 01:06:06.160
 We do allow for the conditional approval of plats, but if we can avoid that, I think we'd

01:06:06.160 --> 01:06:10.640
 prefer to just go ahead and have outright approval or denial.

01:06:10.640 --> 01:06:16.160
 In these instances, we would prefer to kind of roll it back to the old way.

01:06:16.160 --> 01:06:21.500
 In this instance, with the shot clock, we just were sort of limited.

01:06:21.500 --> 01:06:25.320
 And the previous one was approved with conditions because they'd already been denied and it

01:06:25.320 --> 01:06:27.360
 was being brought back within 30 days, right?

01:06:27.360 --> 01:06:28.360
 Right.

01:06:28.360 --> 01:06:31.600
 So that was even a more unique situation than this is generally covering.

01:06:31.600 --> 01:06:32.600
 Correct.

01:06:32.600 --> 01:06:33.600
 Correct.

01:06:33.600 --> 01:06:34.600
 And this is that general process.

01:06:34.600 --> 01:06:39.000
 Of course, there's going to be limited variations on the process, but from a general standpoint,

01:06:39.000 --> 01:06:42.220
 we don't want to just create plats that would either have to be conditionally approved

01:06:42.220 --> 01:06:45.040
 or denied.

01:06:45.040 --> 01:06:48.720
 General issues resulting from new procedures, now we have the plan development process in

01:06:48.720 --> 01:06:52.280
 the debt and development code where we didn't have that in 2002.

01:06:52.280 --> 01:06:57.840
 If a PD includes a unique layout, something like a cluster development, a plat which conforms

01:06:57.840 --> 01:07:02.120
 to that layout could not be approved until the PD is approved.

01:07:02.120 --> 01:07:06.720
 Alternative ESA plans cannot be approved through the PD process.

01:07:06.720 --> 01:07:08.620
 It has to follow its own separate process.

01:07:08.620 --> 01:07:12.040
 We want to make sure we look at those individually.

01:07:12.040 --> 01:07:18.520
 And so you can't approve the PD without the alternative ESA, but you can't submit the

01:07:18.520 --> 01:07:25.280
 plat without-- or you can't submit the alternative ESA plan without the plat.

01:07:25.280 --> 01:07:28.040
 And the plat can't be approved until the PD is approved.

01:07:28.040 --> 01:07:33.180
 So it really gets these applicants and these projects in a catch-22.

01:07:33.180 --> 01:07:39.000
 So what we want to do is really avoid this conflict and not create these difficult situations

01:07:39.000 --> 01:07:48.460
 where plats get caught in either a cycle of denial or conditional approvals.

01:07:48.460 --> 01:07:53.800
 And so we would-- we recommend to just strike that language altogether, just to remove that

01:07:53.800 --> 01:07:59.520
 provision for platting concurrent with alternative ESAs.

01:07:59.520 --> 01:08:05.160
 We did review this proposal against the criteria for approval for a debt and development code

01:08:05.160 --> 01:08:06.760
 tax amendment.

01:08:06.760 --> 01:08:08.720
 And we have some findings.

01:08:08.720 --> 01:08:12.680
 First of all, the proposal maintains the review and approval process for alternative ESA plans.

01:08:12.680 --> 01:08:13.680
 It doesn't negate that.

01:08:13.680 --> 01:08:20.080
 It doesn't water down our alternate ESA plans, regulations, criteria for approval.

01:08:20.080 --> 01:08:25.320
 But it does allow for more logical submittal timing, just more of a logical development

01:08:25.320 --> 01:08:26.640
 process.

01:08:26.640 --> 01:08:32.040
 The shot clock is really one of those items that did kind of bring this to the fore, that

01:08:32.040 --> 01:08:37.440
 applicants are required to submit an unnecessary plat that could not meet the criteria for approval,

01:08:37.440 --> 01:08:41.240
 which resulting in a plat denial with additional submittals and meetings and fees.

01:08:41.240 --> 01:08:45.320
 So we really just want to avoid that from a policy standpoint.

01:08:45.320 --> 01:08:49.600
 And you know, as we stated before with all of these code amendments, the debt and development

01:08:49.600 --> 01:08:53.400
 code was a massive undertaking and it was a really complex document.

01:08:53.400 --> 01:08:58.660
 And so this really is just a further refinement of that 2019 debt and development code.

01:08:58.660 --> 01:09:04.320
 As it's being implemented, we're finding conflicts that maybe we need to resolve with that implementation.

01:09:04.320 --> 01:09:06.440
 And I'll stand for any questions.

01:09:06.440 --> 01:09:07.520
 >> Mr. Beck.

01:09:07.520 --> 01:09:08.520
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:09:08.520 --> 01:09:15.120
 So you sort of started down the path of one of my questions and that was the effect of

01:09:15.120 --> 01:09:20.440
 eliminating 2A3.

01:09:20.440 --> 01:09:25.560
 And I understand that we're trying to eliminate the catch 22 chicken and egg problem and it's

01:09:25.560 --> 01:09:31.760
 exactly what I brought up earlier about, you know, can we, should we approve this for that

01:09:31.760 --> 01:09:32.840
 earlier item?

01:09:32.840 --> 01:09:40.360
 But so one of the advantages of having the plat before the ESA is you kind of have a

01:09:40.360 --> 01:09:45.000
 vague feeling for what the intention of the developer is for that area when you're trying

01:09:45.000 --> 01:09:50.480
 to understand the ramifications of altering the ESA.

01:09:50.480 --> 01:09:58.120
 And so I don't think we've gotten, I'm not sure this just shifts the burden to the ESA

01:09:58.120 --> 01:10:00.200
 by removing the plat.

01:10:00.200 --> 01:10:08.720
 So I'm concerned that in the process, is there a way to have a non-plat plat or a provisional

01:10:08.720 --> 01:10:15.800
 plat or something where you have an idea of what's going into the plan without it being

01:10:15.800 --> 01:10:17.360
 a shot clock plat?

01:10:17.360 --> 01:10:23.960
 >> Well, and that is, you know, in some instances, maybe a preliminary plat is something that

01:10:23.960 --> 01:10:25.640
 they want to propose.

01:10:25.640 --> 01:10:30.920
 You know, what we wanted to do was to kind of leave it open ended and in those unique

01:10:30.920 --> 01:10:36.440
 circumstances where an alternative ESA is, those relief procedures are being sought.

01:10:36.440 --> 01:10:41.760
 We want to provide flexibility in that timing and that progression of the project.

01:10:41.760 --> 01:10:45.400
 So that is something that we talked about because the applicant does need to have an

01:10:45.400 --> 01:10:51.280
 understanding of what they're proposing and what's on the ground before, you know, really

01:10:51.280 --> 01:10:59.200
 even an alternative ESA can be reviewed or considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission

01:10:59.200 --> 01:11:00.200
 and City Council.

01:11:00.200 --> 01:11:04.720
 So, you know, on the typical development process, the very first step that an applicant will

01:11:04.720 --> 01:11:10.800
 do is if there is an ESA, a possible ESA on a site, they'll do an ESA assessment just

01:11:10.800 --> 01:11:13.440
 to determine if it's there and what the boundaries are.

01:11:13.440 --> 01:11:17.520
 We'll have several meetings with an applicant to see what they're proposing.

01:11:17.520 --> 01:11:21.980
 For instance, I'm working on a plan development right now where they are wanting to potentially

01:11:21.980 --> 01:11:25.480
 impact an ESA and we've had several meetings with them.

01:11:25.480 --> 01:11:30.360
 We've looked at their layout and then we've looked at the ESA, the limits of that ESA

01:11:30.360 --> 01:11:31.680
 in relationship to that.

01:11:31.680 --> 01:11:36.800
 So it doesn't, the alternative ESA typically doesn't spring from nowhere.

01:11:36.800 --> 01:11:43.120
 There's a continuing conversation with staff in order to ensure that that ESA is in fact

01:11:43.120 --> 01:11:47.120
 there, what the limits are and then what their proposal is going to be.

01:11:47.120 --> 01:11:54.400
 So I understand for most development and developers and people are trying to work with a piece

01:11:54.400 --> 01:12:00.080
 of property that 90% of the time just the sheer churn is going to give you what you

01:12:00.080 --> 01:12:07.040
 want but I'm worried about the edge cases where you have a recalcitrant developer who

01:12:07.040 --> 01:12:13.960
 wants to cut it right at the edge and do the minimum and that ends up creating a problem

01:12:13.960 --> 01:12:18.120
 where you see my issues there.

01:12:18.120 --> 01:12:19.120
 Sure.

01:12:19.120 --> 01:12:20.600
 That is a concern.

01:12:20.600 --> 01:12:26.320
 We always have those additional steps within the development process.

01:12:26.320 --> 01:12:31.800
 Within platting you also have civil plans, you have tree preservation plans and then

01:12:31.800 --> 01:12:34.160
 you have public infrastructure.

01:12:34.160 --> 01:12:39.720
 So there's a lot of steps in the process where if there are concerns about those edges

01:12:39.720 --> 01:12:44.160
 of those ESAs or potential impacts that you could stop and say hang on, we need to tap

01:12:44.160 --> 01:12:45.160
 the brakes.

01:12:45.160 --> 01:12:48.400
 If this is the direction you want to go, you're going to have to go through this additional

01:12:48.400 --> 01:12:49.400
 scrutiny.

01:12:49.400 --> 01:12:50.400
 Okay.

01:12:50.400 --> 01:12:51.400
 Thank you.

01:12:51.400 --> 01:12:52.400
 Dr. Schultz.

01:12:52.400 --> 01:12:53.400
 Thank you, Chair.

01:12:53.400 --> 01:12:58.960
 So Julie, I definitely understand why we're proposing this and it's the state that's

01:12:58.960 --> 01:13:01.040
 really made this difficult.

01:13:01.040 --> 01:13:05.440
 I guess what I want to know is there was a reason that we put it in there in the first

01:13:05.440 --> 01:13:13.800
 place so what was the intent of wanting to run them concurrently and are we losing what

01:13:13.800 --> 01:13:14.880
 that intent was?

01:13:14.880 --> 01:13:18.440
 I mean, is this the best we can do to just eliminate it?

01:13:18.440 --> 01:13:22.960
 I've had difficulty discovering that because actually when I went back and reviewed the

01:13:22.960 --> 01:13:30.300
 ordinance, the ESA update that was done I believe in 2017 and then that subsequent update

01:13:30.300 --> 01:13:34.680
 that took the tree preservation and ESA altogether, it didn't include this provision.

01:13:34.680 --> 01:13:35.680
 Yeah.

01:13:35.680 --> 01:13:40.120
 So we didn't have anything in writing in the old code that said run them concurrently.

01:13:40.120 --> 01:13:45.240
 We just ran them concurrently, right, is just I guess.

01:13:45.240 --> 01:13:52.880
 And there was a feeling at that time that it should, platting and ESA should run together

01:13:52.880 --> 01:13:58.880
 and that's not necessarily a bad thing but conditions have changed with that shot clock

01:13:58.880 --> 01:14:03.920
 and with the introduction of the PDs as a tool in our toolbox.

01:14:03.920 --> 01:14:09.520
 They're kind of making that process difficult and kind of untenable.

01:14:09.520 --> 01:14:12.080
 It's not that platting couldn't run with it.

01:14:12.080 --> 01:14:17.500
 It's just from a broad perspective in general requiring it all the time.

01:14:17.500 --> 01:14:20.480
 It's just difficult to implement and require.

01:14:20.480 --> 01:14:21.480
 Okay.

01:14:21.480 --> 01:14:25.960
 So we don't remember really discussing this as a staff that we want, hey, we want this

01:14:25.960 --> 01:14:27.600
 put in the code.

01:14:27.600 --> 01:14:32.420
 It just -- Unless Richard remembers a specific conversation.

01:14:32.420 --> 01:14:34.120
 I've searched my brain.

01:14:34.120 --> 01:14:35.840
 I really don't recall.

01:14:35.840 --> 01:14:39.400
 I don't remember discussing it in the subcommittee at all.

01:14:39.400 --> 01:14:47.920
 When we first started talking about it, I didn't think it was even in the code.

01:14:47.920 --> 01:14:49.880
 Any other questions for Julie?

01:14:49.880 --> 01:14:50.880
 Great.

01:14:50.880 --> 01:14:54.120
 So that is our last item for the work session.

01:14:54.120 --> 01:14:59.240
 Before we break, I wanted to just let you all know of an ordinance change for your edification

01:14:59.240 --> 01:15:00.720
 because it might come up.

01:15:00.720 --> 01:15:02.680
 Did council vote on this?

01:15:02.680 --> 01:15:04.040
 Is this how they got voted?

01:15:04.040 --> 01:15:06.220
 So council voted on this and it's now implemented.

01:15:06.220 --> 01:15:13.320
 So the change is it now allows individuals to speak a second time at public hearing under

01:15:13.320 --> 01:15:14.320
 a condition.

01:15:14.320 --> 01:15:15.320
 Not everyone speaks twice.

01:15:15.320 --> 01:15:19.840
 But I want to let you all know what the code or the ordinance says just so as we know if

01:15:19.840 --> 01:15:22.520
 someone came back up and spoke, that might be permittable.

01:15:22.520 --> 01:15:28.880
 It says only those speakers who previously provided input on a specific item will be permitted

01:15:28.880 --> 01:15:33.500
 to provide a final rebuttal of up to two minutes per speakers.

01:15:33.500 --> 01:15:37.800
 Speakers will have the opportunity to make a single final rebuttal after hearing the

01:15:37.800 --> 01:15:42.040
 applicant's rebuttal as set forth in this section referenced here.

01:15:42.040 --> 01:15:47.040
 So if a speaker comes up and gives three minutes of testimony, the applicant then comes up

01:15:47.040 --> 01:15:49.560
 to say something back to them.

01:15:49.560 --> 01:15:53.520
 The citizen has the final say with those two minutes.

01:15:53.520 --> 01:15:58.240
 And so if they're rebutting something from the applicant, and they've already spoken,

01:15:58.240 --> 01:16:01.020
 they're able to have an additional two minutes.

01:16:01.020 --> 01:16:07.240
 So with that, I will close the work session at 618, we'll reconvene at 635 in council

01:16:07.240 --> 01:16:08.240
 chambers.

01:16:08.240 --> 01:16:15.480
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting

01:16:15.480 --> 01:16:18.560
 for February 5th, 2020.

01:16:18.560 --> 01:16:22.520
 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 639.

01:16:22.520 --> 01:16:26.840
 Just let the record reflect that Commissioner Panetta is absent from us this evening.

01:16:26.840 --> 01:16:30.400
 The first item of business is to stand if able and provide a Pledge of Allegiance to

01:16:30.400 --> 01:16:31.400
 the US and Texas flag.

01:16:31.400 --> 01:16:32.400
 >> Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic

01:16:32.400 --> 01:16:33.400
 for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for

01:16:33.400 --> 01:16:34.400
 all.

01:16:34.400 --> 01:16:35.400
 Honored by the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one

01:16:35.400 --> 01:16:36.400
 and indivisible.

01:16:36.400 --> 01:16:37.400
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic,

01:16:37.400 --> 01:16:38.400
 under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:16:38.400 --> 01:16:39.400
 >> Honored by the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and

01:16:39.400 --> 01:16:40.400
 indivisible.

01:16:40.400 --> 01:16:41.400
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, under

01:16:41.400 --> 01:16:42.400
 God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:16:42.400 --> 01:17:01.440
 >> Honored by the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one

01:17:01.440 --> 01:17:02.440
 and indivisible.

01:17:02.440 --> 01:17:06.280
 >> The next item of business is to consider the approval of our minutes from January 22nd.

01:17:06.280 --> 01:17:18.000
 Mr. Smith, Mr. Anderson, we have a first and a second for approval, any discussion?

01:17:18.000 --> 01:17:26.000
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:17:26.000 --> 01:17:30.200
 Motion carries 6-0 with one absent.

01:17:30.200 --> 01:17:37.080
 The next item of business is our consent agenda.

01:17:37.080 --> 01:17:38.080
 Mr. Ellis?

01:17:38.080 --> 01:17:39.080
 >> I move approval.

01:17:39.080 --> 01:17:42.720
 >> We have a first for approval of the consent agenda, Mr. Smith?

01:17:42.720 --> 01:17:43.720
 >> Second.

01:17:43.720 --> 01:17:48.240
 >> We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion?

01:17:48.240 --> 01:17:57.000
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:17:57.000 --> 01:17:59.440
 Motion carries 6-0.

01:17:59.440 --> 01:18:05.680
 The next item for business is item 4A, PP19-0027A.

01:18:05.680 --> 01:18:21.880
 I'll invite Haley Zagirsky for presentation.

01:18:21.880 --> 01:18:22.880
 >> Good evening.

01:18:22.880 --> 01:18:24.960
 This is the preliminary plan for the Elm Street townhome addition.

01:18:24.960 --> 01:18:28.600
 It's located at the southwest corner of Sycamore and Elm Street.

01:18:28.600 --> 01:18:32.320
 Staff is recommending denial of this plant for the reasons outlined in your backup.

01:18:32.320 --> 01:18:36.760
 A 30-day extension has already been granted for this plant and they failed to reconcile

01:18:36.760 --> 01:18:38.240
 all the comments during that time.

01:18:38.240 --> 01:18:39.960
 So we are recommending denial.

01:18:39.960 --> 01:18:42.960
 Stand for any questions?

01:18:42.960 --> 01:18:44.240
 >> I do not see any questions.

01:18:44.240 --> 01:18:45.240
 Thank you very much.

01:18:45.240 --> 01:18:46.240
 Mr. Smith?

01:18:46.240 --> 01:18:50.560
 >> Make a motion and deny.

01:18:50.560 --> 01:18:52.280
 >> We have a first for deny.

01:18:52.280 --> 01:18:53.280
 Mr. Anderson?

01:18:53.280 --> 01:18:54.280
 >> I second.

01:18:54.280 --> 01:18:58.260
 >> We have a first and a second to deny.

01:18:58.260 --> 01:18:59.260
 Any discussion?

01:18:59.260 --> 01:19:09.480
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:19:09.480 --> 01:19:12.920
 The motion to deny carries 6-0.

01:19:12.920 --> 01:19:19.040
 The next item for business is item 4B, PP19-38, and I'll invite Haley back up for presentation.

01:19:19.040 --> 01:19:21.040
 >> Good evening.

01:19:21.040 --> 01:19:25.360
 The request before you is a preliminary plan for the Eagle Cove addition.

01:19:25.360 --> 01:19:30.280
 This is located on the south side of Dutchess Drive, west of Loop 288.

01:19:30.280 --> 01:19:33.640
 Staff is recommending denial for the reasons that are outlined in your backup, however,

01:19:33.640 --> 01:19:37.280
 the applicant has requested a 30-day extension which would put the plant back on the March

01:19:37.280 --> 01:19:38.280
 4th agenda.

01:19:38.280 --> 01:19:39.280
 >> Thank you.

01:19:39.280 --> 01:19:41.280
 I don't see any questions.

01:19:41.280 --> 01:19:43.760
 Commissioner Beck?

01:19:43.760 --> 01:19:46.200
 >> I make a motion to deny.

01:19:46.200 --> 01:19:49.000
 >> We have a motion to deny.

01:19:49.000 --> 01:19:54.480
 Is there a second?

01:19:54.480 --> 01:20:00.880
 Seeing none, motion fails.

01:20:00.880 --> 01:20:01.880
 Commissioner Smith?

01:20:01.880 --> 01:20:06.060
 >> I make a motion to approve the extension to date certain March 4th, 2020.

01:20:06.060 --> 01:20:08.440
 >> We have a first for a postponement.

01:20:08.440 --> 01:20:09.440
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:20:09.440 --> 01:20:11.620
 >> I second the motion.

01:20:11.620 --> 01:20:15.320
 >> We have a first and a second to postpone to a date certain of March 4th.

01:20:15.320 --> 01:20:19.120
 Is there any discussion?

01:20:19.120 --> 01:20:31.160
 >> I see none, I call for a vote on the board.

01:20:31.160 --> 01:20:34.960
 Motion carries 5-1.

01:20:34.960 --> 01:20:41.160
 Next item of business is item 4C, FP 19-33B.

01:20:41.160 --> 01:20:43.540
 Commissioner Cole, are you?

01:20:43.540 --> 01:20:47.880
 Thank you very much.

01:20:47.880 --> 01:20:51.320
 This item is presented by Cindy Jackson.

01:20:51.320 --> 01:20:52.320
 >> Thank you.

01:20:52.320 --> 01:20:59.840
 This is a request for approval of the final plat of Fisher 59, lot 2 block A. The site

01:20:59.840 --> 01:21:09.040
 is located on the north side of University and west of Marsh Branch.

01:21:09.040 --> 01:21:15.120
 Staff recommends approval of this plat with the following conditions regarding the associated

01:21:15.120 --> 01:21:22.480
 AESA plan, AESA 20-0001.

01:21:22.480 --> 01:21:29.480
 The AESA must be modified to reflect the boundaries of the final plat and the AESA must be approved

01:21:29.480 --> 01:21:32.600
 prior to the filing of this plat with the county.

01:21:32.600 --> 01:21:33.600
 That completes my presentation.

01:21:33.600 --> 01:21:34.600
 >> Thank you, Cindy.

01:21:34.600 --> 01:21:37.480
 We do have a question for Commissioner Beck?

01:21:37.480 --> 01:21:38.480
 >> Thank you, Chair.

01:21:38.480 --> 01:21:42.000
 Cindy, I'm just going to be careful here.

01:21:42.000 --> 01:21:52.580
 The conditions are that if the future FEB 19th alternative ESA plan does not carry, then

01:21:52.580 --> 01:21:54.920
 that's the condition for this plan and it would also not carry.

01:21:54.920 --> 01:21:55.920
 Is that correct?

01:21:55.920 --> 01:21:56.920
 >> That's right.

01:21:56.920 --> 01:22:00.120
 We wouldn't be able to file it if the AESA was not approved.

01:22:00.120 --> 01:22:01.120
 >> Okay.

01:22:01.120 --> 01:22:02.120
 Thank you.

01:22:02.120 --> 01:22:04.840
 >> I do not see any other questions.

01:22:04.840 --> 01:22:05.840
 Thank you.

01:22:05.840 --> 01:22:06.840
 >> Thank you.

01:22:06.840 --> 01:22:07.840
 >> Commissioner Anderson?

01:22:07.840 --> 01:22:08.840
 >> No motion.

01:22:08.840 --> 01:22:09.840
 >> New motion, no?

01:22:09.840 --> 01:22:10.840
 >> Yes.

01:22:10.840 --> 01:22:12.960
 >> I make a motion to approve.

01:22:12.960 --> 01:22:14.640
 >> We have a first, Commissioner Smith?

01:22:14.640 --> 01:22:15.640
 >> Second.

01:22:15.640 --> 01:22:21.400
 >> We have a first and a second for approval in the discussion.

01:22:21.400 --> 01:22:24.120
 And Commissioner Anderson, just to clarify, you're approving with those conditions?

01:22:24.120 --> 01:22:25.120
 >> With conditions, yes.

01:22:25.120 --> 01:22:28.420
 >> And you're good with that second, Commissioner Smith?

01:22:28.420 --> 01:22:29.880
 We have no discussion.

01:22:29.880 --> 01:22:42.520
 We'll call for a vote to approve with conditions on the board.

01:22:42.520 --> 01:22:45.280
 Motion carries 5-0 with one recusal.

01:22:45.280 --> 01:22:49.840
 I'll invite Commissioner Cole to rejoin us.

01:22:49.840 --> 01:22:53.360
 Item 4B is being pulled from tonight's consideration.

01:22:53.360 --> 01:23:01.480
 So that moves us to the public hearing items beginning with 5A, Z19-13B.

01:23:01.480 --> 01:23:04.560
 I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the public hearing.

01:23:20.560 --> 01:23:24.640
 >> Thank you, good evening, Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

01:23:24.640 --> 01:23:28.480
 My name is Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner with the Department of Development Services.

01:23:28.480 --> 01:23:33.960
 The item I'm presenting tonight is Z19-13, the Cambridge Brook Project.

01:23:33.960 --> 01:23:40.800
 The request before you tonight is to rezone from a planned development to an R6 district

01:23:40.800 --> 01:23:44.440
 on approximately 59.24 acres.

01:23:44.440 --> 01:23:48.960
 This property is located just to the east of South Bonnie Bray.

01:23:48.960 --> 01:23:52.460
 To the north, there is a natural area along Rourke Branch Creek.

01:23:52.460 --> 01:23:57.200
 To the south is an area designated for the future Southwest Park.

01:23:57.200 --> 01:24:00.400
 You have large lot single-family development to the east.

01:24:00.400 --> 01:24:06.600
 And to the west is vacant land that is designated as part of the Hunter Ranch Master Plan Community

01:24:06.600 --> 01:24:09.420
 for future mixed-use development.

01:24:09.420 --> 01:24:14.640
 We have trees to the east of that property, a floodplain and ESA crossing the boundary

01:24:14.640 --> 01:24:16.160
 at the north.

01:24:16.160 --> 01:24:20.920
 The applicant has stated their proposed intent with this rezoning is to be able to develop

01:24:20.920 --> 01:24:27.320
 203 detached single-family residences.

01:24:27.320 --> 01:24:32.880
 The concept plan the applicant has provided, you can see there before you.

01:24:32.880 --> 01:24:36.080
 For this case, it's important to be aware of the site zoning history.

01:24:36.080 --> 01:24:42.460
 In 1991, City Council included this property in PD 139, which was approved.

01:24:42.460 --> 01:24:47.800
 The concept plan for that PD for the subject property authorized a mix of possible uses,

01:24:47.800 --> 01:24:53.680
 which included residential up to 20 dwelling units per acre, among others.

01:24:53.680 --> 01:24:59.240
 In 1999, a plan development amendment was approved, which included a change to the concept

01:24:59.240 --> 01:25:06.880
 plan for this area, which called for the sole possible development to be attached single-family

01:25:06.880 --> 01:25:12.800
 at maximum permitted density of 12 dwelling units per acre.

01:25:12.800 --> 01:25:15.680
 Other than some minor amendments since then, that's where we are today.

01:25:15.680 --> 01:25:20.240
 The applicant could develop the property with town homes at 12 dwelling units per acre.

01:25:20.240 --> 01:25:28.280
 However, the applicant is requesting this rezoning to residential R6 based on the minimum

01:25:28.280 --> 01:25:29.720
 lot size in R6.

01:25:29.720 --> 01:25:35.600
 The maximum permitted density after this rezoning would be 7.2 dwelling units per acre, which

01:25:35.600 --> 01:25:41.160
 because you asked about it earlier, I just want to note under the PD, that would be a

01:25:41.160 --> 01:25:45.400
 total of 710 units that could develop.

01:25:45.400 --> 01:25:49.040
 After this, it would be a total of 390 units, and of course, the applicant is proposing

01:25:49.040 --> 01:25:53.800
 203, which is a density of 3.4 dwelling units per acre.

01:25:53.800 --> 01:26:01.080
 As you can see here, the current state, the PD, and then it would be, if this was approved,

01:26:01.080 --> 01:26:03.340
 R6 zoning.

01:26:03.340 --> 01:26:09.760
 So we have general criteria under the development code that apply to all development applications,

01:26:09.760 --> 01:26:13.920
 and based on our review, we've determined that this case meets all of those criteria,

01:26:13.920 --> 01:26:16.120
 but we will discuss some of those items in more detail.

01:26:16.120 --> 01:26:23.360
 I want to focus primarily on the specific criteria for zoning case approval or denial,

01:26:23.360 --> 01:26:30.840
 and the most relevant items in those criteria are A, E, and F. So we'll jump into that.

01:26:30.840 --> 01:26:35.320
 One of the most important things that we consider with the rezoning request is that it's compatible

01:26:35.320 --> 01:26:40.400
 with the comprehensive plan, Denton Plan 2030, and one key element of that is our future

01:26:40.400 --> 01:26:41.400
 land use map.

01:26:41.400 --> 01:26:46.760
 The subject property is designated as low-density residential, and Denton Plan 2030 tells us

01:26:46.760 --> 01:26:53.620
 that calls for a maximum of four dwelling units per acre.

01:26:53.620 --> 01:26:59.600
 The R6 zoning proposed would not precisely conform to that, however, currently, it could

01:26:59.600 --> 01:27:02.440
 be developed as discussed at 12 dwelling units per acre.

01:27:02.440 --> 01:27:07.840
 So the reduction to a maximum of 7.2 dwelling units per acre brings it much closer to what

01:27:07.840 --> 01:27:12.960
 the future land use map calls for, and therefore, we would consider that it's compatible with

01:27:12.960 --> 01:27:13.960
 the intent.

01:27:13.960 --> 01:27:17.160
 It's moving much closer to it with this decision.

01:27:17.160 --> 01:27:20.000
 The future land use map is not the only thing in the comprehensive plan, though.

01:27:20.000 --> 01:27:26.720
 It's important to also recognize that by zoning out of the PD to a standard R6 district, that

01:27:26.720 --> 01:27:32.340
 brings this site under the jurisdiction of all of the standards of the current 2019 DDC,

01:27:32.340 --> 01:27:38.120
 rather than the mix of standards that would apply under the PD, and because the 2019 DDC

01:27:38.120 --> 01:27:43.480
 was designed to align with the goals and intent of Denton Plan 2030, requiring that this property

01:27:43.480 --> 01:27:48.320
 meet those standards really helps bring this property in line with the comprehensive plan.

01:27:48.320 --> 01:27:53.760
 Additionally, it would help to achieve a 2030 plan goal, LU5, by bringing a neighborhood

01:27:53.760 --> 01:27:56.960
 close to parks, make more functional neighborhoods.

01:27:56.960 --> 01:28:01.400
 A last point is just to be aware of a little bit of the history of the approvals on this

01:28:01.400 --> 01:28:02.400
 site.

01:28:02.400 --> 01:28:06.480
 When this was approved in 1991, City Council determined that the comprehensive plan at

01:28:06.480 --> 01:28:11.440
 the time, this was an appropriate density, and that was actually 20 dwelling units per

01:28:11.440 --> 01:28:12.440
 acre.

01:28:12.440 --> 01:28:17.520
 In 1999, the Plan Development Amendment, City Council determined that 12 dwelling units

01:28:17.520 --> 01:28:21.880
 per acre, perfectly consistent with the comprehensive plan, future land use at the time.

01:28:21.880 --> 01:28:26.720
 It was only the most recent comprehensive plan in which the future land use map moved

01:28:26.720 --> 01:28:29.240
 out of step with what was already approved for this property.

01:28:29.240 --> 01:28:32.800
 I think that's just good to be aware of, as we're considering the overall compatibility

01:28:32.800 --> 01:28:37.200
 of this request with the comprehensive plan, and we would say that it is compatible with

01:28:37.200 --> 01:28:40.200
 the comprehensive plan.

01:28:40.200 --> 01:28:42.080
 Next I want to look at general criterion seven.

01:28:42.080 --> 01:28:46.440
 It's particularly important for this site that's minimizing adverse environmental impacts,

01:28:46.440 --> 01:28:50.800
 because we do have ESA and a significant amount of tree canopy on the site.

01:28:50.800 --> 01:28:55.840
 It's important to note that by zoning out of the PD, we ensure that the most current

01:28:55.840 --> 01:29:02.800
 standards in the 2019 DDC for protection of ESA and tree canopy would be applied to this

01:29:02.800 --> 01:29:03.800
 site.

01:29:03.800 --> 01:29:09.720
 Currently, we'd be applying a mix of standards on the PD, including the 1988 landscape code.

01:29:09.720 --> 01:29:15.280
 So we're raising the standard of protection for our natural environment significantly

01:29:15.280 --> 01:29:16.280
 with this, if this is approved.

01:29:16.280 --> 01:29:20.880
 And good to be aware of that, this request would help to minimize adverse environmental

01:29:20.880 --> 01:29:24.720
 impacts of development on this site.

01:29:24.720 --> 01:29:28.820
 General criterion eight, very important to consider the potential adverse impacts on

01:29:28.820 --> 01:29:30.600
 surrounding property.

01:29:30.600 --> 01:29:35.280
 And the key point here is that this is represents, this request would represent a reduction in

01:29:35.280 --> 01:29:36.800
 possible density.

01:29:36.800 --> 01:29:42.080
 So any negative impacts you'd be concerned about due to density would be naturally reduced

01:29:42.080 --> 01:29:45.760
 by this request because it represents a significant reduction.

01:29:45.760 --> 01:29:51.160
 And of course, again, we're bringing it into being held with the standard, the 2019 DDC,

01:29:51.160 --> 01:29:56.480
 which includes higher landscape standards, open space standards, and essentially ensures

01:29:56.480 --> 01:30:02.680
 that it'd be held with similar standards to the properties around it as they develop.

01:30:02.680 --> 01:30:07.720
 Zoning criteria E and F, and this is where we look at the potential impact of this request

01:30:07.720 --> 01:30:11.360
 on the public infrastructure around the property.

01:30:11.360 --> 01:30:17.240
 The TIA that was done with this project determined that the intersection that would come between

01:30:17.240 --> 01:30:24.560
 the site access road in South Bonnebury, it'd be expected to see about 1,995 daily trips

01:30:24.560 --> 01:30:26.200
 generated by this site.

01:30:26.200 --> 01:30:30.560
 And it's expected to perform at a level of service A, which is the highest possible level

01:30:30.560 --> 01:30:33.000
 of service with no additional turn lanes needed.

01:30:33.000 --> 01:30:37.400
 In terms of water and wastewater, water is already available to the site.

01:30:37.400 --> 01:30:42.080
 Water line comes close and bringing that to serve the property would be at the expense

01:30:42.080 --> 01:30:43.720
 of the applicant.

01:30:43.720 --> 01:30:48.580
 And finally, perimeter street improvements, the site access road as well as any perimeter

01:30:48.580 --> 01:30:52.240
 street improvements to South Bonnebury would need to be constructed to meet city of Denton

01:30:52.240 --> 01:30:55.320
 standards.

01:30:55.320 --> 01:31:01.920
 In terms of schools, I was able to get in touch with Denton ISD and use their student

01:31:01.920 --> 01:31:06.240
 generation calculator, and then they were also able to give me kind of the current capacity

01:31:06.240 --> 01:31:08.360
 at the schools that would be affected.

01:31:08.360 --> 01:31:12.720
 As you can see, the students expected to be generated would be significantly less than

01:31:12.720 --> 01:31:15.440
 the available capacity in each of those schools.

01:31:15.440 --> 01:31:21.240
 Finally, on parks, of course, the Southwest Park is headed and designed to go in directly

01:31:21.240 --> 01:31:25.060
 across the street from where this request has been made, so you'd have a neighborhood

01:31:25.060 --> 01:31:28.920
 well within a 10-minute walk of a park, and they would have to pay all applicable park

01:31:28.920 --> 01:31:34.040
 education and development fees, time of planning and building permits.

01:31:34.040 --> 01:31:38.320
 So I also want to touch on just the notification.

01:31:38.320 --> 01:31:43.440
 We did send out letters and postcards with 200-500-foot limits.

01:31:43.440 --> 01:31:47.040
 We didn't receive any response for or against.

01:31:47.040 --> 01:31:51.160
 The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting, which was attended by two individuals.

01:31:51.160 --> 01:31:56.320
 They had some questions about the expected price that these properties would sell at,

01:31:56.320 --> 01:32:00.160
 the size of the lots, kind of the construction timeline.

01:32:00.160 --> 01:32:04.600
 They seemed satisfied with the answers they received and were neutral to support of when

01:32:04.600 --> 01:32:05.600
 they left.

01:32:05.600 --> 01:32:10.400
 Taking all this together, staff recommends approval of the request as it complies with

01:32:10.400 --> 01:32:16.600
 both the general criteria in section 2.45E and the specific zoning criteria in section

01:32:16.600 --> 01:32:19.800
 272D for approval.

01:32:19.800 --> 01:32:21.880
 With that, I'll stand for any questions you have.

01:32:21.880 --> 01:32:22.880
 >> Thank you.

01:32:22.880 --> 01:32:23.880
 Shawn, I do have a question.

01:32:23.880 --> 01:32:24.880
 Commissioner Beck?

01:32:24.880 --> 01:32:25.880
 >> Yes, thank you, Chair.

01:32:25.880 --> 01:32:31.440
 I forgot to ask you this earlier, but with the zoning change, if it's approved to R6,

01:32:31.440 --> 01:32:35.800
 any subsequent development would have to go through the normal planning and development

01:32:35.800 --> 01:32:36.800
 process.

01:32:36.800 --> 01:32:37.800
 Is that correct?

01:32:37.800 --> 01:32:38.800
 >> That is absolutely correct, sir.

01:32:38.800 --> 01:32:39.800
 >> Okay, thank you.

01:32:39.800 --> 01:32:41.840
 >> I did not see any other questions.

01:32:41.840 --> 01:32:43.920
 Thank you for the presentation.

01:32:43.920 --> 01:32:44.920
 This is a public hearing.

01:32:44.920 --> 01:32:46.360
 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

01:32:46.360 --> 01:32:54.640
 We do have a card from the applicant, so I'll invite Jerry Silo, I'm guessing, up for speaking.

01:32:54.640 --> 01:33:03.720
 If he just states your name and address for the record, you'll be provided up to 10 minutes.

01:33:03.720 --> 01:33:14.040
 >> Good evening, my name is Jerry Silo, I'm with the JBI partners, 2121 Midway Road in

01:33:14.040 --> 01:33:15.040
 Carrollton.

01:33:15.040 --> 01:33:17.280
 We do represent the applicant on this request this evening.

01:33:17.280 --> 01:33:21.400
 Appreciate everybody's time this evening, especially considering the weather change.

01:33:21.400 --> 01:33:23.400
 So I'm going to be as brief as I can.

01:33:23.400 --> 01:33:27.320
 Jeff goes through a very detailed analysis, provides the commission with a lot of information

01:33:27.320 --> 01:33:28.720
 up ahead.

01:33:28.720 --> 01:33:32.400
 My goal here is to touch on a couple points that were brought up during the briefing session

01:33:32.400 --> 01:33:37.200
 and maybe alleviate some concerns, just to give you a little brief synopsis of where

01:33:37.200 --> 01:33:41.280
 we are and how we got here.

01:33:41.280 --> 01:33:46.080
 This is the property shown up there in the orange outline is the Cambridge Brook neighborhood,

01:33:46.080 --> 01:33:52.960
 south of Vintage on the west side of Bonnie Bray, I-35W is just to the west.

01:33:52.960 --> 01:33:55.400
 59 acres.

01:33:55.400 --> 01:34:03.080
 While the zoning allows for a much higher density, the configuration, the lotting configuration,

01:34:03.080 --> 01:34:08.680
 the street pattern that's shown on the drawing here, we have worked with our client to come

01:34:08.680 --> 01:34:11.300
 up with a plan to develop the property.

01:34:11.300 --> 01:34:15.200
 We fully anticipate that a plan very similar to this, if not identical to this, will be

01:34:15.200 --> 01:34:18.720
 coming forward as a preliminary plan and a final plan.

01:34:18.720 --> 01:34:24.520
 And as Sean indicated, we're proposing 203 homes that may be 200 and maybe 205 when we

01:34:24.520 --> 01:34:29.000
 get to ultimate platting, but it's going to be right there, plus or minus one or two,

01:34:29.000 --> 01:34:33.520
 which is 3.4 homes to the acre, which qualifies as the low density, irrespective of what the

01:34:33.520 --> 01:34:37.840
 zoning designation allows for.

01:34:37.840 --> 01:34:44.340
 That 3.4 to the acre, those 200 homes, that is a 71% decrease from what the zoning currently

01:34:44.340 --> 01:34:48.280
 allows out there, which is 710 townhomes.

01:34:48.280 --> 01:34:52.680
 And with that, there is a proportional decrease in the traffic on Bonnebrae, because that's

01:34:52.680 --> 01:34:57.040
 where everything's going to hit, eventually up to Vintage or down south.

01:34:57.040 --> 01:35:01.800
 So a 71% decrease in traffic from what is allowed at that zoning today.

01:35:01.800 --> 01:35:05.840
 As Sean indicated, the level of service that we would be hitting at that intersection with

01:35:05.840 --> 01:35:09.440
 our development is level of service A. We cannot get any better than that.

01:35:09.440 --> 01:35:11.920
 It's only going to get worse if there's more homes.

01:35:11.920 --> 01:35:16.160
 The school district, we are well within the capacity of the elementary school, the middle

01:35:16.160 --> 01:35:20.400
 school, and the high school, same thing, the existing zoning would have that much proportional

01:35:20.400 --> 01:35:22.840
 more impact on the school district.

01:35:22.840 --> 01:35:27.280
 So we feel those are all benefits, not only to the community, but the associated entities

01:35:27.280 --> 01:35:29.800
 with the community.

01:35:29.800 --> 01:35:33.560
 We are asking for the R6 zoning, we're not asking for a plan development, we're not asking

01:35:33.560 --> 01:35:35.240
 for anything special.

01:35:35.240 --> 01:35:39.480
 We're very comfortable with Denton's development requirements and their standards.

01:35:39.480 --> 01:35:45.640
 We had an ESA assessment back in March of 2019, we went out on the property, walked

01:35:45.640 --> 01:35:52.440
 the site, what we are proposing with the design, we are avoiding all of the ESAs, the major

01:35:52.440 --> 01:35:55.960
 one being the creek itself.

01:35:55.960 --> 01:36:01.320
 There was questions, points brought up regarding the master plan and how this proposal related

01:36:01.320 --> 01:36:03.180
 to the master plan.

01:36:03.180 --> 01:36:07.480
 As you remember on the master plan, I'm not going to go back to you, but I-35, this area

01:36:07.480 --> 01:36:11.320
 over here is primarily designated for medium intensity residential.

01:36:11.320 --> 01:36:16.080
 And the area to the east of us is designated for low intensity residential.

01:36:16.080 --> 01:36:21.280
 And so from that typical transition, you would go from medium to on the west side, low in

01:36:21.280 --> 01:36:24.480
 the middle, sorry, and rural on east of Bonnie Bray.

01:36:24.480 --> 01:36:29.520
 So in our head, that's a very logical transition from the rural on east of Bonnie Bray to the

01:36:29.520 --> 01:36:35.080
 more intensive development along I-35, that transition of the low intensity in between.

01:36:35.080 --> 01:36:39.960
 With respect to north-south transition, on the north side of the creek, we have police

01:36:39.960 --> 01:36:43.100
 stations, fire stations, indoor shooting range.

01:36:43.100 --> 01:36:46.920
 That's all sort of governmental that we really don't have control over.

01:36:46.920 --> 01:36:52.240
 But if I have a park on the south side of me and a major ESA on the north side of me,

01:36:52.240 --> 01:36:56.440
 I'm not sure what else would be more appropriate in that transition area besides a low density

01:36:56.440 --> 01:36:57.440
 residential neighborhood.

01:36:57.440 --> 01:37:01.360
 Obviously, in my opinion, commercial, industrial, none of that's appropriate.

01:37:01.360 --> 01:37:04.560
 Some type of residential is appropriate from a land use perspective.

01:37:04.560 --> 01:37:09.520
 And I think low intensity residential, as we're proposing, makes the most sense in terms

01:37:09.520 --> 01:37:15.680
 of that type of interaction between those uses there.

01:37:15.680 --> 01:37:19.440
 To address one of the commissioner's question regarding, even though we're zoning into the

01:37:19.440 --> 01:37:24.360
 R6, it allows for manufactured housing with an SUP, that is not our intent at all.

01:37:24.360 --> 01:37:28.560
 Our client's going to be building homes on site, just like every other home out in this

01:37:28.560 --> 01:37:29.560
 area.

01:37:29.560 --> 01:37:32.840
 The homes to be built are going to be very compatible to those built in the vintage and

01:37:32.840 --> 01:37:37.240
 the Meadows neighborhoods to the north.

01:37:37.240 --> 01:37:40.520
 This is a little more detail of the concept plan.

01:37:40.520 --> 01:37:45.040
 With regards to the emphasis on the environmental sensitive area up here at the north end with

01:37:45.040 --> 01:37:49.440
 the creek, the tree stands, those are a benefit to us.

01:37:49.440 --> 01:37:51.900
 JBI has a process we call smart design.

01:37:51.900 --> 01:37:58.080
 We try to find the best parts of the property and make sure that we emphasize them.

01:37:58.080 --> 01:38:01.540
 If you go back here in the vintage neighborhood, you look up here with the creek, what they

01:38:01.540 --> 01:38:05.260
 did in the olden days was they backed lots to that open space.

01:38:05.260 --> 01:38:08.080
 So the only people that are really getting a benefit from that open space are the people

01:38:08.080 --> 01:38:10.320
 that back up to that open space.

01:38:10.320 --> 01:38:15.880
 What we have done is we have, for the most part, sited and run streets down to emphasize

01:38:15.880 --> 01:38:19.680
 those open spaces so that on these streets as you go down, this is the top of the hill

01:38:19.680 --> 01:38:23.720
 that goes down to the creek, everybody that drives down these streets, their view corridor

01:38:23.720 --> 01:38:27.200
 is the tree stands and the creeks at the bottom end of the hill.

01:38:27.200 --> 01:38:31.800
 We think that is a better design for the neighborhood versus the few people that back up to the

01:38:31.800 --> 01:38:32.800
 creek.

01:38:32.800 --> 01:38:38.000
 Yes, our client would get a few more lot premiums by selling those lots against the creek, but

01:38:38.000 --> 01:38:41.280
 we think overall we are creating a better neighborhood by doing the design the way we

01:38:41.280 --> 01:38:42.280
 do it.

01:38:42.280 --> 01:38:46.600
 And we do that throughout, whether it is this project or any other project that JBI is involved

01:38:46.600 --> 01:38:47.600
 with.

01:38:47.600 --> 01:38:48.600
 But that is what we try to focus on.

01:38:48.600 --> 01:38:52.080
 We are trying to make the best thing that we can so that our client has the best product

01:38:52.080 --> 01:38:55.960
 that they can market and sell because it is a competitive world and they have to compete

01:38:55.960 --> 01:38:58.160
 with every other single family neighborhood out there.

01:38:58.160 --> 01:39:00.760
 So why should people come here?

01:39:00.760 --> 01:39:04.720
 We can have 20 people that back up to the creek or we can have 203 people that have

01:39:04.720 --> 01:39:06.040
 access to the creek.

01:39:06.040 --> 01:39:09.440
 We think that latter solution is a better solution for the neighborhood.

01:39:09.440 --> 01:39:14.520
 With that, I will end my presentation and be happy to answer any questions you may have.

01:39:14.520 --> 01:39:18.440
 I appreciate you being here, I don't see any questions at this time.

01:39:18.440 --> 01:39:19.440
 Thank you.

01:39:19.440 --> 01:39:27.880
 This is a public hearing, anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

01:39:27.880 --> 01:39:31.320
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn it for discussion or motion.

01:39:31.320 --> 01:39:32.320
 Commissioner Smith?

01:39:32.320 --> 01:39:33.320
 Move to approve.

01:39:33.320 --> 01:39:35.160
 We have a first for approval.

01:39:35.160 --> 01:39:36.160
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:39:36.160 --> 01:39:37.160
 I second the motion.

01:39:37.160 --> 01:39:38.800
 We have a first and a second for approval.

01:39:38.800 --> 01:39:42.480
 Is there any discussion on this?

01:39:42.480 --> 01:39:50.720
 Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.

01:39:50.720 --> 01:39:51.720
 Motion carries 6-0.

01:39:51.720 --> 01:39:52.720
 Congratulations.

01:39:52.720 --> 01:39:58.160
 Next item of business is item 5B, Z-19-11A.

01:39:58.160 --> 01:40:17.160
 I will invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and open the public hearing.

01:40:17.160 --> 01:40:18.160
 Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.

01:40:18.160 --> 01:40:23.240
 For the record, I'm Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department.

01:40:23.240 --> 01:40:29.240
 I have before you tonight Z-19-0011, Country Club Terrace Phase 2.

01:40:29.240 --> 01:40:35.720
 This is a request to rezone approximately 16.79 acres of land from the SC Suburban Corridor

01:40:35.720 --> 01:40:41.720
 District to the R-2 Residential District, excuse me, and the R-2 Residential District

01:40:41.720 --> 01:40:45.120
 to the R-4 Zoning District.

01:40:45.120 --> 01:40:51.440
 The subject property is located between Country Club Drive to the west, the railroad to the

01:40:51.440 --> 01:41:00.640
 east, and it's approximately 318 feet north of Hickory Creek Road.

01:41:00.640 --> 01:41:09.760
 This is a phasing plan for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the site.

01:41:09.760 --> 01:41:12.720
 Before you tonight is Phase 2 with 53 lots.

01:41:12.720 --> 01:41:18.800
 Eliminate plot for Phase 1 was approved by this Commission recently.

01:41:18.800 --> 01:41:25.520
 You'll note that the site does not have frontage along Country Club and it takes its access

01:41:25.520 --> 01:41:27.040
 through Phase 1.

01:41:27.040 --> 01:41:35.440
 That's preserving the ESA that is on this southern and western side.

01:41:35.440 --> 01:41:40.800
 Here you see the current zoning map.

01:41:40.800 --> 01:41:47.000
 The site is zone SC and R-2 currently and they're proposing continuation of the R-4

01:41:47.000 --> 01:41:49.200
 that is located to the north.

01:41:49.200 --> 01:41:56.960
 I had a question during the work session regarding the origins of the SC and the CMG that it

01:41:56.960 --> 01:41:57.960
 was originally.

01:41:57.960 --> 01:42:00.760
 Thank you to my coworkers who looked it up for me.

01:42:00.760 --> 01:42:05.640
 They had the answer before I even finished my presentation at work session.

01:42:05.640 --> 01:42:12.200
 The CMG was actually the product of the 2002 city-wide rezoning.

01:42:12.200 --> 01:42:22.660
 It was zone CMG to match the future land use designation of the site.

01:42:22.660 --> 01:42:28.040
 We have general criteria for approval of all applications and I covered all of this in

01:42:28.040 --> 01:42:31.120
 your backup and it does comply with these regulations.

01:42:31.120 --> 01:42:40.840
 I'm going to focus on the zoning criteria for approval in section 272D.

01:42:40.840 --> 01:42:48.080
 First up is the Denton Pond 2030 requirement to comply with the future land use designation

01:42:48.080 --> 01:42:49.080
 of the site.

01:42:49.080 --> 01:42:51.640
 This site has got two designations.

01:42:51.640 --> 01:42:56.720
 One is low residential and one is neighborhood mixed use.

01:42:56.720 --> 01:43:02.520
 This request complies with the low density residential designation which is intended for

01:43:02.520 --> 01:43:08.280
 suburban development up to four one and two story single family dwelling units per acre

01:43:08.280 --> 01:43:11.600
 complies with that requirement.

01:43:11.600 --> 01:43:18.080
 Also this particular zoning district is considered a transition zoning district between the higher

01:43:18.080 --> 01:43:26.640
 intensity zoning districts such as commercial areas or higher intensity residential and

01:43:26.640 --> 01:43:33.520
 more rural areas to the south and this site complies with that as well.

01:43:33.520 --> 01:43:37.760
 The second criteria consistent with relevant small area plans.

01:43:37.760 --> 01:43:41.080
 There are no small area plans for this site.

01:43:41.080 --> 01:43:45.600
 The third criteria is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district.

01:43:45.600 --> 01:43:50.560
 The R4 zoning district is intended to accommodate a variety of housing types on lots designed

01:43:50.560 --> 01:43:56.080
 to encourage walking to neighborhood serving retail and other amenities such as parks and

01:43:56.080 --> 01:44:00.520
 school facilities while also serving as a transition area between established single

01:44:00.520 --> 01:44:03.880
 family neighborhoods and mixed use neighborhoods.

01:44:03.880 --> 01:44:09.000
 The R4 district in this location satisfies this locational criteria.

01:44:09.000 --> 01:44:10.360
 This site is located south.

01:44:10.360 --> 01:44:16.520
 The entire subdivision is located south of property zone SC and will serve as a transition

01:44:16.520 --> 01:44:20.000
 between future commercial development and the SC district.

01:44:20.000 --> 01:44:24.520
 There are no mixed use or commercial neighborhoods in the area right now.

01:44:24.520 --> 01:44:30.840
 However once the residential development starts developing in this area we'll start seeing

01:44:30.840 --> 01:44:37.100
 some commercial development come in.

01:44:37.100 --> 01:44:43.040
 Therefore there has been or will be significant changes in the area to warrant a zoning change.

01:44:43.040 --> 01:44:47.760
 The significant change in the area is the recently approved CIP project for the improvement

01:44:47.760 --> 01:44:49.520
 of Hickory Creek Road.

01:44:49.520 --> 01:44:53.440
 When the Hickory Creek improvement project is completed it has the potential to open

01:44:53.440 --> 01:44:56.120
 the entire area up for development.

01:44:56.120 --> 01:45:02.160
 During the work session you asked a question regarding text dot plans for Country Club.

01:45:02.160 --> 01:45:07.080
 Coincidentally the applicant met with text dot today so he will be able to address that

01:45:07.080 --> 01:45:11.760
 for you when he makes his presentation.

01:45:11.760 --> 01:45:17.440
 Criteria five is the intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district

01:45:17.440 --> 01:45:23.080
 is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding areas.

01:45:23.080 --> 01:45:28.360
 Per the traffic impact analysis for both phase one and phase two Country Club Road will have

01:45:28.360 --> 01:45:34.000
 to be widened by one lane in both directions to accommodate a south bound left turn lane

01:45:34.000 --> 01:45:39.960
 at the southern entrance to phase one prior to the occupancy of homes in phase two.

01:45:39.960 --> 01:45:44.280
 Country Club Road is designated as a secondary arterial with an ultimate right of way of

01:45:44.280 --> 01:45:46.120
 a hundred and ten feet.

01:45:46.120 --> 01:45:51.520
 Right of way will be dedicated at the final plat stage equal to half that required with

01:45:51.520 --> 01:45:55.280
 the frontage of the site.

01:45:55.280 --> 01:46:00.260
 There is a CIP project in the planning stages to improve Hickory Creek Road to the south

01:46:00.260 --> 01:46:04.840
 of the site which will enable the improved overall access to the area and the applicant

01:46:04.840 --> 01:46:09.840
 will speak to improvements anticipated on Country Club.

01:46:09.840 --> 01:46:14.040
 With regards to water and waste water services they are available to the site and there is

01:46:14.040 --> 01:46:19.320
 capacity within the system to serve this development.

01:46:19.320 --> 01:46:24.420
 No extensions of public utilities will be required for phase two.

01:46:24.420 --> 01:46:30.660
 The subject property is located 1.25 miles from Cross Timbers Park meaning it does not

01:46:30.660 --> 01:46:35.360
 conform with the park department's goal of a ten minute walk to a park.

01:46:35.360 --> 01:46:42.640
 This is as a result of this area in particular is relatively undeveloped and parks department

01:46:42.640 --> 01:46:47.680
 is in the process of updating their parks master plan.

01:46:47.680 --> 01:46:54.200
 As this site develops and they get more parks fees I anticipate there will be parks closer

01:46:54.200 --> 01:46:57.840
 to this site.

01:46:57.840 --> 01:47:00.280
 Criteria five, schools.

01:47:00.280 --> 01:47:07.240
 We contacted the Denton Independent School District and per their formula this proposal

01:47:07.240 --> 01:47:12.880
 for phase two would generate approximately 13 elementary students, seven middle school

01:47:12.880 --> 01:47:15.080
 students and eight high school students.

01:47:15.080 --> 01:47:20.480
 A DISD representative has stated that Ryan Elementary will not be able to accommodate

01:47:20.480 --> 01:47:26.800
 these additional students and they will probably attend Borman Elementary.

01:47:26.800 --> 01:47:33.280
 The fire station is approximately 3.8 miles away, fire station number six on Teasley Lane

01:47:33.280 --> 01:47:39.080
 and that is within the eight minute or less response time boundary.

01:47:39.080 --> 01:47:43.160
 We sent out notices within 200 and 500 feet of the site.

01:47:43.160 --> 01:47:48.160
 We did receive three responses back in favor of this request.

01:47:48.160 --> 01:47:54.920
 One of the notices was from the property owner and this green that encompassed the site to

01:47:54.920 --> 01:48:02.120
 the west and the south is the property owner's land.

01:48:02.120 --> 01:48:08.080
 That brings the response rate up to 61% in favor of this proposal within the 200 foot

01:48:08.080 --> 01:48:09.080
 boundary.

01:48:09.080 --> 01:48:15.560
 If you take out the property owner's land that takes it to 5% of the land within the

01:48:15.560 --> 01:48:18.440
 200 foot boundary that are in favor.

01:48:18.440 --> 01:48:20.040
 We received nothing in opposition.

01:48:20.040 --> 01:48:23.520
 A neighborhood meeting was not held.

01:48:23.520 --> 01:48:29.960
 The applicant actually spoke to the property owners and told them about the project.

01:48:29.960 --> 01:48:31.920
 Staff recommends approval of this request.

01:48:31.920 --> 01:48:37.280
 It is compatible with the surrounding property and is consistent with the overall goals and

01:48:37.280 --> 01:48:39.680
 objectives of the Denton plan.

01:48:39.680 --> 01:48:41.040
 That concludes my presentation.

01:48:41.040 --> 01:48:43.120
 The applicant is present to answer questions.

01:48:43.120 --> 01:48:46.160
 Thank you very much, Cindy, I don't see any questions at this time.

01:48:46.160 --> 01:48:47.160
 Okay.

01:48:47.160 --> 01:48:48.160
 This is a public hearing.

01:48:48.160 --> 01:48:49.160
 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

01:48:49.160 --> 01:48:50.160
 I do have one card.

01:48:50.160 --> 01:48:51.160
 It is Thomas Fletcher.

01:48:51.160 --> 01:48:55.080
 If you just state your name and address for the record, you will be provided up to ten

01:48:55.080 --> 01:49:00.280
 minutes to speak.

01:49:00.280 --> 01:49:08.640
 Good evening, Chair and commissioners.

01:49:08.640 --> 01:49:10.320
 My name is Thomas Fletcher with Kimley Horne.

01:49:10.320 --> 01:49:16.240
 I am the engineer for the applicant, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas.

01:49:16.240 --> 01:49:21.360
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you tonight on this project.

01:49:21.360 --> 01:49:27.040
 This overall exhibit and before you right now just kind of shows the overall area with

01:49:27.040 --> 01:49:33.160
 the portion of the track that is actually part of the zoning request.

01:49:33.160 --> 01:49:38.480
 As we get into the next slide, what this shows, the actual property that is owned by the applicant

01:49:38.480 --> 01:49:43.280
 is just right at 57 total acres.

01:49:43.280 --> 01:49:46.640
 The majority of that property is located within the floodplain.

01:49:46.640 --> 01:49:51.840
 When we went through and we looked at doing the zoning application request, we looked

01:49:51.840 --> 01:49:55.680
 at it and we said, well, there's really no need to rezone the portion of the property

01:49:55.680 --> 01:49:57.920
 that's not located outside of the floodplain.

01:49:57.920 --> 01:50:04.400
 So as we met with staff and looked at the project, we made our application for that

01:50:04.400 --> 01:50:07.120
 portion of the area that could be developed.

01:50:07.120 --> 01:50:11.580
 The proposed 53 lots is located on just under 17 acres.

01:50:11.580 --> 01:50:13.880
 That's a 3.2 density.

01:50:13.880 --> 01:50:18.240
 So it's R4 zoning, which allows up to four units per acre.

01:50:18.240 --> 01:50:24.960
 But the proposal with the site plan there is 3.2 units per acre.

01:50:24.960 --> 01:50:32.600
 The other thing I'd like to point out, the R4 minimum lot size, the lot area is a 7,000

01:50:32.600 --> 01:50:34.720
 square foot lot area.

01:50:34.720 --> 01:50:40.880
 With this proposal, our average lot size is about 8,600 square feet.

01:50:40.880 --> 01:50:45.400
 So we've already gone through and done enough work on the site to lay the tract out because

01:50:45.400 --> 01:50:50.760
 we were in the process of doing the construction plans on the site to the north.

01:50:50.760 --> 01:50:56.440
 In order to make sure that we had adequate utility and access, we had to go and do some

01:50:56.440 --> 01:51:02.240
 planning adequate for this site to know the layout and the actual number of lots and the

01:51:02.240 --> 01:51:03.520
 average square footage.

01:51:03.520 --> 01:51:07.700
 So the R4 is an average or a minimum of 7,000.

01:51:07.700 --> 01:51:12.320
 Our proposed average is 8,600 square feet on the lot size.

01:51:12.320 --> 01:51:19.740
 In addition to that, the minimum rear yard area on an R4 zoning district is 10 feet.

01:51:19.740 --> 01:51:23.120
 Our minimum is 25 and our typical is 45.

01:51:23.120 --> 01:51:32.400
 So we've got oversized lots that are going to provide a much larger yard for the residents.

01:51:32.400 --> 01:51:37.120
 Another thing I'd like to point out, the two different colors of the green, we had a meeting

01:51:37.120 --> 01:51:41.360
 earlier with the Parks Department with Gary Packin and we talked to them about their long

01:51:41.360 --> 01:51:42.360
 range plans.

01:51:42.360 --> 01:51:47.320
 They're in the planning process for their master parks plan, regional trails.

01:51:47.320 --> 01:51:52.800
 And what we discussed with them was doing a parkland dedication of the land that's in

01:51:52.800 --> 01:51:55.800
 the lighter colored green to the city.

01:51:55.800 --> 01:51:58.720
 We met with them to see if they would have interest in that land.

01:51:58.720 --> 01:52:01.640
 It does fit with their parks master plan.

01:52:01.640 --> 01:52:06.760
 That is one of the corridors that they would like to do is a regional trail along Hickory

01:52:06.760 --> 01:52:07.760
 Creek.

01:52:07.760 --> 01:52:09.040
 So this is in line with that.

01:52:09.040 --> 01:52:15.960
 It provides land that helps kind of create that corridor so that they can provide that

01:52:15.960 --> 01:52:16.960
 regional trail.

01:52:16.960 --> 01:52:21.840
 And that the regional trail would kind of, it would start kind of going up to the to

01:52:21.840 --> 01:52:28.120
 the northwest and enter, you know, head that direction where they've got other parks and

01:52:28.120 --> 01:52:30.960
 improvements planned.

01:52:30.960 --> 01:52:36.240
 And wanted to go through with that, you know, go over that with you because the Parks Department

01:52:36.240 --> 01:52:43.840
 is interested in acquiring or accepting that land as a park dedication.

01:52:43.840 --> 01:52:48.100
 This is just showing the topography, everything from the site kind of drains.

01:52:48.100 --> 01:52:53.380
 There is a tributary that runs kind of on the eastern portion of the site.

01:52:53.380 --> 01:52:57.560
 There's a little bit of the area of the site that drains back to the west, goes through

01:52:57.560 --> 01:53:01.680
 a culvert under Country Club Road and then south to Hickory Creek.

01:53:01.680 --> 01:53:07.920
 Hickory Creek, Hickory Creek follows Hickory Creek Road just on the south side of the roadway.

01:53:07.920 --> 01:53:13.440
 I would imagine that when Hickory Creek Road is realigned, that would possibly improve

01:53:13.440 --> 01:53:18.240
 some of the floodplain limits in this area because that's kind of a an impediment to

01:53:18.240 --> 01:53:19.240
 the floodplain.

01:53:19.240 --> 01:53:24.600
 So once that gets removed, it may provide some benefits to the and reduction of the

01:53:24.600 --> 01:53:29.480
 floodplain.

01:53:29.480 --> 01:53:33.760
 Some of the comments or questions that came up in the work session with regard to transportation,

01:53:33.760 --> 01:53:36.640
 we have done a traffic impact analysis.

01:53:36.640 --> 01:53:41.820
 When we did the traffic impact analysis for phase one, we were contemplating the phase

01:53:41.820 --> 01:53:43.120
 two part of the project.

01:53:43.120 --> 01:53:46.360
 So we included that within the study.

01:53:46.360 --> 01:53:51.280
 Within that study, it showed the need for a left turn lane to access this development.

01:53:51.280 --> 01:53:56.600
 So we've gone through and actually have started the construction plans for that left turn

01:53:56.600 --> 01:53:57.600
 lane.

01:53:57.600 --> 01:54:01.280
 The left turn lane would be constructed with the phase one development.

01:54:01.280 --> 01:54:05.080
 So it would be in place prior to the phase two development.

01:54:05.080 --> 01:54:08.980
 I did have a meeting with TexDOT today to go over this.

01:54:08.980 --> 01:54:15.480
 The TexDOT did make us aware that they do have plans to improve Country Club Road to

01:54:15.480 --> 01:54:17.920
 four lane divided roadway.

01:54:17.920 --> 01:54:24.120
 We were told that the schematic has been completed and is available to review on their website.

01:54:24.120 --> 01:54:29.240
 The engineers that we were meeting with, they weren't sure of a timeframe for that.

01:54:29.240 --> 01:54:35.520
 But generally, once the schematic is done, they enter the right of way acquisition.

01:54:35.520 --> 01:54:38.560
 And then once it's funded, then they can move forward with construction.

01:54:38.560 --> 01:54:44.020
 So don't have a timeframe on the construction, but can tell you it's four lane divided roadway

01:54:44.020 --> 01:54:46.360
 and the schematic is complete for that.

01:54:46.360 --> 01:54:51.840
 And the development of these projects would provide a significant portion of the right

01:54:51.840 --> 01:54:56.520
 of way for this section of roadway.

01:54:56.520 --> 01:55:01.440
 Another thing on the access to the site, the tracks that we're currently developing currently

01:55:01.440 --> 01:55:03.240
 have four drives.

01:55:03.240 --> 01:55:05.560
 With this development, there would be two drives.

01:55:05.560 --> 01:55:07.580
 So we would eliminate two of those drives.

01:55:07.580 --> 01:55:11.680
 So you would have less access points to Country Club Road.

01:55:11.680 --> 01:55:18.560
 We are making localized improvements to the road system and then that's where we're entering

01:55:18.560 --> 01:55:23.960
 the traffic, having the traffic enter the roadway.

01:55:23.960 --> 01:55:26.980
 Another thing we've already done is we've gone through and we've done the tree survey

01:55:26.980 --> 01:55:28.640
 for this site.

01:55:28.640 --> 01:55:33.240
 If you look at this, this includes the overall track, not just what's included as part of

01:55:33.240 --> 01:55:34.460
 the zoning.

01:55:34.460 --> 01:55:39.960
 But within the overall track and looking at what trees would be removed for the development,

01:55:39.960 --> 01:55:47.260
 we are proposing over 75% tree preservation with a lot, a significant portion of those

01:55:47.260 --> 01:55:53.720
 trees being located in the land that we're working with the city to donate as parkland.

01:55:53.720 --> 01:55:59.800
 So also on this exhibit, you'll see that we are showing the trees along Country Club Road

01:55:59.800 --> 01:56:01.540
 to be removed.

01:56:01.540 --> 01:56:06.040
 We don't necessarily need to remove those with this project unless there's visibility

01:56:06.040 --> 01:56:08.840
 or safety reasons to do so.

01:56:08.840 --> 01:56:13.480
 What we wanted to do is make sure that when we looked at our calculation that we, knowing

01:56:13.480 --> 01:56:19.840
 that Country Club Road will be widened, that we took that into account with our tree preservation

01:56:19.840 --> 01:56:21.040
 calculations.

01:56:21.040 --> 01:56:26.920
 So even with those trees being removed, over 75% tree preservation.

01:56:26.920 --> 01:56:34.840
 So really the community benefits, oversized lots compared to the R4 minimums, FM1830 improvements

01:56:34.840 --> 01:56:41.680
 with left turn lane and widening, tree preservation greater than 75%, parkland dedication that

01:56:41.680 --> 01:56:44.460
 would be in excess of 30 acres.

01:56:44.460 --> 01:56:46.720
 There's no ESA impacts proposed.

01:56:46.720 --> 01:56:52.360
 There are ESA on the overall project and we're staying out of those areas.

01:56:52.360 --> 01:56:59.160
 And then the existing gas wells that are around or within this area are over 1,500 feet from

01:56:59.160 --> 01:57:00.160
 the development.

01:57:00.160 --> 01:57:06.160
 So there's no, from a gas well standpoint, what we're proposing is well in excess of

01:57:06.160 --> 01:57:08.880
 the current ordinance.

01:57:08.880 --> 01:57:12.640
 With that, that concludes my presentation and I would be happy to answer any questions

01:57:12.640 --> 01:57:13.640
 you may have.

01:57:13.640 --> 01:57:20.800
 Thank you, Mr. Fletcher, I do not see any questions.

01:57:20.800 --> 01:57:21.800
 This is a public hearing.

01:57:21.800 --> 01:57:29.440
 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

01:57:29.440 --> 01:57:34.160
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and turn to the dais for a motion or discussion.

01:57:34.160 --> 01:57:35.160
 Commissioner Smith.

01:57:35.160 --> 01:57:36.280
 Move to approve.

01:57:36.280 --> 01:57:37.640
 We have a first for approval.

01:57:37.640 --> 01:57:38.640
 Commissioner Cole.

01:57:38.640 --> 01:57:39.640
 Second.

01:57:39.640 --> 01:57:41.280
 We have a first and a second for approval.

01:57:41.280 --> 01:57:44.080
 Any discussion?

01:57:44.080 --> 01:57:51.760
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:57:51.760 --> 01:57:53.200
 Motion carries 6-0.

01:57:53.200 --> 01:57:54.200
 Congratulations.

01:57:54.200 --> 01:58:00.040
 Next item of business is item 5CZ19-14B.

01:58:00.040 --> 01:58:16.960
 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation and open the public hearing.

01:58:16.960 --> 01:58:29.280
 Thank you, again, for the record, I'm Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department

01:58:29.280 --> 01:58:35.680
 and I have before you today Z19-0014, Janney Street.

01:58:35.680 --> 01:58:44.240
 It's a request to rezone 0.154 acre lot from residential R4 district to the mixed use MN

01:58:44.240 --> 01:58:50.720
 district to bring an existing commercial parking lot into compliance with the 2019 Denton Development

01:58:50.720 --> 01:58:51.720
 Code.

01:58:51.720 --> 01:58:59.320
 The subject property is located at 311 Janney Street, approximately 172 feet north of East

01:58:59.320 --> 01:59:01.840
 McKinney Street.

01:59:01.840 --> 01:59:07.680
 Here you can see the current zoning map on the left and you can see the site is adjacent

01:59:07.680 --> 01:59:15.920
 to an MN zoning district that runs along the length of the north side of McKinney Street.

01:59:15.920 --> 01:59:25.580
 If this is approved, this will be a continuation of the MN to the north onto the subject site.

01:59:25.580 --> 01:59:29.000
 We have general criteria for approval of all applications.

01:59:29.000 --> 01:59:36.520
 I went through an analysis of this to show you that this complies with all of that criteria

01:59:36.520 --> 01:59:38.240
 in your backup.

01:59:38.240 --> 01:59:43.280
 We have zoning criteria for approval that I will focus on in Section 272D of the Denton

01:59:43.280 --> 01:59:45.880
 Development Code.

01:59:45.880 --> 01:59:51.960
 Criteria one, does the site comply with the Denton Plan 2030 land use designation?

01:59:51.960 --> 01:59:59.440
 The site has several designations due to its location, its designated government institutional,

01:59:59.440 --> 02:00:03.160
 downtown compatibility area and low residential.

02:00:03.160 --> 02:00:08.160
 This site complies with the downtown compatibility area.

02:00:08.160 --> 02:00:13.640
 This area, downtown compatibility, applies to residential and commercial areas adjacent

02:00:13.640 --> 02:00:20.240
 to the downtown core and it provides a transition between downtown and surrounding areas and

02:00:20.240 --> 02:00:24.400
 neighborhoods to preserve the character of the area through the use of context-sensitive

02:00:24.400 --> 02:00:28.440
 development.

02:00:28.440 --> 02:00:33.320
 Criteria two, is it consistent with relevant small area plans and there are no small area

02:00:33.320 --> 02:00:36.320
 plans for this location?

02:00:36.320 --> 02:00:40.480
 Criteria three, is it consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zoning district?

02:00:40.480 --> 02:00:46.360
 The MN district is provided to support compatibility between higher intensity mixed use areas and

02:00:46.360 --> 02:00:49.680
 adjacent residential and commercial areas.

02:00:49.680 --> 02:00:55.640
 This MN district proposed in this location satisfies the locational requirement.

02:00:55.640 --> 02:01:01.040
 It will be located between the lower intensity R4 zoning to the north and East McKinney Street

02:01:01.040 --> 02:01:04.960
 corridor to the south.

02:01:04.960 --> 02:01:09.840
 Criteria four, have there been or will there be significant changes in the area to warrant

02:01:09.840 --> 02:01:11.840
 a zoning change?

02:01:11.840 --> 02:01:16.600
 The changes that have happened in the area have occurred in the past few years, specifically

02:01:16.600 --> 02:01:18.400
 rezoning of this site.

02:01:18.400 --> 02:01:29.920
 This site was originally R4 residential and it was rezoned to neighborhood residential

02:01:29.920 --> 02:01:31.640
 6 with an overlay.

02:01:31.640 --> 02:01:40.360
 In 2017, that portion of the site zoned NR6 was rezoned to NRMU 12 with an overlay.

02:01:40.360 --> 02:01:45.520
 We had the transition for the Denton Development Code this year.

02:01:45.520 --> 02:01:53.320
 This site transitioned to PDMN on the south side and PDR7 on the north side.

02:01:53.320 --> 02:02:00.220
 The change of use on this corner across the street from residential to more mixed use

02:02:00.220 --> 02:02:07.320
 commercial is what kind of opened the door for this kind of proposal to be recommended

02:02:07.320 --> 02:02:08.320
 for approval.

02:02:08.320 --> 02:02:20.320
 It is compatible with the surrounding area to the east and the south and the southwest.

02:02:20.320 --> 02:02:24.640
 Criteria five, the intensity of new development permitted by the requested zoning district

02:02:24.640 --> 02:02:29.920
 is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to the surrounding areas.

02:02:29.920 --> 02:02:34.760
 With regards to streets, the parking lot has been in this location for several years.

02:02:34.760 --> 02:02:41.240
 It has not had adverse effect as of yet and it's not expected to have an adverse effect

02:02:41.240 --> 02:02:43.320
 in the future.

02:02:43.320 --> 02:02:49.680
 Water and wastewater, the parking lot does not require the access to water and wastewater

02:02:49.680 --> 02:02:54.200
 and will not necessitate the need for extension of services.

02:02:54.200 --> 02:02:59.080
 With regards to location of parks, since the parking lot is not habitable, it does not

02:02:59.080 --> 02:03:02.680
 require access to parks.

02:03:02.680 --> 02:03:09.720
 With regards to schools, this parking lot will not affect the student population.

02:03:09.720 --> 02:03:13.920
 With regards to the fire station location, the subject property is approximately 1.2

02:03:13.920 --> 02:03:20.560
 miles from fire station number two located at 2209 East McKinney Street and that is within

02:03:20.560 --> 02:03:24.740
 the eight minute or less response time boundary.

02:03:24.740 --> 02:03:29.120
 We did send out notices within 200 and 500 feet.

02:03:29.120 --> 02:03:35.120
 I just handed you at the day as another notice that the applicant brought in another response

02:03:35.120 --> 02:03:39.200
 that was in favor of this request.

02:03:39.200 --> 02:03:46.000
 I have not had time to calculate the increase in the percentage of land area within 200

02:03:46.000 --> 02:03:47.000
 feet.

02:03:47.000 --> 02:03:49.800
 However, that will be done prior to the city council meeting.

02:03:49.800 --> 02:03:57.320
 As it stands with the six that we did have prior to this meeting, the land area in favor

02:03:57.320 --> 02:04:02.060
 of this request within the 200 foot boundary is 38%.

02:04:02.060 --> 02:04:07.960
 The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting on January 21st.

02:04:07.960 --> 02:04:12.040
 One person attended and that was before the meeting started and stated they had no issues

02:04:12.040 --> 02:04:17.000
 with the proposed rezoning.

02:04:17.000 --> 02:04:18.960
 Staff recommends approval of this request.

02:04:18.960 --> 02:04:23.240
 It is compatible with the surrounding property and is consistent with the overall goals and

02:04:23.240 --> 02:04:26.100
 objectives of the Denton Plan 2030.

02:04:26.100 --> 02:04:30.160
 That concludes my presentation and the applicant is present if you have any questions.

02:04:30.160 --> 02:04:31.160
 >> Thank you, Cindy.

02:04:31.160 --> 02:04:32.360
 I don't have any questions for you.

02:04:32.360 --> 02:04:34.360
 I appreciate the presentation.

02:04:34.360 --> 02:04:35.360
 This is a public hearing.

02:04:35.360 --> 02:04:36.680
 Anyone wishing to speak may do so.

02:04:36.680 --> 02:04:38.320
 I do have one card.

02:04:38.320 --> 02:04:39.320
 Roger Yale.

02:04:39.320 --> 02:04:40.320
 >> I'm the applicant.

02:04:40.320 --> 02:04:41.320
 >> Perfect.

02:04:41.320 --> 02:04:46.600
 If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have ten minutes to speak.

02:04:46.600 --> 02:04:47.600
 >> Thank you, sir.

02:04:47.600 --> 02:04:48.960
 My name is Roger Yale.

02:04:48.960 --> 02:04:53.920
 My business address is 1417 East McKinney Street, which is the property immediately

02:04:53.920 --> 02:04:56.440
 to the south of this parking lot.

02:04:56.440 --> 02:05:02.760
 With regard to the percentage of folks that were in favor, I went and walked the neighborhood

02:05:02.760 --> 02:05:07.160
 after we didn't have a meeting and knocked on every door, there were approximately eight

02:05:07.160 --> 02:05:08.160
 potentials.

02:05:08.160 --> 02:05:10.120
 I got six of them that agreed.

02:05:10.120 --> 02:05:14.200
 The other two simply said we're not signing anything, not we're for it, not we're against

02:05:14.200 --> 02:05:17.920
 it, we're simply not going to sign anything.

02:05:17.920 --> 02:05:23.720
 My wife and I are the majority owners of the remaining property and that we own the MN property

02:05:23.720 --> 02:05:28.720
 that is the subject of this location adjacent to it, then immediately to the west there's

02:05:28.720 --> 02:05:30.760
 a street called Heady Street.

02:05:30.760 --> 02:05:35.680
 On either side of Heady Street we've built two contemporary buildings in the past year

02:05:35.680 --> 02:05:42.160
 that were in this zoning and they would be in the range of the 200 feet.

02:05:42.160 --> 02:05:47.440
 We've also talked to all of the neighbors and believe that we're compatible and we'd

02:05:47.440 --> 02:05:50.320
 ask the board to approve this.

02:05:50.320 --> 02:05:52.400
 >> Thank you for being here.

02:05:52.400 --> 02:05:55.800
 I don't see any questions for you at this time.

02:05:55.800 --> 02:05:57.680
 Thank you.

02:05:57.680 --> 02:05:58.680
 This is a public hearing.

02:05:58.680 --> 02:06:01.140
 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

02:06:01.140 --> 02:06:03.480
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.

02:06:03.480 --> 02:06:04.480
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:06:04.480 --> 02:06:06.240
 >> I make a motion to approve.

02:06:06.240 --> 02:06:07.720
 >> We have a motion for approval.

02:06:07.720 --> 02:06:08.720
 Commissioner Smith.

02:06:08.720 --> 02:06:09.720
 >> Second.

02:06:09.720 --> 02:06:12.400
 >> We have a first and a second for approval.

02:06:12.400 --> 02:06:14.600
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:06:14.600 --> 02:06:15.600
 >> Thank you, Chair.

02:06:15.600 --> 02:06:19.480
 Just wanted to say a couple words on this because this particular area I've had some comments

02:06:19.480 --> 02:06:23.960
 on because I've been concerned for a long time about the encroachment of these commercial

02:06:23.960 --> 02:06:29.680
 projects on this single family affordable neighborhood in our city.

02:06:29.680 --> 02:06:31.880
 So I'm not a big fan of the rezoning request.

02:06:31.880 --> 02:06:37.560
 I do understand that the owner has been misusing the property as a parking lot for some time.

02:06:37.560 --> 02:06:42.960
 And I do understand that it's not going to be a single family home site again.

02:06:42.960 --> 02:06:47.840
 So I will be voting to support this, though I have not been a fan in the past of supporting

02:06:47.840 --> 02:06:50.380
 these rezones in this area.

02:06:50.380 --> 02:06:56.160
 And I'm certainly a fan of bringing the property to code compliance.

02:06:56.160 --> 02:06:58.880
 >> Any other discussion?

02:06:58.880 --> 02:07:06.560
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

02:07:06.560 --> 02:07:07.560
 Motion carries 6-0.

02:07:07.560 --> 02:07:19.480
 The next item of business is item 5B, DCA-19-24A, followed by Julie Wyatt for presentation.

02:07:19.480 --> 02:07:20.480
 And open the public hearing.

02:07:20.480 --> 02:07:29.160
 >> Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I'm presenting

02:07:29.160 --> 02:07:34.160
 DCA-19-24A, ESA's and Platting.

02:07:34.160 --> 02:07:37.480
 The request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider making a recommendation

02:07:37.480 --> 02:07:42.360
 to city council regarding a proposed revision to subchapter 2 of the Denton Development

02:07:42.360 --> 02:07:47.240
 Code that is the administration and procedures subchapter, and it's related to alternative

02:07:47.240 --> 02:07:50.000
 environmentally sensitive area plans and platting.

02:07:50.000 --> 02:07:54.120
 This is a staff-initiated code amendment to remedy some conflicting regulations within

02:07:54.120 --> 02:07:55.120
 the DDC.

02:07:55.120 --> 02:08:00.640
 ESAs are areas in the city that have ecological value.

02:08:00.640 --> 02:08:05.800
 They are mapped, and that map does create constraints on lots.

02:08:05.800 --> 02:08:12.360
 Those cannot impact or disturb those ESAs without approval through the alternative ESA

02:08:12.360 --> 02:08:13.360
 plan process.

02:08:13.360 --> 02:08:18.400
 That alternative ESA plan process provides relief from those regulations.

02:08:18.400 --> 02:08:25.480
 Sometimes it is necessary on complex sites to consider the alternative ESA plan proposals.

02:08:25.480 --> 02:08:29.120
 They typically involve mitigation.

02:08:29.120 --> 02:08:36.360
 It's often a discussion with staff and provides mitigation with that alternative ESA plan.

02:08:36.360 --> 02:08:40.520
 It does require city council approval through the dual public hearing process, so those

02:08:40.520 --> 02:08:44.640
 do actually come before the Planning and Zoning Commission and on to city council for final

02:08:44.640 --> 02:08:45.640
 approval.

02:08:45.640 --> 02:08:50.720
 The 2002 Denton Development Code didn't have a whole lot of specificity regarding alternative

02:08:50.720 --> 02:08:56.600
 ESA plans, so the 2019 code did add a little more in terms of process and criteria for

02:08:56.600 --> 02:08:57.600
 approval.

02:08:57.600 --> 02:09:04.880
 As part of that 2019 DDC adoption, there was a requirement for a concurrent review of a

02:09:04.880 --> 02:09:09.320
 plat with consideration of an alternative ESA plan.

02:09:09.320 --> 02:09:14.320
 There are issues associated with this, and in two particular places we'll talk about

02:09:14.320 --> 02:09:15.320
 tonight.

02:09:15.320 --> 02:09:16.320
 First of all, platts.

02:09:16.320 --> 02:09:20.320
 When we talk about platts, they all have to meet the general criteria for approval and

02:09:20.320 --> 02:09:26.120
 any specific criteria for approval, and one of those criterion is they must comply with

02:09:26.120 --> 02:09:29.160
 the DDC, and that includes the ESA regulations.

02:09:29.160 --> 02:09:34.880
 Platts, which propose encroachments on those ESAs, cannot satisfy the criteria for approval

02:09:34.880 --> 02:09:37.400
 without an alternative ESA plan.

02:09:37.400 --> 02:09:41.840
 Alternative ESA plans, because they require the dual public hearing process, often have

02:09:41.840 --> 02:09:45.160
 a much longer time to get through the process and get approved.

02:09:45.160 --> 02:09:50.720
 It can take several months, but under the shot clock provisions with the state of Texas,

02:09:50.720 --> 02:09:54.360
 platts have to be approved within 30 days of a complete submittal.

02:09:54.360 --> 02:10:00.280
 Therefore, these concurrent submittal requirements ensure that platts are going to be denied,

02:10:00.280 --> 02:10:04.360
 typically denied, at the Planning and Zoning Commission because they can't meet the criteria

02:10:04.360 --> 02:10:05.360
 for approval.

02:10:05.360 --> 02:10:14.760
 And then regarding plan developments, so with the 2019 DDC we have PDs in our toolbox, something

02:10:14.760 --> 02:10:18.560
 we didn't have within the 2002 Denton Development Code.

02:10:18.560 --> 02:10:26.240
 If a PD does include a unique lot layout and something like a cluster subdivision or subchapter

02:10:26.240 --> 02:10:32.640
 7, or I'm sorry, 8 also has something like auto courts, those platts associated with

02:10:32.640 --> 02:10:38.320
 those PDs could not be approved until that PD is approved because the lots have to conform

02:10:38.320 --> 02:10:40.680
 to the underlying zoning.

02:10:40.680 --> 02:10:44.160
 Alternative ESA plans cannot be approved as part of a PD approval.

02:10:44.160 --> 02:10:48.560
 It has to go as a separate, but can be a parallel process.

02:10:48.560 --> 02:10:53.960
 We really want to make sure that we, they have the scrutiny and that individual attention

02:10:53.960 --> 02:10:57.960
 that they need.

02:10:57.960 --> 02:11:02.040
 But that creates a catch-22 because a plat can't be approved until the PD is approved.

02:11:02.040 --> 02:11:06.800
 But the PD can't be approved without alternative ESA plan approval.

02:11:06.800 --> 02:11:09.920
 And then alternative ESA plan approval can't be submitted without a plat.

02:11:09.920 --> 02:11:15.880
 So it really just creates some circular logic there for all of these processes.

02:11:15.880 --> 02:11:22.720
 So as a result, staff is recommending a modification to the text of the Denton Development Code,

02:11:22.720 --> 02:11:30.160
 and that really is just to strike that language requiring that concurrent submittal of a plat.

02:11:30.160 --> 02:11:32.880
 Doesn't mean an applicant can't do that.

02:11:32.880 --> 02:11:39.120
 Sometimes it may make sense for a development, but it would just strike it as that requirement

02:11:39.120 --> 02:11:40.480
 across the board.

02:11:40.480 --> 02:11:46.160
 We reviewed the request in association with the criteria for approval, and our findings

02:11:46.160 --> 02:11:51.380
 were that the proposal maintains the review and approval process for alternative ESA plans.

02:11:51.380 --> 02:11:57.920
 So it doesn't minimize our regulations or water down the fact that if an applicant does

02:11:57.920 --> 02:12:03.600
 want to impact an ESA, they still have to get that alternative ESA plan approval.

02:12:03.600 --> 02:12:09.240
 But it would just allow logical submittal timing, depending on the application.

02:12:09.240 --> 02:12:14.760
 That shot clock that was enacted over the summer by the State of Texas really does kind

02:12:14.760 --> 02:12:18.560
 of change the calculus for some of these provisions.

02:12:18.560 --> 02:12:23.960
 And this concurrent submittal essentially requires applicants to submit an unnecessary

02:12:23.960 --> 02:12:24.960
 plat.

02:12:24.960 --> 02:12:28.680
 It just may not meet the final results.

02:12:28.680 --> 02:12:35.640
 And so therefore, it would result in a plat denial or conditional approvals or some other

02:12:35.640 --> 02:12:38.360
 mechanism that would just keep it going.

02:12:38.360 --> 02:12:47.160
 And so we're proposing just to break that coupling and the connection of those two.

02:12:47.160 --> 02:12:51.880
 And then this proposal is really just a further refinement of that 2019 Denton Development

02:12:51.880 --> 02:12:52.880
 Code.

02:12:52.880 --> 02:12:59.160
 It was a really big process, a lot of complicated matters were discussed and put into place

02:12:59.160 --> 02:13:00.160
 with that code.

02:13:00.160 --> 02:13:04.360
 And as it's being implemented, we're finding some little tweaks that we need to further

02:13:04.360 --> 02:13:05.360
 refine.

02:13:05.360 --> 02:13:08.040
 So this is just a part of that process.

02:13:08.040 --> 02:13:10.720
 So that concludes my presentation.

02:13:10.720 --> 02:13:13.480
 Staff does recommend approval, and I'll stand for any questions.

02:13:13.480 --> 02:13:14.480
 Thank you, Julie.

02:13:14.480 --> 02:13:16.720
 I don't see any questions.

02:13:16.720 --> 02:13:17.720
 This is a public hearing.

02:13:17.720 --> 02:13:21.760
 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

02:13:21.760 --> 02:13:23.360
 Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing.

02:13:23.360 --> 02:13:24.360
 Commissioner Smith?

02:13:24.360 --> 02:13:25.360
 Move to approve.

02:13:25.360 --> 02:13:27.080
 We have a first for approval.

02:13:27.080 --> 02:13:28.560
 Commissioner Ellis?

02:13:28.560 --> 02:13:29.560
 Second.

02:13:29.560 --> 02:13:32.760
 We have a first and a second for approval.

02:13:32.760 --> 02:13:34.880
 Any discussion?

02:13:34.880 --> 02:13:43.480
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

02:13:43.480 --> 02:13:46.120
 Motion carries 6-0.

02:13:46.120 --> 02:13:50.680
 The next and final item for this evening is the Plaint and Zoning Commission Project Matrix.

02:13:50.680 --> 02:13:57.880
 I will turn the floor over to Richard for an update, and then we can discuss and question.

02:13:57.880 --> 02:14:03.500
 Just a brief update in regards to the two items that were requested last meeting.

02:14:03.500 --> 02:14:08.000
 We're working on getting that information, so we'll have a written response, both from

02:14:08.000 --> 02:14:14.000
 traffic engineering, and I know Charlie is working on pulling together some of the information

02:14:14.000 --> 02:14:16.520
 on the noticing about the opt-in.

02:14:16.520 --> 02:14:21.760
 So we put it on there just in order to keep track of it, but hopefully you should have

02:14:21.760 --> 02:14:26.080
 a written, at least a short memo explaining that, so we'll email that out.

02:14:26.080 --> 02:14:31.000
 The only other items I just wanted to update on, some council items that were approved

02:14:31.000 --> 02:14:36.880
 last night, and one postponed, the text amendments, the various text amendments that we had were

02:14:36.880 --> 02:14:37.880
 approved.

02:14:37.880 --> 02:14:44.600
 One, we did not move forward with respect to the criteria manual, so we're still working

02:14:44.600 --> 02:14:46.380
 through that text.

02:14:46.380 --> 02:14:51.560
 People will probably most likely come back to P&Z prior to going to council.

02:14:51.560 --> 02:15:01.720
 The SUP that was voted down, I guess that was three meetings ago, two meetings ago,

02:15:01.720 --> 02:15:03.160
 council considered that item last night.

02:15:03.160 --> 02:15:07.240
 That's the reason the ADP was pulled off of the agenda.

02:15:07.240 --> 02:15:13.320
 While the public hearing was held and closed, they postponed the vote until next week.

02:15:13.320 --> 02:15:19.480
 There are a number of amendments to the motion to approve some of those, including funding

02:15:19.480 --> 02:15:25.360
 a traffic signal, additional funds for parks, among others.

02:15:25.360 --> 02:15:29.920
 So we're working through that final language of the ordinance.

02:15:29.920 --> 02:15:35.480
 It was requested by the mayor that because there were so many changes, he didn't feel

02:15:35.480 --> 02:15:42.440
 comfortable moving it forward without seeing it written, and that was essentially his reason

02:15:42.440 --> 02:15:45.960
 for making the motion to postpone, which ultimately was approved 5-2.

02:15:45.960 --> 02:15:49.680
 So I'll have an update at the next meeting as to the status of that.

02:15:49.680 --> 02:15:52.600
 With that, I'll be happy to answer any additional questions.

02:15:52.600 --> 02:15:53.600
 Thanks, Richard.

02:15:53.600 --> 02:15:54.600
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:15:54.600 --> 02:15:55.600
 Thank you, Chair.

02:15:55.600 --> 02:15:57.320
 Richard, I did have a question.

02:15:57.320 --> 02:16:02.040
 You said the amendment that was pulled, was that the handbook consolidation?

02:16:02.040 --> 02:16:03.040
 Correct.

02:16:03.040 --> 02:16:05.280
 It was the handbook, the ESA criteria.

02:16:05.280 --> 02:16:09.200
 I think there's just some language that we want to make sure legal is comfortable with

02:16:09.200 --> 02:16:11.760
 and the various departments that are associated with it.

02:16:11.760 --> 02:16:13.680
 So you're going to bring that back?

02:16:13.680 --> 02:16:14.680
 Correct.

02:16:14.680 --> 02:16:15.680
 Yes.

02:16:15.680 --> 02:16:16.680
 Okay.

02:16:16.680 --> 02:16:17.680
 Thanks.

02:16:17.680 --> 02:16:18.680
 Commissioner Beck.

02:16:18.680 --> 02:16:19.680
 Thank you, Chair.

02:16:19.680 --> 02:16:20.680
 It's almost the exact same question.

02:16:20.680 --> 02:16:21.680
 Were there particular concerns?

02:16:21.680 --> 02:16:23.880
 I haven't watched the video of yesterday.

02:16:23.880 --> 02:16:30.080
 Were there particular concerns that Council had about consolidating the...

02:16:30.080 --> 02:16:31.680
 That item did not move forward.

02:16:31.680 --> 02:16:33.120
 We pulled it prior to going to Council.

02:16:33.120 --> 02:16:34.280
 Just completely pulled it.

02:16:34.280 --> 02:16:35.280
 Okay.

02:16:35.280 --> 02:16:36.280
 Thank you.

02:16:36.280 --> 02:16:40.920
 Any other items for the matrix?

02:16:40.920 --> 02:16:43.400
 I will close the meeting at 7 40. Thank you