Feb 19, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-02-19 5:30 PM

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session for Wednesday, February 19th, 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I'll open the meeting at 533. There are no reports to give, so we'll just jump right into the agenda for this evening. The first item is consideration of our minutes. Is there any notation of the minutes that we need to be aware of from February 5th, 2020? Great, that brings us to our consent agenda. We have two items here. Does anyone have any specific questions on either item? Commissioner Beck, which item? The first one, 25. Can I have Julie Wiley come in? Yeah, Julie. >> Yes, sir. >> If you, yeah, that's it, exactly. If the radius that they've plotted is 100 feet, is that how I'm reading this? >> Yes, sir. >> And so do we know the distances to the L24 to L19 blocks on the southeast side along whatever road that is? >> I don't know the, from the 100 feet to that parking line? >> Yes, ma'am. >> I don't know what that distance is, but I can try to measure it before I can- >> Well, I mean, just eyeballing it, it looks like 250-ish, which would make sense. >> And they don't have any, they plan to leave those exactly as is? >> They do, yes, sir. >> I guess that's the extent of my questions then, thank you. >> Commissioner Cole. >> Yes, are their PD, aren't they 150? >> They actually have- >> Grandfather net 150? >> It's actually 100 feet from the wellhead, yes, sir. >> Any other questions? Perfect, thanks Julie. Any questions for item 3B? Great, so that brings us to our item four individual consideration items. The first one is 4A FP19-0003. I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation on this item. [BLANK_AUDIO] All right, good evening Chair and members of the commission. This is a request for a plat of lots 1 through 3, block A of the Tealstone edition. This is on the northwest side of Mingo Road, just northeast of the intersection of Mingo Road and Cooper Creek Road. Staff is recommending approval with one condition, and that is that there be a, I'm sorry here, an encouragement agreement for all grading construction within the transmission line easements from the Texas Municipal Power Authority, and that that be provided to the city prior to the final plat being recorded with Denton County. That is just, we know it's forthcoming. We have an email indicating that it's forthcoming, but we'd rather have documentation of it before we sign off on this. >> Makes sense. Any questions on this item? Commissioner Ellis. >> Thanks, Chair. Sean, I see we've got a printout here for this one. >> Yes. >> What changed from what we have in our backup? >> The angle of the line between the bottom two lots there. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Any other questions? Perfect, thank you, Sean. Next item is 4B PP19-0035C. Now I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation. >> There we go, thank you. I'm here before you with the preliminary plot for PP19-0035C, Stuart Ridge. This may look familiar to you, it originally requested a 30 day extension. And then it was denied after the expiration of the 30 days. They have come back with a plot, which meets all our requirements. Staff is recommending approval of this. I want to point out, the subject site is located within the ETJ. The city has plotting authority within the ETJ for our interlocal agreement with the county. This development will connect, however, to city water and sewer. And as such, the city water and sewer connections and construction will be under the city's purview. However, the streets and drainage is under the county's purview and must be accepted by the county. Staff is recommending approval of this request with only one condition. This has changed since the staff report was written. Our one condition is that the civil construction plans for paving and drainage facilities must be approved by Denton County. And civil construction plans for water and sewer lines must be approved by the city prior to the submittal of a final plot application. And that concludes my presentation. >> Commissioner Smith. >> City, whenever we have developments like this in the ETJ, what is the city's, can the city do involuntary annexing within that? Is voluntary annexing the only opportunity we have to annex property into the city? >> Right, the new state legislation on annexation has made it extremely difficult for the city to do an involuntary annexation. Maybe, did you want to speak to that? >> Absolutely, Commissioner Smith, state law has changed with regard to annexation. So our opportunities for doing involuntary annexation are pretty limited, non-existent. >> Okay, so whenever we have properties like this that are in the ETJ, I know there's also the rule that we have about, obviously facade and building materials and these kinds of things, we can't put limitations. But can we add conditions that can at least maybe have this ETJ development still be compatible with some of the sites that are around it? As you can see, there's a lot of developments that are there in the city that this, because it's in the ETJ, really has no limitations on what it can do other than what the county says. So, can we put any type of conditions on something like this? >> The city has an interlocal agreement with Denton County, where we have platting authority in division one of the ETJ. And the county has platting authority in division two. So we can only apply our platting requirements to the review of the plats. >> Can you refresh me on what kind of things fall into the platting requirements? >> That'd be street design, that'd be, I'm guessing, not lot sizes, that's more of a zoning deal. >> Correct. >> I guess, right of way and those kinds of things, that's about it. >> Streets, yes. Streets, sidewalks, any of that kind of stuff. Yeah, right, no lot size, I know uses, things like that. >> No uses for those kind of things, obviously. Okay, so essentially they can do whatever they want to in this division, even though it's right next to the city with its own limitations because of the zoning that's in the city. >> Right, yeah, we have no land use authority in the ETJ. >> Okay, thanks. >> Chris Rebecca. >> Thank you, Chair. So you mentioned drainage, so was drainage included or excluded? I was a little confused. >> The drainage is part of the city subdivision ordinance, so the city does review it. However, the acceptance and maintenance of the plans and drainage systems in the streets are part of the county. >> So all those guidelines will be whatever the county is specifying in that case. Okay, thank you. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. Cindy, you mentioned this had changed because there were two conditions I noticed in that. What happened to condition two? Is it satisfied or- >> Condition two, it's something that they have to do anyway and we decided- >> Redundant? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> Great, thank you, Cindy. You actually have the next one too. So 4CFR 20-0002 is the next item. >> Okay, this is a request for approval of the replat for the Lots 1 and 7R1 Block A of the Sonic and Murphy Oil Edition. The staff is recommending approval of this, however, the applicant has requested a 30 day extension. They are working on their site plan now and they want to make sure the site plan matches the plat with regards to where the easements are going. They say there's a possibility that some of the easements may change. They want to firm up their site plan before the plat is approved. And they don't have to come in and replat to move the easements around. >> Any questions on this item? I don't see any. Thank you, Cindy. Item 4D has been pulled from consideration. So we'll move to item 4E, that's ADP 19-0010, and I'll invite Karina for presentation. All right, so the request today is for an alternative development plan for SP Denton 1 edition. So this property is located west of Western Boulevard, just north of Airport Road. You did see this property before in December and in January with a preliminary plat and final plat that were both approved. Both of those requests actually came in under the 2002 code. So the site plan and the alternative development plan do reflect the 2002 DDC requirements. And the deviations that they are requesting are from parking in the front of the building and parking lot screening and landscaping. So the first deviation is in regards to the requirement for rear parking. So they do meet the exception where they are then allowed to do front parking in front of the right-of-way or by the right-of-way with the requirement that they are set back 85 feet from the right-of-way or public utilities. Because of the way that the site is located, there are some drainage easements that make that a little bit difficult. So they are proposing to meet all the prescribed requirements with the exception of the 15-foot landscape area. I do want to note though that the parking area is set back 180 feet from the right-of-way and is approximately 247 feet back. So there is about three feet shy of the 250-foot exemption for site design standards. So they're just shy of that exemption. They're still providing street trees along the right-of-way and a shrubbery along the parking. The second deviation relates back to that 15-foot landscape area that they're proposing to exclude. This DDC requirement just outlines what needs to be provided within that 15-foot landscape area, which includes a berm, some tree plantings. They are proposing to not include the berm, but they do-- or they will use-- relocate the 12 trees to the southern portion of the lot. So they're not removing them. They're just locating them somewhere else. And overall, they're still providing additional landscaping than what the code requires. They're providing 33% landscaping overall as opposed to the 10%. So this is just a reflection of the site. The ADP is only for lot three, building B, which is outlined in red. This right here is showing that they are 247 feet from the ultimate right-of-way and 180 feet setback from-- the parking is 180 feet setback. The trees that they are relocating are here to the south, and these are the easements that kind of prevent them from meeting the code requirements. So one kind of consideration that we had for this was moving the building back, but you'll see here with the floodplain easement and the required parking that they need to meet the code, it would be a bit restricted. So they opted for additional landscaping to meet the code. So with the ADP, there are some criteria for approval. I won't go into too much detail, but I'll go over some of the highlights. This property is located central to the industrial district. So ICG, which then translates in the 2019 code to heavy industrial. So it does fit with the character and does preserve that industrial-type development. It does meet the requirements of the 2002 and 2019 DDC. That includes parking, landscaping, zoning, and all of the above. So this, of course, does not contribute to strip development. There is infrastructure that is already in place. The only additional infrastructure would be providing connections into the rear lot, so extending utilities back into the lot over here. And so just overall, this does provide a higher-quality development. If you look at the properties just north, there's the WinCo. A lot of the industrial developments here push their buildings back 250 feet, so they don't have to comply with the site design standards. In this case, this development will comply with their site design standards with just the slight deviations proposed, and will substantially increase their landscaping by about 23% overall and increase their tree canopy by about 4%. And with that, staff recommends approval of this request as it meets all established requirements. -Kister Beck. -Thank you, Chair. So I'm a little confused. They're literally moving trees, or they're getting credit for planting trees in the back? -So they're required to plant trees within the landscape area, but because they're not providing the landscape area what should be there, they're just relocating them to the south. So they're still meeting the required number of trees. They're just pushing them over here to the south. -But, I mean, just to clarify the language, they're planting new trees in that region? -Yes, these are all new tree plantings. -Okay, and so for my education, who's responsible for drainage testing and flood mitigation and that sort of thing? It's not the city. It's the state or county, right, for erosion, flood control, chemical? I mean, anything that's dealing with that drainage? -So when a development comes in, they typically have to do an assessment that shows how their development is impacting the area before and after. So they would be then responsible for demonstrating how they would, in terms of floodplain, catch or detain that water or send it off the site. So part of the site development or the site plan review process captures all of that information and all of that review. And in this case, they have this drainage area right here that would capture. -But that's a one-time review, is that correct? One-off at development time, is that correct? -So it would be reviewed during the planting process and through the site plan process? -Correct. I don't think there's an ongoing monitoring of stormwater runoff that's done. Deborah can maybe come up and answer if -- I'm not aware of an ongoing monitoring runoff. -Good evening, Deborah Viera Environmental Services. From a water conveyance standpoint, the city reviews all the calculations, the assessment of pre- and post-conditions during the planting process. If you are concerned about the testing of the water from a water quality standpoint, we don't do it from a monitoring of the site. Those facilities will have to come with a maintenance plan associated with it. They will be kept in record if by any chance that area is not maintained according and it fails in this repair or something like that, we will go back -- the city will go back to the developer or to the owner of the site in regards with the maintenance plan. But it is privately maintained. -Okay. So the reason I bring this up is I was just -- you know, I don't -- it's an industrial use and I don't particularly personally care about the landscaping. But I do care about it in terms of flood mitigation and drainage. And especially that it's germane because they're moving landscaping as a mitigation effort to the south side of the property. So I guess if we're not watching that, I'm a little concerned that you're right -- that, you know, all this movement is right on the easement with a potential erosion and drainage issue, especially considering the part of the area that they're -- we're talking about on the east side is it visually looked like it was also a part of the -- sort of a lower part of the drainage as well. So I guess I'm a little concerned still about the drainage on the south side. -So I'll kind of come back and just touch on the drainage portion. So they're not actually moving or the movement of the landscape to the south isn't taking away from the capturing of the runoff or anything into the drainage area. Really what they would have been required to do but couldn't do because of where the drainage easement is located is provide this 15-foot -- where's my mouse -- this 15-foot area over here. So because of where this is located, they're not actually able to plant trees in that area. They're restricted by our own DEC to do that. So it kind of conflicts with what they're required to do. So the plannings wouldn't necessarily have assisted specifically with drainage. It was -- it's more of a landscaping requirement that kind of conflicted with other requirements. -I don't want to beat this dead horse too much, but I mean the idea is you're putting a lot of cement -- you had absorbing property there before and now you're putting a building in cement parking lots so the drainage is going to be faster runoff. So is there going to be subsurface drains into the creek bed for water mitigation? -I'm not sure that I can answer that question. -I guess I'm just a little concerned that they're -- you're creating an erosion issue there on the south side. Not for the building itself or anything else. -I don't know that it's been designed at that level yet where they're going to construct the stormwater runoff and what systems they're using. At least I'm not aware until the ADP is approved. -I'm not sure if Kristi, if you have any feedback on this portion of -- -I'm going to be on the house a little bit here. Kristi Afton also with Environmental Services and I have reviewed the site plan and I do believe there is a CEP that has already been approved. And the area here that is shown in brown is part of the flip plane. It is not going to be disturbed. This area right here is also considered an environmentally sensitive area and it was set aside. And the site will be draining partially to the environmentally sensitive area. The applicant has proposed riprap here to help with capturing the runoff pre and post so during construction there will be erosion control measures that have been taken to prevent damage to the ESA as well as post construction the riprap will help with capturing the runoff and filtering. The flip plane that is located to the south of this property is large and has been set aside and is not to be disturbed. So there is quite a bit of a buffer between the stream segment that runs to the south of this property and the proposed development. -Okay, thank you so much. -You're welcome. -Any other questions for Karina on this item? Great. The next item is our public hearings. We just have one this evening, it's item 5A, AESA 20-0001A. Invite Christy Upton for presentation or Cindy Jackson. -It's actually going to be two part presentation. -Okay. -I'm going to present the planning and zoning land use parts of this and then Debra Vieira is going to present the remainder. Okay, what we have before you today is a request to amend the AESA plan that was approved for this site back in October 2019. This is the Fisher 59 site. You may remember this from when it was approved in October. We've also had a couple of plots go through for this site. The purpose of the AESA originally was to provide a second point of access from the warehouse site. This aerial doesn't show it, however, approximately half of the site, the western half of the site, has been developed with warehouse distribution center. Fire code is requiring them to have two points of access. They have one point of access on university. They are planning to have a second point of access along this little dog leg here that you see, however, it has to cross the environmentally sensitive areas that are in this location. And that was the purpose of the AESA, the alternate environmentally sensitive area plan to permit them to cross across the ESA and provide mitigation for it. The site is approximately 49.9 acres in size and it's located on the north side of West University Highway 380 and west of North Mosh Branch. The site is Zoned Employment Center Industrial, excuse me, LI, sorry about that. Public notification, we sent out notifications within 200 and 500 feet of the site as well as mailed notices within 200 feet, 200 and 500 feet. We haven't received any responses to the notification and the neighborhood meeting was not held. And now I'll turn it over to Deborah. >> Good evening again, just to give you a little bit of feedback while we are here. During the final plot of lot two where the construction of the drive aisle is going to happen, staff realized that the mitigation that was proposed during the alternative ESA plan back in October was partially within property, the adjacent parcels which is not under the current ownership of Fisher 59. That poses some challenges in enforcing any of the conditions that pertains to that area that is outside the control of the applicant. Not only that, the owner of those parcels were not part of the original application, so from enforceability it creates some issues. We came to that discovery during the final plot of lot two. So we approached the applicant and said we need to rectify that error. And one way to do it is to make sure that all the mitigation that they are proposing is within the limits of what they own. Okay? So that's the only reason. The mitigation is not changing. The disturbance is not changing. The only thing that is changing is where they're going to do that mitigation. So I'm going to work you through the history of the site just for your own identification and if anybody is watching us to come to know what is the history of the site. So in 2018 we did a ESA field assessment for the floodplain. And at that time we found that even though the site had been disturbed in some extent the floodplain was not. Therefore it retained the undeveloped floodplain condition and designation subject to section 7.4 of the DDC. As a part of their development process in 2019 they approached the city to request an alternative ESA plan for that road that it is showing right to the west of the site. For that road to be constructed they will have to put culverts to be able to cross the channel. For the culvert to be installed and to maintain the hydraulics of the site they will have to go and cut and fill that floodplain. So in that way the constraint that you're putting by the culvert will not actually have any negative impacts downstream. So during that process they will be disturbing 5.51 acres of undeveloped floodplain ESA. As an exchange they are proposing six acres of mitigation which will be seeded with native seed mix and also two bioretentions which are right here and right here. The two bioretention together totals 0.28 acres and they are meant to treat water quality. This is what was approved in 2019. I just wanted to show the two areas that happened to be outside their control or their ownership and that is the two areas that now will be integrated into this area. And you will see it more clear in the next slide what the difference is. Also important, anything that is showing orange is going to be stabilized but was not originally proposed to be planted or seeded with native plant. And this is the new alternative ESA plan for it. As you can see all that area that before was proposed to be stabilized but not seeded with native plants now will be. So the purple area that is not longer within part of the alternative ESA plan, all that area have been mitigating by putting native plant seeds through the pretty much boundary of the site. So again the amount of mitigation have not changed, the type of mitigation have not changed. The only thing that we are changing is relocating from this purple area that originally was designated as a mitigation and now it will be added through the boundaries where the dark green line is. We still have in the two bioretention areas which is the two blue polygons here. Nothing has changed except the location. Back in 2019, staff recommended approval and we included seven conditions as a part of the proposal. Two of them were related to on-site detention because at the time, TxDOT was still reviewing the construction plans and they have not made a final determination. However, since then they got a final okay from TxDOT and the two conditions related to on-site detentions are now being removed from the approval conditions. In red, you will see the changes that we have made. Condition number one is just to reflect the updated alternative ESA plan as of February 13 of 2020. We maintain the seeding of the native prairie habitat. Condition number three is related to the construction of the two bioretention. We maintain that same condition. The only thing that we added was reflecting the amendment as of February 2020. We removed condition four and five because those were related to on-site detention that no longer is necessary for TxDOT approval and we maintain conditions six and seven that talks about the installation and inspection for three years and for the owner to dedicate an easement for where those bioretentions are. Any questions? >> Commissioner Beck. >> So this is probably just by ignorance. The proposal that we saw two weeks ago where we had a discussion about changing the code so that we didn't have these out of order proposals. This is this property and we use this as a test case of that change. So did we not already approve this under the conditions of the modifications that she's describing here? No? >> I'm trying to recall what item that was but that item had a condition that we would approve the AESA which we're doing tonight. >> So this is the approval of the AESA? Okay. >> That was the plat for lot two which has the dog leg for the street connection to watch branch and that had conditions that they had to bring forward the correction for the AESA which is before you now. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions on this item for Deborah or for Cindy? Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation. That concludes the agenda for this evening. Again, there's no reports to be had this evening so that concludes the work session completely. I will close the work session at 6.05. We'll reconvene in council chambers at 6.30. Thank you. >> Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Wednesday, February 19th, 2020. Seeing that we have a quorum I will call this meeting to order at 6.34. The first item of business is to stand if able to give a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. 9-0-0-2-5, and one vote, and then the next one, and the next vote. So the chair will entertain a motion for item 3A, Commissioner Smith. >> I move for approval on 3A. >> We have a first for approval, Commissioner Burnetta. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second for approval of item 3A, any discussion on the matter? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. >> Motion carries 6-1. Next item of business is the second consent agenda item, which is 3B, PP 20-0001, Commissioner Smith. >> I move to approve. >> We have a first for approval, Commissioner Beck. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 7-0. That brings us to our items for individual consideration. The next item for business is item 4A, FP 19-0003. I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation. >> Good evening, Chair and members of the commission. My name is Sean Jacobson with the Planning Department. I'm here tonight to present a request for approval for final plat of lots one through three, block A of the Tealstone addition. This is a 6.58 acre site, generally located northwest of Mingo Road, northeast of the corner of Mingo Road and Cooper Creek Road. Staff is recommending approval with the condition that an encroachment agreement for all grading and construction within the transmission line easements must be obtained from the Texas Municipal Power Authority and provided to the city prior to the final plat being recorded with Denton County. When that condition is met, the plat will meet all of the established criteria, therefore the recommendation of approval with conditions. With that said, I'll stand for any questions. >> Appreciate it, Sean. This is an item for individual consideration. It's not a public hearing, however, if you wish to speak on the item, we will certainly listen to any testimony this evening. Commissioner Anderson? >> Make a motion to approve. >> And Commissioner Anderson, for clarification, do you approve with the condition? >> Yes. >> Okay, we have first for approval with condition. Commissioner Ellis? >> Second. >> We have first and second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries seven, zero. The next item of business is item 4B, PP 19-0035C. I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation. >> Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners. For the record, Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department. I have before you today the preliminary plat for Stewart Ridge, phase two and three. The site is located within the ETJ. The city has planning authority in the county per our interlocal agreement. The development will connect to city water and sewer, and these are under the city's purview. However, the streets must be accepted by the county. Streets and sewer, excuse me, streets and drainage are also per city's subdivision requirements. Staff was recommending approval of this request with one condition. That the civil construction plans for paving and drainage facilities must be approved by Denton County. And civil construction plans for the water and sewer lines must be approved by the city prior to the submittal of the final plat. Condition two is not being recommended. >> Cindy, the condition number one. That's a requirement in the process already we're trying to codify that that would take place? Or is that an additional step that's not typically, could the final plat be approved without those approvals typically? >> Yes. >> Okay, and we've added it as a condition for the purpose of just clarifying? >> Right, we've added this condition because of the fact that the property is in the ETJ. And even though the city reviews the streets and drainage, and it's per city standards, the county has their own standards, the county has to accept the streets. >> Okay, thank you. Is there any other questions for Cindy? Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. I brought this up briefly and Commissioner Smith brought it up during the work session. And that is the division of authority between what we're allowed to do in the ETJ here for this property and what we're not. I'm quite concerned from the preliminary plat about the sort of amount of conceptual, let's say proposed, conceptual development all along this area, and the amount of development along the drainage, the amount of tree canopy being removed, and I can't in good conscience lend my support to it. >> Any other questions for Cindy? I don't see any, thank you. Commissioner Fernanda. >> Yeah, and I guess this is just a general question, because this is in the ETJ and everything, based on having some of the same concerns that Commissioner Beck has. What is the impact of us denying this as it is in the ETJ? >> Well, it would be the same as if you denied a plot that is in the city. It meets all the requirements, and per local government code, you are required to compel to approve it. >> Okay, I mean, because based on the fact that it's all beholden to technical county and everything, there's not really recourse, right? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> Okay. >> Per our interlocal agreement with the county. And so they come to the city to plat, and they go to the county for their building permits. Platting regulations are the same, whether it's in the city or the county, with regards to the regulations of being compelled to approve if it meets all the requirements. >> And not to be dismissive or anything, so my sense on this one is essentially this vote is ceremonial for the large part. Is that kind of right, or? >> There's a compulsion from us if it meets all technical requirements. We have the empowerment to deny it if we can cite a technical deficiency. >> Right, but okay, all right, thank you. >> I think there's no more other questions. >> Okay. >> This is an individual consideration item, it's not a public hearing. We do have a card, though, and I'm happy to hear it's for Mark Holcomb. If you want to speak, you can certainly come down. And if you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have three minutes to speak. >> This is Mark Holcomb, and my address is 2316 Crestwood Place. But we own the property that's just north of this development. It's just north from the, it's on the south side of our property. So this development will be bordering our entire southern border of our property. Actually, I spoke with the gentleman with Kimmy Horn and Associates earlier, because we were concerned about our property actually being cut off. Because we have an easement that leads from Stewart Road into our property that I was concerned that it was going to, our development wasn't going to cut off that easement. But they've reassured me that there will actually be, I guess, a city easement that will be behind the housing development that will also then be between that and the mobile home park. So I feel a little better now after speaking with them today. >> Great. >> So I just wanted to bring up that concern before it got approved that we might not have access to the entire southern border of our property. >> I appreciate it. I appreciate you being here. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sir, if you could do the same, just your name and address, and you'll have three minutes. >> Absolutely, Brad Williams, 2728 North Harwood Street in Dallas, representing the applicant. Appreciate everyone being here tonight. I did want to touch on that interlocal agreement a little bit that we've been talking about in work session and here in the open meeting. We are in full agreement with the staff on the fact that this plot is ripe for approval. It meets all the standards, and so we look forward to an approval. However, I do want to visit with you on that condition that is up on the screen about the civil construction plans going to the county. Couple of concerns we have with that is, first of all, the interlocal agreement, in my estimation, gives the city exclusive jurisdiction to regulate plots and related permits on this property. Related permits, I believe, includes paving, drainage, streets, the types of construction plans that were being asked to go get approval from the county. I believe that that is within the purview of the city and should be handled by the city. It's not usual that I'm up here asking to be regulated by the city, so that tells you something. And kind of the functional problem with this is that the county has their own set of standards and they are not the same as the city's standards. The city's standards are more rigorous. Concrete streets, curb, gutter, sidewalks, that sort of thing. The county standards are blacktop, bar ditches, and so by going to the county and asking them to approve and review plans that are consistent with city standards, it's kind of an odd posture. And so just for consistency of process and to make sure everything goes smoothly, we would ask that you approve without the condition. Of course, we would prefer an approval with the condition as opposed to a denial. I don't think the plan is right for denial. But in the event the commission is not satisfied that the condition should not apply, I'm just compelled to come on record and express our opposition to that condition. But that's all we're here for. If you have any questions for me, I have the engineer here as well. Happy to answer any questions we can. Otherwise, we do look forward to an approval, preferably without condition number one. We do have a couple of questions. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. How many units are in the development? I mean, this is it again? In phase one, two, and three? Yeah, we're close to 550. Yeah, 550 or so. Okay, 550. Timeline on development for phase one, two, and three? Obviously, one first and two and three coming later. Yeah. Yeah, I think as soon as we get our approval, we're going to be ready to start turning dirt. Okay, and then how much longer than phase two and three coming in after that? We'll just follow in. Rough timeline of how long that would be. You'll have to come down to the mic. Sorry. You're in charge of the questions. If I keep asking questions, you keep answering, not the mic. They're going to get mad at me, so come on. And if you could just say your name and address. Okay. Brent Murphy with Kimley-Horn, 400 Oklahoma Street, Solana, Texas. The first phase is under design now, and so then it takes about 12 months to get the development built, and then houses will be ready to be constructed. Okay. And then, so most of these developments, if it's 550, we split them up evenly. Yes, the first phase is about 130 lots. Okay, so maybe two and a half years or so, and then it takes basically a year to sell through the first phase. Okay. So maybe until full-boiled out, we've got five, six years maybe at most. Correct. Okay, got it. Thanks, appreciate it. We're going to have questions from you. Can we pause and send a question real fast, so I have the applicants here? Okay, sorry. If you're done with the applicants. I'm done with the applicants. I have other questions. Yeah, because we might have other questions for Cindy. Chris or Beck. Thank you, Chair. So you were concerned about the different standards for the county, and you were saying that you're coming and asking for the more stringent standards of the city. Is there anything precluding you from adopting voluntarily the city's stringent standards? No, that's why that's exactly what we're doing. The streets are going to be designed and built to city standards. That's the plan. My concern is asking the county to review construction drawings for streets that are designed to city standards as opposed to county standards. It's that they're not accustomed to reviewing concrete, curb and gutter streets. It's not their standards. Is there a drawback to that other than their lack of familiarity? They may take a similar reading of the interlocal that I do and say, hey, why are we even looking at this? Because the city has exclusive jurisdiction in the Division 1 ATJ. And so as the applicant, I think we're a little bit concerned about getting sort of bounced back and forth between the two jurisdictions. We would rather just come to one jurisdiction for all of our necessary approvals. And I think that's why Chapter 242 of the government code put these interlocal agreements out there so that applicants and developers have one office or a very clear set of offices to go to when they were looking for approval. In this case, it's the city in our opinion. Okay, thank you. Yeah. I don't see any other questions for you. Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. What's the latest on the development of Long Road? Long Road? Because if we're looking at adding 550 units over the next five to six years along a road that I'm pretty familiar with, and it's not a very high density area, and this is going to lead into pretty much another question I'm going to ask in a second. So I'll ask you this now. Whenever we're approving preliminary plots in an ETJ, do we have the same type of rules that trigger a TIA in this scenario? Is there any type of traffic impact that would come in here? I know this is not a zoning issue. It's more of a preliminary platen. So if we're looking at it from this standpoint, I'm looking at it as saying a traffic impact analysis was pretty important for a two lane road that's about to gain 550 units and just be conservative and say one and a half cars per unit. So we're talking about 800 cars. Right. That's a lot going on to a two lane road in the next six years if we don't have any development for it. This is, to be honest, this type of subdivision in the ETJ is a totally new... I would agree. ...type of thing for the city to review. I will check and see if a TIA would be required. I am not sure if we can require TIAs in the ETJ. I don't believe that we have required a TIA within the ETJ. I think part of the challenge is typically when we have our construction engineering plan review and construction, there's a performance maintenance bond that's included with that as well as a maintenance bond after the fact. We would not want to be a party or the three way agreement would... I don't know why the city would enter into such if we would not maintain those roads. Why would we have a maintenance bond for that? Okay. I guess that maintenance bond though wouldn't stem over to the roads that the city does maintain, like long road though, that would have impact from not the maintenance of the roads that are inside the development, which is the ETJ, I get that part, but what about the impact of the roads that it does connect to? That's not an ETJ. If it was a city road, then again, it depends on... I think with this one, it's not that they're building a whole new road. I think it's just a component to that. The applicant gave me an email that was sent out by the city. This is a facilitator that worked on this project with me. The facilitator did some research and has found that traffic impact analysis criteria apply to properties in the ETJ and future analysis of impacts on long and short roads will be required to support the implementation of the project. Okay. At this point now though, if we approve a preliminary plat, you're saying that it's required for the implementation of the product. What next step do we have that stops that to make sure that gets occurred? That would be part of the CEP process, they'd need the traffic impact analysis as well. Before a final plat's approved and the city would have to go through it and make sure that meets its requirements, it's not going to overload, I'm guessing what is probably defined as a collector, I'm guessing long is defined as a collector on there. I believe that. I can check that for you. I'm not certain of it. I believe it is a collector, but I'll check that. I'm just afraid because the final plat would then become on as just a consent agenda, so we wouldn't really see much in the way of ... I know the city would do its own back part in the engineering to make sure that it's not going to overload it, but this project does scare me. That's kind of why I was asking about that stuff in the work session. Yeah. Scares me from how much energy we're going to put into there and we have, as a city, we don't have a whole lot of control over what can happen by dumping it all into long and onto steward, which I don't think it doesn't have any connection to steward either. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Cindy, we seem to have a hang up on this condition. Talk to me about the city's reasoning for establishing this condition. The city's reasoning for establishing this condition is primarily to make sure that the county will accept the streets, because they're not city streets. They're in the county, and the county has to ultimately accept the streets and maintain the streets. Is there reason to believe they would not? They don't meet county standards. County standards require asphalt with a bar ditch, and what we have here are suburban street sections. Okay. Okay. Thanks. I have a question. Can you go back to the condition, please? It's saying that construction plans must be approved by Denton County and civil construction approved by the city, but it seems like that's a ... I'm hearing this wrong. If they build to city standard roads, it won't match county. No, they won't. And if they build to county roads, it won't match city. That's right. So how are we acquiring an and in that condition, not an or, because if it's an and, and those are conflicting, they will never meet this condition. Am I missing something here? If they built to the county standard, we would not object to it. Mr. Chair, the condition is referring to the streets for the county and the sewer and the water for the city. So there's two different components to that condition. Okay. So the street paving is only county? Correct. Okay. Because the sewer and water would be connected to the city system, so that's why we have the authority over the review of that part. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, Chair. So the county will not approve city streets, the county would not approve concrete streets with drainage? We don't know. We don't know. There would seem to be a better option. Probably more expensive for them though. That's hard to say. Yeah. This is piggybacking off Commissioner Anderson's question and that is, do we have any historical examples of city, Denton city style streets in the county being approved? No, we don't. Thank you. Yes, and this is basically just to add clarity per the Chair's concern. Can we have these broken up into two recommendations where after Denton County, basically instead of and, we drop that into a condition two, so that way the second condition would be the water and sewer lines would be approved by the city and the first one would be the... I think you can make that motion to approve it that way. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Chair. Cindy, what's the county then, because the ETJ would have, they have, I guess, ruling or regulations on accessibility to emergency services and because the ETJ would be at Denton emergency services, this- Right, they have their own fire district and fire inspectors and perhaps they'd have to have some sort of agreement between the city and the county. And legal can shoot me down on this, because I'm going to ask you a subjective question. If this was not an ETJ, would this preliminary plot pass for accessibility for emergency services, because I'm only seeing one way in and one way out in that preliminary plot. There's stub outs to the other pieces of land, but- Again, are the fire code, this is in the ETJ and our fire code did not review it because it's... Fire code is under county. I understand that, but I guess my better question would be in a city development, if a plot was to come in for us in a city development, it only has a one way in, one way out, is that approved by city code fire ordinance? In a city development, we would ensure that there were two ways in and out for an emergency situation. All right, question. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. I have one more question. If they build city standard roads and they present, they would have to present that to the county for acceptance, if the county rejects those roads, their project wouldn't go through, correct? Well, again, they would have no... If this county didn't accept the roads, consequences are the county wouldn't maintain them, and so there would be no road maintenance because they're not city roads, the city wouldn't maintain them. The city would only maintain water and sewer. I know we're speaking on the jurisdiction, that's not ours, but you're saying it's possible for them to build city standard roads, the county rejects them, their project go forward with roads they've built, and then there's no jurisdiction for maintenance of those roads? I don't know if it could move forward, again, this is something that is new that we've never dealt with before. As it stands, what I do know is if the county did not accept the roads, then there would be no maintenance for the roads. One possibility would be an HOA, private streets, perhaps, that would have to maintain the roads. We would not have any jurisdiction. It wouldn't be like they're going to submit for building permits, and we're going to have... We just... That would all go through Denton County. I'd love if you could add some clarity to that situation. I can try, and your council can agree or disagree at her leisure, but the interlocal agreement mandates that the county maintain the roads. Now if the county decides they just don't want to, well, then you have an agreement in place, and potentially one party that hasn't fulfilled their obligations under an agreement. But the acceptance wouldn't come until after we've already constructed the roads. Then they would... Yes, the project would proceed, but there would be, I suppose, a jurisdictional dispute over whose roads they are. A dedication of roadways is a two-part process of dedication, and you have acceptance. We would offer to dedicate the roads on the plat, and then it's up to the governing body of the county or the city to accept them. Okay. That adds marginal clarity, but I appreciate the effort. The main item is that the project would go through. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. So I think what I hear you saying is if the county were to reject the roads, you're going through with the project anyway, which is perhaps why you don't want this condition in here. Correct? Well, yes and no. I mean, I think it's a timing question. We would have already built the roads by the time we learn that the county will or will not accept them. And so once we've built the infrastructure, yeah, we're going to proceed with the project. The concern on this condition is that it's in a condition on our final plat. So if we march our construction plans for paving and drainage facilities to the county and ask them for approval, and again, some of this is speculative, and I'll grant that to you. I have not confirmed one way or the other what's going to happen. What our concern is that if we walk these plans to the county, they either refuse to accept them because in their estimation, they don't have any jurisdiction to be looking at construction drawings in the ETJ because of the interlocal agreement, or they accept the drawings and they deny them because they don't comport with county standards. Sometimes counties don't want to maintain concrete streets because they're more expensive to maintain. The equipment that they have is more geared toward blacktop streets. Maybe they don't want that maintenance responsibility. I don't know. Our concern is getting sort of whipsawed back and forth between the city and the county over this issue, and our preference would simply be to look to the interlocal and say this should all be city stuff if the county on the back end decides they don't want to accept or maintain the streets. I think there are provisions that would prevent that from happening legally, but we obviously can't make them do anything. But that's obviously the city's concern, too, is if you go forward with a project and they reject to maintain the roads, then we have a serious problem on our hands, and this is effectively at our city property line. It seems a reasonable concern from the city to protect the citizens of that particular development going forward. What's the plan, what's your plan if there's not a condition, you do construction drawings for city engineered standards, county does not accept them? What's the plan for maintenance of those roads? I don't think at this point, again, since we're sort of speculating, and I understand your question, I don't think we have any plans to take on a private maintenance obligation of those roads, because it would be our position that it is the county's responsibility to maintain those roads. I think there's authority for that, and so what 500 homeowners in the future elect to do in order to get their roads maintained, I think would largely be up to them. These roads probably wouldn't need any serious maintenance for many years. County government can change, administrations can change, perspectives can change. Those people would all be voters, they can vote for a new county commissioner or whatever. If they don't feel like they're being paid attention to, there's a political solution for them. But at this point, I can't volunteer that we would commit to any private maintenance. I appreciate the honesty, I'm just trying to fully flesh this out. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Well, if you like the benefits of the city and the restrictions of the city and the services of the city and all the rules of the city, why were you not trying to become annexed by the city voluntarily? I think there was some discussion early on in this process about an annexation in connection with a public improvement district. Those conversations, I understand them fizzled, and so here we are. You want to move forward anyway, regardless. That's correct. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Where's phase one? We're only improving phase two and phase three. Where's phase one? Right here. Yeah, right here. Okay. Point through there. Point there. Yeah. So phase one is this area right here. That's right there? Yeah. And that's already, we've already seen that and proved it, correct? Correct. We submitted construction plans for that. That's what's underway through staff reviews, but that's because that portion, pluriplat wasn't required in ETJ, so we started with construction plans at that point. So we're seeing stage two and three before we see stage one? Yeah, just because it's a pluriplat, right? Yeah, sure. But phase one is phase one. It'll go first. Okay. And it's got the road frontage that you can see on Long and Stewart. Okay. So we're reviewing that, right? Correct. Yeah. Interestingly enough, I think the city's actually reviewing our construction plans for phase one. Okay. Is there connectivity in phase one to Long Road? Yes, there's connectivity to both roads. Okay. So you see the- You connect to Stewart, you connect to Long there. Correct. To Stewart and to Long. Perfect. And I think I mean multiples on Long, but those will be providing the multiple access points to phase two and three. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Appreciate it. I don't see any other questions. Chair will certainly, well first if anyone else wants to speak and add some input, certainly happy to have you. I will say as I wait for a motioner that initially I thought the idea of getting rid of the conditions was a good idea. However, I'd rather have a maintained blacktop road than a deconstructing cement road with no insured plan. I think cement and the city standards are better than county standards, but if they're not going to have a plan for maintenance, I'd rather have a asphalt road that's being properly maintained that the county will accept. So that's just my two cents on it, but I'll turn it over to Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I'm actually going to make a motion to deny because of the confusion that we've just been dealing with right here, as well as some of the other issues that I mentioned at the outset of discussion. We have a motion for denial. Commissioner Anderson? Thank you, Chair. I have a question for the... We need to see what happens with this motion first. Thanks. Do we have a second for deny? Seeing none, the motion fails. Commissioner Anderson? Would the developer... Would you guys be willing to develop the subdivision with the asphalt roads instead of concrete to be in compliance with county standards? I think this is where it gets challenging because if we were to develop blacktop roads, we would not be complying with the city standards, which is what applies. So... Then why don't we have this discussion if it applies? That's a great question. If concrete is what is recommended, then why are we having this issue? One of the advantages of this condition is that we will find out before anything is constructed whether or not the county will accept suburban style streets. Is there a way we can just cut the chase and just go straight to the county first and sit there and say, "Hey, we want to do concrete streets and bring it back." Does it make sense? Instead of approving it with conditions, without conditions, denying it and all that stuff, is there a way we can sit there and say, "Hey, let's just move this back a couple of weeks," and sit there and the developer goes to the county and says, "Hey, we want to develop this. We want to do concrete streets. Will you accept this?" And if not, then they know which way we need to proceed. This is shot clock. We can't move it back. Okay. All right. All right. That makes sense. Okay. Thank you. Can I get clarification on this? The city will not allow them to build Blacktown? Can someone answer that? Are they, if the county approves a county approvable road, if it meets county standards, will the city approve the county standard roads for this development? For materialized and the transportation criteria manual, in the City of Dent, you have two options. You have reinforced concrete or you have asphalt. But this is in the City of Dent, correct? Correct. Those are our two. So if they elected to do asphalt, they could. I think the issue is the county's drainage that requires the bar ditch. In addition, where the City of Dent will allow you to have water and sewer within the right of way, the county does not. But drainage and pavings fall into county authorities. So if the bar ditch, the top, if all paving and drainage meets county, that's okay from the city's perspective. The city's only looking at water and sewer. Correct. We're deferring to the county because they're going to essentially own those roads. Okay. So yes. So Blacktop can move forward in the city. Okay. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Cindy, you mentioned shot clock. So if we don't, if we, there was a vote to table or something else like that, this would, this would, we would hit, we would hit the end of it. So we could, can we approve of the, if the applicant requested a 30-day extension. Yeah, exactly. In order to postpone this, the applicant would have to request the 30-day extension to the March, March 4th meeting. They've already done that. They've already done that. So they've done their one request. They can't do it. Your choice is either to approve or deny. Gotcha. So we have no opposed. And you have to deny with reason. Got it. Understood. Thank you, ma'am. And just to confirm, if there's no action, it's an approval without a condition. I would, I would really caution against a denial. We would much prefer an approval this evening, even with the condition and hope that everything works out with the county. In any event, you know, I don't think we have any clear ordinance justification for a denial. But again, if the commission approves with the condition, it's just incumbent upon me to register our opposition on the record. But in any event, an approval is what we are seeking this evening. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. Richard and legal, the, so a no action is an approval because that's per the, per the rule that we created. Correct? No action is an approval. Whenever it's a shot clock. Does it go to city council? A super majority? It just goes with that was as approval with no, no limitations on whatsoever. It goes as an approval. Does it go? Approved. Okay. All right. Okay. Cynthia, in your professional opinion, do you agree with the assessment of the interlocal agreements as put forth this evening? No, actually the city attorney's office does not. The interlocal agreement clearly obligates the county to maintain the streets within the ETJ. They're not within the city limits. The reason that we're reviewing the construction plans for the, the water and sewer is because they are connecting to our water and sewer system. That's how the interlocal agreement was drafted. And as Ms. Jackson said, this is a, a first for us. We have basically a suburban style plat right on the outer edge of our, our city limits and we can't, we can't force annexation. So this application does bring up several issues with, with this type of development. I appreciate the insight. I'm going to go ahead and move that we approve item PP 19-35C with conditions. Commissioner Smith? Second. We have a first and a second for approval with the conditions or the condition. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries four three. Next sign of business is item four C, FR 20-0002 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation. Thank you. This is a request for approval of the final replat of lots one and seven R1 block A of the Sonic and Murphy oil addition. The plat does comply with all requirements and staff is recommending approval however the applicant has requested a 30 day extension to the first meeting in March in order to give them an opportunity to work on their site plan and ensure that all the easements on the plat match where they need to be per the site plan. Great. Thank you. This is an individual consideration item, anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, Commissioner Burnett has the floor. Motion to approve the extension. We have a motion to approve Commissioner Smith. Second. We have a first and approval first and a second for approval, any discussion? Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board. Can I get just one second, was the motion for the 30 day extension or just to approve? For the extension for the 30 day extension. Okay, and do we have a second for that? Okay. So we're voting on the approval with the 30 days. Okay. Yes. Just want a clarification. Thank you. Motion carries 7-0. Item 4D has been pulled from our agenda, so that moves us to item 4E, ADP 19-0010, and I'll invite Corina Maldonado for presentation. Today is a consideration for alternative development plan ADP 19-10 for the SP Denton 1 edition. The request is for alternative development plan for a proposed industrial warehouse and distribution center, wishing to deviate from the 2002 code of sub-chapter 13 for front parking of the building, setback, and parking lot screening. The site is located west of Western Boulevard, just north of Airport Road. You previously saw this property in December and in January through the approval of the preliminary plat and the final plat. Both were under the 2002 DDC, so the ADP request is also coming in under the 2002 DDC. The first request to deviate from the code is in relation to the requirement that if front parking is provided, there is an 85-foot setback from either the public utility easement or the right-of-way due to the easements on the site, they will be unable to meet this requirement, so they are requesting to deviate from providing the 15-foot landscape area as prescribed in the column right here. What they are willing to do is continue to provide the street trees as required along the right-of-way and provide shrubs between the parking and the right-of-way, so there is still sufficient screening for this property. I do want to note that the building is set back approximately 247 feet from the ultimate right-of-way and the parking is also set back approximately 180 feet. Just to note, industrial warehouses, industrial uses do have an exemption for site design standards in the 2002 code if they are set back 250 feet, so this property is just short by 3 feet. The second deviation is also in relation to that 15-foot landscape area. The code requires certain plantings in this area to include a berm, large trees every 40 linear feet, so because of the limitations of not being able to provide that area, they are requesting to deviate by not providing the berm, however, the trees that are required will be planted, however, they will be planted in an alternative area, which is 144 landscape area to the south, which actually provides screening for the truck parking spaces that they have. Overall, they are proposing 33 percent landscaping, which is above the required 10 percent. So this is the landscape plan that shows the deviation request for lot 3, building 3, circled in red. The green is the overall landscape area, and the orange highlighted here are the easements on the site that restrict them from meeting the exact requirements of the code. One consideration that they had was to move the building back, but what that does is it puts them close to this floodplain easement and also reduces the ability to provide parking and a second point of access for trucks, so it actually creates an additional problem. So with this request, they are still going to provide sufficient landscaping or screening from the right of way with the street trees and shrubbery, a consistent row between parking and right of way, and then the relocation to the south. So again, I want to highlight that had they provided an additional three feet from the right of way, they wouldn't actually have to come to this commission for approval. They would actually just not have to do the industrial site design. And lastly, of course, highlighting the overall landscaping, 33 percent is being provided for landscape and also 19 percent tree canopy as in replacement of the 15 percent. So approval criteria, approval for an ADP is shown. I won't go through in too much detail, but they are located central to an industrial area. So the 2002 DDC designates this area as industrial commerce, which translates to the heavy industrial zoning district for 2019. They do meet all the zoning requirements, parking, site design, with the exception of the deviation from both the 2002 code and the 2019 code. They are not contributing to strip development, as this is largely for industrial use. And then there is existing infrastructure to support this use. They will be extending utilities to the lot towards the west. And then just overall, it does provide a higher quality product than the 2002 DDC requires, simply because had they set back those additional feet, they would not have to comply with what the DDC requires. So they are providing additional landscaping, additional tree canopy, and then are also setting back the building and parking further than what other developments would provide. So with that, staff recommends approval of this request as it meets the established requirements. And with that, I will take any questions. I appreciate the presentation. We do have one right now. Commissioner Beck? Thank you, Chair. So if they had shrunk their building by three feet, then we wouldn't have to have this approval? There has been that consideration, I believe, because of what they are proposing. It's up to really the developer to make that consideration. That cannot tell them you have to shrink your building by three feet. The consideration that staff requested was that they move the building three feet, however, that would really be restricted by the easements, and they would actually remove parking that is required, a second point of access, so it would create additional problems than what they are proposing. Thank you. I don't see any other questions. Commissioner Smith? Motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Anderson? I second the motion. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries, 7-0. Next item of business is our public hearing item. We have one this evening, it's 5A, AESA 20-0001A. I'll invite Cindy Jackson to begin the presentation, and I'll open the public hearing. Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners. For the record, Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department, I have before you tonight a request to amend and approve Alternate ESA, its environmentally sensitive area plan. The plan was approved in October 2019. The purpose of the plan was to provide fire access. This is actually two lots. Lot one is developed with a distribution center. Per the fire code, the distribution center has to have two points of access, and that's the purpose of this dog leg you see right here. However, this is all ESA right in here, and the purpose of the alternate plan was to permit encroaching onto the ESA to provide that second point of access. The site is 49.9 acres, it's located on the north side of West University, Highway 380, and west of North Marsh Branch. The site is on light industrial. Public notification was sent out. We sent out notices within 200 and 500 feet of the site, and we received no responses back. A neighborhood meeting was not held for this. And now I'll turn this over to Deborah Vieira. Good evening, Planning and Planning Commission. My name is Deborah Vieira with Environmental Services. I'm going to walk you through the history of this site. The purpose of the amendment is to correct a error that we noticed during the final plot of Lot 2. The error contained property that is not currently owned by the applicant, Fisher 59. Therefore, the enforcement, if we have to go through that route, will be difficult to enforce on a property that is now owned by the applicant. The second problem with it is the owner of those adjacent parts were not part of the original alternative ESA application, so it poses greater risk and challenges. Therefore, during the Lot 2, we brought up this problem up to the attention of the applicant, and they have agreed to submit an amendment. The amendment will not change the type of mitigation proposed. It will not change the type of disturbance. The only thing that is changing is the location of where that mitigation is going to take place. And the mitigation now will be all within the property that the applicant owns. Just to give you a little bit of history, in 2018, we did a field assessment to verify the condition of the floodplain. In that assessment, we found out that the floodplain maintains its undeveloped status. Therefore, that designation was maintained until now. The alternative ESA approved in 2019, it was for 5.51 acres of undeveloped floodplain. They needed to go through that disturbance process to make sure that there's no upstream and downstream impacts when they put the culverts that will allow for that road to go through the creek. In exchange, they were proposing 6 acres of floodplain that will be seeded with native seed mix and two bioretentions totaling 0.28 acres together. And the bioretention will provide the water quality, provide treatment of the water quality. The bioretentions are located here in blue. The areas that were originally proposed to be outside the property that Fisher 59 owns are these two parcels along both sides of the proposed dry file. All the orange area that is shown on the plan was proposed to be stabilized for sloping, but not seeded with native plantless. With the new proposed amendment, the purple area that is shown right here, all that planting will be actually distributed along the darker green lines that you can see that. So they're maintaining the same amount of mitigation. It is just located in a different place. The two bioretentions are still here and still being proposed as originally. Comparing the conditions that was included in the original alternative ESA plan, two of the conditions at the time address on-site detention, because at that time the text dot was still reviewing the construction plans, and they have not finalized their review. Since then, TEKSTA have accepted the plan, so those two conditions, conditions four and five, are not longer applicable. We have indicated in red the changes that we have made. We have made references to the February 13, 2020 document just to be part of the approval conditions. Condition number one talks about the 5.51 acre disturbance and condition number two talks about utilizing native plants for the seed in the area. Condition number three talks about the bioretention. We have added the updated amendment to reflect that. We have deleted conditions four and five, as I mentioned, explained to you. We maintain condition number six, which is the installation and inspection of those mitigation areas. Condition number seven relates to the dedicated easement that the applicant would have to provide for staff. Staff is available to answer any questions. We do have one, Christopher Beck. Thank you, Chair. This is just an education thing more than anything else. For prairie grasslands and flood plains and things, what does it mean to maintain 90 percent and then what are they replacing prairie plant life with if it dies, more juvenile seedlings? I mean, I'm trying to relate this to how we do trees. Okay. So at the time of the three-year inspection period, we will go to the site and we will see the condition of those vegetation. If they're established, we will deem that as submitting the condition and we pretty much sign off on it. If when we get there, we see that plants are dying, that there are bare spots and things like that and that does not reach the 90 percent that was originally seeded, then we will go back to them and say those areas will have to be replaced. Probably they will put more seeding if that is the condition. With grasses, sometimes you want to just seeding is better than actually putting big plants on it, but it would be completely up to the applicant where they want. But until that 90 percent is met, we will not sign off. Okay. Thank you very much. I do not see any other questions. Oh, maybe we do. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Deborah, can you go back to the conditions? Because it would be my suggestion to revise that to reflect the correct date for clarity purposes that is on the revised plan, which is February 12th and not February 13th. For me, I do not want to recommend an approval with a condition that to me does not make sense. We are referencing a report that is the 13th and the report that we have here is the 12th. The draft ordinance also says the 13th, so I would suggest that that be revised as well or have the report revised. To me, that is a… We will make sure that we make sure that everything is consistent. I do not see any other questions. I appreciate the presentation by you and Cindy. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Commissioner Beck. I motion to approve with the recommendations and with the corrections to the date. We have a first for approval with those conditions and an updated date consistency. Commissioner Burnetta. Second. We have a second. Now that we have a first and a second, any discussion? Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board. Motion carries 6-0 with one recuse and I will invite Commissioner Cole back to the dais. Next item of business is the planning and zoning project matrix. I will turn the floor over to Richard for any updates and then for questions. No updates on the three items yet. We are still working through that. Did want to give just an update on some of the actions that occurred last night at the City Council meeting. The annexation service plan public hearing and first reading for the sage brook, if you recall, we had a work session on that item that was done, that was conducted yesterday. So there's a time frame, I don't recall exactly when it will go back, but the next step will be second reading of that ordinance, I think it's 30 days. Once that occurs, then the zoning will be brought in front of the commission. The Denton Grove apartments, that item was postponed again for 120 days. They are to work on an alternative and bring that back to council. There's a possibility, depending on if any changes are made, depending on what that is, that it could be remanded back to P&Z for consideration, but again, we won't know that until we get a little further down that road. The rezoning was also approved for the single family development on Country Club. That was the 56 lot development that was adjacent to the phase one. The only other one I wanted to mention, while it was somewhat related to the item tonight, the platting item, there was a petition to create a mud or a municipal utility district in our division two, and I can provide the background for that because it goes straight to council, but what that does, what occurs is for areas within the ETJ, the Texas Water Code allows for the creation of a municipal utility district to fund or finance the wastewater improvements, roads, drainage, typical municipal services, and there's really two ways to do that. One, through the act of the legislature. The second is through the Texas Water Code that's governed by TCQ, and the municipality whose ETJ it is has to give consent for that to happen. If consent is not granted, then it kicks into this 120 day process where there's an agreement that's supposed to be made. If that agreement is not made, then they then can move forward with going to TCQ to create that mud. This was for one, within our ETJ two, it was outside of our water and wastewater service area, so we had really no authority to even serve it, so there was consent that was granted. Over to the one tonight, a little bit different, that is in our ETJ one, it is within our service area. That could have been an option for them, but most likely not because I don't know that even as staff we would have recommended consent for that because we would already serve them for water, but just wanted to give you an update on that. We suspect that, particularly in the ETJ two, we'll be seeing a lot more of these probably coming in. I think we have one that just came in, another one last week that we're just analyzing, but I think this is a result, I shouldn't say, I think this is definitely a result of this last legislative session and how our legs are really cut out with respect to annexation. The plot list that we heard this evening was a very difficult one for staff to even move forward. It's adjacent to the city. It's connected to a development that's in the city. They're going to use the city's roads. They're going to use pretty much everything, but we will provide them water and sewer. There will be fees associated with that, but for everything else, there is not. There is no roadway impact fees even though they will be using our roads, and the provisions that we had in our previous DDC that would require them to annex if they were going to connect to our utilities, we are no longer able to enforce that. Hopefully, while I don't have a lot of hope, maybe there will be some changes this next legislative session, but I think that's something that maybe we can look to talk to as a group collectively in how we start to handle this, because I think this is just the tip of the iceberg of what we're going to see in the near future. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thanks for the update. Commissioner Beck? Yeah, so this is a follow-up on the notification question I asked. Has there been any exploration or movement on that? Yes. I know Charlie is working on that. I have not followed up with him this week to see where he is, but I know he has been working on putting something together. Okay. Thank you. I do not see any other questions. With that, our PNZ meeting for Wednesday, February 19th has concluded and I'll end it at 738. Thank you. [BLANK_AUDIO]