WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:08.320
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission work session for Wednesday, February 19th, 2020.

00:00:08.320 --> 00:00:12.760
 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I'll open the meeting at 533.

00:00:12.760 --> 00:00:18.720
 There are no reports to give, so we'll just jump right into the agenda for this evening.

00:00:18.720 --> 00:00:21.840
 The first item is consideration of our minutes.

00:00:21.840 --> 00:00:27.800
 Is there any notation of the minutes that we need to be aware of from February 5th, 2020?

00:00:30.240 --> 00:00:34.360
 Great, that brings us to our consent agenda.

00:00:34.360 --> 00:00:36.160
 We have two items here.

00:00:36.160 --> 00:00:38.600
 Does anyone have any specific questions on either item?

00:00:38.600 --> 00:00:40.600
 Commissioner Beck, which item?

00:00:40.600 --> 00:00:42.560
 The first one, 25.

00:00:42.560 --> 00:00:46.360
 Can I have Julie Wiley come in?

00:00:46.360 --> 00:00:47.040
 Yeah, Julie.

00:01:00.680 --> 00:01:02.760
 >> Yes, sir.

00:01:02.760 --> 00:01:04.800
 >> If you, yeah, that's it, exactly.

00:01:04.800 --> 00:01:10.160
 If the radius that they've plotted is 100 feet, is that how I'm reading this?

00:01:10.160 --> 00:01:11.080
 >> Yes, sir.

00:01:11.080 --> 00:01:23.880
 >> And so do we know the distances to the L24 to L19 blocks on the southeast side along whatever road that is?

00:01:25.440 --> 00:01:32.200
 >> I don't know the, from the 100 feet to that parking line?

00:01:32.200 --> 00:01:33.000
 >> Yes, ma'am.

00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:39.840
 >> I don't know what that distance is, but I can try to measure it before I can-

00:01:39.840 --> 00:01:46.200
 >> Well, I mean, just eyeballing it, it looks like 250-ish, which would make sense.

00:01:52.200 --> 00:01:56.320
 >> And they don't have any, they plan to leave those exactly as is?

00:01:56.320 --> 00:01:57.080
 >> They do, yes, sir.

00:01:57.080 --> 00:02:04.760
 >> I guess that's the extent of my questions then, thank you.

00:02:04.760 --> 00:02:09.160
 >> Commissioner Cole.

00:02:09.160 --> 00:02:17.520
 >> Yes, are their PD, aren't they 150?

00:02:17.520 --> 00:02:19.080
 >> They actually have- >> Grandfather net 150?

00:02:19.080 --> 00:02:21.520
 >> It's actually 100 feet from the wellhead, yes, sir.

00:02:22.880 --> 00:02:25.600
 >> Any other questions?

00:02:25.600 --> 00:02:27.920
 Perfect, thanks Julie.

00:02:27.920 --> 00:02:29.520
 Any questions for item 3B?

00:02:29.520 --> 00:02:38.440
 Great, so that brings us to our item four individual consideration items.

00:02:38.440 --> 00:02:43.840
 The first one is 4A FP19-0003.

00:02:43.840 --> 00:02:46.640
 I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation on this item.

00:02:52.200 --> 00:03:02.200
 [BLANK_AUDIO]

00:03:02.200 --> 00:03:10.440
 All right, good evening Chair and members of the commission.

00:03:10.440 --> 00:03:16.960
 This is a request for a plat of lots 1 through 3, block A of the Tealstone edition.

00:03:16.960 --> 00:03:20.800
 This is on the northwest side of Mingo Road,

00:03:20.800 --> 00:03:26.240
 just northeast of the intersection of Mingo Road and Cooper Creek Road.

00:03:26.240 --> 00:03:33.440
 Staff is recommending approval with one condition, and that is that there be a,

00:03:33.440 --> 00:03:39.000
 I'm sorry here, an encouragement agreement for

00:03:39.000 --> 00:03:42.760
 all grading construction within the transmission line easements from the Texas

00:03:42.760 --> 00:03:46.280
 Municipal Power Authority, and that that be provided to the city prior to

00:03:46.280 --> 00:03:48.160
 the final plat being recorded with Denton County.

00:03:49.800 --> 00:03:52.240
 That is just, we know it's forthcoming.

00:03:52.240 --> 00:03:54.080
 We have an email indicating that it's forthcoming, but

00:03:54.080 --> 00:03:57.400
 we'd rather have documentation of it before we sign off on this.

00:03:57.400 --> 00:03:57.900
 >> Makes sense.

00:03:57.900 --> 00:04:00.360
 Any questions on this item?

00:04:00.360 --> 00:04:02.920
 Commissioner Ellis.

00:04:02.920 --> 00:04:03.600
 >> Thanks, Chair.

00:04:03.600 --> 00:04:06.400
 Sean, I see we've got a printout here for this one.

00:04:06.400 --> 00:04:09.480
 >> Yes. >> What changed from what we have in our backup?

00:04:09.480 --> 00:04:16.920
 >> The angle of the line between the bottom two lots there.

00:04:16.920 --> 00:04:20.040
 >> Thank you.

00:04:20.040 --> 00:04:21.840
 >> Yes, ma'am.

00:04:21.840 --> 00:04:24.080
 >> Any other questions?

00:04:24.080 --> 00:04:25.680
 Perfect, thank you, Sean.

00:04:25.680 --> 00:04:30.680
 Next item is 4B PP19-0035C.

00:04:30.680 --> 00:04:33.000
 Now I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.

00:04:46.920 --> 00:05:02.400
 >> There we go, thank you.

00:05:02.400 --> 00:05:08.640
 I'm here before you with the preliminary plot for PP19-0035C, Stuart Ridge.

00:05:08.640 --> 00:05:16.280
 This may look familiar to you, it originally requested a 30 day extension.

00:05:16.280 --> 00:05:22.720
 And then it was denied after the expiration of the 30 days.

00:05:22.720 --> 00:05:26.720
 They have come back with a plot, which meets all our requirements.

00:05:26.720 --> 00:05:30.280
 Staff is recommending approval of this.

00:05:30.280 --> 00:05:34.960
 I want to point out, the subject site is located within the ETJ.

00:05:34.960 --> 00:05:38.360
 The city has plotting authority within the ETJ for

00:05:38.360 --> 00:05:41.760
 our interlocal agreement with the county.

00:05:41.760 --> 00:05:45.880
 This development will connect, however, to city water and sewer.

00:05:45.880 --> 00:05:49.360
 And as such, the city water and sewer connections and

00:05:49.360 --> 00:05:52.320
 construction will be under the city's purview.

00:05:52.320 --> 00:05:58.800
 However, the streets and drainage is under the county's purview and

00:05:58.800 --> 00:06:01.440
 must be accepted by the county.

00:06:01.440 --> 00:06:05.920
 Staff is recommending approval of this request with only one condition.

00:06:05.920 --> 00:06:10.520
 This has changed since the staff report was written.

00:06:10.520 --> 00:06:13.400
 Our one condition is that the civil construction plans for

00:06:13.400 --> 00:06:17.120
 paving and drainage facilities must be approved by Denton County.

00:06:17.120 --> 00:06:19.160
 And civil construction plans for water and

00:06:19.160 --> 00:06:22.640
 sewer lines must be approved by the city prior to the submittal

00:06:22.640 --> 00:06:26.040
 of a final plot application.

00:06:26.040 --> 00:06:27.640
 And that concludes my presentation.

00:06:27.640 --> 00:06:30.480
 >> Commissioner Smith.

00:06:30.480 --> 00:06:36.080
 >> City, whenever we have developments like this in the ETJ, what is the city's,

00:06:36.080 --> 00:06:38.920
 can the city do involuntary annexing within that?

00:06:38.920 --> 00:06:43.240
 Is voluntary annexing the only opportunity we have to annex property into the city?

00:06:43.240 --> 00:06:48.160
 >> Right, the new state legislation on annexation has made it extremely difficult

00:06:48.160 --> 00:06:51.040
 for the city to do an involuntary annexation.

00:06:51.040 --> 00:06:53.240
 Maybe, did you want to speak to that?

00:06:53.240 --> 00:07:00.680
 >> Absolutely, Commissioner Smith, state law has changed with regard to annexation.

00:07:00.680 --> 00:07:08.120
 So our opportunities for doing involuntary annexation are pretty limited, non-existent.

00:07:08.120 --> 00:07:12.480
 >> Okay, so whenever we have properties like this that are in the ETJ,

00:07:13.840 --> 00:07:18.920
 I know there's also the rule that we have about, obviously facade and building materials and

00:07:18.920 --> 00:07:20.280
 these kinds of things, we can't put limitations.

00:07:20.280 --> 00:07:25.560
 But can we add conditions that can at least maybe have this ETJ

00:07:25.560 --> 00:07:28.520
 development still be compatible with some of the sites that are around it?

00:07:28.520 --> 00:07:33.800
 As you can see, there's a lot of developments that are there in the city that this,

00:07:33.800 --> 00:07:39.920
 because it's in the ETJ, really has no limitations on what it can do other than what the county says.

00:07:39.920 --> 00:07:44.400
 So, can we put any type of conditions on something like this?

00:07:44.400 --> 00:07:48.080
 >> The city has an interlocal agreement with Denton County,

00:07:48.080 --> 00:07:52.640
 where we have platting authority in division one of the ETJ.

00:07:52.640 --> 00:07:55.200
 And the county has platting authority in division two.

00:07:55.200 --> 00:08:02.920
 So we can only apply our platting requirements to the review of the plats.

00:08:02.920 --> 00:08:08.080
 >> Can you refresh me on what kind of things fall into the platting requirements?

00:08:08.080 --> 00:08:14.520
 >> That'd be street design, that'd be, I'm guessing, not lot sizes, that's more of a zoning deal.

00:08:14.520 --> 00:08:15.760
 >> Correct.

00:08:15.760 --> 00:08:18.600
 >> I guess, right of way and those kinds of things, that's about it.

00:08:18.600 --> 00:08:19.600
 >> Streets, yes.

00:08:19.600 --> 00:08:25.160
 Streets, sidewalks, any of that kind of stuff.

00:08:25.160 --> 00:08:28.000
 Yeah, right, no lot size, I know uses, things like that.

00:08:28.000 --> 00:08:30.080
 >> No uses for those kind of things, obviously.

00:08:30.080 --> 00:08:33.880
 Okay, so essentially they can do whatever they want to in this division,

00:08:33.880 --> 00:08:40.200
 even though it's right next to the city with its own limitations because of the zoning that's in the city.

00:08:40.200 --> 00:08:43.520
 >> Right, yeah, we have no land use authority in the ETJ.

00:08:43.520 --> 00:08:44.200
 >> Okay, thanks.

00:08:44.200 --> 00:08:47.280
 >> Chris Rebecca.

00:08:47.280 --> 00:08:47.880
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:08:47.880 --> 00:08:51.480
 So you mentioned drainage, so was drainage included or excluded?

00:08:51.480 --> 00:08:52.400
 I was a little confused.

00:08:52.400 --> 00:08:56.680
 >> The drainage is part of the city subdivision ordinance, so the city does review it.

00:08:56.680 --> 00:09:01.400
 However, the acceptance and maintenance of the plans and

00:09:01.400 --> 00:09:04.840
 drainage systems in the streets are part of the county.

00:09:04.840 --> 00:09:10.280
 >> So all those guidelines will be whatever the county is specifying in that case.

00:09:10.280 --> 00:09:12.360
 Okay, thank you.

00:09:12.360 --> 00:09:13.800
 >> Commissioner Ellis.

00:09:13.800 --> 00:09:14.360
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:09:14.360 --> 00:09:18.440
 Cindy, you mentioned this had changed because there were two conditions I noticed in that.

00:09:18.440 --> 00:09:19.920
 What happened to condition two?

00:09:19.920 --> 00:09:24.040
 Is it satisfied or- >> Condition two, it's something that they have to do anyway and we decided-

00:09:24.040 --> 00:09:24.560
 >> Redundant?

00:09:24.560 --> 00:09:25.060
 >> Yeah. >> Okay.

00:09:25.060 --> 00:09:29.320
 >> Any other questions?

00:09:30.840 --> 00:09:31.640
 >> Great, thank you, Cindy.

00:09:31.640 --> 00:09:34.760
 You actually have the next one too.

00:09:34.760 --> 00:09:40.240
 So 4CFR 20-0002 is the next item.

00:09:40.240 --> 00:09:59.000
 >> Okay, this is a request for approval of the replat for

00:09:59.000 --> 00:10:05.480
 the Lots 1 and 7R1 Block A of the Sonic and Murphy Oil Edition.

00:10:05.480 --> 00:10:11.920
 The staff is recommending approval of this, however, the applicant has requested a 30 day extension.

00:10:11.920 --> 00:10:16.040
 They are working on their site plan now and they want to make sure the site plan

00:10:16.040 --> 00:10:22.160
 matches the plat with regards to where the easements are going.

00:10:22.160 --> 00:10:25.440
 They say there's a possibility that some of the easements may change.

00:10:25.440 --> 00:10:28.120
 They want to firm up their site plan before the plat is approved.

00:10:28.120 --> 00:10:30.560
 And they don't have to come in and replat to move the easements around.

00:10:30.560 --> 00:10:34.560
 >> Any questions on this item?

00:10:34.560 --> 00:10:39.200
 I don't see any.

00:10:39.200 --> 00:10:40.280
 Thank you, Cindy.

00:10:40.280 --> 00:10:44.640
 Item 4D has been pulled from consideration.

00:10:44.640 --> 00:10:53.360
 So we'll move to item 4E, that's ADP 19-0010, and I'll invite Karina for presentation.

00:10:58.120 --> 00:11:03.080
 All right, so the request today is for

00:11:03.080 --> 00:11:06.960
 an alternative development plan for SP Denton 1 edition.

00:11:06.960 --> 00:11:13.960
 So this property is located west of Western Boulevard, just north of Airport Road.

00:11:13.960 --> 00:11:17.320
 You did see this property before in December and

00:11:17.320 --> 00:11:21.200
 in January with a preliminary plat and final plat that were both approved.

00:11:21.200 --> 00:11:25.960
 Both of those requests actually came in under the 2002 code.

00:11:25.960 --> 00:11:32.800
 So the site plan and the alternative development plan do reflect the 2002 DDC requirements.

00:11:32.800 --> 00:11:38.240
 And the deviations that they are requesting are from parking in the front of the building and

00:11:38.240 --> 00:11:39.840
 parking lot screening and landscaping.

00:11:39.840 --> 00:11:48.640
 So the first deviation is in regards to the requirement for rear parking.

00:11:48.640 --> 00:11:53.520
 So they do meet the exception where they are then allowed to do front parking

00:11:55.520 --> 00:12:00.880
 in front of the right-of-way or by the right-of-way with the requirement that

00:12:00.880 --> 00:12:06.440
 they are set back 85 feet from the right-of-way or public utilities.

00:12:06.440 --> 00:12:10.280
 Because of the way that the site is located,

00:12:10.280 --> 00:12:12.960
 there are some drainage easements that make that a little bit difficult.

00:12:12.960 --> 00:12:17.520
 So they are proposing to meet all the prescribed requirements with the exception

00:12:17.520 --> 00:12:20.040
 of the 15-foot landscape area.

00:12:21.960 --> 00:12:27.480
 I do want to note though that the parking area is set back 180 feet from the right-of-way

00:12:27.480 --> 00:12:32.080
 and is approximately 247 feet back.

00:12:32.080 --> 00:12:41.000
 So there is about three feet shy of the 250-foot exemption for site design standards.

00:12:41.000 --> 00:12:44.560
 So they're just shy of that exemption.

00:12:44.560 --> 00:12:50.600
 They're still providing street trees along the right-of-way and a shrubbery along the parking.

00:12:52.960 --> 00:12:57.560
 The second deviation relates back to that 15-foot landscape area

00:12:57.560 --> 00:13:00.960
 that they're proposing to exclude.

00:13:00.960 --> 00:13:05.120
 This DDC requirement just outlines what needs to be provided

00:13:05.120 --> 00:13:10.880
 within that 15-foot landscape area, which includes a berm, some tree plantings.

00:13:10.880 --> 00:13:14.720
 They are proposing to not include the berm, but they do--

00:13:14.720 --> 00:13:20.280
 or they will use-- relocate the 12 trees to the southern portion of the lot.

00:13:20.280 --> 00:13:21.640
 So they're not removing them.

00:13:21.640 --> 00:13:23.640
 They're just locating them somewhere else.

00:13:23.640 --> 00:13:28.560
 And overall, they're still providing additional landscaping than what the code requires.

00:13:28.560 --> 00:13:34.920
 They're providing 33% landscaping overall as opposed to the 10%.

00:13:34.920 --> 00:13:38.800
 So this is just a reflection of the site.

00:13:38.800 --> 00:13:44.000
 The ADP is only for lot three, building B, which is outlined in red.

00:13:44.000 --> 00:13:49.520
 This right here is showing that they are 247 feet from the ultimate right-of-way

00:13:49.520 --> 00:13:54.600
 and 180 feet setback from-- the parking is 180 feet setback.

00:13:54.600 --> 00:13:59.640
 The trees that they are relocating are here to the south, and these are the easements

00:13:59.640 --> 00:14:03.560
 that kind of prevent them from meeting the code requirements.

00:14:03.560 --> 00:14:10.200
 So one kind of consideration that we had for this was moving the building back,

00:14:10.200 --> 00:14:15.520
 but you'll see here with the floodplain easement and the required parking

00:14:15.520 --> 00:14:18.480
 that they need to meet the code, it would be a bit restricted.

00:14:18.480 --> 00:14:27.160
 So they opted for additional landscaping to meet the code.

00:14:27.160 --> 00:14:30.240
 So with the ADP, there are some criteria for approval.

00:14:30.240 --> 00:14:35.000
 I won't go into too much detail, but I'll go over some of the highlights.

00:14:35.000 --> 00:14:39.680
 This property is located central to the industrial district.

00:14:39.680 --> 00:14:44.280
 So ICG, which then translates in the 2019 code to heavy industrial.

00:14:44.280 --> 00:14:50.080
 So it does fit with the character and does preserve that industrial-type development.

00:14:50.080 --> 00:14:56.040
 It does meet the requirements of the 2002 and 2019 DDC.

00:14:56.040 --> 00:15:03.480
 That includes parking, landscaping, zoning, and all of the above.

00:15:03.480 --> 00:15:08.200
 So this, of course, does not contribute to strip development.

00:15:08.200 --> 00:15:11.440
 There is infrastructure that is already in place.

00:15:11.440 --> 00:15:18.560
 The only additional infrastructure would be providing connections into the rear lot,

00:15:18.560 --> 00:15:22.320
 so extending utilities back into the lot over here.

00:15:22.320 --> 00:15:31.240
 And so just overall, this does provide a higher-quality development.

00:15:31.240 --> 00:15:34.600
 If you look at the properties just north, there's the WinCo.

00:15:34.600 --> 00:15:39.080
 A lot of the industrial developments here push their buildings back 250 feet,

00:15:39.080 --> 00:15:41.840
 so they don't have to comply with the site design standards.

00:15:41.840 --> 00:15:45.000
 In this case, this development will comply with their site design standards

00:15:45.000 --> 00:15:50.840
 with just the slight deviations proposed, and will substantially increase their landscaping

00:15:50.840 --> 00:15:56.480
 by about 23% overall and increase their tree canopy by about 4%.

00:15:56.480 --> 00:15:58.960
 And with that, staff recommends approval of this request

00:15:58.960 --> 00:16:02.000
 as it meets all established requirements.

00:16:02.000 --> 00:16:02.840
 -Kister Beck.

00:16:02.840 --> 00:16:04.120
 -Thank you, Chair.

00:16:04.120 --> 00:16:06.000
 So I'm a little confused.

00:16:06.000 --> 00:16:10.080
 They're literally moving trees, or they're getting credit for planting trees in the back?

00:16:10.080 --> 00:16:13.880
 -So they're required to plant trees within the landscape area,

00:16:13.880 --> 00:16:17.320
 but because they're not providing the landscape area what should be there,

00:16:17.320 --> 00:16:19.360
 they're just relocating them to the south.

00:16:19.360 --> 00:16:21.680
 So they're still meeting the required number of trees.

00:16:21.680 --> 00:16:25.320
 They're just pushing them over here to the south.

00:16:25.320 --> 00:16:29.720
 -But, I mean, just to clarify the language, they're planting new trees in that region?

00:16:29.720 --> 00:16:31.560
 -Yes, these are all new tree plantings.

00:16:31.560 --> 00:16:38.440
 -Okay, and so for my education, who's responsible for drainage testing

00:16:38.440 --> 00:16:42.280
 and flood mitigation and that sort of thing?

00:16:42.280 --> 00:16:43.000
 It's not the city.

00:16:43.000 --> 00:16:50.000
 It's the state or county, right, for erosion, flood control, chemical?

00:16:50.000 --> 00:16:55.160
 I mean, anything that's dealing with that drainage?

00:16:55.160 --> 00:16:58.840
 -So when a development comes in, they typically have to do an assessment

00:16:58.840 --> 00:17:03.680
 that shows how their development is impacting the area before and after.

00:17:03.680 --> 00:17:08.120
 So they would be then responsible for demonstrating how they would,

00:17:08.120 --> 00:17:13.400
 in terms of floodplain, catch or detain that water or send it off the site.

00:17:13.400 --> 00:17:18.120
 So part of the site development or the site plan review process captures all

00:17:18.120 --> 00:17:20.840
 of that information and all of that review.

00:17:20.840 --> 00:17:26.880
 And in this case, they have this drainage area right here that would capture.

00:17:26.880 --> 00:17:30.560
 -But that's a one-time review, is that correct?

00:17:30.560 --> 00:17:32.440
 One-off at development time, is that correct?

00:17:32.440 --> 00:17:36.920
 -So it would be reviewed during the planting process and through the site plan process?

00:17:36.920 --> 00:17:45.800
 -Correct. I don't think there's an ongoing monitoring of stormwater runoff that's done.

00:17:45.800 --> 00:17:54.880
 Deborah can maybe come up and answer if -- I'm not aware of an ongoing monitoring runoff.

00:17:54.880 --> 00:17:57.400
 -Good evening, Deborah Viera Environmental Services.

00:17:57.400 --> 00:18:02.920
 From a water conveyance standpoint, the city reviews all the calculations,

00:18:02.920 --> 00:18:09.320
 the assessment of pre- and post-conditions during the planting process.

00:18:09.320 --> 00:18:14.160
 If you are concerned about the testing of the water from a water quality standpoint,

00:18:14.160 --> 00:18:18.160
 we don't do it from a monitoring of the site.

00:18:18.160 --> 00:18:23.800
 Those facilities will have to come with a maintenance plan associated with it.

00:18:23.800 --> 00:18:30.160
 They will be kept in record if by any chance that area is not maintained according

00:18:30.160 --> 00:18:34.000
 and it fails in this repair or something like that, we will go back --

00:18:34.000 --> 00:18:37.720
 the city will go back to the developer or to the owner of the site

00:18:37.720 --> 00:18:40.440
 in regards with the maintenance plan.

00:18:40.440 --> 00:18:42.280
 But it is privately maintained.

00:18:42.280 --> 00:18:45.600
 -Okay. So the reason I bring this up is I was just -- you know, I don't --

00:18:45.600 --> 00:18:51.600
 it's an industrial use and I don't particularly personally care about the landscaping.

00:18:51.600 --> 00:18:55.200
 But I do care about it in terms of flood mitigation and drainage.

00:18:55.200 --> 00:18:59.920
 And especially that it's germane because they're moving landscaping

00:18:59.920 --> 00:19:03.880
 as a mitigation effort to the south side of the property.

00:19:03.880 --> 00:19:09.240
 So I guess if we're not watching that, I'm a little concerned that you're right --

00:19:09.240 --> 00:19:12.000
 that, you know, all this movement is right on the easement

00:19:12.000 --> 00:19:18.440
 with a potential erosion and drainage issue, especially considering the part

00:19:18.440 --> 00:19:24.240
 of the area that they're -- we're talking about on the east side is it visually looked

00:19:24.240 --> 00:19:27.680
 like it was also a part of the -- sort of a lower part of the drainage as well.

00:19:27.680 --> 00:19:34.920
 So I guess I'm a little concerned still about the drainage on the south side.

00:19:34.920 --> 00:19:39.320
 -So I'll kind of come back and just touch on the drainage portion.

00:19:39.320 --> 00:19:44.640
 So they're not actually moving or the movement of the landscape

00:19:44.640 --> 00:19:51.480
 to the south isn't taking away from the capturing of the runoff

00:19:51.480 --> 00:19:54.360
 or anything into the drainage area.

00:19:54.360 --> 00:19:56.920
 Really what they would have been required to do but couldn't do

00:19:56.920 --> 00:20:01.240
 because of where the drainage easement is located is provide this 15-foot --

00:20:01.240 --> 00:20:05.320
 where's my mouse -- this 15-foot area over here.

00:20:05.320 --> 00:20:10.600
 So because of where this is located, they're not actually able to plant trees in that area.

00:20:10.600 --> 00:20:12.880
 They're restricted by our own DEC to do that.

00:20:12.880 --> 00:20:16.120
 So it kind of conflicts with what they're required to do.

00:20:16.120 --> 00:20:21.440
 So the plannings wouldn't necessarily have assisted specifically with drainage.

00:20:21.440 --> 00:20:24.480
 It was -- it's more of a landscaping requirement that kind

00:20:24.480 --> 00:20:27.400
 of conflicted with other requirements.

00:20:27.400 --> 00:20:33.280
 -I don't want to beat this dead horse too much, but I mean the idea is you're putting a lot

00:20:33.280 --> 00:20:39.680
 of cement -- you had absorbing property there before and now you're putting

00:20:39.680 --> 00:20:44.200
 a building in cement parking lots so the drainage is going to be faster runoff.

00:20:44.200 --> 00:20:51.360
 So is there going to be subsurface drains into the creek bed for water mitigation?

00:20:51.360 --> 00:20:54.200
 -I'm not sure that I can answer that question.

00:20:54.200 --> 00:20:57.040
 -I guess I'm just a little concerned that they're --

00:20:57.040 --> 00:21:00.400
 you're creating an erosion issue there on the south side.

00:21:00.400 --> 00:21:02.680
 Not for the building itself or anything else.

00:21:02.680 --> 00:21:07.840
 -I don't know that it's been designed at that level yet where they're going

00:21:07.840 --> 00:21:12.720
 to construct the stormwater runoff and what systems they're using.

00:21:12.720 --> 00:21:16.280
 At least I'm not aware until the ADP is approved.

00:21:16.280 --> 00:21:20.200
 -I'm not sure if Kristi, if you have any feedback on this portion of --

00:21:20.200 --> 00:21:24.000
 -I'm going to be on the house a little bit here.

00:21:24.000 --> 00:21:28.880
 Kristi Afton also with Environmental Services and I have reviewed the site plan

00:21:28.880 --> 00:21:36.280
 and I do believe there is a CEP that has already been approved.

00:21:36.280 --> 00:21:44.680
 And the area here that is shown in brown is part of the flip plane.

00:21:44.680 --> 00:21:47.200
 It is not going to be disturbed.

00:21:47.200 --> 00:21:52.440
 This area right here is also considered an environmentally sensitive area

00:21:52.440 --> 00:21:54.280
 and it was set aside.

00:21:54.280 --> 00:22:01.360
 And the site will be draining partially to the environmentally sensitive area.

00:22:01.360 --> 00:22:10.240
 The applicant has proposed riprap here to help with capturing the runoff pre

00:22:10.240 --> 00:22:18.840
 and post so during construction there will be erosion control measures

00:22:18.840 --> 00:22:24.000
 that have been taken to prevent damage to the ESA as well

00:22:24.000 --> 00:22:27.000
 as post construction the riprap will help

00:22:27.000 --> 00:22:32.080
 with capturing the runoff and filtering.

00:22:32.080 --> 00:22:38.680
 The flip plane that is located to the south of this property is large

00:22:38.680 --> 00:22:43.320
 and has been set aside and is not to be disturbed.

00:22:43.320 --> 00:22:49.320
 So there is quite a bit of a buffer between the stream segment that runs

00:22:49.320 --> 00:22:55.160
 to the south of this property and the proposed development.

00:22:55.160 --> 00:22:56.440
 -Okay, thank you so much.

00:22:56.440 --> 00:22:59.280
 -You're welcome.

00:22:59.280 --> 00:23:02.200
 -Any other questions for Karina on this item?

00:23:02.200 --> 00:23:15.200
 Great.

00:23:15.200 --> 00:23:18.200
 The next item is our public hearings.

00:23:18.200 --> 00:23:28.800
 We just have one this evening, it's item 5A, AESA 20-0001A.

00:23:28.800 --> 00:23:35.160
 Invite Christy Upton for presentation or Cindy Jackson.

00:23:35.160 --> 00:23:37.840
 -It's actually going to be two part presentation.

00:23:37.840 --> 00:23:38.480
 -Okay.

00:23:38.480 --> 00:23:43.960
 -I'm going to present the planning and zoning land use parts of this

00:23:43.960 --> 00:23:57.720
 and then Debra Vieira is going to present the remainder.

00:23:57.720 --> 00:24:06.160
 Okay, what we have before you today is a request to amend the AESA plan

00:24:06.160 --> 00:24:10.360
 that was approved for this site back in October 2019.

00:24:10.360 --> 00:24:12.120
 This is the Fisher 59 site.

00:24:12.120 --> 00:24:15.920
 You may remember this from when it was approved in October.

00:24:15.920 --> 00:24:22.680
 We've also had a couple of plots go through for this site.

00:24:22.680 --> 00:24:33.800
 The purpose of the AESA originally was to provide a second point of access

00:24:33.800 --> 00:24:35.920
 from the warehouse site.

00:24:35.920 --> 00:24:40.160
 This aerial doesn't show it, however, approximately half of the site,

00:24:40.160 --> 00:24:47.320
 the western half of the site, has been developed with warehouse distribution center.

00:24:47.320 --> 00:24:50.280
 Fire code is requiring them to have two points of access.

00:24:50.280 --> 00:24:52.840
 They have one point of access on university.

00:24:52.840 --> 00:24:57.720
 They are planning to have a second point of access along this little dog leg here

00:24:57.720 --> 00:25:02.480
 that you see, however, it has to cross the environmentally sensitive areas

00:25:02.480 --> 00:25:05.760
 that are in this location.

00:25:05.760 --> 00:25:11.640
 And that was the purpose of the AESA, the alternate environmentally sensitive area plan

00:25:11.640 --> 00:25:17.800
 to permit them to cross across the ESA and provide mitigation for it.

00:25:17.800 --> 00:25:23.560
 The site is approximately 49.9 acres in size and it's located on the north side

00:25:23.560 --> 00:25:29.280
 of West University Highway 380 and west of North Mosh Branch.

00:25:29.280 --> 00:25:39.360
 The site is Zoned Employment Center Industrial, excuse me, LI, sorry about that.

00:25:39.360 --> 00:25:46.960
 Public notification, we sent out notifications within 200 and 500 feet of the site as well

00:25:46.960 --> 00:25:59.520
 as mailed notices within 200 feet, 200 and 500 feet.

00:25:59.520 --> 00:26:03.320
 We haven't received any responses to the notification

00:26:03.320 --> 00:26:07.040
 and the neighborhood meeting was not held.

00:26:07.040 --> 00:26:10.440
 And now I'll turn it over to Deborah.

00:26:10.440 --> 00:26:20.520
 >> Good evening again, just to give you a little bit of feedback while we are here.

00:26:20.520 --> 00:26:24.760
 During the final plot of lot two where the construction of the drive aisle is going

00:26:24.760 --> 00:26:32.840
 to happen, staff realized that the mitigation that was proposed during the alternative ESA plan back

00:26:32.840 --> 00:26:38.560
 in October was partially within property, the adjacent parcels which is not

00:26:38.560 --> 00:26:41.360
 under the current ownership of Fisher 59.

00:26:41.360 --> 00:26:46.520
 That poses some challenges in enforcing any of the conditions that pertains

00:26:46.520 --> 00:26:49.840
 to that area that is outside the control of the applicant.

00:26:49.840 --> 00:26:55.560
 Not only that, the owner of those parcels were not part of the original application,

00:26:55.560 --> 00:26:59.560
 so from enforceability it creates some issues.

00:26:59.560 --> 00:27:03.680
 We came to that discovery during the final plot of lot two.

00:27:03.680 --> 00:27:08.200
 So we approached the applicant and said we need to rectify that error.

00:27:08.200 --> 00:27:13.520
 And one way to do it is to make sure that all the mitigation that they are proposing is

00:27:13.520 --> 00:27:16.160
 within the limits of what they own.

00:27:16.160 --> 00:27:18.840
 Okay? So that's the only reason.

00:27:18.840 --> 00:27:20.800
 The mitigation is not changing.

00:27:20.800 --> 00:27:23.160
 The disturbance is not changing.

00:27:23.160 --> 00:27:28.160
 The only thing that is changing is where they're going to do that mitigation.

00:27:28.160 --> 00:27:33.200
 So I'm going to work you through the history of the site just for your own identification

00:27:33.200 --> 00:27:41.640
 and if anybody is watching us to come to know what is the history of the site.

00:27:41.640 --> 00:27:46.120
 So in 2018 we did a ESA field assessment for the floodplain.

00:27:46.120 --> 00:27:50.480
 And at that time we found that even though the site had been disturbed

00:27:50.480 --> 00:27:53.200
 in some extent the floodplain was not.

00:27:53.200 --> 00:27:58.480
 Therefore it retained the undeveloped floodplain condition and designation subject

00:27:58.480 --> 00:28:04.640
 to section 7.4 of the DDC.

00:28:04.640 --> 00:28:14.080
 As a part of their development process in 2019 they approached the city

00:28:14.080 --> 00:28:20.320
 to request an alternative ESA plan for that road that it is showing right

00:28:20.320 --> 00:28:23.120
 to the west of the site.

00:28:23.120 --> 00:28:28.520
 For that road to be constructed they will have to put culverts

00:28:28.520 --> 00:28:31.160
 to be able to cross the channel.

00:28:31.160 --> 00:28:37.480
 For the culvert to be installed and to maintain the hydraulics of the site they will have

00:28:37.480 --> 00:28:40.640
 to go and cut and fill that floodplain.

00:28:40.640 --> 00:28:45.200
 So in that way the constraint that you're putting

00:28:45.200 --> 00:28:52.520
 by the culvert will not actually have any negative impacts downstream.

00:28:52.520 --> 00:29:00.040
 So during that process they will be disturbing 5.51 acres of undeveloped floodplain ESA.

00:29:00.040 --> 00:29:06.200
 As an exchange they are proposing six acres of mitigation which will be seeded

00:29:06.200 --> 00:29:16.800
 with native seed mix and also two bioretentions which are right here and right here.

00:29:16.800 --> 00:29:25.040
 The two bioretention together totals 0.28 acres and they are meant to treat water quality.

00:29:25.040 --> 00:29:28.880
 This is what was approved in 2019.

00:29:28.880 --> 00:29:35.640
 I just wanted to show the two areas that happened to be outside their control

00:29:35.640 --> 00:29:40.920
 or their ownership and that is the two areas that now will be integrated into this area.

00:29:40.920 --> 00:29:46.480
 And you will see it more clear in the next slide what the difference is.

00:29:46.480 --> 00:29:52.800
 Also important, anything that is showing orange is going to be stabilized

00:29:52.800 --> 00:29:58.920
 but was not originally proposed to be planted or seeded with native plant.

00:29:58.920 --> 00:30:05.320
 And this is the new alternative ESA plan for it.

00:30:05.320 --> 00:30:12.360
 As you can see all that area that before was proposed to be stabilized

00:30:12.360 --> 00:30:16.280
 but not seeded with native plants now will be.

00:30:16.280 --> 00:30:24.400
 So the purple area that is not longer within part of the alternative ESA plan,

00:30:24.400 --> 00:30:31.160
 all that area have been mitigating by putting native plant seeds

00:30:31.160 --> 00:30:35.600
 through the pretty much boundary of the site.

00:30:35.600 --> 00:30:41.240
 So again the amount of mitigation have not changed, the type of mitigation have not changed.

00:30:41.240 --> 00:30:45.520
 The only thing that we are changing is relocating from this purple area

00:30:45.520 --> 00:30:51.640
 that originally was designated as a mitigation and now it will be added

00:30:51.640 --> 00:30:57.280
 through the boundaries where the dark green line is.

00:30:57.280 --> 00:31:04.080
 We still have in the two bioretention areas which is the two blue polygons here.

00:31:04.080 --> 00:31:10.560
 Nothing has changed except the location.

00:31:10.560 --> 00:31:18.680
 Back in 2019, staff recommended approval and we included seven conditions as a part of the proposal.

00:31:18.680 --> 00:31:22.760
 Two of them were related to on-site detention because at the time,

00:31:22.760 --> 00:31:30.680
 TxDOT was still reviewing the construction plans and they have not made a final determination.

00:31:30.680 --> 00:31:36.080
 However, since then they got a final okay from TxDOT

00:31:36.080 --> 00:31:43.440
 and the two conditions related to on-site detentions are now being removed from the approval conditions.

00:31:43.440 --> 00:31:47.760
 In red, you will see the changes that we have made.

00:31:47.760 --> 00:31:55.680
 Condition number one is just to reflect the updated alternative ESA plan as of February 13 of 2020.

00:31:55.680 --> 00:32:01.400
 We maintain the seeding of the native prairie habitat.

00:32:01.400 --> 00:32:06.200
 Condition number three is related to the construction of the two bioretention.

00:32:06.200 --> 00:32:08.200
 We maintain that same condition.

00:32:08.200 --> 00:32:15.880
 The only thing that we added was reflecting the amendment as of February 2020.

00:32:15.880 --> 00:32:21.400
 We removed condition four and five because those were related to on-site detention

00:32:21.400 --> 00:32:29.000
 that no longer is necessary for TxDOT approval and we maintain conditions six and seven

00:32:29.000 --> 00:32:36.000
 that talks about the installation and inspection for three years and for the owner to dedicate an easement

00:32:36.000 --> 00:32:39.200
 for where those bioretentions are.

00:32:39.200 --> 00:32:41.800
 Any questions?

00:32:41.800 --> 00:32:42.600
 >> Commissioner Beck.

00:32:42.600 --> 00:32:45.840
 >> So this is probably just by ignorance.

00:32:45.840 --> 00:32:53.320
 The proposal that we saw two weeks ago where we had a discussion about changing the code

00:32:53.320 --> 00:32:58.160
 so that we didn't have these out of order proposals.

00:32:58.160 --> 00:33:04.000
 This is this property and we use this as a test case of that change.

00:33:04.000 --> 00:33:14.560
 So did we not already approve this under the conditions of the modifications that she's describing here?

00:33:14.560 --> 00:33:15.840
 No?

00:33:15.840 --> 00:33:23.480
 >> I'm trying to recall what item that was but that item had a condition

00:33:23.480 --> 00:33:27.960
 that we would approve the AESA which we're doing tonight.

00:33:27.960 --> 00:33:31.160
 >> So this is the approval of the AESA?

00:33:31.160 --> 00:33:31.840
 Okay.

00:33:31.840 --> 00:33:38.680
 >> That was the plat for lot two which has the dog leg for the street connection to watch branch

00:33:38.680 --> 00:33:45.160
 and that had conditions that they had to bring forward the correction for the AESA which is before you now.

00:33:45.160 --> 00:33:49.280
 >> Okay. Thank you.

00:33:49.280 --> 00:33:55.040
 >> Any other questions on this item for Deborah or for Cindy?

00:33:55.040 --> 00:33:58.520
 Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation.

00:33:58.520 --> 00:34:00.520
 That concludes the agenda for this evening.

00:34:00.520 --> 00:34:07.080
 Again, there's no reports to be had this evening so that concludes the work session completely.

00:34:07.080 --> 00:34:11.280
 I will close the work session at 6.05.

00:34:11.280 --> 00:34:14.000
 We'll reconvene in council chambers at 6.30.

00:34:14.000 --> 00:34:15.280
 Thank you.

00:34:15.280 --> 00:34:23.000
 >> Good evening and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Wednesday, February 19th, 2020.

00:34:23.000 --> 00:34:27.080
 Seeing that we have a quorum I will call this meeting to order at 6.34.

00:34:27.080 --> 00:34:33.520
 The first item of business is to stand if able to give a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flag.

00:34:33.520 --> 00:34:42.240
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

00:34:42.240 --> 00:34:49.120
 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:34:49.120 --> 00:34:54.040
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

00:34:54.040 --> 00:34:58.080
 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:34:58.080 --> 00:35:02.800
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

00:35:02.800 --> 00:35:06.760
 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:35:06.760 --> 00:35:11.240
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

00:35:11.240 --> 00:35:14.680
 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:35:14.680 --> 00:35:18.640
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

00:35:18.640 --> 00:35:21.560
 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:35:21.560 --> 00:35:25.960
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

00:35:25.960 --> 00:35:29.360
 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:35:29.360 --> 00:35:34.160
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

00:35:34.160 --> 00:35:38.080
 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:35:38.080 --> 00:35:42.960
 >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands,

00:35:42.960 --> 00:35:46.720
 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

00:35:46.720 --> 00:35:51.280
 9-0-0-2-5, and one vote, and then the next one, and the next vote.

00:35:51.280 --> 00:35:57.080
 So the chair will entertain a motion for item 3A, Commissioner Smith.

00:35:57.080 --> 00:35:59.000
 >> I move for approval on 3A.

00:35:59.000 --> 00:36:00.840
 >> We have a first for approval, Commissioner Burnetta.

00:36:00.840 --> 00:36:01.860
 >> Second.

00:36:01.860 --> 00:36:07.240
 >> We have a first and a second for approval of item 3A, any discussion on the matter?

00:36:07.240 --> 00:36:08.840
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

00:36:14.880 --> 00:36:17.560
 >> Motion carries 6-1.

00:36:17.560 --> 00:36:25.520
 Next item of business is the second consent agenda item, which is 3B, PP 20-0001, Commissioner Smith.

00:36:25.520 --> 00:36:26.960
 >> I move to approve.

00:36:26.960 --> 00:36:29.280
 >> We have a first for approval, Commissioner Beck.

00:36:29.280 --> 00:36:30.040
 >> Second.

00:36:30.040 --> 00:36:32.760
 >> We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion on the item?

00:36:32.760 --> 00:36:35.720
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

00:36:35.720 --> 00:36:44.760
 Motion carries 7-0.

00:36:44.760 --> 00:36:47.080
 That brings us to our items for individual consideration.

00:36:47.080 --> 00:36:52.900
 The next item for business is item 4A, FP 19-0003.

00:36:52.900 --> 00:36:54.720
 I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation.

00:36:54.720 --> 00:37:03.160
 >> Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.

00:37:03.160 --> 00:37:05.880
 My name is Sean Jacobson with the Planning Department.

00:37:05.880 --> 00:37:12.840
 I'm here tonight to present a request for approval for final plat of lots one through three, block A of the Tealstone addition.

00:37:12.840 --> 00:37:21.240
 This is a 6.58 acre site, generally located northwest of Mingo Road, northeast of the corner of Mingo Road and Cooper Creek Road.

00:37:21.240 --> 00:37:26.200
 Staff is recommending approval with the condition that an encroachment agreement for

00:37:26.200 --> 00:37:31.920
 all grading and construction within the transmission line easements must be obtained from the Texas Municipal Power Authority and

00:37:31.920 --> 00:37:36.560
 provided to the city prior to the final plat being recorded with Denton County.

00:37:36.560 --> 00:37:42.640
 When that condition is met, the plat will meet all of the established criteria, therefore the recommendation of approval with conditions.

00:37:42.640 --> 00:37:44.680
 With that said, I'll stand for any questions.

00:37:44.680 --> 00:37:46.360
 >> Appreciate it, Sean.

00:37:46.360 --> 00:37:48.760
 This is an item for individual consideration.

00:37:48.760 --> 00:37:53.840
 It's not a public hearing, however, if you wish to speak on the item, we will certainly listen to any testimony this evening.

00:37:53.840 --> 00:37:56.040
 Commissioner Anderson?

00:37:56.040 --> 00:37:59.000
 >> Make a motion to approve.

00:37:59.000 --> 00:38:02.560
 >> And Commissioner Anderson, for clarification, do you approve with the condition?

00:38:02.560 --> 00:38:03.520
 >> Yes.

00:38:03.520 --> 00:38:05.320
 >> Okay, we have first for approval with condition.

00:38:05.320 --> 00:38:06.480
 Commissioner Ellis?

00:38:06.480 --> 00:38:09.280
 >> Second. >> We have first and second for approval.

00:38:09.280 --> 00:38:09.880
 Any discussion?

00:38:11.360 --> 00:38:13.000
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

00:38:13.000 --> 00:38:21.960
 Motion carries seven, zero.

00:38:21.960 --> 00:38:27.080
 The next item of business is item 4B, PP 19-0035C.

00:38:27.080 --> 00:38:28.920
 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.

00:38:28.920 --> 00:38:32.000
 >> Thank you, Chairman and Commissioners.

00:38:32.000 --> 00:38:35.440
 For the record, Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department.

00:38:35.440 --> 00:38:41.000
 I have before you today the preliminary plat for Stewart Ridge, phase two and three.

00:38:41.000 --> 00:38:44.120
 The site is located within the ETJ.

00:38:44.120 --> 00:38:49.240
 The city has planning authority in the county per our interlocal agreement.

00:38:49.240 --> 00:38:56.840
 The development will connect to city water and sewer, and these are under the city's purview.

00:38:56.840 --> 00:39:02.440
 However, the streets must be accepted by the county.

00:39:02.440 --> 00:39:09.080
 Streets and sewer, excuse me, streets and drainage are also per city's subdivision requirements.

00:39:12.000 --> 00:39:15.560
 Staff was recommending approval of this request with one condition.

00:39:15.560 --> 00:39:23.920
 That the civil construction plans for paving and drainage facilities must be approved by Denton County.

00:39:23.920 --> 00:39:30.600
 And civil construction plans for the water and sewer lines must be approved by the city prior to the submittal of the final plat.

00:39:30.600 --> 00:39:33.960
 Condition two is not being recommended.

00:39:33.960 --> 00:39:38.720
 >> Cindy, the condition number one.

00:39:40.000 --> 00:39:48.000
 That's a requirement in the process already we're trying to codify that that would take place?

00:39:48.000 --> 00:39:55.320
 Or is that an additional step that's not typically, could the final plat be approved without those approvals typically?

00:39:55.320 --> 00:39:57.160
 >> Yes.

00:39:57.160 --> 00:40:02.000
 >> Okay, and we've added it as a condition for the purpose of just clarifying?

00:40:02.000 --> 00:40:09.840
 >> Right, we've added this condition because of the fact that the property is in the ETJ.

00:40:09.840 --> 00:40:17.080
 And even though the city reviews the streets and drainage, and it's per city standards,

00:40:17.080 --> 00:40:21.720
 the county has their own standards, the county has to accept the streets.

00:40:21.720 --> 00:40:24.680
 >> Okay, thank you.

00:40:24.680 --> 00:40:29.720
 Is there any other questions for Cindy?

00:40:29.720 --> 00:40:33.760
 Commissioner Beck.

00:40:33.760 --> 00:40:41.680
 >> Thank you, Chair. I brought this up briefly and Commissioner Smith brought it up during the work session.

00:40:41.680 --> 00:40:50.680
 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.

00:40:50.680 --> 00:40:59.580
 I'm quite concerned from the preliminary plat about the sort of amount of conceptual,

00:40:59.580 --> 00:41:07.040
 let's say proposed, conceptual development all along this area, and the amount of development along the drainage,

00:41:07.040 --> 00:41:12.120
 the amount of tree canopy being removed, and I can't in good conscience lend my support to it.

00:41:12.120 --> 00:41:18.120
 >> Any other questions for Cindy?

00:41:18.120 --> 00:41:21.640
 I don't see any, thank you.

00:41:21.640 --> 00:41:24.320
 Commissioner Fernanda.

00:41:26.040 --> 00:41:30.240
 >> Yeah, and I guess this is just a general question, because this is in the ETJ and everything,

00:41:30.240 --> 00:41:35.400
 based on having some of the same concerns that Commissioner Beck has.

00:41:35.400 --> 00:41:43.280
 What is the impact of us denying this as it is in the ETJ?

00:41:43.280 --> 00:41:49.280
 >> Well, it would be the same as if you denied a plot that is in the city.

00:41:49.280 --> 00:41:53.960
 It meets all the requirements, and per local government code,

00:41:53.960 --> 00:41:57.080
 you are required to compel to approve it.

00:41:57.080 --> 00:42:05.920
 >> Okay, I mean, because based on the fact that it's all beholden to technical county and everything, there's not really recourse, right?

00:42:05.920 --> 00:42:07.040
 >> [INAUDIBLE]

00:42:07.040 --> 00:42:10.160
 >> Okay. >> Per our interlocal agreement with the county.

00:42:10.160 --> 00:42:16.240
 And so they come to the city to plat, and they go to the county for their building permits.

00:42:16.240 --> 00:42:20.560
 Platting regulations are the same, whether it's in the city or the county, with regards to

00:42:23.080 --> 00:42:29.060
 the regulations of being compelled to approve if it meets all the requirements.

00:42:29.060 --> 00:42:36.240
 >> And not to be dismissive or anything, so my sense on this one is essentially this vote is ceremonial for the large part.

00:42:36.240 --> 00:42:38.180
 Is that kind of right, or?

00:42:38.180 --> 00:42:42.000
 >> There's a compulsion from us if it meets all technical requirements.

00:42:42.000 --> 00:42:45.800
 We have the empowerment to deny it if we can cite a technical deficiency.

00:42:45.800 --> 00:42:47.440
 >> Right, but okay, all right, thank you.

00:42:47.440 --> 00:42:52.480
 >> I think there's no more other questions.

00:42:52.480 --> 00:42:56.480
 >> Okay. >> This is an individual consideration item, it's not a public hearing.

00:42:56.480 --> 00:42:59.560
 We do have a card, though, and I'm happy to hear it's for Mark Holcomb.

00:42:59.560 --> 00:43:02.280
 If you want to speak, you can certainly come down.

00:43:02.280 --> 00:43:09.640
 And if you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have three minutes to speak.

00:43:09.640 --> 00:43:14.760
 >> This is Mark Holcomb, and my address is 2316 Crestwood Place.

00:43:14.760 --> 00:43:18.600
 But we own the property that's just north of this development.

00:43:18.600 --> 00:43:22.840
 It's just north from the, it's on the south side of our property.

00:43:22.840 --> 00:43:28.680
 So this development will be bordering our entire southern border of our property.

00:43:28.680 --> 00:43:34.040
 Actually, I spoke with the gentleman with Kimmy Horn and Associates earlier,

00:43:34.040 --> 00:43:38.280
 because we were concerned about our property actually being cut off.

00:43:38.280 --> 00:43:47.240
 Because we have an easement that leads from Stewart Road into our property that I was concerned that it was going to,

00:43:47.240 --> 00:43:50.640
 our development wasn't going to cut off that easement.

00:43:50.640 --> 00:43:55.320
 But they've reassured me that there will actually be, I guess,

00:43:55.320 --> 00:44:03.400
 a city easement that will be behind the housing development that will also then be between that and the mobile home park.

00:44:03.400 --> 00:44:07.440
 So I feel a little better now after speaking with them today.

00:44:07.440 --> 00:44:08.760
 >> Great.

00:44:08.760 --> 00:44:17.080
 >> 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.

00:44:17.080 --> 00:44:17.960
 >> I appreciate it.

00:44:17.960 --> 00:44:18.840
 I appreciate you being here.

00:44:18.840 --> 00:44:19.480
 >> Okay, thank you.

00:44:19.480 --> 00:44:20.000
 >> Thank you.

00:44:20.000 --> 00:44:28.400
 >> Sir, if you could do the same, just your name and address, and you'll have three minutes.

00:44:28.400 --> 00:44:33.400
 >> Absolutely, Brad Williams, 2728 North Harwood Street in Dallas, representing the applicant.

00:44:33.400 --> 00:44:35.280
 Appreciate everyone being here tonight.

00:44:35.280 --> 00:44:42.640
 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.

00:44:43.880 --> 00:44:48.240
 We are in full agreement with the staff on the fact that this plot is ripe for approval.

00:44:48.240 --> 00:44:51.160
 It meets all the standards, and so we look forward to an approval.

00:44:51.160 --> 00:44:58.760
 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.

00:44:58.760 --> 00:45:03.640
 Couple of concerns we have with that is, first of all, the interlocal agreement, in my estimation,

00:45:03.640 --> 00:45:09.800
 gives the city exclusive jurisdiction to regulate plots and related permits on this property.

00:45:09.800 --> 00:45:15.520
 Related permits, I believe, includes paving, drainage, streets,

00:45:15.520 --> 00:45:20.440
 the types of construction plans that were being asked to go get approval from the county.

00:45:20.440 --> 00:45:25.440
 I believe that that is within the purview of the city and should be handled by the city.

00:45:25.440 --> 00:45:30.080
 It's not usual that I'm up here asking to be regulated by the city, so that tells you something.

00:45:30.080 --> 00:45:38.280
 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.

00:45:38.280 --> 00:45:40.360
 The city's standards are more rigorous.

00:45:40.360 --> 00:45:44.720
 Concrete streets, curb, gutter, sidewalks, that sort of thing.

00:45:44.720 --> 00:45:51.760
 The county standards are blacktop, bar ditches, and so by going to the county and

00:45:51.760 --> 00:46:00.320
 asking them to approve and review plans that are consistent with city standards, it's kind of an odd posture.

00:46:00.320 --> 00:46:05.640
 And so just for consistency of process and to make sure everything goes smoothly,

00:46:05.640 --> 00:46:08.320
 we would ask that you approve without the condition.

00:46:08.320 --> 00:46:12.240
 Of course, we would prefer an approval with the condition as opposed to a denial.

00:46:12.240 --> 00:46:14.160
 I don't think the plan is right for denial.

00:46:14.160 --> 00:46:19.280
 But in the event the commission is not satisfied that the condition should not apply,

00:46:19.280 --> 00:46:23.400
 I'm just compelled to come on record and express our opposition to that condition.

00:46:23.400 --> 00:46:26.040
 But that's all we're here for.

00:46:26.040 --> 00:46:28.920
 If you have any questions for me, I have the engineer here as well.

00:46:28.920 --> 00:46:31.120
 Happy to answer any questions we can.

00:46:31.120 --> 00:46:35.120
 Otherwise, we do look forward to an approval, preferably without condition number one.

00:46:35.680 --> 00:46:36.800
 We do have a couple of questions.

00:46:36.800 --> 00:46:37.680
 Thank you, sir.

00:46:37.680 --> 00:46:38.520
 Commissioner Smith.

00:46:38.520 --> 00:46:39.760
 Thank you, Chair.

00:46:39.760 --> 00:46:43.240
 How many units are in the development?

00:46:43.240 --> 00:46:44.840
 I mean, this is it again?

00:46:44.840 --> 00:46:46.800
 In phase one, two, and three?

00:46:46.800 --> 00:46:48.400
 Yeah, we're close to 550.

00:46:48.400 --> 00:46:50.320
 Yeah, 550 or so.

00:46:50.320 --> 00:46:52.480
 Okay, 550.

00:46:52.480 --> 00:46:55.520
 Timeline on development for phase one, two, and three?

00:46:55.520 --> 00:46:57.560
 Obviously, one first and two and three coming later.

00:46:57.560 --> 00:46:58.720
 Yeah.

00:46:58.720 --> 00:47:04.040
 Yeah, I think as soon as we get our approval, we're going to be ready to start turning dirt.

00:47:04.040 --> 00:47:07.800
 Okay, and then how much longer than phase two and three coming in after that?

00:47:07.800 --> 00:47:10.360
 We'll just follow in.

00:47:10.360 --> 00:47:13.560
 Rough timeline of how long that would be.

00:47:13.560 --> 00:47:14.920
 You'll have to come down to the mic.

00:47:14.920 --> 00:47:15.800
 Sorry.

00:47:15.800 --> 00:47:17.360
 You're in charge of the questions.

00:47:17.360 --> 00:47:19.560
 If I keep asking questions, you keep answering, not the mic.

00:47:19.560 --> 00:47:21.640
 They're going to get mad at me, so come on.

00:47:21.640 --> 00:47:27.160
 And if you could just say your name and address.

00:47:27.160 --> 00:47:28.160
 Okay.

00:47:28.160 --> 00:47:33.760
 Brent Murphy with Kimley-Horn, 400 Oklahoma Street, Solana, Texas.

00:47:33.760 --> 00:47:39.360
 The first phase is under design now, and so then it takes about 12 months to get the development

00:47:39.360 --> 00:47:42.840
 built, and then houses will be ready to be constructed.

00:47:42.840 --> 00:47:43.840
 Okay.

00:47:43.840 --> 00:47:48.000
 And then, so most of these developments, if it's 550, we split them up evenly.

00:47:48.000 --> 00:47:50.880
 Yes, the first phase is about 130 lots.

00:47:50.880 --> 00:47:55.080
 Okay, so maybe two and a half years or so, and then it takes basically a year to sell

00:47:55.080 --> 00:47:56.280
 through the first phase.

00:47:56.280 --> 00:47:57.280
 Okay.

00:47:57.280 --> 00:48:00.640
 So maybe until full-boiled out, we've got five, six years maybe at most.

00:48:00.640 --> 00:48:01.640
 Correct.

00:48:01.640 --> 00:48:02.640
 Okay, got it.

00:48:02.640 --> 00:48:03.640
 Thanks, appreciate it.

00:48:03.640 --> 00:48:06.200
 We're going to have questions from you.

00:48:06.200 --> 00:48:08.760
 Can we pause and send a question real fast, so I have the applicants here?

00:48:08.760 --> 00:48:09.760
 Okay, sorry.

00:48:09.760 --> 00:48:10.760
 If you're done with the applicants.

00:48:10.760 --> 00:48:11.760
 I'm done with the applicants.

00:48:11.760 --> 00:48:12.760
 I have other questions.

00:48:12.760 --> 00:48:15.080
 Yeah, because we might have other questions for Cindy.

00:48:15.080 --> 00:48:16.640
 Chris or Beck.

00:48:16.640 --> 00:48:17.640
 Thank you, Chair.

00:48:17.640 --> 00:48:25.920
 So you were concerned about the different standards for the county, and you were saying

00:48:25.920 --> 00:48:30.880
 that you're coming and asking for the more stringent standards of the city.

00:48:30.880 --> 00:48:36.400
 Is there anything precluding you from adopting voluntarily the city's stringent standards?

00:48:36.400 --> 00:48:39.240
 No, that's why that's exactly what we're doing.

00:48:39.240 --> 00:48:43.040
 The streets are going to be designed and built to city standards.

00:48:43.040 --> 00:48:44.480
 That's the plan.

00:48:44.480 --> 00:48:50.660
 My concern is asking the county to review construction drawings for streets that are

00:48:50.660 --> 00:48:57.240
 designed to city standards as opposed to county standards.

00:48:57.240 --> 00:49:01.480
 It's that they're not accustomed to reviewing concrete, curb and gutter streets.

00:49:01.480 --> 00:49:04.840
 It's not their standards.

00:49:04.840 --> 00:49:10.920
 Is there a drawback to that other than their lack of familiarity?

00:49:10.920 --> 00:49:14.600
 They may take a similar reading of the interlocal that I do and say, hey, why are we even looking

00:49:14.600 --> 00:49:16.120
 at this?

00:49:16.120 --> 00:49:20.040
 Because the city has exclusive jurisdiction in the Division 1 ATJ.

00:49:20.040 --> 00:49:23.360
 And so as the applicant, I think we're a little bit concerned about getting sort of bounced

00:49:23.360 --> 00:49:25.400
 back and forth between the two jurisdictions.

00:49:25.400 --> 00:49:30.160
 We would rather just come to one jurisdiction for all of our necessary approvals.

00:49:30.160 --> 00:49:35.120
 And I think that's why Chapter 242 of the government code put these interlocal agreements

00:49:35.120 --> 00:49:40.080
 out there so that applicants and developers have one office or a very clear set of offices

00:49:40.080 --> 00:49:42.680
 to go to when they were looking for approval.

00:49:42.680 --> 00:49:46.040
 In this case, it's the city in our opinion.

00:49:46.040 --> 00:49:47.040
 Okay, thank you.

00:49:47.040 --> 00:49:48.040
 Yeah.

00:49:48.040 --> 00:49:52.040
 I don't see any other questions for you.

00:49:52.040 --> 00:49:53.040
 Thank you.

00:49:53.040 --> 00:49:54.040
 Commissioner Smith.

00:49:54.040 --> 00:49:55.040
 Thank you, Chair.

00:49:55.040 --> 00:50:02.400
 What's the latest on the development of Long Road?

00:50:02.400 --> 00:50:03.400
 Long Road?

00:50:03.400 --> 00:50:09.120
 Because if we're looking at adding 550 units over the next five to six years along a road

00:50:09.120 --> 00:50:13.240
 that I'm pretty familiar with, and it's not a very high density area, and this is going

00:50:13.240 --> 00:50:15.500
 to lead into pretty much another question I'm going to ask in a second.

00:50:15.500 --> 00:50:17.600
 So I'll ask you this now.

00:50:17.600 --> 00:50:22.980
 Whenever we're approving preliminary plots in an ETJ, do we have the same type of rules

00:50:22.980 --> 00:50:26.080
 that trigger a TIA in this scenario?

00:50:26.080 --> 00:50:28.880
 Is there any type of traffic impact that would come in here?

00:50:28.880 --> 00:50:30.800
 I know this is not a zoning issue.

00:50:30.800 --> 00:50:33.040
 It's more of a preliminary platen.

00:50:33.040 --> 00:50:37.680
 So if we're looking at it from this standpoint, I'm looking at it as saying a traffic impact

00:50:37.680 --> 00:50:45.640
 analysis was pretty important for a two lane road that's about to gain 550 units and just

00:50:45.640 --> 00:50:48.760
 be conservative and say one and a half cars per unit.

00:50:48.760 --> 00:50:51.040
 So we're talking about 800 cars.

00:50:51.040 --> 00:50:52.040
 Right.

00:50:52.040 --> 00:50:56.920
 That's a lot going on to a two lane road in the next six years if we don't have any development

00:50:56.920 --> 00:50:57.920
 for it.

00:50:57.920 --> 00:51:03.600
 This is, to be honest, this type of subdivision in the ETJ is a totally new...

00:51:03.600 --> 00:51:04.600
 I would agree.

00:51:04.600 --> 00:51:08.600
 ...type of thing for the city to review.

00:51:08.600 --> 00:51:12.080
 I will check and see if a TIA would be required.

00:51:12.080 --> 00:51:22.080
 I am not sure if we can require TIAs in the ETJ.

00:51:22.080 --> 00:51:26.880
 I don't believe that we have required a TIA within the ETJ.

00:51:26.880 --> 00:51:32.000
 I think part of the challenge is typically when we have our construction engineering

00:51:32.000 --> 00:51:36.840
 plan review and construction, there's a performance maintenance bond that's included with that

00:51:36.840 --> 00:51:40.120
 as well as a maintenance bond after the fact.

00:51:40.120 --> 00:51:43.680
 We would not want to be a party or the three way agreement would...

00:51:43.680 --> 00:51:48.800
 I don't know why the city would enter into such if we would not maintain those roads.

00:51:48.800 --> 00:51:50.840
 Why would we have a maintenance bond for that?

00:51:50.840 --> 00:51:51.840
 Okay.

00:51:51.840 --> 00:51:54.760
 I guess that maintenance bond though wouldn't stem over to the roads that the city does

00:51:54.760 --> 00:51:59.520
 maintain, like long road though, that would have impact from not the maintenance of the

00:51:59.520 --> 00:52:03.040
 roads that are inside the development, which is the ETJ, I get that part, but what about

00:52:03.040 --> 00:52:05.200
 the impact of the roads that it does connect to?

00:52:05.200 --> 00:52:07.280
 That's not an ETJ.

00:52:07.280 --> 00:52:12.200
 If it was a city road, then again, it depends on...

00:52:12.200 --> 00:52:15.960
 I think with this one, it's not that they're building a whole new road.

00:52:15.960 --> 00:52:20.580
 I think it's just a component to that.

00:52:20.580 --> 00:52:24.000
 The applicant gave me an email that was sent out by the city.

00:52:24.000 --> 00:52:28.520
 This is a facilitator that worked on this project with me.

00:52:28.520 --> 00:52:35.340
 The facilitator did some research and has found that traffic impact analysis criteria

00:52:35.340 --> 00:52:40.160
 apply to properties in the ETJ and future analysis of impacts on long and short roads

00:52:40.160 --> 00:52:45.240
 will be required to support the implementation of the project.

00:52:45.240 --> 00:52:46.240
 Okay.

00:52:46.240 --> 00:52:51.760
 At this point now though, if we approve a preliminary plat, you're saying that it's required for

00:52:51.760 --> 00:52:53.760
 the implementation of the product.

00:52:53.760 --> 00:52:57.920
 What next step do we have that stops that to make sure that gets occurred?

00:52:57.920 --> 00:53:05.280
 That would be part of the CEP process, they'd need the traffic impact analysis as well.

00:53:05.280 --> 00:53:09.280
 Before a final plat's approved and the city would have to go through it and make sure

00:53:09.280 --> 00:53:12.960
 that meets its requirements, it's not going to overload, I'm guessing what is probably

00:53:12.960 --> 00:53:18.800
 defined as a collector, I'm guessing long is defined as a collector on there.

00:53:18.800 --> 00:53:20.680
 I believe that.

00:53:20.680 --> 00:53:21.680
 I can check that for you.

00:53:21.680 --> 00:53:22.680
 I'm not certain of it.

00:53:22.680 --> 00:53:29.040
 I believe it is a collector, but I'll check that.

00:53:29.040 --> 00:53:32.560
 I'm just afraid because the final plat would then become on as just a consent agenda, so

00:53:32.560 --> 00:53:36.920
 we wouldn't really see much in the way of ... I know the city would do its own back

00:53:36.920 --> 00:53:41.440
 part in the engineering to make sure that it's not going to overload it, but this project

00:53:41.440 --> 00:53:42.440
 does scare me.

00:53:42.440 --> 00:53:44.600
 That's kind of why I was asking about that stuff in the work session.

00:53:44.600 --> 00:53:45.600
 Yeah.

00:53:45.600 --> 00:53:48.360
 Scares me from how much energy we're going to put into there and we have, as a city,

00:53:48.360 --> 00:53:53.200
 we don't have a whole lot of control over what can happen by dumping it all into long

00:53:53.200 --> 00:53:57.800
 and onto steward, which I don't think it doesn't have any connection to steward either.

00:53:57.800 --> 00:53:58.800
 Okay.

00:53:58.800 --> 00:53:59.800
 Thanks.

00:53:59.800 --> 00:54:00.800
 Commissioner Ellis.

00:54:00.800 --> 00:54:01.800
 Thank you, Chair.

00:54:01.800 --> 00:54:07.840
 Cindy, we seem to have a hang up on this condition.

00:54:07.840 --> 00:54:11.840
 Talk to me about the city's reasoning for establishing this condition.

00:54:11.840 --> 00:54:18.840
 The city's reasoning for establishing this condition is primarily to make sure that the

00:54:18.840 --> 00:54:22.360
 county will accept the streets, because they're not city streets.

00:54:22.360 --> 00:54:26.680
 They're in the county, and the county has to ultimately accept the streets and maintain

00:54:26.680 --> 00:54:27.960
 the streets.

00:54:27.960 --> 00:54:30.760
 Is there reason to believe they would not?

00:54:30.760 --> 00:54:33.040
 They don't meet county standards.

00:54:33.040 --> 00:54:40.100
 County standards require asphalt with a bar ditch, and what we have here are suburban

00:54:40.100 --> 00:54:41.920
 street sections.

00:54:41.920 --> 00:54:42.920
 Okay.

00:54:42.920 --> 00:54:43.920
 Okay.

00:54:43.920 --> 00:54:44.920
 Thanks.

00:54:44.920 --> 00:54:48.920
 I have a question.

00:54:48.920 --> 00:54:53.520
 Can you go back to the condition, please?

00:54:53.520 --> 00:55:01.880
 It's saying that construction plans must be approved by Denton County and civil construction

00:55:01.880 --> 00:55:08.320
 approved by the city, but it seems like that's a ... I'm hearing this wrong.

00:55:08.320 --> 00:55:11.880
 If they build to city standard roads, it won't match county.

00:55:11.880 --> 00:55:12.880
 No, they won't.

00:55:12.880 --> 00:55:16.120
 And if they build to county roads, it won't match city.

00:55:16.120 --> 00:55:17.120
 That's right.

00:55:17.120 --> 00:55:23.320
 So how are we acquiring an and in that condition, not an or, because if it's an and, and those

00:55:23.320 --> 00:55:26.280
 are conflicting, they will never meet this condition.

00:55:26.280 --> 00:55:30.940
 Am I missing something here?

00:55:30.940 --> 00:55:38.080
 If they built to the county standard, we would not object to it.

00:55:38.080 --> 00:55:45.620
 Mr. Chair, the condition is referring to the streets for the county and the sewer and the

00:55:45.620 --> 00:55:46.620
 water for the city.

00:55:46.620 --> 00:55:48.880
 So there's two different components to that condition.

00:55:48.880 --> 00:55:49.880
 Okay.

00:55:49.880 --> 00:55:53.640
 So the street paving is only county?

00:55:53.640 --> 00:55:54.640
 Correct.

00:55:54.640 --> 00:55:55.640
 Okay.

00:55:55.640 --> 00:56:00.320
 Because the sewer and water would be connected to the city system, so that's why we have

00:56:00.320 --> 00:56:03.600
 the authority over the review of that part.

00:56:03.600 --> 00:56:04.600
 Okay.

00:56:04.600 --> 00:56:05.600
 Thank you for that clarification.

00:56:05.600 --> 00:56:06.600
 Commissioner Anderson.

00:56:06.600 --> 00:56:07.600
 Thank you, Chair.

00:56:07.600 --> 00:56:14.680
 So the county will not approve city streets, the county would not approve concrete streets

00:56:14.680 --> 00:56:15.680
 with drainage?

00:56:15.680 --> 00:56:16.680
 We don't know.

00:56:16.680 --> 00:56:17.680
 We don't know.

00:56:17.680 --> 00:56:20.680
 There would seem to be a better option.

00:56:20.680 --> 00:56:30.200
 Probably more expensive for them though.

00:56:30.200 --> 00:56:41.240
 That's hard to say.

00:56:41.240 --> 00:56:42.240
 Yeah.

00:56:42.240 --> 00:56:45.800
 This is piggybacking off Commissioner Anderson's question and that is, do we have any historical

00:56:45.800 --> 00:56:51.760
 examples of city, Denton city style streets in the county being approved?

00:56:51.760 --> 00:56:54.400
 No, we don't.

00:56:54.400 --> 00:56:55.400
 Thank you.

00:56:55.400 --> 00:57:02.920
 Yes, and this is basically just to add clarity per the Chair's concern.

00:57:02.920 --> 00:57:10.200
 Can we have these broken up into two recommendations where after Denton County, basically instead

00:57:10.200 --> 00:57:14.680
 of and, we drop that into a condition two, so that way the second condition would be

00:57:14.680 --> 00:57:19.840
 the water and sewer lines would be approved by the city and the first one would be the...

00:57:19.840 --> 00:57:25.200
 I think you can make that motion to approve it that way.

00:57:25.200 --> 00:57:26.200
 Thank you, Mr. Smith.

00:57:26.200 --> 00:57:27.200
 Thank you, Chair.

00:57:27.200 --> 00:57:33.320
 Cindy, what's the county then, because the ETJ would have, they have, I guess, ruling

00:57:33.320 --> 00:57:39.680
 or regulations on accessibility to emergency services and because the ETJ would be at Denton

00:57:39.680 --> 00:57:45.040
 emergency services, this- Right, they have their own fire district and

00:57:45.040 --> 00:57:52.920
 fire inspectors and perhaps they'd have to have some sort of agreement between the city

00:57:52.920 --> 00:57:53.920
 and the county.

00:57:53.920 --> 00:57:57.680
 And legal can shoot me down on this, because I'm going to ask you a subjective question.

00:57:57.680 --> 00:58:01.920
 If this was not an ETJ, would this preliminary plot pass for accessibility for emergency

00:58:01.920 --> 00:58:06.200
 services, because I'm only seeing one way in and one way out in that preliminary plot.

00:58:06.200 --> 00:58:08.560
 There's stub outs to the other pieces of land, but-

00:58:08.560 --> 00:58:12.880
 Again, are the fire code, this is in the ETJ and our fire code did not review it because

00:58:12.880 --> 00:58:13.880
 it's...

00:58:13.880 --> 00:58:14.880
 Fire code is under county.

00:58:14.880 --> 00:58:20.560
 I understand that, but I guess my better question would be in a city development, if a plot

00:58:20.560 --> 00:58:23.240
 was to come in for us in a city development, it only has a one way in, one way out, is

00:58:23.240 --> 00:58:25.400
 that approved by city code fire ordinance?

00:58:25.400 --> 00:58:31.600
 In a city development, we would ensure that there were two ways in and out for an emergency

00:58:31.600 --> 00:58:32.600
 situation.

00:58:32.600 --> 00:58:33.600
 All right, question.

00:58:33.600 --> 00:58:34.600
 Thank you very much.

00:58:34.600 --> 00:58:35.600
 Appreciate it.

00:58:35.600 --> 00:58:36.600
 I have one more question.

00:58:36.600 --> 00:58:43.520
 If they build city standard roads and they present, they would have to present that to

00:58:43.520 --> 00:58:51.400
 the county for acceptance, if the county rejects those roads, their project wouldn't go through,

00:58:51.400 --> 00:58:52.400
 correct?

00:58:52.400 --> 00:58:58.800
 Well, again, they would have no...

00:58:58.800 --> 00:59:04.420
 If this county didn't accept the roads, consequences are the county wouldn't maintain them, and

00:59:04.420 --> 00:59:08.080
 so there would be no road maintenance because they're not city roads, the city wouldn't

00:59:08.080 --> 00:59:09.080
 maintain them.

00:59:09.080 --> 00:59:13.600
 The city would only maintain water and sewer.

00:59:13.600 --> 00:59:17.560
 I know we're speaking on the jurisdiction, that's not ours, but you're saying it's possible

00:59:17.560 --> 00:59:21.880
 for them to build city standard roads, the county rejects them, their project go forward

00:59:21.880 --> 00:59:25.800
 with roads they've built, and then there's no jurisdiction for maintenance of those roads?

00:59:25.800 --> 00:59:29.320
 I don't know if it could move forward, again, this is something that is new that we've never

00:59:29.320 --> 00:59:30.320
 dealt with before.

00:59:30.320 --> 00:59:38.240
 As it stands, what I do know is if the county did not accept the roads, then there would

00:59:38.240 --> 00:59:40.080
 be no maintenance for the roads.

00:59:40.080 --> 00:59:48.800
 One possibility would be an HOA, private streets, perhaps, that would have to maintain the roads.

00:59:48.800 --> 00:59:49.800
 We would not have any jurisdiction.

00:59:49.800 --> 00:59:53.880
 It wouldn't be like they're going to submit for building permits, and we're going to have...

00:59:53.880 --> 00:59:54.880
 We just...

00:59:54.880 --> 00:59:57.880
 That would all go through Denton County.

00:59:57.880 --> 01:00:01.240
 I'd love if you could add some clarity to that situation.

01:00:01.240 --> 01:00:07.440
 I can try, and your council can agree or disagree at her leisure, but the interlocal agreement

01:00:07.440 --> 01:00:10.360
 mandates that the county maintain the roads.

01:00:10.360 --> 01:00:14.880
 Now if the county decides they just don't want to, well, then you have an agreement

01:00:14.880 --> 01:00:20.280
 in place, and potentially one party that hasn't fulfilled their obligations under an agreement.

01:00:20.280 --> 01:00:25.320
 But the acceptance wouldn't come until after we've already constructed the roads.

01:00:25.320 --> 01:00:26.320
 Then they would...

01:00:26.320 --> 01:00:31.920
 Yes, the project would proceed, but there would be, I suppose, a jurisdictional dispute

01:00:31.920 --> 01:00:35.040
 over whose roads they are.

01:00:35.040 --> 01:00:41.360
 A dedication of roadways is a two-part process of dedication, and you have acceptance.

01:00:41.360 --> 01:00:45.680
 We would offer to dedicate the roads on the plat, and then it's up to the governing body

01:00:45.680 --> 01:00:50.560
 of the county or the city to accept them.

01:00:50.560 --> 01:00:51.560
 Okay.

01:00:51.560 --> 01:00:56.960
 That adds marginal clarity, but I appreciate the effort.

01:00:56.960 --> 01:01:01.000
 The main item is that the project would go through.

01:01:01.000 --> 01:01:02.000
 Yeah.

01:01:02.000 --> 01:01:03.000
 Okay.

01:01:03.000 --> 01:01:04.000
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:01:04.000 --> 01:01:05.000
 Thank you.

01:01:05.000 --> 01:01:06.000
 Yes, ma'am.

01:01:06.000 --> 01:01:12.840
 So I think what I hear you saying is if the county were to reject the roads, you're going

01:01:12.840 --> 01:01:16.160
 through with the project anyway, which is perhaps why you don't want this condition

01:01:16.160 --> 01:01:17.160
 in here.

01:01:17.160 --> 01:01:18.160
 Correct?

01:01:18.160 --> 01:01:19.160
 Well, yes and no.

01:01:19.160 --> 01:01:24.280
 I mean, I think it's a timing question.

01:01:24.280 --> 01:01:28.320
 We would have already built the roads by the time we learn that the county will or will

01:01:28.320 --> 01:01:29.320
 not accept them.

01:01:29.320 --> 01:01:36.120
 And so once we've built the infrastructure, yeah, we're going to proceed with the project.

01:01:36.120 --> 01:01:40.400
 The concern on this condition is that it's in a condition on our final plat.

01:01:40.400 --> 01:01:47.640
 So if we march our construction plans for paving and drainage facilities to the county

01:01:47.640 --> 01:01:52.560
 and ask them for approval, and again, some of this is speculative, and I'll grant that

01:01:52.560 --> 01:01:53.560
 to you.

01:01:53.560 --> 01:01:57.360
 I have not confirmed one way or the other what's going to happen.

01:01:57.360 --> 01:02:02.960
 What our concern is that if we walk these plans to the county, they either refuse to

01:02:02.960 --> 01:02:07.320
 accept them because in their estimation, they don't have any jurisdiction to be looking

01:02:07.320 --> 01:02:12.320
 at construction drawings in the ETJ because of the interlocal agreement, or they accept

01:02:12.320 --> 01:02:17.760
 the drawings and they deny them because they don't comport with county standards.

01:02:17.760 --> 01:02:21.080
 Sometimes counties don't want to maintain concrete streets because they're more expensive

01:02:21.080 --> 01:02:22.080
 to maintain.

01:02:22.080 --> 01:02:25.960
 The equipment that they have is more geared toward blacktop streets.

01:02:25.960 --> 01:02:28.600
 Maybe they don't want that maintenance responsibility.

01:02:28.600 --> 01:02:30.480
 I don't know.

01:02:30.480 --> 01:02:34.680
 Our concern is getting sort of whipsawed back and forth between the city and the county

01:02:34.680 --> 01:02:40.280
 over this issue, and our preference would simply be to look to the interlocal and say

01:02:40.280 --> 01:02:46.080
 this should all be city stuff if the county on the back end decides they don't want to

01:02:46.080 --> 01:02:50.720
 accept or maintain the streets.

01:02:50.720 --> 01:02:54.920
 I think there are provisions that would prevent that from happening legally, but we obviously

01:02:54.920 --> 01:02:57.160
 can't make them do anything.

01:02:57.160 --> 01:03:01.160
 But that's obviously the city's concern, too, is if you go forward with a project and they

01:03:01.160 --> 01:03:05.960
 reject to maintain the roads, then we have a serious problem on our hands, and this is

01:03:05.960 --> 01:03:13.200
 effectively at our city property line.

01:03:13.200 --> 01:03:21.680
 It seems a reasonable concern from the city to protect the citizens of that particular

01:03:21.680 --> 01:03:28.680
 development going forward.

01:03:28.680 --> 01:03:34.240
 What's the plan, what's your plan if there's not a condition, you do construction drawings

01:03:34.240 --> 01:03:39.480
 for city engineered standards, county does not accept them?

01:03:39.480 --> 01:03:44.080
 What's the plan for maintenance of those roads?

01:03:44.080 --> 01:03:47.800
 I don't think at this point, again, since we're sort of speculating, and I understand

01:03:47.800 --> 01:03:54.820
 your question, I don't think we have any plans to take on a private maintenance obligation

01:03:54.820 --> 01:03:59.920
 of those roads, because it would be our position that it is the county's responsibility to

01:03:59.920 --> 01:04:01.800
 maintain those roads.

01:04:01.800 --> 01:04:09.320
 I think there's authority for that, and so what 500 homeowners in the future elect to

01:04:09.320 --> 01:04:14.840
 do in order to get their roads maintained, I think would largely be up to them.

01:04:14.840 --> 01:04:20.780
 These roads probably wouldn't need any serious maintenance for many years.

01:04:20.780 --> 01:04:24.920
 County government can change, administrations can change, perspectives can change.

01:04:24.920 --> 01:04:29.840
 Those people would all be voters, they can vote for a new county commissioner or whatever.

01:04:29.840 --> 01:04:33.440
 If they don't feel like they're being paid attention to, there's a political solution

01:04:33.440 --> 01:04:34.440
 for them.

01:04:34.440 --> 01:04:38.680
 But at this point, I can't volunteer that we would commit to any private maintenance.

01:04:38.680 --> 01:04:41.800
 I appreciate the honesty, I'm just trying to fully flesh this out.

01:04:41.800 --> 01:04:42.800
 Commissioner Beck.

01:04:42.800 --> 01:04:43.800
 Thank you, Chair.

01:04:43.800 --> 01:04:48.720
 Well, if you like the benefits of the city and the restrictions of the city and the services

01:04:48.720 --> 01:04:53.760
 of the city and all the rules of the city, why were you not trying to become annexed

01:04:53.760 --> 01:04:55.440
 by the city voluntarily?

01:04:55.440 --> 01:05:00.920
 I think there was some discussion early on in this process about an annexation in connection

01:05:00.920 --> 01:05:03.560
 with a public improvement district.

01:05:03.560 --> 01:05:11.600
 Those conversations, I understand them fizzled, and so here we are.

01:05:11.600 --> 01:05:16.360
 You want to move forward anyway, regardless.

01:05:16.360 --> 01:05:18.720
 That's correct.

01:05:18.720 --> 01:05:19.720
 Commissioner Smith.

01:05:19.720 --> 01:05:20.720
 Thank you, Chair.

01:05:20.720 --> 01:05:21.720
 Where's phase one?

01:05:21.720 --> 01:05:24.800
 We're only improving phase two and phase three.

01:05:24.800 --> 01:05:25.800
 Where's phase one?

01:05:25.800 --> 01:05:26.800
 Right here.

01:05:26.800 --> 01:05:27.800
 Yeah, right here.

01:05:27.800 --> 01:05:28.800
 Okay.

01:05:28.800 --> 01:05:29.800
 Point through there.

01:05:29.800 --> 01:05:30.800
 Point there.

01:05:30.800 --> 01:05:31.800
 Yeah.

01:05:31.800 --> 01:05:37.000
 So phase one is this area right here.

01:05:37.000 --> 01:05:38.000
 That's right there?

01:05:38.000 --> 01:05:39.000
 Yeah.

01:05:39.000 --> 01:05:40.960
 And that's already, we've already seen that and proved it, correct?

01:05:40.960 --> 01:05:41.960
 Correct.

01:05:41.960 --> 01:05:43.480
 We submitted construction plans for that.

01:05:43.480 --> 01:05:51.080
 That's what's underway through staff reviews, but that's because that portion, pluriplat

01:05:51.080 --> 01:05:57.360
 wasn't required in ETJ, so we started with construction plans at that point.

01:05:57.360 --> 01:05:59.840
 So we're seeing stage two and three before we see stage one?

01:05:59.840 --> 01:06:02.160
 Yeah, just because it's a pluriplat, right?

01:06:02.160 --> 01:06:03.160
 Yeah, sure.

01:06:03.160 --> 01:06:04.160
 But phase one is phase one.

01:06:04.160 --> 01:06:05.160
 It'll go first.

01:06:05.160 --> 01:06:06.160
 Okay.

01:06:06.160 --> 01:06:09.440
 And it's got the road frontage that you can see on Long and Stewart.

01:06:09.440 --> 01:06:10.440
 Okay.

01:06:10.440 --> 01:06:11.440
 So we're reviewing that, right?

01:06:11.440 --> 01:06:12.440
 Correct.

01:06:12.440 --> 01:06:13.440
 Yeah.

01:06:13.440 --> 01:06:16.680
 Interestingly enough, I think the city's actually reviewing our construction plans for phase

01:06:16.680 --> 01:06:17.680
 one.

01:06:17.680 --> 01:06:18.680
 Okay.

01:06:18.680 --> 01:06:21.960
 Is there connectivity in phase one to Long Road?

01:06:21.960 --> 01:06:24.640
 Yes, there's connectivity to both roads.

01:06:24.640 --> 01:06:25.640
 Okay.

01:06:25.640 --> 01:06:26.640
 So you see the-

01:06:26.640 --> 01:06:27.640
 You connect to Stewart, you connect to Long there.

01:06:27.640 --> 01:06:28.640
 Correct.

01:06:28.640 --> 01:06:29.640
 To Stewart and to Long.

01:06:29.640 --> 01:06:30.640
 Perfect.

01:06:30.640 --> 01:06:33.760
 And I think I mean multiples on Long, but those will be providing the multiple access

01:06:33.760 --> 01:06:34.760
 points to phase two and three.

01:06:34.760 --> 01:06:35.760
 Okay.

01:06:35.760 --> 01:06:36.760
 Got it.

01:06:36.760 --> 01:06:37.760
 Thank you.

01:06:37.760 --> 01:06:38.760
 Appreciate it.

01:06:38.760 --> 01:06:40.640
 I don't see any other questions.

01:06:40.640 --> 01:06:48.320
 Chair will certainly, well first if anyone else wants to speak and add some input, certainly

01:06:48.320 --> 01:06:50.120
 happy to have you.

01:06:50.120 --> 01:06:57.760
 I will say as I wait for a motioner that initially I thought the idea of getting rid of the conditions

01:06:57.760 --> 01:06:59.760
 was a good idea.

01:06:59.760 --> 01:07:09.960
 However, I'd rather have a maintained blacktop road than a deconstructing cement road with

01:07:09.960 --> 01:07:12.720
 no insured plan.

01:07:12.720 --> 01:07:16.520
 I think cement and the city standards are better than county standards, but if they're

01:07:16.520 --> 01:07:21.280
 not going to have a plan for maintenance, I'd rather have a asphalt road that's being

01:07:21.280 --> 01:07:23.080
 properly maintained that the county will accept.

01:07:23.080 --> 01:07:26.320
 So that's just my two cents on it, but I'll turn it over to Commissioner Beck.

01:07:26.320 --> 01:07:27.320
 Thank you, Chair.

01:07:27.320 --> 01:07:32.760
 I'm actually going to make a motion to deny because of the confusion that we've just been

01:07:32.760 --> 01:07:37.720
 dealing with right here, as well as some of the other issues that I mentioned at the outset

01:07:37.720 --> 01:07:41.200
 of discussion.

01:07:41.200 --> 01:07:42.480
 We have a motion for denial.

01:07:42.480 --> 01:07:43.480
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:07:43.480 --> 01:07:44.480
 Thank you, Chair.

01:07:44.480 --> 01:07:48.760
 I have a question for the...

01:07:48.760 --> 01:07:50.960
 We need to see what happens with this motion first.

01:07:50.960 --> 01:07:51.960
 Thanks.

01:07:51.960 --> 01:07:55.520
 Do we have a second for deny?

01:07:55.520 --> 01:07:59.160
 Seeing none, the motion fails.

01:07:59.160 --> 01:08:03.600
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:08:03.600 --> 01:08:04.600
 Would the developer...

01:08:04.600 --> 01:08:10.560
 Would you guys be willing to develop the subdivision with the asphalt roads instead of concrete

01:08:10.560 --> 01:08:14.760
 to be in compliance with county standards?

01:08:14.760 --> 01:08:20.320
 I think this is where it gets challenging because if we were to develop blacktop roads,

01:08:20.320 --> 01:08:24.760
 we would not be complying with the city standards, which is what applies.

01:08:24.760 --> 01:08:25.760
 So...

01:08:25.760 --> 01:08:29.600
 Then why don't we have this discussion if it applies?

01:08:29.600 --> 01:08:31.600
 That's a great question.

01:08:31.600 --> 01:08:40.800
 If concrete is what is recommended, then why are we having this issue?

01:08:40.800 --> 01:08:46.600
 One of the advantages of this condition is that we will find out before anything is constructed

01:08:46.600 --> 01:08:51.880
 whether or not the county will accept suburban style streets.

01:08:51.880 --> 01:08:56.400
 Is there a way we can just cut the chase and just go straight to the county first and sit

01:08:56.400 --> 01:09:01.160
 there and say, "Hey, we want to do concrete streets and bring it back."

01:09:01.160 --> 01:09:03.400
 Does it make sense?

01:09:03.400 --> 01:09:09.080
 Instead of approving it with conditions, without conditions, denying it and all that stuff,

01:09:09.080 --> 01:09:12.280
 is there a way we can sit there and say, "Hey, let's just move this back a couple of weeks,"

01:09:12.280 --> 01:09:15.600
 and sit there and the developer goes to the county and says, "Hey, we want to develop

01:09:15.600 --> 01:09:16.600
 this.

01:09:16.600 --> 01:09:17.600
 We want to do concrete streets.

01:09:17.600 --> 01:09:18.600
 Will you accept this?"

01:09:18.600 --> 01:09:21.400
 And if not, then they know which way we need to proceed.

01:09:21.400 --> 01:09:22.720
 This is shot clock.

01:09:22.720 --> 01:09:23.720
 We can't move it back.

01:09:23.720 --> 01:09:24.720
 Okay.

01:09:24.720 --> 01:09:25.720
 All right.

01:09:25.720 --> 01:09:26.720
 All right.

01:09:26.720 --> 01:09:27.720
 That makes sense.

01:09:27.720 --> 01:09:28.720
 Okay.

01:09:28.720 --> 01:09:29.720
 Thank you.

01:09:29.720 --> 01:09:30.720
 Can I get clarification on this?

01:09:30.720 --> 01:09:32.720
 The city will not allow them to build Blacktown?

01:09:32.720 --> 01:09:35.560
 Can someone answer that?

01:09:35.560 --> 01:09:43.760
 Are they, if the county approves a county approvable road, if it meets county standards,

01:09:43.760 --> 01:09:50.640
 will the city approve the county standard roads for this development?

01:09:50.640 --> 01:09:55.120
 For materialized and the transportation criteria manual, in the City of Dent, you have two

01:09:55.120 --> 01:09:56.120
 options.

01:09:56.120 --> 01:09:57.120
 You have reinforced concrete or you have asphalt.

01:09:57.120 --> 01:09:59.920
 But this is in the City of Dent, correct?

01:09:59.920 --> 01:10:00.920
 Correct.

01:10:00.920 --> 01:10:01.920
 Those are our two.

01:10:01.920 --> 01:10:02.920
 So if they elected to do asphalt, they could.

01:10:02.920 --> 01:10:06.720
 I think the issue is the county's drainage that requires the bar ditch.

01:10:06.720 --> 01:10:11.360
 In addition, where the City of Dent will allow you to have water and sewer within the right

01:10:11.360 --> 01:10:15.360
 of way, the county does not.

01:10:15.360 --> 01:10:21.000
 But drainage and pavings fall into county authorities.

01:10:21.000 --> 01:10:29.680
 So if the bar ditch, the top, if all paving and drainage meets county, that's okay from

01:10:29.680 --> 01:10:30.680
 the city's perspective.

01:10:30.680 --> 01:10:32.600
 The city's only looking at water and sewer.

01:10:32.600 --> 01:10:33.600
 Correct.

01:10:33.600 --> 01:10:37.000
 We're deferring to the county because they're going to essentially own those roads.

01:10:37.000 --> 01:10:38.000
 Okay.

01:10:38.000 --> 01:10:39.000
 So yes.

01:10:39.000 --> 01:10:43.120
 So Blacktop can move forward in the city.

01:10:43.120 --> 01:10:44.120
 Okay.

01:10:44.120 --> 01:10:45.120
 Commissioner Smith.

01:10:45.120 --> 01:10:46.120
 Thank you, Chair.

01:10:46.120 --> 01:10:47.120
 Cindy, you mentioned shot clock.

01:10:47.120 --> 01:10:51.120
 So if we don't, if we, there was a vote to table or something else like that, this would,

01:10:51.120 --> 01:10:53.080
 this would, we would hit, we would hit the end of it.

01:10:53.080 --> 01:10:57.160
 So we could, can we approve of the, if the applicant requested a 30-day extension.

01:10:57.160 --> 01:10:58.160
 Yeah, exactly.

01:10:58.160 --> 01:11:02.960
 In order to postpone this, the applicant would have to request the 30-day extension to the

01:11:02.960 --> 01:11:06.840
 March, March 4th meeting.

01:11:06.840 --> 01:11:07.840
 They've already done that.

01:11:07.840 --> 01:11:08.840
 They've already done that.

01:11:08.840 --> 01:11:09.840
 So they've done their one request.

01:11:09.840 --> 01:11:10.840
 They can't do it.

01:11:10.840 --> 01:11:11.840
 Your choice is either to approve or deny.

01:11:11.840 --> 01:11:12.840
 Gotcha.

01:11:12.840 --> 01:11:15.360
 So we have no opposed.

01:11:15.360 --> 01:11:17.400
 And you have to deny with reason.

01:11:17.400 --> 01:11:18.400
 Got it.

01:11:18.400 --> 01:11:19.400
 Understood.

01:11:19.400 --> 01:11:20.400
 Thank you, ma'am.

01:11:20.400 --> 01:11:29.280
 And just to confirm, if there's no action, it's an approval without a condition.

01:11:29.280 --> 01:11:32.480
 I would, I would really caution against a denial.

01:11:32.480 --> 01:11:39.280
 We would much prefer an approval this evening, even with the condition and hope that everything

01:11:39.280 --> 01:11:41.840
 works out with the county.

01:11:41.840 --> 01:11:49.040
 In any event, you know, I don't think we have any clear ordinance justification for a denial.

01:11:49.040 --> 01:11:54.200
 But again, if the commission approves with the condition, it's just incumbent upon me

01:11:54.200 --> 01:11:56.840
 to register our opposition on the record.

01:11:56.840 --> 01:12:00.040
 But in any event, an approval is what we are seeking this evening.

01:12:00.040 --> 01:12:01.520
 Commissioner Smith.

01:12:01.520 --> 01:12:03.420
 Thank you, Chair.

01:12:03.420 --> 01:12:10.920
 Richard and legal, the, so a no action is an approval because that's per the, per the

01:12:10.920 --> 01:12:11.920
 rule that we created.

01:12:11.920 --> 01:12:12.920
 Correct?

01:12:12.920 --> 01:12:13.920
 No action is an approval.

01:12:13.920 --> 01:12:14.920
 Whenever it's a shot clock.

01:12:14.920 --> 01:12:15.920
 Does it go to city council?

01:12:15.920 --> 01:12:16.920
 A super majority?

01:12:16.920 --> 01:12:20.080
 It just goes with that was as approval with no, no limitations on whatsoever.

01:12:20.080 --> 01:12:21.080
 It goes as an approval.

01:12:21.080 --> 01:12:22.080
 Does it go?

01:12:22.080 --> 01:12:23.080
 Approved.

01:12:23.080 --> 01:12:24.080
 Okay.

01:12:24.080 --> 01:12:25.080
 All right.

01:12:25.080 --> 01:12:26.080
 Okay.

01:12:26.080 --> 01:12:37.080
 Cynthia, in your professional opinion, do you agree with the assessment of the interlocal

01:12:37.080 --> 01:12:39.440
 agreements as put forth this evening?

01:12:39.440 --> 01:12:43.880
 No, actually the city attorney's office does not.

01:12:43.880 --> 01:12:49.880
 The interlocal agreement clearly obligates the county to maintain the streets within

01:12:49.880 --> 01:12:51.760
 the ETJ.

01:12:51.760 --> 01:12:53.760
 They're not within the city limits.

01:12:53.760 --> 01:12:58.920
 The reason that we're reviewing the construction plans for the, the water and sewer is because

01:12:58.920 --> 01:13:02.600
 they are connecting to our water and sewer system.

01:13:02.600 --> 01:13:05.120
 That's how the interlocal agreement was drafted.

01:13:05.120 --> 01:13:10.480
 And as Ms. Jackson said, this is a, a first for us.

01:13:10.480 --> 01:13:17.640
 We have basically a suburban style plat right on the outer edge of our, our city limits

01:13:17.640 --> 01:13:21.400
 and we can't, we can't force annexation.

01:13:21.400 --> 01:13:29.640
 So this application does bring up several issues with, with this type of development.

01:13:29.640 --> 01:13:31.640
 I appreciate the insight.

01:13:31.640 --> 01:13:39.680
 I'm going to go ahead and move that we approve item PP 19-35C with conditions.

01:13:39.680 --> 01:13:41.480
 Commissioner Smith?

01:13:41.480 --> 01:13:42.480
 Second.

01:13:42.480 --> 01:13:51.520
 We have a first and a second for approval with the conditions or the condition.

01:13:51.520 --> 01:13:55.440
 Any discussion?

01:13:55.440 --> 01:14:00.760
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:14:00.760 --> 01:14:10.240
 Motion carries four three.

01:14:10.240 --> 01:14:25.160
 Next sign of business is item four C, FR 20-0002 I'll invite Cindy Jackson for presentation.

01:14:25.160 --> 01:14:30.440
 Thank you.

01:14:30.440 --> 01:14:37.200
 This is a request for approval of the final replat of lots one and seven R1 block A of

01:14:37.200 --> 01:14:40.320
 the Sonic and Murphy oil addition.

01:14:40.320 --> 01:14:45.240
 The plat does comply with all requirements and staff is recommending approval however

01:14:45.240 --> 01:14:50.640
 the applicant has requested a 30 day extension to the first meeting in March in order to

01:14:50.640 --> 01:14:56.160
 give them an opportunity to work on their site plan and ensure that all the easements

01:14:56.160 --> 01:15:00.720
 on the plat match where they need to be per the site plan.

01:15:00.720 --> 01:15:01.720
 Great.

01:15:01.720 --> 01:15:02.720
 Thank you.

01:15:02.720 --> 01:15:09.640
 This is an individual consideration item, anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

01:15:09.640 --> 01:15:13.000
 Seeing none, Commissioner Burnett has the floor.

01:15:13.000 --> 01:15:14.240
 Motion to approve the extension.

01:15:14.240 --> 01:15:16.560
 We have a motion to approve Commissioner Smith.

01:15:16.560 --> 01:15:17.560
 Second.

01:15:17.560 --> 01:15:22.960
 We have a first and approval first and a second for approval, any discussion?

01:15:22.960 --> 01:15:34.780
 Seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:15:34.780 --> 01:15:39.520
 Can I get just one second, was the motion for the 30 day extension or just to approve?

01:15:39.520 --> 01:15:42.040
 For the extension for the 30 day extension.

01:15:42.040 --> 01:15:43.320
 Okay, and do we have a second for that?

01:15:43.320 --> 01:15:44.320
 Okay.

01:15:44.320 --> 01:15:46.760
 So we're voting on the approval with the 30 days.

01:15:46.760 --> 01:15:47.760
 Okay.

01:15:47.760 --> 01:15:48.760
 Yes.

01:15:48.760 --> 01:15:49.760
 Just want a clarification.

01:15:49.760 --> 01:15:51.480
 Thank you.

01:15:51.480 --> 01:15:55.400
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:15:55.400 --> 01:16:02.080
 Item 4D has been pulled from our agenda, so that moves us to item 4E, ADP 19-0010, and

01:16:02.080 --> 01:16:09.000
 I'll invite Corina Maldonado for presentation.

01:16:09.000 --> 01:16:27.200
 Today is a consideration for alternative development plan ADP 19-10 for the SP Denton 1 edition.

01:16:27.200 --> 01:16:33.240
 The request is for alternative development plan for a proposed industrial warehouse and

01:16:33.240 --> 01:16:39.960
 distribution center, wishing to deviate from the 2002 code of sub-chapter 13 for front

01:16:39.960 --> 01:16:44.240
 parking of the building, setback, and parking lot screening.

01:16:44.240 --> 01:16:49.800
 The site is located west of Western Boulevard, just north of Airport Road.

01:16:49.800 --> 01:16:55.120
 You previously saw this property in December and in January through the approval of the

01:16:55.120 --> 01:16:58.080
 preliminary plat and the final plat.

01:16:58.080 --> 01:17:06.660
 Both were under the 2002 DDC, so the ADP request is also coming in under the 2002 DDC.

01:17:06.660 --> 01:17:12.480
 The first request to deviate from the code is in relation to the requirement that if

01:17:12.480 --> 01:17:20.040
 front parking is provided, there is an 85-foot setback from either the public utility easement

01:17:20.040 --> 01:17:28.080
 or the right-of-way due to the easements on the site, they will be unable to meet this

01:17:28.080 --> 01:17:33.840
 requirement, so they are requesting to deviate from providing the 15-foot landscape area

01:17:33.840 --> 01:17:38.160
 as prescribed in the column right here.

01:17:38.160 --> 01:17:44.440
 What they are willing to do is continue to provide the street trees as required along

01:17:44.440 --> 01:17:48.800
 the right-of-way and provide shrubs between the parking and the right-of-way, so there

01:17:48.800 --> 01:17:53.360
 is still sufficient screening for this property.

01:17:53.360 --> 01:17:59.480
 I do want to note that the building is set back approximately 247 feet from the ultimate

01:17:59.480 --> 01:18:06.000
 right-of-way and the parking is also set back approximately 180 feet.

01:18:06.000 --> 01:18:11.280
 Just to note, industrial warehouses, industrial uses do have an exemption for site design

01:18:11.280 --> 01:18:17.360
 standards in the 2002 code if they are set back 250 feet, so this property is just short

01:18:17.360 --> 01:18:19.640
 by 3 feet.

01:18:19.640 --> 01:18:25.360
 The second deviation is also in relation to that 15-foot landscape area.

01:18:25.360 --> 01:18:33.200
 The code requires certain plantings in this area to include a berm, large trees every

01:18:33.200 --> 01:18:39.140
 40 linear feet, so because of the limitations of not being able to provide that area, they

01:18:39.140 --> 01:18:44.440
 are requesting to deviate by not providing the berm, however, the trees that are required

01:18:44.440 --> 01:18:49.640
 will be planted, however, they will be planted in an alternative area, which is 144 landscape

01:18:49.640 --> 01:18:54.280
 area to the south, which actually provides screening for the truck parking spaces that

01:18:54.280 --> 01:18:55.280
 they have.

01:18:55.280 --> 01:19:03.880
 Overall, they are proposing 33 percent landscaping, which is above the required 10 percent.

01:19:03.880 --> 01:19:11.200
 So this is the landscape plan that shows the deviation request for lot 3, building 3, circled

01:19:11.200 --> 01:19:13.640
 in red.

01:19:13.640 --> 01:19:18.400
 The green is the overall landscape area, and the orange highlighted here are the easements

01:19:18.400 --> 01:19:23.960
 on the site that restrict them from meeting the exact requirements of the code.

01:19:23.960 --> 01:19:29.120
 One consideration that they had was to move the building back, but what that does is it

01:19:29.120 --> 01:19:36.200
 puts them close to this floodplain easement and also reduces the ability to provide parking

01:19:36.200 --> 01:19:40.140
 and a second point of access for trucks, so it actually creates an additional problem.

01:19:40.140 --> 01:19:46.800
 So with this request, they are still going to provide sufficient landscaping or screening

01:19:46.800 --> 01:19:53.920
 from the right of way with the street trees and shrubbery, a consistent row between parking

01:19:53.920 --> 01:19:58.820
 and right of way, and then the relocation to the south.

01:19:58.820 --> 01:20:03.960
 So again, I want to highlight that had they provided an additional three feet from the

01:20:03.960 --> 01:20:08.800
 right of way, they wouldn't actually have to come to this commission for approval.

01:20:08.800 --> 01:20:13.480
 They would actually just not have to do the industrial site design.

01:20:13.480 --> 01:20:20.040
 And lastly, of course, highlighting the overall landscaping, 33 percent is being provided

01:20:20.040 --> 01:20:30.220
 for landscape and also 19 percent tree canopy as in replacement of the 15 percent.

01:20:30.220 --> 01:20:35.240
 So approval criteria, approval for an ADP is shown.

01:20:35.240 --> 01:20:40.300
 I won't go through in too much detail, but they are located central to an industrial

01:20:40.300 --> 01:20:41.300
 area.

01:20:41.300 --> 01:20:49.800
 So the 2002 DDC designates this area as industrial commerce, which translates to the heavy industrial

01:20:49.800 --> 01:20:52.000
 zoning district for 2019.

01:20:52.000 --> 01:20:59.440
 They do meet all the zoning requirements, parking, site design, with the exception of

01:20:59.440 --> 01:21:05.760
 the deviation from both the 2002 code and the 2019 code.

01:21:05.760 --> 01:21:10.680
 They are not contributing to strip development, as this is largely for industrial use.

01:21:10.680 --> 01:21:13.880
 And then there is existing infrastructure to support this use.

01:21:13.880 --> 01:21:21.080
 They will be extending utilities to the lot towards the west.

01:21:21.080 --> 01:21:27.240
 And then just overall, it does provide a higher quality product than the 2002 DDC requires,

01:21:27.240 --> 01:21:38.000
 simply because had they set back those additional feet, they would not have to comply with what

01:21:38.000 --> 01:21:39.000
 the DDC requires.

01:21:39.000 --> 01:21:45.920
 So they are providing additional landscaping, additional tree canopy, and then are also

01:21:45.920 --> 01:21:54.560
 setting back the building and parking further than what other developments would provide.

01:21:54.560 --> 01:21:58.640
 So with that, staff recommends approval of this request as it meets the established requirements.

01:21:58.640 --> 01:22:01.280
 And with that, I will take any questions.

01:22:01.280 --> 01:22:02.280
 I appreciate the presentation.

01:22:02.280 --> 01:22:03.640
 We do have one right now.

01:22:03.640 --> 01:22:04.640
 Commissioner Beck?

01:22:04.640 --> 01:22:05.640
 Thank you, Chair.

01:22:05.640 --> 01:22:11.160
 So if they had shrunk their building by three feet, then we wouldn't have to have this approval?

01:22:11.160 --> 01:22:16.360
 There has been that consideration, I believe, because of what they are proposing.

01:22:16.360 --> 01:22:20.140
 It's up to really the developer to make that consideration.

01:22:20.140 --> 01:22:26.840
 That cannot tell them you have to shrink your building by three feet.

01:22:26.840 --> 01:22:31.160
 The consideration that staff requested was that they move the building three feet, however,

01:22:31.160 --> 01:22:37.240
 that would really be restricted by the easements, and they would actually remove parking that

01:22:37.240 --> 01:22:41.120
 is required, a second point of access, so it would create additional problems than what

01:22:41.120 --> 01:22:42.120
 they are proposing.

01:22:42.120 --> 01:22:43.120
 Thank you.

01:22:43.120 --> 01:22:55.400
 I don't see any other questions.

01:22:55.400 --> 01:22:56.400
 Commissioner Smith?

01:22:56.400 --> 01:22:57.400
 Motion to approve.

01:22:57.400 --> 01:22:58.400
 We have a first for approval.

01:22:58.400 --> 01:22:59.400
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:22:59.400 --> 01:23:00.400
 I second the motion.

01:23:00.400 --> 01:23:02.440
 We have a first and a second for approval.

01:23:02.440 --> 01:23:03.440
 Any discussion?

01:23:03.440 --> 01:23:12.200
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.

01:23:12.200 --> 01:23:15.760
 Motion carries, 7-0.

01:23:15.760 --> 01:23:17.800
 Next item of business is our public hearing item.

01:23:17.800 --> 01:23:25.420
 We have one this evening, it's 5A, AESA 20-0001A.

01:23:25.420 --> 01:23:32.480
 I'll invite Cindy Jackson to begin the presentation, and I'll open the public hearing.

01:23:32.480 --> 01:23:33.480
 Thank you, Chairman, Commissioners.

01:23:33.480 --> 01:23:39.240
 For the record, Cindy Jackson with the Development Services Department, I have before you tonight

01:23:39.240 --> 01:23:46.680
 a request to amend and approve Alternate ESA, its environmentally sensitive area plan.

01:23:46.680 --> 01:23:51.180
 The plan was approved in October 2019.

01:23:51.180 --> 01:23:55.480
 The purpose of the plan was to provide fire access.

01:23:55.480 --> 01:23:57.280
 This is actually two lots.

01:23:57.280 --> 01:24:01.600
 Lot one is developed with a distribution center.

01:24:01.600 --> 01:24:06.520
 Per the fire code, the distribution center has to have two points of access, and that's

01:24:06.520 --> 01:24:09.240
 the purpose of this dog leg you see right here.

01:24:09.240 --> 01:24:16.560
 However, this is all ESA right in here, and the purpose of the alternate plan was to permit

01:24:16.560 --> 01:24:22.160
 encroaching onto the ESA to provide that second point of access.

01:24:22.160 --> 01:24:30.120
 The site is 49.9 acres, it's located on the north side of West University, Highway 380,

01:24:30.120 --> 01:24:32.200
 and west of North Marsh Branch.

01:24:32.200 --> 01:24:37.240
 The site is on light industrial.

01:24:37.240 --> 01:24:39.480
 Public notification was sent out.

01:24:39.480 --> 01:24:45.260
 We sent out notices within 200 and 500 feet of the site, and we received no responses

01:24:45.260 --> 01:24:46.260
 back.

01:24:46.260 --> 01:24:49.140
 A neighborhood meeting was not held for this.

01:24:49.140 --> 01:24:52.040
 And now I'll turn this over to Deborah Vieira.

01:24:52.040 --> 01:24:58.160
 Good evening, Planning and Planning Commission.

01:24:58.160 --> 01:25:01.240
 My name is Deborah Vieira with Environmental Services.

01:25:01.240 --> 01:25:05.020
 I'm going to walk you through the history of this site.

01:25:05.020 --> 01:25:13.240
 The purpose of the amendment is to correct a error that we noticed during the final plot

01:25:13.240 --> 01:25:14.920
 of Lot 2.

01:25:14.920 --> 01:25:21.240
 The error contained property that is not currently owned by the applicant, Fisher 59.

01:25:21.240 --> 01:25:28.480
 Therefore, the enforcement, if we have to go through that route, will be difficult to

01:25:28.480 --> 01:25:33.120
 enforce on a property that is now owned by the applicant.

01:25:33.120 --> 01:25:39.120
 The second problem with it is the owner of those adjacent parts were not part of the

01:25:39.120 --> 01:25:47.040
 original alternative ESA application, so it poses greater risk and challenges.

01:25:47.040 --> 01:25:56.960
 Therefore, during the Lot 2, we brought up this problem up to the attention of the applicant,

01:25:56.960 --> 01:25:59.600
 and they have agreed to submit an amendment.

01:25:59.600 --> 01:26:03.960
 The amendment will not change the type of mitigation proposed.

01:26:03.960 --> 01:26:07.040
 It will not change the type of disturbance.

01:26:07.040 --> 01:26:11.480
 The only thing that is changing is the location of where that mitigation is going to take

01:26:11.480 --> 01:26:12.560
 place.

01:26:12.560 --> 01:26:28.880
 And the mitigation now will be all within the property that the applicant owns.

01:26:28.880 --> 01:26:34.600
 Just to give you a little bit of history, in 2018, we did a field assessment to verify

01:26:34.600 --> 01:26:37.680
 the condition of the floodplain.

01:26:37.680 --> 01:26:43.960
 In that assessment, we found out that the floodplain maintains its undeveloped status.

01:26:43.960 --> 01:26:50.960
 Therefore, that designation was maintained until now.

01:26:50.960 --> 01:26:59.440
 The alternative ESA approved in 2019, it was for 5.51 acres of undeveloped floodplain.

01:26:59.440 --> 01:27:06.120
 They needed to go through that disturbance process to make sure that there's no upstream

01:27:06.120 --> 01:27:12.400
 and downstream impacts when they put the culverts that will allow for that road to go through

01:27:12.400 --> 01:27:15.400
 the creek.

01:27:15.400 --> 01:27:21.400
 In exchange, they were proposing 6 acres of floodplain that will be seeded with native

01:27:21.400 --> 01:27:28.280
 seed mix and two bioretentions totaling 0.28 acres together.

01:27:28.280 --> 01:27:34.520
 And the bioretention will provide the water quality, provide treatment of the water quality.

01:27:34.520 --> 01:27:41.320
 The bioretentions are located here in blue.

01:27:41.320 --> 01:27:49.440
 The areas that were originally proposed to be outside the property that Fisher 59 owns

01:27:49.440 --> 01:27:54.880
 are these two parcels along both sides of the proposed dry file.

01:27:54.880 --> 01:28:02.800
 All the orange area that is shown on the plan was proposed to be stabilized for sloping,

01:28:02.800 --> 01:28:09.600
 but not seeded with native plantless.

01:28:09.600 --> 01:28:16.920
 With the new proposed amendment, the purple area that is shown right here, all that planting

01:28:16.920 --> 01:28:23.320
 will be actually distributed along the darker green lines that you can see that.

01:28:23.320 --> 01:28:26.040
 So they're maintaining the same amount of mitigation.

01:28:26.040 --> 01:28:30.480
 It is just located in a different place.

01:28:30.480 --> 01:28:42.280
 The two bioretentions are still here and still being proposed as originally.

01:28:42.280 --> 01:28:50.560
 Comparing the conditions that was included in the original alternative ESA plan, two

01:28:50.560 --> 01:28:56.320
 of the conditions at the time address on-site detention, because at that time the text dot

01:28:56.320 --> 01:29:01.560
 was still reviewing the construction plans, and they have not finalized their review.

01:29:01.560 --> 01:29:07.400
 Since then, TEKSTA have accepted the plan, so those two conditions, conditions four and

01:29:07.400 --> 01:29:10.440
 five, are not longer applicable.

01:29:10.440 --> 01:29:14.480
 We have indicated in red the changes that we have made.

01:29:14.480 --> 01:29:21.240
 We have made references to the February 13, 2020 document just to be part of the approval

01:29:21.240 --> 01:29:22.240
 conditions.

01:29:22.240 --> 01:29:34.800
 Condition number one talks about the 5.51 acre disturbance and condition number two

01:29:34.800 --> 01:29:40.240
 talks about utilizing native plants for the seed in the area.

01:29:40.240 --> 01:29:43.940
 Condition number three talks about the bioretention.

01:29:43.940 --> 01:29:49.840
 We have added the updated amendment to reflect that.

01:29:49.840 --> 01:29:56.000
 We have deleted conditions four and five, as I mentioned, explained to you.

01:29:56.000 --> 01:30:01.800
 We maintain condition number six, which is the installation and inspection of those mitigation

01:30:01.800 --> 01:30:04.220
 areas.

01:30:04.220 --> 01:30:09.640
 Condition number seven relates to the dedicated easement that the applicant would have to

01:30:09.640 --> 01:30:13.440
 provide for staff.

01:30:13.440 --> 01:30:15.000
 Staff is available to answer any questions.

01:30:15.000 --> 01:30:16.960
 We do have one, Christopher Beck.

01:30:16.960 --> 01:30:18.960
 Thank you, Chair.

01:30:18.960 --> 01:30:21.760
 This is just an education thing more than anything else.

01:30:21.760 --> 01:30:29.200
 For prairie grasslands and flood plains and things, what does it mean to maintain 90 percent

01:30:29.200 --> 01:30:38.320
 and then what are they replacing prairie plant life with if it dies, more juvenile seedlings?

01:30:38.320 --> 01:30:41.440
 I mean, I'm trying to relate this to how we do trees.

01:30:41.440 --> 01:30:42.440
 Okay.

01:30:42.440 --> 01:30:49.120
 So at the time of the three-year inspection period, we will go to the site and we will

01:30:49.120 --> 01:30:51.600
 see the condition of those vegetation.

01:30:51.600 --> 01:30:59.160
 If they're established, we will deem that as submitting the condition and we pretty much

01:30:59.160 --> 01:31:00.440
 sign off on it.

01:31:00.440 --> 01:31:05.400
 If when we get there, we see that plants are dying, that there are bare spots and things

01:31:05.400 --> 01:31:13.640
 like that and that does not reach the 90 percent that was originally seeded, then we will go

01:31:13.640 --> 01:31:18.320
 back to them and say those areas will have to be replaced.

01:31:18.320 --> 01:31:23.000
 Probably they will put more seeding if that is the condition.

01:31:23.000 --> 01:31:30.100
 With grasses, sometimes you want to just seeding is better than actually putting big plants

01:31:30.100 --> 01:31:34.920
 on it, but it would be completely up to the applicant where they want.

01:31:34.920 --> 01:31:39.080
 But until that 90 percent is met, we will not sign off.

01:31:39.080 --> 01:31:40.080
 Okay.

01:31:40.080 --> 01:31:41.080
 Thank you very much.

01:31:41.080 --> 01:31:44.080
 I do not see any other questions.

01:31:44.080 --> 01:31:45.840
 Oh, maybe we do.

01:31:45.840 --> 01:31:46.840
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:31:46.840 --> 01:31:47.840
 Thank you, Chair.

01:31:47.840 --> 01:31:50.520
 Deborah, can you go back to the conditions?

01:31:50.520 --> 01:31:57.720
 Because it would be my suggestion to revise that to reflect the correct date for clarity

01:31:57.720 --> 01:32:07.440
 purposes that is on the revised plan, which is February 12th and not February 13th.

01:32:07.440 --> 01:32:11.600
 For me, I do not want to recommend an approval with a condition that to me does not make

01:32:11.600 --> 01:32:12.600
 sense.

01:32:12.600 --> 01:32:18.940
 We are referencing a report that is the 13th and the report that we have here is the 12th.

01:32:18.940 --> 01:32:24.720
 The draft ordinance also says the 13th, so I would suggest that that be revised as well

01:32:24.720 --> 01:32:28.440
 or have the report revised.

01:32:28.440 --> 01:32:29.440
 To me, that is a…

01:32:29.440 --> 01:32:34.120
 We will make sure that we make sure that everything is consistent.

01:32:34.120 --> 01:32:38.680
 I do not see any other questions.

01:32:38.680 --> 01:32:41.200
 I appreciate the presentation by you and Cindy.

01:32:41.200 --> 01:32:42.200
 This is a public hearing.

01:32:42.200 --> 01:32:44.000
 Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.

01:32:44.000 --> 01:32:48.120
 Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.

01:32:48.120 --> 01:32:49.120
 Commissioner Beck.

01:32:49.120 --> 01:32:55.600
 I motion to approve with the recommendations and with the corrections to the date.

01:32:55.600 --> 01:33:00.600
 We have a first for approval with those conditions and an updated date consistency.

01:33:00.600 --> 01:33:01.600
 Commissioner Burnetta.

01:33:01.600 --> 01:33:02.600
 Second.

01:33:02.600 --> 01:33:03.600
 We have a second.

01:33:03.600 --> 01:33:07.440
 Now that we have a first and a second, any discussion?

01:33:07.440 --> 01:33:15.960
 Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board.

01:33:15.960 --> 01:33:23.120
 Motion carries 6-0 with one recuse and I will invite Commissioner Cole back to the dais.

01:33:23.120 --> 01:33:26.160
 Next item of business is the planning and zoning project matrix.

01:33:26.160 --> 01:33:32.800
 I will turn the floor over to Richard for any updates and then for questions.

01:33:32.800 --> 01:33:34.840
 No updates on the three items yet.

01:33:34.840 --> 01:33:37.240
 We are still working through that.

01:33:37.240 --> 01:33:42.280
 Did want to give just an update on some of the actions that occurred last night at the

01:33:42.280 --> 01:33:44.720
 City Council meeting.

01:33:44.720 --> 01:33:51.440
 The annexation service plan public hearing and first reading for the sage brook, if you

01:33:51.440 --> 01:33:57.360
 recall, we had a work session on that item that was done, that was conducted yesterday.

01:33:57.360 --> 01:34:01.960
 So there's a time frame, I don't recall exactly when it will go back, but the next step will

01:34:01.960 --> 01:34:06.600
 be second reading of that ordinance, I think it's 30 days.

01:34:06.600 --> 01:34:14.360
 Once that occurs, then the zoning will be brought in front of the commission.

01:34:14.360 --> 01:34:21.140
 The Denton Grove apartments, that item was postponed again for 120 days.

01:34:21.140 --> 01:34:25.520
 They are to work on an alternative and bring that back to council.

01:34:25.520 --> 01:34:32.360
 There's a possibility, depending on if any changes are made, depending on what that is,

01:34:32.360 --> 01:34:37.440
 that it could be remanded back to P&Z for consideration, but again, we won't know that

01:34:37.440 --> 01:34:41.360
 until we get a little further down that road.

01:34:41.360 --> 01:34:46.960
 The rezoning was also approved for the single family development on Country Club.

01:34:46.960 --> 01:34:53.200
 That was the 56 lot development that was adjacent to the phase one.

01:34:53.200 --> 01:35:03.200
 The only other one I wanted to mention, while it was somewhat related to the item tonight,

01:35:03.200 --> 01:35:10.180
 the platting item, there was a petition to create a mud or a municipal utility district

01:35:10.180 --> 01:35:16.880
 in our division two, and I can provide the background for that because it goes straight

01:35:16.880 --> 01:35:25.480
 to council, but what that does, what occurs is for areas within the ETJ, the Texas Water

01:35:25.480 --> 01:35:32.720
 Code allows for the creation of a municipal utility district to fund or finance the wastewater

01:35:32.720 --> 01:35:40.440
 improvements, roads, drainage, typical municipal services, and there's really two ways to do

01:35:40.440 --> 01:35:41.440
 that.

01:35:41.440 --> 01:35:42.440
 One, through the act of the legislature.

01:35:42.440 --> 01:35:48.920
 The second is through the Texas Water Code that's governed by TCQ, and the municipality

01:35:48.920 --> 01:35:52.240
 whose ETJ it is has to give consent for that to happen.

01:35:52.240 --> 01:35:57.920
 If consent is not granted, then it kicks into this 120 day process where there's an agreement

01:35:57.920 --> 01:35:59.080
 that's supposed to be made.

01:35:59.080 --> 01:36:06.040
 If that agreement is not made, then they then can move forward with going to TCQ to create

01:36:06.040 --> 01:36:07.760
 that mud.

01:36:07.760 --> 01:36:14.880
 This was for one, within our ETJ two, it was outside of our water and wastewater service

01:36:14.880 --> 01:36:22.520
 area, so we had really no authority to even serve it, so there was consent that was granted.

01:36:22.520 --> 01:36:30.040
 Over to the one tonight, a little bit different, that is in our ETJ one, it is within our service

01:36:30.040 --> 01:36:31.040
 area.

01:36:31.040 --> 01:36:37.980
 That could have been an option for them, but most likely not because I don't know that

01:36:37.980 --> 01:36:44.680
 even as staff we would have recommended consent for that because we would already serve them

01:36:44.680 --> 01:36:48.560
 for water, but just wanted to give you an update on that.

01:36:48.560 --> 01:36:54.040
 We suspect that, particularly in the ETJ two, we'll be seeing a lot more of these probably

01:36:54.040 --> 01:36:55.040
 coming in.

01:36:55.040 --> 01:37:01.840
 I think we have one that just came in, another one last week that we're just analyzing, but

01:37:01.840 --> 01:37:06.680
 I think this is a result, I shouldn't say, I think this is definitely a result of this

01:37:06.680 --> 01:37:14.040
 last legislative session and how our legs are really cut out with respect to annexation.

01:37:14.040 --> 01:37:19.400
 The plot list that we heard this evening was a very difficult one for staff to even move

01:37:19.400 --> 01:37:20.400
 forward.

01:37:20.400 --> 01:37:21.400
 It's adjacent to the city.

01:37:21.400 --> 01:37:24.320
 It's connected to a development that's in the city.

01:37:24.320 --> 01:37:25.320
 They're going to use the city's roads.

01:37:25.320 --> 01:37:29.440
 They're going to use pretty much everything, but we will provide them water and sewer.

01:37:29.440 --> 01:37:34.920
 There will be fees associated with that, but for everything else, there is not.

01:37:34.920 --> 01:37:40.880
 There is no roadway impact fees even though they will be using our roads, and the provisions

01:37:40.880 --> 01:37:46.600
 that we had in our previous DDC that would require them to annex if they were going to

01:37:46.600 --> 01:37:51.520
 connect to our utilities, we are no longer able to enforce that.

01:37:51.520 --> 01:37:58.200
 Hopefully, while I don't have a lot of hope, maybe there will be some changes this next

01:37:58.200 --> 01:38:03.120
 legislative session, but I think that's something that maybe we can look to talk to as a group

01:38:03.120 --> 01:38:07.560
 collectively in how we start to handle this, because I think this is just the tip of the

01:38:07.560 --> 01:38:12.200
 iceberg of what we're going to see in the near future.

01:38:12.200 --> 01:38:13.200
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

01:38:13.200 --> 01:38:14.200
 Thanks for the update.

01:38:14.200 --> 01:38:15.200
 Commissioner Beck?

01:38:15.200 --> 01:38:20.560
 Yeah, so this is a follow-up on the notification question I asked.

01:38:20.560 --> 01:38:23.960
 Has there been any exploration or movement on that?

01:38:23.960 --> 01:38:24.960
 Yes.

01:38:24.960 --> 01:38:26.680
 I know Charlie is working on that.

01:38:26.680 --> 01:38:30.720
 I have not followed up with him this week to see where he is, but I know he has been

01:38:30.720 --> 01:38:32.320
 working on putting something together.

01:38:32.320 --> 01:38:33.320
 Okay.

01:38:33.320 --> 01:38:34.960
 Thank you.

01:38:34.960 --> 01:38:36.880
 I do not see any other questions.

01:38:36.880 --> 01:38:41.960
 With that, our PNZ meeting for Wednesday, February 19th has concluded and I'll end it

01:38:41.960 --> 01:38:42.960
 at 738.

01:38:42.960 --> 01:38:43.960
 Thank you.

01:38:43.960 --> 01:38:43.960
 [BLANK_AUDIO]