Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning.
Special call commission meeting for Thursday, February 27th, 2020.
Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call this meeting to order at 631.
The first item of business is to stand, if able, and provide a pledge of allegiance to the US and Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands,
one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
On the honor of the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one indivisible.
And the next item of business, as outlined on page three of the posted agenda,
is in accordance with the Texas Government Code, section 551.071.
The commission will be having an attorney-client consultation to discuss a legal letter that our commission was provided last night and to answer questions about that.
So at 632, we will move to a closed session.
>> Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your patience while we did that meeting.
We did retire the closed session at 714, which moves us to our next item of business, the public hearings.
We have two on the agenda tonight, item 2A, NPC 19-0001 and
item 2B, NPC 19-002, these will be heard as a combined presentation.
So I will open the public hearing for both and ask Richard Canone for a presentation.
>> Good evening, before I get into the main presentation,
what I wanted to do is go over quickly some modifications that we, if I can open it.
Some modifications to about 11 sections or subsections of the draft DDC.
There were some additional concerns that legal had raised or
brought up as a result of the final language that I just wanted to go quickly over.
And how those have been addressed and that the applicants or developer are in agreement with.
The first section, 1.3.4, there was a concern about conflicts with respect to the different agreements.
There's a separate project agreement and operating agreement separate and apart from the DDC.
There was a concern with just the vagueness of that language.
So we'll be adding some specificity to that, to address exactly which concerns or
which inconsistencies there may be.
Most of those deal with funding of the utilities and the timing for that.
Again, that's addressed in the, won't really be getting into that because it's more of the operating agreement.
But just wanted to address that.
A guarantee when the private amenities would be built.
The applicants have committed to, if you look at the language in 1.5,
they give some examples that's non-binding.
What they have agreed to do is commit to, shall include.
In addition to that, they have also agreed that construction will be complete within two years of issuance of that building permit.
Again, still that thousandth detached single family is still included.
It's just these are additional items that will be included.
And then also the statement, there are some public improvements that those will meet or exceed any city requirements at the time.
There was a concern about a master drainage study in the timing of that submittal.
What they have agreed to do is submit that prior 30 days prior to submitting the initial preliminary plat.
So that will be reviewed prior to any plat being brought forward.
2.72, this had to do with the phasing.
There was more of just a concern that I think more had to do with just how it was worded.
And really what it will be revised to reflect is that changes in the order of the phases could be done.
There are already some limitations of minor amendments of 10%.
So basically what this does is if you have phase one through five, if they begin with phase one,
but for some reason phase four, which is more of a commercial phase.
There's the ability to develop that rather than having to wait or
go through an amendment process, it's essentially reshuffling the deck chairs.
So we're able to just adjust the schedule, not necessarily the schedule, but the order of the phases, if you will.
There was some language on the environmental, on the ESA.
If you recall, we just brought forward an amendment that's going to council next week, so that will take care of that.
There was also some language regarding oversized participation agreements and a pro rata agreement that were removed.
We'll be adding language back in that's consistent with the project agreement.
Again, this was something that we had requested, staff had requested to be removed because those were already addressed and
we were just afraid of some inconsistencies, but we will include those back into the DDC and address that accordingly.
There was also some, this only relates to Coal Ranch on 7.87.
There were some exceptions to the perimeter road improvements.
And the reason those exceptions were put in is Tom Coal Road, Sea Wolf, and H Lively.
The majority of the segments of those roads are within the unincorporated portion of Denton County.
There are some areas that jog in and out that are within the city.
And so what we've agreed to do is, again, just clarify that language that the improvements are not required.
However, if that entire roadway happens to be annexed prior to platting, then they will be responsible for those perimeter road improvements.
The traffic analysis that was done by HDR that was really the guiding document for
the roadway improvements did not recognize either of those roads as needing improvements to support this development.
7.8.8, again, some additional clarification language.
One, again, committing to the full dedication of the right of way at platting.
Again, this is just restating what we already have in the subdivision regulations.
But again, making sure that the ultimate roadway build out shall be triggered once the roadway falls below level of service C.
And so that was sort of built into the traffic analysis.
What this does is just brings that language and clarifies it within the DVC.
There was a, on 8.4.4, this had to do with extensions of mains and streets to subdivisions.
There's one word that will be added if you look at that section.
It talks about adding or having the ability to the city to change the traffic study.
And it's just clarified what it means by the city that it is city council.
There's also a small minor edit that was in subsection D, where it talks about as required by law.
That's actually in the current DVC that just carried forward and that was something that will be deleted as part of that.
The last change had to do with definitions and
this is just making sure that the definition for regional improvements,
because that definition is also within the agreements, just making sure those are synced.
So that will be something that will occur prior to being considered by city council.
And so those were essentially the concerns that legal had with respect to these MPCs.
That was addressed and that the developer has agreed or the applicants have agreed with all of those changes.
So if there's any additional questions on that, I'd be happy to answer those or move on to the main presentation.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So Richard, we could, with recommendation, add these?
>> I think when we get to that recommendation, it would be with those changes as discussed as presented.
>> Thank you.
>> I don't see any other questions.
>> The only other item, and I will get to it in the presentation.
And I know we have a lot of having looked at the cards and receiving the letters of opposition.
There was an additional change to the development plan map.
While we had initially copied it sooner than later, the version that we had handed out earlier tonight has changed again.
So that area, and I will go over that, so that area close to Carnegie Ridge Country Lakes,
that has changed from a mixed use neighborhood to R7, which is a single family residential.
In addition, they put in restrictions, buffer restrictions, and I'll go over that briefly.
But I just wanted to mention that up front as well as for those in the audience.
Getting into the presentation, just wanted to, so we're all clear on what a master plan community is.
I think this is probably the first time that most of us have seen that, at least on the commission that I'm aware of.
And so just, again, wanted to go over what the initial purpose was, again,
to accommodate large-scale unified comprehensively planned development as well as provide for some alternatives
because of the uniqueness of these large, these large sites,
much different than having to deal with very different areas of the city, both infield and greenfield.
The two MPCs that we're talking about tonight, the Coal Ranch MPC was adopted in February of 2008.
The Hunter Ranch was originally adopted in November of 2008.
Hunter had two additional amendments, both, the two were both done in June of 2010.
The first was rezoning 197 acres that was owned by the city that was removed.
So that was a reduction of acreage, and then obviously there was also a reduction of some of the development program resulting from that.
And then there were some changes with respect to exceptions to the gas well requirements that were also done at that same time.
And so just to quickly touch base on what those existing approvals are today and so what they could do without these amendments.
And so the Hunter Ranch, again, just over 3,000 acres.
Currently today, there's approximately 192 acres, say, rounded up of employment center that would not permit any residential.
But there is a total of just over 14,000 units that could be built.
In addition, the Coal Ranch MPC, you could see that breakdown as well, has about close to 16,000 units again.
So these are their existing approvals.
And so what I thought I would do to kind of walk us through these changes, I've broken this out into two parts.
And so the part one is really looking at those base DDCs.
And so what were the major changes from the - again, here's where it gets really confusing.
For a Coal Ranch, the February 5th, 2008 version of the 2002 DDC, and then for Hunter, the November 4th, 2008 version of the 2002 DDC.
So again, looking at what those changes were from the 2008 code, the exceptions that they had to those codes as compared to where we are in 2019.
Part two of what I'll be going over are then those modifications to the 2019 DDC.
So rather than having exceptions again in a separate document, those are just built right into this ordinance.
And so we don't have to find multiple ordinances, multiple documents.
Everything will be contained within one document.
And so just looking at part one, just a quick comparison again on the Denton Development Code, I've touched base on what those from twos are.
Looking at the overall sub-districts, and by sub-districts we're talking what would be considered zoning districts, if you will.
The zoning really is MPC. These are those zoning sub-districts.
Hunter had 13, we're going to five.
There were seven new districts that they had outlined in their 2008 DDC that were not part of.
The 2002 DDC, Coal Ranch is going from eight to six.
You see the change in residential units combined total, we are about almost 30,000 units total.
What they're going to now is about 20,000, so an overall reduction of about 10,000 residential units.
Parks and open space, there was no park plan, there was a mention of it.
What's included as part of these amendments is that park plan as well as the acreage associated with that.
The Gaswell sites, excuse me, there were 19 sites, nine existing.
They've actually reduced that down to 15, so they eliminated four sites.
And I'll get into that a little bit more in detail, as well as providing location maps for those four that were approved as part of the MPC,
but were documented in other documents that just made it difficult to manage.
Coal Ranch has 15 existing sites.
They're maintaining those 15 existing sites.
The only change to land area, the Hunter Ranch, there's just over 24 acres.
There's 2.24 acres of PDs that somehow was just missed.
I think that had to do with, as we've changed the GIS and other, gotten better with our descriptions.
There were two little triangular areas that were not included, as well as a 22 acre tract that was completely encompassed by the MPC that's owned by Hillwood that is just being brought into this MPC.
And I have slides for each of these so you understand.
And so the first is just showing kind of the difference of that development plan, of what they're changing to.
And it looks, at least from our perspective, a much cleaner transition of uses.
Some of those, again, some of those changes to sub-districts, proposed acreage, you see that change.
If you recall, I had presented this slide at the work session back in, I think that was December, January.
And so some of this you're going to recognize that you've seen already.
But what I wanted to point to is looking at the current and proposed mix.
And so you start to see a little bit more of a balance where it's less residential and starting to get more on the mixed use and industrial increase slightly.
The reason utilities and schools particularly aren't called out, the utility was actually a city parcel, the substation.
Schools in the 2002 DDC schools were not permitted in residential districts.
They are under the 2019, so that's why there is not a separate sub-category or sub-district for schools.
So this just gives you on Hunter Ranch kind of that transition.
So you see the 2.24 acres that I had referenced previously, where those areas are, essentially right around all red in that area to the west.
And then you see the 22 acre tract that is encompassed entirely around.
Why that was excluded initially, I just don't know, but that's just being brought into this development.
As I indicated, and I have a blow up here that I'll be presenting, this area did change from MN to R7.
While you can't see it here, I will provide that when I have the blow up.
They did include almost a 500 foot buffer then that tapers down where there is essentially no build other than a park or open space with some private amenities.
And so I know a lot of residents, at least some that I spoke to as well has received letters of opposition that were included today.
Their big concern was development being built right behind them.
There is some floodplain, but again, the floodplain could be reclaimed.
There weren't restrictions with respect to that under the old, but there was a small area in there that could actually be developed.
The applicant did ask for copies of those letters of opposition.
And I do know that they reached out to every single one, spoke to them, and as a result of the concerns that those residents had,
that's what prompted their change to address their concerns and alleviate any issues or potential issues that those residents had.
And so, again, going back to the part one, again, looking at that change, a pretty substantial change in single family, multi-family mixed use.
The old DDC had three sub-districts that were only multi-family with height limitations.
And if you recall, I sort of hinted to that back at that work session, where really what this did is created an almost forced sprawl within a separate development,
where it didn't allow for mixed use and you were only allowed essentially three-story buildings.
That now has been eliminated.
The acreage, obviously, for single family has been reduced, although there are single family that's permitted within the mixed use districts with some limitations in MR.
But the overall mix has changed, almost done a complete flip on mixed use to residential.
This is just a summary slide that I put together that shows what we consider as being those significant changes, again, from the base documents,
from those 2008 DDCs to upgrading, if you will, to the 2019 DDC, increased tree preservation, increased ESA preservation.
The 2008 versions did not have language with respect to alternate ESAs.
And so, while there were provisions built into Hunter that had percentages of preservation for those upland habitat areas that are being carried forward,
there was also language in there that allowed for a 25% reduction without having to go for an alt ESA.
And so, that now has all been eliminated.
And so, any change to an ESA would require that alternative ESA process that's a dual public hearing and noticing.
ESA cannot be counted for tree preservation.
There's a significant increase in street trees, increase in buffer.
And so, there was only a six foot high wood fence now where they would be required minimum width and landscape buffers.
All of that will cause an almost double amount if you are slightly less.
And overall, minimum tree canopy, this is new plantings, including the requirement of at least one tree per single family lot.
There's going to be some amendments to the 2019 that are increasing that even beyond that that I'll touch.
Probably the most significant is the increase in the reverse setbacks for gas wells.
They are going to comply with the new regulations.
Reduction for Hunter, at least, of the number of proposed wells.
Again, those limitations on single family detached adjacent to I-35.
If you look at those old or the existing development plans, most of the residential was right along I-35,
which is not probably the best use along an interstate.
In addition, there was a substantial increase in minimum lot size called the minimum lot size 4500 Hunter 5 or 5500 if it was not alley loaded.
And again, the minimum square footages that you see just correspond with those zoning sub districts.
Increase in townhouse minimum lot size and an increase in residential parking.
And so getting into the changes for the gas well.
Again, these will probably look very similar because these are the slides that we had discussed or at least presented previously at the work session.
And so what they're going to now is a reverse setback of 500 feet.
Currently, they're at 100 feet from the well head to a residential structure.
And so this is a significant change than where they're at today.
In addition, Hunter, again, you saw the reduction in well sites, same with the reverse setback of 500.
What's slightly different with Hunter, there were four sites that had a 750 foot or the reduction of 500 from the well head.
We carried that we carried that over again from the pad site.
So 750 from the well head or 550, I'm sorry, 500 from the pad site, which is ever greater.
So for those sites, again, it's increased slightly all of the others, those five will follow the 1000 foot or 500 with written approval.
And so this is just a the circles do not indicate the the gas well setbacks.
All they do is highlight those five new well areas or new pad sites, the location of those.
One that I wanted to wanted to point out that was a change, I think, from when we first discussed this.
If you look at Pad site five, which is right here, the city's proposed Southwest Park.
Previously, that pad site was was close to the park.
They have since moved that pad site.
So that would be out of that that reverse setback area as that park develops.
Getting into part now, if there's any any question, I'd be happy to entertain those.
Now we can we can just move forward.
Otherwise, I'll move right into kind of the part two of the of the amendments.
I don't see any questions.
So what I'll do is rather than go through every every subsection that that's changed or every subchapter that's changed,
just want to hit on some of those those those significant changes that are essentially those
what we'll call exceptions or alternate standards that that are changes to the twenty nineteen.
And so the most significant, again, are the sub districts that they're going with.
Well, they're not necessarily changing or adding any new.
These are the the new sub districts that that will be governed for both Hunter and Cole.
Again, these are the sub districts that are in the current twenty nineteen DDC.
If you remember, there was a discussion in three point two point three within the seven district.
There is a a provision now that the minimum lot size in seven is fifty feet.
What they've requested is for 40 percent of that area that they be allowed to reduce that lot with to 40 feet
with a provision that that that you also have the ability to do a zero lot line.
And we've included the graphic that that's below as part of that DDC.
And so what that does is still provides for that 10 foot separation, but it also provides for a four foot maintenance easement.
They would still need to comply with the 40 percent requirement of the garage door with.
And so what you would really see on these 40 foot wide lots, most likely either a garage set all the way in the back or most likely alley, alley loaded.
So you would not have a a street or streetscape that would be dominated by by garages or kind of a snout house that you'll a lot of times you'll see.
So that provision still the 40 percent garage door design standard remained.
There were some changes with respect to to height.
If you recall, we discussed we discussed this.
This is just a off to the right.
What's currently permitted under their existing MPCs.
And so the changes that are being proposed is to allow for a maximum height of 100 feet in M.N. and a maximum height of 200 feet in M.R.
Again, as I mentioned before, this was helped eliminate some of that forest garden style multifamily from the previous code.
But again, because the majority of that M.N. and M.R. is located along I-35, we did not see a or really have a concern with that increased height.
And while I'll also get into additional changes that we've had, if you recall, when we adopted the 2019 CDC, we modified the building height separation requirements with respect to residential.
We carried that forward, added to it and actually put in even more restrictions with respect to with respect to building height adjacent to either a single family development and or sub district.
And so it's looked at both ways.
And so, again, we have those those height limitations built built in that I'll go go in shortly as well as additional buffer buffer requirements.
Looking at subchapter four overlay districts, another item that was added in was a essentially a 600 foot buffer that no single family detached plotted lot line may encroach within that within that highway buffer zone.
And so while you could do some multifamily, there will be no single family detached subdivisions abutting abutting I-35.
And what I have in bold as we worked with develop one of the concerns we had knowing that I-35 will be expanded in the near future, the concern that we had is where do we take that 600 foot measurement from?
If we take it from existing right away, we were concerned that all of a sudden once that right of way is taken by text dot, it could essentially eliminate that buffer.
What the applicant has agreed to do is base that buffer off of the schematics that are already approved that text dot has.
And just to give you an idea of what that looks like, I've included it as well as kind of the design of those interchanges as we go from this is the what will be the new interchange at the loop vintage in I-35 and I'll work our way down.
But just to give you a sort of point of reference, the pink line is the current right of way.
The green line is what the proposed right of way that text dot is looking to take, if you will, as part of that expansion.
So that 600 foot buffer will be measured from that new right of way line, not from the existing right of way line.
And so that just gives you that idea as well as again, these improvements are already have been accelerated.
So this is just a quick snapshot of what's to come, whether this is approved or not, these are the improvements moving forward.
This is, again, that sort of the next interchange down that doesn't exist today.
This is where all red currently dead ends.
John Payne continues here.
And so you see now you have a full interchange.
Text out is looking at these as truly more of a what I guess we'll consider more of a urban interchange as well as access roads with curb and gutter.
And so as you start to drive around the metroplex and see where it changes from kind of those rural interchanges to more of a urban or suburban, that's what is expected to occur along 35W.
This one again, the north would be this way, the arrows here, what I did is just put it in a longer perspective.
So you see that that new green right of way line.
But this is this will be the interchange at ropes and Crawford and I 35.
And so you see the what what what what what is in our very near future at that interchange.
Again, these aren't these improvements are not part of the MPC.
All I did is really wanted to show again how this how this will relate, how this will develop, how that 600 foot buffer comes into play with respect to I 35.
As I mentioned in the opening, there's an additional restriction that they have now agreed to do as a result of the input from from the residents in in the country lakes, Carnegie Ridge area.
If you look at this area, if you recall, all of this was was M.N.
That has now changed to our seven and so that that height, that intensity again, there would already be those restrictions built in.
But there were some additional concerns about what what could be built there that has that has since been removed.
In addition, if you see the cross hatched area here, it starts at essentially a 500 foot buffer capers down to about 250.
This area here is part of the part of the subdivision that already has a a restriction.
So all of these residents that are backing up to the property will not have any any residential or commercial or multifamily development adjacent to them.
And so, again, while there is some floodplain, there was some area that that could be developed, but the developer has has agreed to put that restriction in place to to resolve the concerns, concerns of those residents.
Again, they they did include in there the ability to still have parks and open space improvements back there within that within that natural area.
And what I've shown here is again, this was we had some additional ones come in today and I have an updated map.
But this just shows at that time earlier in the week, the the opposition that we had had started to receive from that neighborhood and what we did to or at least what the applicant, I should say, reached out and volunteered to do to address and alleviate those concerns.
The allowable uses, I'm not going to go through each of these again.
We kind of touched on these.
Nothing nothing really changed from the last presentation that we that we had with with respect to the work session item.
And so it unless there were some specific questions, again, there was no no changes from from when we first presented this modifications to subchapter seven.
Development standards within the ESA procedures.
There is a provision that that some of that ESA could count for park parkland dedication.
Again, that's in the twenty nineteen DDC that has been eliminated as part of this as part of these MPC's.
In addition, there were some clarifying language with respect to riparian buffer and water related habitat uses regarding placement of trails as well as culvert and bridges being allowed as long as they did not disturb areas.
Or there are some some disturbance or restoration that that's permitted.
Again, these are just some minor clarification, but I know ESA's are always a very no pun intended sensitive area and just wanted to to bring that to everyone's attention in in Hunter Ranch.
There were essentially four areas of ESA upland habitat, pilot and all being pilot and I'm sorry, really being the the main discussion item.
Those are identified at A, B, C and D, pilot and I being C, I didn't want to mention.
I just realized as I updated the slides today, I did not update the the change from MN.
So disregard that MN, it will be R7, just didn't want anyone to have any heartburn by seeing that.
But but they did agree to carry forward those those minimum percentages as well as allow for some parks open space passive recreation, ensuring that they be in a natural state.
We're not looking at paved trails throughout those throughout those areas.
In addition, while not part of the not part of the DDC amendment.
There was some additional restrictions, if you will, or assurances that the applicant has agreed to do with respect to designating.
That would be designated a a upland habitat ESA as part of the project, excuse me, project and operating agreement.
They've agreed to designate a conservation easement on that area on pilot and opt to further further restrict it.
And it's broken really into a two step process.
Part of the challenge with with these eases is they are unstudied.
And so step one is really preserving the top of the hill, if you will, or a good portion of that.
So those twenty nine acres that you see outlined in blue and then an additional forty four acres to reach that total seventy four percent would be that second conservation easement.
Once that once that study area is confirmed, further delineated, that would be required prior to prior to first plat again.
These are not items that are are within the DDC, but more of at least information purposes that I wanted to provide.
So if that if this does move on to council, you're just aware of of of what what else is going on with respect to limitations at pilot knob.
Additional modifications while we have a new tree preservation ordinance that was that was incorporated into the new DDC, they've agreed to go above and beyond.
So they've agreed to increase their minimum tree preservation by five percent.
In addition, they've agreed to increase the tree replacement rate from two point five to three for those heritage trees.
And so again, this is that multiplier. So if you remove a tree, you have to put back essentially two and a half times the caliper or the inches removed.
So this this adds it up to three, which which on larger trees really can add up quickly.
In addition, they've agreed to increase the minimum caliper tree for new trees from two inches to three.
And again, for those single family detached lots in our four or six, they've agreed to increase the yard trees from one to two.
And so if you remember where I talked about the big change from eight to twenty nineteen is the requirement for one yard tree.
This now requires the exception is well, not an exception.
It's an additional standard that that is a little bit more stringent.
The compatibility landscape buffer currently any single family within M.R.
There really is no there wasn't a a minimum buffer.
It was only for those commercial next to next to a single family.
They've agreed to increase that from zero feet to 15 feet.
In addition, if you recall, we have a point system and so single family initially only had 10 points.
They've agreed to go to 15 points, but we've also added in and I think this is something we might want to look at citywide.
When we bring back some amendments, we've added an additional five points in the buffer table for the inclusion of a an improved connecting trail.
And so if you look at even their parks plan and some of the development plans that are incorporated,
they were looking at it at adding some of those some of those trails throughout the entire development,
connecting both developments to the school's parks.
I think it's a total of 58 miles of trails.
And so as a way to really incentivize it and push for that, that's why that was added in.
In addition, they've they put further restrictions on perimeter fences.
Currently, you can do you can do wood perimeter fences.
What they've agreed to do is limit that to only masonry, wrought iron or a combination of masonry and wrought iron.
And so for any perimeter fence around a subdivision, there would not be any wood fences, any vinyl fences.
It would only be masonry, wrought iron or the combination of masonry and wrought iron.
In addition, the 2019 DDC, there was some input received from some
that was put in to allow chain link encoded chain link fences in residential neighborhoods.
They have put a prohibition of chain link fences within their residential subdivisions.
The transportation impact analysis, again, required a time of preliminary plat.
This was one of those items that I had discussed at the opening where we had that modified language
that that legal had asked for further further clarification.
So that included that the level of service see if it drops below that those improvements would be required.
And so that would be the only change to seven eight eight seven point nine six.
There's a provision in the in the current code.
If you recall, we just made a change for M.R. with respect to front parking that has caused some challenges.
Really looking at some of their intended uses, particularly for office, the way the and I think this is really more of an unintended consequence.
What what the current DDC does, it really forces a mandatory out parcel on just about every lot.
And so if you wanted to do just a office development, you're essentially restricted because you're forced to do an out parcel.
And really thinking about that, we think that maybe in a large, large multipurpose shopping center, that made sense.
But what this does is it essentially forces every commercial development that wants to have front parking to have an out parcel.
And so what we did to really address that concern is is added in sort of this parking parking room or area.
And that that diagram or drawing to the right add some limited number of spaces,
as well as some additional landscape meetings and parking beyond beyond the landscape parking code requirements that are built into the table.
And so, again, this is something that they had actually proposed, and we think it is a good idea.
We included standards for drive through facilities.
This is something, again, we'll probably be coming back at with with changes to the overall code.
So that is built in. There was also a change that they had requested where there was a limitation on transparency in windows.
Really, as you look at now, the ability to do taller buildings rather than having more of a monolithic concrete structure, they allowed or have requested that that limitation does not apply to the upper floors of office buildings.
So it's not for everybody, but it would be for those office buildings or upper floors of mixed use buildings, again, with office above ground floor.
So this was really if we're if we're going to or they are going to target office and want to have more of that integrated within mixed use or standalone office,
even mid rise, having the ability to have more windows as opposed to just flat walls for those for those office structures.
The building height and transition areas, again, this goes goes hand in hand with that increased height.
So what we did is you see that that new graphic right now, we had it currently limited to sixty five feet.
There was some language that allowed with an S.U.P. for the height to go to one hundred.
It wasn't incorporated into the graphic. So what we've done is we've now have built that in.
And so if for a two hundred foot tall building, there is that two hundred foot separation.
And so that that has been that has been built in for those building heights in transition areas.
Again, that two hundred foot is really limited to to that M.R.
And that area is primarily almost all along the I-35 corridor, which already has restrictions built in for a single family one,
the six hundred foot buffer, as well as the limitation on on acreage outside of that buffer area.
They also agreed while we do have some restrictions with respect to House Bill 2439,
they have agreed to or at least desire to increase the minimum masonry requirement for single family,
doubling it from from where we were initially at 25 to 50 percent.
There was some modifications to platting, one just given the sheer size of this development,
the ability to construct eight model homes instead of four.
We don't really see an issue with that given the size and breadth of this of this of what's being proposed,
as well as some changes to the cluster subdivision standards that you would call.
We discussed at work session with some additional limitations for the for the cluster with two garage parking spaces,
putting these restrictions that would prohibit parking outside of the driveway again.
So there's further limitations on this. So this is in every cluster subdivision.
But there are additional additional limitations built in.
With that, there are there's a number of findings that need to be made in 35, 7, 12, 6.
Again, this is part of the 2002 DDC that still carries forward currently for governing MPCs.
And so before an approval or adoption of an MPC, there's five findings that need to be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission and ultimately City Council.
And so I'll go through each of these.
The first is that the development the development proposed furthers the goals of the of the debt and plan.
And so what we looked at and if you recall, we discussed this even at that that initial work session.
Policy 2.11.1 was very specific to establish a process to facilitate revisions to the land use mix in design of approved and future MPCs.
And so as you saw that that change in that mix already, that that's changed dramatically.
And so looking at that, those further bullet points of that policy 2.11.1,
that design that furthers the goals and policies of the plan and the preferred growth concept.
And if you look at what that preferred growth concept is, again, encourage a shift towards more mixed use development,
bringing together compatible residential, commercial office, institutional and other uses to increase pedestrian activity, reduce car trips and expand housing choices.
And so I think those modifications that we that we just went over implements that as well as that balanced mix of uses.
Again, a mix of housing types to reflect changing demographics and housing preferences.
Again, allowing for single family attached detached.
The 2019 DDC also added the ability for triplex duplex accessory dwellings.
They have a if you recall from the use table, there is a further restriction that they put in place on accessory units,
accessory dwelling units that it's just limited to a one bedroom.
But again, also allowing for low, mid and high rise developments, the cluster zero lot line.
Additionally, through the again, through the project and operating agreement,
the developers combined have a will be providing a contribution of three million dollars for affordable housing to be used in the city.
Appropriate sighting for schools, civics, buildings, community amenities.
Again, this provides again for that an overall increase in open space, land dedication, location for seven schools and additional parks, trails and also a consideration for a new library.
Adjacency to existing transportation infrastructure already hit on what those what those planned improvements are along I-35.
What I didn't have were those those drawings for loop 288, but again, it's very similar to what you had on I-35 with with how that road will will be will be expanded.
Again, conservation development were appropriate and looking at that increased preservation of ESA, eliminating that ability to remove 25 percent increased tree preservation network of trails.
Cluster subdivision further enhances those conservation efforts.
Again, just by moving to the 2019 DDC and really looking at these two large MPCs as one.
If you look at the old map that combines both of those together, you start to see where the roadway networks actually don't connect.
And so what this does is really provides for a more seamless, seamless development.
Again, as I mentioned, that integration of trails, gateways, I'm sorry, greenways and green infrastructure elements.
And again, looking at the developable acreage that is in balance with the overall overall development of the city.
Looking at where we can have large office, large commercial that would not infringe on existing single family neighborhoods.
We have very few areas in the city that that really could accommodate that within our existing network.
Again, this allows for that to be planned accordingly and planned in conjunction with as opposed to having to look at adjusting and compatibility.
So we're looking at building that in up front.
Finding number two, in case of pros residential development, that development will promote compatible buildings and uses, and it will be compatible with the character of the surrounding area.
And so just looking at, again, the change that we had, again, this is that R7 area that's being modified as well as those additional restrictions that are being put in.
While I don't have the separate slide on here, there was an additional compatibility buffer with ropes and ranch that was built into the 2008 MPC for Hunter.
So that is being carried forward.
So there's additional restrictions that they have with respect to use of setbacks,
even additional gas well limitations that they have for those four well sites that are but ropes and ranch.
So again, those carried forward from the 2008 MPC.
Finding number three, that the provisions for public facilities such as schools, fire protection, law enforcement, water, wastewater, streets,
public service parks are adequate to serve the anticipated population within the MPC.
What I did is I attached all of those relevant studies, and while I'm not going to go through every single line or spreadsheet on here,
we do have both on-site roadway infrastructure, off-site roadway infrastructure, how those will be funded.
Our finance director will be coming up shortly to kind of walk you through the fiscal impact analysis that we'll also touch base on with respect to that.
In addition, there was a water and wastewater study that was done, again that looked at developer improvement projects,
off-site city projects, when those water treatment plants and wastewater treatment plants, when a new or expansion would be required.
And again, all of these are tied back to what those projected improvements will be.
This is a table that was included as part of the HDR traffic study, if you did look at that exhibit.
In addition, there was a facility study that was complete for both of these developments combined that included land conveyances, as well as capital contributions.
And so I'm not going to go through the enumerated list, but you see the variety of land conveyance,
as well as capital contributions for fire stations, substations for DME, service centers, waste, solid waste transfer stations, and the like.
The map to the right just gives you that idea of how that's being planned in conjunction.
Again, really looking at both of these, while they're two separate MPCs for planning for facilities, roadway networks, really looking at it as one development.
Finding number four in the case of proposed commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational, and other non-residential use for mixed use,
that such development will be appropriate in area location and overall planning for the purpose intended.
And so again, it's kind of the common theme, I think, that I keep sounding like a broken record.
But again, looking at these developments as one, planning for them as one, and making sure that all of these roadway networks are integrated,
coordinated, both in the near future and long term.
Again, with that, further looking at that combined effort, making sure we create those compatible uses, greater focus on commercial and mixed use along the highway and major intersections,
overall reduction of residential density, increasing gas well reverse setbacks, limiting and essentially reducing the number of new gas well pad sites,
planning for seven new schools, aligning the roadways, establishing, most importantly, establishing a consistent roadway hierarchy.
Again, that's tied throughout both MPCs and then creating just better alignment and connectivity of that planned open space.
And as I mentioned, an anticipated trail network that is 58 miles, which is pretty significant.
In addition, there's other amenities or other triggers with respect to, again, those private amenities that I had discussed,
city parks that are triggered at 1,500 building permits, neighborhood parks that have separate triggers related to elementary schools,
and then responsibilities from the applicants for some of those improvements for those park amenities.
While we do have a plan that anticipates where the schools and parks will go,
those final locations will be done at future time as those plats and as it starts to get firmed up and going from kind of that conceptual zoning to actual development.
But what won't change are those numbers and triggers for those amounts.
Finding number five, at this point, what I'm going to do is turn over to David, our finance director,
to kind of walk you through the last finding that the development is fiscally sound and demonstrates the cost impact analysis related to those capital improvements.
And so at that time, I'll ask David to come up and walk you through these slides.
Good evening. I'm David Gaines, director of finance.
Attached with the backup for this item was a fiscal impact study, which is about 80 pages that went through in detail assumptions on both expenses and revenues associated with the development to the city.
And the intent of that study was to essentially say, do we expect the revenues that come in through this development to match the increased expenditures that we would expect for the development?
So I'm going to go through some slides at a very high level, obviously, for the study.
I would welcome any questions as I go through them.
This slide kind of gets straight to the point of, does it accomplish what the finding sets out to say?
And ultimately, the study does indicate that the revenues that we would bring in would offset any of the increased expenditures.
We've also taken steps outside of the study itself to ensure that any scenario where the city could be liable for
costs are at least mitigated with some tools that I'll touch on as I go through the slides.
So this is a summary of, again, a very high level summary of what, over the 40-year cumulative impact of the development on each of our major funds there, the first fund, general government, and then you can see each of our utilities.
The largest impact is on the general government, on our general fund.
And this is strictly the result of increased property taxes coming in from the development, as well as increased sales tax coming in from the development.
You can see that on the revenue side.
And then on the expenditure side, there's a number of assumptions that are included in the study that anticipate what is that increased cost to the general fund that comes from the development.
So those studies really, for each line item we have in the budget, there's an assumption of what is that incremental cost that comes on board with the development.
The study that you see, these numbers you see in front of you here, are based on the developer's build out schedule.
So on the next slide, we talk about a change to that where we had somewhat of a stress test to that scenario to see what if we didn't hit quite expectations.
And then the tool that I mentioned later that's mentioned here on the contract tax to protect some of those impact fee revenues as well would be an anticipation that the build out schedule didn't quite hit the mark from what the developers are proposing.
As you can see, the general government has the highest net impact based on these assumptions.
Electrifying the next really as a result of not needing the capital costs that are really required with water, waste water, and solid waste.
So you can see the net impact over 40 years, and obviously these are all in millions, is not as high with those other funds, but in total 867 million across all the funds.
So as mentioned, we did do a stress scenario. We had Tichler Bice, who did our fiscal impact study run, a stress scenario where we made some assumptions on SS value coming in less than we anticipate and also a different mix on the commercial side where we don't get as much sales tax from retail, we reduce the retail percentages proposed by the developer to see what that looks like.
And you can see there on the general fund specifically that brings that net impact down to 321 million dollars over the 40 years, but obviously still a positive impact even after changing a few of those variables that were presented by the developer.
So here you can see essentially what I just, what you saw are cumulative over 40 years, but how that might look year by year. So you can see our operating expenditures in blue with the capital expenditures as they increase, and you see especially later in those years is where we have that significant impact.
And I think it's important for us to know, and a conversation we had with council as well, is obviously this doesn't necessarily mean we're going to have 867 million extra dollars in our funds, it would just give us each year as we make those decisions on property tax or our rates in the utilities would impact those as they move forward.
So we did want to touch on their understanding that this obviously looks good just strictly from a fiscal side over those 40 years, what are the risks to the city, and one of the risks that we identified as staff and then brought to the developers to try to talk through how we can mitigate that risk really comes from impact fees.
There's going to be a number of projects that are going to be funded by the city, but we anticipate impact fee revenue coming in from the development to pay for those projects, so we wouldn't necessarily put those projects in the ground if we didn't see development coming, but we played out a scenario where, say, I've listed one here as an example.
Let's say we're approaching year 7, as shown here, we see development coming on board where we need to put an impact fee eligible project, whether that's water, wastewater, or a roadway for that anticipated growth, we put that in the ground at that point, and then development slows down the next few years and we don't get those impact fee revenues that we anticipated.
That does present a risk for us. I think it's important to say that's a risk that we take on with any development, that we put in some infrastructure in the ground, anticipate growth to continue, and then there's a slowdown.
We still have that debt service payment, those fixed costs don't go away, so we have to find a way to pay for that. So understanding that's a risk, I'll switch to the next slide, and again, I welcome any questions. After talking with the developers about that risk, we came up with this strategy to mitigate that risk to some degree, where we would use six cents from the NMD tax rate, which we're calling a contract tax, that's six cents here.
And the MMDs would send the city each year the six cents of that tax rate, as long as necessary, to go into a fund that would directly go toward those impact fee eligible projects, so that we're not only relying on the impact fee revenues that come in, that obviously can fluctuate more rapidly, where we have the steady stream of revenue coming in to pay for those fees.
And then in conjunction with that, the impact fees for that zone for the MMD would be reduced, so they're not double paying for the projects, but does give us some of that assurance that we don't run into the situation that we just presented on the slide previously.
So here's an example of how that would work. You can see in blue, our impact fee revenues, and really the entire bar in each year is saying, here's how much of the identified projects and the operating agreement of debt service or other payments that we expect year over year, and I'm just taking this example on 2034, when we really expect to be incurring some of these expenses.
In this year, I have over $6 million in expenses for impact fee projects, and you can see we have that steady stream of $1.6 million coming from the contract tax revenue at that time, and that helps to mitigate some of the risk associated with those impact fee revenues that we would need to pay for those projects.
So that's it for the fiscal impact slides, but I would welcome any questions.
Can you go back to the very first slide where you had the general government? So if I read this correctly, the net impact is a positive $867 million cumulative over 40 years, is that correct? Can you go to the next slide? This says that the base scenario has a grand total of $498 million over 40 years. That's a double, I mean a 50% change.
Yeah, so that number is just talking about the general fund. So if you look here on this row for general fund, that's the $498.520, and that's at $498.520. So this is just, the stress scenario is really just focused on the general fund because we're just looking at SS value and sales tax, which doesn't affect the utilities, and for the purpose of the stress scenario, we had to keep the same growth assumptions.
We just really had to play with those variables that wouldn't affect the growth because that has some knock on effects on what the infrastructure looks like and things like that. So this is really just a stress scenario of the general fund itself.
And then can you explain to me a little bit more about the contract tax? Is that paid by property owners on their property value or who and what mechanism is that being paid?
That's paid by all the residents in the district, so they're going to have their tax rate, which would be $0.49, $0.06 in addition to the $0.49 that the developers are proposing, so their total tax bill would be $0.55, and they would pay that just like people would pay all the ad valorem taxes they would have.
So on their tax bill, they'll have an MMD line, just like they'll have a city line, a school district line, and a county line.
So the contract tax wouldn't be a line item apart from the MMD line. It would just show MMD, $0.55.
Correct. What they see, they would just see the MMD line, $0.55. When the actual district approves the tax rate, they're going to have that separated when they approve it, but when the residents pay their bill, it will just say, here's what the property tax rate is for the district itself.
Okay. Thank you. I do not see any other questions. Oh, Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. So on that very topic, I'm trying to understand the contract tax versus the MMD tax, and you mentioned that you wanted the six cents to not double dip, but as I understood, the whole point of the contract tax was to mitigate risks in case there's an economic downturn,
and we've already agreed to do the capital improvements, and we're doing the capital improvements, and yet now there's an economic downturn, and we're sort of on the hook, and we're not getting our sales and property tax revenue to compensate. So why wouldn't we want to double dip?
The contract tax is specifically related to these 14 projects that we've listed here that are paid for through impact fee revenues, so the funds that we're talking about here would not relate to property taxes or sales tax or anything associated.
So the double dip concept is really just when someone's charged an impact fee, it's the fee that costs the fee to join either the water or wastewater or the roadway system, and there's a maximum fee that someone can pay when they go into that, whether it's as we do impact fee studies every five years or more frequently to say, here's the cost that it takes for you to join the system.
If someone paid the entire impact fee and also paid this contract tax, technically they would be paying more than, and obviously impact fees came in as planned, they would be paying more than their fair share essentially to join the system.
So the idea is this is a steady stream of revenue as it comes in, we anticipate what this revenue is as we do an impact fee study, it's associated with the impact fee study and just reduces what we would charge in impact fees to those residents or to the development as it comes in.
The problem I have with that is the whole point of the six cents was to mitigate the variability in the risk models, to compensate for the lack of revenue, and yet now you're saying, well, I guess essentially then the response to me is that the impact fee should be 0.06 cents bigger to mitigate this risk.
And so you're saying that I don't want to have the risk, I don't want to put the, anyway, it seems like you're trying to mitigate risk and not mitigate risk at the same time, I feel like you're, it's lumping them together when it should be just an additional M&D tax.
Well, if the development came in the way that, if we hit the build out schedule the way it's planned over 40 years, we technically wouldn't need that contract tax at all because the impact fee would just keep up with it, we would get all the bill out that we would expect, this just gives us another tool to mitigate a risk if they don't hit the build out schedule as they planned, where this gives us that kind of cushion, you can kind of see that there, where it gives us that at least baseline revenue that we'll bring in.
But if they do hit the build out schedule as planned, we need to make sure that we're not having the residents as they come on board pay double or pay an additional amount to join our system outside of what that max contribution should be.
Wow. I did have an additional comment or question for the speaker. So the, you didn't show it in your thing, but we had it in our backup material, the waste, the water and wastewater charts show that there's a noticeable impact in, I forget what year, like 2035 or something if I remember correctly, and 2025.
Or solid waste, sorry. So we had wastewater and solid waste where there were impacts and do we have, you're compensating with the 6% contract tax, are we compensating in any way for the capital improvement in those time frames where we expect there to be a negative impact on solid waste and wastewater?
Well, in wastewater, the contract tax does help with that because those capital expenses that you see in wastewater are going to be somewhat associated with the projects that we have for contract tax, and when you're looking at those charts specifically with wastewater, you're seeing the revenue come in, especially from impact fees somewhat sporadically as build out comes.
So if you look at one particular year, you may see that green line, the revenue line above the capital, but in real terms, we would probably have the excess from the prior year in impact fees or other revenues that would offset that in any individual year, and that's the same story in solid waste to some degree as well, where it's difficult to just look at one specific line, especially as that line is moving up because we may have revenues from the previous year to compensate for that.
And also the study really was intended to look, the charts are great to kind of show the way it's going to progress, was to look at the cumulative impact, so to look at one individual year can be difficult just with the amount of assumptions that go into it.
Yeah, but the question I had is you weren't just showing like sort of one year variability, I guess that was true of one of them, maybe it was wastewater, solid waste, but the other had sort of a consistent net negative there for like a decade.
The other thing is the problem with applying the contract tax to sort of any variability that goes on is you have issues where unless we have an earmark kind of mechanism, there's nothing preventing revenue from being spent, or unless there are, unless we can earmark it in municipal code to keep it for these, specifically for these utilities, do we?
So I guess I'll just add in two ways, impact fee revenues, they just by code and by impact fee studies have to be spent on impact fee eligible projects, so once we get impact fee revenue, they can't be spent on any other projects or for operating costs or things like that, outside of the identified projects, and we would treat the contract tax the same way as laid out in the operating agreement, the contract tax is only applicable to the 14 projects that we've identified.
So in both cases, the revenue doesn't come in and have multiple uses, they're really specific based on either impact fee studies or the operating agreement on what those projects can be.
Okay, thank you.
David, I appreciate the presentation, I don't see any other questions.
Thank you.
Just a few more slides.
So to the staff recommendation, again, based upon those findings, the fact that we had just gone over those five items, staff does recommend approval of the major amendment to the coal ranch MPC, again, this would include those amendments that were discussed at the onset of the meeting.
What I also wanted to do is give that same recommendation for Hunter, what I did with Hunter is, again, give you the notification response map, this is current through, I believe it was 4 o'clock this afternoon, what I wanted to do is rather than give you the entire 3000 acres for each with these really small red dots that you would not be able to see,
and I just thought it would really not be as transparent as we should be, so what we did is really zoomed into the two areas where we did receive both support and opposition.
Both of these combined, the opposition is way below even 1% given the size of these, but again, I think it's important to note that we did have, again, that opposition, those with respect to the country lakes area, again, primarily, their concerns had to do with being able to develop behind them.
Again, we put those restrictions in, or the developer has agreed to do that or offered to do that after speaking to them, there were some opposition from some residents in ropes and ranch, but again, there were already restrictions built into that that carried forward from 2008.
And so, with the recommendation for Hunter Ranch, again, staff recommends approval of the major amendments based upon those finding of facts that were earlier discussed, this recommendation would include those changes that we enumerated at the beginning or discussed at the beginning.
In addition, the revised development map that shows the area around the country lakes as being R7 with that further restricted area, essentially that 500 to 200 foot buffer that would restrict to just open space amenity area where there would be no other development, and so with that, we'll stand for any additional questions or further clarification.
- Commissioner Ellis. - Thank you, Chair. Richard, I did have a question just with regard to building materials mentioned in sub-chapter seven, so knowing that the House bill, 2439, I think it is, took the city's ability away to do that, are we in violation of that bill by even having it in this MPC amendment, or is that a legal question?
- We currently have it in the DDC. We have not amended it. We did adopt an ordinance that we would not enforce something that would be in violation, obviously, of state law. If you recall, we did that right after they were adopted or went into effect.
Again, it was something that they've agreed to do. The only one that really changed was the masonry for single family. I think it's important to note that the building material requirements for the fence, that is not governed by 2439.
- We do call it out for the-- - I'm sorry. - But we do call it out for the resident. So are we in violation by doing such, or is there a way we can word it so we're not, or do we have an answer to that, because I know the House bill's not that old.
- Commissioner Ellis, as Mr. Cannone did say, the city adopted what's called a stopgap ordinance last summer. It said we would not enforce the building materials that are in our DDC. So that was a way to deal with that issue in the event that that bill is repealed.
- And that I understand. So what I'm trying to understand is, is it in the bill for us to even be able to mention it? Or are you saying that the stopgap bill even takes care of this that we're implementing on this date?
- Looking back to that bill, I don't think there were limitations on enforcement. I don't believe there were limitations on enacting an ordinance to put it into a DDC. - Yeah, that's my recollection. I can find it.
- Richard, I don't see any other questions. I appreciate the presentation. Oh, is your button not working? I'm sorry. Press your back. - I have several questions, actually. Sorry, Richard. So in the mini-DDCs, and they're basically the same, is that correct? The two for Hunter and Cole?
- They're essentially the same. The only difference is Cole has, if you recall, they have an area of industrial land. That would be that difference. And there are some slight differences to the gas well ordinance component to it, only that they have different, obviously different number of wells. And then there's those additional restrictions that were built in for those four well paths adjacent to Ropes and Ranch.
- So my questions will be sort of generic for the overview of both mini-DDCs. And so you specifically mentioned the four ESA areas that they're agreeing to do modified ESA language on and maintain certain levels of upland habitat, except that in these mini-DDCs, we struck every component of upland language out of them.
So I was concerned. Why did we do that?
- Okay, let me clarify. That's another distinction between Hunter, the Hunter Ranch MPC and the Cole Ranch MPC. There is no upland habitat within the Cole Ranch MPC. So that's why that upland habitat language was removed. One thing that's also different between the two is how the ESA map is referenced.
I should point that out. There was an ESA study that was completed for Cole that is still being honored through this. The ESA areas for the Hunter Ranch MPC, those have not had that formal ESA assessment.
So the ESA map relative to Hunter Ranch is still governed by the ESA map that is the citywide map until we actually do that study area and then that overall ESA map is changed. But the distinction between the upland habitat between Hunter and Cole, the reason it is not in Cole is because there was no upland habitat within that MPC. If that answers your question.
- Okay, so maybe I'm just completely misremembering, but I thought we struck upland language everywhere. So this is going to be similar. Is this the same for historical? There is no historical on these two properties?
- There's nothing historical. Even the, you know, kind of looking at what's kind of the rule of thumb, the 50 years. Even if we look at build out of 40 years, it'll be some time before we really hit that point where something could be considered historic. So that was stricken as well as a PD, which wouldn't apply to these sub-districts.
And the historical is that because we haven't officially designated anything up until now historical. I mean, it's not like pilot knob was not used in the 1800s for various things. And there are archaeological sites up there. So, I mean, is this as a definition of historical district? Is that what we're dealing with?
- It's mainly the overlay district for a historic district. I think that the conservation easement that would be applied, particularly to pilot knob, I think quite honestly would be more restrictive than a historic designation. The historic designation doesn't stop it from being developed. It just has to develop within historic standards.
And so if we're already limiting what could be developed there, I don't know what historic standards we would use if we've already put those limitations in, particularly the conservation easement.
- That sounds fair. And the last question I had sort of in the same vein is the languages I read it for the mini-DDC strikes all references to new gas wells, sort of as I read it seeming to apply because they weren't proposing to build, but yet we're increasing the number of gas wells from the current 9 to 15.
So I feel, is that in conflict?
- No, they're currently under their MPC. They're permitted to have 19, again, this is at Hunter, they're permitted to have 19 pad sites. Nine of those, of that 19, nine are existing. What they've done is they've reduced that down to 14.
And so that there's an additional five. And so those five new sites, while we're calling them new, they're essentially still within that original 19 that could be developed.
It's just an overall reduction of new well pad or new well sites that they've contemplated. So what that does then is they're explicitly mapped to where those locations are. And so if they wanted to come in with another 10 new pad sites, that would require an amendment to the MPC.
- And as I recall, our language is about pad sites and not well heads, but not well heads. So if they wanted to add additional well heads, they could.
- Yeah, within the gas well, within those nine sites, there's already a, there's specific gas well plats or site plans that were approved that delineated the number of wells that could be drilled on each pad site.
For those five that I don't recall that those, that we have the number of wells. I've got to go back and I just don't recall off the top of my head about that.
- But our language of new versus existing would not impact there, would not limit them in any way to number of well heads. Those new versus existing doesn't relate at all to well heads, is that correct?
- Yeah, the nine existing, they're already limited in the number of additional wells that could be drilled. They obviously could rework some of those if they wish.
I think there are some older wells that are straight horizontal as opposed to diagonal. Whether or not those get reworked to change that again, that's, I don't know.
But I could confirm and after the public hearing component, I just don't, I don't recall off the top of my head if there's, if we've already limited to those five, I just.
- And I do have one last question and that is on the 211, it seems like if I was reading in there that there was an aspirational goal of, for the developers to have sort of cradle to grave, stay in the neighborhood, you know, shop there, live there, go to school there, they'd never have to leave.
And that feels like it's directly in conflict with 211 about the sort of growth out of our, the centralized growth pattern, especially in the future land use map.
I mean, I realized that maybe their goals are aspirational and not necessarily plattable as it were, but it feels like those are in conflict.
- I sort of disagree. I think when you look at that 211, there's multiple components of that policy.
And I think the biggest is, one, this policy and the comp planner recognized these existing MPCs as being a large, a large development, almost a city to its own, to a certain extent.
And then really looking to make sure that as these, again, wanting to facilitate the revisions of that and ensuring that they are consistent with that preferred growth concept.
And so there's, unless you look at that preferred growth concept as being wholly encompassed within that, that MPC,
otherwise it would not make sense to even reference the preferred growth concept if all of the development were to focus intense development within the square where there's already limitations.
That is definitely in conflict. And so I think when you look at that preferred growth concept, you have to look at that in terms of essentially the 6,000 acres that are proposed to be developed.
And as that is developed, ensuring that those, what I'll call compatibility or integrated development with the cradle to grave, to use the term, where you have the housing, you have schools, you have trails.
All of that is really incorporated within that large development. So you don't have no commercial development out there and you have 40,000 residential units, no schools, where now you're drawing everything to other areas of the city.
And so this is really looking at, well, it will be a major regional draw and potential for employment. And again, I think that's why you have that area pushed towards the I-35 and you see how it's being expanded.
But again, looking at as that residential develops, and I think that's where you see that, what I think is really beneficial about these two MPCs is they're less focused on residential and lend itself to having more of the mixed use and commercial.
Where previously you don't have that, and I think even going back to the fiscal impact analysis, it lends itself for the ability to have different ad valorem values for those non-residential as well as the ability for self-tax revenues.
And so looking at that as a whole, I think that really, those two areas combined really promote and enact that preferred growth concept.
You have to look at that as being nodes, because that was really one of those high points of that comp plan amendment.
It didn't ignore the MPCs, but rather looked at that as being a significant development that they probably should stand on their own and rely less on having to go to schools within town and incorporating all that in together.
So for those things that serve subdivisions and residential areas like schools and grocery stores, sure that makes sense, but the rest of the commercial impact feels like you're absolutely drawing away from the existing businesses downtown, the future land use.
It feels like we're, you know, we're dropping flower mound down inside Denton, in my opinion.
Yeah, I think the challenges in, I mean, who knows what the future will hold. Just look over the last five years with how retail has changed with the influx of Amazon and online ordering.
I think every month or every couple weeks we see a large retailer going out of business.
But I think what this does is it allows for the ability for larger office or employment that we don't have that true ability to do that elsewhere in the city, just because of certain limitations.
We have the height limitations already within the downtown.
We have older neighborhoods that are close to I 35.
And so when we looked at even updating the 2019 DDC, a lot of the provisions that we put in into place, particularly for the for the MR, the mixed use regional really dealt with how do we how do we protect those existing neighborhoods, so we don't have that commercial growth.
We're interacting negatively with with with our existing residents.
We see that with with.
Not that it's probably the best example but Bucky's I mean that that was a significant change to that neighborhood.
And so I think what this does is those protections are built in up front. And so we're trying to plan it again looking at that preferred growth concept making sure that that compatibility is built in so that we don't have.
You never know what you're going to have, but at least those that risk is averted.
I think more in a planned, planned fashion with respect to with respect to this.
Okay, thank you.
Doesn't look like there's any other questions at this time.
Thanks again Richard for the presentation. This is public hearing anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so we'll go in the order of the cards provided that I have.
Then if you'd like to speak and you didn't thought a card we can certainly make time for you at the end of these cards.
The first card I have here is for Richard Holland.
He's still here.
And after Richard it'll be Richard and Roxanne King.
King can share which one speaking.
You to state your name and address for the record. Yes, my name is Richard Holland 6704 roaring Creek in our guy in the Carnegie Ridge development.
I moved here a couple years ago from Connecticut.
I built a home in the Carnegie Ridge area in the area that I built in.
I built in because it didn't look like Keller.
It didn't look like flower mound, especially the Keller area where President a the area where the shopping centers are.
It's just a sea of roofs.
And I agree, sir, with what you just said about the flower mound being dropped inside Denton.
That's what I'm afraid of. This development is going to be you're talking thousands and thousands and thousands of houses.
Put in that area.
And I really think the way it is situated now, it's starting to with the Pecan Ridge area.
The expansion of the Harvest Ridge development coming onto the Robeson Ranch.
And then you impacted the development on the west side in the east side of I-35 heading from the Robeson Ranch Crawford exit towards Denton, which is already a nightmare to drive.
I think it's just going to impact environmentally and that whole area immensely.
And it's sad to see that I understand growth has to happen.
But but I'm not happy with trying to put a home in every square inch of the town you take away.
I grew up in a town in Connecticut that I lived there 28 years and from when I was a kid to when I just moved out a couple of years ago, the center of the town still looks the way it did when I grew up.
And it was because the Planning and Zoning Commission kept it that way.
They kept all the big boxes stores out of the way.
They kept people from ruining the development and the simplicity of the way the town was. And it still to this day still looks the way it did when I was just a kid.
Now I'm almost 60 years old and that says something.
It says something that they didn't allow this to happen.
And that's why I'm opposed to this.
I really think that whole area, I understand that development has to happen to some degree.
But to put that amount of houses in that area is just going to look, it's going to clutter everything up.
It's going to cause more crime.
It's going to cause more traffic, more accidents, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And I really don't think that type of development needs to be on that property.
I just don't.
And I bought in the area that I bought in, I bought it with the fact that I could see Knob Hill and that whole area.
I don't want to look out my backyard and see nothing but rooftops.
That's not why I built where I built.
And I understand you're going to have that 500 foot area that they just amended, that R7.
I think it needs to go a little farther.
I think it needs to go near the tree line that happens on that east side.
And I think that 500 feet is only going near the stream.
I think it needs to be pushed farther away.
That's all. That's all.
My mother-in-law lives in Robeson Ranch, and she lives on Perimeter Street.
And from what I can see there, the same thing.
It looks like you guys are going to be building right up against Perimeter Street again.
And you said in 2008 they had buffers and all of that.
Where are these buffers going to be? Where are they going to end up?
Do you know what I mean? Restrictions. I don't know. I don't know.
That's all.
I just think that the town needs to stay a town, not a city.
And I definitely agree with Brian over here, dropping flour on Mountain Deton, because that's what it's going to look like.
It's going to look just like Keller.
Thank you, Mr. Holland.
I want to make sure, if this hasn't been made clear, I can personally make it clear.
Hunter Ranch and Cole Ranch are currently approved MPCs in the city from 2008.
They have the ability to build what's on record now at a density of 30,000 homes, as highlighted earlier.
The discussion tonight is to update their MPC that is approved to bring it current to the 2019 DDC,
which actually removes almost 11,000 homes.
And so that's part of the discussion we're trying to navigate through here tonight, is an MPC, two MPCs, are already approved.
They're on the books to be built, could be built.
We are looking at bringing both these projects up to date to our current code that was implemented in 2019.
The next card I have here is for two individuals. I'm not sure which one wants to speak, but it's Richard and Roxanne.
Kinked? Are they still here? No, some people left.
Well, they put on their card that they were not sure, so I can't mark it opposition or favor.
The next card I have here is for Michael Gibson.
And if you could just state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes.
>> My name is Michael Gibson.
I live at 6508 Roaring Creek, just down the street from our previous speaker.
And I understand that MPC 19-222 and the other one, the coal property, I understand that's been approved.
We're talking about 2019.
The communications that came to us, though, I mean, we've allowed a chance to speak and there is, we're trying for,
or some of us are trying to get some of the, I'll call them specifications changed or altered if that's possible.
So without further ado, when my wife and I began considering purchase our house at 6508 Roaring Creek Drive not quite two years ago,
we obtained satellite mapping data from FEMA and the University of Texas at Austin Biological Field Study Office.
We learned that the area of the proposed project extending approximately 500 yards north of our property
and spanning an area between I-35 West and John Payne Road was vital to the drainage of so-called Roaring Creek.
This tree-filled area was being largely, was presented to us in both of those studies as being largely unsuitable for development.
And again, talking about the tree area north of our house running between I-35 West and John Payne,
due one reason was prohibitively high cost and much more crucially, and it's the argument I'm trying to advance here, one of them.
There will be several, is due to the potential detriment to the drainage capacity of Roaring Creek and the three streams that flow into it from the west.
So I too would second the previous speaker, my neighbor, in that the zone that they will keep clear of built structures would be expanded farther north than has been already proposed.
This is also area that's habitat for native Texas species such as coyotes and bobcats and a diversity of birds.
So disruption of this area that would be enacted as a result of the proposed development,
MCP 19002, would negatively affect the floor and fawn on the aforementioned area and more broadly to the other areas specified in the project plan.
So effect of the increased traffic, the noise in the population that will be a result,
or that will happen as a result of the build out of the proposed plan, that's going to have a variety of negative effects.
We've heard already about the sea of hip roofs that will result of this.
We've got 40 foot minimum lot widths.
That means from the drawings that were shown in the presentation made a few moments ago, those are lots of houses that are going to be very close to each other.
We're talking a sort of minimal proximity, I guess.
And I have a real problem with that.
The density is going to be quite high.
Even though we've got expansion of I-35 West coming and John Payne in 377, that's going to overwhelm, the traffic will be overwhelming.
It will not be a self-contained area.
People that live there will do what people throughout the Metroplex do.
They will travel from that area through the rest of the Metroplex making traffic that's already heavy on I-35 West even more heavy.
So, okay, I'm sorry, I'm going through my list here.
So urban planning studies from around the United States have shown that providing alley access, that was also in the proposal.
If you have garages behind houses, those actually do not age well.
We have one here in Denton that has not aged well, the so-called flower streets in Southwest Denton, zip code 76205.
Who keeps up those alleys, who maintains them over time?
Those aren't maintained all that well.
And I think that's about my time.
Thank you.
Appreciate you being here.
Thank you.
Next card I have is for Ann Allison.
Okay.
Next card I have here is for Anthony Hadfield and Jennifer Maxim.
They left, okay, they're in opposition.
Next card I have here is for Eric Pruitt.
And if you could just state your name and address for the record, you have four minutes to speak.
And can we turn the camera on for item?
Good evening.
This is Eric Pruitt, 2111 Westwood Drive.
I understand that the developers have vested rights under the MPC agreements and that a denial of this Hunter Cole MMD would simply restrict the developments to the prior MPC agreements.
I have no objection to the fiscal analysis within the 40-year period as provided.
In fact, most of my concern over fiscal sustainability past 40 years comes directly from data presented within that analysis.
The fundamental question is this, will this development provide sufficient tax revenue to not only maintain the necessary infrastructure but replace it when it fails?
The digital advice report appears to include shorter life cycle capital replacements like police cars and include roadway maintenance but not include replacement of roadways and utility infrastructure when they reach end of life.
But we know that infrastructure eventually fails.
Everyone on Hickory Street knows that.
Our comprehensive annual financial report knows that when it depreciates assets over 40 years.
Even with perfect maintenance, our city engineers knows this, as he made the following statement to the 2019 citizens bonds advisory committee while showing a 50-year roadway life cycle chart.
You are never going to have a roadway that lasts for thousands of years.
They do have a life span ultimately.
But we can prolong their life and minimize their cost by putting them into a really robust maintenance program.
End quote.
Will maintained roadways and pipes last 50 years or 70 years?
That's difficult to predict.
But they will not last forever.
Total public infrastructure investment for this development would be $1.33 billion.
Total private value at build out is projected to be $5.85 billion.
Is that enough tax base to eventually rebuild $1.33 billion worth of infrastructure when it fails?
If it takes a special 49-cent tax over several decades to pay for building the infrastructure, won't additional tax revenue be necessary to replace that infrastructure once maintenance can no longer extend its life?
We need development that makes better use of existing infrastructure and generates more tax revenue than it takes to sustain.
I don't see how the projected private development value can sustain the public infrastructure required.
The rational conclusion is that we will have no choice but to raise taxes and utility rates on everyone in the city when the infrastructure requires replacement.
But hey, who cares, right? You and I won't have to pay that. Our children and grandchildren will.
While we know there is a good chance that the development will occur if an MMD is approved, we don't know what would happen if it is denied.
Maybe they could finance the MPC development another way, and maybe not.
On the other hand, if approved, it seems almost certain to me that the taxes our children and grandchildren will pay will rise because we chose to grow in a way that is not fiscally sustainable.
Thank you for your attention.
I appreciate you being here. I don't see any questions for you.
Next card I have is Matt Marsh.
My name is Matt Marsh. I'm at 6617 Roaring Creek, and I received this letter in the mail.
Of course, I didn't even know this was all going on until I got the letter, so I guess I better pay more attention.
I'm wondering though, we're looking at Petrus Investment LP wants to rezone approximately 22 acres from mixed use on two and a quarter acres from plan development to master plan community.
So I'll be honest with you, I don't have a problem with growth.
If you don't have growth, you don't have property taxes, and if you don't have property taxes, you don't have infrastructure.
So I think that we should have growth, but what concerns me is the reduction in the percentage of residential properties,
which means an increase in industrial properties and commercial properties, which isn't real clear to me as far as what types of industrial will allow.
Somebody mentioned Flower Mound earlier.
Flower Mound actually planned their city out very well, which is why their property values have sustained and actually held their own during the recession,
because the planners in Flower Mound actually knew exactly what they were doing.
If you drive through there, you'll find out that they've got their industrial hidden from the rest of the residents, and also it's industrial light.
So there's no addition to pollution.
What concerns me is building office buildings that might stay empty for a number of years.
If you drive down Fort Worth Drive, you'll see there's an office building sitting on the right hand side.
And it's been empty for a very long time, and this last time I checked, we're in a pretty good economy, am I right?
So why is that office building empty?
Are we creating a supply where there is not a demand yet?
So that concerns me, because I know that tax revenues coming from office buildings can be incremental and can also be very substantial, but not if they're empty.
Okay, so the other thing that concerns me is I notice that we have a six cent increase in our property taxes, is that right?
So I get that, except for the fact that I drive down Crawford Road every day, and I see what my property taxes get me.
I see potholes, I see a two lane road, and quite honestly, it's a dangerous road.
I'm glad that I don't have small children anymore riding bikes down to that elementary school because there isn't even a sidewalk on one side of the road.
So if we're going to talk about infrastructure spending, why don't we try to fix what we already have?
If we don't have enough money to do that, then maybe we should rethink making some of these changes that we're making.
You will fill residential, people will buy these homes, they're coming in from out of state and droves.
A lot of them are coming from the west coast with a lot of cash, and they're buying up the property values, that's a good thing.
However, they're not coming here and buying commercial property, they're buying single family residences.
People from California and Arizona are not coming here and moving into apartments.
They're buying three to $600,000 single family residences.
I didn't move to Argyle to live across the street from an apartment complex.
That's my problem, because I knew something would get built there eventually.
So my concern is this, I don't like the percentages.
If anything, I'd like to see an increase in residential, because I know that the residential will be filled, those houses will sell.
Whereas the commercial property in this area is a little dicey, there's a lot of empty real estate when it comes to commercial properties.
The other thing that I'm concerned about is these oil gas pads.
Now, I've been in investments for 32 years, so when I see Petrus Investments LP, I know what that is.
And so I'm just wondering, are they trying to rezone this?
I don't know enough about it, I need to find out more.
But are they trying to get this one little 22 acre area rezoned so it makes it easier for them to slap an oil well on top of that pad in the future?
Do we want an additional five oil pads so that when oil prices go back up, all of a sudden we've got all of these oil wells sprouting up all over the place?
If I'm raising small children in the area, I'm not real excited about that.
So these are things that we need to debate and think about.
And I do appreciate the opportunity to come here and speak with you, and I hope you have a great night.
Thank you. We actually have a question for you, sir.
Commissioner Anderson.
Yeah, first off, thanks for coming out tonight.
I do have one statement, but the six cents that the tax that you brought up, I'd just like to get clarification on that, I believe from Richard.
But I believe that is only going to be for the residences that are being built, not for the existing homes that you currently reside in.
So you won't be charged that tax.
Okay, I misunderstood him because I thought it was going to affect anybody who lived in that area.
No, I believe it's for only the houses and the businesses that are going to be developed.
If I could get, I want to get some clarification for you, because I know, I've read several of y'all's, your write-ins that y'all wrote in and stuff, and I know taxes is one of them.
And I wanted to get that clarified for you guys because I know that's a big issue.
And the other thing, after we get that clarified, I'll say something about the streets.
Okay, all right, thank you. Appreciate it.
Okay.
Probably easier if I just show it.
Yeah, absolutely.
So that six cents tax would only be for that area, those areas within the MPC.
And so it's only within those areas that you see colored here.
Currently, there is no development.
I mean, there might be, I think, one or two single-family homes on large, large, I mean, these are older kind of ranch, ranch homes out there.
But these are not existing single-family neighborhoods.
So that tax would only apply to those that are within that area.
So for the residents that live on, most of these residents were living on either their perimeter street or Rowling Creek.
They are not going to be assessed as six cents tax.
That additional tax is only assessed to those properties that are governed by that MMD.
Yes.
And those are not governed by the MMD.
Thank you for clarifying.
And like I said, I read several of them and several people were in question about the tax.
I just want to make you guys comfortable with that.
Now, the streets, there are different streets that are county roads and city roads.
So if it's farm to market road, those are state roads.
And then, you know, unincorporated property is going to be county roads.
And then, of course, cities within the streets within the city are going to be city streets.
But if you have an issue with certain streets, you might contact your county commissioner for your area and they can explain that in more detail.
But streets are governed by I think it's about three different entities, you know, county, state and cities.
So thank you.
Just to clarify, or maybe add more context, Crawford's a weird road because it splits jurisdictions.
Half of it's Denton, half of it's Argyle.
And I think the Denton side actually is the one with the sidewalk.
Yeah.
So I think Denton does okay with its roads in that regard right there.
But your point's about I used to live out off Skyline.
So I'm familiar with that Crawford road.
If I can just, for the sake of discussion on that, that was a hodgepodge of Argyle.
The city limits went right to that right of way.
So I don't believe there's actually a component of that as being city, maybe a very small.
But then you also had a very small segment that was unincorporated.
There's been an agreement between the city county and the town of Argyle where Argyle, and Preetam can come down and correct me if I'm wrong,
but Argyle will be maintaining and improving that road where the city has agreed to, I believe, maintain and improve John Payne.
Great. Thank you for that clarification.
So that's the only cards I had for individuals wanting to publicly speak.
I have cards of people not wanting to speak, and we'll read these into the record, but it's still a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak may certainly do so.
While you all are contemplating that, I'll read these into the record.
Sherry Moore Holland is in opposition.
Dolores M. Moore is in opposition.
George Foreo is in opposition.
He's at 448 Meandering Creek, if I mispronounced that name.
Anne Allison is in opposition.
Michael Skinner is in opposition.
And is Claudia Lynch still here? Are you in opposition or support? It's not marked.
Okay. We'll mark Claudia Lynch as opposition for the record.
Those are all the cards that I have this evening.
Is there anyone wishing to speak on this item?
If you just come to the mic, if you state your name and address, you can certainly ask a question.
My question is for the school. They said that there's going to be seven schools in this area.
Are these going to be for Denton ISD?
And over in Country Lakes, Wally, I've been there for four years. They've been saying there's going to be a Denton school.
Is that one of the schools that's included, or are they not going to build a school back there?
So a letter from Superintendent Wilson came to our commission earlier this week.
And part of the two MPCs tonight, Colon Hunter Ranch, potentially will include six elementary campuses, two middle schools, and one high school.
That would be all inclusive of these two that prophets are talking about.
Country Lakes, we don't have any information that I can provide you tonight on that school.
>> Okay, does it have anything to do with that school? Okay, just wanted to make sure. Thank you.
>> Yeah, anyone else wishing to speak may certainly do so.
If you just state your name and address, you'll have four minutes to speak.
>> Hey, my name is Susie Roomer, 1700 Crescent Street.
I would just like to reiterate kind of concerns that the fiscal impact and analysis doesn't seem to include replacement of roads.
I haven't heard a clear answer on whether it includes the replacement of utilities and roads, so I know it factors in maintenance.
So what an earlier speaker was saying, that's very expensive to replace all of that.
And so we need to know that we are going to have enough revenue to cover the cost of that, and so that the tax rate across town won't have to go up in the future.
So like he said, our kids and our grandkids.
I think I'll be a senior citizen at that point, so I'll have the tax free, so I'll be good.
But it's not great for our city long term that we're doing this.
And it already feels like that's going on currently where we seem to not be able to afford to replace our streets.
So we're having to take out debt to do so.
So I guess mostly it's just a question of does the fiscal impact analysis include street replacement?
And also does it factor in the fact that one section has gone down to R7 actually too?
Richard or Preetam, can we get clarification on the fiscal analysis if it includes the replacement of roads at a time in the future?
If I can just add some additional information with respect to the roadway pavement sections.
And while not part of the DDC, within the transportation criteria manual there's different paving.
And then there's a step up.
There's what's called a super pavement that I believe is specced by TxDOT.
As part of that project agreement, and again that super pavement extends the life and lessens the maintenance cost associated with those.
As part of those project agreements or operating agreement, they have agreed to use the super pavement.
So again looking at over more of a long term extension of those roads, but also a reduced cost on maintenance.
And David can correct me if I'm wrong on the long term, but I think that's what he hinted at, that there's not going to be this extra $860 million.
But again, there will be additional tax revenue generated by these MPCs.
And then in that long term capital improvements planning, obviously those tax dollars, just like anywhere else in the city, go to fund those capital projects.
David Yance, Director of Finance, specifically for the roadways, all the new roadways that come on board or the expansion of roadways.
The fiscal impact study and the HCR study that was associated just look at the 40 years.
So they didn't necessarily have the replacement of those.
They didn't have the maintenance for those.
On the water, wastewater was mentioned as well.
There was some cycles for water and wastewater.
There was plant expansions and things like that.
But I guess I would just say from a budgeting perspective and planning perspective on both water and wastewater,
we're always planning for those future capital needs as they come up.
So in preparation, we do long term, 10, 20 year planning for water, wastewater.
We'll be anticipating those.
And the same thing with roadways as we know the cycles and what we need in the future.
That would be part of that discussion with the excess revenue coming in, how we would plan that in future tax rates.
So to answer the direct question, there was no replacement of those roadways and pass that 40 year window, but we would definitely plan for those in the future.
I appreciate the clarification.
Commissioner Beck?
Yes.
So just for the audience sake, your models that we were projecting out for 20 or 30 years,
they included upkeep and maintenance in the fee structure and the cost basis, right?
Correct.
Thank you.
I don't see any other questions.
Thank you.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak certainly may do so.
For you to state your name and address, you'll be right at four minutes to speak.
Michael Skinner, 9209 Benbrook Lane.
And I just have a clarification question on the rezoning of R7.
Is that strictly single family homes?
Richard, can you give a list of uses in R7?
Within R7, it does allow for single family attached/detached.
I believe it also allows for multi-family.
But there are some height limitations within R7, I think, that are capped at 40 feet.
So attached/detached homes and then multi-family, three stories.
Multi-family, three stories.
There is some limited, very limited commercial that can go in.
But again, very small.
It's not a -- it's not one of a -- like an MN or MR.
But there are some of those provisions.
One thing I wanted to -- because I know there was -- and maybe I brushed over it too much --
is just to clarify on some of the uses and additional restrictions that were put in place,
particularly in commercial.
There was a -- there is a prohibition with respect to RV parks, boarding rooming houses, motels,
major auto repair equipment sales.
So all of that is parking lot outdoor storage as a principal use.
All of that is not permitted within these MPCs.
In addition, auto dealers, you cannot have a large lot auto dealer.
You're limited to auto sales and leasing to indoor display only.
So that's another use that they -- or another restriction that they self-imposed.
In addition, there is some minor auto repair that is permitted in MR.
And by minor auto repair, what kind of falls under that category would be
like a Valvoline or a Jiffy oil change.
And so that's what you're looking with respect to that.
With the industrial, it is a limited industrial.
And that area is, just again to go back to the overall map,
that area is further located to the north.
And while I didn't mention it as part of the presentation,
if you see these lines for the audience's sake, there's two lines here, ACLUD1, which is this area.
ACLUD2 is in that area.
Those are airport overlay restriction areas with respect to the runway.
So there's additional limitations on residential uses within those areas,
schools within those areas, as well as further height restrictions.
And so that's why you see that push for that light industrial up in that area,
closer to our industrial district, but also where the runway is.
Because again, there's further restrictions that you cannot develop residential school or those type of uses.
I just wanted to clarify that.
Richard, can you give Mr. Skinner and just give him the exhausted list of R7 uses just so he has a full list?
Commissioner Ellis.
Richard.
Thank you, Chair.
Sorry, Richard.
On the point of clarification, there was mention of rezoning.
Can you clarify that, please?
Yeah, so the only -- and I know there's a lot of terms that are being thrown out.
And so really there's -- what's really happening here tonight is, for lack of a better way to put it, a text amendment.
The zoning is already in place.
The MPCs are in place.
So what we're doing is -- and I think the Chair explained it -- that we're really updating and what I'll say is modernizing the development standards.
We're updating the base DDC from a code that was originally done in 2002 to more what I'll call modern standards or contemporary standards.
In addition, a lot of the upgrades or changes to the code had to do with changes in state law to make sure we were consistent.
But the only zoning change that's really occurring are these two small areas, these two-acre, these two-and-a-quarter-acre tracks here that, quite honestly,
while they're being incorporated into the MPC, if you really look at the right-of-way takings from the text.map, that will eventually be right-of-way.
And it is incorporated and we wanted to bring that in.
It is within that ownership.
And then there is this MN tract down here that is completely surrounded by -- and the only way to really access it is through the MPC.
And so that is the only zoning change that is occurring.
But what we are doing, again, is changing the -- updating the standards of the code.
And to some extent, mostly, we are putting much more stringent standards in place.
I know there was some comments related to the floodplain.
What the 2019 DDC will do is any changes -- again, if you recall, I had talked about that 25% modification that's currently in the DDC that could be done.
And there's the letter of map amendment, LOMAR/CLOMAR, which is a process through FEMA where you can take area out of the floodplain.
While that would still be needed, the city takes an extra step as we designate those areas as an environmentally sensitive area.
And so what that will do now is, if they do want to change those areas, there will be a public hearing.
So for the residents' sake, if those other areas do want to change, and it is within that floodplain, you will receive a notice just like you received a notice tonight.
And there will be that dual public hearing process.
So again, as I talk about modernizing that language, and to a lot of extent, it is putting more restrictions by going with the new standards.
Thank you.
The public hearing is still open, so anyone wishing to speak?
I certainly do so.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing for both item 2A and item 2B.
I'll turn to the commission for discussion, questions, or motion.
Commissioner Smith?
I'll make a motion to approve with staff recommendations and amendments to what was going to present tonight.
Just the fact that even just updating this code is going to be important.
The 2019 DDC took a lot of time for us to sort through and be able to make it to where it was good for everybody.
It was better for the city than what we were underneath in the 2002 code.
And then the fact that we're going to be reducing the density that's going to be built in this development over the next 40 years, down by 10,000 homes.
The project makes sense.
So just to clarify, Commissioner Smith, your recommendation is including both the five findings of fact and the items outlined by Richard at the start of the presentation?
Yes, Chair.
Commissioner Anderson?
Second motion.
So we have a first and a second.
Commissioner Ellis?
Thanks, Chair.
Just a quick question, if Cynthia got an answer to my question.
Commissioner Ellis, the answer to your question is those standards will have to be enforced through private deed restrictions.
So right now they are in a project agreement that's not before you this evening because that's associated with MMD.
So that's how the deed restrictions, the material standards will be enforced.
I understand that.
That was not my question.
My question was the way we have it worded in here, is that going against -- I understand that an HOA can --
Right.
We'll have to take that out and it will only be in the project agreement.
Say that again?
We'll have to take the language out of the DDC or clarify that it's being enforced through private deed restrictions.
Right.
So are we fixing that in there?
That's my question.
We are.
Yes, that will have to be part of --
Because that was not addressed in the amendments at the beginning of the discussion.
So can I make a friendly amendment to add that amendment to the --
Can I get clarification from you real quick?
So you are saying that if we move forward without the friendly amendment that we would be in violation of House Bill 2439.
That we would be putting forth something that could be -- that technically is not compliant.
Just to clarify, we could add language to the DDC where it specifies building standards that they will be enforced through private deed restrictions.
I thought that was already within the earlier adjustments.
No, it was not.
Then I'll accept the friendly amendment.
So there's been an amendment to the motion to include clarification language in the DDC for consideration to clarify the enforcement of such building materials.
Commissioner Ales, is that --
Could we restate that again?
I'm a little unclear what the friendly amendment will be.
So Commissioner Ales brought up the point that we are including language of a House Bill that doesn't allow us to enforce it.
Right.
And so the condition that Commissioner Smith has added to his motion is that legal will create phrasing that aligns with the requirements of HB 2439 prior to council seeing this.
Commissioner Rosal, this is Keith Ventura on behalf of the Act.
Just one second.
I just want to get clarification for Commissioner Beck.
So we're -- are we not voting on something we haven't seen is my concern?
We don't know -- I mean, I understand sort of our intent, but I'm a little concerned that we're making a motion to approve something that we don't know what it is.
That's my concern.
Well, with all due respect, the items that Richard outlined previously speak to some language that will be created.
So the condition that Commissioner Smith put forth already includes language that's yet to be written that's not uncommon for the board.
We're just making sure that the direction of legal is to clarify specific language regarding the House Bill 2439.
That's fine.
Thank you.
The applicant, would you like to clarify something?
Yes, sir. Misty Ventura, 9406 Biscayne Boulevard, Dallas, Texas, 75218 on behalf of the applicant.
I am the legal representative of both property owners for each MPC.
With respect to the design guidelines that I believe are Commissioner Ellis's point of concern, there is a state law that prohibits the city from regulating design guidelines.
As your city attorney, Cynthia Kirchhoff, pointed out, there is also a City of Denton stopgap regulation that says Denton will comply with state law.
As a result, your 2019 DDC incorporates design guidelines.
I think that's common and best practice because there's some intent in the community and expectation that the state law may change.
And so the mirroring of combining both the design guidelines with a stopgap compliance with state law honors the ability to do the best of both worlds by having design guidelines and complying with state law.
In this instance, I believe staff has wanted to incorporate wholesale the 2019 DDC as amended and explained by Richard in his presentation and to remove those design guidelines creates a disadvantage because it's inconsistent with your baseline 2019 DDC, which we're trying to honor.
In addition to that, the enforcement mechanic that I think you're concerned about is going to be addressed by canceling the project agreement, which requires as a contractual matter, not a regulatory matter compliance with the design regulations through the MPC.
Does that make sense?
It makes sense. That wasn't necessarily my question, but I appreciate the clarification. Thank you.
Christian Prada. Yeah, and kind of germane to this. I just want to clarify in your opinion based on the fact that we already have that language as a stopgap.
Is it necessary to add this amendment in or are we creating an issue by adding that in when we've already got it covered someplace else in our DDC?
Sorry to drag this out.
That is a good question, whether it's necessary.
It is it is a way to clarify who is enforcing the building material standards that is in the.
In the currently in the DDC.
And as a Miss Ventura said, and I said previously, the material standards are also addressed in the project agreement.
Does the stopgap apply the stopgap for our 2019 DDC apply to the two DDCs that we have?
It would apply to anything.
Okay, so the stopgap measure that we have on House Bill 2439, which we found satisfactory for our current DDCs legality also would apply to the DDC, the mini DDC that we are approving tonight.
Correct.
That if you remember that House Bill 2439 was very it was crafted very strategically in that it applies to everything.
It wasn't just in the local government code.
I mean, it was covered really in the Texas government code, if I recall correctly, which which found the ability to pull in the building code among among other things.
And so that stopgap ordinance would apply to to not just the DDC building code regulations.
And so it goes above and beyond that.
So it's it's seen as a point of efficiency that we include the language of build design in this mini DDC.
So that if state law changes, we have to just remove the stopgap and not cherry pick every time we we clarified this.
Correct.
I think even even as we a lot of the cities discuss this, some of the some of the concerns that were raised is, you know, as we talk just as as planners, what do we do?
Do we do we now just eliminate and remove that language?
And and part of the concern was that if the legislature's do to change that or repeal that ordinance, you know, there could be a way that that it's crafted in a way that it would only apply to new changes.
So if we if we repeal that that those design standards, but yet they they modify that ordinance, we would just want to leave it on the books just as a protective measure.
And then again, use the stopgap ordinance for that for our ability to not following given that with all due respect to Commissioner Ellis, I would ask Commissioner Smith to consider removing that condition since the stopgap already covers language of design criteria.
So then just make sure that clear on what's happening here, that the the the stopgap allows us to go through and enforce making sure that no regulations have been passed that are going to go in noncompliant with HB twenty four thirty nine point one.
Is that correct? That's correct.
It says we are not going to enforce material standards.
Gotcha. Understood. The amendment that that Commissioner Ellis has made is saying that adding language to this this approval for this DDC would then direct if I understand your friendly amendment.
Correct within direct that legal should build some sort of language referencing that the materials will be decided in a contractual agreement, not a regulatory agreement.
I understand your friendly amendment, correct?
May I check?
Commissioner Ellis.
Yes. So I'm not trying to take these standards out by any means.
I'm only wanting legal to clarify because I think the concern has not been addressed.
We're initiating a new document today or if council approves this on that day.
And we already know we're not allowed to regulate building materials.
So I'm just asking can legal look at it like they're looking at those other concerns.
That's really all I'm requesting.
So I'll leave that up to you.
I think the language from the way I understand your friendly amendment when I accepted it was staying stating that there needs to be language saying legally to draft it stating that this is the building regulations and the building materials can be regulated through a contractual agreement.
That will be done outside of the regulatory authority of the ordinance.
In that case, I do think that needs to be in there in the event that the House Bill 24 to 39 never gets overturned.
Does that make sense?
Commissioner, Chair.
It certainly makes sense.
Give me your reasoning maybe for why we should be removed in your opinion.
Well, just for simplicity sake, I think we have one bandaid, although it's not a bandaid at all, covering with HB 34 and it covers a multitude of different ordinances that it would make us compliant with the House Bill correctly.
Yes. And if the state was ever to remove that, then it's one like meeting vote to remove that and all subsidiary ordinances are then clear that if the motion is continued here.
It seems as though we would vote generally to remove the stopgap, then we need to hear the item for this to be able to remove that language at that point.
Right.
Seems like in that case, then yes, I would want to remove that language and go back to my original motion.
Motion approved with staff recommendations in the edits they made earlier with no additional language added from legal.
Real quick, Richard.
I want to respect Commissioner Burnett.
He's been waiting for a little bit.
No, you actually covered exactly what I was about to ask.
Okay, great.
Just a clarification, not on materials, on the motion.
I just want to be clear, we're taking these motions.
Was the motion for both together or was it we need two separate motions?
Just to clarify, we'll need a motion on the major amendments for both and then also for the rezoning as well.
So this is just on 1901.
Commissioner Beck.
So this is just on, this motion is just on item A. Is that correct?
That's correct.
Thank you.
We have a first for approval of item 2A, MPC 19-001 with conditions of the five findings of fact and the included changes in the four page PDF that Richard went through at the beginning of the presentation.
And we also have a second for this motion.
Is there any other discussion on this item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
The next vote needing to be held is for item 2B, MPC 19-0002 for the major amendments.
The rezoning outlined in this item will be taken in a separate vote for the three parcels.
So the chair will entertain discussion or motion on item 2B.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
With all the other amendments from staff?
We're making a motion just on the amendments, correct?
So just the amendments, there's nothing else that needs to be added on there.
It was the amendments with the clarification items discussed, and then the revised development plan map that incorporated the R7 to the area abutting country lakes as well as those restrictions that were presented.
You will include those in your?
Yes.
Thank you for clarifying, Richard.
Commissioner Pernetta.
I second.
We have a first and a second for approval of item 2B, the major amendments for Hunter Ranch.
Is there any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
And lastly, we do need another vote for item 2B, MPC 19-002 for the rezoning of the MN of 2.24 acres.
Commissioner Anderson.
I'll make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Smith.
Second.
And just for clarification, I didn't read that.
It was the 22 acres plus the 2.24 acres.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion on this item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
Congratulations.
That concludes our special call meeting for February 27th.
I will end the meeting at 936.
Thanks to you, everyone.