May 06, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-05-06 5:30 PM

>> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting. This is the work session for Wednesday, May 6, 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 536. I'll let the record show that Commissioner Cole is not present at the start of the meeting. The first item on our work session is to consider citizens' comment on consent agenda items. There is none to consider. So that moves us right into clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for the meeting. So that brings us to item 1, the approval of the April 8th meetings. Is there any adjustments that need to be made or comments on the April 8th meeting? Minutes. Seeing none, we'll move on from there. We'll take the vote again in the public session. The second item for business is the consent agenda. We have three items. Does any commissioners need any of those polled for individual consideration? Commissioner Beck. >> Yeah, sorry, I should have raised my hand. Are we still going to have the standard discussion of these items? Or not? >> Well, what we can do is -- >> Go ahead. >> Well, we can certainly, if you want to have any presentation on item, have that presentation. But we can also poll one if you want a separate vote. So I'll consider either or, or both if needed. >> When we have presentations from staff, I'd like to just maybe ask some clarifying questions about 2C. Otherwise, I don't have any problems with A or B. So I may or may not request that the appropriate time that to be polled for the regular meeting. >> Okay. Item 2C. >> Yes. >> FR19-0020. Why don't we go ahead -- is Haley or someone available to speak on that item, and then we can -- Commissioner Beck might be able to better ascertain if that needs to be polled? >> Haley's pulling it up now. >> Great. Thank you. >> As she's pulling it up, just if anyone saw the council meeting yesterday, they took votes by roll call. Last plan and zoning meeting we did virtually, we did show of hands. I will be going through the roll call tonight. So all votes, I will call you up by name to consider those votes. Haley, whenever you're ready or whoever's speaking, you have the floor. >> All right. This is an amendment to an already approved replant. So the plat was approved last year, I believe, in 2019. It is a replant of three -- the original replant subdivided one lot into three lots for future commercial development. There was a note on that plat that referenced that all of the trees on lot 6R2 would be preserved. That note was in error. And so after noticing that error before filing the plat, the applicant has requested this amendment be approved to reword that note to correctly indicate that all of the trees on that lot can be removed in accordance with the code. >> Commissioner Bec, do you have any questions for Haley? >> Yeah. So that was the one. And she addressed that one. And the other is -- and I'm just forgetting what was told to us before, and I apologize to staff for that. But I was concerned about the traffic flowing in and out of the back of the school and there out of the fire station, and the traffic reports and the fire people in particular are completely copacetic with building right up onto that road. >> My understanding from being out at that site near the library and fire station is there is some cross-connectivity there. This site, I believe, has an additional driveway on Teasley and also has a driveway connection to Teasley to the north as well. So traffic flow with this replant is not changing. Those points of access are staying the same. And the lot closest to the fire station that you see is lot 6R3 is currently a detention facility that's maintained by the Business Owners Association. So it's not likely that that lot will be developed with any sort of building in the near future as that detention would have to be put underground to do so. >> Okay. Thank you. That was my biggest concern. Chair, I won't need to have that pulled. Thank you. >> Absolutely, Commissioner Beck. Is there any other questions for the consent agenda items to A, B, and C? Before we move to the next item, I'll let the record show that Commissioner Cole has joined us. Welcome, Commissioner Cole. This item for business is item 3A, ZCP20-0002. This item is for individual consideration. And Haley, this is your item for presentation. >> All right. This is case ZCP20-2. It's the site plan for the residences at Razor Ranch. The request is for approval of a site plan for single-family detached and townhome uses. The site is approximately 40 acres. It's outlined in yellow on the map. As you can see, it's located just north of the Razor Ranch Marketplace development. It's important to note that this is a little odd that we're seeing a site plan for residential development. This is unique to the Razor Ranch Overlay District. The preliminary plat has been approved for this entire 40 acres. And the final plat for phase 1 has been approved by this commission as well. So a little bit of background on this. This site plan is further unique because the marketplace was the first part of the Razor Ranch development. So this actually ties back to ordinances from 2008 and 2009 for the site plan approval procedures. So similar to what you've seen before, but slightly different in that building elevations were not a requirement of that ordinance. Some samples have been provided here to give you an idea of what the homes would look like, but those are not part of the approval criteria, just the site plan and landscape plan. The criteria for approval in the 2008 and 2009 ordinances are substantially the same as what you've seen for other Razor Ranch site plans. So it requires compliance with the concept plan, whether there's a compatible arrangement of buildings that would not adversely affect adjoining properties, whether the plan provides for adequate and safe vehicular circulation, and rather it complies with all other sections of the overlay. So just to give you a little bit of background on this site, it does have split zoning. The Razor Ranch overlay, again, references back to the 2002 zoning district. So that is a split of neighborhood residential 3 on the north and neighborhood residential mixed use 12 on the south. This has been designated as a residential sub area of the marketplace since the beginning of Razor Ranch, and it permits a single family and townhome uses, which is what's proposed with this site plan. This particular site is subject to the architectural and landscape standards from exhibit C4 of the overlay district, which was approved through ordinance in 2018. If any of you recall that, you may recall that as part of that approval, the applicant at the time volunteered that this northern part of the NRMU 12 portion of the site would be developed in accordance with NR3 to provide a single family buffer to the existing neighborhood. It further limited the development to 70 single family homes and 230 townhomes, plus an amenity center. The developer at this time has not quite finalized their plans for the amenity center. So that will be coming back before you as a separate site plan in the future once they have those plans firmed up a little bit further. I wanted to show you the 2008 concept plan that this is required to comply with. So this plan, it may be hard to see, but I've outlined in red the property that we're looking at. It reflects a mixture of townhomes and single family detached uses, you may see a substantial portion of open space on that. At the time, it allowed for two gas well drilling and production sites to be on this property. Those were later removed from the razor range overlay once that site on the south side of the campus went into place. So that opened up more of this property for residential use. And since this time, the ordinances have just shown this as being a single family and townhome area. So this is a look at the site plan that they've proposed. It substantially complies with the preliminary plan and the final plan for phase one that the same lot and street configuration. This reflects 65 single family homes. Those again are within the NR3 area and then within this portion of the NRMU 12 that they offered to develop as a buffer between the townhomes and the existing neighborhood. There are 215 townhome lots reflected on the south part of the property. All of these streets and alleys that are shown within the townhome area would be privately maintained. The larger streets that you see going through the single family portion would be public streets. This is a look at their landscape plan that they're proposing. It meets the street tree requirements with over 200 street trees shown on the plan. The single family lots will maintain 50% landscape area on each individual lot that will be looked at individually as those permits come in for those homes, but they've demonstrated that they can comply with that. And then the NRMU 12 portion averages the open space as is allowed by the ordinance and will have a 45% open space across the townhome areas. This is a look at the intended townhome elevations. So they're consistent with what we see in Razor Ranch in terms of neutral color palette, stucco and masonry materials. And then this is samples that were provided of the type of single family detached homes that are intended to be developed on the north side. And staff is recommending approval of this request as it meets the established criteria. And I will minimize this so that you can see if there are any questions. - Commissioner Smith. - Thank you, Chair. Haley, is that property is going to link into that detention pond that's just to the south, correct? - Correct. The drainage into that pond actually flows from the neighborhood to the north through this property and into that pond. So as part of the phase two that hasn't been final plotted yet, they will go through the civil engineering process to make sure that the drainage appropriately goes through this site and to that pond to maintain the functionality of those bioretention ponds. - Okay. Got it. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson. - Thank you, Chair. Quick question, Haley. The neighborhood, the townhomes that are gonna be private roads, are they gonna be gated? - No, the only gate within the development will be on the south side where the driveway connects into the marketplace commercial development that will be gated to control commercial access through the property. Otherwise it won't be gated. But the way it's plotted, those alleyways are not dedicated to the city, they're to the HOA. - Thank you. - Commissioner Beck. - Yeah. Haley, can I get you to pull up the map again and then show me where the connection is? Is it next to the Walmart? - Yes. - And that's gonna be gated? - Yes, the connection is here on the south side. This driveway has been stubbed out from the marketplace, so I believe this is Walmart here and then Sam's. And that will be a gated connection so that the residents could get through to go shopping, but commercial traffic couldn't just freely flow into this development. It would still be funneled out through the entrances in and out of the marketplace on University and Bonnie Bray. - And the Augusta stub on the west, looks like it's just gonna dead end in that connection to the marketplace, right? - Just this street? - So they're gonna connect to the west to Augusta, but then it's gonna dead end in whatever the road into the marketplace is called. I can't read it on the map. - Yes, so that street will, it meanders on purpose. Our engineering department was concerned when they came in with their preliminary plat about this becoming just a straight shot. - Exactly, yes. - The frontage road to Bonnie Bray. So they intentionally meandered that so that people would have two options. They could either come here and turn or they could turn here and make the loop and go through to help slow traffic. - Okay. Those are my questions. Thank you, Haley. Any other questions for Haley? Haley, I do not see any. Thank you very much for the presentation. That brings us to our public hearings. Item 4A has been requested for postponement to a date uncertain. Richard, do we need to take a vote to postpone this? Okay. Christian or Bec, did you have something on item 4A? - Yes, I did. I just had a clarification. So what are the ramifications of postponement to a date uncertain versus the shot clock? I'm just not clear on that. - Richard, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the shot clock would apply to platting not to zoning changes. So this just provides an indefinite time for the applicant to come back with the presentation. Correct, Richard? - I can't hear you, you're muted. - He's muted. He doesn't know. There we go. - It's two mice in front of me, and I grabbed two mouses. It only relates to plats, and with respect to the postponement, yes, we would need a vote. Sorry about that. - Okay. Great. Are they planning on reposting this? Do we want to open it and take a vote, or are we reposting this entirely? - We'll have to repost it entirely. - Okay. Let's see if I can take a motion without opening it. The chair will understand a motion to postpone this to a date uncertain. - I make that motion. - Christopher, I make the motion to postpone. - To a date uncertain. - To a date uncertain. Thank you. Anyone second the motion? - Why are we doing this in work session? Why are we voting on this? - Oh, yeah. Why am I doing this in work session? - I don't know. Me and Margie both looked really confused for a second. - And I was confused that y'all were confused, because I was like, "Why are we doing this in work session?" - I was confused that y'all were confused, because I was doing this. We're not even going to worry about that. We're just going to get all done right now. Commissioner Smith, thank you for keeping me on task. - You're welcome. - If I had Richard next to me, it would have been helpful. He's in another room. Okay. So we'll move on from 4A. We'll take a vote in public session. Sorry about that. Item 4B is PDA 20-0001, and the item is Julie Wyatt. Is she here to present this item? - She's ready to go. - Perfect. - Sorry, I was muted. Good evening. I'm pulling up my presentation now. - Evening, Julie. - All right. So I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting PDA 21 Stonehill Center to you. The request is for a detailed plan amendment for PD 142. It's also known as Stonehill Center. The purpose of the request is to add a 30,000 square foot building to accommodate a single tenant workforce solutions of North Texas. The property is outlined in yellow. It's a 19.6 acre site. It's located at the corner of I-35 and West Gate on the east side of I-35. Just a little bit of background on this type of PD. This is one of our legacy PDs. It was in existence prior to the 2002 code being adopted. And there was an ordinance that was approved last fall that said those valid PDs that were in existence prior to the 2019 DDC, they would follow the regulations that were in place when they were adopted. So this follows the 91 code. And if you recall from previous submittals for others of these types of PDs, it's a two-step process. First, we have the general concept plan that establishes the use, the property boundaries, maybe the approximate locations of those uses, street locations, and then development standards. That's kind of the zoning of the property, and that stays in place. The second step is that detail plan. And this is for specific sites and for specific developments. It's very akin to a site plan. It provides all those details associated with development. If construction did not commence within 24 months, then the detail plan would expire. So specifically for PD 142, it was established in 1991. It was a total of 245 acres. And that was when the concept plan was approved, and it included things like the permitted uses and the development standards. So that was that step one. The subject property, that Stonehill Center, is outlined in black, so you can kind of see it sort of nested in the center of PD 142. The first detail plan for this PD was approved in 1992. It depicted four buildings. They were multi-tenant retail buildings. They were arranged in a horseshoe pattern around 806 parking spaces. So this was the step two in the two-step process, so the first step two. There were modifications over the next year or so, and it resulted in this plan from 1993, which depicts five buildings. The buildings two through five, their numbers are in green. Those have been built, so those are existing. Building one was never constructed, and so therefore the approval expired. So the current proposal really is to introduce that building one back into the plan. It would complement that existing four commercial buildings. Those existing buildings range in size from about 26,000 square feet to 47,000 square feet. Currently there are 945 parking spaces on site and three access points, one that connects to Westgate, one that connects to the I-35 frontage road, and then a connection to the adjacent commercial lot, which connects then through Loop 288. As I said, they're proposing this 30,000 square foot building there in yellow. With landscaping, the access would remain unchanged. We'll zoom in a little bit to that site so you could take a look at some of the details. First of all, if you look at that inset aerial, you can see where they're proposing the building has parking spaces on it. So if approved, this would result in a reduction of parking, but it would maintain a parking ratio of about one space for every 206 square feet of gross floor area. The area between the building and the right-of-way would have about 17,800 square feet of landscaping. They would plant 16 large and medium canopy trees, which would result in a canopy increase for the site at maturity of about 16,802 square feet. The parking area that they would like to add in nibbles in a bit to the existing landscaping, so they would replace that screening hedge, and it's in that squiggly red line there. And then the vehicular circulation pattern would remain unchanged. It would follow that existing pattern of the drive aisles being determined by those landscape islands and landscape medians. They are proposing architectural elements that are consistent with what is on site. So the top two pictures are their renderings, and then the bottom two pictures are what is existing. So you can see they're bothering a lot of the themes of what the existing development has. As I stated, we do follow that 1991 ordinance. Section 35-52 laid out the criteria for approval within the '91 ordinance, and we'll go over these individually. So first, does the proposal comply with the concept plan? The purpose of PD 142 was to create an urban center with commercial, retail, office, light industrial-type uses to serve as a hub for economic activity employment there at the intersection of Loop 288 and I-35. Previous detail plans didn't really specify a use. They were more limited to spatial elements, like building arrangement, where the parking areas would be, what kind of signage, and then that landscaping. Just how the PD functions. When a particular tenant would like to move in to one of these buildings and seeks a certificate of occupancy within the PD, we refer to the listing of permitted uses in that concept plan for guidance. But we have looked at the uses that the applicant is proposing. Their proposed use is offices in a public community center, and those uses are permitted, as well as the proposal meets the dimensional requirements. So the proposal does comply with that concept plan and meets the first criterion. The second criterion for approval is, does it provide a compatible arrangement of buildings and uses, and does it adversely affect the adjoining properties outside the plan? So we're going to take both of these elements separately. So first, inside the development, the arrangement of the buildings, the proposed building is consistent with those general building scales, architectural themes, and that established footprint pattern. Essentially it completes that unified development that was established with that original plan. The proposed use is consistent with the types of uses that are already on site at the Stone Hill Center. The daily activities as typically associated with an office create minimal nuisances like noise or odor and also maintains the typical hours of operation that we see at Stone Hill Center. The applicant also provided the ITE trip generation rates for the proposed use, and it would generate approximately 292 trips per 24-hour weekday with 44 morning peak and 43 evening peak, once again consistent with what's on site. And then we looked at what was outside the PD, kind of looked at how it affected those surrounding properties. So before we talk about those, I just want to call your attention to some mobility improvements that are going to be going on in the area. You could see on the map that there is a green hatched line. Only West Gate comes off of the I-35 service road and then stops at the easternmost boundary of the Stone Hill Center. However, in the future, that will actually be extended and become the new Bronco way to accommodate the future Denton High School as well as other developments. So that piece will eventually be completed and connect the I-35 service road to Bonnie Bray. That being said, there are properties around there. First of all, I want to talk about number one, that existing residential. There is southeast of the subject property, an established neighborhood, it's a large lot neighborhood, and their existing West Gate, so that north-south road within that neighborhood will not connect to the future West Gate/Bronco way. So there will not be any direct vehicular connection between the proposed development and that single-family residential neighborhood, so we don't anticipate any adverse impacts. There's quite a bit of physical separation. Second, the future DHS site. The commercial land uses that are proposed are generally compatible with high school campuses. It also, once again, is physically separated. There's a lot of space between the proposed use and the Denton High School. And then third, that future residential north of the Denton High School. You might remember it, it's the King's Ridge development. It's proposed for 368 single-family uses, or dwellings. Once again, it is physically separated from the subject property. There's a vacant lot between there, so there's a good buffer and transition area, so we don't anticipate any adverse impacts. And so the subject request complies with criteria number two. Number three, adequate safe circulation of vehicle vehicular traffic. Once again, we're going to talk about onsite versus offsite. Access to the site will remain unchanged, as I stated, as well as that existing vehicular circulation pattern will remain unchanged. The only real change regarding vehicular traffic onsite would be that decrease in the number of onsite parking spaces. However, the overall ratio will, as I said, be maintained at one space per 206 square feet of building area, and that's really consistent with the minimum parking requirements we typically see for more modern developments within the city of Denton. So we don't anticipate any adverse impacts for that. And then offsite, you can see that I've kind of showing where the highways are and where those arterials are. This is adjacent to I-35 and really, really close to the Loop 288 highway, so as well as the future Bronco Way and Westgate, Bonnie Bray, and Highway 377. So the surrounding arterial network provides adequate access for the existing and future development. And then criterion four, substantial compliance with the landscape sign subdivision and other regulations of the city. So with this request, they're not proposing any additional ground signs, and the property is already subdivided. So what we're really looking at is the landscape plan. And this actually follows the 1988 landscape code, and it's pretty different than what we have today. There really were three elements to that landscape code, street yard landscaping, parking lot landscaping, and then parking lot screening. So first, we'll talk about the street yard landscaping. I've kind of highlighted on the exhibit that you see on your screen. It starts where the front building line begins, and then it goes to the right-of-way. So that blue line, that blue hatch line, anything between that and that right-of-way toward the west is that street yard. The current request has within that 40,000 square feet, and the 1988 code required 20% of that to be landscaped with one tree planted every 2,500 square feet of total street yard. And the applicant is proposing that 17,800 square feet of landscaping plus 16 medium and large canopy trees, and that exceeds or meets those minimum requirements. It also had parking lot landscaping. Within that street yard area, the parking lots had to have 5% of either landscape islands, peninsulas, or medians. Once again, the applicant is providing those in excess of that minimum requirement. They're providing 2,900 square feet, about 2,900 square feet of the parking lot landscaping. And then parking lot screening, that 54 dwarf Beaufort holly shrubs where the red squiggly line is, that would be, would serve for that parking lot screening, and that does meet the minimum requirements. So the proposal complies with Criterion 4. Public outreach was done, a newspaper notice, a newspaper website, there was a sign posted on the property. We have sent out 200 and 500 notices, mailing notices. We haven't received any in return. So staff does recommend approval of the detail plan. The site plan and the landscape plan and then those sample building elevations will be incorporated into the ordinance. We wanted to lay out just what those were. First of all, they're proposing that one single story, 30,000 square foot building, the maximum parking on site of 828 spaces. This is one change to your staff report that was in your backup. They're actually proposing 10 large canopy trees. I believe I typed in 12 in error, so it's actually 10 large canopy trees and six medium canopy trees. And then the architecture for all buildings, they haven't fully designed all of their buildings, but we did want to capture what those architectural elements were so we make sure it's consistent with what's existing out there. And so the colonnade for a minimum of 50% of the facade facing the public areas, that varied roof parapet line, and then the decorative towers on at least two corners. We want to make sure that we capture those. So I'm here for any questions, and the applicant should be here this evening as well. Great. Thank you very much, Julie. Does anyone have any questions for Julie? If you raise your hand, I can call you up. The question I had, Julie, is just on a broader picture question, you said the PD was 142 acres, if I heard that correctly. Does the city have any mechanism, or what's the city's plan with the remaining acres that are under a 30-year-old PD, because a lot of that isn't developed, when individuals come in to develop that new land, are they going to have retroactive 30-year grandfathering, or I want to learn more about how we can get the remaining land up to current code or out of the 30-year-old PD. Well, this PD does carry forward. There have been some areas, it was actually originally 245 acres. 245. Yeah. So there are some areas that have been zoned out of the PD, but this PD is, it remains in effect as the zoning for this site. I think it would be, I'll look to Richard here to see if he wants to chime in, but it would kind of be up to the property owner to see if they wanted to kind of bring it up to the current standards and develop it outside of the PD. That's correct. It would be just like any other zoning district that they would have applied to them. Now, I, correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read all the PD language apart from this presentation, but there might be some restrictive things that would be in their benefit to get out of the PD if certain projects were to come in. Right, in fact, unrelated to this, there is, we have some other PDs that are governed by interim regulations. They're actually considering zoning out of that. While the tree standards are obviously much more stricter, it does benefit them in landscaping by preserving a huge swath of post oaks. So I think it's just as we look at it on a case by case basis, there is some benefit to actually zone out of some of these older PDs. I'd certainly hope that the city seeks to, where it makes the most sense, bring it to current standards. We worked really hard to get those updated from 1991. They can be applied. I think that's in the interest of the city. Commissioner Ellis. Thanks, Chair. Hey, Julie, I know you said you didn't get any responses to the mail outs, but did we get an email response on this one? I feel like something came in over the weekend. I just want to make sure if we did that it's on the record that we did. I did speak with someone who wanted to ask about whether that Westgate Road that his neighborhood, he lived within the Westgate neighborhood, if it was going to connect. It was more of a mobility question. Okay. But yeah, so I just provided feedback to him about what, you know, what the future plans are for mobility in the area and also put him in touch with our transportation group to see if he had any further questions. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. You bet. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Yeah. Are we going to, this is, this is not really directly related to that, but are we renaming that road Bronco way all the way to the 35 feeder? I believe that is the plan. We're still working with Denton ISD to get that name firmed up, but that would probably be the plan. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Any other questions for Julie? Looking for a show of hand. I do not see any Julie. Thank you very much for your presentation. The next item of business is item 4C, S19-0015D. It is Cindy Jackson's item. Is Cindy available to present? Yep. She's coming up now. Have a look at it shortly. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're all set. Can you see the screen? Not yet. I can't see it. How about, there we go. Good evening. Cindy Jackson here to present S19-0015. This is a request for approval of a specific use permit to permit a communications tower with a maximum height of 810 feet mean sea level for a broadband wireless service. The request was originally for 150 foot tall tower. However, it has since been determined that the site is located in the airport height hazard district. The height of structures located within this height hazard district are limited to 810 feet mean sea level per section 4.5.8C3. The applicant has agreed to change the request to an 810 foot mean sea level tall structure. The property is located at 3401 Barcelona street at the southeast corner of the intersection of Barcelona and Worthington. The site is zoned mixed use regional MR. Here you see the full site plan. The full site is actually 4.37 acres. However, the site is constrained by this 140 foot drainage easement. So the development impact area is actually 1.05 acres of the entire site. And here you can see the location, the proposed location of the tower within that development impact area. Here's a close up of the development impact area. And you can see that there is a drive off of Barcelona and it is a shared drive with the property that is to the west of the site. The site actually fronts Barcelona, has parking to the side and rear, and the tower is located to the rear of the building. Here's the landscape plan. The applicant is actually proposing to provide 40% of landscape area in the development impact area. That exceeds the required 25% landscaped area by 15%. Six trees will be planted along Barcelona street and the site will have a 30% tree canopy all in conformance with the requirements of the DDC. The building elevations are as follows. The front elevation of the building is this top elevation right up here. The proposed communications tower, this is what it will look like. The height, as I noted previously, it will have a maximum height of 810 feet mean sea level. The applicant right now has an application under review by the FAA and the FAA will determine what the ultimate height is. Cindy, can I pause you real fast and acknowledge Commissioner Beck with a question? Sure. Thank you, Chair. And it's directly germane to this. Given the 800 and whatever you said, sea level limit, what would be a rough height of the tower from the ground? 82 feet. Okay, thank you. Sure. The only difference is the applicant is proposing to put a wooden fence to screen the bottom of it. As you know, we have general criteria for approval of all applications. And I go through that in my staff report. I'm not going to cover it here. We have SUP criteria for approval, which I will go into one by one. Criteria one is compatibility with the surrounding area. The surrounding development is comprised of light manufacturing companies, warehouses and a medical clinic. These are primarily industrial in nature with the exception of the medical clinic. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses. The land criteria two is minimal impacts on future development. The land surrounding the site has already been developed. The proposed communications tower and accompanying office building will have minimal impact on the future development of this area. Criteria three, the use conforms with all standards of the DDC and all applicable city codes and yes, it does conform with all standards of the DDC and applicable codes. Criteria four, impacts associated with access, traffic, emergency services, utilities, parking, refuge areas, glare and odor have been adequately mitigated. The proposed tower has been located on the interior of the lot. It's not located within any building setbacks or easements or right of way. There will be minimal if any glare, noise or odor from the tower. The criteria five is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and any other applicable adopted plans. The only plan in effect on this site is a comprehensive plan. The site is designated a business innovation on the future land use map. Typical uses in this area are offices like manufacturing, research and development. The proposed use is in compliance with the future land use designation. Criteria six, the use adversely impacts the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the city of Denton. The use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the city of Denton. This will have to comply with all city of Denton criteria as well as any FAA criteria that is imposed on it to ensure that it doesn't adversely affect any citizens. We sent out notifications within 200 and 500 feet as well as put out a newspaper notice. The sign was posted on the site. We received two responses in opposition which I emailed to all of you this afternoon. They comprise 11% of the area within the 200 foot boundary. We received one in favor but that was the applicant so it doesn't count. No neighborhood meetings were held. Staff recommends approval of the request for a communications tower with a maximum height of 810 feet mean sea level as it conforms with the criteria in section 2.4.5E, section 2.5.3D for the approval of a specific use permit and section 4.5.8 of the airport height hazard district. And that concludes my presentation. The applicant will be telephoning in later on to answer any questions. Great. Thank you so much, Cindy. Commissioner back has a question. Thank you, chair. Cindy, there was the three for one rule that was in effect before and obviously with a shorter tower, you know, three for one is shorter now but they're not proposing changing that three foot or that three for one rule, right? That's right. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Cindy? Cindy thank you very much. Next item for business is item 4D PD20-0001. This item is Haley Zagurski's and I'll turn it over to her when she's ready. Okay. All right. Good evening. This is PD21 for Sagebrook. The request before you this evening is a dual request. This is for an initial zoning of planned development district on approximately 132 acres and a rezoning from residential six or R6 district to PD on approximately 14 acres that are located adjacent to the railroad. The site is a total of 146 acres. It's outlined in yellow on the map. This may be familiar to you all as this developer did come to a work session earlier this year and present their plans. Since then, they have annexed the property and now that that process is completed, they're seeking the desired zoning. So this is a look at our current zoning map. Properties that have been annexed into the city receive a placeholder designation of rural residential. So that's the RR that you see on the map. The frontage of the railroad track is zoned R6. That was part of an annexation down the Fort Worth Drive corridor in the 1960s. And then you can see the proposed zoning map with the entire site zoned to PD. This is a look at the site layout that was included in your backup. So that is a total of 491 lots. Within the residential portion of the development, there's approximately 9.4 acres that are dedicated to HOA open space areas. That includes the two areas circled in yellow on the southern side would be the primary amenity center. The PD indicates that that would contain a pool, a cabana, and a playground. There would also be walking trails throughout that area. On the north side, there's going to be a pond with walking trails and benches. Circled in blue, there is a central spine through the development that will be kind of a boulevard design with the street going one way on either side of a central median that will have a 10-foot combined hike bike trail that will run from Allred Road to Brush Creek Road. And then south of the future Brush Creek Road extension, there's approximately 18 acres of land that they're proposing to dedicate to the city. That would be potentially used by the Parks Department for future trail extensions. Approximately 14 acres of that is within a floodplain ESA. And then circled in red on this map is a portion of an HOA lot where a plugged gas well is located as in anticipation of this development, the developer did ensure that that well was plugged and would be providing for it to be within an open space lot so that no structure would be built over the well. There is a phasing schedule included as part of this PD. Phase one is the area in green that would establish that north-south connection to connect Allred to Brush Creek and provide two points of access for approximately 143 units as well as the primary amenity lot. Phase two would be to the north of that at the intersection of Allred and Bonnie Brain would be for 133 additional units. And then phase three is about 99 units that would include some further extension of Brush Creek Road. And phase four would complete their portion of Brush Creek Road and have 116 residential units. The developer, it will only be developing their half of Brush Creek that's adjacent to the residential portions, that'd be two lanes of the road from Fort Worth Drive to the western boundary of their property. This table compares the plan development standards that they've proposed with the R6 base zoning that they're basing this PD on. This PD would permit only single-family detached dwellings as a primary use along with parks and amenity centers to ensure that future property on the south side can be dedicated for park development and that their amenity center is permitted there, of course. And then they're permitting any of the accessory and temporary uses allowed within the R6 district so that if a resident wanted to install solar panels or something of that nature, that would be permitted. This table shows a comparison of the dimensional standards from the PD to the R6 district. There is one change. The applicant noticed this afternoon that they had typed in a 10-foot side yard setback for all lots within the PD. They intended that only for corner lots to have a 10-foot setback. So for the standard side yard for interior lots, that would be five feet consistent with the R6 district. The only major changes they've proposed in terms of these values is the front yard setback, which would be 20 feet instead of 10 feet, so a little bit larger front yard than what we would normally see. And then they're proposing enhanced landscaping. So whereas a normal subdivision in R6 would have a minimum of one yard tree, they've proposed that for interior lots with two additional ornamental trees on corner lots. And then they've stipulated the minimum standards for front yard landscaping for each home as well as for evergreen screening on the foundations of corner lots. In addition, I do want to note that their minimum open space comes out to 18% overall when you look at the 146 acres. The DDC minimum is 5% dedicated open space for a single-family subdivision with more than 10 lots. As has been noted in the other presentations, there are general criteria applicable to all applications. Those are outlined in detail in your backup, so I won't go through them all here, but did want to note that the proposed PD is in compliance with all of those standards. And then we'll go through each of these specific PD criteria for approval in turn. So criterion one is compliance with the Denton Plan 2030. This subject property is actually a mix of neighborhood mixed use, which is intended for a mixture of commercial and moderate density residential uses. That is, as you can see here on the map, is kind of this entire Bonnie Bray-Fort Worth Drive-Brush Creek intersection has that designation, so that's intended to be a service node for the surrounding residential areas. And then the balance of the property shown in green is designated for rural areas, which is intended for farms, ranches, and very low-density residential development. Generally that is one unit per five acres. But if you look at this broader area, you see this wedge of the pie, if you will, between I-35W and Fort Worth Drive has a wide mixture of uses. We have commercial nodes at 35 and brush are all red, and then over here along Fort Worth Drive. And then to the north of this, we have moderate density residential and a future regional scale park. So it's very unlikely when looking at this little mile and a half wide area that this area will stay rural, especially once the arterial roadway that's intended to go across here is connected. So this is more of a transitional zone, if you will, between the high intensity of the highway across to the east, to where we have this neighborhood service area, and then more rural and low-density residential on the opposite side of Fort Worth Drive. So this PD plan comes in at about 3.3 units per acre and is consistent with the transition that we'd expect to see in this area. The second criterion is whether it complies with the DDC. This table, again, shows that they are meeting or exceeding all of the numerical standards of the code. The PD does specify that for anything not stipulated specifically in the PD, they would meet the DDC standards. Then criterion three is whether it provides for greater building design amenities and connectivity. They are proposing to meet the building design standards within the DDC, and then they would enhance each of those lots aesthetically with some enhanced landscaping, as we looked at earlier. So additional trees and foundation plantings on corner lots, as well as specifying the minimum front yard landscaping for each of those homes in terms of shrubs and ornamental plants. In terms of amenities and open space, as I mentioned, those two large amenity areas account for 6.4% of the residential subdivision area at just over nine acres. Those would feature ponds, walking paths, in addition to the pool and playground amenities. The DDC minimum is 5%, so they are exceeding that. And then rather the development would provide for greater connectivity. We found that it would improve pedestrian and automotive connectivity in this area. The extension of Brush Creek Road will be aiding in the construction of what the city has identified as a high priority roadway, because we do need that east-west connectivity in South Denton that we don't have today in terms of a primary arterial. So this would assist with that. And then on a more local scale, it would provide for pedestrian connectivity between the future park to the north and then the dedicated trail area on the south side of the development with that north-south 10-foot hike and bike trail. Criterion 4 applies to residential uses and seeks to know whether there is a compatible arrangement of buildings' uses and whether it's consistent with the character of the area. So this subdivision is consistent in terms of density and design with other established neighborhoods in South Denton, Country Lakes and Carnegie Ridge are just down the road from here. And it's consistent with the type of moderate density residential development we would expect to see in the portions of Hunter Ranch that are closest to this. The plan and standards that are presented do reflect some additional buffering around the perimeter of the subdivision in terms of landscaping, street trees and fencing that would provide for higher visual aesthetic driving down Brush Creek Road and help screen the subdivision from the railroad right-of-way. The fifth criterion is applicable to non-residential uses. This PD is primarily residential. The only non-residential use is proposed to be parks and open spaces that are compatible with the neighborhood design. The sixth criterion is whether there's the provision of public facilities. And this has several components, so I'll go through each of those in turn. The first of those is schools. We did reach out to Denton ISD. They provided their expected student generation and attendance zones. So 113 elementary school students, 59 middle school students and 74 high school students are expected for a neighborhood of this size. It is zoned into McMath Middle School and Denton High School, which both have capacity at this time to serve all of those students. Denton ISD indicated that at this time, Borman Elementary does not have capacity, but this is expected to be an eight-year build out between those four phases. So there is time for that school to either gain capacity or there's a high likelihood that this would be rezoned into some of the new schools that are planned within the Hunter and Colt Ranch area. In terms of fire and police, there is currently a fire station that you can see here on the north side of the map on Vintage Boulevard. This site is well within that eight-minute response time boundary, which is the standard for the fire department. And then the police department indicated that this is not expected to have a significant or negative impact on their response time. They did want to note that there is a new police facility expected to be built here by the fire station to be operational by 2022 that would increase their ability to respond to this area though. Looking at water and wastewater utilities, the blue lines on the map are the water services that are available. So there's currently water available on Bonnie Bray. However, there is this new line that's been built by the city along All Red. So water services are available and will be extended throughout the site. Wastewater lines are shown in red on the map. You'll notice the closest line is pretty significantly far down Brush Creek. They will be making a connection there at what's called the Graveyard Interceptor and extending that line down Brush Creek to the west across I-35 and the railroad and across this site to provide service to this area. There have been discussions with our engineering department and they're expected to participate with the city to oversize that line to make sure that it can have additional capacity to serve other developments in this area in the future. Looking at streets, of course, our mobility plan reflects Brush Creek Road going across this property as a primary arterial. They will be providing the right-of-way for that road and building two lanes of it on the north side adjacent to the subdivision. The city did a regional traffic study as you may have seen those discussions at City Council over the last year and determined this was the best alignment for that road and that this is a much needed road that is prioritized for South Denton. Looking at the other streets that they have adjacency to, Bonnie Bray, south of All Red, is expected to be closed in the future. With this development and then making the connection at Brush Creek, they're working with the city and the railroad company to close the current unsafe crossing at Bonnie Bray. If you've ever been out there, it connects at a very odd angle. There's not a lot of stacking room for people to get off of the highway to make that turn there across the railroad. So that will be closed and there will be a new properly aligned intersection or a crossing put in there at Brush Creek. All Red Road is expected to be unimproved at this time. The city will improve that street in the future, either when the park develops or when additional development occurs in this area that generates the need for that. Within the site, the primary connection will be off of Brush Creek, so the majority of the traffic will be funneled to that arterial roadway. They will have two additional points of access as options for the residents and for emergency response. One of those will be off of All Red Road and one would be a second point of access further to the west along Brush Creek. This afternoon, I believe you all received an email response that was sent in today that expressed concern about the alignment of Brush Creek, so I wanted to provide this map to give some context to how that decision was made. There were multiple options looked at in the feasibility study, and at the end of the day, it was determined that the most reasonable, once we got some engineering information from this development, the most reasonable alignment was through this property in an angle that follows the floodplain. This is zone A floodplain, so we needed to avoid that. And then we also needed to avoid this gas well site up here so that there wasn't a plugged well under the roadway, which could cause some stability concerns. So that road essentially had to thread the needle between those two obstacles to connect to All Red at a reasonable angle, and so the alignment shown on their plan is the alignment that the city felt was best for this roadway extension. The final component of criterion six is accessibility to parks. So the area shown in green on your map is the future Southwest Park, which will be a regional scale park. The city is currently negotiating with a consultant on that master plan for that park development, so that is coming in the near future. And additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the area south of Brush Creek down here with the floodplain is proposed to be dedicated to the city to provide future trail connectivities through the floodplain. And park dedication and development fees will apply to this at the time of platting and permitting. Hey, can I pause you? Excuse me. Can I pause you real fast? I think Commissioner Beck has a question. Yes, thank you, Chair. Can you go back to the floodplain map? I think that's the previous one. So the emails that you communicated to us, we're the go through the corner of that property. I guess that's not directly related to this individual property, but it's germane. We're going to eminent domain that and the second question is Brush Creek is our road or somebody else's road? Brush Creek is a city road, I believe. So that is a city roadway. When I talked to our city engineering department this afternoon, they communicated that yes, sometime in the future, the city would negotiate with the adjacent property owner to acquire that right of way that's not expected to occur for 10 to 15 years, probably, based on the expected timing of the Hunter Cole Ranch and other developments in this area. So that would be a future negotiation that the city would have to go through to acquire that right of way when the road needs to be expanded. Okay. And can you wiggle your mouse and show me where the access points you were referencing are going to be? Yes. If we need to, we can go back to the site plan. On the north side, their connection will align with what's planned to be the primary entrance to the park along Allred. On the south side, their primary entry would be roughly in this area and then there would be a secondary access point over here on the western side. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, just seeing the time, being respectful for the public hearing at 630. If we could hold other questions about this item until public hearing, certainly have the discussion, but if we could hold them until public hearing, let Haley wrap up. I think that would be good so we get to public hearing. Haley, please continue. All right. Just a couple more slides here. There was a response submitted online, I believe, regarding the fiscal impacts of this, so I wanted to provide this detail for you all. Just some of the highlights of the fiscal impact analysis that were done as part of the annexation. Currently with the agriculture exemption on the site, the property tax revenue is about $377. The estimated annual tax revenue at build out would be $967,000 roughly. And then the difference when you net out the cost of services would be about $87,000 there. They do have substantial amounts of permit and inspection and impact fees that would be paid for this development at our current rates, that would be about $8.5 million. Fiscal sales tax over the eight years related to the construction of this would be about $1.2 million. But I also wanted to bring this back around to not just the fiscal impacts, but also the qualitative impacts of the development. The developer did plug that gas well in anticipation of bringing this development into the city. They are dedicating a substantial amount of right of way and constructing a significant portion of Rush Creek Road, which is a city asset that we need. And then they are assisting with the improvement of the railroad crossing at 377 that would eliminate that very unsafe crossing we have today at Bonnie Bray in 377. And then also just the amount of park dedication and trails that we would potentially get out of this development and those connections that we would have as the Hunter and Coal Ranch developments occur and provide that greater trail connectivity to the West. Notification was sent regarding this request. Because of the time of this meeting, there had been one response in favor that was provided in your backup. The additional response in opposition was provided via email today, and that was this property immediately to the West. And then I did want to read, I have two additional responses that we found at our office today. That's been closed, so there wasn't a lot of checking of the fax machines, but we did get two additional responses from the properties that are shown in red to the east. Both are opposed as well, and I can read those during the public hearing to put them on the record. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting in January and had about 12 attendees at the meeting and they presented the same slides that were shown to you all at the work session. So staff is recommending approval of this request as it complies with both our general and our PD specific criteria for approval. And if this gets a vote from the P&Z tonight, it would move forward to public hearing at City Council on June 2nd. I'm happy to answer any other questions if there's time. Haley, thank you for the presentation. I think we can hold questions to the public hearing if we have any additional. And with that, that concludes our work session agenda for this evening. If it's copacetic with everyone, let's just roll right into the public hearing. We have no need for a break to move into council chambers. So we'll go ahead and roll right into the public hearing. Let me reset my agenda. Just to reset everyone, this is the public hearing for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Actually, check, I need to close that work session. Let's, should I close that work session? Close work and then regular meeting. Perfect. It's a learning curve. I'll close the work session at 6 42. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing meeting for Wednesday, May 6, 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 6 43. The first item of business is to consider approval of the planning and zoning minutes for April 8th. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Motion carries seven zero. Next item of business is our consent agenda. Chair will entertain a motion, Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval, Commissioner Anderson. Second the motion. We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Consent agenda is approved seven zero. Next item of business is our individual consideration. We'll start, we only have one, item 3A, ZCP20-0002. And Haley, if you could provide a summary of the presentation. All right. So Haley Zagurski with the Planning Department. This is a site plan approval for the Residences at Razor Ranch Subdivision. I'll quickly go through the slides for anyone in the public. So the request before you is for approval of a site plan that features single family detached and single family attached or townhome uses. The property is the 40 acres outlined in yellow on the map that's located just north of the Razor Ranch Marketplace. Preliminary plat has been approved for the entire subdivision and a final plat has been approved for phase one, which is the eastern half of the development. Just a little bit of background. This is in accordance with the 2008 and 2009 Razor Ranch ordinances that required approval of a site plan and landscape plan. Building elevations were excluded from that. The criteria for approval or whether it complies with the concept plan, whether it provides for compatible arrangement of uses and buildings that wouldn't affect neighboring properties, whether it provides for adequate and safe vehicular circulation, and if it complies with the overlay district standards. So with regards to those standards, this site does have a mix of zoning of NR3 and NRMU12. The overlay district permits single family and townhome uses in this area. So both uses proposed are permitted. There are architectural and landscape standards that were adopted in 2018 that this was analyzed for compliance with. Those standards limited this to no more than 70 single family and 230 townhomes plus an amenity center. The unit counts are well within that. I wanted to note the amenity center is not part of this request, and we'll come back as a separate site plan in the future. This is a look at the concept plan that they're required to comply with. It reflected, again, single family and townhome uses, which are what is proposed. This plan had a large amount of open space on it that was intended for gas well drilling sites. Those were removed from the Razor Ranch overlay district and opened up more of this property for residential use. This is a look at the site plan. It is in compliance with the approved layout in terms of lots and streets. You can see 65 single family lots on the north side that provide a buffer and a transition with similar lot sizes for the existing subdivision to the north before you hit the townhomes and commercial development to the south. There are 215 townhome lots and 31 HOA lots. Those HOA lots do include the private alleyways that serve as access to the townhomes. The other streets serving the single family homes and providing those primary corridors from east to west through the site are public streets. They would connect at Augusta Drive and provide that stub out that then meanders through the site to get to Bonnie Bray. They do have a connection point to the driveway stub coming from the marketplace that would be gated to restrict access so that commercial access could not enter this site to cut through to Bonnie Bray. This is the proposed landscape plan. Since this is primarily residential development, the details of individual lot landscaping will come with permitting. The lots do have to comply with the overlay district, which requires street trees at one per 45 feet, and that is shown here on the plan. And then they had minimum landscaping for the zoning. So each single family lot will have to maintain 50% landscaping. The NRMU 12 area required 40% landscaping averaged across the entire townhome area, and they are at 45% with this plan. These are the sample townhome elevations reflecting consistency with the razor ranch standards for neutral color palette and masonry materials. And then these are some of the samples of the types of single family homes that are intended to be developed here. And staff is recommending approval of this request as it meets the established requirements. And I believe the applicant has called into the meeting and would be available for questions as well. >> Great, thank you so much, Haley, is there any questions for Haley? Chris or Beck? >> Yeah, I forgot to ask this at work session, but is there going to be pedestrian access along that connection to the razor ranch? >> When I last asked the developer about that, they did not want to provide gated pedestrian access there. They thought there could be some security concerns, but I believe they might be amenable to that if you wanted to direct that question to the applicant. >> Yeah, I'm just concerned about pedestrians going down the west road whose name escapes me at the moment or down Bonnie Bray to get around to shopping, which would be adjacent, which would seem very convenient, but with no pedestrian access, they'd have to drive. >> Correct, there's that vehicular access there, but the plan currently does not reflect the gated pedestrian access. >> Okay, thank you. >> Any other questions for Haley or the applicant? Okay, seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith? >> I make a motion to approve. >> We have a first for approval. Commissioner Pernetta, did I see your hand pop up? >> Yes, I second. >> Perfect, we have a first and a second for approval. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I will call a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Ellis? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Smith? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta? >> Aye. >> The motion carries 7-0, the next item of business is our public hearing items, we'll start with item 4A, Z20-0005, the applicant is asking to postpone this indefinitely. We talked in work session to a date uncertain, but we're needing a motion for postponement indefinitely. Commissioner Smith? >> Make a motion to postpone a date uncertain. >> Commissioner Smith, are you amenable to postponing indefinitely? >> A date indefinitely is fine. >> Perfect. Commissioner Beck, did I see your hand? >> Yes, I second. >> We have a first and a second to postpone indefinitely, any discussion? Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Ellis? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Smith? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta? >> Aye. >> Motion carries 7-0, the next item of business is item 4B, PDA 20-0001, this item is Julie Wyatt and I will invite her for presentation. So I'm presenting PDA 21 Stonehill Center, the request is for a detailed plan amendment for plan development 142, also known as Stonehill Center, the intent is to add a 30,000 square foot building for a single tenant to accommodate the workforce solutions of North Texas. The subject property is outlined in yellow, it is a 19.6 acre site located on the east side of I-35 and west gate drive, north of west gate drive. PDs prior to 2019 per an ordinance that was approved last fall follow the regulations that were in place when they were adopted, so in this case the PD 142 follows the 1991 development code. The 1991 development code had a two-step process for plan developments, first the general concept plan that established the PD, created the permitted land uses, development standards and project boundaries, that remains in place, it is the zoning for the property. The second step is the detailed plan, it's essentially a site plan, it is particular to an individual site and an individual development, talks about landscaping, the building placement, parking access, those sorts of elements. So the concept plan for PD 142 was approved in 1991, the original PD boundaries took in 245 acres, there has been some rezoned out of that PD, but it does maintain those boundaries that are outlined in the dark blue hatch line. That original PD did lay out the permitted uses and development standards within PD 142, and you can see that Stonehill center outlined in black is central to that PD, it's in the middle of it. A detailed plan was originally approved for the site in 1992, it included four multi-tenant retail buildings and 806 parking spaces. There were subsequent modifications to that detail plan, and this culminating in the 1993 detail plan, it added an additional building so that there were five buildings, two through five were eventually built along with 945 parking spaces, building one was never built, so the approval for that building has expired. So the subject request really is adding back in that building one, the existing buildings range in size from about 26,000 square feet to 47,000 square feet, as I said, 945 parking spaces are on site, and three access points, one to the south to Westgate, one to the west to the I-35 frontage road, and then the site connects to loop 288 through the adjacent commercial lot, it's a restaurant, I believe. The proposal would add, as I said, that 30,000 square foot building, it's outlined in yellow, plus some landscaping and access would remain the same. When we zoom in to the specific area, you see that building in yellow again, it would reduce the on-site parking to 828 spaces, and it would include about 17,000 square foot of landscaping, planting of 16 large and medium canopy trees, which would increase the on-site canopy to about 16,802 square feet at maturity. They will also, if approved, replace the screen hedge that's existing now, it will be similar to what's existing now, that sort of undulating hedge, and the vehicular circulation pattern would remain unchanged. The architectural elements, the pictures on the top, those are the renderings of what they're proposing, and they are very similar in detail and styling to the existing development, which is the two pictures to the south, so they've borrowed a lot of those details from what is existing. The criteria for approval are in the 91 ordinates, and there are four of them, and we'll go over them individually. First is the, does the proposal comply with the concept plan that was adopted? The purpose of PD 142 was to create an urban center, a hub of activity, employment and economic activity there at the intersection of loop 288 and I-35. Previous detail plans were not use specific, they were kind of limited to that building arrangement and the parking signage and landscaping. When a particular tenant seeks a certificate of occupancy in PD 142, we refer to that, those permitted uses in that original concept plan for guidance. We have checked the proposed uses against that concept plan, and they are permitted, kind of that office use with the community center. And then the dimensions, the proposed dimensions are also consistent with the concept plan, so it does meet the first criteria for approval. The second criterion for approval is compatible arrangement of the buildings and uses on site, and then if the proposal would adversely affect the adjoining property. So first we'll look at on site, the building arrangement, the proposed building is consistent with the general building scale and architectural themes. It also completes that unified development pattern that was established with the original plan. The daily activities associated with the proposed use are consistent with the existing daily activities on the site as well as those existing uses, so we don't anticipate any adverse or negative impacts. And then the applicant did provide the traffic generation rates for the proposal, it would generate approximately 292 trips per day, 44 morning peak and then 33 evening peak consistent with what is on the site. Outside of the plan, first we'll look at the mobility improvements in the area that will be coming in the future. The Westgate Road that is currently improved on the south side of the property but ends at the eastern edge will be extended at some point in the future to connect all the way to Bonnie Bray, that will provide additional connectivity to the site. When we look at that additional connectivity and the surrounding development, we see first there's an existing residential neighborhood to the southeast of the site, it's an established neighborhood, large lot, however that neighborhood will not connect to that future Westgate slash Bronco way to the north, so there won't be a direct vehicular connection to the subject property, creating that physical separation between the subject site and that neighborhood, so we anticipate no adverse impacts for that neighborhood with the proposal. There's also the future Denton High School campus that's located south of that future Bronco way, which is kind of that Westgate piece now. Commercial land uses are generally compatible with high school campuses, you often see both of those things on arterial roadways and we do not anticipate any adverse impacts and then finally there is a new residential subdivision north of the future Bronco way. There is once again a physical separation, there's a vacant piece of property between the subject site and that future residential neighborhood and we do not anticipate adverse impacts. The third criterion for approval is adequate safe circulation of vehicular traffic. So onsite, the access will remain unchanged as well as that existing circulation pattern. The onsite parking spaces will go down, but they still will maintain an overall ratio that is consistent with what we typically see for similar developments under the current code. And then offsite, there is a surrounding arterial network, not only two highways, but also a secondary arterial and that future Westgate/Bronco way and then the highway 377 as well as Bonnie Braze. So there's a lot of connectivity in the area and so there is adequate access for the existing and future development. Finally the fourth criterion is substantial compliance with the landscape sign subdivision and other regulations of the city. The proposal follows the 1988 landscape code, which is a little different than what we have today. There were three essential elements. First of all, street yard landscaping, parking lot landscaping, and then finally parking lot screening. The street yard is something we don't often talk about under current regulations, but it was that area between the front building line of the buildings and the right-of-way. The subject request has about 40,000 square feet within its street yard, which required a minimum of 20% landscaping. The applicant is proposing about 17,000 square feet of landscaping, well above the required 8,000 square feet of landscaping. They're also proposing 16 trees, which is consistent with the requirement of one tree per 2,500 square feet of total street yard. Parking lot landscaping, the parking lot areas in the street yard have to provide 5% of landscaping with landscape islands, peninsulas, medians, that sort of thing. The applicant is proposing 2,900 square feet of parking lot landscaping. And then parking lot screening, parking lots had to be screened with either a berm, a masonry wall, or an evergreen hedge. There is an existing evergreen hedge, and they will replace that with 54 dwarf Buford holly shrubs, which is consistent with the existing plant pallet and landscape design. Public outreach was done in accordance with the code. The newspaper website and assigned posting, mailed notices were sent to property owners within 200 feet, and courtesy notices within 500 feet. We have not received any responses either in opposition or in favor to the request, and they did not hold a public meeting. Staff recommends approval of the detail plan amendment because it is consistent with the criteria for approval in the 91 code. The site plan and landscape plan and sample building elevations will be attached to the ordinance. And they do enumerate the following, one single story 30,000 square foot building would be constructed in addition to those existing four buildings. The maximum parking on site could be 828 spaces. They are proposing 10 large canopy and 6 medium canopy trees, and just to alert you, that is different than the staff report. There was an error on that staff report, so it's the 10 large canopy and 6 medium canopy. And then the architecture for all the buildings need to maintain the consistent themes with the following elements, the colonnade for 50% of the façade, the varied roof parapet for 50% of the façade facing the public areas, and then those at least two decorative towers that have to be at least five feet taller than the surrounding roof line. I'll be available for questions, and I believe the applicant, we're going to try to get them called in as well. >> Thank you so much, Julie. It looks like we have Krister back as a question. Julie, I think you mentioned this, but who owns the property with a vacant lot to the east? >> No, I don't know who the property owner is of that vacant lot to the east. >> Is it a different owner? >> I suspect it is a different owner. Let me see if I can look that up really quickly, though. I'm going to try. >> And I'll say the reason I asked that question is one of the rationales for the development was we don't expect a lot of change, but then the chair also brought up that there's lots of 30-year-old code going into this property and vicinity, and it would be at least informative to know maybe how that vacant lot is, maybe what intentions are for it, at least at the moment. So I do show that as a different owner, just to alert you that it is within a plan development. So prior to development of that site, it would have to go through this whole process. So it would require a detailed plan amendment and the criteria for approval with that. And one of those, as we talked about tonight, is that adverse impacts to adjacent property. So it will still require this additional scrutiny and review by the planning and zoning commission, a recommendation, and then approval by council. So I don't know of any applications that are pending right now or any proposals, but it would have to -- it would have to go before you, before you could -- before it would be developed. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> You bet. And just to reiterate, I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, I wanted to make sure the public hearing is open. This is a public hearing. So we certainly invite anyone to speak on this item or have any questions, we'll certainly hear those. Does the applicant have a presentation? Commissioner Anderson. >> Sure. I have a quick question for the staff. Is this going to -- I mean, they're going to build that building, is they going to take away parking for the existing -- like the horny toad cafe, is it going to have an adverse impact on their business, because I know they have customers that park there presently? >> Sure. There is -- so the adjacent commercial restaurant use has its own parking on site. This would reduce parking, but it is -- you know, under current DDC standards, something like this office use would -- we would only require one space per 450 square feet, and they're actually parked at one space per 206 square feet. So it's got ample parking, which is over what we would require, and under today's standards. So I believe there's sufficient parking on site. >> Okay. I would just hate to -- you know, hurt another existing business that's out there by themselves right now, and, you know, surviving alone presently, so. Does the applicant have a presentation or this here for questions, it looks like I might have seen their name pop up at the top. >> She does have a -- >> We are here. >> Perfect. If you -- it looks like Alex and Amy, but if you could state your full name and address, and then we'll be happy to listen to your presentation. >> Great. This is Alex Payne. I'm at 2304 Cavendish Lane, Argyle, Texas. I am one of the property owners and our company manages and leases the facility. I have a kind of a -- I guess brief -- a brief statement in that -- to Mr. Anderson's question in that the Horny Toad Cafe purchased their lot. It does have a huge parking lot to the east of it, and I think they'll welcome the arrival of 200 new employees and a number of visitors daily to that location, so. The property itself has been in current ownership for about four years, and we have been in the process of trying to, you know, work with the existing tenants that have been there for many years to keep the property well maintained, but then reposition a lot of the vacancy. It was 30% occupied when we took over. It's sitting around 90% today before the construction of this proposed building. So a lot of the tenants that we have put in, some are retail-type tenants. Several though have been kind of your back office, call centers, we've got a dental management group that owns a bunch of dental clinics, and they have 25,000 feet there. We have the Census Bureau is currently officeing there. University of Behavioral Health has an administrative office there, and like I said, this is a new proposed government office center. So I'll read kind of a statement from Workforce Solutions, and I know it and refer to it as Texas Workforce Commission, but the Workforce Solutions for North Texas, they provide a variety of services to employers and career seekers through a network of workforce centers in the North Central Texas, 14-county area. So they provide services to employers offering assistance related to job postings and openings, recruitment efforts, and connecting the employers to career seekers looking for employment. They also provide services to career-seeking customers offering career coaching, employment preparation, educational and skills training, as well as tuition support and other services to support the efforts in finding employment. In addition to those functions, they have a partner agency that provides vocational rehabilitation, which prepares for, finds, and retains employment if you have a disability through their partnership. And so we're excited to have them, and you know, we started working on this project before the current economic environment we're in, but this has, you know, really amplified the need for their growth and expansion of their services and size of their facility. As I think I mentioned already, they expect approximately 200 employees in this facility of their agency, and then they look to place, you know, people in our county into jobs in the area. So, you know, I'll answer more questions later if need be. Amy Bissett also has some more information on our proposed development. I'll let her speak now. Good evening, commissioners. This is Amy Bissett, 1117 Joshua Tree in Salina. Can you all hear me? Yes. Okay, great. I want to start by addressing a couple of questions that were brought up in the work session to just to make sure those are covered. Commissioner Ellis, you specifically asked about the notices that went out to neighbors and whether or not we received any responses. I do want to share with the commission that I got a call from Judy Smith with Rose Costumes. She was just interested in knowing what the proposed use was and what we were going to do in terms of building architecture, and so I sent her the site plan and the renderings and answered her questions. Apparently, she was satisfied with that. I think she's excited to see more, just more tenants and more density in that area. And I think that speaks to Commissioner Anderson's question as well about parking for the restaurant to the north. I think the density of employees up in that area will hopefully be a boost to their restaurant business. Julie, will you go ahead and go to the first slide, please? I have a couple of slides that will be very quick. I want to start by saying that, just to give you an idea, Alex already went over this, but this is just under 20 acres with a PD that was approved in the early '90s. There are four existing buildings with a number of tenants, as you can see in the slide presentation, if you're able to see that. This includes Rose Costumes and Explorium Denton, the Children's Museum, and some antique and retail shops. And there's, Julie, if you can advance now to slides three and four, I just want to show you all the aerial of what the project looks like today and some of the architecture that is there today. What we are proposing basically is consistent with the original PD. The change here is that the building is slightly smaller than what the original PD approved. But generally speaking, if you'll go to slide five, Julie, we're looking at a net increase of almost 3,000 square feet in landscaping and a net increase of 10 trees. We'll be planting 16 new trees, but there's some on the site that we'll be able to keep there as well, but some will have to come down to accommodate the building. And then finally, Julie has already shared the renderings with you on slides six and seven. So that's the summary of what we're looking for, and I'll be glad to answer any questions. And Alex is here as well to answer any questions. Thank you, Amy. Thank you, Alex. Does anyone have any questions? I don't see any hands raised right now, so I think we're good. I appreciate you calling in and working with us virtually to present to us. Thank you. Absolutely. We're glad to do it. Is there any looking at city, any call ins for comments? I don't see any. And so with that, I will close the public hearing. And it looks like Commissioner Smith was the first one I saw there. Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. And Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. And the chair votes in favor. That means it carries seven, zero. Next item of business is item 4C, S19-0015D. I will open the public hearing and invite Cindy Jackson for presentation. Okay, so I'll put this up for your hearing. I don't see it here. Damn, it's down here. Okay. Okay. Okay. I don't think it's my revised one. It will be just a minute. Perfect. Here. Okay. Sorry about that. We lost the presentation. Okay. For the record, this is Cindy Jackson with the planning and development, the planning division. S19-0015 is a request for approval of a specific use permit to permit communications tower with a maximum height of 810 feet mean sea level for broadband wireless service. The request was originally for 150 foot tower. However, it's been determined that the subject site is actually located within the airport height hazard district. The height of structures located in this area, the maximum height permitted is 810 feet mean sea level per section 4.5.8C3, which translates to 82 feet as a maximum permitted height for the tower. The site is zoned mixed use regional MR. The proposed tower and accompanying office is located on 4.37 acre lot. However, the lot is encumbered by 140 foot wide drainage easement on the west side. With this map, particularly the north, is to the right. This shows you the impact area, which is 1.05 acres, and the proposed tower location in relation to the entire site. This is a close up of the proposed development site plan, the impact area. You can see that the site will take access on Barcelona Street, and it has a shared access with the property that's located to the west, and this tower is proposed to be located right here. The proposed landscape plan has providing 40% landscape area, which is 15% above the required 25%. Six street trees are proposed along Barcelona Street along with a hedge, and the site meets the required 30% tree canopy coverage. Here you see the building elevations that are proposed, and the elevation that is on the top here is the elevation proposed that will face Barcelona Street. This is a photo of a tower similar to the one that is proposed. The only difference would be that rather than the chain link, we will have a wooden fence around the bottom of the structure. General criteria for approval is in section 2.4.5E. This site complies with all criteria for approval as noted in the staff report. The SUP criteria for approval in section 2.5.3D I will go into in more detail. Criteria one, compatibility with the surrounding area. The surrounding development is comprised of light manufacturing companies, warehouses and a medical clinic, which are primarily industrial in nature. The proposed use of the site is compatible with the surrounding uses. Criteria two, minimal impacts on future development. The land surrounding the site is already developed. The proposed communications tower and accompanying office building will have minimal impact on the future development in the area. Criteria three, proposed use conforms with all other standards of the DDC and all other applicable city codes. The proposed communications tower and accompanying office building meet all the applicable requirements in the DDC and other city codes. Criteria four, impacts associated with access traffic, emergency services, utilities, parking refuge areas, glare and odor have been adequately mitigated. The proposed communications tower is located on the interior of the platted lot outside of any building setbacks, easements and right of way. The utilities are already in place. There is adequate transportation infrastructure that will be minimal if any glare, noise or odor from the tower. It will have minimal impacts. Criteria five, the use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and other adopted applicable plans. There is no other adopted plan for this site other than the comprehensive plan. The site is designated business innovation on the future land use map. Typical uses in this area include offices, light manufacturing and research and development. The proposed use is for a broadband company's office and communication tower and it conforms with this designation. Criteria six, the use adversely impacts the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the area and the city of Denton. The use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the city of Denton. We sent out notification within 200 feet, a newspaper ad was posted and a sign was posted on the site. We have received two responses in opposition to this request. They are located on the other side of the railroad track here. And they represent 11% of the area within the 20 foot buffer. We did receive one notice in favor which was from the property owner, however, that was not counted. Staff recommends approval of this request for a communications tower with a maximum height of 810 feet mean sea level as it conforms with the criteria in section 2.4.5e. The criteria in section 2.5.3d for approval of a specific use permit and section 4.5.8 of the air height hazard district. And that concludes my presentation. I believe the applicant has called in to answer any questions. Great. Thank you so much for your presentation, Cindy. Commissioner Beck. Yes. Thank you, chair. Can the applicant say whether there will be any changes in range from having the height of the tower? In terms of service range? How do we get the applicant? DTV? If we want to have the applicant, I don't know if Mark or John, if you want to handle that question? Thank you. This is Mark Martin, 100 West Oak Street. Can you hear me? Yes, sir. Okay. Excellent. To answer Mr. Beck's question, yes, the height does make a difference, so the taller that we can get the tower, obviously, the better, but as Cindy had mentioned, we are somewhat limited by the airport restrictions at this point, at least. I don't know if John's on the line, but if he needs to add something to that, please go ahead. Hello, this is John Hall, can you hear me? We can, John. Yes, John. Oh, good. There we go. Okay. Yeah, Mark is correct. Obviously, the taller the tower, the better for us, and for all other providers that would have access to that tower as well, we've leased out space to 18T of horizon. However, with the current restriction, we're facing a deadline to get this project going so we're willing to press forward at this point in time to get our SEP and get our building permit and get shovels to the ground and start this project. Okay, thank you. Is there any other questions for Cindy or the applicant? I don't see any at this time, Mark and John, I appreciate you being here. Cindy, do I need to get them to state their address or did we get that when they called in? Do we have that information? Yes, I do need to state their address. Yeah, John, can you just state your name again and your address as well as Mark? Yeah, correct. John Hall, 1310 Chimney Rock Drive, Keller, Texas. And Mark Martin, 100 West Oak Street, Suite 201, Denton, Texas. I appreciate that for both of you. Is there any public comments coming in? I don't see anyone from the public wanting to speak on this item. With that, I will close the public hearing and turn to motion or discussion. Commissioner Anderson. I make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Pernetta? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Colle? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Bek? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. The chair is an aye. Motion carries 7-0. Next item of business is item 4D, PD 20-0001. I'll invite Haley Zagurski for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening. This is case PD 20-0001 for Sagebrook. The request before you is twofold. It is an initial zoning request for plan development district on approximately 132 acres. It is a rezoning request from the residential 6 or R6 district to PD on the remaining 14 acres. The site is a total of approximately 146 acres. It's outlined in yellow on the map. It has frontage on Allred Road on the north, Bonnie Bray to the east, and is located along the railroad tracks parallel to Fort Worth Drive on the east side as well. This is a look at the current zoning map that shows the R6 district along the railroad frontage there along Fort Worth Drive. That was part of a strip annexation down the highway in the 1960s. The balance of the property is shown as RR, which is our rural residential district. After a property is annexed, it receives that placeholder designation until it is initially zoned. This property completed the annexation process in March of this year. This is a look at the site layout exhibit that's included as part of the PD. It shows 491 residential lots. There are approximately 9.4 acres of dedicated HOA open space that includes the amenity center on the south side that's circled in yellow. That area also includes a pond and walking trails as well as some play features. And then the other site circled in yellow on the northeast corner of the property is another larger HOA area that would feature a pond with trails and benches as well. Outlined in blue is the kind of central north-south spine through the development. That road is designed more like a boulevard with traffic divided to go one way in each direction on either side of a central median. That median will feature enhanced landscaping as well as a 10-foot wide combined hike bike trail that will allow for pedestrian connectivity from Allred Road down to Brush Creek Road on the south. Brush Creek is a future primary arterial. The right-of-way width for that would be dedicated and the developer would construct two lanes of that road with each phase of their development adjacent to their property. South of Brush Creek is an area that's approximately 18 acres total. Fourteen of that is floodplain and ESA. That area is proposed to be dedicated to the city for the development of future trails by our Parks Department. And then circled in red on the map is another feature I wanted to call out, which is the location of a plugged gas well. Up until the last year or so, there was an active gas well on this site and the developer did plug that in anticipation of this development. And it's shown in an open space so that nothing would be built over that well. This plan is intended to show the phasing that's proposed for this development. It's proposed as four phases, with phase one being the largest of those with 143 units as well as the amenity center. With phase one, the connection of Brush Creek to Fort Worth Drive would be established. That includes the relocation of the railroad crossing that's currently at South Pawnee Bray and Fort Worth Drive, which is at a very odd angle and fairly unsafe today with limited stacking distance for cars turning off of 377. That intersection would be closed and that crossing would be relocated and properly aligned down at Brush Creek. And they are coordinating that with the city and the railroad company so that that can occur with phase one. Phase one also includes that primary north-south boulevard so that there are two points of connection for phase one. Phase two would be to the north of that and have approximately 133 units. Phase three would be on the west side and would continue the extension of Brush Creek Road as well as 99 residential units. And the north of that would be phase four, closing this out with another 116 units and that final portion of Brush Creek that falls within this property. This chart just shows a comparison of the proposed PD to the base zoning of R6 that they've based this on. This takes out many of the uses that are permitted in R6 and allows only single-family detached dwellings, parks, playgrounds, open space, and amenity centers as well as the accessory and temporary uses as they're permitted within R6. This table then shows the comparison of the dimensional standards and some of the landscaping standards between the PD and the R6 district. Largely they are the same. They are proposing an enhanced front yard with an additional 10 feet of depth for a total of 20 feet. I did want to note up until today the plans reflected a 10-foot side yard. That was an error they intended for that 10-foot side yard to be only on the corner lots. That was carried throughout and that is proposed to be amended to 5 feet to meet the R6 standard on the interior lots. The other primary enhancement from our DDC standards is with respect to landscaping. The code only specifies one tree per yard for residential uses. They would propose one tree per front yard, an additional two ornamental trees on each corner lot, and then a standard of 12 shrubs and 10 other ornamental plants for interior lots as well as evergreen screening along the foundations for those corner properties. They do have an overall enhancement in open space. The DDC requires a minimum of 5% of the area be open space. For the entire development they are at 18%. There are general criteria for approval that are applicable to all applications in the DDC. The plan does comply with all of these, so I won't go through them in detail, but they are outlined in your backup. And then I will go through each of these PD specific criteria for approval in turn. Criteria 1 is compliance with the plan 2030, when looking at our future land use map, this site has a... We lost... There we go. Haley, are you back? Okay, yes. It shows I'm unmuted now. Okay. All right. So this has the neighborhood mixed use designation on the east part of the property. You can see on the map that area in the dark pink color is a node of neighborhood service uses, commercial uses and moderate density residential that's expected where Bonnie Bray and Brush Creek intersect with highway 377. The balance of the property is designated as rural areas. Most of the properties that are within the city's ETJ or donut holes are designated on our map as rural areas. This is consistent with that. This area is highly transitional though, if you look at the broader... The wedge of this pie between where 35 bisects the city on the west side, and then 377 creates a very stark dividing line with the railroad tracks to the east. All of this is within about a mile and a half span here. So it's very unlikely that once another primary arterial goes through, this would remain rural in character. So it's important to look at this broader area and see the light pink here is community mixed use, which is intended for higher density residential, more intensive commercial uses where Brush Creek or All Red Road will meet I-35. And then moderate density residential is designated to the north. That allows between four and 12 dwelling units per acre. And then we have, of course, a regional park just to the north of this property. So with the proposed development being at about 3.3 units per acre, it does fit comfortably within this transition where we see the more intensive uses on the highway, transitioning to lower intensity uses as we get closer to 377. And then allowing for that transition to the low residential and rural areas that are developed on the east side of highway 377. Criterion two is compliance with the DDC. This table is a repeat of what we saw earlier, just showing that they do intend to either comply with or have enhanced standards compared to the R-6 district. For anything not specified in the PD, they would default back to the DDC standards. Criterion three is whether there's greater building design amenities and connectivity. For building design and architecture, they're proposing compliance with the DDC minimum standards. They are proposing to enhance these lots and residential units with that additional landscaping that I mentioned earlier in terms of additional trees and foundation plantings. In terms of open space and amenities, they're proposing a greater enhancement above the 5% minimum, just within those two areas that I called out on their site plan earlier around the amenity center and the ponds, they have 6.4% open space. And then in terms of connectivity, this would substantially improve automotive and pedestrian connectivity in this area of the city. Brush Creek Road is a much needed east-west connection through South Denton, and they would be aiding in the construction of that. And then for pedestrians, within their subdivision, they're proposing that a 10-foot north-south hike bike trail that would allow pedestrians and bikers to connect from the future park to the north to the intended trails that the parks department would eventually develop to the south of here within the flood plain as part of our parks trail system master plan. Criterion four is applicable to residential uses, and that's rather there's compatible buildings, uses, and consistency with the character of the area. This subdivision in terms of density layout and the type of homes that are proposed is consistent with other neighborhoods in Southern Denton, such as Country Lakes and Carnegie Ridge. It's also consistent with the density and housing types that are expected to occur within Hunter and Cole Ranch. The plan does reflect enhancements around the perimeter of the subdivision that would help with that consistency with the character of the area as well as buffering from the railroad, and then includes a variety of perimeter fencing as well as enhanced landscaping and street trees. Criterion five is for PDs proposing non-residential uses. The only of those that are proposed here are the parks and open spaces, which are typical for and encouraged for a residential development such as this. Criterion six has several subcomponents related to the provision of public facilities to support the development, so I'll go through each of those individually. The first is with respect to schools. The expected student generation, according to Denton ISD, is 113 elementary students, 59 middle school students, and 74 high schoolers. This property is currently zoned in to McMath Middle School and Denton High School, which both have capacity to support that number of students. It's currently zoned for Borman Elementary School, which does not have capacity at this time, but this development is expected to occur in phases over eight years, so there's the chance for enhanced capacity at that school within that timeframe or for the school to be rezoned to a different attendance zone. There are multiple schools proposed within Hunter and Cole Ranch that would be closer to this property than Borman currently is. Criterion six also includes fire and police provisions. With respect to fire, the closest fire station is just north of here on Vintage Boulevard. It's shown in red on the map. That is well within the eight minute or less response time boundary. That's the standard for our fire department. I reached out to the Denton Police Department, and they indicated this is not expected to have a significant or negative impact on their response times, and they did note that a new police facility will be coming much closer to this in the near future. Near that fire station, there is an additional police facility expected to be operational by 2022. For utilities, the blue lines on this map represent the water lines. There's currently water available along Bonnie Braith. The city also had a major water line extension along Allred. Those lines will be tied into and water services carried throughout the development. The wastewater lines are shown in red on the map. The closest line for them to tie to is to the east of here down Brush Creek Road at what's called the Graveyard Interceptor. They would make a connection at that point and extend the line down Brush Creek across the railroad tracks and across the site and throughout to serve the development. That main line extension down Brush Creek, they are expected to participate with the city to oversize that line to make sure it can accommodate the capacity and demand of this area as future development occurs. With respect to streets, there's several major roadways at play here. The first of those would be Brush Creek Road. As I mentioned earlier, they would be dedicating the 120 feet of right-of-way width for that primary arterial to be extended. They would be responsible for constructing half of that, so two lanes adjacent to their development to provide access in the interim. The city did conduct a regional traffic study within the last year to look at this road and its possible alignments. As a result of that study and some of the specific site engineering that we were able to look at with this development, the potential alignment for that was determined and that's what's reflected on the plans for this development. That alignment really came down to needing to kind of thread the needle between the major features on this site, that being the floodplain, which is zone A floodplain along the tributary to the south that's shown in blue on this map and then the gas well that I mentioned on the northwest corner of this property that plugged well did not need to be within city right-of-way or underneath the roadway, so they had to squeeze in between those two with this road and that's what's reflected on the plans. The other roadways that this property has connection to are Bonnie Bray Street. The very southern end of that is on the east side of this property. When they make that railroad connection at Brush Creek, as part of that getting that new connection, the city does have to close the crossing at Bonnie Bray, which is currently considered very unsafe because of the limited stacking space and the odd and very sharp angle of that connection, so that would be south Bonnie Bray would be closed south of Allred Road at that point in time. Allred Road to the north side of this property would not be improved at this time. Its current status is sufficient to serve this development for the initial phase. The city is expected to make those improvements in the future, either when the park develops or when an additional development occurs in this area that would generate the need for those improvements. The primary entrance to this site, as we saw on the plan earlier, is near that amenity center. It would occur on Brush Creek roughly in this part of the property and then they would have secondary access further to the west on Brush Creek as well as one point of access to the north at Allred that would align with the primary entrance to the park. Parks are the final component of this. The area in green is the area of that future southwest park that I mentioned earlier that is a regional scale city park, so think North Lakes Park or something of that nature in terms of amenities that will be there. The city is currently negotiating with a consultant to develop the master plan for that park, so it is underway and in development at this time. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the developer is proposing to dedicate the land area south of Brush Creek Road for future trail connections by the parks department. As part of the trails master plan, they are focusing on providing trails throughout the city in our floodplain areas, so this would tie into that. And then park dedication and development fees would apply to this project at the time of platting and permitting. I wanted to mention briefly the fiscal impact analysis that was done as part of the annexation of this property, just to give you some estimates with its current agricultural use. Its current property tax revenue is about $377 a year. The estimated annual tax revenue at full build out would be $967,000 roughly. And then when you look at the cost of service, that nets out to about $87,000 in incremental tax revenue. The construction fees and sales taxes would be significant for this development. Our current rates permitting inspections and impact fees would come out to about $8.5 million. Local sales tax related to the construction of this subdivision would come out to about $1.2 million over that eight-year build out. In addition to those quantitative impacts, though, it's also important to just kind of think about the qualitative impact, so I want to summarize some of those before we get into the conclusion of this and move on to comments. A gas well was plugged in anticipation of this development. The developer will be contributing a significant amount of benefit to the city in terms of Brush Creek being extended and the right of way dedicated across this property. The railroad crossing at 377 will be significantly improved and made safer with this development. Extending Brush Creek Road, because that unsafe crossing at Bonnie Bray would be closed. And then there is a significant amount of contribution to our park system and our trail system with the dedications and the hike and bike trail through the subdivision. Notification was provided for this zoning case. We received one response in favor that's from the current property owner, the Birch family. Three oppositions were recorded just today. One of those was emailed to you all earlier. And then two additional ones we located at City Hall that were delivered by mail. I wanted to read those into the record to make sure they get recorded. The first is from Morgan Trail at 4789 South Bonnie Bray Street. She is opposed and her comments were to quit trying to put neighborhoods near us. She says they all want to, they all start out wanting to rezone only to sell out to other developers, keep Argyle rural. And then Brian Trail also at 4789 South Bonnie Bray is opposed and said, no more requests for neighborhoods. We live right across the street from this one. I also wanted to note in your backup, there were six additional responses provided that were in favor of this request from areas outside of the scope of these notices. Those responses were provided to the developer when he first started the annexation process for this subdivision. So those weren't directly tied to the notices that the city sent, but I wanted to mention that those were in your backup as well. There was a neighborhood meeting held on January 31st. There were approximately 12 attendees at that meeting. And staff is recommending approval of this request as it complies with the general criteria as well as the PD specific criteria for approval. And if this progresses for tonight, it would be scheduled for city council on June 2nd. And I believe the developers here and they do have a presentation that they would like to give as well. Great. Thank you so much for that. You did say the applicant has a presentation, correct? Correct. Okay. Let's start with that. Or is there any questions for Haley right now? Thank you, chair. Hey, Haley. We've had a couple of projects recently where DISD after their analysis said elementary schools did not have capacity. Do they offer any other feedback to you other than the numbers and capacity or not? Typically not. In some cases, like one of our recent rezoning on Ryan road, they indicated that they could zone that into another school relatively easily. They actually kept in contact with me after that. And within a month, they had changed the attendance zone for that project. So I think as development comes in, they adapt and respond pretty quickly to those changes. Okay. Very good. Thanks. Commissioner Beck. Yeah, this exactly falls on Commissioner Ellis's question. And that is, does the district, the school district, when they adapt and are forced to switch the school zones around, do they give you any estimate of general capacity in the south and southwest that for, it just follows exactly on from Commissioner Ellis's question. It seems like we're cramming a lot of elementary kids into these areas and the school district keeps saying, no, we can't do that. And they kind of, we kind of make them make it work by continuing to have development. And that concerns me. Do they talk about their general southwest capacity for students when you talk to them? They did not. They didn't indicate opposition to this case necessarily. They just provided us the data and let us know their current capacity. But again, I think it's important to keep in mind that those are current capacities that they're looking at and this, that amount of students wouldn't potentially be there until eight years or more in the future based on the phasing for this subdivision. And then as we recently saw with Hunter and Cole Ranch being approved, there are properties slated for other elementary schools in the south and western part of Denton in the near future as well. Thank you. Haley, I had one question really quickly, if it's possible to share your screen again and go back to the fiscal impact. Thank you. It's very enlightening to see these numbers, even if they're kind of rough estimates. But I had one specific question on the calculation for our own edification. On the left-hand side, it says local sales tax over the eight years is 1.2 million. And then on the table on the right side of the screen under direct effects from construction, it says construction materials purchased locally would be 31,443,000 is one is locally defined as city of Denton because over at the 1.2, it says local sales tax. So I'm wondering how geographically specific locally means. And if that is the city of Denton, is the taxes on that construction material taken into consideration on the local sales tax number of 1.2? Or any sales tax on that 31 million would be additional revenue potentially for the city not reflected on the left-hand side of this slide. I was trying to look through the analysis and see if they specified or defined the term local. I don't know that they do other than it references the Denton area. Okay. Well, let's not worry about if it's 100% or 10%. The taxes that the city would obtain off whatever that number would be of construction materials that sold in the city, that's additional revenue not reflected on the summary of the left-hand side of the screen, am I correct? I believe the local sales tax total is inclusive of the construction materials. That was my understanding of the analysis. Okay. That is the clarification that I was hoping for. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Haley, can you educate me on how drainage and floodplain is included in the calculation of green space and parks for developments? I am not an expert on our parks ordinance. I believe for areas that are floodplain, there is kind of a multiplier there. I think, Richard, do you know there's a 50% credit for those areas? I don't know. I believe it's either a 25% or a 50% credit that they can receive for those areas. If there was eight acres of park dedication needed and they had 16 acres of floodplain, I think that would be somewhat equivalent. There's a multiplier in there. I don't recall the exact amount, but it is a reduced value, if you will, for floodplain within our current parks ordinance. That can certainly still be dedicated to the city because our parks master plan is relying heavily upon floodplain areas to provide those trail connections throughout the city because our riparian corridors do spider, you know, across the majority of the city, so they would provide some useful avenues for connectivity in areas such as this. I'm not sure, Richard, were you able to? Yeah, I'm looking for it right now. While he looks that up, I have sort of a related question, and that is, does the police facility there north of the new park, that's the firing range that's going to put us in compliance with the response time? Yes, I believe that is a training facility as well as a police station where officers would be stationed out of, but yes, I believe that does include the firing range as part of that training facility. But I guess that's, you sort of, I think answered that question, is there will actually be stationed officers in that facility? It's not just a training facility, they would be able to respond out of that facility. That was my understanding from the police department's response when I asked about this. Any other questions for Haley? Right now I'm sure there might be more, but... Just to respond on the floodplain acreage, it's a three to one, so floodplain acreage may be dedicated at a ratio of three to one in lieu of non-floodplain property. So if I can clarify that, three acres, they get a credit for one? Correct. Okay, thank you. At this time, I understand the applicant does have a presentation, so I'll invite them to be unmuted and present, if you could, whoever is presenting, if they could just state their name and address for the record. It should be either Randy Rivera or Doug Powell with McAdams, and then Rob Betancur representing Zena, if that helps. Hi, this is Randy. Good evening. I think I started... Good evening. I think I started talking a little too early, but okay, so yes, Randy Rivera, I'm a planner with McAdams at 111 Hillside Drive in Lewisville, Texas. Doug Powell is another planner on this project, and he is here with me, and also on the phone is Rob Betancur, our client and the developer with Zena Land Development out of Grapevine. And we are happy and glad to be able to present to you tonight this request for this 146 acres. We have had the pleasure of working with Haley and the planning staff and the other departments. Over the course of almost a couple of years now, and we were able to come in with P&Z to do a work session in late January to really kind of introduce this project to you prior to tonight. And so our application was submitted for initially, not necessarily for the zoning, but when we were in the ETJ, we turned in our first application in December of 2018. And so we have been around for a little while, working through the different code updates and making changes as needed. And it's been a very enjoyable experience working with staff, and we're glad to finally be able to be in front of you tonight for this request. So I'll start off, and Haley, I'll just number which slide to jump to, because I do not want to spend time, you know, going over things that you did a great job already covering in detail. And so Sagebrook, again, is a, you know, 491 lot subdivision and the, you know, the style and the theme and the entry features are pretty reminiscent of, like, a Texas country style using some natural elements and that we wanted to pull from this area. And if you can go ahead and go to slide two. And this is taken off of the city's map, just showing, again, this donut area that we talked that Haley talked about too, of ETJ land in the southwest part of the city. And Sagebrook is highlighted in yellow, I think you know where it is at this point, and that we are asking for a zoning change for all 146 acres for this PD to be consistent with our six uses. I'd like to go ahead and jump to slide, actually the next one, slide three, please. Showing a location of our property, you know, with 35 being so close, it really is about a quarter mile from our northwest corner. And then with a railroad to the east, it really acts as a kind of a dividing line, you know, from dividing the east to the west, and, you know, that this area is treated a little bit differently than the properties up and down 377 on the east side that aren't constrained by that railroad crossing, which limits the access. Slide four will be the next one. And what we did here is we overlaid the city boundaries so that, you know, you can clearly see this land has been left over in the ETJ. And I think it's a safe, you know, kind of guess at this point that at some point in the future, this land will be annexed into the city of Denton since it's completely surrounded by it. It's just kind of how we fit in there and you can see the 14 acres that's already within the city that is the zone R6. Slide five will be the next one, and we wanted to show how our 146 acres fit into the context of these enormous master plan communities with Hunter and Coal Ranch. And on this graphic, you can also see the Brush Creek extension that follows the flood plain and then intersects with 377, but this plan here had a lot to do with the proposal before you tonight and that, you know, to match up with similar uses in the area to be consistent with what's expected, what people are seeing, what the city is seeing, the community and the neighbors. And so you can see as we transition from Hunter-Coal's MN zoning district, which is the nearest to be developed areas of those MPCs to Sagebrook, we transition into an R6 density as we get to the railroad and 377 as Haley talked about this being a highly transitional area. And that is exactly the plan that we're proposing that works, it's very, it's feasible. And again, it just fits into the context of the surrounding PDs as well as Hunter-Coal. Slide six shows the parts and amenities of Hunter-Coal on the left. And then on the right are the regional and kind of local trails. And what we think is significant and the reason for sharing this with you, just the context of this, how it applies to Sagebrook, is the interconnectedness of all of the greenways as those are natural linkages to provide for pedestrian opportunities and activities, cyclists and all of those types of activities to enjoy in these green belts that connect the community together. And the benefit of Sagebrook's location is we are able to provide a link to residents from Hunter-Coal, from Country Lakes to come up through these trail systems into Sagebrook and eventually into Southwest Regional Park there for the sports activities that they'll be doing with their kids and families. And that magenta line that you see on the right, the dashed magenta in the yellow box, that's the proposed trail linkage. We're providing a piece of that, but the idea again is to create consistent connectivity for people to access Southwest Park through Sagebrook. I would like to go ahead and jump to slide 10 and slide 10 shows the existing site characteristics of the property and kind of what we were working with in our canvas and as designers, working with what the land has given you to work around features that are worth preserving and identifying those before we really put any pencil to paper. This slide here shows you of course the flood in the southwest corner, it's 14 acres of zone A floodplain, and then the terrain on here, it's a pretty consistent slope from the north and northwest down to the southeast corner. And there's about a 30-foot average fall of terrain from those two points to the southeast corner, which makes sense and why the floodplain is where it is. And so looking at this, looking at the tree cover canopy that's there on the property today, the mature and protected trees, the nice trees that are located in that southeast corner, which makes sense, that's where most of the drainage is going. And so we wanted to work around those elements as we came up with the design here. And the rest of the gas well being plugged with a huge, huge plus that we could work around that. But with this blank canvas, what do we do to create an interesting design? And that has a lot to do with why we're proposing this meandering north-south boulevard. So if you can go ahead and go to slide 11, please. The concept plan that Haley showed, too, the signifying feature of Sagebrook is the open space that we're providing, that 18 percent of open space throughout the community, but also this public accessible corridor through the middle of it from north to south at the length of about 1,200 to 1,500 feet in length, that acts as kind of a theme and it brings the community together and a focal point for the residents and an access for public community members to be able, again, to traverse up this trail up to Southwest Park. And so that was kind of our starting point in the design as well as what we were saving. You see the pond in the southeast corner, wanted to save that natural open space area. It will create for a very nice driving experience, a long brush creek, and also a natural setting for the residents to enjoy. And then in the northeast corner is another detention pond. There is a little bit of the way the site is, the fall of the site, some of it goes to that corner, so it's necessary to put a detention facility there. And so those were kind of the design focal points that we wanted to include in this layout to make it unique, working with the land and coming up with something that was creative. And so here you can see all the things that Haley kind of already touched on. We are dedicating about 12 acres of perimeter right away, and within the Sagebrook community there is about nine acres of open space in the x-lots, but that doesn't include the landscape buffers along the future brush creek extension or all red. And so let's go ahead and go to slide 12, please. I apologize for that, I just wanted to check in, it is my fault for not starting a proper clock when you began, but typically applicants have 10 minutes to present, and so I want to be mindful of that for the individual I think who is waiting on the phone to do public comment as well. So I certainly want to be respectful of your presentation, but we have been at about 12 minutes right now, so if we can get to high points and then we can certainly follow up with questions, that might be helpful. Okay, well I think the next high point would probably be slide 20, again that's showing representative examples of what the homes will look like, these are 50-foot lots, so the products will be 40 feet wide, and the average price point here is around $340, and they'll start at the low or the high $200 and go up to the high $300. And then I think the next important slide that I just wanted to touch on is, we can go ahead and go to slide 26, and then I can conclude after that. Great, thank you. Slide 26, you're welcome, and thank you so much for letting me know I wasn't aware we had 10 minutes. Yeah, that was my fault, no worries. Okay, give me some grace on that. Okay, so the public benefits again, we're dedicating with the development 120 feet of the right of way for the Brush Creek extension, that's 9.2 acres of land that's going to be dedicated when we plot, and then we have agreed to develop and construct two of those lanes per the phases that come online. We have worked with Union Pacific Railroad on the changing the crossing from Bonnie Bray to this location, they have told us that they will not permit a new additional crossing along 377, but we have to replace crossings that are already there, and this one has been identified as an unsafe crossing on Bonnie Bray, and it makes sense to replace it to come down here on a brush on brush Creek extension where there's going to be more motorists and more traffic there. And then the last thing and then I'm done is extending about 3500 feet of sanitary sewer from the graveyard interceptor. And like Haley mentioned, this will be up sized as necessary, we'll work with the city on our developers agreement, and it will service an area of about 580 acres, and so Sagebrook is really only a quarter of that. And so I will wrap up, I'll be glad to wrap up, and we're also here for any questions of the council and the chairman, if you see fit. I certainly appreciate your presentation and your perspective and context of the project, thank you very much. Do you have any questions right now for the applicant? I don't see any hands raised, so we're going to proceed forward. For this item PD 20-001, we had one person make comments using our online form. There was zero in support for the item and one against. All these comment forms were emailed to the city secretary to be recorded, and additionally there is one individual who has requested to speak over the phone on this item, and staff is currently loading up the phone line for that caller. Hello, caller, welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting, can you please state your name and address, and you'll have four minutes to speak on this item. Yes, it is Angela Dominguez, and I reside at 6250 Allred Road. Thank you for taking my call and giving me the opportunity to speak. My husband and I live on the 35 acres bordering the western property line of the proposed Sagebrook development, and we own and farm 96 acres bordering the southern property line of the proposed development. No one will be impacted more by this development than me and my husband. We are opposing the zoning change request to allow more time to discuss the alignment of the Brush Creek extension with the city and the developer, and to verify the reasons for the alignment by an engineer or qualified third party. In July 2019, we received a notice for the Hickory Creek road feasibility study and a request by the city of Denton for right-of-way entry to our property. An exhibit was included with a notice that showed two proposed alignments of the Brush Creek extension labeled 3A, 3E, and 3H. Both proposed alignments showed Brush Creek intersecting Allred Road to the east of our property line at the northwest corner of the subject property. I called Mr. Jim Jenkins, who was Senior Engineer of Capital Projects at the time, to discuss the proposed alignment, and he confirmed that the exhibit accurately represented the future alignment of Brush Creek at that time. I thanked him for the information and granted right of entry to our property for the feasibility study. When the notice of public hearing signs for Sagebrook were posted on Allred Road, I noted them and fully intended to listen to this hearing. However, the signs and the notice that we received in the mail referenced a request for a zoning change, not a future extension of Brush Creek Road. So I was very surprised when I reviewed the agenda and related exhibits to see a new proposed alignment of the Brush Creek extension. The new alignment shown on the Sagebrook exhibit cuts off the northeast corner of our property, of our residence, and places the roadway squarely through my husband's shop that he uses to store his farming implements. When I saw this, I called Mr. Jenkins immediately and received a voicemail message that he was no longer with the City of Denton. I called and emailed Ms. Zygarski. She called me back promptly and informed me that the new alignment was made after the feasibility study, and she provided various reasons from the study for the alignment. The Brush Creek extension could have been placed anywhere on the proposed Sagebrook development to avoid impact to our property, but unfortunately, it was not. I see in the exhibits that there was a neighborhood meeting to discuss the development, but we did not receive a notice. The developer did not contact us specifically to discuss the roadway alignment and receive our input. Furthermore, we believe the decision on the alignment was made based on inaccurate information related to a gas well that no longer exists. Again, we oppose the zoning change request to allow more time to discuss the alignment of the Brush Creek extension with the city and the developer and to verify the reasons for the alignment by an engineer or qualified third party. Thank you so much for calling in and being patient and holding to bring us that perspective of your property. Do we have any questions for... Is it Dominguez? Yes, Angela Dominguez. Ms. Dominguez, do we have any questions for her? Ms. Dominguez, I don't see any questions at this time, but I certainly appreciate you calling in. Just one second, Commissioner Beck. This is not for Ms. Dominguez, but it is related to materials she brought up. Thank you, Chair, by the way. Maybe it's a question for the city and engineer, but can you educate us why we felt the Brush Creek couldn't go through the gas well property region, especially considering it's being disused now? Anyone at city? Yeah, I can attempt to answer that. A lot of it is due to lack of information. There's not a lot of studies or information out there regarding development over gas wells, especially for something as dynamic as a roadway. The well is capped at a fairly shallow distance below the surface in accordance with the Railroad Commission standards, so there would be a potential need to reopen that well and do whatever workover is necessary to adjust that for the paving and construction of the base for the roadway. In general, just due to the lack of knowledge of what really occurs when something is put over a well over a long term and has the constant use of a well of a roadway, there was just a lot of uncertainty on the city's part of not wanting to put that directly underneath a very costly and highly anticipated Ush Road. I don't know if there's anything else you want to add to that. The only other that I would add is I think you hit it, Haley, when we touched on, I should say, when you went through your presentation, it was sort of sandwiched between the flood plain to the south, and so really it was to have the road kind of hug that flood plain as much as possible for the continuity of the park trail so it can continue through. But again, it was not any intention of the city to have a plugged gas well under any even a local street, let alone a future six-lane arterial. I guess if there's a lack of knowledge, that doesn't mean it's something that can't be done. It means that there's a concern, which I appreciate. We should take cautions and concerns, that there's no standards for removal of gas lines, plugging of things such that building can be done on top of these kinds of things. Certainly this is not the only gas well in existence that's ever wanted to have development near it. I feel like the lack of information is insufficient to make a judgment on that. Yeah, I understand that concern. Staff has researched this topic extensively due to a council request that still hasn't gone to a work session regarding plugged wells. There are very limited studies nationwide regarding this topic. Just speaking from experience with other projects where wells have been plugged, the plugging is done in accordance with Railroad Commission standards. It's typically about 10 feet below the surface where the well is capped. It would be a significant process for anyone, the city or private developer, to adjust that once the well is capped. You would have to go in, remove all the casing and materials that were used to cap the well, put the well off further below the surface, recap it, and then there's ultimately just still the unknown of any potential hazards of that well casing cracking or anything like that with the added pressure and activity above ground with a roadway above it. I understand that, but when we do floodplains, when we do drainages, when we build next to a lake, when we build next to any geological feature, there are risks that need to be mitigated along with that, regardless of what that was. Build next to a volcano, you've got to mitigate for the volcano. The question I have is, those are risks that are associated with development by the developer when they have a feature on their property that they wish to develop, and in concern that we have a lack of knowledge that I said earlier. I feel like we're being asked to make a decision about both for the mobility plan and for this property and zoning, and they all impact where we have a lack of knowledge about future roadways, and of course, that impacts all the surrounding properties. Thank you, Commissioner Beck. Commissioner Anderson? Thank you, Chair. I thought they spoke earlier that there was nothing going to be built over the cat well. Is that correct? Yes. As part of the review process, staff indicated to the developer that we would not accept the gas well being underneath the city street of any type, as Richard indicated, and although we have no standards in the code, we asked the developer and they voluntarily complied with our request to have that well situated on an open space lot so that nothing was built over the top of it. Thank you very much. Commissioner Burnett, I want to get to you real quickly, is there any other questions for the citizen, Ms. Dominguez, I'd like to do is if not, go ahead and close public comment, move into discussion for the commission. Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing for this item and acknowledge Commissioner Burnett. My question was covered by Commissioner Anderson. Mr. Smith, any motion to approve first for approval, Mr. Anderson, I'll second his motion. Okay. Any discussion on the item? Christian or back. So I, I actually had some additional discussion I'd like to ask the city before we go to the motion if that's proper. Yeah, and in fact, it's it's preference to have the motion on the table and then discuss around that motion. So you're you're good questioner back. Okay. Thank you, chair. So I have a question about sort of Criterion for and that is the, the nearby consistency Criterion, essentially, and that is what concerns me is that we are using, we use this development the development north of the park, I forget the name of it, right south of the range along the creek, as well as the PD to the southwest of this as justification for Hunter Cole. And then we're using Hunter Cole as justification for these properties. And and all four or five properties that I've just mentioned are well outside the general bound they're in they're in the city, but they're outside the sort of consistent boundaries of what we would call development in our city. And so I feel like we're sort of forcing these into place and using recursively to justify each other. And and so I'm not at all convinced that we're meeting Criterion for and in the slightest. And I'm also not convinced that we're meeting the Denton 2030 plan for centralized development that again we're using we're using these external development opportunities to to try to justify themselves in sort of a circular recursive nature. And that doesn't it feel at all to me that we're being I think it's 2.4 maybe I forget the exact chapter. But we're we're the the subsection that that's governed the 2030 plan to sort of mitigate sprawl and and keep our density in the central corridor or higher. We discussed this at a number of different opportunities and so this this greatly concerns me that we're promoting sprawl where we're not looking at development opportunities for these for these guests are not the road through the gas wells and therefore we're impacting other surrounding properties and and I and then you know the the information that was brought up by some of our commentators about the fiscal impacts seem like they're they're not at all completely justified. So I'm I'm not at all I'm I'm not opposed to the the nature of the proposed plan for this property were to go through. I'm concerned that we are not meeting our criteria for our overall development goals and and that's the great concern to me for this property and surrounding properties. Thank you Mr. Beck I'm going to jump in and add kind of my thoughts on this. I given that the there's a city park right north of this it seems to me a really unique place to have a neighborhood next to the park a lot of our most cherished neighborhoods and didn't in my my opinion are embedded in close parks whether that's Nettie Schultz or Eureka or North Lakes those are I think some of our most desired neighborhoods in town and so the idea of putting a neighborhood just south of this park and and embedding it into a trail system is certainly of interest to me. The only really concern I have is that I want to talk more about the mobility plan and and maybe further acknowledge Mr. Mingus's concerns without speculating too much about my ignorance and mobility was it not possible to for this property or for the mobility plan to bring in Allred and Brush Creek further to the east and looking at it that s-curve for a six lane road might have been tight and you might have been running to the same angle as Bonnie Bray currently presents itself and so in my finite mind I'm thinking that's the reason we didn't just do two right angles and cut this property right in half with a six lane or two or arterial but I just want a confirmation that I know Haley said we're kind of thread the needle between flood zone and the gassed the capped gas and just so I state this I'm not in favor of putting a road over a capped gas I know I agree with Commissioner Beck that more information is probably needed in that study but just innately that seems a little unstable but nevertheless Haley mentioned threading the needle in between the the capped gas well and the floodplain but there wasn't any mention on going east on the property closer to the park and maybe they don't want to city has one a six lane road next to the park I'm just trying to understand why an eastern route was not part of the finalized mobility plan any insight staff could give on that would be appreciated. Yeah I think you touched on a lot of the reasons for that as the the citizen referenced when the city when the city initiated this feasibility study they looked at I believe six or seven options probably I think it was like options A through H for potential alignments for this roadway they're looking at all of those factors the topography of the land you know with that significant fall was part of that as well as like I said avoidance of the floodplain and the gas well I think you're exactly right on the eastern part of the property that those angles between the railroad and hitting all red would have been a bit sharper than what are allowed for a road of this type that would have this potential speed on it but I know that study was reviewed extensively by our engineering staff as well as with the City Council before an alignment was was eventually settled on this developer as they mentioned has been working with us since 2018 at some point so they've been involved in those discussions and and ultimately it was determined that this roadway in the alignment that they proposed was was the best deal that we could get to get this road across you know with all the challenges involved sure that was my my assumptions but I wanted to clarify it this project makes a lot of sense to me I think it's a high quality project that is needed or at least a desired project south of town however it certainly gives me some pause seeing that the the plan provided in the deck we saw tonight shows a potential road going right into Mr. Mingus said a shop looks kind of a house is a big structure and so I just want to be sensitive to the decision we make tonight potentially is going to put a homeowner in a really undesirable position as she stated herself so I just wanted to clarify and ensure that when we think about the extension of mobility in our city we're thinking about all assets to ensure that we're not displacing citizens unnecessarily if there's another option and so Haley I appreciate you confirming some of my assumptions and trying to look at this road from a different angle Commissioner Ellis I'll turn to you thank you chair and thank you for bringing up this further discussion on this when again was the feasibility study done I believe it was started last summer I think the letters to property owners went out in July of 2019 and I don't know more specifically on that I was looking to Richard to see if he had a better date as to to when that wrapped up I don't recall the exact date that it that it wrapped up but there was a work session that was done at City Council on February 11th part of that work session one of the main discussions was that alignment for the east west there were a number of alternatives that were presented I don't have the ability to pull the presentation up right now but I want to say they looked at four different alignment options and so again this is this is looking at connecting this from 35w all the way over to 2499 so this will connect into Hickory Creek and so I think it has an estimated daily trips 2045 of 15 I think it was 15,000 vehicles which is a substantial increase from today but there are there they went through a number of alignments as associated with that and so it I believe it was discussed you believe what was discussed the the alignment as it's presented okay so do you know that in that study if to chairs point was it ever discussed to bring that alignment into this property that we are discussing I think it maybe step back a little bit and think about what a what the feasibility analysis is all it does is just shows a straight line so it doesn't necessarily give a direct route there's no engineering it's just hey we've got a six lane road what are the major obstacles that we have to overcome to bring this road through and so that's really that's really kind of how it said how it really framed it and then like anything and until development comes in we really start looking at how it how it how it starts to shape up and so through the conclusion or through the not even the conclusion but as that was being developed this project came in and obviously we've been working through and they could probably attest to this this alignment as well as a number of other issues that we ultimately work through to get to where we are today but that's that's where it was essentially what staff agreed to as the best location long term for that for that six lane road and I mean I agree that it's certainly will be an asset when that road is in I do hate impacting a property owner the way that it appears we are they're losing a sizable and I mean usable sizable expensive structure and while I understand them in a domain and all of that will be worked out it's it still impacts them their life which is concerning Mr. Anderson could I rescind my second after looking at this map I'm starting to understand I I was just looking at the the square of the properties but now I do see what Mr. Mingus is talking about and to Commissioner Ellis's point I mean they're going to lose a substantial northeastern part of their property and I don't know if this is something that the developer could rethink about turning it back to the north earlier than going through their property like you discussed to go east of the well somehow but I mean I know they're going to lose some you know lots that they can sell for property but but you got to think of the neighbors and you got to be cognizant of their you know their well-being as well and that's something after looking at this a little bit more in detail that of the points you guys brought up you commissioners brought up I do see and that it would be a drastic chunk of their property and you know I'd like to rescind my second until I hear more that that's okay yeah I definitely can Christian Smith Haley can you remind me on PD's the plenary plot there's be a plenary file with the PD right and then that has some binding natures to it correct the conceptual plans that you're tonight yeah those would be tied to the ordinance all of the exhibits provided in your backup the you know the concept landscape plans all of that go as part of the ordinance we had a we had a case Jim strange had brought up it was gosh it was called a bridge ridge month or something like that over there off of Ryan Road where same deal concerns from them from the neighborhoods to south of the property that it was a plan development that they worked out a changing of the conceptual plan to make that work with traffic for that neighborhood between us and planning and us in City Council I don't know how I'm going to navigate this via zoom but but have how much how much work if it has been discussed about trying to avoid this this property and then maybe I can point this that question maybe to to Randy and your staff down there Randy about you know how you guys built that out in that conceptual plan and how much work can be done to be able to move that road around I get the concerns but I don't know how much how much leeway we can give right now to be able to move that that road during the the conceptual plan inside the PD that could definitely be an option it the PD you reference they did rearrange the the street configuration and presented a second option to City Council that ultimately got approved I think that would be a little more significant impact on this development given the the hundred and twenty feet of width for that right of way during initial discussions we we did discuss with them some some other alignments that can find it within their property which is what they can the you know schematic line on the mobility plan originally showed but ultimately like Richard said this this worked out to be the most feasible option for that street that we could see through about a year and a half or so of working with them and our engineering staff but at this point you know I can definitely let Randy and her team address the impact that that would have on them the only thing I would add I think it's also important to note that well I don't believe they set the design speed for this road typically six lane arterials are at least 45 to 50 miles an hour and so those those curves for the road or those turns have to be within a certain within a certain geometry so I'm I'm not sure if that hard if a hard right or a hard bend to go north to go east of that well could be possible then to realign back up with with all red to that existing road but so there's there's also a number of other factors to look at yeah my concern is one we have an outstanding motion without a second I don't I want to make sure we wrap that up the two it does seem it most likely that the mobility plan is going to have that road go through that property if it cannot go over a well or and it can't go to the east and so even if we we don't approve this particular item that doesn't necessarily protect the homeowner because 100 coal come in that six lane arterial it's it's going to happen and so the the understanding that the feasibility and the engineers found it fit and I trust our city staff that it needs to go the direction they found it makes me inclined to to support this project because it's a sound project they've done years worth of work on it and and I don't I don't see that if the road going there is is a a foregone conclusion to to deny a project before I open for more discussion commissioner Smith you had the motion on the table is there a second for the motion I will second it so we have a first and a second for approval commissioner back thank you chair so I guess following directly on your comments I mean if we had Haley mentioned and Richard mentioned some some other plans and I'm not second guessing our engineers either I would like to see maybe what were the impacts of those so you can rank sort a series of plans and and say well we think this is the best one but if the top three are not that different in terms of impact then and three has I'm just making things up now hypothetically and number three moves to the east and costs plat developments in the property but saves the Dominguez property for the mobility plan I'd like to see those options before I personally would feel comfortable voting through and I'd also like to see you know more of the you know I agree with you that you don't want to build a road on top of a an engineered structure underground but at the same token I'd like to see some of the results of that before I felt comfortable saying yep we should definitely punch through the Dominguez property and make this happen I just don't feel comfortable doing either one of those thank you Richard did you have something to say yeah where I'm trying to we're trying to pull in pre tam Deshmukh our deputy director of engineering so he can provide some more insight with respect to the to the alignment if you'll just bear with me absolutely that would be worth the wait commissioner Ellis thank you chair do we have the applicant still here did she want to add anything to this discussion hello this is Doug Powell with McAdams I've I'm a planner is Randy Doug you there yes okay my name is that's why my name is Doug Powell I'm a planner but we have a background in transportation planning and Richards Wright what happens if you move the road to the east then you have to curve it back at the south so you have an s curve and because you can't bring that that roadway into the railroad crossing you have to have a straightaway so if you look at the map you can't get back up into the west two curves right now we've got a gentle curve and a and a kind of a sharper one off the property but you can't put two curves it'd be an s curve and I don't think it would work and especially given that it's there to carry traffic with the speeds Richard was was mentioning it just doesn't make make sense I appreciate you Doug weighing in on that I like I said I in my limited scope it seems like that's a that's a tough move it's not a lot of space there we are currently waiting to see if our engineers city engineer is able to speak just one moment sure would it help if we pulled the if we brought the PowerPoint presentation back up to show that alignment would that help with the discussion certainly I don't know who has it pulled up or or not I have it in front of me but yeah we can pull it up to have a shared screen so at least be great Richard can you confirm this conceptual plan shows the full hundred and twenty feet right away that's represented to scale of the right away needed for the road it does okay so if we were to conceptually try to bend that road we'd use that same kind of width correct okay sure Chris are back so looking at the layout that that Richard has on the screen is one of the concerns that they're trying to keep the central corridor and I understand that's a it's a fundamental feature of the development but if they're trying to keep the central north-south corridor no I don't think is that correct no I mean I think an s-curve would completely change their development I think the concern now is if given where all right is east to west and where brush creek comes in can you get a hundred and twenty foot right away with two different radiuses or radii at a 50 mile per hour speed on on the height or the depth rather of this property can can you have a a 90 and a 90 degree turn on a on a six lane arterial I don't think so it can 245 fit I think that's the question is regardless of their conception if I would imagine if all red becomes an s-curve through their property their entire conceptual plan needs to be started a hundred percent over we're just looking at the feasibility in general of being able to move future brush creek extension to cut through their property because I think the the the presentation from Haley suggests that based on the mobility plan the current location of the road is the only location for the road I believe pre-tem is available oh fantastic pre-tem if you can hear me and if you're unmuted I can you are you aware of the question being proposed or can I restate that to you I am this pre-tem deputy city engineer I'm I'm not sure if I heard your question completely I've just got into the last of it and I was muted I think I'm unmuted at this point you are the question I think that the that all the commissioners has is the rationale or the the logic behind putting the brush creek expansion or extension road where it currently is rather than trying to have brush creek and all red meet more to the east we're wanting to know if it's possible that the future brush creek extension be moved at all or if it is where it has to be typically I think I think typically when a site is designed there are places that you definitely look for an ideal location one of the features for this particular road was to extend and continue the trail system through the existing floodplain that was one of the consideration that was taken into account we have a continuous trail extending on the rest of the hickory creek alignment all the way it connects back into some of the existing trails along hickory creek near the elementary school back there I want to say that this design was based on the way the profile is the drainage plans and the grading as well as the slopes and everything associated with this typically what happens there are a couple things when we get into getting into the nitty-gritty of design and getting into the weeds of it it's slightly different than where you're conceptually planning stuff conceptually you can draw lines on mobility plans as well as some other plans but when you actually get into the design component you want it to be at a location where it couple things safety is important when you lay these roads out you have a community that split and a six lane arterial goes through the community crossings and having an access to trail system and all that becomes an issue can it be done can it be laid differently within the site absolutely I mean we can engineer everything there are issues with the back to back s curve that may be of concern you have a gas site on the north with the little red area between that and the 90 degree connection to go over the railroad and connected 377 that may be an issue typically that's another concern safety wise when you're traveling at those speeds you do not want curves in your layout so you'd rather lay roadway segments as much as you can plan them and lay them that they have minimal curves and extensions just in the future I mean it's basically planning you plan the best safety alternative so can we look into options going through back to back s curves ideally not recommended in this side because it's very close but can we engineer it we can safety wise not a better option than what's going to aid I hope that covers well I appreciate you hopping on and providing that context and let's see if any commissioners have any questions for you commissioner beck yeah so I'm there's some vagueness in the language and I and I appreciate that you're trying to provide options but I guess one of my questions is and it seems like some of the other commissioners have some of the same questions is is it something that can be done and meet code and therefore mitigate potential property issues on the west or is it you know something that that absolutely cannot be done by safety code yes it can be done we can engineer a different alignment it may be expensive it may be it may create issues related to safety that we have to mitigate at a later date and then as far as the way it goes and connects on the other side of the property at this point that connection and alignment is just in the plans we do not have any plans to extend or have this built anytime in the near future it is purely as properties come up as parcels develop we continue to make sure that we create an alignment that is least encroaching as well as we work with different parcels so yes engineering wise to answer your question we can definitely engineer it as far as safety and other concerns that will pop up as a result the new design we currently don't know we've not explored that option so and can I follow that up with can you you may not know the answer to that and that'd be perfectly fine but can you enlighten us as to the issues that we brought up earlier that you may not have heard of of can you retrofit a capped gas well to put a road open um engineering wise you can engineer anything it's the amount of money and the physics it's a benefit cost analysis that has to be run so what how much are we going to spend in order to have a roadway laid in safely and which is a public facility so yes we have to if we have to explore the option it may be that that might be an expensive alternative but it's something that is potentially feasible if if the source of money were to come into play it's not something that's forbidden or against rules or guidelines it's more of an yeah at this point I mean this is the last minute question but there are two materials I'm not really familiar with that particular site so I'm not sure if I can be specific and say yes this is a great thing or the yes I can do it we definitely have to get into the details of it I can't really answer that question a yes or no at this time okay thank you so any other questions for pre-tim or staff we do have a motion and a second but I want to make sure all discussion all right seeing no discussion I will call for oh Commissioner Ellis sorry about that thank you chair I believe Commissioner Cole had his hand up Commissioner Cole thank you yeah do we know if that what particular kind of well that is is that a horizontal or a vertical I am not entirely sure I believe it's old enough that it was most likely just a vertical well rather than a horizontal I can look into that more with the Railroad Commission Trisha Ellis thank you chair I guess just a couple of thoughts here I'm really struggling here because I really like this development but I don't like that we're being forced to we've got some things on the answer with what was brought up today with this future alignment so it's like if we vote on this project that's effectively saying we're going to align this road like that and pre-tim said there are possible other alternatives possible I just don't like throwing this property owner is like the sacrificial lamb for this development and that's what it feels like to me so that's where my struggle is I don't know if anybody would be up for postponing if the applicant would be up to postponing just to get a little bit more clarity on some of the things that were brought up today that was just share my thoughts thank you Mr. Ellis I think in response to those comments I I certainly without any lack of gravity to miss Dominguez and her family understand that impact but in the same vein we just approved a hundred foot cell tower in someone's backyard off University a lot of the decisions we have do isolate one individual and potentially put them at a disadvantage or or changes their enjoyment of their property for for me the brush Creek and all red represent a southern road for our city that's eventually going to connect east and west all the way over to Hickory Creek through coal ranch and hunter ranch and the idea of adding an s curve or 45s to a 50 mile power road makes me think of 1830 right at Hickory Creek in between brush Creek now and just because we can engineer anything which I trust pretends to be able to engineer anything the the mobility impact the safety impact the bifurcation of a neighborhood the impact of trails put it right next to the brand new park I I believe that the road given all the information that I've been provided is in is in the correct place it's where that mobility is the best connector and it does appear that it doesn't imminently put miss Dominguez's family at at at any kind of disposition it's going to be years decades before that road even extends into the property which is a small concession I'll concede that but nevertheless it's it's not and within a year that her shop or her property is going to be impacted a lot of hands up I want to go I think I saw Commissioner Anderson first uh the staff know thank you chair first uh but does the staff know or is Mr Dominguez still on the phone how many acres we're looking at you know taking from the family because if they if they own 100 acres right there and we're only taking three that's not I don't see a big issue with that but if they own three uh five acres and we're taking two and a half I mean I could see a big impact there but I didn't know staff knew how many acres that we would be uh taken to build the road I'm going to just try to give a rough rough estimate if you let me just I mean I agree with chair this is it's going to be years down the road before we see a major impact but I just just percentages for me it's just you know if we're taking the majority of the property I'd you know I feel horrible but if we're only taking a small percentage or something to you know to do this um so I just did a just a quick uh calculation or or a polygon of a rectangle it's roughly 300 feet uh maybe Haley if you can pull that back up it'll at least give some context so from the corner of their the northeast corner of their property if you go over about 300 feet um which is uh approximately right where the road starts where it kind of tees in we're all red tees in and then down about 630 feet is about uh four and a quarter acres but do we know how much they own I mean I mean it's she had stated earlier I thought it was a 96 acres okay all right I thought that's what she said okay thanks rich uh the next hand I saw was Christa back so so one of the things that concerns me about this is um the development costs maybe should be explored by the developers um but also I'm concerned by um have we so two questions have we explored a potential pathway through the other surrounding properties um to commissioner Ellis's or Anderson's uh point um if we take less of a of a piece of the Dominguez property and and and explore the properties to the north a little bit uh you know sacrifice a corner of the park whatever then you have a potential uh uh shared impact as it were from from moving the potential road around um the other thing that that so I'll bring them both up because I think they're related the other question I have is related to chair's comment and that is um we're talking about splitting a neighborhood we're talking about splitting a neighborhood if you want to develop homes on both sides of the neighborhood if you say that I want to expand the trail and park system to the southwest by moving the road to the east and have instead of whatever 150 homes I am going to have 120 homes uh then again that's that's a cost born as risk and risk abatement by the developers uh not by the city and not by the surrounding property owners so I guess the first question is have we explored the potential for uh other roots and other pieces of property commissioner Ellis I wanted to circle back to you real fast one commissioner was that a question or is that a kind of the question is staff okay I'll let them answer yeah and I don't know if pre-temp still on the call but I think that that was part of that analysis they did when they looked at four or five different alignments but again a lot of that ties to that crossing and aligning it with brush creek okay thank you I can I can jump in I have a quick couple sentences we looked at we started with actually during the feasibility study it's very preliminary planning level we started with close to 13 alternatives and we dwindled down on different levels for feasibility primarily focusing on the terrain the constraints floodplain was one of the main one and the constraints and then also looked at the most direct route if you have a circuitous route that goes different angles and goes further away and swings away people are most likely not going to use that so in order to have something that is an arterial level six lane divided you need to have a most direct route and I think we out of all those alternatives this was one of the alignment that was pretty much distilled down to thank you commissioner Alice I want to follow back up with you I don't know if your hand is up or not you had mentioned about looking to postpone were you interested in making a subsidiary motion or were you just kind of thrown it out seeing if someone else was doing I just wanted to respect that comment well I was trying I was trying to get possibly thoughts from the applicant on that and other commissioners thoughts but I mean the issue is is I'm not an engineer but good points have been brought up tonight that we can't get answered tonight I don't understand deciding to necessarily line a road right through a developed piece of someone's property when we had vacant land I understand we're discussing a project on it now but we did have vacant land and it just seems odd that we didn't and again I haven't seen the study that we didn't that wasn't part of our backup or anything here it's just good points have been brought brought up that we can't get answered and so I'm I would have a really hard time supporting this without getting some of that answered so I guess at this point I will make a motion to postpone to the next I'm not sure when our next PNZ meeting is in the world we're living in but to the next PNZ meeting we have a motion to postpone to a date certain of next PNZ meeting I will let Richard pop quiz tell us that date Mr. Cole I saw your hand yeah second that okay the next the sorry the next meeting would be May 20th I just want to make sure we have enough time to look at what what we're being asked to look at that gives us about a one week to turn it or to turn everything around and specifically Commissioner Ellis and other commissioners is the main request to maybe look at those 13 different alternatives that engineering came up with and understand the rationale it seems like that would be probably the most helpful thing to review it would be very helpful to I would like that too yeah to understand why I mean the structure is on the property and why I would love to see why that was the best idea was to go through someone's developed piece of property Richard can we go date uncertain and then just be followed back up with when the applicant and city can choreograph a meeting I think we can have it back by next by the next meeting on the 20th I love the confidence so we have just to have a great staff just to clarify Christian Ellis are you okay with the date certain of May 20th I am and Commissioner Cole do you second a date certain of May 20th yes this is a superseding motion to the motion on the table so we will have this vote first is there any discussion on the motion seeing none I'll call for a vote to postpone this item to a date certain of May 20th be a roll call Christian Ellis I Christian Cole I Christian Beck I Christian Anderson I Christian Pernetta I Christian Smith I chair votes in favor motion carries seven zero looking forward to have this back the next item on our agenda for business is item five the planning and zoning Commission project matrix I will turn this over to Richard for any updates and then discussion I don't have really any updates at this point on on the matrix I matrix items just wanted to give a quick update I know we've had it's almost been a month I think since we since we met although we haven't been accepting applications that has now changed where starting today really council lifted that that that part of the order on Tuesday and with good news we had about nine new submittals came in today so as soon as that was lifted yesterday we had nine new submittals come in and the day before we had ten resubmittals and so with that PNC will continue meeting twice a month so I think that's at least good news in seeing that people are still looking at finishing projects and and moving forward with projects that they had in the hopper council did approve last night the rezoning at I-35 for the offices if you recall just south of Windsor that was the rezoning with the conditions so that was approved unanimously in addition we while it didn't come in front of PNZ council approved an interim mud or or Paul municipal utility district policy what I will do is I will make sure everybody has both the materials that were provided for the work session on the 30th and then what was approved last night and if so wish if anybody desires or wish wishes I'd be happy at least to give a brief overview at at one of the next work sessions just what that means and and what it is but we are seeing quite a number of these municipal utility districts spring up in our ETJ thanks Richard Kushner back yeah Richard can I follow up on that so with the with the application starting today coupled with the small number that trickled through on the previous pipeline when are we I mean we're basically going to start meeting normal schedule is that what you're saying correct we'll go back to our normal schedule so the next meeting will be the 20th and then it'll continue the twice a month for the time being I don't know when we'll be meeting in person anytime soon but I do know that we'll be proceeding like we are today thank you hey Richard I was talking to Jim strange and he said that his project on Ryan Road was retroactively approved I had never heard even of that term can you help me out he said he he had a date that it was going to be approved then he got a letter saying that had been approved I'm assuming that's shot clock related but I'd love to know the mechanism of how his project was retroactively approved that's the one off Ryan that Ryan road that Tim yeah and it might be the the the wrong you might be using the wrong the wrong terminology there was a as part of the council meeting there was an exhibit that was modified as part of that discussion with the community that exhibit wasn't correctly updated and so what happened was the although while the ordinance was passed it came back I want to say two weeks later if I'm oh I'm sorry I'm I was thinking with the number it was the plat because the meeting was cancelled so under the shot clock it automatically got approved automatically got approved that's what I assumed and but when Jim was not aware of the shot clock he would notice the speed on that so I was I think it was shot clock he's like I don't I don't know what it was and I was like well I'm now confused and so as did I and we had I hadn't seen any personally shot clock issues where this automatic approval happens so thanks for that clarification that's what I imagined happened any other items for Richard or staff do you put on the matrix upcoming well that's fantastic guys thanks for a great meeting this evening I think they'll only get smoother from here at nine ten I will close the meeting y'all be safe