WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:10.080 >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting. 00:00:10.080 --> 00:00:13.680 This is the work session for Wednesday, May 6, 2020. 00:00:13.680 --> 00:00:17.080 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 536. 00:00:17.080 --> 00:00:23.320 I'll let the record show that Commissioner Cole is not present at the start of the meeting. 00:00:23.320 --> 00:00:29.600 The first item on our work session is to consider citizens' comment on consent agenda items. 00:00:29.600 --> 00:00:31.600 There is none to consider. 00:00:31.600 --> 00:00:36.440 So that moves us right into clarification of agenda items listed on the agenda for the meeting. 00:00:36.440 --> 00:00:41.400 So that brings us to item 1, the approval of the April 8th meetings. 00:00:41.400 --> 00:00:46.160 Is there any adjustments that need to be made or comments on the April 8th meeting? 00:00:46.160 --> 00:00:48.680 Minutes. 00:00:48.680 --> 00:00:50.320 Seeing none, we'll move on from there. 00:00:50.320 --> 00:00:53.320 We'll take the vote again in the public session. 00:00:53.320 --> 00:00:56.120 The second item for business is the consent agenda. 00:00:56.120 --> 00:00:57.280 We have three items. 00:00:57.280 --> 00:01:01.680 Does any commissioners need any of those polled for individual consideration? 00:01:01.680 --> 00:01:03.640 Commissioner Beck. 00:01:03.640 --> 00:01:10.760 >> Yeah, sorry, I should have raised my hand. 00:01:10.760 --> 00:01:17.160 Are we still going to have the standard discussion of these items? 00:01:17.160 --> 00:01:18.160 Or not? 00:01:18.160 --> 00:01:19.960 >> Well, what we can do is -- 00:01:19.960 --> 00:01:20.960 >> Go ahead. 00:01:20.960 --> 00:01:26.360 >> Well, we can certainly, if you want to have any presentation on item, have that presentation. 00:01:26.360 --> 00:01:29.680 But we can also poll one if you want a separate vote. 00:01:29.680 --> 00:01:40.480 So I'll consider either or, or both if needed. 00:01:40.480 --> 00:01:46.040 >> When we have presentations from staff, I'd like to just maybe ask some clarifying 00:01:46.040 --> 00:01:48.240 questions about 2C. 00:01:48.240 --> 00:01:53.160 Otherwise, I don't have any problems with A or B. 00:01:53.160 --> 00:01:58.760 So I may or may not request that the appropriate time that to be polled for the regular meeting. 00:01:58.760 --> 00:01:59.760 >> Okay. 00:01:59.760 --> 00:02:00.760 Item 2C. 00:02:00.760 --> 00:02:01.760 >> Yes. 00:02:01.760 --> 00:02:02.760 >> FR19-0020. 00:02:02.760 --> 00:02:11.280 Why don't we go ahead -- is Haley or someone available to speak on that item, and then 00:02:11.280 --> 00:02:15.560 we can -- Commissioner Beck might be able to better ascertain if that needs to be polled? 00:02:15.560 --> 00:02:17.360 >> Haley's pulling it up now. 00:02:17.360 --> 00:02:18.360 >> Great. 00:02:18.360 --> 00:02:19.360 Thank you. 00:02:19.360 --> 00:02:23.960 >> As she's pulling it up, just if anyone saw the council meeting yesterday, they took 00:02:23.960 --> 00:02:26.000 votes by roll call. 00:02:26.000 --> 00:02:29.240 Last plan and zoning meeting we did virtually, we did show of hands. 00:02:29.240 --> 00:02:31.160 I will be going through the roll call tonight. 00:02:31.160 --> 00:02:37.280 So all votes, I will call you up by name to consider those votes. 00:02:37.280 --> 00:02:43.880 Haley, whenever you're ready or whoever's speaking, you have the floor. 00:02:43.880 --> 00:02:45.040 >> All right. 00:02:45.040 --> 00:02:48.680 This is an amendment to an already approved replant. 00:02:48.680 --> 00:02:52.520 So the plat was approved last year, I believe, in 2019. 00:02:52.520 --> 00:02:59.080 It is a replant of three -- the original replant subdivided one lot into three lots for future 00:02:59.080 --> 00:03:01.040 commercial development. 00:03:01.040 --> 00:03:06.000 There was a note on that plat that referenced that all of the trees on lot 6R2 would be 00:03:06.000 --> 00:03:07.560 preserved. 00:03:07.560 --> 00:03:09.080 That note was in error. 00:03:09.080 --> 00:03:13.400 And so after noticing that error before filing the plat, the applicant has requested this 00:03:13.400 --> 00:03:17.960 amendment be approved to reword that note to correctly indicate that all of the trees 00:03:17.960 --> 00:03:21.600 on that lot can be removed in accordance with the code. 00:03:21.600 --> 00:03:25.720 >> Commissioner Bec, do you have any questions for Haley? 00:03:25.720 --> 00:03:26.720 >> Yeah. 00:03:26.720 --> 00:03:28.600 So that was the one. 00:03:28.600 --> 00:03:29.600 And she addressed that one. 00:03:29.600 --> 00:03:34.720 And the other is -- and I'm just forgetting what was told to us before, and I apologize 00:03:34.720 --> 00:03:36.080 to staff for that. 00:03:36.080 --> 00:03:41.680 But I was concerned about the traffic flowing in and out of the back of the school and there 00:03:41.680 --> 00:03:50.320 out of the fire station, and the traffic reports and the fire people in particular are completely 00:03:50.320 --> 00:04:02.380 copacetic with building right up onto that road. 00:04:02.380 --> 00:04:08.140 >> My understanding from being out at that site near the library and fire station is 00:04:08.140 --> 00:04:10.180 there is some cross-connectivity there. 00:04:10.180 --> 00:04:17.360 This site, I believe, has an additional driveway on Teasley and also has a driveway connection 00:04:17.360 --> 00:04:19.380 to Teasley to the north as well. 00:04:19.380 --> 00:04:22.520 So traffic flow with this replant is not changing. 00:04:22.520 --> 00:04:25.520 Those points of access are staying the same. 00:04:25.520 --> 00:04:29.640 And the lot closest to the fire station that you see is lot 6R3 is currently a detention 00:04:29.640 --> 00:04:33.240 facility that's maintained by the Business Owners Association. 00:04:33.240 --> 00:04:37.560 So it's not likely that that lot will be developed with any sort of building in the near future 00:04:37.560 --> 00:04:43.720 as that detention would have to be put underground to do so. 00:04:43.720 --> 00:04:44.720 >> Okay. 00:04:44.720 --> 00:04:45.720 Thank you. 00:04:45.720 --> 00:04:46.720 That was my biggest concern. 00:04:46.720 --> 00:04:48.320 Chair, I won't need to have that pulled. 00:04:48.320 --> 00:04:49.320 Thank you. 00:04:49.320 --> 00:04:51.080 >> Absolutely, Commissioner Beck. 00:04:51.080 --> 00:04:59.900 Is there any other questions for the consent agenda items to A, B, and C? 00:04:59.900 --> 00:05:02.920 Before we move to the next item, I'll let the record show that Commissioner Cole has 00:05:02.920 --> 00:05:03.920 joined us. 00:05:03.920 --> 00:05:06.400 Welcome, Commissioner Cole. 00:05:06.400 --> 00:05:13.760 This item for business is item 3A, ZCP20-0002. 00:05:13.760 --> 00:05:16.720 This item is for individual consideration. 00:05:16.720 --> 00:05:24.280 And Haley, this is your item for presentation. 00:05:24.280 --> 00:05:35.080 >> All right. 00:05:35.080 --> 00:05:37.120 This is case ZCP20-2. 00:05:37.120 --> 00:05:41.200 It's the site plan for the residences at Razor Ranch. 00:05:41.200 --> 00:05:45.720 The request is for approval of a site plan for single-family detached and townhome uses. 00:05:45.720 --> 00:05:48.720 The site is approximately 40 acres. 00:05:48.720 --> 00:05:50.080 It's outlined in yellow on the map. 00:05:50.080 --> 00:05:55.460 As you can see, it's located just north of the Razor Ranch Marketplace development. 00:05:55.460 --> 00:06:00.120 It's important to note that this is a little odd that we're seeing a site plan for residential 00:06:00.120 --> 00:06:01.120 development. 00:06:01.120 --> 00:06:03.800 This is unique to the Razor Ranch Overlay District. 00:06:03.800 --> 00:06:07.200 The preliminary plat has been approved for this entire 40 acres. 00:06:07.200 --> 00:06:13.120 And the final plat for phase 1 has been approved by this commission as well. 00:06:13.120 --> 00:06:15.840 So a little bit of background on this. 00:06:15.840 --> 00:06:19.920 This site plan is further unique because the marketplace was the first part of the Razor 00:06:19.920 --> 00:06:20.920 Ranch development. 00:06:20.920 --> 00:06:27.560 So this actually ties back to ordinances from 2008 and 2009 for the site plan approval procedures. 00:06:27.560 --> 00:06:31.860 So similar to what you've seen before, but slightly different in that building elevations 00:06:31.860 --> 00:06:34.160 were not a requirement of that ordinance. 00:06:34.160 --> 00:06:38.000 Some samples have been provided here to give you an idea of what the homes would look like, 00:06:38.000 --> 00:06:44.600 but those are not part of the approval criteria, just the site plan and landscape plan. 00:06:44.600 --> 00:06:49.380 The criteria for approval in the 2008 and 2009 ordinances are substantially the same 00:06:49.380 --> 00:06:51.880 as what you've seen for other Razor Ranch site plans. 00:06:51.880 --> 00:06:56.260 So it requires compliance with the concept plan, whether there's a compatible arrangement 00:06:56.260 --> 00:07:00.440 of buildings that would not adversely affect adjoining properties, whether the plan provides 00:07:00.440 --> 00:07:04.680 for adequate and safe vehicular circulation, and rather it complies with all other sections 00:07:04.680 --> 00:07:07.600 of the overlay. 00:07:07.600 --> 00:07:11.560 So just to give you a little bit of background on this site, it does have split zoning. 00:07:11.560 --> 00:07:15.280 The Razor Ranch overlay, again, references back to the 2002 zoning district. 00:07:15.280 --> 00:07:19.640 So that is a split of neighborhood residential 3 on the north and neighborhood residential 00:07:19.640 --> 00:07:23.880 mixed use 12 on the south. 00:07:23.880 --> 00:07:27.720 This has been designated as a residential sub area of the marketplace since the beginning 00:07:27.720 --> 00:07:31.960 of Razor Ranch, and it permits a single family and townhome uses, which is what's proposed 00:07:31.960 --> 00:07:34.380 with this site plan. 00:07:34.380 --> 00:07:39.080 This particular site is subject to the architectural and landscape standards from exhibit C4 of 00:07:39.080 --> 00:07:43.640 the overlay district, which was approved through ordinance in 2018. 00:07:43.640 --> 00:07:48.440 If any of you recall that, you may recall that as part of that approval, the applicant 00:07:48.440 --> 00:07:53.080 at the time volunteered that this northern part of the NRMU 12 portion of the site would 00:07:53.080 --> 00:07:57.640 be developed in accordance with NR3 to provide a single family buffer to the existing neighborhood. 00:07:57.640 --> 00:08:04.200 It further limited the development to 70 single family homes and 230 townhomes, plus an amenity 00:08:04.200 --> 00:08:05.640 center. 00:08:05.640 --> 00:08:09.960 The developer at this time has not quite finalized their plans for the amenity center. 00:08:09.960 --> 00:08:13.240 So that will be coming back before you as a separate site plan in the future once they 00:08:13.240 --> 00:08:17.920 have those plans firmed up a little bit further. 00:08:17.920 --> 00:08:22.640 I wanted to show you the 2008 concept plan that this is required to comply with. 00:08:22.640 --> 00:08:26.980 So this plan, it may be hard to see, but I've outlined in red the property that we're looking 00:08:26.980 --> 00:08:27.980 at. 00:08:27.980 --> 00:08:33.360 It reflects a mixture of townhomes and single family detached uses, you may see a substantial 00:08:33.360 --> 00:08:34.960 portion of open space on that. 00:08:34.960 --> 00:08:39.860 At the time, it allowed for two gas well drilling and production sites to be on this property. 00:08:39.860 --> 00:08:44.280 Those were later removed from the razor range overlay once that site on the south side of 00:08:44.280 --> 00:08:46.840 the campus went into place. 00:08:46.840 --> 00:08:49.440 So that opened up more of this property for residential use. 00:08:49.440 --> 00:08:52.960 And since this time, the ordinances have just shown this as being a single family and townhome 00:08:52.960 --> 00:08:55.520 area. 00:08:55.520 --> 00:08:58.520 So this is a look at the site plan that they've proposed. 00:08:58.520 --> 00:09:02.680 It substantially complies with the preliminary plan and the final plan for phase one that 00:09:02.680 --> 00:09:05.000 the same lot and street configuration. 00:09:05.000 --> 00:09:08.360 This reflects 65 single family homes. 00:09:08.360 --> 00:09:13.440 Those again are within the NR3 area and then within this portion of the NRMU 12 that they 00:09:13.440 --> 00:09:18.320 offered to develop as a buffer between the townhomes and the existing neighborhood. 00:09:18.320 --> 00:09:22.720 There are 215 townhome lots reflected on the south part of the property. 00:09:22.720 --> 00:09:26.800 All of these streets and alleys that are shown within the townhome area would be privately 00:09:26.800 --> 00:09:28.100 maintained. 00:09:28.100 --> 00:09:32.640 The larger streets that you see going through the single family portion would be public 00:09:32.640 --> 00:09:36.880 streets. 00:09:36.880 --> 00:09:39.840 This is a look at their landscape plan that they're proposing. 00:09:39.840 --> 00:09:45.160 It meets the street tree requirements with over 200 street trees shown on the plan. 00:09:45.160 --> 00:09:50.840 The single family lots will maintain 50% landscape area on each individual lot that will be looked 00:09:50.840 --> 00:09:54.640 at individually as those permits come in for those homes, but they've demonstrated that 00:09:54.640 --> 00:09:56.960 they can comply with that. 00:09:56.960 --> 00:10:01.520 And then the NRMU 12 portion averages the open space as is allowed by the ordinance 00:10:01.520 --> 00:10:07.800 and will have a 45% open space across the townhome areas. 00:10:07.800 --> 00:10:10.720 This is a look at the intended townhome elevations. 00:10:10.720 --> 00:10:14.520 So they're consistent with what we see in Razor Ranch in terms of neutral color palette, 00:10:14.520 --> 00:10:17.680 stucco and masonry materials. 00:10:17.680 --> 00:10:21.560 And then this is samples that were provided of the type of single family detached homes 00:10:21.560 --> 00:10:25.560 that are intended to be developed on the north side. 00:10:25.560 --> 00:10:31.480 And staff is recommending approval of this request as it meets the established criteria. 00:10:31.480 --> 00:10:35.520 And I will minimize this so that you can see if there are any questions. 00:10:35.520 --> 00:10:37.080 - Commissioner Smith. 00:10:37.080 --> 00:10:39.160 - Thank you, Chair. 00:10:39.160 --> 00:10:44.840 Haley, is that property is going to link into that detention pond that's just to the south, 00:10:44.840 --> 00:10:45.840 correct? 00:10:45.840 --> 00:10:46.840 - Correct. 00:10:46.840 --> 00:10:49.560 The drainage into that pond actually flows from the neighborhood to the north through 00:10:49.560 --> 00:10:51.320 this property and into that pond. 00:10:51.320 --> 00:10:55.480 So as part of the phase two that hasn't been final plotted yet, they will go through the 00:10:55.480 --> 00:10:59.600 civil engineering process to make sure that the drainage appropriately goes through this 00:10:59.600 --> 00:11:03.960 site and to that pond to maintain the functionality of those bioretention ponds. 00:11:03.960 --> 00:11:04.960 - Okay. 00:11:04.960 --> 00:11:05.960 Got it. 00:11:05.960 --> 00:11:06.960 Thank you. 00:11:06.960 --> 00:11:07.960 Commissioner Anderson. 00:11:07.960 --> 00:11:08.960 - Thank you, Chair. 00:11:08.960 --> 00:11:09.960 Quick question, Haley. 00:11:09.960 --> 00:11:15.240 The neighborhood, the townhomes that are gonna be private roads, are they gonna be gated? 00:11:15.240 --> 00:11:20.160 - No, the only gate within the development will be on the south side where the driveway 00:11:20.160 --> 00:11:26.200 connects into the marketplace commercial development that will be gated to control commercial access 00:11:26.200 --> 00:11:27.680 through the property. 00:11:27.680 --> 00:11:29.400 Otherwise it won't be gated. 00:11:29.400 --> 00:11:33.840 But the way it's plotted, those alleyways are not dedicated to the city, they're to 00:11:33.840 --> 00:11:34.840 the HOA. 00:11:34.840 --> 00:11:35.840 - Thank you. 00:11:35.840 --> 00:11:36.840 - Commissioner Beck. 00:11:36.840 --> 00:11:37.840 - Yeah. 00:11:37.840 --> 00:11:45.000 Haley, can I get you to pull up the map again and then show me where the connection is? 00:11:45.000 --> 00:11:48.760 Is it next to the Walmart? 00:11:48.760 --> 00:11:50.760 - Yes. 00:11:50.760 --> 00:11:53.640 - And that's gonna be gated? 00:11:53.640 --> 00:11:57.800 - Yes, the connection is here on the south side. 00:11:57.800 --> 00:12:02.720 This driveway has been stubbed out from the marketplace, so I believe this is Walmart 00:12:02.720 --> 00:12:05.800 here and then Sam's. 00:12:05.800 --> 00:12:09.880 And that will be a gated connection so that the residents could get through to go shopping, 00:12:09.880 --> 00:12:12.900 but commercial traffic couldn't just freely flow into this development. 00:12:12.900 --> 00:12:16.400 It would still be funneled out through the entrances in and out of the marketplace on 00:12:16.400 --> 00:12:18.920 University and Bonnie Bray. 00:12:18.920 --> 00:12:24.120 - And the Augusta stub on the west, looks like it's just gonna dead end in that connection 00:12:24.120 --> 00:12:26.880 to the marketplace, right? 00:12:26.880 --> 00:12:31.200 - Just this street? 00:12:31.200 --> 00:12:38.120 - So they're gonna connect to the west to Augusta, but then it's gonna dead end in whatever 00:12:38.120 --> 00:12:40.720 the road into the marketplace is called. 00:12:40.720 --> 00:12:43.080 I can't read it on the map. 00:12:43.080 --> 00:12:46.620 - Yes, so that street will, it meanders on purpose. 00:12:46.620 --> 00:12:50.080 Our engineering department was concerned when they came in with their preliminary plat about 00:12:50.080 --> 00:12:52.000 this becoming just a straight shot. 00:12:52.000 --> 00:12:53.880 - Exactly, yes. 00:12:53.880 --> 00:12:55.160 - The frontage road to Bonnie Bray. 00:12:55.160 --> 00:12:59.080 So they intentionally meandered that so that people would have two options. 00:12:59.080 --> 00:13:03.360 They could either come here and turn or they could turn here and make the loop and go through 00:13:03.360 --> 00:13:04.760 to help slow traffic. 00:13:04.760 --> 00:13:06.120 - Okay. 00:13:06.120 --> 00:13:07.120 Those are my questions. 00:13:07.120 --> 00:13:09.840 Thank you, Haley. 00:13:09.840 --> 00:13:12.120 Any other questions for Haley? 00:13:12.120 --> 00:13:16.120 Haley, I do not see any. 00:13:16.120 --> 00:13:20.160 Thank you very much for the presentation. 00:13:20.160 --> 00:13:22.720 That brings us to our public hearings. 00:13:22.720 --> 00:13:28.240 Item 4A has been requested for postponement to a date uncertain. 00:13:28.240 --> 00:13:31.600 Richard, do we need to take a vote to postpone this? 00:13:31.600 --> 00:13:32.600 Okay. 00:13:32.600 --> 00:13:36.080 Christian or Bec, did you have something on item 4A? 00:13:36.080 --> 00:13:37.080 - Yes, I did. 00:13:37.080 --> 00:13:39.160 I just had a clarification. 00:13:39.160 --> 00:13:46.160 So what are the ramifications of postponement to a date uncertain versus the shot clock? 00:13:46.160 --> 00:13:48.400 I'm just not clear on that. 00:13:48.400 --> 00:13:52.680 - Richard, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the shot clock would apply to platting 00:13:52.680 --> 00:13:54.680 not to zoning changes. 00:13:54.680 --> 00:14:00.960 So this just provides an indefinite time for the applicant to come back with the presentation. 00:14:00.960 --> 00:14:01.960 Correct, Richard? 00:14:01.960 --> 00:14:05.640 - I can't hear you, you're muted. 00:14:05.640 --> 00:14:06.640 - He's muted. 00:14:06.640 --> 00:14:07.640 He doesn't know. 00:14:07.640 --> 00:14:08.640 There we go. 00:14:08.640 --> 00:14:17.080 - It's two mice in front of me, and I grabbed two mouses. 00:14:17.080 --> 00:14:21.240 It only relates to plats, and with respect to the postponement, yes, we would need a 00:14:21.240 --> 00:14:22.240 vote. 00:14:22.240 --> 00:14:23.240 Sorry about that. 00:14:23.240 --> 00:14:24.240 - Okay. 00:14:24.240 --> 00:14:25.240 Great. 00:14:25.240 --> 00:14:29.000 Are they planning on reposting this? 00:14:29.000 --> 00:14:33.400 Do we want to open it and take a vote, or are we reposting this entirely? 00:14:33.400 --> 00:14:35.760 - We'll have to repost it entirely. 00:14:35.760 --> 00:14:36.760 - Okay. 00:14:36.760 --> 00:14:39.440 Let's see if I can take a motion without opening it. 00:14:39.440 --> 00:14:41.840 The chair will understand a motion to postpone this to a date uncertain. 00:14:41.840 --> 00:14:44.840 - I make that motion. 00:14:44.840 --> 00:14:49.920 - Christopher, I make the motion to postpone. 00:14:49.920 --> 00:14:50.920 - To a date uncertain. 00:14:50.920 --> 00:14:51.920 - To a date uncertain. 00:14:51.920 --> 00:14:52.920 Thank you. 00:14:52.920 --> 00:14:53.920 Anyone second the motion? 00:14:53.920 --> 00:14:54.920 - Why are we doing this in work session? 00:14:54.920 --> 00:14:55.920 Why are we voting on this? 00:14:55.920 --> 00:14:56.920 - Oh, yeah. 00:14:56.920 --> 00:14:57.920 Why am I doing this in work session? 00:14:57.920 --> 00:14:58.920 - I don't know. 00:14:58.920 --> 00:15:00.920 Me and Margie both looked really confused for a second. 00:15:00.920 --> 00:15:03.920 - And I was confused that y'all were confused, because I was like, "Why are we doing this 00:15:03.920 --> 00:15:04.920 in work session?" 00:15:04.920 --> 00:15:07.640 - I was confused that y'all were confused, because I was doing this. 00:15:07.640 --> 00:15:09.680 We're not even going to worry about that. 00:15:09.680 --> 00:15:11.160 We're just going to get all done right now. 00:15:11.160 --> 00:15:13.480 Commissioner Smith, thank you for keeping me on task. 00:15:13.480 --> 00:15:14.480 - You're welcome. 00:15:14.480 --> 00:15:17.000 - If I had Richard next to me, it would have been helpful. 00:15:17.000 --> 00:15:18.600 He's in another room. 00:15:18.600 --> 00:15:19.600 Okay. 00:15:19.600 --> 00:15:21.560 So we'll move on from 4A. 00:15:21.560 --> 00:15:23.120 We'll take a vote in public session. 00:15:23.120 --> 00:15:24.480 Sorry about that. 00:15:24.480 --> 00:15:31.280 Item 4B is PDA 20-0001, and the item is Julie Wyatt. 00:15:31.280 --> 00:15:33.560 Is she here to present this item? 00:15:33.560 --> 00:15:34.560 - She's ready to go. 00:15:34.560 --> 00:15:39.560 - Perfect. 00:15:39.560 --> 00:15:48.960 - Sorry, I was muted. 00:15:48.960 --> 00:15:49.960 Good evening. 00:15:49.960 --> 00:15:51.520 I'm pulling up my presentation now. 00:15:51.520 --> 00:15:54.960 - Evening, Julie. 00:15:54.960 --> 00:15:58.400 - All right. 00:15:58.400 --> 00:16:04.280 So I'm Julie Wyatt, and I'm presenting PDA 21 Stonehill Center to you. 00:16:04.280 --> 00:16:08.200 The request is for a detailed plan amendment for PD 142. 00:16:08.200 --> 00:16:10.600 It's also known as Stonehill Center. 00:16:10.600 --> 00:16:15.040 The purpose of the request is to add a 30,000 square foot building to accommodate a single 00:16:15.040 --> 00:16:19.120 tenant workforce solutions of North Texas. 00:16:19.120 --> 00:16:20.720 The property is outlined in yellow. 00:16:20.720 --> 00:16:23.440 It's a 19.6 acre site. 00:16:23.440 --> 00:16:31.720 It's located at the corner of I-35 and West Gate on the east side of I-35. 00:16:31.720 --> 00:16:34.180 Just a little bit of background on this type of PD. 00:16:34.180 --> 00:16:36.280 This is one of our legacy PDs. 00:16:36.280 --> 00:16:41.200 It was in existence prior to the 2002 code being adopted. 00:16:41.200 --> 00:16:45.960 And there was an ordinance that was approved last fall that said those valid PDs that were 00:16:45.960 --> 00:16:50.600 in existence prior to the 2019 DDC, they would follow the regulations that were in place 00:16:50.600 --> 00:16:52.200 when they were adopted. 00:16:52.200 --> 00:16:55.520 So this follows the 91 code. 00:16:55.520 --> 00:17:01.360 And if you recall from previous submittals for others of these types of PDs, it's a 00:17:01.360 --> 00:17:02.360 two-step process. 00:17:02.360 --> 00:17:08.480 First, we have the general concept plan that establishes the use, the property boundaries, 00:17:08.480 --> 00:17:13.820 maybe the approximate locations of those uses, street locations, and then development standards. 00:17:13.820 --> 00:17:16.800 That's kind of the zoning of the property, and that stays in place. 00:17:16.800 --> 00:17:19.400 The second step is that detail plan. 00:17:19.400 --> 00:17:24.080 And this is for specific sites and for specific developments. 00:17:24.080 --> 00:17:26.400 It's very akin to a site plan. 00:17:26.400 --> 00:17:29.920 It provides all those details associated with development. 00:17:29.920 --> 00:17:35.880 If construction did not commence within 24 months, then the detail plan would expire. 00:17:35.880 --> 00:17:39.680 So specifically for PD 142, it was established in 1991. 00:17:39.680 --> 00:17:43.480 It was a total of 245 acres. 00:17:43.480 --> 00:17:46.960 And that was when the concept plan was approved, and it included things like the permitted 00:17:46.960 --> 00:17:48.640 uses and the development standards. 00:17:48.640 --> 00:17:51.000 So that was that step one. 00:17:51.000 --> 00:17:54.840 The subject property, that Stonehill Center, is outlined in black, so you can kind of see 00:17:54.840 --> 00:17:59.320 it sort of nested in the center of PD 142. 00:17:59.320 --> 00:18:04.660 The first detail plan for this PD was approved in 1992. 00:18:04.660 --> 00:18:06.840 It depicted four buildings. 00:18:06.840 --> 00:18:08.360 They were multi-tenant retail buildings. 00:18:08.360 --> 00:18:12.920 They were arranged in a horseshoe pattern around 806 parking spaces. 00:18:12.920 --> 00:18:18.440 So this was the step two in the two-step process, so the first step two. 00:18:18.440 --> 00:18:25.040 There were modifications over the next year or so, and it resulted in this plan from 1993, 00:18:25.040 --> 00:18:27.780 which depicts five buildings. 00:18:27.780 --> 00:18:31.800 The buildings two through five, their numbers are in green. 00:18:31.800 --> 00:18:35.040 Those have been built, so those are existing. 00:18:35.040 --> 00:18:42.160 Building one was never constructed, and so therefore the approval expired. 00:18:42.160 --> 00:18:48.280 So the current proposal really is to introduce that building one back into the plan. 00:18:48.280 --> 00:18:52.040 It would complement that existing four commercial buildings. 00:18:52.040 --> 00:18:58.120 Those existing buildings range in size from about 26,000 square feet to 47,000 square 00:18:58.120 --> 00:18:59.120 feet. 00:18:59.120 --> 00:19:03.480 Currently there are 945 parking spaces on site and three access points, one that connects 00:19:03.480 --> 00:19:09.560 to Westgate, one that connects to the I-35 frontage road, and then a connection to the 00:19:09.560 --> 00:19:14.660 adjacent commercial lot, which connects then through Loop 288. 00:19:14.660 --> 00:19:19.680 As I said, they're proposing this 30,000 square foot building there in yellow. 00:19:19.680 --> 00:19:22.880 With landscaping, the access would remain unchanged. 00:19:22.880 --> 00:19:28.880 We'll zoom in a little bit to that site so you could take a look at some of the details. 00:19:28.880 --> 00:19:32.680 First of all, if you look at that inset aerial, you can see where they're proposing the building 00:19:32.680 --> 00:19:34.260 has parking spaces on it. 00:19:34.260 --> 00:19:43.060 So if approved, this would result in a reduction of parking, but it would maintain a parking 00:19:43.060 --> 00:19:49.120 ratio of about one space for every 206 square feet of gross floor area. 00:19:49.120 --> 00:19:56.880 The area between the building and the right-of-way would have about 17,800 square feet of landscaping. 00:19:56.880 --> 00:20:02.720 They would plant 16 large and medium canopy trees, which would result in a canopy increase 00:20:02.720 --> 00:20:08.440 for the site at maturity of about 16,802 square feet. 00:20:08.440 --> 00:20:15.400 The parking area that they would like to add in nibbles in a bit to the existing landscaping, 00:20:15.400 --> 00:20:21.040 so they would replace that screening hedge, and it's in that squiggly red line there. 00:20:21.040 --> 00:20:24.400 And then the vehicular circulation pattern would remain unchanged. 00:20:24.400 --> 00:20:31.000 It would follow that existing pattern of the drive aisles being determined by those landscape 00:20:31.000 --> 00:20:36.280 islands and landscape medians. 00:20:36.280 --> 00:20:40.760 They are proposing architectural elements that are consistent with what is on site. 00:20:40.760 --> 00:20:46.920 So the top two pictures are their renderings, and then the bottom two pictures are what 00:20:46.920 --> 00:20:47.920 is existing. 00:20:47.920 --> 00:20:51.620 So you can see they're bothering a lot of the themes of what the existing development 00:20:51.620 --> 00:20:53.000 has. 00:20:53.000 --> 00:20:59.160 As I stated, we do follow that 1991 ordinance. 00:20:59.160 --> 00:21:07.200 Section 35-52 laid out the criteria for approval within the '91 ordinance, and we'll go over 00:21:07.200 --> 00:21:09.240 these individually. 00:21:09.240 --> 00:21:13.000 So first, does the proposal comply with the concept plan? 00:21:13.000 --> 00:21:18.720 The purpose of PD 142 was to create an urban center with commercial, retail, office, light 00:21:18.720 --> 00:21:24.480 industrial-type uses to serve as a hub for economic activity employment there at the 00:21:24.480 --> 00:21:28.460 intersection of Loop 288 and I-35. 00:21:28.460 --> 00:21:32.140 Previous detail plans didn't really specify a use. 00:21:32.140 --> 00:21:36.560 They were more limited to spatial elements, like building arrangement, where the parking 00:21:36.560 --> 00:21:41.120 areas would be, what kind of signage, and then that landscaping. 00:21:41.120 --> 00:21:43.040 Just how the PD functions. 00:21:43.040 --> 00:21:49.000 When a particular tenant would like to move in to one of these buildings and seeks a certificate 00:21:49.000 --> 00:21:53.880 of occupancy within the PD, we refer to the listing of permitted uses in that concept 00:21:53.880 --> 00:21:57.040 plan for guidance. 00:21:57.040 --> 00:22:00.720 But we have looked at the uses that the applicant is proposing. 00:22:00.720 --> 00:22:07.560 Their proposed use is offices in a public community center, and those uses are permitted, 00:22:07.560 --> 00:22:10.800 as well as the proposal meets the dimensional requirements. 00:22:10.800 --> 00:22:17.520 So the proposal does comply with that concept plan and meets the first criterion. 00:22:17.520 --> 00:22:23.460 The second criterion for approval is, does it provide a compatible arrangement of buildings 00:22:23.460 --> 00:22:27.800 and uses, and does it adversely affect the adjoining properties outside the plan? 00:22:27.800 --> 00:22:30.820 So we're going to take both of these elements separately. 00:22:30.820 --> 00:22:35.880 So first, inside the development, the arrangement of the buildings, the proposed building is 00:22:35.880 --> 00:22:40.480 consistent with those general building scales, architectural themes, and that established 00:22:40.480 --> 00:22:43.040 footprint pattern. 00:22:43.040 --> 00:22:48.880 Essentially it completes that unified development that was established with that original plan. 00:22:48.880 --> 00:22:55.400 The proposed use is consistent with the types of uses that are already on site at the Stone 00:22:55.400 --> 00:22:56.680 Hill Center. 00:22:56.680 --> 00:23:02.560 The daily activities as typically associated with an office create minimal nuisances like 00:23:02.560 --> 00:23:08.360 noise or odor and also maintains the typical hours of operation that we see at Stone Hill 00:23:08.360 --> 00:23:09.360 Center. 00:23:09.360 --> 00:23:16.000 The applicant also provided the ITE trip generation rates for the proposed use, and it would generate 00:23:16.000 --> 00:23:23.640 approximately 292 trips per 24-hour weekday with 44 morning peak and 43 evening peak, 00:23:23.640 --> 00:23:28.160 once again consistent with what's on site. 00:23:28.160 --> 00:23:33.080 And then we looked at what was outside the PD, kind of looked at how it affected those 00:23:33.080 --> 00:23:34.400 surrounding properties. 00:23:34.400 --> 00:23:39.920 So before we talk about those, I just want to call your attention to some mobility improvements 00:23:39.920 --> 00:23:42.120 that are going to be going on in the area. 00:23:42.120 --> 00:23:47.840 You could see on the map that there is a green hatched line. 00:23:47.840 --> 00:23:55.800 Only West Gate comes off of the I-35 service road and then stops at the easternmost boundary 00:23:55.800 --> 00:23:57.280 of the Stone Hill Center. 00:23:57.280 --> 00:24:02.520 However, in the future, that will actually be extended and become the new Bronco way 00:24:02.520 --> 00:24:06.240 to accommodate the future Denton High School as well as other developments. 00:24:06.240 --> 00:24:12.280 So that piece will eventually be completed and connect the I-35 service road to Bonnie 00:24:12.280 --> 00:24:13.640 Bray. 00:24:13.640 --> 00:24:16.320 That being said, there are properties around there. 00:24:16.320 --> 00:24:20.080 First of all, I want to talk about number one, that existing residential. 00:24:20.080 --> 00:24:24.720 There is southeast of the subject property, an established neighborhood, it's a large 00:24:24.720 --> 00:24:33.040 lot neighborhood, and their existing West Gate, so that north-south road within that 00:24:33.040 --> 00:24:38.720 neighborhood will not connect to the future West Gate/Bronco way. 00:24:38.720 --> 00:24:44.120 So there will not be any direct vehicular connection between the proposed development 00:24:44.120 --> 00:24:50.600 and that single-family residential neighborhood, so we don't anticipate any adverse impacts. 00:24:50.600 --> 00:24:54.000 There's quite a bit of physical separation. 00:24:54.000 --> 00:24:57.600 Second, the future DHS site. 00:24:57.600 --> 00:25:01.760 The commercial land uses that are proposed are generally compatible with high school campuses. 00:25:01.760 --> 00:25:04.840 It also, once again, is physically separated. 00:25:04.840 --> 00:25:09.160 There's a lot of space between the proposed use and the Denton High School. 00:25:09.160 --> 00:25:13.480 And then third, that future residential north of the Denton High School. 00:25:13.480 --> 00:25:16.180 You might remember it, it's the King's Ridge development. 00:25:16.180 --> 00:25:21.240 It's proposed for 368 single-family uses, or dwellings. 00:25:21.240 --> 00:25:24.800 Once again, it is physically separated from the subject property. 00:25:24.800 --> 00:25:29.040 There's a vacant lot between there, so there's a good buffer and transition area, so we don't 00:25:29.040 --> 00:25:33.800 anticipate any adverse impacts. 00:25:33.800 --> 00:25:40.120 And so the subject request complies with criteria number two. 00:25:40.120 --> 00:25:44.480 Number three, adequate safe circulation of vehicle vehicular traffic. 00:25:44.480 --> 00:25:47.520 Once again, we're going to talk about onsite versus offsite. 00:25:47.520 --> 00:25:52.360 Access to the site will remain unchanged, as I stated, as well as that existing vehicular 00:25:52.360 --> 00:25:55.440 circulation pattern will remain unchanged. 00:25:55.440 --> 00:25:59.640 The only real change regarding vehicular traffic onsite would be that decrease in the number 00:25:59.640 --> 00:26:01.640 of onsite parking spaces. 00:26:01.640 --> 00:26:08.240 However, the overall ratio will, as I said, be maintained at one space per 206 square 00:26:08.240 --> 00:26:14.400 feet of building area, and that's really consistent with the minimum parking requirements we typically 00:26:14.400 --> 00:26:18.560 see for more modern developments within the city of Denton. 00:26:18.560 --> 00:26:22.760 So we don't anticipate any adverse impacts for that. 00:26:22.760 --> 00:26:29.200 And then offsite, you can see that I've kind of showing where the highways are and where 00:26:29.200 --> 00:26:30.600 those arterials are. 00:26:30.600 --> 00:26:37.120 This is adjacent to I-35 and really, really close to the Loop 288 highway, so as well 00:26:37.120 --> 00:26:45.720 as the future Bronco Way and Westgate, Bonnie Bray, and Highway 377. 00:26:45.720 --> 00:26:51.440 So the surrounding arterial network provides adequate access for the existing and future 00:26:51.440 --> 00:26:53.520 development. 00:26:53.520 --> 00:26:57.760 And then criterion four, substantial compliance with the landscape sign subdivision and other 00:26:57.760 --> 00:26:59.460 regulations of the city. 00:26:59.460 --> 00:27:04.120 So with this request, they're not proposing any additional ground signs, and the property 00:27:04.120 --> 00:27:05.120 is already subdivided. 00:27:05.120 --> 00:27:07.840 So what we're really looking at is the landscape plan. 00:27:07.840 --> 00:27:12.760 And this actually follows the 1988 landscape code, and it's pretty different than what 00:27:12.760 --> 00:27:13.760 we have today. 00:27:13.760 --> 00:27:18.760 There really were three elements to that landscape code, street yard landscaping, parking lot 00:27:18.760 --> 00:27:22.140 landscaping, and then parking lot screening. 00:27:22.140 --> 00:27:25.400 So first, we'll talk about the street yard landscaping. 00:27:25.400 --> 00:27:32.280 I've kind of highlighted on the exhibit that you see on your screen. 00:27:32.280 --> 00:27:38.400 It starts where the front building line begins, and then it goes to the right-of-way. 00:27:38.400 --> 00:27:43.760 So that blue line, that blue hatch line, anything between that and that right-of-way toward 00:27:43.760 --> 00:27:45.840 the west is that street yard. 00:27:45.840 --> 00:27:54.760 The current request has within that 40,000 square feet, and the 1988 code required 20% 00:27:54.760 --> 00:28:00.880 of that to be landscaped with one tree planted every 2,500 square feet of total street yard. 00:28:00.880 --> 00:28:06.740 And the applicant is proposing that 17,800 square feet of landscaping plus 16 medium 00:28:06.740 --> 00:28:12.120 and large canopy trees, and that exceeds or meets those minimum requirements. 00:28:12.120 --> 00:28:14.160 It also had parking lot landscaping. 00:28:14.160 --> 00:28:20.640 Within that street yard area, the parking lots had to have 5% of either landscape islands, 00:28:20.640 --> 00:28:21.640 peninsulas, or medians. 00:28:21.640 --> 00:28:26.560 Once again, the applicant is providing those in excess of that minimum requirement. 00:28:26.560 --> 00:28:32.520 They're providing 2,900 square feet, about 2,900 square feet of the parking lot landscaping. 00:28:32.520 --> 00:28:40.020 And then parking lot screening, that 54 dwarf Beaufort holly shrubs where the red squiggly 00:28:40.020 --> 00:28:44.680 line is, that would be, would serve for that parking lot screening, and that does meet 00:28:44.680 --> 00:28:47.200 the minimum requirements. 00:28:47.200 --> 00:28:51.960 So the proposal complies with Criterion 4. 00:28:51.960 --> 00:28:58.320 Public outreach was done, a newspaper notice, a newspaper website, there was a sign posted 00:28:58.320 --> 00:28:59.760 on the property. 00:28:59.760 --> 00:29:04.600 We have sent out 200 and 500 notices, mailing notices. 00:29:04.600 --> 00:29:08.960 We haven't received any in return. 00:29:08.960 --> 00:29:13.520 So staff does recommend approval of the detail plan. 00:29:13.520 --> 00:29:19.880 The site plan and the landscape plan and then those sample building elevations will be incorporated 00:29:19.880 --> 00:29:20.880 into the ordinance. 00:29:20.880 --> 00:29:24.120 We wanted to lay out just what those were. 00:29:24.120 --> 00:29:29.880 First of all, they're proposing that one single story, 30,000 square foot building, the maximum 00:29:29.880 --> 00:29:32.780 parking on site of 828 spaces. 00:29:32.780 --> 00:29:37.640 This is one change to your staff report that was in your backup. 00:29:37.640 --> 00:29:40.040 They're actually proposing 10 large canopy trees. 00:29:40.040 --> 00:29:47.760 I believe I typed in 12 in error, so it's actually 10 large canopy trees and six medium 00:29:47.760 --> 00:29:49.040 canopy trees. 00:29:49.040 --> 00:29:52.700 And then the architecture for all buildings, they haven't fully designed all of their buildings, 00:29:52.700 --> 00:29:56.880 but we did want to capture what those architectural elements were so we make sure it's consistent 00:29:56.880 --> 00:29:59.040 with what's existing out there. 00:29:59.040 --> 00:30:04.240 And so the colonnade for a minimum of 50% of the facade facing the public areas, that 00:30:04.240 --> 00:30:09.600 varied roof parapet line, and then the decorative towers on at least two corners. 00:30:09.600 --> 00:30:11.760 We want to make sure that we capture those. 00:30:11.760 --> 00:30:20.040 So I'm here for any questions, and the applicant should be here this evening as well. 00:30:20.040 --> 00:30:21.040 Great. 00:30:21.040 --> 00:30:24.840 Thank you very much, Julie. 00:30:24.840 --> 00:30:26.840 Does anyone have any questions for Julie? 00:30:26.840 --> 00:30:31.960 If you raise your hand, I can call you up. 00:30:31.960 --> 00:30:38.760 The question I had, Julie, is just on a broader picture question, you said the PD was 142 00:30:38.760 --> 00:30:41.540 acres, if I heard that correctly. 00:30:41.540 --> 00:30:48.040 Does the city have any mechanism, or what's the city's plan with the remaining acres that 00:30:48.040 --> 00:30:53.920 are under a 30-year-old PD, because a lot of that isn't developed, when individuals 00:30:53.920 --> 00:31:01.600 come in to develop that new land, are they going to have retroactive 30-year grandfathering, 00:31:01.600 --> 00:31:07.440 or I want to learn more about how we can get the remaining land up to current code or out 00:31:07.440 --> 00:31:09.960 of the 30-year-old PD. 00:31:09.960 --> 00:31:12.840 Well, this PD does carry forward. 00:31:12.840 --> 00:31:16.960 There have been some areas, it was actually originally 245 acres. 00:31:16.960 --> 00:31:17.960 245. 00:31:17.960 --> 00:31:18.960 Yeah. 00:31:18.960 --> 00:31:25.400 So there are some areas that have been zoned out of the PD, but this PD is, it remains 00:31:25.400 --> 00:31:28.640 in effect as the zoning for this site. 00:31:28.640 --> 00:31:32.960 I think it would be, I'll look to Richard here to see if he wants to chime in, but it 00:31:32.960 --> 00:31:36.280 would kind of be up to the property owner to see if they wanted to kind of bring it 00:31:36.280 --> 00:31:44.960 up to the current standards and develop it outside of the PD. 00:31:44.960 --> 00:31:45.960 That's correct. 00:31:45.960 --> 00:31:49.400 It would be just like any other zoning district that they would have applied to them. 00:31:49.400 --> 00:31:54.840 Now, I, correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read all the PD language apart from this presentation, 00:31:54.840 --> 00:31:59.400 but there might be some restrictive things that would be in their benefit to get out 00:31:59.400 --> 00:32:01.880 of the PD if certain projects were to come in. 00:32:01.880 --> 00:32:08.840 Right, in fact, unrelated to this, there is, we have some other PDs that are governed by 00:32:08.840 --> 00:32:10.920 interim regulations. 00:32:10.920 --> 00:32:14.960 They're actually considering zoning out of that. 00:32:14.960 --> 00:32:20.900 While the tree standards are obviously much more stricter, it does benefit them in landscaping 00:32:20.900 --> 00:32:24.440 by preserving a huge swath of post oaks. 00:32:24.440 --> 00:32:28.760 So I think it's just as we look at it on a case by case basis, there is some benefit 00:32:28.760 --> 00:32:32.400 to actually zone out of some of these older PDs. 00:32:32.400 --> 00:32:37.440 I'd certainly hope that the city seeks to, where it makes the most sense, bring it to 00:32:37.440 --> 00:32:38.440 current standards. 00:32:38.440 --> 00:32:42.120 We worked really hard to get those updated from 1991. 00:32:42.120 --> 00:32:43.120 They can be applied. 00:32:43.120 --> 00:32:48.040 I think that's in the interest of the city. 00:32:48.040 --> 00:32:49.040 Commissioner Ellis. 00:32:49.040 --> 00:32:50.040 Thanks, Chair. 00:32:50.040 --> 00:32:56.320 Hey, Julie, I know you said you didn't get any responses to the mail outs, but did we 00:32:56.320 --> 00:32:58.480 get an email response on this one? 00:32:58.480 --> 00:33:01.000 I feel like something came in over the weekend. 00:33:01.000 --> 00:33:05.640 I just want to make sure if we did that it's on the record that we did. 00:33:05.640 --> 00:33:11.440 I did speak with someone who wanted to ask about whether that Westgate Road that his 00:33:11.440 --> 00:33:14.840 neighborhood, he lived within the Westgate neighborhood, if it was going to connect. 00:33:14.840 --> 00:33:16.680 It was more of a mobility question. 00:33:16.680 --> 00:33:17.680 Okay. 00:33:17.680 --> 00:33:25.340 But yeah, so I just provided feedback to him about what, you know, what the future plans 00:33:25.340 --> 00:33:28.880 are for mobility in the area and also put him in touch with our transportation group 00:33:28.880 --> 00:33:30.720 to see if he had any further questions. 00:33:30.720 --> 00:33:31.720 Okay. 00:33:31.720 --> 00:33:32.720 Perfect. 00:33:32.720 --> 00:33:33.720 Thank you. 00:33:33.720 --> 00:33:34.720 You bet. 00:33:34.720 --> 00:33:35.720 Commissioner Beck. 00:33:35.720 --> 00:33:36.720 Thank you, Chair. 00:33:36.720 --> 00:33:37.720 Yeah. 00:33:37.720 --> 00:33:43.800 Are we going to, this is, this is not really directly related to that, but are we renaming 00:33:43.800 --> 00:33:48.920 that road Bronco way all the way to the 35 feeder? 00:33:48.920 --> 00:33:50.720 I believe that is the plan. 00:33:50.720 --> 00:33:59.720 We're still working with Denton ISD to get that name firmed up, but that would probably 00:33:59.720 --> 00:34:00.720 be the plan. 00:34:00.720 --> 00:34:01.720 Yes. 00:34:01.720 --> 00:34:02.720 Okay. 00:34:02.720 --> 00:34:03.720 Thank you. 00:34:03.720 --> 00:34:04.720 You bet. 00:34:04.720 --> 00:34:05.720 Any other questions for Julie? 00:34:05.720 --> 00:34:08.020 Looking for a show of hand. 00:34:08.020 --> 00:34:09.640 I do not see any Julie. 00:34:09.640 --> 00:34:11.680 Thank you very much for your presentation. 00:34:11.680 --> 00:34:18.920 The next item of business is item 4C, S19-0015D. 00:34:18.920 --> 00:34:20.960 It is Cindy Jackson's item. 00:34:20.960 --> 00:34:22.760 Is Cindy available to present? 00:34:22.760 --> 00:34:23.760 Yep. 00:34:23.760 --> 00:34:24.760 She's coming up now. 00:34:24.760 --> 00:34:25.840 Have a look at it shortly. 00:34:25.840 --> 00:34:26.840 Great. 00:34:26.840 --> 00:34:49.560 Thank you. 00:34:49.560 --> 00:35:09.320 Thank you. 00:35:09.320 --> 00:35:27.640 Okay. 00:35:27.640 --> 00:35:29.320 We're all set. 00:35:29.320 --> 00:35:30.320 Can you see the screen? 00:35:30.320 --> 00:35:31.320 Not yet. 00:35:31.320 --> 00:35:32.320 I can't see it. 00:35:32.320 --> 00:35:56.080 How about, there we go. 00:35:56.080 --> 00:36:00.600 Good evening. 00:36:00.600 --> 00:36:12.360 Cindy Jackson here to present S19-0015. 00:36:12.360 --> 00:36:18.920 This is a request for approval of a specific use permit to permit a communications tower 00:36:18.920 --> 00:36:24.600 with a maximum height of 810 feet mean sea level for a broadband wireless service. 00:36:24.600 --> 00:36:28.680 The request was originally for 150 foot tall tower. 00:36:28.680 --> 00:36:34.440 However, it has since been determined that the site is located in the airport height hazard 00:36:34.440 --> 00:36:36.920 district. 00:36:36.920 --> 00:36:43.080 The height of structures located within this height hazard district are limited to 810 00:36:43.080 --> 00:36:51.720 feet mean sea level per section 4.5.8C3. 00:36:51.720 --> 00:37:00.000 The applicant has agreed to change the request to an 810 foot mean sea level tall structure. 00:37:00.000 --> 00:37:05.160 The property is located at 3401 Barcelona street at the southeast corner of the intersection 00:37:05.160 --> 00:37:10.880 of Barcelona and Worthington. 00:37:10.880 --> 00:37:15.840 The site is zoned mixed use regional MR. 00:37:15.840 --> 00:37:22.720 Here you see the full site plan. 00:37:22.720 --> 00:37:25.520 The full site is actually 4.37 acres. 00:37:25.520 --> 00:37:31.240 However, the site is constrained by this 140 foot drainage easement. 00:37:31.240 --> 00:37:38.320 So the development impact area is actually 1.05 acres of the entire site. 00:37:38.320 --> 00:37:42.560 And here you can see the location, the proposed location of the tower within that development 00:37:42.560 --> 00:37:47.520 impact area. 00:37:47.520 --> 00:37:50.560 Here's a close up of the development impact area. 00:37:50.560 --> 00:37:54.520 And you can see that there is a drive off of Barcelona and it is a shared drive with 00:37:54.520 --> 00:37:59.400 the property that is to the west of the site. 00:37:59.400 --> 00:38:04.760 The site actually fronts Barcelona, has parking to the side and rear, and the tower is located 00:38:04.760 --> 00:38:11.200 to the rear of the building. 00:38:11.200 --> 00:38:12.720 Here's the landscape plan. 00:38:12.720 --> 00:38:17.680 The applicant is actually proposing to provide 40% of landscape area in the development impact 00:38:17.680 --> 00:38:19.120 area. 00:38:19.120 --> 00:38:24.880 That exceeds the required 25% landscaped area by 15%. 00:38:24.880 --> 00:38:30.760 Six trees will be planted along Barcelona street and the site will have a 30% tree canopy 00:38:30.760 --> 00:38:38.600 all in conformance with the requirements of the DDC. 00:38:38.600 --> 00:38:40.880 The building elevations are as follows. 00:38:40.880 --> 00:38:51.320 The front elevation of the building is this top elevation right up here. 00:38:51.320 --> 00:38:56.640 The proposed communications tower, this is what it will look like. 00:38:56.640 --> 00:39:04.400 The height, as I noted previously, it will have a maximum height of 810 feet mean sea 00:39:04.400 --> 00:39:07.040 level. 00:39:07.040 --> 00:39:13.880 The applicant right now has an application under review by the FAA and the FAA will determine 00:39:13.880 --> 00:39:15.840 what the ultimate height is. 00:39:15.840 --> 00:39:21.400 Cindy, can I pause you real fast and acknowledge Commissioner Beck with a question? 00:39:21.400 --> 00:39:22.400 Sure. 00:39:22.400 --> 00:39:23.400 Thank you, Chair. 00:39:23.400 --> 00:39:25.160 And it's directly germane to this. 00:39:25.160 --> 00:39:32.280 Given the 800 and whatever you said, sea level limit, what would be a rough height of the 00:39:32.280 --> 00:39:34.040 tower from the ground? 00:39:34.040 --> 00:39:35.600 82 feet. 00:39:35.600 --> 00:39:40.120 Okay, thank you. 00:39:40.120 --> 00:39:43.120 Sure. 00:39:43.120 --> 00:39:48.240 The only difference is the applicant is proposing to put a wooden fence to screen the bottom 00:39:48.240 --> 00:39:49.240 of it. 00:39:49.240 --> 00:39:57.640 As you know, we have general criteria for approval of all applications. 00:39:57.640 --> 00:39:59.680 And I go through that in my staff report. 00:39:59.680 --> 00:40:02.640 I'm not going to cover it here. 00:40:02.640 --> 00:40:10.960 We have SUP criteria for approval, which I will go into one by one. 00:40:10.960 --> 00:40:14.120 Criteria one is compatibility with the surrounding area. 00:40:14.120 --> 00:40:18.000 The surrounding development is comprised of light manufacturing companies, warehouses 00:40:18.000 --> 00:40:20.520 and a medical clinic. 00:40:20.520 --> 00:40:24.760 These are primarily industrial in nature with the exception of the medical clinic. 00:40:24.760 --> 00:40:29.000 The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding uses. 00:40:29.000 --> 00:40:34.260 The land criteria two is minimal impacts on future development. 00:40:34.260 --> 00:40:37.360 The land surrounding the site has already been developed. 00:40:37.360 --> 00:40:41.800 The proposed communications tower and accompanying office building will have minimal impact on 00:40:41.800 --> 00:40:47.880 the future development of this area. 00:40:47.880 --> 00:40:52.360 Criteria three, the use conforms with all standards of the DDC and all applicable city 00:40:52.360 --> 00:40:59.320 codes and yes, it does conform with all standards of the DDC and applicable codes. 00:40:59.320 --> 00:41:06.480 Criteria four, impacts associated with access, traffic, emergency services, utilities, parking, 00:41:06.480 --> 00:41:12.320 refuge areas, glare and odor have been adequately mitigated. 00:41:12.320 --> 00:41:17.560 The proposed tower has been located on the interior of the lot. 00:41:17.560 --> 00:41:21.860 It's not located within any building setbacks or easements or right of way. 00:41:21.860 --> 00:41:29.440 There will be minimal if any glare, noise or odor from the tower. 00:41:29.440 --> 00:41:35.960 The criteria five is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and any other applicable 00:41:35.960 --> 00:41:37.560 adopted plans. 00:41:37.560 --> 00:41:40.360 The only plan in effect on this site is a comprehensive plan. 00:41:40.360 --> 00:41:45.720 The site is designated a business innovation on the future land use map. 00:41:45.720 --> 00:41:50.800 Typical uses in this area are offices like manufacturing, research and development. 00:41:50.800 --> 00:41:56.560 The proposed use is in compliance with the future land use designation. 00:41:56.560 --> 00:42:03.720 Criteria six, the use adversely impacts the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants 00:42:03.720 --> 00:42:05.600 of the area and the city of Denton. 00:42:05.600 --> 00:42:10.760 The use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the 00:42:10.760 --> 00:42:12.900 area and the city of Denton. 00:42:12.900 --> 00:42:20.540 This will have to comply with all city of Denton criteria as well as any FAA criteria 00:42:20.540 --> 00:42:30.840 that is imposed on it to ensure that it doesn't adversely affect any citizens. 00:42:30.840 --> 00:42:36.960 We sent out notifications within 200 and 500 feet as well as put out a newspaper notice. 00:42:36.960 --> 00:42:40.000 The sign was posted on the site. 00:42:40.000 --> 00:42:48.000 We received two responses in opposition which I emailed to all of you this afternoon. 00:42:48.000 --> 00:42:56.360 They comprise 11% of the area within the 200 foot boundary. 00:42:56.360 --> 00:43:01.040 We received one in favor but that was the applicant so it doesn't count. 00:43:01.040 --> 00:43:06.400 No neighborhood meetings were held. 00:43:06.400 --> 00:43:11.040 Staff recommends approval of the request for a communications tower with a maximum height 00:43:11.040 --> 00:43:19.280 of 810 feet mean sea level as it conforms with the criteria in section 2.4.5E, section 00:43:19.280 --> 00:43:27.360 2.5.3D for the approval of a specific use permit and section 4.5.8 of the airport height 00:43:27.360 --> 00:43:28.720 hazard district. 00:43:28.720 --> 00:43:30.800 And that concludes my presentation. 00:43:30.800 --> 00:43:36.880 The applicant will be telephoning in later on to answer any questions. 00:43:36.880 --> 00:43:37.880 Great. 00:43:37.880 --> 00:43:39.560 Thank you so much, Cindy. 00:43:39.560 --> 00:43:42.360 Commissioner back has a question. 00:43:42.360 --> 00:43:43.360 Thank you, chair. 00:43:43.360 --> 00:43:50.960 Cindy, there was the three for one rule that was in effect before and obviously with a 00:43:50.960 --> 00:43:58.040 shorter tower, you know, three for one is shorter now but they're not proposing changing 00:43:58.040 --> 00:44:01.080 that three foot or that three for one rule, right? 00:44:01.080 --> 00:44:02.080 That's right. 00:44:02.080 --> 00:44:03.080 Okay. 00:44:03.080 --> 00:44:04.080 Thank you. 00:44:04.080 --> 00:44:10.120 Any other questions for Cindy? 00:44:10.120 --> 00:44:11.940 Cindy thank you very much. 00:44:11.940 --> 00:44:18.460 Next item for business is item 4D PD20-0001. 00:44:18.460 --> 00:44:27.760 This item is Haley Zagurski's and I'll turn it over to her when she's ready. 00:44:27.760 --> 00:44:34.760 Okay. 00:44:34.760 --> 00:45:02.240 All right. 00:45:02.240 --> 00:45:03.240 Good evening. 00:45:03.240 --> 00:45:08.080 This is PD21 for Sagebrook. 00:45:08.080 --> 00:45:12.320 The request before you this evening is a dual request. 00:45:12.320 --> 00:45:18.240 This is for an initial zoning of planned development district on approximately 132 acres and a 00:45:18.240 --> 00:45:24.760 rezoning from residential six or R6 district to PD on approximately 14 acres that are located 00:45:24.760 --> 00:45:26.720 adjacent to the railroad. 00:45:26.720 --> 00:45:29.400 The site is a total of 146 acres. 00:45:29.400 --> 00:45:31.240 It's outlined in yellow on the map. 00:45:31.240 --> 00:45:35.560 This may be familiar to you all as this developer did come to a work session earlier this year 00:45:35.560 --> 00:45:37.720 and present their plans. 00:45:37.720 --> 00:45:41.800 Since then, they have annexed the property and now that that process is completed, they're 00:45:41.800 --> 00:45:45.040 seeking the desired zoning. 00:45:45.040 --> 00:45:47.840 So this is a look at our current zoning map. 00:45:47.840 --> 00:45:51.200 Properties that have been annexed into the city receive a placeholder designation of 00:45:51.200 --> 00:45:52.200 rural residential. 00:45:52.200 --> 00:45:54.200 So that's the RR that you see on the map. 00:45:54.200 --> 00:45:58.560 The frontage of the railroad track is zoned R6. 00:45:58.560 --> 00:46:03.440 That was part of an annexation down the Fort Worth Drive corridor in the 1960s. 00:46:03.440 --> 00:46:09.960 And then you can see the proposed zoning map with the entire site zoned to PD. 00:46:09.960 --> 00:46:13.660 This is a look at the site layout that was included in your backup. 00:46:13.660 --> 00:46:17.640 So that is a total of 491 lots. 00:46:17.640 --> 00:46:23.360 Within the residential portion of the development, there's approximately 9.4 acres that are dedicated 00:46:23.360 --> 00:46:25.800 to HOA open space areas. 00:46:25.800 --> 00:46:29.600 That includes the two areas circled in yellow on the southern side would be the primary 00:46:29.600 --> 00:46:30.600 amenity center. 00:46:30.600 --> 00:46:35.040 The PD indicates that that would contain a pool, a cabana, and a playground. 00:46:35.040 --> 00:46:38.260 There would also be walking trails throughout that area. 00:46:38.260 --> 00:46:44.480 On the north side, there's going to be a pond with walking trails and benches. 00:46:44.480 --> 00:46:48.840 Circled in blue, there is a central spine through the development that will be kind 00:46:48.840 --> 00:46:53.320 of a boulevard design with the street going one way on either side of a central median 00:46:53.320 --> 00:46:58.040 that will have a 10-foot combined hike bike trail that will run from Allred Road to Brush 00:46:58.040 --> 00:47:00.400 Creek Road. 00:47:00.400 --> 00:47:04.600 And then south of the future Brush Creek Road extension, there's approximately 18 acres 00:47:04.600 --> 00:47:07.700 of land that they're proposing to dedicate to the city. 00:47:07.700 --> 00:47:12.720 That would be potentially used by the Parks Department for future trail extensions. 00:47:12.720 --> 00:47:17.160 Approximately 14 acres of that is within a floodplain ESA. 00:47:17.160 --> 00:47:21.880 And then circled in red on this map is a portion of an HOA lot where a plugged gas well is 00:47:21.880 --> 00:47:26.920 located as in anticipation of this development, the developer did ensure that that well was 00:47:26.920 --> 00:47:31.000 plugged and would be providing for it to be within an open space lot so that no structure 00:47:31.000 --> 00:47:34.560 would be built over the well. 00:47:34.560 --> 00:47:37.920 There is a phasing schedule included as part of this PD. 00:47:37.920 --> 00:47:44.360 Phase one is the area in green that would establish that north-south connection to connect 00:47:44.360 --> 00:47:49.720 Allred to Brush Creek and provide two points of access for approximately 143 units as well 00:47:49.720 --> 00:47:52.920 as the primary amenity lot. 00:47:52.920 --> 00:47:56.580 Phase two would be to the north of that at the intersection of Allred and Bonnie Brain 00:47:56.580 --> 00:47:59.720 would be for 133 additional units. 00:47:59.720 --> 00:48:04.360 And then phase three is about 99 units that would include some further extension of Brush 00:48:04.360 --> 00:48:05.500 Creek Road. 00:48:05.500 --> 00:48:10.560 And phase four would complete their portion of Brush Creek Road and have 116 residential 00:48:10.560 --> 00:48:11.560 units. 00:48:11.560 --> 00:48:15.880 The developer, it will only be developing their half of Brush Creek that's adjacent 00:48:15.880 --> 00:48:20.640 to the residential portions, that'd be two lanes of the road from Fort Worth Drive to 00:48:20.640 --> 00:48:25.620 the western boundary of their property. 00:48:25.620 --> 00:48:30.780 This table compares the plan development standards that they've proposed with the R6 base zoning 00:48:30.780 --> 00:48:33.880 that they're basing this PD on. 00:48:33.880 --> 00:48:39.440 This PD would permit only single-family detached dwellings as a primary use along with parks 00:48:39.440 --> 00:48:44.520 and amenity centers to ensure that future property on the south side can be dedicated 00:48:44.520 --> 00:48:48.840 for park development and that their amenity center is permitted there, of course. 00:48:48.840 --> 00:48:53.720 And then they're permitting any of the accessory and temporary uses allowed within the R6 district 00:48:53.720 --> 00:48:56.880 so that if a resident wanted to install solar panels or something of that nature, that would 00:48:56.880 --> 00:49:00.240 be permitted. 00:49:00.240 --> 00:49:06.320 This table shows a comparison of the dimensional standards from the PD to the R6 district. 00:49:06.320 --> 00:49:07.320 There is one change. 00:49:07.320 --> 00:49:12.520 The applicant noticed this afternoon that they had typed in a 10-foot side yard setback 00:49:12.520 --> 00:49:13.960 for all lots within the PD. 00:49:13.960 --> 00:49:18.000 They intended that only for corner lots to have a 10-foot setback. 00:49:18.000 --> 00:49:22.840 So for the standard side yard for interior lots, that would be five feet consistent with 00:49:22.840 --> 00:49:25.640 the R6 district. 00:49:25.640 --> 00:49:30.640 The only major changes they've proposed in terms of these values is the front yard setback, 00:49:30.640 --> 00:49:34.400 which would be 20 feet instead of 10 feet, so a little bit larger front yard than what 00:49:34.400 --> 00:49:36.020 we would normally see. 00:49:36.020 --> 00:49:38.320 And then they're proposing enhanced landscaping. 00:49:38.320 --> 00:49:43.520 So whereas a normal subdivision in R6 would have a minimum of one yard tree, they've proposed 00:49:43.520 --> 00:49:48.700 that for interior lots with two additional ornamental trees on corner lots. 00:49:48.700 --> 00:49:53.440 And then they've stipulated the minimum standards for front yard landscaping for each home as 00:49:53.440 --> 00:49:59.240 well as for evergreen screening on the foundations of corner lots. 00:49:59.240 --> 00:50:03.240 In addition, I do want to note that their minimum open space comes out to 18% overall 00:50:03.240 --> 00:50:05.920 when you look at the 146 acres. 00:50:05.920 --> 00:50:10.340 The DDC minimum is 5% dedicated open space for a single-family subdivision with more 00:50:10.340 --> 00:50:15.120 than 10 lots. 00:50:15.120 --> 00:50:19.560 As has been noted in the other presentations, there are general criteria applicable to all 00:50:19.560 --> 00:50:20.560 applications. 00:50:20.560 --> 00:50:23.400 Those are outlined in detail in your backup, so I won't go through them all here, but did 00:50:23.400 --> 00:50:29.700 want to note that the proposed PD is in compliance with all of those standards. 00:50:29.700 --> 00:50:35.060 And then we'll go through each of these specific PD criteria for approval in turn. 00:50:35.060 --> 00:50:39.000 So criterion one is compliance with the Denton Plan 2030. 00:50:39.000 --> 00:50:43.440 This subject property is actually a mix of neighborhood mixed use, which is intended 00:50:43.440 --> 00:50:47.680 for a mixture of commercial and moderate density residential uses. 00:50:47.680 --> 00:50:51.720 That is, as you can see here on the map, is kind of this entire Bonnie Bray-Fort Worth 00:50:51.720 --> 00:50:56.400 Drive-Brush Creek intersection has that designation, so that's intended to be a service node for 00:50:56.400 --> 00:50:58.720 the surrounding residential areas. 00:50:58.720 --> 00:51:02.720 And then the balance of the property shown in green is designated for rural areas, which 00:51:02.720 --> 00:51:07.320 is intended for farms, ranches, and very low-density residential development. 00:51:07.320 --> 00:51:11.160 Generally that is one unit per five acres. 00:51:11.160 --> 00:51:15.800 But if you look at this broader area, you see this wedge of the pie, if you will, between 00:51:15.800 --> 00:51:19.880 I-35W and Fort Worth Drive has a wide mixture of uses. 00:51:19.880 --> 00:51:25.400 We have commercial nodes at 35 and brush are all red, and then over here along Fort Worth 00:51:25.400 --> 00:51:26.400 Drive. 00:51:26.400 --> 00:51:29.800 And then to the north of this, we have moderate density residential and a future regional 00:51:29.800 --> 00:51:31.560 scale park. 00:51:31.560 --> 00:51:35.200 So it's very unlikely when looking at this little mile and a half wide area that this 00:51:35.200 --> 00:51:39.440 area will stay rural, especially once the arterial roadway that's intended to go across 00:51:39.440 --> 00:51:41.440 here is connected. 00:51:41.440 --> 00:51:45.400 So this is more of a transitional zone, if you will, between the high intensity of the 00:51:45.400 --> 00:51:50.520 highway across to the east, to where we have this neighborhood service area, and then more 00:51:50.520 --> 00:51:54.920 rural and low-density residential on the opposite side of Fort Worth Drive. 00:51:54.920 --> 00:52:00.600 So this PD plan comes in at about 3.3 units per acre and is consistent with the transition 00:52:00.600 --> 00:52:04.680 that we'd expect to see in this area. 00:52:04.680 --> 00:52:07.880 The second criterion is whether it complies with the DDC. 00:52:07.880 --> 00:52:11.320 This table, again, shows that they are meeting or exceeding all of the numerical standards 00:52:11.320 --> 00:52:12.320 of the code. 00:52:12.320 --> 00:52:16.940 The PD does specify that for anything not stipulated specifically in the PD, they would 00:52:16.940 --> 00:52:20.640 meet the DDC standards. 00:52:20.640 --> 00:52:23.960 Then criterion three is whether it provides for greater building design amenities and 00:52:23.960 --> 00:52:25.360 connectivity. 00:52:25.360 --> 00:52:29.700 They are proposing to meet the building design standards within the DDC, and then they would 00:52:29.700 --> 00:52:34.120 enhance each of those lots aesthetically with some enhanced landscaping, as we looked at 00:52:34.120 --> 00:52:35.120 earlier. 00:52:35.120 --> 00:52:38.960 So additional trees and foundation plantings on corner lots, as well as specifying the 00:52:38.960 --> 00:52:42.880 minimum front yard landscaping for each of those homes in terms of shrubs and ornamental 00:52:42.880 --> 00:52:45.680 plants. 00:52:45.680 --> 00:52:50.540 In terms of amenities and open space, as I mentioned, those two large amenity areas account 00:52:50.540 --> 00:52:56.200 for 6.4% of the residential subdivision area at just over nine acres. 00:52:56.200 --> 00:53:00.920 Those would feature ponds, walking paths, in addition to the pool and playground amenities. 00:53:00.920 --> 00:53:05.640 The DDC minimum is 5%, so they are exceeding that. 00:53:05.640 --> 00:53:09.520 And then rather the development would provide for greater connectivity. 00:53:09.520 --> 00:53:13.840 We found that it would improve pedestrian and automotive connectivity in this area. 00:53:13.840 --> 00:53:18.440 The extension of Brush Creek Road will be aiding in the construction of what the city has identified 00:53:18.440 --> 00:53:23.200 as a high priority roadway, because we do need that east-west connectivity in South 00:53:23.200 --> 00:53:26.440 Denton that we don't have today in terms of a primary arterial. 00:53:26.440 --> 00:53:28.640 So this would assist with that. 00:53:28.640 --> 00:53:33.360 And then on a more local scale, it would provide for pedestrian connectivity between the future 00:53:33.360 --> 00:53:38.120 park to the north and then the dedicated trail area on the south side of the development 00:53:38.120 --> 00:53:44.520 with that north-south 10-foot hike and bike trail. 00:53:44.520 --> 00:53:49.560 Criterion 4 applies to residential uses and seeks to know whether there is a compatible 00:53:49.560 --> 00:53:52.880 arrangement of buildings' uses and whether it's consistent with the character of the 00:53:52.880 --> 00:53:54.160 area. 00:53:54.160 --> 00:53:59.240 So this subdivision is consistent in terms of density and design with other established 00:53:59.240 --> 00:54:02.920 neighborhoods in South Denton, Country Lakes and Carnegie Ridge are just down the road 00:54:02.920 --> 00:54:04.000 from here. 00:54:04.000 --> 00:54:07.480 And it's consistent with the type of moderate density residential development we would expect 00:54:07.480 --> 00:54:11.920 to see in the portions of Hunter Ranch that are closest to this. 00:54:11.920 --> 00:54:15.560 The plan and standards that are presented do reflect some additional buffering around 00:54:15.560 --> 00:54:20.640 the perimeter of the subdivision in terms of landscaping, street trees and fencing that 00:54:20.640 --> 00:54:26.000 would provide for higher visual aesthetic driving down Brush Creek Road and help screen 00:54:26.000 --> 00:54:30.200 the subdivision from the railroad right-of-way. 00:54:30.200 --> 00:54:33.640 The fifth criterion is applicable to non-residential uses. 00:54:33.640 --> 00:54:35.720 This PD is primarily residential. 00:54:35.720 --> 00:54:39.360 The only non-residential use is proposed to be parks and open spaces that are compatible 00:54:39.360 --> 00:54:42.760 with the neighborhood design. 00:54:42.760 --> 00:54:46.240 The sixth criterion is whether there's the provision of public facilities. 00:54:46.240 --> 00:54:49.600 And this has several components, so I'll go through each of those in turn. 00:54:49.600 --> 00:54:51.440 The first of those is schools. 00:54:51.440 --> 00:54:52.920 We did reach out to Denton ISD. 00:54:52.920 --> 00:54:57.120 They provided their expected student generation and attendance zones. 00:54:57.120 --> 00:55:02.000 So 113 elementary school students, 59 middle school students and 74 high school students 00:55:02.000 --> 00:55:05.840 are expected for a neighborhood of this size. 00:55:05.840 --> 00:55:09.360 It is zoned into McMath Middle School and Denton High School, which both have capacity 00:55:09.360 --> 00:55:12.880 at this time to serve all of those students. 00:55:12.880 --> 00:55:18.100 Denton ISD indicated that at this time, Borman Elementary does not have capacity, but this 00:55:18.100 --> 00:55:21.400 is expected to be an eight-year build out between those four phases. 00:55:21.400 --> 00:55:26.200 So there is time for that school to either gain capacity or there's a high likelihood 00:55:26.200 --> 00:55:29.480 that this would be rezoned into some of the new schools that are planned within the Hunter 00:55:29.480 --> 00:55:33.820 and Colt Ranch area. 00:55:33.820 --> 00:55:38.360 In terms of fire and police, there is currently a fire station that you can see here on the 00:55:38.360 --> 00:55:40.760 north side of the map on Vintage Boulevard. 00:55:40.760 --> 00:55:44.240 This site is well within that eight-minute response time boundary, which is the standard 00:55:44.240 --> 00:55:46.180 for the fire department. 00:55:46.180 --> 00:55:50.320 And then the police department indicated that this is not expected to have a significant 00:55:50.320 --> 00:55:52.720 or negative impact on their response time. 00:55:52.720 --> 00:55:56.440 They did want to note that there is a new police facility expected to be built here 00:55:56.440 --> 00:56:01.720 by the fire station to be operational by 2022 that would increase their ability to respond 00:56:01.720 --> 00:56:05.600 to this area though. 00:56:05.600 --> 00:56:09.500 Looking at water and wastewater utilities, the blue lines on the map are the water services 00:56:09.500 --> 00:56:10.500 that are available. 00:56:10.500 --> 00:56:13.160 So there's currently water available on Bonnie Bray. 00:56:13.160 --> 00:56:18.280 However, there is this new line that's been built by the city along All Red. 00:56:18.280 --> 00:56:22.680 So water services are available and will be extended throughout the site. 00:56:22.680 --> 00:56:24.560 Wastewater lines are shown in red on the map. 00:56:24.560 --> 00:56:31.000 You'll notice the closest line is pretty significantly far down Brush Creek. 00:56:31.000 --> 00:56:33.840 They will be making a connection there at what's called the Graveyard Interceptor and 00:56:33.840 --> 00:56:39.900 extending that line down Brush Creek to the west across I-35 and the railroad and across 00:56:39.900 --> 00:56:42.440 this site to provide service to this area. 00:56:42.440 --> 00:56:47.360 There have been discussions with our engineering department and they're expected to participate 00:56:47.360 --> 00:56:51.400 with the city to oversize that line to make sure that it can have additional capacity 00:56:51.400 --> 00:56:57.040 to serve other developments in this area in the future. 00:56:57.040 --> 00:57:01.280 Looking at streets, of course, our mobility plan reflects Brush Creek Road going across 00:57:01.280 --> 00:57:03.440 this property as a primary arterial. 00:57:03.440 --> 00:57:07.520 They will be providing the right-of-way for that road and building two lanes of it on 00:57:07.520 --> 00:57:10.360 the north side adjacent to the subdivision. 00:57:10.360 --> 00:57:14.200 The city did a regional traffic study as you may have seen those discussions at City Council 00:57:14.200 --> 00:57:18.120 over the last year and determined this was the best alignment for that road and that 00:57:18.120 --> 00:57:22.840 this is a much needed road that is prioritized for South Denton. 00:57:22.840 --> 00:57:27.600 Looking at the other streets that they have adjacency to, Bonnie Bray, south of All Red, 00:57:27.600 --> 00:57:30.440 is expected to be closed in the future. 00:57:30.440 --> 00:57:34.120 With this development and then making the connection at Brush Creek, they're working 00:57:34.120 --> 00:57:38.320 with the city and the railroad company to close the current unsafe crossing at Bonnie 00:57:38.320 --> 00:57:39.320 Bray. 00:57:39.320 --> 00:57:41.760 If you've ever been out there, it connects at a very odd angle. 00:57:41.760 --> 00:57:46.480 There's not a lot of stacking room for people to get off of the highway to make that turn 00:57:46.480 --> 00:57:48.200 there across the railroad. 00:57:48.200 --> 00:57:54.400 So that will be closed and there will be a new properly aligned intersection or a crossing 00:57:54.400 --> 00:57:57.400 put in there at Brush Creek. 00:57:57.400 --> 00:58:02.280 All Red Road is expected to be unimproved at this time. 00:58:02.280 --> 00:58:07.000 The city will improve that street in the future, either when the park develops or when additional 00:58:07.000 --> 00:58:12.960 development occurs in this area that generates the need for that. 00:58:12.960 --> 00:58:16.560 Within the site, the primary connection will be off of Brush Creek, so the majority of 00:58:16.560 --> 00:58:19.080 the traffic will be funneled to that arterial roadway. 00:58:19.080 --> 00:58:23.400 They will have two additional points of access as options for the residents and for emergency 00:58:23.400 --> 00:58:24.400 response. 00:58:24.400 --> 00:58:28.560 One of those will be off of All Red Road and one would be a second point of access further 00:58:28.560 --> 00:58:32.140 to the west along Brush Creek. 00:58:32.140 --> 00:58:35.960 This afternoon, I believe you all received an email response that was sent in today that 00:58:35.960 --> 00:58:40.560 expressed concern about the alignment of Brush Creek, so I wanted to provide this map to give 00:58:40.560 --> 00:58:42.720 some context to how that decision was made. 00:58:42.720 --> 00:58:47.240 There were multiple options looked at in the feasibility study, and at the end of the day, 00:58:47.240 --> 00:58:52.240 it was determined that the most reasonable, once we got some engineering information from 00:58:52.240 --> 00:58:55.560 this development, the most reasonable alignment was through this property in an angle that 00:58:55.560 --> 00:58:57.940 follows the floodplain. 00:58:57.940 --> 00:59:01.640 This is zone A floodplain, so we needed to avoid that. 00:59:01.640 --> 00:59:05.040 And then we also needed to avoid this gas well site up here so that there wasn't a plugged 00:59:05.040 --> 00:59:09.160 well under the roadway, which could cause some stability concerns. 00:59:09.160 --> 00:59:14.000 So that road essentially had to thread the needle between those two obstacles to connect 00:59:14.000 --> 00:59:18.280 to All Red at a reasonable angle, and so the alignment shown on their plan is the alignment 00:59:18.280 --> 00:59:25.760 that the city felt was best for this roadway extension. 00:59:25.760 --> 00:59:29.960 The final component of criterion six is accessibility to parks. 00:59:29.960 --> 00:59:35.800 So the area shown in green on your map is the future Southwest Park, which will be a 00:59:35.800 --> 00:59:37.800 regional scale park. 00:59:37.800 --> 00:59:42.300 The city is currently negotiating with a consultant on that master plan for that park development, 00:59:42.300 --> 00:59:45.680 so that is coming in the near future. 00:59:45.680 --> 00:59:49.500 And additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the area south of Brush Creek down here with 00:59:49.500 --> 00:59:53.280 the floodplain is proposed to be dedicated to the city to provide future trail connectivities 00:59:53.280 --> 00:59:55.420 through the floodplain. 00:59:55.420 --> 00:59:58.640 And park dedication and development fees will apply to this at the time of platting and 00:59:58.640 --> 00:59:59.640 permitting. 00:59:59.640 --> 01:00:00.640 Hey, can I pause you? 01:00:00.640 --> 01:00:01.640 Excuse me. 01:00:01.640 --> 01:00:02.640 Can I pause you real fast? 01:00:02.640 --> 01:00:04.720 I think Commissioner Beck has a question. 01:00:04.720 --> 01:00:07.640 Yes, thank you, Chair. 01:00:07.640 --> 01:00:10.120 Can you go back to the floodplain map? 01:00:10.120 --> 01:00:12.640 I think that's the previous one. 01:00:12.640 --> 01:00:19.800 So the emails that you communicated to us, we're the go through the corner of that property. 01:00:19.800 --> 01:00:26.600 I guess that's not directly related to this individual property, but it's germane. 01:00:26.600 --> 01:00:31.360 We're going to eminent domain that and the second question is Brush Creek is our road 01:00:31.360 --> 01:00:35.040 or somebody else's road? 01:00:35.040 --> 01:00:37.720 Brush Creek is a city road, I believe. 01:00:37.720 --> 01:00:40.920 So that is a city roadway. 01:00:40.920 --> 01:00:47.760 When I talked to our city engineering department this afternoon, they communicated that yes, 01:00:47.760 --> 01:00:51.820 sometime in the future, the city would negotiate with the adjacent property owner to acquire 01:00:51.820 --> 01:00:58.080 that right of way that's not expected to occur for 10 to 15 years, probably, based on the 01:00:58.080 --> 01:01:02.640 expected timing of the Hunter Cole Ranch and other developments in this area. 01:01:02.640 --> 01:01:06.840 So that would be a future negotiation that the city would have to go through to acquire 01:01:06.840 --> 01:01:10.360 that right of way when the road needs to be expanded. 01:01:10.360 --> 01:01:11.360 Okay. 01:01:11.360 --> 01:01:17.720 And can you wiggle your mouse and show me where the access points you were referencing 01:01:17.720 --> 01:01:19.320 are going to be? 01:01:19.320 --> 01:01:20.320 Yes. 01:01:20.320 --> 01:01:25.400 If we need to, we can go back to the site plan. 01:01:25.400 --> 01:01:29.120 On the north side, their connection will align with what's planned to be the primary entrance 01:01:29.120 --> 01:01:31.200 to the park along Allred. 01:01:31.200 --> 01:01:35.240 On the south side, their primary entry would be roughly in this area and then there would 01:01:35.240 --> 01:01:38.000 be a secondary access point over here on the western side. 01:01:38.000 --> 01:01:39.000 Okay. 01:01:39.000 --> 01:01:40.000 Thank you. 01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:45.800 Commissioners, just seeing the time, being respectful for the public hearing at 630. 01:01:45.800 --> 01:01:50.480 If we could hold other questions about this item until public hearing, certainly have 01:01:50.480 --> 01:01:54.680 the discussion, but if we could hold them until public hearing, let Haley wrap up. 01:01:54.680 --> 01:01:57.760 I think that would be good so we get to public hearing. 01:01:57.760 --> 01:01:59.920 Haley, please continue. 01:01:59.920 --> 01:02:01.960 All right. 01:02:01.960 --> 01:02:04.880 Just a couple more slides here. 01:02:04.880 --> 01:02:08.880 There was a response submitted online, I believe, regarding the fiscal impacts of this, so I 01:02:08.880 --> 01:02:11.960 wanted to provide this detail for you all. 01:02:11.960 --> 01:02:15.720 Just some of the highlights of the fiscal impact analysis that were done as part of 01:02:15.720 --> 01:02:17.840 the annexation. 01:02:17.840 --> 01:02:21.720 Currently with the agriculture exemption on the site, the property tax revenue is about 01:02:21.720 --> 01:02:24.240 $377. 01:02:24.240 --> 01:02:30.200 The estimated annual tax revenue at build out would be $967,000 roughly. 01:02:30.200 --> 01:02:35.120 And then the difference when you net out the cost of services would be about $87,000 there. 01:02:35.120 --> 01:02:38.760 They do have substantial amounts of permit and inspection and impact fees that would 01:02:38.760 --> 01:02:43.500 be paid for this development at our current rates, that would be about $8.5 million. 01:02:43.500 --> 01:02:48.560 Fiscal sales tax over the eight years related to the construction of this would be about 01:02:48.560 --> 01:02:50.460 $1.2 million. 01:02:50.460 --> 01:02:54.280 But I also wanted to bring this back around to not just the fiscal impacts, but also the 01:02:54.280 --> 01:02:56.640 qualitative impacts of the development. 01:02:56.640 --> 01:03:02.520 The developer did plug that gas well in anticipation of bringing this development into the city. 01:03:02.520 --> 01:03:06.720 They are dedicating a substantial amount of right of way and constructing a significant 01:03:06.720 --> 01:03:10.960 portion of Rush Creek Road, which is a city asset that we need. 01:03:10.960 --> 01:03:15.880 And then they are assisting with the improvement of the railroad crossing at 377 that would 01:03:15.880 --> 01:03:20.800 eliminate that very unsafe crossing we have today at Bonnie Bray in 377. 01:03:20.800 --> 01:03:25.320 And then also just the amount of park dedication and trails that we would potentially get out 01:03:25.320 --> 01:03:29.080 of this development and those connections that we would have as the Hunter and Coal 01:03:29.080 --> 01:03:35.720 Ranch developments occur and provide that greater trail connectivity to the West. 01:03:35.720 --> 01:03:39.720 Notification was sent regarding this request. 01:03:39.720 --> 01:03:44.840 Because of the time of this meeting, there had been one response in favor that was provided 01:03:44.840 --> 01:03:46.000 in your backup. 01:03:46.000 --> 01:03:50.120 The additional response in opposition was provided via email today, and that was this 01:03:50.120 --> 01:03:52.320 property immediately to the West. 01:03:52.320 --> 01:03:57.360 And then I did want to read, I have two additional responses that we found at our office today. 01:03:57.360 --> 01:04:01.200 That's been closed, so there wasn't a lot of checking of the fax machines, but we did 01:04:01.200 --> 01:04:06.440 get two additional responses from the properties that are shown in red to the east. 01:04:06.440 --> 01:04:10.520 Both are opposed as well, and I can read those during the public hearing to put them on the 01:04:10.520 --> 01:04:11.520 record. 01:04:11.520 --> 01:04:14.840 The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting in January and had about 12 attendees at the 01:04:14.840 --> 01:04:21.200 meeting and they presented the same slides that were shown to you all at the work session. 01:04:21.200 --> 01:04:24.640 So staff is recommending approval of this request as it complies with both our general 01:04:24.640 --> 01:04:27.720 and our PD specific criteria for approval. 01:04:27.720 --> 01:04:31.880 And if this gets a vote from the P&Z tonight, it would move forward to public hearing at 01:04:31.880 --> 01:04:34.400 City Council on June 2nd. 01:04:34.400 --> 01:04:36.840 I'm happy to answer any other questions if there's time. 01:04:36.840 --> 01:04:39.920 Haley, thank you for the presentation. 01:04:39.920 --> 01:04:45.280 I think we can hold questions to the public hearing if we have any additional. 01:04:45.280 --> 01:04:50.200 And with that, that concludes our work session agenda for this evening. 01:04:50.200 --> 01:04:55.480 If it's copacetic with everyone, let's just roll right into the public hearing. 01:04:55.480 --> 01:05:00.320 We have no need for a break to move into council chambers. 01:05:00.320 --> 01:05:04.560 So we'll go ahead and roll right into the public hearing. 01:05:04.560 --> 01:05:10.880 Let me reset my agenda. 01:05:10.880 --> 01:05:17.040 Just to reset everyone, this is the public hearing for the Planning and Zoning Commission. 01:05:17.040 --> 01:05:20.000 Actually, check, I need to close that work session. 01:05:20.000 --> 01:05:22.640 Let's, should I close that work session? 01:05:22.640 --> 01:05:25.480 Close work and then regular meeting. 01:05:25.480 --> 01:05:26.480 Perfect. 01:05:26.480 --> 01:05:28.360 It's a learning curve. 01:05:28.360 --> 01:05:33.640 I'll close the work session at 6 42. 01:05:33.640 --> 01:05:37.240 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission public 01:05:37.240 --> 01:05:41.560 hearing meeting for Wednesday, May 6, 2020. 01:05:41.560 --> 01:05:46.440 Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 6 43. 01:05:46.440 --> 01:05:50.960 The first item of business is to consider approval of the planning and zoning minutes 01:05:50.960 --> 01:05:55.160 for April 8th. 01:05:55.160 --> 01:05:56.160 Commissioner Smith. 01:05:56.160 --> 01:05:58.240 Make a motion to approve. 01:05:58.240 --> 01:06:01.880 We have a first for approval. 01:06:01.880 --> 01:06:02.880 Commissioner Ellis. 01:06:02.880 --> 01:06:03.880 Second. 01:06:03.880 --> 01:06:06.500 We have a first and a second for approval. 01:06:06.500 --> 01:06:10.200 Any discussion on this item? 01:06:10.200 --> 01:06:13.120 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. 01:06:13.120 --> 01:06:14.120 Commissioner Beck. 01:06:14.120 --> 01:06:15.120 Aye. 01:06:15.120 --> 01:06:16.120 Commissioner Ellis. 01:06:16.120 --> 01:06:17.120 Aye. 01:06:17.120 --> 01:06:18.120 Commissioner Pernetta. 01:06:18.120 --> 01:06:19.120 Aye. 01:06:19.120 --> 01:06:20.120 Commissioner Smith. 01:06:20.120 --> 01:06:21.120 Aye. 01:06:21.120 --> 01:06:22.120 Commissioner Cole. 01:06:22.120 --> 01:06:23.120 Aye. 01:06:23.120 --> 01:06:24.120 Commissioner Anderson. 01:06:24.120 --> 01:06:25.120 Aye. 01:06:25.120 --> 01:06:29.800 Motion carries seven zero. 01:06:29.800 --> 01:06:32.080 Next item of business is our consent agenda. 01:06:32.080 --> 01:06:36.500 Chair will entertain a motion, Commissioner Smith. 01:06:36.500 --> 01:06:37.960 Make a motion to approve. 01:06:37.960 --> 01:06:41.320 We have a first for approval, Commissioner Anderson. 01:06:41.320 --> 01:06:42.320 Second the motion. 01:06:42.320 --> 01:06:45.320 We have a first and a second for approval of the consent agenda. 01:06:45.320 --> 01:06:48.320 Any discussion? 01:06:48.320 --> 01:06:51.220 Seeing none, I'll call a vote via roll call. 01:06:51.220 --> 01:06:52.220 Commissioner Beck. 01:06:52.220 --> 01:06:53.220 Aye. 01:06:53.220 --> 01:06:54.220 Commissioner Ellis. 01:06:54.220 --> 01:06:55.220 Aye. 01:06:55.220 --> 01:06:56.220 Commissioner Pernetta. 01:06:56.220 --> 01:06:57.220 Aye. 01:06:57.220 --> 01:06:58.220 Commissioner Smith. 01:06:58.220 --> 01:06:59.220 Aye. 01:06:59.220 --> 01:07:00.220 Commissioner Cole. 01:07:00.220 --> 01:07:01.220 Aye. 01:07:01.220 --> 01:07:02.680 Commissioner Anderson. 01:07:02.680 --> 01:07:03.680 Aye. 01:07:03.680 --> 01:07:06.840 Consent agenda is approved seven zero. 01:07:06.840 --> 01:07:09.080 Next item of business is our individual consideration. 01:07:09.080 --> 01:07:17.280 We'll start, we only have one, item 3A, ZCP20-0002. 01:07:17.280 --> 01:07:28.080 And Haley, if you could provide a summary of the presentation. 01:07:28.080 --> 01:07:38.160 All right. 01:07:38.160 --> 01:07:41.500 So Haley Zagurski with the Planning Department. 01:07:41.500 --> 01:07:46.520 This is a site plan approval for the Residences at Razor Ranch Subdivision. 01:07:46.520 --> 01:07:51.860 I'll quickly go through the slides for anyone in the public. 01:07:51.860 --> 01:07:55.760 So the request before you is for approval of a site plan that features single family 01:07:55.760 --> 01:07:59.520 detached and single family attached or townhome uses. 01:07:59.520 --> 01:08:03.560 The property is the 40 acres outlined in yellow on the map that's located just north of the 01:08:03.560 --> 01:08:06.360 Razor Ranch Marketplace. 01:08:06.360 --> 01:08:09.760 Preliminary plat has been approved for the entire subdivision and a final plat has been 01:08:09.760 --> 01:08:15.360 approved for phase one, which is the eastern half of the development. 01:08:15.360 --> 01:08:16.800 Just a little bit of background. 01:08:16.800 --> 01:08:22.680 This is in accordance with the 2008 and 2009 Razor Ranch ordinances that required approval 01:08:22.680 --> 01:08:24.720 of a site plan and landscape plan. 01:08:24.720 --> 01:08:28.320 Building elevations were excluded from that. 01:08:28.320 --> 01:08:32.560 The criteria for approval or whether it complies with the concept plan, whether it provides 01:08:32.560 --> 01:08:38.120 for compatible arrangement of uses and buildings that wouldn't affect neighboring properties, 01:08:38.120 --> 01:08:41.760 whether it provides for adequate and safe vehicular circulation, and if it complies 01:08:41.760 --> 01:08:45.120 with the overlay district standards. 01:08:45.120 --> 01:08:51.700 So with regards to those standards, this site does have a mix of zoning of NR3 and NRMU12. 01:08:51.700 --> 01:08:55.440 The overlay district permits single family and townhome uses in this area. 01:08:55.440 --> 01:08:58.000 So both uses proposed are permitted. 01:08:58.000 --> 01:09:02.360 There are architectural and landscape standards that were adopted in 2018 that this was analyzed 01:09:02.360 --> 01:09:03.960 for compliance with. 01:09:03.960 --> 01:09:08.920 Those standards limited this to no more than 70 single family and 230 townhomes plus an 01:09:08.920 --> 01:09:10.880 amenity center. 01:09:10.880 --> 01:09:12.520 The unit counts are well within that. 01:09:12.520 --> 01:09:15.800 I wanted to note the amenity center is not part of this request, and we'll come back 01:09:15.800 --> 01:09:19.380 as a separate site plan in the future. 01:09:19.380 --> 01:09:22.640 This is a look at the concept plan that they're required to comply with. 01:09:22.640 --> 01:09:27.000 It reflected, again, single family and townhome uses, which are what is proposed. 01:09:27.000 --> 01:09:31.960 This plan had a large amount of open space on it that was intended for gas well drilling 01:09:31.960 --> 01:09:32.960 sites. 01:09:32.960 --> 01:09:36.520 Those were removed from the Razor Ranch overlay district and opened up more of this property 01:09:36.520 --> 01:09:39.580 for residential use. 01:09:39.580 --> 01:09:40.900 This is a look at the site plan. 01:09:40.900 --> 01:09:45.560 It is in compliance with the approved layout in terms of lots and streets. 01:09:45.560 --> 01:09:50.900 You can see 65 single family lots on the north side that provide a buffer and a transition 01:09:50.900 --> 01:09:55.580 with similar lot sizes for the existing subdivision to the north before you hit the townhomes 01:09:55.580 --> 01:09:58.000 and commercial development to the south. 01:09:58.000 --> 01:10:01.880 There are 215 townhome lots and 31 HOA lots. 01:10:01.880 --> 01:10:07.360 Those HOA lots do include the private alleyways that serve as access to the townhomes. 01:10:07.360 --> 01:10:11.440 The other streets serving the single family homes and providing those primary corridors 01:10:11.440 --> 01:10:15.440 from east to west through the site are public streets. 01:10:15.440 --> 01:10:18.960 They would connect at Augusta Drive and provide that stub out that then meanders through the 01:10:18.960 --> 01:10:20.720 site to get to Bonnie Bray. 01:10:20.720 --> 01:10:24.920 They do have a connection point to the driveway stub coming from the marketplace that would 01:10:24.920 --> 01:10:29.560 be gated to restrict access so that commercial access could not enter this site to cut through 01:10:29.560 --> 01:10:32.480 to Bonnie Bray. 01:10:32.480 --> 01:10:34.800 This is the proposed landscape plan. 01:10:34.800 --> 01:10:39.100 Since this is primarily residential development, the details of individual lot landscaping 01:10:39.100 --> 01:10:42.040 will come with permitting. 01:10:42.040 --> 01:10:45.480 The lots do have to comply with the overlay district, which requires street trees at one 01:10:45.480 --> 01:10:49.920 per 45 feet, and that is shown here on the plan. 01:10:49.920 --> 01:10:52.840 And then they had minimum landscaping for the zoning. 01:10:52.840 --> 01:10:56.280 So each single family lot will have to maintain 50% landscaping. 01:10:56.280 --> 01:11:01.680 The NRMU 12 area required 40% landscaping averaged across the entire townhome area, 01:11:01.680 --> 01:11:05.240 and they are at 45% with this plan. 01:11:05.240 --> 01:11:09.720 These are the sample townhome elevations reflecting consistency with the razor ranch standards 01:11:09.720 --> 01:11:13.080 for neutral color palette and masonry materials. 01:11:13.080 --> 01:11:16.040 And then these are some of the samples of the types of single family homes that are 01:11:16.040 --> 01:11:17.980 intended to be developed here. 01:11:17.980 --> 01:11:22.180 And staff is recommending approval of this request as it meets the established requirements. 01:11:22.180 --> 01:11:26.440 And I believe the applicant has called into the meeting and would be available for questions 01:11:26.440 --> 01:11:27.440 as well. 01:11:27.440 --> 01:11:33.360 >> Great, thank you so much, Haley, is there any questions for Haley? 01:11:33.360 --> 01:11:34.360 Chris or Beck? 01:11:34.360 --> 01:11:39.000 >> Yeah, I forgot to ask this at work session, but is there going to be pedestrian access 01:11:39.000 --> 01:11:47.860 along that connection to the razor ranch? 01:11:47.860 --> 01:11:51.960 >> When I last asked the developer about that, they did not want to provide gated pedestrian 01:11:51.960 --> 01:11:52.960 access there. 01:11:52.960 --> 01:11:57.200 They thought there could be some security concerns, but I believe they might be amenable 01:11:57.200 --> 01:12:02.440 to that if you wanted to direct that question to the applicant. 01:12:02.440 --> 01:12:10.720 >> Yeah, I'm just concerned about pedestrians going down the west road whose name escapes 01:12:10.720 --> 01:12:16.280 me at the moment or down Bonnie Bray to get around to shopping, which would be adjacent, 01:12:16.280 --> 01:12:22.000 which would seem very convenient, but with no pedestrian access, they'd have to drive. 01:12:22.000 --> 01:12:26.280 >> Correct, there's that vehicular access there, but the plan currently does not reflect 01:12:26.280 --> 01:12:28.800 the gated pedestrian access. 01:12:28.800 --> 01:12:32.840 >> Okay, thank you. 01:12:32.840 --> 01:12:41.520 >> Any other questions for Haley or the applicant? 01:12:41.520 --> 01:12:47.480 Okay, seeing none, the chair will entertain a motion. 01:12:47.480 --> 01:12:48.480 Commissioner Smith? 01:12:48.480 --> 01:12:51.240 >> I make a motion to approve. 01:12:51.240 --> 01:12:52.240 >> We have a first for approval. 01:12:52.240 --> 01:12:56.400 Commissioner Pernetta, did I see your hand pop up? 01:12:56.400 --> 01:12:57.400 >> Yes, I second. 01:12:57.400 --> 01:12:59.280 >> Perfect, we have a first and a second for approval. 01:12:59.280 --> 01:13:03.480 Is there any discussion on this item? 01:13:03.480 --> 01:13:06.200 Seeing none, I will call a vote via roll call. 01:13:06.200 --> 01:13:07.200 Commissioner Beck? 01:13:07.200 --> 01:13:08.200 >> Aye. 01:13:08.200 --> 01:13:09.200 >> Commissioner Ellis? 01:13:09.200 --> 01:13:10.200 >> Aye. 01:13:10.200 --> 01:13:11.200 >> Commissioner Smith? 01:13:11.200 --> 01:13:12.200 >> Aye. 01:13:12.200 --> 01:13:13.200 >> Commissioner Cole? 01:13:13.200 --> 01:13:14.200 >> Aye. 01:13:14.200 --> 01:13:15.200 >> Commissioner Anderson? 01:13:15.200 --> 01:13:16.200 >> Aye. 01:13:16.200 --> 01:13:17.360 >> Commissioner Pernetta? 01:13:17.360 --> 01:13:18.360 >> Aye. 01:13:18.360 --> 01:13:24.480 >> The motion carries 7-0, the next item of business is our public hearing items, we'll 01:13:24.480 --> 01:13:33.300 start with item 4A, Z20-0005, the applicant is asking to postpone this indefinitely. 01:13:33.300 --> 01:13:40.600 We talked in work session to a date uncertain, but we're needing a motion for postponement 01:13:40.600 --> 01:13:41.600 indefinitely. 01:13:41.600 --> 01:13:42.600 Commissioner Smith? 01:13:42.600 --> 01:13:48.940 >> Make a motion to postpone a date uncertain. 01:13:48.940 --> 01:13:51.720 >> Commissioner Smith, are you amenable to postponing indefinitely? 01:13:51.720 --> 01:13:54.720 >> A date indefinitely is fine. 01:13:54.720 --> 01:13:55.720 >> Perfect. 01:13:55.720 --> 01:13:56.720 Commissioner Beck, did I see your hand? 01:13:56.720 --> 01:13:57.720 >> Yes, I second. 01:13:57.720 --> 01:14:04.680 >> We have a first and a second to postpone indefinitely, any discussion? 01:14:04.680 --> 01:14:07.900 Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. 01:14:07.900 --> 01:14:08.900 Commissioner Beck? 01:14:08.900 --> 01:14:09.900 >> Aye. 01:14:09.900 --> 01:14:10.900 >> Commissioner Ellis? 01:14:10.900 --> 01:14:11.900 >> Aye. 01:14:11.900 --> 01:14:12.900 >> Commissioner Smith? 01:14:12.900 --> 01:14:13.900 >> Aye. 01:14:13.900 --> 01:14:14.900 >> Commissioner Cole? 01:14:14.900 --> 01:14:15.900 >> Aye. 01:14:15.900 --> 01:14:16.900 >> Commissioner Anderson? 01:14:16.900 --> 01:14:17.900 >> Aye. 01:14:17.900 --> 01:14:18.900 >> Commissioner Pernetta? 01:14:18.900 --> 01:14:19.900 >> Aye. 01:14:19.900 --> 01:14:32.400 >> Motion carries 7-0, the next item of business is item 4B, PDA 20-0001, this item is Julie 01:14:32.400 --> 01:14:52.400 Wyatt and I will invite her for presentation. 01:14:52.400 --> 01:14:58.280 So I'm presenting PDA 21 Stonehill Center, the request is for a detailed plan amendment 01:14:58.280 --> 01:15:04.820 for plan development 142, also known as Stonehill Center, the intent is to add a 30,000 square 01:15:04.820 --> 01:15:10.280 foot building for a single tenant to accommodate the workforce solutions of North Texas. 01:15:10.280 --> 01:15:17.160 The subject property is outlined in yellow, it is a 19.6 acre site located on the east 01:15:17.160 --> 01:15:22.640 side of I-35 and west gate drive, north of west gate drive. 01:15:22.640 --> 01:15:30.560 PDs prior to 2019 per an ordinance that was approved last fall follow the regulations 01:15:30.560 --> 01:15:38.000 that were in place when they were adopted, so in this case the PD 142 follows the 1991 01:15:38.000 --> 01:15:39.000 development code. 01:15:39.000 --> 01:15:43.840 The 1991 development code had a two-step process for plan developments, first the general concept 01:15:43.840 --> 01:15:50.240 plan that established the PD, created the permitted land uses, development standards 01:15:50.240 --> 01:15:54.800 and project boundaries, that remains in place, it is the zoning for the property. 01:15:54.800 --> 01:15:59.920 The second step is the detailed plan, it's essentially a site plan, it is particular 01:15:59.920 --> 01:16:08.720 to an individual site and an individual development, talks about landscaping, the building placement, 01:16:08.720 --> 01:16:11.840 parking access, those sorts of elements. 01:16:11.840 --> 01:16:18.800 So the concept plan for PD 142 was approved in 1991, the original PD boundaries took in 01:16:18.800 --> 01:16:25.040 245 acres, there has been some rezoned out of that PD, but it does maintain those boundaries 01:16:25.040 --> 01:16:31.260 that are outlined in the dark blue hatch line. 01:16:31.260 --> 01:16:37.360 That original PD did lay out the permitted uses and development standards within PD 142, 01:16:37.360 --> 01:16:43.560 and you can see that Stonehill center outlined in black is central to that PD, it's in the 01:16:43.560 --> 01:16:44.560 middle of it. 01:16:44.560 --> 01:16:51.040 A detailed plan was originally approved for the site in 1992, it included four multi-tenant 01:16:51.040 --> 01:16:55.880 retail buildings and 806 parking spaces. 01:16:55.880 --> 01:17:01.960 There were subsequent modifications to that detail plan, and this culminating in the 1993 01:17:01.960 --> 01:17:08.200 detail plan, it added an additional building so that there were five buildings, two through 01:17:08.200 --> 01:17:17.640 five were eventually built along with 945 parking spaces, building one was never built, 01:17:17.640 --> 01:17:21.920 so the approval for that building has expired. 01:17:21.920 --> 01:17:27.920 So the subject request really is adding back in that building one, the existing buildings 01:17:27.920 --> 01:17:34.200 range in size from about 26,000 square feet to 47,000 square feet, as I said, 945 parking 01:17:34.200 --> 01:17:41.800 spaces are on site, and three access points, one to the south to Westgate, one to the west 01:17:41.800 --> 01:17:47.680 to the I-35 frontage road, and then the site connects to loop 288 through the adjacent 01:17:47.680 --> 01:17:51.180 commercial lot, it's a restaurant, I believe. 01:17:51.180 --> 01:17:57.080 The proposal would add, as I said, that 30,000 square foot building, it's outlined in yellow, 01:17:57.080 --> 01:18:01.040 plus some landscaping and access would remain the same. 01:18:01.040 --> 01:18:08.400 When we zoom in to the specific area, you see that building in yellow again, it would 01:18:08.400 --> 01:18:16.560 reduce the on-site parking to 828 spaces, and it would include about 17,000 square foot 01:18:16.560 --> 01:18:22.840 of landscaping, planting of 16 large and medium canopy trees, which would increase the on-site 01:18:22.840 --> 01:18:28.980 canopy to about 16,802 square feet at maturity. 01:18:28.980 --> 01:18:34.980 They will also, if approved, replace the screen hedge that's existing now, it will be similar 01:18:34.980 --> 01:18:40.440 to what's existing now, that sort of undulating hedge, and the vehicular circulation pattern 01:18:40.440 --> 01:18:43.600 would remain unchanged. 01:18:43.600 --> 01:18:48.400 The architectural elements, the pictures on the top, those are the renderings of what 01:18:48.400 --> 01:18:53.760 they're proposing, and they are very similar in detail and styling to the existing development, 01:18:53.760 --> 01:19:01.480 which is the two pictures to the south, so they've borrowed a lot of those details from 01:19:01.480 --> 01:19:03.920 what is existing. 01:19:03.920 --> 01:19:07.640 The criteria for approval are in the 91 ordinates, and there are four of them, and we'll go over 01:19:07.640 --> 01:19:09.880 them individually. 01:19:09.880 --> 01:19:15.280 First is the, does the proposal comply with the concept plan that was adopted? 01:19:15.280 --> 01:19:21.680 The purpose of PD 142 was to create an urban center, a hub of activity, employment and 01:19:21.680 --> 01:19:27.840 economic activity there at the intersection of loop 288 and I-35. 01:19:27.840 --> 01:19:32.760 Previous detail plans were not use specific, they were kind of limited to that building 01:19:32.760 --> 01:19:36.800 arrangement and the parking signage and landscaping. 01:19:36.800 --> 01:19:43.080 When a particular tenant seeks a certificate of occupancy in PD 142, we refer to that, 01:19:43.080 --> 01:19:47.940 those permitted uses in that original concept plan for guidance. 01:19:47.940 --> 01:19:54.360 We have checked the proposed uses against that concept plan, and they are permitted, 01:19:54.360 --> 01:19:57.800 kind of that office use with the community center. 01:19:57.800 --> 01:20:03.400 And then the dimensions, the proposed dimensions are also consistent with the concept plan, 01:20:03.400 --> 01:20:07.160 so it does meet the first criteria for approval. 01:20:07.160 --> 01:20:12.940 The second criterion for approval is compatible arrangement of the buildings and uses on site, 01:20:12.940 --> 01:20:18.260 and then if the proposal would adversely affect the adjoining property. 01:20:18.260 --> 01:20:24.040 So first we'll look at on site, the building arrangement, the proposed building is consistent 01:20:24.040 --> 01:20:27.300 with the general building scale and architectural themes. 01:20:27.300 --> 01:20:31.240 It also completes that unified development pattern that was established with the original 01:20:31.240 --> 01:20:32.240 plan. 01:20:32.240 --> 01:20:39.940 The daily activities associated with the proposed use are consistent with the existing daily 01:20:39.940 --> 01:20:45.560 activities on the site as well as those existing uses, so we don't anticipate any adverse or 01:20:45.560 --> 01:20:47.360 negative impacts. 01:20:47.360 --> 01:20:51.480 And then the applicant did provide the traffic generation rates for the proposal, it would 01:20:51.480 --> 01:20:59.840 generate approximately 292 trips per day, 44 morning peak and then 33 evening peak consistent 01:20:59.840 --> 01:21:03.000 with what is on the site. 01:21:03.000 --> 01:21:08.400 Outside of the plan, first we'll look at the mobility improvements in the area that will 01:21:08.400 --> 01:21:10.560 be coming in the future. 01:21:10.560 --> 01:21:17.040 The Westgate Road that is currently improved on the south side of the property but ends 01:21:17.040 --> 01:21:21.920 at the eastern edge will be extended at some point in the future to connect all the way 01:21:21.920 --> 01:21:27.280 to Bonnie Bray, that will provide additional connectivity to the site. 01:21:27.280 --> 01:21:32.000 When we look at that additional connectivity and the surrounding development, we see first 01:21:32.000 --> 01:21:36.720 there's an existing residential neighborhood to the southeast of the site, it's an established 01:21:36.720 --> 01:21:43.160 neighborhood, large lot, however that neighborhood will not connect to that future Westgate slash 01:21:43.160 --> 01:21:52.360 Bronco way to the north, so there won't be a direct vehicular connection to the subject 01:21:52.360 --> 01:21:57.200 property, creating that physical separation between the subject site and that neighborhood, 01:21:57.200 --> 01:22:03.640 so we anticipate no adverse impacts for that neighborhood with the proposal. 01:22:03.640 --> 01:22:09.320 There's also the future Denton High School campus that's located south of that future 01:22:09.320 --> 01:22:13.480 Bronco way, which is kind of that Westgate piece now. 01:22:13.480 --> 01:22:18.000 Commercial land uses are generally compatible with high school campuses, you often see both 01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:22.880 of those things on arterial roadways and we do not anticipate any adverse impacts and 01:22:22.880 --> 01:22:27.720 then finally there is a new residential subdivision north of the future Bronco way. 01:22:27.720 --> 01:22:32.280 There is once again a physical separation, there's a vacant piece of property between 01:22:32.280 --> 01:22:38.440 the subject site and that future residential neighborhood and we do not anticipate adverse 01:22:38.440 --> 01:22:40.720 impacts. 01:22:40.720 --> 01:22:45.160 The third criterion for approval is adequate safe circulation of vehicular traffic. 01:22:45.160 --> 01:22:51.600 So onsite, the access will remain unchanged as well as that existing circulation pattern. 01:22:51.600 --> 01:22:58.040 The onsite parking spaces will go down, but they still will maintain an overall ratio 01:22:58.040 --> 01:23:02.380 that is consistent with what we typically see for similar developments under the current 01:23:02.380 --> 01:23:03.920 code. 01:23:03.920 --> 01:23:10.120 And then offsite, there is a surrounding arterial network, not only two highways, but also a 01:23:10.120 --> 01:23:17.520 secondary arterial and that future Westgate/Bronco way and then the highway 377 as well as Bonnie 01:23:17.520 --> 01:23:18.520 Braze. 01:23:18.520 --> 01:23:24.160 So there's a lot of connectivity in the area and so there is adequate access for the existing 01:23:24.160 --> 01:23:26.800 and future development. 01:23:26.800 --> 01:23:31.860 Finally the fourth criterion is substantial compliance with the landscape sign subdivision 01:23:31.860 --> 01:23:39.600 and other regulations of the city. 01:23:39.600 --> 01:23:44.600 The proposal follows the 1988 landscape code, which is a little different than what we have 01:23:44.600 --> 01:23:45.600 today. 01:23:45.600 --> 01:23:47.920 There were three essential elements. 01:23:47.920 --> 01:23:51.720 First of all, street yard landscaping, parking lot landscaping, and then finally parking 01:23:51.720 --> 01:23:52.920 lot screening. 01:23:52.920 --> 01:23:57.520 The street yard is something we don't often talk about under current regulations, but 01:23:57.520 --> 01:24:03.000 it was that area between the front building line of the buildings and the right-of-way. 01:24:03.000 --> 01:24:09.080 The subject request has about 40,000 square feet within its street yard, which required 01:24:09.080 --> 01:24:11.520 a minimum of 20% landscaping. 01:24:11.520 --> 01:24:17.880 The applicant is proposing about 17,000 square feet of landscaping, well above the required 01:24:17.880 --> 01:24:20.080 8,000 square feet of landscaping. 01:24:20.080 --> 01:24:25.260 They're also proposing 16 trees, which is consistent with the requirement of one tree 01:24:25.260 --> 01:24:29.440 per 2,500 square feet of total street yard. 01:24:29.440 --> 01:24:36.840 Parking lot landscaping, the parking lot areas in the street yard have to provide 5% of landscaping 01:24:36.840 --> 01:24:40.520 with landscape islands, peninsulas, medians, that sort of thing. 01:24:40.520 --> 01:24:45.960 The applicant is proposing 2,900 square feet of parking lot landscaping. 01:24:45.960 --> 01:24:51.600 And then parking lot screening, parking lots had to be screened with either a berm, a masonry 01:24:51.600 --> 01:24:53.480 wall, or an evergreen hedge. 01:24:53.480 --> 01:24:58.600 There is an existing evergreen hedge, and they will replace that with 54 dwarf Buford 01:24:58.600 --> 01:25:07.480 holly shrubs, which is consistent with the existing plant pallet and landscape design. 01:25:07.480 --> 01:25:10.240 Public outreach was done in accordance with the code. 01:25:10.240 --> 01:25:15.760 The newspaper website and assigned posting, mailed notices were sent to property owners 01:25:15.760 --> 01:25:19.800 within 200 feet, and courtesy notices within 500 feet. 01:25:19.800 --> 01:25:24.480 We have not received any responses either in opposition or in favor to the request, 01:25:24.480 --> 01:25:28.120 and they did not hold a public meeting. 01:25:28.120 --> 01:25:33.400 Staff recommends approval of the detail plan amendment because it is consistent with the 01:25:33.400 --> 01:25:35.680 criteria for approval in the 91 code. 01:25:35.680 --> 01:25:41.400 The site plan and landscape plan and sample building elevations will be attached to the 01:25:41.400 --> 01:25:44.880 ordinance. 01:25:44.880 --> 01:25:52.440 And they do enumerate the following, one single story 30,000 square foot building would be 01:25:52.440 --> 01:25:56.160 constructed in addition to those existing four buildings. 01:25:56.160 --> 01:26:01.120 The maximum parking on site could be 828 spaces. 01:26:01.120 --> 01:26:07.540 They are proposing 10 large canopy and 6 medium canopy trees, and just to alert you, 01:26:07.540 --> 01:26:11.200 that is different than the staff report. 01:26:11.200 --> 01:26:17.120 There was an error on that staff report, so it's the 10 large canopy and 6 medium canopy. 01:26:17.120 --> 01:26:22.560 And then the architecture for all the buildings need to maintain the consistent themes with 01:26:22.560 --> 01:26:28.880 the following elements, the colonnade for 50% of the façade, the varied roof parapet 01:26:28.880 --> 01:26:34.960 for 50% of the façade facing the public areas, and then those at least two decorative towers 01:26:34.960 --> 01:26:40.120 that have to be at least five feet taller than the surrounding roof line. 01:26:40.120 --> 01:26:47.720 I'll be available for questions, and I believe the applicant, we're going to try to get them 01:26:47.720 --> 01:26:51.520 called in as well. 01:26:51.520 --> 01:26:52.520 >> Thank you so much, Julie. 01:26:52.520 --> 01:26:55.840 It looks like we have Krister back as a question. 01:26:55.840 --> 01:27:03.040 Julie, I think you mentioned this, but who owns the property with a vacant lot to the 01:27:03.040 --> 01:27:04.040 east? 01:27:04.040 --> 01:27:09.080 >> No, I don't know who the property owner is of that vacant lot to the east. 01:27:09.080 --> 01:27:11.160 >> Is it a different owner? 01:27:11.160 --> 01:27:13.040 >> I suspect it is a different owner. 01:27:13.040 --> 01:27:16.880 Let me see if I can look that up really quickly, though. 01:27:16.880 --> 01:27:17.880 I'm going to try. 01:27:17.880 --> 01:27:23.520 >> And I'll say the reason I asked that question is one of the rationales for the development 01:27:23.520 --> 01:27:30.000 was we don't expect a lot of change, but then the chair also brought up that there's lots 01:27:30.000 --> 01:27:39.400 of 30-year-old code going into this property and vicinity, and it would be at least informative 01:27:39.400 --> 01:27:47.200 to know maybe how that vacant lot is, maybe what intentions are for it, at least at the 01:27:47.200 --> 01:27:48.200 moment. 01:27:48.200 --> 01:27:57.000 So I do show that as a different owner, just to alert you that it is within a plan development. 01:27:57.000 --> 01:28:02.600 So prior to development of that site, it would have to go through this whole process. 01:28:02.600 --> 01:28:08.240 So it would require a detailed plan amendment and the criteria for approval with that. 01:28:08.240 --> 01:28:15.400 And one of those, as we talked about tonight, is that adverse impacts to adjacent property. 01:28:15.400 --> 01:28:22.920 So it will still require this additional scrutiny and review by the planning and zoning commission, 01:28:22.920 --> 01:28:25.920 a recommendation, and then approval by council. 01:28:25.920 --> 01:28:33.760 So I don't know of any applications that are pending right now or any proposals, but it 01:28:33.760 --> 01:28:37.120 would have to -- it would have to go before you, before you could -- before it would be 01:28:37.120 --> 01:28:38.120 developed. 01:28:38.120 --> 01:28:39.120 >> Okay. 01:28:39.120 --> 01:28:40.120 Thank you very much. 01:28:40.120 --> 01:28:42.120 >> You bet. 01:28:42.120 --> 01:28:45.800 And just to reiterate, I'm not sure if I mentioned it before, I wanted to make sure the public 01:28:45.800 --> 01:28:47.520 hearing is open. 01:28:47.520 --> 01:28:48.520 This is a public hearing. 01:28:48.520 --> 01:28:54.800 So we certainly invite anyone to speak on this item or have any questions, we'll certainly 01:28:54.800 --> 01:28:55.800 hear those. 01:28:55.800 --> 01:28:58.600 Does the applicant have a presentation? 01:28:58.600 --> 01:28:59.600 Commissioner Anderson. 01:28:59.600 --> 01:29:00.600 >> Sure. 01:29:00.600 --> 01:29:03.920 I have a quick question for the staff. 01:29:03.920 --> 01:29:06.800 Is this going to -- I mean, they're going to build that building, is they going to take 01:29:06.800 --> 01:29:10.520 away parking for the existing -- like the horny toad cafe, is it going to have an adverse 01:29:10.520 --> 01:29:15.120 impact on their business, because I know they have customers that park there presently? 01:29:15.120 --> 01:29:16.120 >> Sure. 01:29:16.120 --> 01:29:22.360 There is -- so the adjacent commercial restaurant use has its own parking on site. 01:29:22.360 --> 01:29:29.320 This would reduce parking, but it is -- you know, under current DDC standards, something 01:29:29.320 --> 01:29:36.240 like this office use would -- we would only require one space per 450 square feet, and 01:29:36.240 --> 01:29:39.760 they're actually parked at one space per 206 square feet. 01:29:39.760 --> 01:29:49.840 So it's got ample parking, which is over what we would require, and under today's standards. 01:29:49.840 --> 01:29:53.440 So I believe there's sufficient parking on site. 01:29:53.440 --> 01:29:54.440 >> Okay. 01:29:54.440 --> 01:29:58.800 I would just hate to -- you know, hurt another existing business that's out there by themselves 01:29:58.800 --> 01:30:06.640 right now, and, you know, surviving alone presently, so. 01:30:06.640 --> 01:30:09.840 Does the applicant have a presentation or this here for questions, it looks like I might 01:30:09.840 --> 01:30:13.540 have seen their name pop up at the top. 01:30:13.540 --> 01:30:14.540 >> She does have a -- 01:30:14.540 --> 01:30:15.540 >> We are here. 01:30:15.540 --> 01:30:16.540 >> Perfect. 01:30:16.540 --> 01:30:20.960 If you -- it looks like Alex and Amy, but if you could state your full name and address, 01:30:20.960 --> 01:30:24.960 and then we'll be happy to listen to your presentation. 01:30:24.960 --> 01:30:26.160 >> Great. 01:30:26.160 --> 01:30:27.160 This is Alex Payne. 01:30:27.160 --> 01:30:31.200 I'm at 2304 Cavendish Lane, Argyle, Texas. 01:30:31.200 --> 01:30:38.520 I am one of the property owners and our company manages and leases the facility. 01:30:38.520 --> 01:30:47.320 I have a kind of a -- I guess brief -- a brief statement in that -- to Mr. Anderson's question 01:30:47.320 --> 01:30:50.980 in that the Horny Toad Cafe purchased their lot. 01:30:50.980 --> 01:30:58.280 It does have a huge parking lot to the east of it, and I think they'll welcome the arrival 01:30:58.280 --> 01:31:09.840 of 200 new employees and a number of visitors daily to that location, so. 01:31:09.840 --> 01:31:15.400 The property itself has been in current ownership for about four years, and we have been in 01:31:15.400 --> 01:31:21.200 the process of trying to, you know, work with the existing tenants that have been there 01:31:21.200 --> 01:31:26.840 for many years to keep the property well maintained, but then reposition a lot of the vacancy. 01:31:26.840 --> 01:31:31.360 It was 30% occupied when we took over. 01:31:31.360 --> 01:31:36.880 It's sitting around 90% today before the construction of this proposed building. 01:31:36.880 --> 01:31:43.280 So a lot of the tenants that we have put in, some are retail-type tenants. 01:31:43.280 --> 01:31:51.760 Several though have been kind of your back office, call centers, we've got a dental management 01:31:51.760 --> 01:31:56.720 group that owns a bunch of dental clinics, and they have 25,000 feet there. 01:31:56.720 --> 01:32:00.920 We have the Census Bureau is currently officeing there. 01:32:00.920 --> 01:32:05.920 University of Behavioral Health has an administrative office there, and like I said, this is a new 01:32:05.920 --> 01:32:08.440 proposed government office center. 01:32:08.440 --> 01:32:14.120 So I'll read kind of a statement from Workforce Solutions, and I know it and refer to it as 01:32:14.120 --> 01:32:19.520 Texas Workforce Commission, but the Workforce Solutions for North Texas, they provide a 01:32:19.520 --> 01:32:24.760 variety of services to employers and career seekers through a network of workforce centers 01:32:24.760 --> 01:32:29.080 in the North Central Texas, 14-county area. 01:32:29.080 --> 01:32:34.360 So they provide services to employers offering assistance related to job postings and openings, 01:32:34.360 --> 01:32:38.800 recruitment efforts, and connecting the employers to career seekers looking for employment. 01:32:38.800 --> 01:32:44.560 They also provide services to career-seeking customers offering career coaching, employment 01:32:44.560 --> 01:32:49.620 preparation, educational and skills training, as well as tuition support and other services 01:32:49.620 --> 01:32:53.200 to support the efforts in finding employment. 01:32:53.200 --> 01:33:00.680 In addition to those functions, they have a partner agency that provides vocational rehabilitation, 01:33:00.680 --> 01:33:07.120 which prepares for, finds, and retains employment if you have a disability through their partnership. 01:33:07.120 --> 01:33:14.040 And so we're excited to have them, and you know, we started working on this project before 01:33:14.040 --> 01:33:21.280 the current economic environment we're in, but this has, you know, really amplified the 01:33:21.280 --> 01:33:28.780 need for their growth and expansion of their services and size of their facility. 01:33:28.780 --> 01:33:34.400 As I think I mentioned already, they expect approximately 200 employees in this facility 01:33:34.400 --> 01:33:40.760 of their agency, and then they look to place, you know, people in our county into jobs in 01:33:40.760 --> 01:33:41.760 the area. 01:33:41.760 --> 01:33:47.280 So, you know, I'll answer more questions later if need be. 01:33:47.280 --> 01:33:52.160 Amy Bissett also has some more information on our proposed development. 01:33:52.160 --> 01:33:53.800 I'll let her speak now. 01:33:53.800 --> 01:33:55.560 Good evening, commissioners. 01:33:55.560 --> 01:34:02.880 This is Amy Bissett, 1117 Joshua Tree in Salina. 01:34:02.880 --> 01:34:04.920 Can you all hear me? 01:34:04.920 --> 01:34:05.920 Yes. 01:34:05.920 --> 01:34:09.260 Okay, great. 01:34:09.260 --> 01:34:14.620 I want to start by addressing a couple of questions that were brought up in the work 01:34:14.620 --> 01:34:19.480 session to just to make sure those are covered. 01:34:19.480 --> 01:34:25.240 Commissioner Ellis, you specifically asked about the notices that went out to neighbors 01:34:25.240 --> 01:34:28.880 and whether or not we received any responses. 01:34:28.880 --> 01:34:36.360 I do want to share with the commission that I got a call from Judy Smith with Rose Costumes. 01:34:36.360 --> 01:34:41.640 She was just interested in knowing what the proposed use was and what we were going to 01:34:41.640 --> 01:34:46.720 do in terms of building architecture, and so I sent her the site plan and the renderings 01:34:46.720 --> 01:34:49.160 and answered her questions. 01:34:49.160 --> 01:34:51.760 Apparently, she was satisfied with that. 01:34:51.760 --> 01:34:57.800 I think she's excited to see more, just more tenants and more density in that area. 01:34:57.800 --> 01:35:03.680 And I think that speaks to Commissioner Anderson's question as well about parking for the restaurant 01:35:03.680 --> 01:35:04.680 to the north. 01:35:04.680 --> 01:35:12.800 I think the density of employees up in that area will hopefully be a boost to their restaurant 01:35:12.800 --> 01:35:13.800 business. 01:35:13.800 --> 01:35:17.960 Julie, will you go ahead and go to the first slide, please? 01:35:17.960 --> 01:35:24.080 I have a couple of slides that will be very quick. 01:35:24.080 --> 01:35:30.800 I want to start by saying that, just to give you an idea, Alex already went over this, 01:35:30.800 --> 01:35:35.440 but this is just under 20 acres with a PD that was approved in the early '90s. 01:35:35.440 --> 01:35:43.480 There are four existing buildings with a number of tenants, as you can see in the slide presentation, 01:35:43.480 --> 01:35:45.800 if you're able to see that. 01:35:45.800 --> 01:35:52.280 This includes Rose Costumes and Explorium Denton, the Children's Museum, and some antique 01:35:52.280 --> 01:35:53.280 and retail shops. 01:35:53.280 --> 01:35:59.040 And there's, Julie, if you can advance now to slides three and four, I just want to show 01:35:59.040 --> 01:36:08.160 you all the aerial of what the project looks like today and some of the architecture that 01:36:08.160 --> 01:36:09.160 is there today. 01:36:09.160 --> 01:36:14.840 What we are proposing basically is consistent with the original PD. 01:36:14.840 --> 01:36:20.760 The change here is that the building is slightly smaller than what the original PD approved. 01:36:20.760 --> 01:36:25.880 But generally speaking, if you'll go to slide five, Julie, we're looking at a net increase 01:36:25.880 --> 01:36:30.880 of almost 3,000 square feet in landscaping and a net increase of 10 trees. 01:36:30.880 --> 01:36:38.620 We'll be planting 16 new trees, but there's some on the site that we'll be able to keep 01:36:38.620 --> 01:36:44.000 there as well, but some will have to come down to accommodate the building. 01:36:44.000 --> 01:36:50.120 And then finally, Julie has already shared the renderings with you on slides six and 01:36:50.120 --> 01:36:51.120 seven. 01:36:51.120 --> 01:36:56.560 So that's the summary of what we're looking for, and I'll be glad to answer any questions. 01:36:56.560 --> 01:37:00.980 And Alex is here as well to answer any questions. 01:37:00.980 --> 01:37:01.980 Thank you, Amy. 01:37:01.980 --> 01:37:02.980 Thank you, Alex. 01:37:02.980 --> 01:37:03.980 Does anyone have any questions? 01:37:03.980 --> 01:37:09.720 I don't see any hands raised right now, so I think we're good. 01:37:09.720 --> 01:37:13.720 I appreciate you calling in and working with us virtually to present to us. 01:37:13.720 --> 01:37:14.720 Thank you. 01:37:14.720 --> 01:37:15.720 Absolutely. 01:37:15.720 --> 01:37:19.920 We're glad to do it. 01:37:19.920 --> 01:37:23.920 Is there any looking at city, any call ins for comments? 01:37:23.920 --> 01:37:25.880 I don't see any. 01:37:25.880 --> 01:37:29.160 And so with that, I will close the public hearing. 01:37:29.160 --> 01:37:33.120 And it looks like Commissioner Smith was the first one I saw there. 01:37:33.120 --> 01:37:35.920 Make a motion to approve. 01:37:35.920 --> 01:37:37.280 We have a first for approval. 01:37:37.280 --> 01:37:38.280 And Commissioner Ellis? 01:37:38.280 --> 01:37:39.280 Second. 01:37:39.280 --> 01:37:42.400 We have a first and a second for approval. 01:37:42.400 --> 01:37:47.280 Is there any discussion on this item? 01:37:47.280 --> 01:37:50.280 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. 01:37:50.280 --> 01:37:51.640 Commissioner Ellis? 01:37:51.640 --> 01:37:52.640 Aye. 01:37:52.640 --> 01:37:54.400 Commissioner Smith? 01:37:54.400 --> 01:37:55.400 Aye. 01:37:55.400 --> 01:37:56.960 Commissioner Cole? 01:37:56.960 --> 01:37:57.960 Aye. 01:37:57.960 --> 01:37:59.440 Commissioner Anderson? 01:37:59.440 --> 01:38:00.440 Aye. 01:38:00.440 --> 01:38:01.880 Commissioner Pernetta? 01:38:01.880 --> 01:38:02.880 Aye. 01:38:02.880 --> 01:38:04.200 Commissioner Beck? 01:38:04.200 --> 01:38:05.200 Aye. 01:38:05.200 --> 01:38:07.160 And the chair votes in favor. 01:38:07.160 --> 01:38:10.560 That means it carries seven, zero. 01:38:10.560 --> 01:38:17.160 Next item of business is item 4C, S19-0015D. 01:38:17.160 --> 01:38:33.320 I will open the public hearing and invite Cindy Jackson for presentation. 01:38:33.320 --> 01:39:00.880 Okay, so I'll put this up for your hearing. 01:39:00.880 --> 01:39:20.800 I don't see it here. 01:39:20.800 --> 01:39:29.440 Damn, it's down here. 01:39:29.440 --> 01:39:31.440 Okay. 01:39:31.440 --> 01:39:33.440 Okay. 01:39:33.440 --> 01:40:00.440 Okay. 01:40:00.440 --> 01:40:28.960 I don't think it's my revised one. 01:40:28.960 --> 01:40:54.480 It will be just a minute. 01:40:54.480 --> 01:41:02.480 Perfect. 01:41:02.480 --> 01:41:13.480 Here. 01:41:13.480 --> 01:41:24.400 Okay. 01:41:24.400 --> 01:41:25.400 Sorry about that. 01:41:25.400 --> 01:41:27.460 We lost the presentation. 01:41:27.460 --> 01:41:28.460 Okay. 01:41:28.460 --> 01:41:34.880 For the record, this is Cindy Jackson with the planning and development, the planning 01:41:34.880 --> 01:41:36.920 division. 01:41:36.920 --> 01:41:44.320 S19-0015 is a request for approval of a specific use permit to permit communications tower 01:41:44.320 --> 01:41:53.120 with a maximum height of 810 feet mean sea level for broadband wireless service. 01:41:53.120 --> 01:41:56.280 The request was originally for 150 foot tower. 01:41:56.280 --> 01:42:01.480 However, it's been determined that the subject site is actually located within the airport 01:42:01.480 --> 01:42:03.760 height hazard district. 01:42:03.760 --> 01:42:10.480 The height of structures located in this area, the maximum height permitted is 810 feet mean 01:42:10.480 --> 01:42:19.000 sea level per section 4.5.8C3, which translates to 82 feet as a maximum permitted height for 01:42:19.000 --> 01:42:24.140 the tower. 01:42:24.140 --> 01:42:33.640 The site is zoned mixed use regional MR. 01:42:33.640 --> 01:42:39.960 The proposed tower and accompanying office is located on 4.37 acre lot. 01:42:39.960 --> 01:42:46.680 However, the lot is encumbered by 140 foot wide drainage easement on the west side. 01:42:46.680 --> 01:42:52.460 With this map, particularly the north, is to the right. 01:42:52.460 --> 01:42:58.760 This shows you the impact area, which is 1.05 acres, and the proposed tower location in 01:42:58.760 --> 01:43:05.680 relation to the entire site. 01:43:05.680 --> 01:43:10.880 This is a close up of the proposed development site plan, the impact area. 01:43:10.880 --> 01:43:15.080 You can see that the site will take access on Barcelona Street, and it has a shared access 01:43:15.080 --> 01:43:20.720 with the property that's located to the west, and this tower is proposed to be located right 01:43:20.720 --> 01:43:27.800 here. 01:43:27.800 --> 01:43:36.800 The proposed landscape plan has providing 40% landscape area, which is 15% above the 01:43:36.800 --> 01:43:39.500 required 25%. 01:43:39.500 --> 01:43:46.360 Six street trees are proposed along Barcelona Street along with a hedge, and the site meets 01:43:46.360 --> 01:43:53.960 the required 30% tree canopy coverage. 01:43:53.960 --> 01:43:57.800 Here you see the building elevations that are proposed, and the elevation that is on 01:43:57.800 --> 01:44:06.300 the top here is the elevation proposed that will face Barcelona Street. 01:44:06.300 --> 01:44:10.480 This is a photo of a tower similar to the one that is proposed. 01:44:10.480 --> 01:44:19.480 The only difference would be that rather than the chain link, we will have a wooden fence 01:44:19.480 --> 01:44:25.520 around the bottom of the structure. 01:44:25.520 --> 01:44:30.620 General criteria for approval is in section 2.4.5E. 01:44:30.620 --> 01:44:36.520 This site complies with all criteria for approval as noted in the staff report. 01:44:36.520 --> 01:44:45.440 The SUP criteria for approval in section 2.5.3D I will go into in more detail. 01:44:45.440 --> 01:44:48.600 Criteria one, compatibility with the surrounding area. 01:44:48.600 --> 01:44:52.080 The surrounding development is comprised of light manufacturing companies, warehouses 01:44:52.080 --> 01:44:56.440 and a medical clinic, which are primarily industrial in nature. 01:44:56.440 --> 01:45:03.480 The proposed use of the site is compatible with the surrounding uses. 01:45:03.480 --> 01:45:08.000 Criteria two, minimal impacts on future development. 01:45:08.000 --> 01:45:10.560 The land surrounding the site is already developed. 01:45:10.560 --> 01:45:16.000 The proposed communications tower and accompanying office building will have minimal impact on 01:45:16.000 --> 01:45:21.560 the future development in the area. 01:45:21.560 --> 01:45:27.020 Criteria three, proposed use conforms with all other standards of the DDC and all other 01:45:27.020 --> 01:45:29.300 applicable city codes. 01:45:29.300 --> 01:45:34.420 The proposed communications tower and accompanying office building meet all the applicable requirements 01:45:34.420 --> 01:45:38.040 in the DDC and other city codes. 01:45:38.040 --> 01:45:42.920 Criteria four, impacts associated with access traffic, emergency services, utilities, parking 01:45:42.920 --> 01:45:47.600 refuge areas, glare and odor have been adequately mitigated. 01:45:47.600 --> 01:45:53.040 The proposed communications tower is located on the interior of the platted lot outside 01:45:53.040 --> 01:45:56.320 of any building setbacks, easements and right of way. 01:45:56.320 --> 01:45:59.680 The utilities are already in place. 01:45:59.680 --> 01:46:09.720 There is adequate transportation infrastructure that will be minimal if any glare, noise or 01:46:09.720 --> 01:46:10.720 odor from the tower. 01:46:10.720 --> 01:46:17.200 It will have minimal impacts. 01:46:17.200 --> 01:46:22.440 Criteria five, the use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan and other adopted applicable 01:46:22.440 --> 01:46:24.020 plans. 01:46:24.020 --> 01:46:28.800 There is no other adopted plan for this site other than the comprehensive plan. 01:46:28.800 --> 01:46:33.360 The site is designated business innovation on the future land use map. 01:46:33.360 --> 01:46:39.320 Typical uses in this area include offices, light manufacturing and research and development. 01:46:39.320 --> 01:46:45.040 The proposed use is for a broadband company's office and communication tower and it conforms 01:46:45.040 --> 01:46:50.560 with this designation. 01:46:50.560 --> 01:46:55.640 Criteria six, the use adversely impacts the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants 01:46:55.640 --> 01:46:58.760 of the area and the city of Denton. 01:46:58.760 --> 01:47:03.160 The use will not adversely affect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the 01:47:03.160 --> 01:47:11.480 city of Denton. 01:47:11.480 --> 01:47:20.520 We sent out notification within 200 feet, a newspaper ad was posted and a sign was posted 01:47:20.520 --> 01:47:21.800 on the site. 01:47:21.800 --> 01:47:27.960 We have received two responses in opposition to this request. 01:47:27.960 --> 01:47:32.200 They are located on the other side of the railroad track here. 01:47:32.200 --> 01:47:36.400 And they represent 11% of the area within the 20 foot buffer. 01:47:36.400 --> 01:47:41.560 We did receive one notice in favor which was from the property owner, however, that was 01:47:41.560 --> 01:47:46.400 not counted. 01:47:46.400 --> 01:47:50.280 Staff recommends approval of this request for a communications tower with a maximum 01:47:50.280 --> 01:47:59.400 height of 810 feet mean sea level as it conforms with the criteria in section 2.4.5e. 01:47:59.400 --> 01:48:08.160 The criteria in section 2.5.3d for approval of a specific use permit and section 4.5.8 01:48:08.160 --> 01:48:10.640 of the air height hazard district. 01:48:10.640 --> 01:48:14.040 And that concludes my presentation. 01:48:14.040 --> 01:48:17.800 I believe the applicant has called in to answer any questions. 01:48:17.800 --> 01:48:18.800 Great. 01:48:18.800 --> 01:48:22.040 Thank you so much for your presentation, Cindy. 01:48:22.040 --> 01:48:23.040 Commissioner Beck. 01:48:23.040 --> 01:48:24.040 Yes. 01:48:24.040 --> 01:48:25.120 Thank you, chair. 01:48:25.120 --> 01:48:32.200 Can the applicant say whether there will be any changes in range from having the height 01:48:32.200 --> 01:48:34.720 of the tower? 01:48:34.720 --> 01:48:36.720 In terms of service range? 01:48:36.720 --> 01:48:42.560 How do we get the applicant? 01:48:42.560 --> 01:48:43.560 DTV? 01:48:43.560 --> 01:48:56.920 If we want to have the applicant, I don't know if Mark or John, if you want to handle 01:48:56.920 --> 01:49:01.920 that question? 01:49:01.920 --> 01:49:06.160 Thank you. 01:49:06.160 --> 01:49:08.480 This is Mark Martin, 100 West Oak Street. 01:49:08.480 --> 01:49:09.480 Can you hear me? 01:49:09.480 --> 01:49:10.480 Yes, sir. 01:49:10.480 --> 01:49:11.480 Okay. 01:49:11.480 --> 01:49:12.480 Excellent. 01:49:12.480 --> 01:49:22.200 To answer Mr. Beck's question, yes, the height does make a difference, so the taller that 01:49:22.200 --> 01:49:28.440 we can get the tower, obviously, the better, but as Cindy had mentioned, we are somewhat 01:49:28.440 --> 01:49:35.600 limited by the airport restrictions at this point, at least. 01:49:35.600 --> 01:49:41.440 I don't know if John's on the line, but if he needs to add something to that, please 01:49:41.440 --> 01:49:42.440 go ahead. 01:49:42.440 --> 01:49:48.280 Hello, this is John Hall, can you hear me? 01:49:48.280 --> 01:49:49.280 We can, John. 01:49:49.280 --> 01:49:50.280 Yes, John. 01:49:50.280 --> 01:49:51.280 Oh, good. 01:49:51.280 --> 01:49:52.280 There we go. 01:49:52.280 --> 01:49:53.280 Okay. 01:49:53.280 --> 01:49:54.280 Yeah, Mark is correct. 01:49:54.280 --> 01:49:59.640 Obviously, the taller the tower, the better for us, and for all other providers that would 01:49:59.640 --> 01:50:04.280 have access to that tower as well, we've leased out space to 18T of horizon. 01:50:04.280 --> 01:50:11.420 However, with the current restriction, we're facing a deadline to get this project going 01:50:11.420 --> 01:50:16.680 so we're willing to press forward at this point in time to get our SEP and get our building 01:50:16.680 --> 01:50:25.040 permit and get shovels to the ground and start this project. 01:50:25.040 --> 01:50:26.040 Okay, thank you. 01:50:26.040 --> 01:50:36.400 Is there any other questions for Cindy or the applicant? 01:50:36.400 --> 01:50:39.840 I don't see any at this time, Mark and John, I appreciate you being here. 01:50:39.840 --> 01:50:43.960 Cindy, do I need to get them to state their address or did we get that when they called 01:50:43.960 --> 01:50:44.960 in? 01:50:44.960 --> 01:50:45.960 Do we have that information? 01:50:45.960 --> 01:50:48.280 Yes, I do need to state their address. 01:50:48.280 --> 01:50:54.720 Yeah, John, can you just state your name again and your address as well as Mark? 01:50:54.720 --> 01:50:56.280 Yeah, correct. 01:50:56.280 --> 01:51:03.440 John Hall, 1310 Chimney Rock Drive, Keller, Texas. 01:51:03.440 --> 01:51:08.720 And Mark Martin, 100 West Oak Street, Suite 201, Denton, Texas. 01:51:08.720 --> 01:51:10.460 I appreciate that for both of you. 01:51:10.460 --> 01:51:12.080 Is there any public comments coming in? 01:51:12.080 --> 01:51:15.800 I don't see anyone from the public wanting to speak on this item. 01:51:15.800 --> 01:51:19.040 With that, I will close the public hearing and turn to motion or discussion. 01:51:19.040 --> 01:51:20.040 Commissioner Anderson. 01:51:20.040 --> 01:51:21.040 I make a motion to approve. 01:51:21.040 --> 01:51:23.080 We have a first for approval. 01:51:23.080 --> 01:51:24.080 Commissioner Pernetta? 01:51:24.080 --> 01:51:25.080 Second. 01:51:25.080 --> 01:51:27.480 We have a first and a second for approval. 01:51:27.480 --> 01:51:30.840 Is there any discussion on this item? 01:51:30.840 --> 01:51:33.800 Seeing none, I'll call a vote via roll call. 01:51:33.800 --> 01:51:34.800 Commissioner Ellis? 01:51:34.800 --> 01:51:35.800 Aye. 01:51:35.800 --> 01:51:36.800 Commissioner Smith? 01:51:36.800 --> 01:51:37.800 Aye. 01:51:37.800 --> 01:51:38.800 Commissioner Colle? 01:51:38.800 --> 01:51:39.800 Aye. 01:51:39.800 --> 01:51:40.800 Commissioner Anderson? 01:51:40.800 --> 01:51:41.800 Aye. 01:51:41.800 --> 01:51:42.800 Commissioner Bek? 01:51:42.800 --> 01:51:43.800 Aye. 01:51:43.800 --> 01:51:44.800 Commissioner Pernetta? 01:51:44.800 --> 01:51:45.800 Aye. 01:51:45.800 --> 01:51:48.880 The chair is an aye. 01:51:48.880 --> 01:51:52.400 Motion carries 7-0. 01:51:52.400 --> 01:51:58.760 Next item of business is item 4D, PD 20-0001. 01:51:58.760 --> 01:52:16.280 I'll invite Haley Zagurski for presentation and open the public hearing. 01:52:16.280 --> 01:52:30.280 Good evening. 01:52:30.280 --> 01:52:37.240 This is case PD 20-0001 for Sagebrook. 01:52:37.240 --> 01:52:39.920 The request before you is twofold. 01:52:39.920 --> 01:52:47.760 It is an initial zoning request for plan development district on approximately 132 acres. 01:52:47.760 --> 01:52:54.400 It is a rezoning request from the residential 6 or R6 district to PD on the remaining 14 01:52:54.400 --> 01:52:55.400 acres. 01:52:55.400 --> 01:52:58.000 The site is a total of approximately 146 acres. 01:52:58.000 --> 01:53:00.080 It's outlined in yellow on the map. 01:53:00.080 --> 01:53:06.600 It has frontage on Allred Road on the north, Bonnie Bray to the east, and is located along 01:53:06.600 --> 01:53:11.660 the railroad tracks parallel to Fort Worth Drive on the east side as well. 01:53:11.660 --> 01:53:16.960 This is a look at the current zoning map that shows the R6 district along the railroad frontage 01:53:16.960 --> 01:53:18.360 there along Fort Worth Drive. 01:53:18.360 --> 01:53:23.920 That was part of a strip annexation down the highway in the 1960s. 01:53:23.920 --> 01:53:28.460 The balance of the property is shown as RR, which is our rural residential district. 01:53:28.460 --> 01:53:32.760 After a property is annexed, it receives that placeholder designation until it is initially 01:53:32.760 --> 01:53:33.760 zoned. 01:53:33.760 --> 01:53:39.960 This property completed the annexation process in March of this year. 01:53:39.960 --> 01:53:43.960 This is a look at the site layout exhibit that's included as part of the PD. 01:53:43.960 --> 01:53:47.120 It shows 491 residential lots. 01:53:47.120 --> 01:53:53.520 There are approximately 9.4 acres of dedicated HOA open space that includes the amenity center 01:53:53.520 --> 01:53:56.080 on the south side that's circled in yellow. 01:53:56.080 --> 01:54:01.160 That area also includes a pond and walking trails as well as some play features. 01:54:01.160 --> 01:54:05.240 And then the other site circled in yellow on the northeast corner of the property is 01:54:05.240 --> 01:54:11.160 another larger HOA area that would feature a pond with trails and benches as well. 01:54:11.160 --> 01:54:15.720 Outlined in blue is the kind of central north-south spine through the development. 01:54:15.720 --> 01:54:20.040 That road is designed more like a boulevard with traffic divided to go one way in each 01:54:20.040 --> 01:54:23.360 direction on either side of a central median. 01:54:23.360 --> 01:54:27.120 That median will feature enhanced landscaping as well as a 10-foot wide combined hike bike 01:54:27.120 --> 01:54:33.080 trail that will allow for pedestrian connectivity from Allred Road down to Brush Creek Road on 01:54:33.080 --> 01:54:34.720 the south. 01:54:34.720 --> 01:54:38.760 Brush Creek is a future primary arterial. 01:54:38.760 --> 01:54:44.240 The right-of-way width for that would be dedicated and the developer would construct two lanes 01:54:44.240 --> 01:54:49.840 of that road with each phase of their development adjacent to their property. 01:54:49.840 --> 01:54:53.520 South of Brush Creek is an area that's approximately 18 acres total. 01:54:53.520 --> 01:54:57.600 Fourteen of that is floodplain and ESA. 01:54:57.600 --> 01:55:00.960 That area is proposed to be dedicated to the city for the development of future trails by 01:55:00.960 --> 01:55:03.240 our Parks Department. 01:55:03.240 --> 01:55:06.880 And then circled in red on the map is another feature I wanted to call out, which is the 01:55:06.880 --> 01:55:09.440 location of a plugged gas well. 01:55:09.440 --> 01:55:13.120 Up until the last year or so, there was an active gas well on this site and the developer 01:55:13.120 --> 01:55:16.040 did plug that in anticipation of this development. 01:55:16.040 --> 01:55:21.600 And it's shown in an open space so that nothing would be built over that well. 01:55:21.600 --> 01:55:25.680 This plan is intended to show the phasing that's proposed for this development. 01:55:25.680 --> 01:55:31.520 It's proposed as four phases, with phase one being the largest of those with 143 units 01:55:31.520 --> 01:55:33.440 as well as the amenity center. 01:55:33.440 --> 01:55:39.680 With phase one, the connection of Brush Creek to Fort Worth Drive would be established. 01:55:39.680 --> 01:55:43.680 That includes the relocation of the railroad crossing that's currently at South Pawnee 01:55:43.680 --> 01:55:49.000 Bray and Fort Worth Drive, which is at a very odd angle and fairly unsafe today with limited 01:55:49.000 --> 01:55:53.720 stacking distance for cars turning off of 377. 01:55:53.720 --> 01:55:59.280 That intersection would be closed and that crossing would be relocated and properly aligned 01:55:59.280 --> 01:56:00.280 down at Brush Creek. 01:56:00.280 --> 01:56:04.000 And they are coordinating that with the city and the railroad company so that that can 01:56:04.000 --> 01:56:05.640 occur with phase one. 01:56:05.640 --> 01:56:09.800 Phase one also includes that primary north-south boulevard so that there are two points of 01:56:09.800 --> 01:56:11.960 connection for phase one. 01:56:11.960 --> 01:56:16.400 Phase two would be to the north of that and have approximately 133 units. 01:56:16.400 --> 01:56:20.100 Phase three would be on the west side and would continue the extension of Brush Creek 01:56:20.100 --> 01:56:23.440 Road as well as 99 residential units. 01:56:23.440 --> 01:56:27.760 And the north of that would be phase four, closing this out with another 116 units and 01:56:27.760 --> 01:56:33.660 that final portion of Brush Creek that falls within this property. 01:56:33.660 --> 01:56:38.640 This chart just shows a comparison of the proposed PD to the base zoning of R6 that 01:56:38.640 --> 01:56:40.600 they've based this on. 01:56:40.600 --> 01:56:45.480 This takes out many of the uses that are permitted in R6 and allows only single-family detached 01:56:45.480 --> 01:56:50.000 dwellings, parks, playgrounds, open space, and amenity centers as well as the accessory 01:56:50.000 --> 01:56:55.560 and temporary uses as they're permitted within R6. 01:56:55.560 --> 01:57:00.460 This table then shows the comparison of the dimensional standards and some of the landscaping 01:57:00.460 --> 01:57:04.840 standards between the PD and the R6 district. 01:57:04.840 --> 01:57:06.320 Largely they are the same. 01:57:06.320 --> 01:57:10.520 They are proposing an enhanced front yard with an additional 10 feet of depth for a 01:57:10.520 --> 01:57:12.640 total of 20 feet. 01:57:12.640 --> 01:57:18.180 I did want to note up until today the plans reflected a 10-foot side yard. 01:57:18.180 --> 01:57:22.760 That was an error they intended for that 10-foot side yard to be only on the corner lots. 01:57:22.760 --> 01:57:27.760 That was carried throughout and that is proposed to be amended to 5 feet to meet the R6 standard 01:57:27.760 --> 01:57:31.560 on the interior lots. 01:57:31.560 --> 01:57:36.440 The other primary enhancement from our DDC standards is with respect to landscaping. 01:57:36.440 --> 01:57:40.760 The code only specifies one tree per yard for residential uses. 01:57:40.760 --> 01:57:45.700 They would propose one tree per front yard, an additional two ornamental trees on each 01:57:45.700 --> 01:57:51.640 corner lot, and then a standard of 12 shrubs and 10 other ornamental plants for interior 01:57:51.640 --> 01:57:57.880 lots as well as evergreen screening along the foundations for those corner properties. 01:57:57.880 --> 01:58:00.440 They do have an overall enhancement in open space. 01:58:00.440 --> 01:58:05.360 The DDC requires a minimum of 5% of the area be open space. 01:58:05.360 --> 01:58:10.840 For the entire development they are at 18%. 01:58:10.840 --> 01:58:14.520 There are general criteria for approval that are applicable to all applications in the 01:58:14.520 --> 01:58:16.560 DDC. 01:58:16.560 --> 01:58:19.560 The plan does comply with all of these, so I won't go through them in detail, but they 01:58:19.560 --> 01:58:21.920 are outlined in your backup. 01:58:21.920 --> 01:58:26.960 And then I will go through each of these PD specific criteria for approval in turn. 01:58:26.960 --> 01:58:36.240 Criteria 1 is compliance with the plan 2030, when looking at our future land use map, this 01:58:36.240 --> 01:58:43.000 site has a... 01:58:43.000 --> 01:58:44.000 We lost... 01:58:44.000 --> 01:58:45.000 There we go. 01:58:45.000 --> 01:58:48.000 Haley, are you back? 01:58:48.000 --> 01:58:49.000 Okay, yes. 01:58:49.000 --> 01:58:50.800 It shows I'm unmuted now. 01:58:50.800 --> 01:58:51.800 Okay. 01:58:51.800 --> 01:58:52.800 All right. 01:58:52.800 --> 01:58:57.200 So this has the neighborhood mixed use designation on the east part of the property. 01:58:57.200 --> 01:59:02.400 You can see on the map that area in the dark pink color is a node of neighborhood service 01:59:02.400 --> 01:59:07.560 uses, commercial uses and moderate density residential that's expected where Bonnie Bray 01:59:07.560 --> 01:59:11.880 and Brush Creek intersect with highway 377. 01:59:11.880 --> 01:59:15.400 The balance of the property is designated as rural areas. 01:59:15.400 --> 01:59:20.000 Most of the properties that are within the city's ETJ or donut holes are designated on 01:59:20.000 --> 01:59:21.600 our map as rural areas. 01:59:21.600 --> 01:59:24.160 This is consistent with that. 01:59:24.160 --> 01:59:28.320 This area is highly transitional though, if you look at the broader... 01:59:28.320 --> 01:59:35.760 The wedge of this pie between where 35 bisects the city on the west side, and then 377 creates 01:59:35.760 --> 01:59:40.000 a very stark dividing line with the railroad tracks to the east. 01:59:40.000 --> 01:59:43.080 All of this is within about a mile and a half span here. 01:59:43.080 --> 01:59:46.920 So it's very unlikely that once another primary arterial goes through, this would remain rural 01:59:46.920 --> 01:59:48.920 in character. 01:59:48.920 --> 01:59:53.080 So it's important to look at this broader area and see the light pink here is community 01:59:53.080 --> 01:59:58.320 mixed use, which is intended for higher density residential, more intensive commercial uses 01:59:58.320 --> 02:00:02.720 where Brush Creek or All Red Road will meet I-35. 02:00:02.720 --> 02:00:05.960 And then moderate density residential is designated to the north. 02:00:05.960 --> 02:00:09.960 That allows between four and 12 dwelling units per acre. 02:00:09.960 --> 02:00:14.080 And then we have, of course, a regional park just to the north of this property. 02:00:14.080 --> 02:00:18.400 So with the proposed development being at about 3.3 units per acre, it does fit comfortably 02:00:18.400 --> 02:00:23.000 within this transition where we see the more intensive uses on the highway, transitioning 02:00:23.000 --> 02:00:27.720 to lower intensity uses as we get closer to 377. 02:00:27.720 --> 02:00:32.760 And then allowing for that transition to the low residential and rural areas that are developed 02:00:32.760 --> 02:00:37.240 on the east side of highway 377. 02:00:37.240 --> 02:00:39.840 Criterion two is compliance with the DDC. 02:00:39.840 --> 02:00:44.080 This table is a repeat of what we saw earlier, just showing that they do intend to either 02:00:44.080 --> 02:00:48.440 comply with or have enhanced standards compared to the R-6 district. 02:00:48.440 --> 02:00:54.920 For anything not specified in the PD, they would default back to the DDC standards. 02:00:54.920 --> 02:00:58.640 Criterion three is whether there's greater building design amenities and connectivity. 02:00:58.640 --> 02:01:03.120 For building design and architecture, they're proposing compliance with the DDC minimum 02:01:03.120 --> 02:01:04.120 standards. 02:01:04.120 --> 02:01:08.120 They are proposing to enhance these lots and residential units with that additional landscaping 02:01:08.120 --> 02:01:13.600 that I mentioned earlier in terms of additional trees and foundation plantings. 02:01:13.600 --> 02:01:18.240 In terms of open space and amenities, they're proposing a greater enhancement above the 02:01:18.240 --> 02:01:23.360 5% minimum, just within those two areas that I called out on their site plan earlier around 02:01:23.360 --> 02:01:28.160 the amenity center and the ponds, they have 6.4% open space. 02:01:28.160 --> 02:01:32.680 And then in terms of connectivity, this would substantially improve automotive and pedestrian 02:01:32.680 --> 02:01:35.000 connectivity in this area of the city. 02:01:35.000 --> 02:01:38.880 Brush Creek Road is a much needed east-west connection through South Denton, and they 02:01:38.880 --> 02:01:41.080 would be aiding in the construction of that. 02:01:41.080 --> 02:01:46.120 And then for pedestrians, within their subdivision, they're proposing that a 10-foot north-south 02:01:46.120 --> 02:01:50.400 hike bike trail that would allow pedestrians and bikers to connect from the future park 02:01:50.400 --> 02:01:55.000 to the north to the intended trails that the parks department would eventually develop 02:01:55.000 --> 02:02:02.320 to the south of here within the flood plain as part of our parks trail system master plan. 02:02:02.320 --> 02:02:06.080 Criterion four is applicable to residential uses, and that's rather there's compatible 02:02:06.080 --> 02:02:09.400 buildings, uses, and consistency with the character of the area. 02:02:09.400 --> 02:02:13.580 This subdivision in terms of density layout and the type of homes that are proposed is 02:02:13.580 --> 02:02:16.960 consistent with other neighborhoods in Southern Denton, such as Country Lakes and Carnegie 02:02:16.960 --> 02:02:18.300 Ridge. 02:02:18.300 --> 02:02:22.160 It's also consistent with the density and housing types that are expected to occur within 02:02:22.160 --> 02:02:25.440 Hunter and Cole Ranch. 02:02:25.440 --> 02:02:29.500 The plan does reflect enhancements around the perimeter of the subdivision that would help 02:02:29.500 --> 02:02:34.140 with that consistency with the character of the area as well as buffering from the railroad, 02:02:34.140 --> 02:02:38.280 and then includes a variety of perimeter fencing as well as enhanced landscaping and street 02:02:38.280 --> 02:02:41.240 trees. 02:02:41.240 --> 02:02:44.640 Criterion five is for PDs proposing non-residential uses. 02:02:44.640 --> 02:02:48.600 The only of those that are proposed here are the parks and open spaces, which are typical 02:02:48.600 --> 02:02:54.400 for and encouraged for a residential development such as this. 02:02:54.400 --> 02:02:58.640 Criterion six has several subcomponents related to the provision of public facilities to support 02:02:58.640 --> 02:03:01.720 the development, so I'll go through each of those individually. 02:03:01.720 --> 02:03:04.600 The first is with respect to schools. 02:03:04.600 --> 02:03:10.120 The expected student generation, according to Denton ISD, is 113 elementary students, 02:03:10.120 --> 02:03:13.760 59 middle school students, and 74 high schoolers. 02:03:13.760 --> 02:03:16.900 This property is currently zoned in to McMath Middle School and Denton High School, which 02:03:16.900 --> 02:03:20.160 both have capacity to support that number of students. 02:03:20.160 --> 02:03:23.720 It's currently zoned for Borman Elementary School, which does not have capacity at this 02:03:23.720 --> 02:03:28.760 time, but this development is expected to occur in phases over eight years, so there's 02:03:28.760 --> 02:03:33.360 the chance for enhanced capacity at that school within that timeframe or for the school to 02:03:33.360 --> 02:03:35.720 be rezoned to a different attendance zone. 02:03:35.720 --> 02:03:38.960 There are multiple schools proposed within Hunter and Cole Ranch that would be closer 02:03:38.960 --> 02:03:44.540 to this property than Borman currently is. 02:03:44.540 --> 02:03:49.160 Criterion six also includes fire and police provisions. 02:03:49.160 --> 02:03:53.480 With respect to fire, the closest fire station is just north of here on Vintage Boulevard. 02:03:53.480 --> 02:03:55.380 It's shown in red on the map. 02:03:55.380 --> 02:03:57.880 That is well within the eight minute or less response time boundary. 02:03:57.880 --> 02:04:00.000 That's the standard for our fire department. 02:04:00.000 --> 02:04:04.120 I reached out to the Denton Police Department, and they indicated this is not expected to 02:04:04.120 --> 02:04:08.240 have a significant or negative impact on their response times, and they did note that a new 02:04:08.240 --> 02:04:12.240 police facility will be coming much closer to this in the near future. 02:04:12.240 --> 02:04:15.800 Near that fire station, there is an additional police facility expected to be operational 02:04:15.800 --> 02:04:19.860 by 2022. 02:04:19.860 --> 02:04:24.040 For utilities, the blue lines on this map represent the water lines. 02:04:24.040 --> 02:04:26.120 There's currently water available along Bonnie Braith. 02:04:26.120 --> 02:04:30.180 The city also had a major water line extension along Allred. 02:04:30.180 --> 02:04:34.280 Those lines will be tied into and water services carried throughout the development. 02:04:34.280 --> 02:04:36.700 The wastewater lines are shown in red on the map. 02:04:36.700 --> 02:04:42.540 The closest line for them to tie to is to the east of here down Brush Creek Road at what's 02:04:42.540 --> 02:04:43.940 called the Graveyard Interceptor. 02:04:43.940 --> 02:04:47.400 They would make a connection at that point and extend the line down Brush Creek across 02:04:47.400 --> 02:04:53.360 the railroad tracks and across the site and throughout to serve the development. 02:04:53.360 --> 02:04:56.620 That main line extension down Brush Creek, they are expected to participate with the 02:04:56.620 --> 02:05:00.920 city to oversize that line to make sure it can accommodate the capacity and demand of 02:05:00.920 --> 02:05:06.080 this area as future development occurs. 02:05:06.080 --> 02:05:10.160 With respect to streets, there's several major roadways at play here. 02:05:10.160 --> 02:05:12.100 The first of those would be Brush Creek Road. 02:05:12.100 --> 02:05:16.920 As I mentioned earlier, they would be dedicating the 120 feet of right-of-way width for that 02:05:16.920 --> 02:05:19.080 primary arterial to be extended. 02:05:19.080 --> 02:05:23.040 They would be responsible for constructing half of that, so two lanes adjacent to their 02:05:23.040 --> 02:05:26.340 development to provide access in the interim. 02:05:26.340 --> 02:05:31.240 The city did conduct a regional traffic study within the last year to look at this road 02:05:31.240 --> 02:05:34.000 and its possible alignments. 02:05:34.000 --> 02:05:38.480 As a result of that study and some of the specific site engineering that we were able 02:05:38.480 --> 02:05:42.580 to look at with this development, the potential alignment for that was determined and that's 02:05:42.580 --> 02:05:45.680 what's reflected on the plans for this development. 02:05:45.680 --> 02:05:51.120 That alignment really came down to needing to kind of thread the needle between the major 02:05:51.120 --> 02:05:56.240 features on this site, that being the floodplain, which is zone A floodplain along the tributary 02:05:56.240 --> 02:06:02.200 to the south that's shown in blue on this map and then the gas well that I mentioned 02:06:02.200 --> 02:06:07.360 on the northwest corner of this property that plugged well did not need to be within city 02:06:07.360 --> 02:06:10.480 right-of-way or underneath the roadway, so they had to squeeze in between those two with 02:06:10.480 --> 02:06:14.880 this road and that's what's reflected on the plans. 02:06:14.880 --> 02:06:19.180 The other roadways that this property has connection to are Bonnie Bray Street. 02:06:19.180 --> 02:06:22.840 The very southern end of that is on the east side of this property. 02:06:22.840 --> 02:06:26.860 When they make that railroad connection at Brush Creek, as part of that getting that 02:06:26.860 --> 02:06:32.300 new connection, the city does have to close the crossing at Bonnie Bray, which is currently 02:06:32.300 --> 02:06:36.980 considered very unsafe because of the limited stacking space and the odd and very sharp 02:06:36.980 --> 02:06:41.700 angle of that connection, so that would be south Bonnie Bray would be closed south of 02:06:41.700 --> 02:06:45.160 Allred Road at that point in time. 02:06:45.160 --> 02:06:49.560 Allred Road to the north side of this property would not be improved at this time. 02:06:49.560 --> 02:06:53.600 Its current status is sufficient to serve this development for the initial phase. 02:06:53.600 --> 02:06:57.780 The city is expected to make those improvements in the future, either when the park develops 02:06:57.780 --> 02:07:01.560 or when an additional development occurs in this area that would generate the need for 02:07:01.560 --> 02:07:03.360 those improvements. 02:07:03.360 --> 02:07:07.560 The primary entrance to this site, as we saw on the plan earlier, is near that amenity 02:07:07.560 --> 02:07:08.560 center. 02:07:08.560 --> 02:07:11.160 It would occur on Brush Creek roughly in this part of the property and then they would have 02:07:11.160 --> 02:07:15.080 secondary access further to the west on Brush Creek as well as one point of access to the 02:07:15.080 --> 02:07:21.960 north at Allred that would align with the primary entrance to the park. 02:07:21.960 --> 02:07:23.680 Parks are the final component of this. 02:07:23.680 --> 02:07:28.920 The area in green is the area of that future southwest park that I mentioned earlier that 02:07:28.920 --> 02:07:33.280 is a regional scale city park, so think North Lakes Park or something of that nature in 02:07:33.280 --> 02:07:35.560 terms of amenities that will be there. 02:07:35.560 --> 02:07:40.200 The city is currently negotiating with a consultant to develop the master plan for that park, 02:07:40.200 --> 02:07:44.980 so it is underway and in development at this time. 02:07:44.980 --> 02:07:49.200 In addition, as I mentioned earlier, the developer is proposing to dedicate the land area south 02:07:49.200 --> 02:07:53.680 of Brush Creek Road for future trail connections by the parks department. 02:07:53.680 --> 02:07:56.840 As part of the trails master plan, they are focusing on providing trails throughout the 02:07:56.840 --> 02:08:00.720 city in our floodplain areas, so this would tie into that. 02:08:00.720 --> 02:08:04.400 And then park dedication and development fees would apply to this project at the time of 02:08:04.400 --> 02:08:07.880 platting and permitting. 02:08:07.880 --> 02:08:12.960 I wanted to mention briefly the fiscal impact analysis that was done as part of the annexation 02:08:12.960 --> 02:08:18.440 of this property, just to give you some estimates with its current agricultural use. 02:08:18.440 --> 02:08:22.600 Its current property tax revenue is about $377 a year. 02:08:22.600 --> 02:08:29.140 The estimated annual tax revenue at full build out would be $967,000 roughly. 02:08:29.140 --> 02:08:34.160 And then when you look at the cost of service, that nets out to about $87,000 in incremental 02:08:34.160 --> 02:08:36.000 tax revenue. 02:08:36.000 --> 02:08:41.320 The construction fees and sales taxes would be significant for this development. 02:08:41.320 --> 02:08:46.680 Our current rates permitting inspections and impact fees would come out to about $8.5 million. 02:08:46.680 --> 02:08:50.280 Local sales tax related to the construction of this subdivision would come out to about 02:08:50.280 --> 02:08:53.800 $1.2 million over that eight-year build out. 02:08:53.800 --> 02:08:58.320 In addition to those quantitative impacts, though, it's also important to just kind of 02:08:58.320 --> 02:09:02.400 think about the qualitative impact, so I want to summarize some of those before we get into 02:09:02.400 --> 02:09:05.040 the conclusion of this and move on to comments. 02:09:05.040 --> 02:09:08.920 A gas well was plugged in anticipation of this development. 02:09:08.920 --> 02:09:13.820 The developer will be contributing a significant amount of benefit to the city in terms of 02:09:13.820 --> 02:09:18.120 Brush Creek being extended and the right of way dedicated across this property. 02:09:18.120 --> 02:09:24.160 The railroad crossing at 377 will be significantly improved and made safer with this development. 02:09:24.160 --> 02:09:28.480 Extending Brush Creek Road, because that unsafe crossing at Bonnie Bray would be closed. 02:09:28.480 --> 02:09:32.220 And then there is a significant amount of contribution to our park system and our trail 02:09:32.220 --> 02:09:38.720 system with the dedications and the hike and bike trail through the subdivision. 02:09:38.720 --> 02:09:41.960 Notification was provided for this zoning case. 02:09:41.960 --> 02:09:46.840 We received one response in favor that's from the current property owner, the Birch family. 02:09:46.840 --> 02:09:49.560 Three oppositions were recorded just today. 02:09:49.560 --> 02:09:51.680 One of those was emailed to you all earlier. 02:09:51.680 --> 02:09:56.880 And then two additional ones we located at City Hall that were delivered by mail. 02:09:56.880 --> 02:10:00.640 I wanted to read those into the record to make sure they get recorded. 02:10:00.640 --> 02:10:04.560 The first is from Morgan Trail at 4789 South Bonnie Bray Street. 02:10:04.560 --> 02:10:09.640 She is opposed and her comments were to quit trying to put neighborhoods near us. 02:10:09.640 --> 02:10:14.880 She says they all want to, they all start out wanting to rezone only to sell out to 02:10:14.880 --> 02:10:18.000 other developers, keep Argyle rural. 02:10:18.000 --> 02:10:22.680 And then Brian Trail also at 4789 South Bonnie Bray is opposed and said, no more requests 02:10:22.680 --> 02:10:24.060 for neighborhoods. 02:10:24.060 --> 02:10:26.720 We live right across the street from this one. 02:10:26.720 --> 02:10:31.160 I also wanted to note in your backup, there were six additional responses provided that 02:10:31.160 --> 02:10:36.160 were in favor of this request from areas outside of the scope of these notices. 02:10:36.160 --> 02:10:40.360 Those responses were provided to the developer when he first started the annexation process 02:10:40.360 --> 02:10:41.760 for this subdivision. 02:10:41.760 --> 02:10:45.280 So those weren't directly tied to the notices that the city sent, but I wanted to mention 02:10:45.280 --> 02:10:48.080 that those were in your backup as well. 02:10:48.080 --> 02:10:51.080 There was a neighborhood meeting held on January 31st. 02:10:51.080 --> 02:10:55.280 There were approximately 12 attendees at that meeting. 02:10:55.280 --> 02:10:59.380 And staff is recommending approval of this request as it complies with the general criteria 02:10:59.380 --> 02:11:03.320 as well as the PD specific criteria for approval. 02:11:03.320 --> 02:11:08.640 And if this progresses for tonight, it would be scheduled for city council on June 2nd. 02:11:08.640 --> 02:11:12.600 And I believe the developers here and they do have a presentation that they would like 02:11:12.600 --> 02:11:13.600 to give as well. 02:11:13.600 --> 02:11:14.600 Great. 02:11:14.600 --> 02:11:17.640 Thank you so much for that. 02:11:17.640 --> 02:11:20.120 You did say the applicant has a presentation, correct? 02:11:20.120 --> 02:11:21.120 Correct. 02:11:21.120 --> 02:11:22.120 Okay. 02:11:22.120 --> 02:11:23.120 Let's start with that. 02:11:23.120 --> 02:11:26.240 Or is there any questions for Haley right now? 02:11:26.240 --> 02:11:29.640 Thank you, chair. 02:11:29.640 --> 02:11:31.040 Hey, Haley. 02:11:31.040 --> 02:11:36.960 We've had a couple of projects recently where DISD after their analysis said elementary 02:11:36.960 --> 02:11:39.040 schools did not have capacity. 02:11:39.040 --> 02:11:48.320 Do they offer any other feedback to you other than the numbers and capacity or not? 02:11:48.320 --> 02:11:49.320 Typically not. 02:11:49.320 --> 02:11:53.960 In some cases, like one of our recent rezoning on Ryan road, they indicated that they could 02:11:53.960 --> 02:11:56.760 zone that into another school relatively easily. 02:11:56.760 --> 02:11:59.760 They actually kept in contact with me after that. 02:11:59.760 --> 02:12:03.200 And within a month, they had changed the attendance zone for that project. 02:12:03.200 --> 02:12:08.560 So I think as development comes in, they adapt and respond pretty quickly to those changes. 02:12:08.560 --> 02:12:09.560 Okay. 02:12:09.560 --> 02:12:10.560 Very good. 02:12:10.560 --> 02:12:11.560 Thanks. 02:12:11.560 --> 02:12:12.560 Commissioner Beck. 02:12:12.560 --> 02:12:17.280 Yeah, this exactly falls on Commissioner Ellis's question. 02:12:17.280 --> 02:12:31.000 And that is, does the district, the school district, when they adapt and are forced to 02:12:31.000 --> 02:12:38.080 switch the school zones around, do they give you any estimate of general capacity in the 02:12:38.080 --> 02:12:44.560 south and southwest that for, it just follows exactly on from Commissioner Ellis's question. 02:12:44.560 --> 02:12:48.680 It seems like we're cramming a lot of elementary kids into these areas and the school district 02:12:48.680 --> 02:12:52.280 keeps saying, no, we can't do that. 02:12:52.280 --> 02:12:58.760 And they kind of, we kind of make them make it work by continuing to have development. 02:12:58.760 --> 02:13:00.920 And that concerns me. 02:13:00.920 --> 02:13:10.000 Do they talk about their general southwest capacity for students when you talk to them? 02:13:10.000 --> 02:13:11.000 They did not. 02:13:11.000 --> 02:13:13.640 They didn't indicate opposition to this case necessarily. 02:13:13.640 --> 02:13:17.520 They just provided us the data and let us know their current capacity. 02:13:17.520 --> 02:13:21.280 But again, I think it's important to keep in mind that those are current capacities 02:13:21.280 --> 02:13:25.500 that they're looking at and this, that amount of students wouldn't potentially be there 02:13:25.500 --> 02:13:30.840 until eight years or more in the future based on the phasing for this subdivision. 02:13:30.840 --> 02:13:35.480 And then as we recently saw with Hunter and Cole Ranch being approved, there are properties 02:13:35.480 --> 02:13:40.860 slated for other elementary schools in the south and western part of Denton in the near 02:13:40.860 --> 02:13:45.120 future as well. 02:13:45.120 --> 02:13:46.120 Thank you. 02:13:46.120 --> 02:13:52.480 Haley, I had one question really quickly, if it's possible to share your screen again 02:13:52.480 --> 02:14:04.480 and go back to the fiscal impact. 02:14:04.480 --> 02:14:05.480 Thank you. 02:14:05.480 --> 02:14:12.360 It's very enlightening to see these numbers, even if they're kind of rough estimates. 02:14:12.360 --> 02:14:17.520 But I had one specific question on the calculation for our own edification. 02:14:17.520 --> 02:14:22.320 On the left-hand side, it says local sales tax over the eight years is 1.2 million. 02:14:22.320 --> 02:14:27.120 And then on the table on the right side of the screen under direct effects from construction, 02:14:27.120 --> 02:14:39.800 it says construction materials purchased locally would be 31,443,000 is one is locally defined 02:14:39.800 --> 02:14:44.000 as city of Denton because over at the 1.2, it says local sales tax. 02:14:44.000 --> 02:14:48.320 So I'm wondering how geographically specific locally means. 02:14:48.320 --> 02:14:53.880 And if that is the city of Denton, is the taxes on that construction material taken 02:14:53.880 --> 02:14:58.360 into consideration on the local sales tax number of 1.2? 02:14:58.360 --> 02:15:04.920 Or any sales tax on that 31 million would be additional revenue potentially for the 02:15:04.920 --> 02:15:14.520 city not reflected on the left-hand side of this slide. 02:15:14.520 --> 02:15:19.600 I was trying to look through the analysis and see if they specified or defined the term 02:15:19.600 --> 02:15:21.600 local. 02:15:21.600 --> 02:15:26.400 I don't know that they do other than it references the Denton area. 02:15:26.400 --> 02:15:27.400 Okay. 02:15:27.400 --> 02:15:32.800 Well, let's not worry about if it's 100% or 10%. 02:15:32.800 --> 02:15:38.640 The taxes that the city would obtain off whatever that number would be of construction materials 02:15:38.640 --> 02:15:44.280 that sold in the city, that's additional revenue not reflected on the summary of the left-hand 02:15:44.280 --> 02:15:49.680 side of the screen, am I correct? 02:15:49.680 --> 02:15:57.160 I believe the local sales tax total is inclusive of the construction materials. 02:15:57.160 --> 02:15:59.760 That was my understanding of the analysis. 02:15:59.760 --> 02:16:02.040 Okay. 02:16:02.040 --> 02:16:05.720 That is the clarification that I was hoping for. 02:16:05.720 --> 02:16:07.720 Commissioner Beck. 02:16:07.720 --> 02:16:09.320 Thank you, Chair. 02:16:09.320 --> 02:16:18.440 Haley, can you educate me on how drainage and floodplain is included in the calculation 02:16:18.440 --> 02:16:25.200 of green space and parks for developments? 02:16:25.200 --> 02:16:27.760 I am not an expert on our parks ordinance. 02:16:27.760 --> 02:16:34.200 I believe for areas that are floodplain, there is kind of a multiplier there. 02:16:34.200 --> 02:16:38.320 I think, Richard, do you know there's a 50% credit for those areas? 02:16:38.320 --> 02:16:39.880 I don't know. 02:16:39.880 --> 02:16:45.340 I believe it's either a 25% or a 50% credit that they can receive for those areas. 02:16:45.340 --> 02:16:49.900 If there was eight acres of park dedication needed and they had 16 acres of floodplain, 02:16:49.900 --> 02:16:52.240 I think that would be somewhat equivalent. 02:16:52.240 --> 02:16:53.240 There's a multiplier in there. 02:16:53.240 --> 02:17:00.360 I don't recall the exact amount, but it is a reduced value, if you will, for floodplain 02:17:00.360 --> 02:17:03.280 within our current parks ordinance. 02:17:03.280 --> 02:17:07.440 That can certainly still be dedicated to the city because our parks master plan is relying 02:17:07.440 --> 02:17:13.040 heavily upon floodplain areas to provide those trail connections throughout the city because 02:17:13.040 --> 02:17:20.680 our riparian corridors do spider, you know, across the majority of the city, so they would 02:17:20.680 --> 02:17:26.840 provide some useful avenues for connectivity in areas such as this. 02:17:26.840 --> 02:17:29.680 I'm not sure, Richard, were you able to? 02:17:29.680 --> 02:17:32.440 Yeah, I'm looking for it right now. 02:17:32.440 --> 02:17:40.200 While he looks that up, I have sort of a related question, and that is, does the police facility 02:17:40.200 --> 02:17:47.340 there north of the new park, that's the firing range that's going to put us in compliance 02:17:47.340 --> 02:17:50.040 with the response time? 02:17:50.040 --> 02:17:56.120 Yes, I believe that is a training facility as well as a police station where officers 02:17:56.120 --> 02:18:00.860 would be stationed out of, but yes, I believe that does include the firing range as part 02:18:00.860 --> 02:18:02.440 of that training facility. 02:18:02.440 --> 02:18:08.120 But I guess that's, you sort of, I think answered that question, is there will actually be stationed 02:18:08.120 --> 02:18:10.400 officers in that facility? 02:18:10.400 --> 02:18:16.440 It's not just a training facility, they would be able to respond out of that facility. 02:18:16.440 --> 02:18:22.320 That was my understanding from the police department's response when I asked about this. 02:18:22.320 --> 02:18:27.200 Any other questions for Haley? 02:18:27.200 --> 02:18:29.760 Right now I'm sure there might be more, but... 02:18:29.760 --> 02:18:34.680 Just to respond on the floodplain acreage, it's a three to one, so floodplain acreage 02:18:34.680 --> 02:18:40.040 may be dedicated at a ratio of three to one in lieu of non-floodplain property. 02:18:40.040 --> 02:18:45.680 So if I can clarify that, three acres, they get a credit for one? 02:18:45.680 --> 02:18:46.680 Correct. 02:18:46.680 --> 02:18:49.520 Okay, thank you. 02:18:49.520 --> 02:18:55.840 At this time, I understand the applicant does have a presentation, so I'll invite them to 02:18:55.840 --> 02:18:59.680 be unmuted and present, if you could, whoever is presenting, if they could just state their 02:18:59.680 --> 02:19:17.280 name and address for the record. 02:19:17.280 --> 02:19:42.280 It should be either Randy Rivera or Doug Powell with McAdams, and then Rob Betancur representing 02:19:42.280 --> 02:19:45.800 Zena, if that helps. 02:19:45.800 --> 02:19:47.960 Hi, this is Randy. 02:19:47.960 --> 02:19:50.040 Good evening. 02:19:50.040 --> 02:19:51.040 I think I started... 02:19:51.040 --> 02:19:52.040 Good evening. 02:19:52.040 --> 02:19:58.120 I think I started talking a little too early, but okay, so yes, Randy Rivera, I'm a planner 02:19:58.120 --> 02:20:05.120 with McAdams at 111 Hillside Drive in Lewisville, Texas. 02:20:05.120 --> 02:20:12.120 Doug Powell is another planner on this project, and he is here with me, and also on the phone 02:20:12.120 --> 02:20:22.440 is Rob Betancur, our client and the developer with Zena Land Development out of Grapevine. 02:20:22.440 --> 02:20:32.040 And we are happy and glad to be able to present to you tonight this request for this 146 acres. 02:20:32.040 --> 02:20:38.840 We have had the pleasure of working with Haley and the planning staff and the other departments. 02:20:38.840 --> 02:20:46.120 Over the course of almost a couple of years now, and we were able to come in with P&Z 02:20:46.120 --> 02:20:54.680 to do a work session in late January to really kind of introduce this project to you prior 02:20:54.680 --> 02:20:58.320 to tonight. 02:20:58.320 --> 02:21:05.440 And so our application was submitted for initially, not necessarily for the zoning, but when we 02:21:05.440 --> 02:21:10.800 were in the ETJ, we turned in our first application in December of 2018. 02:21:10.800 --> 02:21:15.240 And so we have been around for a little while, working through the different code updates 02:21:15.240 --> 02:21:17.240 and making changes as needed. 02:21:17.240 --> 02:21:23.840 And it's been a very enjoyable experience working with staff, and we're glad to finally 02:21:23.840 --> 02:21:26.720 be able to be in front of you tonight for this request. 02:21:26.720 --> 02:21:34.040 So I'll start off, and Haley, I'll just number which slide to jump to, because I do not want 02:21:34.040 --> 02:21:38.640 to spend time, you know, going over things that you did a great job already covering 02:21:38.640 --> 02:21:39.640 in detail. 02:21:39.640 --> 02:21:49.560 And so Sagebrook, again, is a, you know, 491 lot subdivision and the, you know, the style 02:21:49.560 --> 02:21:55.360 and the theme and the entry features are pretty reminiscent of, like, a Texas country style 02:21:55.360 --> 02:22:00.720 using some natural elements and that we wanted to pull from this area. 02:22:00.720 --> 02:22:05.520 And if you can go ahead and go to slide two. 02:22:05.520 --> 02:22:11.880 And this is taken off of the city's map, just showing, again, this donut area that we talked 02:22:11.880 --> 02:22:17.680 that Haley talked about too, of ETJ land in the southwest part of the city. 02:22:17.680 --> 02:22:23.120 And Sagebrook is highlighted in yellow, I think you know where it is at this point, 02:22:23.120 --> 02:22:29.760 and that we are asking for a zoning change for all 146 acres for this PD to be consistent 02:22:29.760 --> 02:22:32.520 with our six uses. 02:22:32.520 --> 02:22:39.120 I'd like to go ahead and jump to slide, actually the next one, slide three, please. 02:22:39.120 --> 02:22:44.360 Showing a location of our property, you know, with 35 being so close, it really is about 02:22:44.360 --> 02:22:48.680 a quarter mile from our northwest corner. 02:22:48.680 --> 02:22:57.040 And then with a railroad to the east, it really acts as a kind of a dividing line, you know, 02:22:57.040 --> 02:23:02.080 from dividing the east to the west, and, you know, that this area is treated a little bit 02:23:02.080 --> 02:23:09.840 differently than the properties up and down 377 on the east side that aren't constrained 02:23:09.840 --> 02:23:14.560 by that railroad crossing, which limits the access. 02:23:14.560 --> 02:23:17.480 Slide four will be the next one. 02:23:17.480 --> 02:23:24.760 And what we did here is we overlaid the city boundaries so that, you know, you can clearly 02:23:24.760 --> 02:23:28.520 see this land has been left over in the ETJ. 02:23:28.520 --> 02:23:34.120 And I think it's a safe, you know, kind of guess at this point that at some point in 02:23:34.120 --> 02:23:38.640 the future, this land will be annexed into the city of Denton since it's completely surrounded 02:23:38.640 --> 02:23:39.640 by it. 02:23:39.640 --> 02:23:44.800 It's just kind of how we fit in there and you can see the 14 acres that's already within 02:23:44.800 --> 02:23:48.200 the city that is the zone R6. 02:23:48.200 --> 02:23:59.880 Slide five will be the next one, and we wanted to show how our 146 acres fit into the context 02:23:59.880 --> 02:24:06.740 of these enormous master plan communities with Hunter and Coal Ranch. 02:24:06.740 --> 02:24:12.040 And on this graphic, you can also see the Brush Creek extension that follows the flood 02:24:12.040 --> 02:24:22.120 plain and then intersects with 377, but this plan here had a lot to do with the proposal 02:24:22.120 --> 02:24:28.400 before you tonight and that, you know, to match up with similar uses in the area to 02:24:28.400 --> 02:24:34.000 be consistent with what's expected, what people are seeing, what the city is seeing, the community 02:24:34.000 --> 02:24:36.000 and the neighbors. 02:24:36.000 --> 02:24:44.400 And so you can see as we transition from Hunter-Coal's MN zoning district, which is the nearest to 02:24:44.400 --> 02:24:53.560 be developed areas of those MPCs to Sagebrook, we transition into an R6 density as we get 02:24:53.560 --> 02:25:00.280 to the railroad and 377 as Haley talked about this being a highly transitional area. 02:25:00.280 --> 02:25:06.560 And that is exactly the plan that we're proposing that works, it's very, it's feasible. 02:25:06.560 --> 02:25:12.920 And again, it just fits into the context of the surrounding PDs as well as Hunter-Coal. 02:25:12.920 --> 02:25:20.320 Slide six shows the parts and amenities of Hunter-Coal on the left. 02:25:20.320 --> 02:25:28.200 And then on the right are the regional and kind of local trails. 02:25:28.200 --> 02:25:33.360 And what we think is significant and the reason for sharing this with you, just the context 02:25:33.360 --> 02:25:39.480 of this, how it applies to Sagebrook, is the interconnectedness of all of the greenways 02:25:39.480 --> 02:25:47.840 as those are natural linkages to provide for pedestrian opportunities and activities, cyclists 02:25:47.840 --> 02:25:54.600 and all of those types of activities to enjoy in these green belts that connect the community 02:25:54.600 --> 02:25:56.120 together. 02:25:56.120 --> 02:26:05.560 And the benefit of Sagebrook's location is we are able to provide a link to residents 02:26:05.560 --> 02:26:12.800 from Hunter-Coal, from Country Lakes to come up through these trail systems into Sagebrook 02:26:12.800 --> 02:26:19.800 and eventually into Southwest Regional Park there for the sports activities that they'll 02:26:19.800 --> 02:26:23.680 be doing with their kids and families. 02:26:23.680 --> 02:26:30.720 And that magenta line that you see on the right, the dashed magenta in the yellow box, 02:26:30.720 --> 02:26:33.560 that's the proposed trail linkage. 02:26:33.560 --> 02:26:39.880 We're providing a piece of that, but the idea again is to create consistent connectivity 02:26:39.880 --> 02:26:45.560 for people to access Southwest Park through Sagebrook. 02:26:45.560 --> 02:26:55.000 I would like to go ahead and jump to slide 10 and slide 10 shows the existing site characteristics 02:26:55.000 --> 02:27:04.000 of the property and kind of what we were working with in our canvas and as designers, working 02:27:04.000 --> 02:27:10.440 with what the land has given you to work around features that are worth preserving and identifying 02:27:10.440 --> 02:27:15.000 those before we really put any pencil to paper. 02:27:15.000 --> 02:27:21.640 This slide here shows you of course the flood in the southwest corner, it's 14 acres of 02:27:21.640 --> 02:27:29.200 zone A floodplain, and then the terrain on here, it's a pretty consistent slope from 02:27:29.200 --> 02:27:33.920 the north and northwest down to the southeast corner. 02:27:33.920 --> 02:27:41.120 And there's about a 30-foot average fall of terrain from those two points to the southeast 02:27:41.120 --> 02:27:47.520 corner, which makes sense and why the floodplain is where it is. 02:27:47.520 --> 02:27:52.800 And so looking at this, looking at the tree cover canopy that's there on the property 02:27:52.800 --> 02:28:01.560 today, the mature and protected trees, the nice trees that are located in that southeast 02:28:01.560 --> 02:28:06.400 corner, which makes sense, that's where most of the drainage is going. 02:28:06.400 --> 02:28:13.280 And so we wanted to work around those elements as we came up with the design here. 02:28:13.280 --> 02:28:18.400 And the rest of the gas well being plugged with a huge, huge plus that we could work 02:28:18.400 --> 02:28:20.720 around that. 02:28:20.720 --> 02:28:26.840 But with this blank canvas, what do we do to create an interesting design? 02:28:26.840 --> 02:28:32.440 And that has a lot to do with why we're proposing this meandering north-south boulevard. 02:28:32.440 --> 02:28:38.080 So if you can go ahead and go to slide 11, please. 02:28:38.080 --> 02:28:48.880 The concept plan that Haley showed, too, the signifying feature of Sagebrook is the open 02:28:48.880 --> 02:28:54.400 space that we're providing, that 18 percent of open space throughout the community, but 02:28:54.400 --> 02:29:02.400 also this public accessible corridor through the middle of it from north to south at the 02:29:02.400 --> 02:29:10.640 length of about 1,200 to 1,500 feet in length, that acts as kind of a theme and it brings 02:29:10.640 --> 02:29:19.680 the community together and a focal point for the residents and an access for public community 02:29:19.680 --> 02:29:25.360 members to be able, again, to traverse up this trail up to Southwest Park. 02:29:25.360 --> 02:29:30.360 And so that was kind of our starting point in the design as well as what we were saving. 02:29:30.360 --> 02:29:36.900 You see the pond in the southeast corner, wanted to save that natural open space area. 02:29:36.900 --> 02:29:43.240 It will create for a very nice driving experience, a long brush creek, and also a natural setting 02:29:43.240 --> 02:29:46.880 for the residents to enjoy. 02:29:46.880 --> 02:29:51.160 And then in the northeast corner is another detention pond. 02:29:51.160 --> 02:29:58.560 There is a little bit of the way the site is, the fall of the site, some of it goes 02:29:58.560 --> 02:30:04.600 to that corner, so it's necessary to put a detention facility there. 02:30:04.600 --> 02:30:11.960 And so those were kind of the design focal points that we wanted to include in this layout 02:30:11.960 --> 02:30:18.000 to make it unique, working with the land and coming up with something that was creative. 02:30:18.000 --> 02:30:22.400 And so here you can see all the things that Haley kind of already touched on. 02:30:22.400 --> 02:30:27.520 We are dedicating about 12 acres of perimeter right away, and within the Sagebrook community 02:30:27.520 --> 02:30:33.720 there is about nine acres of open space in the x-lots, but that doesn't include the landscape 02:30:33.720 --> 02:30:41.400 buffers along the future brush creek extension or all red. 02:30:41.400 --> 02:30:45.880 And so let's go ahead and go to slide 12, please. 02:30:45.880 --> 02:30:53.440 I apologize for that, I just wanted to check in, it is my fault for not starting a proper 02:30:53.440 --> 02:30:57.960 clock when you began, but typically applicants have 10 minutes to present, and so I want 02:30:57.960 --> 02:31:01.440 to be mindful of that for the individual I think who is waiting on the phone to do public 02:31:01.440 --> 02:31:02.600 comment as well. 02:31:02.600 --> 02:31:06.880 So I certainly want to be respectful of your presentation, but we have been at about 12 02:31:06.880 --> 02:31:11.160 minutes right now, so if we can get to high points and then we can certainly follow up 02:31:11.160 --> 02:31:13.200 with questions, that might be helpful. 02:31:13.200 --> 02:31:19.360 Okay, well I think the next high point would probably be slide 20, again that's showing 02:31:19.360 --> 02:31:24.280 representative examples of what the homes will look like, these are 50-foot lots, so 02:31:24.280 --> 02:31:31.600 the products will be 40 feet wide, and the average price point here is around $340, and 02:31:31.600 --> 02:31:38.360 they'll start at the low or the high $200 and go up to the high $300. 02:31:38.360 --> 02:31:45.880 And then I think the next important slide that I just wanted to touch on is, we can 02:31:45.880 --> 02:31:50.200 go ahead and go to slide 26, and then I can conclude after that. 02:31:50.200 --> 02:31:51.200 Great, thank you. 02:31:51.200 --> 02:31:56.240 Slide 26, you're welcome, and thank you so much for letting me know I wasn't aware we 02:31:56.240 --> 02:31:57.240 had 10 minutes. 02:31:57.240 --> 02:32:00.160 Yeah, that was my fault, no worries. 02:32:00.160 --> 02:32:02.680 Okay, give me some grace on that. 02:32:02.680 --> 02:32:07.400 Okay, so the public benefits again, we're dedicating with the development 120 feet of 02:32:07.400 --> 02:32:11.080 the right of way for the Brush Creek extension, that's 9.2 acres of land that's going to 02:32:11.080 --> 02:32:17.640 be dedicated when we plot, and then we have agreed to develop and construct two of those 02:32:17.640 --> 02:32:21.640 lanes per the phases that come online. 02:32:21.640 --> 02:32:27.120 We have worked with Union Pacific Railroad on the changing the crossing from Bonnie Bray 02:32:27.120 --> 02:32:32.600 to this location, they have told us that they will not permit a new additional crossing 02:32:32.600 --> 02:32:40.800 along 377, but we have to replace crossings that are already there, and this one has been 02:32:40.800 --> 02:32:47.040 identified as an unsafe crossing on Bonnie Bray, and it makes sense to replace it to 02:32:47.040 --> 02:32:51.840 come down here on a brush on brush Creek extension where there's going to be more motorists and 02:32:51.840 --> 02:32:53.600 more traffic there. 02:32:53.600 --> 02:33:00.160 And then the last thing and then I'm done is extending about 3500 feet of sanitary sewer 02:33:00.160 --> 02:33:02.600 from the graveyard interceptor. 02:33:02.600 --> 02:33:06.320 And like Haley mentioned, this will be up sized as necessary, we'll work with the city 02:33:06.320 --> 02:33:12.360 on our developers agreement, and it will service an area of about 580 acres, and so Sagebrook 02:33:12.360 --> 02:33:15.160 is really only a quarter of that. 02:33:15.160 --> 02:33:20.720 And so I will wrap up, I'll be glad to wrap up, and we're also here for any questions 02:33:20.720 --> 02:33:24.480 of the council and the chairman, if you see fit. 02:33:24.480 --> 02:33:29.120 I certainly appreciate your presentation and your perspective and context of the project, 02:33:29.120 --> 02:33:30.120 thank you very much. 02:33:30.120 --> 02:33:36.560 Do you have any questions right now for the applicant? 02:33:36.560 --> 02:33:41.640 I don't see any hands raised, so we're going to proceed forward. 02:33:41.640 --> 02:33:49.200 For this item PD 20-001, we had one person make comments using our online form. 02:33:49.200 --> 02:33:53.800 There was zero in support for the item and one against. 02:33:53.800 --> 02:33:58.480 All these comment forms were emailed to the city secretary to be recorded, and additionally 02:33:58.480 --> 02:34:03.240 there is one individual who has requested to speak over the phone on this item, and 02:34:03.240 --> 02:34:10.360 staff is currently loading up the phone line for that caller. 02:34:10.360 --> 02:34:25.840 Hello, caller, welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting, can you please 02:34:25.840 --> 02:34:29.640 state your name and address, and you'll have four minutes to speak on this item. 02:34:29.640 --> 02:34:35.800 Yes, it is Angela Dominguez, and I reside at 6250 Allred Road. 02:34:35.800 --> 02:34:39.760 Thank you for taking my call and giving me the opportunity to speak. 02:34:39.760 --> 02:34:45.760 My husband and I live on the 35 acres bordering the western property line of the proposed 02:34:45.760 --> 02:34:51.560 Sagebrook development, and we own and farm 96 acres bordering the southern property line 02:34:51.560 --> 02:34:53.560 of the proposed development. 02:34:53.560 --> 02:34:58.380 No one will be impacted more by this development than me and my husband. 02:34:58.380 --> 02:35:03.800 We are opposing the zoning change request to allow more time to discuss the alignment 02:35:03.800 --> 02:35:09.520 of the Brush Creek extension with the city and the developer, and to verify the reasons 02:35:09.520 --> 02:35:14.080 for the alignment by an engineer or qualified third party. 02:35:14.080 --> 02:35:21.520 In July 2019, we received a notice for the Hickory Creek road feasibility study and a 02:35:21.520 --> 02:35:27.040 request by the city of Denton for right-of-way entry to our property. 02:35:27.040 --> 02:35:31.700 An exhibit was included with a notice that showed two proposed alignments of the Brush 02:35:31.700 --> 02:35:37.240 Creek extension labeled 3A, 3E, and 3H. 02:35:37.240 --> 02:35:41.680 Both proposed alignments showed Brush Creek intersecting Allred Road to the east of our 02:35:41.680 --> 02:35:46.440 property line at the northwest corner of the subject property. 02:35:46.440 --> 02:35:52.920 I called Mr. Jim Jenkins, who was Senior Engineer of Capital Projects at the time, to discuss 02:35:52.920 --> 02:35:59.320 the proposed alignment, and he confirmed that the exhibit accurately represented the future 02:35:59.320 --> 02:36:02.080 alignment of Brush Creek at that time. 02:36:02.080 --> 02:36:07.960 I thanked him for the information and granted right of entry to our property for the feasibility 02:36:07.960 --> 02:36:09.920 study. 02:36:09.920 --> 02:36:15.200 When the notice of public hearing signs for Sagebrook were posted on Allred Road, I noted 02:36:15.200 --> 02:36:18.280 them and fully intended to listen to this hearing. 02:36:18.280 --> 02:36:23.560 However, the signs and the notice that we received in the mail referenced a request 02:36:23.560 --> 02:36:29.160 for a zoning change, not a future extension of Brush Creek Road. 02:36:29.160 --> 02:36:35.920 So I was very surprised when I reviewed the agenda and related exhibits to see a new proposed 02:36:35.920 --> 02:36:39.080 alignment of the Brush Creek extension. 02:36:39.080 --> 02:36:46.720 The new alignment shown on the Sagebrook exhibit cuts off the northeast corner of our property, 02:36:46.720 --> 02:36:52.280 of our residence, and places the roadway squarely through my husband's shop that he uses to 02:36:52.280 --> 02:36:54.600 store his farming implements. 02:36:54.600 --> 02:37:00.000 When I saw this, I called Mr. Jenkins immediately and received a voicemail message that he was 02:37:00.000 --> 02:37:02.240 no longer with the City of Denton. 02:37:02.240 --> 02:37:05.320 I called and emailed Ms. Zygarski. 02:37:05.320 --> 02:37:09.320 She called me back promptly and informed me that the new alignment was made after the 02:37:09.320 --> 02:37:15.000 feasibility study, and she provided various reasons from the study for the alignment. 02:37:15.000 --> 02:37:19.040 The Brush Creek extension could have been placed anywhere on the proposed Sagebrook 02:37:19.040 --> 02:37:23.880 development to avoid impact to our property, but unfortunately, it was not. 02:37:23.880 --> 02:37:28.600 I see in the exhibits that there was a neighborhood meeting to discuss the development, but we 02:37:28.600 --> 02:37:30.720 did not receive a notice. 02:37:30.720 --> 02:37:35.680 The developer did not contact us specifically to discuss the roadway alignment and receive 02:37:35.680 --> 02:37:37.000 our input. 02:37:37.000 --> 02:37:43.400 Furthermore, we believe the decision on the alignment was made based on inaccurate information 02:37:43.400 --> 02:37:46.560 related to a gas well that no longer exists. 02:37:46.560 --> 02:37:52.800 Again, we oppose the zoning change request to allow more time to discuss the alignment 02:37:52.800 --> 02:37:58.000 of the Brush Creek extension with the city and the developer and to verify the reasons 02:37:58.000 --> 02:38:09.720 for the alignment by an engineer or qualified third party. 02:38:09.720 --> 02:38:17.560 Thank you so much for calling in and being patient and holding to bring us that perspective 02:38:17.560 --> 02:38:18.560 of your property. 02:38:18.560 --> 02:38:21.920 Do we have any questions for... 02:38:21.920 --> 02:38:23.200 Is it Dominguez? 02:38:23.200 --> 02:38:25.160 Yes, Angela Dominguez. 02:38:25.160 --> 02:38:27.800 Ms. Dominguez, do we have any questions for her? 02:38:27.800 --> 02:38:34.160 Ms. Dominguez, I don't see any questions at this time, but I certainly appreciate you 02:38:34.160 --> 02:38:35.160 calling in. 02:38:35.160 --> 02:38:37.320 Just one second, Commissioner Beck. 02:38:37.320 --> 02:38:43.040 This is not for Ms. Dominguez, but it is related to materials she brought up. 02:38:43.040 --> 02:38:46.560 Thank you, Chair, by the way. 02:38:46.560 --> 02:38:53.920 Maybe it's a question for the city and engineer, but can you educate us why we felt the Brush 02:38:53.920 --> 02:39:00.280 Creek couldn't go through the gas well property region, especially considering it's being 02:39:00.280 --> 02:39:04.920 disused now? 02:39:04.920 --> 02:39:06.520 Anyone at city? 02:39:06.520 --> 02:39:10.760 Yeah, I can attempt to answer that. 02:39:10.760 --> 02:39:13.920 A lot of it is due to lack of information. 02:39:13.920 --> 02:39:19.360 There's not a lot of studies or information out there regarding development over gas wells, 02:39:19.360 --> 02:39:22.480 especially for something as dynamic as a roadway. 02:39:22.480 --> 02:39:27.280 The well is capped at a fairly shallow distance below the surface in accordance with the Railroad 02:39:27.280 --> 02:39:33.600 Commission standards, so there would be a potential need to reopen that well and do 02:39:33.600 --> 02:39:40.160 whatever workover is necessary to adjust that for the paving and construction of the base 02:39:40.160 --> 02:39:42.680 for the roadway. 02:39:42.680 --> 02:39:48.600 In general, just due to the lack of knowledge of what really occurs when something is put 02:39:48.600 --> 02:39:55.720 over a well over a long term and has the constant use of a well of a roadway, there was just 02:39:55.720 --> 02:39:59.800 a lot of uncertainty on the city's part of not wanting to put that directly underneath 02:39:59.800 --> 02:40:05.200 a very costly and highly anticipated Ush Road. 02:40:05.200 --> 02:40:11.120 I don't know if there's anything else you want to add to that. 02:40:11.120 --> 02:40:17.480 The only other that I would add is I think you hit it, Haley, when we touched on, I should 02:40:17.480 --> 02:40:22.880 say, when you went through your presentation, it was sort of sandwiched between the flood 02:40:22.880 --> 02:40:27.840 plain to the south, and so really it was to have the road kind of hug that flood plain 02:40:27.840 --> 02:40:32.920 as much as possible for the continuity of the park trail so it can continue through. 02:40:32.920 --> 02:40:38.760 But again, it was not any intention of the city to have a plugged gas well under any 02:40:38.760 --> 02:40:45.800 even a local street, let alone a future six-lane arterial. 02:40:45.800 --> 02:40:50.200 I guess if there's a lack of knowledge, that doesn't mean it's something that can't be 02:40:50.200 --> 02:40:51.200 done. 02:40:51.200 --> 02:40:53.700 It means that there's a concern, which I appreciate. 02:40:53.700 --> 02:41:04.360 We should take cautions and concerns, that there's no standards for removal of gas lines, 02:41:04.360 --> 02:41:11.460 plugging of things such that building can be done on top of these kinds of things. 02:41:11.460 --> 02:41:15.840 Certainly this is not the only gas well in existence that's ever wanted to have development 02:41:15.840 --> 02:41:22.400 near it. 02:41:22.400 --> 02:41:28.600 I feel like the lack of information is insufficient to make a judgment on that. 02:41:28.600 --> 02:41:32.560 Yeah, I understand that concern. 02:41:32.560 --> 02:41:37.120 Staff has researched this topic extensively due to a council request that still hasn't 02:41:37.120 --> 02:41:40.280 gone to a work session regarding plugged wells. 02:41:40.280 --> 02:41:45.880 There are very limited studies nationwide regarding this topic. 02:41:45.880 --> 02:41:51.300 Just speaking from experience with other projects where wells have been plugged, the plugging 02:41:51.300 --> 02:41:53.480 is done in accordance with Railroad Commission standards. 02:41:53.480 --> 02:41:57.160 It's typically about 10 feet below the surface where the well is capped. 02:41:57.160 --> 02:42:03.240 It would be a significant process for anyone, the city or private developer, to adjust that 02:42:03.240 --> 02:42:04.240 once the well is capped. 02:42:04.240 --> 02:42:09.360 You would have to go in, remove all the casing and materials that were used to cap the well, 02:42:09.360 --> 02:42:14.720 put the well off further below the surface, recap it, and then there's ultimately just 02:42:14.720 --> 02:42:20.180 still the unknown of any potential hazards of that well casing cracking or anything like 02:42:20.180 --> 02:42:26.080 that with the added pressure and activity above ground with a roadway above it. 02:42:26.080 --> 02:42:31.080 I understand that, but when we do floodplains, when we do drainages, when we build next to 02:42:31.080 --> 02:42:39.840 a lake, when we build next to any geological feature, there are risks that need to be mitigated 02:42:39.840 --> 02:42:43.840 along with that, regardless of what that was. 02:42:43.840 --> 02:42:48.720 Build next to a volcano, you've got to mitigate for the volcano. 02:42:48.720 --> 02:42:57.080 The question I have is, those are risks that are associated with development by the developer 02:42:57.080 --> 02:43:05.200 when they have a feature on their property that they wish to develop, and in concern 02:43:05.200 --> 02:43:09.760 that we have a lack of knowledge that I said earlier. 02:43:09.760 --> 02:43:17.060 I feel like we're being asked to make a decision about both for the mobility plan and for this 02:43:17.060 --> 02:43:24.200 property and zoning, and they all impact where we have a lack of knowledge about future roadways, 02:43:24.200 --> 02:43:28.040 and of course, that impacts all the surrounding properties. 02:43:28.040 --> 02:43:31.280 Thank you, Commissioner Beck. 02:43:31.280 --> 02:43:32.280 Commissioner Anderson? 02:43:32.280 --> 02:43:33.280 Thank you, Chair. 02:43:33.280 --> 02:43:39.160 I thought they spoke earlier that there was nothing going to be built over the cat well. 02:43:39.160 --> 02:43:40.800 Is that correct? 02:43:40.800 --> 02:43:41.800 Yes. 02:43:41.800 --> 02:43:48.880 As part of the review process, staff indicated to the developer that we would not accept 02:43:48.880 --> 02:43:55.580 the gas well being underneath the city street of any type, as Richard indicated, and although 02:43:55.580 --> 02:43:59.200 we have no standards in the code, we asked the developer and they voluntarily complied 02:43:59.200 --> 02:44:03.460 with our request to have that well situated on an open space lot so that nothing was built 02:44:03.460 --> 02:44:04.460 over the top of it. 02:44:04.460 --> 02:44:05.460 Thank you very much. 02:44:05.460 --> 02:44:12.080 Commissioner Burnett, I want to get to you real quickly, is there any other questions 02:44:12.080 --> 02:44:19.800 for the citizen, Ms. Dominguez, I'd like to do is if not, go ahead and close public comment, 02:44:19.800 --> 02:44:26.460 move into discussion for the commission. 02:44:26.460 --> 02:44:33.200 Seeing none, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing for this item and acknowledge 02:44:33.200 --> 02:44:35.400 Commissioner Burnett. 02:44:35.400 --> 02:44:39.560 My question was covered by Commissioner Anderson. 02:44:39.560 --> 02:44:52.980 Mr. Smith, any motion to approve first for approval, Mr. Anderson, I'll second his motion. 02:44:52.980 --> 02:44:53.980 Okay. 02:44:53.980 --> 02:44:54.980 Any discussion on the item? 02:44:54.980 --> 02:44:57.160 Christian or back. 02:44:57.160 --> 02:45:02.400 So I, I actually had some additional discussion I'd like to ask the city before we go to the 02:45:02.400 --> 02:45:03.400 motion if that's proper. 02:45:03.400 --> 02:45:11.440 Yeah, and in fact, it's it's preference to have the motion on the table and then discuss 02:45:11.440 --> 02:45:12.440 around that motion. 02:45:12.440 --> 02:45:14.200 So you're you're good questioner back. 02:45:14.200 --> 02:45:15.200 Okay. 02:45:15.200 --> 02:45:16.640 Thank you, chair. 02:45:16.640 --> 02:45:24.920 So I have a question about sort of Criterion for and that is the, the nearby consistency 02:45:24.920 --> 02:45:33.880 Criterion, essentially, and that is what concerns me is that we are using, we use this development 02:45:33.880 --> 02:45:39.500 the development north of the park, I forget the name of it, right south of the range along 02:45:39.500 --> 02:45:47.680 the creek, as well as the PD to the southwest of this as justification for Hunter Cole. 02:45:47.680 --> 02:45:52.240 And then we're using Hunter Cole as justification for these properties. 02:45:52.240 --> 02:45:58.600 And and all four or five properties that I've just mentioned are well outside the general 02:45:58.600 --> 02:46:04.740 bound they're in they're in the city, but they're outside the sort of consistent boundaries 02:46:04.740 --> 02:46:08.400 of what we would call development in our city. 02:46:08.400 --> 02:46:15.200 And so I feel like we're sort of forcing these into place and using recursively to justify 02:46:15.200 --> 02:46:16.400 each other. 02:46:16.400 --> 02:46:22.280 And and so I'm not at all convinced that we're meeting Criterion for and in the slightest. 02:46:22.280 --> 02:46:29.440 And I'm also not convinced that we're meeting the Denton 2030 plan for centralized development 02:46:29.440 --> 02:46:36.680 that again we're using we're using these external development opportunities to to try to justify 02:46:36.680 --> 02:46:40.240 themselves in sort of a circular recursive nature. 02:46:40.240 --> 02:46:46.760 And that doesn't it feel at all to me that we're being I think it's 2.4 maybe I forget 02:46:46.760 --> 02:46:48.720 the exact chapter. 02:46:48.720 --> 02:46:57.480 But we're we're the the subsection that that's governed the 2030 plan to sort of mitigate 02:46:57.480 --> 02:47:02.820 sprawl and and keep our density in the central corridor or higher. 02:47:02.820 --> 02:47:08.880 We discussed this at a number of different opportunities and so this this greatly concerns 02:47:08.880 --> 02:47:16.320 me that we're promoting sprawl where we're not looking at development opportunities for 02:47:16.320 --> 02:47:22.320 these for these guests are not the road through the gas wells and therefore we're impacting 02:47:22.320 --> 02:47:29.400 other surrounding properties and and I and then you know the the information that was 02:47:29.400 --> 02:47:34.960 brought up by some of our commentators about the fiscal impacts seem like they're they're 02:47:34.960 --> 02:47:37.460 not at all completely justified. 02:47:37.460 --> 02:47:44.240 So I'm I'm not at all I'm I'm not opposed to the the nature of the proposed plan for 02:47:44.240 --> 02:47:45.960 this property were to go through. 02:47:45.960 --> 02:47:52.160 I'm concerned that we are not meeting our criteria for our overall development goals 02:47:52.160 --> 02:47:59.800 and and that's the great concern to me for this property and surrounding properties. 02:47:59.800 --> 02:48:08.920 Thank you Mr. Beck I'm going to jump in and add kind of my thoughts on this. 02:48:08.920 --> 02:48:17.000 I given that the there's a city park right north of this it seems to me a really unique 02:48:17.000 --> 02:48:21.400 place to have a neighborhood next to the park a lot of our most cherished neighborhoods 02:48:21.400 --> 02:48:28.320 and didn't in my my opinion are embedded in close parks whether that's Nettie Schultz 02:48:28.320 --> 02:48:33.960 or Eureka or North Lakes those are I think some of our most desired neighborhoods in 02:48:33.960 --> 02:48:40.120 town and so the idea of putting a neighborhood just south of this park and and embedding 02:48:40.120 --> 02:48:44.120 it into a trail system is certainly of interest to me. 02:48:44.120 --> 02:48:48.520 The only really concern I have is that I want to talk more about the mobility plan and and 02:48:48.520 --> 02:48:54.080 maybe further acknowledge Mr. Mingus's concerns without speculating too much about my ignorance 02:48:54.080 --> 02:49:00.480 and mobility was it not possible to for this property or for the mobility plan to bring 02:49:00.480 --> 02:49:06.240 in Allred and Brush Creek further to the east and looking at it that s-curve for a six lane 02:49:06.240 --> 02:49:10.320 road might have been tight and you might have been running to the same angle as Bonnie Bray 02:49:10.320 --> 02:49:15.640 currently presents itself and so in my finite mind I'm thinking that's the reason we didn't 02:49:15.640 --> 02:49:22.040 just do two right angles and cut this property right in half with a six lane or two or arterial 02:49:22.040 --> 02:49:26.280 but I just want a confirmation that I know Haley said we're kind of thread the needle 02:49:26.280 --> 02:49:33.960 between flood zone and the gassed the capped gas and just so I state this I'm not in favor 02:49:33.960 --> 02:49:39.320 of putting a road over a capped gas I know I agree with Commissioner Beck that more information 02:49:39.320 --> 02:49:44.400 is probably needed in that study but just innately that seems a little unstable but 02:49:44.400 --> 02:49:50.480 nevertheless Haley mentioned threading the needle in between the the capped gas well 02:49:50.480 --> 02:49:57.720 and the floodplain but there wasn't any mention on going east on the property closer to the 02:49:57.720 --> 02:50:02.240 park and maybe they don't want to city has one a six lane road next to the park I'm just 02:50:02.240 --> 02:50:09.280 trying to understand why an eastern route was not part of the finalized mobility plan 02:50:09.280 --> 02:50:14.440 any insight staff could give on that would be appreciated. 02:50:14.440 --> 02:50:21.160 Yeah I think you touched on a lot of the reasons for that as the the citizen referenced when 02:50:21.160 --> 02:50:27.040 the city when the city initiated this feasibility study they looked at I believe six or seven 02:50:27.040 --> 02:50:31.640 options probably I think it was like options A through H for potential alignments for this 02:50:31.640 --> 02:50:38.440 roadway they're looking at all of those factors the topography of the land you know with that 02:50:38.440 --> 02:50:43.800 significant fall was part of that as well as like I said avoidance of the floodplain 02:50:43.800 --> 02:50:48.040 and the gas well I think you're exactly right on the eastern part of the property that those 02:50:48.040 --> 02:50:53.840 angles between the railroad and hitting all red would have been a bit sharper than what 02:50:53.840 --> 02:50:59.400 are allowed for a road of this type that would have this potential speed on it but I know 02:50:59.400 --> 02:51:04.240 that study was reviewed extensively by our engineering staff as well as with the City 02:51:04.240 --> 02:51:09.640 Council before an alignment was was eventually settled on this developer as they mentioned 02:51:09.640 --> 02:51:15.480 has been working with us since 2018 at some point so they've been involved in those discussions 02:51:15.480 --> 02:51:20.840 and and ultimately it was determined that this roadway in the alignment that they proposed 02:51:20.840 --> 02:51:26.120 was was the best deal that we could get to get this road across you know with all the 02:51:26.120 --> 02:51:34.080 challenges involved sure that was my my assumptions but I wanted to clarify it this project makes 02:51:34.080 --> 02:51:40.000 a lot of sense to me I think it's a high quality project that is needed or at least a desired 02:51:40.000 --> 02:51:48.120 project south of town however it certainly gives me some pause seeing that the the plan 02:51:48.120 --> 02:51:53.440 provided in the deck we saw tonight shows a potential road going right into Mr. Mingus 02:51:53.440 --> 02:51:58.160 said a shop looks kind of a house is a big structure and so I just want to be sensitive 02:51:58.160 --> 02:52:05.560 to the decision we make tonight potentially is going to put a homeowner in a really undesirable 02:52:05.560 --> 02:52:10.760 position as she stated herself so I just wanted to clarify and ensure that when we think about 02:52:10.760 --> 02:52:16.200 the extension of mobility in our city we're thinking about all assets to ensure that we're 02:52:16.200 --> 02:52:22.360 not displacing citizens unnecessarily if there's another option and so Haley I appreciate you 02:52:22.360 --> 02:52:28.600 confirming some of my assumptions and trying to look at this road from a different angle 02:52:28.600 --> 02:52:34.200 Commissioner Ellis I'll turn to you thank you chair and thank you for bringing up this further 02:52:34.200 --> 02:52:42.760 discussion on this when again was the feasibility study done I believe it was started last summer 02:52:42.760 --> 02:52:49.960 I think the letters to property owners went out in July of 2019 and I don't know more 02:52:49.960 --> 02:52:53.820 specifically on that I was looking to Richard to see if he had a better date as to to when 02:52:53.820 --> 02:53:00.520 that wrapped up I don't recall the exact date that it that it wrapped up but there was a 02:53:00.520 --> 02:53:07.920 work session that was done at City Council on February 11th part of that work session 02:53:07.920 --> 02:53:15.720 one of the main discussions was that alignment for the east west there were a number of alternatives 02:53:15.720 --> 02:53:21.920 that were presented I don't have the ability to pull the presentation up right now but 02:53:21.920 --> 02:53:28.400 I want to say they looked at four different alignment options and so again this is this 02:53:28.400 --> 02:53:36.680 is looking at connecting this from 35w all the way over to 2499 so this will connect 02:53:36.680 --> 02:53:44.720 into Hickory Creek and so I think it has an estimated daily trips 2045 of 15 I think it 02:53:44.720 --> 02:53:52.080 was 15,000 vehicles which is a substantial increase from today but there are there they 02:53:52.080 --> 02:54:03.760 went through a number of alignments as associated with that and so it I believe it was discussed 02:54:03.760 --> 02:54:10.560 you believe what was discussed the the alignment as it's presented okay so do you know that 02:54:10.560 --> 02:54:16.860 in that study if to chairs point was it ever discussed to bring that alignment into this 02:54:16.860 --> 02:54:21.480 property that we are discussing I think it maybe step back a little bit and think about 02:54:21.480 --> 02:54:27.560 what a what the feasibility analysis is all it does is just shows a straight line so it 02:54:27.560 --> 02:54:33.000 doesn't necessarily give a direct route there's no engineering it's just hey we've got a six 02:54:33.000 --> 02:54:38.480 lane road what are the major obstacles that we have to overcome to bring this road through 02:54:38.480 --> 02:54:43.960 and so that's really that's really kind of how it said how it really framed it and then 02:54:43.960 --> 02:54:48.780 like anything and until development comes in we really start looking at how it how it 02:54:48.780 --> 02:54:53.520 how it starts to shape up and so through the conclusion or through the not even the conclusion 02:54:53.520 --> 02:54:58.560 but as that was being developed this project came in and obviously we've been working through 02:54:58.560 --> 02:55:03.840 and they could probably attest to this this alignment as well as a number of other issues 02:55:03.840 --> 02:55:08.600 that we ultimately work through to get to where we are today but that's that's where 02:55:08.600 --> 02:55:14.760 it was essentially what staff agreed to as the best location long term for that for that 02:55:14.760 --> 02:55:20.360 six lane road and I mean I agree that it's certainly will be an asset when that road 02:55:20.360 --> 02:55:28.400 is in I do hate impacting a property owner the way that it appears we are they're losing 02:55:28.400 --> 02:55:36.920 a sizable and I mean usable sizable expensive structure and while I understand them in a 02:55:36.920 --> 02:55:45.360 domain and all of that will be worked out it's it still impacts them their life which 02:55:45.360 --> 02:55:46.360 is concerning 02:55:46.360 --> 02:56:02.000 Mr. Anderson could I rescind my second after looking at this map I'm starting to understand 02:56:02.000 --> 02:56:07.840 I I was just looking at the the square of the properties but now I do see what Mr. Mingus 02:56:07.840 --> 02:56:15.240 is talking about and to Commissioner Ellis's point I mean they're going to lose a substantial 02:56:15.240 --> 02:56:22.780 northeastern part of their property and I don't know if this is something that the developer 02:56:22.780 --> 02:56:28.600 could rethink about turning it back to the north earlier than going through their property 02:56:28.600 --> 02:56:33.120 like you discussed to go east of the well somehow but I mean I know they're going to 02:56:33.120 --> 02:56:38.680 lose some you know lots that they can sell for property but but you got to think of the 02:56:38.680 --> 02:56:43.800 neighbors and you got to be cognizant of their you know their well-being as well and that's 02:56:43.800 --> 02:56:47.440 something after looking at this a little bit more in detail that of the points you guys 02:56:47.440 --> 02:56:55.400 brought up you commissioners brought up I do see and that it would be a drastic chunk 02:56:55.400 --> 02:57:01.080 of their property and you know I'd like to rescind my second until I hear more that that's 02:57:01.080 --> 02:57:08.860 okay yeah I definitely can Christian Smith Haley can you remind me on PD's the plenary 02:57:08.860 --> 02:57:14.120 plot there's be a plenary file with the PD right and then that has some binding natures 02:57:14.120 --> 02:57:20.700 to it correct the conceptual plans that you're tonight yeah those would be tied to the ordinance 02:57:20.700 --> 02:57:25.680 all of the exhibits provided in your backup the you know the concept landscape plans all 02:57:25.680 --> 02:57:32.120 of that go as part of the ordinance we had a we had a case Jim strange had brought up 02:57:32.120 --> 02:57:38.860 it was gosh it was called a bridge ridge month or something like that over there off of Ryan 02:57:38.860 --> 02:57:44.000 Road where same deal concerns from them from the neighborhoods to south of the property 02:57:44.000 --> 02:57:52.080 that it was a plan development that they worked out a changing of the conceptual plan to make 02:57:52.080 --> 02:57:57.760 that work with traffic for that neighborhood between us and planning and us in City Council 02:57:57.760 --> 02:58:05.920 I don't know how I'm going to navigate this via zoom but but have how much how much work 02:58:05.920 --> 02:58:12.720 if it has been discussed about trying to avoid this this property and then maybe I can point 02:58:12.720 --> 02:58:20.720 this that question maybe to to Randy and your staff down there Randy about you know how 02:58:20.720 --> 02:58:24.160 you guys built that out in that conceptual plan and how much work can be done to be able 02:58:24.160 --> 02:58:29.600 to move that road around I get the concerns but I don't know how much how much leeway 02:58:29.600 --> 02:58:34.400 we can give right now to be able to move that that road during the the conceptual plan inside 02:58:34.400 --> 02:58:45.680 the PD that could definitely be an option it the PD you reference they did rearrange 02:58:45.680 --> 02:58:49.400 the the street configuration and presented a second option to City Council that ultimately 02:58:49.400 --> 02:58:53.600 got approved I think that would be a little more significant impact on this development 02:58:53.600 --> 02:58:58.960 given the the hundred and twenty feet of width for that right of way during initial discussions 02:58:58.960 --> 02:59:04.200 we we did discuss with them some some other alignments that can find it within their property 02:59:04.200 --> 02:59:09.560 which is what they can the you know schematic line on the mobility plan originally showed 02:59:09.560 --> 02:59:14.040 but ultimately like Richard said this this worked out to be the most feasible option 02:59:14.040 --> 02:59:19.760 for that street that we could see through about a year and a half or so of working with 02:59:19.760 --> 02:59:24.480 them and our engineering staff but at this point you know I can definitely let Randy 02:59:24.480 --> 02:59:29.600 and her team address the impact that that would have on them the only thing I would 02:59:29.600 --> 02:59:34.160 add I think it's also important to note that well I don't believe they set the design speed 02:59:34.160 --> 02:59:40.920 for this road typically six lane arterials are at least 45 to 50 miles an hour and so 02:59:40.920 --> 02:59:48.080 those those curves for the road or those turns have to be within a certain within a certain 02:59:48.080 --> 02:59:54.080 geometry so I'm I'm not sure if that hard if a hard right or a hard bend to go north 02:59:54.080 --> 02:59:59.880 to go east of that well could be possible then to realign back up with with all red 02:59:59.880 --> 03:00:06.160 to that existing road but so there's there's also a number of other factors to look at 03:00:06.160 --> 03:00:11.960 yeah my concern is one we have an outstanding motion without a second I don't I want to 03:00:11.960 --> 03:00:20.960 make sure we wrap that up the two it does seem it most likely that the mobility plan 03:00:20.960 --> 03:00:27.040 is going to have that road go through that property if it cannot go over a well or and 03:00:27.040 --> 03:00:33.360 it can't go to the east and so even if we we don't approve this particular item that 03:00:33.360 --> 03:00:38.120 doesn't necessarily protect the homeowner because 100 coal come in that six lane arterial 03:00:38.120 --> 03:00:45.680 it's it's going to happen and so the the understanding that the feasibility and the engineers found 03:00:45.680 --> 03:00:52.120 it fit and I trust our city staff that it needs to go the direction they found it makes 03:00:52.120 --> 03:00:58.880 me inclined to to support this project because it's a sound project they've done years worth 03:00:58.880 --> 03:01:08.680 of work on it and and I don't I don't see that if the road going there is is a a foregone 03:01:08.680 --> 03:01:13.680 conclusion to to deny a project before I open for more discussion commissioner Smith you 03:01:13.680 --> 03:01:22.680 had the motion on the table is there a second for the motion I will second it so we have 03:01:22.680 --> 03:01:29.520 a first and a second for approval commissioner back thank you chair so I guess following 03:01:29.520 --> 03:01:36.720 directly on your comments I mean if we had Haley mentioned and Richard mentioned some 03:01:36.720 --> 03:01:42.520 some other plans and I'm not second guessing our engineers either I would like to see maybe 03:01:42.520 --> 03:01:48.040 what were the impacts of those so you can rank sort a series of plans and and say well 03:01:48.040 --> 03:01:53.360 we think this is the best one but if the top three are not that different in terms of impact 03:01:53.360 --> 03:01:59.160 then and three has I'm just making things up now hypothetically and number three moves 03:01:59.160 --> 03:02:06.480 to the east and costs plat developments in the property but saves the Dominguez property 03:02:06.480 --> 03:02:13.540 for the mobility plan I'd like to see those options before I personally would feel comfortable 03:02:13.540 --> 03:02:18.520 voting through and I'd also like to see you know more of the you know I agree with you 03:02:18.520 --> 03:02:24.560 that you don't want to build a road on top of a an engineered structure underground but 03:02:24.560 --> 03:02:29.160 at the same token I'd like to see some of the results of that before I felt comfortable 03:02:29.160 --> 03:02:34.300 saying yep we should definitely punch through the Dominguez property and make this happen 03:02:34.300 --> 03:02:39.160 I just don't feel comfortable doing either one of those thank you Richard did you have 03:02:39.160 --> 03:02:44.760 something to say yeah where I'm trying to we're trying to pull in pre tam Deshmukh our deputy 03:02:44.760 --> 03:02:49.200 director of engineering so he can provide some more insight with respect to the to the 03:02:49.200 --> 03:02:53.280 alignment if you'll just bear with me absolutely that would be worth the wait commissioner 03:02:53.280 --> 03:03:00.920 Ellis thank you chair do we have the applicant still here did she want to add anything to 03:03:00.920 --> 03:03:17.480 this discussion hello this is Doug Powell with McAdams I've I'm a planner is Randy Doug 03:03:17.480 --> 03:03:24.960 you there yes okay my name is that's why my name is Doug Powell I'm a planner but we have 03:03:24.960 --> 03:03:30.240 a background in transportation planning and Richards Wright what happens if you move the 03:03:30.240 --> 03:03:38.880 road to the east then you have to curve it back at the south so you have an s curve and 03:03:38.880 --> 03:03:46.200 because you can't bring that that roadway into the railroad crossing you have to have 03:03:46.200 --> 03:03:56.120 a straightaway so if you look at the map you can't get back up into the west two curves 03:03:56.120 --> 03:04:00.640 right now we've got a gentle curve and a and a kind of a sharper one off the property but 03:04:00.640 --> 03:04:08.600 you can't put two curves it'd be an s curve and I don't think it would work and especially 03:04:08.600 --> 03:04:16.920 given that it's there to carry traffic with the speeds Richard was was mentioning it just 03:04:16.920 --> 03:04:30.640 doesn't make make sense I appreciate you Doug weighing in on that I like I said I in my 03:04:30.640 --> 03:04:37.800 limited scope it seems like that's a that's a tough move it's not a lot of space there 03:04:37.800 --> 03:04:57.120 we are currently waiting to see if our engineers city engineer is able to speak just one moment 03:04:57.120 --> 03:05:00.640 sure would it help if we pulled the if we brought the PowerPoint presentation back up 03:05:00.640 --> 03:05:06.440 to show that alignment would that help with the discussion certainly I don't know who 03:05:06.440 --> 03:05:11.400 has it pulled up or or not I have it in front of me but yeah we can pull it up to have a 03:05:11.400 --> 03:05:39.080 shared screen so at least be great Richard can you confirm this conceptual plan shows 03:05:39.080 --> 03:05:44.000 the full hundred and twenty feet right away that's represented to scale of the right away 03:05:44.000 --> 03:05:55.120 needed for the road it does okay so if we were to conceptually try to bend that road 03:05:55.120 --> 03:06:16.960 we'd use that same kind of width correct okay sure Chris are back so looking at the layout 03:06:16.960 --> 03:06:23.600 that that Richard has on the screen is one of the concerns that they're trying to keep 03:06:23.600 --> 03:06:28.840 the central corridor and I understand that's a it's a fundamental feature of the development 03:06:28.840 --> 03:06:35.800 but if they're trying to keep the central north-south corridor no I don't think is 03:06:35.800 --> 03:06:39.880 that correct no I mean I think an s-curve would completely change their development 03:06:39.880 --> 03:06:45.800 I think the concern now is if given where all right is east to west and where brush 03:06:45.800 --> 03:06:51.920 creek comes in can you get a hundred and twenty foot right away with two different radiuses 03:06:51.920 --> 03:07:00.680 or radii at a 50 mile per hour speed on on the height or the depth rather of this property 03:07:00.680 --> 03:07:07.920 can can you have a a 90 and a 90 degree turn on a on a six lane arterial I don't think 03:07:07.920 --> 03:07:13.920 so it can 245 fit I think that's the question is regardless of their conception if I would 03:07:13.920 --> 03:07:17.960 imagine if all red becomes an s-curve through their property their entire conceptual plan 03:07:17.960 --> 03:07:23.680 needs to be started a hundred percent over we're just looking at the feasibility in general 03:07:23.680 --> 03:07:29.520 of being able to move future brush creek extension to cut through their property because I think 03:07:29.520 --> 03:07:35.440 the the the presentation from Haley suggests that based on the mobility plan the current 03:07:35.440 --> 03:07:54.320 location of the road is the only location for the road 03:07:54.320 --> 03:08:01.040 I believe pre-tem is available oh fantastic pre-tem if you can hear me and if you're unmuted 03:08:01.040 --> 03:08:11.800 I can you are you aware of the question being proposed or can I restate that to you I am 03:08:11.800 --> 03:08:18.000 this pre-tem deputy city engineer I'm I'm not sure if I heard your question completely 03:08:18.000 --> 03:08:25.840 I've just got into the last of it and I was muted I think I'm unmuted at this point you 03:08:25.840 --> 03:08:32.480 are the question I think that the that all the commissioners has is the rationale or 03:08:32.480 --> 03:08:41.320 the the logic behind putting the brush creek expansion or extension road where it currently 03:08:41.320 --> 03:08:48.520 is rather than trying to have brush creek and all red meet more to the east we're wanting 03:08:48.520 --> 03:08:56.600 to know if it's possible that the future brush creek extension be moved at all or if it is 03:08:56.600 --> 03:09:07.400 where it has to be typically I think I think typically when a site is designed there are 03:09:07.400 --> 03:09:15.240 places that you definitely look for an ideal location one of the features for this particular 03:09:15.240 --> 03:09:22.000 road was to extend and continue the trail system through the existing floodplain that 03:09:22.000 --> 03:09:29.080 was one of the consideration that was taken into account we have a continuous trail extending 03:09:29.080 --> 03:09:36.960 on the rest of the hickory creek alignment all the way it connects back into some of 03:09:36.960 --> 03:09:46.000 the existing trails along hickory creek near the elementary school back there I want to 03:09:46.000 --> 03:09:56.040 say that this design was based on the way the profile is the drainage plans and the 03:09:56.040 --> 03:10:05.040 grading as well as the slopes and everything associated with this typically what happens 03:10:05.040 --> 03:10:11.000 there are a couple things when we get into getting into the nitty-gritty of design and 03:10:11.000 --> 03:10:16.000 getting into the weeds of it it's slightly different than where you're conceptually planning 03:10:16.000 --> 03:10:23.600 stuff conceptually you can draw lines on mobility plans as well as some other plans but when 03:10:23.600 --> 03:10:33.240 you actually get into the design component you want it to be at a location where it couple 03:10:33.240 --> 03:10:38.400 things safety is important when you lay these roads out you have a community that split 03:10:38.400 --> 03:10:47.800 and a six lane arterial goes through the community crossings and having an access to trail system 03:10:47.800 --> 03:10:55.840 and all that becomes an issue can it be done can it be laid differently within the site 03:10:55.840 --> 03:11:05.680 absolutely I mean we can engineer everything there are issues with the back to back s curve 03:11:05.680 --> 03:11:14.520 that may be of concern you have a gas site on the north with the little red area between 03:11:14.520 --> 03:11:25.040 that and the 90 degree connection to go over the railroad and connected 377 that may be 03:11:25.040 --> 03:11:30.120 an issue typically that's another concern safety wise when you're traveling at those 03:11:30.120 --> 03:11:39.980 speeds you do not want curves in your layout so you'd rather lay roadway segments as much 03:11:39.980 --> 03:11:47.840 as you can plan them and lay them that they have minimal curves and extensions just in 03:11:47.840 --> 03:11:55.040 the future I mean it's basically planning you plan the best safety alternative so can 03:11:55.040 --> 03:12:01.720 we look into options going through back to back s curves ideally not recommended in this 03:12:01.720 --> 03:12:09.120 side because it's very close but can we engineer it we can safety wise not a better option 03:12:09.120 --> 03:12:18.760 than what's going to aid I hope that covers well I appreciate you hopping on and providing 03:12:18.760 --> 03:12:26.480 that context and let's see if any commissioners have any questions for you commissioner beck 03:12:26.480 --> 03:12:34.040 yeah so I'm there's some vagueness in the language and I and I appreciate that you're 03:12:34.040 --> 03:12:38.960 trying to provide options but I guess one of my questions is and it seems like some 03:12:38.960 --> 03:12:43.440 of the other commissioners have some of the same questions is is it something that can 03:12:43.440 --> 03:12:55.480 be done and meet code and therefore mitigate potential property issues on the west or is 03:12:55.480 --> 03:13:04.120 it you know something that that absolutely cannot be done by safety code yes it can be 03:13:04.120 --> 03:13:13.120 done we can engineer a different alignment it may be expensive it may be it may create 03:13:13.120 --> 03:13:20.400 issues related to safety that we have to mitigate at a later date and then as far as the way 03:13:20.400 --> 03:13:26.080 it goes and connects on the other side of the property at this point that connection 03:13:26.080 --> 03:13:33.500 and alignment is just in the plans we do not have any plans to extend or have this built 03:13:33.500 --> 03:13:41.680 anytime in the near future it is purely as properties come up as parcels develop we continue 03:13:41.680 --> 03:13:50.900 to make sure that we create an alignment that is least encroaching as well as we work with 03:13:50.900 --> 03:13:56.240 different parcels so yes engineering wise to answer your question we can definitely 03:13:56.240 --> 03:14:05.680 engineer it as far as safety and other concerns that will pop up as a result the new design 03:14:05.680 --> 03:14:11.200 we currently don't know we've not explored that option so and can I follow that up with 03:14:11.200 --> 03:14:16.000 can you you may not know the answer to that and that'd be perfectly fine but can you enlighten 03:14:16.000 --> 03:14:22.800 us as to the issues that we brought up earlier that you may not have heard of of can you 03:14:22.800 --> 03:14:35.400 retrofit a capped gas well to put a road open um engineering wise you can engineer anything 03:14:35.400 --> 03:14:43.080 it's the amount of money and the physics it's a benefit cost analysis that has to be run 03:14:43.080 --> 03:14:51.800 so what how much are we going to spend in order to have a roadway laid in safely and 03:14:51.800 --> 03:15:02.200 which is a public facility so yes we have to if we have to explore the option it may 03:15:02.200 --> 03:15:11.600 be that that might be an expensive alternative but it's something that is potentially feasible 03:15:11.600 --> 03:15:22.320 if if the source of money were to come into play it's not something that's forbidden or 03:15:22.320 --> 03:15:29.840 against rules or guidelines it's more of an yeah at this point I mean this is the last 03:15:29.840 --> 03:15:34.040 minute question but there are two materials I'm not really familiar with that particular 03:15:34.040 --> 03:15:40.560 site so I'm not sure if I can be specific and say yes this is a great thing or the yes 03:15:40.560 --> 03:15:48.160 I can do it we definitely have to get into the details of it I can't really answer that 03:15:48.160 --> 03:16:00.080 question a yes or no at this time okay thank you so any other questions for pre-tim or 03:16:00.080 --> 03:16:17.600 staff we do have a motion and a second but I want to make sure all discussion all right 03:16:17.600 --> 03:16:24.160 seeing no discussion I will call for oh Commissioner Ellis sorry about that thank you chair I believe 03:16:24.160 --> 03:16:31.960 Commissioner Cole had his hand up Commissioner Cole thank you yeah do we know if that what 03:16:31.960 --> 03:16:41.360 particular kind of well that is is that a horizontal or a vertical I am not entirely 03:16:41.360 --> 03:16:45.320 sure I believe it's old enough that it was most likely just a vertical well rather than 03:16:45.320 --> 03:16:56.600 a horizontal I can look into that more with the Railroad Commission Trisha Ellis thank 03:16:56.600 --> 03:17:00.720 you chair I guess just a couple of thoughts here I'm really struggling here because I 03:17:00.720 --> 03:17:08.680 really like this development but I don't like that we're being forced to we've got some 03:17:08.680 --> 03:17:13.760 things on the answer with what was brought up today with this future alignment so it's 03:17:13.760 --> 03:17:19.480 like if we vote on this project that's effectively saying we're going to align this road like 03:17:19.480 --> 03:17:27.280 that and pre-tim said there are possible other alternatives possible I just don't like throwing 03:17:27.280 --> 03:17:30.760 this property owner is like the sacrificial lamb for this development and that's what 03:17:30.760 --> 03:17:38.160 it feels like to me so that's where my struggle is I don't know if anybody would be up for 03:17:38.160 --> 03:17:42.800 postponing if the applicant would be up to postponing just to get a little bit more clarity 03:17:42.800 --> 03:17:50.080 on some of the things that were brought up today that was just share my thoughts thank 03:17:50.080 --> 03:17:57.040 you Mr. Ellis I think in response to those comments I I certainly without any lack of 03:17:57.040 --> 03:18:04.920 gravity to miss Dominguez and her family understand that impact but in the same vein we just approved 03:18:04.920 --> 03:18:12.760 a hundred foot cell tower in someone's backyard off University a lot of the decisions we have 03:18:12.760 --> 03:18:19.640 do isolate one individual and potentially put them at a disadvantage or or changes their 03:18:19.640 --> 03:18:25.880 enjoyment of their property for for me the brush Creek and all red represent a southern 03:18:25.880 --> 03:18:29.480 road for our city that's eventually going to connect east and west all the way over 03:18:29.480 --> 03:18:36.960 to Hickory Creek through coal ranch and hunter ranch and the idea of adding an s curve or 03:18:36.960 --> 03:18:43.200 45s to a 50 mile power road makes me think of 1830 right at Hickory Creek in between 03:18:43.200 --> 03:18:47.840 brush Creek now and just because we can engineer anything which I trust pretends to be able 03:18:47.840 --> 03:18:52.400 to engineer anything the the mobility impact the safety impact the bifurcation of a neighborhood 03:18:52.400 --> 03:18:58.520 the impact of trails put it right next to the brand new park I I believe that the road 03:18:58.520 --> 03:19:05.000 given all the information that I've been provided is in is in the correct place it's where that 03:19:05.000 --> 03:19:11.200 mobility is the best connector and it does appear that it doesn't imminently put miss 03:19:11.200 --> 03:19:18.040 Dominguez's family at at at any kind of disposition it's going to be years decades before that 03:19:18.040 --> 03:19:24.640 road even extends into the property which is a small concession I'll concede that but 03:19:24.640 --> 03:19:29.720 nevertheless it's it's not and within a year that her shop or her property is going to 03:19:29.720 --> 03:19:35.080 be impacted a lot of hands up I want to go I think I saw Commissioner Anderson first 03:19:35.080 --> 03:19:41.440 uh the staff know thank you chair first uh but does the staff know or is Mr Dominguez 03:19:41.440 --> 03:19:47.640 still on the phone how many acres we're looking at you know taking from the family because 03:19:47.640 --> 03:19:53.200 if they if they own 100 acres right there and we're only taking three that's not I don't 03:19:53.200 --> 03:19:57.880 see a big issue with that but if they own three uh five acres and we're taking two and 03:19:57.880 --> 03:20:02.440 a half I mean I could see a big impact there but I didn't know staff knew how many acres 03:20:02.440 --> 03:20:14.680 that we would be uh taken to build the road 03:20:14.680 --> 03:20:36.280 I'm going to just try to give a rough rough estimate if you let me just 03:20:36.280 --> 03:20:40.640 I mean I agree with chair this is it's going to be years down the road before we see a 03:20:40.640 --> 03:20:48.880 major impact but I just just percentages for me it's just you know if we're taking the 03:20:48.880 --> 03:20:52.560 majority of the property I'd you know I feel horrible but if we're only taking a small 03:20:52.560 --> 03:21:07.520 percentage or something to you know to do this um so I just did a just a quick uh calculation 03:21:07.520 --> 03:21:15.440 or or a polygon of a rectangle it's roughly 300 feet uh maybe Haley if you can pull that 03:21:15.440 --> 03:21:30.400 back up it'll at least give some context so from the corner of their the northeast corner 03:21:30.400 --> 03:21:40.120 of their property if you go over about 300 feet um which is uh approximately right where 03:21:40.120 --> 03:21:48.480 the road starts where it kind of tees in we're all red tees in and then down about 630 feet 03:21:48.480 --> 03:21:58.240 is about uh four and a quarter acres but do we know how much they own I mean I mean it's 03:21:58.240 --> 03:22:04.080 she had stated earlier I thought it was a 96 acres okay all right I thought that's what 03:22:04.080 --> 03:22:15.000 she said okay thanks rich uh the next hand I saw was Christa back so so one of the things 03:22:15.000 --> 03:22:24.160 that concerns me about this is um the development costs maybe should be explored by the developers 03:22:24.160 --> 03:22:34.120 um but also I'm concerned by um have we so two questions have we explored a potential 03:22:34.120 --> 03:22:40.520 pathway through the other surrounding properties um to commissioner Ellis's or Anderson's 03:22:40.520 --> 03:22:49.560 uh point um if we take less of a of a piece of the Dominguez property and and and explore 03:22:49.560 --> 03:22:55.960 the properties to the north a little bit uh you know sacrifice a corner of the park whatever 03:22:55.960 --> 03:23:03.200 then you have a potential uh uh shared impact as it were from from moving the potential 03:23:03.200 --> 03:23:09.080 road around um the other thing that that so I'll bring them both up because I think they're 03:23:09.080 --> 03:23:13.960 related the other question I have is related to chair's comment and that is um we're talking 03:23:13.960 --> 03:23:17.400 about splitting a neighborhood we're talking about splitting a neighborhood if you want 03:23:17.400 --> 03:23:22.320 to develop homes on both sides of the neighborhood if you say that I want to expand the trail 03:23:22.320 --> 03:23:28.220 and park system to the southwest by moving the road to the east and have instead of whatever 03:23:28.220 --> 03:23:37.220 150 homes I am going to have 120 homes uh then again that's that's a cost born as risk 03:23:37.220 --> 03:23:41.680 and risk abatement by the developers uh not by the city and not by the surrounding property 03:23:41.680 --> 03:23:51.800 owners so I guess the first question is have we explored the potential for uh other roots 03:23:51.800 --> 03:23:57.520 and other pieces of property 03:23:57.520 --> 03:24:00.640 commissioner Ellis I wanted to circle back to you real fast one commissioner was that 03:24:00.640 --> 03:24:06.480 a question or is that a kind of the question is staff okay I'll let them answer yeah and 03:24:06.480 --> 03:24:10.280 I don't know if pre-temp still on the call but I think that that was part of that analysis 03:24:10.280 --> 03:24:15.400 they did when they looked at four or five different alignments but again a lot of that 03:24:15.400 --> 03:24:21.860 ties to that crossing and aligning it with brush creek okay thank you I can I can jump 03:24:21.860 --> 03:24:29.240 in I have a quick couple sentences we looked at we started with actually during the feasibility 03:24:29.240 --> 03:24:35.580 study it's very preliminary planning level we started with close to 13 alternatives and 03:24:35.580 --> 03:24:49.560 we dwindled down on different levels for feasibility primarily focusing on the terrain the constraints 03:24:49.560 --> 03:24:56.600 floodplain was one of the main one and the constraints and then also looked at the most 03:24:56.600 --> 03:25:01.840 direct route if you have a circuitous route that goes different angles and goes further 03:25:01.840 --> 03:25:09.240 away and swings away people are most likely not going to use that so in order to have 03:25:09.240 --> 03:25:15.840 something that is an arterial level six lane divided you need to have a most direct route 03:25:15.840 --> 03:25:24.280 and I think we out of all those alternatives this was one of the alignment that was pretty 03:25:24.280 --> 03:25:36.400 much distilled down to thank you commissioner Alice I want to follow back up with you I 03:25:36.400 --> 03:25:41.280 don't know if your hand is up or not you had mentioned about looking to postpone were you 03:25:41.280 --> 03:25:45.080 interested in making a subsidiary motion or were you just kind of thrown it out seeing 03:25:45.080 --> 03:25:52.360 if someone else was doing I just wanted to respect that comment well I was trying I was 03:25:52.360 --> 03:26:00.520 trying to get possibly thoughts from the applicant on that and other commissioners thoughts but 03:26:00.520 --> 03:26:07.440 I mean the issue is is I'm not an engineer but good points have been brought up tonight 03:26:07.440 --> 03:26:16.840 that we can't get answered tonight I don't understand deciding to necessarily line a 03:26:16.840 --> 03:26:24.340 road right through a developed piece of someone's property when we had vacant land I understand 03:26:24.340 --> 03:26:29.560 we're discussing a project on it now but we did have vacant land and it just seems odd 03:26:29.560 --> 03:26:36.440 that we didn't and again I haven't seen the study that we didn't that wasn't part of our 03:26:36.440 --> 03:26:40.960 backup or anything here it's just good points have been brought brought up that we can't 03:26:40.960 --> 03:26:49.520 get answered and so I'm I would have a really hard time supporting this without getting 03:26:49.520 --> 03:27:01.000 some of that answered so I guess at this point I will make a motion to postpone to the next 03:27:01.000 --> 03:27:05.320 I'm not sure when our next PNZ meeting is in the world we're living in but to the next 03:27:05.320 --> 03:27:15.260 PNZ meeting we have a motion to postpone to a date certain of next PNZ meeting I will 03:27:15.260 --> 03:27:24.480 let Richard pop quiz tell us that date Mr. Cole I saw your hand yeah second that okay 03:27:24.480 --> 03:27:29.480 the next the sorry the next meeting would be May 20th I just want to make sure we have 03:27:29.480 --> 03:27:37.960 enough time to look at what what we're being asked to look at that gives us about a one 03:27:37.960 --> 03:27:44.960 week to turn it or to turn everything around and specifically Commissioner Ellis and other 03:27:44.960 --> 03:27:49.720 commissioners is the main request to maybe look at those 13 different alternatives that 03:27:49.720 --> 03:27:54.320 engineering came up with and understand the rationale it seems like that would be probably 03:27:54.320 --> 03:27:59.560 the most helpful thing to review it would be very helpful to I would like that too yeah 03:27:59.560 --> 03:28:05.440 to understand why I mean the structure is on the property and why I would love to see 03:28:05.440 --> 03:28:12.520 why that was the best idea was to go through someone's developed piece of property Richard 03:28:12.520 --> 03:28:17.480 can we go date uncertain and then just be followed back up with when the applicant and 03:28:17.480 --> 03:28:30.520 city can choreograph a meeting 03:28:30.520 --> 03:28:37.440 I think we can have it back by next by the next meeting on the 20th I love the confidence 03:28:37.440 --> 03:28:43.460 so we have just to have a great staff just to clarify Christian Ellis are you okay with 03:28:43.460 --> 03:28:51.400 the date certain of May 20th I am and Commissioner Cole do you second a date certain of May 20th 03:28:51.400 --> 03:28:58.040 yes this is a superseding motion to the motion on the table so we will have this vote first 03:28:58.040 --> 03:29:06.500 is there any discussion on the motion seeing none I'll call for a vote to postpone this 03:29:06.500 --> 03:29:14.560 item to a date certain of May 20th be a roll call Christian Ellis I Christian Cole I Christian 03:29:14.560 --> 03:29:25.720 Beck I Christian Anderson I Christian Pernetta I Christian Smith I chair votes in favor motion 03:29:25.720 --> 03:29:34.120 carries seven zero looking forward to have this back the next item on our agenda for 03:29:34.120 --> 03:29:39.640 business is item five the planning and zoning Commission project matrix I will turn this 03:29:39.640 --> 03:29:46.440 over to Richard for any updates and then discussion I don't have really any updates at this point 03:29:46.440 --> 03:29:53.000 on on the matrix I matrix items just wanted to give a quick update I know we've had it's 03:29:53.000 --> 03:29:58.600 almost been a month I think since we since we met although we haven't been accepting 03:29:58.600 --> 03:30:07.400 applications that has now changed where starting today really council lifted that that that 03:30:07.400 --> 03:30:13.000 part of the order on Tuesday and with good news we had about nine new submittals came 03:30:13.000 --> 03:30:18.680 in today so as soon as that was lifted yesterday we had nine new submittals come in and the 03:30:18.680 --> 03:30:25.960 day before we had ten resubmittals and so with that PNC will continue meeting twice 03:30:25.960 --> 03:30:33.140 a month so I think that's at least good news in seeing that people are still looking at 03:30:33.140 --> 03:30:39.280 finishing projects and and moving forward with projects that they had in the hopper 03:30:39.280 --> 03:30:44.840 council did approve last night the rezoning at I-35 for the offices if you recall just 03:30:44.840 --> 03:30:52.040 south of Windsor that was the rezoning with the conditions so that was approved unanimously 03:30:52.040 --> 03:30:58.040 in addition we while it didn't come in front of PNZ council approved an interim mud or 03:30:58.040 --> 03:31:03.880 or Paul municipal utility district policy what I will do is I will make sure everybody 03:31:03.880 --> 03:31:09.920 has both the materials that were provided for the work session on the 30th and then 03:31:09.920 --> 03:31:17.680 what was approved last night and if so wish if anybody desires or wish wishes I'd be happy 03:31:17.680 --> 03:31:23.280 at least to give a brief overview at at one of the next work sessions just what that means 03:31:23.280 --> 03:31:29.800 and and what it is but we are seeing quite a number of these municipal utility districts 03:31:29.800 --> 03:31:40.280 spring up in our ETJ thanks Richard Kushner back yeah Richard can I follow up on that 03:31:40.280 --> 03:31:48.480 so with the with the application starting today coupled with the small number that trickled 03:31:48.480 --> 03:31:54.720 through on the previous pipeline when are we I mean we're basically going to start meeting 03:31:54.720 --> 03:32:00.120 normal schedule is that what you're saying correct we'll go back to our normal schedule 03:32:00.120 --> 03:32:06.640 so the next meeting will be the 20th and then it'll continue the twice a month for the time 03:32:06.640 --> 03:32:12.800 being I don't know when we'll be meeting in person anytime soon but I do know that we'll 03:32:12.800 --> 03:32:24.640 be proceeding like we are today thank you hey Richard I was talking to Jim strange and 03:32:24.640 --> 03:32:31.680 he said that his project on Ryan Road was retroactively approved I had never heard even 03:32:31.680 --> 03:32:37.640 of that term can you help me out he said he he had a date that it was going to be approved 03:32:37.640 --> 03:32:41.140 then he got a letter saying that had been approved I'm assuming that's shot clock related 03:32:41.140 --> 03:32:47.280 but I'd love to know the mechanism of how his project was retroactively approved that's 03:32:47.280 --> 03:32:53.600 the one off Ryan that Ryan road that Tim yeah and it might be the the the wrong you might 03:32:53.600 --> 03:32:59.960 be using the wrong the wrong terminology there was a as part of the council meeting there 03:32:59.960 --> 03:33:08.320 was an exhibit that was modified as part of that discussion with the community that exhibit 03:33:08.320 --> 03:33:15.040 wasn't correctly updated and so what happened was the although while the ordinance was passed 03:33:15.040 --> 03:33:25.840 it came back I want to say two weeks later if I'm oh I'm sorry I'm I was thinking with 03:33:25.840 --> 03:33:34.680 the number it was the plat because the meeting was cancelled so under the shot clock it automatically 03:33:34.680 --> 03:33:39.280 got approved automatically got approved that's what I assumed and but when Jim was not aware 03:33:39.280 --> 03:33:43.480 of the shot clock he would notice the speed on that so I was I think it was shot clock 03:33:43.480 --> 03:33:46.800 he's like I don't I don't know what it was and I was like well I'm now confused and so 03:33:46.800 --> 03:33:51.280 as did I and we had I hadn't seen any personally shot clock issues where this automatic approval 03:33:51.280 --> 03:33:57.920 happens so thanks for that clarification that's what I imagined happened any other items for 03:33:57.920 --> 03:34:06.680 Richard or staff do you put on the matrix upcoming well that's fantastic guys thanks 03:34:06.680 --> 03:34:11.640 for a great meeting this evening I think they'll only get smoother from here at nine ten I 03:34:11.640 --> 03:34:13.600 will close the meeting y'all be safe