Jul 22, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-07-22 5:00 PM

>> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning commission work session for Wednesday, July 22, 2020. Seeing that we do have a quorum, I will call the meeting to order at 5 o'clock. Please let the record show that Commissioner Pernetta is absent. The first item we have for tonight is a work session report by Julie Wyatt, and then we'll hop into our agenda for this evening. But I will turn the floor over off the top to Julie Wyatt. >> Good evening. Let me pull up my presentation. All right. So tonight we're going to be going through planning boot camp and talking about platting. So briefly we're going to have some background information about platting, some platting fundamentals, how we plat in Denton, the parts of a plat, and then we'll finish it up with the shot clock. So just at a most basic level, what is a plat? It's a map. It defines the subdivision boundaries. >> Julie, can you share your presentation? I think it's sharing your file folder. >> Oh, hold on, let me -- let me try this again. >> Which -- all right, now let me -- is that right? Did that work? >> That's perfect. Thank you. >> All right. Okay. I'm going to get zoomed down any time now. All right. So we are going over platting and planning boot camp tonight. And so what is a plat? It is a map of a subdivision, addition, or development. It is recorded with the county after it's approved by the city. It defines the lot boundaries, it dedicates right of way, and it also ensures adequate public facilities by things like easements that are dedicated to those facilities. Our city of Denton outlines our planning processes in DDC, section 2.6, and subchapter 8. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> No, he just muted. I was having problems hearing Julie sometimes because Ron was cutting in and out. >> Okay. Perfect. Thanks. >> All right. So why do we plat? >> So we have an image here of a very nice little house on a nice little hill. But before a property owner could build that house, they would need to get building permits. And as part of that development process, we would look at some things. First of all, does that house -- is that the kind of use we want there? Does it meet zoning? Is the property size -- does it fit within that zoning designation? How does the owner get there? Would roads need to be built? Are access easements needed? How do they take a shower or flush the toilet? What kind of water and sewer are they going to tie into the city? Are they going to have septic and well? And then when they go to sell it, how is that going to be sold easily? How are those property boundaries going to be defined? So all of those questions are answered through that platting process. The Texas APA has a great little booklet about platting fundamentals, and we're going to talk about some of those elements in it. So first of all, Chapter 212 of the Texas Local Government Code gives the city of Denton the authority to plat. So it says that the plat is to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the municipality and for safe, orderly, and healthful development. They are to ensure that a development will have adequate infrastructure and that they result in a buildable lot. That Chapter 212 also allows municipalities like Denton to adopt a subdivision ordinance. And that's our Denton Development Code has our subdivision ordinance. It can include definitions of the plat, how our platting process would go within the city, content required, and then those requirements for those public facilities, including things like design standards. Cities like Denton typically require a plat to obtain a building permit. So it really is a necessary step in the development process. There are different types of plats, a preliminary plat. It is not required in the Texas Local Government Code. It's not even really specifically discussed in it. But it really is a great tool that communities and developers can use to get preliminary approvals prior to those final plats. You probably are used to us saying on a preliminary plat, "Well, this is the preliminary plat." And those questions that you have would be answered with that final design, with the final plat. And that really speaks to what a preliminary plat is. It's maybe more than a feasibility study, but it is sort of that preliminary step. The final design associated with engineering, with things like waterline design, roadway design, or drainage can be very expensive. So that preliminary plat is really kind of that first step, that first bite of the apple. After that, it happens within the city or within other cities. You then go to that final plat stage. In Denton, we have an intervening step, which are those civil engineering plans, and that's where they do those final designs. The things like drainage, water and sewer extensions, roadways. Those are all reviewed between the preliminary plat and final plat within the City of Denton. So that final plat really is the last step in that portion of the design process. It's used for kind of more complicated developments, final plats. And what it does is it's that final document that's recorded of record. It creates that lot of record. A minor plat is a type of final plat, but it's administratively approved. It's a less complicated plat. It doesn't have to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission unless it does have to go for denial. And it typically involves four or fewer lots. It has to find an existing street, and there can't be any extensions of municipal facilities associated with that. A replat is another type of plat. It's really just a change in a previously approved plat. So if somebody wanted to change or subdivide the property into additional lots, that would be that replat. Residential replats, as you know, do require public notification, so they're a little different. And then a development plat is not something we see very often, but it is a plat that's permitted not only in the Texas Local Government Code, but also the Denton Development Code. And it's more akin to a site plan in that it doesn't just show the property boundaries. It actually depicts the existing and proposed buildings and any of those public improvements. It is not required to be filed with the county, but can be just filed with the city. And development plat, the only instances that I have seen them used in Denton thus far would be for the Gaswell Platts. Texas Local Government Code 212 also discusses standards for approval. So it states that a municipal authority responsible for approving plat must approve it if it conforms to the general plan and current and future streets, alleys, parks, playgrounds, and public facilities. It conforms to the general plan for the extension of facilities and any other rules adopted by a municipality after a public hearing. So essentially, if all state statues and city ordinances and requirements are met, the city doesn't have discretion and is obligated to approve the plat. We'll zoom in a little closer to what we have in Denton. The city of Denton does have platting authority in the ETJ. We have two divisions of ETJ. We have ETJ 1, which is the area in blue. It is adjacent to the city, the city boundaries. And then we have division 1, which is the blue, and then division 2, which is further out. Our zoning regulations do not extend to the ETJ. So we don't have any land use authority within that ETJ. There are limited exceptions to platting in subchapter 8 of the Denton Development Code. We have a list of them, but generally they are if someone is subdividing property where the lots that would be resulting are greater than 5 acres, if the applicant can prove a lot of record, and a lot of record is a lot that has been in the same configuration since January 1 of 1960, agricultural uses are not required to plat. And additions or alterations to existing structures aren't allowed to plat in those instances where they don't have to extend any public facilities. And all lots that are created through that subdivision process have to be developable, and they have to conform to the minimum zoning, development, and floodplain standards within the DDC. We'll go a little more detail about platting in Denton. So I won't read all of this, but these are the sections of the code that we refer to when we're reviewing plats in terms of the process and the criteria for approval. So a preliminary plat is defined as the overall conceptual plan for a subdivision. So the lots, the roads, the driveways, utilities, and drainage. So there's where you get that conceptual that it's not quite the final design yet for the preliminary plat. The lots must meet the minimum dimensions and demonstrate the adequate access and infrastructure will be provided. Section 2.6.3 in the Denton Development Code outlines the processes and the criteria for approval for a preliminary plat. Staff reviews those for compliance with the regulations for not only the DDC, but also the criteria manuals. A public hearing is not required, but of course it is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public meeting. The next type of plat within specifically the City of Denton is the final plat. It has to ensure once again that it complies with all of the standards. And once it's approved and recorded, it creates a legal lot of record. Staff once again reviews it for compliance with the regulations. Public hearing not required, but approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required. And once again, there are criteria for approval. It needs to conform to the, generally conform to the preliminary plat and requirements of the Denton Development Code. A replat, a modification of that existing platted lot, boundaries, easements, or number of lots. Within there, there are administratively approved plats and I will talk about those a little more in depth in a future slide. Staff reviews for compliance again with those regulations. And a public hearing is required only where a variance is sought for those residential replats. It is approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, typically. But here's where we get into those administratively approved plat. So the Denton Development Code has three administratively approved plats. First we have that minor plat, that's where it's four or fewer lots, and no extension of public improvements. We have an amending plat, which can allow us to address minor plat errors or minor adjustments to boundaries. And then there's a conveyance plat. A conveyance plat is used to subdivide land, but it does not allow a property owner to develop. So, for instance, if someone has a hundred acre tract and they want to sell off 20 of those acres, a conveyance plat is kind of a good tool to subdivide that property where they don't have to do all of the infrastructure designs, maybe they don't know what they want to develop yet. They can't go out and pull a building permit after they've had that conveyance plat approved, but they can at least sell that property that's subdivided lot legally. It is important to know on any administratively approved plat, staff is not permitted to deny them per the Denton Development Code. So if it does not meet the standards within the DDC or the criteria manuals, it would have to go to that public hearing, to the city planning and zoning commission. And finally, we have the development plat. Once again, that's that sort of plat site plan hybrid where it allows us to kind of look and see what someone is proposing to do. They don't as of yet have not been used frequently within the city of Denton. It only requires review and approval by staff and no action by the planning and zoning commission. And as part of that, we have the gas well development plat. Both of those are the standards are in section 2.6.5 and 2.6.6. The gas well development plat, they include those existing and proposed private and public improvements and that would be those gas well development sites and those access to them. Neither of these are recorded of record. So we just want to talk about the parts of a plat. I know y'all are really familiar with them, so we won't spend too much time on it, but I just wanted to kind of call out the parts of the plat that we look at. So first of all, it needs to have a vicinity map to show kind of where that property is situated within the within the city, a north arrow and a scale. We want those elements on it. There are also plat notes. They may refer to engineering items. They may refer to I know you see a lot of them in terms of common area lots and who maintains those. So there's a variety of plat notes associated with any given plat. There's an approval block. So who approves it? If it's administratively approved that the planning the director of development services would sign it or his designee or if if it was approved by the planning and zoning commission, the chair would sign that plat. There's a legend that outlines what any symbols on the plat are used, you know, we want to make sure those are clearly defined. There's a title block that has the subdivision name. There may be previous plots if there is a if it's a replat, so it would need to reference those previous plots, the size of the tract, the that survey that it's within and the jurisdiction. There's also there's also the meets and bounds legal description. And what that plat is doing is taking this very largely meets and bounds legal description and assigning a lot in block to that area. So so that's an important part of that plat because that allows us to define where on the earth that plat is. And then there's a dedication and owner signature. And finally, we'll talk about the shot clock. So as of September 1st of 2019, municipalities now have 30 days to act upon a plat or construction plan. So once they are submitted, that starts the clock. We have to either approve or deny. This law has changed Denton in several ways. And we can just talk through those. So first of all, it required us to transition to some specific submittal dates to coincide with the P&Z dates. So prior to the shot clock, we allowed submittal on any day of the week. Now we really have to limit those to specific Tuesdays, so that so that those align with our planning and zoning dates, because what we don't want to have happen is someone submit a plat and then it to go past those 30 days. So that's a really important part of that. It does require more upfront work from the development community. We have to look at traffic, ESA assessments, FEMA map revisions, all of those prior to that plat because we they can't submit a plat and then have it kind of sit there while they're finishing up that that that work. It really does have to once it's submitted, it has to keep going. It has also eliminated concurrent submittals for plat related applications. Prior to September one of last year, we allowed applicants to submit a preliminary and final plat concurrently to try to find efficiencies in the process. Unfortunately, now because because we have these very specific dates of when we have to approve them, we can no longer allow them to sort of bunch up those those submittals. It's reduced time for reviews and submittals. So we've kind of made a commitment as a staff to to try to get plats to an approvable state within within those prescribed times. It's not always possible. We do have some where they ask for additional time, but but we really try to get them through that. So so what we do is we've we've really reduced our review cycles and times to allow applicants at least two reviews within that 30 days to try to work through any any issues to try to get it to to an approvable state. But the applicant can request additional time and I know I know I think you've got a couple of these on the agenda tonight where if they haven't quite addressed all of the comments, they can ask for a 30 day extension. You're you're probably familiar with these are becoming more frequent now, just especially on these complicated plots. And it's it's created a change to a staff report. So originally, our staff reports were just kind of a one sheet document that said, okay, here's what this is. And it's met all the criteria because we had more time to work through any issues. Now we've we've got an exhibit to those plots, plot reports, because if a plot is denied, we have to include three things and this is per the Texas Local Government Code. Any denial of the plot has to be directly related to our requirements. It has to include citations to the law. So we have to when we're writing our staff reports be very specific about any deficiencies on that plot. And it can't be arbitrary. It has to be related to to a rule of regulation we have within the city. And then those conditional approvals are conditional approvals and denials are treated similarly and I know this came up at our last meeting that the applicant has to provide a response and the Planning and Zoning Commission has to act on that response within 15 days of receipt. So so, you know, approval and denial really are pretty similar in how they're treated after the fact. So that concludes my presentation. I'll answer any questions and then Richard and Cynthia may may jump in if you've got any any questions that I can't answer. Any questions for Julie? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. And thanks, Julie, for this presentation. So when you stated earlier on one of your slides where it said the city cannot disprove or, I guess, how did how did it read the city has no discretion and is not is obligated to approve if it fits all the criteria. So when you say the city, does that mean this body, the the the those who are authorized by the code to approve it. So if if it's if it's something that has to go to the Planning and Zoning Commission, it would be this body if it is if it's an administratively approved plat, it would be the Director of Development Service or his or her designee. And I don't know if Richard or Cynthia want to jump in on that. Sure, Commissioner Ellis, how the statute is written is that the approving authority approves the plat and it depends on how your your your subdivision ordinance is written. As Julie pointed out, some of the plats are administratively approved. And then there are plats that are approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So when she says city, she means whoever the City Council delegates that authority to. OK. And I understand that. And I guess where I was going with that question is if all if staff is recommending approval because it does meet all of the points, then we really are obligated to vote for approval with the way that it is written, correct? Correct. Yeah. Under under the Texas local government code, we're we're you know, if it meets all criteria and the DDC meets all of our plans, transportation plans and utilities plans, we we must approve the plat. OK. And so if somebody in this body was going to vote no, then it would have they'd have to cite the reason, maybe something that staff didn't see that doesn't conform. Something correct. That's a good point. And Julie did point out if they're if we're going to if the approving body decides to deny a plat, they do have to identify a specific code provision as for the reason to deny the plat. So we have to identify that in in the code or also the in the development code or in the local government code, a specific provision that it's not complying with. OK. Thanks. Sorry. That was kind of wordy. But Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So Cynthia, following up from that comment, but that's that's anything in our Denton development code, not necessarily materials that were presented in work session or hearing. Is that correct? In terms of grounds for approval or denial. So your question is whether you can identify anything in the development code as a reason to deny a plat. Any applicable. I think I would agree that that's that that's a reasonable summary of what I said. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Cole, thank you, Chair. What recourse would an applicant have if they feel that, you know, that was the case, that it wasn't something in the development code or what would they what's their recourse? Commissioner Cole, there is a there is an appeal process built into the development code for a plat that's denied, they can appeal it to the city council. I believe that's in table two dash two. Julie or Richard, if you can confirm that that is correct. Any other questions on this item? The only thing I have is maybe to be more explicit than what maybe Commissioner Ellis was getting at. I'm not sure. This is on me. Are commissioners allowed to vote no without citing a reason? Is there any I mean, is that up to our commission and council to determine or is it just if someone votes no without a reason, they can still go on record with a no might be a minority vote, but it seems possible if we allow a minority vote to be placed in opposition without a citation, it is possible that that could move to the majority. And then that would be it sounds illegal. But can you help me out with with if someone has on this commission just a moral principle against development, but has no ability to cite a rule, is that is that vote still viable? Do we accept that vote? Can you tell me? I mean, it sounds like you can vote your conscience on this without any recourse, but I'm conflicted there of what a commissioner authority is on just voting conscience on this type of vote. Sure, sure, Mr. Chair, the the commission is acting as a body as a whole. So it would be the majority of the commission that would make the decision. So I understood that correctly. If we were to vote a denial as a majority, there must be a citation. And if there's not, is that vote void? No, we'd you'd have to identify specific provisions of either the debt and development code or the local government code to deny the plat. And that would be something that would be asked of you when you're making your motion, whoever makes the motion to deny. Okay, I was about to I was about to say we need to offline as a chair, do I recognize a denial motion with without a citation? But it sounds I don't even know if this will ever happen. But I appreciate your insight into that process. You're sort of compelled, I think, by by virtue of the 212. To vote in affirmation if it meets all standards. Or Yeah, or if you're going to deny to do that with a finding, I don't think they give you the the option of just to deny to deny it has to be denied with reasons. Okay. I appreciate that clarification. Christian Anderson. Isn't that something that the staff would probably catch before it ever got to us? You know, I mean, if there was a flagrant violation or something that the staff would probably catch that before it ever cut to us, correct? That's correct. I mean, we would provide we would provide that recommendation, whether, you know, approve based upon it that it beats all of the conditions, or like some of the items tonight where we're recommending denial because it doesn't meet the variety of standards. In this case, they're asking for an extension. But if you were to go against staff's recommendation and want to approve it, there would need to be you would need to make those findings as to how they're meeting those code provisions. So, so for instance, tonight, say we had one tonight that the staff was recommending denial, we would ask commissioners, we wouldn't have to give a reason why we would make the motion to approve the denial, because staff has already recommended it correct, it would just be with staff based upon staff's recommendation. Awesome. Thank you very much. Thank you. Christian back. So so Commissioner Anderson is confused me with the double negatives. And I just would like some clarification. You we can vote approval without any. So if staff is recommending denial, but we want to approve, we can do that without citing anything. But I mean, it's you see my quandary is I'm trying to understand when when do you need to cite specific guidelines? Is it I mean, because we do have these occasions where there is a sort of, you know, a vote to approve is a negative kind of double negative situation. So can can someone clarify under what circumstances you must cite regulations for? Is it just if the application is denied? It sounds to me if I could hop in real fast, Cynthia, that if our body moves against the recommendation of the city, we need to have concrete evidence of why we're doing that. So if the city recommends approval, a vote against we would need to cite where it doesn't meet the ordinance. If the city is recommending denial, and we would like to approve, we would have to show where they're meeting those items, the city is deemed efficient. Good summary. OK, so so then just one one clarification is for my own brain cells. And that is, it's essentially if we are reversing the recommendation of city staff, is that correct? Correct. OK, thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. OK, so Cynthia, this is probably your question to go back with what Chair was saying. So if an individual is going to vote, no, they don't have to cite any reasons for that. If the body as a whole is approving, so I'm just trying to get clarification on that. Sure. When I say the body as a whole makes the decision, that's how the development code is written, unless it's an administrative plat, then the director would make the decision. So if you make a motion to approve, and then there's a second to that motion, and there's a vote, and two of the commissioners don't vote in favor, it's not that they have to specifically articulate their reasons for voting against it. They could, but the vote would still pass, the plat would still be approved if there's a majority vote. So they do not have to cite reasons. You know what, I think it's a good practice for them to articulate why there's voting against something, and it's up to the Chair. Well, because it kind of goes against what we discussed earlier about the body who is approving or denying needs to cite the reason. So that's my confusion. I mean, I asked for this work session because we had an instance where we only had five of us, and I was chairing it, and two commissioners voted no on a plat that met all of the criteria and should have been approved, and it was denied because we didn't have four votes, even though it was a 3-2. So I'm trying not to run into that situation, or I'm trying to get clarity on how to... Cynthia, if I could jump in, in that situation, if the vote fails, wouldn't the Chair in that situation clarify the opposition to articulate the opposition, and if found none, wouldn't the Chair compel the votes for approval? That's kind of what I would think. If staff recommends approval, the vote for approval does not pass. I would think the appropriate next steps is for an articulation of the opposition at that point. I don't remember... Richard, do you remember, or Planning Director Canone, do you remember maybe Commissioner Ellis does, too? Yeah, I mean, it was a vote to approve the plat. That's what we were voting on, and it was a 3-2 vote, three in favor, two not in favor. Correct. Because we only had five members here, and there's seven members of the board, so we didn't have the four votes. That's why it failed. Yes. Oh, I know why it failed. Yeah. I know very well. Right. So, Mr. Chair, you're asking for the two members who voted against that motion, if they should have articulated their reasons why they voted against that motion? Well, I'm just wondering if we are compelled/obligated to approve a plat if it meets all conditions and the vote fails, then it should be appropriate that the opposition to that vote must articulate where the actual opposition is in order to influence the vote to a denial. This is a good discussion, I think. Yeah. This was a very unique situation that happened, and I see your point, and as Chair, you could certainly ask that question of all the commissioners. You're running the meeting? Well, it is a unique situation, but to Commissioner Ellis's point, I can foresee, even with all seven members being there, four vote against and not pass, but the authority to approve the plat falls on our commission, which means it seems to me there needs to be a re-vote immediately after in order to either approve rightfully or articulate the reasons in which a denial is required. Kushala. Thank you, Chair. But the issue was, this particular situation, you couldn't re-vote on it because you already took a vote, and it was a 3-2. You need four votes for it to move forward in that, in a five-person body, I believe. And so, I mean, the Chair couldn't say, "Well, let's vote again," because we were supposed to approve that, you know, even because the motion was to approve. Yeah. That's a good point. Richard. Yeah. If I can make a suggestion, I think we have the ability to create policies for the commission and maybe this is one that we probably definitely need to create sooner than later. And if it is the Board's desire, we can try to draft something for the next meeting that, in those instances, if you are going to -- again, this would have to be something that the commission would all have to agree to, or if you are going to make a motion to deny, whether -- if staff's recommending approval or vice versa, or be a member voting against it to provide for those reasons or provide for those findings. I think if we carry that policy forward, I think it's just a good practice that it's always going to be done in those instances if there is a decision to go against where staff is recommending in this instance for these plots because of what we're stuck with with this bill. But I'll leave that to the commission's desire. I just don't know how policy would work in practice if someone didn't announce their voting opposition, vote in opposition, the vote goes through, then we go back and say, hey, you voted in opposition, you need to, for the record, state why. It's hard to require someone to voice their detailed opinion prior to the vote, in my opinion. But if you want to craft language -- Yeah, I was just trying to get us somewhere. No, I agree. Productivity is desired. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Well, I mean, my reason really for calling this work session was to be able to at least maybe have the legal department look on it as a situation that we were in doesn't happen. So I think it at least needs to be looked at to see if policy needs to be set. You know, that would be my opinion. Mr. Chair. Yes. Another point, I think it would have been helpful for the commission to know that evening when we only had five commissioners here, what vote we needed to approve the plats. That was a unique situation. Yeah. Commissioner Beck. Chair. Commissioner Ellis did a very good job that night describing the demographics of that vote, describing it as a five-member and the ramification. So I don't think that it was unclear to circumstance. The question of legal and this discussion is, as a whole, is there are times when our commission, any given commissioner doesn't have the DDC memorized as to chapter, sub-chapter sub-chapter, but in general is familiar with the guidelines and states reasons that they're in agreement, disagreement, whatever, whichever way the vector goes. But you know, that may not be compelling to other commissioners. That does not necessarily imply that those reasons are worthy of chair overturning or requesting a re-vote. You can disagree with any given commissioner, but I'm not, I think we're, while we do, I agree with Richard that we need some, some policies to be clear. I think we're on, we're on dangerous territory where we're talking about overturning a commissioner's vote or forcing a re-vote to get the vote that is desired by the majority. I think that's very dangerous territory. Yeah, and I'm sorry, my, my intent really was just to kind of follow the statute. So if you have to deny it for reasons, if you're going to vote to deny, deny it with reasons again, it was just kind of carrying that through nothing more, nothing less. Thank you. And Mr. Chair, with regard to the re-vote, once the, as commissioner Ellis said, once the, the commission's already voted, they've lost jurisdiction over the matter and it's on to the next body. Commissioner Cole and Anderson, do you still have Commissioner Cole? Yeah, this is exactly what I was thinking, thinking about when I talked about recourse. So that 3-2, it's denial, but it goes to council. It has to be a supermajority, right? To approve since it's a denial, does council have to have a supermajority to pass it? Does it go to council? Yes. It does. Right. But it just requires a supermajority. It would need to be appealed. Okay. Okay. It wouldn't automatically go. It wouldn't automatically go. Okay. No. That's not a reply. You know, can they sue us? Is it possible? Commissioner Cole, I think I would prefer to answer questions like that in closed session. Okay. Thank you. If you have a specific question. And just for the commission to know, we have a placeholder on our agenda. If we need to go to closed session, that's certainly the prerogative of this body to do so. So Commissioner Cole, if you would like to, or if you want to pursue that further, please let us know. Commissioner Anderson. This isn't anything to do with this, but I just had a little pop up on my screen that says, "Internet's unstable." So if I lose you guys and I pop off, I'll get back on immediately. So just give me a heads up, I'm having internet issues, kind of. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Actually, on that same note, the same thing happened to me. So okay. So it may, I don't know if it's, whose end it's on. If it's happened to all of us, it may be, city. Okay. Okay. That was a great discussion on the matter. Is there any other questions for staff on this? Commissioner Smith. Just looking for the agenda, the items we read through, do we have time to go to closed session? Yeah. I mean, we definitely have time to do that. Okay. Then I would like to go to closed session. I do want to talk about the point that Cynthia brought up about that. Okay. So what I will do at 543 is close the work session to a closed session. And I will ask technology of how we do that on a Zoom call. Thank you for allowing us to convene in closed session. It is now 6.05 and we will continue with the agenda items. The next item of business brings us to item two, the consideration of minute approval. Is there any notes or edits to the July 8th minutes? Okay. Next item for business is our individual considerations. Item three A is Ron Maguida's item. Is there any questions? Would you like a presentation? This will be coming back to us pending a vote on this. Commissioner Beck. I don't know that I necessarily want a presentation of the material. But I was curious, it's been my understanding that because the presentation was prepared for council about this issue and I was wondering if at some point prior to us revisiting or seeing this issue come up, before us, could we see that presentation on development on top of gas wells, cap gas wells? And I bring it up now just because this is the topic of the moment rather than at the matrix time. Richard, is there a pertinent presentation to this preliminary plat? Not specific to this preliminary plat. We are working on a work session item for council to discuss plug gas wells and setbacks. And I think much like any time we do do that, shortly thereafter, typically we do it the next -- we have the council work session, and then the next day we do -- we update P&C on that. So that would be our intent. But that will not be for at least another month as we are working through those issues associated with that. So that would be, if I could clarify, after we would see this issue again on August 5th? Is that correct? August 19th. 19th. Sorry. Thank you, Chair. That's correct. And then even then if we had the workshop or work session, hypothetically, we would need to go through the entire code amendment process. So it wouldn't likely be implemented for some time. All right. Thank you, Richard. I appreciate it. Any questions for Ron on item 3A? Seeing none, I'll move to item 3B. This is a final -- whoops -- a final replat with Haley Zygursky. Any questions on item 3A? It is being recommended denial, however, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension -- Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Haley, is it your estimation that it's likely under normal circumstances that the developer could finalize all this in the 30 days? Or are we going to see something weird happen in 30 days? This is Haley Zygursky. Yes, I believe it is perfectly reasonable that they could have this worked out within 30 days. There are still some site plan considerations that they're working through for lot 1R1, but I expect that they will work through very quickly the items that are outstanding on the plat, which primarily relate to the drainage easement and the access easement on the plat. So I anticipate that the August 19th date is achievable for them, despite some of the other issues they're having with the site layout that we're still working through with respect to landscaping and details like that. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it, Haley. Any other questions for Haley on item 3B? Seeing none, we'll go to our public hearing items. The first one is item 4A. Staff has requested to postpone this item until August 5th. So we will not have a presentation for that. We can move to item 4B, S19-0013. This is Julie Wyatt's presentation. I'll turn over the floor to Julie. Let me pull up that presentation. All right. So this is item S19-13, Mingo Road Apartments. So the request before you is for a specific use permit to permit multifamily dwellings. The property is outlined there in yellow. It's on the north side of Mingo Road. It is approximately four acres, and it is located in an R7 district, which does require a specific use permit for multifamily dwellings. This might look familiar to some of you. A previous SUP was approved for this site a couple of years ago. However, it expired in February 2020, so they're coming back for a revised SUP. So just to start off, I wanted to just talk a little bit about the site plan from 2017. It included three two-story buildings. There were 48 two-bedroom units. There was parking along a looped drive aisle, and I sort of outlined it here in brown. And there were 84 parking spaces that were distributed along that loop. They were oriented to minimize lights on adjacent properties. The solid waste receptacle is outlined here in blue. That is about 149 feet from the residential lots. And the vehicular access was to Mingo Road only. Fast forward to the current site plan, and it looks very similar to the previously approved SUP. There are a couple exceptions. They have added additional parking, and that is related to the unit mix, as well as City of Denton has increased the parking standards for multifamily development since the original SUP was approved. So instead of 84 parking spaces, they're proposing 101 to conform to the Denton Development Code. They've also modified the unit mix. While they're keeping the same building footprint, they are modifying it to 48 one-bedroom units and 16 two-bedroom units. So those unit mixes changed, but it actually reduced the number of bedrooms from 96 to 80. The other elements related to the site plan are consistent. You have those three two-story buildings outlined in purple. The setback from the adjacent residential properties to the east is still 44 feet. The parking spaces are still distributed along this looped drive aisle to sort of minimize the visual impacts of the parking and also to make sure that as few lights shine on the adjacent properties as possible. The solid waste is in the same place, 149 feet from the northern residential lots, and vehicular access to Mingo Road only. Just wanted to talk about the landscape plan briefly. The original plan had this common open space, central open space, and the current plan retains that. It's about 13,000 square feet, and it does have some large trees in it. So that was part of the reason why they went for this design was to keep some of these large trees just as a sampling of what's in there. There's a 36-inch post oak, 29-inch pecan, a 30-inch post oak. So there's some nice trees in there that they wanted to maintain. There's also a buffer required along the perimeter adjacent to the residential properties. They're proposing that wood fence, three ornamental trees every 25 feet, and tree preservation within that. So they do conform to the buffer requirements. There's also landscaping along the right of way to enhance that frontage of the property. They're proposing a berm along there with a green hedge and street trees in accordance with the Denton Development Code. You can also see that the building adjacent to Mingo Road, those units do face Mingo Road, and they're connected to that sidewalk in accordance with the requirements in the Denton Development Code. Hey, Julie. Can I interrupt real fast? Is there a site plan rationale that the solid waste compartments were located in their little park area and maybe not on the northwest corner? It seems like that's a great place to go play and everything or hang out, but there's two dumpsters there. Is that where the site kind of mandates it, or what's the rationale? That was a discussion at the previous SUP. The intent was to really move those dumpsters as far away from the adjacent residential properties as possible. Okay. So that was the intent of putting them in that location. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Here's some concept elevations. It's a little hard to see on the PowerPoint. This is the building that's going to be facing Mingo Road. So this is going to be the most prominent building. As you can see, it has residential character that's kind of consistent with what's around there. Once again, it's two story. It's got a pitched roof. Those front doors face the street, so it does relate to the street really well. There's awnings to provide those little front porches, the safety from the rain as you're getting in your house. So it is consistent with the architectural character of the surrounding area. And as with any SUP, the planning process is we first look at what's onsite. So what they're proposing and how it meets the development code. But then with any SUP, we sort of broaden out our view and look at what's surrounding. Because part of the criteria for approval for an SUP is how is it consistent with the character of the area. So I wanted to talk about the surrounding development for this project. So as you can see, it's an infill site. It's surrounded by developed property. To the west of the site is a multifamily. It's an age-restricted multifamily. To the north and east, there is residential as well as the south. Mingo Road is a secondary arterial within the city of Denton. There's one correction I need to make for my staff report. So this is Sequoia Park right here. And I left that off of my staff report. But it is a park that is within about a quarter of a mile walking distance from the subject property. And it does have a nice walking trail through it. Chris, you're back. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Julie, for waiting. So real briefly about that exact point you just made. So on the 10-minute walk park access criteria, it's any of our parcels that are designated park satisfy that? And so this is designated a park, and therefore it satisfies that. You know, it is staff's analysis that it does. I know that Parks is in the middle of updating their park plan, and so that could – they are looking at maybe partnering with Denton ISD. So it may – in the future that may – there may be areas where it's broader than just city parks that could satisfy that requirement. Maybe it's close to a school that has ball fields in it. So as of right now, yes, the way we look at it is if it's within that sort of quarter to a half a mile from a city park, that it meets that criteria. And that Sequoia Park is city property? Yes. It was dedicated by Platt to the city. So I did talk with Parks about it as well as real estate, and they did confirm that it was a city park. Thank you so much. You bet. All right. So for SUPs in the 2019 code, we have two sections of approval criteria. We have the general approval criteria, and we have the specific criteria for SUPs. Staff's analysis is that it does meet the criteria for approval, but what we're going to do is kind of hit on these criteria as we continue to discuss the project. So first, I want to talk about compatibility with the surrounding area. That's one of the criteria for approval. So this is a residential use, and as a residential use, it's not anticipated to – anticipated to introduce activities inconsistent with what we typically see around there. So, you know, people would come and go from work, they would live their lives. Those are really similar uses and activities on the site. The design of the site increases the compatibility. Things like the maximum two-story buildings is more consistent with the surrounding development. That increased setback, particularly from the single-family residential adjacent, helps increase that compatibility. The large open space is a central feature of the site. It's consistent with what you see in residential areas. The access to the site, there is not direct vehicular access to the adjacent residential. It does go out to Mingo Road, so that is – increases the compatibility, as well as the parking lot orientation, not having a large central parking lot, but sort of that – the spaces that are distributed along that driveway loop. And then the buffers. Those do reduce potential noise and light for the adjacent properties. So – but due to those considerations, it is compatible with the surrounding area. We also look at Denton Plan 2030 for any project we review. The site is designated as Neighborhood University Compatibility Area. This is an infill site adjacent to or near TWU, and these Neighborhood University Compatibility Areas are really intended to be kind of transitional, sort of allow the development scale and use to either – to gradually decrease as you go toward the residential areas. And this proposal is really consistent with that, because it's a multi-family use, so it's that – it's still that residential character, but it does allow for the necessary housing needed near our university areas, but still maintains that architectural feel that's consistent with the adjacent residential. So it does conform – it is consistent with that future land use map. Additionally, there – those site elements we talked about increase that compatibility and just go to further – further meet the goals of that future land use designation. The SUP Criteria for Approval also addresses impacts related to access, traffic, emergency services, utilities, parking, refuse, noise, glare, odor, and have those been mitigated. So we'll kind of take those one by one. First we looked at transportation. They did provide a trip generation – generation numbers to us. The 64 dwelling units would generate about 468 trips in a 24-hour weekday. That's 36 morning peak and then 43 evening peak. I talked with our engineering staff. Mingo Road, as I said, is a secondary arterial. Certainly it is not constructed to what we typically see of the secondary arterial, which is two lanes in each direction with that – that are separated with a median. However, they believe that Mingo Road can accommodate that traffic, that that would not negatively impact Mingo Road. It is also located next to a DCTA stop. I've got it outlined here, that red dot right there. It's about 500 walking feet from the – the stop. So having that transit does allow for different modes of transportation for the residents. And then pedestrians. So there is a sidewalk that was constructed on the adjacent property. Development of the site would require continuing that sidewalk along their frontage, so it would provide a nice improved pedestrian path for residents to access that bus stop. Water and wastewater have reviewed it, and there is capacity within the system to serve the proposal. There is water and wastewater available, and so they wouldn't be required to extend any public facilities. This is an infill site, so those – those public facilities are already available. Fire station number one is about 1.3 miles from the site. And then parking and refuse, that – once again, I know we've talked about this, but that parking area, the way it's designed does minimize those visual impacts associated with it. And then the solid waste containers are screened, and they are located 149 feet from the nearest single-family residential lot, so minimizing any potential issues for odors or noise associated with those solid waste receptacles. Public outreach was done. We did – we did send out the required notices. We haven't received any responses. The applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting. It's been – it's been a while since they had it, just due to all of the COVID issues. But they did have about four attendees, and, you know, they talked about the previous SUP, and the – especially those buffer elements. And so that was an important element to the adjacent property owners. And that is all I have. The applicant is here, and they have a presentation to go over at the regular session, and I'll answer any questions. Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. The recommendation. (Laughter.) I'm sorry. One more. So staff does recommend approval, because it is consistent with the – with the criteria for approval, as well as Denton Plan 2030. We do have some conditions that we're recommending, one, that the landscaping in the attached plan, it is intended to comply with the Denton Development Code in terms of all of the elements associated with that, things like parking lot landscaping, street trees, minimum landscape and canopy areas and buffers. However, there could be minor modifications associated with just individual plantings, maybe availability at the nurseries, final plant selections, maybe plants might have to shift for a reason as they're moving forward development. So that would be the first condition, that it would allow some minor modifications to that landscaping, not with the overall landscaping, but just those – maybe where a plant would be planted or those individual plant selections. The zoning map, if this is approved, would be changed to reflect that a specific use permit has been approved on the site. And then, notwithstanding the limited approval for landscaping in number one, we would reserve the right to require approval of any other amendments to the SUP. Furthermore, we always like to kind of spell out some of the elements associated with that SUP in text form. The site plan and landscape plan and those conceptual elevations will be attached to the ordinance. So if it's approved, they would be required to comply with that. But we also like to follow that up with some text, and that is just that the 48 one-bedroom units and 16 two-bedroom units in those three two-story buildings would be – are as part of that approval. The 101 parking spaces, that central open-air area, the solid waste containers 149 feet from the nearest adjacent lot, and that those buildings would be designed with the pitch roofs, those porches and awnings, those things that correspond to the architectural character of the area. Our recommendation does have a provision that staff would have the ability to approve increases up to and including 5 percent of any of the amounts in requirements one and two, provided that they met all DDC requirements. Anything greater than 5 percent would require a new SUP approval. And with that, I conclude my presentation. Thank you very much, Julie. Commissioner Smith? Julie, was there any changes in the recommendation from the last SUP? I saw the SUP the first time we approved it. Is there anything different from the last time until now? So there were – and I talked with Commissioner Ellis about this. There were some slightly different conditions with the previous one, and I'm pulling up my – that ordinance. What we've really done is within the site plan and the landscape plan, we sort of baked in those conditions that were on the previous ordinance. So let me get there, sorry. One had to do with tree preservation. That was – the original SUP was reviewed under our previous tree code. Since then, we've adopted a new tree code. So that previous condition that said they had to preserve the protected trees – the old code didn't require preservation of those protected trees. Our new code does require minimum preservation for that. So those are just some of those elements that have been brought in to that. That's fine. Thank you. You bet. Commissioner Beck? Thank you, Chair. I think this is a cute little infill area, but can you educate me about projected growth patterns along Mingo? I mean, I live up in D2, and that's – Mingo is a trial. It's not secondary arterial, as you said. So what are our plans for that? Because it seems like we're – I'm concerned about pedestrian and vehicular access right there. I used to bike down there, and I don't do it anymore because it's dangerous. So it's – can you walk me – get me over those concerns a little bit? So I did check with engineering regarding any planned improvements for Mingo Road. Right now, there aren't any. So right now, it's sort of reliant upon development or redevelopment of the site of the area along Mingo Road that would get some of those pedestrian facilities. So as projects like this one come in, they would be required to put in the sidewalk, which would just allow that facility to be completed. So right now, there aren't any changes to expand that. But there are some parcels that haven't been developed along Mingo Road. So as those do develop, there would be requirements for sidewalks. And as I understand, Julie, we can't touch the south side because that's railway easement. Is that correct? You are correct. So really, any improvements to Mingo? There may be some minimal right of way on that side, but, yes, the majority of improvements to Mingo Road would have to come from the north side. Okay. And one last question. Did I read it, "Zone for Hodge"? Is that what I read in the documents? Zone for – Element 3. For the elementary school? Oh, yes. That seems insane, but okay. I will tell you, I checked that today again because I was like, are you sure? But yes, there is a – almost like a figure eight pattern that nips this lot and the surrounding subdivision into Hodge. Now Denton ISD could – you know, they're always looking at their attendance zone. So that could change as more development comes on that side of town. But yes, I was a little shocked by that as well. Thank you, Julie. Appreciate it. Bet. Any other questions for Julie on this item? Hey, Julie, what mandates the two points of entry for fire? This one only has one. Some – it seems like we require two entry points for emergency access. How did this one escape by that one, that requirement? It may be because it is on Mingo, so they could fight that fire. It would be dependent upon how close they can get for that hose lay. So I believe for two points for multifamily – and I can check on this – it's required for over 100 units. Okay. I'll check on – I can check on that. That would be helpful. I'm sure it's right, but just to double check would be – would appease me. Thank you. Any other items for Julie on this? Okay, fantastic. With that, we will close our work session meeting at 635. We'll take a five-minute recess, be back here at 630 – did I say 531? This ends at 631. We'll be back at 636 for the public meeting. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting for Wednesday, July 22, 2020. Given that we have a quorum, I'll call this meeting to order at 641. Please let the record show that Commissioner Pernetta is absent at the start of the meeting. The first item of business is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. Commissioners, if you would want to join me, you can unmute, then we'll begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible people. Next item of business is item two, the consideration of the July 8th minutes. Chair will entertain discussion or motion. Commissioner Ellis. I move approval. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Smith. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on the item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item for business is item 3A, it's our individual consideration section. This item is being recommended for denial, but the applicant has requested a 30-day extension. Is there any questions for Ron on this item or the chair will entertain a motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve an extension for 30 days to date certain, or do you mean to give a date? Today is August 19th. Today is August 19th. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on the item? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, chair. So the rationale for the denial was as stated in our backup, whose was this? This was Ron's. Is there, again, I guess this is a similar question. Is there belief that this extension would be sufficient time to resolve the issues? Is Ron... Julie or Richard or whoever can answer the... Ron is on the call. I'll allow Ron. Can everyone hear me? Yeah, there you are. Hi. Good afternoon, everyone. Long time, no talk. The applicant is finishing up some of the comments and primarily related to drainage issues, which they're very close. And then the other outstanding comment is related to the gas well, which we're working through that as well. So, yes, I believe that they will be able to accomplish this within the 30 day time limit. All right. Thank you, Ron. You're welcome. Any other discussion on this item? Just for the record, for this item, we had two people make comments using the online form. There was zero in support for this item and two against. All of these comment forms were emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. For those who are opposed to this item, this will be coming back on August 19th. So please join us when we will look to make a motion of approval or denial on this item. There's no other discussion. I will go ahead and take a vote via roll call to postpone this item to a date certain of August 19th. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Next item of business is item 3B, FR20-0007. This item staff is also recommending denial and the applicant has also requested a 30-day extension to a date certain of August 19th. Chair will entertain a motion or discussion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of August 19th. We have a motion to extend or postpone to date certain. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second to postpone this item extended to August 19th. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I will make a call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. The next item of business is item 4A. This item is EASA 20-0003A. This item staff is requesting to postpone this item until August 5th. I will go ahead and open the public hearing and look for Commissioner to make the motion. Commissioner Smith. I will make a motion to postpone date certain of August 5th. We have a first for postponement to August 5th. Commissioner Anderson. I second the motion. We have a first and a second to postpone this item date certain of August 5th. Is there any discussion on this? We do have an individual wanting to speak on this item. Since there was no presentation and it's being postponed, I will ask the individual to come back on August 5th to engage in the discussion at that time once there's been a full presentation and we can engage with your thoughts on the item. Commissioner Beck. Just as a confusion on order, don't we have to finish the open hearing and then vote? I'm confused by the order that we're doing these things and I don't think it makes any practical difference. I'm just trying to follow the right procedure. I went ahead and opened the public hearing so we could extend the public hearing which would prevent us having to re-notice this item. The public hearing remains open. I'm not closing the public hearing. It will remain open until August 5th if the vote goes forward. Okay. Thank you, Chair. With that, we did have a first from Commissioner Smith and a second from Commissioner Anderson. Any discussion? All right. Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Chair, there's also an aye. Motion is approved. This item will come back to P&Z on August 5th. Anyone wishing to speak on this item, I certainly invite you back on August 5th to engage with that discussion. The next item of business is item 4B, S19-0013. This is an item presented by Julie Wyatt, and she has the floor. All right. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and I'm pulling up my presentation. Julie, as you pull up the presentation, I just want to go ahead and open the public hearing formally. Thank you. All right. So this is S19-0013, Mingo Road Apartments. The request before you is for a specific use permit to permit multifamily dwellings. The subject property is approximately four acres. It's located on the north side of Mingo Road, outlined there in yellow. It does have an R7 zoning designation, which does require an SUP for multifamily developments. There was a previous SUP approved for the site. However, it expired earlier this year, so they are coming back with a revised plan. We'll start out just talking about the 2017 site plan. It included three two-story buildings with 48 two-bedroom units, a looped drive aisle with parking spaces distributed along that drive aisle, dumpsters located with a setback of about 149 feet from the northern residential lots, and vehicular access was to Mingo Road only. The current plan is very similar to that. There are some changes to the project. I just want to talk about those briefly. They are still proposing three two-story buildings. However, they have modified that mix. Forty-eight one-bedroom units would be included in that, as well as 16 two-bedroom units. The setbacks from the adjacent properties, both for the buildings and the dumpsters, would remain the same. The parking spaces have increased, not only because of the modification to the unit mixes, but also because the City of Denton has modified their minimum parking standards for multifamily development. Once again, but those are oriented to minimize those lights on adjacent properties and to sort of break up the parking area. The landscape plan is shown here. It includes a central open area to accommodate some nice trees on the site. It's about 13,000 square feet, and just to kind of give you a sampling of what trees are on that site, there's a 36-inch post oak, a 29-inch pecan, and a 30-inch post oak. There's also a buffer on the north and east property line that does meet the Denton Development Code requirements, and that includes a wood fence, three ornamental trees every 25 feet, and also additional tree preservation within that buffer area. There's landscaping at the right of way to enhance the front portion of the site, and that includes a berm, a hedge along that berm, as well as street trees along Bingo. Also wanted to point out, there is pedestrian improvements proposed along Bingo Road, a sidewalk along the frontage, as well as walkways connecting to the front door of those units. Here's the concept elevation, and this is that front unit that will be the most prominent building on the site. It will be adjacent to Bingo Road, and you can see it does have a residential character to it. It does have that two-story, so to limit that height, it has a pitched roof as well as awnings to cover those front porches, those doors that lead out to the front of the property. So it is consistent with the architectural character of the surrounding area. When we look at an SUP, we not only look at the specific site, so we want to make sure that site complies with the Denton Development Code, but we also want to look at the surrounding area, because part of the criteria for approval of an SUP is, is it compatible with what is existing out there, and are there things that are important to that site plan to ensure compatibility with the surrounding area. So in this case, it's a primarily residential area, it's mostly developed around it, so this is an infill lot. There is single-family residential to the north, south, and east of the site. And then there's an age-restricted multi-family to the west. There's also a park, a city park, just to the north, that is Sequoia Park, and it is about a quarter of a mile walking distance from the subject property, so it does meet our standard for a 10-minute walk to a park that we try to achieve within the city of Denton. Mingo Road is a secondary arterial within the city. We have criteria for approval for specific use permits. It's in SUP Chapter 2 of the Denton Development Code, and there are general and specific criteria for approval. What we're going to do is just talk through these. By staff's analysis, the proposal does meet both the general and specific, so we'll talk through these and pick out those elements that are most relevant to this site. So first, and importantly, compatibility with the surrounding area. So this is a residential use, and activities associated with it would be residential in nature, and that is consistent with what is out there. It is a residential area, so this use is consistent with and compatible with the surrounding property. And further, the way the site is designed increases the compatibility with the surrounding properties. There's the maximum two-story buildings, those increased setbacks adjacent to the residential areas, not only for the building, but also for the solid waste enclosures. That central open space is an amenity and a focal point for the development, which is consistent with what you typically see in residential areas. Visual access is provided to minimize impacts to the surrounding property as it only goes out, only connects to Mingo Road. That parking lot, the way it's designed, minimizes those visual impacts. You don't have a large swath of uninterrupted pavement. It's kind of sprinkled in that open space area. And then it does have those buffers, and that reduces the potential for light and noise to adjacent properties. We also look at the Denton Plan 2030. The site is designated as neighborhood university compatibility area. These are really intended to be transitional areas. As you move from those nodes of high activity at the university areas toward residential areas, you want those uses to be sensitive to that context, but also provide that necessary housing that we need to see near our university areas. And this is consistent with that. The use is kind of what we want to see within these compatibility areas. And then furthermore, those site design considerations with the two-story limit and the setbacks and open space provide that compatibility piece to it. And it's also an infill site. So it's on an existing roadway with the existing infrastructure in place. We also look at impacts related to traffic, emergency services, utilities, parking, refuse, noise, glare, and odor, and how those have been mitigated. So we'll just talk about each of those briefly. So first of all, in terms of transportation, the trip generation analysis determined that about 468 trips would be generated per 24-hour weekday. That would be 36 morning and then 43 evening trips. This is also located on a transit line, so about 500 feet. So I've provided a measurement here from this corner to the bus stop. It's about 500 feet. And so it definitely encourages those alternate modes of transportation for the site. And then furthermore, pedestrian improvements, there is a sidewalk on the adjacent property. It was developed about, I think, 20 years ago. And so they did include a sidewalk along Mingo Road. When this site develops, a sidewalk will also be required. So it'll tie into that existing facility and allow the residents to have an improved walkway to that transit stop. Water and wastewater are available to the site, so there wouldn't be any extensions required and there is capacity in the system to accommodate the proposal. Fire station number one is 1.3 miles from the site. And the parking and refuse, I know we've talked about that solid waste enclosure location, but that has been, that setback for that solid waste enclosure, as well as the setbacks or as well as the other, the setback for the building do ensure that that increases that compatibility and mitigates any odor for those solid waste from the adjacent residential. Additionally, the parking areas have been designed to minimize those impacts to the adjacent residential properties. Public outreach was completed in accordance with the Denton Development Code. We have not received any responses related to that notification. The applicant did have a public meeting for nearby residents did attend. They did talk about the things like the buffers and the previous site plan and how this current site plan relates to what was previously approved. And so they did provide that neighborhood outreach. So staff does recommend approval as it is consistent with the Denton Plan 2030, as well as the criteria for approval. We do have three conditions. One that the attached landscape, landscaping the attached concept plan reflects the intent to comply with the 2019 Denton Development Code requirements for parking, street trees, minimum landscaping, canopy areas and compatibility buffers. Minor alterations to the depicted locations of the individual plantings or that final plant selection may be approved by city staff provided that the final landscaping is planned and complies with the attached plan and all of the elements of the 2019 DDC. The zoning map, if this is approved, would be modified to reflect that an SUP for the property has been approved. And then notwithstanding the limited approval in condition one, the city does reserve the right to require any changes to be approved by ordinance. Furthermore, we do like to provide some specificity to those site plans. So the site plan landscape plan and that conceptual elevation will be attached to the ordinance and the applicant will have to comply with that as they develop the site in order to make sure that it's very clear. We do list out some of the elements of that. And so number one, that this would approve, if it was approved, 48 one-bedroom units and 16 two-bedroom units in the three two-story buildings connected by that loop drive aisle. Each building footprint would have a maximum of 7,644 square feet. They're proposing 101 parking spaces evenly distributed along that loop drive. They're proposing 13,000 square feet of that central open area as well as the solid waste containers being located 149 feet from the nearest adjacent residential lot. And the building should be designed with pitch roofs, porches and awnings to correspond with the architecture of the area. We do add in this recommendation to allow staff to have the ability to approve increases up to and including 5% of the amount specified in one and two provided that they do comply with all the 2019 debt and development co-requirements. Anything over 5% would require a new application and approval by ordinance. That concludes my presentation. The applicant hopefully is online. He does have a presentation and I'll stand for any questions. >> Thank you, Julie. Chris, you're back. >> Thank you, Chair. Julie, is the sidewalk -- is the plan for the sidewalk and that first road adjacent line of building or building -- is there sufficient easement that if a miracle were to happen and we were actually to renovate Mingo, which I don't expect to happen, but let's hope, is there sufficient easement that Mingo could be expanded given this plan? >> Mingo is challenging because it's developed over time. So there is adjacent development that some have dedicated the right-of-way sufficient to provide additional capacity in lanes within Mingo. There are other developments that are -- you know, that were built a long time ago and did not provide that right-of-way dedication. So as far as how that would move forward, I don't have information about how that would move forward in terms of expanding Mingo. >> And the sidewalk is tying to the senior facility multifamily on the west. Is it tying to the sidewalks of the residential to the east? >> There is not a sidewalk to the east of the property. So there's no sidewalk. Let me verify. But I don't believe there is a sidewalk adjacent -- and I might be -- I might misspeak here. Hold on. It's -- I don't believe there is a sidewalk to the -- on that eastern property adjacent to the lot. >> Not on the south side, but isn't there one on the orthogonal street? Maybe I'm misremembering. Anyway, if there were a sidewalk, would it be presumed to be forced to tie in? Is that how our code would -- >> Yes, we would want those to connect. If there's an adjacent sidewalk, we want them to connect. >> Thank you, Julie. >> Sure. And there is one item I forgot to mention that I believe Commissioner Roselle asked about the fire access. We did get a response from our fire reviewer, and it would require 200 units in order -- more than 200 units would require that secondary access. So that one point of access is sufficient for the number of units they're proposing. >> Great. Thank you for that update. >> Sure. >> Commissioner Ellis. >> Thank you, Chair. And Julie, just to clarify, so the originally approved SUP that has since expired had three conditions. The setbacks from the residential, the dumpster location away from the residential, and the protected trees. And so those first two are rolled in, and then our tree code takes care of that other condition? >> You are correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions for Julie at the moment? If not, I'll invite the applicant for their presentation. Julie, I think you're good. If we could queue up the applicant, and when the applicant goes live, can you just state your name and address for the record? >> My name is Lawrence Holdwer, and I work at Allison Engineering Group. I'm representing my client. We are proposing to redo the SUP. Like Julie said, we had an existing SUP, and we're trying to go through an extension. However, the SUPs don't go through an extension, so we applied for a new one. That's why we're here today. Going down to how do I control the slides, I don't -- can I go to the next slide, please? Thank you. The purpose of the multifamily -- I don't want to really read this whole thing to you. The purpose of the multifamily, again, is that we need to apply for a new one. We had a previous one approved. This site does comply with the new -- I'm going to call it the new code, and it does still adhere to the requirements that were placed on it for the first approval. The reason for this -- the whole reason for this new SUP in front of you today is because the developer, DLH Investments, was delayed in their construction of the plans. They were delayed because of a project, Ronnie Road Project Townhomes, that ended up having a really wet spring. They didn't want to put through engineering plans and then have permits that would expire. So instead of that route, they chose to hold off for a while, and then it just kind of cascaded from there until we are here today requesting the SUP to be renewed, but not really renewed. A new SUP. We're requesting a new SUP. And again, it has been reviewed under the new code. Next slide, please. Just like Julia had stated, we did hold a neighborhood meeting. We held old neighborhood meetings for the old -- I'm going to call the original SUP. For the original SUP, we held neighborhood meetings. The major concerns at that time was the setbacks for the buildings, which we worked through, and the residents were applicable with the location of the single-family residence -- or the multi-family residence buildings shown on the plans. They were concerned about the dumpster. We relocated the dumpster several times and finally came to a location that the neighbors were applicable to. And the site being unique for not only the location but in the area as well as the neighborhood wanted us to preserve trees, and so we tried to come up with a concept that did that. So that was what we submitted previously. The new SUP with the new concerns was -- included the buffer plantings and maintenance of those buffers. We increased those buffers to meet the new code requirements. The maintenance is going to be -- is going to be with -- on Ningo Road Apartments. They will have to maintain that. It is on their property. Lighting was discussed, and we will adhere to the city code requirements on the lighting, and we will not direct our lighting towards the residents. Drainage was discussed. Drainage issues that were discussed were people's concerns that the development may cause additional runoff. We will not be doing a development that will cause negative impacts to our residents or adjoining properties that will meet code, that there's nothing in this set of plans that will show that we will cause drainage issues. We actually have two detention ponds to show that we plan to detain our runoff, so that we will not have negative impacts. The construction will in all efforts not impact the local nesting of the seasonal local birds. That was a concern that was raised, and we will try to adhere to that. There has not been any changes in the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. There has been a few other developments on Ningo, but not to our -- to my recollection close by. Whenever I did my own research and did this, there had not been any new developments next to our development, so we would like to state that the character of the surrounding neighborhoods has not changed, and we believe that our development still is an acceptable and enhancing development for Ningo Road. Next slide, please. Again, there was little to no changes from the original SUP that was approved to the original SUP that was approved. What has changed is the fire line adjustments to meet the new code. I left off on here the parking. I don't know why, but the parking count was adjusted to meet new code. The landscape buffers and other landscaping was brought to the new code's point system as opposed to a set old code way of doing the landscaping. The proposed SUP does maintain our efforts to spread out the whole site and save as many trees as possible. We are saving upwards of 600 inches of trees. That does include what the old code did consider secondary and quality trees. We're saving 600 of those inches. We are only required to save 188 of those inches for the new code's requirements. I wrote something down I wanted to make sure I stated, and I can't find it. Next slide. This is the site that Julie did present, and this is the site that we do propose to move forward with. We believe it is a quality enhancement for this area, and to answer the sidewalk question, there is a sidewalk to the west, and we will have to tie into the west, but there isn't a sidewalk to the east. We have provided the right-of-way for Dingo Road's future expansion. If Dingo does expand, our property has provided that additional right-of-way for that. At this time, I believe I can open up for questions. Next slide and next questions. Great. Thank you for the presentation and context to the project. Is there any questions for the applicant? I do not see any. This is a public hearing, and so for this item, we had one person make comments using our online form. There was one support and zero against those comments or emails to the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. There is one individual who is asked to speak on this item over the phone, and so I'm going to ask staff to go ahead and connect that individual to us for public comment. Good evening, caller. You are live with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Can you please state your name and address, and you'll have four minutes to speak? Sure. My name is Katie McGee. I live at 1510 Seminole. That's the north side of this property, third house from the left. I just have two items of concern. I don't believe we discussed this in previous meetings, but currently on this concept plan, there is a six-foot tall wooden buffer fence. I would like to request that to be at least eight feet at this point, just to provide additional privacy to the backyard on those fence lines. I would prefer to be more difficult to see into or climb over the fence into our backyard. The second concern is on the driveway in the apartments, especially on the north end where those curves are. I'm just concerned if traffic in that drive is going too fast or not paying attention. When they take those curves, it could pose some kind of danger, especially since our backyards are at that point are kind of on a downward slope. I didn't know if it was possible to provide some kind of concrete barrier or parking pylons to make, just to prevent any accidents from happening there with the cars being so close to our backyards. That's all I have to say for now. I certainly appreciate you calling in and voicing your concerns. Commissioner Beck. Yeah, this is for the caller's concerns, but Julie, are we allowed to have eight foot tall fences in the DDC or Richard or whoever cares to answer? Yes. Perimeter fences can go up to eight feet. Thank you. Is there any other questions for the caller? I do not see any, I certainly appreciate you calling in and expressing your concerns. Thank you very much. Thank you for taking the time to listen. Of course. With that, seeing there's no other public comment, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing and turn it to this virtual dais for discussion or motion. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve with staff recommendations. We have a first for approval with staff recommendations. Commissioner Anderson. I second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, chair. Just on the caller's concerns, and I guess I just want to maybe get the applicant's opinion. So when she talks about that curve, which is right at her backyard as I'm looking at it. I assume on the road there will be a speed limit sign throughout that curve. Will there be? Am I allowed to jump in here? Absolutely. Please. Yes, please. Lawrence Holder up again, analysis engineering. There should be a posted speed limit sign. It is a parking area. Parking areas in this nature do have a speed associated with them. There's not enough room to really get up to high speeds. However, I do understand some of these concerns. The main thing that I would say in worst case scenario, if there was a kid that was learning how to drive and hit the gas instead of the brake and was driving as fast as he could, he would hit the wonderful, beautiful trees that we've placed and spaced every 10 feet apart or 15 feet apart before he would even hit the fence. We have a good 10 feet if not, then on the radius, depending on where he is, we have a good 10 feet plus another 26 feet of grass that you'd have to then mow through as well. So what I'm saying is unless it's an off-road vehicle that would really hit that and then continue to keep going, the likelihood of it continuing into a backyard is highly unlikely. Not impossible. I'm not going to sit here and say that that's impossible. I don't think you can find an engineer who will say that. But it's super and highly improbable that that would be the case. But yes, we can post speed limit signs throughout the development if that is a concern that the Ford, or not Ford, I'm sorry, the commission would like to place on that. What I'm wondering if, I don't know, if speed limit or just a couple of slow signs, just warning people of that curve, some kind of signage just to make drivers aware is an idea. Absolutely. We can always get, those signs are easily obtainable and you can place either a slow or a speed limit, please specify which ones or how you'd like us to do that and we'd be more than happy to place a few of those signs around to educate the public on the speed of this area. Mr. Anderson. Since there's already been a first and a second motion taken, is it too late that we can ask the engineering firm if they would be willing to put up an eight foot fence for the caller's concerns? You definitely can ask that. Okay. I mean, Mr. Holdoff, is that something that you would entertain due to the privacy issues that the caller and the residents would not, you know, that have, I mean, is that something that you guys would entertain is putting up an eight foot fence instead of the six foot wooden fence? Yeah, to put it bluntly, yes, we would entertain it as a requirement, however, we would not like to offer that up without a major reason for that. And the reason why I state that is yes, we have a six foot tall fence, but we are proposing extensive landscape requirements in that buffer. We have offset our buildings 44 more feet, so you have a lot of green space there. We have detention pond between the building and that back area and that buffer that will be landscaped as well. We are providing a lot of landscape for the real estate on those property lines. Okay. A few more feet is not the end of the world, but it is. We feel like we're starting to get a little under pressure on that. I totally understand. Is the caller still on the line? And if so, hopefully that helps answer her question and maybe helps her understand some stuff. She is no longer on the call, but hopefully she's listening in. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Holdo, for your answer. Absolutely. Commissioner Back, I think your hand was up. My question was exactly the same as Commissioner Anderson's that's been answered. Thank you. Okay. We do have a first and a second for approval. Commissioner Smith. I'd like to amend my motion to include a requirement or a recommendation that speed mitigation signage be included in the approval of this. And was it Anderson? Did you have a second on that? Yes. I'll second that motion as well. Okay. And Commissioner Ellis. I was going to make that friendly amendment, so thank you, Commissioner Smith. Okay. So we have a first and a second for approval given staff's recommendation with the addition of signage for speed mitigation. Is there any other discussion on this item? Seeing none, I will call vote via roll call. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 6-0. Congratulations. That brings us to our concluding item on the planning and zoning matrix, our item five, the planning and zoning project matrix. Before I turn it over to Richard, I just have one quick thing to say. Tonight is Kathy Welborn's last meeting with P&Z. She is moving over to the city secretary's office, and so she is sadly departing from us. I just wanted to say thank you to Kathy for all the work that you did for us and keeping us organized and certainly me as the chair, keeping me well-appointed with information and paperwork and all those signing of minutes, all those things that you did, Kathy. I certainly appreciate it. I wish you the best at the city secretary's office. I'm glad you're still hanging around Denton. Thank you very much, Kathy. With that, I'll turn it over to Richard. Thank you, Chair. Just to echo the same sentiments, I will deeply miss Kathy in our department, but I will still be working with her on agendas, just in a very different role, and Selena will be stepping in and has already done a great job in continuing what Kathy has worked in helping us. Just that, really, I don't have much to add to the matrix at this point. I did want to update everyone on some actions that council took last night. There was an annexation that was approved, so it will go back for a second reading. At some point in time, if council does pass that annexation, it will be brought in front of this body for the initial zoning application. That was a property at essentially vintage and Fort Worth. The other two items that they took action on last night, they did approve both the canopy trails rezoning. That was a reconsideration. That was passed 4-3, and my goodness, I'm drawing a blank. The sage brook, how can I forget sage brook, that was approved last night with PNZ's recommendation 5-2. Just to clarify, I talked to Cynthia briefly over the break, so we will work on putting something together for the second meeting in August to talk a little bit more about voting, maybe a policy to at least speak off of, as well as some of the other policies and procedures as it relates to high votes and other voting requirements within the boards and commission rules of procedure, probably just a good time to freshen up on some of that stuff. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. >> Great. Thank you for the update. Is there any questions for Richard or any items that need to be added to the matrix? Commissioner Beck. >> I said this out of order earlier, so I'd just like to formally put it in here in the matrix discussion that if we could have a work session when appropriate on the capped gas well, building on capped gas wells, in houses, roads, it's come up a couple of different issues, so if we could have that, I'd appreciate it. >> Certainly, we'll add it to the matrix and then sort of as we do customarily, as soon as we have that work session with council, the next day, we will present that to PNC. >> Thank you so much. >> Any other questions or items for the matrix? Seeing none, I will close this meeting at 726. Thank you.