Aug 05, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-08-05 5:30 PM

Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, August 5th, 2020. This is our work session and with a quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.31 p.m. Our first item on the agenda is citizen comments on consent agenda items, and I do believe we have one caller in the queue. Do we have a caller in the queue? Hi there caller, are you there? I am. Okay, well welcome. If you will state your name and address for the record, you will have three minutes to speak on the item you called in about. All right, thank you so much. My name is Sharon Kramer and my address is 3574 Pine Trail, and I want to speak about the preliminary plot 19-0023, and so here we go. I think all of us, first I want to thank the commissioners for being there and serving the city that I'm so deeply fond of, and I think we probably all share the same values that good decisions come from good data, so because of that, I tried to do my best to be informed. I'm quite familiar with Denton Plan 2030, the flum, the mobility plan, various traffic studies, the TxDOT traffic study that was done in conjunction with North Central Texas Council of Governments. I've read almost all of them, not that I remember everything, but I read them. I've attended lots of meetings with the commissioners, the city council, mobility plans, the new development code, because I like to be informed, and I've had lots of very helpful conversations with Jason Fagel of Allison Engineering, John Heilman, who's one of the owners of the Agari development, Julie Wyatt with the city, Richard Canone with the city, Preetam, whose last name I cannot remember, who's with the city traffic or was, and I've learned a lot from them. Preetam himself explained the tools and the programs that are involved in traffic studies and how they look at the results to make a decision, but here's my point. All the programs and data in the world is not good unless it is filtered by a functioning human brain that is capable of executive function, and that's what I'm counting on my commissioners to do is to use their executive function to look at that southern exit that is on what the plan calls to be renamed Hartley Field Road, and consider moving it north for this reason. If that exit is at the south, it's going to wipe out about four homes at the end of Woodland Hills, and it eventually will have a huge effect up and down the existing Hartley Field Road. Julie Wyatt explained to me more than a year ago when I saw the first attempted mobility plan to align Hartley Field Road, that Hartley Field Road could easily remain a local use road and they could relocate that road. And in fact, even Jason Fagel at a city council meeting said that yes, he could use any of the arteries. I'd like to see the artery leading out of Agave to be moved north, and I'd like for it to be at Starlight. And that's it. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you so much for calling in, Sharon. Okay, and we do have another consent agenda caller. Hi there, caller. Are you there? Yes, I am. Okay. Well, welcome. If you'll state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes to speak on the item that you called about. All right. Thank you. This is Bridget Marshall, and I live at 3539 Pine Trail. And what I wanted to comment was that during the July 16, 2019 city council meeting last year regarding Agave Ranch, five city council members made it clear that the location of the main road in Agave Ranch was unacceptable. And council member Jesse Davis asked if the arterial slides north, does that do anything that makes your project not pencil? To which Jason Fagel, who from Allison Engineering replied, I can make any of these roads through here an arterial. So my question is, I'd like to know why the road wasn't moved since city council made it clear that the road is unacceptable. Destroying homes and property to widen Hartley Field Road and to connect to Agave Ranch at the southern terminus is really irresponsible and does not comply with Denton Plan 2030, the future land use map, or the comprehensive plan. Thank you for taking the time to listen to my comments, I really appreciate it. We appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, and I think we have one more caller. Hello, caller, are you there? Yes. Okay, well, welcome. You will have three minutes to speak. If you will give your name and address for the record, then your time will begin. Okay. Thank you. I'm David Ferring, and I live at 4572 Coyote Point. That's just east of the development of immediate interest. I've called to raise the issue of traffic plans for this development, and I don't know if it's appropriate, but it seems very important to me that this proposal be considered in concert with a much larger proposal, you're familiar with, of the Carter Ranch property, which would be almost 2,000 new homes. We've lived out here since 1978, and we love this area, and we're very loyal Dentonites, and we understand that growth is going to happen, but we're very concerned about the quality of the environment and the traffic situation out here. In particular, the Carter Ranch property is planning to make Hartley Field Road a major access point to Farm to Market 428, and the placement of that on this development, the Agave development, is fixed and would lock in any plans for Hartley Field development associated with the Carter property. The way I see it, there are four access points from the Agave development to Farm to Market 428 or Sherman Drive. That would be in addition to the existing Hartley Field Road, plus roads that are going to come in from the west, such as Long Road. All of those intersections on a really busy road at the intersection of Loop 288 seems to me to be a major concern for all of us that live out here and for the people that are going to use those roads. My request is that planning and zoning, if possible, back off and look at Agave in concert with the proposed traffic plans associated with the Carter Ranch development. That's all I have to say. Thank you, Mr. Ferring, for sharing your thoughts with us. Okay. Appreciate you calling in. Okay, and I don't believe we have any other callers in the queue. Okay, then that will move us to our next work session item. Which is clarification of agenda items listed on our agenda this evening. First on would be minutes for July 22nd. Commissioners, are there any concerns on the minutes? Okay. Next would be our consent agenda. First item on that, or I guess any item. Does anyone have concern, comment on that? Commissioner Beck. Yeah. Thank you, Chair. I think considering the level of input and feedback that our fellow citizens are requesting on this item, I think that maybe at least warrants further discussion that may be outside the scope of a consent agenda item. So it is my intention to make a motion to pull those two items to individual consideration. And I guess I'll pass the hat for the Chair's consideration at this point before I make my motion. But I think it would be in keeping with an appropriate separation of these items from a general consent agenda. And you're talking about the development plan and the preliminary plan for Agave? Yes. What? That is item 3C and 3D. 3D. Okay. Okay. Noted. Anybody else? Okay. No other concerns on consent? And Commissioner Beck, you're certainly welcome to make a motion when we get into the regular meeting. All right. Thank you. Okay. Moving through consent, we do have, while the item for individual consideration, staff is recommending denial on, but the applicant has requested a 30-day extension to September 2nd meeting. So I'll be looking for a motion at the meeting for that if the commissioners are in agreement for that. Any concerns on that one? Okay. Next will be the public hearing item. 5A is being postponed until August 19th meeting. And we've got S20004. That would be Julie Wyatt. Good evening, commissioners. Let me pull up my presentation and we'll talk through that item. All right. So this item is S20004, the Grove Apartments. The request before you is for a specific use permit to permit multifamily dwellings. The subject property is about 16 acres. It is outlined here in yellow. It is on the west side of Loop 288, north of Dutchess. The property is in the SC district, which permits a multifamily with the approval of a specific use permit. This may look familiar to you. There was a previous SUP that you did see before. It did go to the planning and zoning commission and then on to city council. It went to city council a couple of times. There were concerns raised by adjacent property owners regarding their wanting to see more commercial in this area. That SUP was postponed and it was eventually withdrawn. And now it has come back to us as a new project. There were four items that were discussed at city council, so I just wanted to bring those up. There was a discussion regarding the traffic signal at Dutchess Drive and Loop 288, and we'll talk further about that in the presentation. There was also a discussion about tree preservation. The previous SUP was reviewed under the 2002 Denton Development Code, so it followed the previous requirements for tree preservation. They've resubmitted under the 2019 code, so it's following the new tree preservation requirements. So that concern was addressed with the submittal. Similar access, the original plan had only two access points, one to Loop 288 and one to Dutchess Drive. The council talked about adding another access point toward the north to connect to McKinney. The new plan does include that access point, so it's sort of taken care of with the submittal. And then finally a sidewalk extension, which we'll talk about as we go further in the presentation. So first we'll talk about the site plan and what they're proposing. The site plan is slightly different than what you saw before. It's actually shifted toward the north. The original boundary was kind of this north boundary here, but it's slid toward the north to allow for a commercial lot, a remainder commercial lot, vacant lot to be developed in the future. It's a 1.5 acre lot, and it has the SC zoning, so any uses that would be permitted in SC could be developed in that site. The subject property, the proposal in front of you is for 12, two and three story buildings, a total of 276 dwelling units, 524 parking spaces. That does include a 44 space reduction that the code allows for affordable housing developments. As I said before, it has three driveway connections. The main entrance is here on Loop 288. It includes a right out connection. There isn't a left out because of the way the medians on Loop 288 are designed. So it allows for a right out and then a left turn in and a right turn in. There is an additional access point to Dutchess Drive and it allows for full in and out access. And then finally, there is an exit only access point to the north. It connects to some public access easements that then connects on to McKinney. Julie, excuse me. You said that's an exit only out to McKinney, right? Yes, ma'am. Great. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So I had a similar question as to Chair, that's the road, the north exit is the road behind the jack in the box? Correct. Okay. And I know you just answered this for Chair, but that is going to be one way out? Because as I understand it, it's two way right now? This development, it would only be an exit only. It does, here, let me go back to the aerial. I think you can see it. Yes, this is a public access easement and it does have two way for those commercial developments. It will actually have to be extended in this undeveloped tract and so this particularly development would only allow for exit. Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. You bet. Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, Chair. I do have a question as well. Where is the commercial that's supposed to be facing loop 288? I see three apartment buildings. I thought they were going to leave room up front off of 288 for commercial. This plan has the commercial lot on the southwest side of the development. Okay, and are they still planning on putting a red light, a traffic signal on loop 288? Yes, and we will get to that. They are proposing to deposit $400,000 with the City of Denton in order for the design and the construction of that light. So yes, there would be a light if this was approved at Dutchess and loop 288. Would that be necessary? I mean, because for one, you already have a red light at loop 288. By the time you get up to speed, you're going to have to stop again. That to me sounds like a bad idea. Their TIA demonstrated that that intersection does meet the warrants and with that additional development along Dutchess Drive, it does meet the warrants for the textile warrants for that light. Okay. So here we have the landscape plan. There are a few areas that I want to call your attention to. First of all, on the southwest side of the property, there is an enclosed dog park that is proposed with the required buffer. This is adjacent to that, to the existing office development on Dutchess. So there is a buffer required in this location. They're also planting the required street trees along Dutchess Drive, as well as loop 288. As you're probably familiar, there is a fairly large electric easement that runs north south through the property. They are proposing some open space areas within that easement. They really can't put structures in that and trees really aren't permitted within that easement. They're proposing a sort of native planting area here in the area marked three and then a butterfly garden within the area marked four. Excuse me, Julie. Commissioner Beck. Yeah. Apropos to this exact topic, I know that in the area where the road ends behind the DPS or human services in the jack-and-box, that corner between six and four on your map is a sort of treed area, but it looks like this plan is suggesting that those are going to be moved or I'm a little unclear, is six the current existing treed area? It is. Yes, sir. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. That's a great question. I'm sorry. Go ahead. They are, as I said, they're meeting the 2019 standards for tree preservation and they've got this large tree preservation stand that they're, as one of their open space areas within the development. Thank you, Julie. And then we have this area labeled as five. This is a 1.4 acre central park for the development. It includes a variety of amenities, including a playground, a pavilion, pool, game court, tot lot, and seating area. And then also they are proposing these areas in blue, they're kind of hard to see. They haven't finalized what the actual landscaping will be in that blue area. They want to make sure that they provide the right mix of trees and shrubs, but they are proposing a landscape area between the parking areas and the buildings to provide sort of a front yard for those buildings to create a sense of arrival as you move from the parking area to the residential areas on the site. And then I wanted to talk a little further about that central park design. So as you can see, there are several sites for active recreation or gathering spaces. Each of those blue diamonds highlights one, and they're distributed throughout that central park area. The buildings are oriented as to enclose that open space, and they also have patios and balconies that overlook that open space, so they really become a backyard for those residents. And then the yellow outlines those pedestrian pathways that bring people into those open space areas and connect the buildings with the amenities. They've provided concept elevations. These are those two and three story buildings along loop 288 that are proposed, as well as the three story buildings that will ring that central park area. So as with any SUP, our kind of our procedure for how we review that is first we look at onsite, so it doesn't meet the code requirements. And then second, we broaden how we look at the project, and we look at the surrounding development and what any potential impacts would be for that surrounding development, what those uses are, what the development pattern is. So when we broaden out the view for this property, we see that the property is outlined here in yellow again. There is multifamily residential just adjacent to the subject property, just to the west. There is office development to the southwest and also south of the property, kind of office and then there's also a bank. And then there's commercial development to the north. As you can see, there's a lot of undeveloped property around the subject site. It does have a zoning designation that's consistent with the subject property, so we anticipate that any development on those lots would be consistent with the scale and uses that we see out there and that are proposed. And finally, the area outlined in green, that's the Pebblebrook open space. It is owned by the City of Denton. It is a future park. It is not developed right now, but there are trails proposed for it. They haven't been designed yet, and we anticipate development of it would be in the next two or three years, so it's not imminent just yet. So the criteria for approval for an SUP are in subchapter two. We have general criteria for approval, and we also have specific criteria for approval. I won't read out all of these individually to you. What we'll do is we'll just talk about those elements that relate to the criteria for approval and relate to the staff's recommendation. So first what we want to look at is compatibility with the surrounding area. That really is the big thing when it comes to SUPs. And so this relates to why we look at what the surrounding development pattern is. So Loop 288 is a suburban commercial corridor. It includes office, retail, restaurant, service, and multifamily uses up and down that Loop 288 corridor. Multifamily uses and their associated activities are compatible with office and commercial development. The proposed development is also in scale to what is similar, what is typically found on Loop 288 and also the adjacent uses. Those three access points will help disperse the vehicular traffic. So any traffic impacts associated with it will be more dispersed because there are those three access points. We're not funneling it into just one area. So they'll be able to go to the north or to the south or to the east of the site. Multifamily uses are a vital component of our mixed use centers. They provide housing for employees and they're as close to work and to places to shop. And it also provides that customer base for our commercial areas. So they really are that vital piece to the mixed use areas. And as I said, the undeveloped property nearby is similarly zoned. So we do anticipate that the future development would be consistent with the existing development pattern. We also always look at Denton Plan 2030. There are actually two future land use designations that affect the subject property. First we have community mixed use. This is one of our mixed use districts. It encourages a variety of commercial uses and those should be predominant. But where we do have that residential and service, those other complementary uses to support our commercial centers. There's also moderate residential and that's one of our future land use designations that is intent for our urban areas, urban housing areas where it's single family housing, typically on small lots and four to 12 dwelling units per acre. So through that urban infill housing type. The proposal really is a good blend of what the intent of these two future land use designations are. So that critical mass and that intensity that community mixed use is intended for. But it also provides that residential component which blends well with that moderate density residential not only for that future land use but what's existing in the area. We also looked at the public facilities within the general area. So first traffic, 276 dwelling units generate about 2000 trips per 24 hour weekday. That's about 125 trips in the morning peak and then 146 in the evening peak. Loop 288 is a primary arterial. So it's one of our big roads within the city. It's six lane divided and Dutchess is a collector. They did submit a TIA. It's been reviewed. As part of that, there were two interventions that were suggested and that would be required. One is a restriping on Dutchess. So right now, Dutchess dead ends into loop 288. So as cars are traveling toward the east on loop 288, that road would be restriped to have one lane that turns dedicated to the south and one lane that is dedicated to turn toward the north to allow that intersection to work more smoothly. And then the other is the traffic light there at Dutchess and loop 288. And that was a discussion point at the city council meetings earlier in the year. And as part of that, the applicant offered a deposit of $400,000, which would be for the cost of the design and construction of that traffic signal. And that would include a pedestrian crossing there at the corner of Dutchess and South Loop 288. We checked with them on this new application and that was still an offer that they provided. They are also proposing additional pedestrian connections. Excuse me, Julie. Yes. Chair, let Julie finish her point and I'll ask her at the end of her slide if you would. Thank you, Chair. Fair enough. All right. So as part of the development, as with any development within the city of Denton, they are required to build sidewalks adjacent to the existing rights of way if they're not there. So they are proposing those sidewalks on Loop 288 and on Dutchess. This one's a little different in that they would also be extending those sidewalks along those undeveloped commercial tracks adjacent to them. So this track in particular was discussed at city council that they extend that sidewalk along the frontage to connect to an existing sidewalk here. And then also as part of this request, they are proposing to extend the sidewalk in front of that future commercial lot to connect to the existing sidewalk that's in front of the adjacent office building. This helps multimodal transportation in the area. There are two DCTA stops within the vicinity of the site, one down south, which doesn't have a lot of sidewalk connections. So I suspect any residents would be moving toward the north to this transit stop here. It's Denton Connect 4. With the addition of the sidewalk, it will actually complete that pedestrian route all along Dutchess from the adjacent property through the subject property and then up to nearly the intersection of McKinney and Loop 288. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So I'll ask my second question first since you were talking about the sidewalks. Do we have for our right of ways for the properties not in question that head south towards the creek? Do we have in our capital improvements and in our right of way authorizations the ability to put sidewalks to the south? South of Dutchess? Independent of this development? Yes. South of Dutchess. You know, I don't know the answer to that question. I'll see if I can get something. I'm not aware of any capital projects that would include a sidewalk south of Dutchess, but I can try to find out that prior to the regular session. Okay. And my first question, is the implication of the stoplight at the three-way intersection of Dutchess and 288 that with the park being a continuation of Dutchess ostensibly, is that we would punch through Dutchess into the park? I am not aware of Dutchess extending -- I'm going to pull up the mobile. Is that in the horizon? I'm not aware of it being on the mobility plan, so I would not expect at this time that Dutchess would extend into the -- I'm going to check while I'm talking here. The mobility plan does not show Dutchess extending toward the park property or into the park property right now. And so access to the park property in the five-minute walk paradigm is up to McKinney down a block or two and back south again? That is a great question, and it actually goes to my next slide. You are correct. So Pebblebrook open space is 130 feet from the site as the crow flies. So it's really close. But there are two things that sort of reduce its efficacy in that it's not developed yet, so it doesn't have any trails or any facilities within it right now. And then yes, there is not a direct route to it currently. The pedestrian route is about a half a mile, up to McKinney and then down again. And really that's why they're on site on recreational amenities, that central park project -- central park, that one-acre park in the center is really vital to this because it does provide the recreational opportunities for the residents. I'll just keep going on this slide if that's all right. So water and wastewater is available to the site. There will be some extensions they'll have to do for the water line along loop 288. There is capacity in the system to serve the proposal, and they will have -- be subject to TAP and impact fees at the time of platting and permitting. And then schools. So the proposal would generate about 83 elementary students, 30 middle school students, and 44 high school students. The Rivera Elementary and Myers Middle School have capacity for the students, but there is limit to the future residential growth for those campuses. Ryan High School also has limited capacity, but according to Denton ISD, the number of students generated for the proposal could be accommodated, but once again, it is limited for future growth in the area. Public outreach, newspaper ad was placed, notification was sent by mail. We have received two notices -- responses in favor of the project, and those are toward the north. And -- >> Julie, excuse me. Those are the same landowners that I believe were in opposition of this when it was originally presented before it was pulled, correct? >> Actually the landowners who were in opposition were more toward the south end of the project. >> Okay. Okay. >> I have not heard from them. The applicant has been in discussions with them. They will be on the call tonight, so they may be able to give you more information about their communications. >> Okay. Great. Thanks. >> So I promise I won't read this to you. It's all in your backup. It's a pretty extensive recommendation because of the history of this project and the communications with it. So we do have five conditions that we are recommending. One would be kind of our standard recommendation on SUPs for landscaping, that the intent of the landscaping is to comply with the debt and development code and that they comply with the landscape plan that you were shown tonight. There may be some minor changes to plant selection or individual small locations of where those plants would go once they get into the full design of the site. So that condition would just allow staff-level approval of those small changes to the landscape plan. The next one is related to the traffic signal. That $400 would be deposited with the city prior to the recording of the final plat for that design and construction of the traffic signal with the pedestrian crossing. That $400 could be entitled to the reimbursement of the pro rata cost. And this was discussed at City Council, but that reimbursement would be credited toward the development of the Pebblebrook open space to provide recreational opportunities for the residents once that's done. The terms of that agreement haven't been hashed out yet. That would be determined by a development agreement between the developer and City Council should this SUP be approved. The sidewalk extension, this relates to that sidewalk extension through the unimproved property to the north that's not a part of this request. And then the zoning map would reflect the SUP with that symbology to make sure it's -- that it's the planning staff as well as anyone reviewing the property would know that a specific use permit had been approved. And then notwithstanding those limited approvals in condition one, we would reserve the right to require a revised SUP for any changes to the site. And then -- >> Excuse me, Julie, Commissioner Anderson. >> Thank you, Chair. Julie, could you go back one slide? >> You bet. >> Can you explain number two, so they're going to deposit $400,000 to have the traffic signal installed and then we're going to give the money kind of back to them so they can do landscaping? >> Well, the pro rata cost is really -- if that entire $400,000 either wasn't used for the design and installation of that light or as other developments are contemplated and come in under Dutchess Drive, may have to pay into the -- into that light as part of their development, as part of their impact fees with their development. Any of those monies that would be credited back for those reasons would then go to the development of the city's Pebblebrook open space was the intent of that. >> Okay. And these are the same people that are asking for the Texas or -- I was reading on here a second I was looking down. They're asking for money from the state to help build these apartments, too, correct? >> They have -- yes. They have -- >> Yeah. So, yeah. Okay. Thanks. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. So, are the owners of the main part of the property going to continue to be the owners of the proposed commercial extension along Dutchess, at least at this time? >> You know, I have -- they have not been given me any information as regarding ownership of that separately platted lot. So I don't know when they would sell it off or if they will retain ownership of it. I'm not quite sure. I think the applicant will be able to answer that, I think. >> That's fine. Thank you, Julie. >> All right. And then the second part of the recommendation is something you've seen quite frequently. >> Excuse me, Julie. Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Julie, that $400,000 plus the pro rata back to the Pebblebrook open space, was that in the original SUP that we saw on this project? >> It is new information to you. That was -- >> I didn't recognize it from the last one. So what was that? Was that because we didn't know from text out if we were going to put that traffic light in or what was -- why was it added on this one? >> That was in response -- that came up at council during the previous -- when it went forward to council, the previous request. It was something that the applicant offered during a city council meeting in response to the concerns regarding traffic on Dutchess, the existing pressures for those vehicles as they move along Dutchess for the office buildings on there as well as the existing residential. So that was something that was proffered by the applicant during the city council meeting. >> Is that pretty common for us to see something like that where it is -- I guess Cynthia's got a hand up so maybe a better sense of the thought, but is that -- it seems uncommon for me to -- I've never seen something like this where we're going to pay for the traffic light and then we're going to pay it back to the city but that's going to be dedicated to an open space. I've never seen something like that. >> Commissioner Smith and the rest of the planning commission, I did want to jump in on this item. It is a recommendation that this be attached as a condition of approval, but there would be another step, it would -- the agreement would have to be approved by the city council. So as Julie had stated, it was brought up by the applicant during one of the public hearings at the city council meeting. That's why it was incorporated into these conditions of approval. But there would be a development agreement that would have to be approved by the council for this to all -- this condition to take effect. >> And if I might jump in right quick, Julie, when you're presenting, it's fine to keep the PowerPoint up, but ultimately when it is that we have the commission speaking, if you can reduce that down so we can see all of the commission members. >> Absolutely. >> It's hard to remember. So if anything, I'll give you a nod. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Mr. Smith, did you still have questions? >> I'm good. Thank you very much. >> Okay. You bet. >> You bet. >> All right. And then my last slide is just that, as I said, that one you typically see with SUPs. It outlines what you saw on the site plan regarding the number of dwelling units, the number of buildings. Number one does state that there are 276 one, two, and three bedroom units in 12 two and three story buildings. The applicant has requested that to add an additional sentence that they may increase the number of buildings so they may split one of those buildings in two, provided that the number of the units in that building square footage would remain the same. We do have within all of our SUPs that staff would have the ability to approve increases up to and including 5% of the amount specified in that requirement number one, and then also number four related to parking, but anything over 5% would require a new SUP. This recommendation also lays out what the central gathering area, those amenities and the amount of square footage. Other open spaces, those three access points, memorializing the balcony or patio for each dwelling unit, as well as decorative sconces for those primary building entrances, that mix of trees and shrubs between the parking areas and building entrances, and then those buildings oriented toward Luke 288 or organized around that central gathering area. Finally, solid waste. They are proposing some solid waste locations, but that final location be determined with review of the building permit to make sure they're in just the right spot. And that is concludes my presentation. Any more questions for Julie on this item? Okay, I have just one, Julie, and it's probably maybe for legal. I was reading the draft ordinance, and on page two, it would be draft item E. We probably need to edit that just for clarity because we mentioned referencing condition one, except it's condition A on page one. So we just may want to edit that one for clarity. Sure. If they should pass. We'll fix that. Thank you. Thanks. Anybody else? Okay. Thanks, Julie. You bet. Okay. That brings us to our next public hearing, which will be the alternative ESA, and that's Christy Upton, who I believe is here. Okay. Okay. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Christy Upton, and I am here tonight to share, sorry, there's an echo. Is there a way to improve that? I think I fixed it. Sorry. The city of Denton has adopted a set of regulations to protect the environmentally sensitive areas that are found along streams and channels in our city, along with upland habitats. And when land disturbances do not conform to protection requirements for the protection of those environmentally sensitive areas, then an alternative ESA plan is, the approval of that alternative ESA plan is required. There's a set of criteria for approval that guide the plan and guide staff towards recommendation for approval of that plan. The request tonight is for a tract of land generally located north of Rose Lawn Drive and east of railroad tracks along Highway 377. There is a preliminary plat that was approved for 214 acres of a single-family detached dwelling development. And in order to support that development, the applicant is proposing four stormwater channels that would encroach into riparian buffer ESA and water-related habitat. To give you some background into what these environmentally sensitive areas, what is located on this property, there was a field assessment that was conducted by a third-party biologist and approved by staff. The field assessment identified a tributary that crosses the creek – sorry. There's a tributary called Stream HC1, and in addition to that, there is a small secondary stream that's located generally about approximately right here. And there's a riparian buffer that supports that stream, and by definition, that riparian buffer is 50 feet on each side of the stream's centerline, so 100 feet in width total. The riparian buffer was found to be in fair condition. Surrounding that stream is a series of bottomland hardwood forests. These are forests that survive in wetter conditions and support the water quality of the stream and water that enters into that stream from land adjacent to the stream. In addition, there is undeveloped floodplain, and this is floodplain areas that have not been disturbed in the past or filled, and the floodplain boundary is defined by the current FEMA 1% chance for the 100-year floodplain. In addition, 30-plus acres of contiguous habitat was identified as cross-timbers upland forests, and that is generally located on the eastern side of the creek and on the southeast corner of the property. Before I get into the reasons for the alternative ESA plan, I wanted to present the permitted encroachments. The Denton Development Code allows for up to 50% of the upland habitat to be removed, so that means 50% preserved, and the applicant identified 15.1 acres of upland habitat that is being set aside, and that upland habitat preservation generally will be located along the creek and within the development and generally about this area. The roadways that are identified on the city mobility plan are also permitted encroachment, and there are two roadways that were identified on the mobility plan that will be constructed by the developer, and one of those is Parvin Road, and Parvin Road will be crossing the stream channel and encroaching into some water-related habitat, and civil plans have been submitted for a section that will include improvements to Parvin Road, and within that civil plans, there are compliance with the regulations to promote the recovery of the ESA and to prevent future erosion of the creeks and the channels, and Rose Lawn Drive will be later upgraded, and that will include some encroachments into the ESAs along the southern border of the property, and then lastly, there are some allowances for public and private utility facilities within the undeveloped floodplain ESAs, and thus this small section of the storm drain channel will be encroaching into the undeveloped floodplain, and that is a permitted activity. The proposed deviations and the reason for the alternative ESA plan that we are presenting here tonight is for four storm drain channels, which will support the residential development. The width of those channels is, and 10 feet outside of the width of those channels, will be the extent of the disturbance of the ESAs, and when added up, the total of the disturbances of the ESAs will be approximately 0.6, less than 0.7 acres of disturbances. The mitigation strategies that the applicant has offered is to, first of all, re-vegetate the disturbances, so once the applicant has come in and removed the vegetation and aligned the channels to allow for the drainage of the neighborhood, then they will be reseeding that area plus the 10 feet outside of that area, which are also being cleared for the construction, and all of that will be reseated with native grasses and other soft vegetation. The plantings will also include some large trees, small trees, and shrubs that will mimic some of the native vegetation that are found in the area. The second mitigation strategy is to go 10 feet outside of the disturbed areas and do a selective removal of invasive Chinese privet. During the field assessment, the field biologists identify 10 to 50 percent infestation in different areas across this channel, and they are proposing to selectively remove that privet and to re-vegetate the area where they have removed the privet with native grasses and, again, soft plant materials that will hopefully or intentionally will crowd out any future privet from reinvesting the area. There were notifications sent out, the 200-foot legal notice that was sent, we received responses. Five were in opposition, three were in favor, and one was neutral, and the concerns of those who were in opposition mostly were in expression of things that had been addressed by review of the preliminary plat and confirming that the preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements of the Debt and Development Code. There was a neighborhood meeting on July 14th, and at that neighborhood meeting there were 34 participants, and, again, most of the concerns were items that were addressed at the preliminary plat. And after reviewing the plan against the criteria for approval, staff is recommending approval for this request, and we have placed the following conditions for approval, and the first one would be to limit the land disturbances to the amounts that were expressed in the alternative ESA plan, and then in discussions with the applicant, they have agreed to identify heritage or quality trees that might be within the path of these channels and to make a consideration in the location of those channels to avoid those heritage or quality trees, and then at the end of the project to provide the meets and bounds for environmental services to record where those disturbances occurred, and then the revegetation of the areas that were disturbed, and then the fourth and fifth condition of approval is something that environmental services and general requests where we request an annual report to confirm that the area has been vegetated as shown in the alternative ESA plan, and that we can gain some guarantee of the survivability of the plants. Are there any questions? We're back. Can you help me understand when the postponement from prior meeting was asked for, it was partly on the grounds to work with neighborhood residents in the vicinity and make changes from what would have been the prior submission to this current one, can you help me understand what those changes are between the prior submission and this one? That was a request made by the planning and development services and the parks and recs department, and I would defer to the planning department to explain that request. Is Richard available? Can you hear me? Yes. Am I on for P&V? Yes, we can hear you. The reason for the postponement was for us to try to work with the applicant to preserve additional canopy area. That was the area that was part of the upland habitat that they were permitted to remove. Staff still is working on that. I believe we're going to be going back now to council on the 11th for discussion, but we are still in the works of looking to possibly acquire land for additional tree preservation. Richard or Christy or whoever is the appropriate person, I understand that this alternate ESA, actually I'm just going to make a comment, the stuff along the riparian edges along the creek bed is really well done, and I applaud Kimley-Horn for the efforts that they went to along the creek. I think the areas that are leading to contention with the neighborhood folks is that cross timbers upland region. My question is, if we're still in the process of working this out, how is it that we can approve the alternate ESA? Is the cross timbers not included as part of the alternate ESA? That is correct. The alternate ESA plan that is being proposed tonight is for the encroachment of the four channels, and not part of any discussion of the cross timbers upland habitat. All right. Thank you for clarifying that, Christy, I appreciate it. Anybody else? Christy, I have just one quick question on the recommendation, the number two, the way it's worded. So, when we say the applicant will consider preservation of heritage and quality trees, we're really not holding them to anything then, correct, with the way we worded that? I believe the applicant can speak to this more. They do intend to present tonight, and from what I understand, there is some ability to consider the final location of the channels, and this is just an ability of theirs to modify the location so that if they identify some quality heritage trees, that we are giving them some flexibility in the placement of those channels. Yeah, it's just the way it's worded, the applicant will consider the preservation. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, it's odd, but I'll ask the applicant. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Okay, commissioners, that is the end of our agenda. We are effectively at the time for our public meeting. Do you all need a quick break before, or can we go right into that? Consensus. I wouldn't mind like a little five-minute break just to grab a snack real quick. Okay. So, at 632, I will call the work session closed, and we will reconvene in five minutes. Okay. Does that work? Thanks. Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday, August 5th, 2020. With a quorum present, I will call our meeting to order at 645 p.m. Thank you for your patience. Let the record show that Chair Roselle is absent tonight from our meeting. Our first agenda item is to honor the U.S. and Texas flag, so please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one nation indivisible. Thank you. Our next agenda item is to consider the approval of the Planning and Zoning Minutes for July 22nd. The Chair would entertain a motion. Commissioner Beck? I move for approval. Is there a second? Commissioner Anderson? Second. Okay. We've got a first and a second for approval of the July 22nd minutes. We will take a vote by roll call. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Prunetta? I recuse. I was absent. Oh, you can still actually vote on the minutes. Then aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. And the Chair is an aye. That motion passes 6-0. Next on our agenda is the Consent Agenda. Does anyone want to pull anything from Consent? Commissioner Beck? Thank you, Chair. I think given the feedback that we've been seeing, I'd like to request that Items 3C and 3D about Agave Ranch development be pulled for individual consideration and discussion. Okay. We will pull Item 3C and 3D. Those will become individual consideration, Items C and D. So with that, we can move to a motion on Consent. Commissioner Smith? I make a motion to approve Consent Agenda Items A and B. Okay. Commissioner Anderson? Second the motion. Okay. We have a first and a second to approve Consent Agenda Items 3A and 3B. Any discussion? Okay. Seeing none, we'll call for a vote by roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Prunetta? Aye. And the Chair is an aye. Consent Agenda Items 3A and 3B pass 6-0. So that will then take us to our first item that was pulled from Consent. That is GDP 19001, and that's considered a request by Agave Ranch Development for approval of a general development plan. And I'm going to turn it over to Julie Wyatt for the presentation. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt. I just have a short presentation. Let me share my screen. Okay, so this is GDP 19-0001. This is in relationship to the Agave Ranch project. You're probably somewhat familiar with it. It had a rezoning request last year, and that was approved last July by City Council. There were some overlay conditions related to that request. And so they submitted a GDP so we could just sort of look at how all of those overlay conditions work together, as well as the public improvements associated with the request. So here we have the open space requirements shown in this exhibit, as well as an exhibit of what the landscape buffer along FM 428 will sort of look like. And then they also provided a paving plan associated with it, which shows the roadways that would be associated with the development. And then in your backup, there's also a utility plan that didn't come across so well, but that is in your backup regarding the lift station that is proposed for this general location and the connections to the water and sewer line. So the applicant is on the line if you have any questions, and I can answer questions as well. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So Julie, as you heard earlier, a lot of the comments and concerns were there didn't seem to be a lot of opposition to it. A development in this area was actually what is the mobility plan for this development? And could you enlighten us as to the connectivity in the mobility plan proposed for this development? You bet. Let me share my screen again. I've got some slides related to that. So right now, so we have a current mobility plan, it was approved in 2015. And here is the subject site located right here. And you can see Hartley Field Road per this mobility plan is intended to be a collector east of the site and then transitioning to a secondary arterial through the subject property. In this map, you can see the proposed mobility plan. There are some small changes, it's kind of removed a lot of these collectors kind of crisscrossing this area and maintained that proposed Hartley Field with a secondary arterial now to the east of the subject property and then cutting through the property and continuing onto FM428. To the north of the subject property, there will actually be a collector that transitions to an arterial that is just north of the subject property. If you see right here, that is just clips north of the subject property. I also pulled the county thoroughfare plans because I know that this area is a mix of both city property and county property. So I kind of wanted to just see how those two things compared. So here we have the 2017 county mobility plan with Hartley Field here. And that shows a two-lane road east of the subject site transitioning to a four-lane divided road near the subject property. And that's consistent with what they show in their 2019 thoroughfare plan as well. So I just wanted to provide that background information. I also pulled a slide from the zoning case. This was from the council, what was presented to the council last year. So I apologize for the dates on it, but I did want to show you what the city commissioned a transportation study for this entire sector of the city to see what kind of roadways would be needed to support residential development in this area. So this does show the future outer loop that is north of the site, which FM428 will eventually connect to. It shows that once again, Hartley Field sort of straightening out in this location and cutting bisecting the property and then also provided that north connection as well. That's really it for my presentation. Let me stop sharing my screen and I'll be able to answer any questions. - So some of the comments, thank you Julie, I appreciate that. A lot of the comments and feedback that we got seemed to suggest that during neighborhood engagement phases of this development and during various council actions, the citizens were led to believe that the connectivity would be connecting in north. And maybe that they may not have organized or supported or deferred or fought, whatever appropriate verb we want to use with that understanding. So is there anything precluding the mobility plan or changes or development from the developer from moving more northward as the citizens have suggested? - There wasn't a condition in the zoning case related to Hartley Field and the position of it. The mobility plan does indicate that a roadway should be in that general area. Now the mobility plan is schematic, so it sort of depends on how the project moves forward. So but that mobility plan does show that connection in that general area. - And if we were to connect new Hartley Field, whatever the roundabout lollipop there in the middle of the proposed plan to the existing dogleg, would we have to, would some sort of property exchange have to happen to make that happen? - Well there is a gap. So Agave Ranch is proposing to dedicate the right of way for the future Hartley Field alignment, as well as with the development, they would have to build portions of that. But there is a gap just to the east of the subject site that is not under control of the city. So the future development of Hartley Field would require either right of way dedication or acquisition of some sort. But there is, you're suggesting that there is some flexibility in the mobility plan and in the layout such that this is a possibility if the developer were to be amenable. - Well the mobility plan does show Hartley Field in that general location. I am not, you know, they work with engineering regarding these developments and getting the roads in the right places. So the applicant is on the line and they may be able to answer questions regarding, you know, the decision making that they have made. But the mobility plan does call for a road in this general location. - All right, I'll hold questions for other, thank you. - Commissioner Anderson. - Thank you, Chair. Really my understanding in reading all the comments that we did receive today and, you know, me growing up in that area and I know that area very well is initially the road was not gonna connect there, it was gonna be north like Commissioner Beck said. And now, you know, apparently everybody in Hartley Field area was kind of on board. They don't mind having new neighbors. It's just you don't want them to have all this traffic coming through as quiet community. And as Commissioner Beck expressed a second ago, having the road north like many of the people and many of the residents thought it was gonna be. Now they are kind of given a quick present like, oh, sorry, you know, now it's gonna connect to your major area and sorry, neighbor A, you're gonna lose, Mr. Smith, you're gonna lose part of your yard and sorry, Ms. Ellis, you're gonna lose your house. And I don't see how that would be very feasible. I mean, that's kind of, we want, in our plan, it says we're gonna protect the rural areas. And here we are trying to take away somebody's property and somebody's house just to connect a new development. I mean, as Commissioner Beck said again, is there a way to move the road further north? Well, let me share my screen again. And I apologize, I am not, I'm not quite sure what the discussion was. There is a road that is north and it is just, it's north of the subject site. And I don't know if that is the one that's being referenced. But the mobility plan has, you know, that was adopted in 2015 has shown this sort of straightening out alignment of Hartley Field kind of in this manner. I think Scott wants to jump in. Sure. Yes, I was just gonna let you know that the traffic engineering is on the line if needed, Julie. Oh, great. Thank you. And he may be able to better explain the mobility plan. Commissioner Burnetta. Yeah, and kind of along those lines, we did get a number of, you know, basically responses on this one. When it came through and it finally passed at P&Z last year that, you know, the approval for Agave had had quite an evolution of going back and forth with the developers and the people in the area, I know that at the time we made the bill when we finally approved it prior to that, we kind of made sure that we were providing a good transition, basically to rule. In that one of the discussions that we had was was Hartley Field Road and the I guess the question I have right now is that a lot of the responses tend to imply that there's going to be basically an impact on properties, homes, wells, things like that with the way that the Hartley Field Road extension is going to go now. I don't remember that being part of any consideration that we had once we approved. Is this something that's missing from the presentation or is this a change? Because once again, when we had the vote last time, we had a very strong consensus among the local community for that area. We don't have that now. And I'm just trying to get a grasp of what changed, you know, because when I look at what we have right here and hear the presentation, it seems like everything should be the same, but obviously it's not. So maybe that's a question for traffic engineering, but I'm just trying to get a grasp of the full impact of what's different because the opposition is significantly stronger than one would have expected after the kind of group approval we had last summer. And I might want to have transportation talk about, I'm not aware of any changes to the mobility plan that have taken place since 2015, but transportation may be able to answer any questions regarding that. We're working on getting Brian and John unmuted. Okay. And Julie, if I could jump in, maybe you can explain to the commission. Is this something, because it's on the mobility plan, is this something that they had to include because it's in the mobility plan to extend this road? Yes. When we have a development, and this is just in general, when we have a development that intersects with a road that is on the mobility plan, it is the intent of the city to get the right of way dedication and have the development construct that road as shown on the mobility plan. So that's pretty typical of the developments, and in this case, it was something that because the mobility plan shows that road was something that was required because that is our adopted plan. Is there flexibility in that requirement or no? You know, the final, as I said, that mobility plan is schematic. So as you probably recall in that 2015 plan, that the road kind of jogged a little bit, sort of jogged around that pond. So there is flexibility, I believe, and Brian may be able to more fully expound on it, of in general, or the specifics of the road, but in general, it needs to go from the kind of the established point A to the point B. Okay. Thanks, Julie. Commissioner Beck, did you have a question before we bring in traffic? No. I raised my hand. Thank you, Chair. I raised my hand to get the traffic engineer in. I was nodding for that. So if we could, however we can integrate that discussion, I'd like to hear that. Okay, great. I do think he's in. So Brian, take it away. Can you hear me now? We can. Excellent. So there are a couple of points, I think one of the questions was, do they have to dedicate or do they have to propose roadways in accordance with the mobility plan, and the answer to that is yes, unless they go through an amendment process. And so those are very rare to remove a roadway. This particular extension of Hartley Field is on both the 2015 mobility plan and the proposed 2020 update to that mobility plan. So there's some consistency in showing that east-west connection, as again, as Julie said, in this general area. So we do have some leeway as far as the particular alignment. We can move it. I think we can move it up to a thousand feet without having to go through the amendment process, north or south in this case, but the mobility plan does compel the right-of-way dedication and it does require compliance, at least to the level of you're providing a connection, as Julie said, from the point A to the point B. So I will say in the 2020 update, there is a shift to the major roadway, the larger primary arterial is shifted to the north, to that golden circle. I think it's the northern boundary of this property. That will become the primary east-west connection and Hartley Field will remain the secondary. So at most four lanes, whereas the northern connection will be up to six lanes. So we are pushing a lot of what we would consider cross-country through traffic to the northern boundary of this site. You'll still have the connection through the middle, Hartley Field, but it will not be that six lane divided arterial. Thank you, Brian. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So Brian, if you can help me understand that they're building the connectivity to the mobility plan and Hartley Field is ostensibly going to remain the same, but the plan that they're presenting that they're forced into through the mobility plan requirements seems to suggest that that's their primary arterial in and out of the neighborhood, which doesn't precisely align with the golden circle, or I forgot the name of the road to the north. And if it's schematic, I mean, can they not match a, if we change our schematic to be more aligned to the north, then can they not then fall in line with our mobility plan by being more aligned to the north? It feels like that this would be sort of a win-win for everyone. The neighborhood would go through, the neighbors would be happy. It feels like if we're already intending the predominant traffic flow to be to the north, why don't we just make it to the north and then allow the developers to develop in that way instead of requiring them to punch through Hartley with the main arterial, or maybe I'm mixing things. Can you help me understand that, Brian? Well, so, okay, it may be that we're in kind of limbo, but if you look at the amount of property east of this site, that's going to want to get to 428, and if they want to come into town, we really don't necessarily want to push them north to bring them south. And so we want to provide that connectivity, and I think Hartley Field is the appropriate facility. We want to provide the connectivity. We just want to size it appropriately. So I don't know that I would necessarily – we could certainly model taking the Hartley Field connection out, but that particular connection does not serve just this – or is not intended to serve just this development. That is kind of a quasi-regional – not regional, but it's a major connection to 428, which is currently being studied by TxDOT to be a controlled access facility, something larger than it is today. So it's going to be a primary – 428 is going to be a primary spine into Denton. So we want to strategically place connections, and typically it's about a mile spacing, plus or minus, but we want to strategically provide connections to 428 that serves not just this property, which fronts 428, but all the property to the east. So we really – we're trying to balance local access versus more, like I said, quasi-regional, where you're – you've got a long-reach potential. Now I will say that the 2020 update, in providing that larger connection to the north, is going to remove a lot of the traffic that's not associated with anything in this area. They're simply – strictly through traffic. So anybody that's coming from the east, not – and maybe not even from Denton, but further east, they're going to have the opportunity to be on a facility that's a little bit north of here and hit 428 and either continue north or continue south. And that's why we've down – kind of downplayed the cross-section on Hartley Field versus that Golden Circle. We still need the connectivity. It's not just these 250 homes that we have to plan for, but the entirety of the area east of here that's going to want to get to 428. So we – we are shifting some of that travel, that traffic north, by providing a better facility, bigger facility. But we're still going to need to provide connectivity between ultimately Golden Circle or the Ganzer connection and 288. We need some – we need some additional access points. And again, they're building a two-lane initially. And they're dedicating right of way for an ultimate four-lane. But it may stay a two-lane for a long time until the travel patterns develop such that an expansion is required. But to remove it or to restrict it to a two-lane would require some additional effort on our consultant's part to determine whether or not then are we providing enough connectivity to 428 between the Golden Circle, the Ganzer connection that goes all the way to 35W and 288, because what we don't want is people winding through residential streets because they don't want to get on the big road north. They don't want to drive north to go south, so they're going to filter their way through these residential streets to get to 428. I'd rather put them on a facility that is designed and is ready to take that travel demand than to let them just filter through roadways that are – you know, have houses fronting and more pedestrian activity. So that's really what the intent is, is to strategically identify those connectivity – those corridors, space them appropriately so that people – they want to stay on the major roadways and not find their way through neighborhoods. And I'll just follow up real briefly and then let the other commissioners chime in or let Cher have control back again, and that is, yeah, I understand that there's a balance of needs for the larger development plan, but it feels like now is the opportune time to balance the existing property rights needs and traffic patterns of neighbors that weren't actually opposing this development but are more concerned about how it impacts their property values, their community, their consistency of life in this region, especially given the schematic and sort of semi-flexible nature of an ongoing development. I think that we have an opportunity to try and be flexible, to try to satisfy as many of all the demands as necessary. And I'll leave it there, thank you, Chair. So let me follow up on that and make sure I understand. So the properties that are east of here, are those the neighbors that you're talking about? Yeah, and the little notch on the properties. Okay. Because I think one of the advantages we have is they're not – this development is not providing a connection on Hartley Field through this development. It stops. And until development occurs east, until that property develops, there won't be a connection on Hartley Field. That roundabout, if – and I don't know if Julie has that site plan up, but the roundabout, the fourth leg is not part of their development plan. That is, they're dedicating right away, but they are not providing the connection. So Hartley Field will only serve this development until development occurs east of here. So the road – I can't read its name, my eyes are too bad. The road to the north, silver something – I forget its name. In the right on Julie's mouse, the – where there is the lift that she was discussing, that can't be the connectivity to the future roadway use? Okay. So because – is it Starlight? No. Starlight, that's it. Thank you. Yes. Okay. I understand. When we're remote, we cannot watch what's on the web because it's a 20-second delay. So I have the site plan called up on my PC as well. So Starlight possibly could, but it would need to be sized similarly to Hartley Field. I mean, what are – the potential development east of here that wants to get to 428, what our model is telling us is that you don't want that on a residential street. You want it on something bigger. And you don't want houses facing because there's going to be a lot of traffic. And so if – my concern would be that if we connected Starlight and we left it with the cross-section that it currently has, which is a two-lane residential roadway, you're going to have a lot of unhappy people because they are going to be fronting their homes on a street that's going to be carrying significant volumes. We can't force everyone to use that northern connection. We want to provide it, and that's what our 2020 update does. That northern – for this property, it's the northern boundary. We're enhancing that roadway. We're making it a little bit bigger, more capacity. We want people to use that. But people are going to find – if we don't provide anything between what is Golden Circle and 288, if we don't provide a larger roadway that connects east-west to 428, we're going to have a lot of neighborhood infiltration, and that's what we try to avoid. Okay. I will back off for a while and let other commissioners talk. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, Chair. John, thanks for answering some of these questions. But I do have – I mean, Brian, sorry about that. You made a statement that is what the residents are saying. They don't want all the east traffic coming through their two-lane neighborhood with their houses facing the streets. And that's what I think the extension eventually of Hartley Field is going to do. It's going to cut through this nice, quiet, rural neighborhood with houses facing a two-lane, non-divided road, and you're going to make it a four-lane street, and you're going to take up some of their yards, and that's what they don't want. They don't want all this traffic coming through their quiet neighborhood. And I think that's what – I think Commissioner Begg is trying to get across. I think that's what – you know, that's what I'm saying. And after reading all the comments, that's what all the residents – I mean, almost every residents in that area submitted a response today, you know, that we read. And I'm in total agreeance with them that if I live there – and like I said, I grew up out there – the trails and fishing, and that's not what I would want in my neighborhood. I wouldn't want my two-lane street becoming a major four-lane road with all the traffic because that's where people walk. They walk their dogs. They have kids on bikes. You know, you got people walking – you know, riding out there to the creeks to go – you know, go hunting and fishing, and now you're going to have a four-lane road, which is against everything that you just said about not wanting all that traffic coming through a neighborhood. And I'll let you answer. So what I said was that we need to plan for that traffic. That traffic is going to be there. That property is going to develop. We're working with a developer right now, significantly larger proposal than what we're looking at tonight, just east of here. That traffic is going to be there. But Hartley Field – okay, sorry. Right. So it's a Carter property. So what the balance – what the choice is, is do you want to leave Hartley Field a two-lane roadway that's going to have the same amount of traffic, or do you want to build it so that it attracts traffic – and I understand the homeowners. But if we don't build an adequate roadway infrastructure, then all that traffic – they're going to find a way to 428, and it's going to be down all of the little two-lane streets in this neighborhood. It's going to be on Hartley Field. You can't avoid traffic on Hartley Field. And so do you want – Why can't you go behind the houses on Hartley Field Road, and like Commissioner Beck said, and tie into Starlight, and just widen Starlight to make it a four-lane arterial instead of having people come through Hartley Field? Because right now, Hartley Field already has access to 428. And you're just going to make it wider coming through on the north side of the existing Hartley Field Road. Right. So part of the problem is where the property lines are and what is being – what's developed. And we try and straddle property lines when we look at roadways. So this particular property that's developing east of here, their northern boundary is Hartley Field Road. So I can't make a connection north of there. They don't own that. And what we would end up with is that we would end up with a future connection when the property north of those homeowners develops. But until then, all of the traffic is going to be on Hartley Field Road. We can't avoid that. And so what we try to plan for is adequate and appropriate spacing. Now there is a plan, and I don't – I'm not sure when that development's coming forward, but they have an interim plan to address the issue that you're talking about. I don't want to get – that's way off topic tonight, but they're working with the homeowners to mitigate the impact of this new Hartley Field on their existing homes. So what we have to look at is 25 years from now, 50 years from now, whether or not – how the property's going to develop. And if it's going to stay a large lot, single family, is it going to convert to a little bit higher density, like the property south of Hartley Field is going to develop? It's not going to be a large lot. And then where are the appropriate infrastructure elements that we need to plan for? We don't want to get – you know, if we push it to starlight, then how much closer – and I can answer my own question – if we push it to starlight, then the starlight connection and the Golden Circle connection are, I don't know, 1,000 feet apart. And that's – from a transportation planning standpoint, that's a little close. So we try and space them out. Can we look at that? I guess we can. But again, I – even if you propose starlight as the future alignment for the next number of years, all of the traffic with this new development is going to be on Hartley Field because that's the road that's there, and they have every right to use it. It's a public roadway. So do we leave it as a two-lane and then wait until somebody north of them develops? And then how do we get those – then there's the question of how do you get the traffic that's south – on the south side of Hartley Field through to this new connection? I mean, there's no empty – nobody's proposing a connector road. So we keep coming back to, even though it's not the best solution or not the most – it is not an optimal solution, Hartley Field Road continues to be the best solution from the mobility plan's perspective. Seeing the impact it has on existing homeowners, I totally understand that, and I'm with you. And that's why I think the developers that are proposing east of here are trying to work with the homeowners and come up with a plan where they don't have the traffic in their front yards. And we can – again, I don't want to – that's a little bit off-posting, so I don't want to talk about it, but too much, but there is some – there is a conversation that's underway with that developer and the homeowners on Hartley Field to develop some kind of middle ground. And I've seen it, and I think it's a great plan. At some point, Hartley Field is going to be what the mobility plan wants it to be, I think. It's going to be an east-west connection. You're going to have a lot more density east of here, you know, 50 years from now, 30 years from now. Those single-family large-lot developments may not be there. I don't know. But our land use plan and all of our planning efforts show us that density is going to increase. We're going to have cars that want to get to 428, and we don't want – Okay, Brian. I think I'm going to interrupt you, and I appreciate you being here and all the comments. Just to kind of get this – circle this back to what we're really dealing with here and how we can kind of move forward here with what's on the table. I believe Commissioner Pernetta had a question. Kind of a question, because there's some things that have been kind of dropped in here and there, you know, amongst what Commissioner Beck, Commissioner Anderson, and Brian John said. One of the things that seems to be the concern is you mentioned that there is a future development that is kind of not on the books yet. One of the things that we seem to hear from the local residents right now is that the decision that we make right now is going to impact how negatively future development hits them. Now, if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the people that are talking and are concerned with everything on Hartley Field Road are technically in the ETJ. So for me, a lot of this feels like, you know, what kind of neighbors are we going to be in the vote that we take right now? And it seems like right now we are going to be making a decision that negatively impacts people that are technically in the ETJ for the benefit of people who don't even live in homes that don't even exist now yet. And I, you know, you mentioned that there's some planning that can be done that can kind of alleviate this. I would hope that maybe we could kind of make some adjustments. I know we're not going to have a perfect scenario, but if we could mitigate the impact by rerouting just a little bit, I think that would be kind of the optimal thing, because once again, when we had this discussion a year ago, one of the things that we talked about was looking toward the future and trying to make sure that we didn't expedite, you know, basically high density on some nice country that's transitioning out towards other areas and trying to preserve some of what makes this area beautiful. You know, I would hope that maybe, you know, I'm not sure I can, I'm pretty sure I can't support what's going, what we're going to be voting on tonight. I would hope that there'd be some additional adjustments that took into consideration the impact of people now and didn't put quite as much weight on, like I said, homes that don't exist, neighbors we don't have, and you know, it impacts that we might regret sitting in the future. That's kind of where I am. I don't know that there's any response to that, but I just wanted to put that out there. Okay, does anybody have any more questions for Brian at this moment? Okay, I'm wondering if I believe we have the engineer for this application on the line. I'm wondering if he wants to chime in and say a few words with the discussion we've been having. Sure. Can you hear me? This is Jason. Okay, Jason. We can. Thank you. Yeah. So obviously we have gone around and around ever since we presented our first concept plans way back again over a year ago, trying to accommodate neighbor concerns as well as staff concerns and developer desires. And so the plan that we've presented with the rezoning we move forward is into the preliminary plan and receive staff feedback. We've addressed those comments. There have been some revisions to the concept plan. It looks a little bit different than the concept plan that you all saw at daring zoning. And the relocation of that Hartley Field stub, I guess, is what I'll call it as Brian kind of alluded to earlier. It ends with the traffic circle for now and probably for quite some time just due to those ponds and some other restrictions that will prevent this from punching through any kind of immediate timeframe. But that was positioned there due to spacing along 428, which is a textile roadway and has spacing requirements, access requirements that you can't have major intersections too close to each other. We looked at having Starlight has been brought up here a couple times. We had that as a residential collector when we first submitted. And we revised that down to just a local residential. Again, as Brian said, they've been modeling this area, they've been looking at this area, and we've been responding to staff input. So we've been working together to make a plan that fits with the adopted mobility plan with just engineering limitations, tech stock considerations and trying to follow what we said we would do and working with staff. And I'm not sure if moving it closer or farther north would make any sense. Again, with that next road at a northern boundary, yeah, that's the next arterial. We can't get really any closer to that and then have two arterials back to back. That doesn't make sense either. So I would just like to say that we've worked with staff, we've had four rounds of comments to get this preliminary plan, this GDP to where it is to receive staff support to put it before you tonight. And so after four submittals and resubmittals and revisions, this is what we're presenting, a plan that meets all of the city requirements and has staff support. And I appreciate that, Jason. Having watched this go back and forth with the neighborhood and seeing what a positive outcome it is, I think that's what the commission is having a hard time with, is we hate to see it go in a negative direction. Before I recognize Commissioner Smith, who I believe has a question for you, would you possibly entertain a postponement on this since so much has been brought up tonight to be considered? That would really require further discussion? It's a lot harder to do this when I can't turn around and whisper to my client and other people on our team like we normally can when we're all in church. Yeah, I'm going to have to say that we have a text thread going and so can we have a few minutes to discuss that, but basically like via text? Let me recognize Commissioner Smith in case there's further questions. Great. Thank you, Chair. It's not really a question for Mr. Bagel, but is the developer on, Jason, is your developer on? Yes. John is on. Okay. So if you have a specific question for John, you're free to. It's more just from a development standpoint, because I know from an engineering standpoint, it would be some of the question for you, too, that if moving properties around, moving plot lines around, I don't want to go too far against what Brian and John has said so far, because I think that could get you, but if it's even possible for the project to still fit within the zoning requirements where we pass through, even move these streets around, change density, you put a higher, I remember from this zoning correctly, and John and Amy or whoever else is on, if you move a higher density, higher flow for the north where Starlight is, that was a lower density area in this place, and so would that end up shifting density up there if you're putting, if you're basically taking up more land by putting a road there? You guys answer that question or maybe talk about it from a development standpoint, because it's an issue that's not being brought up that might end up affecting the zoning, that might, if we move that road around, we might end up walking you guys into a zoning issue, so I don't know if you can bring that up, I'd appreciate it. John, or? I'm not sure he's there, but I mean, that was one of the reasons I suggested the postponement, just because so much has been brought up that certainly needs more discussion and is not going to be able to be had today. Why, Jason, are you still there? So, why don't we, okay, if you're, do you need five minutes? Hey, John is on here, the developer is on here, if you guys can hear me. Okay, now we can. Okay, sorry about that. Yeah, so to go back to Mr. Smith's comment, and guys, I mean, we have, we've done every single turn that the city has asked us to do on this, I mean, we're two years into development, we do this all over the place, and I've never had this type of pushback when I as a developer and my whole team has done every single thing, placed every single road, done every single park, done, you know, fences that are over the top, ponds that are everywhere, you know, I mean, we've done everything that we can do, and we have drawn this, the subdivision probably five different times, and then I mean, we're about to kill a subdivision because we're going to run out of money, I mean, we've drawn this thing so many times, I'm $250,000 into engineering on it, and you're asking me to go back in the 10th hour to do it again, and road exactly where you told me to put it, and I mean, to be honest, exactly where the city engineering road people told us to put them and exactly what they are, you know, so to come back today, and I have an issue with it, after we've gone through five rounds of reviews, it's like you don't trust your own city engineer road people, you know, and that's, I don't know where the disconnect is in this city or here tonight, you know, some people in Hartleyville road that have got your ear, which that's happened the whole time, all the way through, we're two years into it, only thing we've done is exactly what we told you would do, and exactly what you've asked us to do, and how we fix this going forward, I don't, I particularly don't know. I mean, I really, really don't. I mean, I don't know how to fix it. I mean, the next thing we do, somebody else is going to gripe about it, and we're going to be right back here again, it feels like, you know? Commissioner Smith, you still have the floor. Yeah, thank you very much. And this is not really to John, thank you for speaking up and not really so much to Jason, even though I would be willing to entertain a post-specialist if I could help, and I hate to get to you, John, but it might be good to have a discussion, but my own personal opinion on this is just that if city staff, and I shouldn't even say staff, if engineering is coming to us and saying that this, it's a pick your poison decision and really, we're trying to choose the best poison we've got available to us, it makes it really hard for me to start saying, well, I'm not a traffic engineer, not a development engineer. If I'm planning and zoning, I don't know, you'll have to talk to Chris Watts about that, but here I am three years later. But the fact of the matter is that if somebody smarter than me knows what's going on, knows what's happening with this project, knows exactly what should be done and what the bad things could be if we chose wrong, is suggesting we do it this way, it makes it really hard for me to go against that. Even though there's definitely neighbors who are going to be impacted, I get it, and I get from what Commissioner Pernetta, I get it from what Commissioner Becker said, is that we're worrying about the quality of life for people who haven't had the houses built versus the quality of life for people who already have the houses built. I get it. I think it's a crappy position to be put in, honestly, but if engineers are saying it's a choice between bad and worse, I'm going to choose bad. And so if I could just maybe make one thing before maybe hear from the engineer, if they are open to postponing it, I just, I feel really hard going against what the engineers have to say. Okay, Jason, are you there? I'm still here. I think it's really difficult to, I guess, I'm not sure what we would accomplish in a postponement. Again, like you just reiterated, Tim, we have the road where it is because that is where your city staff, your engineering staff, they've told us to put it there. We did not make that decision. So unless you think that you should tell staff that they're not the experts and that it shouldn't be in that location and the staff needs to reconsider their position and years of mobility planning and hours and hours of traffic modeling. Like, I'm not sure what a postponement would really accomplish this time. We've submitted over and over and over again to get to where we are, to flush all this out, to make the plan that we have before you. And again, we're meeting all your requirements. We're complying with the mobility plans. We're complying with all the city code. We're not asking for any changes. We're receiving staff support. I don't know how, I hope this isn't too blunt, but I don't know how PMZ would recommend a denial. Like, what would be the basis for recommending the denial? We meet all of the requirements for a preliminary plan. I think what it is, and we're talking about the general development plan at the moment, we have received 13 public comments on the online form that were emailed to all of us and submitted and recorded by the secretary. So that, it's hard to just put those aside. So trying to get answers for them, like, can it be moved at all? I think it's answers that we would need to make an informed decision and maybe be able to support as a whole. So I think that's the reason that I suggested the postponement, just because there's answers to questions that, there's questions where there haven't been any answers yet, to where we could feel comfortable facing the public who gave us these comments. You know, this is a tough area. It's rural. It's rural on the future land use map. We obviously know development's going to happen. We got community involvement and support for the development. And again, it's just hard to take a negative turn on this, that everybody, you all, staff, us, city council, I mean, that put a lot of time into to make this development work in this special area of the city. So, you know, I'm obviously just speaking for myself. I don't want to speak for everyone, but I feel that's where the comments and concerns of today are coming from with the commission. Well, and I think that, and I think that, and yes, I mean, I, like you said, this is the GDP that we're discussing. I mean, obviously the next item is the preliminary plan. You know, those are so, those are completely linked together. So a lot of what I am saying is, of course, related to the preliminary plan. And they do correlate. But I just, I don't know. I don't know what other, I guess it's, it's, it's the staff. And I just reiterate John and Tim again. I mean, staff is in position to, to guide us and to provide the input to make sure we're in compliance with the direction and the requirements of codes and, and, and of your, your comprehensive plan and of your mobility plans and, and everything that the council has approved as the, as the governing documents of the city. And that's what staff has implemented. And that is, again, then that's why it took us five rounds, five submittals to, to get that plan before you. They didn't just take our first plan and say, yeah, it looks good stamped it. No, I mean, we've spent the last several months going back and forth and back and forth and back and forth to, to make sure we were in compliance. So, I mean, we really just ask that, that we can move forward with, with the plan that, that your staff is, that the, the staff is, is, is supporting. Could I, could I interject? This is John, the developer again, just for one second. Oh, yes, sure. Okay. The, I mean, it's kind of be understood that this road is not going to plunge through people's property in the next six months or years that we're talking about 20 years from now. I mean, this is not something that is, it doesn't even have anything to do with us. It's, I mean, our road doesn't even go up and touch the edge of the property there. It was, it was told to by us to put it there because I don't know if it's five years or 25 years, that's how they want the roads to go because that's how the mobility plan is. It's, I mean, we're acting as if this road is going to be built next week, you know, or these people are going to be pushed out of their homes. Well, that's not how it works. It's as that gets developed, then like we did, we will have to give road development right away and it'll carry forward and 20 years from now it's going to, it's going to match a plan that was supposed to be a 2030 plan. Thanks, John. Julie, I believe you want to step in. Yes, it may be instructive for me to just kind of call out what those standards for approval for a general development plan are, if you'd like. So this is, this is considered under the 2002 Denton Development Code. So I am referring to subchapter 16 in that code and, and the, those conditions for, or those requirements for approval are, it conforms to the infrastructure policies identified in the Denton Plan 2030 and other city infrastructure master plan and the city's current and future parks and playground facilities. Conforms to the extension of the city's infrastructure within the municipality and its ETJ as identified by the Denton Plan 2030 and any other city of Denton infrastructure master plan. Number three conforms to any rules adopted under section 212.002 or is set forth in the application criteria manual. Number four complies with all city construction standards and number five complies with all applicable laws and subchapters. So just as your, it might be instructive to just know what those criteria for approval are. Okay. Thank you, Julie. Appreciate it. Commissioner Beck. Julie, for a GDP, can you remind me, educate me, is the preliminary plat a component of the GDP? If we were to approve the GDP, would we be tied to specific platting? So the GDP is kind of the preliminary, preliminary, preliminary plat. So all of these, all of these projects sort of build on each other. So the GDP is that foundational document that really looks at that infrastructure piece and, and all, how all of these elements associated with, with the requirements fit together. So it's sort of conceptual. It get, it drills down and gets a little more specific than with the preliminary plat. And then, and then the civil engineering plans are, are reviewed with staff and then it goes to the final plat. So they all sort of build on each other. So ostensibly, if we, if we approve the sort of general concept plan, then we are forcing the mobility plan, the roads, the platting, everything to go where they're sort of envisioning it in the plan we were presented with. I mean, there might be some light flexibility, but we are generally going to kind of have to go. And so it, it isn't just arbitrary. We are, we are establishing the way we will behave for the next 20 years. It, it, it, the criteria for approval for subsequent applications should generally conform to it. There, there can be variations and y'all have seen that in, in, in your, when something goes, say from a final preliminary plot to a final plot, there, there can be some minor variations, but generally they, the projects stay consistent throughout those projects. Thank you, Julie. Any other questions for staff or anyone on the line? Okay. Chair could entertain a motion on this item or we can have further discussion. I'm sorry, we didn't get some of our questions answered or concerns of, of the public, but we do nonetheless have to vote on the item one way or another. Commissioner Smith. Oh, you're muted. I'll make a, I'll make a motion to approve with staff recommendations. And just because I didn't hear anybody else pipe up to say anything about a post moment or something else, but going back to the original point I made this to me, just if engineers are saying this is the direction we need to go and that this is the best possible option, then I'm inclined to trust experts when I'm not an expert in an area. So that's my motion. Okay. So the motion on the floor for GDP 19001 is made for approval with staff recommendations. Is there a second? I do not see a second. So that motion will fail. Is there anyone wanting to make another motion? Commissioner Smith. Guess I'm the only one who likes making motions up in this place. I'll make a motion to postpone until the date uncertain. If we can maybe talk to Scott and see if there is a date ahead that we can reschedule them on to be put on for an item of individual consideration. I'm assuming that's where they'll go, Cynthia. It'd be an item of individual consideration, correct? Is there even told from the consent agenda? I think that would be appropriate. Commissioner Smith. Okay. So I think I'm just going to jump in just for a minute. I know we're talking about the GDP here, which is a separate vote from the preliminary plat, but the preliminary plat we could not postpone. I do not believe because of a certain house bill. Is that correct? Go ahead, Cynthia. Oh, madam chair and commission. It's my understanding that that item was submitted prior to September 1 of 2019. So it's not subject to the 30 day review period. Okay. So it is not part of the house bill shot clock, correct? That's my understanding that, and Ms. Wyatt can confirm. That is correct. Okay. I appreciate that. So with that, a motion is on the floor to postpone the item. Yeah. I was just going to say to the next meeting and then ultimately we would carry the next item with that. Okay. Then I'll, can you give me a date on what that is, Scott? Or should I just say, should I just say next meeting for you? I'm sorry. Yeah. The next scheduled meeting. I don't know the date. Okay. I'll make a motion to postpone this item to items with individual consideration until the next, next meeting day for planning and zoning commission. Okay. August 19th. August 19th. Okay. The motion on the floor to postpone this item to a date certain of August 19th. Commissioner Prunetta. I'll second that. Okay. We have a first and a second to postpone this item to August 19th. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Beck. We have to have a separate motion for the related second item. Is that correct? It is a separate item to vote on. Correct. Okay. That was my question. Thank you. Okay. Any other discussion before we take a vote? And I'll just, just say a few words. I appreciate the patience of, of the applicant on this. I do think this is a special project. I don't think anyone's trying to make it not happen. I think we just need it to be the best it can be. And we do make decisions now. Yes, the road may not be developed for decades to come, but the decisions we make now affects how that's going to happen in the future. So serious consideration of the now for the future is imperative from my perspective. So with that, I'll call for a vote by roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Prunetta. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. And the chair is an aye to postpone this item to August 19th. That passes six zero. So that will get us to item next for individual consideration, PP 190023. Consider a request of agave ranch for their preliminary plat. Commissioner Smith. I'll make a motion to postpone the date certain of August 19th. Commissioner Beck. I second that motion. Okay. Motion on the floor is to postpone this item to a date certain of August 19th. Any discussion? Okay. With that, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Prunetta. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. And the chair is an aye. That motion passes six zero. Our next item for individual consideration is FP 200013. That's consider a request on behalf of North Texas Contracting for approval of a final plat. Staff is recommending denial. However, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension to September 2nd. Commissioner Smith. I make a motion to approve the postpone for 30 days to September 2nd. Okay. Motion on the floor is to extend to September 2nd. Commissioner Prunetta. I'll second that. Okay. We have a first and a second to postpone to September 2nd. Any discussion? Okay. Take a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Prunetta. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. And the chair is an aye. That passes six zero. That will move us to our public hearing items. Prior to us doing that, let's take a five-minute break. Let's adjourn at 7:55 back here at 8 p.m. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Welcome back to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. We'll call us back to order at 8.08 p.m. We left off on our public hearing, our agenda. Item 5A, PDA 19004A. The request is to postpone to a date certain of August 19th. Commissioner Beck. It's 5A, is it not, Madam Chair? Yes, the PDA number ends in a 4A. Sorry. Yes. It is 5A on the agenda. My motion to postpone to the date is recommended by staff. August 19th. Okay. Motion on the floor is to postpone to August 19th. Commissioner Smith. Okay. First and a second to postpone to August 19th. Let's take a vote by a roll call. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Prunetta. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. And the Chair is an aye. That passes 6-0 to postpone to August 19th. Next public hearing item is 5B, S200004. Make recommendation to City Council regarding requests for a specific use permit for a multifamily. I will open the public hearing at this time and invite Julie Wyatt for presentation. Good evening, commissioners. I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Let me see if I can get the correct one. Hang on, just one second. Sorry about that. Well, let me try one more time. All right. Here we go. So the request before you is S200004, the Grove Apartments. It is for a specific use permit to permit multifamily dwellings on approximately 16 acres. The subject property has a zoning designation of SC District, which requires an SUP for multifamily uses. If this looks familiar, it's because you have seen a similar request before. S190012 did come before the Planning and Zoning Commission late last year for multifamily use. It did go to City Council. There was a lot of discussion over a couple of City Council meetings, and it was eventually postponed. That previous SUP was withdrawn. However, I do want to alert you to four items that were discussed at City Council, one being a traffic signal at Dutchess and Loop 288, and we'll discuss that a little further later in the presentation. Another is regarding tree preservation. The original plan that you saw was reviewed under our previous code, the 2002 Denton Development Code, and previous tree preservation requirements. The new submittal has been reviewed under our most current standards, and that includes tree preservation. So that discussion has been addressed with this submittal. Additionally, the same thing is with a vehicular access. Council did request that the applicant provide a north access point. The new submittal does include that, and then we'll also talk about a sidewalk extension. So we'll go briefly over the site plan. It has shifted toward the north to allow for a 1.52-acre remainder lot to stay adjacent to Dutchess Drive. This would remain undeveloped, and in the future it could be developed with a commercial use under the SC Zoning. It includes 12 two- and three-story buildings, residential buildings, and then one amenity center. 276 dwelling units are proposed. They are also providing parking, 524 parking spaces. This does include a reduction for affordable housing that the code allows. They're proposing three driveway connections. The one that I mentioned earlier to the north, it's an exit only. It's going to extend through the undeveloped property to the north through a public access easement, connecting to the commercial properties and then on to McKinney Drive. The main access point is on Loop 288 that will allow for a full entrance, so a left turn and right turn in. However, there will only be a right turnout. That is due to the way the medians are designed on Loop 288. And then there will be a full access connection to Dutchess Drive. Sidewalks are proposed not only in front of the or adjacent to the subject site on the property on Loop 288 and Dutchess, but also they're proposed to extend to the existing facilities across the undeveloped tracks adjacent to the site. The landscape plan includes seven areas. I'll highlight briefly. First of all, they're proposing an enclosed dog park with a buffer here in number one. Number two is the street trees along Dutchess Drive and Loop 288. Three and four are embedded within an existing utility easement. There can't be really any structures in there or tree canopy. So what they've done is proposed some naturalized area, a butterfly garden in area four, and then some natural plantings and native grasses in three to provide some nice passive open area. Five is a 1.4 acre central park that has -- is proposed to have a playground, a pavilion, pool, game court, tot lot, and also a seating area. And then six finally is the primary tree preservation area. There's a pretty large stand of trees in that area, so they're just proposing to preserve those. Finally, they're proposing that enhanced landscape area between the parking lot and the buildings to soften those building edges, to kind of create a front yard for those residents, and to sort of create a sense of arrival when you get from the parking areas to the residential portions of the lot. The final design is not complete. They want to make sure that they have the right amount of landscaping, including tree canopy and shrubs, to make sure they don't interfere with the building and get that mix. I also just wanted to highlight that central park. As we talked about in work session, there aren't a lot of recreation opportunities in this general area, so it was really important to staff to provide that recreation for those residents. So they've created this kind of large open area that includes amenities distributed throughout. So there's a playground, a pavilion in this area, there's the community pool, a game court, a tot lot for younger children, and then a seating area. So it's kind of evenly distributed. The way the buildings are oriented, sort of encircling this central park with patios and balconies overlook, really do create that sort of backyard for these buildings. And then pedestrian pathways connect the buildings to those amenities. They've provided the concept elevations. These are the proposed buildings along loop 288. And then these are the proposed buildings, the balance of those buildings. With any SUP, we not only look at what's on site, but we want to see what's around it. Part of the SUP is, is it compatible with the surrounding area and how does it affect that surrounding area? So we look to see what those uses are. So we've got multifamily residential directly to the west. There is some commercial development to the north along McKinney. And then offices, there's an office just the southwest of the lot and then to the south across Dutchess. As you can see by this aerial, there's, there's quite a bit of undeveloped land surrounding the subject site. It has a zoning district consistent with the subject property and we anticipate it will develop with uses at a scale that's consistent not only with what's existing out there, but also what the applicant is proposing. Pebble Brook open space is the area outlined in green. It is a city owned park. It hasn't been developed yet. It is intended to have the trail system through it. We don't anticipate it will be completed for the, for the next couple of years at least. So, so that's why staff was, was, was concerned about those onsite recreation facilities. The criteria for approval and SUPs for SUPs are in sub chapter two. I won't go over all of these. That's outlined in your, in your backup material, but I will hit the parts that are really important in terms of compatibility and impacts to adjacent properties. So first of all, this sort of goes hand in hand with the previous map we looked at and that's compatibility with the surrounding area. Loop 288 is, is one of our big suburban commercial corridors. It's, it's a divided two lane or three, six lane divided road. It includes a mix of office, retail, restaurant, service, entertainment, multifamily, residential uses. It has all, it is a really a mixed use corridor. Multifamily uses and their associated activities are compatible with commercial and office development. The proposed development scale is also consistent with what we typically see on Loop 288. Those three access points do disperse the vehicular ingress and egress. So it doesn't, it doesn't funnel all the traffic into one general area, it disperses it. Multifamily uses are a vital component for our commercial centers. They provide housing for, for those who work in our commercial centers and it also provides a customer base for commercial centers. So those that's kind of one of the three legs of the three legged stool for, for mixed use development. And then, and then the, as I said, the undeveloped property is similarly zoned. Future development is anticipated to be consistent with that zoning pattern. We also look at Debt and Plan 2030. This area is divided by two future land use designations. We have community mixed use and moderate residential. Community mixed use is kind of what it says. It's that mix of uses. Commercial uses should be the predominant uses, but those residential and service, other complementary uses are an important part of that. A moderate residential really goes more into our smaller lot, single family housing, that four to 12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed multifamily use is, is consistent with both in that it kind of blends with those goals. It combines those two. It provides the scale that's necessary for community mixed use, but it does have that residential component. So it doesn't introduce any, any activities that would be inconsistent with a moderate residential. Are there adequate public facilities? That's something we look at in those impacts to those public facilities. So in terms of traffic, the proposed dwelling units would generate about 2000 trips in any, in a weekday. That's 125 morning, 146 evening. Loop 288, as I said, is one of our primary arterials and Dutchess is a collector. They did submit a TIA in, in relationship to the, the first SUP, but the, the, the proposed number of units stayed the same. So, so that the, the conclusions of that TIA remain the same. And what those conclusions were is that restriping on Dutchess would be needed. There's enough, there's sufficient right of way and pavement to provide for that restriping. And what that would do would be to allow those who are traveling eastbound on Dutchess to turn either north or south, a dedicated north or south lane on Dutchess, just to allow that intersection to move more smoothly. And then, and then the other result of that TIA was that Dutchess and Loop 288 does, that intersection does meet the warrants for a light. And so during the city council discussions at city council meetings, the applicant offered to deposit $400,000 for that, for the design and construction of that traffic signal. One, one thing we did talk about, and we'll talk about a little more with the recommendations as part of council's discussion with the applicant earlier in the year, they, they, if there were any pro rata cost that was recovered as part of this, if, if, if it, if the light didn't, didn't result in a $400,000 cost, or if there were other developments in the area that would pay into that, that light, the balance of that $400,000 would be credited toward that Pebblebrook open space in order to, for, for the future development. The details of that will be worked out through a development agreement with council. So this is kind of just the first step in that proposal, if this, if this did move forward. So, so those details would be hashed out at a later date. Pedestrian improvements, they are proposing a 12 foot sidewalk on Loop 288. That sidewalk would extend north to connect to an existing sidewalk. It, you can kind of see it here in this map right here, that there is an existing sidewalk. So they are proposing to extend it through an undeveloped tract to connect to that existing sidewalk. And then, and then the, the eight, an eight foot sidewalk along Dutchess would also extend and connect to the existing development. And that will assist in the multimodal development or the multimodal transportation options within, within the area. It will, we do have two bus stops, one, one located about where the blue dot is, and then another one located south of the subject property. The, the, the sidewalk connection would allow a, an improved pedestrian path to connect to this bus stop here. I don't yet have an answer on, on whether that sidewalk, if there's a CIP project for, to connect that south, sidewalk to the south, I'm not aware of any, but, but we may be able to get an answer for that at a future Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. There is water and wastewater to the site. It's available. There will be extensions that will be required, but there is adequate capacity in the system to serve the proposal. They will have to pay tap and impact fees at the time of development. As I mentioned, Publbic Open Space is not an improved park. We do own the land, but it has not been approved yet. Right now, the site is, is getting to it does require a, a half mile walk that goes up to McKinney and then down south on the other side of, of the loop. And so that was, that was why those on-site improvements for, or recreation improvements were important. And then schools that will generate 83 elementary students, 30 middle school students, and then 44 high school students. There is capacity within the attendance zone for it, but those, those schools are, are reneering capacity. So future residential growth will, will, the school will have to look at that for any future residential growth in the area. There was public outreach. We did post a newspaper ad as well as send out notices and the applicant did post signs on the property. We have received from responses in two. And so there's a 14% in favor. And staff does recommend approval because it is consistent with the Denton Plan 2030 and the criteria for approval. We are recommending five conditions. I won't, I won't read these to you. I'll just, I'll just sort of briefly talk through them. The first condition is that landscaping condition we typically see on SUPs, that the landscaping is intended to comply with not only the 2019 Denton Development Code, but also the plan you saw today. There could be minor alterations associated with the development. Once, once they get closer to, to planting plants in the ground, either individual plant selections, or maybe some minor modifications of where they're planted. However, they would have to comply with all those other elements and those minor modifications would be staff level approved. Here's that traffic signal. They are, they are offering that $400,000 to be deposited for that traffic signal at Dutchess Drive and Loop 288. And that would be worked out with council through a development agreement prior to the filing of the plat. Sidewalk extension, they're proposing those offsite, that offsite sidewalk to the north as well as to, to the east of the subject property. And the zoning act would reflect that there, if this was approved that the, the, that there is an SUP on the subject property and then not withstanding those administrative approvals in condition one, we would reserve the right to require an amendment to the, the SUP for, for any of, any reasons. If they were going to make any changes to those SUP, the SUP. And then here's also the next part of our recommendation is that staff would have the ability to approve increases for the number of dwelling units or the building square footage up to 5% of the amounts specified in requirements one and four. And that's the dwelling units, the, the building square footage and the parking spaces. But anything over 5% would require a revision to the SUP. The numbers one through seven sort of outline what they're proposing on their development. The number of dwelling units, the number of buildings kind of outlines what those central gathering, what should be included in that central gathering area as well as the other open spaces. The number of parking spaces that does reflect the reduction that the code permits for affordable housing. Any additional parking reductions could potentially be granted for maybe additional tree preservation or tree plantings. And that would be in accordance with SUP chapter seven of the debt and development code. The three access points and then the design elements you saw, the balconies and patios, those primary entrances with the, with the lighting, the mix in trees and shrubs between the buildings in the parking areas and that the orientation of the building. And then final, the final would be the solid waste. Those locations would be finalized with the building permit. The applicant is on the line and I will stand for any questions. >> Thanks, Julie. Does anyone have any questions for Julie or the applicant for that matter? Okay. I have one quick one just for the applicant. I believe you got approval from the south property owners. Is that correct? They were in opposition the first time around. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Can you hear me? That is correct. And I do have a short presentation and that's part of it. But yes, those property owners that are to the southwest actually instead of opposing now support this new application. >> Okay. That's great. Did you want to give your presentation or? >> You know, if you'd like to make a motion for approval, I can skip it, but I'm certainly happy to do it. >> I'm going to leave that up to commission. Do we need, would you like to see the applicants? No? Okay. Apparently your presentation is not necessary. Commissioner Bec? >> I'd like to make a motion to approve with the conditions as presented by staff. >> Motion on the floor is to approve with staff conditions. Is there a second? Commissioner Smith? Commissioner Smith, you're muted. >> I will second the motion. I just didn't know if we needed to open up the public. >> You know what? The public hearing has been opened, but I should close the public hearing before we vote. >> That worked. Yes, I'd like to second the motion. >> Very good. We do not have anyone on the line to speak for this public hearing item, so I will close the public hearing. And we do have a motion on the floor to approve with staff conditions. Any discussion? Very good. We will take a vote by a roll call. Commissioner Bec? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Smith? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson? >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta? >> Aye. >> And the chair is an aye. That motion carries 6-0. That will take us to our next public hearing item. That is AESA20-0003B. I will open the public hearing and invite Kristi Upton for presentation. [PAUSE] >> Good evening, commissioners. And this is a presentation on the alternative AESA plan for four-star razor. And just to review again, the City of Dinton has adopted a set of regulations to protect environmental sensitive areas. And when land disturbances do not conform to the protection requirements, then approval of an alternative AESA plan is required per a set of criteria as provided in the Dinton development code. The request tonight is for a property generally located north of Rose Lawn Drive and east of the railroad tracks along highway 377. There is a preliminary plot for a single-family development of approximately 214 acres that was previously approved. And the alternative AESA plan that is being presented tonight is for four encroachments for the construction of stormwater channels that will support the residential development and will be encroaching into riparian buffer ESA and water-related habitat. For a little background on this project, there was a field assessment that was conducted by a third-party biologist. And the field assessment was approved by staff. During the field assessment, the biologist identified a tributary of Hickory Creek. It's a braided channel with a small side stream found near the center of the property and the channel generally crossing from north to south across this development. The creek has a riparian buffer ESA that's 50 feet and each side of the stream, each side of the centerline of the stream per the definition of the riparian buffer ESA and was identified to be in fair condition and then interspersed along that creek and supporting the creek's water quality and is a bottomland hardwood forest and it generally is an area that where forests are supported by a more moist soil conditions and the bottomland hardwood forest has a number of tree species such as American elm, green ash, pecan, and hackberry. There's an undeveloped floodplain as well that was identified along the southern border of the property and is defined by the current FEMA 1% chance or 100-year floodplain. And then along the eastern side of the creek and the southeastern corner of the proposed development, there is crust timbers upland habitat of 30 acres of contiguous forest. There are permitted encroachments that I wanted to review with you before we dived into the reason for the alternative ESA plan and that includes 50% preservation of the crust timbers upland habitat and the applicant is proposing to preserve at least 50% of that upland that crust timbers forest generally along the and adjacent to the creek and then within the property. And there are roadways that are identified on the city mobility plan and are with the construction of those of the roadways being they are permitted to encroach into the ESAs as long as there is sorry as long as there is mitigation that is done to prevent erosion and to promote the recovery of the ESAs. And then lastly there is an allowance for the placement of public and private utility facilities in the undeveloped floodplain ESA and there is a small section of the floodplain ESA that will be encroached upon at the southernmost drainage channel and the proposed deviations that we will be focused on tonight are within our for the four stormwater drainage channels that will support the residential neighborhood there's and the proposal is to construct these channels at the the necessary width for the channels plus another 10 feet that outside of those channels that will be cleared of vegetation for the construction of the channels and the total acreage of the encroachments in order to construct and finalize those channels is approximately 0.7 acres of ESA. In order to offset for those encroachments the applicant is promoted proposing two mitigation strategies the first is to revegetate the areas that were cleared for the construction of the channels with a seed of native grasses and forbs and then a planting of trees and shrubs that are that were selected as a native species to promote the recovery of the ESAs. The second strategy is to remove invasive Chinese privet within the ESAs. The field biologists identified 10 to 50 percent infestation along the channel and the proposal is to remove that Chinese privet and then to revegetate the area to promote the reduction of the ability of the privet to reinvest the area. Notifications were sent and a response was to the notifications were five in opposition which equaled four percent and then three in favor and the opposition's concerns mostly were related to items that were worked out with the preliminary plot. There was a neighborhood meeting on July 14th and there were 34 participants and similar concerns were expressed at the neighborhood meeting and after reviewing the alternative ESA plan staff has identified that the plan meets the criteria for approval and is recommending that the plan be approved with the following conditions that the land disturbance be limited to the areas that were the extent that was identified on the alternative ESA plan that the applicant will consider the preservation of heritage or quality trees in the final location of the stormwater infrastructure and after identifying the final location to provide the meets and bounds to environmental services so we can keep record of that and then the revegetation of the disturbed areas as described in the alternative ESA plan and then these are recommendations for approval that environmental services is recommending for all alternative ESA plans that include plantings to ensure the survivability. Are there questions? Thanks Christy. Yes. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Christy we brought this up in work session but I want to say it again for anyone that's watching this riparian alt ESA is just for that region along the channel it doesn't include the upland habitat region is that correct? Correct. All right so we're not we're not addressing that upland habitat region or any of the contention that may or may not exist about it that we may have heard of in the public is that correct? Correct. Okay. This is strictly related to the four storm drain channels at this time. Thank you. Any other questions for Christy? Okay I don't see any more at this moment Christy. This is a public hearing we do have several people on the line wishing to speak. So I will invite our first caller. Hi caller can you hear me? Yes. Okay welcome to the planning. Yes we can. Welcome to the planning and zoning commission meeting. If you will state your name and address for the record your time will begin and you can speak on the item you called about. Sure Rachel Diyager 2115 McCormick Street Denton Texas 76205 and I'm calling in regards to the the forest razor plan and the environmentally sensitive area and I'm just concerned about the removal of the upland habitat. It looks like about at least half of the the upland habitat or the trees the tree forest area is being removed and that concerns me because this is kind of an older growth with lots of old growth trees and some of those trees are you know hundreds a years old you can't really replace those trees it would take you know centuries for that to you know regrow and it's just I just feel like it needs to there needs to be a more of that preserved and also it just also makes denton more livable and it's not it's just nice to have some green places too and again I just don't think it should that much of it should be removed it just concerns me so that's my concern and I guess thank you. Hang on just a minute caller commissioner Beck. Thank you chair Christy this is sort of directed to you but it's an answer to the caller's question for folks that have concerns about the upland habitat region how what is the appropriate venue for them to address those concerns if if this ESA does not include the upland habitat as you said a second ago? I don't know if I understand the question. If if if citizens have concerns about the the overall plan that includes the upland habitat but this vote is only about the riparian ESA what's the appropriate venue for citizens to address their concerns about that upland habitat? So there is a there's a proposal for for some options that are being presented to city council and those that proposal is being led by the planning and development services and the parks and recreation department and is not a is not a a part of this application at this time. Thank you Christy. Okay so I'm a little confused because according to the this that area is part of that map so they're going to have a different meeting on that area it looks like housing is covering at least half of it in this plan. Well the item that we're discussing today right now that we're voting on is an alternative ESA which is just affecting parts of the riparian buffer. It is not affecting the upland habitat so that's not what we are considering here with what is is on our agenda for this public hearing. But I'm confused because it it shows it's the AESA 20-00034 star razor plan and it includes the upland that upland habitat area and it shows houses so there's two different meetings on this actual project. Yeah I'm gonna I'm gonna let Christy answer that. Sure just to to help explain again what the regulations require a developer to to how to address the cross timbers upland habitat. The development is allowed to remove up to 50 percent of the cross timbers upland habitat so when we identify that habitat and we we tell we look the developer no there's upland habitat here that must be protected but only 50 percent the regulations also do not address where those where that 50 percent is. We do highly encourage the development to consider the protection of that habitat in a manner that could allow for some connectivity and this development has done that by protecting the 50 percent on the on the western side of the habitat closest to the creek which will allow for a continuousness of that upland habitat with the habitats that will be protected along the creek. Commissioner Beck. Yeah thank you I wasn't sure if I still had the floor. So so Christy I mean just to help maybe clarify a little more if regions of those of the upland habitat to the east to those from the water tower eastward towards Denia Park if those were of concern to citizens they citizens should talk to planning and development office and city council to address those concerns. Correct I think that that might be the the avenue that that would best that you could best address this at this time. Okay is there a way we can maybe get the caller Christy's information so that can we do that and then they can talk you know about that that future issue. Is that okay? Yeah if we can if we can get that information we most certainly will reach out to her and explain the next steps. Very good okay thank you for calling in. You're welcome. Do we have our next caller? Hi caller you're on with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Are you there? Well I am here but I think I just got the answer I needed so I don't think I'll waste your time. Well okay well thank you very much. All right you're very welcome thank you. Appreciate your involvement thank you. Sure bye bye. Bye okay let's bring up our next caller. Okay. Of course. There they are working on bringing the caller to our meeting. Maybe. Any second now. Hello? Hi there caller welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Can you hear us? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. If you'll state your name and number for the record your time will begin. You'll have three minutes to speak. Okay I am Leanne Todd. I live at 3316 Rose Lawn. I'm 200 feet away from the proposed housing subdivision of King and Four Star Razor. I am opposed to the current developmental plan in that it does not consider environmentally sensitive area of the upland. A majority of the post-op's which are 18 to 21 inches will be destroyed. It is which is against to me there needs to be more restrictions in the planning with a developmental plan for future comprehensive plan for the city of Denton and future land use is in violation with that. There's not enough stipulations or restrictions in relation to house height in relation to floor plan and size and density. Not only that it is environmentally devastating to the historical post-ops which are now protected under law with a new tree ordinance and the only thing that they show environmental sensitivity to is doing the drainage ditches which is the only okay thing about the plan but everything else is a subdivision nightmare and they are within law with their 50 percent trees but that's because there's floodplain insignificant trees along there. Well since I'm opposed to the whole plan I think it needs to go back to the drawing board come up with fewer houses maybe higher dollar including with more tree protection more land acquisition by parks and recreation. I know they're proposing a hike bike trail along the floodplain and sewer line but there is also significant forest in the upland area and no environmental sensitivity has been considered in relation to that. Four Star is not a part of this community and Denton they will they don't care except for making their money in a development project and moving on. I think the current plan is not for the benefit of the community and its residents of this city as far as aesthetics and beauty and carbon offset and parks and rec and there's bound to be a better plan that I mean who wants a home underneath a water tank and let's take out all the trees it makes no sense. Plus these trees the post oaks cannot be cannot be replaced they are endangered tree they cannot be if you look at an 18 to 21 inch tree of that size you're looking at thousands of dollars per tree and millions per forest which cannot be replaced and once it's gone it's gone and it's one of the few forested areas still in the city of Denton with that kind of significant as far as their ESA plan for the drainage ditches it's okay except that no post oak should be taken out and we appreciate your comments can your three minutes hat is up are you close to wrapping it up okay yes if they can replace any taken trees with tree of same significance but overall I'm against to the Kimberley horn current design in relation to four star razor is not for the benefit of Denton city and its residents and we definitely appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us I will reiterate what we're voting on today is not the development itself it is that that is already a project that can happen by right with the zoning that's on the property what we are voting on is an alternate ESA that will affect the riparian buffer I will share with you again that that there is talk still being had about the upland habitat on the property and I would encourage you to get with staff on that for your input with regard to that and we can get you a contact information so that you can show your thoughts on that so as far as the lower ESA plan a is better than plan b plan a is okay with the stipulation of no post oaks taken and trees taken of equal value it's better than it's like ponds and taking more trees so that's the only place that I see the current plan is being environmentally sensitive which is you know the lower ESA in relation to the water run okay appreciate your thoughts uh Commissioner Beck I believe has a question in his response to the color Christy didn't you say this current revised plan has flexibility for the precise placement of the the four channels to to protect trees in those channels but I'm what I have done is try to build some flexibility in the alternative to doing that would have forced the applicant to place those storm drains directly in the location that they had drawn up in their plans trying to build a little bit of flexibility for them to avoid heritage or quality trees that they identify on site once they get there and start construction so that they could preserve those trees if if it's possible to move the channel in one direction or another and and still meet their their design criteria I'm definitely in I'm definitely in favor of flexibility to protect what trees we can in that lowland ESA excellent and everything and just leave trash trees as opposed to historical thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us tonight all right and I will be back on the 19th for the up one excellent thank you is that when that's happening on the 19th or do we give our comments before uh the meeting on the 19th or right into the pnz stand by we'll get you an answer on that miss miss Todd you absolutely can provide comments um through me or through staff and and we'll get those okay and who is this I'm sorry this is Scott McDonald oh okay so I yeah okay so send it in general to the planning zoning uh in relation to that and then you can speak before the meeting or after or whatever on the 19th um correct just as soon as we get to that date but I'll be certain to reach out to you okay thank you so much thank you take care I think we will have our next caller brought up hi there caller you're on with the planning and zoning commission meeting can you hear me yes can you hear me all right we can thank you if you'll state your name and address you three minutes we'll begin okay thank you um Jennifer Lane I live on Willowood street in Denton 76205 and I'm calling because at the meeting the neighborhood meeting that we had one of the people who was adjacent to the property mentioned some flooding and I don't know if we've been trying to find her since then but I don't know if she's been able to call in or write to you um okay but the issue with that um there was storm water that would be but maybe if um Kim Lihon or four star were to expand the um the planting and seeding buffer or if they could use the use give us give up more of the um the land with the the old growth trees that it would help with that flooding so there might be actually a reason to consider the trees not just because they are a value in and of themselves but in relation to the EFA that's basically it thank you Jennifer for your comments yes yes we are here thank you yes I believe her I believe the lady's name was I believe the lady's name was Nancy that's what I remember I think that's her name living adjacent to the property so I don't know if she's called in or written but um I wanted to point that out because I remembered it from the neighborhood meeting very good well thank you for doing so we appreciate it thank you yeah and I do think that those trees are valuable and I hope that the um the ESA can make room for them thank you thank you okay bye bye Commissioner Beck did you have a question yeah again this is for Christy um and it just the caller's comments um when when we're assisting the needs of an ESA do we how are the the drainage of the surrounding properties and how those affect the ESA uh addressed um flooding is not really something that um is while it overlaps with um with the ESA's um the the protection requirements of the the floodplain and the riparian buffer in the water related habitats um they work in tandem and complement the floodplain regulations but it's really the floodplain regulations that are are the um the um overseer of of that of the of the flooding the downstream properties and um again with this preliminary plat and those issues were addressed and um the the reason that staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat was because the applicant had shown sufficiently that they had um they had addressed those type of concerns thank you I think we have another caller on the line um while we're waiting for the call to be brought up I will um mention for the record that we did have eight people use our online forms to comment on this item um all eight were against the item um these comment forms were emailed to all of us as well as will be recorded by our secretary hi caller are you there hello caller are you there I do not hear anyone stand by well we look into that technology issue um um um okay it'll be just a minute they are getting her back on the line apparently her call was dropped and madam chair it I can just mention that um we're tentatively scheduled for go ahead hi caller are you there hello I am here I welcome welcome to the public planning and zoning commission meeting yes we can hear you if you'll state your name and address your time will begin you'll have three minutes to speak thank you this is Sharon Kramer three five seven four pine trail and I'm a member of the North Denton neighbor association and there are quite a few of us along the Hartley field area we consider ourselves a community some of us have been here 40 plus years others 50 and some are a little newer and I have had occasion to speak to my membership and here's the puzzle that we're in July 16th 2019 we were in front of the city council and the city council five of them members Davis members Armenter member Meltzer member Briggs and oh I'm fuzzy and it's late in the evening for me and my sympathy to the commissioners member Watts even said all right so we're arguing or we're considering the placement of this connection to Hartley field road and making Hartley field miss Kramer can I can I interrupt you just a minute so you're not calling in on the alt ESA that we're discussing I am not because I wasn't following I was calling in on the agave southern arterial okay because um the way our process works is yeah you're only allowed to yeah comment once on that and you called in at work session got it okay all right all right sorry thank you so much thank you miss Kramer all right bye do we have any other callers on the line okay we do have other callers so okay apparently um they've made several attempts to get the caller on the line and we cannot do so so that leaves us with no callers on the line so with that I will close the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion commissioner smith make a motion to approve with staff recommendations commissioner cole second okay we have a motion on the floor to approve a esa 20 0003 b in a second discussion commissioner beck yeah I can I just be clear are we're discussing the the sort of the flexible option that that christy made is that your motion mr commissioner smith yes thank you okay any other discussion and I think I'd just like to add that certainly um I would love to for them to be able to more than consider the trees if at all possible um but certainly love that that flexibility is in there okay we have a motion uh in a second to approve we will take a vote via roll call commissioner smith aye commissioner cole aye commissioner beck aye commissioner anderson aye commissioner prunetta aye and the chair is an aye that motion passes six zero that concludes our public hearings and takes us to our planning and zoning matrix um I think Richard is on the line if he has any updates I'll speak on behalf of Richard that there wasn't necessarily any updates okay very good appreciate that um does any commissioner have anything to add to our matrix okay seeing none um that would just leave it concluding items um and with that what I would like to do is is congratulate chair roselle and and his wife heather who welcomed their third son this past weekend which is why he is not at the meeting today so congratulations to them and all the best as they settle in all together um so with that we will conclude our meeting and I will call us adjourned at 9 o' 9 p.m. Thank you everyone.