WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:06.900
 Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting

00:00:06.900 --> 00:00:10.800
 for Wednesday, August 5th, 2020.

00:00:10.800 --> 00:00:19.200
 This is our work session and with a quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.31 p.m.

00:00:19.200 --> 00:00:26.380
 Our first item on the agenda is citizen comments on consent agenda items, and I do believe

00:00:26.380 --> 00:00:35.480
 we have one caller in the queue.

00:00:35.480 --> 00:00:43.280
 Do we have a caller in the queue?

00:00:43.280 --> 00:00:46.120
 Hi there caller, are you there?

00:00:46.120 --> 00:00:47.120
 I am.

00:00:47.120 --> 00:00:49.060
 Okay, well welcome.

00:00:49.060 --> 00:00:53.560
 If you will state your name and address for the record, you will have three minutes to

00:00:53.560 --> 00:00:56.560
 speak on the item you called in about.

00:00:56.560 --> 00:00:58.120
 All right, thank you so much.

00:00:58.120 --> 00:01:04.720
 My name is Sharon Kramer and my address is 3574 Pine Trail, and I want to speak about

00:01:04.720 --> 00:01:11.280
 the preliminary plot 19-0023, and so here we go.

00:01:11.280 --> 00:01:16.560
 I think all of us, first I want to thank the commissioners for being there and serving

00:01:16.560 --> 00:01:21.920
 the city that I'm so deeply fond of, and I think we probably all share the same values

00:01:21.920 --> 00:01:27.440
 that good decisions come from good data, so because of that, I tried to do my best to

00:01:27.440 --> 00:01:28.440
 be informed.

00:01:28.440 --> 00:01:34.440
 I'm quite familiar with Denton Plan 2030, the flum, the mobility plan, various traffic

00:01:34.440 --> 00:01:39.560
 studies, the TxDOT traffic study that was done in conjunction with North Central Texas

00:01:39.560 --> 00:01:41.360
 Council of Governments.

00:01:41.360 --> 00:01:44.800
 I've read almost all of them, not that I remember everything, but I read them.

00:01:44.800 --> 00:01:50.560
 I've attended lots of meetings with the commissioners, the city council, mobility plans, the new

00:01:50.560 --> 00:01:57.920
 development code, because I like to be informed, and I've had lots of very helpful conversations

00:01:57.920 --> 00:02:03.120
 with Jason Fagel of Allison Engineering, John Heilman, who's one of the owners of the Agari

00:02:03.120 --> 00:02:08.480
 development, Julie Wyatt with the city, Richard Canone with the city, Preetam, whose last

00:02:08.480 --> 00:02:13.120
 name I cannot remember, who's with the city traffic or was, and I've learned a lot from

00:02:13.120 --> 00:02:14.120
 them.

00:02:14.120 --> 00:02:19.520
 Preetam himself explained the tools and the programs that are involved in traffic studies

00:02:19.520 --> 00:02:25.600
 and how they look at the results to make a decision, but here's my point.

00:02:25.600 --> 00:02:34.360
 All the programs and data in the world is not good unless it is filtered by a functioning

00:02:34.360 --> 00:02:41.260
 human brain that is capable of executive function, and that's what I'm counting on my commissioners

00:02:41.260 --> 00:02:49.600
 to do is to use their executive function to look at that southern exit that is on what

00:02:49.600 --> 00:02:57.200
 the plan calls to be renamed Hartley Field Road, and consider moving it north for this

00:02:57.200 --> 00:02:58.640
 reason.

00:02:58.640 --> 00:03:04.280
 If that exit is at the south, it's going to wipe out about four homes at the end of Woodland

00:03:04.280 --> 00:03:10.040
 Hills, and it eventually will have a huge effect up and down the existing Hartley Field

00:03:10.040 --> 00:03:11.460
 Road.

00:03:11.460 --> 00:03:16.400
 Julie Wyatt explained to me more than a year ago when I saw the first attempted mobility

00:03:16.400 --> 00:03:21.040
 plan to align Hartley Field Road, that Hartley Field Road could easily remain a local use

00:03:21.040 --> 00:03:23.640
 road and they could relocate that road.

00:03:23.640 --> 00:03:29.960
 And in fact, even Jason Fagel at a city council meeting said that yes, he could use any of

00:03:29.960 --> 00:03:30.960
 the arteries.

00:03:30.960 --> 00:03:36.520
 I'd like to see the artery leading out of Agave to be moved north, and I'd like for

00:03:36.520 --> 00:03:38.120
 it to be at Starlight.

00:03:38.120 --> 00:03:39.120
 And that's it.

00:03:39.120 --> 00:03:43.720
 Thank you very much for your time.

00:03:43.720 --> 00:03:49.200
 Thank you so much for calling in, Sharon.

00:03:49.200 --> 00:03:59.440
 Okay, and we do have another consent agenda caller.

00:03:59.440 --> 00:04:07.280
 Hi there, caller.

00:04:07.280 --> 00:04:08.280
 Are you there?

00:04:08.280 --> 00:04:09.360
 Yes, I am.

00:04:09.360 --> 00:04:10.360
 Okay.

00:04:10.360 --> 00:04:11.360
 Well, welcome.

00:04:11.360 --> 00:04:14.240
 If you'll state your name and address, and you'll have three minutes to speak on the

00:04:14.240 --> 00:04:15.680
 item that you called about.

00:04:15.680 --> 00:04:16.800
 All right.

00:04:16.800 --> 00:04:17.800
 Thank you.

00:04:17.800 --> 00:04:23.640
 This is Bridget Marshall, and I live at 3539 Pine Trail.

00:04:23.640 --> 00:04:30.920
 And what I wanted to comment was that during the July 16, 2019 city council meeting last

00:04:30.920 --> 00:04:37.000
 year regarding Agave Ranch, five city council members made it clear that the location of

00:04:37.000 --> 00:04:40.320
 the main road in Agave Ranch was unacceptable.

00:04:40.320 --> 00:04:46.400
 And council member Jesse Davis asked if the arterial slides north, does that do anything

00:04:46.400 --> 00:04:49.060
 that makes your project not pencil?

00:04:49.060 --> 00:04:56.800
 To which Jason Fagel, who from Allison Engineering replied, I can make any of these roads through

00:04:56.800 --> 00:04:59.080
 here an arterial.

00:04:59.080 --> 00:05:04.600
 So my question is, I'd like to know why the road wasn't moved since city council made

00:05:04.600 --> 00:05:07.680
 it clear that the road is unacceptable.

00:05:07.680 --> 00:05:12.680
 Destroying homes and property to widen Hartley Field Road and to connect to Agave Ranch at

00:05:12.680 --> 00:05:19.640
 the southern terminus is really irresponsible and does not comply with Denton Plan 2030,

00:05:19.640 --> 00:05:25.040
 the future land use map, or the comprehensive plan.

00:05:25.040 --> 00:05:29.800
 Thank you for taking the time to listen to my comments, I really appreciate it.

00:05:29.800 --> 00:05:31.560
 We appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

00:05:31.560 --> 00:05:32.560
 Thank you.

00:05:32.560 --> 00:05:33.560
 You're welcome.

00:05:33.560 --> 00:05:43.960
 Okay, and I think we have one more caller.

00:05:43.960 --> 00:05:52.040
 Hello, caller, are you there?

00:05:52.040 --> 00:05:53.040
 Yes.

00:05:53.040 --> 00:05:54.640
 Okay, well, welcome.

00:05:54.640 --> 00:05:56.480
 You will have three minutes to speak.

00:05:56.480 --> 00:06:00.760
 If you will give your name and address for the record, then your time will begin.

00:06:00.760 --> 00:06:01.760
 Okay.

00:06:01.760 --> 00:06:02.760
 Thank you.

00:06:02.760 --> 00:06:08.240
 I'm David Ferring, and I live at 4572 Coyote Point.

00:06:08.240 --> 00:06:16.160
 That's just east of the development of immediate interest.

00:06:16.160 --> 00:06:25.600
 I've called to raise the issue of traffic plans for this development, and I don't know

00:06:25.600 --> 00:06:31.600
 if it's appropriate, but it seems very important to me that this proposal be considered in

00:06:31.600 --> 00:06:37.440
 concert with a much larger proposal, you're familiar with, of the Carter Ranch property,

00:06:37.440 --> 00:06:43.080
 which would be almost 2,000 new homes.

00:06:43.080 --> 00:06:50.920
 We've lived out here since 1978, and we love this area, and we're very loyal Dentonites,

00:06:50.920 --> 00:06:55.640
 and we understand that growth is going to happen, but we're very concerned about the

00:06:55.640 --> 00:07:00.880
 quality of the environment and the traffic situation out here.

00:07:00.880 --> 00:07:07.840
 In particular, the Carter Ranch property is planning to make Hartley Field Road a major

00:07:07.840 --> 00:07:18.320
 access point to Farm to Market 428, and the placement of that on this development, the

00:07:18.320 --> 00:07:26.560
 Agave development, is fixed and would lock in any plans for Hartley Field development

00:07:26.560 --> 00:07:31.020
 associated with the Carter property.

00:07:31.020 --> 00:07:37.160
 The way I see it, there are four access points from the Agave development to Farm to Market

00:07:37.160 --> 00:07:40.600
 428 or Sherman Drive.

00:07:40.600 --> 00:07:46.640
 That would be in addition to the existing Hartley Field Road, plus roads that are going

00:07:46.640 --> 00:07:50.600
 to come in from the west, such as Long Road.

00:07:50.600 --> 00:07:57.480
 All of those intersections on a really busy road at the intersection of Loop 288 seems

00:07:57.480 --> 00:08:02.480
 to me to be a major concern for all of us that live out here and for the people that

00:08:02.480 --> 00:08:05.740
 are going to use those roads.

00:08:05.740 --> 00:08:15.760
 My request is that planning and zoning, if possible, back off and look at Agave in concert

00:08:15.760 --> 00:08:23.080
 with the proposed traffic plans associated with the Carter Ranch development.

00:08:23.080 --> 00:08:27.960
 That's all I have to say.

00:08:27.960 --> 00:08:30.240
 Thank you, Mr. Ferring, for sharing your thoughts with us.

00:08:30.240 --> 00:08:31.240
 Okay.

00:08:31.240 --> 00:08:32.480
 Appreciate you calling in.

00:08:32.480 --> 00:08:42.160
 Okay, and I don't believe we have any other callers in the queue.

00:08:42.160 --> 00:08:45.720
 Okay, then that will move us to our next work session item.

00:08:45.720 --> 00:08:51.160
 Which is clarification of agenda items listed on our agenda this evening.

00:08:51.160 --> 00:08:54.080
 First on would be minutes for July 22nd.

00:08:54.080 --> 00:08:59.640
 Commissioners, are there any concerns on the minutes?

00:08:59.640 --> 00:09:02.720
 Okay.

00:09:02.720 --> 00:09:05.280
 Next would be our consent agenda.

00:09:05.280 --> 00:09:07.800
 First item on that, or I guess any item.

00:09:07.800 --> 00:09:11.400
 Does anyone have concern, comment on that?

00:09:11.400 --> 00:09:12.400
 Commissioner Beck.

00:09:12.400 --> 00:09:13.400
 Yeah.

00:09:13.400 --> 00:09:14.920
 Thank you, Chair.

00:09:14.920 --> 00:09:23.560
 I think considering the level of input and feedback that our fellow citizens are requesting

00:09:23.560 --> 00:09:31.160
 on this item, I think that maybe at least warrants further discussion that may be outside

00:09:31.160 --> 00:09:34.400
 the scope of a consent agenda item.

00:09:34.400 --> 00:09:43.640
 So it is my intention to make a motion to pull those two items to individual consideration.

00:09:43.640 --> 00:09:49.500
 And I guess I'll pass the hat for the Chair's consideration at this point before I make

00:09:49.500 --> 00:09:50.960
 my motion.

00:09:50.960 --> 00:09:59.080
 But I think it would be in keeping with an appropriate separation of these items from

00:09:59.080 --> 00:10:00.800
 a general consent agenda.

00:10:00.800 --> 00:10:05.360
 And you're talking about the development plan and the preliminary plan for Agave?

00:10:05.360 --> 00:10:06.360
 Yes.

00:10:06.360 --> 00:10:07.360
 What?

00:10:07.360 --> 00:10:08.840
 That is item 3C and 3D.

00:10:08.840 --> 00:10:09.840
 3D.

00:10:09.840 --> 00:10:10.840
 Okay.

00:10:10.840 --> 00:10:14.360
 Okay.

00:10:14.360 --> 00:10:15.360
 Noted.

00:10:15.360 --> 00:10:16.360
 Anybody else?

00:10:16.360 --> 00:10:17.360
 Okay.

00:10:17.360 --> 00:10:23.360
 No other concerns on consent?

00:10:23.360 --> 00:10:27.480
 And Commissioner Beck, you're certainly welcome to make a motion when we get into the regular

00:10:27.480 --> 00:10:28.480
 meeting.

00:10:28.480 --> 00:10:29.480
 All right.

00:10:29.480 --> 00:10:32.000
 Thank you.

00:10:32.000 --> 00:10:34.000
 Okay.

00:10:34.000 --> 00:10:39.560
 Moving through consent, we do have, while the item for individual consideration, staff

00:10:39.560 --> 00:10:46.080
 is recommending denial on, but the applicant has requested a 30-day extension to September

00:10:46.080 --> 00:10:47.640
 2nd meeting.

00:10:47.640 --> 00:10:53.240
 So I'll be looking for a motion at the meeting for that if the commissioners are in agreement

00:10:53.240 --> 00:10:57.120
 for that.

00:10:57.120 --> 00:10:59.000
 Any concerns on that one?

00:10:59.000 --> 00:11:00.240
 Okay.

00:11:00.240 --> 00:11:02.440
 Next will be the public hearing item.

00:11:02.440 --> 00:11:10.360
 5A is being postponed until August 19th meeting.

00:11:10.360 --> 00:11:16.080
 And we've got S20004.

00:11:16.080 --> 00:11:17.560
 That would be Julie Wyatt.

00:11:17.560 --> 00:11:19.600
 Good evening, commissioners.

00:11:19.600 --> 00:11:39.160
 Let me pull up my presentation and we'll talk through that item.

00:11:39.160 --> 00:11:40.160
 All right.

00:11:40.160 --> 00:11:44.840
 So this item is S20004, the Grove Apartments.

00:11:44.840 --> 00:11:50.440
 The request before you is for a specific use permit to permit multifamily dwellings.

00:11:50.440 --> 00:11:52.600
 The subject property is about 16 acres.

00:11:52.600 --> 00:11:54.880
 It is outlined here in yellow.

00:11:54.880 --> 00:11:59.480
 It is on the west side of Loop 288, north of Dutchess.

00:11:59.480 --> 00:12:04.400
 The property is in the SC district, which permits a multifamily with the approval of

00:12:04.400 --> 00:12:06.360
 a specific use permit.

00:12:06.360 --> 00:12:08.040
 This may look familiar to you.

00:12:08.040 --> 00:12:14.360
 There was a previous SUP that you did see before.

00:12:14.360 --> 00:12:17.980
 It did go to the planning and zoning commission and then on to city council.

00:12:17.980 --> 00:12:21.720
 It went to city council a couple of times.

00:12:21.720 --> 00:12:28.100
 There were concerns raised by adjacent property owners regarding their wanting to see more

00:12:28.100 --> 00:12:30.720
 commercial in this area.

00:12:30.720 --> 00:12:35.080
 That SUP was postponed and it was eventually withdrawn.

00:12:35.080 --> 00:12:38.680
 And now it has come back to us as a new project.

00:12:38.680 --> 00:12:42.440
 There were four items that were discussed at city council, so I just wanted to bring

00:12:42.440 --> 00:12:43.440
 those up.

00:12:43.440 --> 00:12:47.920
 There was a discussion regarding the traffic signal at Dutchess Drive and Loop 288, and

00:12:47.920 --> 00:12:50.640
 we'll talk further about that in the presentation.

00:12:50.640 --> 00:12:53.160
 There was also a discussion about tree preservation.

00:12:53.160 --> 00:12:58.600
 The previous SUP was reviewed under the 2002 Denton Development Code, so it followed the

00:12:58.600 --> 00:13:01.720
 previous requirements for tree preservation.

00:13:01.720 --> 00:13:06.640
 They've resubmitted under the 2019 code, so it's following the new tree preservation

00:13:06.640 --> 00:13:07.640
 requirements.

00:13:07.640 --> 00:13:12.080
 So that concern was addressed with the submittal.

00:13:12.080 --> 00:13:18.120
 Similar access, the original plan had only two access points, one to Loop 288 and one

00:13:18.120 --> 00:13:20.080
 to Dutchess Drive.

00:13:20.080 --> 00:13:27.260
 The council talked about adding another access point toward the north to connect to McKinney.

00:13:27.260 --> 00:13:32.760
 The new plan does include that access point, so it's sort of taken care of with the submittal.

00:13:32.760 --> 00:13:38.660
 And then finally a sidewalk extension, which we'll talk about as we go further in the presentation.

00:13:38.660 --> 00:13:42.600
 So first we'll talk about the site plan and what they're proposing.

00:13:42.600 --> 00:13:45.860
 The site plan is slightly different than what you saw before.

00:13:45.860 --> 00:13:48.360
 It's actually shifted toward the north.

00:13:48.360 --> 00:13:54.040
 The original boundary was kind of this north boundary here, but it's slid toward the north

00:13:54.040 --> 00:14:00.120
 to allow for a commercial lot, a remainder commercial lot, vacant lot to be developed

00:14:00.120 --> 00:14:01.680
 in the future.

00:14:01.680 --> 00:14:08.440
 It's a 1.5 acre lot, and it has the SC zoning, so any uses that would be permitted in SC

00:14:08.440 --> 00:14:11.560
 could be developed in that site.

00:14:11.560 --> 00:14:18.320
 The subject property, the proposal in front of you is for 12, two and three story buildings,

00:14:18.320 --> 00:14:23.640
 a total of 276 dwelling units, 524 parking spaces.

00:14:23.640 --> 00:14:29.860
 That does include a 44 space reduction that the code allows for affordable housing developments.

00:14:29.860 --> 00:14:32.560
 As I said before, it has three driveway connections.

00:14:32.560 --> 00:14:36.280
 The main entrance is here on Loop 288.

00:14:36.280 --> 00:14:38.600
 It includes a right out connection.

00:14:38.600 --> 00:14:48.400
 There isn't a left out because of the way the medians on Loop 288 are designed.

00:14:48.400 --> 00:14:53.960
 So it allows for a right out and then a left turn in and a right turn in.

00:14:53.960 --> 00:14:59.560
 There is an additional access point to Dutchess Drive and it allows for full in and out access.

00:14:59.560 --> 00:15:05.760
 And then finally, there is an exit only access point to the north.

00:15:05.760 --> 00:15:09.960
 It connects to some public access easements that then connects on to McKinney.

00:15:09.960 --> 00:15:11.880
 Julie, excuse me.

00:15:11.880 --> 00:15:15.520
 You said that's an exit only out to McKinney, right?

00:15:15.520 --> 00:15:17.320
 Yes, ma'am.

00:15:17.320 --> 00:15:18.320
 Great.

00:15:18.320 --> 00:15:19.320
 Commissioner Beck.

00:15:19.320 --> 00:15:20.320
 Thank you, Chair.

00:15:20.320 --> 00:15:30.200
 So I had a similar question as to Chair, that's the road, the north exit is the road behind

00:15:30.200 --> 00:15:31.920
 the jack in the box?

00:15:31.920 --> 00:15:32.920
 Correct.

00:15:32.920 --> 00:15:33.920
 Okay.

00:15:33.920 --> 00:15:39.400
 And I know you just answered this for Chair, but that is going to be one way out?

00:15:39.400 --> 00:15:44.000
 Because as I understand it, it's two way right now?

00:15:44.000 --> 00:15:48.480
 This development, it would only be an exit only.

00:15:48.480 --> 00:15:50.000
 It does, here, let me go back to the aerial.

00:15:50.000 --> 00:15:51.000
 I think you can see it.

00:15:51.000 --> 00:15:57.080
 Yes, this is a public access easement and it does have two way for those commercial developments.

00:15:57.080 --> 00:16:01.640
 It will actually have to be extended in this undeveloped tract and so this particularly

00:16:01.640 --> 00:16:04.080
 development would only allow for exit.

00:16:04.080 --> 00:16:05.080
 Okay, that makes sense.

00:16:05.080 --> 00:16:06.080
 Thank you.

00:16:06.080 --> 00:16:07.080
 You bet.

00:16:07.080 --> 00:16:15.080
 Commissioner Anderson.

00:16:15.080 --> 00:16:16.080
 Thank you, Chair.

00:16:16.080 --> 00:16:17.800
 I do have a question as well.

00:16:17.800 --> 00:16:21.320
 Where is the commercial that's supposed to be facing loop 288?

00:16:21.320 --> 00:16:23.600
 I see three apartment buildings.

00:16:23.600 --> 00:16:28.840
 I thought they were going to leave room up front off of 288 for commercial.

00:16:28.840 --> 00:16:34.360
 This plan has the commercial lot on the southwest side of the development.

00:16:34.360 --> 00:16:41.440
 Okay, and are they still planning on putting a red light, a traffic signal on loop 288?

00:16:41.440 --> 00:16:44.640
 Yes, and we will get to that.

00:16:44.640 --> 00:16:53.720
 They are proposing to deposit $400,000 with the City of Denton in order for the design

00:16:53.720 --> 00:16:55.400
 and the construction of that light.

00:16:55.400 --> 00:17:00.800
 So yes, there would be a light if this was approved at Dutchess and loop 288.

00:17:00.800 --> 00:17:01.800
 Would that be necessary?

00:17:01.800 --> 00:17:06.520
 I mean, because for one, you already have a red light at loop 288.

00:17:06.520 --> 00:17:09.120
 By the time you get up to speed, you're going to have to stop again.

00:17:09.120 --> 00:17:11.960
 That to me sounds like a bad idea.

00:17:11.960 --> 00:17:17.400
 Their TIA demonstrated that that intersection does meet the warrants and with that additional

00:17:17.400 --> 00:17:22.520
 development along Dutchess Drive, it does meet the warrants for the textile warrants

00:17:22.520 --> 00:17:24.400
 for that light.

00:17:24.400 --> 00:17:31.560
 Okay.

00:17:31.560 --> 00:17:33.400
 So here we have the landscape plan.

00:17:33.400 --> 00:17:37.160
 There are a few areas that I want to call your attention to.

00:17:37.160 --> 00:17:42.080
 First of all, on the southwest side of the property, there is an enclosed dog park that

00:17:42.080 --> 00:17:46.240
 is proposed with the required buffer.

00:17:46.240 --> 00:17:50.720
 This is adjacent to that, to the existing office development on Dutchess.

00:17:50.720 --> 00:17:54.040
 So there is a buffer required in this location.

00:17:54.040 --> 00:17:59.240
 They're also planting the required street trees along Dutchess Drive, as well as loop

00:17:59.240 --> 00:18:00.240
 288.

00:18:00.240 --> 00:18:06.600
 As you're probably familiar, there is a fairly large electric easement that runs north south

00:18:06.600 --> 00:18:08.360
 through the property.

00:18:08.360 --> 00:18:14.080
 They are proposing some open space areas within that easement.

00:18:14.080 --> 00:18:18.600
 They really can't put structures in that and trees really aren't permitted within that

00:18:18.600 --> 00:18:19.600
 easement.

00:18:19.600 --> 00:18:27.240
 They're proposing a sort of native planting area here in the area marked three and then

00:18:27.240 --> 00:18:30.640
 a butterfly garden within the area marked four.

00:18:30.640 --> 00:18:31.640
 Excuse me, Julie.

00:18:31.640 --> 00:18:32.640
 Commissioner Beck.

00:18:32.640 --> 00:18:33.640
 Yeah.

00:18:33.640 --> 00:18:43.880
 Apropos to this exact topic, I know that in the area where the road ends behind the DPS

00:18:43.880 --> 00:18:51.040
 or human services in the jack-and-box, that corner between six and four on your map is

00:18:51.040 --> 00:18:58.560
 a sort of treed area, but it looks like this plan is suggesting that those are going to

00:18:58.560 --> 00:19:04.280
 be moved or I'm a little unclear, is six the current existing treed area?

00:19:04.280 --> 00:19:05.280
 It is.

00:19:05.280 --> 00:19:06.280
 Yes, sir.

00:19:06.280 --> 00:19:07.280
 Okay.

00:19:07.280 --> 00:19:08.280
 Yes, sir.

00:19:08.280 --> 00:19:09.280
 All right.

00:19:09.280 --> 00:19:10.280
 That's a great question.

00:19:10.280 --> 00:19:11.280
 I'm sorry.

00:19:11.280 --> 00:19:12.280
 Go ahead.

00:19:12.280 --> 00:19:17.640
 They are, as I said, they're meeting the 2019 standards for tree preservation and they've

00:19:17.640 --> 00:19:23.920
 got this large tree preservation stand that they're, as one of their open space areas

00:19:23.920 --> 00:19:26.480
 within the development.

00:19:26.480 --> 00:19:28.920
 Thank you, Julie.

00:19:28.920 --> 00:19:31.600
 And then we have this area labeled as five.

00:19:31.600 --> 00:19:37.160
 This is a 1.4 acre central park for the development.

00:19:37.160 --> 00:19:44.480
 It includes a variety of amenities, including a playground, a pavilion, pool, game court,

00:19:44.480 --> 00:19:48.320
 tot lot, and seating area.

00:19:48.320 --> 00:19:54.240
 And then also they are proposing these areas in blue, they're kind of hard to see.

00:19:54.240 --> 00:19:57.880
 They haven't finalized what the actual landscaping will be in that blue area.

00:19:57.880 --> 00:20:02.520
 They want to make sure that they provide the right mix of trees and shrubs, but they are

00:20:02.520 --> 00:20:08.920
 proposing a landscape area between the parking areas and the buildings to provide sort of

00:20:08.920 --> 00:20:14.200
 a front yard for those buildings to create a sense of arrival as you move from the parking

00:20:14.200 --> 00:20:19.280
 area to the residential areas on the site.

00:20:19.280 --> 00:20:25.460
 And then I wanted to talk a little further about that central park design.

00:20:25.460 --> 00:20:31.800
 So as you can see, there are several sites for active recreation or gathering spaces.

00:20:31.800 --> 00:20:38.220
 Each of those blue diamonds highlights one, and they're distributed throughout that central

00:20:38.220 --> 00:20:39.720
 park area.

00:20:39.720 --> 00:20:45.040
 The buildings are oriented as to enclose that open space, and they also have patios and

00:20:45.040 --> 00:20:50.800
 balconies that overlook that open space, so they really become a backyard for those residents.

00:20:50.800 --> 00:20:57.020
 And then the yellow outlines those pedestrian pathways that bring people into those open

00:20:57.020 --> 00:21:02.720
 space areas and connect the buildings with the amenities.

00:21:02.720 --> 00:21:05.680
 They've provided concept elevations.

00:21:05.680 --> 00:21:12.240
 These are those two and three story buildings along loop 288 that are proposed, as well

00:21:12.240 --> 00:21:19.040
 as the three story buildings that will ring that central park area.

00:21:19.040 --> 00:21:24.080
 So as with any SUP, our kind of our procedure for how we review that is first we look at

00:21:24.080 --> 00:21:27.200
 onsite, so it doesn't meet the code requirements.

00:21:27.200 --> 00:21:31.440
 And then second, we broaden how we look at the project, and we look at the surrounding

00:21:31.440 --> 00:21:36.120
 development and what any potential impacts would be for that surrounding development,

00:21:36.120 --> 00:21:38.400
 what those uses are, what the development pattern is.

00:21:38.400 --> 00:21:44.720
 So when we broaden out the view for this property, we see that the property is outlined here

00:21:44.720 --> 00:21:47.880
 in yellow again.

00:21:47.880 --> 00:21:53.120
 There is multifamily residential just adjacent to the subject property, just to the west.

00:21:53.120 --> 00:21:58.880
 There is office development to the southwest and also south of the property, kind of office

00:21:58.880 --> 00:22:00.600
 and then there's also a bank.

00:22:00.600 --> 00:22:03.520
 And then there's commercial development to the north.

00:22:03.520 --> 00:22:08.000
 As you can see, there's a lot of undeveloped property around the subject site.

00:22:08.000 --> 00:22:12.960
 It does have a zoning designation that's consistent with the subject property, so we anticipate

00:22:12.960 --> 00:22:19.400
 that any development on those lots would be consistent with the scale and uses that we

00:22:19.400 --> 00:22:22.680
 see out there and that are proposed.

00:22:22.680 --> 00:22:26.760
 And finally, the area outlined in green, that's the Pebblebrook open space.

00:22:26.760 --> 00:22:30.580
 It is owned by the City of Denton.

00:22:30.580 --> 00:22:32.160
 It is a future park.

00:22:32.160 --> 00:22:35.800
 It is not developed right now, but there are trails proposed for it.

00:22:35.800 --> 00:22:40.200
 They haven't been designed yet, and we anticipate development of it would be in the next two

00:22:40.200 --> 00:22:44.400
 or three years, so it's not imminent just yet.

00:22:44.400 --> 00:22:47.520
 So the criteria for approval for an SUP are in subchapter two.

00:22:47.520 --> 00:22:51.800
 We have general criteria for approval, and we also have specific criteria for approval.

00:22:51.800 --> 00:22:55.520
 I won't read out all of these individually to you.

00:22:55.520 --> 00:23:01.620
 What we'll do is we'll just talk about those elements that relate to the criteria for approval

00:23:01.620 --> 00:23:05.600
 and relate to the staff's recommendation.

00:23:05.600 --> 00:23:09.480
 So first what we want to look at is compatibility with the surrounding area.

00:23:09.480 --> 00:23:13.120
 That really is the big thing when it comes to SUPs.

00:23:13.120 --> 00:23:18.400
 And so this relates to why we look at what the surrounding development pattern is.

00:23:18.400 --> 00:23:22.320
 So Loop 288 is a suburban commercial corridor.

00:23:22.320 --> 00:23:27.600
 It includes office, retail, restaurant, service, and multifamily uses up and down that Loop

00:23:27.600 --> 00:23:30.560
 288 corridor.

00:23:30.560 --> 00:23:36.120
 Multifamily uses and their associated activities are compatible with office and commercial

00:23:36.120 --> 00:23:37.120
 development.

00:23:37.120 --> 00:23:42.200
 The proposed development is also in scale to what is similar, what is typically found

00:23:42.200 --> 00:23:45.800
 on Loop 288 and also the adjacent uses.

00:23:45.800 --> 00:23:49.600
 Those three access points will help disperse the vehicular traffic.

00:23:49.600 --> 00:23:54.440
 So any traffic impacts associated with it will be more dispersed because there are those

00:23:54.440 --> 00:23:56.160
 three access points.

00:23:56.160 --> 00:23:58.640
 We're not funneling it into just one area.

00:23:58.640 --> 00:24:05.280
 So they'll be able to go to the north or to the south or to the east of the site.

00:24:05.280 --> 00:24:10.520
 Multifamily uses are a vital component of our mixed use centers.

00:24:10.520 --> 00:24:20.360
 They provide housing for employees and they're as close to work and to places to shop.

00:24:20.360 --> 00:24:23.900
 And it also provides that customer base for our commercial areas.

00:24:23.900 --> 00:24:27.880
 So they really are that vital piece to the mixed use areas.

00:24:27.880 --> 00:24:31.240
 And as I said, the undeveloped property nearby is similarly zoned.

00:24:31.240 --> 00:24:35.040
 So we do anticipate that the future development would be consistent with the existing development

00:24:35.040 --> 00:24:37.240
 pattern.

00:24:37.240 --> 00:24:40.000
 We also always look at Denton Plan 2030.

00:24:40.000 --> 00:24:44.600
 There are actually two future land use designations that affect the subject property.

00:24:44.600 --> 00:24:47.000
 First we have community mixed use.

00:24:47.000 --> 00:24:49.680
 This is one of our mixed use districts.

00:24:49.680 --> 00:24:53.960
 It encourages a variety of commercial uses and those should be predominant.

00:24:53.960 --> 00:24:58.520
 But where we do have that residential and service, those other complementary uses to

00:24:58.520 --> 00:25:01.360
 support our commercial centers.

00:25:01.360 --> 00:25:07.240
 There's also moderate residential and that's one of our future land use designations that

00:25:07.240 --> 00:25:15.240
 is intent for our urban areas, urban housing areas where it's single family housing, typically

00:25:15.240 --> 00:25:18.760
 on small lots and four to 12 dwelling units per acre.

00:25:18.760 --> 00:25:23.440
 So through that urban infill housing type.

00:25:23.440 --> 00:25:29.840
 The proposal really is a good blend of what the intent of these two future land use designations

00:25:29.840 --> 00:25:30.840
 are.

00:25:30.840 --> 00:25:37.720
 So that critical mass and that intensity that community mixed use is intended for.

00:25:37.720 --> 00:25:42.840
 But it also provides that residential component which blends well with that moderate density

00:25:42.840 --> 00:25:49.600
 residential not only for that future land use but what's existing in the area.

00:25:49.600 --> 00:25:55.120
 We also looked at the public facilities within the general area.

00:25:55.120 --> 00:26:02.480
 So first traffic, 276 dwelling units generate about 2000 trips per 24 hour weekday.

00:26:02.480 --> 00:26:08.480
 That's about 125 trips in the morning peak and then 146 in the evening peak.

00:26:08.480 --> 00:26:10.640
 Loop 288 is a primary arterial.

00:26:10.640 --> 00:26:13.000
 So it's one of our big roads within the city.

00:26:13.000 --> 00:26:17.940
 It's six lane divided and Dutchess is a collector.

00:26:17.940 --> 00:26:19.880
 They did submit a TIA.

00:26:19.880 --> 00:26:21.360
 It's been reviewed.

00:26:21.360 --> 00:26:26.680
 As part of that, there were two interventions that were suggested and that would be required.

00:26:26.680 --> 00:26:28.560
 One is a restriping on Dutchess.

00:26:28.560 --> 00:26:32.240
 So right now, Dutchess dead ends into loop 288.

00:26:32.240 --> 00:26:38.720
 So as cars are traveling toward the east on loop 288, that road would be restriped to

00:26:38.720 --> 00:26:45.040
 have one lane that turns dedicated to the south and one lane that is dedicated to turn

00:26:45.040 --> 00:26:51.640
 toward the north to allow that intersection to work more smoothly.

00:26:51.640 --> 00:26:57.640
 And then the other is the traffic light there at Dutchess and loop 288.

00:26:57.640 --> 00:27:05.200
 And that was a discussion point at the city council meetings earlier in the year.

00:27:05.200 --> 00:27:09.640
 And as part of that, the applicant offered a deposit of $400,000, which would be for

00:27:09.640 --> 00:27:13.040
 the cost of the design and construction of that traffic signal.

00:27:13.040 --> 00:27:17.200
 And that would include a pedestrian crossing there at the corner of Dutchess and South

00:27:17.200 --> 00:27:19.260
 Loop 288.

00:27:19.260 --> 00:27:26.080
 We checked with them on this new application and that was still an offer that they provided.

00:27:26.080 --> 00:27:31.480
 They are also proposing additional pedestrian connections.

00:27:31.480 --> 00:27:34.480
 Excuse me, Julie.

00:27:34.480 --> 00:27:35.480
 Yes.

00:27:35.480 --> 00:27:40.000
 Chair, let Julie finish her point and I'll ask her at the end of her slide if you would.

00:27:40.000 --> 00:27:41.000
 Thank you, Chair.

00:27:41.000 --> 00:27:42.000
 Fair enough.

00:27:42.000 --> 00:27:43.000
 All right.

00:27:43.000 --> 00:27:47.400
 So as part of the development, as with any development within the city of Denton, they

00:27:47.400 --> 00:27:52.280
 are required to build sidewalks adjacent to the existing rights of way if they're not

00:27:52.280 --> 00:27:53.440
 there.

00:27:53.440 --> 00:27:59.160
 So they are proposing those sidewalks on Loop 288 and on Dutchess.

00:27:59.160 --> 00:28:04.200
 This one's a little different in that they would also be extending those sidewalks along

00:28:04.200 --> 00:28:08.840
 those undeveloped commercial tracks adjacent to them.

00:28:08.840 --> 00:28:17.920
 So this track in particular was discussed at city council that they extend that sidewalk

00:28:17.920 --> 00:28:22.720
 along the frontage to connect to an existing sidewalk here.

00:28:22.720 --> 00:28:27.640
 And then also as part of this request, they are proposing to extend the sidewalk in front

00:28:27.640 --> 00:28:36.000
 of that future commercial lot to connect to the existing sidewalk that's in front of the

00:28:36.000 --> 00:28:38.320
 adjacent office building.

00:28:38.320 --> 00:28:41.960
 This helps multimodal transportation in the area.

00:28:41.960 --> 00:28:48.200
 There are two DCTA stops within the vicinity of the site, one down south, which doesn't

00:28:48.200 --> 00:28:49.840
 have a lot of sidewalk connections.

00:28:49.840 --> 00:28:57.960
 So I suspect any residents would be moving toward the north to this transit stop here.

00:28:57.960 --> 00:28:59.840
 It's Denton Connect 4.

00:28:59.840 --> 00:29:06.640
 With the addition of the sidewalk, it will actually complete that pedestrian route all

00:29:06.640 --> 00:29:12.680
 along Dutchess from the adjacent property through the subject property and then up to

00:29:12.680 --> 00:29:20.920
 nearly the intersection of McKinney and Loop 288.

00:29:20.920 --> 00:29:21.920
 Commissioner Beck.

00:29:21.920 --> 00:29:22.920
 Thank you, Chair.

00:29:22.920 --> 00:29:28.560
 So I'll ask my second question first since you were talking about the sidewalks.

00:29:28.560 --> 00:29:36.440
 Do we have for our right of ways for the properties not in question that head south towards the

00:29:36.440 --> 00:29:39.160
 creek?

00:29:39.160 --> 00:29:46.960
 Do we have in our capital improvements and in our right of way authorizations the ability

00:29:46.960 --> 00:29:51.600
 to put sidewalks to the south?

00:29:51.600 --> 00:29:52.600
 South of Dutchess?

00:29:52.600 --> 00:29:53.600
 Independent of this development?

00:29:53.600 --> 00:29:54.600
 Yes.

00:29:54.600 --> 00:29:55.600
 South of Dutchess.

00:29:55.600 --> 00:29:56.600
 You know, I don't know the answer to that question.

00:29:56.600 --> 00:29:58.520
 I'll see if I can get something.

00:29:58.520 --> 00:30:04.000
 I'm not aware of any capital projects that would include a sidewalk south of Dutchess,

00:30:04.000 --> 00:30:08.520
 but I can try to find out that prior to the regular session.

00:30:08.520 --> 00:30:09.520
 Okay.

00:30:09.520 --> 00:30:15.800
 And my first question, is the implication of the stoplight at the three-way intersection

00:30:15.800 --> 00:30:24.400
 of Dutchess and 288 that with the park being a continuation of Dutchess ostensibly, is

00:30:24.400 --> 00:30:29.040
 that we would punch through Dutchess into the park?

00:30:29.040 --> 00:30:33.840
 I am not aware of Dutchess extending -- I'm going to pull up the mobile.

00:30:33.840 --> 00:30:38.140
 Is that in the horizon?

00:30:38.140 --> 00:30:44.880
 I'm not aware of it being on the mobility plan, so I would not expect at this time that

00:30:44.880 --> 00:30:52.500
 Dutchess would extend into the -- I'm going to check while I'm talking here.

00:30:52.500 --> 00:31:00.640
 The mobility plan does not show Dutchess extending toward the park property or into the park

00:31:00.640 --> 00:31:03.040
 property right now.

00:31:03.040 --> 00:31:09.120
 And so access to the park property in the five-minute walk paradigm is up to McKinney

00:31:09.120 --> 00:31:11.720
 down a block or two and back south again?

00:31:11.720 --> 00:31:15.840
 That is a great question, and it actually goes to my next slide.

00:31:15.840 --> 00:31:20.320
 You are correct.

00:31:20.320 --> 00:31:25.540
 So Pebblebrook open space is 130 feet from the site as the crow flies.

00:31:25.540 --> 00:31:27.220
 So it's really close.

00:31:27.220 --> 00:31:34.640
 But there are two things that sort of reduce its efficacy in that it's not developed yet,

00:31:34.640 --> 00:31:41.700
 so it doesn't have any trails or any facilities within it right now.

00:31:41.700 --> 00:31:46.360
 And then yes, there is not a direct route to it currently.

00:31:46.360 --> 00:31:52.780
 The pedestrian route is about a half a mile, up to McKinney and then down again.

00:31:52.780 --> 00:31:59.380
 And really that's why they're on site on recreational amenities, that central park project -- central

00:31:59.380 --> 00:32:04.000
 park, that one-acre park in the center is really vital to this because it does provide

00:32:04.000 --> 00:32:11.760
 the recreational opportunities for the residents.

00:32:11.760 --> 00:32:14.800
 I'll just keep going on this slide if that's all right.

00:32:14.800 --> 00:32:17.160
 So water and wastewater is available to the site.

00:32:17.160 --> 00:32:21.320
 There will be some extensions they'll have to do for the water line along loop 288.

00:32:21.320 --> 00:32:25.320
 There is capacity in the system to serve the proposal, and they will have -- be subject

00:32:25.320 --> 00:32:30.920
 to TAP and impact fees at the time of platting and permitting.

00:32:30.920 --> 00:32:32.160
 And then schools.

00:32:32.160 --> 00:32:38.160
 So the proposal would generate about 83 elementary students, 30 middle school students, and 44

00:32:38.160 --> 00:32:39.840
 high school students.

00:32:39.840 --> 00:32:45.880
 The Rivera Elementary and Myers Middle School have capacity for the students, but there

00:32:45.880 --> 00:32:51.480
 is limit to the future residential growth for those campuses.

00:32:51.480 --> 00:32:56.600
 Ryan High School also has limited capacity, but according to Denton ISD, the number of

00:32:56.600 --> 00:33:01.040
 students generated for the proposal could be accommodated, but once again, it is limited

00:33:01.040 --> 00:33:04.960
 for future growth in the area.

00:33:04.960 --> 00:33:12.040
 Public outreach, newspaper ad was placed, notification was sent by mail.

00:33:12.040 --> 00:33:17.960
 We have received two notices -- responses in favor of the project, and those are toward

00:33:17.960 --> 00:33:21.660
 the north.

00:33:21.660 --> 00:33:24.720
 And -- >> Julie, excuse me.

00:33:24.720 --> 00:33:29.800
 Those are the same landowners that I believe were in opposition of this when it was originally

00:33:29.800 --> 00:33:33.080
 presented before it was pulled, correct?

00:33:33.080 --> 00:33:38.320
 >> Actually the landowners who were in opposition were more toward the south end of the project.

00:33:38.320 --> 00:33:39.320
 >> Okay.

00:33:39.320 --> 00:33:40.320
 Okay.

00:33:40.320 --> 00:33:41.320
 >> I have not heard from them.

00:33:41.320 --> 00:33:43.360
 The applicant has been in discussions with them.

00:33:43.360 --> 00:33:46.720
 They will be on the call tonight, so they may be able to give you more information about

00:33:46.720 --> 00:33:47.720
 their communications.

00:33:47.720 --> 00:33:48.720
 >> Okay.

00:33:48.720 --> 00:33:49.720
 Great.

00:33:49.720 --> 00:33:50.720
 Thanks.

00:33:50.720 --> 00:33:54.080
 >> So I promise I won't read this to you.

00:33:54.080 --> 00:33:55.400
 It's all in your backup.

00:33:55.400 --> 00:34:02.860
 It's a pretty extensive recommendation because of the history of this project and the communications

00:34:02.860 --> 00:34:03.860
 with it.

00:34:03.860 --> 00:34:09.600
 So we do have five conditions that we are recommending.

00:34:09.600 --> 00:34:14.960
 One would be kind of our standard recommendation on SUPs for landscaping, that the intent of

00:34:14.960 --> 00:34:19.240
 the landscaping is to comply with the debt and development code and that they comply

00:34:19.240 --> 00:34:22.680
 with the landscape plan that you were shown tonight.

00:34:22.680 --> 00:34:29.720
 There may be some minor changes to plant selection or individual small locations of where those

00:34:29.720 --> 00:34:32.920
 plants would go once they get into the full design of the site.

00:34:32.920 --> 00:34:38.680
 So that condition would just allow staff-level approval of those small changes to the landscape

00:34:38.680 --> 00:34:39.880
 plan.

00:34:39.880 --> 00:34:43.680
 The next one is related to the traffic signal.

00:34:43.680 --> 00:34:48.440
 That $400 would be deposited with the city prior to the recording of the final plat for

00:34:48.440 --> 00:34:53.240
 that design and construction of the traffic signal with the pedestrian crossing.

00:34:53.240 --> 00:34:59.520
 That $400 could be entitled to the reimbursement of the pro rata cost.

00:34:59.520 --> 00:35:05.000
 And this was discussed at City Council, but that reimbursement would be credited toward

00:35:05.000 --> 00:35:10.080
 the development of the Pebblebrook open space to provide recreational opportunities for

00:35:10.080 --> 00:35:12.480
 the residents once that's done.

00:35:12.480 --> 00:35:15.520
 The terms of that agreement haven't been hashed out yet.

00:35:15.520 --> 00:35:21.440
 That would be determined by a development agreement between the developer and City Council

00:35:21.440 --> 00:35:24.160
 should this SUP be approved.

00:35:24.160 --> 00:35:29.800
 The sidewalk extension, this relates to that sidewalk extension through the unimproved

00:35:29.800 --> 00:35:34.280
 property to the north that's not a part of this request.

00:35:34.280 --> 00:35:40.700
 And then the zoning map would reflect the SUP with that symbology to make sure it's

00:35:40.700 --> 00:35:48.280
 -- that it's the planning staff as well as anyone reviewing the property would know that

00:35:48.280 --> 00:35:50.880
 a specific use permit had been approved.

00:35:50.880 --> 00:35:55.200
 And then notwithstanding those limited approvals in condition one, we would reserve the right

00:35:55.200 --> 00:36:00.720
 to require a revised SUP for any changes to the site.

00:36:00.720 --> 00:36:05.240
 And then -- >> Excuse me, Julie, Commissioner Anderson.

00:36:05.240 --> 00:36:06.240
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:36:06.240 --> 00:36:07.240
 Julie, could you go back one slide?

00:36:07.240 --> 00:36:08.240
 >> You bet.

00:36:08.240 --> 00:36:12.560
 >> Can you explain number two, so they're going to deposit $400,000 to have the traffic

00:36:12.560 --> 00:36:17.040
 signal installed and then we're going to give the money kind of back to them so they can

00:36:17.040 --> 00:36:18.760
 do landscaping?

00:36:18.760 --> 00:36:27.480
 >> Well, the pro rata cost is really -- if that entire $400,000 either wasn't used for

00:36:27.480 --> 00:36:37.580
 the design and installation of that light or as other developments are contemplated

00:36:37.580 --> 00:36:45.480
 and come in under Dutchess Drive, may have to pay into the -- into that light as part

00:36:45.480 --> 00:36:50.360
 of their development, as part of their impact fees with their development.

00:36:50.360 --> 00:36:56.280
 Any of those monies that would be credited back for those reasons would then go to the

00:36:56.280 --> 00:37:01.360
 development of the city's Pebblebrook open space was the intent of that.

00:37:01.360 --> 00:37:02.360
 >> Okay.

00:37:02.360 --> 00:37:08.720
 And these are the same people that are asking for the Texas or -- I was reading on here

00:37:08.720 --> 00:37:10.680
 a second I was looking down.

00:37:10.680 --> 00:37:17.760
 They're asking for money from the state to help build these apartments, too, correct?

00:37:17.760 --> 00:37:18.760
 >> They have -- yes.

00:37:18.760 --> 00:37:19.760
 They have -- >> Yeah.

00:37:19.760 --> 00:37:20.760
 So, yeah.

00:37:20.760 --> 00:37:21.760
 Okay.

00:37:21.760 --> 00:37:22.760
 Thanks.

00:37:22.760 --> 00:37:25.200
 >> Commissioner Beck.

00:37:25.200 --> 00:37:26.200
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:37:26.200 --> 00:37:31.920
 So, are the owners of the main part of the property going to continue to be the owners

00:37:31.920 --> 00:37:38.880
 of the proposed commercial extension along Dutchess, at least at this time?

00:37:38.880 --> 00:37:42.880
 >> You know, I have -- they have not been given me any information as regarding ownership

00:37:42.880 --> 00:37:45.160
 of that separately platted lot.

00:37:45.160 --> 00:37:53.000
 So I don't know when they would sell it off or if they will retain ownership of it.

00:37:53.000 --> 00:37:54.000
 I'm not quite sure.

00:37:54.000 --> 00:37:56.600
 I think the applicant will be able to answer that, I think.

00:37:56.600 --> 00:37:57.600
 >> That's fine.

00:37:57.600 --> 00:38:00.600
 Thank you, Julie.

00:38:00.600 --> 00:38:02.160
 >> All right.

00:38:02.160 --> 00:38:06.560
 And then the second part of the recommendation is something you've seen quite frequently.

00:38:06.560 --> 00:38:07.880
 >> Excuse me, Julie.

00:38:07.880 --> 00:38:08.880
 Commissioner Smith.

00:38:08.880 --> 00:38:12.400
 >> Thank you, Vice Chair.

00:38:12.400 --> 00:38:19.600
 Julie, that $400,000 plus the pro rata back to the Pebblebrook open space, was that in

00:38:19.600 --> 00:38:22.040
 the original SUP that we saw on this project?

00:38:22.040 --> 00:38:24.400
 >> It is new information to you.

00:38:24.400 --> 00:38:25.400
 That was --

00:38:25.400 --> 00:38:26.400
 >> I didn't recognize it from the last one.

00:38:26.400 --> 00:38:27.400
 So what was that?

00:38:27.400 --> 00:38:30.160
 Was that because we didn't know from text out if we were going to put that traffic light

00:38:30.160 --> 00:38:33.160
 in or what was -- why was it added on this one?

00:38:33.160 --> 00:38:38.080
 >> That was in response -- that came up at council during the previous -- when it went

00:38:38.080 --> 00:38:40.760
 forward to council, the previous request.

00:38:40.760 --> 00:38:46.560
 It was something that the applicant offered during a city council meeting in response

00:38:46.560 --> 00:38:54.440
 to the concerns regarding traffic on Dutchess, the existing pressures for those vehicles

00:38:54.440 --> 00:39:02.200
 as they move along Dutchess for the office buildings on there as well as the existing

00:39:02.200 --> 00:39:04.200
 residential.

00:39:04.200 --> 00:39:08.760
 So that was something that was proffered by the applicant during the city council meeting.

00:39:08.760 --> 00:39:13.080
 >> Is that pretty common for us to see something like that where it is -- I guess Cynthia's

00:39:13.080 --> 00:39:18.800
 got a hand up so maybe a better sense of the thought, but is that -- it seems uncommon

00:39:18.800 --> 00:39:22.020
 for me to -- I've never seen something like this where we're going to pay for the traffic

00:39:22.020 --> 00:39:24.400
 light and then we're going to pay it back to the city but that's going to be dedicated

00:39:24.400 --> 00:39:25.400
 to an open space.

00:39:25.400 --> 00:39:29.640
 I've never seen something like that.

00:39:29.640 --> 00:39:33.880
 >> Commissioner Smith and the rest of the planning commission, I did want to jump in

00:39:33.880 --> 00:39:35.400
 on this item.

00:39:35.400 --> 00:39:40.960
 It is a recommendation that this be attached as a condition of approval, but there would

00:39:40.960 --> 00:39:46.840
 be another step, it would -- the agreement would have to be approved by the city council.

00:39:46.840 --> 00:39:52.740
 So as Julie had stated, it was brought up by the applicant during one of the public

00:39:52.740 --> 00:39:55.280
 hearings at the city council meeting.

00:39:55.280 --> 00:39:58.380
 That's why it was incorporated into these conditions of approval.

00:39:58.380 --> 00:40:02.240
 But there would be a development agreement that would have to be approved by the council

00:40:02.240 --> 00:40:08.200
 for this to all -- this condition to take effect.

00:40:08.200 --> 00:40:15.200
 >> And if I might jump in right quick, Julie, when you're presenting, it's fine to keep

00:40:15.200 --> 00:40:21.040
 the PowerPoint up, but ultimately when it is that we have the commission speaking, if

00:40:21.040 --> 00:40:24.820
 you can reduce that down so we can see all of the commission members.

00:40:24.820 --> 00:40:25.820
 >> Absolutely.

00:40:25.820 --> 00:40:27.480
 >> It's hard to remember.

00:40:27.480 --> 00:40:30.280
 So if anything, I'll give you a nod.

00:40:30.280 --> 00:40:31.280
 >> Okay.

00:40:31.280 --> 00:40:32.280
 >> Thank you.

00:40:32.280 --> 00:40:39.000
 >> Mr. Smith, did you still have questions?

00:40:39.000 --> 00:40:40.000
 >> I'm good.

00:40:40.000 --> 00:40:41.000
 Thank you very much.

00:40:41.000 --> 00:40:42.000
 >> Okay.

00:40:42.000 --> 00:40:43.000
 You bet.

00:40:43.000 --> 00:40:44.000
 >> You bet.

00:40:44.000 --> 00:40:45.000
 >> All right.

00:40:45.000 --> 00:40:51.440
 And then my last slide is just that, as I said, that one you typically see with SUPs.

00:40:51.440 --> 00:40:56.880
 It outlines what you saw on the site plan regarding the number of dwelling units, the

00:40:56.880 --> 00:41:00.180
 number of buildings.

00:41:00.180 --> 00:41:05.800
 Number one does state that there are 276 one, two, and three bedroom units in 12 two and

00:41:05.800 --> 00:41:07.520
 three story buildings.

00:41:07.520 --> 00:41:13.280
 The applicant has requested that to add an additional sentence that they may increase

00:41:13.280 --> 00:41:17.840
 the number of buildings so they may split one of those buildings in two, provided that

00:41:17.840 --> 00:41:23.160
 the number of the units in that building square footage would remain the same.

00:41:23.160 --> 00:41:29.480
 We do have within all of our SUPs that staff would have the ability to approve increases

00:41:29.480 --> 00:41:35.520
 up to and including 5% of the amount specified in that requirement number one, and then also

00:41:35.520 --> 00:41:42.200
 number four related to parking, but anything over 5% would require a new SUP.

00:41:42.200 --> 00:41:46.960
 This recommendation also lays out what the central gathering area, those amenities and

00:41:46.960 --> 00:41:50.480
 the amount of square footage.

00:41:50.480 --> 00:41:57.520
 Other open spaces, those three access points, memorializing the balcony or patio for each

00:41:57.520 --> 00:42:02.960
 dwelling unit, as well as decorative sconces for those primary building entrances, that

00:42:02.960 --> 00:42:09.800
 mix of trees and shrubs between the parking areas and building entrances, and then those

00:42:09.800 --> 00:42:14.160
 buildings oriented toward Luke 288 or organized around that central gathering area.

00:42:14.160 --> 00:42:15.640
 Finally, solid waste.

00:42:15.640 --> 00:42:20.440
 They are proposing some solid waste locations, but that final location be determined with

00:42:20.440 --> 00:42:24.760
 review of the building permit to make sure they're in just the right spot.

00:42:24.760 --> 00:42:29.600
 And that is concludes my presentation.

00:42:29.600 --> 00:42:33.200
 Any more questions for Julie on this item?

00:42:33.200 --> 00:42:40.880
 Okay, I have just one, Julie, and it's probably maybe for legal.

00:42:40.880 --> 00:42:49.820
 I was reading the draft ordinance, and on page two, it would be draft item E. We probably

00:42:49.820 --> 00:42:57.760
 need to edit that just for clarity because we mentioned referencing condition one, except

00:42:57.760 --> 00:43:00.720
 it's condition A on page one.

00:43:00.720 --> 00:43:03.440
 So we just may want to edit that one for clarity.

00:43:03.440 --> 00:43:04.440
 Sure.

00:43:04.440 --> 00:43:05.440
 If they should pass.

00:43:05.440 --> 00:43:06.440
 We'll fix that.

00:43:06.440 --> 00:43:07.440
 Thank you.

00:43:07.440 --> 00:43:08.440
 Thanks.

00:43:08.440 --> 00:43:09.440
 Anybody else?

00:43:09.440 --> 00:43:10.440
 Okay.

00:43:10.440 --> 00:43:11.440
 Thanks, Julie.

00:43:11.440 --> 00:43:12.440
 You bet.

00:43:12.440 --> 00:43:13.440
 Okay.

00:43:13.440 --> 00:43:30.320
 That brings us to our next public hearing, which will be the alternative ESA, and that's

00:43:30.320 --> 00:43:50.960
 Christy Upton, who I believe is here.

00:43:50.960 --> 00:44:00.840
 Okay.

00:44:00.840 --> 00:44:28.160
 Okay.

00:44:28.160 --> 00:44:29.160
 Good evening, commissioners.

00:44:29.160 --> 00:44:42.080
 My name is Christy Upton, and I am here tonight to share, sorry, there's an echo.

00:44:42.080 --> 00:44:48.120
 Is there a way to improve that?

00:44:48.120 --> 00:44:50.120
 I think I fixed it.

00:44:50.120 --> 00:44:51.120
 Sorry.

00:44:51.120 --> 00:44:57.440
 The city of Denton has adopted a set of regulations to protect the environmentally sensitive areas

00:44:57.440 --> 00:45:05.640
 that are found along streams and channels in our city, along with upland habitats.

00:45:05.640 --> 00:45:12.720
 And when land disturbances do not conform to protection requirements for the protection

00:45:12.720 --> 00:45:19.080
 of those environmentally sensitive areas, then an alternative ESA plan is, the approval

00:45:19.080 --> 00:45:23.840
 of that alternative ESA plan is required.

00:45:23.840 --> 00:45:32.200
 There's a set of criteria for approval that guide the plan and guide staff towards recommendation

00:45:32.200 --> 00:45:36.600
 for approval of that plan.

00:45:36.600 --> 00:45:43.160
 The request tonight is for a tract of land generally located north of Rose Lawn Drive

00:45:43.160 --> 00:45:47.940
 and east of railroad tracks along Highway 377.

00:45:47.940 --> 00:45:55.560
 There is a preliminary plat that was approved for 214 acres of a single-family detached

00:45:55.560 --> 00:45:57.360
 dwelling development.

00:45:57.360 --> 00:46:03.760
 And in order to support that development, the applicant is proposing four stormwater

00:46:03.760 --> 00:46:15.360
 channels that would encroach into riparian buffer ESA and water-related habitat.

00:46:15.360 --> 00:46:25.200
 To give you some background into what these environmentally sensitive areas, what is located

00:46:25.200 --> 00:46:34.240
 on this property, there was a field assessment that was conducted by a third-party biologist

00:46:34.240 --> 00:46:37.600
 and approved by staff.

00:46:37.600 --> 00:46:47.560
 The field assessment identified a tributary that crosses the creek – sorry.

00:46:47.560 --> 00:46:58.400
 There's a tributary called Stream HC1, and in addition to that, there is a small secondary

00:46:58.400 --> 00:47:04.200
 stream that's located generally about approximately right here.

00:47:04.200 --> 00:47:10.800
 And there's a riparian buffer that supports that stream, and by definition, that riparian

00:47:10.800 --> 00:47:19.160
 buffer is 50 feet on each side of the stream's centerline, so 100 feet in width total.

00:47:19.160 --> 00:47:23.880
 The riparian buffer was found to be in fair condition.

00:47:23.880 --> 00:47:31.800
 Surrounding that stream is a series of bottomland hardwood forests.

00:47:31.800 --> 00:47:42.320
 These are forests that survive in wetter conditions and support the water quality of the stream

00:47:42.320 --> 00:47:49.320
 and water that enters into that stream from land adjacent to the stream.

00:47:49.320 --> 00:47:55.280
 In addition, there is undeveloped floodplain, and this is floodplain areas that have not

00:47:55.280 --> 00:48:02.640
 been disturbed in the past or filled, and the floodplain boundary is defined by the

00:48:02.640 --> 00:48:07.160
 current FEMA 1% chance for the 100-year floodplain.

00:48:07.160 --> 00:48:15.040
 In addition, 30-plus acres of contiguous habitat was identified as cross-timbers upland forests,

00:48:15.040 --> 00:48:25.160
 and that is generally located on the eastern side of the creek and on the southeast corner

00:48:25.160 --> 00:48:30.360
 of the property.

00:48:30.360 --> 00:48:36.240
 Before I get into the reasons for the alternative ESA plan, I wanted to present the permitted

00:48:36.240 --> 00:48:40.240
 encroachments.

00:48:40.240 --> 00:48:48.560
 The Denton Development Code allows for up to 50% of the upland habitat to be removed,

00:48:48.560 --> 00:48:57.360
 so that means 50% preserved, and the applicant identified 15.1 acres of upland habitat that

00:48:57.360 --> 00:49:04.220
 is being set aside, and that upland habitat preservation generally will be located along

00:49:04.220 --> 00:49:12.480
 the creek and within the development and generally about this area.

00:49:12.480 --> 00:49:21.520
 The roadways that are identified on the city mobility plan are also permitted encroachment,

00:49:21.520 --> 00:49:28.280
 and there are two roadways that were identified on the mobility plan that will be constructed

00:49:28.280 --> 00:49:37.600
 by the developer, and one of those is Parvin Road, and Parvin Road will be crossing the

00:49:37.600 --> 00:49:48.240
 stream channel and encroaching into some water-related habitat, and civil plans have been submitted

00:49:48.240 --> 00:49:56.520
 for a section that will include improvements to Parvin Road, and within that civil plans,

00:49:56.520 --> 00:50:06.360
 there are compliance with the regulations to promote the recovery of the ESA and to

00:50:06.360 --> 00:50:16.040
 prevent future erosion of the creeks and the channels, and Rose Lawn Drive will be later

00:50:16.040 --> 00:50:24.240
 upgraded, and that will include some encroachments into the ESAs along the southern border of

00:50:24.240 --> 00:50:30.720
 the property, and then lastly, there are some allowances for public and private utility

00:50:30.720 --> 00:50:40.160
 facilities within the undeveloped floodplain ESAs, and thus this small section of the storm

00:50:40.160 --> 00:50:47.600
 drain channel will be encroaching into the undeveloped floodplain, and that is a permitted

00:50:47.600 --> 00:50:50.960
 activity.

00:50:50.960 --> 00:50:56.560
 The proposed deviations and the reason for the alternative ESA plan that we are presenting

00:50:56.560 --> 00:51:03.480
 here tonight is for four storm drain channels, which will support the residential development.

00:51:03.480 --> 00:51:12.640
 The width of those channels is, and 10 feet outside of the width of those channels, will

00:51:12.640 --> 00:51:23.020
 be the extent of the disturbance of the ESAs, and when added up, the total of the disturbances

00:51:23.020 --> 00:51:36.120
 of the ESAs will be approximately 0.6, less than 0.7 acres of disturbances.

00:51:36.120 --> 00:51:45.680
 The mitigation strategies that the applicant has offered is to, first of all, re-vegetate

00:51:45.680 --> 00:51:52.780
 the disturbances, so once the applicant has come in and removed the vegetation and aligned

00:51:52.780 --> 00:52:01.400
 the channels to allow for the drainage of the neighborhood, then they will be reseeding

00:52:01.400 --> 00:52:08.720
 that area plus the 10 feet outside of that area, which are also being cleared for the

00:52:08.720 --> 00:52:17.760
 construction, and all of that will be reseated with native grasses and other soft vegetation.

00:52:17.760 --> 00:52:26.400
 The plantings will also include some large trees, small trees, and shrubs that will mimic

00:52:26.400 --> 00:52:33.520
 some of the native vegetation that are found in the area.

00:52:33.520 --> 00:52:43.040
 The second mitigation strategy is to go 10 feet outside of the disturbed areas and do

00:52:43.040 --> 00:52:48.980
 a selective removal of invasive Chinese privet.

00:52:48.980 --> 00:52:57.920
 During the field assessment, the field biologists identify 10 to 50 percent infestation in different

00:52:57.920 --> 00:53:08.040
 areas across this channel, and they are proposing to selectively remove that privet and to re-vegetate

00:53:08.040 --> 00:53:14.440
 the area where they have removed the privet with native grasses and, again, soft plant

00:53:14.440 --> 00:53:27.400
 materials that will hopefully or intentionally will crowd out any future privet from reinvesting

00:53:27.400 --> 00:53:29.920
 the area.

00:53:29.920 --> 00:53:38.880
 There were notifications sent out, the 200-foot legal notice that was sent, we received responses.

00:53:38.880 --> 00:53:47.500
 Five were in opposition, three were in favor, and one was neutral, and the concerns of those

00:53:47.500 --> 00:53:59.240
 who were in opposition mostly were in expression of things that had been addressed by review

00:53:59.240 --> 00:54:05.440
 of the preliminary plat and confirming that the preliminary plat meets the minimum requirements

00:54:05.440 --> 00:54:08.960
 of the Debt and Development Code.

00:54:08.960 --> 00:54:15.000
 There was a neighborhood meeting on July 14th, and at that neighborhood meeting there were

00:54:15.000 --> 00:54:23.440
 34 participants, and, again, most of the concerns were items that were addressed at the preliminary

00:54:23.440 --> 00:54:26.400
 plat.

00:54:26.400 --> 00:54:34.920
 And after reviewing the plan against the criteria for approval, staff is recommending approval

00:54:34.920 --> 00:54:45.080
 for this request, and we have placed the following conditions for approval, and the first one

00:54:45.080 --> 00:54:50.920
 would be to limit the land disturbances to the amounts that were expressed in the alternative

00:54:50.920 --> 00:54:58.320
 ESA plan, and then in discussions with the applicant, they have agreed to identify heritage

00:54:58.320 --> 00:55:10.000
 or quality trees that might be within the path of these channels and to make a consideration

00:55:10.000 --> 00:55:16.200
 in the location of those channels to avoid those heritage or quality trees, and then

00:55:16.200 --> 00:55:23.080
 at the end of the project to provide the meets and bounds for environmental services to record

00:55:23.080 --> 00:55:33.840
 where those disturbances occurred, and then the revegetation of the areas that were disturbed,

00:55:33.840 --> 00:55:40.560
 and then the fourth and fifth condition of approval is something that environmental services

00:55:40.560 --> 00:55:51.200
 and general requests where we request an annual report to confirm that the area has been vegetated

00:55:51.200 --> 00:56:01.400
 as shown in the alternative ESA plan, and that we can gain some guarantee of the survivability

00:56:01.400 --> 00:56:02.680
 of the plants.

00:56:02.680 --> 00:56:07.760
 Are there any questions?

00:56:07.760 --> 00:56:13.960
 We're back.

00:56:13.960 --> 00:56:24.880
 Can you help me understand when the postponement from prior meeting was asked for, it was partly

00:56:24.880 --> 00:56:33.120
 on the grounds to work with neighborhood residents in the vicinity and make changes from what

00:56:33.120 --> 00:56:39.360
 would have been the prior submission to this current one, can you help me understand what

00:56:39.360 --> 00:56:44.280
 those changes are between the prior submission and this one?

00:56:44.280 --> 00:56:50.320
 That was a request made by the planning and development services and the parks and recs

00:56:50.320 --> 00:56:58.960
 department, and I would defer to the planning department to explain that request.

00:56:58.960 --> 00:57:09.600
 Is Richard available?

00:57:09.600 --> 00:57:11.160
 Can you hear me?

00:57:11.160 --> 00:57:12.160
 Yes.

00:57:12.160 --> 00:57:16.920
 Am I on for P&V?

00:57:16.920 --> 00:57:21.360
 Yes, we can hear you.

00:57:21.360 --> 00:57:27.200
 The reason for the postponement was for us to try to work with the applicant to preserve

00:57:27.200 --> 00:57:31.560
 additional canopy area.

00:57:31.560 --> 00:57:40.640
 That was the area that was part of the upland habitat that they were permitted to remove.

00:57:40.640 --> 00:57:43.720
 Staff still is working on that.

00:57:43.720 --> 00:57:50.800
 I believe we're going to be going back now to council on the 11th for discussion, but

00:57:50.800 --> 00:57:59.640
 we are still in the works of looking to possibly acquire land for additional tree preservation.

00:57:59.640 --> 00:58:08.200
 Richard or Christy or whoever is the appropriate person, I understand that this alternate ESA,

00:58:08.200 --> 00:58:13.280
 actually I'm just going to make a comment, the stuff along the riparian edges along the

00:58:13.280 --> 00:58:18.360
 creek bed is really well done, and I applaud Kimley-Horn for the efforts that they went

00:58:18.360 --> 00:58:19.760
 to along the creek.

00:58:19.760 --> 00:58:25.400
 I think the areas that are leading to contention with the neighborhood folks is that cross

00:58:25.400 --> 00:58:28.280
 timbers upland region.

00:58:28.280 --> 00:58:33.800
 My question is, if we're still in the process of working this out, how is it that we can

00:58:33.800 --> 00:58:36.520
 approve the alternate ESA?

00:58:36.520 --> 00:58:40.920
 Is the cross timbers not included as part of the alternate ESA?

00:58:40.920 --> 00:58:43.560
 That is correct.

00:58:43.560 --> 00:58:49.880
 The alternate ESA plan that is being proposed tonight is for the encroachment of the four

00:58:49.880 --> 00:58:57.840
 channels, and not part of any discussion of the cross timbers upland habitat.

00:58:57.840 --> 00:58:58.840
 All right.

00:58:58.840 --> 00:59:04.480
 Thank you for clarifying that, Christy, I appreciate it.

00:59:04.480 --> 00:59:05.480
 Anybody else?

00:59:05.480 --> 00:59:11.520
 Christy, I have just one quick question on the recommendation, the number two, the way

00:59:11.520 --> 00:59:12.520
 it's worded.

00:59:12.520 --> 00:59:17.280
 So, when we say the applicant will consider preservation of heritage and quality trees,

00:59:17.280 --> 00:59:23.320
 we're really not holding them to anything then, correct, with the way we worded that?

00:59:23.320 --> 00:59:28.400
 I believe the applicant can speak to this more.

00:59:28.400 --> 00:59:39.440
 They do intend to present tonight, and from what I understand, there is some ability to

00:59:39.440 --> 00:59:51.840
 consider the final location of the channels, and this is just an ability of theirs to modify

00:59:51.840 --> 00:59:57.880
 the location so that if they identify some quality heritage trees, that we are giving

00:59:57.880 --> 01:00:01.480
 them some flexibility in the placement of those channels.

01:00:01.480 --> 01:00:08.340
 Yeah, it's just the way it's worded, the applicant will consider the preservation.

01:00:08.340 --> 01:00:11.460
 Maybe they will, maybe they won't, it's odd, but I'll ask the applicant.

01:00:11.460 --> 01:00:14.460
 Thank you.

01:00:14.460 --> 01:00:16.280
 Okay.

01:00:16.280 --> 01:00:18.280
 Anybody else?

01:00:18.280 --> 01:00:24.120
 Okay, commissioners, that is the end of our agenda.

01:00:24.120 --> 01:00:28.680
 We are effectively at the time for our public meeting.

01:00:28.680 --> 01:00:34.400
 Do you all need a quick break before, or can we go right into that?

01:00:34.400 --> 01:00:39.480
 Consensus.

01:00:39.480 --> 01:00:43.400
 I wouldn't mind like a little five-minute break just to grab a snack real quick.

01:00:43.400 --> 01:00:44.400
 Okay.

01:00:44.400 --> 01:00:51.920
 So, at 632, I will call the work session closed, and we will reconvene in five minutes.

01:00:51.920 --> 01:00:52.920
 Okay.

01:00:52.920 --> 01:00:53.920
 Does that work?

01:00:53.920 --> 01:00:54.920
 Thanks.

01:00:54.920 --> 01:01:08.280
 Good evening, and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for

01:01:08.280 --> 01:01:12.160
 Wednesday, August 5th, 2020.

01:01:12.160 --> 01:01:16.820
 With a quorum present, I will call our meeting to order at 645 p.m.

01:01:16.820 --> 01:01:18.440
 Thank you for your patience.

01:01:18.440 --> 01:01:23.300
 Let the record show that Chair Roselle is absent tonight from our meeting.

01:01:23.300 --> 01:01:32.200
 Our first agenda item is to honor the U.S. and Texas flag, so please join me in the Pledge

01:01:32.200 --> 01:01:33.500
 of Allegiance.

01:01:33.500 --> 01:01:40.000
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

01:01:40.000 --> 01:01:49.960
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:01:49.960 --> 01:01:58.600
 On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one nation

01:01:58.600 --> 01:02:03.600
 indivisible.

01:02:03.600 --> 01:02:04.600
 Thank you.

01:02:04.600 --> 01:02:10.640
 Our next agenda item is to consider the approval of the Planning and Zoning Minutes for July

01:02:10.640 --> 01:02:11.640
 22nd.

01:02:11.640 --> 01:02:14.880
 The Chair would entertain a motion.

01:02:14.880 --> 01:02:15.880
 Commissioner Beck?

01:02:15.880 --> 01:02:17.800
 I move for approval.

01:02:17.800 --> 01:02:21.040
 Is there a second?

01:02:21.040 --> 01:02:22.040
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:02:22.040 --> 01:02:23.040
 Second.

01:02:23.040 --> 01:02:24.040
 Okay.

01:02:24.040 --> 01:02:29.360
 We've got a first and a second for approval of the July 22nd minutes.

01:02:29.360 --> 01:02:32.680
 We will take a vote by roll call.

01:02:32.680 --> 01:02:33.680
 Commissioner Beck?

01:02:33.680 --> 01:02:34.680
 Aye.

01:02:34.680 --> 01:02:35.680
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:02:35.680 --> 01:02:36.680
 Aye.

01:02:36.680 --> 01:02:37.680
 Commissioner Cole?

01:02:37.680 --> 01:02:38.680
 Aye.

01:02:38.680 --> 01:02:39.680
 Commissioner Prunetta?

01:02:39.680 --> 01:02:40.680
 I recuse.

01:02:40.680 --> 01:02:41.680
 I was absent.

01:02:41.680 --> 01:02:48.080
 Oh, you can still actually vote on the minutes.

01:02:48.080 --> 01:02:50.360
 Then aye.

01:02:50.360 --> 01:02:51.360
 Commissioner Smith?

01:02:51.360 --> 01:02:52.360
 Aye.

01:02:52.360 --> 01:02:54.600
 And the Chair is an aye.

01:02:54.600 --> 01:02:59.760
 That motion passes 6-0.

01:02:59.760 --> 01:03:03.920
 Next on our agenda is the Consent Agenda.

01:03:03.920 --> 01:03:07.320
 Does anyone want to pull anything from Consent?

01:03:07.320 --> 01:03:08.320
 Commissioner Beck?

01:03:08.320 --> 01:03:09.760
 Thank you, Chair.

01:03:09.760 --> 01:03:15.840
 I think given the feedback that we've been seeing, I'd like to request that Items 3C and

01:03:15.840 --> 01:03:22.120
 3D about Agave Ranch development be pulled for individual consideration and discussion.

01:03:22.120 --> 01:03:23.120
 Okay.

01:03:23.120 --> 01:03:29.200
 We will pull Item 3C and 3D.

01:03:29.200 --> 01:03:39.720
 Those will become individual consideration, Items C and D. So with that, we can move

01:03:39.720 --> 01:03:42.120
 to a motion on Consent.

01:03:42.120 --> 01:03:43.120
 Commissioner Smith?

01:03:43.120 --> 01:03:47.440
 I make a motion to approve Consent Agenda Items A and B.

01:03:47.440 --> 01:03:48.440
 Okay.

01:03:48.440 --> 01:03:51.440
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:03:51.440 --> 01:03:52.440
 Second the motion.

01:03:52.440 --> 01:03:53.440
 Okay.

01:03:53.440 --> 01:03:58.600
 We have a first and a second to approve Consent Agenda Items 3A and 3B.

01:03:58.600 --> 01:04:00.600
 Any discussion?

01:04:00.600 --> 01:04:02.320
 Okay.

01:04:02.320 --> 01:04:05.280
 Seeing none, we'll call for a vote by roll call.

01:04:05.280 --> 01:04:06.280
 Commissioner Smith?

01:04:06.280 --> 01:04:07.280
 Aye.

01:04:07.280 --> 01:04:08.280
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:04:08.280 --> 01:04:09.280
 Aye.

01:04:09.280 --> 01:04:10.280
 Commissioner Smith?

01:04:10.280 --> 01:04:11.280
 Aye.

01:04:11.280 --> 01:04:12.280
 Commissioner Beck?

01:04:12.280 --> 01:04:13.280
 Aye.

01:04:13.280 --> 01:04:14.280
 Commissioner Cole?

01:04:14.280 --> 01:04:15.280
 Aye.

01:04:15.280 --> 01:04:16.280
 Commissioner Prunetta?

01:04:16.280 --> 01:04:17.280
 Aye.

01:04:17.280 --> 01:04:19.360
 And the Chair is an aye.

01:04:19.360 --> 01:04:25.800
 Consent Agenda Items 3A and 3B pass 6-0.

01:04:25.800 --> 01:04:32.900
 So that will then take us to our first item that was pulled from Consent.

01:04:32.900 --> 01:04:40.600
 That is GDP 19001, and that's considered a request by Agave Ranch Development for approval

01:04:40.600 --> 01:04:43.000
 of a general development plan.

01:04:43.000 --> 01:04:46.400
 And I'm going to turn it over to Julie Wyatt for the presentation.

01:04:46.400 --> 01:04:47.400
 Good evening.

01:04:47.400 --> 01:04:48.400
 I'm Julie Wyatt.

01:04:48.400 --> 01:04:50.320
 I just have a short presentation.

01:04:50.320 --> 01:04:56.200
 Let me share my screen.

01:04:56.200 --> 01:05:04.760
 Okay, so this is GDP 19-0001.

01:05:04.760 --> 01:05:08.200
 This is in relationship to the Agave Ranch project.

01:05:08.200 --> 01:05:10.040
 You're probably somewhat familiar with it.

01:05:10.040 --> 01:05:15.880
 It had a rezoning request last year, and that was approved last July by City Council.

01:05:15.880 --> 01:05:20.320
 There were some overlay conditions related to that request.

01:05:20.320 --> 01:05:25.320
 And so they submitted a GDP so we could just sort of look at how all of those overlay conditions

01:05:25.320 --> 01:05:31.360
 work together, as well as the public improvements associated with the request.

01:05:31.360 --> 01:05:41.880
 So here we have the open space requirements shown in this exhibit, as well as an exhibit

01:05:41.880 --> 01:05:50.160
 of what the landscape buffer along FM 428 will sort of look like.

01:05:50.160 --> 01:06:03.220
 And then they also provided a paving plan associated with it, which shows the roadways

01:06:03.220 --> 01:06:06.440
 that would be associated with the development.

01:06:06.440 --> 01:06:13.240
 And then in your backup, there's also a utility plan that didn't come across so well, but

01:06:13.240 --> 01:06:18.600
 that is in your backup regarding the lift station that is proposed for this general

01:06:18.600 --> 01:06:23.080
 location and the connections to the water and sewer line.

01:06:23.080 --> 01:06:29.360
 So the applicant is on the line if you have any questions, and I can answer questions

01:06:29.360 --> 01:06:32.360
 as well.

01:06:32.360 --> 01:06:36.480
 Commissioner Beck.

01:06:36.480 --> 01:06:37.700
 Thank you, Chair.

01:06:37.700 --> 01:06:43.100
 So Julie, as you heard earlier, a lot of the comments and concerns were there didn't seem

01:06:43.100 --> 01:06:44.800
 to be a lot of opposition to it.

01:06:44.800 --> 01:06:51.440
 A development in this area was actually what is the mobility plan for this development?

01:06:51.440 --> 01:06:58.920
 And could you enlighten us as to the connectivity in the mobility plan proposed for this development?

01:06:58.920 --> 01:06:59.920
 You bet.

01:06:59.920 --> 01:07:00.920
 Let me share my screen again.

01:07:00.920 --> 01:07:10.120
 I've got some slides related to that.

01:07:10.120 --> 01:07:15.480
 So right now, so we have a current mobility plan, it was approved in 2015.

01:07:15.480 --> 01:07:18.700
 And here is the subject site located right here.

01:07:18.700 --> 01:07:26.960
 And you can see Hartley Field Road per this mobility plan is intended to be a collector

01:07:26.960 --> 01:07:34.240
 east of the site and then transitioning to a secondary arterial through the subject property.

01:07:34.240 --> 01:07:38.440
 In this map, you can see the proposed mobility plan.

01:07:38.440 --> 01:07:44.520
 There are some small changes, it's kind of removed a lot of these collectors kind of

01:07:44.520 --> 01:07:56.120
 crisscrossing this area and maintained that proposed Hartley Field with a secondary arterial

01:07:56.120 --> 01:08:03.600
 now to the east of the subject property and then cutting through the property and continuing

01:08:03.600 --> 01:08:04.600
 onto FM428.

01:08:04.600 --> 01:08:10.480
 To the north of the subject property, there will actually be a collector that transitions

01:08:10.480 --> 01:08:16.000
 to an arterial that is just north of the subject property.

01:08:16.000 --> 01:08:20.600
 If you see right here, that is just clips north of the subject property.

01:08:20.600 --> 01:08:26.640
 I also pulled the county thoroughfare plans because I know that this area is a mix of

01:08:26.640 --> 01:08:29.340
 both city property and county property.

01:08:29.340 --> 01:08:32.400
 So I kind of wanted to just see how those two things compared.

01:08:32.400 --> 01:08:39.160
 So here we have the 2017 county mobility plan with Hartley Field here.

01:08:39.160 --> 01:08:46.480
 And that shows a two-lane road east of the subject site transitioning to a four-lane

01:08:46.480 --> 01:08:50.420
 divided road near the subject property.

01:08:50.420 --> 01:08:56.960
 And that's consistent with what they show in their 2019 thoroughfare plan as well.

01:08:56.960 --> 01:09:00.000
 So I just wanted to provide that background information.

01:09:00.000 --> 01:09:02.520
 I also pulled a slide from the zoning case.

01:09:02.520 --> 01:09:06.360
 This was from the council, what was presented to the council last year.

01:09:06.360 --> 01:09:11.800
 So I apologize for the dates on it, but I did want to show you what the city commissioned

01:09:11.800 --> 01:09:18.560
 a transportation study for this entire sector of the city to see what kind of roadways would

01:09:18.560 --> 01:09:23.160
 be needed to support residential development in this area.

01:09:23.160 --> 01:09:33.040
 So this does show the future outer loop that is north of the site, which FM428 will eventually

01:09:33.040 --> 01:09:34.660
 connect to.

01:09:34.660 --> 01:09:39.160
 It shows that once again, Hartley Field sort of straightening out in this location and

01:09:39.160 --> 01:09:47.480
 cutting bisecting the property and then also provided that north connection as well.

01:09:47.480 --> 01:09:49.560
 That's really it for my presentation.

01:09:49.560 --> 01:09:55.380
 Let me stop sharing my screen and I'll be able to answer any questions.

01:09:55.380 --> 01:09:58.200
 - So some of the comments, thank you Julie, I appreciate that.

01:09:58.200 --> 01:10:05.160
 A lot of the comments and feedback that we got seemed to suggest that during neighborhood

01:10:05.160 --> 01:10:13.080
 engagement phases of this development and during various council actions, the citizens

01:10:13.080 --> 01:10:19.760
 were led to believe that the connectivity would be connecting in north.

01:10:19.760 --> 01:10:28.680
 And maybe that they may not have organized or supported or deferred or fought, whatever

01:10:28.680 --> 01:10:35.520
 appropriate verb we want to use with that understanding.

01:10:35.520 --> 01:10:42.680
 So is there anything precluding the mobility plan or changes or development from the developer

01:10:42.680 --> 01:10:48.440
 from moving more northward as the citizens have suggested?

01:10:48.440 --> 01:10:57.280
 - There wasn't a condition in the zoning case related to Hartley Field and the position

01:10:57.280 --> 01:10:58.560
 of it.

01:10:58.560 --> 01:11:04.000
 The mobility plan does indicate that a roadway should be in that general area.

01:11:04.000 --> 01:11:12.320
 Now the mobility plan is schematic, so it sort of depends on how the project moves forward.

01:11:12.320 --> 01:11:18.640
 So but that mobility plan does show that connection in that general area.

01:11:18.640 --> 01:11:26.120
 - And if we were to connect new Hartley Field, whatever the roundabout lollipop there in

01:11:26.120 --> 01:11:33.160
 the middle of the proposed plan to the existing dogleg, would we have to, would some sort

01:11:33.160 --> 01:11:39.520
 of property exchange have to happen to make that happen?

01:11:39.520 --> 01:11:40.960
 - Well there is a gap.

01:11:40.960 --> 01:11:47.200
 So Agave Ranch is proposing to dedicate the right of way for the future Hartley Field

01:11:47.200 --> 01:11:53.580
 alignment, as well as with the development, they would have to build portions of that.

01:11:53.580 --> 01:12:00.400
 But there is a gap just to the east of the subject site that is not under control of

01:12:00.400 --> 01:12:01.400
 the city.

01:12:01.400 --> 01:12:07.140
 So the future development of Hartley Field would require either right of way dedication

01:12:07.140 --> 01:12:10.680
 or acquisition of some sort.

01:12:10.680 --> 01:12:19.280
 But there is, you're suggesting that there is some flexibility in the mobility plan and

01:12:19.280 --> 01:12:27.700
 in the layout such that this is a possibility if the developer were to be amenable.

01:12:27.700 --> 01:12:32.000
 - Well the mobility plan does show Hartley Field in that general location.

01:12:32.000 --> 01:12:38.860
 I am not, you know, they work with engineering regarding these developments and getting the

01:12:38.860 --> 01:12:42.500
 roads in the right places.

01:12:42.500 --> 01:12:47.800
 So the applicant is on the line and they may be able to answer questions regarding, you

01:12:47.800 --> 01:12:51.840
 know, the decision making that they have made.

01:12:51.840 --> 01:12:56.440
 But the mobility plan does call for a road in this general location.

01:12:56.440 --> 01:13:02.640
 - All right, I'll hold questions for other, thank you.

01:13:02.640 --> 01:13:03.640
 - Commissioner Anderson.

01:13:03.640 --> 01:13:06.160
 - Thank you, Chair.

01:13:06.160 --> 01:13:10.520
 Really my understanding in reading all the comments that we did receive today and, you

01:13:10.520 --> 01:13:16.440
 know, me growing up in that area and I know that area very well is initially the road

01:13:16.440 --> 01:13:21.180
 was not gonna connect there, it was gonna be north like Commissioner Beck said.

01:13:21.180 --> 01:13:26.240
 And now, you know, apparently everybody in Hartley Field area was kind of on board.

01:13:26.240 --> 01:13:28.640
 They don't mind having new neighbors.

01:13:28.640 --> 01:13:35.240
 It's just you don't want them to have all this traffic coming through as quiet community.

01:13:35.240 --> 01:13:42.360
 And as Commissioner Beck expressed a second ago, having the road north like many of the

01:13:42.360 --> 01:13:46.580
 people and many of the residents thought it was gonna be.

01:13:46.580 --> 01:13:55.080
 Now they are kind of given a quick present like, oh, sorry, you know, now it's gonna

01:13:55.080 --> 01:14:00.160
 connect to your major area and sorry, neighbor A, you're gonna lose, Mr. Smith, you're gonna

01:14:00.160 --> 01:14:05.480
 lose part of your yard and sorry, Ms. Ellis, you're gonna lose your house.

01:14:05.480 --> 01:14:09.960
 And I don't see how that would be very feasible.

01:14:09.960 --> 01:14:18.320
 I mean, that's kind of, we want, in our plan, it says we're gonna protect the rural areas.

01:14:18.320 --> 01:14:23.920
 And here we are trying to take away somebody's property and somebody's house just to connect

01:14:23.920 --> 01:14:25.880
 a new development.

01:14:25.880 --> 01:14:32.880
 I mean, as Commissioner Beck said again, is there a way to move the road further north?

01:14:32.880 --> 01:14:39.480
 Well, let me share my screen again.

01:14:39.480 --> 01:14:48.560
 And I apologize, I am not, I'm not quite sure what the discussion was.

01:14:48.560 --> 01:14:53.600
 There is a road that is north and it is just, it's north of the subject site.

01:14:53.600 --> 01:15:00.240
 And I don't know if that is the one that's being referenced.

01:15:00.240 --> 01:15:08.400
 But the mobility plan has, you know, that was adopted in 2015 has shown this sort of

01:15:08.400 --> 01:15:23.520
 straightening out alignment of Hartley Field kind of in this manner.

01:15:23.520 --> 01:15:24.800
 I think Scott wants to jump in.

01:15:24.800 --> 01:15:25.800
 Sure.

01:15:25.800 --> 01:15:30.640
 Yes, I was just gonna let you know that the traffic engineering is on the line if needed,

01:15:30.640 --> 01:15:31.640
 Julie.

01:15:31.640 --> 01:15:32.640
 Oh, great.

01:15:32.640 --> 01:15:35.080
 Thank you.

01:15:35.080 --> 01:15:40.800
 And he may be able to better explain the mobility plan.

01:15:40.800 --> 01:15:42.800
 Commissioner Burnetta.

01:15:42.800 --> 01:15:50.040
 Yeah, and kind of along those lines, we did get a number of, you know, basically responses

01:15:50.040 --> 01:15:51.660
 on this one.

01:15:51.660 --> 01:15:56.000
 When it came through and it finally passed at P&Z last year that, you know, the approval

01:15:56.000 --> 01:16:01.960
 for Agave had had quite an evolution of going back and forth with the developers and the

01:16:01.960 --> 01:16:07.480
 people in the area, I know that at the time we made the bill when we finally approved

01:16:07.480 --> 01:16:15.520
 it prior to that, we kind of made sure that we were providing a good transition, basically

01:16:15.520 --> 01:16:17.920
 to rule.

01:16:17.920 --> 01:16:24.480
 In that one of the discussions that we had was was Hartley Field Road and the I guess

01:16:24.480 --> 01:16:29.960
 the question I have right now is that a lot of the responses tend to imply that there's

01:16:29.960 --> 01:16:37.560
 going to be basically an impact on properties, homes, wells, things like that with the way

01:16:37.560 --> 01:16:40.640
 that the Hartley Field Road extension is going to go now.

01:16:40.640 --> 01:16:46.720
 I don't remember that being part of any consideration that we had once we approved.

01:16:46.720 --> 01:16:52.240
 Is this something that's missing from the presentation or is this a change?

01:16:52.240 --> 01:16:58.600
 Because once again, when we had the vote last time, we had a very strong consensus among

01:16:58.600 --> 01:17:00.960
 the local community for that area.

01:17:00.960 --> 01:17:01.960
 We don't have that now.

01:17:01.960 --> 01:17:09.560
 And I'm just trying to get a grasp of what changed, you know, because when I look at

01:17:09.560 --> 01:17:13.640
 what we have right here and hear the presentation, it seems like everything should be the same,

01:17:13.640 --> 01:17:15.080
 but obviously it's not.

01:17:15.080 --> 01:17:20.520
 So maybe that's a question for traffic engineering, but I'm just trying to get a grasp of the

01:17:20.520 --> 01:17:26.260
 full impact of what's different because the opposition is significantly stronger than

01:17:26.260 --> 01:17:36.320
 one would have expected after the kind of group approval we had last summer.

01:17:36.320 --> 01:17:42.520
 And I might want to have transportation talk about, I'm not aware of any changes to the

01:17:42.520 --> 01:17:48.320
 mobility plan that have taken place since 2015, but transportation may be able to answer

01:17:48.320 --> 01:17:50.600
 any questions regarding that.

01:17:50.600 --> 01:17:52.760
 We're working on getting Brian and John unmuted.

01:17:52.760 --> 01:17:53.760
 Okay.

01:17:53.760 --> 01:17:58.400
 And Julie, if I could jump in, maybe you can explain to the commission.

01:17:58.400 --> 01:18:04.640
 Is this something, because it's on the mobility plan, is this something that they had to include

01:18:04.640 --> 01:18:09.880
 because it's in the mobility plan to extend this road?

01:18:09.880 --> 01:18:10.880
 Yes.

01:18:10.880 --> 01:18:15.400
 When we have a development, and this is just in general, when we have a development that

01:18:15.400 --> 01:18:21.920
 intersects with a road that is on the mobility plan, it is the intent of the city to get

01:18:21.920 --> 01:18:28.840
 the right of way dedication and have the development construct that road as shown on the mobility

01:18:28.840 --> 01:18:29.840
 plan.

01:18:29.840 --> 01:18:34.960
 So that's pretty typical of the developments, and in this case, it was something that because

01:18:34.960 --> 01:18:40.120
 the mobility plan shows that road was something that was required because that is our adopted

01:18:40.120 --> 01:18:42.880
 plan.

01:18:42.880 --> 01:18:49.200
 Is there flexibility in that requirement or no?

01:18:49.200 --> 01:18:53.620
 You know, the final, as I said, that mobility plan is schematic.

01:18:53.620 --> 01:19:00.400
 So as you probably recall in that 2015 plan, that the road kind of jogged a little bit,

01:19:00.400 --> 01:19:02.640
 sort of jogged around that pond.

01:19:02.640 --> 01:19:11.320
 So there is flexibility, I believe, and Brian may be able to more fully expound on it, of

01:19:11.320 --> 01:19:17.480
 in general, or the specifics of the road, but in general, it needs to go from the kind

01:19:17.480 --> 01:19:19.400
 of the established point A to the point B.

01:19:19.400 --> 01:19:20.400
 Okay.

01:19:20.400 --> 01:19:21.400
 Thanks, Julie.

01:19:21.400 --> 01:19:25.560
 Commissioner Beck, did you have a question before we bring in traffic?

01:19:25.560 --> 01:19:26.560
 No.

01:19:26.560 --> 01:19:27.560
 I raised my hand.

01:19:27.560 --> 01:19:28.560
 Thank you, Chair.

01:19:28.560 --> 01:19:30.600
 I raised my hand to get the traffic engineer in.

01:19:30.600 --> 01:19:31.600
 I was nodding for that.

01:19:31.600 --> 01:19:35.400
 So if we could, however we can integrate that discussion, I'd like to hear that.

01:19:35.400 --> 01:19:36.400
 Okay, great.

01:19:36.400 --> 01:19:37.400
 I do think he's in.

01:19:37.400 --> 01:19:39.600
 So Brian, take it away.

01:19:39.600 --> 01:19:41.440
 Can you hear me now?

01:19:41.440 --> 01:19:42.440
 We can.

01:19:42.440 --> 01:19:43.440
 Excellent.

01:19:43.440 --> 01:19:51.880
 So there are a couple of points, I think one of the questions was, do they have to dedicate

01:19:51.880 --> 01:19:57.600
 or do they have to propose roadways in accordance with the mobility plan, and the answer to

01:19:57.600 --> 01:20:03.120
 that is yes, unless they go through an amendment process.

01:20:03.120 --> 01:20:07.760
 And so those are very rare to remove a roadway.

01:20:07.760 --> 01:20:14.320
 This particular extension of Hartley Field is on both the 2015 mobility plan and the

01:20:14.320 --> 01:20:17.880
 proposed 2020 update to that mobility plan.

01:20:17.880 --> 01:20:25.320
 So there's some consistency in showing that east-west connection, as again, as Julie said,

01:20:25.320 --> 01:20:27.080
 in this general area.

01:20:27.080 --> 01:20:34.680
 So we do have some leeway as far as the particular alignment.

01:20:34.680 --> 01:20:36.560
 We can move it.

01:20:36.560 --> 01:20:39.960
 I think we can move it up to a thousand feet without having to go through the amendment

01:20:39.960 --> 01:20:49.760
 process, north or south in this case, but the mobility plan does compel the right-of-way

01:20:49.760 --> 01:20:56.240
 dedication and it does require compliance, at least to the level of you're providing

01:20:56.240 --> 01:21:00.120
 a connection, as Julie said, from the point A to the point B.

01:21:00.120 --> 01:21:11.960
 So I will say in the 2020 update, there is a shift to the major roadway, the larger primary

01:21:11.960 --> 01:21:17.560
 arterial is shifted to the north, to that golden circle.

01:21:17.560 --> 01:21:20.200
 I think it's the northern boundary of this property.

01:21:20.200 --> 01:21:27.920
 That will become the primary east-west connection and Hartley Field will remain the secondary.

01:21:27.920 --> 01:21:35.920
 So at most four lanes, whereas the northern connection will be up to six lanes.

01:21:35.920 --> 01:21:45.000
 So we are pushing a lot of what we would consider cross-country through traffic to the northern

01:21:45.000 --> 01:21:47.080
 boundary of this site.

01:21:47.080 --> 01:21:53.320
 You'll still have the connection through the middle, Hartley Field, but it will not be

01:21:53.320 --> 01:21:59.640
 that six lane divided arterial.

01:21:59.640 --> 01:22:00.640
 Thank you, Brian.

01:22:00.640 --> 01:22:01.800
 Commissioner Beck.

01:22:01.800 --> 01:22:02.880
 Thank you, Chair.

01:22:02.880 --> 01:22:10.060
 So Brian, if you can help me understand that they're building the connectivity to the mobility

01:22:10.060 --> 01:22:16.920
 plan and Hartley Field is ostensibly going to remain the same, but the plan that they're

01:22:16.920 --> 01:22:24.680
 presenting that they're forced into through the mobility plan requirements seems to suggest

01:22:24.680 --> 01:22:31.120
 that that's their primary arterial in and out of the neighborhood, which doesn't precisely

01:22:31.120 --> 01:22:37.040
 align with the golden circle, or I forgot the name of the road to the north.

01:22:37.040 --> 01:22:43.760
 And if it's schematic, I mean, can they not match a, if we change our schematic to be

01:22:43.760 --> 01:22:50.120
 more aligned to the north, then can they not then fall in line with our mobility plan by

01:22:50.120 --> 01:22:51.420
 being more aligned to the north?

01:22:51.420 --> 01:22:55.000
 It feels like that this would be sort of a win-win for everyone.

01:22:55.000 --> 01:22:59.880
 The neighborhood would go through, the neighbors would be happy.

01:22:59.880 --> 01:23:04.240
 It feels like if we're already intending the predominant traffic flow to be to the north,

01:23:04.240 --> 01:23:08.080
 why don't we just make it to the north and then allow the developers to develop in that

01:23:08.080 --> 01:23:14.120
 way instead of requiring them to punch through Hartley with the main arterial, or maybe I'm

01:23:14.120 --> 01:23:15.120
 mixing things.

01:23:15.120 --> 01:23:17.080
 Can you help me understand that, Brian?

01:23:17.080 --> 01:23:27.200
 Well, so, okay, it may be that we're in kind of limbo, but if you look at the amount of

01:23:27.200 --> 01:23:36.280
 property east of this site, that's going to want to get to 428, and if they want to come

01:23:36.280 --> 01:23:43.360
 into town, we really don't necessarily want to push them north to bring them south.

01:23:43.360 --> 01:23:49.600
 And so we want to provide that connectivity, and I think Hartley Field is the appropriate

01:23:49.600 --> 01:23:50.600
 facility.

01:23:50.600 --> 01:23:51.600
 We want to provide the connectivity.

01:23:51.600 --> 01:23:54.480
 We just want to size it appropriately.

01:23:54.480 --> 01:24:07.280
 So I don't know that I would necessarily – we could certainly model taking the Hartley Field

01:24:07.280 --> 01:24:15.120
 connection out, but that particular connection does not serve just this – or is not intended

01:24:15.120 --> 01:24:18.360
 to serve just this development.

01:24:18.360 --> 01:24:29.320
 That is kind of a quasi-regional – not regional, but it's a major connection to 428, which

01:24:29.320 --> 01:24:37.040
 is currently being studied by TxDOT to be a controlled access facility, something larger

01:24:37.040 --> 01:24:38.040
 than it is today.

01:24:38.040 --> 01:24:43.960
 So it's going to be a primary – 428 is going to be a primary spine into Denton.

01:24:43.960 --> 01:24:51.960
 So we want to strategically place connections, and typically it's about a mile spacing,

01:24:51.960 --> 01:25:02.320
 plus or minus, but we want to strategically provide connections to 428 that serves not

01:25:02.320 --> 01:25:06.440
 just this property, which fronts 428, but all the property to the east.

01:25:06.440 --> 01:25:17.000
 So we really – we're trying to balance local access versus more, like I said, quasi-regional,

01:25:17.000 --> 01:25:21.100
 where you're – you've got a long-reach potential.

01:25:21.100 --> 01:25:28.520
 Now I will say that the 2020 update, in providing that larger connection to the north, is going

01:25:28.520 --> 01:25:40.520
 to remove a lot of the traffic that's not associated with anything in this area.

01:25:40.520 --> 01:25:43.560
 They're simply – strictly through traffic.

01:25:43.560 --> 01:25:48.240
 So anybody that's coming from the east, not – and maybe not even from Denton, but further

01:25:48.240 --> 01:25:52.480
 east, they're going to have the opportunity to be on a facility that's a little bit north

01:25:52.480 --> 01:25:59.000
 of here and hit 428 and either continue north or continue south.

01:25:59.000 --> 01:26:06.360
 And that's why we've down – kind of downplayed the cross-section on Hartley Field versus

01:26:06.360 --> 01:26:09.720
 that Golden Circle.

01:26:09.720 --> 01:26:13.760
 We still need the connectivity.

01:26:13.760 --> 01:26:20.720
 It's not just these 250 homes that we have to plan for, but the entirety of the area

01:26:20.720 --> 01:26:24.840
 east of here that's going to want to get to 428.

01:26:24.840 --> 01:26:33.560
 So we – we are shifting some of that travel, that traffic north, by providing a better

01:26:33.560 --> 01:26:36.160
 facility, bigger facility.

01:26:36.160 --> 01:26:41.680
 But we're still going to need to provide connectivity between ultimately Golden Circle

01:26:41.680 --> 01:26:46.120
 or the Ganzer connection and 288.

01:26:46.120 --> 01:26:49.680
 We need some – we need some additional access points.

01:26:49.680 --> 01:26:56.800
 And again, they're building a two-lane initially.

01:26:56.800 --> 01:27:02.680
 And they're dedicating right of way for an ultimate four-lane.

01:27:02.680 --> 01:27:13.520
 But it may stay a two-lane for a long time until the travel patterns develop such that

01:27:13.520 --> 01:27:16.320
 an expansion is required.

01:27:16.320 --> 01:27:26.040
 But to remove it or to restrict it to a two-lane would require some additional effort on our

01:27:26.040 --> 01:27:32.440
 consultant's part to determine whether or not then are we providing enough connectivity

01:27:32.440 --> 01:27:42.520
 to 428 between the Golden Circle, the Ganzer connection that goes all the way to 35W and

01:27:42.520 --> 01:27:50.680
 288, because what we don't want is people winding through residential streets because

01:27:50.680 --> 01:27:53.040
 they don't want to get on the big road north.

01:27:53.040 --> 01:27:57.800
 They don't want to drive north to go south, so they're going to filter their way through

01:27:57.800 --> 01:28:00.920
 these residential streets to get to 428.

01:28:00.920 --> 01:28:09.520
 I'd rather put them on a facility that is designed and is ready to take that travel

01:28:09.520 --> 01:28:18.760
 demand than to let them just filter through roadways that are – you know, have houses

01:28:18.760 --> 01:28:22.640
 fronting and more pedestrian activity.

01:28:22.640 --> 01:28:29.280
 So that's really what the intent is, is to strategically identify those connectivity – those

01:28:29.280 --> 01:28:37.640
 corridors, space them appropriately so that people – they want to stay on the major

01:28:37.640 --> 01:28:41.720
 roadways and not find their way through neighborhoods.

01:28:41.720 --> 01:28:46.240
 And I'll just follow up real briefly and then let the other commissioners chime in or let

01:28:46.240 --> 01:28:50.280
 Cher have control back again, and that is, yeah, I understand that there's a balance

01:28:50.280 --> 01:28:56.800
 of needs for the larger development plan, but it feels like now is the opportune time

01:28:56.800 --> 01:29:03.880
 to balance the existing property rights needs and traffic patterns of neighbors that weren't

01:29:03.880 --> 01:29:11.800
 actually opposing this development but are more concerned about how it impacts their

01:29:11.800 --> 01:29:19.940
 property values, their community, their consistency of life in this region, especially given the

01:29:19.940 --> 01:29:24.000
 schematic and sort of semi-flexible nature of an ongoing development.

01:29:24.000 --> 01:29:30.360
 I think that we have an opportunity to try and be flexible, to try to satisfy as many

01:29:30.360 --> 01:29:32.600
 of all the demands as necessary.

01:29:32.600 --> 01:29:35.240
 And I'll leave it there, thank you, Chair.

01:29:35.240 --> 01:29:42.240
 So let me follow up on that and make sure I understand.

01:29:42.240 --> 01:29:50.280
 So the properties that are east of here, are those the neighbors that you're talking about?

01:29:50.280 --> 01:29:55.040
 Yeah, and the little notch on the properties.

01:29:55.040 --> 01:29:56.040
 Okay.

01:29:56.040 --> 01:30:00.520
 Because I think one of the advantages we have is they're not – this development is not

01:30:00.520 --> 01:30:06.960
 providing a connection on Hartley Field through this development.

01:30:06.960 --> 01:30:08.560
 It stops.

01:30:08.560 --> 01:30:16.960
 And until development occurs east, until that property develops, there won't be a connection

01:30:16.960 --> 01:30:18.960
 on Hartley Field.

01:30:18.960 --> 01:30:25.000
 That roundabout, if – and I don't know if Julie has that site plan up, but the roundabout,

01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:28.480
 the fourth leg is not part of their development plan.

01:30:28.480 --> 01:30:33.360
 That is, they're dedicating right away, but they are not providing the connection.

01:30:33.360 --> 01:30:43.120
 So Hartley Field will only serve this development until development occurs east of here.

01:30:43.120 --> 01:30:50.280
 So the road – I can't read its name, my eyes are too bad.

01:30:50.280 --> 01:30:57.240
 The road to the north, silver something – I forget its name.

01:30:57.240 --> 01:31:03.960
 In the right on Julie's mouse, the – where there is the lift that she was discussing,

01:31:03.960 --> 01:31:09.040
 that can't be the connectivity to the future roadway use?

01:31:09.040 --> 01:31:10.360
 Okay.

01:31:10.360 --> 01:31:14.120
 So because – is it Starlight?

01:31:14.120 --> 01:31:15.120
 No.

01:31:15.120 --> 01:31:16.120
 Starlight, that's it.

01:31:16.120 --> 01:31:17.120
 Thank you.

01:31:17.120 --> 01:31:18.120
 Yes.

01:31:18.120 --> 01:31:19.120
 Okay.

01:31:19.120 --> 01:31:20.120
 I understand.

01:31:20.120 --> 01:31:25.600
 When we're remote, we cannot watch what's on the web because it's a 20-second delay.

01:31:25.600 --> 01:31:28.640
 So I have the site plan called up on my PC as well.

01:31:28.640 --> 01:31:43.320
 So Starlight possibly could, but it would need to be sized similarly to Hartley Field.

01:31:43.320 --> 01:31:49.560
 I mean, what are – the potential development east of here that wants to get to 428, what

01:31:49.560 --> 01:31:56.120
 our model is telling us is that you don't want that on a residential street.

01:31:56.120 --> 01:31:58.840
 You want it on something bigger.

01:31:58.840 --> 01:32:04.640
 And you don't want houses facing because there's going to be a lot of traffic.

01:32:04.640 --> 01:32:10.720
 And so if – my concern would be that if we connected Starlight and we left it with

01:32:10.720 --> 01:32:16.720
 the cross-section that it currently has, which is a two-lane residential roadway, you're

01:32:16.720 --> 01:32:21.240
 going to have a lot of unhappy people because they are going to be fronting their homes

01:32:21.240 --> 01:32:25.560
 on a street that's going to be carrying significant volumes.

01:32:25.560 --> 01:32:29.360
 We can't force everyone to use that northern connection.

01:32:29.360 --> 01:32:33.360
 We want to provide it, and that's what our 2020 update does.

01:32:33.360 --> 01:32:37.520
 That northern – for this property, it's the northern boundary.

01:32:37.520 --> 01:32:39.720
 We're enhancing that roadway.

01:32:39.720 --> 01:32:43.060
 We're making it a little bit bigger, more capacity.

01:32:43.060 --> 01:32:45.360
 We want people to use that.

01:32:45.360 --> 01:32:53.680
 But people are going to find – if we don't provide anything between what is Golden Circle

01:32:53.680 --> 01:33:01.260
 and 288, if we don't provide a larger roadway that connects east-west to 428, we're going

01:33:01.260 --> 01:33:06.080
 to have a lot of neighborhood infiltration, and that's what we try to avoid.

01:33:06.080 --> 01:33:07.080
 Okay.

01:33:07.080 --> 01:33:12.760
 I will back off for a while and let other commissioners talk.

01:33:12.760 --> 01:33:17.120
 Thank you.

01:33:17.120 --> 01:33:18.120
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:33:18.120 --> 01:33:20.640
 Thank you, Chair.

01:33:20.640 --> 01:33:24.200
 John, thanks for answering some of these questions.

01:33:24.200 --> 01:33:28.400
 But I do have – I mean, Brian, sorry about that.

01:33:28.400 --> 01:33:32.960
 You made a statement that is what the residents are saying.

01:33:32.960 --> 01:33:39.920
 They don't want all the east traffic coming through their two-lane neighborhood with their

01:33:39.920 --> 01:33:42.500
 houses facing the streets.

01:33:42.500 --> 01:33:46.040
 And that's what I think the extension eventually of Hartley Field is going to do.

01:33:46.040 --> 01:33:52.280
 It's going to cut through this nice, quiet, rural neighborhood with houses facing a two-lane,

01:33:52.280 --> 01:33:56.960
 non-divided road, and you're going to make it a four-lane street, and you're going to

01:33:56.960 --> 01:34:01.480
 take up some of their yards, and that's what they don't want.

01:34:01.480 --> 01:34:06.880
 They don't want all this traffic coming through their quiet neighborhood.

01:34:06.880 --> 01:34:09.360
 And I think that's what – I think Commissioner Begg is trying to get across.

01:34:09.360 --> 01:34:11.800
 I think that's what – you know, that's what I'm saying.

01:34:11.800 --> 01:34:15.560
 And after reading all the comments, that's what all the residents – I mean, almost every

01:34:15.560 --> 01:34:22.200
 residents in that area submitted a response today, you know, that we read.

01:34:22.200 --> 01:34:25.520
 And I'm in total agreeance with them that if I live there – and like I said, I grew

01:34:25.520 --> 01:34:30.240
 up out there – the trails and fishing, and that's not what I would want in my neighborhood.

01:34:30.240 --> 01:34:35.480
 I wouldn't want my two-lane street becoming a major four-lane road with all the traffic

01:34:35.480 --> 01:34:37.040
 because that's where people walk.

01:34:37.040 --> 01:34:38.040
 They walk their dogs.

01:34:38.040 --> 01:34:40.640
 They have kids on bikes.

01:34:40.640 --> 01:34:44.200
 You know, you got people walking – you know, riding out there to the creeks to go – you

01:34:44.200 --> 01:34:50.120
 know, go hunting and fishing, and now you're going to have a four-lane road, which is against

01:34:50.120 --> 01:34:55.920
 everything that you just said about not wanting all that traffic coming through a neighborhood.

01:34:55.920 --> 01:34:58.560
 And I'll let you answer.

01:34:58.560 --> 01:35:02.440
 So what I said was that we need to plan for that traffic.

01:35:02.440 --> 01:35:04.200
 That traffic is going to be there.

01:35:04.200 --> 01:35:05.680
 That property is going to develop.

01:35:05.680 --> 01:35:12.200
 We're working with a developer right now, significantly larger proposal than what we're

01:35:12.200 --> 01:35:16.280
 looking at tonight, just east of here.

01:35:16.280 --> 01:35:18.800
 That traffic is going to be there.

01:35:18.800 --> 01:35:21.080
 But Hartley Field – okay, sorry.

01:35:21.080 --> 01:35:22.080
 Right.

01:35:22.080 --> 01:35:23.640
 So it's a Carter property.

01:35:23.640 --> 01:35:30.440
 So what the balance – what the choice is, is do you want to leave Hartley Field a two-lane

01:35:30.440 --> 01:35:37.280
 roadway that's going to have the same amount of traffic, or do you want to build it so

01:35:37.280 --> 01:35:43.800
 that it attracts traffic – and I understand the homeowners.

01:35:43.800 --> 01:35:51.760
 But if we don't build an adequate roadway infrastructure, then all that traffic – they're

01:35:51.760 --> 01:35:57.200
 going to find a way to 428, and it's going to be down all of the little two-lane streets

01:35:57.200 --> 01:35:58.200
 in this neighborhood.

01:35:58.200 --> 01:36:02.080
 It's going to be on Hartley Field.

01:36:02.080 --> 01:36:05.680
 You can't avoid traffic on Hartley Field.

01:36:05.680 --> 01:36:06.680
 And so do you want –

01:36:06.680 --> 01:36:15.280
 Why can't you go behind the houses on Hartley Field Road, and like Commissioner Beck said,

01:36:15.280 --> 01:36:21.200
 and tie into Starlight, and just widen Starlight to make it a four-lane arterial instead of

01:36:21.200 --> 01:36:22.960
 having people come through Hartley Field?

01:36:22.960 --> 01:36:28.120
 Because right now, Hartley Field already has access to 428.

01:36:28.120 --> 01:36:32.120
 And you're just going to make it wider coming through on the north side of the existing

01:36:32.120 --> 01:36:33.120
 Hartley Field Road.

01:36:33.120 --> 01:36:34.120
 Right.

01:36:34.120 --> 01:36:43.760
 So part of the problem is where the property lines are and what is being – what's developed.

01:36:43.760 --> 01:36:49.540
 And we try and straddle property lines when we look at roadways.

01:36:49.540 --> 01:36:55.200
 So this particular property that's developing east of here, their northern boundary is Hartley

01:36:55.200 --> 01:36:57.680
 Field Road.

01:36:57.680 --> 01:37:03.040
 So I can't make a connection north of there.

01:37:03.040 --> 01:37:07.640
 They don't own that.

01:37:07.640 --> 01:37:18.120
 And what we would end up with is that we would end up with a future connection when the property

01:37:18.120 --> 01:37:20.960
 north of those homeowners develops.

01:37:20.960 --> 01:37:24.800
 But until then, all of the traffic is going to be on Hartley Field Road.

01:37:24.800 --> 01:37:27.300
 We can't avoid that.

01:37:27.300 --> 01:37:36.500
 And so what we try to plan for is adequate and appropriate spacing.

01:37:36.500 --> 01:37:42.480
 Now there is a plan, and I don't – I'm not sure when that development's coming forward,

01:37:42.480 --> 01:37:47.160
 but they have an interim plan to address the issue that you're talking about.

01:37:47.160 --> 01:37:53.840
 I don't want to get – that's way off topic tonight, but they're working with the homeowners

01:37:53.840 --> 01:38:04.720
 to mitigate the impact of this new Hartley Field on their existing homes.

01:38:04.720 --> 01:38:17.680
 So what we have to look at is 25 years from now, 50 years from now, whether or not – how

01:38:17.680 --> 01:38:20.400
 the property's going to develop.

01:38:20.400 --> 01:38:27.040
 And if it's going to stay a large lot, single family, is it going to convert to a little

01:38:27.040 --> 01:38:30.920
 bit higher density, like the property south of Hartley Field is going to develop?

01:38:30.920 --> 01:38:34.200
 It's not going to be a large lot.

01:38:34.200 --> 01:38:41.200
 And then where are the appropriate infrastructure elements that we need to plan for?

01:38:41.200 --> 01:38:46.040
 We don't want to get – you know, if we push it to starlight, then how much closer

01:38:46.040 --> 01:38:54.480
 – and I can answer my own question – if we push it to starlight, then the starlight

01:38:54.480 --> 01:39:04.200
 connection and the Golden Circle connection are, I don't know, 1,000 feet apart.

01:39:04.200 --> 01:39:11.080
 And that's – from a transportation planning standpoint, that's a little close.

01:39:11.080 --> 01:39:18.920
 So we try and space them out.

01:39:18.920 --> 01:39:19.920
 Can we look at that?

01:39:19.920 --> 01:39:20.920
 I guess we can.

01:39:20.920 --> 01:39:30.000
 But again, I – even if you propose starlight as the future alignment for the next number

01:39:30.000 --> 01:39:35.400
 of years, all of the traffic with this new development is going to be on Hartley Field

01:39:35.400 --> 01:39:41.200
 because that's the road that's there, and they have every right to use it.

01:39:41.200 --> 01:39:42.360
 It's a public roadway.

01:39:42.360 --> 01:39:50.420
 So do we leave it as a two-lane and then wait until somebody north of them develops?

01:39:50.420 --> 01:39:54.960
 And then how do we get those – then there's the question of how do you get the traffic

01:39:54.960 --> 01:39:59.960
 that's south – on the south side of Hartley Field through to this new connection?

01:39:59.960 --> 01:40:07.400
 I mean, there's no empty – nobody's proposing a connector road.

01:40:07.400 --> 01:40:13.280
 So we keep coming back to, even though it's not the best solution or not the most – it

01:40:13.280 --> 01:40:22.880
 is not an optimal solution, Hartley Field Road continues to be the best solution from

01:40:22.880 --> 01:40:28.240
 the mobility plan's perspective.

01:40:28.240 --> 01:40:36.080
 Seeing the impact it has on existing homeowners, I totally understand that, and I'm with you.

01:40:36.080 --> 01:40:42.320
 And that's why I think the developers that are proposing east of here are trying to work

01:40:42.320 --> 01:40:47.020
 with the homeowners and come up with a plan where they don't have the traffic in their

01:40:47.020 --> 01:40:48.020
 front yards.

01:40:48.020 --> 01:40:52.640
 And we can – again, I don't want to – that's a little bit off-posting, so I don't want

01:40:52.640 --> 01:40:58.760
 to talk about it, but too much, but there is some – there is a conversation that's

01:40:58.760 --> 01:41:07.920
 underway with that developer and the homeowners on Hartley Field to develop some kind of middle

01:41:07.920 --> 01:41:08.920
 ground.

01:41:08.920 --> 01:41:12.760
 And I've seen it, and I think it's a great plan.

01:41:12.760 --> 01:41:19.760
 At some point, Hartley Field is going to be what the mobility plan wants it to be, I think.

01:41:19.760 --> 01:41:21.840
 It's going to be an east-west connection.

01:41:21.840 --> 01:41:27.720
 You're going to have a lot more density east of here, you know, 50 years from now, 30 years

01:41:27.720 --> 01:41:28.720
 from now.

01:41:28.720 --> 01:41:32.200
 Those single-family large-lot developments may not be there.

01:41:32.200 --> 01:41:33.200
 I don't know.

01:41:33.200 --> 01:41:39.980
 But our land use plan and all of our planning efforts show us that density is going to increase.

01:41:39.980 --> 01:41:45.400
 We're going to have cars that want to get to 428, and we don't want –

01:41:45.400 --> 01:41:46.400
 Okay, Brian.

01:41:46.400 --> 01:41:50.800
 I think I'm going to interrupt you, and I appreciate you being here and all the comments.

01:41:50.800 --> 01:41:55.200
 Just to kind of get this – circle this back to what we're really dealing with here and

01:41:55.200 --> 01:41:58.640
 how we can kind of move forward here with what's on the table.

01:41:58.640 --> 01:42:04.140
 I believe Commissioner Pernetta had a question.

01:42:04.140 --> 01:42:07.320
 Kind of a question, because there's some things that have been kind of dropped in here

01:42:07.320 --> 01:42:13.480
 and there, you know, amongst what Commissioner Beck, Commissioner Anderson, and Brian John

01:42:13.480 --> 01:42:15.040
 said.

01:42:15.040 --> 01:42:19.040
 One of the things that seems to be the concern is you mentioned that there is a future development

01:42:19.040 --> 01:42:23.600
 that is kind of not on the books yet.

01:42:23.600 --> 01:42:28.480
 One of the things that we seem to hear from the local residents right now is that the

01:42:28.480 --> 01:42:33.640
 decision that we make right now is going to impact how negatively future development hits

01:42:33.640 --> 01:42:34.640
 them.

01:42:34.640 --> 01:42:39.160
 Now, if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the people that are talking and are concerned with everything

01:42:39.160 --> 01:42:43.060
 on Hartley Field Road are technically in the ETJ.

01:42:43.060 --> 01:42:48.240
 So for me, a lot of this feels like, you know, what kind of neighbors are we going to be

01:42:48.240 --> 01:42:50.960
 in the vote that we take right now?

01:42:50.960 --> 01:42:57.400
 And it seems like right now we are going to be making a decision that negatively impacts

01:42:57.400 --> 01:43:02.660
 people that are technically in the ETJ for the benefit of people who don't even live

01:43:02.660 --> 01:43:06.280
 in homes that don't even exist now yet.

01:43:06.280 --> 01:43:10.920
 And I, you know, you mentioned that there's some planning that can be done that can kind

01:43:10.920 --> 01:43:12.120
 of alleviate this.

01:43:12.120 --> 01:43:17.360
 I would hope that maybe we could kind of make some adjustments.

01:43:17.360 --> 01:43:26.000
 I know we're not going to have a perfect scenario, but if we could mitigate the impact by rerouting

01:43:26.000 --> 01:43:30.640
 just a little bit, I think that would be kind of the optimal thing, because once again,

01:43:30.640 --> 01:43:35.040
 when we had this discussion a year ago, one of the things that we talked about was looking

01:43:35.040 --> 01:43:42.640
 toward the future and trying to make sure that we didn't expedite, you know, basically

01:43:42.640 --> 01:43:49.920
 high density on some nice country that's transitioning out towards other areas and trying to preserve

01:43:49.920 --> 01:43:53.560
 some of what makes this area beautiful.

01:43:53.560 --> 01:43:58.900
 You know, I would hope that maybe, you know, I'm not sure I can, I'm pretty sure I can't

01:43:58.900 --> 01:44:02.640
 support what's going, what we're going to be voting on tonight.

01:44:02.640 --> 01:44:08.100
 I would hope that there'd be some additional adjustments that took into consideration the

01:44:08.100 --> 01:44:14.200
 impact of people now and didn't put quite as much weight on, like I said, homes that

01:44:14.200 --> 01:44:20.360
 don't exist, neighbors we don't have, and you know, it impacts that we might regret

01:44:20.360 --> 01:44:21.360
 sitting in the future.

01:44:21.360 --> 01:44:22.360
 That's kind of where I am.

01:44:22.360 --> 01:44:29.000
 I don't know that there's any response to that, but I just wanted to put that out there.

01:44:29.000 --> 01:44:34.600
 Okay, does anybody have any more questions for Brian at this moment?

01:44:34.600 --> 01:44:44.520
 Okay, I'm wondering if I believe we have the engineer for this application on the line.

01:44:44.520 --> 01:44:48.800
 I'm wondering if he wants to chime in and say a few words with the discussion we've

01:44:48.800 --> 01:44:49.800
 been having.

01:44:49.800 --> 01:44:50.800
 Sure.

01:44:50.800 --> 01:44:51.800
 Can you hear me?

01:44:51.800 --> 01:44:52.800
 This is Jason.

01:44:52.800 --> 01:44:53.800
 Okay, Jason.

01:44:53.800 --> 01:44:54.800
 We can.

01:44:54.800 --> 01:44:55.800
 Thank you.

01:44:55.800 --> 01:44:56.800
 Yeah.

01:44:56.800 --> 01:45:01.920
 So obviously we have gone around and around ever since we presented our first concept

01:45:01.920 --> 01:45:08.440
 plans way back again over a year ago, trying to accommodate neighbor concerns as well as

01:45:08.440 --> 01:45:12.080
 staff concerns and developer desires.

01:45:12.080 --> 01:45:23.120
 And so the plan that we've presented with the rezoning we move forward is into the preliminary

01:45:23.120 --> 01:45:26.880
 plan and receive staff feedback.

01:45:26.880 --> 01:45:28.600
 We've addressed those comments.

01:45:28.600 --> 01:45:31.120
 There have been some revisions to the concept plan.

01:45:31.120 --> 01:45:37.200
 It looks a little bit different than the concept plan that you all saw at daring zoning.

01:45:37.200 --> 01:45:44.680
 And the relocation of that Hartley Field stub, I guess, is what I'll call it as Brian kind

01:45:44.680 --> 01:45:46.520
 of alluded to earlier.

01:45:46.520 --> 01:45:55.440
 It ends with the traffic circle for now and probably for quite some time just due to those

01:45:55.440 --> 01:46:01.320
 ponds and some other restrictions that will prevent this from punching through any kind

01:46:01.320 --> 01:46:03.680
 of immediate timeframe.

01:46:03.680 --> 01:46:09.080
 But that was positioned there due to spacing along 428, which is a textile roadway and

01:46:09.080 --> 01:46:16.240
 has spacing requirements, access requirements that you can't have major intersections too

01:46:16.240 --> 01:46:18.200
 close to each other.

01:46:18.200 --> 01:46:23.200
 We looked at having Starlight has been brought up here a couple times.

01:46:23.200 --> 01:46:26.920
 We had that as a residential collector when we first submitted.

01:46:26.920 --> 01:46:30.120
 And we revised that down to just a local residential.

01:46:30.120 --> 01:46:34.600
 Again, as Brian said, they've been modeling this area, they've been looking at this area,

01:46:34.600 --> 01:46:37.120
 and we've been responding to staff input.

01:46:37.120 --> 01:46:45.120
 So we've been working together to make a plan that fits with the adopted mobility plan with

01:46:45.120 --> 01:46:54.280
 just engineering limitations, tech stock considerations and trying to follow what we said we would

01:46:54.280 --> 01:46:56.080
 do and working with staff.

01:46:56.080 --> 01:47:04.000
 And I'm not sure if moving it closer or farther north would make any sense.

01:47:04.000 --> 01:47:14.060
 Again, with that next road at a northern boundary, yeah, that's the next arterial.

01:47:14.060 --> 01:47:17.720
 We can't get really any closer to that and then have two arterials back to back.

01:47:17.720 --> 01:47:19.960
 That doesn't make sense either.

01:47:19.960 --> 01:47:24.720
 So I would just like to say that we've worked with staff, we've had four rounds of comments

01:47:24.720 --> 01:47:32.000
 to get this preliminary plan, this GDP to where it is to receive staff support to put

01:47:32.000 --> 01:47:33.660
 it before you tonight.

01:47:33.660 --> 01:47:40.920
 And so after four submittals and resubmittals and revisions, this is what we're presenting,

01:47:40.920 --> 01:47:48.280
 a plan that meets all of the city requirements and has staff support.

01:47:48.280 --> 01:47:50.400
 And I appreciate that, Jason.

01:47:50.400 --> 01:47:55.280
 Having watched this go back and forth with the neighborhood and seeing what a positive

01:47:55.280 --> 01:48:00.880
 outcome it is, I think that's what the commission is having a hard time with, is we hate to

01:48:00.880 --> 01:48:05.040
 see it go in a negative direction.

01:48:05.040 --> 01:48:09.960
 Before I recognize Commissioner Smith, who I believe has a question for you, would you

01:48:09.960 --> 01:48:15.160
 possibly entertain a postponement on this since so much has been brought up tonight

01:48:15.160 --> 01:48:18.240
 to be considered?

01:48:18.240 --> 01:48:22.160
 That would really require further discussion?

01:48:22.160 --> 01:48:27.720
 It's a lot harder to do this when I can't turn around and whisper to my client and other

01:48:27.720 --> 01:48:34.120
 people on our team like we normally can when we're all in church.

01:48:34.120 --> 01:48:39.920
 Yeah, I'm going to have to say that we have a text thread going and so can we have a few

01:48:39.920 --> 01:48:46.840
 minutes to discuss that, but basically like via text?

01:48:46.840 --> 01:48:50.920
 Let me recognize Commissioner Smith in case there's further questions.

01:48:50.920 --> 01:48:51.920
 Great.

01:48:51.920 --> 01:48:52.920
 Thank you, Chair.

01:48:52.920 --> 01:49:00.440
 It's not really a question for Mr. Bagel, but is the developer on, Jason, is your developer

01:49:00.440 --> 01:49:01.440
 on?

01:49:01.440 --> 01:49:02.440
 Yes.

01:49:02.440 --> 01:49:03.440
 John is on.

01:49:03.440 --> 01:49:04.440
 Okay.

01:49:04.440 --> 01:49:07.600
 So if you have a specific question for John, you're free to.

01:49:07.600 --> 01:49:11.680
 It's more just from a development standpoint, because I know from an engineering standpoint,

01:49:11.680 --> 01:49:17.360
 it would be some of the question for you, too, that if moving properties around, moving

01:49:17.360 --> 01:49:23.080
 plot lines around, I don't want to go too far against what Brian and John has said so

01:49:23.080 --> 01:49:28.000
 far, because I think that could get you, but if it's even possible for the project to still

01:49:28.000 --> 01:49:34.880
 fit within the zoning requirements where we pass through, even move these streets around,

01:49:34.880 --> 01:49:41.240
 change density, you put a higher, I remember from this zoning correctly, and John and Amy

01:49:41.240 --> 01:49:49.640
 or whoever else is on, if you move a higher density, higher flow for the north where Starlight

01:49:49.640 --> 01:49:55.740
 is, that was a lower density area in this place, and so would that end up shifting density

01:49:55.740 --> 01:50:00.040
 up there if you're putting, if you're basically taking up more land by putting a road there?

01:50:00.040 --> 01:50:04.240
 You guys answer that question or maybe talk about it from a development standpoint, because

01:50:04.240 --> 01:50:08.280
 it's an issue that's not being brought up that might end up affecting the zoning, that

01:50:08.280 --> 01:50:12.520
 might, if we move that road around, we might end up walking you guys into a zoning issue,

01:50:12.520 --> 01:50:20.960
 so I don't know if you can bring that up, I'd appreciate it.

01:50:20.960 --> 01:50:24.520
 John, or?

01:50:24.520 --> 01:50:30.840
 I'm not sure he's there, but I mean, that was one of the reasons I suggested the postponement,

01:50:30.840 --> 01:50:35.520
 just because so much has been brought up that certainly needs more discussion and is not

01:50:35.520 --> 01:50:37.320
 going to be able to be had today.

01:50:37.320 --> 01:50:40.560
 Why, Jason, are you still there?

01:50:40.560 --> 01:50:45.040
 So, why don't we, okay, if you're, do you need five minutes?

01:50:45.040 --> 01:50:51.400
 Hey, John is on here, the developer is on here, if you guys can hear me.

01:50:51.400 --> 01:50:53.000
 Okay, now we can.

01:50:53.000 --> 01:50:55.360
 Okay, sorry about that.

01:50:55.360 --> 01:51:05.160
 Yeah, so to go back to Mr. Smith's comment, and guys, I mean, we have, we've done every

01:51:05.160 --> 01:51:14.040
 single turn that the city has asked us to do on this, I mean, we're two years into development,

01:51:14.040 --> 01:51:22.800
 we do this all over the place, and I've never had this type of pushback when I as a developer

01:51:22.800 --> 01:51:29.520
 and my whole team has done every single thing, placed every single road, done every single

01:51:29.520 --> 01:51:36.840
 park, done, you know, fences that are over the top, ponds that are everywhere, you know,

01:51:36.840 --> 01:51:42.960
 I mean, we've done everything that we can do, and we have drawn this, the subdivision

01:51:42.960 --> 01:51:49.560
 probably five different times, and then I mean, we're about to kill a subdivision because

01:51:49.560 --> 01:51:57.220
 we're going to run out of money, I mean, we've drawn this thing so many times, I'm $250,000

01:51:57.220 --> 01:52:04.360
 into engineering on it, and you're asking me to go back in the 10th hour to do it again,

01:52:04.360 --> 01:52:17.920
 and road exactly where you told me to put it, and I mean, to be honest, exactly where

01:52:17.920 --> 01:52:26.360
 the city engineering road people told us to put them and exactly what they are, you know,

01:52:26.360 --> 01:52:32.360
 so to come back today, and I have an issue with it, after we've gone through five rounds

01:52:32.360 --> 01:52:41.880
 of reviews, it's like you don't trust your own city engineer road people, you know, and

01:52:41.880 --> 01:52:48.400
 that's, I don't know where the disconnect is in this city or here tonight, you know,

01:52:48.400 --> 01:52:52.680
 some people in Hartleyville road that have got your ear, which that's happened the whole

01:52:52.680 --> 01:52:58.080
 time, all the way through, we're two years into it, only thing we've done is exactly

01:52:58.080 --> 01:53:03.720
 what we told you would do, and exactly what you've asked us to do, and how we fix this

01:53:03.720 --> 01:53:12.880
 going forward, I don't, I particularly don't know. I mean, I really, really don't. I mean,

01:53:12.880 --> 01:53:16.600
 I don't know how to fix it. I mean, the next thing we do, somebody else is going to gripe

01:53:16.600 --> 01:53:24.880
 about it, and we're going to be right back here again, it feels like, you know?

01:53:24.880 --> 01:53:25.880
 Commissioner Smith, you still have the floor.

01:53:25.880 --> 01:53:31.960
 Yeah, thank you very much. And this is not really to John, thank you for speaking up

01:53:31.960 --> 01:53:37.360
 and not really so much to Jason, even though I would be willing to entertain a post-specialist

01:53:37.360 --> 01:53:42.560
 if I could help, and I hate to get to you, John, but it might be good to have a discussion,

01:53:42.560 --> 01:53:51.120
 but my own personal opinion on this is just that if city staff, and I shouldn't even say

01:53:51.120 --> 01:53:56.360
 staff, if engineering is coming to us and saying that this, it's a pick your poison

01:53:56.360 --> 01:54:02.080
 decision and really, we're trying to choose the best poison we've got available to us,

01:54:02.080 --> 01:54:07.840
 it makes it really hard for me to start saying, well, I'm not a traffic engineer, not a development

01:54:07.840 --> 01:54:12.300
 engineer. If I'm planning and zoning, I don't know, you'll have to talk to Chris Watts

01:54:12.300 --> 01:54:16.720
 about that, but here I am three years later. But the fact of the matter is that if somebody

01:54:16.720 --> 01:54:20.920
 smarter than me knows what's going on, knows what's happening with this project, knows exactly

01:54:20.920 --> 01:54:25.160
 what should be done and what the bad things could be if we chose wrong, is suggesting

01:54:25.160 --> 01:54:30.120
 we do it this way, it makes it really hard for me to go against that. Even though there's

01:54:30.120 --> 01:54:35.240
 definitely neighbors who are going to be impacted, I get it, and I get from what Commissioner

01:54:35.240 --> 01:54:39.080
 Pernetta, I get it from what Commissioner Becker said, is that we're worrying about

01:54:39.080 --> 01:54:43.480
 the quality of life for people who haven't had the houses built versus the quality of

01:54:43.480 --> 01:54:48.160
 life for people who already have the houses built. I get it. I think it's a crappy position

01:54:48.160 --> 01:54:56.160
 to be put in, honestly, but if engineers are saying it's a choice between bad and worse,

01:54:56.160 --> 01:55:01.360
 I'm going to choose bad. And so if I could just maybe make one thing before maybe hear

01:55:01.360 --> 01:55:07.320
 from the engineer, if they are open to postponing it, I just, I feel really hard going against

01:55:07.320 --> 01:55:12.160
 what the engineers have to say.

01:55:12.160 --> 01:55:18.280
 Okay, Jason, are you there?

01:55:18.280 --> 01:55:25.520
 I'm still here. I think it's really difficult to, I guess, I'm not sure what we would accomplish

01:55:25.520 --> 01:55:33.480
 in a postponement. Again, like you just reiterated, Tim, we have the road where it is because

01:55:33.480 --> 01:55:41.360
 that is where your city staff, your engineering staff, they've told us to put it there. We

01:55:41.360 --> 01:55:50.560
 did not make that decision. So unless you think that you should tell staff that they're

01:55:50.560 --> 01:55:57.680
 not the experts and that it shouldn't be in that location and the staff needs to reconsider

01:55:57.680 --> 01:56:06.440
 their position and years of mobility planning and hours and hours of traffic modeling. Like,

01:56:06.440 --> 01:56:11.760
 I'm not sure what a postponement would really accomplish this time. We've submitted over

01:56:11.760 --> 01:56:20.800
 and over and over again to get to where we are, to flush all this out, to make the plan

01:56:20.800 --> 01:56:28.440
 that we have before you. And again, we're meeting all your requirements. We're complying

01:56:28.440 --> 01:56:32.600
 with the mobility plans. We're complying with all the city code. We're not asking for any

01:56:32.600 --> 01:56:40.480
 changes. We're receiving staff support. I don't know how, I hope this isn't too blunt,

01:56:40.480 --> 01:56:46.200
 but I don't know how PMZ would recommend a denial. Like, what would be the basis for

01:56:46.200 --> 01:56:51.880
 recommending the denial? We meet all of the requirements for a preliminary plan.

01:56:51.880 --> 01:56:59.280
 I think what it is, and we're talking about the general development plan at the moment,

01:56:59.280 --> 01:57:06.080
 we have received 13 public comments on the online form that were emailed to all of us

01:57:06.080 --> 01:57:12.180
 and submitted and recorded by the secretary. So that, it's hard to just put those aside.

01:57:12.180 --> 01:57:19.840
 So trying to get answers for them, like, can it be moved at all? I think it's answers that

01:57:19.840 --> 01:57:25.200
 we would need to make an informed decision and maybe be able to support as a whole. So

01:57:25.200 --> 01:57:32.480
 I think that's the reason that I suggested the postponement, just because there's answers

01:57:32.480 --> 01:57:38.880
 to questions that, there's questions where there haven't been any answers yet, to where

01:57:38.880 --> 01:57:46.000
 we could feel comfortable facing the public who gave us these comments. You know, this

01:57:46.000 --> 01:57:53.640
 is a tough area. It's rural. It's rural on the future land use map. We obviously know

01:57:53.640 --> 01:57:59.680
 development's going to happen. We got community involvement and support for the development.

01:57:59.680 --> 01:58:06.520
 And again, it's just hard to take a negative turn on this, that everybody, you all, staff,

01:58:06.520 --> 01:58:12.200
 us, city council, I mean, that put a lot of time into to make this development work in

01:58:12.200 --> 01:58:18.280
 this special area of the city. So, you know, I'm obviously just speaking for myself. I

01:58:18.280 --> 01:58:23.200
 don't want to speak for everyone, but I feel that's where the comments and concerns of

01:58:23.200 --> 01:58:25.560
 today are coming from with the commission.

01:58:25.560 --> 01:58:31.680
 Well, and I think that, and I think that, and yes, I mean, I, like you said, this is

01:58:31.680 --> 01:58:36.720
 the GDP that we're discussing. I mean, obviously the next item is the preliminary plan. You

01:58:36.720 --> 01:58:41.440
 know, those are so, those are completely linked together. So a lot of what I am saying is,

01:58:41.440 --> 01:58:50.240
 of course, related to the preliminary plan. And they do correlate. But I just, I don't

01:58:50.240 --> 01:59:00.840
 know. I don't know what other, I guess it's, it's, it's the staff. And I just reiterate

01:59:00.840 --> 01:59:07.460
 John and Tim again. I mean, staff is in position to, to guide us and to provide the input to

01:59:07.460 --> 01:59:15.120
 make sure we're in compliance with the direction and the requirements of codes and, and, and

01:59:15.120 --> 01:59:21.120
 of your, your comprehensive plan and of your mobility plans and, and everything that the

01:59:21.120 --> 01:59:28.120
 council has approved as the, as the governing documents of the city. And that's what staff

01:59:28.120 --> 01:59:34.760
 has implemented. And that is, again, then that's why it took us five rounds, five submittals

01:59:34.760 --> 01:59:40.240
 to, to get that plan before you. They didn't just take our first plan and say, yeah, it

01:59:40.240 --> 01:59:44.160
 looks good stamped it. No, I mean, we've spent the last several months going back and forth

01:59:44.160 --> 01:59:49.440
 and back and forth and back and forth to, to make sure we were in compliance. So, I

01:59:49.440 --> 01:59:57.280
 mean, we really just ask that, that we can move forward with, with the plan that, that

01:59:57.280 --> 02:00:04.720
 your staff is, that the, the staff is, is, is supporting.

02:00:04.720 --> 02:00:11.640
 Could I, could I interject? This is John, the developer again, just for one second.

02:00:11.640 --> 02:00:20.800
 Oh, yes, sure. Okay. The, I mean, it's kind of be understood that this road is not going

02:00:20.800 --> 02:00:28.320
 to plunge through people's property in the next six months or years that we're talking

02:00:28.320 --> 02:00:36.640
 about 20 years from now. I mean, this is not something that is, it doesn't even have anything

02:00:36.640 --> 02:00:41.080
 to do with us. It's, I mean, our road doesn't even go up and touch the edge of the property

02:00:41.080 --> 02:00:48.360
 there. It was, it was told to by us to put it there because I don't know if it's five

02:00:48.360 --> 02:00:53.360
 years or 25 years, that's how they want the roads to go because that's how the mobility

02:00:53.360 --> 02:00:59.920
 plan is. It's, I mean, we're acting as if this road is going to be built next week,

02:00:59.920 --> 02:01:02.540
 you know, or these people are going to be pushed out of their homes. Well, that's not

02:01:02.540 --> 02:01:10.360
 how it works. It's as that gets developed, then like we did, we will have to give road

02:01:10.360 --> 02:01:16.840
 development right away and it'll carry forward and 20 years from now it's going to, it's

02:01:16.840 --> 02:01:21.800
 going to match a plan that was supposed to be a 2030 plan.

02:01:21.800 --> 02:01:27.880
 Thanks, John. Julie, I believe you want to step in.

02:01:27.880 --> 02:01:32.000
 Yes, it may be instructive for me to just kind of call out what those standards for

02:01:32.000 --> 02:01:41.160
 approval for a general development plan are, if you'd like. So this is, this is considered

02:01:41.160 --> 02:01:47.520
 under the 2002 Denton Development Code. So I am referring to subchapter 16 in that code

02:01:47.520 --> 02:01:53.820
 and, and the, those conditions for, or those requirements for approval are, it conforms

02:01:53.820 --> 02:01:59.220
 to the infrastructure policies identified in the Denton Plan 2030 and other city infrastructure

02:01:59.220 --> 02:02:04.640
 master plan and the city's current and future parks and playground facilities. Conforms

02:02:04.640 --> 02:02:10.800
 to the extension of the city's infrastructure within the municipality and its ETJ as identified

02:02:10.800 --> 02:02:16.000
 by the Denton Plan 2030 and any other city of Denton infrastructure master plan. Number

02:02:16.000 --> 02:02:22.920
 three conforms to any rules adopted under section 212.002 or is set forth in the application

02:02:22.920 --> 02:02:27.680
 criteria manual. Number four complies with all city construction standards and number

02:02:27.680 --> 02:02:34.220
 five complies with all applicable laws and subchapters. So just as your, it might be

02:02:34.220 --> 02:02:37.560
 instructive to just know what those criteria for approval are.

02:02:37.560 --> 02:02:41.760
 Okay. Thank you, Julie. Appreciate it. Commissioner Beck.

02:02:41.760 --> 02:02:51.760
 Julie, for a GDP, can you remind me, educate me, is the preliminary plat a component of

02:02:51.760 --> 02:02:58.800
 the GDP? If we were to approve the GDP, would we be tied to specific platting?

02:02:58.800 --> 02:03:04.920
 So the GDP is kind of the preliminary, preliminary, preliminary plat. So all of these, all of

02:03:04.920 --> 02:03:10.560
 these projects sort of build on each other. So the GDP is that foundational document that

02:03:10.560 --> 02:03:16.160
 really looks at that infrastructure piece and, and all, how all of these elements associated

02:03:16.160 --> 02:03:21.680
 with, with the requirements fit together. So it's sort of conceptual. It get, it drills

02:03:21.680 --> 02:03:26.480
 down and gets a little more specific than with the preliminary plat. And then, and then

02:03:26.480 --> 02:03:31.840
 the civil engineering plans are, are reviewed with staff and then it goes to the final plat.

02:03:31.840 --> 02:03:40.320
 So they all sort of build on each other. So ostensibly, if we, if we approve the sort

02:03:40.320 --> 02:03:47.840
 of general concept plan, then we are forcing the mobility plan, the roads, the platting,

02:03:47.840 --> 02:03:54.240
 everything to go where they're sort of envisioning it in the plan we were presented with. I mean,

02:03:54.240 --> 02:03:59.120
 there might be some light flexibility, but we are generally going to kind of have to

02:03:59.120 --> 02:04:07.120
 go. And so it, it isn't just arbitrary. We are, we are establishing the way we will behave

02:04:07.120 --> 02:04:16.800
 for the next 20 years. It, it, it, the criteria for approval for subsequent applications should

02:04:16.800 --> 02:04:21.680
 generally conform to it. There, there can be variations and y'all have seen that in,

02:04:21.680 --> 02:04:26.400
 in, in your, when something goes, say from a final preliminary plot to a final plot,

02:04:26.400 --> 02:04:30.960
 there, there can be some minor variations, but generally they, the projects stay consistent

02:04:30.960 --> 02:04:41.120
 throughout those projects. Thank you, Julie. Any other questions for staff or anyone on the line?

02:04:41.120 --> 02:04:52.960
 Okay. Chair could entertain a motion on this item or we can have further discussion.

02:04:55.280 --> 02:05:02.720
 I'm sorry, we didn't get some of our questions answered or concerns of, of the public, but

02:05:02.720 --> 02:05:06.720
 we do nonetheless have to vote on the item one way or another.

02:05:06.720 --> 02:05:16.240
 Commissioner Smith.

02:05:16.240 --> 02:05:20.960
 Oh, you're muted.

02:05:25.520 --> 02:05:30.800
 I'll make a, I'll make a motion to approve with staff recommendations. And just because I didn't

02:05:30.800 --> 02:05:35.760
 hear anybody else pipe up to say anything about a post moment or something else, but going back to

02:05:35.760 --> 02:05:41.280
 the original point I made this to me, just if engineers are saying this is the direction we

02:05:41.280 --> 02:05:48.320
 need to go and that this is the best possible option, then I'm inclined to trust experts when

02:05:48.320 --> 02:05:55.120
 I'm not an expert in an area. So that's my motion. Okay. So the motion on the floor

02:05:55.120 --> 02:06:05.280
 for GDP 19001 is made for approval with staff recommendations. Is there a second?

02:06:05.280 --> 02:06:17.760
 I do not see a second. So that motion will fail.

02:06:17.760 --> 02:06:24.640
 Is there anyone wanting to make another motion? Commissioner Smith.

02:06:25.520 --> 02:06:29.840
 Guess I'm the only one who likes making motions up in this place. I'll make a motion to postpone

02:06:29.840 --> 02:06:38.160
 until the date uncertain. If we can maybe talk to Scott and see if there is a date ahead that we can

02:06:38.160 --> 02:06:42.560
 reschedule them on to be put on for an item of individual consideration. I'm assuming that's

02:06:42.560 --> 02:06:46.480
 where they'll go, Cynthia. It'd be an item of individual consideration, correct? Is there

02:06:46.480 --> 02:06:51.280
 even told from the consent agenda? I think that would be appropriate.

02:06:51.280 --> 02:06:59.040
 Commissioner Smith. Okay. So I think I'm just going to jump in just for a minute.

02:06:59.040 --> 02:07:05.680
 I know we're talking about the GDP here, which is a separate vote from the preliminary plat,

02:07:05.680 --> 02:07:13.200
 but the preliminary plat we could not postpone. I do not believe because of a certain house bill.

02:07:15.680 --> 02:07:22.400
 Is that correct? Go ahead, Cynthia. Oh, madam chair and commission.

02:07:22.400 --> 02:07:27.600
 It's my understanding that that item was submitted prior to September 1 of 2019.

02:07:27.600 --> 02:07:34.160
 So it's not subject to the 30 day review period. Okay. So it is not part of the house bill shot

02:07:34.160 --> 02:07:42.160
 clock, correct? That's my understanding that, and Ms. Wyatt can confirm. That is correct.

02:07:42.720 --> 02:07:47.280
 Okay. I appreciate that. So with that, a motion is on the floor to postpone the item.

02:07:47.280 --> 02:07:55.120
 Yeah. I was just going to say to the next meeting and then ultimately we would carry the next item

02:07:55.120 --> 02:08:01.760
 with that. Okay. Then I'll, can you give me a date on what that is, Scott? Or should I just say,

02:08:01.760 --> 02:08:05.680
 should I just say next meeting for you? I'm sorry. Yeah. The next scheduled

02:08:05.680 --> 02:08:09.200
 meeting. I don't know the date. Okay. I'll make a motion to postpone

02:08:09.200 --> 02:08:15.040
 this item to items with individual consideration until the next, next meeting day for planning

02:08:15.040 --> 02:08:22.400
 and zoning commission. Okay. August 19th. August 19th. Okay. The motion on the floor to postpone

02:08:22.400 --> 02:08:29.280
 this item to a date certain of August 19th. Commissioner Prunetta. I'll second that.

02:08:29.280 --> 02:08:35.920
 Okay. We have a first and a second to postpone this item to August 19th. Is there any discussion?

02:08:37.280 --> 02:08:44.400
 Commissioner Beck. We have to have a separate motion for the related second item. Is that

02:08:44.400 --> 02:08:49.520
 correct? It is a separate item to vote on. Correct. Okay. That was my question. Thank you.

02:08:49.520 --> 02:08:56.160
 Okay. Any other discussion before we take a vote? And I'll just, just say a few words. I appreciate

02:08:56.160 --> 02:09:02.080
 the patience of, of the applicant on this. I do think this is a special project. I don't think

02:09:02.080 --> 02:09:09.600
 anyone's trying to make it not happen. I think we just need it to be the best it can be. And we do

02:09:09.600 --> 02:09:16.240
 make decisions now. Yes, the road may not be developed for decades to come, but the decisions

02:09:16.240 --> 02:09:22.320
 we make now affects how that's going to happen in the future. So serious consideration of the now

02:09:22.320 --> 02:09:29.120
 for the future is imperative from my perspective. So with that, I'll call for a vote by roll call.

02:09:29.120 --> 02:09:35.680
 Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Prunetta. Aye. Commissioner Anderson.

02:09:35.680 --> 02:09:46.240
 Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. And the chair is an aye to postpone this item

02:09:46.240 --> 02:09:55.840
 to August 19th. That passes six zero. So that will get us to item next for individual consideration,

02:09:55.840 --> 02:10:03.840
 PP 190023. Consider a request of agave ranch for their preliminary plat. Commissioner Smith.

02:10:03.840 --> 02:10:06.560
 I'll make a motion to postpone the date certain of August 19th.

02:10:06.560 --> 02:10:13.520
 Commissioner Beck. I second that motion. Okay. Motion on the floor is to postpone this

02:10:13.520 --> 02:10:20.320
 item to a date certain of August 19th. Any discussion? Okay. With that, I will call for

02:10:20.320 --> 02:10:26.800
 a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Prunetta.

02:10:26.800 --> 02:10:36.960
 Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. And the chair is an aye. That motion passes

02:10:36.960 --> 02:10:50.080
 six zero. Our next item for individual consideration is FP 200013. That's consider a request on

02:10:50.080 --> 02:10:56.160
 behalf of North Texas Contracting for approval of a final plat. Staff is recommending denial.

02:10:56.160 --> 02:11:02.160
 However, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension to September 2nd. Commissioner Smith.

02:11:02.160 --> 02:11:09.520
 I make a motion to approve the postpone for 30 days to September 2nd. Okay. Motion on the floor

02:11:09.520 --> 02:11:15.600
 is to extend to September 2nd. Commissioner Prunetta. I'll second that. Okay. We have a

02:11:15.600 --> 02:11:24.160
 first and a second to postpone to September 2nd. Any discussion? Okay. Take a vote via roll call.

02:11:24.160 --> 02:11:29.520
 Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Prunetta. Aye. Commissioner Anderson.

02:11:29.520 --> 02:11:40.000
 Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. And the chair is an aye. That

02:11:40.000 --> 02:11:46.560
 passes six zero. That will move us to our public hearing items. Prior to us doing that,

02:11:46.560 --> 02:11:52.640
 let's take a five-minute break. Let's adjourn at 7:55 back here at 8 p.m. Thank you.

02:11:52.640 --> 02:12:09.600
 Okay. Thank you. Welcome back to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. We'll call us back to

02:12:09.600 --> 02:12:22.160
 order at 8.08 p.m. We left off on our public hearing, our agenda. Item 5A, PDA 19004A.

02:12:22.160 --> 02:12:28.400
 The request is to postpone to a date certain of August 19th. Commissioner Beck.

02:12:28.400 --> 02:12:36.800
 It's 5A, is it not, Madam Chair? Yes, the PDA number ends in a 4A.

02:12:36.800 --> 02:12:45.520
 Sorry. Yes. It is 5A on the agenda. My motion to postpone to the date is recommended by

02:12:45.520 --> 02:12:52.160
 staff. August 19th. Okay. Motion on the floor is to postpone to August 19th. Commissioner Smith.

02:12:52.160 --> 02:12:58.800
 Okay. First and a second to postpone to August 19th. Let's take a vote by a roll call.

02:12:59.680 --> 02:13:07.360
 Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Prunetta.

02:13:07.360 --> 02:13:16.880
 Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. And the Chair is an aye. That passes 6-0 to postpone to August 19th.

02:13:16.880 --> 02:13:26.480
 Next public hearing item is 5B, S200004. Make recommendation to City Council regarding

02:13:27.600 --> 02:13:33.280
 requests for a specific use permit for a multifamily. I will open the public hearing

02:13:33.280 --> 02:13:38.400
 at this time and invite Julie Wyatt for presentation. Good evening, commissioners.

02:13:38.400 --> 02:13:53.440
 I'm going to go ahead and share my screen. Let me see if I can get the correct one.

02:13:53.440 --> 02:14:09.360
 Hang on, just one second. Sorry about that. Well, let me try one more time.

02:14:09.360 --> 02:14:21.760
 All right. Here we go. So the request before you is S200004, the Grove Apartments.

02:14:23.120 --> 02:14:28.800
 It is for a specific use permit to permit multifamily dwellings on approximately 16 acres.

02:14:28.800 --> 02:14:33.840
 The subject property has a zoning designation of SC District, which requires an SUP for

02:14:33.840 --> 02:14:40.960
 multifamily uses. If this looks familiar, it's because you have seen a similar request before.

02:14:40.960 --> 02:14:48.560
 S190012 did come before the Planning and Zoning Commission late last year for multifamily use.

02:14:49.760 --> 02:14:55.040
 It did go to City Council. There was a lot of discussion over a couple of City Council meetings,

02:14:55.040 --> 02:15:02.960
 and it was eventually postponed. That previous SUP was withdrawn. However, I do want to alert

02:15:02.960 --> 02:15:08.240
 you to four items that were discussed at City Council, one being a traffic signal at Dutchess

02:15:08.240 --> 02:15:13.600
 and Loop 288, and we'll discuss that a little further later in the presentation. Another is

02:15:13.600 --> 02:15:19.360
 regarding tree preservation. The original plan that you saw was reviewed under our previous

02:15:19.360 --> 02:15:24.240
 code, the 2002 Denton Development Code, and previous tree preservation requirements.

02:15:24.240 --> 02:15:30.000
 The new submittal has been reviewed under our most current standards, and that includes tree

02:15:30.000 --> 02:15:36.960
 preservation. So that discussion has been addressed with this submittal. Additionally,

02:15:36.960 --> 02:15:42.960
 the same thing is with a vehicular access. Council did request that the applicant provide a north

02:15:43.600 --> 02:15:49.760
 access point. The new submittal does include that, and then we'll also talk about a sidewalk

02:15:49.760 --> 02:15:58.160
 extension. So we'll go briefly over the site plan. It has shifted toward the north to allow for a

02:15:58.160 --> 02:16:05.440
 1.52-acre remainder lot to stay adjacent to Dutchess Drive. This would remain undeveloped,

02:16:05.440 --> 02:16:11.600
 and in the future it could be developed with a commercial use under the SC Zoning. It includes

02:16:11.600 --> 02:16:18.240
 12 two- and three-story buildings, residential buildings, and then one amenity center. 276

02:16:18.240 --> 02:16:27.520
 dwelling units are proposed. They are also providing parking, 524 parking spaces. This

02:16:27.520 --> 02:16:33.200
 does include a reduction for affordable housing that the code allows. They're proposing three

02:16:33.200 --> 02:16:38.960
 driveway connections. The one that I mentioned earlier to the north, it's an exit only. It's

02:16:38.960 --> 02:16:44.480
 going to extend through the undeveloped property to the north through a public access easement,

02:16:44.480 --> 02:16:50.320
 connecting to the commercial properties and then on to McKinney Drive. The main access point is on

02:16:50.320 --> 02:16:58.560
 Loop 288 that will allow for a full entrance, so a left turn and right turn in. However, there will

02:16:58.560 --> 02:17:04.960
 only be a right turnout. That is due to the way the medians are designed on Loop 288. And then

02:17:04.960 --> 02:17:11.760
 there will be a full access connection to Dutchess Drive. Sidewalks are proposed not only in front of

02:17:11.760 --> 02:17:19.200
 the or adjacent to the subject site on the property on Loop 288 and Dutchess, but also they're proposed

02:17:19.200 --> 02:17:25.840
 to extend to the existing facilities across the undeveloped tracks adjacent to the site.

02:17:25.840 --> 02:17:32.560
 The landscape plan includes seven areas. I'll highlight briefly. First of all, they're proposing

02:17:32.560 --> 02:17:39.200
 an enclosed dog park with a buffer here in number one. Number two is the street trees along Dutchess

02:17:39.200 --> 02:17:45.920
 Drive and Loop 288. Three and four are embedded within an existing utility easement. There can't

02:17:45.920 --> 02:17:52.400
 be really any structures in there or tree canopy. So what they've done is proposed some naturalized

02:17:52.400 --> 02:17:58.320
 area, a butterfly garden in area four, and then some natural plantings and native grasses in three

02:17:58.320 --> 02:18:07.040
 to provide some nice passive open area. Five is a 1.4 acre central park that has -- is proposed to

02:18:07.040 --> 02:18:13.280
 have a playground, a pavilion, pool, game court, tot lot, and also a seating area. And then six

02:18:13.280 --> 02:18:20.000
 finally is the primary tree preservation area. There's a pretty large stand of trees in that

02:18:20.000 --> 02:18:26.720
 area, so they're just proposing to preserve those. Finally, they're proposing that enhanced

02:18:26.720 --> 02:18:32.400
 landscape area between the parking lot and the buildings to soften those building edges, to kind

02:18:32.400 --> 02:18:40.320
 of create a front yard for those residents, and to sort of create a sense of arrival when you get

02:18:40.320 --> 02:18:46.480
 from the parking areas to the residential portions of the lot. The final design is not complete. They

02:18:46.480 --> 02:18:51.600
 want to make sure that they have the right amount of landscaping, including tree canopy and shrubs,

02:18:51.600 --> 02:18:57.600
 to make sure they don't interfere with the building and get that mix. I also just wanted to highlight

02:18:57.600 --> 02:19:03.680
 that central park. As we talked about in work session, there aren't a lot of recreation

02:19:03.680 --> 02:19:11.280
 opportunities in this general area, so it was really important to staff to provide that recreation

02:19:11.280 --> 02:19:18.800
 for those residents. So they've created this kind of large open area that includes amenities

02:19:18.800 --> 02:19:24.640
 distributed throughout. So there's a playground, a pavilion in this area, there's the community pool,

02:19:24.640 --> 02:19:30.080
 a game court, a tot lot for younger children, and then a seating area. So it's kind of evenly

02:19:30.080 --> 02:19:37.520
 distributed. The way the buildings are oriented, sort of encircling this central park with patios

02:19:37.520 --> 02:19:42.720
 and balconies overlook, really do create that sort of backyard for these buildings. And then

02:19:42.720 --> 02:19:48.560
 pedestrian pathways connect the buildings to those amenities. They've provided the concept

02:19:48.560 --> 02:19:53.200
 elevations. These are the proposed buildings along loop 288. And then these are the proposed

02:19:53.200 --> 02:20:00.320
 buildings, the balance of those buildings. With any SUP, we not only look at what's on site,

02:20:00.320 --> 02:20:05.120
 but we want to see what's around it. Part of the SUP is, is it compatible with the surrounding area

02:20:05.120 --> 02:20:09.520
 and how does it affect that surrounding area? So we look to see what those uses are. So we've got

02:20:09.520 --> 02:20:14.800
 multifamily residential directly to the west. There is some commercial development to the north

02:20:14.800 --> 02:20:20.640
 along McKinney. And then offices, there's an office just the southwest of the lot and then to

02:20:20.640 --> 02:20:25.920
 the south across Dutchess. As you can see by this aerial, there's, there's quite a bit of undeveloped

02:20:25.920 --> 02:20:31.920
 land surrounding the subject site. It has a zoning district consistent with the subject property and

02:20:31.920 --> 02:20:36.400
 we anticipate it will develop with uses at a scale that's consistent not only with what's

02:20:36.400 --> 02:20:42.000
 existing out there, but also what the applicant is proposing. Pebble Brook open space is the area

02:20:42.000 --> 02:20:46.720
 outlined in green. It is a city owned park. It hasn't been developed yet. It is intended to have

02:20:46.720 --> 02:20:52.240
 the trail system through it. We don't anticipate it will be completed for the, for the next couple

02:20:52.240 --> 02:21:00.080
 of years at least. So, so that's why staff was, was, was concerned about those onsite recreation

02:21:00.080 --> 02:21:07.360
 facilities. The criteria for approval and SUPs for SUPs are in sub chapter two. I won't go over

02:21:07.360 --> 02:21:12.400
 all of these. That's outlined in your, in your backup material, but I will hit the parts that

02:21:12.400 --> 02:21:17.360
 are really important in terms of compatibility and impacts to adjacent properties. So first of all,

02:21:17.360 --> 02:21:22.800
 this sort of goes hand in hand with the previous map we looked at and that's compatibility with

02:21:22.800 --> 02:21:28.160
 the surrounding area. Loop 288 is, is one of our big suburban commercial corridors. It's,

02:21:28.160 --> 02:21:34.000
 it's a divided two lane or three, six lane divided road. It includes a mix of office,

02:21:34.000 --> 02:21:39.280
 retail, restaurant, service, entertainment, multifamily, residential uses. It has all,

02:21:39.280 --> 02:21:45.120
 it is a really a mixed use corridor. Multifamily uses and their associated activities are

02:21:45.120 --> 02:21:50.560
 compatible with commercial and office development. The proposed development scale is also consistent

02:21:50.560 --> 02:21:56.480
 with what we typically see on Loop 288. Those three access points do disperse the vehicular

02:21:56.480 --> 02:22:01.520
 ingress and egress. So it doesn't, it doesn't funnel all the traffic into one general area,

02:22:01.520 --> 02:22:07.280
 it disperses it. Multifamily uses are a vital component for our commercial centers. They

02:22:07.280 --> 02:22:14.320
 provide housing for, for those who work in our commercial centers and it also provides a customer

02:22:14.320 --> 02:22:19.600
 base for commercial centers. So those that's kind of one of the three legs of the three legged stool

02:22:19.600 --> 02:22:26.640
 for, for mixed use development. And then, and then the, as I said, the undeveloped property is

02:22:26.640 --> 02:22:31.520
 similarly zoned. Future development is anticipated to be consistent with that zoning pattern.

02:22:31.520 --> 02:22:39.600
 We also look at Debt and Plan 2030. This area is divided by two future land use designations. We

02:22:39.600 --> 02:22:45.360
 have community mixed use and moderate residential. Community mixed use is kind of what it says. It's

02:22:45.360 --> 02:22:51.520
 that mix of uses. Commercial uses should be the predominant uses, but those residential and service,

02:22:51.520 --> 02:22:56.800
 other complementary uses are an important part of that. A moderate residential really goes more into

02:22:56.800 --> 02:23:03.920
 our smaller lot, single family housing, that four to 12 dwelling units per acre. The proposed

02:23:03.920 --> 02:23:09.200
 multifamily use is, is consistent with both in that it kind of blends with those goals. It combines

02:23:09.200 --> 02:23:15.920
 those two. It provides the scale that's necessary for community mixed use, but it does have that

02:23:15.920 --> 02:23:22.080
 residential component. So it doesn't introduce any, any activities that would be inconsistent with a

02:23:22.080 --> 02:23:29.200
 moderate residential. Are there adequate public facilities? That's something we look at in those

02:23:29.200 --> 02:23:34.640
 impacts to those public facilities. So in terms of traffic, the proposed dwelling units would

02:23:34.640 --> 02:23:44.000
 generate about 2000 trips in any, in a weekday. That's 125 morning, 146 evening. Loop 288, as I

02:23:44.000 --> 02:23:51.120
 said, is one of our primary arterials and Dutchess is a collector. They did submit a TIA in, in

02:23:51.120 --> 02:24:01.440
 relationship to the, the first SUP, but the, the, the proposed number of units stayed the same. So,

02:24:01.440 --> 02:24:08.240
 so that the, the conclusions of that TIA remain the same. And what those conclusions were is that

02:24:08.240 --> 02:24:12.720
 restriping on Dutchess would be needed. There's enough, there's sufficient right of way and

02:24:12.720 --> 02:24:18.640
 pavement to provide for that restriping. And what that would do would be to allow those who are

02:24:18.640 --> 02:24:25.920
 traveling eastbound on Dutchess to turn either north or south, a dedicated north or south lane

02:24:25.920 --> 02:24:31.600
 on Dutchess, just to allow that intersection to move more smoothly. And then, and then the other

02:24:31.600 --> 02:24:40.240
 result of that TIA was that Dutchess and Loop 288 does, that intersection does meet the warrants

02:24:40.240 --> 02:24:46.720
 for a light. And so during the city council discussions at city council meetings, the

02:24:46.720 --> 02:24:52.320
 applicant offered to deposit $400,000 for that, for the design and construction of that traffic

02:24:52.320 --> 02:24:57.360
 signal. One, one thing we did talk about, and we'll talk about a little more with the recommendations

02:24:57.360 --> 02:25:04.880
 as part of council's discussion with the applicant earlier in the year, they, they, if there were any

02:25:04.880 --> 02:25:13.760
 pro rata cost that was recovered as part of this, if, if, if it, if the light didn't, didn't result

02:25:13.760 --> 02:25:18.960
 in a $400,000 cost, or if there were other developments in the area that would pay into that,

02:25:18.960 --> 02:25:25.280
 that light, the balance of that $400,000 would be credited toward that Pebblebrook open space

02:25:25.280 --> 02:25:30.960
 in order to, for, for the future development. The details of that will be worked out through

02:25:30.960 --> 02:25:35.680
 a development agreement with council. So this is kind of just the first step in that proposal,

02:25:35.680 --> 02:25:40.720
 if this, if this did move forward. So, so those details would be hashed out at a later date.

02:25:40.720 --> 02:25:48.000
 Pedestrian improvements, they are proposing a 12 foot sidewalk on Loop 288. That sidewalk would

02:25:48.000 --> 02:25:54.320
 extend north to connect to an existing sidewalk. It, you can kind of see it here in this map right

02:25:54.320 --> 02:26:00.240
 here, that there is an existing sidewalk. So they are proposing to extend it through an undeveloped

02:26:00.240 --> 02:26:09.360
 tract to connect to that existing sidewalk. And then, and then the, the eight, an eight foot

02:26:09.360 --> 02:26:15.520
 sidewalk along Dutchess would also extend and connect to the existing development. And that

02:26:15.520 --> 02:26:23.520
 will assist in the multimodal development or the multimodal transportation options within,

02:26:23.520 --> 02:26:30.720
 within the area. It will, we do have two bus stops, one, one located about where the blue dot is,

02:26:30.720 --> 02:26:39.040
 and then another one located south of the subject property. The, the, the sidewalk connection would

02:26:39.040 --> 02:26:46.480
 allow a, an improved pedestrian path to connect to this bus stop here. I don't yet have an answer on,

02:26:46.480 --> 02:26:55.520
 on whether that sidewalk, if there's a CIP project for, to connect that south, sidewalk to the south,

02:26:55.520 --> 02:27:01.120
 I'm not aware of any, but, but we may be able to get an answer for that at a future Planning

02:27:01.120 --> 02:27:06.640
 and Zoning Commission meeting. There is water and wastewater to the site. It's available. There will

02:27:06.640 --> 02:27:10.720
 be extensions that will be required, but there is adequate capacity in the system to serve the

02:27:10.720 --> 02:27:17.200
 proposal. They will have to pay tap and impact fees at the time of development. As I mentioned,

02:27:17.200 --> 02:27:22.880
 Publbic Open Space is not an improved park. We do own the land, but it has not been approved yet.

02:27:22.880 --> 02:27:30.480
 Right now, the site is, is getting to it does require a, a half mile walk that goes up to

02:27:30.480 --> 02:27:37.680
 McKinney and then down south on the other side of, of the loop. And so that was, that was why those

02:27:37.680 --> 02:27:44.000
 on-site improvements for, or recreation improvements were important. And then schools that will

02:27:44.000 --> 02:27:52.080
 generate 83 elementary students, 30 middle school students, and then 44 high school students. There

02:27:52.080 --> 02:27:59.120
 is capacity within the attendance zone for it, but those, those schools are, are reneering capacity.

02:27:59.120 --> 02:28:05.680
 So future residential growth will, will, the school will have to look at that for any future

02:28:05.680 --> 02:28:13.280
 residential growth in the area. There was public outreach. We did post a newspaper ad as well as

02:28:13.280 --> 02:28:17.760
 send out notices and the applicant did post signs on the property. We have received from

02:28:17.760 --> 02:28:28.080
 responses in two. And so there's a 14% in favor. And staff does recommend approval because it is

02:28:28.080 --> 02:28:33.200
 consistent with the Denton Plan 2030 and the criteria for approval. We are recommending five

02:28:33.200 --> 02:28:38.800
 conditions. I won't, I won't read these to you. I'll just, I'll just sort of briefly talk through

02:28:38.800 --> 02:28:45.360
 them. The first condition is that landscaping condition we typically see on SUPs, that the

02:28:45.360 --> 02:28:50.640
 landscaping is intended to comply with not only the 2019 Denton Development Code, but also the

02:28:50.640 --> 02:28:57.600
 plan you saw today. There could be minor alterations associated with the development. Once, once they

02:28:57.600 --> 02:29:04.480
 get closer to, to planting plants in the ground, either individual plant selections, or maybe some

02:29:04.480 --> 02:29:10.560
 minor modifications of where they're planted. However, they would have to comply with all those

02:29:10.560 --> 02:29:15.200
 other elements and those minor modifications would be staff level approved. Here's that

02:29:15.200 --> 02:29:21.440
 traffic signal. They are, they are offering that $400,000 to be deposited for that traffic signal

02:29:21.440 --> 02:29:25.440
 at Dutchess Drive and Loop 288. And that would be worked out with council through a development

02:29:25.440 --> 02:29:32.080
 agreement prior to the filing of the plat. Sidewalk extension, they're proposing those offsite,

02:29:32.080 --> 02:29:37.680
 that offsite sidewalk to the north as well as to, to the east of the subject property.

02:29:37.680 --> 02:29:44.480
 And the zoning act would reflect that there, if this was approved that the, the, that there is

02:29:44.480 --> 02:29:48.880
 an SUP on the subject property and then not withstanding those administrative approvals in

02:29:48.880 --> 02:29:56.080
 condition one, we would reserve the right to require an amendment to the, the SUP for, for

02:29:56.080 --> 02:30:04.560
 any of, any reasons. If they were going to make any changes to those SUP, the SUP. And then here's

02:30:04.560 --> 02:30:11.600
 also the next part of our recommendation is that staff would have the ability to approve increases

02:30:11.600 --> 02:30:18.800
 for the number of dwelling units or the building square footage up to 5% of the amounts specified

02:30:18.800 --> 02:30:23.360
 in requirements one and four. And that's the dwelling units, the, the building square footage

02:30:23.360 --> 02:30:31.760
 and the parking spaces. But anything over 5% would require a revision to the SUP. The numbers

02:30:31.760 --> 02:30:35.760
 one through seven sort of outline what they're proposing on their development. The number of

02:30:35.760 --> 02:30:40.560
 dwelling units, the number of buildings kind of outlines what those central gathering, what

02:30:40.560 --> 02:30:45.440
 should be included in that central gathering area as well as the other open spaces. The number of

02:30:45.440 --> 02:30:52.240
 parking spaces that does reflect the reduction that the code permits for affordable housing. Any

02:30:52.240 --> 02:30:57.920
 additional parking reductions could potentially be granted for maybe additional tree preservation

02:30:57.920 --> 02:31:02.080
 or tree plantings. And that would be in accordance with SUP chapter seven of the debt and development

02:31:02.080 --> 02:31:09.200
 code. The three access points and then the design elements you saw, the balconies and patios, those

02:31:09.200 --> 02:31:14.400
 primary entrances with the, with the lighting, the mix in trees and shrubs between the buildings in

02:31:14.400 --> 02:31:19.440
 the parking areas and that the orientation of the building. And then final, the final would be the

02:31:19.440 --> 02:31:25.680
 solid waste. Those locations would be finalized with the building permit. The applicant is on

02:31:25.680 --> 02:31:34.960
 the line and I will stand for any questions. >> Thanks, Julie. Does anyone have any questions

02:31:34.960 --> 02:31:45.200
 for Julie or the applicant for that matter? Okay. I have one quick one just for the applicant. I

02:31:45.200 --> 02:31:55.840
 believe you got approval from the south property owners. Is that correct? They were in opposition

02:31:55.840 --> 02:32:06.080
 the first time around. Is that correct? >> That's correct. Can you hear me? That is correct. And I

02:32:06.080 --> 02:32:11.520
 do have a short presentation and that's part of it. But yes, those property owners that are to the

02:32:11.520 --> 02:32:19.840
 southwest actually instead of opposing now support this new application. >> Okay. That's great. Did

02:32:19.840 --> 02:32:27.520
 you want to give your presentation or? >> You know, if you'd like to make a motion for approval,

02:32:27.520 --> 02:32:34.400
 I can skip it, but I'm certainly happy to do it. >> I'm going to leave that up to commission. Do

02:32:34.400 --> 02:32:44.800
 we need, would you like to see the applicants? No? Okay. Apparently your presentation is not

02:32:44.800 --> 02:32:50.320
 necessary. Commissioner Bec? >> I'd like to make a motion to approve with the conditions as

02:32:50.320 --> 02:32:57.600
 presented by staff. >> Motion on the floor is to approve with staff conditions. Is there a second?

02:32:57.600 --> 02:33:09.600
 Commissioner Smith? Commissioner Smith, you're muted. >> I will second the motion. I just didn't

02:33:09.600 --> 02:33:14.880
 know if we needed to open up the public. >> You know what? The public hearing has been opened,

02:33:14.880 --> 02:33:21.680
 but I should close the public hearing before we vote. >> That worked. Yes, I'd like to second

02:33:21.680 --> 02:33:27.520
 the motion. >> Very good. We do not have anyone on the line to speak for this public hearing item,

02:33:27.520 --> 02:33:32.880
 so I will close the public hearing. And we do have a motion on the floor to approve with staff

02:33:32.880 --> 02:33:40.400
 conditions. Any discussion? Very good. We will take a vote by a roll call. Commissioner Bec?

02:33:40.400 --> 02:33:42.560
 >> Aye. >> Commissioner Smith?

02:33:42.560 --> 02:33:44.480
 >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole?

02:33:44.480 --> 02:33:46.800
 >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson?

02:33:46.800 --> 02:33:50.720
 >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta?

02:33:50.720 --> 02:33:57.200
 >> Aye. >> And the chair is an aye. That motion carries 6-0.

02:33:59.760 --> 02:34:08.800
 That will take us to our next public hearing item. That is AESA20-0003B.

02:34:08.800 --> 02:34:20.000
 I will open the public hearing and invite Kristi Upton for presentation.

02:34:30.000 --> 02:34:36.000
 [PAUSE]

02:34:59.760 --> 02:35:16.720
 >> Good evening, commissioners. And this is a presentation on the alternative AESA plan for

02:35:16.720 --> 02:35:25.120
 four-star razor. And just to review again, the City of Dinton has adopted a set of regulations

02:35:25.120 --> 02:35:32.720
 to protect environmental sensitive areas. And when land disturbances do not conform to

02:35:32.720 --> 02:35:38.640
 the protection requirements, then approval of an alternative AESA plan is required

02:35:39.600 --> 02:35:59.360
 per a set of criteria as provided in the Dinton development code. The request tonight is for a

02:35:59.360 --> 02:36:05.840
 property generally located north of Rose Lawn Drive and east of the railroad tracks along highway 377.

02:36:05.840 --> 02:36:14.480
 There is a preliminary plot for a single-family development of approximately 214 acres that was

02:36:14.480 --> 02:36:22.560
 previously approved. And the alternative AESA plan that is being presented tonight is for

02:36:22.560 --> 02:36:28.080
 four encroachments for the construction of stormwater channels that will support the

02:36:28.080 --> 02:36:35.280
 residential development and will be encroaching into riparian buffer ESA and water-related

02:36:35.280 --> 02:36:43.920
 habitat. For a little background on this project, there was a field assessment that was conducted

02:36:43.920 --> 02:37:00.080
 by a third-party biologist. And the field assessment was approved by staff. During the

02:37:00.080 --> 02:37:07.680
 field assessment, the biologist identified a tributary of Hickory Creek. It's a braided

02:37:07.680 --> 02:37:16.320
 channel with a small side stream found near the center of the property and the channel

02:37:16.320 --> 02:37:29.440
 generally crossing from north to south across this development. The creek has a riparian buffer ESA

02:37:29.440 --> 02:37:36.000
 that's 50 feet and each side of the stream, each side of the centerline of the stream

02:37:36.000 --> 02:37:43.920
 per the definition of the riparian buffer ESA and was identified to be in fair condition and then

02:37:43.920 --> 02:37:53.520
 interspersed along that creek and supporting the creek's water quality and

02:37:57.120 --> 02:38:04.080
 is a bottomland hardwood forest and it generally is an area that

02:38:04.080 --> 02:38:15.760
 where forests are supported by a more moist soil conditions and the bottomland hardwood forest has

02:38:15.760 --> 02:38:22.400
 a number of tree species such as American elm, green ash, pecan, and hackberry. There's an

02:38:22.400 --> 02:38:30.400
 undeveloped floodplain as well that was identified along the southern border of the property and is

02:38:30.400 --> 02:38:39.120
 defined by the current FEMA 1% chance or 100-year floodplain. And then along the eastern side of the

02:38:39.120 --> 02:38:46.960
 creek and the southeastern corner of the proposed development, there is crust timbers upland habitat

02:38:46.960 --> 02:38:56.320
 of 30 acres of contiguous forest. There are permitted encroachments that I wanted to review

02:38:56.320 --> 02:39:04.080
 with you before we dived into the reason for the alternative ESA plan and that includes

02:39:04.080 --> 02:39:12.640
 50% preservation of the crust timbers upland habitat and the applicant is proposing to preserve

02:39:13.520 --> 02:39:23.040
 at least 50% of that upland that crust timbers forest generally along the

02:39:23.040 --> 02:39:32.640
 and adjacent to the creek and then within the property. And there are roadways that are identified

02:39:32.640 --> 02:39:41.200
 on the city mobility plan and are with the construction of those of the roadways being

02:39:42.640 --> 02:39:50.720
 they are permitted to encroach into the ESAs as long as there is

02:39:50.720 --> 02:39:56.320
 sorry as long as there is

02:39:56.320 --> 02:40:05.280
 mitigation that is done to prevent erosion and to promote the recovery of the ESAs.

02:40:05.920 --> 02:40:13.120
 And then lastly there is an allowance for the placement of public and private utility

02:40:13.120 --> 02:40:21.360
 facilities in the undeveloped floodplain ESA and there is a small section of the floodplain ESA

02:40:21.360 --> 02:40:30.000
 that will be encroached upon at the southernmost drainage channel and the proposed deviations that

02:40:30.000 --> 02:40:36.480
 we will be focused on tonight are within our for the four stormwater drainage channels that

02:40:36.480 --> 02:40:43.120
 will support the residential neighborhood there's and the proposal is to construct these channels

02:40:43.120 --> 02:40:51.280
 at the the necessary width for the channels plus another 10 feet that outside of those channels

02:40:51.280 --> 02:40:57.040
 that will be cleared of vegetation for the construction of the channels and the total

02:40:57.040 --> 02:41:06.000
 acreage of the encroachments in order to construct and finalize those channels is approximately 0.7

02:41:06.000 --> 02:41:15.600
 acres of ESA. In order to offset for those encroachments the applicant is promoted

02:41:15.600 --> 02:41:23.920
 proposing two mitigation strategies the first is to revegetate the areas that were cleared for the

02:41:24.800 --> 02:41:35.760
 construction of the channels with a seed of native grasses and forbs and then a planting of trees

02:41:35.760 --> 02:41:46.320
 and shrubs that are that were selected as a native species to promote the recovery of the ESAs.

02:41:48.160 --> 02:41:55.520
 The second strategy is to remove invasive Chinese privet within the ESAs. The field biologists

02:41:55.520 --> 02:42:06.000
 identified 10 to 50 percent infestation along the channel and the proposal is to remove that

02:42:06.000 --> 02:42:17.520
 Chinese privet and then to revegetate the area to promote the reduction of the ability of the

02:42:18.480 --> 02:42:30.880
 privet to reinvest the area. Notifications were sent and a response was to the notifications were

02:42:30.880 --> 02:42:42.560
 five in opposition which equaled four percent and then three in favor and the opposition's concerns

02:42:43.200 --> 02:42:52.560
 mostly were related to items that were worked out with the preliminary plot.

02:42:52.560 --> 02:43:02.240
 There was a neighborhood meeting on July 14th and there were 34 participants and similar concerns

02:43:02.240 --> 02:43:11.280
 were expressed at the neighborhood meeting and after reviewing the alternative ESA plan staff

02:43:11.280 --> 02:43:17.920
 has identified that the plan meets the criteria for approval and is recommending that the

02:43:17.920 --> 02:43:24.560
 plan be approved with the following conditions that the land disturbance be limited to the areas that

02:43:24.560 --> 02:43:31.360
 were the extent that was identified on the alternative ESA plan that the applicant will

02:43:31.360 --> 02:43:37.680
 consider the preservation of heritage or quality trees in the final location of the stormwater

02:43:37.680 --> 02:43:44.960
 infrastructure and after identifying the final location to provide the meets and bounds to

02:43:44.960 --> 02:43:51.280
 environmental services so we can keep record of that and then the revegetation of the disturbed

02:43:51.280 --> 02:43:59.600
 areas as described in the alternative ESA plan and then these are recommendations for approval

02:44:00.400 --> 02:44:10.320
 that environmental services is recommending for all alternative ESA plans that include plantings

02:44:10.320 --> 02:44:14.800
 to ensure the survivability. Are there questions?

02:44:14.800 --> 02:44:27.120
 Thanks Christy. Yes. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Christy we brought this up in work session

02:44:27.120 --> 02:44:34.560
 but I want to say it again for anyone that's watching this riparian alt ESA is just for that

02:44:34.560 --> 02:44:39.520
 region along the channel it doesn't include the upland habitat region is that correct? Correct.

02:44:39.520 --> 02:44:44.880
 All right so we're not we're not addressing that upland habitat region or any of the

02:44:44.880 --> 02:44:52.240
 contention that may or may not exist about it that we may have heard of in the public is that correct?

02:44:52.240 --> 02:44:58.720
 Correct. Okay. This is strictly related to the four storm drain channels at this time.

02:44:58.720 --> 02:45:07.040
 Thank you. Any other questions for Christy?

02:45:07.040 --> 02:45:16.400
 Okay I don't see any more at this moment Christy. This is a public hearing we do

02:45:16.400 --> 02:45:18.880
 have several people on the line wishing to speak.

02:45:22.960 --> 02:45:29.040
 So I will invite our first caller.

02:45:29.040 --> 02:45:49.120
 Hi caller can you hear me? Yes. Okay welcome to the planning. Yes we can. Welcome to the planning

02:45:49.120 --> 02:45:54.000
 and zoning commission meeting. If you will state your name and address for the record your time

02:45:54.000 --> 02:46:02.240
 will begin and you can speak on the item you called about. Sure Rachel Diyager 2115 McCormick

02:46:02.240 --> 02:46:14.880
 Street Denton Texas 76205 and I'm calling in regards to the the forest razor plan and the

02:46:14.880 --> 02:46:21.360
 environmentally sensitive area and I'm just concerned about the removal of the upland habitat.

02:46:21.360 --> 02:46:29.760
 It looks like about at least half of the the upland habitat or the trees the tree

02:46:29.760 --> 02:46:36.320
 forest area is being removed and that concerns me because this is kind of an older growth

02:46:37.840 --> 02:46:46.240
 with lots of old growth trees and some of those trees are you know hundreds a years old you can't

02:46:46.240 --> 02:46:52.320
 really replace those trees it would take you know centuries for that to you know regrow and it's

02:46:52.320 --> 02:46:59.600
 just I just feel like it needs to there needs to be a more of that preserved and also it just also

02:46:59.600 --> 02:47:06.240
 makes denton more livable and it's not it's just nice to have some green places too and again I

02:47:06.240 --> 02:47:14.800
 just don't think it should that much of it should be removed it just concerns me so that's my concern

02:47:14.800 --> 02:47:21.120
 and I guess thank you. Hang on just a minute caller commissioner Beck.

02:47:21.120 --> 02:47:27.680
 Thank you chair Christy this is sort of directed to you but it's an answer to the caller's question

02:47:27.680 --> 02:47:34.560
 for folks that have concerns about the upland habitat region how what is the appropriate

02:47:34.560 --> 02:47:40.400
 venue for them to address those concerns if if this ESA does not include the upland habitat as

02:47:40.400 --> 02:47:52.320
 you said a second ago? I don't know if I understand the question. If if if citizens have concerns about

02:47:52.320 --> 02:47:59.440
 the the overall plan that includes the upland habitat but this vote is only about the riparian

02:47:59.440 --> 02:48:06.480
 ESA what's the appropriate venue for citizens to address their concerns about that upland habitat?

02:48:06.480 --> 02:48:16.880
 So there is a there's a proposal for for some options that are being presented to city council

02:48:16.880 --> 02:48:24.400
 and those that proposal is being led by the planning and development services

02:48:24.400 --> 02:48:33.920
 and the parks and recreation department and is not a is not a a part of this application at this time.

02:48:33.920 --> 02:48:42.240
 Thank you Christy. Okay so I'm a little confused because according to the this that area is part

02:48:42.240 --> 02:48:48.640
 of that map so they're going to have a different meeting on that area it looks like housing is

02:48:48.640 --> 02:48:55.040
 covering at least half of it in this plan. Well the item that we're discussing today right now

02:48:55.040 --> 02:49:03.120
 that we're voting on is an alternative ESA which is just affecting parts of the riparian buffer.

02:49:03.120 --> 02:49:10.640
 It is not affecting the upland habitat so that's not what we are considering

02:49:10.640 --> 02:49:14.480
 here with what is is on our agenda for this public hearing.

02:49:17.120 --> 02:49:26.800
 But I'm confused because it it shows it's the AESA 20-00034 star razor

02:49:26.800 --> 02:49:37.280
 plan and it includes the upland that upland habitat area and it shows houses so there's

02:49:37.280 --> 02:49:43.760
 two different meetings on this actual project. Yeah I'm gonna I'm gonna let Christy answer that.

02:49:43.760 --> 02:49:53.360
 Sure just to to help explain again what the regulations require a developer to

02:49:53.360 --> 02:49:58.160
 to how to address the cross timbers upland habitat.

02:49:58.160 --> 02:50:07.440
 The development is allowed to remove up to 50 percent of the cross timbers upland habitat so

02:50:08.560 --> 02:50:20.720
 when we identify that habitat and we we tell we look the developer no there's upland habitat here

02:50:20.720 --> 02:50:30.960
 that must be protected but only 50 percent the regulations also do not address where those where

02:50:30.960 --> 02:50:38.960
 that 50 percent is. We do highly encourage the development to consider the protection

02:50:38.960 --> 02:50:48.000
 of that habitat in a manner that could allow for some connectivity and this development has done

02:50:48.000 --> 02:50:57.520
 that by protecting the 50 percent on the on the western side of the habitat closest to the creek

02:50:57.520 --> 02:51:04.560
 which will allow for a continuousness of that upland habitat with the habitats that will be

02:51:04.560 --> 02:51:12.720
 protected along the creek. Commissioner Beck. Yeah thank you I wasn't sure if I still had the floor.

02:51:12.720 --> 02:51:23.280
 So so Christy I mean just to help maybe clarify a little more if regions of those of the upland

02:51:23.280 --> 02:51:30.640
 habitat to the east to those from the water tower eastward towards Denia Park if those were of

02:51:30.640 --> 02:51:38.320
 concern to citizens they citizens should talk to planning and development office and city council

02:51:38.320 --> 02:51:45.360
 to address those concerns. Correct I think that that might be the the avenue that that would

02:51:45.360 --> 02:51:52.960
 best that you could best address this at this time. Okay is there a way we can maybe

02:51:54.240 --> 02:51:59.440
 get the caller Christy's information so that can we do that and then they can talk

02:51:59.440 --> 02:52:09.120
 you know about that that future issue. Is that okay? Yeah if we can if we can get that information

02:52:09.120 --> 02:52:14.560
 we most certainly will reach out to her and explain the next steps. Very good okay thank

02:52:14.560 --> 02:52:30.720
 you for calling in. You're welcome. Do we have our next caller?

02:52:44.560 --> 02:52:47.680
 Hi caller you're on with the Planning and Zoning Commission. Are you there?

02:52:47.680 --> 02:52:53.840
 Well I am here but I think I just got the answer I needed so I don't think I'll waste your time.

02:52:53.840 --> 02:53:01.200
 Well okay well thank you very much. All right you're very welcome thank you. Appreciate your

02:53:01.200 --> 02:53:10.160
 involvement thank you. Sure bye bye. Bye okay let's bring up our next caller.

02:53:14.560 --> 02:53:24.160
 Okay. Of course.

02:53:44.560 --> 02:53:50.160
 There

02:53:50.160 --> 02:54:08.160
 they are working on bringing the caller to our meeting.

02:54:14.560 --> 02:54:20.160
 Maybe.

02:54:20.160 --> 02:54:31.200
 Any second now. Hello? Hi there caller welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

02:54:31.200 --> 02:54:37.200
 Can you hear us? Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. If you'll state your name and number for the record

02:54:37.200 --> 02:54:43.760
 your time will begin. You'll have three minutes to speak. Okay I am Leanne Todd. I live at 3316

02:54:43.760 --> 02:54:51.360
 Rose Lawn. I'm 200 feet away from the proposed housing subdivision of King and Four Star Razor.

02:54:51.360 --> 02:54:58.880
 I am opposed to the current developmental plan in that it does not consider environmentally sensitive

02:54:58.880 --> 02:55:06.480
 area of the upland. A majority of the post-op's which are 18 to 21 inches will be destroyed.

02:55:07.440 --> 02:55:13.680
 It is which is against to me there needs to be more restrictions in the planning

02:55:13.680 --> 02:55:23.600
 with a developmental plan for future comprehensive plan for the city of Denton and future land use

02:55:23.600 --> 02:55:29.920
 is in violation with that. There's not enough stipulations or restrictions in relation to house

02:55:29.920 --> 02:55:38.000
 height in relation to floor plan and size and density. Not only that it is environmentally

02:55:38.000 --> 02:55:45.520
 devastating to the historical post-ops which are now protected under law with a new tree ordinance

02:55:45.520 --> 02:55:53.280
 and the only thing that they show environmental sensitivity to is doing the drainage ditches

02:55:54.960 --> 02:56:03.440
 which is the only okay thing about the plan but everything else is a subdivision nightmare

02:56:03.440 --> 02:56:08.800
 and they are within law with their 50 percent trees but that's because there's floodplain

02:56:08.800 --> 02:56:16.480
 insignificant trees along there. Well since I'm opposed to the whole plan I think it needs to go

02:56:16.480 --> 02:56:24.320
 back to the drawing board come up with fewer houses maybe higher dollar including with more

02:56:24.320 --> 02:56:31.600
 tree protection more land acquisition by parks and recreation. I know they're proposing a

02:56:31.600 --> 02:56:40.000
 hike bike trail along the floodplain and sewer line but there is also significant forest

02:56:40.000 --> 02:56:48.160
 in the upland area and no environmental sensitivity has been considered in relation to that. Four Star

02:56:48.160 --> 02:56:57.440
 is not a part of this community and Denton they will they don't care except for making their money

02:56:57.440 --> 02:57:03.200
 in a development project and moving on. I think the current plan is not for the benefit of the

02:57:03.200 --> 02:57:13.280
 community and its residents of this city as far as aesthetics and beauty and carbon offset and parks

02:57:13.280 --> 02:57:20.320
 and rec and there's bound to be a better plan that I mean who wants a home underneath a water tank

02:57:20.320 --> 02:57:26.000
 and let's take out all the trees it makes no sense. Plus these trees the post oaks cannot be

02:57:26.000 --> 02:57:33.920
 cannot be replaced they are endangered tree they cannot be if you look at an 18 to 21 inch tree

02:57:33.920 --> 02:57:40.800
 of that size you're looking at thousands of dollars per tree and millions per forest which

02:57:40.800 --> 02:57:47.760
 cannot be replaced and once it's gone it's gone and it's one of the few forested areas still

02:57:47.760 --> 02:57:57.600
 in the city of Denton with that kind of significant as far as their ESA plan for the drainage ditches

02:57:57.600 --> 02:58:08.000
 it's okay except that no post oak should be taken out and we appreciate your comments can

02:58:08.000 --> 02:58:16.560
 your three minutes hat is up are you close to wrapping it up okay yes if they can replace

02:58:16.560 --> 02:58:23.200
 any taken trees with tree of same significance but overall I'm against to the Kimberley horn

02:58:23.200 --> 02:58:31.520
 current design in relation to four star razor is not for the benefit of Denton city and its residents

02:58:32.640 --> 02:58:38.240
 and we definitely appreciate you sharing your thoughts with us I will reiterate what we're

02:58:38.240 --> 02:58:47.200
 voting on today is not the development itself it is that that is already a project that can happen

02:58:47.200 --> 02:58:53.840
 by right with the zoning that's on the property what we are voting on is an alternate ESA that

02:58:53.840 --> 02:59:03.040
 will affect the riparian buffer I will share with you again that that there is talk still being

02:59:03.040 --> 02:59:09.280
 had about the upland habitat on the property and I would encourage you to get with staff on that

02:59:09.280 --> 02:59:16.320
 for your input with regard to that and we can get you a contact information

02:59:17.760 --> 02:59:24.640
 so that you can show your thoughts on that so as far as the lower ESA plan a is better than plan b

02:59:24.640 --> 02:59:32.160
 plan a is okay with the stipulation of no post oaks taken and trees taken of equal value

02:59:32.160 --> 02:59:39.920
 it's better than it's like ponds and taking more trees so that's the only place that I see the

02:59:39.920 --> 02:59:49.920
 current plan is being environmentally sensitive which is you know the lower ESA in relation to

02:59:49.920 --> 02:59:56.400
 the water run okay appreciate your thoughts uh Commissioner Beck I believe has a question

02:59:56.400 --> 03:00:02.400
 in his response to the color Christy didn't you say this current revised plan

03:00:03.360 --> 03:00:10.880
 has flexibility for the precise placement of the the four channels to to protect trees

03:00:10.880 --> 03:00:16.640
 in those channels but I'm what I have done is try to build some flexibility in

03:00:16.640 --> 03:00:26.240
 the alternative to doing that would have forced the applicant to place those storm drains directly

03:00:26.240 --> 03:00:32.080
 in the location that they had drawn up in their plans trying to build a little bit of flexibility

03:00:32.080 --> 03:00:42.000
 for them to avoid heritage or quality trees that they identify on site once they get there and

03:00:42.000 --> 03:00:50.880
 start construction so that they could preserve those trees if if it's possible to move the

03:00:50.880 --> 03:01:03.360
 channel in one direction or another and and still meet their their design criteria I'm definitely in

03:01:03.360 --> 03:01:13.440
 I'm definitely in favor of flexibility to protect what trees we can in that lowland ESA excellent

03:01:13.440 --> 03:01:19.840
 and everything and just leave trash trees as opposed to historical thank you so much for

03:01:19.840 --> 03:01:25.600
 sharing your thoughts with us tonight all right and I will be back on the 19th for the up one

03:01:25.600 --> 03:01:32.240
 excellent thank you is that when that's happening on the 19th or do we give our comments before

03:01:32.240 --> 03:01:36.640
 uh the meeting on the 19th or right into the pnz

03:01:36.640 --> 03:01:45.600
 stand by we'll get you an answer on that miss miss Todd you absolutely can provide

03:01:45.600 --> 03:01:51.360
 comments um through me or through staff and and we'll get those okay and who is this

03:01:51.360 --> 03:01:58.800
 I'm sorry this is Scott McDonald oh okay so I yeah okay so send it in general to the planning

03:01:58.800 --> 03:02:05.360
 zoning uh in relation to that and then you can speak before the meeting or after or whatever on

03:02:05.360 --> 03:02:11.680
 the 19th um correct just as soon as we get to that date but I'll be certain to reach out to you

03:02:12.800 --> 03:02:17.440
 okay thank you so much thank you take care

03:02:17.440 --> 03:02:23.920
 I think we will have our next caller brought up

03:02:23.920 --> 03:02:42.000
 hi there caller you're on with the planning and zoning commission meeting can you hear me

03:02:43.440 --> 03:02:47.360
 yes can you hear me all right we can thank you if you'll state your name and address

03:02:47.360 --> 03:02:53.600
 you three minutes we'll begin okay thank you um Jennifer Lane I live on Willowood street in

03:02:53.600 --> 03:03:01.200
 Denton 76205 and I'm calling because at the meeting the neighborhood meeting that we had

03:03:01.200 --> 03:03:05.120
 one of the people who was adjacent to the property mentioned some flooding

03:03:05.120 --> 03:03:09.520
 and I don't know if we've been trying to find her since then but I don't know if she's been

03:03:09.520 --> 03:03:17.120
 able to call in or write to you um okay but the issue with that um there was storm water that

03:03:17.120 --> 03:03:25.600
 would be but maybe if um Kim Lihon or four star were to expand the um the planting and seeding

03:03:25.600 --> 03:03:33.680
 buffer or if they could use the use give us give up more of the um the land with the the old growth

03:03:33.680 --> 03:03:38.640
 trees that it would help with that flooding so there might be actually a reason to consider

03:03:39.280 --> 03:03:44.000
 the trees not just because they are a value in and of themselves but in relation to the EFA

03:03:44.000 --> 03:03:46.000
 that's basically it

03:03:46.000 --> 03:03:54.080
 thank you Jennifer for your comments yes yes we are here thank you yes I believe her I believe

03:03:54.080 --> 03:03:59.120
 the lady's name was I believe the lady's name was Nancy that's what I remember I think that's her

03:03:59.120 --> 03:04:05.040
 name living adjacent to the property so I don't know if she's called in or written but um I wanted

03:04:05.040 --> 03:04:09.440
 to point that out because I remembered it from the neighborhood meeting very good well thank you for

03:04:09.440 --> 03:04:14.800
 doing so we appreciate it thank you yeah and I do think that those trees are valuable and I hope that

03:04:14.800 --> 03:04:21.200
 the um the ESA can make room for them thank you thank you okay bye bye

03:04:21.200 --> 03:04:27.440
 Commissioner Beck did you have a question yeah again this is for Christy um and it

03:04:27.440 --> 03:04:36.560
 just the caller's comments um when when we're assisting the needs of an ESA do we how are the

03:04:36.560 --> 03:04:42.640
 the drainage of the surrounding properties and how those affect the ESA uh addressed

03:04:42.640 --> 03:04:55.840
 um flooding is not really something that um is while it overlaps with um with the ESA's um the

03:04:55.840 --> 03:05:02.960
 the protection requirements of the the floodplain and the riparian buffer in the water related

03:05:02.960 --> 03:05:11.200
 habitats um they work in tandem and complement the floodplain regulations but it's really the

03:05:11.200 --> 03:05:21.280
 floodplain regulations that are are the um the um overseer of of that of the of the flooding the

03:05:21.280 --> 03:05:28.560
 downstream properties and um again with this preliminary plat and those issues were addressed

03:05:28.560 --> 03:05:36.240
 and um the the reason that staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat was because

03:05:36.240 --> 03:05:43.360
 the applicant had shown sufficiently that they had um they had addressed those type of concerns

03:05:43.360 --> 03:05:48.480
 thank you I think we have another caller on the line

03:05:51.280 --> 03:06:00.480
 um

03:06:00.480 --> 03:06:08.880
 while we're waiting for the call to be brought up I will um mention for the record that we did

03:06:08.880 --> 03:06:16.880
 have eight people use our online forms to comment on this item um all eight were against the item

03:06:16.880 --> 03:06:22.160
 um these comment forms were emailed to all of us as well as will be recorded by our secretary

03:06:22.160 --> 03:06:25.120
 hi caller are you there

03:06:25.120 --> 03:06:30.720
 hello caller are you there

03:06:30.720 --> 03:06:44.480
 I do not hear anyone stand by well we look into that technology issue

03:06:47.040 --> 03:06:56.480
 um

03:07:16.880 --> 03:07:26.480
 um

03:07:26.480 --> 03:07:40.480
 um

03:07:46.880 --> 03:07:56.880
 okay it'll be just a minute they are getting her back on the line apparently her call was dropped

03:07:56.880 --> 03:08:07.360
 and madam chair it I can just mention that um we're tentatively scheduled for go ahead

03:08:07.360 --> 03:08:15.760
 hi caller are you there hello I am here I welcome welcome to the public planning and zoning commission

03:08:15.760 --> 03:08:19.760
 meeting yes we can hear you if you'll state your name and address your time will begin you'll have

03:08:19.760 --> 03:08:27.040
 three minutes to speak thank you this is Sharon Kramer three five seven four pine trail and I'm

03:08:27.040 --> 03:08:33.040
 a member of the North Denton neighbor association and there are quite a few of us along the Hartley

03:08:33.040 --> 03:08:39.200
 field area we consider ourselves a community some of us have been here 40 plus years others 50

03:08:39.200 --> 03:08:47.520
 and some are a little newer and I have had occasion to speak to my membership and here's the puzzle

03:08:47.520 --> 03:08:58.720
 that we're in July 16th 2019 we were in front of the city council and the city council five of them

03:08:58.720 --> 03:09:07.600
 members Davis members Armenter member Meltzer member Briggs and oh I'm fuzzy and it's late

03:09:07.600 --> 03:09:14.080
 in the evening for me and my sympathy to the commissioners member Watts even said all right

03:09:14.080 --> 03:09:22.640
 so we're arguing or we're considering the placement of this connection to Hartley field road

03:09:22.640 --> 03:09:27.920
 and making Hartley field miss Kramer can I can I interrupt you just a minute so you're not calling

03:09:27.920 --> 03:09:36.080
 in on the alt ESA that we're discussing I am not because I wasn't following I was calling in on the

03:09:36.080 --> 03:09:42.560
 agave southern arterial okay because um the way our process works is yeah you're only allowed to

03:09:42.560 --> 03:09:50.800
 yeah comment once on that and you called in at work session got it okay all right all right sorry

03:09:50.800 --> 03:09:59.920
 thank you so much thank you miss Kramer all right bye do we have any other callers on the line

03:10:00.880 --> 03:10:13.760
 okay we do have other callers

03:10:30.880 --> 03:10:39.760
 so

03:10:39.760 --> 03:10:57.600
 okay apparently um they've made several attempts to get the caller on the line

03:10:57.600 --> 03:11:05.200
 and we cannot do so so that leaves us with no callers on the line so with that I will close

03:11:05.200 --> 03:11:11.680
 the public hearing and open the floor for a motion or discussion commissioner smith make a motion to

03:11:11.680 --> 03:11:20.240
 approve with staff recommendations commissioner cole second okay we have a motion on the floor

03:11:20.240 --> 03:11:32.800
 to approve a esa 20 0003 b in a second discussion commissioner beck yeah I can I just be clear

03:11:32.800 --> 03:11:38.560
 are we're discussing the the sort of the flexible option that that christy made is that your motion

03:11:38.560 --> 03:11:50.800
 mr commissioner smith yes thank you okay any other discussion and I think I'd just like to

03:11:50.800 --> 03:11:56.640
 add that certainly um I would love to for them to be able to more than consider the trees if at all

03:11:56.640 --> 03:12:04.000
 possible um but certainly love that that flexibility is in there okay we have a motion uh in a second

03:12:04.000 --> 03:12:12.000
 to approve we will take a vote via roll call commissioner smith aye commissioner cole

03:12:12.000 --> 03:12:19.840
 aye commissioner beck aye commissioner anderson aye commissioner prunetta

03:12:19.840 --> 03:12:30.480
 aye and the chair is an aye that motion passes six zero that concludes our public hearings

03:12:30.480 --> 03:12:38.880
 and takes us to our planning and zoning matrix um I think Richard is on the line if he has any updates

03:12:38.880 --> 03:12:47.200
 I'll speak on behalf of Richard that there wasn't necessarily any updates okay

03:12:47.200 --> 03:12:53.680
 very good appreciate that um does any commissioner have anything to add to our matrix

03:12:57.120 --> 03:13:03.680
 okay seeing none um that would just leave it concluding items um and with that what I would

03:13:03.680 --> 03:13:08.960
 like to do is is congratulate chair roselle and and his wife heather who welcomed their third son

03:13:08.960 --> 03:13:14.560
 this past weekend which is why he is not at the meeting today so congratulations to them and all

03:13:14.560 --> 03:13:20.880
 the best as they settle in all together um so with that we will conclude our meeting and I will call

03:13:20.880 --> 03:13:25.600
 us adjourned at 9 o' 9 p.m. Thank you everyone.