I'm going to turn it over to
commission member.
>> Good afternoon, ladies and
gentlemen and welcome to the
planning and zoning work session
meeting for August 19, 2020.
It is 534 and seeing that we
have a quorum I will call this
meeting to order.
The first item on our agenda is
citizen comments.
We have none this evening so
I will call this meeting to
order.
The second item is go out of
order to consider suspension of
rules for comment cards.
As the commissioners I believe
were made aware there was an
issue with the delayed comment
availability for PDA 19-004C.
What I would like to do in the
work session is to entertain a
motion and a vote to suspend
the rules allowing individuals
to comment until we hear this
item in public hearing.
Commissioner Ellis?
>> We have a decision to
suspend the rules allowing
comment cards up until we hear
this item in public hearing.
Commissioner Ellis?
>> We have a decision to
suspend the rules allowing
comment cards up until we hear
this item in public hearing.
Commissioner Ellis?
>> We have a decision to
suspend the rules allowing
comment cards up until we hear
this item in public hearing.
Commissioner Ellis?
>> Can we have a quick
discussion on that?
>> Absolutely.
>> My only issue with that is
we can take comments up until
that and I think that is the
last thing on our agenda here
but how are we going to have the
opportunity to actually read
them if we are in meeting?
>> Typically on the comment
cards we just read the
details but we also will list
like we do with every item
those that submitted comment
cards for or against.
>> Often times they write in
there too.
We are just not going to have a
chance to read them.
>> That is correct.
I think we would be able to get
the actual verbiage.
So I'm getting worried that we
might be able to take a quick
recess.
Commissioner Ellis and forward
those out if and when they come
in.
Would that be agreeable
for a recess prior?
>> I guess.
I mean I don't love the whole
idea to be honest with you.
I think it is inconsistent with
what we do.
If we do have a lot of
opposition for that, we are not
going to be able to give it
focus and attention by the time
we get to that item today.
If it was a city error, I think
they should suck it up and
repost it and hold it again.
But that is just my opinion.
>> Okay.
Just for context, we have had
one person submit a comment car
for that item today.
So there hasn't been a lot of
traction in the limitation of
the ability to speak from the
amount of comments we have
actually received on the item.
Did you have something?
>> I think we had two.
But I agree with you, chair.
>> So with that, is there any
discussion on this quick motion?
I will call vote by roll call.
Commissioner Ellis?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Beck?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Cole?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Anderson?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Pernetta?
>> Aye.
>> Commissioner Smith?
>> Aye.
>> The chair is also an aye.
That passes 7-0.
So that will allow individuals
to comment until we call the
item and then we will work if
we receive any in the next set
of time, whether that is an hour
or 90 minutes or however long
it takes, we will certainly take
a recess and ensure all
commissioners have the chance
to review that adequately.
Going back to the agenda, we're
just going to hop back into the
consideration of minutes.
That's item two on the regular
meeting agenda.
Is there any discussion around
the minutes?
Okay.
Seeing none, we'll go to -- oh,
Commissioner Ellis?
>> Well, just to note, there
were a couple of corrections, so
I think that was emailed to
everybody, though.
>> Great.
Thank you.
Any other discussion on this?
Great.
The next item of business is our
consent.
Is there any questions?
We just have one on the consent.
Is there any questions on FP20-0014?
Okay.
Seeing none, we'll go into items
for individual consideration.
First item is item 4A, FR20-0007A,
and I'll invite Haley Zygursky
for a presentation.
>> All right.
Good evening, commissioners.
>> Good evening.
I'm Haley Zygursky.
I'm here to present a replat for
the East McKinney Street retail
edition.
The plat was previously on your
agenda, and an extension was
approved to allow them the
additional 30 days to work
through staff comments.
During that time, unfortunately,
some other issues arose with the
site design and layout for this
that may result in changes to
the easement configuration.
So the replat was not resubmitted
to us.
The original comments in the
meeting section 2.4.5E of the
code still stand at this time,
and so we are recommending
denial of the plat for those
reasons.
Happy to answer any questions.
>> Haley, what's the next step
for them?
Will they just have to go back
to square one in the filing,
and it'll come back to us as a
new project?
>> Under the local government
code, they can resubmit, and
then we will have 15 days to
bring that back to you all.
>> And they can resubmit at
any time, correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
Any questions for Haley on this
item?
Seeing none, we'll just move on
to the next one.
Thank you, Haley.
You're actually on the next one,
too, but it's item 4BZCP-14.
>> All right.
Yes, this is case ZCP 2014 for
the razor cottages.
The request before you is to
consider site plan approval for
a single-family development on
approximately 4 1/2 acres.
It's located in the area shown
in yellow on this map, so on the
west side of Bonnie Bray in
between the new extensions of
Crescent and Linden Streets.
As you all may be familiar,
site plans are -- within the
razor range overlay district,
site plans are required to come
to P&Z for approval.
This particular project is part
of the south campus, and within
the southern half of razor
ranch, all developments do
require the site plan approval
that includes a site plan,
landscape plan, and building
elevations.
There are criteria for approval,
of course, outlined in the razor
range overlay district.
These criteria require that the
site plan comply with the concept
plan approved for razor ranch,
that the plan provide for the
design and arrangement of
driveways and parking that is in
accordance with the applicable
requirements, the DDC and the
razor range overlay, that
there's adequate utilities,
drainage, and supporting
infrastructure, and if not, that
it would be extended.
And rather, the site plan fully
complies with all of the other
sections of the razor range
overlay district, which would
include their architectural and
landscaping standards primarily.
This shows the zoning map for
the razor range overlay district.
So in approximately 2009, their
kind of concept bubble plan was
replaced with more of a general
zoning map.
So this project is shown in red
on the map.
You can see that area is
designated as SF for single
family.
The base zoning for the razor
overlay district is still based
on the 2002 code district, so
this particular property has a
base zoning district of
neighborhood residential mixed
use.
This entire area shown on the
map here within the purple and
blue and green shaded areas is
what's called the razor ranch
south mixed use sub area.
It's intended primarily for
residential developments and
less intensive commercial uses
like office and hotels.
This particular parcel is
subject to the standards and
exhibit C2B of the overlay that
was provided in your backup.
Those standards were adopted in
2019.
Some of you may remember when we
went through those.
Those standards did designate
this property as well as the
other single family areas for
garden style, kind of zero lot
line style single family homes.
In particular, this parcel was
limited to one bedroom units
that have a minimum square
footage of 800 square feet.
So this is a look at the site
plan.
North is to the top of the
screen here, so you can see
crescent street, bonnie bray on
the east side, and then linden
to the south.
This would include 37 single
family homes.
You can see they are zero lot
lines.
The homes would abut the lot
line on one side and then have
approximately a six to eight
foot side yard on the other
sides.
There are two parking spaces
provided within each lot here,
so one would be in the garage,
one would be in the driveways.
There is kind of an HOA
amenity lot here in the middle
that they've proposed a
pavilion and some sidewalks and
some seating areas.
And then there is another HOA
lot that would be the street
system through here.
These are proposed to be
private streets and alleys that
would be maintained by that
homeowners association.
Currently this property is
platted as one lot, so there
would be a need to replat in a
consistent manner with what you
see here prior to them going to
the permitting phase.
This is a look at the landscape
plan.
Since this is a single family,
it's not as intensive as what
we typically look at for a
commercial development.
It does meet the street tree
requirements of the overlay,
which is again based on our
2002 code.
So that's one tree per lot for
those with 60 feet or less of
frontage and two on lots with
more than 60 feet.
So a total of 59 street trees
are provided throughout the
development.
Each individual lot, they
provided a schematic that shows
how they would meet the 20%
minimum landscape area.
And then they do have some
enhanced landscaping here around
that central amenity area, as
well as to help screen these
guest parking spaces from the
homes that are closest to them.
This is a look at some of the
proposed elevations.
Again, these are kind of
cottage-style homes, so a
little bit smaller than what we
typically see.
They do meet the minimum
requirements of the overlay
district for 20% windows and
doors on the street side.
They do meet the minimum of 40%
brick and stone, as well as the
overall 80% brick, stone, stucco
and fiber cement requirement.
This is a look at two of the
other proposed elevations, again,
that meet all of those standards
from the overlay district.
And staff is recommending
approval of this request with
the condition that a replant
consistent with the lot layout
shown on the site plan be
approved prior to issuance of
building permits for the
single-family homes.
I'm happy to answer any
questions.
>> Commissioner Ellis.
>> Hey, there.
I'm just curious to say, Kaylee,
is this an age-restricted
community?
>> It is not specifically.
I believe the developer expects
it to be primarily older or
single or just young couples
perhaps without children, but
it's not deed-restricted or
anything that I'm aware of.
>> Any other questions for
Kaylee?
>> Chair?
>> Yeah, it looks like we're
frozen on video I am, but
Commissioner Beck.
>> Yeah, Kaylee, can you pull up
any of your maps of the property
and indicate where the sidewalks
are?
I was really unclear in the maps
of the property.
>> This is germane to public
feedback that we got.
>> Yes, so there are perimeter
sidewalks you can see here on
Crescent and Linden Street that
were recently installed.
I believe with the build-out of
Bonnie Bray there will
ultimately be sidewalks along
Bonnie Bray, and then each
individual unit you can see does
have their own sidewalks.
There's a sidewalk system here
surrounding the HOA lot as well
as behind the parking spaces to
guide pedestrians throughout the
development.
>> And there will be pedestrian
connectivity over to the
business west side of the
property?
>> Correct.
I don't know if you've been out
there recently, but all the
infrastructure for the east side
of razor ranch, so everything
here east of heritage trail was
recently completed.
Kind of all in one fell swoop,
so there may be a gap in the
sidewalks for the multifamily
projects that are currently
under construction or soon to be
under construction.
Other than that, all the
sidewalks have been built to get
pedestrians out to heritage
trail, and then, of course,
there's sidewalks being
constructed as they go on the
town center side.
>> Well, thank you, Haley.
I appreciate it.
>> Yep.
>> Any other questions for
Haley?
Okay.
I don't see anyone.
It looks like all videos are
working right now.
So with that, we'll move on to
the next item, item 4c, pp19-0023a.
And this item and the next are
both Julie Wyatt.
So I'll invite her for what I
believe will be an update from
last meeting.
So I'll let her use the
discretion on what slides or
updates to be made.
We just recently heard this two
weeks ago.
>> Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner.
Let me pull up the presentation.
And let me see if I can get
there.
Ah, here we go.
Okay.
So this is -- this is the agave
ranch project, and there are two
items on your agenda tonight.
We're going to look at those
independently.
But first I want to talk briefly
about the history of the agave
ranch project.
Because I know there's been a
lot of discussion and concern
from residents.
So just a little bit of history.
I know you all have seen this
before.
This project has been in front of
you several times.
Back in 2002, the area adjacent
to us, the agave ranch project,
in 2002, the area adjacent to
Sherman, so there was a linear
portion of the site adjacent to
Sherman that was within the city.
And it was -- it was designated
as our D5 district during the
citywide rezoning.
In 2005, there was an annexation
of the eastern 55 acres as part
of a larger annexation program
within the city of 3,300 acres.
And then last year, you saw this
case, I believe it was three
times.
First, the property owner came
forward with a zoning -- an
initial zoning and a rezoning of
NR4 district.
That was denied.
That recommendation of denial
was approved by the planning and
zoning commission.
They came back with a revised
zoning plan to have NR4, NR3,
and NR2 districts.
I believe at that time the
planning and zoning commission
still felt like that was too
dense for the area.
So the item was postponed.
The applicant went back to the
drawing board.
They came back with a new zoning
plan of NR3 and NR2.
That was recommended approval
with conditions.
We'll look at those conditions
in a minute.
On June 19th of last year, and
then it went to city council on
June 16th, and that was approved,
those conditions.
So that changed that zoning to
NR3 and NR2.
And then last -- or at your last
meeting, we talked about the
preliminary plan and general
development plan.
We talked about this at the last
meeting.
I won't go into detail.
But as part of that rezoning,
there was that transportation
study that kind of looked at the
general mobility of this
surrounding area and how cars
were going to move through the
area in the future.
So on July 16th, that -- as I
said, that zoning was approved.
It had 46.5 acres of residential
2 and then 45.5 acres of
residential 3.
As part of that, there were
several overlay conditions that
were related to open space, to
screening, to setbacks from the
FM428 roadway.
And so the applicant provided a
concept plan associated with
that, kind of laying out what
those conditions would look like
and also the mobility, including
that Hartley Field Road area.
And so I know a lot of discussion
has centered around the mobility
and in particular for the
Hartley Field roadway.
And so I wanted to talk a little
bit about what our mobility plan
is.
So it is a component of our
comprehensive plan.
The roadway component map, what
we call the mobility plan, is
that guiding document for the
development of our street
network.
And the comprehensive plan goes
further to say it should be an
integral part of the street
layout networks in our site
review process.
So it's something we look at
with every project.
That mobility plan, that map, is
approved through the comprehensive
plan amendment process.
It was last modified in 2015.
And it requires a dual public
hearing process.
It's similar to a rezoning.
In fact, y'all just recently saw
a comprehensive plan amendment
come forward.
And that process is outlined in
section 2.7.1 of the 2019
Denton Development Code.
As we've talked about with our
comprehensive plan boot camps,
comprehensive plans are more
than just the maps.
They also include goals and
vision statements and also
actions and policies.
So Denton Plan 2030, that
element six related to mobility,
also includes two actions.
One is that we should ensure
that new development is
consistent with and preserves
those new roads and road
improvements identified in the
mobility plan.
And as part of the development
review process, as I said, we
check that mobility plan.
And then it also -- we have a
procedure for all roads in Denton
to comply with those consistent
standards that we adopt.
And that includes not only city
roads, but also county roads,
text out roads.
So now we'll go a little --
we'll talk about the first item,
which is that GDP.
There are --
>> Chair?
>> Yes.
Chris Relles.
>> Thank you.
Julie, before we move on, just a
quick question about the
comprehensive amendment, if you
amended the mobility plan.
Who can bring about that?
Is that something that staff
would bring before or anyone from
the public?
I mean, who is allowed to
initiate that?
>> Let me check the code and
make sure that I answer that
correctly.
Because the process should
outline that.
Just a minute.
Getting closer.
So an amendment to the
comprehensive plan may be
initiated by the city council,
the planning and zoning
commission, the director, or the
property owners with an
application executed by all
property owners or their
authorized agents.
>> Property owners within a
certain range?
Is that spelled out?
>> Well, that -- you know, and
that process is laid out for not
only those texts and those maps
that are associated with the
comprehensive plan, but also for
a property owner who would seek
a comprehensive plan amendment
for their property.
So something like updates to our
comprehensive plan or small area
plans related to the comprehensive
plan or the mobility plan are
typically initiated by the city
as part of our updates to our
comprehensive plan, those regular
updates.
>> Mr. Beck.
>> Thank you, chair.
This falls directly on
commissioner Ellis' question, and
that is, do we have the four
changes to the mobility plan?
Do we have the same sort of
notification schema that we
utilize?
Were we notifying Hartley field
folks and would -- the other
adjacent neighborhood folks that
this was the plan to put a
four-lane road there?
They all -- the feedback seemed
to indicate surprise.
>> So that -- the mobility plan
that was adopted in 2015, I don't
know what their outreach program
was, but like with any of our
comprehensive plan amendments, we
have a community outreach program
that we do talking with
stakeholders, community meetings.
You know, it would be a little more
akin to how we adopt our -- how we
adopted our new debt and
development code, and that is there
would be a notification within the
paper, but not necessarily -- we
did notify the property owners with
the 2019 adoption, but that was
more related to the map and not
necessarily just the text of that
code amendment.
And Richard may want to weigh in
here, but it would be my
understanding that a kind of a text
amendment to that comprehensive plan
would follow the notification of the
public notification within the
newspaper.
>> So there wouldn't be a mailing
to the entire city?
>> Correct.
>> And there would not be a mailing
to the affected properties?
>> It would be a mailing -- we're
talking mailing every person in the
city.
>> No.
If you're going to change the
roads and there's an impact on
right-of-ways for certain roads,
you're not talking about changing
the entire city, you're talking
about changing certain roads in a
plan.
It just seems reasonable to give
the impacted property owners at
least some opportunity for
feedback.
So that it doesn't occur to us
during planning.
>> I think with Hartley Field, I
think there's a number of things
going on.
One is it is a county road, and so
if you look at the county's
mobility plan, there's kind of
matches what the city matches.
So I don't know how the county
notified those residents in the
county of that -- of their plan.
I can find out -- I know Brian
will be here about the
notification process that we had
when they had the number of
meetings for this current mobility
plan update and what's planned
for that adoption.
>> So part of the reason that I'm
asking those questions there is
it seems -- and I'm glad
Commissioner Ellison brought this
up at this moment.
It seems like ultimately the --
nobody is in opposition to the
development.
They're in opposition to the
mobility plan.
But if the development goes in as
specified by the mobility plan,
then we're going to catch 22.
So it feels like we've gotten
development out in front of things
here.
So I'll reserve other comments for
after presentation.
Thank you.
>> All right.
I'll go ahead and share my screen
again.
>> Okay.
So the review criteria for a
general development plan is
outlined in subchapter 16 of the
2002 Denton development code.
And there are four criteria.
First is it conformed to the
infrastructure policies identified
in the Denton plan, Denton plan
2030 or comprehensive plan, and
any other city infrastructure
master plan and the city's current
and future parks and playground
facilities.
The second conforms to the
rules in its
extraterritorial jurisdiction
identified in the Denton plan,
Denton 2030 plan, and any other
city of Denton infrastructure
master plan.
Conforms to any rules adopted
under section 212.002 or is set
forth in the application criteria
manual.
Complies with all construction
standards and complies with all
applicable laws and subchapters.
We'll talk about these related to
those exhibits.
I'm going to take them out of
order so hopefully I won't be too
long.
Julie, can I interrupt you real fast?
Sure.
On the top of that slide you were
just on, it references
212.005.
It says must approve a plat that is
required to be prepared.
Is the GDP considered a plat?
Is this -- it's different than a
preliminary plat, but is the GDP
in terms of the local government
code considered a plat?
It is considered part of our
subdivision ordinance.
So as part of our subdivision
ordinance, this section
212.002 right here
gives the city of Denton
to establish the rules
for subdivision.
And so underneath our subdivision
rules, that GDP would
follow these requirements.
So there's not a dissimilarity
to the compulsion of
the commissioners as it pertains
to a GDP versus a PP
or an FP?
Correct.
Okay.
Thank you.
So the first
exhibit we're looking at is their
open space and screening plan.
So this relates to that
criteria number one.
Our findings are that it conforms
to all applicable requirements.
Additionally, that open space required by the
overlay conditions, you know, those
parks, the trails, the
screening along FM 428,
establish those opportunities for
recreation for residents in that
trail section for
future connections. So it does comply
with that criteria one.
Second, looking at
the paving plan that they provided.
It conforms to that criteria
two, the extension of the city's
infrastructure within the
municipality and in its ETJ
as identified by the comprehensive
plan and any other city of Denton
infrastructure master plans.
Those extensions as required by the
Denton plan 2030 and mobility plan
are
do conform
and it does comply with that requirement
as well as with the city construction standards
are showing those pavement sections as
required. I'll go a little
deeper into this on this next slide
related to mobility and water and waste
water. The mobility plan
does
identify FM 428 as an
arterial. As such, they're required to dedicate
110 feet of, or I'm sorry,
10 feet of right of way along
FM 428 for
the expansion of that road.
As well as 110 feet of right
of way for the future alignment of
Hartley Field Road, which is
in this general area. Now, there
was a change to the plan
that you saw on August 5th
from the one that you saw tonight
and that is the change of name from
Hartley Field to Big Sky.
I don't know if you can see
here, but there is a gap between
the subject site, the Agave Ranch,
and the future
connection to Hartley Field Road.
Right now, the city, neither
the city nor the county are contemplating
closing that gap
and extending that road and connecting
it. The applicant
talked with the city and they felt like
it was maybe confusing to
have the two Hartley Field Roads here.
They're proposing that Big Sky
name because we don't
know when that road would connect
in the future. To keep it
consistent with
what the existing roadway
pattern is now.
The second item is that wastewater
and that's they have to connect
to, they have to extend that 16
inch water line along FM
428 toward the north
as well as
the sanitary sewer
within a 20 foot public utility
easement that they will dedicate along
FM 428.
Richard
mentioned the Denton County plans.
This goes into that criteria
number five and that it complies with all
applicable laws and subchapters and that extends
to our ETJ.
And this is, this was the
county's 2017 plan and here
is their current plan. It shows
Hartley Field
west of the subject property,
I'm sorry, east of the subject property
as a minor two lane
road connecting to the future
Cooper Creek but along
the subject property it would be that
major four lane divided and so they're
dedicating that adequate right of way
for that.
And then the final thing that it conforms
to any rules adopted under that section
212, that's where the Texas
Local Government Code gives us the authority to
create that subdivision
ordinance and so it complies.
So staff recommends approval
of the request in accordance with the Texas
Local Government Code because it does comply with
all applicable DDC standards
for general development plans
and it does
comply with that
212.005 that
the municipal authority
for approving plats must approve a plat if
it is required to be prepared and
satisfies all applicable regulations.
That's all I have for the GDP.
I didn't know if you wanted to
me to just continue on with the preliminary
plat, it's shorter.
Yeah, Jill, let me just break real
fast in case there's some questions here
we can tackle real fast.
Is there any questions on the GDP or
we can certainly listen to the
plat and Commissioner Beck?
Chair, are we going to
discuss these items
I mean, you're obviously discussing them separately
but are we discussing them as a
totality during this workstation?
These two related items?
I don't think
that's implicit. I mean, we can separate
them or speak
any way
you want. I mean, if you have questions about the GDP
certainly you can ask now
or if a presentation on the plat would
provide clarity for better questioning, that's
probably fine. Well, I'll ask a GDP
question then. Thank you, Chair. Julie,
can we recommend
additional restrictions?
I don't believe that the 2002
code allowed for
conditions on GDPs
but I will check that and let you know.
I'm going to pull that up right now.
Okay, thank you.
That's my current question so I'll
pass back while she looks that up.
While she's looking that up, Commissioner Beck, can I ask
what restrictions would be
of interest?
In the feedback that we've received
the majority
of them are not opposed to development, they're not
opposed to future Carter Ranch development.
In fact,
many of the residents seem to propose
if the turn
around, the big sky turn
around where the current barn
is could be
locked in place and not punched
through that the residents
wouldn't oppose that. So if we could put that restriction
as proposed by the citizens
then that
would be something of interest
to me in trying to satisfy
citizen feedback.
You're saying not dedicate the right away?
Not so much
the right away as
put a restriction that
without future amendment
process there isn't
I guess that would be not
dedicate the right away. I'm not sure
of the exact mechanism that one
would preclude a road
going through there but if we could preclude
that circle connecting
up to Hartley Field
dogleg through a
GDP overlay restriction
that was a suggestion by citizen
and I think that's quite reasonable.
I can answer about the GDP
conditions. The 2002
code does not allow for conditional
approval.
Thank you for that clarification.
Any other questions on the GDP
presentation?
All right, let's go ahead and do
the preliminary plot.
This is, let me pull up the agenda
item to kind of announce it
but it's item four
oh man, there's no letters on
here. We'll call it E.
It's PP20-0015A.
All right, so I am
I'm presenting the
review criteria for preliminary plots and
this is in, this is
related to PP19-0023.
It's a Gavé Ranch preliminary plot.
There are six standards
for approval within it for preliminary
plots within the 2002 Denton Development
Code. First, does it conform to the general development
plan which we just talked
about. Second, does it
conforms to the Denton Plan 2030,
its land uses, its current and future streets,
alleys, parks, playgrounds, and public facilities.
Three, conforms
to the Denton Plan 2030 for its future land
uses, extensions of city roads,
streets, and public highways within
the municipality taking to
account access to an extension of
sewer and water mains
and the instrumentalities of public utilities.
Four, complies with all
applicable sections of the criteria manuals.
Five, complies with all applicable
laws and sublaws. And then six,
the proposed provision of and configuration
of roads, water, waste water,
and drainage facilities.
And easements and rights of way are adequate to serve
the subdivision and meet applicable standards
in a timely and efficient manner in
conformance with the standards of
subchapters 19 through 21,
section 35.16.20.G.
So this,
we've been over a lot of this with the general
development plan. It's
pretty consistent with that general development
plan, but I just want to talk about a few things
briefly. First, that criteria,
we're going to take these a bit out of
order, but that first criteria, does it conform
to the general development plan as proposed?
And it does.
Second, conforms to
the Dent Plan 2030, its land uses,
its current and future streets, alleys, parks,
playgrounds, and public utility facilities.
The plot conforms to
the zoning that was approved last
year, that R3
and R2, and it also
complies with the Dent Plan 2030.
And it complies
with, it conforms
to the Dent Plan 2030 for the future land
uses, extension of city roads, streets,
and public highways within the municipality.
It meets
the overall goals of that 2030
plan as discussed with that zoning
plan. So there are conditions
on the zoning which meet that
intent of that comprehensive plan. It
also complies with the mobility plan component
of the Dent Plan 2030, and
provides the extension of those public utilities.
It complies with
all applicable sections of the criteria manuals.
Those are those engineering criteria manuals,
and it does comply. And also
with all applicable laws and sub-laws,
and it does comply. And then the
proposed provision and configuration
of the roads, water, wastewater, and drainage
facilities and those easements.
They're
providing that internal
road capacity and connectivity.
They're also connecting to that water
and wastewater south of the subject property
as well as constructing
that sewer lift station for this general
area to connect. So
it does comply with that provision as well.
So based upon that,
staff recommends approval of
that preliminary plat because it does
comply with those standards in the
Debt and Development Code. And once
again, it does comply with that Texas
Local Government Code 212.005
that
the municipal
authority responsible for approving
plat must approve a plat that is required
to be prepared and satisfies all applicable
regulations. So that's all I
have for the preliminary plat.
- Chair Shirelles.
- Thank you, Chair.
Julie, so there's a note on there about
this being contingent upon the
an all ESA approval.
So if
there is, I mean, is there some
kind of criteria they're not meeting yet
or?
- Commissioner,
I apologize. If you have called in
on the line, if you could mute your phone,
we're hearing some sweet jazz
music just then. And I wanted to make sure
we understood Commissioner Ellis's question.
I apologize for interrupting Commissioner Ellis. Floor is yours.
- The music's my fault.
- Oh, great.
- Let me share my screen and I think
I can talk about that.
So there is a
section that may be
considered ESA. It is in
this area right here.
Right now they're not
proposing any impacts
to that. But because there is
ESA within the general
area of the property,
our water administration group felt like it was
the safest thing to do, to add that
note, just to make sure that
they were aware that if
any future impacts, any drainage impacts
in that ESA, if they were going to propose
that, they would have to seek approval
of an alternative ESA before they could move
forward with that.
- Commissioner Smith.
- I actually think Commissioner Anderson
raised his hand before I did, but
I'll be brief and quick.
Sorry, Ronnie.
Julie, will you go back to the first part
of your slide when you're talking about
what the local government code says we have
to abide by as a commission?
- Sure.
- Go back. Yep,
you got it. So the
underlined part, just to make sure you hear it clearly
and then I'll make a request to legal.
Most, so
the municipal authority responsible for approving plats must
approve a plat that is required to be prepared
and that satisfies all applicable regulations.
So basically the
way that Texas local government code
is worded is that if you go through
and we've gone through and checked off complies,
complies, complies, complies,
the Texas local government code says that
we are then compelled to
approve the plat because it meets
and satisfies all applicable regulations.
Is that correct, Julie,
in the way that it's written?
- I might defer to legal to
answer that, but that is
my understanding of the Texas local government code.
- And Cynthia, just to give you
a heads up, I think I can
use my crystal ball to predict what you're going to say.
And if I'm right,
then maybe what I'm going to say will make sense.
After we get done with the other items,
before we go into public session, I'd like to
have a closed session
if it's prudent for us to have that discussion there, Cynthia.
- Commissioner
Smith,
could you
repeat your question?
- Yeah, so that question,
that Texas local government code
212.005 says that
a municipal body whose
charge is to approve preliminary
plats, that if the preliminary plat
meets all regulations and complies,
that they are compelled essentially then
to approve that preliminary plat.
In my reading, I understand that Texas
local government code correctly, and then understanding
Julie's presentation correctly, and that
right now, as this
preliminary plat stands, it complies
in all areas.
- That's what Ms. White is saying
in her staff report, that it complies with
all the requirements in the
DDC. - Okay.
So if for some reason we did not
do that, then we could have
a legal issue. And if your answer is going to be
we need to go into closed session to discuss that,
I would request to do that after all the other items
have been discussed.
- That's correct.
- Okay. All right.
So you're saying that it's correct that it would
be, it would
be not good for us to do that?
Or you want me to go into closed session and talk about that?
- If your question
is, is there a legal issue
with you? - Not approving
the plat, even though it meets all the requirements
of the DDC.
- Yes, that's a legal issue.
Yes.
If the commission
wants to go into closed session,
to discuss that
specific
question, that's something that we can do.
- Okay. I'll ask for us to do closed
session after we get through the other items before we go
into public session, Chair.
- Okay. Commissioner Anderson.
- Thanks.
- Can you share your screen one more time with
the pages that Commissioner Smith was
talking about?
- Sure.
- Because if I'm reading this correctly,
number one is to conform to
the general development plan.
And I'm looking at their plat, the preliminary
plat, and it doesn't, to
me, I don't see the same. I don't see it matching
because it has Big Sky Ranch.
There's no roundabout on their preliminary plat.
Their plan shows
a roundabout. So that's a conflict,
correct?
- Well, the preliminary plat wouldn't show those proposed
improvements. It would just show the right of way
that would be dedicated
to accommodate
those improvements.
- Okay. But weren't the developers asked numerous
times by city council
and PNZ before I was on
it to not
connect this road through?
And my understanding is
they didn't take that recommendation.
They're doing it on their own anyways.
So now we're kind of caught
because they are following their
the rules, but even though
they're not going by what was asked
of them to get this approved.
- The
with the development that we
they have to comply with the
mobility plan as
as adopted as a
component of the comprehensive plan.
But
I mean, if you're
showing me a preliminary plat and this is the
plat of the area and there's no roundabout
to me, it doesn't match the general
development plan because that's the other plan
is what they, I mean
again, I'm relatively
new at all this stuff that we're talking about right here.
But
back to what Commissioner Smith said
earlier, I mean, Commissioner Beck said earlier
is
all the neighbors, they're not against the whole
thing. You know, they're not against the development.
They're against this street tapping
into their street and making it a major
road, which and I'm
looking at the plan and I don't see if the preliminary
plat doesn't have a roundabout and
the through fair and
now we're saying, you know, now they're saying
they want to have it even though they were told by
like city council
and the
previous
you know, PNZ commissioners
to not do that, but they went ahead and did
it on their own.
Their plan
does conform with the
mobility plan as
adopted. So
it was a requirement to comply
with that mobility plan.
And then the roundabout,
I see what you're saying about the roundabout,
it's shown on the general development plan, but not on
the preliminary plat. That general
development plan
shows what those eventual
improvements would be. So it does show what
that pavement section would be.
The preliminary plat isn't
intended to show those improvements.
It would just show that right of way that would
be needed to be dedicated
to accommodate those improvements.
So it wouldn't necessarily show
those roads as
they're going to be eventually designed. It's just
going to show that right of way dedication.
So you can kind of make up a preliminary plat of
how you want it just to get it through
and then you can change it up later.
I'm just asking for future
reference. Well, the preliminary
plat does show that that right
of way dedication is being dedicated
to accommodate that
future roundabout.
So it wouldn't,
they are consistent in that
right of way section.
That width that's being dedicated.
Those future improvements
wouldn't be shown on that
preliminary plat.
We don't show sidewalks or
driveways on a preliminary plat. We just kind of show
where the lots are going to go, where that right of
way dedication is and where those easements would
be.
Does that make sense? Did I?
Yeah, thank you.
Chair, if I can just add some
clarification. Please.
When the City Council approved
that rezoning, there were overlay
conditions.
The prohibition about
a road connecting through was not
included in those
conditions of approval.
Part of that, part of the discussion
with this road,
kind of this future
extension, which may or may not happen.
But there was a
specific study I think Julie had hinted
to and can probably pull it up.
But as a result of the
growth that we had on the other side
of 428,
this development and some of the
others, there was a specific transportation
study that City Council commissioned.
One for this
section of the city,
and then there was one at the south end
of the city as it related to
Ryan Road and the development around Hickory
Creek. And so we had those two going on
simultaneously. And that's what
kind of prompted a re-examination
of these
east-west, north-south connections.
I also
timed with what TxDOT is
looking to do with 428.
There, you know, again, that is
a plan to be a six-lane,
a six-lane road. And so
that is, TxDOT's
plans are, so think of the loop.
That's what you will see at
428 in,
I don't know, in the near future
or the late future. But that
is the state's plan for that
road.
Chris, you're back. Thank you, Richard.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm not sure if this is a Julie question
or Richard question or a Brian question.
My understanding
from the discussion last time was
that the mobility plan
and the general layout
was
not specific to a given piece
of property for a road-throughway.
That it was, that
there was a plus or minus
1,250 feet or 1,000 feet or something
like that in order
to accommodate development
as it
proceeds in the future.
And so if there's
wiggle room
in the mobility plan, so that's
sort of the first part of this question. If there's wiggle room
in the development plan
as to the precise location,
then by the developer
specifying what they're
seeding as the
right-of-way, they're essentially
locking it in, even though
the mobility plan itself is not
in. Is that correct
that there's wiggle room in the exact
location?
Well, let me share my
screen and I can kind of show you what the mobility
plan.
And I believe Brian,
our traffic engineer,
is on the line if we want to
tap him in to answer. Maybe he can assist with
some of these.
Well, I will just, I just wanted to
pull up the current mobility plan. So you can
actually see that the Hartley Field
Road is intended to,
the mobility plan does show it a little south
of where it's actually proposing. It's
actually proposing to go
more north than what the
mobility plan is showing.
So that, if that's
the operating map, but then
the developers had the wiggle room to
put the roundabout
in there and seed that
particular location because it met their purposes,
which is, I mean, that's fine.
They get to design their interior property
as best it suits them.
But if they have the wiggle room to do that,
because the
mobility plan is not locked
in and we,
we've accepted now their
right-of-way seeding as
confirming because we have wiggle room
in the mobility plan, it feels
like if we have wiggle room in the mobility
plan and
we feel like this is going to
create a
a
safety and financial hardship
on those folks
whose will be
punched through there, then this isn't
just an innocent
"I have to match the mobility plan"
kind of argument.
This is their
precise GDP
is locking that
right-of-way into that
location and it feels like that
we've been, we're sort of being told that
we're locked in, we can't do anything, but
we clearly have wiggle room.
You just showed pictures of wiggle room.
And maybe, maybe
Brian can chime in, but I think that, that
wiggle room, it gets,
as we, as we looked at with Sagebrook,
once there is a development, that envelope
starts shrinking more and more.
And you start looking at that, those future
alignments. And so that, that's
kind of where we are today with how this,
how this aligned. And, and,
and again, the, I want to make sure everyone
on the roundabout is, is temporary.
That's
just a temporary solution.
This may connect in the future, it
may not. It may be
another road and not Hartley
Field again. That segment,
the city segment is a very
narrow before it makes the
two jogs. That's the only section that
the city maintains. Once it makes
that first break to the north
and then back east, all of that is maintained
from, by, by Denton County.
And so what we're really looking at
is, is a subdivision
that, that is
zoned, that is going to be on
a six lane highway.
And we want to make sure that there's
enough mobility through those
areas, both north, south, and east,
west, for them to move in.
And I don't know if Brian wants to provide any additional.
But real quick before Brian jumps in, and
because he'll have some of these answers, but
the developer of their self was
willing to,
based on two weeks ago conversation,
connect at Starlight, and
instead connected here for
reasons of mobility plan,
even though the mobility plan is more to the south.
So we've had south, central, and north
suggestions all by the developer.
This feels like a, the reverse
of a perfect storm where,
you know, we're getting the worst
result possible kind of thing,
instead of the best result possible.
And anyway, I'll, yes, I'd
like to hear Brian's discussion about the Wiggle Room.
Okay, can you
hear me? This is Brian Jahn, city traffic
engineer. Yes.
Okay, excellent.
So regarding the
Wiggle Room, and this is my
experience with,
and having dealt with
several, this is my fourth city,
so several cities
worth of mobility
plans or master therapy plans,
or whatever you want to call them,
we identify
the type of
facility, and it needs to go
from A to B.
And we leave some of the engineering
to the developer,
as far as which
exact alignment, because
as you can see from the
2015 mobility plan, these are not engineered
alignments. They are aligned
on a map. And so
the Wiggle Room primarily
relies with the developer,
as far as
they can move it a little bit north, they can move
it a little bit south, but
if they
provide the connectivity that we're
requesting,
I'm not
aware of
any
provision that allows staff to say, no,
you have to move it north, you have to move it south.
That would be
city council,
it would be an amendment to the thoroughfare plan
if you want to move it significantly
out of this area. So we've got
a certain amount of range
of what we call Wiggle Room,
but that primarily lies in the hands
of the developer who's
developing the property
and developing that site plan.
So
the Wiggle Room doesn't
rely on staff, it relies on the developer.
I'm sorry, go ahead, Brian.
No, that's it.
I guess
my point was that you're almost making the case
for the citizens, or them,
if this is the developer's plan
and it would
equally satisfy the mobility
plan to be on the south at the
original place, here in the center,
would satisfy, and at the north
at Starlight would satisfy.
If all of those would satisfy the mobility
plan, then
the onus, therefore,
is
back on the developer to put that
on a place that overall meets the
needs of the citizens,
and all of
those locations would satisfy the mobility
plan. So
whether it was at the south, the center, or
on Starlight, that would
continue to satisfy the mobility plan.
Correct.
I guess my clarification
would be that
and Richard
or Scott or whoever
needs to jump in, jump in, but
the determination of where
that road goes
is
if, I mean,
it's in the court of the developer.
If they're accommodating
our connectivity requirements
based on the mobility plan,
2015, 2020,
in this case, we're
looking at 2015, because that's
what's enforceable right now.
If what they
are proposing
satisfies that accommodation,
I'm
not aware of a provision, again,
help me if I'm wrong, but if I'm not
aware of a provision that says
that
an adjacent or
nearby property owner
can compel
a relocation or a third
of the property amendment or however that
needs to happen.
Part of this is
we leave it up to the developer to
determine what is best for them
and
that, you know, that satisfies
our requirements as far as the
mobility plan is concerned.
So, again, I go back to the
while there is wiggle room, that wiggle room
is really, it's given to the
person that owns the property.
So,
we can
go ahead. I was just going to appreciate
the insight. I wanted to kind of
come back to if Brian
as Commissioner Beck has any other questions
just being cognizant of time.
Yeah, real brief, and this is
a lookup thing because I don't have it in front of
me. Could someone
remind
me of the chapter in subsection that
talks about both
traffic safety hazards and as
well as the
financial burden section for development?
If someone could just remind me of those sections.
It doesn't have to be
now. I can take my answer
separately
out of BAM.
Thank you, Commissioner Beck.
So,
any other questions
on the preliminary plan?
I'm sure we'll have
good conversation in the public hearing as well, but
I want to provide an opportunity to ask
Julie questions about the
preliminary plot here.
Okay. Seeing none, we
still have one more plot to
go over before we get to the public hearing
item. It's PP20-15A.
And the item here is
for Ron Maguida.
Can you all hear me?
Yes.
Great. I can have Julie
go to the next slide.
There we go. I'm here.
Great. Thanks, Julie. Ron Maguida,
principal planner with Development Services.
This is a preliminary plot
for a property of approximately
22 acres.
The proposed development, as you see here,
is for a 64
residential, single-family residential
lot with seven HOA
buildings. The
preliminary plot is
staffs recommending a denial
of the request
for the reason that they
have not complied with
the approval criteria,
specifically section 622C2C,
which is a correction to
the AIS
as well as section 22F
of the Denson Development Code.
These two sections
refer to
the reverse
setback to an
existing gas well.
The reason for the
denial, again, is only
one comment in relationship
to these sections, and that is
the submittal
of a final
plugged well
report, which the applicant
has not yet submitted
to the city.
The submittal would be submitted by now,
but it has not. Therefore,
the staff is recommending
denial of this preliminary plot.
- Thank you, Ron.
Are they seeking an extension
for this or...
- No, they're not.
We did speak
or I did talk to
or receive an email from the applicant.
They
are not requesting an extension.
The
question for the
Applying Zone Commission is
to deny, if it is denied,
the applicant is able to
resubmit after
and when they do,
we will then
have to bring it back to PNZ
within 15 days.
- Thank you.
Any questions for Ron
in the presentation on this preliminary plot?
Okay, great.
So the next item is our
last item. It's public hearing
item 5A, PDA
19-0004C.
And this is
Julie Wyatt's item.
- All right. So let me share
my screen. I'll try to go
quickly.
This is a public hearing item
PDA 19004,
the Preserve at Pecan Creek.
The request before you is for
concept plan amendment and detailed plan approval
for PD 132, that is
the Preserve at Pecan Creek.
The intent is to develop 21 single family homes
and two open space lots.
It's a 7.2 acre property.
It's outlined there in yellow.
It's on the southwest corner of Edwards
Road and Lakeview Boulevard.
I think this may be the last
time y'all get to see this slide.
This is one of those legacy
PDs, and due to project
submittal timing, it goes
under the
91
process for PD amendment.
And it is
that is a two-step process.
I'm sure y'all have this memorized,
but it is a two-step process.
General concept plan kind of establishes that PD,
the general uses, development standards.
And then the detailed plan
gives those
where the buildings will be located
or the lot lines or the
streets. It gives those more detail.
Detailed plan expires, the general
concept plan stays in place.
So this PD was established
in 1988
and then it was added to
in 1989, so it includes 414
acres. About
300 acres are dedicated
to single family. A third
of that is 10,000 square foot
lots and then the remainder
was 7,000 square foot lots.
10 acres of town homes they were
proposing on the north side
in kind of that orangey area.
It originally proposed 16 acres of
multi-family in this general
area in this area.
Six acres of neighborhood
service here in the pink.
12 acres of general retail at
the intersection of what was then
going to be Colorado Boulevard
and Lakeview Boulevard, but now it is
Edwards. 18 acres of
parks, three acres of community facilities
and then a school site.
That was revised in
1988 to refine that
mix of land uses. It also
reduced the general area,
general retail area to 6.24
acres and added two
acres of community facilities
in this area.
Those remained undeveloped.
The PD
was contemplated from the beginning
to have a central spine, this
Lakeview Boulevard. The original
concept was to have it be
an arterial.
Back in 1988,
this part of Denton was not developed.
It was pretty rural and there was
not a north-south spine
that connected I-35 to
380 in this area.
The intent with the development
of the preserve was to
create that north-south
arterial.
Six lane divided and it was
going to, a lot
of the original PD
wrestled with the
phasing of
Lakeview Boulevard. With each
section of the preserve,
it was going to build
another section of Lakeview
Boulevard, eventually connecting to 380.
You can see there were signals
proposed for McKinney and Black
and Mills. It was going to be a
primary corridor.
In 2004, we
modified our mobility plan
and that was approved
to downgrade
Lakeview Boulevard to be a
collector street for the preserve
at Pecan Creek. You can see in
the green, it was going to dead end.
It was no longer going to connect all the way to 380.
Instead, they determined
that Post Oak was a better location
for that arterial.
Post Oak
will eventually
connect, but it's
a line on the map right now.
Now we'll get a little more
specific about what they're proposing.
Like I said, they're proposing 21
single-family dwellings. The minimum
lot size as they're proposing
is 6,600 square feet, but I've got
to ask for advice on that because
that really is just to address
one lot. There is one
smaller lot on the side.
It's got common areas
to accommodate drainage and also
a perimeter wall, so it's a little smaller
than the rest of the lots.
The typical lot size in the development
is 7,200 square feet. It's
consistent with the platted lots
surrounding it. They're proposing
three dwelling units per acre, which is also
consistent with the surrounding area.
Two open space lots, 1.7
acres, and then that neighborhood street
connection to Lakeview Boulevard.
They also provided
a landscape and hardscape plan
with their plan
or with their amendment, and
that includes
street trees
along the perimeter
streets.
The existing perimeter streets, they're proposing
22 street trees.
They are proposing some
tree preservation in the open space areas,
so they want to make sure they don't conflict
with that. And then
street trees that planted at one every 30
feet along the proposed neighborhood
street, they're proposing
a
basinry, a perimeter wall
along Lakeview
and the open space, which
is consistent with what is out there today.
You can see there's a photograph here
that's consistent with what's on
Lakeview. And then
a mixed materials from the fence
on
Edwards, which includes that board on
board.
Julie, can I interrupt you real fast
and just remind individuals who might have called in
or logged on to their audio to please mute
their microphones? We're getting some background
noise again. Thanks. Back to you, Julie.
All right. So, and those
those perimeter walls would be and those
street trees would be in HOA lots.
As part of our
recommendation, we are
adding that an additional lot tree
and minimum landscaping, which is really just consistent
with the current regulations.
So, the criteria for approval
are in the 91 ordinance. There's one criteria
for the concept plan and then four for the
detail plan. I won't read all these to you.
They're in your backup, but we will discuss them as we
talk through the project. So, first
the concept plan amendment.
The proposal must be
proposed amendment must be in harmony with the plan
for the entire district. So, as
as you may know, PD-132
is a residential development.
It's kind of one of our suburban residential developments.
It's developed
with single family dwellings
at densities ranging from 1.8
lots per acre to 4.9
lots per acre, averaging about 3.4
lots per acre. The proposal
is consistent with that at three
dwelling units per acre.
The original zoning plan had
this lot as general retail, and it really
had some permitted uses
that were what we see
on some of our
larger arterials, things like gas
stations or
auto sales and repair,
restaurants,
retail. Those are typically
uses we see in more of our auto-oriented
and our materials.
The community
area that's southern two acres
permitted, things like hospitals,
art galleries, churches,
schools, nursing homes.
Once again, more intense uses.
And this really does speak to
what the intent of Lakeview Boulevard
was at the time when this PD was
adopted. In '98,
or in '88 and then in '98,
Lakeview Boulevard once again really was intended
to be a primary north-south
spine within the city of Denton.
With that modification to
that mobility plan in 2004,
it really changed the nature of
Lakeview Boulevard to
that it is an internal street just
to serve that subdivision.
Those mobility
changes and that change to that road
really does
kind of indicate that those permitted uses
that are for the site
now would be disruptive, not
only to traffic generation, but also
that development intensity,
the difficulty in buffering
and screening. If you look at
the development pattern along Edwards,
you have houses that
are facing the subject property. So if this
did develop with something like a gas
station use or a more intense retail,
things like signs,
screening, that
buffering and screening that we like to see
between these two uses
to increase that compatibility really just
wouldn't be possible.
The proposal really is in harmony
with those adjacent uses, those lot
sizes and densities, and that additional
space
and that additional open space.
So now we get to the
detail plan. That was for
that to change that general retail,
those commercial uses to just that single
family residential use.
Now we're looking at the details of that
site. So first, does it comply with the
concept plan?
If that concept plan
amendment is approved, then the detail
plan would be consistent with that.
We also look at the compatible
properties,
the adjoining properties outside the plan.
So the criteria for approval really looks
at what are the properties outside of the
plan and how does this change affect it.
But we also look at how it affects
inside the plan because we want to look at
those adjacencies as well. So
the proposed use and density, you
can see I kind of overlaid the proposal
with that adjacent
plat showing those
similar lot sizes.
That density and those lot
sizes are really consistent with
the adjoining properties.
It's a compatible use.
It's the same use as those adjacent
properties. So we don't feel like there's issues
with compatibility. And then the site
is centrally located within the
plan development. So we don't anticipate
that a change in the
permitted uses would have
a detrimental impact to those
adjoining properties.
Adequate safe circulation
of vehicular traffic. Once again, we want
an external onsite.
The development would have to meet
the current standards with
for transportation and that includes
that 55 feet of right of way
dedication for those neighborhood
streets. The proposal would generate
about 210
trips per day.
And I found the staff report from the
1998 plan that was approved
and it did have that trip generation.
And so they were anticipating
3,500 trips
to be generated
by this site as developed with general
retail. But once again, you've got to
think about it the way they were looking at the mobility
and that Lakeview Boulevard
that that would have been that
major arterial.
So this would be a net reduction in
trips from that 1998 plan.
And then we want to just look at
what that roadways
surrounding it. So
Lakeview and Edwards are collector roadways
within the city of Denton and those
can accommodate about 5,500
trips per day for engineering.
We don't have accurate
counts for right now because the pandemic
really is sort of
it's difficult to get accurate
counts based upon how people are moving
around right now. So
I was provided with
some counts that the
Denton Police Department did in 2017.
They did a speed study along
Lakeview Boulevard.
And it averaged
2,300 trips per day on Lakeview.
And then Edwards Road,
we found a trip generation from
Cog, about 1,100 trips
per day. So they do, you know, there
is capacity within those roadways.
Substantial compliance
with the landscape sign subdivision and other
regulations of the city.
This is, you know, this was
originally developed under the 1998
landscape codes. We looked at
the project related to
that code. And they really just had
to do that.
And so they did a speed study
along that roadway.
And they did a speed study
along that roadway. And so they did a speed study
along that roadway. They did a speed study
along that roadway. And so they did a speed study