Sep 02, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-09-02 5:00 PM

Welcome to the planning and zoning work commission session for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2020, seeing that we have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order and move into the agenda items for this evening. The first item is just consideration of the agenda. There's no, I can see any work session reports this evening. So that brings us to just our minutes from August 19th. Is there any adjustments that need to be made on the minutes? Great, easy enough. Next item of business is moving into the consent agenda. For clarification on the agenda, item 3CPP20-0018, that item is being moved to the individual consideration. They're asking for an extension anyways, but it needs to be moved to IC. So the consent agenda for this evening will be items 3A, 3B, and 3D. Any questions or need for presentation on those, Christian or Bec? So I have two questions on one on 3A and one on 3D. Let's see, 3A is, I forget, is it Karina? Yeah, let's go ahead and is Karina Maldonado available to present and get these answers? There she is. Is she there? It's all confusing with this stuff. It's been a while since I've had to present in person. So I might be able to short circuit a little bit unless the chair or others would like to see the full presentation. I don't want to step on staff, but I think I could answer with a couple of quick questions if that's okay with chair. Yeah, go for the questions and then we go from there. Okay. So Karina, can you tell me two things? One, the distance from the across the street wellhead to the nearest parcels and remind me of which DDC we're operating under? So for the second question, this is going under the 2002 DDC. It was submitted before the transition into the new code came over and the preliminary plot was approved under the 2002 code. So the final plot is also going under the 2002 DDC. So the subjects are not the new 500s. They're the old 250 slash 300. Yes. The preliminary plaque came in before the setbacks changed to 500 feet. So it's under the previous 250 feet. Okay. And that circled line on your map is the 300 foot that arcs across the northeast quadrant? Yes. Okay. So on the 2002 DDC, is it the lots or the structure that has to be in compliance? It would be the lots. So those one, two, three, four lots don't have to be in compliance at the top? This is a little difficult to see. I can pull up the more zoomed in version. I don't know what happened. I'm sorry, I'm not the best at this. No, it's cool. We're all just doing the best we can. If possible, could I, I'm going to bring Haley up here to address the Gaswell setbacks. She is the guru after all. Yes, she is the guru. Thank you, Karita, I appreciate it. All right. I think I can address your question. So you're speaking to these lots that are up here that have the circular line encroaching into them, correct? Yes, ma'am. Yes. So this is a 300 foot measurement that is from the wellhead to the structure. It's from the fire code. So for these, for this line, it is measured to the building. So they wouldn't be able to have the actual dwelling units encroached past this line. This bold line that just comes up here and hugs the property line of the, the, all of these lots is the 250 foot setback line. So those, all of the lots are meeting the setback requirement. This circle is a fire code separation requirement. So okay, so two questions about that. And I suspected those would be the answers. So why, why is the 250 setback flattened following the, the plat line rather than continuing to be curved? Yes, sir. It is measured from the edge of the pad site. So that is actually a rectangular pad site. So they measured out 250 in all directions from the department. That's clear. And then that would mean the fences don't count as structures? No, sir, the, the setbacks are only for protected uses. So a fence wouldn't fit within that definition. It would just be the dwelling units. And so no, that also wouldn't cover sheds or any other subsidiary structures that would go in their backyards? No, sir. Okay. Our old code sucks. Thank you. I appreciate it. I think that's all my questions, chair. Great. Any other questions for item three, a while we have it pulled up, uh, seeing none, we'll go to three B and of Julie, why it's around, I think commissioner Beck might have a question for you. Sure. It was, it was a three D. I don't have a question on B. You're saying three D as in David dog. Okay. Gotcha. Sorry about that. Sorry, any, is there any questions for three B is in Bravo? Okay. Seeing none three C is moving to our IC agenda category and we'll go to now three D and Haley, it's her item. So Haley, as I recall, again, thank you chair Haley, as I recall, um, the issues that we that had previously stopped this upward were drainage issues along the Western boundary of the property. Is that correct? The improper paperwork for some of those are incomplete paperwork. So can you refresh my memory? What changed between what we saw last time that staff was recommending denial and this time where staff is recommending approval? Yes, sir. Just one second. I apologize. There was some difficulty with the plat presentation, not wanting to open here, so all right. So yes, the last time this plat was before you, there were some finalizations that needed to be made with regards to the drainage easements on the property as well as the tree survey being finalized and just some of those those final concluding items that we usually get to at the end of a plat. So they have everything for the site completely finalized now. Their civil engineering plans have been approved so that these drainage easement boundaries can be can be firmed up. We know for sure that is where the drainage will in fact go. That's where the floodplain boundaries are. So everything has gone through full civil review and the plat is now ready for approval and the tree preservation plan has also been finalized. Okay and okay, no I think that's the extent of my questions. Thank you, Haley. Great. Any other questions for Haley? Okay, seeing none, we'll go to our items for individual considerations starting with item 4A, ADP 20-10 and this is Karina's item. I invite her up for presentation. So today we're bringing a alternative development plan ADP 20-0010 for Teasley Office Park. So just a bit of history on this project. This was previously approved last summer under ADP 18-0006. The site plan that was brought before y'all last time was for seven buildings. That included the uses of professional office and medical office just about evenly split between both. Associated with those uses was about 122 parking spaces and the deviations related to that request related to the building frontage, building setbacks and front parking. Essentially they were moving the mixed used zoning district requires the buildings to be up closer to have that pedestrian feel and so they were deviating to move those buildings back. So I won't spend too much time on the previously approved ADP. This is an additional request on top of what was previously approved. So the request before you today is to consider approval of an amendment to the existing ADP for an additional deviation to section 35-1310 for access parking and circulation requirements. The site is located on 3.42 acres just south of the intersection of Teasley and Teasley. And again, the uses have remained the same. This was in the NRMU district, which is now MN. So here's the revised plan. So essentially what they're trying to do is reduce the number of buildings down from seven to three. And then part of that is the developer wanted to adjust the mixes of the uses proposed. So they are reducing the professional office use and increasing the medical office use up to the maximum allowed within the NRMU district. So part of this obviously with a reduction in buildings is a reduction in lot coverage from 73% to 71% and an increase in landscape area by about 2%. So associated with the change in uses or not the change, but the mix of uses, there's now an increased use for parking. So 143 paved parking spaces are now proposed. So the deviation that they're requesting in addition to what was approved was or is from section 35, 1310 B1D, which requires permeable paving for any spaces above the minimum. And they're proposing 10 additional spaces above what is required in our 2002 DDC. So with this, the future land use is designated for neighborhood mixed use. This use is in line with this requirement. It is predominantly for residential uses, but it does allow commercial uses that are basically compatible with those as long as these proposed buildings are appropriate in scale and complement the area or complementary to the surrounding neighborhood. So very, very briefly, the criteria for approval in section 35, 135A includes whether the proposed amendment is preserving the existing neighborhood. And so the proposed office park use is similar to what is directly adjacent from the site on Teasley Lane. The proposed office is similar in that those offices provide between 200 and 300 parking spaces per building. This proposed deviation is really providing less. And that is at approximately one space per 200 on average for this site. In addition, the reduction in the number of buildings has also increased the separation between the residential use to the north and to the south. So the east or the westernmost building is now approximately 70 feet from the northern residential use and just under 60 feet from the residential use to the south. And I'll just briefly go over the rest of the criteria. This deviation is not really deviating in terms of the staff analysis from what was previously approved. So it does still continue to meet the criteria for approval, ensuring a quality development. It does meet all the other requirements of the Denton Development Code. Of course, with the exception of the previously approved deviations, second or third being focused the new development to activity centers to curb strip development. Again, this is consistent with the future land use map. Commercial development is consistent with the neighborhood. Go ahead and continue. Next ensuring that the infrastructure is capable of accommodating the development, again going back. It hasn't changed significantly from what was previously approved. Teasley Lane is a TxDOT road and it does require a TxDOT permit. So if there's any changes needed to the site based on what TxDOT approves, they will have to come back again to amend the ADP, but this is unlikely for this case. And then last that this proposed amendment results in a high quality development. And so the request is to deviate from permeable paving, which essentially is intended to reduce the water quality volume on the site that would otherwise drain to our drainage facilities. So this would allow it to permeate down through the site and kind of take that excess water that would be resulted from those paved parking spaces. Due to the reduction in the lot coverage and increase in landscaping, this essentially balances out the request. So we don't believe that this would cause a negative impact on the development. And just very briefly, the maximum lot coverage for this zoning district is 80% and the minimum landscape area for the NRMU district is 20%. They're proposing 29% landscaping. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the request as it meets the established requirements for an ADP in the 2002 DDC. With that, I'll take any questions. Any questions for Karina? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Karina, so as I understand, because of the increased non-developed surface area of about 2%, the argument is that makes up for the 10 parking spots in terms of allowing groundwater penetration? Well, it's twofold. So there is a reduction overall in the total impervious area on the site. So if we go back to the 2002 code, we actually look at lot coverage being buildings and impervious area versus just building coverage. So they're reducing the overall amount of impervious area. And then on top of that also increasing the landscape area. So square footage of the amount of parking that they're requiring does balance out in that sense. And are we allowed to have mixed pervious and impervious parking? Yes, they are allowed to propose that. It's required in the code, which is what the deviation that they're requesting, is that if they propose more spaces than what the minimum required is, that's where the pervious pavement is required. They could have a mixed parking lot of partially impervious and partly permeable parking, and that would meet our current code without the exception, is that correct? That would be something that we would allow them to do. If they propose that? If they propose that, yes. Okay. And can you refresh my memory on the, are we, is this changing the access to the adjacent homes driveway? The maps are very unclear to me. I'm sorry, could you repeat the question I was trying to take down? There's a home to the south. Their access is not, there's a structure to the south, the access to that structure is not impeded by this development in any fashion? No, that's part of the initial ADP request is that there's a court ordered access easement that goes through their site and connects down to the property to the south. So as part of the initial deviation request, they were in, well, they have to keep that access there and not interrupt that odors access to the site. So yes, it's not being impeded by this development. Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you. Any other questions for Karina on this item? Great. Thank you very much, Karina. So items 4B, 4C, 4D, and then the consent item 3C moving over to IC are all staff recommending denials with the applicant requesting a date for extensions. Historically, we've just honored that request for extension and not had a presentation on these items. I want to throw it out to anyone. Is anyone wanting a presentation on these four items or is it copacetic to wait until September 16th to hear the presentations? By way of hands, we'll go ahead and move on past IC. Chris or Beck? Yeah. Can I make a quick comment? And I don't know how many developers are listening and maybe the development staff can encourage this, but it seemed like this particular packet was full of sloppy applications that the staff were having to deny for incompleteness. And I don't think that behooves the developers or staff's time in any reasonable way to not have their paperwork complete, especially with the extensions we've been giving due to COVID and city council decisions. It's kind of frustrating to have these things come before us incomplete and imprecise when that's really a developer issue. So I'm kind of publicly chiding the developers on this one. Thank you, chair. Sure. Okay. With that, we will move on to item 5A, which is Z20-0007. This is presented by Haley Zygurski. All right, my apologies. Just one second. All right, good evening. So this is case Z20-7 for Primaris Corporate Offices. And the request before you this evening is a rezoning for approximately 55 acres. The property is comprised of portions of three tracts of land, which you can see outlined in yellow on the map. These areas are currently zoned rural residential, and the request is to rezone these to general office with overlay conditions. The applicant has requested these conditions to address two primary purposes, first being the phased development of a corporate office campus onto this property by combining their current offices from around DFW, and the second being the decommissioning of an existing nonconforming asphalt batch plant that is on site. So before we get into the request, I just wanted to go over these conditions that the applicant has requested very briefly. As you can see, the majority of these are related to the phasing in of that office campus. So rather than going through everything, zoning, platting, and the standard entitlement process, and then constructing the office, they are needing to meet some time schedules associated with phasing out their other offices around DFW. So they were proposing to bring in four modular buildings that they could operate out of during the entitlement, platting, and construction process while they get those, the full buildings up and going. With that, they are also proposing to decommission and cease operations at the current, at the batch plant that's on site and decommission all of that equipment. They're proposing to use the existing water well and septic tank that are on site for those temporary office buildings. They're proposing as condition for that those modular buildings meet all of the building code provisions and obtain CEOs through the standard permitting process before they begin use, and that with that, they also provide adequate parking for those offices on a dust-free permeable surface such as crushed granite. The fifth condition would be is specific to the expiration of that certificate of occupancy for those modular buildings once either 24 months has expired or they have begun vertical construction or sorry, obtained the certificate of occupancy for the permanent building. They do propose a 12-month extension be allowable if they've begun vertical construction on that building but have not yet completed it at the end of that 24-month period. And then the sixth condition is that that asphalt batch plant equipment can be stored on site until they have the building permit for their permanent buildings but it not be operable during that time, and that would allow that batch plant operator time to find somewhere else to relocate the equipment. So getting into the request for the rezoning now, you can see the current zoning map with the site designated as rural residential and then what that would look like once it is transitioned to general office if this case is approved. So you can see there's other general office zoning in this area. This would just be a continuation of that existing pattern. With a rezoning, as you're familiar with now, we do have our general criteria for approval. Those are all outlined in your backup so I won't go through them in great detail tonight. We will touch on some of these though as we look through the zoning specific criteria for approval. So the first of these that I want to touch on is the comprehensive plan. So there's two elements that we'll look at for this request. The first is our standard future land use map. You can see here the area in purple is what's called our business innovation designation. So this is that area that we intend for the development of those well planned kind of large scale office and employment parks. It encourages research and development and similar type uses as well as supporting commercial uses. So general office is consistent with that designation. It provides for a pretty broad mixture of uses including office campuses, trade schools, some low impact manufacturing type uses, as well as those supporting commercial uses that are encouraged within business innovation. The second piece of the Denton Plan 2030 that affects this area is the focus areas that were designated in the plan. So the Denton Plan 2030 called for certain areas to be designated as focus area centers, corridors, gateways, travel centers, and branding stations. So that's the map that you see here on the screen. The subject property is up here in the area that I've circled in red. You can see that little blue circle calling this out as a gateway focus area. Since this is on the northern edge of the city, it's kind of the first point that people would hit within the city of Denton as they're driving south on 35. The comp plan does call for small area plans for these areas. There's not one adopted for this focus area yet. But general office is suitable for this type of focus area. As it currently stands, rural residential wouldn't support the type of uses that we would expect to see in this area. And general office would provide for that mixture of kind of corporate office campus type uses as well as supporting commercial that would be suitable along the highway. It also by them requesting GO as opposed to light industrial or some other district that might support their use. This does allow us to apply the DDC's commercial design standards along this corridor, which is something that we would desire to do in one of our gateways. Additionally, with the conditions the applicants requested, the decommissioning of that non-conformity that's currently there, that asphalt batch plant, would increase the aesthetics of this area which is desirable for one of our gateway areas. One of the other conditions for approval is consistency with the purpose statement for the zoning district. So as you can see here, GO was intended to provide those locations that support a variety of workplaces and complementary uses. It goes on to talk about the encouragement of flexible office space as well as research and development and corporate business campuses. So this is a place where they're desiring to do just that by relocating and consolidating the Primoris corporate offices to this area. But just in general, GO is consistent with the purpose statement by putting in this area because it continues that existing zoning pattern which consolidates those larger tracts of lands that would be necessary for these types of uses. One of the other criteria is whether there's a significant change to warrant the zoning request. There hasn't been a significant change per se, but there is a bit of history to this site that's worth looking at. So if you'll notice, the first about 350 feet of these properties is already zoned GO. This area was part of a strip annexation back in 1969. So these areas have been part of the city limits for much longer than the back portion of the property that we're looking at this evening. The area of the subject property was annexed into the city in 2015. It had been under non-annexation agreements prior to that, but in 2015 they let those expire and annexed into the city. And they were given the standard placeholder designation from our 2002 code of RD5X. So they never had that initial zoning established until the site was transitioned to rural residential with the adoption of the 2019 code. So this zoning change to GO is warranted to give them a consistent zoning across the site and to be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals for this area along I-35. Hey, Haley, is that an actual split zoning on the Platts? I don't know where those Platts lines are. Is the west side that's looking to be rezoned the same Plat as the east side? Is there actually a line of demarcation between ownership Platts? No, there's not. You can see the three kind of east-west or the two east-west lines here designate the three different parcels. So I don't believe any of these are actually platted lots to date, but this is all one parcel up here that has split zoning currently. And then each of these pieces are separate parcels as well with separate ownership that do have all split zoning currently. Okay. Great. Thanks for clarifying that. You're welcome. And then the next criteria is rather this would minimize adverse impacts to surrounding property. So as you can see from the map, GO is consistent with the zoning that's in this area, both north and south of the property as well as we just spoke about the eastern frontage of these lots all has GO zoning today. The uses permitted in GO were typical of what we would find along an interstate. They're consistent with what's in this area, which is kind of to the south of them developing as a travel center at this point in time. So a corporate office campus would be fairly compatible with the travel center type uses. In addition, this again would facilitate the decommissioning of this batch plant. So that would eliminate what could be seen as a kind of noxious neighbor that they currently have in place here for some of these rural uses surrounding that are still in the ETJ. So this would create a more conforming and less nuisance potential on the property with this rezoning. And then finally, the criteria call for whether there are public facilities and services available to the property. So looking at transportation first, you can see these parcels all have frontage on I-35. So access is more than adequate to these sites. The I-35 corridor will be expanded in the future. Currently, TxDOT has this portion, I believe from Highway 77 north to Cook County is currently designated as about 10 years out on TxDOT's plans. So it'll be a fairly distant future, but this will be improved in the coming years. In the meantime, the trips that we would expect to see from a campus of about 50,000 square feet like they're currently anticipating would not be that significant of an increase, 487 total daily trips, 73 a.m. peak and 71 p.m. peak. So currently, this doesn't trigger the need for a traffic impact analysis, but we will look at that more closely when they come in with their site plan in the future once we see what the exact square footage and layout of the site would be. Utilities are available to serve the site. You can see here with the development of the Blue Beacon truck wash, they have stubbed out water and sewer to the southernmost end of this property so they could extend those north to serve their campus. And finally, the standard notifications were published regarding this request. Signs were posted on the property as well. We've received two responses in favor there from the owners of the southern two parcels, which you can see in green on the map. And with that, staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning to general office as it does comply with the DDC. And we have no objections to the conditions that have been requested by the applicants. And I'll just put those up again so you can look at them. If you have any questions, I'm happy to go through those. >> Any questions for Hayley? Commissioner Ellis. >> Yeah, Hayley, mine's with just condition five where it says substantially underway for vertical construction. Is it just if they've started vertical construction and do we need to reword that or was the intent for a certain percentage to be done? I'm trying to understand where we were going with that verbiage. >> Certainly. So I think our intent was more just rather they've started vertical construction on the project. So we could certainly look at rewording that or striking that language if that would be more clear. >> Yeah. Well, because to me that just is out there for an opinion then of what substantially underway means. And if the intent is just so long as they've started vertical construction, it probably needs to be looked at in my opinion. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's my recollection, Richard. What was that? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Our intent was just for vertical construction to have begun. So we can reword that. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Thank you, Chair. Hayley, can you put those applicant conditions back up there for a quick second? On point five, just a clarification on the point itself, the use of modular office buildings will expire 24 months after a certificate of occupancy is obtained. That's a CO for the modular office buildings, correct? >> That would be for the -- in condition five that is referencing the CO for the permanent office building. So 24 months of modular in which time they can work towards obtaining that CO for the permanent building. >> Okay. Gotcha. So if the permanent occupancy -- the permanent office building, if a CO comes out for that in 18 months, they have to stop using the modular building at that point in time, correct? >> Yeah. Whichever point occurs first. The bigger point that I want to get across, do they have to take down those modular office buildings? There's no language about taking those down, removing them. Now they don't have a CO to be able to operate inside of them, but if they're just sitting out there, there is no stipulation that once the certificate of occupancy is no longer available for the modular building that they're being taken down or removed. >> That is certainly a fair point, and we could look at adding that if that's something that the commission wanted to do. >> Yeah. I'd appreciate it. I'm sorry that I'm not -- yes, yes, if Coastal Code Enforcement would say they don't have a CO, so you can't store stuff in there, you can't put anybody in there, you know, if the CO expires. But, I mean, we've seen -- we've seen cases before where people come in front of us and they haven't had a CO on a building in 10 years, and they're operating a -- flipping an auto mechanic shop out of a storage facility. So -- and they're kind of out of the way. I don't think a lot of people are going to see them, and no one's going to bat an eye if someone's working in and out of a modular office building. So I'd like to say that same criteria 24 months after the CO is retained or when a CO is retained for the permanent office building, I'd like there to be language in there that says -- and then the modular buildings have to be removed. >> Okay. >> So that would be -- that would be better. >> All right. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Thank you, Chair. So I concur with Commissioner Smith. That was bothering me as well. I didn't want to have empty modulars. So one of the citizen comments that we got was that they were concerned that our financial impact statement was generally about tax revenue and not about the overall financial impact statement. So can you address that, Haley? >> I don't recall a fiscal impact statement being submitted for this project. So the -- one of the criteria was that there was not -- there -- something that you -- >> The general criteria of adverse impact? >> Yes. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you for clarifying. >> Yes. So we did not require a fiscal impact statement be submitted for this project. In general, though, our expectation was that this would not have an adverse impact on the city. So it would meet that criteria. One thing, it could be expected to generate revenue during the construction and operation of this -- a new corporate office within the city was our expectation. >> So I guess the comment from citizen was that tax revenue alone is not sort of a full financial impact. It's a component of it. So the citizen was concerned that we -- by just considering that one element, we were not sort of evaluating whether having a corporate campus there of anything, regardless of the domain of the industry, would have -- would be to the benefit of Denton other than generally having a business there would generate tax revenue. And so I guess there was concern from the citizens that we make sure that the financial impact is addressed. I mean, I guess relative to a asphalt plant that's currently there, I think we're going to have a benefit personally, but I do concur with the citizen that we don't simply look at tax revenue alone even on these cursory runs. And yeah, I think that's extended my question. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Chris or Alice? >> Thank you, Chair. Just real quick, Kaylee, what does this corporation do? Just curiosity. Do you know? >> I am not overly familiar with their operations, but I believe they are kind of a construction based company that would have equipment for lease and dispatch. But the applicant will be on the phone this evening with us and can certainly address that. >> Thank you. >> So, Kaylee, I have a couple questions that kind of dovetail off some other commissioner's points and the citizen's comment. First, and this may be to go to the applicant, they're consolidating North Texas operations. Do you know how many employees they intend to have at this location? >> Let me see if I have that information handy. I don't recall off the top of my head. I believe they referenced a handful of other campuses that would be consolidated. Let's see, I don't see it in the narrative that they submitted, but that's I'm sure something they could address during the public hearing. >> Okay. Great. I can certainly ask them. In terms of what the citizen commented on and what Commissioner Beck was alluding to, what would be the general associated cost to a city on this project? The cost of subbing out water is the applicant requirement, correct? >> Correct. Yeah. They would bring utilities to their site. >> And they are -- their public access is going directly to a text dot road. It's not going to be directly impacting Ditton City streets, correct? >> Correct. >> What other large significant general costs would go into a financial impact study? Because I understand revenue is obviously one side. It's not necessarily a measurement of profit, but maybe I'm ignorant in the actual cost to developing an asphalt property into a corporate office in our business kind of innovation area. Could you enlighten me on what costs I might be missing of substance? >> Significant cost to the city, nothing is coming to mind like you referenced. They would be providing their own utilities to the site. Access would be to a text dot roadway. They will also be paying impact fees for water, sewer, and roadway impacts. So Richard, I'm going to look to you because nothing is coming to mind that would be a significant cost. >> I mean, generally the rule of thumb is commercial industrial office typically subsidizes the residential. That's why you want to have that certain mix, that balance. What I will indicate or let everyone know, we do have an RFP out now for a fiscal impact analysis. And so we'll be building a model or the consultant will be building a model that will be able to kind of give those -- that cost benefit analysis, if you will. Part of the challenge is, and if I'm thinking of the individual, there's always a question about water and sewer lines and cost. That is kind of a whole separate analysis that's built into the rate structure for those utilities. So part of your water and sewer bill, there's always a capital reserve cost that's associated with that for those replacements. So there's a multitude of factors to look at, but generally speaking, there's not a large impact like you would have on residential. They're not really -- unless they're moving to the city, obviously, but they're not big users of the parks. There's not a lot of service calls for police, fire, EMT, and they're not heavy -- if it's an office, it's not a heavy utility user other than restrooms. >> Great. Thank you for that context. I'm most interested in having their employees move to Denton if they're not. So I'm for that. Any other questions for Haley on this? Okay. Great. So -- oh, yes, Christian or Beck? >> So not about this, but maybe a potential technical issue is citizens have called me that happen to know my personal contact information, and they've said that they're having difficulty contacting the city on the call-in line that no one's answering. So if IT staff, tech staff could check on that, the citizens would appreciate it. >> Yeah, Christian or Beck, I just got word that was a glitch. They have fixed it, and calls are coming in right now. >> Awesome. Thank you, Chair. >> Okay. Next item of business is item 5B, bravo, AESA 20-0004A, and this is Christy Upton's item. How do I project this, how do I project it? Sorry, I'm not quite used to this. Christy Upton with Environmental Services, and tonight I will be presenting an alternative AESA plan for a renovation at Ryan High School. And Denton ISD is requesting an alternative AESA plan for a renovation of Ryan High School. Ryan High School is generally located on the northeast corner of East McKinney Street in Mayhill Road, and in recent renovations, they are reworking a parking lot at the entrance of the high school, and they're adding a bus parking to the back side, or the northern side of the property. In this request, they are looking to remove riparian buffer vegetation to improve the parking lot drainage. A little bit more detail on the riparian buffer that they are requesting to remove. This is a unnamed tributary to Pecan Creek, and it was confirmed to be a riparian buffer with the vegetation that supports the water quality and stream conditions, and it was found to be in fair condition. There is also some little remnants of some cross timbers upland habitat that is located on the far western side of the property. This cross timbers is not part of this application and request. The proposed improvements to the parking lot were necessary in order to improve drainage to the parking lot. The engineer representing the Dutton ISD identified that there was some drainage problems, and in order to rectify those drainage problems, they are requesting to extend the drainage from the parking lot, extend the storm drain from the current location into the riparian buffer, and then to also install a concrete flume through the rest of the riparian buffer to create a positive flow of the drainage of the parking lot. This will remove approximately 0.01 acre feet of water quality protection volume, which was calculated using the ISOM manual's standards in estimating how much water quality volume is being treated when runoff runs through this riparian buffer. In order to offset and mitigate for this removal, the applicant is proposing to install 0.91 acre feet of water quality treatment in addition to what is already being designed to meet the minimum standards of the storm water, from the storm water drainage criteria manual, the City of Denton storm water criteria manual. So in other words, they are designing this drainage detention to meet the minimum standards and increasing the detention basin in order to treat an additional 0.91 acre feet. In addition to that, they will be increasing runoff infiltration, which means that it would be allowing for more water to soak into the ground before it leaves this dry detention basin when a rain event occurs. And lastly, they are proposing to re-vegetate the bottom of this dry detention basin and the slopes of it with native grass vegetation. Notifications were sent out for this public hearing and there were no responses. There were a couple of citizen inquiries from property owners generally located on the southwestern side of the Ryan High School property and these citizens have in the past or historically received drainage from the high school and have had some concerns with drainage. These improvements to the drainage that are currently in the works and are being proposed as part of this project would improve and alleviate future flooding problems for those residents. Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions, that the land disturbances be limited to that riparian buffer, that the detention basin be designed and constructed to meet the minimum standards as set forth and adding that additional 0.9 acre feet and the property owner and ISD will maintain the detention basin following a maintenance plan that was provided in an alternative ESA plan and that the vegetation that is being proposed will follow the three-year period that environmental services has set a standard for getting or establishing and approving of that establishment of that vegetation. Thank you very much, Christy. Thank you, Chair. Christy, in reading through the ESA plan from the engineers, in general, it looks pretty good. One of the things, though, I noticed was, and actually had some citizens reach out to me and indicate the same thing, that sort of a really strong positive is there's native grass species being proposed and a bigger bioswale for permeability and water retention, but then the maintenance over the three years proposed was mowing, which won't really sustain these kinds of grasses, it'll promote sort of short, scrubby Bermuda grass and not the native species that actually dent and ISD would pay more for the native species grasses. So I wondered if the city, and I guess I can ask this of the engineer later tonight, would both be interested in sort of saving money by not mowing down the more expensive grass that they're proposing and letting these things grow to seed every year in maintaining a more natural ecosystem? I mean, I would hate to spend good money on native species grasses and then mow it down and screw them up and not have them survive three years and then have to have the district come back in three years and spend even more money in order to maintain this bioswale. So is that something that the city and the district might entertain as an exception to code enforcement without going to seed? That's a good question. The mowing schedule is something that actually even native grasses can benefit from. You do want to let the grasses go to seed before you mow, but if you're mowing, it helps reduce weeds encroaching into those native grasses, but also by waiting until it goes to seed, then you're promoting next year's growth. I definitely agree with that. I believe that the mowing schedule is quarterly, but I'll have to look to make sure. So to respond to that a little bit, I cheated and when I saw that you were looking at Native American seed and I went to the vendor's recommendations for maintenance and they were saying mow heights greater than six inches and letting it go to seed every cycle, that was the recommendation from the vendor that is going to be supplying the grass. So if we could somehow get together with these two municipal districts and not throw more money at the problem than we are already trying to do, we're trying to be good and cheap, but if we could not waste money by mowing down what we're trying to grow, I think that would be really to the benefit of Denton. Definitely. I can get with the applicant and we can work towards a more refined mowing schedule, yes. So is that something, I'm not sure who to ask this question of on staff or legal. Is that something I should propose as an amendment or leave that up to staff best practices? I don't know how to reinforce that concept. Can someone advise me? Commissioner Beck, can I ask for clarification? For you, you said that the vendor issuing the grass said that you should mow it and staff is saying that we should mow it. I feel like we're aligned here. Is this a height thing that you wanted to find? Height and frequency. So you want to mow it higher than you typically mow. You don't typically mow grass at six inches. It's pretty high for just a standard greenway mow and you don't typically let it get to three, four feet when it goes to seed because people complain, but if you're going to use native grasses, that's what they do and it's a better bioswale with more water penetration and a better use of our city money and the ISD's money. It's just generally better and a better use of money if we let it do these things. Maybe basically I guess we're looking at one mow or two mows a year at six inches rather than a regular quarterly crop to the ground mowing cycle. And so I don't want us to waste our money doing something when we're trying to be good. I definitely understand the concern. I just wonder if it's under the purview of PNZ to kind of dictate someone's responsibility of how high to mow grass that seems really granular for this body. But Richard, do you have any thoughts on, I mean, does it, I didn't see anywhere explicitly say that they're going to quarterly mow it at normal height. Again, I would defer to Christy, but I would, or Cynthia has something to add, but I would defer to whatever the recommendation is from the vendor for that type of seed. Again, if we get into a period where there's a lot of rain, they may not cut it for some time or if in a period of drought. So I think it just varies. I believe that this mowing schedule and the maintenance schedule actually is pulled from the ISO manual. So what you're referring to is definitely something that I think that we can refine. Unless anybody here has any objections or input on this, I think what I could do is I could work with the applicant to just update the all ESA plan to give it a little bit more refined direction on the mowing schedule. That's okay with me. I don't know that I need to make a motion for an amendment. I just want to make sure that all the stakeholders are trying to do what they're proposing to do and not come along and do their standard mowing that is going to end up making us revisit this in three years for code enforcement because it's all crapped out. So yeah, if you'll work with the vendors, I guess that's, or the owners, that would be okay with me. I guess I don't need to have an amendment. Great. Thank you Commissioner Beck for that insight. Any other questions for Kristy? Okay. Thank you, Kristy. There's no other questions. We'll move on to item 5C. It's an AESA 20-002A. Staff has requested this be postponed, just like our IC items, typically with postponement from staff, we would open public hearing and postpone it and hear the full presentation on September 16th. Is there any opposition to this plan? Okay. Seeing none, we go to 5D, 5D is Z19-0012A. This item is Julie Wyatt's. Julie, this item is being requested to be postponed by the applicant. And so perhaps we can find an abbreviated overview of this to give some context to a potential vote for postponement. Would that be agreeable? Sure. Yeah, absolutely. Let me pull up. I can just give a brief overview of what they're proposing. I think that would be helpful. I don't want to circumvent anybody's thoughts on a vote as requested by the applicant. We haven't gotten any citizen feedback on this item and we potentially hear it again on September 16th. We also have received some letters. I wasn't able to get them all scanned in today, but we can certainly get them scanned in for you for the 16th. Or if you wanted to act on it tonight, we could definitely get those pulled up and over to you. Share screen. Oh, show all windows. We've got so many windows open. There we go. Why open that Julie? Richard, would it be, is your estimation to go ahead to the full presentation? It does look like we have some citizen feedback and I don't want to, I certainly want to hear them. We might not have the presentation, we might not have context to hear their thoughts. I think it's something that we can run through pretty quickly so you at least see, because I think this has come before you one other time. Great. I trust Julie to make that happen. Okay. I'm going to try. All right. Here we go. As Richard alluded to, you have seen a request for this property last year, last November 20th actually, and this is that same request coming back to you with minor modifications. So the applicant, it's Z19-0012A Mockingbird Single Family Residential. The subject property is located south of Audre and just east of Mockingbird. It's about 2.61 acres. It currently has a zoning designation of R-2 and the applicant is requesting R-4 district. According to the applicant, they are proposing nine single family dwellings. Current zoning map here showing that R-4 or the R-2 and they are proposing that R-4. The criteria for approval for zoning cases is in sub-chapter two of the Denton Development Code, we have the general and then the specific to zoning cases. So first of all, consistency with the Denton Plan 2030. This is area is designated as low density residential as are the adjacent properties. That's intended for single family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre. Under the 2002 code, that was really easy to apply because we had maximum densities in our embedded within our zoning districts. The 2019 code, it's a little trickier, the R-4 does not precisely conform to that maximum density when you just talk about that overall not taking into account any streets. So but it does meet the intent of the overall goals. It is our R-4 is a single family, primarily single family residential district and it also does meet the in-fill goals of the Denton Plan 2030. One of the other criteria for approval minimizes adverse impacts to the surrounding property. R-4 is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods. So you can see to the west of the subject property to the east and to the south, it is consistently R-4 district and this would just be a logical extension of that existing zoning pattern. The typical lot sizes, we've done kind of a density study for the surrounding neighborhoods that R-4 is consistent with those lot sizes, which range from 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet. We also look at the transportation. It's not, you know, it's a limited number of homes. The ITE Trip Generation Manual kind of estimates about 10 trips per single family dwelling unit. This would generate about 90 trips per day, which would not trigger a TIA. And then there would be roadway impact fees associated with the development. Public water and wastewater services are available to the site. Also TAP and impact fees would apply. You know, this, as I said, this is an in-fill site, so you're not having those extensions of water and wastewater and that's why in-fill is really important. And then the subject property is about a mile from Milan Park. Notification was sent out. I don't have all of those notices that we did receive today. We have received quite a few in opposition, so I did want to point that out. I don't have all of those tallies for you, but we can certainly get them for you for the regular session if you would like. And staff does recommend approval of the request. It does comply with the requirements of the DIT and development code. The applicant originally requested an overlay condition to just permit the permitted uses to single family detached only. They've been working with the adjacent property owners to kind of figure out what overlay conditions or what would give them comfort for this project. I heard from the applicant a couple of days ago that they wanted to -- the adjacent property owners felt like that proposed overlay maybe wasn't strict enough, and they wanted to add in that townhomes and duplexes would not be permitted. So they just wanted to kind of workshop that overlay condition that they're requesting with those adjacent property owners a little longer to try to make them feel comfortable with their project, and that was the reason for the request for the postponement. So that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. >> Any questions for Hailey? And just for clarification, I might have misspoke or spoke too early. There's not any callers for this item, as of right now, so right now we don't have anyone calling. Commissioner Beck. >> Chair, Julie, I'm teasing the chair. One of the concerns previously was that the access through the flag handle section of the property was close to the intersection, and they were concerned about the access. Was there feedback on the local citizens, and did we resolve any of those access issues that were brought before us last time? >> I don't have that information for each night, but I can certainly bring that back for you on the 15th, and the applicant will be available at that time to kind of talk through how they've worked with those adjacent property owners. The property does sort of have those fixed boundaries with that panhandle, so I don't know how that would be addressed, but it'll certainly be something that we can look into between now and the next P&Z meeting. That would be useful to me in my decision process, thank you. >> You bet. >> Any other questions for Julie on this? Great. Thank you so much, Julie. >> You bet. >> That moves us to our final item on this work session agenda, which is 5EP20-0003. This is also Julie's item, and I'll turn it over to her. >> All right. Let's find this presentation. Almost there. I'm going to try a different way. That didn't work. Ah, found it. Sorry about that. Okay. Here we go. This request before you is PD-20003, it is for a charter school. So the request before you is for a plan development amendment for PD-139 to develop the site outlined there in yellow, actually a portion of that site with a charter school. It's considered an institutional use in that PD. It's an overall 37.3-acre property. We're only developing a portion of that, and it is located at the southeast corner of Vintage Boulevard and I-35W Vintage Boulevard ramp intersection right here. All right. This is one of those strange PDs where it's an older PD, but as we're going forward with these older PDs, we're now applying the 2019 processes and criteria for approval for those PDs, but we're still following those regulations set forth in these legacy PDs. So it does make it a little confusing as we go through it, but I'm sure we'll have several of these as these legacy PDs continue to develop. So it's going to follow the 2019 processes, but the regulations in place, the development of regulations in place at the time of that PD. So as such, this is a major amendment and it requires that dual public hearing recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and then approval from City Council. So a little background on PD 139. It was established in 1991 as a 450-acre business village, so it's much greater than the subject property. I've got it outlined here in yellow and you can kind of see it. It's kind of small. It allowed a variety of uses, hospitality uses, institutional uses, of which the educational facilities are one, manufacturing and distribution, office, residential multifamily, retail services, accessory, and then two open space areas. There was an open space area on the north side and you can kind of see how that tracks with the aerial. You can see the trees and then there was the branch of the Rorick branch. So those were the two open spaces. In 1999, that plan was revised to include a mix of land uses, phasing, and infrastructure. That concept plan expired. It had a very strict phasing schedule associated with it and as part of that, if it didn't develop according to that phasing, then it would expire. So that's why it's coming back to you tonight as well as because of this proposed use. There were two conditions on that ordinance that I just wanted to bring forward. They were related to roadway improvements that no development other than single family detached and one convenience store would be permitted until either the interchange at I35 and what was once called Ponder Road and is now vintage was reconstructed as a standard diamond configuration or Ponder Road was extended to Highway 377 as a four lane roadway. Those improvements are actually under construction now if you've driven a vintage boulevard recently. So that condition is being met. Further development of this PD has been limited. I know there's a single family neighborhood associated with it. But 213 acres have actually been zoned out of that PD, so there's not much of it left. The current proposal is, as I said, for a charter school development. It would be K through 12 and would include a total of 81,000 square feet of ground floor area. That's the area in purple. It would have a lower school, which I believe goes up to the eighth grade and then the upper school being high school. The applicant will be on the phone tonight, so he could probably give more information about that functioning of it. It's going to be one and two stories, the upper school being one story and then the lower school being two stories. Approximately 1,052 students could be accommodated. It also includes an athletic field, an agricultural teaching garden, and playground. They're proposing two access points through a loop drive. There's an access point that is easier to sort of discern. It's along Vintage Road. And then there is another proposed access point on the future John Payne Road. So John Payne Road is on our mobility plan and intended to connect Crawford Road to the south all the way to Vintage Boulevard. So this is the country lakes west in the Carnegie Ridge neighborhoods you might be familiar with near Crawford Road. And this is sort of that upper portion and at some point those two things will connect. So that will be another collector within our city. And here is that loop drive with students being dropped off in this cul-de-sac. So this follows the 1988 landscape ordinance. And you might be familiar with this because we have looked at it, I believe, one other time recently. That requirement was for that street yard. If you recall the Stonehill Center, that is that area between the front of the building and the street. And that street yard has to have 20% landscaping, which would come to 36,652 square feet in this instance. And then one tree every 2,500 square feet of total street yard. That would be 74 trees. They're proposing 91,000 square feet of landscaping and 109 large canopy and ornamental trees in this area. It also required parking lot landscaping within the street yard, a 5% of area, which would come to about 3,800 square feet. They're proposing 10,800 square feet. And then parking lot screening at the right of way. That is that they are proposing the hedge row along vintage as well as John Payne. We also looked at the site in terms of current standards. We wanted to kind of weave in some current standards where we could. As part of that, they did provide the one landscape island every 10 spaces. So even though that old code didn't require landscaping in the parking lot behind that street yard, they are proposing that both in this location and this location as well as those landscape medians. Those are more in conformance with the 2019 development code. The criteria for approval are in subchapter two, the general, as well as the specific. We'll touch on those as we go through the project. So first of all, does it comply with the goals of the comprehensive plan? So the future land use designation of the subject site is low density residential. So although this is not a residential use, as you're probably familiar, low density residential is really one of our kind of our suburban development pattern, the one to four dwelling units per acre. This isn't a residential use, but it's a supportive use for residential areas. As you're probably familiar, educational facilities are often embedded within, or are embedded within a variety of zoning districts, you know, and so, and they're needed throughout the city to support our residential areas. So therefore the future land use map is instructive for the potential expansion of schools because it does indicate areas where future residential growth suggests a greater need for schools, you know, think about it for this area. So low density residential is in this location, and then we've got moderate density here. These are the areas we need schools, probably need fewer schools in the industrial commerce area, because that's going to be more employment uses. So just kind of think of it in that in those terms. We also did also did want to look at those other goals and policies within the Denton develop or within the Denton plan 2030, and we've got two things that relate to education. One economic vitality, 23% of the jobs located in Denton are in education services. So just additional schools do kind of support that that economic vitality goal and criteria within the Denton plan 2030. And then mobility, we want to mix uses and homes within different uses within homes, and homes within walking distance, we want to make sure that we've got those supportive uses near each other. And although we know the proposal would attract students beyond the city's borders, a location like near residential subdivision and along an arterial could provide for a variety of transportation options to the school, maybe not only for students, but for employees. So so those mix of uses near each other, meet those mobility goals. Compliance with that with the DDC and original PD, it conforms with the PD amendment process and also the development standards as established by that original PD provides a greater level of building design quality community amenities, amenities and connectivity. They are proposing a plaza area that's kind of in in excess of what their PD requires and what what the Denton Development Code will require. So as as you enter the site from john pain, they've got these plaza areas between those schools to add a gathering area for students. It will also have landscaping and trees for that area. There's also pedestrian connections throughout the site and connecting to those rights of way. In terms of the building, they haven't fully designed the buildings yet. These are concepts to what they typically like to build. So as a recommendation, staff recommends a condition that the proposal meet the site design standards in the Denton Development Code, just so we have some some understanding of what those buildings are going to look like to make sure they have the appropriate architectural articulation, the the orientation to the street and those those standards that we we are used to seeing within the city of Denton. In the case of non residential uses that such development will be appropriate in the area location and overall planning for the purpose intended. So this is kind of this is an interesting part of town. It's this is situated in southwest Denton. So the subject site is right here, and we're kind of looking at the big picture surrounding it. So as you're probably familiar, this we've seen a few projects come forward in this area recently. You've seen the Sagebrook development in this location. I believe Sean had a zoning case in this location recently, and then the Hunter Ranch project. So we know development is really imminent in this side of town. It's coming and it's a lot of residential development. Additional future development in the area is is two parks. The city of Denton owns these two park locations, and at some point in the future, those will also be developed. So this proposal as that corresponding educational facility, adding to those mix of uses to support the the future residential growing population. Schools are often found within neighborhoods or on the edges of neighborhoods. So this proposal is consistent with that typical development pattern that we often see in residential areas. Two things specific to the site I wanted to highlight. If you recall in the site plan, that site is oriented away from I-35. That's something that we worked with the applicant on. We really wanted it to kind of face inward toward those growing residential areas, kind of minimize the visual impacts of I-35 and kind of more integrated into the community. And then also the intensity is limited. They've got large open areas for those for that recreation and those athletic facilities, and then the 33 foot maximum building heights. The provision of public facilities such as schools, fire protection, law enforcement, water, wastewater, streets, public services and parks that are adequate to serve the anticipated population within the PD district. So we're really just looking about this one site and I want to focus on the streets and the traffic. So we they submitted a TIA to the city of Denton and it's under review. As part of that, they have a traffic management plan for how cars are going to move on site. So they did a study for how parents will drop off and pick up because if you've ever lived near an elementary school or dropped off a kid at elementary school, you know that's quite a logistical operation. So with that looped drive aisle, they have a queuing capacity for 119 vehicles on site. So they have appropriate queuing capacity for those that drop off and pick up time. That traffic management plan anticipates greater vehicle queuing in the afternoon, but they do anticipate some delays for those exiting vehicles in morning drop off onto Vintage Boulevard. So they have recommended some on-site operational interventions. These aren't related to the physical structure. The physical structure is kind of that queuing capacity, but I did just want to mention these because they were a part of the TIA. They are proposing a staggered dismissal and I believe that that is something that this school does and the applicant will be here to discuss that. They're also proposing staff assistance to assure safe unloading and to discourage parents from parking in the queue lanes, and then temporary traffic control devices just to guide motorists during those peak times. We also looked at the surrounding streets. Vintage Boulevard is a primary arterial within the city, and as I said, it is under construction right now. As with a lot of our projects, we don't have good traffic counts right now because of the disruption to transportation. So we did get a Denton Police study on Vintage from 2017 and they studied the traffic for a week and their results that the street averaged a total of 5,900 vehicles per day. According to the applicant's TIA under review, this use would generate about 2,500 trips per day. That's 809 a.m. peak and then 520 p.m. peak. But remember, this roadway is being expanded, and so it will have capacity for 2,400 trips per day, which would accommodate the proposal. And then as I also mentioned, they are dedicating a right-of-way for that future John Payne connection, and they will also have to construct three lanes of traffic for that to access that eastern access point. All right, and just wanted to take one more look at traffic in the area. So also as part of their TIA, they looked at the 2022 conditions. They looked at it with the proposal and then if the proposal wasn't there. So generally all of the intersections in the area are anticipated to operate at an A or B level of service, except for this intersection outlined in yellow, and that is the 377 vintage intersection. They do anticipate by 2022 that that will probably operate at a level F when you're eastbound on vintage turning onto 377, and that can be a tough intersection. And that would be either with or without the proposal. So they do anticipate that further interventions at that intersection will be needed in the future, maybe something like a channelized left turn lane to help smooth that traffic flow, or also maybe when 377 gets expanded in this area to maybe a signal at that intersection. But that would be something in the future. In terms of what is happening in this area now, Vintage Boulevard will have channelized turn lanes into the subject property. They would have a left turn. So cars traveling westbound on vintage would be able to get out of the travel lanes to wait to turn left. And then those traveling eastbound on vintage would be able to get out of those travel lanes to turn right. So this intersection at I-35W and vintage is, at some point in the future, will be improved. TxDOT has begun working on that. Here is a general schematic of what that intersection will look like. I believe it's under design now. I don't know when it's going to be constructed, but it will be constructed in the future. So based upon that TIA and the current conditions, there is adequate capacity to accommodate the use. So public outreach was sent out. We haven't received any responses. I received one phone call who just had a question about it. So we answered the question, but they didn't provide any further written feedback. The applicant did hold a virtual neighborhood meeting and there were no attendees. So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request as it's consistent with subchapter 2 with two proposed conditions. One is one you typically see that landscaping and attached plans reflect an intent to comply with the PD requirements. However, minor alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings and final individual plant selections would be able to be approved by staff, provided that final landscaping complies with the attached landscape plan in terms of the number of large canopy trees to be planted, 91, the minimum number of shrubs, and then also the minimum number of medium canopy or ornamental trees. And then also the other condition that all buildings would comply with the site design standards in subchapter 7 of the Denton Development Code. The next section is just kind of laying out just in text form what they're proposing, the two classroom buildings, the maximum height, and then the 357 parking spaces with that 10,000 square foot plaza areas with that landscaping. This is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the September 15th City Council. And I will be happy to answer any questions. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. So Julie, can you put up slide 15? You bet. My question is going to be the clove relief. I just wanted to make sure that for future development, we're not going to be anywhere close to construction while there's a school, because they're going to finish that school before they get that clove relief put in, right? I would imagine so. I suspect that this is -- that this is a ways out. There is -- maybe I could go back, maybe to help illustrate that, I'm going to go back to the site plan, if I can get to it. There we go. So there is actually a remainder lot. I know the request was for the entire 37 acres, but there's actually a 16-acre remainder lot that will at some point develop either as part of the PD, and at that time, a major amendment would have to come back to you, and you would have to see that development. Or if they decided to zone it out of the PD, once again, you would see that request come before you. So there is going to be a gap between the proposed school and that highway, if that kind of makes it a little clearer. That's much more clear. Thank you. You bet. And my second question was, this is the upper two-thirds of the lot before Hunter Cole. So the bottom third before Hunter Cole is not included in this property, right? So can you -- do you have an overview -- I'm not sure -- that maybe it's the -- something with Hunter Cole on it. Does that help? The Green Region, the floodplain region in there, that -- Hunter Cole is below that Green Region, right? I believe so. Okay. So I guess my question, just so we don't have to go down too many rabbit holes, is, is there any work from these owners, developers, on integration with a school and adjacent to this floodplain? I know they had the garden adjacent to it, and I -- it would be -- it seems like it would be a useful thing. Well, I'm just proselytizing here. Let me ask my last question. And that is, do we -- are you familiar enough with Denton ISD standards such that -- I know that in many municipalities, if a charter school dies, if it's financially unviable, the local school districts often absorb it and make it an element of their district. So do we know if the proposed plan is suitable for Denton ISD, if for some reason they were forced to absorb this school location? Does it match? I don't know the answer to that. I did provide the proposal to Denton ISD to get their feedback. I'm sure with all of the preparations they had to do with the pandemic that -- I haven't heard back from them as to their feelings about the project. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson? Thank you, Chair. Quick question. 2449 on the west side of that is going to be the future loop 288. The vintage road, is that -- on the east side of 35W, is that going to be the future expansion of 288 that feeds in towards Denton, towards 377? If so, is that going to be the school -- is the setback going to be okay? Because I mean, what I've seen in Denton before is we build and then we deal with infrastructure later and then we have to buy property and all this stuff. I'd like to look in the future and say, hey, if that's where the school is going to be, make sure -- if that's where the loop is going to be, make sure the school sets back for another -- we don't have to do anything like that in the future. They have been working with the engineering on appropriate right-of-way dedication to make sure that engineering gets that right-of-way for the roadway. And the -- if I can -- I'm going to pull up the site plan, see. The school is -- as far as the buildings, you know, if there were some -- at some point any additional right-of-way dedication, the school has been set back fairly far. If you look -- and I failed to point this out. There's a pretty large electric easement that runs, that clips this corner, which really requires all of this -- all of the improvements related to this to be -- to scooch back pretty far away from that street. So this sort of set that -- that's that standard. So it has been set back pretty far from that roadway. >> So Vintage is going to be how many lanes? Is it going to be four lanes divided, is that what it was? >> Yes, sir. >> So if it becomes part of the loop eventually, will it still be four lanes or will it be six lanes, do we know? >> I don't have -- >> Because it looks like if we -- if they move the lanes further a little to the south, they're going to lose a lot of that parking. >> I know engineering is going to hopefully be on the call, so we may be able to get some information from them regarding that at the regular meeting. >> Okay. No problem. Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions for Julie? Okay. Seeing no other questions, I will end the work session meeting at 6.35 and request us to reconvene for our normal regular meeting at 6.45. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2020. Seeing that we have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 6.47. I appreciate the patience that we were in behind and you all waiting for us to begin the meeting. We'll hop right into it. The first item of business is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas flag. If the other commissioners would like to join me, they can unmute and recite with me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one nation, indivisible. The next item of business is the consideration of the August 19th, 2020 minutes. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on the minutes? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is our consent agenda. And just for point of record, item 3CPP20-0018 is being pulled. So the vote for consent will consist of item 3A, 3B and 3D. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion for approval for item 3A, B and D. We have a motion for approval. Commissioner Ellis? Second. Is there any discussion on these items? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. The chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is our individual consideration items. We'll start with item 4A, ADP20-0010. This is Carina Maldonado's item. Commissioner Beck? For the agenda order, chair, what order are we going to stick the consent item in? It'll be the last item of this section. Thank you, chair. Is Carina available? She's pulling it up now. Gotcha. I think the video's off. That's my confusion. She's on. I'm trying to share my screen and it's looking a little weird. Okay, there you go. I'm sorry. All right, I apologize. Okay, sorry about that, Carina Maldonado, assistant planner, City of Denton. Today I'll be presenting an alternative development plan for ADP20-0010 Teasley Office Park. Just a little bit of background before we get started, an approved ADP was brought forth to planning and zoning last summer under ADP18-0006. This proposed plan was approved with seven buildings shown here in blue. The proposed use was for both professional office and medical office split almost evenly between the both. For those uses, there was a proposed 122 parking spaces. This ADP was proposed due to several restrictions on the site, several easements. There's a drainage easement to the west, access easements, an electric easement, and so on. These deviations were for building setbacks, building frontage, floor area ratio, and front parking. I won't go into too much detail about those deviations as this request is for one additional deviation besides that. So for the site, today we're going to consider approval of an amendment to the existing ADP as just mentioned. The additional deviation is from section 35.1310 of the 2002 Debt and Development Code. The site is located here just south of the intersection of Teasley and Teasley on a 3.42 acre site. The zoning is NRMU, which is now currently MN, and the uses remain the same of professional office and medical office. The revised site plan is showing a reduction in the number of buildings, so from seven down to three, shown here. The uses have changed in that the professional office was reduced down to 3,600 square feet, and the medical office use was increased up to the maximum amount allowed by the NRMU district. Due to the change in the number of buildings, lot coverage has been from 73% to 71%, and the landscape area has been increased by 2%. As part of the change in uses, medical office use requires additional parking, so the total provided parking on the plan now is showing 143 spaces. This includes 10 parking spaces above the minimum required, and that brings us to the requested deviation for this alternative development plan. The applicant is seeking to deviate from section 35.1310 B1D, which requires permeable paving for all those parking spaces that exceed the minimum that is required, and so they are proposing to pave all 10 spaces versus provide permeable paving. So the future land use of this area is designated for neighborhood mixed use, which is primarily for residential uses. However, commercial uses that support those residential uses are permitted as long as they are compatible with the adjacent use. Additionally, anything proposed needs to be appropriate in scale and complement that surrounding neighborhood. So again, focusing on the one additional deviation and going on to the criteria for approval under section 35.135 A. The first criteria is that the requested deviation preserves the existing neighborhood. So the proposed office park use is similar to the office park that's directly adjacent to this site across Teasley Lane. That development has office space with proposed parking on average per lot between 200 and 300 parking spaces for those existing buildings. The applicant for this site is proposing one space per 200, which is similar to that adjacent use. In addition, the reduction in the number of buildings has increased the separation between the northern and southern existing residential uses on site. So there is approximately 70 feet between the residential use to the north and the western most proposed building and then approximately 60 feet between the south. And I'll go through the rest of the criteria very quickly. Just want to note that a lot of these criteria that applies to the previous approved deviations and the current one have not changed. So you'll see kind of a repetition of what you saw in the previously approved ADP. So next ensure quality development, the applicant is not proposing to deviate from anything else from the 2002 development code with the exception of what was previously approved and the permeable paving. So it does meet all the other requirements of this development code. Next the proposed use is in compliance with the neighborhood mixed use district on the future land use map and the commercial development is in line with the type of, or the scale of development that is required under the future land use designation. Additionally, infrastructure that is capable of accommodating the development parts development. Again, this is unchanged. The development is next to or adjacent to Teasley Lane, which is a textile roadway. So they are subject to additional permits through tech start. So if there's any changes to the site that are needed, the ADP will have to come back to PNC. However, this is not anticipated since they've already gone through their CEP process and are on track to move forward with that. And last the proposed deviation result in a high quality development meeting the intent of the 2002 development code. So the intent of permeable paving for excess parking is to reduce the water quality volume on the site that would otherwise flow towards any drainage facilities for treatment. The previous payment would allow for natural treatment of rainfall as it permeates through the soil and the proposed development is not negatively impactful on drainage since the proposed 10 parking spaces are being offset by the reduced lot coverage and the increase in overall landscaping. So with that, staff does recommend approval as it does meet the established requirements for approval of an ADP in section 35135A of the 2002 DEN development code. And with that, I'll take any questions. Great. Thank you so much for the presentation. Is there any questions for Karina? I do not see any. Thank you so much for the presentation. We did receive one comment card for this. It was in favor of the item. And with that, the chair will entertain any discussion or motion. Commissioner Anderson. I'll make a motion to approve. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Smith. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. And the chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item for business is item 4B, PP 20-0019. Staff recommends denial of this request. However, the applicant has requested an extension to a date certain of September 16, 2020. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to postpone a date certain. We have a first for a motion to postpone to date certain of September 16. Mr. Chair. Yes, ma'am. Can I clarify the motion was to approve the requested extension? Yes. For 30 days. Thank you. We have a second to a motion for 30 days. And that's to a date certain of the 16th date certain of -- can we do just indefinite? Or do we have a date certain of the fall October? Right. Correct. It would just be that you're approving their request to extend and the next available meeting is September 16. Thank you. Make a motion to approve the extension for 30 days to the next meeting. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Pernetta. Second. Great. Thank you. We have a second. Any discussion on item 4B? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is item 4C. Staff recommends denial of this request. However, the applicant has requested the 30 day extension. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the extension to the date certain of September 16. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second to approve the extension. Any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is item 4D, FR20-0011. Staff is recommending denial of this request. However, the applicant has also requested a 30 day extension to the date of September 16. Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve the extension to September 16. Great. Commissioner Ellis. Second. We have a first and a second to accept the applicant's request for a 30 day extension, which leads it to a date certain of September 16. Any discussion on this? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is to hear the consent agenda item of 3CPP20-0018. The staff is recommending denial of this request. However, the applicant has requested an extension of 30 days to the date of September 16. Commissioner Ellis. Move approval of the applicant's requested extension. Great. We have a first for approval to extend for 30 days. Commissioner Cole. Second. We have a first and a second for the approval of the extension. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. That brings us to our public hearing items for this evening. The first one is item 5AZ20-0007. I will open the public hearing and invite Hailey Zygurski for presentation. All right. Good evening. So this is case Z27. The primary is corporate offices. The request before you tonight is a rezoning for approximately 55 acres of land that just outlined in yellow on the map. This is currently designated as rural residential and the request is a rezoning to general office or geo district with overlay conditions. This property is comprised of portions of three tracks of land. So you can see here on the map the east-west lines divide the tracks of the three individual tracks. These properties also include this strip along the frontage, which is about 350 feet wide. Those are part of each of these tracks, but those currently have geo zoning, so they're not included in the request. The applicant's requested conditions relate primarily to two things, first being the phase development of a corporate office campus on this property and the second being the decommissioning of the existing non-conforming asphalt batch plant, which you can see in this area of the property. So this is just a summary of the conditions that the applicant has requested. There are six. The first is related to the installation of four modular office buildings on the property to allow Primaris to consolidate some of their operations from around DFW onto the site during the entitlement permitting and construction phase. The second is related to the occupancy of those modular, during the occupancy of those trailers, the asphalt batch plant must cease its operation and the equipment be decommissioned prior to those getting a CO. The third is that the office buildings may be served by the existing water well and septic tank that are on site during the duration of their CO. Fourth is that the modular buildings must meet all applicable building codes for field and construction offices and that Primaris must obtain a CO for these modular trailer buildings prior to occupying them. They must also provide adequate parking based on the square footage of those modular buildings and that must be provided on a dust-free permeable surface. That would be something similar to gravel rather than just dirt or grass. The fifth condition after the work session, I did make a few modifications too. So this has been revised to specify that the modular office buildings could be occupied for 24 months or until such time as they get that permanent office building, whichever of those occurs earlier. It does allow for one 12-month extension if vertical construction on the permanent office building is underway at the end of that initial 24-month term. And then also added to this is the statement that upon issuance of the CO for the permanent office building, the modular buildings must be removed from the site, which is what we discussed at the work session. And then the final condition would be that the asphalt batch plant equipment could remain on site but not operational up until such time as the building permit for the permanent office is issued. So looking at the request now, you can see on the left the current zoning map, which has the subject property designated as rural residential and then the proposed zoning map on the right shows that this general office would be consistent with the zoning that's already established in this area. There are 13 general criteria for approval of any application in our DDC. Those are outlined in detail in your backup. So I won't go through them in full detail here, but we will touch on the highlights of some of those as we go through these zoning specific criteria. So the first of those was compliance with the comprehensive plan, specifically the future land use map. So you can see here in this snip from our future land use map that this property is Shaded Purple, which is our business innovation designation. This is a designation intended for areas with larger tracts of land that would be developed with well-planned large scale office or employment parks or supporting uses. GEO is consistent with that designation. It allows for a wide mix of uses that are compatible with that, such as offices, trade tools, low impact manufacturing, and then some supporting commercial uses as well. Another aspect of the comprehensive plan that I wanted to point out is that this area was designated as a gateway focus area. So you can see the general area of the property circled in red. Within that, you can see that little blue circle that calls this out as a gateway. This was seen as the Northern gateway to the city of Denton for travelers coming south on I-35. And these gateway areas were intended to be kind of those high quality areas that should welcome you to the city of Denton and let you know that you've arrived here. So GEO is suitable for those types of areas. Our commercial design standards do apply in these areas. So unlike light industrial or other districts that you might see in business innovation areas, those design standards don't always apply if a property is far enough away from the road. So in this case, GEO would allow us to ensure that all of our commercial design standards would be in place as this property develops. And additionally, the overlay conditions that have been requested would provide for the decommissioning and removal of that batch plant, which as a non-conforming industrial use, we would generally seek to get rid of in a prominent gateway area such as this. The next criteria is consistency with the purpose statement. So I've provided the GEO district purpose statement here on the screen. So you can see that it is, again, consistent with that business innovation. It intends for providing a variety of workplaces and complimentary uses, specifically flexible office spaces called out here, as well as research and development facilities and other opportunities for business innovation. So the proposed location for this is consistent with that. It would consolidate GEO across three larger tracts of land that would allow for one of those large scale campus type developments that is called for here, as well as being a continuation of that existing zoning pattern. Next we look at whether there have been any significant changes to warrant this zoning request. So there have not been recent changes with the property, but there is a bit of history that I wanted to go over with you all to provide some context to the request. So again, each of these three parcels, the front about 350 feet of their depth off of I-35 is currently zoned GEO. That area was initially annexed into the city as part of a strip annexation of I-35 in 1969. The back portion of the property, which is what we're looking at this evening, was under a non-annexation agreement until 2015. And when that expired, at that time, they annexed into the city and were given the placeholder zoning of RD5X. That designation was then transitioned to rural residential with our adoption of the 2019 DDC and that citywide zoning transition. So this zoning change is warranted to bring the rest of the property under the same standards as the frontage as well as to bring this property into consistency with our comprehensive plan. Next we look at whether this zoning change would minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property. So GEO again is consistent with what we have in this area. It's not expected to create any adverse impacts and it is expected to have some benefits. The rural residential district is not consistent with what we would want to see in a business innovation area. One units to five acres that we would find within RR is not consistent with that corporate office campus type environment that we want to encourage in these areas. In addition, this would include the removal of that existing asphalt batch plant, which again is a non-conforming use. It does have much more nuisance generation potential than anything that would be permitted within GEO. This would also provide that benefit for the surrounding properties. And then looking at what public facilities and services are available to serve the property, looking at transportation related infrastructure. You can see here on the map, all three of these properties have frontage on I-35. So there is adequate access to those sites from a state highway. This use as they've proposed it is not intended to have a large amount of trip generation. It didn't even meet the thresholds to require a traffic impact analysis. And then I just wanted to point out that the I-35 corridor is expected to be improved within the next 10 to 20 years. TxDOT is currently projecting this as being at least 10 years away, but this corridor will be widened and further enhance the access to this property in the near future. Water and wastewater facilities are available to be extended to this site. You can see here on the map, the dashed lines indicate that those are under construction at this time. There is a truck wash being developed immediately south that has stubbed both water and sewer to the southernmost of these properties so that they can extend it across the frontage of their sites when they develop. Notification was sent regarding this request in August. We did receive two responses as of the issuance of our staff reports last week. Those properties are outlined in green on the map and are two of the parcels that are involved in this zoning. Staff is recommending approval of the requested change to general office as we found it to meet all the criteria for approval. And we have no objection to the overlay conditions as requested by the applicant. So I'll just bring those up again so that you all can look at them. And during the brief break, I did reach out to the applicant and they indicated that they have no objection to this addition to condition number five. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Haley. Is there any questions for Haley on this item? Chris or Beck? Thank you, Chair. Haley, what's a typical timeframe for removal of modular buildings with language like that since we didn't specify a time? I'm not sure how long that would take. I would imagine it wouldn't take very long, especially if they know that that is something that they have to do at the end of that timeframe. If there's a reasonable timeframe you had in mind, we could certainly propose it and the applicant will be on the line and could speak to whether that's acceptable. Yeah, I'm not educated enough to know how long it takes to move a modular office building offsite. So I don't know the answer to that. I would welcome other people's chiming in on that. I assume that we have some sort of upper limit. The reason I ask that question is to Commissioner Smith's point earlier in work session, if we don't specify and they say they're moving it and it takes two years to move them off because we didn't specify, I think that sort of defeated the purpose of adding the language kind of thing. Do you have a timeframe in mind, Chris or Beck, that we can ask them of? I want to be reasonable. I was concerned about it being open-ended. I don't know what a reasonable number is. Okay. Commissioner Smith, I'd love for the applicant to respond or if you have a question the applicant can also provide insight to, we can stack those. Yeah, I was just going to say that Commissioner Beck's point, I would think 12 months is more than enough time. I wouldn't want to do anything necessarily less than that. You certainly can make it six or nine months, but I don't think that just in case there's weather issues, transportation issues, you know, whatever it is, I think 12 months is more than enough time. So that would be, I think the applicant could probably even be amenable to that. Yeah. Hello, I'm Charlie Ambrosio. I'm with the application. That's more than enough time to remove those module trailers. Okay. All right. Then yeah, I would just say, Haley, if we can make that part of the overlay conditions of moving the modular trailers, move modular buildings within 12 months after the CO is issued for the permanent building. Certainly. I'll add that timeframe so that that goes to council. Okay. Any other questions for Haley? And then Haley or Mr. Ambrosio, is there an applicant presentation prepared for this evening? I believe they have a couple of slides just in case you all wanted to see what examples of their other office campuses looked like, so I can pull those up if they would like to share those. I'd love to see them. Yeah, if you could pull them up, that would be great. While she's pulling that up, is there any commissioner that have any questions for the applicant upon seeing these pictures or otherwise? This is Amy, this is with 97 Land Company. Can you guys hear me? We can, Amy. Okay, great. I'll let Commissioner Ellis ask her question first. Go for it, Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Amy. I was just going to ask what I asked in work session, what the business does. I would be happy to answer that question, and Primores Service Corporation, and I do have Charlie Ambrosio from Primores on the call as well, he spoke up earlier. What they do is install a utility infrastructure around the United States, primarily electric transmission and distribution lines and also natural gas lines for utility companies. So they're a service provider that installs infrastructure for utility providers. And to just answer a couple of other questions and provide a little bit of clarification from some questions that came up during the work session, I'd like to give you a brief history on the batch plant. So the asphalt batch plant was put there when I-35 was being widened originally a few years ago, and it was in the EPJ at the time that it was placed there, and it was then annexed into the city. They do have a lease for another two years, I believe it is, but with Primores, they're coming in to actually buy the property and they will then be in control of that lease and can therefore commit to decommissioning the plant and removing the equipment over time. And just to provide a little bit of clarification on the request for conditions on the zoning overly, they are consolidating multiple offices where they have leased space around the Metroplex. So they'll be relocating 100 to 150 employees to Denton, and the modular office space during construction allows them to phase those employees into Denton as their leases expire, which allows them to accelerate their investment here locally, and we, I believe that answers the questions that were brought up during the work session, but I'd be happy to answer any other questions that you guys may have, and I'd also have Mr. Ambrosio on the line. Great, thank you very much. Is there any other questions for the applicant or staff? While we consider that by the other commissioners, I just want to let you know that there was, for this item, we had one person make comments using our online form. They were against the item. These forms were emailed to all commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded. So we had one in opposition to this item. Any other questions? Okay, I see none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, and then Commissioner Smith. Make a motion to approve with the staff, or I guess the applicant's recommendations for the overlay, along with our additions here on the commission. Okay, we have a first for approval with the overlay conditions. Commissioner Ellis? Second. We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Smith? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Commissioner Pernetta? Aye. Chair's also an aye, motion carries 7-0, congratulations. Next item of business is item 5B, AESA 20-0004A. I will invite Kristi Upton for presentation and open the public hearing. Just one second, sorry. Okay. Thank you commissioners. Kristi Upton, Environmental Services, and I am presenting tonight the alternative ESA plan for a renovation of Ryan High School. The site is, Ryan High School is generally located at the northeast corner of East McKinney Street and Mayhill Road, and with recent renovations, Denton ISD is requesting to remove some riparian buffer vegetation along the entrance to the high school to support drainage for a parking lot renovation at the front of the high school, and there's additional work for a bus parking at the northern area of the site. And the riparian buffer is an unnamed tributary of Pecan Creek. These headwaters and the vegetation of those headwaters provide water quality and other functions, support other functions of these streams, and the vegetation was found to exist in this area and was in fair condition, in addition there's some remnants of crust timbers on the western border of the property, that crust timbers is not part of this request. And the specific request is for the proposal to remove improvements to the drainage of the high school's parking lots, in order to do this drainage improvements, the engineer identified that there was some issues with drainage, and in order to create positive flow and to get things to work properly, they will need to extend a storm drain further into this riparian buffer and then install a concrete flume that will carry the water under McKinney. The estimated water quality volume that is treated by the vegetation in this riparian buffer is 0.01 acre feet and for the purpose of mitigating further removal of this vegetation, the applicant is proposing to install 0.91 acre feet of greater capacity than what is required by the minimum standards of the storm drainage criteria manual. And then in addition to that, they will be increasing runoff infiltration, which is allowing for more storm water to infiltrate down into the ground before it is released, and then they will be using a native grass vegetation to prevent erosion within the bottom of this dried detention basin. Questions were sent out for this public hearing, there was no responses as of this meeting, and there were a couple of citizen inquiries, residents that live along the southwestern corner of the property, and they experienced historically some drainage issues, and the applicant has assured these residents that the drainage improvements for the renovation actually improve and alleviate some of the, any future flooding issues for the property owners. Staff is recommending approval with some conditions that the land disturbance be limited to the riparian buffer shown on the exhibits, the detention basin will be designed and constructed, meeting those minimum standards with the additional 0.91 acre feet, and that the property owner will maintain the detention basin, and as by following the maintenance plan provided in the alternative ESA plan, and then vegetation would be established as set forth as a standard that environmental services has created for a minimum of 90% survival rate. Questions? Thank you Chair. Chrissy, I just want to say for the public part of the hearing, what we discussed in the work session, and that's those recommendations three and four, that the maintenance plan, which currently includes mowing, you know, regular Deton style mowing be, that you're going to work with the applicant to reduce that and make that more consistent with the grass vendors recommendation for maintenance, so that our investment in those grasses is, or the applicant's investment is improved. And during the break, I have been in contact with the engineer, and representing the Deton ISD, he has agreed that the maintenance plan could be something that we could work out before we take this plan to council, and he is on the phone, I believe, and could answer further questions about this. I don't have any particular questions for the engineer, other than what we just talked about, just a second, but if he wanted to chime in and give his view, I would welcome his view. Yeah, this is John Hamilton. Can you all hear me? Yes. If you could just state your address and your affiliation, that would be helpful to us. Absolutely. This is John Hamilton, I'm with Tignall and Perkins, representing the Deton ISD. I live in 100 Nursery Lane, Fort Worth, Texas, 76114. Thank you, Christy. You did a great job presenting this. There's a couple things I was just going to go into a little bit more detail on, was the drainage issue that you talked about causing this repairing buffer was a drainage failure in the system that was initially put in. So this is a repairing buffer that kind of formed due to lack of maintenance. The second aspect that was touched on was the downstream drainage with the neighbors. We are in contact with them. We have been reassuring them that we are drastically improving this, actually, and they will see less runoff coming on to their property. And then the matter of hand that you guys are discussing right now was the mowing. So Christy has presented to us in the break there. I don't see any problem with that. It sounded like it was just kind of some reduced mowing to help let the vegetation establish itself within the detention pond. So I don't see that being a problem. It is something that we'll get the district involved in just to make sure that their maintenance crew, they all understand what we're asking and make sure that we don't have any problem with that. I don't see any problem with that being a condition that is put on to it before council. Excellent. That's great. I think we all would like to see sort of native environments used and maintained the way you guys are proposing, and I think it would probably be cheaper on you to mow less often. Absolutely. The district is always for that. I don't have any further questions, Chair. All right. Thank you, John, for being here this evening. Any other questions for staff or the representative? Okay. Go ahead and close the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson. Make your motion to approve with the -- just motion to approve it. With staff recommendations? Yes. Sorry. Commissioner Smith. Second. We have a first and a second for approval with the staff recommendations. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. There's also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. The next item of business is item 5C, AESA 20-002A. I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing, and the staff is requesting a postponement to a date certain of September 16th. Commissioner Beck. Motion to approve the extension. We have a first for approval, Commissioner Smith. Second. We have a first and a second to postpone this item to a date certain of September 16th. Any discussion on this item? Commissioner Smith. Cynthia, does it need to be a different motion? Does it need to be a motion to postpone or a motion to table? I just wanted to clarify. I just heard there was a -- Commissioner Beck referred to a request for an extension, and I believe the motion was to postpone. I'm sorry, Legal. I appreciate the correction. Your correction is well taken, and I made the postponement for my amendment -- or my motion. Thank you. Great. And Commissioner Smith, you second that? Yes. Great. So we have a first and a second for postponement to a date certain of September 16th. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernetta. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Chair, it's also an aye. Motion carries 7-0 to postpone to a date certain of September 16th. The next item of business is item 5D, Z-19-0012A. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing, and the applicant is requesting a postponement to a date certain of September 16th. Commissioner Smith. I make a motion to postpone to a date certain. We have a first for a postponement to a date certain. Commissioner Anderson. I second the motion. We have a first and a second to postpone to a date certain of September 16th. Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Beck. Aye. Commissioner Cole. Aye. Commissioner Pernitta. Aye. Commissioner Smith. Aye. Commissioner Anderson. Aye. Chair, it's also an aye. Motion carries 7-0 to postpone to a date certain of September 16th. The next item of business is item 5E, PD 20-0003. I'll invite Julie Wyeth for presentation and open the public hearing. Good evening, commissioners. Let me pull up my presentation. All right. The request before you is PD 20-0003 chargeable. The request is for a major plan development amendment for PD 139 to develop the site with a charter school. It's considered an institutional use in PD 139. The site is an overall 37.3-acre property. It's located at the southeast corner of Vintage Boulevard and I-35W Vintage Boulevard ramp intersection. This is one of our older PDs in the city. We've often reviewed these under the 1991 development standards. However, now we are reviewing these and applying the 2019 debt and development code processes and criteria for approval on these older PDs. They'll still retain their development standards that were consistent with what was adopted with that PD. But going forward, we're going to review these under the 2019 standards for consistency. And as I said, this is a major amendment which does require the dual public hearing process. Some background on PD 139. It was established in 1991 as a 450-acre business village. Institutional uses of which the request is were permitted as part of that PD. And those institutional uses included educational facilities. That PD also included two open space areas. They're just shown here in green. They don't affect the subject property, but I did just want to point those out. In 1999, that plan was revised. That original concept plan, if you recall, that was a two-step process. The concept plan was revised and deemed this area as a mixed-use town center, the subject property. That PD amendment had very strict phasing associated with it and that if it did not develop in accordance with that phasing, then it expired. It did not, and so therefore that's part of the reason they're here tonight. There were roadway improvement conditions associated with that ordinance, so I did want to point those out. The limited development of the PD to just single family and one convenience store until either the interchange at I-35 and vintage, which was called Ponder Road at that time, was modernized, or that Ponder Road was extended all the way to 377 as a four-lane road. That improvement, that four-lane road, is actually under construction now, so it does meet those conditions. Further development of the PD is limited. We do have some single family near the subject property as part of that PD, and 213 acres have been zoned out of that PD. The current proposal, as I said, is for a charter school that includes kindergarten through 12th grade in two buildings. There would be a lower school, a two-story building, and then the high school, the upper school, a one-story building in this location. They are proposing a looped drive aisle connecting to Vintage Road in this location, and then the future John Payne Road in this location on the east side. We're also proposing athletic facilities as associated with the development, and an agricultural teaching garden, as well as a playground. I just want to take a little bit of time on this John Payne Road. This road is not currently here right now. There is a portion of John Payne Road constructed south of the subject property near Crawford Road. It will eventually connect all the way through to Vintage Road. However, it's not quite connected yet, so at some point in the future, it will connect. The project, because of when it was adopted, the PD, it does follow that 1988 landscape ordinance, and that includes three sections, street yard landscaping. That street yard, remember, is that space between the front of the buildings and the street, parking lot landscaping, and parking lot screening. In the street yard, they're required to have 20% landscaping and one tree every 2,500 square feet of total street yard, which would come to 36,000 square feet of landscaping and 74 trees. They're proposing about 91,000 square feet of landscaping and 109 large and ornamental trees. It also requires parking lot landscaping. 5% of the parking lot in the street yard must be landscaped, which would come to about 3,800 square feet. They're proposing about 10,000 square feet in this landscape median as well as landscape islands. And then parking lot screening. Parking areas are to be screened between the parking area and the right-of-way. They are proposing a continuous shrub hedge along Vintage as well as on John Payne. We also looked at this in terms of what the 2019 code requires. We kind of wanted to see how that compared to it and see where they could meet those requirements. So, in order to meet the 2019 code, they've actually proposed landscape islands with trees planted within them, one every 10 feet throughout the rest of the parking area. They've also gotten a landscape median in this location and a landscape median in this location, more consistent with what we see today. Available criteria for PDs is in subchapter two, the general, as well as the specific. So first, the comprehensive plan. This area is designated as low-density residential. The proposal is not a residential use, and as you know, low-density residential is one of those future land use designations that indicates an area for residential development up to four dwelling units per acre. Because this is not a residential use, it still does fall within that future land use designation. Educational facilities are embedded within a variety of zoning districts within the city of Denton, and they are needed throughout the city. We don't just localize them in one area. They are needed throughout the city. That future land use map is instructive for the potential expansion of schools and school sites because we want to look for areas that indicate future residential growth because those suggest a greater need for schools. Areas like industrial commerce indicate fewer schools would be needed because it would be more employment uses, fewer residential uses. We also look at other goals associated with the Denton plan, and two in particular, economic vitality. 23% of the jobs in Denton are in educational services, and so additional schools would just support that goal within the city. And then mobility. We want to see a mix of uses to reduce potential trips. So we want to see schools near residential. We want to see shopping and employment near where people live. So we want to have a good mix of uses. And by locating schools near neighborhoods, that does meet that goal because it does provide an opportunity for students to walk to school or even employees to walk or ride their bikes to school. Now staff understands this proposal will attract students beyond the city borders, but even though that location near an existing residential area and a future residential area could provide that opportunity for those multimodal trips. Compliance with the Denton development code and the original PD. The proposal does conform to the PD amendment process in the 2019 code, as well as the development standards established with that existing PD. Does it provide a greater level of building design, quality, community amenities and connectivity that would otherwise be required? So in addition to the landscaping, they're also proposing a plaza area about 10,000 square feet centrally located between the buildings to allow kind of a landing pad for students, a place for people to gather. And that also includes landscaping to amenitize the area. There's also pedestrian connections throughout the site and they connect to the sidewalk system. They did provide conceptual building elevations as part of their submittal. I want to caution you, these are not the buildings that have been designed yet for the site. They have not yet designed the buildings, but this is indicative of what they wanted to build. So because we don't have specific site or elevations, staff is recommending a condition that the proposal meet the site design standards in the Denton development code for non-residential development just so we know that we'll have some certainty as to what they will build. In the case of non-residential uses or mixed uses, that such development would be appropriate in an area, location and overall planning for the purpose intended. So this is really an emerging area within the city of Denton. This is the southwest side, it kind of hugs up against 35W. There's a lot of connectivity in the area and you have seen three projects recently go through with rezoning. Hunter Ranch, which is one of the dominant projects in the area, Sagebrook and then another rezoning, a smaller rezoning in this location. There's also park development that will eventually come forward. The city does own parkland and eventually those will be developed. So this really is emerging as a residential area. We want to make sure we have a variety of mix of uses in that area. And so the school, a proposed school, would provide that corresponding educational facility to round out those mix of uses. Schools are often found within neighborhoods or on the edges of neighborhoods. So this proposal is consistent with that development pattern. In addition, just more specifically to that site, is that it is oriented away from I-35 inward toward those emerging residential areas, so it will be more focused in that regard. And then the intensity is limited, so it's got large open areas. It's a maximum building height of 33 feet. So it's consistent with that development scale within the area. The provision of public facilities, I want to focus mainly on streets and transportation because that is always a big issue. And plus, there are a lot of mobility changes in the area. So first, briefly, they did submit a TIA to us, and it is under review. But as part of that, they provided a traffic management plan that included on-site circulation. So they have, with that looped drive aisle, it does allow queuing capacity for about 119 vehicles, which is an appropriate queuing capacity. As with most schools, they do anticipate greater queuing in the morning and afternoon when kids are being dropped off or picked up. And they are expecting greater vehicle queuing in the afternoon, but do anticipate delays in the morning, particularly with those vehicles exiting onto vintage. So they have included within their TIA a traffic management plan. It's really operational interventions. It's not related to the physical structure of the site. That really is more related to that queuing capacity. But just to mention, they do propose a staggered dismissal schedule to kind of spread it out and have a less peaked peak, staff assistance to ensure safe unloading for students, and also to discourage parents from parking in the queue lanes, and then also temporary traffic control devices. We also looked at the surrounding streets. It is difficult to get accurate traffic counts right now, so we do kind of look at historic traffic counts, and the Denton Police Department did do a study in 2017. With their counts that was averaged over a week, they counted about 5,900 vehicles per day on Vintage Boulevard. According to the TIA under review, their proposed use would generate about 2,500 trips. That's 809 a.m. peak and 520 p.m. peak. Expansion for the road should accommodate this increase in traffic, however. With the additional lanes being added to Vintage, it will be a four-lane divided road. It will accommodate the proposal. And then as I mentioned, they're also dedicating the right-of-way for John Payne Road, that future north-south collector. There was a question about Vintage Road during the work session, and I wanted to just mention a couple of things. I spoke with our engineering group. The way that that road is being designed, it's being designed with two lanes going either way, so four lanes divided with a large median. That median is being designed so that in the future when that road is expanded to the six lanes for that arterial, it will be coming from the median. So that median was large enough to accommodate the expansion of that road. Additionally, I'm looking at the update of the mobility plan that the city is undertaking right now. It looks like the Loop 288 is connecting to this road, however, the highway is intended to end at I-35W, transitioning to a collector for the Vintage Road. So hopefully that answers your questions. I do believe we've got engineering on the phone if we need further discussion. And then just a little more about transportation in the area. They did study some intersections surrounding the subject property. Generally they are anticipated to operate at an A or a B level, however, except for the intersection at 377 and Vintage. They do anticipate, regardless of the school coming in, that the intersection would operate at a level F by 2022, and that's for the turning movement going eastbound on Vintage and turning left onto 377. So they do anticipate further interventions will be needed at that intersection just from an operational standpoint in the city of Denton. That might be channelized left turn lanes to help smooth the traffic flow, or maybe even a signal at that intersection at some point in the future. The TxDOT is also working on the plans for this interchange right here. We've got the plans right here that show what they are proposing. And we don't have a timeline for that, but it is in the works. And then finally related to this subject property, they are, as part of their development, would have to construct channelized left turn lanes into the site in this location, and then channelized right turn lanes into the site. That would allow parents dropping off students to get out of the lane of traffic so that they can make those turning movements and allow the traffic to move more smoothly on the road. So based upon the expansion of Vintage as well as the interventions by the applicant, there is capacity to serve the site. Notification was sent out. We haven't received any responses, and the applicant did hold a virtual neighborhood meeting. They did not have any attendees. And staff, because the item does meet the criteria for approval, we recommend approval of the request with two proposed conditions. One that the final landscape locations for individual plantings and individual plant selections would be able to be approved by staff, provided that the final landscaping complies with the overall plan that they provided. And that would be that minimum number of large canopy trees of 91, the minimum number of shrubs of 1558, and the minimum number of medium canopy or ornamental trees of 59. Also that all buildings would have to comply with our current design standards. And then the second section is just specifying what they're laying out in their PD amendment, that it would be two classroom buildings with the total ground floor footprint of 81,800 square feet, maximum building height of 33 feet, 357 parking spaces, and then 10,000 square feet of plaza area with those landscaping elements. And I will be happy to answer any questions. >> I think Mr. Beck had one. >> Julie, could you go to slide 15, where you had the mobility plan overlaid? >> Sure. >> So that was it. That was the one I wanted. >> This one? >> No, the one you were on. >> This one? >> Yes, 15. >> So I didn't notice this in work session, but the dotted line that runs parallel to the highway, is that a road extension up to, I can't remember the name of the north-south arterial? >> John Payne. >> It is. That is John Payne. >> Yes, sir. >> So the dotted line is going to be the location of John Payne? >> It's the conceptual location. >> Within the flexibility of the mobility plan. So on the plan, and knowing that we can flex the mobility plan to accommodate this plan, we're not going to cut the corner near that K through 8 building, are we? >> No, sir. It is actually just running north-south, just along that property line there. >> So the jog towards 35 is going to be south of the figure? >> I'm sorry. Could you repeat your question? >> The John Payne, where it jogs to parallel 35 southwest, is going to be south of this figure? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. All right. That clarifies. Thank you. >> You bet. >> Any other questions for Julie? Okay. Julie, do you know if the applicant is wanting to present this evening? >> I don't believe they have a presentation. They didn't provide it, but are they on the phone? I don't show that they're on the phone. >> Okay. >> So. >> Well, with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it for a motion or a second. All right. Discussion on this item. Commissioner Smith. >> I make a motion to approve the staff recommendations. >> Okay. We have a first for approval. Commissioner Pernetta. >> Second. >> We have a first and a second for approval with the recommendations by staff. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call. Commissioner Ellis. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Pernetta. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Anderson. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Cole. >> Aye. >> Commissioner Smith. >> Aye. >> Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0. That brings us to our concluding item of tonight's agenda, our planning and zoning project matrix. I will turn the floor over to Richard initially for any updates he has and then to the commissioners for discussion. >> Just wanted to -- just a quick update. If you notice on what we're trying to do is get some of these items scheduled and get them on the calendar. So we have put some dates on for the October meetings. I think we are trying to get two items per meeting. And so we'll start getting those -- getting those knocked out. One other item I wanted to mention where we talked about the overlay conditions and some of the others coming back when we were going to be bringing forward DDC amendments, it looks like we'll be coming to council in October with a work session on some of those DDC amendments. So as soon as we get that date confirmed with council, we'll get something scheduled with P&Z as kind of our next steps. I will let you know that we will be processing one of those related amendments, a use amendment going to clean some of those nonconformities that were created at that October -- at that October meeting. So just letting you know that's kind of coming down the pike. Just a quick update. Council last night did approve the PD amendment for the 21 homes up on -- related to Pecan Creek. So that was approved for three. And then the -- I lost the name of the project. The multi-family project at Dutchess and the loop -- Denton Grove, sorry. There appears to be support for the project, however, that item was postponed to the 15th. If you recall, there was the condition that they had offered the $400,000 related to the traffic light. And so there was a discussion that we had as part of that meeting about having a separate agreement related to that offer. So that was the reason it was postponed. And so we had a meeting earlier today, so it looks like that will be back on target for the 15th. And I can provide an update then with that. I'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Awesome. Thanks, Richard. Anyone have any questions for staff or items to request to be put on the matrix? Commissioner Bec? >> Thank you, Chair. Richard, I've been fielding a lot of questions. Maybe you could tell from my line of questioning today about alternative landscaping plans that are sort of green and sort of native-based. And the DDC doesn't really address a lot of them cleanly, or at least in ways that the people who are reaching out to me are understanding and that I can field their questions. I mostly just throw them at staff because I don't know the answer either. So if we could maybe clarify, even in just a slide or something, what our policies are, whether we have exceptions for wildflowers, native plants, native grasses, especially in open, non-residential landscaping, but in our residential areas and business areas so that people can know what we currently allow, that would be helpful in fielding questions. >> Certainly. And just for clarification, was it alternative landscape or the alternative ESA plan? >> They sort of muddled that, which is why I muddled it just now, but I had questions both on what are all alternatives for alternative ESAs, and secondarily had a lot of questions on for HOA lots, trails, green spaces, but in a private development, what are allowed that people could ask developers for or encourage in their feedback, that sort of thing, that are generally outside our standard practice but allowed and suitable, you know, the kinds of things Christie would typically be involved in. If we could sort of get some summaries of that, that would be useful, I think, for the people who are hitting me up with questions. >> Certainly. We can provide that. >> Thank you. >> Commissioner Ellis? >> Thank you, Chair. Richard, just process clarification for me. We got several comments on an item that was postponed on our agenda today. Is staff going to reach out to those people to let them know that that was postponed and is being reheard? I'd like those people to know. So is that a process that you normally do? >> Correct. Especially if it was submitted online, if it's a phone call, of course we would call, but if it's submitted online, we would respond back to those emails, letting them know that the item, while the public hearing was open, it was postponed to this date certain to let them know of that new date and time. >> Okay. Perfect. >> And Margie, we did have three people call and staff's already reached back out to them already and let them know. >> Thank you much. Any other questions or additions for the matrix? Seeing none, I'll close the meeting at 8 o'clock. Thank you all. Be safe. >> Bye, guys. Thanks.