1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:09,200
 Welcome to the planning and zoning work commission session for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2020,

2
00:00:09,200 --> 00:00:13,400
 seeing that we have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order and move into the agenda

3
00:00:13,400 --> 00:00:15,800
 items for this evening.

4
00:00:15,800 --> 00:00:19,520
 The first item is just consideration of the agenda.

5
00:00:19,520 --> 00:00:23,920
 There's no, I can see any work session reports this evening.

6
00:00:23,920 --> 00:00:27,520
 So that brings us to just our minutes from August 19th.

7
00:00:27,520 --> 00:00:33,760
 Is there any adjustments that need to be made on the minutes?

8
00:00:33,760 --> 00:00:37,520
 Great, easy enough.

9
00:00:37,520 --> 00:00:40,440
 Next item of business is moving into the consent agenda.

10
00:00:40,440 --> 00:00:50,960
 For clarification on the agenda, item 3CPP20-0018, that item is being moved to the individual

11
00:00:50,960 --> 00:00:51,960
 consideration.

12
00:00:51,960 --> 00:00:57,280
 They're asking for an extension anyways, but it needs to be moved to IC.

13
00:00:57,280 --> 00:01:06,680
 So the consent agenda for this evening will be items 3A, 3B, and 3D.

14
00:01:06,680 --> 00:01:09,880
 Any questions or need for presentation on those, Christian or Bec?

15
00:01:09,880 --> 00:01:18,240
 So I have two questions on one on 3A and one on 3D.

16
00:01:18,240 --> 00:01:21,840
 Let's see, 3A is, I forget, is it Karina?

17
00:01:21,840 --> 00:01:31,440
 Yeah, let's go ahead and is Karina Maldonado available to present and get these answers?

18
00:01:31,440 --> 00:01:53,360
 There she is.

19
00:01:53,360 --> 00:01:55,400
 Is she there?

20
00:01:55,400 --> 00:02:10,200
 It's all confusing with this stuff.

21
00:02:10,200 --> 00:02:15,080
 It's been a while since I've had to present in person.

22
00:02:15,080 --> 00:02:19,520
 So I might be able to short circuit a little bit unless the chair or others would like

23
00:02:19,520 --> 00:02:22,880
 to see the full presentation.

24
00:02:22,880 --> 00:02:28,180
 I don't want to step on staff, but I think I could answer with a couple of quick questions

25
00:02:28,180 --> 00:02:29,640
 if that's okay with chair.

26
00:02:29,640 --> 00:02:33,120
 Yeah, go for the questions and then we go from there.

27
00:02:33,120 --> 00:02:34,120
 Okay.

28
00:02:34,120 --> 00:02:38,400
 So Karina, can you tell me two things?

29
00:02:38,400 --> 00:02:48,160
 One, the distance from the across the street wellhead to the nearest parcels and remind

30
00:02:48,160 --> 00:02:55,120
 me of which DDC we're operating under?

31
00:02:55,120 --> 00:03:00,040
 So for the second question, this is going under the 2002 DDC.

32
00:03:00,040 --> 00:03:08,200
 It was submitted before the transition into the new code came over and the preliminary

33
00:03:08,200 --> 00:03:10,320
 plot was approved under the 2002 code.

34
00:03:10,320 --> 00:03:14,140
 So the final plot is also going under the 2002 DDC.

35
00:03:14,140 --> 00:03:17,320
 So the subjects are not the new 500s.

36
00:03:17,320 --> 00:03:20,040
 They're the old 250 slash 300.

37
00:03:20,040 --> 00:03:21,040
 Yes.

38
00:03:21,040 --> 00:03:25,920
 The preliminary plaque came in before the setbacks changed to 500 feet.

39
00:03:25,920 --> 00:03:29,040
 So it's under the previous 250 feet.

40
00:03:29,040 --> 00:03:30,040
 Okay.

41
00:03:30,040 --> 00:03:38,920
 And that circled line on your map is the 300 foot that arcs across the northeast quadrant?

42
00:03:38,920 --> 00:03:39,920
 Yes.

43
00:03:39,920 --> 00:03:41,040
 Okay.

44
00:03:41,040 --> 00:03:52,640
 So on the 2002 DDC, is it the lots or the structure that has to be in compliance?

45
00:03:52,640 --> 00:03:54,460
 It would be the lots.

46
00:03:54,460 --> 00:04:04,520
 So those one, two, three, four lots don't have to be in compliance at the top?

47
00:04:04,520 --> 00:04:06,520
 This is a little difficult to see.

48
00:04:06,520 --> 00:04:14,600
 I can pull up the more zoomed in version.

49
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:16,600
 I don't know what happened.

50
00:04:16,600 --> 00:04:21,840
 I'm sorry, I'm not the best at this.

51
00:04:21,840 --> 00:04:23,120
 No, it's cool.

52
00:04:23,120 --> 00:04:24,120
 We're all just doing the best we can.

53
00:04:24,120 --> 00:04:28,840
 If possible, could I, I'm going to bring Haley up here to address the Gaswell setbacks.

54
00:04:28,840 --> 00:04:30,040
 She is the guru after all.

55
00:04:30,040 --> 00:04:32,800
 Yes, she is the guru.

56
00:04:32,800 --> 00:04:38,800
 Thank you, Karita, I appreciate it.

57
00:04:38,800 --> 00:04:39,800
 All right.

58
00:04:39,800 --> 00:04:41,800
 I think I can address your question.

59
00:04:41,800 --> 00:04:47,240
 So you're speaking to these lots that are up here that have the circular line encroaching

60
00:04:47,240 --> 00:04:48,240
 into them, correct?

61
00:04:48,240 --> 00:04:49,240
 Yes, ma'am.

62
00:04:49,240 --> 00:04:50,240
 Yes.

63
00:04:50,240 --> 00:04:55,880
 So this is a 300 foot measurement that is from the wellhead to the structure.

64
00:04:55,880 --> 00:04:57,800
 It's from the fire code.

65
00:04:57,800 --> 00:05:02,360
 So for these, for this line, it is measured to the building.

66
00:05:02,360 --> 00:05:06,920
 So they wouldn't be able to have the actual dwelling units encroached past this line.

67
00:05:06,920 --> 00:05:12,280
 This bold line that just comes up here and hugs the property line of the, the, all of

68
00:05:12,280 --> 00:05:15,640
 these lots is the 250 foot setback line.

69
00:05:15,640 --> 00:05:19,380
 So those, all of the lots are meeting the setback requirement.

70
00:05:19,380 --> 00:05:23,400
 This circle is a fire code separation requirement.

71
00:05:23,400 --> 00:05:25,600
 So okay, so two questions about that.

72
00:05:25,600 --> 00:05:28,600
 And I suspected those would be the answers.

73
00:05:28,600 --> 00:05:37,600
 So why, why is the 250 setback flattened following the, the plat line rather than continuing

74
00:05:37,600 --> 00:05:38,600
 to be curved?

75
00:05:38,600 --> 00:05:39,600
 Yes, sir.

76
00:05:39,600 --> 00:05:41,560
 It is measured from the edge of the pad site.

77
00:05:41,560 --> 00:05:44,500
 So that is actually a rectangular pad site.

78
00:05:44,500 --> 00:05:48,320
 So they measured out 250 in all directions from the department.

79
00:05:48,320 --> 00:05:49,320
 That's clear.

80
00:05:49,320 --> 00:05:55,640
 And then that would mean the fences don't count as structures?

81
00:05:55,640 --> 00:06:00,320
 No, sir, the, the setbacks are only for protected uses.

82
00:06:00,320 --> 00:06:02,320
 So a fence wouldn't fit within that definition.

83
00:06:02,320 --> 00:06:04,960
 It would just be the dwelling units.

84
00:06:04,960 --> 00:06:10,160
 And so no, that also wouldn't cover sheds or any other subsidiary structures that would

85
00:06:10,160 --> 00:06:11,400
 go in their backyards?

86
00:06:11,400 --> 00:06:13,040
 No, sir.

87
00:06:13,040 --> 00:06:14,040
 Okay.

88
00:06:14,040 --> 00:06:18,040
 Our old code sucks.

89
00:06:18,040 --> 00:06:19,040
 Thank you.

90
00:06:19,040 --> 00:06:21,040
 I appreciate it.

91
00:06:21,040 --> 00:06:22,800
 I think that's all my questions, chair.

92
00:06:22,800 --> 00:06:23,800
 Great.

93
00:06:23,800 --> 00:06:29,640
 Any other questions for item three, a while we have it pulled up, uh, seeing none, we'll

94
00:06:29,640 --> 00:06:34,400
 go to three B and of Julie, why it's around, I think commissioner Beck might have a question

95
00:06:34,400 --> 00:06:35,400
 for you.

96
00:06:35,400 --> 00:06:36,400
 Sure.

97
00:06:36,400 --> 00:06:47,600
 It was, it was a three D. I don't have a question on B. You're saying three D as in David dog.

98
00:06:47,600 --> 00:06:48,600
 Okay.

99
00:06:48,600 --> 00:06:49,600
 Gotcha.

100
00:06:49,600 --> 00:06:50,600
 Sorry about that.

101
00:06:50,600 --> 00:06:57,280
 Sorry, any, is there any questions for three B is in Bravo?

102
00:06:57,280 --> 00:06:59,040
 Okay.

103
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:07,720
 Seeing none three C is moving to our IC agenda category and we'll go to now three D and Haley,

104
00:07:07,720 --> 00:07:17,520
 it's her item.

105
00:07:17,520 --> 00:07:25,200
 So Haley, as I recall, again, thank you chair Haley, as I recall, um, the issues that we

106
00:07:25,200 --> 00:07:30,360
 that had previously stopped this upward were drainage issues along the Western boundary

107
00:07:30,360 --> 00:07:31,360
 of the property.

108
00:07:31,360 --> 00:07:34,080
 Is that correct?

109
00:07:34,080 --> 00:07:39,360
 The improper paperwork for some of those are incomplete paperwork.

110
00:07:39,360 --> 00:07:40,960
 So can you refresh my memory?

111
00:07:40,960 --> 00:07:45,720
 What changed between what we saw last time that staff was recommending denial and this

112
00:07:45,720 --> 00:07:48,280
 time where staff is recommending approval?

113
00:07:48,280 --> 00:07:49,440
 Yes, sir.

114
00:07:49,440 --> 00:07:50,440
 Just one second.

115
00:07:50,440 --> 00:07:51,440
 I apologize.

116
00:07:51,440 --> 00:08:04,200
 There was some difficulty with the plat presentation, not wanting to open here, so all right.

117
00:08:04,200 --> 00:08:08,440
 So yes, the last time this plat was before you, there were some finalizations that needed

118
00:08:08,440 --> 00:08:13,760
 to be made with regards to the drainage easements on the property as well as the tree survey

119
00:08:13,760 --> 00:08:17,760
 being finalized and just some of those those final concluding items that we usually get

120
00:08:17,760 --> 00:08:19,920
 to at the end of a plat.

121
00:08:19,920 --> 00:08:24,320
 So they have everything for the site completely finalized now.

122
00:08:24,320 --> 00:08:27,320
 Their civil engineering plans have been approved so that these drainage easement boundaries

123
00:08:27,320 --> 00:08:29,620
 can be can be firmed up.

124
00:08:29,620 --> 00:08:32,200
 We know for sure that is where the drainage will in fact go.

125
00:08:32,200 --> 00:08:34,820
 That's where the floodplain boundaries are.

126
00:08:34,820 --> 00:08:38,400
 So everything has gone through full civil review and the plat is now ready for approval

127
00:08:38,400 --> 00:08:42,840
 and the tree preservation plan has also been finalized.

128
00:08:42,840 --> 00:08:52,040
 Okay and okay, no I think that's the extent of my questions.

129
00:08:52,040 --> 00:08:55,040
 Thank you, Haley.

130
00:08:55,040 --> 00:08:56,040
 Great.

131
00:08:56,040 --> 00:08:58,240
 Any other questions for Haley?

132
00:08:58,240 --> 00:09:05,720
 Okay, seeing none, we'll go to our items for individual considerations starting with

133
00:09:05,720 --> 00:09:12,960
 item 4A, ADP 20-10 and this is Karina's item.

134
00:09:12,960 --> 00:09:35,520
 I invite her up for presentation.

135
00:09:35,520 --> 00:09:48,320
 So today we're bringing a alternative development plan ADP 20-0010 for Teasley Office Park.

136
00:09:48,320 --> 00:09:50,560
 So just a bit of history on this project.

137
00:09:50,560 --> 00:09:58,080
 This was previously approved last summer under ADP 18-0006.

138
00:09:58,080 --> 00:10:02,560
 The site plan that was brought before y'all last time was for seven buildings.

139
00:10:02,560 --> 00:10:09,000
 That included the uses of professional office and medical office just about evenly split

140
00:10:09,000 --> 00:10:11,480
 between both.

141
00:10:11,480 --> 00:10:17,760
 Associated with those uses was about 122 parking spaces and the deviations related to that

142
00:10:17,760 --> 00:10:23,680
 request related to the building frontage, building setbacks and front parking.

143
00:10:23,680 --> 00:10:30,120
 Essentially they were moving the mixed used zoning district requires the buildings to

144
00:10:30,120 --> 00:10:36,840
 be up closer to have that pedestrian feel and so they were deviating to move those buildings

145
00:10:36,840 --> 00:10:38,560
 back.

146
00:10:38,560 --> 00:10:42,560
 So I won't spend too much time on the previously approved ADP.

147
00:10:42,560 --> 00:10:47,360
 This is an additional request on top of what was previously approved.

148
00:10:47,360 --> 00:10:52,240
 So the request before you today is to consider approval of an amendment to the existing ADP

149
00:10:52,240 --> 00:11:02,160
 for an additional deviation to section 35-1310 for access parking and circulation requirements.

150
00:11:02,160 --> 00:11:08,600
 The site is located on 3.42 acres just south of the intersection of Teasley and Teasley.

151
00:11:08,600 --> 00:11:12,560
 And again, the uses have remained the same.

152
00:11:12,560 --> 00:11:18,120
 This was in the NRMU district, which is now MN.

153
00:11:18,120 --> 00:11:20,780
 So here's the revised plan.

154
00:11:20,780 --> 00:11:25,280
 So essentially what they're trying to do is reduce the number of buildings down from seven

155
00:11:25,280 --> 00:11:26,960
 to three.

156
00:11:26,960 --> 00:11:32,600
 And then part of that is the developer wanted to adjust the mixes of the uses proposed.

157
00:11:32,600 --> 00:11:38,840
 So they are reducing the professional office use and increasing the medical office use

158
00:11:38,840 --> 00:11:44,040
 up to the maximum allowed within the NRMU district.

159
00:11:44,040 --> 00:11:48,120
 So part of this obviously with a reduction in buildings is a reduction in lot coverage

160
00:11:48,120 --> 00:11:55,680
 from 73% to 71% and an increase in landscape area by about 2%.

161
00:11:55,680 --> 00:12:03,040
 So associated with the change in uses or not the change, but the mix of uses, there's now

162
00:12:03,040 --> 00:12:05,880
 an increased use for parking.

163
00:12:05,880 --> 00:12:10,120
 So 143 paved parking spaces are now proposed.

164
00:12:10,120 --> 00:12:15,960
 So the deviation that they're requesting in addition to what was approved was or is from

165
00:12:15,960 --> 00:12:24,200
 section 35, 1310 B1D, which requires permeable paving for any spaces above the minimum.

166
00:12:24,200 --> 00:12:31,940
 And they're proposing 10 additional spaces above what is required in our 2002 DDC.

167
00:12:31,940 --> 00:12:37,000
 So with this, the future land use is designated for neighborhood mixed use.

168
00:12:37,000 --> 00:12:40,120
 This use is in line with this requirement.

169
00:12:40,120 --> 00:12:44,520
 It is predominantly for residential uses, but it does allow commercial uses that are

170
00:12:44,520 --> 00:12:50,440
 basically compatible with those as long as these proposed buildings are appropriate in

171
00:12:50,440 --> 00:12:58,040
 scale and complement the area or complementary to the surrounding neighborhood.

172
00:12:58,040 --> 00:13:08,160
 So very, very briefly, the criteria for approval in section 35, 135A includes whether the proposed

173
00:13:08,160 --> 00:13:12,200
 amendment is preserving the existing neighborhood.

174
00:13:12,200 --> 00:13:17,800
 And so the proposed office park use is similar to what is directly adjacent from the site

175
00:13:17,800 --> 00:13:20,800
 on Teasley Lane.

176
00:13:20,800 --> 00:13:27,600
 The proposed office is similar in that those offices provide between 200 and 300 parking

177
00:13:27,600 --> 00:13:29,840
 spaces per building.

178
00:13:29,840 --> 00:13:34,840
 This proposed deviation is really providing less.

179
00:13:34,840 --> 00:13:39,840
 And that is at approximately one space per 200 on average for this site.

180
00:13:39,840 --> 00:13:44,880
 In addition, the reduction in the number of buildings has also increased the separation

181
00:13:44,880 --> 00:13:48,960
 between the residential use to the north and to the south.

182
00:13:48,960 --> 00:13:59,240
 So the east or the westernmost building is now approximately 70 feet from the northern

183
00:13:59,240 --> 00:14:06,440
 residential use and just under 60 feet from the residential use to the south.

184
00:14:06,440 --> 00:14:10,560
 And I'll just briefly go over the rest of the criteria.

185
00:14:10,560 --> 00:14:15,040
 This deviation is not really deviating in terms of the staff analysis from what was

186
00:14:15,040 --> 00:14:16,920
 previously approved.

187
00:14:16,920 --> 00:14:21,800
 So it does still continue to meet the criteria for approval, ensuring a quality development.

188
00:14:21,800 --> 00:14:25,160
 It does meet all the other requirements of the Denton Development Code.

189
00:14:25,160 --> 00:14:32,080
 Of course, with the exception of the previously approved deviations, second or third being

190
00:14:32,080 --> 00:14:36,480
 focused the new development to activity centers to curb strip development.

191
00:14:36,480 --> 00:14:39,960
 Again, this is consistent with the future land use map.

192
00:14:39,960 --> 00:14:46,480
 Commercial development is consistent with the neighborhood.

193
00:14:46,480 --> 00:14:54,240
 Go ahead and continue.

194
00:14:54,240 --> 00:14:58,480
 Next ensuring that the infrastructure is capable of accommodating the development, again going

195
00:14:58,480 --> 00:14:59,480
 back.

196
00:14:59,480 --> 00:15:02,320
 It hasn't changed significantly from what was previously approved.

197
00:15:02,320 --> 00:15:06,440
 Teasley Lane is a TxDOT road and it does require a TxDOT permit.

198
00:15:06,440 --> 00:15:11,880
 So if there's any changes needed to the site based on what TxDOT approves, they will have

199
00:15:11,880 --> 00:15:17,400
 to come back again to amend the ADP, but this is unlikely for this case.

200
00:15:17,400 --> 00:15:24,340
 And then last that this proposed amendment results in a high quality development.

201
00:15:24,340 --> 00:15:31,440
 And so the request is to deviate from permeable paving, which essentially is intended to reduce

202
00:15:31,440 --> 00:15:37,160
 the water quality volume on the site that would otherwise drain to our drainage facilities.

203
00:15:37,160 --> 00:15:43,440
 So this would allow it to permeate down through the site and kind of take that excess water

204
00:15:43,440 --> 00:15:48,160
 that would be resulted from those paved parking spaces.

205
00:15:48,160 --> 00:15:54,440
 Due to the reduction in the lot coverage and increase in landscaping, this essentially

206
00:15:54,440 --> 00:15:56,360
 balances out the request.

207
00:15:56,360 --> 00:16:01,280
 So we don't believe that this would cause a negative impact on the development.

208
00:16:01,280 --> 00:16:07,880
 And just very briefly, the maximum lot coverage for this zoning district is 80% and the minimum

209
00:16:07,880 --> 00:16:11,720
 landscape area for the NRMU district is 20%.

210
00:16:11,720 --> 00:16:15,760
 They're proposing 29% landscaping.

211
00:16:15,760 --> 00:16:19,560
 And with that, staff is recommending approval of the request as it meets the established

212
00:16:19,560 --> 00:16:24,160
 requirements for an ADP in the 2002 DDC.

213
00:16:24,160 --> 00:16:27,200
 With that, I'll take any questions.

214
00:16:27,200 --> 00:16:28,480
 Any questions for Karina?

215
00:16:28,480 --> 00:16:29,480
 Commissioner Beck.

216
00:16:29,480 --> 00:16:30,960
 Thank you, Chair.

217
00:16:30,960 --> 00:16:42,200
 Karina, so as I understand, because of the increased non-developed surface area of about

218
00:16:42,200 --> 00:16:49,280
 2%, the argument is that makes up for the 10 parking spots in terms of allowing groundwater

219
00:16:49,280 --> 00:16:50,280
 penetration?

220
00:16:50,280 --> 00:16:52,080
 Well, it's twofold.

221
00:16:52,080 --> 00:16:57,640
 So there is a reduction overall in the total impervious area on the site.

222
00:16:57,640 --> 00:17:03,320
 So if we go back to the 2002 code, we actually look at lot coverage being buildings and impervious

223
00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:06,060
 area versus just building coverage.

224
00:17:06,060 --> 00:17:10,020
 So they're reducing the overall amount of impervious area.

225
00:17:10,020 --> 00:17:13,760
 And then on top of that also increasing the landscape area.

226
00:17:13,760 --> 00:17:18,640
 So square footage of the amount of parking that they're requiring does balance out in

227
00:17:18,640 --> 00:17:20,960
 that sense.

228
00:17:20,960 --> 00:17:26,200
 And are we allowed to have mixed pervious and impervious parking?

229
00:17:26,200 --> 00:17:32,280
 Yes, they are allowed to propose that.

230
00:17:32,280 --> 00:17:38,160
 It's required in the code, which is what the deviation that they're requesting, is that

231
00:17:38,160 --> 00:17:44,840
 if they propose more spaces than what the minimum required is, that's where the pervious

232
00:17:44,840 --> 00:17:49,040
 pavement is required.

233
00:17:49,040 --> 00:17:58,360
 They could have a mixed parking lot of partially impervious and partly permeable parking, and

234
00:17:58,360 --> 00:18:05,920
 that would meet our current code without the exception, is that correct?

235
00:18:05,920 --> 00:18:11,120
 That would be something that we would allow them to do.

236
00:18:11,120 --> 00:18:12,720
 If they propose that?

237
00:18:12,720 --> 00:18:16,560
 If they propose that, yes.

238
00:18:16,560 --> 00:18:18,640
 Okay.

239
00:18:18,640 --> 00:18:24,080
 And can you refresh my memory on the, are we, is this changing the access to the adjacent

240
00:18:24,080 --> 00:18:26,920
 homes driveway?

241
00:18:26,920 --> 00:18:28,680
 The maps are very unclear to me.

242
00:18:28,680 --> 00:18:31,840
 I'm sorry, could you repeat the question I was trying to take down?

243
00:18:31,840 --> 00:18:33,960
 There's a home to the south.

244
00:18:33,960 --> 00:18:39,200
 Their access is not, there's a structure to the south, the access to that structure is

245
00:18:39,200 --> 00:18:44,160
 not impeded by this development in any fashion?

246
00:18:44,160 --> 00:18:49,160
 No, that's part of the initial ADP request is that there's a court ordered access easement

247
00:18:49,160 --> 00:18:53,160
 that goes through their site and connects down to the property to the south.

248
00:18:53,160 --> 00:18:57,880
 So as part of the initial deviation request, they were in, well, they have to keep that

249
00:18:57,880 --> 00:19:02,640
 access there and not interrupt that odors access to the site.

250
00:19:02,640 --> 00:19:06,200
 So yes, it's not being impeded by this development.

251
00:19:06,200 --> 00:19:07,200
 Okay.

252
00:19:07,200 --> 00:19:08,200
 That's all my questions.

253
00:19:08,200 --> 00:19:10,360
 Thank you.

254
00:19:10,360 --> 00:19:14,240
 Any other questions for Karina on this item?

255
00:19:14,240 --> 00:19:15,760
 Great.

256
00:19:15,760 --> 00:19:18,080
 Thank you very much, Karina.

257
00:19:18,080 --> 00:19:26,680
 So items 4B, 4C, 4D, and then the consent item 3C moving over to IC are all staff recommending

258
00:19:26,680 --> 00:19:33,200
 denials with the applicant requesting a date for extensions.

259
00:19:33,200 --> 00:19:40,200
 Historically, we've just honored that request for extension and not had a presentation on

260
00:19:40,200 --> 00:19:41,200
 these items.

261
00:19:41,200 --> 00:19:43,800
 I want to throw it out to anyone.

262
00:19:43,800 --> 00:19:51,120
 Is anyone wanting a presentation on these four items or is it copacetic to wait until

263
00:19:51,120 --> 00:19:55,640
 September 16th to hear the presentations?

264
00:19:55,640 --> 00:20:03,360
 By way of hands, we'll go ahead and move on past IC.

265
00:20:03,360 --> 00:20:04,360
 Chris or Beck?

266
00:20:04,360 --> 00:20:05,360
 Yeah.

267
00:20:05,360 --> 00:20:06,360
 Can I make a quick comment?

268
00:20:06,360 --> 00:20:10,920
 And I don't know how many developers are listening and maybe the development staff can encourage

269
00:20:10,920 --> 00:20:18,320
 this, but it seemed like this particular packet was full of sloppy applications that the staff

270
00:20:18,320 --> 00:20:21,760
 were having to deny for incompleteness.

271
00:20:21,760 --> 00:20:28,440
 And I don't think that behooves the developers or staff's time in any reasonable way to not

272
00:20:28,440 --> 00:20:33,900
 have their paperwork complete, especially with the extensions we've been giving due

273
00:20:33,900 --> 00:20:38,360
 to COVID and city council decisions.

274
00:20:38,360 --> 00:20:45,880
 It's kind of frustrating to have these things come before us incomplete and imprecise when

275
00:20:45,880 --> 00:20:47,540
 that's really a developer issue.

276
00:20:47,540 --> 00:20:51,520
 So I'm kind of publicly chiding the developers on this one.

277
00:20:51,520 --> 00:20:54,520
 Thank you, chair.

278
00:20:54,520 --> 00:20:55,520
 Sure.

279
00:20:55,520 --> 00:20:56,520
 Okay.

280
00:20:56,520 --> 00:21:05,320
 With that, we will move on to item 5A, which is Z20-0007.

281
00:21:05,320 --> 00:21:24,560
 This is presented by Haley Zygurski.

282
00:21:24,560 --> 00:21:35,600
 All right, my apologies.

283
00:21:35,600 --> 00:21:39,760
 Just one second.

284
00:21:39,760 --> 00:21:48,280
 All right, good evening.

285
00:21:48,280 --> 00:21:54,080
 So this is case Z20-7 for Primaris Corporate Offices.

286
00:21:54,080 --> 00:21:59,040
 And the request before you this evening is a rezoning for approximately 55 acres.

287
00:21:59,040 --> 00:22:03,580
 The property is comprised of portions of three tracts of land, which you can see outlined

288
00:22:03,580 --> 00:22:05,200
 in yellow on the map.

289
00:22:05,200 --> 00:22:10,780
 These areas are currently zoned rural residential, and the request is to rezone these to general

290
00:22:10,780 --> 00:22:12,900
 office with overlay conditions.

291
00:22:12,900 --> 00:22:18,680
 The applicant has requested these conditions to address two primary purposes, first being

292
00:22:18,680 --> 00:22:25,960
 the phased development of a corporate office campus onto this property by combining their

293
00:22:25,960 --> 00:22:31,440
 current offices from around DFW, and the second being the decommissioning of an existing nonconforming

294
00:22:31,440 --> 00:22:35,000
 asphalt batch plant that is on site.

295
00:22:35,000 --> 00:22:38,920
 So before we get into the request, I just wanted to go over these conditions that the

296
00:22:38,920 --> 00:22:40,760
 applicant has requested very briefly.

297
00:22:40,760 --> 00:22:47,020
 As you can see, the majority of these are related to the phasing in of that office campus.

298
00:22:47,020 --> 00:22:53,000
 So rather than going through everything, zoning, platting, and the standard entitlement process,

299
00:22:53,000 --> 00:22:57,060
 and then constructing the office, they are needing to meet some time schedules associated

300
00:22:57,060 --> 00:22:59,560
 with phasing out their other offices around DFW.

301
00:22:59,560 --> 00:23:04,240
 So they were proposing to bring in four modular buildings that they could operate out of during

302
00:23:04,240 --> 00:23:10,100
 the entitlement, platting, and construction process while they get those, the full buildings

303
00:23:10,100 --> 00:23:11,780
 up and going.

304
00:23:11,780 --> 00:23:17,440
 With that, they are also proposing to decommission and cease operations at the current, at the

305
00:23:17,440 --> 00:23:20,800
 batch plant that's on site and decommission all of that equipment.

306
00:23:20,800 --> 00:23:25,400
 They're proposing to use the existing water well and septic tank that are on site for

307
00:23:25,400 --> 00:23:28,160
 those temporary office buildings.

308
00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:31,920
 They're proposing as condition for that those modular buildings meet all of the building

309
00:23:31,920 --> 00:23:36,840
 code provisions and obtain CEOs through the standard permitting process before they begin

310
00:23:36,840 --> 00:23:43,000
 use, and that with that, they also provide adequate parking for those offices on a dust-free

311
00:23:43,000 --> 00:23:46,120
 permeable surface such as crushed granite.

312
00:23:46,120 --> 00:23:52,200
 The fifth condition would be is specific to the expiration of that certificate of occupancy

313
00:23:52,200 --> 00:23:58,280
 for those modular buildings once either 24 months has expired or they have begun vertical

314
00:23:58,280 --> 00:24:03,960
 construction or sorry, obtained the certificate of occupancy for the permanent building.

315
00:24:03,960 --> 00:24:08,120
 They do propose a 12-month extension be allowable if they've begun vertical construction on

316
00:24:08,120 --> 00:24:13,060
 that building but have not yet completed it at the end of that 24-month period.

317
00:24:13,060 --> 00:24:17,760
 And then the sixth condition is that that asphalt batch plant equipment can be stored

318
00:24:17,760 --> 00:24:22,600
 on site until they have the building permit for their permanent buildings but it not be

319
00:24:22,600 --> 00:24:26,480
 operable during that time, and that would allow that batch plant operator time to find

320
00:24:26,480 --> 00:24:30,420
 somewhere else to relocate the equipment.

321
00:24:30,420 --> 00:24:34,680
 So getting into the request for the rezoning now, you can see the current zoning map with

322
00:24:34,680 --> 00:24:38,200
 the site designated as rural residential and then what that would look like once it is

323
00:24:38,200 --> 00:24:40,920
 transitioned to general office if this case is approved.

324
00:24:40,920 --> 00:24:43,900
 So you can see there's other general office zoning in this area.

325
00:24:43,900 --> 00:24:48,520
 This would just be a continuation of that existing pattern.

326
00:24:48,520 --> 00:24:52,800
 With a rezoning, as you're familiar with now, we do have our general criteria for approval.

327
00:24:52,800 --> 00:24:56,600
 Those are all outlined in your backup so I won't go through them in great detail tonight.

328
00:24:56,600 --> 00:25:01,480
 We will touch on some of these though as we look through the zoning specific criteria

329
00:25:01,480 --> 00:25:04,720
 for approval.

330
00:25:04,720 --> 00:25:08,960
 So the first of these that I want to touch on is the comprehensive plan.

331
00:25:08,960 --> 00:25:11,080
 So there's two elements that we'll look at for this request.

332
00:25:11,080 --> 00:25:13,840
 The first is our standard future land use map.

333
00:25:13,840 --> 00:25:19,040
 You can see here the area in purple is what's called our business innovation designation.

334
00:25:19,040 --> 00:25:23,560
 So this is that area that we intend for the development of those well planned kind of

335
00:25:23,560 --> 00:25:25,680
 large scale office and employment parks.

336
00:25:25,680 --> 00:25:30,200
 It encourages research and development and similar type uses as well as supporting commercial

337
00:25:30,200 --> 00:25:31,360
 uses.

338
00:25:31,360 --> 00:25:33,940
 So general office is consistent with that designation.

339
00:25:33,940 --> 00:25:40,160
 It provides for a pretty broad mixture of uses including office campuses, trade schools,

340
00:25:40,160 --> 00:25:45,120
 some low impact manufacturing type uses, as well as those supporting commercial uses that

341
00:25:45,120 --> 00:25:48,960
 are encouraged within business innovation.

342
00:25:48,960 --> 00:25:54,680
 The second piece of the Denton Plan 2030 that affects this area is the focus areas that

343
00:25:54,680 --> 00:25:56,000
 were designated in the plan.

344
00:25:56,000 --> 00:26:02,400
 So the Denton Plan 2030 called for certain areas to be designated as focus area centers,

345
00:26:02,400 --> 00:26:05,680
 corridors, gateways, travel centers, and branding stations.

346
00:26:05,680 --> 00:26:08,040
 So that's the map that you see here on the screen.

347
00:26:08,040 --> 00:26:11,260
 The subject property is up here in the area that I've circled in red.

348
00:26:11,260 --> 00:26:15,280
 You can see that little blue circle calling this out as a gateway focus area.

349
00:26:15,280 --> 00:26:18,400
 Since this is on the northern edge of the city, it's kind of the first point that people

350
00:26:18,400 --> 00:26:23,440
 would hit within the city of Denton as they're driving south on 35.

351
00:26:23,440 --> 00:26:25,880
 The comp plan does call for small area plans for these areas.

352
00:26:25,880 --> 00:26:29,200
 There's not one adopted for this focus area yet.

353
00:26:29,200 --> 00:26:32,720
 But general office is suitable for this type of focus area.

354
00:26:32,720 --> 00:26:37,160
 As it currently stands, rural residential wouldn't support the type of uses that we

355
00:26:37,160 --> 00:26:39,620
 would expect to see in this area.

356
00:26:39,620 --> 00:26:44,060
 And general office would provide for that mixture of kind of corporate office campus

357
00:26:44,060 --> 00:26:48,080
 type uses as well as supporting commercial that would be suitable along the highway.

358
00:26:48,080 --> 00:26:53,200
 It also by them requesting GO as opposed to light industrial or some other district that

359
00:26:53,200 --> 00:26:54,760
 might support their use.

360
00:26:54,760 --> 00:26:58,520
 This does allow us to apply the DDC's commercial design standards along this corridor, which

361
00:26:58,520 --> 00:27:02,120
 is something that we would desire to do in one of our gateways.

362
00:27:02,120 --> 00:27:07,240
 Additionally, with the conditions the applicants requested, the decommissioning of that non-conformity

363
00:27:07,240 --> 00:27:11,280
 that's currently there, that asphalt batch plant, would increase the aesthetics of this

364
00:27:11,280 --> 00:27:14,640
 area which is desirable for one of our gateway areas.

365
00:27:14,640 --> 00:27:19,600
 One of the other conditions for approval is consistency with the purpose statement for

366
00:27:19,600 --> 00:27:20,600
 the zoning district.

367
00:27:20,600 --> 00:27:24,840
 So as you can see here, GO was intended to provide those locations that support a variety

368
00:27:24,840 --> 00:27:28,120
 of workplaces and complementary uses.

369
00:27:28,120 --> 00:27:32,180
 It goes on to talk about the encouragement of flexible office space as well as research

370
00:27:32,180 --> 00:27:35,020
 and development and corporate business campuses.

371
00:27:35,020 --> 00:27:39,800
 So this is a place where they're desiring to do just that by relocating and consolidating

372
00:27:39,800 --> 00:27:42,900
 the Primoris corporate offices to this area.

373
00:27:42,900 --> 00:27:47,160
 But just in general, GO is consistent with the purpose statement by putting in this area

374
00:27:47,160 --> 00:27:51,240
 because it continues that existing zoning pattern which consolidates those larger tracts

375
00:27:51,240 --> 00:27:57,440
 of lands that would be necessary for these types of uses.

376
00:27:57,440 --> 00:28:00,640
 One of the other criteria is whether there's a significant change to warrant the zoning

377
00:28:00,640 --> 00:28:02,080
 request.

378
00:28:02,080 --> 00:28:05,560
 There hasn't been a significant change per se, but there is a bit of history to this

379
00:28:05,560 --> 00:28:07,760
 site that's worth looking at.

380
00:28:07,760 --> 00:28:13,720
 So if you'll notice, the first about 350 feet of these properties is already zoned GO.

381
00:28:13,720 --> 00:28:17,120
 This area was part of a strip annexation back in 1969.

382
00:28:17,120 --> 00:28:21,640
 So these areas have been part of the city limits for much longer than the back portion

383
00:28:21,640 --> 00:28:24,120
 of the property that we're looking at this evening.

384
00:28:24,120 --> 00:28:28,760
 The area of the subject property was annexed into the city in 2015.

385
00:28:28,760 --> 00:28:32,560
 It had been under non-annexation agreements prior to that, but in 2015 they let those

386
00:28:32,560 --> 00:28:35,120
 expire and annexed into the city.

387
00:28:35,120 --> 00:28:40,420
 And they were given the standard placeholder designation from our 2002 code of RD5X.

388
00:28:40,420 --> 00:28:44,600
 So they never had that initial zoning established until the site was transitioned to rural residential

389
00:28:44,600 --> 00:28:47,880
 with the adoption of the 2019 code.

390
00:28:47,880 --> 00:28:52,200
 So this zoning change to GO is warranted to give them a consistent zoning across the site

391
00:28:52,200 --> 00:28:57,080
 and to be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals for this area along I-35.

392
00:28:57,080 --> 00:29:00,520
 Hey, Haley, is that an actual split zoning on the Platts?

393
00:29:00,520 --> 00:29:05,880
 I don't know where those Platts lines are.

394
00:29:05,880 --> 00:29:10,840
 Is the west side that's looking to be rezoned the same Plat as the east side?

395
00:29:10,840 --> 00:29:14,480
 Is there actually a line of demarcation between ownership Platts?

396
00:29:14,480 --> 00:29:15,880
 No, there's not.

397
00:29:15,880 --> 00:29:20,040
 You can see the three kind of east-west or the two east-west lines here designate the

398
00:29:20,040 --> 00:29:21,760
 three different parcels.

399
00:29:21,760 --> 00:29:26,280
 So I don't believe any of these are actually platted lots to date, but this is all one

400
00:29:26,280 --> 00:29:28,720
 parcel up here that has split zoning currently.

401
00:29:28,720 --> 00:29:33,520
 And then each of these pieces are separate parcels as well with separate ownership that

402
00:29:33,520 --> 00:29:35,400
 do have all split zoning currently.

403
00:29:35,400 --> 00:29:36,400
 Okay.

404
00:29:36,400 --> 00:29:37,400
 Great.

405
00:29:37,400 --> 00:29:38,400
 Thanks for clarifying that.

406
00:29:38,400 --> 00:29:41,140
 You're welcome.

407
00:29:41,140 --> 00:29:46,200
 And then the next criteria is rather this would minimize adverse impacts to surrounding property.

408
00:29:46,200 --> 00:29:50,680
 So as you can see from the map, GO is consistent with the zoning that's in this area, both

409
00:29:50,680 --> 00:29:55,920
 north and south of the property as well as we just spoke about the eastern frontage of

410
00:29:55,920 --> 00:29:59,080
 these lots all has GO zoning today.

411
00:29:59,080 --> 00:30:02,920
 The uses permitted in GO were typical of what we would find along an interstate.

412
00:30:02,920 --> 00:30:06,440
 They're consistent with what's in this area, which is kind of to the south of them developing

413
00:30:06,440 --> 00:30:08,360
 as a travel center at this point in time.

414
00:30:08,360 --> 00:30:15,640
 So a corporate office campus would be fairly compatible with the travel center type uses.

415
00:30:15,640 --> 00:30:19,720
 In addition, this again would facilitate the decommissioning of this batch plant.

416
00:30:19,720 --> 00:30:24,280
 So that would eliminate what could be seen as a kind of noxious neighbor that they currently

417
00:30:24,280 --> 00:30:28,680
 have in place here for some of these rural uses surrounding that are still in the ETJ.

418
00:30:28,680 --> 00:30:35,600
 So this would create a more conforming and less nuisance potential on the property with

419
00:30:35,600 --> 00:30:38,120
 this rezoning.

420
00:30:38,120 --> 00:30:42,640
 And then finally, the criteria call for whether there are public facilities and services available

421
00:30:42,640 --> 00:30:44,140
 to the property.

422
00:30:44,140 --> 00:30:48,720
 So looking at transportation first, you can see these parcels all have frontage on I-35.

423
00:30:48,720 --> 00:30:51,520
 So access is more than adequate to these sites.

424
00:30:51,520 --> 00:30:54,600
 The I-35 corridor will be expanded in the future.

425
00:30:54,600 --> 00:31:01,240
 Currently, TxDOT has this portion, I believe from Highway 77 north to Cook County is currently

426
00:31:01,240 --> 00:31:04,200
 designated as about 10 years out on TxDOT's plans.

427
00:31:04,200 --> 00:31:09,880
 So it'll be a fairly distant future, but this will be improved in the coming years.

428
00:31:09,880 --> 00:31:14,200
 In the meantime, the trips that we would expect to see from a campus of about 50,000 square

429
00:31:14,200 --> 00:31:19,960
 feet like they're currently anticipating would not be that significant of an increase, 487

430
00:31:19,960 --> 00:31:24,120
 total daily trips, 73 a.m. peak and 71 p.m. peak.

431
00:31:24,120 --> 00:31:28,400
 So currently, this doesn't trigger the need for a traffic impact analysis, but we will

432
00:31:28,400 --> 00:31:32,440
 look at that more closely when they come in with their site plan in the future once we

433
00:31:32,440 --> 00:31:38,400
 see what the exact square footage and layout of the site would be.

434
00:31:38,400 --> 00:31:39,800
 Utilities are available to serve the site.

435
00:31:39,800 --> 00:31:43,120
 You can see here with the development of the Blue Beacon truck wash, they have stubbed out

436
00:31:43,120 --> 00:31:47,320
 water and sewer to the southernmost end of this property so they could extend those north

437
00:31:47,320 --> 00:31:51,280
 to serve their campus.

438
00:31:51,280 --> 00:31:56,960
 And finally, the standard notifications were published regarding this request.

439
00:31:56,960 --> 00:31:58,920
 Signs were posted on the property as well.

440
00:31:58,920 --> 00:32:04,160
 We've received two responses in favor there from the owners of the southern two parcels,

441
00:32:04,160 --> 00:32:07,060
 which you can see in green on the map.

442
00:32:07,060 --> 00:32:10,800
 And with that, staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning to general office

443
00:32:10,800 --> 00:32:13,580
 as it does comply with the DDC.

444
00:32:13,580 --> 00:32:17,040
 And we have no objections to the conditions that have been requested by the applicants.

445
00:32:17,040 --> 00:32:19,120
 And I'll just put those up again so you can look at them.

446
00:32:19,120 --> 00:32:23,880
 If you have any questions, I'm happy to go through those.

447
00:32:23,880 --> 00:32:24,880
 >> Any questions for Hayley?

448
00:32:24,880 --> 00:32:25,880
 Commissioner Ellis.

449
00:32:25,880 --> 00:32:35,160
 >> Yeah, Hayley, mine's with just condition five where it says substantially underway

450
00:32:35,160 --> 00:32:39,080
 for vertical construction.

451
00:32:39,080 --> 00:32:45,640
 Is it just if they've started vertical construction and do we need to reword that or was the intent

452
00:32:45,640 --> 00:32:47,440
 for a certain percentage to be done?

453
00:32:47,440 --> 00:32:51,000
 I'm trying to understand where we were going with that verbiage.

454
00:32:51,000 --> 00:32:52,000
 >> Certainly.

455
00:32:52,000 --> 00:32:55,680
 So I think our intent was more just rather they've started vertical construction on the

456
00:32:55,680 --> 00:32:56,680
 project.

457
00:32:56,680 --> 00:33:00,920
 So we could certainly look at rewording that or striking that language if that would be

458
00:33:00,920 --> 00:33:01,920
 more clear.

459
00:33:01,920 --> 00:33:02,920
 >> Yeah.

460
00:33:02,920 --> 00:33:06,240
 Well, because to me that just is out there for an opinion then of what substantially

461
00:33:06,240 --> 00:33:07,240
 underway means.

462
00:33:07,240 --> 00:33:11,440
 And if the intent is just so long as they've started vertical construction, it probably

463
00:33:11,440 --> 00:33:13,080
 needs to be looked at in my opinion.

464
00:33:13,080 --> 00:33:14,080
 >> Yeah.

465
00:33:14,080 --> 00:33:15,080
 Yeah, that's my recollection, Richard.

466
00:33:15,080 --> 00:33:17,680
 What was that?

467
00:33:17,680 --> 00:33:18,680
 Okay.

468
00:33:18,680 --> 00:33:19,680
 Yeah.

469
00:33:19,680 --> 00:33:20,680
 Yeah.

470
00:33:20,680 --> 00:33:21,680
 Our intent was just for vertical construction to have begun.

471
00:33:21,680 --> 00:33:24,600
 So we can reword that.

472
00:33:24,600 --> 00:33:26,920
 >> Commissioner Smith.

473
00:33:26,920 --> 00:33:28,600
 >> Thank you, Chair.

474
00:33:28,600 --> 00:33:34,640
 Hayley, can you put those applicant conditions back up there for a quick second?

475
00:33:34,640 --> 00:33:40,880
 On point five, just a clarification on the point itself, the use of modular office buildings

476
00:33:40,880 --> 00:33:44,920
 will expire 24 months after a certificate of occupancy is obtained.

477
00:33:44,920 --> 00:33:49,320
 That's a CO for the modular office buildings, correct?

478
00:33:49,320 --> 00:33:53,800
 >> That would be for the -- in condition five that is referencing the CO for the permanent

479
00:33:53,800 --> 00:33:54,800
 office building.

480
00:33:54,800 --> 00:33:59,640
 So 24 months of modular in which time they can work towards obtaining that CO for the

481
00:33:59,640 --> 00:34:00,640
 permanent building.

482
00:34:00,640 --> 00:34:01,640
 >> Okay.

483
00:34:01,640 --> 00:34:02,640
 Gotcha.

484
00:34:02,640 --> 00:34:06,200
 So if the permanent occupancy -- the permanent office building, if a CO comes out for that

485
00:34:06,200 --> 00:34:11,400
 in 18 months, they have to stop using the modular building at that point in time, correct?

486
00:34:11,400 --> 00:34:12,400
 >> Yeah.

487
00:34:12,400 --> 00:34:13,400
 Whichever point occurs first.

488
00:34:13,400 --> 00:34:18,040
 The bigger point that I want to get across, do they have to take down those modular office

489
00:34:18,040 --> 00:34:19,040
 buildings?

490
00:34:19,040 --> 00:34:21,880
 There's no language about taking those down, removing them.

491
00:34:21,880 --> 00:34:25,160
 Now they don't have a CO to be able to operate inside of them, but if they're just sitting

492
00:34:25,160 --> 00:34:30,760
 out there, there is no stipulation that once the certificate of occupancy is no longer

493
00:34:30,760 --> 00:34:35,120
 available for the modular building that they're being taken down or removed.

494
00:34:35,120 --> 00:34:38,520
 >> That is certainly a fair point, and we could look at adding that if that's something

495
00:34:38,520 --> 00:34:40,120
 that the commission wanted to do.

496
00:34:40,120 --> 00:34:41,120
 >> Yeah.

497
00:34:41,120 --> 00:34:42,120
 I'd appreciate it.

498
00:34:42,120 --> 00:34:45,900
 I'm sorry that I'm not -- yes, yes, if Coastal Code Enforcement would say they don't have

499
00:34:45,900 --> 00:34:49,520
 a CO, so you can't store stuff in there, you can't put anybody in there, you know, if the

500
00:34:49,520 --> 00:34:50,520
 CO expires.

501
00:34:50,520 --> 00:34:54,640
 But, I mean, we've seen -- we've seen cases before where people come in front of us and

502
00:34:54,640 --> 00:34:57,880
 they haven't had a CO on a building in 10 years, and they're operating a -- flipping

503
00:34:57,880 --> 00:35:00,160
 an auto mechanic shop out of a storage facility.

504
00:35:00,160 --> 00:35:02,520
 So -- and they're kind of out of the way.

505
00:35:02,520 --> 00:35:04,760
 I don't think a lot of people are going to see them, and no one's going to bat an eye

506
00:35:04,760 --> 00:35:06,880
 if someone's working in and out of a modular office building.

507
00:35:06,880 --> 00:35:12,080
 So I'd like to say that same criteria 24 months after the CO is retained or when a CO is

508
00:35:12,080 --> 00:35:15,880
 retained for the permanent office building, I'd like there to be language in there that

509
00:35:15,880 --> 00:35:18,720
 says -- and then the modular buildings have to be removed.

510
00:35:18,720 --> 00:35:19,720
 >> Okay.

511
00:35:19,720 --> 00:35:23,560
 >> So that would be -- that would be better.

512
00:35:23,560 --> 00:35:25,400
 >> All right.

513
00:35:25,400 --> 00:35:27,880
 >> Commissioner Beck.

514
00:35:27,880 --> 00:35:29,680
 >> Thank you, Chair.

515
00:35:29,680 --> 00:35:32,000
 So I concur with Commissioner Smith.

516
00:35:32,000 --> 00:35:33,240
 That was bothering me as well.

517
00:35:33,240 --> 00:35:36,360
 I didn't want to have empty modulars.

518
00:35:36,360 --> 00:35:43,640
 So one of the citizen comments that we got was that they were concerned that our financial

519
00:35:43,640 --> 00:35:50,120
 impact statement was generally about tax revenue and not about the overall financial impact

520
00:35:50,120 --> 00:35:51,120
 statement.

521
00:35:51,120 --> 00:35:54,560
 So can you address that, Haley?

522
00:35:54,560 --> 00:36:00,280
 >> I don't recall a fiscal impact statement being submitted for this project.

523
00:36:00,280 --> 00:36:08,400
 So the -- one of the criteria was that there was not -- there -- something that you --

524
00:36:08,400 --> 00:36:11,400
 >> The general criteria of adverse impact?

525
00:36:11,400 --> 00:36:12,400
 >> Yes.

526
00:36:12,400 --> 00:36:13,400
 >> Yes, sir.

527
00:36:13,400 --> 00:36:14,400
 >> Thank you for clarifying.

528
00:36:14,400 --> 00:36:15,400
 >> Yes.

529
00:36:15,400 --> 00:36:21,760
 So we did not require a fiscal impact statement be submitted for this project.

530
00:36:21,760 --> 00:36:25,560
 In general, though, our expectation was that this would not have an adverse impact on the

531
00:36:25,560 --> 00:36:26,560
 city.

532
00:36:26,560 --> 00:36:27,560
 So it would meet that criteria.

533
00:36:27,560 --> 00:36:32,080
 One thing, it could be expected to generate revenue during the construction and operation

534
00:36:32,080 --> 00:36:38,200
 of this -- a new corporate office within the city was our expectation.

535
00:36:38,200 --> 00:36:46,640
 >> So I guess the comment from citizen was that tax revenue alone is not sort of a full

536
00:36:46,640 --> 00:36:47,640
 financial impact.

537
00:36:47,640 --> 00:36:50,320
 It's a component of it.

538
00:36:50,320 --> 00:36:58,120
 So the citizen was concerned that we -- by just considering that one element, we were

539
00:36:58,120 --> 00:37:08,880
 not sort of evaluating whether having a corporate campus there of anything, regardless of the

540
00:37:08,880 --> 00:37:16,440
 domain of the industry, would have -- would be to the benefit of Denton other than generally

541
00:37:16,440 --> 00:37:19,600
 having a business there would generate tax revenue.

542
00:37:19,600 --> 00:37:28,880
 And so I guess there was concern from the citizens that we make sure that the financial

543
00:37:28,880 --> 00:37:34,200
 impact is addressed.

544
00:37:34,200 --> 00:37:39,000
 I mean, I guess relative to a asphalt plant that's currently there, I think we're going

545
00:37:39,000 --> 00:37:46,560
 to have a benefit personally, but I do concur with the citizen that we don't simply look

546
00:37:46,560 --> 00:37:52,680
 at tax revenue alone even on these cursory runs.

547
00:37:52,680 --> 00:37:55,280
 And yeah, I think that's extended my question.

548
00:37:55,280 --> 00:37:56,280
 Thank you.

549
00:37:56,280 --> 00:37:59,280
 >> Any other questions?

550
00:37:59,280 --> 00:38:03,000
 Chris or Alice?

551
00:38:03,000 --> 00:38:04,960
 >> Thank you, Chair.

552
00:38:04,960 --> 00:38:08,240
 Just real quick, Kaylee, what does this corporation do?

553
00:38:08,240 --> 00:38:09,240
 Just curiosity.

554
00:38:09,240 --> 00:38:10,240
 Do you know?

555
00:38:10,240 --> 00:38:14,840
 >> I am not overly familiar with their operations, but I believe they are kind of a construction

556
00:38:14,840 --> 00:38:19,120
 based company that would have equipment for lease and dispatch.

557
00:38:19,120 --> 00:38:22,620
 But the applicant will be on the phone this evening with us and can certainly address

558
00:38:22,620 --> 00:38:23,620
 that.

559
00:38:23,620 --> 00:38:24,620
 >> Thank you.

560
00:38:24,620 --> 00:38:29,860
 >> So, Kaylee, I have a couple questions that kind of dovetail off some other commissioner's

561
00:38:29,860 --> 00:38:31,360
 points and the citizen's comment.

562
00:38:31,360 --> 00:38:36,840
 First, and this may be to go to the applicant, they're consolidating North Texas operations.

563
00:38:36,840 --> 00:38:41,600
 Do you know how many employees they intend to have at this location?

564
00:38:41,600 --> 00:38:45,120
 >> Let me see if I have that information handy.

565
00:38:45,120 --> 00:38:47,640
 I don't recall off the top of my head.

566
00:38:47,640 --> 00:38:56,120
 I believe they referenced a handful of other campuses that would be consolidated.

567
00:38:56,120 --> 00:39:15,320
 Let's see, I don't see it in the narrative that they submitted, but that's I'm sure something

568
00:39:15,320 --> 00:39:17,200
 they could address during the public hearing.

569
00:39:17,200 --> 00:39:18,200
 >> Okay.

570
00:39:18,200 --> 00:39:19,200
 Great.

571
00:39:19,200 --> 00:39:20,200
 I can certainly ask them.

572
00:39:20,200 --> 00:39:27,020
 In terms of what the citizen commented on and what Commissioner Beck was alluding to,

573
00:39:27,020 --> 00:39:31,680
 what would be the general associated cost to a city on this project?

574
00:39:31,680 --> 00:39:36,040
 The cost of subbing out water is the applicant requirement, correct?

575
00:39:36,040 --> 00:39:37,040
 >> Correct.

576
00:39:37,040 --> 00:39:38,040
 Yeah.

577
00:39:38,040 --> 00:39:39,800
 They would bring utilities to their site.

578
00:39:39,800 --> 00:39:43,160
 >> And they are -- their public access is going directly to a text dot road.

579
00:39:43,160 --> 00:39:49,560
 It's not going to be directly impacting Ditton City streets, correct?

580
00:39:49,560 --> 00:39:51,120
 >> Correct.

581
00:39:51,120 --> 00:39:57,040
 >> What other large significant general costs would go into a financial impact study?

582
00:39:57,040 --> 00:40:00,240
 Because I understand revenue is obviously one side.

583
00:40:00,240 --> 00:40:09,360
 It's not necessarily a measurement of profit, but maybe I'm ignorant in the actual cost

584
00:40:09,360 --> 00:40:15,400
 to developing an asphalt property into a corporate office in our business kind of innovation

585
00:40:15,400 --> 00:40:16,400
 area.

586
00:40:16,400 --> 00:40:21,440
 Could you enlighten me on what costs I might be missing of substance?

587
00:40:21,440 --> 00:40:25,280
 >> Significant cost to the city, nothing is coming to mind like you referenced.

588
00:40:25,280 --> 00:40:28,560
 They would be providing their own utilities to the site.

589
00:40:28,560 --> 00:40:30,360
 Access would be to a text dot roadway.

590
00:40:30,360 --> 00:40:36,240
 They will also be paying impact fees for water, sewer, and roadway impacts.

591
00:40:36,240 --> 00:40:41,800
 So Richard, I'm going to look to you because nothing is coming to mind that would be a

592
00:40:41,800 --> 00:40:42,800
 significant cost.

593
00:40:42,800 --> 00:40:49,520
 >> I mean, generally the rule of thumb is commercial industrial office typically subsidizes

594
00:40:49,520 --> 00:40:50,520
 the residential.

595
00:40:50,520 --> 00:40:53,800
 That's why you want to have that certain mix, that balance.

596
00:40:53,800 --> 00:41:01,160
 What I will indicate or let everyone know, we do have an RFP out now for a fiscal impact

597
00:41:01,160 --> 00:41:02,440
 analysis.

598
00:41:02,440 --> 00:41:07,320
 And so we'll be building a model or the consultant will be building a model that will be able

599
00:41:07,320 --> 00:41:12,240
 to kind of give those -- that cost benefit analysis, if you will.

600
00:41:12,240 --> 00:41:18,080
 Part of the challenge is, and if I'm thinking of the individual, there's always a question

601
00:41:18,080 --> 00:41:23,040
 about water and sewer lines and cost.

602
00:41:23,040 --> 00:41:27,080
 That is kind of a whole separate analysis that's built into the rate structure for those

603
00:41:27,080 --> 00:41:28,080
 utilities.

604
00:41:28,080 --> 00:41:34,080
 So part of your water and sewer bill, there's always a capital reserve cost that's associated

605
00:41:34,080 --> 00:41:35,840
 with that for those replacements.

606
00:41:35,840 --> 00:41:42,040
 So there's a multitude of factors to look at, but generally speaking, there's not a

607
00:41:42,040 --> 00:41:44,840
 large impact like you would have on residential.

608
00:41:44,840 --> 00:41:48,580
 They're not really -- unless they're moving to the city, obviously, but they're not big

609
00:41:48,580 --> 00:41:49,680
 users of the parks.

610
00:41:49,680 --> 00:41:56,560
 There's not a lot of service calls for police, fire, EMT, and they're not heavy -- if it's

611
00:41:56,560 --> 00:42:01,080
 an office, it's not a heavy utility user other than restrooms.

612
00:42:01,080 --> 00:42:02,080
 >> Great.

613
00:42:02,080 --> 00:42:05,560
 Thank you for that context.

614
00:42:05,560 --> 00:42:08,480
 I'm most interested in having their employees move to Denton if they're not.

615
00:42:08,480 --> 00:42:11,400
 So I'm for that.

616
00:42:11,400 --> 00:42:14,880
 Any other questions for Haley on this?

617
00:42:14,880 --> 00:42:15,880
 Okay.

618
00:42:15,880 --> 00:42:16,880
 Great.

619
00:42:16,880 --> 00:42:20,480
 So -- oh, yes, Christian or Beck?

620
00:42:20,480 --> 00:42:27,400
 >> So not about this, but maybe a potential technical issue is citizens have called me

621
00:42:27,400 --> 00:42:32,240
 that happen to know my personal contact information, and they've said that they're having difficulty

622
00:42:32,240 --> 00:42:38,040
 contacting the city on the call-in line that no one's answering.

623
00:42:38,040 --> 00:42:46,460
 So if IT staff, tech staff could check on that, the citizens would appreciate it.

624
00:42:46,460 --> 00:42:49,200
 >> Yeah, Christian or Beck, I just got word that was a glitch.

625
00:42:49,200 --> 00:42:51,400
 They have fixed it, and calls are coming in right now.

626
00:42:51,400 --> 00:42:52,400
 >> Awesome.

627
00:42:52,400 --> 00:42:55,520
 Thank you, Chair.

628
00:42:55,520 --> 00:42:58,040
 >> Okay.

629
00:42:58,040 --> 00:43:13,440
 Next item of business is item 5B, bravo, AESA 20-0004A, and this is Christy Upton's item.

630
00:43:13,440 --> 00:43:35,600
 How do I project this, how do I project it?

631
00:43:35,600 --> 00:43:49,200
 Sorry, I'm not quite used to this.

632
00:43:49,200 --> 00:43:55,080
 Christy Upton with Environmental Services, and tonight I will be presenting an alternative

633
00:43:55,080 --> 00:44:00,080
 AESA plan for a renovation at Ryan High School.

634
00:44:00,080 --> 00:44:11,320
 And Denton ISD is requesting an alternative AESA plan for a renovation of Ryan High School.

635
00:44:11,320 --> 00:44:17,800
 Ryan High School is generally located on the northeast corner of East McKinney Street in

636
00:44:17,800 --> 00:44:27,760
 Mayhill Road, and in recent renovations, they are reworking a parking lot at the entrance

637
00:44:27,760 --> 00:44:36,440
 of the high school, and they're adding a bus parking to the back side, or the northern

638
00:44:36,440 --> 00:44:39,400
 side of the property.

639
00:44:39,400 --> 00:44:46,800
 In this request, they are looking to remove riparian buffer vegetation to improve the parking

640
00:44:46,800 --> 00:44:48,800
 lot drainage.

641
00:44:48,800 --> 00:44:53,920
 A little bit more detail on the riparian buffer that they are requesting to remove.

642
00:44:53,920 --> 00:45:03,760
 This is a unnamed tributary to Pecan Creek, and it was confirmed to be a riparian buffer

643
00:45:03,760 --> 00:45:12,240
 with the vegetation that supports the water quality and stream conditions, and it was

644
00:45:12,240 --> 00:45:14,760
 found to be in fair condition.

645
00:45:14,760 --> 00:45:20,160
 There is also some little remnants of some cross timbers upland habitat that is located

646
00:45:20,160 --> 00:45:25,600
 on the far western side of the property.

647
00:45:25,600 --> 00:45:33,520
 This cross timbers is not part of this application and request.

648
00:45:33,520 --> 00:45:43,120
 The proposed improvements to the parking lot were necessary in order to improve drainage

649
00:45:43,120 --> 00:45:45,680
 to the parking lot.

650
00:45:45,680 --> 00:45:54,540
 The engineer representing the Dutton ISD identified that there was some drainage problems, and

651
00:45:54,540 --> 00:46:02,160
 in order to rectify those drainage problems, they are requesting to extend the drainage

652
00:46:02,160 --> 00:46:09,680
 from the parking lot, extend the storm drain from the current location into the riparian

653
00:46:09,680 --> 00:46:17,840
 buffer, and then to also install a concrete flume through the rest of the riparian buffer

654
00:46:17,840 --> 00:46:25,920
 to create a positive flow of the drainage of the parking lot.

655
00:46:25,920 --> 00:46:33,000
 This will remove approximately 0.01 acre feet of water quality protection volume, which

656
00:46:33,000 --> 00:46:46,360
 was calculated using the ISOM manual's standards in estimating how much water quality volume

657
00:46:46,360 --> 00:46:51,120
 is being treated when runoff runs through this riparian buffer.

658
00:46:51,120 --> 00:47:00,880
 In order to offset and mitigate for this removal, the applicant is proposing to install 0.91

659
00:47:00,880 --> 00:47:09,540
 acre feet of water quality treatment in addition to what is already being designed to meet

660
00:47:09,540 --> 00:47:17,280
 the minimum standards of the storm water, from the storm water drainage criteria manual,

661
00:47:17,280 --> 00:47:21,120
 the City of Denton storm water criteria manual.

662
00:47:21,120 --> 00:47:26,460
 So in other words, they are designing this drainage detention to meet the minimum standards

663
00:47:26,460 --> 00:47:35,140
 and increasing the detention basin in order to treat an additional 0.91 acre feet.

664
00:47:35,140 --> 00:47:40,480
 In addition to that, they will be increasing runoff infiltration, which means that it would

665
00:47:40,480 --> 00:47:47,640
 be allowing for more water to soak into the ground before it leaves this dry detention

666
00:47:47,640 --> 00:47:50,740
 basin when a rain event occurs.

667
00:47:50,740 --> 00:47:58,840
 And lastly, they are proposing to re-vegetate the bottom of this dry detention basin and

668
00:47:58,840 --> 00:48:04,320
 the slopes of it with native grass vegetation.

669
00:48:04,320 --> 00:48:08,560
 Notifications were sent out for this public hearing and there were no responses.

670
00:48:08,560 --> 00:48:16,240
 There were a couple of citizen inquiries from property owners generally located on the southwestern

671
00:48:16,240 --> 00:48:24,080
 side of the Ryan High School property and these citizens have in the past or historically

672
00:48:24,080 --> 00:48:34,020
 received drainage from the high school and have had some concerns with drainage.

673
00:48:34,020 --> 00:48:43,080
 These improvements to the drainage that are currently in the works and are being proposed

674
00:48:43,080 --> 00:48:49,720
 as part of this project would improve and alleviate future flooding problems for those

675
00:48:49,720 --> 00:48:52,480
 residents.

676
00:48:52,480 --> 00:48:58,280
 Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions, that the land disturbances

677
00:48:58,280 --> 00:49:04,600
 be limited to that riparian buffer, that the detention basin be designed and constructed

678
00:49:04,600 --> 00:49:15,080
 to meet the minimum standards as set forth and adding that additional 0.9 acre feet and

679
00:49:15,080 --> 00:49:24,360
 the property owner and ISD will maintain the detention basin following a maintenance plan

680
00:49:24,360 --> 00:49:31,680
 that was provided in an alternative ESA plan and that the vegetation that is being proposed

681
00:49:31,680 --> 00:49:40,960
 will follow the three-year period that environmental services has set a standard for getting or

682
00:49:40,960 --> 00:50:05,400
 establishing and approving of that establishment of that vegetation.

683
00:50:05,400 --> 00:50:20,480
 Thank you very much, Christy.

684
00:50:20,480 --> 00:50:22,200
 Thank you, Chair.

685
00:50:22,200 --> 00:50:29,640
 Christy, in reading through the ESA plan from the engineers, in general, it looks pretty

686
00:50:29,640 --> 00:50:30,640
 good.

687
00:50:30,640 --> 00:50:36,040
 One of the things, though, I noticed was, and actually had some citizens reach out to

688
00:50:36,040 --> 00:50:42,400
 me and indicate the same thing, that sort of a really strong positive is there's native

689
00:50:42,400 --> 00:50:51,120
 grass species being proposed and a bigger bioswale for permeability and water retention,

690
00:50:51,120 --> 00:50:59,140
 but then the maintenance over the three years proposed was mowing, which won't really sustain

691
00:50:59,140 --> 00:51:06,200
 these kinds of grasses, it'll promote sort of short, scrubby Bermuda grass and not the

692
00:51:06,200 --> 00:51:12,100
 native species that actually dent and ISD would pay more for the native species grasses.

693
00:51:12,100 --> 00:51:21,560
 So I wondered if the city, and I guess I can ask this of the engineer later tonight, would

694
00:51:21,560 --> 00:51:30,640
 both be interested in sort of saving money by not mowing down the more expensive grass

695
00:51:30,640 --> 00:51:36,160
 that they're proposing and letting these things grow to seed every year in maintaining a more

696
00:51:36,160 --> 00:51:37,160
 natural ecosystem?

697
00:51:37,160 --> 00:51:42,600
 I mean, I would hate to spend good money on native species grasses and then mow it down

698
00:51:42,600 --> 00:51:47,000
 and screw them up and not have them survive three years and then have to have the district

699
00:51:47,000 --> 00:51:53,040
 come back in three years and spend even more money in order to maintain this bioswale.

700
00:51:53,040 --> 00:51:59,160
 So is that something that the city and the district might entertain as an exception to

701
00:51:59,160 --> 00:52:02,200
 code enforcement without going to seed?

702
00:52:02,200 --> 00:52:09,440
 That's a good question.

703
00:52:09,440 --> 00:52:19,340
 The mowing schedule is something that actually even native grasses can benefit from.

704
00:52:19,340 --> 00:52:27,560
 You do want to let the grasses go to seed before you mow, but if you're mowing, it helps

705
00:52:27,560 --> 00:52:35,600
 reduce weeds encroaching into those native grasses, but also by waiting until it goes

706
00:52:35,600 --> 00:52:40,160
 to seed, then you're promoting next year's growth.

707
00:52:40,160 --> 00:52:42,200
 I definitely agree with that.

708
00:52:42,200 --> 00:52:50,120
 I believe that the mowing schedule is quarterly, but I'll have to look to make sure.

709
00:52:50,120 --> 00:52:55,320
 So to respond to that a little bit, I cheated and when I saw that you were looking at Native

710
00:52:55,320 --> 00:53:02,680
 American seed and I went to the vendor's recommendations for maintenance and they were saying mow heights

711
00:53:02,680 --> 00:53:08,400
 greater than six inches and letting it go to seed every cycle, that was the recommendation

712
00:53:08,400 --> 00:53:12,440
 from the vendor that is going to be supplying the grass.

713
00:53:12,440 --> 00:53:19,400
 So if we could somehow get together with these two municipal districts and not throw more

714
00:53:19,400 --> 00:53:26,260
 money at the problem than we are already trying to do, we're trying to be good and cheap,

715
00:53:26,260 --> 00:53:30,280
 but if we could not waste money by mowing down what we're trying to grow, I think that

716
00:53:30,280 --> 00:53:33,240
 would be really to the benefit of Denton.

717
00:53:33,240 --> 00:53:34,240
 Definitely.

718
00:53:34,240 --> 00:53:44,320
 I can get with the applicant and we can work towards a more refined mowing schedule, yes.

719
00:53:44,320 --> 00:53:50,560
 So is that something, I'm not sure who to ask this question of on staff or legal.

720
00:53:50,560 --> 00:53:59,880
 Is that something I should propose as an amendment or leave that up to staff best practices?

721
00:53:59,880 --> 00:54:08,920
 I don't know how to reinforce that concept.

722
00:54:08,920 --> 00:54:09,920
 Can someone advise me?

723
00:54:09,920 --> 00:54:12,760
 Commissioner Beck, can I ask for clarification?

724
00:54:12,760 --> 00:54:18,600
 For you, you said that the vendor issuing the grass said that you should mow it and

725
00:54:18,600 --> 00:54:20,880
 staff is saying that we should mow it.

726
00:54:20,880 --> 00:54:22,520
 I feel like we're aligned here.

727
00:54:22,520 --> 00:54:24,740
 Is this a height thing that you wanted to find?

728
00:54:24,740 --> 00:54:26,520
 Height and frequency.

729
00:54:26,520 --> 00:54:30,880
 So you want to mow it higher than you typically mow.

730
00:54:30,880 --> 00:54:35,080
 You don't typically mow grass at six inches.

731
00:54:35,080 --> 00:54:43,600
 It's pretty high for just a standard greenway mow and you don't typically let it get to

732
00:54:43,600 --> 00:54:48,880
 three, four feet when it goes to seed because people complain, but if you're going to use

733
00:54:48,880 --> 00:54:54,080
 native grasses, that's what they do and it's a better bioswale with more water penetration

734
00:54:54,080 --> 00:54:59,920
 and a better use of our city money and the ISD's money.

735
00:54:59,920 --> 00:55:05,720
 It's just generally better and a better use of money if we let it do these things.

736
00:55:05,720 --> 00:55:13,300
 Maybe basically I guess we're looking at one mow or two mows a year at six inches rather

737
00:55:13,300 --> 00:55:19,400
 than a regular quarterly crop to the ground mowing cycle.

738
00:55:19,400 --> 00:55:26,320
 And so I don't want us to waste our money doing something when we're trying to be good.

739
00:55:26,320 --> 00:55:27,600
 I definitely understand the concern.

740
00:55:27,600 --> 00:55:33,280
 I just wonder if it's under the purview of PNZ to kind of dictate someone's responsibility

741
00:55:33,280 --> 00:55:36,520
 of how high to mow grass that seems really granular for this body.

742
00:55:36,520 --> 00:55:40,480
 But Richard, do you have any thoughts on, I mean, does it, I didn't see anywhere explicitly

743
00:55:40,480 --> 00:55:44,880
 say that they're going to quarterly mow it at normal height.

744
00:55:44,880 --> 00:55:51,880
 Again, I would defer to Christy, but I would, or Cynthia has something to add, but I would

745
00:55:51,880 --> 00:55:59,360
 defer to whatever the recommendation is from the vendor for that type of seed.

746
00:55:59,360 --> 00:56:04,480
 Again, if we get into a period where there's a lot of rain, they may not cut it for some

747
00:56:04,480 --> 00:56:06,760
 time or if in a period of drought.

748
00:56:06,760 --> 00:56:13,080
 So I think it just varies.

749
00:56:13,080 --> 00:56:19,120
 I believe that this mowing schedule and the maintenance schedule actually is pulled from

750
00:56:19,120 --> 00:56:21,120
 the ISO manual.

751
00:56:21,120 --> 00:56:31,440
 So what you're referring to is definitely something that I think that we can refine.

752
00:56:31,440 --> 00:56:37,560
 Unless anybody here has any objections or input on this, I think what I could do is

753
00:56:37,560 --> 00:56:44,960
 I could work with the applicant to just update the all ESA plan to give it a little bit more

754
00:56:44,960 --> 00:56:50,720
 refined direction on the mowing schedule.

755
00:56:50,720 --> 00:56:52,080
 That's okay with me.

756
00:56:52,080 --> 00:56:55,440
 I don't know that I need to make a motion for an amendment.

757
00:56:55,440 --> 00:57:04,600
 I just want to make sure that all the stakeholders are trying to do what they're proposing to

758
00:57:04,600 --> 00:57:11,880
 do and not come along and do their standard mowing that is going to end up making us revisit

759
00:57:11,880 --> 00:57:15,960
 this in three years for code enforcement because it's all crapped out.

760
00:57:15,960 --> 00:57:27,960
 So yeah, if you'll work with the vendors, I guess that's, or the owners, that would

761
00:57:27,960 --> 00:57:28,960
 be okay with me.

762
00:57:28,960 --> 00:57:33,960
 I guess I don't need to have an amendment.

763
00:57:33,960 --> 00:57:34,960
 Great.

764
00:57:34,960 --> 00:57:36,320
 Thank you Commissioner Beck for that insight.

765
00:57:36,320 --> 00:57:40,040
 Any other questions for Kristy?

766
00:57:40,040 --> 00:57:42,720
 Okay.

767
00:57:42,720 --> 00:57:44,200
 Thank you, Kristy.

768
00:57:44,200 --> 00:57:45,200
 There's no other questions.

769
00:57:45,200 --> 00:57:47,600
 We'll move on to item 5C.

770
00:57:47,600 --> 00:57:51,480
 It's an AESA 20-002A.

771
00:57:51,480 --> 00:57:57,440
 Staff has requested this be postponed, just like our IC items, typically with postponement

772
00:57:57,440 --> 00:58:04,920
 from staff, we would open public hearing and postpone it and hear the full presentation

773
00:58:04,920 --> 00:58:05,920
 on September 16th.

774
00:58:05,920 --> 00:58:09,440
 Is there any opposition to this plan?

775
00:58:09,440 --> 00:58:11,360
 Okay.

776
00:58:11,360 --> 00:58:19,280
 Seeing none, we go to 5D, 5D is Z19-0012A.

777
00:58:19,280 --> 00:58:21,560
 This item is Julie Wyatt's.

778
00:58:21,560 --> 00:58:27,280
 Julie, this item is being requested to be postponed by the applicant.

779
00:58:27,280 --> 00:58:33,400
 And so perhaps we can find an abbreviated overview of this to give some context to a

780
00:58:33,400 --> 00:58:35,200
 potential vote for postponement.

781
00:58:35,200 --> 00:58:37,480
 Would that be agreeable?

782
00:58:37,480 --> 00:58:38,480
 Sure.

783
00:58:38,480 --> 00:58:40,480
 Yeah, absolutely.

784
00:58:40,480 --> 00:58:46,600
 Let me pull up.

785
00:58:46,600 --> 00:58:49,400
 I can just give a brief overview of what they're proposing.

786
00:58:49,400 --> 00:58:54,040
 I think that would be helpful.

787
00:58:54,040 --> 00:58:59,480
 I don't want to circumvent anybody's thoughts on a vote as requested by the applicant.

788
00:58:59,480 --> 00:59:04,200
 We haven't gotten any citizen feedback on this item and we potentially hear it again

789
00:59:04,200 --> 00:59:07,480
 on September 16th.

790
00:59:07,480 --> 00:59:10,320
 We also have received some letters.

791
00:59:10,320 --> 00:59:16,180
 I wasn't able to get them all scanned in today, but we can certainly get them scanned in for

792
00:59:16,180 --> 00:59:17,720
 you for the 16th.

793
00:59:17,720 --> 00:59:21,960
 Or if you wanted to act on it tonight, we could definitely get those pulled up and over

794
00:59:21,960 --> 00:59:24,280
 to you.

795
00:59:24,280 --> 00:59:29,360
 Share screen.

796
00:59:29,360 --> 00:59:32,800
 Oh, show all windows.

797
00:59:32,800 --> 00:59:34,280
 We've got so many windows open.

798
00:59:34,280 --> 00:59:35,280
 There we go.

799
00:59:35,280 --> 00:59:37,480
 Why open that Julie?

800
00:59:37,480 --> 00:59:42,800
 Richard, would it be, is your estimation to go ahead to the full presentation?

801
00:59:42,800 --> 00:59:48,080
 It does look like we have some citizen feedback and I don't want to, I certainly want to hear

802
00:59:48,080 --> 00:59:49,080
 them.

803
00:59:49,080 --> 00:59:57,200
 We might not have the presentation, we might not have context to hear their thoughts.

804
00:59:57,200 --> 01:00:01,080
 I think it's something that we can run through pretty quickly so you at least see, because

805
01:00:01,080 --> 01:00:04,880
 I think this has come before you one other time.

806
01:00:04,880 --> 01:00:06,840
 Great.

807
01:00:06,840 --> 01:00:08,440
 I trust Julie to make that happen.

808
01:00:08,440 --> 01:00:09,440
 Okay.

809
01:00:09,440 --> 01:00:11,800
 I'm going to try.

810
01:00:11,800 --> 01:00:12,800
 All right.

811
01:00:12,800 --> 01:00:13,800
 Here we go.

812
01:00:13,800 --> 01:00:19,880
 As Richard alluded to, you have seen a request for this property last year, last November

813
01:00:19,880 --> 01:00:25,400
 20th actually, and this is that same request coming back to you with minor modifications.

814
01:00:25,400 --> 01:00:32,040
 So the applicant, it's Z19-0012A Mockingbird Single Family Residential.

815
01:00:32,040 --> 01:00:37,120
 The subject property is located south of Audre and just east of Mockingbird.

816
01:00:37,120 --> 01:00:39,120
 It's about 2.61 acres.

817
01:00:39,120 --> 01:00:47,800
 It currently has a zoning designation of R-2 and the applicant is requesting R-4 district.

818
01:00:47,800 --> 01:00:53,200
 According to the applicant, they are proposing nine single family dwellings.

819
01:00:53,200 --> 01:00:59,320
 Current zoning map here showing that R-4 or the R-2 and they are proposing that R-4.

820
01:00:59,320 --> 01:01:04,600
 The criteria for approval for zoning cases is in sub-chapter two of the Denton Development

821
01:01:04,600 --> 01:01:10,800
 Code, we have the general and then the specific to zoning cases.

822
01:01:10,800 --> 01:01:13,840
 So first of all, consistency with the Denton Plan 2030.

823
01:01:13,840 --> 01:01:19,480
 This is area is designated as low density residential as are the adjacent properties.

824
01:01:19,480 --> 01:01:24,040
 That's intended for single family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre.

825
01:01:24,040 --> 01:01:29,080
 Under the 2002 code, that was really easy to apply because we had maximum densities in

826
01:01:29,080 --> 01:01:32,040
 our embedded within our zoning districts.

827
01:01:32,040 --> 01:01:38,420
 The 2019 code, it's a little trickier, the R-4 does not precisely conform to that maximum

828
01:01:38,420 --> 01:01:46,880
 density when you just talk about that overall not taking into account any streets.

829
01:01:46,880 --> 01:01:51,840
 So but it does meet the intent of the overall goals.

830
01:01:51,840 --> 01:01:58,160
 It is our R-4 is a single family, primarily single family residential district and it

831
01:01:58,160 --> 01:02:03,920
 also does meet the in-fill goals of the Denton Plan 2030.

832
01:02:03,920 --> 01:02:07,760
 One of the other criteria for approval minimizes adverse impacts to the surrounding property.

833
01:02:07,760 --> 01:02:11,360
 R-4 is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods.

834
01:02:11,360 --> 01:02:17,280
 So you can see to the west of the subject property to the east and to the south, it

835
01:02:17,280 --> 01:02:24,160
 is consistently R-4 district and this would just be a logical extension of that existing

836
01:02:24,160 --> 01:02:26,160
 zoning pattern.

837
01:02:26,160 --> 01:02:31,100
 The typical lot sizes, we've done kind of a density study for the surrounding neighborhoods

838
01:02:31,100 --> 01:02:36,800
 that R-4 is consistent with those lot sizes, which range from 6,000 square feet to about

839
01:02:36,800 --> 01:02:40,060
 7,500 square feet.

840
01:02:40,060 --> 01:02:44,360
 We also look at the transportation.

841
01:02:44,360 --> 01:02:48,280
 It's not, you know, it's a limited number of homes.

842
01:02:48,280 --> 01:02:55,240
 The ITE Trip Generation Manual kind of estimates about 10 trips per single family dwelling

843
01:02:55,240 --> 01:02:56,240
 unit.

844
01:02:56,240 --> 01:03:00,280
 This would generate about 90 trips per day, which would not trigger a TIA.

845
01:03:00,280 --> 01:03:04,240
 And then there would be roadway impact fees associated with the development.

846
01:03:04,240 --> 01:03:07,540
 Public water and wastewater services are available to the site.

847
01:03:07,540 --> 01:03:11,760
 Also TAP and impact fees would apply.

848
01:03:11,760 --> 01:03:15,700
 You know, this, as I said, this is an in-fill site, so you're not having those extensions

849
01:03:15,700 --> 01:03:20,600
 of water and wastewater and that's why in-fill is really important.

850
01:03:20,600 --> 01:03:27,120
 And then the subject property is about a mile from Milan Park.

851
01:03:27,120 --> 01:03:28,120
 Notification was sent out.

852
01:03:28,120 --> 01:03:32,120
 I don't have all of those notices that we did receive today.

853
01:03:32,120 --> 01:03:36,800
 We have received quite a few in opposition, so I did want to point that out.

854
01:03:36,800 --> 01:03:40,280
 I don't have all of those tallies for you, but we can certainly get them for you for

855
01:03:40,280 --> 01:03:45,640
 the regular session if you would like.

856
01:03:45,640 --> 01:03:48,120
 And staff does recommend approval of the request.

857
01:03:48,120 --> 01:03:52,040
 It does comply with the requirements of the DIT and development code.

858
01:03:52,040 --> 01:04:00,800
 The applicant originally requested an overlay condition to just permit the permitted uses

859
01:04:00,800 --> 01:04:03,360
 to single family detached only.

860
01:04:03,360 --> 01:04:08,840
 They've been working with the adjacent property owners to kind of figure out what overlay

861
01:04:08,840 --> 01:04:13,760
 conditions or what would give them comfort for this project.

862
01:04:13,760 --> 01:04:18,600
 I heard from the applicant a couple of days ago that they wanted to -- the adjacent property

863
01:04:18,600 --> 01:04:26,720
 owners felt like that proposed overlay maybe wasn't strict enough, and they wanted to add

864
01:04:26,720 --> 01:04:30,280
 in that townhomes and duplexes would not be permitted.

865
01:04:30,280 --> 01:04:36,600
 So they just wanted to kind of workshop that overlay condition that they're requesting

866
01:04:36,600 --> 01:04:42,360
 with those adjacent property owners a little longer to try to make them feel comfortable

867
01:04:42,360 --> 01:04:50,480
 with their project, and that was the reason for the request for the postponement.

868
01:04:50,480 --> 01:04:52,840
 So that concludes my presentation.

869
01:04:52,840 --> 01:04:57,200
 If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

870
01:04:57,200 --> 01:05:01,000
 >> Any questions for Hailey?

871
01:05:01,000 --> 01:05:03,760
 And just for clarification, I might have misspoke or spoke too early.

872
01:05:03,760 --> 01:05:09,240
 There's not any callers for this item, as of right now, so right now we don't have anyone

873
01:05:09,240 --> 01:05:10,240
 calling.

874
01:05:10,240 --> 01:05:11,240
 Commissioner Beck.

875
01:05:11,240 --> 01:05:18,960
 >> Chair, Julie, I'm teasing the chair.

876
01:05:18,960 --> 01:05:28,120
 One of the concerns previously was that the access through the flag handle section of

877
01:05:28,120 --> 01:05:34,480
 the property was close to the intersection, and they were concerned about the access.

878
01:05:34,480 --> 01:05:40,080
 Was there feedback on the local citizens, and did we resolve any of those access issues

879
01:05:40,080 --> 01:05:44,080
 that were brought before us last time?

880
01:05:44,080 --> 01:05:47,400
 >> I don't have that information for each night, but I can certainly bring that back

881
01:05:47,400 --> 01:05:51,320
 for you on the 15th, and the applicant will be available at that time to kind of talk

882
01:05:51,320 --> 01:05:55,800
 through how they've worked with those adjacent property owners.

883
01:05:55,800 --> 01:06:00,920
 The property does sort of have those fixed boundaries with that panhandle, so I don't

884
01:06:00,920 --> 01:06:04,740
 know how that would be addressed, but it'll certainly be something that we can look into

885
01:06:04,740 --> 01:06:07,360
 between now and the next P&Z meeting.

886
01:06:07,360 --> 01:06:10,520
 That would be useful to me in my decision process, thank you.

887
01:06:10,520 --> 01:06:11,520
 >> You bet.

888
01:06:11,520 --> 01:06:16,560
 >> Any other questions for Julie on this?

889
01:06:16,560 --> 01:06:19,240
 Great.

890
01:06:19,240 --> 01:06:20,240
 Thank you so much, Julie.

891
01:06:20,240 --> 01:06:21,240
 >> You bet.

892
01:06:21,240 --> 01:06:29,360
 >> That moves us to our final item on this work session agenda, which is 5EP20-0003.

893
01:06:29,360 --> 01:06:33,080
 This is also Julie's item, and I'll turn it over to her.

894
01:06:33,080 --> 01:06:34,080
 >> All right.

895
01:06:34,080 --> 01:06:55,540
 Let's find this presentation.

896
01:06:55,540 --> 01:07:05,640
 Almost there.

897
01:07:05,640 --> 01:07:21,300
 I'm going to try a different way.

898
01:07:21,300 --> 01:07:29,800
 That didn't work.

899
01:07:29,800 --> 01:07:40,840
 Ah, found it.

900
01:07:40,840 --> 01:07:43,840
 Sorry about that.

901
01:07:43,840 --> 01:07:44,840
 Okay.

902
01:07:44,840 --> 01:07:45,840
 Here we go.

903
01:07:45,840 --> 01:07:54,140
 This request before you is PD-20003, it is for a charter school.

904
01:07:54,140 --> 01:08:00,920
 So the request before you is for a plan development amendment for PD-139 to develop the site outlined

905
01:08:00,920 --> 01:08:05,000
 there in yellow, actually a portion of that site with a charter school.

906
01:08:05,000 --> 01:08:08,580
 It's considered an institutional use in that PD.

907
01:08:08,580 --> 01:08:12,180
 It's an overall 37.3-acre property.

908
01:08:12,180 --> 01:08:17,680
 We're only developing a portion of that, and it is located at the southeast corner of Vintage

909
01:08:17,680 --> 01:08:25,060
 Boulevard and I-35W Vintage Boulevard ramp intersection right here.

910
01:08:25,060 --> 01:08:27,100
 All right.

911
01:08:27,100 --> 01:08:32,780
 This is one of those strange PDs where it's an older PD, but as we're going forward with

912
01:08:32,780 --> 01:08:42,080
 these older PDs, we're now applying the 2019 processes and criteria for approval for those

913
01:08:42,080 --> 01:08:47,740
 PDs, but we're still following those regulations set forth in these legacy PDs.

914
01:08:47,740 --> 01:08:54,500
 So it does make it a little confusing as we go through it, but I'm sure we'll have several

915
01:08:54,500 --> 01:08:59,400
 of these as these legacy PDs continue to develop.

916
01:08:59,400 --> 01:09:06,180
 So it's going to follow the 2019 processes, but the regulations in place, the development

917
01:09:06,180 --> 01:09:09,620
 of regulations in place at the time of that PD.

918
01:09:09,620 --> 01:09:15,920
 So as such, this is a major amendment and it requires that dual public hearing recommendation

919
01:09:15,920 --> 01:09:19,920
 from the Planning and Zoning Commission and then approval from City Council.

920
01:09:19,920 --> 01:09:22,340
 So a little background on PD 139.

921
01:09:22,340 --> 01:09:28,880
 It was established in 1991 as a 450-acre business village, so it's much greater than the subject

922
01:09:28,880 --> 01:09:29,880
 property.

923
01:09:29,880 --> 01:09:32,080
 I've got it outlined here in yellow and you can kind of see it.

924
01:09:32,080 --> 01:09:33,560
 It's kind of small.

925
01:09:33,560 --> 01:09:39,060
 It allowed a variety of uses, hospitality uses, institutional uses, of which the educational

926
01:09:39,060 --> 01:09:46,620
 facilities are one, manufacturing and distribution, office, residential multifamily, retail services,

927
01:09:46,620 --> 01:09:49,740
 accessory, and then two open space areas.

928
01:09:49,740 --> 01:09:54,340
 There was an open space area on the north side and you can kind of see how that tracks

929
01:09:54,340 --> 01:09:56,520
 with the aerial.

930
01:09:56,520 --> 01:10:06,260
 You can see the trees and then there was the branch of the Rorick branch.

931
01:10:06,260 --> 01:10:09,180
 So those were the two open spaces.

932
01:10:09,180 --> 01:10:16,940
 In 1999, that plan was revised to include a mix of land uses, phasing, and infrastructure.

933
01:10:16,940 --> 01:10:20,220
 That concept plan expired.

934
01:10:20,220 --> 01:10:25,700
 It had a very strict phasing schedule associated with it and as part of that, if it didn't

935
01:10:25,700 --> 01:10:30,300
 develop according to that phasing, then it would expire.

936
01:10:30,300 --> 01:10:38,820
 So that's why it's coming back to you tonight as well as because of this proposed use.

937
01:10:38,820 --> 01:10:44,420
 There were two conditions on that ordinance that I just wanted to bring forward.

938
01:10:44,420 --> 01:10:49,740
 They were related to roadway improvements that no development other than single family

939
01:10:49,740 --> 01:10:55,540
 detached and one convenience store would be permitted until either the interchange at

940
01:10:55,540 --> 01:11:02,060
 I35 and what was once called Ponder Road and is now vintage was reconstructed as a standard

941
01:11:02,060 --> 01:11:09,340
 diamond configuration or Ponder Road was extended to Highway 377 as a four lane roadway.

942
01:11:09,340 --> 01:11:14,280
 Those improvements are actually under construction now if you've driven a vintage boulevard recently.

943
01:11:14,280 --> 01:11:19,620
 So that condition is being met.

944
01:11:19,620 --> 01:11:21,540
 Further development of this PD has been limited.

945
01:11:21,540 --> 01:11:25,860
 I know there's a single family neighborhood associated with it.

946
01:11:25,860 --> 01:11:33,180
 But 213 acres have actually been zoned out of that PD, so there's not much of it left.

947
01:11:33,180 --> 01:11:39,020
 The current proposal is, as I said, for a charter school development.

948
01:11:39,020 --> 01:11:45,140
 It would be K through 12 and would include a total of 81,000 square feet of ground floor

949
01:11:45,140 --> 01:11:46,140
 area.

950
01:11:46,140 --> 01:11:47,860
 That's the area in purple.

951
01:11:47,860 --> 01:11:52,300
 It would have a lower school, which I believe goes up to the eighth grade and then the upper

952
01:11:52,300 --> 01:11:54,460
 school being high school.

953
01:11:54,460 --> 01:11:58,860
 The applicant will be on the phone tonight, so he could probably give more information

954
01:11:58,860 --> 01:12:01,320
 about that functioning of it.

955
01:12:01,320 --> 01:12:05,860
 It's going to be one and two stories, the upper school being one story and then the

956
01:12:05,860 --> 01:12:08,420
 lower school being two stories.

957
01:12:08,420 --> 01:12:11,860
 Approximately 1,052 students could be accommodated.

958
01:12:11,860 --> 01:12:18,060
 It also includes an athletic field, an agricultural teaching garden, and playground.

959
01:12:18,060 --> 01:12:22,660
 They're proposing two access points through a loop drive.

960
01:12:22,660 --> 01:12:27,180
 There's an access point that is easier to sort of discern.

961
01:12:27,180 --> 01:12:31,500
 It's along Vintage Road.

962
01:12:31,500 --> 01:12:36,220
 And then there is another proposed access point on the future John Payne Road.

963
01:12:36,220 --> 01:12:42,620
 So John Payne Road is on our mobility plan and intended to connect Crawford Road to the

964
01:12:42,620 --> 01:12:45,540
 south all the way to Vintage Boulevard.

965
01:12:45,540 --> 01:12:56,500
 So this is the country lakes west in the Carnegie Ridge neighborhoods you might be familiar

966
01:12:56,500 --> 01:12:58,260
 with near Crawford Road.

967
01:12:58,260 --> 01:13:02,220
 And this is sort of that upper portion and at some point those two things will connect.

968
01:13:02,220 --> 01:13:06,140
 So that will be another collector within our city.

969
01:13:06,140 --> 01:13:13,580
 And here is that loop drive with students being dropped off in this cul-de-sac.

970
01:13:13,580 --> 01:13:20,500
 So this follows the 1988 landscape ordinance.

971
01:13:20,500 --> 01:13:24,580
 And you might be familiar with this because we have looked at it, I believe, one other

972
01:13:24,580 --> 01:13:27,100
 time recently.

973
01:13:27,100 --> 01:13:29,540
 That requirement was for that street yard.

974
01:13:29,540 --> 01:13:33,900
 If you recall the Stonehill Center, that is that area between the front of the building

975
01:13:33,900 --> 01:13:36,420
 and the street.

976
01:13:36,420 --> 01:13:44,380
 And that street yard has to have 20% landscaping, which would come to 36,652 square feet in

977
01:13:44,380 --> 01:13:45,380
 this instance.

978
01:13:45,380 --> 01:13:49,820
 And then one tree every 2,500 square feet of total street yard.

979
01:13:49,820 --> 01:13:51,140
 That would be 74 trees.

980
01:13:51,140 --> 01:13:57,780
 They're proposing 91,000 square feet of landscaping and 109 large canopy and ornamental trees

981
01:13:57,780 --> 01:14:00,180
 in this area.

982
01:14:00,180 --> 01:14:06,300
 It also required parking lot landscaping within the street yard, a 5% of area, which would

983
01:14:06,300 --> 01:14:08,980
 come to about 3,800 square feet.

984
01:14:08,980 --> 01:14:12,020
 They're proposing 10,800 square feet.

985
01:14:12,020 --> 01:14:15,100
 And then parking lot screening at the right of way.

986
01:14:15,100 --> 01:14:25,140
 That is that they are proposing the hedge row along vintage as well as John Payne.

987
01:14:25,140 --> 01:14:29,780
 We also looked at the site in terms of current standards.

988
01:14:29,780 --> 01:14:34,400
 We wanted to kind of weave in some current standards where we could.

989
01:14:34,400 --> 01:14:39,460
 As part of that, they did provide the one landscape island every 10 spaces.

990
01:14:39,460 --> 01:14:44,060
 So even though that old code didn't require landscaping in the parking lot behind that

991
01:14:44,060 --> 01:14:49,220
 street yard, they are proposing that both in this location and this location as well

992
01:14:49,220 --> 01:14:51,180
 as those landscape medians.

993
01:14:51,180 --> 01:14:56,460
 Those are more in conformance with the 2019 development code.

994
01:14:56,460 --> 01:15:00,780
 The criteria for approval are in subchapter two, the general, as well as the specific.

995
01:15:00,780 --> 01:15:04,060
 We'll touch on those as we go through the project.

996
01:15:04,060 --> 01:15:07,600
 So first of all, does it comply with the goals of the comprehensive plan?

997
01:15:07,600 --> 01:15:12,980
 So the future land use designation of the subject site is low density residential.

998
01:15:12,980 --> 01:15:18,100
 So although this is not a residential use, as you're probably familiar, low density residential

999
01:15:18,100 --> 01:15:23,120
 is really one of our kind of our suburban development pattern, the one to four dwelling

1000
01:15:23,120 --> 01:15:25,020
 units per acre.

1001
01:15:25,020 --> 01:15:31,340
 This isn't a residential use, but it's a supportive use for residential areas.

1002
01:15:31,340 --> 01:15:36,500
 As you're probably familiar, educational facilities are often embedded within, or are embedded

1003
01:15:36,500 --> 01:15:42,060
 within a variety of zoning districts, you know, and so, and they're needed throughout

1004
01:15:42,060 --> 01:15:46,300
 the city to support our residential areas.

1005
01:15:46,300 --> 01:15:51,460
 So therefore the future land use map is instructive for the potential expansion of schools because

1006
01:15:51,460 --> 01:15:57,100
 it does indicate areas where future residential growth suggests a greater need for schools,

1007
01:15:57,100 --> 01:15:59,180
 you know, think about it for this area.

1008
01:15:59,180 --> 01:16:04,760
 So low density residential is in this location, and then we've got moderate density here.

1009
01:16:04,760 --> 01:16:09,200
 These are the areas we need schools, probably need fewer schools in the industrial commerce

1010
01:16:09,200 --> 01:16:11,740
 area, because that's going to be more employment uses.

1011
01:16:11,740 --> 01:16:14,800
 So just kind of think of it in that in those terms.

1012
01:16:14,800 --> 01:16:18,780
 We also did also did want to look at those other goals and policies within the Denton

1013
01:16:18,780 --> 01:16:24,380
 develop or within the Denton plan 2030, and we've got two things that relate to education.

1014
01:16:24,380 --> 01:16:30,700
 One economic vitality, 23% of the jobs located in Denton are in education services.

1015
01:16:30,700 --> 01:16:39,300
 So just additional schools do kind of support that that economic vitality goal and criteria

1016
01:16:39,300 --> 01:16:41,700
 within the Denton plan 2030.

1017
01:16:41,700 --> 01:16:49,820
 And then mobility, we want to mix uses and homes within different uses within homes,

1018
01:16:49,820 --> 01:16:54,260
 and homes within walking distance, we want to make sure that we've got those supportive

1019
01:16:54,260 --> 01:16:57,020
 uses near each other.

1020
01:16:57,020 --> 01:17:02,260
 And although we know the proposal would attract students beyond the city's borders, a location

1021
01:17:02,260 --> 01:17:07,620
 like near residential subdivision and along an arterial could provide for a variety of

1022
01:17:07,620 --> 01:17:12,260
 transportation options to the school, maybe not only for students, but for employees.

1023
01:17:12,260 --> 01:17:19,240
 So so those mix of uses near each other, meet those mobility goals.

1024
01:17:19,240 --> 01:17:23,960
 Compliance with that with the DDC and original PD, it conforms with the PD amendment process

1025
01:17:23,960 --> 01:17:29,260
 and also the development standards as established by that original PD provides a greater level

1026
01:17:29,260 --> 01:17:35,520
 of building design quality community amenities, amenities and connectivity.

1027
01:17:35,520 --> 01:17:41,200
 They are proposing a plaza area that's kind of in in excess of what their PD requires

1028
01:17:41,200 --> 01:17:44,620
 and what what the Denton Development Code will require.

1029
01:17:44,620 --> 01:17:50,500
 So as as you enter the site from john pain, they've got these plaza areas between those

1030
01:17:50,500 --> 01:17:53,940
 schools to add a gathering area for students.

1031
01:17:53,940 --> 01:17:56,900
 It will also have landscaping and trees for that area.

1032
01:17:56,900 --> 01:18:01,200
 There's also pedestrian connections throughout the site and connecting to those rights of

1033
01:18:01,200 --> 01:18:02,620
 way.

1034
01:18:02,620 --> 01:18:06,860
 In terms of the building, they haven't fully designed the buildings yet.

1035
01:18:06,860 --> 01:18:10,860
 These are concepts to what they typically like to build.

1036
01:18:10,860 --> 01:18:16,100
 So as a recommendation, staff recommends a condition that the proposal meet the site

1037
01:18:16,100 --> 01:18:21,060
 design standards in the Denton Development Code, just so we have some some understanding

1038
01:18:21,060 --> 01:18:24,780
 of what those buildings are going to look like to make sure they have the appropriate

1039
01:18:24,780 --> 01:18:30,700
 architectural articulation, the the orientation to the street and those those standards that

1040
01:18:30,700 --> 01:18:35,620
 we we are used to seeing within the city of Denton.

1041
01:18:35,620 --> 01:18:40,340
 In the case of non residential uses that such development will be appropriate in the area

1042
01:18:40,340 --> 01:18:43,460
 location and overall planning for the purpose intended.

1043
01:18:43,460 --> 01:18:47,820
 So this is kind of this is an interesting part of town.

1044
01:18:47,820 --> 01:18:50,300
 It's this is situated in southwest Denton.

1045
01:18:50,300 --> 01:18:54,780
 So the subject site is right here, and we're kind of looking at the big picture surrounding

1046
01:18:54,780 --> 01:18:55,780
 it.

1047
01:18:55,780 --> 01:19:01,380
 So as you're probably familiar, this we've seen a few projects come forward in this area

1048
01:19:01,380 --> 01:19:02,580
 recently.

1049
01:19:02,580 --> 01:19:06,380
 You've seen the Sagebrook development in this location.

1050
01:19:06,380 --> 01:19:12,700
 I believe Sean had a zoning case in this location recently, and then the Hunter Ranch project.

1051
01:19:12,700 --> 01:19:17,140
 So we know development is really imminent in this side of town.

1052
01:19:17,140 --> 01:19:22,540
 It's coming and it's a lot of residential development.

1053
01:19:22,540 --> 01:19:25,540
 Additional future development in the area is is two parks.

1054
01:19:25,540 --> 01:19:30,480
 The city of Denton owns these two park locations, and at some point in the future, those will

1055
01:19:30,480 --> 01:19:32,260
 also be developed.

1056
01:19:32,260 --> 01:19:38,460
 So this proposal as that corresponding educational facility, adding to those mix of uses to support

1057
01:19:38,460 --> 01:19:42,980
 the the future residential growing population.

1058
01:19:42,980 --> 01:19:46,940
 Schools are often found within neighborhoods or on the edges of neighborhoods.

1059
01:19:46,940 --> 01:19:52,300
 So this proposal is consistent with that typical development pattern that we often see in residential

1060
01:19:52,300 --> 01:19:53,620
 areas.

1061
01:19:53,620 --> 01:19:56,920
 Two things specific to the site I wanted to highlight.

1062
01:19:56,920 --> 01:20:00,820
 If you recall in the site plan, that site is oriented away from I-35.

1063
01:20:00,820 --> 01:20:02,900
 That's something that we worked with the applicant on.

1064
01:20:02,900 --> 01:20:08,300
 We really wanted it to kind of face inward toward those growing residential areas, kind

1065
01:20:08,300 --> 01:20:13,500
 of minimize the visual impacts of I-35 and kind of more integrated into the community.

1066
01:20:13,500 --> 01:20:16,580
 And then also the intensity is limited.

1067
01:20:16,580 --> 01:20:21,980
 They've got large open areas for those for that recreation and those athletic facilities,

1068
01:20:21,980 --> 01:20:26,380
 and then the 33 foot maximum building heights.

1069
01:20:26,380 --> 01:20:30,180
 The provision of public facilities such as schools, fire protection, law enforcement,

1070
01:20:30,180 --> 01:20:35,700
 water, wastewater, streets, public services and parks that are adequate to serve the anticipated

1071
01:20:35,700 --> 01:20:38,260
 population within the PD district.

1072
01:20:38,260 --> 01:20:44,060
 So we're really just looking about this one site and I want to focus on the streets and

1073
01:20:44,060 --> 01:20:46,100
 the traffic.

1074
01:20:46,100 --> 01:20:51,300
 So we they submitted a TIA to the city of Denton and it's under review.

1075
01:20:51,300 --> 01:20:59,420
 As part of that, they have a traffic management plan for how cars are going to move on site.

1076
01:20:59,420 --> 01:21:05,940
 So they did a study for how parents will drop off and pick up because if you've ever lived

1077
01:21:05,940 --> 01:21:12,780
 near an elementary school or dropped off a kid at elementary school, you know that's

1078
01:21:12,780 --> 01:21:16,300
 quite a logistical operation.

1079
01:21:16,300 --> 01:21:24,040
 So with that looped drive aisle, they have a queuing capacity for 119 vehicles on site.

1080
01:21:24,040 --> 01:21:32,100
 So they have appropriate queuing capacity for those that drop off and pick up time.

1081
01:21:32,100 --> 01:21:36,060
 That traffic management plan anticipates greater vehicle queuing in the afternoon, but they

1082
01:21:36,060 --> 01:21:44,380
 do anticipate some delays for those exiting vehicles in morning drop off onto Vintage

1083
01:21:44,380 --> 01:21:45,380
 Boulevard.

1084
01:21:45,380 --> 01:21:50,220
 So they have recommended some on-site operational interventions.

1085
01:21:50,220 --> 01:21:52,180
 These aren't related to the physical structure.

1086
01:21:52,180 --> 01:21:56,100
 The physical structure is kind of that queuing capacity, but I did just want to mention these

1087
01:21:56,100 --> 01:21:58,660
 because they were a part of the TIA.

1088
01:21:58,660 --> 01:22:04,940
 They are proposing a staggered dismissal and I believe that that is something that this

1089
01:22:04,940 --> 01:22:08,980
 school does and the applicant will be here to discuss that.

1090
01:22:08,980 --> 01:22:14,140
 They're also proposing staff assistance to assure safe unloading and to discourage parents

1091
01:22:14,140 --> 01:22:18,660
 from parking in the queue lanes, and then temporary traffic control devices just to

1092
01:22:18,660 --> 01:22:22,840
 guide motorists during those peak times.

1093
01:22:22,840 --> 01:22:25,660
 We also looked at the surrounding streets.

1094
01:22:25,660 --> 01:22:32,220
 Vintage Boulevard is a primary arterial within the city, and as I said, it is under construction

1095
01:22:32,220 --> 01:22:34,300
 right now.

1096
01:22:34,300 --> 01:22:39,220
 As with a lot of our projects, we don't have good traffic counts right now because of the

1097
01:22:39,220 --> 01:22:41,480
 disruption to transportation.

1098
01:22:41,480 --> 01:22:50,260
 So we did get a Denton Police study on Vintage from 2017 and they studied the traffic for

1099
01:22:50,260 --> 01:22:59,220
 a week and their results that the street averaged a total of 5,900 vehicles per day.

1100
01:22:59,220 --> 01:23:04,380
 According to the applicant's TIA under review, this use would generate about 2,500 trips

1101
01:23:04,380 --> 01:23:05,380
 per day.

1102
01:23:05,380 --> 01:23:10,540
 That's 809 a.m. peak and then 520 p.m. peak.

1103
01:23:10,540 --> 01:23:16,820
 But remember, this roadway is being expanded, and so it will have capacity for 2,400 trips

1104
01:23:16,820 --> 01:23:20,900
 per day, which would accommodate the proposal.

1105
01:23:20,900 --> 01:23:26,580
 And then as I also mentioned, they are dedicating a right-of-way for that future John Payne

1106
01:23:26,580 --> 01:23:33,860
 connection, and they will also have to construct three lanes of traffic for that to access

1107
01:23:33,860 --> 01:23:37,700
 that eastern access point.

1108
01:23:37,700 --> 01:23:44,660
 All right, and just wanted to take one more look at traffic in the area.

1109
01:23:44,660 --> 01:23:49,160
 So also as part of their TIA, they looked at the 2022 conditions.

1110
01:23:49,160 --> 01:23:53,940
 They looked at it with the proposal and then if the proposal wasn't there.

1111
01:23:53,940 --> 01:23:59,060
 So generally all of the intersections in the area are anticipated to operate at an A or

1112
01:23:59,060 --> 01:24:08,220
 B level of service, except for this intersection outlined in yellow, and that is the 377 vintage

1113
01:24:08,220 --> 01:24:12,640
 intersection.

1114
01:24:12,640 --> 01:24:19,980
 They do anticipate by 2022 that that will probably operate at a level F when you're

1115
01:24:19,980 --> 01:24:27,900
 eastbound on vintage turning onto 377, and that can be a tough intersection.

1116
01:24:27,900 --> 01:24:30,380
 And that would be either with or without the proposal.

1117
01:24:30,380 --> 01:24:34,940
 So they do anticipate that further interventions at that intersection will be needed in the

1118
01:24:34,940 --> 01:24:39,420
 future, maybe something like a channelized left turn lane to help smooth that traffic

1119
01:24:39,420 --> 01:24:50,140
 flow, or also maybe when 377 gets expanded in this area to maybe a signal at that intersection.

1120
01:24:50,140 --> 01:24:52,620
 But that would be something in the future.

1121
01:24:52,620 --> 01:24:59,740
 In terms of what is happening in this area now, Vintage Boulevard will have channelized

1122
01:24:59,740 --> 01:25:03,220
 turn lanes into the subject property.

1123
01:25:03,220 --> 01:25:04,580
 They would have a left turn.

1124
01:25:04,580 --> 01:25:10,540
 So cars traveling westbound on vintage would be able to get out of the travel lanes to

1125
01:25:10,540 --> 01:25:12,220
 wait to turn left.

1126
01:25:12,220 --> 01:25:17,620
 And then those traveling eastbound on vintage would be able to get out of those travel lanes

1127
01:25:17,620 --> 01:25:19,460
 to turn right.

1128
01:25:19,460 --> 01:25:27,220
 So this intersection at I-35W and vintage is, at some point in the future, will be improved.

1129
01:25:27,220 --> 01:25:28,900
 TxDOT has begun working on that.

1130
01:25:28,900 --> 01:25:35,240
 Here is a general schematic of what that intersection will look like.

1131
01:25:35,240 --> 01:25:37,620
 I believe it's under design now.

1132
01:25:37,620 --> 01:25:41,600
 I don't know when it's going to be constructed, but it will be constructed in the future.

1133
01:25:41,600 --> 01:25:48,100
 So based upon that TIA and the current conditions, there is adequate capacity to accommodate

1134
01:25:48,100 --> 01:25:50,280
 the use.

1135
01:25:50,280 --> 01:25:52,380
 So public outreach was sent out.

1136
01:25:52,380 --> 01:25:55,540
 We haven't received any responses.

1137
01:25:55,540 --> 01:25:58,340
 I received one phone call who just had a question about it.

1138
01:25:58,340 --> 01:26:03,060
 So we answered the question, but they didn't provide any further written feedback.

1139
01:26:03,060 --> 01:26:09,480
 The applicant did hold a virtual neighborhood meeting and there were no attendees.

1140
01:26:09,480 --> 01:26:14,100
 So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request as it's

1141
01:26:14,100 --> 01:26:22,220
 consistent with subchapter 2 with two proposed conditions.

1142
01:26:22,220 --> 01:26:30,300
 One is one you typically see that landscaping and attached plans reflect an intent to comply

1143
01:26:30,300 --> 01:26:32,020
 with the PD requirements.

1144
01:26:32,020 --> 01:26:37,980
 However, minor alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings and final

1145
01:26:37,980 --> 01:26:44,540
 individual plant selections would be able to be approved by staff, provided that final

1146
01:26:44,540 --> 01:26:49,900
 landscaping complies with the attached landscape plan in terms of the number of large canopy

1147
01:26:49,900 --> 01:26:55,060
 trees to be planted, 91, the minimum number of shrubs, and then also the minimum number

1148
01:26:55,060 --> 01:26:58,300
 of medium canopy or ornamental trees.

1149
01:26:58,300 --> 01:27:02,100
 And then also the other condition that all buildings would comply with the site design

1150
01:27:02,100 --> 01:27:07,100
 standards in subchapter 7 of the Denton Development Code.

1151
01:27:07,100 --> 01:27:11,400
 The next section is just kind of laying out just in text form what they're proposing,

1152
01:27:11,400 --> 01:27:18,580
 the two classroom buildings, the maximum height, and then the 357 parking spaces with that

1153
01:27:18,580 --> 01:27:25,220
 10,000 square foot plaza areas with that landscaping.

1154
01:27:25,220 --> 01:27:30,620
 This is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the September 15th City Council.

1155
01:27:30,620 --> 01:27:33,220
 And I will be happy to answer any questions.

1156
01:27:33,220 --> 01:27:34,220
 Great.

1157
01:27:34,220 --> 01:27:35,220
 Thank you.

1158
01:27:35,220 --> 01:27:36,220
 Commissioner Beck.

1159
01:27:36,220 --> 01:27:37,220
 Thank you, Chair.

1160
01:27:37,220 --> 01:27:40,140
 So Julie, can you put up slide 15?

1161
01:27:40,140 --> 01:27:41,140
 You bet.

1162
01:27:41,140 --> 01:27:43,820
 My question is going to be the clove relief.

1163
01:27:43,820 --> 01:27:49,420
 I just wanted to make sure that for future development, we're not going to be anywhere

1164
01:27:49,420 --> 01:27:54,140
 close to construction while there's a school, because they're going to finish that school

1165
01:27:54,140 --> 01:27:58,160
 before they get that clove relief put in, right?

1166
01:27:58,160 --> 01:27:59,420
 I would imagine so.

1167
01:27:59,420 --> 01:28:06,900
 I suspect that this is -- that this is a ways out.

1168
01:28:06,900 --> 01:28:11,980
 There is -- maybe I could go back, maybe to help illustrate that, I'm going to go back

1169
01:28:11,980 --> 01:28:15,460
 to the site plan, if I can get to it.

1170
01:28:15,460 --> 01:28:16,460
 There we go.

1171
01:28:16,460 --> 01:28:19,700
 So there is actually a remainder lot.

1172
01:28:19,700 --> 01:28:25,540
 I know the request was for the entire 37 acres, but there's actually a 16-acre remainder lot

1173
01:28:25,540 --> 01:28:32,900
 that will at some point develop either as part of the PD, and at that time, a major

1174
01:28:32,900 --> 01:28:37,460
 amendment would have to come back to you, and you would have to see that development.

1175
01:28:37,460 --> 01:28:44,240
 Or if they decided to zone it out of the PD, once again, you would see that request come

1176
01:28:44,240 --> 01:28:45,240
 before you.

1177
01:28:45,240 --> 01:28:52,740
 So there is going to be a gap between the proposed school and that highway, if that

1178
01:28:52,740 --> 01:28:55,020
 kind of makes it a little clearer.

1179
01:28:55,020 --> 01:28:56,020
 That's much more clear.

1180
01:28:56,020 --> 01:28:57,020
 Thank you.

1181
01:28:57,020 --> 01:28:58,020
 You bet.

1182
01:28:58,020 --> 01:29:06,340
 And my second question was, this is the upper two-thirds of the lot before Hunter Cole.

1183
01:29:06,340 --> 01:29:14,380
 So the bottom third before Hunter Cole is not included in this property, right?

1184
01:29:14,380 --> 01:29:22,500
 So can you -- do you have an overview -- I'm not sure -- that maybe it's the -- something

1185
01:29:22,500 --> 01:29:25,100
 with Hunter Cole on it.

1186
01:29:25,100 --> 01:29:26,100
 Does that help?

1187
01:29:26,100 --> 01:29:33,780
 The Green Region, the floodplain region in there, that -- Hunter Cole is below that Green

1188
01:29:33,780 --> 01:29:37,580
 Region, right?

1189
01:29:37,580 --> 01:29:38,980
 I believe so.

1190
01:29:38,980 --> 01:29:39,980
 Okay.

1191
01:29:39,980 --> 01:29:45,660
 So I guess my question, just so we don't have to go down too many rabbit holes, is, is there

1192
01:29:45,660 --> 01:29:53,340
 any work from these owners, developers, on integration with a school and adjacent to

1193
01:29:53,340 --> 01:29:54,340
 this floodplain?

1194
01:29:54,340 --> 01:29:58,900
 I know they had the garden adjacent to it, and I -- it would be -- it seems like it would

1195
01:29:58,900 --> 01:30:01,780
 be a useful thing.

1196
01:30:01,780 --> 01:30:06,580
 Well, I'm just proselytizing here.

1197
01:30:06,580 --> 01:30:11,700
 Let me ask my last question.

1198
01:30:11,700 --> 01:30:18,620
 And that is, do we -- are you familiar enough with Denton ISD standards such that -- I know

1199
01:30:18,620 --> 01:30:26,580
 that in many municipalities, if a charter school dies, if it's financially unviable,

1200
01:30:26,580 --> 01:30:34,820
 the local school districts often absorb it and make it an element of their district.

1201
01:30:34,820 --> 01:30:43,340
 So do we know if the proposed plan is suitable for Denton ISD, if for some reason they were

1202
01:30:43,340 --> 01:30:45,900
 forced to absorb this school location?

1203
01:30:45,900 --> 01:30:48,320
 Does it match?

1204
01:30:48,320 --> 01:30:50,500
 I don't know the answer to that.

1205
01:30:50,500 --> 01:30:56,580
 I did provide the proposal to Denton ISD to get their feedback.

1206
01:30:56,580 --> 01:31:02,780
 I'm sure with all of the preparations they had to do with the pandemic that -- I haven't

1207
01:31:02,780 --> 01:31:08,540
 heard back from them as to their feelings about the project.

1208
01:31:08,540 --> 01:31:09,540
 Okay.

1209
01:31:09,540 --> 01:31:10,540
 Thank you.

1210
01:31:10,540 --> 01:31:11,540
 Commissioner Anderson?

1211
01:31:11,540 --> 01:31:12,540
 Thank you, Chair.

1212
01:31:12,540 --> 01:31:13,540
 Quick question.

1213
01:31:13,540 --> 01:31:23,620
 2449 on the west side of that is going to be the future loop 288.

1214
01:31:23,620 --> 01:31:29,180
 The vintage road, is that -- on the east side of 35W, is that going to be the future expansion

1215
01:31:29,180 --> 01:31:34,740
 of 288 that feeds in towards Denton, towards 377?

1216
01:31:34,740 --> 01:31:43,540
 If so, is that going to be the school -- is the setback going to be okay?

1217
01:31:43,540 --> 01:31:50,080
 Because I mean, what I've seen in Denton before is we build and then we deal with infrastructure

1218
01:31:50,080 --> 01:31:53,780
 later and then we have to buy property and all this stuff.

1219
01:31:53,780 --> 01:31:57,540
 I'd like to look in the future and say, hey, if that's where the school is going to be,

1220
01:31:57,540 --> 01:32:00,380
 make sure -- if that's where the loop is going to be, make sure the school sets back for

1221
01:32:00,380 --> 01:32:05,140
 another -- we don't have to do anything like that in the future.

1222
01:32:05,140 --> 01:32:09,500
 They have been working with the engineering on appropriate right-of-way dedication to

1223
01:32:09,500 --> 01:32:15,820
 make sure that engineering gets that right-of-way for the roadway.

1224
01:32:15,820 --> 01:32:24,740
 And the -- if I can -- I'm going to pull up the site plan, see.

1225
01:32:24,740 --> 01:32:34,900
 The school is -- as far as the buildings, you know, if there were some -- at some point

1226
01:32:34,900 --> 01:32:39,940
 any additional right-of-way dedication, the school has been set back fairly far.

1227
01:32:39,940 --> 01:32:42,180
 If you look -- and I failed to point this out.

1228
01:32:42,180 --> 01:32:47,500
 There's a pretty large electric easement that runs, that clips this corner, which really

1229
01:32:47,500 --> 01:32:54,860
 requires all of this -- all of the improvements related to this to be -- to scooch back pretty

1230
01:32:54,860 --> 01:32:56,500
 far away from that street.

1231
01:32:56,500 --> 01:32:59,340
 So this sort of set that -- that's that standard.

1232
01:32:59,340 --> 01:33:03,820
 So it has been set back pretty far from that roadway.

1233
01:33:03,820 --> 01:33:05,260
 >> So Vintage is going to be how many lanes?

1234
01:33:05,260 --> 01:33:08,460
 Is it going to be four lanes divided, is that what it was?

1235
01:33:08,460 --> 01:33:09,460
 >> Yes, sir.

1236
01:33:09,460 --> 01:33:14,180
 >> So if it becomes part of the loop eventually, will it still be four lanes or will it be

1237
01:33:14,180 --> 01:33:19,380
 six lanes, do we know?

1238
01:33:19,380 --> 01:33:22,580
 >> I don't have -- >> Because it looks like if we -- if they

1239
01:33:22,580 --> 01:33:31,500
 move the lanes further a little to the south, they're going to lose a lot of that parking.

1240
01:33:31,500 --> 01:33:35,940
 >> I know engineering is going to hopefully be on the call, so we may be able to get some

1241
01:33:35,940 --> 01:33:39,180
 information from them regarding that at the regular meeting.

1242
01:33:39,180 --> 01:33:40,180
 >> Okay.

1243
01:33:40,180 --> 01:33:41,180
 No problem.

1244
01:33:41,180 --> 01:33:42,180
 Thanks.

1245
01:33:42,180 --> 01:33:43,180
 >> Thank you.

1246
01:33:43,180 --> 01:33:48,200
 >> Any other questions for Julie?

1247
01:33:48,200 --> 01:33:51,580
 Okay.

1248
01:33:51,580 --> 01:33:58,780
 Seeing no other questions, I will end the work session meeting at 6.35 and request us

1249
01:33:58,780 --> 01:34:03,740
 to reconvene for our normal regular meeting at 6.45.

1250
01:34:03,740 --> 01:34:12,100
 Thank you.

1251
01:34:12,100 --> 01:34:15,420
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular

1252
01:34:15,420 --> 01:34:18,940
 meeting for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2020.

1253
01:34:18,940 --> 01:34:22,300
 Seeing that we have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 6.47.

1254
01:34:22,300 --> 01:34:27,700
 I appreciate the patience that we were in behind and you all waiting for us to begin

1255
01:34:27,700 --> 01:34:28,700
 the meeting.

1256
01:34:28,700 --> 01:34:29,700
 We'll hop right into it.

1257
01:34:29,700 --> 01:34:34,020
 The first item of business is to provide a pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and Texas

1258
01:34:34,020 --> 01:34:35,020
 flag.

1259
01:34:35,020 --> 01:34:40,660
 If the other commissioners would like to join me, they can unmute and recite with me.

1260
01:34:40,660 --> 01:34:47,200
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

1261
01:34:47,200 --> 01:35:01,580
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

1262
01:35:01,580 --> 01:35:12,080
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one nation, indivisible.

1263
01:35:12,080 --> 01:35:16,500
 The next item of business is the consideration of the August 19th, 2020 minutes.

1264
01:35:16,500 --> 01:35:17,500
 Commissioner Smith?

1265
01:35:17,500 --> 01:35:18,500
 Make a motion to approve.

1266
01:35:18,500 --> 01:35:20,620
 We have a first for approval.

1267
01:35:20,620 --> 01:35:21,620
 Commissioner Ellis?

1268
01:35:21,620 --> 01:35:22,620
 Second.

1269
01:35:22,620 --> 01:35:25,740
 We have a first and a second for approval.

1270
01:35:25,740 --> 01:35:27,540
 Any discussion on the minutes?

1271
01:35:27,540 --> 01:35:31,140
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call.

1272
01:35:31,140 --> 01:35:32,140
 Commissioner Smith?

1273
01:35:32,140 --> 01:35:33,140
 Aye.

1274
01:35:33,140 --> 01:35:34,140
 Commissioner Ellis?

1275
01:35:34,140 --> 01:35:35,140
 Aye.

1276
01:35:35,140 --> 01:35:36,140
 Commissioner Beck?

1277
01:35:36,140 --> 01:35:37,140
 Aye.

1278
01:35:37,140 --> 01:35:38,140
 Commissioner Anderson?

1279
01:35:38,140 --> 01:35:39,140
 Aye.

1280
01:35:39,140 --> 01:35:40,140
 Commissioner Cole?

1281
01:35:40,140 --> 01:35:41,140
 Aye.

1282
01:35:41,140 --> 01:35:42,140
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1283
01:35:42,140 --> 01:35:43,140
 Aye.

1284
01:35:43,140 --> 01:35:44,140
 Chair is also an aye.

1285
01:35:44,140 --> 01:35:45,140
 Motion carries 7-0.

1286
01:35:45,140 --> 01:35:49,260
 The next item of business is our consent agenda.

1287
01:35:49,260 --> 01:35:57,940
 And just for point of record, item 3CPP20-0018 is being pulled.

1288
01:35:57,940 --> 01:36:08,540
 So the vote for consent will consist of item 3A, 3B and 3D.

1289
01:36:08,540 --> 01:36:09,540
 Commissioner Smith?

1290
01:36:09,540 --> 01:36:13,460
 Make a motion for approval for item 3A, B and D.

1291
01:36:13,460 --> 01:36:15,020
 We have a motion for approval.

1292
01:36:15,020 --> 01:36:16,020
 Commissioner Ellis?

1293
01:36:16,020 --> 01:36:17,020
 Second.

1294
01:36:17,020 --> 01:36:22,020
 Is there any discussion on these items?

1295
01:36:22,020 --> 01:36:25,420
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call.

1296
01:36:25,420 --> 01:36:26,420
 Commissioner Smith?

1297
01:36:26,420 --> 01:36:27,420
 Aye.

1298
01:36:27,420 --> 01:36:28,420
 Commissioner Ellis?

1299
01:36:28,420 --> 01:36:29,420
 Aye.

1300
01:36:29,420 --> 01:36:30,420
 Commissioner Beck?

1301
01:36:30,420 --> 01:36:31,420
 Aye.

1302
01:36:31,420 --> 01:36:32,420
 Commissioner Anderson?

1303
01:36:32,420 --> 01:36:33,420
 Aye.

1304
01:36:33,420 --> 01:36:34,420
 Commissioner Cole?

1305
01:36:34,420 --> 01:36:35,420
 Aye.

1306
01:36:35,420 --> 01:36:36,420
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1307
01:36:36,420 --> 01:36:37,420
 Aye.

1308
01:36:37,420 --> 01:36:42,240
 The chair is also an aye.

1309
01:36:42,240 --> 01:36:44,700
 Motion carries 7-0.

1310
01:36:44,700 --> 01:36:48,300
 The next item of business is our individual consideration items.

1311
01:36:48,300 --> 01:36:54,240
 We'll start with item 4A, ADP20-0010.

1312
01:36:54,240 --> 01:36:56,780
 This is Carina Maldonado's item.

1313
01:36:56,780 --> 01:36:59,260
 Commissioner Beck?

1314
01:36:59,260 --> 01:37:06,740
 For the agenda order, chair, what order are we going to stick the consent item in?

1315
01:37:06,740 --> 01:37:11,460
 It'll be the last item of this section.

1316
01:37:11,460 --> 01:37:22,620
 Thank you, chair.

1317
01:37:22,620 --> 01:37:30,180
 Is Carina available?

1318
01:37:30,180 --> 01:37:31,180
 She's pulling it up now.

1319
01:37:31,180 --> 01:37:32,180
 Gotcha.

1320
01:37:32,180 --> 01:37:36,500
 I think the video's off.

1321
01:37:36,500 --> 01:37:41,100
 That's my confusion.

1322
01:37:41,100 --> 01:37:47,740
 She's on.

1323
01:37:47,740 --> 01:38:08,340
 I'm trying to share my screen and it's looking a little weird.

1324
01:38:08,340 --> 01:38:20,740
 Okay, there you go.

1325
01:38:20,740 --> 01:38:23,740
 I'm sorry.

1326
01:38:23,740 --> 01:38:31,260
 All right, I apologize.

1327
01:38:31,260 --> 01:38:41,640
 Okay, sorry about that, Carina Maldonado, assistant planner, City of Denton.

1328
01:38:41,640 --> 01:38:49,780
 Today I'll be presenting an alternative development plan for ADP20-0010 Teasley Office Park.

1329
01:38:49,780 --> 01:38:55,660
 Just a little bit of background before we get started, an approved ADP was brought forth

1330
01:38:55,660 --> 01:39:02,340
 to planning and zoning last summer under ADP18-0006.

1331
01:39:02,340 --> 01:39:08,300
 This proposed plan was approved with seven buildings shown here in blue.

1332
01:39:08,300 --> 01:39:13,940
 The proposed use was for both professional office and medical office split almost evenly

1333
01:39:13,940 --> 01:39:16,320
 between the both.

1334
01:39:16,320 --> 01:39:21,900
 For those uses, there was a proposed 122 parking spaces.

1335
01:39:21,900 --> 01:39:26,180
 This ADP was proposed due to several restrictions on the site, several easements.

1336
01:39:26,180 --> 01:39:34,020
 There's a drainage easement to the west, access easements, an electric easement, and so on.

1337
01:39:34,020 --> 01:39:40,780
 These deviations were for building setbacks, building frontage, floor area ratio, and front

1338
01:39:40,780 --> 01:39:41,780
 parking.

1339
01:39:41,780 --> 01:39:48,740
 I won't go into too much detail about those deviations as this request is for one additional

1340
01:39:48,740 --> 01:39:50,860
 deviation besides that.

1341
01:39:50,860 --> 01:39:56,620
 So for the site, today we're going to consider approval of an amendment to the existing ADP

1342
01:39:56,620 --> 01:39:57,860
 as just mentioned.

1343
01:39:57,860 --> 01:40:07,740
 The additional deviation is from section 35.1310 of the 2002 Debt and Development Code.

1344
01:40:07,740 --> 01:40:13,580
 The site is located here just south of the intersection of Teasley and Teasley on a 3.42

1345
01:40:13,580 --> 01:40:14,860
 acre site.

1346
01:40:14,860 --> 01:40:21,020
 The zoning is NRMU, which is now currently MN, and the uses remain the same of professional

1347
01:40:21,020 --> 01:40:24,380
 office and medical office.

1348
01:40:24,380 --> 01:40:28,980
 The revised site plan is showing a reduction in the number of buildings, so from seven

1349
01:40:28,980 --> 01:40:31,900
 down to three, shown here.

1350
01:40:31,900 --> 01:40:37,860
 The uses have changed in that the professional office was reduced down to 3,600 square feet,

1351
01:40:37,860 --> 01:40:45,220
 and the medical office use was increased up to the maximum amount allowed by the NRMU

1352
01:40:45,220 --> 01:40:46,220
 district.

1353
01:40:46,220 --> 01:40:53,740
 Due to the change in the number of buildings, lot coverage has been from 73% to 71%, and

1354
01:40:53,740 --> 01:40:58,700
 the landscape area has been increased by 2%.

1355
01:40:58,700 --> 01:41:04,460
 As part of the change in uses, medical office use requires additional parking, so the total

1356
01:41:04,460 --> 01:41:10,260
 provided parking on the plan now is showing 143 spaces.

1357
01:41:10,260 --> 01:41:15,340
 This includes 10 parking spaces above the minimum required, and that brings us to the

1358
01:41:15,340 --> 01:41:19,900
 requested deviation for this alternative development plan.

1359
01:41:19,900 --> 01:41:29,820
 The applicant is seeking to deviate from section 35.1310 B1D, which requires permeable paving

1360
01:41:29,820 --> 01:41:36,420
 for all those parking spaces that exceed the minimum that is required, and so they are

1361
01:41:36,420 --> 01:41:43,780
 proposing to pave all 10 spaces versus provide permeable paving.

1362
01:41:43,780 --> 01:41:49,660
 So the future land use of this area is designated for neighborhood mixed use, which is primarily

1363
01:41:49,660 --> 01:41:51,460
 for residential uses.

1364
01:41:51,460 --> 01:41:57,100
 However, commercial uses that support those residential uses are permitted as long as

1365
01:41:57,100 --> 01:42:01,780
 they are compatible with the adjacent use.

1366
01:42:01,780 --> 01:42:07,460
 Additionally, anything proposed needs to be appropriate in scale and complement that surrounding

1367
01:42:07,460 --> 01:42:11,220
 neighborhood.

1368
01:42:11,220 --> 01:42:18,460
 So again, focusing on the one additional deviation and going on to the criteria for approval

1369
01:42:18,460 --> 01:42:23,140
 under section 35.135 A.

1370
01:42:23,140 --> 01:42:29,500
 The first criteria is that the requested deviation preserves the existing neighborhood.

1371
01:42:29,500 --> 01:42:35,220
 So the proposed office park use is similar to the office park that's directly adjacent

1372
01:42:35,220 --> 01:42:38,660
 to this site across Teasley Lane.

1373
01:42:38,660 --> 01:42:46,980
 That development has office space with proposed parking on average per lot between 200 and

1374
01:42:46,980 --> 01:42:51,460
 300 parking spaces for those existing buildings.

1375
01:42:51,460 --> 01:42:57,780
 The applicant for this site is proposing one space per 200, which is similar to that adjacent

1376
01:42:57,780 --> 01:42:58,940
 use.

1377
01:42:58,940 --> 01:43:03,940
 In addition, the reduction in the number of buildings has increased the separation between

1378
01:43:03,940 --> 01:43:07,980
 the northern and southern existing residential uses on site.

1379
01:43:07,980 --> 01:43:15,500
 So there is approximately 70 feet between the residential use to the north and the western

1380
01:43:15,500 --> 01:43:22,460
 most proposed building and then approximately 60 feet between the south.

1381
01:43:22,460 --> 01:43:25,820
 And I'll go through the rest of the criteria very quickly.

1382
01:43:25,820 --> 01:43:30,840
 Just want to note that a lot of these criteria that applies to the previous approved deviations

1383
01:43:30,840 --> 01:43:34,700
 and the current one have not changed.

1384
01:43:34,700 --> 01:43:39,420
 So you'll see kind of a repetition of what you saw in the previously approved ADP.

1385
01:43:39,420 --> 01:43:45,900
 So next ensure quality development, the applicant is not proposing to deviate from anything

1386
01:43:45,900 --> 01:43:50,380
 else from the 2002 development code with the exception of what was previously approved

1387
01:43:50,380 --> 01:43:51,660
 and the permeable paving.

1388
01:43:51,660 --> 01:43:56,660
 So it does meet all the other requirements of this development code.

1389
01:43:56,660 --> 01:44:02,940
 Next the proposed use is in compliance with the neighborhood mixed use district on the

1390
01:44:02,940 --> 01:44:10,220
 future land use map and the commercial development is in line with the type of, or the scale

1391
01:44:10,220 --> 01:44:15,580
 of development that is required under the future land use designation.

1392
01:44:15,580 --> 01:44:23,180
 Additionally, infrastructure that is capable of accommodating the development parts development.

1393
01:44:23,180 --> 01:44:25,700
 Again, this is unchanged.

1394
01:44:25,700 --> 01:44:30,980
 The development is next to or adjacent to Teasley Lane, which is a textile roadway.

1395
01:44:30,980 --> 01:44:35,300
 So they are subject to additional permits through tech start.

1396
01:44:35,300 --> 01:44:39,100
 So if there's any changes to the site that are needed, the ADP will have to come back

1397
01:44:39,100 --> 01:44:41,140
 to PNC.

1398
01:44:41,140 --> 01:44:45,780
 However, this is not anticipated since they've already gone through their CEP process and

1399
01:44:45,780 --> 01:44:50,380
 are on track to move forward with that.

1400
01:44:50,380 --> 01:44:56,740
 And last the proposed deviation result in a high quality development meeting the intent

1401
01:44:56,740 --> 01:45:00,440
 of the 2002 development code.

1402
01:45:00,440 --> 01:45:05,740
 So the intent of permeable paving for excess parking is to reduce the water quality volume

1403
01:45:05,740 --> 01:45:11,140
 on the site that would otherwise flow towards any drainage facilities for treatment.

1404
01:45:11,140 --> 01:45:15,460
 The previous payment would allow for natural treatment of rainfall as it permeates through

1405
01:45:15,460 --> 01:45:23,940
 the soil and the proposed development is not negatively impactful on drainage since the

1406
01:45:23,940 --> 01:45:30,220
 proposed 10 parking spaces are being offset by the reduced lot coverage and the increase

1407
01:45:30,220 --> 01:45:33,520
 in overall landscaping.

1408
01:45:33,520 --> 01:45:37,520
 So with that, staff does recommend approval as it does meet the established requirements

1409
01:45:37,520 --> 01:45:44,860
 for approval of an ADP in section 35135A of the 2002 DEN development code.

1410
01:45:44,860 --> 01:45:46,380
 And with that, I'll take any questions.

1411
01:45:46,380 --> 01:45:47,380
 Great.

1412
01:45:47,380 --> 01:45:50,340
 Thank you so much for the presentation.

1413
01:45:50,340 --> 01:45:56,020
 Is there any questions for Karina?

1414
01:45:56,020 --> 01:45:59,780
 I do not see any.

1415
01:45:59,780 --> 01:46:01,660
 Thank you so much for the presentation.

1416
01:46:01,660 --> 01:46:04,140
 We did receive one comment card for this.

1417
01:46:04,140 --> 01:46:08,220
 It was in favor of the item.

1418
01:46:08,220 --> 01:46:12,660
 And with that, the chair will entertain any discussion or motion.

1419
01:46:12,660 --> 01:46:13,660
 Commissioner Anderson.

1420
01:46:13,660 --> 01:46:16,500
 I'll make a motion to approve.

1421
01:46:16,500 --> 01:46:17,820
 We have a first for approval.

1422
01:46:17,820 --> 01:46:18,820
 Commissioner Smith.

1423
01:46:18,820 --> 01:46:19,820
 Second.

1424
01:46:19,820 --> 01:46:23,580
 We have a first and a second for approval.

1425
01:46:23,580 --> 01:46:27,220
 Any discussion on this item?

1426
01:46:27,220 --> 01:46:30,140
 Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call.

1427
01:46:30,140 --> 01:46:31,140
 Commissioner Smith.

1428
01:46:31,140 --> 01:46:32,140
 Aye.

1429
01:46:32,140 --> 01:46:33,140
 Commissioner Ellis.

1430
01:46:33,140 --> 01:46:34,140
 Aye.

1431
01:46:34,140 --> 01:46:35,140
 Commissioner Beck.

1432
01:46:35,140 --> 01:46:36,140
 Aye.

1433
01:46:36,140 --> 01:46:37,140
 Commissioner Anderson.

1434
01:46:37,140 --> 01:46:38,140
 Aye.

1435
01:46:38,140 --> 01:46:39,140
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1436
01:46:39,140 --> 01:46:40,140
 Aye.

1437
01:46:40,140 --> 01:46:41,140
 Commissioner Cole.

1438
01:46:41,140 --> 01:46:42,140
 Aye.

1439
01:46:42,140 --> 01:46:45,420
 And the chair is also an aye.

1440
01:46:45,420 --> 01:46:47,420
 Motion carries 7-0.

1441
01:46:47,420 --> 01:46:53,980
 The next item for business is item 4B, PP 20-0019.

1442
01:46:53,980 --> 01:46:55,980
 Staff recommends denial of this request.

1443
01:46:55,980 --> 01:47:06,860
 However, the applicant has requested an extension to a date certain of September 16, 2020.

1444
01:47:06,860 --> 01:47:07,860
 Commissioner Smith.

1445
01:47:07,860 --> 01:47:11,620
 Make a motion to postpone a date certain.

1446
01:47:11,620 --> 01:47:16,860
 We have a first for a motion to postpone to date certain of September 16.

1447
01:47:16,860 --> 01:47:17,860
 Mr. Chair.

1448
01:47:17,860 --> 01:47:18,860
 Yes, ma'am.

1449
01:47:18,860 --> 01:47:22,540
 Can I clarify the motion was to approve the requested extension?

1450
01:47:22,540 --> 01:47:23,540
 Yes.

1451
01:47:23,540 --> 01:47:24,540
 For 30 days.

1452
01:47:24,540 --> 01:47:25,540
 Thank you.

1453
01:47:25,540 --> 01:47:26,540
 We have a second to a motion for 30 days.

1454
01:47:26,540 --> 01:47:32,100
 And that's to a date certain of the 16th date certain of -- can we do just indefinite?

1455
01:47:32,100 --> 01:47:38,100
 Or do we have a date certain of the fall October?

1456
01:47:38,100 --> 01:47:39,100
 Right.

1457
01:47:39,100 --> 01:47:40,100
 Correct.

1458
01:47:40,100 --> 01:47:44,700
 It would just be that you're approving their request to extend and the next available meeting

1459
01:47:44,700 --> 01:47:45,700
 is September 16.

1460
01:47:45,700 --> 01:47:46,700
 Thank you.

1461
01:47:46,700 --> 01:47:50,420
 Make a motion to approve the extension for 30 days to the next meeting.

1462
01:47:50,420 --> 01:47:51,420
 Great.

1463
01:47:51,420 --> 01:47:52,420
 Thank you.

1464
01:47:52,420 --> 01:47:53,420
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1465
01:47:53,420 --> 01:47:54,420
 Second.

1466
01:47:54,420 --> 01:47:55,420
 Great.

1467
01:47:55,420 --> 01:47:56,420
 Thank you.

1468
01:47:56,420 --> 01:47:57,420
 We have a second.

1469
01:47:57,420 --> 01:47:58,420
 Any discussion on item 4B?

1470
01:47:58,420 --> 01:48:02,580
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1471
01:48:02,580 --> 01:48:03,580
 Commissioner Smith.

1472
01:48:03,580 --> 01:48:04,580
 Aye.

1473
01:48:04,580 --> 01:48:05,580
 Commissioner Ellis.

1474
01:48:05,580 --> 01:48:06,580
 Aye.

1475
01:48:06,580 --> 01:48:07,580
 Commissioner Beck.

1476
01:48:07,580 --> 01:48:08,580
 Aye.

1477
01:48:08,580 --> 01:48:09,580
 Commissioner Anderson.

1478
01:48:09,580 --> 01:48:10,580
 Aye.

1479
01:48:10,580 --> 01:48:11,580
 Commissioner Cole.

1480
01:48:11,580 --> 01:48:12,580
 Aye.

1481
01:48:12,580 --> 01:48:13,580
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1482
01:48:13,580 --> 01:48:14,580
 Aye.

1483
01:48:14,580 --> 01:48:16,980
 Chair is also an aye.

1484
01:48:16,980 --> 01:48:19,220
 Motion carries 7-0.

1485
01:48:19,220 --> 01:48:22,480
 The next item of business is item 4C.

1486
01:48:22,480 --> 01:48:23,980
 Staff recommends denial of this request.

1487
01:48:23,980 --> 01:48:27,460
 However, the applicant has requested the 30 day extension.

1488
01:48:27,460 --> 01:48:28,460
 Commissioner Smith.

1489
01:48:28,460 --> 01:48:32,420
 Make a motion to approve the extension to the date certain of September 16.

1490
01:48:32,420 --> 01:48:36,180
 We have a first for approval.

1491
01:48:36,180 --> 01:48:39,260
 Commissioner Cole.

1492
01:48:39,260 --> 01:48:40,820
 Second.

1493
01:48:40,820 --> 01:48:45,300
 We have a first and a second to approve the extension.

1494
01:48:45,300 --> 01:48:48,420
 Any discussion on this item?

1495
01:48:48,420 --> 01:48:51,220
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1496
01:48:51,220 --> 01:48:52,220
 Commissioner Smith.

1497
01:48:52,220 --> 01:48:53,220
 Aye.

1498
01:48:53,220 --> 01:48:54,220
 Commissioner Ellis.

1499
01:48:54,220 --> 01:48:55,220
 Aye.

1500
01:48:55,220 --> 01:48:56,220
 Commissioner Beck.

1501
01:48:56,220 --> 01:48:57,220
 Aye.

1502
01:48:57,220 --> 01:48:58,220
 Commissioner Anderson.

1503
01:48:58,220 --> 01:48:59,220
 Aye.

1504
01:48:59,220 --> 01:49:00,220
 Commissioner Cole.

1505
01:49:00,220 --> 01:49:01,220
 Aye.

1506
01:49:01,220 --> 01:49:02,220
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1507
01:49:02,220 --> 01:49:03,220
 Aye.

1508
01:49:03,220 --> 01:49:05,440
 Chair is also an aye.

1509
01:49:05,440 --> 01:49:06,440
 Motion carries 7-0.

1510
01:49:06,440 --> 01:49:12,740
 The next item of business is item 4D, FR20-0011.

1511
01:49:12,740 --> 01:49:14,180
 Staff is recommending denial of this request.

1512
01:49:14,180 --> 01:49:19,060
 However, the applicant has also requested a 30 day extension to the date of September

1513
01:49:19,060 --> 01:49:20,060
 16.

1514
01:49:20,060 --> 01:49:21,060
 Commissioner Smith.

1515
01:49:21,060 --> 01:49:25,820
 Make a motion to approve the extension to September 16.

1516
01:49:25,820 --> 01:49:26,820
 Great.

1517
01:49:26,820 --> 01:49:27,820
 Commissioner Ellis.

1518
01:49:27,820 --> 01:49:28,820
 Second.

1519
01:49:28,820 --> 01:49:38,060
 We have a first and a second to accept the applicant's request for a 30 day extension,

1520
01:49:38,060 --> 01:49:40,780
 which leads it to a date certain of September 16.

1521
01:49:40,780 --> 01:49:44,820
 Any discussion on this?

1522
01:49:44,820 --> 01:49:46,900
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1523
01:49:46,900 --> 01:49:47,900
 Commissioner Smith.

1524
01:49:47,900 --> 01:49:48,900
 Aye.

1525
01:49:48,900 --> 01:49:49,900
 Commissioner Ellis.

1526
01:49:49,900 --> 01:49:50,900
 Aye.

1527
01:49:50,900 --> 01:49:51,900
 Commissioner Beck.

1528
01:49:51,900 --> 01:49:52,900
 Aye.

1529
01:49:52,900 --> 01:49:53,900
 Commissioner Anderson.

1530
01:49:53,900 --> 01:49:54,900
 Aye.

1531
01:49:54,900 --> 01:49:55,900
 Commissioner Cole.

1532
01:49:55,900 --> 01:49:56,900
 Aye.

1533
01:49:56,900 --> 01:49:57,900
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1534
01:49:57,900 --> 01:49:58,900
 Aye.

1535
01:49:58,900 --> 01:50:00,640
 Chair is also an aye.

1536
01:50:00,640 --> 01:50:03,020
 Motion carries 7-0.

1537
01:50:03,020 --> 01:50:12,200
 The next item of business is to hear the consent agenda item of 3CPP20-0018.

1538
01:50:12,200 --> 01:50:14,260
 The staff is recommending denial of this request.

1539
01:50:14,260 --> 01:50:22,300
 However, the applicant has requested an extension of 30 days to the date of September 16.

1540
01:50:22,300 --> 01:50:23,300
 Commissioner Ellis.

1541
01:50:23,300 --> 01:50:26,780
 Move approval of the applicant's requested extension.

1542
01:50:26,780 --> 01:50:27,780
 Great.

1543
01:50:27,780 --> 01:50:30,980
 We have a first for approval to extend for 30 days.

1544
01:50:30,980 --> 01:50:31,980
 Commissioner Cole.

1545
01:50:31,980 --> 01:50:32,980
 Second.

1546
01:50:32,980 --> 01:50:37,500
 We have a first and a second for the approval of the extension.

1547
01:50:37,500 --> 01:50:41,780
 Is there any discussion on this item?

1548
01:50:41,780 --> 01:50:44,100
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1549
01:50:44,100 --> 01:50:45,100
 Commissioner Smith.

1550
01:50:45,100 --> 01:50:46,100
 Aye.

1551
01:50:46,100 --> 01:50:47,100
 Commissioner Ellis.

1552
01:50:47,100 --> 01:50:48,100
 Aye.

1553
01:50:48,100 --> 01:50:49,100
 Commissioner Beck.

1554
01:50:49,100 --> 01:50:50,100
 Aye.

1555
01:50:50,100 --> 01:50:51,100
 Commissioner Anderson.

1556
01:50:51,100 --> 01:50:52,100
 Aye.

1557
01:50:52,100 --> 01:50:53,100
 Commissioner Cole.

1558
01:50:53,100 --> 01:50:54,100
 Aye.

1559
01:50:54,100 --> 01:50:55,100
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1560
01:50:55,100 --> 01:50:56,100
 Aye.

1561
01:50:56,100 --> 01:50:58,100
 Chair is also an aye.

1562
01:50:58,100 --> 01:51:01,220
 Motion carries 7-0.

1563
01:51:01,220 --> 01:51:03,620
 That brings us to our public hearing items for this evening.

1564
01:51:03,620 --> 01:51:09,540
 The first one is item 5AZ20-0007.

1565
01:51:09,540 --> 01:51:17,060
 I will open the public hearing and invite Hailey Zygurski for presentation.

1566
01:51:17,060 --> 01:51:26,220
 All right.

1567
01:51:26,220 --> 01:51:36,980
 Good evening.

1568
01:51:36,980 --> 01:51:39,100
 So this is case Z27.

1569
01:51:39,100 --> 01:51:45,660
 The primary is corporate offices.

1570
01:51:45,660 --> 01:51:50,180
 The request before you tonight is a rezoning for approximately 55 acres of land that just

1571
01:51:50,180 --> 01:51:52,540
 outlined in yellow on the map.

1572
01:51:52,540 --> 01:51:56,940
 This is currently designated as rural residential and the request is a rezoning to general office

1573
01:51:56,940 --> 01:52:00,500
 or geo district with overlay conditions.

1574
01:52:00,500 --> 01:52:03,820
 This property is comprised of portions of three tracks of land.

1575
01:52:03,820 --> 01:52:09,940
 So you can see here on the map the east-west lines divide the tracks of the three individual

1576
01:52:09,940 --> 01:52:10,940
 tracks.

1577
01:52:10,940 --> 01:52:16,860
 These properties also include this strip along the frontage, which is about 350 feet wide.

1578
01:52:16,860 --> 01:52:20,060
 Those are part of each of these tracks, but those currently have geo zoning, so they're

1579
01:52:20,060 --> 01:52:22,940
 not included in the request.

1580
01:52:22,940 --> 01:52:28,700
 The applicant's requested conditions relate primarily to two things, first being the phase

1581
01:52:28,700 --> 01:52:33,020
 development of a corporate office campus on this property and the second being the decommissioning

1582
01:52:33,020 --> 01:52:38,220
 of the existing non-conforming asphalt batch plant, which you can see in this area of the

1583
01:52:38,220 --> 01:52:41,180
 property.

1584
01:52:41,180 --> 01:52:45,340
 So this is just a summary of the conditions that the applicant has requested.

1585
01:52:45,340 --> 01:52:46,620
 There are six.

1586
01:52:46,620 --> 01:52:52,740
 The first is related to the installation of four modular office buildings on the property

1587
01:52:52,740 --> 01:52:58,640
 to allow Primaris to consolidate some of their operations from around DFW onto the site during

1588
01:52:58,640 --> 01:53:02,420
 the entitlement permitting and construction phase.

1589
01:53:02,420 --> 01:53:07,140
 The second is related to the occupancy of those modular, during the occupancy of those

1590
01:53:07,140 --> 01:53:12,020
 trailers, the asphalt batch plant must cease its operation and the equipment be decommissioned

1591
01:53:12,020 --> 01:53:13,940
 prior to those getting a CO.

1592
01:53:13,940 --> 01:53:18,660
 The third is that the office buildings may be served by the existing water well and septic

1593
01:53:18,660 --> 01:53:22,900
 tank that are on site during the duration of their CO.

1594
01:53:22,900 --> 01:53:26,980
 Fourth is that the modular buildings must meet all applicable building codes for field

1595
01:53:26,980 --> 01:53:33,260
 and construction offices and that Primaris must obtain a CO for these modular trailer

1596
01:53:33,260 --> 01:53:36,060
 buildings prior to occupying them.

1597
01:53:36,060 --> 01:53:39,740
 They must also provide adequate parking based on the square footage of those modular buildings

1598
01:53:39,740 --> 01:53:43,480
 and that must be provided on a dust-free permeable surface.

1599
01:53:43,480 --> 01:53:48,020
 That would be something similar to gravel rather than just dirt or grass.

1600
01:53:48,020 --> 01:53:52,020
 The fifth condition after the work session, I did make a few modifications too.

1601
01:53:52,020 --> 01:53:57,180
 So this has been revised to specify that the modular office buildings could be occupied

1602
01:53:57,180 --> 01:54:02,880
 for 24 months or until such time as they get that permanent office building, whichever

1603
01:54:02,880 --> 01:54:05,260
 of those occurs earlier.

1604
01:54:05,260 --> 01:54:09,860
 It does allow for one 12-month extension if vertical construction on the permanent office

1605
01:54:09,860 --> 01:54:14,660
 building is underway at the end of that initial 24-month term.

1606
01:54:14,660 --> 01:54:19,100
 And then also added to this is the statement that upon issuance of the CO for the permanent

1607
01:54:19,100 --> 01:54:22,460
 office building, the modular buildings must be removed from the site, which is what we

1608
01:54:22,460 --> 01:54:24,780
 discussed at the work session.

1609
01:54:24,780 --> 01:54:27,980
 And then the final condition would be that the asphalt batch plant equipment could remain

1610
01:54:27,980 --> 01:54:32,980
 on site but not operational up until such time as the building permit for the permanent

1611
01:54:32,980 --> 01:54:37,100
 office is issued.

1612
01:54:37,100 --> 01:54:41,940
 So looking at the request now, you can see on the left the current zoning map, which

1613
01:54:41,940 --> 01:54:46,540
 has the subject property designated as rural residential and then the proposed zoning map

1614
01:54:46,540 --> 01:54:50,380
 on the right shows that this general office would be consistent with the zoning that's

1615
01:54:50,380 --> 01:54:54,260
 already established in this area.

1616
01:54:54,260 --> 01:54:58,300
 There are 13 general criteria for approval of any application in our DDC.

1617
01:54:58,300 --> 01:55:00,300
 Those are outlined in detail in your backup.

1618
01:55:00,300 --> 01:55:04,260
 So I won't go through them in full detail here, but we will touch on the highlights

1619
01:55:04,260 --> 01:55:09,580
 of some of those as we go through these zoning specific criteria.

1620
01:55:09,580 --> 01:55:13,420
 So the first of those was compliance with the comprehensive plan, specifically the future

1621
01:55:13,420 --> 01:55:14,420
 land use map.

1622
01:55:14,420 --> 01:55:19,260
 So you can see here in this snip from our future land use map that this property is

1623
01:55:19,260 --> 01:55:23,500
 Shaded Purple, which is our business innovation designation.

1624
01:55:23,500 --> 01:55:28,540
 This is a designation intended for areas with larger tracts of land that would be developed

1625
01:55:28,540 --> 01:55:32,900
 with well-planned large scale office or employment parks or supporting uses.

1626
01:55:32,900 --> 01:55:35,500
 GEO is consistent with that designation.

1627
01:55:35,500 --> 01:55:39,980
 It allows for a wide mix of uses that are compatible with that, such as offices, trade

1628
01:55:39,980 --> 01:55:46,900
 tools, low impact manufacturing, and then some supporting commercial uses as well.

1629
01:55:46,900 --> 01:55:50,380
 Another aspect of the comprehensive plan that I wanted to point out is that this area was

1630
01:55:50,380 --> 01:55:54,300
 designated as a gateway focus area.

1631
01:55:54,300 --> 01:55:57,660
 So you can see the general area of the property circled in red.

1632
01:55:57,660 --> 01:56:00,900
 Within that, you can see that little blue circle that calls this out as a gateway.

1633
01:56:00,900 --> 01:56:04,740
 This was seen as the Northern gateway to the city of Denton for travelers coming south on

1634
01:56:04,740 --> 01:56:05,740
 I-35.

1635
01:56:05,740 --> 01:56:12,260
 And these gateway areas were intended to be kind of those high quality areas that should

1636
01:56:12,260 --> 01:56:15,900
 welcome you to the city of Denton and let you know that you've arrived here.

1637
01:56:15,900 --> 01:56:19,060
 So GEO is suitable for those types of areas.

1638
01:56:19,060 --> 01:56:22,140
 Our commercial design standards do apply in these areas.

1639
01:56:22,140 --> 01:56:26,060
 So unlike light industrial or other districts that you might see in business innovation

1640
01:56:26,060 --> 01:56:30,500
 areas, those design standards don't always apply if a property is far enough away from

1641
01:56:30,500 --> 01:56:31,500
 the road.

1642
01:56:31,500 --> 01:56:35,660
 So in this case, GEO would allow us to ensure that all of our commercial design standards

1643
01:56:35,660 --> 01:56:38,220
 would be in place as this property develops.

1644
01:56:38,220 --> 01:56:41,540
 And additionally, the overlay conditions that have been requested would provide for the

1645
01:56:41,540 --> 01:56:46,260
 decommissioning and removal of that batch plant, which as a non-conforming industrial

1646
01:56:46,260 --> 01:56:52,660
 use, we would generally seek to get rid of in a prominent gateway area such as this.

1647
01:56:52,660 --> 01:56:55,860
 The next criteria is consistency with the purpose statement.

1648
01:56:55,860 --> 01:56:58,740
 So I've provided the GEO district purpose statement here on the screen.

1649
01:56:58,740 --> 01:57:02,980
 So you can see that it is, again, consistent with that business innovation.

1650
01:57:02,980 --> 01:57:08,660
 It intends for providing a variety of workplaces and complimentary uses, specifically flexible

1651
01:57:08,660 --> 01:57:12,620
 office spaces called out here, as well as research and development facilities and other

1652
01:57:12,620 --> 01:57:15,220
 opportunities for business innovation.

1653
01:57:15,220 --> 01:57:20,100
 So the proposed location for this is consistent with that.

1654
01:57:20,100 --> 01:57:24,380
 It would consolidate GEO across three larger tracts of land that would allow for one of

1655
01:57:24,380 --> 01:57:28,420
 those large scale campus type developments that is called for here, as well as being

1656
01:57:28,420 --> 01:57:33,340
 a continuation of that existing zoning pattern.

1657
01:57:33,340 --> 01:57:37,140
 Next we look at whether there have been any significant changes to warrant this zoning

1658
01:57:37,140 --> 01:57:38,140
 request.

1659
01:57:38,140 --> 01:57:41,260
 So there have not been recent changes with the property, but there is a bit of history

1660
01:57:41,260 --> 01:57:46,120
 that I wanted to go over with you all to provide some context to the request.

1661
01:57:46,120 --> 01:57:52,380
 So again, each of these three parcels, the front about 350 feet of their depth off of

1662
01:57:52,380 --> 01:57:54,900
 I-35 is currently zoned GEO.

1663
01:57:54,900 --> 01:58:01,820
 That area was initially annexed into the city as part of a strip annexation of I-35 in 1969.

1664
01:58:01,820 --> 01:58:05,580
 The back portion of the property, which is what we're looking at this evening, was under

1665
01:58:05,580 --> 01:58:08,300
 a non-annexation agreement until 2015.

1666
01:58:08,300 --> 01:58:12,940
 And when that expired, at that time, they annexed into the city and were given the placeholder

1667
01:58:12,940 --> 01:58:15,640
 zoning of RD5X.

1668
01:58:15,640 --> 01:58:20,460
 That designation was then transitioned to rural residential with our adoption of the

1669
01:58:20,460 --> 01:58:24,180
 2019 DDC and that citywide zoning transition.

1670
01:58:24,180 --> 01:58:28,980
 So this zoning change is warranted to bring the rest of the property under the same standards

1671
01:58:28,980 --> 01:58:36,660
 as the frontage as well as to bring this property into consistency with our comprehensive plan.

1672
01:58:36,660 --> 01:58:40,940
 Next we look at whether this zoning change would minimize adverse impacts on surrounding

1673
01:58:40,940 --> 01:58:42,020
 property.

1674
01:58:42,020 --> 01:58:44,660
 So GEO again is consistent with what we have in this area.

1675
01:58:44,660 --> 01:58:51,300
 It's not expected to create any adverse impacts and it is expected to have some benefits.

1676
01:58:51,300 --> 01:58:55,260
 The rural residential district is not consistent with what we would want to see in a business

1677
01:58:55,260 --> 01:58:56,860
 innovation area.

1678
01:58:56,860 --> 01:59:01,220
 One units to five acres that we would find within RR is not consistent with that corporate

1679
01:59:01,220 --> 01:59:05,420
 office campus type environment that we want to encourage in these areas.

1680
01:59:05,420 --> 01:59:10,060
 In addition, this would include the removal of that existing asphalt batch plant, which

1681
01:59:10,060 --> 01:59:12,220
 again is a non-conforming use.

1682
01:59:12,220 --> 01:59:16,300
 It does have much more nuisance generation potential than anything that would be permitted

1683
01:59:16,300 --> 01:59:17,300
 within GEO.

1684
01:59:17,300 --> 01:59:22,600
 This would also provide that benefit for the surrounding properties.

1685
01:59:22,600 --> 01:59:27,780
 And then looking at what public facilities and services are available to serve the property,

1686
01:59:27,780 --> 01:59:30,260
 looking at transportation related infrastructure.

1687
01:59:30,260 --> 01:59:34,540
 You can see here on the map, all three of these properties have frontage on I-35.

1688
01:59:34,540 --> 01:59:38,700
 So there is adequate access to those sites from a state highway.

1689
01:59:38,700 --> 01:59:43,640
 This use as they've proposed it is not intended to have a large amount of trip generation.

1690
01:59:43,640 --> 01:59:48,340
 It didn't even meet the thresholds to require a traffic impact analysis.

1691
01:59:48,340 --> 01:59:54,060
 And then I just wanted to point out that the I-35 corridor is expected to be improved within

1692
01:59:54,060 --> 01:59:55,500
 the next 10 to 20 years.

1693
01:59:55,500 --> 01:59:59,820
 TxDOT is currently projecting this as being at least 10 years away, but this corridor

1694
01:59:59,820 --> 02:00:06,220
 will be widened and further enhance the access to this property in the near future.

1695
02:00:06,220 --> 02:00:09,980
 Water and wastewater facilities are available to be extended to this site.

1696
02:00:09,980 --> 02:00:13,180
 You can see here on the map, the dashed lines indicate that those are under construction

1697
02:00:13,180 --> 02:00:14,180
 at this time.

1698
02:00:14,180 --> 02:00:18,000
 There is a truck wash being developed immediately south that has stubbed both water and sewer

1699
02:00:18,000 --> 02:00:21,700
 to the southernmost of these properties so that they can extend it across the frontage

1700
02:00:21,700 --> 02:00:26,260
 of their sites when they develop.

1701
02:00:26,260 --> 02:00:28,700
 Notification was sent regarding this request in August.

1702
02:00:28,700 --> 02:00:34,300
 We did receive two responses as of the issuance of our staff reports last week.

1703
02:00:34,300 --> 02:00:38,780
 Those properties are outlined in green on the map and are two of the parcels that are

1704
02:00:38,780 --> 02:00:41,780
 involved in this zoning.

1705
02:00:41,780 --> 02:00:45,820
 Staff is recommending approval of the requested change to general office as we found it to

1706
02:00:45,820 --> 02:00:47,940
 meet all the criteria for approval.

1707
02:00:47,940 --> 02:00:52,260
 And we have no objection to the overlay conditions as requested by the applicant.

1708
02:00:52,260 --> 02:00:55,020
 So I'll just bring those up again so that you all can look at them.

1709
02:00:55,020 --> 02:00:58,960
 And during the brief break, I did reach out to the applicant and they indicated that they

1710
02:00:58,960 --> 02:01:03,100
 have no objection to this addition to condition number five.

1711
02:01:03,100 --> 02:01:05,700
 And I'm happy to answer any questions.

1712
02:01:05,700 --> 02:01:08,100
 Thank you very much, Haley.

1713
02:01:08,100 --> 02:01:12,280
 Is there any questions for Haley on this item?

1714
02:01:12,280 --> 02:01:14,300
 Chris or Beck?

1715
02:01:14,300 --> 02:01:15,300
 Thank you, Chair.

1716
02:01:15,300 --> 02:01:21,300
 Haley, what's a typical timeframe for removal of modular buildings with language like that

1717
02:01:21,300 --> 02:01:23,980
 since we didn't specify a time?

1718
02:01:23,980 --> 02:01:25,980
 I'm not sure how long that would take.

1719
02:01:25,980 --> 02:01:31,020
 I would imagine it wouldn't take very long, especially if they know that that is something

1720
02:01:31,020 --> 02:01:33,180
 that they have to do at the end of that timeframe.

1721
02:01:33,180 --> 02:01:36,060
 If there's a reasonable timeframe you had in mind, we could certainly propose it and

1722
02:01:36,060 --> 02:01:39,780
 the applicant will be on the line and could speak to whether that's acceptable.

1723
02:01:39,780 --> 02:01:46,340
 Yeah, I'm not educated enough to know how long it takes to move a modular office building

1724
02:01:46,340 --> 02:01:47,340
 offsite.

1725
02:01:47,340 --> 02:01:51,660
 So I don't know the answer to that.

1726
02:01:51,660 --> 02:01:55,900
 I would welcome other people's chiming in on that.

1727
02:01:55,900 --> 02:01:59,580
 I assume that we have some sort of upper limit.

1728
02:01:59,580 --> 02:02:08,060
 The reason I ask that question is to Commissioner Smith's point earlier in work session, if

1729
02:02:08,060 --> 02:02:13,980
 we don't specify and they say they're moving it and it takes two years to move them off

1730
02:02:13,980 --> 02:02:18,820
 because we didn't specify, I think that sort of defeated the purpose of adding the language

1731
02:02:18,820 --> 02:02:19,820
 kind of thing.

1732
02:02:19,820 --> 02:02:25,020
 Do you have a timeframe in mind, Chris or Beck, that we can ask them of?

1733
02:02:25,020 --> 02:02:27,260
 I want to be reasonable.

1734
02:02:27,260 --> 02:02:29,820
 I was concerned about it being open-ended.

1735
02:02:29,820 --> 02:02:32,980
 I don't know what a reasonable number is.

1736
02:02:32,980 --> 02:02:33,980
 Okay.

1737
02:02:33,980 --> 02:02:38,940
 Commissioner Smith, I'd love for the applicant to respond or if you have a question the applicant

1738
02:02:38,940 --> 02:02:41,740
 can also provide insight to, we can stack those.

1739
02:02:41,740 --> 02:02:45,580
 Yeah, I was just going to say that Commissioner Beck's point, I would think 12 months is more

1740
02:02:45,580 --> 02:02:46,580
 than enough time.

1741
02:02:46,580 --> 02:02:49,260
 I wouldn't want to do anything necessarily less than that.

1742
02:02:49,260 --> 02:02:54,460
 You certainly can make it six or nine months, but I don't think that just in case there's

1743
02:02:54,460 --> 02:03:00,260
 weather issues, transportation issues, you know, whatever it is, I think 12 months is

1744
02:03:00,260 --> 02:03:01,460
 more than enough time.

1745
02:03:01,460 --> 02:03:08,220
 So that would be, I think the applicant could probably even be amenable to that.

1746
02:03:08,220 --> 02:03:09,220
 Yeah.

1747
02:03:09,220 --> 02:03:10,220
 Hello, I'm Charlie Ambrosio.

1748
02:03:10,220 --> 02:03:12,060
 I'm with the application.

1749
02:03:12,060 --> 02:03:16,740
 That's more than enough time to remove those module trailers.

1750
02:03:16,740 --> 02:03:17,740
 Okay.

1751
02:03:17,740 --> 02:03:18,740
 All right.

1752
02:03:18,740 --> 02:03:23,100
 Then yeah, I would just say, Haley, if we can make that part of the overlay conditions

1753
02:03:23,100 --> 02:03:29,460
 of moving the modular trailers, move modular buildings within 12 months after the CO is

1754
02:03:29,460 --> 02:03:30,820
 issued for the permanent building.

1755
02:03:30,820 --> 02:03:31,820
 Certainly.

1756
02:03:31,820 --> 02:03:34,700
 I'll add that timeframe so that that goes to council.

1757
02:03:34,700 --> 02:03:35,700
 Okay.

1758
02:03:35,700 --> 02:03:40,860
 Any other questions for Haley?

1759
02:03:40,860 --> 02:03:48,980
 And then Haley or Mr. Ambrosio, is there an applicant presentation prepared for this evening?

1760
02:03:48,980 --> 02:03:53,020
 I believe they have a couple of slides just in case you all wanted to see what examples

1761
02:03:53,020 --> 02:03:57,580
 of their other office campuses looked like, so I can pull those up if they would like

1762
02:03:57,580 --> 02:03:58,860
 to share those.

1763
02:03:58,860 --> 02:04:01,940
 I'd love to see them.

1764
02:04:01,940 --> 02:04:10,780
 Yeah, if you could pull them up, that would be great.

1765
02:04:10,780 --> 02:04:14,660
 While she's pulling that up, is there any commissioner that have any questions for the

1766
02:04:14,660 --> 02:04:18,620
 applicant upon seeing these pictures or otherwise?

1767
02:04:18,620 --> 02:04:25,380
 This is Amy, this is with 97 Land Company.

1768
02:04:25,380 --> 02:04:26,380
 Can you guys hear me?

1769
02:04:26,380 --> 02:04:27,380
 We can, Amy.

1770
02:04:27,380 --> 02:04:28,380
 Okay, great.

1771
02:04:28,380 --> 02:04:32,500
 I'll let Commissioner Ellis ask her question first.

1772
02:04:32,500 --> 02:04:33,500
 Go for it, Commissioner Ellis.

1773
02:04:33,500 --> 02:04:36,220
 Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Amy.

1774
02:04:36,220 --> 02:04:43,740
 I was just going to ask what I asked in work session, what the business does.

1775
02:04:43,740 --> 02:04:49,420
 I would be happy to answer that question, and Primores Service Corporation, and I do

1776
02:04:49,420 --> 02:04:55,340
 have Charlie Ambrosio from Primores on the call as well, he spoke up earlier.

1777
02:04:55,340 --> 02:05:02,900
 What they do is install a utility infrastructure around the United States, primarily electric

1778
02:05:02,900 --> 02:05:07,900
 transmission and distribution lines and also natural gas lines for utility companies.

1779
02:05:07,900 --> 02:05:16,020
 So they're a service provider that installs infrastructure for utility providers.

1780
02:05:16,020 --> 02:05:20,920
 And to just answer a couple of other questions and provide a little bit of clarification

1781
02:05:20,920 --> 02:05:25,580
 from some questions that came up during the work session, I'd like to give you a brief

1782
02:05:25,580 --> 02:05:28,620
 history on the batch plant.

1783
02:05:28,620 --> 02:05:33,900
 So the asphalt batch plant was put there when I-35 was being widened originally a few years

1784
02:05:33,900 --> 02:05:41,620
 ago, and it was in the EPJ at the time that it was placed there, and it was then annexed

1785
02:05:41,620 --> 02:05:43,300
 into the city.

1786
02:05:43,300 --> 02:05:47,940
 They do have a lease for another two years, I believe it is, but with Primores, they're

1787
02:05:47,940 --> 02:05:53,140
 coming in to actually buy the property and they will then be in control of that lease

1788
02:05:53,140 --> 02:05:57,700
 and can therefore commit to decommissioning the plant and removing the equipment over

1789
02:05:57,700 --> 02:05:58,700
 time.

1790
02:05:58,700 --> 02:06:06,100
 And just to provide a little bit of clarification on the request for conditions on the zoning

1791
02:06:06,100 --> 02:06:12,820
 overly, they are consolidating multiple offices where they have leased space around the Metroplex.

1792
02:06:12,820 --> 02:06:21,540
 So they'll be relocating 100 to 150 employees to Denton, and the modular office space during

1793
02:06:21,540 --> 02:06:28,180
 construction allows them to phase those employees into Denton as their leases expire, which

1794
02:06:28,180 --> 02:06:34,940
 allows them to accelerate their investment here locally, and we, I believe that answers

1795
02:06:34,940 --> 02:06:39,780
 the questions that were brought up during the work session, but I'd be happy to answer

1796
02:06:39,780 --> 02:06:45,900
 any other questions that you guys may have, and I'd also have Mr. Ambrosio on the line.

1797
02:06:45,900 --> 02:06:47,940
 Great, thank you very much.

1798
02:06:47,940 --> 02:06:54,180
 Is there any other questions for the applicant or staff?

1799
02:06:54,180 --> 02:07:00,340
 While we consider that by the other commissioners, I just want to let you know that there was,

1800
02:07:00,340 --> 02:07:04,380
 for this item, we had one person make comments using our online form.

1801
02:07:04,380 --> 02:07:06,940
 They were against the item.

1802
02:07:06,940 --> 02:07:10,820
 These forms were emailed to all commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded.

1803
02:07:10,820 --> 02:07:16,220
 So we had one in opposition to this item.

1804
02:07:16,220 --> 02:07:17,220
 Any other questions?

1805
02:07:17,220 --> 02:07:26,900
 Okay, I see none, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing, and then Commissioner Smith.

1806
02:07:26,900 --> 02:07:31,540
 Make a motion to approve with the staff, or I guess the applicant's recommendations for

1807
02:07:31,540 --> 02:07:35,300
 the overlay, along with our additions here on the commission.

1808
02:07:35,300 --> 02:07:38,660
 Okay, we have a first for approval with the overlay conditions.

1809
02:07:38,660 --> 02:07:39,660
 Commissioner Ellis?

1810
02:07:39,660 --> 02:07:40,660
 Second.

1811
02:07:40,660 --> 02:07:48,180
 We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion on this item?

1812
02:07:48,180 --> 02:07:50,860
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1813
02:07:50,860 --> 02:07:51,860
 Commissioner Smith?

1814
02:07:51,860 --> 02:07:52,860
 Aye.

1815
02:07:52,860 --> 02:07:53,860
 Commissioner Ellis?

1816
02:07:53,860 --> 02:07:54,860
 Aye.

1817
02:07:54,860 --> 02:07:55,860
 Commissioner Beck?

1818
02:07:55,860 --> 02:07:56,860
 Aye.

1819
02:07:56,860 --> 02:07:57,860
 Commissioner Anderson?

1820
02:07:57,860 --> 02:07:58,860
 Aye.

1821
02:07:58,860 --> 02:07:59,860
 Commissioner Cole?

1822
02:07:59,860 --> 02:08:00,860
 Aye.

1823
02:08:00,860 --> 02:08:01,860
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1824
02:08:01,860 --> 02:08:02,860
 Aye.

1825
02:08:02,860 --> 02:08:09,220
 Chair's also an aye, motion carries 7-0, congratulations.

1826
02:08:09,220 --> 02:08:17,900
 Next item of business is item 5B, AESA 20-0004A.

1827
02:08:17,900 --> 02:08:36,060
 I will invite Kristi Upton for presentation and open the public hearing.

1828
02:08:36,060 --> 02:08:55,700
 Just one second, sorry.

1829
02:08:55,700 --> 02:09:13,900
 Okay.

1830
02:09:13,900 --> 02:09:16,900
 Thank you commissioners.

1831
02:09:16,900 --> 02:09:21,900
 Kristi Upton, Environmental Services, and I am presenting tonight the alternative ESA

1832
02:09:21,900 --> 02:09:28,660
 plan for a renovation of Ryan High School.

1833
02:09:28,660 --> 02:09:36,020
 The site is, Ryan High School is generally located at the northeast corner of East McKinney

1834
02:09:36,020 --> 02:09:47,940
 Street and Mayhill Road, and with recent renovations, Denton ISD is requesting to remove some riparian

1835
02:09:47,940 --> 02:09:57,060
 buffer vegetation along the entrance to the high school to support drainage for a parking

1836
02:09:57,060 --> 02:10:07,500
 lot renovation at the front of the high school, and there's additional work for a bus parking

1837
02:10:07,500 --> 02:10:15,180
 at the northern area of the site.

1838
02:10:15,180 --> 02:10:21,460
 And the riparian buffer is an unnamed tributary of Pecan Creek.

1839
02:10:21,460 --> 02:10:31,380
 These headwaters and the vegetation of those headwaters provide water quality and other

1840
02:10:31,380 --> 02:10:40,060
 functions, support other functions of these streams, and the vegetation was found to exist

1841
02:10:40,060 --> 02:10:46,320
 in this area and was in fair condition, in addition there's some remnants of crust timbers

1842
02:10:46,320 --> 02:10:53,220
 on the western border of the property, that crust timbers is not part of this request.

1843
02:10:53,220 --> 02:11:02,260
 And the specific request is for the proposal to remove improvements to the drainage of

1844
02:11:02,260 --> 02:11:12,540
 the high school's parking lots, in order to do this drainage improvements, the engineer

1845
02:11:12,540 --> 02:11:19,220
 identified that there was some issues with drainage, and in order to create positive

1846
02:11:19,220 --> 02:11:28,980
 flow and to get things to work properly, they will need to extend a storm drain further

1847
02:11:28,980 --> 02:11:36,160
 into this riparian buffer and then install a concrete flume that will carry the water

1848
02:11:36,160 --> 02:11:43,660
 under McKinney.

1849
02:11:43,660 --> 02:11:49,980
 The estimated water quality volume that is treated by the vegetation in this riparian

1850
02:11:49,980 --> 02:12:00,700
 buffer is 0.01 acre feet and for the purpose of mitigating further removal of this vegetation,

1851
02:12:00,700 --> 02:12:10,540
 the applicant is proposing to install 0.91 acre feet of greater capacity than what is

1852
02:12:10,540 --> 02:12:17,940
 required by the minimum standards of the storm drainage criteria manual.

1853
02:12:17,940 --> 02:12:27,580
 And then in addition to that, they will be increasing runoff infiltration, which is allowing

1854
02:12:27,580 --> 02:12:34,620
 for more storm water to infiltrate down into the ground before it is released, and then

1855
02:12:34,620 --> 02:12:42,860
 they will be using a native grass vegetation to prevent erosion within the bottom of this

1856
02:12:42,860 --> 02:12:47,220
 dried detention basin.

1857
02:12:47,220 --> 02:12:53,820
 Questions were sent out for this public hearing, there was no responses as of this meeting,

1858
02:12:53,820 --> 02:13:01,900
 and there were a couple of citizen inquiries, residents that live along the southwestern

1859
02:13:01,900 --> 02:13:11,780
 corner of the property, and they experienced historically some drainage issues, and the

1860
02:13:11,780 --> 02:13:20,500
 applicant has assured these residents that the drainage improvements for the renovation

1861
02:13:20,500 --> 02:13:28,620
 actually improve and alleviate some of the, any future flooding issues for the property

1862
02:13:28,620 --> 02:13:30,780
 owners.

1863
02:13:30,780 --> 02:13:36,740
 Staff is recommending approval with some conditions that the land disturbance be limited to the

1864
02:13:36,740 --> 02:13:44,500
 riparian buffer shown on the exhibits, the detention basin will be designed and constructed,

1865
02:13:44,500 --> 02:13:50,460
 meeting those minimum standards with the additional 0.91 acre feet, and that the property owner

1866
02:13:50,460 --> 02:13:56,260
 will maintain the detention basin, and as by following the maintenance plan provided

1867
02:13:56,260 --> 02:14:04,580
 in the alternative ESA plan, and then vegetation would be established as set forth as a standard

1868
02:14:04,580 --> 02:14:14,980
 that environmental services has created for a minimum of 90% survival rate.

1869
02:14:14,980 --> 02:14:17,980
 Questions?

1870
02:14:17,980 --> 02:14:18,980
 Thank you Chair.

1871
02:14:18,980 --> 02:14:22,980
 Chrissy, I just want to say for the public part of the hearing, what we discussed in

1872
02:14:22,980 --> 02:14:29,220
 the work session, and that's those recommendations three and four, that the maintenance plan,

1873
02:14:29,220 --> 02:14:36,860
 which currently includes mowing, you know, regular Deton style mowing be, that you're

1874
02:14:36,860 --> 02:14:41,300
 going to work with the applicant to reduce that and make that more consistent with the

1875
02:14:41,300 --> 02:14:48,620
 grass vendors recommendation for maintenance, so that our investment in those grasses is,

1876
02:14:48,620 --> 02:14:51,900
 or the applicant's investment is improved.

1877
02:14:51,900 --> 02:14:58,940
 And during the break, I have been in contact with the engineer, and representing the Deton

1878
02:14:58,940 --> 02:15:13,340
 ISD, he has agreed that the maintenance plan could be something that we could work out

1879
02:15:13,340 --> 02:15:20,980
 before we take this plan to council, and he is on the phone, I believe, and could answer

1880
02:15:20,980 --> 02:15:25,980
 further questions about this.

1881
02:15:25,980 --> 02:15:31,900
 I don't have any particular questions for the engineer, other than what we just talked

1882
02:15:31,900 --> 02:15:37,260
 about, just a second, but if he wanted to chime in and give his view, I would welcome

1883
02:15:37,260 --> 02:15:40,260
 his view.

1884
02:15:40,260 --> 02:15:46,740
 Yeah, this is John Hamilton.

1885
02:15:46,740 --> 02:15:47,740
 Can you all hear me?

1886
02:15:47,740 --> 02:15:48,740
 Yes.

1887
02:15:48,740 --> 02:15:52,580
 If you could just state your address and your affiliation, that would be helpful to us.

1888
02:15:52,580 --> 02:15:53,580
 Absolutely.

1889
02:15:53,580 --> 02:15:58,180
 This is John Hamilton, I'm with Tignall and Perkins, representing the Deton ISD.

1890
02:15:58,180 --> 02:16:04,300
 I live in 100 Nursery Lane, Fort Worth, Texas, 76114.

1891
02:16:04,300 --> 02:16:05,300
 Thank you, Christy.

1892
02:16:05,300 --> 02:16:07,900
 You did a great job presenting this.

1893
02:16:07,900 --> 02:16:12,980
 There's a couple things I was just going to go into a little bit more detail on, was the

1894
02:16:12,980 --> 02:16:19,940
 drainage issue that you talked about causing this repairing buffer was a drainage failure

1895
02:16:19,940 --> 02:16:22,900
 in the system that was initially put in.

1896
02:16:22,900 --> 02:16:28,580
 So this is a repairing buffer that kind of formed due to lack of maintenance.

1897
02:16:28,580 --> 02:16:33,420
 The second aspect that was touched on was the downstream drainage with the neighbors.

1898
02:16:33,420 --> 02:16:35,780
 We are in contact with them.

1899
02:16:35,780 --> 02:16:42,500
 We have been reassuring them that we are drastically improving this, actually, and they will see

1900
02:16:42,500 --> 02:16:46,140
 less runoff coming on to their property.

1901
02:16:46,140 --> 02:16:50,780
 And then the matter of hand that you guys are discussing right now was the mowing.

1902
02:16:50,780 --> 02:16:54,980
 So Christy has presented to us in the break there.

1903
02:16:54,980 --> 02:16:56,980
 I don't see any problem with that.

1904
02:16:56,980 --> 02:17:04,580
 It sounded like it was just kind of some reduced mowing to help let the vegetation establish

1905
02:17:04,580 --> 02:17:07,700
 itself within the detention pond.

1906
02:17:07,700 --> 02:17:10,220
 So I don't see that being a problem.

1907
02:17:10,220 --> 02:17:15,060
 It is something that we'll get the district involved in just to make sure that their maintenance

1908
02:17:15,060 --> 02:17:19,260
 crew, they all understand what we're asking and make sure that we don't have any problem

1909
02:17:19,260 --> 02:17:20,260
 with that.

1910
02:17:20,260 --> 02:17:27,580
 I don't see any problem with that being a condition that is put on to it before council.

1911
02:17:27,580 --> 02:17:29,460
 Excellent.

1912
02:17:29,460 --> 02:17:30,460
 That's great.

1913
02:17:30,460 --> 02:17:35,780
 I think we all would like to see sort of native environments used and maintained the way you

1914
02:17:35,780 --> 02:17:42,500
 guys are proposing, and I think it would probably be cheaper on you to mow less often.

1915
02:17:42,500 --> 02:17:43,500
 Absolutely.

1916
02:17:43,500 --> 02:17:47,540
 The district is always for that.

1917
02:17:47,540 --> 02:17:49,580
 I don't have any further questions, Chair.

1918
02:17:49,580 --> 02:17:50,580
 All right.

1919
02:17:50,580 --> 02:17:52,380
 Thank you, John, for being here this evening.

1920
02:17:52,380 --> 02:17:57,580
 Any other questions for staff or the representative?

1921
02:17:57,580 --> 02:17:59,620
 Okay.

1922
02:17:59,620 --> 02:18:03,820
 Go ahead and close the public hearing.

1923
02:18:03,820 --> 02:18:05,580
 Commissioner Anderson.

1924
02:18:05,580 --> 02:18:13,180
 Make your motion to approve with the -- just motion to approve it.

1925
02:18:13,180 --> 02:18:15,180
 With staff recommendations?

1926
02:18:15,180 --> 02:18:16,180
 Yes.

1927
02:18:16,180 --> 02:18:17,180
 Sorry.

1928
02:18:17,180 --> 02:18:18,180
 Commissioner Smith.

1929
02:18:18,180 --> 02:18:19,180
 Second.

1930
02:18:19,180 --> 02:18:22,780
 We have a first and a second for approval with the staff recommendations.

1931
02:18:22,780 --> 02:18:24,700
 Is there any discussion on this item?

1932
02:18:24,700 --> 02:18:28,740
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1933
02:18:28,740 --> 02:18:30,380
 Commissioner Ellis.

1934
02:18:30,380 --> 02:18:31,380
 Aye.

1935
02:18:31,380 --> 02:18:32,860
 Commissioner Beck.

1936
02:18:32,860 --> 02:18:33,860
 Aye.

1937
02:18:33,860 --> 02:18:34,860
 Commissioner Cole.

1938
02:18:34,860 --> 02:18:35,860
 Aye.

1939
02:18:35,860 --> 02:18:36,860
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1940
02:18:36,860 --> 02:18:37,860
 Aye.

1941
02:18:37,860 --> 02:18:38,860
 Commissioner Smith.

1942
02:18:38,860 --> 02:18:39,860
 Aye.

1943
02:18:39,860 --> 02:18:40,860
 Commissioner Anderson.

1944
02:18:40,860 --> 02:18:41,860
 Aye.

1945
02:18:41,860 --> 02:18:42,860
 There's also an aye.

1946
02:18:42,860 --> 02:18:43,860
 Motion carries 7-0.

1947
02:18:43,860 --> 02:18:49,860
 The next item of business is item 5C, AESA 20-002A.

1948
02:18:49,860 --> 02:18:57,100
 I'm going to go ahead and open the public hearing, and the staff is requesting a postponement

1949
02:18:57,100 --> 02:19:00,940
 to a date certain of September 16th.

1950
02:19:00,940 --> 02:19:05,660
 Commissioner Beck.

1951
02:19:05,660 --> 02:19:07,220
 Motion to approve the extension.

1952
02:19:07,220 --> 02:19:10,180
 We have a first for approval, Commissioner Smith.

1953
02:19:10,180 --> 02:19:11,180
 Second.

1954
02:19:11,180 --> 02:19:17,500
 We have a first and a second to postpone this item to a date certain of September 16th.

1955
02:19:17,500 --> 02:19:22,740
 Any discussion on this item?

1956
02:19:22,740 --> 02:19:23,740
 Commissioner Smith.

1957
02:19:23,740 --> 02:19:26,620
 Cynthia, does it need to be a different motion?

1958
02:19:26,620 --> 02:19:31,220
 Does it need to be a motion to postpone or a motion to table?

1959
02:19:31,220 --> 02:19:33,180
 I just wanted to clarify.

1960
02:19:33,180 --> 02:19:40,020
 I just heard there was a -- Commissioner Beck referred to a request for an extension, and

1961
02:19:40,020 --> 02:19:43,060
 I believe the motion was to postpone.

1962
02:19:43,060 --> 02:19:44,060
 I'm sorry, Legal.

1963
02:19:44,060 --> 02:19:47,020
 I appreciate the correction.

1964
02:19:47,020 --> 02:19:52,740
 Your correction is well taken, and I made the postponement for my amendment -- or my

1965
02:19:52,740 --> 02:19:53,740
 motion.

1966
02:19:53,740 --> 02:19:54,740
 Thank you.

1967
02:19:54,740 --> 02:19:55,740
 Great.

1968
02:19:55,740 --> 02:19:56,740
 And Commissioner Smith, you second that?

1969
02:19:56,740 --> 02:19:57,740
 Yes.

1970
02:19:57,740 --> 02:19:58,740
 Great.

1971
02:19:58,740 --> 02:20:03,620
 So we have a first and a second for postponement to a date certain of September 16th.

1972
02:20:03,620 --> 02:20:06,620
 Any discussion?

1973
02:20:06,620 --> 02:20:08,940
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1974
02:20:08,940 --> 02:20:09,940
 Commissioner Ellis.

1975
02:20:09,940 --> 02:20:10,940
 Aye.

1976
02:20:10,940 --> 02:20:11,940
 Commissioner Beck?

1977
02:20:11,940 --> 02:20:12,940
 Aye.

1978
02:20:12,940 --> 02:20:13,940
 Commissioner Cole.

1979
02:20:13,940 --> 02:20:14,940
 Aye.

1980
02:20:14,940 --> 02:20:15,940
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1981
02:20:15,940 --> 02:20:16,940
 Aye.

1982
02:20:16,940 --> 02:20:17,940
 Commissioner Smith.

1983
02:20:17,940 --> 02:20:18,940
 Aye.

1984
02:20:18,940 --> 02:20:19,940
 Commissioner Anderson.

1985
02:20:19,940 --> 02:20:20,940
 Aye.

1986
02:20:20,940 --> 02:20:25,200
 Chair, it's also an aye.

1987
02:20:25,200 --> 02:20:29,660
 Motion carries 7-0 to postpone to a date certain of September 16th.

1988
02:20:29,660 --> 02:20:35,500
 The next item of business is item 5D, Z-19-0012A.

1989
02:20:35,500 --> 02:20:39,100
 I'll go ahead and open the public hearing, and the applicant is requesting a postponement

1990
02:20:39,100 --> 02:20:41,260
 to a date certain of September 16th.

1991
02:20:41,260 --> 02:20:42,260
 Commissioner Smith.

1992
02:20:42,260 --> 02:20:47,220
 I make a motion to postpone to a date certain.

1993
02:20:47,220 --> 02:20:50,500
 We have a first for a postponement to a date certain.

1994
02:20:50,500 --> 02:20:51,500
 Commissioner Anderson.

1995
02:20:51,500 --> 02:20:52,500
 I second the motion.

1996
02:20:52,500 --> 02:20:56,900
 We have a first and a second to postpone to a date certain of September 16th.

1997
02:20:56,900 --> 02:21:01,340
 Is there any discussion on this?

1998
02:21:01,340 --> 02:21:03,380
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

1999
02:21:03,380 --> 02:21:04,380
 Commissioner Ellis.

2000
02:21:04,380 --> 02:21:05,380
 Aye.

2001
02:21:05,380 --> 02:21:06,380
 Commissioner Beck.

2002
02:21:06,380 --> 02:21:07,380
 Aye.

2003
02:21:07,380 --> 02:21:08,380
 Commissioner Cole.

2004
02:21:08,380 --> 02:21:09,380
 Aye.

2005
02:21:09,380 --> 02:21:10,380
 Commissioner Pernitta.

2006
02:21:10,380 --> 02:21:11,380
 Aye.

2007
02:21:11,380 --> 02:21:12,380
 Commissioner Smith.

2008
02:21:12,380 --> 02:21:13,380
 Aye.

2009
02:21:13,380 --> 02:21:14,380
 Commissioner Anderson.

2010
02:21:14,380 --> 02:21:15,380
 Aye.

2011
02:21:15,380 --> 02:21:17,820
 Chair, it's also an aye.

2012
02:21:17,820 --> 02:21:22,740
 Motion carries 7-0 to postpone to a date certain of September 16th.

2013
02:21:22,740 --> 02:21:27,540
 The next item of business is item 5E, PD 20-0003.

2014
02:21:27,540 --> 02:21:31,820
 I'll invite Julie Wyeth for presentation and open the public hearing.

2015
02:21:31,820 --> 02:21:33,060
 Good evening, commissioners.

2016
02:21:33,060 --> 02:21:39,900
 Let me pull up my presentation.

2017
02:21:39,900 --> 02:21:55,860
 All right.

2018
02:21:55,860 --> 02:22:01,580
 The request before you is PD 20-0003 chargeable.

2019
02:22:01,580 --> 02:22:07,260
 The request is for a major plan development amendment for PD 139 to develop the site with

2020
02:22:07,260 --> 02:22:08,900
 a charter school.

2021
02:22:08,900 --> 02:22:12,860
 It's considered an institutional use in PD 139.

2022
02:22:12,860 --> 02:22:16,700
 The site is an overall 37.3-acre property.

2023
02:22:16,700 --> 02:22:23,500
 It's located at the southeast corner of Vintage Boulevard and I-35W Vintage Boulevard ramp

2024
02:22:23,500 --> 02:22:27,500
 intersection.

2025
02:22:27,500 --> 02:22:30,260
 This is one of our older PDs in the city.

2026
02:22:30,260 --> 02:22:35,300
 We've often reviewed these under the 1991 development standards.

2027
02:22:35,300 --> 02:22:44,000
 However, now we are reviewing these and applying the 2019 debt and development code processes

2028
02:22:44,000 --> 02:22:47,140
 and criteria for approval on these older PDs.

2029
02:22:47,140 --> 02:22:50,900
 They'll still retain their development standards that were consistent with what was adopted

2030
02:22:50,900 --> 02:22:51,900
 with that PD.

2031
02:22:51,900 --> 02:22:58,540
 But going forward, we're going to review these under the 2019 standards for consistency.

2032
02:22:58,540 --> 02:23:04,500
 And as I said, this is a major amendment which does require the dual public hearing process.

2033
02:23:04,500 --> 02:23:06,420
 Some background on PD 139.

2034
02:23:06,420 --> 02:23:11,660
 It was established in 1991 as a 450-acre business village.

2035
02:23:11,660 --> 02:23:19,500
 Institutional uses of which the request is were permitted as part of that PD.

2036
02:23:19,500 --> 02:23:24,060
 And those institutional uses included educational facilities.

2037
02:23:24,060 --> 02:23:26,800
 That PD also included two open space areas.

2038
02:23:26,800 --> 02:23:28,500
 They're just shown here in green.

2039
02:23:28,500 --> 02:23:32,180
 They don't affect the subject property, but I did just want to point those out.

2040
02:23:32,180 --> 02:23:36,740
 In 1999, that plan was revised.

2041
02:23:36,740 --> 02:23:40,420
 That original concept plan, if you recall, that was a two-step process.

2042
02:23:40,420 --> 02:23:46,740
 The concept plan was revised and deemed this area as a mixed-use town center, the subject

2043
02:23:46,740 --> 02:23:48,080
 property.

2044
02:23:48,080 --> 02:23:54,660
 That PD amendment had very strict phasing associated with it and that if it did not

2045
02:23:54,660 --> 02:23:58,260
 develop in accordance with that phasing, then it expired.

2046
02:23:58,260 --> 02:24:03,780
 It did not, and so therefore that's part of the reason they're here tonight.

2047
02:24:03,780 --> 02:24:06,980
 There were roadway improvement conditions associated with that ordinance, so I did want

2048
02:24:06,980 --> 02:24:08,500
 to point those out.

2049
02:24:08,500 --> 02:24:14,700
 The limited development of the PD to just single family and one convenience store until

2050
02:24:14,700 --> 02:24:22,420
 either the interchange at I-35 and vintage, which was called Ponder Road at that time,

2051
02:24:22,420 --> 02:24:30,260
 was modernized, or that Ponder Road was extended all the way to 377 as a four-lane road.

2052
02:24:30,260 --> 02:24:35,420
 That improvement, that four-lane road, is actually under construction now, so it does

2053
02:24:35,420 --> 02:24:37,580
 meet those conditions.

2054
02:24:37,580 --> 02:24:39,580
 Further development of the PD is limited.

2055
02:24:39,580 --> 02:24:45,140
 We do have some single family near the subject property as part of that PD, and 213 acres

2056
02:24:45,140 --> 02:24:49,340
 have been zoned out of that PD.

2057
02:24:49,340 --> 02:24:54,060
 The current proposal, as I said, is for a charter school that includes kindergarten

2058
02:24:54,060 --> 02:24:56,860
 through 12th grade in two buildings.

2059
02:24:56,860 --> 02:25:02,100
 There would be a lower school, a two-story building, and then the high school, the upper

2060
02:25:02,100 --> 02:25:05,260
 school, a one-story building in this location.

2061
02:25:05,260 --> 02:25:11,140
 They are proposing a looped drive aisle connecting to Vintage Road in this location, and then

2062
02:25:11,140 --> 02:25:15,500
 the future John Payne Road in this location on the east side.

2063
02:25:15,500 --> 02:25:21,740
 We're also proposing athletic facilities as associated with the development, and an agricultural

2064
02:25:21,740 --> 02:25:25,180
 teaching garden, as well as a playground.

2065
02:25:25,180 --> 02:25:28,440
 I just want to take a little bit of time on this John Payne Road.

2066
02:25:28,440 --> 02:25:31,260
 This road is not currently here right now.

2067
02:25:31,260 --> 02:25:36,300
 There is a portion of John Payne Road constructed south of the subject property near Crawford

2068
02:25:36,300 --> 02:25:37,380
 Road.

2069
02:25:37,380 --> 02:25:41,140
 It will eventually connect all the way through to Vintage Road.

2070
02:25:41,140 --> 02:25:51,580
 However, it's not quite connected yet, so at some point in the future, it will connect.

2071
02:25:51,580 --> 02:25:57,620
 The project, because of when it was adopted, the PD, it does follow that 1988 landscape

2072
02:25:57,620 --> 02:26:03,100
 ordinance, and that includes three sections, street yard landscaping.

2073
02:26:03,100 --> 02:26:07,140
 That street yard, remember, is that space between the front of the buildings and the

2074
02:26:07,140 --> 02:26:10,300
 street, parking lot landscaping, and parking lot screening.

2075
02:26:10,300 --> 02:26:16,820
 In the street yard, they're required to have 20% landscaping and one tree every 2,500 square

2076
02:26:16,820 --> 02:26:22,660
 feet of total street yard, which would come to 36,000 square feet of landscaping and 74

2077
02:26:22,660 --> 02:26:23,660
 trees.

2078
02:26:23,660 --> 02:26:28,420
 They're proposing about 91,000 square feet of landscaping and 109 large and ornamental

2079
02:26:28,420 --> 02:26:29,420
 trees.

2080
02:26:29,420 --> 02:26:31,860
 It also requires parking lot landscaping.

2081
02:26:31,860 --> 02:26:38,100
 5% of the parking lot in the street yard must be landscaped, which would come to about 3,800

2082
02:26:38,100 --> 02:26:39,100
 square feet.

2083
02:26:39,100 --> 02:26:43,620
 They're proposing about 10,000 square feet in this landscape median as well as landscape

2084
02:26:43,620 --> 02:26:45,940
 islands.

2085
02:26:45,940 --> 02:26:48,540
 And then parking lot screening.

2086
02:26:48,540 --> 02:26:54,140
 Parking areas are to be screened between the parking area and the right-of-way.

2087
02:26:54,140 --> 02:27:00,880
 They are proposing a continuous shrub hedge along Vintage as well as on John Payne.

2088
02:27:00,880 --> 02:27:05,460
 We also looked at this in terms of what the 2019 code requires.

2089
02:27:05,460 --> 02:27:09,180
 We kind of wanted to see how that compared to it and see where they could meet those

2090
02:27:09,180 --> 02:27:10,180
 requirements.

2091
02:27:10,180 --> 02:27:16,260
 So, in order to meet the 2019 code, they've actually proposed landscape islands with trees

2092
02:27:16,260 --> 02:27:21,540
 planted within them, one every 10 feet throughout the rest of the parking area.

2093
02:27:21,540 --> 02:27:25,580
 They've also gotten a landscape median in this location and a landscape median in this

2094
02:27:25,580 --> 02:27:29,700
 location, more consistent with what we see today.

2095
02:27:29,700 --> 02:27:36,180
 Available criteria for PDs is in subchapter two, the general, as well as the specific.

2096
02:27:36,180 --> 02:27:38,300
 So first, the comprehensive plan.

2097
02:27:38,300 --> 02:27:42,060
 This area is designated as low-density residential.

2098
02:27:42,060 --> 02:27:47,460
 The proposal is not a residential use, and as you know, low-density residential is one

2099
02:27:47,460 --> 02:27:52,180
 of those future land use designations that indicates an area for residential development

2100
02:27:52,180 --> 02:27:56,700
 up to four dwelling units per acre.

2101
02:27:56,700 --> 02:28:02,460
 Because this is not a residential use, it still does fall within that future land use

2102
02:28:02,460 --> 02:28:04,420
 designation.

2103
02:28:04,420 --> 02:28:08,660
 Educational facilities are embedded within a variety of zoning districts within the city

2104
02:28:08,660 --> 02:28:11,380
 of Denton, and they are needed throughout the city.

2105
02:28:11,380 --> 02:28:13,340
 We don't just localize them in one area.

2106
02:28:13,340 --> 02:28:15,460
 They are needed throughout the city.

2107
02:28:15,460 --> 02:28:20,140
 That future land use map is instructive for the potential expansion of schools and school

2108
02:28:20,140 --> 02:28:25,060
 sites because we want to look for areas that indicate future residential growth because

2109
02:28:25,060 --> 02:28:27,740
 those suggest a greater need for schools.

2110
02:28:27,740 --> 02:28:32,900
 Areas like industrial commerce indicate fewer schools would be needed because it would be

2111
02:28:32,900 --> 02:28:36,340
 more employment uses, fewer residential uses.

2112
02:28:36,340 --> 02:28:41,620
 We also look at other goals associated with the Denton plan, and two in particular, economic

2113
02:28:41,620 --> 02:28:42,620
 vitality.

2114
02:28:42,620 --> 02:28:48,500
 23% of the jobs in Denton are in educational services, and so additional schools would

2115
02:28:48,500 --> 02:28:55,780
 just support that goal within the city.

2116
02:28:55,780 --> 02:28:57,780
 And then mobility.

2117
02:28:57,780 --> 02:29:02,020
 We want to see a mix of uses to reduce potential trips.

2118
02:29:02,020 --> 02:29:05,060
 So we want to see schools near residential.

2119
02:29:05,060 --> 02:29:10,300
 We want to see shopping and employment near where people live.

2120
02:29:10,300 --> 02:29:13,660
 So we want to have a good mix of uses.

2121
02:29:13,660 --> 02:29:18,980
 And by locating schools near neighborhoods, that does meet that goal because it does provide

2122
02:29:18,980 --> 02:29:24,300
 an opportunity for students to walk to school or even employees to walk or ride their bikes

2123
02:29:24,300 --> 02:29:25,500
 to school.

2124
02:29:25,500 --> 02:29:32,220
 Now staff understands this proposal will attract students beyond the city borders, but even

2125
02:29:32,220 --> 02:29:37,620
 though that location near an existing residential area and a future residential area could provide

2126
02:29:37,620 --> 02:29:43,740
 that opportunity for those multimodal trips.

2127
02:29:43,740 --> 02:29:46,020
 Compliance with the Denton development code and the original PD.

2128
02:29:46,020 --> 02:29:53,140
 The proposal does conform to the PD amendment process in the 2019 code, as well as the development

2129
02:29:53,140 --> 02:29:56,180
 standards established with that existing PD.

2130
02:29:56,180 --> 02:30:01,340
 Does it provide a greater level of building design, quality, community amenities and connectivity

2131
02:30:01,340 --> 02:30:04,300
 that would otherwise be required?

2132
02:30:04,300 --> 02:30:10,520
 So in addition to the landscaping, they're also proposing a plaza area about 10,000 square

2133
02:30:10,520 --> 02:30:15,820
 feet centrally located between the buildings to allow kind of a landing pad for students,

2134
02:30:15,820 --> 02:30:17,460
 a place for people to gather.

2135
02:30:17,460 --> 02:30:24,860
 And that also includes landscaping to amenitize the area.

2136
02:30:24,860 --> 02:30:28,220
 There's also pedestrian connections throughout the site and they connect to the sidewalk

2137
02:30:28,220 --> 02:30:30,740
 system.

2138
02:30:30,740 --> 02:30:35,980
 They did provide conceptual building elevations as part of their submittal.

2139
02:30:35,980 --> 02:30:40,460
 I want to caution you, these are not the buildings that have been designed yet for the site.

2140
02:30:40,460 --> 02:30:45,140
 They have not yet designed the buildings, but this is indicative of what they wanted

2141
02:30:45,140 --> 02:30:46,140
 to build.

2142
02:30:46,140 --> 02:30:52,180
 So because we don't have specific site or elevations, staff is recommending a condition

2143
02:30:52,180 --> 02:30:57,900
 that the proposal meet the site design standards in the Denton development code for non-residential

2144
02:30:57,900 --> 02:31:04,980
 development just so we know that we'll have some certainty as to what they will build.

2145
02:31:04,980 --> 02:31:09,140
 In the case of non-residential uses or mixed uses, that such development would be appropriate

2146
02:31:09,140 --> 02:31:13,420
 in an area, location and overall planning for the purpose intended.

2147
02:31:13,420 --> 02:31:17,660
 So this is really an emerging area within the city of Denton.

2148
02:31:17,660 --> 02:31:21,420
 This is the southwest side, it kind of hugs up against 35W.

2149
02:31:21,420 --> 02:31:26,700
 There's a lot of connectivity in the area and you have seen three projects recently

2150
02:31:26,700 --> 02:31:29,060
 go through with rezoning.

2151
02:31:29,060 --> 02:31:35,420
 Hunter Ranch, which is one of the dominant projects in the area, Sagebrook and then another

2152
02:31:35,420 --> 02:31:40,020
 rezoning, a smaller rezoning in this location.

2153
02:31:40,020 --> 02:31:44,380
 There's also park development that will eventually come forward.

2154
02:31:44,380 --> 02:31:48,100
 The city does own parkland and eventually those will be developed.

2155
02:31:48,100 --> 02:31:52,260
 So this really is emerging as a residential area.

2156
02:31:52,260 --> 02:31:56,620
 We want to make sure we have a variety of mix of uses in that area.

2157
02:31:56,620 --> 02:32:01,700
 And so the school, a proposed school, would provide that corresponding educational facility

2158
02:32:01,700 --> 02:32:04,540
 to round out those mix of uses.

2159
02:32:04,540 --> 02:32:08,780
 Schools are often found within neighborhoods or on the edges of neighborhoods.

2160
02:32:08,780 --> 02:32:13,260
 So this proposal is consistent with that development pattern.

2161
02:32:13,260 --> 02:32:20,860
 In addition, just more specifically to that site, is that it is oriented away from I-35

2162
02:32:20,860 --> 02:32:28,460
 inward toward those emerging residential areas, so it will be more focused in that regard.

2163
02:32:28,460 --> 02:32:32,340
 And then the intensity is limited, so it's got large open areas.

2164
02:32:32,340 --> 02:32:34,940
 It's a maximum building height of 33 feet.

2165
02:32:34,940 --> 02:32:41,700
 So it's consistent with that development scale within the area.

2166
02:32:41,700 --> 02:32:47,500
 The provision of public facilities, I want to focus mainly on streets and transportation

2167
02:32:47,500 --> 02:32:51,340
 because that is always a big issue.

2168
02:32:51,340 --> 02:32:54,780
 And plus, there are a lot of mobility changes in the area.

2169
02:32:54,780 --> 02:32:59,620
 So first, briefly, they did submit a TIA to us, and it is under review.

2170
02:32:59,620 --> 02:33:05,620
 But as part of that, they provided a traffic management plan that included on-site circulation.

2171
02:33:05,620 --> 02:33:12,140
 So they have, with that looped drive aisle, it does allow queuing capacity for about 119

2172
02:33:12,140 --> 02:33:16,260
 vehicles, which is an appropriate queuing capacity.

2173
02:33:16,260 --> 02:33:21,540
 As with most schools, they do anticipate greater queuing in the morning and afternoon when

2174
02:33:21,540 --> 02:33:24,820
 kids are being dropped off or picked up.

2175
02:33:24,820 --> 02:33:30,020
 And they are expecting greater vehicle queuing in the afternoon, but do anticipate delays

2176
02:33:30,020 --> 02:33:35,800
 in the morning, particularly with those vehicles exiting onto vintage.

2177
02:33:35,800 --> 02:33:40,500
 So they have included within their TIA a traffic management plan.

2178
02:33:40,500 --> 02:33:43,020
 It's really operational interventions.

2179
02:33:43,020 --> 02:33:45,380
 It's not related to the physical structure of the site.

2180
02:33:45,380 --> 02:33:48,100
 That really is more related to that queuing capacity.

2181
02:33:48,100 --> 02:33:53,980
 But just to mention, they do propose a staggered dismissal schedule to kind of spread it out

2182
02:33:53,980 --> 02:34:02,940
 and have a less peaked peak, staff assistance to ensure safe unloading for students, and

2183
02:34:02,940 --> 02:34:08,180
 also to discourage parents from parking in the queue lanes, and then also temporary traffic

2184
02:34:08,180 --> 02:34:10,420
 control devices.

2185
02:34:10,420 --> 02:34:12,780
 We also looked at the surrounding streets.

2186
02:34:12,780 --> 02:34:16,500
 It is difficult to get accurate traffic counts right now, so we do kind of look at historic

2187
02:34:16,500 --> 02:34:21,580
 traffic counts, and the Denton Police Department did do a study in 2017.

2188
02:34:21,580 --> 02:34:28,420
 With their counts that was averaged over a week, they counted about 5,900 vehicles per

2189
02:34:28,420 --> 02:34:32,220
 day on Vintage Boulevard.

2190
02:34:32,220 --> 02:34:36,620
 According to the TIA under review, their proposed use would generate about 2,500 trips.

2191
02:34:36,620 --> 02:34:43,100
 That's 809 a.m. peak and 520 p.m. peak.

2192
02:34:43,100 --> 02:34:47,220
 Expansion for the road should accommodate this increase in traffic, however.

2193
02:34:47,220 --> 02:34:52,060
 With the additional lanes being added to Vintage, it will be a four-lane divided road.

2194
02:34:52,060 --> 02:34:54,940
 It will accommodate the proposal.

2195
02:34:54,940 --> 02:34:59,340
 And then as I mentioned, they're also dedicating the right-of-way for John Payne Road, that

2196
02:34:59,340 --> 02:35:01,620
 future north-south collector.

2197
02:35:01,620 --> 02:35:11,300
 There was a question about Vintage Road during the work session, and I wanted to just mention

2198
02:35:11,300 --> 02:35:12,300
 a couple of things.

2199
02:35:12,300 --> 02:35:14,580
 I spoke with our engineering group.

2200
02:35:14,580 --> 02:35:19,740
 The way that that road is being designed, it's being designed with two lanes going either

2201
02:35:19,740 --> 02:35:23,380
 way, so four lanes divided with a large median.

2202
02:35:23,380 --> 02:35:29,140
 That median is being designed so that in the future when that road is expanded to the six

2203
02:35:29,140 --> 02:35:33,900
 lanes for that arterial, it will be coming from the median.

2204
02:35:33,900 --> 02:35:37,700
 So that median was large enough to accommodate the expansion of that road.

2205
02:35:37,700 --> 02:35:43,220
 Additionally, I'm looking at the update of the mobility plan that the city is undertaking

2206
02:35:43,220 --> 02:35:44,220
 right now.

2207
02:35:44,220 --> 02:35:49,840
 It looks like the Loop 288 is connecting to this road, however, the highway is intended

2208
02:35:49,840 --> 02:35:56,380
 to end at I-35W, transitioning to a collector for the Vintage Road.

2209
02:35:56,380 --> 02:35:58,620
 So hopefully that answers your questions.

2210
02:35:58,620 --> 02:36:05,580
 I do believe we've got engineering on the phone if we need further discussion.

2211
02:36:05,580 --> 02:36:09,060
 And then just a little more about transportation in the area.

2212
02:36:09,060 --> 02:36:13,140
 They did study some intersections surrounding the subject property.

2213
02:36:13,140 --> 02:36:19,820
 Generally they are anticipated to operate at an A or a B level, however, except for

2214
02:36:19,820 --> 02:36:22,940
 the intersection at 377 and Vintage.

2215
02:36:22,940 --> 02:36:32,940
 They do anticipate, regardless of the school coming in, that the intersection would operate

2216
02:36:32,940 --> 02:36:41,100
 at a level F by 2022, and that's for the turning movement going eastbound on Vintage and turning

2217
02:36:41,100 --> 02:36:43,220
 left onto 377.

2218
02:36:43,220 --> 02:36:48,620
 So they do anticipate further interventions will be needed at that intersection just from

2219
02:36:48,620 --> 02:36:51,620
 an operational standpoint in the city of Denton.

2220
02:36:51,620 --> 02:36:58,360
 That might be channelized left turn lanes to help smooth the traffic flow, or maybe

2221
02:36:58,360 --> 02:37:02,340
 even a signal at that intersection at some point in the future.

2222
02:37:02,340 --> 02:37:09,820
 The TxDOT is also working on the plans for this interchange right here.

2223
02:37:09,820 --> 02:37:14,620
 We've got the plans right here that show what they are proposing.

2224
02:37:14,620 --> 02:37:17,980
 And we don't have a timeline for that, but it is in the works.

2225
02:37:17,980 --> 02:37:24,780
 And then finally related to this subject property, they are, as part of their development, would

2226
02:37:24,780 --> 02:37:31,620
 have to construct channelized left turn lanes into the site in this location, and then channelized

2227
02:37:31,620 --> 02:37:33,660
 right turn lanes into the site.

2228
02:37:33,660 --> 02:37:38,740
 That would allow parents dropping off students to get out of the lane of traffic so that

2229
02:37:38,740 --> 02:37:42,580
 they can make those turning movements and allow the traffic to move more smoothly on

2230
02:37:42,580 --> 02:37:44,540
 the road.

2231
02:37:44,540 --> 02:37:50,260
 So based upon the expansion of Vintage as well as the interventions by the applicant,

2232
02:37:50,260 --> 02:37:55,740
 there is capacity to serve the site.

2233
02:37:55,740 --> 02:37:56,740
 Notification was sent out.

2234
02:37:56,740 --> 02:38:00,500
 We haven't received any responses, and the applicant did hold a virtual neighborhood

2235
02:38:00,500 --> 02:38:01,500
 meeting.

2236
02:38:01,500 --> 02:38:04,060
 They did not have any attendees.

2237
02:38:04,060 --> 02:38:09,420
 And staff, because the item does meet the criteria for approval, we recommend approval

2238
02:38:09,420 --> 02:38:14,620
 of the request with two proposed conditions.

2239
02:38:14,620 --> 02:38:20,900
 One that the final landscape locations for individual plantings and individual plant

2240
02:38:20,900 --> 02:38:26,220
 selections would be able to be approved by staff, provided that the final landscaping

2241
02:38:26,220 --> 02:38:29,020
 complies with the overall plan that they provided.

2242
02:38:29,020 --> 02:38:34,300
 And that would be that minimum number of large canopy trees of 91, the minimum number of

2243
02:38:34,300 --> 02:38:40,860
 shrubs of 1558, and the minimum number of medium canopy or ornamental trees of 59.

2244
02:38:40,860 --> 02:38:46,260
 Also that all buildings would have to comply with our current design standards.

2245
02:38:46,260 --> 02:38:51,460
 And then the second section is just specifying what they're laying out in their PD amendment,

2246
02:38:51,460 --> 02:38:57,020
 that it would be two classroom buildings with the total ground floor footprint of 81,800

2247
02:38:57,020 --> 02:39:03,260
 square feet, maximum building height of 33 feet, 357 parking spaces, and then 10,000

2248
02:39:03,260 --> 02:39:07,620
 square feet of plaza area with those landscaping elements.

2249
02:39:07,620 --> 02:39:11,020
 And I will be happy to answer any questions.

2250
02:39:11,020 --> 02:39:13,900
 >> I think Mr. Beck had one.

2251
02:39:13,900 --> 02:39:20,900
 >> Julie, could you go to slide 15, where you had the mobility plan overlaid?

2252
02:39:20,900 --> 02:39:23,340
 >> Sure.

2253
02:39:23,340 --> 02:39:27,940
 >> So that was it.

2254
02:39:27,940 --> 02:39:29,100
 That was the one I wanted.

2255
02:39:29,100 --> 02:39:30,100
 >> This one?

2256
02:39:30,100 --> 02:39:31,940
 >> No, the one you were on.

2257
02:39:31,940 --> 02:39:32,940
 >> This one?

2258
02:39:32,940 --> 02:39:33,940
 >> Yes, 15.

2259
02:39:33,940 --> 02:39:39,740
 >> So I didn't notice this in work session, but the dotted line that runs parallel to

2260
02:39:39,740 --> 02:39:45,180
 the highway, is that a road extension up to, I can't remember the name of the north-south

2261
02:39:45,180 --> 02:39:46,180
 arterial?

2262
02:39:46,180 --> 02:39:47,180
 >> John Payne.

2263
02:39:47,180 --> 02:39:48,180
 >> It is.

2264
02:39:48,180 --> 02:39:49,180
 That is John Payne.

2265
02:39:49,180 --> 02:39:50,180
 >> Yes, sir.

2266
02:39:50,180 --> 02:39:53,580
 >> So the dotted line is going to be the location of John Payne?

2267
02:39:53,580 --> 02:39:56,340
 >> It's the conceptual location.

2268
02:39:56,340 --> 02:39:58,840
 >> Within the flexibility of the mobility plan.

2269
02:39:58,840 --> 02:40:07,500
 So on the plan, and knowing that we can flex the mobility plan to accommodate this plan,

2270
02:40:07,500 --> 02:40:13,060
 we're not going to cut the corner near that K through 8 building, are we?

2271
02:40:13,060 --> 02:40:14,060
 >> No, sir.

2272
02:40:14,060 --> 02:40:23,180
 It is actually just running north-south, just along that property line there.

2273
02:40:23,180 --> 02:40:29,180
 >> So the jog towards 35 is going to be south of the figure?

2274
02:40:29,180 --> 02:40:30,180
 >> I'm sorry.

2275
02:40:30,180 --> 02:40:31,420
 Could you repeat your question?

2276
02:40:31,420 --> 02:40:37,900
 >> The John Payne, where it jogs to parallel 35 southwest, is going to be south of this

2277
02:40:37,900 --> 02:40:38,900
 figure?

2278
02:40:38,900 --> 02:40:39,900
 >> Yes, sir.

2279
02:40:39,900 --> 02:40:40,900
 >> Okay.

2280
02:40:40,900 --> 02:40:41,900
 All right.

2281
02:40:41,900 --> 02:40:42,900
 That clarifies.

2282
02:40:42,900 --> 02:40:43,900
 Thank you.

2283
02:40:43,900 --> 02:40:44,900
 >> You bet.

2284
02:40:44,900 --> 02:40:53,620
 >> Any other questions for Julie?

2285
02:40:53,620 --> 02:40:54,620
 Okay.

2286
02:40:54,620 --> 02:40:57,520
 Julie, do you know if the applicant is wanting to present this evening?

2287
02:40:57,520 --> 02:40:59,820
 >> I don't believe they have a presentation.

2288
02:40:59,820 --> 02:41:03,140
 They didn't provide it, but are they on the phone?

2289
02:41:03,140 --> 02:41:05,820
 I don't show that they're on the phone.

2290
02:41:05,820 --> 02:41:06,820
 >> Okay.

2291
02:41:06,820 --> 02:41:07,820
 >> So.

2292
02:41:07,820 --> 02:41:14,260
 >> Well, with that, I will go ahead and close the public hearing, turn it for a motion or

2293
02:41:14,260 --> 02:41:15,260
 a second.

2294
02:41:15,260 --> 02:41:16,260
 All right.

2295
02:41:16,260 --> 02:41:17,260
 Discussion on this item.

2296
02:41:17,260 --> 02:41:18,260
 Commissioner Smith.

2297
02:41:18,260 --> 02:41:19,260
 >> I make a motion to approve the staff recommendations.

2298
02:41:19,260 --> 02:41:20,260
 >> Okay.

2299
02:41:20,260 --> 02:41:21,260
 We have a first for approval.

2300
02:41:21,260 --> 02:41:22,260
 Commissioner Pernetta.

2301
02:41:22,260 --> 02:41:23,260
 >> Second.

2302
02:41:23,260 --> 02:41:28,520
 >> We have a first and a second for approval with the recommendations by staff.

2303
02:41:28,520 --> 02:41:32,980
 Is there any discussion on this item?

2304
02:41:32,980 --> 02:41:35,820
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

2305
02:41:35,820 --> 02:41:36,820
 Commissioner Ellis.

2306
02:41:36,820 --> 02:41:37,820
 >> Aye.

2307
02:41:37,820 --> 02:41:38,820
 >> Commissioner Beck.

2308
02:41:38,820 --> 02:41:39,820
 >> Aye.

2309
02:41:39,820 --> 02:41:40,820
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

2310
02:41:40,820 --> 02:41:41,820
 >> Aye.

2311
02:41:41,820 --> 02:41:42,820
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

2312
02:41:42,820 --> 02:41:44,380
 >> Aye.

2313
02:41:44,380 --> 02:41:46,420
 >> Commissioner Cole.

2314
02:41:46,420 --> 02:41:47,420
 >> Aye.

2315
02:41:47,420 --> 02:41:49,100
 >> Commissioner Smith.

2316
02:41:49,100 --> 02:41:50,100
 >> Aye.

2317
02:41:50,100 --> 02:41:51,540
 >> Chair is also an aye.

2318
02:41:51,540 --> 02:41:53,980
 Motion carries 7-0.

2319
02:41:53,980 --> 02:41:59,220
 That brings us to our concluding item of tonight's agenda, our planning and zoning project matrix.

2320
02:41:59,220 --> 02:42:04,580
 I will turn the floor over to Richard initially for any updates he has and then to the commissioners

2321
02:42:04,580 --> 02:42:07,340
 for discussion.

2322
02:42:07,340 --> 02:42:13,980
 >> Just wanted to -- just a quick update.

2323
02:42:13,980 --> 02:42:18,540
 If you notice on what we're trying to do is get some of these items scheduled and get

2324
02:42:18,540 --> 02:42:20,240
 them on the calendar.

2325
02:42:20,240 --> 02:42:25,340
 So we have put some dates on for the October meetings.

2326
02:42:25,340 --> 02:42:28,340
 I think we are trying to get two items per meeting.

2327
02:42:28,340 --> 02:42:31,980
 And so we'll start getting those -- getting those knocked out.

2328
02:42:31,980 --> 02:42:36,980
 One other item I wanted to mention where we talked about the overlay conditions and some

2329
02:42:36,980 --> 02:42:42,460
 of the others coming back when we were going to be bringing forward DDC amendments, it

2330
02:42:42,460 --> 02:42:50,220
 looks like we'll be coming to council in October with a work session on some of those DDC amendments.

2331
02:42:50,220 --> 02:42:55,780
 So as soon as we get that date confirmed with council, we'll get something scheduled with

2332
02:42:55,780 --> 02:42:58,180
 P&Z as kind of our next steps.

2333
02:42:58,180 --> 02:43:05,420
 I will let you know that we will be processing one of those related amendments, a use amendment

2334
02:43:05,420 --> 02:43:10,260
 going to clean some of those nonconformities that were created at that October -- at that

2335
02:43:10,260 --> 02:43:11,260
 October meeting.

2336
02:43:11,260 --> 02:43:14,700
 So just letting you know that's kind of coming down the pike.

2337
02:43:14,700 --> 02:43:15,780
 Just a quick update.

2338
02:43:15,780 --> 02:43:22,500
 Council last night did approve the PD amendment for the 21 homes up on -- related to Pecan

2339
02:43:22,500 --> 02:43:23,900
 Creek.

2340
02:43:23,900 --> 02:43:26,340
 So that was approved for three.

2341
02:43:26,340 --> 02:43:35,100
 And then the -- I lost the name of the project.

2342
02:43:35,100 --> 02:43:44,060
 The multi-family project at Dutchess and the loop -- Denton Grove, sorry.

2343
02:43:44,060 --> 02:43:50,500
 There appears to be support for the project, however, that item was postponed to the 15th.

2344
02:43:50,500 --> 02:43:56,540
 If you recall, there was the condition that they had offered the $400,000 related to the

2345
02:43:56,540 --> 02:43:58,260
 traffic light.

2346
02:43:58,260 --> 02:44:05,620
 And so there was a discussion that we had as part of that meeting about having a separate

2347
02:44:05,620 --> 02:44:09,420
 agreement related to that offer.

2348
02:44:09,420 --> 02:44:12,500
 So that was the reason it was postponed.

2349
02:44:12,500 --> 02:44:16,620
 And so we had a meeting earlier today, so it looks like that will be back on target

2350
02:44:16,620 --> 02:44:17,620
 for the 15th.

2351
02:44:17,620 --> 02:44:19,620
 And I can provide an update then with that.

2352
02:44:19,620 --> 02:44:21,660
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

2353
02:44:21,660 --> 02:44:22,660
 >> Awesome.

2354
02:44:22,660 --> 02:44:23,660
 Thanks, Richard.

2355
02:44:23,660 --> 02:44:29,860
 Anyone have any questions for staff or items to request to be put on the matrix?

2356
02:44:29,860 --> 02:44:31,780
 Commissioner Bec?

2357
02:44:31,780 --> 02:44:34,060
 >> Thank you, Chair.

2358
02:44:34,060 --> 02:44:36,860
 Richard, I've been fielding a lot of questions.

2359
02:44:36,860 --> 02:44:43,340
 Maybe you could tell from my line of questioning today about alternative landscaping plans

2360
02:44:43,340 --> 02:44:51,020
 that are sort of green and sort of native-based.

2361
02:44:51,020 --> 02:44:56,660
 And the DDC doesn't really address a lot of them cleanly, or at least in ways that the

2362
02:44:56,660 --> 02:45:03,620
 people who are reaching out to me are understanding and that I can field their questions.

2363
02:45:03,620 --> 02:45:07,700
 I mostly just throw them at staff because I don't know the answer either.

2364
02:45:07,700 --> 02:45:17,820
 So if we could maybe clarify, even in just a slide or something, what our policies are,

2365
02:45:17,820 --> 02:45:23,740
 whether we have exceptions for wildflowers, native plants, native grasses, especially

2366
02:45:23,740 --> 02:45:31,060
 in open, non-residential landscaping, but in our residential areas and business areas

2367
02:45:31,060 --> 02:45:39,100
 so that people can know what we currently allow, that would be helpful in fielding questions.

2368
02:45:39,100 --> 02:45:40,100
 >> Certainly.

2369
02:45:40,100 --> 02:45:45,300
 And just for clarification, was it alternative landscape or the alternative ESA plan?

2370
02:45:45,300 --> 02:45:51,900
 >> They sort of muddled that, which is why I muddled it just now, but I had questions

2371
02:45:51,900 --> 02:45:59,540
 both on what are all alternatives for alternative ESAs, and secondarily had a lot of questions

2372
02:45:59,540 --> 02:46:08,060
 on for HOA lots, trails, green spaces, but in a private development, what are allowed

2373
02:46:08,060 --> 02:46:16,460
 that people could ask developers for or encourage in their feedback, that sort of thing, that

2374
02:46:16,460 --> 02:46:23,820
 are generally outside our standard practice but allowed and suitable, you know, the kinds

2375
02:46:23,820 --> 02:46:27,940
 of things Christie would typically be involved in.

2376
02:46:27,940 --> 02:46:32,660
 If we could sort of get some summaries of that, that would be useful, I think, for the

2377
02:46:32,660 --> 02:46:35,660
 people who are hitting me up with questions.

2378
02:46:35,660 --> 02:46:36,660
 >> Certainly.

2379
02:46:36,660 --> 02:46:37,660
 We can provide that.

2380
02:46:37,660 --> 02:46:38,660
 >> Thank you.

2381
02:46:38,660 --> 02:46:39,660
 >> Commissioner Ellis?

2382
02:46:39,660 --> 02:46:40,660
 >> Thank you, Chair.

2383
02:46:40,660 --> 02:46:44,900
 Richard, just process clarification for me.

2384
02:46:44,900 --> 02:46:52,220
 We got several comments on an item that was postponed on our agenda today.

2385
02:46:52,220 --> 02:46:56,940
 Is staff going to reach out to those people to let them know that that was postponed and

2386
02:46:56,940 --> 02:46:58,300
 is being reheard?

2387
02:46:58,300 --> 02:47:00,780
 I'd like those people to know.

2388
02:47:00,780 --> 02:47:03,340
 So is that a process that you normally do?

2389
02:47:03,340 --> 02:47:04,340
 >> Correct.

2390
02:47:04,340 --> 02:47:07,860
 Especially if it was submitted online, if it's a phone call, of course we would call,

2391
02:47:07,860 --> 02:47:12,300
 but if it's submitted online, we would respond back to those emails, letting them know that

2392
02:47:12,300 --> 02:47:16,780
 the item, while the public hearing was open, it was postponed to this date certain to let

2393
02:47:16,780 --> 02:47:20,500
 them know of that new date and time.

2394
02:47:20,500 --> 02:47:21,500
 >> Okay.

2395
02:47:21,500 --> 02:47:22,500
 Perfect.

2396
02:47:22,500 --> 02:47:25,180
 >> And Margie, we did have three people call and staff's already reached back out to them

2397
02:47:25,180 --> 02:47:28,020
 already and let them know.

2398
02:47:28,020 --> 02:47:31,720
 >> Thank you much.

2399
02:47:31,720 --> 02:47:35,820
 Any other questions or additions for the matrix?

2400
02:47:35,820 --> 02:47:39,140
 Seeing none, I'll close the meeting at 8 o'clock.

2401
02:47:39,140 --> 02:47:40,140
 Thank you all.

2402
02:47:40,140 --> 02:47:41,140
 Be safe.

2403
02:47:41,140 --> 02:47:42,140
 >> Bye, guys.

2404
02:47:42,140 --> 02:47:42,140
 Thanks.