WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.200
 Welcome to the planning and zoning work commission session for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2020,

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

00:00:13.400 --> 00:00:15.800
 items for this evening.

00:00:15.800 --> 00:00:19.520
 The first item is just consideration of the agenda.

00:00:19.520 --> 00:00:23.920
 There's no, I can see any work session reports this evening.

00:00:23.920 --> 00:00:27.520
 So that brings us to just our minutes from August 19th.

00:00:27.520 --> 00:00:33.760
 Is there any adjustments that need to be made on the minutes?

00:00:33.760 --> 00:00:37.520
 Great, easy enough.

00:00:37.520 --> 00:00:40.440
 Next item of business is moving into the consent agenda.

00:00:40.440 --> 00:00:50.960
 For clarification on the agenda, item 3CPP20-0018, that item is being moved to the individual

00:00:50.960 --> 00:00:51.960
 consideration.

00:00:51.960 --> 00:00:57.280
 They're asking for an extension anyways, but it needs to be moved to IC.

00:00:57.280 --> 00:01:06.680
 So the consent agenda for this evening will be items 3A, 3B, and 3D.

00:01:06.680 --> 00:01:09.880
 Any questions or need for presentation on those, Christian or Bec?

00:01:09.880 --> 00:01:18.240
 So I have two questions on one on 3A and one on 3D.

00:01:18.240 --> 00:01:21.840
 Let's see, 3A is, I forget, is it Karina?

00:01:21.840 --> 00:01:31.440
 Yeah, let's go ahead and is Karina Maldonado available to present and get these answers?

00:01:31.440 --> 00:01:53.360
 There she is.

00:01:53.360 --> 00:01:55.400
 Is she there?

00:01:55.400 --> 00:02:10.200
 It's all confusing with this stuff.

00:02:10.200 --> 00:02:15.080
 It's been a while since I've had to present in person.

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

00:02:19.520 --> 00:02:22.880
 to see the full presentation.

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

00:02:28.180 --> 00:02:29.640
 if that's okay with chair.

00:02:29.640 --> 00:02:33.120
 Yeah, go for the questions and then we go from there.

00:02:33.120 --> 00:02:34.120
 Okay.

00:02:34.120 --> 00:02:38.400
 So Karina, can you tell me two things?

00:02:38.400 --> 00:02:48.160
 One, the distance from the across the street wellhead to the nearest parcels and remind

00:02:48.160 --> 00:02:55.120
 me of which DDC we're operating under?

00:02:55.120 --> 00:03:00.040
 So for the second question, this is going under the 2002 DDC.

00:03:00.040 --> 00:03:08.200
 It was submitted before the transition into the new code came over and the preliminary

00:03:08.200 --> 00:03:10.320
 plot was approved under the 2002 code.

00:03:10.320 --> 00:03:14.140
 So the final plot is also going under the 2002 DDC.

00:03:14.140 --> 00:03:17.320
 So the subjects are not the new 500s.

00:03:17.320 --> 00:03:20.040
 They're the old 250 slash 300.

00:03:20.040 --> 00:03:21.040
 Yes.

00:03:21.040 --> 00:03:25.920
 The preliminary plaque came in before the setbacks changed to 500 feet.

00:03:25.920 --> 00:03:29.040
 So it's under the previous 250 feet.

00:03:29.040 --> 00:03:30.040
 Okay.

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?

00:03:38.920 --> 00:03:39.920
 Yes.

00:03:39.920 --> 00:03:41.040
 Okay.

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?

00:03:52.640 --> 00:03:54.460
 It would be the lots.

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?

00:04:04.520 --> 00:04:06.520
 This is a little difficult to see.

00:04:06.520 --> 00:04:14.600
 I can pull up the more zoomed in version.

00:04:14.600 --> 00:04:16.600
 I don't know what happened.

00:04:16.600 --> 00:04:21.840
 I'm sorry, I'm not the best at this.

00:04:21.840 --> 00:04:23.120
 No, it's cool.

00:04:23.120 --> 00:04:24.120
 We're all just doing the best we can.

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.

00:04:28.840 --> 00:04:30.040
 She is the guru after all.

00:04:30.040 --> 00:04:32.800
 Yes, she is the guru.

00:04:32.800 --> 00:04:38.800
 Thank you, Karita, I appreciate it.

00:04:38.800 --> 00:04:39.800
 All right.

00:04:39.800 --> 00:04:41.800
 I think I can address your question.

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

00:04:47.240 --> 00:04:48.240
 into them, correct?

00:04:48.240 --> 00:04:49.240
 Yes, ma'am.

00:04:49.240 --> 00:04:50.240
 Yes.

00:04:50.240 --> 00:04:55.880
 So this is a 300 foot measurement that is from the wellhead to the structure.

00:04:55.880 --> 00:04:57.800
 It's from the fire code.

00:04:57.800 --> 00:05:02.360
 So for these, for this line, it is measured to the building.

00:05:02.360 --> 00:05:06.920
 So they wouldn't be able to have the actual dwelling units encroached past this line.

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

00:05:12.280 --> 00:05:15.640
 these lots is the 250 foot setback line.

00:05:15.640 --> 00:05:19.380
 So those, all of the lots are meeting the setback requirement.

00:05:19.380 --> 00:05:23.400
 This circle is a fire code separation requirement.

00:05:23.400 --> 00:05:25.600
 So okay, so two questions about that.

00:05:25.600 --> 00:05:28.600
 And I suspected those would be the answers.

00:05:28.600 --> 00:05:37.600
 So why, why is the 250 setback flattened following the, the plat line rather than continuing

00:05:37.600 --> 00:05:38.600
 to be curved?

00:05:38.600 --> 00:05:39.600
 Yes, sir.

00:05:39.600 --> 00:05:41.560
 It is measured from the edge of the pad site.

00:05:41.560 --> 00:05:44.500
 So that is actually a rectangular pad site.

00:05:44.500 --> 00:05:48.320
 So they measured out 250 in all directions from the department.

00:05:48.320 --> 00:05:49.320
 That's clear.

00:05:49.320 --> 00:05:55.640
 And then that would mean the fences don't count as structures?

00:05:55.640 --> 00:06:00.320
 No, sir, the, the setbacks are only for protected uses.

00:06:00.320 --> 00:06:02.320
 So a fence wouldn't fit within that definition.

00:06:02.320 --> 00:06:04.960
 It would just be the dwelling units.

00:06:04.960 --> 00:06:10.160
 And so no, that also wouldn't cover sheds or any other subsidiary structures that would

00:06:10.160 --> 00:06:11.400
 go in their backyards?

00:06:11.400 --> 00:06:13.040
 No, sir.

00:06:13.040 --> 00:06:14.040
 Okay.

00:06:14.040 --> 00:06:18.040
 Our old code sucks.

00:06:18.040 --> 00:06:19.040
 Thank you.

00:06:19.040 --> 00:06:21.040
 I appreciate it.

00:06:21.040 --> 00:06:22.800
 I think that's all my questions, chair.

00:06:22.800 --> 00:06:23.800
 Great.

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

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

00:06:34.400 --> 00:06:35.400
 for you.

00:06:35.400 --> 00:06:36.400
 Sure.

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.

00:06:47.600 --> 00:06:48.600
 Okay.

00:06:48.600 --> 00:06:49.600
 Gotcha.

00:06:49.600 --> 00:06:50.600
 Sorry about that.

00:06:50.600 --> 00:06:57.280
 Sorry, any, is there any questions for three B is in Bravo?

00:06:57.280 --> 00:06:59.040
 Okay.

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,

00:07:07.720 --> 00:07:17.520
 it's her item.

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

00:07:25.200 --> 00:07:30.360
 that had previously stopped this upward were drainage issues along the Western boundary

00:07:30.360 --> 00:07:31.360
 of the property.

00:07:31.360 --> 00:07:34.080
 Is that correct?

00:07:34.080 --> 00:07:39.360
 The improper paperwork for some of those are incomplete paperwork.

00:07:39.360 --> 00:07:40.960
 So can you refresh my memory?

00:07:40.960 --> 00:07:45.720
 What changed between what we saw last time that staff was recommending denial and this

00:07:45.720 --> 00:07:48.280
 time where staff is recommending approval?

00:07:48.280 --> 00:07:49.440
 Yes, sir.

00:07:49.440 --> 00:07:50.440
 Just one second.

00:07:50.440 --> 00:07:51.440
 I apologize.

00:07:51.440 --> 00:08:04.200
 There was some difficulty with the plat presentation, not wanting to open here, so all right.

00:08:04.200 --> 00:08:08.440
 So yes, the last time this plat was before you, there were some finalizations that needed

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

00:08:13.760 --> 00:08:17.760
 being finalized and just some of those those final concluding items that we usually get

00:08:17.760 --> 00:08:19.920
 to at the end of a plat.

00:08:19.920 --> 00:08:24.320
 So they have everything for the site completely finalized now.

00:08:24.320 --> 00:08:27.320
 Their civil engineering plans have been approved so that these drainage easement boundaries

00:08:27.320 --> 00:08:29.620
 can be can be firmed up.

00:08:29.620 --> 00:08:32.200
 We know for sure that is where the drainage will in fact go.

00:08:32.200 --> 00:08:34.820
 That's where the floodplain boundaries are.

00:08:34.820 --> 00:08:38.400
 So everything has gone through full civil review and the plat is now ready for approval

00:08:38.400 --> 00:08:42.840
 and the tree preservation plan has also been finalized.

00:08:42.840 --> 00:08:52.040
 Okay and okay, no I think that's the extent of my questions.

00:08:52.040 --> 00:08:55.040
 Thank you, Haley.

00:08:55.040 --> 00:08:56.040
 Great.

00:08:56.040 --> 00:08:58.240
 Any other questions for Haley?

00:08:58.240 --> 00:09:05.720
 Okay, seeing none, we'll go to our items for individual considerations starting with

00:09:05.720 --> 00:09:12.960
 item 4A, ADP 20-10 and this is Karina's item.

00:09:12.960 --> 00:09:35.520
 I invite her up for presentation.

00:09:35.520 --> 00:09:48.320
 So today we're bringing a alternative development plan ADP 20-0010 for Teasley Office Park.

00:09:48.320 --> 00:09:50.560
 So just a bit of history on this project.

00:09:50.560 --> 00:09:58.080
 This was previously approved last summer under ADP 18-0006.

00:09:58.080 --> 00:10:02.560
 The site plan that was brought before y'all last time was for seven buildings.

00:10:02.560 --> 00:10:09.000
 That included the uses of professional office and medical office just about evenly split

00:10:09.000 --> 00:10:11.480
 between both.

00:10:11.480 --> 00:10:17.760
 Associated with those uses was about 122 parking spaces and the deviations related to that

00:10:17.760 --> 00:10:23.680
 request related to the building frontage, building setbacks and front parking.

00:10:23.680 --> 00:10:30.120
 Essentially they were moving the mixed used zoning district requires the buildings to

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

00:10:36.840 --> 00:10:38.560
 back.

00:10:38.560 --> 00:10:42.560
 So I won't spend too much time on the previously approved ADP.

00:10:42.560 --> 00:10:47.360
 This is an additional request on top of what was previously approved.

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

00:10:52.240 --> 00:11:02.160
 for an additional deviation to section 35-1310 for access parking and circulation requirements.

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.

00:11:08.600 --> 00:11:12.560
 And again, the uses have remained the same.

00:11:12.560 --> 00:11:18.120
 This was in the NRMU district, which is now MN.

00:11:18.120 --> 00:11:20.780
 So here's the revised plan.

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

00:11:25.280 --> 00:11:26.960
 to three.

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.

00:11:32.600 --> 00:11:38.840
 So they are reducing the professional office use and increasing the medical office use

00:11:38.840 --> 00:11:44.040
 up to the maximum allowed within the NRMU district.

00:11:44.040 --> 00:11:48.120
 So part of this obviously with a reduction in buildings is a reduction in lot coverage

00:11:48.120 --> 00:11:55.680
 from 73% to 71% and an increase in landscape area by about 2%.

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

00:12:03.040 --> 00:12:05.880
 an increased use for parking.

00:12:05.880 --> 00:12:10.120
 So 143 paved parking spaces are now proposed.

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

00:12:15.960 --> 00:12:24.200
 section 35, 1310 B1D, which requires permeable paving for any spaces above the minimum.

00:12:24.200 --> 00:12:31.940
 And they're proposing 10 additional spaces above what is required in our 2002 DDC.

00:12:31.940 --> 00:12:37.000
 So with this, the future land use is designated for neighborhood mixed use.

00:12:37.000 --> 00:12:40.120
 This use is in line with this requirement.

00:12:40.120 --> 00:12:44.520
 It is predominantly for residential uses, but it does allow commercial uses that are

00:12:44.520 --> 00:12:50.440
 basically compatible with those as long as these proposed buildings are appropriate in

00:12:50.440 --> 00:12:58.040
 scale and complement the area or complementary to the surrounding neighborhood.

00:12:58.040 --> 00:13:08.160
 So very, very briefly, the criteria for approval in section 35, 135A includes whether the proposed

00:13:08.160 --> 00:13:12.200
 amendment is preserving the existing neighborhood.

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

00:13:17.800 --> 00:13:20.800
 on Teasley Lane.

00:13:20.800 --> 00:13:27.600
 The proposed office is similar in that those offices provide between 200 and 300 parking

00:13:27.600 --> 00:13:29.840
 spaces per building.

00:13:29.840 --> 00:13:34.840
 This proposed deviation is really providing less.

00:13:34.840 --> 00:13:39.840
 And that is at approximately one space per 200 on average for this site.

00:13:39.840 --> 00:13:44.880
 In addition, the reduction in the number of buildings has also increased the separation

00:13:44.880 --> 00:13:48.960
 between the residential use to the north and to the south.

00:13:48.960 --> 00:13:59.240
 So the east or the westernmost building is now approximately 70 feet from the northern

00:13:59.240 --> 00:14:06.440
 residential use and just under 60 feet from the residential use to the south.

00:14:06.440 --> 00:14:10.560
 And I'll just briefly go over the rest of the criteria.

00:14:10.560 --> 00:14:15.040
 This deviation is not really deviating in terms of the staff analysis from what was

00:14:15.040 --> 00:14:16.920
 previously approved.

00:14:16.920 --> 00:14:21.800
 So it does still continue to meet the criteria for approval, ensuring a quality development.

00:14:21.800 --> 00:14:25.160
 It does meet all the other requirements of the Denton Development Code.

00:14:25.160 --> 00:14:32.080
 Of course, with the exception of the previously approved deviations, second or third being

00:14:32.080 --> 00:14:36.480
 focused the new development to activity centers to curb strip development.

00:14:36.480 --> 00:14:39.960
 Again, this is consistent with the future land use map.

00:14:39.960 --> 00:14:46.480
 Commercial development is consistent with the neighborhood.

00:14:46.480 --> 00:14:54.240
 Go ahead and continue.

00:14:54.240 --> 00:14:58.480
 Next ensuring that the infrastructure is capable of accommodating the development, again going

00:14:58.480 --> 00:14:59.480
 back.

00:14:59.480 --> 00:15:02.320
 It hasn't changed significantly from what was previously approved.

00:15:02.320 --> 00:15:06.440
 Teasley Lane is a TxDOT road and it does require a TxDOT permit.

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

00:15:11.880 --> 00:15:17.400
 to come back again to amend the ADP, but this is unlikely for this case.

00:15:17.400 --> 00:15:24.340
 And then last that this proposed amendment results in a high quality development.

00:15:24.340 --> 00:15:31.440
 And so the request is to deviate from permeable paving, which essentially is intended to reduce

00:15:31.440 --> 00:15:37.160
 the water quality volume on the site that would otherwise drain to our drainage facilities.

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

00:15:43.440 --> 00:15:48.160
 that would be resulted from those paved parking spaces.

00:15:48.160 --> 00:15:54.440
 Due to the reduction in the lot coverage and increase in landscaping, this essentially

00:15:54.440 --> 00:15:56.360
 balances out the request.

00:15:56.360 --> 00:16:01.280
 So we don't believe that this would cause a negative impact on the development.

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

00:16:07.880 --> 00:16:11.720
 landscape area for the NRMU district is 20%.

00:16:11.720 --> 00:16:15.760
 They're proposing 29% landscaping.

00:16:15.760 --> 00:16:19.560
 And with that, staff is recommending approval of the request as it meets the established

00:16:19.560 --> 00:16:24.160
 requirements for an ADP in the 2002 DDC.

00:16:24.160 --> 00:16:27.200
 With that, I'll take any questions.

00:16:27.200 --> 00:16:28.480
 Any questions for Karina?

00:16:28.480 --> 00:16:29.480
 Commissioner Beck.

00:16:29.480 --> 00:16:30.960
 Thank you, Chair.

00:16:30.960 --> 00:16:42.200
 Karina, so as I understand, because of the increased non-developed surface area of about

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

00:16:49.280 --> 00:16:50.280
 penetration?

00:16:50.280 --> 00:16:52.080
 Well, it's twofold.

00:16:52.080 --> 00:16:57.640
 So there is a reduction overall in the total impervious area on the site.

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

00:17:03.320 --> 00:17:06.060
 area versus just building coverage.

00:17:06.060 --> 00:17:10.020
 So they're reducing the overall amount of impervious area.

00:17:10.020 --> 00:17:13.760
 And then on top of that also increasing the landscape area.

00:17:13.760 --> 00:17:18.640
 So square footage of the amount of parking that they're requiring does balance out in

00:17:18.640 --> 00:17:20.960
 that sense.

00:17:20.960 --> 00:17:26.200
 And are we allowed to have mixed pervious and impervious parking?

00:17:26.200 --> 00:17:32.280
 Yes, they are allowed to propose that.

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

00:17:38.160 --> 00:17:44.840
 if they propose more spaces than what the minimum required is, that's where the pervious

00:17:44.840 --> 00:17:49.040
 pavement is required.

00:17:49.040 --> 00:17:58.360
 They could have a mixed parking lot of partially impervious and partly permeable parking, and

00:17:58.360 --> 00:18:05.920
 that would meet our current code without the exception, is that correct?

00:18:05.920 --> 00:18:11.120
 That would be something that we would allow them to do.

00:18:11.120 --> 00:18:12.720
 If they propose that?

00:18:12.720 --> 00:18:16.560
 If they propose that, yes.

00:18:16.560 --> 00:18:18.640
 Okay.

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

00:18:24.080 --> 00:18:26.920
 homes driveway?

00:18:26.920 --> 00:18:28.680
 The maps are very unclear to me.

00:18:28.680 --> 00:18:31.840
 I'm sorry, could you repeat the question I was trying to take down?

00:18:31.840 --> 00:18:33.960
 There's a home to the south.

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

00:18:39.200 --> 00:18:44.160
 not impeded by this development in any fashion?

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

00:18:49.160 --> 00:18:53.160
 that goes through their site and connects down to the property to the south.

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

00:18:57.880 --> 00:19:02.640
 access there and not interrupt that odors access to the site.

00:19:02.640 --> 00:19:06.200
 So yes, it's not being impeded by this development.

00:19:06.200 --> 00:19:07.200
 Okay.

00:19:07.200 --> 00:19:08.200
 That's all my questions.

00:19:08.200 --> 00:19:10.360
 Thank you.

00:19:10.360 --> 00:19:14.240
 Any other questions for Karina on this item?

00:19:14.240 --> 00:19:15.760
 Great.

00:19:15.760 --> 00:19:18.080
 Thank you very much, Karina.

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

00:19:26.680 --> 00:19:33.200
 denials with the applicant requesting a date for extensions.

00:19:33.200 --> 00:19:40.200
 Historically, we've just honored that request for extension and not had a presentation on

00:19:40.200 --> 00:19:41.200
 these items.

00:19:41.200 --> 00:19:43.800
 I want to throw it out to anyone.

00:19:43.800 --> 00:19:51.120
 Is anyone wanting a presentation on these four items or is it copacetic to wait until

00:19:51.120 --> 00:19:55.640
 September 16th to hear the presentations?

00:19:55.640 --> 00:20:03.360
 By way of hands, we'll go ahead and move on past IC.

00:20:03.360 --> 00:20:04.360
 Chris or Beck?

00:20:04.360 --> 00:20:05.360
 Yeah.

00:20:05.360 --> 00:20:06.360
 Can I make a quick comment?

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

00:20:10.920 --> 00:20:18.320
 this, but it seemed like this particular packet was full of sloppy applications that the staff

00:20:18.320 --> 00:20:21.760
 were having to deny for incompleteness.

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

00:20:28.440 --> 00:20:33.900
 have their paperwork complete, especially with the extensions we've been giving due

00:20:33.900 --> 00:20:38.360
 to COVID and city council decisions.

00:20:38.360 --> 00:20:45.880
 It's kind of frustrating to have these things come before us incomplete and imprecise when

00:20:45.880 --> 00:20:47.540
 that's really a developer issue.

00:20:47.540 --> 00:20:51.520
 So I'm kind of publicly chiding the developers on this one.

00:20:51.520 --> 00:20:54.520
 Thank you, chair.

00:20:54.520 --> 00:20:55.520
 Sure.

00:20:55.520 --> 00:20:56.520
 Okay.

00:20:56.520 --> 00:21:05.320
 With that, we will move on to item 5A, which is Z20-0007.

00:21:05.320 --> 00:21:24.560
 This is presented by Haley Zygurski.

00:21:24.560 --> 00:21:35.600
 All right, my apologies.

00:21:35.600 --> 00:21:39.760
 Just one second.

00:21:39.760 --> 00:21:48.280
 All right, good evening.

00:21:48.280 --> 00:21:54.080
 So this is case Z20-7 for Primaris Corporate Offices.

00:21:54.080 --> 00:21:59.040
 And the request before you this evening is a rezoning for approximately 55 acres.

00:21:59.040 --> 00:22:03.580
 The property is comprised of portions of three tracts of land, which you can see outlined

00:22:03.580 --> 00:22:05.200
 in yellow on the map.

00:22:05.200 --> 00:22:10.780
 These areas are currently zoned rural residential, and the request is to rezone these to general

00:22:10.780 --> 00:22:12.900
 office with overlay conditions.

00:22:12.900 --> 00:22:18.680
 The applicant has requested these conditions to address two primary purposes, first being

00:22:18.680 --> 00:22:25.960
 the phased development of a corporate office campus onto this property by combining their

00:22:25.960 --> 00:22:31.440
 current offices from around DFW, and the second being the decommissioning of an existing nonconforming

00:22:31.440 --> 00:22:35.000
 asphalt batch plant that is on site.

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

00:22:38.920 --> 00:22:40.760
 applicant has requested very briefly.

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.

00:22:47.020 --> 00:22:53.000
 So rather than going through everything, zoning, platting, and the standard entitlement process,

00:22:53.000 --> 00:22:57.060
 and then constructing the office, they are needing to meet some time schedules associated

00:22:57.060 --> 00:22:59.560
 with phasing out their other offices around DFW.

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

00:23:04.240 --> 00:23:10.100
 the entitlement, platting, and construction process while they get those, the full buildings

00:23:10.100 --> 00:23:11.780
 up and going.

00:23:11.780 --> 00:23:17.440
 With that, they are also proposing to decommission and cease operations at the current, at the

00:23:17.440 --> 00:23:20.800
 batch plant that's on site and decommission all of that equipment.

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

00:23:25.400 --> 00:23:28.160
 those temporary office buildings.

00:23:28.160 --> 00:23:31.920
 They're proposing as condition for that those modular buildings meet all of the building

00:23:31.920 --> 00:23:36.840
 code provisions and obtain CEOs through the standard permitting process before they begin

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

00:23:43.000 --> 00:23:46.120
 permeable surface such as crushed granite.

00:23:46.120 --> 00:23:52.200
 The fifth condition would be is specific to the expiration of that certificate of occupancy

00:23:52.200 --> 00:23:58.280
 for those modular buildings once either 24 months has expired or they have begun vertical

00:23:58.280 --> 00:24:03.960
 construction or sorry, obtained the certificate of occupancy for the permanent building.

00:24:03.960 --> 00:24:08.120
 They do propose a 12-month extension be allowable if they've begun vertical construction on

00:24:08.120 --> 00:24:13.060
 that building but have not yet completed it at the end of that 24-month period.

00:24:13.060 --> 00:24:17.760
 And then the sixth condition is that that asphalt batch plant equipment can be stored

00:24:17.760 --> 00:24:22.600
 on site until they have the building permit for their permanent buildings but it not be

00:24:22.600 --> 00:24:26.480
 operable during that time, and that would allow that batch plant operator time to find

00:24:26.480 --> 00:24:30.420
 somewhere else to relocate the equipment.

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

00:24:34.680 --> 00:24:38.200
 the site designated as rural residential and then what that would look like once it is

00:24:38.200 --> 00:24:40.920
 transitioned to general office if this case is approved.

00:24:40.920 --> 00:24:43.900
 So you can see there's other general office zoning in this area.

00:24:43.900 --> 00:24:48.520
 This would just be a continuation of that existing pattern.

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.

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.

00:24:56.600 --> 00:25:01.480
 We will touch on some of these though as we look through the zoning specific criteria

00:25:01.480 --> 00:25:04.720
 for approval.

00:25:04.720 --> 00:25:08.960
 So the first of these that I want to touch on is the comprehensive plan.

00:25:08.960 --> 00:25:11.080
 So there's two elements that we'll look at for this request.

00:25:11.080 --> 00:25:13.840
 The first is our standard future land use map.

00:25:13.840 --> 00:25:19.040
 You can see here the area in purple is what's called our business innovation designation.

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

00:25:23.560 --> 00:25:25.680
 large scale office and employment parks.

00:25:25.680 --> 00:25:30.200
 It encourages research and development and similar type uses as well as supporting commercial

00:25:30.200 --> 00:25:31.360
 uses.

00:25:31.360 --> 00:25:33.940
 So general office is consistent with that designation.

00:25:33.940 --> 00:25:40.160
 It provides for a pretty broad mixture of uses including office campuses, trade schools,

00:25:40.160 --> 00:25:45.120
 some low impact manufacturing type uses, as well as those supporting commercial uses that

00:25:45.120 --> 00:25:48.960
 are encouraged within business innovation.

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

00:25:54.680 --> 00:25:56.000
 were designated in the plan.

00:25:56.000 --> 00:26:02.400
 So the Denton Plan 2030 called for certain areas to be designated as focus area centers,

00:26:02.400 --> 00:26:05.680
 corridors, gateways, travel centers, and branding stations.

00:26:05.680 --> 00:26:08.040
 So that's the map that you see here on the screen.

00:26:08.040 --> 00:26:11.260
 The subject property is up here in the area that I've circled in red.

00:26:11.260 --> 00:26:15.280
 You can see that little blue circle calling this out as a gateway focus area.

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

00:26:18.400 --> 00:26:23.440
 would hit within the city of Denton as they're driving south on 35.

00:26:23.440 --> 00:26:25.880
 The comp plan does call for small area plans for these areas.

00:26:25.880 --> 00:26:29.200
 There's not one adopted for this focus area yet.

00:26:29.200 --> 00:26:32.720
 But general office is suitable for this type of focus area.

00:26:32.720 --> 00:26:37.160
 As it currently stands, rural residential wouldn't support the type of uses that we

00:26:37.160 --> 00:26:39.620
 would expect to see in this area.

00:26:39.620 --> 00:26:44.060
 And general office would provide for that mixture of kind of corporate office campus

00:26:44.060 --> 00:26:48.080
 type uses as well as supporting commercial that would be suitable along the highway.

00:26:48.080 --> 00:26:53.200
 It also by them requesting GO as opposed to light industrial or some other district that

00:26:53.200 --> 00:26:54.760
 might support their use.

00:26:54.760 --> 00:26:58.520
 This does allow us to apply the DDC's commercial design standards along this corridor, which

00:26:58.520 --> 00:27:02.120
 is something that we would desire to do in one of our gateways.

00:27:02.120 --> 00:27:07.240
 Additionally, with the conditions the applicants requested, the decommissioning of that non-conformity

00:27:07.240 --> 00:27:11.280
 that's currently there, that asphalt batch plant, would increase the aesthetics of this

00:27:11.280 --> 00:27:14.640
 area which is desirable for one of our gateway areas.

00:27:14.640 --> 00:27:19.600
 One of the other conditions for approval is consistency with the purpose statement for

00:27:19.600 --> 00:27:20.600
 the zoning district.

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

00:27:24.840 --> 00:27:28.120
 of workplaces and complementary uses.

00:27:28.120 --> 00:27:32.180
 It goes on to talk about the encouragement of flexible office space as well as research

00:27:32.180 --> 00:27:35.020
 and development and corporate business campuses.

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

00:27:39.800 --> 00:27:42.900
 the Primoris corporate offices to this area.

00:27:42.900 --> 00:27:47.160
 But just in general, GO is consistent with the purpose statement by putting in this area

00:27:47.160 --> 00:27:51.240
 because it continues that existing zoning pattern which consolidates those larger tracts

00:27:51.240 --> 00:27:57.440
 of lands that would be necessary for these types of uses.

00:27:57.440 --> 00:28:00.640
 One of the other criteria is whether there's a significant change to warrant the zoning

00:28:00.640 --> 00:28:02.080
 request.

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

00:28:05.560 --> 00:28:07.760
 site that's worth looking at.

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.

00:28:13.720 --> 00:28:17.120
 This area was part of a strip annexation back in 1969.

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

00:28:21.640 --> 00:28:24.120
 of the property that we're looking at this evening.

00:28:24.120 --> 00:28:28.760
 The area of the subject property was annexed into the city in 2015.

00:28:28.760 --> 00:28:32.560
 It had been under non-annexation agreements prior to that, but in 2015 they let those

00:28:32.560 --> 00:28:35.120
 expire and annexed into the city.

00:28:35.120 --> 00:28:40.420
 And they were given the standard placeholder designation from our 2002 code of RD5X.

00:28:40.420 --> 00:28:44.600
 So they never had that initial zoning established until the site was transitioned to rural residential

00:28:44.600 --> 00:28:47.880
 with the adoption of the 2019 code.

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

00:28:52.200 --> 00:28:57.080
 and to be consistent with the comprehensive plan's goals for this area along I-35.

00:28:57.080 --> 00:29:00.520
 Hey, Haley, is that an actual split zoning on the Platts?

00:29:00.520 --> 00:29:05.880
 I don't know where those Platts lines are.

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?

00:29:10.840 --> 00:29:14.480
 Is there actually a line of demarcation between ownership Platts?

00:29:14.480 --> 00:29:15.880
 No, there's not.

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

00:29:20.040 --> 00:29:21.760
 three different parcels.

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

00:29:26.280 --> 00:29:28.720
 parcel up here that has split zoning currently.

00:29:28.720 --> 00:29:33.520
 And then each of these pieces are separate parcels as well with separate ownership that

00:29:33.520 --> 00:29:35.400
 do have all split zoning currently.

00:29:35.400 --> 00:29:36.400
 Okay.

00:29:36.400 --> 00:29:37.400
 Great.

00:29:37.400 --> 00:29:38.400
 Thanks for clarifying that.

00:29:38.400 --> 00:29:41.140
 You're welcome.

00:29:41.140 --> 00:29:46.200
 And then the next criteria is rather this would minimize adverse impacts to surrounding property.

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

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

00:29:55.920 --> 00:29:59.080
 these lots all has GO zoning today.

00:29:59.080 --> 00:30:02.920
 The uses permitted in GO were typical of what we would find along an interstate.

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

00:30:06.440 --> 00:30:08.360
 as a travel center at this point in time.

00:30:08.360 --> 00:30:15.640
 So a corporate office campus would be fairly compatible with the travel center type uses.

00:30:15.640 --> 00:30:19.720
 In addition, this again would facilitate the decommissioning of this batch plant.

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

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.

00:30:28.680 --> 00:30:35.600
 So this would create a more conforming and less nuisance potential on the property with

00:30:35.600 --> 00:30:38.120
 this rezoning.

00:30:38.120 --> 00:30:42.640
 And then finally, the criteria call for whether there are public facilities and services available

00:30:42.640 --> 00:30:44.140
 to the property.

00:30:44.140 --> 00:30:48.720
 So looking at transportation first, you can see these parcels all have frontage on I-35.

00:30:48.720 --> 00:30:51.520
 So access is more than adequate to these sites.

00:30:51.520 --> 00:30:54.600
 The I-35 corridor will be expanded in the future.

00:30:54.600 --> 00:31:01.240
 Currently, TxDOT has this portion, I believe from Highway 77 north to Cook County is currently

00:31:01.240 --> 00:31:04.200
 designated as about 10 years out on TxDOT's plans.

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.

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

00:31:14.200 --> 00:31:19.960
 feet like they're currently anticipating would not be that significant of an increase, 487

00:31:19.960 --> 00:31:24.120
 total daily trips, 73 a.m. peak and 71 p.m. peak.

00:31:24.120 --> 00:31:28.400
 So currently, this doesn't trigger the need for a traffic impact analysis, but we will

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

00:31:32.440 --> 00:31:38.400
 see what the exact square footage and layout of the site would be.

00:31:38.400 --> 00:31:39.800
 Utilities are available to serve the site.

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

00:31:43.120 --> 00:31:47.320
 water and sewer to the southernmost end of this property so they could extend those north

00:31:47.320 --> 00:31:51.280
 to serve their campus.

00:31:51.280 --> 00:31:56.960
 And finally, the standard notifications were published regarding this request.

00:31:56.960 --> 00:31:58.920
 Signs were posted on the property as well.

00:31:58.920 --> 00:32:04.160
 We've received two responses in favor there from the owners of the southern two parcels,

00:32:04.160 --> 00:32:07.060
 which you can see in green on the map.

00:32:07.060 --> 00:32:10.800
 And with that, staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning to general office

00:32:10.800 --> 00:32:13.580
 as it does comply with the DDC.

00:32:13.580 --> 00:32:17.040
 And we have no objections to the conditions that have been requested by the applicants.

00:32:17.040 --> 00:32:19.120
 And I'll just put those up again so you can look at them.

00:32:19.120 --> 00:32:23.880
 If you have any questions, I'm happy to go through those.

00:32:23.880 --> 00:32:24.880
 >> Any questions for Hayley?

00:32:24.880 --> 00:32:25.880
 Commissioner Ellis.

00:32:25.880 --> 00:32:35.160
 >> Yeah, Hayley, mine's with just condition five where it says substantially underway

00:32:35.160 --> 00:32:39.080
 for vertical construction.

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

00:32:45.640 --> 00:32:47.440
 for a certain percentage to be done?

00:32:47.440 --> 00:32:51.000
 I'm trying to understand where we were going with that verbiage.

00:32:51.000 --> 00:32:52.000
 >> Certainly.

00:32:52.000 --> 00:32:55.680
 So I think our intent was more just rather they've started vertical construction on the

00:32:55.680 --> 00:32:56.680
 project.

00:32:56.680 --> 00:33:00.920
 So we could certainly look at rewording that or striking that language if that would be

00:33:00.920 --> 00:33:01.920
 more clear.

00:33:01.920 --> 00:33:02.920
 >> Yeah.

00:33:02.920 --> 00:33:06.240
 Well, because to me that just is out there for an opinion then of what substantially

00:33:06.240 --> 00:33:07.240
 underway means.

00:33:07.240 --> 00:33:11.440
 And if the intent is just so long as they've started vertical construction, it probably

00:33:11.440 --> 00:33:13.080
 needs to be looked at in my opinion.

00:33:13.080 --> 00:33:14.080
 >> Yeah.

00:33:14.080 --> 00:33:15.080
 Yeah, that's my recollection, Richard.

00:33:15.080 --> 00:33:17.680
 What was that?

00:33:17.680 --> 00:33:18.680
 Okay.

00:33:18.680 --> 00:33:19.680
 Yeah.

00:33:19.680 --> 00:33:20.680
 Yeah.

00:33:20.680 --> 00:33:21.680
 Our intent was just for vertical construction to have begun.

00:33:21.680 --> 00:33:24.600
 So we can reword that.

00:33:24.600 --> 00:33:26.920
 >> Commissioner Smith.

00:33:26.920 --> 00:33:28.600
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:33:28.600 --> 00:33:34.640
 Hayley, can you put those applicant conditions back up there for a quick second?

00:33:34.640 --> 00:33:40.880
 On point five, just a clarification on the point itself, the use of modular office buildings

00:33:40.880 --> 00:33:44.920
 will expire 24 months after a certificate of occupancy is obtained.

00:33:44.920 --> 00:33:49.320
 That's a CO for the modular office buildings, correct?

00:33:49.320 --> 00:33:53.800
 >> That would be for the -- in condition five that is referencing the CO for the permanent

00:33:53.800 --> 00:33:54.800
 office building.

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

00:33:59.640 --> 00:34:00.640
 permanent building.

00:34:00.640 --> 00:34:01.640
 >> Okay.

00:34:01.640 --> 00:34:02.640
 Gotcha.

00:34:02.640 --> 00:34:06.200
 So if the permanent occupancy -- the permanent office building, if a CO comes out for that

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?

00:34:11.400 --> 00:34:12.400
 >> Yeah.

00:34:12.400 --> 00:34:13.400
 Whichever point occurs first.

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

00:34:18.040 --> 00:34:19.040
 buildings?

00:34:19.040 --> 00:34:21.880
 There's no language about taking those down, removing them.

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

00:34:25.160 --> 00:34:30.760
 out there, there is no stipulation that once the certificate of occupancy is no longer

00:34:30.760 --> 00:34:35.120
 available for the modular building that they're being taken down or removed.

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

00:34:38.520 --> 00:34:40.120
 that the commission wanted to do.

00:34:40.120 --> 00:34:41.120
 >> Yeah.

00:34:41.120 --> 00:34:42.120
 I'd appreciate it.

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

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

00:34:49.520 --> 00:34:50.520
 CO expires.

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

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

00:34:57.880 --> 00:35:00.160
 an auto mechanic shop out of a storage facility.

00:35:00.160 --> 00:35:02.520
 So -- and they're kind of out of the way.

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

00:35:04.760 --> 00:35:06.880
 if someone's working in and out of a modular office building.

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

00:35:12.080 --> 00:35:15.880
 retained for the permanent office building, I'd like there to be language in there that

00:35:15.880 --> 00:35:18.720
 says -- and then the modular buildings have to be removed.

00:35:18.720 --> 00:35:19.720
 >> Okay.

00:35:19.720 --> 00:35:23.560
 >> So that would be -- that would be better.

00:35:23.560 --> 00:35:25.400
 >> All right.

00:35:25.400 --> 00:35:27.880
 >> Commissioner Beck.

00:35:27.880 --> 00:35:29.680
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:35:29.680 --> 00:35:32.000
 So I concur with Commissioner Smith.

00:35:32.000 --> 00:35:33.240
 That was bothering me as well.

00:35:33.240 --> 00:35:36.360
 I didn't want to have empty modulars.

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

00:35:43.640 --> 00:35:50.120
 impact statement was generally about tax revenue and not about the overall financial impact

00:35:50.120 --> 00:35:51.120
 statement.

00:35:51.120 --> 00:35:54.560
 So can you address that, Haley?

00:35:54.560 --> 00:36:00.280
 >> I don't recall a fiscal impact statement being submitted for this project.

00:36:00.280 --> 00:36:08.400
 So the -- one of the criteria was that there was not -- there -- something that you --

00:36:08.400 --> 00:36:11.400
 >> The general criteria of adverse impact?

00:36:11.400 --> 00:36:12.400
 >> Yes.

00:36:12.400 --> 00:36:13.400
 >> Yes, sir.

00:36:13.400 --> 00:36:14.400
 >> Thank you for clarifying.

00:36:14.400 --> 00:36:15.400
 >> Yes.

00:36:15.400 --> 00:36:21.760
 So we did not require a fiscal impact statement be submitted for this project.

00:36:21.760 --> 00:36:25.560
 In general, though, our expectation was that this would not have an adverse impact on the

00:36:25.560 --> 00:36:26.560
 city.

00:36:26.560 --> 00:36:27.560
 So it would meet that criteria.

00:36:27.560 --> 00:36:32.080
 One thing, it could be expected to generate revenue during the construction and operation

00:36:32.080 --> 00:36:38.200
 of this -- a new corporate office within the city was our expectation.

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

00:36:46.640 --> 00:36:47.640
 financial impact.

00:36:47.640 --> 00:36:50.320
 It's a component of it.

00:36:50.320 --> 00:36:58.120
 So the citizen was concerned that we -- by just considering that one element, we were

00:36:58.120 --> 00:37:08.880
 not sort of evaluating whether having a corporate campus there of anything, regardless of the

00:37:08.880 --> 00:37:16.440
 domain of the industry, would have -- would be to the benefit of Denton other than generally

00:37:16.440 --> 00:37:19.600
 having a business there would generate tax revenue.

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

00:37:28.880 --> 00:37:34.200
 impact is addressed.

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

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

00:37:46.560 --> 00:37:52.680
 at tax revenue alone even on these cursory runs.

00:37:52.680 --> 00:37:55.280
 And yeah, I think that's extended my question.

00:37:55.280 --> 00:37:56.280
 Thank you.

00:37:56.280 --> 00:37:59.280
 >> Any other questions?

00:37:59.280 --> 00:38:03.000
 Chris or Alice?

00:38:03.000 --> 00:38:04.960
 >> Thank you, Chair.

00:38:04.960 --> 00:38:08.240
 Just real quick, Kaylee, what does this corporation do?

00:38:08.240 --> 00:38:09.240
 Just curiosity.

00:38:09.240 --> 00:38:10.240
 Do you know?

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

00:38:14.840 --> 00:38:19.120
 based company that would have equipment for lease and dispatch.

00:38:19.120 --> 00:38:22.620
 But the applicant will be on the phone this evening with us and can certainly address

00:38:22.620 --> 00:38:23.620
 that.

00:38:23.620 --> 00:38:24.620
 >> Thank you.

00:38:24.620 --> 00:38:29.860
 >> So, Kaylee, I have a couple questions that kind of dovetail off some other commissioner's

00:38:29.860 --> 00:38:31.360
 points and the citizen's comment.

00:38:31.360 --> 00:38:36.840
 First, and this may be to go to the applicant, they're consolidating North Texas operations.

00:38:36.840 --> 00:38:41.600
 Do you know how many employees they intend to have at this location?

00:38:41.600 --> 00:38:45.120
 >> Let me see if I have that information handy.

00:38:45.120 --> 00:38:47.640
 I don't recall off the top of my head.

00:38:47.640 --> 00:38:56.120
 I believe they referenced a handful of other campuses that would be consolidated.

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

00:39:15.320 --> 00:39:17.200
 they could address during the public hearing.

00:39:17.200 --> 00:39:18.200
 >> Okay.

00:39:18.200 --> 00:39:19.200
 Great.

00:39:19.200 --> 00:39:20.200
 I can certainly ask them.

00:39:20.200 --> 00:39:27.020
 In terms of what the citizen commented on and what Commissioner Beck was alluding to,

00:39:27.020 --> 00:39:31.680
 what would be the general associated cost to a city on this project?

00:39:31.680 --> 00:39:36.040
 The cost of subbing out water is the applicant requirement, correct?

00:39:36.040 --> 00:39:37.040
 >> Correct.

00:39:37.040 --> 00:39:38.040
 Yeah.

00:39:38.040 --> 00:39:39.800
 They would bring utilities to their site.

00:39:39.800 --> 00:39:43.160
 >> And they are -- their public access is going directly to a text dot road.

00:39:43.160 --> 00:39:49.560
 It's not going to be directly impacting Ditton City streets, correct?

00:39:49.560 --> 00:39:51.120
 >> Correct.

00:39:51.120 --> 00:39:57.040
 >> What other large significant general costs would go into a financial impact study?

00:39:57.040 --> 00:40:00.240
 Because I understand revenue is obviously one side.

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

00:40:09.360 --> 00:40:15.400
 to developing an asphalt property into a corporate office in our business kind of innovation

00:40:15.400 --> 00:40:16.400
 area.

00:40:16.400 --> 00:40:21.440
 Could you enlighten me on what costs I might be missing of substance?

00:40:21.440 --> 00:40:25.280
 >> Significant cost to the city, nothing is coming to mind like you referenced.

00:40:25.280 --> 00:40:28.560
 They would be providing their own utilities to the site.

00:40:28.560 --> 00:40:30.360
 Access would be to a text dot roadway.

00:40:30.360 --> 00:40:36.240
 They will also be paying impact fees for water, sewer, and roadway impacts.

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

00:40:41.800 --> 00:40:42.800
 significant cost.

00:40:42.800 --> 00:40:49.520
 >> I mean, generally the rule of thumb is commercial industrial office typically subsidizes

00:40:49.520 --> 00:40:50.520
 the residential.

00:40:50.520 --> 00:40:53.800
 That's why you want to have that certain mix, that balance.

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

00:41:01.160 --> 00:41:02.440
 analysis.

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

00:41:07.320 --> 00:41:12.240
 to kind of give those -- that cost benefit analysis, if you will.

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

00:41:18.080 --> 00:41:23.040
 about water and sewer lines and cost.

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

00:41:27.080 --> 00:41:28.080
 utilities.

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

00:41:34.080 --> 00:41:35.840
 with that for those replacements.

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

00:41:42.040 --> 00:41:44.840
 large impact like you would have on residential.

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

00:41:48.580 --> 00:41:49.680
 users of the parks.

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

00:41:56.560 --> 00:42:01.080
 an office, it's not a heavy utility user other than restrooms.

00:42:01.080 --> 00:42:02.080
 >> Great.

00:42:02.080 --> 00:42:05.560
 Thank you for that context.

00:42:05.560 --> 00:42:08.480
 I'm most interested in having their employees move to Denton if they're not.

00:42:08.480 --> 00:42:11.400
 So I'm for that.

00:42:11.400 --> 00:42:14.880
 Any other questions for Haley on this?

00:42:14.880 --> 00:42:15.880
 Okay.

00:42:15.880 --> 00:42:16.880
 Great.

00:42:16.880 --> 00:42:20.480
 So -- oh, yes, Christian or Beck?

00:42:20.480 --> 00:42:27.400
 >> So not about this, but maybe a potential technical issue is citizens have called me

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

00:42:32.240 --> 00:42:38.040
 contacting the city on the call-in line that no one's answering.

00:42:38.040 --> 00:42:46.460
 So if IT staff, tech staff could check on that, the citizens would appreciate it.

00:42:46.460 --> 00:42:49.200
 >> Yeah, Christian or Beck, I just got word that was a glitch.

00:42:49.200 --> 00:42:51.400
 They have fixed it, and calls are coming in right now.

00:42:51.400 --> 00:42:52.400
 >> Awesome.

00:42:52.400 --> 00:42:55.520
 Thank you, Chair.

00:42:55.520 --> 00:42:58.040
 >> Okay.

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.

00:43:13.440 --> 00:43:35.600
 How do I project this, how do I project it?

00:43:35.600 --> 00:43:49.200
 Sorry, I'm not quite used to this.

00:43:49.200 --> 00:43:55.080
 Christy Upton with Environmental Services, and tonight I will be presenting an alternative

00:43:55.080 --> 00:44:00.080
 AESA plan for a renovation at Ryan High School.

00:44:00.080 --> 00:44:11.320
 And Denton ISD is requesting an alternative AESA plan for a renovation of Ryan High School.

00:44:11.320 --> 00:44:17.800
 Ryan High School is generally located on the northeast corner of East McKinney Street in

00:44:17.800 --> 00:44:27.760
 Mayhill Road, and in recent renovations, they are reworking a parking lot at the entrance

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

00:44:36.440 --> 00:44:39.400
 side of the property.

00:44:39.400 --> 00:44:46.800
 In this request, they are looking to remove riparian buffer vegetation to improve the parking

00:44:46.800 --> 00:44:48.800
 lot drainage.

00:44:48.800 --> 00:44:53.920
 A little bit more detail on the riparian buffer that they are requesting to remove.

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

00:45:03.760 --> 00:45:12.240
 with the vegetation that supports the water quality and stream conditions, and it was

00:45:12.240 --> 00:45:14.760
 found to be in fair condition.

00:45:14.760 --> 00:45:20.160
 There is also some little remnants of some cross timbers upland habitat that is located

00:45:20.160 --> 00:45:25.600
 on the far western side of the property.

00:45:25.600 --> 00:45:33.520
 This cross timbers is not part of this application and request.

00:45:33.520 --> 00:45:43.120
 The proposed improvements to the parking lot were necessary in order to improve drainage

00:45:43.120 --> 00:45:45.680
 to the parking lot.

00:45:45.680 --> 00:45:54.540
 The engineer representing the Dutton ISD identified that there was some drainage problems, and

00:45:54.540 --> 00:46:02.160
 in order to rectify those drainage problems, they are requesting to extend the drainage

00:46:02.160 --> 00:46:09.680
 from the parking lot, extend the storm drain from the current location into the riparian

00:46:09.680 --> 00:46:17.840
 buffer, and then to also install a concrete flume through the rest of the riparian buffer

00:46:17.840 --> 00:46:25.920
 to create a positive flow of the drainage of the parking lot.

00:46:25.920 --> 00:46:33.000
 This will remove approximately 0.01 acre feet of water quality protection volume, which

00:46:33.000 --> 00:46:46.360
 was calculated using the ISOM manual's standards in estimating how much water quality volume

00:46:46.360 --> 00:46:51.120
 is being treated when runoff runs through this riparian buffer.

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

00:47:00.880 --> 00:47:09.540
 acre feet of water quality treatment in addition to what is already being designed to meet

00:47:09.540 --> 00:47:17.280
 the minimum standards of the storm water, from the storm water drainage criteria manual,

00:47:17.280 --> 00:47:21.120
 the City of Denton storm water criteria manual.

00:47:21.120 --> 00:47:26.460
 So in other words, they are designing this drainage detention to meet the minimum standards

00:47:26.460 --> 00:47:35.140
 and increasing the detention basin in order to treat an additional 0.91 acre feet.

00:47:35.140 --> 00:47:40.480
 In addition to that, they will be increasing runoff infiltration, which means that it would

00:47:40.480 --> 00:47:47.640
 be allowing for more water to soak into the ground before it leaves this dry detention

00:47:47.640 --> 00:47:50.740
 basin when a rain event occurs.

00:47:50.740 --> 00:47:58.840
 And lastly, they are proposing to re-vegetate the bottom of this dry detention basin and

00:47:58.840 --> 00:48:04.320
 the slopes of it with native grass vegetation.

00:48:04.320 --> 00:48:08.560
 Notifications were sent out for this public hearing and there were no responses.

00:48:08.560 --> 00:48:16.240
 There were a couple of citizen inquiries from property owners generally located on the southwestern

00:48:16.240 --> 00:48:24.080
 side of the Ryan High School property and these citizens have in the past or historically

00:48:24.080 --> 00:48:34.020
 received drainage from the high school and have had some concerns with drainage.

00:48:34.020 --> 00:48:43.080
 These improvements to the drainage that are currently in the works and are being proposed

00:48:43.080 --> 00:48:49.720
 as part of this project would improve and alleviate future flooding problems for those

00:48:49.720 --> 00:48:52.480
 residents.

00:48:52.480 --> 00:48:58.280
 Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions, that the land disturbances

00:48:58.280 --> 00:49:04.600
 be limited to that riparian buffer, that the detention basin be designed and constructed

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

00:49:15.080 --> 00:49:24.360
 the property owner and ISD will maintain the detention basin following a maintenance plan

00:49:24.360 --> 00:49:31.680
 that was provided in an alternative ESA plan and that the vegetation that is being proposed

00:49:31.680 --> 00:49:40.960
 will follow the three-year period that environmental services has set a standard for getting or

00:49:40.960 --> 00:50:05.400
 establishing and approving of that establishment of that vegetation.

00:50:05.400 --> 00:50:20.480
 Thank you very much, Christy.

00:50:20.480 --> 00:50:22.200
 Thank you, Chair.

00:50:22.200 --> 00:50:29.640
 Christy, in reading through the ESA plan from the engineers, in general, it looks pretty

00:50:29.640 --> 00:50:30.640
 good.

00:50:30.640 --> 00:50:36.040
 One of the things, though, I noticed was, and actually had some citizens reach out to

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

00:50:42.400 --> 00:50:51.120
 grass species being proposed and a bigger bioswale for permeability and water retention,

00:50:51.120 --> 00:50:59.140
 but then the maintenance over the three years proposed was mowing, which won't really sustain

00:50:59.140 --> 00:51:06.200
 these kinds of grasses, it'll promote sort of short, scrubby Bermuda grass and not the

00:51:06.200 --> 00:51:12.100
 native species that actually dent and ISD would pay more for the native species grasses.

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

00:51:21.560 --> 00:51:30.640
 both be interested in sort of saving money by not mowing down the more expensive grass

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

00:51:36.160 --> 00:51:37.160
 natural ecosystem?

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

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

00:51:47.000 --> 00:51:53.040
 come back in three years and spend even more money in order to maintain this bioswale.

00:51:53.040 --> 00:51:59.160
 So is that something that the city and the district might entertain as an exception to

00:51:59.160 --> 00:52:02.200
 code enforcement without going to seed?

00:52:02.200 --> 00:52:09.440
 That's a good question.

00:52:09.440 --> 00:52:19.340
 The mowing schedule is something that actually even native grasses can benefit from.

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

00:52:27.560 --> 00:52:35.600
 reduce weeds encroaching into those native grasses, but also by waiting until it goes

00:52:35.600 --> 00:52:40.160
 to seed, then you're promoting next year's growth.

00:52:40.160 --> 00:52:42.200
 I definitely agree with that.

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.

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

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

00:53:02.680 --> 00:53:08.400
 greater than six inches and letting it go to seed every cycle, that was the recommendation

00:53:08.400 --> 00:53:12.440
 from the vendor that is going to be supplying the grass.

00:53:12.440 --> 00:53:19.400
 So if we could somehow get together with these two municipal districts and not throw more

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,

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

00:53:30.280 --> 00:53:33.240
 would be really to the benefit of Denton.

00:53:33.240 --> 00:53:34.240
 Definitely.

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.

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.

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?

00:53:59.880 --> 00:54:08.920
 I don't know how to reinforce that concept.

00:54:08.920 --> 00:54:09.920
 Can someone advise me?

00:54:09.920 --> 00:54:12.760
 Commissioner Beck, can I ask for clarification?

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

00:54:18.600 --> 00:54:20.880
 staff is saying that we should mow it.

00:54:20.880 --> 00:54:22.520
 I feel like we're aligned here.

00:54:22.520 --> 00:54:24.740
 Is this a height thing that you wanted to find?

00:54:24.740 --> 00:54:26.520
 Height and frequency.

00:54:26.520 --> 00:54:30.880
 So you want to mow it higher than you typically mow.

00:54:30.880 --> 00:54:35.080
 You don't typically mow grass at six inches.

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

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

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

00:54:54.080 --> 00:54:59.920
 and a better use of our city money and the ISD's money.

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.

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

00:55:13.300 --> 00:55:19.400
 than a regular quarterly crop to the ground mowing cycle.

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.

00:55:26.320 --> 00:55:27.600
 I definitely understand the concern.

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

00:55:33.280 --> 00:55:36.520
 of how high to mow grass that seems really granular for this body.

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

00:55:40.480 --> 00:55:44.880
 say that they're going to quarterly mow it at normal height.

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

00:55:51.880 --> 00:55:59.360
 defer to whatever the recommendation is from the vendor for that type of seed.

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

00:56:04.480 --> 00:56:06.760
 time or if in a period of drought.

00:56:06.760 --> 00:56:13.080
 So I think it just varies.

00:56:13.080 --> 00:56:19.120
 I believe that this mowing schedule and the maintenance schedule actually is pulled from

00:56:19.120 --> 00:56:21.120
 the ISO manual.

00:56:21.120 --> 00:56:31.440
 So what you're referring to is definitely something that I think that we can refine.

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

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

00:56:44.960 --> 00:56:50.720
 refined direction on the mowing schedule.

00:56:50.720 --> 00:56:52.080
 That's okay with me.

00:56:52.080 --> 00:56:55.440
 I don't know that I need to make a motion for an amendment.

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

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

00:57:11.880 --> 00:57:15.960
 this in three years for code enforcement because it's all crapped out.

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

00:57:27.960 --> 00:57:28.960
 be okay with me.

00:57:28.960 --> 00:57:33.960
 I guess I don't need to have an amendment.

00:57:33.960 --> 00:57:34.960
 Great.

00:57:34.960 --> 00:57:36.320
 Thank you Commissioner Beck for that insight.

00:57:36.320 --> 00:57:40.040
 Any other questions for Kristy?

00:57:40.040 --> 00:57:42.720
 Okay.

00:57:42.720 --> 00:57:44.200
 Thank you, Kristy.

00:57:44.200 --> 00:57:45.200
 There's no other questions.

00:57:45.200 --> 00:57:47.600
 We'll move on to item 5C.

00:57:47.600 --> 00:57:51.480
 It's an AESA 20-002A.

00:57:51.480 --> 00:57:57.440
 Staff has requested this be postponed, just like our IC items, typically with postponement

00:57:57.440 --> 00:58:04.920
 from staff, we would open public hearing and postpone it and hear the full presentation

00:58:04.920 --> 00:58:05.920
 on September 16th.

00:58:05.920 --> 00:58:09.440
 Is there any opposition to this plan?

00:58:09.440 --> 00:58:11.360
 Okay.

00:58:11.360 --> 00:58:19.280
 Seeing none, we go to 5D, 5D is Z19-0012A.

00:58:19.280 --> 00:58:21.560
 This item is Julie Wyatt's.

00:58:21.560 --> 00:58:27.280
 Julie, this item is being requested to be postponed by the applicant.

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

00:58:33.400 --> 00:58:35.200
 potential vote for postponement.

00:58:35.200 --> 00:58:37.480
 Would that be agreeable?

00:58:37.480 --> 00:58:38.480
 Sure.

00:58:38.480 --> 00:58:40.480
 Yeah, absolutely.

00:58:40.480 --> 00:58:46.600
 Let me pull up.

00:58:46.600 --> 00:58:49.400
 I can just give a brief overview of what they're proposing.

00:58:49.400 --> 00:58:54.040
 I think that would be helpful.

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.

00:58:59.480 --> 00:59:04.200
 We haven't gotten any citizen feedback on this item and we potentially hear it again

00:59:04.200 --> 00:59:07.480
 on September 16th.

00:59:07.480 --> 00:59:10.320
 We also have received some letters.

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

00:59:16.180 --> 00:59:17.720
 you for the 16th.

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

00:59:21.960 --> 00:59:24.280
 to you.

00:59:24.280 --> 00:59:29.360
 Share screen.

00:59:29.360 --> 00:59:32.800
 Oh, show all windows.

00:59:32.800 --> 00:59:34.280
 We've got so many windows open.

00:59:34.280 --> 00:59:35.280
 There we go.

00:59:35.280 --> 00:59:37.480
 Why open that Julie?

00:59:37.480 --> 00:59:42.800
 Richard, would it be, is your estimation to go ahead to the full presentation?

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

00:59:48.080 --> 00:59:49.080
 them.

00:59:49.080 --> 00:59:57.200
 We might not have the presentation, we might not have context to hear their thoughts.

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

01:00:01.080 --> 01:00:04.880
 I think this has come before you one other time.

01:00:04.880 --> 01:00:06.840
 Great.

01:00:06.840 --> 01:00:08.440
 I trust Julie to make that happen.

01:00:08.440 --> 01:00:09.440
 Okay.

01:00:09.440 --> 01:00:11.800
 I'm going to try.

01:00:11.800 --> 01:00:12.800
 All right.

01:00:12.800 --> 01:00:13.800
 Here we go.

01:00:13.800 --> 01:00:19.880
 As Richard alluded to, you have seen a request for this property last year, last November

01:00:19.880 --> 01:00:25.400
 20th actually, and this is that same request coming back to you with minor modifications.

01:00:25.400 --> 01:00:32.040
 So the applicant, it's Z19-0012A Mockingbird Single Family Residential.

01:00:32.040 --> 01:00:37.120
 The subject property is located south of Audre and just east of Mockingbird.

01:00:37.120 --> 01:00:39.120
 It's about 2.61 acres.

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.

01:00:47.800 --> 01:00:53.200
 According to the applicant, they are proposing nine single family dwellings.

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.

01:00:59.320 --> 01:01:04.600
 The criteria for approval for zoning cases is in sub-chapter two of the Denton Development

01:01:04.600 --> 01:01:10.800
 Code, we have the general and then the specific to zoning cases.

01:01:10.800 --> 01:01:13.840
 So first of all, consistency with the Denton Plan 2030.

01:01:13.840 --> 01:01:19.480
 This is area is designated as low density residential as are the adjacent properties.

01:01:19.480 --> 01:01:24.040
 That's intended for single family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre.

01:01:24.040 --> 01:01:29.080
 Under the 2002 code, that was really easy to apply because we had maximum densities in

01:01:29.080 --> 01:01:32.040
 our embedded within our zoning districts.

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

01:01:38.420 --> 01:01:46.880
 density when you just talk about that overall not taking into account any streets.

01:01:46.880 --> 01:01:51.840
 So but it does meet the intent of the overall goals.

01:01:51.840 --> 01:01:58.160
 It is our R-4 is a single family, primarily single family residential district and it

01:01:58.160 --> 01:02:03.920
 also does meet the in-fill goals of the Denton Plan 2030.

01:02:03.920 --> 01:02:07.760
 One of the other criteria for approval minimizes adverse impacts to the surrounding property.

01:02:07.760 --> 01:02:11.360
 R-4 is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods.

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

01:02:17.280 --> 01:02:24.160
 is consistently R-4 district and this would just be a logical extension of that existing

01:02:24.160 --> 01:02:26.160
 zoning pattern.

01:02:26.160 --> 01:02:31.100
 The typical lot sizes, we've done kind of a density study for the surrounding neighborhoods

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

01:02:36.800 --> 01:02:40.060
 7,500 square feet.

01:02:40.060 --> 01:02:44.360
 We also look at the transportation.

01:02:44.360 --> 01:02:48.280
 It's not, you know, it's a limited number of homes.

01:02:48.280 --> 01:02:55.240
 The ITE Trip Generation Manual kind of estimates about 10 trips per single family dwelling

01:02:55.240 --> 01:02:56.240
 unit.

01:02:56.240 --> 01:03:00.280
 This would generate about 90 trips per day, which would not trigger a TIA.

01:03:00.280 --> 01:03:04.240
 And then there would be roadway impact fees associated with the development.

01:03:04.240 --> 01:03:07.540
 Public water and wastewater services are available to the site.

01:03:07.540 --> 01:03:11.760
 Also TAP and impact fees would apply.

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

01:03:15.700 --> 01:03:20.600
 of water and wastewater and that's why in-fill is really important.

01:03:20.600 --> 01:03:27.120
 And then the subject property is about a mile from Milan Park.

01:03:27.120 --> 01:03:28.120
 Notification was sent out.

01:03:28.120 --> 01:03:32.120
 I don't have all of those notices that we did receive today.

01:03:32.120 --> 01:03:36.800
 We have received quite a few in opposition, so I did want to point that out.

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

01:03:40.280 --> 01:03:45.640
 the regular session if you would like.

01:03:45.640 --> 01:03:48.120
 And staff does recommend approval of the request.

01:03:48.120 --> 01:03:52.040
 It does comply with the requirements of the DIT and development code.

01:03:52.040 --> 01:04:00.800
 The applicant originally requested an overlay condition to just permit the permitted uses

01:04:00.800 --> 01:04:03.360
 to single family detached only.

01:04:03.360 --> 01:04:08.840
 They've been working with the adjacent property owners to kind of figure out what overlay

01:04:08.840 --> 01:04:13.760
 conditions or what would give them comfort for this project.

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

01:04:18.600 --> 01:04:26.720
 owners felt like that proposed overlay maybe wasn't strict enough, and they wanted to add

01:04:26.720 --> 01:04:30.280
 in that townhomes and duplexes would not be permitted.

01:04:30.280 --> 01:04:36.600
 So they just wanted to kind of workshop that overlay condition that they're requesting

01:04:36.600 --> 01:04:42.360
 with those adjacent property owners a little longer to try to make them feel comfortable

01:04:42.360 --> 01:04:50.480
 with their project, and that was the reason for the request for the postponement.

01:04:50.480 --> 01:04:52.840
 So that concludes my presentation.

01:04:52.840 --> 01:04:57.200
 If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

01:04:57.200 --> 01:05:01.000
 >> Any questions for Hailey?

01:05:01.000 --> 01:05:03.760
 And just for clarification, I might have misspoke or spoke too early.

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

01:05:09.240 --> 01:05:10.240
 calling.

01:05:10.240 --> 01:05:11.240
 Commissioner Beck.

01:05:11.240 --> 01:05:18.960
 >> Chair, Julie, I'm teasing the chair.

01:05:18.960 --> 01:05:28.120
 One of the concerns previously was that the access through the flag handle section of

01:05:28.120 --> 01:05:34.480
 the property was close to the intersection, and they were concerned about the access.

01:05:34.480 --> 01:05:40.080
 Was there feedback on the local citizens, and did we resolve any of those access issues

01:05:40.080 --> 01:05:44.080
 that were brought before us last time?

01:05:44.080 --> 01:05:47.400
 >> I don't have that information for each night, but I can certainly bring that back

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

01:05:51.320 --> 01:05:55.800
 through how they've worked with those adjacent property owners.

01:05:55.800 --> 01:06:00.920
 The property does sort of have those fixed boundaries with that panhandle, so I don't

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

01:06:04.740 --> 01:06:07.360
 between now and the next P&Z meeting.

01:06:07.360 --> 01:06:10.520
 That would be useful to me in my decision process, thank you.

01:06:10.520 --> 01:06:11.520
 >> You bet.

01:06:11.520 --> 01:06:16.560
 >> Any other questions for Julie on this?

01:06:16.560 --> 01:06:19.240
 Great.

01:06:19.240 --> 01:06:20.240
 Thank you so much, Julie.

01:06:20.240 --> 01:06:21.240
 >> You bet.

01:06:21.240 --> 01:06:29.360
 >> That moves us to our final item on this work session agenda, which is 5EP20-0003.

01:06:29.360 --> 01:06:33.080
 This is also Julie's item, and I'll turn it over to her.

01:06:33.080 --> 01:06:34.080
 >> All right.

01:06:34.080 --> 01:06:55.540
 Let's find this presentation.

01:06:55.540 --> 01:07:05.640
 Almost there.

01:07:05.640 --> 01:07:21.300
 I'm going to try a different way.

01:07:21.300 --> 01:07:29.800
 That didn't work.

01:07:29.800 --> 01:07:40.840
 Ah, found it.

01:07:40.840 --> 01:07:43.840
 Sorry about that.

01:07:43.840 --> 01:07:44.840
 Okay.

01:07:44.840 --> 01:07:45.840
 Here we go.

01:07:45.840 --> 01:07:54.140
 This request before you is PD-20003, it is for a charter school.

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

01:08:00.920 --> 01:08:05.000
 there in yellow, actually a portion of that site with a charter school.

01:08:05.000 --> 01:08:08.580
 It's considered an institutional use in that PD.

01:08:08.580 --> 01:08:12.180
 It's an overall 37.3-acre property.

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

01:08:17.680 --> 01:08:25.060
 Boulevard and I-35W Vintage Boulevard ramp intersection right here.

01:08:25.060 --> 01:08:27.100
 All right.

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

01:08:32.780 --> 01:08:42.080
 these older PDs, we're now applying the 2019 processes and criteria for approval for those

01:08:42.080 --> 01:08:47.740
 PDs, but we're still following those regulations set forth in these legacy PDs.

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

01:08:54.500 --> 01:08:59.400
 of these as these legacy PDs continue to develop.

01:08:59.400 --> 01:09:06.180
 So it's going to follow the 2019 processes, but the regulations in place, the development

01:09:06.180 --> 01:09:09.620
 of regulations in place at the time of that PD.

01:09:09.620 --> 01:09:15.920
 So as such, this is a major amendment and it requires that dual public hearing recommendation

01:09:15.920 --> 01:09:19.920
 from the Planning and Zoning Commission and then approval from City Council.

01:09:19.920 --> 01:09:22.340
 So a little background on PD 139.

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

01:09:28.880 --> 01:09:29.880
 property.

01:09:29.880 --> 01:09:32.080
 I've got it outlined here in yellow and you can kind of see it.

01:09:32.080 --> 01:09:33.560
 It's kind of small.

01:09:33.560 --> 01:09:39.060
 It allowed a variety of uses, hospitality uses, institutional uses, of which the educational

01:09:39.060 --> 01:09:46.620
 facilities are one, manufacturing and distribution, office, residential multifamily, retail services,

01:09:46.620 --> 01:09:49.740
 accessory, and then two open space areas.

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

01:09:54.340 --> 01:09:56.520
 with the aerial.

01:09:56.520 --> 01:10:06.260
 You can see the trees and then there was the branch of the Rorick branch.

01:10:06.260 --> 01:10:09.180
 So those were the two open spaces.

01:10:09.180 --> 01:10:16.940
 In 1999, that plan was revised to include a mix of land uses, phasing, and infrastructure.

01:10:16.940 --> 01:10:20.220
 That concept plan expired.

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

01:10:25.700 --> 01:10:30.300
 develop according to that phasing, then it would expire.

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.

01:10:38.820 --> 01:10:44.420
 There were two conditions on that ordinance that I just wanted to bring forward.

01:10:44.420 --> 01:10:49.740
 They were related to roadway improvements that no development other than single family

01:10:49.740 --> 01:10:55.540
 detached and one convenience store would be permitted until either the interchange at

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

01:11:02.060 --> 01:11:09.340
 diamond configuration or Ponder Road was extended to Highway 377 as a four lane roadway.

01:11:09.340 --> 01:11:14.280
 Those improvements are actually under construction now if you've driven a vintage boulevard recently.

01:11:14.280 --> 01:11:19.620
 So that condition is being met.

01:11:19.620 --> 01:11:21.540
 Further development of this PD has been limited.

01:11:21.540 --> 01:11:25.860
 I know there's a single family neighborhood associated with it.

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.

01:11:33.180 --> 01:11:39.020
 The current proposal is, as I said, for a charter school development.

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

01:11:45.140 --> 01:11:46.140
 area.

01:11:46.140 --> 01:11:47.860
 That's the area in purple.

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

01:11:52.300 --> 01:11:54.460
 school being high school.

01:11:54.460 --> 01:11:58.860
 The applicant will be on the phone tonight, so he could probably give more information

01:11:58.860 --> 01:12:01.320
 about that functioning of it.

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

01:12:05.860 --> 01:12:08.420
 lower school being two stories.

01:12:08.420 --> 01:12:11.860
 Approximately 1,052 students could be accommodated.

01:12:11.860 --> 01:12:18.060
 It also includes an athletic field, an agricultural teaching garden, and playground.

01:12:18.060 --> 01:12:22.660
 They're proposing two access points through a loop drive.

01:12:22.660 --> 01:12:27.180
 There's an access point that is easier to sort of discern.

01:12:27.180 --> 01:12:31.500
 It's along Vintage Road.

01:12:31.500 --> 01:12:36.220
 And then there is another proposed access point on the future John Payne Road.

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

01:12:42.620 --> 01:12:45.540
 south all the way to Vintage Boulevard.

01:12:45.540 --> 01:12:56.500
 So this is the country lakes west in the Carnegie Ridge neighborhoods you might be familiar

01:12:56.500 --> 01:12:58.260
 with near Crawford Road.

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.

01:13:02.220 --> 01:13:06.140
 So that will be another collector within our city.

01:13:06.140 --> 01:13:13.580
 And here is that loop drive with students being dropped off in this cul-de-sac.

01:13:13.580 --> 01:13:20.500
 So this follows the 1988 landscape ordinance.

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

01:13:24.580 --> 01:13:27.100
 time recently.

01:13:27.100 --> 01:13:29.540
 That requirement was for that street yard.

01:13:29.540 --> 01:13:33.900
 If you recall the Stonehill Center, that is that area between the front of the building

01:13:33.900 --> 01:13:36.420
 and the street.

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

01:13:44.380 --> 01:13:45.380
 this instance.

01:13:45.380 --> 01:13:49.820
 And then one tree every 2,500 square feet of total street yard.

01:13:49.820 --> 01:13:51.140
 That would be 74 trees.

01:13:51.140 --> 01:13:57.780
 They're proposing 91,000 square feet of landscaping and 109 large canopy and ornamental trees

01:13:57.780 --> 01:14:00.180
 in this area.

01:14:00.180 --> 01:14:06.300
 It also required parking lot landscaping within the street yard, a 5% of area, which would

01:14:06.300 --> 01:14:08.980
 come to about 3,800 square feet.

01:14:08.980 --> 01:14:12.020
 They're proposing 10,800 square feet.

01:14:12.020 --> 01:14:15.100
 And then parking lot screening at the right of way.

01:14:15.100 --> 01:14:25.140
 That is that they are proposing the hedge row along vintage as well as John Payne.

01:14:25.140 --> 01:14:29.780
 We also looked at the site in terms of current standards.

01:14:29.780 --> 01:14:34.400
 We wanted to kind of weave in some current standards where we could.

01:14:34.400 --> 01:14:39.460
 As part of that, they did provide the one landscape island every 10 spaces.

01:14:39.460 --> 01:14:44.060
 So even though that old code didn't require landscaping in the parking lot behind that

01:14:44.060 --> 01:14:49.220
 street yard, they are proposing that both in this location and this location as well

01:14:49.220 --> 01:14:51.180
 as those landscape medians.

01:14:51.180 --> 01:14:56.460
 Those are more in conformance with the 2019 development code.

01:14:56.460 --> 01:15:00.780
 The criteria for approval are in subchapter two, the general, as well as the specific.

01:15:00.780 --> 01:15:04.060
 We'll touch on those as we go through the project.

01:15:04.060 --> 01:15:07.600
 So first of all, does it comply with the goals of the comprehensive plan?

01:15:07.600 --> 01:15:12.980
 So the future land use designation of the subject site is low density residential.

01:15:12.980 --> 01:15:18.100
 So although this is not a residential use, as you're probably familiar, low density residential

01:15:18.100 --> 01:15:23.120
 is really one of our kind of our suburban development pattern, the one to four dwelling

01:15:23.120 --> 01:15:25.020
 units per acre.

01:15:25.020 --> 01:15:31.340
 This isn't a residential use, but it's a supportive use for residential areas.

01:15:31.340 --> 01:15:36.500
 As you're probably familiar, educational facilities are often embedded within, or are embedded

01:15:36.500 --> 01:15:42.060
 within a variety of zoning districts, you know, and so, and they're needed throughout

01:15:42.060 --> 01:15:46.300
 the city to support our residential areas.

01:15:46.300 --> 01:15:51.460
 So therefore the future land use map is instructive for the potential expansion of schools because

01:15:51.460 --> 01:15:57.100
 it does indicate areas where future residential growth suggests a greater need for schools,

01:15:57.100 --> 01:15:59.180
 you know, think about it for this area.

01:15:59.180 --> 01:16:04.760
 So low density residential is in this location, and then we've got moderate density here.

01:16:04.760 --> 01:16:09.200
 These are the areas we need schools, probably need fewer schools in the industrial commerce

01:16:09.200 --> 01:16:11.740
 area, because that's going to be more employment uses.

01:16:11.740 --> 01:16:14.800
 So just kind of think of it in that in those terms.

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

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.

01:16:24.380 --> 01:16:30.700
 One economic vitality, 23% of the jobs located in Denton are in education services.

01:16:30.700 --> 01:16:39.300
 So just additional schools do kind of support that that economic vitality goal and criteria

01:16:39.300 --> 01:16:41.700
 within the Denton plan 2030.

01:16:41.700 --> 01:16:49.820
 And then mobility, we want to mix uses and homes within different uses within homes,

01:16:49.820 --> 01:16:54.260
 and homes within walking distance, we want to make sure that we've got those supportive

01:16:54.260 --> 01:16:57.020
 uses near each other.

01:16:57.020 --> 01:17:02.260
 And although we know the proposal would attract students beyond the city's borders, a location

01:17:02.260 --> 01:17:07.620
 like near residential subdivision and along an arterial could provide for a variety of

01:17:07.620 --> 01:17:12.260
 transportation options to the school, maybe not only for students, but for employees.

01:17:12.260 --> 01:17:19.240
 So so those mix of uses near each other, meet those mobility goals.

01:17:19.240 --> 01:17:23.960
 Compliance with that with the DDC and original PD, it conforms with the PD amendment process

01:17:23.960 --> 01:17:29.260
 and also the development standards as established by that original PD provides a greater level

01:17:29.260 --> 01:17:35.520
 of building design quality community amenities, amenities and connectivity.

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

01:17:41.200 --> 01:17:44.620
 and what what the Denton Development Code will require.

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

01:17:50.500 --> 01:17:53.940
 schools to add a gathering area for students.

01:17:53.940 --> 01:17:56.900
 It will also have landscaping and trees for that area.

01:17:56.900 --> 01:18:01.200
 There's also pedestrian connections throughout the site and connecting to those rights of

01:18:01.200 --> 01:18:02.620
 way.

01:18:02.620 --> 01:18:06.860
 In terms of the building, they haven't fully designed the buildings yet.

01:18:06.860 --> 01:18:10.860
 These are concepts to what they typically like to build.

01:18:10.860 --> 01:18:16.100
 So as a recommendation, staff recommends a condition that the proposal meet the site

01:18:16.100 --> 01:18:21.060
 design standards in the Denton Development Code, just so we have some some understanding

01:18:21.060 --> 01:18:24.780
 of what those buildings are going to look like to make sure they have the appropriate

01:18:24.780 --> 01:18:30.700
 architectural articulation, the the orientation to the street and those those standards that

01:18:30.700 --> 01:18:35.620
 we we are used to seeing within the city of Denton.

01:18:35.620 --> 01:18:40.340
 In the case of non residential uses that such development will be appropriate in the area

01:18:40.340 --> 01:18:43.460
 location and overall planning for the purpose intended.

01:18:43.460 --> 01:18:47.820
 So this is kind of this is an interesting part of town.

01:18:47.820 --> 01:18:50.300
 It's this is situated in southwest Denton.

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

01:18:54.780 --> 01:18:55.780
 it.

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

01:19:01.380 --> 01:19:02.580
 recently.

01:19:02.580 --> 01:19:06.380
 You've seen the Sagebrook development in this location.

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.

01:19:12.700 --> 01:19:17.140
 So we know development is really imminent in this side of town.

01:19:17.140 --> 01:19:22.540
 It's coming and it's a lot of residential development.

01:19:22.540 --> 01:19:25.540
 Additional future development in the area is is two parks.

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

01:19:30.480 --> 01:19:32.260
 also be developed.

01:19:32.260 --> 01:19:38.460
 So this proposal as that corresponding educational facility, adding to those mix of uses to support

01:19:38.460 --> 01:19:42.980
 the the future residential growing population.

01:19:42.980 --> 01:19:46.940
 Schools are often found within neighborhoods or on the edges of neighborhoods.

01:19:46.940 --> 01:19:52.300
 So this proposal is consistent with that typical development pattern that we often see in residential

01:19:52.300 --> 01:19:53.620
 areas.

01:19:53.620 --> 01:19:56.920
 Two things specific to the site I wanted to highlight.

01:19:56.920 --> 01:20:00.820
 If you recall in the site plan, that site is oriented away from I-35.

01:20:00.820 --> 01:20:02.900
 That's something that we worked with the applicant on.

01:20:02.900 --> 01:20:08.300
 We really wanted it to kind of face inward toward those growing residential areas, kind

01:20:08.300 --> 01:20:13.500
 of minimize the visual impacts of I-35 and kind of more integrated into the community.

01:20:13.500 --> 01:20:16.580
 And then also the intensity is limited.

01:20:16.580 --> 01:20:21.980
 They've got large open areas for those for that recreation and those athletic facilities,

01:20:21.980 --> 01:20:26.380
 and then the 33 foot maximum building heights.

01:20:26.380 --> 01:20:30.180
 The provision of public facilities such as schools, fire protection, law enforcement,

01:20:30.180 --> 01:20:35.700
 water, wastewater, streets, public services and parks that are adequate to serve the anticipated

01:20:35.700 --> 01:20:38.260
 population within the PD district.

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

01:20:44.060 --> 01:20:46.100
 the traffic.

01:20:46.100 --> 01:20:51.300
 So we they submitted a TIA to the city of Denton and it's under review.

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.

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

01:21:05.940 --> 01:21:12.780
 near an elementary school or dropped off a kid at elementary school, you know that's

01:21:12.780 --> 01:21:16.300
 quite a logistical operation.

01:21:16.300 --> 01:21:24.040
 So with that looped drive aisle, they have a queuing capacity for 119 vehicles on site.

01:21:24.040 --> 01:21:32.100
 So they have appropriate queuing capacity for those that drop off and pick up time.

01:21:32.100 --> 01:21:36.060
 That traffic management plan anticipates greater vehicle queuing in the afternoon, but they

01:21:36.060 --> 01:21:44.380
 do anticipate some delays for those exiting vehicles in morning drop off onto Vintage

01:21:44.380 --> 01:21:45.380
 Boulevard.

01:21:45.380 --> 01:21:50.220
 So they have recommended some on-site operational interventions.

01:21:50.220 --> 01:21:52.180
 These aren't related to the physical structure.

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

01:21:56.100 --> 01:21:58.660
 because they were a part of the TIA.

01:21:58.660 --> 01:22:04.940
 They are proposing a staggered dismissal and I believe that that is something that this

01:22:04.940 --> 01:22:08.980
 school does and the applicant will be here to discuss that.

01:22:08.980 --> 01:22:14.140
 They're also proposing staff assistance to assure safe unloading and to discourage parents

01:22:14.140 --> 01:22:18.660
 from parking in the queue lanes, and then temporary traffic control devices just to

01:22:18.660 --> 01:22:22.840
 guide motorists during those peak times.

01:22:22.840 --> 01:22:25.660
 We also looked at the surrounding streets.

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

01:22:32.220 --> 01:22:34.300
 right now.

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

01:22:39.220 --> 01:22:41.480
 disruption to transportation.

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

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.

01:22:59.220 --> 01:23:04.380
 According to the applicant's TIA under review, this use would generate about 2,500 trips

01:23:04.380 --> 01:23:05.380
 per day.

01:23:05.380 --> 01:23:10.540
 That's 809 a.m. peak and then 520 p.m. peak.

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

01:23:16.820 --> 01:23:20.900
 per day, which would accommodate the proposal.

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

01:23:26.580 --> 01:23:33.860
 connection, and they will also have to construct three lanes of traffic for that to access

01:23:33.860 --> 01:23:37.700
 that eastern access point.

01:23:37.700 --> 01:23:44.660
 All right, and just wanted to take one more look at traffic in the area.

01:23:44.660 --> 01:23:49.160
 So also as part of their TIA, they looked at the 2022 conditions.

01:23:49.160 --> 01:23:53.940
 They looked at it with the proposal and then if the proposal wasn't there.

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

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

01:24:08.220 --> 01:24:12.640
 intersection.

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

01:24:19.980 --> 01:24:27.900
 eastbound on vintage turning onto 377, and that can be a tough intersection.

01:24:27.900 --> 01:24:30.380
 And that would be either with or without the proposal.

01:24:30.380 --> 01:24:34.940
 So they do anticipate that further interventions at that intersection will be needed in the

01:24:34.940 --> 01:24:39.420
 future, maybe something like a channelized left turn lane to help smooth that traffic

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.

01:24:50.140 --> 01:24:52.620
 But that would be something in the future.

01:24:52.620 --> 01:24:59.740
 In terms of what is happening in this area now, Vintage Boulevard will have channelized

01:24:59.740 --> 01:25:03.220
 turn lanes into the subject property.

01:25:03.220 --> 01:25:04.580
 They would have a left turn.

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

01:25:10.540 --> 01:25:12.220
 wait to turn left.

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

01:25:17.620 --> 01:25:19.460
 to turn right.

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.

01:25:27.220 --> 01:25:28.900
 TxDOT has begun working on that.

01:25:28.900 --> 01:25:35.240
 Here is a general schematic of what that intersection will look like.

01:25:35.240 --> 01:25:37.620
 I believe it's under design now.

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.

01:25:41.600 --> 01:25:48.100
 So based upon that TIA and the current conditions, there is adequate capacity to accommodate

01:25:48.100 --> 01:25:50.280
 the use.

01:25:50.280 --> 01:25:52.380
 So public outreach was sent out.

01:25:52.380 --> 01:25:55.540
 We haven't received any responses.

01:25:55.540 --> 01:25:58.340
 I received one phone call who just had a question about it.

01:25:58.340 --> 01:26:03.060
 So we answered the question, but they didn't provide any further written feedback.

01:26:03.060 --> 01:26:09.480
 The applicant did hold a virtual neighborhood meeting and there were no attendees.

01:26:09.480 --> 01:26:14.100
 So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of the request as it's

01:26:14.100 --> 01:26:22.220
 consistent with subchapter 2 with two proposed conditions.

01:26:22.220 --> 01:26:30.300
 One is one you typically see that landscaping and attached plans reflect an intent to comply

01:26:30.300 --> 01:26:32.020
 with the PD requirements.

01:26:32.020 --> 01:26:37.980
 However, minor alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings and final

01:26:37.980 --> 01:26:44.540
 individual plant selections would be able to be approved by staff, provided that final

01:26:44.540 --> 01:26:49.900
 landscaping complies with the attached landscape plan in terms of the number of large canopy

01:26:49.900 --> 01:26:55.060
 trees to be planted, 91, the minimum number of shrubs, and then also the minimum number

01:26:55.060 --> 01:26:58.300
 of medium canopy or ornamental trees.

01:26:58.300 --> 01:27:02.100
 And then also the other condition that all buildings would comply with the site design

01:27:02.100 --> 01:27:07.100
 standards in subchapter 7 of the Denton Development Code.

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,

01:27:11.400 --> 01:27:18.580
 the two classroom buildings, the maximum height, and then the 357 parking spaces with that

01:27:18.580 --> 01:27:25.220
 10,000 square foot plaza areas with that landscaping.

01:27:25.220 --> 01:27:30.620
 This is tentatively scheduled for public hearing at the September 15th City Council.

01:27:30.620 --> 01:27:33.220
 And I will be happy to answer any questions.

01:27:33.220 --> 01:27:34.220
 Great.

01:27:34.220 --> 01:27:35.220
 Thank you.

01:27:35.220 --> 01:27:36.220
 Commissioner Beck.

01:27:36.220 --> 01:27:37.220
 Thank you, Chair.

01:27:37.220 --> 01:27:40.140
 So Julie, can you put up slide 15?

01:27:40.140 --> 01:27:41.140
 You bet.

01:27:41.140 --> 01:27:43.820
 My question is going to be the clove relief.

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

01:27:49.420 --> 01:27:54.140
 close to construction while there's a school, because they're going to finish that school

01:27:54.140 --> 01:27:58.160
 before they get that clove relief put in, right?

01:27:58.160 --> 01:27:59.420
 I would imagine so.

01:27:59.420 --> 01:28:06.900
 I suspect that this is -- that this is a ways out.

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

01:28:11.980 --> 01:28:15.460
 to the site plan, if I can get to it.

01:28:15.460 --> 01:28:16.460
 There we go.

01:28:16.460 --> 01:28:19.700
 So there is actually a remainder lot.

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

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

01:28:32.900 --> 01:28:37.460
 amendment would have to come back to you, and you would have to see that development.

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

01:28:44.240 --> 01:28:45.240
 before you.

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

01:28:52.740 --> 01:28:55.020
 kind of makes it a little clearer.

01:28:55.020 --> 01:28:56.020
 That's much more clear.

01:28:56.020 --> 01:28:57.020
 Thank you.

01:28:57.020 --> 01:28:58.020
 You bet.

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.

01:29:06.340 --> 01:29:14.380
 So the bottom third before Hunter Cole is not included in this property, right?

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

01:29:22.500 --> 01:29:25.100
 with Hunter Cole on it.

01:29:25.100 --> 01:29:26.100
 Does that help?

01:29:26.100 --> 01:29:33.780
 The Green Region, the floodplain region in there, that -- Hunter Cole is below that Green

01:29:33.780 --> 01:29:37.580
 Region, right?

01:29:37.580 --> 01:29:38.980
 I believe so.

01:29:38.980 --> 01:29:39.980
 Okay.

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

01:29:45.660 --> 01:29:53.340
 any work from these owners, developers, on integration with a school and adjacent to

01:29:53.340 --> 01:29:54.340
 this floodplain?

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

01:29:58.900 --> 01:30:01.780
 be a useful thing.

01:30:01.780 --> 01:30:06.580
 Well, I'm just proselytizing here.

01:30:06.580 --> 01:30:11.700
 Let me ask my last question.

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

01:30:18.620 --> 01:30:26.580
 that in many municipalities, if a charter school dies, if it's financially unviable,

01:30:26.580 --> 01:30:34.820
 the local school districts often absorb it and make it an element of their district.

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

01:30:43.340 --> 01:30:45.900
 forced to absorb this school location?

01:30:45.900 --> 01:30:48.320
 Does it match?

01:30:48.320 --> 01:30:50.500
 I don't know the answer to that.

01:30:50.500 --> 01:30:56.580
 I did provide the proposal to Denton ISD to get their feedback.

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

01:31:02.780 --> 01:31:08.540
 heard back from them as to their feelings about the project.

01:31:08.540 --> 01:31:09.540
 Okay.

01:31:09.540 --> 01:31:10.540
 Thank you.

01:31:10.540 --> 01:31:11.540
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:31:11.540 --> 01:31:12.540
 Thank you, Chair.

01:31:12.540 --> 01:31:13.540
 Quick question.

01:31:13.540 --> 01:31:23.620
 2449 on the west side of that is going to be the future loop 288.

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

01:31:29.180 --> 01:31:34.740
 of 288 that feeds in towards Denton, towards 377?

01:31:34.740 --> 01:31:43.540
 If so, is that going to be the school -- is the setback going to be okay?

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

01:31:50.080 --> 01:31:53.780
 later and then we have to buy property and all this stuff.

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,

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

01:32:00.380 --> 01:32:05.140
 another -- we don't have to do anything like that in the future.

01:32:05.140 --> 01:32:09.500
 They have been working with the engineering on appropriate right-of-way dedication to

01:32:09.500 --> 01:32:15.820
 make sure that engineering gets that right-of-way for the roadway.

01:32:15.820 --> 01:32:24.740
 And the -- if I can -- I'm going to pull up the site plan, see.

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

01:32:34.900 --> 01:32:39.940
 any additional right-of-way dedication, the school has been set back fairly far.

01:32:39.940 --> 01:32:42.180
 If you look -- and I failed to point this out.

01:32:42.180 --> 01:32:47.500
 There's a pretty large electric easement that runs, that clips this corner, which really

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

01:32:54.860 --> 01:32:56.500
 far away from that street.

01:32:56.500 --> 01:32:59.340
 So this sort of set that -- that's that standard.

01:32:59.340 --> 01:33:03.820
 So it has been set back pretty far from that roadway.

01:33:03.820 --> 01:33:05.260
 >> So Vintage is going to be how many lanes?

01:33:05.260 --> 01:33:08.460
 Is it going to be four lanes divided, is that what it was?

01:33:08.460 --> 01:33:09.460
 >> Yes, sir.

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

01:33:14.180 --> 01:33:19.380
 six lanes, do we know?

01:33:19.380 --> 01:33:22.580
 >> I don't have -- >> Because it looks like if we -- if they

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.

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

01:33:35.940 --> 01:33:39.180
 information from them regarding that at the regular meeting.

01:33:39.180 --> 01:33:40.180
 >> Okay.

01:33:40.180 --> 01:33:41.180
 No problem.

01:33:41.180 --> 01:33:42.180
 Thanks.

01:33:42.180 --> 01:33:43.180
 >> Thank you.

01:33:43.180 --> 01:33:48.200
 >> Any other questions for Julie?

01:33:48.200 --> 01:33:51.580
 Okay.

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

01:33:58.780 --> 01:34:03.740
 to reconvene for our normal regular meeting at 6.45.

01:34:03.740 --> 01:34:12.100
 Thank you.

01:34:12.100 --> 01:34:15.420
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular

01:34:15.420 --> 01:34:18.940
 meeting for Wednesday, September 2nd, 2020.

01:34:18.940 --> 01:34:22.300
 Seeing that we have a quorum, I will call this meeting to order at 6.47.

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

01:34:27.700 --> 01:34:28.700
 the meeting.

01:34:28.700 --> 01:34:29.700
 We'll hop right into it.

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

01:34:34.020 --> 01:34:35.020
 flag.

01:34:35.020 --> 01:34:40.660
 If the other commissioners would like to join me, they can unmute and recite with me.

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

01:34:47.200 --> 01:35:01.580
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:35:01.580 --> 01:35:12.080
 I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one nation, indivisible.

01:35:12.080 --> 01:35:16.500
 The next item of business is the consideration of the August 19th, 2020 minutes.

01:35:16.500 --> 01:35:17.500
 Commissioner Smith?

01:35:17.500 --> 01:35:18.500
 Make a motion to approve.

01:35:18.500 --> 01:35:20.620
 We have a first for approval.

01:35:20.620 --> 01:35:21.620
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:35:21.620 --> 01:35:22.620
 Second.

01:35:22.620 --> 01:35:25.740
 We have a first and a second for approval.

01:35:25.740 --> 01:35:27.540
 Any discussion on the minutes?

01:35:27.540 --> 01:35:31.140
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call.

01:35:31.140 --> 01:35:32.140
 Commissioner Smith?

01:35:32.140 --> 01:35:33.140
 Aye.

01:35:33.140 --> 01:35:34.140
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:35:34.140 --> 01:35:35.140
 Aye.

01:35:35.140 --> 01:35:36.140
 Commissioner Beck?

01:35:36.140 --> 01:35:37.140
 Aye.

01:35:37.140 --> 01:35:38.140
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:35:38.140 --> 01:35:39.140
 Aye.

01:35:39.140 --> 01:35:40.140
 Commissioner Cole?

01:35:40.140 --> 01:35:41.140
 Aye.

01:35:41.140 --> 01:35:42.140
 Commissioner Pernetta?

01:35:42.140 --> 01:35:43.140
 Aye.

01:35:43.140 --> 01:35:44.140
 Chair is also an aye.

01:35:44.140 --> 01:35:45.140
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:35:45.140 --> 01:35:49.260
 The next item of business is our consent agenda.

01:35:49.260 --> 01:35:57.940
 And just for point of record, item 3CPP20-0018 is being pulled.

01:35:57.940 --> 01:36:08.540
 So the vote for consent will consist of item 3A, 3B and 3D.

01:36:08.540 --> 01:36:09.540
 Commissioner Smith?

01:36:09.540 --> 01:36:13.460
 Make a motion for approval for item 3A, B and D.

01:36:13.460 --> 01:36:15.020
 We have a motion for approval.

01:36:15.020 --> 01:36:16.020
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:36:16.020 --> 01:36:17.020
 Second.

01:36:17.020 --> 01:36:22.020
 Is there any discussion on these items?

01:36:22.020 --> 01:36:25.420
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call.

01:36:25.420 --> 01:36:26.420
 Commissioner Smith?

01:36:26.420 --> 01:36:27.420
 Aye.

01:36:27.420 --> 01:36:28.420
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:36:28.420 --> 01:36:29.420
 Aye.

01:36:29.420 --> 01:36:30.420
 Commissioner Beck?

01:36:30.420 --> 01:36:31.420
 Aye.

01:36:31.420 --> 01:36:32.420
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:36:32.420 --> 01:36:33.420
 Aye.

01:36:33.420 --> 01:36:34.420
 Commissioner Cole?

01:36:34.420 --> 01:36:35.420
 Aye.

01:36:35.420 --> 01:36:36.420
 Commissioner Pernetta?

01:36:36.420 --> 01:36:37.420
 Aye.

01:36:37.420 --> 01:36:42.240
 The chair is also an aye.

01:36:42.240 --> 01:36:44.700
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:36:44.700 --> 01:36:48.300
 The next item of business is our individual consideration items.

01:36:48.300 --> 01:36:54.240
 We'll start with item 4A, ADP20-0010.

01:36:54.240 --> 01:36:56.780
 This is Carina Maldonado's item.

01:36:56.780 --> 01:36:59.260
 Commissioner Beck?

01:36:59.260 --> 01:37:06.740
 For the agenda order, chair, what order are we going to stick the consent item in?

01:37:06.740 --> 01:37:11.460
 It'll be the last item of this section.

01:37:11.460 --> 01:37:22.620
 Thank you, chair.

01:37:22.620 --> 01:37:30.180
 Is Carina available?

01:37:30.180 --> 01:37:31.180
 She's pulling it up now.

01:37:31.180 --> 01:37:32.180
 Gotcha.

01:37:32.180 --> 01:37:36.500
 I think the video's off.

01:37:36.500 --> 01:37:41.100
 That's my confusion.

01:37:41.100 --> 01:37:47.740
 She's on.

01:37:47.740 --> 01:38:08.340
 I'm trying to share my screen and it's looking a little weird.

01:38:08.340 --> 01:38:20.740
 Okay, there you go.

01:38:20.740 --> 01:38:23.740
 I'm sorry.

01:38:23.740 --> 01:38:31.260
 All right, I apologize.

01:38:31.260 --> 01:38:41.640
 Okay, sorry about that, Carina Maldonado, assistant planner, City of Denton.

01:38:41.640 --> 01:38:49.780
 Today I'll be presenting an alternative development plan for ADP20-0010 Teasley Office Park.

01:38:49.780 --> 01:38:55.660
 Just a little bit of background before we get started, an approved ADP was brought forth

01:38:55.660 --> 01:39:02.340
 to planning and zoning last summer under ADP18-0006.

01:39:02.340 --> 01:39:08.300
 This proposed plan was approved with seven buildings shown here in blue.

01:39:08.300 --> 01:39:13.940
 The proposed use was for both professional office and medical office split almost evenly

01:39:13.940 --> 01:39:16.320
 between the both.

01:39:16.320 --> 01:39:21.900
 For those uses, there was a proposed 122 parking spaces.

01:39:21.900 --> 01:39:26.180
 This ADP was proposed due to several restrictions on the site, several easements.

01:39:26.180 --> 01:39:34.020
 There's a drainage easement to the west, access easements, an electric easement, and so on.

01:39:34.020 --> 01:39:40.780
 These deviations were for building setbacks, building frontage, floor area ratio, and front

01:39:40.780 --> 01:39:41.780
 parking.

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

01:39:48.740 --> 01:39:50.860
 deviation besides that.

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

01:39:56.620 --> 01:39:57.860
 as just mentioned.

01:39:57.860 --> 01:40:07.740
 The additional deviation is from section 35.1310 of the 2002 Debt and Development Code.

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

01:40:13.580 --> 01:40:14.860
 acre site.

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

01:40:21.020 --> 01:40:24.380
 office and medical office.

01:40:24.380 --> 01:40:28.980
 The revised site plan is showing a reduction in the number of buildings, so from seven

01:40:28.980 --> 01:40:31.900
 down to three, shown here.

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,

01:40:37.860 --> 01:40:45.220
 and the medical office use was increased up to the maximum amount allowed by the NRMU

01:40:45.220 --> 01:40:46.220
 district.

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

01:40:53.740 --> 01:40:58.700
 the landscape area has been increased by 2%.

01:40:58.700 --> 01:41:04.460
 As part of the change in uses, medical office use requires additional parking, so the total

01:41:04.460 --> 01:41:10.260
 provided parking on the plan now is showing 143 spaces.

01:41:10.260 --> 01:41:15.340
 This includes 10 parking spaces above the minimum required, and that brings us to the

01:41:15.340 --> 01:41:19.900
 requested deviation for this alternative development plan.

01:41:19.900 --> 01:41:29.820
 The applicant is seeking to deviate from section 35.1310 B1D, which requires permeable paving

01:41:29.820 --> 01:41:36.420
 for all those parking spaces that exceed the minimum that is required, and so they are

01:41:36.420 --> 01:41:43.780
 proposing to pave all 10 spaces versus provide permeable paving.

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

01:41:49.660 --> 01:41:51.460
 for residential uses.

01:41:51.460 --> 01:41:57.100
 However, commercial uses that support those residential uses are permitted as long as

01:41:57.100 --> 01:42:01.780
 they are compatible with the adjacent use.

01:42:01.780 --> 01:42:07.460
 Additionally, anything proposed needs to be appropriate in scale and complement that surrounding

01:42:07.460 --> 01:42:11.220
 neighborhood.

01:42:11.220 --> 01:42:18.460
 So again, focusing on the one additional deviation and going on to the criteria for approval

01:42:18.460 --> 01:42:23.140
 under section 35.135 A.

01:42:23.140 --> 01:42:29.500
 The first criteria is that the requested deviation preserves the existing neighborhood.

01:42:29.500 --> 01:42:35.220
 So the proposed office park use is similar to the office park that's directly adjacent

01:42:35.220 --> 01:42:38.660
 to this site across Teasley Lane.

01:42:38.660 --> 01:42:46.980
 That development has office space with proposed parking on average per lot between 200 and

01:42:46.980 --> 01:42:51.460
 300 parking spaces for those existing buildings.

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

01:42:57.780 --> 01:42:58.940
 use.

01:42:58.940 --> 01:43:03.940
 In addition, the reduction in the number of buildings has increased the separation between

01:43:03.940 --> 01:43:07.980
 the northern and southern existing residential uses on site.

01:43:07.980 --> 01:43:15.500
 So there is approximately 70 feet between the residential use to the north and the western

01:43:15.500 --> 01:43:22.460
 most proposed building and then approximately 60 feet between the south.

01:43:22.460 --> 01:43:25.820
 And I'll go through the rest of the criteria very quickly.

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

01:43:30.840 --> 01:43:34.700
 and the current one have not changed.

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.

01:43:39.420 --> 01:43:45.900
 So next ensure quality development, the applicant is not proposing to deviate from anything

01:43:45.900 --> 01:43:50.380
 else from the 2002 development code with the exception of what was previously approved

01:43:50.380 --> 01:43:51.660
 and the permeable paving.

01:43:51.660 --> 01:43:56.660
 So it does meet all the other requirements of this development code.

01:43:56.660 --> 01:44:02.940
 Next the proposed use is in compliance with the neighborhood mixed use district on the

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

01:44:10.220 --> 01:44:15.580
 of development that is required under the future land use designation.

01:44:15.580 --> 01:44:23.180
 Additionally, infrastructure that is capable of accommodating the development parts development.

01:44:23.180 --> 01:44:25.700
 Again, this is unchanged.

01:44:25.700 --> 01:44:30.980
 The development is next to or adjacent to Teasley Lane, which is a textile roadway.

01:44:30.980 --> 01:44:35.300
 So they are subject to additional permits through tech start.

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

01:44:39.100 --> 01:44:41.140
 to PNC.

01:44:41.140 --> 01:44:45.780
 However, this is not anticipated since they've already gone through their CEP process and

01:44:45.780 --> 01:44:50.380
 are on track to move forward with that.

01:44:50.380 --> 01:44:56.740
 And last the proposed deviation result in a high quality development meeting the intent

01:44:56.740 --> 01:45:00.440
 of the 2002 development code.

01:45:00.440 --> 01:45:05.740
 So the intent of permeable paving for excess parking is to reduce the water quality volume

01:45:05.740 --> 01:45:11.140
 on the site that would otherwise flow towards any drainage facilities for treatment.

01:45:11.140 --> 01:45:15.460
 The previous payment would allow for natural treatment of rainfall as it permeates through

01:45:15.460 --> 01:45:23.940
 the soil and the proposed development is not negatively impactful on drainage since the

01:45:23.940 --> 01:45:30.220
 proposed 10 parking spaces are being offset by the reduced lot coverage and the increase

01:45:30.220 --> 01:45:33.520
 in overall landscaping.

01:45:33.520 --> 01:45:37.520
 So with that, staff does recommend approval as it does meet the established requirements

01:45:37.520 --> 01:45:44.860
 for approval of an ADP in section 35135A of the 2002 DEN development code.

01:45:44.860 --> 01:45:46.380
 And with that, I'll take any questions.

01:45:46.380 --> 01:45:47.380
 Great.

01:45:47.380 --> 01:45:50.340
 Thank you so much for the presentation.

01:45:50.340 --> 01:45:56.020
 Is there any questions for Karina?

01:45:56.020 --> 01:45:59.780
 I do not see any.

01:45:59.780 --> 01:46:01.660
 Thank you so much for the presentation.

01:46:01.660 --> 01:46:04.140
 We did receive one comment card for this.

01:46:04.140 --> 01:46:08.220
 It was in favor of the item.

01:46:08.220 --> 01:46:12.660
 And with that, the chair will entertain any discussion or motion.

01:46:12.660 --> 01:46:13.660
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:46:13.660 --> 01:46:16.500
 I'll make a motion to approve.

01:46:16.500 --> 01:46:17.820
 We have a first for approval.

01:46:17.820 --> 01:46:18.820
 Commissioner Smith.

01:46:18.820 --> 01:46:19.820
 Second.

01:46:19.820 --> 01:46:23.580
 We have a first and a second for approval.

01:46:23.580 --> 01:46:27.220
 Any discussion on this item?

01:46:27.220 --> 01:46:30.140
 Seeing none, I will call for a vote via roll call.

01:46:30.140 --> 01:46:31.140
 Commissioner Smith.

01:46:31.140 --> 01:46:32.140
 Aye.

01:46:32.140 --> 01:46:33.140
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:46:33.140 --> 01:46:34.140
 Aye.

01:46:34.140 --> 01:46:35.140
 Commissioner Beck.

01:46:35.140 --> 01:46:36.140
 Aye.

01:46:36.140 --> 01:46:37.140
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:46:37.140 --> 01:46:38.140
 Aye.

01:46:38.140 --> 01:46:39.140
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:46:39.140 --> 01:46:40.140
 Aye.

01:46:40.140 --> 01:46:41.140
 Commissioner Cole.

01:46:41.140 --> 01:46:42.140
 Aye.

01:46:42.140 --> 01:46:45.420
 And the chair is also an aye.

01:46:45.420 --> 01:46:47.420
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:46:47.420 --> 01:46:53.980
 The next item for business is item 4B, PP 20-0019.

01:46:53.980 --> 01:46:55.980
 Staff recommends denial of this request.

01:46:55.980 --> 01:47:06.860
 However, the applicant has requested an extension to a date certain of September 16, 2020.

01:47:06.860 --> 01:47:07.860
 Commissioner Smith.

01:47:07.860 --> 01:47:11.620
 Make a motion to postpone a date certain.

01:47:11.620 --> 01:47:16.860
 We have a first for a motion to postpone to date certain of September 16.

01:47:16.860 --> 01:47:17.860
 Mr. Chair.

01:47:17.860 --> 01:47:18.860
 Yes, ma'am.

01:47:18.860 --> 01:47:22.540
 Can I clarify the motion was to approve the requested extension?

01:47:22.540 --> 01:47:23.540
 Yes.

01:47:23.540 --> 01:47:24.540
 For 30 days.

01:47:24.540 --> 01:47:25.540
 Thank you.

01:47:25.540 --> 01:47:26.540
 We have a second to a motion for 30 days.

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?

01:47:32.100 --> 01:47:38.100
 Or do we have a date certain of the fall October?

01:47:38.100 --> 01:47:39.100
 Right.

01:47:39.100 --> 01:47:40.100
 Correct.

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

01:47:44.700 --> 01:47:45.700
 is September 16.

01:47:45.700 --> 01:47:46.700
 Thank you.

01:47:46.700 --> 01:47:50.420
 Make a motion to approve the extension for 30 days to the next meeting.

01:47:50.420 --> 01:47:51.420
 Great.

01:47:51.420 --> 01:47:52.420
 Thank you.

01:47:52.420 --> 01:47:53.420
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:47:53.420 --> 01:47:54.420
 Second.

01:47:54.420 --> 01:47:55.420
 Great.

01:47:55.420 --> 01:47:56.420
 Thank you.

01:47:56.420 --> 01:47:57.420
 We have a second.

01:47:57.420 --> 01:47:58.420
 Any discussion on item 4B?

01:47:58.420 --> 01:48:02.580
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:48:02.580 --> 01:48:03.580
 Commissioner Smith.

01:48:03.580 --> 01:48:04.580
 Aye.

01:48:04.580 --> 01:48:05.580
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:48:05.580 --> 01:48:06.580
 Aye.

01:48:06.580 --> 01:48:07.580
 Commissioner Beck.

01:48:07.580 --> 01:48:08.580
 Aye.

01:48:08.580 --> 01:48:09.580
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:48:09.580 --> 01:48:10.580
 Aye.

01:48:10.580 --> 01:48:11.580
 Commissioner Cole.

01:48:11.580 --> 01:48:12.580
 Aye.

01:48:12.580 --> 01:48:13.580
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:48:13.580 --> 01:48:14.580
 Aye.

01:48:14.580 --> 01:48:16.980
 Chair is also an aye.

01:48:16.980 --> 01:48:19.220
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:48:19.220 --> 01:48:22.480
 The next item of business is item 4C.

01:48:22.480 --> 01:48:23.980
 Staff recommends denial of this request.

01:48:23.980 --> 01:48:27.460
 However, the applicant has requested the 30 day extension.

01:48:27.460 --> 01:48:28.460
 Commissioner Smith.

01:48:28.460 --> 01:48:32.420
 Make a motion to approve the extension to the date certain of September 16.

01:48:32.420 --> 01:48:36.180
 We have a first for approval.

01:48:36.180 --> 01:48:39.260
 Commissioner Cole.

01:48:39.260 --> 01:48:40.820
 Second.

01:48:40.820 --> 01:48:45.300
 We have a first and a second to approve the extension.

01:48:45.300 --> 01:48:48.420
 Any discussion on this item?

01:48:48.420 --> 01:48:51.220
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:48:51.220 --> 01:48:52.220
 Commissioner Smith.

01:48:52.220 --> 01:48:53.220
 Aye.

01:48:53.220 --> 01:48:54.220
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:48:54.220 --> 01:48:55.220
 Aye.

01:48:55.220 --> 01:48:56.220
 Commissioner Beck.

01:48:56.220 --> 01:48:57.220
 Aye.

01:48:57.220 --> 01:48:58.220
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:48:58.220 --> 01:48:59.220
 Aye.

01:48:59.220 --> 01:49:00.220
 Commissioner Cole.

01:49:00.220 --> 01:49:01.220
 Aye.

01:49:01.220 --> 01:49:02.220
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:49:02.220 --> 01:49:03.220
 Aye.

01:49:03.220 --> 01:49:05.440
 Chair is also an aye.

01:49:05.440 --> 01:49:06.440
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:49:06.440 --> 01:49:12.740
 The next item of business is item 4D, FR20-0011.

01:49:12.740 --> 01:49:14.180
 Staff is recommending denial of this request.

01:49:14.180 --> 01:49:19.060
 However, the applicant has also requested a 30 day extension to the date of September

01:49:19.060 --> 01:49:20.060
 16.

01:49:20.060 --> 01:49:21.060
 Commissioner Smith.

01:49:21.060 --> 01:49:25.820
 Make a motion to approve the extension to September 16.

01:49:25.820 --> 01:49:26.820
 Great.

01:49:26.820 --> 01:49:27.820
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:49:27.820 --> 01:49:28.820
 Second.

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,

01:49:38.060 --> 01:49:40.780
 which leads it to a date certain of September 16.

01:49:40.780 --> 01:49:44.820
 Any discussion on this?

01:49:44.820 --> 01:49:46.900
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:49:46.900 --> 01:49:47.900
 Commissioner Smith.

01:49:47.900 --> 01:49:48.900
 Aye.

01:49:48.900 --> 01:49:49.900
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:49:49.900 --> 01:49:50.900
 Aye.

01:49:50.900 --> 01:49:51.900
 Commissioner Beck.

01:49:51.900 --> 01:49:52.900
 Aye.

01:49:52.900 --> 01:49:53.900
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:49:53.900 --> 01:49:54.900
 Aye.

01:49:54.900 --> 01:49:55.900
 Commissioner Cole.

01:49:55.900 --> 01:49:56.900
 Aye.

01:49:56.900 --> 01:49:57.900
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:49:57.900 --> 01:49:58.900
 Aye.

01:49:58.900 --> 01:50:00.640
 Chair is also an aye.

01:50:00.640 --> 01:50:03.020
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:50:03.020 --> 01:50:12.200
 The next item of business is to hear the consent agenda item of 3CPP20-0018.

01:50:12.200 --> 01:50:14.260
 The staff is recommending denial of this request.

01:50:14.260 --> 01:50:22.300
 However, the applicant has requested an extension of 30 days to the date of September 16.

01:50:22.300 --> 01:50:23.300
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:50:23.300 --> 01:50:26.780
 Move approval of the applicant's requested extension.

01:50:26.780 --> 01:50:27.780
 Great.

01:50:27.780 --> 01:50:30.980
 We have a first for approval to extend for 30 days.

01:50:30.980 --> 01:50:31.980
 Commissioner Cole.

01:50:31.980 --> 01:50:32.980
 Second.

01:50:32.980 --> 01:50:37.500
 We have a first and a second for the approval of the extension.

01:50:37.500 --> 01:50:41.780
 Is there any discussion on this item?

01:50:41.780 --> 01:50:44.100
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:50:44.100 --> 01:50:45.100
 Commissioner Smith.

01:50:45.100 --> 01:50:46.100
 Aye.

01:50:46.100 --> 01:50:47.100
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:50:47.100 --> 01:50:48.100
 Aye.

01:50:48.100 --> 01:50:49.100
 Commissioner Beck.

01:50:49.100 --> 01:50:50.100
 Aye.

01:50:50.100 --> 01:50:51.100
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:50:51.100 --> 01:50:52.100
 Aye.

01:50:52.100 --> 01:50:53.100
 Commissioner Cole.

01:50:53.100 --> 01:50:54.100
 Aye.

01:50:54.100 --> 01:50:55.100
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:50:55.100 --> 01:50:56.100
 Aye.

01:50:56.100 --> 01:50:58.100
 Chair is also an aye.

01:50:58.100 --> 01:51:01.220
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:51:01.220 --> 01:51:03.620
 That brings us to our public hearing items for this evening.

01:51:03.620 --> 01:51:09.540
 The first one is item 5AZ20-0007.

01:51:09.540 --> 01:51:17.060
 I will open the public hearing and invite Hailey Zygurski for presentation.

01:51:17.060 --> 01:51:26.220
 All right.

01:51:26.220 --> 01:51:36.980
 Good evening.

01:51:36.980 --> 01:51:39.100
 So this is case Z27.

01:51:39.100 --> 01:51:45.660
 The primary is corporate offices.

01:51:45.660 --> 01:51:50.180
 The request before you tonight is a rezoning for approximately 55 acres of land that just

01:51:50.180 --> 01:51:52.540
 outlined in yellow on the map.

01:51:52.540 --> 01:51:56.940
 This is currently designated as rural residential and the request is a rezoning to general office

01:51:56.940 --> 01:52:00.500
 or geo district with overlay conditions.

01:52:00.500 --> 01:52:03.820
 This property is comprised of portions of three tracks of land.

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

01:52:09.940 --> 01:52:10.940
 tracks.

01:52:10.940 --> 01:52:16.860
 These properties also include this strip along the frontage, which is about 350 feet wide.

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

01:52:20.060 --> 01:52:22.940
 not included in the request.

01:52:22.940 --> 01:52:28.700
 The applicant's requested conditions relate primarily to two things, first being the phase

01:52:28.700 --> 01:52:33.020
 development of a corporate office campus on this property and the second being the decommissioning

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

01:52:38.220 --> 01:52:41.180
 property.

01:52:41.180 --> 01:52:45.340
 So this is just a summary of the conditions that the applicant has requested.

01:52:45.340 --> 01:52:46.620
 There are six.

01:52:46.620 --> 01:52:52.740
 The first is related to the installation of four modular office buildings on the property

01:52:52.740 --> 01:52:58.640
 to allow Primaris to consolidate some of their operations from around DFW onto the site during

01:52:58.640 --> 01:53:02.420
 the entitlement permitting and construction phase.

01:53:02.420 --> 01:53:07.140
 The second is related to the occupancy of those modular, during the occupancy of those

01:53:07.140 --> 01:53:12.020
 trailers, the asphalt batch plant must cease its operation and the equipment be decommissioned

01:53:12.020 --> 01:53:13.940
 prior to those getting a CO.

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

01:53:18.660 --> 01:53:22.900
 tank that are on site during the duration of their CO.

01:53:22.900 --> 01:53:26.980
 Fourth is that the modular buildings must meet all applicable building codes for field

01:53:26.980 --> 01:53:33.260
 and construction offices and that Primaris must obtain a CO for these modular trailer

01:53:33.260 --> 01:53:36.060
 buildings prior to occupying them.

01:53:36.060 --> 01:53:39.740
 They must also provide adequate parking based on the square footage of those modular buildings

01:53:39.740 --> 01:53:43.480
 and that must be provided on a dust-free permeable surface.

01:53:43.480 --> 01:53:48.020
 That would be something similar to gravel rather than just dirt or grass.

01:53:48.020 --> 01:53:52.020
 The fifth condition after the work session, I did make a few modifications too.

01:53:52.020 --> 01:53:57.180
 So this has been revised to specify that the modular office buildings could be occupied

01:53:57.180 --> 01:54:02.880
 for 24 months or until such time as they get that permanent office building, whichever

01:54:02.880 --> 01:54:05.260
 of those occurs earlier.

01:54:05.260 --> 01:54:09.860
 It does allow for one 12-month extension if vertical construction on the permanent office

01:54:09.860 --> 01:54:14.660
 building is underway at the end of that initial 24-month term.

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

01:54:19.100 --> 01:54:22.460
 office building, the modular buildings must be removed from the site, which is what we

01:54:22.460 --> 01:54:24.780
 discussed at the work session.

01:54:24.780 --> 01:54:27.980
 And then the final condition would be that the asphalt batch plant equipment could remain

01:54:27.980 --> 01:54:32.980
 on site but not operational up until such time as the building permit for the permanent

01:54:32.980 --> 01:54:37.100
 office is issued.

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

01:54:41.940 --> 01:54:46.540
 has the subject property designated as rural residential and then the proposed zoning map

01:54:46.540 --> 01:54:50.380
 on the right shows that this general office would be consistent with the zoning that's

01:54:50.380 --> 01:54:54.260
 already established in this area.

01:54:54.260 --> 01:54:58.300
 There are 13 general criteria for approval of any application in our DDC.

01:54:58.300 --> 01:55:00.300
 Those are outlined in detail in your backup.

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

01:55:04.260 --> 01:55:09.580
 of some of those as we go through these zoning specific criteria.

01:55:09.580 --> 01:55:13.420
 So the first of those was compliance with the comprehensive plan, specifically the future

01:55:13.420 --> 01:55:14.420
 land use map.

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

01:55:19.260 --> 01:55:23.500
 Shaded Purple, which is our business innovation designation.

01:55:23.500 --> 01:55:28.540
 This is a designation intended for areas with larger tracts of land that would be developed

01:55:28.540 --> 01:55:32.900
 with well-planned large scale office or employment parks or supporting uses.

01:55:32.900 --> 01:55:35.500
 GEO is consistent with that designation.

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

01:55:39.980 --> 01:55:46.900
 tools, low impact manufacturing, and then some supporting commercial uses as well.

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

01:55:50.380 --> 01:55:54.300
 designated as a gateway focus area.

01:55:54.300 --> 01:55:57.660
 So you can see the general area of the property circled in red.

01:55:57.660 --> 01:56:00.900
 Within that, you can see that little blue circle that calls this out as a gateway.

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

01:56:04.740 --> 01:56:05.740
 I-35.

01:56:05.740 --> 01:56:12.260
 And these gateway areas were intended to be kind of those high quality areas that should

01:56:12.260 --> 01:56:15.900
 welcome you to the city of Denton and let you know that you've arrived here.

01:56:15.900 --> 01:56:19.060
 So GEO is suitable for those types of areas.

01:56:19.060 --> 01:56:22.140
 Our commercial design standards do apply in these areas.

01:56:22.140 --> 01:56:26.060
 So unlike light industrial or other districts that you might see in business innovation

01:56:26.060 --> 01:56:30.500
 areas, those design standards don't always apply if a property is far enough away from

01:56:30.500 --> 01:56:31.500
 the road.

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

01:56:35.660 --> 01:56:38.220
 would be in place as this property develops.

01:56:38.220 --> 01:56:41.540
 And additionally, the overlay conditions that have been requested would provide for the

01:56:41.540 --> 01:56:46.260
 decommissioning and removal of that batch plant, which as a non-conforming industrial

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.

01:56:52.660 --> 01:56:55.860
 The next criteria is consistency with the purpose statement.

01:56:55.860 --> 01:56:58.740
 So I've provided the GEO district purpose statement here on the screen.

01:56:58.740 --> 01:57:02.980
 So you can see that it is, again, consistent with that business innovation.

01:57:02.980 --> 01:57:08.660
 It intends for providing a variety of workplaces and complimentary uses, specifically flexible

01:57:08.660 --> 01:57:12.620
 office spaces called out here, as well as research and development facilities and other

01:57:12.620 --> 01:57:15.220
 opportunities for business innovation.

01:57:15.220 --> 01:57:20.100
 So the proposed location for this is consistent with that.

01:57:20.100 --> 01:57:24.380
 It would consolidate GEO across three larger tracts of land that would allow for one of

01:57:24.380 --> 01:57:28.420
 those large scale campus type developments that is called for here, as well as being

01:57:28.420 --> 01:57:33.340
 a continuation of that existing zoning pattern.

01:57:33.340 --> 01:57:37.140
 Next we look at whether there have been any significant changes to warrant this zoning

01:57:37.140 --> 01:57:38.140
 request.

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

01:57:41.260 --> 01:57:46.120
 that I wanted to go over with you all to provide some context to the request.

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

01:57:52.380 --> 01:57:54.900
 I-35 is currently zoned GEO.

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.

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

01:58:05.580 --> 01:58:08.300
 a non-annexation agreement until 2015.

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

01:58:12.940 --> 01:58:15.640
 zoning of RD5X.

01:58:15.640 --> 01:58:20.460
 That designation was then transitioned to rural residential with our adoption of the

01:58:20.460 --> 01:58:24.180
 2019 DDC and that citywide zoning transition.

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

01:58:28.980 --> 01:58:36.660
 as the frontage as well as to bring this property into consistency with our comprehensive plan.

01:58:36.660 --> 01:58:40.940
 Next we look at whether this zoning change would minimize adverse impacts on surrounding

01:58:40.940 --> 01:58:42.020
 property.

01:58:42.020 --> 01:58:44.660
 So GEO again is consistent with what we have in this area.

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.

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

01:58:55.260 --> 01:58:56.860
 innovation area.

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

01:59:01.220 --> 01:59:05.420
 office campus type environment that we want to encourage in these areas.

01:59:05.420 --> 01:59:10.060
 In addition, this would include the removal of that existing asphalt batch plant, which

01:59:10.060 --> 01:59:12.220
 again is a non-conforming use.

01:59:12.220 --> 01:59:16.300
 It does have much more nuisance generation potential than anything that would be permitted

01:59:16.300 --> 01:59:17.300
 within GEO.

01:59:17.300 --> 01:59:22.600
 This would also provide that benefit for the surrounding properties.

01:59:22.600 --> 01:59:27.780
 And then looking at what public facilities and services are available to serve the property,

01:59:27.780 --> 01:59:30.260
 looking at transportation related infrastructure.

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.

01:59:34.540 --> 01:59:38.700
 So there is adequate access to those sites from a state highway.

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.

01:59:43.640 --> 01:59:48.340
 It didn't even meet the thresholds to require a traffic impact analysis.

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

01:59:54.060 --> 01:59:55.500
 the next 10 to 20 years.

01:59:55.500 --> 01:59:59.820
 TxDOT is currently projecting this as being at least 10 years away, but this corridor

01:59:59.820 --> 02:00:06.220
 will be widened and further enhance the access to this property in the near future.

02:00:06.220 --> 02:00:09.980
 Water and wastewater facilities are available to be extended to this site.

02:00:09.980 --> 02:00:13.180
 You can see here on the map, the dashed lines indicate that those are under construction

02:00:13.180 --> 02:00:14.180
 at this time.

02:00:14.180 --> 02:00:18.000
 There is a truck wash being developed immediately south that has stubbed both water and sewer

02:00:18.000 --> 02:00:21.700
 to the southernmost of these properties so that they can extend it across the frontage

02:00:21.700 --> 02:00:26.260
 of their sites when they develop.

02:00:26.260 --> 02:00:28.700
 Notification was sent regarding this request in August.

02:00:28.700 --> 02:00:34.300
 We did receive two responses as of the issuance of our staff reports last week.

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

02:00:38.780 --> 02:00:41.780
 involved in this zoning.

02:00:41.780 --> 02:00:45.820
 Staff is recommending approval of the requested change to general office as we found it to

02:00:45.820 --> 02:00:47.940
 meet all the criteria for approval.

02:00:47.940 --> 02:00:52.260
 And we have no objection to the overlay conditions as requested by the applicant.

02:00:52.260 --> 02:00:55.020
 So I'll just bring those up again so that you all can look at them.

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

02:00:58.960 --> 02:01:03.100
 have no objection to this addition to condition number five.

02:01:03.100 --> 02:01:05.700
 And I'm happy to answer any questions.

02:01:05.700 --> 02:01:08.100
 Thank you very much, Haley.

02:01:08.100 --> 02:01:12.280
 Is there any questions for Haley on this item?

02:01:12.280 --> 02:01:14.300
 Chris or Beck?

02:01:14.300 --> 02:01:15.300
 Thank you, Chair.

02:01:15.300 --> 02:01:21.300
 Haley, what's a typical timeframe for removal of modular buildings with language like that

02:01:21.300 --> 02:01:23.980
 since we didn't specify a time?

02:01:23.980 --> 02:01:25.980
 I'm not sure how long that would take.

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

02:01:31.020 --> 02:01:33.180
 that they have to do at the end of that timeframe.

02:01:33.180 --> 02:01:36.060
 If there's a reasonable timeframe you had in mind, we could certainly propose it and

02:01:36.060 --> 02:01:39.780
 the applicant will be on the line and could speak to whether that's acceptable.

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

02:01:46.340 --> 02:01:47.340
 offsite.

02:01:47.340 --> 02:01:51.660
 So I don't know the answer to that.

02:01:51.660 --> 02:01:55.900
 I would welcome other people's chiming in on that.

02:01:55.900 --> 02:01:59.580
 I assume that we have some sort of upper limit.

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

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

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

02:02:18.820 --> 02:02:19.820
 kind of thing.

02:02:19.820 --> 02:02:25.020
 Do you have a timeframe in mind, Chris or Beck, that we can ask them of?

02:02:25.020 --> 02:02:27.260
 I want to be reasonable.

02:02:27.260 --> 02:02:29.820
 I was concerned about it being open-ended.

02:02:29.820 --> 02:02:32.980
 I don't know what a reasonable number is.

02:02:32.980 --> 02:02:33.980
 Okay.

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

02:02:38.940 --> 02:02:41.740
 can also provide insight to, we can stack those.

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

02:02:45.580 --> 02:02:46.580
 than enough time.

02:02:46.580 --> 02:02:49.260
 I wouldn't want to do anything necessarily less than that.

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

02:02:54.460 --> 02:03:00.260
 weather issues, transportation issues, you know, whatever it is, I think 12 months is

02:03:00.260 --> 02:03:01.460
 more than enough time.

02:03:01.460 --> 02:03:08.220
 So that would be, I think the applicant could probably even be amenable to that.

02:03:08.220 --> 02:03:09.220
 Yeah.

02:03:09.220 --> 02:03:10.220
 Hello, I'm Charlie Ambrosio.

02:03:10.220 --> 02:03:12.060
 I'm with the application.

02:03:12.060 --> 02:03:16.740
 That's more than enough time to remove those module trailers.

02:03:16.740 --> 02:03:17.740
 Okay.

02:03:17.740 --> 02:03:18.740
 All right.

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

02:03:23.100 --> 02:03:29.460
 of moving the modular trailers, move modular buildings within 12 months after the CO is

02:03:29.460 --> 02:03:30.820
 issued for the permanent building.

02:03:30.820 --> 02:03:31.820
 Certainly.

02:03:31.820 --> 02:03:34.700
 I'll add that timeframe so that that goes to council.

02:03:34.700 --> 02:03:35.700
 Okay.

02:03:35.700 --> 02:03:40.860
 Any other questions for Haley?

02:03:40.860 --> 02:03:48.980
 And then Haley or Mr. Ambrosio, is there an applicant presentation prepared for this evening?

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

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

02:03:57.580 --> 02:03:58.860
 to share those.

02:03:58.860 --> 02:04:01.940
 I'd love to see them.

02:04:01.940 --> 02:04:10.780
 Yeah, if you could pull them up, that would be great.

02:04:10.780 --> 02:04:14.660
 While she's pulling that up, is there any commissioner that have any questions for the

02:04:14.660 --> 02:04:18.620
 applicant upon seeing these pictures or otherwise?

02:04:18.620 --> 02:04:25.380
 This is Amy, this is with 97 Land Company.

02:04:25.380 --> 02:04:26.380
 Can you guys hear me?

02:04:26.380 --> 02:04:27.380
 We can, Amy.

02:04:27.380 --> 02:04:28.380
 Okay, great.

02:04:28.380 --> 02:04:32.500
 I'll let Commissioner Ellis ask her question first.

02:04:32.500 --> 02:04:33.500
 Go for it, Commissioner Ellis.

02:04:33.500 --> 02:04:36.220
 Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Amy.

02:04:36.220 --> 02:04:43.740
 I was just going to ask what I asked in work session, what the business does.

02:04:43.740 --> 02:04:49.420
 I would be happy to answer that question, and Primores Service Corporation, and I do

02:04:49.420 --> 02:04:55.340
 have Charlie Ambrosio from Primores on the call as well, he spoke up earlier.

02:04:55.340 --> 02:05:02.900
 What they do is install a utility infrastructure around the United States, primarily electric

02:05:02.900 --> 02:05:07.900
 transmission and distribution lines and also natural gas lines for utility companies.

02:05:07.900 --> 02:05:16.020
 So they're a service provider that installs infrastructure for utility providers.

02:05:16.020 --> 02:05:20.920
 And to just answer a couple of other questions and provide a little bit of clarification

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

02:05:25.580 --> 02:05:28.620
 history on the batch plant.

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

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

02:05:41.620 --> 02:05:43.300
 into the city.

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

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

02:05:53.140 --> 02:05:57.700
 and can therefore commit to decommissioning the plant and removing the equipment over

02:05:57.700 --> 02:05:58.700
 time.

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

02:06:06.100 --> 02:06:12.820
 overly, they are consolidating multiple offices where they have leased space around the Metroplex.

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

02:06:21.540 --> 02:06:28.180
 construction allows them to phase those employees into Denton as their leases expire, which

02:06:28.180 --> 02:06:34.940
 allows them to accelerate their investment here locally, and we, I believe that answers

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

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.

02:06:45.900 --> 02:06:47.940
 Great, thank you very much.

02:06:47.940 --> 02:06:54.180
 Is there any other questions for the applicant or staff?

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,

02:07:00.340 --> 02:07:04.380
 for this item, we had one person make comments using our online form.

02:07:04.380 --> 02:07:06.940
 They were against the item.

02:07:06.940 --> 02:07:10.820
 These forms were emailed to all commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded.

02:07:10.820 --> 02:07:16.220
 So we had one in opposition to this item.

02:07:16.220 --> 02:07:17.220
 Any other questions?

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.

02:07:26.900 --> 02:07:31.540
 Make a motion to approve with the staff, or I guess the applicant's recommendations for

02:07:31.540 --> 02:07:35.300
 the overlay, along with our additions here on the commission.

02:07:35.300 --> 02:07:38.660
 Okay, we have a first for approval with the overlay conditions.

02:07:38.660 --> 02:07:39.660
 Commissioner Ellis?

02:07:39.660 --> 02:07:40.660
 Second.

02:07:40.660 --> 02:07:48.180
 We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion on this item?

02:07:48.180 --> 02:07:50.860
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

02:07:50.860 --> 02:07:51.860
 Commissioner Smith?

02:07:51.860 --> 02:07:52.860
 Aye.

02:07:52.860 --> 02:07:53.860
 Commissioner Ellis?

02:07:53.860 --> 02:07:54.860
 Aye.

02:07:54.860 --> 02:07:55.860
 Commissioner Beck?

02:07:55.860 --> 02:07:56.860
 Aye.

02:07:56.860 --> 02:07:57.860
 Commissioner Anderson?

02:07:57.860 --> 02:07:58.860
 Aye.

02:07:58.860 --> 02:07:59.860
 Commissioner Cole?

02:07:59.860 --> 02:08:00.860
 Aye.

02:08:00.860 --> 02:08:01.860
 Commissioner Pernetta?

02:08:01.860 --> 02:08:02.860
 Aye.

02:08:02.860 --> 02:08:09.220
 Chair's also an aye, motion carries 7-0, congratulations.

02:08:09.220 --> 02:08:17.900
 Next item of business is item 5B, AESA 20-0004A.

02:08:17.900 --> 02:08:36.060
 I will invite Kristi Upton for presentation and open the public hearing.

02:08:36.060 --> 02:08:55.700
 Just one second, sorry.

02:08:55.700 --> 02:09:13.900
 Okay.

02:09:13.900 --> 02:09:16.900
 Thank you commissioners.

02:09:16.900 --> 02:09:21.900
 Kristi Upton, Environmental Services, and I am presenting tonight the alternative ESA

02:09:21.900 --> 02:09:28.660
 plan for a renovation of Ryan High School.

02:09:28.660 --> 02:09:36.020
 The site is, Ryan High School is generally located at the northeast corner of East McKinney

02:09:36.020 --> 02:09:47.940
 Street and Mayhill Road, and with recent renovations, Denton ISD is requesting to remove some riparian

02:09:47.940 --> 02:09:57.060
 buffer vegetation along the entrance to the high school to support drainage for a parking

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

02:10:07.500 --> 02:10:15.180
 at the northern area of the site.

02:10:15.180 --> 02:10:21.460
 And the riparian buffer is an unnamed tributary of Pecan Creek.

02:10:21.460 --> 02:10:31.380
 These headwaters and the vegetation of those headwaters provide water quality and other

02:10:31.380 --> 02:10:40.060
 functions, support other functions of these streams, and the vegetation was found to exist

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

02:10:46.320 --> 02:10:53.220
 on the western border of the property, that crust timbers is not part of this request.

02:10:53.220 --> 02:11:02.260
 And the specific request is for the proposal to remove improvements to the drainage of

02:11:02.260 --> 02:11:12.540
 the high school's parking lots, in order to do this drainage improvements, the engineer

02:11:12.540 --> 02:11:19.220
 identified that there was some issues with drainage, and in order to create positive

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

02:11:28.980 --> 02:11:36.160
 into this riparian buffer and then install a concrete flume that will carry the water

02:11:36.160 --> 02:11:43.660
 under McKinney.

02:11:43.660 --> 02:11:49.980
 The estimated water quality volume that is treated by the vegetation in this riparian

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,

02:12:00.700 --> 02:12:10.540
 the applicant is proposing to install 0.91 acre feet of greater capacity than what is

02:12:10.540 --> 02:12:17.940
 required by the minimum standards of the storm drainage criteria manual.

02:12:17.940 --> 02:12:27.580
 And then in addition to that, they will be increasing runoff infiltration, which is allowing

02:12:27.580 --> 02:12:34.620
 for more storm water to infiltrate down into the ground before it is released, and then

02:12:34.620 --> 02:12:42.860
 they will be using a native grass vegetation to prevent erosion within the bottom of this

02:12:42.860 --> 02:12:47.220
 dried detention basin.

02:12:47.220 --> 02:12:53.820
 Questions were sent out for this public hearing, there was no responses as of this meeting,

02:12:53.820 --> 02:13:01.900
 and there were a couple of citizen inquiries, residents that live along the southwestern

02:13:01.900 --> 02:13:11.780
 corner of the property, and they experienced historically some drainage issues, and the

02:13:11.780 --> 02:13:20.500
 applicant has assured these residents that the drainage improvements for the renovation

02:13:20.500 --> 02:13:28.620
 actually improve and alleviate some of the, any future flooding issues for the property

02:13:28.620 --> 02:13:30.780
 owners.

02:13:30.780 --> 02:13:36.740
 Staff is recommending approval with some conditions that the land disturbance be limited to the

02:13:36.740 --> 02:13:44.500
 riparian buffer shown on the exhibits, the detention basin will be designed and constructed,

02:13:44.500 --> 02:13:50.460
 meeting those minimum standards with the additional 0.91 acre feet, and that the property owner

02:13:50.460 --> 02:13:56.260
 will maintain the detention basin, and as by following the maintenance plan provided

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

02:14:04.580 --> 02:14:14.980
 that environmental services has created for a minimum of 90% survival rate.

02:14:14.980 --> 02:14:17.980
 Questions?

02:14:17.980 --> 02:14:18.980
 Thank you Chair.

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

02:14:22.980 --> 02:14:29.220
 the work session, and that's those recommendations three and four, that the maintenance plan,

02:14:29.220 --> 02:14:36.860
 which currently includes mowing, you know, regular Deton style mowing be, that you're

02:14:36.860 --> 02:14:41.300
 going to work with the applicant to reduce that and make that more consistent with the

02:14:41.300 --> 02:14:48.620
 grass vendors recommendation for maintenance, so that our investment in those grasses is,

02:14:48.620 --> 02:14:51.900
 or the applicant's investment is improved.

02:14:51.900 --> 02:14:58.940
 And during the break, I have been in contact with the engineer, and representing the Deton

02:14:58.940 --> 02:15:13.340
 ISD, he has agreed that the maintenance plan could be something that we could work out

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

02:15:20.980 --> 02:15:25.980
 further questions about this.

02:15:25.980 --> 02:15:31.900
 I don't have any particular questions for the engineer, other than what we just talked

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

02:15:37.260 --> 02:15:40.260
 his view.

02:15:40.260 --> 02:15:46.740
 Yeah, this is John Hamilton.

02:15:46.740 --> 02:15:47.740
 Can you all hear me?

02:15:47.740 --> 02:15:48.740
 Yes.

02:15:48.740 --> 02:15:52.580
 If you could just state your address and your affiliation, that would be helpful to us.

02:15:52.580 --> 02:15:53.580
 Absolutely.

02:15:53.580 --> 02:15:58.180
 This is John Hamilton, I'm with Tignall and Perkins, representing the Deton ISD.

02:15:58.180 --> 02:16:04.300
 I live in 100 Nursery Lane, Fort Worth, Texas, 76114.

02:16:04.300 --> 02:16:05.300
 Thank you, Christy.

02:16:05.300 --> 02:16:07.900
 You did a great job presenting this.

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

02:16:12.980 --> 02:16:19.940
 drainage issue that you talked about causing this repairing buffer was a drainage failure

02:16:19.940 --> 02:16:22.900
 in the system that was initially put in.

02:16:22.900 --> 02:16:28.580
 So this is a repairing buffer that kind of formed due to lack of maintenance.

02:16:28.580 --> 02:16:33.420
 The second aspect that was touched on was the downstream drainage with the neighbors.

02:16:33.420 --> 02:16:35.780
 We are in contact with them.

02:16:35.780 --> 02:16:42.500
 We have been reassuring them that we are drastically improving this, actually, and they will see

02:16:42.500 --> 02:16:46.140
 less runoff coming on to their property.

02:16:46.140 --> 02:16:50.780
 And then the matter of hand that you guys are discussing right now was the mowing.

02:16:50.780 --> 02:16:54.980
 So Christy has presented to us in the break there.

02:16:54.980 --> 02:16:56.980
 I don't see any problem with that.

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

02:17:04.580 --> 02:17:07.700
 itself within the detention pond.

02:17:07.700 --> 02:17:10.220
 So I don't see that being a problem.

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

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

02:17:19.260 --> 02:17:20.260
 with that.

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.

02:17:27.580 --> 02:17:29.460
 Excellent.

02:17:29.460 --> 02:17:30.460
 That's great.

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

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.

02:17:42.500 --> 02:17:43.500
 Absolutely.

02:17:43.500 --> 02:17:47.540
 The district is always for that.

02:17:47.540 --> 02:17:49.580
 I don't have any further questions, Chair.

02:17:49.580 --> 02:17:50.580
 All right.

02:17:50.580 --> 02:17:52.380
 Thank you, John, for being here this evening.

02:17:52.380 --> 02:17:57.580
 Any other questions for staff or the representative?

02:17:57.580 --> 02:17:59.620
 Okay.

02:17:59.620 --> 02:18:03.820
 Go ahead and close the public hearing.

02:18:03.820 --> 02:18:05.580
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:18:05.580 --> 02:18:13.180
 Make your motion to approve with the -- just motion to approve it.

02:18:13.180 --> 02:18:15.180
 With staff recommendations?

02:18:15.180 --> 02:18:16.180
 Yes.

02:18:16.180 --> 02:18:17.180
 Sorry.

02:18:17.180 --> 02:18:18.180
 Commissioner Smith.

02:18:18.180 --> 02:18:19.180
 Second.

02:18:19.180 --> 02:18:22.780
 We have a first and a second for approval with the staff recommendations.

02:18:22.780 --> 02:18:24.700
 Is there any discussion on this item?

02:18:24.700 --> 02:18:28.740
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

02:18:28.740 --> 02:18:30.380
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:18:30.380 --> 02:18:31.380
 Aye.

02:18:31.380 --> 02:18:32.860
 Commissioner Beck.

02:18:32.860 --> 02:18:33.860
 Aye.

02:18:33.860 --> 02:18:34.860
 Commissioner Cole.

02:18:34.860 --> 02:18:35.860
 Aye.

02:18:35.860 --> 02:18:36.860
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:18:36.860 --> 02:18:37.860
 Aye.

02:18:37.860 --> 02:18:38.860
 Commissioner Smith.

02:18:38.860 --> 02:18:39.860
 Aye.

02:18:39.860 --> 02:18:40.860
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:18:40.860 --> 02:18:41.860
 Aye.

02:18:41.860 --> 02:18:42.860
 There's also an aye.

02:18:42.860 --> 02:18:43.860
 Motion carries 7-0.

02:18:43.860 --> 02:18:49.860
 The next item of business is item 5C, AESA 20-002A.

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

02:18:57.100 --> 02:19:00.940
 to a date certain of September 16th.

02:19:00.940 --> 02:19:05.660
 Commissioner Beck.

02:19:05.660 --> 02:19:07.220
 Motion to approve the extension.

02:19:07.220 --> 02:19:10.180
 We have a first for approval, Commissioner Smith.

02:19:10.180 --> 02:19:11.180
 Second.

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.

02:19:17.500 --> 02:19:22.740
 Any discussion on this item?

02:19:22.740 --> 02:19:23.740
 Commissioner Smith.

02:19:23.740 --> 02:19:26.620
 Cynthia, does it need to be a different motion?

02:19:26.620 --> 02:19:31.220
 Does it need to be a motion to postpone or a motion to table?

02:19:31.220 --> 02:19:33.180
 I just wanted to clarify.

02:19:33.180 --> 02:19:40.020
 I just heard there was a -- Commissioner Beck referred to a request for an extension, and

02:19:40.020 --> 02:19:43.060
 I believe the motion was to postpone.

02:19:43.060 --> 02:19:44.060
 I'm sorry, Legal.

02:19:44.060 --> 02:19:47.020
 I appreciate the correction.

02:19:47.020 --> 02:19:52.740
 Your correction is well taken, and I made the postponement for my amendment -- or my

02:19:52.740 --> 02:19:53.740
 motion.

02:19:53.740 --> 02:19:54.740
 Thank you.

02:19:54.740 --> 02:19:55.740
 Great.

02:19:55.740 --> 02:19:56.740
 And Commissioner Smith, you second that?

02:19:56.740 --> 02:19:57.740
 Yes.

02:19:57.740 --> 02:19:58.740
 Great.

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.

02:20:03.620 --> 02:20:06.620
 Any discussion?

02:20:06.620 --> 02:20:08.940
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

02:20:08.940 --> 02:20:09.940
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:20:09.940 --> 02:20:10.940
 Aye.

02:20:10.940 --> 02:20:11.940
 Commissioner Beck?

02:20:11.940 --> 02:20:12.940
 Aye.

02:20:12.940 --> 02:20:13.940
 Commissioner Cole.

02:20:13.940 --> 02:20:14.940
 Aye.

02:20:14.940 --> 02:20:15.940
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:20:15.940 --> 02:20:16.940
 Aye.

02:20:16.940 --> 02:20:17.940
 Commissioner Smith.

02:20:17.940 --> 02:20:18.940
 Aye.

02:20:18.940 --> 02:20:19.940
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:20:19.940 --> 02:20:20.940
 Aye.

02:20:20.940 --> 02:20:25.200
 Chair, it's also an aye.

02:20:25.200 --> 02:20:29.660
 Motion carries 7-0 to postpone to a date certain of September 16th.

02:20:29.660 --> 02:20:35.500
 The next item of business is item 5D, Z-19-0012A.

02:20:35.500 --> 02:20:39.100
 I'll go ahead and open the public hearing, and the applicant is requesting a postponement

02:20:39.100 --> 02:20:41.260
 to a date certain of September 16th.

02:20:41.260 --> 02:20:42.260
 Commissioner Smith.

02:20:42.260 --> 02:20:47.220
 I make a motion to postpone to a date certain.

02:20:47.220 --> 02:20:50.500
 We have a first for a postponement to a date certain.

02:20:50.500 --> 02:20:51.500
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:20:51.500 --> 02:20:52.500
 I second the motion.

02:20:52.500 --> 02:20:56.900
 We have a first and a second to postpone to a date certain of September 16th.

02:20:56.900 --> 02:21:01.340
 Is there any discussion on this?

02:21:01.340 --> 02:21:03.380
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

02:21:03.380 --> 02:21:04.380
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:21:04.380 --> 02:21:05.380
 Aye.

02:21:05.380 --> 02:21:06.380
 Commissioner Beck.

02:21:06.380 --> 02:21:07.380
 Aye.

02:21:07.380 --> 02:21:08.380
 Commissioner Cole.

02:21:08.380 --> 02:21:09.380
 Aye.

02:21:09.380 --> 02:21:10.380
 Commissioner Pernitta.

02:21:10.380 --> 02:21:11.380
 Aye.

02:21:11.380 --> 02:21:12.380
 Commissioner Smith.

02:21:12.380 --> 02:21:13.380
 Aye.

02:21:13.380 --> 02:21:14.380
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:21:14.380 --> 02:21:15.380
 Aye.

02:21:15.380 --> 02:21:17.820
 Chair, it's also an aye.

02:21:17.820 --> 02:21:22.740
 Motion carries 7-0 to postpone to a date certain of September 16th.

02:21:22.740 --> 02:21:27.540
 The next item of business is item 5E, PD 20-0003.

02:21:27.540 --> 02:21:31.820
 I'll invite Julie Wyeth for presentation and open the public hearing.

02:21:31.820 --> 02:21:33.060
 Good evening, commissioners.

02:21:33.060 --> 02:21:39.900
 Let me pull up my presentation.

02:21:39.900 --> 02:21:55.860
 All right.

02:21:55.860 --> 02:22:01.580
 The request before you is PD 20-0003 chargeable.

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

02:22:07.260 --> 02:22:08.900
 a charter school.

02:22:08.900 --> 02:22:12.860
 It's considered an institutional use in PD 139.

02:22:12.860 --> 02:22:16.700
 The site is an overall 37.3-acre property.

02:22:16.700 --> 02:22:23.500
 It's located at the southeast corner of Vintage Boulevard and I-35W Vintage Boulevard ramp

02:22:23.500 --> 02:22:27.500
 intersection.

02:22:27.500 --> 02:22:30.260
 This is one of our older PDs in the city.

02:22:30.260 --> 02:22:35.300
 We've often reviewed these under the 1991 development standards.

02:22:35.300 --> 02:22:44.000
 However, now we are reviewing these and applying the 2019 debt and development code processes

02:22:44.000 --> 02:22:47.140
 and criteria for approval on these older PDs.

02:22:47.140 --> 02:22:50.900
 They'll still retain their development standards that were consistent with what was adopted

02:22:50.900 --> 02:22:51.900
 with that PD.

02:22:51.900 --> 02:22:58.540
 But going forward, we're going to review these under the 2019 standards for consistency.

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.

02:23:04.500 --> 02:23:06.420
 Some background on PD 139.

02:23:06.420 --> 02:23:11.660
 It was established in 1991 as a 450-acre business village.

02:23:11.660 --> 02:23:19.500
 Institutional uses of which the request is were permitted as part of that PD.

02:23:19.500 --> 02:23:24.060
 And those institutional uses included educational facilities.

02:23:24.060 --> 02:23:26.800
 That PD also included two open space areas.

02:23:26.800 --> 02:23:28.500
 They're just shown here in green.

02:23:28.500 --> 02:23:32.180
 They don't affect the subject property, but I did just want to point those out.

02:23:32.180 --> 02:23:36.740
 In 1999, that plan was revised.

02:23:36.740 --> 02:23:40.420
 That original concept plan, if you recall, that was a two-step process.

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

02:23:46.740 --> 02:23:48.080
 property.

02:23:48.080 --> 02:23:54.660
 That PD amendment had very strict phasing associated with it and that if it did not

02:23:54.660 --> 02:23:58.260
 develop in accordance with that phasing, then it expired.

02:23:58.260 --> 02:24:03.780
 It did not, and so therefore that's part of the reason they're here tonight.

02:24:03.780 --> 02:24:06.980
 There were roadway improvement conditions associated with that ordinance, so I did want

02:24:06.980 --> 02:24:08.500
 to point those out.

02:24:08.500 --> 02:24:14.700
 The limited development of the PD to just single family and one convenience store until

02:24:14.700 --> 02:24:22.420
 either the interchange at I-35 and vintage, which was called Ponder Road at that time,

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.

02:24:30.260 --> 02:24:35.420
 That improvement, that four-lane road, is actually under construction now, so it does

02:24:35.420 --> 02:24:37.580
 meet those conditions.

02:24:37.580 --> 02:24:39.580
 Further development of the PD is limited.

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

02:24:45.140 --> 02:24:49.340
 have been zoned out of that PD.

02:24:49.340 --> 02:24:54.060
 The current proposal, as I said, is for a charter school that includes kindergarten

02:24:54.060 --> 02:24:56.860
 through 12th grade in two buildings.

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

02:25:02.100 --> 02:25:05.260
 school, a one-story building in this location.

02:25:05.260 --> 02:25:11.140
 They are proposing a looped drive aisle connecting to Vintage Road in this location, and then

02:25:11.140 --> 02:25:15.500
 the future John Payne Road in this location on the east side.

02:25:15.500 --> 02:25:21.740
 We're also proposing athletic facilities as associated with the development, and an agricultural

02:25:21.740 --> 02:25:25.180
 teaching garden, as well as a playground.

02:25:25.180 --> 02:25:28.440
 I just want to take a little bit of time on this John Payne Road.

02:25:28.440 --> 02:25:31.260
 This road is not currently here right now.

02:25:31.260 --> 02:25:36.300
 There is a portion of John Payne Road constructed south of the subject property near Crawford

02:25:36.300 --> 02:25:37.380
 Road.

02:25:37.380 --> 02:25:41.140
 It will eventually connect all the way through to Vintage Road.

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.

02:25:51.580 --> 02:25:57.620
 The project, because of when it was adopted, the PD, it does follow that 1988 landscape

02:25:57.620 --> 02:26:03.100
 ordinance, and that includes three sections, street yard landscaping.

02:26:03.100 --> 02:26:07.140
 That street yard, remember, is that space between the front of the buildings and the

02:26:07.140 --> 02:26:10.300
 street, parking lot landscaping, and parking lot screening.

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

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

02:26:22.660 --> 02:26:23.660
 trees.

02:26:23.660 --> 02:26:28.420
 They're proposing about 91,000 square feet of landscaping and 109 large and ornamental

02:26:28.420 --> 02:26:29.420
 trees.

02:26:29.420 --> 02:26:31.860
 It also requires parking lot landscaping.

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

02:26:38.100 --> 02:26:39.100
 square feet.

02:26:39.100 --> 02:26:43.620
 They're proposing about 10,000 square feet in this landscape median as well as landscape

02:26:43.620 --> 02:26:45.940
 islands.

02:26:45.940 --> 02:26:48.540
 And then parking lot screening.

02:26:48.540 --> 02:26:54.140
 Parking areas are to be screened between the parking area and the right-of-way.

02:26:54.140 --> 02:27:00.880
 They are proposing a continuous shrub hedge along Vintage as well as on John Payne.

02:27:00.880 --> 02:27:05.460
 We also looked at this in terms of what the 2019 code requires.

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

02:27:09.180 --> 02:27:10.180
 requirements.

02:27:10.180 --> 02:27:16.260
 So, in order to meet the 2019 code, they've actually proposed landscape islands with trees

02:27:16.260 --> 02:27:21.540
 planted within them, one every 10 feet throughout the rest of the parking area.

02:27:21.540 --> 02:27:25.580
 They've also gotten a landscape median in this location and a landscape median in this

02:27:25.580 --> 02:27:29.700
 location, more consistent with what we see today.

02:27:29.700 --> 02:27:36.180
 Available criteria for PDs is in subchapter two, the general, as well as the specific.

02:27:36.180 --> 02:27:38.300
 So first, the comprehensive plan.

02:27:38.300 --> 02:27:42.060
 This area is designated as low-density residential.

02:27:42.060 --> 02:27:47.460
 The proposal is not a residential use, and as you know, low-density residential is one

02:27:47.460 --> 02:27:52.180
 of those future land use designations that indicates an area for residential development

02:27:52.180 --> 02:27:56.700
 up to four dwelling units per acre.

02:27:56.700 --> 02:28:02.460
 Because this is not a residential use, it still does fall within that future land use

02:28:02.460 --> 02:28:04.420
 designation.

02:28:04.420 --> 02:28:08.660
 Educational facilities are embedded within a variety of zoning districts within the city

02:28:08.660 --> 02:28:11.380
 of Denton, and they are needed throughout the city.

02:28:11.380 --> 02:28:13.340
 We don't just localize them in one area.

02:28:13.340 --> 02:28:15.460
 They are needed throughout the city.

02:28:15.460 --> 02:28:20.140
 That future land use map is instructive for the potential expansion of schools and school

02:28:20.140 --> 02:28:25.060
 sites because we want to look for areas that indicate future residential growth because

02:28:25.060 --> 02:28:27.740
 those suggest a greater need for schools.

02:28:27.740 --> 02:28:32.900
 Areas like industrial commerce indicate fewer schools would be needed because it would be

02:28:32.900 --> 02:28:36.340
 more employment uses, fewer residential uses.

02:28:36.340 --> 02:28:41.620
 We also look at other goals associated with the Denton plan, and two in particular, economic

02:28:41.620 --> 02:28:42.620
 vitality.

02:28:42.620 --> 02:28:48.500
 23% of the jobs in Denton are in educational services, and so additional schools would

02:28:48.500 --> 02:28:55.780
 just support that goal within the city.

02:28:55.780 --> 02:28:57.780
 And then mobility.

02:28:57.780 --> 02:29:02.020
 We want to see a mix of uses to reduce potential trips.

02:29:02.020 --> 02:29:05.060
 So we want to see schools near residential.

02:29:05.060 --> 02:29:10.300
 We want to see shopping and employment near where people live.

02:29:10.300 --> 02:29:13.660
 So we want to have a good mix of uses.

02:29:13.660 --> 02:29:18.980
 And by locating schools near neighborhoods, that does meet that goal because it does provide

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

02:29:24.300 --> 02:29:25.500
 to school.

02:29:25.500 --> 02:29:32.220
 Now staff understands this proposal will attract students beyond the city borders, but even

02:29:32.220 --> 02:29:37.620
 though that location near an existing residential area and a future residential area could provide

02:29:37.620 --> 02:29:43.740
 that opportunity for those multimodal trips.

02:29:43.740 --> 02:29:46.020
 Compliance with the Denton development code and the original PD.

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

02:29:53.140 --> 02:29:56.180
 standards established with that existing PD.

02:29:56.180 --> 02:30:01.340
 Does it provide a greater level of building design, quality, community amenities and connectivity

02:30:01.340 --> 02:30:04.300
 that would otherwise be required?

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

02:30:10.520 --> 02:30:15.820
 feet centrally located between the buildings to allow kind of a landing pad for students,

02:30:15.820 --> 02:30:17.460
 a place for people to gather.

02:30:17.460 --> 02:30:24.860
 And that also includes landscaping to amenitize the area.

02:30:24.860 --> 02:30:28.220
 There's also pedestrian connections throughout the site and they connect to the sidewalk

02:30:28.220 --> 02:30:30.740
 system.

02:30:30.740 --> 02:30:35.980
 They did provide conceptual building elevations as part of their submittal.

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.

02:30:40.460 --> 02:30:45.140
 They have not yet designed the buildings, but this is indicative of what they wanted

02:30:45.140 --> 02:30:46.140
 to build.

02:30:46.140 --> 02:30:52.180
 So because we don't have specific site or elevations, staff is recommending a condition

02:30:52.180 --> 02:30:57.900
 that the proposal meet the site design standards in the Denton development code for non-residential

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.

02:31:04.980 --> 02:31:09.140
 In the case of non-residential uses or mixed uses, that such development would be appropriate

02:31:09.140 --> 02:31:13.420
 in an area, location and overall planning for the purpose intended.

02:31:13.420 --> 02:31:17.660
 So this is really an emerging area within the city of Denton.

02:31:17.660 --> 02:31:21.420
 This is the southwest side, it kind of hugs up against 35W.

02:31:21.420 --> 02:31:26.700
 There's a lot of connectivity in the area and you have seen three projects recently

02:31:26.700 --> 02:31:29.060
 go through with rezoning.

02:31:29.060 --> 02:31:35.420
 Hunter Ranch, which is one of the dominant projects in the area, Sagebrook and then another

02:31:35.420 --> 02:31:40.020
 rezoning, a smaller rezoning in this location.

02:31:40.020 --> 02:31:44.380
 There's also park development that will eventually come forward.

02:31:44.380 --> 02:31:48.100
 The city does own parkland and eventually those will be developed.

02:31:48.100 --> 02:31:52.260
 So this really is emerging as a residential area.

02:31:52.260 --> 02:31:56.620
 We want to make sure we have a variety of mix of uses in that area.

02:31:56.620 --> 02:32:01.700
 And so the school, a proposed school, would provide that corresponding educational facility

02:32:01.700 --> 02:32:04.540
 to round out those mix of uses.

02:32:04.540 --> 02:32:08.780
 Schools are often found within neighborhoods or on the edges of neighborhoods.

02:32:08.780 --> 02:32:13.260
 So this proposal is consistent with that development pattern.

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

02:32:20.860 --> 02:32:28.460
 inward toward those emerging residential areas, so it will be more focused in that regard.

02:32:28.460 --> 02:32:32.340
 And then the intensity is limited, so it's got large open areas.

02:32:32.340 --> 02:32:34.940
 It's a maximum building height of 33 feet.

02:32:34.940 --> 02:32:41.700
 So it's consistent with that development scale within the area.

02:32:41.700 --> 02:32:47.500
 The provision of public facilities, I want to focus mainly on streets and transportation

02:32:47.500 --> 02:32:51.340
 because that is always a big issue.

02:32:51.340 --> 02:32:54.780
 And plus, there are a lot of mobility changes in the area.

02:32:54.780 --> 02:32:59.620
 So first, briefly, they did submit a TIA to us, and it is under review.

02:32:59.620 --> 02:33:05.620
 But as part of that, they provided a traffic management plan that included on-site circulation.

02:33:05.620 --> 02:33:12.140
 So they have, with that looped drive aisle, it does allow queuing capacity for about 119

02:33:12.140 --> 02:33:16.260
 vehicles, which is an appropriate queuing capacity.

02:33:16.260 --> 02:33:21.540
 As with most schools, they do anticipate greater queuing in the morning and afternoon when

02:33:21.540 --> 02:33:24.820
 kids are being dropped off or picked up.

02:33:24.820 --> 02:33:30.020
 And they are expecting greater vehicle queuing in the afternoon, but do anticipate delays

02:33:30.020 --> 02:33:35.800
 in the morning, particularly with those vehicles exiting onto vintage.

02:33:35.800 --> 02:33:40.500
 So they have included within their TIA a traffic management plan.

02:33:40.500 --> 02:33:43.020
 It's really operational interventions.

02:33:43.020 --> 02:33:45.380
 It's not related to the physical structure of the site.

02:33:45.380 --> 02:33:48.100
 That really is more related to that queuing capacity.

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

02:33:53.980 --> 02:34:02.940
 and have a less peaked peak, staff assistance to ensure safe unloading for students, and

02:34:02.940 --> 02:34:08.180
 also to discourage parents from parking in the queue lanes, and then also temporary traffic

02:34:08.180 --> 02:34:10.420
 control devices.

02:34:10.420 --> 02:34:12.780
 We also looked at the surrounding streets.

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

02:34:16.500 --> 02:34:21.580
 traffic counts, and the Denton Police Department did do a study in 2017.

02:34:21.580 --> 02:34:28.420
 With their counts that was averaged over a week, they counted about 5,900 vehicles per

02:34:28.420 --> 02:34:32.220
 day on Vintage Boulevard.

02:34:32.220 --> 02:34:36.620
 According to the TIA under review, their proposed use would generate about 2,500 trips.

02:34:36.620 --> 02:34:43.100
 That's 809 a.m. peak and 520 p.m. peak.

02:34:43.100 --> 02:34:47.220
 Expansion for the road should accommodate this increase in traffic, however.

02:34:47.220 --> 02:34:52.060
 With the additional lanes being added to Vintage, it will be a four-lane divided road.

02:34:52.060 --> 02:34:54.940
 It will accommodate the proposal.

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

02:34:59.340 --> 02:35:01.620
 future north-south collector.

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

02:35:11.300 --> 02:35:12.300
 a couple of things.

02:35:12.300 --> 02:35:14.580
 I spoke with our engineering group.

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

02:35:19.740 --> 02:35:23.380
 way, so four lanes divided with a large median.

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

02:35:29.140 --> 02:35:33.900
 lanes for that arterial, it will be coming from the median.

02:35:33.900 --> 02:35:37.700
 So that median was large enough to accommodate the expansion of that road.

02:35:37.700 --> 02:35:43.220
 Additionally, I'm looking at the update of the mobility plan that the city is undertaking

02:35:43.220 --> 02:35:44.220
 right now.

02:35:44.220 --> 02:35:49.840
 It looks like the Loop 288 is connecting to this road, however, the highway is intended

02:35:49.840 --> 02:35:56.380
 to end at I-35W, transitioning to a collector for the Vintage Road.

02:35:56.380 --> 02:35:58.620
 So hopefully that answers your questions.

02:35:58.620 --> 02:36:05.580
 I do believe we've got engineering on the phone if we need further discussion.

02:36:05.580 --> 02:36:09.060
 And then just a little more about transportation in the area.

02:36:09.060 --> 02:36:13.140
 They did study some intersections surrounding the subject property.

02:36:13.140 --> 02:36:19.820
 Generally they are anticipated to operate at an A or a B level, however, except for

02:36:19.820 --> 02:36:22.940
 the intersection at 377 and Vintage.

02:36:22.940 --> 02:36:32.940
 They do anticipate, regardless of the school coming in, that the intersection would operate

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

02:36:41.100 --> 02:36:43.220
 left onto 377.

02:36:43.220 --> 02:36:48.620
 So they do anticipate further interventions will be needed at that intersection just from

02:36:48.620 --> 02:36:51.620
 an operational standpoint in the city of Denton.

02:36:51.620 --> 02:36:58.360
 That might be channelized left turn lanes to help smooth the traffic flow, or maybe

02:36:58.360 --> 02:37:02.340
 even a signal at that intersection at some point in the future.

02:37:02.340 --> 02:37:09.820
 The TxDOT is also working on the plans for this interchange right here.

02:37:09.820 --> 02:37:14.620
 We've got the plans right here that show what they are proposing.

02:37:14.620 --> 02:37:17.980
 And we don't have a timeline for that, but it is in the works.

02:37:17.980 --> 02:37:24.780
 And then finally related to this subject property, they are, as part of their development, would

02:37:24.780 --> 02:37:31.620
 have to construct channelized left turn lanes into the site in this location, and then channelized

02:37:31.620 --> 02:37:33.660
 right turn lanes into the site.

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

02:37:38.740 --> 02:37:42.580
 they can make those turning movements and allow the traffic to move more smoothly on

02:37:42.580 --> 02:37:44.540
 the road.

02:37:44.540 --> 02:37:50.260
 So based upon the expansion of Vintage as well as the interventions by the applicant,

02:37:50.260 --> 02:37:55.740
 there is capacity to serve the site.

02:37:55.740 --> 02:37:56.740
 Notification was sent out.

02:37:56.740 --> 02:38:00.500
 We haven't received any responses, and the applicant did hold a virtual neighborhood

02:38:00.500 --> 02:38:01.500
 meeting.

02:38:01.500 --> 02:38:04.060
 They did not have any attendees.

02:38:04.060 --> 02:38:09.420
 And staff, because the item does meet the criteria for approval, we recommend approval

02:38:09.420 --> 02:38:14.620
 of the request with two proposed conditions.

02:38:14.620 --> 02:38:20.900
 One that the final landscape locations for individual plantings and individual plant

02:38:20.900 --> 02:38:26.220
 selections would be able to be approved by staff, provided that the final landscaping

02:38:26.220 --> 02:38:29.020
 complies with the overall plan that they provided.

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

02:38:34.300 --> 02:38:40.860
 shrubs of 1558, and the minimum number of medium canopy or ornamental trees of 59.

02:38:40.860 --> 02:38:46.260
 Also that all buildings would have to comply with our current design standards.

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,

02:38:51.460 --> 02:38:57.020
 that it would be two classroom buildings with the total ground floor footprint of 81,800

02:38:57.020 --> 02:39:03.260
 square feet, maximum building height of 33 feet, 357 parking spaces, and then 10,000

02:39:03.260 --> 02:39:07.620
 square feet of plaza area with those landscaping elements.

02:39:07.620 --> 02:39:11.020
 And I will be happy to answer any questions.

02:39:11.020 --> 02:39:13.900
 >> I think Mr. Beck had one.

02:39:13.900 --> 02:39:20.900
 >> Julie, could you go to slide 15, where you had the mobility plan overlaid?

02:39:20.900 --> 02:39:23.340
 >> Sure.

02:39:23.340 --> 02:39:27.940
 >> So that was it.

02:39:27.940 --> 02:39:29.100
 That was the one I wanted.

02:39:29.100 --> 02:39:30.100
 >> This one?

02:39:30.100 --> 02:39:31.940
 >> No, the one you were on.

02:39:31.940 --> 02:39:32.940
 >> This one?

02:39:32.940 --> 02:39:33.940
 >> Yes, 15.

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

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

02:39:45.180 --> 02:39:46.180
 arterial?

02:39:46.180 --> 02:39:47.180
 >> John Payne.

02:39:47.180 --> 02:39:48.180
 >> It is.

02:39:48.180 --> 02:39:49.180
 That is John Payne.

02:39:49.180 --> 02:39:50.180
 >> Yes, sir.

02:39:50.180 --> 02:39:53.580
 >> So the dotted line is going to be the location of John Payne?

02:39:53.580 --> 02:39:56.340
 >> It's the conceptual location.

02:39:56.340 --> 02:39:58.840
 >> Within the flexibility of the mobility plan.

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,

02:40:07.500 --> 02:40:13.060
 we're not going to cut the corner near that K through 8 building, are we?

02:40:13.060 --> 02:40:14.060
 >> No, sir.

02:40:14.060 --> 02:40:23.180
 It is actually just running north-south, just along that property line there.

02:40:23.180 --> 02:40:29.180
 >> So the jog towards 35 is going to be south of the figure?

02:40:29.180 --> 02:40:30.180
 >> I'm sorry.

02:40:30.180 --> 02:40:31.420
 Could you repeat your question?

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

02:40:37.900 --> 02:40:38.900
 figure?

02:40:38.900 --> 02:40:39.900
 >> Yes, sir.

02:40:39.900 --> 02:40:40.900
 >> Okay.

02:40:40.900 --> 02:40:41.900
 All right.

02:40:41.900 --> 02:40:42.900
 That clarifies.

02:40:42.900 --> 02:40:43.900
 Thank you.

02:40:43.900 --> 02:40:44.900
 >> You bet.

02:40:44.900 --> 02:40:53.620
 >> Any other questions for Julie?

02:40:53.620 --> 02:40:54.620
 Okay.

02:40:54.620 --> 02:40:57.520
 Julie, do you know if the applicant is wanting to present this evening?

02:40:57.520 --> 02:40:59.820
 >> I don't believe they have a presentation.

02:40:59.820 --> 02:41:03.140
 They didn't provide it, but are they on the phone?

02:41:03.140 --> 02:41:05.820
 I don't show that they're on the phone.

02:41:05.820 --> 02:41:06.820
 >> Okay.

02:41:06.820 --> 02:41:07.820
 >> So.

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

02:41:14.260 --> 02:41:15.260
 a second.

02:41:15.260 --> 02:41:16.260
 All right.

02:41:16.260 --> 02:41:17.260
 Discussion on this item.

02:41:17.260 --> 02:41:18.260
 Commissioner Smith.

02:41:18.260 --> 02:41:19.260
 >> I make a motion to approve the staff recommendations.

02:41:19.260 --> 02:41:20.260
 >> Okay.

02:41:20.260 --> 02:41:21.260
 We have a first for approval.

02:41:21.260 --> 02:41:22.260
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:41:22.260 --> 02:41:23.260
 >> Second.

02:41:23.260 --> 02:41:28.520
 >> We have a first and a second for approval with the recommendations by staff.

02:41:28.520 --> 02:41:32.980
 Is there any discussion on this item?

02:41:32.980 --> 02:41:35.820
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

02:41:35.820 --> 02:41:36.820
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:41:36.820 --> 02:41:37.820
 >> Aye.

02:41:37.820 --> 02:41:38.820
 >> Commissioner Beck.

02:41:38.820 --> 02:41:39.820
 >> Aye.

02:41:39.820 --> 02:41:40.820
 >> Commissioner Pernetta.

02:41:40.820 --> 02:41:41.820
 >> Aye.

02:41:41.820 --> 02:41:42.820
 >> Commissioner Anderson.

02:41:42.820 --> 02:41:44.380
 >> Aye.

02:41:44.380 --> 02:41:46.420
 >> Commissioner Cole.

02:41:46.420 --> 02:41:47.420
 >> Aye.

02:41:47.420 --> 02:41:49.100
 >> Commissioner Smith.

02:41:49.100 --> 02:41:50.100
 >> Aye.

02:41:50.100 --> 02:41:51.540
 >> Chair is also an aye.

02:41:51.540 --> 02:41:53.980
 Motion carries 7-0.

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.

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

02:42:04.580 --> 02:42:07.340
 for discussion.

02:42:07.340 --> 02:42:13.980
 >> Just wanted to -- just a quick update.

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

02:42:18.540 --> 02:42:20.240
 them on the calendar.

02:42:20.240 --> 02:42:25.340
 So we have put some dates on for the October meetings.

02:42:25.340 --> 02:42:28.340
 I think we are trying to get two items per meeting.

02:42:28.340 --> 02:42:31.980
 And so we'll start getting those -- getting those knocked out.

02:42:31.980 --> 02:42:36.980
 One other item I wanted to mention where we talked about the overlay conditions and some

02:42:36.980 --> 02:42:42.460
 of the others coming back when we were going to be bringing forward DDC amendments, it

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.

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

02:42:55.780 --> 02:42:58.180
 P&Z as kind of our next steps.

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

02:43:05.420 --> 02:43:10.260
 going to clean some of those nonconformities that were created at that October -- at that

02:43:10.260 --> 02:43:11.260
 October meeting.

02:43:11.260 --> 02:43:14.700
 So just letting you know that's kind of coming down the pike.

02:43:14.700 --> 02:43:15.780
 Just a quick update.

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

02:43:22.500 --> 02:43:23.900
 Creek.

02:43:23.900 --> 02:43:26.340
 So that was approved for three.

02:43:26.340 --> 02:43:35.100
 And then the -- I lost the name of the project.

02:43:35.100 --> 02:43:44.060
 The multi-family project at Dutchess and the loop -- Denton Grove, sorry.

02:43:44.060 --> 02:43:50.500
 There appears to be support for the project, however, that item was postponed to the 15th.

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

02:43:56.540 --> 02:43:58.260
 traffic light.

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

02:44:05.620 --> 02:44:09.420
 agreement related to that offer.

02:44:09.420 --> 02:44:12.500
 So that was the reason it was postponed.

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

02:44:16.620 --> 02:44:17.620
 for the 15th.

02:44:17.620 --> 02:44:19.620
 And I can provide an update then with that.

02:44:19.620 --> 02:44:21.660
 I'll be happy to answer any questions.

02:44:21.660 --> 02:44:22.660
 >> Awesome.

02:44:22.660 --> 02:44:23.660
 Thanks, Richard.

02:44:23.660 --> 02:44:29.860
 Anyone have any questions for staff or items to request to be put on the matrix?

02:44:29.860 --> 02:44:31.780
 Commissioner Bec?

02:44:31.780 --> 02:44:34.060
 >> Thank you, Chair.

02:44:34.060 --> 02:44:36.860
 Richard, I've been fielding a lot of questions.

02:44:36.860 --> 02:44:43.340
 Maybe you could tell from my line of questioning today about alternative landscaping plans

02:44:43.340 --> 02:44:51.020
 that are sort of green and sort of native-based.

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

02:44:56.660 --> 02:45:03.620
 people who are reaching out to me are understanding and that I can field their questions.

02:45:03.620 --> 02:45:07.700
 I mostly just throw them at staff because I don't know the answer either.

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,

02:45:17.820 --> 02:45:23.740
 whether we have exceptions for wildflowers, native plants, native grasses, especially

02:45:23.740 --> 02:45:31.060
 in open, non-residential landscaping, but in our residential areas and business areas

02:45:31.060 --> 02:45:39.100
 so that people can know what we currently allow, that would be helpful in fielding questions.

02:45:39.100 --> 02:45:40.100
 >> Certainly.

02:45:40.100 --> 02:45:45.300
 And just for clarification, was it alternative landscape or the alternative ESA plan?

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

02:45:51.900 --> 02:45:59.540
 both on what are all alternatives for alternative ESAs, and secondarily had a lot of questions

02:45:59.540 --> 02:46:08.060
 on for HOA lots, trails, green spaces, but in a private development, what are allowed

02:46:08.060 --> 02:46:16.460
 that people could ask developers for or encourage in their feedback, that sort of thing, that

02:46:16.460 --> 02:46:23.820
 are generally outside our standard practice but allowed and suitable, you know, the kinds

02:46:23.820 --> 02:46:27.940
 of things Christie would typically be involved in.

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

02:46:32.660 --> 02:46:35.660
 people who are hitting me up with questions.

02:46:35.660 --> 02:46:36.660
 >> Certainly.

02:46:36.660 --> 02:46:37.660
 We can provide that.

02:46:37.660 --> 02:46:38.660
 >> Thank you.

02:46:38.660 --> 02:46:39.660
 >> Commissioner Ellis?

02:46:39.660 --> 02:46:40.660
 >> Thank you, Chair.

02:46:40.660 --> 02:46:44.900
 Richard, just process clarification for me.

02:46:44.900 --> 02:46:52.220
 We got several comments on an item that was postponed on our agenda today.

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

02:46:56.940 --> 02:46:58.300
 is being reheard?

02:46:58.300 --> 02:47:00.780
 I'd like those people to know.

02:47:00.780 --> 02:47:03.340
 So is that a process that you normally do?

02:47:03.340 --> 02:47:04.340
 >> Correct.

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,

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

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

02:47:16.780 --> 02:47:20.500
 them know of that new date and time.

02:47:20.500 --> 02:47:21.500
 >> Okay.

02:47:21.500 --> 02:47:22.500
 Perfect.

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

02:47:25.180 --> 02:47:28.020
 already and let them know.

02:47:28.020 --> 02:47:31.720
 >> Thank you much.

02:47:31.720 --> 02:47:35.820
 Any other questions or additions for the matrix?

02:47:35.820 --> 02:47:39.140
 Seeing none, I'll close the meeting at 8 o'clock.

02:47:39.140 --> 02:47:40.140
 Thank you all.

02:47:40.140 --> 02:47:41.140
 Be safe.

02:47:41.140 --> 02:47:42.140
 >> Bye, guys.

02:47:42.140 --> 02:47:42.140
 Thanks.