1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:07,340
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning work session meeting

2
00:00:07,340 --> 00:00:10,500
 for September 16, 2020.

3
00:00:10,500 --> 00:00:15,940
 It is 5.03, I'll call this meeting to order seeing that we do have a quorum, let the record

4
00:00:15,940 --> 00:00:19,680
 show at the start of the meeting, Commissioner Anderson is not present.

5
00:00:19,680 --> 00:00:24,500
 Jumping right into our agenda this evening, we have no work session reports, so we can

6
00:00:24,500 --> 00:00:29,200
 hop into the agenda starting with the minutes.

7
00:00:29,200 --> 00:00:34,480
 Does anyone have any notes on the minutes so we can go over now?

8
00:00:34,480 --> 00:00:37,840
 Okay, great.

9
00:00:37,840 --> 00:00:41,520
 Next item of consideration is the consent agenda.

10
00:00:41,520 --> 00:00:44,240
 There are four items here.

11
00:00:44,240 --> 00:00:49,480
 I know I would like to hear item A, we had a comment card, someone who's against this,

12
00:00:49,480 --> 00:00:55,240
 I know it's a consent agenda, I just wanted to kind of see the short presentation of item

13
00:00:55,240 --> 00:01:02,160
 A, and then if any other commissioners had items, we'll certainly take a look at those

14
00:01:02,160 --> 00:01:30,920
 items.

15
00:01:32,160 --> 00:01:40,380
 All right, good evening, commissioners, Haley Skirsky with the planning department.

16
00:01:40,380 --> 00:01:49,360
 So item A is FP 2016, this is the final plat for phase one of Stuart Ridge.

17
00:01:49,360 --> 00:01:53,040
 So this is a subdivision, as you can see here on the map, it's kind of shaded in gray, and

18
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:56,480
 that indicates that this property is in the city's ETJ.

19
00:01:56,480 --> 00:01:59,800
 So our only authority within the ETJ is subdivision.

20
00:01:59,800 --> 00:02:04,360
 So a preliminary plat was not required for this development, they jumped straight to

21
00:02:04,360 --> 00:02:09,200
 the final plat phase, and happy to answer any questions you all may have about the subdivision,

22
00:02:09,200 --> 00:02:13,320
 but that's the short summary of it.

23
00:02:13,320 --> 00:02:22,240
 So Haley, just for my edification, it is ETJ, but if they are doing a subdivision as proposed,

24
00:02:22,240 --> 00:02:26,280
 the city has jurisdiction over the platting of that, is that like an option they have?

25
00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:29,000
 It seems like if it's not city of Denton, they're not required to do this.

26
00:02:29,000 --> 00:02:34,560
 Can you give me some context of this is a requirement or they're voluntarily doing this?

27
00:02:34,560 --> 00:02:35,560
 Sure.

28
00:02:35,560 --> 00:02:39,880
 So a final plat is required, the county will be issuing permits for the development here,

29
00:02:39,880 --> 00:02:44,240
 but the platting through our interlocal agreement with the county, the city regulates platts

30
00:02:44,240 --> 00:02:45,240
 within the ETJ.

31
00:02:45,240 --> 00:02:50,040
 So we review and approve the plat and then permitting will go through the county.

32
00:02:50,040 --> 00:02:54,040
 So if a final plat is required, a preliminary plat is optional, and they did elect to not

33
00:02:54,040 --> 00:02:57,840
 do that step in this case, so they went straight to final platting.

34
00:02:57,840 --> 00:03:02,040
 This would be the only piece of this development that the city would see.

35
00:03:02,040 --> 00:03:03,040
 Gotcha.

36
00:03:03,040 --> 00:03:06,640
 And with approval, it meets all technical requirements needed to be approved, right?

37
00:03:06,640 --> 00:03:07,640
 Correct.

38
00:03:07,640 --> 00:03:08,640
 Commissioner Beck.

39
00:03:08,640 --> 00:03:10,280
 Thank you, chair.

40
00:03:10,280 --> 00:03:16,960
 So following on from chair's comments, so we still have to meet chapter two, chapter

41
00:03:16,960 --> 00:03:21,080
 seven, all those for this development, right?

42
00:03:21,080 --> 00:03:22,360
 No, sir.

43
00:03:22,360 --> 00:03:26,040
 They just follow the city subdivision regulations.

44
00:03:26,040 --> 00:03:30,140
 There's no zoning in the ETJ, so they don't have to follow any of the minimum lot dimensions

45
00:03:30,140 --> 00:03:32,760
 or anything else that we would typically look at with the plat.

46
00:03:32,760 --> 00:03:34,760
 It's just the street layout.

47
00:03:34,760 --> 00:03:38,000
 Are they able to serve each lot with utilities?

48
00:03:38,000 --> 00:03:42,360
 Those sorts of subdivision type requirements is all that we can enforce within the ETJ.

49
00:03:42,360 --> 00:03:45,300
 All right, that answers my question.

50
00:03:45,300 --> 00:03:46,300
 Thank you.

51
00:03:46,300 --> 00:03:52,500
 Haley, one last question.

52
00:03:52,500 --> 00:03:57,640
 Can they just try to do a voluntary annexation after this is built?

53
00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:03,320
 Is this a way not to measure intent here, but is this a mechanism that if they hold

54
00:04:03,320 --> 00:04:07,940
 off annexation that they can create a development that doesn't meet city code and later on gets

55
00:04:07,940 --> 00:04:12,080
 annexed and gets the benefit of the city?

56
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:13,720
 Potentially they could annex later.

57
00:04:13,720 --> 00:04:17,960
 I would think it would be much more difficult after the lots are subdivided and sold to

58
00:04:17,960 --> 00:04:21,640
 individual homeowners, but to date, they've indicated that they do not intend to annex

59
00:04:21,640 --> 00:04:22,640
 into the city.

60
00:04:22,640 --> 00:04:26,360
 They will develop the subdivision under the county's permitting regulations.

61
00:04:26,360 --> 00:04:27,360
 Gotcha.

62
00:04:27,360 --> 00:04:29,360
 Yeah, Chris, you're back.

63
00:04:29,360 --> 00:04:31,360
 Since Chair brought this up, thank you, Chair.

64
00:04:31,360 --> 00:04:36,880
 Since Chair brought this up, if they were to annex, I mean, I'm just trying to get clarification

65
00:04:36,880 --> 00:04:37,880
 from what Chair said.

66
00:04:37,880 --> 00:04:44,200
 If they were to get annexed and they don't meet our standards at the moment and get annexed,

67
00:04:44,200 --> 00:04:50,880
 is there any mechanism to enforce those standards except as sort of a clause of the annexation

68
00:04:50,880 --> 00:04:51,880
 agreement?

69
00:04:51,880 --> 00:04:59,360
 I suppose once the lots were developed, if they were to annex into the city, if they

70
00:04:59,360 --> 00:05:03,520
 didn't meet the city's development regulations for say single family architecture or something

71
00:05:03,520 --> 00:05:08,640
 like that, they would just be nonconforming to our regulations at that point.

72
00:05:08,640 --> 00:05:14,600
 But my understanding from the developer is annexation is not an option for this subdivision.

73
00:05:14,600 --> 00:05:17,280
 All right.

74
00:05:17,280 --> 00:05:18,280
 Thank you.

75
00:05:18,280 --> 00:05:24,280
 Any other questions for Haley on item 3a, the consent?

76
00:05:24,280 --> 00:05:27,280
 Okay.

77
00:05:27,280 --> 00:05:29,400
 Seeing none, we can progress.

78
00:05:29,400 --> 00:05:36,880
 Is there any request to see items b, as in Bravo, c, or d, Chris or Beck?

79
00:05:36,880 --> 00:05:38,760
 I would like to see c and d.

80
00:05:38,760 --> 00:05:39,760
 Okay.

81
00:05:39,760 --> 00:05:40,760
 Great.

82
00:05:40,760 --> 00:05:49,320
 Haley, while you're there, can you show us item c, pp20-19a?

83
00:05:49,320 --> 00:05:53,800
 Right.

84
00:05:53,800 --> 00:05:58,160
 So item c is the preliminary plan for Sage Brook.

85
00:05:58,160 --> 00:06:01,720
 So I think you all are pretty familiar with this particular development.

86
00:06:01,720 --> 00:06:07,600
 They are proposing consistent with their PD to have four primary phases of the development.

87
00:06:07,600 --> 00:06:11,800
 It has the number of lots and everything as called for within the plan development.

88
00:06:11,800 --> 00:06:17,600
 So you can see all of the major highlights that we looked at with the PD are here, including

89
00:06:17,600 --> 00:06:23,320
 the right away for Brush Creek Road, the floodplain area that they intend to dedicate to the city,

90
00:06:23,320 --> 00:06:27,040
 and then the four phases of single family with that kind of boulevard connection up

91
00:06:27,040 --> 00:06:31,720
 to Allred and then Allred jogging down to meet Brush Creek over here.

92
00:06:31,720 --> 00:06:35,320
 If there's any particular questions you have, I'm happy to answer those.

93
00:06:35,320 --> 00:06:36,320
 Yes.

94
00:06:36,320 --> 00:06:37,320
 Thank you, Haley.

95
00:06:37,320 --> 00:06:38,320
 Okay.

96
00:06:38,320 --> 00:06:45,480
 So as I look at the maps, both the ones provided in the backup and Googling and try to understand

97
00:06:45,480 --> 00:06:50,680
 the topography, that all drains into that creek, correct?

98
00:06:50,680 --> 00:06:51,680
 The entire plat?

99
00:06:51,680 --> 00:06:52,680
 Yes.

100
00:06:52,680 --> 00:06:57,720
 That is my understanding is everything drains towards the floodplain that runs here.

101
00:06:57,720 --> 00:07:01,680
 You can see the stash line is the boundary of the floodplain.

102
00:07:01,680 --> 00:07:05,520
 So everything generally drains towards that.

103
00:07:05,520 --> 00:07:12,640
 And I know we addressed this in prior meetings, but it just boggles my mind to believe that

104
00:07:12,640 --> 00:07:23,160
 getting rid of converting this pervious surface into an impervious surface is not going to

105
00:07:23,160 --> 00:07:26,480
 cause flooding and downstream offense.

106
00:07:26,480 --> 00:07:30,640
 Everything we do, I mean, it's justified by a sort of two weeks ago when we got six or

107
00:07:30,640 --> 00:07:36,240
 seven inches of rain, generates downstream flooding events from all our creeks, because

108
00:07:36,240 --> 00:07:38,920
 we've not really done that great a job.

109
00:07:38,920 --> 00:07:46,280
 I guess that was more comment.

110
00:07:46,280 --> 00:07:47,620
 Can you refresh?

111
00:07:47,620 --> 00:07:52,160
 I guess the engineers are just going to say that it meets their standards.

112
00:07:52,160 --> 00:07:54,560
 All right.

113
00:07:54,560 --> 00:07:56,900
 No, I'm good.

114
00:07:56,900 --> 00:08:00,640
 Thank you, Haley.

115
00:08:00,640 --> 00:08:02,520
 Any other questions for Haley?

116
00:08:02,520 --> 00:08:03,520
 Okay.

117
00:08:03,520 --> 00:08:10,640
 Seeing none, is Ron Maguida arounders who could present?

118
00:08:10,640 --> 00:08:11,640
 Usually he calls in.

119
00:08:11,640 --> 00:08:12,640
 Yeah.

120
00:08:12,640 --> 00:08:13,640
 I'm on a call.

121
00:08:13,640 --> 00:08:14,640
 There he is.

122
00:08:14,640 --> 00:08:15,640
 Perfect.

123
00:08:15,640 --> 00:08:20,560
 Haley, can you pull up item 3D so Ron can walk us through that, FR20-11A?

124
00:08:20,560 --> 00:08:25,120
 All right, here we go.

125
00:08:25,120 --> 00:08:26,120
 Thank you, Haley.

126
00:08:26,120 --> 00:08:30,880
 Subject final reply is for the Corsair Razor.

127
00:08:30,880 --> 00:08:37,320
 I know they changed the name recently, but it is for a single family residential development,

128
00:08:37,320 --> 00:08:39,280
 96 lots in total.

129
00:08:39,280 --> 00:08:49,960
 It is part of a larger phase of development single family for this area.

130
00:08:49,960 --> 00:08:51,400
 Any questions for Ron?

131
00:08:51,400 --> 00:08:53,660
 Commissioner Beck.

132
00:08:53,660 --> 00:08:54,760
 Thank you, Chair.

133
00:08:54,760 --> 00:09:00,600
 So the road extension off of, oh gosh, I can't read it.

134
00:09:00,600 --> 00:09:02,840
 Let me get my glasses on.

135
00:09:02,840 --> 00:09:06,240
 Right above Denia Park, Parvin.

136
00:09:06,240 --> 00:09:15,920
 The road extension, that crosses the riparian ESA right now, which was the subject of last

137
00:09:15,920 --> 00:09:19,200
 night's council decision.

138
00:09:19,200 --> 00:09:24,200
 Does this road not have to have an alt ESA to cross over that riparian buffer?

139
00:09:24,200 --> 00:09:27,520
 Let me check.

140
00:09:27,520 --> 00:09:31,160
 I don't think there was one required.

141
00:09:31,160 --> 00:09:36,760
 The alt ESA that you're referring to, Commissioner Beck, I think it dealt with the storm drainage

142
00:09:36,760 --> 00:09:42,800
 system specifically, and I think those were further south of the subject replact.

143
00:09:42,800 --> 00:09:49,400
 I'm looking at the comments from our water administration staff.

144
00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:57,520
 And just as an example, what my concern is, is those three channels in the, I don't want

145
00:09:57,520 --> 00:10:00,840
 to rabbit hole too much the Platte to the south, but those three channels in the Platte

146
00:10:00,840 --> 00:10:06,160
 to the south were disturbances of that riparian buffer and they therefore needed an alt ESA.

147
00:10:06,160 --> 00:10:13,360
 Is this not a disturbance of the riparian buffer to get a bridge or a road through there?

148
00:10:13,360 --> 00:10:17,600
 My understanding, I'm reading the notes here or the comments from our water administration

149
00:10:17,600 --> 00:10:22,240
 staff is the proposed encroachment for the purpose of constructing the Parvin road is

150
00:10:22,240 --> 00:10:27,160
 permitted under a section in the code that she references.

151
00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:32,040
 So that's why there's no need for an alt ESA for that particular proposal.

152
00:10:32,040 --> 00:10:33,040
 Okay.

153
00:10:33,040 --> 00:10:34,040
 Okay.

154
00:10:34,040 --> 00:10:36,000
 So I don't have it in front.

155
00:10:36,000 --> 00:10:39,000
 Can you refresh me on that?

156
00:10:39,000 --> 00:10:40,800
 The section.

157
00:10:40,800 --> 00:10:44,600
 The rationale for why you don't need an alt ESA?

158
00:10:44,600 --> 00:10:49,600
 I can't respond to that, I can certainly get an answer.

159
00:10:49,600 --> 00:10:50,600
 Christie is here.

160
00:10:50,600 --> 00:10:53,880
 So I've asked her to come up to the mic.

161
00:10:53,880 --> 00:10:58,240
 Hi, Christie Upton with environmental services.

162
00:10:58,240 --> 00:11:05,220
 And yes, this is a permitted activity or use within the riparian buffer and the water related

163
00:11:05,220 --> 00:11:13,040
 habitat that's located along that section of Parvin road because it is, it's on the

164
00:11:13,040 --> 00:11:22,760
 mobility plan, sorry, mobility plan and the, I can't, I can't remember exactly the citation,

165
00:11:22,760 --> 00:11:29,800
 but there's a section in the code that permits for these encroachments for roadways that

166
00:11:29,800 --> 00:11:38,560
 are on the mobility plan as long as the applicant can demonstrate that the, there would be restoration

167
00:11:38,560 --> 00:11:46,760
 work to, to riparian and replace the eases that remain.

168
00:11:46,760 --> 00:11:54,560
 So I, I have a lot of qualms with this, the mobility plan is, is plus or minus a thousand

169
00:11:54,560 --> 00:11:59,400
 feet as we've been discussing with various other items that have appeared before the

170
00:11:59,400 --> 00:12:02,400
 commission.

171
00:12:02,400 --> 00:12:03,900
 We've done a lot of talking about that lately.

172
00:12:03,900 --> 00:12:13,920
 So it seems to me that we have a nebulous final alignment being used as a justification

173
00:12:13,920 --> 00:12:17,880
 that may or may not have ever crossed an exact location.

174
00:12:17,880 --> 00:12:24,560
 I mean, there's a real sort of, you know, which came first, chicken or egg on this one.

175
00:12:24,560 --> 00:12:32,780
 And that may not be an issue for this particular item before the commission, but it is definitely,

176
00:12:32,780 --> 00:12:37,400
 it needs to be addressed by that council or amendment or ordinance, because this is, this

177
00:12:37,400 --> 00:12:38,920
 is crazy.

178
00:12:38,920 --> 00:12:43,480
 So anyway, sorry, Christy, I'm not, I don't mean to go at you.

179
00:12:43,480 --> 00:12:44,480
 Thank you.

180
00:12:44,480 --> 00:12:47,680
 Christian, can you clarify what you believe is crazy?

181
00:12:47,680 --> 00:12:48,680
 Yes.

182
00:12:48,680 --> 00:12:53,600
 If you have a mobility plan that can be anywhere up to the top of that plat that we're looking

183
00:12:53,600 --> 00:12:59,960
 at on the screen, in terms of like where the road can be down to, you know, halfway down

184
00:12:59,960 --> 00:13:08,160
 the Rose lawn in terms of the accuracy of the alignment, as Brian John has mentioned

185
00:13:08,160 --> 00:13:14,700
 many times, then you don't know exactly where it's crossing any given terrain feature.

186
00:13:14,700 --> 00:13:18,800
 And if you don't know where it's crossing any grid and terrain feature, then how can

187
00:13:18,800 --> 00:13:25,200
 that be used as a justification for, you know, it's aligned with a mobility plan when the

188
00:13:25,200 --> 00:13:29,520
 mobility plan is not a static object.

189
00:13:29,520 --> 00:13:35,700
 So, you know, I take as given that that's a permitted use to align with the mobility

190
00:13:35,700 --> 00:13:36,700
 plan.

191
00:13:36,700 --> 00:13:42,400
 There's no reason to doubt that, but that's, there's a, there's a loophole that we're

192
00:13:42,400 --> 00:13:49,440
 creating by not having specificity in the interplay of our mobility plan and our environmental

193
00:13:49,440 --> 00:13:50,440
 regulations.

194
00:13:50,440 --> 00:13:57,680
 I guess my only thought to that is looking at Parvin, it seems like the smaller the geographic

195
00:13:57,680 --> 00:14:02,200
 scope and mobility plan, the less of a thousand foot buffer you really can afford because

196
00:14:02,200 --> 00:14:07,920
 in Parvin, it looks like there's only about, I don't know, 600 feet to connect the two

197
00:14:07,920 --> 00:14:09,920
 and it goes right to where it needs to be.

198
00:14:09,920 --> 00:14:14,160
 It obviously can't go down to Rose lawn in this area and still have any kind of mobility

199
00:14:14,160 --> 00:14:15,160
 efficiency.

200
00:14:15,160 --> 00:14:20,540
 So like when we think about increasing like the loops and the stuff down and the ranch

201
00:14:20,540 --> 00:14:24,320
 is being developed, we have some flexibility there, but the parameters on Parvin on the

202
00:14:24,320 --> 00:14:29,680
 east and west kind of limit that kind of flexibility that you're referring to that we find in kind

203
00:14:29,680 --> 00:14:31,840
 of greener pastures.

204
00:14:31,840 --> 00:14:36,720
 I take the chair's point and I, and I only meant that as sort of the, the general loophole.

205
00:14:36,720 --> 00:14:44,200
 I admit that the extension off of, of the Parvin for any Western extension of the mobility

206
00:14:44,200 --> 00:14:51,720
 plan over to the existing, I guess that's still Parvin on the other side of the plat.

207
00:14:51,720 --> 00:14:56,340
 It makes sense and that's obviously where one would draw it, but there's, there's obviously

208
00:14:56,340 --> 00:14:59,440
 still some upland habitat on that West side.

209
00:14:59,440 --> 00:15:06,960
 There's, there's the riparian Issa and in, so I think it would be who council and city

210
00:15:06,960 --> 00:15:12,160
 and development office to see if we can't clean that up a little bit and make that really

211
00:15:12,160 --> 00:15:19,720
 clear if for future issues, that would be my recommendation.

212
00:15:19,720 --> 00:15:23,520
 I appreciate the clarification, commissioner Bec.

213
00:15:23,520 --> 00:15:32,720
 Any other questions for item three D commissioner Ellis, did they hear this item?

214
00:15:32,720 --> 00:15:39,160
 I just need an update with this, can you speak up one more time and ask that again?

215
00:15:39,160 --> 00:15:44,320
 It was hard for us to hear you, is that better marginally?

216
00:15:44,320 --> 00:15:45,320
 Okay.

217
00:15:45,320 --> 00:15:47,800
 Well, I'm not sure what's going on.

218
00:15:47,800 --> 00:15:53,840
 Okay, um, question is, did council hear the alt ESA yesterday?

219
00:15:53,840 --> 00:15:57,520
 Where do they stand on that?

220
00:15:57,520 --> 00:16:05,040
 The alt ESA was approved six one, we're forced to razor, correct?

221
00:16:05,040 --> 00:16:09,720
 The forced to razor, we're discussing, correct?

222
00:16:09,720 --> 00:16:10,720
 Correct.

223
00:16:10,720 --> 00:16:11,720
 It was approved.

224
00:16:11,720 --> 00:16:12,720
 Six one last night.

225
00:16:12,720 --> 00:16:13,720
 Okay.

226
00:16:13,720 --> 00:16:14,720
 Thank you.

227
00:16:14,720 --> 00:16:18,520
 Thank you.

228
00:16:18,520 --> 00:16:19,520
 Any other questions?

229
00:16:19,520 --> 00:16:20,520
 Great.

230
00:16:20,520 --> 00:16:24,480
 Thank you, Ron for being here this evening to present that item.

231
00:16:24,480 --> 00:16:29,680
 Next item for business is item for a fr 20 dash zero zero zero eight.

232
00:16:29,680 --> 00:16:33,080
 This is also Ron's item.

233
00:16:33,080 --> 00:16:41,280
 Could someone pull that up for him to present the individual consideration item for a please.

234
00:16:41,280 --> 00:16:54,480
 I'm getting that pulled up, give me just a minute.

235
00:16:54,480 --> 00:17:01,560
 All right, it's up.

236
00:17:01,560 --> 00:17:02,560
 Great.

237
00:17:02,560 --> 00:17:03,560
 Sorry.

238
00:17:03,560 --> 00:17:06,560
 Thank you, Julie.

239
00:17:06,560 --> 00:17:07,560
 Thank you, Julie.

240
00:17:07,560 --> 00:17:14,000
 Um, commissioners, this is a final replat for an existing lot or lots.

241
00:17:14,000 --> 00:17:15,680
 There's a total of four.

242
00:17:15,680 --> 00:17:23,000
 The applicant is proposing to develop a read, read, develop the site that is, and by subdividing

243
00:17:23,000 --> 00:17:30,280
 the lot even further to eight watts total and, and developing single family homes.

244
00:17:30,280 --> 00:17:37,540
 The reply itself is still under review has not yet cleared staff's outstanding comments.

245
00:17:37,540 --> 00:17:41,260
 Staff has recommended per house bill 31 67.

246
00:17:41,260 --> 00:17:48,000
 However, the applicant has requested an extension, uh, for the review for another 30 days and

247
00:17:48,000 --> 00:17:58,640
 staff has no objections to that, uh, extension.

248
00:17:58,640 --> 00:18:03,680
 That's that's presentation and be happy to answer any questions.

249
00:18:03,680 --> 00:18:04,680
 Thank you, Ron, for the presentation.

250
00:18:04,680 --> 00:18:11,600
 Does anyone have any questions for Ron in this item?

251
00:18:11,600 --> 00:18:12,600
 Seeing none.

252
00:18:12,600 --> 00:18:22,920
 We'll move to item four B PP 20 dash 0018 a, and this is a Julie Wyatt's item.

253
00:18:22,920 --> 00:18:28,920
 Okay.

254
00:18:28,920 --> 00:18:30,580
 So this is a preliminary plat.

255
00:18:30,580 --> 00:18:33,080
 You saw it, um, at the last PNZ meeting.

256
00:18:33,080 --> 00:18:36,080
 It was, they did ask for an extension at that time.

257
00:18:36,080 --> 00:18:41,280
 Um, they've worked with staff, uh, uh, gone back and forth quite a few times.

258
00:18:41,280 --> 00:18:45,080
 This actually was on your agenda as denial cause they still had a couple of items to

259
00:18:45,080 --> 00:18:46,080
 work through.

260
00:18:46,080 --> 00:18:51,040
 However, in the intervening days, they have worked through those items with engineering

261
00:18:51,040 --> 00:18:55,100
 and have resolved all of the comments related to the preliminary plat.

262
00:18:55,100 --> 00:19:00,960
 And so with that, the recommendation provided by staff, um, is amended to reflect approval

263
00:19:00,960 --> 00:19:04,280
 of the request as it does meet the established requirements.

264
00:19:04,280 --> 00:19:06,520
 This is, this is a, a development.

265
00:19:06,520 --> 00:19:12,400
 It's an infill development that will include, um, four plexes off of Windsor, um, between

266
00:19:12,400 --> 00:19:14,040
 Windsor and Wolf trap.

267
00:19:14,040 --> 00:19:16,040
 And I'll answer any questions.

268
00:19:16,040 --> 00:19:17,920
 Thank you, Julie.

269
00:19:17,920 --> 00:19:20,840
 Is there any questions for Julie commissioner back?

270
00:19:20,840 --> 00:19:23,440
 So that, that look, thank you, chair.

271
00:19:23,440 --> 00:19:26,160
 Um, I'm always forgetting my man.

272
00:19:26,160 --> 00:19:30,920
 You're sorry, chair, um, uh, that, that little canal that's in front of where they're proposing

273
00:19:30,920 --> 00:19:37,360
 these duplexes, um, we've all seen that as we drive up and down Windsor, that, that thing

274
00:19:37,360 --> 00:19:40,920
 floods with a green space around it.

275
00:19:40,920 --> 00:19:45,960
 Um, you, you, I don't care what the engineers say, you're not going to convince me that

276
00:19:45,960 --> 00:19:53,200
 replacing that with, with, uh, out suitable mitigation isn't going to flood even worse

277
00:19:53,200 --> 00:19:57,040
 because you will have more impervious surface.

278
00:19:57,040 --> 00:20:02,200
 So Windsor will flood even more.

279
00:20:02,200 --> 00:20:06,920
 They are, they will have to, so this is the first step in the plotting of this process.

280
00:20:06,920 --> 00:20:10,800
 This is kind of, you know, as we've talked about the preliminary plots really are conceptual.

281
00:20:10,800 --> 00:20:15,280
 That's that first bite of the apple that applicants have to start working through some of those

282
00:20:15,280 --> 00:20:16,280
 issues.

283
00:20:16,280 --> 00:20:20,680
 So, um, they've actually been discussing drainage with our engineering group.

284
00:20:20,680 --> 00:20:23,180
 Um, it's all of the details haven't been worked out.

285
00:20:23,180 --> 00:20:28,320
 Their next step, um, after a preliminary plat will be the civil engineering plans to kind

286
00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:31,160
 of go through and finish up that drainage design.

287
00:20:31,160 --> 00:20:36,360
 Um, so the, so yeah, they, they will have to, um, um, make sure that they comply with

288
00:20:36,360 --> 00:20:38,920
 all drainage requirements.

289
00:20:38,920 --> 00:20:46,760
 So given the construction that is right there and if they had to make changes to the canal,

290
00:20:46,760 --> 00:20:53,360
 and I'm not so much worried about that sort of small drainage canal, uh, as like ESA or

291
00:20:53,360 --> 00:20:57,320
 anything, I'm worried about it literally seven, five, one flooding, uh, you know, I'm worried

292
00:20:57,320 --> 00:21:03,680
 about drainage and, and so if you, are they going to have to tear out bits of Windsor

293
00:21:03,680 --> 00:21:04,680
 to improve drainage?

294
00:21:04,680 --> 00:21:09,720
 If the drainage is insufficient, are we, are we again setting up those poor residents to

295
00:21:09,720 --> 00:21:15,480
 have even more near term construction on that road so that you can't go down there for the

296
00:21:15,480 --> 00:21:18,560
 third, fourth, fifth year to row?

297
00:21:18,560 --> 00:21:23,560
 They will have to, during the civil engineering, that design phase will have to go through

298
00:21:23,560 --> 00:21:28,280
 and make sure that they, um, that they address any drainage issues on the property.

299
00:21:28,280 --> 00:21:32,780
 So they will have to meet all of our drainage requirements before it can go forward for,

300
00:21:32,780 --> 00:21:34,780
 for final plat.

301
00:21:34,780 --> 00:21:36,760
 All right.

302
00:21:36,760 --> 00:21:37,760
 Thank you.

303
00:21:37,760 --> 00:21:40,720
 Any other questions for Julie?

304
00:21:40,720 --> 00:21:46,120
 Hey, Julie, I have one out of curiosity of just how this process works.

305
00:21:46,120 --> 00:21:53,080
 Uh, the agenda was posted as a denial on Friday, uh, and then they, the applicant worked with

306
00:21:53,080 --> 00:21:57,920
 you over the past three business days to make changes.

307
00:21:57,920 --> 00:22:05,080
 Is that effort from your team to work with the applicant budgeted into your kind of day

308
00:22:05,080 --> 00:22:11,240
 to day, uh, requirements or, or what kind of load does it put on you for an applicant

309
00:22:11,240 --> 00:22:15,840
 after an agenda is posted for you to make it right before it comes to PNZ?

310
00:22:15,840 --> 00:22:19,640
 I'm just trying to wonder like what, what's happening behind the scenes, uh, cause it

311
00:22:19,640 --> 00:22:24,000
 seems like there's significant effort, uh, in compromise and back and forth to get this

312
00:22:24,000 --> 00:22:25,000
 done.

313
00:22:25,000 --> 00:22:27,560
 I'm curious to, to know about that a little bit more.

314
00:22:27,560 --> 00:22:32,520
 Well development services has a great team, um, who works with applicants to get this

315
00:22:32,520 --> 00:22:33,520
 through.

316
00:22:33,520 --> 00:22:38,120
 We have a project facilitation team that, that coordinates with engineering and planning.

317
00:22:38,120 --> 00:22:41,680
 A lot of the issues related to Platts, you know, the heavy lifting with Platts comes

318
00:22:41,680 --> 00:22:45,860
 from engineering because of, you know, all of the design that goes with them.

319
00:22:45,860 --> 00:22:53,160
 So they, they all work together and, and yeah, they, they spent a lot of time, um, coordinating

320
00:22:53,160 --> 00:22:54,160
 this.

321
00:22:54,160 --> 00:22:58,000
 This one was a little different in that they were almost to the finish line on Friday.

322
00:22:58,000 --> 00:23:03,580
 They just weren't quite there yet, so, um, it wasn't, it wasn't, it wasn't a whole lot,

323
00:23:03,580 --> 00:23:07,840
 but, but yeah, they, they do, they do work together and try to, try to get those, um,

324
00:23:07,840 --> 00:23:10,200
 resolved just as quickly as possible.

325
00:23:10,200 --> 00:23:11,200
 Great.

326
00:23:11,200 --> 00:23:16,600
 Thanks for helping me pull back the curtain a little bit.

327
00:23:16,600 --> 00:23:18,440
 Commissioner Beck.

328
00:23:18,440 --> 00:23:25,160
 So in a similar, but not exactly the same, because the post is different than what we're

329
00:23:25,160 --> 00:23:32,240
 being asked to vote on, do we have to make a motion in reverse of the post?

330
00:23:32,240 --> 00:23:34,160
 Because this is the, the posting was a denial.

331
00:23:34,160 --> 00:23:39,880
 I understand that the current status is an acceptance and I'm not fighting that.

332
00:23:39,880 --> 00:23:42,880
 I'm, I'm, this is sort of a Robert's rules of order question.

333
00:23:42,880 --> 00:23:49,660
 Do we have to vote on the posting or vote on the current understanding by staff?

334
00:23:49,660 --> 00:23:50,960
 And I don't know the, I'm just asking.

335
00:23:50,960 --> 00:23:53,280
 Yeah, I'll ask legal to weigh in here.

336
00:23:53,280 --> 00:24:01,640
 Um, Mr. Chair, uh, commissioner Beck, the, the posting is for the, the plat action and

337
00:24:01,640 --> 00:24:04,120
 that is a staff recommendation.

338
00:24:04,120 --> 00:24:09,880
 The planning commission can certainly after, um, weighing all of the, the evidence on that

339
00:24:09,880 --> 00:24:13,560
 and comparing the application to the code requirements, make a different determination,

340
00:24:13,560 --> 00:24:16,160
 but that is staff's recommendation.

341
00:24:16,160 --> 00:24:23,200
 And as Ms. Wyatt has explained, the applicant provided sufficient information for the staff

342
00:24:23,200 --> 00:24:27,240
 to feel comfortable making a recommendation of approval.

343
00:24:27,240 --> 00:24:34,800
 But so it, to answer your question, it's, it's, um, it's not a violation of Robert's

344
00:24:34,800 --> 00:24:35,800
 rules of order.

345
00:24:35,800 --> 00:24:37,320
 It has been posted for action.

346
00:24:37,320 --> 00:24:41,840
 It's, it's, uh, a staff recommendation in the caption.

347
00:24:41,840 --> 00:24:42,840
 Thank you.

348
00:24:42,840 --> 00:24:43,840
 Appreciate that.

349
00:24:43,840 --> 00:24:45,000
 All right.

350
00:24:45,000 --> 00:24:51,400
 Any other questions for Julie on item four B?

351
00:24:51,400 --> 00:24:54,000
 Great, Julie, hang on a little bit.

352
00:24:54,000 --> 00:25:01,920
 The next item is item five AZ 19 dash one to be, and I'll turn the floor back over to

353
00:25:01,920 --> 00:25:03,880
 Julie for presentation.

354
00:25:03,880 --> 00:25:10,240
 All right, let me share my screen.

355
00:25:10,240 --> 00:25:13,800
 All right, here we go.

356
00:25:13,800 --> 00:25:16,000
 All right.

357
00:25:16,000 --> 00:25:23,320
 This item is E 19, zero, zero, one to be mockingbird single family residential.

358
00:25:23,320 --> 00:25:30,160
 So the request before you is to rezone approximately 1.61 acres from our two district to our four

359
00:25:30,160 --> 00:25:31,160
 district.

360
00:25:31,160 --> 00:25:32,160
 That's the request.

361
00:25:32,160 --> 00:25:38,160
 Um, just some information about the site is a flag shaped lot as shown here at outlined

362
00:25:38,160 --> 00:25:39,160
 here in yellow.

363
00:25:39,160 --> 00:25:45,160
 Um, the surrounding development is kind of existing suburban style, single family neighborhoods,

364
00:25:45,160 --> 00:25:47,800
 but there are a few remaining large parcels nearby.

365
00:25:47,800 --> 00:25:52,760
 So you can see adjacent to the site to the north, um, in this location and then north

366
00:25:52,760 --> 00:25:53,760
 of Audra.

367
00:25:53,760 --> 00:25:59,560
 Um, there are a few trees on site, but they are generally along the perimeter of sort

368
00:25:59,560 --> 00:26:01,120
 of fence line trees.

369
00:26:01,120 --> 00:26:05,160
 And then per the applicant, the purpose is to develop the site with nine single family

370
00:26:05,160 --> 00:26:08,080
 dwellings.

371
00:26:08,080 --> 00:26:13,960
 So I just want to compare the current zoning map with the proposal shown here is this current

372
00:26:13,960 --> 00:26:19,040
 map and it shows our two district, um, on the subject property.

373
00:26:19,040 --> 00:26:26,800
 They, they are proposing to, um, to extend that, uh, our four and rezone the subject

374
00:26:26,800 --> 00:26:32,600
 property so that it extends that our four to the north, um, the criteria for approval

375
00:26:32,600 --> 00:26:38,400
 for a zoning case is in sub chapter two, we've got the general criteria and then the specific

376
00:26:38,400 --> 00:26:41,760
 criteria and we'll touch on those as we talk through the project.

377
00:26:41,760 --> 00:26:44,500
 So the first thing we always look at is didn't plan 2030.

378
00:26:44,500 --> 00:26:47,820
 So the site is designated as low density residential.

379
00:26:47,820 --> 00:26:52,680
 This is intended for single family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre.

380
00:26:52,680 --> 00:26:58,720
 So while, uh, the propose our four doesn't precisely conform to that maximum density,

381
00:26:58,720 --> 00:27:01,920
 it does meet the overall goals for the comprehensive plan.

382
00:27:01,920 --> 00:27:05,240
 So the proposal is in conformance with the concept plan.

383
00:27:05,240 --> 00:27:10,200
 Um, this provides for, um, infill development for that compact development pattern at the,

384
00:27:10,200 --> 00:27:17,000
 didn't plan 2030, um, um, uh, uh, has as a goal.

385
00:27:17,000 --> 00:27:22,400
 Um, and it also, uh, it also is that, that, that lower density residential use and it's

386
00:27:22,400 --> 00:27:25,240
 consistent with the surrounding development pattern.

387
00:27:25,240 --> 00:27:29,080
 Um, there aren't any small area plans that affect the subject property.

388
00:27:29,080 --> 00:27:34,240
 Um, the, the next criteria for approval is consistency with the purpose statement.

389
00:27:34,240 --> 00:27:39,400
 So our four district is intended to accommodate a variety of housing types on lots designed

390
00:27:39,400 --> 00:27:44,000
 to encourage walking to a neighborhood serving retail and other amenities such as parks and

391
00:27:44,000 --> 00:27:45,000
 school facilities.

392
00:27:45,000 --> 00:27:49,680
 The zoning district will ensure, um, existing neighborhood characters maintain while also

393
00:27:49,680 --> 00:27:54,520
 serving as a transition area between established single family neighborhoods and mixed use

394
00:27:54,520 --> 00:27:55,520
 neighborhoods.

395
00:27:55,520 --> 00:27:59,500
 So the request is consistent with the purpose statement as the applicant is, has stated

396
00:27:59,500 --> 00:28:03,520
 that the intent is to develop the site with single family dwellings.

397
00:28:03,520 --> 00:28:07,800
 Um, also are there significant changes in the area?

398
00:28:07,800 --> 00:28:13,500
 So I kind of looked back at, at how this area, this general area, um, um, kind of emanating

399
00:28:13,500 --> 00:28:16,160
 out from downtown, um, has developed.

400
00:28:16,160 --> 00:28:19,840
 So it's kind of hard to see, but the subject property here is sort of outlined in blue.

401
00:28:19,840 --> 00:28:24,880
 And as you can see, starting in the 1980s, um, the development near the subject property

402
00:28:24,880 --> 00:28:25,960
 started coming in.

403
00:28:25,960 --> 00:28:31,080
 You could see there, there are some, um, there are some places where that, where those subdivisions

404
00:28:31,080 --> 00:28:36,740
 began, um, that accelerated through the 1990s with additional neighborhoods, those single

405
00:28:36,740 --> 00:28:41,440
 family suburban style neighborhoods developing and then on through the 2000s.

406
00:28:41,440 --> 00:28:46,340
 So in the last 30 years, this, um, area of town really has filled in and this proposal

407
00:28:46,340 --> 00:28:52,480
 is just a continuation of that development pattern, um, minimizes adverse impacts on

408
00:28:52,480 --> 00:28:53,480
 surrounding property.

409
00:28:53,480 --> 00:28:58,360
 R4 is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods in both use and development scale.

410
00:28:58,360 --> 00:29:01,280
 It's not anticipated to create adverse impacts.

411
00:29:01,280 --> 00:29:07,360
 Um, the minimum lot size for R4 is 7,000 square feet, which is consistent with the typical

412
00:29:07,360 --> 00:29:13,480
 lot sizes of the area, which range range from 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet.

413
00:29:13,480 --> 00:29:17,880
 So it's, it's right there consistent with, with those adjacent neighborhoods.

414
00:29:17,880 --> 00:29:22,280
 Um, the expansion of the R4 district is a logical extension of that existing zoning

415
00:29:22,280 --> 00:29:27,920
 pattern and based upon the uses and development scale would create harmonious development.

416
00:29:27,920 --> 00:29:32,200
 Um, and the, and the rezoning would just allow development to be consistent with the surrounding

417
00:29:32,200 --> 00:29:33,200
 property.

418
00:29:33,200 --> 00:29:38,640
 Um, the intensity of the development is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts

419
00:29:38,640 --> 00:29:42,800
 to the surrounding property, um, due to the limited number of homes that just physically

420
00:29:42,800 --> 00:29:44,120
 could be just constructed.

421
00:29:44,120 --> 00:29:49,400
 Um, it's pretty, it's a pretty small site, uh, within the constraints of that proposed

422
00:29:49,400 --> 00:29:54,000
 district about 90 trips per day would be created, um, by the proposed rezoning.

423
00:29:54,000 --> 00:29:58,900
 Um, this doesn't try to trigger impact or, um, a TIA requirement.

424
00:29:58,900 --> 00:30:04,320
 Um, and then roadway impact fees, uh, would, would be required, um, at development.

425
00:30:04,320 --> 00:30:07,400
 Um, there are water and wastewater available to the site.

426
00:30:07,400 --> 00:30:09,000
 That's why we like infill developments.

427
00:30:09,000 --> 00:30:14,120
 Why our, um, DenPlan 2030, um, talks about infill is because there are public facilities

428
00:30:14,120 --> 00:30:16,720
 already available to the site.

429
00:30:16,720 --> 00:30:22,920
 Um, parks, it is about a mile from Milan park, so it doesn't quite meet the, the 10 minute

430
00:30:22,920 --> 00:30:24,080
 walk to a park.

431
00:30:24,080 --> 00:30:29,760
 Um, but I know parks is working on their master plan, so they will, um, they will be continuing

432
00:30:29,760 --> 00:30:34,280
 to identify, um, uh, future park land and then access.

433
00:30:34,280 --> 00:30:38,040
 I know, um, commissioner back asked at our last meeting and it did come up last year

434
00:30:38,040 --> 00:30:42,320
 when this came up, um, a full review will happen at the plotting process.

435
00:30:42,320 --> 00:30:49,440
 However, I did, um, provide sort of, um, a conceptual, um, um, um, driveway location

436
00:30:49,440 --> 00:30:51,520
 that the applicant had provided.

437
00:30:51,520 --> 00:30:55,600
 It's pretty limited as to where they could put their driveway, uh, just because of that,

438
00:30:55,600 --> 00:31:00,200
 uh, because of that panhandle, uh, but engineering is confirmed that the proposal does meet the

439
00:31:00,200 --> 00:31:04,680
 minimum spacing from those existing driveways that would be required with, with development

440
00:31:04,680 --> 00:31:05,680
 of the site.

441
00:31:05,680 --> 00:31:10,720
 Um, I also want to mention, I did speak with engineering, Mockingbird, um, I, I wanted

442
00:31:10,720 --> 00:31:15,160
 to make sure Mockingbird did have capacity, um, and it does have capacity for those additional

443
00:31:15,160 --> 00:31:16,160
 trips for the use.

444
00:31:16,160 --> 00:31:18,760
 Um, so we did send out notification.

445
00:31:18,760 --> 00:31:23,360
 We have received foreign opposition and so it does have 14% opposition.

446
00:31:23,360 --> 00:31:27,720
 That doesn't meet the threshold of the super majority that would require 20%.

447
00:31:27,720 --> 00:31:33,960
 Um, um, as you remember, this actually came before you, uh, last year and they had a neighborhood

448
00:31:33,960 --> 00:31:34,960
 meeting at that time.

449
00:31:34,960 --> 00:31:39,920
 They also held another neighborhood meeting, um, and, uh, the applicant will be available

450
00:31:39,920 --> 00:31:44,200
 to answer questions at the public hearing, so they could probably speak to that neighborhood

451
00:31:44,200 --> 00:31:46,400
 meeting as well.

452
00:31:46,400 --> 00:31:49,920
 So staff recommends approval of the request, it complies with the criteria and the debt

453
00:31:49,920 --> 00:31:52,560
 and development code, uh, for a zoning change.

454
00:31:52,560 --> 00:31:57,080
 Um, the applicant has also requested an overlay condition, but I want to talk to you briefly

455
00:31:57,080 --> 00:31:58,080
 about that.

456
00:31:58,080 --> 00:32:04,440
 So, um, while we have no objections to limiting the permitted uses, um, we do have concerns

457
00:32:04,440 --> 00:32:10,440
 about their, um, their request to include the, the, um, statement variance in their

458
00:32:10,440 --> 00:32:15,400
 overlay condition that actually does not comply with the debt and development code and state

459
00:32:15,400 --> 00:32:16,480
 law.

460
00:32:16,480 --> 00:32:22,920
 So we would, we would recommend that, um, that if you, if you did, um, uh, want to recommend

461
00:32:22,920 --> 00:32:27,660
 approval of this item with the overlay condition, that you would strike that language related

462
00:32:27,660 --> 00:32:32,880
 to variance so that it would just read single family detached homes only no town homes or

463
00:32:32,880 --> 00:32:37,160
 duplexes will be permitted even with a specific use permit.

464
00:32:37,160 --> 00:32:40,560
 And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

465
00:32:40,560 --> 00:32:45,640
 Commissioner back, thank you chair.

466
00:32:45,640 --> 00:32:49,840
 Um, so I know this is for the zoning and, and, and so the, the, the, our force seems

467
00:32:49,840 --> 00:32:54,520
 consistent in my opinion with this region, but back to the access.

468
00:32:54,520 --> 00:32:58,720
 And I know that's a future event we're talking about, but when you looked at, when you talked

469
00:32:58,720 --> 00:33:05,000
 to the engineers, they, the distance that they were referencing was to the stop sign

470
00:33:05,000 --> 00:33:11,240
 or to the, or also to the street across the street, because it seems that having these

471
00:33:11,240 --> 00:33:17,180
 sort of caddy corner kind of not aligned with each other is going to create a potential

472
00:33:17,180 --> 00:33:21,880
 for left turn, right turn collisions, especially if you're trying to get to a stop sign.

473
00:33:21,880 --> 00:33:28,160
 Well, I did ask them, I asked follow up questions just like you from them because I wanted to

474
00:33:28,160 --> 00:33:29,160
 make sure.

475
00:33:29,160 --> 00:33:34,480
 And, and so I had, I asked them not only once, but twice there and both times they confirmed

476
00:33:34,480 --> 00:33:37,040
 that this would meet all spacing requirements that they have.

477
00:33:37,040 --> 00:33:41,360
 So yeah, I, I had the same follow up question.

478
00:33:41,360 --> 00:33:44,320
 I'll watch the newspapers for when we have an accident there.

479
00:33:44,320 --> 00:33:48,640
 Thank you, Julie.

480
00:33:48,640 --> 00:33:49,960
 Any other questions for Julie?

481
00:33:49,960 --> 00:33:54,760
 Hey Julie, can you go back to slide seven for me?

482
00:33:54,760 --> 00:34:08,520
 Let me find my page numbers after we go, here we go.

483
00:34:08,520 --> 00:34:10,200
 Consistency with the purpose statement?

484
00:34:10,200 --> 00:34:11,200
 Yes.

485
00:34:11,200 --> 00:34:17,040
 That says section two, three, two, five, a, the zoning district will ensure existing neighborhood

486
00:34:17,040 --> 00:34:23,360
 character is maintained will also serve as a transition area between established single

487
00:34:23,360 --> 00:34:25,840
 family neighborhoods and mixed use neighborhoods.

488
00:34:25,840 --> 00:34:32,400
 I'm having a difficulty with that language, given that this is not in between as a transition.

489
00:34:32,400 --> 00:34:36,720
 This is stuck in the middle of neighbors.

490
00:34:36,720 --> 00:34:43,140
 And so I'm wondering if I could press on you a little bit to help me get into your mindset,

491
00:34:43,140 --> 00:34:51,200
 how you saw this lot, which is in the backyard of 14 homes or so as a transition between

492
00:34:51,200 --> 00:34:53,480
 neighborhoods.

493
00:34:53,480 --> 00:34:55,240
 Sure.

494
00:34:55,240 --> 00:35:02,560
 So yeah, it isn't, it isn't a perfect fit, just like with the comprehensive plan, but

495
00:35:02,560 --> 00:35:09,600
 we looked not only at, at, at that purpose statement and the, and that overall low density

496
00:35:09,600 --> 00:35:13,000
 residential and we looked at the context of the area.

497
00:35:13,000 --> 00:35:19,340
 And so based upon that, with the permitted uses in an R4 and also that, that development

498
00:35:19,340 --> 00:35:24,520
 scale that is so similar to those existing residential neighborhoods, we felt comfortable

499
00:35:24,520 --> 00:35:34,240
 that this was, was compatible with those adjacent neighborhoods and, and therefore consistent.

500
00:35:34,240 --> 00:35:37,120
 And then the next question I have just trying to get into your perspective is, can you go

501
00:35:37,120 --> 00:35:40,560
 to the contrasting zoning maps?

502
00:35:40,560 --> 00:35:46,000
 Yeah, that's the one.

503
00:35:46,000 --> 00:35:51,720
 It looks to me by my eye that the Southern line of this property, that Southern black

504
00:35:51,720 --> 00:35:57,160
 line is a very clear delineation from R2 to R4.

505
00:35:57,160 --> 00:35:59,720
 It seems like there's R2 on the North side of Audra.

506
00:35:59,720 --> 00:36:01,640
 There's R2 on the South side of Audra.

507
00:36:01,640 --> 00:36:06,840
 There's R2 on the Southwest corner of this property of this little left of this Oklahoma

508
00:36:06,840 --> 00:36:09,080
 shape property.

509
00:36:09,080 --> 00:36:12,400
 And then at the bottom, there's an R4 delineation.

510
00:36:12,400 --> 00:36:16,840
 Like the left-hand side, if I'm looking at these two maps and if you were to give me

511
00:36:16,840 --> 00:36:24,320
 no context and say which zoning looks better aligned to what zoning is there, the left

512
00:36:24,320 --> 00:36:31,560
 side where it's just a kind of an even nice yellow block of properties to my eye looks

513
00:36:31,560 --> 00:36:38,240
 way more aligned than trying to fit in this R4 lot that kind of comes up into the middle

514
00:36:38,240 --> 00:36:41,840
 of R2 and then to the left over in between more properties.

515
00:36:41,840 --> 00:36:44,120
 It looks like it's kind of forced.

516
00:36:44,120 --> 00:36:50,640
 And so I'd love to hear your perspective on just in looking at these maps, how your team

517
00:36:50,640 --> 00:36:57,960
 felt that the proposed zoning was in better alignment than the current zoning.

518
00:36:57,960 --> 00:37:03,960
 Well, both districts would be appropriate given that future land use.

519
00:37:03,960 --> 00:37:08,600
 We felt like R4 was not incompatible with the surrounding property.

520
00:37:08,600 --> 00:37:18,120
 And so yes, it is creating kind of a new boundary line for that R4 district.

521
00:37:18,120 --> 00:37:21,900
 But we didn't feel like it was out of character with what the surrounding development and

522
00:37:21,900 --> 00:37:29,520
 how that pattern has developed over time in these infill areas.

523
00:37:29,520 --> 00:37:36,960
 Is that the kind of the prevailing key word here you used several times, the infill?

524
00:37:36,960 --> 00:37:44,280
 Is infill and density kind of taking priority over the evaluation of this subject property?

525
00:37:44,280 --> 00:37:51,280
 I think we look at everything weighted equally.

526
00:37:51,280 --> 00:37:59,160
 We do, the comprehensive plan is clear in how it felt like didn't needed stage development

527
00:37:59,160 --> 00:38:06,920
 and that we wanted to fill in these kind of parcels within the city before we start pushing

528
00:38:06,920 --> 00:38:11,520
 out to the more rural areas.

529
00:38:11,520 --> 00:38:19,560
 So, yes, the comprehensive plan does address infill as something that we want to seek out.

530
00:38:19,560 --> 00:38:26,520
 But we always want to make sure that any development and any zoning would be in fitting with character

531
00:38:26,520 --> 00:38:31,760
 with the surrounding property and would be compatible with the existing uses.

532
00:38:31,760 --> 00:38:39,400
 So I don't know if we weight either of those things greater, but they are things that we

533
00:38:39,400 --> 00:38:42,220
 think about as we're looking at these sites.

534
00:38:42,220 --> 00:38:45,200
 A couple other technical questions.

535
00:38:45,200 --> 00:38:47,280
 How big is the property?

536
00:38:47,280 --> 00:38:49,280
 It is, let me make sure.

537
00:38:49,280 --> 00:38:50,280
 2.61.

538
00:38:50,280 --> 00:38:51,280
 Never mind.

539
00:38:51,280 --> 00:38:53,000
 I can read.

540
00:38:53,000 --> 00:38:59,280
 And then is it possible to know, obviously without the infrastructure being plotted,

541
00:38:59,280 --> 00:39:03,640
 how many single family homes they can fit on 2.61 acres?

542
00:39:03,640 --> 00:39:07,600
 I think nine would be the maximum that they could that they could plot.

543
00:39:07,600 --> 00:39:10,960
 And I mean, the applicant will be here this evening, you said?

544
00:39:10,960 --> 00:39:11,960
 Yes, sir.

545
00:39:11,960 --> 00:39:15,880
 I'm just curious how many homes they could build on an R4 designation.

546
00:39:15,880 --> 00:39:18,560
 Okay, Julie, that's all I have.

547
00:39:18,560 --> 00:39:22,040
 Does any other commissioners have any follow up for Julie?

548
00:39:22,040 --> 00:39:24,080
 Commissioner Ellis.

549
00:39:24,080 --> 00:39:27,080
 Thank you, Chair.

550
00:39:27,080 --> 00:39:30,540
 I think it was just a follow up on what you were just discussing.

551
00:39:30,540 --> 00:39:33,200
 Did you mean how many can you fit in an R2?

552
00:39:33,200 --> 00:39:34,200
 Yes.

553
00:39:34,200 --> 00:39:35,200
 Yeah.

554
00:39:35,200 --> 00:39:36,200
 Okay.

555
00:39:36,200 --> 00:39:37,200
 No, no, no, no, no.

556
00:39:37,200 --> 00:39:38,200
 I apologize.

557
00:39:38,200 --> 00:39:39,200
 Because they're proposing R4, right?

558
00:39:39,200 --> 00:39:40,200
 Yes.

559
00:39:40,200 --> 00:39:41,200
 And they're proposing nine lines.

560
00:39:41,200 --> 00:39:42,200
 An R4.

561
00:39:42,200 --> 00:39:43,200
 Yes.

562
00:39:43,200 --> 00:39:46,560
 No, that's what I wanted, to know how many homes they could under new proposal build.

563
00:39:46,560 --> 00:39:47,560
 Okay.

564
00:39:47,560 --> 00:39:48,560
 Yeah.

565
00:39:48,560 --> 00:39:50,520
 And that was on, I think, one of their site plans that was.

566
00:39:50,520 --> 00:39:51,520
 Yeah.

567
00:39:51,520 --> 00:39:52,520
 Yeah.

568
00:39:52,520 --> 00:39:53,520
 I think Julie said in her presentation.

569
00:39:53,520 --> 00:39:54,520
 Okay.

570
00:39:54,520 --> 00:39:55,520
 Yeah.

571
00:39:55,520 --> 00:39:56,520
 Thanks.

572
00:39:56,520 --> 00:39:57,520
 Okay.

573
00:39:57,520 --> 00:39:58,520
 Seeing no other questions.

574
00:39:58,520 --> 00:40:08,760
 We'll move on to the next item of business, which is item 5B, AESA 20-002B, and I'll invite

575
00:40:08,760 --> 00:40:27,960
 Christy Upton for presentation.

576
00:40:27,960 --> 00:40:43,200
 [silence]

577
00:40:43,200 --> 00:40:59,920
 Now there it is.

578
00:40:59,920 --> 00:41:08,920
 Thank you.

579
00:41:08,920 --> 00:41:13,920
 [silence]

580
00:41:13,920 --> 00:41:29,920
 Is the presentation up?

581
00:41:29,920 --> 00:41:41,560
 Sorry.

582
00:41:41,560 --> 00:41:49,320
 Christy Upton, and I'm with Environmental Services, and I will be presenting an alternative

583
00:41:49,320 --> 00:41:52,040
 ESA plan for you tonight.

584
00:41:52,040 --> 00:42:02,460
 This is Eagle Cove, and it is generally located south of Dustch's Drive and west of Loop 288.

585
00:42:02,460 --> 00:42:10,720
 It's a proposed 56 single-family lots, and the preliminary plat was approved on March

586
00:42:10,720 --> 00:42:16,760
 18th, and there will also be three common area lots.

587
00:42:16,760 --> 00:42:24,760
 And the proposal for you tonight is to impact riparian buffer ESA and undeveloped flip plane

588
00:42:24,760 --> 00:42:30,400
 by constructing two roadway crossings and one storm drain.

589
00:42:30,400 --> 00:42:37,440
 And I'll give you a little background on the ESAs that are located on site.

590
00:42:37,440 --> 00:42:46,000
 There is a riparian buffer that traverses generally the western third of the property,

591
00:42:46,000 --> 00:42:54,400
 and is a tributary to Pecan Creek, an unnamed tributary, and the riparian buffer associated

592
00:42:54,400 --> 00:43:03,440
 with that creek is 50 feet on each side of that stream, and in general located on the

593
00:43:03,440 --> 00:43:04,440
 property.

594
00:43:04,440 --> 00:43:10,320
 It encumbers 2.94 acres, and it was found to be in great condition.

595
00:43:10,320 --> 00:43:19,240
 Kind of unusual for the flip plane, the flip plane is actually located within and is encumbered

596
00:43:19,240 --> 00:43:22,040
 by the riparian buffer.

597
00:43:22,040 --> 00:43:31,840
 So this is the upper reaches of the flip plane of Pecan Creek, and the flip plane was recently

598
00:43:31,840 --> 00:43:38,320
 updated or the boundaries of that flip plane was recently updated by an approved LOMAR,

599
00:43:38,320 --> 00:43:44,860
 and the map was updated to reflect the new flip plane boundaries.

600
00:43:44,860 --> 00:43:49,000
 And that encumbers 0.18 acres on the site.

601
00:43:49,000 --> 00:43:56,320
 In addition to that, there's 3.76 acres of cross timbers upland habitat, also interestingly

602
00:43:56,320 --> 00:43:59,920
 all located along this riparian buffer.

603
00:43:59,920 --> 00:44:04,960
 And it's kind of also an unusual condition.

604
00:44:04,960 --> 00:44:13,200
 We found that there was post oaks and blackjack oaks that were located within that upland

605
00:44:13,200 --> 00:44:17,840
 habitat interspersed with grasslands.

606
00:44:17,840 --> 00:44:24,720
 That 3.76 acres, while that's less than the 10 acres on the site, is contiguous with upland

607
00:44:24,720 --> 00:44:31,720
 habitat that is on adjacent property.

608
00:44:31,720 --> 00:44:36,360
 So the permitted encroachments, I'll go over those first.

609
00:44:36,360 --> 00:44:46,240
 Undeveloped flip plane ESA, that is a permitted encroachment because of DDC and the DDC allows

610
00:44:46,240 --> 00:44:53,740
 for culverts and bridges, and 0.1 acres of the flip plane would be permanently removed

611
00:44:53,740 --> 00:45:00,680
 in order to place the roadway over that section on the southern roadway.

612
00:45:00,680 --> 00:45:08,360
 And then there's, because of the cross timbers upland habitat is greater than 10 acres, that

613
00:45:08,360 --> 00:45:11,200
 is 50% is protected.

614
00:45:11,200 --> 00:45:19,120
 And because much of it is located within that riparian buffer zone, they will only be proposing

615
00:45:19,120 --> 00:45:27,280
 to remove 29% of the cross timbers upland habitat.

616
00:45:27,280 --> 00:45:35,680
 So the impacts that the applicant is proposing is to construct these two roadways, the placement

617
00:45:35,680 --> 00:45:43,060
 of the one storm drain near the center of the property, and then the placement of one

618
00:45:43,060 --> 00:45:52,200
 lot that is located on the northeast corner of lot 3B, which is right south of the northern

619
00:45:52,200 --> 00:45:54,240
 roadway crossing.

620
00:45:54,240 --> 00:46:02,840
 The total square feet that would be removed is 20,900 square feet or 0.48 acres.

621
00:46:02,840 --> 00:46:09,120
 And in order to complete the construction of those two roadways, there would be a disturbance

622
00:46:09,120 --> 00:46:13,920
 of 0.68 acres.

623
00:46:13,920 --> 00:46:25,600
 For the mitigation, the applicant is proposing the following actions, and that would be to

624
00:46:25,600 --> 00:46:34,380
 place the remaining ESAs in the HOA lots and expand the habitat by restricting those HOA

625
00:46:34,380 --> 00:46:37,160
 lots to remain in a natural state.

626
00:46:37,160 --> 00:46:40,380
 That would be an additional 1.2 acres.

627
00:46:40,380 --> 00:46:47,840
 So in addition to the remaining ESAs, they're anticipating by remaining in a natural state

628
00:46:47,840 --> 00:46:51,160
 that the ESAs would expand.

629
00:46:51,160 --> 00:47:01,840
 And that is a ratio of 2 to 5.1 of removed habitat to expanded habitat.

630
00:47:01,840 --> 00:47:09,360
 A second mitigation activity would be to place eight grow zone signs and one sign that would

631
00:47:09,360 --> 00:47:18,680
 explain cross timbers upland habitat, and this would anticipate to help promote the

632
00:47:18,680 --> 00:47:25,520
 remaining ESAs and expanded habitat to the public.

633
00:47:25,520 --> 00:47:31,960
 And then before I go any further into the mitigation, I wanted to explain lot 18A.

634
00:47:31,960 --> 00:47:38,000
 This was not previously identified on the preliminary plat as an HOA lot.

635
00:47:38,000 --> 00:47:44,160
 However, the applicant has identified that there is riparian buffer on this lot and has

636
00:47:44,160 --> 00:47:54,120
 agreed to place this lot and dedicate it to the HOA at final plat.

637
00:47:54,120 --> 00:48:03,080
 And this remaining, this particular lot will be an additional HOA lot to preserve, but

638
00:48:03,080 --> 00:48:08,640
 just to preserve the riparian buffer and the cross timbers upland habitat that's located

639
00:48:08,640 --> 00:48:13,720
 in the southern corner.

640
00:48:13,720 --> 00:48:20,400
 And then lastly, the applicant is proposing some restoration, and that would be to restore

641
00:48:20,400 --> 00:48:24,680
 those habitats that were disturbed during construction, and those areas are outlined

642
00:48:24,680 --> 00:48:37,280
 in green, and that restoration work would include the use of vegetation to help promote

643
00:48:37,280 --> 00:48:45,120
 the recovery of the ESA, and then to improve the habitat conditions overall to remove the

644
00:48:45,120 --> 00:48:53,600
 invasive Chinese privet that during the ESA field assessment we found upwards of 50% encroachment

645
00:48:53,600 --> 00:49:00,620
 or invasion of the Chinese privet within that riparian buffer zone.

646
00:49:00,620 --> 00:49:10,560
 And then to re-vegetate the riparian buffer zone with the native grasses as a continuity

647
00:49:10,560 --> 00:49:17,080
 of the restoration work for the roadways.

648
00:49:17,080 --> 00:49:21,240
 We did want to bring to your attention some other considerations.

649
00:49:21,240 --> 00:49:26,440
 While the applicant satisfied the requirements of the preliminary plat, there were a few

650
00:49:26,440 --> 00:49:36,760
 things that staff had deferred, including in drainage there was a deferment of the full

651
00:49:36,760 --> 00:49:41,880
 review of the storm drainage structures to support this development, and then our full

652
00:49:41,880 --> 00:49:44,440
 review of the downstream impacts.

653
00:49:44,440 --> 00:49:49,960
 And then tree preservation-wise, the applicant has provided and satisfied the preliminary

654
00:49:49,960 --> 00:49:57,160
 tree preservation plan, while at the same -- one of the concerns that staff has brought

655
00:49:57,160 --> 00:50:03,240
 up is the trees within the alternative ESA mitigation cannot count towards the tree preservation

656
00:50:03,240 --> 00:50:11,640
 and replacement at the final plat.

657
00:50:11,640 --> 00:50:18,560
 In order to help meet the tree preservation, the applicant has proposed a natural preserve

658
00:50:18,560 --> 00:50:27,080
 because there was more than 50% of the upland habitat that was preservation that was being

659
00:50:27,080 --> 00:50:28,080
 met.

660
00:50:28,080 --> 00:50:33,800
 A portion of lot 17A is being set aside as this natural preserve.

661
00:50:33,800 --> 00:50:42,980
 It is a total of .13 acres and will be included in the development impact area, and that means

662
00:50:42,980 --> 00:50:47,900
 that the cross-tumors upland habitat designation would be removed.

663
00:50:47,900 --> 00:50:56,120
 So the trees would remain, but the understory would not necessarily be protected.

664
00:50:56,120 --> 00:51:04,000
 Notifications were sent out, and we did get one response from the property owner in favor.

665
00:51:04,000 --> 00:51:10,720
 And lastly, staff is recommending approval, finding that this plan did meet all the criteria

666
00:51:10,720 --> 00:51:20,760
 for approval, and we did add some recommended conditions, including prior to the platting

667
00:51:20,760 --> 00:51:29,520
 approval, that this mitigation area, the expanded habitat, would be placed in a deed-restricted

668
00:51:29,520 --> 00:51:37,800
 HOA lot, and that the homeowners association documents would be reviewed by the city's

669
00:51:37,800 --> 00:51:40,960
 attorney prior to the approval of that final plot.

670
00:51:40,960 --> 00:51:45,680
 Lot 18A shall be dedicated to the HOA at final plot.

671
00:51:45,680 --> 00:51:54,920
 This was something that staff identified after we had provided you the backup materials,

672
00:51:54,920 --> 00:52:02,000
 so I just wanted to highlight that addition that we have added to these conditions for

673
00:52:02,000 --> 00:52:03,720
 approval.

674
00:52:03,720 --> 00:52:10,840
 And land-to-services within the riparian buffer ESA is limited into the square footage that

675
00:52:10,840 --> 00:52:18,760
 the applicant has provided following the construction of that riparian, the infrastructure, that

676
00:52:18,760 --> 00:52:28,560
 the vegetation would be restored, and prior to issuance of any building permits, that

677
00:52:28,560 --> 00:52:38,600
 the work that was promoted, that was offered up to remove the Chinese privet would be completed.

678
00:52:38,600 --> 00:52:45,960
 And then six and seven are the conditions that environmental services has been placing

679
00:52:45,960 --> 00:52:53,240
 on all alternative ESA plans for acceptance, and lastly, if the civil engineering plans

680
00:52:53,240 --> 00:53:00,320
 or other subsequent approvable plans identify a modification to this alternative ESA plan

681
00:53:00,320 --> 00:53:11,880
 that the applicant would either seek a new alternative ESA or seek a new preliminary

682
00:53:11,880 --> 00:53:14,760
 plot.

683
00:53:14,760 --> 00:53:17,440
 And that's the end of this presentation.

684
00:53:17,440 --> 00:53:20,880
 Do you have any questions?

685
00:53:20,880 --> 00:53:21,880
 Thank you so much, Christy.

686
00:53:21,880 --> 00:53:22,880
 I think we might have some questions.

687
00:53:22,880 --> 00:53:25,800
 We'll start with Commissioner Beck.

688
00:53:25,800 --> 00:53:26,800
 Thank you, Christy.

689
00:53:26,800 --> 00:53:33,920
 So the thing I want to point out is that when we saw this property before during the 3-2

690
00:53:33,920 --> 00:53:40,760
 vote when two of our commissioners were missing, I raised my objections there, and environmental

691
00:53:40,760 --> 00:53:47,120
 actually identified those same objections, but then they argued for Chapter 2-8 and Chapter

692
00:53:47,120 --> 00:53:51,800
 7-7-4 relief from those objections.

693
00:53:51,800 --> 00:53:58,680
 So you know, I'm heartened by the fact that staff and I agree, but I'm kind of disheartened

694
00:53:58,680 --> 00:54:04,400
 that you were seeking relief from those very items.

695
00:54:04,400 --> 00:54:11,760
 And I do want to kind of carrot this before I stick it, and that is I think the engineers

696
00:54:11,760 --> 00:54:18,480
 have tried and along with staff to do the development of the grasses, which is great,

697
00:54:18,480 --> 00:54:26,200
 some of the other elements for the actual Alt-ESA itself in terms of the restoration

698
00:54:26,200 --> 00:54:36,640
 elements of the Alt-ESA are clearly everyone is trying to develop this in a better way.

699
00:54:36,640 --> 00:54:44,120
 So I want to acknowledge that, and in this case, less so the ESA itself as the fact that

700
00:54:44,120 --> 00:54:52,160
 those, if you pull up that floodplain map where the flood actually, floodplain extends

701
00:54:52,160 --> 00:54:56,480
 halfway through the riparian buffer almost to that detention pond.

702
00:54:56,480 --> 00:55:02,760
 So they're going to tear out the detention pond, they're going to build a bridge where

703
00:55:02,760 --> 00:55:08,640
 there will be detritus in trees, less pervious surface, so they're going to have a bridge

704
00:55:08,640 --> 00:55:14,280
 that will back up almost immediately because that's floodplain, they're building a culvert

705
00:55:14,280 --> 00:55:15,280
 over.

706
00:55:15,280 --> 00:55:21,840
 I live near a creek that has been culverted and the trees here in Idiot's Hill back it

707
00:55:21,840 --> 00:55:25,680
 up and my neighbors flood out almost all the time.

708
00:55:25,680 --> 00:55:32,000
 And I don't want to create a situation that is like my neighbors, where they were operating

709
00:55:32,000 --> 00:55:36,160
 under old guidelines when we have the guidelines in place to prevent this.

710
00:55:36,160 --> 00:55:43,480
 So I have less of a problem with the ESA restoration elements as I do the fact that they're going

711
00:55:43,480 --> 00:55:49,560
 to create homes that flood at both bridges.

712
00:55:49,560 --> 00:55:54,800
 So we're building culverts that will flood from the upstream drainage west of the property.

713
00:55:54,800 --> 00:55:59,520
 All this property drains in, the detention pond that was there, whether it was natural

714
00:55:59,520 --> 00:56:07,080
 or built, was taking runoff from the development across the street of Dutchess.

715
00:56:07,080 --> 00:56:10,520
 That's all going to become a house and roads.

716
00:56:10,520 --> 00:56:15,400
 So we're removing all this pervious surface and all that area is going to flood.

717
00:56:15,400 --> 00:56:22,400
 And while we all agree Chinese privet is an invasive species, it is understory and it

718
00:56:22,400 --> 00:56:30,920
 is storm drain mitigation flume material and it would slow down the water in ways that

719
00:56:30,920 --> 00:56:32,600
 the grass won't.

720
00:56:32,600 --> 00:56:37,560
 So if my concerns are flooding, which they are for most of these, what they're requesting

721
00:56:37,560 --> 00:56:43,880
 the all ESAs for, then you're going to get the soil creep, which is 735.

722
00:56:43,880 --> 00:56:46,440
 You're going to get downstream flooding, which is 751.

723
00:56:46,440 --> 00:56:51,960
 Oh, I'm prepared on all these ordinance subsections on this one.

724
00:56:51,960 --> 00:56:58,800
 And so the, you know, asking for relief when there is immediately on this parcel will be

725
00:56:58,800 --> 00:57:00,880
 flood issues.

726
00:57:00,880 --> 00:57:05,520
 And we haven't even considered the downstream impact, which in your presentation, you said

727
00:57:05,520 --> 00:57:11,400
 staff has qualms because the long range downstream impact had not been assessed.

728
00:57:11,400 --> 00:57:15,760
 And that was actually an additional qualm of staff, which also I concurred with in the

729
00:57:15,760 --> 00:57:17,320
 previous meeting.

730
00:57:17,320 --> 00:57:22,360
 So while I understand that the developers want to put this on here and that they're

731
00:57:22,360 --> 00:57:30,240
 making some, you know, really nice attempts to put in signage and create things there,

732
00:57:30,240 --> 00:57:35,920
 they're asking for flood events, both on this site at the adjacent site along, put concrete

733
00:57:35,920 --> 00:57:36,920
 into the floodplain.

734
00:57:36,920 --> 00:57:40,720
 I mean, this floodplain extends into this property.

735
00:57:40,720 --> 00:57:46,620
 Plus, if you have soil creep because you have no pervious services anymore and it drains

736
00:57:46,620 --> 00:57:54,560
 into this channel, then you're going to kill by silting out downstream species that are

737
00:57:54,560 --> 00:58:03,160
 in this endangered region of a concrete that extends from pretty much the Mack Park substation

738
00:58:03,160 --> 00:58:04,880
 area all the way to the lake.

739
00:58:04,880 --> 00:58:10,120
 I mean, we send our Boy Scouts and our college kids to this region.

740
00:58:10,120 --> 00:58:15,840
 And this kind of development along the floodplain is going to silt it out and kill these species

741
00:58:15,840 --> 00:58:20,640
 so that we can't do this kind of thing anymore that, you know, is actually a distinctive

742
00:58:20,640 --> 00:58:25,400
 element of our community.

743
00:58:25,400 --> 00:58:32,640
 So I mean, you know, but even if you neglect those sort of moral environmental issues,

744
00:58:32,640 --> 00:58:35,520
 this is going to flood out this property.

745
00:58:35,520 --> 00:58:39,680
 And then I guess my final point on this, and I know I've been doing all the talking and

746
00:58:39,680 --> 00:58:47,360
 I do want Christy to respond, but is by taking upland habitat, we just had a knockdown dragout

747
00:58:47,360 --> 00:58:59,000
 last night in council about removing not endangered, but threatened upland habitat post oaks to

748
00:58:59,000 --> 00:59:06,920
 where they had to go to special session or executive session and about this very sort

749
00:59:06,920 --> 00:59:10,680
 of removal of upland habitat from green corridors.

750
00:59:10,680 --> 00:59:14,520
 And here we are again, the very next night talking about removing upland habitat from

751
00:59:14,520 --> 00:59:16,160
 green corridors.

752
00:59:16,160 --> 00:59:23,120
 You know, we cannot cement over what we have left, like just like we did downtown, or we

753
00:59:23,120 --> 00:59:27,680
 will have what we have downtown, which is a Los Angeles style culvert.

754
00:59:27,680 --> 00:59:28,840
 All right.

755
00:59:28,840 --> 00:59:35,860
 And so I don't want even if they preserve the trees, your presentation made the point

756
00:59:35,860 --> 00:59:41,020
 that we're taking it out of the special protection designation of upland habitat.

757
00:59:41,020 --> 00:59:47,720
 So they will not be protecting, they will be resident regular residential lots and they

758
00:59:47,720 --> 00:59:58,120
 will have much freer restrictions on the impacts, both of the upland habitat on the on the fringe

759
00:59:58,120 --> 01:00:03,120
 of this property, as well as the upland upland habitat and the floodplain to the south.

760
01:00:03,120 --> 01:00:10,600
 So I mean, I recognize and applaud the engineers for trying to do a better job.

761
01:00:10,600 --> 01:00:15,400
 And I want to encourage them, but I think we need to do a better job still.

762
01:00:15,400 --> 01:00:19,280
 If we're going to develop this property and not flood up the houses on this property downstream

763
01:00:19,280 --> 01:00:25,620
 from this property till the species and take things out of upland habitat, then the engineers

764
01:00:25,620 --> 01:00:27,680
 need to do an even further job.

765
01:00:27,680 --> 01:00:35,380
 And that is noticed by the fact that staff had the same qualms that I'm just more vociferously

766
01:00:35,380 --> 01:00:37,760
 enunciating right now.

767
01:00:37,760 --> 01:00:40,520
 So Chris Rebecca, I appreciate your perspective.

768
01:00:40,520 --> 01:00:41,560
 Just help Christy out.

769
01:00:41,560 --> 01:00:44,600
 Can you clarify what you said you wanted her to respond?

770
01:00:44,600 --> 01:00:45,600
 There's a lot there.

771
01:00:45,600 --> 01:00:47,600
 Can you clarify what you want to respond to?

772
01:00:47,600 --> 01:00:52,280
 I'm dumping on Christy again, because I'm obviously clearly concerned about this.

773
01:00:52,280 --> 01:00:55,040
 So let me see if I can put this into a couple of bulleted questions.

774
01:00:55,040 --> 01:01:06,360
 And those are what, when you have contiguous upland habitat that you're taking out of designation

775
01:01:06,360 --> 01:01:12,320
 of upland habitat, this fringe with the adjacent upland habitat, what are the demands that

776
01:01:12,320 --> 01:01:19,440
 the city places on maintenance of when you're splitting and removing chunks of upland habitat

777
01:01:19,440 --> 01:01:20,440
 like that?

778
01:01:20,440 --> 01:01:33,360
 Is there any restrictions on use or patterns outside of regular residential restrictions

779
01:01:33,360 --> 01:01:36,600
 that would end up protecting the plot to the south?

780
01:01:36,600 --> 01:01:40,680
 So you're asking about lot 17A?

781
01:01:40,680 --> 01:01:42,520
 The fringe on the south side of the road.

782
01:01:42,520 --> 01:01:45,920
 Oh, the fringe on the south side of the property?

783
01:01:45,920 --> 01:01:47,640
 Yes, ma'am.

784
01:01:47,640 --> 01:01:49,240
 That's on an adjacent property.

785
01:01:49,240 --> 01:01:52,760
 So this developer wouldn't have any control over that.

786
01:01:52,760 --> 01:01:56,060
 So those trees, though, were on this property as well.

787
01:01:56,060 --> 01:02:01,960
 Parts of that upland habitat you show in the zoning and the preliminary plot maps or the

788
01:02:01,960 --> 01:02:04,680
 concept plans were on this property as well.

789
01:02:04,680 --> 01:02:16,240
 And those trees that would end up in backyards, and depending on their choice and I think

790
01:02:16,240 --> 01:02:22,760
 depending on tree preservation, how that plays out, whether the trees would remain but the

791
01:02:22,760 --> 01:02:29,360
 understory of that upland habitat along the southern border of their property would be

792
01:02:29,360 --> 01:02:31,680
 removed.

793
01:02:31,680 --> 01:02:35,880
 Are there restrictions when you are part of a contiguous upland habitat?

794
01:02:35,880 --> 01:02:39,120
 I assume there's not because we're taking it out of upland habitat, right?

795
01:02:39,120 --> 01:02:43,920
 The restrictions go away by the change in designation, is that correct?

796
01:02:43,920 --> 01:02:49,800
 I think what you're asking is if the restrictions on the understory would go away, and yes,

797
01:02:49,800 --> 01:02:54,120
 that is what I'm saying.

798
01:02:54,120 --> 01:03:03,600
 And then I don't know if this is a legal question or not, but what is our liability if we put

799
01:03:03,600 --> 01:03:10,840
 in bridges that are potential flood hazards over these two ends of this creek?

800
01:03:10,840 --> 01:03:14,560
 I know it's a hypothetical, so it's not really illegal and I won't really ask that, but I'm

801
01:03:14,560 --> 01:03:18,360
 concerned that we, I'm not concerned.

802
01:03:18,360 --> 01:03:19,840
 I know this is going to flood.

803
01:03:19,840 --> 01:03:23,840
 I live next to an identical sort of circumstance.

804
01:03:23,840 --> 01:03:30,800
 It's absolutely going to flood out these brand new homes.

805
01:03:30,800 --> 01:03:38,440
 I think, well, I do have one other issue and that is the silting out downstream.

806
01:03:38,440 --> 01:03:44,760
 What are our regulation restrictions to combat 7.3.5, that soil creek?

807
01:03:44,760 --> 01:03:49,400
 We know right along the southern border where they're going to have to level at infrastructure,

808
01:03:49,400 --> 01:03:55,600
 at electrical, at sewer, we are going to disturb this property that is along this delicate

809
01:03:55,600 --> 01:04:01,000
 fringe between this and the adjacent property to the south, and you are going to watch that

810
01:04:01,000 --> 01:04:07,760
 soil creep both into the riparian buffer and into the main creek bed just to the south.

811
01:04:07,760 --> 01:04:16,040
 So I think what you're referring to is part of the state and federal regulations on what

812
01:04:16,040 --> 01:04:20,720
 is called the MS4 or the municipal separate storm sewer system.

813
01:04:20,720 --> 01:04:28,120
 This is a regulation that requires that the municipalities have a program to have oversight

814
01:04:28,120 --> 01:04:30,060
 of construction activity.

815
01:04:30,060 --> 01:04:34,240
 So when you drive around town and you're seeing construction activity, you'll see silt fences

816
01:04:34,240 --> 01:04:39,160
 and other controls that are placed, those are actually part of that state and federal

817
01:04:39,160 --> 01:04:50,380
 program, which the city has the regulatory requirement to have oversight of that program.

818
01:04:50,380 --> 01:05:00,360
 So we do have an extensive inspection program that we have put in place, and we have an

819
01:05:00,360 --> 01:05:06,560
 entire watershed team who reviews erosion control plans before they start construction,

820
01:05:06,560 --> 01:05:12,520
 and then they continuously inspect those sites during the lifespan of that construction until

821
01:05:12,520 --> 01:05:15,520
 final stabilization is achieved.

822
01:05:15,520 --> 01:05:21,560
 So it wasn't you, but I forget who we were talking with last time, maybe it was you,

823
01:05:21,560 --> 01:05:26,960
 when this came before us, I believe in March, and I talked with the engineer back then too,

824
01:05:26,960 --> 01:05:35,440
 and the engineer told me at the time that while these kinds of hay berms and nylon mesh

825
01:05:35,440 --> 01:05:48,540
 and whatnot would be put in place during construction, that they couldn't assure that runoff would

826
01:05:48,540 --> 01:05:49,800
 not be a factor.

827
01:05:49,800 --> 01:05:53,200
 They could only put those down to try to mitigate that.

828
01:05:53,200 --> 01:06:00,400
 And so the problem with that, that's fine if you have a regular creek bed, but there

829
01:06:00,400 --> 01:06:05,240
 are downstream species that are threatened and endangered between this property along

830
01:06:05,240 --> 01:06:07,120
 Concord Creek to the lake.

831
01:06:07,120 --> 01:06:14,080
 And so there's a big, huge difference between tolerating some silting in that's allowed

832
01:06:14,080 --> 01:06:20,560
 by the kinds of hay bales we have and when you have threatened versus sort of ordinary

833
01:06:20,560 --> 01:06:22,960
 culvert drainage.

834
01:06:22,960 --> 01:06:24,600
 And so that was concerning me.

835
01:06:24,600 --> 01:06:30,960
 And the second thing I'd like you to try to address is this idea of after the construction's

836
01:06:30,960 --> 01:06:38,520
 over and you've leveled and disturbed these services, I mean, even with bulldozer, sorry,

837
01:06:38,520 --> 01:06:44,840
 the steam rollers that will repack the surface before housing construction, or however they

838
01:06:44,840 --> 01:06:53,480
 pack the surface to stabilize it, even after that, this is disturbed, no longer erosion

839
01:06:53,480 --> 01:07:02,880
 produced materials, these are softened construction materials with pervious connections embedded

840
01:07:02,880 --> 01:07:08,600
 in them, the piping, the subfloor and the foundation.

841
01:07:08,600 --> 01:07:14,880
 And what is, I mean, what's our monitoring, so the second question is what is our monitoring

842
01:07:14,880 --> 01:07:20,320
 for long-term soil creep, especially along that southern border?

843
01:07:20,320 --> 01:07:26,320
 Okay, so there is a certain tolerance.

844
01:07:26,320 --> 01:07:34,720
 I have worked with EPA inspectors before and we, in that industry, there is a certain amount

845
01:07:34,720 --> 01:07:41,920
 of sediment that could be expected to be lost during any construction activity.

846
01:07:41,920 --> 01:07:50,440
 It is, the state regulation does say maximize and to the extent practicable and our enforcement

847
01:07:50,440 --> 01:07:55,500
 team does enforce to maximize to the extent practicable.

848
01:07:55,500 --> 01:08:07,520
 So it's a matter of some, you know, there is some continuity or continuum in that controls

849
01:08:07,520 --> 01:08:11,360
 of any construction site.

850
01:08:11,360 --> 01:08:18,880
 Downstream, long-term, so I heard you talking about compaction.

851
01:08:18,880 --> 01:08:25,360
 Compaction would not occur within the ESAs that are not within that construction zone.

852
01:08:25,360 --> 01:08:31,320
 So they would be limited to only disturbing those areas within that green outline that

853
01:08:31,320 --> 01:08:37,880
 I showed you and there should not be expected any compaction outside of that because those

854
01:08:37,880 --> 01:08:45,160
 would, construction activity would be prohibited outside of that construction activity.

855
01:08:45,160 --> 01:08:56,080
 And then long-term, the applicant and the engineer that will design the final engineering

856
01:08:56,080 --> 01:09:05,640
 plans will have to work with staff to confirm and to show that long-term erosion would be

857
01:09:05,640 --> 01:09:12,720
 minimized, I think is a good word.

858
01:09:12,720 --> 01:09:19,320
 Given the three or maybe it was four, I don't mean the special recommendations, but given

859
01:09:19,320 --> 01:09:27,960
 the additional three or four qualms that staff had about this, wouldn't it be better to get

860
01:09:27,960 --> 01:09:32,500
 that nailed down before proceeding along?

861
01:09:32,500 --> 01:09:39,200
 It feels like there's so many gotchas on this property that's going to come around.

862
01:09:39,200 --> 01:09:44,640
 Other gotchas, adjacent gotchas, downstream gotchas, we are, and let alone, we haven't

863
01:09:44,640 --> 01:09:50,900
 even addressed habitat and animals and whatnot that are, I mean, clearly go up this creek

864
01:09:50,900 --> 01:09:55,240
 bed all the way towards Mac Park and MLK and stuff like that.

865
01:09:55,240 --> 01:10:02,880
 So I understand we want to build adjacent to things like this, but it feels like we've

866
01:10:02,880 --> 01:10:08,900
 got undotted I's and uncrossed T's that we need a little more in the vein of the nice

867
01:10:08,900 --> 01:10:12,880
 way they were trying to extend and be better.

868
01:10:12,880 --> 01:10:18,960
 I appreciate that element, but I think we still need, we've still got a way to go and

869
01:10:18,960 --> 01:10:22,080
 I will be quiet because I have talked for quite a long time.

870
01:10:22,080 --> 01:10:28,680
 Thank you, Kristi, for your forbearance.

871
01:10:28,680 --> 01:10:33,000
 Is there any other questions for Kristi or staff Commissioner Ellis?

872
01:10:33,000 --> 01:10:34,000
 Thank you, Chair.

873
01:10:34,000 --> 01:10:35,040
 Just a quick question, Kristi.

874
01:10:35,040 --> 01:10:38,680
 With condition, I guess it's number eight now.

875
01:10:38,680 --> 01:10:45,360
 So if a revised plan is needed, is that something staff would do or does that come back before

876
01:10:45,360 --> 01:10:46,360
 us?

877
01:10:46,360 --> 01:10:52,320
 We would bring it back to this board, this commission and then to City Council.

878
01:10:52,320 --> 01:10:55,120
 So it followed the same process if something is okay.

879
01:10:55,120 --> 01:10:56,120
 Thank you.

880
01:10:56,120 --> 01:10:57,120
 I just need clarification.

881
01:10:57,120 --> 01:11:00,000
 I appreciate it.

882
01:11:00,000 --> 01:11:01,000
 Any other questions?

883
01:11:01,000 --> 01:11:05,760
 Well, Kristi, thank you very much for your presentation.

884
01:11:05,760 --> 01:11:06,960
 We'll see you a little bit.

885
01:11:06,960 --> 01:11:10,920
 That is the last item of our agenda for this evening.

886
01:11:10,920 --> 01:11:14,320
 I will close our work session at 614.

887
01:11:14,320 --> 01:11:17,160
 We will reconvene right here at 630.

888
01:11:17,160 --> 01:11:24,600
 Thank you.

889
01:11:24,600 --> 01:11:28,000
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular

890
01:11:28,000 --> 01:11:29,000
 meeting.

891
01:11:29,000 --> 01:11:31,000
 It is 635.

892
01:11:31,000 --> 01:11:35,320
 I'll call this meeting to order seeing that we do have a quorum tonight.

893
01:11:35,320 --> 01:11:40,960
 The first item of business is to provide a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas

894
01:11:40,960 --> 01:11:41,960
 flags.

895
01:11:41,960 --> 01:11:44,520
 If any other commissioner wants to join me, they can certainly unmute their mic and we

896
01:11:44,520 --> 01:11:48,360
 will provide a Pledge of Allegiance.

897
01:11:48,360 --> 01:11:54,480
 I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

898
01:11:54,480 --> 01:12:04,160
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

899
01:12:04,160 --> 01:12:16,160
 Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, indivisible.

900
01:12:16,160 --> 01:12:19,720
 Next item of business is the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes for

901
01:12:19,720 --> 01:12:20,720
 September 2nd.

902
01:12:20,720 --> 01:12:21,720
 Commissioner Smith.

903
01:12:21,720 --> 01:12:22,720
 Make a motion to approve.

904
01:12:22,720 --> 01:12:23,720
 We have a first for approval.

905
01:12:23,720 --> 01:12:24,720
 Commissioner Anderson.

906
01:12:24,720 --> 01:12:25,720
 I second the motion.

907
01:12:25,720 --> 01:12:30,840
 We have a first and a second for the approval of the minutes from September 2nd.

908
01:12:30,840 --> 01:12:34,360
 Any discussion on the item?

909
01:12:34,360 --> 01:12:36,600
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

910
01:12:36,600 --> 01:12:37,600
 Commissioner Ellis.

911
01:12:37,600 --> 01:12:38,600
 Aye.

912
01:12:38,600 --> 01:12:39,600
 Commissioner Beck.

913
01:12:39,600 --> 01:12:40,600
 Aye.

914
01:12:40,600 --> 01:12:41,600
 Commissioner Pernetta.

915
01:12:41,600 --> 01:12:42,600
 Aye.

916
01:12:42,600 --> 01:12:43,600
 Commissioner Cole.

917
01:12:43,600 --> 01:12:44,600
 Aye.

918
01:12:44,600 --> 01:12:45,600
 Commissioner Anderson.

919
01:12:45,600 --> 01:12:46,600
 Aye.

920
01:12:46,600 --> 01:12:47,600
 Commissioner Smith.

921
01:12:47,600 --> 01:12:48,600
 Aye.

922
01:12:48,600 --> 01:12:51,480
 Chair is also an aye.

923
01:12:51,480 --> 01:12:53,880
 Motion carries 7-0.

924
01:12:53,880 --> 01:12:56,240
 The next item of business is our consent agenda.

925
01:12:56,240 --> 01:13:01,280
 I just wanted for the record to note that we did have one comment on the consent agenda

926
01:13:01,280 --> 01:13:06,760
 item 3A, FP20-0016A.

927
01:13:06,760 --> 01:13:10,640
 That comment card was against the item.

928
01:13:10,640 --> 01:13:11,640
 Commissioner Beck.

929
01:13:11,640 --> 01:13:19,680
 I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda, but exclude item C for individual

930
01:13:19,680 --> 01:13:20,680
 consideration.

931
01:13:20,680 --> 01:13:21,680
 Okay.

932
01:13:21,680 --> 01:13:30,880
 So, we have approval for consent agenda 3A, 3B, and 3D.

933
01:13:30,880 --> 01:13:31,880
 Commissioner Ellis.

934
01:13:31,880 --> 01:13:32,880
 Second.

935
01:13:32,880 --> 01:13:40,360
 We have a first and a second for approval of 3A, B, and D. Any discussion?

936
01:13:40,360 --> 01:13:43,560
 Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call.

937
01:13:43,560 --> 01:13:44,560
 Commissioner Ellis.

938
01:13:44,560 --> 01:13:45,560
 Aye.

939
01:13:45,560 --> 01:13:46,560
 Commissioner Beck.

940
01:13:46,560 --> 01:13:47,560
 Aye.

941
01:13:47,560 --> 01:13:48,560
 Commissioner Pernetta.

942
01:13:48,560 --> 01:13:49,560
 Aye.

943
01:13:49,560 --> 01:13:50,560
 Commissioner Cole.

944
01:13:50,560 --> 01:13:51,560
 Aye.

945
01:13:51,560 --> 01:13:52,560
 Commissioner Anderson.

946
01:13:52,560 --> 01:13:53,560
 Aye.

947
01:13:53,560 --> 01:13:54,800
 Commissioner Smith.

948
01:13:54,800 --> 01:13:55,800
 Aye.

949
01:13:55,800 --> 01:13:57,360
 Chair is also an aye.

950
01:13:57,360 --> 01:13:58,360
 7-0.

951
01:13:58,360 --> 01:14:01,920
 We'll move item 3A to the end of individual consideration.

952
01:14:01,920 --> 01:14:06,360
 The next item for business is the individual consideration.

953
01:14:06,360 --> 01:14:14,840
 We'll start with item 4A, FR20-0008, and I'll invite Ron Maguida to present this item.

954
01:14:14,840 --> 01:14:15,840
 Yes.

955
01:14:15,840 --> 01:14:40,240
 Good evening, if I can have the presentation on the screen.

956
01:14:40,240 --> 01:14:41,240
 It's at Ron.

957
01:14:41,240 --> 01:14:42,240
 Great.

958
01:14:42,240 --> 01:14:43,240
 Thank you.

959
01:14:43,240 --> 01:14:45,960
 Ron Maguida, principal planner with Development Services.

960
01:14:45,960 --> 01:14:51,200
 This item, FR20-0008, is for a final replat.

961
01:14:51,200 --> 01:14:55,640
 The subject plat is for a single-family development.

962
01:14:55,640 --> 01:15:02,360
 The existing lots are being proposed to be replatted into a total of eight lots to be

963
01:15:02,360 --> 01:15:05,680
 developed again with single-family homes.

964
01:15:05,680 --> 01:15:11,120
 The subject application or review has not yet been completed.

965
01:15:11,120 --> 01:15:18,160
 There are certain requirements that have not been met, so based on that, the staff is recommending

966
01:15:18,160 --> 01:15:29,640
 denial of the request subject to those sections, specifically 7.7.4, as well as Table 3.2-D

967
01:15:29,640 --> 01:15:31,520
 of the development code.

968
01:15:31,520 --> 01:15:39,600
 However, the applicant has submitted an application to a request, that is, to extend the review

969
01:15:39,600 --> 01:15:46,200
 for another 30 days, and staff is in favor of that extension request.

970
01:15:46,200 --> 01:15:47,200
 That concludes my presentation.

971
01:15:47,200 --> 01:15:50,840
 I'll be happy to stand for any questions.

972
01:15:50,840 --> 01:15:52,720
 Great.

973
01:15:52,720 --> 01:15:53,720
 Thank you, Ron, for the presentation.

974
01:15:53,720 --> 01:15:54,720
 Commissioner Smith.

975
01:15:54,720 --> 01:16:00,600
 I'll make a motion to postpone until date certain, I guess is the way the motion should

976
01:16:00,600 --> 01:16:01,600
 be done.

977
01:16:01,600 --> 01:16:02,600
 Correct?

978
01:16:02,600 --> 01:16:04,440
 To date certain of October 7th?

979
01:16:04,440 --> 01:16:09,280
 I think the motion should be to provide the 30-day extension, which takes it to the meeting

980
01:16:09,280 --> 01:16:11,240
 of October 7th.

981
01:16:11,240 --> 01:16:12,240
 Yes.

982
01:16:12,240 --> 01:16:14,640
 I have a motion.

983
01:16:14,640 --> 01:16:15,640
 Commissioner Pernetta.

984
01:16:15,640 --> 01:16:16,640
 I'll second that.

985
01:16:16,640 --> 01:16:17,920
 We have a first and a second.

986
01:16:17,920 --> 01:16:18,920
 Any discussion?

987
01:16:18,920 --> 01:16:26,040
 So we have a first and a second for the approval of a 30-day extension, taking this item to

988
01:16:26,040 --> 01:16:28,760
 our October 7th meeting.

989
01:16:28,760 --> 01:16:31,640
 Seeing no discussion on the matter, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

990
01:16:31,640 --> 01:16:32,640
 Commissioner Ellis.

991
01:16:32,640 --> 01:16:33,640
 Aye.

992
01:16:33,640 --> 01:16:34,640
 Commissioner Beck.

993
01:16:34,640 --> 01:16:35,640
 Aye.

994
01:16:35,640 --> 01:16:36,640
 Commissioner Pernetta.

995
01:16:36,640 --> 01:16:37,640
 Aye.

996
01:16:37,640 --> 01:16:39,640
 Commissioner Cole.

997
01:16:39,640 --> 01:16:40,640
 Aye.

998
01:16:40,640 --> 01:16:41,640
 Commissioner Anderson.

999
01:16:41,640 --> 01:16:42,640
 Aye.

1000
01:16:42,640 --> 01:16:43,640
 Commissioner Smith.

1001
01:16:43,640 --> 01:16:44,640
 Aye.

1002
01:16:44,640 --> 01:16:45,640
 Chair is also an aye.

1003
01:16:45,640 --> 01:16:48,120
 Motion carries 7-0.

1004
01:16:48,120 --> 01:16:54,800
 Next item of business is item 4B, PP20-0018A.

1005
01:16:54,800 --> 01:16:57,280
 And I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation.

1006
01:16:57,280 --> 01:16:59,460
 Good evening.

1007
01:16:59,460 --> 01:17:02,640
 Let me pull up the presentation.

1008
01:17:02,640 --> 01:17:04,960
 All right.

1009
01:17:04,960 --> 01:17:08,400
 This is PP20-0018A.

1010
01:17:08,400 --> 01:17:12,200
 You saw this preliminary plat on September 1st.

1011
01:17:12,200 --> 01:17:16,240
 At that time, there were some comments that were still outstanding, so it was postponed

1012
01:17:16,240 --> 01:17:18,040
 until this meeting.

1013
01:17:18,040 --> 01:17:21,680
 As of Friday, when the agenda posted, there were still a couple of outstanding comments

1014
01:17:21,680 --> 01:17:24,920
 that the applicant was working through with staff.

1015
01:17:24,920 --> 01:17:33,080
 Since that agenda posted, they have addressed all of the comments, and so staff has a recommendation

1016
01:17:33,080 --> 01:17:36,320
 of approval as it meets all the established requirements.

1017
01:17:36,320 --> 01:17:39,720
 And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

1018
01:17:39,720 --> 01:17:41,900
 Thank you very much, Julie.

1019
01:17:41,900 --> 01:17:44,000
 Any questions for Julie on the presentation?

1020
01:17:44,000 --> 01:17:45,560
 Commissioner Smith.

1021
01:17:45,560 --> 01:17:48,640
 Make a motion to approve.

1022
01:17:48,640 --> 01:17:49,920
 We have a first for approval.

1023
01:17:49,920 --> 01:17:50,920
 Commissioner Ellis.

1024
01:17:50,920 --> 01:17:51,920
 Second.

1025
01:17:51,920 --> 01:17:54,160
 We have a first and a second for approval.

1026
01:17:54,160 --> 01:17:57,680
 Any discussion?

1027
01:17:57,680 --> 01:18:00,200
 Commissioner Beck.

1028
01:18:00,200 --> 01:18:07,960
 I would like to strongly reiterate what I said at the work session is that we really

1029
01:18:07,960 --> 01:18:09,920
 need to pay attention to the flooding.

1030
01:18:09,920 --> 01:18:16,120
 I know Julie assures us the staff will pay attention to the flooding along this property,

1031
01:18:16,120 --> 01:18:24,920
 but it concerns me greatly, and I hope we keep this moment in mind for that area along

1032
01:18:24,920 --> 01:18:25,920
 Windsor.

1033
01:18:25,920 --> 01:18:26,920
 Anyway, thank you.

1034
01:18:26,920 --> 01:18:27,920
 Thank you, Mr. Beck.

1035
01:18:27,920 --> 01:18:31,120
 And just for clarification, Julie, this item will come back for final plotting?

1036
01:18:31,120 --> 01:18:32,120
 Yes, sir.

1037
01:18:32,120 --> 01:18:33,120
 Okay.

1038
01:18:33,120 --> 01:18:34,120
 Thank you.

1039
01:18:34,120 --> 01:18:35,120
 We'll see it one more time.

1040
01:18:35,120 --> 01:18:36,120
 Any other discussion on the item?

1041
01:18:36,120 --> 01:18:39,840
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call.

1042
01:18:39,840 --> 01:18:40,840
 Commissioner Beck.

1043
01:18:40,840 --> 01:18:41,840
 Aye.

1044
01:18:41,840 --> 01:18:42,840
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1045
01:18:42,840 --> 01:18:43,840
 Aye.

1046
01:18:43,840 --> 01:18:44,840
 Commissioner Cole.

1047
01:18:44,840 --> 01:18:45,840
 Aye.

1048
01:18:45,840 --> 01:18:46,840
 Commissioner Anderson.

1049
01:18:46,840 --> 01:18:47,840
 Aye.

1050
01:18:47,840 --> 01:18:48,840
 Commissioner Smith.

1051
01:18:48,840 --> 01:18:49,840
 Aye.

1052
01:18:49,840 --> 01:18:50,840
 Commissioner Ellis.

1053
01:18:50,840 --> 01:18:51,840
 Aye.

1054
01:18:51,840 --> 01:18:54,600
 Chair is also an aye.

1055
01:18:54,600 --> 01:18:56,240
 Motion carries 7-0.

1056
01:18:56,240 --> 01:19:04,800
 That brings us to our next item of business, which is the Polled Consent Agenda 3CPP20-0019A,

1057
01:19:04,800 --> 01:19:29,360
 and I'll invite Haley Zygurski for presentation on this item.

1058
01:19:29,360 --> 01:19:30,760
 Chair point of clarification?

1059
01:19:30,760 --> 01:19:33,200
 Yes, Commissioner Beck.

1060
01:19:33,200 --> 01:19:37,240
 Item C, Item C?

1061
01:19:37,240 --> 01:19:38,240
 This is Item C.

1062
01:19:38,240 --> 01:19:39,240
 Yes.

1063
01:19:39,240 --> 01:19:40,240
 Haley's bringing it up, but you were saying A.

1064
01:19:40,240 --> 01:19:41,240
 Oh, I apologize.

1065
01:19:41,240 --> 01:19:42,240
 Item 3CPP20-0019A.

1066
01:19:42,240 --> 01:19:43,240
 Thank you, Chair.

1067
01:19:43,240 --> 01:19:44,240
 Yeah.

1068
01:19:44,240 --> 01:19:45,240
 Thank you.

1069
01:19:45,240 --> 01:19:46,240
 Yes.

1070
01:19:46,240 --> 01:19:47,240
 Good evening, Commissioners.

1071
01:19:47,240 --> 01:19:53,000
 This is Item PP2019.

1072
01:19:53,000 --> 01:19:56,600
 This is the preliminary plan for the Sagebrook edition.

1073
01:19:56,600 --> 01:20:01,600
 This preliminary plan is consistent with the concept plan that was provided in their plan

1074
01:20:01,600 --> 01:20:04,000
 development, which was recently approved.

1075
01:20:04,000 --> 01:20:09,880
 So it is proposing the development of a single-family subdivision split into four large phases,

1076
01:20:09,880 --> 01:20:15,240
 as you can see here on the map, along with the extension of Brush Creek Road, as well

1077
01:20:15,240 --> 01:20:20,360
 as an extension of Allred Road, and an area of floodplain that is intended to be dedicated

1078
01:20:20,360 --> 01:20:22,720
 to the city, as was discussed with the PD.

1079
01:20:22,720 --> 01:20:25,560
 I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

1080
01:20:25,560 --> 01:20:27,520
 Thank you, Haley.

1081
01:20:27,520 --> 01:20:31,800
 So any questions for Haley?

1082
01:20:31,800 --> 01:20:32,800
 Okay.

1083
01:20:32,800 --> 01:20:33,800
 Commissioner Anderson?

1084
01:20:33,800 --> 01:20:37,640
 I'm going to make a motion to approve.

1085
01:20:37,640 --> 01:20:38,640
 Okay.

1086
01:20:38,640 --> 01:20:39,640
 We have a first for approval.

1087
01:20:39,640 --> 01:20:40,640
 Commissioner Smith?

1088
01:20:40,640 --> 01:20:41,640
 Second.

1089
01:20:41,640 --> 01:20:46,760
 We have a first and a second for approval.

1090
01:20:46,760 --> 01:20:48,520
 Any discussion on this item?

1091
01:20:48,520 --> 01:20:49,760
 Commissioner Beck.

1092
01:20:49,760 --> 01:20:52,760
 So I ask that this be considered separate.

1093
01:20:52,760 --> 01:20:53,760
 Thank you, Chair.

1094
01:20:53,760 --> 01:21:00,360
 I ask that this be considered separately, because I have concerns about lot A27.

1095
01:21:00,360 --> 01:21:07,360
 I know that our setbacks are a newer ordinance than this, but I still think it falls under

1096
01:21:07,360 --> 01:21:17,920
 2453E7 in terms of public health, in terms of getting rid of that, not building on that

1097
01:21:17,920 --> 01:21:20,100
 lot near that gas well.

1098
01:21:20,100 --> 01:21:29,480
 In addition, I have concerns about the financial impact of this lot, this development has in

1099
01:21:29,480 --> 01:21:30,720
 regards to the city.

1100
01:21:30,720 --> 01:21:37,920
 I think that falls under 271D2, and I'm not sure that, again, as I mentioned for a different

1101
01:21:37,920 --> 01:21:42,480
 item, I'm not sure that all the I's and T's have been dotted and T's have been crossed

1102
01:21:42,480 --> 01:21:47,680
 in terms of the infrastructure impacts, as was brought up by Citizen Pruitt at a previous

1103
01:21:47,680 --> 01:21:48,680
 meeting.

1104
01:21:48,680 --> 01:21:59,360
 I also, and probably my biggest concern is the development along the floodplain, and

1105
01:21:59,360 --> 01:22:04,640
 the fact that we are simply kicking the can down the road for this textile road in that

1106
01:22:04,640 --> 01:22:12,760
 floodplain, and that's 741 and 753D, so I'm not going to be supporting this.

1107
01:22:12,760 --> 01:22:13,760
 Okay.

1108
01:22:13,760 --> 01:22:16,320
 Thank you, Commissioner Beck.

1109
01:22:16,320 --> 01:22:18,880
 Any other discussion?

1110
01:22:18,880 --> 01:22:22,440
 Seeing none, we have a first and a second for approval.

1111
01:22:22,440 --> 01:22:24,320
 I will call a vote via roll call.

1112
01:22:24,320 --> 01:22:25,560
 Commissioner Ellis?

1113
01:22:25,560 --> 01:22:26,560
 Aye.

1114
01:22:26,560 --> 01:22:27,560
 Commissioner Beck?

1115
01:22:27,560 --> 01:22:28,560
 Nay.

1116
01:22:28,560 --> 01:22:29,560
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1117
01:22:29,560 --> 01:22:30,560
 Aye.

1118
01:22:30,560 --> 01:22:31,560
 Commissioner Kohl?

1119
01:22:31,560 --> 01:22:32,560
 Aye.

1120
01:22:32,560 --> 01:22:33,560
 Commissioner Anderson?

1121
01:22:33,560 --> 01:22:34,560
 Aye.

1122
01:22:34,560 --> 01:22:35,560
 Commissioner Smith?

1123
01:22:35,560 --> 01:22:36,560
 Aye.

1124
01:22:36,560 --> 01:22:37,560
 Chairs, an aye.

1125
01:22:37,560 --> 01:22:38,560
 Commissioner Chen?

1126
01:22:38,560 --> 01:22:39,560
 Aye.

1127
01:22:39,560 --> 01:22:46,600
 Commissioner Anderson?

1128
01:22:46,600 --> 01:22:47,600
 Aye.

1129
01:22:47,600 --> 01:22:48,600
 Commissioner Smith?

1130
01:22:48,600 --> 01:22:49,600
 Aye.

1131
01:22:49,600 --> 01:22:50,600
 Chairs, an aye.

1132
01:22:50,600 --> 01:22:51,600
 Motion carries 6-1.

1133
01:22:51,600 --> 01:22:52,600
 That brings us to our next item of business.

1134
01:22:52,600 --> 01:22:53,600
 That's our public hearing.

1135
01:22:53,600 --> 01:22:54,600
 First one is item 5AZ19-0012B.

1136
01:22:54,600 --> 01:23:14,240
 I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing.

1137
01:23:14,240 --> 01:23:20,680
 So the request before you is Z1912B, Mockingbird Single Family Residential.

1138
01:23:20,680 --> 01:23:24,400
 They are proposing to rezone the subject property.

1139
01:23:24,400 --> 01:23:30,400
 It's 2.61 acres from R2 District to R4 District.

1140
01:23:30,400 --> 01:23:34,640
 The subject property outlined in yellow is a flag-shaped site.

1141
01:23:34,640 --> 01:23:39,520
 It's surrounded by existing suburban-style single-family development with some remaining

1142
01:23:39,520 --> 01:23:48,880
 large parcels adjacent to the site to the north and then east and west.

1143
01:23:48,880 --> 01:23:53,360
 The majority of trees on site are fence-lined trees along the perimeter, and per the applicant

1144
01:23:53,360 --> 01:23:58,880
 the purpose is to develop nine single-family dwellings.

1145
01:23:58,880 --> 01:24:01,960
 So just taking a look at the zoning maps.

1146
01:24:01,960 --> 01:24:07,960
 The current zoning map shows the subject property in yellow as R2.

1147
01:24:07,960 --> 01:24:13,120
 The proposed would extend that existing R4 to the north, taking in the subject property.

1148
01:24:13,120 --> 01:24:17,560
 So if approved, it would reflect this map.

1149
01:24:17,560 --> 01:24:22,040
 The criteria for approval for rezoning cases are in subchapter 2 of the Debt and Development

1150
01:24:22,040 --> 01:24:23,040
 Code.

1151
01:24:23,040 --> 01:24:27,580
 We've got general criteria for approval and then specific criteria for approval.

1152
01:24:27,580 --> 01:24:30,400
 We'll touch on these as we talk through the project.

1153
01:24:30,400 --> 01:24:33,240
 So first thing we look at is the Debt and Plan 2030.

1154
01:24:33,240 --> 01:24:36,460
 The site is designated as low-density residential.

1155
01:24:36,460 --> 01:24:42,280
 This is intended for single-family neighborhoods for up to four dwelling units per acre.

1156
01:24:42,280 --> 01:24:49,320
 The proposed R4 with its minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet does not precisely conform

1157
01:24:49,320 --> 01:24:54,480
 to that maximum density, but it meets the overall goals of the Debt and Plan 2030.

1158
01:24:54,480 --> 01:25:00,920
 Infill development for a compact development pattern, as well as the proposal is consistent

1159
01:25:00,920 --> 01:25:03,180
 with the character of the surrounding area.

1160
01:25:03,180 --> 01:25:08,240
 And there aren't any small area plans that affect the subject property.

1161
01:25:08,240 --> 01:25:12,500
 Consistency with the purpose statement, R4 District is intended to accommodate a variety

1162
01:25:12,500 --> 01:25:18,360
 of housing types on lots designed to encourage walking to neighborhoods serving retail and

1163
01:25:18,360 --> 01:25:20,920
 other amenities such as parks and school facilities.

1164
01:25:20,920 --> 01:25:25,500
 This zoning district would ensure existing neighborhood characters maintained while also

1165
01:25:25,500 --> 01:25:30,480
 serving as a transition area between single-family neighborhoods and mixed-use neighborhoods.

1166
01:25:30,480 --> 01:25:34,320
 So this request is consistent with the purpose statement, as the applicant has stated the

1167
01:25:34,320 --> 01:25:40,160
 intent to develop single-family dwellings, which is consistent with that existing neighborhood

1168
01:25:40,160 --> 01:25:43,120
 character.

1169
01:25:43,120 --> 01:25:45,920
 One other item we look at is changes in the area.

1170
01:25:45,920 --> 01:25:52,440
 So the development near the site kind of emanating from the central part of the city began in

1171
01:25:52,440 --> 01:25:53,440
 the 1980s.

1172
01:25:53,440 --> 01:26:01,040
 So we have a historical aerial in this right here that shows that there were development

1173
01:26:01,040 --> 01:26:08,520
 beginning slowly in the 1980s, moving toward the northeast with some areas you can tell

1174
01:26:08,520 --> 01:26:13,320
 they're starting to grade those areas for lots.

1175
01:26:13,320 --> 01:26:19,580
 That continued on through the 1990s, that middle picture, which shows continued development.

1176
01:26:19,580 --> 01:26:26,760
 And then finally, there is that 2015 aerial, which shows a lot of those infill areas filling

1177
01:26:26,760 --> 01:26:32,320
 in and that progression has continued to today.

1178
01:26:32,320 --> 01:26:35,800
 Minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property.

1179
01:26:35,800 --> 01:26:39,720
 R4 is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods in both use and development

1180
01:26:39,720 --> 01:26:43,880
 scale, so it's not anticipated to create adverse impacts.

1181
01:26:43,880 --> 01:26:50,520
 R4, with that minimum lot size, is consistent with the area-typical lot sizes, which range

1182
01:26:50,520 --> 01:26:55,300
 from 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet.

1183
01:26:55,300 --> 01:26:58,240
 This is an expansion of that existing R4 district.

1184
01:26:58,240 --> 01:27:01,700
 It wouldn't introduce any new uses to the property.

1185
01:27:01,700 --> 01:27:08,480
 It would just be an extension of that single-family development that is shown around the property.

1186
01:27:08,480 --> 01:27:11,960
 And it would facilitate harmonious development.

1187
01:27:11,960 --> 01:27:17,200
 And rezoning would allow the development to be consistent, just continue that development

1188
01:27:17,200 --> 01:27:20,240
 pattern that we've seen.

1189
01:27:20,240 --> 01:27:24,440
 Intensity of the development is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to

1190
01:27:24,440 --> 01:27:28,280
 the surrounding properties, as well as those adequate public facilities.

1191
01:27:28,280 --> 01:27:30,280
 So we looked at transportation.

1192
01:27:30,280 --> 01:27:34,840
 Due to the limited number of homes that could be constructed due to the size of the property,

1193
01:27:34,840 --> 01:27:39,520
 only about 90 trips per day would be created by the proposed rezoning.

1194
01:27:39,520 --> 01:27:44,640
 I spoke with our engineering group, and there is capacity on Lockingbird to accommodate

1195
01:27:44,640 --> 01:27:46,040
 those trips.

1196
01:27:46,040 --> 01:27:50,320
 They would also be required to pay roadway impact fees, and that would be determined

1197
01:27:50,320 --> 01:27:52,240
 by the number of dwelling units.

1198
01:27:52,240 --> 01:27:54,640
 And then there's water and wastewater.

1199
01:27:54,640 --> 01:27:59,360
 There is -- it is available to the site because this is an infill area.

1200
01:27:59,360 --> 01:28:04,600
 There's water and wastewater available, and they would have to pay tap fees.

1201
01:28:04,600 --> 01:28:07,520
 The subject property is about a mile from Milan Park.

1202
01:28:07,520 --> 01:28:09,960
 It's to the south of the site.

1203
01:28:09,960 --> 01:28:15,560
 And park dedication and development fees would be required to be paid with platting building

1204
01:28:15,560 --> 01:28:16,560
 permits.

1205
01:28:16,560 --> 01:28:22,200
 Finally, one issue that came up last year when this item was discussed last year, and

1206
01:28:22,200 --> 01:28:27,560
 also Commissioner Beck brought it up at our previous meeting, is access to the site.

1207
01:28:27,560 --> 01:28:33,360
 It does have a panhandle, so there are limited areas where they could actually access Lockingbird.

1208
01:28:33,360 --> 01:28:38,800
 I have provided that sort of concept plan that the applicant is looking at.

1209
01:28:38,800 --> 01:28:43,320
 Engineering has confirmed that the proposal does meet the minimum spacing from the existing

1210
01:28:43,320 --> 01:28:48,720
 driveways and connections to Lockingbird Lane.

1211
01:28:48,720 --> 01:28:51,840
 Public outreach was sent out.

1212
01:28:51,840 --> 01:28:55,360
 There has been a development since the work session.

1213
01:28:55,360 --> 01:29:03,080
 We had one of the surrounding neighbors did come by City Hall, and he provided to me his

1214
01:29:03,080 --> 01:29:05,600
 an opposition letter.

1215
01:29:05,600 --> 01:29:08,480
 And so we do have five in opposition.

1216
01:29:08,480 --> 01:29:10,040
 I did some quick calculations.

1217
01:29:10,040 --> 01:29:14,060
 So this is a rough estimate, but it's about a 39% opposition.

1218
01:29:14,060 --> 01:29:19,200
 So it will require a super majority at City Council due to that opposition.

1219
01:29:19,200 --> 01:29:25,660
 The applicant has had two neighborhood meetings, one for it from a previous request last year,

1220
01:29:25,660 --> 01:29:30,000
 and then they also had a virtual meeting recently.

1221
01:29:30,000 --> 01:29:35,380
 And the applicant is on the phone, and we'll be able to talk to that.

1222
01:29:35,380 --> 01:29:41,120
 So because the proposal meets the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of

1223
01:29:41,120 --> 01:29:42,120
 the request.

1224
01:29:42,120 --> 01:29:47,620
 The applicant has also requested an overlay condition, and there is something I just want

1225
01:29:47,620 --> 01:29:49,560
 to mention about that.

1226
01:29:49,560 --> 01:29:54,960
 So their overlay condition, as proposed, state single-family detached homes only, no town

1227
01:29:54,960 --> 01:29:59,840
 homes or duplexes will be permitted, even with a variance or specific use permit.

1228
01:29:59,840 --> 01:30:06,500
 While staff doesn't have an issue with the proposal to limit the permitted uses to single-family

1229
01:30:06,500 --> 01:30:11,800
 only, the reference to variance should be removed.

1230
01:30:11,800 --> 01:30:16,260
 That reference does not comply with the Debt and Development Code as well as state law.

1231
01:30:16,260 --> 01:30:25,000
 So we really ask that that be struck from that overlay should the project be recommended

1232
01:30:25,000 --> 01:30:27,280
 for approval and approved.

1233
01:30:27,280 --> 01:30:29,360
 And that concludes my presentation.

1234
01:30:29,360 --> 01:30:33,080
 Like I said, the applicant is on the phone, and would like to speak, and I will be happy

1235
01:30:33,080 --> 01:30:34,560
 to answer any questions.

1236
01:30:34,560 --> 01:30:36,400
 Thank you, Julie.

1237
01:30:36,400 --> 01:30:37,800
 Commissioner Beck.

1238
01:30:37,800 --> 01:30:40,020
 Thank you, Chair.

1239
01:30:40,020 --> 01:30:43,800
 Your presentation jogged a memory from last year when we saw this before.

1240
01:30:43,800 --> 01:30:51,680
 Do I, and it's quite a while, so is the concept that this will be a single-lane entry with

1241
01:30:51,680 --> 01:30:58,360
 a single lane between the houses, is that what the space will permit for eight homes?

1242
01:30:58,360 --> 01:30:59,440
 It is limited.

1243
01:30:59,440 --> 01:31:04,120
 So their concept plan, which has not gone through engineering review, and this really

1244
01:31:04,120 --> 01:31:11,720
 is just a straight zoning case, so it's definitely not a set in stone.

1245
01:31:11,720 --> 01:31:17,040
 But it would require one, it would have one connection to Mockingbird as proposed, and

1246
01:31:17,040 --> 01:31:23,200
 then turn into the site with kind of one neighborhood street that would have either a cul-de-sac

1247
01:31:23,200 --> 01:31:29,760
 or some sort of turnaround, and then those homes fronting it with a detention area.

1248
01:31:29,760 --> 01:31:34,680
 But was the original, I mean, I don't want to hold them to their original concept plan

1249
01:31:34,680 --> 01:31:40,040
 because that's not really valid, and this is a zoning, but let me say this in a way.

1250
01:31:40,040 --> 01:31:49,200
 Would R4 with a standard residential street be consistent at this location?

1251
01:31:49,200 --> 01:31:54,540
 So standard street is two lanes, as it were.

1252
01:31:54,540 --> 01:32:00,760
 Could we fit that in something similar to what we saw a year ago?

1253
01:32:00,760 --> 01:32:08,540
 So they have kind of put pencil to paper and have a concept plan that would meet the minimum

1254
01:32:08,540 --> 01:32:12,680
 lot sizes as well as the right-of-way dimensions required.

1255
01:32:12,680 --> 01:32:19,320
 So we would require right-of-way dedication in accordance with our criteria manual, which

1256
01:32:19,320 --> 01:32:22,440
 is 55 feet for a residential lane.

1257
01:32:22,440 --> 01:32:26,840
 So they would have to meet all of those development standards, and they would have to kind of

1258
01:32:26,840 --> 01:32:33,680
 make sure that the engineering would meet that, and if it were approved, it would have

1259
01:32:33,680 --> 01:32:39,680
 to comply with all zoning regulations, dimensional regulations for that R4, and then as well

1260
01:32:39,680 --> 01:32:45,560
 as the engineering regulations for transportation, drainage, water, waste water.

1261
01:32:45,560 --> 01:32:51,240
 But given the sort of, I'm going to put this in air quotes, landlocked nature of this property,

1262
01:32:51,240 --> 01:32:56,840
 being completely surrounded by other properties, the panhandle is the only location that street

1263
01:32:56,840 --> 01:33:00,360
 access could be developed, is that correct?

1264
01:33:00,360 --> 01:33:02,560
 Yes, sir, yes.

1265
01:33:02,560 --> 01:33:09,240
 And so then that would sort of almost demand an interior road of the kind that we were

1266
01:33:09,240 --> 01:33:12,760
 just sort of discussing, given the R4 density.

1267
01:33:12,760 --> 01:33:15,200
 Okay, thank you, Julie.

1268
01:33:15,200 --> 01:33:17,080
 You bet.

1269
01:33:17,080 --> 01:33:22,120
 Oh, I was on mute.

1270
01:33:22,120 --> 01:33:26,320
 Julie, you said the applicant has a presentation, or that it's here to answer questions?

1271
01:33:26,320 --> 01:33:32,840
 Yes, Amy said she doesn't have a presentation, but she is on the phone, I believe, and would

1272
01:33:32,840 --> 01:33:39,160
 like to speak about the project and answer any questions.

1273
01:33:39,160 --> 01:33:40,160
 Great.

1274
01:33:40,160 --> 01:33:41,800
 I am on the line.

1275
01:33:41,800 --> 01:33:42,800
 Can you guys hear me?

1276
01:33:42,800 --> 01:33:43,800
 We can.

1277
01:33:43,800 --> 01:33:44,800
 You have the floor.

1278
01:33:44,800 --> 01:33:45,800
 Do you just state your name and address?

1279
01:33:45,800 --> 01:33:46,800
 All right.

1280
01:33:46,800 --> 01:33:47,800
 Thank you.

1281
01:33:47,800 --> 01:33:51,620
 Amy Bissett, 100 West Oak Street, Denton 76201.

1282
01:33:51,620 --> 01:33:56,080
 I want to start by wishing Commissioner Ellis a happy birthday today.

1283
01:33:56,080 --> 01:34:02,320
 I did pay attention during the work session this afternoon and wanted to take a few minutes

1284
01:34:02,320 --> 01:34:06,960
 to address some of the questions that were brought up during that time.

1285
01:34:06,960 --> 01:34:14,280
 While this is a request for R4 zoning with the right-of-way dedication requirements or

1286
01:34:14,280 --> 01:34:21,960
 roadway width requirements, we would at most be able to get nine single-family lots in

1287
01:34:21,960 --> 01:34:29,880
 here if it was rezoned from R2 to R4, which is an overall density of 3.45 units per acre,

1288
01:34:29,880 --> 01:34:34,440
 which is consistent with low-density residential development.

1289
01:34:34,440 --> 01:34:39,920
 We did have a neighborhood meeting in August once we resurrected this project.

1290
01:34:39,920 --> 01:34:48,060
 Some of you probably remember seeing it last year where we also asked for R4, and it was

1291
01:34:48,060 --> 01:34:53,720
 recommended approval by Planning and Zoning Commission with a 4-3 vote at that time.

1292
01:34:53,720 --> 01:34:58,680
 However, what we heard from the neighbors and heard from the commission was that the

1293
01:34:58,680 --> 01:35:05,280
 primary concern was that R4 allows for duplexes or townhomes with an SUP.

1294
01:35:05,280 --> 01:35:12,680
 And so our intent with the overlay condition is to try to make it crystal clear legally

1295
01:35:12,680 --> 01:35:21,920
 that there is no variance or SUP that would facilitate the opportunity to have duplexes

1296
01:35:21,920 --> 01:35:24,200
 or townhomes in this area.

1297
01:35:24,200 --> 01:35:29,560
 We're straight up proposing single-family detached with nine being the maximum number

1298
01:35:29,560 --> 01:35:30,560
 of lots.

1299
01:35:30,560 --> 01:35:38,240
 Chair Roussel, I did hear you ask some questions related to the appropriateness of R4 zoning

1300
01:35:38,240 --> 01:35:43,600
 with the development pattern and what the intent of R4 zoning is in the Denton Development

1301
01:35:43,600 --> 01:35:44,600
 Code.

1302
01:35:44,600 --> 01:35:53,120
 There is a statement in the code that reads that it is intended for compatible neighborhood

1303
01:35:53,120 --> 01:36:00,880
 development but also is appropriate for transition areas between single-family and mixed use.

1304
01:36:00,880 --> 01:36:06,640
 And essentially I believe what the code is speaking to there is that zoning is typically

1305
01:36:06,640 --> 01:36:12,760
 expressed in the intensity of use or density of use, and in this case the code is saying

1306
01:36:12,760 --> 01:36:20,080
 that R4 would be appropriate to straddle between a lower density single-family and a higher

1307
01:36:20,080 --> 01:36:23,200
 intensity mixed use development.

1308
01:36:23,200 --> 01:36:31,760
 In this case, we're proposing that it be an instill small development that would be consistent

1309
01:36:31,760 --> 01:36:37,400
 with the R4 that not only directly surrounds it, but if you were to zoom out on the zoning

1310
01:36:37,400 --> 01:36:45,480
 map for the city of Denton as a whole, the quadrant of this city is largely predominantly

1311
01:36:45,480 --> 01:36:46,480
 R4 zoning.

1312
01:36:46,480 --> 01:36:51,560
 So we do feel that it's compatible with the neighborhood and that it's consistent with

1313
01:36:51,560 --> 01:36:56,840
 the goals of the COMP plan, which clearly strongly encourage instill development that

1314
01:36:56,840 --> 01:37:01,960
 is of appropriate scale with the neighborhood.

1315
01:37:01,960 --> 01:37:09,480
 There was another question that how many lots would we get in R4 versus perhaps the existing

1316
01:37:09,480 --> 01:37:11,400
 zoning, which is currently R2.

1317
01:37:11,400 --> 01:37:18,480
 This is an undeveloped piece of property, so it would be considered instill.

1318
01:37:18,480 --> 01:37:24,320
 And if we were to develop it under R2, we would be able to yield probably four lots,

1319
01:37:24,320 --> 01:37:28,400
 possibly five, but most likely we would yield four lots.

1320
01:37:28,400 --> 01:37:34,720
 So essentially what you're contemplating here in terms of impact to the traffic and

1321
01:37:34,720 --> 01:37:39,440
 to the neighborhood is the difference between four homes and nine homes.

1322
01:37:39,440 --> 01:37:48,160
 So a net difference of five homes in an area that is surrounded by the same density and

1323
01:37:48,160 --> 01:37:50,080
 intensity of development.

1324
01:37:50,080 --> 01:37:56,720
 Now, when we held the neighborhood meeting in August, we did have five people, five neighbors

1325
01:37:56,720 --> 01:38:03,040
 sign up and attend that meeting, and at the time they expressed support for the overlay

1326
01:38:03,040 --> 01:38:06,200
 condition and support for the proposed use.

1327
01:38:06,200 --> 01:38:13,960
 I understand that we do now have some in opposition, but I did want to speak to the fact that at

1328
01:38:13,960 --> 01:38:21,200
 the time we did propose, we showed them our concept plan and proposed nine homes and received

1329
01:38:21,200 --> 01:38:23,760
 no opposition to that at the time.

1330
01:38:23,760 --> 01:38:30,720
 The only opposition we heard was related to the potential for town homes or duplexes within

1331
01:38:30,720 --> 01:38:39,320
 SUP, which we've made a very strong effort here to make sure that that is not the direction

1332
01:38:39,320 --> 01:38:42,520
 that we're going and ensuring the neighbors of that.

1333
01:38:42,520 --> 01:38:45,080
 With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

1334
01:38:45,080 --> 01:38:47,680
 Michelle Ellis.

1335
01:38:47,680 --> 01:38:48,680
 Thank you, Chair.

1336
01:38:48,680 --> 01:38:51,680
 Amy, thank you very much for the wishes, first of all.

1337
01:38:51,680 --> 01:38:55,000
 So a couple questions, I guess.

1338
01:38:55,000 --> 01:39:00,960
 One is at the meetings that you've had, have the surrounding property owners with the bigger

1339
01:39:00,960 --> 01:39:03,560
 size lots been in attendance?

1340
01:39:03,560 --> 01:39:12,000
 Off the top of my head, I honestly don't know of the three letters in opposition that were

1341
01:39:12,000 --> 01:39:16,400
 received, if some of them were in that meeting or not.

1342
01:39:16,400 --> 01:39:23,560
 I know that the one, the opposition that was registered later this evening on the eastern

1343
01:39:23,560 --> 01:39:29,160
 side of the property was not in attendance at the neighborhood meeting but had several

1344
01:39:29,160 --> 01:39:35,920
 one-on-one conversations with the property owner where we believed that this overlay

1345
01:39:35,920 --> 01:39:39,680
 condition would satisfy his concerns at the time.

1346
01:39:39,680 --> 01:39:41,920
 That was the understanding that we thought we had.

1347
01:39:41,920 --> 01:39:42,920
 Okay.

1348
01:39:42,920 --> 01:39:48,400
 And the other thing I'm struggling with is, you know, we're calling it infill, but it

1349
01:39:48,400 --> 01:39:54,200
 doesn't really fit the definition of what our infill development is in our code, which

1350
01:39:54,200 --> 01:40:01,520
 is like a lot like this, I believe, says on three sides would have contiguous development.

1351
01:40:01,520 --> 01:40:08,720
 And really, the majority of the sides of contiguous development are these larger lots, and the

1352
01:40:08,720 --> 01:40:14,960
 development really is only contiguous with the southern border as far as density goes.

1353
01:40:14,960 --> 01:40:23,080
 So I'm struggling with it fitting into the definition of an infill situation.

1354
01:40:23,080 --> 01:40:27,960
 Can you help me with that at all?

1355
01:40:27,960 --> 01:40:28,960
 Sure.

1356
01:40:28,960 --> 01:40:35,360
 So I guess when we're looking at it as an infill development, we're looking at the overall

1357
01:40:35,360 --> 01:40:41,840
 development pattern within that area of town, and that, like I had mentioned, that quadrant

1358
01:40:41,840 --> 01:40:47,820
 is predominantly R4 or even more intense than that.

1359
01:40:47,820 --> 01:40:55,200
 And so we're looking at the larger surrounding area, to be honest.

1360
01:40:55,200 --> 01:41:02,120
 I did look at the comp plan where it states, specifically, I'll read it to you, the city

1361
01:41:02,120 --> 01:41:09,440
 should take every opportunity to ensure that as gaps in neighborhood fabric occur, infill

1362
01:41:09,440 --> 01:41:14,720
 development, that is, the development of vacant or deteriorated properties will be encouraged

1363
01:41:14,720 --> 01:41:18,360
 complementing the scaling character of each neighborhood.

1364
01:41:18,360 --> 01:41:24,440
 Currently, that property is undeveloped, so I do think it meets the general criteria of

1365
01:41:24,440 --> 01:41:33,560
 what the intent of the infill development is in the comp plan, and when you look generally

1366
01:41:33,560 --> 01:41:39,280
 at the overall development pattern, I do believe that it's compatible.

1367
01:41:39,280 --> 01:41:40,600
 I appreciate that perspective.

1368
01:41:40,600 --> 01:41:43,360
 I'll leave it to other commissioners with questions.

1369
01:41:43,360 --> 01:41:44,360
 Thanks, Amy.

1370
01:41:44,360 --> 01:41:45,360
 Christopher Smith.

1371
01:41:45,360 --> 01:41:46,360
 Hey, Chair.

1372
01:41:46,360 --> 01:41:56,080
 Amy, would you be just looking at the design standards for R2 versus R4, and this may not

1373
01:41:56,080 --> 01:42:05,060
 be really a huge concession here for the residents, but basically the biggest thing on the setback

1374
01:42:05,060 --> 01:42:11,320
 standards making some of the aesthetics change a little bit, front yard, backyard, setbacks

1375
01:42:11,320 --> 01:42:16,400
 are all pretty much the same, 20 and 10 respectively between R2 and R4.

1376
01:42:16,400 --> 01:42:20,980
 The only difference is the side yard setbacks from 10 to five.

1377
01:42:20,980 --> 01:42:24,720
 Would you be willing for us to change and add an overlay to maybe change the side yard

1378
01:42:24,720 --> 01:42:31,160
 setbacks to 10 instead of five to possibly give a little bit?

1379
01:42:31,160 --> 01:42:33,720
 To me, it would seem like it would give a little more space in between the homes and

1380
01:42:33,720 --> 01:42:40,920
 maybe not feel so impactful for there to be nine units in that acreage versus what R2

1381
01:42:40,920 --> 01:42:44,280
 would allow us to set four units in that acreage.

1382
01:42:44,280 --> 01:42:45,280
 Sure.

1383
01:42:45,280 --> 01:42:48,840
 So I'm actually going to ask Jason Feigley to answer that question.

1384
01:42:48,840 --> 01:42:55,120
 He's the civil engineer on the project who has done the conceptual layout to date and

1385
01:42:55,120 --> 01:43:02,440
 may be able to speak to whether that additional setback is feasible or not, but we also have

1386
01:43:02,440 --> 01:43:09,480
 a property owner, Pindari Pothini on the line who may be able to answer that question directly.

1387
01:43:09,480 --> 01:43:17,240
 Okay, sorry, I was having trouble unmuting it there.

1388
01:43:17,240 --> 01:43:28,960
 So yes, Jason Feigley with Allison Engineering and the 10 foot side yard shouldn't be a problem.

1389
01:43:28,960 --> 01:43:34,580
 The only reason I'm going to say that we would like to keep it at five is for the potential

1390
01:43:34,580 --> 01:43:40,960
 of having some three car garage type layouts.

1391
01:43:40,960 --> 01:43:54,040
 You know, again, since we don't have the first plat yet to lock us into the 10 foot, I hate

1392
01:43:54,040 --> 01:43:59,800
 to kind of pass it back off to Pindari that the 10 foot would work for a standard 50 foot

1393
01:43:59,800 --> 01:44:04,000
 pad, which you can get a three foot or you can get a three car garage and a 50 foot pad.

1394
01:44:04,000 --> 01:44:10,160
 I don't know how much he wants to limit because these are going to be these aren't track type

1395
01:44:10,160 --> 01:44:11,160
 homes.

1396
01:44:11,160 --> 01:44:15,520
 I mean, with nine individual homes is going to be custom semi custom.

1397
01:44:15,520 --> 01:44:20,720
 And just to allow the most flexibility, you know, I don't know if we can even do a variable

1398
01:44:20,720 --> 01:44:25,240
 have like 10 on one side and five on the other maybe, you know, like, or say at least one

1399
01:44:25,240 --> 01:44:27,640
 of the side yards will be a 10 foot side yard.

1400
01:44:27,640 --> 01:44:34,780
 I feel pretty confident that again, it's just it's just a lot of the most flexibility for

1401
01:44:34,780 --> 01:44:35,780
 a custom product.

1402
01:44:35,780 --> 01:44:39,840
 Yeah, I guess I understand the flexibility for the custom products.

1403
01:44:39,840 --> 01:44:40,840
 And thank you for mentioning that.

1404
01:44:40,840 --> 01:44:44,640
 I think that's important to know that maybe for any community members who are afraid that

1405
01:44:44,640 --> 01:44:49,240
 it's just going to be a bunch of, you know, box homes that are kind of popped up and they're

1406
01:44:49,240 --> 01:44:50,920
 all cookie cutter and look the same.

1407
01:44:50,920 --> 01:44:55,840
 I just know that and this doesn't really necessarily help with any other bigger issues that I know

1408
01:44:55,840 --> 01:45:03,200
 Commissioner Beck, Commissioner Roselle brought up about traffic mitigation and density issues.

1409
01:45:03,200 --> 01:45:08,520
 But if in my opinion, as we kind of look at this and should go on this more between work

1410
01:45:08,520 --> 01:45:12,880
 session and now is that while the density is an issue, I think the point that it is

1411
01:45:12,880 --> 01:45:19,400
 infill is important to make known that this is rural land, you know, undeveloped land currently.

1412
01:45:19,400 --> 01:45:24,960
 I think that maybe instead of having really close lot line homes in that property, if

1413
01:45:24,960 --> 01:45:28,520
 it was changed to an R4, it would it would aesthetically make a little more pleasing

1414
01:45:28,520 --> 01:45:32,680
 to the neighbors if they, you know, then we're really not talking about a big difference

1415
01:45:32,680 --> 01:45:35,920
 in traffic as Ms. Setz mentioned.

1416
01:45:35,920 --> 01:45:41,840
 So I would prefer to have it be 10 in general if you think that from an engineering standpoint,

1417
01:45:41,840 --> 01:45:43,080
 it's not a not an issue.

1418
01:45:43,080 --> 01:45:48,280
 And I get that maybe it's a sacrifice of custom ability, but that might be the price to pay

1419
01:45:48,280 --> 01:45:54,960
 for me or the ability to do this infill there where you are taking what everyone is surrounding

1420
01:45:54,960 --> 01:45:57,320
 it is used to rural land and putting up homes.

1421
01:45:57,320 --> 01:45:58,320
 Sure.

1422
01:45:58,320 --> 01:46:03,200
 And that would maybe be a concession made and if I can add one more thing as well, you

1423
01:46:03,200 --> 01:46:10,800
 know, we we deliberately in our in our layouts, we we have the lots deeper so that we're not

1424
01:46:10,800 --> 01:46:15,040
 so Julie mentioned the fence line trees on the east side, south side.

1425
01:46:15,040 --> 01:46:17,480
 You know, our intent is to keep all those trees up.

1426
01:46:17,480 --> 01:46:20,480
 We're not trying to clear this out property line to property line.

1427
01:46:20,480 --> 01:46:22,040
 So we want it.

1428
01:46:22,040 --> 01:46:27,200
 So they are a little bit narrower, deeper lots so that those so that the perimeter can

1429
01:46:27,200 --> 01:46:36,800
 remain untouched and I appreciate you mentioning that the I guess the other point to that would

1430
01:46:36,800 --> 01:46:41,000
 be, though, knowing that the response has been at 39 percent now and response and opposition

1431
01:46:41,000 --> 01:46:42,000
 is 39 percent.

1432
01:46:42,000 --> 01:46:47,440
 So forcing a super majority at council, this might be a good concession be made to say,

1433
01:46:47,440 --> 01:46:51,840
 hey, we're we understand that that's there's concerns about it, but we want to try to give

1434
01:46:51,840 --> 01:46:57,120
 as little impact as we can, but also still recognize that it is nine homes.

1435
01:46:57,120 --> 01:46:59,560
 It is infill on undeveloped land.

1436
01:46:59,560 --> 01:47:05,800
 We want to try to make it at least livable to the eyes of the neighbors rather than rather

1437
01:47:05,800 --> 01:47:06,800
 than not.

1438
01:47:06,800 --> 01:47:07,800
 So.

1439
01:47:07,800 --> 01:47:08,800
 OK, thank you very much, Jason.

1440
01:47:08,800 --> 01:47:09,800
 I appreciate it.

1441
01:47:09,800 --> 01:47:10,800
 Sure.

1442
01:47:10,800 --> 01:47:17,560
 And I guess the last thing is that I've got a side text going here with with the property

1443
01:47:17,560 --> 01:47:18,800
 owner and he's on line as well.

1444
01:47:18,800 --> 01:47:21,840
 And he did say that that he would make that concession.

1445
01:47:21,840 --> 01:47:27,920
 So he would he would make the agreement for 10 foot side yards.

1446
01:47:27,920 --> 01:47:28,920
 Good work.

1447
01:47:28,920 --> 01:47:29,920
 City staff.

1448
01:47:29,920 --> 01:47:31,640
 Is there any issues with that?

1449
01:47:31,640 --> 01:47:36,520
 So that's a that's something I've been on here for three years now and never never made

1450
01:47:36,520 --> 01:47:40,480
 a made a number of labor side yard setbacks to make sure there's no issues there.

1451
01:47:40,480 --> 01:47:42,480
 Making that recommendation.

1452
01:47:42,480 --> 01:47:43,720
 I'm not aware of any.

1453
01:47:43,720 --> 01:47:44,720
 Thank you.

1454
01:47:44,720 --> 01:47:45,720
 Appreciate it.

1455
01:47:45,720 --> 01:47:56,040
 Any other questions for the applicant or Julie?

1456
01:47:56,040 --> 01:47:58,920
 So I got a couple of questions.

1457
01:47:58,920 --> 01:48:07,400
 Yes, either Miss Bassett or Mr. Faley could maybe answer one, Mr. Figley, you mentioned

1458
01:48:07,400 --> 01:48:11,160
 that you'd made deeper, narrower lots.

1459
01:48:11,160 --> 01:48:12,480
 Is it possible to make shallow lots?

1460
01:48:12,480 --> 01:48:14,000
 I'm just looking at the lot.

1461
01:48:14,000 --> 01:48:18,160
 It seems like deeper lots were kind of a forced issue on on your end.

1462
01:48:18,160 --> 01:48:19,160
 Is that a bad assessment?

1463
01:48:19,160 --> 01:48:23,200
 Because it looks like you're not to make one road in and that's basically determines the

1464
01:48:23,200 --> 01:48:24,200
 lot size.

1465
01:48:24,200 --> 01:48:29,360
 It seems like you have to have deeper lots.

1466
01:48:29,360 --> 01:48:30,360
 Not necessarily.

1467
01:48:30,360 --> 01:48:33,600
 We looked at we looked at multiple configurations of this.

1468
01:48:33,600 --> 01:48:41,280
 I mean, obviously, the first thing we try to do is we have a set acreage and a set boundary

1469
01:48:41,280 --> 01:48:50,280
 and it's what fits the surrounding properties as well and what were property boundary and

1470
01:48:50,280 --> 01:48:52,320
 not put any houses on the north side.

1471
01:48:52,320 --> 01:48:58,320
 We very deliberately brought in a road along the north side, didn't swing it south so that

1472
01:48:58,320 --> 01:49:04,960
 we could have a buffer between this development and the homes to the north, especially there

1473
01:49:04,960 --> 01:49:08,880
 is there's one home directly adjacent to us kind of in the middle.

1474
01:49:08,880 --> 01:49:11,000
 You there, Jason?

1475
01:49:11,000 --> 01:49:12,880
 Is it back?

1476
01:49:12,880 --> 01:49:22,000
 I think we may have Jason, we lost you for a minute.

1477
01:49:22,000 --> 01:49:23,000
 Okay.

1478
01:49:23,000 --> 01:49:24,000
 You're back.

1479
01:49:24,000 --> 01:49:25,000
 For that.

1480
01:49:25,000 --> 01:49:26,000
 Okay.

1481
01:49:26,000 --> 01:49:30,160
 I'm not sure where I heard where it left off, but directly adjacent, we do have there is

1482
01:49:30,160 --> 01:49:34,760
 an existing house there on the north side that that has a very shallow backyard.

1483
01:49:34,760 --> 01:49:38,240
 And so we were trying to provide a buffer to that.

1484
01:49:38,240 --> 01:49:43,880
 And so I looked at running lots north, south or east, west, and it just fit to bring the

1485
01:49:43,880 --> 01:49:48,240
 street down straight, pretty much straight to the middle of the site.

1486
01:49:48,240 --> 01:49:52,800
 And yes, from that point of view, you do end up with deeper lots.

1487
01:49:52,800 --> 01:49:56,920
 But that configuration was chosen because we were trying to save the trees as well.

1488
01:49:56,920 --> 01:50:05,440
 We want he wants the owner wants this to be a nice and we're calling it infill, even though

1489
01:50:05,440 --> 01:50:09,960
 then as Margie mentioned, it's it doesn't directly meet the definition of infill.

1490
01:50:09,960 --> 01:50:19,080
 But it is and he wants us to be a nice little private development nine homes that you keep

1491
01:50:19,080 --> 01:50:23,720
 the surrounding trees you you aren't you won't you don't have your backyard directly adjacent

1492
01:50:23,720 --> 01:50:30,880
 to an existing home with that that's that's 1012 feet off off their back property line.

1493
01:50:30,880 --> 01:50:39,880
 And so we had a couple different layouts that that had a pie shaped spiked lots off of a

1494
01:50:39,880 --> 01:50:41,600
 cul de sac.

1495
01:50:41,600 --> 01:50:42,600
 And those were shallower.

1496
01:50:42,600 --> 01:50:44,560
 They were wider and shallower.

1497
01:50:44,560 --> 01:50:49,800
 So you know, again, there's there's a lot of different configurations.

1498
01:50:49,800 --> 01:50:57,040
 And this one just seemed to be the most efficient for the existing boundary, as well as preserve

1499
01:50:57,040 --> 01:51:02,960
 the perimeter and provide buffers for the adjacent neighbors.

1500
01:51:02,960 --> 01:51:05,000
 I appreciate you clarifying that for me.

1501
01:51:05,000 --> 01:51:10,360
 Did y'all as a team look at or can you tell me about your feasibility studies or your

1502
01:51:10,360 --> 01:51:20,200
 IRR assessments or economics about nine homes versus four homes?

1503
01:51:20,200 --> 01:51:28,400
 And this might be a better discussion for for Bundari to speak on, you know, what what

1504
01:51:28,400 --> 01:51:36,880
 exactly do you know how much extra does five houses get you?

1505
01:51:36,880 --> 01:51:37,880
 Because there's tradeoffs, right?

1506
01:51:37,880 --> 01:51:41,600
 You know, if we go four houses, we can share a driveway per your code and and not have

1507
01:51:41,600 --> 01:51:42,800
 to build the private street.

1508
01:51:42,800 --> 01:51:43,800
 We don't need an HOA.

1509
01:51:43,800 --> 01:51:50,720
 We don't we don't need that that kind of governing body for the the homes that would be would

1510
01:51:50,720 --> 01:52:03,960
 be built there could just be built for houses, just share a driveway.

1511
01:52:03,960 --> 01:52:08,120
 Four houses can share a driveway.

1512
01:52:08,120 --> 01:52:09,120
 You're breaking up, Jason.

1513
01:52:09,120 --> 01:52:10,120
 You're breaking up.

1514
01:52:10,120 --> 01:52:11,120
 And a little bit.

1515
01:52:11,120 --> 01:52:12,120
 This is.

1516
01:52:12,120 --> 01:52:13,120
 Okay.

1517
01:52:13,120 --> 01:52:21,240
 We did discuss the possibility of those lots, these looking around the current property

1518
01:52:21,240 --> 01:52:22,640
 values in the area.

1519
01:52:22,640 --> 01:52:26,160
 The economics is not making sense as of yet.

1520
01:52:26,160 --> 01:52:30,800
 And also the other concern some of the neighbors had is driving up the property values.

1521
01:52:30,800 --> 01:52:36,560
 When we start putting in bigger lots and bigger homes, that's obviously going to have a impact

1522
01:52:36,560 --> 01:52:39,400
 on the neighborhood property valuations as well.

1523
01:52:39,400 --> 01:52:42,280
 So that's I want to be very sensitive to that fact.

1524
01:52:42,280 --> 01:52:51,000
 That's why we nine homes would be very consistent with the majority of the surrounding neighbors.

1525
01:52:51,000 --> 01:52:54,320
 And just to clarify, when you say the majority of the surrounding neighbors, you're not talking

1526
01:52:54,320 --> 01:52:57,600
 about the ones actually touching the property you're talking about ones more largely in

1527
01:52:57,600 --> 01:52:58,600
 the area.

1528
01:52:58,600 --> 01:52:59,600
 Correct.

1529
01:52:59,600 --> 01:53:02,600
 That is correct.

1530
01:53:02,600 --> 01:53:08,240
 And then the other question I had is, as you looked at larger homes and property values,

1531
01:53:08,240 --> 01:53:12,840
 do you look at the difference in the economic impact to the city of Denton in terms of revenues

1532
01:53:12,840 --> 01:53:15,960
 between four and nine homes?

1533
01:53:15,960 --> 01:53:20,560
 Because it seems the intent of that question is four homes that are higher property value

1534
01:53:20,560 --> 01:53:23,280
 versus nine homes that are less high property value.

1535
01:53:23,280 --> 01:53:31,800
 I'm just wondering what the city is gaining economically by you building more homes.

1536
01:53:31,800 --> 01:53:35,800
 Definitely would building more homes would be economically benefiting the city.

1537
01:53:35,800 --> 01:53:36,800
 Right.

1538
01:53:36,800 --> 01:53:37,800
 For sure.

1539
01:53:37,800 --> 01:53:38,800
 I'm not debating that.

1540
01:53:38,800 --> 01:53:39,800
 Right.

1541
01:53:39,800 --> 01:53:42,880
 Well, except that if you build a road, the city has to then manage it.

1542
01:53:42,880 --> 01:53:45,960
 But it sounds like with four houses, you just do a private drive and the city wouldn't have

1543
01:53:45,960 --> 01:53:46,960
 to manage that.

1544
01:53:46,960 --> 01:53:47,960
 Correct.

1545
01:53:47,960 --> 01:53:51,160
 I believe the proposed plan has a private drives.

1546
01:53:51,160 --> 01:53:52,960
 The city would not have to maintain that.

1547
01:53:52,960 --> 01:53:59,000
 That was that's the I don't know, Amy or we are clear about it.

1548
01:53:59,000 --> 01:54:00,000
 That's a subdivision.

1549
01:54:00,000 --> 01:54:01,000
 That's a neighborhood road.

1550
01:54:01,000 --> 01:54:02,360
 It's maintained by an HOA.

1551
01:54:02,360 --> 01:54:10,080
 So the city would not have to maintain that driveway.

1552
01:54:10,080 --> 01:54:11,080
 This is Amy.

1553
01:54:11,080 --> 01:54:14,880
 We looked at we looked at two scenarios with the neighborhood when we had neighborhood

1554
01:54:14,880 --> 01:54:15,880
 meetings.

1555
01:54:15,880 --> 01:54:20,560
 One was where the city maintained the road and one was where it was built to send a city

1556
01:54:20,560 --> 01:54:23,160
 standards, but it was privately maintained.

1557
01:54:23,160 --> 01:54:28,200
 And there were some advantages for the neighborhood for those neighbors who do directly about

1558
01:54:28,200 --> 01:54:31,640
 us to being a privately maintained road.

1559
01:54:31,640 --> 01:54:35,360
 So that was going to be our our proposal.

1560
01:54:35,360 --> 01:54:42,520
 Chair Rozelle was that it would be HOA maintained road as well as the green space and detention

1561
01:54:42,520 --> 01:54:45,280
 on the north side of the property.

1562
01:54:45,280 --> 01:54:49,200
 So I don't know that it would add much of a more of a burden, if any more of a burden

1563
01:54:49,200 --> 01:54:55,960
 to the city in terms of services and expenses, but it would take your, you know, your property

1564
01:54:55,960 --> 01:55:01,600
 taxes up from four houses to nine.

1565
01:55:01,600 --> 01:55:05,920
 When you say there's benefit to the adjacent property owners for being a private drive,

1566
01:55:05,920 --> 01:55:08,200
 can you expand on that a little bit?

1567
01:55:08,200 --> 01:55:17,720
 Yes, the public drive required a roundabout for for fire access on the south side of the

1568
01:55:17,720 --> 01:55:25,960
 property, which meant that the the properties that directly abutted to the south were less

1569
01:55:25,960 --> 01:55:34,520
 deep and provided, I guess, from their perspective, a little less privacy from their backyards.

1570
01:55:34,520 --> 01:55:41,360
 And so with with the private option, I believe it was going to be a hammerhead situation,

1571
01:55:41,360 --> 01:55:50,320
 which allowed more more backyard, deeper lots and less imposition to to the neighbors at

1572
01:55:50,320 --> 01:55:51,800
 that point.

1573
01:55:51,800 --> 01:55:58,200
 And that we I can show you, I have those concept plans if we want to have a look at them.

1574
01:55:58,200 --> 01:56:00,520
 Obviously, they're just concepts at this point in time.

1575
01:56:00,520 --> 01:56:05,320
 But that was what was contemplated both times that we met with the neighbors was we have

1576
01:56:05,320 --> 01:56:09,600
 two options and they preferred the one that was privately maintained.

1577
01:56:09,600 --> 01:56:12,120
 I appreciate the offer the concept plan.

1578
01:56:12,120 --> 01:56:13,440
 I'm tempted to accept that.

1579
01:56:13,440 --> 01:56:16,880
 But this is being a zoning case, I don't want to convolute the waters probably already then

1580
01:56:16,880 --> 01:56:17,880
 we already have.

1581
01:56:17,880 --> 01:56:18,880
 Absolutely.

1582
01:56:18,880 --> 01:56:23,360
 So let's I'll pass on on seeing the concept plan for the purpose of focusing on zoning.

1583
01:56:23,360 --> 01:56:28,920
 But I appreciate that insight as any other questions at this time, we don't have any

1584
01:56:28,920 --> 01:56:30,040
 public comment.

1585
01:56:30,040 --> 01:56:34,140
 And so what I'll do is I'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

1586
01:56:34,140 --> 01:56:38,560
 We can take a motion or further discussion.

1587
01:56:38,560 --> 01:56:43,000
 Commissioner Smith, make a motion to approve with staff recommendations and the overlay

1588
01:56:43,000 --> 01:56:49,080
 as well as my additional overlay of changing the side yard setbacks from five feet to 10

1589
01:56:49,080 --> 01:56:50,080
 feet.

1590
01:56:50,080 --> 01:56:57,040
 We have a motion to approve with staff recommendations, including the addition of an increased setback

1591
01:56:57,040 --> 01:56:59,240
 from five to 10 feet on both sides.

1592
01:56:59,240 --> 01:57:00,240
 Is that correct?

1593
01:57:00,240 --> 01:57:01,240
 Mr. Smith?

1594
01:57:01,240 --> 01:57:02,240
 Yes, it is.

1595
01:57:02,240 --> 01:57:03,240
 Okay, Christian Anderson.

1596
01:57:03,240 --> 01:57:04,240
 Second the motion.

1597
01:57:04,240 --> 01:57:12,680
 Okay, we have a first and a second any discussion.

1598
01:57:12,680 --> 01:57:14,280
 We got two discussions.

1599
01:57:14,280 --> 01:57:15,560
 Commissioner Ellis.

1600
01:57:15,560 --> 01:57:16,800
 Thanks, Chair.

1601
01:57:16,800 --> 01:57:24,120
 Was there needing to be clarity on removing that verbiage about variance or is that what

1602
01:57:24,120 --> 01:57:27,960
 we're considering staff recommendation?

1603
01:57:27,960 --> 01:57:30,840
 Is that included in the staff recommendation wording?

1604
01:57:30,840 --> 01:57:31,840
 Commissioner Smith?

1605
01:57:31,840 --> 01:57:33,880
 Yes, it is.

1606
01:57:33,880 --> 01:57:36,160
 Christian Anderson.

1607
01:57:36,160 --> 01:57:38,120
 Thanks, Chair.

1608
01:57:38,120 --> 01:57:43,320
 I was just going to make a comment that I remember this being brought up last year.

1609
01:57:43,320 --> 01:57:48,960
 And I spoke with several of the neighbors that stayed around after the meeting and wanted

1610
01:57:48,960 --> 01:57:50,680
 to speak about this.

1611
01:57:50,680 --> 01:57:59,320
 And as Amy Mispis spoke about a minute ago, their big concern to me was apartments and

1612
01:57:59,320 --> 01:58:04,880
 townhomes being built on the backside that can overlook their property.

1613
01:58:04,880 --> 01:58:10,400
 And you know, now I think that they have put in there and staff has recommended removing

1614
01:58:10,400 --> 01:58:13,560
 the verbiage of townhomes and apartments on there.

1615
01:58:13,560 --> 01:58:16,480
 I think that would make the neighbors feel a lot better.

1616
01:58:16,480 --> 01:58:18,720
 Thank you, Christian Anderson.

1617
01:58:18,720 --> 01:58:19,720
 Commissioner Beck.

1618
01:58:19,720 --> 01:58:22,080
 Thank you, Chair.

1619
01:58:22,080 --> 01:58:29,440
 So I take Commissioner Anderson's point, but if they had that discussion and do we know

1620
01:58:29,440 --> 01:58:37,780
 if the five in opposition knew about the overlay, do we know if they know about the overlay

1621
01:58:37,780 --> 01:58:46,440
 condition that's being proposed or are we at 39% in opposition with the knowledge of

1622
01:58:46,440 --> 01:58:47,440
 an overlay condition?

1623
01:58:47,440 --> 01:58:51,960
 Commissioner Beck, if I could weigh in, it's really hard to speculate on the knowledge

1624
01:58:51,960 --> 01:58:53,400
 of their opposition.

1625
01:58:53,400 --> 01:58:59,340
 I think the best speculation is that everything was posted and they opposed what was posted.

1626
01:58:59,340 --> 01:59:00,340
 It is true.

1627
01:59:00,340 --> 01:59:01,640
 I take the Chair's point.

1628
01:59:01,640 --> 01:59:05,680
 Thank you, Chair.

1629
01:59:05,680 --> 01:59:06,680
 Any other discussion?

1630
01:59:06,680 --> 01:59:07,680
 We have a first and a second on the table.

1631
01:59:07,680 --> 01:59:12,880
 But before we go to the vote, I'm just going to say my piece.

1632
01:59:12,880 --> 01:59:17,640
 I'm not in support of this, mainly because looking at the zoning maps, it doesn't make

1633
01:59:17,640 --> 01:59:18,640
 sense.

1634
01:59:18,640 --> 01:59:22,480
 It doesn't seem to be an infill because in the backyard of the West property, which is

1635
01:59:22,480 --> 01:59:24,040
 R2, it would be an R4.

1636
01:59:24,040 --> 01:59:26,640
 In the backyard of the North property, which is R2, it would be an R4.

1637
01:59:26,640 --> 01:59:29,880
 In the backyard of the East property, which is an R2, it would be an R4.

1638
01:59:29,880 --> 01:59:33,640
 If this is supposed to be a transition from one neighborhood into something else, that's

1639
01:59:33,640 --> 01:59:34,640
 not this.

1640
01:59:34,640 --> 01:59:39,580
 This is from an R2 to something and then back to an R2.

1641
01:59:39,580 --> 01:59:47,400
 And so just the structure of -- it seems like the intent of infill and trying to align zoning,

1642
01:59:47,400 --> 01:59:51,560
 that map just reeks to me of differences.

1643
01:59:51,560 --> 02:00:01,000
 And so if there's an R2 already existing, then I think that that entire block is best

1644
02:00:01,000 --> 02:00:09,800
 served to be R2, and I think -- I'm no expert on this, but the feasibility and economics

1645
02:00:09,800 --> 02:00:16,360
 of putting four houses, it seems like the project's still feasible.

1646
02:00:16,360 --> 02:00:21,120
 I didn't hear at any point this evening that at four homes, this project can't go forward

1647
02:00:21,120 --> 02:00:25,400
 or to think that any developer couldn't make financial sense to build an R2 development

1648
02:00:25,400 --> 02:00:26,400
 here.

1649
02:00:26,400 --> 02:00:33,000
 As often sometimes zoning is necessary in order for development to happen, period, based

1650
02:00:33,000 --> 02:00:34,600
 on the confines of the lot.

1651
02:00:34,600 --> 02:00:37,160
 I didn't hear that this evening.

1652
02:00:37,160 --> 02:00:41,200
 It seems like it's economically possible to build four homes there.

1653
02:00:41,200 --> 02:00:45,080
 They don't need additional homes to support the economics of building out the infrastructure

1654
02:00:45,080 --> 02:00:47,060
 and the actual homes themselves.

1655
02:00:47,060 --> 02:00:51,600
 And so there's just not a preponderance of evidence to me to suggest that what's best

1656
02:00:51,600 --> 02:00:53,480
 for the city is to build an R4.

1657
02:00:53,480 --> 02:00:57,040
 It seems what's best for the developers to build an R4, which is their prerogative, but

1658
02:00:57,040 --> 02:00:59,200
 it's not one that I can support tonight.

1659
02:00:59,200 --> 02:01:03,840
 So with that, I'll go ahead and call for a vote via roll call.

1660
02:01:03,840 --> 02:01:09,600
 And just to remind you, the vote is on the table for approval with staff recommendations,

1661
02:01:09,600 --> 02:01:15,640
 including the striking of variance, as well as the additional side yard setbacks from

1662
02:01:15,640 --> 02:01:18,320
 five to 10 feet on each side.

1663
02:01:18,320 --> 02:01:22,480
 So with that, Commissioner Ellis.

1664
02:01:22,480 --> 02:01:27,360
 Before my vote, I just wanted to say a couple of words, please.

1665
02:01:27,360 --> 02:01:33,560
 And that's just that we have an infill development definition for a reason.

1666
02:01:33,560 --> 02:01:36,600
 This doesn't fit it at all.

1667
02:01:36,600 --> 02:01:43,040
 I mean, the property is surrounded by larger lots.

1668
02:01:43,040 --> 02:01:48,640
 It's just not an infill development to me and it is not something I can support.

1669
02:01:48,640 --> 02:01:51,160
 I am a nay.

1670
02:01:51,160 --> 02:01:52,720
 Commissioner Beck.

1671
02:01:52,720 --> 02:01:57,680
 Similarly, I think the density is just a little odd and I agree with the comments that have

1672
02:01:57,680 --> 02:01:58,680
 been made.

1673
02:01:58,680 --> 02:02:01,280
 So I'm going to have to say nay as well.

1674
02:02:01,280 --> 02:02:02,280
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1675
02:02:02,280 --> 02:02:10,320
 That was a nay.

1676
02:02:10,320 --> 02:02:12,000
 Thank you for clarifying.

1677
02:02:12,000 --> 02:02:13,400
 Commissioner Cole.

1678
02:02:13,400 --> 02:02:14,400
 Nay.

1679
02:02:14,400 --> 02:02:16,120
 Commissioner Anderson.

1680
02:02:16,120 --> 02:02:17,120
 Aye.

1681
02:02:17,120 --> 02:02:19,120
 Commissioner Smith.

1682
02:02:19,120 --> 02:02:20,120
 Aye.

1683
02:02:20,120 --> 02:02:22,120
 The chair is a nay.

1684
02:02:22,120 --> 02:02:23,120
 Motion fails 5-2.

1685
02:02:23,120 --> 02:02:26,120
 Chair will entertain another motion.

1686
02:02:26,120 --> 02:02:29,360
 Commissioner Ellis.

1687
02:02:29,360 --> 02:02:30,880
 I move denial of the request.

1688
02:02:30,880 --> 02:02:33,160
 We have a first for denial.

1689
02:02:33,160 --> 02:02:34,160
 Commissioner Cole.

1690
02:02:34,160 --> 02:02:35,160
 Second.

1691
02:02:35,160 --> 02:02:37,040
 We have a first and a second for denial.

1692
02:02:37,040 --> 02:02:41,040
 Any additional discussion?

1693
02:02:41,040 --> 02:02:42,720
 Seeing none, I call for a vote.

1694
02:02:42,720 --> 02:02:47,960
 The roll call again, a support of this motion is a denial.

1695
02:02:47,960 --> 02:02:48,960
 Commissioner Ellis.

1696
02:02:48,960 --> 02:02:49,960
 Aye.

1697
02:02:49,960 --> 02:02:50,960
 Commissioner Beck.

1698
02:02:50,960 --> 02:02:51,960
 Aye.

1699
02:02:51,960 --> 02:02:52,960
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1700
02:02:52,960 --> 02:02:55,960
 That was an aye.

1701
02:02:55,960 --> 02:02:56,960
 Yes.

1702
02:02:56,960 --> 02:02:57,960
 Thank you.

1703
02:02:57,960 --> 02:02:58,960
 Commissioner Cole.

1704
02:02:58,960 --> 02:02:59,960
 Aye.

1705
02:02:59,960 --> 02:03:00,960
 Commissioner Anderson.

1706
02:03:00,960 --> 02:03:01,960
 Aye.

1707
02:03:01,960 --> 02:03:02,960
 Commissioner Smith.

1708
02:03:02,960 --> 02:03:03,960
 Aye.

1709
02:03:03,960 --> 02:03:08,680
 Chairs, also an aye.

1710
02:03:08,680 --> 02:03:12,320
 Motion carries 7-0.

1711
02:03:12,320 --> 02:03:21,200
 Next item of business is item 5B, AESA 20-0002B.

1712
02:03:21,200 --> 02:03:47,160
 I will call Kristi Upton for presentation and open the public hearing.

1713
02:03:47,160 --> 02:04:13,120
 Good evening, commissioners, Kristi Upton with environmental services and I will be presenting

1714
02:04:13,120 --> 02:04:16,720
 an alternative ESA plan for Eagle Cove.

1715
02:04:16,720 --> 02:04:25,360
 The property is located generally south of Judge's Drive and west of loop 288.

1716
02:04:25,360 --> 02:04:33,960
 It is a 56 single family lot development where the preliminary plat was approved on March

1717
02:04:33,960 --> 02:04:38,920
 18th and has three common lot areas.

1718
02:04:38,920 --> 02:04:45,480
 In order to construct this development, the applicant is proposing impacts to riparian

1719
02:04:45,480 --> 02:04:50,680
 buffer ESAs and undeveloped floodplain ESA.

1720
02:04:50,680 --> 02:04:58,080
 The riparian buffer, for a little background on what is found on site, the riparian buffer

1721
02:04:58,080 --> 02:05:06,120
 is associated with a tributary to Pecan Creek and is 50 feet on each side of the stream

1722
02:05:06,120 --> 02:05:15,000
 and encumbers 2.94 acres of the entire lot and was found to be in good condition.

1723
02:05:15,000 --> 02:05:22,920
 The undeveloped floodplain was recently, the boundaries of that was recently modified based

1724
02:05:22,920 --> 02:05:31,920
 upon a LOMAR approved by FEMA in July and that reduced the size of the undeveloped floodplain

1725
02:05:31,920 --> 02:05:39,240
 so that only 0.18 acres is found on this property.

1726
02:05:39,240 --> 02:05:46,360
 In addition, there's cross timbers upland habitat that is found co-located with the

1727
02:05:46,360 --> 02:05:56,440
 riparian buffer and is 3.76 acres of upland habitat on the property, contiguous with 10

1728
02:05:56,440 --> 02:06:02,040
 acres of upland habitat on adjacent property.

1729
02:06:02,040 --> 02:06:09,800
 There's some permitted encroachments that will be occurring with approval of this plan

1730
02:06:09,800 --> 02:06:13,280
 and that would be undeveloped floodplain ESA.

1731
02:06:13,280 --> 02:06:19,240
 There would be 0.1 acres that would be permanently removed for the placement of some culverts

1732
02:06:19,240 --> 02:06:27,320
 and bridges and then the cross timbers upland habitat, there will be 1.05 acres removed.

1733
02:06:27,320 --> 02:06:33,640
 That's generally the area located, those upland habitat areas located on the southern

1734
02:06:33,640 --> 02:06:42,960
 border and some of the lots and the culverts and bridges for the road construction.

1735
02:06:42,960 --> 02:06:50,000
 The riparian buffer ESA impacts is what triggers the requirement for this alternative ESA plan

1736
02:06:50,000 --> 02:06:57,480
 in order to construct these roadways and the placement of the storm drain and a little

1737
02:06:57,480 --> 02:07:06,260
 bit of encroachment of a lot on the northwest side of the property.

1738
02:07:06,260 --> 02:07:14,400
 There would be permanent removal of 20,900 square feet of ESAs of the riparian buffer

1739
02:07:14,400 --> 02:07:26,700
 and then 29,410 square feet of the riparian buffer that would be disturbed.

1740
02:07:26,700 --> 02:07:35,760
 There are some proposed mitigations, the preservation of the remaining ESA plus an expanded habitat

1741
02:07:35,760 --> 02:07:40,520
 by restricting the HOA lots to remain in a natural state.

1742
02:07:40,520 --> 02:07:50,440
 This would add an additional 1.2 acres of expanded habitat alongside that channel and

1743
02:07:50,440 --> 02:07:58,360
 would be an increase of ratio of 2 to 5.1.

1744
02:07:58,360 --> 02:08:04,360
 In addition, there would be further preservation and also education for the residents and for

1745
02:08:04,360 --> 02:08:11,020
 the public of the areas that would remain in the natural state by placing some grow

1746
02:08:11,020 --> 02:08:17,560
 zone signs which would promote no mowing of the HOA lots and a sign explaining the cross

1747
02:08:17,560 --> 02:08:22,000
 timbers upland habitat.

1748
02:08:22,000 --> 02:08:24,880
 I also wanted to explain lot 18A.

1749
02:08:24,880 --> 02:08:30,360
 This was not previously identified on the preliminary plot as an HOA lot.

1750
02:08:30,360 --> 02:08:36,600
 It was identified as a buildable lot.

1751
02:08:36,600 --> 02:08:44,440
 With the identification of this riparian buffer on this lot, the applicant is proposing to

1752
02:08:44,440 --> 02:08:57,360
 place this lot in an HOA which would preserve the remaining riparian buffer that is located

1753
02:08:57,360 --> 02:09:01,380
 on the lot.

1754
02:09:01,380 --> 02:09:07,360
 For the areas that would be disturbed, the applicant is proposing restoration work.

1755
02:09:07,360 --> 02:09:10,740
 That would be the area outlined in green.

1756
02:09:10,740 --> 02:09:20,160
 This would be the final stabilization that we talked about earlier in the previous presentation

1757
02:09:20,160 --> 02:09:32,760
 of this and the restoration would be the seeding of a native grass instead of your typical

1758
02:09:32,760 --> 02:09:38,000
 landscaping grasses that are used for stabilization.

1759
02:09:38,000 --> 02:09:43,320
 There would be improvement of the habitat by removing Chinese privet that is located

1760
02:09:43,320 --> 02:09:49,720
 within the riparian buffer and in the mitigation areas and then the riparian buffer would be

1761
02:09:49,720 --> 02:10:01,440
 further improved by revegetation with native grasses which would promote a healthier habitat.

1762
02:10:01,440 --> 02:10:05,880
 There are some considerations of the preliminary plot.

1763
02:10:05,880 --> 02:10:13,280
 The preliminary plot satisfies the requirements, the development code.

1764
02:10:13,280 --> 02:10:21,080
 That did identify some concerns during the review and drainage in particular was deferred

1765
02:10:21,080 --> 02:10:26,800
 to the civil plans and that deferment was a full review of the storm drainage structures

1766
02:10:26,800 --> 02:10:33,540
 to support the development and a full review of downstream impacts.

1767
02:10:33,540 --> 02:10:38,920
 Tree preservation wise, the applicant provided and satisfied a preliminary tree preservation

1768
02:10:38,920 --> 02:10:46,280
 plan, however, trees within the alternative mitigation area may not count towards tree

1769
02:10:46,280 --> 02:10:49,560
 preservation and replacement.

1770
02:10:49,560 --> 02:10:55,800
 In order to satisfy the tree preservation requirements, the applicant has identified

1771
02:10:55,800 --> 02:11:04,120
 an area that is upland habitat adjacent to the riparian buffer and is removing the designation

1772
02:11:04,120 --> 02:11:09,320
 of cross timbers upland habitat which would allow for that area to be placed in the development

1773
02:11:09,320 --> 02:11:18,640
 impact area and trees within that area to be counted towards tree preservation.

1774
02:11:18,640 --> 02:11:26,360
 There was one response and it was from the subject property owner in favor of the project.

1775
02:11:26,360 --> 02:11:31,200
 Staff is recommending approval of the request with the following conditions that the prior

1776
02:11:31,200 --> 02:11:37,720
 to the plotting approval of the ESAs in the mitigation area shall be deed restricted.

1777
02:11:37,720 --> 02:11:46,720
 You might notice that during the break, staff identified what we think would be a more clear

1778
02:11:46,720 --> 02:11:54,200
 direction to the applicant as to how to satisfy the conditions by striking condition two and

1779
02:11:54,200 --> 02:12:03,200
 placing that in condition one and being more specific that that would be for the ESAs in

1780
02:12:03,200 --> 02:12:05,560
 the mitigation area.

1781
02:12:05,560 --> 02:12:12,620
 The land disturbances would be limited to what is outlined in the alternative ESA plan

1782
02:12:12,620 --> 02:12:18,560
 and then following the construction of the infrastructure that the vegetation be restored

1783
02:12:18,560 --> 02:12:25,120
 as outlined in the alternative ESA plan and then prior to any issuance of any building

1784
02:12:25,120 --> 02:12:30,000
 permits for any structure that the applicant removed the Chinese privet as outlined in

1785
02:12:30,000 --> 02:12:32,160
 the alternative ESA plan.

1786
02:12:32,160 --> 02:12:39,320
 And then six and seven are conditions that environmental services has been placing on

1787
02:12:39,320 --> 02:12:47,760
 alternative ESA plans in order to achieve survivability of the vegetation that is being

1788
02:12:47,760 --> 02:12:49,120
 offered up.

1789
02:12:49,120 --> 02:12:53,800
 And then condition eight, if civil engineering plans or other subsequent approvable plans

1790
02:12:53,800 --> 02:13:00,120
 identify a modification to this alternative ESA plan, that a revised plan be brought back

1791
02:13:00,120 --> 02:13:08,320
 to this commission and the council in accordance with the DDC.

1792
02:13:08,320 --> 02:13:11,280
 And that's it.

1793
02:13:11,280 --> 02:13:12,280
 Questions?

1794
02:13:12,280 --> 02:13:18,480
 Thank you, Kristy, for your presentation.

1795
02:13:18,480 --> 02:13:19,960
 Kushir Beck.

1796
02:13:19,960 --> 02:13:20,960
 Thank you, Chair.

1797
02:13:20,960 --> 02:13:25,660
 Kristy, I'm not going to jump all over you again like I did during workstation.

1798
02:13:25,660 --> 02:13:28,140
 I apologize for that.

1799
02:13:28,140 --> 02:13:33,080
 You give very clear presentations and I want to commend you on that.

1800
02:13:33,080 --> 02:13:37,360
 I just want to sort of bullet point some of the things that I talked about at workstation

1801
02:13:37,360 --> 02:13:44,800
 and that is that while I commend the engineers for some of the steps that they're taking

1802
02:13:44,800 --> 02:13:54,800
 in terms of the recovery of the riparian buffer, this is a mixed upland riparian buffer region

1803
02:13:54,800 --> 02:13:57,320
 and has particular needs.

1804
02:13:57,320 --> 02:14:06,120
 And this region extends up and downstream and will result in flooding and overflows

1805
02:14:06,120 --> 02:14:08,080
 at those bridges.

1806
02:14:08,080 --> 02:14:14,160
 You have trees in these regions and that will happen and they will flood these homes that

1807
02:14:14,160 --> 02:14:19,480
 we're going to build, at least the ones surrounding the bridges.

1808
02:14:19,480 --> 02:14:22,540
 In addition, those roads and homes on the south side are going to be cutting into the

1809
02:14:22,540 --> 02:14:24,300
 upland habitat.

1810
02:14:24,300 --> 02:14:28,220
 We're going to have soil creep, which is against 735.

1811
02:14:28,220 --> 02:14:32,760
 We're going to have flood risk in the parcel, south of the adjacent parcel, which we're

1812
02:14:32,760 --> 02:14:35,440
 not allowed to have impacts on adjacent parcels.

1813
02:14:35,440 --> 02:14:38,080
 And we're going to have impacts on downstream parcels.

1814
02:14:38,080 --> 02:14:41,440
 So again, we're going to have financial and environmental impacts.

1815
02:14:41,440 --> 02:14:43,720
 And staff actually even acknowledges those.

1816
02:14:43,720 --> 02:14:48,080
 You did it in your presentation, we did it in March.

1817
02:14:48,080 --> 02:14:51,080
 Staff agrees with me.

1818
02:14:51,080 --> 02:14:57,320
 So I know that staff thinks that under 28 and 774 that there's room for flex, but even

1819
02:14:57,320 --> 02:15:05,960
 there they said you had some concerns about the civil plans and some of the other contingencies

1820
02:15:05,960 --> 02:15:10,720
 that need to be in place for you to make a full evaluation and that you could put, I

1821
02:15:10,720 --> 02:15:13,680
 think it was condition eight that you could wait on that.

1822
02:15:13,680 --> 02:15:22,320
 But I think we need to see those contingencies before we approve and see, especially in sensitive

1823
02:15:22,320 --> 02:15:24,040
 regions that you can't recover.

1824
02:15:24,040 --> 02:15:26,680
 When we tear it out, it is what it is.

1825
02:15:26,680 --> 02:15:29,560
 If we build homes in there, it floods.

1826
02:15:29,560 --> 02:15:32,280
 So I'm not going to continue on.

1827
02:15:32,280 --> 02:15:34,000
 Oh, I do have one other point.

1828
02:15:34,000 --> 02:15:40,760
 And that was a small quibble that, yes, this was an approval, but this was an HP 3164 shot

1829
02:15:40,760 --> 02:15:41,760
 clock approval.

1830
02:15:41,760 --> 02:15:46,940
 The PZC didn't actually approve this, shot clock approved this.

1831
02:15:46,940 --> 02:15:53,720
 So that's a slight difference than an approval, a standard approval anyway.

1832
02:15:53,720 --> 02:15:59,040
 So with that, I will just say that those are comments more than questions to Christy.

1833
02:15:59,040 --> 02:16:02,040
 So thank you, Christy.

1834
02:16:02,040 --> 02:16:07,400
 I appreciate those comments, Christian or Bec, is there any other questions for Christy

1835
02:16:07,400 --> 02:16:08,400
 on this item?

1836
02:16:08,400 --> 02:16:22,080
 It looks like we do have someone in the public wanting to speak, Mr. Zilke, are you applicant

1837
02:16:22,080 --> 02:16:24,240
 or member of the public?

1838
02:16:24,240 --> 02:16:25,240
 Yes, sir.

1839
02:16:25,240 --> 02:16:26,240
 Good evening, Chairman.

1840
02:16:26,240 --> 02:16:27,240
 My name's Rob Zilke.

1841
02:16:27,240 --> 02:16:35,280
 I'm with ZPS engineers at 1111 South Main Street in Grapevine, Texas.

1842
02:16:35,280 --> 02:16:40,800
 I wanted to just be sure and have the opportunity to address some of the questions and comments.

1843
02:16:40,800 --> 02:16:43,320
 Would this be the appropriate time?

1844
02:16:43,320 --> 02:16:44,320
 This is the perfect time.

1845
02:16:44,320 --> 02:16:46,320
 I appreciate you being here.

1846
02:16:46,320 --> 02:16:53,640
 I've heard Commissioner Bec's recent comments and I also made some notes from the work session.

1847
02:16:53,640 --> 02:16:57,460
 So I'd like to address those just briefly.

1848
02:16:57,460 --> 02:17:02,280
 Commissioner Bec had primarily the same concerns when we went through the preliminary planning

1849
02:17:02,280 --> 02:17:07,600
 process and he and I had a sidebar meeting and discussed those.

1850
02:17:07,600 --> 02:17:13,840
 I am a hydrologist and hydraulic engineer that's done floodplain modeling for 30 some

1851
02:17:13,840 --> 02:17:20,680
 odd years, very familiar with your floodplain criteria and your staff and consultants that

1852
02:17:20,680 --> 02:17:22,680
 do that review.

1853
02:17:22,680 --> 02:17:28,720
 And I won't go through the explanations and discussions that Commissioner Bec and I had

1854
02:17:28,720 --> 02:17:29,720
 at that time.

1855
02:17:29,720 --> 02:17:37,560
 I just point out that in the preliminary planning process, we did extensive floodplain modeling.

1856
02:17:37,560 --> 02:17:44,940
 There are a couple of minor comments that need to be addressed in the CEP process, but

1857
02:17:44,940 --> 02:17:47,960
 they will not affect the AESA.

1858
02:17:47,960 --> 02:17:56,180
 So some of the indeterminate elements, particularly one was the downstream assessment.

1859
02:17:56,180 --> 02:18:02,120
 There was a request for us to move our downstream section in our hydraulic model just to assure

1860
02:18:02,120 --> 02:18:08,280
 that that didn't have an impact and we've done that and it won't, but that will be addressed

1861
02:18:08,280 --> 02:18:11,160
 in the CEP.

1862
02:18:11,160 --> 02:18:18,920
 So the other two additional comments that I wanted to add on to Kristy's wonderful presentation.

1863
02:18:18,920 --> 02:18:26,640
 We did do a citizen participation program, mailed out over 300 invitations, solicitations

1864
02:18:26,640 --> 02:18:32,920
 to participate in a website that we set up and we actually had no one participate in

1865
02:18:32,920 --> 02:18:36,360
 our website reading.

1866
02:18:36,360 --> 02:18:43,120
 And also I just wanted to comment on the 52,000 square feet, odd square feet of additional

1867
02:18:43,120 --> 02:18:51,280
 mitigation area that we're proposing to mitigate in addition to preserving the riparian buffer

1868
02:18:51,280 --> 02:18:53,440
 area.

1869
02:18:53,440 --> 02:19:00,840
 We've identified that that area in particular is, I'm going to use the word infested with

1870
02:19:00,840 --> 02:19:03,360
 small post oak trees.

1871
02:19:03,360 --> 02:19:10,780
 So we feel that that mitigation area there, although it isn't reflected in a tree survey

1872
02:19:10,780 --> 02:19:19,040
 because the trees are relatively small, if that area is protected and not mowed and particularly

1873
02:19:19,040 --> 02:19:26,600
 if the privets were moved to kind of eliminate the competition, we think we'll have an even

1874
02:19:26,600 --> 02:19:30,920
 better post oak growth in that mitigation area.

1875
02:19:30,920 --> 02:19:39,140
 But with that, I think that covers the notes that I had and be glad to address any other

1876
02:19:39,140 --> 02:19:40,140
 questions.

1877
02:19:40,140 --> 02:19:51,920
 Well, Mr. Zilke, I appreciate being here, is there any questions from Mr. Zilke?

1878
02:19:51,920 --> 02:19:57,600
 Mr. Chair, I just wanted to double check that you opened the public hearing for this item.

1879
02:19:57,600 --> 02:20:01,320
 I'm relatively certain, but if not, well, let's go ahead and just reiterate that this

1880
02:20:01,320 --> 02:20:11,680
 is a public hearing, I can go ahead and open it.

1881
02:20:11,680 --> 02:20:18,200
 Any other questions outstanding for staff or anything?

1882
02:20:18,200 --> 02:20:19,200
 We don't have any public comments.

1883
02:20:19,200 --> 02:20:26,640
 So at this time, I will close the public hearing and turn to the virtual dais for a motion

1884
02:20:26,640 --> 02:20:32,880
 or discussion.

1885
02:20:32,880 --> 02:20:33,880
 Everyone knows what I'm going to do.

1886
02:20:33,880 --> 02:20:38,600
 I'm going to motion to deny because I think this needs more work and my justification

1887
02:20:38,600 --> 02:20:45,680
 for that, I think I stated before, but I'll reiterate, is I don't think it meets flood

1888
02:20:45,680 --> 02:20:48,480
 plain risks under 751.

1889
02:20:48,480 --> 02:20:53,320
 I talked about the soil creep under 735.

1890
02:20:53,320 --> 02:21:02,120
 We're removing an ESA, so that covers under 741B, and I don't think the arguments that

1891
02:21:02,120 --> 02:21:08,200
 staff made for 28 and 774 for tree preservation are complete yet, and so we're putting the

1892
02:21:08,200 --> 02:21:09,280
 cart before the horse.

1893
02:21:09,280 --> 02:21:11,720
 We don't have a full development plan.

1894
02:21:11,720 --> 02:21:15,560
 To some degree, even the engineers comments, and I appreciate that, and I think they are

1895
02:21:15,560 --> 02:21:24,080
 trying and I'm not saying that this will never happen in my mind, I'm saying that I think

1896
02:21:24,080 --> 02:21:31,160
 that much more work needs to be done before you get something where you are creating flood

1897
02:21:31,160 --> 02:21:33,640
 risk and environmental risk.

1898
02:21:33,640 --> 02:21:35,800
 I think we have more work to be done.

1899
02:21:35,800 --> 02:21:41,240
 So those are my justifications for denial, a motion for denial.

1900
02:21:41,240 --> 02:21:46,560
 Thank you Commissioner Beck, we have a motion for denial.

1901
02:21:46,560 --> 02:21:56,880
 Is there a second?

1902
02:21:56,880 --> 02:22:05,120
 Seeing none, that motion fails.

1903
02:22:05,120 --> 02:22:18,840
 I'll move approval, and I will just say I do appreciate Commissioner Beck's thoughtfulness

1904
02:22:18,840 --> 02:22:19,840
 in this.

1905
02:22:19,840 --> 02:22:25,520
 For me, I am absolutely not an expert in this, and I have got to defer to our staff, and

1906
02:22:25,520 --> 02:22:32,140
 I think our staff did a beautiful job presenting us with very good, solid, understandable information

1907
02:22:32,140 --> 02:22:35,140
 to make the best informed choice that we can.

1908
02:22:35,140 --> 02:22:38,720
 We can't think about what-ifs and what-mights and things like that.

1909
02:22:38,720 --> 02:22:42,880
 We've got to go by their expertise.

1910
02:22:42,880 --> 02:22:46,280
 So with that, I will move approvals.

1911
02:22:46,280 --> 02:22:47,280
 Thank you Commissioner Ellis.

1912
02:22:47,280 --> 02:22:48,280
 Commissioner Anderson.

1913
02:22:48,280 --> 02:22:57,140
 I second the motion, I totally agree with Commissioner Ellis' assessment.

1914
02:22:57,140 --> 02:23:05,200
 I think staff did a great job as well, Mr. Zilke expressed, he addressed a lot of our

1915
02:23:05,200 --> 02:23:08,920
 concerns that I had that made me feel a bit more comfortable.

1916
02:23:08,920 --> 02:23:16,040
 We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion?

1917
02:23:16,040 --> 02:23:21,040
 Commissioner Pernetta.

1918
02:23:21,040 --> 02:23:23,960
 I guess I support us approving this one.

1919
02:23:23,960 --> 02:23:27,400
 I do want to say that I appreciate Commissioner Beck's questions.

1920
02:23:27,400 --> 02:23:36,000
 I think for me, one of the things that I didn't see coming out of the questions was what would

1921
02:23:36,000 --> 02:23:43,000
 make it acceptable, and whether or not that's something that could be done with the extension

1922
02:23:43,000 --> 02:23:49,120
 or something like that at this point.

1923
02:23:49,120 --> 02:23:56,400
 Yeah, I think right now, the concerns are valid.

1924
02:23:56,400 --> 02:24:03,080
 I don't know what the path forward would be to eliminate those and whether or not basically

1925
02:24:03,080 --> 02:24:08,760
 there's much we can do that would make this significantly better going forward quickly,

1926
02:24:08,760 --> 02:24:09,760
 I guess.

1927
02:24:09,760 --> 02:24:12,580
 That's all I've got.

1928
02:24:12,580 --> 02:24:16,080
 Thank you, Commissioner Pernetta.

1929
02:24:16,080 --> 02:24:22,400
 I agree with Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Beck, I am appreciative of your thoughtfulness

1930
02:24:22,400 --> 02:24:23,700
 in the discussion.

1931
02:24:23,700 --> 02:24:28,920
 I think those questions were all valid and the points that you brought up, I think, highlight

1932
02:24:28,920 --> 02:24:30,400
 the things that need to be addressed.

1933
02:24:30,400 --> 02:24:35,160
 I'm particularly interested in the anecdotal evidence you provided to the flooding at Windsor,

1934
02:24:35,160 --> 02:24:38,760
 your neighborhood, and what potentially could happen on this property.

1935
02:24:38,760 --> 02:24:44,320
 And so I'm in support of the overall project, but I am urging the applicant as well as city

1936
02:24:44,320 --> 02:24:54,000
 to take Commissioner Beck's caution of flooding at those culverts seriously to I don't know

1937
02:24:54,000 --> 02:24:58,400
 what mitigation can go down the road, but hopefully we're looking at that from a staff

1938
02:24:58,400 --> 02:25:05,040
 level so we don't back up the upland or back down from the flooding and clogging that Commissioner

1939
02:25:05,040 --> 02:25:08,640
 Beck had brought to my attention this evening.

1940
02:25:08,640 --> 02:25:11,520
 But with that, we'll go ahead and vote via roll call.

1941
02:25:11,520 --> 02:25:12,520
 Commissioner Ellis?

1942
02:25:12,520 --> 02:25:13,520
 Aye.

1943
02:25:13,520 --> 02:25:14,520
 Commissioner Beck?

1944
02:25:14,520 --> 02:25:15,520
 Nay.

1945
02:25:15,520 --> 02:25:16,520
 Commissioner Pernetta?

1946
02:25:16,520 --> 02:25:17,520
 Aye.

1947
02:25:17,520 --> 02:25:18,520
 Commissioner Anderson?

1948
02:25:18,520 --> 02:25:19,520
 Aye.

1949
02:25:19,520 --> 02:25:20,520
 Commissioner Cole?

1950
02:25:20,520 --> 02:25:21,520
 Aye.

1951
02:25:21,520 --> 02:25:22,520
 Commissioner Smith?

1952
02:25:22,520 --> 02:25:23,520
 Aye.

1953
02:25:23,520 --> 02:25:24,520
 Chair is also an aye.

1954
02:25:24,520 --> 02:25:25,520
 Motion carries 6-1.

1955
02:25:25,520 --> 02:25:40,360
 The next item of business for this evening is our planning and zoning matrix.

1956
02:25:40,360 --> 02:25:45,180
 What I'll do is I'll turn the floor over initially to Richard for any updates he has and then

1957
02:25:45,180 --> 02:25:51,320
 to the dais for comment.

1958
02:25:51,320 --> 02:25:54,640
 Any update?

1959
02:25:54,640 --> 02:25:56,340
 Not much on the matrix.

1960
02:25:56,340 --> 02:26:02,360
 We may actually move some of the items around that we were anticipating coming to the first

1961
02:26:02,360 --> 02:26:05,060
 meeting in October.

1962
02:26:05,060 --> 02:26:12,020
 It does look like as of today, at least, we will be on the October 6th City Council work

1963
02:26:12,020 --> 02:26:16,780
 session for the gas well setbacks related to plug wells.

1964
02:26:16,780 --> 02:26:22,720
 So if that is, what I'd like to do then is just bring that the following night to the

1965
02:26:22,720 --> 02:26:24,460
 planning and zoning commission.

1966
02:26:24,460 --> 02:26:29,300
 And so as we start to progress towards the end of the month and I have a better idea,

1967
02:26:29,300 --> 02:26:31,200
 I'll keep everyone apprised.

1968
02:26:31,200 --> 02:26:36,240
 So you might see one or two items shift, but that would be the reason why is that we're

1969
02:26:36,240 --> 02:26:41,400
 just bringing that gas well item right on the heels of council.

1970
02:26:41,400 --> 02:26:47,100
 The only other item I'll quickly update everyone on is just some actions that occurred last

1971
02:26:47,100 --> 02:26:49,880
 night at the City Council meeting.

1972
02:26:49,880 --> 02:26:57,640
 Both the Denton Grove SGP and related escrow agreement were approved.

1973
02:26:57,640 --> 02:27:02,480
 The Forster Razor Alt ESA, which came back on reconsideration, was also approved.

1974
02:27:02,480 --> 02:27:05,560
 The Mingo Road Apartments were approved.

1975
02:27:05,560 --> 02:27:09,400
 The PD amendment for the charter school was also approved.

1976
02:27:09,400 --> 02:27:13,600
 And the Primaris rezoning was approved with a little change.

1977
02:27:13,600 --> 02:27:18,480
 If you recall, there were some overlay conditions that were requested and recommended by planning

1978
02:27:18,480 --> 02:27:20,480
 and zoning commission.

1979
02:27:20,480 --> 02:27:26,640
 As we were drafting the ordinance in consultation with legal, it was determined that those conditions

1980
02:27:26,640 --> 02:27:30,520
 were not actually -- or overlay really wasn't needed.

1981
02:27:30,520 --> 02:27:36,480
 There are provisions in the DDC that allow staff to have that -- make those interpretations

1982
02:27:36,480 --> 02:27:41,060
 as well as grant that conditional approval related to that use.

1983
02:27:41,060 --> 02:27:46,580
 What I'll do is we'll make sure that everyone has a copy of the AIS that accompanied that

1984
02:27:46,580 --> 02:27:51,800
 item last night so you see the reasoning or rationale behind that so you have a better

1985
02:27:51,800 --> 02:27:53,140
 explanation.

1986
02:27:53,140 --> 02:27:58,400
 And with that, I'd be happy to answer any additional questions.

1987
02:27:58,400 --> 02:28:01,960
 >> All right.

1988
02:28:01,960 --> 02:28:02,960
 Anyone got anything?

1989
02:28:02,960 --> 02:28:10,560
 Yeah, I have one thing, not seeing any hands fighting for attention here.

1990
02:28:10,560 --> 02:28:21,020
 Item 5A tonight, the -- oh, you know the one, guys, the one we just did, Mockingbird Nadra.

1991
02:28:21,020 --> 02:28:24,760
 There was a striking of the word variance, do we need to look at like a code amendment?

1992
02:28:24,760 --> 02:28:29,840
 It seemed like that word variance is no longer even permitted from the state, if I interpret

1993
02:28:29,840 --> 02:28:30,960
 that correctly.

1994
02:28:30,960 --> 02:28:35,800
 What do we need to do from a commission to clean up that language or we're just going

1995
02:28:35,800 --> 02:28:42,440
 to continue having conditions to remove that word?

1996
02:28:42,440 --> 02:28:43,440
 >> Mr. Chair?

1997
02:28:43,440 --> 02:28:44,440
 >> Yes.

1998
02:28:44,440 --> 02:28:45,440
 >> I can respond to that.

1999
02:28:45,440 --> 02:28:46,440
 >> Please.

2000
02:28:46,440 --> 02:28:54,680
 >> It was explained during her presentation that the DDC and Texas law prohibit use variances.

2001
02:28:54,680 --> 02:29:03,800
 That's essentially what that condition was saying is that there won't be a use variance

2002
02:29:03,800 --> 02:29:07,480
 for townhomes and duplexes.

2003
02:29:07,480 --> 02:29:12,800
 The ZBA doesn't have the authority to grant use variances.

2004
02:29:12,800 --> 02:29:14,240
 So that's why that language is struck.

2005
02:29:14,240 --> 02:29:18,960
 It was unnecessary and inappropriate and confusing.

2006
02:29:18,960 --> 02:29:21,780
 >> So that language is a formulated condition.

2007
02:29:21,780 --> 02:29:25,000
 That's not defined out in our code or anything.

2008
02:29:25,000 --> 02:29:28,600
 Maybe that's where my confusion was.

2009
02:29:28,600 --> 02:29:38,280
 >> What she was referring to is there's only certain authority in the DDC for the ZBA.

2010
02:29:38,280 --> 02:29:40,400
 One of them is not issuing a use variance.

2011
02:29:40,400 --> 02:29:41,400
 >> Okay.

2012
02:29:41,400 --> 02:29:45,800
 I apologize for that long explanation.

2013
02:29:45,800 --> 02:29:47,200
 >> I think I understand.

2014
02:29:47,200 --> 02:29:50,760
 I thought there was a reference to the code that was not -- never mind.

2015
02:29:50,760 --> 02:29:51,760
 That was my confusion.

2016
02:29:51,760 --> 02:29:53,720
 Commissioner Beck, I thought I saw your hand there.

2017
02:29:53,720 --> 02:29:54,720
 >> Yeah.

2018
02:29:54,720 --> 02:29:59,600
 I was just going to point out, Chair, what you realized at the last moment already.

2019
02:29:59,600 --> 02:30:01,760
 So it was that.

2020
02:30:01,760 --> 02:30:06,960
 And if I could, since I have the floor for a moment, I also wish Commissioner Ellis happy

2021
02:30:06,960 --> 02:30:07,960
 birthday.

2022
02:30:07,960 --> 02:30:08,960
 >> Absolutely.

2023
02:30:08,960 --> 02:30:09,960
 Happy birthday, Commissioner.

2024
02:30:09,960 --> 02:30:10,960
 >> Thank you.

2025
02:30:10,960 --> 02:30:11,960
 I appreciate that.

2026
02:30:11,960 --> 02:30:12,960
 >> Pleasure serving with you.

2027
02:30:12,960 --> 02:30:13,960
 Happy birthday.

2028
02:30:13,960 --> 02:30:14,960
 >> Thank you.

2029
02:30:14,960 --> 02:30:15,960
 >> Thank you.

2030
02:30:15,960 --> 02:30:16,960
 >> Thank you.

2031
02:30:16,960 --> 02:30:17,960
 >> Is there anything else for the matrix?

2032
02:30:17,960 --> 02:30:18,960
 Okay.

2033
02:30:18,960 --> 02:30:22,520
 Thank you, everyone, for a fantastic meeting.

2034
02:30:22,520 --> 02:30:24,720
 I will close it at 754.

2035
02:30:24,720 --> 02:30:25,960
 Be safe.