WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.340
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning work session meeting

00:00:07.340 --> 00:00:10.500
 for September 16, 2020.

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

00:00:15.940 --> 00:00:19.680
 show at the start of the meeting, Commissioner Anderson is not present.

00:00:19.680 --> 00:00:24.500
 Jumping right into our agenda this evening, we have no work session reports, so we can

00:00:24.500 --> 00:00:29.200
 hop into the agenda starting with the minutes.

00:00:29.200 --> 00:00:34.480
 Does anyone have any notes on the minutes so we can go over now?

00:00:34.480 --> 00:00:37.840
 Okay, great.

00:00:37.840 --> 00:00:41.520
 Next item of consideration is the consent agenda.

00:00:41.520 --> 00:00:44.240
 There are four items here.

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,

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

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

00:01:02.160 --> 00:01:30.920
 items.

00:01:32.160 --> 00:01:40.380
 All right, good evening, commissioners, Haley Skirsky with the planning department.

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.

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

00:01:53.040 --> 00:01:56.480
 that indicates that this property is in the city's ETJ.

00:01:56.480 --> 00:01:59.800
 So our only authority within the ETJ is subdivision.

00:01:59.800 --> 00:02:04.360
 So a preliminary plat was not required for this development, they jumped straight to

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,

00:02:09.200 --> 00:02:13.320
 but that's the short summary of it.

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,

00:02:22.240 --> 00:02:26.280
 the city has jurisdiction over the platting of that, is that like an option they have?

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.

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?

00:02:34.560 --> 00:02:35.560
 Sure.

00:02:35.560 --> 00:02:39.880
 So a final plat is required, the county will be issuing permits for the development here,

00:02:39.880 --> 00:02:44.240
 but the platting through our interlocal agreement with the county, the city regulates platts

00:02:44.240 --> 00:02:45.240
 within the ETJ.

00:02:45.240 --> 00:02:50.040
 So we review and approve the plat and then permitting will go through the county.

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

00:02:54.040 --> 00:02:57.840
 do that step in this case, so they went straight to final platting.

00:02:57.840 --> 00:03:02.040
 This would be the only piece of this development that the city would see.

00:03:02.040 --> 00:03:03.040
 Gotcha.

00:03:03.040 --> 00:03:06.640
 And with approval, it meets all technical requirements needed to be approved, right?

00:03:06.640 --> 00:03:07.640
 Correct.

00:03:07.640 --> 00:03:08.640
 Commissioner Beck.

00:03:08.640 --> 00:03:10.280
 Thank you, chair.

00:03:10.280 --> 00:03:16.960
 So following on from chair's comments, so we still have to meet chapter two, chapter

00:03:16.960 --> 00:03:21.080
 seven, all those for this development, right?

00:03:21.080 --> 00:03:22.360
 No, sir.

00:03:22.360 --> 00:03:26.040
 They just follow the city subdivision regulations.

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

00:03:30.140 --> 00:03:32.760
 or anything else that we would typically look at with the plat.

00:03:32.760 --> 00:03:34.760
 It's just the street layout.

00:03:34.760 --> 00:03:38.000
 Are they able to serve each lot with utilities?

00:03:38.000 --> 00:03:42.360
 Those sorts of subdivision type requirements is all that we can enforce within the ETJ.

00:03:42.360 --> 00:03:45.300
 All right, that answers my question.

00:03:45.300 --> 00:03:46.300
 Thank you.

00:03:46.300 --> 00:03:52.500
 Haley, one last question.

00:03:52.500 --> 00:03:57.640
 Can they just try to do a voluntary annexation after this is built?

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

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

00:04:07.940 --> 00:04:12.080
 annexed and gets the benefit of the city?

00:04:12.080 --> 00:04:13.720
 Potentially they could annex later.

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

00:04:17.960 --> 00:04:21.640
 individual homeowners, but to date, they've indicated that they do not intend to annex

00:04:21.640 --> 00:04:22.640
 into the city.

00:04:22.640 --> 00:04:26.360
 They will develop the subdivision under the county's permitting regulations.

00:04:26.360 --> 00:04:27.360
 Gotcha.

00:04:27.360 --> 00:04:29.360
 Yeah, Chris, you're back.

00:04:29.360 --> 00:04:31.360
 Since Chair brought this up, thank you, Chair.

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

00:04:36.880 --> 00:04:37.880
 from what Chair said.

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,

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

00:04:50.880 --> 00:04:51.880
 agreement?

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

00:04:59.360 --> 00:05:03.520
 didn't meet the city's development regulations for say single family architecture or something

00:05:03.520 --> 00:05:08.640
 like that, they would just be nonconforming to our regulations at that point.

00:05:08.640 --> 00:05:14.600
 But my understanding from the developer is annexation is not an option for this subdivision.

00:05:14.600 --> 00:05:17.280
 All right.

00:05:17.280 --> 00:05:18.280
 Thank you.

00:05:18.280 --> 00:05:24.280
 Any other questions for Haley on item 3a, the consent?

00:05:24.280 --> 00:05:27.280
 Okay.

00:05:27.280 --> 00:05:29.400
 Seeing none, we can progress.

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?

00:05:36.880 --> 00:05:38.760
 I would like to see c and d.

00:05:38.760 --> 00:05:39.760
 Okay.

00:05:39.760 --> 00:05:40.760
 Great.

00:05:40.760 --> 00:05:49.320
 Haley, while you're there, can you show us item c, pp20-19a?

00:05:49.320 --> 00:05:53.800
 Right.

00:05:53.800 --> 00:05:58.160
 So item c is the preliminary plan for Sage Brook.

00:05:58.160 --> 00:06:01.720
 So I think you all are pretty familiar with this particular development.

00:06:01.720 --> 00:06:07.600
 They are proposing consistent with their PD to have four primary phases of the development.

00:06:07.600 --> 00:06:11.800
 It has the number of lots and everything as called for within the plan development.

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

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,

00:06:23.320 --> 00:06:27.040
 and then the four phases of single family with that kind of boulevard connection up

00:06:27.040 --> 00:06:31.720
 to Allred and then Allred jogging down to meet Brush Creek over here.

00:06:31.720 --> 00:06:35.320
 If there's any particular questions you have, I'm happy to answer those.

00:06:35.320 --> 00:06:36.320
 Yes.

00:06:36.320 --> 00:06:37.320
 Thank you, Haley.

00:06:37.320 --> 00:06:38.320
 Okay.

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

00:06:45.480 --> 00:06:50.680
 the topography, that all drains into that creek, correct?

00:06:50.680 --> 00:06:51.680
 The entire plat?

00:06:51.680 --> 00:06:52.680
 Yes.

00:06:52.680 --> 00:06:57.720
 That is my understanding is everything drains towards the floodplain that runs here.

00:06:57.720 --> 00:07:01.680
 You can see the stash line is the boundary of the floodplain.

00:07:01.680 --> 00:07:05.520
 So everything generally drains towards that.

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

00:07:12.640 --> 00:07:23.160
 getting rid of converting this pervious surface into an impervious surface is not going to

00:07:23.160 --> 00:07:26.480
 cause flooding and downstream offense.

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

00:07:30.640 --> 00:07:36.240
 seven inches of rain, generates downstream flooding events from all our creeks, because

00:07:36.240 --> 00:07:38.920
 we've not really done that great a job.

00:07:38.920 --> 00:07:46.280
 I guess that was more comment.

00:07:46.280 --> 00:07:47.620
 Can you refresh?

00:07:47.620 --> 00:07:52.160
 I guess the engineers are just going to say that it meets their standards.

00:07:52.160 --> 00:07:54.560
 All right.

00:07:54.560 --> 00:07:56.900
 No, I'm good.

00:07:56.900 --> 00:08:00.640
 Thank you, Haley.

00:08:00.640 --> 00:08:02.520
 Any other questions for Haley?

00:08:02.520 --> 00:08:03.520
 Okay.

00:08:03.520 --> 00:08:10.640
 Seeing none, is Ron Maguida arounders who could present?

00:08:10.640 --> 00:08:11.640
 Usually he calls in.

00:08:11.640 --> 00:08:12.640
 Yeah.

00:08:12.640 --> 00:08:13.640
 I'm on a call.

00:08:13.640 --> 00:08:14.640
 There he is.

00:08:14.640 --> 00:08:15.640
 Perfect.

00:08:15.640 --> 00:08:20.560
 Haley, can you pull up item 3D so Ron can walk us through that, FR20-11A?

00:08:20.560 --> 00:08:25.120
 All right, here we go.

00:08:25.120 --> 00:08:26.120
 Thank you, Haley.

00:08:26.120 --> 00:08:30.880
 Subject final reply is for the Corsair Razor.

00:08:30.880 --> 00:08:37.320
 I know they changed the name recently, but it is for a single family residential development,

00:08:37.320 --> 00:08:39.280
 96 lots in total.

00:08:39.280 --> 00:08:49.960
 It is part of a larger phase of development single family for this area.

00:08:49.960 --> 00:08:51.400
 Any questions for Ron?

00:08:51.400 --> 00:08:53.660
 Commissioner Beck.

00:08:53.660 --> 00:08:54.760
 Thank you, Chair.

00:08:54.760 --> 00:09:00.600
 So the road extension off of, oh gosh, I can't read it.

00:09:00.600 --> 00:09:02.840
 Let me get my glasses on.

00:09:02.840 --> 00:09:06.240
 Right above Denia Park, Parvin.

00:09:06.240 --> 00:09:15.920
 The road extension, that crosses the riparian ESA right now, which was the subject of last

00:09:15.920 --> 00:09:19.200
 night's council decision.

00:09:19.200 --> 00:09:24.200
 Does this road not have to have an alt ESA to cross over that riparian buffer?

00:09:24.200 --> 00:09:27.520
 Let me check.

00:09:27.520 --> 00:09:31.160
 I don't think there was one required.

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

00:09:36.760 --> 00:09:42.800
 system specifically, and I think those were further south of the subject replact.

00:09:42.800 --> 00:09:49.400
 I'm looking at the comments from our water administration staff.

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

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

00:10:00.840 --> 00:10:06.160
 to the south were disturbances of that riparian buffer and they therefore needed an alt ESA.

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?

00:10:13.360 --> 00:10:17.600
 My understanding, I'm reading the notes here or the comments from our water administration

00:10:17.600 --> 00:10:22.240
 staff is the proposed encroachment for the purpose of constructing the Parvin road is

00:10:22.240 --> 00:10:27.160
 permitted under a section in the code that she references.

00:10:27.160 --> 00:10:32.040
 So that's why there's no need for an alt ESA for that particular proposal.

00:10:32.040 --> 00:10:33.040
 Okay.

00:10:33.040 --> 00:10:34.040
 Okay.

00:10:34.040 --> 00:10:36.000
 So I don't have it in front.

00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:39.000
 Can you refresh me on that?

00:10:39.000 --> 00:10:40.800
 The section.

00:10:40.800 --> 00:10:44.600
 The rationale for why you don't need an alt ESA?

00:10:44.600 --> 00:10:49.600
 I can't respond to that, I can certainly get an answer.

00:10:49.600 --> 00:10:50.600
 Christie is here.

00:10:50.600 --> 00:10:53.880
 So I've asked her to come up to the mic.

00:10:53.880 --> 00:10:58.240
 Hi, Christie Upton with environmental services.

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

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

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,

00:11:22.760 --> 00:11:29.800
 but there's a section in the code that permits for these encroachments for roadways that

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

00:11:38.560 --> 00:11:46.760
 work to, to riparian and replace the eases that remain.

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

00:11:54.560 --> 00:11:59.400
 feet as we've been discussing with various other items that have appeared before the

00:11:59.400 --> 00:12:02.400
 commission.

00:12:02.400 --> 00:12:03.900
 We've done a lot of talking about that lately.

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

00:12:13.920 --> 00:12:17.880
 that may or may not have ever crossed an exact location.

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.

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,

00:12:32.780 --> 00:12:37.400
 it needs to be addressed by that council or amendment or ordinance, because this is, this

00:12:37.400 --> 00:12:38.920
 is crazy.

00:12:38.920 --> 00:12:43.480
 So anyway, sorry, Christy, I'm not, I don't mean to go at you.

00:12:43.480 --> 00:12:44.480
 Thank you.

00:12:44.480 --> 00:12:47.680
 Christian, can you clarify what you believe is crazy?

00:12:47.680 --> 00:12:48.680
 Yes.

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

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

00:12:59.960 --> 00:13:08.160
 the Rose lawn in terms of the accuracy of the alignment, as Brian John has mentioned

00:13:08.160 --> 00:13:14.700
 many times, then you don't know exactly where it's crossing any given terrain feature.

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

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

00:13:25.200 --> 00:13:29.520
 mobility plan is not a static object.

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

00:13:35.700 --> 00:13:36.700
 plan.

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

00:13:42.400 --> 00:13:49.440
 creating by not having specificity in the interplay of our mobility plan and our environmental

00:13:49.440 --> 00:13:50.440
 regulations.

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

00:13:57.680 --> 00:14:02.200
 scope and mobility plan, the less of a thousand foot buffer you really can afford because

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

00:14:07.920 --> 00:14:09.920
 and it goes right to where it needs to be.

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

00:14:14.160 --> 00:14:15.160
 efficiency.

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

00:14:20.540 --> 00:14:24.320
 is being developed, we have some flexibility there, but the parameters on Parvin on the

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

00:14:29.680 --> 00:14:31.840
 of greener pastures.

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.

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

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.

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

00:14:56.340 --> 00:14:59.440
 still some upland habitat on that West side.

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

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

00:15:12.160 --> 00:15:19.720
 clear if for future issues, that would be my recommendation.

00:15:19.720 --> 00:15:23.520
 I appreciate the clarification, commissioner Bec.

00:15:23.520 --> 00:15:32.720
 Any other questions for item three D commissioner Ellis, did they hear this item?

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?

00:15:39.160 --> 00:15:44.320
 It was hard for us to hear you, is that better marginally?

00:15:44.320 --> 00:15:45.320
 Okay.

00:15:45.320 --> 00:15:47.800
 Well, I'm not sure what's going on.

00:15:47.800 --> 00:15:53.840
 Okay, um, question is, did council hear the alt ESA yesterday?

00:15:53.840 --> 00:15:57.520
 Where do they stand on that?

00:15:57.520 --> 00:16:05.040
 The alt ESA was approved six one, we're forced to razor, correct?

00:16:05.040 --> 00:16:09.720
 The forced to razor, we're discussing, correct?

00:16:09.720 --> 00:16:10.720
 Correct.

00:16:10.720 --> 00:16:11.720
 It was approved.

00:16:11.720 --> 00:16:12.720
 Six one last night.

00:16:12.720 --> 00:16:13.720
 Okay.

00:16:13.720 --> 00:16:14.720
 Thank you.

00:16:14.720 --> 00:16:18.520
 Thank you.

00:16:18.520 --> 00:16:19.520
 Any other questions?

00:16:19.520 --> 00:16:20.520
 Great.

00:16:20.520 --> 00:16:24.480
 Thank you, Ron for being here this evening to present that item.

00:16:24.480 --> 00:16:29.680
 Next item for business is item for a fr 20 dash zero zero zero eight.

00:16:29.680 --> 00:16:33.080
 This is also Ron's item.

00:16:33.080 --> 00:16:41.280
 Could someone pull that up for him to present the individual consideration item for a please.

00:16:41.280 --> 00:16:54.480
 I'm getting that pulled up, give me just a minute.

00:16:54.480 --> 00:17:01.560
 All right, it's up.

00:17:01.560 --> 00:17:02.560
 Great.

00:17:02.560 --> 00:17:03.560
 Sorry.

00:17:03.560 --> 00:17:06.560
 Thank you, Julie.

00:17:06.560 --> 00:17:07.560
 Thank you, Julie.

00:17:07.560 --> 00:17:14.000
 Um, commissioners, this is a final replat for an existing lot or lots.

00:17:14.000 --> 00:17:15.680
 There's a total of four.

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

00:17:23.000 --> 00:17:30.280
 the lot even further to eight watts total and, and developing single family homes.

00:17:30.280 --> 00:17:37.540
 The reply itself is still under review has not yet cleared staff's outstanding comments.

00:17:37.540 --> 00:17:41.260
 Staff has recommended per house bill 31 67.

00:17:41.260 --> 00:17:48.000
 However, the applicant has requested an extension, uh, for the review for another 30 days and

00:17:48.000 --> 00:17:58.640
 staff has no objections to that, uh, extension.

00:17:58.640 --> 00:18:03.680
 That's that's presentation and be happy to answer any questions.

00:18:03.680 --> 00:18:04.680
 Thank you, Ron, for the presentation.

00:18:04.680 --> 00:18:11.600
 Does anyone have any questions for Ron in this item?

00:18:11.600 --> 00:18:12.600
 Seeing none.

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.

00:18:22.920 --> 00:18:28.920
 Okay.

00:18:28.920 --> 00:18:30.580
 So this is a preliminary plat.

00:18:30.580 --> 00:18:33.080
 You saw it, um, at the last PNZ meeting.

00:18:33.080 --> 00:18:36.080
 It was, they did ask for an extension at that time.

00:18:36.080 --> 00:18:41.280
 Um, they've worked with staff, uh, uh, gone back and forth quite a few times.

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

00:18:45.080 --> 00:18:46.080
 work through.

00:18:46.080 --> 00:18:51.040
 However, in the intervening days, they have worked through those items with engineering

00:18:51.040 --> 00:18:55.100
 and have resolved all of the comments related to the preliminary plat.

00:18:55.100 --> 00:19:00.960
 And so with that, the recommendation provided by staff, um, is amended to reflect approval

00:19:00.960 --> 00:19:04.280
 of the request as it does meet the established requirements.

00:19:04.280 --> 00:19:06.520
 This is, this is a, a development.

00:19:06.520 --> 00:19:12.400
 It's an infill development that will include, um, four plexes off of Windsor, um, between

00:19:12.400 --> 00:19:14.040
 Windsor and Wolf trap.

00:19:14.040 --> 00:19:16.040
 And I'll answer any questions.

00:19:16.040 --> 00:19:17.920
 Thank you, Julie.

00:19:17.920 --> 00:19:20.840
 Is there any questions for Julie commissioner back?

00:19:20.840 --> 00:19:23.440
 So that, that look, thank you, chair.

00:19:23.440 --> 00:19:26.160
 Um, I'm always forgetting my man.

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

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

00:19:37.360 --> 00:19:40.920
 floods with a green space around it.

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

00:19:45.960 --> 00:19:53.200
 replacing that with, with, uh, out suitable mitigation isn't going to flood even worse

00:19:53.200 --> 00:19:57.040
 because you will have more impervious surface.

00:19:57.040 --> 00:20:02.200
 So Windsor will flood even more.

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.

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.

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

00:20:15.280 --> 00:20:16.280
 issues.

00:20:16.280 --> 00:20:20.680
 So, um, they've actually been discussing drainage with our engineering group.

00:20:20.680 --> 00:20:23.180
 Um, it's all of the details haven't been worked out.

00:20:23.180 --> 00:20:28.320
 Their next step, um, after a preliminary plat will be the civil engineering plans to kind

00:20:28.320 --> 00:20:31.160
 of go through and finish up that drainage design.

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

00:20:36.360 --> 00:20:38.920
 all drainage requirements.

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,

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

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

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

00:21:03.680 --> 00:21:04.680
 to improve drainage?

00:21:04.680 --> 00:21:09.720
 If the drainage is insufficient, are we, are we again setting up those poor residents to

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

00:21:15.480 --> 00:21:18.560
 third, fourth, fifth year to row?

00:21:18.560 --> 00:21:23.560
 They will have to, during the civil engineering, that design phase will have to go through

00:21:23.560 --> 00:21:28.280
 and make sure that they, um, that they address any drainage issues on the property.

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,

00:21:32.780 --> 00:21:34.780
 for final plat.

00:21:34.780 --> 00:21:36.760
 All right.

00:21:36.760 --> 00:21:37.760
 Thank you.

00:21:37.760 --> 00:21:40.720
 Any other questions for Julie?

00:21:40.720 --> 00:21:46.120
 Hey, Julie, I have one out of curiosity of just how this process works.

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

00:21:53.080 --> 00:21:57.920
 you over the past three business days to make changes.

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

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

00:22:11.240 --> 00:22:15.840
 after an agenda is posted for you to make it right before it comes to PNZ?

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

00:22:19.640 --> 00:22:24.000
 seems like there's significant effort, uh, in compromise and back and forth to get this

00:22:24.000 --> 00:22:25.000
 done.

00:22:25.000 --> 00:22:27.560
 I'm curious to, to know about that a little bit more.

00:22:27.560 --> 00:22:32.520
 Well development services has a great team, um, who works with applicants to get this

00:22:32.520 --> 00:22:33.520
 through.

00:22:33.520 --> 00:22:38.120
 We have a project facilitation team that, that coordinates with engineering and planning.

00:22:38.120 --> 00:22:41.680
 A lot of the issues related to Platts, you know, the heavy lifting with Platts comes

00:22:41.680 --> 00:22:45.860
 from engineering because of, you know, all of the design that goes with them.

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

00:22:53.160 --> 00:22:54.160
 this.

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.

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,

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,

00:23:07.840 --> 00:23:10.200
 resolved just as quickly as possible.

00:23:10.200 --> 00:23:11.200
 Great.

00:23:11.200 --> 00:23:16.600
 Thanks for helping me pull back the curtain a little bit.

00:23:16.600 --> 00:23:18.440
 Commissioner Beck.

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

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?

00:23:32.240 --> 00:23:34.160
 Because this is the, the posting was a denial.

00:23:34.160 --> 00:23:39.880
 I understand that the current status is an acceptance and I'm not fighting that.

00:23:39.880 --> 00:23:42.880
 I'm, I'm, this is sort of a Robert's rules of order question.

00:23:42.880 --> 00:23:49.660
 Do we have to vote on the posting or vote on the current understanding by staff?

00:23:49.660 --> 00:23:50.960
 And I don't know the, I'm just asking.

00:23:50.960 --> 00:23:53.280
 Yeah, I'll ask legal to weigh in here.

00:23:53.280 --> 00:24:01.640
 Um, Mr. Chair, uh, commissioner Beck, the, the posting is for the, the plat action and

00:24:01.640 --> 00:24:04.120
 that is a staff recommendation.

00:24:04.120 --> 00:24:09.880
 The planning commission can certainly after, um, weighing all of the, the evidence on that

00:24:09.880 --> 00:24:13.560
 and comparing the application to the code requirements, make a different determination,

00:24:13.560 --> 00:24:16.160
 but that is staff's recommendation.

00:24:16.160 --> 00:24:23.200
 And as Ms. Wyatt has explained, the applicant provided sufficient information for the staff

00:24:23.200 --> 00:24:27.240
 to feel comfortable making a recommendation of approval.

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

00:24:34.800 --> 00:24:35.800
 rules of order.

00:24:35.800 --> 00:24:37.320
 It has been posted for action.

00:24:37.320 --> 00:24:41.840
 It's, it's, uh, a staff recommendation in the caption.

00:24:41.840 --> 00:24:42.840
 Thank you.

00:24:42.840 --> 00:24:43.840
 Appreciate that.

00:24:43.840 --> 00:24:45.000
 All right.

00:24:45.000 --> 00:24:51.400
 Any other questions for Julie on item four B?

00:24:51.400 --> 00:24:54.000
 Great, Julie, hang on a little bit.

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

00:25:01.920 --> 00:25:03.880
 Julie for presentation.

00:25:03.880 --> 00:25:10.240
 All right, let me share my screen.

00:25:10.240 --> 00:25:13.800
 All right, here we go.

00:25:13.800 --> 00:25:16.000
 All right.

00:25:16.000 --> 00:25:23.320
 This item is E 19, zero, zero, one to be mockingbird single family residential.

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

00:25:30.160 --> 00:25:31.160
 district.

00:25:31.160 --> 00:25:32.160
 That's the request.

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

00:25:38.160 --> 00:25:39.160
 here in yellow.

00:25:39.160 --> 00:25:45.160
 Um, the surrounding development is kind of existing suburban style, single family neighborhoods,

00:25:45.160 --> 00:25:47.800
 but there are a few remaining large parcels nearby.

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

00:25:52.760 --> 00:25:53.760
 of Audra.

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

00:25:59.560 --> 00:26:01.120
 of fence line trees.

00:26:01.120 --> 00:26:05.160
 And then per the applicant, the purpose is to develop the site with nine single family

00:26:05.160 --> 00:26:08.080
 dwellings.

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

00:26:13.960 --> 00:26:19.040
 map and it shows our two district, um, on the subject property.

00:26:19.040 --> 00:26:26.800
 They, they are proposing to, um, to extend that, uh, our four and rezone the subject

00:26:26.800 --> 00:26:32.600
 property so that it extends that our four to the north, um, the criteria for approval

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

00:26:38.400 --> 00:26:41.760
 criteria and we'll touch on those as we talk through the project.

00:26:41.760 --> 00:26:44.500
 So the first thing we always look at is didn't plan 2030.

00:26:44.500 --> 00:26:47.820
 So the site is designated as low density residential.

00:26:47.820 --> 00:26:52.680
 This is intended for single family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre.

00:26:52.680 --> 00:26:58.720
 So while, uh, the propose our four doesn't precisely conform to that maximum density,

00:26:58.720 --> 00:27:01.920
 it does meet the overall goals for the comprehensive plan.

00:27:01.920 --> 00:27:05.240
 So the proposal is in conformance with the concept plan.

00:27:05.240 --> 00:27:10.200
 Um, this provides for, um, infill development for that compact development pattern at the,

00:27:10.200 --> 00:27:17.000
 didn't plan 2030, um, um, uh, uh, has as a goal.

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

00:27:22.400 --> 00:27:25.240
 consistent with the surrounding development pattern.

00:27:25.240 --> 00:27:29.080
 Um, there aren't any small area plans that affect the subject property.

00:27:29.080 --> 00:27:34.240
 Um, the, the next criteria for approval is consistency with the purpose statement.

00:27:34.240 --> 00:27:39.400
 So our four district is intended to accommodate a variety of housing types on lots designed

00:27:39.400 --> 00:27:44.000
 to encourage walking to a neighborhood serving retail and other amenities such as parks and

00:27:44.000 --> 00:27:45.000
 school facilities.

00:27:45.000 --> 00:27:49.680
 The zoning district will ensure, um, existing neighborhood characters maintain while also

00:27:49.680 --> 00:27:54.520
 serving as a transition area between established single family neighborhoods and mixed use

00:27:54.520 --> 00:27:55.520
 neighborhoods.

00:27:55.520 --> 00:27:59.500
 So the request is consistent with the purpose statement as the applicant is, has stated

00:27:59.500 --> 00:28:03.520
 that the intent is to develop the site with single family dwellings.

00:28:03.520 --> 00:28:07.800
 Um, also are there significant changes in the area?

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

00:28:13.500 --> 00:28:16.160
 out from downtown, um, has developed.

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.

00:28:19.840 --> 00:28:24.880
 And as you can see, starting in the 1980s, um, the development near the subject property

00:28:24.880 --> 00:28:25.960
 started coming in.

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

00:28:31.080 --> 00:28:36.740
 began, um, that accelerated through the 1990s with additional neighborhoods, those single

00:28:36.740 --> 00:28:41.440
 family suburban style neighborhoods developing and then on through the 2000s.

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

00:28:46.340 --> 00:28:52.480
 is just a continuation of that development pattern, um, minimizes adverse impacts on

00:28:52.480 --> 00:28:53.480
 surrounding property.

00:28:53.480 --> 00:28:58.360
 R4 is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods in both use and development scale.

00:28:58.360 --> 00:29:01.280
 It's not anticipated to create adverse impacts.

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

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.

00:29:13.480 --> 00:29:17.880
 So it's, it's right there consistent with, with those adjacent neighborhoods.

00:29:17.880 --> 00:29:22.280
 Um, the expansion of the R4 district is a logical extension of that existing zoning

00:29:22.280 --> 00:29:27.920
 pattern and based upon the uses and development scale would create harmonious development.

00:29:27.920 --> 00:29:32.200
 Um, and the, and the rezoning would just allow development to be consistent with the surrounding

00:29:32.200 --> 00:29:33.200
 property.

00:29:33.200 --> 00:29:38.640
 Um, the intensity of the development is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts

00:29:38.640 --> 00:29:42.800
 to the surrounding property, um, due to the limited number of homes that just physically

00:29:42.800 --> 00:29:44.120
 could be just constructed.

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

00:29:49.400 --> 00:29:54.000
 district about 90 trips per day would be created, um, by the proposed rezoning.

00:29:54.000 --> 00:29:58.900
 Um, this doesn't try to trigger impact or, um, a TIA requirement.

00:29:58.900 --> 00:30:04.320
 Um, and then roadway impact fees, uh, would, would be required, um, at development.

00:30:04.320 --> 00:30:07.400
 Um, there are water and wastewater available to the site.

00:30:07.400 --> 00:30:09.000
 That's why we like infill developments.

00:30:09.000 --> 00:30:14.120
 Why our, um, DenPlan 2030, um, talks about infill is because there are public facilities

00:30:14.120 --> 00:30:16.720
 already available to the site.

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

00:30:22.920 --> 00:30:24.080
 walk to a park.

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

00:30:29.760 --> 00:30:34.280
 to identify, um, uh, future park land and then access.

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

00:30:38.040 --> 00:30:42.320
 when this came up, um, a full review will happen at the plotting process.

00:30:42.320 --> 00:30:49.440
 However, I did, um, provide sort of, um, a conceptual, um, um, um, driveway location

00:30:49.440 --> 00:30:51.520
 that the applicant had provided.

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,

00:30:55.600 --> 00:31:00.200
 uh, because of that panhandle, uh, but engineering is confirmed that the proposal does meet the

00:31:00.200 --> 00:31:04.680
 minimum spacing from those existing driveways that would be required with, with development

00:31:04.680 --> 00:31:05.680
 of the site.

00:31:05.680 --> 00:31:10.720
 Um, I also want to mention, I did speak with engineering, Mockingbird, um, I, I wanted

00:31:10.720 --> 00:31:15.160
 to make sure Mockingbird did have capacity, um, and it does have capacity for those additional

00:31:15.160 --> 00:31:16.160
 trips for the use.

00:31:16.160 --> 00:31:18.760
 Um, so we did send out notification.

00:31:18.760 --> 00:31:23.360
 We have received foreign opposition and so it does have 14% opposition.

00:31:23.360 --> 00:31:27.720
 That doesn't meet the threshold of the super majority that would require 20%.

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

00:31:33.960 --> 00:31:34.960
 meeting at that time.

00:31:34.960 --> 00:31:39.920
 They also held another neighborhood meeting, um, and, uh, the applicant will be available

00:31:39.920 --> 00:31:44.200
 to answer questions at the public hearing, so they could probably speak to that neighborhood

00:31:44.200 --> 00:31:46.400
 meeting as well.

00:31:46.400 --> 00:31:49.920
 So staff recommends approval of the request, it complies with the criteria and the debt

00:31:49.920 --> 00:31:52.560
 and development code, uh, for a zoning change.

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

00:31:57.080 --> 00:31:58.080
 about that.

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

00:32:04.440 --> 00:32:10.440
 about their, um, their request to include the, the, um, statement variance in their

00:32:10.440 --> 00:32:15.400
 overlay condition that actually does not comply with the debt and development code and state

00:32:15.400 --> 00:32:16.480
 law.

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

00:32:22.920 --> 00:32:27.660
 approval of this item with the overlay condition, that you would strike that language related

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

00:32:32.880 --> 00:32:37.160
 duplexes will be permitted even with a specific use permit.

00:32:37.160 --> 00:32:40.560
 And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

00:32:40.560 --> 00:32:45.640
 Commissioner back, thank you chair.

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

00:32:49.840 --> 00:32:54.520
 consistent in my opinion with this region, but back to the access.

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

00:32:58.720 --> 00:33:05.000
 to the engineers, they, the distance that they were referencing was to the stop sign

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

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

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.

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

00:33:28.160 --> 00:33:29.160
 make sure.

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

00:33:34.480 --> 00:33:37.040
 that this would meet all spacing requirements that they have.

00:33:37.040 --> 00:33:41.360
 So yeah, I, I had the same follow up question.

00:33:41.360 --> 00:33:44.320
 I'll watch the newspapers for when we have an accident there.

00:33:44.320 --> 00:33:48.640
 Thank you, Julie.

00:33:48.640 --> 00:33:49.960
 Any other questions for Julie?

00:33:49.960 --> 00:33:54.760
 Hey Julie, can you go back to slide seven for me?

00:33:54.760 --> 00:34:08.520
 Let me find my page numbers after we go, here we go.

00:34:08.520 --> 00:34:10.200
 Consistency with the purpose statement?

00:34:10.200 --> 00:34:11.200
 Yes.

00:34:11.200 --> 00:34:17.040
 That says section two, three, two, five, a, the zoning district will ensure existing neighborhood

00:34:17.040 --> 00:34:23.360
 character is maintained will also serve as a transition area between established single

00:34:23.360 --> 00:34:25.840
 family neighborhoods and mixed use neighborhoods.

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.

00:34:32.400 --> 00:34:36.720
 This is stuck in the middle of neighbors.

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,

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

00:34:51.200 --> 00:34:53.480
 neighborhoods.

00:34:53.480 --> 00:34:55.240
 Sure.

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

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

00:35:09.600 --> 00:35:13.000
 residential and we looked at the context of the area.

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

00:35:19.340 --> 00:35:24.520
 scale that is so similar to those existing residential neighborhoods, we felt comfortable

00:35:24.520 --> 00:35:34.240
 that this was, was compatible with those adjacent neighborhoods and, and therefore consistent.

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

00:35:37.120 --> 00:35:40.560
 to the contrasting zoning maps?

00:35:40.560 --> 00:35:46.000
 Yeah, that's the one.

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

00:35:51.720 --> 00:35:57.160
 line is a very clear delineation from R2 to R4.

00:35:57.160 --> 00:35:59.720
 It seems like there's R2 on the North side of Audra.

00:35:59.720 --> 00:36:01.640
 There's R2 on the South side of Audra.

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

00:36:06.840 --> 00:36:09.080
 shape property.

00:36:09.080 --> 00:36:12.400
 And then at the bottom, there's an R4 delineation.

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

00:36:16.840 --> 00:36:24.320
 no context and say which zoning looks better aligned to what zoning is there, the left

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

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

00:36:38.240 --> 00:36:41.840
 of R2 and then to the left over in between more properties.

00:36:41.840 --> 00:36:44.120
 It looks like it's kind of forced.

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

00:36:50.640 --> 00:36:57.960
 felt that the proposed zoning was in better alignment than the current zoning.

00:36:57.960 --> 00:37:03.960
 Well, both districts would be appropriate given that future land use.

00:37:03.960 --> 00:37:08.600
 We felt like R4 was not incompatible with the surrounding property.

00:37:08.600 --> 00:37:18.120
 And so yes, it is creating kind of a new boundary line for that R4 district.

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

00:37:21.900 --> 00:37:29.520
 how that pattern has developed over time in these infill areas.

00:37:29.520 --> 00:37:36.960
 Is that the kind of the prevailing key word here you used several times, the infill?

00:37:36.960 --> 00:37:44.280
 Is infill and density kind of taking priority over the evaluation of this subject property?

00:37:44.280 --> 00:37:51.280
 I think we look at everything weighted equally.

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

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

00:38:06.920 --> 00:38:11.520
 out to the more rural areas.

00:38:11.520 --> 00:38:19.560
 So, yes, the comprehensive plan does address infill as something that we want to seek out.

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

00:38:26.520 --> 00:38:31.760
 with the surrounding property and would be compatible with the existing uses.

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

00:38:39.400 --> 00:38:42.220
 think about as we're looking at these sites.

00:38:42.220 --> 00:38:45.200
 A couple other technical questions.

00:38:45.200 --> 00:38:47.280
 How big is the property?

00:38:47.280 --> 00:38:49.280
 It is, let me make sure.

00:38:49.280 --> 00:38:50.280
 2.61.

00:38:50.280 --> 00:38:51.280
 Never mind.

00:38:51.280 --> 00:38:53.000
 I can read.

00:38:53.000 --> 00:38:59.280
 And then is it possible to know, obviously without the infrastructure being plotted,

00:38:59.280 --> 00:39:03.640
 how many single family homes they can fit on 2.61 acres?

00:39:03.640 --> 00:39:07.600
 I think nine would be the maximum that they could that they could plot.

00:39:07.600 --> 00:39:10.960
 And I mean, the applicant will be here this evening, you said?

00:39:10.960 --> 00:39:11.960
 Yes, sir.

00:39:11.960 --> 00:39:15.880
 I'm just curious how many homes they could build on an R4 designation.

00:39:15.880 --> 00:39:18.560
 Okay, Julie, that's all I have.

00:39:18.560 --> 00:39:22.040
 Does any other commissioners have any follow up for Julie?

00:39:22.040 --> 00:39:24.080
 Commissioner Ellis.

00:39:24.080 --> 00:39:27.080
 Thank you, Chair.

00:39:27.080 --> 00:39:30.540
 I think it was just a follow up on what you were just discussing.

00:39:30.540 --> 00:39:33.200
 Did you mean how many can you fit in an R2?

00:39:33.200 --> 00:39:34.200
 Yes.

00:39:34.200 --> 00:39:35.200
 Yeah.

00:39:35.200 --> 00:39:36.200
 Okay.

00:39:36.200 --> 00:39:37.200
 No, no, no, no, no.

00:39:37.200 --> 00:39:38.200
 I apologize.

00:39:38.200 --> 00:39:39.200
 Because they're proposing R4, right?

00:39:39.200 --> 00:39:40.200
 Yes.

00:39:40.200 --> 00:39:41.200
 And they're proposing nine lines.

00:39:41.200 --> 00:39:42.200
 An R4.

00:39:42.200 --> 00:39:43.200
 Yes.

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.

00:39:46.560 --> 00:39:47.560
 Okay.

00:39:47.560 --> 00:39:48.560
 Yeah.

00:39:48.560 --> 00:39:50.520
 And that was on, I think, one of their site plans that was.

00:39:50.520 --> 00:39:51.520
 Yeah.

00:39:51.520 --> 00:39:52.520
 Yeah.

00:39:52.520 --> 00:39:53.520
 I think Julie said in her presentation.

00:39:53.520 --> 00:39:54.520
 Okay.

00:39:54.520 --> 00:39:55.520
 Yeah.

00:39:55.520 --> 00:39:56.520
 Thanks.

00:39:56.520 --> 00:39:57.520
 Okay.

00:39:57.520 --> 00:39:58.520
 Seeing no other questions.

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

00:40:08.760 --> 00:40:27.960
 Christy Upton for presentation.

00:40:27.960 --> 00:40:43.200
 [silence]

00:40:43.200 --> 00:40:59.920
 Now there it is.

00:40:59.920 --> 00:41:08.920
 Thank you.

00:41:08.920 --> 00:41:13.920
 [silence]

00:41:13.920 --> 00:41:29.920
 Is the presentation up?

00:41:29.920 --> 00:41:41.560
 Sorry.

00:41:41.560 --> 00:41:49.320
 Christy Upton, and I'm with Environmental Services, and I will be presenting an alternative

00:41:49.320 --> 00:41:52.040
 ESA plan for you tonight.

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.

00:42:02.460 --> 00:42:10.720
 It's a proposed 56 single-family lots, and the preliminary plat was approved on March

00:42:10.720 --> 00:42:16.760
 18th, and there will also be three common area lots.

00:42:16.760 --> 00:42:24.760
 And the proposal for you tonight is to impact riparian buffer ESA and undeveloped flip plane

00:42:24.760 --> 00:42:30.400
 by constructing two roadway crossings and one storm drain.

00:42:30.400 --> 00:42:37.440
 And I'll give you a little background on the ESAs that are located on site.

00:42:37.440 --> 00:42:46.000
 There is a riparian buffer that traverses generally the western third of the property,

00:42:46.000 --> 00:42:54.400
 and is a tributary to Pecan Creek, an unnamed tributary, and the riparian buffer associated

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

00:43:03.440 --> 00:43:04.440
 property.

00:43:04.440 --> 00:43:10.320
 It encumbers 2.94 acres, and it was found to be in great condition.

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

00:43:19.240 --> 00:43:22.040
 by the riparian buffer.

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

00:43:31.840 --> 00:43:38.320
 updated or the boundaries of that flip plane was recently updated by an approved LOMAR,

00:43:38.320 --> 00:43:44.860
 and the map was updated to reflect the new flip plane boundaries.

00:43:44.860 --> 00:43:49.000
 And that encumbers 0.18 acres on the site.

00:43:49.000 --> 00:43:56.320
 In addition to that, there's 3.76 acres of cross timbers upland habitat, also interestingly

00:43:56.320 --> 00:43:59.920
 all located along this riparian buffer.

00:43:59.920 --> 00:44:04.960
 And it's kind of also an unusual condition.

00:44:04.960 --> 00:44:13.200
 We found that there was post oaks and blackjack oaks that were located within that upland

00:44:13.200 --> 00:44:17.840
 habitat interspersed with grasslands.

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

00:44:24.720 --> 00:44:31.720
 habitat that is on adjacent property.

00:44:31.720 --> 00:44:36.360
 So the permitted encroachments, I'll go over those first.

00:44:36.360 --> 00:44:46.240
 Undeveloped flip plane ESA, that is a permitted encroachment because of DDC and the DDC allows

00:44:46.240 --> 00:44:53.740
 for culverts and bridges, and 0.1 acres of the flip plane would be permanently removed

00:44:53.740 --> 00:45:00.680
 in order to place the roadway over that section on the southern roadway.

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

00:45:08.360 --> 00:45:11.200
 is 50% is protected.

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

00:45:19.120 --> 00:45:27.280
 to remove 29% of the cross timbers upland habitat.

00:45:27.280 --> 00:45:35.680
 So the impacts that the applicant is proposing is to construct these two roadways, the placement

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

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

00:45:52.200 --> 00:45:54.240
 roadway crossing.

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.

00:46:02.840 --> 00:46:09.120
 And in order to complete the construction of those two roadways, there would be a disturbance

00:46:09.120 --> 00:46:13.920
 of 0.68 acres.

00:46:13.920 --> 00:46:25.600
 For the mitigation, the applicant is proposing the following actions, and that would be to

00:46:25.600 --> 00:46:34.380
 place the remaining ESAs in the HOA lots and expand the habitat by restricting those HOA

00:46:34.380 --> 00:46:37.160
 lots to remain in a natural state.

00:46:37.160 --> 00:46:40.380
 That would be an additional 1.2 acres.

00:46:40.380 --> 00:46:47.840
 So in addition to the remaining ESAs, they're anticipating by remaining in a natural state

00:46:47.840 --> 00:46:51.160
 that the ESAs would expand.

00:46:51.160 --> 00:47:01.840
 And that is a ratio of 2 to 5.1 of removed habitat to expanded habitat.

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

00:47:09.360 --> 00:47:18.680
 explain cross timbers upland habitat, and this would anticipate to help promote the

00:47:18.680 --> 00:47:25.520
 remaining ESAs and expanded habitat to the public.

00:47:25.520 --> 00:47:31.960
 And then before I go any further into the mitigation, I wanted to explain lot 18A.

00:47:31.960 --> 00:47:38.000
 This was not previously identified on the preliminary plat as an HOA lot.

00:47:38.000 --> 00:47:44.160
 However, the applicant has identified that there is riparian buffer on this lot and has

00:47:44.160 --> 00:47:54.120
 agreed to place this lot and dedicate it to the HOA at final plat.

00:47:54.120 --> 00:48:03.080
 And this remaining, this particular lot will be an additional HOA lot to preserve, but

00:48:03.080 --> 00:48:08.640
 just to preserve the riparian buffer and the cross timbers upland habitat that's located

00:48:08.640 --> 00:48:13.720
 in the southern corner.

00:48:13.720 --> 00:48:20.400
 And then lastly, the applicant is proposing some restoration, and that would be to restore

00:48:20.400 --> 00:48:24.680
 those habitats that were disturbed during construction, and those areas are outlined

00:48:24.680 --> 00:48:37.280
 in green, and that restoration work would include the use of vegetation to help promote

00:48:37.280 --> 00:48:45.120
 the recovery of the ESA, and then to improve the habitat conditions overall to remove the

00:48:45.120 --> 00:48:53.600
 invasive Chinese privet that during the ESA field assessment we found upwards of 50% encroachment

00:48:53.600 --> 00:49:00.620
 or invasion of the Chinese privet within that riparian buffer zone.

00:49:00.620 --> 00:49:10.560
 And then to re-vegetate the riparian buffer zone with the native grasses as a continuity

00:49:10.560 --> 00:49:17.080
 of the restoration work for the roadways.

00:49:17.080 --> 00:49:21.240
 We did want to bring to your attention some other considerations.

00:49:21.240 --> 00:49:26.440
 While the applicant satisfied the requirements of the preliminary plat, there were a few

00:49:26.440 --> 00:49:36.760
 things that staff had deferred, including in drainage there was a deferment of the full

00:49:36.760 --> 00:49:41.880
 review of the storm drainage structures to support this development, and then our full

00:49:41.880 --> 00:49:44.440
 review of the downstream impacts.

00:49:44.440 --> 00:49:49.960
 And then tree preservation-wise, the applicant has provided and satisfied the preliminary

00:49:49.960 --> 00:49:57.160
 tree preservation plan, while at the same -- one of the concerns that staff has brought

00:49:57.160 --> 00:50:03.240
 up is the trees within the alternative ESA mitigation cannot count towards the tree preservation

00:50:03.240 --> 00:50:11.640
 and replacement at the final plat.

00:50:11.640 --> 00:50:18.560
 In order to help meet the tree preservation, the applicant has proposed a natural preserve

00:50:18.560 --> 00:50:27.080
 because there was more than 50% of the upland habitat that was preservation that was being

00:50:27.080 --> 00:50:28.080
 met.

00:50:28.080 --> 00:50:33.800
 A portion of lot 17A is being set aside as this natural preserve.

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

00:50:42.980 --> 00:50:47.900
 that the cross-tumors upland habitat designation would be removed.

00:50:47.900 --> 00:50:56.120
 So the trees would remain, but the understory would not necessarily be protected.

00:50:56.120 --> 00:51:04.000
 Notifications were sent out, and we did get one response from the property owner in favor.

00:51:04.000 --> 00:51:10.720
 And lastly, staff is recommending approval, finding that this plan did meet all the criteria

00:51:10.720 --> 00:51:20.760
 for approval, and we did add some recommended conditions, including prior to the platting

00:51:20.760 --> 00:51:29.520
 approval, that this mitigation area, the expanded habitat, would be placed in a deed-restricted

00:51:29.520 --> 00:51:37.800
 HOA lot, and that the homeowners association documents would be reviewed by the city's

00:51:37.800 --> 00:51:40.960
 attorney prior to the approval of that final plot.

00:51:40.960 --> 00:51:45.680
 Lot 18A shall be dedicated to the HOA at final plot.

00:51:45.680 --> 00:51:54.920
 This was something that staff identified after we had provided you the backup materials,

00:51:54.920 --> 00:52:02.000
 so I just wanted to highlight that addition that we have added to these conditions for

00:52:02.000 --> 00:52:03.720
 approval.

00:52:03.720 --> 00:52:10.840
 And land-to-services within the riparian buffer ESA is limited into the square footage that

00:52:10.840 --> 00:52:18.760
 the applicant has provided following the construction of that riparian, the infrastructure, that

00:52:18.760 --> 00:52:28.560
 the vegetation would be restored, and prior to issuance of any building permits, that

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.

00:52:38.600 --> 00:52:45.960
 And then six and seven are the conditions that environmental services has been placing

00:52:45.960 --> 00:52:53.240
 on all alternative ESA plans for acceptance, and lastly, if the civil engineering plans

00:52:53.240 --> 00:53:00.320
 or other subsequent approvable plans identify a modification to this alternative ESA plan

00:53:00.320 --> 00:53:11.880
 that the applicant would either seek a new alternative ESA or seek a new preliminary

00:53:11.880 --> 00:53:14.760
 plot.

00:53:14.760 --> 00:53:17.440
 And that's the end of this presentation.

00:53:17.440 --> 00:53:20.880
 Do you have any questions?

00:53:20.880 --> 00:53:21.880
 Thank you so much, Christy.

00:53:21.880 --> 00:53:22.880
 I think we might have some questions.

00:53:22.880 --> 00:53:25.800
 We'll start with Commissioner Beck.

00:53:25.800 --> 00:53:26.800
 Thank you, Christy.

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

00:53:33.920 --> 00:53:40.760
 vote when two of our commissioners were missing, I raised my objections there, and environmental

00:53:40.760 --> 00:53:47.120
 actually identified those same objections, but then they argued for Chapter 2-8 and Chapter

00:53:47.120 --> 00:53:51.800
 7-7-4 relief from those objections.

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

00:53:58.680 --> 00:54:04.400
 that you were seeking relief from those very items.

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

00:54:11.760 --> 00:54:18.480
 have tried and along with staff to do the development of the grasses, which is great,

00:54:18.480 --> 00:54:26.200
 some of the other elements for the actual Alt-ESA itself in terms of the restoration

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.

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

00:54:44.120 --> 00:54:52.160
 those, if you pull up that floodplain map where the flood actually, floodplain extends

00:54:52.160 --> 00:54:56.480
 halfway through the riparian buffer almost to that detention pond.

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

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

00:55:08.640 --> 00:55:14.280
 that will back up almost immediately because that's floodplain, they're building a culvert

00:55:14.280 --> 00:55:15.280
 over.

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

00:55:21.840 --> 00:55:25.680
 up and my neighbors flood out almost all the time.

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

00:55:32.000 --> 00:55:36.160
 under old guidelines when we have the guidelines in place to prevent this.

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

00:55:43.480 --> 00:55:49.560
 to create homes that flood at both bridges.

00:55:49.560 --> 00:55:54.800
 So we're building culverts that will flood from the upstream drainage west of the property.

00:55:54.800 --> 00:55:59.520
 All this property drains in, the detention pond that was there, whether it was natural

00:55:59.520 --> 00:56:07.080
 or built, was taking runoff from the development across the street of Dutchess.

00:56:07.080 --> 00:56:10.520
 That's all going to become a house and roads.

00:56:10.520 --> 00:56:15.400
 So we're removing all this pervious surface and all that area is going to flood.

00:56:15.400 --> 00:56:22.400
 And while we all agree Chinese privet is an invasive species, it is understory and it

00:56:22.400 --> 00:56:30.920
 is storm drain mitigation flume material and it would slow down the water in ways that

00:56:30.920 --> 00:56:32.600
 the grass won't.

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

00:56:37.560 --> 00:56:43.880
 the all ESAs for, then you're going to get the soil creep, which is 735.

00:56:43.880 --> 00:56:46.440
 You're going to get downstream flooding, which is 751.

00:56:46.440 --> 00:56:51.960
 Oh, I'm prepared on all these ordinance subsections on this one.

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

00:56:58.800 --> 00:57:00.880
 flood issues.

00:57:00.880 --> 00:57:05.520
 And we haven't even considered the downstream impact, which in your presentation, you said

00:57:05.520 --> 00:57:11.400
 staff has qualms because the long range downstream impact had not been assessed.

00:57:11.400 --> 00:57:15.760
 And that was actually an additional qualm of staff, which also I concurred with in the

00:57:15.760 --> 00:57:17.320
 previous meeting.

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

00:57:22.360 --> 00:57:30.240
 making some, you know, really nice attempts to put in signage and create things there,

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

00:57:35.920 --> 00:57:36.920
 into the floodplain.

00:57:36.920 --> 00:57:40.720
 I mean, this floodplain extends into this property.

00:57:40.720 --> 00:57:46.620
 Plus, if you have soil creep because you have no pervious services anymore and it drains

00:57:46.620 --> 00:57:54.560
 into this channel, then you're going to kill by silting out downstream species that are

00:57:54.560 --> 00:58:03.160
 in this endangered region of a concrete that extends from pretty much the Mack Park substation

00:58:03.160 --> 00:58:04.880
 area all the way to the lake.

00:58:04.880 --> 00:58:10.120
 I mean, we send our Boy Scouts and our college kids to this region.

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

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

00:58:20.640 --> 00:58:25.400
 element of our community.

00:58:25.400 --> 00:58:32.640
 So I mean, you know, but even if you neglect those sort of moral environmental issues,

00:58:32.640 --> 00:58:35.520
 this is going to flood out this property.

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

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

00:58:47.360 --> 00:58:59.000
 last night in council about removing not endangered, but threatened upland habitat post oaks to

00:58:59.000 --> 00:59:06.920
 where they had to go to special session or executive session and about this very sort

00:59:06.920 --> 00:59:10.680
 of removal of upland habitat from green corridors.

00:59:10.680 --> 00:59:14.520
 And here we are again, the very next night talking about removing upland habitat from

00:59:14.520 --> 00:59:16.160
 green corridors.

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

00:59:23.120 --> 00:59:27.680
 will have what we have downtown, which is a Los Angeles style culvert.

00:59:27.680 --> 00:59:28.840
 All right.

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

00:59:35.860 --> 00:59:41.020
 that we're taking it out of the special protection designation of upland habitat.

00:59:41.020 --> 00:59:47.720
 So they will not be protecting, they will be resident regular residential lots and they

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

00:59:58.120 --> 01:00:03.120
 of this property, as well as the upland upland habitat and the floodplain to the south.

01:00:03.120 --> 01:00:10.600
 So I mean, I recognize and applaud the engineers for trying to do a better job.

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.

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

01:00:19.280 --> 01:00:25.620
 from this property till the species and take things out of upland habitat, then the engineers

01:00:25.620 --> 01:00:27.680
 need to do an even further job.

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

01:00:35.380 --> 01:00:37.760
 enunciating right now.

01:00:37.760 --> 01:00:40.520
 So Chris Rebecca, I appreciate your perspective.

01:00:40.520 --> 01:00:41.560
 Just help Christy out.

01:00:41.560 --> 01:00:44.600
 Can you clarify what you said you wanted her to respond?

01:00:44.600 --> 01:00:45.600
 There's a lot there.

01:00:45.600 --> 01:00:47.600
 Can you clarify what you want to respond to?

01:00:47.600 --> 01:00:52.280
 I'm dumping on Christy again, because I'm obviously clearly concerned about this.

01:00:52.280 --> 01:00:55.040
 So let me see if I can put this into a couple of bulleted questions.

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

01:01:06.360 --> 01:01:12.320
 of upland habitat, this fringe with the adjacent upland habitat, what are the demands that

01:01:12.320 --> 01:01:19.440
 the city places on maintenance of when you're splitting and removing chunks of upland habitat

01:01:19.440 --> 01:01:20.440
 like that?

01:01:20.440 --> 01:01:33.360
 Is there any restrictions on use or patterns outside of regular residential restrictions

01:01:33.360 --> 01:01:36.600
 that would end up protecting the plot to the south?

01:01:36.600 --> 01:01:40.680
 So you're asking about lot 17A?

01:01:40.680 --> 01:01:42.520
 The fringe on the south side of the road.

01:01:42.520 --> 01:01:45.920
 Oh, the fringe on the south side of the property?

01:01:45.920 --> 01:01:47.640
 Yes, ma'am.

01:01:47.640 --> 01:01:49.240
 That's on an adjacent property.

01:01:49.240 --> 01:01:52.760
 So this developer wouldn't have any control over that.

01:01:52.760 --> 01:01:56.060
 So those trees, though, were on this property as well.

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

01:02:01.960 --> 01:02:04.680
 concept plans were on this property as well.

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

01:02:16.240 --> 01:02:22.760
 depending on tree preservation, how that plays out, whether the trees would remain but the

01:02:22.760 --> 01:02:29.360
 understory of that upland habitat along the southern border of their property would be

01:02:29.360 --> 01:02:31.680
 removed.

01:02:31.680 --> 01:02:35.880
 Are there restrictions when you are part of a contiguous upland habitat?

01:02:35.880 --> 01:02:39.120
 I assume there's not because we're taking it out of upland habitat, right?

01:02:39.120 --> 01:02:43.920
 The restrictions go away by the change in designation, is that correct?

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,

01:02:49.800 --> 01:02:54.120
 that is what I'm saying.

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

01:03:03.600 --> 01:03:10.840
 in bridges that are potential flood hazards over these two ends of this creek?

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

01:03:14.560 --> 01:03:18.360
 concerned that we, I'm not concerned.

01:03:18.360 --> 01:03:19.840
 I know this is going to flood.

01:03:19.840 --> 01:03:23.840
 I live next to an identical sort of circumstance.

01:03:23.840 --> 01:03:30.800
 It's absolutely going to flood out these brand new homes.

01:03:30.800 --> 01:03:38.440
 I think, well, I do have one other issue and that is the silting out downstream.

01:03:38.440 --> 01:03:44.760
 What are our regulation restrictions to combat 7.3.5, that soil creek?

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,

01:03:49.400 --> 01:03:55.600
 at electrical, at sewer, we are going to disturb this property that is along this delicate

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

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.

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

01:04:16.040 --> 01:04:20.720
 is called the MS4 or the municipal separate storm sewer system.

01:04:20.720 --> 01:04:28.120
 This is a regulation that requires that the municipalities have a program to have oversight

01:04:28.120 --> 01:04:30.060
 of construction activity.

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

01:04:34.240 --> 01:04:39.160
 and other controls that are placed, those are actually part of that state and federal

01:04:39.160 --> 01:04:50.380
 program, which the city has the regulatory requirement to have oversight of that program.

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

01:05:00.360 --> 01:05:06.560
 entire watershed team who reviews erosion control plans before they start construction,

01:05:06.560 --> 01:05:12.520
 and then they continuously inspect those sites during the lifespan of that construction until

01:05:12.520 --> 01:05:15.520
 final stabilization is achieved.

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,

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,

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

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

01:05:48.540 --> 01:05:49.800
 not be a factor.

01:05:49.800 --> 01:05:53.200
 They could only put those down to try to mitigate that.

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

01:06:00.400 --> 01:06:05.240
 are downstream species that are threatened and endangered between this property along

01:06:05.240 --> 01:06:07.120
 Concord Creek to the lake.

01:06:07.120 --> 01:06:14.080
 And so there's a big, huge difference between tolerating some silting in that's allowed

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

01:06:20.560 --> 01:06:22.960
 culvert drainage.

01:06:22.960 --> 01:06:24.600
 And so that was concerning me.

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

01:06:30.960 --> 01:06:38.520
 over and you've leveled and disturbed these services, I mean, even with bulldozer, sorry,

01:06:38.520 --> 01:06:44.840
 the steam rollers that will repack the surface before housing construction, or however they

01:06:44.840 --> 01:06:53.480
 pack the surface to stabilize it, even after that, this is disturbed, no longer erosion

01:06:53.480 --> 01:07:02.880
 produced materials, these are softened construction materials with pervious connections embedded

01:07:02.880 --> 01:07:08.600
 in them, the piping, the subfloor and the foundation.

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

01:07:14.880 --> 01:07:20.320
 for long-term soil creep, especially along that southern border?

01:07:20.320 --> 01:07:26.320
 Okay, so there is a certain tolerance.

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

01:07:34.720 --> 01:07:41.920
 of sediment that could be expected to be lost during any construction activity.

01:07:41.920 --> 01:07:50.440
 It is, the state regulation does say maximize and to the extent practicable and our enforcement

01:07:50.440 --> 01:07:55.500
 team does enforce to maximize to the extent practicable.

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

01:08:07.520 --> 01:08:11.360
 of any construction site.

01:08:11.360 --> 01:08:18.880
 Downstream, long-term, so I heard you talking about compaction.

01:08:18.880 --> 01:08:25.360
 Compaction would not occur within the ESAs that are not within that construction zone.

01:08:25.360 --> 01:08:31.320
 So they would be limited to only disturbing those areas within that green outline that

01:08:31.320 --> 01:08:37.880
 I showed you and there should not be expected any compaction outside of that because those

01:08:37.880 --> 01:08:45.160
 would, construction activity would be prohibited outside of that construction activity.

01:08:45.160 --> 01:08:56.080
 And then long-term, the applicant and the engineer that will design the final engineering

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

01:09:05.640 --> 01:09:12.720
 minimized, I think is a good word.

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

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

01:09:27.960 --> 01:09:32.500
 that nailed down before proceeding along?

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.

01:09:39.200 --> 01:09:44.640
 Other gotchas, adjacent gotchas, downstream gotchas, we are, and let alone, we haven't

01:09:44.640 --> 01:09:50.900
 even addressed habitat and animals and whatnot that are, I mean, clearly go up this creek

01:09:50.900 --> 01:09:55.240
 bed all the way towards Mac Park and MLK and stuff like that.

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

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

01:10:08.900 --> 01:10:12.880
 way they were trying to extend and be better.

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

01:10:18.960 --> 01:10:22.080
 I will be quiet because I have talked for quite a long time.

01:10:22.080 --> 01:10:28.680
 Thank you, Kristi, for your forbearance.

01:10:28.680 --> 01:10:33.000
 Is there any other questions for Kristi or staff Commissioner Ellis?

01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:34.000
 Thank you, Chair.

01:10:34.000 --> 01:10:35.040
 Just a quick question, Kristi.

01:10:35.040 --> 01:10:38.680
 With condition, I guess it's number eight now.

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

01:10:45.360 --> 01:10:46.360
 us?

01:10:46.360 --> 01:10:52.320
 We would bring it back to this board, this commission and then to City Council.

01:10:52.320 --> 01:10:55.120
 So it followed the same process if something is okay.

01:10:55.120 --> 01:10:56.120
 Thank you.

01:10:56.120 --> 01:10:57.120
 I just need clarification.

01:10:57.120 --> 01:11:00.000
 I appreciate it.

01:11:00.000 --> 01:11:01.000
 Any other questions?

01:11:01.000 --> 01:11:05.760
 Well, Kristi, thank you very much for your presentation.

01:11:05.760 --> 01:11:06.960
 We'll see you a little bit.

01:11:06.960 --> 01:11:10.920
 That is the last item of our agenda for this evening.

01:11:10.920 --> 01:11:14.320
 I will close our work session at 614.

01:11:14.320 --> 01:11:17.160
 We will reconvene right here at 630.

01:11:17.160 --> 01:11:24.600
 Thank you.

01:11:24.600 --> 01:11:28.000
 Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular

01:11:28.000 --> 01:11:29.000
 meeting.

01:11:29.000 --> 01:11:31.000
 It is 635.

01:11:31.000 --> 01:11:35.320
 I'll call this meeting to order seeing that we do have a quorum tonight.

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

01:11:40.960 --> 01:11:41.960
 flags.

01:11:41.960 --> 01:11:44.520
 If any other commissioner wants to join me, they can certainly unmute their mic and we

01:11:44.520 --> 01:11:48.360
 will provide a Pledge of Allegiance.

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

01:11:54.480 --> 01:12:04.160
 which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

01:12:04.160 --> 01:12:16.160
 Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, indivisible.

01:12:16.160 --> 01:12:19.720
 Next item of business is the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes for

01:12:19.720 --> 01:12:20.720
 September 2nd.

01:12:20.720 --> 01:12:21.720
 Commissioner Smith.

01:12:21.720 --> 01:12:22.720
 Make a motion to approve.

01:12:22.720 --> 01:12:23.720
 We have a first for approval.

01:12:23.720 --> 01:12:24.720
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:12:24.720 --> 01:12:25.720
 I second the motion.

01:12:25.720 --> 01:12:30.840
 We have a first and a second for the approval of the minutes from September 2nd.

01:12:30.840 --> 01:12:34.360
 Any discussion on the item?

01:12:34.360 --> 01:12:36.600
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:12:36.600 --> 01:12:37.600
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:12:37.600 --> 01:12:38.600
 Aye.

01:12:38.600 --> 01:12:39.600
 Commissioner Beck.

01:12:39.600 --> 01:12:40.600
 Aye.

01:12:40.600 --> 01:12:41.600
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:12:41.600 --> 01:12:42.600
 Aye.

01:12:42.600 --> 01:12:43.600
 Commissioner Cole.

01:12:43.600 --> 01:12:44.600
 Aye.

01:12:44.600 --> 01:12:45.600
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:12:45.600 --> 01:12:46.600
 Aye.

01:12:46.600 --> 01:12:47.600
 Commissioner Smith.

01:12:47.600 --> 01:12:48.600
 Aye.

01:12:48.600 --> 01:12:51.480
 Chair is also an aye.

01:12:51.480 --> 01:12:53.880
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:12:53.880 --> 01:12:56.240
 The next item of business is our consent agenda.

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

01:13:01.280 --> 01:13:06.760
 item 3A, FP20-0016A.

01:13:06.760 --> 01:13:10.640
 That comment card was against the item.

01:13:10.640 --> 01:13:11.640
 Commissioner Beck.

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

01:13:19.680 --> 01:13:20.680
 consideration.

01:13:20.680 --> 01:13:21.680
 Okay.

01:13:21.680 --> 01:13:30.880
 So, we have approval for consent agenda 3A, 3B, and 3D.

01:13:30.880 --> 01:13:31.880
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:13:31.880 --> 01:13:32.880
 Second.

01:13:32.880 --> 01:13:40.360
 We have a first and a second for approval of 3A, B, and D. Any discussion?

01:13:40.360 --> 01:13:43.560
 Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call.

01:13:43.560 --> 01:13:44.560
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:13:44.560 --> 01:13:45.560
 Aye.

01:13:45.560 --> 01:13:46.560
 Commissioner Beck.

01:13:46.560 --> 01:13:47.560
 Aye.

01:13:47.560 --> 01:13:48.560
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:13:48.560 --> 01:13:49.560
 Aye.

01:13:49.560 --> 01:13:50.560
 Commissioner Cole.

01:13:50.560 --> 01:13:51.560
 Aye.

01:13:51.560 --> 01:13:52.560
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:13:52.560 --> 01:13:53.560
 Aye.

01:13:53.560 --> 01:13:54.800
 Commissioner Smith.

01:13:54.800 --> 01:13:55.800
 Aye.

01:13:55.800 --> 01:13:57.360
 Chair is also an aye.

01:13:57.360 --> 01:13:58.360
 7-0.

01:13:58.360 --> 01:14:01.920
 We'll move item 3A to the end of individual consideration.

01:14:01.920 --> 01:14:06.360
 The next item for business is the individual consideration.

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.

01:14:14.840 --> 01:14:15.840
 Yes.

01:14:15.840 --> 01:14:40.240
 Good evening, if I can have the presentation on the screen.

01:14:40.240 --> 01:14:41.240
 It's at Ron.

01:14:41.240 --> 01:14:42.240
 Great.

01:14:42.240 --> 01:14:43.240
 Thank you.

01:14:43.240 --> 01:14:45.960
 Ron Maguida, principal planner with Development Services.

01:14:45.960 --> 01:14:51.200
 This item, FR20-0008, is for a final replat.

01:14:51.200 --> 01:14:55.640
 The subject plat is for a single-family development.

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

01:15:02.360 --> 01:15:05.680
 developed again with single-family homes.

01:15:05.680 --> 01:15:11.120
 The subject application or review has not yet been completed.

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

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

01:15:29.640 --> 01:15:31.520
 of the development code.

01:15:31.520 --> 01:15:39.600
 However, the applicant has submitted an application to a request, that is, to extend the review

01:15:39.600 --> 01:15:46.200
 for another 30 days, and staff is in favor of that extension request.

01:15:46.200 --> 01:15:47.200
 That concludes my presentation.

01:15:47.200 --> 01:15:50.840
 I'll be happy to stand for any questions.

01:15:50.840 --> 01:15:52.720
 Great.

01:15:52.720 --> 01:15:53.720
 Thank you, Ron, for the presentation.

01:15:53.720 --> 01:15:54.720
 Commissioner Smith.

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

01:16:00.600 --> 01:16:01.600
 be done.

01:16:01.600 --> 01:16:02.600
 Correct?

01:16:02.600 --> 01:16:04.440
 To date certain of October 7th?

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

01:16:09.280 --> 01:16:11.240
 of October 7th.

01:16:11.240 --> 01:16:12.240
 Yes.

01:16:12.240 --> 01:16:14.640
 I have a motion.

01:16:14.640 --> 01:16:15.640
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:16:15.640 --> 01:16:16.640
 I'll second that.

01:16:16.640 --> 01:16:17.920
 We have a first and a second.

01:16:17.920 --> 01:16:18.920
 Any discussion?

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

01:16:26.040 --> 01:16:28.760
 our October 7th meeting.

01:16:28.760 --> 01:16:31.640
 Seeing no discussion on the matter, I'll call for a vote via roll call.

01:16:31.640 --> 01:16:32.640
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:16:32.640 --> 01:16:33.640
 Aye.

01:16:33.640 --> 01:16:34.640
 Commissioner Beck.

01:16:34.640 --> 01:16:35.640
 Aye.

01:16:35.640 --> 01:16:36.640
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:16:36.640 --> 01:16:37.640
 Aye.

01:16:37.640 --> 01:16:39.640
 Commissioner Cole.

01:16:39.640 --> 01:16:40.640
 Aye.

01:16:40.640 --> 01:16:41.640
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:16:41.640 --> 01:16:42.640
 Aye.

01:16:42.640 --> 01:16:43.640
 Commissioner Smith.

01:16:43.640 --> 01:16:44.640
 Aye.

01:16:44.640 --> 01:16:45.640
 Chair is also an aye.

01:16:45.640 --> 01:16:48.120
 Motion carries 7-0.

01:16:48.120 --> 01:16:54.800
 Next item of business is item 4B, PP20-0018A.

01:16:54.800 --> 01:16:57.280
 And I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation.

01:16:57.280 --> 01:16:59.460
 Good evening.

01:16:59.460 --> 01:17:02.640
 Let me pull up the presentation.

01:17:02.640 --> 01:17:04.960
 All right.

01:17:04.960 --> 01:17:08.400
 This is PP20-0018A.

01:17:08.400 --> 01:17:12.200
 You saw this preliminary plat on September 1st.

01:17:12.200 --> 01:17:16.240
 At that time, there were some comments that were still outstanding, so it was postponed

01:17:16.240 --> 01:17:18.040
 until this meeting.

01:17:18.040 --> 01:17:21.680
 As of Friday, when the agenda posted, there were still a couple of outstanding comments

01:17:21.680 --> 01:17:24.920
 that the applicant was working through with staff.

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

01:17:33.080 --> 01:17:36.320
 of approval as it meets all the established requirements.

01:17:36.320 --> 01:17:39.720
 And I'll be happy to answer any questions.

01:17:39.720 --> 01:17:41.900
 Thank you very much, Julie.

01:17:41.900 --> 01:17:44.000
 Any questions for Julie on the presentation?

01:17:44.000 --> 01:17:45.560
 Commissioner Smith.

01:17:45.560 --> 01:17:48.640
 Make a motion to approve.

01:17:48.640 --> 01:17:49.920
 We have a first for approval.

01:17:49.920 --> 01:17:50.920
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:17:50.920 --> 01:17:51.920
 Second.

01:17:51.920 --> 01:17:54.160
 We have a first and a second for approval.

01:17:54.160 --> 01:17:57.680
 Any discussion?

01:17:57.680 --> 01:18:00.200
 Commissioner Beck.

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

01:18:07.960 --> 01:18:09.920
 need to pay attention to the flooding.

01:18:09.920 --> 01:18:16.120
 I know Julie assures us the staff will pay attention to the flooding along this property,

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

01:18:24.920 --> 01:18:25.920
 Windsor.

01:18:25.920 --> 01:18:26.920
 Anyway, thank you.

01:18:26.920 --> 01:18:27.920
 Thank you, Mr. Beck.

01:18:27.920 --> 01:18:31.120
 And just for clarification, Julie, this item will come back for final plotting?

01:18:31.120 --> 01:18:32.120
 Yes, sir.

01:18:32.120 --> 01:18:33.120
 Okay.

01:18:33.120 --> 01:18:34.120
 Thank you.

01:18:34.120 --> 01:18:35.120
 We'll see it one more time.

01:18:35.120 --> 01:18:36.120
 Any other discussion on the item?

01:18:36.120 --> 01:18:39.840
 Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call.

01:18:39.840 --> 01:18:40.840
 Commissioner Beck.

01:18:40.840 --> 01:18:41.840
 Aye.

01:18:41.840 --> 01:18:42.840
 Commissioner Pernetta.

01:18:42.840 --> 01:18:43.840
 Aye.

01:18:43.840 --> 01:18:44.840
 Commissioner Cole.

01:18:44.840 --> 01:18:45.840
 Aye.

01:18:45.840 --> 01:18:46.840
 Commissioner Anderson.

01:18:46.840 --> 01:18:47.840
 Aye.

01:18:47.840 --> 01:18:48.840
 Commissioner Smith.

01:18:48.840 --> 01:18:49.840
 Aye.

01:18:49.840 --> 01:18:50.840
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:18:50.840 --> 01:18:51.840
 Aye.

01:18:51.840 --> 01:18:54.600
 Chair is also an aye.

01:18:54.600 --> 01:18:56.240
 Motion carries 7-0.

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,

01:19:04.800 --> 01:19:29.360
 and I'll invite Haley Zygurski for presentation on this item.

01:19:29.360 --> 01:19:30.760
 Chair point of clarification?

01:19:30.760 --> 01:19:33.200
 Yes, Commissioner Beck.

01:19:33.200 --> 01:19:37.240
 Item C, Item C?

01:19:37.240 --> 01:19:38.240
 This is Item C.

01:19:38.240 --> 01:19:39.240
 Yes.

01:19:39.240 --> 01:19:40.240
 Haley's bringing it up, but you were saying A.

01:19:40.240 --> 01:19:41.240
 Oh, I apologize.

01:19:41.240 --> 01:19:42.240
 Item 3CPP20-0019A.

01:19:42.240 --> 01:19:43.240
 Thank you, Chair.

01:19:43.240 --> 01:19:44.240
 Yeah.

01:19:44.240 --> 01:19:45.240
 Thank you.

01:19:45.240 --> 01:19:46.240
 Yes.

01:19:46.240 --> 01:19:47.240
 Good evening, Commissioners.

01:19:47.240 --> 01:19:53.000
 This is Item PP2019.

01:19:53.000 --> 01:19:56.600
 This is the preliminary plan for the Sagebrook edition.

01:19:56.600 --> 01:20:01.600
 This preliminary plan is consistent with the concept plan that was provided in their plan

01:20:01.600 --> 01:20:04.000
 development, which was recently approved.

01:20:04.000 --> 01:20:09.880
 So it is proposing the development of a single-family subdivision split into four large phases,

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

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

01:20:20.360 --> 01:20:22.720
 to the city, as was discussed with the PD.

01:20:22.720 --> 01:20:25.560
 I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

01:20:25.560 --> 01:20:27.520
 Thank you, Haley.

01:20:27.520 --> 01:20:31.800
 So any questions for Haley?

01:20:31.800 --> 01:20:32.800
 Okay.

01:20:32.800 --> 01:20:33.800
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:20:33.800 --> 01:20:37.640
 I'm going to make a motion to approve.

01:20:37.640 --> 01:20:38.640
 Okay.

01:20:38.640 --> 01:20:39.640
 We have a first for approval.

01:20:39.640 --> 01:20:40.640
 Commissioner Smith?

01:20:40.640 --> 01:20:41.640
 Second.

01:20:41.640 --> 01:20:46.760
 We have a first and a second for approval.

01:20:46.760 --> 01:20:48.520
 Any discussion on this item?

01:20:48.520 --> 01:20:49.760
 Commissioner Beck.

01:20:49.760 --> 01:20:52.760
 So I ask that this be considered separate.

01:20:52.760 --> 01:20:53.760
 Thank you, Chair.

01:20:53.760 --> 01:21:00.360
 I ask that this be considered separately, because I have concerns about lot A27.

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

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

01:21:17.920 --> 01:21:20.100
 lot near that gas well.

01:21:20.100 --> 01:21:29.480
 In addition, I have concerns about the financial impact of this lot, this development has in

01:21:29.480 --> 01:21:30.720
 regards to the city.

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

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

01:21:42.480 --> 01:21:47.680
 in terms of the infrastructure impacts, as was brought up by Citizen Pruitt at a previous

01:21:47.680 --> 01:21:48.680
 meeting.

01:21:48.680 --> 01:21:59.360
 I also, and probably my biggest concern is the development along the floodplain, and

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

01:22:04.640 --> 01:22:12.760
 floodplain, and that's 741 and 753D, so I'm not going to be supporting this.

01:22:12.760 --> 01:22:13.760
 Okay.

01:22:13.760 --> 01:22:16.320
 Thank you, Commissioner Beck.

01:22:16.320 --> 01:22:18.880
 Any other discussion?

01:22:18.880 --> 01:22:22.440
 Seeing none, we have a first and a second for approval.

01:22:22.440 --> 01:22:24.320
 I will call a vote via roll call.

01:22:24.320 --> 01:22:25.560
 Commissioner Ellis?

01:22:25.560 --> 01:22:26.560
 Aye.

01:22:26.560 --> 01:22:27.560
 Commissioner Beck?

01:22:27.560 --> 01:22:28.560
 Nay.

01:22:28.560 --> 01:22:29.560
 Commissioner Pernetta?

01:22:29.560 --> 01:22:30.560
 Aye.

01:22:30.560 --> 01:22:31.560
 Commissioner Kohl?

01:22:31.560 --> 01:22:32.560
 Aye.

01:22:32.560 --> 01:22:33.560
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:22:33.560 --> 01:22:34.560
 Aye.

01:22:34.560 --> 01:22:35.560
 Commissioner Smith?

01:22:35.560 --> 01:22:36.560
 Aye.

01:22:36.560 --> 01:22:37.560
 Chairs, an aye.

01:22:37.560 --> 01:22:38.560
 Commissioner Chen?

01:22:38.560 --> 01:22:39.560
 Aye.

01:22:39.560 --> 01:22:46.600
 Commissioner Anderson?

01:22:46.600 --> 01:22:47.600
 Aye.

01:22:47.600 --> 01:22:48.600
 Commissioner Smith?

01:22:48.600 --> 01:22:49.600
 Aye.

01:22:49.600 --> 01:22:50.600
 Chairs, an aye.

01:22:50.600 --> 01:22:51.600
 Motion carries 6-1.

01:22:51.600 --> 01:22:52.600
 That brings us to our next item of business.

01:22:52.600 --> 01:22:53.600
 That's our public hearing.

01:22:53.600 --> 01:22:54.600
 First one is item 5AZ19-0012B.

01:22:54.600 --> 01:23:14.240
 I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing.

01:23:14.240 --> 01:23:20.680
 So the request before you is Z1912B, Mockingbird Single Family Residential.

01:23:20.680 --> 01:23:24.400
 They are proposing to rezone the subject property.

01:23:24.400 --> 01:23:30.400
 It's 2.61 acres from R2 District to R4 District.

01:23:30.400 --> 01:23:34.640
 The subject property outlined in yellow is a flag-shaped site.

01:23:34.640 --> 01:23:39.520
 It's surrounded by existing suburban-style single-family development with some remaining

01:23:39.520 --> 01:23:48.880
 large parcels adjacent to the site to the north and then east and west.

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

01:23:53.360 --> 01:23:58.880
 the purpose is to develop nine single-family dwellings.

01:23:58.880 --> 01:24:01.960
 So just taking a look at the zoning maps.

01:24:01.960 --> 01:24:07.960
 The current zoning map shows the subject property in yellow as R2.

01:24:07.960 --> 01:24:13.120
 The proposed would extend that existing R4 to the north, taking in the subject property.

01:24:13.120 --> 01:24:17.560
 So if approved, it would reflect this map.

01:24:17.560 --> 01:24:22.040
 The criteria for approval for rezoning cases are in subchapter 2 of the Debt and Development

01:24:22.040 --> 01:24:23.040
 Code.

01:24:23.040 --> 01:24:27.580
 We've got general criteria for approval and then specific criteria for approval.

01:24:27.580 --> 01:24:30.400
 We'll touch on these as we talk through the project.

01:24:30.400 --> 01:24:33.240
 So first thing we look at is the Debt and Plan 2030.

01:24:33.240 --> 01:24:36.460
 The site is designated as low-density residential.

01:24:36.460 --> 01:24:42.280
 This is intended for single-family neighborhoods for up to four dwelling units per acre.

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

01:24:49.320 --> 01:24:54.480
 to that maximum density, but it meets the overall goals of the Debt and Plan 2030.

01:24:54.480 --> 01:25:00.920
 Infill development for a compact development pattern, as well as the proposal is consistent

01:25:00.920 --> 01:25:03.180
 with the character of the surrounding area.

01:25:03.180 --> 01:25:08.240
 And there aren't any small area plans that affect the subject property.

01:25:08.240 --> 01:25:12.500
 Consistency with the purpose statement, R4 District is intended to accommodate a variety

01:25:12.500 --> 01:25:18.360
 of housing types on lots designed to encourage walking to neighborhoods serving retail and

01:25:18.360 --> 01:25:20.920
 other amenities such as parks and school facilities.

01:25:20.920 --> 01:25:25.500
 This zoning district would ensure existing neighborhood characters maintained while also

01:25:25.500 --> 01:25:30.480
 serving as a transition area between single-family neighborhoods and mixed-use neighborhoods.

01:25:30.480 --> 01:25:34.320
 So this request is consistent with the purpose statement, as the applicant has stated the

01:25:34.320 --> 01:25:40.160
 intent to develop single-family dwellings, which is consistent with that existing neighborhood

01:25:40.160 --> 01:25:43.120
 character.

01:25:43.120 --> 01:25:45.920
 One other item we look at is changes in the area.

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

01:25:52.440 --> 01:25:53.440
 the 1980s.

01:25:53.440 --> 01:26:01.040
 So we have a historical aerial in this right here that shows that there were development

01:26:01.040 --> 01:26:08.520
 beginning slowly in the 1980s, moving toward the northeast with some areas you can tell

01:26:08.520 --> 01:26:13.320
 they're starting to grade those areas for lots.

01:26:13.320 --> 01:26:19.580
 That continued on through the 1990s, that middle picture, which shows continued development.

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

01:26:26.760 --> 01:26:32.320
 in and that progression has continued to today.

01:26:32.320 --> 01:26:35.800
 Minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property.

01:26:35.800 --> 01:26:39.720
 R4 is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods in both use and development

01:26:39.720 --> 01:26:43.880
 scale, so it's not anticipated to create adverse impacts.

01:26:43.880 --> 01:26:50.520
 R4, with that minimum lot size, is consistent with the area-typical lot sizes, which range

01:26:50.520 --> 01:26:55.300
 from 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet.

01:26:55.300 --> 01:26:58.240
 This is an expansion of that existing R4 district.

01:26:58.240 --> 01:27:01.700
 It wouldn't introduce any new uses to the property.

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.

01:27:08.480 --> 01:27:11.960
 And it would facilitate harmonious development.

01:27:11.960 --> 01:27:17.200
 And rezoning would allow the development to be consistent, just continue that development

01:27:17.200 --> 01:27:20.240
 pattern that we've seen.

01:27:20.240 --> 01:27:24.440
 Intensity of the development is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to

01:27:24.440 --> 01:27:28.280
 the surrounding properties, as well as those adequate public facilities.

01:27:28.280 --> 01:27:30.280
 So we looked at transportation.

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,

01:27:34.840 --> 01:27:39.520
 only about 90 trips per day would be created by the proposed rezoning.

01:27:39.520 --> 01:27:44.640
 I spoke with our engineering group, and there is capacity on Lockingbird to accommodate

01:27:44.640 --> 01:27:46.040
 those trips.

01:27:46.040 --> 01:27:50.320
 They would also be required to pay roadway impact fees, and that would be determined

01:27:50.320 --> 01:27:52.240
 by the number of dwelling units.

01:27:52.240 --> 01:27:54.640
 And then there's water and wastewater.

01:27:54.640 --> 01:27:59.360
 There is -- it is available to the site because this is an infill area.

01:27:59.360 --> 01:28:04.600
 There's water and wastewater available, and they would have to pay tap fees.

01:28:04.600 --> 01:28:07.520
 The subject property is about a mile from Milan Park.

01:28:07.520 --> 01:28:09.960
 It's to the south of the site.

01:28:09.960 --> 01:28:15.560
 And park dedication and development fees would be required to be paid with platting building

01:28:15.560 --> 01:28:16.560
 permits.

01:28:16.560 --> 01:28:22.200
 Finally, one issue that came up last year when this item was discussed last year, and

01:28:22.200 --> 01:28:27.560
 also Commissioner Beck brought it up at our previous meeting, is access to the site.

01:28:27.560 --> 01:28:33.360
 It does have a panhandle, so there are limited areas where they could actually access Lockingbird.

01:28:33.360 --> 01:28:38.800
 I have provided that sort of concept plan that the applicant is looking at.

01:28:38.800 --> 01:28:43.320
 Engineering has confirmed that the proposal does meet the minimum spacing from the existing

01:28:43.320 --> 01:28:48.720
 driveways and connections to Lockingbird Lane.

01:28:48.720 --> 01:28:51.840
 Public outreach was sent out.

01:28:51.840 --> 01:28:55.360
 There has been a development since the work session.

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

01:29:03.080 --> 01:29:05.600
 an opposition letter.

01:29:05.600 --> 01:29:08.480
 And so we do have five in opposition.

01:29:08.480 --> 01:29:10.040
 I did some quick calculations.

01:29:10.040 --> 01:29:14.060
 So this is a rough estimate, but it's about a 39% opposition.

01:29:14.060 --> 01:29:19.200
 So it will require a super majority at City Council due to that opposition.

01:29:19.200 --> 01:29:25.660
 The applicant has had two neighborhood meetings, one for it from a previous request last year,

01:29:25.660 --> 01:29:30.000
 and then they also had a virtual meeting recently.

01:29:30.000 --> 01:29:35.380
 And the applicant is on the phone, and we'll be able to talk to that.

01:29:35.380 --> 01:29:41.120
 So because the proposal meets the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of

01:29:41.120 --> 01:29:42.120
 the request.

01:29:42.120 --> 01:29:47.620
 The applicant has also requested an overlay condition, and there is something I just want

01:29:47.620 --> 01:29:49.560
 to mention about that.

01:29:49.560 --> 01:29:54.960
 So their overlay condition, as proposed, state single-family detached homes only, no town

01:29:54.960 --> 01:29:59.840
 homes or duplexes will be permitted, even with a variance or specific use permit.

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

01:30:06.500 --> 01:30:11.800
 only, the reference to variance should be removed.

01:30:11.800 --> 01:30:16.260
 That reference does not comply with the Debt and Development Code as well as state law.

01:30:16.260 --> 01:30:25.000
 So we really ask that that be struck from that overlay should the project be recommended

01:30:25.000 --> 01:30:27.280
 for approval and approved.

01:30:27.280 --> 01:30:29.360
 And that concludes my presentation.

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

01:30:33.080 --> 01:30:34.560
 to answer any questions.

01:30:34.560 --> 01:30:36.400
 Thank you, Julie.

01:30:36.400 --> 01:30:37.800
 Commissioner Beck.

01:30:37.800 --> 01:30:40.020
 Thank you, Chair.

01:30:40.020 --> 01:30:43.800
 Your presentation jogged a memory from last year when we saw this before.

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

01:30:51.680 --> 01:30:58.360
 a single lane between the houses, is that what the space will permit for eight homes?

01:30:58.360 --> 01:30:59.440
 It is limited.

01:30:59.440 --> 01:31:04.120
 So their concept plan, which has not gone through engineering review, and this really

01:31:04.120 --> 01:31:11.720
 is just a straight zoning case, so it's definitely not a set in stone.

01:31:11.720 --> 01:31:17.040
 But it would require one, it would have one connection to Mockingbird as proposed, and

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

01:31:23.200 --> 01:31:29.760
 or some sort of turnaround, and then those homes fronting it with a detention area.

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

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.

01:31:40.040 --> 01:31:49.200
 Would R4 with a standard residential street be consistent at this location?

01:31:49.200 --> 01:31:54.540
 So standard street is two lanes, as it were.

01:31:54.540 --> 01:32:00.760
 Could we fit that in something similar to what we saw a year ago?

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

01:32:08.540 --> 01:32:12.680
 lot sizes as well as the right-of-way dimensions required.

01:32:12.680 --> 01:32:19.320
 So we would require right-of-way dedication in accordance with our criteria manual, which

01:32:19.320 --> 01:32:22.440
 is 55 feet for a residential lane.

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

01:32:26.840 --> 01:32:33.680
 make sure that the engineering would meet that, and if it were approved, it would have

01:32:33.680 --> 01:32:39.680
 to comply with all zoning regulations, dimensional regulations for that R4, and then as well

01:32:39.680 --> 01:32:45.560
 as the engineering regulations for transportation, drainage, water, waste water.

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,

01:32:51.240 --> 01:32:56.840
 being completely surrounded by other properties, the panhandle is the only location that street

01:32:56.840 --> 01:33:00.360
 access could be developed, is that correct?

01:33:00.360 --> 01:33:02.560
 Yes, sir, yes.

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

01:33:09.240 --> 01:33:12.760
 just sort of discussing, given the R4 density.

01:33:12.760 --> 01:33:15.200
 Okay, thank you, Julie.

01:33:15.200 --> 01:33:17.080
 You bet.

01:33:17.080 --> 01:33:22.120
 Oh, I was on mute.

01:33:22.120 --> 01:33:26.320
 Julie, you said the applicant has a presentation, or that it's here to answer questions?

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

01:33:32.840 --> 01:33:39.160
 like to speak about the project and answer any questions.

01:33:39.160 --> 01:33:40.160
 Great.

01:33:40.160 --> 01:33:41.800
 I am on the line.

01:33:41.800 --> 01:33:42.800
 Can you guys hear me?

01:33:42.800 --> 01:33:43.800
 We can.

01:33:43.800 --> 01:33:44.800
 You have the floor.

01:33:44.800 --> 01:33:45.800
 Do you just state your name and address?

01:33:45.800 --> 01:33:46.800
 All right.

01:33:46.800 --> 01:33:47.800
 Thank you.

01:33:47.800 --> 01:33:51.620
 Amy Bissett, 100 West Oak Street, Denton 76201.

01:33:51.620 --> 01:33:56.080
 I want to start by wishing Commissioner Ellis a happy birthday today.

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

01:34:02.320 --> 01:34:06.960
 to address some of the questions that were brought up during that time.

01:34:06.960 --> 01:34:14.280
 While this is a request for R4 zoning with the right-of-way dedication requirements or

01:34:14.280 --> 01:34:21.960
 roadway width requirements, we would at most be able to get nine single-family lots in

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,

01:34:29.880 --> 01:34:34.440
 which is consistent with low-density residential development.

01:34:34.440 --> 01:34:39.920
 We did have a neighborhood meeting in August once we resurrected this project.

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

01:34:48.060 --> 01:34:53.720
 recommended approval by Planning and Zoning Commission with a 4-3 vote at that time.

01:34:53.720 --> 01:34:58.680
 However, what we heard from the neighbors and heard from the commission was that the

01:34:58.680 --> 01:35:05.280
 primary concern was that R4 allows for duplexes or townhomes with an SUP.

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

01:35:12.680 --> 01:35:21.920
 that there is no variance or SUP that would facilitate the opportunity to have duplexes

01:35:21.920 --> 01:35:24.200
 or townhomes in this area.

01:35:24.200 --> 01:35:29.560
 We're straight up proposing single-family detached with nine being the maximum number

01:35:29.560 --> 01:35:30.560
 of lots.

01:35:30.560 --> 01:35:38.240
 Chair Roussel, I did hear you ask some questions related to the appropriateness of R4 zoning

01:35:38.240 --> 01:35:43.600
 with the development pattern and what the intent of R4 zoning is in the Denton Development

01:35:43.600 --> 01:35:44.600
 Code.

01:35:44.600 --> 01:35:53.120
 There is a statement in the code that reads that it is intended for compatible neighborhood

01:35:53.120 --> 01:36:00.880
 development but also is appropriate for transition areas between single-family and mixed use.

01:36:00.880 --> 01:36:06.640
 And essentially I believe what the code is speaking to there is that zoning is typically

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

01:36:12.760 --> 01:36:20.080
 that R4 would be appropriate to straddle between a lower density single-family and a higher

01:36:20.080 --> 01:36:23.200
 intensity mixed use development.

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

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

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

01:36:45.480 --> 01:36:46.480
 R4 zoning.

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

01:36:51.560 --> 01:36:56.840
 the goals of the COMP plan, which clearly strongly encourage instill development that

01:36:56.840 --> 01:37:01.960
 is of appropriate scale with the neighborhood.

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

01:37:09.480 --> 01:37:11.400
 zoning, which is currently R2.

01:37:11.400 --> 01:37:18.480
 This is an undeveloped piece of property, so it would be considered instill.

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,

01:37:24.320 --> 01:37:28.400
 possibly five, but most likely we would yield four lots.

01:37:28.400 --> 01:37:34.720
 So essentially what you're contemplating here in terms of impact to the traffic and

01:37:34.720 --> 01:37:39.440
 to the neighborhood is the difference between four homes and nine homes.

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

01:37:48.160 --> 01:37:50.080
 intensity of development.

01:37:50.080 --> 01:37:56.720
 Now, when we held the neighborhood meeting in August, we did have five people, five neighbors

01:37:56.720 --> 01:38:03.040
 sign up and attend that meeting, and at the time they expressed support for the overlay

01:38:03.040 --> 01:38:06.200
 condition and support for the proposed use.

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

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

01:38:21.200 --> 01:38:23.760
 no opposition to that at the time.

01:38:23.760 --> 01:38:30.720
 The only opposition we heard was related to the potential for town homes or duplexes within

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

01:38:39.320 --> 01:38:42.520
 that we're going and ensuring the neighbors of that.

01:38:42.520 --> 01:38:45.080
 With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

01:38:45.080 --> 01:38:47.680
 Michelle Ellis.

01:38:47.680 --> 01:38:48.680
 Thank you, Chair.

01:38:48.680 --> 01:38:51.680
 Amy, thank you very much for the wishes, first of all.

01:38:51.680 --> 01:38:55.000
 So a couple questions, I guess.

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

01:39:00.960 --> 01:39:03.560
 size lots been in attendance?

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

01:39:12.000 --> 01:39:16.400
 received, if some of them were in that meeting or not.

01:39:16.400 --> 01:39:23.560
 I know that the one, the opposition that was registered later this evening on the eastern

01:39:23.560 --> 01:39:29.160
 side of the property was not in attendance at the neighborhood meeting but had several

01:39:29.160 --> 01:39:35.920
 one-on-one conversations with the property owner where we believed that this overlay

01:39:35.920 --> 01:39:39.680
 condition would satisfy his concerns at the time.

01:39:39.680 --> 01:39:41.920
 That was the understanding that we thought we had.

01:39:41.920 --> 01:39:42.920
 Okay.

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

01:39:48.400 --> 01:39:54.200
 doesn't really fit the definition of what our infill development is in our code, which

01:39:54.200 --> 01:40:01.520
 is like a lot like this, I believe, says on three sides would have contiguous development.

01:40:01.520 --> 01:40:08.720
 And really, the majority of the sides of contiguous development are these larger lots, and the

01:40:08.720 --> 01:40:14.960
 development really is only contiguous with the southern border as far as density goes.

01:40:14.960 --> 01:40:23.080
 So I'm struggling with it fitting into the definition of an infill situation.

01:40:23.080 --> 01:40:27.960
 Can you help me with that at all?

01:40:27.960 --> 01:40:28.960
 Sure.

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

01:40:35.360 --> 01:40:41.840
 development pattern within that area of town, and that, like I had mentioned, that quadrant

01:40:41.840 --> 01:40:47.820
 is predominantly R4 or even more intense than that.

01:40:47.820 --> 01:40:55.200
 And so we're looking at the larger surrounding area, to be honest.

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

01:41:02.120 --> 01:41:09.440
 should take every opportunity to ensure that as gaps in neighborhood fabric occur, infill

01:41:09.440 --> 01:41:14.720
 development, that is, the development of vacant or deteriorated properties will be encouraged

01:41:14.720 --> 01:41:18.360
 complementing the scaling character of each neighborhood.

01:41:18.360 --> 01:41:24.440
 Currently, that property is undeveloped, so I do think it meets the general criteria of

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

01:41:33.560 --> 01:41:39.280
 at the overall development pattern, I do believe that it's compatible.

01:41:39.280 --> 01:41:40.600
 I appreciate that perspective.

01:41:40.600 --> 01:41:43.360
 I'll leave it to other commissioners with questions.

01:41:43.360 --> 01:41:44.360
 Thanks, Amy.

01:41:44.360 --> 01:41:45.360
 Christopher Smith.

01:41:45.360 --> 01:41:46.360
 Hey, Chair.

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

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

01:42:05.060 --> 01:42:11.320
 standards making some of the aesthetics change a little bit, front yard, backyard, setbacks

01:42:11.320 --> 01:42:16.400
 are all pretty much the same, 20 and 10 respectively between R2 and R4.

01:42:16.400 --> 01:42:20.980
 The only difference is the side yard setbacks from 10 to five.

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

01:42:24.720 --> 01:42:31.160
 setbacks to 10 instead of five to possibly give a little bit?

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

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

01:42:40.920 --> 01:42:44.280
 would allow us to set four units in that acreage.

01:42:44.280 --> 01:42:45.280
 Sure.

01:42:45.280 --> 01:42:48.840
 So I'm actually going to ask Jason Feigley to answer that question.

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

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

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.

01:43:09.480 --> 01:43:17.240
 Okay, sorry, I was having trouble unmuting it there.

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.

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

01:43:34.580 --> 01:43:40.960
 of having some three car garage type layouts.

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

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

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.

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

01:44:10.160 --> 01:44:11.160
 homes.

01:44:11.160 --> 01:44:15.520
 I mean, with nine individual homes is going to be custom semi custom.

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

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

01:44:25.240 --> 01:44:27.640
 of the side yards will be a 10 foot side yard.

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

01:44:34.780 --> 01:44:35.780
 a custom product.

01:44:35.780 --> 01:44:39.840
 Yeah, I guess I understand the flexibility for the custom products.

01:44:39.840 --> 01:44:40.840
 And thank you for mentioning that.

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

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

01:44:49.240 --> 01:44:50.920
 all cookie cutter and look the same.

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

01:44:55.840 --> 01:45:03.200
 Commissioner Beck, Commissioner Roselle brought up about traffic mitigation and density issues.

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

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

01:45:12.880 --> 01:45:19.400
 infill is important to make known that this is rural land, you know, undeveloped land currently.

01:45:19.400 --> 01:45:24.960
 I think that maybe instead of having really close lot line homes in that property, if

01:45:24.960 --> 01:45:28.520
 it was changed to an R4, it would it would aesthetically make a little more pleasing

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

01:45:32.680 --> 01:45:35.920
 in traffic as Ms. Setz mentioned.

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,

01:45:41.840 --> 01:45:43.080
 it's not a not an issue.

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

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

01:45:54.960 --> 01:45:57.320
 it is used to rural land and putting up homes.

01:45:57.320 --> 01:45:58.320
 Sure.

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

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

01:46:10.800 --> 01:46:15.040
 so Julie mentioned the fence line trees on the east side, south side.

01:46:15.040 --> 01:46:17.480
 You know, our intent is to keep all those trees up.

01:46:17.480 --> 01:46:20.480
 We're not trying to clear this out property line to property line.

01:46:20.480 --> 01:46:22.040
 So we want it.

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

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

01:46:36.800 --> 01:46:41.000
 be, though, knowing that the response has been at 39 percent now and response and opposition

01:46:41.000 --> 01:46:42.000
 is 39 percent.

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,

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

01:46:51.840 --> 01:46:57.120
 as little impact as we can, but also still recognize that it is nine homes.

01:46:57.120 --> 01:46:59.560
 It is infill on undeveloped land.

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

01:47:05.800 --> 01:47:06.800
 than not.

01:47:06.800 --> 01:47:07.800
 So.

01:47:07.800 --> 01:47:08.800
 OK, thank you very much, Jason.

01:47:08.800 --> 01:47:09.800
 I appreciate it.

01:47:09.800 --> 01:47:10.800
 Sure.

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

01:47:17.560 --> 01:47:18.800
 owner and he's on line as well.

01:47:18.800 --> 01:47:21.840
 And he did say that that he would make that concession.

01:47:21.840 --> 01:47:27.920
 So he would he would make the agreement for 10 foot side yards.

01:47:27.920 --> 01:47:28.920
 Good work.

01:47:28.920 --> 01:47:29.920
 City staff.

01:47:29.920 --> 01:47:31.640
 Is there any issues with that?

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

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.

01:47:40.480 --> 01:47:42.480
 Making that recommendation.

01:47:42.480 --> 01:47:43.720
 I'm not aware of any.

01:47:43.720 --> 01:47:44.720
 Thank you.

01:47:44.720 --> 01:47:45.720
 Appreciate it.

01:47:45.720 --> 01:47:56.040
 Any other questions for the applicant or Julie?

01:47:56.040 --> 01:47:58.920
 So I got a couple of questions.

01:47:58.920 --> 01:48:07.400
 Yes, either Miss Bassett or Mr. Faley could maybe answer one, Mr. Figley, you mentioned

01:48:07.400 --> 01:48:11.160
 that you'd made deeper, narrower lots.

01:48:11.160 --> 01:48:12.480
 Is it possible to make shallow lots?

01:48:12.480 --> 01:48:14.000
 I'm just looking at the lot.

01:48:14.000 --> 01:48:18.160
 It seems like deeper lots were kind of a forced issue on on your end.

01:48:18.160 --> 01:48:19.160
 Is that a bad assessment?

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

01:48:23.200 --> 01:48:24.200
 lot size.

01:48:24.200 --> 01:48:29.360
 It seems like you have to have deeper lots.

01:48:29.360 --> 01:48:30.360
 Not necessarily.

01:48:30.360 --> 01:48:33.600
 We looked at we looked at multiple configurations of this.

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

01:48:41.280 --> 01:48:50.280
 and it's what fits the surrounding properties as well and what were property boundary and

01:48:50.280 --> 01:48:52.320
 not put any houses on the north side.

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

01:48:58.320 --> 01:49:04.960
 we could have a buffer between this development and the homes to the north, especially there

01:49:04.960 --> 01:49:08.880
 is there's one home directly adjacent to us kind of in the middle.

01:49:08.880 --> 01:49:11.000
 You there, Jason?

01:49:11.000 --> 01:49:12.880
 Is it back?

01:49:12.880 --> 01:49:22.000
 I think we may have Jason, we lost you for a minute.

01:49:22.000 --> 01:49:23.000
 Okay.

01:49:23.000 --> 01:49:24.000
 You're back.

01:49:24.000 --> 01:49:25.000
 For that.

01:49:25.000 --> 01:49:26.000
 Okay.

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

01:49:30.160 --> 01:49:34.760
 an existing house there on the north side that that has a very shallow backyard.

01:49:34.760 --> 01:49:38.240
 And so we were trying to provide a buffer to that.

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

01:49:43.880 --> 01:49:48.240
 street down straight, pretty much straight to the middle of the site.

01:49:48.240 --> 01:49:52.800
 And yes, from that point of view, you do end up with deeper lots.

01:49:52.800 --> 01:49:56.920
 But that configuration was chosen because we were trying to save the trees as well.

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

01:50:05.440 --> 01:50:09.960
 then as Margie mentioned, it's it doesn't directly meet the definition of infill.

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

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

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.

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

01:50:39.880 --> 01:50:41.600
 cul de sac.

01:50:41.600 --> 01:50:42.600
 And those were shallower.

01:50:42.600 --> 01:50:44.560
 They were wider and shallower.

01:50:44.560 --> 01:50:49.800
 So you know, again, there's there's a lot of different configurations.

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

01:50:57.040 --> 01:51:02.960
 the perimeter and provide buffers for the adjacent neighbors.

01:51:02.960 --> 01:51:05.000
 I appreciate you clarifying that for me.

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

01:51:10.360 --> 01:51:20.200
 IRR assessments or economics about nine homes versus four homes?

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

01:51:28.400 --> 01:51:36.880
 exactly do you know how much extra does five houses get you?

01:51:36.880 --> 01:51:37.880
 Because there's tradeoffs, right?

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

01:51:41.600 --> 01:51:42.800
 to build the private street.

01:51:42.800 --> 01:51:43.800
 We don't need an HOA.

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

01:51:50.720 --> 01:52:03.960
 be built there could just be built for houses, just share a driveway.

01:52:03.960 --> 01:52:08.120
 Four houses can share a driveway.

01:52:08.120 --> 01:52:09.120
 You're breaking up, Jason.

01:52:09.120 --> 01:52:10.120
 You're breaking up.

01:52:10.120 --> 01:52:11.120
 And a little bit.

01:52:11.120 --> 01:52:12.120
 This is.

01:52:12.120 --> 01:52:13.120
 Okay.

01:52:13.120 --> 01:52:21.240
 We did discuss the possibility of those lots, these looking around the current property

01:52:21.240 --> 01:52:22.640
 values in the area.

01:52:22.640 --> 01:52:26.160
 The economics is not making sense as of yet.

01:52:26.160 --> 01:52:30.800
 And also the other concern some of the neighbors had is driving up the property values.

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

01:52:36.560 --> 01:52:39.400
 on the neighborhood property valuations as well.

01:52:39.400 --> 01:52:42.280
 So that's I want to be very sensitive to that fact.

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.

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

01:52:54.320 --> 01:52:57.600
 about the ones actually touching the property you're talking about ones more largely in

01:52:57.600 --> 01:52:58.600
 the area.

01:52:58.600 --> 01:52:59.600
 Correct.

01:52:59.600 --> 01:53:02.600
 That is correct.

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,

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

01:53:12.840 --> 01:53:15.960
 between four and nine homes?

01:53:15.960 --> 01:53:20.560
 Because it seems the intent of that question is four homes that are higher property value

01:53:20.560 --> 01:53:23.280
 versus nine homes that are less high property value.

01:53:23.280 --> 01:53:31.800
 I'm just wondering what the city is gaining economically by you building more homes.

01:53:31.800 --> 01:53:35.800
 Definitely would building more homes would be economically benefiting the city.

01:53:35.800 --> 01:53:36.800
 Right.

01:53:36.800 --> 01:53:37.800
 For sure.

01:53:37.800 --> 01:53:38.800
 I'm not debating that.

01:53:38.800 --> 01:53:39.800
 Right.

01:53:39.800 --> 01:53:42.880
 Well, except that if you build a road, the city has to then manage it.

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

01:53:45.960 --> 01:53:46.960
 to manage that.

01:53:46.960 --> 01:53:47.960
 Correct.

01:53:47.960 --> 01:53:51.160
 I believe the proposed plan has a private drives.

01:53:51.160 --> 01:53:52.960
 The city would not have to maintain that.

01:53:52.960 --> 01:53:59.000
 That was that's the I don't know, Amy or we are clear about it.

01:53:59.000 --> 01:54:00.000
 That's a subdivision.

01:54:00.000 --> 01:54:01.000
 That's a neighborhood road.

01:54:01.000 --> 01:54:02.360
 It's maintained by an HOA.

01:54:02.360 --> 01:54:10.080
 So the city would not have to maintain that driveway.

01:54:10.080 --> 01:54:11.080
 This is Amy.

01:54:11.080 --> 01:54:14.880
 We looked at we looked at two scenarios with the neighborhood when we had neighborhood

01:54:14.880 --> 01:54:15.880
 meetings.

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

01:54:20.560 --> 01:54:23.160
 standards, but it was privately maintained.

01:54:23.160 --> 01:54:28.200
 And there were some advantages for the neighborhood for those neighbors who do directly about

01:54:28.200 --> 01:54:31.640
 us to being a privately maintained road.

01:54:31.640 --> 01:54:35.360
 So that was going to be our our proposal.

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

01:54:42.520 --> 01:54:45.280
 on the north side of the property.

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

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

01:54:55.960 --> 01:55:01.600
 taxes up from four houses to nine.

01:55:01.600 --> 01:55:05.920
 When you say there's benefit to the adjacent property owners for being a private drive,

01:55:05.920 --> 01:55:08.200
 can you expand on that a little bit?

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

01:55:17.720 --> 01:55:25.960
 property, which meant that the the properties that directly abutted to the south were less

01:55:25.960 --> 01:55:34.520
 deep and provided, I guess, from their perspective, a little less privacy from their backyards.

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,

01:55:41.360 --> 01:55:50.320
 which allowed more more backyard, deeper lots and less imposition to to the neighbors at

01:55:50.320 --> 01:55:51.800
 that point.

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.

01:55:58.200 --> 01:56:00.520
 Obviously, they're just concepts at this point in time.

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

01:56:05.320 --> 01:56:09.600
 two options and they preferred the one that was privately maintained.

01:56:09.600 --> 01:56:12.120
 I appreciate the offer the concept plan.

01:56:12.120 --> 01:56:13.440
 I'm tempted to accept that.

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

01:56:16.880 --> 01:56:17.880
 we already have.

01:56:17.880 --> 01:56:18.880
 Absolutely.

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.

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

01:56:28.920 --> 01:56:30.040
 public comment.

01:56:30.040 --> 01:56:34.140
 And so what I'll do is I'll go ahead and close the public hearing.

01:56:34.140 --> 01:56:38.560
 We can take a motion or further discussion.

01:56:38.560 --> 01:56:43.000
 Commissioner Smith, make a motion to approve with staff recommendations and the overlay

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

01:56:49.080 --> 01:56:50.080
 feet.

01:56:50.080 --> 01:56:57.040
 We have a motion to approve with staff recommendations, including the addition of an increased setback

01:56:57.040 --> 01:56:59.240
 from five to 10 feet on both sides.

01:56:59.240 --> 01:57:00.240
 Is that correct?

01:57:00.240 --> 01:57:01.240
 Mr. Smith?

01:57:01.240 --> 01:57:02.240
 Yes, it is.

01:57:02.240 --> 01:57:03.240
 Okay, Christian Anderson.

01:57:03.240 --> 01:57:04.240
 Second the motion.

01:57:04.240 --> 01:57:12.680
 Okay, we have a first and a second any discussion.

01:57:12.680 --> 01:57:14.280
 We got two discussions.

01:57:14.280 --> 01:57:15.560
 Commissioner Ellis.

01:57:15.560 --> 01:57:16.800
 Thanks, Chair.

01:57:16.800 --> 01:57:24.120
 Was there needing to be clarity on removing that verbiage about variance or is that what

01:57:24.120 --> 01:57:27.960
 we're considering staff recommendation?

01:57:27.960 --> 01:57:30.840
 Is that included in the staff recommendation wording?

01:57:30.840 --> 01:57:31.840
 Commissioner Smith?

01:57:31.840 --> 01:57:33.880
 Yes, it is.

01:57:33.880 --> 01:57:36.160
 Christian Anderson.

01:57:36.160 --> 01:57:38.120
 Thanks, Chair.

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.

01:57:43.320 --> 01:57:48.960
 And I spoke with several of the neighbors that stayed around after the meeting and wanted

01:57:48.960 --> 01:57:50.680
 to speak about this.

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

01:57:59.320 --> 01:58:04.880
 townhomes being built on the backside that can overlook their property.

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

01:58:10.400 --> 01:58:13.560
 the verbiage of townhomes and apartments on there.

01:58:13.560 --> 01:58:16.480
 I think that would make the neighbors feel a lot better.

01:58:16.480 --> 01:58:18.720
 Thank you, Christian Anderson.

01:58:18.720 --> 01:58:19.720
 Commissioner Beck.

01:58:19.720 --> 01:58:22.080
 Thank you, Chair.

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

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

01:58:37.780 --> 01:58:46.440
 condition that's being proposed or are we at 39% in opposition with the knowledge of

01:58:46.440 --> 01:58:47.440
 an overlay condition?

01:58:47.440 --> 01:58:51.960
 Commissioner Beck, if I could weigh in, it's really hard to speculate on the knowledge

01:58:51.960 --> 01:58:53.400
 of their opposition.

01:58:53.400 --> 01:58:59.340
 I think the best speculation is that everything was posted and they opposed what was posted.

01:58:59.340 --> 01:59:00.340
 It is true.

01:59:00.340 --> 01:59:01.640
 I take the Chair's point.

01:59:01.640 --> 01:59:05.680
 Thank you, Chair.

01:59:05.680 --> 01:59:06.680
 Any other discussion?

01:59:06.680 --> 01:59:07.680
 We have a first and a second on the table.

01:59:07.680 --> 01:59:12.880
 But before we go to the vote, I'm just going to say my piece.

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

01:59:17.640 --> 01:59:18.640
 sense.

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

01:59:22.480 --> 01:59:24.040
 R2, it would be an R4.

01:59:24.040 --> 01:59:26.640
 In the backyard of the North property, which is R2, it would be an R4.

01:59:26.640 --> 01:59:29.880
 In the backyard of the East property, which is an R2, it would be an R4.

01:59:29.880 --> 01:59:33.640
 If this is supposed to be a transition from one neighborhood into something else, that's

01:59:33.640 --> 01:59:34.640
 not this.

01:59:34.640 --> 01:59:39.580
 This is from an R2 to something and then back to an R2.

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,

01:59:47.400 --> 01:59:51.560
 that map just reeks to me of differences.

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

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

02:00:09.800 --> 02:00:16.360
 of putting four houses, it seems like the project's still feasible.

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

02:00:21.120 --> 02:00:25.400
 or to think that any developer couldn't make financial sense to build an R2 development

02:00:25.400 --> 02:00:26.400
 here.

02:00:26.400 --> 02:00:33.000
 As often sometimes zoning is necessary in order for development to happen, period, based

02:00:33.000 --> 02:00:34.600
 on the confines of the lot.

02:00:34.600 --> 02:00:37.160
 I didn't hear that this evening.

02:00:37.160 --> 02:00:41.200
 It seems like it's economically possible to build four homes there.

02:00:41.200 --> 02:00:45.080
 They don't need additional homes to support the economics of building out the infrastructure

02:00:45.080 --> 02:00:47.060
 and the actual homes themselves.

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

02:00:51.600 --> 02:00:53.480
 for the city is to build an R4.

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

02:00:57.040 --> 02:00:59.200
 it's not one that I can support tonight.

02:00:59.200 --> 02:01:03.840
 So with that, I'll go ahead and call for a vote via roll call.

02:01:03.840 --> 02:01:09.600
 And just to remind you, the vote is on the table for approval with staff recommendations,

02:01:09.600 --> 02:01:15.640
 including the striking of variance, as well as the additional side yard setbacks from

02:01:15.640 --> 02:01:18.320
 five to 10 feet on each side.

02:01:18.320 --> 02:01:22.480
 So with that, Commissioner Ellis.

02:01:22.480 --> 02:01:27.360
 Before my vote, I just wanted to say a couple of words, please.

02:01:27.360 --> 02:01:33.560
 And that's just that we have an infill development definition for a reason.

02:01:33.560 --> 02:01:36.600
 This doesn't fit it at all.

02:01:36.600 --> 02:01:43.040
 I mean, the property is surrounded by larger lots.

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.

02:01:48.640 --> 02:01:51.160
 I am a nay.

02:01:51.160 --> 02:01:52.720
 Commissioner Beck.

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

02:01:57.680 --> 02:01:58.680
 been made.

02:01:58.680 --> 02:02:01.280
 So I'm going to have to say nay as well.

02:02:01.280 --> 02:02:02.280
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:02:02.280 --> 02:02:10.320
 That was a nay.

02:02:10.320 --> 02:02:12.000
 Thank you for clarifying.

02:02:12.000 --> 02:02:13.400
 Commissioner Cole.

02:02:13.400 --> 02:02:14.400
 Nay.

02:02:14.400 --> 02:02:16.120
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:02:16.120 --> 02:02:17.120
 Aye.

02:02:17.120 --> 02:02:19.120
 Commissioner Smith.

02:02:19.120 --> 02:02:20.120
 Aye.

02:02:20.120 --> 02:02:22.120
 The chair is a nay.

02:02:22.120 --> 02:02:23.120
 Motion fails 5-2.

02:02:23.120 --> 02:02:26.120
 Chair will entertain another motion.

02:02:26.120 --> 02:02:29.360
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:02:29.360 --> 02:02:30.880
 I move denial of the request.

02:02:30.880 --> 02:02:33.160
 We have a first for denial.

02:02:33.160 --> 02:02:34.160
 Commissioner Cole.

02:02:34.160 --> 02:02:35.160
 Second.

02:02:35.160 --> 02:02:37.040
 We have a first and a second for denial.

02:02:37.040 --> 02:02:41.040
 Any additional discussion?

02:02:41.040 --> 02:02:42.720
 Seeing none, I call for a vote.

02:02:42.720 --> 02:02:47.960
 The roll call again, a support of this motion is a denial.

02:02:47.960 --> 02:02:48.960
 Commissioner Ellis.

02:02:48.960 --> 02:02:49.960
 Aye.

02:02:49.960 --> 02:02:50.960
 Commissioner Beck.

02:02:50.960 --> 02:02:51.960
 Aye.

02:02:51.960 --> 02:02:52.960
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:02:52.960 --> 02:02:55.960
 That was an aye.

02:02:55.960 --> 02:02:56.960
 Yes.

02:02:56.960 --> 02:02:57.960
 Thank you.

02:02:57.960 --> 02:02:58.960
 Commissioner Cole.

02:02:58.960 --> 02:02:59.960
 Aye.

02:02:59.960 --> 02:03:00.960
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:03:00.960 --> 02:03:01.960
 Aye.

02:03:01.960 --> 02:03:02.960
 Commissioner Smith.

02:03:02.960 --> 02:03:03.960
 Aye.

02:03:03.960 --> 02:03:08.680
 Chairs, also an aye.

02:03:08.680 --> 02:03:12.320
 Motion carries 7-0.

02:03:12.320 --> 02:03:21.200
 Next item of business is item 5B, AESA 20-0002B.

02:03:21.200 --> 02:03:47.160
 I will call Kristi Upton for presentation and open the public hearing.

02:03:47.160 --> 02:04:13.120
 Good evening, commissioners, Kristi Upton with environmental services and I will be presenting

02:04:13.120 --> 02:04:16.720
 an alternative ESA plan for Eagle Cove.

02:04:16.720 --> 02:04:25.360
 The property is located generally south of Judge's Drive and west of loop 288.

02:04:25.360 --> 02:04:33.960
 It is a 56 single family lot development where the preliminary plat was approved on March

02:04:33.960 --> 02:04:38.920
 18th and has three common lot areas.

02:04:38.920 --> 02:04:45.480
 In order to construct this development, the applicant is proposing impacts to riparian

02:04:45.480 --> 02:04:50.680
 buffer ESAs and undeveloped floodplain ESA.

02:04:50.680 --> 02:04:58.080
 The riparian buffer, for a little background on what is found on site, the riparian buffer

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

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.

02:05:15.000 --> 02:05:22.920
 The undeveloped floodplain was recently, the boundaries of that was recently modified based

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

02:05:31.920 --> 02:05:39.240
 so that only 0.18 acres is found on this property.

02:05:39.240 --> 02:05:46.360
 In addition, there's cross timbers upland habitat that is found co-located with the

02:05:46.360 --> 02:05:56.440
 riparian buffer and is 3.76 acres of upland habitat on the property, contiguous with 10

02:05:56.440 --> 02:06:02.040
 acres of upland habitat on adjacent property.

02:06:02.040 --> 02:06:09.800
 There's some permitted encroachments that will be occurring with approval of this plan

02:06:09.800 --> 02:06:13.280
 and that would be undeveloped floodplain ESA.

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

02:06:19.240 --> 02:06:27.320
 and bridges and then the cross timbers upland habitat, there will be 1.05 acres removed.

02:06:27.320 --> 02:06:33.640
 That's generally the area located, those upland habitat areas located on the southern

02:06:33.640 --> 02:06:42.960
 border and some of the lots and the culverts and bridges for the road construction.

02:06:42.960 --> 02:06:50.000
 The riparian buffer ESA impacts is what triggers the requirement for this alternative ESA plan

02:06:50.000 --> 02:06:57.480
 in order to construct these roadways and the placement of the storm drain and a little

02:06:57.480 --> 02:07:06.260
 bit of encroachment of a lot on the northwest side of the property.

02:07:06.260 --> 02:07:14.400
 There would be permanent removal of 20,900 square feet of ESAs of the riparian buffer

02:07:14.400 --> 02:07:26.700
 and then 29,410 square feet of the riparian buffer that would be disturbed.

02:07:26.700 --> 02:07:35.760
 There are some proposed mitigations, the preservation of the remaining ESA plus an expanded habitat

02:07:35.760 --> 02:07:40.520
 by restricting the HOA lots to remain in a natural state.

02:07:40.520 --> 02:07:50.440
 This would add an additional 1.2 acres of expanded habitat alongside that channel and

02:07:50.440 --> 02:07:58.360
 would be an increase of ratio of 2 to 5.1.

02:07:58.360 --> 02:08:04.360
 In addition, there would be further preservation and also education for the residents and for

02:08:04.360 --> 02:08:11.020
 the public of the areas that would remain in the natural state by placing some grow

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

02:08:17.560 --> 02:08:22.000
 timbers upland habitat.

02:08:22.000 --> 02:08:24.880
 I also wanted to explain lot 18A.

02:08:24.880 --> 02:08:30.360
 This was not previously identified on the preliminary plot as an HOA lot.

02:08:30.360 --> 02:08:36.600
 It was identified as a buildable lot.

02:08:36.600 --> 02:08:44.440
 With the identification of this riparian buffer on this lot, the applicant is proposing to

02:08:44.440 --> 02:08:57.360
 place this lot in an HOA which would preserve the remaining riparian buffer that is located

02:08:57.360 --> 02:09:01.380
 on the lot.

02:09:01.380 --> 02:09:07.360
 For the areas that would be disturbed, the applicant is proposing restoration work.

02:09:07.360 --> 02:09:10.740
 That would be the area outlined in green.

02:09:10.740 --> 02:09:20.160
 This would be the final stabilization that we talked about earlier in the previous presentation

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

02:09:32.760 --> 02:09:38.000
 landscaping grasses that are used for stabilization.

02:09:38.000 --> 02:09:43.320
 There would be improvement of the habitat by removing Chinese privet that is located

02:09:43.320 --> 02:09:49.720
 within the riparian buffer and in the mitigation areas and then the riparian buffer would be

02:09:49.720 --> 02:10:01.440
 further improved by revegetation with native grasses which would promote a healthier habitat.

02:10:01.440 --> 02:10:05.880
 There are some considerations of the preliminary plot.

02:10:05.880 --> 02:10:13.280
 The preliminary plot satisfies the requirements, the development code.

02:10:13.280 --> 02:10:21.080
 That did identify some concerns during the review and drainage in particular was deferred

02:10:21.080 --> 02:10:26.800
 to the civil plans and that deferment was a full review of the storm drainage structures

02:10:26.800 --> 02:10:33.540
 to support the development and a full review of downstream impacts.

02:10:33.540 --> 02:10:38.920
 Tree preservation wise, the applicant provided and satisfied a preliminary tree preservation

02:10:38.920 --> 02:10:46.280
 plan, however, trees within the alternative mitigation area may not count towards tree

02:10:46.280 --> 02:10:49.560
 preservation and replacement.

02:10:49.560 --> 02:10:55.800
 In order to satisfy the tree preservation requirements, the applicant has identified

02:10:55.800 --> 02:11:04.120
 an area that is upland habitat adjacent to the riparian buffer and is removing the designation

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

02:11:09.320 --> 02:11:18.640
 impact area and trees within that area to be counted towards tree preservation.

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.

02:11:26.360 --> 02:11:31.200
 Staff is recommending approval of the request with the following conditions that the prior

02:11:31.200 --> 02:11:37.720
 to the plotting approval of the ESAs in the mitigation area shall be deed restricted.

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

02:11:46.720 --> 02:11:54.200
 direction to the applicant as to how to satisfy the conditions by striking condition two and

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

02:12:03.200 --> 02:12:05.560
 the mitigation area.

02:12:05.560 --> 02:12:12.620
 The land disturbances would be limited to what is outlined in the alternative ESA plan

02:12:12.620 --> 02:12:18.560
 and then following the construction of the infrastructure that the vegetation be restored

02:12:18.560 --> 02:12:25.120
 as outlined in the alternative ESA plan and then prior to any issuance of any building

02:12:25.120 --> 02:12:30.000
 permits for any structure that the applicant removed the Chinese privet as outlined in

02:12:30.000 --> 02:12:32.160
 the alternative ESA plan.

02:12:32.160 --> 02:12:39.320
 And then six and seven are conditions that environmental services has been placing on

02:12:39.320 --> 02:12:47.760
 alternative ESA plans in order to achieve survivability of the vegetation that is being

02:12:47.760 --> 02:12:49.120
 offered up.

02:12:49.120 --> 02:12:53.800
 And then condition eight, if civil engineering plans or other subsequent approvable plans

02:12:53.800 --> 02:13:00.120
 identify a modification to this alternative ESA plan, that a revised plan be brought back

02:13:00.120 --> 02:13:08.320
 to this commission and the council in accordance with the DDC.

02:13:08.320 --> 02:13:11.280
 And that's it.

02:13:11.280 --> 02:13:12.280
 Questions?

02:13:12.280 --> 02:13:18.480
 Thank you, Kristy, for your presentation.

02:13:18.480 --> 02:13:19.960
 Kushir Beck.

02:13:19.960 --> 02:13:20.960
 Thank you, Chair.

02:13:20.960 --> 02:13:25.660
 Kristy, I'm not going to jump all over you again like I did during workstation.

02:13:25.660 --> 02:13:28.140
 I apologize for that.

02:13:28.140 --> 02:13:33.080
 You give very clear presentations and I want to commend you on that.

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

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

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

02:13:54.800 --> 02:13:57.320
 and has particular needs.

02:13:57.320 --> 02:14:06.120
 And this region extends up and downstream and will result in flooding and overflows

02:14:06.120 --> 02:14:08.080
 at those bridges.

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

02:14:14.160 --> 02:14:19.480
 we're going to build, at least the ones surrounding the bridges.

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

02:14:22.540 --> 02:14:24.300
 upland habitat.

02:14:24.300 --> 02:14:28.220
 We're going to have soil creep, which is against 735.

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

02:14:32.760 --> 02:14:35.440
 not allowed to have impacts on adjacent parcels.

02:14:35.440 --> 02:14:38.080
 And we're going to have impacts on downstream parcels.

02:14:38.080 --> 02:14:41.440
 So again, we're going to have financial and environmental impacts.

02:14:41.440 --> 02:14:43.720
 And staff actually even acknowledges those.

02:14:43.720 --> 02:14:48.080
 You did it in your presentation, we did it in March.

02:14:48.080 --> 02:14:51.080
 Staff agrees with me.

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

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

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

02:15:10.720 --> 02:15:13.680
 think it was condition eight that you could wait on that.

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

02:15:22.320 --> 02:15:24.040
 regions that you can't recover.

02:15:24.040 --> 02:15:26.680
 When we tear it out, it is what it is.

02:15:26.680 --> 02:15:29.560
 If we build homes in there, it floods.

02:15:29.560 --> 02:15:32.280
 So I'm not going to continue on.

02:15:32.280 --> 02:15:34.000
 Oh, I do have one other point.

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

02:15:40.760 --> 02:15:41.760
 clock approval.

02:15:41.760 --> 02:15:46.940
 The PZC didn't actually approve this, shot clock approved this.

02:15:46.940 --> 02:15:53.720
 So that's a slight difference than an approval, a standard approval anyway.

02:15:53.720 --> 02:15:59.040
 So with that, I will just say that those are comments more than questions to Christy.

02:15:59.040 --> 02:16:02.040
 So thank you, Christy.

02:16:02.040 --> 02:16:07.400
 I appreciate those comments, Christian or Bec, is there any other questions for Christy

02:16:07.400 --> 02:16:08.400
 on this item?

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

02:16:22.080 --> 02:16:24.240
 or member of the public?

02:16:24.240 --> 02:16:25.240
 Yes, sir.

02:16:25.240 --> 02:16:26.240
 Good evening, Chairman.

02:16:26.240 --> 02:16:27.240
 My name's Rob Zilke.

02:16:27.240 --> 02:16:35.280
 I'm with ZPS engineers at 1111 South Main Street in Grapevine, Texas.

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.

02:16:40.800 --> 02:16:43.320
 Would this be the appropriate time?

02:16:43.320 --> 02:16:44.320
 This is the perfect time.

02:16:44.320 --> 02:16:46.320
 I appreciate you being here.

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.

02:16:53.640 --> 02:16:57.460
 So I'd like to address those just briefly.

02:16:57.460 --> 02:17:02.280
 Commissioner Bec had primarily the same concerns when we went through the preliminary planning

02:17:02.280 --> 02:17:07.600
 process and he and I had a sidebar meeting and discussed those.

02:17:07.600 --> 02:17:13.840
 I am a hydrologist and hydraulic engineer that's done floodplain modeling for 30 some

02:17:13.840 --> 02:17:20.680
 odd years, very familiar with your floodplain criteria and your staff and consultants that

02:17:20.680 --> 02:17:22.680
 do that review.

02:17:22.680 --> 02:17:28.720
 And I won't go through the explanations and discussions that Commissioner Bec and I had

02:17:28.720 --> 02:17:29.720
 at that time.

02:17:29.720 --> 02:17:37.560
 I just point out that in the preliminary planning process, we did extensive floodplain modeling.

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

02:17:44.940 --> 02:17:47.960
 they will not affect the AESA.

02:17:47.960 --> 02:17:56.180
 So some of the indeterminate elements, particularly one was the downstream assessment.

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

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

02:18:08.280 --> 02:18:11.160
 in the CEP.

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.

02:18:18.920 --> 02:18:26.640
 We did do a citizen participation program, mailed out over 300 invitations, solicitations

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

02:18:32.920 --> 02:18:36.360
 our website reading.

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

02:18:43.120 --> 02:18:51.280
 mitigation area that we're proposing to mitigate in addition to preserving the riparian buffer

02:18:51.280 --> 02:18:53.440
 area.

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

02:19:00.840 --> 02:19:03.360
 small post oak trees.

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

02:19:10.780 --> 02:19:19.040
 because the trees are relatively small, if that area is protected and not mowed and particularly

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

02:19:26.600 --> 02:19:30.920
 better post oak growth in that mitigation area.

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

02:19:39.140 --> 02:19:40.140
 questions.

02:19:40.140 --> 02:19:51.920
 Well, Mr. Zilke, I appreciate being here, is there any questions from Mr. Zilke?

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.

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

02:20:01.320 --> 02:20:11.680
 is a public hearing, I can go ahead and open it.

02:20:11.680 --> 02:20:18.200
 Any other questions outstanding for staff or anything?

02:20:18.200 --> 02:20:19.200
 We don't have any public comments.

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

02:20:26.640 --> 02:20:32.880
 or discussion.

02:20:32.880 --> 02:20:33.880
 Everyone knows what I'm going to do.

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

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

02:20:45.680 --> 02:20:48.480
 plain risks under 751.

02:20:48.480 --> 02:20:53.320
 I talked about the soil creep under 735.

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

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

02:21:08.200 --> 02:21:09.280
 cart before the horse.

02:21:09.280 --> 02:21:11.720
 We don't have a full development plan.

02:21:11.720 --> 02:21:15.560
 To some degree, even the engineers comments, and I appreciate that, and I think they are

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

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

02:21:31.160 --> 02:21:33.640
 risk and environmental risk.

02:21:33.640 --> 02:21:35.800
 I think we have more work to be done.

02:21:35.800 --> 02:21:41.240
 So those are my justifications for denial, a motion for denial.

02:21:41.240 --> 02:21:46.560
 Thank you Commissioner Beck, we have a motion for denial.

02:21:46.560 --> 02:21:56.880
 Is there a second?

02:21:56.880 --> 02:22:05.120
 Seeing none, that motion fails.

02:22:05.120 --> 02:22:18.840
 I'll move approval, and I will just say I do appreciate Commissioner Beck's thoughtfulness

02:22:18.840 --> 02:22:19.840
 in this.

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

02:22:25.520 --> 02:22:32.140
 I think our staff did a beautiful job presenting us with very good, solid, understandable information

02:22:32.140 --> 02:22:35.140
 to make the best informed choice that we can.

02:22:35.140 --> 02:22:38.720
 We can't think about what-ifs and what-mights and things like that.

02:22:38.720 --> 02:22:42.880
 We've got to go by their expertise.

02:22:42.880 --> 02:22:46.280
 So with that, I will move approvals.

02:22:46.280 --> 02:22:47.280
 Thank you Commissioner Ellis.

02:22:47.280 --> 02:22:48.280
 Commissioner Anderson.

02:22:48.280 --> 02:22:57.140
 I second the motion, I totally agree with Commissioner Ellis' assessment.

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

02:23:05.200 --> 02:23:08.920
 concerns that I had that made me feel a bit more comfortable.

02:23:08.920 --> 02:23:16.040
 We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion?

02:23:16.040 --> 02:23:21.040
 Commissioner Pernetta.

02:23:21.040 --> 02:23:23.960
 I guess I support us approving this one.

02:23:23.960 --> 02:23:27.400
 I do want to say that I appreciate Commissioner Beck's questions.

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

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

02:23:43.000 --> 02:23:49.120
 or something like that at this point.

02:23:49.120 --> 02:23:56.400
 Yeah, I think right now, the concerns are valid.

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

02:24:03.080 --> 02:24:08.760
 there's much we can do that would make this significantly better going forward quickly,

02:24:08.760 --> 02:24:09.760
 I guess.

02:24:09.760 --> 02:24:12.580
 That's all I've got.

02:24:12.580 --> 02:24:16.080
 Thank you, Commissioner Pernetta.

02:24:16.080 --> 02:24:22.400
 I agree with Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Beck, I am appreciative of your thoughtfulness

02:24:22.400 --> 02:24:23.700
 in the discussion.

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

02:24:28.920 --> 02:24:30.400
 the things that need to be addressed.

02:24:30.400 --> 02:24:35.160
 I'm particularly interested in the anecdotal evidence you provided to the flooding at Windsor,

02:24:35.160 --> 02:24:38.760
 your neighborhood, and what potentially could happen on this property.

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

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

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

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

02:25:05.040 --> 02:25:08.640
 Beck had brought to my attention this evening.

02:25:08.640 --> 02:25:11.520
 But with that, we'll go ahead and vote via roll call.

02:25:11.520 --> 02:25:12.520
 Commissioner Ellis?

02:25:12.520 --> 02:25:13.520
 Aye.

02:25:13.520 --> 02:25:14.520
 Commissioner Beck?

02:25:14.520 --> 02:25:15.520
 Nay.

02:25:15.520 --> 02:25:16.520
 Commissioner Pernetta?

02:25:16.520 --> 02:25:17.520
 Aye.

02:25:17.520 --> 02:25:18.520
 Commissioner Anderson?

02:25:18.520 --> 02:25:19.520
 Aye.

02:25:19.520 --> 02:25:20.520
 Commissioner Cole?

02:25:20.520 --> 02:25:21.520
 Aye.

02:25:21.520 --> 02:25:22.520
 Commissioner Smith?

02:25:22.520 --> 02:25:23.520
 Aye.

02:25:23.520 --> 02:25:24.520
 Chair is also an aye.

02:25:24.520 --> 02:25:25.520
 Motion carries 6-1.

02:25:25.520 --> 02:25:40.360
 The next item of business for this evening is our planning and zoning matrix.

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

02:25:45.180 --> 02:25:51.320
 to the dais for comment.

02:25:51.320 --> 02:25:54.640
 Any update?

02:25:54.640 --> 02:25:56.340
 Not much on the matrix.

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

02:26:02.360 --> 02:26:05.060
 meeting in October.

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

02:26:12.020 --> 02:26:16.780
 session for the gas well setbacks related to plug wells.

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

02:26:22.720 --> 02:26:24.460
 planning and zoning commission.

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,

02:26:29.300 --> 02:26:31.200
 I'll keep everyone apprised.

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

02:26:36.240 --> 02:26:41.400
 just bringing that gas well item right on the heels of council.

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

02:26:47.100 --> 02:26:49.880
 night at the City Council meeting.

02:26:49.880 --> 02:26:57.640
 Both the Denton Grove SGP and related escrow agreement were approved.

02:26:57.640 --> 02:27:02.480
 The Forster Razor Alt ESA, which came back on reconsideration, was also approved.

02:27:02.480 --> 02:27:05.560
 The Mingo Road Apartments were approved.

02:27:05.560 --> 02:27:09.400
 The PD amendment for the charter school was also approved.

02:27:09.400 --> 02:27:13.600
 And the Primaris rezoning was approved with a little change.

02:27:13.600 --> 02:27:18.480
 If you recall, there were some overlay conditions that were requested and recommended by planning

02:27:18.480 --> 02:27:20.480
 and zoning commission.

02:27:20.480 --> 02:27:26.640
 As we were drafting the ordinance in consultation with legal, it was determined that those conditions

02:27:26.640 --> 02:27:30.520
 were not actually -- or overlay really wasn't needed.

02:27:30.520 --> 02:27:36.480
 There are provisions in the DDC that allow staff to have that -- make those interpretations

02:27:36.480 --> 02:27:41.060
 as well as grant that conditional approval related to that use.

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

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

02:27:51.800 --> 02:27:53.140
 explanation.

02:27:53.140 --> 02:27:58.400
 And with that, I'd be happy to answer any additional questions.

02:27:58.400 --> 02:28:01.960
 >> All right.

02:28:01.960 --> 02:28:02.960
 Anyone got anything?

02:28:02.960 --> 02:28:10.560
 Yeah, I have one thing, not seeing any hands fighting for attention here.

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.

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?

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

02:28:29.840 --> 02:28:30.960
 that correctly.

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

02:28:35.800 --> 02:28:42.440
 to continue having conditions to remove that word?

02:28:42.440 --> 02:28:43.440
 >> Mr. Chair?

02:28:43.440 --> 02:28:44.440
 >> Yes.

02:28:44.440 --> 02:28:45.440
 >> I can respond to that.

02:28:45.440 --> 02:28:46.440
 >> Please.

02:28:46.440 --> 02:28:54.680
 >> It was explained during her presentation that the DDC and Texas law prohibit use variances.

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

02:29:03.800 --> 02:29:07.480
 for townhomes and duplexes.

02:29:07.480 --> 02:29:12.800
 The ZBA doesn't have the authority to grant use variances.

02:29:12.800 --> 02:29:14.240
 So that's why that language is struck.

02:29:14.240 --> 02:29:18.960
 It was unnecessary and inappropriate and confusing.

02:29:18.960 --> 02:29:21.780
 >> So that language is a formulated condition.

02:29:21.780 --> 02:29:25.000
 That's not defined out in our code or anything.

02:29:25.000 --> 02:29:28.600
 Maybe that's where my confusion was.

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.

02:29:38.280 --> 02:29:40.400
 One of them is not issuing a use variance.

02:29:40.400 --> 02:29:41.400
 >> Okay.

02:29:41.400 --> 02:29:45.800
 I apologize for that long explanation.

02:29:45.800 --> 02:29:47.200
 >> I think I understand.

02:29:47.200 --> 02:29:50.760
 I thought there was a reference to the code that was not -- never mind.

02:29:50.760 --> 02:29:51.760
 That was my confusion.

02:29:51.760 --> 02:29:53.720
 Commissioner Beck, I thought I saw your hand there.

02:29:53.720 --> 02:29:54.720
 >> Yeah.

02:29:54.720 --> 02:29:59.600
 I was just going to point out, Chair, what you realized at the last moment already.

02:29:59.600 --> 02:30:01.760
 So it was that.

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

02:30:06.960 --> 02:30:07.960
 birthday.

02:30:07.960 --> 02:30:08.960
 >> Absolutely.

02:30:08.960 --> 02:30:09.960
 Happy birthday, Commissioner.

02:30:09.960 --> 02:30:10.960
 >> Thank you.

02:30:10.960 --> 02:30:11.960
 I appreciate that.

02:30:11.960 --> 02:30:12.960
 >> Pleasure serving with you.

02:30:12.960 --> 02:30:13.960
 Happy birthday.

02:30:13.960 --> 02:30:14.960
 >> Thank you.

02:30:14.960 --> 02:30:15.960
 >> Thank you.

02:30:15.960 --> 02:30:16.960
 >> Thank you.

02:30:16.960 --> 02:30:17.960
 >> Is there anything else for the matrix?

02:30:17.960 --> 02:30:18.960
 Okay.

02:30:18.960 --> 02:30:22.520
 Thank you, everyone, for a fantastic meeting.

02:30:22.520 --> 02:30:24.720
 I will close it at 754.

02:30:24.720 --> 02:30:25.960
 Be safe.