Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the planning and zoning work session meeting
for September 16, 2020.
It is 5.03, I'll call this meeting to order seeing that we do have a quorum, let the record
show at the start of the meeting, Commissioner Anderson is not present.
Jumping right into our agenda this evening, we have no work session reports, so we can
hop into the agenda starting with the minutes.
Does anyone have any notes on the minutes so we can go over now?
Okay, great.
Next item of consideration is the consent agenda.
There are four items here.
I know I would like to hear item A, we had a comment card, someone who's against this,
I know it's a consent agenda, I just wanted to kind of see the short presentation of item
A, and then if any other commissioners had items, we'll certainly take a look at those
items.
All right, good evening, commissioners, Haley Skirsky with the planning department.
So item A is FP 2016, this is the final plat for phase one of Stuart Ridge.
So this is a subdivision, as you can see here on the map, it's kind of shaded in gray, and
that indicates that this property is in the city's ETJ.
So our only authority within the ETJ is subdivision.
So a preliminary plat was not required for this development, they jumped straight to
the final plat phase, and happy to answer any questions you all may have about the subdivision,
but that's the short summary of it.
So Haley, just for my edification, it is ETJ, but if they are doing a subdivision as proposed,
the city has jurisdiction over the platting of that, is that like an option they have?
It seems like if it's not city of Denton, they're not required to do this.
Can you give me some context of this is a requirement or they're voluntarily doing this?
Sure.
So a final plat is required, the county will be issuing permits for the development here,
but the platting through our interlocal agreement with the county, the city regulates platts
within the ETJ.
So we review and approve the plat and then permitting will go through the county.
So if a final plat is required, a preliminary plat is optional, and they did elect to not
do that step in this case, so they went straight to final platting.
This would be the only piece of this development that the city would see.
Gotcha.
And with approval, it meets all technical requirements needed to be approved, right?
Correct.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, chair.
So following on from chair's comments, so we still have to meet chapter two, chapter
seven, all those for this development, right?
No, sir.
They just follow the city subdivision regulations.
There's no zoning in the ETJ, so they don't have to follow any of the minimum lot dimensions
or anything else that we would typically look at with the plat.
It's just the street layout.
Are they able to serve each lot with utilities?
Those sorts of subdivision type requirements is all that we can enforce within the ETJ.
All right, that answers my question.
Thank you.
Haley, one last question.
Can they just try to do a voluntary annexation after this is built?
Is this a way not to measure intent here, but is this a mechanism that if they hold
off annexation that they can create a development that doesn't meet city code and later on gets
annexed and gets the benefit of the city?
Potentially they could annex later.
I would think it would be much more difficult after the lots are subdivided and sold to
individual homeowners, but to date, they've indicated that they do not intend to annex
into the city.
They will develop the subdivision under the county's permitting regulations.
Gotcha.
Yeah, Chris, you're back.
Since Chair brought this up, thank you, Chair.
Since Chair brought this up, if they were to annex, I mean, I'm just trying to get clarification
from what Chair said.
If they were to get annexed and they don't meet our standards at the moment and get annexed,
is there any mechanism to enforce those standards except as sort of a clause of the annexation
agreement?
I suppose once the lots were developed, if they were to annex into the city, if they
didn't meet the city's development regulations for say single family architecture or something
like that, they would just be nonconforming to our regulations at that point.
But my understanding from the developer is annexation is not an option for this subdivision.
All right.
Thank you.
Any other questions for Haley on item 3a, the consent?
Okay.
Seeing none, we can progress.
Is there any request to see items b, as in Bravo, c, or d, Chris or Beck?
I would like to see c and d.
Okay.
Great.
Haley, while you're there, can you show us item c, pp20-19a?
Right.
So item c is the preliminary plan for Sage Brook.
So I think you all are pretty familiar with this particular development.
They are proposing consistent with their PD to have four primary phases of the development.
It has the number of lots and everything as called for within the plan development.
So you can see all of the major highlights that we looked at with the PD are here, including
the right away for Brush Creek Road, the floodplain area that they intend to dedicate to the city,
and then the four phases of single family with that kind of boulevard connection up
to Allred and then Allred jogging down to meet Brush Creek over here.
If there's any particular questions you have, I'm happy to answer those.
Yes.
Thank you, Haley.
Okay.
So as I look at the maps, both the ones provided in the backup and Googling and try to understand
the topography, that all drains into that creek, correct?
The entire plat?
Yes.
That is my understanding is everything drains towards the floodplain that runs here.
You can see the stash line is the boundary of the floodplain.
So everything generally drains towards that.
And I know we addressed this in prior meetings, but it just boggles my mind to believe that
getting rid of converting this pervious surface into an impervious surface is not going to
cause flooding and downstream offense.
Everything we do, I mean, it's justified by a sort of two weeks ago when we got six or
seven inches of rain, generates downstream flooding events from all our creeks, because
we've not really done that great a job.
I guess that was more comment.
Can you refresh?
I guess the engineers are just going to say that it meets their standards.
All right.
No, I'm good.
Thank you, Haley.
Any other questions for Haley?
Okay.
Seeing none, is Ron Maguida arounders who could present?
Usually he calls in.
Yeah.
I'm on a call.
There he is.
Perfect.
Haley, can you pull up item 3D so Ron can walk us through that, FR20-11A?
All right, here we go.
Thank you, Haley.
Subject final reply is for the Corsair Razor.
I know they changed the name recently, but it is for a single family residential development,
96 lots in total.
It is part of a larger phase of development single family for this area.
Any questions for Ron?
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
So the road extension off of, oh gosh, I can't read it.
Let me get my glasses on.
Right above Denia Park, Parvin.
The road extension, that crosses the riparian ESA right now, which was the subject of last
night's council decision.
Does this road not have to have an alt ESA to cross over that riparian buffer?
Let me check.
I don't think there was one required.
The alt ESA that you're referring to, Commissioner Beck, I think it dealt with the storm drainage
system specifically, and I think those were further south of the subject replact.
I'm looking at the comments from our water administration staff.
And just as an example, what my concern is, is those three channels in the, I don't want
to rabbit hole too much the Platte to the south, but those three channels in the Platte
to the south were disturbances of that riparian buffer and they therefore needed an alt ESA.
Is this not a disturbance of the riparian buffer to get a bridge or a road through there?
My understanding, I'm reading the notes here or the comments from our water administration
staff is the proposed encroachment for the purpose of constructing the Parvin road is
permitted under a section in the code that she references.
So that's why there's no need for an alt ESA for that particular proposal.
Okay.
So I don't have it in front.
Can you refresh me on that?
The section.
The rationale for why you don't need an alt ESA?
I can't respond to that, I can certainly get an answer.
Christie is here.
So I've asked her to come up to the mic.
Hi, Christie Upton with environmental services.
And yes, this is a permitted activity or use within the riparian buffer and the water related
habitat that's located along that section of Parvin road because it is, it's on the
mobility plan, sorry, mobility plan and the, I can't, I can't remember exactly the citation,
but there's a section in the code that permits for these encroachments for roadways that
are on the mobility plan as long as the applicant can demonstrate that the, there would be restoration
work to, to riparian and replace the eases that remain.
So I, I have a lot of qualms with this, the mobility plan is, is plus or minus a thousand
feet as we've been discussing with various other items that have appeared before the
commission.
We've done a lot of talking about that lately.
So it seems to me that we have a nebulous final alignment being used as a justification
that may or may not have ever crossed an exact location.
I mean, there's a real sort of, you know, which came first, chicken or egg on this one.
And that may not be an issue for this particular item before the commission, but it is definitely,
it needs to be addressed by that council or amendment or ordinance, because this is, this
is crazy.
So anyway, sorry, Christy, I'm not, I don't mean to go at you.
Thank you.
Christian, can you clarify what you believe is crazy?
Yes.
If you have a mobility plan that can be anywhere up to the top of that plat that we're looking
at on the screen, in terms of like where the road can be down to, you know, halfway down
the Rose lawn in terms of the accuracy of the alignment, as Brian John has mentioned
many times, then you don't know exactly where it's crossing any given terrain feature.
And if you don't know where it's crossing any grid and terrain feature, then how can
that be used as a justification for, you know, it's aligned with a mobility plan when the
mobility plan is not a static object.
So, you know, I take as given that that's a permitted use to align with the mobility
plan.
There's no reason to doubt that, but that's, there's a, there's a loophole that we're
creating by not having specificity in the interplay of our mobility plan and our environmental
regulations.
I guess my only thought to that is looking at Parvin, it seems like the smaller the geographic
scope and mobility plan, the less of a thousand foot buffer you really can afford because
in Parvin, it looks like there's only about, I don't know, 600 feet to connect the two
and it goes right to where it needs to be.
It obviously can't go down to Rose lawn in this area and still have any kind of mobility
efficiency.
So like when we think about increasing like the loops and the stuff down and the ranch
is being developed, we have some flexibility there, but the parameters on Parvin on the
east and west kind of limit that kind of flexibility that you're referring to that we find in kind
of greener pastures.
I take the chair's point and I, and I only meant that as sort of the, the general loophole.
I admit that the extension off of, of the Parvin for any Western extension of the mobility
plan over to the existing, I guess that's still Parvin on the other side of the plat.
It makes sense and that's obviously where one would draw it, but there's, there's obviously
still some upland habitat on that West side.
There's, there's the riparian Issa and in, so I think it would be who council and city
and development office to see if we can't clean that up a little bit and make that really
clear if for future issues, that would be my recommendation.
I appreciate the clarification, commissioner Bec.
Any other questions for item three D commissioner Ellis, did they hear this item?
I just need an update with this, can you speak up one more time and ask that again?
It was hard for us to hear you, is that better marginally?
Okay.
Well, I'm not sure what's going on.
Okay, um, question is, did council hear the alt ESA yesterday?
Where do they stand on that?
The alt ESA was approved six one, we're forced to razor, correct?
The forced to razor, we're discussing, correct?
Correct.
It was approved.
Six one last night.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Great.
Thank you, Ron for being here this evening to present that item.
Next item for business is item for a fr 20 dash zero zero zero eight.
This is also Ron's item.
Could someone pull that up for him to present the individual consideration item for a please.
I'm getting that pulled up, give me just a minute.
All right, it's up.
Great.
Sorry.
Thank you, Julie.
Um, commissioners, this is a final replat for an existing lot or lots.
There's a total of four.
The applicant is proposing to develop a read, read, develop the site that is, and by subdividing
the lot even further to eight watts total and, and developing single family homes.
The reply itself is still under review has not yet cleared staff's outstanding comments.
Staff has recommended per house bill 31 67.
However, the applicant has requested an extension, uh, for the review for another 30 days and
staff has no objections to that, uh, extension.
That's that's presentation and be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Ron, for the presentation.
Does anyone have any questions for Ron in this item?
Seeing none.
We'll move to item four B PP 20 dash 0018 a, and this is a Julie Wyatt's item.
Okay.
So this is a preliminary plat.
You saw it, um, at the last PNZ meeting.
It was, they did ask for an extension at that time.
Um, they've worked with staff, uh, uh, gone back and forth quite a few times.
This actually was on your agenda as denial cause they still had a couple of items to
work through.
However, in the intervening days, they have worked through those items with engineering
and have resolved all of the comments related to the preliminary plat.
And so with that, the recommendation provided by staff, um, is amended to reflect approval
of the request as it does meet the established requirements.
This is, this is a, a development.
It's an infill development that will include, um, four plexes off of Windsor, um, between
Windsor and Wolf trap.
And I'll answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Is there any questions for Julie commissioner back?
So that, that look, thank you, chair.
Um, I'm always forgetting my man.
You're sorry, chair, um, uh, that, that little canal that's in front of where they're proposing
these duplexes, um, we've all seen that as we drive up and down Windsor, that, that thing
floods with a green space around it.
Um, you, you, I don't care what the engineers say, you're not going to convince me that
replacing that with, with, uh, out suitable mitigation isn't going to flood even worse
because you will have more impervious surface.
So Windsor will flood even more.
They are, they will have to, so this is the first step in the plotting of this process.
This is kind of, you know, as we've talked about the preliminary plots really are conceptual.
That's that first bite of the apple that applicants have to start working through some of those
issues.
So, um, they've actually been discussing drainage with our engineering group.
Um, it's all of the details haven't been worked out.
Their next step, um, after a preliminary plat will be the civil engineering plans to kind
of go through and finish up that drainage design.
Um, so the, so yeah, they, they will have to, um, um, make sure that they comply with
all drainage requirements.
So given the construction that is right there and if they had to make changes to the canal,
and I'm not so much worried about that sort of small drainage canal, uh, as like ESA or
anything, I'm worried about it literally seven, five, one flooding, uh, you know, I'm worried
about drainage and, and so if you, are they going to have to tear out bits of Windsor
to improve drainage?
If the drainage is insufficient, are we, are we again setting up those poor residents to
have even more near term construction on that road so that you can't go down there for the
third, fourth, fifth year to row?
They will have to, during the civil engineering, that design phase will have to go through
and make sure that they, um, that they address any drainage issues on the property.
So they will have to meet all of our drainage requirements before it can go forward for,
for final plat.
All right.
Thank you.
Any other questions for Julie?
Hey, Julie, I have one out of curiosity of just how this process works.
Uh, the agenda was posted as a denial on Friday, uh, and then they, the applicant worked with
you over the past three business days to make changes.
Is that effort from your team to work with the applicant budgeted into your kind of day
to day, uh, requirements or, or what kind of load does it put on you for an applicant
after an agenda is posted for you to make it right before it comes to PNZ?
I'm just trying to wonder like what, what's happening behind the scenes, uh, cause it
seems like there's significant effort, uh, in compromise and back and forth to get this
done.
I'm curious to, to know about that a little bit more.
Well development services has a great team, um, who works with applicants to get this
through.
We have a project facilitation team that, that coordinates with engineering and planning.
A lot of the issues related to Platts, you know, the heavy lifting with Platts comes
from engineering because of, you know, all of the design that goes with them.
So they, they all work together and, and yeah, they, they spent a lot of time, um, coordinating
this.
This one was a little different in that they were almost to the finish line on Friday.
They just weren't quite there yet, so, um, it wasn't, it wasn't, it wasn't a whole lot,
but, but yeah, they, they do, they do work together and try to, try to get those, um,
resolved just as quickly as possible.
Great.
Thanks for helping me pull back the curtain a little bit.
Commissioner Beck.
So in a similar, but not exactly the same, because the post is different than what we're
being asked to vote on, do we have to make a motion in reverse of the post?
Because this is the, the posting was a denial.
I understand that the current status is an acceptance and I'm not fighting that.
I'm, I'm, this is sort of a Robert's rules of order question.
Do we have to vote on the posting or vote on the current understanding by staff?
And I don't know the, I'm just asking.
Yeah, I'll ask legal to weigh in here.
Um, Mr. Chair, uh, commissioner Beck, the, the posting is for the, the plat action and
that is a staff recommendation.
The planning commission can certainly after, um, weighing all of the, the evidence on that
and comparing the application to the code requirements, make a different determination,
but that is staff's recommendation.
And as Ms. Wyatt has explained, the applicant provided sufficient information for the staff
to feel comfortable making a recommendation of approval.
But so it, to answer your question, it's, it's, um, it's not a violation of Robert's
rules of order.
It has been posted for action.
It's, it's, uh, a staff recommendation in the caption.
Thank you.
Appreciate that.
All right.
Any other questions for Julie on item four B?
Great, Julie, hang on a little bit.
The next item is item five AZ 19 dash one to be, and I'll turn the floor back over to
Julie for presentation.
All right, let me share my screen.
All right, here we go.
All right.
This item is E 19, zero, zero, one to be mockingbird single family residential.
So the request before you is to rezone approximately 1.61 acres from our two district to our four
district.
That's the request.
Um, just some information about the site is a flag shaped lot as shown here at outlined
here in yellow.
Um, the surrounding development is kind of existing suburban style, single family neighborhoods,
but there are a few remaining large parcels nearby.
So you can see adjacent to the site to the north, um, in this location and then north
of Audra.
Um, there are a few trees on site, but they are generally along the perimeter of sort
of fence line trees.
And then per the applicant, the purpose is to develop the site with nine single family
dwellings.
So I just want to compare the current zoning map with the proposal shown here is this current
map and it shows our two district, um, on the subject property.
They, they are proposing to, um, to extend that, uh, our four and rezone the subject
property so that it extends that our four to the north, um, the criteria for approval
for a zoning case is in sub chapter two, we've got the general criteria and then the specific
criteria and we'll touch on those as we talk through the project.
So the first thing we always look at is didn't plan 2030.
So the site is designated as low density residential.
This is intended for single family neighborhoods up to four dwelling units per acre.
So while, uh, the propose our four doesn't precisely conform to that maximum density,
it does meet the overall goals for the comprehensive plan.
So the proposal is in conformance with the concept plan.
Um, this provides for, um, infill development for that compact development pattern at the,
didn't plan 2030, um, um, uh, uh, has as a goal.
Um, and it also, uh, it also is that, that, that lower density residential use and it's
consistent with the surrounding development pattern.
Um, there aren't any small area plans that affect the subject property.
Um, the, the next criteria for approval is consistency with the purpose statement.
So our four district is intended to accommodate a variety of housing types on lots designed
to encourage walking to a neighborhood serving retail and other amenities such as parks and
school facilities.
The zoning district will ensure, um, existing neighborhood characters maintain while also
serving as a transition area between established single family neighborhoods and mixed use
neighborhoods.
So the request is consistent with the purpose statement as the applicant is, has stated
that the intent is to develop the site with single family dwellings.
Um, also are there significant changes in the area?
So I kind of looked back at, at how this area, this general area, um, um, kind of emanating
out from downtown, um, has developed.
So it's kind of hard to see, but the subject property here is sort of outlined in blue.
And as you can see, starting in the 1980s, um, the development near the subject property
started coming in.
You could see there, there are some, um, there are some places where that, where those subdivisions
began, um, that accelerated through the 1990s with additional neighborhoods, those single
family suburban style neighborhoods developing and then on through the 2000s.
So in the last 30 years, this, um, area of town really has filled in and this proposal
is just a continuation of that development pattern, um, minimizes adverse impacts on
surrounding property.
R4 is consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods in both use and development scale.
It's not anticipated to create adverse impacts.
Um, the minimum lot size for R4 is 7,000 square feet, which is consistent with the typical
lot sizes of the area, which range range from 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet.
So it's, it's right there consistent with, with those adjacent neighborhoods.
Um, the expansion of the R4 district is a logical extension of that existing zoning
pattern and based upon the uses and development scale would create harmonious development.
Um, and the, and the rezoning would just allow development to be consistent with the surrounding
property.
Um, the intensity of the development is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts
to the surrounding property, um, due to the limited number of homes that just physically
could be just constructed.
Um, it's pretty, it's a pretty small site, uh, within the constraints of that proposed
district about 90 trips per day would be created, um, by the proposed rezoning.
Um, this doesn't try to trigger impact or, um, a TIA requirement.
Um, and then roadway impact fees, uh, would, would be required, um, at development.
Um, there are water and wastewater available to the site.
That's why we like infill developments.
Why our, um, DenPlan 2030, um, talks about infill is because there are public facilities
already available to the site.
Um, parks, it is about a mile from Milan park, so it doesn't quite meet the, the 10 minute
walk to a park.
Um, but I know parks is working on their master plan, so they will, um, they will be continuing
to identify, um, uh, future park land and then access.
I know, um, commissioner back asked at our last meeting and it did come up last year
when this came up, um, a full review will happen at the plotting process.
However, I did, um, provide sort of, um, a conceptual, um, um, um, driveway location
that the applicant had provided.
It's pretty limited as to where they could put their driveway, uh, just because of that,
uh, because of that panhandle, uh, but engineering is confirmed that the proposal does meet the
minimum spacing from those existing driveways that would be required with, with development
of the site.
Um, I also want to mention, I did speak with engineering, Mockingbird, um, I, I wanted
to make sure Mockingbird did have capacity, um, and it does have capacity for those additional
trips for the use.
Um, so we did send out notification.
We have received foreign opposition and so it does have 14% opposition.
That doesn't meet the threshold of the super majority that would require 20%.
Um, um, as you remember, this actually came before you, uh, last year and they had a neighborhood
meeting at that time.
They also held another neighborhood meeting, um, and, uh, the applicant will be available
to answer questions at the public hearing, so they could probably speak to that neighborhood
meeting as well.
So staff recommends approval of the request, it complies with the criteria and the debt
and development code, uh, for a zoning change.
Um, the applicant has also requested an overlay condition, but I want to talk to you briefly
about that.
So, um, while we have no objections to limiting the permitted uses, um, we do have concerns
about their, um, their request to include the, the, um, statement variance in their
overlay condition that actually does not comply with the debt and development code and state
law.
So we would, we would recommend that, um, that if you, if you did, um, uh, want to recommend
approval of this item with the overlay condition, that you would strike that language related
to variance so that it would just read single family detached homes only no town homes or
duplexes will be permitted even with a specific use permit.
And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Commissioner back, thank you chair.
Um, so I know this is for the zoning and, and, and so the, the, the, our force seems
consistent in my opinion with this region, but back to the access.
And I know that's a future event we're talking about, but when you looked at, when you talked
to the engineers, they, the distance that they were referencing was to the stop sign
or to the, or also to the street across the street, because it seems that having these
sort of caddy corner kind of not aligned with each other is going to create a potential
for left turn, right turn collisions, especially if you're trying to get to a stop sign.
Well, I did ask them, I asked follow up questions just like you from them because I wanted to
make sure.
And, and so I had, I asked them not only once, but twice there and both times they confirmed
that this would meet all spacing requirements that they have.
So yeah, I, I had the same follow up question.
I'll watch the newspapers for when we have an accident there.
Thank you, Julie.
Any other questions for Julie?
Hey Julie, can you go back to slide seven for me?
Let me find my page numbers after we go, here we go.
Consistency with the purpose statement?
Yes.
That says section two, three, two, five, a, the zoning district will ensure existing neighborhood
character is maintained will also serve as a transition area between established single
family neighborhoods and mixed use neighborhoods.
I'm having a difficulty with that language, given that this is not in between as a transition.
This is stuck in the middle of neighbors.
And so I'm wondering if I could press on you a little bit to help me get into your mindset,
how you saw this lot, which is in the backyard of 14 homes or so as a transition between
neighborhoods.
Sure.
So yeah, it isn't, it isn't a perfect fit, just like with the comprehensive plan, but
we looked not only at, at, at that purpose statement and the, and that overall low density
residential and we looked at the context of the area.
And so based upon that, with the permitted uses in an R4 and also that, that development
scale that is so similar to those existing residential neighborhoods, we felt comfortable
that this was, was compatible with those adjacent neighborhoods and, and therefore consistent.
And then the next question I have just trying to get into your perspective is, can you go
to the contrasting zoning maps?
Yeah, that's the one.
It looks to me by my eye that the Southern line of this property, that Southern black
line is a very clear delineation from R2 to R4.
It seems like there's R2 on the North side of Audra.
There's R2 on the South side of Audra.
There's R2 on the Southwest corner of this property of this little left of this Oklahoma
shape property.
And then at the bottom, there's an R4 delineation.
Like the left-hand side, if I'm looking at these two maps and if you were to give me
no context and say which zoning looks better aligned to what zoning is there, the left
side where it's just a kind of an even nice yellow block of properties to my eye looks
way more aligned than trying to fit in this R4 lot that kind of comes up into the middle
of R2 and then to the left over in between more properties.
It looks like it's kind of forced.
And so I'd love to hear your perspective on just in looking at these maps, how your team
felt that the proposed zoning was in better alignment than the current zoning.
Well, both districts would be appropriate given that future land use.
We felt like R4 was not incompatible with the surrounding property.
And so yes, it is creating kind of a new boundary line for that R4 district.
But we didn't feel like it was out of character with what the surrounding development and
how that pattern has developed over time in these infill areas.
Is that the kind of the prevailing key word here you used several times, the infill?
Is infill and density kind of taking priority over the evaluation of this subject property?
I think we look at everything weighted equally.
We do, the comprehensive plan is clear in how it felt like didn't needed stage development
and that we wanted to fill in these kind of parcels within the city before we start pushing
out to the more rural areas.
So, yes, the comprehensive plan does address infill as something that we want to seek out.
But we always want to make sure that any development and any zoning would be in fitting with character
with the surrounding property and would be compatible with the existing uses.
So I don't know if we weight either of those things greater, but they are things that we
think about as we're looking at these sites.
A couple other technical questions.
How big is the property?
It is, let me make sure.
2.61.
Never mind.
I can read.
And then is it possible to know, obviously without the infrastructure being plotted,
how many single family homes they can fit on 2.61 acres?
I think nine would be the maximum that they could that they could plot.
And I mean, the applicant will be here this evening, you said?
Yes, sir.
I'm just curious how many homes they could build on an R4 designation.
Okay, Julie, that's all I have.
Does any other commissioners have any follow up for Julie?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I think it was just a follow up on what you were just discussing.
Did you mean how many can you fit in an R2?
Yes.
Yeah.
Okay.
No, no, no, no, no.
I apologize.
Because they're proposing R4, right?
Yes.
And they're proposing nine lines.
An R4.
Yes.
No, that's what I wanted, to know how many homes they could under new proposal build.
Okay.
Yeah.
And that was on, I think, one of their site plans that was.
Yeah.
I think Julie said in her presentation.
Okay.
Yeah.
Thanks.
Okay.
Seeing no other questions.
We'll move on to the next item of business, which is item 5B, AESA 20-002B, and I'll invite
Christy Upton for presentation.
[silence]
Now there it is.
Thank you.
[silence]
Is the presentation up?
Sorry.
Christy Upton, and I'm with Environmental Services, and I will be presenting an alternative
ESA plan for you tonight.
This is Eagle Cove, and it is generally located south of Dustch's Drive and west of Loop 288.
It's a proposed 56 single-family lots, and the preliminary plat was approved on March
18th, and there will also be three common area lots.
And the proposal for you tonight is to impact riparian buffer ESA and undeveloped flip plane
by constructing two roadway crossings and one storm drain.
And I'll give you a little background on the ESAs that are located on site.
There is a riparian buffer that traverses generally the western third of the property,
and is a tributary to Pecan Creek, an unnamed tributary, and the riparian buffer associated
with that creek is 50 feet on each side of that stream, and in general located on the
property.
It encumbers 2.94 acres, and it was found to be in great condition.
Kind of unusual for the flip plane, the flip plane is actually located within and is encumbered
by the riparian buffer.
So this is the upper reaches of the flip plane of Pecan Creek, and the flip plane was recently
updated or the boundaries of that flip plane was recently updated by an approved LOMAR,
and the map was updated to reflect the new flip plane boundaries.
And that encumbers 0.18 acres on the site.
In addition to that, there's 3.76 acres of cross timbers upland habitat, also interestingly
all located along this riparian buffer.
And it's kind of also an unusual condition.
We found that there was post oaks and blackjack oaks that were located within that upland
habitat interspersed with grasslands.
That 3.76 acres, while that's less than the 10 acres on the site, is contiguous with upland
habitat that is on adjacent property.
So the permitted encroachments, I'll go over those first.
Undeveloped flip plane ESA, that is a permitted encroachment because of DDC and the DDC allows
for culverts and bridges, and 0.1 acres of the flip plane would be permanently removed
in order to place the roadway over that section on the southern roadway.
And then there's, because of the cross timbers upland habitat is greater than 10 acres, that
is 50% is protected.
And because much of it is located within that riparian buffer zone, they will only be proposing
to remove 29% of the cross timbers upland habitat.
So the impacts that the applicant is proposing is to construct these two roadways, the placement
of the one storm drain near the center of the property, and then the placement of one
lot that is located on the northeast corner of lot 3B, which is right south of the northern
roadway crossing.
The total square feet that would be removed is 20,900 square feet or 0.48 acres.
And in order to complete the construction of those two roadways, there would be a disturbance
of 0.68 acres.
For the mitigation, the applicant is proposing the following actions, and that would be to
place the remaining ESAs in the HOA lots and expand the habitat by restricting those HOA
lots to remain in a natural state.
That would be an additional 1.2 acres.
So in addition to the remaining ESAs, they're anticipating by remaining in a natural state
that the ESAs would expand.
And that is a ratio of 2 to 5.1 of removed habitat to expanded habitat.
A second mitigation activity would be to place eight grow zone signs and one sign that would
explain cross timbers upland habitat, and this would anticipate to help promote the
remaining ESAs and expanded habitat to the public.
And then before I go any further into the mitigation, I wanted to explain lot 18A.
This was not previously identified on the preliminary plat as an HOA lot.
However, the applicant has identified that there is riparian buffer on this lot and has
agreed to place this lot and dedicate it to the HOA at final plat.
And this remaining, this particular lot will be an additional HOA lot to preserve, but
just to preserve the riparian buffer and the cross timbers upland habitat that's located
in the southern corner.
And then lastly, the applicant is proposing some restoration, and that would be to restore
those habitats that were disturbed during construction, and those areas are outlined
in green, and that restoration work would include the use of vegetation to help promote
the recovery of the ESA, and then to improve the habitat conditions overall to remove the
invasive Chinese privet that during the ESA field assessment we found upwards of 50% encroachment
or invasion of the Chinese privet within that riparian buffer zone.
And then to re-vegetate the riparian buffer zone with the native grasses as a continuity
of the restoration work for the roadways.
We did want to bring to your attention some other considerations.
While the applicant satisfied the requirements of the preliminary plat, there were a few
things that staff had deferred, including in drainage there was a deferment of the full
review of the storm drainage structures to support this development, and then our full
review of the downstream impacts.
And then tree preservation-wise, the applicant has provided and satisfied the preliminary
tree preservation plan, while at the same -- one of the concerns that staff has brought
up is the trees within the alternative ESA mitigation cannot count towards the tree preservation
and replacement at the final plat.
In order to help meet the tree preservation, the applicant has proposed a natural preserve
because there was more than 50% of the upland habitat that was preservation that was being
met.
A portion of lot 17A is being set aside as this natural preserve.
It is a total of .13 acres and will be included in the development impact area, and that means
that the cross-tumors upland habitat designation would be removed.
So the trees would remain, but the understory would not necessarily be protected.
Notifications were sent out, and we did get one response from the property owner in favor.
And lastly, staff is recommending approval, finding that this plan did meet all the criteria
for approval, and we did add some recommended conditions, including prior to the platting
approval, that this mitigation area, the expanded habitat, would be placed in a deed-restricted
HOA lot, and that the homeowners association documents would be reviewed by the city's
attorney prior to the approval of that final plot.
Lot 18A shall be dedicated to the HOA at final plot.
This was something that staff identified after we had provided you the backup materials,
so I just wanted to highlight that addition that we have added to these conditions for
approval.
And land-to-services within the riparian buffer ESA is limited into the square footage that
the applicant has provided following the construction of that riparian, the infrastructure, that
the vegetation would be restored, and prior to issuance of any building permits, that
the work that was promoted, that was offered up to remove the Chinese privet would be completed.
And then six and seven are the conditions that environmental services has been placing
on all alternative ESA plans for acceptance, and lastly, if the civil engineering plans
or other subsequent approvable plans identify a modification to this alternative ESA plan
that the applicant would either seek a new alternative ESA or seek a new preliminary
plot.
And that's the end of this presentation.
Do you have any questions?
Thank you so much, Christy.
I think we might have some questions.
We'll start with Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Christy.
So the thing I want to point out is that when we saw this property before during the 3-2
vote when two of our commissioners were missing, I raised my objections there, and environmental
actually identified those same objections, but then they argued for Chapter 2-8 and Chapter
7-7-4 relief from those objections.
So you know, I'm heartened by the fact that staff and I agree, but I'm kind of disheartened
that you were seeking relief from those very items.
And I do want to kind of carrot this before I stick it, and that is I think the engineers
have tried and along with staff to do the development of the grasses, which is great,
some of the other elements for the actual Alt-ESA itself in terms of the restoration
elements of the Alt-ESA are clearly everyone is trying to develop this in a better way.
So I want to acknowledge that, and in this case, less so the ESA itself as the fact that
those, if you pull up that floodplain map where the flood actually, floodplain extends
halfway through the riparian buffer almost to that detention pond.
So they're going to tear out the detention pond, they're going to build a bridge where
there will be detritus in trees, less pervious surface, so they're going to have a bridge
that will back up almost immediately because that's floodplain, they're building a culvert
over.
I live near a creek that has been culverted and the trees here in Idiot's Hill back it
up and my neighbors flood out almost all the time.
And I don't want to create a situation that is like my neighbors, where they were operating
under old guidelines when we have the guidelines in place to prevent this.
So I have less of a problem with the ESA restoration elements as I do the fact that they're going
to create homes that flood at both bridges.
So we're building culverts that will flood from the upstream drainage west of the property.
All this property drains in, the detention pond that was there, whether it was natural
or built, was taking runoff from the development across the street of Dutchess.
That's all going to become a house and roads.
So we're removing all this pervious surface and all that area is going to flood.
And while we all agree Chinese privet is an invasive species, it is understory and it
is storm drain mitigation flume material and it would slow down the water in ways that
the grass won't.
So if my concerns are flooding, which they are for most of these, what they're requesting
the all ESAs for, then you're going to get the soil creep, which is 735.
You're going to get downstream flooding, which is 751.
Oh, I'm prepared on all these ordinance subsections on this one.
And so the, you know, asking for relief when there is immediately on this parcel will be
flood issues.
And we haven't even considered the downstream impact, which in your presentation, you said
staff has qualms because the long range downstream impact had not been assessed.
And that was actually an additional qualm of staff, which also I concurred with in the
previous meeting.
So while I understand that the developers want to put this on here and that they're
making some, you know, really nice attempts to put in signage and create things there,
they're asking for flood events, both on this site at the adjacent site along, put concrete
into the floodplain.
I mean, this floodplain extends into this property.
Plus, if you have soil creep because you have no pervious services anymore and it drains
into this channel, then you're going to kill by silting out downstream species that are
in this endangered region of a concrete that extends from pretty much the Mack Park substation
area all the way to the lake.
I mean, we send our Boy Scouts and our college kids to this region.
And this kind of development along the floodplain is going to silt it out and kill these species
so that we can't do this kind of thing anymore that, you know, is actually a distinctive
element of our community.
So I mean, you know, but even if you neglect those sort of moral environmental issues,
this is going to flood out this property.
And then I guess my final point on this, and I know I've been doing all the talking and
I do want Christy to respond, but is by taking upland habitat, we just had a knockdown dragout
last night in council about removing not endangered, but threatened upland habitat post oaks to
where they had to go to special session or executive session and about this very sort
of removal of upland habitat from green corridors.
And here we are again, the very next night talking about removing upland habitat from
green corridors.
You know, we cannot cement over what we have left, like just like we did downtown, or we
will have what we have downtown, which is a Los Angeles style culvert.
All right.
And so I don't want even if they preserve the trees, your presentation made the point
that we're taking it out of the special protection designation of upland habitat.
So they will not be protecting, they will be resident regular residential lots and they
will have much freer restrictions on the impacts, both of the upland habitat on the on the fringe
of this property, as well as the upland upland habitat and the floodplain to the south.
So I mean, I recognize and applaud the engineers for trying to do a better job.
And I want to encourage them, but I think we need to do a better job still.
If we're going to develop this property and not flood up the houses on this property downstream
from this property till the species and take things out of upland habitat, then the engineers
need to do an even further job.
And that is noticed by the fact that staff had the same qualms that I'm just more vociferously
enunciating right now.
So Chris Rebecca, I appreciate your perspective.
Just help Christy out.
Can you clarify what you said you wanted her to respond?
There's a lot there.
Can you clarify what you want to respond to?
I'm dumping on Christy again, because I'm obviously clearly concerned about this.
So let me see if I can put this into a couple of bulleted questions.
And those are what, when you have contiguous upland habitat that you're taking out of designation
of upland habitat, this fringe with the adjacent upland habitat, what are the demands that
the city places on maintenance of when you're splitting and removing chunks of upland habitat
like that?
Is there any restrictions on use or patterns outside of regular residential restrictions
that would end up protecting the plot to the south?
So you're asking about lot 17A?
The fringe on the south side of the road.
Oh, the fringe on the south side of the property?
Yes, ma'am.
That's on an adjacent property.
So this developer wouldn't have any control over that.
So those trees, though, were on this property as well.
Parts of that upland habitat you show in the zoning and the preliminary plot maps or the
concept plans were on this property as well.
And those trees that would end up in backyards, and depending on their choice and I think
depending on tree preservation, how that plays out, whether the trees would remain but the
understory of that upland habitat along the southern border of their property would be
removed.
Are there restrictions when you are part of a contiguous upland habitat?
I assume there's not because we're taking it out of upland habitat, right?
The restrictions go away by the change in designation, is that correct?
I think what you're asking is if the restrictions on the understory would go away, and yes,
that is what I'm saying.
And then I don't know if this is a legal question or not, but what is our liability if we put
in bridges that are potential flood hazards over these two ends of this creek?
I know it's a hypothetical, so it's not really illegal and I won't really ask that, but I'm
concerned that we, I'm not concerned.
I know this is going to flood.
I live next to an identical sort of circumstance.
It's absolutely going to flood out these brand new homes.
I think, well, I do have one other issue and that is the silting out downstream.
What are our regulation restrictions to combat 7.3.5, that soil creek?
We know right along the southern border where they're going to have to level at infrastructure,
at electrical, at sewer, we are going to disturb this property that is along this delicate
fringe between this and the adjacent property to the south, and you are going to watch that
soil creep both into the riparian buffer and into the main creek bed just to the south.
So I think what you're referring to is part of the state and federal regulations on what
is called the MS4 or the municipal separate storm sewer system.
This is a regulation that requires that the municipalities have a program to have oversight
of construction activity.
So when you drive around town and you're seeing construction activity, you'll see silt fences
and other controls that are placed, those are actually part of that state and federal
program, which the city has the regulatory requirement to have oversight of that program.
So we do have an extensive inspection program that we have put in place, and we have an
entire watershed team who reviews erosion control plans before they start construction,
and then they continuously inspect those sites during the lifespan of that construction until
final stabilization is achieved.
So it wasn't you, but I forget who we were talking with last time, maybe it was you,
when this came before us, I believe in March, and I talked with the engineer back then too,
and the engineer told me at the time that while these kinds of hay berms and nylon mesh
and whatnot would be put in place during construction, that they couldn't assure that runoff would
not be a factor.
They could only put those down to try to mitigate that.
And so the problem with that, that's fine if you have a regular creek bed, but there
are downstream species that are threatened and endangered between this property along
Concord Creek to the lake.
And so there's a big, huge difference between tolerating some silting in that's allowed
by the kinds of hay bales we have and when you have threatened versus sort of ordinary
culvert drainage.
And so that was concerning me.
And the second thing I'd like you to try to address is this idea of after the construction's
over and you've leveled and disturbed these services, I mean, even with bulldozer, sorry,
the steam rollers that will repack the surface before housing construction, or however they
pack the surface to stabilize it, even after that, this is disturbed, no longer erosion
produced materials, these are softened construction materials with pervious connections embedded
in them, the piping, the subfloor and the foundation.
And what is, I mean, what's our monitoring, so the second question is what is our monitoring
for long-term soil creep, especially along that southern border?
Okay, so there is a certain tolerance.
I have worked with EPA inspectors before and we, in that industry, there is a certain amount
of sediment that could be expected to be lost during any construction activity.
It is, the state regulation does say maximize and to the extent practicable and our enforcement
team does enforce to maximize to the extent practicable.
So it's a matter of some, you know, there is some continuity or continuum in that controls
of any construction site.
Downstream, long-term, so I heard you talking about compaction.
Compaction would not occur within the ESAs that are not within that construction zone.
So they would be limited to only disturbing those areas within that green outline that
I showed you and there should not be expected any compaction outside of that because those
would, construction activity would be prohibited outside of that construction activity.
And then long-term, the applicant and the engineer that will design the final engineering
plans will have to work with staff to confirm and to show that long-term erosion would be
minimized, I think is a good word.
Given the three or maybe it was four, I don't mean the special recommendations, but given
the additional three or four qualms that staff had about this, wouldn't it be better to get
that nailed down before proceeding along?
It feels like there's so many gotchas on this property that's going to come around.
Other gotchas, adjacent gotchas, downstream gotchas, we are, and let alone, we haven't
even addressed habitat and animals and whatnot that are, I mean, clearly go up this creek
bed all the way towards Mac Park and MLK and stuff like that.
So I understand we want to build adjacent to things like this, but it feels like we've
got undotted I's and uncrossed T's that we need a little more in the vein of the nice
way they were trying to extend and be better.
I appreciate that element, but I think we still need, we've still got a way to go and
I will be quiet because I have talked for quite a long time.
Thank you, Kristi, for your forbearance.
Is there any other questions for Kristi or staff Commissioner Ellis?
Thank you, Chair.
Just a quick question, Kristi.
With condition, I guess it's number eight now.
So if a revised plan is needed, is that something staff would do or does that come back before
us?
We would bring it back to this board, this commission and then to City Council.
So it followed the same process if something is okay.
Thank you.
I just need clarification.
I appreciate it.
Any other questions?
Well, Kristi, thank you very much for your presentation.
We'll see you a little bit.
That is the last item of our agenda for this evening.
I will close our work session at 614.
We will reconvene right here at 630.
Thank you.
Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission regular
meeting.
It is 635.
I'll call this meeting to order seeing that we do have a quorum tonight.
The first item of business is to provide a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas
flags.
If any other commissioner wants to join me, they can certainly unmute their mic and we
will provide a Pledge of Allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for
which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Under the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, indivisible.
Next item of business is the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes for
September 2nd.
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Anderson.
I second the motion.
We have a first and a second for the approval of the minutes from September 2nd.
Any discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Beck.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
The next item of business is our consent agenda.
I just wanted for the record to note that we did have one comment on the consent agenda
item 3A, FP20-0016A.
That comment card was against the item.
Commissioner Beck.
I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda, but exclude item C for individual
consideration.
Okay.
So, we have approval for consent agenda 3A, 3B, and 3D.
Commissioner Ellis.
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval of 3A, B, and D. Any discussion?
Seeing none, I call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Beck.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
7-0.
We'll move item 3A to the end of individual consideration.
The next item for business is the individual consideration.
We'll start with item 4A, FR20-0008, and I'll invite Ron Maguida to present this item.
Yes.
Good evening, if I can have the presentation on the screen.
It's at Ron.
Great.
Thank you.
Ron Maguida, principal planner with Development Services.
This item, FR20-0008, is for a final replat.
The subject plat is for a single-family development.
The existing lots are being proposed to be replatted into a total of eight lots to be
developed again with single-family homes.
The subject application or review has not yet been completed.
There are certain requirements that have not been met, so based on that, the staff is recommending
denial of the request subject to those sections, specifically 7.7.4, as well as Table 3.2-D
of the development code.
However, the applicant has submitted an application to a request, that is, to extend the review
for another 30 days, and staff is in favor of that extension request.
That concludes my presentation.
I'll be happy to stand for any questions.
Great.
Thank you, Ron, for the presentation.
Commissioner Smith.
I'll make a motion to postpone until date certain, I guess is the way the motion should
be done.
Correct?
To date certain of October 7th?
I think the motion should be to provide the 30-day extension, which takes it to the meeting
of October 7th.
Yes.
I have a motion.
Commissioner Pernetta.
I'll second that.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
So we have a first and a second for the approval of a 30-day extension, taking this item to
our October 7th meeting.
Seeing no discussion on the matter, I'll call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Beck.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
Next item of business is item 4B, PP20-0018A.
And I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation.
Good evening.
Let me pull up the presentation.
All right.
This is PP20-0018A.
You saw this preliminary plat on September 1st.
At that time, there were some comments that were still outstanding, so it was postponed
until this meeting.
As of Friday, when the agenda posted, there were still a couple of outstanding comments
that the applicant was working through with staff.
Since that agenda posted, they have addressed all of the comments, and so staff has a recommendation
of approval as it meets all the established requirements.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much, Julie.
Any questions for Julie on the presentation?
Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Ellis.
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Commissioner Beck.
I would like to strongly reiterate what I said at the work session is that we really
need to pay attention to the flooding.
I know Julie assures us the staff will pay attention to the flooding along this property,
but it concerns me greatly, and I hope we keep this moment in mind for that area along
Windsor.
Anyway, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beck.
And just for clarification, Julie, this item will come back for final plotting?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Thank you.
We'll see it one more time.
Any other discussion on the item?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote, be a roll call.
Commissioner Beck.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
Aye.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
That brings us to our next item of business, which is the Polled Consent Agenda 3CPP20-0019A,
and I'll invite Haley Zygurski for presentation on this item.
Chair point of clarification?
Yes, Commissioner Beck.
Item C, Item C?
This is Item C.
Yes.
Haley's bringing it up, but you were saying A.
Oh, I apologize.
Item 3CPP20-0019A.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Yes.
Good evening, Commissioners.
This is Item PP2019.
This is the preliminary plan for the Sagebrook edition.
This preliminary plan is consistent with the concept plan that was provided in their plan
development, which was recently approved.
So it is proposing the development of a single-family subdivision split into four large phases,
as you can see here on the map, along with the extension of Brush Creek Road, as well
as an extension of Allred Road, and an area of floodplain that is intended to be dedicated
to the city, as was discussed with the PD.
I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Haley.
So any questions for Haley?
Okay.
Commissioner Anderson?
I'm going to make a motion to approve.
Okay.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Smith?
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion on this item?
Commissioner Beck.
So I ask that this be considered separate.
Thank you, Chair.
I ask that this be considered separately, because I have concerns about lot A27.
I know that our setbacks are a newer ordinance than this, but I still think it falls under
2453E7 in terms of public health, in terms of getting rid of that, not building on that
lot near that gas well.
In addition, I have concerns about the financial impact of this lot, this development has in
regards to the city.
I think that falls under 271D2, and I'm not sure that, again, as I mentioned for a different
item, I'm not sure that all the I's and T's have been dotted and T's have been crossed
in terms of the infrastructure impacts, as was brought up by Citizen Pruitt at a previous
meeting.
I also, and probably my biggest concern is the development along the floodplain, and
the fact that we are simply kicking the can down the road for this textile road in that
floodplain, and that's 741 and 753D, so I'm not going to be supporting this.
Okay.
Thank you, Commissioner Beck.
Any other discussion?
Seeing none, we have a first and a second for approval.
I will call a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Beck?
Nay.
Commissioner Pernetta?
Aye.
Commissioner Kohl?
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Chairs, an aye.
Commissioner Chen?
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Chairs, an aye.
Motion carries 6-1.
That brings us to our next item of business.
That's our public hearing.
First one is item 5AZ19-0012B.
I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the public hearing.
So the request before you is Z1912B, Mockingbird Single Family Residential.
They are proposing to rezone the subject property.
It's 2.61 acres from R2 District to R4 District.
The subject property outlined in yellow is a flag-shaped site.
It's surrounded by existing suburban-style single-family development with some remaining
large parcels adjacent to the site to the north and then east and west.
The majority of trees on site are fence-lined trees along the perimeter, and per the applicant
the purpose is to develop nine single-family dwellings.
So just taking a look at the zoning maps.
The current zoning map shows the subject property in yellow as R2.
The proposed would extend that existing R4 to the north, taking in the subject property.
So if approved, it would reflect this map.
The criteria for approval for rezoning cases are in subchapter 2 of the Debt and Development
Code.
We've got general criteria for approval and then specific criteria for approval.
We'll touch on these as we talk through the project.
So first thing we look at is the Debt and Plan 2030.
The site is designated as low-density residential.
This is intended for single-family neighborhoods for up to four dwelling units per acre.
The proposed R4 with its minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet does not precisely conform
to that maximum density, but it meets the overall goals of the Debt and Plan 2030.
Infill development for a compact development pattern, as well as the proposal is consistent
with the character of the surrounding area.
And there aren't any small area plans that affect the subject property.
Consistency with the purpose statement, R4 District is intended to accommodate a variety
of housing types on lots designed to encourage walking to neighborhoods serving retail and
other amenities such as parks and school facilities.
This zoning district would ensure existing neighborhood characters maintained while also
serving as a transition area between single-family neighborhoods and mixed-use neighborhoods.
So this request is consistent with the purpose statement, as the applicant has stated the
intent to develop single-family dwellings, which is consistent with that existing neighborhood
character.
One other item we look at is changes in the area.
So the development near the site kind of emanating from the central part of the city began in
the 1980s.
So we have a historical aerial in this right here that shows that there were development
beginning slowly in the 1980s, moving toward the northeast with some areas you can tell
they're starting to grade those areas for lots.
That continued on through the 1990s, that middle picture, which shows continued development.
And then finally, there is that 2015 aerial, which shows a lot of those infill areas filling
in and that progression has continued to today.
Minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property.
R4 is consistent with the surrounding existing neighborhoods in both use and development
scale, so it's not anticipated to create adverse impacts.
R4, with that minimum lot size, is consistent with the area-typical lot sizes, which range
from 6,000 square feet to about 7,500 square feet.
This is an expansion of that existing R4 district.
It wouldn't introduce any new uses to the property.
It would just be an extension of that single-family development that is shown around the property.
And it would facilitate harmonious development.
And rezoning would allow the development to be consistent, just continue that development
pattern that we've seen.
Intensity of the development is not expected to create significantly adverse impacts to
the surrounding properties, as well as those adequate public facilities.
So we looked at transportation.
Due to the limited number of homes that could be constructed due to the size of the property,
only about 90 trips per day would be created by the proposed rezoning.
I spoke with our engineering group, and there is capacity on Lockingbird to accommodate
those trips.
They would also be required to pay roadway impact fees, and that would be determined
by the number of dwelling units.
And then there's water and wastewater.
There is -- it is available to the site because this is an infill area.
There's water and wastewater available, and they would have to pay tap fees.
The subject property is about a mile from Milan Park.
It's to the south of the site.
And park dedication and development fees would be required to be paid with platting building
permits.
Finally, one issue that came up last year when this item was discussed last year, and
also Commissioner Beck brought it up at our previous meeting, is access to the site.
It does have a panhandle, so there are limited areas where they could actually access Lockingbird.
I have provided that sort of concept plan that the applicant is looking at.
Engineering has confirmed that the proposal does meet the minimum spacing from the existing
driveways and connections to Lockingbird Lane.
Public outreach was sent out.
There has been a development since the work session.
We had one of the surrounding neighbors did come by City Hall, and he provided to me his
an opposition letter.
And so we do have five in opposition.
I did some quick calculations.
So this is a rough estimate, but it's about a 39% opposition.
So it will require a super majority at City Council due to that opposition.
The applicant has had two neighborhood meetings, one for it from a previous request last year,
and then they also had a virtual meeting recently.
And the applicant is on the phone, and we'll be able to talk to that.
So because the proposal meets the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval of
the request.
The applicant has also requested an overlay condition, and there is something I just want
to mention about that.
So their overlay condition, as proposed, state single-family detached homes only, no town
homes or duplexes will be permitted, even with a variance or specific use permit.
While staff doesn't have an issue with the proposal to limit the permitted uses to single-family
only, the reference to variance should be removed.
That reference does not comply with the Debt and Development Code as well as state law.
So we really ask that that be struck from that overlay should the project be recommended
for approval and approved.
And that concludes my presentation.
Like I said, the applicant is on the phone, and would like to speak, and I will be happy
to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Your presentation jogged a memory from last year when we saw this before.
Do I, and it's quite a while, so is the concept that this will be a single-lane entry with
a single lane between the houses, is that what the space will permit for eight homes?
It is limited.
So their concept plan, which has not gone through engineering review, and this really
is just a straight zoning case, so it's definitely not a set in stone.
But it would require one, it would have one connection to Mockingbird as proposed, and
then turn into the site with kind of one neighborhood street that would have either a cul-de-sac
or some sort of turnaround, and then those homes fronting it with a detention area.
But was the original, I mean, I don't want to hold them to their original concept plan
because that's not really valid, and this is a zoning, but let me say this in a way.
Would R4 with a standard residential street be consistent at this location?
So standard street is two lanes, as it were.
Could we fit that in something similar to what we saw a year ago?
So they have kind of put pencil to paper and have a concept plan that would meet the minimum
lot sizes as well as the right-of-way dimensions required.
So we would require right-of-way dedication in accordance with our criteria manual, which
is 55 feet for a residential lane.
So they would have to meet all of those development standards, and they would have to kind of
make sure that the engineering would meet that, and if it were approved, it would have
to comply with all zoning regulations, dimensional regulations for that R4, and then as well
as the engineering regulations for transportation, drainage, water, waste water.
But given the sort of, I'm going to put this in air quotes, landlocked nature of this property,
being completely surrounded by other properties, the panhandle is the only location that street
access could be developed, is that correct?
Yes, sir, yes.
And so then that would sort of almost demand an interior road of the kind that we were
just sort of discussing, given the R4 density.
Okay, thank you, Julie.
You bet.
Oh, I was on mute.
Julie, you said the applicant has a presentation, or that it's here to answer questions?
Yes, Amy said she doesn't have a presentation, but she is on the phone, I believe, and would
like to speak about the project and answer any questions.
Great.
I am on the line.
Can you guys hear me?
We can.
You have the floor.
Do you just state your name and address?
All right.
Thank you.
Amy Bissett, 100 West Oak Street, Denton 76201.
I want to start by wishing Commissioner Ellis a happy birthday today.
I did pay attention during the work session this afternoon and wanted to take a few minutes
to address some of the questions that were brought up during that time.
While this is a request for R4 zoning with the right-of-way dedication requirements or
roadway width requirements, we would at most be able to get nine single-family lots in
here if it was rezoned from R2 to R4, which is an overall density of 3.45 units per acre,
which is consistent with low-density residential development.
We did have a neighborhood meeting in August once we resurrected this project.
Some of you probably remember seeing it last year where we also asked for R4, and it was
recommended approval by Planning and Zoning Commission with a 4-3 vote at that time.
However, what we heard from the neighbors and heard from the commission was that the
primary concern was that R4 allows for duplexes or townhomes with an SUP.
And so our intent with the overlay condition is to try to make it crystal clear legally
that there is no variance or SUP that would facilitate the opportunity to have duplexes
or townhomes in this area.
We're straight up proposing single-family detached with nine being the maximum number
of lots.
Chair Roussel, I did hear you ask some questions related to the appropriateness of R4 zoning
with the development pattern and what the intent of R4 zoning is in the Denton Development
Code.
There is a statement in the code that reads that it is intended for compatible neighborhood
development but also is appropriate for transition areas between single-family and mixed use.
And essentially I believe what the code is speaking to there is that zoning is typically
expressed in the intensity of use or density of use, and in this case the code is saying
that R4 would be appropriate to straddle between a lower density single-family and a higher
intensity mixed use development.
In this case, we're proposing that it be an instill small development that would be consistent
with the R4 that not only directly surrounds it, but if you were to zoom out on the zoning
map for the city of Denton as a whole, the quadrant of this city is largely predominantly
R4 zoning.
So we do feel that it's compatible with the neighborhood and that it's consistent with
the goals of the COMP plan, which clearly strongly encourage instill development that
is of appropriate scale with the neighborhood.
There was another question that how many lots would we get in R4 versus perhaps the existing
zoning, which is currently R2.
This is an undeveloped piece of property, so it would be considered instill.
And if we were to develop it under R2, we would be able to yield probably four lots,
possibly five, but most likely we would yield four lots.
So essentially what you're contemplating here in terms of impact to the traffic and
to the neighborhood is the difference between four homes and nine homes.
So a net difference of five homes in an area that is surrounded by the same density and
intensity of development.
Now, when we held the neighborhood meeting in August, we did have five people, five neighbors
sign up and attend that meeting, and at the time they expressed support for the overlay
condition and support for the proposed use.
I understand that we do now have some in opposition, but I did want to speak to the fact that at
the time we did propose, we showed them our concept plan and proposed nine homes and received
no opposition to that at the time.
The only opposition we heard was related to the potential for town homes or duplexes within
SUP, which we've made a very strong effort here to make sure that that is not the direction
that we're going and ensuring the neighbors of that.
With that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Michelle Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Amy, thank you very much for the wishes, first of all.
So a couple questions, I guess.
One is at the meetings that you've had, have the surrounding property owners with the bigger
size lots been in attendance?
Off the top of my head, I honestly don't know of the three letters in opposition that were
received, if some of them were in that meeting or not.
I know that the one, the opposition that was registered later this evening on the eastern
side of the property was not in attendance at the neighborhood meeting but had several
one-on-one conversations with the property owner where we believed that this overlay
condition would satisfy his concerns at the time.
That was the understanding that we thought we had.
Okay.
And the other thing I'm struggling with is, you know, we're calling it infill, but it
doesn't really fit the definition of what our infill development is in our code, which
is like a lot like this, I believe, says on three sides would have contiguous development.
And really, the majority of the sides of contiguous development are these larger lots, and the
development really is only contiguous with the southern border as far as density goes.
So I'm struggling with it fitting into the definition of an infill situation.
Can you help me with that at all?
Sure.
So I guess when we're looking at it as an infill development, we're looking at the overall
development pattern within that area of town, and that, like I had mentioned, that quadrant
is predominantly R4 or even more intense than that.
And so we're looking at the larger surrounding area, to be honest.
I did look at the comp plan where it states, specifically, I'll read it to you, the city
should take every opportunity to ensure that as gaps in neighborhood fabric occur, infill
development, that is, the development of vacant or deteriorated properties will be encouraged
complementing the scaling character of each neighborhood.
Currently, that property is undeveloped, so I do think it meets the general criteria of
what the intent of the infill development is in the comp plan, and when you look generally
at the overall development pattern, I do believe that it's compatible.
I appreciate that perspective.
I'll leave it to other commissioners with questions.
Thanks, Amy.
Christopher Smith.
Hey, Chair.
Amy, would you be just looking at the design standards for R2 versus R4, and this may not
be really a huge concession here for the residents, but basically the biggest thing on the setback
standards making some of the aesthetics change a little bit, front yard, backyard, setbacks
are all pretty much the same, 20 and 10 respectively between R2 and R4.
The only difference is the side yard setbacks from 10 to five.
Would you be willing for us to change and add an overlay to maybe change the side yard
setbacks to 10 instead of five to possibly give a little bit?
To me, it would seem like it would give a little more space in between the homes and
maybe not feel so impactful for there to be nine units in that acreage versus what R2
would allow us to set four units in that acreage.
Sure.
So I'm actually going to ask Jason Feigley to answer that question.
He's the civil engineer on the project who has done the conceptual layout to date and
may be able to speak to whether that additional setback is feasible or not, but we also have
a property owner, Pindari Pothini on the line who may be able to answer that question directly.
Okay, sorry, I was having trouble unmuting it there.
So yes, Jason Feigley with Allison Engineering and the 10 foot side yard shouldn't be a problem.
The only reason I'm going to say that we would like to keep it at five is for the potential
of having some three car garage type layouts.
You know, again, since we don't have the first plat yet to lock us into the 10 foot, I hate
to kind of pass it back off to Pindari that the 10 foot would work for a standard 50 foot
pad, which you can get a three foot or you can get a three car garage and a 50 foot pad.
I don't know how much he wants to limit because these are going to be these aren't track type
homes.
I mean, with nine individual homes is going to be custom semi custom.
And just to allow the most flexibility, you know, I don't know if we can even do a variable
have like 10 on one side and five on the other maybe, you know, like, or say at least one
of the side yards will be a 10 foot side yard.
I feel pretty confident that again, it's just it's just a lot of the most flexibility for
a custom product.
Yeah, I guess I understand the flexibility for the custom products.
And thank you for mentioning that.
I think that's important to know that maybe for any community members who are afraid that
it's just going to be a bunch of, you know, box homes that are kind of popped up and they're
all cookie cutter and look the same.
I just know that and this doesn't really necessarily help with any other bigger issues that I know
Commissioner Beck, Commissioner Roselle brought up about traffic mitigation and density issues.
But if in my opinion, as we kind of look at this and should go on this more between work
session and now is that while the density is an issue, I think the point that it is
infill is important to make known that this is rural land, you know, undeveloped land currently.
I think that maybe instead of having really close lot line homes in that property, if
it was changed to an R4, it would it would aesthetically make a little more pleasing
to the neighbors if they, you know, then we're really not talking about a big difference
in traffic as Ms. Setz mentioned.
So I would prefer to have it be 10 in general if you think that from an engineering standpoint,
it's not a not an issue.
And I get that maybe it's a sacrifice of custom ability, but that might be the price to pay
for me or the ability to do this infill there where you are taking what everyone is surrounding
it is used to rural land and putting up homes.
Sure.
And that would maybe be a concession made and if I can add one more thing as well, you
know, we we deliberately in our in our layouts, we we have the lots deeper so that we're not
so Julie mentioned the fence line trees on the east side, south side.
You know, our intent is to keep all those trees up.
We're not trying to clear this out property line to property line.
So we want it.
So they are a little bit narrower, deeper lots so that those so that the perimeter can
remain untouched and I appreciate you mentioning that the I guess the other point to that would
be, though, knowing that the response has been at 39 percent now and response and opposition
is 39 percent.
So forcing a super majority at council, this might be a good concession be made to say,
hey, we're we understand that that's there's concerns about it, but we want to try to give
as little impact as we can, but also still recognize that it is nine homes.
It is infill on undeveloped land.
We want to try to make it at least livable to the eyes of the neighbors rather than rather
than not.
So.
OK, thank you very much, Jason.
I appreciate it.
Sure.
And I guess the last thing is that I've got a side text going here with with the property
owner and he's on line as well.
And he did say that that he would make that concession.
So he would he would make the agreement for 10 foot side yards.
Good work.
City staff.
Is there any issues with that?
So that's a that's something I've been on here for three years now and never never made
a made a number of labor side yard setbacks to make sure there's no issues there.
Making that recommendation.
I'm not aware of any.
Thank you.
Appreciate it.
Any other questions for the applicant or Julie?
So I got a couple of questions.
Yes, either Miss Bassett or Mr. Faley could maybe answer one, Mr. Figley, you mentioned
that you'd made deeper, narrower lots.
Is it possible to make shallow lots?
I'm just looking at the lot.
It seems like deeper lots were kind of a forced issue on on your end.
Is that a bad assessment?
Because it looks like you're not to make one road in and that's basically determines the
lot size.
It seems like you have to have deeper lots.
Not necessarily.
We looked at we looked at multiple configurations of this.
I mean, obviously, the first thing we try to do is we have a set acreage and a set boundary
and it's what fits the surrounding properties as well and what were property boundary and
not put any houses on the north side.
We very deliberately brought in a road along the north side, didn't swing it south so that
we could have a buffer between this development and the homes to the north, especially there
is there's one home directly adjacent to us kind of in the middle.
You there, Jason?
Is it back?
I think we may have Jason, we lost you for a minute.
Okay.
You're back.
For that.
Okay.
I'm not sure where I heard where it left off, but directly adjacent, we do have there is
an existing house there on the north side that that has a very shallow backyard.
And so we were trying to provide a buffer to that.
And so I looked at running lots north, south or east, west, and it just fit to bring the
street down straight, pretty much straight to the middle of the site.
And yes, from that point of view, you do end up with deeper lots.
But that configuration was chosen because we were trying to save the trees as well.
We want he wants the owner wants this to be a nice and we're calling it infill, even though
then as Margie mentioned, it's it doesn't directly meet the definition of infill.
But it is and he wants us to be a nice little private development nine homes that you keep
the surrounding trees you you aren't you won't you don't have your backyard directly adjacent
to an existing home with that that's that's 1012 feet off off their back property line.
And so we had a couple different layouts that that had a pie shaped spiked lots off of a
cul de sac.
And those were shallower.
They were wider and shallower.
So you know, again, there's there's a lot of different configurations.
And this one just seemed to be the most efficient for the existing boundary, as well as preserve
the perimeter and provide buffers for the adjacent neighbors.
I appreciate you clarifying that for me.
Did y'all as a team look at or can you tell me about your feasibility studies or your
IRR assessments or economics about nine homes versus four homes?
And this might be a better discussion for for Bundari to speak on, you know, what what
exactly do you know how much extra does five houses get you?
Because there's tradeoffs, right?
You know, if we go four houses, we can share a driveway per your code and and not have
to build the private street.
We don't need an HOA.
We don't we don't need that that kind of governing body for the the homes that would be would
be built there could just be built for houses, just share a driveway.
Four houses can share a driveway.
You're breaking up, Jason.
You're breaking up.
And a little bit.
This is.
Okay.
We did discuss the possibility of those lots, these looking around the current property
values in the area.
The economics is not making sense as of yet.
And also the other concern some of the neighbors had is driving up the property values.
When we start putting in bigger lots and bigger homes, that's obviously going to have a impact
on the neighborhood property valuations as well.
So that's I want to be very sensitive to that fact.
That's why we nine homes would be very consistent with the majority of the surrounding neighbors.
And just to clarify, when you say the majority of the surrounding neighbors, you're not talking
about the ones actually touching the property you're talking about ones more largely in
the area.
Correct.
That is correct.
And then the other question I had is, as you looked at larger homes and property values,
do you look at the difference in the economic impact to the city of Denton in terms of revenues
between four and nine homes?
Because it seems the intent of that question is four homes that are higher property value
versus nine homes that are less high property value.
I'm just wondering what the city is gaining economically by you building more homes.
Definitely would building more homes would be economically benefiting the city.
Right.
For sure.
I'm not debating that.
Right.
Well, except that if you build a road, the city has to then manage it.
But it sounds like with four houses, you just do a private drive and the city wouldn't have
to manage that.
Correct.
I believe the proposed plan has a private drives.
The city would not have to maintain that.
That was that's the I don't know, Amy or we are clear about it.
That's a subdivision.
That's a neighborhood road.
It's maintained by an HOA.
So the city would not have to maintain that driveway.
This is Amy.
We looked at we looked at two scenarios with the neighborhood when we had neighborhood
meetings.
One was where the city maintained the road and one was where it was built to send a city
standards, but it was privately maintained.
And there were some advantages for the neighborhood for those neighbors who do directly about
us to being a privately maintained road.
So that was going to be our our proposal.
Chair Rozelle was that it would be HOA maintained road as well as the green space and detention
on the north side of the property.
So I don't know that it would add much of a more of a burden, if any more of a burden
to the city in terms of services and expenses, but it would take your, you know, your property
taxes up from four houses to nine.
When you say there's benefit to the adjacent property owners for being a private drive,
can you expand on that a little bit?
Yes, the public drive required a roundabout for for fire access on the south side of the
property, which meant that the the properties that directly abutted to the south were less
deep and provided, I guess, from their perspective, a little less privacy from their backyards.
And so with with the private option, I believe it was going to be a hammerhead situation,
which allowed more more backyard, deeper lots and less imposition to to the neighbors at
that point.
And that we I can show you, I have those concept plans if we want to have a look at them.
Obviously, they're just concepts at this point in time.
But that was what was contemplated both times that we met with the neighbors was we have
two options and they preferred the one that was privately maintained.
I appreciate the offer the concept plan.
I'm tempted to accept that.
But this is being a zoning case, I don't want to convolute the waters probably already then
we already have.
Absolutely.
So let's I'll pass on on seeing the concept plan for the purpose of focusing on zoning.
But I appreciate that insight as any other questions at this time, we don't have any
public comment.
And so what I'll do is I'll go ahead and close the public hearing.
We can take a motion or further discussion.
Commissioner Smith, make a motion to approve with staff recommendations and the overlay
as well as my additional overlay of changing the side yard setbacks from five feet to 10
feet.
We have a motion to approve with staff recommendations, including the addition of an increased setback
from five to 10 feet on both sides.
Is that correct?
Mr. Smith?
Yes, it is.
Okay, Christian Anderson.
Second the motion.
Okay, we have a first and a second any discussion.
We got two discussions.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thanks, Chair.
Was there needing to be clarity on removing that verbiage about variance or is that what
we're considering staff recommendation?
Is that included in the staff recommendation wording?
Commissioner Smith?
Yes, it is.
Christian Anderson.
Thanks, Chair.
I was just going to make a comment that I remember this being brought up last year.
And I spoke with several of the neighbors that stayed around after the meeting and wanted
to speak about this.
And as Amy Mispis spoke about a minute ago, their big concern to me was apartments and
townhomes being built on the backside that can overlook their property.
And you know, now I think that they have put in there and staff has recommended removing
the verbiage of townhomes and apartments on there.
I think that would make the neighbors feel a lot better.
Thank you, Christian Anderson.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
So I take Commissioner Anderson's point, but if they had that discussion and do we know
if the five in opposition knew about the overlay, do we know if they know about the overlay
condition that's being proposed or are we at 39% in opposition with the knowledge of
an overlay condition?
Commissioner Beck, if I could weigh in, it's really hard to speculate on the knowledge
of their opposition.
I think the best speculation is that everything was posted and they opposed what was posted.
It is true.
I take the Chair's point.
Thank you, Chair.
Any other discussion?
We have a first and a second on the table.
But before we go to the vote, I'm just going to say my piece.
I'm not in support of this, mainly because looking at the zoning maps, it doesn't make
sense.
It doesn't seem to be an infill because in the backyard of the West property, which is
R2, it would be an R4.
In the backyard of the North property, which is R2, it would be an R4.
In the backyard of the East property, which is an R2, it would be an R4.
If this is supposed to be a transition from one neighborhood into something else, that's
not this.
This is from an R2 to something and then back to an R2.
And so just the structure of -- it seems like the intent of infill and trying to align zoning,
that map just reeks to me of differences.
And so if there's an R2 already existing, then I think that that entire block is best
served to be R2, and I think -- I'm no expert on this, but the feasibility and economics
of putting four houses, it seems like the project's still feasible.
I didn't hear at any point this evening that at four homes, this project can't go forward
or to think that any developer couldn't make financial sense to build an R2 development
here.
As often sometimes zoning is necessary in order for development to happen, period, based
on the confines of the lot.
I didn't hear that this evening.
It seems like it's economically possible to build four homes there.
They don't need additional homes to support the economics of building out the infrastructure
and the actual homes themselves.
And so there's just not a preponderance of evidence to me to suggest that what's best
for the city is to build an R4.
It seems what's best for the developers to build an R4, which is their prerogative, but
it's not one that I can support tonight.
So with that, I'll go ahead and call for a vote via roll call.
And just to remind you, the vote is on the table for approval with staff recommendations,
including the striking of variance, as well as the additional side yard setbacks from
five to 10 feet on each side.
So with that, Commissioner Ellis.
Before my vote, I just wanted to say a couple of words, please.
And that's just that we have an infill development definition for a reason.
This doesn't fit it at all.
I mean, the property is surrounded by larger lots.
It's just not an infill development to me and it is not something I can support.
I am a nay.
Commissioner Beck.
Similarly, I think the density is just a little odd and I agree with the comments that have
been made.
So I'm going to have to say nay as well.
Commissioner Pernetta.
That was a nay.
Thank you for clarifying.
Commissioner Cole.
Nay.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
The chair is a nay.
Motion fails 5-2.
Chair will entertain another motion.
Commissioner Ellis.
I move denial of the request.
We have a first for denial.
Commissioner Cole.
Second.
We have a first and a second for denial.
Any additional discussion?
Seeing none, I call for a vote.
The roll call again, a support of this motion is a denial.
Commissioner Ellis.
Aye.
Commissioner Beck.
Aye.
Commissioner Pernetta.
That was an aye.
Yes.
Thank you.
Commissioner Cole.
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson.
Aye.
Commissioner Smith.
Aye.
Chairs, also an aye.
Motion carries 7-0.
Next item of business is item 5B, AESA 20-0002B.
I will call Kristi Upton for presentation and open the public hearing.
Good evening, commissioners, Kristi Upton with environmental services and I will be presenting
an alternative ESA plan for Eagle Cove.
The property is located generally south of Judge's Drive and west of loop 288.
It is a 56 single family lot development where the preliminary plat was approved on March
18th and has three common lot areas.
In order to construct this development, the applicant is proposing impacts to riparian
buffer ESAs and undeveloped floodplain ESA.
The riparian buffer, for a little background on what is found on site, the riparian buffer
is associated with a tributary to Pecan Creek and is 50 feet on each side of the stream
and encumbers 2.94 acres of the entire lot and was found to be in good condition.
The undeveloped floodplain was recently, the boundaries of that was recently modified based
upon a LOMAR approved by FEMA in July and that reduced the size of the undeveloped floodplain
so that only 0.18 acres is found on this property.
In addition, there's cross timbers upland habitat that is found co-located with the
riparian buffer and is 3.76 acres of upland habitat on the property, contiguous with 10
acres of upland habitat on adjacent property.
There's some permitted encroachments that will be occurring with approval of this plan
and that would be undeveloped floodplain ESA.
There would be 0.1 acres that would be permanently removed for the placement of some culverts
and bridges and then the cross timbers upland habitat, there will be 1.05 acres removed.
That's generally the area located, those upland habitat areas located on the southern
border and some of the lots and the culverts and bridges for the road construction.
The riparian buffer ESA impacts is what triggers the requirement for this alternative ESA plan
in order to construct these roadways and the placement of the storm drain and a little
bit of encroachment of a lot on the northwest side of the property.
There would be permanent removal of 20,900 square feet of ESAs of the riparian buffer
and then 29,410 square feet of the riparian buffer that would be disturbed.
There are some proposed mitigations, the preservation of the remaining ESA plus an expanded habitat
by restricting the HOA lots to remain in a natural state.
This would add an additional 1.2 acres of expanded habitat alongside that channel and
would be an increase of ratio of 2 to 5.1.
In addition, there would be further preservation and also education for the residents and for
the public of the areas that would remain in the natural state by placing some grow
zone signs which would promote no mowing of the HOA lots and a sign explaining the cross
timbers upland habitat.
I also wanted to explain lot 18A.
This was not previously identified on the preliminary plot as an HOA lot.
It was identified as a buildable lot.
With the identification of this riparian buffer on this lot, the applicant is proposing to
place this lot in an HOA which would preserve the remaining riparian buffer that is located
on the lot.
For the areas that would be disturbed, the applicant is proposing restoration work.
That would be the area outlined in green.
This would be the final stabilization that we talked about earlier in the previous presentation
of this and the restoration would be the seeding of a native grass instead of your typical
landscaping grasses that are used for stabilization.
There would be improvement of the habitat by removing Chinese privet that is located
within the riparian buffer and in the mitigation areas and then the riparian buffer would be
further improved by revegetation with native grasses which would promote a healthier habitat.
There are some considerations of the preliminary plot.
The preliminary plot satisfies the requirements, the development code.
That did identify some concerns during the review and drainage in particular was deferred
to the civil plans and that deferment was a full review of the storm drainage structures
to support the development and a full review of downstream impacts.
Tree preservation wise, the applicant provided and satisfied a preliminary tree preservation
plan, however, trees within the alternative mitigation area may not count towards tree
preservation and replacement.
In order to satisfy the tree preservation requirements, the applicant has identified
an area that is upland habitat adjacent to the riparian buffer and is removing the designation
of cross timbers upland habitat which would allow for that area to be placed in the development
impact area and trees within that area to be counted towards tree preservation.
There was one response and it was from the subject property owner in favor of the project.
Staff is recommending approval of the request with the following conditions that the prior
to the plotting approval of the ESAs in the mitigation area shall be deed restricted.
You might notice that during the break, staff identified what we think would be a more clear
direction to the applicant as to how to satisfy the conditions by striking condition two and
placing that in condition one and being more specific that that would be for the ESAs in
the mitigation area.
The land disturbances would be limited to what is outlined in the alternative ESA plan
and then following the construction of the infrastructure that the vegetation be restored
as outlined in the alternative ESA plan and then prior to any issuance of any building
permits for any structure that the applicant removed the Chinese privet as outlined in
the alternative ESA plan.
And then six and seven are conditions that environmental services has been placing on
alternative ESA plans in order to achieve survivability of the vegetation that is being
offered up.
And then condition eight, if civil engineering plans or other subsequent approvable plans
identify a modification to this alternative ESA plan, that a revised plan be brought back
to this commission and the council in accordance with the DDC.
And that's it.
Questions?
Thank you, Kristy, for your presentation.
Kushir Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Kristy, I'm not going to jump all over you again like I did during workstation.
I apologize for that.
You give very clear presentations and I want to commend you on that.
I just want to sort of bullet point some of the things that I talked about at workstation
and that is that while I commend the engineers for some of the steps that they're taking
in terms of the recovery of the riparian buffer, this is a mixed upland riparian buffer region
and has particular needs.
And this region extends up and downstream and will result in flooding and overflows
at those bridges.
You have trees in these regions and that will happen and they will flood these homes that
we're going to build, at least the ones surrounding the bridges.
In addition, those roads and homes on the south side are going to be cutting into the
upland habitat.
We're going to have soil creep, which is against 735.
We're going to have flood risk in the parcel, south of the adjacent parcel, which we're
not allowed to have impacts on adjacent parcels.
And we're going to have impacts on downstream parcels.
So again, we're going to have financial and environmental impacts.
And staff actually even acknowledges those.
You did it in your presentation, we did it in March.
Staff agrees with me.
So I know that staff thinks that under 28 and 774 that there's room for flex, but even
there they said you had some concerns about the civil plans and some of the other contingencies
that need to be in place for you to make a full evaluation and that you could put, I
think it was condition eight that you could wait on that.
But I think we need to see those contingencies before we approve and see, especially in sensitive
regions that you can't recover.
When we tear it out, it is what it is.
If we build homes in there, it floods.
So I'm not going to continue on.
Oh, I do have one other point.
And that was a small quibble that, yes, this was an approval, but this was an HP 3164 shot
clock approval.
The PZC didn't actually approve this, shot clock approved this.
So that's a slight difference than an approval, a standard approval anyway.
So with that, I will just say that those are comments more than questions to Christy.
So thank you, Christy.
I appreciate those comments, Christian or Bec, is there any other questions for Christy
on this item?
It looks like we do have someone in the public wanting to speak, Mr. Zilke, are you applicant
or member of the public?
Yes, sir.
Good evening, Chairman.
My name's Rob Zilke.
I'm with ZPS engineers at 1111 South Main Street in Grapevine, Texas.
I wanted to just be sure and have the opportunity to address some of the questions and comments.
Would this be the appropriate time?
This is the perfect time.
I appreciate you being here.
I've heard Commissioner Bec's recent comments and I also made some notes from the work session.
So I'd like to address those just briefly.
Commissioner Bec had primarily the same concerns when we went through the preliminary planning
process and he and I had a sidebar meeting and discussed those.
I am a hydrologist and hydraulic engineer that's done floodplain modeling for 30 some
odd years, very familiar with your floodplain criteria and your staff and consultants that
do that review.
And I won't go through the explanations and discussions that Commissioner Bec and I had
at that time.
I just point out that in the preliminary planning process, we did extensive floodplain modeling.
There are a couple of minor comments that need to be addressed in the CEP process, but
they will not affect the AESA.
So some of the indeterminate elements, particularly one was the downstream assessment.
There was a request for us to move our downstream section in our hydraulic model just to assure
that that didn't have an impact and we've done that and it won't, but that will be addressed
in the CEP.
So the other two additional comments that I wanted to add on to Kristy's wonderful presentation.
We did do a citizen participation program, mailed out over 300 invitations, solicitations
to participate in a website that we set up and we actually had no one participate in
our website reading.
And also I just wanted to comment on the 52,000 square feet, odd square feet of additional
mitigation area that we're proposing to mitigate in addition to preserving the riparian buffer
area.
We've identified that that area in particular is, I'm going to use the word infested with
small post oak trees.
So we feel that that mitigation area there, although it isn't reflected in a tree survey
because the trees are relatively small, if that area is protected and not mowed and particularly
if the privets were moved to kind of eliminate the competition, we think we'll have an even
better post oak growth in that mitigation area.
But with that, I think that covers the notes that I had and be glad to address any other
questions.
Well, Mr. Zilke, I appreciate being here, is there any questions from Mr. Zilke?
Mr. Chair, I just wanted to double check that you opened the public hearing for this item.
I'm relatively certain, but if not, well, let's go ahead and just reiterate that this
is a public hearing, I can go ahead and open it.
Any other questions outstanding for staff or anything?
We don't have any public comments.
So at this time, I will close the public hearing and turn to the virtual dais for a motion
or discussion.
Everyone knows what I'm going to do.
I'm going to motion to deny because I think this needs more work and my justification
for that, I think I stated before, but I'll reiterate, is I don't think it meets flood
plain risks under 751.
I talked about the soil creep under 735.
We're removing an ESA, so that covers under 741B, and I don't think the arguments that
staff made for 28 and 774 for tree preservation are complete yet, and so we're putting the
cart before the horse.
We don't have a full development plan.
To some degree, even the engineers comments, and I appreciate that, and I think they are
trying and I'm not saying that this will never happen in my mind, I'm saying that I think
that much more work needs to be done before you get something where you are creating flood
risk and environmental risk.
I think we have more work to be done.
So those are my justifications for denial, a motion for denial.
Thank you Commissioner Beck, we have a motion for denial.
Is there a second?
Seeing none, that motion fails.
I'll move approval, and I will just say I do appreciate Commissioner Beck's thoughtfulness
in this.
For me, I am absolutely not an expert in this, and I have got to defer to our staff, and
I think our staff did a beautiful job presenting us with very good, solid, understandable information
to make the best informed choice that we can.
We can't think about what-ifs and what-mights and things like that.
We've got to go by their expertise.
So with that, I will move approvals.
Thank you Commissioner Ellis.
Commissioner Anderson.
I second the motion, I totally agree with Commissioner Ellis' assessment.
I think staff did a great job as well, Mr. Zilke expressed, he addressed a lot of our
concerns that I had that made me feel a bit more comfortable.
We have a first and a second for approval, any discussion?
Commissioner Pernetta.
I guess I support us approving this one.
I do want to say that I appreciate Commissioner Beck's questions.
I think for me, one of the things that I didn't see coming out of the questions was what would
make it acceptable, and whether or not that's something that could be done with the extension
or something like that at this point.
Yeah, I think right now, the concerns are valid.
I don't know what the path forward would be to eliminate those and whether or not basically
there's much we can do that would make this significantly better going forward quickly,
I guess.
That's all I've got.
Thank you, Commissioner Pernetta.
I agree with Commissioner Ellis and Commissioner Beck, I am appreciative of your thoughtfulness
in the discussion.
I think those questions were all valid and the points that you brought up, I think, highlight
the things that need to be addressed.
I'm particularly interested in the anecdotal evidence you provided to the flooding at Windsor,
your neighborhood, and what potentially could happen on this property.
And so I'm in support of the overall project, but I am urging the applicant as well as city
to take Commissioner Beck's caution of flooding at those culverts seriously to I don't know
what mitigation can go down the road, but hopefully we're looking at that from a staff
level so we don't back up the upland or back down from the flooding and clogging that Commissioner
Beck had brought to my attention this evening.
But with that, we'll go ahead and vote via roll call.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Beck?
Nay.
Commissioner Pernetta?
Aye.
Commissioner Anderson?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Chair is also an aye.
Motion carries 6-1.
The next item of business for this evening is our planning and zoning matrix.
What I'll do is I'll turn the floor over initially to Richard for any updates he has and then
to the dais for comment.
Any update?
Not much on the matrix.
We may actually move some of the items around that we were anticipating coming to the first
meeting in October.
It does look like as of today, at least, we will be on the October 6th City Council work
session for the gas well setbacks related to plug wells.
So if that is, what I'd like to do then is just bring that the following night to the
planning and zoning commission.
And so as we start to progress towards the end of the month and I have a better idea,
I'll keep everyone apprised.
So you might see one or two items shift, but that would be the reason why is that we're
just bringing that gas well item right on the heels of council.
The only other item I'll quickly update everyone on is just some actions that occurred last
night at the City Council meeting.
Both the Denton Grove SGP and related escrow agreement were approved.
The Forster Razor Alt ESA, which came back on reconsideration, was also approved.
The Mingo Road Apartments were approved.
The PD amendment for the charter school was also approved.
And the Primaris rezoning was approved with a little change.
If you recall, there were some overlay conditions that were requested and recommended by planning
and zoning commission.
As we were drafting the ordinance in consultation with legal, it was determined that those conditions
were not actually -- or overlay really wasn't needed.
There are provisions in the DDC that allow staff to have that -- make those interpretations
as well as grant that conditional approval related to that use.
What I'll do is we'll make sure that everyone has a copy of the AIS that accompanied that
item last night so you see the reasoning or rationale behind that so you have a better
explanation.
And with that, I'd be happy to answer any additional questions.
>> All right.
Anyone got anything?
Yeah, I have one thing, not seeing any hands fighting for attention here.
Item 5A tonight, the -- oh, you know the one, guys, the one we just did, Mockingbird Nadra.
There was a striking of the word variance, do we need to look at like a code amendment?
It seemed like that word variance is no longer even permitted from the state, if I interpret
that correctly.
What do we need to do from a commission to clean up that language or we're just going
to continue having conditions to remove that word?
>> Mr. Chair?
>> Yes.
>> I can respond to that.
>> Please.
>> It was explained during her presentation that the DDC and Texas law prohibit use variances.
That's essentially what that condition was saying is that there won't be a use variance
for townhomes and duplexes.
The ZBA doesn't have the authority to grant use variances.
So that's why that language is struck.
It was unnecessary and inappropriate and confusing.
>> So that language is a formulated condition.
That's not defined out in our code or anything.
Maybe that's where my confusion was.
>> What she was referring to is there's only certain authority in the DDC for the ZBA.
One of them is not issuing a use variance.
>> Okay.
I apologize for that long explanation.
>> I think I understand.
I thought there was a reference to the code that was not -- never mind.
That was my confusion.
Commissioner Beck, I thought I saw your hand there.
>> Yeah.
I was just going to point out, Chair, what you realized at the last moment already.
So it was that.
And if I could, since I have the floor for a moment, I also wish Commissioner Ellis happy
birthday.
>> Absolutely.
Happy birthday, Commissioner.
>> Thank you.
I appreciate that.
>> Pleasure serving with you.
Happy birthday.
>> Thank you.
>> Is there anything else for the matrix?
Okay.
Thank you, everyone, for a fantastic meeting.
I will close it at 754.
Be safe.