Nov 04, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2020-11-04 4:00 PM

good afternoon welcome to the planning and zoning work session meeting for Wednesday November 4th 2020 we do have a quorum so I'll call the meeting to order at 403 just let the record show that we currently are absent the following commissioners Commissioner Smith Commissioner Pernetta and Commissioner Anderson as they join I will update the record for that and looking at the agenda for today the first item is citizen comments on the consent agenda we have none so we can go right into the work session reports we have one this afternoon it's item 2a pz 20 - two five four receive a report and hold the discussion and give staff input regarding the assessment and use of parkland dedication and park development fees so with that I'll turn it over to staff for presentation good afternoon everyone my name is Laura Barron's I recently served as the assistant director for parks and recreation and am now the grant administrator for the city but prior to moving over to my new position Gary and I started an update of an ordinance for our park land dedication and park development fees and I'd like to give you an update on that progress our park dedication known as 915 and our park development known as 916 funds were originally adopted in 1998 under ordinance 98 - 0 3 9 park dedication is the allocation of land for developments of parks and park development is the allocation of funding for park improvements both of them provide recreational areas as part of the planning and development process they apply to new residential subdivisions only Laura we have a question from Christian back and I bet I know what it is Christian back are we supposed to be seeing something or is this an auditory presentation oh hang on just a second that was what I thought he's gonna be asking share is what's not sharing my do apologize we're not a great mind think alike they say here we go can you see that yeah it's perfect sorry here we go the 915 916 funds park dedication and park development apply to new residential subdivisions only they do impact neighborhood parks directly benefiting residents of a development the intent is to keep pace with growth and to also keep pace with the need that is created by new developments and it conveys the cost to the user so rather than existing citizens paying for the cost of new growth or increased use and a part that is a result of a new development that is passed on to the new development and the and the new users the current ordinance hasn't changed there have been no updates since its adoption the land requirement currently has a factor of 2.9 acres per a population of a thousand it is based on the number of dwelling units of a new development and it does have a factor of residents per dwelling unit for single-family and multifamily the fee in lieu of requirement is based on individual property so if for whatever reason a development is unable to or does not want to provide land as part of their development they can pay a fee in lieu of that land requirement and then on the 916 that fees currently based on a cost of two hundred and eight thousand dollars to develop a five acre park which we know is is very undervalued and it also sets a fee for single-family and multifamily dwelling units both of them have a parameter of use of a half a mile to a mile radius and that has presented some challenges for us over the last 20 years it's been a long time and originally that was based to meet a legal requirement that we'll review in just the next slide but today what that's actually doing for us is it's it's creating some challenges on the strategic planning side we're looking at where we have money rather than where the need is that's that's the main issue and that's causing some also some funding gaps within the city because not all development is the same and it's not all happening in the same areas and then it's also causing some administrative challenges in terms of tracking that money because we have to use it within that parameter we have to know then at all times where that money was given to us so that we'll know what that half mile to mile radius is for use and over the years that can if a development changes its name or that neighborhood changes names but it's under an original developer name or project name we've had some difficulties in trying to go back search the records and find out where exactly that the location where that money came from so that we know that we're using it appropriately under the proposed ordinance we update several factors first of all we update our demographics and our development costs and to keep updated we also have a three-year review process in the proposed ordinance so that we don't get behind on those things in the future we also establish city zones rather than parameters that will help with strategic planning and then also with those administrative challenges that we have moving forward we also develop a level of service or we establish a level of service and I'll go into that more in just a few slides it does set fees rather than making it by individual development and this entire process has been a collaboration between our department and dr. John Crompton whose services we engaged he is with the Texas A&M University and is a recognized expert in this particular subject we've also presented this information several times to the developer group meetings those town hall meetings that are hosted by our development services department and we have a smaller focus group that we were meeting with on a monthly basis up until the spring that has about 11 representatives over eight different firms that work in the development field that have gone through this process with us helped us establish a new methodology and have also gone through the proposed ordinance in detail so one of the things that we're having to look at are the legal basis for this particular fee there are two Supreme Court rulings on part fees and that first one Nolan versus California it established it's called a nexus principle which is where we got that original proximity from it is it stated that the funds deposited within a zone or a district however it was set up at that time had to be expended within that zone or district it had to be located in proximity of the new residential development in 1994 there was a second Supreme Court review of this particular fee and they redefined that nexus principle into what they called rough proportionality and it became a little bit more specific they said we had to actually have a connection between the imposed requirement or the imposed fee on the development that was placed on the development and the park use projected as a result of that new development and that what that for yes sir okay what that forced us to do was to take an individual approach to establishing our fees and what that means is we can't solely base our fees off of benchmarking we have to be able to show what on the ground what our service level is and what that connection is between what we're saying is an increased use in our park and how we use the imposed fees for that area Christian back yeah thank you chair and and thank you I didn't mean to like constantly Twitter and interrupt your I was waiting for you to get to a positive point I apologize so I'm trying to understand this ruling does this mean that it this this park has to be adjacent to the development or a part of the development or I mean if this can't apply to any park that citizens of that development would use no it no it does not say it doesn't get as specific as saying the exact location like adjacent to it just says that we have to establish a connection between the imposed requirement whether it's the land requirement or the fee and the projected use so we can then establish our own criteria in terms of proximities if we want to go again in that direction or zones some people call them districts so they divide their city up and they say within this area these residents are more likely to visit these parks or impact and use the parks within this area and that's the connection that we established and I can show you what we used to do that here shortly and real quick before you get to that section because I saw part of the presentation on zones it does the park have to be in the zone yes okay so if I'm in don't be which I think I am if I remember your map and I go down to Wigley Field with my dog that that park is not in my zone but I use that constantly well now I also use the the new dog park in a but I'm using both of those all the time and yet we are not allowed to address that usage and all of Denton uses the the various large fields correct now that that's a great point and so what legally what we are specifically prohibited in using this funds for a specialized parks so something like a dog park would be a specialized park and we wouldn't be able to use this particular funding source for specialized parks because not everyone is a user of those specialized parks however we can use it for a city park and we did actually establish a 10% factor that would go towards city parks so whatever payment is made 10% of that will go towards city parks and we got to that 10% because city parks actually make up 12% of our inventory but we just wanted to use just kind of a rounded off number instead of saying 12% our proposed city park contribution is 10% of whatever that total contribution is and that could be used anywhere thanks for the clarification I appreciate absolutely under the rough proportionality test it also assumes that new residents will require the same level of service as existing residents so anyone new coming in wants to have the same services that any existing resident already has again legally we're prohibited from increasing the level of service through a fee so we can't say what we'd really like to have is this kind of park so we're gonna charge you for that type of park when that's not the current level of service and then through this process we establish or determine a level of service so what is that level of service you may recognize or this may look a little familiar to you our proposed district or zone map it is the modified road path roadway impact map and we modified it because we took several factors into consideration and those factors included population within each service area existing acres of Park in each service area the average price per parcel in each service area and that's for residential parcels only those are decad decad values that we used and we've also updated our cost to develop a park if you'll recall the current ordinance is at $208,000 for a five acre park so we took all of those factors plugged them into these zones and we also took it a step further we identified the needs through our strategic master plan that Gary and the park team continue to work on we've identified needs within our community so we took those into consideration when we looked at this map and modified it and then we've also worked very closely with our development services group and identifying future growth so that we're able to see where proposed developments are coming in and how that will impact the zones in the future so when we look at these and we start to look at the factors within each zone you'll see that they're a little uneven but they will actually start to stabilize and equal out as developments do come in so this is all of the factors put together for each zone and what that looks like let's just take zone a for instance we've got a population just under 36,000 we have 117 acres of park currently in that zone we have just under 6,000 residential parcels with a land value of right at four hundred and thirty seven million dollars in zone a and if you look across you can see again some of those populations go up and down obviously E this is our Robeson ranch area probably has some of the lowest factors there in terms of population park acres residential parcels everything is is lower in that but we also know that we have a major development that's coming into E in our hunter and coal ranch project so that is an area that will stable kind of stable out that'll even out as we get that growth and similarly we took that same approach into the other zones Laura this is Gary can you explain why there's only 117 acres in section a that's not including the citywide parks correct so the park acres that are shown on this map and that are included in our in our calculations are just for those community and neighborhood parks so the city parks are not in the in those numbers so North Lakes for instance is not calculated into a North Lakes is right under four hundred acres sure back did you have a question thank you chair Gary anticipated it there's there's apparently two telepathic people in the meeting tonight so yes my question was exactly we were being shown large city parks right and there was a it didn't seem to jive with the columns to the left and they explained it so thank you both great so in using these factors we determined a level of service based on the number of dwelling units per park acre and that's the number that you see within each zone so in zone a we have a hundred and eight dwelling units per park acre when we look at land dedication that service level becomes our new land requirement so a development coming in to zone a would have to provide one acre of park property for every 108 dwelling units that are proposed in their development if they wanted to pay the fee in lieu of based on the average cost of parcels or I'm sorry average land value of those parcels we get to a figure of 698 per dwelling unit in our fee in lieu of land dedication and you can see how that carries out across the zones again there's there's a pretty wide swing there in zone e we're up at a thousand dollars per dwelling unit zone a you know we're looking at about 700 our lowest is zone B at 372 hour I'm sorry three hundred and seventy two dollars for a dwelling unit Chris you're back thank you chair and this I think you're telling me that that these units are based on the cost of land in these zones is that correct so that's the why there's a discrepancy that the fee in lieu is for e is because that land is currently at a higher retail value it's going to be based on the average land value per parcel and also the existing service level there so those two factors are creating the swings okay thank you that's all pulled from deep head so just kind of wanted to show you an example of what a calculation would look like today if somebody came to us the development came to us and this was actually sell one from a couple of years ago so this information is probably two three years old but if they came to us today or when they came to us at that time this was the proposed calculation for land dedication based on a 300 unit development and then what that would look like under the proposed ordinance so under the current ordinance we would look at a land dedication of 2.1 acres at that time that development was looking at three particular parcels the fee in lieu of based on again the current ordinance was at ninety nine thousand dollars under the proposed ordinance that development would fall in zone a so we have that average land value per parcel we know what our service level is and today that would be two point seven six acres in land dedication and a fee in lieu of two hundred and nine thousand dollars so transitioning over to the development fee piece of our ordinance and this is the 916 as I mentioned previously our current calculation two hundred and eight thousand for a five acre park very very low that would just barely cover the cost of a playground today we have a flat fee of two hundred and ninety one dollars for single-family dwelling units and a flat fee of a hundred and eighty seven dollars for multi multi-family dwelling units this presents a challenge for us moving forward these were actually based off some HUD factors of I believe the single-family dwelling unit was two point eight people per dwelling unit and the multi-family dwelling unit was that I want to say one point seven under the current ordinance Gary may correct me on that one but we no longer have those factors we we now just have a single-family residential factor under HUD so we've transitioned to that too and you'll see that again in under our proposed calculation we've updated the costs so now our neighborhood parks at four acres and this is based on some recent developments that we've done and that four acre park cost us about one point three million dollars to develop fully community park at twelve point five acres is just under five million dollars and just to kind of put this in context and because we are proposing a portion of that fee also go to city parks we wanted to show you what the development of a 50 acre city park would cost and that would be right at eight million dollars so just taking the neighborhood and community park together that averages at about three hundred and fifty five thousand dollars per acre for the development of those types of parks previously we looked at distinguishing neighborhood parks and community parks and at really all of our parks city parks by acres and and that's really becoming difficult as well I will take Quaker Town Park is a great example that's that is a city park used by everyone in the city it hosts one of our biggest special events in our community and it's just over 30 acres and then you take North Lakes which is right at 400 acres so our neighborhood parks traditionally were defined at anywhere from five to twenty acres our community parks or from 20 you know up to about 50 city parks 50 and up but now what we're looking at more is amenities if you're been in any one of our parks you'll know that the smaller neighborhood parks normally have a playground an open space they'll have some trash cans benches they may have a pavilion most of them do have a pavilion or shaded area our community parks have those same amenities but you'll start to see some trails through those parks you'll also start to see some bathroom facilities some additional shaded areas maybe an expanded playground area and so forth and then our community our city parks take it to the next level so when we're looking at our service levels again and the cost to develop the park that gives us our fees across the zones again pretty good swing here we recognize that in B we've got our lowest at just under $3,000 and we've got our highest in D at just over $6,000 and this is per dwelling unit another comparison on the development fee 300 dwelling unit development proposed development with the flat fees of 291 and 187 at 300 dwelling units that would bring in about $87,000 for single-family $56,000 for a multifamily development if we take our proposed fees and multiply them by that 300 dwelling unit development you can see the cost difference this model here below just gives you an overall view of the zones the fee in lieu of park dedication cost the development fee cost and if a developer wanted to come in and say I want I want to do the fee in lieu of rather than donate or dedicate land to you and they will already have the development fee what that total cost per dwelling unit would look like for a developer as you can see this is a pretty significant increase from our current ordinance a lot of it is driven by cost again our current fee or I'm sorry a current ordinance and and that methodology was developed over 20 years ago so we recognize that we've got a low of $3,000 in zone B B and a high of 6,000 little over 6,000 in zone D Commissioner Beck did you have a question yes thank you chair as time goes on to avoid this update problem that you're trying to get around are we revising do we have a are you proposing a revision that is continuous as land fees change or this is a one-time fee structure change no we actually are proposing a three-year review in the ordinance that's included in the ordinance that it would be reviewed every three years so updating all the demographic information up or down to that will then reestablish our level of service thank you so obviously these these fees are a little sticker shock again we recognize that we acknowledge that in talking with the developers we had some very good conversations about this increase and what I want to make clear is that under the legal requirements that we have we have to establish a level of service that's the baseline what we do from here with that baseline is up to us as long as I can go back and say this is my level of service based on what I have here in my community which gives us that direct connection it's not based off of a benchmarking here's an average of 12 comparator cities type model but here's here's what's on the ground here in Denton here's our level of service here's the cost using that as our foundation our springboard we can do a couple of different things and that's what we've been very happy to work with the developers on brand on formulating some options for us moving forward and share those with you here just to follow up Commissioner Beck's question the the fee can go up or down if we purchase or get a large parcel of land let's just say for instance a thousand acres is donated in zone a that's going to change our level of service because that's going to be part of the calculation so that fee might actually go down from a land perspective so it could go up or down based on future land acquisitions and then obviously if value of land goes up every three years that that'll increase it as well Christopher Beck thank you following up on that does that these large land acquisitions are typically for our large city parks that are not directly rolled into these calculations though right so that you would have to purchase smaller plots is that correct or am i misunderstanding yeah that's correct back I guess I use a bad example if it was 20 acres let's say we bought ten eight ten plots of 20 acres that would impact oh okay I'm sorry good good question but also to the one thing that we do include in our numbers are undeveloped part lands or green space because that does benefit the entire community so pebblebrook park is a great example of that it's a small park it's undeveloped we don't have any plans to ever develop it beyond a trail system within that part so it's more than likely at this point in time there are no plans to you know install a playground pavilions and use it in that sense but it is part of our master plan in trail connection so there it because it does continue to benefit the entire community those smaller undeveloped parcels are included in the number of park acres per zone so if a property released floodplain to the city and we put a trail in it that is the kind of thing you're talking about correct okay thank you okay so one of the what we actually as a group came up with some some pretty creative options and and I'll and I'll give the development the focus group really full credit on that we began to kind of throw some numbers around and look at this one of them at one of the major concerns was that huge swing you know there was some concern even though they understood the methodology and we worked through that we worked through D CAD values we worked through development costs and and came to take came to an understanding on on all those different factors that are being used there's still heartburn on the swings within the zones so we were looking at ways that we could stabilize those even more even though we know in the future those are going to even out as development comes in and we have modified the map in a way that we feel takes into consideration some of the more denser areas where there could be you know very little future residential development but also have the potential for some outliers in in larger developments zone B is another great example of a large residential development coming in and filling that area out but we wanted to kind of parcel out the middle right the core of the city that's very dense and and yes you'll continue to get some development primarily multifamily residential in there but you're not going to see the major development plan development projects there the other thing that could be a challenge was a we have a pretty heavy area of industrial use there so we know that there's not ever going to be any residential area coming in you know to that portion of the city around airport Road and so we had to kind of split that up as well but we still landed with some swings again even though even though in the future that will even out so one of the one of the options that we developed in our focus group in our smaller focus group is on the park dedication side if you can see the proposed fees this is our baseline okay this is based on our current level of service and all of that demographic information that we pulled for each zone and what we did is we averaged it so assuming that the proposed is at a hundred percent cost recovery and we average that which really helped even out those swings now we were from a $700 swing here to about a $300 swing here between 628 and zone D and our smallest at 306 in zone B and then this is what our cost recovery looks like okay in terms of park dedication if we average looking at part sorry I was on mute Krishna back thank you chair yeah thank you for waiting so I I get that you're averaging to sort of reduce the spread of the fee structure but wasn't the original problem that we had to have parks in those regions dedicated to those regions so how I mean you're is this a robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of thing yeah well one of the original so part of the original issue was was really the parameters when you were talking about the location and I think that's where you're going in terms of you know not being able to buy in certain areas but that that was primarily driven by the parameter restriction that we had having to do it within a half mile to a mile radius from the development that made that contribution or paid that fee I understand that but the we want parks within a a 10-minute walk a half mile absolutely and we would prefer that they not pay the park fee we would prefer to have the park to therefore to match the original intent of the ordinance and so if we if we're averaging these out we are saying that zone B and a are going to I mean I guess all the numbers went down but I'm not sure help me understand how we're we're not making one region of the city pay for another when that's specifically what we weren't allowed to do I guess I don't understand okay I'm actually all for lumping it together but that is apparently not what we're allowed to do right so I mean yeah a great question and things that we've kind of vetted out but to your point in terms of of land a couple of different things that we look at and that we actually work through every day in in the ordinance aside from the actual proposed fees we're proposing that we have more flexibility in working with the developers in having developer agreements for specific needs or targeting specific needs I think Hunter Cole ranch is a great example and Gary can certainly talk to this but we had some very specific needs in that area of town not only or that zone so to speak but also for that new development coming in and if they had strictly gone by the current ordinance it wouldn't have it would have been kind of a lose-lose for everyone would have been a deficit on on the zone side in terms of the other community residents within that area and it would have definitely been a deficit for the new residents coming in because the requirements would have been so low it would not have met the need or the impact that would have been created by the number of new users coming in with that development so understanding what you're saying you're saying that the the number of parks would diminish because of the cost of the land and therefore we wouldn't be servicing the density of people serviced per park would be higher I mean you know you would have less park per person is that what you're saying yes it definitely could yes drive that drive that number the other thing though too is that depending on the development there there may be the land that is being proposed as park dedication may not be useful to us for a lot of different reasons we do have some criteria in there in the proposed ordinance for restrictions and they're based on percentages for flood planes and ESA so that they're not double counted you know if you try to give us something that would have to be protected already under another requirement within within the development code so we're trying to eliminate those types of of issues as well so we really want to have that ability to work one-on-one with the developer to say you know what what kind what land are they proposing to develop or I'm sorry to dedicate in this particular case but to dedicate then how does that fit into our master plan is it usable land is it in a good location only a certain percentage of it can be flood plain and that's okay in some instances in some instances we may have some great fully developed parks already there that would meet the needs of the residents coming in but we need some green space and so there's some value in going ahead and taking some of that land for the green space so that that there are just really a lot of factors under this proposal it gives us more flexibility to work not only to meet our our needs and our strategic plan goals but also to work with the developer in the type of land that they would dedicate to us or in this case pay into you know a fund that would allow us to buy land in the future within that zone what this does do by averaging though obviously is is it brings in less money and in that could be you know it could have no impact depending on where appraised values are falling you know at any given time or it could reduce our ability to buy land and that's why we wanted to include that cost recovery number just to just show you assuming that the proposed is at a hundred percent because it's based off current land values or an average of current land values bringing that down what would it look like and so rather than being able to buy a five acre plot of land maybe we can only do three to half or you know or lower because we've reduced what they're paying in I hope does that help parts of it are clear I think I'm well anyway I like let's let you continue proposal and maybe it'll it'll gel in my brain on the park development side we actually through the process again understanding that we can't benchmark we still did want to look at other communities to see how they establish their their fees again knowing that each one has to be individual and unique one of the things that we found with the city of Fort Worth is that they were implementing their fee their new fee structure and they were starting at 60% so it was a phased-in approach that's one of the that one of the methodologies that we worked out here but another proposed we did the same thing we that's why you see this 60% if we took the proposed fee and did a phased-in approach starting at 60% again this could be 10 20 30 it could be anything that that we decided it to be in it would be ultimately approved and adopted but we started at 60 this really worked out well with that three-year review if we started at 60% second year would be at 70 third year would be a review year at 80 percent we reset our level of service at 80 percent fourth year would be at 90 fifth year would be at a hundred percent and then that six year we would look at that 100% and reset again because it's going to be a review year we took an average approach as well we looked at what the an average of the proposed fee would be and we did cost recovery again assuming that the proposed fee is at a hundred percent and if we took sixty percent well that's that's cost recovery is sixty percent but if we averaged here's what the cost recovery would look like you can see in in three out of our five zones we actually have over a hundred percent cost recovery and the reason for that is because an average actually pushed these numbers above what the proposed fee is okay that's what the cost recovery looks like there then we took the average fee and we did it at a sixty percent implementation so we took that we took the average and averaged it if that makes sense and we did it at a sixty percent phased-in approach this is what our new fee would be and what the cost recovery is what this does helps in a couple of different ways number one flattens that that range again kind of condenses that range so that we don't have the huge swings of you know five thousand dollars here to two thousand dollars and B you start to see that even out a little bit but on the strict averaging it goes up for everyone so probably not the most favorable methodology to use when we average at sixty percent brings down it actually creates a flat fee so we have zero swing it's a flat fee no matter where you build park development is coming in at two thousand ninety dollars and then here's what the cost recovery is based on the current cost of development part you can see how that compares right now to our current single-family flat fee at 291 and the multifamily fat fee at 187 and you can see those cost recoveries so even if we average and we take it at sixty percent our cost recovery still goes up significantly across all zones commissioner Beck and so then presumably the remaining 40% would be bond revenues or something else yes it could be CIP it could be geo bonds yeah voter approved bonds I'm sorry a different funding mechanism yes yes yeah it can be internal CIP co bonds and I can also be yes voter approved geo bonds it could also be other developments within that zone - that are matched up to help build that park correct because now we've expanded to a zone rather than a radius okay and to be clear Laura the cost recovery is independent of the state law for level of service they don't look at city's cost of recovery as it pertains to level of service okay no the cost recovery is to basically pay for the entire park and the land at one time those are just some also just some some of the things that we wanted to look at internally to see what the impact would be in terms of our ability to use those funds and to actually develop what the impact would be you know taking that money in what could we really do with it at these different levels is this a one time fee from a developer in lieu of the dedication and then a one-time fee assumed by the city it seems like I'm not sure how parks actually build out but if a park build out is over three years you're you're taking in the funds upfront from a developer and then yes do they just stay in a fund until build out yes sir yeah that's a great question they do we have in the and that's why we call them the 916 and 915 916 funds because that's actually the account number for those for those fees but they yeah they they are deposited into those funds and then we use them over time the current ordinance requires us to expend the funds within 10 years of that development and then at year 10 if that money from that development hasn't been used the developer has one year exactly one year to come in and request a refund of that money if that one year time frame you know expires and they they didn't ask for a refund if we still have that money then then the city keeps that money with any any additional you know claim on that funding is expires in the current ordinance we're opposed we're proposing to reduce that down to seven years and we feel like that makes us a little bit more accountable that we're you know we're asking these developers to pay into these funds and we're saying we're gonna use this money to you know enhance improve expand our parks for your new users for your your new residents that are coming in so we want to hold ourselves accountable to that and we feel that that still gives us the time that we need to to use it for those under those project timelines like you just mentioned and you mentioned other funding mechanisms is there any way to use the ever growing tree fund towards park procurement or development yes and Gary can definitely talk to that yeah we we can use it to actually for for planting trees we cannot use the plant trees that are required it's part of the code but we can use it to purchase land to preserve trees so that is that's one mechanism that we can use to match up against land acquisition okay but we can't use it we cannot use it to put a playground in for example I understood mr. Beck thank you chair so and then maintenance fees are a completely separate line item is that correct right we're prohibited from using this type of funding mechanism on maintenance on O&M operations and maintenance and and if we were to do something like Gary suggested which is by the large bit of land and we're we're able to is the developer able to offset their trees if we're buying land for our parks or their this is this is solely their their park fee going to that or I mean you see where I'm saying like if they're if they're purchasing if they're able to use both land park fee and tree canopy DBH fees are those both going into to this hypothetical let's say that Eastside Park that we're putting in or something similar are they double dipping is my question I don't know if Richard maybe on that I'm not as familiar with the with the tree fund piece of that on on the tree canopy requirements I guess if you can repeat the crowd just want to make sure I understand it my question is if they are paying the the land use dedication fee and we're using it to buy green space of various sorts parks and open areas are they also getting credit for the trees in the land that the city bought since the city had to buy that that feels like that would be excessive or are they getting credit I can help answer that this is Drew hoping on the assistant director of a parks and or parks and rec and over operations and management so in planning excuse me so to give you an example we just had that scenario come in with a development they are donating 32 34 acres to us the amount of land they're donating to us does not count towards your tree preservation okay so it's totally separate because whenever the final plaque goes if a developer donates the land to us when the final plaque goes to development review that land is shown as ours and they cannot count the tree preservation on our land on Park City land yeah that was my exact question thank you for clarifying yes sir yes sir so we just had that scenario and they when we took the council we made sure and the developer made sure that the trees that they were preserving were not on the part of the land that they are donating to the city okay thank you so that way they're not double-dipping yes sir but if they would have not dedicated that land they could have used those trees for preservation they will most of the land they donated was in the floodplain and in an easter area so I don't believe that would count it either because they'd be double dipping as floodplain and ESA so the property that they're actually developing on is where they have to dedicate the trees on when we can get clarification to that yeah okay thank you that's correct you couldn't use the ease of the count towards your tree preservation and and if they were just to pay into the fund again that's just an option for mitigation as opposed to planting or some other some of the other options in the code and again we did try to you know we do this entire process we we actually went through a conflict resolution with some of the development services staff and then of course our developers help us you know bring up some of these scenarios as well but will we try to as much as possible make sure that we you know we were able to resolve any conflicts between not only this proposal but also other development requirements but also work out what those kind of double credit scenarios might look like and and again there there could be some instances where there would be benefit on both ends it could be a win-win and what we've written into the ordinance is giving us the flexibility to make those kinds of of adjustments through a separate development agreement so it would have to be a formal contract a formal agreement between the city you know specifically the parks department and the the developer if we were going to work outside of the parameters that are in the in the ordinance itself so I wanted to just before it I think my last slide is kind of a wrap-up but I wanted to let you know that this average on the park dedication and the average at 60% is kind of the sweet spot for for our development group it's still a pretty significant increase from what they're paying today but that would that would be about right at you know $2,500 for each zone and it would be it would create a flat fee which is also kind of another incentive something that they liked rather than again the big swings between the between the different zones over time again that would that would even out but this park dedication average and average at 60% seem to seem to be what I would say I don't want to say that there I don't want to speak for them and saying that are comfortable with that but that seemed to be the number that we felt moving forward Laura has there been any studies on the other entities that you looked at on the impact of development incentives by having a flat fee over a structured fee in terms of the projects and the type of projects that come to the area know that we did look at several of other cities and they were more in line with flat fees how they reached their number I don't know again everybody has to take an individual approach they could be averaging I mentioned city of Fort Worth they were doing an implementation phase in but an actual study on what those costs were you know and how they would impact development coming in no we haven't done that but I can I feel confident that in saying that for our local developers with a focus group that we brought together to help us with this update it definitely was a challenge for them it was an issue for them to see these kinds of swings in each zone well yeah I would I would certainly understand that they don't want to pay that much yeah and I don't know that it was so much I mean I'm not gonna say that I mean obviously the the increases it is a significant we understand that but I think that it was the the gap to the range the range itself to added an additional issue or this is Gary pack and I think it was fair to say that the development group was was supportive of the the average for the park dedication and the average at sixty percent and the methodology to get to a hundred percent over six years so I think that they were definitely supportive in that realm I think there was concern initially at the full rate at the first year that was a little bit of a sharp curve for that especially since we hadn't updated that for 20 years 22 years that this was a good methodology to get to that kind of full full cost recovery of what it's going to take to build a park at X number acres of land value in that zone and just kind of bringing us full circle full cost recovery is assumed at the at those proposed level of service rates that were outlined if we took a methodology of averaging and averaging factors such as population land values service levels what that does is it reduces the fees overall it closes that range between these zones for the in lieu of it produces a flat dedication fee and it provides some equity between those zones a combination would be to combine the proposed fee in lieu of with the dedication fee average again that reduces just another option we're playing around with the numbers it reduces fees it closes the range of fees between the zones and then that phase in implementation as Gary mentioned is probably the one that I think they were most supportive of beginning at a 60% of the fee with an increase of 10% each year at year six we would have that 100% and a reset so through that implementation process of doing the space and approach we would actually be doing two reviews of the fees and updating them during that process and during that time so that really wraps up where we are today we started our small focus group meetings again we met last month and we have a handbook that is being drafted now it's in the final draft that gives them a little bit more specifications on some of the other pieces of the ordinance you had an opportunity to look at the ordinance you see that there's also an option in their for developers to come in and develop a park themselves as part of the park development and then there's also some so there's some specifications that they'll have to meet and developing their own part there's also specifications on the land dedication side so we're working to put that together to have that for the developer so they'll know exactly what those specifications are when you're dealing with the dedication and the development side if they choose to come in and develop a park as part of their project but that's we do have a developer town hall scheduled with development services that we're going to provide this to the development community as a whole for that set for 10 a.m. on November 11th and then we're also going to continue meeting with our small focus group as well great Christian back yeah thank you chair the the typical fees in the in North Texas are they 60% I know you said different municipalities do not fees recovery levels but different municipalities have a different approach but if you do try to match the apples and oranges are they are they funding 40% I don't know and I don't know if they're even calculating cost recovery when they're developing their fees we used we used Fort Worth as that methodology as a way to kind of ramp up to the hundred percent or the full rate over a term so it wasn't the sticker shock of going from such a low fee based on 1998 a 1988 formula which is an apples to oranges formula compared to where we're at today to try to ease into that over the course of the next six years as well as having to kind of reevaluations of the land so we thought that was the group felt that that was a good good consideration to try to stall that that sharpness of the change yeah I can say that Fort Worth was the only one that we found that had an implementation approach okay their fees and for these development meetings who's who's who's part of those can we get a list of those members sure thank you commissioner Ellis thank you chair Laura thanks for a great detailed presentation what is your timeline on trying to get this finished we're hoping to our next step as Gary mentioned is we do want to take it back to the developer group the larger town hall meeting that would be our first one since the spring and then continue to work with the default the focus group in finalizing this proposal and also the handbook and we are scheduled to present to council in December so you know we'll take whatever feedback and information they give us at that time make those updates and hopefully have a new ordinance by the beginning of next year but that also brings us to to the implementation of the actual new ordinance itself we're looking at anywhere from a six to nine month timeline that's what dr. Crompton has recommended in terms of an effective date once the ordinance has been approved and that will give you know the developers that are currently in the process time to continue under the existing ordinance since most of them are coming in believing that that that's those are the requirements you know that that they're developing under and giving them kind of a full heads up that as of this date anything new coming in would be under the new effective ordinance one adjustment that schedule with the council runoffs we were asked to push it to January so we're actually going to be meeting January with the new council so we didn't have to start with an old council and move to a newer council I got a few questions developers that come in they're not required to put in a park but if they don't they have to pay the fee correct that's that's kind of the broad strokes of this is the city does the city have a preference would they prefer the developer to put in the park or they prefer to give the authority over to the city to find land and build it themselves what is the preference of the city between those two options I can take that the experience we've had a little bit of everything since since we've been with the city I can give you an example there's between hunter and coal ranch and the discussions there in the future planning and then we have one park that's going in right now at razor they they have well exceeded their ordinance fees based on what they've invested into that park for construction efforts so they've well surpassed the required amount that they would have given us we wouldn't have been able to build that park with the fees they would have given us just as a fee in lieu of and paying for the development fee outright but they're actually building it and dedicating the land to the city all at one time so there are there are instances where the developer may put more money into the park especially at our old rate to get what they wanted for their development it may be beneficial to us to have them build it and then dedicated to the city at its completion they are actually going to maintain that parcel for one year as well as part of the agreement so they're going well beyond what was required based in 1998 ordinance planning for hunter and coal ranch the similar there that I think they're gonna end up building a higher standard of what our standard currently is for those parks as that's built so that's gonna be a benefit to to the residents as well there are times when we may prefer to have the money because we may have money that's already in the fund that we could use that to go ahead and move forward and build a park so we can match that up and move forward with with a development of a parcel that's already partially funded so there's there's different scenarios and different opportunities really with each each development that occurs so I appreciate that understanding with that how how can the city better incent people to do what you want we were making this this kind of standard flat fee which takes away the city's influence on whether you want to push back and have the developer do it because they might have the means to do a great park or you're in a position to to go ahead and construct at scale efficiently with with your own dollars have have you looked at different mechanisms if they even exist to to create a more fluid pathway so that's an open conversation about how to incentivize that the best park gets built rather than hey they can choose to do this and we understand that sometimes it's better for us to do it and sometimes it's not but we're not gonna be involved in that conversation they get complete autonomy to determine that when it sounds like and I would prefer the professionals on our end to actually speak into the betterment of the city have you all explored that or does that even exist to create more of a an influence on on that yeah so there's I guess a number of ways to approach that the first and foremost we're meeting with the developers very early on now as opposed to sometimes we weren't kind of getting involved until much later in the process and it may have been too late so we're having those discussions now before they really even get started so that's one major factor the other one is we're in that we've been working on our master plan in our trails plan to identify where we want certain things to occur so then we can share that with them and show how our master plan could benefit their community help sell houses help you know make a better neighborhood and it's tied into other assets whether it's a school a business whatever that would be so giving them that some additional vision there's still some opportunities for improvement there for sure obviously it comes down to a formula of profit you know for a developer and there's got to be some balance to that but if we can say hey there's some historical opportunities here here's a great little forest of of post oak so we want to try to preserve if we can get ahead of that before they have plans already done that's saving them from spending money and going back and really losing some of their investment they've already made so we're trying to get ahead of all of that and we feel like we've made a lot of progress but we still have some opportunities to to improve that okay well hopefully the the conversation the developers is insightful of ways to make that efficient the only other question I have and this might well it's coming from a place of ignorance so you can enlighten me I don't think in my mind logically that a park development is a linear function I don't think it doesn't seem like every acre of a park is developed at the same cost you know I'm thinking about it's probably like a step like there's probably some fixed cost at one acre then when you get to five acres you know the playgrounds there's another fixed cost because it seems like a 30 acre park that includes three soccer fields is way cheaper at on average than a one acre park that has a full built out playground with with turf and all this but yet the fees being attributed each park is a fixed cost assuming that every acre is the exact same cost and I don't know if I fundamentally understand the rationale if we're thinking about the actual recovery costs it's not correct me wrong I've never built a park which might be surprising to you but it doesn't seem like it's a linear function so can you help me out understand why the the cost remains fixed across whether it's a five acre park or a 500 acre park correct so in yeah I mean yeah you make a great point historically we had classified our parks based on park acres and we're moving away from that you know I use the example of Quaker town earlier that we've got this great city park that hosts one of our you know biggest events in the city and it's just a little over 30 acres so you know part space is not all equal to your point it's now being they're being developed more based on amenities so what type of amenity and we really we have a condition in the proposed ordinance that even though you may be required to only contribute or dedicate let's say 2.8 acres of land we actually with the minimum is five acres because that's really what you need to even put in a neighborhood park who you know in all of our neighborhood parks have that standard amenity of a playground you know some picnic tables trash cans a pavilion so it's it's there's some consistency across in the type of part based on amenities and not so much on the size anymore but the size does matter in terms of the minimum at least but not all day not all neighborhood parks are equal either even in our own park system we have some neighborhood parks that that have a parking lot and some that don't I mean that's a major cost we're trying to standardize that because everybody wants a parking lot in a restroom and those are two very expensive assets to build and for a neighborhood park typically they're built for those geographic residents around there where they could typically a home they may not be there all day so that's why that's typically on-street parking and no restroom when you get to the next level park then you start putting in restrooms but we have neighborhood parks that also have restrooms so even our own service levels very so we're trying to get that to point where everything's fairly the same right but I think you're making my point Gary there's a fixed cost to a bathroom a pavilion so if you add another acre to that you have the cost of land and not much else but yet you're attributing the same cost to that second acre or the sixth acre if you have a five acre minimum regardless and so if we understand these fixed costs I understand that you you're not using like acres as a size of our determinant of what amenities go there but you're charging developers as per acre not what amenities are being attributed so I can't I understand that you're talking about amenities being different but that's not how you're charging them so if we're talking about how we're charging them that remains as a measurement of acres and not all park acres are equally valued yet we are charging developers the same price for every acre of a park when if I look at the 400 acres of North Lakes you have a pond of frisbee golf course tons of soccer fields those are not valued the same as the acre when which that massive pavilion sits and so I don't know if there's any resolution tonight but as you go towards the developers and can you continue taking through this I just have some logical barriers to understand how the price per acre is fixed across all acres so on park development specifically the developers are not charged based on on the on the cost of a park acre what they're charged on is we take the average cost to develop right so we use that development and in what we did is we just said okay yeah and yet just we divided it by a cost an average cost per acre only in that we're looking between those the neighborhood parks and the community parks but it's based off the cost to develop a park and we included that cost at the exhibits so we took that and then we divided it by the service area how many dwelling units we have in that area per park acre and using that multiplying it by the number of dwelling units that you're bringing into the development so the fundamental of it though doesn't take into consideration the actual cost of land it takes it's using the factor of the cost to develop the park not the cost of the land right and I appreciate that clarification it still seems though that there's a price to develop that's a neighborhood park and there's a price to develop that's a community park and those costs averaging out are different because you have the economies of scale when you look at a community park versus a neighborhood park so I think I understand you're saying I'm just adding my input that a fixed linear price per acre seems to break down in terms of just my rationale maybe I'm the only one but I won't monopolize the time I know we can look at that we can take a look at that thanks Gary Chris you're back thank you chair actually I want to I was gonna ask that question as well that it seems like that you have amenities that cost a certain amount and land that costs a variable amount so you know we know a water fountain is $300 or whatever I think that's what chair's point was we know a pavilion is a ten thousand dollars or whatever it is so if you have certain if you wanted to design a park why wouldn't you say we we want at minimum a bathroom a parking lot a water fountain and a blah blah blah and this is our minimum and this is our Chinese buffet menu and you're going to you're going to select from column A and column B and these are fixed costs and oh by the way if you're in zone ABC or D your land rate will be different and that way you're not sending the costs I mean so before I go down that path I can understand if we want to average if that's a way it's if that's a mechanism of paying for parks that we wouldn't other already had which is what we alluded to earlier with my question the recovery of them but I just want to I that's fine because I my predilection would be to lump everything into giant park pool and divide it out over the whole city but you said we're not allowed to do that so our is this mechanism a way of getting towards that that's allowable otherwise it does feel like chairs point is well taken that we should have a selectable system maybe that's that's more tuned so to develop if a developer was coming in and putting in the park themselves we do have a list of amenities that requirements that they would have to install in that park if they were coming in and doing it on their own if that's come to your to your last point but yes but overall in terms of zones we would still have to stay within within those zones rather than use it across the board but what we wanted to do in a current ordinance it's limited to in definition to community parts or I'm sorry neighborhood part right neighborhood parts and they had to be five to twenty acres and that's where you that's where the money can be used knowing and understanding park use today that's they're not just in neighborhood parks there a neighborhood and community parts so that was the other reason why we needed to take that average or you know we we chose that kind of methodology to get to that cost again understanding that at three hundred and fifty five thousand you know and we're saying that that's an acre based on a community part and a neighborhood part so a four acre neighborhood part twelve point five acre community part what's the average for that and and that's what we got to the 355 but when you look at the exhibit that actually breaks down those costs you know you'll you'll see that taking out a minimum of five acres what you know what that's going to get us in terms of actually developing the park and that's that's what that's what we're looking at so that you know that that gets us closer to actually being able to develop those those community and and neighborhood parts when you charge it by acre knowing that we're taking a minimum of five any other questions for Laura Gary great thank you both so much for being here and answering all of our questions thank you thank you so I just wanted to update the record to show the Commissioner Anderson Christian pernetta and Commissioner Smith have all joined us so we are in full force now moving on with our agenda this evening we'll get into the clarification of agenda items before we hop in I've already talked Richard just want to make sure the agenda is as printed this evening correct Richard that's correct fantastic so the first item of business would be item number two which is the plan and zoning minutes is there any edits we need to make on those so I guess for October 21st great next is item three the consent agenda we just have one on the docket for tonight it's FP 20 - 0 2 4 0 0 2 4 does anyone have any questions for Haley on this plat that we can bring it up okay great I will just continue on next item is the consideration of the calendar Richard you want to do this in work session or public session is anything to dive into here on the calendar Richard sorry about that I was answering another question here yes do we need to dive into that during work session or is that just a vote for the record and public really it's just it's just a vote for the record we try to follow kind of where we were this this past year building it off of council I know there's some around the holidays where we jog it a little bit but I'm still maintaining two meetings a month and just for everyone's knowledge if this is adopted or approved tonight then we'll go ahead and update our submittal schedules accordingly so we'll get that out within the next couple days just wanted to add that great next item is item 4b let me ask does anyone have any questions on the calendar I didn't throw it out there okay pretty straightforward item 4b FP 20 - 0 0 2 6 this is Karina Maldonado's item it is is this this is being denied but the Hopkins requesting 30-day extension correct is it recommended for denial yes that is correct the plat is recommended for approval but they do have some last minute changes to their waterline plan which would require some changes to the easements shown on there so they've requested a 30-day extension up to a date certain of November 18th so it's actually up it is approved they're just asking for a little bit of time to update it yes they're just making additional changes so if if you were to approve the plat now they would need to come back and do a replat of the of the one that would be approved to show those changes to the waterline okay that makes sense does anyone want to see the presentation from Karina this evening if we're bringing it back okay great so the next one is also Karina's it's item 4c PP 20 - 0 0 2 2 and I will turn the floor over to Karina Maldonado for presentation on this item okay I apologize I realize that my the previous item didn't have the item on on the screen so this item is PP 20 - 0 0 22 for country club villages it is this is located off of Fort Worth Drive and Fairview just south of Brush Creek so staff is recommending denial the request as it does not meet the established requirements however the applicant has requested an extension to December 2nd with that I can answer any questions any questions on this and you said December 2nd was the date they're targeting yes okay great I don't see any questions so we'll go on to the last item for individual consideration which is item 4d ADP 20 - 0 0 0 1 this item will be presented by Julie Wyatt and whenever she is ready she has the floor looks like she brought a binder or printer or scanner many binders let me my presentation and we'll get going okay sure back while she prepares can can someone remind me what what section of the code extensions fall under when we're when we're awarding an extension what where is where is that power in the code it's not in the code it's in the local government code 212 is it 212 is where we're deriving that power okay Richard I appreciate that all right let me share my screen all right good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton and I'm presenting ADP 20 0 0 0 1 agave ranch the request before you is for an alternative development plan for a single-family development the site is 92 acres it's outlined in yellow you're I know you're familiar with it it is on the east side of FM 428 north of Hartley Field the purpose is to deviate from section 35 dot 13 dot 13 dot 1 of the 2002 Denton Development Code in particular this request is related to the architecture of those proposed single-family dwellings so just a refresher on the zoning in July of last year City Council approved a rezoning for the property to nr3 and nr2 with overlay conditions in 2019 that transition to PD district because of those overlay conditions with the base zoning of r3 and r2 due to this project time submittal timing it's being reviewed under the 2002 Denton Development Regulations and that includes that ADP process as well as the single-family residential site requirements so just to kind of before we go over the applicant's request just to kind of talk through what those residential site design requirements are so in the 2002 Denton Development Code any lots under 10,000 square feet have to comply with the with section 35 dot 13 dot 13 dot 1 on lots over to 10,000 square feet are not required to comply with those site design requirements so as this relates to agave ranch I would 219 lots would have to comply 33 lots would not be required to comply now there are there are a lot of requirements in there but the three that we're talking about tonight the the deviations that they're requesting are related to first design features in the code there is a menu of items that an applicant can choose they have to choose three of them for each single-family residential project or or house and that includes dormers gables recessed entries coverler covered front porches cupolas architectural pillars or posts and a bay window with a minimum 24 inches of projection the second one that we're talking about tonight is the garages and and there are two elements to this first that the 2002 code did not allow for front entry garages to extend forward of the front building wall and second that of the total width of the garage door could not be more than 40% of that total building frontage finally the windows indoors percentage so under the 2002 code windows and doors excluding the garage door had to comprise at least 25% of the of the wall area for the front facade so those are the three elements we're talking about tonight so now we're going to talk about the builder concerns in those proposed deviations so there are two builders that are proposed to to to go into the agave ranch development so I've got a builder one and builder two so first we're going to talk about the design features remember that's that menu of items their plans with those recessed entries contain only two design features and not the three and in your backup material I've given all of those elevations that I'm sure it was a lot they are proposing to actually revise that that menu to replace cupolas and bay windows with first and enhanced landscaping package and that would include foundation plantings and direct with decorative edging plus a large shade tree per lot the 2002 didn't development code only only required street trees for residential development it did not require lot trees so this would be in in excess of what the 2002 code required they're also proposing to add in a minimum roof pitch of 612 on primary roof elevation and they're also proposing to increase the number of elements to four and so in order to kind of look to see and this is in your backup as well to kind of show you what that roof pitch that they're proposing just giving you a diagram here because it's it's kind of hard just with that with the text to visualize what that is all right and finally or I'm sorry and then second they are proposing a deviation to the garage standards so that both they're both builders and depending on the width of the plans they both have some plans with garages that extend forward of that front building line and then that are also in excess of that 40 percent maximum and that's for both two-car garage plans as well as three-car garage plans they are proposing that that that the attached front entry garages of residential dwellings could extend forward up to six feet from the front building plane of the house that is nearest in setback distance to the garage door plane and that would be up to 11 feet maximum from a recessed recessed front door they would they as proposed it would allow 45 percent of the product offerings within the agave ranch project to have the forward extending garages but would not extend to the three-car garages and then and then the second provision that they're proposing is that the total width of the garage doors would not occupy more than 45 percent of the total building frontage for two-car garages and 55 percent for three-car garages once again adding that 45 percent of the total in as well and just to kind of let you see this is in your backup as well what that looks like because once again a text version it it's somewhat unclear but you can see here this the garage as proposed is is that front garage is here six feet would be the maximum it could extend from from this plane on the house and then 11 feet from that recessed front door all right and finally the last provision the windows and doors they both both builders do have plans that are less than that 25% that the 2002 code required and so the applicant is proposing that that the windows and doors excluding the garage doors would comprise 15% of the wall area plus use two of the following enhanced design features to provide visual relief and in that they're provided they're proposing decorative shutters decorative brick detailing coach lights divided light windows decorative garage door hardware and decorative sheet cedar shake or stucco board accents and gables so now let's kind of talk about this as it relates to the elevation so like I said all of these elevations are in your backup material but I kind of just wanted to talk through this and show how they kind of apply in real life so the first we're gonna talk about some proposed elevations for builder one first so in in this elevation here there's a recessed front entry there is a gable right here architectural pillars are shown here and then a dormer this garage is eight inches forward and then the windows and doors meets the minimum requirements for this in orange here there's a recessed front entry there is a gable right here and if this was approved this this elevation would require the enhanced landscaping package this garage does meet the Denton Development Code requirements and this this elevation shows twenty point eighty two percent windows and doors brick detailing this herringbone pattern here and then shutters this purple elevation shows a recessed front entry a gable to actually architectural pillar here and then a dormer this garage shows 48% of the frontage and then the window and door percentage does meet the the minimum requirement for builder to we have a here the first elevation here's a recessed entry a gable this shows the 612 roof pitch and this elevation would be required to provide that enhanced landscaping package the garage door does meet the minimum I didn't development code requirements and then they are proposing nineteen point nine one percent windows and doors here so they are so this one shows shutters as well as decorative brick detailing and a coach light sorry this elevation recess entry gable 612 roof pitch landscaping enhanced landscaping package this garage is eight feet forward from the front door twenty three point eight six percent windows and doors so there's decorative brick details decorative cedar shake as well as a coach light and then finally recess entry gable 612 roof pitch landscaping for number one this garage is fifty two point seventeen percent of the front facade twenty four point seven five percent windows and doors with decorative brick detailing decorative cedar shake and a coach light so that kind of just shows you what it would look like in practice so the criteria for approval or is in sub chapter 13 the first preserve existing neighborhoods the additional elements would apply to all lots within the development and that would include those lots greater than 10,000 square feet so it would actually include those 33 lots which wouldn't be required to meet any of those minimum standards the proposed home designs are consistent with that surrounding architecture one and two-story plans two and three car garages those covered front porch gable roofs and there's just the traditional forms and details a sure quality development the request is not intended to lower design standards they've provided alternate alternatives with the the the expanded lists and then apart from their requests they would have to meet all other sub chapter 13 requirements focus new development to activity centers this development was approved by ordinance and has been through that review process ensure adequate infrastructure this has gone through the preliminary plat stage so in engineering has reviewed and determined there is adequate capacity and then final this is the final requirement that results in a high quality development this is really where we analyze what they're proposing so first in those design features those are intended to reduce that mass of the building in discourage blank walls and encourage visit visually interesting places the proposal is consistent with residential character and furthermore that the enhanced landscaping could increase overall tree canopy because remember the 2002 code did not require that lot tree also provide additional visual interests with the foundation plantings and reduce the amount of turf grass in the front yard the garage the the garage standards are intended to review reduce those visual impacts of front-facing garages as proposed the forward extensions are limited as well as the increased amount of the front facade is limited because of that limited nature as well as the 2019 Dent development code actually does not prohibit the forward extension of garages the the proposal is minimal and is not would not overwhelm the front facades or conceal the front door so it meets the intent of the requirement and then finally windows and doors it's intended to increase building transparency along this discrete to discourage blank walls and once again to provide lively streetscapes with the adoption of the 2019 Denton development code this month this requirement was actually modified to a minimum 15% windows and doors this proposal is consistent with current regulations but they've also added that bonus to of the two decorative elements that's above current requirements and that's those decorative shutters break detailing coach lights it's that list so it does meet the intent of that requirement so based upon that analysis staff recommends approval of the request I'll be happy to answer any questions and the applicant will be available tonight for questions and does have a presentation as well great thank you very much Julie Christian are back thank you chair Julie for almost all of these exceptions it is about visual presentation and interest there the only the only component I saw when I was reading that there was maybe something else with the safety issue of recessed doorways is that correct I'm sorry safety of doorways is that you the the rationale for having the garage not stick out was partially correct me I'm interpreting was partially to promote visual or not have that monstrosity of a garage poking out but also to not have a recessed doorway for safety reasons did I read that correctly know that the garage requirements are really intended to reduce the prominence of those garage to make sure it's not the first thing you see when you look at those houses and and this was essentially a four-foot exception is that they're proposing six feet from that next nearest housing plane 11 feet from a recessed front door if the if the front door was recessed in that particular plan okay thank you any other questions for Julie okay great thank you very much Julie thank you that moves us on to our public hearing items which believe we have four of them this evening the first one is item 5 a CA 20 - 0 0 0 3 and this is Ron McGuida's item we're on whenever you're ready a few seconds here load up my presentation okay as introduced in the presentation or the introduction this is for a comp plan amendment comprehensive plan amendment for a property referred to as birch track the site is located she's seen here I'll line in yellow on just south of Vintage Boulevard west of Vintage Boulevard north of Fort Worth Drive the approximate acreage for the site itself is 51 acres just over 51 acres it currently has undeveloped agricultural use there are two storage tanks on site as well as a plug gas well and again mentioned it's along Vintage Boulevard for those that were aware the area that we're talking about as well as the area to the east shown here was annexed into the city on April 25th of this year and part of the comprehensive plan amendment is to reflect a development that was contemplated during that annexation and that development proposal is shown here on the slide as you can see it is a single-family residential development they are proposing 110 lots in this site layout that you see here the the request is to amend the future land use map classification and to reclass that from rural areas to moderate residential the intent for moderate residential is in order to facilitate the zoning map amendment that is on this agenda as well tonight and that is to zone this area the 51 plus acres to residential 6 and again the the reason for the r6 zoning requests is for them to meet the dimensional standards that they're showing here under this proposed site plan I wanted to just share with you that there was gas well it is currently plugged and been verified by the Railroad Commission that lot itself will be an undevelopable lot it is shown here is lot X it would mainly serve as open space for this development so as far as the future land use map and designation just want to give the planning zoning Commission just a quick background obviously you know that in 2015 the dental plan 2030 was passed with that goals policies and actions were included in those policies and goals was a future land use map making sure that it helps guide our city again not only for zoning decisions but as far as land use distribution again the purpose for a future land use map designation is to get picked what is intended for the long-term pattern of the city establishes the process of amending zoning districts if that is the case and then again just guides the coordination of transportation utility planning throughout the city the proposed modern residential future land use designation is described in the dental plan 2030 as you see here I'm not going to read this whole description but just want to highlight some of the description of a modern residential future land use designation primarily single-family adjacent to a key to key corridors it is also it maintains the style scale and other buildings orientation within the area what you see on this slide is really the comparison of what we currently have and that is the area that's currently designated as rural areas we are the applicant that is is proposing to change that or revise that to rural I'm sorry to a modern residential which is similar to what is located just to the north of the subject site as part of staffs review we did do a staff analysis looking at applicable approval criteria this is for all types of applications the main thing I wanted to highlight here the three that you see here bolded is it come is it consistent with the comprehensive plan does it cause any adverse impact to the surrounding community and will it be compliant and will it be able to to provide the capacity level for utility service and other improvement standards in the in the area in addition to the zoning sorry the approval criteria for all applications there is also a comprehensive plan amendment approval criteria the list that you see here none of the four that you see up here apply in this situation so they don't necessarily need to be discussed the next two also is related to a comprehensive plan amendment approval criteria again I won't go into the details the responses to each of these criteria approval are included in your backup if there is any particular one that you would like for me to elaborate I can certainly do so and then last this is the last page that that talks about the comprehensive plan approval criteria and again it will not in staffs opinion cause any adverse impact to the city so going back to the comprehensive plan and how is it consistent we feel that the modern residential along vintage Boulevard a primary arterial is an appropriate future lanes designation it is consistent with modern residential that is located to north of this site as we saw in the future land use map not only does it inconsistent with the future lanes designation it also is consistent in the land use pattern or the development pattern of that development you know it's consistent the scale and form it is also going to provide the connectivity that is already established with that existing single family and then the other main thing that I'd like to point out is that the proposed site layout will preserve floodplain as well as environment environmentally sensitive areas by avoiding those areas all together so as far as connectivity you see here the north to the north is already developed and what the applicant is proposing is to continue that Tamarack Lane to the south both connecting the roadway as well as a sidewalk the scale of the development that you see here to the north is roughly 50 by 135 the applicant is going to match that to the south and somewhat it may be a bit a little bit bigger but overall the reason why they're going to a larger denser zoning of r6 is to meet that density or that dimensional standards that is excuse me the dimensional standards of 6,000 minimum 6,000 square foot this just to illustrate what they are proposing as far as the impacts to the surrounding properties you can see that most of the area is currently undeveloped there is agriculture used to the west Fort Worth is to the south and then you see that the area to the east across Vintage Boulevard is undeveloped it's actually floodplain which will mean that it will not develop anytime sooner in future in my understanding is that the applicant or the property owner representing this application is in talks with our Parks Department in looking ways to make that more of a regional area in terms of trails or areas for park use regarding development standards and regulations we did a full analysis environmental impact again the subject layout is not going to impact any ESA they're avoiding that altogether there we talked about the surrounding properties physical impact analysis was provided and per the conclusion of that analysis there were no adverse impact to the city utility services and improvements will be reviewed while we look at the next step in the process if this were to move forward in regards to cladding and civil engineering plants and the like there was a trip generation assessment that was done based on the assessment there was no need for traffic impact analysis therefore it's staff determination that no adverse impacts will result from a single-family residential development regarding public services and facilities we also looked at that and in addition contacted the Argyle School District this actual area is within the Argyle School District boundaries and based on the timing of the development Argyle has informed the applicant in turn informed us that they will be able to meet the capacity of the students that would be generated from this development and again lastly the detailed review of the development will be done through plats and engineering plants when it comes to that stage of the development there was obviously public outreach sent out due to this being a public hearing and as of this evening staff has not received any responses either in opposition or in favor there was no meeting held due to the ruralness and the applicant did not want to it was not a requirement it was mentioned to them and they chose not to have a meeting and again all of the public hearing notices the signage the newspaper and the website notices were all published within the time frame allowed with all that staff recommends approval of this comp plan amendment as it complies with the criteria of approval under those two sections listed here with that I will stand for any questions and the applicant is also will be available during the public hearing for questions and they do also have a presentation was there any questions for Ron Commissioner Smith thank you Ron what's the I think I've asked this or heard anything in a while but what is the latest on 377 is gonna be widened at any point in time here in the near future I do not know that information I know that they are obviously working further north I don't know that status as far as this area of the city yeah we certainly can find out part it's a text doc it's a text daughter is it a it is text on sir if there's any other is any way you could find out from traffic I'd be appreciate just that is a drop in I mean drop her dropping dropping another you know dropping a zoning down or 300 homes can be built is okay yeah I have I believe Brian John is on the call he may be able to help answer that if we can follow up great rock can you hear me yes okay so this is Brian y'all the city traffic engineer text on has pursued schematic designs but I do not believe they have any funding at this point in time for that expansion of 377 so it's I don't know that it's a pending widening project they are looking to the future and they have again they have pursued schematics and they we've looked at some I have seen some drawings to show the widening but they do not have any funding at this point in time Ron can you pull up the map and just point out maybe where the currently right now and maybe Brian you can help out with a cross-street where where is the current expansion of 377 stopping there is it at is that Country Club Road just I believe it's just south of Country Club yes sir okay far south that was going it goes almost to the railroad track bridge got you okay so pretty pretty close to that area but okay and then Ron the the expansion of 28 down through vintage and Bonnie Bray and maybe this is more of a Brian question what are those updated timelines like on those expansions I'm going to turn over to Brian he may be able to answer that better all right so we'll state the question again 288 yeah the the expansion of vintage around I know it's not really connecting into there but it's more just that 288 is connecting its way all the way from 35 all the way down to 35 W that and my understanding is that it's using a piece of vintage to do that over on the other side of 35 W but then so good 288 you're talking about the 288 West project correct they are so the current plan is to build the northbound frontage road and and ultimately this is going to be a controlled access facility a freeway with frontage roads on both sides and the plan currently is to build the northbound frontage road and I think they're in a 2023 2024 time frame for letting so they are currently they've got environmental I believe if I remember correctly they've got environmental clearance and they're now working towards right away acquisition okay so they've got I think well I they have quite a few parcels to acquire okay so three so three or four years basically which look at I know this I know that's a comment's a conversation for that's that's that's that's west of this project site I get that I'm just looking at just regional mobility down there and with Hunter coal ranch coming in the amount of moderate residential authority over there and the amount of moderate residential we're adding there already you know and then I've always had kind of a sensitive spot whenever we're doing any type of things in the city of Denton especially when it borders up against other cities or against ETJ where you don't have you don't have people you have people getting in give me their input because they don't get notified because they're not in the city like you know training and then chipping Camden's you know a stones throw away from this project site none of those folks are all in Argyle and Argyle City limits they don't they don't know about this project existing and so just to be a good neighbor try to try to ask some questions about just mobility so but and then the other question was about Bonnie break the expansion down through there what was the timeline on that connecting in the fourth drive south of the project man and so Bonnie Bray's schedule I would have to go back and look I do not know that off the top my head I know there are segments of Bonnie Bray that are funded in their segments that are not funded so I quite honestly I don't have that answer right now okay thank you Brown appreciate is there any timeline on the signalizing of vintage and 377 there's got to be a light coming there right correct and that's part of the vintage project there's a railroad crossing improvements that's going in and I believe the signalization and I know Chandra's on the line as well signalization I believe is part of that vintage project okay great the only thing I want to say and I know we're up against we have three more items and 30 minutes before the public meeting it seems to me this this again is probably a larger discussion but we're putting a lot of houses in Denton and I'm concerned that every one of these houses is driving outside of Denton every morning at seven o'clock for work and so I'm wondering on a larger planning scale what is Denton doing to keep these people moving to Denton staying in Denton for their work week because the number of houses that are going in is certainly outpacing the number of actual businesses and I know they'll patron us hopefully they'll get some food here but they're taking their dollars 40 hours a week out of our town and so again that's more of like a soapbox kind of side note but I imagine all these people that moving right now into this location potentially the next couple years are gonna be heading down 377 down to South Lake and West Lake for for their jobs anyways that's just my soapboxes I see all these houses coming in any other questions for Ron Kirscher back yes thank you right can you remind me can you have a future land use map yes we pull that up for you get to real quick so we got a proposing existing and proposed the left is 2015 is that correct the left is but the the colorization is 2015 but the usage is current the color is what is the future land use map as approved per the 20 2030 plan which was approved in 2015 now he doesn't doesn't reflect what's on the ground is just what the future line use should be so can help me understand when in 2015 when we revised this was that moderate residential there yes this was here and and so at the time we left that as a rural connected to you know I guess what would continue to be rural and now as parks and government and so the thinking at the time was we wanted that to be sort of open lower density land with that moderate residential right in that area it's worth on his ETJ when that was approved right it was it was outside I mean again we were this is actually part of the non annexation agreements so we knew that this was going to be part of the city in the near future as far as how it was going to develop we did not have an idea and to be honest this was undeveloped and we wanted to just place rule because it was obviously undeveloped at the time so that that I guess that's that's actually where I was going with my questioning is this was just a the rural was the default placeholder designation more or less yes and we know that if you look further out of this area as you head south on Fort Worth it becomes more rural but yes that's generally the that was the intent okay and my second last question is that can you I can look for it and I couldn't find what's the definition of adverse on the financial impact statement yeah you're looking for the definition that's what we always say you should not have an adverse impact I couldn't I'm not sure I and I know what adverse is defined as essentially with with regards to the fiscal our fiscal impact analysis is making sure that the development does not cause any impact negative impact probably is probably word to the city as far as providing you know services in in how it budgeted and all that so in retrospect or in the analysis itself it was determined that the property taxes and other indirect taxes that would be that would result from the development would pay for itself so there would not be a cost to the negative right a negative impact it would be neutral or positive so adverse is my question is more actually not for the specific property but it brings it up the definition of adverse is negative it is a is a cost outflow from the city for any given property that is defined as adverse or not adverse in terms of the physical impact analysis okay perfect thank you Ron I appreciate it yeah any other questions for Ron okay thanks Ron appreciate the presentation you have the next one it's 5b 720 - zero zero zero eight and Ron I'm gonna ask you Karina and Christy just be mindful of time if it needs to be more high level and we dive into it in depth that might be preferred so we can try and still hit the post at 630 yes definitely this is the only thing if I may I think most of the presentation it's very similar I think the presentation for the rezoning so I don't know if there were whether Ron goes through at all or if there's specific questions to the to the designation that's being requested we might be able to just move move on to those other two items the thought sure Ellis yeah I mean my thinking is since it's so clearly related to what we just saw I would think we could just ask our questions with regard to the r6 zoning request if that'd be my opinion is there any opposition to that perfect okay so I'll go through the presentation real quick unless no I get it I think maybe just show the slide with with the with the change and if there's questions yeah maybe I misunderstood Commissioner Ellis sorry for the confusion I think we're trying to not skim this one down a little bit skinny it up yes and I was just making sure that was the case all right I was playing on doing it because a lot of slides as Richard mentioned are very similar but I just want to really focus on a couple that are new that are not included in the previous one and this is just to help illustrate the dimensional standards that the development if it were to develop today without any rezoning or comp planning you would have to develop under the RR the residential rural dimensional standards versus what is being proposed as our residential six as you can see here the minimum lot area is a lot less the lot width and lot depth is less and so on and so forth so to meet these dimensional standards the applicant is requesting the r6 this is what the zoning map is shown now as you all know it was annexed into the city which meant that it's not zone and that's why we're here today and the applicant is requesting to only zone the area that she's shown here and again the intent is to match what is currently to the north the area to the east is not being considered at this moment it's just the area shown in black or surrounded by the black line again approval criteria I won't go through most of this there is a section of the code that talks about the zoning map approval criteria very similar to the approval criteria for all applications we've already discussed the comp plan and how it's consistent the adverse impact as far as surrounding properties and then we've thought we talked about that and again based on the notifications that were sent out for both the comp plan and the zoning staff has not received any notices our responses either in opposition or in favor and again staff recommends approval and as said earlier the applicant is will be here during the public hearing and will be able to answer a question and they do have a presentation great I appreciate you trimming that one down I'm sure we can dive in all the questions in the regular meeting thank you Ron for that let's go ahead and move on to item 5c and I'll invite Karina Maldonado to present item s 20 - zero zero zero three C okay give me one second okay so the item today is s 20 zero zero zero three this is a specific use permit for Shady Shores town crossing multifamily just went over the request the the site is approximately 21.96 acres located in the SC suburban corridor district just some brief background this property and the parcel to the south were both brought forward in 2017 for a rezoning from regional center residential and regional center commercial downtown to community community mixed-use general that zoning designation did transition to SC in the 2019 transition in October just a just a point of clarification if that zoning had not occurred and remained the same it would have transitioned over to the MR regional mixed-use district so the site plan shown on the screen does reflect five buildings for 300 dwelling units both one unit and two-bedroom I'm sorry one bedroom and two-bedroom units three of sorry four of those buildings are for three story or three story in height and one building which is building to shown in the back in that L shape is a four story building the proposed development is for five shows 518 parking spaces that does include a reduction for motorcycle space substitution also on the site there are three access points one full main access off Shady Shores to the south one egress emergency exit only which is that westernmost driveway and then one right turn in and right turn out driveway off Lakeview there on the east side and the development does also show an 11.6 acre conservation easement which is being used to preserve ESA on the site as well as meet some tree mitigation that is located outside the ESA there are some proposed retaining walls shown in red and due to the construction of that there will be a minor encroachment into ESA which will require an alternative ESA plan that will come before you tonight just after this presentation and then lastly there are some proposed wider sidewalks along Shady Shores and Lakeview the landscape plan does show the required street tree plantings all along Shady Shores and Lakeview Boulevard it does in fact show increased plantings that would extend some required right-of-way screening plantings it does extend those throughout the rest of Shady Shores and Lakeview that would basically add additional screening between those buildings that are up front to close to the right-of-way I will make a note that those are subject to the approval of an easement abandonment there are four easements located they're marked in orange here along the south on Shady Shores and north on Lakeview those were put in when storm storm water requirements or storm water improvements were put in on Shady Shores so the applicant will need to go through an easement abandonment process in order to keep those plantings that are shown there additional plantings on the north are proposed for a buffer between the residential area that was a request by some residents in the in the area through those neighborhood meetings the applicant is also proposing some alternative landscape plantings from what our code requires and really what they're providing for in terms of landscape planning sorry parking lot planting is three partial elements rather than two full elements required by the code and this would actually be one full they fully met the requirement for end caps within the parking lot however for landscape medians that are required to be eight feet they're one foot short so providing seven feet and that is due to right-of-way dedication requirements as well as a 20-foot easement that's required that kind of limits the amount of space they would have for safe access within the site and they are also still proposing landscaped islands every 10 feet there they're short in some areas like right right at the front of Shady Shores excuse me but they are providing at least three partial elements to meet that landscape requirement and this is allowed through the alternative landscape alternative landscape plan deviation within the code they are also providing the required 8% open space as well as active and passive recreation within the site that includes a resort style pool located on the western part of the site some picnic and grilling areas as well as a dog park here to the north they do also include a fitness center that is located within the leasing building building to for for the residents to kind of use the site rather than going outside the area overall they're providing 30% landscaped area and 38% tree canopy area and this is in excess of the minimum 20% landscaped area for the SC district as well as 30% tree canopy for this zoning district before I jump into tree preservation I did want to highlight that this site did go through an ESA field assessment this was conducted by a third party last summer but was finalized in February of 2020 the main highlights from this were that the cross timbers upland habitat shown in green on the top of the screen this was removed as part of this this assessment due to fragmentation of the forest and this is because it did not meet the minimum requirements for being continuous area of 10 acres or more and so the largest area shown was roughly less than six acres so that designation was removed which allowed for more development on the site the ESA field assessment did establish that there was floodplain ESA this is based on the FEMA hundred-year floodplain map this is undeveloped floodplain in a natural condition it did also confirm to stream segment segments which indicated the presence of riparian buffer both 50 foot and a hundred foot and so that is this green area and then brown area on the screen and lastly they it did also confirm water related habitat which is non-wetland and so this is important because development when within the established ESAs is prohibited in most instances except with some exceptions through the AESA process tree preservation as I mentioned is does not include the ESA area which is all of this area within the orange border that encompasses roughly 50% of the site so this this project was significantly limited and where they could develop and they maximize the site as much as they could they are meeting minimum preservation at a reduced rate of 20% and this is allowed with 10% that 10% difference being mitigated at a higher rate and so to demonstrate compliance they are proposing replacement plantings I'm sorry let me take a step back preservation the 20% is all being encompassed in this area on the western part of the site conservation plantings are being proposed to meet the mitigation requirements and that will take or that will be planted within this kind of meadow area here other alternatives allowed within the Denton Development Code include utilization of the Denton Wildscape program which is something new and something that they're exploring as well as payment in lieu so staff did add a condition to the site related to how they would mitigate and I'll talk to that speak to that later in the presentation I won't go over the elevations right now they are proposing some two various site plans three of the buildings will follow this site plan sorry these elevations building three located on the corner will have a slightly varied elevation and then the four story building of course will be different in that it's four stories in height and would also include the leasing center the surrounding development so the property is shown here in yellow it is surrounded by residential single-family homes to the north that's moderate residential which is approximately five dwelling units per acre excuse me there is a buffer between the site and those residential homes it is a park space as well as trails there is also the DCTA a train rail line which covers about a hundred feet of easement between the site also you'll see areas in pink those are undeveloped land that have a higher intensity zoning the areas in red encompass existing car dealerships and then you'll see the orange area to the east side which basically mirrors the development off Lakeview is an existing multifamily that went in in about 2007 and has approximately 15 dwelling units per acre I will note that the proposed development would roughly gross out to 13 dwelling units per acre hey Karina enjoy the presentation thus far but I want to know Christy still has a little bit is there a way we kind of skip or maybe high level kind of get the rest done so we can get at least an overview of Christie's presentation yes sir I can do that awesome thank you so I'll skip over the criteria for approval we very briefly talked about the surrounding development is really just highlighting or mirroring what is existed existing off Lakeview and I'll go into more detail later it is in compliance with the future land use which has four designations on the site primarily community mixed youth regional mixed use but it is in line with both of those the other two minor designations are low residential and park space big highlights on this site are traffic the site itself will generate daily 1632 trips within a 24-hour period the intersection itself will only net increase 145 trips so the TIA that was conducted for this site did indicate that signal is warranted due to the existing development at that intersection the developer would be responsible for the proportional cost of that signal which is roughly 5% another highlight regarding Lakeview is a primary arterial and shady shores is a collector currently under the mobility plan however the 2020 proposed mobility plan it proposes shady shores as a local street the TIA did also taken into account multimodal access bike ped was big for this so Lakeview and shady shores will have those enhanced or wider sidewalks in line with the recommendation they're also proposing a crosswalk on the north side to connect into the dedicated trail that runs along the DCT a train rail line no transit is located in this area but the TIA did call for kind of just considering that in the future water is available to the site and can serve this development wastewater however is not available adjacent to the property so they will have to extend from the site to this yellow square here in order to serve the property the existing capacity based on the demand is is insufficient so they will likely have to provide some sort of improvement whether that is upsizing the line between the score and triangle and or providing some capacity or pumping capacity at the lift station that's located further up north off of Lakeview so that is also part of one of the recommendations for approval of this of this project they do have part access just across from the rail line the schools within the area do have capacity we did send out public notices to those within 200 and 500 feet nobody within 200 feet responded however we did get about two or three I need to update my numbers about two people within I'm sorry that's that's not right but 500 feet we did have about three people respond and then we had a majority of people outside of the 500 foot boundary that responded with opposition to this project recommendations for approval as I mentioned one of the kind of typical conditions that we have is related to landscaping which just allows staff to make minor modifications or administrative modifications which is pretty standard tree preservation this goes back to they meet the minimum tree preservation based on a reduced percentage and so staff is asking that we be able to work with them on how they mitigate the site so whether they use conservation plantings or the Denton Wildscape program or payment in lieu third is just ensuring that whenever the development does go through construction that they also construct the sidewalks at that same time the sewer extension condition was revised per the applicant's request and staff did not have issues with the revised language shown in red which just more generalizes that improvements would be required rather than specifically calling out the specific upgrade to those improvements as I mentioned easement abandonment would be required for those areas along Shady Shores and to ensure that the landscaping can go through as proposed and then Christie will go through the alternative ESA plan which would be approval would be required in order to move forward and with that this is just kind of another just overlying what they're providing with the plan and with that I can take any questions or we can move on to Christy yeah I think for the sake of time we'll halt questions I appreciate the presentation and you trying to expedite that and look at the time it's 625 we have a regular meeting at 630 and so I wasn't asked Richard his input but I'm thinking we'll just table 5d so we can take a break and then come back let me verify if that's fine is there anyone who has opposition to tabling 5d until we're here hey Richard are you okay with us not hearing 5d and work sessions hearing a public hearing I think I think I think that's fine I just wanted one thing I wanted to mention I was clarifying something with with with Christy I well well it is correct yes if the alt ESA is just if it is denied at council does that mean the SUP is denied to some extent yes because that plan is based upon that alt ESA but it would require at that point in time it would require a modification to that plan so just just wanted to clarify that that if that was denied they would still they could still come back with an SUP would just have to be a different plan that doesn't modify that ESA I got you because you're back did you have a question okay great so what I'm gonna do is it's 626 I'm gonna close the work session now let's meet back here at 635 I know it's a quick turnaround but that'll get us going for the regular session so that's nine minutes six thirty five thank you ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning regular session meeting for November 4th 2020 seeing we have a quorum I'll call the meeting to order at 637 thank you for being patient with us as we had a slight delay and work session that being said let's go ahead and jump right into the agenda the first item is to provide a pledge allegiance to the US and Texas flag commissioners you can unmute yourself to join along with me if you so choose 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 honor the Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible next item of business is item two the consideration of the October 21st minutes Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Anderson I second we have a first and a second for approval is there any discussion on the item seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call we'll start with Commissioner Beck I Mr. Anderson hi Mr. Smith hi Mr. Ellis I Mr. Cole I Mr. Pernitta I chairs also an I motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is the consent agenda Mr. Ellis I move approval we have a first for approval Commissioner Smith we have a first and a second for approval for the consent agenda any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Beck I Mr. Anderson I Mr. Smith I Mr. Ellis I Mr. Cole I Mr. Pernitta I chairs also an I motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is our items for individual considerations starting with our Planning and Zoning Commission calendar for 2021 Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a first and a second for approval of the calendar for 2021 any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Beck I Mr. Anderson I Mr. Smith I Mr. Ellis I Mr. Cole I Mr. Pernitta I chairs also an I motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is item 4B FP 20-0026 this is Karina Maldonado's item and I'll turn the floor over to her all right so before you is a final plat 20-0026 this is a final plat for Worthington Industrial Office which is a one one industrial lot off of Worthington and Shuler staff is recommending approval of this request as it currently meets the established requirements outlined in exhibit 2 however the applicant is proposing some last-minute changes to their plat during this the civil engineering process so they intend to alter their water plan which will require alterations to the current sorry the current easements shown here on the screen so the applicant is requesting a 30-day extension to a date certain of November 18th great thank you Karina Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the extension today certain of November 18 2020 a motion to approve the request for a 30-day extension to November 18th Commissioner Anderson second the motion we have first and a second to accept the request from the applicant to extend 30 days to a date certain of November 18th any discussion Commissioner Beck can you Karina can you briefly thank you chair can you really really briefly just delineate the changes in the water plan I don't actually have that information off the top of my head right now this was kind of like a last-minute request that came in on Friday but they will probably be coming back around very quickly no no I was I was just trying to get some advanced warning about what was coming yeah to my knowledge it was just something that came up during a pre-construction meeting just the location I believe of their taps might have just they they just decided to alter rather than having lines going within the development I believe these would be coming off okay thank you any other discussion scene nine I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole all Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Smith aye chair is also an aye motion carries seven zero the next item is also Karina's item it's 4c pp 20 - 0 0 2 2 and I'll turn the floor back over to her yes this is a preliminary plat of pp 20 - 0 0 22 for about 13 residential lots located off of Fort Worth Drive and Fairview Drive this is south of Brush Creek staff is recommending denial this request as it currently does not meet the established requirements the applicant has requested an extension to December 2nd all right thank you Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the extension to date certain December 2nd here we have first to approve the request for an extension to date certain of December 2nd Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a second any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote be a roll call starting with Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Smith aye chair is also an aye motion carries seven zero the last item for individual consideration is item 4d it's ADP 20 - 0 0 0 1 and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation good evening let me pull up my presentation okay good evening I'm Julie Wyatt I'm presenting ADP 20 - 0 0 0 1 at Gavé Ranch the request before you is for an alternative development plan for a single-family development on 92 acres outlined in yellow it's adjacent to FM 428 north of Hartley Field Road the purpose of the request is to deviate from sub chapter 13 of the of the 2002 debt and development code specifically related to architecture of the single-family residential dwellings so the zoning for the property was approved in Joe in July of last year which was a combination of NR 3 and NR 2 with overlay conditions it transitioned to PD with the 2019 code and due to the project submittal timing the proposal is being reviewed under the 2002 regulations which includes the ADP process and the residential standards we're talking about tonight just quickly to go over those those requirements lots under 10,000 square feet are required to comply with certain residential standards within the 2002 debt and development code as this applies to the agave Ranch development there are 219 lots that are less than 10,000 square feet 33 lots are larger than 10,000 square feet it would not have to comply with the requirements there are three standards that they are requesting deviations from the first one would be design features and that is a selection of three items from a list that is outlined in the debt and development code the second is for garage and specifically that front entry garages could not extend past that front building wall plus they could not be larger than 40% of that total brick building frontage and then windows and doors the 2002 debt and development code required 25% windows and doors on the front facade unless that that garage door so there are two builders that are looking to develop in the agave Ranch development and we'll take each of those design features separately so they do have concerns regarding those first first regarding design features those plans with recessed entries for both builders are only contained to design features typically based upon the list that the development code has the applicant is proposing a revision to that list to replace cupolas and bay windows with enhanced landscaping which includes foundation plantings and decorative edging as well as a large lot tree which is in in addition to what the 2002 debt and development code required as that 2002 didn't development code only required street trees for residential development they're also proposing a minimum roof pitch of 612 and then they they as part of their request it would require four design features instead of the three as required by the 2002 DDC so just to let you see what that roof pitch looks like here's is a visual of that I'm second regarding the garage door both both proposed builders do have plans where the the garage door would would extend forward of the front building line as well as exceed that 40% maximum so the applicant is proposing a deviation where those front entry garages could extend forward up to 6 feet from the front from the front building plane of the house that is nearest in setback distance to the garage door plane and 11 feet from that recess front door and this would could only apply to 40% of the total product and then they're also proposing for two car garages that that garage door could not occupy more than 45% of the total building frontage and 55% for three car garages once again they're proposing that this could only apply to 45% of the product and here is and here is a visual of what that looks like the the garage would extend if approved six feet from the front building line and 11 feet from that recessed front door the windows and doors they are several of their plans do not meet that minimum 25% so they are proposing a variation from that and that is to comprise 15% of the wall area plus to enhance design features from a menu including decorative shutters decorative brick details coach lights divided light windows decorative garage door hardware or decorative cedar shake or stucco board accents and the gables so we've got in your backup as well as in the presentation several several elevations which sort of demonstrate what these deviations would be and and for example this builder wine shows a the what those design elements would look like in terms of gables recessed porches and dormers as well as how those garage doors would affect those building elevations for example this this elevation shows a 48% garage door frontage and then finally the windows and doors for instance this elevation here shows 20% windows and doors but the addition of the shutters and the herringbone brick detailing builder to elevations also show a variety of those deviations the they showed the gables the the roof pitch as proposed as well as some of them would require that enhanced landscape package as proposed this garage door here as you can see it extends eight feet in front of that build of the the front I'm sorry the front door of this elevation and then several of their plans do not meet that minimum windows and doors for example this elevation here has 19% windows and doors but with the addition of the coach light and the in the shutters the criteria for approval is in the subject 13 development code first preserved existing neighborhoods the additional elements apply to all lots within the neighborhood and that includes lots over 10,000 square feet so it would be in excess of what the 2002 code would require their proposal shows home designs or home plans that are consistent with the surrounding architecture one and two-story plans two and three car garages as well as traditional forms and details the request is not intended to lower design standards and apart from the request all other subchapter 13 requirements are met so it does comply with the assure quality development criteria focus new development on activity centers this development was approved by ordinance last year ensure existing infrastructure that the property has is going through the platting process and engineering has determined that there's adequate capacity and then finally that the proposal would result in a high quality development and we're gonna take each of those elements independently so first the intent of those design features are to reduce that mass of the building discourage blank walls and really encourage visually interesting places the proposal is consistent with the residential character that that we typically see in Denton and that enhanced landscaping could increase the overall tree canopy provide visual interest and also reduce the amount of turf grass in the front yard the garage requirements in the 2002 Denton Development Code are intended to reduce the visual impacts of front facing garages the Ford extensions are limited as well as those additional percentage is also limited and and it would not what they're proposing does not overwhelm the front facade or conceal the front door so it does meet the intent of the requirement and finally the windows and doors those are intended to increase building transparency and discourage blank walls and with the adoption of the 2019 DDC the requirement was modified to minimum 15% windows and doors and this proposal is consistent with current regulations in addition they are at they are proposing to add additional decorative elements above those 2019 regulations as shown on those example elevations and so based upon the criteria for approval staff does recommend approval of the request and I'll be happy to stand for any questions and I believe the applicant is available and has a presentation as well any questions for Julie before we hear the applicant's presentation I don't see any Julie thank you and then if the applicant is available they just state their name and address for the record and then Julia are you pulling up their presentation on our end I am fantastic good evening commissioners this is Amy Bissett with 97 land company I represent the developer with Agave Ranch as well as the home builders and while Julie's pulling up the presentation first of all I want to make sure you guys can hear me we can and your presentation's up okay great excellent and I want to introduce the two home builders that we do have on board for this project that we are seeking these variances for and they are also on the phone in case you have specific questions related to their architecture or the market that that they're responding to in terms of the type of products they're bringing to Fitton Michael Dewar and Shannon Ray are on the phone with khop Manny and homes and Garrett Lust is also on the line with David and Julie we're just gonna jump right in I think I'll be very brief and you can go ahead and change the slide thank you and as Julie mentioned we did rezone in 2019 and the zoning is currently a PD that with a base zoning of NR2 and NR3 we do have some significant overlay conditions for those of you that were on the commission at the time that that was considered and we have a 30-foot landscape buffer along the entire frontage of loop I'm sorry of highway 428 15 percent preserved open space a multi-purpose trail system nine pocket parts and three ponds and this type of elevated the elevated residential subdivision has attracted these two home builders that have been inactive in Denton within the last 15 to 20 years if having done development previously we did come back to you guys in August of this year and got an approved general development plan and preliminary plat and we're currently in full design of civil construction plans and obviously we're bringing our builder variances to you this evening next slide please just a very brief reminder this is 92 acres with a maximum of 272 lots and an overall net density of 2.7 units per acre go ahead Julie just wanted to put our variances side-by-side between what the basic criteria is in the 2002 development code and what we are proposing this first variance is related to alternative design features both of our home builders found that cupolas and bay windows were just not the current market for their product so they have proposed and the enhanced landscaping package and minimum roof pitch and in lieu of those two design features next slide please I Julie did show the exhibit related to the roof pitch earlier but I wanted to show it compared with what is required by code which is a 412 roof pitch so essentially what you're looking at is a steeper roof on the on the main the main roof pitch and then on the enhanced landscape package Julie went through that but we are looking at doubling the requirement of trees for each yard or lot each one is currently required to have a street tree but we will we're proposing an additional shade tree per lot as well as foundation planting next slide please on the garages the main impetus or one of the main impetus reasons for this request is the builders do want to bring a three-car garage product to Denton and believe that it would be well received by the community and their their design plans do include some forward extending garages and we did do a comprehensive analysis in terms of how what percentage of their plans that they're bringing to this market and would be would require a deviation from the base code and we've built that in there to have some restrictions so that it's not allowed on every lot next slide please and then lastly is the window and door percentage and Julie indicated we will and can comply to at least 15% of window and door percentage on the front facade which is the 29th consistent with the 2019 code plus proposing enhanced design features from the list that you see on your screen next slide that is really all I have I just wanted to walk you through kind of a basic summary and introduce the two home builders that we have on board for this project that we're excited to to begin construction on in the near future and happy to stand for any questions or allow you to have conversations directly with the builders if you choose thank you I appreciate it Amy this isn't a public hearing but I did want to mention that for this item we had two people make comments using our online form there were two in support and zero against all these comments were emailed to the commissioners and her city secretary to be recorded with that happy to continue the discussion or entertain a motion Commissioner Smith we have a first for approval Commissioner Ellis like it we have a first and a second for approval any discussion on this item seeing none I will call for a vote be a roll call starting with Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Smith aye chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 congratulations and thanks for being here for a presentation tonight the next item of business gets us into our public hearings for this evening we'll start with item 5 a CA 20 - 0003 I'll invite Ron Maguida for presentation and I'll open the public hearing thank you chair let me pull out my presentation there is good evening Ron Maguida principal planner with Development Services this application is for comp plan amendment as mentioned in the introduction just want to go over the site location real quick as you can see line in yellow the site is located just south and west of Vintage Boulevard north of Fort Worth Drive the site itself is currently undeveloped with our agricultural use there are two stock sorry storage tanks that is on site as well as a plugged gas well and for background information this site was annexed into the city as long as well as the area to the east that outline here in the aerial that was they were both annexed into the city on August 25th of this year the request that is being brought forward for comp plan amendment is to reclassify the future land use designation future land use map of the site the 51 plus acres from rural areas to moderate residential this is being submitted in concert with a zoning map amendment to rezone this property to a r6 a residential 6 and the intent for that is to meet the dimensional standards for the site layout that you see here on the slide I just wanted to illustrate the location of the plug gas well that location will be a open space lot will not be developable and is shown here as lot X and again it's there shown an outline in red just for the benefit of understanding the future land use map and designation what its purpose is as you all know in 2015 the den plan 2030 was adopted with it were goals policies in action some of the goals and policies reflect or reference the future land use map and designation the intent of a future land use map is to depict the intended long-term pattern of land uses throughout the city to establish the process of which amending zoning district if that was the request to review the future land use map for guidance and also to guide any future coordination between transportation and utility within the city so this is just to help give the city an opportunity to look at the areas around the city future in long term the modern residential which is the proposed future language designation is described in the den plan 2030 as shown here I won't read the entire description but just want to highlight that it calls for a single family detached houses on small lots adjacent to key corridors the intent is to link as many local streets as possible and again to maintain the scale and style of adjacent properties what is being proposed is illustrated in this slide currently the future language map shows the property as rural areas shown here in green what is proposed by the applicant is to reclassify that to moderate residential as shown here one of the recommendation or the analysis that it's consistent is being that it's adjacent to an existing moderate residential to the north of the subject site the list that you see on this slide identifies the approval criteria for all applications the main highlighted ones that are in bold are ones I would like to for the planning zoning Commission to focus and that is its comp is consistent with the comprehensive plan that the use itself or the proposed future language designation minimizes any impacts to property owner properties surrounding the site and that the utility service and improvement standards are met and are compliant with the development standards there is also a set of approval criteria for a comprehensive plan amendment listed here a through D that the comp plan amendment was an error or designation was an error it was not the city council failed to take into consideration existing facts and projection they did not and then in events trends and facts after adoption change the only thing that the change was that this property was annexed into the city and that the next step in annexation is to zone in this case the zoning also included a comprehensive plan amendment or includes a comprehensive plan amendment and then that the character of the area changed and it did not it's just getting the is moved forward okay the other it continues for the comprehensive plan amendment approval criteria that is not that it is not in conflict with any goals and policies staff has not found that it has it constitutes a substantial benefit to the city the staff believe it does and that it avoids any creation of any isolated uses this proposed comp plan will result in hopefully the development of a single-family development similar to what is located in the area and MD does not apply last slide on the comprehensive plan amendment approval criteria that it will not adversely impact the city in terms of land use patterns will not that it will be able to provide public services and facilities the environmental sensitive areas are protected in that increased traffic is not going to create any impacts to an existing uses in the area what we are now looking at is the how it is consistent with a comprehensive plan and staff's analysis includes that the arterial primary arterial of vintage Boulevard which runs from Fort Worth Drive all the way to I-35 is an appropriate future land use designation for a property long primary arterial that the modern residential is consistent with what is shown on the future language map to the north and that the future development if this were to be passed would be consistent with the development pattern of the area one main thing that I like to express is that the developer or property owner is not going to encroach into the flood plain area that is just south and east of the subject site which in turn also will be avoiding any environmentally sensitive areas so by protecting that area stop believes that they meet the intent of protecting our environmental and sensitive areas and resources and lastly the proposed development hopefully will if when developed will connect to an existing subdivision to the north by way of roadway and sidewalk classification or connectivity so this is what is identified as that area where the connectivity would occur it's along Tamarack Lane that will then extend south again if this were to be approved and this development were to be developed the scale of the area is similar to what is shown to the north in size of lots again the reason for the r6 that's being proposed as far as zoning application is to meet the development standards dimensional standards that is of a minimum of 6,000 square feet and again that is the intent of the applicants request let's just illustrate what they're proposing their minimum lot size will be 6,000 some of them will be more but minimum lot size will be 6,000 looking at how it is you know proposed in an area and if it will create any adverse impact stuff feels that it will not the area is pretty much undeveloped the areas to the west I'm sorry to the east is a floodplain area floodway mainly it will not be developed in fact there has been already some discussion about using some of that area for parkland and or trails for our parks department to the southeast forward drive and again the area that I'm referencing is the floodplain also extends most of this southern portion of this development and again based on the site plan that they're proposing they would not encroach into this area so again this area here even with the trees will be preserved and not developed as part of this at least this application looking at the area to the west it is currently either undeveloped or developed with a single-family agricultural use that will still remain and proper buffer and screening would be obviously developed or proposed as part of this development if and when it continues we look at the development standards and other regulations environmentally there are no adverse impacts we talked about the surrounding properties there was a physical impact analysis prepared for this application in fact it was prepared for the annexation in anticipation of a rezoning and or development of the site and based on that analysis it was concluded there are no adverse impact we will staff will look at the utility services and other facilities in a future development application when when it comes through trip generation an assessment was conducted and based on that assessment a TIA a full traffic impact analysis was not warranted and therefore concluded that the no adverse impact would be created by the traffic generated by this development adequate capacity for public services just want to make mention that in addition to notices that were sent out to the surrounding neighborhood we did also reach out to Argyle school district as this property falls under their jurisdiction and we heard back from Argyle and based on the ultimate build out of this site believe is sometime around 2023 by then the Argyle school district will have the schools that would be able to accommodate the student enrollment that would be generated by this development or future development notices were sent out to all of the folks within 200 feet as well as 500 feet courtesy notice that is there was website notices and newspaper notices there were no meetings held with in the neighborhood and as of this afternoon this evening staff has not received any opposition or in favor responses to those public hearing notices with that staff is recommending approval as it meets and complies with sections 2 4 5 which is the approval criteria for all applications as well as 2 7 1 which applies to the comp plan amendment approval criteria I will stand for questions I'd stand corrected the applicant does not have a presentation however they will they are available for questions if you have if you have they're currently on the call thanks Ron Christian back Ron where is the the closest connection for where city services might connect sure I believe vintage Boulevard is where the water I know I don't have a map per se but it'll be vintage Boulevard and then as far as the water and wastewater that that's basically on vintage Boulevard okay so just just right there okay and single-family developments are north there may be some they'll probably will be some connections to create that that loop so that it's all connected okay and my understanding is if I am I remembering the the backup correctly do we did a down water assessment on this say that one more time we did a down water drainage assessment on this this property well part of the analysis of that will be done during platting and during them while and during the right I thought it was already been done so yeah I don't think that has occurred that will be during the platting and engineering review of those plans all right thank you so much okay any other questions for Ron as you're contemplating that I just want to let you know that for this item there's one person who called in to our 940 349 7800 line to register their position and they were in support there was no one using that mechanism to lobby in the opposition with that I will go ahead and close the public hearing and continue the virtual day's discussion or a motion Commissioner Ellis thank you I just have a question for Ron Ron so I know we're not dealing with the other annex piece of this like to the northeast right but do you know anything about that piece of property I just know that it's fully within the floodplain and that it will probably remain the entire parcel is correct okay that's what I wanted to understand yes okay thank you so I don't see any hands raising so I'm gonna take the floor and say I think in principle the idea of the comp plan being amended from rural future land use to moderate residential future and leaves make sense on its face it seems like the neighbors to the west kind of set that motion and then knowing that basically this corridor between our 35 W and 377 is just ever changing with with homes we just approved a neighborhood south of here so I don't foresee this property remaining rural it just doesn't make sense and I certainly I understand the applicants position on this I will say as I mentioned in work session I have some growing anxiety about the corridor between 35 and 377 that's in Denton's jurisdiction and how it's all homes and it's kind of this weird segment away from our town that we're they're about to get what our third largest park and it's all rooftops and I have concern about the economic viability for our town if we continue building homes in which the services of Roanoke and the restaurants and the things that Roanoke and Argyle provide will keep these cars moving southward and not northward into the economic drivers of our town and so again I don't hold the applicant responsible for that but I think as we look as Denton Classical Academy is going in a new police stations going in I have not seen yet any sort of jobs or any any retail any sort of commercial design being proposed in this entire corridor and I know hunter ranch and coal ranch whenever they get here might provide some economic drivers on the highway corridor but in the interim we're putting rooftops in and rooftops are not going to sustain Denton long-term in terms of the economy and so with that after that long soliloquy I will motion for approval on this item as staff presented and I'll look for a second but I just wanted to say my soapbox as we continue through this corridor progression I'm going to be more and more vocal about what is the accident what are we doing to for the betterment of Denton by providing all these rooftop homes I saw Commissioner Smith's hand next major I agree with your sentiments and I second Commissioner Ellis you had your hand up I don't want to discount you perfect so we have a first and a second for approval of staff presented I didn't see any conditions on this wrong right it's just a straight approval this is straight will be yes great we have first and a second any discussion on this item seeing none I'll go ahead and call for a vote via roll call starting in my upper right corner Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Smith aye Commissioner Pernetta aye chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 next sign of business is item 5 B Z 20 - 0 0 0 8 this is also Ron's item I will turn the floor over to him and open the public hearing thank you chair sorry let me get back to start this is the counterpart to the comprehensive plan amendment this is the zoning map amendment request by the same applicant for the subject site we've already seen this site plan again the request for the zoning map amendment is to rezone or actually excuse me to establish the initial zoning since it was just recently annexed to a residential 6 zoning district again the intent is to develop this with a single-family development and the intent is to be able to develop it within the dimensional standards of a residential 6 zoning district just want to illustrate that if this zoning case were not to be approved the underlying zoning that they would need to comply with if they were to move forward with any development is shown here under the RR residential rural zoning district the other column to the right is the residential 6 as you can see the minimum lot area which is primarily the reason for their request for an R6 is to be able to develop a minimum of 6,000 square feet shown here is the illustration of these current zoning map as you can see it is not currently zoned as it was recently annexed and you can see the surrounding area around the area is still in the county the area that's outlined in black is what we're talking about and per the request it would be zoned or be colored as brown color which is consistent with the R6 to the north of the subject property again you've seen this approval criteria for all applicable applications won't spend too much time on this other than again highlight the three areas or three criterias that we will have some discussion in there is also a zoning map amendment approval criteria which is 1 through 7 is it consistent with the future land use map again depending on how City Council you know decides that would be something to consider is it within a small area plan it is not this is a consistent with the purpose statement of the zoning district it does well or have this area have have had any significant changes other than the annexation there has not been significant changes will this have an adverse impact to surrounding properties or to the neighborhood staffs analysis that it will not public facilities and services these will all be accounted for during the the platting if that is when the next phase is also again want to make mention that services also includes the school district and we did reach out to Argyle and again based on the build out of this development at that time the Argyle school district will have the schools to be able to accommodate the enrollment of those students that would be generated from this development won't spend too much on time on this slide but other than mention again that the r6 is appropriate for this area being that is a long vintage Boulevard again it's consistent with the development to the north in terms of pattern site design I'm sorry sought site layout design that is as well as the avoidance or the keeping away from the floodplain and environmental sensitive area all of which in staffs analysis makes it consistent with the comprehensive plan when it comes into the adverse impact we went through this with the common plan amendment again the site is very very rural in nature however you know future development when this development does occur we feel that it will not impact those areas in a negative way again we went through this with the common plan amendment with regards to the traffic just want to spend time a little bit on that there was a traffic generation assessment done based on the generation of a single-family 110 lots in total the conclusion is that there will be no adverse impact we did spend time on making sure that the connectivity as well as the turning into in from vintage Boulevard was accommodating the minimum requirements and it will again based on the site plan that has been proposed and again future applications will be reviewed in detail including a downstream drainage assessment when that time comes public outreach was made and again as of this evening staff has not received any in responses that is in opposition and or in favor so again nothing to report as far as public input in regards to the public hearing notices with that staff recommends approval as it complies with the sections 245 again the criteria for approval for all applications and 272 which is the zoning amendment map criteria for approval staff is will stand for any questions and again the applicant does not have a presentation but is on the line if there are any questions for for them great thanks Ron any questions for Ron Mr. Beck thank you chair Ron can you refresh my memory on those two detention ponds or our drainages or duck ponds or whatever they were where the edge of the hundred-year floodplain was sure that you've indicated that the applicant was going to leave that correct and I appreciate you bringing that up let me pull up the present the presentation once again and I can share that delineation do it you get to sorry there we go so the the flip plane line is shown here and you can see they're avoiding that all together and as it continues to the south and to the west this is the line of where the floodplain now there are there is a delineation here of a 500-year floodplain which they are able to develop but the main floodplain is just outside where they're proposing to develop and those stock storage tanks that is is shown outside of the development and within that floodplain area okay so and and just to point out everything to the east again is within the floodplain and I believe this line here delineates where the floodway is located so most of this area to the east is within a flood way and and that is that a path between those lakes or is that the drainage this right here no between the ponds oh I'm sorry yes that is that is that a drainage I don't know what that I think it's just to separate the two stock storage tanks okay all right thank you run you're welcome what other questions are there for Ron Chris Ellis thank you chair hey Ron I know with this our six zoning what just gives me a slight pause that's inconsistent with that neighborhood that's to the to the north there is that I believe it opens up triplex and four plex by right is that correct I don't have my code in front of me but let me let me let me double check one second thank you I'll go ahead and take this time real fast to let you know that there was one person who called in to our 940 349 7800 line to register their position they were in support of this project and we had no one use that to express opposition it is correct duplex triplex four plex are permitted with the use specific standards within our six and then I think it also opens up manufactured housing with an SUP is that correct that's correct okay did you all discuss that at all as being a concern just as as you know I mean zoning is not tied to a project you know this this project has presented certainly complies with with the area but we we didn't specifically discuss that however with the specific use permit I think there's there's ample opportunity to discuss that at a future time if and then if if that does get proposed with this property yeah it would just be a specific use permit for manufactured housing I don't believe anything's needed for the the others correct that's right that's correct okay Chris Ellis are you are you thinking about carving that out of this approval maybe well I don't know that that our code allows me to carve that out anymore I'm confused on that as we don't seem to to have that ability to to create that overlay I believe it has to come from the applicant so if we were in our old code yeah I would be carving it out because to me that that's just inconsistent with with the way it connects to Tamarack Lane that I would want to make sure that it was single-family homes if we were going for our four we wouldn't even open those up as a problem but I realize our four they want to go below the 7,000 square foot lot so I guess I'm slightly disappointed staff didn't look into that to try to maybe slightly mitigate that because it does cause me pause hi this is the applicant hi hi this is Randy Rivera the applicant I'm a planner with McAdams in Louisville and I appreciate Commissioner Ellis sharing that concern and we would be willing to allow that as a condition of the approval tonight if that's appropriate Randy I appreciate you providing that concession I think the question I have for Richard is can we do that I believe we can I know that if the applicant is requesting for that overlay but again I know Cynthia's on the line and so I would defer to her Cynthia could we potentially recommend this for approval limiting duplexes and triplexes from the zoning request mr. chair I'm not on mute for once I'm ahead of myself mr. chair under Texas law you can attach overlay conditions to your rezoning and it's certainly something that's planning commission can make a recommendation to the council on okay great Commissioner Ellis I turn it back to you is that something that you would explore absolutely okay then why don't I go ahead and close the public hearing since someone else is on the line to call and then we can kind of progress this conversation further but let's start with Commissioner Beck Commissioner Ellis can I can I ask you thank you chair can I ask you what I understand that the continuity with the our six to the north the our six to the west next to the park but you your qualm is you don't like you don't want to duplex or triplex even though those are predominantly house-shaped house structured and house single-family density levels you don't you're having a problem with that yeah Christian I'll see you more welcome to surround yes it's inconsistent we're effectively the way it's presented could taking that subdivision to the north and and almost just creating a continuation of it to the south of vintage in my opinion so yes to to open it up that if this development doesn't happen and now we've got a parcel that's our six that anybody can put up a triplex or four plex on it um yeah it's inconsistent with in my opinion with with its location yeah it is just to add my two cents to Commissioner Ellis's viewpoint we're continuing a road it's not a separate neighborhood in of itself there's connects to the northern property so you potentially have a single attached home next to a quad plex or a triplex which I agree with Christian Ellis in terms of the consistency of it's like we're redoing a neighborhood it's just it'll it'll be perceived by the public as an extension of that neighborhood but Christian back to four still yours no I was I think that clarified Commissioner Ellis's opinion point to me I thank you Commissioner house any other Christmas I make a motion to approve with the overlay condition of no triplexes duplexes or manufactured homes to be added to the zoning Mr. Anderson I saw your hand up I don't is it no I was I was gonna make it a motion but since Commissioner Smith did I'll second his motion okay and just for clarification Chris Ross I could I make a friendly amendment to say that we're gonna limit it to single-family homes with that that is a much better way to say it there Christian Ellis will do it that way I'll accept the front in them Richard all right just just for further clarification it's single-family detached only correction correct single-family detached only yeah I don't have the code in front actually I do have the code in front of me actually it's just one column right single detached families just one color we're just gonna limit it to that right yeah I think that's cleaner Commissioner Anderson are you okay with that amendment absolutely okay so we have a first and a second for approval with a condition that it is restricted to single-family detached homes we have a first and a second is there any discussion on that great with that we'll go ahead and start the voting via roll call Commissioner Beck I Chris Anderson I Chris Ellis I Mr. Cole I Mr. Smith I Mr. Pernetta I chairs also an I motion carries 7-0 congratulations next item of business is item 5 CS 20 - 0 0 0 3 C on by Corina Maldonado for presentation and I will open the public hearing Corina whenever you're ready the floor is yours probably work best if I have muted myself before I started that is always helpful yeah all right good evening the request today is for a specific use permit this is s 20 - 0 0 0 3 C Shady Shores town crossing for multifamily the request as I mentioned is a specific use permit to permit multifamily dwellings on approximately 21.96 acres in the suburban corridor district a little bit of history the site was previously rezoned in 2017 this was under the 2002 zoning it was a regional center residential RCR one and regional center commercial downtown RCC D both were the transition to the community mixed-use general which is CMG and that was the subject site and the adjacent parcel to the south in the the transition to the 2019 zoning that was transition to the current SC zoning district I did want to make a note that had this rezoning not been approved the subject property would have transitioned over to the MR zoning district which would allow multifamily by right the site plan that is shown on this on the screen does show or demonstrate that the applicant is proposing five buildings with this development and three would be I'm sorry four would be three-story buildings and one would be four stories and that would be building one three four and five those would be the three stories and this L shaped building towards the western more western property would be the four story the units proposed is 300 approximately 300 dwelling units both one bedroom and two bedroom only along with the proposed development is 518 parking spaces those are vehicular spaces and it does include a reduction for motorcycle space substitutes which is once paid one space for every two motorcycle spaces it does include I believe 30 bicycle spaces for this development as you could see approximately 50 percent of the property is ESA or floodplain with the exception of this dark green portion on the westernmost part of the property so the applicant is proposing to dedicate a conservation easement which is approximately 11.6 acres that would include the ESA and the area for tree preservation which I'll speak to later as part of that kind of that floodplain that is located on the site the applicant is demonstrating a retaining wall on the western side of the property that's shown in red and in order to construct that there is a possibility of some minor encroachment into the ESA since they are abutting directly to the ESA shown so there will be an accompanying alternative ESA plan that would follow this presentation and so we are proposing a recommendation or a condition of approval with the recommendation indicating that they would need approval of that AESA also on this site there are three proposed driveways two on shady shores and one on Lakeview the driveway access that's on Lakeview would be a right turn in and right turnout only so there would be no left turn northbound on Lakeview due to the the median that is blocking that entrance on Shady Shores there is a full access driveway that would allow the residents to come this is the main entrance allow them to reach the leasing center that would be located in building two and then on the westernmost portion of the site is an egress only an emergency exit that would allow left and right turns on to Shady Shores last they are also proposing wider sidewalks along Shady Shores and Lakeview to kind of enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation on the site the proposed landscape plan does demonstrate they meet the minimum requirements they are showing street trees along all of the building frontage for Shady Shores and Lakeview as well as the required right-of-way screening where parking is fronting the right-of-way so if you can see this area in dark green this area reflects both street trees and right-of-way screening plus a continuous shrub to to kind of buffer that proposed parking the applicant is also proposing to extend this plantings across the entire frontage of Shady Shores and Lakeview which is this bright green area that you'll see here this is not required by our code but they are proposing this to meet the concerns of of the residents that have indicated that they would like to see more screening from between the buildings that are up against the right-of-way and and the roadway in addition to that they are proposing a landscape buffer of trees on the northern portion of the site this is in addition to the hundred feet of easement that is associated with the DCTAA train line this would add kind of additional buffer between the residents that live on the northern portion of the site I do want to take a step back and mention that the plantings that are shown within these orange boxed areas these orange areas are existing slope and drainage easements that were acquired by the city when Shady Shores stormwater improvements were put in the applicant is proposing to request an easement abandonment to allow plantings and paving and fencing within these areas so staff has indicated that we would first like to see a structural analysis of the proposed retaining walls that they would be putting along Shady Shores so with that a condition of approval would be requested that I'll go over later but if that were not to be approved they would not be able to put the plantings that you see located here in addition to this they are proposing alternative landscape plantings so our Denton Development Code does require that parking lot landscaping be provided using two elements out of three options the applicant is proposing three partial elements or I should say one full element and two partial elements to meet this requirement they are proposing end cabs at the end of every grouping of parking spaces as well as meeting a seven foot landscaped median on this western part of the site the requirement is that they provide eight feet but they do have a requirement for right-of-way dedication as well as a 20 foot utility easement that does limit safe access within the site so they're just one foot shy which wouldn't allow them to meet the full points but they are providing it anyways in addition to that they are still proposing landscaped islands within the site there are some areas you can see here where it's obviously more than 10 spaces where we would require a landscape island and again they're they're offering three partial or two partial elements in replacement of one full element so staff felt that it was appropriate given the amount of plantings on the site open space and recreation is provided for this development it is required for multifamily in a dedication or set aside of eight percent of the land area they are proposing active and passive recreational space which is a resort style pool some picnic areas grilling areas they are proposing an enclosed dog park here on the north side as well as some indoor recreational facilities within building two including a fitness center and I and I can't remember the others off the top of my head but there's a few other recreational space was spaces within this building and just overall they are providing 37% landscaped area as well as 38% tree canopy area for the suburban corridor zoning district the minimum requirements for landscape area are 20% and the tree canopy requirements are 30% so they are going above the minimum for this site so before I go into tree preservation I do want to cover on the ESA field assessment that was conducted just last summer and was finalized early this February so this this field assessment was conducted by a third party it was approved in February of 2020 the biggest item related to this was related to the cross timbers habitat shown here in green this designation for ESA was removed due to it being a fragmented forest if you can see here there are a couple of gravel driveways that cut through the tree canopy because of this it does not achieve the minimum requirement of a contiguous 10 acre canopy the greatest area would be less than six acres so because of that the designation of cross timbers upland habitat was removed with the removal of that designation the developer was able to then develop the site which would of which would have otherwise excuse me unlimited the space that they would be able to use with this ESA it was also confirmed that there was indeed flood plain ESA and that boundary shown here is in line with the FEMA designation so it's updated every whenever the FEMA map is updated so the the line would fall follow the 2020 100 year floodplain that is shown on FEMA maps that floodplain again is undeveloped floodplain and is in a natural condition the field assessment also identified two stream segments that did have a presence of riparian buffer and so the the area shown in green would be that 50-foot riparian buffer and this brown area to the north would be the hundred foot and lastly they did identify a water-related habitat which is non wetland but is designated as a water-related habitat ESA and so the reason why I bring this up is because related to tree preservation tree preservation cannot include the tree canopy within the ESA so as you can see they're they're very limited on the space that they could use and I'll go over to the next slide the area within this orange kind of weird looking shape that is essentially all of the ESA on the site and that's where they would be restricted from any they wouldn't be able to count this area's tree preservation in a sense so if you can see here they are meeting the minimum tree preservation requirements however this is at a reduced rate of 20% preservation they are meeting that with this I believe it's 1.45 acre area they are in order to to use the reduced preservation they do have to increase mitigation for that that difference of 10% that has to be mitigated at a higher rate and so the applicant has demonstrated that they would be able to achieve this they are demonstrating this with one by by designating the conservation easement and providing or proposing replacement tree plantings within this central meadow area they would get credit for that which would allow them to meet all the mitigation there are some other options within the Denton Development Code that would would be beneficial to them as well and the city looks at favorably which would be our Denton Wildscape program so rather than planting in this area this would be leaving the area in a natural condition this would need to be kind of negotiated with our folks and sustainability to make sure that we're we're meeting their requirements but this is just one other option that they could use for minimum mitigation and then the last option if they decide not to pursue either of the first two methods would be payment in lieu of plantings oh and I'll take a step back and just say the the developed area that you're seeing here which all of the the the parking the buildings the recreational space this developed area existing has an existing tree canopy of approximately 65.5% this is not including the the tree preservation area in the ESA while they are removing a lot of this for this development they are proposing that 38% tree canopy with the new landscape plantings and then if they do move forward with the the conservation plantings within this conservation area they would also be including or adding 18% canopy on the lot so it's it's roughly about a 10 to 15 percent loss of tree canopy I'll just briefly cover the concept elevations for this site the applicant is going to go into more detail in a presentation after after this they are proposing again building one four and five would follow the same elevation per our code no more than three buildings would be able to have the same elevation style so just building one four and five would show what you're seeing here on the screen this is a three-story building it's showing some balconies some offsetting vertical and horizontal breaks to just make it look less of a you know a single building they are showing some of these street plantings but of course this would actually look more full with the additional plantings that they proposed building three that it's located on the corner of Lakeview and Shady Shores would have a slightly altered elevation you'll see it's just just has a slightly different relief on the end to just break up the the monotony of the same buildings and then last this is the final elevation for building four which would be that L-shaped building that would overlook the ESA area this building would be the four-story building and includes the leasing center here in in the the main entrance of the site so talking about the surrounding development the the property shown is here in yellow the proposed development that they are coming forth with is approximately 13 dwelling units per acre so looking at that with the surrounding development there is a lot of single-family homes to the north of this site this is about moderate residential approximately five dwelling units per acre there is a mobile home park area that is located a little bit further west or northwest of the site but as you can see between the actual development or proposed development and the residential there is park space that buffers the two proposed uses there's some I believe it's Dallas Junior Veterans Memorial Park is located right here there's an open space lot and then there are trails that go through which actually also preserves a lot of the floodplain that cuts through the property to the east of Lakeview which really mirrors what the proposed development would be is an existing multifamily property that was developed in 2007 that development that apartment complex has approximately 15 dwelling units per acre which is slightly higher you'll see then than the proposed development the pink areas that you see here are undeveloped properties the one to the south is actually owned by the same developer and is currently zoned for Highway Corridor and so that's a little bit more of an intensive use the property to the east on Lakeview is actually zoned MN so that is a lower density zoning and would also allow multifamily if that were to ever come in the areas in red are existing auto deal or auto sales car dealerships these are existing and have been there so what you'll see here is that the proposed development it's separated by a rail line and has an additional park buffer if you would call it between the residential to the north and it it actually it just mirrors the same development that's existing on the opposite side of Lakeview so I'll just generally go over the general criteria for approval I won't go into too much detail I'll actually stick to the SUP criteria for approval since there is a lot of duplication in the kind of the requirements so the SUP criteria for approval in section seven two point seven 2d speaks to whether the use specific use permit is compatible with the surrounding area whether it has minimal impacts the future development of the area if it complies with all standards of the DDC and other city codes how it impacts access traffic emergency services parking noise glare things like that conformance with a comprehensive plan and then of course any impacts to the health safety and welfare of our residents in the area so kind of just marrying what I just spoke to a few slides ago about compatibility with the surrounding area as I discussed you know the the proposed development while it does abut this large residential area multifamily is one of those those housing types that provides a smoother transition between housing rather than you know high-intensity uses that would be allowed in the suburban corridor district such as auto you know auto maintenance uses auto repair oh my gosh I blinked out at the top of my head but more intensive commercial retail restaurant multifamily kind of adds that that buffer between those uses also as I mentioned it is mimicking what is existing in the area it's not kind of proposing you know another another auto dealership or something more intensive so multifamily is compatible with what's on the ground today it is sort of that supportive residential use that would come in with future development of any high-intensity commercial under that highway corridor zoning that you see here so as I mentioned that this is the the SC district MN abuts it to the the east and it is also surrounded by highway corridor so it is unique within the city in that rather than having you know maybe like a higher residential use between it kind of just jumps straight into SC and again that comes with the rezoning that came in 2017 as I mentioned park space and that DCTA right of way provide a buffer between the moderate residential to the north and that that general development pattern exists so staff feels that you know the proposed development is in scale and similar to what you would find in commercial areas especially along a primary arterial like Lakeview and it does at least have a three points of access that would disperse the vehicle ingress and egress towards I-35 I'm speaking to the future land use designation this particular property does have four land use designations on site it's a little bit difficult to read with this map but you know the primary designations would be community mixed use and regional mixed use that kind of creeps in on the west side the other two land use designations that cover the property are this low residential area and in the park space I'll focus on the first two since they do kind of dominate the the designations on the property so community mixed use really looks to promote a mix of uses it's predominantly commercial but residential is something that is permitted as a complementary use for those commercial areas that will come in this again is more of on a neighborhood scale commercial whereas the next designation of regional regional mixed use promotes a mix of uses that serve regional destinations this would be more moderate and high density residential higher intensity commercial office entertainment it only excludes industrial at that highest level but it does have that higher intensity scale so the proposed development staff feels that is it's consistent with the blended goals of both community mixed use and regional mixed use designations so next I'll speak to you know adequate public facilities first transportation traffic is is often a large topic of discussion with many of these developments this proposed development would generate just over 1,600 trips within a 24-hour period that would be 108 a.m. peak trips and 132 p.m. trips specific to this intersection of Shady Shores and Lakeview there would be a net increase of 145 trips related to this development that would be 68 a.m. peak trips and 77 p.m. peak trips Lakeview Boulevard is as I mentioned a primary arterial Shady Shores is currently listed as a collector on our current mobility plan but I did want to note that the 2020 mobility plan does propose Shady Shores as a local street so this would be a downgrade in the current does it roadway classification a traffic impact analysis was conducted for this development recommendations from the TIA did indicate that a left and right turn deceleration lane along Shady Shores would be recommended this requirement was waived by our city engineer due to a few things the applicant is proposing on street parking which would serve to slow some of that traffic going westbound on Shady Shores and the number of turn turning movements at those driveways were not as significant as would be on other sites where you would need significant deceleration another recommendation that came out of this was that related to the intersection of Shady Shores and Lakeview a signal was warranted by the existing traffic at this intersection so as you can see from from the previous numbers provided the existing traffic is around 3239 weekday trips within a 24-hour period the proposed development is again only providing a net increase of 145 trips so the developer would be responsible for a proportional cost of any signal improvements on this site but it would be roughly 5% in addition to roadway traffic the TIA did look at pedestrian multimodal analysis in this so the TIA did recommend that bike pit access be provided along Shady Shores and Lakeview the applicant is proposing a 7-foot sidewalk along Lakeview as well as an 8-foot sidewalk along Shady Shores and of course because of our Denton development requirements they are required to connect to the existing sidewalk sidewalk that is located on the west and extending this at least to the property boundaries on Lakeview the applicant is also proposing a crosswalk from the eastern or sorry western side of Lakeview onto the eastern side so that a connection can be made to the Denton Katie Trail that runs along the DCTA rail line it would also provide this connection to the park that is located to the north transit was also looked at within the TIA there is no DCTA stop located on the a-train and there is no bus service in the area but due to the development and the increased demand they do recommend or did recommend that future consideration be made as relates to public infrastructure the site does have accessibility to an existing 16 inch line off of Lakeview Lakeview for water services and there is capacity for this development to be served in terms of wastewater the closest wastewater line would be located where this square is off a post oak boulevard so in order to serve this development the applicant would need to extend what wastewater lines all the way up to this this this area it was also noted during the review that the demand for this proposed development could not be served sufficiently with the existing infrastructure so staff is recommending a condition of approval that improvements in the form of either upsizing the line or improvements to the the lift station sorry pumping capacity of the lift station be addressed as this as this project progresses forward so that would be between this square in this triangle improvements along the existing wastewater line here and then the existing lift station is located a little bit further up on Lakeview so of course any excuse me any improvements that would be made would be credited towards any tap and impact fees that are required once this development goes through the permitting process as I mentioned before the site is located at least a hundred feet in a direct line from the existing part to the north this is Dallas J veterans or Dallas Junior Veterans Memorial Park even though is it is really just a hundred feet in a direct line the closest and safest route would just be even so less than a quarter mile even even so the the applicant is proposing on-site amenities that I mentioned earlier that would be the active and passive recreation within that open space area staff did get in contact with DISD regarding the capacity of our school system so pretty at DISD this site would generate 69 additional elementary students 15 middle school students and 18 high school students these would be within the attendance zones of Stevens Elementary Meyers Middle School and Ryan High School the elementary school does have capacity to serve the development and as does Myers Middle School and Ryan High School however that would be limited capacity that DISD would serve to accommodate as long as there's no additional residential growth within the attendance zone they also did not have any additional concerns with this development in particular staff did reach out through public notices a legal ad and the applicant did provide their notices or their signs on the site within 200 feet we did not receive any immediate responses however staff has received responses from approximately 28 people as of today 21 of those these would be outside or within and outside the 500 foot area 21 responses in opposition two in favor and five would be neutral or just seeking general information so staff received these responses via email phone calls and through the online form that is on our website and I will mention this the the applicant did hold three neighborhood meetings these were meetings with the pecan preserve at Pecan Creek HOA to get feedback regarding their development plans and with this staff is recommending approval of the SUP with the following conditions one that landscaping in the attached plan reflects an intent to comply with our current DDC requirements that's regards to parking street trees minimum landscape and canopy areas as well as the compatibility buffers so this would allow minor alterations to the depicted locations of individual plantings and final individual plant selections that could be approved by city staff provided that those final landscaping complies with the attached plan again in terms of buffer overall landscaping street trees mature tree canopy as well as other elements in the Denton Development Code second relates to tree preservation so the tree preservation shown on the attached plans really just reflects an intent to comply with the 2019 development code standards for tree preservation replacement and mitigation however as I mentioned before mitigation through the use of plantings within the conservation easement would be dedicated to the city but it also may be met using the Denton Wildscape program payment in lieu or any other method as permitted in the Denton Development Code section 7.74 which relates to tree preservation the third condition relates to sidewalk extensions so site sidewalks must be constructed concurrent with other public improvements along the frontages of Lakeview Boulevard and Shady Shores Road that would ensure that there's that connectivity with the development ensuring that there's pedestrian pedestrian and bike access around the area fourth there was a change in the condition from the staff report until now the applicant did request some minor changes and staff did not have any opposition to this which was just to reduce the specificity of the improvements required so for sewer extension off-site sanitary upgrades and or improvements to the downstream wastewater infrastructure must be constructed concurrent with other required public improvements in order to serve the multifamily development fourth sorry I had to catch my breath would be related to that easement abandonment again approval of the structural analysis of those proposed retaining walls along the right-of-way would need to be approved with the civil engineering plans and and prior to final plan approval as well as approval of the proposed abandonment of for the four slope and drainage easements that were shown next relates to the alternative ESA plan that will be following this presentation approval of an AESA would be required for those proposed encroachments related to the retaining walls into the riparian buffer and floodplain ESA seventh condition is just to make sure that that zoning map zoning map reflects the SUP on on the property consistent with our 2019 code and then of course any administrative approvals within the first condition the city would have the ability to do that in addition to this want to make sure that some of those site elements that are provided in the site plan in Alaska landscape plan remain with this plan but allow staff to make that the ability to increase any of those amounts by at least 5% and this would be related to the number of dwelling units provided that the number of buildings remains the same I'm sorry that they may increase the number of buildings provided there's a number of units and building for footprint remains the same it also relates to the gathering and open gathering in open areas such as that fitness center and some of the amenities that were provided I won't read through it too quickly but it also talks about parking tree preservation and access so with that I can answer any questions the applicant is available on the line and does have a presentation lined up if if there's no questions for me Korean I have one question right through the bat and I just wanted some context it goes back to my previous statement about number of dwelling units flooding the city without any seemingly jobs we approved a grocery store for this lot what what happened to the grocery store can you provide some history of why we're moving from jobs to houses again definitely I can so going back to that rezoning that came in in 2017 when that rezoning came in it was for the obviously to downs on the property from that RCR district down to suburban corridor when the applicant at the time came in and made the presentation to to the PNZ and City Council they did make the kind of the claim or the intent that they would be pretty putting in that grocery store fueling station but there was no condition or overlay made with that approval indicating that that would be the the only development on the property so as they move forward with their proposed development kind of the it ended up falling through essentially there wasn't a grocery store that was able to kind of move forward with that development so they are now coming back with the residential portion of it and I believe they're on the call so they can answer that more clearly but to my knowledge and there was no specific restriction site be developed as as retail it was just something that they intended to do it's the same same property owner and applicant it is I guess this is is exactly why when a zoning case comes to us we hear the zoning portion and not get mystified by the promises that Unicorn Lake was gonna get a grocery store because I know a lot of residents there were excited to not being a food desert and have a grocery store so I'll let the other Christmas ask any questions they have and then the applicant can certainly provide their presentation Christian back yeah thank you chair I actually that my first point was exactly yours I I wasn't on commit commission at that time but I read back through and and feedback from the community seemed to completely agree with everything you just said my question to staff is a little bit about the roadways and little chicken and egging that I want to make sure that we're not making you can educate me on and that is on and it's a and I'm getting slightly ahead so I may have to revisit this in the next item and if so please tell me and I will but it seems to me that the mobility plan affects this item and so if we are going to downgrade the mobility plan from a local collector to a local street and those have different designations and different rules different TIs and you you mentioned an intersection on the 5% that the developer would have to pay for the light if we downgrade that but it's my understanding please correct me that if that you have to have a certain size street on the mobility plan to justify seven four seven eight a which is the use of the alternative easement provisions for disturbance and so yeah I know I'm mixing two items here and I don't I I'm aware of that but it does seem like them if the mobility plan is going to downgrade to something that doesn't allow the open her can you educate me about that so I could probably speak to the encroachment and maybe Christie could probably speak to that better in the next presentation I was gonna say if it's if it's more appropriate to bring it up in next presentation but the reason I bring it up now is is if we vote on this now and then we have to say the alt ESA is invalid then we invalidate this one so this is where we're saying it's a little chicken and eggy so I do think it's appropriate to bring it up at this point definitely so within those ESA areas there are obviously encroachment is prohibited there are certain allowances within those areas that that wouldn't require the ESA the alt ESA and some that would regarding the encroachment into Shady Shores that would be a permitted activity is not actually part of the AESA presentation that's coming up after this but you do make I do understand your point is that if the property is downgraded or I'm sorry not the property but the the roadway classification of Shady Shores is downgraded from a collector to a local street then that would affect you know whether they could encroach or not I would speak to the current mobility plan which is currently in effect so while we are while I did indicate that it is in the draft mobility plan to be downgraded isn't something that is in place currently so we would have to go with whatever the the current mobility plan states now so I don't know if Richard wants to jump in on this but we also have some of our traffic engineering staff that might be able to speak on this on the call I think the only thing I'll add is really two different things that the slope easement is really related to the road and construction and maintenance of that separate and apart from the environmentally sensitive area and so I think I think there's a number of issues and I'm sure they'll get into it when they get into their presentation but there will be substantial grading on this site as well so at that point in time once that's done and some of those road improvements are done sidewalks are put in that slope easement most likely won't be needed because quite honestly there probably won't be a slope once they once they grade the site but again I'll let them explain a little more in detail how that how they'll do that if that helps and I know Shandra's on the phone as well from traffic engineering okay so the thing I think this is more I was reading it in 747 which I think is more of the sustainability and environmental section that as I understand it I mean I just don't want us to get in the situation where we we have a road that where as a larger road it allows us to make certain exceptions for mobility but then we say we're going to downgrade this road and and then I take hers Karina's point that I take her he was point that that we're looking at the conditions now but then we we approve it the conditions now and then the very next item we're talking about Alt ESA and the future and we're setting up this sort of reverse domino and and I just want to be careful that you know we we look at the large picture here and a lot you know what is allowed for a certain size Street and and and you know what are the rules for a certain site thing and I feel like we're we're we're definitely putting a little bit of the cart before the horse on this one I'm not sure if Christy if you just want to touch on the point related to you know permitted encroachments yeah maybe that's all again I want to make sure we were talking about the road separately from the Alt ESA because the road the road has not has no effect on the road designation is no effect on the Alt ESA Christie's mentioned that she does have a slide relating specifically to that encroachment in the next presentation I'm not I know it goes back to your point that we're putting the the cart before the horse and it's I'm not sure if you want her to address maybe very briefly that item now in the next I don't know if we're allowed to do that that's I'm trying to be really careful as the proper rules here I just don't you know I would perhaps defer to Cynthia I think it's important to note that we have a condition one of the conditions of approval is approval of the alternate ESA so if that alternate ESA is ultimately not approved by council then they could not meet that condition of approval and therefore could not proceed I thought about that Richard but if we are going to downgrade the road that that's a future event which means that but we're we're still considering it now it's so I I mean I I mean we can argue and I and I would take the point that you have to look at the conditions on the ground but if it's in the plan to downgrade the road then you see my quandary here again I don't think that the downgrading of the road would would have would have an effect either way I think I think it's identified that the traffic signals needed with with or without it and then the only thing that really partly changed was the waiver that again contingent on the approval of the SGP of the diesel lanes but but I believe again I'm not the traffic engineer and would defer to you would defer to Chandra who's on the line good evening this is Chandra senior engineering traffic and I concur with Richard that downgrading has no effect on either the traffic signal or to the ESA the ground grading on the future mobility is actually due to the Lake View Boulevard that's further up north is going to be terminating there would not be adding an additional capacity on Lake View which is already four line divided section but again I think this is my issue is that there I was reading that there was rules about what were what kind of alternative sustainability and ESA are allowed under different kinds of road conditions and the it was stated that you could we could do the exceptions because this was a road on the mobility plan the way that we made that argument in Roselon that we could put a bridge over that without consideration because it's on it's a known mobility plan road if we're downgrading this off sort of the the standard collector and arterial designation then are we not then just saying that we're using one set of rules and immediately downgrading them to an appropriate set of rules it was on the plan to be downgraded since it will not generate the amount of traffic that was initially conceived in 2015 mobility plan but with the developments that's going in and what's out there there is not enough capacity even to justify widening it even more larger section but it doesn't have to do anything with the environmentally sensitive areas okay my guess my question isn't one of traffic it's one of the appropriate alignment set of rules for a sustainable element up against a traffic item all right I will I will yield the floor and think about if I can restate this question in a different way thank you mr. Beck I think at this point let's go ahead and invite oh Chris Ellis thanks I did just have a quick yeah maybe a quick question for staff it has to do with the traffic light that would be required when would that go in um since the TIA did indicate that the traffic signal is warranted due to existing traffic this would be on the responsibility of the city to to put it in I believe it is not currently on a CIP plan or on a bonded on a bond that is existing so this would this would be something that we would need to identify existing funds for in order to to appropriately plan for this and I don't know if this is also another item that Chandra would like to speak on yes that's correct since it's not a high priority based on safety or any identified improvements out there so it will be on low priority whenever we have funds to address the need of course there is need for a signal right now but it doesn't warrant we have a high priority locations that's already waiting to be in the signal okay so I think what I hear you saying is no time soon is the traffic light going in that's correct okay so I would think it would be a very high priority for the people already in the neighborhood where the traffic signal is warranted before we put 300 more dwelling units in the area but that's just my opinion okay I think we're to go ahead and allow the applicant the opportunity to present I'm not sure who the applicant is but if they could just unmute themselves and say their name and their address you have ten minutes to present your presentation is the applicant on I believe Gerald Lukey or Charles Hodges might be making can we try it again Richard or mr. Roselle can you hear me I sure can Charles thank you this is Charles Hodges with Hodges architecture one three six four two Omega Dallas we represent the ownership of covenant development in the Weber Company in this matter we appreciate your time tonight I do want to advise Karina that the video feed is actually coming in about a minute after the live conversation so I'll be flying blind I can't see your screen it's coming in a minute late to our servers evidently everyone's watching election returns continuing to come in tonight you're on the first page of the presentation yes if you could Karina put it on project overview or the second page and let me know when it's up this is in fact a 300 unit urban living community and I really want to start by saying that all multifamily is not created equal there are a lot of different examples in the Denton area as y'all may or may not know we've been involved doing the razor ranch project since before I had grandkids and the oldest ones 11 now so I want to say that there are many different types of multifamily and a lot of people throw multifamily into one box and think it's all the same an urban living community is really based on creating a special place and one that solves a lot of issues in today's lifestyles our typical demographic is made up of young professionals young married couples who don't want to or not able financially to commit to a home but they want to be in that area it's also made up of empty nesters and broken nesters who want to stay in their social circle but no longer can afford or justify having a large home but want to be in that area last is freedom seniors that's a category that really are folks that they don't want to have a five-bedroom home when all the kids are gone and move away they're beyond empty nesters because they want the freedom to live in a community like this and turn all that maintenance obligation over to someone else and be free to travel where they want to this type of urban living unit is a set of amenities unlike any other the demands of today's world and somewhat in answer to mr. Roselle's question about how are we creating jobs there this unfortunate byproduct or the fortunate byproduct of the unfortunate circumstances we're in now the remote working community is now enlarging on a daily basis and it may in fact be a permanent fixture in the lifestyle from here on out a lot of our folks and our residents may actually choose to work remotely from their urban living community and what we provide in this type of development is not an arrangement of three-story exterior stair walk-up barracks looking garden apartments this is a combined community which encourages socialization as the most remote robust data speed and internet capabilities indoor and outdoor Wi-Fi zones with great strength and consistency social areas that are concentrated both within and adjacent to building clusters which really urge people not to be separated by many small buildings but create a community or micro communities within one larger combined building area shared workspaces for the remote work will be very important in the new generation of urban community and a lot of other outdoor social and gathering sites to create what we think is a unique living experience and one that doesn't want to be held back by the past developments for the last 30 years which are now obsolete prototypes in our three meetings with the residents we had great meetings they were all very respectful I really appreciated the tenor of all the meetings we learned a lot listening we were able to go back and talk to the ownership about beefing up the street tree array and and that's something that's not easy but we really listened to what the president said about the experience along Lakeview and we went back and and quite frankly spent a lot of money and and really beefed up and actually added a second row of street trees that are understory trees to give us a dimensional separation from Lakeview we heard a lot about the zoning issues but again as Karina has very detailed explained that the multifamily isn't allowed use and an appropriate use and a good transitional use for this piece of property we heard about environmental present preservation and I think not only have our efforts been realized and and certainly we work closely not only with the city staff but also with parks and the first place I went when I began to work on this was to approach mr. packin and drew Huffman and talk about what we could make out of this preservation area keeping its pristine natural side but also making it an inviting order for interface with wildlife access and transportation were huge issues the amenities and resident profiles are something that I will address in answer to some of the questions and then the development history mr. Roselle and mr. back I'll actually answer your questions about that as the process concludes Karina we can move to the next side I'm sorry the next slide this illustrates in color the layout of the buildings which occupy approximately 10 acres of an almost 22 acre piece of property that preservation and conservation area comes one with the building arrangement and we have set aside these areas and place these buildings carefully with a lot of discussion with staff in order to appreciate and respect the conservation and preservation areas but also to create the urban edge that the staff encourages and almost mandates on every property so that we move into a new generation of residential development next slide please Karina environmental presentation are we on that slide it's at the wild scapes program slide yeah I've moved on to the wildscape program okay well while scapes is something we're very passionate about obviously conservation and the encouragement of the park areas to when they are a natural basin like this is we're very involved in bird conservation we found that a program that now has over 2 million acres in bird conservation areas throughout the area west of Fort Worth so it's near and dear to us as creative architects and planners the wildscape program is something that we have committed to try to get to their certification the state right now because of COVID is not accepting certification applications but I think the interest is there from parks now to work with us side-by-side to work with Texas Parks and Wildlife and really make that conservation area all that it can be in a respected wildlife quarter the next slide is access and transportation I won't belabor these issues because Karina did a great job of explaining both the entry and exit locations with the primary traffic in and out off of shady shores I will point out on this slide in access and transportation this property was actually granted a median break on Lakeview but we chose not to do that with this particular use because we felt like that turn movements there and the existing congestion on Lakeview could be helped by not creating left-hand turn opportunity northbound on Lakeview we understand that the traffic is busy now as your PIA and your city staff has pointed out it's already a low performing intersection we think that and agree that obviously before we do anything the the situation is already there the location this is the transportation summary slide if you will please Karina we're on it okay thank you it's very important to look at the reality not the perception but the reality of what the ITE trip generation manuals and the accepted traffic engineering standards show for our type of the development compared with retail or grocery development as it showed in and was reflected in the PIA this development generates approximately 1632 daily trips what's very important is the comparison to retail or grocery store if this was a retail mix multi-tenant retail mix it would approximately generate three times that amount of traffic for 4717 daily trips and if it was a grocery store it would be almost four times the daily trip generation of what our proposed development will do and the thing that is important to think about a grocery store is active till 10 30 at night our residents get home they want to cook their dinner they want to relax they want to be part of our amenities package her development pretty well calms down at the end of the p.m. peak traffic period so we really don't generate that 6 to 10 o'clock traffic a lot of these trips though are congested of if it were a grocery store people would be on their way home already in the p.m. peak and generating four times the amount of traffic so I think our development is right size I think it is low impact and the IT trip generation numbers basically compare our development with one small fast food restaurant that probably wouldn't do Chick-fil-a right now because I think they do even more than that but at this point I think that focusing on the streets and the street improvements Shady Shores is a was a big interest of ours to create a different streetscape there currently as you know and the residents well know it's a two track road basically a two-lane patchwork asphalt section it's not in great condition that's on the next transportation improvement slide please Karina I apologize again I just can't see your your your screen okay thank you obviously Shady Shores has an opportunity and I was visiting with planning staff about this early on can we improve that beyond what it is to change the character of the street and create extra lane width extra buffer width and really make that street even though it's being downgraded in the master mobility plan we can create a character street there and that's why we added the on-street parking that's why we added the 8-foot walk instead of 7 that's why we had the opportunity to create to connect the bike and and mobility connections from a pedestrian and bicycle standpoint yeah just gonna briefly interrupt you here you're at your 10 minutes so there's a way to wrap it up I want to be respectful for the individuals waiting online to start as well so to start checking in if we could skip forward three slides to the street profiles I'll try to rush through this it shows profiles of the sections of both Lakeview and Shady Shores are we on that yes sir we're on the screen it's on the screen thank you thank you very much there is a variable width right away along Shady Shores but I hope I've adequately described the fact that we're trying to positively change the profile of Shady Shores one thing that's made slip a lot of people and may not be pointed out is the fact that along Lakeview there's a very wide right-of-way section in addition to the buffer section and in fact there's about a 47 foot setback of the building rather than the 20 foot setback effectively there's a 47 foot setback of the buildings along Lakeview which enables us to get our two rows of trees in there without it looking cramped or cluttered our amenity package I've described for you I won't bore you with a lot of shots of pretty amenity areas obviously we intend to build the finest quality that's been built in Denton our resident profiles very important and that was one of the questions that the residents asked and we likened this and and really looked at the comparison of our rental rate at about $1,200 to $1,750 a month which equates to approximately the purchase of a $250,000 house it does not though include the extra tax burden on a single-family residence purchase so that's what we're really looking at is reality I've described the type of residence we have average age around 37 married residents about eight roommates potentially around six but the majority are single residents or young married couples that are starting their professional life we've all been at that stage and I would hope that we would embrace that and I think that one of the goals that I read about in the record Chronicle the other day was how do we keep our young professionals here how do we create those opportunities and housing options to keep those young professionals here to become a part of development I hope that we have answered we endeavored to answer the residents questions we had three great meetings we tried to definitively answer all questions at the end of our last meeting we heard no more questions so stand ready to answer any questions at this point thank you for the presentation anyone have any questions start out I don't see the first one I had you just mentioned that you said the dinner I her chronic will talk about keeping people in Denton and that you're in a strive to do that I didn't necessarily hear how you're planning on keeping them in Denton you're not providing jobs for them so can you help me understand that actually it's a connection with the fact that remote working is now a real part of a lot of millennial and young lives as well as myself at 69 in remote working right now I don't know that I'll do that permanently but I think a lot of those young professional jobs are translating to permanent off-site work remote working opportunity the fact that we are putting so much into our technology we really think we're providing the best launch pad for that in order to keep those folks within the Denton area and not have them burning up the road as you described in the work session south bound on 377 yeah I appreciate that and you and you kind of lead me to my next point about burning up the road your initial slide was that all multifamily living is our multifamily is not created equal and that you're creating an urban living work environment but ran to a quick Google Maps the closest grocery store is 3.6 miles away it's a Kroger Albertsons 3.4 miles away the affirmation chick-fil-a is 3.4 miles away Chewie's is 3 miles away Jason's deli Google says is a one-hour walk from your property dry cleaning is 3.9 miles away and the closest gas station is 1.7 miles away if you walk down I-35 directly to quick trip so you mentioned the important looking at reality versus perception I'm wondering how you're not creating us burning up the road when no one can walk to anywhere in your urban living creation well I think that you have to look at balance and everything and I'd like to address your your first question with my last slide if I could Karina would you put the development history slide up please yes sir let me let me pull that up right now that'd be in my last next the last slide I guess okay it's on the screen thank you so much mr. Roselle and answer your question this is the development history our owner has owned this project for more than five years our owner is one of the most noted retail developers in Texas he's probably done more target anchored retail centers of large scale I know that they've created over 15 million square feet of retail and if retail was a reality here they're the best to do it we've worked with them for 30 years and we know their retail history and their capability but here was the reality of the site the original concept was a program burger spent over four hundred thousand dollars in due diligence cost and then terminated any interest in the project and abandoned it they felt like there were restricted environmental conditions they felt like there was a lack of residential density it just didn't fit their model and they couldn't make it work after spending almost half a million dollars the site was presented to many other retail grocers who all declined for similar reasons we can't force them onto a site but the current plan that we're looking at is lower impact it does serve to provide housing alternatives for other people that we are trying to retain and attract to not only Denton but any city and it does act as the appropriate buffer between the density residential I-35 ambient noise at 80 decibels and a lot of other things there is a site adjacent owned by the same team and they do have opportunity and intent to try to attract retail across shady shores along and close to the northern perimeter of that sign so it's not abandoned but we went through it many many times with the best retail guys developing in this part of Texas if not the state and it wasn't able to be delivered Grover terminated the negotiations and abandoned the site I hope that answers the question about the history and and the opportunity for retail it definitely answers the the question about this the history of the property it doesn't necessarily address how you believe that and a site that is with as far as I can see a radius of about four miles to anything but car dealerships is urban living well being the proud owner of a lot of retail myself co-tenancies come into play and unless you can assemble a large co-tenancy contingent and you're going to be basically putting in fast food restaurants and I don't think that's the best use of this site I do know there is a need for a competent retail development within the area but it's going to need and want to be larger than this with a better opportunity it would require right off the bat left-hand turn in and left-hand out on Lakeview I just think they've made the conscious decision to abandon that opportunity here and work on that south side over there which is going to be more appropriate for retail thank you very much for that answer so any questions for the applicant okay great what I'd like to do now is because it's public hearing is turn it over to those who've been waiting patiently to talk beforehand I have this little script to read for this item we have four people make comments using our online form there were two in support of this item and two against all these common forms are emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to be recorded additionally there was one person who called into our phone and their position was against the item and then finally we have four people who have been waiting on the line to speak I think they're piped in to the zoom call so we'll have first Timothy Smith if you could just unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record you'll be given four minutes to talk thank you my name is Timothy Smith I'm a professor up at UNT and I just recently relocated to the Denton area I lived in the Richardson North Dallas area for close to 30 years and one of the reasons why I chose to relocate my family to this development was it was on the south edge of the city it was outside of the urban crawl and other than a couple of high density developments along shady shores it's it's pretty much a quiet and peaceful place to live and and one point I want to make with the developer and the city is is that the HOA of our neighborhood is not representing the citizens they have left it up to us individually to oppose or support the proposed rezoning of this area so your positive meetings that the developer had with certain members of our board does not resonate with what's going on in our internal HOA discussions on Facebook unfortunately I I wish more people would have publicly spoken and oppose this development because the traffic already along the shady shores Lake U heading up to the I-35 service road is it's pretty horrible during the commute times I commute up to the university every day commute home every day and I cannot tell you how many times I've almost been accidentally hit on the I-35 service road if I go the shady shores route which I choose not to go anymore I actually drive up to I-35 to get off of the access road to avoid that blind corner putting in 300 plus high density units on this property is only going to exacerbate that problem and listening to the conference call it sounds like it's gonna be a long time before we would have signals in this area putting street parking along shady short is not gonna help with the congestion along that area the commute for me is is hair-raising coming in and out of the neighborhood actually I ride my bike on a weekly basis and we I just saw an individual this past weekend that got hit by a car coming along Lakeview by the train tracks there because it's a very busy area I tried to gain access to the traffic reports I put in a public request for information on that and I have not received that yet and from what I understand from reading your notes that this is all pre-COVID as far as the analysis goes there have been additional houses built back in our development not only in the last phase but in other phases that have increased the traffic in the area beyond what I'm sure is represented within that report things I'm concerned about is bringing in 300 residents let's say there's one and a half cars per these 300 departments you're putting another 500 cars through these intersections twice a day on a busy point of the day it it's gonna make that horrible to come through that intersection the traffic that comes along shady shores coming to where they either go straight on to I-35 North or they take a left on to Lakeview going north to get on to I-35 South is incredible it's backed up every morning it's backed up on Lakeview it's backed up at the signals of 35 and that additional congestion is only going to get worse with adding these additional units at this property mr. Smith I appreciate you calling in the the timer has as passed but can I ask you a quick question I don't know how this worked it's all right I have a quick question for you if you were told this property was to develop with something not to be left as blank land what would you want to see there the thing that we need on this side of 35 and I disagree with the developer by putting in retail there we need some grocery stores some restaurants some stuff that's closed if you put in 300 apartments there there's nowhere there there's nowhere for them to shop there's nowhere for them to go they're just going to be on the road more trying to get access to stuff that I'm already accessing you know four or five miles away at either one of the Kroger's or the the Albertsons that south on 35 so I would like to see some sort of retail development or something like townhomes that is more low density and less traffic for the area I appreciate that answer mr. Beck can I can I ask the caller mr. Smith where do you shop just out of curiosity in that in that neighborhood I'm either up off of 288 or I'm going down towards and I just again I just really relocate this area I go down towards Teasley Lane so I take a post oak to like Robinson down towards you know that area to get to the to the Kroger that's down on the Teasley Lane the closest place I go is three to four miles from my house at a minimum mr. Smith sorry Commissioner Beck real fast you ever go down to the Albertsons down in Corinth I actually have just recently found that so but still that's you know that's 10 or 15 minutes away when I was in Richardson I had places that were you know three blocks away and that did not increase the traffic in our neighborhood and it's much higher density than what we have here on the south side of Denton yeah sorry Commissioner Beckett is you saw the four I apologize no no chair that's actually I the he answered and and it was it was completely a nice follow-on thank you chair any other questions for mr. Smith seen none I just want to thank the caller have a good night the next individual we have waiting for us is Christie Shiflett I believe she is also on zoom she can unmute herself and then say name and address for the record and then you'll be provided four minutes thank you my name is Christie Shiflett that address is 7612 Hinkley Oak Drive and Denton and that's in the preserves I've spent quite a bit of time looking over our Denton 2030 plan and keep going back to goal LU five where excuse me I'm a little nervous where that goal is to enhance our community character and promote functionality and this rezoning would not do that we have over 3,000 homes probably even close to 4,000 out back in this area there is no walkable retail anywhere we heard this was going to be a Kroger in the entire neighborhood like me was saying this is a great idea any type of retail where our children can have a part-time job and walk to their part-time job and not have to have you know another car to get to work would be ideal but I'm gonna have to disagree with the development history where he's talking about the money that Kroger put into that area and that was five years ago he kind of canceled himself out talking about having more remote workers well yes we have a lot of remote workers in our neighborhood and there's nowhere for us to go to grab a quick lunch or to go to the grocery store or go for a walk on your lunch break to grab food because there's nothing walkable we have no option of a walkable Denton if you use this land to put more apartments there's already two apartment complexes there and they don't have anywhere to walk to so I really hope that you think about that goal and try to keep that track of land open so that we can have a walkable Denton someday ms. Shifflett I appreciate you calling in no need to be nervous is any is anyone have any questions I kind of want to echo Commissioner Beck's questions out of curiosity where's your grocery store of choice you don't have the name but if you just have a location I actually do a lot of shopping at Whole Foods so I'm in Flower Mound during the day so I'll stop at Whole Foods and then come up 2499 but it would be we'd spoke in our neighborhood on the Facebook page about one of those small whether it be Trader Joe's or Whole Foods or Central Market somewhere like that do you know how much money people in this neighborhood spend at stores like that that aren't in Denton and Denton doesn't have one anywhere close we would have it would be good for the city it would be great for our community and it would be ideal to have a smaller grocery store like that I appreciate your insights I hope you have a good night thanks for hanging out just late the next step is hope I pronounce this correctly lessel Herrera if you could just unmute and then say your name and address you'll have four minutes and it's lethal Herrera can you guys hear me we sure can okay great um I am a resident of the Preserve at Pecan Creek my home is on Heron Pond Lane at 4725 which would be in direct view of the proposed multi-unit development I am not only concerned about the quality of life safety security but also the value of homes in my neighborhood I personally am in the real estate industry and and have knowledge of that I'm also very concerned about the capacity of our current elementary and middle schools after speaking with several local real estate agents that actively sell in our neighborhood they have warned that property values will be negatively affected by a multi-unit property like this in our area in direct view they cautioned that a decrease in property value would occur and cause negative effects being as much as double digit percentages besides it hurting us as homeowners the city will also be in effect because of property taxes the schools that the preserve our zone for are already in portable classroom units because of dealing with capacity issues recently another concern that has been brought up is traffic the bottom line is there's already an issue with traffic most days when my child goes off to school it can take me 10 minutes to get to the light at 35 you guys already know this it's been a an issue that's been brought up and it really concerns me that they would even consider putting something like this in before that has been dealt with adding 300 more residents will make it a nightmare and our neighborhood is not being is not finished being developed homes are still being built and it's already a mess there are many more negatives and positives associated with this proposed development I encourage you to vote no we already have two apartments in close proximity of here and we have no retail no shopping nothing even close by us we all have to go to other cities and spend our money and tax dollars and other communities that are not benefiting from this and didn't what I would like to see as a resident is a strip center with moms and pops or low-volume retail and what one of my other neighbors mentioned a smaller more whole foods sprouts type grocery store that we don't already have I think would highly benefit the residents in our neighborhood as well as the other surrounding neighborhoods I would encourage all of you to vote against this and really consider the residents and in our neighborhood I want to thank you for your time I'll mute sorry Liesl thanks for waiting and and speaking your perspective Commissioner Smith thank you chair thank you Lisa for being on I actually have a question for you but I do yes Rena thank you very much one other thing I would like to mention because y'all asked everybody else but me about where I grocery shop where do you grocery shop Lisa tell us no I'll tell you tax dollars aren't going to Denton town to Denton they're going to Flower Mound and Highland Village because that's where the Whole Foods the sprouts and the bigger grocery stores are at well thank you for letting us know Lisa that's that's much appreciated and yeah I think we hear your here your concerns so thank you very much for coming on thanks Lisa Karina can I ask you a quick question and and I know this is something that Commissioner Beck asked a little bit earlier how go back and try to get the car before the horse on anything but what would be the difference you did talk about some of the the environmental sensitivity and environmental impact when you're talking about this SCP so and I and maybe another Commissioner can remind me whatever we voted on this is a grocery store I was here in 2018 when we voted on it I just don't remember it we see a lot of projects what would the difference in the environmental impact analysis that would be need to be done for a commercial property like this a commercial property or retail property how would it differ from this apartment complex so speaking to the tree preservation is is really what would affect the development of whatever would come in so I would I would say regardless of the type of development there whatever would come in would be really significantly limited by the current ESA and floodplain so I'm not sure if I should put the map back on yeah I was actually gonna ask you to put that back up that had the grouping and then the rip by period of numbers that you're going let me go ahead and and share this actually just use it then this is then striking earlier when we were going through to work session as we've talked then we had presentation for just how big of a true definitely and so so you'll see the area that's that's kind of circled in the orange that is the outermost boundary of all the ESA on the site and the ESA on the site takes up roughly 50% of this property the current developer is proposing one lot it's really three three or five tracks if you count these small little insets but in order for the tree preservation to be met really what they're showing on the easternmost part of the site that is really the only developable area on this property I take that back because really they could develop on on the western westernmost portion but they are limited they could they could not encroach into this larger area so they're maximizing their site with them the multifamily commercial could come in it would just depend on whatever site layout would come in essentially because there is a lot of tree canopy on the site and although that cross timbers upland habitat was removed there are significant tree removals that would need to occur in order for development to come in so tree preservation meeting that minimum 30% is something that would need to be considered I wouldn't say that it's not possible because we were obviously able to make this happen with the current development but that would be kind of a significant hurdle is is you know what would be the layout of the site depending on what commercial type development came in that would dictate the type of parking or the amount of parking that would come in so there's there's a lot of I guess it would cascade down the cascading requirements of you know we would need to look at it to see how it the full effects of what will come in I'm not sure if that answered your question fully yeah I know while you're talking I was doing some other just just tinker around because basically you're looking at you're saying that the that ESA is about that whole area that that border orange area is about 50% so you're talking about 10 and a half acres of usable land yeah that's that's about right so I was looking up I was wanting to just go do a quick comparison I'm trying to find some information and if you have your GIS map that you can tap into or somebody in the room can tap into it faster than me the the Kroger off Teasley it's a five zero two one sees the line in Texas I just wanted to look at a comparison and briefly find it usually you can we're looking at a residential I pulled these are a little bit more complex I'd like to see how many acres that that that rotary store is on if it's even a truly feasible process if you know if 10 acres really is something that and I'm thinking that's easily lane one just because that seems pretty you know comparable of an area of saying that this is something that could be happening there and I get it we're talking about an SCP for an apartment we're not talking about grocery stores I'm just saying that if the applicant is here saying that this couldn't have been done in the first place before we go through and start declining somebody for maybe an SCP seeing if there really is some feasibility and some merit to what the neighborhood to bring up so Kirsten Smith if I could add a suggestion if there's a request for kind of a live acreage for Kroger if that's possible to get done can we take the last caller and then come back to that yeah it was good I was just gonna say great minds think alike it's ten and a half acres roughly 83,000 square feet both the land and then the store itself building area for this property is roughly 93,000 square feet so just to give you that that balance I think that's what you're getting right I'm sure if something get on and stop babbling on about I appreciate the compliment yeah we can go to the last caller there sure I'm sorry but thank you Richard Richard he said the the build that's proposed is 93,000 square feet that's the footprint not total square footage right correct so I was just looking at building footprint yes okay great then I'd like to do is wrap up oh yes Karina sorry I did you still want me to put this on the screen if I could get the capability up we can do that last caller Karina I'll let you get some time okay yeah and I think we know the numbers now so might be less important but I'd like to do is is invite Alan Kerber to speak if he just unmute himself and then say his name and address he would have four minutes to give his perspective on the matter hi this is Alan Kerber can you hear me we can good evening fantastic again thank you for entertaining my thoughts here on this Alan Kerber I live here at the Preserves 7820 Aldersgate Lane echoing the sentiments of the people prior to me I came out here to get away from you know have a nice living out here be close to things I've moved in from Springtown enjoy the area but I disagree and totally am against this apartment complex and I totally disagree with the comments made earlier one of your constituents said that Lake View Boulevard is a main artery well it is a main artery to the south of 35 but to the north of 35 it is not when you go north of 35 on Lakeview Boulevard you're coming into major residential areas all the way up to Edwards Street which is about three and a half miles and then another mile and a half to two miles north of Edwards it's still major residential area and you're going to increase traffic on Lakeview and bringing it into the residential area and if they're using Lakeview North to migrate over into Denton they're going to be getting on Edwards and then hitting May Hill Road and you're only looking at one direction each way for traffic which will cause major problems with kids running around the neighborhoods on their bikes families walking their dogs on Edwards and and on Lakeview Boulevard when they're going north 35 as Tim said earlier mr. Smith we just recently had a major casual not casualty but an injury out there on on the bike trail right there where the railroad crossing is so but I really would like you to look and see how many homes are still going up and there's and there's plans on putting more homes back up in here also the access ramp off of Shady Shores if you decide to take that route versus the FM road that parallels 35 to get onto the northbound movement of traffic onto 35 off of Shady Shores that is as illustrated it's a it's just it's the road is as sketchy as it is and it's skittish to get onto it on that 35 access and you've got to approximately drive three-quarters of a mile just to get on to 35 and it's only a single lane on ramp so when you're going to be adding all these cars to try to get on to 35 going north off of Shady Shores 30 and FM 35 onto a single car on ramp we're going to be running the difficulties here with that there's just a major choke choke point there like we like the Boulevard I I think we need to put brick-and-mortar type of businesses in that area that's going to cater to the residents that are here now and the future homes and I definitely don't want my property values to go down on this and historically and my 55 years of living and living in over six homes and different homes across the United States I'm retired military guy 22 years and I've been in different cities different states and it seems as though when these when these apartment buildings go up your property values go down so I'm against it and I yield Alan perfect time in your four minutes was was closing so you kind of felt that first thanks for your service appreciate that very much and secondly when you're at your house and you need a bite to eat where do you go oh I got to drive up to outback all right out back to approximately three three and a half miles north on 35 and then you're we've asked everyone where it was your grocery store choice I head on down to Teasley and Swisher very nicely got a nice super Walmart down there you've got Albertsons you got all kinds of little restaurants like you know chicken express so it's like everything's right there plus they built that community up very nicely because there's apartments there's homes people can walk to those area and stay off the roads but yet do their shopping and enjoy a dinner and not having to get out on the roads yeah I understand that unfortunately that area is not part of Denton so yeah well Alan I appreciate you calling in does anyone have questions for Alan okay I do not see any so thank you again with that I'm gonna close the public hearing and we can get on to Mr. Smith are you wanting to see anything from Karina yeah I was and I actually had one more question for the applicant after after kind of listening to you direct you want Karina or the applicant Karina first I'm sorry I'm muted I'm not finding the capability to share my screen for the the internet browser to show the interactive map I think what I can do really quickly is take a screenshot and then add it to a PowerPoint slide so that I can show it on the screen okay that's fine baby in the room I'll be able to ask our the African just a quick question as well I know you said you had the African you're still on yes sir can you hear me yes I can thank you so the nice that you had the property listed for the last five years and you know original this was was rezoned in a way that you could go through and make this a grocery store can you give me some more back story why that wasn't able to be marketed that way why that wasn't viable I know we talked about it briefly earlier but I don't think I got details that I needed to understand contact sure happy to as I said the the history of the project is five years worth of attempts at development and Kroger did have it tied up for a good while and they abandoned it the developer did not abandon it Kroger just declined to pursue the site any further then talk I remember hearing that earlier but didn't didn't know why why didn't really have a reason well I think I did and I think they went in and basically listed for the developer the fact that they'd spent four hundred thousand dollars doing environmental civil and grading studies for the property traffic analysis and they just felt like that it was too restrictive of the site and the environmental conditions had a lot to do with their abandonment they didn't feel like there was enough residential density to serve a full service store in that location and they felt like the changes in shopping patterns and quite frankly all of the grocers have seen the change in shopping patterns and the business model we turn right around when Kroger terminated the developer offered the site to sprouts who said there are other stores were too close and this was not a site for sprouts they did contact other grocers who basically have quite honestly the grocers have pulled in their horns they're not near as aggressive for new locations and the fact that home delivery Amazon fresh all of the different opportunities to have food delivered to their locations it really began to take a big chunk out of the retail grocery business which was already at a very low margin and then about when did that conversation fall through about four years ago three and a half years ago okay and may also answer I believe mr. Becker or one of the gentleman maybe mr. Smith had a question about the TIA not serving the new growth the TIA projected through both 2023 and 2028 for growth and that was all analyzed as part of the TIA the grocery store question that was asked but Kroger now is the super Kroger in the marketplace about a hundred and twenty three thousand square feet trying to fit that on a ten acre side for the super store the gentleman mentioned Walmart Walmart takes 22 acres the dense the distance to the homes one I believe one lady did have a comment about seeing the side I'm not sure exactly where she lives but I do want to point out is Karina did their substantial tree cover in the 35 to 40 foot tall range separating the closest houses which are 485 feet from our closest building from the urban living area four hundred and eighty five feet away and in between are the additional buffer areas of trees we place the existing 40 foot tall tree cover and the dart line four hundred and eighty five feet property taxes there was some statement about these folks didn't pay property taxes this property pays almost a million dollars a year projected and had to learn property taxes so I wanted to make sure that was straight there is an opportunity here I think to work together we face the same opportunity when we did razor we actually built 380 there's an opportunity I think you already have about $81,000 that's been deposited in the reserve fund for that traffic signal we will certainly and have offered to pay our poor our portion of that and if there's a way we can help accelerate the building of the traffic signal that's what we did on 380 neither the city had the funds or the capability at that time nor did text not so we actually stepped up and privately built that 11 million dollar improvement so there's an opportunity there we think we were very open to working with city traffic to accelerate the placement of that signal because as you've seen and as staff has reiterated it's already operating at a low level and we're not the cause of that so I didn't want to point that out there also have been other grocers that have been contacted with no real interest and the developer can certainly delineate that further but we've been through that many times are there other opportunities appreciate Rogers thank you very much appreciate that freedom do you have that GIS picture yes sir let me put it up right now and Richard you had the stats on that property again right just rounding up ten and a half acres again that's just the portion that the grocery store so it doesn't include those out parts those those commercial out parcels just that lot that Kroger is ten and a half acres and roughly I think it was eighty three thousand square feet I think that those are the numbers I pulled from decay so the building in the parking lot come that's that's ten and a half acres correct okay thank you and the some of those neighborhoods that are out there north of there that's the other Commissioner I know the preserve is this preserve is something that we voted on recently but I'm looking on Zillow there's a couple different dates I'm seeing like that maybe make it a little bit older but does anybody else know the age of the preserve it's it's increasing they built another segment of the neighborhood this year remember we voted we voted one on some of it as a commission so yeah it's it's still it's still being built out yeah I believe that was Julie's project that just came through that was section J and K of the Preserve of Pecan Creek that was that area next to I believe Edwards we saw that like two months ago or so yep how many more phases are there Karina I'm not very sure on that I can ask Julie if if she's available to assist with that you can give it to me I answer later on for a second Chris or Cole thank you chair I yeah I remember the what five years ago well Kroger legitimately tried to put a store there and I remember one of the executives saying you know they flew up they threw in the town said you know didn't Texas is one of the worst municipalities we've ever done business with and we'll never build another store and then again I mean so you know I mean I wish we could say hey yeah put in I want a central market by my house or a sprouts or something like that but these stores it's not a a store would be great there it's a science they they know where they're you know you have to reach your critical mat like Robeson they've been more in the grocery store for how many years but they don't have the critical massive population and all that yet to get one they will one day but not right now so maybe it's a didn't issue not having a grocery store there because one of the it was either the CEO of one of the executives said he would never do business didn't get so is it our fault I mean you know I hate to see an apartment complex there because we're just adding fuel to fire because like the chair said earlier I'm kind of feeling anxious and overwhelmed of all the rooftops that we're putting in this town with no infrastructure you know with not adequate infrastructure I don't know if we'll ever have if we will have adequate infrastructure because we're experiencing hyper growth we're growing and didn't like maybe three or five municipalities have grown in the United States ever you know we've been in the top 10 12 for 20 years so I mean I'd like to see a grocery store there too but you know maybe that's it doesn't work it doesn't work out on paper and that's that's just an aside I you know I'm pretty torn on this deal but I just want to throw that out there Kroger made a legitimate shot and they were frustrated that they could not put a store so for what that's worth yeah thanks for that perspective I think Commissioner Ellis popped up her hand before anyone else I just want to check in with her thank you chair I was gonna get with Commissioner Smith when he was talking about the preserve so if you haven't driven back through there I mean the preserve itself has been building out for decades it also bleeds into other neighborhoods Glenwood village villages of Carmel as you work back there it is truly one of the most densely populated home sites of our city and one thing we have to look at with this site is you know when we look at at the site as a whole and Karina said it's it's roughly 13 volume units per acre while we're really building on 10 acres of that it's 30 dwelling units per acre that we're really packing into this site it's density of this monster that that really scares me here for sure with with all the problems that we do have already in that immediate area yeah thank you as we go to Commissioner Beck I just want to say to whoever's listening I mean didn't five years ago to now is is a hopefully a different interaction if if people were to come back and and have a conversation with you know Todd Christian Beck thank you chair is the applicant still on I imagine he is yes I am okay well so my question is would when you were approaching various retail agents did did you explore the possibility of like some of the retail around UNT where it's it's combined residential retail and in this sort of a partial question is staff in addition to the applicant is is that allowed in SC could you have retail on the bottom apartments on the top so let me ask mr. Hodges first yeah let me ask mr. Hodges first if you explored that we did explore it in fact we had several side plans and incorporated that we could never get enough critical mass of retail to make sense there's been a lot of vertically integrated mixed use that has failed and it's because you can't really develop enough critical mass of retail our residents won't generate enough to support that retail and the the fact that you have to come into the site and then share parking with another type of development it just didn't make sense to our developers and as I said now I'm the architect and the planner but our developers are some of the most successful retail developers anywhere in Texas they've done so many target anchored 15 million feet of retail they know how to do retail we could not make good sense of it okay thank you mr. Hodges and staff can you tell me whether SC allows that mixed use it does I think the only thing I'll mention is there is a height limitation of 55 feet so again getting back to the discussion of critical mass I think to really look at successful mixed use unless you're in a downtown densely very dense you know think of the square where you've got some some residential above you're you're looking at high rise to mid-rise and with 55 feet I don't think you're gonna get there okay thank you I appreciate that commissioner Smith thank you chair you did you did close public session yes to Commissioner Alice's point I have driven back there I've got clients back in the rural side of the East subject property and back in there towards the common Creek more anything else I was going to get some more evidence from what the applicant said you know four or five years ago that that conversation and following through in his chair Roselle's already said didn't change a lot in the last five years and especially those preserved areas up we've seen I think I think Margie I think I think you and I have seen two or three different projects back in that area in the last two two and a half years so just read jogging my memory here on the on how much how much change has happened over there and maybe the change in marketability so with that said I'm gonna make a motion to the this SUV mostly this reasoning on this I think this would be a much better as a use for some sort of retail I don't think this is a this is an apartment complex I don't think an apartment complex should be this close to a highway like that yes it is a separate corridor but I just don't see this being an area that the apartment was fit into and with as much growth happening over there I just don't feel comfortable with that that location so I'm gonna make a motion to deny we have a motion on the floor commissioner Pernetta actually I wasn't making a motion to secondary I just had a few comments on this one yeah I really don't know which way to go on this one because this is really kind of a damned if you do damned if you don't situation you know there is an apartment complex that I think that right it pretty much right across the street that same little area on there I know people are upset about the traffic but they're upset about the traffic but also wanting a grocery store there so I'm not really sure how you know an apartment complex versus a grocery store is gonna be significantly better for traffic and in the area and I'd be more comfortable you know maybe voting this down if we had something possibly coming in you know that would fill that need you know it feels like you know we would be turning down that this SUP saying we want a grocery store but there's nothing out there that's going to move in and become a grocery store you know I know that Street I was actually just there you know today you know I've gone to the animal hospital right down the street from in there's much car lots and everything it's not really a practical area to get in and out of you know that Street I can't see anybody putting a store in there that's going to have significant traffic where people aren't going to be going I hate going to this damn store because you know there's only one side I can get into and then how do I get out again you know I can't figure out how we would fit that kind of retail in there without having a greater impact on the ESA around it I'm not a huge fan of putting an apartment complex in there but you know at the same time you know I feel bad about telling people you can't do something with this land with you with this property of yours we want something else to go there but but the thing that we want to go there has proven to be over the years a unicorn you know so I don't know I guess I'm not leaning toward disapproving the SUP or denying the SUP but having said that I don't feel great about approving it either this is just a weird little thorn in the side of development and actually you know putting something good there yeah we have a motion on the floor and so I'm looking for a second and then further discussion Commissioner Ellis I will second and if I could say a few words with that second to maybe comment on what Commissioner Pernetta was saying I mean all the discussion has been great about wanting a grocery store obviously we can't force that in there but it is good food for thought for those developers who might be out there thinking but the reason I'm gonna deny is because when you look at like the criteria that Corina put up there which was I think her number four for approval of how it impacts traffic and how it impacts utilities well we're negatively impacting traffic we are negatively impacting utilities because they are they have to do extensions and whatnot to even make this development work there we are also impacting negative property value for those direct houses not in the preserve as a whole in my opinion but in my professional opinion yeah if a house backs up to seeing a multifamily you are gonna lose some property value what the percentage is you know I don't know but again it's a negative so approval of an SUP for me it shouldn't have these negative connotations with it we should be finding a reason that it should be approved that it doesn't have these negative impacts so that's that's my opinion for for seconding the denial. Thank you Mr. Ellis. Commissioner Anderson. Thank you chair yeah I was out there in the neighborhood yesterday as well for other reasons but and I talked to a lot of people they lived in the Pecan Creek area or Pecan Preserve area and everybody I spoke with was against this project and they were all asking for grocery stores or retail but like the other commissioners have said we can't just sit there and wish upon it and it all of a sudden happens but Commissioner Ellis just said hopefully somebody's out there is listening or watching this and says hey they want a grocery store let's try to do something but that property again to what Commissioner Preneta said it's not the best property either I mean it's kind of hilly and the streets are horrible and I thought and again I'm going to vote against this project but the traffic is a big big thing and that's what everybody was talking about and it looked to me like they're gonna have to tear up the road to add the drainage or the sewage lines down to where it would be and that's just gonna cause more congestion and there's already I mean the people are already talking about how bad the traffic is already I mean we heard we heard four callers a minute ago every one of them spoke about the traffic they're gonna have to tear up the roads to add sewage lines I mean there's no telling how many months believe me I've worked for the county government and I know how some sometimes projects get delayed and they're slow and how we're gonna put these people out even more if we had to dig up you know I don't know how long I mean I don't know how many feet that was I mean it could be 500 feet it'd be you know a quarter of a mile but anyways that being said hearing all the people talk yesterday you know I think this is kind of a bad deal I'm not I'm not against a developer one to develop a bad piece of property to make it nice but uh but hearing all the people that live out there I think this is kind of a bad thing for the residents of that area and that's a that's kind of a one way in one way out kind of that area and it's already kind of tough so that's what I just want to say thank you mr. Smith over me my motion thank you chair well I'm a motion but just for before we get into the before the discussion I think that Commissioner Ellis Commissioner Preston said even Commissioner Anderson yeah it can I can retail or grocery stores go there immediately the cover the reason was having the conversation with Richard was in regards to is it feasible it's feasible is it is it plausible is it something that they're knocking down the applicant store to get get a commercial building out there commercial pad sites built tomorrow no they're not but the same time that doesn't mean that just because that's not an opportunity for them immediately if you've got an uneasy feeling about the opportunity is in front of you doesn't mean you have to build something there that's not a that's not that's not that's not what the job of the commission is to do is to is to either do do something or not do something in my opinion this is more of a lateral move saying look I totally understand maybe an apartment would let you be able to develop this land faster God knows the city would love to have the tax base but there's some smart planning that has to be done at times and I think this is more of a smart planning move in my opinion you know sometimes you got to have tough love and deny some things so that's that's my piece mr. Beck chair I have related reasons I'm also gonna vote against this I think I mean a lot of you know that I place particular emphasis on the impacts of development on eases and the environment but the reason that I do that is it's a quality of life issue yes I like the animals and the floor and the fauna and all that but it makes it's a quality of life issue to have those kinds of resources in our town to have those green spaces in our town so but for quality of life you have the entire sort of section of this town saying their quality of life is diminished so I think it in terms of hitting the goals of the previous zoning we don't match the comprehensive plan and you know then you know for if we're going to disrupt an environmental region we should do it for something that it sort of is desired and improves the quality of life of the community so you know I think if we're going to play one of our one of our goals off against the other it feels like this might be as Commissioner Smith said maybe maybe the wrong or inappropriate time for this so I'm also not going to support this Mr. Chairman that's Charles I just may I convey a message I got you certainly can the developer has contacted me and requested a table to reconsider the mixed use did you have a developer have a date in mind well I would assume that we would begin meetings as we have every week with the city immediately beginning next week yeah I appreciate the concession we do have a motion on the table that I think needs to be heard Commissioner Richard you had your hand up no the only thing I would say is I would just if that were to be the case again I would just put it to a date uncertain there there is a there's a lot of challenges obviously with with the site and it would take some time to I think for them to put together a plan and for us to review so I would just if that is the case I would just recommend it be a date uncertain Christian Pernetta so you see after that effect I mean so would we still vote on this one or would we leave it to Commissioner Smith to withdraw his motion are we he would have to withdraw I would imagine Commissioner Smith picture mr. Hodges you said mixed a mixed use to be something that'd be a mixed use of commercial some sort of vertical mixed use of commercial on the front on the first floor and multifamily above it something along those lines where is the developer exactly what directions developer wind ahead well he didn't he didn't give me specific ratios but I understand that's what he wants to look at because it seems to be such a strong preference for any type of retail component although he's already planning on doing retail on the south track he wants to go back and see if there's any way possible to incorporate some retail that makes sense it has to make sense and do that on the first floor real quick I'm gonna interrupt through Commissioner Smith Richard if there is a denial and there's brought back mixed use is that a substantial change that he they could come back within a year they could I would probably make that determination and that it would be substantially different if there's a whole nother component to it that it's just not multifamily okay so they okay so that's what I was gonna add but you know what just for the sake of it I'm gonna withdraw my motion right the motion has been withdrawn for a denial Commissioner Smith make a motion to table the date on certain Christian pernetta I'll still get that motion Commissioner Ellis and so I guess I just have a question what are we tabling to to rehear this discussion on a multifamily I'm I'm I am baffled by by that because it sounds like it's gonna be an entirely new request so I don't understand tabling an item that is not even I'm confused at what we're tabling Richard can you clarify or add clarification to Commissioner Ellis's point are that is the applicant able to come I mean with all the attachments of staff analysis site plan landscape that all has to be redone it can that be redone on a tabled item if you recall we did something very similar with the Gavi ranch I think we came back a number of times they had requested postponements so we would just look at this as I don't think we would need to have them go through a whole new resubmittal of the application I think a lot of the analysis will just be updates but most likely again not seeing what they're proposing if they're gonna go vertical if they're gonna do a wrap-around I mean there's a number of a number of options that we would just need to reevaluate the site more on it on the technical side of it Christian back thank you chair yeah I'm a little confused like I agree with Commissioner Ellis on this one I'm so if it sounds like we have a lot of differences and especially because the very next item is an Alt ESA that will no longer exist if we do this is that correct Richard it very well still could be there could be another you know additional modification to that to that Alt ESA what I would maybe suggest if if again it's ultimately up to you and the vote but even perhaps table that Alt ESA to to when that does come back okay all right thank you okay Mr. Smith nature the reason why I would motion Commissioner Beck commissioner house is just from my my understanding and city staff can be more direct more than correct me but a denial for the SUP yes be material changes that be brought back but it seems to be cleaner in that there's not a process of having to do resubmission but rather just a reconfiguration of the currently submitted documents to have to go through and work with city again it seems to me that tabling it would be a smoother and easier process for the applicant be a smoother and easier process for city staff not to deal with a brand new submission if I'm wrong within that Richard I'm wrong from that staff feel free to let me know but it seems to me that this is an easier way to go about what the what the what the applicants going to do no matter what whether we deny or table the applicants get trying to make material enough changes to be able to come back with a new project so it makes sense so to me this seems like the easiest thing for time efficiency for staff I guess I'm sort of looking at it similar what we did with with agave I think we came back even there was a denial then they they wanted to revise their application amend it prior to going to council I mean they they certainly could withdraw it and then resubmit it and so I think it's six and one half a dozen in the other to be to be quite honest but it we did do something very similar with agave ranch Commissioner Ellis and I guess I mean I'm still a little bit confused though I mean agave ranch was pretty much the same iteration it was just different densities and so how we were breaking up that that rezoning component but then the development I mean this would have to be a substantially different project with all the discussion that I heard this evening and and the lack of support that I you know that that that this commission has so at any rate I'm sorry expressed it Chris are back thank you chair yeah I'm sort of where Commissioner Ellis is can we isn't it isn't it the most straightforward I mean I take Commissioner Smith's point and I want to be more gentle with this this developer and architect but isn't it the cleanest thing if you're coming back with a completely new concept to come back with a completely new concept I don't want to I don't want to necessarily you know add the complications that Commissioner Smith addressed but it feels like there's enough differences that we should we should do the denial and let them come back under the rules of the denial if that may be ours on just briefly this is untraditional but maybe it'd be helpful if you respond yes I think the thing that is important about the table is and now it allows us not to go back and rehash all the environmental analysis all of the tree preservation analysis and really gives us an opportunity to preserve the those important things and be able to very quickly analyze whether we can or cannot find a reasonable middle ground here and that's always our goal it always has been and we would like to we would request that the tabling move forward because we can move much more swiftly than starting and square one I appreciate that insight question back to your point I understood Richard to say it's basically six one half dozen of the other in terms of the legwork on the city side when processing it I take the applicant's point about with the workload on their end but it sounds like cities either way Christian Pernada and I was just gonna cover I guess kind of what Commissioner Smith and with you know Richard said and I mean my understanding is that it would you know no matter what it comes back to it would still be an SUP and that you know multifamily would be a component of that SUP as you know although there would be some kind of retail attached to it so you know I think there's enough similarity to kind of justify leaving it you know I mean not not doing about to deny on but basically that's my thought on it that's why I seconded it so I'm gonna hop in here I haven't spoken yet so I'm gonna give my two cents before we look to conclude this discussion and we have a motion in a second on the table I'm not going to be supportive of a motion to table I would be seeking a denial on this project because it seems like it is innumerable the amount of different issues all of us have brought up everyone I think to a point has brought up something different about the complications of this project between traffic or utilities or desire from the neighbors it seems like prevailing to me is the issue of the actual residents on the property so unless there's a project at this point come back with with primarily or solely retail it's gonna be hard to get my support on this we in the presentation we haven't talked about this at all elementary has a little bit of capacity but there is zero capacity for middle school and high school and so - I forget who said it earlier the word infrastructure it seems to be wholly lacking more people and I know Christian Burnett has said there's nothing like a grocery store coming to this area that might be true I'm hoping after five years I would at least want to re-explore that what I do know is as though I tend to be a commissioner and looking for the lesser of two evils in order to promote infill I don't feel this is lesser of two evil when this is the last property in that area for the preserves to have something if this goes to an apartment and I understand that the applicant said the south parcel will be some retail it's a it's a sliver this is like the last opportunity I feel for those citizens to have anything and it might be worth a wait for a year to see if someone can do this or if someone can relook at the the ESA or come up with an all a better alternative to get more land productivity out of it I just think I would be I am more inclined to see this go to commercial property so the idea of putting retail on the first floor and then stacking residents on top of it I don't think to me gets us to the point and where I think we want and where the citizens want this project to go I understand we can't tell Trader Joe's to come to town believe me it would be here if we could but that's not to say that there shouldn't be effort put forth either by this this owner or a new owner of the property to explore creatively how this gets done if they're able to get 93,000 square feet and two little L shapes you can put two strip centers in the exact same footprint with the exact same parking and it seems pretty easy now the economics of that I can't really speak into that it seems like there has been people who have passed on it but nevertheless as Commissioner Ellis said that's one of the most dense parts in our city so five years ago it seems like Kroger said that it wasn't densely populated again it seems like five years needs a revisit to the entire conversation of what that area can support because I would say it's it's about as close to a food desert as we have in our town and so with that we do have a motion to table we have a second for that and so without any further discussion I think we should go ahead and hear that vote I'll do by roll call starting with Krister back Krister back this is a vote for a table to a date uncertain how do you vote? Nay. Krister Anderson? Nay. Krister Ellis? Nay. Krister Cole? Nay. Krister Smith? Aye. Krister Pernetta? Aye. Chair is a nay. Motion fails 5-2. Chair will entertain another motion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to the deny. Commissioner Cole? Second. We have a first and a second to deny. Is there any discussion on this? Seeing none I'll call for a vote. Commissioner Beck? Aye. Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. Krister Smith? Aye. Krister Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0 to deny. The next item of business is item 5D that's the AESA 20-0005B. I'm in a conundrum here Richard do we go ahead and hear this and vote? I'm seeing nods from Cynthia. We would again yeah it's a recommendation. Yes sir. Can I maybe just a quick maybe two minute three minute recess I mean I could step away just a thought. No let's go ahead we'll take we'll take three minutes I appreciate the suggestion I will cause call the meeting to recess at 948 be back by 952 please. Thank you for your patience I'm going to call back the order call the meeting back to order at 955. We'll move into item 5D AESA 20-0005B I'm going to open the public hearing and turn the floor over to Christy Upton and Christy if you could given the prior results do a maybe a high-level presentation I think that would be most beneficial for us. Absolutely. So good evening this is an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan and it is in regards to the project that you just discussed and the reason for this alternative AESA plan is for the construction of a retaining wall that would support the development. The AESA field assessment Corina went over that in the previous presentation so I'll just give you a little bit more highlight here there's a this stream is called Pecan Creek and there's the riparian buffers and the flip plane and the water related habitat that is all internet inter nested within this area all support the water quality and water quantity coming through this site and there is a permitted encroachment for the improvements to Shady Shores Road and that's in this area that's along Shady Shores they the applicant would need to remove some of the vegetation in order to construct the road and per the development code this is a permitted activity because staff it requires that the applicant restore that area to minimize erosion and promote the recovery of the ESA. So the proposed encroachments that are not permitted by the code is to remove some of the vegetation in order to construct these retaining walls that supports development and in order to construct the retaining walls the applicant would need to remove the understory and the some of the trees that are located within that riparian buffer zone that's 15 feet from the wall and in this temporary construction easement again it would result in some of that vegetation needing to be removed in order to to compensate for it and to restore the area and the applicant is going to is proposing to reseed with native grasses and to replace the damaged trees after construction they have identified that there would be 32 inches that would be removed and then they agreed that one year after the construction they would inspect the area and replace any dead or drying or dying trees that were found to have been damaged during the construction and the trees would be replaced at the mitigation rate per the the tree mitigation code and not always connected but that that seemed like a fair assessment to use the tree mitigation rate. There was one response of a favor you can see here in green and staff is recommending approval of the request with the land disturbances limited limiting the land disturbances as shown in the plan and then restoring the area per the plan with the seeded areas and then replacing the trees that were removed at the rate that the tree mitigation rate and then the one-year report that would upon approval provide for replacement of any further damaged trees and then the last two recommendations that environmental services typically recommends for ensuring that this is a successful plant and restoration and that's it. Are there any questions? Christy thank you for that great presentation we do have a question Commissioner Beck. Yeah thank you and I don't want to belabor this because all the reasons but something similar hopefully will come back because we're talking about the eastern part for development not the western part so my question is what I tried to get across earlier is when this is where I want education and and that is for the 747A8 does it matter this was the question I was trying to get and I think I hopefully have a better way of asking it does it matter the size scale of the road or it's just any road on the mobility plan? Any road on the mobility plan and the reason for that is is because you're you're not requiring you're requiring that applicant to build that road for for the community you know that road expansion would be for all community members so you're asking them to to build that road so equitably you wouldn't necessarily want to request them to request that that flexibility and alternative ESA plan for for a road that they have to build. Okay and this thank you that clarified that and I guess I should have started with you at the beginning so thank you and then this the second question is similar in the same section it seems to suggest that for erosion to the harm from erosion to be to be offset they have to improve it not just restore it is that correct? Are you still asking about the roadway? Whenever you modify an ESA it I think this section about the roadway was saying in order to do the erosion control maybe it is actually the retaining walls but in order to do that do you have to just restore it to the level it was or do you have to make it better? The COA specifically says restore to minimize erosion and to and to promote the recovery of the ESA so how that that actually is achieved I think is there there's going to be some some different ways and different means of getting there and it so it really kind of depends on the site depends on what is being proposed to be removed so I think there's just too many variables to try to cut it enough fair enough thank you I appreciate that that's all my questions thank you any other questions for Christy excuse me well I do want to say that for this item we had two people make comment using our online form those two individuals were in support of it they were not against it there's zero against it and all these common forms were emailed to the commissioners and our city secretary to record and with that I think I noted that the applicant had dropped off the line so yep I'm gonna go ahead and close we are here if you have any questions oh perfect there are others of us Charles is left okay well I appreciate you clarifying that is there any questions for the applicant okay great can I make a statement you absolutely can okay terrific my name is Michael Clark I'm with Winkleman and Associates I appreciate that opportunity 6750 Hillcrest Plaza Suite 325 Dallas 75230 I know we had a lot of conversations and the previous case didn't go particularly well however if and I'm trying to formulate my words here if you saw fit to approve this action item what that would do is that would allow my client to know let me back up a minute let me say the different way we've worked very very diligently with staff with many many I don't use the word conflicting but many co-joined ordinances and rules and regulations to get to what we feel is a very minimal impact on this ESA an approval of this item would give my client the ability to know with with strong support that this is the limit of where we can develop so any subsequent site plans would have this limit defined pretty well we know that we'd work with staff and we've met and achieved all the ordinances we can with this minor variance and that would allow us to define this what is it the developed DIA and work with the with any revised site plans with the with a confirmed line and limits of work so that's I know it's kind of counterintuitive to deny wanted to prove another but that would be very helpful for anybody further developing this to know that this is the limits of where you can go I appreciate that mr. Clark I would like to clarify on the city side either with Christy or Richard I didn't understand that to be the case that he presented just now that it would it hold true of other projects being brought forth can you clarify that well with the approval of this plan the the plan is not necessarily tied to the SCP so with the approval of this plan potentially the applicant could design as sites around this this limitation of of this alternative ESA plan and then proceed with the restoration that was proposed in the plan so as long as as the encroachments didn't increase and the the applicant is still proceeding with the same restoration plan I don't foresee that this approving this would would would cause for other impacts to other applications just allow for them to move forward yeah is is the as is an alt ESA tied to the property so if if we approved an AESA and the developer did not proceed with the project or there's a change of ownership the ASA whole to the property is that correct that is correct maybe if you think of it in terms of because we did have to amend it the Fisher 59 alt ESA and so that that stayed with that with that property when they had to establish that second means of access as a result of fire to traverse that traverse that alt ESA again that was off of off of 380 to to the applicant's point with what this would essentially do is fence in if you will that development impact area and then set the very the very absolute maximum limit that they could encroach into the ESA to build that retaining wall for the site so it would give them that boundary but again or or it could potentially if not it would could potentially if they didn't want to go for with the audience to shrink that development impact area and whether it would still be viable at that point that would be something they would have to determine I appreciate clarification I'm more inclined to have an alt ESA tied to the SUP and hear those together it seems a little bit more conjoined that way but commissioner back you had your hand up yes thank you chair so so my concern with that approach and I and I see that Christie's point in the developers point that this would as Richard I believe said fence this in and provide a limit but there's there's were specific ESA encroachments caused by the layout of the buildings that they wanted to do and it's so I would hate and we went through all this because we're saying we would like a different alternative use and if they have a different building plan then they might need different encroachments and that would end up I wouldn't want to reduce the flexibility for a future development by having a restrictive ESA that you know they we ended up having to amend it or something else that we're allowed to do in the code I'm not sure we could do that but I would I would I wouldn't I think it would be cleaner if they just got a an ESA for what they want to propose rather than use it as a fencing mechanism that would be my recommendation okay so having heard from the applicant I'm gonna go ahead and close the public hearing we can have further discussion or motion but it looks like I'm gonna go to Tim Smith commissioner Smith first but make a motion to the nine I agree with Commissioner Beck and chair Rizel that I think that just creates some sort of constriction that later on down the road it'd be a little bit redundant we may end up having to just see them see a change to the all these stuff we come back around to it so I understand the applicants concerns that that a lot of work has been done if my original motion to table had been gone through motion to table but motion to deny so I think I'm a care of my motions to deny Commissioner Ellis I will second yeah I don't understand all DSA without a development that to me doesn't make sense we have a first and a second for denial any discussion on this seeing none I'm gonna call a vote for via roll call the boxes have shifted here so I'm gonna start with Commissioner Smith this time I Mr. Cole I coaster Ellis I Commissioner Anderson I Christopher Neta I commissioner Beck I chairs also an I motion to deny carry 7-0 that brings us to our concluding item item 6a to discuss the matrix as always I'm gonna toss this over to Richard and then to the dais for discussion Richard floors yours just quickly I know it's been a been a long been a long night most likely next meeting we'll we'll have the mobility plan discussion on both in terms of kind of where we are with the mobility plan as well as how it is amended I think that was the the initial question but I think it's also probably appropriate to talk about what kind of where we are now with it so we'll probably look at again another 4 o'clock start but we'll we'll have that confirmed within within the next couple days just to add a cup there were no council actions on on any items we had had a little bit of a break there but just just to clarify one item I wanted to give everyone the reference I know there was a question about 30-day extension and it's Texas local government code section 212.009 B - - we can I'll go ahead and send everyone an email with that just 212 overall so you have it but just wanted to provide that provide that section to everyone the only other thing I just wanted to mention because I think it's we've had some interesting discussions more so I think on the comp plan and rezoning and even as it relates to a number of these rural residential designations that we've used as a holding pattern that I think has come back around not so great at us as we're looking to plan the future adequately we do have we did have the RFP out for the comp plan update and so we are in the process of finalizing the selection of that RFP and ultimately that'll go to council for for decision but that is in the works and hopefully we will have somebody at least selected I'm guessing by the first of the year maybe the the end of December but most likely the first of the year so that will be coming back around and so I think kind of where we are with a lot of things the mobility plan some of the other utility plans and then again really taking a hard look at particularly some of these areas that are in town I'll say that that we've just given an RR because we annex them or are unincorporated are still unincorporated but we've given them an RR but really I think looking a little more strategically as as a city how we want to grow again ultimately I think that's just something that as a commission you'll have to make rec review and make a recommendation to council for ultimate decision but I think we're in for some long hopefully robust discussions and that's I'll leave it at that and I look forward to it thanks for the update Richard off the top on the matrix some of this goes to the matrix but I just want to bring it up to see where the discussion should lie this shady shores road thing is confounding we have a property owner who's trying desperately to develop a piece of land that has a or ESA all over it and apparently he owns the adjacent property across the road from Shady Shores I would be highly interested to see what we can do with that property owner to combine those lots and abandoned Shady Shores Road which is terrible to begin with because if we were to combine those two lots that would give the property owner significantly more land to develop on and give them frontage road to I-35 increases property value I see this as a win-win to get something that I think the residents the city all of us would want I just don't know the process of doing that I mean it looks like classic Dodge has an entry off Shady Shores so you'd have to there'd have to be some sort of mitigation there but I would like to know the process of a city initiated reaching out to developer to see what we can do to actually get this project moving because I mean I really it seems like the developer wants to build there we have we have someone who's who's you know interested it seems like it's not a huge lift to abandon a road in which there's only two parcels of land and one person owns both of them so I don't have that outreach to the developer and him to apply for it or we can do but I just want to bring that discussion about some options with that property we heard tonight definitely definitely will and just to mention one of the one of the items that will eventually come back is as we discussed through through DC RC and go through the update to the DDC or cleanup is really including those procedures for abandonment or vacation of right away so so it is specifically outlined and it's a clear process within within the DDC and because we really don't don't have that have that tool we kind of do but but it's just not codified as it probably should be great thanks Richard any other items Chris Rebecca thank you chair Richard a number of people have reached out to me and said they they would like to have they know about the Arc GIS or maybe it's the static but they know about the map of development that we have on our website can you tell if there's a list of development of properties under development that would be useful and if there's not could we I mean I know you have that is there a public facing list that we could get because a number of people have asked me for the list they see the map they see the fine legend they can't read the legend they definitely can't manipulate the legend they'd like a some sort of data table there is there's also a active projects map what what I will do is in one of these upcoming sessions I will have Cody the wizard as we like to call him our GIS guru kind of walk us through that and and if there's tweaks that need to be made I think it would be good for us just to look at that but part part of the challenge is trying to get all of them integrated together and so we're in the those are just one of those items that we're continually doing but there is there is a component of the active projects map and I can I can forward that link that's a little different than the weekly submission that that is in a is in a spreadsheet essentially you can you can download it and it it'll give you every plat application that that's pending and so maybe that's it if not then we can we can look to tweak that and see what we can pull from track it to like that might be the solution people were asking me for so if you could share that with the Commission then I could just share that with the people that are asking me and but I don't think they would mind having the the active if you could show have someone show us how to pull all the active plats out of the Arc GIS system as well if that's something trip fairly trivial the public could do I think they would appreciate that as well there are a lot of very fine data analytics people in in our town with our three universities so any other items for the matrix great well done good meeting guys I will close it at 1018