1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:05,580
 good afternoon welcome to the planning and zoning work session meeting for

2
00:00:05,580 --> 00:00:09,560
 Wednesday November 4th 2020 we do have a quorum so I'll call the meeting to order

3
00:00:09,560 --> 00:00:15,320
 at 403 just let the record show that we currently are absent the following

4
00:00:15,320 --> 00:00:19,240
 commissioners Commissioner Smith Commissioner Pernetta and Commissioner

5
00:00:19,240 --> 00:00:26,300
 Anderson as they join I will update the record for that and looking at the

6
00:00:26,300 --> 00:00:29,640
 agenda for today the first item is citizen comments on the consent agenda

7
00:00:29,640 --> 00:00:35,320
 we have none so we can go right into the work session reports we have one this

8
00:00:35,320 --> 00:00:43,000
 afternoon it's item 2a pz 20 - two five four receive a report and hold the

9
00:00:43,000 --> 00:00:46,120
 discussion and give staff input regarding the assessment and use of

10
00:00:46,120 --> 00:00:50,880
 parkland dedication and park development fees so with that I'll turn it over to

11
00:00:50,880 --> 00:01:00,720
 staff for presentation good afternoon everyone my name is Laura Barron's I

12
00:01:00,720 --> 00:01:06,380
 recently served as the assistant director for parks and recreation and am

13
00:01:06,380 --> 00:01:12,000
 now the grant administrator for the city but prior to moving over to my new

14
00:01:12,000 --> 00:01:18,160
 position Gary and I started an update of an ordinance for our park land

15
00:01:18,160 --> 00:01:22,960
 dedication and park development fees and I'd like to give you an update on that

16
00:01:22,960 --> 00:01:25,960
 progress

17
00:01:25,960 --> 00:01:47,280
 our park dedication known as 915 and our park development known as 916 funds

18
00:01:47,280 --> 00:01:55,840
 were originally adopted in 1998 under ordinance 98 - 0 3 9 park dedication is

19
00:01:55,840 --> 00:02:00,760
 the allocation of land for developments of parks and park development is the

20
00:02:00,760 --> 00:02:05,520
 allocation of funding for park improvements both of them provide

21
00:02:05,520 --> 00:02:10,080
 recreational areas as part of the planning and development process they

22
00:02:10,080 --> 00:02:16,200
 apply to new residential subdivisions only Laura we have a question from

23
00:02:16,200 --> 00:02:20,320
 Christian back and I bet I know what it is Christian back are we supposed to be

24
00:02:20,320 --> 00:02:25,000
 seeing something or is this an auditory presentation oh hang on just a second

25
00:02:25,000 --> 00:02:31,020
 that was what I thought he's gonna be asking share is what's not sharing my

26
00:02:31,020 --> 00:02:46,040
 do apologize we're not a great mind think alike they say here we go can you see that yeah

27
00:02:46,040 --> 00:02:58,360
 it's perfect sorry here we go the 915 916 funds park dedication and park

28
00:02:58,360 --> 00:03:04,440
 development apply to new residential subdivisions only they do impact

29
00:03:04,440 --> 00:03:11,120
 neighborhood parks directly benefiting residents of a development the intent is

30
00:03:11,120 --> 00:03:17,200
 to keep pace with growth and to also keep pace with the need that is created

31
00:03:17,200 --> 00:03:24,120
 by new developments and it conveys the cost to the user so rather than existing

32
00:03:24,120 --> 00:03:30,960
 citizens paying for the cost of new growth or increased use and a part that

33
00:03:30,960 --> 00:03:36,480
 is a result of a new development that is passed on to the new development and the

34
00:03:36,480 --> 00:03:45,720
 and the new users the current ordinance hasn't changed there have been no

35
00:03:45,720 --> 00:03:51,320
 updates since its adoption the land requirement currently has a factor of

36
00:03:51,320 --> 00:03:56,960
 2.9 acres per a population of a thousand it is based on the number of dwelling

37
00:03:56,960 --> 00:04:02,560
 units of a new development and it does have a factor of residents per dwelling

38
00:04:02,560 --> 00:04:09,600
 unit for single-family and multifamily the fee in lieu of requirement is based

39
00:04:09,600 --> 00:04:14,360
 on individual property so if for whatever reason a development is unable

40
00:04:14,360 --> 00:04:21,080
 to or does not want to provide land as part of their development they can pay a

41
00:04:21,080 --> 00:04:28,120
 fee in lieu of that land requirement and then on the 916 that fees currently

42
00:04:28,120 --> 00:04:33,120
 based on a cost of two hundred and eight thousand dollars to develop a five acre

43
00:04:33,120 --> 00:04:40,000
 park which we know is is very undervalued and it also sets a fee for

44
00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:45,840
 single-family and multifamily dwelling units both of them have a parameter of

45
00:04:45,840 --> 00:04:50,880
 use of a half a mile to a mile radius and that has presented some challenges

46
00:04:50,880 --> 00:04:57,200
 for us over the last 20 years it's been a long time and originally that was

47
00:04:57,200 --> 00:05:02,800
 based to meet a legal requirement that we'll review in just the next slide but

48
00:05:02,800 --> 00:05:07,360
 today what that's actually doing for us is it's it's creating some challenges on

49
00:05:07,360 --> 00:05:13,360
 the strategic planning side we're looking at where we have money rather

50
00:05:13,360 --> 00:05:19,920
 than where the need is that's that's the main issue and that's causing some also

51
00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:26,480
 some funding gaps within the city because not all development is the same

52
00:05:26,480 --> 00:05:31,520
 and it's not all happening in the same areas and then it's also causing some

53
00:05:31,520 --> 00:05:35,220
 administrative challenges in terms of tracking that money because we have to

54
00:05:35,220 --> 00:05:40,920
 use it within that parameter we have to know then at all times where that money

55
00:05:40,920 --> 00:05:46,360
 was given to us so that we'll know what that half mile to mile radius is for use

56
00:05:46,360 --> 00:05:52,960
 and over the years that can if a development changes its name or that

57
00:05:52,960 --> 00:05:57,560
 neighborhood changes names but it's under an original developer name or

58
00:05:57,560 --> 00:06:01,400
 project name we've had some difficulties in trying to go back search

59
00:06:01,400 --> 00:06:06,360
 the records and find out where exactly that the location where that money came

60
00:06:06,360 --> 00:06:11,320
 from so that we know that we're using it appropriately under the proposed

61
00:06:11,320 --> 00:06:15,920
 ordinance we update several factors first of all we update our demographics

62
00:06:15,920 --> 00:06:23,580
 and our development costs and to keep updated we also have a three-year review

63
00:06:23,580 --> 00:06:28,400
 process in the proposed ordinance so that we don't get behind on those things

64
00:06:28,400 --> 00:06:35,600
 in the future we also establish city zones rather than parameters that will

65
00:06:35,600 --> 00:06:40,280
 help with strategic planning and then also with those administrative challenges

66
00:06:40,280 --> 00:06:44,560
 that we have moving forward we also develop a level of service or we

67
00:06:44,560 --> 00:06:49,560
 establish a level of service and I'll go into that more in just a few slides it

68
00:06:49,560 --> 00:06:56,040
 does set fees rather than making it by individual development and this entire

69
00:06:56,040 --> 00:07:01,480
 process has been a collaboration between our department and dr. John Crompton

70
00:07:01,480 --> 00:07:09,000
 whose services we engaged he is with the Texas A&M University and is a recognized

71
00:07:09,000 --> 00:07:14,520
 expert in this particular subject we've also presented this information several

72
00:07:14,520 --> 00:07:18,440
 times to the developer group meetings those town hall meetings that are hosted

73
00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:24,280
 by our development services department and we have a smaller focus group that

74
00:07:24,280 --> 00:07:30,280
 we were meeting with on a monthly basis up until the spring that has about 11

75
00:07:30,280 --> 00:07:36,840
 representatives over eight different firms that work in the development field

76
00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:42,920
 that have gone through this process with us helped us establish a new methodology

77
00:07:42,920 --> 00:07:52,600
 and have also gone through the proposed ordinance in detail so one of the things

78
00:07:52,600 --> 00:07:58,640
 that we're having to look at are the legal basis for this particular fee

79
00:07:58,640 --> 00:08:05,720
 there are two Supreme Court rulings on part fees and that first one Nolan

80
00:08:05,720 --> 00:08:11,080
 versus California it established it's called a nexus principle which is where

81
00:08:11,080 --> 00:08:17,800
 we got that original proximity from it is it stated that the funds deposited

82
00:08:17,800 --> 00:08:22,440
 within a zone or a district however it was set up at that time had to be

83
00:08:22,440 --> 00:08:27,340
 expended within that zone or district it had to be located in proximity of the

84
00:08:27,340 --> 00:08:34,120
 new residential development in 1994 there was a second Supreme Court review

85
00:08:34,120 --> 00:08:40,400
 of this particular fee and they redefined that nexus principle into what

86
00:08:40,400 --> 00:08:45,360
 they called rough proportionality and it became a little bit more specific they

87
00:08:45,360 --> 00:08:49,680
 said we had to actually have a connection between the imposed requirement

88
00:08:49,680 --> 00:08:54,480
 or the imposed fee on the development that was placed on the development and

89
00:08:54,480 --> 00:09:00,560
 the park use projected as a result of that new development and that what that

90
00:09:00,560 --> 00:09:08,720
 for yes sir okay what that forced us to do was to take an individual approach to

91
00:09:08,720 --> 00:09:14,240
 establishing our fees and what that means is we can't solely base our fees

92
00:09:14,240 --> 00:09:21,440
 off of benchmarking we have to be able to show what on the ground what our

93
00:09:21,440 --> 00:09:25,640
 service level is and what that connection is between what we're saying

94
00:09:25,640 --> 00:09:32,440
 is an increased use in our park and how we use the imposed fees for that area

95
00:09:32,440 --> 00:09:38,360
 Christian back yeah thank you chair and and thank you I didn't mean to like

96
00:09:38,360 --> 00:09:42,760
 constantly Twitter and interrupt your I was waiting for you to get to a positive

97
00:09:42,760 --> 00:09:48,240
 point I apologize so I'm trying to understand this ruling does this mean

98
00:09:48,240 --> 00:09:53,160
 that it this this park has to be adjacent to the development or a part of

99
00:09:53,160 --> 00:09:59,560
 the development or I mean if this can't apply to any park that citizens of that

100
00:09:59,560 --> 00:10:05,160
 development would use no it no it does not say it doesn't get as specific as

101
00:10:05,160 --> 00:10:10,200
 saying the exact location like adjacent to it just says that we have to

102
00:10:10,200 --> 00:10:15,320
 establish a connection between the imposed requirement whether it's the

103
00:10:15,320 --> 00:10:22,200
 land requirement or the fee and the projected use so we can then establish

104
00:10:22,200 --> 00:10:27,400
 our own criteria in terms of proximities if we want to go again in that direction

105
00:10:27,400 --> 00:10:32,720
 or zones some people call them districts so they divide their city up and they

106
00:10:32,720 --> 00:10:39,120
 say within this area these residents are more likely to visit these parks or

107
00:10:39,120 --> 00:10:44,440
 impact and use the parks within this area and that's the connection that we

108
00:10:44,440 --> 00:10:48,880
 established and I can show you what we used to do that here shortly and real

109
00:10:48,880 --> 00:10:52,480
 quick before you get to that section because I saw part of the presentation

110
00:10:52,480 --> 00:11:02,000
 on zones it does the park have to be in the zone yes okay so if I'm in don't be

111
00:11:02,000 --> 00:11:06,680
 which I think I am if I remember your map and I go down to Wigley Field with

112
00:11:06,680 --> 00:11:13,680
 my dog that that park is not in my zone but I use that constantly well now I also

113
00:11:13,680 --> 00:11:20,620
 use the the new dog park in a but I'm using both of those all the time and yet

114
00:11:20,620 --> 00:11:27,240
 we are not allowed to address that usage and all of Denton uses the the various

115
00:11:27,240 --> 00:11:34,600
 large fields correct now that that's a great point and so what legally what we

116
00:11:34,600 --> 00:11:39,880
 are specifically prohibited in using this funds for a specialized parks so

117
00:11:39,880 --> 00:11:43,160
 something like a dog park would be a specialized park and we wouldn't be able

118
00:11:43,160 --> 00:11:50,320
 to use this particular funding source for specialized parks because not

119
00:11:50,320 --> 00:11:55,440
 everyone is a user of those specialized parks however we can use it for a city

120
00:11:55,440 --> 00:12:04,920
 park and we did actually establish a 10% factor that would go towards city parks

121
00:12:04,920 --> 00:12:11,120
 so whatever payment is made 10% of that will go towards city parks and we got to

122
00:12:11,120 --> 00:12:19,840
 that 10% because city parks actually make up 12% of our inventory but we just

123
00:12:19,840 --> 00:12:24,680
 wanted to use just kind of a rounded off number instead of saying 12% our

124
00:12:24,680 --> 00:12:29,960
 proposed city park contribution is 10% of whatever that total contribution is

125
00:12:29,960 --> 00:12:35,040
 and that could be used anywhere thanks for the clarification I appreciate

126
00:12:35,040 --> 00:12:42,320
 absolutely under the rough proportionality test it also assumes that

127
00:12:42,320 --> 00:12:46,200
 new residents will require the same level of service as existing residents so

128
00:12:46,200 --> 00:12:51,560
 anyone new coming in wants to have the same services that any existing resident

129
00:12:51,560 --> 00:12:57,280
 already has again legally we're prohibited from increasing the level of

130
00:12:57,280 --> 00:13:03,360
 service through a fee so we can't say what we'd really like to have is this

131
00:13:03,360 --> 00:13:07,240
 kind of park so we're gonna charge you for that type of park when that's not

132
00:13:07,240 --> 00:13:14,080
 the current level of service and then through this process we establish or

133
00:13:14,080 --> 00:13:23,320
 determine a level of service so what is that level of service you may recognize

134
00:13:23,320 --> 00:13:29,080
 or this may look a little familiar to you our proposed district or zone map it

135
00:13:29,080 --> 00:13:34,640
 is the modified road path roadway impact map and we modified it because we took

136
00:13:34,640 --> 00:13:40,120
 several factors into consideration and those factors included population within

137
00:13:40,120 --> 00:13:46,840
 each service area existing acres of Park in each service area the average price

138
00:13:46,840 --> 00:13:52,480
 per parcel in each service area and that's for residential parcels only

139
00:13:52,480 --> 00:13:59,400
 those are decad decad values that we used and we've also updated our cost to

140
00:13:59,400 --> 00:14:05,080
 develop a park if you'll recall the current ordinance is at $208,000 for a

141
00:14:05,080 --> 00:14:11,000
 five acre park so we took all of those factors plugged them into these zones

142
00:14:11,000 --> 00:14:16,260
 and we also took it a step further we identified the needs through our

143
00:14:16,260 --> 00:14:23,120
 strategic master plan that Gary and the park team continue to work on we've

144
00:14:23,120 --> 00:14:27,600
 identified needs within our community so we took those into consideration when we

145
00:14:27,600 --> 00:14:32,040
 looked at this map and modified it and then we've also worked very closely with

146
00:14:32,040 --> 00:14:41,000
 our development services group and identifying future growth so that we're

147
00:14:41,000 --> 00:14:46,200
 able to see where proposed developments are coming in and how that will impact

148
00:14:46,200 --> 00:14:51,160
 the zones in the future so when we look at these and we start to look at the

149
00:14:51,160 --> 00:14:55,640
 factors within each zone you'll see that they're a little uneven but they will

150
00:14:55,640 --> 00:15:08,640
 actually start to stabilize and equal out as developments do come in so this

151
00:15:08,640 --> 00:15:16,520
 is all of the factors put together for each zone and what that looks like let's

152
00:15:16,520 --> 00:15:22,680
 just take zone a for instance we've got a population just under 36,000 we have

153
00:15:22,680 --> 00:15:30,920
 117 acres of park currently in that zone we have just under 6,000 residential

154
00:15:30,920 --> 00:15:37,560
 parcels with a land value of right at four hundred and thirty seven million

155
00:15:37,560 --> 00:15:43,240
 dollars in zone a and if you look across you can see again some of those

156
00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:50,040
 populations go up and down obviously E this is our Robeson ranch area probably

157
00:15:50,040 --> 00:15:55,640
 has some of the lowest factors there in terms of population park acres

158
00:15:55,640 --> 00:16:03,520
 residential parcels everything is is lower in that but we also know that we

159
00:16:03,520 --> 00:16:09,720
 have a major development that's coming into E in our hunter and coal ranch

160
00:16:09,720 --> 00:16:16,960
 project so that is an area that will stable kind of stable out that'll even

161
00:16:16,960 --> 00:16:21,960
 out as we get that growth and similarly we took that same approach into the

162
00:16:21,960 --> 00:16:27,640
 other zones Laura this is Gary can you explain why there's only 117 acres in

163
00:16:27,640 --> 00:16:35,920
 section a that's not including the citywide parks correct so the park

164
00:16:35,920 --> 00:16:41,600
 acres that are shown on this map and that are included in our in our

165
00:16:41,600 --> 00:16:47,800
 calculations are just for those community and neighborhood parks so the

166
00:16:47,800 --> 00:16:53,120
 city parks are not in the in those numbers so North Lakes for instance is

167
00:16:53,120 --> 00:17:02,120
 not calculated into a North Lakes is right under four hundred acres sure back

168
00:17:02,120 --> 00:17:07,160
 did you have a question thank you chair Gary anticipated it there's there's

169
00:17:07,160 --> 00:17:13,000
 apparently two telepathic people in the meeting tonight so yes my question was

170
00:17:13,000 --> 00:17:18,560
 exactly we were being shown large city parks right and there was a it didn't

171
00:17:18,560 --> 00:17:22,520
 seem to jive with the columns to the left and they explained it so thank you

172
00:17:22,520 --> 00:17:31,960
 both great so in using these factors we determined a level of service based on

173
00:17:31,960 --> 00:17:36,320
 the number of dwelling units per park acre and that's the number that you see

174
00:17:36,320 --> 00:17:42,240
 within each zone so in zone a we have a hundred and eight dwelling units per

175
00:17:42,240 --> 00:17:52,960
 park acre when we look at land dedication that service level becomes our

176
00:17:52,960 --> 00:18:02,600
 new land requirement so a development coming in to zone a would have to

177
00:18:02,600 --> 00:18:08,680
 provide one acre of park property for every 108 dwelling units that are

178
00:18:08,680 --> 00:18:15,880
 proposed in their development if they wanted to pay the fee in lieu of based

179
00:18:15,880 --> 00:18:23,160
 on the average cost of parcels or I'm sorry average land value of those

180
00:18:23,160 --> 00:18:30,440
 parcels we get to a figure of 698 per dwelling unit in our fee in lieu of land

181
00:18:30,440 --> 00:18:38,240
 dedication and you can see how that carries out across the zones again

182
00:18:38,240 --> 00:18:45,360
 there's there's a pretty wide swing there in zone e we're up at a thousand

183
00:18:45,360 --> 00:18:50,720
 dollars per dwelling unit zone a you know we're looking at about 700 our

184
00:18:50,720 --> 00:19:00,880
 lowest is zone B at 372 hour I'm sorry three hundred and seventy two dollars for a dwelling unit

185
00:19:00,880 --> 00:19:07,600
 Chris you're back thank you chair and this I think you're telling me that that

186
00:19:07,600 --> 00:19:14,320
 these units are based on the cost of land in these zones is that correct so

187
00:19:14,320 --> 00:19:19,560
 that's the why there's a discrepancy that the fee in lieu is for e is because

188
00:19:19,560 --> 00:19:24,320
 that land is currently at a higher retail value it's going to be based on

189
00:19:24,320 --> 00:19:31,080
 the average land value per parcel and also the existing service level there so

190
00:19:31,080 --> 00:19:35,760
 those two factors are creating the swings okay thank you that's all pulled

191
00:19:35,760 --> 00:19:47,160
 from deep head so just kind of wanted to show you an example of what a

192
00:19:47,160 --> 00:19:51,600
 calculation would look like today if somebody came to us the development came

193
00:19:51,600 --> 00:19:55,280
 to us and this was actually sell one from a couple of years ago so this

194
00:19:55,280 --> 00:20:02,320
 information is probably two three years old but if they came to us today or when

195
00:20:02,320 --> 00:20:06,440
 they came to us at that time this was the proposed calculation for land

196
00:20:06,440 --> 00:20:11,520
 dedication based on a 300 unit development and then what that would

197
00:20:11,520 --> 00:20:17,280
 look like under the proposed ordinance so under the current ordinance we would

198
00:20:17,280 --> 00:20:21,720
 look at a land dedication of 2.1 acres at that time that development was

199
00:20:21,720 --> 00:20:27,800
 looking at three particular parcels the fee in lieu of based on again the

200
00:20:27,800 --> 00:20:32,640
 current ordinance was at ninety nine thousand dollars under the proposed

201
00:20:32,640 --> 00:20:36,920
 ordinance that development would fall in zone a so we have that average land

202
00:20:36,920 --> 00:20:42,040
 value per parcel we know what our service level is and today that would be

203
00:20:42,040 --> 00:20:47,840
 two point seven six acres in land dedication and a fee in lieu of two

204
00:20:47,840 --> 00:20:58,520
 hundred and nine thousand dollars so transitioning over to the development

205
00:20:58,520 --> 00:21:06,280
 fee piece of our ordinance and this is the 916 as I mentioned previously our

206
00:21:06,280 --> 00:21:10,560
 current calculation two hundred and eight thousand for a five acre park very very

207
00:21:10,560 --> 00:21:17,680
 low that would just barely cover the cost of a playground today we have a

208
00:21:17,680 --> 00:21:21,960
 flat fee of two hundred and ninety one dollars for single-family dwelling units

209
00:21:21,960 --> 00:21:27,320
 and a flat fee of a hundred and eighty seven dollars for multi multi-family

210
00:21:27,320 --> 00:21:31,760
 dwelling units this presents a challenge for us moving forward these were

211
00:21:31,760 --> 00:21:37,960
 actually based off some HUD factors of I believe the single-family dwelling unit

212
00:21:37,960 --> 00:21:43,520
 was two point eight people per dwelling unit and the multi-family dwelling unit

213
00:21:43,520 --> 00:21:48,640
 was that I want to say one point seven under the current ordinance Gary may

214
00:21:48,640 --> 00:21:55,520
 correct me on that one but we no longer have those factors we we now just have a

215
00:21:55,520 --> 00:22:02,120
 single-family residential factor under HUD so we've transitioned to that too

216
00:22:02,120 --> 00:22:08,560
 and you'll see that again in under our proposed calculation we've updated the

217
00:22:08,560 --> 00:22:14,920
 costs so now our neighborhood parks at four acres and this is based on some

218
00:22:14,920 --> 00:22:20,080
 recent developments that we've done and that four acre park cost us about one

219
00:22:20,080 --> 00:22:25,520
 point three million dollars to develop fully community park at twelve point five

220
00:22:25,520 --> 00:22:30,720
 acres is just under five million dollars and just to kind of put this in context

221
00:22:30,720 --> 00:22:35,360
 and because we are proposing a portion of that fee also go to city parks we

222
00:22:35,360 --> 00:22:39,640
 wanted to show you what the development of a 50 acre city park would cost and

223
00:22:39,640 --> 00:22:44,680
 that would be right at eight million dollars so just taking the neighborhood

224
00:22:44,680 --> 00:22:50,560
 and community park together that averages at about three hundred and fifty

225
00:22:50,560 --> 00:22:56,360
 five thousand dollars per acre for the development of those types of parks

226
00:22:56,360 --> 00:23:00,880
 previously we looked at distinguishing neighborhood parks and community parks

227
00:23:00,880 --> 00:23:05,520
 and at really all of our parks city parks by acres and and that's really

228
00:23:05,520 --> 00:23:10,960
 becoming difficult as well I will take Quaker Town Park is a great example

229
00:23:10,960 --> 00:23:17,560
 that's that is a city park used by everyone in the city it hosts one of our

230
00:23:17,560 --> 00:23:23,680
 biggest special events in our community and it's just over 30 acres and then you

231
00:23:23,680 --> 00:23:29,840
 take North Lakes which is right at 400 acres so our neighborhood parks

232
00:23:29,840 --> 00:23:35,200
 traditionally were defined at anywhere from five to twenty acres our community

233
00:23:35,200 --> 00:23:42,960
 parks or from 20 you know up to about 50 city parks 50 and up but now what we're

234
00:23:42,960 --> 00:23:48,480
 looking at more is amenities if you're been in any one of our parks you'll know

235
00:23:48,480 --> 00:23:53,360
 that the smaller neighborhood parks normally have a playground an open space

236
00:23:53,360 --> 00:23:59,680
 they'll have some trash cans benches they may have a pavilion most of them do

237
00:23:59,680 --> 00:24:03,720
 have a pavilion or shaded area our community parks have those same

238
00:24:03,720 --> 00:24:08,200
 amenities but you'll start to see some trails through those parks you'll also

239
00:24:08,200 --> 00:24:13,800
 start to see some bathroom facilities some additional shaded areas maybe an

240
00:24:13,800 --> 00:24:19,960
 expanded playground area and so forth and then our community our city parks

241
00:24:19,960 --> 00:24:30,640
 take it to the next level so when we're looking at our service levels again and

242
00:24:30,640 --> 00:24:38,840
 the cost to develop the park that gives us our fees across the zones again pretty

243
00:24:38,840 --> 00:24:44,800
 good swing here we recognize that in B we've got our lowest at just under

244
00:24:44,800 --> 00:24:51,320
 $3,000 and we've got our highest in D at just over $6,000 and this is per

245
00:24:51,320 --> 00:25:05,120
 dwelling unit another comparison on the development fee 300 dwelling unit

246
00:25:05,120 --> 00:25:12,240
 development proposed development with the flat fees of 291 and 187 at 300

247
00:25:12,240 --> 00:25:19,080
 dwelling units that would bring in about $87,000 for single-family $56,000 for a

248
00:25:19,080 --> 00:25:24,080
 multifamily development if we take our proposed fees and multiply them by that

249
00:25:24,080 --> 00:25:35,680
 300 dwelling unit development you can see the cost difference this model here

250
00:25:35,680 --> 00:25:42,480
 below just gives you an overall view of the zones the fee in lieu of park

251
00:25:42,480 --> 00:25:48,880
 dedication cost the development fee cost and if a developer wanted to come in and

252
00:25:48,880 --> 00:25:54,000
 say I want I want to do the fee in lieu of rather than donate or dedicate land

253
00:25:54,000 --> 00:26:01,040
 to you and they will already have the development fee what that total cost per

254
00:26:01,040 --> 00:26:06,680
 dwelling unit would look like for a developer as you can see this is a pretty

255
00:26:06,680 --> 00:26:15,080
 significant increase from our current ordinance a lot of it is driven by cost

256
00:26:15,080 --> 00:26:19,840
 again our current fee or I'm sorry a current ordinance and and that

257
00:26:19,840 --> 00:26:26,160
 methodology was developed over 20 years ago so we recognize that we've got a low

258
00:26:26,160 --> 00:26:33,960
 of $3,000 in zone B B and a high of 6,000 little over 6,000 in zone D

259
00:26:33,960 --> 00:26:42,000
 Commissioner Beck did you have a question yes thank you chair as time goes on to

260
00:26:42,000 --> 00:26:48,280
 avoid this update problem that you're trying to get around are we revising do

261
00:26:48,280 --> 00:26:54,720
 we have a are you proposing a revision that is continuous as land fees change

262
00:26:54,720 --> 00:27:01,440
 or this is a one-time fee structure change no we actually are proposing a

263
00:27:01,440 --> 00:27:05,640
 three-year review in the ordinance that's included in the ordinance that it

264
00:27:05,640 --> 00:27:11,360
 would be reviewed every three years so updating all the demographic information

265
00:27:11,360 --> 00:27:20,080
 up or down to that will then reestablish our level of service thank you so

266
00:27:20,080 --> 00:27:24,480
 obviously these these fees are a little sticker shock again we recognize that we

267
00:27:24,480 --> 00:27:28,720
 acknowledge that in talking with the developers we had some very good

268
00:27:28,720 --> 00:27:37,920
 conversations about this increase and what I want to make clear is that under

269
00:27:37,920 --> 00:27:45,400
 the legal requirements that we have we have to establish a level of service

270
00:27:45,400 --> 00:27:53,440
 that's the baseline what we do from here with that baseline is up to us as long

271
00:27:53,440 --> 00:27:58,960
 as I can go back and say this is my level of service based on what I have

272
00:27:58,960 --> 00:28:05,760
 here in my community which gives us that direct connection it's not based off of

273
00:28:05,760 --> 00:28:12,520
 a benchmarking here's an average of 12 comparator cities type model but here's

274
00:28:12,520 --> 00:28:16,160
 here's what's on the ground here in Denton here's our level of service

275
00:28:16,160 --> 00:28:22,600
 here's the cost using that as our foundation our springboard we can do a

276
00:28:22,600 --> 00:28:28,320
 couple of different things and that's what we've been very happy to work with

277
00:28:28,320 --> 00:28:33,520
 the developers on brand on formulating some options for us moving forward and

278
00:28:33,520 --> 00:28:39,160
 share those with you here just to follow up Commissioner Beck's question the the

279
00:28:39,160 --> 00:28:45,800
 fee can go up or down if we purchase or get a large parcel of land let's just

280
00:28:45,800 --> 00:28:51,000
 say for instance a thousand acres is donated in zone a that's going to change

281
00:28:51,000 --> 00:28:54,160
 our level of service because that's going to be part of the calculation so

282
00:28:54,160 --> 00:29:00,000
 that fee might actually go down from a land perspective so it could go up or

283
00:29:00,000 --> 00:29:04,800
 down based on future land acquisitions and then obviously if value of land goes

284
00:29:04,800 --> 00:29:09,680
 up every three years that that'll increase it as well

285
00:29:09,680 --> 00:29:15,080
 Christopher Beck thank you following up on that does that these large land

286
00:29:15,080 --> 00:29:22,040
 acquisitions are typically for our large city parks that are not directly rolled

287
00:29:22,040 --> 00:29:28,440
 into these calculations though right so that you would have to purchase smaller

288
00:29:28,440 --> 00:29:32,400
 plots is that correct or am i misunderstanding yeah that's correct back

289
00:29:32,400 --> 00:29:37,560
 I guess I use a bad example if it was 20 acres let's say we bought ten eight ten

290
00:29:37,560 --> 00:29:43,720
 plots of 20 acres that would impact oh okay I'm sorry good good question but

291
00:29:43,720 --> 00:29:49,600
 also to the one thing that we do include in our numbers are undeveloped part lands

292
00:29:49,600 --> 00:29:55,200
 or green space because that does benefit the entire community so pebblebrook park

293
00:29:55,200 --> 00:30:01,200
 is a great example of that it's a small park it's undeveloped we don't have any

294
00:30:01,200 --> 00:30:07,920
 plans to ever develop it beyond a trail system within that part so it's more

295
00:30:07,920 --> 00:30:12,120
 than likely at this point in time there are no plans to you know install a

296
00:30:12,120 --> 00:30:17,480
 playground pavilions and use it in that sense but it is part of our master plan

297
00:30:17,480 --> 00:30:22,120
 in trail connection so there it because it does continue to benefit the entire

298
00:30:22,120 --> 00:30:28,360
 community those smaller undeveloped parcels are included in the number of

299
00:30:28,360 --> 00:30:35,280
 park acres per zone so if a property released floodplain to the city and we

300
00:30:35,280 --> 00:30:40,800
 put a trail in it that is the kind of thing you're talking about correct okay

301
00:30:40,800 --> 00:30:50,320
 thank you okay so one of the what we actually as a group came up with some

302
00:30:50,320 --> 00:30:55,560
 some pretty creative options and and I'll and I'll give the development the

303
00:30:55,560 --> 00:31:00,800
 focus group really full credit on that we began to kind of throw some numbers

304
00:31:00,800 --> 00:31:07,320
 around and look at this one of them at one of the major concerns was that huge

305
00:31:07,320 --> 00:31:12,080
 swing you know there was some concern even though they understood the

306
00:31:12,080 --> 00:31:17,160
 methodology and we worked through that we worked through D CAD values we worked

307
00:31:17,160 --> 00:31:24,360
 through development costs and and came to take came to an understanding on on

308
00:31:24,360 --> 00:31:28,720
 all those different factors that are being used there's still heartburn on

309
00:31:28,720 --> 00:31:35,920
 the swings within the zones so we were looking at ways that we could stabilize

310
00:31:35,920 --> 00:31:41,320
 those even more even though we know in the future those are going to even out

311
00:31:41,320 --> 00:31:47,400
 as development comes in and we have modified the map in a way that we feel

312
00:31:47,400 --> 00:31:52,560
 takes into consideration some of the more denser areas where there could be

313
00:31:52,560 --> 00:31:59,160
 you know very little future residential development but also have the potential

314
00:31:59,160 --> 00:32:03,680
 for some outliers in in larger developments zone B is another great

315
00:32:03,680 --> 00:32:09,200
 example of a large residential development coming in and filling that

316
00:32:09,200 --> 00:32:15,160
 area out but we wanted to kind of parcel out the middle right the core of the

317
00:32:15,160 --> 00:32:19,920
 city that's very dense and and yes you'll continue to get some development

318
00:32:19,920 --> 00:32:25,040
 primarily multifamily residential in there but you're not going to see the

319
00:32:25,040 --> 00:32:33,760
 major development plan development projects there the other thing that could

320
00:32:33,760 --> 00:32:42,320
 be a challenge was a we have a pretty heavy area of industrial use there so we

321
00:32:42,320 --> 00:32:46,640
 know that there's not ever going to be any residential area coming in you know

322
00:32:46,640 --> 00:32:52,720
 to that portion of the city around airport Road and so we had to kind of

323
00:32:52,720 --> 00:32:58,800
 split that up as well but we still landed with some swings again even though

324
00:32:58,800 --> 00:33:04,880
 even though in the future that will even out so one of the one of the options

325
00:33:04,880 --> 00:33:10,400
 that we developed in our focus group in our smaller focus group is on the park

326
00:33:10,400 --> 00:33:17,680
 dedication side if you can see the proposed fees this is our baseline okay

327
00:33:17,680 --> 00:33:21,120
 this is based on our current level of service and all of that demographic

328
00:33:21,120 --> 00:33:26,960
 information that we pulled for each zone and what we did is we averaged it so

329
00:33:26,960 --> 00:33:32,040
 assuming that the proposed is at a hundred percent cost recovery and we

330
00:33:32,040 --> 00:33:38,000
 average that which really helped even out those swings now we were from a

331
00:33:38,000 --> 00:33:46,320
 $700 swing here to about a $300 swing here between 628 and zone D and our

332
00:33:46,320 --> 00:33:54,640
 smallest at 306 in zone B and then this is what our cost recovery looks like okay

333
00:33:54,640 --> 00:34:06,880
 in terms of park dedication if we average looking at part sorry I was on

334
00:34:06,880 --> 00:34:14,200
 mute Krishna back thank you chair yeah thank you for waiting so I I get that

335
00:34:14,200 --> 00:34:19,600
 you're averaging to sort of reduce the spread of the fee structure but wasn't

336
00:34:19,600 --> 00:34:26,640
 the original problem that we had to have parks in those regions dedicated to those

337
00:34:26,640 --> 00:34:35,840
 regions so how I mean you're is this a robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of thing

338
00:34:35,840 --> 00:34:42,440
 yeah well one of the original so part of the original issue was was really the

339
00:34:42,440 --> 00:34:47,160
 parameters when you were talking about the location and I think that's where

340
00:34:47,160 --> 00:34:53,600
 you're going in terms of you know not being able to buy in certain areas but

341
00:34:53,600 --> 00:34:58,920
 that that was primarily driven by the parameter restriction that we had having

342
00:34:58,920 --> 00:35:03,000
 to do it within a half mile to a mile radius from the development that made

343
00:35:03,000 --> 00:35:10,920
 that contribution or paid that fee I understand that but the we want parks

344
00:35:10,920 --> 00:35:16,480
 within a a 10-minute walk a half mile absolutely and we would prefer that they

345
00:35:16,480 --> 00:35:22,600
 not pay the park fee we would prefer to have the park to therefore to match the

346
00:35:22,600 --> 00:35:31,520
 original intent of the ordinance and so if we if we're averaging these out we

347
00:35:31,520 --> 00:35:38,360
 are saying that zone B and a are going to I mean I guess all the numbers went

348
00:35:38,360 --> 00:35:44,120
 down but I'm not sure help me understand how we're we're not making one region of

349
00:35:44,120 --> 00:35:47,600
 the city pay for another when that's specifically what we weren't allowed to

350
00:35:47,600 --> 00:35:52,560
 do I guess I don't understand okay I'm actually all for lumping it together but

351
00:35:52,560 --> 00:35:57,480
 that is apparently not what we're allowed to do right so I mean yeah a

352
00:35:57,480 --> 00:36:01,760
 great question and things that we've kind of vetted out but to your point in

353
00:36:01,760 --> 00:36:06,080
 terms of of land a couple of different things that we look at and that we

354
00:36:06,080 --> 00:36:12,600
 actually work through every day in in the ordinance aside from the actual

355
00:36:12,600 --> 00:36:19,040
 proposed fees we're proposing that we have more flexibility in working with

356
00:36:19,040 --> 00:36:25,680
 the developers in having developer agreements for specific needs or

357
00:36:25,680 --> 00:36:30,280
 targeting specific needs I think Hunter Cole ranch is a great example and Gary

358
00:36:30,280 --> 00:36:35,400
 can certainly talk to this but we had some very specific needs in that area of

359
00:36:35,400 --> 00:36:41,160
 town not only or that zone so to speak but also for that new development coming

360
00:36:41,160 --> 00:36:50,040
 in and if they had strictly gone by the current ordinance it wouldn't have it

361
00:36:50,040 --> 00:36:55,560
 would have been kind of a lose-lose for everyone would have been a deficit on on

362
00:36:55,560 --> 00:37:01,680
 the zone side in terms of the other community residents within that area and

363
00:37:01,680 --> 00:37:06,280
 it would have definitely been a deficit for the new residents coming in because

364
00:37:06,280 --> 00:37:10,800
 the requirements would have been so low it would not have met the need or the

365
00:37:10,800 --> 00:37:16,080
 impact that would have been created by the number of new users coming in with

366
00:37:16,080 --> 00:37:22,720
 that development so understanding what you're saying you're saying that the

367
00:37:22,720 --> 00:37:27,880
 the number of parks would diminish because of the cost of the land and

368
00:37:27,880 --> 00:37:34,120
 therefore we wouldn't be servicing the density of people serviced per park

369
00:37:34,120 --> 00:37:40,960
 would be higher I mean you know you would have less park per person is that

370
00:37:40,960 --> 00:37:46,880
 what you're saying yes it definitely could yes drive that drive that number

371
00:37:46,880 --> 00:37:54,220
 the other thing though too is that depending on the development there there

372
00:37:54,220 --> 00:38:01,800
 may be the land that is being proposed as park dedication may not be useful to

373
00:38:01,800 --> 00:38:07,320
 us for a lot of different reasons we do have some criteria in there in the

374
00:38:07,320 --> 00:38:14,920
 proposed ordinance for restrictions and they're based on percentages for flood

375
00:38:14,920 --> 00:38:19,720
 planes and ESA so that they're not double counted you know if you try to

376
00:38:19,720 --> 00:38:25,480
 give us something that would have to be protected already under another

377
00:38:25,480 --> 00:38:29,560
 requirement within within the development code so we're trying to

378
00:38:29,560 --> 00:38:35,920
 eliminate those types of of issues as well so we really want to have that

379
00:38:35,920 --> 00:38:41,600
 ability to work one-on-one with the developer to say you know what what kind

380
00:38:41,600 --> 00:38:45,160
 what land are they proposing to develop or I'm sorry to dedicate in this

381
00:38:45,160 --> 00:38:50,680
 particular case but to dedicate then how does that fit into our master plan is it

382
00:38:50,680 --> 00:38:56,200
 usable land is it in a good location only a certain percentage of it can be

383
00:38:56,200 --> 00:39:00,880
 flood plain and that's okay in some instances in some instances we may have

384
00:39:00,880 --> 00:39:07,000
 some great fully developed parks already there that would meet the needs of the

385
00:39:07,000 --> 00:39:12,760
 residents coming in but we need some green space and so there's some value in

386
00:39:12,760 --> 00:39:19,800
 going ahead and taking some of that land for the green space so that that there

387
00:39:19,800 --> 00:39:24,880
 are just really a lot of factors under this proposal it gives us more

388
00:39:24,880 --> 00:39:31,040
 flexibility to work not only to meet our our needs and our strategic plan goals

389
00:39:31,040 --> 00:39:35,960
 but also to work with the developer in the type of land that they would

390
00:39:35,960 --> 00:39:44,480
 dedicate to us or in this case pay into you know a fund that would allow us to

391
00:39:44,480 --> 00:39:51,160
 buy land in the future within that zone what this does do by averaging though

392
00:39:51,160 --> 00:39:56,960
 obviously is is it brings in less money and in that could be you know it could

393
00:39:56,960 --> 00:40:02,080
 have no impact depending on where appraised values are falling you know at

394
00:40:02,080 --> 00:40:09,600
 any given time or it could reduce our ability to buy land and that's why we

395
00:40:09,600 --> 00:40:13,880
 wanted to include that cost recovery number just to just show you assuming

396
00:40:13,880 --> 00:40:18,040
 that the proposed is at a hundred percent because it's based off current

397
00:40:18,040 --> 00:40:23,640
 land values or an average of current land values bringing that down what would it

398
00:40:23,640 --> 00:40:29,680
 look like and so rather than being able to buy a five acre plot of land maybe we

399
00:40:29,680 --> 00:40:34,280
 can only do three to half or you know or lower because we've reduced what they're

400
00:40:34,280 --> 00:40:44,440
 paying in I hope does that help parts of it are clear I think I'm well anyway I

401
00:40:44,440 --> 00:40:50,080
 like let's let you continue proposal and maybe it'll it'll gel in my brain on the

402
00:40:50,080 --> 00:40:56,280
 park development side we actually through the process again understanding

403
00:40:56,280 --> 00:40:59,640
 that we can't benchmark we still did want to look at other communities to see

404
00:40:59,640 --> 00:41:06,320
 how they establish their their fees again knowing that each one has to be

405
00:41:06,320 --> 00:41:11,280
 individual and unique one of the things that we found with the city of Fort Worth

406
00:41:11,280 --> 00:41:19,000
 is that they were implementing their fee their new fee structure and they were

407
00:41:19,000 --> 00:41:25,080
 starting at 60% so it was a phased-in approach that's one of the that one of

408
00:41:25,080 --> 00:41:31,080
 the methodologies that we worked out here but another proposed we did the

409
00:41:31,080 --> 00:41:36,280
 same thing we that's why you see this 60% if we took the proposed fee and did a

410
00:41:36,280 --> 00:41:42,480
 phased-in approach starting at 60% again this could be 10 20 30 it could be

411
00:41:42,480 --> 00:41:48,040
 anything that that we decided it to be in it would be ultimately approved and

412
00:41:48,040 --> 00:41:53,440
 adopted but we started at 60 this really worked out well with that three-year

413
00:41:53,440 --> 00:41:59,800
 review if we started at 60% second year would be at 70 third year would be a

414
00:41:59,800 --> 00:42:07,480
 review year at 80 percent we reset our level of service at 80 percent fourth

415
00:42:07,480 --> 00:42:12,840
 year would be at 90 fifth year would be at a hundred percent and then that six

416
00:42:12,840 --> 00:42:17,080
 year we would look at that 100% and reset again because it's going to be a

417
00:42:17,080 --> 00:42:27,480
 review year we took an average approach as well we looked at what the an average

418
00:42:27,480 --> 00:42:32,440
 of the proposed fee would be and we did cost recovery again assuming that the

419
00:42:32,440 --> 00:42:36,520
 proposed fee is at a hundred percent and if we took sixty percent well that's

420
00:42:36,520 --> 00:42:43,080
 that's cost recovery is sixty percent but if we averaged here's what the cost

421
00:42:43,080 --> 00:42:48,520
 recovery would look like you can see in in three out of our five zones we

422
00:42:48,520 --> 00:42:53,000
 actually have over a hundred percent cost recovery and the reason for that is

423
00:42:53,000 --> 00:42:58,920
 because an average actually pushed these numbers above what the proposed fee is

424
00:42:58,920 --> 00:43:04,360
 okay that's what the cost recovery looks like there then we took the average fee

425
00:43:04,360 --> 00:43:16,920
 and we did it at a sixty percent implementation so we took that we took

426
00:43:16,920 --> 00:43:24,600
 the average and averaged it if that makes sense and we did it at a sixty

427
00:43:24,600 --> 00:43:30,920
 percent phased-in approach this is what our new fee would be and what the cost

428
00:43:30,920 --> 00:43:39,960
 recovery is what this does helps in a couple of different ways number one

429
00:43:39,960 --> 00:43:49,640
 flattens that that range again kind of condenses that range so that we don't

430
00:43:49,640 --> 00:43:54,840
 have the huge swings of you know five thousand dollars here to two thousand

431
00:43:54,840 --> 00:44:00,040
 dollars and B you start to see that even out a little bit but on the strict

432
00:44:00,040 --> 00:44:07,400
 averaging it goes up for everyone so probably not the most favorable

433
00:44:07,400 --> 00:44:15,400
 methodology to use when we average at sixty percent brings down it actually

434
00:44:15,400 --> 00:44:22,040
 creates a flat fee so we have zero swing it's a flat fee no matter where you

435
00:44:22,040 --> 00:44:27,480
 build park development is coming in at two thousand ninety dollars and then

436
00:44:27,480 --> 00:44:32,840
 here's what the cost recovery is based on the current cost of development part

437
00:44:32,840 --> 00:44:40,040
 you can see how that compares right now to our current single-family flat fee at

438
00:44:40,040 --> 00:44:47,720
 291 and the multifamily fat fee at 187 and you can see those cost recoveries so

439
00:44:47,720 --> 00:44:54,800
 even if we average and we take it at sixty percent our cost recovery still

440
00:44:54,800 --> 00:45:08,520
 goes up significantly across all zones commissioner Beck and so then presumably

441
00:45:08,520 --> 00:45:16,360
 the remaining 40% would be bond revenues or something else yes it could be CIP it

442
00:45:16,360 --> 00:45:25,520
 could be geo bonds yeah voter approved bonds I'm sorry a different funding

443
00:45:25,520 --> 00:45:32,840
 mechanism yes yes yeah it can be internal CIP co bonds and I can also be

444
00:45:32,840 --> 00:45:37,800
 yes voter approved geo bonds it could also be other developments within that

445
00:45:37,800 --> 00:45:43,960
 zone - that are matched up to help build that park correct because now we've

446
00:45:43,960 --> 00:45:50,620
 expanded to a zone rather than a radius okay and to be clear Laura the cost

447
00:45:50,620 --> 00:45:55,640
 recovery is independent of the state law for level of service they don't look at

448
00:45:55,640 --> 00:46:01,360
 city's cost of recovery as it pertains to level of service okay no the cost

449
00:46:01,360 --> 00:46:08,520
 recovery is to basically pay for the entire park and the land at one time

450
00:46:09,880 --> 00:46:14,700
 those are just some also just some some of the things that we wanted to look at

451
00:46:14,700 --> 00:46:23,560
 internally to see what the impact would be in terms of our ability to use those

452
00:46:23,560 --> 00:46:27,360
 funds and to actually develop what the impact would be you know taking that

453
00:46:27,360 --> 00:46:39,000
 money in what could we really do with it at these different levels is this a one

454
00:46:39,000 --> 00:46:44,080
 time fee from a developer in lieu of the dedication and then a one-time fee

455
00:46:44,080 --> 00:46:48,760
 assumed by the city it seems like I'm not sure how parks actually build out

456
00:46:48,760 --> 00:46:55,760
 but if a park build out is over three years you're you're taking in the funds

457
00:46:55,760 --> 00:47:02,360
 upfront from a developer and then yes do they just stay in a fund until build out

458
00:47:02,360 --> 00:47:08,060
 yes sir yeah that's a great question they do we have in the and that's why

459
00:47:08,060 --> 00:47:12,320
 we call them the 916 and 915 916 funds because that's actually the account

460
00:47:12,320 --> 00:47:19,120
 number for those for those fees but they yeah they they are deposited into those

461
00:47:19,120 --> 00:47:26,960
 funds and then we use them over time the current ordinance requires us to expend

462
00:47:26,960 --> 00:47:33,360
 the funds within 10 years of that development and then at year 10 if that

463
00:47:33,360 --> 00:47:39,360
 money from that development hasn't been used the developer has one year exactly

464
00:47:39,360 --> 00:47:47,000
 one year to come in and request a refund of that money if that one year time

465
00:47:47,000 --> 00:47:52,800
 frame you know expires and they they didn't ask for a refund if we still have

466
00:47:52,800 --> 00:47:59,800
 that money then then the city keeps that money with any any additional you know

467
00:47:59,800 --> 00:48:04,800
 claim on that funding is expires in the current ordinance we're opposed we're

468
00:48:04,800 --> 00:48:10,640
 proposing to reduce that down to seven years and we feel like that makes us a

469
00:48:10,640 --> 00:48:13,960
 little bit more accountable that we're you know we're asking these developers

470
00:48:13,960 --> 00:48:20,320
 to pay into these funds and we're saying we're gonna use this money to you know

471
00:48:20,320 --> 00:48:26,360
 enhance improve expand our parks for your new users for your your new

472
00:48:26,360 --> 00:48:30,120
 residents that are coming in so we want to hold ourselves accountable to that

473
00:48:30,120 --> 00:48:36,240
 and we feel that that still gives us the time that we need to to use it for those

474
00:48:36,240 --> 00:48:41,040
 under those project timelines like you just mentioned and you mentioned other

475
00:48:41,040 --> 00:48:47,680
 funding mechanisms is there any way to use the ever growing tree fund towards

476
00:48:47,680 --> 00:48:54,360
 park procurement or development yes and Gary can definitely talk to that yeah we

477
00:48:54,360 --> 00:48:58,240
 we can use it to actually for for planting trees we cannot use the plant

478
00:48:58,240 --> 00:49:03,520
 trees that are required it's part of the code but we can use it to purchase land

479
00:49:03,520 --> 00:49:08,640
 to preserve trees so that is that's one mechanism that we can use to match up

480
00:49:08,640 --> 00:49:14,400
 against land acquisition okay but we can't use it we cannot use it to put a

481
00:49:14,400 --> 00:49:20,600
 playground in for example I understood mr. Beck thank you chair so and then

482
00:49:20,600 --> 00:49:24,440
 maintenance fees are a completely separate line item is that correct right

483
00:49:24,440 --> 00:49:29,880
 we're prohibited from using this type of funding mechanism on maintenance on O&M

484
00:49:29,880 --> 00:49:33,440
 operations and maintenance and and if we were to do something like Gary

485
00:49:33,440 --> 00:49:41,920
 suggested which is by the large bit of land and we're we're able to is the

486
00:49:41,920 --> 00:49:48,680
 developer able to offset their trees if we're buying land for our parks or

487
00:49:48,680 --> 00:49:57,400
 their this is this is solely their their park fee going to that or I mean you see

488
00:49:57,400 --> 00:50:02,440
 where I'm saying like if they're if they're purchasing if they're able to

489
00:50:02,440 --> 00:50:12,840
 use both land park fee and tree canopy DBH fees are those both going into to

490
00:50:12,840 --> 00:50:16,560
 this hypothetical let's say that Eastside Park that we're putting in or

491
00:50:16,560 --> 00:50:23,720
 something similar are they double dipping is my question I don't know if

492
00:50:23,720 --> 00:50:32,240
 Richard maybe on that I'm not as familiar with the with the tree fund

493
00:50:32,240 --> 00:50:38,800
 piece of that on on the tree canopy requirements I guess if you can repeat

494
00:50:38,800 --> 00:50:45,240
 the crowd just want to make sure I understand it my question is if they are

495
00:50:45,240 --> 00:50:51,300
 paying the the land use dedication fee and we're using it to buy green space of

496
00:50:51,300 --> 00:50:57,640
 various sorts parks and open areas are they also getting credit for the trees

497
00:50:57,640 --> 00:51:01,680
 in the land that the city bought since the city had to buy that that feels

498
00:51:01,680 --> 00:51:08,520
 like that would be excessive or are they getting credit I can help answer that

499
00:51:08,520 --> 00:51:13,240
 this is Drew hoping on the assistant director of a parks and or parks and

500
00:51:13,240 --> 00:51:19,160
 rec and over operations and management so in planning excuse me so to give you

501
00:51:19,160 --> 00:51:23,520
 an example we just had that scenario come in with a development they are

502
00:51:23,520 --> 00:51:30,580
 donating 32 34 acres to us the amount of land they're donating to us does not

503
00:51:30,580 --> 00:51:36,960
 count towards your tree preservation okay so it's totally separate because

504
00:51:36,960 --> 00:51:42,320
 whenever the final plaque goes if a developer donates the land to us when

505
00:51:42,320 --> 00:51:48,400
 the final plaque goes to development review that land is shown as ours and

506
00:51:48,400 --> 00:51:53,240
 they cannot count the tree preservation on our land on Park City land yeah that

507
00:51:53,240 --> 00:51:57,320
 was my exact question thank you for clarifying yes sir yes sir so we just

508
00:51:57,320 --> 00:52:02,560
 had that scenario and they when we took the council we made sure and the

509
00:52:02,560 --> 00:52:07,120
 developer made sure that the trees that they were preserving were not on the

510
00:52:07,120 --> 00:52:11,680
 part of the land that they are donating to the city okay thank you so that way

511
00:52:11,680 --> 00:52:15,340
 they're not double-dipping yes sir but if they would have not dedicated that

512
00:52:15,340 --> 00:52:20,400
 land they could have used those trees for preservation they will most of the

513
00:52:20,400 --> 00:52:24,720
 land they donated was in the floodplain and in an easter area so I don't believe

514
00:52:24,720 --> 00:52:28,160
 that would count it either because they'd be double dipping as floodplain

515
00:52:28,160 --> 00:52:33,840
 and ESA so the property that they're actually developing on is where they

516
00:52:33,840 --> 00:52:43,040
 have to dedicate the trees on when we can get clarification to that yeah okay

517
00:52:43,040 --> 00:52:45,640
 thank you that's correct you couldn't use the ease of the count towards your

518
00:52:45,640 --> 00:52:50,080
 tree preservation and and if they were just to pay into the fund again that's

519
00:52:50,080 --> 00:52:54,680
 just an option for mitigation as opposed to planting or some other some of the

520
00:52:54,680 --> 00:53:00,720
 other options in the code and again we did try to you know we do this entire

521
00:53:00,720 --> 00:53:05,840
 process we we actually went through a conflict resolution with some of the

522
00:53:05,840 --> 00:53:11,680
 development services staff and then of course our developers help us you know

523
00:53:11,680 --> 00:53:17,160
 bring up some of these scenarios as well but will we try to as much as possible

524
00:53:17,160 --> 00:53:24,680
 make sure that we you know we were able to resolve any conflicts between not

525
00:53:24,680 --> 00:53:30,680
 only this proposal but also other development requirements but also work

526
00:53:30,680 --> 00:53:37,800
 out what those kind of double credit scenarios might look like and and again

527
00:53:37,800 --> 00:53:43,200
 there there could be some instances where there would be benefit on both ends

528
00:53:43,200 --> 00:53:48,320
 it could be a win-win and what we've written into the ordinance is giving us

529
00:53:48,320 --> 00:53:55,560
 the flexibility to make those kinds of of adjustments through a separate

530
00:53:55,560 --> 00:54:01,520
 development agreement so it would have to be a formal contract a formal

531
00:54:01,520 --> 00:54:06,560
 agreement between the city you know specifically the parks department and

532
00:54:06,560 --> 00:54:11,760
 the the developer if we were going to work outside of the parameters that are

533
00:54:11,760 --> 00:54:17,720
 in the in the ordinance itself so I wanted to just before it I think my last

534
00:54:17,720 --> 00:54:23,640
 slide is kind of a wrap-up but I wanted to let you know that this average on the

535
00:54:23,640 --> 00:54:31,280
 park dedication and the average at 60% is kind of the sweet spot for for our

536
00:54:31,280 --> 00:54:36,360
 development group it's still a pretty significant increase from what they're

537
00:54:36,360 --> 00:54:46,280
 paying today but that would that would be about right at you know $2,500 for

538
00:54:46,280 --> 00:54:52,080
 each zone and it would be it would create a flat fee which is also kind of

539
00:54:52,080 --> 00:54:58,200
 another incentive something that they liked rather than again the big swings

540
00:54:58,200 --> 00:55:04,480
 between the between the different zones over time again that would that would

541
00:55:04,480 --> 00:55:13,400
 even out but this park dedication average and average at 60% seem to seem

542
00:55:13,400 --> 00:55:19,080
 to be what I would say I don't want to say that there I don't want to speak for

543
00:55:19,080 --> 00:55:22,880
 them and saying that are comfortable with that but that seemed to be the number

544
00:55:22,880 --> 00:55:29,360
 that we felt moving forward Laura has there been any studies on the other

545
00:55:29,360 --> 00:55:34,440
 entities that you looked at on the impact of development incentives by

546
00:55:34,440 --> 00:55:40,800
 having a flat fee over a structured fee in terms of the projects and the type of

547
00:55:40,800 --> 00:55:47,960
 projects that come to the area know that we did look at several of other cities

548
00:55:47,960 --> 00:55:57,560
 and they were more in line with flat fees how they reached their number I don't

549
00:55:57,560 --> 00:56:00,680
 know again everybody has to take an individual approach they could be

550
00:56:00,680 --> 00:56:05,360
 averaging I mentioned city of Fort Worth they were doing an implementation phase

551
00:56:05,360 --> 00:56:13,080
 in but an actual study on what those costs were you know and how they would

552
00:56:13,080 --> 00:56:18,320
 impact development coming in no we haven't done that but I can I feel

553
00:56:18,320 --> 00:56:23,600
 confident that in saying that for our local developers with a focus group that

554
00:56:23,600 --> 00:56:31,760
 we brought together to help us with this update it definitely was a challenge for

555
00:56:31,760 --> 00:56:36,800
 them it was an issue for them to see these kinds of swings in each zone well

556
00:56:36,800 --> 00:56:39,320
 yeah I would I would certainly understand that they don't want to pay

557
00:56:39,320 --> 00:56:43,480
 that much yeah and I don't know that it was so much I mean I'm not gonna say

558
00:56:43,480 --> 00:56:51,000
 that I mean obviously the the increases it is a significant we understand that

559
00:56:51,000 --> 00:56:59,240
 but I think that it was the the gap to the range the range itself to added an

560
00:56:59,240 --> 00:57:07,480
 additional issue or this is Gary pack and I think it was fair to say that the

561
00:57:07,480 --> 00:57:16,040
 development group was was supportive of the the average for the park dedication

562
00:57:16,040 --> 00:57:20,200
 and the average at sixty percent and the methodology to get to a hundred percent

563
00:57:20,200 --> 00:57:27,760
 over six years so I think that they were definitely supportive in that realm I

564
00:57:27,760 --> 00:57:33,360
 think there was concern initially at the full rate at the first year that was a

565
00:57:33,360 --> 00:57:40,120
 little bit of a sharp curve for that especially since we hadn't updated that

566
00:57:40,120 --> 00:57:46,280
 for 20 years 22 years that this was a good methodology to get to that kind of

567
00:57:46,280 --> 00:57:51,240
 full full cost recovery of what it's going to take to build a park at X

568
00:57:51,240 --> 00:57:55,480
 number acres of land value in that zone

569
00:58:00,080 --> 00:58:08,160
 and just kind of bringing us full circle full cost recovery is assumed at the at

570
00:58:08,160 --> 00:58:14,120
 those proposed level of service rates that were outlined if we took a

571
00:58:14,120 --> 00:58:19,320
 methodology of averaging and averaging factors such as population land values

572
00:58:19,320 --> 00:58:24,380
 service levels what that does is it reduces the fees overall it closes that

573
00:58:24,380 --> 00:58:30,240
 range between these zones for the in lieu of it produces a flat dedication fee

574
00:58:30,240 --> 00:58:35,520
 and it provides some equity between those zones a combination would be to

575
00:58:35,520 --> 00:58:40,720
 combine the proposed fee in lieu of with the dedication fee average again that

576
00:58:40,720 --> 00:58:44,000
 reduces just another option we're playing around with the numbers it

577
00:58:44,000 --> 00:58:48,840
 reduces fees it closes the range of fees between the zones and then that phase

578
00:58:48,840 --> 00:58:53,600
 in implementation as Gary mentioned is probably the one that I think they were

579
00:58:53,600 --> 00:59:00,640
 most supportive of beginning at a 60% of the fee with an increase of 10% each

580
00:59:00,640 --> 00:59:07,840
 year at year six we would have that 100% and a reset so through that

581
00:59:07,840 --> 00:59:12,320
 implementation process of doing the space and approach we would actually be

582
00:59:12,320 --> 00:59:18,520
 doing two reviews of the fees and updating them during that process and

583
00:59:18,520 --> 00:59:28,280
 during that time so that really wraps up where we are today we started our small

584
00:59:28,280 --> 00:59:34,660
 focus group meetings again we met last month and we have a handbook that is

585
00:59:34,660 --> 00:59:39,360
 being drafted now it's in the final draft that gives them a little bit more

586
00:59:39,360 --> 00:59:45,320
 specifications on some of the other pieces of the ordinance you had an

587
00:59:45,320 --> 00:59:48,440
 opportunity to look at the ordinance you see that there's also an option in their

588
00:59:48,440 --> 00:59:55,000
 for developers to come in and develop a park themselves as part of the park

589
00:59:55,000 --> 00:59:59,720
 development and then there's also some so there's some specifications that

590
00:59:59,720 --> 01:00:02,240
 they'll have to meet and developing their own part there's also

591
01:00:02,240 --> 01:00:08,080
 specifications on the land dedication side so we're working to put that

592
01:00:08,080 --> 01:00:11,920
 together to have that for the developer so they'll know exactly what those

593
01:00:11,920 --> 01:00:15,680
 specifications are when you're dealing with the dedication and the development

594
01:00:15,680 --> 01:00:20,520
 side if they choose to come in and develop a park as part of their project

595
01:00:20,520 --> 01:00:30,160
 but that's we do have a developer town hall scheduled with development services

596
01:00:30,160 --> 01:00:35,040
 that we're going to provide this to the development community as a whole for

597
01:00:35,040 --> 01:00:39,880
 that set for 10 a.m. on November 11th and then we're also going to continue

598
01:00:39,880 --> 01:00:46,800
 meeting with our small focus group as well great Christian back yeah thank you

599
01:00:46,800 --> 01:00:54,800
 chair the the typical fees in the in North Texas are they 60% I know you said

600
01:00:54,800 --> 01:01:00,440
 different municipalities do not fees recovery levels but different

601
01:01:00,440 --> 01:01:04,520
 municipalities have a different approach but if you do try to match the apples

602
01:01:04,520 --> 01:01:13,120
 and oranges are they are they funding 40% I don't know and I don't know if

603
01:01:13,120 --> 01:01:18,400
 they're even calculating cost recovery when they're developing their fees we

604
01:01:18,400 --> 01:01:23,760
 used we used Fort Worth as that methodology as a way to kind of ramp up

605
01:01:23,760 --> 01:01:30,200
 to the hundred percent or the full rate over a term so it wasn't the sticker

606
01:01:30,200 --> 01:01:37,160
 shock of going from such a low fee based on 1998 a 1988 formula which is an

607
01:01:37,160 --> 01:01:42,920
 apples to oranges formula compared to where we're at today to try to ease into

608
01:01:42,920 --> 01:01:47,840
 that over the course of the next six years as well as having to kind of

609
01:01:47,840 --> 01:01:54,520
 reevaluations of the land so we thought that was the group felt that that was a

610
01:01:54,520 --> 01:02:00,760
 good good consideration to try to stall that that sharpness of the change yeah I

611
01:02:00,760 --> 01:02:03,680
 can say that Fort Worth was the only one that we found that had an

612
01:02:03,680 --> 01:02:11,000
 implementation approach okay their fees and for these development meetings who's

613
01:02:11,000 --> 01:02:17,680
 who's who's part of those can we get a list of those members sure thank you

614
01:02:17,680 --> 01:02:24,680
 commissioner Ellis thank you chair Laura thanks for a great detailed presentation

615
01:02:24,680 --> 01:02:31,960
 what is your timeline on trying to get this finished we're hoping to our next

616
01:02:31,960 --> 01:02:35,600
 step as Gary mentioned is we do want to take it back to the developer group the

617
01:02:35,600 --> 01:02:39,280
 larger town hall meeting that would be our first one since the spring and then

618
01:02:39,280 --> 01:02:45,280
 continue to work with the default the focus group in finalizing this proposal

619
01:02:45,280 --> 01:02:49,600
 and also the handbook and we are scheduled to present to council in

620
01:02:49,600 --> 01:02:54,600
 December so you know we'll take whatever feedback and information they give us at

621
01:02:54,600 --> 01:03:00,640
 that time make those updates and hopefully have a new ordinance by the

622
01:03:00,640 --> 01:03:05,800
 beginning of next year but that also brings us to to the implementation of

623
01:03:05,800 --> 01:03:10,360
 the actual new ordinance itself we're looking at anywhere from a six to nine

624
01:03:10,360 --> 01:03:17,680
 month timeline that's what dr. Crompton has recommended in terms of an effective

625
01:03:17,680 --> 01:03:23,640
 date once the ordinance has been approved and that will give you know the

626
01:03:23,640 --> 01:03:27,240
 developers that are currently in the process time to continue under the

627
01:03:27,240 --> 01:03:30,800
 existing ordinance since most of them are coming in believing that that that's

628
01:03:30,800 --> 01:03:35,120
 those are the requirements you know that that they're developing under and giving

629
01:03:35,120 --> 01:03:40,120
 them kind of a full heads up that as of this date anything new coming in would

630
01:03:40,120 --> 01:03:45,480
 be under the new effective ordinance one adjustment that schedule with the

631
01:03:45,480 --> 01:03:49,440
 council runoffs we were asked to push it to January so we're actually going to be

632
01:03:49,440 --> 01:03:54,160
 meeting January with the new council so we didn't have to start with an old

633
01:03:54,160 --> 01:04:02,180
 council and move to a newer council I got a few questions developers that come

634
01:04:02,180 --> 01:04:06,760
 in they're not required to put in a park but if they don't they have to pay the

635
01:04:06,760 --> 01:04:10,800
 fee correct that's that's kind of the broad strokes of this is the city does

636
01:04:10,800 --> 01:04:14,720
 the city have a preference would they prefer the developer to put in the park

637
01:04:14,720 --> 01:04:20,480
 or they prefer to give the authority over to the city to find land and build

638
01:04:20,480 --> 01:04:25,240
 it themselves what is the preference of the city between those two options I can

639
01:04:25,240 --> 01:04:30,640
 take that the experience we've had a little bit of everything since since

640
01:04:30,640 --> 01:04:36,200
 we've been with the city I can give you an example there's between hunter and

641
01:04:36,200 --> 01:04:40,720
 coal ranch and the discussions there in the future planning and then we have one

642
01:04:40,720 --> 01:04:47,760
 park that's going in right now at razor they they have well exceeded their

643
01:04:47,760 --> 01:04:53,600
 ordinance fees based on what they've invested into that park for construction

644
01:04:53,600 --> 01:04:58,000
 efforts so they've well surpassed the required amount that they would have

645
01:04:58,000 --> 01:05:02,760
 given us we wouldn't have been able to build that park with the fees they would

646
01:05:02,760 --> 01:05:06,560
 have given us just as a fee in lieu of and paying for the development fee

647
01:05:06,560 --> 01:05:11,240
 outright but they're actually building it and dedicating the land to the city

648
01:05:11,240 --> 01:05:17,400
 all at one time so there are there are instances where the developer may put

649
01:05:17,400 --> 01:05:23,640
 more money into the park especially at our old rate to get what they wanted for

650
01:05:23,640 --> 01:05:27,940
 their development it may be beneficial to us to have them build it and then

651
01:05:27,940 --> 01:05:32,240
 dedicated to the city at its completion they are actually going to maintain that

652
01:05:32,240 --> 01:05:37,560
 parcel for one year as well as part of the agreement so they're going well

653
01:05:37,560 --> 01:05:43,880
 beyond what was required based in 1998 ordinance planning for hunter and coal

654
01:05:43,880 --> 01:05:49,120
 ranch the similar there that I think they're gonna end up building a higher

655
01:05:49,120 --> 01:05:55,280
 standard of what our standard currently is for those parks as that's built so

656
01:05:55,280 --> 01:06:00,840
 that's gonna be a benefit to to the residents as well there are times when we

657
01:06:00,840 --> 01:06:06,960
 may prefer to have the money because we may have money that's already in the

658
01:06:06,960 --> 01:06:10,800
 fund that we could use that to go ahead and move forward and build a park so we

659
01:06:10,800 --> 01:06:14,480
 can match that up and move forward with with a development of a parcel that's

660
01:06:14,480 --> 01:06:19,640
 already partially funded so there's there's different scenarios and

661
01:06:19,640 --> 01:06:24,320
 different opportunities really with each each development that occurs so I

662
01:06:24,320 --> 01:06:32,600
 appreciate that understanding with that how how can the city better incent

663
01:06:32,600 --> 01:06:37,480
 people to do what you want we were making this this kind of standard flat

664
01:06:37,480 --> 01:06:43,720
 fee which takes away the city's influence on whether you want to push

665
01:06:43,720 --> 01:06:47,080
 back and have the developer do it because they might have the means to do

666
01:06:47,080 --> 01:06:52,760
 a great park or you're in a position to to go ahead and construct at scale

667
01:06:52,760 --> 01:06:58,280
 efficiently with with your own dollars have have you looked at different

668
01:06:58,280 --> 01:07:04,640
 mechanisms if they even exist to to create a more fluid pathway so that's an

669
01:07:04,640 --> 01:07:09,160
 open conversation about how to incentivize that the best park gets built

670
01:07:09,160 --> 01:07:13,880
 rather than hey they can choose to do this and we understand that sometimes

671
01:07:13,880 --> 01:07:16,760
 it's better for us to do it and sometimes it's not but we're not gonna

672
01:07:16,760 --> 01:07:20,280
 be involved in that conversation they get complete autonomy to determine that

673
01:07:20,280 --> 01:07:24,120
 when it sounds like and I would prefer the professionals on our end to actually

674
01:07:24,120 --> 01:07:27,520
 speak into the betterment of the city have you all explored that or does that

675
01:07:27,520 --> 01:07:35,960
 even exist to create more of a an influence on on that yeah so there's I

676
01:07:35,960 --> 01:07:39,960
 guess a number of ways to approach that the first and foremost we're meeting

677
01:07:39,960 --> 01:07:45,840
 with the developers very early on now as opposed to sometimes we weren't kind of

678
01:07:45,840 --> 01:07:50,240
 getting involved until much later in the process and it may have been too late so

679
01:07:50,240 --> 01:07:55,280
 we're having those discussions now before they really even get started so

680
01:07:55,280 --> 01:08:00,920
 that's one major factor the other one is we're in that we've been working on our

681
01:08:00,920 --> 01:08:06,080
 master plan in our trails plan to identify where we want certain things to

682
01:08:06,080 --> 01:08:11,320
 occur so then we can share that with them and show how our master plan could

683
01:08:11,320 --> 01:08:16,120
 benefit their community help sell houses help you know make a better neighborhood

684
01:08:16,120 --> 01:08:20,000
 and it's tied into other assets whether it's a school a business whatever that

685
01:08:20,000 --> 01:08:25,200
 would be so giving them that some additional vision there's still some

686
01:08:25,200 --> 01:08:29,680
 opportunities for improvement there for sure obviously it comes down to a

687
01:08:29,680 --> 01:08:34,760
 formula of profit you know for a developer and there's got to be some

688
01:08:34,760 --> 01:08:39,440
 balance to that but if we can say hey there's some historical opportunities

689
01:08:39,440 --> 01:08:44,400
 here here's a great little forest of of post oak so we want to try to preserve

690
01:08:44,400 --> 01:08:49,200
 if we can get ahead of that before they have plans already done that's saving

691
01:08:49,200 --> 01:08:52,320
 them from spending money and going back and really losing some of their

692
01:08:52,320 --> 01:08:56,680
 investment they've already made so we're trying to get ahead of all of that and

693
01:08:56,680 --> 01:09:01,200
 we feel like we've made a lot of progress but we still have some

694
01:09:01,200 --> 01:09:05,560
 opportunities to to improve that okay well hopefully the the conversation the

695
01:09:05,560 --> 01:09:10,160
 developers is insightful of ways to make that efficient the only other question I

696
01:09:10,160 --> 01:09:14,040
 have and this might well it's coming from a place of ignorance so you can

697
01:09:14,040 --> 01:09:19,720
 enlighten me I don't think in my mind logically that a park development is a

698
01:09:19,720 --> 01:09:23,800
 linear function I don't think it doesn't seem like every acre of a park is

699
01:09:23,800 --> 01:09:27,240
 developed at the same cost you know I'm thinking about it's probably like a step

700
01:09:27,240 --> 01:09:30,600
 like there's probably some fixed cost at one acre then when you get to five acres

701
01:09:30,600 --> 01:09:34,880
 you know the playgrounds there's another fixed cost because it seems like a 30

702
01:09:34,880 --> 01:09:39,720
 acre park that includes three soccer fields is way cheaper at on average than

703
01:09:39,720 --> 01:09:44,400
 a one acre park that has a full built out playground with with turf and all

704
01:09:44,400 --> 01:09:49,280
 this but yet the fees being attributed each park is a fixed cost assuming that

705
01:09:49,280 --> 01:09:55,640
 every acre is the exact same cost and I don't know if I fundamentally understand

706
01:09:55,640 --> 01:10:00,840
 the rationale if we're thinking about the actual recovery costs it's not

707
01:10:00,840 --> 01:10:07,520
 correct me wrong I've never built a park which might be surprising to you but it

708
01:10:07,520 --> 01:10:11,720
 doesn't seem like it's a linear function so can you help me out understand why

709
01:10:11,720 --> 01:10:19,120
 the the cost remains fixed across whether it's a five acre park or a 500

710
01:10:19,120 --> 01:10:26,000
 acre park correct so in yeah I mean yeah you make a great point

711
01:10:26,000 --> 01:10:31,520
 historically we had classified our parks based on park acres and we're moving

712
01:10:31,520 --> 01:10:36,680
 away from that you know I use the example of Quaker town earlier that we've

713
01:10:36,680 --> 01:10:41,360
 got this great city park that hosts one of our you know biggest events in the

714
01:10:41,360 --> 01:10:48,400
 city and it's just a little over 30 acres so you know part space is not all

715
01:10:48,400 --> 01:10:54,120
 equal to your point it's now being they're being developed more based on

716
01:10:54,120 --> 01:11:02,880
 amenities so what type of amenity and we really we have a condition in the

717
01:11:02,880 --> 01:11:08,240
 proposed ordinance that even though you may be required to only contribute or

718
01:11:08,240 --> 01:11:16,360
 dedicate let's say 2.8 acres of land we actually with the minimum is five acres

719
01:11:16,360 --> 01:11:22,840
 because that's really what you need to even put in a neighborhood park who you

720
01:11:22,840 --> 01:11:27,360
 know in all of our neighborhood parks have that standard amenity of a

721
01:11:27,360 --> 01:11:34,360
 playground you know some picnic tables trash cans a pavilion so it's it's

722
01:11:34,360 --> 01:11:40,200
 there's some consistency across in the type of part based on amenities and not

723
01:11:40,200 --> 01:11:45,520
 so much on the size anymore but the size does matter in terms of the minimum at

724
01:11:45,520 --> 01:11:51,920
 least but not all day not all neighborhood parks are equal either even

725
01:11:51,920 --> 01:11:55,080
 in our own park system we have some neighborhood parks that that have a

726
01:11:55,080 --> 01:12:00,080
 parking lot and some that don't I mean that's a major cost we're trying to

727
01:12:00,080 --> 01:12:05,920
 standardize that because everybody wants a parking lot in a restroom and those

728
01:12:05,920 --> 01:12:12,240
 are two very expensive assets to build and for a neighborhood park typically

729
01:12:12,240 --> 01:12:17,160
 they're built for those geographic residents around there where they could

730
01:12:17,160 --> 01:12:22,560
 typically a home they may not be there all day so that's why that's typically

731
01:12:22,560 --> 01:12:27,360
 on-street parking and no restroom when you get to the next level park then you

732
01:12:27,360 --> 01:12:30,480
 start putting in restrooms but we have neighborhood parks that also have

733
01:12:30,480 --> 01:12:36,240
 restrooms so even our own service levels very so we're trying to get that to

734
01:12:36,240 --> 01:12:40,800
 point where everything's fairly the same right but I think you're making my point

735
01:12:40,800 --> 01:12:45,840
 Gary there's a fixed cost to a bathroom a pavilion so if you add another acre to

736
01:12:45,840 --> 01:12:52,400
 that you have the cost of land and not much else but yet you're attributing the

737
01:12:52,400 --> 01:12:55,720
 same cost to that second acre or the sixth acre if you have a five acre

738
01:12:55,720 --> 01:13:01,680
 minimum regardless and so if we understand these fixed costs I understand

739
01:13:01,680 --> 01:13:06,920
 that you you're not using like acres as a size of our determinant of what

740
01:13:06,920 --> 01:13:10,200
 amenities go there but you're charging developers as per acre not what

741
01:13:10,200 --> 01:13:15,000
 amenities are being attributed so I can't I understand that you're talking

742
01:13:15,000 --> 01:13:18,560
 about amenities being different but that's not how you're charging them so

743
01:13:18,560 --> 01:13:21,040
 if we're talking about how we're charging them that remains as a

744
01:13:21,040 --> 01:13:25,800
 measurement of acres and not all park acres are equally valued yet we are

745
01:13:25,800 --> 01:13:31,520
 charging developers the same price for every acre of a park when if I look at

746
01:13:31,520 --> 01:13:35,840
 the 400 acres of North Lakes you have a pond of frisbee golf course tons of

747
01:13:35,840 --> 01:13:41,760
 soccer fields those are not valued the same as the acre when which that massive

748
01:13:41,760 --> 01:13:45,680
 pavilion sits and so I don't know if there's any resolution tonight but as

749
01:13:45,680 --> 01:13:49,440
 you go towards the developers and can you continue taking through this I just

750
01:13:49,440 --> 01:13:56,400
 have some logical barriers to understand how the price per acre is fixed across

751
01:13:56,400 --> 01:14:02,640
 all acres so on park development specifically the developers are not

752
01:14:02,640 --> 01:14:11,080
 charged based on on the on the cost of a park acre what they're charged on is we

753
01:14:11,080 --> 01:14:19,320
 take the average cost to develop right so we use that development and in what

754
01:14:19,320 --> 01:14:26,420
 we did is we just said okay yeah and yet just we divided it by a cost an average

755
01:14:26,420 --> 01:14:32,240
 cost per acre only in that we're looking between those the neighborhood parks and

756
01:14:32,240 --> 01:14:37,060
 the community parks but it's based off the cost to develop a park and we

757
01:14:37,060 --> 01:14:42,800
 included that cost at the exhibits so we took that and then we divided it by the

758
01:14:42,800 --> 01:14:50,200
 service area how many dwelling units we have in that area per park acre and

759
01:14:50,200 --> 01:14:54,040
 using that multiplying it by the number of dwelling units that you're bringing

760
01:14:54,040 --> 01:14:59,080
 into the development so the fundamental of it though doesn't take into

761
01:14:59,080 --> 01:15:05,520
 consideration the actual cost of land it takes it's using the factor of the cost

762
01:15:05,520 --> 01:15:09,400
 to develop the park not the cost of the land right and I appreciate that

763
01:15:09,400 --> 01:15:13,320
 clarification it still seems though that there's a price to develop that's a

764
01:15:13,320 --> 01:15:16,760
 neighborhood park and there's a price to develop that's a community park and

765
01:15:16,760 --> 01:15:23,280
 those costs averaging out are different because you have the economies of scale

766
01:15:23,280 --> 01:15:26,800
 when you look at a community park versus a neighborhood park so I think I

767
01:15:26,800 --> 01:15:32,080
 understand you're saying I'm just adding my input that a fixed linear price per

768
01:15:32,080 --> 01:15:36,320
 acre seems to break down in terms of just my rationale maybe I'm the only one

769
01:15:36,320 --> 01:15:40,600
 but I won't monopolize the time I know we can look at that we can take a look at

770
01:15:40,600 --> 01:15:45,080
 that thanks Gary Chris you're back thank you chair actually I want to I was gonna

771
01:15:45,080 --> 01:15:50,760
 ask that question as well that it seems like that you have amenities that cost a

772
01:15:50,760 --> 01:15:56,600
 certain amount and land that costs a variable amount so you know we know a

773
01:15:56,600 --> 01:16:00,400
 water fountain is $300 or whatever I think that's what chair's point was we

774
01:16:00,400 --> 01:16:08,000
 know a pavilion is a ten thousand dollars or whatever it is so if you have

775
01:16:08,000 --> 01:16:12,360
 certain if you wanted to design a park why wouldn't you say we we want at

776
01:16:12,360 --> 01:16:18,080
 minimum a bathroom a parking lot a water fountain and a blah blah blah and this

777
01:16:18,080 --> 01:16:22,920
 is our minimum and this is our Chinese buffet menu and you're going to you're

778
01:16:22,920 --> 01:16:27,080
 going to select from column A and column B and these are fixed costs and oh by

779
01:16:27,080 --> 01:16:32,400
 the way if you're in zone ABC or D your land rate will be different and that way

780
01:16:32,400 --> 01:16:40,440
 you're not sending the costs I mean so before I go down that path I can

781
01:16:40,440 --> 01:16:44,480
 understand if we want to average if that's a way it's if that's a mechanism

782
01:16:44,480 --> 01:16:50,360
 of paying for parks that we wouldn't other already had which is what we

783
01:16:50,360 --> 01:16:56,200
 alluded to earlier with my question the recovery of them but I just want to I

784
01:16:56,200 --> 01:17:01,440
 that's fine because I my predilection would be to lump everything into giant

785
01:17:01,440 --> 01:17:05,400
 park pool and divide it out over the whole city but you said we're not allowed

786
01:17:05,400 --> 01:17:11,960
 to do that so our is this mechanism a way of getting towards that that's

787
01:17:11,960 --> 01:17:16,680
 allowable otherwise it does feel like chairs point is well taken that we

788
01:17:16,680 --> 01:17:29,000
 should have a selectable system maybe that's that's more tuned so to develop

789
01:17:29,000 --> 01:17:35,160
 if a developer was coming in and putting in the park themselves we do have a list

790
01:17:35,160 --> 01:17:41,200
 of amenities that requirements that they would have to install in that park if

791
01:17:41,200 --> 01:17:44,880
 they were coming in and doing it on their own if that's come to your to your

792
01:17:44,880 --> 01:17:51,240
 last point but yes but overall in terms of zones we would still have to stay

793
01:17:51,240 --> 01:17:56,520
 within within those zones rather than use it across the board but what we

794
01:17:56,520 --> 01:18:03,400
 wanted to do in a current ordinance it's limited to in definition to community

795
01:18:03,400 --> 01:18:07,920
 parts or I'm sorry neighborhood part right neighborhood parts and they had

796
01:18:07,920 --> 01:18:11,400
 to be five to twenty acres and that's where you that's where the money can be

797
01:18:11,400 --> 01:18:16,680
 used knowing and understanding park use today that's they're not just in

798
01:18:16,680 --> 01:18:22,440
 neighborhood parks there a neighborhood and community parts so that was the

799
01:18:22,440 --> 01:18:27,520
 other reason why we needed to take that average or you know we we chose that

800
01:18:27,520 --> 01:18:34,080
 kind of methodology to get to that cost again understanding that at three

801
01:18:34,080 --> 01:18:38,520
 hundred and fifty five thousand you know and we're saying that that's an acre

802
01:18:38,520 --> 01:18:43,800
 based on a community part and a neighborhood part so a four acre

803
01:18:43,800 --> 01:18:49,680
 neighborhood part twelve point five acre community part what's the average for

804
01:18:49,680 --> 01:18:56,560
 that and and that's what we got to the 355 but when you look at the exhibit

805
01:18:56,560 --> 01:19:02,000
 that actually breaks down those costs you know you'll you'll see that taking

806
01:19:02,000 --> 01:19:08,560
 out a minimum of five acres what you know what that's going to get us in terms

807
01:19:08,560 --> 01:19:11,760
 of actually developing the park and that's that's what that's what we're

808
01:19:11,760 --> 01:19:16,680
 looking at so that you know that that gets us closer to actually being able to

809
01:19:16,680 --> 01:19:24,160
 develop those those community and and neighborhood parts when you charge it

810
01:19:24,160 --> 01:19:34,160
 by acre knowing that we're taking a minimum of five any other questions for

811
01:19:34,160 --> 01:19:42,040
 Laura Gary great thank you both so much for being here and answering all of our

812
01:19:42,040 --> 01:19:50,280
 questions thank you thank you so I just wanted to update the record to show the

813
01:19:50,280 --> 01:19:54,400
 Commissioner Anderson Christian pernetta and Commissioner Smith have all joined us

814
01:19:54,400 --> 01:19:59,840
 so we are in full force now moving on with our agenda this evening we'll get

815
01:19:59,840 --> 01:20:04,320
 into the clarification of agenda items before we hop in I've already talked

816
01:20:04,320 --> 01:20:08,640
 Richard just want to make sure the agenda is as printed this evening correct

817
01:20:08,640 --> 01:20:15,360
 Richard that's correct fantastic so the first item of business would be item

818
01:20:15,360 --> 01:20:21,240
 number two which is the plan and zoning minutes is there any edits we need to

819
01:20:21,240 --> 01:20:31,400
 make on those so I guess for October 21st great next is item three the

820
01:20:31,400 --> 01:20:37,920
 consent agenda we just have one on the docket for tonight it's FP 20 - 0 2 4 0

821
01:20:37,920 --> 01:20:44,960
 0 2 4 does anyone have any questions for Haley on this plat that we can bring it

822
01:20:44,960 --> 01:20:55,040
 up okay great I will just continue on next item is the consideration of the

823
01:20:55,040 --> 01:20:58,680
 calendar Richard you want to do this in work session or public session is

824
01:20:58,680 --> 01:21:11,400
 anything to dive into here on the calendar Richard sorry about that I was

825
01:21:11,400 --> 01:21:18,080
 answering another question here yes do we need to dive into that during work

826
01:21:18,080 --> 01:21:23,200
 session or is that just a vote for the record and public really it's just it's

827
01:21:23,200 --> 01:21:27,160
 just a vote for the record we try to follow kind of where we were this this

828
01:21:27,160 --> 01:21:31,040
 past year building it off of council I know there's some around the holidays

829
01:21:31,040 --> 01:21:34,840
 where we jog it a little bit but I'm still maintaining two meetings a month

830
01:21:34,840 --> 01:21:40,240
 and just for everyone's knowledge if this is adopted or approved tonight then

831
01:21:40,240 --> 01:21:44,120
 we'll go ahead and update our submittal schedules accordingly so we'll get that

832
01:21:44,120 --> 01:21:50,200
 out within the next couple days just wanted to add that great next item is

833
01:21:50,200 --> 01:21:54,200
 item 4b let me ask does anyone have any questions on the calendar I didn't throw

834
01:21:54,200 --> 01:22:05,120
 it out there okay pretty straightforward item 4b FP 20 - 0 0 2 6 this is Karina

835
01:22:05,120 --> 01:22:11,120
 Maldonado's item it is is this this is being denied but the Hopkins requesting

836
01:22:11,120 --> 01:22:17,360
 30-day extension correct is it recommended for denial yes that is

837
01:22:17,360 --> 01:22:21,520
 correct the plat is recommended for approval but they do have some last

838
01:22:21,520 --> 01:22:27,000
 minute changes to their waterline plan which would require some changes to the

839
01:22:27,000 --> 01:22:31,760
 easements shown on there so they've requested a 30-day extension up to a

840
01:22:31,760 --> 01:22:39,600
 date certain of November 18th so it's actually up it is approved they're just

841
01:22:39,600 --> 01:22:43,400
 asking for a little bit of time to update it yes they're just making

842
01:22:43,400 --> 01:22:49,520
 additional changes so if if you were to approve the plat now they would need to

843
01:22:49,520 --> 01:22:54,040
 come back and do a replat of the of the one that would be approved to show those

844
01:22:54,040 --> 01:22:58,240
 changes to the waterline okay that makes sense does anyone want to see the

845
01:22:58,240 --> 01:23:05,000
 presentation from Karina this evening if we're bringing it back okay great so

846
01:23:05,000 --> 01:23:11,160
 the next one is also Karina's it's item 4c PP 20 - 0 0 2 2 and I will turn the

847
01:23:11,160 --> 01:23:19,600
 floor over to Karina Maldonado for presentation on this item okay I

848
01:23:19,600 --> 01:23:23,400
 apologize I realize that my the previous item didn't have the item on on the

849
01:23:23,400 --> 01:23:32,200
 screen so this item is PP 20 - 0 0 22 for country club villages it is this is

850
01:23:32,200 --> 01:23:41,320
 located off of Fort Worth Drive and Fairview just south of Brush Creek so

851
01:23:41,320 --> 01:23:45,480
 staff is recommending denial the request as it does not meet the established

852
01:23:45,480 --> 01:23:51,760
 requirements however the applicant has requested an extension to December 2nd

853
01:23:53,400 --> 01:24:01,480
 with that I can answer any questions any questions on this and you said

854
01:24:01,480 --> 01:24:08,360
 December 2nd was the date they're targeting yes okay great I don't see any

855
01:24:08,360 --> 01:24:12,200
 questions so we'll go on to the last item for individual consideration which

856
01:24:12,200 --> 01:24:19,800
 is item 4d ADP 20 - 0 0 0 1 this item will be presented by Julie Wyatt and

857
01:24:19,800 --> 01:24:25,160
 whenever she is ready she has the floor

858
01:24:25,160 --> 01:24:37,200
 looks like she brought a binder or printer or scanner many binders let me

859
01:24:37,200 --> 01:25:00,440
 my presentation and we'll get going okay

860
01:25:02,920 --> 01:25:09,360
 sure back while she prepares can can someone remind me what what section of

861
01:25:09,360 --> 01:25:14,520
 the code extensions fall under when we're when we're awarding an extension

862
01:25:14,520 --> 01:25:21,560
 what where is where is that power in the code it's not in the code it's in the

863
01:25:21,560 --> 01:25:26,720
 local government code 212 is it 212 is where we're deriving that power okay

864
01:25:26,720 --> 01:25:35,760
 Richard I appreciate that all right let me share my screen

865
01:25:35,760 --> 01:25:43,280
 all right good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton

866
01:25:43,280 --> 01:25:50,280
 and I'm presenting ADP 20 0 0 0 1 agave ranch the request before you is for an

867
01:25:50,280 --> 01:25:54,240
 alternative development plan for a single-family development the site is 92

868
01:25:54,240 --> 01:25:59,080
 acres it's outlined in yellow you're I know you're familiar with it it is on

869
01:25:59,080 --> 01:26:04,720
 the east side of FM 428 north of Hartley Field the purpose is to deviate from

870
01:26:04,720 --> 01:26:12,040
 section 35 dot 13 dot 13 dot 1 of the 2002 Denton Development Code in

871
01:26:12,040 --> 01:26:16,400
 particular this request is related to the architecture of those proposed

872
01:26:16,400 --> 01:26:21,800
 single-family dwellings so just a refresher on the zoning in July of last

873
01:26:21,800 --> 01:26:27,160
 year City Council approved a rezoning for the property to nr3 and nr2 with

874
01:26:27,160 --> 01:26:32,000
 overlay conditions in 2019 that transition to PD district because of

875
01:26:32,000 --> 01:26:37,040
 those overlay conditions with the base zoning of r3 and r2 due to this project

876
01:26:37,040 --> 01:26:42,240
 time submittal timing it's being reviewed under the 2002 Denton

877
01:26:42,240 --> 01:26:46,920
 Development Regulations and that includes that ADP process as well as the

878
01:26:46,920 --> 01:26:53,040
 single-family residential site requirements so just to kind of before

879
01:26:53,040 --> 01:26:56,320
 we go over the applicant's request just to kind of talk through what those

880
01:26:56,320 --> 01:27:02,800
 residential site design requirements are so in the 2002 Denton Development Code

881
01:27:02,800 --> 01:27:08,980
 any lots under 10,000 square feet have to comply with the with section 35 dot

882
01:27:08,980 --> 01:27:15,320
 13 dot 13 dot 1 on lots over to 10,000 square feet are not required to

883
01:27:15,320 --> 01:27:19,760
 comply with those site design requirements so as this relates to agave

884
01:27:19,760 --> 01:27:26,120
 ranch I would 219 lots would have to comply 33 lots would not be required to

885
01:27:26,120 --> 01:27:30,560
 comply now there are there are a lot of requirements in there but the three that

886
01:27:30,560 --> 01:27:34,480
 we're talking about tonight the the deviations that they're requesting are

887
01:27:34,480 --> 01:27:40,000
 related to first design features in the code there is a menu of items that an

888
01:27:40,000 --> 01:27:46,480
 applicant can choose they have to choose three of them for each single-family

889
01:27:46,480 --> 01:27:53,000
 residential project or or house and that includes dormers gables recessed entries

890
01:27:53,000 --> 01:27:58,540
 coverler covered front porches cupolas architectural pillars or posts and a bay

891
01:27:58,540 --> 01:28:03,160
 window with a minimum 24 inches of projection the second one that we're

892
01:28:03,160 --> 01:28:07,920
 talking about tonight is the garages and and there are two elements to this first

893
01:28:07,920 --> 01:28:14,000
 that the 2002 code did not allow for front entry garages to extend forward of

894
01:28:14,000 --> 01:28:20,680
 the front building wall and second that of the total width of the garage door

895
01:28:20,680 --> 01:28:28,760
 could not be more than 40% of that total building frontage finally the windows

896
01:28:28,760 --> 01:28:34,200
 indoors percentage so under the 2002 code windows and doors excluding the

897
01:28:34,200 --> 01:28:40,680
 garage door had to comprise at least 25% of the of the wall area for the front

898
01:28:40,680 --> 01:28:46,520
 facade so those are the three elements we're talking about tonight so now we're

899
01:28:46,520 --> 01:28:51,560
 going to talk about the builder concerns in those proposed deviations so there are

900
01:28:51,560 --> 01:28:57,480
 two builders that are proposed to to to go into the agave ranch development so

901
01:28:57,480 --> 01:29:02,160
 I've got a builder one and builder two so first we're going to talk about the

902
01:29:02,160 --> 01:29:06,280
 design features remember that's that menu of items their plans with those

903
01:29:06,280 --> 01:29:12,640
 recessed entries contain only two design features and not the three and in your

904
01:29:12,640 --> 01:29:19,240
 backup material I've given all of those elevations that I'm sure it was a lot

905
01:29:19,240 --> 01:29:25,640
 they are proposing to actually revise that that menu to replace cupolas and

906
01:29:25,640 --> 01:29:30,120
 bay windows with first and enhanced landscaping package and that would

907
01:29:30,120 --> 01:29:34,680
 include foundation plantings and direct with decorative edging plus a large

908
01:29:34,680 --> 01:29:40,160
 shade tree per lot the 2002 didn't development code only only required

909
01:29:40,160 --> 01:29:44,720
 street trees for residential development it did not require lot trees so this

910
01:29:44,720 --> 01:29:50,080
 would be in in excess of what the 2002 code required they're also proposing to

911
01:29:50,080 --> 01:29:56,480
 add in a minimum roof pitch of 612 on primary roof elevation and they're also

912
01:29:56,480 --> 01:30:03,960
 proposing to increase the number of elements to four and so in order to kind

913
01:30:03,960 --> 01:30:07,600
 of look to see and this is in your backup as well to kind of show you what

914
01:30:07,600 --> 01:30:11,720
 that roof pitch that they're proposing just giving you a diagram here because

915
01:30:11,720 --> 01:30:16,280
 it's it's kind of hard just with that with the text to visualize what that is

916
01:30:16,280 --> 01:30:21,160
 all right and finally or I'm sorry and then second they are proposing a

917
01:30:21,160 --> 01:30:26,920
 deviation to the garage standards so that both they're both builders and

918
01:30:26,920 --> 01:30:32,760
 depending on the width of the plans they both have some plans with garages that

919
01:30:32,760 --> 01:30:38,640
 extend forward of that front building line and then that are also in excess of

920
01:30:38,640 --> 01:30:44,280
 that 40 percent maximum and that's for both two-car garage plans as well as

921
01:30:44,280 --> 01:30:49,040
 three-car garage plans they are proposing that that that the attached

922
01:30:49,040 --> 01:30:53,720
 front entry garages of residential dwellings could extend forward up to six

923
01:30:53,720 --> 01:30:58,920
 feet from the front building plane of the house that is nearest in setback

924
01:30:58,920 --> 01:31:04,760
 distance to the garage door plane and that would be up to 11 feet maximum from

925
01:31:04,760 --> 01:31:13,080
 a recessed recessed front door they would they as proposed it would allow 45

926
01:31:13,080 --> 01:31:17,880
 percent of the product offerings within the agave ranch project to have the

927
01:31:17,880 --> 01:31:23,800
 forward extending garages but would not extend to the three-car garages and then

928
01:31:23,800 --> 01:31:28,560
 and then the second provision that they're proposing is that the total width

929
01:31:28,560 --> 01:31:32,920
 of the garage doors would not occupy more than 45 percent of the total

930
01:31:32,920 --> 01:31:38,520
 building frontage for two-car garages and 55 percent for three-car garages once

931
01:31:38,520 --> 01:31:46,560
 again adding that 45 percent of the total in as well and just to kind of let

932
01:31:46,560 --> 01:31:50,040
 you see this is in your backup as well what that looks like because once again

933
01:31:50,040 --> 01:31:55,920
 a text version it it's somewhat unclear but you can see here this the garage as

934
01:31:55,920 --> 01:32:03,440
 proposed is is that front garage is here six feet would be the maximum it could

935
01:32:03,440 --> 01:32:08,720
 extend from from this plane on the house and then 11 feet from that recessed

936
01:32:08,720 --> 01:32:15,320
 front door all right and finally the last provision the windows and doors they

937
01:32:15,320 --> 01:32:21,800
 both both builders do have plans that are less than that 25% that the 2002

938
01:32:21,800 --> 01:32:28,040
 code required and so the applicant is proposing that that the windows and

939
01:32:28,040 --> 01:32:34,280
 doors excluding the garage doors would comprise 15% of the wall area plus use

940
01:32:34,280 --> 01:32:39,480
 two of the following enhanced design features to provide visual relief and in

941
01:32:39,480 --> 01:32:44,120
 that they're provided they're proposing decorative shutters decorative brick

942
01:32:44,120 --> 01:32:49,200
 detailing coach lights divided light windows decorative garage door hardware

943
01:32:49,200 --> 01:32:55,600
 and decorative sheet cedar shake or stucco board accents and gables so now

944
01:32:55,600 --> 01:33:00,000
 let's kind of talk about this as it relates to the elevation so like I said

945
01:33:00,000 --> 01:33:03,960
 all of these elevations are in your backup material but I kind of just

946
01:33:03,960 --> 01:33:08,840
 wanted to talk through this and show how they kind of apply in real life so the

947
01:33:08,840 --> 01:33:12,840
 first we're gonna talk about some proposed elevations for builder one

948
01:33:12,840 --> 01:33:18,200
 first so in in this elevation here there's a recessed front entry there is

949
01:33:18,200 --> 01:33:23,720
 a gable right here architectural pillars are shown here and then a dormer this

950
01:33:23,720 --> 01:33:29,620
 garage is eight inches forward and then the windows and doors meets the minimum

951
01:33:29,620 --> 01:33:35,240
 requirements for this in orange here there's a recessed front entry there is

952
01:33:35,240 --> 01:33:41,480
 a gable right here and if this was approved this this elevation would

953
01:33:41,480 --> 01:33:46,840
 require the enhanced landscaping package this garage does meet the Denton

954
01:33:46,840 --> 01:33:52,520
 Development Code requirements and this this elevation shows twenty point

955
01:33:52,520 --> 01:33:58,240
 eighty two percent windows and doors brick detailing this herringbone pattern

956
01:33:58,240 --> 01:34:05,400
 here and then shutters this purple elevation shows a recessed front entry a

957
01:34:05,400 --> 01:34:13,880
 gable to actually architectural pillar here and then a dormer this garage shows

958
01:34:13,880 --> 01:34:19,840
 48% of the frontage and then the window and door percentage does meet the the

959
01:34:19,840 --> 01:34:26,080
 minimum requirement for builder to we have a here the first elevation here's a

960
01:34:26,080 --> 01:34:32,560
 recessed entry a gable this shows the 612 roof pitch and this elevation would

961
01:34:32,560 --> 01:34:38,200
 be required to provide that enhanced landscaping package the garage door does

962
01:34:38,200 --> 01:34:43,200
 meet the minimum I didn't development code requirements and then they are

963
01:34:43,200 --> 01:34:47,840
 proposing nineteen point nine one percent windows and doors here so they

964
01:34:47,840 --> 01:34:54,520
 are so this one shows shutters as well as decorative brick detailing and a

965
01:34:54,520 --> 01:35:02,120
 coach light sorry this elevation recess entry gable 612 roof pitch landscaping

966
01:35:02,120 --> 01:35:06,200
 enhanced landscaping package this garage is eight feet forward from the front

967
01:35:06,200 --> 01:35:11,360
 door twenty three point eight six percent windows and doors so there's

968
01:35:11,360 --> 01:35:15,840
 decorative brick details decorative cedar shake as well as a coach light and

969
01:35:15,840 --> 01:35:22,200
 then finally recess entry gable 612 roof pitch landscaping for number one this

970
01:35:22,200 --> 01:35:27,460
 garage is fifty two point seventeen percent of the front facade twenty four

971
01:35:27,460 --> 01:35:31,900
 point seven five percent windows and doors with decorative brick detailing

972
01:35:31,900 --> 01:35:36,160
 decorative cedar shake and a coach light so that kind of just shows you what it

973
01:35:36,160 --> 01:35:40,360
 would look like in practice so the criteria for approval or is in sub

974
01:35:40,360 --> 01:35:44,400
 chapter 13 the first preserve existing neighborhoods the additional elements

975
01:35:44,400 --> 01:35:48,160
 would apply to all lots within the development and that would include

976
01:35:48,160 --> 01:35:51,920
 those lots greater than 10,000 square feet so it would actually include those

977
01:35:51,920 --> 01:35:56,960
 33 lots which wouldn't be required to meet any of those minimum standards the

978
01:35:56,960 --> 01:36:00,760
 proposed home designs are consistent with that surrounding architecture one

979
01:36:00,760 --> 01:36:05,280
 and two-story plans two and three car garages those covered front porch gable

980
01:36:05,280 --> 01:36:10,480
 roofs and there's just the traditional forms and details a sure quality

981
01:36:10,480 --> 01:36:14,240
 development the request is not intended to lower design standards they've

982
01:36:14,240 --> 01:36:21,680
 provided alternate alternatives with the the the expanded lists and then apart

983
01:36:21,680 --> 01:36:24,640
 from their requests they would have to meet all other sub chapter 13

984
01:36:24,640 --> 01:36:29,680
 requirements focus new development to activity centers this development was

985
01:36:29,680 --> 01:36:34,480
 approved by ordinance and has been through that review process ensure

986
01:36:34,480 --> 01:36:38,440
 adequate infrastructure this has gone through the preliminary plat stage so in

987
01:36:38,440 --> 01:36:42,560
 engineering has reviewed and determined there is adequate capacity and then

988
01:36:42,560 --> 01:36:46,920
 final this is the final requirement that results in a high quality development

989
01:36:46,920 --> 01:36:50,600
 this is really where we analyze what they're proposing so first in those

990
01:36:50,600 --> 01:36:55,520
 design features those are intended to reduce that mass of the building in

991
01:36:55,520 --> 01:37:00,440
 discourage blank walls and encourage visit visually interesting places the

992
01:37:00,440 --> 01:37:04,860
 proposal is consistent with residential character and furthermore that the

993
01:37:04,860 --> 01:37:09,280
 enhanced landscaping could increase overall tree canopy because remember the

994
01:37:09,280 --> 01:37:14,680
 2002 code did not require that lot tree also provide additional visual interests

995
01:37:14,680 --> 01:37:18,120
 with the foundation plantings and reduce the amount of turf grass in the front

996
01:37:18,120 --> 01:37:24,920
 yard the garage the the garage standards are intended to review reduce those

997
01:37:24,920 --> 01:37:30,480
 visual impacts of front-facing garages as proposed the forward extensions are

998
01:37:30,480 --> 01:37:37,360
 limited as well as the increased amount of the front facade is limited because

999
01:37:37,360 --> 01:37:43,320
 of that limited nature as well as the 2019 Dent development code actually does

1000
01:37:43,320 --> 01:37:51,600
 not prohibit the forward extension of garages the the proposal is minimal and

1001
01:37:51,600 --> 01:37:56,360
 is not would not overwhelm the front facades or conceal the front door so it

1002
01:37:56,360 --> 01:38:01,400
 meets the intent of the requirement and then finally windows and doors it's

1003
01:38:01,400 --> 01:38:04,800
 intended to increase building transparency along this discrete to

1004
01:38:04,800 --> 01:38:09,960
 discourage blank walls and once again to provide lively streetscapes with the

1005
01:38:09,960 --> 01:38:13,560
 adoption of the 2019 Denton development code this month this requirement was

1006
01:38:13,560 --> 01:38:18,960
 actually modified to a minimum 15% windows and doors this proposal is

1007
01:38:18,960 --> 01:38:23,880
 consistent with current regulations but they've also added that bonus to of the

1008
01:38:23,880 --> 01:38:28,640
 two decorative elements that's above current requirements and that's those

1009
01:38:28,640 --> 01:38:34,760
 decorative shutters break detailing coach lights it's that list so it does

1010
01:38:34,760 --> 01:38:39,160
 meet the intent of that requirement so based upon that analysis staff

1011
01:38:39,160 --> 01:38:42,680
 recommends approval of the request I'll be happy to answer any questions and the

1012
01:38:42,680 --> 01:38:46,160
 applicant will be available tonight for questions and does have a presentation

1013
01:38:46,160 --> 01:38:53,600
 as well great thank you very much Julie Christian are back thank you chair Julie

1014
01:38:53,600 --> 01:39:00,040
 for almost all of these exceptions it is about visual presentation and interest

1015
01:39:00,040 --> 01:39:05,520
 there the only the only component I saw when I was reading that there was maybe

1016
01:39:05,520 --> 01:39:11,760
 something else with the safety issue of recessed doorways is that correct I'm

1017
01:39:11,760 --> 01:39:18,800
 sorry safety of doorways is that you the the rationale for having the garage not

1018
01:39:18,800 --> 01:39:24,840
 stick out was partially correct me I'm interpreting was partially to promote

1019
01:39:24,840 --> 01:39:31,320
 visual or not have that monstrosity of a garage poking out but also to not have a

1020
01:39:31,320 --> 01:39:35,920
 recessed doorway for safety reasons did I read that correctly know that the

1021
01:39:35,920 --> 01:39:40,400
 garage requirements are really intended to reduce the prominence of those garage

1022
01:39:40,400 --> 01:39:43,960
 to make sure it's not the first thing you see when you look at those houses

1023
01:39:43,960 --> 01:39:51,680
 and and this was essentially a four-foot exception is that they're proposing six

1024
01:39:51,680 --> 01:39:57,920
 feet from that next nearest housing plane 11 feet from a recessed front door if

1025
01:39:57,920 --> 01:40:04,960
 the if the front door was recessed in that particular plan okay thank you any

1026
01:40:04,960 --> 01:40:11,800
 other questions for Julie okay great thank you very much Julie thank you that

1027
01:40:11,800 --> 01:40:16,200
 moves us on to our public hearing items which believe we have four of them this

1028
01:40:16,200 --> 01:40:26,920
 evening the first one is item 5 a CA 20 - 0 0 0 3 and this is Ron McGuida's item

1029
01:40:28,920 --> 01:40:39,400
 we're on whenever you're ready a few seconds here load up my presentation

1030
01:40:57,920 --> 01:41:24,760
 okay as introduced in the presentation or the introduction this is for a comp

1031
01:41:24,760 --> 01:41:28,960
 plan amendment comprehensive plan amendment for a property referred to as

1032
01:41:28,960 --> 01:41:38,440
 birch track the site is located she's seen here I'll line in yellow on just

1033
01:41:38,440 --> 01:41:41,600
 south of Vintage Boulevard west of Vintage Boulevard north of Fort Worth

1034
01:41:41,600 --> 01:41:49,040
 Drive the approximate acreage for the site itself is 51 acres just over 51

1035
01:41:49,040 --> 01:41:55,800
 acres it currently has undeveloped agricultural use there are two storage

1036
01:41:55,800 --> 01:42:01,960
 tanks on site as well as a plug gas well and again mentioned it's along Vintage

1037
01:42:01,960 --> 01:42:07,920
 Boulevard for those that were aware the area that we're talking about as well as

1038
01:42:07,920 --> 01:42:15,640
 the area to the east shown here was annexed into the city on April 25th of

1039
01:42:15,640 --> 01:42:22,440
 this year and part of the comprehensive plan amendment is to reflect a

1040
01:42:22,440 --> 01:42:26,360
 development that was contemplated during that annexation and that

1041
01:42:26,360 --> 01:42:31,560
 development proposal is shown here on the slide as you can see it is a

1042
01:42:31,560 --> 01:42:37,640
 single-family residential development they are proposing 110 lots in this

1043
01:42:37,640 --> 01:42:43,080
 site layout that you see here the the request is to amend the future land use

1044
01:42:43,080 --> 01:42:49,120
 map classification and to reclass that from rural areas to moderate residential

1045
01:42:49,120 --> 01:42:55,680
 the intent for moderate residential is in order to facilitate the zoning map

1046
01:42:55,680 --> 01:43:02,080
 amendment that is on this agenda as well tonight and that is to zone this area

1047
01:43:02,080 --> 01:43:09,800
 the 51 plus acres to residential 6 and again the the reason for the r6 zoning

1048
01:43:09,800 --> 01:43:14,160
 requests is for them to meet the dimensional standards that they're

1049
01:43:14,160 --> 01:43:19,560
 showing here under this proposed site plan I wanted to just share with you that

1050
01:43:19,560 --> 01:43:24,980
 there was gas well it is currently plugged and been verified by the Railroad

1051
01:43:24,980 --> 01:43:32,440
 Commission that lot itself will be an undevelopable lot it is shown here is

1052
01:43:32,440 --> 01:43:40,720
 lot X it would mainly serve as open space for this development so as far as

1053
01:43:40,720 --> 01:43:44,560
 the future land use map and designation just want to give the planning zoning

1054
01:43:44,560 --> 01:43:49,960
 Commission just a quick background obviously you know that in 2015 the

1055
01:43:49,960 --> 01:43:53,960
 dental plan 2030 was passed with that goals policies and actions were

1056
01:43:53,960 --> 01:44:01,440
 included in those policies and goals was a future land use map making sure that

1057
01:44:01,440 --> 01:44:07,480
 it helps guide our city again not only for zoning decisions but as far as land

1058
01:44:07,480 --> 01:44:13,640
 use distribution again the purpose for a future land use map designation is to

1059
01:44:13,640 --> 01:44:17,680
 get picked what is intended for the long-term pattern of the city

1060
01:44:17,680 --> 01:44:24,600
 establishes the process of amending zoning districts if that is the case and

1061
01:44:24,600 --> 01:44:28,280
 then again just guides the coordination of transportation utility planning

1062
01:44:28,280 --> 01:44:34,960
 throughout the city the proposed modern residential future land use designation

1063
01:44:34,960 --> 01:44:39,600
 is described in the dental plan 2030 as you see here I'm not going to read this

1064
01:44:39,600 --> 01:44:43,700
 whole description but just want to highlight some of the description of a

1065
01:44:43,700 --> 01:44:48,920
 modern residential future land use designation primarily single-family

1066
01:44:48,920 --> 01:44:55,840
 adjacent to a key to key corridors it is also it maintains the style scale and

1067
01:44:55,840 --> 01:45:03,320
 other buildings orientation within the area what you see on this slide is

1068
01:45:03,320 --> 01:45:07,400
 really the comparison of what we currently have and that is the area

1069
01:45:07,400 --> 01:45:12,360
 that's currently designated as rural areas we are the applicant that is is

1070
01:45:12,360 --> 01:45:17,480
 proposing to change that or revise that to rural I'm sorry to a modern residential

1071
01:45:17,480 --> 01:45:23,760
 which is similar to what is located just to the north of the subject site as part

1072
01:45:23,760 --> 01:45:29,880
 of staffs review we did do a staff analysis looking at applicable approval

1073
01:45:29,880 --> 01:45:35,200
 criteria this is for all types of applications the main thing I wanted to

1074
01:45:35,200 --> 01:45:39,400
 highlight here the three that you see here bolded is it come is it consistent

1075
01:45:39,400 --> 01:45:42,480
 with the comprehensive plan does it cause any adverse impact to the

1076
01:45:42,480 --> 01:45:47,480
 surrounding community and will it be compliant and will it be able to to

1077
01:45:47,480 --> 01:45:52,520
 provide the capacity level for utility service and other improvement standards

1078
01:45:52,520 --> 01:46:01,400
 in the in the area in addition to the zoning sorry the approval criteria for

1079
01:46:01,400 --> 01:46:04,880
 all applications there is also a comprehensive plan amendment approval

1080
01:46:04,880 --> 01:46:11,760
 criteria the list that you see here none of the four that you see up here apply

1081
01:46:11,760 --> 01:46:18,640
 in this situation so they don't necessarily need to be discussed the

1082
01:46:18,640 --> 01:46:23,800
 next two also is related to a comprehensive plan amendment approval

1083
01:46:23,800 --> 01:46:28,800
 criteria again I won't go into the details the responses to each of these

1084
01:46:28,800 --> 01:46:33,960
 criteria approval are included in your backup if there is any particular one

1085
01:46:33,960 --> 01:46:38,640
 that you would like for me to elaborate I can certainly do so and then last this

1086
01:46:38,640 --> 01:46:42,400
 is the last page that that talks about the comprehensive plan approval criteria

1087
01:46:42,400 --> 01:46:48,600
 and again it will not in staffs opinion cause any adverse impact to the city

1088
01:46:48,600 --> 01:46:54,160
 so going back to the comprehensive plan and how is it consistent we feel that

1089
01:46:54,160 --> 01:46:58,600
 the modern residential along vintage Boulevard a primary arterial is an

1090
01:46:58,600 --> 01:47:04,040
 appropriate future lanes designation it is consistent with modern residential

1091
01:47:04,040 --> 01:47:09,560
 that is located to north of this site as we saw in the future land use map not

1092
01:47:09,560 --> 01:47:14,440
 only does it inconsistent with the future lanes designation it also is

1093
01:47:14,440 --> 01:47:17,520
 consistent in the land use pattern or the development pattern of that

1094
01:47:17,520 --> 01:47:22,840
 development you know it's consistent the scale and form it is also going to

1095
01:47:22,840 --> 01:47:27,720
 provide the connectivity that is already established with that existing single

1096
01:47:27,720 --> 01:47:31,280
 family and then the other main thing that I'd like to point out is that the

1097
01:47:31,280 --> 01:47:37,440
 proposed site layout will preserve floodplain as well as environment

1098
01:47:37,440 --> 01:47:44,960
 environmentally sensitive areas by avoiding those areas all together so as

1099
01:47:44,960 --> 01:47:49,720
 far as connectivity you see here the north to the north is already developed

1100
01:47:49,720 --> 01:47:54,860
 and what the applicant is proposing is to continue that Tamarack Lane to the

1101
01:47:54,860 --> 01:47:59,400
 south both connecting the roadway as well as a sidewalk the scale of the

1102
01:47:59,400 --> 01:48:05,900
 development that you see here to the north is roughly 50 by 135 the applicant

1103
01:48:05,900 --> 01:48:09,800
 is going to match that to the south and somewhat it may be a bit a little bit

1104
01:48:09,800 --> 01:48:16,680
 bigger but overall the reason why they're going to a larger denser zoning

1105
01:48:16,680 --> 01:48:22,280
 of r6 is to meet that density or that dimensional standards that is excuse me

1106
01:48:22,280 --> 01:48:29,200
 the dimensional standards of 6,000 minimum 6,000 square foot this just to

1107
01:48:29,200 --> 01:48:36,160
 illustrate what they are proposing as far as the impacts to the surrounding

1108
01:48:36,160 --> 01:48:41,960
 properties you can see that most of the area is currently undeveloped there is

1109
01:48:41,960 --> 01:48:46,680
 agriculture used to the west Fort Worth is to the south and then you see that

1110
01:48:46,680 --> 01:48:52,040
 the area to the east across Vintage Boulevard is undeveloped it's actually

1111
01:48:52,040 --> 01:48:58,040
 floodplain which will mean that it will not develop anytime sooner in future in

1112
01:48:58,040 --> 01:49:02,600
 my understanding is that the applicant or the property owner representing this

1113
01:49:02,600 --> 01:49:07,200
 application is in talks with our Parks Department in looking ways to make that

1114
01:49:07,200 --> 01:49:16,240
 more of a regional area in terms of trails or areas for park use regarding

1115
01:49:16,240 --> 01:49:20,400
 development standards and regulations we did a full analysis environmental impact

1116
01:49:20,400 --> 01:49:25,400
 again the subject layout is not going to impact any ESA they're avoiding that

1117
01:49:25,400 --> 01:49:30,520
 altogether there we talked about the surrounding properties physical impact

1118
01:49:30,520 --> 01:49:35,360
 analysis was provided and per the conclusion of that analysis there were

1119
01:49:35,360 --> 01:49:40,520
 no adverse impact to the city utility services and improvements will be

1120
01:49:40,520 --> 01:49:44,840
 reviewed while we look at the next step in the process if this were to move

1121
01:49:44,840 --> 01:49:49,480
 forward in regards to cladding and civil engineering plants and the like there

1122
01:49:49,480 --> 01:49:53,480
 was a trip generation assessment that was done based on the assessment there

1123
01:49:53,480 --> 01:49:59,440
 was no need for traffic impact analysis therefore it's staff determination that

1124
01:49:59,440 --> 01:50:04,720
 no adverse impacts will result from a single-family residential development

1125
01:50:04,720 --> 01:50:10,040
 regarding public services and facilities we also looked at that and in addition

1126
01:50:10,040 --> 01:50:15,200
 contacted the Argyle School District this actual area is within the Argyle

1127
01:50:15,200 --> 01:50:23,800
 School District boundaries and based on the timing of the development Argyle has

1128
01:50:23,800 --> 01:50:29,220
 informed the applicant in turn informed us that they will be able to meet the

1129
01:50:29,220 --> 01:50:33,920
 capacity of the students that would be generated from this development and

1130
01:50:33,920 --> 01:50:38,560
 again lastly the detailed review of the development will be done through plats

1131
01:50:38,560 --> 01:50:44,440
 and engineering plants when it comes to that stage of the development there was

1132
01:50:44,440 --> 01:50:49,680
 obviously public outreach sent out due to this being a public hearing and as of

1133
01:50:49,680 --> 01:50:55,160
 this evening staff has not received any responses either in opposition or in

1134
01:50:55,160 --> 01:51:02,480
 favor there was no meeting held due to the ruralness and the applicant did not

1135
01:51:02,480 --> 01:51:06,840
 want to it was not a requirement it was mentioned to them and they chose not to

1136
01:51:06,840 --> 01:51:10,920
 have a meeting and again all of the public hearing notices the signage the

1137
01:51:10,920 --> 01:51:16,320
 newspaper and the website notices were all published within the time frame

1138
01:51:16,320 --> 01:51:23,080
 allowed with all that staff recommends approval of this comp plan amendment as

1139
01:51:23,080 --> 01:51:27,240
 it complies with the criteria of approval under those two sections listed

1140
01:51:27,240 --> 01:51:33,080
 here with that I will stand for any questions and the applicant is also will

1141
01:51:33,080 --> 01:51:37,080
 be available during the public hearing for questions and they do also have a

1142
01:51:37,080 --> 01:51:45,640
 presentation was there any questions for Ron Commissioner Smith thank you Ron

1143
01:51:45,640 --> 01:51:52,240
 what's the I think I've asked this or heard anything in a while but what is

1144
01:51:52,240 --> 01:51:57,560
 the latest on 377 is gonna be widened at any point in time here in the near

1145
01:51:57,560 --> 01:52:02,520
 future I do not know that information I know that they are obviously working

1146
01:52:02,520 --> 01:52:08,080
 further north I don't know that status as far as this area of the city yeah we

1147
01:52:08,080 --> 01:52:12,880
 certainly can find out part it's a text doc it's a text daughter is it a it is

1148
01:52:12,880 --> 01:52:18,840
 text on sir if there's any other is any way you could find out from traffic I'd

1149
01:52:18,840 --> 01:52:24,480
 be appreciate just that is a drop in I mean drop her dropping dropping another

1150
01:52:24,480 --> 01:52:32,400
 you know dropping a zoning down or 300 homes can be built is okay yeah I have I

1151
01:52:32,400 --> 01:52:38,040
 believe Brian John is on the call he may be able to help answer that if we can

1152
01:52:38,040 --> 01:52:44,640
 follow up great rock can you hear me yes okay so this is Brian y'all the city

1153
01:52:44,640 --> 01:52:50,040
 traffic engineer text on has pursued schematic designs but I do not believe

1154
01:52:50,040 --> 01:53:00,280
 they have any funding at this point in time for that expansion of 377 so it's I

1155
01:53:00,280 --> 01:53:07,480
 don't know that it's a pending widening project they are looking to the future

1156
01:53:07,480 --> 01:53:13,600
 and they have again they have pursued schematics and they we've looked at some

1157
01:53:13,600 --> 01:53:17,440
 I have seen some drawings to show the widening but they do not have any

1158
01:53:17,440 --> 01:53:23,680
 funding at this point in time Ron can you pull up the map and just point out

1159
01:53:23,680 --> 01:53:29,200
 maybe where the currently right now and maybe Brian you can help out with a

1160
01:53:29,200 --> 01:53:35,160
 cross-street where where is the current expansion of 377 stopping there is it at

1161
01:53:35,160 --> 01:53:40,200
 is that Country Club Road just I believe it's just south of Country Club yes sir

1162
01:53:40,200 --> 01:53:46,840
 okay far south that was going it goes almost to the railroad track bridge got

1163
01:53:46,840 --> 01:53:56,320
 you okay so pretty pretty close to that area but okay and then Ron the the

1164
01:53:56,320 --> 01:54:01,480
 expansion of 28 down through vintage and Bonnie Bray and maybe this is more of a

1165
01:54:01,480 --> 01:54:07,040
 Brian question what are those updated timelines like on those expansions I'm

1166
01:54:07,040 --> 01:54:12,440
 going to turn over to Brian he may be able to answer that better all right so

1167
01:54:12,440 --> 01:54:20,120
 we'll state the question again 288 yeah the the expansion of vintage around I

1168
01:54:20,120 --> 01:54:23,760
 know it's not really connecting into there but it's more just that 288 is

1169
01:54:23,760 --> 01:54:31,560
 connecting its way all the way from 35 all the way down to 35 W that and my

1170
01:54:31,560 --> 01:54:35,480
 understanding is that it's using a piece of vintage to do that over on the other

1171
01:54:35,480 --> 01:54:43,600
 side of 35 W but then so good 288 you're talking about the 288 West project

1172
01:54:43,600 --> 01:54:49,600
 correct they are so the current plan is to build the northbound frontage road

1173
01:54:49,600 --> 01:54:56,800
 and and ultimately this is going to be a controlled access facility a freeway

1174
01:54:56,800 --> 01:55:00,920
 with frontage roads on both sides and the plan currently is to build the

1175
01:55:00,920 --> 01:55:06,520
 northbound frontage road and I think they're in a 2023 2024 time frame for

1176
01:55:06,520 --> 01:55:15,860
 letting so they are currently they've got environmental I believe if I

1177
01:55:15,860 --> 01:55:19,200
 remember correctly they've got environmental clearance and they're now

1178
01:55:19,200 --> 01:55:27,040
 working towards right away acquisition okay so they've got I think well I they

1179
01:55:27,040 --> 01:55:33,840
 have quite a few parcels to acquire okay so three so three or four

1180
01:55:33,840 --> 01:55:36,760
 years basically which look at I know this I know that's a comment's a

1181
01:55:36,760 --> 01:55:41,160
 conversation for that's that's that's that's west of this project site I get

1182
01:55:41,160 --> 01:55:45,840
 that I'm just looking at just regional mobility down there and with Hunter coal

1183
01:55:45,840 --> 01:55:50,080
 ranch coming in the amount of moderate residential authority over there and the

1184
01:55:50,080 --> 01:55:53,800
 amount of moderate residential we're adding there already you know and then

1185
01:55:53,800 --> 01:55:59,400
 I've always had kind of a sensitive spot whenever we're doing any type of things

1186
01:55:59,400 --> 01:56:03,640
 in the city of Denton especially when it borders up against other cities or

1187
01:56:03,640 --> 01:56:08,360
 against ETJ where you don't have you don't have people you have people

1188
01:56:08,360 --> 01:56:12,880
 getting in give me their input because they don't get notified because they're

1189
01:56:12,880 --> 01:56:16,600
 not in the city like you know training and then chipping Camden's you know a

1190
01:56:16,600 --> 01:56:21,280
 stones throw away from this project site none of those folks are all in Argyle

1191
01:56:21,280 --> 01:56:24,560
 and Argyle City limits they don't they don't know about this project existing

1192
01:56:24,560 --> 01:56:28,880
 and so just to be a good neighbor try to try to ask some questions about just

1193
01:56:28,880 --> 01:56:32,680
 mobility so but and then the other question was about Bonnie break the

1194
01:56:32,680 --> 01:56:37,400
 expansion down through there what was the timeline on that connecting in the

1195
01:56:37,400 --> 01:56:44,320
 fourth drive south of the project man and so Bonnie Bray's schedule I would

1196
01:56:44,320 --> 01:56:51,720
 have to go back and look I do not know that off the top my head I know there

1197
01:56:51,720 --> 01:56:56,040
 are segments of Bonnie Bray that are funded in their segments that are not

1198
01:56:56,040 --> 01:57:04,720
 funded so I quite honestly I don't have that answer right now okay thank you

1199
01:57:04,720 --> 01:57:12,520
 Brown appreciate is there any timeline on the signalizing of vintage and 377

1200
01:57:12,520 --> 01:57:18,560
 there's got to be a light coming there right correct and that's part of the

1201
01:57:18,560 --> 01:57:26,640
 vintage project there's a railroad crossing improvements that's going in

1202
01:57:26,640 --> 01:57:31,520
 and I believe the signalization and I know Chandra's on the line as well

1203
01:57:31,520 --> 01:57:38,120
 signalization I believe is part of that vintage project okay great the only

1204
01:57:38,120 --> 01:57:41,160
 thing I want to say and I know we're up against we have three more items and 30

1205
01:57:41,160 --> 01:57:46,560
 minutes before the public meeting it seems to me this this again is probably

1206
01:57:46,560 --> 01:57:50,840
 a larger discussion but we're putting a lot of houses in Denton and I'm concerned

1207
01:57:50,840 --> 01:57:54,320
 that every one of these houses is driving outside of Denton every morning

1208
01:57:54,320 --> 01:57:59,600
 at seven o'clock for work and so I'm wondering on a larger planning scale

1209
01:57:59,600 --> 01:58:04,320
 what is Denton doing to keep these people moving to Denton staying in

1210
01:58:04,320 --> 01:58:09,480
 Denton for their work week because the number of houses that are going in is

1211
01:58:09,480 --> 01:58:14,600
 certainly outpacing the number of actual businesses and I know they'll patron us

1212
01:58:14,600 --> 01:58:19,680
 hopefully they'll get some food here but they're taking their dollars 40 hours a

1213
01:58:19,680 --> 01:58:24,920
 week out of our town and so again that's more of like a soapbox kind of side note

1214
01:58:24,920 --> 01:58:28,800
 but I imagine all these people that moving right now into this location

1215
01:58:28,800 --> 01:58:32,640
 potentially the next couple years are gonna be heading down 377 down to South

1216
01:58:32,640 --> 01:58:39,160
 Lake and West Lake for for their jobs anyways that's just my soapboxes I see

1217
01:58:39,160 --> 01:58:44,720
 all these houses coming in any other questions for Ron Kirscher back yes

1218
01:58:44,720 --> 01:58:50,580
 thank you right can you remind me can you have a future land use map yes we

1219
01:58:50,580 --> 01:58:53,520
 pull that up for you

1220
01:58:53,520 --> 01:59:09,040
 get to real quick so we got a proposing existing and proposed the left is 2015

1221
01:59:09,040 --> 01:59:21,840
 is that correct the left is but the the colorization is 2015 but the usage is

1222
01:59:21,840 --> 01:59:30,440
 current the color is what is the future land use map as approved per the 20 2030

1223
01:59:30,440 --> 01:59:36,040
 plan which was approved in 2015 now he doesn't doesn't reflect what's on the

1224
01:59:36,040 --> 01:59:43,320
 ground is just what the future line use should be so can help me understand when

1225
01:59:43,320 --> 01:59:49,040
 in 2015 when we revised this was that moderate residential there yes this was

1226
01:59:49,040 --> 01:59:56,520
 here and and so at the time we left that as a rural connected to you know I guess

1227
01:59:56,520 --> 02:00:01,080
 what would continue to be rural and now as parks and government and so the

1228
02:00:01,080 --> 02:00:05,520
 thinking at the time was we wanted that to be sort of open lower density land

1229
02:00:05,520 --> 02:00:11,640
 with that moderate residential right in that area it's worth on his ETJ when

1230
02:00:11,640 --> 02:00:15,760
 that was approved right it was it was outside I mean again we were this is

1231
02:00:15,760 --> 02:00:20,480
 actually part of the non annexation agreements so we knew that this was

1232
02:00:20,480 --> 02:00:24,800
 going to be part of the city in the near future as far as how it was going to

1233
02:00:24,800 --> 02:00:30,840
 develop we did not have an idea and to be honest this was undeveloped and we

1234
02:00:30,840 --> 02:00:36,200
 wanted to just place rule because it was obviously undeveloped at the time so that

1235
02:00:36,200 --> 02:00:39,000
 that I guess that's that's actually where I was going with my questioning is

1236
02:00:39,000 --> 02:00:44,360
 this was just a the rural was the default placeholder designation more or

1237
02:00:44,360 --> 02:00:48,560
 less yes and we know that if you look further out of this area as you head

1238
02:00:48,560 --> 02:00:54,880
 south on Fort Worth it becomes more rural but yes that's generally the that

1239
02:00:54,880 --> 02:00:59,960
 was the intent okay and my second last question is that can you I can look for

1240
02:00:59,960 --> 02:01:04,760
 it and I couldn't find what's the definition of adverse on the financial

1241
02:01:04,760 --> 02:01:10,160
 impact statement yeah you're looking for the definition that's what we always say

1242
02:01:10,160 --> 02:01:14,640
 you should not have an adverse impact I couldn't I'm not sure I and I know what

1243
02:01:14,640 --> 02:01:20,440
 adverse is defined as essentially with with regards to the fiscal our fiscal

1244
02:01:20,440 --> 02:01:27,120
 impact analysis is making sure that the development does not cause any impact

1245
02:01:27,120 --> 02:01:33,160
 negative impact probably is probably word to the city as far as providing you

1246
02:01:33,160 --> 02:01:39,040
 know services in in how it budgeted and all that so in retrospect or in the

1247
02:01:39,040 --> 02:01:44,560
 analysis itself it was determined that the property taxes and other indirect

1248
02:01:44,560 --> 02:01:50,160
 taxes that would be that would result from the development would pay for

1249
02:01:50,160 --> 02:01:57,900
 itself so there would not be a cost to the negative right a negative impact it

1250
02:01:57,900 --> 02:02:03,080
 would be neutral or positive so adverse is my question is more actually not for

1251
02:02:03,080 --> 02:02:08,040
 the specific property but it brings it up the definition of adverse is negative

1252
02:02:08,040 --> 02:02:13,920
 it is a is a cost outflow from the city for any given property that is defined as

1253
02:02:13,920 --> 02:02:17,920
 adverse or not adverse in terms of the physical impact analysis okay perfect

1254
02:02:17,920 --> 02:02:26,840
 thank you Ron I appreciate it yeah any other questions for Ron okay thanks Ron

1255
02:02:26,840 --> 02:02:33,400
 appreciate the presentation you have the next one it's 5b 720 - zero zero zero

1256
02:02:33,400 --> 02:02:40,280
 eight and Ron I'm gonna ask you Karina and Christy just be mindful of time if

1257
02:02:40,280 --> 02:02:44,520
 it needs to be more high level and we dive into it in depth that might be

1258
02:02:44,520 --> 02:02:51,200
 preferred so we can try and still hit the post at 630 yes definitely this is

1259
02:02:51,200 --> 02:02:57,480
 the only thing if I may I think most of the presentation it's very similar I

1260
02:02:57,480 --> 02:03:02,480
 think the presentation for the rezoning so I don't know if there were whether

1261
02:03:02,480 --> 02:03:07,240
 Ron goes through at all or if there's specific questions to the to the

1262
02:03:07,240 --> 02:03:12,720
 designation that's being requested we might be able to just move move on to

1263
02:03:12,720 --> 02:03:20,120
 those other two items the thought sure Ellis yeah I mean my thinking is since

1264
02:03:20,120 --> 02:03:25,400
 it's so clearly related to what we just saw I would think we could just ask our

1265
02:03:25,400 --> 02:03:33,640
 questions with regard to the r6 zoning request if that'd be my opinion is there

1266
02:03:33,640 --> 02:03:45,600
 any opposition to that perfect okay so I'll go through the presentation real

1267
02:03:45,600 --> 02:03:53,440
 quick unless no I get it I think maybe just show the slide with with the with

1268
02:03:53,440 --> 02:03:57,800
 the change and if there's questions yeah maybe I misunderstood Commissioner

1269
02:03:57,800 --> 02:04:01,600
 Ellis sorry for the confusion I think we're trying to not skim this one down a

1270
02:04:01,600 --> 02:04:08,880
 little bit skinny it up yes and I was just making sure that was the case all

1271
02:04:08,880 --> 02:04:12,800
 right I was playing on doing it because a lot of slides as Richard mentioned are

1272
02:04:12,800 --> 02:04:16,760
 very similar but I just want to really focus on a couple that are new that are

1273
02:04:16,760 --> 02:04:19,920
 not included in the previous one and this is just to help illustrate the

1274
02:04:19,920 --> 02:04:23,680
 dimensional standards that the development if it were to develop today

1275
02:04:23,680 --> 02:04:27,360
 without any rezoning or comp planning you would have to develop under the RR

1276
02:04:27,360 --> 02:04:32,160
 the residential rural dimensional standards versus what is being proposed

1277
02:04:32,160 --> 02:04:37,640
 as our residential six as you can see here the minimum lot area is a lot less

1278
02:04:37,640 --> 02:04:44,120
 the lot width and lot depth is less and so on and so forth so to meet these

1279
02:04:44,120 --> 02:04:48,720
 dimensional standards the applicant is requesting the r6 this is what the

1280
02:04:48,720 --> 02:04:54,240
 zoning map is shown now as you all know it was annexed into the city which meant

1281
02:04:54,240 --> 02:04:58,520
 that it's not zone and that's why we're here today and the applicant is

1282
02:04:58,520 --> 02:05:03,720
 requesting to only zone the area that she's shown here and again the intent is

1283
02:05:03,720 --> 02:05:08,160
 to match what is currently to the north the area to the east is not being

1284
02:05:08,160 --> 02:05:11,880
 considered at this moment it's just the area shown in black or surrounded by the

1285
02:05:11,880 --> 02:05:18,840
 black line again approval criteria I won't go through most of this there is a

1286
02:05:18,840 --> 02:05:22,680
 section of the code that talks about the zoning map approval criteria very

1287
02:05:22,680 --> 02:05:29,440
 similar to the approval criteria for all applications we've already discussed the

1288
02:05:29,440 --> 02:05:34,040
 comp plan and how it's consistent the adverse impact as far as surrounding

1289
02:05:34,040 --> 02:05:39,200
 properties and then we've thought we talked about that and again based on the

1290
02:05:39,200 --> 02:05:42,640
 notifications that were sent out for both the comp plan and the zoning staff

1291
02:05:42,640 --> 02:05:46,440
 has not received any notices our responses either in opposition or in

1292
02:05:46,440 --> 02:05:52,240
 favor and again staff recommends approval and as said earlier the

1293
02:05:52,240 --> 02:05:55,960
 applicant is will be here during the public hearing and will be able to answer

1294
02:05:55,960 --> 02:06:00,480
 a question and they do have a presentation great I appreciate you

1295
02:06:00,480 --> 02:06:08,320
 trimming that one down I'm sure we can dive in all the questions in the

1296
02:06:08,320 --> 02:06:13,760
 regular meeting thank you Ron for that let's go ahead and move on to item 5c

1297
02:06:13,760 --> 02:06:24,760
 and I'll invite Karina Maldonado to present item s 20 - zero zero zero three C

1298
02:06:32,680 --> 02:06:48,440
 okay give me one second okay so the item today is s 20 zero zero zero three this

1299
02:06:48,440 --> 02:06:55,040
 is a specific use permit for Shady Shores town crossing multifamily just

1300
02:06:55,040 --> 02:06:59,880
 went over the request the the site is approximately 21.96 acres located in the

1301
02:06:59,880 --> 02:07:05,840
 SC suburban corridor district just some brief background this property and the

1302
02:07:05,840 --> 02:07:11,680
 parcel to the south were both brought forward in 2017 for a rezoning from

1303
02:07:11,680 --> 02:07:16,000
 regional center residential and regional center commercial downtown to community

1304
02:07:16,000 --> 02:07:21,920
 community mixed-use general that zoning designation did transition to SC in the

1305
02:07:21,920 --> 02:07:29,200
 2019 transition in October just a just a point of clarification if that zoning

1306
02:07:29,200 --> 02:07:33,660
 had not occurred and remained the same it would have transitioned over to the

1307
02:07:33,660 --> 02:07:40,240
 MR regional mixed-use district so the site plan shown on the screen does

1308
02:07:40,240 --> 02:07:46,120
 reflect five buildings for 300 dwelling units both one unit and two-bedroom I'm

1309
02:07:46,120 --> 02:07:50,920
 sorry one bedroom and two-bedroom units three of sorry four of those buildings

1310
02:07:50,920 --> 02:07:55,480
 are for three story or three story in height and one building which is building

1311
02:07:55,480 --> 02:08:02,120
 to shown in the back in that L shape is a four story building the proposed

1312
02:08:02,120 --> 02:08:07,120
 development is for five shows 518 parking spaces that does include a

1313
02:08:07,120 --> 02:08:12,400
 reduction for motorcycle space substitution also on the site there are

1314
02:08:12,400 --> 02:08:18,800
 three access points one full main access off Shady Shores to the south one egress

1315
02:08:18,800 --> 02:08:23,800
 emergency exit only which is that westernmost driveway and then one right

1316
02:08:23,800 --> 02:08:30,240
 turn in and right turn out driveway off Lakeview there on the east side and the

1317
02:08:30,240 --> 02:08:37,000
 development does also show an 11.6 acre conservation easement which is being

1318
02:08:37,000 --> 02:08:42,280
 used to preserve ESA on the site as well as meet some tree mitigation that is

1319
02:08:42,280 --> 02:08:47,240
 located outside the ESA there are some proposed retaining walls shown in red

1320
02:08:47,240 --> 02:08:52,480
 and due to the construction of that there will be a minor encroachment into

1321
02:08:52,480 --> 02:08:57,600
 ESA which will require an alternative ESA plan that will come before you

1322
02:08:57,600 --> 02:09:02,440
 tonight just after this presentation and then lastly there are some proposed

1323
02:09:02,440 --> 02:09:09,840
 wider sidewalks along Shady Shores and Lakeview the landscape plan does show

1324
02:09:09,840 --> 02:09:14,920
 the required street tree plantings all along Shady Shores and Lakeview

1325
02:09:14,920 --> 02:09:21,240
 Boulevard it does in fact show increased plantings that would extend some

1326
02:09:21,240 --> 02:09:24,840
 required right-of-way screening plantings it does extend those

1327
02:09:24,840 --> 02:09:29,160
 throughout the rest of Shady Shores and Lakeview that would basically add

1328
02:09:29,160 --> 02:09:33,600
 additional screening between those buildings that are up front to close to

1329
02:09:33,600 --> 02:09:40,600
 the right-of-way I will make a note that those are subject to the approval of an

1330
02:09:40,600 --> 02:09:46,200
 easement abandonment there are four easements located they're marked in

1331
02:09:46,200 --> 02:09:52,240
 orange here along the south on Shady Shores and north on Lakeview those were

1332
02:09:52,240 --> 02:09:56,080
 put in when storm storm water requirements or storm water improvements

1333
02:09:56,080 --> 02:10:00,080
 were put in on Shady Shores so the applicant will need to go through an

1334
02:10:00,080 --> 02:10:04,240
 easement abandonment process in order to keep those plantings that are shown

1335
02:10:04,240 --> 02:10:09,320
 there additional plantings on the north are proposed for a buffer between the

1336
02:10:09,320 --> 02:10:16,320
 residential area that was a request by some residents in the in the area through

1337
02:10:16,320 --> 02:10:20,840
 those neighborhood meetings the applicant is also proposing some

1338
02:10:20,840 --> 02:10:26,200
 alternative landscape plantings from what our code requires and really what

1339
02:10:26,200 --> 02:10:30,120
 they're providing for in terms of landscape planning sorry parking lot

1340
02:10:30,120 --> 02:10:36,040
 planting is three partial elements rather than two full elements required by

1341
02:10:36,040 --> 02:10:41,240
 the code and this would actually be one full they fully met the requirement for

1342
02:10:41,240 --> 02:10:46,800
 end caps within the parking lot however for landscape medians that are required

1343
02:10:46,800 --> 02:10:51,760
 to be eight feet they're one foot short so providing seven feet and that is due

1344
02:10:51,760 --> 02:10:56,360
 to right-of-way dedication requirements as well as a 20-foot easement that's

1345
02:10:56,360 --> 02:11:01,240
 required that kind of limits the amount of space they would have for safe access

1346
02:11:01,240 --> 02:11:07,160
 within the site and they are also still proposing landscaped islands every 10

1347
02:11:07,160 --> 02:11:11,440
 feet there they're short in some areas like right right at the front of Shady

1348
02:11:11,440 --> 02:11:16,000
 Shores excuse me but they are providing at least three partial elements to meet

1349
02:11:16,000 --> 02:11:19,960
 that landscape requirement and this is allowed through the alternative landscape

1350
02:11:19,960 --> 02:11:26,360
 alternative landscape plan deviation within the code they are also providing

1351
02:11:26,360 --> 02:11:31,400
 the required 8% open space as well as active and passive recreation within the

1352
02:11:31,400 --> 02:11:35,920
 site that includes a resort style pool located on the western part of the site

1353
02:11:35,920 --> 02:11:41,400
 some picnic and grilling areas as well as a dog park here to the north they do

1354
02:11:41,400 --> 02:11:45,760
 also include a fitness center that is located within the leasing building

1355
02:11:45,760 --> 02:11:52,320
 building to for for the residents to kind of use the site rather than going

1356
02:11:52,320 --> 02:11:58,240
 outside the area overall they're providing 30% landscaped area and 38%

1357
02:11:58,240 --> 02:12:02,760
 tree canopy area and this is in excess of the minimum 20% landscaped area for

1358
02:12:02,760 --> 02:12:10,560
 the SC district as well as 30% tree canopy for this zoning district before I

1359
02:12:10,560 --> 02:12:14,000
 jump into tree preservation I did want to highlight that this site did go

1360
02:12:14,000 --> 02:12:18,640
 through an ESA field assessment this was conducted by a third party last summer

1361
02:12:18,640 --> 02:12:23,360
 but was finalized in February of 2020 the main highlights from this were that

1362
02:12:23,360 --> 02:12:29,400
 the cross timbers upland habitat shown in green on the top of the screen this

1363
02:12:29,400 --> 02:12:33,640
 was removed as part of this this assessment due to fragmentation of the

1364
02:12:33,640 --> 02:12:39,720
 forest and this is because it did not meet the minimum requirements for being

1365
02:12:39,720 --> 02:12:45,520
 continuous area of 10 acres or more and so the largest area shown was roughly

1366
02:12:45,520 --> 02:12:50,800
 less than six acres so that designation was removed which allowed for more

1367
02:12:50,800 --> 02:12:55,920
 development on the site the ESA field assessment did establish that there was

1368
02:12:55,920 --> 02:13:01,300
 floodplain ESA this is based on the FEMA hundred-year floodplain map this is

1369
02:13:01,300 --> 02:13:06,320
 undeveloped floodplain in a natural condition it did also confirm to stream

1370
02:13:06,320 --> 02:13:11,360
 segment segments which indicated the presence of riparian buffer both 50 foot

1371
02:13:11,360 --> 02:13:15,680
 and a hundred foot and so that is this green area and then brown area on the

1372
02:13:15,680 --> 02:13:20,640
 screen and lastly they it did also confirm water related habitat which is

1373
02:13:20,640 --> 02:13:25,720
 non-wetland and so this is important because development when within the

1374
02:13:25,720 --> 02:13:31,600
 established ESAs is prohibited in most instances except with some exceptions

1375
02:13:31,600 --> 02:13:38,760
 through the AESA process tree preservation as I mentioned is does not

1376
02:13:38,760 --> 02:13:44,360
 include the ESA area which is all of this area within the orange border that

1377
02:13:44,360 --> 02:13:49,720
 encompasses roughly 50% of the site so this this project was significantly

1378
02:13:49,720 --> 02:13:54,040
 limited and where they could develop and they maximize the site as much as they

1379
02:13:54,040 --> 02:13:59,520
 could they are meeting minimum preservation at a reduced rate of 20% and

1380
02:13:59,520 --> 02:14:03,600
 this is allowed with 10% that 10% difference being mitigated at a higher

1381
02:14:03,600 --> 02:14:10,440
 rate and so to demonstrate compliance they are proposing replacement plantings

1382
02:14:10,440 --> 02:14:13,880
 I'm sorry let me take a step back preservation the 20% is all being

1383
02:14:13,880 --> 02:14:18,840
 encompassed in this area on the western part of the site conservation plantings

1384
02:14:18,840 --> 02:14:22,240
 are being proposed to meet the mitigation requirements and that will

1385
02:14:22,240 --> 02:14:27,360
 take or that will be planted within this kind of meadow area here other

1386
02:14:27,360 --> 02:14:32,280
 alternatives allowed within the Denton Development Code include utilization of

1387
02:14:32,280 --> 02:14:35,400
 the Denton Wildscape program which is something new and something that they're

1388
02:14:35,400 --> 02:14:41,880
 exploring as well as payment in lieu so staff did add a condition to the site

1389
02:14:41,880 --> 02:14:45,680
 related to how they would mitigate and I'll talk to that speak to that later in

1390
02:14:45,680 --> 02:14:51,280
 the presentation I won't go over the elevations right now they are proposing

1391
02:14:51,280 --> 02:14:57,280
 some two various site plans three of the buildings will follow this site plan

1392
02:14:57,280 --> 02:15:01,560
 sorry these elevations building three located on the corner will have a

1393
02:15:01,560 --> 02:15:09,160
 slightly varied elevation and then the four story building of course will be

1394
02:15:09,160 --> 02:15:12,720
 different in that it's four stories in height and would also include the leasing

1395
02:15:12,720 --> 02:15:18,840
 center the surrounding development so the property is shown here in yellow it

1396
02:15:18,840 --> 02:15:23,560
 is surrounded by residential single-family homes to the north that's

1397
02:15:23,560 --> 02:15:28,400
 moderate residential which is approximately five dwelling units per

1398
02:15:28,400 --> 02:15:37,440
 acre excuse me there is a buffer between the site and those residential homes it

1399
02:15:37,440 --> 02:15:44,160
 is a park space as well as trails there is also the DCTA a train rail line which

1400
02:15:44,160 --> 02:15:50,960
 covers about a hundred feet of easement between the site also you'll see areas

1401
02:15:50,960 --> 02:15:57,480
 in pink those are undeveloped land that have a higher intensity zoning the areas

1402
02:15:57,480 --> 02:16:03,000
 in red encompass existing car dealerships and then you'll see the orange

1403
02:16:03,000 --> 02:16:08,120
 area to the east side which basically mirrors the development off Lakeview is

1404
02:16:08,120 --> 02:16:13,360
 an existing multifamily that went in in about 2007 and has approximately 15

1405
02:16:13,360 --> 02:16:18,240
 dwelling units per acre I will note that the proposed development would roughly

1406
02:16:18,240 --> 02:16:24,800
 gross out to 13 dwelling units per acre hey Karina enjoy the presentation thus

1407
02:16:24,800 --> 02:16:29,720
 far but I want to know Christy still has a little bit is there a way we kind of

1408
02:16:29,720 --> 02:16:33,920
 skip or maybe high level kind of get the rest done so we can get at least an

1409
02:16:33,920 --> 02:16:38,040
 overview of Christie's presentation yes sir I can do that awesome thank you so

1410
02:16:38,040 --> 02:16:43,280
 I'll skip over the criteria for approval we very briefly talked about the

1411
02:16:43,280 --> 02:16:47,160
 surrounding development is really just highlighting or mirroring what is

1412
02:16:47,160 --> 02:16:52,120
 existed existing off Lakeview and I'll go into more detail later it is in

1413
02:16:52,120 --> 02:16:55,600
 compliance with the future land use which has four designations on the site

1414
02:16:55,600 --> 02:17:01,480
 primarily community mixed youth regional mixed use but it is in line with both of

1415
02:17:01,480 --> 02:17:09,320
 those the other two minor designations are low residential and park space big

1416
02:17:09,320 --> 02:17:15,840
 highlights on this site are traffic the site itself will generate daily 1632

1417
02:17:15,840 --> 02:17:21,560
 trips within a 24-hour period the intersection itself will only net

1418
02:17:21,560 --> 02:17:29,020
 increase 145 trips so the TIA that was conducted for this site did indicate

1419
02:17:29,020 --> 02:17:34,280
 that signal is warranted due to the existing development at that

1420
02:17:34,280 --> 02:17:38,320
 intersection the developer would be responsible for the proportional cost of

1421
02:17:38,320 --> 02:17:43,760
 that signal which is roughly 5% another highlight regarding Lakeview is a

1422
02:17:43,760 --> 02:17:47,800
 primary arterial and shady shores is a collector currently under the mobility

1423
02:17:47,800 --> 02:17:53,440
 plan however the 2020 proposed mobility plan it proposes shady shores as a local

1424
02:17:53,440 --> 02:18:01,280
 street the TIA did also taken into account multimodal access bike ped was

1425
02:18:01,280 --> 02:18:06,520
 big for this so Lakeview and shady shores will have those enhanced or wider

1426
02:18:06,520 --> 02:18:11,280
 sidewalks in line with the recommendation they're also proposing a

1427
02:18:11,280 --> 02:18:15,440
 crosswalk on the north side to connect into the dedicated trail that runs

1428
02:18:15,440 --> 02:18:22,480
 along the DCT a train rail line no transit is located in this area but the

1429
02:18:22,480 --> 02:18:28,040
 TIA did call for kind of just considering that in the future water is

1430
02:18:28,040 --> 02:18:33,160
 available to the site and can serve this development wastewater however is not

1431
02:18:33,160 --> 02:18:37,960
 available adjacent to the property so they will have to extend from the site

1432
02:18:37,960 --> 02:18:43,520
 to this yellow square here in order to serve the property the existing capacity

1433
02:18:43,520 --> 02:18:50,120
 based on the demand is is insufficient so they will likely have to provide some

1434
02:18:50,120 --> 02:18:54,440
 sort of improvement whether that is upsizing the line between the score and

1435
02:18:54,440 --> 02:19:01,840
 triangle and or providing some capacity or pumping capacity at the lift station

1436
02:19:01,840 --> 02:19:07,440
 that's located further up north off of Lakeview so that is also part of one of

1437
02:19:07,440 --> 02:19:11,760
 the recommendations for approval of this of this project they do have part access

1438
02:19:11,760 --> 02:19:17,320
 just across from the rail line the schools within the area do have capacity

1439
02:19:17,320 --> 02:19:24,760
 we did send out public notices to those within 200 and 500 feet nobody within

1440
02:19:24,760 --> 02:19:29,840
 200 feet responded however we did get about two or three I need to update my

1441
02:19:29,840 --> 02:19:36,760
 numbers about two people within I'm sorry that's that's not right but 500

1442
02:19:36,760 --> 02:19:40,160
 feet we did have about three people respond and then we had a majority of

1443
02:19:40,160 --> 02:19:44,720
 people outside of the 500 foot boundary that responded with opposition to this

1444
02:19:44,720 --> 02:19:51,560
 project recommendations for approval as I mentioned one of the kind of typical

1445
02:19:51,560 --> 02:19:55,760
 conditions that we have is related to landscaping which just allows staff to

1446
02:19:55,760 --> 02:20:01,240
 make minor modifications or administrative modifications which is

1447
02:20:01,240 --> 02:20:06,560
 pretty standard tree preservation this goes back to they meet the minimum tree

1448
02:20:06,560 --> 02:20:12,240
 preservation based on a reduced percentage and so staff is asking that

1449
02:20:12,240 --> 02:20:19,440
 we be able to work with them on how they mitigate the site so whether they use

1450
02:20:19,440 --> 02:20:23,520
 conservation plantings or the Denton Wildscape program or payment in lieu

1451
02:20:23,520 --> 02:20:29,040
 third is just ensuring that whenever the development does go through

1452
02:20:29,040 --> 02:20:35,000
 construction that they also construct the sidewalks at that same time the sewer

1453
02:20:35,000 --> 02:20:40,480
 extension condition was revised per the applicant's request and staff did not

1454
02:20:40,480 --> 02:20:45,080
 have issues with the revised language shown in red which just more generalizes

1455
02:20:45,080 --> 02:20:51,080
 that improvements would be required rather than specifically calling out the

1456
02:20:51,080 --> 02:20:56,960
 specific upgrade to those improvements as I mentioned easement abandonment would

1457
02:20:56,960 --> 02:21:01,320
 be required for those areas along Shady Shores and to ensure that the

1458
02:21:01,320 --> 02:21:07,920
 landscaping can go through as proposed and then Christie will go through the

1459
02:21:07,920 --> 02:21:11,680
 alternative ESA plan which would be approval would be required in order to

1460
02:21:11,680 --> 02:21:19,120
 move forward and with that this is just kind of another just overlying what

1461
02:21:19,120 --> 02:21:23,960
 they're providing with the plan and with that I can take any questions or we can

1462
02:21:23,960 --> 02:21:29,440
 move on to Christy yeah I think for the sake of time we'll halt questions I

1463
02:21:29,440 --> 02:21:33,720
 appreciate the presentation and you trying to expedite that and look at the

1464
02:21:33,720 --> 02:21:42,760
 time it's 625 we have a regular meeting at 630 and so I wasn't asked Richard his

1465
02:21:42,760 --> 02:21:48,640
 input but I'm thinking we'll just table 5d so we can take a break and then come

1466
02:21:48,640 --> 02:21:52,840
 back let me verify if that's fine is there anyone who has opposition to

1467
02:21:52,840 --> 02:21:59,120
 tabling 5d until we're here hey Richard are you okay with us not hearing

1468
02:21:59,120 --> 02:22:03,680
 5d and work sessions hearing a public hearing I think I think I think that's

1469
02:22:03,680 --> 02:22:06,800
 fine I just wanted one thing I wanted to mention I was clarifying something with

1470
02:22:06,800 --> 02:22:16,960
 with with Christy I well well it is correct yes if the alt ESA is just if it

1471
02:22:16,960 --> 02:22:22,880
 is denied at council does that mean the SUP is denied to some extent yes because

1472
02:22:22,880 --> 02:22:26,800
 that plan is based upon that alt ESA but it would require at that point in time

1473
02:22:26,800 --> 02:22:30,080
 it would require a modification to that plan so just just wanted to clarify

1474
02:22:30,080 --> 02:22:35,400
 that that if that was denied they would still they could still come back with an

1475
02:22:35,400 --> 02:22:40,440
 SUP would just have to be a different plan that doesn't modify that ESA I got

1476
02:22:40,440 --> 02:22:46,240
 you because you're back did you have a question okay great so what I'm gonna do

1477
02:22:46,240 --> 02:22:52,760
 is it's 626 I'm gonna close the work session now let's meet back here at 635

1478
02:22:52,760 --> 02:22:56,040
 I know it's a quick turnaround but that'll get us going for the regular

1479
02:22:56,040 --> 02:23:08,220
 session so that's nine minutes six thirty five thank you ladies and

1480
02:23:08,220 --> 02:23:12,920
 gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning regular session meeting for

1481
02:23:12,920 --> 02:23:17,920
 November 4th 2020 seeing we have a quorum I'll call the meeting to order at

1482
02:23:17,920 --> 02:23:23,040
 637 thank you for being patient with us as we had a slight delay and work

1483
02:23:23,040 --> 02:23:26,440
 session that being said let's go ahead and jump right into the agenda the first

1484
02:23:26,440 --> 02:23:32,200
 item is to provide a pledge allegiance to the US and Texas flag commissioners

1485
02:23:32,200 --> 02:23:37,680
 you can unmute yourself to join along with me if you so choose I pledge

1486
02:23:37,680 --> 02:23:52,540
 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

1487
02:23:52,540 --> 02:24:01,960
 Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible

1488
02:24:01,960 --> 02:24:06,520
 next item of business is item two the consideration of the October 21st

1489
02:24:06,520 --> 02:24:11,520
 minutes Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval

1490
02:24:11,520 --> 02:24:16,760
 Commissioner Anderson I second we have a first and a second for approval is there

1491
02:24:16,760 --> 02:24:22,200
 any discussion on the item seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call we'll

1492
02:24:22,200 --> 02:24:26,320
 start with Commissioner Beck I Mr. Anderson hi

1493
02:24:26,320 --> 02:24:36,720
 Mr. Smith hi Mr. Ellis I Mr. Cole I Mr. Pernitta I chairs also an I motion

1494
02:24:36,720 --> 02:24:42,360
 carries 7-0 the next item of business is the consent agenda

1495
02:24:42,360 --> 02:24:49,120
 Mr. Ellis I move approval we have a first for approval

1496
02:24:49,120 --> 02:24:54,040
 Commissioner Smith we have a first and a second for approval for the consent

1497
02:24:54,040 --> 02:24:59,160
 agenda any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call

1498
02:24:59,160 --> 02:25:09,880
 Commissioner Beck I Mr. Anderson I Mr. Smith I Mr. Ellis I Mr. Cole I Mr.

1499
02:25:09,880 --> 02:25:16,320
 Pernitta I chairs also an I motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is

1500
02:25:16,320 --> 02:25:19,760
 our items for individual considerations starting with our Planning and Zoning

1501
02:25:19,760 --> 02:25:24,760
 Commission calendar for 2021 Commissioner Smith make a motion to

1502
02:25:24,760 --> 02:25:31,160
 approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a first

1503
02:25:31,160 --> 02:25:37,040
 and a second for approval of the calendar for 2021 any discussion seeing

1504
02:25:37,040 --> 02:25:42,640
 none I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Beck I Mr. Anderson I

1505
02:25:42,640 --> 02:25:52,560
 Mr. Smith I Mr. Ellis I Mr. Cole I Mr. Pernitta I chairs also an I motion

1506
02:25:52,560 --> 02:26:00,920
 carries 7-0 the next item of business is item 4B FP 20-0026 this is Karina

1507
02:26:00,920 --> 02:26:05,640
 Maldonado's item and I'll turn the floor over to her

1508
02:26:12,680 --> 02:26:18,200
 all right so before you is a final plat 20-0026 this is a final plat for

1509
02:26:18,200 --> 02:26:23,520
 Worthington Industrial Office which is a one one industrial lot off of

1510
02:26:23,520 --> 02:26:27,640
 Worthington and Shuler staff is recommending approval of this request

1511
02:26:27,640 --> 02:26:31,560
 as it currently meets the established requirements outlined in exhibit 2

1512
02:26:31,560 --> 02:26:36,920
 however the applicant is proposing some last-minute changes to their plat during

1513
02:26:36,920 --> 02:26:41,000
 this the civil engineering process so they intend to alter their water plan

1514
02:26:41,000 --> 02:26:45,660
 which will require alterations to the current sorry the current easements

1515
02:26:45,660 --> 02:26:49,360
 shown here on the screen so the applicant is requesting a 30-day

1516
02:26:49,360 --> 02:26:54,800
 extension to a date certain of November 18th great thank you Karina

1517
02:26:54,800 --> 02:27:00,360
 Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the extension today certain of

1518
02:27:00,360 --> 02:27:05,360
 November 18 2020 a motion to approve the request for a 30-day extension to

1519
02:27:05,360 --> 02:27:10,760
 November 18th Commissioner Anderson second the motion we have first and a

1520
02:27:10,760 --> 02:27:16,480
 second to accept the request from the applicant to extend 30 days to a date

1521
02:27:16,480 --> 02:27:23,320
 certain of November 18th any discussion Commissioner Beck can you Karina can you

1522
02:27:23,320 --> 02:27:27,680
 briefly thank you chair can you really really briefly just delineate the

1523
02:27:27,680 --> 02:27:32,000
 changes in the water plan I don't actually have that information off the

1524
02:27:32,000 --> 02:27:36,440
 top of my head right now this was kind of like a last-minute request that came

1525
02:27:36,440 --> 02:27:41,560
 in on Friday but they will probably be coming back around very quickly no no I

1526
02:27:41,560 --> 02:27:45,840
 was I was just trying to get some advanced warning about what was coming

1527
02:27:45,840 --> 02:27:49,040
 yeah to my knowledge it was just something that came up during a

1528
02:27:49,040 --> 02:27:53,880
 pre-construction meeting just the location I believe of their taps might

1529
02:27:53,880 --> 02:27:58,560
 have just they they just decided to alter rather than having lines going

1530
02:27:58,560 --> 02:28:05,120
 within the development I believe these would be coming off okay thank you any

1531
02:28:05,120 --> 02:28:10,640
 other discussion scene nine I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Beck

1532
02:28:10,640 --> 02:28:16,720
 aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole

1533
02:28:16,720 --> 02:28:23,800
 all Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Smith aye chair is also an

1534
02:28:23,800 --> 02:28:29,840
 aye motion carries seven zero the next item is also Karina's item it's 4c pp 20

1535
02:28:29,840 --> 02:28:34,960
 - 0 0 2 2 and I'll turn the floor back over to her yes this is a preliminary

1536
02:28:34,960 --> 02:28:43,240
 plat of pp 20 - 0 0 22 for about 13 residential lots located off of Fort

1537
02:28:43,240 --> 02:28:48,520
 Worth Drive and Fairview Drive this is south of Brush Creek staff is

1538
02:28:48,520 --> 02:28:51,840
 recommending denial this request as it currently does not meet the established

1539
02:28:51,840 --> 02:28:56,400
 requirements the applicant has requested an extension to December

1540
02:28:56,400 --> 02:29:02,160
 2nd all right thank you Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the

1541
02:29:02,160 --> 02:29:06,240
 extension to date certain December 2nd here we have first to approve the

1542
02:29:06,240 --> 02:29:11,160
 request for an extension to date certain of December 2nd

1543
02:29:11,160 --> 02:29:18,400
 Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a second any discussion seeing

1544
02:29:18,400 --> 02:29:22,240
 none I'll call for a vote be a roll call starting with Commissioner Beck aye

1545
02:29:22,240 --> 02:29:28,080
 Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole aye

1546
02:29:28,080 --> 02:29:33,760
 Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Smith aye chair is also an aye motion

1547
02:29:33,760 --> 02:29:38,600
 carries seven zero the last item for individual consideration is item 4d it's

1548
02:29:38,600 --> 02:29:58,040
 ADP 20 - 0 0 0 1 and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation good evening

1549
02:29:58,040 --> 02:30:19,640
 let me pull up my presentation okay good evening I'm Julie Wyatt I'm presenting

1550
02:30:19,640 --> 02:30:25,480
 ADP 20 - 0 0 0 1 at Gavé Ranch the request before you is for an alternative

1551
02:30:25,480 --> 02:30:29,400
 development plan for a single-family development on 92 acres outlined in

1552
02:30:29,400 --> 02:30:35,200
 yellow it's adjacent to FM 428 north of Hartley Field Road the purpose of the

1553
02:30:35,200 --> 02:30:40,360
 request is to deviate from sub chapter 13 of the of the 2002 debt and

1554
02:30:40,360 --> 02:30:44,480
 development code specifically related to architecture of the single-family

1555
02:30:44,480 --> 02:30:49,440
 residential dwellings so the zoning for the property was approved in Joe in July

1556
02:30:49,440 --> 02:30:54,920
 of last year which was a combination of NR 3 and NR 2 with overlay conditions it

1557
02:30:54,920 --> 02:31:01,180
 transitioned to PD with the 2019 code and due to the project submittal timing

1558
02:31:01,180 --> 02:31:06,360
 the proposal is being reviewed under the 2002 regulations which includes the ADP

1559
02:31:06,360 --> 02:31:11,020
 process and the residential standards we're talking about tonight just

1560
02:31:11,020 --> 02:31:17,200
 quickly to go over those those requirements lots under 10,000 square

1561
02:31:17,200 --> 02:31:22,280
 feet are required to comply with certain residential standards within the 2002

1562
02:31:22,280 --> 02:31:25,960
 debt and development code as this applies to the agave Ranch development

1563
02:31:25,960 --> 02:31:32,280
 there are 219 lots that are less than 10,000 square feet 33 lots are larger

1564
02:31:32,280 --> 02:31:35,800
 than 10,000 square feet it would not have to comply with the requirements

1565
02:31:35,800 --> 02:31:41,280
 there are three standards that they are requesting deviations from the first one

1566
02:31:41,280 --> 02:31:45,600
 would be design features and that is a selection of three items from a list

1567
02:31:45,600 --> 02:31:49,520
 that is outlined in the debt and development code the second is for

1568
02:31:49,520 --> 02:31:55,200
 garage and specifically that front entry garages could not extend past that front

1569
02:31:55,200 --> 02:32:00,520
 building wall plus they could not be larger than 40% of that total brick

1570
02:32:00,520 --> 02:32:06,600
 building frontage and then windows and doors the 2002 debt and development code

1571
02:32:06,600 --> 02:32:11,880
 required 25% windows and doors on the front facade unless that that garage

1572
02:32:11,880 --> 02:32:18,600
 door so there are two builders that are looking to develop in the agave Ranch

1573
02:32:18,600 --> 02:32:24,200
 development and we'll take each of those design features separately so they do

1574
02:32:24,200 --> 02:32:29,000
 have concerns regarding those first first regarding design features those

1575
02:32:29,000 --> 02:32:35,060
 plans with recessed entries for both builders are only contained to design

1576
02:32:35,060 --> 02:32:40,880
 features typically based upon the list that the development code has the

1577
02:32:40,880 --> 02:32:44,900
 applicant is proposing a revision to that list to replace cupolas and bay

1578
02:32:44,900 --> 02:32:48,920
 windows with enhanced landscaping which includes foundation plantings and

1579
02:32:48,920 --> 02:32:53,720
 decorative edging as well as a large lot tree which is in in addition to what the

1580
02:32:53,720 --> 02:32:58,760
 2002 debt and development code required as that 2002 didn't development code

1581
02:32:58,760 --> 02:33:02,560
 only required street trees for residential development they're also

1582
02:33:02,560 --> 02:33:08,360
 proposing a minimum roof pitch of 612 and then they they as part of their

1583
02:33:08,360 --> 02:33:12,280
 request it would require four design features instead of the three as

1584
02:33:12,280 --> 02:33:18,200
 required by the 2002 DDC so just to let you see what that roof pitch looks like

1585
02:33:18,200 --> 02:33:26,440
 here's is a visual of that I'm second regarding the garage door both both

1586
02:33:26,440 --> 02:33:32,880
 proposed builders do have plans where the the garage door would would extend

1587
02:33:32,880 --> 02:33:38,480
 forward of the front building line as well as exceed that 40% maximum so the

1588
02:33:38,480 --> 02:33:44,760
 applicant is proposing a deviation where those front entry garages could extend

1589
02:33:44,760 --> 02:33:49,640
 forward up to 6 feet from the front from the front building plane of the house

1590
02:33:49,640 --> 02:33:54,440
 that is nearest in setback distance to the garage door plane and 11 feet from

1591
02:33:54,440 --> 02:33:58,920
 that recess front door and this would could only apply to 40% of the total

1592
02:33:58,920 --> 02:34:06,240
 product and then they're also proposing for two car garages that that garage

1593
02:34:06,240 --> 02:34:12,200
 door could not occupy more than 45% of the total building frontage and 55% for

1594
02:34:12,200 --> 02:34:15,840
 three car garages once again they're proposing that this could only apply to

1595
02:34:15,840 --> 02:34:25,840
 45% of the product and here is and here is a visual of what that looks like the

1596
02:34:25,840 --> 02:34:30,720
 the garage would extend if approved six feet from the front building line and

1597
02:34:30,720 --> 02:34:40,640
 11 feet from that recessed front door the windows and doors they are several

1598
02:34:40,640 --> 02:34:46,160
 of their plans do not meet that minimum 25% so they are proposing a variation

1599
02:34:46,160 --> 02:34:54,440
 from that and that is to comprise 15% of the wall area plus to enhance design

1600
02:34:54,440 --> 02:34:58,440
 features from a menu including decorative shutters decorative brick

1601
02:34:58,440 --> 02:35:02,600
 details coach lights divided light windows decorative garage door hardware

1602
02:35:02,600 --> 02:35:08,280
 or decorative cedar shake or stucco board accents and the gables so we've

1603
02:35:08,280 --> 02:35:12,440
 got in your backup as well as in the presentation several several

1604
02:35:12,440 --> 02:35:17,360
 elevations which sort of demonstrate what these deviations would be and and

1605
02:35:17,360 --> 02:35:23,520
 for example this builder wine shows a the what those design elements would look

1606
02:35:23,520 --> 02:35:32,520
 like in terms of gables recessed porches and dormers as well as how those garage

1607
02:35:32,520 --> 02:35:37,760
 doors would affect those building elevations for example this this

1608
02:35:37,760 --> 02:35:43,720
 elevation shows a 48% garage door frontage and then finally the windows

1609
02:35:43,720 --> 02:35:50,360
 and doors for instance this elevation here shows 20% windows and doors but the

1610
02:35:50,360 --> 02:35:55,240
 addition of the shutters and the herringbone brick detailing builder to

1611
02:35:55,240 --> 02:36:03,120
 elevations also show a variety of those deviations the they showed the gables

1612
02:36:03,120 --> 02:36:10,120
 the the roof pitch as proposed as well as some of them would require that

1613
02:36:10,120 --> 02:36:17,480
 enhanced landscape package as proposed this garage door here as you can see it

1614
02:36:17,480 --> 02:36:22,480
 extends eight feet in front of that build of the the front I'm sorry the

1615
02:36:22,480 --> 02:36:27,760
 front door of this elevation and then several of their plans do not meet that

1616
02:36:27,760 --> 02:36:32,620
 minimum windows and doors for example this elevation here has 19% windows and

1617
02:36:32,620 --> 02:36:39,480
 doors but with the addition of the coach light and the in the shutters the

1618
02:36:39,480 --> 02:36:45,800
 criteria for approval is in the subject 13 development code first preserved

1619
02:36:45,800 --> 02:36:49,520
 existing neighborhoods the additional elements apply to all lots within the

1620
02:36:49,520 --> 02:36:54,920
 neighborhood and that includes lots over 10,000 square feet so it would be in

1621
02:36:54,920 --> 02:37:00,460
 excess of what the 2002 code would require their proposal shows home

1622
02:37:00,460 --> 02:37:03,760
 designs or home plans that are consistent with the surrounding

1623
02:37:03,760 --> 02:37:09,000
 architecture one and two-story plans two and three car garages as well as

1624
02:37:09,000 --> 02:37:14,800
 traditional forms and details the request is not intended to lower design

1625
02:37:14,800 --> 02:37:19,840
 standards and apart from the request all other subchapter 13 requirements are met

1626
02:37:19,840 --> 02:37:24,380
 so it does comply with the assure quality development criteria focus new

1627
02:37:24,380 --> 02:37:27,880
 development on activity centers this development was approved by ordinance

1628
02:37:27,880 --> 02:37:34,480
 last year ensure existing infrastructure that the property has is going through

1629
02:37:34,480 --> 02:37:38,200
 the platting process and engineering has determined that there's adequate

1630
02:37:38,200 --> 02:37:42,400
 capacity and then finally that the proposal would result in a high quality

1631
02:37:42,400 --> 02:37:47,000
 development and we're gonna take each of those elements independently so first

1632
02:37:47,000 --> 02:37:51,880
 the intent of those design features are to reduce that mass of the building

1633
02:37:51,880 --> 02:37:55,600
 discourage blank walls and really encourage visually interesting places

1634
02:37:55,600 --> 02:37:59,560
 the proposal is consistent with the residential character that that we

1635
02:37:59,560 --> 02:38:03,560
 typically see in Denton and that enhanced landscaping could increase the

1636
02:38:03,560 --> 02:38:07,800
 overall tree canopy provide visual interest and also reduce the amount of

1637
02:38:07,800 --> 02:38:13,360
 turf grass in the front yard the garage requirements in the 2002 Denton

1638
02:38:13,360 --> 02:38:16,960
 Development Code are intended to reduce the visual impacts of front facing

1639
02:38:16,960 --> 02:38:23,780
 garages the Ford extensions are limited as well as those additional percentage is

1640
02:38:23,780 --> 02:38:29,280
 also limited and and it would not what they're proposing does not overwhelm the

1641
02:38:29,280 --> 02:38:33,160
 front facade or conceal the front door so it does meet the intent of the

1642
02:38:33,160 --> 02:38:37,920
 requirement and finally the windows and doors those are intended to increase

1643
02:38:37,920 --> 02:38:41,720
 building transparency and discourage blank walls and with the adoption of the

1644
02:38:41,720 --> 02:38:47,400
 2019 DDC the requirement was modified to minimum 15% windows and doors and this

1645
02:38:47,400 --> 02:38:51,680
 proposal is consistent with current regulations in addition they are at they

1646
02:38:51,680 --> 02:38:57,080
 are proposing to add additional decorative elements above those 2019

1647
02:38:57,080 --> 02:39:03,800
 regulations as shown on those example elevations and so based upon the

1648
02:39:03,800 --> 02:39:07,320
 criteria for approval staff does recommend approval of the request and

1649
02:39:07,320 --> 02:39:12,000
 I'll be happy to stand for any questions and I believe the applicant is available

1650
02:39:12,000 --> 02:39:17,960
 and has a presentation as well any questions for Julie before we hear the

1651
02:39:17,960 --> 02:39:24,000
 applicant's presentation I don't see any Julie thank you and then if the

1652
02:39:24,000 --> 02:39:29,880
 applicant is available they just state their name and address for the record

1653
02:39:29,880 --> 02:39:36,240
 and then Julia are you pulling up their presentation on our end I am fantastic

1654
02:39:36,240 --> 02:39:41,480
 good evening commissioners this is Amy Bissett with 97 land company I represent

1655
02:39:41,480 --> 02:39:47,120
 the developer with Agave Ranch as well as the home builders and while Julie's

1656
02:39:47,120 --> 02:39:50,560
 pulling up the presentation first of all I want to make sure you guys can hear me

1657
02:39:50,560 --> 02:39:56,800
 we can and your presentation's up okay great excellent and I want to introduce

1658
02:39:56,800 --> 02:40:02,200
 the two home builders that we do have on board for this project that we are

1659
02:40:02,200 --> 02:40:06,520
 seeking these variances for and they are also on the phone in case you have

1660
02:40:06,520 --> 02:40:12,840
 specific questions related to their architecture or the market that that

1661
02:40:12,840 --> 02:40:15,880
 they're responding to in terms of the type of products they're bringing to

1662
02:40:15,880 --> 02:40:21,640
 Fitton Michael Dewar and Shannon Ray are on the phone with khop Manny and homes

1663
02:40:21,640 --> 02:40:29,480
 and Garrett Lust is also on the line with David and Julie we're just gonna

1664
02:40:29,480 --> 02:40:32,640
 jump right in I think I'll be very brief and you can go ahead and change the

1665
02:40:32,640 --> 02:40:39,360
 slide thank you and as Julie mentioned we did rezone in 2019 and the zoning is

1666
02:40:39,360 --> 02:40:45,120
 currently a PD that with a base zoning of NR2 and NR3 we do have some

1667
02:40:45,120 --> 02:40:49,720
 significant overlay conditions for those of you that were on the commission at

1668
02:40:49,720 --> 02:40:54,600
 the time that that was considered and we have a 30-foot landscape buffer along

1669
02:40:54,600 --> 02:41:01,080
 the entire frontage of loop I'm sorry of highway 428 15 percent preserved open

1670
02:41:01,080 --> 02:41:07,760
 space a multi-purpose trail system nine pocket parts and three ponds and this

1671
02:41:07,760 --> 02:41:15,520
 type of elevated the elevated residential subdivision has attracted

1672
02:41:15,520 --> 02:41:22,560
 these two home builders that have been inactive in Denton within the last 15 to

1673
02:41:22,560 --> 02:41:28,200
 20 years if having done development previously we did come back to you guys

1674
02:41:28,200 --> 02:41:32,520
 in August of this year and got an approved general development plan and

1675
02:41:32,520 --> 02:41:39,000
 preliminary plat and we're currently in full design of civil construction plans

1676
02:41:39,000 --> 02:41:43,920
 and obviously we're bringing our builder variances to you this evening next slide

1677
02:41:43,920 --> 02:41:53,160
 please just a very brief reminder this is 92 acres with a maximum of 272 lots

1678
02:41:53,160 --> 02:42:02,040
 and an overall net density of 2.7 units per acre go ahead Julie just wanted to

1679
02:42:02,040 --> 02:42:08,040
 put our variances side-by-side between what the basic criteria is in the 2002

1680
02:42:08,040 --> 02:42:12,680
 development code and what we are proposing this first variance is related

1681
02:42:12,680 --> 02:42:18,880
 to alternative design features both of our home builders found that cupolas and

1682
02:42:18,880 --> 02:42:24,480
 bay windows were just not the current market for their product so they have

1683
02:42:24,480 --> 02:42:29,960
 proposed and the enhanced landscaping package and minimum roof pitch and in

1684
02:42:29,960 --> 02:42:36,960
 lieu of those two design features next slide please I Julie did show the

1685
02:42:36,960 --> 02:42:41,760
 exhibit related to the roof pitch earlier but I wanted to show it compared

1686
02:42:41,760 --> 02:42:46,280
 with what is required by code which is a 412 roof pitch so essentially what

1687
02:42:46,280 --> 02:42:53,600
 you're looking at is a steeper roof on the on the main the main roof pitch and

1688
02:42:53,600 --> 02:42:58,640
 then on the enhanced landscape package Julie went through that but we are

1689
02:42:58,640 --> 02:43:05,160
 looking at doubling the requirement of trees for each yard or lot each one is

1690
02:43:05,160 --> 02:43:09,360
 currently required to have a street tree but we will we're proposing an

1691
02:43:09,360 --> 02:43:17,640
 additional shade tree per lot as well as foundation planting next slide please on

1692
02:43:17,640 --> 02:43:24,560
 the garages the main impetus or one of the main impetus reasons for this

1693
02:43:24,560 --> 02:43:30,720
 request is the builders do want to bring a three-car garage product to Denton and

1694
02:43:30,720 --> 02:43:38,200
 believe that it would be well received by the community and their their design

1695
02:43:38,200 --> 02:43:43,520
 plans do include some forward extending garages and we did do a comprehensive

1696
02:43:43,520 --> 02:43:48,640
 analysis in terms of how what percentage of their plans that they're bringing to

1697
02:43:48,640 --> 02:43:55,080
 this market and would be would require a deviation from the base code and we've

1698
02:43:55,080 --> 02:44:00,320
 built that in there to have some restrictions so that it's not allowed on

1699
02:44:00,320 --> 02:44:07,760
 every lot next slide please and then lastly is the window and door percentage

1700
02:44:07,760 --> 02:44:16,080
 and Julie indicated we will and can comply to at least 15% of window and

1701
02:44:16,080 --> 02:44:22,080
 door percentage on the front facade which is the 29th consistent with the 2019 code

1702
02:44:22,080 --> 02:44:28,340
 plus proposing enhanced design features from the list that you see on your

1703
02:44:28,340 --> 02:44:34,840
 screen next slide that is really all I have I just wanted to walk you through

1704
02:44:34,840 --> 02:44:39,920
 kind of a basic summary and introduce the two home builders that we have on

1705
02:44:39,920 --> 02:44:46,480
 board for this project that we're excited to to begin construction on in

1706
02:44:46,480 --> 02:44:52,300
 the near future and happy to stand for any questions or allow you to have

1707
02:44:52,300 --> 02:44:57,600
 conversations directly with the builders if you choose thank you I appreciate it

1708
02:44:57,600 --> 02:45:03,160
 Amy this isn't a public hearing but I did want to mention that for this item we

1709
02:45:03,160 --> 02:45:07,440
 had two people make comments using our online form there were two in support

1710
02:45:07,440 --> 02:45:12,280
 and zero against all these comments were emailed to the commissioners and her

1711
02:45:12,280 --> 02:45:18,400
 city secretary to be recorded with that happy to continue the discussion or

1712
02:45:18,400 --> 02:45:25,640
 entertain a motion Commissioner Smith we have a first for approval Commissioner

1713
02:45:25,640 --> 02:45:33,200
 Ellis like it we have a first and a second for approval any discussion on

1714
02:45:33,200 --> 02:45:39,320
 this item seeing none I will call for a vote be a roll call starting with

1715
02:45:39,320 --> 02:45:47,200
 Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye

1716
02:45:47,200 --> 02:45:54,000
 Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Smith aye

1717
02:45:54,000 --> 02:45:59,640
 chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 congratulations and thanks for being

1718
02:45:59,640 --> 02:46:04,960
 here for a presentation tonight the next item of business gets us into our public

1719
02:46:04,960 --> 02:46:12,000
 hearings for this evening we'll start with item 5 a CA 20 - 0003 I'll invite

1720
02:46:12,000 --> 02:46:17,800
 Ron Maguida for presentation and I'll open the public hearing

1721
02:46:19,880 --> 02:46:47,400
 thank you chair let me pull out my presentation there is good evening Ron

1722
02:46:47,400 --> 02:46:51,800
 Maguida principal planner with Development Services this application is

1723
02:46:51,800 --> 02:46:56,280
 for comp plan amendment as mentioned in the introduction just want to go over

1724
02:46:56,280 --> 02:47:01,440
 the site location real quick as you can see line in yellow the site is located

1725
02:47:01,440 --> 02:47:08,160
 just south and west of Vintage Boulevard north of Fort Worth Drive the site

1726
02:47:08,160 --> 02:47:12,880
 itself is currently undeveloped with our agricultural use there are two stock

1727
02:47:12,880 --> 02:47:21,160
 sorry storage tanks that is on site as well as a plugged gas well and for

1728
02:47:21,160 --> 02:47:26,280
 background information this site was annexed into the city as long as well as

1729
02:47:26,280 --> 02:47:34,720
 the area to the east that outline here in the aerial that was they were both

1730
02:47:34,720 --> 02:47:42,520
 annexed into the city on August 25th of this year the request that is being

1731
02:47:42,520 --> 02:47:46,960
 brought forward for comp plan amendment is to reclassify the future land use

1732
02:47:46,960 --> 02:47:53,860
 designation future land use map of the site the 51 plus acres from rural areas

1733
02:47:53,860 --> 02:48:00,040
 to moderate residential this is being submitted in concert with a zoning map

1734
02:48:00,040 --> 02:48:06,680
 amendment to rezone this property to a r6 a residential 6 and the intent for

1735
02:48:06,680 --> 02:48:10,840
 that is to meet the dimensional standards for the site layout that you

1736
02:48:10,840 --> 02:48:17,600
 see here on the slide I just wanted to illustrate the location of the plug gas

1737
02:48:17,600 --> 02:48:24,560
 well that location will be a open space lot will not be developable and is shown

1738
02:48:24,560 --> 02:48:32,920
 here as lot X and again it's there shown an outline in red just for the benefit

1739
02:48:32,920 --> 02:48:37,560
 of understanding the future land use map and designation what its purpose is as

1740
02:48:37,560 --> 02:48:43,620
 you all know in 2015 the den plan 2030 was adopted with it were goals policies

1741
02:48:43,620 --> 02:48:48,280
 in action some of the goals and policies reflect or reference the future land use

1742
02:48:48,280 --> 02:48:55,000
 map and designation the intent of a future land use map is to depict the

1743
02:48:55,000 --> 02:49:00,360
 intended long-term pattern of land uses throughout the city to establish the

1744
02:49:00,360 --> 02:49:05,080
 process of which amending zoning district if that was the request to

1745
02:49:05,080 --> 02:49:10,000
 review the future land use map for guidance and also to guide any future

1746
02:49:10,000 --> 02:49:15,720
 coordination between transportation and utility within the city so this is just

1747
02:49:15,720 --> 02:49:21,400
 to help give the city an opportunity to look at the areas around the city future

1748
02:49:21,400 --> 02:49:28,240
 in long term the modern residential which is the proposed future language

1749
02:49:28,240 --> 02:49:33,780
 designation is described in the den plan 2030 as shown here I won't read the

1750
02:49:33,780 --> 02:49:37,560
 entire description but just want to highlight that it calls for a single

1751
02:49:37,560 --> 02:49:43,080
 family detached houses on small lots adjacent to key corridors the intent is

1752
02:49:43,080 --> 02:49:48,040
 to link as many local streets as possible and again to maintain the scale

1753
02:49:48,040 --> 02:49:55,800
 and style of adjacent properties what is being proposed is illustrated in this

1754
02:49:55,800 --> 02:50:00,880
 slide currently the future language map shows the property as rural areas shown

1755
02:50:00,880 --> 02:50:06,880
 here in green what is proposed by the applicant is to reclassify that to

1756
02:50:06,880 --> 02:50:12,940
 moderate residential as shown here one of the recommendation or the analysis

1757
02:50:12,940 --> 02:50:16,480
 that it's consistent is being that it's adjacent to an existing moderate

1758
02:50:16,480 --> 02:50:23,080
 residential to the north of the subject site the list that you see on this slide

1759
02:50:23,080 --> 02:50:30,000
 identifies the approval criteria for all applications the main highlighted ones

1760
02:50:30,000 --> 02:50:33,840
 that are in bold are ones I would like to for the planning zoning Commission to

1761
02:50:33,840 --> 02:50:38,960
 focus and that is its comp is consistent with the comprehensive plan that the use

1762
02:50:38,960 --> 02:50:44,400
 itself or the proposed future language designation minimizes any impacts to

1763
02:50:44,400 --> 02:50:49,800
 property owner properties surrounding the site and that the utility service and

1764
02:50:49,800 --> 02:50:55,520
 improvement standards are met and are compliant with the development standards

1765
02:50:55,520 --> 02:51:02,880
 there is also a set of approval criteria for a comprehensive plan amendment listed

1766
02:51:02,880 --> 02:51:08,880
 here a through D that the comp plan amendment was an error or designation

1767
02:51:08,880 --> 02:51:14,200
 was an error it was not the city council failed to take into consideration

1768
02:51:14,200 --> 02:51:20,560
 existing facts and projection they did not and then in events trends and facts

1769
02:51:20,560 --> 02:51:25,960
 after adoption change the only thing that the change was that this property

1770
02:51:25,960 --> 02:51:32,800
 was annexed into the city and that the next step in annexation is to zone in

1771
02:51:32,800 --> 02:51:37,800
 this case the zoning also included a comprehensive plan amendment or includes

1772
02:51:37,800 --> 02:51:42,640
 a comprehensive plan amendment and then that the character of the area changed

1773
02:51:42,640 --> 02:51:55,040
 and it did not it's just getting the is moved forward okay the other it

1774
02:51:55,040 --> 02:51:59,160
 continues for the comprehensive plan amendment approval criteria that is not

1775
02:51:59,160 --> 02:52:03,280
 that it is not in conflict with any goals and policies staff has not found

1776
02:52:03,280 --> 02:52:08,280
 that it has it constitutes a substantial benefit to the city the staff believe it

1777
02:52:08,280 --> 02:52:14,600
 does and that it avoids any creation of any isolated uses this proposed comp plan

1778
02:52:14,600 --> 02:52:18,920
 will result in hopefully the development of a single-family development similar to

1779
02:52:18,920 --> 02:52:25,720
 what is located in the area and MD does not apply last slide on the comprehensive

1780
02:52:25,720 --> 02:52:29,760
 plan amendment approval criteria that it will not adversely impact the city in

1781
02:52:29,760 --> 02:52:35,600
 terms of land use patterns will not that it will be able to provide public

1782
02:52:35,600 --> 02:52:39,280
 services and facilities the environmental sensitive areas are

1783
02:52:39,280 --> 02:52:44,600
 protected in that increased traffic is not going to create any impacts to an

1784
02:52:44,600 --> 02:52:51,480
 existing uses in the area what we are now looking at is the how it is

1785
02:52:51,480 --> 02:52:55,560
 consistent with a comprehensive plan and staff's analysis includes that the

1786
02:52:55,560 --> 02:53:00,920
 arterial primary arterial of vintage Boulevard which runs from Fort Worth

1787
02:53:00,920 --> 02:53:06,280
 Drive all the way to I-35 is an appropriate future land use designation

1788
02:53:06,280 --> 02:53:12,440
 for a property long primary arterial that the modern residential is consistent

1789
02:53:12,440 --> 02:53:17,160
 with what is shown on the future language map to the north and that the

1790
02:53:17,160 --> 02:53:22,360
 future development if this were to be passed would be consistent with the

1791
02:53:22,360 --> 02:53:27,880
 development pattern of the area one main thing that I like to express is that the

1792
02:53:27,880 --> 02:53:34,040
 developer or property owner is not going to encroach into the flood plain area

1793
02:53:34,040 --> 02:53:40,360
 that is just south and east of the subject site which in turn also will be

1794
02:53:40,360 --> 02:53:45,360
 avoiding any environmentally sensitive areas so by protecting that area stop

1795
02:53:45,360 --> 02:53:50,480
 believes that they meet the intent of protecting our environmental and

1796
02:53:50,480 --> 02:53:56,480
 sensitive areas and resources and lastly the proposed development hopefully will

1797
02:53:56,480 --> 02:54:01,840
 if when developed will connect to an existing subdivision to the north by

1798
02:54:01,840 --> 02:54:07,240
 way of roadway and sidewalk classification or connectivity so this

1799
02:54:07,240 --> 02:54:12,200
 is what is identified as that area where the connectivity would occur it's along

1800
02:54:12,200 --> 02:54:16,540
 Tamarack Lane that will then extend south again if this were to be approved

1801
02:54:16,540 --> 02:54:21,200
 and this development were to be developed the scale of the area is

1802
02:54:21,200 --> 02:54:27,480
 similar to what is shown to the north in size of lots again the reason for the r6

1803
02:54:27,480 --> 02:54:32,400
 that's being proposed as far as zoning application is to meet the development

1804
02:54:32,400 --> 02:54:37,400
 standards dimensional standards that is of a minimum of 6,000 square feet and

1805
02:54:37,400 --> 02:54:42,840
 again that is the intent of the applicants request let's just illustrate

1806
02:54:42,840 --> 02:54:47,600
 what they're proposing their minimum lot size will be 6,000 some of them will be

1807
02:54:47,600 --> 02:54:55,560
 more but minimum lot size will be 6,000 looking at how it is you know proposed

1808
02:54:55,560 --> 02:55:00,160
 in an area and if it will create any adverse impact stuff feels that it will

1809
02:55:00,160 --> 02:55:05,040
 not the area is pretty much undeveloped the areas to the west I'm sorry to the

1810
02:55:05,040 --> 02:55:11,360
 east is a floodplain area floodway mainly it will not be developed in fact there

1811
02:55:11,360 --> 02:55:16,040
 has been already some discussion about using some of that area for parkland and

1812
02:55:16,040 --> 02:55:22,040
 or trails for our parks department to the southeast forward drive and again

1813
02:55:22,040 --> 02:55:27,560
 the area that I'm referencing is the floodplain also extends most of this

1814
02:55:27,560 --> 02:55:31,440
 southern portion of this development and again based on the site plan that

1815
02:55:31,440 --> 02:55:34,580
 they're proposing they would not encroach into this area so again this

1816
02:55:34,580 --> 02:55:40,280
 area here even with the trees will be preserved and not developed as part of

1817
02:55:40,280 --> 02:55:46,640
 this at least this application looking at the area to the west it is currently

1818
02:55:46,640 --> 02:55:51,640
 either undeveloped or developed with a single-family agricultural use that will

1819
02:55:51,640 --> 02:55:57,960
 still remain and proper buffer and screening would be obviously developed

1820
02:55:57,960 --> 02:56:03,880
 or proposed as part of this development if and when it continues we look at the

1821
02:56:03,880 --> 02:56:08,320
 development standards and other regulations environmentally there are no

1822
02:56:08,320 --> 02:56:12,480
 adverse impacts we talked about the surrounding properties there was a

1823
02:56:12,480 --> 02:56:16,600
 physical impact analysis prepared for this application in fact it was prepared

1824
02:56:16,600 --> 02:56:22,180
 for the annexation in anticipation of a rezoning and or development of the site

1825
02:56:22,180 --> 02:56:27,520
 and based on that analysis it was concluded there are no adverse impact we

1826
02:56:27,520 --> 02:56:32,900
 will staff will look at the utility services and other facilities in a

1827
02:56:32,900 --> 02:56:38,960
 future development application when when it comes through trip generation an

1828
02:56:38,960 --> 02:56:44,120
 assessment was conducted and based on that assessment a TIA a full traffic

1829
02:56:44,120 --> 02:56:48,760
 impact analysis was not warranted and therefore concluded that the no adverse

1830
02:56:48,760 --> 02:56:54,760
 impact would be created by the traffic generated by this development adequate

1831
02:56:54,760 --> 02:56:59,480
 capacity for public services just want to make mention that in addition to

1832
02:56:59,480 --> 02:57:03,080
 notices that were sent out to the surrounding neighborhood we did also

1833
02:57:03,080 --> 02:57:07,440
 reach out to Argyle school district as this property falls under their

1834
02:57:07,440 --> 02:57:13,640
 jurisdiction and we heard back from Argyle and based on the ultimate build

1835
02:57:13,640 --> 02:57:20,280
 out of this site believe is sometime around 2023 by then the Argyle school

1836
02:57:20,280 --> 02:57:26,760
 district will have the schools that would be able to accommodate the student

1837
02:57:26,760 --> 02:57:32,360
 enrollment that would be generated by this development or future development

1838
02:57:32,360 --> 02:57:38,760
 notices were sent out to all of the folks within 200 feet as well as 500 feet

1839
02:57:38,760 --> 02:57:43,920
 courtesy notice that is there was website notices and newspaper notices

1840
02:57:43,920 --> 02:57:49,680
 there were no meetings held with in the neighborhood and as of this afternoon

1841
02:57:49,680 --> 02:57:56,280
 this evening staff has not received any opposition or in favor responses to

1842
02:57:56,280 --> 02:58:01,840
 those public hearing notices with that staff is recommending approval as it

1843
02:58:01,840 --> 02:58:06,640
 meets and complies with sections 2 4 5 which is the approval criteria for all

1844
02:58:06,640 --> 02:58:11,520
 applications as well as 2 7 1 which applies to the comp plan amendment

1845
02:58:11,520 --> 02:58:18,380
 approval criteria I will stand for questions I'd stand corrected the

1846
02:58:18,380 --> 02:58:23,520
 applicant does not have a presentation however they will they are available for

1847
02:58:23,520 --> 02:58:31,560
 questions if you have if you have they're currently on the call thanks Ron

1848
02:58:31,560 --> 02:58:39,880
 Christian back Ron where is the the closest connection for where city

1849
02:58:39,880 --> 02:58:46,400
 services might connect sure I believe vintage Boulevard is where the water I

1850
02:58:46,400 --> 02:58:50,480
 know I don't have a map per se but it'll be vintage Boulevard and then as far as

1851
02:58:50,480 --> 02:58:57,800
 the water and wastewater that that's basically on vintage Boulevard okay so

1852
02:58:57,800 --> 02:59:03,120
 just just right there okay and single-family developments are north there

1853
02:59:03,120 --> 02:59:06,760
 may be some they'll probably will be some connections to create that that

1854
02:59:06,760 --> 02:59:14,000
 loop so that it's all connected okay and my understanding is if I am I

1855
02:59:14,000 --> 02:59:18,080
 remembering the the backup correctly do we did a down water assessment on this

1856
02:59:18,080 --> 02:59:22,440
 say that one more time we did a down water drainage assessment on this this

1857
02:59:22,440 --> 02:59:28,040
 property well part of the analysis of that will be done during platting and

1858
02:59:28,040 --> 02:59:32,600
 during them while and during the right I thought it was already been done so yeah

1859
02:59:32,600 --> 02:59:35,960
 I don't think that has occurred that will be during the platting and

1860
02:59:35,960 --> 02:59:41,640
 engineering review of those plans all right thank you so much okay any other

1861
02:59:41,640 --> 02:59:48,320
 questions for Ron as you're contemplating that I just want to let you know that for

1862
02:59:48,320 --> 02:59:54,200
 this item there's one person who called in to our 940 349 7800 line to register

1863
02:59:54,200 --> 02:59:59,760
 their position and they were in support there was no one using that mechanism to

1864
02:59:59,760 --> 03:00:06,160
 lobby in the opposition with that I will go ahead and close the public hearing

1865
03:00:06,160 --> 03:00:13,880
 and continue the virtual day's discussion or a motion

1866
03:00:13,880 --> 03:00:23,360
 Commissioner Ellis thank you I just have a question for Ron Ron so I know we're

1867
03:00:23,360 --> 03:00:28,800
 not dealing with the other annex piece of this like to the northeast right but

1868
03:00:28,800 --> 03:00:33,040
 do you know anything about that piece of property I just know that it's fully

1869
03:00:33,040 --> 03:00:38,360
 within the floodplain and that it will probably remain the entire parcel is

1870
03:00:38,360 --> 03:00:47,000
 correct okay that's what I wanted to understand yes okay thank you

1871
03:00:47,000 --> 03:00:58,520
 so I don't see any hands raising so I'm gonna take the floor and say I think in

1872
03:00:58,520 --> 03:01:03,440
 principle the idea of the comp plan being amended from rural future land use

1873
03:01:03,440 --> 03:01:08,440
 to moderate residential future and leaves make sense on its face it seems

1874
03:01:08,440 --> 03:01:12,800
 like the neighbors to the west kind of set that motion and then knowing that

1875
03:01:12,800 --> 03:01:18,960
 basically this corridor between our 35 W and 377 is just ever changing with with

1876
03:01:18,960 --> 03:01:23,400
 homes we just approved a neighborhood south of here so I don't foresee this

1877
03:01:23,400 --> 03:01:30,160
 property remaining rural it just doesn't make sense and I certainly I understand

1878
03:01:30,160 --> 03:01:34,840
 the applicants position on this I will say as I mentioned in work session I

1879
03:01:34,840 --> 03:01:40,800
 have some growing anxiety about the corridor between 35 and 377 that's in

1880
03:01:40,800 --> 03:01:45,920
 Denton's jurisdiction and how it's all homes and it's kind of this weird

1881
03:01:45,920 --> 03:01:50,360
 segment away from our town that we're they're about to get what our third

1882
03:01:50,360 --> 03:01:56,420
 largest park and it's all rooftops and I have concern about the economic

1883
03:01:56,420 --> 03:02:01,720
 viability for our town if we continue building homes in which the services of

1884
03:02:01,720 --> 03:02:07,240
 Roanoke and the restaurants and the things that Roanoke and Argyle provide

1885
03:02:07,240 --> 03:02:13,480
 will keep these cars moving southward and not northward into the economic

1886
03:02:13,480 --> 03:02:18,920
 drivers of our town and so again I don't hold the applicant responsible for that

1887
03:02:18,920 --> 03:02:23,440
 but I think as we look as Denton Classical Academy is going in a new

1888
03:02:23,440 --> 03:02:32,680
 police stations going in I have not seen yet any sort of jobs or any any retail

1889
03:02:32,680 --> 03:02:40,260
 any sort of commercial design being proposed in this entire corridor and I

1890
03:02:40,260 --> 03:02:43,500
 know hunter ranch and coal ranch whenever they get here might provide

1891
03:02:43,500 --> 03:02:47,080
 some economic drivers on the highway corridor but in the interim we're

1892
03:02:47,080 --> 03:02:50,920
 putting rooftops in and rooftops are not going to sustain Denton long-term in

1893
03:02:50,920 --> 03:02:56,960
 terms of the economy and so with that after that long soliloquy I will motion

1894
03:02:56,960 --> 03:03:02,200
 for approval on this item as staff presented and I'll look for a second but

1895
03:03:02,200 --> 03:03:05,920
 I just wanted to say my soapbox as we continue through this corridor

1896
03:03:05,920 --> 03:03:09,960
 progression I'm going to be more and more vocal about what is the accident

1897
03:03:09,960 --> 03:03:13,240
 what are we doing to for the betterment of Denton by providing all these

1898
03:03:13,240 --> 03:03:20,160
 rooftop homes I saw Commissioner Smith's hand next major I agree with your

1899
03:03:20,160 --> 03:03:24,960
 sentiments and I second Commissioner Ellis you had your hand up I don't want

1900
03:03:24,960 --> 03:03:33,240
 to discount you perfect so we have a first and a second for approval of staff

1901
03:03:33,240 --> 03:03:37,280
 presented I didn't see any conditions on this wrong right it's just a straight

1902
03:03:37,280 --> 03:03:41,960
 approval this is straight will be yes great we have first and a second any

1903
03:03:41,960 --> 03:03:49,920
 discussion on this item seeing none I'll go ahead and call for a vote via roll

1904
03:03:49,920 --> 03:03:56,580
 call starting in my upper right corner Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner

1905
03:03:56,580 --> 03:04:03,880
 Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Smith

1906
03:04:03,880 --> 03:04:12,280
 aye Commissioner Pernetta aye chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 next

1907
03:04:12,280 --> 03:04:19,120
 sign of business is item 5 B Z 20 - 0 0 0 8 this is also Ron's item I will turn

1908
03:04:19,120 --> 03:04:26,320
 the floor over to him and open the public hearing thank you chair

1909
03:04:28,120 --> 03:04:34,480
 sorry let me get back to start this is the counterpart to the comprehensive

1910
03:04:34,480 --> 03:04:39,580
 plan amendment this is the zoning map amendment request by the same applicant

1911
03:04:39,580 --> 03:04:46,840
 for the subject site we've already seen this site plan again the request for

1912
03:04:46,840 --> 03:04:52,240
 the zoning map amendment is to rezone or actually excuse me to establish the

1913
03:04:52,240 --> 03:04:56,400
 initial zoning since it was just recently annexed to a residential 6

1914
03:04:56,400 --> 03:05:02,280
 zoning district again the intent is to develop this with a single-family

1915
03:05:02,280 --> 03:05:08,000
 development and the intent is to be able to develop it within the dimensional

1916
03:05:08,000 --> 03:05:13,440
 standards of a residential 6 zoning district just want to illustrate that if

1917
03:05:13,440 --> 03:05:18,380
 this zoning case were not to be approved the underlying zoning that they would

1918
03:05:18,380 --> 03:05:21,640
 need to comply with if they were to move forward with any development is shown

1919
03:05:21,640 --> 03:05:27,160
 here under the RR residential rural zoning district the other column to the

1920
03:05:27,160 --> 03:05:31,480
 right is the residential 6 as you can see the minimum lot area which is

1921
03:05:31,480 --> 03:05:36,960
 primarily the reason for their request for an R6 is to be able to develop a

1922
03:05:36,960 --> 03:05:44,680
 minimum of 6,000 square feet shown here is the illustration of these current

1923
03:05:44,680 --> 03:05:48,520
 zoning map as you can see it is not currently zoned as it was recently annexed

1924
03:05:48,520 --> 03:05:52,880
 and you can see the surrounding area around the area is still in the county

1925
03:05:52,880 --> 03:05:59,280
 the area that's outlined in black is what we're talking about and per the

1926
03:05:59,280 --> 03:06:05,760
 request it would be zoned or be colored as brown color which is consistent with

1927
03:06:05,760 --> 03:06:13,880
 the R6 to the north of the subject property again you've seen this

1928
03:06:13,880 --> 03:06:18,920
 approval criteria for all applicable applications won't spend too much time

1929
03:06:18,920 --> 03:06:24,640
 on this other than again highlight the three areas or three criterias that we

1930
03:06:24,640 --> 03:06:30,880
 will have some discussion in there is also a zoning map amendment approval

1931
03:06:30,880 --> 03:06:35,720
 criteria which is 1 through 7 is it consistent with the future land use map

1932
03:06:35,720 --> 03:06:42,400
 again depending on how City Council you know decides that would be something to

1933
03:06:42,400 --> 03:06:47,760
 consider is it within a small area plan it is not this is a consistent with the

1934
03:06:47,760 --> 03:06:54,040
 purpose statement of the zoning district it does well or have this area have have

1935
03:06:54,040 --> 03:06:58,640
 had any significant changes other than the annexation there has not been

1936
03:06:58,640 --> 03:07:03,040
 significant changes will this have an adverse impact to surrounding properties

1937
03:07:03,040 --> 03:07:08,680
 or to the neighborhood staffs analysis that it will not public facilities and

1938
03:07:08,680 --> 03:07:14,980
 services these will all be accounted for during the the platting if that is when

1939
03:07:14,980 --> 03:07:21,000
 the next phase is also again want to make mention that services also includes

1940
03:07:21,000 --> 03:07:25,760
 the school district and we did reach out to Argyle and again based on the build

1941
03:07:25,760 --> 03:07:29,880
 out of this development at that time the Argyle school district will have the

1942
03:07:29,880 --> 03:07:34,600
 schools to be able to accommodate the enrollment of those students that would

1943
03:07:34,600 --> 03:07:41,320
 be generated from this development won't spend too much on time on this slide but

1944
03:07:41,320 --> 03:07:48,200
 other than mention again that the r6 is appropriate for this area being that is

1945
03:07:48,200 --> 03:07:52,200
 a long vintage Boulevard again it's consistent with the development to the

1946
03:07:52,200 --> 03:07:58,440
 north in terms of pattern site design I'm sorry sought site layout design that

1947
03:07:58,440 --> 03:08:05,400
 is as well as the avoidance or the keeping away from the floodplain and

1948
03:08:05,400 --> 03:08:10,160
 environmental sensitive area all of which in staffs analysis makes it

1949
03:08:10,160 --> 03:08:16,500
 consistent with the comprehensive plan when it comes into the adverse impact we

1950
03:08:16,500 --> 03:08:20,320
 went through this with the common plan amendment again the site is very very

1951
03:08:20,320 --> 03:08:25,600
 rural in nature however you know future development when this development does

1952
03:08:25,600 --> 03:08:33,400
 occur we feel that it will not impact those areas in a negative way again we

1953
03:08:33,400 --> 03:08:38,200
 went through this with the common plan amendment with regards to the traffic

1954
03:08:38,200 --> 03:08:41,440
 just want to spend time a little bit on that there was a traffic generation

1955
03:08:41,440 --> 03:08:50,200
 assessment done based on the generation of a single-family 110 lots in total the

1956
03:08:50,200 --> 03:08:54,800
 conclusion is that there will be no adverse impact we did spend time on

1957
03:08:54,800 --> 03:09:01,200
 making sure that the connectivity as well as the turning into in from vintage

1958
03:09:01,200 --> 03:09:07,920
 Boulevard was accommodating the minimum requirements and it will again based on

1959
03:09:07,920 --> 03:09:13,040
 the site plan that has been proposed and again future applications will be

1960
03:09:13,040 --> 03:09:17,920
 reviewed in detail including a downstream drainage assessment when that

1961
03:09:17,920 --> 03:09:25,280
 time comes public outreach was made and again as of this evening staff has not

1962
03:09:25,280 --> 03:09:32,300
 received any in responses that is in opposition and or in favor so again

1963
03:09:32,300 --> 03:09:37,040
 nothing to report as far as public input in regards to the public hearing

1964
03:09:37,040 --> 03:09:43,160
 notices with that staff recommends approval as it complies with the sections

1965
03:09:43,160 --> 03:09:49,240
 245 again the criteria for approval for all applications and 272 which is the

1966
03:09:49,240 --> 03:09:56,680
 zoning amendment map criteria for approval staff is will stand for any

1967
03:09:56,680 --> 03:10:01,080
 questions and again the applicant does not have a presentation but is on the

1968
03:10:01,080 --> 03:10:08,440
 line if there are any questions for for them great thanks Ron any questions for

1969
03:10:08,440 --> 03:10:15,280
 Ron Mr. Beck thank you chair Ron can you refresh my memory on those two

1970
03:10:15,280 --> 03:10:19,860
 detention ponds or our drainages or duck ponds or whatever they were where the

1971
03:10:19,860 --> 03:10:24,660
 edge of the hundred-year floodplain was sure that you've indicated that the

1972
03:10:24,660 --> 03:10:29,840
 applicant was going to leave that correct and I appreciate you bringing

1973
03:10:29,840 --> 03:10:35,760
 that up let me pull up the present the presentation once again and I can share

1974
03:10:35,760 --> 03:10:38,800
 that delineation

1975
03:10:38,800 --> 03:10:53,720
 do it you get to sorry there we go so the the flip plane line is shown here

1976
03:10:53,720 --> 03:10:58,200
 and you can see they're avoiding that all together and as it continues to the

1977
03:10:58,200 --> 03:11:02,560
 south and to the west this is the line of where the floodplain now there are

1978
03:11:02,560 --> 03:11:06,520
 there is a delineation here of a 500-year floodplain which they are able

1979
03:11:06,520 --> 03:11:11,600
 to develop but the main floodplain is just outside where they're proposing to

1980
03:11:11,600 --> 03:11:17,120
 develop and those stock storage tanks that is is shown outside of the

1981
03:11:17,120 --> 03:11:23,320
 development and within that floodplain area okay so and and just to point out

1982
03:11:23,320 --> 03:11:28,720
 everything to the east again is within the floodplain and I believe this line

1983
03:11:28,720 --> 03:11:33,960
 here delineates where the floodway is located so most of this area to the east

1984
03:11:33,960 --> 03:11:40,160
 is within a flood way and and that is that a path between those lakes or is

1985
03:11:40,160 --> 03:11:46,080
 that the drainage this right here no between the ponds oh I'm sorry yes that

1986
03:11:46,080 --> 03:11:50,040
 is that is that a drainage I don't know what that I think it's just to separate

1987
03:11:50,040 --> 03:11:55,880
 the two stock storage tanks okay all right thank you run you're welcome what

1988
03:11:55,880 --> 03:12:00,280
 other questions are there for Ron

1989
03:12:00,280 --> 03:12:10,600
 Chris Ellis thank you chair hey Ron I know with this our six zoning what just

1990
03:12:10,600 --> 03:12:13,840
 gives me a slight pause that's inconsistent with that neighborhood

1991
03:12:13,840 --> 03:12:20,120
 that's to the to the north there is that I believe it opens up triplex and

1992
03:12:20,120 --> 03:12:26,120
 four plex by right is that correct I don't have my code in front of me but let

1993
03:12:26,120 --> 03:12:34,280
 me let me let me double check one second thank you I'll go ahead and take this

1994
03:12:34,280 --> 03:12:38,240
 time real fast to let you know that there was one person who called in to

1995
03:12:38,240 --> 03:12:44,480
 our 940 349 7800 line to register their position they were in support of this

1996
03:12:44,480 --> 03:13:00,040
 project and we had no one use that to express opposition it is correct duplex

1997
03:13:00,040 --> 03:13:04,440
 triplex four plex are permitted with the use specific standards within our six

1998
03:13:04,440 --> 03:13:09,600
 and then I think it also opens up manufactured housing with an SUP is that

1999
03:13:09,600 --> 03:13:14,960
 correct that's correct okay did you all discuss that at all as being a concern

2000
03:13:14,960 --> 03:13:20,760
 just as as you know I mean zoning is not tied to a project you know this this

2001
03:13:20,760 --> 03:13:27,080
 project has presented certainly complies with with the area but we we didn't

2002
03:13:27,080 --> 03:13:31,120
 specifically discuss that however with the specific use permit I think there's

2003
03:13:31,120 --> 03:13:35,600
 there's ample opportunity to discuss that at a future time if and then if if

2004
03:13:35,600 --> 03:13:41,240
 that does get proposed with this property yeah it would just be a

2005
03:13:41,240 --> 03:13:45,000
 specific use permit for manufactured housing I don't believe anything's

2006
03:13:45,000 --> 03:13:54,000
 needed for the the others correct that's right that's correct okay

2007
03:13:54,000 --> 03:13:58,120
 Chris Ellis are you are you thinking about carving that out of this approval

2008
03:13:58,120 --> 03:14:02,200
 maybe well I don't know that that our code allows me to carve that out anymore

2009
03:14:02,200 --> 03:14:09,520
 I'm confused on that as we don't seem to to have that ability to to create that

2010
03:14:09,520 --> 03:14:18,240
 overlay I believe it has to come from the applicant so if we were in our old

2011
03:14:18,240 --> 03:14:21,440
 code yeah I would be carving it out because to me that that's just

2012
03:14:21,440 --> 03:14:27,720
 inconsistent with with the way it connects to Tamarack Lane that I would

2013
03:14:27,720 --> 03:14:32,760
 want to make sure that it was single-family homes if we were going for our four we

2014
03:14:32,760 --> 03:14:36,320
 wouldn't even open those up as a problem but I realize our four they want to go

2015
03:14:36,320 --> 03:14:44,680
 below the 7,000 square foot lot so I guess I'm slightly disappointed staff

2016
03:14:44,680 --> 03:14:49,560
 didn't look into that to try to maybe slightly mitigate that because it does

2017
03:14:49,560 --> 03:15:03,020
 cause me pause hi this is the applicant hi hi this is Randy Rivera the

2018
03:15:03,020 --> 03:15:10,240
 applicant I'm a planner with McAdams in Louisville and I appreciate

2019
03:15:10,240 --> 03:15:17,280
 Commissioner Ellis sharing that concern and we would be willing to allow that as

2020
03:15:17,280 --> 03:15:20,960
 a condition of the approval tonight if that's appropriate

2021
03:15:20,960 --> 03:15:26,960
 Randy I appreciate you providing that concession I think the question I have

2022
03:15:26,960 --> 03:15:37,720
 for Richard is can we do that I believe we can I know that if the applicant is

2023
03:15:37,720 --> 03:15:42,920
 requesting for that overlay but again I know Cynthia's on the line and so I would

2024
03:15:42,920 --> 03:15:48,880
 defer to her Cynthia could we potentially recommend this for approval

2025
03:15:48,880 --> 03:15:58,080
 limiting duplexes and triplexes from the zoning request mr. chair I'm not on

2026
03:15:58,080 --> 03:16:03,880
 mute for once I'm ahead of myself mr. chair under Texas law you can attach

2027
03:16:03,880 --> 03:16:08,280
 overlay conditions to your rezoning and it's certainly something that's planning

2028
03:16:08,280 --> 03:16:12,820
 commission can make a recommendation to the council on okay great

2029
03:16:12,820 --> 03:16:19,440
 Commissioner Ellis I turn it back to you is that something that you would explore

2030
03:16:19,440 --> 03:16:26,160
 absolutely okay then why don't I go ahead and close the public hearing since

2031
03:16:26,160 --> 03:16:30,420
 someone else is on the line to call and then we can kind of progress this

2032
03:16:30,420 --> 03:16:35,040
 conversation further but let's start with Commissioner Beck Commissioner Ellis

2033
03:16:35,040 --> 03:16:41,900
 can I can I ask you thank you chair can I ask you what I understand that the

2034
03:16:41,900 --> 03:16:50,720
 continuity with the our six to the north the our six to the west next to the park

2035
03:16:50,720 --> 03:16:57,120
 but you your qualm is you don't like you don't want to duplex or triplex even

2036
03:16:57,120 --> 03:17:01,560
 though those are predominantly house-shaped house structured and house

2037
03:17:01,560 --> 03:17:08,640
 single-family density levels you don't you're having a problem with that

2038
03:17:08,640 --> 03:17:15,600
 yeah Christian I'll see you more welcome to surround yes it's inconsistent we're

2039
03:17:15,600 --> 03:17:20,920
 effectively the way it's presented could taking that subdivision to the north and

2040
03:17:20,920 --> 03:17:25,320
 and almost just creating a continuation of it to the south of vintage in my

2041
03:17:25,320 --> 03:17:30,880
 opinion so yes to to open it up that if this development doesn't happen and now

2042
03:17:30,880 --> 03:17:36,580
 we've got a parcel that's our six that anybody can put up a triplex or four

2043
03:17:36,580 --> 03:17:44,760
 plex on it um yeah it's inconsistent with in my opinion with with its

2044
03:17:44,760 --> 03:17:50,320
 location yeah it is just to add my two cents to Commissioner Ellis's viewpoint

2045
03:17:50,320 --> 03:17:54,520
 we're continuing a road it's not a separate neighborhood in of itself

2046
03:17:54,520 --> 03:17:58,440
 there's connects to the northern property so you potentially have a

2047
03:17:58,440 --> 03:18:03,960
 single attached home next to a quad plex or a triplex which I agree with

2048
03:18:03,960 --> 03:18:07,520
 Christian Ellis in terms of the consistency of it's like we're redoing

2049
03:18:07,520 --> 03:18:11,720
 a neighborhood it's just it'll it'll be perceived by the public as an extension

2050
03:18:11,720 --> 03:18:17,160
 of that neighborhood but Christian back to four still yours no I was I think

2051
03:18:17,160 --> 03:18:23,840
 that clarified Commissioner Ellis's opinion point to me I thank you

2052
03:18:23,840 --> 03:18:33,800
 Commissioner house any other Christmas I make a motion to approve with the

2053
03:18:33,800 --> 03:18:41,000
 overlay condition of no triplexes duplexes or manufactured homes to be

2054
03:18:41,000 --> 03:18:44,040
 added to the zoning

2055
03:18:44,040 --> 03:18:50,920
 Mr. Anderson I saw your hand up I don't is it no I was I was gonna make it a

2056
03:18:50,920 --> 03:18:55,200
 motion but since Commissioner Smith did I'll second his motion okay and just for

2057
03:18:55,200 --> 03:19:02,200
 clarification Chris Ross I could I make a friendly amendment to say that we're

2058
03:19:02,200 --> 03:19:06,360
 gonna limit it to single-family homes with that that is a much better way to

2059
03:19:06,360 --> 03:19:12,280
 say it there Christian Ellis will do it that way I'll accept the front in them

2060
03:19:12,280 --> 03:19:16,640
 Richard all right just just for further clarification it's single-family

2061
03:19:16,640 --> 03:19:21,680
 detached only correction correct single-family detached only yeah I don't

2062
03:19:21,680 --> 03:19:24,560
 have the code in front actually I do have the code in front of me actually it's

2063
03:19:24,560 --> 03:19:27,920
 just one column right single detached families just one color we're just gonna

2064
03:19:27,920 --> 03:19:33,040
 limit it to that right yeah I think that's cleaner Commissioner Anderson are

2065
03:19:33,040 --> 03:19:36,840
 you okay with that amendment absolutely okay so we have a first and a second for

2066
03:19:36,840 --> 03:19:41,640
 approval with a condition that it is restricted to single-family detached

2067
03:19:41,640 --> 03:19:51,360
 homes we have a first and a second is there any discussion on that great with

2068
03:19:51,360 --> 03:19:56,040
 that we'll go ahead and start the voting via roll call Commissioner Beck I

2069
03:19:56,040 --> 03:20:08,120
 Chris Anderson I Chris Ellis I Mr. Cole I Mr. Smith I Mr. Pernetta I chairs also an

2070
03:20:08,120 --> 03:20:14,720
 I motion carries 7-0 congratulations next item of business is item 5 CS 20

2071
03:20:14,720 --> 03:20:20,680
 - 0 0 0 3 C on by Corina Maldonado for presentation and I will open the public

2072
03:20:20,680 --> 03:20:27,000
 hearing Corina whenever you're ready the floor is yours

2073
03:20:38,120 --> 03:20:55,080
 probably work best if I have muted myself before I started that is always

2074
03:20:55,080 --> 03:21:00,560
 helpful yeah all right good evening the request today is for a specific use

2075
03:21:00,560 --> 03:21:07,480
 permit this is s 20 - 0 0 0 3 C Shady Shores town crossing for multifamily

2076
03:21:07,480 --> 03:21:11,960
 the request as I mentioned is a specific use permit to permit multifamily

2077
03:21:11,960 --> 03:21:18,480
 dwellings on approximately 21.96 acres in the suburban corridor district a

2078
03:21:18,480 --> 03:21:23,600
 little bit of history the site was previously rezoned in 2017 this was

2079
03:21:23,600 --> 03:21:30,520
 under the 2002 zoning it was a regional center residential RCR one and regional

2080
03:21:30,520 --> 03:21:37,480
 center commercial downtown RCC D both were the transition to the community

2081
03:21:37,480 --> 03:21:42,960
 mixed-use general which is CMG and that was the subject site and the adjacent

2082
03:21:42,960 --> 03:21:49,840
 parcel to the south in the the transition to the 2019 zoning that was

2083
03:21:49,840 --> 03:21:54,440
 transition to the current SC zoning district I did want to make a note that

2084
03:21:54,440 --> 03:22:01,280
 had this rezoning not been approved the subject property would have transitioned

2085
03:22:01,280 --> 03:22:07,660
 over to the MR zoning district which would allow multifamily by right the

2086
03:22:07,660 --> 03:22:11,480
 site plan that is shown on this on the screen does show or demonstrate that the

2087
03:22:11,480 --> 03:22:16,160
 applicant is proposing five buildings with this development and three would be

2088
03:22:16,160 --> 03:22:21,480
 I'm sorry four would be three-story buildings and one would be four stories

2089
03:22:21,480 --> 03:22:26,560
 and that would be building one three four and five those would be the three

2090
03:22:26,560 --> 03:22:31,040
 stories and this L shaped building towards the western more western

2091
03:22:31,040 --> 03:22:36,660
 property would be the four story the units proposed is 300 approximately 300

2092
03:22:36,660 --> 03:22:41,920
 dwelling units both one bedroom and two bedroom only along with the proposed

2093
03:22:41,920 --> 03:22:48,160
 development is 518 parking spaces those are vehicular spaces and it does include

2094
03:22:48,160 --> 03:22:53,480
 a reduction for motorcycle space substitutes which is once paid one space

2095
03:22:53,480 --> 03:22:59,320
 for every two motorcycle spaces it does include I believe 30 bicycle spaces for

2096
03:22:59,320 --> 03:23:05,320
 this development as you could see approximately 50 percent of the property

2097
03:23:05,320 --> 03:23:12,640
 is ESA or floodplain with the exception of this dark green portion on the

2098
03:23:12,640 --> 03:23:17,200
 westernmost part of the property so the applicant is proposing to dedicate a

2099
03:23:17,200 --> 03:23:22,540
 conservation easement which is approximately 11.6 acres that would

2100
03:23:22,540 --> 03:23:28,240
 include the ESA and the area for tree preservation which I'll speak to later

2101
03:23:28,240 --> 03:23:32,920
 as part of that kind of that floodplain that is located on the site the applicant

2102
03:23:32,920 --> 03:23:37,000
 is demonstrating a retaining wall on the western side of the property that's

2103
03:23:37,000 --> 03:23:43,320
 shown in red and in order to construct that there is a possibility of some minor

2104
03:23:43,320 --> 03:23:49,260
 encroachment into the ESA since they are abutting directly to the ESA shown so

2105
03:23:49,260 --> 03:23:53,200
 there will be an accompanying alternative ESA plan that would follow

2106
03:23:53,200 --> 03:23:58,380
 this presentation and so we are proposing a recommendation or a condition

2107
03:23:58,380 --> 03:24:02,680
 of approval with the recommendation indicating that they would need approval

2108
03:24:02,680 --> 03:24:09,880
 of that AESA also on this site there are three proposed driveways two on shady

2109
03:24:09,880 --> 03:24:15,560
 shores and one on Lakeview the driveway access that's on Lakeview would be a

2110
03:24:15,560 --> 03:24:21,120
 right turn in and right turnout only so there would be no left turn northbound

2111
03:24:21,120 --> 03:24:27,600
 on Lakeview due to the the median that is blocking that entrance on Shady

2112
03:24:27,600 --> 03:24:32,920
 Shores there is a full access driveway that would allow the residents to come

2113
03:24:32,920 --> 03:24:36,980
 this is the main entrance allow them to reach the leasing center that would be

2114
03:24:36,980 --> 03:24:42,760
 located in building two and then on the westernmost portion of the site is an

2115
03:24:42,760 --> 03:24:49,320
 egress only an emergency exit that would allow left and right turns on to Shady

2116
03:24:49,320 --> 03:24:55,240
 Shores last they are also proposing wider sidewalks along Shady Shores and

2117
03:24:55,240 --> 03:25:04,200
 Lakeview to kind of enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation on the site the

2118
03:25:04,200 --> 03:25:08,140
 proposed landscape plan does demonstrate they meet the minimum requirements they

2119
03:25:08,140 --> 03:25:13,960
 are showing street trees along all of the building frontage for Shady Shores

2120
03:25:13,960 --> 03:25:19,720
 and Lakeview as well as the required right-of-way screening where parking is

2121
03:25:19,720 --> 03:25:25,400
 fronting the right-of-way so if you can see this area in dark green this area

2122
03:25:25,400 --> 03:25:30,200
 reflects both street trees and right-of-way screening plus a continuous

2123
03:25:30,200 --> 03:25:36,960
 shrub to to kind of buffer that proposed parking the applicant is also

2124
03:25:36,960 --> 03:25:43,160
 proposing to extend this plantings across the entire frontage of Shady

2125
03:25:43,160 --> 03:25:47,400
 Shores and Lakeview which is this bright green area that you'll see here this is

2126
03:25:47,400 --> 03:25:52,680
 not required by our code but they are proposing this to meet the concerns of

2127
03:25:52,680 --> 03:25:57,440
 of the residents that have indicated that they would like to see more

2128
03:25:57,440 --> 03:26:01,640
 screening from between the buildings that are up against the right-of-way and

2129
03:26:01,640 --> 03:26:08,840
 and the roadway in addition to that they are proposing a landscape buffer of

2130
03:26:08,840 --> 03:26:13,360
 trees on the northern portion of the site this is in addition to the hundred

2131
03:26:13,360 --> 03:26:21,600
 feet of easement that is associated with the DCTAA train line this would add kind

2132
03:26:21,600 --> 03:26:25,280
 of additional buffer between the residents that live on the northern

2133
03:26:25,280 --> 03:26:29,920
 portion of the site I do want to take a step back and mention that the plantings

2134
03:26:29,920 --> 03:26:36,400
 that are shown within these orange boxed areas these orange areas are existing

2135
03:26:36,400 --> 03:26:40,840
 slope and drainage easements that were acquired by the city when Shady Shores

2136
03:26:40,840 --> 03:26:47,240
 stormwater improvements were put in the applicant is proposing to request an

2137
03:26:47,240 --> 03:26:53,560
 easement abandonment to allow plantings and paving and fencing within these

2138
03:26:53,560 --> 03:27:01,440
 areas so staff has indicated that we would first like to see a structural

2139
03:27:01,440 --> 03:27:04,880
 analysis of the proposed retaining walls that they would be putting along Shady

2140
03:27:04,880 --> 03:27:10,800
 Shores so with that a condition of approval would be requested that I'll

2141
03:27:10,800 --> 03:27:16,480
 go over later but if that were not to be approved they would not be able to put

2142
03:27:16,480 --> 03:27:22,160
 the plantings that you see located here in addition to this they are proposing

2143
03:27:22,160 --> 03:27:27,520
 alternative landscape plantings so our Denton Development Code does require

2144
03:27:27,520 --> 03:27:33,240
 that parking lot landscaping be provided using two elements out of three options

2145
03:27:33,240 --> 03:27:37,720
 the applicant is proposing three partial elements or I should say one full

2146
03:27:37,720 --> 03:27:42,840
 element and two partial elements to meet this requirement they are proposing end

2147
03:27:42,840 --> 03:27:49,400
 cabs at the end of every grouping of parking spaces as well as meeting a

2148
03:27:49,400 --> 03:27:55,760
 seven foot landscaped median on this western part of the site the requirement

2149
03:27:55,760 --> 03:28:00,880
 is that they provide eight feet but they do have a requirement for right-of-way

2150
03:28:00,880 --> 03:28:06,760
 dedication as well as a 20 foot utility easement that does limit safe access

2151
03:28:06,760 --> 03:28:11,280
 within the site so they're just one foot shy which wouldn't allow them to meet

2152
03:28:11,280 --> 03:28:16,160
 the full points but they are providing it anyways in addition to that they are

2153
03:28:16,160 --> 03:28:21,600
 still proposing landscaped islands within the site there are some areas you

2154
03:28:21,600 --> 03:28:25,400
 can see here where it's obviously more than 10 spaces where we would require

2155
03:28:25,400 --> 03:28:31,760
 a landscape island and again they're they're offering three partial or two

2156
03:28:31,760 --> 03:28:35,600
 partial elements in replacement of one full element so staff felt that it was

2157
03:28:35,600 --> 03:28:40,400
 appropriate given the amount of plantings on the site open space and

2158
03:28:40,400 --> 03:28:45,280
 recreation is provided for this development it is required for

2159
03:28:45,280 --> 03:28:51,040
 multifamily in a dedication or set aside of eight percent of the land area they

2160
03:28:51,040 --> 03:28:55,800
 are proposing active and passive recreational space which is a resort

2161
03:28:55,800 --> 03:29:00,440
 style pool some picnic areas grilling areas they are proposing an enclosed dog

2162
03:29:00,440 --> 03:29:07,480
 park here on the north side as well as some indoor recreational facilities

2163
03:29:07,480 --> 03:29:12,520
 within building two including a fitness center and I and I can't remember the

2164
03:29:12,520 --> 03:29:15,320
 others off the top of my head but there's a few other recreational space was

2165
03:29:15,320 --> 03:29:20,800
 spaces within this building and just overall they are providing 37%

2166
03:29:20,800 --> 03:29:26,440
 landscaped area as well as 38% tree canopy area for the suburban corridor

2167
03:29:26,440 --> 03:29:32,480
 zoning district the minimum requirements for landscape area are 20% and the tree

2168
03:29:32,480 --> 03:29:41,040
 canopy requirements are 30% so they are going above the minimum for this site so

2169
03:29:41,040 --> 03:29:44,480
 before I go into tree preservation I do want to cover on the ESA field

2170
03:29:44,480 --> 03:29:49,540
 assessment that was conducted just last summer and was finalized early this

2171
03:29:49,540 --> 03:29:55,040
 February so this this field assessment was conducted by a third party it was

2172
03:29:55,040 --> 03:30:00,560
 approved in February of 2020 the biggest item related to this was related to the

2173
03:30:00,560 --> 03:30:06,240
 cross timbers habitat shown here in green this designation for ESA was

2174
03:30:06,240 --> 03:30:10,860
 removed due to it being a fragmented forest if you can see here there are a

2175
03:30:10,860 --> 03:30:15,320
 couple of gravel driveways that cut through the tree canopy because of this

2176
03:30:15,320 --> 03:30:19,840
 it does not achieve the minimum requirement of a contiguous 10 acre

2177
03:30:19,840 --> 03:30:25,480
 canopy the greatest area would be less than six acres so because of that the

2178
03:30:25,480 --> 03:30:29,880
 designation of cross timbers upland habitat was removed with the removal of

2179
03:30:29,880 --> 03:30:35,080
 that designation the developer was able to then develop the site which would of

2180
03:30:35,080 --> 03:30:39,600
 which would have otherwise excuse me unlimited the space that they would be

2181
03:30:39,600 --> 03:30:46,120
 able to use with this ESA it was also confirmed that there was indeed flood

2182
03:30:46,120 --> 03:30:52,440
 plain ESA and that boundary shown here is in line with the FEMA designation so

2183
03:30:52,440 --> 03:30:59,140
 it's updated every whenever the FEMA map is updated so the the line would fall

2184
03:30:59,140 --> 03:31:05,440
 follow the 2020 100 year floodplain that is shown on FEMA maps that floodplain

2185
03:31:05,440 --> 03:31:10,760
 again is undeveloped floodplain and is in a natural condition the field

2186
03:31:10,760 --> 03:31:15,000
 assessment also identified two stream segments that did have a presence of

2187
03:31:15,000 --> 03:31:19,440
 riparian buffer and so the the area shown in green would be that 50-foot

2188
03:31:19,440 --> 03:31:24,680
 riparian buffer and this brown area to the north would be the hundred foot and

2189
03:31:24,680 --> 03:31:30,520
 lastly they did identify a water-related habitat which is non wetland but is

2190
03:31:30,520 --> 03:31:35,320
 designated as a water-related habitat ESA and so the reason why I bring this up

2191
03:31:35,320 --> 03:31:41,040
 is because related to tree preservation tree preservation cannot include the

2192
03:31:41,040 --> 03:31:45,640
 tree canopy within the ESA so as you can see they're they're very limited on the

2193
03:31:45,640 --> 03:31:52,000
 space that they could use and I'll go over to the next slide the area within

2194
03:31:52,000 --> 03:31:58,880
 this orange kind of weird looking shape that is essentially all of the ESA on

2195
03:31:58,880 --> 03:32:03,600
 the site and that's where they would be restricted from any they wouldn't be

2196
03:32:03,600 --> 03:32:08,360
 able to count this area's tree preservation in a sense so if you can

2197
03:32:08,360 --> 03:32:12,480
 see here they are meeting the minimum tree preservation requirements however

2198
03:32:12,480 --> 03:32:18,240
 this is at a reduced rate of 20% preservation they are meeting that with

2199
03:32:18,240 --> 03:32:26,960
 this I believe it's 1.45 acre area they are in order to to use the reduced

2200
03:32:26,960 --> 03:32:31,040
 preservation they do have to increase mitigation for that that difference of

2201
03:32:31,040 --> 03:32:35,220
 10% that has to be mitigated at a higher rate and so the applicant has

2202
03:32:35,220 --> 03:32:40,080
 demonstrated that they would be able to achieve this they are demonstrating this

2203
03:32:40,080 --> 03:32:47,340
 with one by by designating the conservation easement and providing or

2204
03:32:47,340 --> 03:32:54,060
 proposing replacement tree plantings within this central meadow area they

2205
03:32:54,060 --> 03:32:58,720
 would get credit for that which would allow them to meet all the mitigation

2206
03:32:58,720 --> 03:33:04,400
 there are some other options within the Denton Development Code that would would

2207
03:33:04,400 --> 03:33:08,560
 be beneficial to them as well and the city looks at favorably which would be

2208
03:33:08,560 --> 03:33:14,600
 our Denton Wildscape program so rather than planting in this area this would be

2209
03:33:14,600 --> 03:33:21,520
 leaving the area in a natural condition this would need to be kind of negotiated

2210
03:33:21,520 --> 03:33:26,240
 with our folks and sustainability to make sure that we're we're meeting their

2211
03:33:26,240 --> 03:33:31,100
 requirements but this is just one other option that they could use for minimum

2212
03:33:31,100 --> 03:33:35,640
 mitigation and then the last option if they decide not to pursue either of the

2213
03:33:35,640 --> 03:33:44,080
 first two methods would be payment in lieu of plantings oh and I'll take a

2214
03:33:44,080 --> 03:33:49,360
 step back and just say the the developed area that you're seeing here which all

2215
03:33:49,360 --> 03:33:56,960
 of the the the parking the buildings the recreational space this developed area

2216
03:33:56,960 --> 03:34:04,400
 existing has an existing tree canopy of approximately 65.5% this is not

2217
03:34:04,400 --> 03:34:10,800
 including the the tree preservation area in the ESA while they are removing a lot

2218
03:34:10,800 --> 03:34:16,520
 of this for this development they are proposing that 38% tree canopy with the

2219
03:34:16,520 --> 03:34:20,960
 new landscape plantings and then if they do move forward with the the

2220
03:34:20,960 --> 03:34:26,640
 conservation plantings within this conservation area they would also be

2221
03:34:26,640 --> 03:34:33,360
 including or adding 18% canopy on the lot so it's it's roughly about a 10 to 15

2222
03:34:33,360 --> 03:34:40,480
 percent loss of tree canopy I'll just briefly cover the concept elevations for

2223
03:34:40,480 --> 03:34:44,520
 this site the applicant is going to go into more detail in a presentation after

2224
03:34:44,520 --> 03:34:51,200
 after this they are proposing again building one four and five would follow

2225
03:34:51,200 --> 03:34:56,400
 the same elevation per our code no more than three buildings would be able to

2226
03:34:56,400 --> 03:35:01,080
 have the same elevation style so just building one four and five would show

2227
03:35:01,080 --> 03:35:05,540
 what you're seeing here on the screen this is a three-story building it's

2228
03:35:05,540 --> 03:35:11,760
 showing some balconies some offsetting vertical and horizontal breaks to just

2229
03:35:11,760 --> 03:35:17,120
 make it look less of a you know a single building they are showing some of these

2230
03:35:17,120 --> 03:35:21,600
 street plantings but of course this would actually look more full with the

2231
03:35:21,600 --> 03:35:26,960
 additional plantings that they proposed building three that it's located on the

2232
03:35:26,960 --> 03:35:32,600
 corner of Lakeview and Shady Shores would have a slightly altered elevation

2233
03:35:32,600 --> 03:35:37,680
 you'll see it's just just has a slightly different relief on the end to just

2234
03:35:37,680 --> 03:35:43,240
 break up the the monotony of the same buildings and then last this is the

2235
03:35:43,240 --> 03:35:47,140
 final elevation for building four which would be that L-shaped building that

2236
03:35:47,140 --> 03:35:52,320
 would overlook the ESA area this building would be the four-story building

2237
03:35:52,320 --> 03:36:00,040
 and includes the leasing center here in in the the main entrance of the site so

2238
03:36:00,040 --> 03:36:04,320
 talking about the surrounding development the the property shown is

2239
03:36:04,320 --> 03:36:08,560
 here in yellow the proposed development that they are coming forth with is

2240
03:36:08,560 --> 03:36:13,920
 approximately 13 dwelling units per acre so looking at that with the surrounding

2241
03:36:13,920 --> 03:36:17,360
 development there is a lot of single-family homes to the north of this

2242
03:36:17,360 --> 03:36:22,480
 site this is about moderate residential approximately five dwelling units per

2243
03:36:22,480 --> 03:36:27,240
 acre there is a mobile home park area that is located a little bit further

2244
03:36:27,240 --> 03:36:33,680
 west or northwest of the site but as you can see between the actual development

2245
03:36:33,680 --> 03:36:38,120
 or proposed development and the residential there is park space that

2246
03:36:38,120 --> 03:36:44,360
 buffers the two proposed uses there's some I believe it's Dallas Junior

2247
03:36:44,360 --> 03:36:48,960
 Veterans Memorial Park is located right here there's an open space lot and then

2248
03:36:48,960 --> 03:36:52,480
 there are trails that go through which actually also preserves a lot of the

2249
03:36:52,480 --> 03:36:58,600
 floodplain that cuts through the property to the east of Lakeview which

2250
03:36:58,600 --> 03:37:01,840
 really mirrors what the proposed development would be is an existing

2251
03:37:01,840 --> 03:37:08,080
 multifamily property that was developed in 2007 that development that apartment

2252
03:37:08,080 --> 03:37:13,920
 complex has approximately 15 dwelling units per acre which is slightly higher

2253
03:37:13,920 --> 03:37:18,880
 you'll see then than the proposed development the pink areas that you see

2254
03:37:18,880 --> 03:37:23,680
 here are undeveloped properties the one to the south is actually owned by the

2255
03:37:23,680 --> 03:37:30,560
 same developer and is currently zoned for Highway Corridor and so that's a

2256
03:37:30,560 --> 03:37:36,520
 little bit more of an intensive use the property to the east on Lakeview is

2257
03:37:36,520 --> 03:37:42,120
 actually zoned MN so that is a lower density zoning and would also allow

2258
03:37:42,120 --> 03:37:49,520
 multifamily if that were to ever come in the areas in red are existing auto deal

2259
03:37:49,520 --> 03:37:55,480
 or auto sales car dealerships these are existing and have been there so what

2260
03:37:55,480 --> 03:37:59,320
 you'll see here is that the proposed development it's separated by a rail line

2261
03:37:59,320 --> 03:38:05,400
 and has an additional park buffer if you would call it between the residential to

2262
03:38:05,400 --> 03:38:09,400
 the north and it it actually it just mirrors the same development that's

2263
03:38:09,400 --> 03:38:16,520
 existing on the opposite side of Lakeview so I'll just generally go over

2264
03:38:16,520 --> 03:38:21,080
 the general criteria for approval I won't go into too much detail I'll

2265
03:38:21,080 --> 03:38:25,760
 actually stick to the SUP criteria for approval since there is a lot of

2266
03:38:25,760 --> 03:38:31,400
 duplication in the kind of the requirements so the SUP criteria for

2267
03:38:31,400 --> 03:38:36,600
 approval in section seven two point seven 2d speaks to whether the use

2268
03:38:36,600 --> 03:38:41,520
 specific use permit is compatible with the surrounding area whether it has

2269
03:38:41,520 --> 03:38:45,900
 minimal impacts the future development of the area if it complies with all

2270
03:38:45,900 --> 03:38:52,020
 standards of the DDC and other city codes how it impacts access traffic

2271
03:38:52,020 --> 03:38:56,720
 emergency services parking noise glare things like that

2272
03:38:56,720 --> 03:39:00,880
 conformance with a comprehensive plan and then of course any impacts to the

2273
03:39:00,880 --> 03:39:07,120
 health safety and welfare of our residents in the area so kind of just

2274
03:39:07,120 --> 03:39:11,820
 marrying what I just spoke to a few slides ago about compatibility with the

2275
03:39:11,820 --> 03:39:17,560
 surrounding area as I discussed you know the the proposed development while it

2276
03:39:17,560 --> 03:39:23,640
 does abut this large residential area multifamily is one of those those

2277
03:39:23,640 --> 03:39:30,080
 housing types that provides a smoother transition between housing rather than

2278
03:39:30,080 --> 03:39:34,400
 you know high-intensity uses that would be allowed in the suburban corridor

2279
03:39:34,400 --> 03:39:44,240
 district such as auto you know auto maintenance uses auto repair oh my gosh

2280
03:39:44,240 --> 03:39:47,760
 I blinked out at the top of my head but more intensive commercial retail

2281
03:39:47,760 --> 03:39:54,000
 restaurant multifamily kind of adds that that buffer between those uses also as I

2282
03:39:54,000 --> 03:39:59,280
 mentioned it is mimicking what is existing in the area it's not kind of

2283
03:39:59,280 --> 03:40:04,280
 proposing you know another another auto dealership or something more intensive

2284
03:40:04,280 --> 03:40:10,560
 so multifamily is compatible with what's on the ground today it is sort of that

2285
03:40:10,560 --> 03:40:15,560
 supportive residential use that would come in with future development of any

2286
03:40:15,560 --> 03:40:20,040
 high-intensity commercial under that highway corridor zoning that you see

2287
03:40:20,040 --> 03:40:27,560
 here so as I mentioned that this is the the SC district MN abuts it to the the

2288
03:40:27,560 --> 03:40:31,720
 east and it is also surrounded by highway corridor so it is unique within

2289
03:40:31,720 --> 03:40:39,200
 the city in that rather than having you know maybe like a higher residential use

2290
03:40:39,200 --> 03:40:44,680
 between it kind of just jumps straight into SC and again that comes with the

2291
03:40:44,680 --> 03:40:50,480
 rezoning that came in 2017 as I mentioned park space and that DCTA right

2292
03:40:50,480 --> 03:40:54,680
 of way provide a buffer between the moderate residential to the north and

2293
03:40:54,680 --> 03:41:01,600
 that that general development pattern exists so staff feels that you know the

2294
03:41:01,600 --> 03:41:05,320
 proposed development is in scale and similar to what you would find in

2295
03:41:05,320 --> 03:41:10,480
 commercial areas especially along a primary arterial like Lakeview and it

2296
03:41:10,480 --> 03:41:14,540
 does at least have a three points of access that would disperse the vehicle

2297
03:41:14,540 --> 03:41:19,600
 ingress and egress towards I-35 I'm speaking to the future land use

2298
03:41:19,600 --> 03:41:24,560
 designation this particular property does have four land use designations on

2299
03:41:24,560 --> 03:41:30,500
 site it's a little bit difficult to read with this map but you know the primary

2300
03:41:30,500 --> 03:41:34,280
 designations would be community mixed use and regional mixed use that kind of

2301
03:41:34,280 --> 03:41:38,240
 creeps in on the west side the other two land use designations that cover the

2302
03:41:38,240 --> 03:41:43,240
 property are this low residential area and in the park space I'll focus on the

2303
03:41:43,240 --> 03:41:48,620
 first two since they do kind of dominate the the designations on the property so

2304
03:41:48,620 --> 03:41:53,160
 community mixed use really looks to promote a mix of uses it's

2305
03:41:53,160 --> 03:41:57,720
 predominantly commercial but residential is something that is permitted as a

2306
03:41:57,720 --> 03:42:03,060
 complementary use for those commercial areas that will come in this again is

2307
03:42:03,060 --> 03:42:08,120
 more of on a neighborhood scale commercial whereas the next designation

2308
03:42:08,120 --> 03:42:12,240
 of regional regional mixed use promotes a mix of uses that serve regional

2309
03:42:12,240 --> 03:42:17,440
 destinations this would be more moderate and high density residential higher

2310
03:42:17,440 --> 03:42:21,780
 intensity commercial office entertainment it only excludes industrial

2311
03:42:21,780 --> 03:42:26,760
 at that highest level but it does have that higher intensity scale so the

2312
03:42:26,760 --> 03:42:31,040
 proposed development staff feels that is it's consistent with the blended goals

2313
03:42:31,040 --> 03:42:38,600
 of both community mixed use and regional mixed use designations so next I'll

2314
03:42:38,600 --> 03:42:43,080
 speak to you know adequate public facilities first transportation traffic

2315
03:42:43,080 --> 03:42:48,640
 is is often a large topic of discussion with many of these developments this

2316
03:42:48,640 --> 03:42:54,040
 proposed development would generate just over 1,600 trips within a 24-hour period

2317
03:42:54,040 --> 03:43:00,960
 that would be 108 a.m. peak trips and 132 p.m. trips specific to this

2318
03:43:00,960 --> 03:43:06,040
 intersection of Shady Shores and Lakeview there would be a net increase of

2319
03:43:06,040 --> 03:43:12,520
 145 trips related to this development that would be 68 a.m. peak trips and 77

2320
03:43:12,520 --> 03:43:19,360
 p.m. peak trips Lakeview Boulevard is as I mentioned a primary arterial Shady

2321
03:43:19,360 --> 03:43:23,680
 Shores is currently listed as a collector on our current mobility plan

2322
03:43:23,680 --> 03:43:28,960
 but I did want to note that the 2020 mobility plan does propose Shady Shores

2323
03:43:28,960 --> 03:43:32,840
 as a local street so this would be a downgrade in the current does it roadway

2324
03:43:32,840 --> 03:43:39,200
 classification a traffic impact analysis was conducted for this

2325
03:43:39,200 --> 03:43:45,840
 development recommendations from the TIA did indicate that a left and right turn

2326
03:43:45,840 --> 03:43:52,480
 deceleration lane along Shady Shores would be recommended this requirement

2327
03:43:52,480 --> 03:43:57,160
 was waived by our city engineer due to a few things the applicant is proposing on

2328
03:43:57,160 --> 03:44:03,520
 street parking which would serve to slow some of that traffic going westbound on

2329
03:44:03,520 --> 03:44:10,600
 Shady Shores and the number of turn turning movements at those driveways

2330
03:44:10,600 --> 03:44:16,640
 were not as significant as would be on other sites where you would need

2331
03:44:16,640 --> 03:44:22,480
 significant deceleration another recommendation that came out of this was

2332
03:44:22,480 --> 03:44:29,200
 that related to the intersection of Shady Shores and Lakeview a signal was

2333
03:44:29,200 --> 03:44:34,360
 warranted by the existing traffic at this intersection so as you can see from

2334
03:44:34,360 --> 03:44:42,240
 from the previous numbers provided the existing traffic is around 3239 weekday

2335
03:44:42,240 --> 03:44:47,080
 trips within a 24-hour period the proposed development is again only

2336
03:44:47,080 --> 03:44:53,280
 providing a net increase of 145 trips so the developer would be responsible for a

2337
03:44:53,280 --> 03:44:56,480
 proportional cost of any signal improvements on this site but it would

2338
03:44:56,480 --> 03:45:05,360
 be roughly 5% in addition to roadway traffic the TIA did look at pedestrian

2339
03:45:05,360 --> 03:45:11,600
 multimodal analysis in this so the TIA did recommend that bike pit access be

2340
03:45:11,600 --> 03:45:17,000
 provided along Shady Shores and Lakeview the applicant is proposing a 7-foot

2341
03:45:17,000 --> 03:45:22,800
 sidewalk along Lakeview as well as an 8-foot sidewalk along Shady Shores and

2342
03:45:22,800 --> 03:45:26,880
 of course because of our Denton development requirements they are

2343
03:45:26,880 --> 03:45:31,320
 required to connect to the existing sidewalk sidewalk that is located on the

2344
03:45:31,320 --> 03:45:37,920
 west and extending this at least to the property boundaries on Lakeview the

2345
03:45:37,920 --> 03:45:45,720
 applicant is also proposing a crosswalk from the eastern or sorry western side

2346
03:45:45,720 --> 03:45:49,320
 of Lakeview onto the eastern side so that a connection can be made to the

2347
03:45:49,320 --> 03:45:56,760
 Denton Katie Trail that runs along the DCTA rail line it would also provide

2348
03:45:56,760 --> 03:46:02,920
 this connection to the park that is located to the north transit was also

2349
03:46:02,920 --> 03:46:09,720
 looked at within the TIA there is no DCTA stop located on the a-train and

2350
03:46:09,720 --> 03:46:13,280
 there is no bus service in the area but due to the development and the increased

2351
03:46:13,280 --> 03:46:21,920
 demand they do recommend or did recommend that future consideration be made as

2352
03:46:21,920 --> 03:46:28,080
 relates to public infrastructure the site does have accessibility to an

2353
03:46:28,080 --> 03:46:33,000
 existing 16 inch line off of Lakeview Lakeview for water services and there is

2354
03:46:33,000 --> 03:46:38,680
 capacity for this development to be served in terms of wastewater the

2355
03:46:38,680 --> 03:46:44,200
 closest wastewater line would be located where this square is off a post oak

2356
03:46:44,200 --> 03:46:47,960
 boulevard so in order to serve this development the applicant would need to

2357
03:46:47,960 --> 03:46:54,720
 extend what wastewater lines all the way up to this this this area it was also

2358
03:46:54,720 --> 03:47:01,880
 noted during the review that the demand for this proposed development could not

2359
03:47:01,880 --> 03:47:06,600
 be served sufficiently with the existing infrastructure so staff is

2360
03:47:06,600 --> 03:47:11,040
 recommending a condition of approval that improvements in the form of either

2361
03:47:11,040 --> 03:47:17,940
 upsizing the line or improvements to the the lift station sorry pumping capacity

2362
03:47:17,940 --> 03:47:24,640
 of the lift station be addressed as this as this project progresses forward so

2363
03:47:24,640 --> 03:47:29,800
 that would be between this square in this triangle improvements along the

2364
03:47:29,800 --> 03:47:35,320
 existing wastewater line here and then the existing lift station is located a

2365
03:47:35,320 --> 03:47:40,840
 little bit further up on Lakeview so of course any excuse me any

2366
03:47:40,840 --> 03:47:46,200
 improvements that would be made would be credited towards any tap and impact fees

2367
03:47:46,200 --> 03:47:53,360
 that are required once this development goes through the permitting process as I

2368
03:47:53,360 --> 03:47:58,160
 mentioned before the site is located at least a hundred feet in a direct line

2369
03:47:58,160 --> 03:48:02,800
 from the existing part to the north this is Dallas J veterans or Dallas Junior

2370
03:48:02,800 --> 03:48:08,200
 Veterans Memorial Park even though is it is really just a hundred feet in a

2371
03:48:08,200 --> 03:48:13,000
 direct line the closest and safest route would just be even so less than a

2372
03:48:13,000 --> 03:48:20,240
 quarter mile even even so the the applicant is proposing on-site amenities

2373
03:48:20,240 --> 03:48:25,240
 that I mentioned earlier that would be the active and passive recreation within

2374
03:48:25,240 --> 03:48:33,440
 that open space area staff did get in contact with DISD regarding the capacity

2375
03:48:33,440 --> 03:48:40,120
 of our school system so pretty at DISD this site would generate 69 additional

2376
03:48:40,120 --> 03:48:44,280
 elementary students 15 middle school students and 18 high school students

2377
03:48:44,280 --> 03:48:48,440
 these would be within the attendance zones of Stevens Elementary Meyers

2378
03:48:48,440 --> 03:48:53,200
 Middle School and Ryan High School the elementary school does have capacity to

2379
03:48:53,200 --> 03:48:57,840
 serve the development and as does Myers Middle School and Ryan High School

2380
03:48:57,840 --> 03:49:04,000
 however that would be limited capacity that DISD would serve to accommodate as

2381
03:49:04,000 --> 03:49:07,240
 long as there's no additional residential growth within the attendance

2382
03:49:07,240 --> 03:49:12,880
 zone they also did not have any additional concerns with this

2383
03:49:12,880 --> 03:49:19,040
 development in particular staff did reach out through public notices a legal

2384
03:49:19,040 --> 03:49:26,480
 ad and the applicant did provide their notices or their signs on the site

2385
03:49:26,480 --> 03:49:32,040
 within 200 feet we did not receive any immediate responses however staff has

2386
03:49:32,040 --> 03:49:39,440
 received responses from approximately 28 people as of today 21 of those these

2387
03:49:39,440 --> 03:49:45,920
 would be outside or within and outside the 500 foot area 21 responses in

2388
03:49:45,920 --> 03:49:50,360
 opposition two in favor and five would be neutral or just seeking general

2389
03:49:50,360 --> 03:49:54,720
 information so staff received these responses via email phone calls and

2390
03:49:54,720 --> 03:50:01,240
 through the online form that is on our website and I will mention this the the

2391
03:50:01,240 --> 03:50:05,680
 applicant did hold three neighborhood meetings these were meetings with the

2392
03:50:05,680 --> 03:50:11,440
 pecan preserve at Pecan Creek HOA to get feedback regarding their development

2393
03:50:11,440 --> 03:50:17,760
 plans and with this staff is recommending approval of the SUP with

2394
03:50:17,760 --> 03:50:21,560
 the following conditions one that landscaping in the attached plan

2395
03:50:21,560 --> 03:50:26,080
 reflects an intent to comply with our current DDC requirements that's regards

2396
03:50:26,080 --> 03:50:30,120
 to parking street trees minimum landscape and canopy areas as well as the

2397
03:50:30,120 --> 03:50:34,160
 compatibility buffers so this would allow minor alterations to the depicted

2398
03:50:34,160 --> 03:50:39,480
 locations of individual plantings and final individual plant selections that

2399
03:50:39,480 --> 03:50:43,520
 could be approved by city staff provided that those final landscaping

2400
03:50:43,520 --> 03:50:48,840
 complies with the attached plan again in terms of buffer overall landscaping

2401
03:50:48,840 --> 03:50:53,040
 street trees mature tree canopy as well as other elements in the Denton

2402
03:50:53,040 --> 03:50:59,200
 Development Code second relates to tree preservation so the tree preservation

2403
03:50:59,200 --> 03:51:03,120
 shown on the attached plans really just reflects an intent to comply with the

2404
03:51:03,120 --> 03:51:07,920
 2019 development code standards for tree preservation replacement and

2405
03:51:07,920 --> 03:51:13,680
 mitigation however as I mentioned before mitigation through the use of plantings

2406
03:51:13,680 --> 03:51:18,560
 within the conservation easement would be dedicated to the city but it also may

2407
03:51:18,560 --> 03:51:23,400
 be met using the Denton Wildscape program payment in lieu or any other

2408
03:51:23,400 --> 03:51:28,680
 method as permitted in the Denton Development Code section 7.74 which

2409
03:51:28,680 --> 03:51:33,640
 relates to tree preservation the third condition relates to sidewalk

2410
03:51:33,640 --> 03:51:38,980
 extensions so site sidewalks must be constructed concurrent with other public

2411
03:51:38,980 --> 03:51:43,360
 improvements along the frontages of Lakeview Boulevard and Shady Shores Road

2412
03:51:43,360 --> 03:51:46,960
 that would ensure that there's that connectivity with the development

2413
03:51:46,960 --> 03:51:50,840
 ensuring that there's pedestrian pedestrian and bike access around the

2414
03:51:50,840 --> 03:51:56,560
 area fourth there was a change in the condition from the staff report until

2415
03:51:56,560 --> 03:52:01,320
 now the applicant did request some minor changes and staff did not have any

2416
03:52:01,320 --> 03:52:06,040
 opposition to this which was just to reduce the specificity of the

2417
03:52:06,040 --> 03:52:11,200
 improvements required so for sewer extension off-site sanitary upgrades and

2418
03:52:11,200 --> 03:52:15,040
 or improvements to the downstream wastewater infrastructure must be

2419
03:52:15,040 --> 03:52:19,360
 constructed concurrent with other required public improvements in order

2420
03:52:19,360 --> 03:52:26,480
 to serve the multifamily development fourth sorry I had to catch my breath

2421
03:52:26,480 --> 03:52:30,880
 would be related to that easement abandonment again approval of the

2422
03:52:30,880 --> 03:52:35,080
 structural analysis of those proposed retaining walls along the right-of-way

2423
03:52:35,080 --> 03:52:39,960
 would need to be approved with the civil engineering plans and and prior to

2424
03:52:39,960 --> 03:52:45,240
 final plan approval as well as approval of the proposed abandonment of for the

2425
03:52:45,240 --> 03:52:49,800
 four slope and drainage easements that were shown next relates to the

2426
03:52:49,800 --> 03:52:54,200
 alternative ESA plan that will be following this presentation approval of

2427
03:52:54,200 --> 03:52:58,200
 an AESA would be required for those proposed encroachments related to the

2428
03:52:58,200 --> 03:53:06,100
 retaining walls into the riparian buffer and floodplain ESA seventh condition is

2429
03:53:06,100 --> 03:53:10,680
 just to make sure that that zoning map zoning map reflects the SUP on on the

2430
03:53:10,680 --> 03:53:14,760
 property consistent with our 2019 code and then of course any administrative

2431
03:53:14,760 --> 03:53:21,200
 approvals within the first condition the city would have the ability to do that

2432
03:53:21,200 --> 03:53:26,320
 in addition to this want to make sure that some of those site elements that are

2433
03:53:26,320 --> 03:53:31,000
 provided in the site plan in Alaska landscape plan remain with this plan but

2434
03:53:31,000 --> 03:53:36,120
 allow staff to make that the ability to increase any of those amounts by at

2435
03:53:36,120 --> 03:53:41,560
 least 5% and this would be related to the number of dwelling units provided

2436
03:53:41,560 --> 03:53:46,280
 that the number of buildings remains the same I'm sorry that they may increase

2437
03:53:46,280 --> 03:53:49,480
 the number of buildings provided there's a number of units and building for

2438
03:53:49,480 --> 03:53:53,400
 footprint remains the same it also relates to the gathering and open

2439
03:53:53,400 --> 03:53:57,480
 gathering in open areas such as that fitness center and some of the amenities

2440
03:53:57,480 --> 03:54:01,240
 that were provided I won't read through it too quickly but it also talks about

2441
03:54:01,240 --> 03:54:07,840
 parking tree preservation and access so with that I can answer any questions the

2442
03:54:07,840 --> 03:54:11,760
 applicant is available on the line and does have a presentation lined up if

2443
03:54:11,760 --> 03:54:17,200
 if there's no questions for me Korean I have one question right through the bat

2444
03:54:17,200 --> 03:54:22,560
 and I just wanted some context it goes back to my previous statement about

2445
03:54:22,560 --> 03:54:28,360
 number of dwelling units flooding the city without any seemingly jobs we

2446
03:54:28,360 --> 03:54:34,800
 approved a grocery store for this lot what what happened to the grocery store

2447
03:54:34,800 --> 03:54:39,840
 can you provide some history of why we're moving from jobs to houses again

2448
03:54:39,840 --> 03:54:47,040
 definitely I can so going back to that rezoning that came in in 2017 when that

2449
03:54:47,040 --> 03:54:52,440
 rezoning came in it was for the obviously to downs on the property from

2450
03:54:52,440 --> 03:54:57,040
 that RCR district down to suburban corridor when the applicant at the time

2451
03:54:57,040 --> 03:55:03,040
 came in and made the presentation to to the PNZ and City Council they did make

2452
03:55:03,040 --> 03:55:07,080
 the kind of the claim or the intent that they would be pretty putting in that

2453
03:55:07,080 --> 03:55:12,520
 grocery store fueling station but there was no condition or overlay made with

2454
03:55:12,520 --> 03:55:16,680
 that approval indicating that that would be the the only development on the

2455
03:55:16,680 --> 03:55:22,680
 property so as they move forward with their proposed development kind of the

2456
03:55:22,680 --> 03:55:28,880
 it ended up falling through essentially there wasn't a grocery store that was

2457
03:55:28,880 --> 03:55:33,300
 able to kind of move forward with that development so they are now coming back

2458
03:55:33,300 --> 03:55:38,400
 with the residential portion of it and I believe they're on the call so they can

2459
03:55:38,400 --> 03:55:44,080
 answer that more clearly but to my knowledge and there was no specific

2460
03:55:44,080 --> 03:55:49,960
 restriction site be developed as as retail it was just something that they

2461
03:55:49,960 --> 03:55:54,640
 intended to do it's the same same property owner and applicant it is I

2462
03:55:54,640 --> 03:55:58,960
 guess this is is exactly why when a zoning case comes to us we hear the

2463
03:55:58,960 --> 03:56:05,560
 zoning portion and not get mystified by the promises that Unicorn Lake was gonna

2464
03:56:05,560 --> 03:56:10,200
 get a grocery store because I know a lot of residents there were excited to not

2465
03:56:10,200 --> 03:56:16,000
 being a food desert and have a grocery store so I'll let the other Christmas

2466
03:56:16,000 --> 03:56:19,680
 ask any questions they have and then the applicant can certainly provide their

2467
03:56:19,680 --> 03:56:24,200
 presentation Christian back yeah thank you chair I actually that my first point

2468
03:56:24,200 --> 03:56:29,480
 was exactly yours I I wasn't on commit commission at that time but I read back

2469
03:56:29,480 --> 03:56:34,440
 through and and feedback from the community seemed to completely agree with

2470
03:56:34,440 --> 03:56:40,740
 everything you just said my question to staff is a little bit about the roadways

2471
03:56:40,740 --> 03:56:44,640
 and little chicken and egging that I want to make sure that we're not making

2472
03:56:44,640 --> 03:56:52,640
 you can educate me on and that is on and it's a and I'm getting slightly ahead so

2473
03:56:52,640 --> 03:56:56,920
 I may have to revisit this in the next item and if so please tell me and I will

2474
03:56:56,920 --> 03:57:03,640
 but it seems to me that the mobility plan affects this item and so if we are

2475
03:57:03,640 --> 03:57:09,560
 going to downgrade the mobility plan from a local collector to a local street

2476
03:57:09,560 --> 03:57:15,320
 and those have different designations and different rules different TIs and you

2477
03:57:15,320 --> 03:57:19,040
 you mentioned an intersection on the 5% that the developer would have to pay

2478
03:57:19,040 --> 03:57:23,920
 for the light if we downgrade that but it's my understanding please correct me

2479
03:57:23,920 --> 03:57:31,840
 that if that you have to have a certain size street on the mobility plan to

2480
03:57:31,840 --> 03:57:39,280
 justify seven four seven eight a which is the use of the alternative easement

2481
03:57:39,280 --> 03:57:45,800
 provisions for disturbance and so yeah I know I'm mixing two items here and I

2482
03:57:45,800 --> 03:57:50,920
 don't I I'm aware of that but it does seem like them if the mobility plan is

2483
03:57:50,920 --> 03:57:55,200
 going to downgrade to something that doesn't allow the open her can you

2484
03:57:55,200 --> 03:58:04,960
 educate me about that so I could probably speak to the encroachment and

2485
03:58:04,960 --> 03:58:10,480
 maybe Christie could probably speak to that better in the next presentation I

2486
03:58:10,480 --> 03:58:13,000
 was gonna say if it's if it's more appropriate to bring it up in next

2487
03:58:13,000 --> 03:58:18,320
 presentation but the reason I bring it up now is is if we vote on this now and

2488
03:58:18,320 --> 03:58:26,720
 then we have to say the alt ESA is invalid then we invalidate this one so

2489
03:58:26,720 --> 03:58:30,520
 this is where we're saying it's a little chicken and eggy so I do think it's

2490
03:58:30,520 --> 03:58:36,500
 appropriate to bring it up at this point definitely so within those ESA areas

2491
03:58:36,500 --> 03:58:42,560
 there are obviously encroachment is prohibited there are certain allowances

2492
03:58:42,560 --> 03:58:47,360
 within those areas that that wouldn't require the ESA the alt ESA and some

2493
03:58:47,360 --> 03:58:51,720
 that would regarding the encroachment into Shady Shores that would be a

2494
03:58:51,720 --> 03:58:57,120
 permitted activity is not actually part of the AESA presentation that's coming

2495
03:58:57,120 --> 03:59:01,000
 up after this but you do make I do understand your point is that if the

2496
03:59:01,000 --> 03:59:05,400
 property is downgraded or I'm sorry not the property but the the roadway

2497
03:59:05,400 --> 03:59:10,720
 classification of Shady Shores is downgraded from a collector to a local

2498
03:59:10,720 --> 03:59:14,480
 street then that would affect you know whether they could encroach or not I

2499
03:59:14,480 --> 03:59:21,440
 would speak to the current mobility plan which is currently in effect so while we

2500
03:59:21,440 --> 03:59:27,080
 are while I did indicate that it is in the draft mobility plan to be downgraded

2501
03:59:27,080 --> 03:59:30,880
 isn't something that is in place currently so we would have to go with

2502
03:59:30,880 --> 03:59:36,560
 whatever the the current mobility plan states now so I don't know if Richard

2503
03:59:36,560 --> 03:59:40,520
 wants to jump in on this but we also have some of our traffic engineering staff

2504
03:59:40,520 --> 03:59:45,480
 that might be able to speak on this on the call I think the only thing I'll add

2505
03:59:45,480 --> 03:59:49,880
 is really two different things that the slope easement is really related to the

2506
03:59:49,880 --> 03:59:54,800
 road and construction and maintenance of that separate and apart from the

2507
03:59:54,800 --> 03:59:59,360
 environmentally sensitive area and so I think I think there's a number of issues

2508
03:59:59,360 --> 04:00:03,400
 and I'm sure they'll get into it when they get into their presentation but

2509
04:00:03,400 --> 04:00:06,920
 there will be substantial grading on this site as well so at that point in

2510
04:00:06,920 --> 04:00:11,720
 time once that's done and some of those road improvements are done sidewalks are

2511
04:00:11,720 --> 04:00:15,600
 put in that slope easement most likely won't be needed because quite honestly

2512
04:00:15,600 --> 04:00:19,960
 there probably won't be a slope once they once they grade the site but again

2513
04:00:19,960 --> 04:00:25,160
 I'll let them explain a little more in detail how that how they'll do that if

2514
04:00:25,160 --> 04:00:30,160
 that helps and I know Shandra's on the phone as well from traffic

2515
04:00:30,160 --> 04:00:37,320
 engineering okay so the thing I think this is more I was reading it in 747 which

2516
04:00:37,320 --> 04:00:42,720
 I think is more of the sustainability and environmental section that as I

2517
04:00:42,720 --> 04:00:48,000
 understand it I mean I just don't want us to get in the situation where we we

2518
04:00:48,000 --> 04:00:52,840
 have a road that where as a larger road it allows us to make certain exceptions

2519
04:00:52,840 --> 04:00:58,600
 for mobility but then we say we're going to downgrade this road and and then I

2520
04:00:58,600 --> 04:01:08,400
 take hers Karina's point that I take her he was point that that we're looking at

2521
04:01:08,400 --> 04:01:13,560
 the conditions now but then we we approve it the conditions now and then

2522
04:01:13,560 --> 04:01:18,880
 the very next item we're talking about Alt ESA and the future and we're setting

2523
04:01:18,880 --> 04:01:24,560
 up this sort of reverse domino and and I just want to be careful that you know we

2524
04:01:24,560 --> 04:01:28,560
 we look at the large picture here and a lot you know what is allowed for a

2525
04:01:28,560 --> 04:01:32,560
 certain size Street and and and you know what are the rules for a certain site

2526
04:01:32,560 --> 04:01:37,280
 thing and I feel like we're we're we're definitely putting a little bit of the

2527
04:01:37,280 --> 04:01:41,120
 cart before the horse on this one

2528
04:01:41,120 --> 04:01:49,280
 I'm not sure if Christy if you just want to touch on the point related to you

2529
04:01:49,280 --> 04:01:55,680
 know permitted encroachments yeah maybe that's all again I want to make sure we

2530
04:01:55,680 --> 04:01:59,620
 were talking about the road separately from the Alt ESA because the road the

2531
04:01:59,620 --> 04:02:04,480
 road has not has no effect on the road designation is no effect on the Alt ESA

2532
04:02:04,480 --> 04:02:08,360
 Christie's mentioned that she does have a slide relating specifically to that

2533
04:02:08,360 --> 04:02:12,240
 encroachment in the next presentation I'm not I know it goes back to your point

2534
04:02:12,240 --> 04:02:16,200
 that we're putting the the cart before the horse and it's I'm not sure if you

2535
04:02:16,200 --> 04:02:21,600
 want her to address maybe very briefly that item now in the next I don't know

2536
04:02:21,600 --> 04:02:24,480
 if we're allowed to do that that's I'm trying to be really careful as the

2537
04:02:24,480 --> 04:02:35,080
 proper rules here I just don't you know I would perhaps defer to Cynthia I think

2538
04:02:35,080 --> 04:02:38,040
 it's important to note that we have a condition one of the conditions of

2539
04:02:38,040 --> 04:02:43,440
 approval is approval of the alternate ESA so if that alternate ESA is

2540
04:02:43,440 --> 04:02:47,400
 ultimately not approved by council then they could not meet that condition of

2541
04:02:47,400 --> 04:02:51,000
 approval and therefore could not proceed I thought about that Richard but if we

2542
04:02:51,000 --> 04:02:54,720
 are going to downgrade the road that that's a future event which means that

2543
04:02:54,720 --> 04:03:02,040
 but we're we're still considering it now it's so I I mean I I mean we can argue

2544
04:03:02,040 --> 04:03:05,560
 and I and I would take the point that you have to look at the conditions on

2545
04:03:05,560 --> 04:03:10,200
 the ground but if it's in the plan to downgrade the road then you see my

2546
04:03:10,200 --> 04:03:14,640
 quandary here again I don't think that the downgrading of the road would would

2547
04:03:14,640 --> 04:03:19,080
 have would have an effect either way I think I think it's identified that the

2548
04:03:19,080 --> 04:03:24,400
 traffic signals needed with with or without it and then the only thing that

2549
04:03:24,400 --> 04:03:30,840
 really partly changed was the waiver that again contingent on the approval of

2550
04:03:30,840 --> 04:03:36,680
 the SGP of the diesel lanes but but I believe again I'm not the traffic

2551
04:03:36,680 --> 04:03:41,240
 engineer and would defer to you would defer to Chandra who's on the line good

2552
04:03:41,240 --> 04:03:44,960
 evening this is Chandra senior engineering traffic and I concur with

2553
04:03:44,960 --> 04:03:50,280
 Richard that downgrading has no effect on either the traffic signal or to the

2554
04:03:50,280 --> 04:03:56,960
 ESA the ground grading on the future mobility is actually due to the Lake

2555
04:03:56,960 --> 04:04:01,280
 View Boulevard that's further up north is going to be terminating there would

2556
04:04:01,280 --> 04:04:04,800
 not be adding an additional capacity on Lake View which is already four line

2557
04:04:04,800 --> 04:04:11,880
 divided section but again I think this is my issue is that there I was reading

2558
04:04:11,880 --> 04:04:17,280
 that there was rules about what were what kind of alternative sustainability

2559
04:04:17,280 --> 04:04:25,400
 and ESA are allowed under different kinds of road conditions and the it was

2560
04:04:25,400 --> 04:04:30,600
 stated that you could we could do the exceptions because this was a road on

2561
04:04:30,600 --> 04:04:34,800
 the mobility plan the way that we made that argument in Roselon that we could

2562
04:04:34,800 --> 04:04:38,240
 put a bridge over that without consideration because it's on it's a

2563
04:04:38,240 --> 04:04:43,440
 known mobility plan road if we're downgrading this off sort of the the

2564
04:04:43,440 --> 04:04:48,320
 standard collector and arterial designation then are we not then just

2565
04:04:48,320 --> 04:04:53,520
 saying that we're using one set of rules and immediately downgrading them to an

2566
04:04:53,520 --> 04:05:01,560
 appropriate set of rules it was on the plan to be downgraded since it will not

2567
04:05:01,560 --> 04:05:08,000
 generate the amount of traffic that was initially conceived in 2015 mobility

2568
04:05:08,000 --> 04:05:13,840
 plan but with the developments that's going in and what's out there there is

2569
04:05:13,840 --> 04:05:22,000
 not enough capacity even to justify widening it even more larger section but

2570
04:05:22,000 --> 04:05:33,800
 it doesn't have to do anything with the environmentally sensitive areas okay my

2571
04:05:33,800 --> 04:05:39,680
 guess my question isn't one of traffic it's one of the appropriate alignment

2572
04:05:39,680 --> 04:05:48,720
 set of rules for a sustainable element up against a traffic item all right I will

2573
04:05:48,720 --> 04:05:52,560
 I will yield the floor and think about if I can restate this question in a

2574
04:05:52,560 --> 04:05:59,160
 different way thank you mr. Beck I think at this point let's go ahead and invite

2575
04:05:59,160 --> 04:06:04,760
 oh Chris Ellis thanks I did just have a quick yeah maybe a quick question for

2576
04:06:04,760 --> 04:06:09,300
 staff it has to do with the traffic light that would be required when would

2577
04:06:09,300 --> 04:06:16,320
 that go in um since the TIA did indicate that the traffic signal is warranted due

2578
04:06:16,320 --> 04:06:20,600
 to existing traffic this would be on the responsibility of the city to to put it

2579
04:06:20,600 --> 04:06:28,200
 in I believe it is not currently on a CIP plan or on a bonded on a bond that

2580
04:06:28,200 --> 04:06:33,920
 is existing so this would this would be something that we would need to identify

2581
04:06:33,920 --> 04:06:39,600
 existing funds for in order to to appropriately plan for this and I don't

2582
04:06:39,600 --> 04:06:46,280
 know if this is also another item that Chandra would like to speak on yes

2583
04:06:46,280 --> 04:06:51,960
 that's correct since it's not a high priority based on safety or any

2584
04:06:51,960 --> 04:06:58,760
 identified improvements out there so it will be on low priority whenever we have

2585
04:06:58,760 --> 04:07:04,120
 funds to address the need of course there is need for a signal right now but

2586
04:07:04,120 --> 04:07:08,960
 it doesn't warrant we have a high priority locations that's already

2587
04:07:08,960 --> 04:07:15,960
 waiting to be in the signal okay so I think what I hear you saying is no time

2588
04:07:15,960 --> 04:07:21,640
 soon is the traffic light going in that's correct okay so I would think it

2589
04:07:21,640 --> 04:07:25,320
 would be a very high priority for the people already in the neighborhood where

2590
04:07:25,320 --> 04:07:30,400
 the traffic signal is warranted before we put 300 more dwelling units in the

2591
04:07:30,400 --> 04:07:39,880
 area but that's just my opinion okay I think we're to go ahead and allow the

2592
04:07:39,880 --> 04:07:45,940
 applicant the opportunity to present I'm not sure who the applicant is but if

2593
04:07:45,940 --> 04:07:51,100
 they could just unmute themselves and say their name and their address you

2594
04:07:51,100 --> 04:07:55,840
 have ten minutes to present your presentation

2595
04:08:13,080 --> 04:08:20,920
 is the applicant on I believe Gerald Lukey or Charles Hodges might be

2596
04:08:20,920 --> 04:08:27,000
 making can we try it again Richard or mr. Roselle can you hear me I sure can

2597
04:08:27,000 --> 04:08:33,400
 Charles thank you this is Charles Hodges with Hodges architecture one three six

2598
04:08:33,400 --> 04:08:39,600
 four two Omega Dallas we represent the ownership of covenant development in the

2599
04:08:39,600 --> 04:08:45,240
 Weber Company in this matter we appreciate your time tonight I do want

2600
04:08:45,240 --> 04:08:50,440
 to advise Karina that the video feed is actually coming in about a minute after

2601
04:08:50,440 --> 04:08:56,320
 the live conversation so I'll be flying blind I can't see your screen it's

2602
04:08:56,320 --> 04:09:01,920
 coming in a minute late to our servers evidently everyone's watching election

2603
04:09:01,920 --> 04:09:07,480
 returns continuing to come in tonight you're on the first page of the

2604
04:09:07,480 --> 04:09:13,720
 presentation yes if you could Karina put it on project overview or the second

2605
04:09:13,720 --> 04:09:24,440
 page and let me know when it's up this is in fact a 300 unit urban living

2606
04:09:24,440 --> 04:09:29,400
 community and I really want to start by saying that all multifamily is not

2607
04:09:29,400 --> 04:09:34,280
 created equal there are a lot of different examples in the Denton area as

2608
04:09:34,280 --> 04:09:40,400
 y'all may or may not know we've been involved doing the razor ranch project

2609
04:09:40,400 --> 04:09:47,640
 since before I had grandkids and the oldest ones 11 now so I want to say that

2610
04:09:47,640 --> 04:09:51,400
 there are many different types of multifamily and a lot of people throw

2611
04:09:51,400 --> 04:09:57,080
 multifamily into one box and think it's all the same an urban living community

2612
04:09:57,080 --> 04:10:03,240
 is really based on creating a special place and one that solves a lot of

2613
04:10:03,240 --> 04:10:08,360
 issues in today's lifestyles our typical demographic is made up of young

2614
04:10:08,360 --> 04:10:13,720
 professionals young married couples who don't want to or not able financially to

2615
04:10:13,720 --> 04:10:19,720
 commit to a home but they want to be in that area it's also made up of empty

2616
04:10:19,720 --> 04:10:23,920
 nesters and broken nesters who want to stay in their social circle but no

2617
04:10:23,920 --> 04:10:30,440
 longer can afford or justify having a large home but want to be in that area

2618
04:10:30,440 --> 04:10:36,400
 last is freedom seniors that's a category that really are folks that they

2619
04:10:36,400 --> 04:10:40,160
 don't want to have a five-bedroom home when all the kids are gone and move away

2620
04:10:40,160 --> 04:10:44,200
 they're beyond empty nesters because they want the freedom to live in a

2621
04:10:44,200 --> 04:10:49,320
 community like this and turn all that maintenance obligation over to someone

2622
04:10:49,320 --> 04:10:55,200
 else and be free to travel where they want to this type of urban living unit

2623
04:10:55,200 --> 04:11:04,040
 is a set of amenities unlike any other the demands of today's world and somewhat

2624
04:11:04,040 --> 04:11:09,320
 in answer to mr. Roselle's question about how are we creating jobs there

2625
04:11:09,320 --> 04:11:15,280
 this unfortunate byproduct or the fortunate byproduct of the unfortunate

2626
04:11:15,280 --> 04:11:22,840
 circumstances we're in now the remote working community is now enlarging on a

2627
04:11:22,840 --> 04:11:29,060
 daily basis and it may in fact be a permanent fixture in the lifestyle from

2628
04:11:29,060 --> 04:11:34,840
 here on out a lot of our folks and our residents may actually choose to work

2629
04:11:34,840 --> 04:11:41,440
 remotely from their urban living community and what we provide in this

2630
04:11:41,440 --> 04:11:48,160
 type of development is not an arrangement of three-story exterior stair

2631
04:11:48,160 --> 04:11:55,160
 walk-up barracks looking garden apartments this is a combined community

2632
04:11:55,160 --> 04:12:02,840
 which encourages socialization as the most remote robust data speed and

2633
04:12:02,840 --> 04:12:10,440
 internet capabilities indoor and outdoor Wi-Fi zones with great strength and

2634
04:12:10,440 --> 04:12:17,600
 consistency social areas that are concentrated both within and adjacent to

2635
04:12:17,600 --> 04:12:23,480
 building clusters which really urge people not to be separated by many small

2636
04:12:23,480 --> 04:12:29,200
 buildings but create a community or micro communities within one larger

2637
04:12:29,200 --> 04:12:35,800
 combined building area shared workspaces for the remote work will be very

2638
04:12:35,800 --> 04:12:41,560
 important in the new generation of urban community and a lot of other outdoor

2639
04:12:41,560 --> 04:12:47,720
 social and gathering sites to create what we think is a unique living experience

2640
04:12:47,720 --> 04:12:53,560
 and one that doesn't want to be held back by the past developments for the

2641
04:12:53,560 --> 04:13:01,480
 last 30 years which are now obsolete prototypes in our three meetings with

2642
04:13:01,480 --> 04:13:05,760
 the residents we had great meetings they were all very respectful I really

2643
04:13:05,760 --> 04:13:12,440
 appreciated the tenor of all the meetings we learned a lot listening we

2644
04:13:12,440 --> 04:13:17,880
 were able to go back and talk to the ownership about beefing up the street

2645
04:13:17,880 --> 04:13:22,200
 tree array and and that's something that's not easy but we really listened

2646
04:13:22,200 --> 04:13:27,360
 to what the president said about the experience along Lakeview and we went

2647
04:13:27,360 --> 04:13:33,000
 back and and quite frankly spent a lot of money and and really beefed up and

2648
04:13:33,000 --> 04:13:38,280
 actually added a second row of street trees that are understory trees to give

2649
04:13:38,280 --> 04:13:45,480
 us a dimensional separation from Lakeview we heard a lot about the zoning issues

2650
04:13:45,480 --> 04:13:52,600
 but again as Karina has very detailed explained that the multifamily isn't

2651
04:13:52,600 --> 04:13:58,160
 allowed use and an appropriate use and a good transitional use for this piece of

2652
04:13:58,160 --> 04:14:04,480
 property we heard about environmental present preservation and I think not only

2653
04:14:04,480 --> 04:14:11,640
 have our efforts been realized and and certainly we work closely not only with

2654
04:14:11,640 --> 04:14:17,920
 the city staff but also with parks and the first place I went when I began to

2655
04:14:17,920 --> 04:14:23,600
 work on this was to approach mr. packin and drew Huffman and talk about what we

2656
04:14:23,600 --> 04:14:30,160
 could make out of this preservation area keeping its pristine natural side but

2657
04:14:30,160 --> 04:14:36,840
 also making it an inviting order for interface with wildlife access and

2658
04:14:36,840 --> 04:14:43,080
 transportation were huge issues the amenities and resident profiles are

2659
04:14:43,080 --> 04:14:47,300
 something that I will address in answer to some of the questions and then the

2660
04:14:47,300 --> 04:14:51,480
 development history mr. Roselle and mr. back I'll actually answer your

2661
04:14:51,480 --> 04:14:58,720
 questions about that as the process concludes Karina we can move to the next

2662
04:14:58,720 --> 04:15:04,240
 side I'm sorry the next slide this illustrates in color the layout of the

2663
04:15:04,240 --> 04:15:10,440
 buildings which occupy approximately 10 acres of an almost 22 acre piece of

2664
04:15:10,440 --> 04:15:18,300
 property that preservation and conservation area comes one with the

2665
04:15:18,300 --> 04:15:22,960
 building arrangement and we have set aside these areas and place these

2666
04:15:22,960 --> 04:15:28,020
 buildings carefully with a lot of discussion with staff in order to

2667
04:15:28,020 --> 04:15:34,320
 appreciate and respect the conservation and preservation areas but also to

2668
04:15:34,320 --> 04:15:39,960
 create the urban edge that the staff encourages and almost mandates on every

2669
04:15:39,960 --> 04:15:44,160
 property so that we move into a new generation of residential development

2670
04:15:44,160 --> 04:15:53,480
 next slide please Karina environmental presentation are we on that slide it's

2671
04:15:53,480 --> 04:15:57,360
 at the wild scapes program slide yeah I've moved on to the wildscape program

2672
04:15:57,360 --> 04:16:03,720
 okay well while scapes is something we're very passionate about obviously

2673
04:16:03,720 --> 04:16:08,600
 conservation and the encouragement of the park areas to when they are a

2674
04:16:08,600 --> 04:16:16,040
 natural basin like this is we're very involved in bird conservation we found

2675
04:16:16,040 --> 04:16:21,200
 that a program that now has over 2 million acres in bird conservation areas

2676
04:16:21,200 --> 04:16:26,520
 throughout the area west of Fort Worth so it's near and dear to us as creative

2677
04:16:26,520 --> 04:16:31,640
 architects and planners the wildscape program is something that we have

2678
04:16:31,640 --> 04:16:37,960
 committed to try to get to their certification the state right now because

2679
04:16:37,960 --> 04:16:44,240
 of COVID is not accepting certification applications but I think the interest is

2680
04:16:44,240 --> 04:16:50,400
 there from parks now to work with us side-by-side to work with Texas Parks

2681
04:16:50,400 --> 04:16:56,080
 and Wildlife and really make that conservation area all that it can be in a

2682
04:16:56,080 --> 04:17:03,640
 respected wildlife quarter the next slide is access and transportation I

2683
04:17:03,640 --> 04:17:08,160
 won't belabor these issues because Karina did a great job of explaining both the

2684
04:17:08,160 --> 04:17:13,680
 entry and exit locations with the primary traffic in and out off of shady

2685
04:17:13,680 --> 04:17:19,720
 shores I will point out on this slide in access and transportation this property

2686
04:17:19,720 --> 04:17:24,640
 was actually granted a median break on Lakeview but we chose not to do that

2687
04:17:24,640 --> 04:17:30,040
 with this particular use because we felt like that turn movements there and the

2688
04:17:30,040 --> 04:17:35,520
 existing congestion on Lakeview could be helped by not creating left-hand turn

2689
04:17:35,520 --> 04:17:43,700
 opportunity northbound on Lakeview we understand that the traffic is busy now

2690
04:17:43,700 --> 04:17:49,440
 as your PIA and your city staff has pointed out it's already a low

2691
04:17:49,440 --> 04:17:54,520
 performing intersection we think that and agree that obviously before we do

2692
04:17:54,520 --> 04:18:02,120
 anything the the situation is already there the location this is the

2693
04:18:02,120 --> 04:18:12,480
 transportation summary slide if you will please Karina we're on it okay thank

2694
04:18:12,480 --> 04:18:17,240
 you it's very important to look at the reality not the perception but the

2695
04:18:17,240 --> 04:18:22,240
 reality of what the ITE trip generation manuals and the accepted traffic

2696
04:18:22,240 --> 04:18:28,040
 engineering standards show for our type of the development compared with retail

2697
04:18:28,040 --> 04:18:34,360
 or grocery development as it showed in and was reflected in the PIA this

2698
04:18:34,360 --> 04:18:40,680
 development generates approximately 1632 daily trips what's very important is the

2699
04:18:40,680 --> 04:18:47,000
 comparison to retail or grocery store if this was a retail mix multi-tenant

2700
04:18:47,000 --> 04:18:52,320
 retail mix it would approximately generate three times that amount of

2701
04:18:52,320 --> 04:18:58,160
 traffic for 4717 daily trips and if it was a grocery store it would be almost

2702
04:18:58,160 --> 04:19:04,360
 four times the daily trip generation of what our proposed development will do

2703
04:19:04,360 --> 04:19:09,760
 and the thing that is important to think about a grocery store is active till 10

2704
04:19:09,760 --> 04:19:15,200
 30 at night our residents get home they want to cook their dinner they want to

2705
04:19:15,200 --> 04:19:20,680
 relax they want to be part of our amenities package her development pretty

2706
04:19:20,680 --> 04:19:26,880
 well calms down at the end of the p.m. peak traffic period so we really don't

2707
04:19:26,880 --> 04:19:32,840
 generate that 6 to 10 o'clock traffic a lot of these trips though are congested

2708
04:19:32,840 --> 04:19:37,560
 of if it were a grocery store people would be on their way home already in

2709
04:19:37,560 --> 04:19:42,400
 the p.m. peak and generating four times the amount of traffic so I think our

2710
04:19:42,400 --> 04:19:49,520
 development is right size I think it is low impact and the IT trip generation

2711
04:19:49,520 --> 04:19:53,800
 numbers basically compare our development with one small fast food

2712
04:19:53,800 --> 04:19:58,080
 restaurant that probably wouldn't do Chick-fil-a right now because I think

2713
04:19:58,080 --> 04:20:03,880
 they do even more than that but at this point I think that focusing on the

2714
04:20:03,880 --> 04:20:09,160
 streets and the street improvements Shady Shores is a was a big interest of

2715
04:20:09,160 --> 04:20:13,880
 ours to create a different streetscape there currently as you know and the

2716
04:20:13,880 --> 04:20:19,000
 residents well know it's a two track road basically a two-lane patchwork

2717
04:20:19,000 --> 04:20:23,120
 asphalt section it's not in great condition that's on the next

2718
04:20:23,120 --> 04:20:30,200
 transportation improvement slide please Karina I apologize again I just can't

2719
04:20:30,200 --> 04:20:38,760
 see your your your screen okay thank you obviously Shady Shores has an

2720
04:20:38,760 --> 04:20:43,760
 opportunity and I was visiting with planning staff about this early on can we

2721
04:20:43,760 --> 04:20:50,280
 improve that beyond what it is to change the character of the street and create

2722
04:20:50,280 --> 04:20:56,360
 extra lane width extra buffer width and really make that street even though it's

2723
04:20:56,360 --> 04:21:01,120
 being downgraded in the master mobility plan we can create a character street

2724
04:21:01,120 --> 04:21:05,120
 there and that's why we added the on-street parking that's why we added

2725
04:21:05,120 --> 04:21:11,200
 the 8-foot walk instead of 7 that's why we had the opportunity to create to

2726
04:21:11,200 --> 04:21:15,880
 connect the bike and and mobility connections from a pedestrian and

2727
04:21:15,880 --> 04:21:21,240
 bicycle standpoint yeah just gonna briefly interrupt you here you're at

2728
04:21:21,240 --> 04:21:23,920
 your 10 minutes so there's a way to wrap it up I want to be respectful for the

2729
04:21:23,920 --> 04:21:30,080
 individuals waiting online to start as well so to start checking in if we could

2730
04:21:30,080 --> 04:21:36,860
 skip forward three slides to the street profiles I'll try to rush through this

2731
04:21:36,860 --> 04:21:42,800
 it shows profiles of the sections of both Lakeview and Shady Shores are we on

2732
04:21:42,800 --> 04:21:47,600
 that yes sir we're on the screen it's on the screen thank you thank you very much

2733
04:21:47,600 --> 04:21:51,560
 there is a variable width right away along Shady Shores but I hope I've

2734
04:21:51,560 --> 04:21:56,760
 adequately described the fact that we're trying to positively change the profile

2735
04:21:56,760 --> 04:22:01,840
 of Shady Shores one thing that's made slip a lot of people and may not be

2736
04:22:01,840 --> 04:22:05,960
 pointed out is the fact that along Lakeview there's a very wide right-of-way

2737
04:22:05,960 --> 04:22:12,800
 section in addition to the buffer section and in fact there's about a 47

2738
04:22:12,800 --> 04:22:19,080
 foot setback of the building rather than the 20 foot setback effectively there's

2739
04:22:19,080 --> 04:22:25,440
 a 47 foot setback of the buildings along Lakeview which enables us to get our two

2740
04:22:25,440 --> 04:22:31,520
 rows of trees in there without it looking cramped or cluttered our amenity

2741
04:22:31,520 --> 04:22:36,240
 package I've described for you I won't bore you with a lot of shots of pretty

2742
04:22:36,240 --> 04:22:41,460
 amenity areas obviously we intend to build the finest quality that's been

2743
04:22:41,460 --> 04:22:47,240
 built in Denton our resident profiles very important and that was one of the

2744
04:22:47,240 --> 04:22:51,800
 questions that the residents asked and we likened this and and really looked at

2745
04:22:51,800 --> 04:22:57,560
 the comparison of our rental rate at about $1,200 to $1,750 a month which

2746
04:22:57,560 --> 04:23:04,920
 equates to approximately the purchase of a $250,000 house it does not though

2747
04:23:04,920 --> 04:23:10,280
 include the extra tax burden on a single-family residence purchase so

2748
04:23:10,280 --> 04:23:14,400
 that's what we're really looking at is reality I've described the type of

2749
04:23:14,400 --> 04:23:20,240
 residence we have average age around 37 married residents about eight roommates

2750
04:23:20,240 --> 04:23:25,680
 potentially around six but the majority are single residents or young married

2751
04:23:25,680 --> 04:23:30,160
 couples that are starting their professional life we've all been at that

2752
04:23:30,160 --> 04:23:35,560
 stage and I would hope that we would embrace that and I think that one of the

2753
04:23:35,560 --> 04:23:39,200
 goals that I read about in the record Chronicle the other day was how do we

2754
04:23:39,200 --> 04:23:44,360
 keep our young professionals here how do we create those opportunities and housing

2755
04:23:44,360 --> 04:23:50,280
 options to keep those young professionals here to become a part of development I

2756
04:23:50,280 --> 04:23:56,440
 hope that we have answered we endeavored to answer the residents questions we had

2757
04:23:56,440 --> 04:24:01,160
 three great meetings we tried to definitively answer all questions at the

2758
04:24:01,160 --> 04:24:07,200
 end of our last meeting we heard no more questions so stand ready to answer any

2759
04:24:07,200 --> 04:24:13,960
 questions at this point thank you for the presentation anyone have any

2760
04:24:13,960 --> 04:24:20,520
 questions start out I don't see the first one I had you just mentioned that

2761
04:24:20,520 --> 04:24:24,240
 you said the dinner I her chronic will talk about keeping people in Denton and

2762
04:24:24,240 --> 04:24:27,960
 that you're in a strive to do that I didn't necessarily hear how you're

2763
04:24:27,960 --> 04:24:31,720
 planning on keeping them in Denton you're not providing jobs for them so

2764
04:24:31,720 --> 04:24:37,720
 can you help me understand that actually it's a connection with the fact that

2765
04:24:37,720 --> 04:24:44,000
 remote working is now a real part of a lot of millennial and young lives as

2766
04:24:44,000 --> 04:24:48,880
 well as myself at 69 in remote working right now I don't know that I'll do that

2767
04:24:48,880 --> 04:24:53,560
 permanently but I think a lot of those young professional jobs are translating

2768
04:24:53,560 --> 04:24:59,200
 to permanent off-site work remote working opportunity the fact that we are

2769
04:24:59,200 --> 04:25:03,680
 putting so much into our technology we really think we're providing the best

2770
04:25:03,680 --> 04:25:07,760
 launch pad for that in order to keep those folks within the Denton area and

2771
04:25:07,760 --> 04:25:12,040
 not have them burning up the road as you described in the work session south

2772
04:25:12,040 --> 04:25:18,000
 bound on 377 yeah I appreciate that and you and you kind of lead me to my next

2773
04:25:18,000 --> 04:25:22,120
 point about burning up the road your initial slide was that all multifamily

2774
04:25:22,120 --> 04:25:26,760
 living is our multifamily is not created equal and that you're creating an urban

2775
04:25:26,760 --> 04:25:32,120
 living work environment but ran to a quick Google Maps the closest grocery

2776
04:25:32,120 --> 04:25:37,280
 store is 3.6 miles away it's a Kroger Albertsons 3.4 miles away the

2777
04:25:37,280 --> 04:25:42,700
 affirmation chick-fil-a is 3.4 miles away Chewie's is 3 miles away Jason's

2778
04:25:42,700 --> 04:25:48,200
 deli Google says is a one-hour walk from your property dry cleaning is 3.9 miles

2779
04:25:48,200 --> 04:25:53,160
 away and the closest gas station is 1.7 miles away if you walk down I-35

2780
04:25:53,160 --> 04:25:56,640
 directly to quick trip so you mentioned the important looking at reality versus

2781
04:25:56,640 --> 04:26:00,480
 perception I'm wondering how you're not creating us burning up the road when no

2782
04:26:00,480 --> 04:26:07,040
 one can walk to anywhere in your urban living creation well I think that you

2783
04:26:07,040 --> 04:26:11,000
 have to look at balance and everything and I'd like to address your your first

2784
04:26:11,000 --> 04:26:15,480
 question with my last slide if I could Karina would you put the development

2785
04:26:15,480 --> 04:26:20,840
 history slide up please yes sir let me let me pull that up right now that'd be

2786
04:26:20,840 --> 04:26:38,960
 in my last next the last slide I guess okay it's on the screen thank you so

2787
04:26:38,960 --> 04:26:44,160
 much mr. Roselle and answer your question this is the development history

2788
04:26:44,160 --> 04:26:50,280
 our owner has owned this project for more than five years our owner is one of

2789
04:26:50,280 --> 04:26:56,160
 the most noted retail developers in Texas he's probably done more target

2790
04:26:56,160 --> 04:27:01,140
 anchored retail centers of large scale I know that they've created over 15

2791
04:27:01,140 --> 04:27:06,840
 million square feet of retail and if retail was a reality here they're the

2792
04:27:06,840 --> 04:27:11,960
 best to do it we've worked with them for 30 years and we know their retail history

2793
04:27:11,960 --> 04:27:17,880
 and their capability but here was the reality of the site the original concept

2794
04:27:17,880 --> 04:27:22,840
 was a program burger spent over four hundred thousand dollars in due

2795
04:27:22,840 --> 04:27:28,280
 diligence cost and then terminated any interest in the project and abandoned it

2796
04:27:28,280 --> 04:27:32,240
 they felt like there were restricted environmental conditions they felt like

2797
04:27:32,240 --> 04:27:37,680
 there was a lack of residential density it just didn't fit their model and they

2798
04:27:37,680 --> 04:27:41,840
 couldn't make it work after spending almost half a million dollars the site

2799
04:27:41,840 --> 04:27:46,920
 was presented to many other retail grocers who all declined for similar

2800
04:27:46,920 --> 04:27:53,760
 reasons we can't force them onto a site but the current plan that we're looking

2801
04:27:53,760 --> 04:28:00,960
 at is lower impact it does serve to provide housing alternatives for other

2802
04:28:00,960 --> 04:28:06,240
 people that we are trying to retain and attract to not only Denton but any city

2803
04:28:06,240 --> 04:28:11,960
 and it does act as the appropriate buffer between the density residential

2804
04:28:11,960 --> 04:28:18,920
 I-35 ambient noise at 80 decibels and a lot of other things there is a site

2805
04:28:18,920 --> 04:28:25,480
 adjacent owned by the same team and they do have opportunity and intent to try to

2806
04:28:25,480 --> 04:28:32,840
 attract retail across shady shores along and close to the northern perimeter of

2807
04:28:32,840 --> 04:28:40,400
 that sign so it's not abandoned but we went through it many many times with the

2808
04:28:40,400 --> 04:28:46,760
 best retail guys developing in this part of Texas if not the state and it wasn't

2809
04:28:46,760 --> 04:28:53,720
 able to be delivered Grover terminated the negotiations and abandoned the

2810
04:28:53,720 --> 04:28:59,620
 site I hope that answers the question about the history and and the

2811
04:28:59,620 --> 04:29:04,720
 opportunity for retail it definitely answers the the question about this the

2812
04:29:04,720 --> 04:29:09,400
 history of the property it doesn't necessarily address how you believe that

2813
04:29:09,400 --> 04:29:14,800
 and a site that is with as far as I can see a radius of about four miles to

2814
04:29:14,800 --> 04:29:21,480
 anything but car dealerships is urban living well being the proud owner of a

2815
04:29:21,480 --> 04:29:26,440
 lot of retail myself co-tenancies come into play and unless you can assemble a

2816
04:29:26,440 --> 04:29:33,400
 large co-tenancy contingent and you're going to be basically putting in fast

2817
04:29:33,400 --> 04:29:38,280
 food restaurants and I don't think that's the best use of this site I do

2818
04:29:38,280 --> 04:29:43,920
 know there is a need for a competent retail development within the area but

2819
04:29:43,920 --> 04:29:49,920
 it's going to need and want to be larger than this with a better opportunity it

2820
04:29:49,920 --> 04:29:54,480
 would require right off the bat left-hand turn in and left-hand out on

2821
04:29:54,480 --> 04:30:00,120
 Lakeview I just think they've made the conscious decision to abandon that

2822
04:30:00,120 --> 04:30:04,640
 opportunity here and work on that south side over there which is going to be

2823
04:30:04,640 --> 04:30:11,320
 more appropriate for retail thank you very much for that answer so any

2824
04:30:11,320 --> 04:30:20,800
 questions for the applicant okay great what I'd like to do now is because it's

2825
04:30:20,800 --> 04:30:24,480
 public hearing is turn it over to those who've been waiting patiently to talk

2826
04:30:24,480 --> 04:30:28,560
 beforehand I have this little script to read for this item we have four people

2827
04:30:28,560 --> 04:30:31,800
 make comments using our online form there were two in support of this item

2828
04:30:31,800 --> 04:30:36,000
 and two against all these common forms are emailed to the commissioners and our

2829
04:30:36,000 --> 04:30:39,560
 city secretary to be recorded additionally there was one person who

2830
04:30:39,560 --> 04:30:45,160
 called into our phone and their position was against the item and then finally we

2831
04:30:45,160 --> 04:30:49,800
 have four people who have been waiting on the line to speak I think they're

2832
04:30:49,800 --> 04:30:55,440
 piped in to the zoom call so we'll have first Timothy Smith if you could just

2833
04:30:55,440 --> 04:30:58,920
 unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record you'll be given

2834
04:30:58,920 --> 04:31:09,080
 four minutes to talk thank you my name is Timothy Smith I'm a professor up at

2835
04:31:09,080 --> 04:31:16,560
 UNT and I just recently relocated to the Denton area I lived in the Richardson

2836
04:31:16,560 --> 04:31:21,840
 North Dallas area for close to 30 years and one of the reasons why I chose to

2837
04:31:21,840 --> 04:31:27,040
 relocate my family to this development was it was on the south edge of the

2838
04:31:27,040 --> 04:31:33,120
 city it was outside of the urban crawl and other than a couple of high density

2839
04:31:33,120 --> 04:31:39,040
 developments along shady shores it's it's pretty much a quiet and peaceful

2840
04:31:39,040 --> 04:31:45,600
 place to live and and one point I want to make with the developer and the city

2841
04:31:45,600 --> 04:31:51,120
 is is that the HOA of our neighborhood is not representing the citizens they

2842
04:31:51,120 --> 04:32:00,200
 have left it up to us individually to oppose or support the proposed rezoning

2843
04:32:00,200 --> 04:32:06,680
 of this area so your positive meetings that the developer had with certain

2844
04:32:06,680 --> 04:32:11,440
 members of our board does not resonate with what's going on in our internal HOA

2845
04:32:11,440 --> 04:32:18,000
 discussions on Facebook unfortunately I I wish more people would have publicly

2846
04:32:18,000 --> 04:32:23,280
 spoken and oppose this development because the traffic already along the

2847
04:32:23,280 --> 04:32:29,280
 shady shores Lake U heading up to the I-35 service road is it's pretty

2848
04:32:29,280 --> 04:32:36,000
 horrible during the commute times I commute up to the university every day

2849
04:32:36,000 --> 04:32:42,360
 commute home every day and I cannot tell you how many times I've almost been

2850
04:32:42,360 --> 04:32:47,080
 accidentally hit on the I-35 service road if I go the shady shores route

2851
04:32:47,080 --> 04:32:51,580
 which I choose not to go anymore I actually drive up to I-35 to get off of

2852
04:32:51,580 --> 04:33:00,360
 the access road to avoid that blind corner putting in 300 plus high density

2853
04:33:00,360 --> 04:33:07,520
 units on this property is only going to exacerbate that problem and listening to

2854
04:33:07,520 --> 04:33:10,520
 the conference call it sounds like it's gonna be a long time before we would have

2855
04:33:10,520 --> 04:33:15,400
 signals in this area putting street parking along shady short is not gonna

2856
04:33:15,400 --> 04:33:25,880
 help with the congestion along that area the commute for me is is hair-raising

2857
04:33:25,880 --> 04:33:30,920
 coming in and out of the neighborhood actually I ride my bike on a weekly

2858
04:33:30,920 --> 04:33:37,120
 basis and we I just saw an individual this past weekend that got hit by a car

2859
04:33:37,120 --> 04:33:41,800
 coming along Lakeview by the train tracks there because it's a very busy

2860
04:33:41,800 --> 04:33:48,080
 area I tried to gain access to the traffic reports I put in a public

2861
04:33:48,080 --> 04:33:52,320
 request for information on that and I have not received that yet and from what

2862
04:33:52,320 --> 04:33:57,960
 I understand from reading your notes that this is all pre-COVID as far as the

2863
04:33:57,960 --> 04:34:04,200
 analysis goes there have been additional houses built back in our development not

2864
04:34:04,200 --> 04:34:09,160
 only in the last phase but in other phases that have increased the traffic

2865
04:34:09,160 --> 04:34:16,080
 in the area beyond what I'm sure is represented within that report things

2866
04:34:16,080 --> 04:34:22,680
 I'm concerned about is bringing in 300 residents let's say there's one and a

2867
04:34:22,680 --> 04:34:27,400
 half cars per these 300 departments you're putting another 500 cars through

2868
04:34:27,400 --> 04:34:33,960
 these intersections twice a day on a busy point of the day it it's gonna make

2869
04:34:33,960 --> 04:34:36,880
 that horrible to come through that intersection the traffic that comes

2870
04:34:36,880 --> 04:34:42,600
 along shady shores coming to where they either go straight on to I-35 North or

2871
04:34:42,600 --> 04:34:47,680
 they take a left on to Lakeview going north to get on to I-35 South is

2872
04:34:47,680 --> 04:34:53,200
 incredible it's backed up every morning it's backed up on Lakeview it's backed

2873
04:34:53,200 --> 04:34:58,000
 up at the signals of 35 and that additional congestion is only going to

2874
04:34:58,000 --> 04:35:04,920
 get worse with adding these additional units at this property mr. Smith I

2875
04:35:04,920 --> 04:35:11,080
 appreciate you calling in the the timer has as passed but can I ask you a quick

2876
04:35:11,080 --> 04:35:16,360
 question I don't know how this worked it's all right I have a quick question

2877
04:35:16,360 --> 04:35:21,360
 for you if you were told this property was to develop with something not to be

2878
04:35:21,360 --> 04:35:27,600
 left as blank land what would you want to see there the thing that we need on

2879
04:35:27,600 --> 04:35:34,800
 this side of 35 and I disagree with the developer by putting in retail there we

2880
04:35:34,800 --> 04:35:39,520
 need some grocery stores some restaurants some stuff that's closed if

2881
04:35:39,520 --> 04:35:44,460
 you put in 300 apartments there there's nowhere there there's nowhere for them

2882
04:35:44,460 --> 04:35:47,760
 to shop there's nowhere for them to go they're just going to be on the road

2883
04:35:47,760 --> 04:35:52,040
 more trying to get access to stuff that I'm already accessing you know four or

2884
04:35:52,040 --> 04:35:56,880
 five miles away at either one of the Kroger's or the the Albertsons that

2885
04:35:56,880 --> 04:36:02,760
 south on 35 so I would like to see some sort of retail development or something

2886
04:36:02,760 --> 04:36:09,200
 like townhomes that is more low density and less traffic for the area I

2887
04:36:09,200 --> 04:36:17,960
 appreciate that answer mr. Beck can I can I ask the caller mr. Smith where do

2888
04:36:17,960 --> 04:36:24,160
 you shop just out of curiosity in that in that neighborhood I'm either up off

2889
04:36:24,160 --> 04:36:30,360
 of 288 or I'm going down towards and I just again I just really relocate this

2890
04:36:30,360 --> 04:36:35,520
 area I go down towards Teasley Lane so I take a post oak to like Robinson down

2891
04:36:35,520 --> 04:36:41,640
 towards you know that area to get to the to the Kroger that's down on the

2892
04:36:41,640 --> 04:36:48,240
 Teasley Lane the closest place I go is three to four miles from my house at a

2893
04:36:48,240 --> 04:36:52,020
 minimum mr. Smith sorry Commissioner Beck real fast you ever go down to the

2894
04:36:52,020 --> 04:36:57,760
 Albertsons down in Corinth I actually have just recently found that so but

2895
04:36:57,760 --> 04:37:04,360
 still that's you know that's 10 or 15 minutes away when I was in Richardson I

2896
04:37:04,360 --> 04:37:09,320
 had places that were you know three blocks away and that did not increase

2897
04:37:09,320 --> 04:37:12,940
 the traffic in our neighborhood and it's much higher density than what we have

2898
04:37:12,940 --> 04:37:17,260
 here on the south side of Denton yeah sorry Commissioner Beckett is you saw

2899
04:37:17,260 --> 04:37:22,160
 the four I apologize no no chair that's actually I the he answered and and it was

2900
04:37:22,160 --> 04:37:27,600
 it was completely a nice follow-on thank you chair any other questions for mr.

2901
04:37:27,600 --> 04:37:33,880
 Smith seen none I just want to thank the caller have a good night the next

2902
04:37:33,880 --> 04:37:38,240
 individual we have waiting for us is Christie Shiflett I believe she is also

2903
04:37:38,240 --> 04:37:44,040
 on zoom she can unmute herself and then say name and address for the record and

2904
04:37:44,040 --> 04:37:47,800
 then you'll be provided four minutes thank you my name is Christie Shiflett

2905
04:37:47,800 --> 04:37:53,840
 that address is 7612 Hinkley Oak Drive and Denton and that's in the preserves

2906
04:37:53,840 --> 04:38:00,640
 I've spent quite a bit of time looking over our Denton 2030 plan and keep

2907
04:38:00,640 --> 04:38:06,680
 going back to goal LU five where excuse me I'm a little nervous where that goal

2908
04:38:06,680 --> 04:38:10,940
 is to enhance our community character and promote functionality and this

2909
04:38:10,940 --> 04:38:16,480
 rezoning would not do that we have over 3,000 homes probably even close to 4,000

2910
04:38:16,480 --> 04:38:21,600
 out back in this area there is no walkable retail anywhere we heard this

2911
04:38:21,600 --> 04:38:26,240
 was going to be a Kroger in the entire neighborhood like me was saying this is

2912
04:38:26,240 --> 04:38:30,320
 a great idea any type of retail where our children can have a part-time job

2913
04:38:30,320 --> 04:38:35,800
 and walk to their part-time job and not have to have you know another car to get

2914
04:38:35,800 --> 04:38:41,380
 to work would be ideal but I'm gonna have to disagree with the development

2915
04:38:41,380 --> 04:38:44,920
 history where he's talking about the money that Kroger put into that area and

2916
04:38:44,920 --> 04:38:49,600
 that was five years ago he kind of canceled himself out talking about

2917
04:38:49,600 --> 04:38:53,480
 having more remote workers well yes we have a lot of remote workers in our

2918
04:38:53,480 --> 04:38:59,280
 neighborhood and there's nowhere for us to go to grab a quick lunch or to go to

2919
04:38:59,280 --> 04:39:03,800
 the grocery store or go for a walk on your lunch break to grab food because

2920
04:39:03,800 --> 04:39:09,360
 there's nothing walkable we have no option of a walkable Denton if you use

2921
04:39:09,360 --> 04:39:13,760
 this land to put more apartments there's already two apartment complexes there

2922
04:39:13,760 --> 04:39:18,560
 and they don't have anywhere to walk to so I really hope that you think about

2923
04:39:18,560 --> 04:39:25,240
 that goal and try to keep that track of land open so that we can have a walkable

2924
04:39:25,240 --> 04:39:27,880
 Denton someday

2925
04:39:27,880 --> 04:39:34,640
 ms. Shifflett I appreciate you calling in no need to be nervous is any is

2926
04:39:34,640 --> 04:39:42,480
 anyone have any questions I kind of want to echo Commissioner Beck's questions

2927
04:39:42,480 --> 04:39:46,800
 out of curiosity where's your grocery store of choice you don't have the name

2928
04:39:46,800 --> 04:39:50,440
 but if you just have a location I actually do a lot of shopping at Whole

2929
04:39:50,440 --> 04:39:55,200
 Foods so I'm in Flower Mound during the day so I'll stop at Whole Foods and then

2930
04:39:55,200 --> 04:40:00,320
 come up 2499 but it would be we'd spoke in our neighborhood on the Facebook page

2931
04:40:00,320 --> 04:40:06,200
 about one of those small whether it be Trader Joe's or Whole Foods or Central

2932
04:40:06,200 --> 04:40:08,680
 Market somewhere like that do you know how much money people in this

2933
04:40:08,680 --> 04:40:13,280
 neighborhood spend at stores like that that aren't in Denton and Denton doesn't

2934
04:40:13,280 --> 04:40:19,080
 have one anywhere close we would have it would be good for the city it would be

2935
04:40:19,080 --> 04:40:25,520
 great for our community and it would be ideal to have a smaller grocery store

2936
04:40:25,520 --> 04:40:31,320
 like that I appreciate your insights I hope you have a good night thanks for

2937
04:40:31,320 --> 04:40:37,400
 hanging out just late the next step is hope I pronounce this correctly lessel

2938
04:40:37,400 --> 04:40:42,600
 Herrera if you could just unmute and then say your name and address you'll have

2939
04:40:42,600 --> 04:40:49,360
 four minutes and it's lethal Herrera can you guys hear me we sure can okay great

2940
04:40:49,360 --> 04:40:54,960
 um I am a resident of the Preserve at Pecan Creek my home is on Heron Pond Lane

2941
04:40:54,960 --> 04:41:02,840
 at 4725 which would be in direct view of the proposed multi-unit development I am

2942
04:41:02,840 --> 04:41:07,360
 not only concerned about the quality of life safety security but also the value

2943
04:41:07,360 --> 04:41:12,120
 of homes in my neighborhood I personally am in the real estate industry and and

2944
04:41:12,120 --> 04:41:16,920
 have knowledge of that I'm also very concerned about the capacity of our

2945
04:41:16,920 --> 04:41:21,240
 current elementary and middle schools after speaking with several local real

2946
04:41:21,240 --> 04:41:25,240
 estate agents that actively sell in our neighborhood they have warned that

2947
04:41:25,240 --> 04:41:29,400
 property values will be negatively affected by a multi-unit property like

2948
04:41:29,400 --> 04:41:33,920
 this in our area in direct view they cautioned that a decrease in property

2949
04:41:33,920 --> 04:41:39,280
 value would occur and cause negative effects being as much as double digit

2950
04:41:39,280 --> 04:41:44,780
 percentages besides it hurting us as homeowners the city will also be in

2951
04:41:44,780 --> 04:41:50,520
 effect because of property taxes the schools that the preserve our zone for

2952
04:41:50,520 --> 04:41:55,200
 are already in portable classroom units because of dealing with capacity issues

2953
04:41:55,200 --> 04:42:01,680
 recently another concern that has been brought up is traffic the bottom line is

2954
04:42:01,680 --> 04:42:07,040
 there's already an issue with traffic most days when my child goes off to

2955
04:42:07,040 --> 04:42:12,680
 school it can take me 10 minutes to get to the light at 35 you guys already know

2956
04:42:12,680 --> 04:42:17,560
 this it's been a an issue that's been brought up and it really concerns me

2957
04:42:17,560 --> 04:42:21,200
 that they would even consider putting something like this in before that has

2958
04:42:21,200 --> 04:42:25,680
 been dealt with adding 300 more residents will make it a nightmare and

2959
04:42:25,680 --> 04:42:29,940
 our neighborhood is not being is not finished being developed homes are still

2960
04:42:29,940 --> 04:42:34,720
 being built and it's already a mess there are many more negatives and

2961
04:42:34,720 --> 04:42:40,560
 positives associated with this proposed development I encourage you to vote no

2962
04:42:40,560 --> 04:42:46,520
 we already have two apartments in close proximity of here and we have no retail

2963
04:42:46,520 --> 04:42:52,880
 no shopping nothing even close by us we all have to go to other cities and spend

2964
04:42:52,880 --> 04:42:57,560
 our money and tax dollars and other communities that are not benefiting from

2965
04:42:57,560 --> 04:43:03,160
 this and didn't what I would like to see as a resident is a strip center with

2966
04:43:03,160 --> 04:43:08,440
 moms and pops or low-volume retail and what one of my other neighbors mentioned

2967
04:43:08,440 --> 04:43:13,760
 a smaller more whole foods sprouts type grocery store that we don't already have

2968
04:43:13,760 --> 04:43:19,360
 I think would highly benefit the residents in our neighborhood as well as

2969
04:43:19,360 --> 04:43:25,040
 the other surrounding neighborhoods I would encourage all of you to vote

2970
04:43:25,040 --> 04:43:32,280
 against this and really consider the residents and in our neighborhood I want

2971
04:43:32,280 --> 04:43:35,080
 to thank you for your time

2972
04:43:35,080 --> 04:43:44,880
 I'll mute sorry Liesl thanks for waiting and and speaking your perspective

2973
04:43:44,880 --> 04:43:50,400
 Commissioner Smith thank you chair thank you Lisa for being on I actually have a

2974
04:43:50,400 --> 04:43:55,880
 question for you but I do yes Rena thank you very much one other thing I

2975
04:43:55,880 --> 04:43:59,720
 would like to mention because y'all asked everybody else but me about where

2976
04:43:59,720 --> 04:44:06,000
 I grocery shop where do you grocery shop Lisa tell us no I'll tell you tax

2977
04:44:06,000 --> 04:44:09,660
 dollars aren't going to Denton town to Denton they're going to Flower Mound and

2978
04:44:09,660 --> 04:44:14,040
 Highland Village because that's where the Whole Foods the sprouts and the bigger

2979
04:44:14,040 --> 04:44:19,680
 grocery stores are at well thank you for letting us know Lisa that's that's much

2980
04:44:19,680 --> 04:44:24,720
 appreciated and yeah I think we hear your here your concerns so thank you

2981
04:44:24,720 --> 04:44:28,880
 very much for coming on thanks Lisa Karina can I ask you a quick question

2982
04:44:28,880 --> 04:44:31,760
 and and I know this is something that Commissioner Beck asked a little bit

2983
04:44:31,760 --> 04:44:36,880
 earlier how go back and try to get the car before the horse on anything but

2984
04:44:36,880 --> 04:44:42,920
 what would be the difference you did talk about some of the the environmental

2985
04:44:42,920 --> 04:44:48,600
 sensitivity and environmental impact when you're talking about this SCP so and I

2986
04:44:48,600 --> 04:44:51,840
 and maybe another Commissioner can remind me whatever we voted on this is a

2987
04:44:51,840 --> 04:44:56,760
 grocery store I was here in 2018 when we voted on it I just don't remember it we

2988
04:44:56,760 --> 04:45:01,360
 see a lot of projects what would the difference in the environmental impact

2989
04:45:01,360 --> 04:45:05,360
 analysis that would be need to be done for a commercial property like this a

2990
04:45:05,360 --> 04:45:09,400
 commercial property or retail property how would it differ from this apartment

2991
04:45:09,400 --> 04:45:16,480
 complex so speaking to the tree preservation is is really what would

2992
04:45:16,480 --> 04:45:21,960
 affect the development of whatever would come in so I would I would say

2993
04:45:21,960 --> 04:45:26,920
 regardless of the type of development there whatever would come in would be

2994
04:45:26,920 --> 04:45:32,600
 really significantly limited by the current ESA and floodplain so I'm not

2995
04:45:32,600 --> 04:45:36,480
 sure if I should put the map back on yeah I was actually gonna ask you to put

2996
04:45:36,480 --> 04:45:41,320
 that back up that had the grouping and then the rip by period of numbers that

2997
04:45:41,320 --> 04:45:52,520
 you're going let me go ahead and and share this actually just use it then this

2998
04:45:52,520 --> 04:45:55,500
 is then striking earlier when we were going through to work session as we've

2999
04:45:55,500 --> 04:46:02,800
 talked then we had presentation for just how big of a true definitely and so so

3000
04:46:02,800 --> 04:46:07,220
 you'll see the area that's that's kind of circled in the orange that is the

3001
04:46:07,220 --> 04:46:12,800
 outermost boundary of all the ESA on the site and the ESA on the site takes up

3002
04:46:12,800 --> 04:46:21,280
 roughly 50% of this property the current developer is proposing one lot it's

3003
04:46:21,280 --> 04:46:28,720
 really three three or five tracks if you count these small little insets but in

3004
04:46:28,720 --> 04:46:33,280
 order for the tree preservation to be met really what they're showing on the

3005
04:46:33,280 --> 04:46:37,960
 easternmost part of the site that is really the only developable area on this

3006
04:46:37,960 --> 04:46:43,400
 property I take that back because really they could develop on on the

3007
04:46:43,400 --> 04:46:48,880
 western westernmost portion but they are limited they could they could not

3008
04:46:48,880 --> 04:46:54,240
 encroach into this larger area so they're maximizing their site with them

3009
04:46:54,240 --> 04:47:00,360
 the multifamily commercial could come in it would just depend on whatever site

3010
04:47:00,360 --> 04:47:05,720
 layout would come in essentially because there is a lot of tree canopy on the

3011
04:47:05,720 --> 04:47:11,080
 site and although that cross timbers upland habitat was removed there are

3012
04:47:11,080 --> 04:47:14,720
 significant tree removals that would need to occur in order for development

3013
04:47:14,720 --> 04:47:22,140
 to come in so tree preservation meeting that minimum 30% is something that would

3014
04:47:22,140 --> 04:47:25,920
 need to be considered I wouldn't say that it's not possible because we were

3015
04:47:25,920 --> 04:47:29,960
 obviously able to make this happen with the current development but that would

3016
04:47:29,960 --> 04:47:35,360
 be kind of a significant hurdle is is you know what would be the layout of the

3017
04:47:35,360 --> 04:47:42,140
 site depending on what commercial type development came in that would dictate

3018
04:47:42,140 --> 04:47:45,160
 the type of parking or the amount of parking that would come in so there's

3019
04:47:45,160 --> 04:47:49,460
 there's a lot of I guess it would cascade down the cascading requirements

3020
04:47:49,460 --> 04:47:56,560
 of you know we would need to look at it to see how it the full effects of what

3021
04:47:56,560 --> 04:48:00,360
 will come in I'm not sure if that answered your question fully yeah I know

3022
04:48:00,360 --> 04:48:03,440
 while you're talking I was doing some other just just tinker around because

3023
04:48:03,440 --> 04:48:07,180
 basically you're looking at you're saying that the that ESA is about that

3024
04:48:07,180 --> 04:48:11,320
 whole area that that border orange area is about 50% so you're talking about 10

3025
04:48:11,320 --> 04:48:17,160
 and a half acres of usable land yeah that's that's about right so I was

3026
04:48:17,160 --> 04:48:20,960
 looking up I was wanting to just go do a quick comparison I'm trying to find some

3027
04:48:20,960 --> 04:48:24,560
 information and if you have your GIS map that you can tap into or somebody in the

3028
04:48:24,560 --> 04:48:30,380
 room can tap into it faster than me the the Kroger off Teasley it's a five zero

3029
04:48:30,380 --> 04:48:35,960
 two one sees the line in Texas I just wanted to look at a comparison and

3030
04:48:35,960 --> 04:48:41,320
 briefly find it usually you can we're looking at a residential I pulled these

3031
04:48:41,320 --> 04:48:46,160
 are a little bit more complex I'd like to see how many acres that that that

3032
04:48:46,160 --> 04:48:51,480
 rotary store is on if it's even a truly feasible process if you know if 10 acres

3033
04:48:51,480 --> 04:48:54,920
 really is something that and I'm thinking that's easily lane one just

3034
04:48:54,920 --> 04:49:00,360
 because that seems pretty you know comparable of an area of saying that

3035
04:49:00,360 --> 04:49:03,200
 this is something that could be happening there and I get it we're

3036
04:49:03,200 --> 04:49:06,240
 talking about an SCP for an apartment we're not talking about grocery stores

3037
04:49:06,240 --> 04:49:10,960
 I'm just saying that if the applicant is here saying that this couldn't have been

3038
04:49:10,960 --> 04:49:16,560
 done in the first place before we go through and start declining somebody for

3039
04:49:16,560 --> 04:49:21,960
 maybe an SCP seeing if there really is some feasibility and some merit to what

3040
04:49:21,960 --> 04:49:26,440
 the neighborhood to bring up so Kirsten Smith if I could add a suggestion if

3041
04:49:26,440 --> 04:49:31,040
 there's a request for kind of a live acreage for Kroger if that's possible

3042
04:49:31,040 --> 04:49:37,560
 to get done can we take the last caller and then come back to that yeah it was

3043
04:49:37,560 --> 04:49:41,640
 good I was just gonna say great minds think alike it's ten and a half acres

3044
04:49:41,640 --> 04:49:47,680
 roughly 83,000 square feet both the land and then the store itself building area

3045
04:49:47,680 --> 04:49:51,200
 for this property is roughly 93,000 square feet so just to give you that

3046
04:49:51,200 --> 04:49:55,800
 that balance I think that's what you're getting right I'm sure if something get

3047
04:49:55,800 --> 04:50:01,400
 on and stop babbling on about I appreciate the compliment yeah we can go

3048
04:50:01,400 --> 04:50:05,360
 to the last caller there sure I'm sorry but thank you Richard Richard he said

3049
04:50:05,360 --> 04:50:09,360
 the the build that's proposed is 93,000 square feet that's the footprint not

3050
04:50:09,360 --> 04:50:12,200
 total square footage right correct so I was just looking at building footprint

3051
04:50:12,200 --> 04:50:17,520
 yes okay great then I'd like to do is wrap up oh yes Karina sorry I did you

3052
04:50:17,520 --> 04:50:22,160
 still want me to put this on the screen if I could get the capability up we can

3053
04:50:22,160 --> 04:50:27,600
 do that last caller Karina I'll let you get some time okay yeah and I think we

3054
04:50:27,600 --> 04:50:31,040
 know the numbers now so might be less important but I'd like to do is is

3055
04:50:31,040 --> 04:50:37,720
 invite Alan Kerber to speak if he just unmute himself and then say his name and

3056
04:50:37,720 --> 04:50:42,760
 address he would have four minutes to give his perspective on the matter

3057
04:50:42,760 --> 04:50:50,200
 hi this is Alan Kerber can you hear me we can good evening fantastic again thank

3058
04:50:50,200 --> 04:50:53,560
 you for entertaining my thoughts here on this Alan Kerber I live here at the

3059
04:50:53,560 --> 04:51:00,480
 Preserves 7820 Aldersgate Lane echoing the sentiments of the people prior to

3060
04:51:00,480 --> 04:51:07,120
 me I came out here to get away from you know have a nice living out here be

3061
04:51:07,120 --> 04:51:12,880
 close to things I've moved in from Springtown enjoy the area but I

3062
04:51:12,880 --> 04:51:20,560
 disagree and totally am against this apartment complex and I totally

3063
04:51:20,560 --> 04:51:24,960
 disagree with the comments made earlier one of your constituents said that Lake

3064
04:51:24,960 --> 04:51:31,720
 View Boulevard is a main artery well it is a main artery to the south of 35 but

3065
04:51:31,720 --> 04:51:38,320
 to the north of 35 it is not when you go north of 35 on Lakeview Boulevard you're

3066
04:51:38,320 --> 04:51:43,120
 coming into major residential areas all the way up to Edwards Street which is

3067
04:51:43,120 --> 04:51:47,040
 about three and a half miles and then another mile and a half to two miles

3068
04:51:47,040 --> 04:51:52,760
 north of Edwards it's still major residential area and you're going to

3069
04:51:52,760 --> 04:51:58,000
 increase traffic on Lakeview and bringing it into the residential area and if

3070
04:51:58,000 --> 04:52:04,800
 they're using Lakeview North to migrate over into Denton they're going to be

3071
04:52:04,800 --> 04:52:10,000
 getting on Edwards and then hitting May Hill Road and you're only looking at one

3072
04:52:10,000 --> 04:52:16,800
 direction each way for traffic which will cause major problems with kids

3073
04:52:16,800 --> 04:52:20,720
 running around the neighborhoods on their bikes families walking their dogs

3074
04:52:20,720 --> 04:52:29,000
 on Edwards and and on Lakeview Boulevard when they're going north 35 as Tim said

3075
04:52:29,000 --> 04:52:35,920
 earlier mr. Smith we just recently had a major casual not casualty but an injury

3076
04:52:35,920 --> 04:52:40,640
 out there on on the bike trail right there where the railroad crossing is so

3077
04:52:40,640 --> 04:52:47,120
 but I really would like you to look and see how many homes are still going up

3078
04:52:47,120 --> 04:52:52,520
 and there's and there's plans on putting more homes back up in here also the

3079
04:52:52,520 --> 04:53:00,000
 access ramp off of Shady Shores if you decide to take that route versus the FM

3080
04:53:00,000 --> 04:53:07,720
 road that parallels 35 to get onto the northbound movement of traffic onto 35

3081
04:53:07,720 --> 04:53:13,560
 off of Shady Shores that is as illustrated it's a it's just it's the

3082
04:53:13,560 --> 04:53:17,400
 road is as sketchy as it is and it's skittish to get onto it on that 35

3083
04:53:17,400 --> 04:53:22,880
 access and you've got to approximately drive three-quarters of a mile just to

3084
04:53:22,880 --> 04:53:28,560
 get on to 35 and it's only a single lane on ramp so when you're going to be

3085
04:53:28,560 --> 04:53:35,920
 adding all these cars to try to get on to 35 going north off of Shady Shores 30

3086
04:53:35,920 --> 04:53:42,320
 and FM 35 onto a single car on ramp we're going to be running the difficulties

3087
04:53:42,320 --> 04:53:49,520
 here with that there's just a major choke choke point there like we like the

3088
04:53:49,520 --> 04:53:57,600
 Boulevard I I think we need to put brick-and-mortar type of businesses in

3089
04:53:57,600 --> 04:54:02,640
 that area that's going to cater to the residents that are here now and the

3090
04:54:02,640 --> 04:54:07,280
 future homes and I definitely don't want my property values to go down on this

3091
04:54:07,280 --> 04:54:15,280
 and historically and my 55 years of living and living in over six homes and

3092
04:54:15,280 --> 04:54:20,600
 different homes across the United States I'm retired military guy 22 years and

3093
04:54:20,600 --> 04:54:26,360
 I've been in different cities different states and it seems as though when these

3094
04:54:26,360 --> 04:54:32,280
 when these apartment buildings go up your property values go down so I'm

3095
04:54:32,280 --> 04:54:38,160
 against it and I yield Alan perfect time in your four minutes was was closing so

3096
04:54:38,160 --> 04:54:42,360
 you kind of felt that first thanks for your service appreciate that very much

3097
04:54:42,360 --> 04:54:46,720
 and secondly when you're at your house and you need a bite to eat where do you

3098
04:54:46,720 --> 04:54:54,080
 go oh I got to drive up to outback all right out back to approximately three

3099
04:54:54,080 --> 04:55:01,400
 three and a half miles north on 35 and then you're we've asked everyone where

3100
04:55:01,400 --> 04:55:07,800
 it was your grocery store choice I head on down to Teasley and Swisher very

3101
04:55:07,800 --> 04:55:13,320
 nicely got a nice super Walmart down there you've got Albertsons you got all

3102
04:55:13,320 --> 04:55:19,400
 kinds of little restaurants like you know chicken express so it's like

3103
04:55:19,400 --> 04:55:23,640
 everything's right there plus they built that community up very nicely because

3104
04:55:23,640 --> 04:55:29,280
 there's apartments there's homes people can walk to those area and stay off the

3105
04:55:29,280 --> 04:55:34,920
 roads but yet do their shopping and enjoy a dinner and not having to get out

3106
04:55:34,920 --> 04:55:38,200
 on the roads yeah I understand that unfortunately that area is not part of

3107
04:55:38,200 --> 04:55:44,980
 Denton so yeah well Alan I appreciate you calling in does anyone have

3108
04:55:44,980 --> 04:55:51,160
 questions for Alan okay I do not see any so thank you again with that I'm gonna

3109
04:55:51,160 --> 04:55:55,960
 close the public hearing and we can get on to Mr. Smith are you wanting to see

3110
04:55:55,960 --> 04:56:00,780
 anything from Karina yeah I was and I actually had one more question for the

3111
04:56:00,780 --> 04:56:08,080
 applicant after after kind of listening to you direct you want Karina or the

3112
04:56:08,080 --> 04:56:19,240
 applicant Karina first I'm sorry I'm muted I'm not finding the capability to

3113
04:56:19,240 --> 04:56:25,240
 share my screen for the the internet browser to show the interactive map I

3114
04:56:25,240 --> 04:56:28,720
 think what I can do really quickly is take a screenshot and then add it to a

3115
04:56:28,720 --> 04:56:32,920
 PowerPoint slide so that I can show it on the screen okay that's fine baby in

3116
04:56:32,920 --> 04:56:40,400
 the room I'll be able to ask our the African just a quick question as well I

3117
04:56:40,400 --> 04:56:47,160
 know you said you had the African you're still on yes sir can you hear me yes I

3118
04:56:47,160 --> 04:56:52,800
 can thank you so the nice that you had the property listed for the last five

3119
04:56:52,800 --> 04:56:57,200
 years and you know original this was was rezoned in a way that you could go

3120
04:56:57,200 --> 04:57:02,000
 through and make this a grocery store can you give me some more back story why

3121
04:57:02,000 --> 04:57:06,960
 that wasn't able to be marketed that way why that wasn't viable I know we talked

3122
04:57:06,960 --> 04:57:10,160
 about it briefly earlier but I don't think I got details that I needed to

3123
04:57:10,160 --> 04:57:17,760
 understand contact sure happy to as I said the the history of the project is

3124
04:57:17,760 --> 04:57:23,480
 five years worth of attempts at development and Kroger did have it tied

3125
04:57:23,480 --> 04:57:28,160
 up for a good while and they abandoned it the developer did not abandon it Kroger

3126
04:57:28,160 --> 04:57:31,880
 just declined to pursue the site any further

3127
04:57:31,880 --> 04:57:39,560
 then talk I remember hearing that earlier but didn't didn't know why why

3128
04:57:39,560 --> 04:57:45,520
 didn't really have a reason well I think I did and I think they went in and

3129
04:57:45,520 --> 04:57:50,080
 basically listed for the developer the fact that they'd spent four hundred

3130
04:57:50,080 --> 04:57:55,080
 thousand dollars doing environmental civil and grading studies for the

3131
04:57:55,080 --> 04:58:00,520
 property traffic analysis and they just felt like that it was too restrictive of

3132
04:58:00,520 --> 04:58:04,400
 the site and the environmental conditions had a lot to do with their

3133
04:58:04,400 --> 04:58:10,280
 abandonment they didn't feel like there was enough residential density to serve

3134
04:58:10,280 --> 04:58:15,120
 a full service store in that location and they felt like the changes in

3135
04:58:15,120 --> 04:58:21,120
 shopping patterns and quite frankly all of the grocers have seen the change in

3136
04:58:21,120 --> 04:58:26,040
 shopping patterns and the business model we turn right around when Kroger

3137
04:58:26,040 --> 04:58:31,160
 terminated the developer offered the site to sprouts who said there are other

3138
04:58:31,160 --> 04:58:37,520
 stores were too close and this was not a site for sprouts they did contact other

3139
04:58:37,520 --> 04:58:43,360
 grocers who basically have quite honestly the grocers have pulled in

3140
04:58:43,360 --> 04:58:48,040
 their horns they're not near as aggressive for new locations and the

3141
04:58:48,040 --> 04:58:55,480
 fact that home delivery Amazon fresh all of the different opportunities to have

3142
04:58:55,480 --> 04:59:01,200
 food delivered to their locations it really began to take a big chunk out of

3143
04:59:01,200 --> 04:59:07,240
 the retail grocery business which was already at a very low margin and then

3144
04:59:07,240 --> 04:59:14,560
 about when did that conversation fall through about four years ago three and a

3145
04:59:14,560 --> 04:59:21,120
 half years ago okay and may also answer I believe mr. Becker or one of the

3146
04:59:21,120 --> 04:59:27,560
 gentleman maybe mr. Smith had a question about the TIA not serving the new growth

3147
04:59:27,560 --> 04:59:34,800
 the TIA projected through both 2023 and 2028 for growth and that was all

3148
04:59:34,800 --> 04:59:42,520
 analyzed as part of the TIA the grocery store question that was asked but Kroger

3149
04:59:42,520 --> 04:59:47,040
 now is the super Kroger in the marketplace about a hundred and twenty

3150
04:59:47,040 --> 04:59:52,160
 three thousand square feet trying to fit that on a ten acre side for the super

3151
04:59:52,160 --> 04:59:59,280
 store the gentleman mentioned Walmart Walmart takes 22 acres the dense the

3152
04:59:59,280 --> 05:00:05,240
 distance to the homes one I believe one lady did have a comment about seeing the

3153
05:00:05,240 --> 05:00:09,640
 side I'm not sure exactly where she lives but I do want to point out is

3154
05:00:09,640 --> 05:00:15,480
 Karina did their substantial tree cover in the 35 to 40 foot tall range

3155
05:00:15,480 --> 05:00:24,320
 separating the closest houses which are 485 feet from our closest building from

3156
05:00:24,320 --> 05:00:32,040
 the urban living area four hundred and eighty five feet away and in between are

3157
05:00:32,040 --> 05:00:39,340
 the additional buffer areas of trees we place the existing 40 foot tall tree

3158
05:00:39,340 --> 05:00:45,280
 cover and the dart line four hundred and eighty five feet property taxes there

3159
05:00:45,280 --> 05:00:50,000
 was some statement about these folks didn't pay property taxes this property

3160
05:00:50,000 --> 05:00:55,640
 pays almost a million dollars a year projected and had to learn property taxes

3161
05:00:55,640 --> 05:01:02,440
 so I wanted to make sure that was straight there is an opportunity here I

3162
05:01:02,440 --> 05:01:08,320
 think to work together we face the same opportunity when we did razor we

3163
05:01:08,320 --> 05:01:12,760
 actually built 380 there's an opportunity I think you already have

3164
05:01:12,760 --> 05:01:19,240
 about $81,000 that's been deposited in the reserve fund for that traffic signal

3165
05:01:19,240 --> 05:01:24,520
 we will certainly and have offered to pay our poor our portion of that and if

3166
05:01:24,520 --> 05:01:29,640
 there's a way we can help accelerate the building of the traffic signal that's

3167
05:01:29,640 --> 05:01:36,400
 what we did on 380 neither the city had the funds or the capability at that time

3168
05:01:36,400 --> 05:01:42,640
 nor did text not so we actually stepped up and privately built that 11 million

3169
05:01:42,640 --> 05:01:48,080
 dollar improvement so there's an opportunity there we think we were very

3170
05:01:48,080 --> 05:01:53,600
 open to working with city traffic to accelerate the placement of that signal

3171
05:01:53,600 --> 05:01:59,720
 because as you've seen and as staff has reiterated it's already operating at a

3172
05:01:59,720 --> 05:02:05,600
 low level and we're not the cause of that so I didn't want to point that out

3173
05:02:05,600 --> 05:02:09,520
 there also have been other grocers that have been contacted with no real

3174
05:02:09,520 --> 05:02:14,840
 interest and the developer can certainly delineate that further but we've been

3175
05:02:14,840 --> 05:02:19,880
 through that many times are there other opportunities appreciate Rogers thank you

3176
05:02:19,880 --> 05:02:25,880
 very much appreciate that freedom do you have that GIS picture yes sir let me put

3177
05:02:25,880 --> 05:02:48,840
 it up right now and Richard you had the stats on that property again right just

3178
05:02:48,840 --> 05:02:53,480
 rounding up ten and a half acres again that's just the portion that the

3179
05:02:53,480 --> 05:02:57,000
 grocery store so it doesn't include those out parts those those commercial

3180
05:02:57,000 --> 05:03:02,880
 out parcels just that lot that Kroger is ten and a half acres and roughly I think

3181
05:03:02,880 --> 05:03:06,080
 it was eighty three thousand square feet I think that those are the numbers I

3182
05:03:06,080 --> 05:03:13,760
 pulled from decay so the building in the parking lot come that's that's ten and

3183
05:03:13,760 --> 05:03:22,960
 a half acres correct okay thank you and the some of those neighborhoods that are

3184
05:03:22,960 --> 05:03:27,880
 out there north of there that's the other Commissioner I know the preserve

3185
05:03:27,880 --> 05:03:31,040
 is this preserve is something that we voted on recently but I'm looking on

3186
05:03:31,040 --> 05:03:35,680
 Zillow there's a couple different dates I'm seeing like that maybe make it a

3187
05:03:35,680 --> 05:03:41,000
 little bit older but does anybody else know the age of the preserve it's it's

3188
05:03:41,000 --> 05:03:46,000
 increasing they built another segment of the neighborhood this year remember we

3189
05:03:46,000 --> 05:03:51,080
 voted we voted one on some of it as a commission so yeah it's it's still it's

3190
05:03:51,080 --> 05:03:55,460
 still being built out yeah I believe that was Julie's project that just came

3191
05:03:55,460 --> 05:04:01,040
 through that was section J and K of the Preserve of Pecan Creek that was that

3192
05:04:01,040 --> 05:04:06,240
 area next to I believe Edwards we saw that like two months ago or so yep how

3193
05:04:06,240 --> 05:04:11,280
 many more phases are there Karina I'm not very sure on that I can ask Julie if

3194
05:04:11,280 --> 05:04:16,440
 if she's available to assist with that you can give it to me I answer later on

3195
05:04:16,440 --> 05:04:25,920
 for a second Chris or Cole thank you chair I yeah I remember the what five

3196
05:04:25,920 --> 05:04:33,000
 years ago well Kroger legitimately tried to put a store there and I remember one

3197
05:04:33,000 --> 05:04:37,520
 of the executives saying you know they flew up they threw in the town said you

3198
05:04:37,520 --> 05:04:42,600
 know didn't Texas is one of the worst municipalities we've ever done business

3199
05:04:42,600 --> 05:04:49,360
 with and we'll never build another store and then again I mean so you know I mean

3200
05:04:49,360 --> 05:04:54,960
 I wish we could say hey yeah put in I want a central market by my house or a

3201
05:04:54,960 --> 05:05:00,960
 sprouts or something like that but these stores it's not a a store would be great

3202
05:05:00,960 --> 05:05:06,160
 there it's a science they they know where they're you know you have to reach

3203
05:05:06,160 --> 05:05:09,800
 your critical mat like Robeson they've been more in the grocery store for how

3204
05:05:09,800 --> 05:05:13,960
 many years but they don't have the critical massive population and all that

3205
05:05:13,960 --> 05:05:21,000
 yet to get one they will one day but not right now so maybe it's a didn't issue

3206
05:05:21,000 --> 05:05:25,880
 not having a grocery store there because one of the it was either the CEO of one

3207
05:05:25,880 --> 05:05:30,080
 of the executives said he would never do business didn't get so is it our

3208
05:05:30,080 --> 05:05:34,800
 fault I mean you know I hate to see an apartment complex there because we're

3209
05:05:34,800 --> 05:05:40,160
 just adding fuel to fire because like the chair said earlier I'm kind of

3210
05:05:40,160 --> 05:05:45,260
 feeling anxious and overwhelmed of all the rooftops that we're putting in this

3211
05:05:45,260 --> 05:05:51,640
 town with no infrastructure you know with not adequate infrastructure I don't

3212
05:05:51,640 --> 05:05:56,560
 know if we'll ever have if we will have adequate infrastructure because we're

3213
05:05:56,560 --> 05:06:02,000
 experiencing hyper growth we're growing and didn't like maybe three or five

3214
05:06:02,000 --> 05:06:07,000
 municipalities have grown in the United States ever you know we've been in the

3215
05:06:07,000 --> 05:06:15,080
 top 10 12 for 20 years so I mean I'd like to see a grocery store there too

3216
05:06:15,080 --> 05:06:22,720
 but you know maybe that's it doesn't work it doesn't work out on paper and

3217
05:06:22,720 --> 05:06:28,680
 that's that's just an aside I you know I'm pretty torn on this deal but I just

3218
05:06:28,680 --> 05:06:35,200
 want to throw that out there Kroger made a legitimate shot and they were

3219
05:06:35,200 --> 05:06:41,920
 frustrated that they could not put a store so for what that's worth yeah

3220
05:06:41,920 --> 05:06:45,840
 thanks for that perspective I think Commissioner Ellis popped up her hand

3221
05:06:45,840 --> 05:06:50,720
 before anyone else I just want to check in with her thank you chair I was gonna

3222
05:06:50,720 --> 05:06:53,920
 get with Commissioner Smith when he was talking about the preserve so if you

3223
05:06:53,920 --> 05:06:58,160
 haven't driven back through there I mean the preserve itself has been building

3224
05:06:58,160 --> 05:07:04,000
 out for decades it also bleeds into other neighborhoods Glenwood village

3225
05:07:04,000 --> 05:07:08,560
 villages of Carmel as you work back there it is truly one of the most

3226
05:07:08,560 --> 05:07:15,920
 densely populated home sites of our city and one thing we have to look at

3227
05:07:15,920 --> 05:07:21,800
 with this site is you know when we look at at the site as a whole and Karina

3228
05:07:21,800 --> 05:07:25,360
 said it's it's roughly 13 volume units per acre while we're really building on

3229
05:07:25,360 --> 05:07:31,280
 10 acres of that it's 30 dwelling units per acre that we're really packing into

3230
05:07:31,280 --> 05:07:37,240
 this site it's density of this monster that that really scares me here for sure

3231
05:07:37,240 --> 05:07:44,600
 with with all the problems that we do have already in that immediate area yeah

3232
05:07:44,600 --> 05:07:49,200
 thank you as we go to Commissioner Beck I just want to say to whoever's listening

3233
05:07:49,200 --> 05:07:53,800
 I mean didn't five years ago to now is is a hopefully a different interaction if

3234
05:07:53,800 --> 05:07:58,840
 if people were to come back and and have a conversation with you know Todd

3235
05:07:58,840 --> 05:08:09,480
 Christian Beck thank you chair is the applicant still on I imagine he is yes I

3236
05:08:09,480 --> 05:08:13,640
 am okay well so my question is would when you were approaching various retail

3237
05:08:13,640 --> 05:08:19,720
 agents did did you explore the possibility of like some of the retail

3238
05:08:19,720 --> 05:08:24,600
 around UNT where it's it's combined residential retail and in this sort of a

3239
05:08:24,600 --> 05:08:29,480
 partial question is staff in addition to the applicant is is that allowed in SC

3240
05:08:29,480 --> 05:08:39,920
 could you have retail on the bottom apartments on the top so let me ask mr.

3241
05:08:39,920 --> 05:08:44,840
 Hodges first yeah let me ask mr. Hodges first if you explored that we did

3242
05:08:44,840 --> 05:08:49,280
 explore it in fact we had several side plans and incorporated that we could

3243
05:08:49,280 --> 05:08:53,900
 never get enough critical mass of retail to make sense there's been a lot of

3244
05:08:53,900 --> 05:08:59,720
 vertically integrated mixed use that has failed and it's because you can't really

3245
05:08:59,720 --> 05:09:05,780
 develop enough critical mass of retail our residents won't generate enough to

3246
05:09:05,780 --> 05:09:11,000
 support that retail and the the fact that you have to come into the site and

3247
05:09:11,000 --> 05:09:16,040
 then share parking with another type of development it just didn't make sense to

3248
05:09:16,040 --> 05:09:20,800
 our developers and as I said now I'm the architect and the planner but our

3249
05:09:20,800 --> 05:09:25,280
 developers are some of the most successful retail developers anywhere in

3250
05:09:25,280 --> 05:09:31,920
 Texas they've done so many target anchored 15 million feet of retail they

3251
05:09:31,920 --> 05:09:36,800
 know how to do retail we could not make good sense of it okay thank you mr.

3252
05:09:36,800 --> 05:09:45,400
 Hodges and staff can you tell me whether SC allows that mixed use it does I think

3253
05:09:45,400 --> 05:09:49,960
 the only thing I'll mention is there is a height limitation of 55 feet so again

3254
05:09:49,960 --> 05:09:54,720
 getting back to the discussion of critical mass I think to really look at

3255
05:09:54,720 --> 05:09:59,800
 successful mixed use unless you're in a downtown densely very dense you know

3256
05:09:59,800 --> 05:10:03,760
 think of the square where you've got some some residential above you're you're

3257
05:10:03,760 --> 05:10:08,320
 looking at high rise to mid-rise and with 55 feet I don't think you're gonna

3258
05:10:08,320 --> 05:10:16,000
 get there okay thank you I appreciate that commissioner Smith thank you chair

3259
05:10:16,000 --> 05:10:24,760
 you did you did close public session yes to Commissioner Alice's point I have

3260
05:10:24,760 --> 05:10:29,720
 driven back there I've got clients back in the rural side of the East subject

3261
05:10:29,720 --> 05:10:35,320
 property and back in there towards the common Creek more anything else I was

3262
05:10:35,320 --> 05:10:39,560
 going to get some more evidence from what the applicant said you know four or

3263
05:10:39,560 --> 05:10:42,640
 five years ago that that conversation and following through in his chair

3264
05:10:42,640 --> 05:10:46,600
 Roselle's already said didn't change a lot in the last five years and especially

3265
05:10:46,600 --> 05:10:50,600
 those preserved areas up we've seen I think I think Margie I think I think you

3266
05:10:50,600 --> 05:10:54,000
 and I have seen two or three different projects back in that area in the last

3267
05:10:54,000 --> 05:11:00,680
 two two and a half years so just read jogging my memory here on the on how

3268
05:11:00,680 --> 05:11:04,120
 much how much change has happened over there and maybe the change in

3269
05:11:04,120 --> 05:11:11,040
 marketability so with that said I'm gonna make a motion to the this SUV

3270
05:11:11,040 --> 05:11:17,240
 mostly this reasoning on this I think this would be a much better as a use for

3271
05:11:17,240 --> 05:11:22,360
 some sort of retail I don't think this is a this is an apartment complex I

3272
05:11:22,360 --> 05:11:26,640
 don't think an apartment complex should be this close to a highway like that yes

3273
05:11:26,640 --> 05:11:30,400
 it is a separate corridor but I just don't see this being an area that the

3274
05:11:30,400 --> 05:11:35,160
 apartment was fit into and with as much growth happening over there I just don't

3275
05:11:35,160 --> 05:11:41,560
 feel comfortable with that that location so I'm gonna make a motion to deny we

3276
05:11:41,560 --> 05:11:46,640
 have a motion on the floor commissioner Pernetta actually I wasn't making a

3277
05:11:46,640 --> 05:11:51,720
 motion to secondary I just had a few comments on this one yeah I really don't

3278
05:11:51,720 --> 05:11:54,480
 know which way to go on this one because this is really kind of a damned if you

3279
05:11:54,480 --> 05:11:58,480
 do damned if you don't situation you know there is an apartment complex that I

3280
05:11:58,480 --> 05:12:01,000
 think that right it pretty much right across the street that same little area

3281
05:12:01,000 --> 05:12:06,640
 on there I know people are upset about the traffic but they're upset about the

3282
05:12:06,640 --> 05:12:10,680
 traffic but also wanting a grocery store there so I'm not really sure how you

3283
05:12:10,680 --> 05:12:13,720
 know an apartment complex versus a grocery store is gonna be significantly

3284
05:12:13,720 --> 05:12:19,440
 better for traffic and in the area and I'd be more comfortable you know maybe

3285
05:12:19,440 --> 05:12:25,880
 voting this down if we had something possibly coming in you know that would

3286
05:12:25,880 --> 05:12:30,120
 fill that need you know it feels like you know we would be turning down that

3287
05:12:30,120 --> 05:12:35,400
 this SUP saying we want a grocery store but there's nothing out there that's

3288
05:12:35,400 --> 05:12:40,520
 going to move in and become a grocery store you know I know that Street I was

3289
05:12:40,520 --> 05:12:45,280
 actually just there you know today you know I've gone to the animal hospital

3290
05:12:45,280 --> 05:12:50,200
 right down the street from in there's much car lots and everything it's not

3291
05:12:50,200 --> 05:12:54,920
 really a practical area to get in and out of you know that Street I can't see

3292
05:12:54,920 --> 05:12:58,920
 anybody putting a store in there that's going to have significant traffic where

3293
05:12:58,920 --> 05:13:02,840
 people aren't going to be going I hate going to this damn store because you

3294
05:13:02,840 --> 05:13:07,920
 know there's only one side I can get into and then how do I get out again you

3295
05:13:07,920 --> 05:13:13,280
 know I can't figure out how we would fit that kind of retail in there without

3296
05:13:13,280 --> 05:13:20,120
 having a greater impact on the ESA around it I'm not a huge fan of putting

3297
05:13:20,120 --> 05:13:26,160
 an apartment complex in there but you know at the same time you know I feel

3298
05:13:26,160 --> 05:13:29,040
 bad about telling people you can't do something with this land with you with

3299
05:13:29,040 --> 05:13:34,440
 this property of yours we want something else to go there but but the thing that

3300
05:13:34,440 --> 05:13:42,280
 we want to go there has proven to be over the years a unicorn you know so I

3301
05:13:42,280 --> 05:13:48,760
 don't know I guess I'm not leaning toward disapproving the SUP or denying

3302
05:13:48,760 --> 05:13:53,880
 the SUP but having said that I don't feel great about approving it either this

3303
05:13:53,880 --> 05:14:00,040
 is just a weird little thorn in the side of development and actually you know

3304
05:14:00,040 --> 05:14:05,680
 putting something good there yeah we have a motion on the floor and so I'm

3305
05:14:05,680 --> 05:14:10,200
 looking for a second and then further discussion

3306
05:14:11,040 --> 05:14:18,860
 Commissioner Ellis I will second and if I could say a few words with that second to

3307
05:14:18,860 --> 05:14:24,400
 maybe comment on what Commissioner Pernetta was saying I mean all the

3308
05:14:24,400 --> 05:14:28,160
 discussion has been great about wanting a grocery store obviously we can't force

3309
05:14:28,160 --> 05:14:32,280
 that in there but it is good food for thought for those developers who might

3310
05:14:32,280 --> 05:14:39,720
 be out there thinking but the reason I'm gonna deny is because when you look at

3311
05:14:39,720 --> 05:14:44,720
 like the criteria that Corina put up there which was I think her number four

3312
05:14:44,720 --> 05:14:50,680
 for approval of how it impacts traffic and how it impacts utilities well we're

3313
05:14:50,680 --> 05:14:55,760
 negatively impacting traffic we are negatively impacting utilities because

3314
05:14:55,760 --> 05:15:01,400
 they are they have to do extensions and whatnot to even make this development

3315
05:15:01,400 --> 05:15:07,680
 work there we are also impacting negative property value for those direct

3316
05:15:07,680 --> 05:15:12,840
 houses not in the preserve as a whole in my opinion but in my professional

3317
05:15:12,840 --> 05:15:17,040
 opinion yeah if a house backs up to seeing a multifamily you are gonna lose

3318
05:15:17,040 --> 05:15:20,920
 some property value what the percentage is you know I don't know but again it's

3319
05:15:20,920 --> 05:15:25,840
 a negative so approval of an SUP for me it shouldn't have these negative

3320
05:15:25,840 --> 05:15:29,880
 connotations with it we should be finding a reason that it should be

3321
05:15:29,880 --> 05:15:33,920
 approved that it doesn't have these negative impacts so that's that's my

3322
05:15:33,920 --> 05:15:40,880
 opinion for for seconding the denial. Thank you Mr. Ellis. Commissioner Anderson.

3323
05:15:40,880 --> 05:15:45,560
 Thank you chair yeah I was out there in the neighborhood yesterday as well for

3324
05:15:45,560 --> 05:15:50,160
 other reasons but and I talked to a lot of people they lived in the Pecan Creek

3325
05:15:50,160 --> 05:15:55,000
 area or Pecan Preserve area and everybody I spoke with was against this

3326
05:15:55,000 --> 05:16:01,320
 project and they were all asking for grocery stores or retail but like the

3327
05:16:01,320 --> 05:16:04,940
 other commissioners have said we can't just sit there and wish upon it and it

3328
05:16:04,940 --> 05:16:09,720
 all of a sudden happens but Commissioner Ellis just said hopefully

3329
05:16:09,720 --> 05:16:13,040
 somebody's out there is listening or watching this and says hey they want a

3330
05:16:13,040 --> 05:16:17,720
 grocery store let's try to do something but that property again to what

3331
05:16:17,720 --> 05:16:22,480
 Commissioner Preneta said it's not the best property either I mean it's kind of

3332
05:16:22,480 --> 05:16:28,320
 hilly and the streets are horrible and I thought and again I'm going to vote

3333
05:16:28,320 --> 05:16:33,520
 against this project but the traffic is a big big thing and that's what

3334
05:16:33,520 --> 05:16:39,080
 everybody was talking about and it looked to me like they're gonna have to

3335
05:16:39,080 --> 05:16:42,680
 tear up the road to add the drainage or the sewage lines down to where it would

3336
05:16:42,680 --> 05:16:47,640
 be and that's just gonna cause more congestion and there's already I mean

3337
05:16:47,640 --> 05:16:50,240
 the people are already talking about how bad the traffic is already I mean we

3338
05:16:50,240 --> 05:16:53,600
 heard we heard four callers a minute ago every one of them spoke about the

3339
05:16:53,600 --> 05:16:58,080
 traffic they're gonna have to tear up the roads to add sewage lines I mean

3340
05:16:58,080 --> 05:17:01,240
 there's no telling how many months believe me I've worked for the county

3341
05:17:01,240 --> 05:17:05,360
 government and I know how some sometimes projects get delayed and they're slow

3342
05:17:05,360 --> 05:17:11,400
 and how we're gonna put these people out even more if we had to dig up you know I

3343
05:17:11,400 --> 05:17:14,160
 don't know how long I mean I don't know how many feet that was I mean it could

3344
05:17:14,160 --> 05:17:19,520
 be 500 feet it'd be you know a quarter of a mile but anyways that being said

3345
05:17:19,520 --> 05:17:22,920
 hearing all the people talk yesterday you know I think this is kind of a bad

3346
05:17:22,920 --> 05:17:30,320
 deal I'm not I'm not against a developer one to develop a bad piece of property

3347
05:17:30,320 --> 05:17:34,180
 to make it nice but uh but hearing all the people that live out there I think

3348
05:17:34,180 --> 05:17:37,880
 this is kind of a bad thing for the residents of that area and that's a

3349
05:17:37,880 --> 05:17:41,360
 that's kind of a one way in one way out kind of that area and it's already kind

3350
05:17:41,360 --> 05:17:44,280
 of tough so that's what I just want to say thank you

3351
05:17:44,280 --> 05:17:49,720
 mr. Smith over me my motion thank you chair well I'm a motion but just for

3352
05:17:49,720 --> 05:17:54,440
 before we get into the before the discussion I think that Commissioner

3353
05:17:54,440 --> 05:18:01,080
 Ellis Commissioner Preston said even Commissioner Anderson yeah it can I can

3354
05:18:01,080 --> 05:18:04,640
 retail or grocery stores go there immediately the cover the reason was

3355
05:18:04,640 --> 05:18:09,000
 having the conversation with Richard was in regards to is it feasible it's

3356
05:18:09,000 --> 05:18:12,600
 feasible is it is it plausible is it something that they're knocking down the

3357
05:18:12,600 --> 05:18:16,000
 applicant store to get get a commercial building out there commercial pad sites

3358
05:18:16,000 --> 05:18:21,000
 built tomorrow no they're not but the same time that doesn't mean that just

3359
05:18:21,000 --> 05:18:26,520
 because that's not an opportunity for them immediately if you've got an uneasy

3360
05:18:26,520 --> 05:18:29,760
 feeling about the opportunity is in front of you doesn't mean you have to

3361
05:18:29,760 --> 05:18:33,720
 build something there that's not a that's not that's not that's not what the

3362
05:18:33,720 --> 05:18:38,620
 job of the commission is to do is to is to either do do something or not do

3363
05:18:38,620 --> 05:18:43,560
 something in my opinion this is more of a lateral move saying look I totally

3364
05:18:43,560 --> 05:18:46,720
 understand maybe an apartment would let you be able to develop this land faster

3365
05:18:46,720 --> 05:18:51,240
 God knows the city would love to have the tax base but there's some smart

3366
05:18:51,240 --> 05:18:54,680
 planning that has to be done at times and I think this is more of a smart

3367
05:18:54,680 --> 05:18:58,720
 planning move in my opinion you know sometimes you got to have tough love and

3368
05:18:58,720 --> 05:19:07,080
 deny some things so that's that's my piece mr. Beck chair I have related

3369
05:19:07,080 --> 05:19:13,200
 reasons I'm also gonna vote against this I think I mean a lot of you know that I

3370
05:19:13,200 --> 05:19:19,520
 place particular emphasis on the impacts of development on eases and the

3371
05:19:19,520 --> 05:19:27,600
 environment but the reason that I do that is it's a quality of life issue yes

3372
05:19:27,600 --> 05:19:32,320
 I like the animals and the floor and the fauna and all that but it makes it's a

3373
05:19:32,320 --> 05:19:36,320
 quality of life issue to have those kinds of resources in our town to have

3374
05:19:36,320 --> 05:19:42,000
 those green spaces in our town so but for quality of life you have the entire

3375
05:19:42,000 --> 05:19:47,880
 sort of section of this town saying their quality of life is diminished so I

3376
05:19:47,880 --> 05:19:56,400
 think it in terms of hitting the goals of the previous zoning we don't match

3377
05:19:56,400 --> 05:20:02,880
 the comprehensive plan and you know then you know for if we're going to disrupt

3378
05:20:02,880 --> 05:20:08,040
 an environmental region we should do it for something that it sort of is desired

3379
05:20:08,040 --> 05:20:13,600
 and improves the quality of life of the community so you know I think if we're

3380
05:20:13,600 --> 05:20:18,080
 going to play one of our one of our goals off against the other it feels

3381
05:20:18,080 --> 05:20:23,400
 like this might be as Commissioner Smith said maybe maybe the wrong or

3382
05:20:23,400 --> 05:20:29,800
 inappropriate time for this so I'm also not going to support this Mr. Chairman

3383
05:20:29,800 --> 05:20:38,360
 that's Charles I just may I convey a message I got you certainly can the

3384
05:20:38,360 --> 05:20:46,240
 developer has contacted me and requested a table to reconsider the mixed use

3385
05:20:46,240 --> 05:20:56,960
 did you have a developer have a date in mind well I would assume that we would

3386
05:20:56,960 --> 05:21:01,880
 begin meetings as we have every week with the city immediately beginning next

3387
05:21:01,880 --> 05:21:09,880
 week yeah I appreciate the concession we do have a motion on the table that I

3388
05:21:09,880 --> 05:21:14,640
 think needs to be heard Commissioner Richard you had your hand up no the only

3389
05:21:14,640 --> 05:21:18,640
 thing I would say is I would just if that were to be the case again I would

3390
05:21:18,640 --> 05:21:23,480
 just put it to a date uncertain there there is a there's a lot of challenges

3391
05:21:23,480 --> 05:21:26,440
 obviously with with the site and it would take some time to I think for them

3392
05:21:26,440 --> 05:21:31,320
 to put together a plan and for us to review so I would just if that is the

3393
05:21:31,320 --> 05:21:34,600
 case I would just recommend it be a date uncertain

3394
05:21:34,600 --> 05:21:39,600
 Christian Pernetta so you see after that effect I mean so would we still vote on

3395
05:21:39,600 --> 05:21:43,040
 this one or would we leave it to Commissioner Smith to withdraw his

3396
05:21:43,040 --> 05:21:47,800
 motion are we he would have to withdraw I would imagine Commissioner Smith

3397
05:21:47,800 --> 05:21:56,440
 picture mr. Hodges you said mixed a mixed use to be something that'd be a mixed

3398
05:21:56,440 --> 05:22:01,080
 use of commercial some sort of vertical mixed use of commercial on the front on

3399
05:22:01,080 --> 05:22:05,120
 the first floor and multifamily above it something along those lines where is the

3400
05:22:05,120 --> 05:22:10,000
 developer exactly what directions developer wind ahead well he didn't he

3401
05:22:10,000 --> 05:22:13,480
 didn't give me specific ratios but I understand that's what he wants to look

3402
05:22:13,480 --> 05:22:17,560
 at because it seems to be such a strong preference for any type of retail

3403
05:22:17,560 --> 05:22:22,400
 component although he's already planning on doing retail on the south track he

3404
05:22:22,400 --> 05:22:27,520
 wants to go back and see if there's any way possible to incorporate some retail

3405
05:22:27,520 --> 05:22:35,800
 that makes sense it has to make sense and do that on the first floor real

3406
05:22:35,800 --> 05:22:40,480
 quick I'm gonna interrupt through Commissioner Smith Richard if there is a

3407
05:22:40,480 --> 05:22:44,080
 denial and there's brought back mixed use is that a substantial change that he

3408
05:22:44,080 --> 05:22:48,360
 they could come back within a year they could I would probably make that

3409
05:22:48,360 --> 05:22:51,520
 determination and that it would be substantially different if there's a

3410
05:22:51,520 --> 05:22:56,520
 whole nother component to it that it's just not multifamily okay so they okay

3411
05:22:56,520 --> 05:23:03,240
 so that's what I was gonna add but you know what just for the sake of it I'm

3412
05:23:03,240 --> 05:23:09,760
 gonna withdraw my motion right the motion has been withdrawn for a denial

3413
05:23:09,760 --> 05:23:14,440
 Commissioner Smith make a motion to table the date on certain Christian

3414
05:23:14,440 --> 05:23:24,640
 pernetta I'll still get that motion Commissioner Ellis and so I guess I just

3415
05:23:24,640 --> 05:23:28,720
 have a question what are we tabling to to rehear this discussion on a

3416
05:23:28,720 --> 05:23:36,440
 multifamily I'm I'm I am baffled by by that because it sounds like it's gonna

3417
05:23:36,440 --> 05:23:42,520
 be an entirely new request so I don't understand tabling an item that is not

3418
05:23:42,520 --> 05:23:52,160
 even I'm confused at what we're tabling Richard can you clarify or add

3419
05:23:52,160 --> 05:23:56,680
 clarification to Commissioner Ellis's point are that is the applicant able to

3420
05:23:56,680 --> 05:24:02,200
 come I mean with all the attachments of staff analysis site plan landscape that

3421
05:24:02,200 --> 05:24:09,720
 all has to be redone it can that be redone on a tabled item if you recall we

3422
05:24:09,720 --> 05:24:14,040
 did something very similar with the Gavi ranch I think we came back a number of

3423
05:24:14,040 --> 05:24:21,160
 times they had requested postponements so we would just look at this as I don't

3424
05:24:21,160 --> 05:24:24,080
 think we would need to have them go through a whole new resubmittal of the

3425
05:24:24,080 --> 05:24:28,240
 application I think a lot of the analysis will just be updates but most

3426
05:24:28,240 --> 05:24:33,840
 likely again not seeing what they're proposing if they're gonna go vertical

3427
05:24:33,840 --> 05:24:36,920
 if they're gonna do a wrap-around I mean there's a number of a number of options

3428
05:24:36,920 --> 05:24:42,880
 that we would just need to reevaluate the site more on it on the technical side

3429
05:24:42,880 --> 05:24:50,480
 of it Christian back thank you chair yeah I'm a little confused like I agree with

3430
05:24:50,480 --> 05:24:56,280
 Commissioner Ellis on this one I'm so if it sounds like we have a lot of

3431
05:24:56,280 --> 05:25:00,080
 differences and especially because the very next item is an Alt ESA that will

3432
05:25:00,080 --> 05:25:05,920
 no longer exist if we do this is that correct Richard it very well still could

3433
05:25:05,920 --> 05:25:09,740
 be there could be another you know additional modification to that to that

3434
05:25:09,740 --> 05:25:16,620
 Alt ESA what I would maybe suggest if if again it's ultimately up to you and the

3435
05:25:16,620 --> 05:25:27,160
 vote but even perhaps table that Alt ESA to to when that does come back okay all

3436
05:25:27,160 --> 05:25:32,240
 right thank you okay Mr. Smith nature the reason why I

3437
05:25:32,240 --> 05:25:35,560
 would motion Commissioner Beck commissioner house is just from my my

3438
05:25:35,560 --> 05:25:39,520
 understanding and city staff can be more direct more than correct me but a

3439
05:25:39,520 --> 05:25:44,680
 denial for the SUP yes be material changes that be brought back but it

3440
05:25:44,680 --> 05:25:49,600
 seems to be cleaner in that there's not a process of having to do resubmission

3441
05:25:49,600 --> 05:25:53,880
 but rather just a reconfiguration of the currently submitted documents to have to

3442
05:25:53,880 --> 05:25:58,400
 go through and work with city again it seems to me that tabling it would be a

3443
05:25:58,400 --> 05:26:02,120
 smoother and easier process for the applicant be a smoother and easier

3444
05:26:02,120 --> 05:26:06,520
 process for city staff not to deal with a brand new submission if I'm wrong

3445
05:26:06,520 --> 05:26:10,680
 within that Richard I'm wrong from that staff feel free to let me know but it

3446
05:26:10,680 --> 05:26:14,960
 seems to me that this is an easier way to go about what the what the what the

3447
05:26:14,960 --> 05:26:18,880
 applicants going to do no matter what whether we deny or table the applicants

3448
05:26:18,880 --> 05:26:21,360
 get trying to make material enough changes to be able to come back with a

3449
05:26:21,360 --> 05:26:25,800
 new project so it makes sense so to me this seems like the easiest thing for

3450
05:26:25,800 --> 05:26:32,760
 time efficiency for staff I guess I'm sort of looking at it similar what we

3451
05:26:32,760 --> 05:26:37,080
 did with with agave I think we came back even there was a denial then they they

3452
05:26:37,080 --> 05:26:43,680
 wanted to revise their application amend it prior to going to council I mean they

3453
05:26:43,680 --> 05:26:48,520
 they certainly could withdraw it and then resubmit it and so I think it's six

3454
05:26:48,520 --> 05:26:53,040
 and one half a dozen in the other to be to be quite honest but it we did do

3455
05:26:53,040 --> 05:26:56,600
 something very similar with agave ranch

3456
05:26:56,600 --> 05:27:03,920
 Commissioner Ellis and I guess I mean I'm still a little bit confused though I

3457
05:27:03,920 --> 05:27:08,160
 mean agave ranch was pretty much the same iteration it was just different

3458
05:27:08,160 --> 05:27:12,920
 densities and so how we were breaking up that that rezoning component but then

3459
05:27:12,920 --> 05:27:16,960
 the development I mean this would have to be a substantially different project

3460
05:27:16,960 --> 05:27:21,080
 with all the discussion that I heard this evening and and the lack of support

3461
05:27:21,080 --> 05:27:29,840
 that I you know that that that this commission has so at any rate I'm

3462
05:27:30,000 --> 05:27:37,840
 sorry expressed it Chris are back thank you chair yeah I'm sort of where

3463
05:27:37,840 --> 05:27:45,240
 Commissioner Ellis is can we isn't it isn't it the most straightforward I mean

3464
05:27:45,240 --> 05:27:50,080
 I take Commissioner Smith's point and I want to be more gentle with this this

3465
05:27:50,080 --> 05:27:56,000
 developer and architect but isn't it the cleanest thing if you're coming back

3466
05:27:56,000 --> 05:28:00,640
 with a completely new concept to come back with a completely new concept I

3467
05:28:00,640 --> 05:28:06,680
 don't want to I don't want to necessarily you know add the complications

3468
05:28:06,680 --> 05:28:10,160
 that Commissioner Smith addressed but it feels like there's enough differences

3469
05:28:10,160 --> 05:28:15,280
 that we should we should do the denial and let them come back under the rules

3470
05:28:15,280 --> 05:28:21,560
 of the denial if that may be ours on just briefly this is untraditional but

3471
05:28:21,560 --> 05:28:28,360
 maybe it'd be helpful if you respond yes I think the thing that is important

3472
05:28:28,360 --> 05:28:32,960
 about the table is and now it allows us not to go back and rehash all the

3473
05:28:32,960 --> 05:28:38,320
 environmental analysis all of the tree preservation analysis and really gives

3474
05:28:38,320 --> 05:28:43,600
 us an opportunity to preserve the those important things and be able to very

3475
05:28:43,600 --> 05:28:49,920
 quickly analyze whether we can or cannot find a reasonable middle ground here and

3476
05:28:49,920 --> 05:28:54,360
 that's always our goal it always has been and we would like to we would

3477
05:28:54,360 --> 05:28:58,560
 request that the tabling move forward because we can move much more swiftly

3478
05:28:58,560 --> 05:29:03,640
 than starting and square one I appreciate that insight question back to

3479
05:29:03,640 --> 05:29:07,680
 your point I understood Richard to say it's basically six one half dozen of the

3480
05:29:07,680 --> 05:29:13,680
 other in terms of the legwork on the city side when processing it I take the

3481
05:29:13,680 --> 05:29:16,920
 applicant's point about with the workload on their end but it sounds like

3482
05:29:16,920 --> 05:29:23,200
 cities either way Christian Pernada and I was just gonna cover I guess kind of

3483
05:29:23,200 --> 05:29:28,600
 what Commissioner Smith and with you know Richard said and I mean my

3484
05:29:28,600 --> 05:29:31,920
 understanding is that it would you know no matter what it comes back to it would

3485
05:29:31,920 --> 05:29:36,760
 still be an SUP and that you know multifamily would be a component of that

3486
05:29:36,760 --> 05:29:42,240
 SUP as you know although there would be some kind of retail attached to it so

3487
05:29:42,240 --> 05:29:47,440
 you know I think there's enough similarity to kind of justify leaving it

3488
05:29:47,440 --> 05:29:53,960
 you know I mean not not doing about to deny on but basically that's my thought

3489
05:29:53,960 --> 05:30:00,520
 on it that's why I seconded it so I'm gonna hop in here I haven't spoken yet

3490
05:30:00,520 --> 05:30:06,060
 so I'm gonna give my two cents before we look to conclude this discussion and we

3491
05:30:06,060 --> 05:30:11,480
 have a motion in a second on the table I'm not going to be supportive of a

3492
05:30:11,480 --> 05:30:17,240
 motion to table I would be seeking a denial on this project because it seems

3493
05:30:17,240 --> 05:30:22,760
 like it is innumerable the amount of different issues all of us have brought

3494
05:30:22,760 --> 05:30:27,360
 up everyone I think to a point has brought up something different about the

3495
05:30:27,360 --> 05:30:34,880
 complications of this project between traffic or utilities or desire from the

3496
05:30:34,880 --> 05:30:40,720
 neighbors it seems like prevailing to me is the issue of the actual residents on

3497
05:30:40,720 --> 05:30:46,200
 the property so unless there's a project at this point come back with with

3498
05:30:46,200 --> 05:30:53,520
 primarily or solely retail it's gonna be hard to get my support on this we in the

3499
05:30:53,520 --> 05:30:56,280
 presentation we haven't talked about this at all elementary has a little bit

3500
05:30:56,280 --> 05:31:00,800
 of capacity but there is zero capacity for middle school and high school and so

3501
05:31:00,800 --> 05:31:04,920
 - I forget who said it earlier the word infrastructure it seems to be wholly

3502
05:31:04,920 --> 05:31:08,560
 lacking more people and I know Christian Burnett has said there's nothing like a

3503
05:31:08,560 --> 05:31:11,880
 grocery store coming to this area that might be true I'm hoping after five

3504
05:31:11,880 --> 05:31:15,800
 years I would at least want to re-explore that what I do know is as

3505
05:31:15,800 --> 05:31:19,320
 though I tend to be a commissioner and looking for the lesser of two evils in

3506
05:31:19,320 --> 05:31:23,240
 order to promote infill I don't feel this is lesser of two evil when this is

3507
05:31:23,240 --> 05:31:29,080
 the last property in that area for the preserves to have something if this goes

3508
05:31:29,080 --> 05:31:33,480
 to an apartment and I understand that the applicant said the south parcel will

3509
05:31:33,480 --> 05:31:39,360
 be some retail it's a it's a sliver this is like the last opportunity I feel for

3510
05:31:39,360 --> 05:31:43,920
 those citizens to have anything and it might be worth a wait for a year to see

3511
05:31:43,920 --> 05:31:47,880
 if someone can do this or if someone can relook at the the ESA or come up with an

3512
05:31:47,880 --> 05:31:52,400
 all a better alternative to get more land productivity out of it I just think

3513
05:31:52,400 --> 05:31:59,680
 I would be I am more inclined to see this go to commercial property so the

3514
05:31:59,680 --> 05:32:02,960
 idea of putting retail on the first floor and then stacking residents on top

3515
05:32:02,960 --> 05:32:07,920
 of it I don't think to me gets us to the point and where I think we want and

3516
05:32:07,920 --> 05:32:11,720
 where the citizens want this project to go I understand we can't tell Trader

3517
05:32:11,720 --> 05:32:15,920
 Joe's to come to town believe me it would be here if we could but that's not

3518
05:32:15,920 --> 05:32:19,800
 to say that there shouldn't be effort put forth either by this this owner or

3519
05:32:19,800 --> 05:32:24,280
 a new owner of the property to explore creatively how this gets done if they're

3520
05:32:24,280 --> 05:32:29,400
 able to get 93,000 square feet and two little L shapes you can put two strip

3521
05:32:29,400 --> 05:32:33,960
 centers in the exact same footprint with the exact same parking and it seems

3522
05:32:33,960 --> 05:32:39,160
 pretty easy now the economics of that I can't really speak into that it seems

3523
05:32:39,160 --> 05:32:43,120
 like there has been people who have passed on it but nevertheless as

3524
05:32:43,120 --> 05:32:46,120
 Commissioner Ellis said that's one of the most dense parts in our city so five

3525
05:32:46,120 --> 05:32:50,800
 years ago it seems like Kroger said that it wasn't densely populated again it

3526
05:32:50,800 --> 05:32:54,600
 seems like five years needs a revisit to the entire conversation of what that

3527
05:32:54,600 --> 05:32:59,160
 area can support because I would say it's it's about as close to a food

3528
05:32:59,160 --> 05:33:05,040
 desert as we have in our town and so with that we do have a motion to table

3529
05:33:05,040 --> 05:33:09,720
 we have a second for that and so without any further discussion I think we should

3530
05:33:09,720 --> 05:33:14,720
 go ahead and hear that vote I'll do by roll call starting with

3531
05:33:14,720 --> 05:33:21,600
 Krister back Krister back this is a vote for a table to a date uncertain how do

3532
05:33:21,600 --> 05:33:39,480
 you vote? Nay. Krister Anderson? Nay. Krister Ellis? Nay. Krister Cole? Nay. Krister Smith? Aye.

3533
05:33:39,480 --> 05:33:47,480
 Krister Pernetta? Aye. Chair is a nay. Motion fails 5-2. Chair will entertain

3534
05:33:47,480 --> 05:33:54,240
 another motion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to the deny. Commissioner Cole?

3535
05:33:54,240 --> 05:34:00,600
 Second. We have a first and a second to deny. Is there any discussion on this?

3536
05:34:00,600 --> 05:34:05,600
 Seeing none I'll call for a vote. Commissioner Beck? Aye.

3537
05:34:05,600 --> 05:34:12,040
 Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye.

3538
05:34:12,040 --> 05:34:19,840
 Krister Smith? Aye. Krister Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0 to

3539
05:34:19,840 --> 05:34:30,680
 deny. The next item of business is item 5D that's the AESA 20-0005B. I'm in a

3540
05:34:30,680 --> 05:34:37,080
 conundrum here Richard do we go ahead and hear this and vote? I'm seeing nods

3541
05:34:37,080 --> 05:34:44,360
 from Cynthia. We would again yeah it's a recommendation. Yes sir. Can I maybe

3542
05:34:44,360 --> 05:34:50,200
 just a quick maybe two minute three minute recess I mean I could step away

3543
05:34:50,200 --> 05:34:54,800
 just a thought. No let's go ahead we'll take we'll take three minutes I

3544
05:34:54,800 --> 05:35:01,680
 appreciate the suggestion I will cause call the meeting to recess at 948 be

3545
05:35:01,680 --> 05:35:06,680
 back by 952 please. Thank you for your patience I'm going to call back the

3546
05:35:06,680 --> 05:35:17,840
 order call the meeting back to order at 955. We'll move into item 5D AESA 20-0005B I'm

3547
05:35:17,840 --> 05:35:22,440
 going to open the public hearing and turn the floor over to Christy Upton and

3548
05:35:22,440 --> 05:35:27,400
 Christy if you could given the prior results do a maybe a high-level

3549
05:35:27,400 --> 05:35:33,760
 presentation I think that would be most beneficial for us. Absolutely.

3550
05:35:36,720 --> 05:35:42,760
 So good evening this is an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan and

3551
05:35:42,760 --> 05:35:51,600
 it is in regards to the project that you just discussed and the reason for this

3552
05:35:51,600 --> 05:35:57,560
 alternative AESA plan is for the construction of a retaining wall that

3553
05:35:57,560 --> 05:36:04,360
 would support the development. The AESA field assessment Corina went over that

3554
05:36:04,360 --> 05:36:09,240
 in the previous presentation so I'll just give you a little bit more

3555
05:36:09,240 --> 05:36:15,560
 highlight here there's a this stream is called Pecan Creek and there's the

3556
05:36:15,560 --> 05:36:20,800
 riparian buffers and the flip plane and the water related habitat that is all

3557
05:36:20,800 --> 05:36:28,440
 internet inter nested within this area all support the water quality and water

3558
05:36:28,440 --> 05:36:36,240
 quantity coming through this site and there is a permitted encroachment for

3559
05:36:36,240 --> 05:36:43,560
 the improvements to Shady Shores Road and that's in this area that's along

3560
05:36:43,560 --> 05:36:48,960
 Shady Shores they the applicant would need to remove some of the vegetation in

3561
05:36:48,960 --> 05:36:54,400
 order to construct the road and per the development code this is a permitted

3562
05:36:54,400 --> 05:37:01,440
 activity because staff it requires that the applicant restore that area to

3563
05:37:01,440 --> 05:37:09,120
 minimize erosion and promote the recovery of the ESA. So the proposed

3564
05:37:09,120 --> 05:37:15,520
 encroachments that are not permitted by the code is to remove some of the

3565
05:37:15,520 --> 05:37:18,720
 vegetation in order to construct these retaining walls that supports

3566
05:37:18,720 --> 05:37:24,080
 development and in order to construct the retaining walls the applicant would

3567
05:37:24,080 --> 05:37:29,960
 need to remove the understory and the some of the trees that are located

3568
05:37:29,960 --> 05:37:36,320
 within that riparian buffer zone that's 15 feet from the wall and in this

3569
05:37:36,320 --> 05:37:42,200
 temporary construction easement again it would result in some of that vegetation

3570
05:37:42,200 --> 05:37:51,160
 needing to be removed in order to to compensate for it and to restore the

3571
05:37:51,160 --> 05:37:58,480
 area and the applicant is going to is proposing to reseed with native grasses

3572
05:37:58,480 --> 05:38:04,560
 and to replace the damaged trees after construction they have identified that

3573
05:38:04,560 --> 05:38:09,740
 there would be 32 inches that would be removed and then they agreed that one

3574
05:38:09,740 --> 05:38:14,000
 year after the construction they would inspect the area and replace any dead or

3575
05:38:14,000 --> 05:38:22,240
 drying or dying trees that were found to have been damaged during the

3576
05:38:22,240 --> 05:38:27,360
 construction and the trees would be replaced at the mitigation rate per the

3577
05:38:27,360 --> 05:38:37,880
 the tree mitigation code and not always connected but that that seemed like a

3578
05:38:37,880 --> 05:38:43,360
 fair assessment to use the tree mitigation rate. There was one response

3579
05:38:43,360 --> 05:38:49,920
 of a favor you can see here in green and staff is recommending approval of the

3580
05:38:49,920 --> 05:38:56,160
 request with the land disturbances limited limiting the land disturbances

3581
05:38:56,160 --> 05:39:03,760
 as shown in the plan and then restoring the area per the plan with the seeded

3582
05:39:03,760 --> 05:39:11,360
 areas and then replacing the trees that were removed at the rate that the tree

3583
05:39:11,360 --> 05:39:21,280
 mitigation rate and then the one-year report that would upon approval provide

3584
05:39:21,280 --> 05:39:27,480
 for replacement of any further damaged trees and then the last two

3585
05:39:27,480 --> 05:39:31,840
 recommendations that environmental services typically recommends for

3586
05:39:31,840 --> 05:39:42,320
 ensuring that this is a successful plant and restoration and that's it. Are there any

3587
05:39:42,320 --> 05:39:46,320
 questions? Christy thank you for that great presentation we do have a

3588
05:39:46,320 --> 05:39:49,520
 question Commissioner Beck. Yeah thank you and I don't want to belabor this

3589
05:39:49,520 --> 05:39:56,560
 because all the reasons but something similar hopefully will come back

3590
05:39:56,560 --> 05:40:00,920
 because we're talking about the eastern part for development not the western

3591
05:40:00,920 --> 05:40:07,360
 part so my question is what I tried to get across earlier is when this is where

3592
05:40:07,360 --> 05:40:22,160
 I want education and and that is for the 747A8 does it matter this was the

3593
05:40:22,160 --> 05:40:24,680
 question I was trying to get and I think I hopefully have a better way of asking

3594
05:40:24,680 --> 05:40:32,760
 it does it matter the size scale of the road or it's just any road on the

3595
05:40:32,760 --> 05:40:39,120
 mobility plan? Any road on the mobility plan and the reason for that is is

3596
05:40:39,120 --> 05:40:45,800
 because you're you're not requiring you're requiring that applicant to build

3597
05:40:45,800 --> 05:40:52,120
 that road for for the community you know that road expansion would be for all

3598
05:40:52,120 --> 05:40:58,080
 community members so you're asking them to to build that road so equitably you

3599
05:40:58,080 --> 05:41:05,280
 wouldn't necessarily want to request them to request that that flexibility and

3600
05:41:05,280 --> 05:41:12,600
 alternative ESA plan for for a road that they have to build. Okay and this

3601
05:41:12,600 --> 05:41:16,320
 thank you that clarified that and I guess I should have started with you at

3602
05:41:16,320 --> 05:41:22,920
 the beginning so thank you and then this the second question is similar in the

3603
05:41:22,920 --> 05:41:29,360
 same section it seems to suggest that for erosion to the harm from erosion to

3604
05:41:29,360 --> 05:41:36,160
 be to be offset they have to improve it not just restore it is that correct?

3605
05:41:36,160 --> 05:41:46,200
 Are you still asking about the roadway? Whenever you modify an ESA it I think

3606
05:41:46,200 --> 05:41:51,480
 this section about the roadway was saying in order to do the erosion

3607
05:41:51,480 --> 05:41:55,800
 control maybe it is actually the retaining walls but in order to do that

3608
05:41:55,800 --> 05:42:00,920
 do you have to just restore it to the level it was or do you have to make it

3609
05:42:00,920 --> 05:42:12,040
 better? The COA specifically says restore to minimize erosion and to and to

3610
05:42:12,040 --> 05:42:18,320
 promote the recovery of the ESA so how that that actually is achieved I think

3611
05:42:18,320 --> 05:42:24,840
 is there there's going to be some some different ways and different means of

3612
05:42:24,840 --> 05:42:31,240
 getting there and it so it really kind of depends on the site depends on what

3613
05:42:31,240 --> 05:42:38,400
 is being proposed to be removed so I think there's just too many variables to

3614
05:42:38,400 --> 05:42:42,840
 try to cut it enough fair enough thank you I appreciate that that's all my

3615
05:42:42,840 --> 05:42:49,360
 questions thank you any other questions for Christy excuse me well I do want to

3616
05:42:49,360 --> 05:42:53,000
 say that for this item we had two people make comment using our online form those

3617
05:42:53,000 --> 05:42:57,720
 two individuals were in support of it they were not against it there's zero

3618
05:42:57,720 --> 05:43:01,160
 against it and all these common forms were emailed to the commissioners and

3619
05:43:01,160 --> 05:43:07,120
 our city secretary to record and with that I think I noted that the applicant

3620
05:43:07,120 --> 05:43:15,160
 had dropped off the line so yep I'm gonna go ahead and close we are here if

3621
05:43:15,160 --> 05:43:19,480
 you have any questions oh perfect there are others of us Charles is left okay

3622
05:43:19,480 --> 05:43:23,400
 well I appreciate you clarifying that is there any questions for the applicant

3623
05:43:23,400 --> 05:43:29,760
 okay great can I make a statement you absolutely can okay terrific my name is

3624
05:43:29,760 --> 05:43:33,320
 Michael Clark I'm with Winkleman and Associates I appreciate that opportunity

3625
05:43:33,320 --> 05:43:40,520
 6750 Hillcrest Plaza Suite 325 Dallas 75230 I know we had a lot of

3626
05:43:40,520 --> 05:43:47,040
 conversations and the previous case didn't go particularly well however if

3627
05:43:47,040 --> 05:43:53,680
 and I'm trying to formulate my words here if you saw fit to approve this

3628
05:43:53,680 --> 05:43:59,520
 action item what that would do is that would allow my client to know let me

3629
05:43:59,520 --> 05:44:02,480
 back up a minute let me say the different way we've worked very very

3630
05:44:02,480 --> 05:44:07,680
 diligently with staff with many many I don't use the word conflicting but many

3631
05:44:07,680 --> 05:44:13,720
 co-joined ordinances and rules and regulations to get to what we feel is a

3632
05:44:13,720 --> 05:44:18,560
 very minimal impact on this ESA an approval of this item would give my

3633
05:44:18,560 --> 05:44:24,720
 client the ability to know with with strong support that this is the limit of

3634
05:44:24,720 --> 05:44:30,360
 where we can develop so any subsequent site plans would have this limit defined

3635
05:44:30,360 --> 05:44:35,280
 pretty well we know that we'd work with staff and we've met and achieved all the

3636
05:44:35,280 --> 05:44:38,600
 ordinances we can with this minor variance and that would allow us to

3637
05:44:38,600 --> 05:44:45,120
 define this what is it the developed DIA and work with the with any revised site

3638
05:44:45,120 --> 05:44:50,680
 plans with the with a confirmed line and limits of work so that's I know it's

3639
05:44:50,680 --> 05:44:55,240
 kind of counterintuitive to deny wanted to prove another but that would be very

3640
05:44:55,240 --> 05:44:58,960
 helpful for anybody further developing this to know that this is the limits of

3641
05:44:58,960 --> 05:45:05,680
 where you can go I appreciate that mr. Clark I would like to clarify on the

3642
05:45:05,680 --> 05:45:11,200
 city side either with Christy or Richard I didn't understand that to be the case

3643
05:45:11,200 --> 05:45:18,320
 that he presented just now that it would it hold true of other projects being

3644
05:45:18,320 --> 05:45:35,000
 brought forth can you clarify that well with the approval of this plan the the

3645
05:45:35,000 --> 05:45:41,560
 plan is not necessarily tied to the SCP so with the approval of this plan

3646
05:45:41,560 --> 05:45:48,760
 potentially the applicant could design as sites around this this limitation of

3647
05:45:48,760 --> 05:45:56,200
 of this alternative ESA plan and then proceed with the restoration that was

3648
05:45:56,200 --> 05:46:01,960
 proposed in the plan so as long as as the encroachments didn't increase and

3649
05:46:01,960 --> 05:46:10,960
 the the applicant is still proceeding with the same restoration plan I don't

3650
05:46:10,960 --> 05:46:24,200
 foresee that this approving this would would would cause for other impacts to

3651
05:46:24,200 --> 05:46:30,880
 other applications just allow for them to move forward yeah is is the as is an

3652
05:46:30,880 --> 05:46:37,960
 alt ESA tied to the property so if if we approved an AESA and the developer did

3653
05:46:37,960 --> 05:46:44,520
 not proceed with the project or there's a change of ownership the ASA whole to

3654
05:46:44,520 --> 05:46:52,440
 the property is that correct that is correct maybe if you think of it in

3655
05:46:52,440 --> 05:46:58,760
 terms of because we did have to amend it the Fisher 59 alt ESA and so that that

3656
05:46:58,760 --> 05:47:02,280
 stayed with that with that property when they had to establish that second means

3657
05:47:02,280 --> 05:47:07,040
 of access as a result of fire to traverse that traverse that alt ESA

3658
05:47:07,040 --> 05:47:12,840
 again that was off of off of 380 to to the applicant's point with what this

3659
05:47:12,840 --> 05:47:19,720
 would essentially do is fence in if you will that development impact area and

3660
05:47:19,720 --> 05:47:25,840
 then set the very the very absolute maximum limit that they could encroach

3661
05:47:25,840 --> 05:47:32,120
 into the ESA to build that retaining wall for the site so it would give them

3662
05:47:32,120 --> 05:47:38,440
 that boundary but again or or it could potentially if not it would could

3663
05:47:38,440 --> 05:47:42,200
 potentially if they didn't want to go for with the audience to shrink that

3664
05:47:42,200 --> 05:47:46,000
 development impact area and whether it would still be viable at that point that

3665
05:47:46,000 --> 05:47:50,040
 would be something they would have to determine I appreciate clarification I'm

3666
05:47:50,040 --> 05:47:56,600
 more inclined to have an alt ESA tied to the SUP and hear those together it seems

3667
05:47:56,600 --> 05:48:00,800
 a little bit more conjoined that way but commissioner back you had your hand up

3668
05:48:00,800 --> 05:48:05,520
 yes thank you chair so so my concern with that approach and I and I see that

3669
05:48:05,520 --> 05:48:09,560
 Christie's point in the developers point that this would as Richard I believe said

3670
05:48:09,560 --> 05:48:17,400
 fence this in and provide a limit but there's there's were specific ESA

3671
05:48:17,400 --> 05:48:22,720
 encroachments caused by the layout of the buildings that they wanted to do and

3672
05:48:22,720 --> 05:48:27,600
 it's so I would hate and we went through all this because we're saying we would

3673
05:48:27,600 --> 05:48:31,960
 like a different alternative use and if they have a different building plan then

3674
05:48:31,960 --> 05:48:38,040
 they might need different encroachments and that would end up I wouldn't want to

3675
05:48:38,040 --> 05:48:45,760
 reduce the flexibility for a future development by having a restrictive ESA

3676
05:48:45,760 --> 05:48:51,320
 that you know they we ended up having to amend it or something else that we're

3677
05:48:51,320 --> 05:48:55,040
 allowed to do in the code I'm not sure we could do that but I would I would I

3678
05:48:55,040 --> 05:48:59,320
 wouldn't I think it would be cleaner if they just got a an ESA for what they

3679
05:48:59,320 --> 05:49:06,520
 want to propose rather than use it as a fencing mechanism that would be my

3680
05:49:06,520 --> 05:49:14,920
 recommendation okay so having heard from the applicant I'm gonna go ahead and

3681
05:49:14,920 --> 05:49:19,120
 close the public hearing we can have further discussion or motion but it

3682
05:49:19,120 --> 05:49:23,560
 looks like I'm gonna go to Tim Smith commissioner Smith first

3683
05:49:23,560 --> 05:49:28,720
 but make a motion to the nine I agree with Commissioner Beck and chair Rizel

3684
05:49:28,720 --> 05:49:34,640
 that I think that just creates some sort of constriction that later on down the

3685
05:49:34,640 --> 05:49:38,200
 road it'd be a little bit redundant we may end up having to just see them see a

3686
05:49:38,200 --> 05:49:42,440
 change to the all these stuff we come back around to it so I understand the

3687
05:49:42,440 --> 05:49:48,280
 applicants concerns that that a lot of work has been done if my original

3688
05:49:48,280 --> 05:49:55,560
 motion to table had been gone through motion to table but motion to deny so I

3689
05:49:55,560 --> 05:50:01,560
 think I'm a care of my motions to deny Commissioner Ellis I will second yeah I

3690
05:50:01,560 --> 05:50:05,640
 don't understand all DSA without a development that to me doesn't make

3691
05:50:05,640 --> 05:50:14,880
 sense we have a first and a second for denial any discussion on this seeing

3692
05:50:14,880 --> 05:50:19,400
 none I'm gonna call a vote for via roll call the boxes have shifted here so I'm

3693
05:50:19,400 --> 05:50:26,560
 gonna start with Commissioner Smith this time I Mr. Cole I coaster Ellis I

3694
05:50:26,560 --> 05:50:35,760
 Commissioner Anderson I Christopher Neta I commissioner Beck I chairs also an I

3695
05:50:35,760 --> 05:50:43,160
 motion to deny carry 7-0 that brings us to our concluding item item 6a to

3696
05:50:43,160 --> 05:50:47,920
 discuss the matrix as always I'm gonna toss this over to Richard and then to

3697
05:50:47,920 --> 05:50:53,240
 the dais for discussion Richard floors yours just quickly I know it's been a

3698
05:50:53,240 --> 05:50:58,640
 been a long been a long night most likely next meeting we'll we'll have the

3699
05:50:58,640 --> 05:51:02,800
 mobility plan discussion on both in terms of kind of where we are with the

3700
05:51:02,800 --> 05:51:08,280
 mobility plan as well as how it is amended I think that was the the initial

3701
05:51:08,280 --> 05:51:11,920
 question but I think it's also probably appropriate to talk about what kind of

3702
05:51:11,920 --> 05:51:15,920
 where we are now with it so we'll probably look at again another 4 o'clock

3703
05:51:15,920 --> 05:51:20,480
 start but we'll we'll have that confirmed within within the next couple

3704
05:51:20,480 --> 05:51:26,360
 days just to add a cup there were no council actions on on any items we had

3705
05:51:26,360 --> 05:51:32,480
 had a little bit of a break there but just just to clarify one item I wanted

3706
05:51:32,480 --> 05:51:35,320
 to give everyone the reference I know there was a question about 30-day

3707
05:51:35,320 --> 05:51:43,760
 extension and it's Texas local government code section 212.009 B - - we

3708
05:51:43,760 --> 05:51:51,120
 can I'll go ahead and send everyone an email with that just 212 overall so you

3709
05:51:51,120 --> 05:51:55,000
 have it but just wanted to provide that provide that section to everyone the

3710
05:51:55,000 --> 05:51:58,280
 only other thing I just wanted to mention because I think it's we've had

3711
05:51:58,280 --> 05:52:02,520
 some interesting discussions more so I think on the comp plan and rezoning and

3712
05:52:02,520 --> 05:52:07,440
 even as it relates to a number of these rural residential designations that

3713
05:52:07,440 --> 05:52:12,320
 we've used as a holding pattern that I think has come back around not so great

3714
05:52:12,320 --> 05:52:18,540
 at us as we're looking to plan the future adequately we do have we did have

3715
05:52:18,540 --> 05:52:25,880
 the RFP out for the comp plan update and so we are in the process of finalizing

3716
05:52:25,880 --> 05:52:31,280
 the selection of that RFP and ultimately that'll go to council for for decision

3717
05:52:31,280 --> 05:52:36,520
 but that is in the works and hopefully we will have somebody at least selected

3718
05:52:36,520 --> 05:52:40,600
 I'm guessing by the first of the year maybe the the end of December but most

3719
05:52:40,600 --> 05:52:44,080
 likely the first of the year so that will be coming back around and so I

3720
05:52:44,080 --> 05:52:47,360
 think kind of where we are with a lot of things the mobility plan some of the

3721
05:52:47,360 --> 05:52:51,280
 other utility plans and then again really taking a hard look at particularly

3722
05:52:51,280 --> 05:52:56,360
 some of these areas that are in town I'll say that that we've just given an

3723
05:52:56,360 --> 05:53:01,880
 RR because we annex them or are unincorporated are still unincorporated

3724
05:53:01,880 --> 05:53:04,800
 but we've given them an RR but really I think looking a little more

3725
05:53:04,800 --> 05:53:09,520
 strategically as as a city how we want to grow again ultimately I think that's

3726
05:53:09,520 --> 05:53:14,160
 just something that as a commission you'll have to make rec review and make

3727
05:53:14,160 --> 05:53:18,600
 a recommendation to council for ultimate decision but I think we're in for some

3728
05:53:18,600 --> 05:53:25,760
 long hopefully robust discussions and that's I'll leave it at that and I look

3729
05:53:25,760 --> 05:53:32,040
 forward to it thanks for the update Richard off the top on the matrix some

3730
05:53:32,040 --> 05:53:36,400
 of this goes to the matrix but I just want to bring it up to see where the

3731
05:53:36,400 --> 05:53:44,200
 discussion should lie this shady shores road thing is confounding we have a

3732
05:53:44,200 --> 05:53:49,120
 property owner who's trying desperately to develop a piece of land that has a

3733
05:53:49,120 --> 05:53:55,080
 or ESA all over it and apparently he owns the adjacent property across the

3734
05:53:55,080 --> 05:54:00,120
 road from Shady Shores I would be highly interested to see what we can do with

3735
05:54:00,120 --> 05:54:04,160
 that property owner to combine those lots and abandoned Shady Shores Road

3736
05:54:04,160 --> 05:54:07,840
 which is terrible to begin with because if we were to combine those two lots

3737
05:54:07,840 --> 05:54:11,920
 that would give the property owner significantly more land to develop on and

3738
05:54:11,920 --> 05:54:16,160
 give them frontage road to I-35 increases property value I see this as a

3739
05:54:16,160 --> 05:54:21,360
 win-win to get something that I think the residents the city all of us would

3740
05:54:21,360 --> 05:54:25,800
 want I just don't know the process of doing that I mean it looks like classic

3741
05:54:25,800 --> 05:54:31,280
 Dodge has an entry off Shady Shores so you'd have to there'd have to be some

3742
05:54:31,280 --> 05:54:35,320
 sort of mitigation there but I would like to know the process of a city

3743
05:54:35,320 --> 05:54:39,800
 initiated reaching out to developer to see what we can do to actually get this

3744
05:54:39,800 --> 05:54:45,120
 project moving because I mean I really it seems like the developer wants to

3745
05:54:45,120 --> 05:54:50,600
 build there we have we have someone who's who's you know interested it seems

3746
05:54:50,600 --> 05:54:56,000
 like it's not a huge lift to abandon a road in which there's only two parcels

3747
05:54:56,000 --> 05:54:59,880
 of land and one person owns both of them so I don't have that outreach to the

3748
05:54:59,880 --> 05:55:03,360
 developer and him to apply for it or we can do but I just want to bring that

3749
05:55:03,360 --> 05:55:08,320
 discussion about some options with that property we heard tonight definitely

3750
05:55:08,320 --> 05:55:11,920
 definitely will and just to mention one of the one of the items that will

3751
05:55:11,920 --> 05:55:17,280
 eventually come back is as we discussed through through DC RC and go through the

3752
05:55:17,280 --> 05:55:24,040
 update to the DDC or cleanup is really including those procedures for

3753
05:55:24,040 --> 05:55:28,600
 abandonment or vacation of right away so so it is specifically outlined and it's

3754
05:55:28,600 --> 05:55:33,080
 a clear process within within the DDC and because we really don't don't have

3755
05:55:33,080 --> 05:55:38,000
 that have that tool we kind of do but but it's just not codified as it

3756
05:55:38,000 --> 05:55:42,080
 probably should be great thanks Richard any other items

3757
05:55:42,080 --> 05:55:48,560
 Chris Rebecca thank you chair Richard a number of people have reached out to me

3758
05:55:48,560 --> 05:55:54,040
 and said they they would like to have they know about the Arc GIS or maybe

3759
05:55:54,040 --> 05:55:57,400
 it's the static but they know about the map of development that we have on our

3760
05:55:57,400 --> 05:56:04,760
 website can you tell if there's a list of development of properties under

3761
05:56:04,760 --> 05:56:08,280
 development that would be useful and if there's not could we I mean I know you

3762
05:56:08,280 --> 05:56:13,200
 have that is there a public facing list that we could get because a number of

3763
05:56:13,200 --> 05:56:17,000
 people have asked me for the list they see the map they see the fine legend

3764
05:56:17,000 --> 05:56:20,040
 they can't read the legend they definitely can't manipulate the legend

3765
05:56:20,040 --> 05:56:28,240
 they'd like a some sort of data table there is there's also a active projects

3766
05:56:28,240 --> 05:56:35,360
 map what what I will do is in one of these upcoming sessions I will have Cody

3767
05:56:35,360 --> 05:56:41,720
 the wizard as we like to call him our GIS guru kind of walk us through that

3768
05:56:41,720 --> 05:56:46,200
 and and if there's tweaks that need to be made I think it would be good for us

3769
05:56:46,200 --> 05:56:50,120
 just to look at that but part part of the challenge is trying to get all of

3770
05:56:50,120 --> 05:56:53,400
 them integrated together and so we're in the those are just one of those items

3771
05:56:53,400 --> 05:56:58,560
 that we're continually doing but there is there is a component of the active

3772
05:56:58,560 --> 05:57:02,880
 projects map and I can I can forward that link that's a little different than

3773
05:57:02,880 --> 05:57:08,840
 the weekly submission that that is in a is in a spreadsheet essentially you can

3774
05:57:08,840 --> 05:57:12,960
 you can download it and it it'll give you every plat application that that's

3775
05:57:12,960 --> 05:57:18,360
 pending and so maybe that's it if not then we can we can look to tweak that

3776
05:57:18,360 --> 05:57:24,000
 and see what we can pull from track it to like that might be the solution people

3777
05:57:24,000 --> 05:57:27,820
 were asking me for so if you could share that with the Commission then I could

3778
05:57:27,820 --> 05:57:31,320
 just share that with the people that are asking me and but I don't think they

3779
05:57:31,320 --> 05:57:36,560
 would mind having the the active if you could show have someone show us how to

3780
05:57:36,560 --> 05:57:42,360
 pull all the active plats out of the Arc GIS system as well if that's something

3781
05:57:42,360 --> 05:57:46,200
 trip fairly trivial the public could do I think they would appreciate that as

3782
05:57:46,200 --> 05:57:51,920
 well there are a lot of very fine data analytics people in in our town with our

3783
05:57:51,920 --> 05:58:03,040
 three universities so any other items for the matrix great well done good

3784
05:58:03,040 --> 05:58:07,840
 meeting guys I will close it at 1018