WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.580 good afternoon welcome to the planning and zoning work session meeting for 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 00:00:09.560 --> 00:00:15.320 at 403 just let the record show that we currently are absent the following 00:00:15.320 --> 00:00:19.240 commissioners Commissioner Smith Commissioner Pernetta and Commissioner 00:00:19.240 --> 00:00:26.300 Anderson as they join I will update the record for that and looking at the 00:00:26.300 --> 00:00:29.640 agenda for today the first item is citizen comments on the consent agenda 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 00:00:35.320 --> 00:00:43.000 afternoon it's item 2a pz 20 - two five four receive a report and hold the 00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:46.120 discussion and give staff input regarding the assessment and use of 00:00:46.120 --> 00:00:50.880 parkland dedication and park development fees so with that I'll turn it over to 00:00:50.880 --> 00:01:00.720 staff for presentation good afternoon everyone my name is Laura Barron's I 00:01:00.720 --> 00:01:06.380 recently served as the assistant director for parks and recreation and am 00:01:06.380 --> 00:01:12.000 now the grant administrator for the city but prior to moving over to my new 00:01:12.000 --> 00:01:18.160 position Gary and I started an update of an ordinance for our park land 00:01:18.160 --> 00:01:22.960 dedication and park development fees and I'd like to give you an update on that 00:01:22.960 --> 00:01:25.960 progress 00:01:25.960 --> 00:01:47.280 our park dedication known as 915 and our park development known as 916 funds 00:01:47.280 --> 00:01:55.840 were originally adopted in 1998 under ordinance 98 - 0 3 9 park dedication is 00:01:55.840 --> 00:02:00.760 the allocation of land for developments of parks and park development is the 00:02:00.760 --> 00:02:05.520 allocation of funding for park improvements both of them provide 00:02:05.520 --> 00:02:10.080 recreational areas as part of the planning and development process they 00:02:10.080 --> 00:02:16.200 apply to new residential subdivisions only Laura we have a question from 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 00:02:20.320 --> 00:02:25.000 seeing something or is this an auditory presentation oh hang on just a second 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 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 00:02:46.040 --> 00:02:58.360 it's perfect sorry here we go the 915 916 funds park dedication and park 00:02:58.360 --> 00:03:04.440 development apply to new residential subdivisions only they do impact 00:03:04.440 --> 00:03:11.120 neighborhood parks directly benefiting residents of a development the intent is 00:03:11.120 --> 00:03:17.200 to keep pace with growth and to also keep pace with the need that is created 00:03:17.200 --> 00:03:24.120 by new developments and it conveys the cost to the user so rather than existing 00:03:24.120 --> 00:03:30.960 citizens paying for the cost of new growth or increased use and a part that 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 00:03:36.480 --> 00:03:45.720 and the new users the current ordinance hasn't changed there have been no 00:03:45.720 --> 00:03:51.320 updates since its adoption the land requirement currently has a factor of 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 00:03:56.960 --> 00:04:02.560 units of a new development and it does have a factor of residents per dwelling 00:04:02.560 --> 00:04:09.600 unit for single-family and multifamily the fee in lieu of requirement is based 00:04:09.600 --> 00:04:14.360 on individual property so if for whatever reason a development is unable 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 00:04:21.080 --> 00:04:28.120 fee in lieu of that land requirement and then on the 916 that fees currently 00:04:28.120 --> 00:04:33.120 based on a cost of two hundred and eight thousand dollars to develop a five acre 00:04:33.120 --> 00:04:40.000 park which we know is is very undervalued and it also sets a fee for 00:04:40.000 --> 00:04:45.840 single-family and multifamily dwelling units both of them have a parameter of 00:04:45.840 --> 00:04:50.880 use of a half a mile to a mile radius and that has presented some challenges 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 00:04:57.200 --> 00:05:02.800 based to meet a legal requirement that we'll review in just the next slide but 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 00:05:07.360 --> 00:05:13.360 the strategic planning side we're looking at where we have money rather 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 00:05:19.920 --> 00:05:26.480 some funding gaps within the city because not all development is the same 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 00:05:31.520 --> 00:05:35.220 administrative challenges in terms of tracking that money because we have to 00:05:35.220 --> 00:05:40.920 use it within that parameter we have to know then at all times where that money 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 00:05:46.360 --> 00:05:52.960 and over the years that can if a development changes its name or that 00:05:52.960 --> 00:05:57.560 neighborhood changes names but it's under an original developer name or 00:05:57.560 --> 00:06:01.400 project name we've had some difficulties in trying to go back search 00:06:01.400 --> 00:06:06.360 the records and find out where exactly that the location where that money came 00:06:06.360 --> 00:06:11.320 from so that we know that we're using it appropriately under the proposed 00:06:11.320 --> 00:06:15.920 ordinance we update several factors first of all we update our demographics 00:06:15.920 --> 00:06:23.580 and our development costs and to keep updated we also have a three-year review 00:06:23.580 --> 00:06:28.400 process in the proposed ordinance so that we don't get behind on those things 00:06:28.400 --> 00:06:35.600 in the future we also establish city zones rather than parameters that will 00:06:35.600 --> 00:06:40.280 help with strategic planning and then also with those administrative challenges 00:06:40.280 --> 00:06:44.560 that we have moving forward we also develop a level of service or we 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 00:06:49.560 --> 00:06:56.040 does set fees rather than making it by individual development and this entire 00:06:56.040 --> 00:07:01.480 process has been a collaboration between our department and dr. John Crompton 00:07:01.480 --> 00:07:09.000 whose services we engaged he is with the Texas A&M University and is a recognized 00:07:09.000 --> 00:07:14.520 expert in this particular subject we've also presented this information several 00:07:14.520 --> 00:07:18.440 times to the developer group meetings those town hall meetings that are hosted 00:07:18.440 --> 00:07:24.280 by our development services department and we have a smaller focus group that 00:07:24.280 --> 00:07:30.280 we were meeting with on a monthly basis up until the spring that has about 11 00:07:30.280 --> 00:07:36.840 representatives over eight different firms that work in the development field 00:07:36.840 --> 00:07:42.920 that have gone through this process with us helped us establish a new methodology 00:07:42.920 --> 00:07:52.600 and have also gone through the proposed ordinance in detail so one of the things 00:07:52.600 --> 00:07:58.640 that we're having to look at are the legal basis for this particular fee 00:07:58.640 --> 00:08:05.720 there are two Supreme Court rulings on part fees and that first one Nolan 00:08:05.720 --> 00:08:11.080 versus California it established it's called a nexus principle which is where 00:08:11.080 --> 00:08:17.800 we got that original proximity from it is it stated that the funds deposited 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 00:08:22.440 --> 00:08:27.340 expended within that zone or district it had to be located in proximity of the 00:08:27.340 --> 00:08:34.120 new residential development in 1994 there was a second Supreme Court review 00:08:34.120 --> 00:08:40.400 of this particular fee and they redefined that nexus principle into what 00:08:40.400 --> 00:08:45.360 they called rough proportionality and it became a little bit more specific they 00:08:45.360 --> 00:08:49.680 said we had to actually have a connection between the imposed requirement 00:08:49.680 --> 00:08:54.480 or the imposed fee on the development that was placed on the development and 00:08:54.480 --> 00:09:00.560 the park use projected as a result of that new development and that what that 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 00:09:08.720 --> 00:09:14.240 establishing our fees and what that means is we can't solely base our fees 00:09:14.240 --> 00:09:21.440 off of benchmarking we have to be able to show what on the ground what our 00:09:21.440 --> 00:09:25.640 service level is and what that connection is between what we're saying 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 00:09:32.440 --> 00:09:38.360 Christian back yeah thank you chair and and thank you I didn't mean to like 00:09:38.360 --> 00:09:42.760 constantly Twitter and interrupt your I was waiting for you to get to a positive 00:09:42.760 --> 00:09:48.240 point I apologize so I'm trying to understand this ruling does this mean 00:09:48.240 --> 00:09:53.160 that it this this park has to be adjacent to the development or a part of 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 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 00:10:05.160 --> 00:10:10.200 saying the exact location like adjacent to it just says that we have to 00:10:10.200 --> 00:10:15.320 establish a connection between the imposed requirement whether it's the 00:10:15.320 --> 00:10:22.200 land requirement or the fee and the projected use so we can then establish 00:10:22.200 --> 00:10:27.400 our own criteria in terms of proximities if we want to go again in that direction 00:10:27.400 --> 00:10:32.720 or zones some people call them districts so they divide their city up and they 00:10:32.720 --> 00:10:39.120 say within this area these residents are more likely to visit these parks or 00:10:39.120 --> 00:10:44.440 impact and use the parks within this area and that's the connection that we 00:10:44.440 --> 00:10:48.880 established and I can show you what we used to do that here shortly and real 00:10:48.880 --> 00:10:52.480 quick before you get to that section because I saw part of the presentation 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 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 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 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 00:11:20.620 --> 00:11:27.240 we are not allowed to address that usage and all of Denton uses the the various 00:11:27.240 --> 00:11:34.600 large fields correct now that that's a great point and so what legally what we 00:11:34.600 --> 00:11:39.880 are specifically prohibited in using this funds for a specialized parks so 00:11:39.880 --> 00:11:43.160 something like a dog park would be a specialized park and we wouldn't be able 00:11:43.160 --> 00:11:50.320 to use this particular funding source for specialized parks because not 00:11:50.320 --> 00:11:55.440 everyone is a user of those specialized parks however we can use it for a city 00:11:55.440 --> 00:12:04.920 park and we did actually establish a 10% factor that would go towards city parks 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 00:12:11.120 --> 00:12:19.840 that 10% because city parks actually make up 12% of our inventory but we just 00:12:19.840 --> 00:12:24.680 wanted to use just kind of a rounded off number instead of saying 12% our 00:12:24.680 --> 00:12:29.960 proposed city park contribution is 10% of whatever that total contribution is 00:12:29.960 --> 00:12:35.040 and that could be used anywhere thanks for the clarification I appreciate 00:12:35.040 --> 00:12:42.320 absolutely under the rough proportionality test it also assumes that 00:12:42.320 --> 00:12:46.200 new residents will require the same level of service as existing residents so 00:12:46.200 --> 00:12:51.560 anyone new coming in wants to have the same services that any existing resident 00:12:51.560 --> 00:12:57.280 already has again legally we're prohibited from increasing the level of 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 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 00:13:07.240 --> 00:13:14.080 the current level of service and then through this process we establish or 00:13:14.080 --> 00:13:23.320 determine a level of service so what is that level of service you may recognize 00:13:23.320 --> 00:13:29.080 or this may look a little familiar to you our proposed district or zone map it 00:13:29.080 --> 00:13:34.640 is the modified road path roadway impact map and we modified it because we took 00:13:34.640 --> 00:13:40.120 several factors into consideration and those factors included population within 00:13:40.120 --> 00:13:46.840 each service area existing acres of Park in each service area the average price 00:13:46.840 --> 00:13:52.480 per parcel in each service area and that's for residential parcels only 00:13:52.480 --> 00:13:59.400 those are decad decad values that we used and we've also updated our cost to 00:13:59.400 --> 00:14:05.080 develop a park if you'll recall the current ordinance is at $208,000 for a 00:14:05.080 --> 00:14:11.000 five acre park so we took all of those factors plugged them into these zones 00:14:11.000 --> 00:14:16.260 and we also took it a step further we identified the needs through our 00:14:16.260 --> 00:14:23.120 strategic master plan that Gary and the park team continue to work on we've 00:14:23.120 --> 00:14:27.600 identified needs within our community so we took those into consideration when we 00:14:27.600 --> 00:14:32.040 looked at this map and modified it and then we've also worked very closely with 00:14:32.040 --> 00:14:41.000 our development services group and identifying future growth so that we're 00:14:41.000 --> 00:14:46.200 able to see where proposed developments are coming in and how that will impact 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 00:14:51.160 --> 00:14:55.640 factors within each zone you'll see that they're a little uneven but they will 00:14:55.640 --> 00:15:08.640 actually start to stabilize and equal out as developments do come in so this 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 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 00:15:22.680 --> 00:15:30.920 117 acres of park currently in that zone we have just under 6,000 residential 00:15:30.920 --> 00:15:37.560 parcels with a land value of right at four hundred and thirty seven million 00:15:37.560 --> 00:15:43.240 dollars in zone a and if you look across you can see again some of those 00:15:43.240 --> 00:15:50.040 populations go up and down obviously E this is our Robeson ranch area probably 00:15:50.040 --> 00:15:55.640 has some of the lowest factors there in terms of population park acres 00:15:55.640 --> 00:16:03.520 residential parcels everything is is lower in that but we also know that we 00:16:03.520 --> 00:16:09.720 have a major development that's coming into E in our hunter and coal ranch 00:16:09.720 --> 00:16:16.960 project so that is an area that will stable kind of stable out that'll even 00:16:16.960 --> 00:16:21.960 out as we get that growth and similarly we took that same approach into the 00:16:21.960 --> 00:16:27.640 other zones Laura this is Gary can you explain why there's only 117 acres in 00:16:27.640 --> 00:16:35.920 section a that's not including the citywide parks correct so the park 00:16:35.920 --> 00:16:41.600 acres that are shown on this map and that are included in our in our 00:16:41.600 --> 00:16:47.800 calculations are just for those community and neighborhood parks so the 00:16:47.800 --> 00:16:53.120 city parks are not in the in those numbers so North Lakes for instance is 00:16:53.120 --> 00:17:02.120 not calculated into a North Lakes is right under four hundred acres sure back 00:17:02.120 --> 00:17:07.160 did you have a question thank you chair Gary anticipated it there's there's 00:17:07.160 --> 00:17:13.000 apparently two telepathic people in the meeting tonight so yes my question was 00:17:13.000 --> 00:17:18.560 exactly we were being shown large city parks right and there was a it didn't 00:17:18.560 --> 00:17:22.520 seem to jive with the columns to the left and they explained it so thank you 00:17:22.520 --> 00:17:31.960 both great so in using these factors we determined a level of service based on 00:17:31.960 --> 00:17:36.320 the number of dwelling units per park acre and that's the number that you see 00:17:36.320 --> 00:17:42.240 within each zone so in zone a we have a hundred and eight dwelling units per 00:17:42.240 --> 00:17:52.960 park acre when we look at land dedication that service level becomes our 00:17:52.960 --> 00:18:02.600 new land requirement so a development coming in to zone a would have to 00:18:02.600 --> 00:18:08.680 provide one acre of park property for every 108 dwelling units that are 00:18:08.680 --> 00:18:15.880 proposed in their development if they wanted to pay the fee in lieu of based 00:18:15.880 --> 00:18:23.160 on the average cost of parcels or I'm sorry average land value of those 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 00:18:30.440 --> 00:18:38.240 dedication and you can see how that carries out across the zones again 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 00:18:45.360 --> 00:18:50.720 dollars per dwelling unit zone a you know we're looking at about 700 our 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 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 00:19:07.600 --> 00:19:14.320 these units are based on the cost of land in these zones is that correct so 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 00:19:19.560 --> 00:19:24.320 that land is currently at a higher retail value it's going to be based on 00:19:24.320 --> 00:19:31.080 the average land value per parcel and also the existing service level there so 00:19:31.080 --> 00:19:35.760 those two factors are creating the swings okay thank you that's all pulled 00:19:35.760 --> 00:19:47.160 from deep head so just kind of wanted to show you an example of what a 00:19:47.160 --> 00:19:51.600 calculation would look like today if somebody came to us the development came 00:19:51.600 --> 00:19:55.280 to us and this was actually sell one from a couple of years ago so this 00:19:55.280 --> 00:20:02.320 information is probably two three years old but if they came to us today or when 00:20:02.320 --> 00:20:06.440 they came to us at that time this was the proposed calculation for land 00:20:06.440 --> 00:20:11.520 dedication based on a 300 unit development and then what that would 00:20:11.520 --> 00:20:17.280 look like under the proposed ordinance so under the current ordinance we would 00:20:17.280 --> 00:20:21.720 look at a land dedication of 2.1 acres at that time that development was 00:20:21.720 --> 00:20:27.800 looking at three particular parcels the fee in lieu of based on again the 00:20:27.800 --> 00:20:32.640 current ordinance was at ninety nine thousand dollars under the proposed 00:20:32.640 --> 00:20:36.920 ordinance that development would fall in zone a so we have that average land 00:20:36.920 --> 00:20:42.040 value per parcel we know what our service level is and today that would be 00:20:42.040 --> 00:20:47.840 two point seven six acres in land dedication and a fee in lieu of two 00:20:47.840 --> 00:20:58.520 hundred and nine thousand dollars so transitioning over to the development 00:20:58.520 --> 00:21:06.280 fee piece of our ordinance and this is the 916 as I mentioned previously our 00:21:06.280 --> 00:21:10.560 current calculation two hundred and eight thousand for a five acre park very very 00:21:10.560 --> 00:21:17.680 low that would just barely cover the cost of a playground today we have a 00:21:17.680 --> 00:21:21.960 flat fee of two hundred and ninety one dollars for single-family dwelling units 00:21:21.960 --> 00:21:27.320 and a flat fee of a hundred and eighty seven dollars for multi multi-family 00:21:27.320 --> 00:21:31.760 dwelling units this presents a challenge for us moving forward these were 00:21:31.760 --> 00:21:37.960 actually based off some HUD factors of I believe the single-family dwelling unit 00:21:37.960 --> 00:21:43.520 was two point eight people per dwelling unit and the multi-family dwelling unit 00:21:43.520 --> 00:21:48.640 was that I want to say one point seven under the current ordinance Gary may 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 00:21:55.520 --> 00:22:02.120 single-family residential factor under HUD so we've transitioned to that too 00:22:02.120 --> 00:22:08.560 and you'll see that again in under our proposed calculation we've updated the 00:22:08.560 --> 00:22:14.920 costs so now our neighborhood parks at four acres and this is based on some 00:22:14.920 --> 00:22:20.080 recent developments that we've done and that four acre park cost us about one 00:22:20.080 --> 00:22:25.520 point three million dollars to develop fully community park at twelve point five 00:22:25.520 --> 00:22:30.720 acres is just under five million dollars and just to kind of put this in context 00:22:30.720 --> 00:22:35.360 and because we are proposing a portion of that fee also go to city parks we 00:22:35.360 --> 00:22:39.640 wanted to show you what the development of a 50 acre city park would cost and 00:22:39.640 --> 00:22:44.680 that would be right at eight million dollars so just taking the neighborhood 00:22:44.680 --> 00:22:50.560 and community park together that averages at about three hundred and fifty 00:22:50.560 --> 00:22:56.360 five thousand dollars per acre for the development of those types of parks 00:22:56.360 --> 00:23:00.880 previously we looked at distinguishing neighborhood parks and community parks 00:23:00.880 --> 00:23:05.520 and at really all of our parks city parks by acres and and that's really 00:23:05.520 --> 00:23:10.960 becoming difficult as well I will take Quaker Town Park is a great example 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 00:23:17.560 --> 00:23:23.680 biggest special events in our community and it's just over 30 acres and then you 00:23:23.680 --> 00:23:29.840 take North Lakes which is right at 400 acres so our neighborhood parks 00:23:29.840 --> 00:23:35.200 traditionally were defined at anywhere from five to twenty acres our community 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 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 00:23:48.480 --> 00:23:53.360 that the smaller neighborhood parks normally have a playground an open space 00:23:53.360 --> 00:23:59.680 they'll have some trash cans benches they may have a pavilion most of them do 00:23:59.680 --> 00:24:03.720 have a pavilion or shaded area our community parks have those same 00:24:03.720 --> 00:24:08.200 amenities but you'll start to see some trails through those parks you'll also 00:24:08.200 --> 00:24:13.800 start to see some bathroom facilities some additional shaded areas maybe an 00:24:13.800 --> 00:24:19.960 expanded playground area and so forth and then our community our city parks 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 00:24:30.640 --> 00:24:38.840 the cost to develop the park that gives us our fees across the zones again pretty 00:24:38.840 --> 00:24:44.800 good swing here we recognize that in B we've got our lowest at just under 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 00:24:51.320 --> 00:25:05.120 dwelling unit another comparison on the development fee 300 dwelling unit 00:25:05.120 --> 00:25:12.240 development proposed development with the flat fees of 291 and 187 at 300 00:25:12.240 --> 00:25:19.080 dwelling units that would bring in about $87,000 for single-family $56,000 for a 00:25:19.080 --> 00:25:24.080 multifamily development if we take our proposed fees and multiply them by that 00:25:24.080 --> 00:25:35.680 300 dwelling unit development you can see the cost difference this model here 00:25:35.680 --> 00:25:42.480 below just gives you an overall view of the zones the fee in lieu of park 00:25:42.480 --> 00:25:48.880 dedication cost the development fee cost and if a developer wanted to come in and 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 00:25:54.000 --> 00:26:01.040 to you and they will already have the development fee what that total cost per 00:26:01.040 --> 00:26:06.680 dwelling unit would look like for a developer as you can see this is a pretty 00:26:06.680 --> 00:26:15.080 significant increase from our current ordinance a lot of it is driven by cost 00:26:15.080 --> 00:26:19.840 again our current fee or I'm sorry a current ordinance and and that 00:26:19.840 --> 00:26:26.160 methodology was developed over 20 years ago so we recognize that we've got a low 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 00:26:33.960 --> 00:26:42.000 Commissioner Beck did you have a question yes thank you chair as time goes on to 00:26:42.000 --> 00:26:48.280 avoid this update problem that you're trying to get around are we revising do 00:26:48.280 --> 00:26:54.720 we have a are you proposing a revision that is continuous as land fees change 00:26:54.720 --> 00:27:01.440 or this is a one-time fee structure change no we actually are proposing a 00:27:01.440 --> 00:27:05.640 three-year review in the ordinance that's included in the ordinance that it 00:27:05.640 --> 00:27:11.360 would be reviewed every three years so updating all the demographic information 00:27:11.360 --> 00:27:20.080 up or down to that will then reestablish our level of service thank you so 00:27:20.080 --> 00:27:24.480 obviously these these fees are a little sticker shock again we recognize that we 00:27:24.480 --> 00:27:28.720 acknowledge that in talking with the developers we had some very good 00:27:28.720 --> 00:27:37.920 conversations about this increase and what I want to make clear is that under 00:27:37.920 --> 00:27:45.400 the legal requirements that we have we have to establish a level of service 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 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 00:27:58.960 --> 00:28:05.760 here in my community which gives us that direct connection it's not based off of 00:28:05.760 --> 00:28:12.520 a benchmarking here's an average of 12 comparator cities type model but here's 00:28:12.520 --> 00:28:16.160 here's what's on the ground here in Denton here's our level of service 00:28:16.160 --> 00:28:22.600 here's the cost using that as our foundation our springboard we can do a 00:28:22.600 --> 00:28:28.320 couple of different things and that's what we've been very happy to work with 00:28:28.320 --> 00:28:33.520 the developers on brand on formulating some options for us moving forward and 00:28:33.520 --> 00:28:39.160 share those with you here just to follow up Commissioner Beck's question the the 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 00:28:45.800 --> 00:28:51.000 say for instance a thousand acres is donated in zone a that's going to change 00:28:51.000 --> 00:28:54.160 our level of service because that's going to be part of the calculation so 00:28:54.160 --> 00:29:00.000 that fee might actually go down from a land perspective so it could go up or 00:29:00.000 --> 00:29:04.800 down based on future land acquisitions and then obviously if value of land goes 00:29:04.800 --> 00:29:09.680 up every three years that that'll increase it as well 00:29:09.680 --> 00:29:15.080 Christopher Beck thank you following up on that does that these large land 00:29:15.080 --> 00:29:22.040 acquisitions are typically for our large city parks that are not directly rolled 00:29:22.040 --> 00:29:28.440 into these calculations though right so that you would have to purchase smaller 00:29:28.440 --> 00:29:32.400 plots is that correct or am i misunderstanding yeah that's correct back 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 00:29:37.560 --> 00:29:43.720 plots of 20 acres that would impact oh okay I'm sorry good good question but 00:29:43.720 --> 00:29:49.600 also to the one thing that we do include in our numbers are undeveloped part lands 00:29:49.600 --> 00:29:55.200 or green space because that does benefit the entire community so pebblebrook park 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 00:30:01.200 --> 00:30:07.920 plans to ever develop it beyond a trail system within that part so it's more 00:30:07.920 --> 00:30:12.120 than likely at this point in time there are no plans to you know install a 00:30:12.120 --> 00:30:17.480 playground pavilions and use it in that sense but it is part of our master plan 00:30:17.480 --> 00:30:22.120 in trail connection so there it because it does continue to benefit the entire 00:30:22.120 --> 00:30:28.360 community those smaller undeveloped parcels are included in the number of 00:30:28.360 --> 00:30:35.280 park acres per zone so if a property released floodplain to the city and we 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 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 00:30:50.320 --> 00:30:55.560 some pretty creative options and and I'll and I'll give the development the 00:30:55.560 --> 00:31:00.800 focus group really full credit on that we began to kind of throw some numbers 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 00:31:07.320 --> 00:31:12.080 swing you know there was some concern even though they understood the 00:31:12.080 --> 00:31:17.160 methodology and we worked through that we worked through D CAD values we worked 00:31:17.160 --> 00:31:24.360 through development costs and and came to take came to an understanding on on 00:31:24.360 --> 00:31:28.720 all those different factors that are being used there's still heartburn on 00:31:28.720 --> 00:31:35.920 the swings within the zones so we were looking at ways that we could stabilize 00:31:35.920 --> 00:31:41.320 those even more even though we know in the future those are going to even out 00:31:41.320 --> 00:31:47.400 as development comes in and we have modified the map in a way that we feel 00:31:47.400 --> 00:31:52.560 takes into consideration some of the more denser areas where there could be 00:31:52.560 --> 00:31:59.160 you know very little future residential development but also have the potential 00:31:59.160 --> 00:32:03.680 for some outliers in in larger developments zone B is another great 00:32:03.680 --> 00:32:09.200 example of a large residential development coming in and filling that 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 00:32:15.160 --> 00:32:19.920 city that's very dense and and yes you'll continue to get some development 00:32:19.920 --> 00:32:25.040 primarily multifamily residential in there but you're not going to see the 00:32:25.040 --> 00:32:33.760 major development plan development projects there the other thing that could 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 00:32:42.320 --> 00:32:46.640 know that there's not ever going to be any residential area coming in you know 00:32:46.640 --> 00:32:52.720 to that portion of the city around airport Road and so we had to kind of 00:32:52.720 --> 00:32:58.800 split that up as well but we still landed with some swings again even though 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 00:33:04.880 --> 00:33:10.400 that we developed in our focus group in our smaller focus group is on the park 00:33:10.400 --> 00:33:17.680 dedication side if you can see the proposed fees this is our baseline okay 00:33:17.680 --> 00:33:21.120 this is based on our current level of service and all of that demographic 00:33:21.120 --> 00:33:26.960 information that we pulled for each zone and what we did is we averaged it so 00:33:26.960 --> 00:33:32.040 assuming that the proposed is at a hundred percent cost recovery and we 00:33:32.040 --> 00:33:38.000 average that which really helped even out those swings now we were from a 00:33:38.000 --> 00:33:46.320 $700 swing here to about a $300 swing here between 628 and zone D and our 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 00:33:54.640 --> 00:34:06.880 in terms of park dedication if we average looking at part sorry I was on 00:34:06.880 --> 00:34:14.200 mute Krishna back thank you chair yeah thank you for waiting so I I get that 00:34:14.200 --> 00:34:19.600 you're averaging to sort of reduce the spread of the fee structure but wasn't 00:34:19.600 --> 00:34:26.640 the original problem that we had to have parks in those regions dedicated to those 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 00:34:35.840 --> 00:34:42.440 yeah well one of the original so part of the original issue was was really the 00:34:42.440 --> 00:34:47.160 parameters when you were talking about the location and I think that's where 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 00:34:53.600 --> 00:34:58.920 that that was primarily driven by the parameter restriction that we had having 00:34:58.920 --> 00:35:03.000 to do it within a half mile to a mile radius from the development that made 00:35:03.000 --> 00:35:10.920 that contribution or paid that fee I understand that but the we want parks 00:35:10.920 --> 00:35:16.480 within a a 10-minute walk a half mile absolutely and we would prefer that they 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 00:35:22.600 --> 00:35:31.520 original intent of the ordinance and so if we if we're averaging these out we 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 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 00:35:44.120 --> 00:35:47.600 the city pay for another when that's specifically what we weren't allowed to 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 00:35:52.560 --> 00:35:57.480 that is apparently not what we're allowed to do right so I mean yeah a 00:35:57.480 --> 00:36:01.760 great question and things that we've kind of vetted out but to your point in 00:36:01.760 --> 00:36:06.080 terms of of land a couple of different things that we look at and that we 00:36:06.080 --> 00:36:12.600 actually work through every day in in the ordinance aside from the actual 00:36:12.600 --> 00:36:19.040 proposed fees we're proposing that we have more flexibility in working with 00:36:19.040 --> 00:36:25.680 the developers in having developer agreements for specific needs or 00:36:25.680 --> 00:36:30.280 targeting specific needs I think Hunter Cole ranch is a great example and Gary 00:36:30.280 --> 00:36:35.400 can certainly talk to this but we had some very specific needs in that area of 00:36:35.400 --> 00:36:41.160 town not only or that zone so to speak but also for that new development coming 00:36:41.160 --> 00:36:50.040 in and if they had strictly gone by the current ordinance it wouldn't have it 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 00:36:55.560 --> 00:37:01.680 the zone side in terms of the other community residents within that area and 00:37:01.680 --> 00:37:06.280 it would have definitely been a deficit for the new residents coming in because 00:37:06.280 --> 00:37:10.800 the requirements would have been so low it would not have met the need or the 00:37:10.800 --> 00:37:16.080 impact that would have been created by the number of new users coming in with 00:37:16.080 --> 00:37:22.720 that development so understanding what you're saying you're saying that the 00:37:22.720 --> 00:37:27.880 the number of parks would diminish because of the cost of the land and 00:37:27.880 --> 00:37:34.120 therefore we wouldn't be servicing the density of people serviced per park 00:37:34.120 --> 00:37:40.960 would be higher I mean you know you would have less park per person is that 00:37:40.960 --> 00:37:46.880 what you're saying yes it definitely could yes drive that drive that number 00:37:46.880 --> 00:37:54.220 the other thing though too is that depending on the development there there 00:37:54.220 --> 00:38:01.800 may be the land that is being proposed as park dedication may not be useful to 00:38:01.800 --> 00:38:07.320 us for a lot of different reasons we do have some criteria in there in the 00:38:07.320 --> 00:38:14.920 proposed ordinance for restrictions and they're based on percentages for flood 00:38:14.920 --> 00:38:19.720 planes and ESA so that they're not double counted you know if you try to 00:38:19.720 --> 00:38:25.480 give us something that would have to be protected already under another 00:38:25.480 --> 00:38:29.560 requirement within within the development code so we're trying to 00:38:29.560 --> 00:38:35.920 eliminate those types of of issues as well so we really want to have that 00:38:35.920 --> 00:38:41.600 ability to work one-on-one with the developer to say you know what what kind 00:38:41.600 --> 00:38:45.160 what land are they proposing to develop or I'm sorry to dedicate in this 00:38:45.160 --> 00:38:50.680 particular case but to dedicate then how does that fit into our master plan is it 00:38:50.680 --> 00:38:56.200 usable land is it in a good location only a certain percentage of it can be 00:38:56.200 --> 00:39:00.880 flood plain and that's okay in some instances in some instances we may have 00:39:00.880 --> 00:39:07.000 some great fully developed parks already there that would meet the needs of the 00:39:07.000 --> 00:39:12.760 residents coming in but we need some green space and so there's some value in 00:39:12.760 --> 00:39:19.800 going ahead and taking some of that land for the green space so that that there 00:39:19.800 --> 00:39:24.880 are just really a lot of factors under this proposal it gives us more 00:39:24.880 --> 00:39:31.040 flexibility to work not only to meet our our needs and our strategic plan goals 00:39:31.040 --> 00:39:35.960 but also to work with the developer in the type of land that they would 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 00:39:44.480 --> 00:39:51.160 buy land in the future within that zone what this does do by averaging though 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 00:39:56.960 --> 00:40:02.080 have no impact depending on where appraised values are falling you know at 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 00:40:09.600 --> 00:40:13.880 wanted to include that cost recovery number just to just show you assuming 00:40:13.880 --> 00:40:18.040 that the proposed is at a hundred percent because it's based off current 00:40:18.040 --> 00:40:23.640 land values or an average of current land values bringing that down what would it 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 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 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 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 00:40:50.080 --> 00:40:56.280 park development side we actually through the process again understanding 00:40:56.280 --> 00:40:59.640 that we can't benchmark we still did want to look at other communities to see 00:40:59.640 --> 00:41:06.320 how they establish their their fees again knowing that each one has to be 00:41:06.320 --> 00:41:11.280 individual and unique one of the things that we found with the city of Fort Worth 00:41:11.280 --> 00:41:19.000 is that they were implementing their fee their new fee structure and they were 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 00:41:25.080 --> 00:41:31.080 the methodologies that we worked out here but another proposed we did the 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 00:41:36.280 --> 00:41:42.480 phased-in approach starting at 60% again this could be 10 20 30 it could be 00:41:42.480 --> 00:41:48.040 anything that that we decided it to be in it would be ultimately approved and 00:41:48.040 --> 00:41:53.440 adopted but we started at 60 this really worked out well with that three-year 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 00:41:59.800 --> 00:42:07.480 review year at 80 percent we reset our level of service at 80 percent fourth 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 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 00:42:17.080 --> 00:42:27.480 review year we took an average approach as well we looked at what the an average 00:42:27.480 --> 00:42:32.440 of the proposed fee would be and we did cost recovery again assuming that the 00:42:32.440 --> 00:42:36.520 proposed fee is at a hundred percent and if we took sixty percent well that's 00:42:36.520 --> 00:42:43.080 that's cost recovery is sixty percent but if we averaged here's what the cost 00:42:43.080 --> 00:42:48.520 recovery would look like you can see in in three out of our five zones we 00:42:48.520 --> 00:42:53.000 actually have over a hundred percent cost recovery and the reason for that is 00:42:53.000 --> 00:42:58.920 because an average actually pushed these numbers above what the proposed fee is 00:42:58.920 --> 00:43:04.360 okay that's what the cost recovery looks like there then we took the average fee 00:43:04.360 --> 00:43:16.920 and we did it at a sixty percent implementation so we took that we took 00:43:16.920 --> 00:43:24.600 the average and averaged it if that makes sense and we did it at a sixty 00:43:24.600 --> 00:43:30.920 percent phased-in approach this is what our new fee would be and what the cost 00:43:30.920 --> 00:43:39.960 recovery is what this does helps in a couple of different ways number one 00:43:39.960 --> 00:43:49.640 flattens that that range again kind of condenses that range so that we don't 00:43:49.640 --> 00:43:54.840 have the huge swings of you know five thousand dollars here to two thousand 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 00:44:00.040 --> 00:44:07.400 averaging it goes up for everyone so probably not the most favorable 00:44:07.400 --> 00:44:15.400 methodology to use when we average at sixty percent brings down it actually 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 00:44:22.040 --> 00:44:27.480 build park development is coming in at two thousand ninety dollars and then 00:44:27.480 --> 00:44:32.840 here's what the cost recovery is based on the current cost of development part 00:44:32.840 --> 00:44:40.040 you can see how that compares right now to our current single-family flat fee at 00:44:40.040 --> 00:44:47.720 291 and the multifamily fat fee at 187 and you can see those cost recoveries so 00:44:47.720 --> 00:44:54.800 even if we average and we take it at sixty percent our cost recovery still 00:44:54.800 --> 00:45:08.520 goes up significantly across all zones commissioner Beck and so then presumably 00:45:08.520 --> 00:45:16.360 the remaining 40% would be bond revenues or something else yes it could be CIP it 00:45:16.360 --> 00:45:25.520 could be geo bonds yeah voter approved bonds I'm sorry a different funding 00:45:25.520 --> 00:45:32.840 mechanism yes yes yeah it can be internal CIP co bonds and I can also be 00:45:32.840 --> 00:45:37.800 yes voter approved geo bonds it could also be other developments within that 00:45:37.800 --> 00:45:43.960 zone - that are matched up to help build that park correct because now we've 00:45:43.960 --> 00:45:50.620 expanded to a zone rather than a radius okay and to be clear Laura the cost 00:45:50.620 --> 00:45:55.640 recovery is independent of the state law for level of service they don't look at 00:45:55.640 --> 00:46:01.360 city's cost of recovery as it pertains to level of service okay no the cost 00:46:01.360 --> 00:46:08.520 recovery is to basically pay for the entire park and the land at one time 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 00:46:14.700 --> 00:46:23.560 internally to see what the impact would be in terms of our ability to use those 00:46:23.560 --> 00:46:27.360 funds and to actually develop what the impact would be you know taking that 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 00:46:39.000 --> 00:46:44.080 time fee from a developer in lieu of the dedication and then a one-time fee 00:46:44.080 --> 00:46:48.760 assumed by the city it seems like I'm not sure how parks actually build out 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 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 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 00:47:08.060 --> 00:47:12.320 we call them the 916 and 915 916 funds because that's actually the account 00:47:12.320 --> 00:47:19.120 number for those for those fees but they yeah they they are deposited into those 00:47:19.120 --> 00:47:26.960 funds and then we use them over time the current ordinance requires us to expend 00:47:26.960 --> 00:47:33.360 the funds within 10 years of that development and then at year 10 if that 00:47:33.360 --> 00:47:39.360 money from that development hasn't been used the developer has one year exactly 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 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 00:47:52.800 --> 00:47:59.800 that money then then the city keeps that money with any any additional you know 00:47:59.800 --> 00:48:04.800 claim on that funding is expires in the current ordinance we're opposed we're 00:48:04.800 --> 00:48:10.640 proposing to reduce that down to seven years and we feel like that makes us a 00:48:10.640 --> 00:48:13.960 little bit more accountable that we're you know we're asking these developers 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 00:48:20.320 --> 00:48:26.360 enhance improve expand our parks for your new users for your your new 00:48:26.360 --> 00:48:30.120 residents that are coming in so we want to hold ourselves accountable to that 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 00:48:36.240 --> 00:48:41.040 under those project timelines like you just mentioned and you mentioned other 00:48:41.040 --> 00:48:47.680 funding mechanisms is there any way to use the ever growing tree fund towards 00:48:47.680 --> 00:48:54.360 park procurement or development yes and Gary can definitely talk to that yeah we 00:48:54.360 --> 00:48:58.240 we can use it to actually for for planting trees we cannot use the plant 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 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 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 00:49:14.400 --> 00:49:20.600 playground in for example I understood mr. Beck thank you chair so and then 00:49:20.600 --> 00:49:24.440 maintenance fees are a completely separate line item is that correct right 00:49:24.440 --> 00:49:29.880 we're prohibited from using this type of funding mechanism on maintenance on O&M 00:49:29.880 --> 00:49:33.440 operations and maintenance and and if we were to do something like Gary 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 00:49:41.920 --> 00:49:48.680 developer able to offset their trees if we're buying land for our parks or 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 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 00:50:02.440 --> 00:50:12.840 use both land park fee and tree canopy DBH fees are those both going into to 00:50:12.840 --> 00:50:16.560 this hypothetical let's say that Eastside Park that we're putting in or 00:50:16.560 --> 00:50:23.720 something similar are they double dipping is my question I don't know if 00:50:23.720 --> 00:50:32.240 Richard maybe on that I'm not as familiar with the with the tree fund 00:50:32.240 --> 00:50:38.800 piece of that on on the tree canopy requirements I guess if you can repeat 00:50:38.800 --> 00:50:45.240 the crowd just want to make sure I understand it my question is if they are 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 00:50:51.300 --> 00:50:57.640 various sorts parks and open areas are they also getting credit for the trees 00:50:57.640 --> 00:51:01.680 in the land that the city bought since the city had to buy that that feels 00:51:01.680 --> 00:51:08.520 like that would be excessive or are they getting credit I can help answer that 00:51:08.520 --> 00:51:13.240 this is Drew hoping on the assistant director of a parks and or parks and 00:51:13.240 --> 00:51:19.160 rec and over operations and management so in planning excuse me so to give you 00:51:19.160 --> 00:51:23.520 an example we just had that scenario come in with a development they are 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 00:51:30.580 --> 00:51:36.960 count towards your tree preservation okay so it's totally separate because 00:51:36.960 --> 00:51:42.320 whenever the final plaque goes if a developer donates the land to us when 00:51:42.320 --> 00:51:48.400 the final plaque goes to development review that land is shown as ours and 00:51:48.400 --> 00:51:53.240 they cannot count the tree preservation on our land on Park City land yeah that 00:51:53.240 --> 00:51:57.320 was my exact question thank you for clarifying yes sir yes sir so we just 00:51:57.320 --> 00:52:02.560 had that scenario and they when we took the council we made sure and the 00:52:02.560 --> 00:52:07.120 developer made sure that the trees that they were preserving were not on the 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 00:52:11.680 --> 00:52:15.340 they're not double-dipping yes sir but if they would have not dedicated that 00:52:15.340 --> 00:52:20.400 land they could have used those trees for preservation they will most of the 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 00:52:24.720 --> 00:52:28.160 that would count it either because they'd be double dipping as floodplain 00:52:28.160 --> 00:52:33.840 and ESA so the property that they're actually developing on is where they 00:52:33.840 --> 00:52:43.040 have to dedicate the trees on when we can get clarification to that yeah okay 00:52:43.040 --> 00:52:45.640 thank you that's correct you couldn't use the ease of the count towards your 00:52:45.640 --> 00:52:50.080 tree preservation and and if they were just to pay into the fund again that's 00:52:50.080 --> 00:52:54.680 just an option for mitigation as opposed to planting or some other some of the 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 00:53:00.720 --> 00:53:05.840 process we we actually went through a conflict resolution with some of the 00:53:05.840 --> 00:53:11.680 development services staff and then of course our developers help us you know 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 00:53:17.160 --> 00:53:24.680 make sure that we you know we were able to resolve any conflicts between not 00:53:24.680 --> 00:53:30.680 only this proposal but also other development requirements but also work 00:53:30.680 --> 00:53:37.800 out what those kind of double credit scenarios might look like and and again 00:53:37.800 --> 00:53:43.200 there there could be some instances where there would be benefit on both ends 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 00:53:48.320 --> 00:53:55.560 the flexibility to make those kinds of of adjustments through a separate 00:53:55.560 --> 00:54:01.520 development agreement so it would have to be a formal contract a formal 00:54:01.520 --> 00:54:06.560 agreement between the city you know specifically the parks department and 00:54:06.560 --> 00:54:11.760 the the developer if we were going to work outside of the parameters that are 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 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 00:54:23.640 --> 00:54:31.280 park dedication and the average at 60% is kind of the sweet spot for for our 00:54:31.280 --> 00:54:36.360 development group it's still a pretty significant increase from what they're 00:54:36.360 --> 00:54:46.280 paying today but that would that would be about right at you know $2,500 for 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 00:54:52.080 --> 00:54:58.200 another incentive something that they liked rather than again the big swings 00:54:58.200 --> 00:55:04.480 between the between the different zones over time again that would that would 00:55:04.480 --> 00:55:13.400 even out but this park dedication average and average at 60% seem to seem 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 00:55:19.080 --> 00:55:22.880 them and saying that are comfortable with that but that seemed to be the number 00:55:22.880 --> 00:55:29.360 that we felt moving forward Laura has there been any studies on the other 00:55:29.360 --> 00:55:34.440 entities that you looked at on the impact of development incentives by 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 00:55:40.800 --> 00:55:47.960 projects that come to the area know that we did look at several of other cities 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 00:55:57.560 --> 00:56:00.680 know again everybody has to take an individual approach they could be 00:56:00.680 --> 00:56:05.360 averaging I mentioned city of Fort Worth they were doing an implementation phase 00:56:05.360 --> 00:56:13.080 in but an actual study on what those costs were you know and how they would 00:56:13.080 --> 00:56:18.320 impact development coming in no we haven't done that but I can I feel 00:56:18.320 --> 00:56:23.600 confident that in saying that for our local developers with a focus group that 00:56:23.600 --> 00:56:31.760 we brought together to help us with this update it definitely was a challenge for 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 00:56:36.800 --> 00:56:39.320 yeah I would I would certainly understand that they don't want to pay 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 00:56:43.480 --> 00:56:51.000 that I mean obviously the the increases it is a significant we understand that 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 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 00:57:07.480 --> 00:57:16.040 development group was was supportive of the the average for the park dedication 00:57:16.040 --> 00:57:20.200 and the average at sixty percent and the methodology to get to a hundred percent 00:57:20.200 --> 00:57:27.760 over six years so I think that they were definitely supportive in that realm I 00:57:27.760 --> 00:57:33.360 think there was concern initially at the full rate at the first year that was a 00:57:33.360 --> 00:57:40.120 little bit of a sharp curve for that especially since we hadn't updated that 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 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 00:57:51.240 --> 00:57:55.480 number acres of land value in that zone 00:58:00.080 --> 00:58:08.160 and just kind of bringing us full circle full cost recovery is assumed at the at 00:58:08.160 --> 00:58:14.120 those proposed level of service rates that were outlined if we took a 00:58:14.120 --> 00:58:19.320 methodology of averaging and averaging factors such as population land values 00:58:19.320 --> 00:58:24.380 service levels what that does is it reduces the fees overall it closes that 00:58:24.380 --> 00:58:30.240 range between these zones for the in lieu of it produces a flat dedication fee 00:58:30.240 --> 00:58:35.520 and it provides some equity between those zones a combination would be to 00:58:35.520 --> 00:58:40.720 combine the proposed fee in lieu of with the dedication fee average again that 00:58:40.720 --> 00:58:44.000 reduces just another option we're playing around with the numbers it 00:58:44.000 --> 00:58:48.840 reduces fees it closes the range of fees between the zones and then that phase 00:58:48.840 --> 00:58:53.600 in implementation as Gary mentioned is probably the one that I think they were 00:58:53.600 --> 00:59:00.640 most supportive of beginning at a 60% of the fee with an increase of 10% each 00:59:00.640 --> 00:59:07.840 year at year six we would have that 100% and a reset so through that 00:59:07.840 --> 00:59:12.320 implementation process of doing the space and approach we would actually be 00:59:12.320 --> 00:59:18.520 doing two reviews of the fees and updating them during that process and 00:59:18.520 --> 00:59:28.280 during that time so that really wraps up where we are today we started our small 00:59:28.280 --> 00:59:34.660 focus group meetings again we met last month and we have a handbook that is 00:59:34.660 --> 00:59:39.360 being drafted now it's in the final draft that gives them a little bit more 00:59:39.360 --> 00:59:45.320 specifications on some of the other pieces of the ordinance you had an 00:59:45.320 --> 00:59:48.440 opportunity to look at the ordinance you see that there's also an option in their 00:59:48.440 --> 00:59:55.000 for developers to come in and develop a park themselves as part of the park 00:59:55.000 --> 00:59:59.720 development and then there's also some so there's some specifications that 00:59:59.720 --> 01:00:02.240 they'll have to meet and developing their own part there's also 01:00:02.240 --> 01:00:08.080 specifications on the land dedication side so we're working to put that 01:00:08.080 --> 01:00:11.920 together to have that for the developer so they'll know exactly what those 01:00:11.920 --> 01:00:15.680 specifications are when you're dealing with the dedication and the development 01:00:15.680 --> 01:00:20.520 side if they choose to come in and develop a park as part of their project 01:00:20.520 --> 01:00:30.160 but that's we do have a developer town hall scheduled with development services 01:00:30.160 --> 01:00:35.040 that we're going to provide this to the development community as a whole for 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 01:00:39.880 --> 01:00:46.800 meeting with our small focus group as well great Christian back yeah thank you 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 01:00:54.800 --> 01:01:00.440 different municipalities do not fees recovery levels but different 01:01:00.440 --> 01:01:04.520 municipalities have a different approach but if you do try to match the apples 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 01:01:13.120 --> 01:01:18.400 they're even calculating cost recovery when they're developing their fees we 01:01:18.400 --> 01:01:23.760 used we used Fort Worth as that methodology as a way to kind of ramp up 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 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 01:01:37.160 --> 01:01:42.920 apples to oranges formula compared to where we're at today to try to ease into 01:01:42.920 --> 01:01:47.840 that over the course of the next six years as well as having to kind of 01:01:47.840 --> 01:01:54.520 reevaluations of the land so we thought that was the group felt that that was a 01:01:54.520 --> 01:02:00.760 good good consideration to try to stall that that sharpness of the change yeah I 01:02:00.760 --> 01:02:03.680 can say that Fort Worth was the only one that we found that had an 01:02:03.680 --> 01:02:11.000 implementation approach okay their fees and for these development meetings who's 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 01:02:17.680 --> 01:02:24.680 commissioner Ellis thank you chair Laura thanks for a great detailed presentation 01:02:24.680 --> 01:02:31.960 what is your timeline on trying to get this finished we're hoping to our next 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 01:02:35.600 --> 01:02:39.280 larger town hall meeting that would be our first one since the spring and then 01:02:39.280 --> 01:02:45.280 continue to work with the default the focus group in finalizing this proposal 01:02:45.280 --> 01:02:49.600 and also the handbook and we are scheduled to present to council in 01:02:49.600 --> 01:02:54.600 December so you know we'll take whatever feedback and information they give us at 01:02:54.600 --> 01:03:00.640 that time make those updates and hopefully have a new ordinance by the 01:03:00.640 --> 01:03:05.800 beginning of next year but that also brings us to to the implementation of 01:03:05.800 --> 01:03:10.360 the actual new ordinance itself we're looking at anywhere from a six to nine 01:03:10.360 --> 01:03:17.680 month timeline that's what dr. Crompton has recommended in terms of an effective 01:03:17.680 --> 01:03:23.640 date once the ordinance has been approved and that will give you know the 01:03:23.640 --> 01:03:27.240 developers that are currently in the process time to continue under the 01:03:27.240 --> 01:03:30.800 existing ordinance since most of them are coming in believing that that that's 01:03:30.800 --> 01:03:35.120 those are the requirements you know that that they're developing under and giving 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 01:03:40.120 --> 01:03:45.480 be under the new effective ordinance one adjustment that schedule with the 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 01:03:49.440 --> 01:03:54.160 meeting January with the new council so we didn't have to start with an old 01:03:54.160 --> 01:04:02.180 council and move to a newer council I got a few questions developers that come 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 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 01:04:10.800 --> 01:04:14.720 the city have a preference would they prefer the developer to put in the park 01:04:14.720 --> 01:04:20.480 or they prefer to give the authority over to the city to find land and build 01:04:20.480 --> 01:04:25.240 it themselves what is the preference of the city between those two options I can 01:04:25.240 --> 01:04:30.640 take that the experience we've had a little bit of everything since since 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 01:04:36.200 --> 01:04:40.720 coal ranch and the discussions there in the future planning and then we have one 01:04:40.720 --> 01:04:47.760 park that's going in right now at razor they they have well exceeded their 01:04:47.760 --> 01:04:53.600 ordinance fees based on what they've invested into that park for construction 01:04:53.600 --> 01:04:58.000 efforts so they've well surpassed the required amount that they would have 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 01:05:02.760 --> 01:05:06.560 have given us just as a fee in lieu of and paying for the development fee 01:05:06.560 --> 01:05:11.240 outright but they're actually building it and dedicating the land to the city 01:05:11.240 --> 01:05:17.400 all at one time so there are there are instances where the developer may put 01:05:17.400 --> 01:05:23.640 more money into the park especially at our old rate to get what they wanted for 01:05:23.640 --> 01:05:27.940 their development it may be beneficial to us to have them build it and then 01:05:27.940 --> 01:05:32.240 dedicated to the city at its completion they are actually going to maintain that 01:05:32.240 --> 01:05:37.560 parcel for one year as well as part of the agreement so they're going well 01:05:37.560 --> 01:05:43.880 beyond what was required based in 1998 ordinance planning for hunter and coal 01:05:43.880 --> 01:05:49.120 ranch the similar there that I think they're gonna end up building a higher 01:05:49.120 --> 01:05:55.280 standard of what our standard currently is for those parks as that's built so 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 01:06:00.840 --> 01:06:06.960 may prefer to have the money because we may have money that's already in the 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 01:06:10.800 --> 01:06:14.480 can match that up and move forward with with a development of a parcel that's 01:06:14.480 --> 01:06:19.640 already partially funded so there's there's different scenarios and 01:06:19.640 --> 01:06:24.320 different opportunities really with each each development that occurs so I 01:06:24.320 --> 01:06:32.600 appreciate that understanding with that how how can the city better incent 01:06:32.600 --> 01:06:37.480 people to do what you want we were making this this kind of standard flat 01:06:37.480 --> 01:06:43.720 fee which takes away the city's influence on whether you want to push 01:06:43.720 --> 01:06:47.080 back and have the developer do it because they might have the means to do 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 01:06:52.760 --> 01:06:58.280 efficiently with with your own dollars have have you looked at different 01:06:58.280 --> 01:07:04.640 mechanisms if they even exist to to create a more fluid pathway so that's an 01:07:04.640 --> 01:07:09.160 open conversation about how to incentivize that the best park gets built 01:07:09.160 --> 01:07:13.880 rather than hey they can choose to do this and we understand that sometimes 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 01:07:16.760 --> 01:07:20.280 be involved in that conversation they get complete autonomy to determine that 01:07:20.280 --> 01:07:24.120 when it sounds like and I would prefer the professionals on our end to actually 01:07:24.120 --> 01:07:27.520 speak into the betterment of the city have you all explored that or does that 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 01:07:35.960 --> 01:07:39.960 guess a number of ways to approach that the first and foremost we're meeting 01:07:39.960 --> 01:07:45.840 with the developers very early on now as opposed to sometimes we weren't kind of 01:07:45.840 --> 01:07:50.240 getting involved until much later in the process and it may have been too late so 01:07:50.240 --> 01:07:55.280 we're having those discussions now before they really even get started so 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 01:08:00.920 --> 01:08:06.080 master plan in our trails plan to identify where we want certain things to 01:08:06.080 --> 01:08:11.320 occur so then we can share that with them and show how our master plan could 01:08:11.320 --> 01:08:16.120 benefit their community help sell houses help you know make a better neighborhood 01:08:16.120 --> 01:08:20.000 and it's tied into other assets whether it's a school a business whatever that 01:08:20.000 --> 01:08:25.200 would be so giving them that some additional vision there's still some 01:08:25.200 --> 01:08:29.680 opportunities for improvement there for sure obviously it comes down to a 01:08:29.680 --> 01:08:34.760 formula of profit you know for a developer and there's got to be some 01:08:34.760 --> 01:08:39.440 balance to that but if we can say hey there's some historical opportunities 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 01:08:44.400 --> 01:08:49.200 if we can get ahead of that before they have plans already done that's saving 01:08:49.200 --> 01:08:52.320 them from spending money and going back and really losing some of their 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 01:08:56.680 --> 01:09:01.200 we feel like we've made a lot of progress but we still have some 01:09:01.200 --> 01:09:05.560 opportunities to to improve that okay well hopefully the the conversation the 01:09:05.560 --> 01:09:10.160 developers is insightful of ways to make that efficient the only other question I 01:09:10.160 --> 01:09:14.040 have and this might well it's coming from a place of ignorance so you can 01:09:14.040 --> 01:09:19.720 enlighten me I don't think in my mind logically that a park development is a 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 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 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 01:09:30.600 --> 01:09:34.880 you know the playgrounds there's another fixed cost because it seems like a 30 01:09:34.880 --> 01:09:39.720 acre park that includes three soccer fields is way cheaper at on average than 01:09:39.720 --> 01:09:44.400 a one acre park that has a full built out playground with with turf and all 01:09:44.400 --> 01:09:49.280 this but yet the fees being attributed each park is a fixed cost assuming that 01:09:49.280 --> 01:09:55.640 every acre is the exact same cost and I don't know if I fundamentally understand 01:09:55.640 --> 01:10:00.840 the rationale if we're thinking about the actual recovery costs it's not 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 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 01:10:11.720 --> 01:10:19.120 the the cost remains fixed across whether it's a five acre park or a 500 01:10:19.120 --> 01:10:26.000 acre park correct so in yeah I mean yeah you make a great point 01:10:26.000 --> 01:10:31.520 historically we had classified our parks based on park acres and we're moving 01:10:31.520 --> 01:10:36.680 away from that you know I use the example of Quaker town earlier that we've 01:10:36.680 --> 01:10:41.360 got this great city park that hosts one of our you know biggest events in the 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 01:10:48.400 --> 01:10:54.120 equal to your point it's now being they're being developed more based on 01:10:54.120 --> 01:11:02.880 amenities so what type of amenity and we really we have a condition in the 01:11:02.880 --> 01:11:08.240 proposed ordinance that even though you may be required to only contribute or 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 01:11:16.360 --> 01:11:22.840 because that's really what you need to even put in a neighborhood park who you 01:11:22.840 --> 01:11:27.360 know in all of our neighborhood parks have that standard amenity of a 01:11:27.360 --> 01:11:34.360 playground you know some picnic tables trash cans a pavilion so it's it's 01:11:34.360 --> 01:11:40.200 there's some consistency across in the type of part based on amenities and not 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 01:11:45.520 --> 01:11:51.920 least but not all day not all neighborhood parks are equal either even 01:11:51.920 --> 01:11:55.080 in our own park system we have some neighborhood parks that that have a 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 01:12:00.080 --> 01:12:05.920 standardize that because everybody wants a parking lot in a restroom and those 01:12:05.920 --> 01:12:12.240 are two very expensive assets to build and for a neighborhood park typically 01:12:12.240 --> 01:12:17.160 they're built for those geographic residents around there where they could 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 01:12:22.560 --> 01:12:27.360 on-street parking and no restroom when you get to the next level park then you 01:12:27.360 --> 01:12:30.480 start putting in restrooms but we have neighborhood parks that also have 01:12:30.480 --> 01:12:36.240 restrooms so even our own service levels very so we're trying to get that to 01:12:36.240 --> 01:12:40.800 point where everything's fairly the same right but I think you're making my point 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 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 01:12:52.400 --> 01:12:55.720 same cost to that second acre or the sixth acre if you have a five acre 01:12:55.720 --> 01:13:01.680 minimum regardless and so if we understand these fixed costs I understand 01:13:01.680 --> 01:13:06.920 that you you're not using like acres as a size of our determinant of what 01:13:06.920 --> 01:13:10.200 amenities go there but you're charging developers as per acre not what 01:13:10.200 --> 01:13:15.000 amenities are being attributed so I can't I understand that you're talking 01:13:15.000 --> 01:13:18.560 about amenities being different but that's not how you're charging them so 01:13:18.560 --> 01:13:21.040 if we're talking about how we're charging them that remains as a 01:13:21.040 --> 01:13:25.800 measurement of acres and not all park acres are equally valued yet we are 01:13:25.800 --> 01:13:31.520 charging developers the same price for every acre of a park when if I look at 01:13:31.520 --> 01:13:35.840 the 400 acres of North Lakes you have a pond of frisbee golf course tons of 01:13:35.840 --> 01:13:41.760 soccer fields those are not valued the same as the acre when which that massive 01:13:41.760 --> 01:13:45.680 pavilion sits and so I don't know if there's any resolution tonight but as 01:13:45.680 --> 01:13:49.440 you go towards the developers and can you continue taking through this I just 01:13:49.440 --> 01:13:56.400 have some logical barriers to understand how the price per acre is fixed across 01:13:56.400 --> 01:14:02.640 all acres so on park development specifically the developers are not 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 01:14:11.080 --> 01:14:19.320 take the average cost to develop right so we use that development and in what 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 01:14:26.420 --> 01:14:32.240 cost per acre only in that we're looking between those the neighborhood parks and 01:14:32.240 --> 01:14:37.060 the community parks but it's based off the cost to develop a park and we 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 01:14:42.800 --> 01:14:50.200 service area how many dwelling units we have in that area per park acre and 01:14:50.200 --> 01:14:54.040 using that multiplying it by the number of dwelling units that you're bringing 01:14:54.040 --> 01:14:59.080 into the development so the fundamental of it though doesn't take into 01:14:59.080 --> 01:15:05.520 consideration the actual cost of land it takes it's using the factor of the cost 01:15:05.520 --> 01:15:09.400 to develop the park not the cost of the land right and I appreciate that 01:15:09.400 --> 01:15:13.320 clarification it still seems though that there's a price to develop that's a 01:15:13.320 --> 01:15:16.760 neighborhood park and there's a price to develop that's a community park and 01:15:16.760 --> 01:15:23.280 those costs averaging out are different because you have the economies of scale 01:15:23.280 --> 01:15:26.800 when you look at a community park versus a neighborhood park so I think I 01:15:26.800 --> 01:15:32.080 understand you're saying I'm just adding my input that a fixed linear price per 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 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 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 01:15:45.080 --> 01:15:50.760 ask that question as well that it seems like that you have amenities that cost a 01:15:50.760 --> 01:15:56.600 certain amount and land that costs a variable amount so you know we know a 01:15:56.600 --> 01:16:00.400 water fountain is $300 or whatever I think that's what chair's point was we 01:16:00.400 --> 01:16:08.000 know a pavilion is a ten thousand dollars or whatever it is so if you have 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 01:16:12.360 --> 01:16:18.080 minimum a bathroom a parking lot a water fountain and a blah blah blah and this 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 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 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 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 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 01:16:44.480 --> 01:16:50.360 of paying for parks that we wouldn't other already had which is what we 01:16:50.360 --> 01:16:56.200 alluded to earlier with my question the recovery of them but I just want to I 01:16:56.200 --> 01:17:01.440 that's fine because I my predilection would be to lump everything into giant 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 01:17:05.400 --> 01:17:11.960 to do that so our is this mechanism a way of getting towards that that's 01:17:11.960 --> 01:17:16.680 allowable otherwise it does feel like chairs point is well taken that we 01:17:16.680 --> 01:17:29.000 should have a selectable system maybe that's that's more tuned so to develop 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 01:17:35.160 --> 01:17:41.200 of amenities that requirements that they would have to install in that park if 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 01:17:44.880 --> 01:17:51.240 last point but yes but overall in terms of zones we would still have to stay 01:17:51.240 --> 01:17:56.520 within within those zones rather than use it across the board but what we 01:17:56.520 --> 01:18:03.400 wanted to do in a current ordinance it's limited to in definition to community 01:18:03.400 --> 01:18:07.920 parts or I'm sorry neighborhood part right neighborhood parts and they had 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 01:18:11.400 --> 01:18:16.680 used knowing and understanding park use today that's they're not just in 01:18:16.680 --> 01:18:22.440 neighborhood parks there a neighborhood and community parts so that was the 01:18:22.440 --> 01:18:27.520 other reason why we needed to take that average or you know we we chose that 01:18:27.520 --> 01:18:34.080 kind of methodology to get to that cost again understanding that at three 01:18:34.080 --> 01:18:38.520 hundred and fifty five thousand you know and we're saying that that's an acre 01:18:38.520 --> 01:18:43.800 based on a community part and a neighborhood part so a four acre 01:18:43.800 --> 01:18:49.680 neighborhood part twelve point five acre community part what's the average for 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 01:18:56.560 --> 01:19:02.000 that actually breaks down those costs you know you'll you'll see that taking 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 01:19:08.560 --> 01:19:11.760 of actually developing the park and that's that's what that's what we're 01:19:11.760 --> 01:19:16.680 looking at so that you know that that gets us closer to actually being able to 01:19:16.680 --> 01:19:24.160 develop those those community and and neighborhood parts when you charge it 01:19:24.160 --> 01:19:34.160 by acre knowing that we're taking a minimum of five any other questions for 01:19:34.160 --> 01:19:42.040 Laura Gary great thank you both so much for being here and answering all of our 01:19:42.040 --> 01:19:50.280 questions thank you thank you so I just wanted to update the record to show the 01:19:50.280 --> 01:19:54.400 Commissioner Anderson Christian pernetta and Commissioner Smith have all joined us 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 01:19:59.840 --> 01:20:04.320 into the clarification of agenda items before we hop in I've already talked 01:20:04.320 --> 01:20:08.640 Richard just want to make sure the agenda is as printed this evening correct 01:20:08.640 --> 01:20:15.360 Richard that's correct fantastic so the first item of business would be item 01:20:15.360 --> 01:20:21.240 number two which is the plan and zoning minutes is there any edits we need to 01:20:21.240 --> 01:20:31.400 make on those so I guess for October 21st great next is item three the 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 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 01:20:44.960 --> 01:20:55.040 up okay great I will just continue on next item is the consideration of the 01:20:55.040 --> 01:20:58.680 calendar Richard you want to do this in work session or public session is 01:20:58.680 --> 01:21:11.400 anything to dive into here on the calendar Richard sorry about that I was 01:21:11.400 --> 01:21:18.080 answering another question here yes do we need to dive into that during work 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 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 01:21:27.160 --> 01:21:31.040 past year building it off of council I know there's some around the holidays 01:21:31.040 --> 01:21:34.840 where we jog it a little bit but I'm still maintaining two meetings a month 01:21:34.840 --> 01:21:40.240 and just for everyone's knowledge if this is adopted or approved tonight then 01:21:40.240 --> 01:21:44.120 we'll go ahead and update our submittal schedules accordingly so we'll get that 01:21:44.120 --> 01:21:50.200 out within the next couple days just wanted to add that great next item is 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 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 01:22:05.120 --> 01:22:11.120 Maldonado's item it is is this this is being denied but the Hopkins requesting 01:22:11.120 --> 01:22:17.360 30-day extension correct is it recommended for denial yes that is 01:22:17.360 --> 01:22:21.520 correct the plat is recommended for approval but they do have some last 01:22:21.520 --> 01:22:27.000 minute changes to their waterline plan which would require some changes to the 01:22:27.000 --> 01:22:31.760 easements shown on there so they've requested a 30-day extension up to a 01:22:31.760 --> 01:22:39.600 date certain of November 18th so it's actually up it is approved they're just 01:22:39.600 --> 01:22:43.400 asking for a little bit of time to update it yes they're just making 01:22:43.400 --> 01:22:49.520 additional changes so if if you were to approve the plat now they would need to 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 01:22:54.040 --> 01:22:58.240 changes to the waterline okay that makes sense does anyone want to see the 01:22:58.240 --> 01:23:05.000 presentation from Karina this evening if we're bringing it back okay great so 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 01:23:11.160 --> 01:23:19.600 floor over to Karina Maldonado for presentation on this item okay I 01:23:19.600 --> 01:23:23.400 apologize I realize that my the previous item didn't have the item on on the 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 01:23:32.200 --> 01:23:41.320 located off of Fort Worth Drive and Fairview just south of Brush Creek so 01:23:41.320 --> 01:23:45.480 staff is recommending denial the request as it does not meet the established 01:23:45.480 --> 01:23:51.760 requirements however the applicant has requested an extension to December 2nd 01:23:53.400 --> 01:24:01.480 with that I can answer any questions any questions on this and you said 01:24:01.480 --> 01:24:08.360 December 2nd was the date they're targeting yes okay great I don't see any 01:24:08.360 --> 01:24:12.200 questions so we'll go on to the last item for individual consideration which 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 01:24:19.800 --> 01:24:25.160 whenever she is ready she has the floor 01:24:25.160 --> 01:24:37.200 looks like she brought a binder or printer or scanner many binders let me 01:24:37.200 --> 01:25:00.440 my presentation and we'll get going okay 01:25:02.920 --> 01:25:09.360 sure back while she prepares can can someone remind me what what section of 01:25:09.360 --> 01:25:14.520 the code extensions fall under when we're when we're awarding an extension 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 01:25:21.560 --> 01:25:26.720 local government code 212 is it 212 is where we're deriving that power okay 01:25:26.720 --> 01:25:35.760 Richard I appreciate that all right let me share my screen 01:25:35.760 --> 01:25:43.280 all right good evening I'm Julie Wyatt senior planner with the city of Denton 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 01:25:50.280 --> 01:25:54.240 alternative development plan for a single-family development the site is 92 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 01:25:59.080 --> 01:26:04.720 the east side of FM 428 north of Hartley Field the purpose is to deviate from 01:26:04.720 --> 01:26:12.040 section 35 dot 13 dot 13 dot 1 of the 2002 Denton Development Code in 01:26:12.040 --> 01:26:16.400 particular this request is related to the architecture of those proposed 01:26:16.400 --> 01:26:21.800 single-family dwellings so just a refresher on the zoning in July of last 01:26:21.800 --> 01:26:27.160 year City Council approved a rezoning for the property to nr3 and nr2 with 01:26:27.160 --> 01:26:32.000 overlay conditions in 2019 that transition to PD district because of 01:26:32.000 --> 01:26:37.040 those overlay conditions with the base zoning of r3 and r2 due to this project 01:26:37.040 --> 01:26:42.240 time submittal timing it's being reviewed under the 2002 Denton 01:26:42.240 --> 01:26:46.920 Development Regulations and that includes that ADP process as well as the 01:26:46.920 --> 01:26:53.040 single-family residential site requirements so just to kind of before 01:26:53.040 --> 01:26:56.320 we go over the applicant's request just to kind of talk through what those 01:26:56.320 --> 01:27:02.800 residential site design requirements are so in the 2002 Denton Development Code 01:27:02.800 --> 01:27:08.980 any lots under 10,000 square feet have to comply with the with section 35 dot 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 01:27:15.320 --> 01:27:19.760 comply with those site design requirements so as this relates to agave 01:27:19.760 --> 01:27:26.120 ranch I would 219 lots would have to comply 33 lots would not be required to 01:27:26.120 --> 01:27:30.560 comply now there are there are a lot of requirements in there but the three that 01:27:30.560 --> 01:27:34.480 we're talking about tonight the the deviations that they're requesting are 01:27:34.480 --> 01:27:40.000 related to first design features in the code there is a menu of items that an 01:27:40.000 --> 01:27:46.480 applicant can choose they have to choose three of them for each single-family 01:27:46.480 --> 01:27:53.000 residential project or or house and that includes dormers gables recessed entries 01:27:53.000 --> 01:27:58.540 coverler covered front porches cupolas architectural pillars or posts and a bay 01:27:58.540 --> 01:28:03.160 window with a minimum 24 inches of projection the second one that we're 01:28:03.160 --> 01:28:07.920 talking about tonight is the garages and and there are two elements to this first 01:28:07.920 --> 01:28:14.000 that the 2002 code did not allow for front entry garages to extend forward of 01:28:14.000 --> 01:28:20.680 the front building wall and second that of the total width of the garage door 01:28:20.680 --> 01:28:28.760 could not be more than 40% of that total building frontage finally the windows 01:28:28.760 --> 01:28:34.200 indoors percentage so under the 2002 code windows and doors excluding the 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 01:28:40.680 --> 01:28:46.520 facade so those are the three elements we're talking about tonight so now we're 01:28:46.520 --> 01:28:51.560 going to talk about the builder concerns in those proposed deviations so there are 01:28:51.560 --> 01:28:57.480 two builders that are proposed to to to go into the agave ranch development so 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 01:29:02.160 --> 01:29:06.280 design features remember that's that menu of items their plans with those 01:29:06.280 --> 01:29:12.640 recessed entries contain only two design features and not the three and in your 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 01:29:19.240 --> 01:29:25.640 they are proposing to actually revise that that menu to replace cupolas and 01:29:25.640 --> 01:29:30.120 bay windows with first and enhanced landscaping package and that would 01:29:30.120 --> 01:29:34.680 include foundation plantings and direct with decorative edging plus a large 01:29:34.680 --> 01:29:40.160 shade tree per lot the 2002 didn't development code only only required 01:29:40.160 --> 01:29:44.720 street trees for residential development it did not require lot trees so this 01:29:44.720 --> 01:29:50.080 would be in in excess of what the 2002 code required they're also proposing to 01:29:50.080 --> 01:29:56.480 add in a minimum roof pitch of 612 on primary roof elevation and they're also 01:29:56.480 --> 01:30:03.960 proposing to increase the number of elements to four and so in order to kind 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 01:30:07.600 --> 01:30:11.720 that roof pitch that they're proposing just giving you a diagram here because 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 01:30:16.280 --> 01:30:21.160 all right and finally or I'm sorry and then second they are proposing a 01:30:21.160 --> 01:30:26.920 deviation to the garage standards so that both they're both builders and 01:30:26.920 --> 01:30:32.760 depending on the width of the plans they both have some plans with garages that 01:30:32.760 --> 01:30:38.640 extend forward of that front building line and then that are also in excess of 01:30:38.640 --> 01:30:44.280 that 40 percent maximum and that's for both two-car garage plans as well as 01:30:44.280 --> 01:30:49.040 three-car garage plans they are proposing that that that the attached 01:30:49.040 --> 01:30:53.720 front entry garages of residential dwellings could extend forward up to six 01:30:53.720 --> 01:30:58.920 feet from the front building plane of the house that is nearest in setback 01:30:58.920 --> 01:31:04.760 distance to the garage door plane and that would be up to 11 feet maximum from 01:31:04.760 --> 01:31:13.080 a recessed recessed front door they would they as proposed it would allow 45 01:31:13.080 --> 01:31:17.880 percent of the product offerings within the agave ranch project to have the 01:31:17.880 --> 01:31:23.800 forward extending garages but would not extend to the three-car garages and then 01:31:23.800 --> 01:31:28.560 and then the second provision that they're proposing is that the total width 01:31:28.560 --> 01:31:32.920 of the garage doors would not occupy more than 45 percent of the total 01:31:32.920 --> 01:31:38.520 building frontage for two-car garages and 55 percent for three-car garages once 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 01:31:46.560 --> 01:31:50.040 you see this is in your backup as well what that looks like because once again 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 01:31:55.920 --> 01:32:03.440 proposed is is that front garage is here six feet would be the maximum it could 01:32:03.440 --> 01:32:08.720 extend from from this plane on the house and then 11 feet from that recessed 01:32:08.720 --> 01:32:15.320 front door all right and finally the last provision the windows and doors they 01:32:15.320 --> 01:32:21.800 both both builders do have plans that are less than that 25% that the 2002 01:32:21.800 --> 01:32:28.040 code required and so the applicant is proposing that that the windows and 01:32:28.040 --> 01:32:34.280 doors excluding the garage doors would comprise 15% of the wall area plus use 01:32:34.280 --> 01:32:39.480 two of the following enhanced design features to provide visual relief and in 01:32:39.480 --> 01:32:44.120 that they're provided they're proposing decorative shutters decorative brick 01:32:44.120 --> 01:32:49.200 detailing coach lights divided light windows decorative garage door hardware 01:32:49.200 --> 01:32:55.600 and decorative sheet cedar shake or stucco board accents and gables so now 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 01:33:00.000 --> 01:33:03.960 all of these elevations are in your backup material but I kind of just 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 01:33:08.840 --> 01:33:12.840 first we're gonna talk about some proposed elevations for builder one 01:33:12.840 --> 01:33:18.200 first so in in this elevation here there's a recessed front entry there is 01:33:18.200 --> 01:33:23.720 a gable right here architectural pillars are shown here and then a dormer this 01:33:23.720 --> 01:33:29.620 garage is eight inches forward and then the windows and doors meets the minimum 01:33:29.620 --> 01:33:35.240 requirements for this in orange here there's a recessed front entry there is 01:33:35.240 --> 01:33:41.480 a gable right here and if this was approved this this elevation would 01:33:41.480 --> 01:33:46.840 require the enhanced landscaping package this garage does meet the Denton 01:33:46.840 --> 01:33:52.520 Development Code requirements and this this elevation shows twenty point 01:33:52.520 --> 01:33:58.240 eighty two percent windows and doors brick detailing this herringbone pattern 01:33:58.240 --> 01:34:05.400 here and then shutters this purple elevation shows a recessed front entry a 01:34:05.400 --> 01:34:13.880 gable to actually architectural pillar here and then a dormer this garage shows 01:34:13.880 --> 01:34:19.840 48% of the frontage and then the window and door percentage does meet the the 01:34:19.840 --> 01:34:26.080 minimum requirement for builder to we have a here the first elevation here's a 01:34:26.080 --> 01:34:32.560 recessed entry a gable this shows the 612 roof pitch and this elevation would 01:34:32.560 --> 01:34:38.200 be required to provide that enhanced landscaping package the garage door does 01:34:38.200 --> 01:34:43.200 meet the minimum I didn't development code requirements and then they are 01:34:43.200 --> 01:34:47.840 proposing nineteen point nine one percent windows and doors here so they 01:34:47.840 --> 01:34:54.520 are so this one shows shutters as well as decorative brick detailing and a 01:34:54.520 --> 01:35:02.120 coach light sorry this elevation recess entry gable 612 roof pitch landscaping 01:35:02.120 --> 01:35:06.200 enhanced landscaping package this garage is eight feet forward from the front 01:35:06.200 --> 01:35:11.360 door twenty three point eight six percent windows and doors so there's 01:35:11.360 --> 01:35:15.840 decorative brick details decorative cedar shake as well as a coach light and 01:35:15.840 --> 01:35:22.200 then finally recess entry gable 612 roof pitch landscaping for number one this 01:35:22.200 --> 01:35:27.460 garage is fifty two point seventeen percent of the front facade twenty four 01:35:27.460 --> 01:35:31.900 point seven five percent windows and doors with decorative brick detailing 01:35:31.900 --> 01:35:36.160 decorative cedar shake and a coach light so that kind of just shows you what it 01:35:36.160 --> 01:35:40.360 would look like in practice so the criteria for approval or is in sub 01:35:40.360 --> 01:35:44.400 chapter 13 the first preserve existing neighborhoods the additional elements 01:35:44.400 --> 01:35:48.160 would apply to all lots within the development and that would include 01:35:48.160 --> 01:35:51.920 those lots greater than 10,000 square feet so it would actually include those 01:35:51.920 --> 01:35:56.960 33 lots which wouldn't be required to meet any of those minimum standards the 01:35:56.960 --> 01:36:00.760 proposed home designs are consistent with that surrounding architecture one 01:36:00.760 --> 01:36:05.280 and two-story plans two and three car garages those covered front porch gable 01:36:05.280 --> 01:36:10.480 roofs and there's just the traditional forms and details a sure quality 01:36:10.480 --> 01:36:14.240 development the request is not intended to lower design standards they've 01:36:14.240 --> 01:36:21.680 provided alternate alternatives with the the the expanded lists and then apart 01:36:21.680 --> 01:36:24.640 from their requests they would have to meet all other sub chapter 13 01:36:24.640 --> 01:36:29.680 requirements focus new development to activity centers this development was 01:36:29.680 --> 01:36:34.480 approved by ordinance and has been through that review process ensure 01:36:34.480 --> 01:36:38.440 adequate infrastructure this has gone through the preliminary plat stage so in 01:36:38.440 --> 01:36:42.560 engineering has reviewed and determined there is adequate capacity and then 01:36:42.560 --> 01:36:46.920 final this is the final requirement that results in a high quality development 01:36:46.920 --> 01:36:50.600 this is really where we analyze what they're proposing so first in those 01:36:50.600 --> 01:36:55.520 design features those are intended to reduce that mass of the building in 01:36:55.520 --> 01:37:00.440 discourage blank walls and encourage visit visually interesting places the 01:37:00.440 --> 01:37:04.860 proposal is consistent with residential character and furthermore that the 01:37:04.860 --> 01:37:09.280 enhanced landscaping could increase overall tree canopy because remember the 01:37:09.280 --> 01:37:14.680 2002 code did not require that lot tree also provide additional visual interests 01:37:14.680 --> 01:37:18.120 with the foundation plantings and reduce the amount of turf grass in the front 01:37:18.120 --> 01:37:24.920 yard the garage the the garage standards are intended to review reduce those 01:37:24.920 --> 01:37:30.480 visual impacts of front-facing garages as proposed the forward extensions are 01:37:30.480 --> 01:37:37.360 limited as well as the increased amount of the front facade is limited because 01:37:37.360 --> 01:37:43.320 of that limited nature as well as the 2019 Dent development code actually does 01:37:43.320 --> 01:37:51.600 not prohibit the forward extension of garages the the proposal is minimal and 01:37:51.600 --> 01:37:56.360 is not would not overwhelm the front facades or conceal the front door so it 01:37:56.360 --> 01:38:01.400 meets the intent of the requirement and then finally windows and doors it's 01:38:01.400 --> 01:38:04.800 intended to increase building transparency along this discrete to 01:38:04.800 --> 01:38:09.960 discourage blank walls and once again to provide lively streetscapes with the 01:38:09.960 --> 01:38:13.560 adoption of the 2019 Denton development code this month this requirement was 01:38:13.560 --> 01:38:18.960 actually modified to a minimum 15% windows and doors this proposal is 01:38:18.960 --> 01:38:23.880 consistent with current regulations but they've also added that bonus to of the 01:38:23.880 --> 01:38:28.640 two decorative elements that's above current requirements and that's those 01:38:28.640 --> 01:38:34.760 decorative shutters break detailing coach lights it's that list so it does 01:38:34.760 --> 01:38:39.160 meet the intent of that requirement so based upon that analysis staff 01:38:39.160 --> 01:38:42.680 recommends approval of the request I'll be happy to answer any questions and the 01:38:42.680 --> 01:38:46.160 applicant will be available tonight for questions and does have a presentation 01:38:46.160 --> 01:38:53.600 as well great thank you very much Julie Christian are back thank you chair Julie 01:38:53.600 --> 01:39:00.040 for almost all of these exceptions it is about visual presentation and interest 01:39:00.040 --> 01:39:05.520 there the only the only component I saw when I was reading that there was maybe 01:39:05.520 --> 01:39:11.760 something else with the safety issue of recessed doorways is that correct I'm 01:39:11.760 --> 01:39:18.800 sorry safety of doorways is that you the the rationale for having the garage not 01:39:18.800 --> 01:39:24.840 stick out was partially correct me I'm interpreting was partially to promote 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 01:39:31.320 --> 01:39:35.920 recessed doorway for safety reasons did I read that correctly know that the 01:39:35.920 --> 01:39:40.400 garage requirements are really intended to reduce the prominence of those garage 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 01:39:43.960 --> 01:39:51.680 and and this was essentially a four-foot exception is that they're proposing six 01:39:51.680 --> 01:39:57.920 feet from that next nearest housing plane 11 feet from a recessed front door if 01:39:57.920 --> 01:40:04.960 the if the front door was recessed in that particular plan okay thank you any 01:40:04.960 --> 01:40:11.800 other questions for Julie okay great thank you very much Julie thank you that 01:40:11.800 --> 01:40:16.200 moves us on to our public hearing items which believe we have four of them this 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 01:40:28.920 --> 01:40:39.400 we're on whenever you're ready a few seconds here load up my presentation 01:40:57.920 --> 01:41:24.760 okay as introduced in the presentation or the introduction this is for a comp 01:41:24.760 --> 01:41:28.960 plan amendment comprehensive plan amendment for a property referred to as 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 01:41:38.440 --> 01:41:41.600 south of Vintage Boulevard west of Vintage Boulevard north of Fort Worth 01:41:41.600 --> 01:41:49.040 Drive the approximate acreage for the site itself is 51 acres just over 51 01:41:49.040 --> 01:41:55.800 acres it currently has undeveloped agricultural use there are two storage 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 01:42:01.960 --> 01:42:07.920 Boulevard for those that were aware the area that we're talking about as well as 01:42:07.920 --> 01:42:15.640 the area to the east shown here was annexed into the city on April 25th of 01:42:15.640 --> 01:42:22.440 this year and part of the comprehensive plan amendment is to reflect a 01:42:22.440 --> 01:42:26.360 development that was contemplated during that annexation and that 01:42:26.360 --> 01:42:31.560 development proposal is shown here on the slide as you can see it is a 01:42:31.560 --> 01:42:37.640 single-family residential development they are proposing 110 lots in this 01:42:37.640 --> 01:42:43.080 site layout that you see here the the request is to amend the future land use 01:42:43.080 --> 01:42:49.120 map classification and to reclass that from rural areas to moderate residential 01:42:49.120 --> 01:42:55.680 the intent for moderate residential is in order to facilitate the zoning map 01:42:55.680 --> 01:43:02.080 amendment that is on this agenda as well tonight and that is to zone this area 01:43:02.080 --> 01:43:09.800 the 51 plus acres to residential 6 and again the the reason for the r6 zoning 01:43:09.800 --> 01:43:14.160 requests is for them to meet the dimensional standards that they're 01:43:14.160 --> 01:43:19.560 showing here under this proposed site plan I wanted to just share with you that 01:43:19.560 --> 01:43:24.980 there was gas well it is currently plugged and been verified by the Railroad 01:43:24.980 --> 01:43:32.440 Commission that lot itself will be an undevelopable lot it is shown here is 01:43:32.440 --> 01:43:40.720 lot X it would mainly serve as open space for this development so as far as 01:43:40.720 --> 01:43:44.560 the future land use map and designation just want to give the planning zoning 01:43:44.560 --> 01:43:49.960 Commission just a quick background obviously you know that in 2015 the 01:43:49.960 --> 01:43:53.960 dental plan 2030 was passed with that goals policies and actions were 01:43:53.960 --> 01:44:01.440 included in those policies and goals was a future land use map making sure that 01:44:01.440 --> 01:44:07.480 it helps guide our city again not only for zoning decisions but as far as land 01:44:07.480 --> 01:44:13.640 use distribution again the purpose for a future land use map designation is to 01:44:13.640 --> 01:44:17.680 get picked what is intended for the long-term pattern of the city 01:44:17.680 --> 01:44:24.600 establishes the process of amending zoning districts if that is the case and 01:44:24.600 --> 01:44:28.280 then again just guides the coordination of transportation utility planning 01:44:28.280 --> 01:44:34.960 throughout the city the proposed modern residential future land use designation 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 01:44:39.600 --> 01:44:43.700 whole description but just want to highlight some of the description of a 01:44:43.700 --> 01:44:48.920 modern residential future land use designation primarily single-family 01:44:48.920 --> 01:44:55.840 adjacent to a key to key corridors it is also it maintains the style scale and 01:44:55.840 --> 01:45:03.320 other buildings orientation within the area what you see on this slide is 01:45:03.320 --> 01:45:07.400 really the comparison of what we currently have and that is the area 01:45:07.400 --> 01:45:12.360 that's currently designated as rural areas we are the applicant that is is 01:45:12.360 --> 01:45:17.480 proposing to change that or revise that to rural I'm sorry to a modern residential 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 01:45:23.760 --> 01:45:29.880 of staffs review we did do a staff analysis looking at applicable approval 01:45:29.880 --> 01:45:35.200 criteria this is for all types of applications the main thing I wanted to 01:45:35.200 --> 01:45:39.400 highlight here the three that you see here bolded is it come is it consistent 01:45:39.400 --> 01:45:42.480 with the comprehensive plan does it cause any adverse impact to the 01:45:42.480 --> 01:45:47.480 surrounding community and will it be compliant and will it be able to to 01:45:47.480 --> 01:45:52.520 provide the capacity level for utility service and other improvement standards 01:45:52.520 --> 01:46:01.400 in the in the area in addition to the zoning sorry the approval criteria for 01:46:01.400 --> 01:46:04.880 all applications there is also a comprehensive plan amendment approval 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 01:46:11.760 --> 01:46:18.640 in this situation so they don't necessarily need to be discussed the 01:46:18.640 --> 01:46:23.800 next two also is related to a comprehensive plan amendment approval 01:46:23.800 --> 01:46:28.800 criteria again I won't go into the details the responses to each of these 01:46:28.800 --> 01:46:33.960 criteria approval are included in your backup if there is any particular one 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 01:46:38.640 --> 01:46:42.400 is the last page that that talks about the comprehensive plan approval criteria 01:46:42.400 --> 01:46:48.600 and again it will not in staffs opinion cause any adverse impact to the city 01:46:48.600 --> 01:46:54.160 so going back to the comprehensive plan and how is it consistent we feel that 01:46:54.160 --> 01:46:58.600 the modern residential along vintage Boulevard a primary arterial is an 01:46:58.600 --> 01:47:04.040 appropriate future lanes designation it is consistent with modern residential 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 01:47:09.560 --> 01:47:14.440 only does it inconsistent with the future lanes designation it also is 01:47:14.440 --> 01:47:17.520 consistent in the land use pattern or the development pattern of that 01:47:17.520 --> 01:47:22.840 development you know it's consistent the scale and form it is also going to 01:47:22.840 --> 01:47:27.720 provide the connectivity that is already established with that existing single 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 01:47:31.280 --> 01:47:37.440 proposed site layout will preserve floodplain as well as environment 01:47:37.440 --> 01:47:44.960 environmentally sensitive areas by avoiding those areas all together so as 01:47:44.960 --> 01:47:49.720 far as connectivity you see here the north to the north is already developed 01:47:49.720 --> 01:47:54.860 and what the applicant is proposing is to continue that Tamarack Lane to the 01:47:54.860 --> 01:47:59.400 south both connecting the roadway as well as a sidewalk the scale of the 01:47:59.400 --> 01:48:05.900 development that you see here to the north is roughly 50 by 135 the applicant 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 01:48:09.800 --> 01:48:16.680 bigger but overall the reason why they're going to a larger denser zoning 01:48:16.680 --> 01:48:22.280 of r6 is to meet that density or that dimensional standards that is excuse me 01:48:22.280 --> 01:48:29.200 the dimensional standards of 6,000 minimum 6,000 square foot this just to 01:48:29.200 --> 01:48:36.160 illustrate what they are proposing as far as the impacts to the surrounding 01:48:36.160 --> 01:48:41.960 properties you can see that most of the area is currently undeveloped there is 01:48:41.960 --> 01:48:46.680 agriculture used to the west Fort Worth is to the south and then you see that 01:48:46.680 --> 01:48:52.040 the area to the east across Vintage Boulevard is undeveloped it's actually 01:48:52.040 --> 01:48:58.040 floodplain which will mean that it will not develop anytime sooner in future in 01:48:58.040 --> 01:49:02.600 my understanding is that the applicant or the property owner representing this 01:49:02.600 --> 01:49:07.200 application is in talks with our Parks Department in looking ways to make that 01:49:07.200 --> 01:49:16.240 more of a regional area in terms of trails or areas for park use regarding 01:49:16.240 --> 01:49:20.400 development standards and regulations we did a full analysis environmental impact 01:49:20.400 --> 01:49:25.400 again the subject layout is not going to impact any ESA they're avoiding that 01:49:25.400 --> 01:49:30.520 altogether there we talked about the surrounding properties physical impact 01:49:30.520 --> 01:49:35.360 analysis was provided and per the conclusion of that analysis there were 01:49:35.360 --> 01:49:40.520 no adverse impact to the city utility services and improvements will be 01:49:40.520 --> 01:49:44.840 reviewed while we look at the next step in the process if this were to move 01:49:44.840 --> 01:49:49.480 forward in regards to cladding and civil engineering plants and the like there 01:49:49.480 --> 01:49:53.480 was a trip generation assessment that was done based on the assessment there 01:49:53.480 --> 01:49:59.440 was no need for traffic impact analysis therefore it's staff determination that 01:49:59.440 --> 01:50:04.720 no adverse impacts will result from a single-family residential development 01:50:04.720 --> 01:50:10.040 regarding public services and facilities we also looked at that and in addition 01:50:10.040 --> 01:50:15.200 contacted the Argyle School District this actual area is within the Argyle 01:50:15.200 --> 01:50:23.800 School District boundaries and based on the timing of the development Argyle has 01:50:23.800 --> 01:50:29.220 informed the applicant in turn informed us that they will be able to meet the 01:50:29.220 --> 01:50:33.920 capacity of the students that would be generated from this development and 01:50:33.920 --> 01:50:38.560 again lastly the detailed review of the development will be done through plats 01:50:38.560 --> 01:50:44.440 and engineering plants when it comes to that stage of the development there was 01:50:44.440 --> 01:50:49.680 obviously public outreach sent out due to this being a public hearing and as of 01:50:49.680 --> 01:50:55.160 this evening staff has not received any responses either in opposition or in 01:50:55.160 --> 01:51:02.480 favor there was no meeting held due to the ruralness and the applicant did not 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 01:51:06.840 --> 01:51:10.920 have a meeting and again all of the public hearing notices the signage the 01:51:10.920 --> 01:51:16.320 newspaper and the website notices were all published within the time frame 01:51:16.320 --> 01:51:23.080 allowed with all that staff recommends approval of this comp plan amendment as 01:51:23.080 --> 01:51:27.240 it complies with the criteria of approval under those two sections listed 01:51:27.240 --> 01:51:33.080 here with that I will stand for any questions and the applicant is also will 01:51:33.080 --> 01:51:37.080 be available during the public hearing for questions and they do also have a 01:51:37.080 --> 01:51:45.640 presentation was there any questions for Ron Commissioner Smith thank you Ron 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 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 01:51:57.560 --> 01:52:02.520 future I do not know that information I know that they are obviously working 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 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 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 01:52:18.840 --> 01:52:24.480 be appreciate just that is a drop in I mean drop her dropping dropping another 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 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 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 01:52:44.640 --> 01:52:50.040 traffic engineer text on has pursued schematic designs but I do not believe 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 01:53:00.280 --> 01:53:07.480 don't know that it's a pending widening project they are looking to the future 01:53:07.480 --> 01:53:13.600 and they have again they have pursued schematics and they we've looked at some 01:53:13.600 --> 01:53:17.440 I have seen some drawings to show the widening but they do not have any 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 01:53:23.680 --> 01:53:29.200 maybe where the currently right now and maybe Brian you can help out with a 01:53:29.200 --> 01:53:35.160 cross-street where where is the current expansion of 377 stopping there is it at 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 01:53:40.200 --> 01:53:46.840 okay far south that was going it goes almost to the railroad track bridge got 01:53:46.840 --> 01:53:56.320 you okay so pretty pretty close to that area but okay and then Ron the the 01:53:56.320 --> 01:54:01.480 expansion of 28 down through vintage and Bonnie Bray and maybe this is more of a 01:54:01.480 --> 01:54:07.040 Brian question what are those updated timelines like on those expansions I'm 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 01:54:12.440 --> 01:54:20.120 we'll state the question again 288 yeah the the expansion of vintage around I 01:54:20.120 --> 01:54:23.760 know it's not really connecting into there but it's more just that 288 is 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 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 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 01:54:43.600 --> 01:54:49.600 correct they are so the current plan is to build the northbound frontage road 01:54:49.600 --> 01:54:56.800 and and ultimately this is going to be a controlled access facility a freeway 01:54:56.800 --> 01:55:00.920 with frontage roads on both sides and the plan currently is to build the 01:55:00.920 --> 01:55:06.520 northbound frontage road and I think they're in a 2023 2024 time frame for 01:55:06.520 --> 01:55:15.860 letting so they are currently they've got environmental I believe if I 01:55:15.860 --> 01:55:19.200 remember correctly they've got environmental clearance and they're now 01:55:19.200 --> 01:55:27.040 working towards right away acquisition okay so they've got I think well I they 01:55:27.040 --> 01:55:33.840 have quite a few parcels to acquire okay so three so three or four 01:55:33.840 --> 01:55:36.760 years basically which look at I know this I know that's a comment's a 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 01:55:41.160 --> 01:55:45.840 that I'm just looking at just regional mobility down there and with Hunter coal 01:55:45.840 --> 01:55:50.080 ranch coming in the amount of moderate residential authority over there and the 01:55:50.080 --> 01:55:53.800 amount of moderate residential we're adding there already you know and then 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 01:55:59.400 --> 01:56:03.640 in the city of Denton especially when it borders up against other cities or 01:56:03.640 --> 01:56:08.360 against ETJ where you don't have you don't have people you have people 01:56:08.360 --> 01:56:12.880 getting in give me their input because they don't get notified because they're 01:56:12.880 --> 01:56:16.600 not in the city like you know training and then chipping Camden's you know a 01:56:16.600 --> 01:56:21.280 stones throw away from this project site none of those folks are all in Argyle 01:56:21.280 --> 01:56:24.560 and Argyle City limits they don't they don't know about this project existing 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 01:56:28.880 --> 01:56:32.680 mobility so but and then the other question was about Bonnie break the 01:56:32.680 --> 01:56:37.400 expansion down through there what was the timeline on that connecting in the 01:56:37.400 --> 01:56:44.320 fourth drive south of the project man and so Bonnie Bray's schedule I would 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 01:56:51.720 --> 01:56:56.040 are segments of Bonnie Bray that are funded in their segments that are not 01:56:56.040 --> 01:57:04.720 funded so I quite honestly I don't have that answer right now okay thank you 01:57:04.720 --> 01:57:12.520 Brown appreciate is there any timeline on the signalizing of vintage and 377 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 01:57:18.560 --> 01:57:26.640 vintage project there's a railroad crossing improvements that's going in 01:57:26.640 --> 01:57:31.520 and I believe the signalization and I know Chandra's on the line as well 01:57:31.520 --> 01:57:38.120 signalization I believe is part of that vintage project okay great the only 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 01:57:41.160 --> 01:57:46.560 minutes before the public meeting it seems to me this this again is probably 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 01:57:50.840 --> 01:57:54.320 that every one of these houses is driving outside of Denton every morning 01:57:54.320 --> 01:57:59.600 at seven o'clock for work and so I'm wondering on a larger planning scale 01:57:59.600 --> 01:58:04.320 what is Denton doing to keep these people moving to Denton staying in 01:58:04.320 --> 01:58:09.480 Denton for their work week because the number of houses that are going in is 01:58:09.480 --> 01:58:14.600 certainly outpacing the number of actual businesses and I know they'll patron us 01:58:14.600 --> 01:58:19.680 hopefully they'll get some food here but they're taking their dollars 40 hours a 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 01:58:24.920 --> 01:58:28.800 but I imagine all these people that moving right now into this location 01:58:28.800 --> 01:58:32.640 potentially the next couple years are gonna be heading down 377 down to South 01:58:32.640 --> 01:58:39.160 Lake and West Lake for for their jobs anyways that's just my soapboxes I see 01:58:39.160 --> 01:58:44.720 all these houses coming in any other questions for Ron Kirscher back yes 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 01:58:50.580 --> 01:58:53.520 pull that up for you 01:58:53.520 --> 01:59:09.040 get to real quick so we got a proposing existing and proposed the left is 2015 01:59:09.040 --> 01:59:21.840 is that correct the left is but the the colorization is 2015 but the usage is 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 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 01:59:36.040 --> 01:59:43.320 ground is just what the future line use should be so can help me understand when 01:59:43.320 --> 01:59:49.040 in 2015 when we revised this was that moderate residential there yes this was 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 01:59:56.520 --> 02:00:01.080 what would continue to be rural and now as parks and government and so the 02:00:01.080 --> 02:00:05.520 thinking at the time was we wanted that to be sort of open lower density land 02:00:05.520 --> 02:00:11.640 with that moderate residential right in that area it's worth on his ETJ when 02:00:11.640 --> 02:00:15.760 that was approved right it was it was outside I mean again we were this is 02:00:15.760 --> 02:00:20.480 actually part of the non annexation agreements so we knew that this was 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 02:00:24.800 --> 02:00:30.840 develop we did not have an idea and to be honest this was undeveloped and we 02:00:30.840 --> 02:00:36.200 wanted to just place rule because it was obviously undeveloped at the time so that 02:00:36.200 --> 02:00:39.000 that I guess that's that's actually where I was going with my questioning is 02:00:39.000 --> 02:00:44.360 this was just a the rural was the default placeholder designation more or 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 02:00:48.560 --> 02:00:54.880 south on Fort Worth it becomes more rural but yes that's generally the that 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 02:00:59.960 --> 02:01:04.760 it and I couldn't find what's the definition of adverse on the financial 02:01:04.760 --> 02:01:10.160 impact statement yeah you're looking for the definition that's what we always say 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 02:01:14.640 --> 02:01:20.440 adverse is defined as essentially with with regards to the fiscal our fiscal 02:01:20.440 --> 02:01:27.120 impact analysis is making sure that the development does not cause any impact 02:01:27.120 --> 02:01:33.160 negative impact probably is probably word to the city as far as providing you 02:01:33.160 --> 02:01:39.040 know services in in how it budgeted and all that so in retrospect or in the 02:01:39.040 --> 02:01:44.560 analysis itself it was determined that the property taxes and other indirect 02:01:44.560 --> 02:01:50.160 taxes that would be that would result from the development would pay for 02:01:50.160 --> 02:01:57.900 itself so there would not be a cost to the negative right a negative impact it 02:01:57.900 --> 02:02:03.080 would be neutral or positive so adverse is my question is more actually not for 02:02:03.080 --> 02:02:08.040 the specific property but it brings it up the definition of adverse is negative 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 02:02:13.920 --> 02:02:17.920 adverse or not adverse in terms of the physical impact analysis okay perfect 02:02:17.920 --> 02:02:26.840 thank you Ron I appreciate it yeah any other questions for Ron okay thanks Ron 02:02:26.840 --> 02:02:33.400 appreciate the presentation you have the next one it's 5b 720 - zero zero zero 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 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 02:02:44.520 --> 02:02:51.200 preferred so we can try and still hit the post at 630 yes definitely this is 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 02:02:57.480 --> 02:03:02.480 think the presentation for the rezoning so I don't know if there were whether 02:03:02.480 --> 02:03:07.240 Ron goes through at all or if there's specific questions to the to the 02:03:07.240 --> 02:03:12.720 designation that's being requested we might be able to just move move on to 02:03:12.720 --> 02:03:20.120 those other two items the thought sure Ellis yeah I mean my thinking is since 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 02:03:25.400 --> 02:03:33.640 questions with regard to the r6 zoning request if that'd be my opinion is there 02:03:33.640 --> 02:03:45.600 any opposition to that perfect okay so I'll go through the presentation real 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 02:03:53.440 --> 02:03:57.800 the change and if there's questions yeah maybe I misunderstood Commissioner 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 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 02:04:08.880 --> 02:04:12.800 right I was playing on doing it because a lot of slides as Richard mentioned are 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 02:04:16.760 --> 02:04:19.920 not included in the previous one and this is just to help illustrate the 02:04:19.920 --> 02:04:23.680 dimensional standards that the development if it were to develop today 02:04:23.680 --> 02:04:27.360 without any rezoning or comp planning you would have to develop under the RR 02:04:27.360 --> 02:04:32.160 the residential rural dimensional standards versus what is being proposed 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 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 02:04:44.120 --> 02:04:48.720 dimensional standards the applicant is requesting the r6 this is what the 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 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 02:04:58.520 --> 02:05:03.720 requesting to only zone the area that she's shown here and again the intent is 02:05:03.720 --> 02:05:08.160 to match what is currently to the north the area to the east is not being 02:05:08.160 --> 02:05:11.880 considered at this moment it's just the area shown in black or surrounded by the 02:05:11.880 --> 02:05:18.840 black line again approval criteria I won't go through most of this there is a 02:05:18.840 --> 02:05:22.680 section of the code that talks about the zoning map approval criteria very 02:05:22.680 --> 02:05:29.440 similar to the approval criteria for all applications we've already discussed the 02:05:29.440 --> 02:05:34.040 comp plan and how it's consistent the adverse impact as far as surrounding 02:05:34.040 --> 02:05:39.200 properties and then we've thought we talked about that and again based on the 02:05:39.200 --> 02:05:42.640 notifications that were sent out for both the comp plan and the zoning staff 02:05:42.640 --> 02:05:46.440 has not received any notices our responses either in opposition or in 02:05:46.440 --> 02:05:52.240 favor and again staff recommends approval and as said earlier the 02:05:52.240 --> 02:05:55.960 applicant is will be here during the public hearing and will be able to answer 02:05:55.960 --> 02:06:00.480 a question and they do have a presentation great I appreciate you 02:06:00.480 --> 02:06:08.320 trimming that one down I'm sure we can dive in all the questions in the 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 02:06:13.760 --> 02:06:24.760 and I'll invite Karina Maldonado to present item s 20 - zero zero zero three C 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 02:06:48.440 --> 02:06:55.040 is a specific use permit for Shady Shores town crossing multifamily just 02:06:55.040 --> 02:06:59.880 went over the request the the site is approximately 21.96 acres located in the 02:06:59.880 --> 02:07:05.840 SC suburban corridor district just some brief background this property and the 02:07:05.840 --> 02:07:11.680 parcel to the south were both brought forward in 2017 for a rezoning from 02:07:11.680 --> 02:07:16.000 regional center residential and regional center commercial downtown to community 02:07:16.000 --> 02:07:21.920 community mixed-use general that zoning designation did transition to SC in the 02:07:21.920 --> 02:07:29.200 2019 transition in October just a just a point of clarification if that zoning 02:07:29.200 --> 02:07:33.660 had not occurred and remained the same it would have transitioned over to the 02:07:33.660 --> 02:07:40.240 MR regional mixed-use district so the site plan shown on the screen does 02:07:40.240 --> 02:07:46.120 reflect five buildings for 300 dwelling units both one unit and two-bedroom I'm 02:07:46.120 --> 02:07:50.920 sorry one bedroom and two-bedroom units three of sorry four of those buildings 02:07:50.920 --> 02:07:55.480 are for three story or three story in height and one building which is building 02:07:55.480 --> 02:08:02.120 to shown in the back in that L shape is a four story building the proposed 02:08:02.120 --> 02:08:07.120 development is for five shows 518 parking spaces that does include a 02:08:07.120 --> 02:08:12.400 reduction for motorcycle space substitution also on the site there are 02:08:12.400 --> 02:08:18.800 three access points one full main access off Shady Shores to the south one egress 02:08:18.800 --> 02:08:23.800 emergency exit only which is that westernmost driveway and then one right 02:08:23.800 --> 02:08:30.240 turn in and right turn out driveway off Lakeview there on the east side and the 02:08:30.240 --> 02:08:37.000 development does also show an 11.6 acre conservation easement which is being 02:08:37.000 --> 02:08:42.280 used to preserve ESA on the site as well as meet some tree mitigation that is 02:08:42.280 --> 02:08:47.240 located outside the ESA there are some proposed retaining walls shown in red 02:08:47.240 --> 02:08:52.480 and due to the construction of that there will be a minor encroachment into 02:08:52.480 --> 02:08:57.600 ESA which will require an alternative ESA plan that will come before you 02:08:57.600 --> 02:09:02.440 tonight just after this presentation and then lastly there are some proposed 02:09:02.440 --> 02:09:09.840 wider sidewalks along Shady Shores and Lakeview the landscape plan does show 02:09:09.840 --> 02:09:14.920 the required street tree plantings all along Shady Shores and Lakeview 02:09:14.920 --> 02:09:21.240 Boulevard it does in fact show increased plantings that would extend some 02:09:21.240 --> 02:09:24.840 required right-of-way screening plantings it does extend those 02:09:24.840 --> 02:09:29.160 throughout the rest of Shady Shores and Lakeview that would basically add 02:09:29.160 --> 02:09:33.600 additional screening between those buildings that are up front to close to 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 02:09:40.600 --> 02:09:46.200 easement abandonment there are four easements located they're marked in 02:09:46.200 --> 02:09:52.240 orange here along the south on Shady Shores and north on Lakeview those were 02:09:52.240 --> 02:09:56.080 put in when storm storm water requirements or storm water improvements 02:09:56.080 --> 02:10:00.080 were put in on Shady Shores so the applicant will need to go through an 02:10:00.080 --> 02:10:04.240 easement abandonment process in order to keep those plantings that are shown 02:10:04.240 --> 02:10:09.320 there additional plantings on the north are proposed for a buffer between the 02:10:09.320 --> 02:10:16.320 residential area that was a request by some residents in the in the area through 02:10:16.320 --> 02:10:20.840 those neighborhood meetings the applicant is also proposing some 02:10:20.840 --> 02:10:26.200 alternative landscape plantings from what our code requires and really what 02:10:26.200 --> 02:10:30.120 they're providing for in terms of landscape planning sorry parking lot 02:10:30.120 --> 02:10:36.040 planting is three partial elements rather than two full elements required by 02:10:36.040 --> 02:10:41.240 the code and this would actually be one full they fully met the requirement for 02:10:41.240 --> 02:10:46.800 end caps within the parking lot however for landscape medians that are required 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 02:10:51.760 --> 02:10:56.360 to right-of-way dedication requirements as well as a 20-foot easement that's 02:10:56.360 --> 02:11:01.240 required that kind of limits the amount of space they would have for safe access 02:11:01.240 --> 02:11:07.160 within the site and they are also still proposing landscaped islands every 10 02:11:07.160 --> 02:11:11.440 feet there they're short in some areas like right right at the front of Shady 02:11:11.440 --> 02:11:16.000 Shores excuse me but they are providing at least three partial elements to meet 02:11:16.000 --> 02:11:19.960 that landscape requirement and this is allowed through the alternative landscape 02:11:19.960 --> 02:11:26.360 alternative landscape plan deviation within the code they are also providing 02:11:26.360 --> 02:11:31.400 the required 8% open space as well as active and passive recreation within the 02:11:31.400 --> 02:11:35.920 site that includes a resort style pool located on the western part of the site 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 02:11:41.400 --> 02:11:45.760 also include a fitness center that is located within the leasing building 02:11:45.760 --> 02:11:52.320 building to for for the residents to kind of use the site rather than going 02:11:52.320 --> 02:11:58.240 outside the area overall they're providing 30% landscaped area and 38% 02:11:58.240 --> 02:12:02.760 tree canopy area and this is in excess of the minimum 20% landscaped area for 02:12:02.760 --> 02:12:10.560 the SC district as well as 30% tree canopy for this zoning district before I 02:12:10.560 --> 02:12:14.000 jump into tree preservation I did want to highlight that this site did go 02:12:14.000 --> 02:12:18.640 through an ESA field assessment this was conducted by a third party last summer 02:12:18.640 --> 02:12:23.360 but was finalized in February of 2020 the main highlights from this were that 02:12:23.360 --> 02:12:29.400 the cross timbers upland habitat shown in green on the top of the screen this 02:12:29.400 --> 02:12:33.640 was removed as part of this this assessment due to fragmentation of the 02:12:33.640 --> 02:12:39.720 forest and this is because it did not meet the minimum requirements for being 02:12:39.720 --> 02:12:45.520 continuous area of 10 acres or more and so the largest area shown was roughly 02:12:45.520 --> 02:12:50.800 less than six acres so that designation was removed which allowed for more 02:12:50.800 --> 02:12:55.920 development on the site the ESA field assessment did establish that there was 02:12:55.920 --> 02:13:01.300 floodplain ESA this is based on the FEMA hundred-year floodplain map this is 02:13:01.300 --> 02:13:06.320 undeveloped floodplain in a natural condition it did also confirm to stream 02:13:06.320 --> 02:13:11.360 segment segments which indicated the presence of riparian buffer both 50 foot 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 02:13:15.680 --> 02:13:20.640 screen and lastly they it did also confirm water related habitat which is 02:13:20.640 --> 02:13:25.720 non-wetland and so this is important because development when within the 02:13:25.720 --> 02:13:31.600 established ESAs is prohibited in most instances except with some exceptions 02:13:31.600 --> 02:13:38.760 through the AESA process tree preservation as I mentioned is does not 02:13:38.760 --> 02:13:44.360 include the ESA area which is all of this area within the orange border that 02:13:44.360 --> 02:13:49.720 encompasses roughly 50% of the site so this this project was significantly 02:13:49.720 --> 02:13:54.040 limited and where they could develop and they maximize the site as much as they 02:13:54.040 --> 02:13:59.520 could they are meeting minimum preservation at a reduced rate of 20% and 02:13:59.520 --> 02:14:03.600 this is allowed with 10% that 10% difference being mitigated at a higher 02:14:03.600 --> 02:14:10.440 rate and so to demonstrate compliance they are proposing replacement plantings 02:14:10.440 --> 02:14:13.880 I'm sorry let me take a step back preservation the 20% is all being 02:14:13.880 --> 02:14:18.840 encompassed in this area on the western part of the site conservation plantings 02:14:18.840 --> 02:14:22.240 are being proposed to meet the mitigation requirements and that will 02:14:22.240 --> 02:14:27.360 take or that will be planted within this kind of meadow area here other 02:14:27.360 --> 02:14:32.280 alternatives allowed within the Denton Development Code include utilization of 02:14:32.280 --> 02:14:35.400 the Denton Wildscape program which is something new and something that they're 02:14:35.400 --> 02:14:41.880 exploring as well as payment in lieu so staff did add a condition to the site 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 02:14:45.680 --> 02:14:51.280 the presentation I won't go over the elevations right now they are proposing 02:14:51.280 --> 02:14:57.280 some two various site plans three of the buildings will follow this site plan 02:14:57.280 --> 02:15:01.560 sorry these elevations building three located on the corner will have a 02:15:01.560 --> 02:15:09.160 slightly varied elevation and then the four story building of course will be 02:15:09.160 --> 02:15:12.720 different in that it's four stories in height and would also include the leasing 02:15:12.720 --> 02:15:18.840 center the surrounding development so the property is shown here in yellow it 02:15:18.840 --> 02:15:23.560 is surrounded by residential single-family homes to the north that's 02:15:23.560 --> 02:15:28.400 moderate residential which is approximately five dwelling units per 02:15:28.400 --> 02:15:37.440 acre excuse me there is a buffer between the site and those residential homes it 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 02:15:44.160 --> 02:15:50.960 covers about a hundred feet of easement between the site also you'll see areas 02:15:50.960 --> 02:15:57.480 in pink those are undeveloped land that have a higher intensity zoning the areas 02:15:57.480 --> 02:16:03.000 in red encompass existing car dealerships and then you'll see the orange 02:16:03.000 --> 02:16:08.120 area to the east side which basically mirrors the development off Lakeview is 02:16:08.120 --> 02:16:13.360 an existing multifamily that went in in about 2007 and has approximately 15 02:16:13.360 --> 02:16:18.240 dwelling units per acre I will note that the proposed development would roughly 02:16:18.240 --> 02:16:24.800 gross out to 13 dwelling units per acre hey Karina enjoy the presentation thus 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 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 02:16:33.920 --> 02:16:38.040 overview of Christie's presentation yes sir I can do that awesome thank you so 02:16:38.040 --> 02:16:43.280 I'll skip over the criteria for approval we very briefly talked about the 02:16:43.280 --> 02:16:47.160 surrounding development is really just highlighting or mirroring what is 02:16:47.160 --> 02:16:52.120 existed existing off Lakeview and I'll go into more detail later it is in 02:16:52.120 --> 02:16:55.600 compliance with the future land use which has four designations on the site 02:16:55.600 --> 02:17:01.480 primarily community mixed youth regional mixed use but it is in line with both of 02:17:01.480 --> 02:17:09.320 those the other two minor designations are low residential and park space big 02:17:09.320 --> 02:17:15.840 highlights on this site are traffic the site itself will generate daily 1632 02:17:15.840 --> 02:17:21.560 trips within a 24-hour period the intersection itself will only net 02:17:21.560 --> 02:17:29.020 increase 145 trips so the TIA that was conducted for this site did indicate 02:17:29.020 --> 02:17:34.280 that signal is warranted due to the existing development at that 02:17:34.280 --> 02:17:38.320 intersection the developer would be responsible for the proportional cost of 02:17:38.320 --> 02:17:43.760 that signal which is roughly 5% another highlight regarding Lakeview is a 02:17:43.760 --> 02:17:47.800 primary arterial and shady shores is a collector currently under the mobility 02:17:47.800 --> 02:17:53.440 plan however the 2020 proposed mobility plan it proposes shady shores as a local 02:17:53.440 --> 02:18:01.280 street the TIA did also taken into account multimodal access bike ped was 02:18:01.280 --> 02:18:06.520 big for this so Lakeview and shady shores will have those enhanced or wider 02:18:06.520 --> 02:18:11.280 sidewalks in line with the recommendation they're also proposing a 02:18:11.280 --> 02:18:15.440 crosswalk on the north side to connect into the dedicated trail that runs 02:18:15.440 --> 02:18:22.480 along the DCT a train rail line no transit is located in this area but the 02:18:22.480 --> 02:18:28.040 TIA did call for kind of just considering that in the future water is 02:18:28.040 --> 02:18:33.160 available to the site and can serve this development wastewater however is not 02:18:33.160 --> 02:18:37.960 available adjacent to the property so they will have to extend from the site 02:18:37.960 --> 02:18:43.520 to this yellow square here in order to serve the property the existing capacity 02:18:43.520 --> 02:18:50.120 based on the demand is is insufficient so they will likely have to provide some 02:18:50.120 --> 02:18:54.440 sort of improvement whether that is upsizing the line between the score and 02:18:54.440 --> 02:19:01.840 triangle and or providing some capacity or pumping capacity at the lift station 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 02:19:07.440 --> 02:19:11.760 the recommendations for approval of this of this project they do have part access 02:19:11.760 --> 02:19:17.320 just across from the rail line the schools within the area do have capacity 02:19:17.320 --> 02:19:24.760 we did send out public notices to those within 200 and 500 feet nobody within 02:19:24.760 --> 02:19:29.840 200 feet responded however we did get about two or three I need to update my 02:19:29.840 --> 02:19:36.760 numbers about two people within I'm sorry that's that's not right but 500 02:19:36.760 --> 02:19:40.160 feet we did have about three people respond and then we had a majority of 02:19:40.160 --> 02:19:44.720 people outside of the 500 foot boundary that responded with opposition to this 02:19:44.720 --> 02:19:51.560 project recommendations for approval as I mentioned one of the kind of typical 02:19:51.560 --> 02:19:55.760 conditions that we have is related to landscaping which just allows staff to 02:19:55.760 --> 02:20:01.240 make minor modifications or administrative modifications which is 02:20:01.240 --> 02:20:06.560 pretty standard tree preservation this goes back to they meet the minimum tree 02:20:06.560 --> 02:20:12.240 preservation based on a reduced percentage and so staff is asking that 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 02:20:19.440 --> 02:20:23.520 conservation plantings or the Denton Wildscape program or payment in lieu 02:20:23.520 --> 02:20:29.040 third is just ensuring that whenever the development does go through 02:20:29.040 --> 02:20:35.000 construction that they also construct the sidewalks at that same time the sewer 02:20:35.000 --> 02:20:40.480 extension condition was revised per the applicant's request and staff did not 02:20:40.480 --> 02:20:45.080 have issues with the revised language shown in red which just more generalizes 02:20:45.080 --> 02:20:51.080 that improvements would be required rather than specifically calling out the 02:20:51.080 --> 02:20:56.960 specific upgrade to those improvements as I mentioned easement abandonment would 02:20:56.960 --> 02:21:01.320 be required for those areas along Shady Shores and to ensure that the 02:21:01.320 --> 02:21:07.920 landscaping can go through as proposed and then Christie will go through the 02:21:07.920 --> 02:21:11.680 alternative ESA plan which would be approval would be required in order to 02:21:11.680 --> 02:21:19.120 move forward and with that this is just kind of another just overlying what 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 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 02:21:29.440 --> 02:21:33.720 appreciate the presentation and you trying to expedite that and look at the 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 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 02:21:48.640 --> 02:21:52.840 back let me verify if that's fine is there anyone who has opposition to 02:21:52.840 --> 02:21:59.120 tabling 5d until we're here hey Richard are you okay with us not hearing 02:21:59.120 --> 02:22:03.680 5d and work sessions hearing a public hearing I think I think I think that's 02:22:03.680 --> 02:22:06.800 fine I just wanted one thing I wanted to mention I was clarifying something with 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 02:22:16.960 --> 02:22:22.880 is denied at council does that mean the SUP is denied to some extent yes because 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 02:22:26.800 --> 02:22:30.080 it would require a modification to that plan so just just wanted to clarify 02:22:30.080 --> 02:22:35.400 that that if that was denied they would still they could still come back with an 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 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 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 02:22:52.760 --> 02:22:56.040 I know it's a quick turnaround but that'll get us going for the regular 02:22:56.040 --> 02:23:08.220 session so that's nine minutes six thirty five thank you ladies and 02:23:08.220 --> 02:23:12.920 gentlemen and welcome to the planning and zoning regular session meeting for 02:23:12.920 --> 02:23:17.920 November 4th 2020 seeing we have a quorum I'll call the meeting to order at 02:23:17.920 --> 02:23:23.040 637 thank you for being patient with us as we had a slight delay and work 02:23:23.040 --> 02:23:26.440 session that being said let's go ahead and jump right into the agenda the first 02:23:26.440 --> 02:23:32.200 item is to provide a pledge allegiance to the US and Texas flag commissioners 02:23:32.200 --> 02:23:37.680 you can unmute yourself to join along with me if you so choose I pledge 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 02:23:52.540 --> 02:24:01.960 Texas flag I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God one indivisible 02:24:01.960 --> 02:24:06.520 next item of business is item two the consideration of the October 21st 02:24:06.520 --> 02:24:11.520 minutes Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve we have a first for approval 02:24:11.520 --> 02:24:16.760 Commissioner Anderson I second we have a first and a second for approval is there 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 02:24:22.200 --> 02:24:26.320 start with Commissioner Beck I Mr. Anderson hi 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 02:24:36.720 --> 02:24:42.360 carries 7-0 the next item of business is the consent agenda 02:24:42.360 --> 02:24:49.120 Mr. Ellis I move approval we have a first for approval 02:24:49.120 --> 02:24:54.040 Commissioner Smith we have a first and a second for approval for the consent 02:24:54.040 --> 02:24:59.160 agenda any discussion seeing none I'll call for a vote via roll call 02:24:59.160 --> 02:25:09.880 Commissioner Beck I Mr. Anderson I Mr. Smith I Mr. Ellis I Mr. Cole I Mr. 02:25:09.880 --> 02:25:16.320 Pernitta I chairs also an I motion carries 7-0 the next item of business is 02:25:16.320 --> 02:25:19.760 our items for individual considerations starting with our Planning and Zoning 02:25:19.760 --> 02:25:24.760 Commission calendar for 2021 Commissioner Smith make a motion to 02:25:24.760 --> 02:25:31.160 approve we have a first for approval Commissioner Cole second we have a first 02:25:31.160 --> 02:25:37.040 and a second for approval of the calendar for 2021 any discussion seeing 02:25:37.040 --> 02:25:42.640 none I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Beck I Mr. Anderson I 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 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 02:26:00.920 --> 02:26:05.640 Maldonado's item and I'll turn the floor over to her 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 02:26:18.200 --> 02:26:23.520 Worthington Industrial Office which is a one one industrial lot off of 02:26:23.520 --> 02:26:27.640 Worthington and Shuler staff is recommending approval of this request 02:26:27.640 --> 02:26:31.560 as it currently meets the established requirements outlined in exhibit 2 02:26:31.560 --> 02:26:36.920 however the applicant is proposing some last-minute changes to their plat during 02:26:36.920 --> 02:26:41.000 this the civil engineering process so they intend to alter their water plan 02:26:41.000 --> 02:26:45.660 which will require alterations to the current sorry the current easements 02:26:45.660 --> 02:26:49.360 shown here on the screen so the applicant is requesting a 30-day 02:26:49.360 --> 02:26:54.800 extension to a date certain of November 18th great thank you Karina 02:26:54.800 --> 02:27:00.360 Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the extension today certain of 02:27:00.360 --> 02:27:05.360 November 18 2020 a motion to approve the request for a 30-day extension to 02:27:05.360 --> 02:27:10.760 November 18th Commissioner Anderson second the motion we have first and a 02:27:10.760 --> 02:27:16.480 second to accept the request from the applicant to extend 30 days to a date 02:27:16.480 --> 02:27:23.320 certain of November 18th any discussion Commissioner Beck can you Karina can you 02:27:23.320 --> 02:27:27.680 briefly thank you chair can you really really briefly just delineate the 02:27:27.680 --> 02:27:32.000 changes in the water plan I don't actually have that information off the 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 02:27:36.440 --> 02:27:41.560 in on Friday but they will probably be coming back around very quickly no no I 02:27:41.560 --> 02:27:45.840 was I was just trying to get some advanced warning about what was coming 02:27:45.840 --> 02:27:49.040 yeah to my knowledge it was just something that came up during a 02:27:49.040 --> 02:27:53.880 pre-construction meeting just the location I believe of their taps might 02:27:53.880 --> 02:27:58.560 have just they they just decided to alter rather than having lines going 02:27:58.560 --> 02:28:05.120 within the development I believe these would be coming off okay thank you any 02:28:05.120 --> 02:28:10.640 other discussion scene nine I'll call for a vote via roll call Commissioner Beck 02:28:10.640 --> 02:28:16.720 aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole 02:28:16.720 --> 02:28:23.800 all Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Smith aye chair is also an 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 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 02:28:34.960 --> 02:28:43.240 plat of pp 20 - 0 0 22 for about 13 residential lots located off of Fort 02:28:43.240 --> 02:28:48.520 Worth Drive and Fairview Drive this is south of Brush Creek staff is 02:28:48.520 --> 02:28:51.840 recommending denial this request as it currently does not meet the established 02:28:51.840 --> 02:28:56.400 requirements the applicant has requested an extension to December 02:28:56.400 --> 02:29:02.160 2nd all right thank you Commissioner Smith make a motion to approve the 02:29:02.160 --> 02:29:06.240 extension to date certain December 2nd here we have first to approve the 02:29:06.240 --> 02:29:11.160 request for an extension to date certain of December 2nd 02:29:11.160 --> 02:29:18.400 Commissioner Ellis second we have a first and a second any discussion seeing 02:29:18.400 --> 02:29:22.240 none I'll call for a vote be a roll call starting with Commissioner Beck aye 02:29:22.240 --> 02:29:28.080 Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole aye 02:29:28.080 --> 02:29:33.760 Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Smith aye chair is also an aye motion 02:29:33.760 --> 02:29:38.600 carries seven zero the last item for individual consideration is item 4d it's 02:29:38.600 --> 02:29:58.040 ADP 20 - 0 0 0 1 and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation good evening 02:29:58.040 --> 02:30:19.640 let me pull up my presentation okay good evening I'm Julie Wyatt I'm presenting 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 02:30:25.480 --> 02:30:29.400 development plan for a single-family development on 92 acres outlined in 02:30:29.400 --> 02:30:35.200 yellow it's adjacent to FM 428 north of Hartley Field Road the purpose of the 02:30:35.200 --> 02:30:40.360 request is to deviate from sub chapter 13 of the of the 2002 debt and 02:30:40.360 --> 02:30:44.480 development code specifically related to architecture of the single-family 02:30:44.480 --> 02:30:49.440 residential dwellings so the zoning for the property was approved in Joe in July 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 02:30:54.920 --> 02:31:01.180 transitioned to PD with the 2019 code and due to the project submittal timing 02:31:01.180 --> 02:31:06.360 the proposal is being reviewed under the 2002 regulations which includes the ADP 02:31:06.360 --> 02:31:11.020 process and the residential standards we're talking about tonight just 02:31:11.020 --> 02:31:17.200 quickly to go over those those requirements lots under 10,000 square 02:31:17.200 --> 02:31:22.280 feet are required to comply with certain residential standards within the 2002 02:31:22.280 --> 02:31:25.960 debt and development code as this applies to the agave Ranch development 02:31:25.960 --> 02:31:32.280 there are 219 lots that are less than 10,000 square feet 33 lots are larger 02:31:32.280 --> 02:31:35.800 than 10,000 square feet it would not have to comply with the requirements 02:31:35.800 --> 02:31:41.280 there are three standards that they are requesting deviations from the first one 02:31:41.280 --> 02:31:45.600 would be design features and that is a selection of three items from a list 02:31:45.600 --> 02:31:49.520 that is outlined in the debt and development code the second is for 02:31:49.520 --> 02:31:55.200 garage and specifically that front entry garages could not extend past that front 02:31:55.200 --> 02:32:00.520 building wall plus they could not be larger than 40% of that total brick 02:32:00.520 --> 02:32:06.600 building frontage and then windows and doors the 2002 debt and development code 02:32:06.600 --> 02:32:11.880 required 25% windows and doors on the front facade unless that that garage 02:32:11.880 --> 02:32:18.600 door so there are two builders that are looking to develop in the agave Ranch 02:32:18.600 --> 02:32:24.200 development and we'll take each of those design features separately so they do 02:32:24.200 --> 02:32:29.000 have concerns regarding those first first regarding design features those 02:32:29.000 --> 02:32:35.060 plans with recessed entries for both builders are only contained to design 02:32:35.060 --> 02:32:40.880 features typically based upon the list that the development code has the 02:32:40.880 --> 02:32:44.900 applicant is proposing a revision to that list to replace cupolas and bay 02:32:44.900 --> 02:32:48.920 windows with enhanced landscaping which includes foundation plantings and 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 02:32:53.720 --> 02:32:58.760 2002 debt and development code required as that 2002 didn't development code 02:32:58.760 --> 02:33:02.560 only required street trees for residential development they're also 02:33:02.560 --> 02:33:08.360 proposing a minimum roof pitch of 612 and then they they as part of their 02:33:08.360 --> 02:33:12.280 request it would require four design features instead of the three as 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 02:33:18.200 --> 02:33:26.440 here's is a visual of that I'm second regarding the garage door both both 02:33:26.440 --> 02:33:32.880 proposed builders do have plans where the the garage door would would extend 02:33:32.880 --> 02:33:38.480 forward of the front building line as well as exceed that 40% maximum so the 02:33:38.480 --> 02:33:44.760 applicant is proposing a deviation where those front entry garages could extend 02:33:44.760 --> 02:33:49.640 forward up to 6 feet from the front from the front building plane of the house 02:33:49.640 --> 02:33:54.440 that is nearest in setback distance to the garage door plane and 11 feet from 02:33:54.440 --> 02:33:58.920 that recess front door and this would could only apply to 40% of the total 02:33:58.920 --> 02:34:06.240 product and then they're also proposing for two car garages that that garage 02:34:06.240 --> 02:34:12.200 door could not occupy more than 45% of the total building frontage and 55% for 02:34:12.200 --> 02:34:15.840 three car garages once again they're proposing that this could only apply to 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 02:34:25.840 --> 02:34:30.720 the garage would extend if approved six feet from the front building line and 02:34:30.720 --> 02:34:40.640 11 feet from that recessed front door the windows and doors they are several 02:34:40.640 --> 02:34:46.160 of their plans do not meet that minimum 25% so they are proposing a variation 02:34:46.160 --> 02:34:54.440 from that and that is to comprise 15% of the wall area plus to enhance design 02:34:54.440 --> 02:34:58.440 features from a menu including decorative shutters decorative brick 02:34:58.440 --> 02:35:02.600 details coach lights divided light windows decorative garage door hardware 02:35:02.600 --> 02:35:08.280 or decorative cedar shake or stucco board accents and the gables so we've 02:35:08.280 --> 02:35:12.440 got in your backup as well as in the presentation several several 02:35:12.440 --> 02:35:17.360 elevations which sort of demonstrate what these deviations would be and and 02:35:17.360 --> 02:35:23.520 for example this builder wine shows a the what those design elements would look 02:35:23.520 --> 02:35:32.520 like in terms of gables recessed porches and dormers as well as how those garage 02:35:32.520 --> 02:35:37.760 doors would affect those building elevations for example this this 02:35:37.760 --> 02:35:43.720 elevation shows a 48% garage door frontage and then finally the windows 02:35:43.720 --> 02:35:50.360 and doors for instance this elevation here shows 20% windows and doors but the 02:35:50.360 --> 02:35:55.240 addition of the shutters and the herringbone brick detailing builder to 02:35:55.240 --> 02:36:03.120 elevations also show a variety of those deviations the they showed the gables 02:36:03.120 --> 02:36:10.120 the the roof pitch as proposed as well as some of them would require that 02:36:10.120 --> 02:36:17.480 enhanced landscape package as proposed this garage door here as you can see it 02:36:17.480 --> 02:36:22.480 extends eight feet in front of that build of the the front I'm sorry the 02:36:22.480 --> 02:36:27.760 front door of this elevation and then several of their plans do not meet that 02:36:27.760 --> 02:36:32.620 minimum windows and doors for example this elevation here has 19% windows and 02:36:32.620 --> 02:36:39.480 doors but with the addition of the coach light and the in the shutters the 02:36:39.480 --> 02:36:45.800 criteria for approval is in the subject 13 development code first preserved 02:36:45.800 --> 02:36:49.520 existing neighborhoods the additional elements apply to all lots within the 02:36:49.520 --> 02:36:54.920 neighborhood and that includes lots over 10,000 square feet so it would be in 02:36:54.920 --> 02:37:00.460 excess of what the 2002 code would require their proposal shows home 02:37:00.460 --> 02:37:03.760 designs or home plans that are consistent with the surrounding 02:37:03.760 --> 02:37:09.000 architecture one and two-story plans two and three car garages as well as 02:37:09.000 --> 02:37:14.800 traditional forms and details the request is not intended to lower design 02:37:14.800 --> 02:37:19.840 standards and apart from the request all other subchapter 13 requirements are met 02:37:19.840 --> 02:37:24.380 so it does comply with the assure quality development criteria focus new 02:37:24.380 --> 02:37:27.880 development on activity centers this development was approved by ordinance 02:37:27.880 --> 02:37:34.480 last year ensure existing infrastructure that the property has is going through 02:37:34.480 --> 02:37:38.200 the platting process and engineering has determined that there's adequate 02:37:38.200 --> 02:37:42.400 capacity and then finally that the proposal would result in a high quality 02:37:42.400 --> 02:37:47.000 development and we're gonna take each of those elements independently so first 02:37:47.000 --> 02:37:51.880 the intent of those design features are to reduce that mass of the building 02:37:51.880 --> 02:37:55.600 discourage blank walls and really encourage visually interesting places 02:37:55.600 --> 02:37:59.560 the proposal is consistent with the residential character that that we 02:37:59.560 --> 02:38:03.560 typically see in Denton and that enhanced landscaping could increase the 02:38:03.560 --> 02:38:07.800 overall tree canopy provide visual interest and also reduce the amount of 02:38:07.800 --> 02:38:13.360 turf grass in the front yard the garage requirements in the 2002 Denton 02:38:13.360 --> 02:38:16.960 Development Code are intended to reduce the visual impacts of front facing 02:38:16.960 --> 02:38:23.780 garages the Ford extensions are limited as well as those additional percentage is 02:38:23.780 --> 02:38:29.280 also limited and and it would not what they're proposing does not overwhelm the 02:38:29.280 --> 02:38:33.160 front facade or conceal the front door so it does meet the intent of the 02:38:33.160 --> 02:38:37.920 requirement and finally the windows and doors those are intended to increase 02:38:37.920 --> 02:38:41.720 building transparency and discourage blank walls and with the adoption of the 02:38:41.720 --> 02:38:47.400 2019 DDC the requirement was modified to minimum 15% windows and doors and this 02:38:47.400 --> 02:38:51.680 proposal is consistent with current regulations in addition they are at they 02:38:51.680 --> 02:38:57.080 are proposing to add additional decorative elements above those 2019 02:38:57.080 --> 02:39:03.800 regulations as shown on those example elevations and so based upon the 02:39:03.800 --> 02:39:07.320 criteria for approval staff does recommend approval of the request and 02:39:07.320 --> 02:39:12.000 I'll be happy to stand for any questions and I believe the applicant is available 02:39:12.000 --> 02:39:17.960 and has a presentation as well any questions for Julie before we hear the 02:39:17.960 --> 02:39:24.000 applicant's presentation I don't see any Julie thank you and then if the 02:39:24.000 --> 02:39:29.880 applicant is available they just state their name and address for the record 02:39:29.880 --> 02:39:36.240 and then Julia are you pulling up their presentation on our end I am fantastic 02:39:36.240 --> 02:39:41.480 good evening commissioners this is Amy Bissett with 97 land company I represent 02:39:41.480 --> 02:39:47.120 the developer with Agave Ranch as well as the home builders and while Julie's 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 02:39:50.560 --> 02:39:56.800 we can and your presentation's up okay great excellent and I want to introduce 02:39:56.800 --> 02:40:02.200 the two home builders that we do have on board for this project that we are 02:40:02.200 --> 02:40:06.520 seeking these variances for and they are also on the phone in case you have 02:40:06.520 --> 02:40:12.840 specific questions related to their architecture or the market that that 02:40:12.840 --> 02:40:15.880 they're responding to in terms of the type of products they're bringing to 02:40:15.880 --> 02:40:21.640 Fitton Michael Dewar and Shannon Ray are on the phone with khop Manny and homes 02:40:21.640 --> 02:40:29.480 and Garrett Lust is also on the line with David and Julie we're just gonna 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 02:40:32.640 --> 02:40:39.360 slide thank you and as Julie mentioned we did rezone in 2019 and the zoning is 02:40:39.360 --> 02:40:45.120 currently a PD that with a base zoning of NR2 and NR3 we do have some 02:40:45.120 --> 02:40:49.720 significant overlay conditions for those of you that were on the commission at 02:40:49.720 --> 02:40:54.600 the time that that was considered and we have a 30-foot landscape buffer along 02:40:54.600 --> 02:41:01.080 the entire frontage of loop I'm sorry of highway 428 15 percent preserved open 02:41:01.080 --> 02:41:07.760 space a multi-purpose trail system nine pocket parts and three ponds and this 02:41:07.760 --> 02:41:15.520 type of elevated the elevated residential subdivision has attracted 02:41:15.520 --> 02:41:22.560 these two home builders that have been inactive in Denton within the last 15 to 02:41:22.560 --> 02:41:28.200 20 years if having done development previously we did come back to you guys 02:41:28.200 --> 02:41:32.520 in August of this year and got an approved general development plan and 02:41:32.520 --> 02:41:39.000 preliminary plat and we're currently in full design of civil construction plans 02:41:39.000 --> 02:41:43.920 and obviously we're bringing our builder variances to you this evening next slide 02:41:43.920 --> 02:41:53.160 please just a very brief reminder this is 92 acres with a maximum of 272 lots 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 02:42:02.040 --> 02:42:08.040 put our variances side-by-side between what the basic criteria is in the 2002 02:42:08.040 --> 02:42:12.680 development code and what we are proposing this first variance is related 02:42:12.680 --> 02:42:18.880 to alternative design features both of our home builders found that cupolas and 02:42:18.880 --> 02:42:24.480 bay windows were just not the current market for their product so they have 02:42:24.480 --> 02:42:29.960 proposed and the enhanced landscaping package and minimum roof pitch and in 02:42:29.960 --> 02:42:36.960 lieu of those two design features next slide please I Julie did show the 02:42:36.960 --> 02:42:41.760 exhibit related to the roof pitch earlier but I wanted to show it compared 02:42:41.760 --> 02:42:46.280 with what is required by code which is a 412 roof pitch so essentially what 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 02:42:53.600 --> 02:42:58.640 then on the enhanced landscape package Julie went through that but we are 02:42:58.640 --> 02:43:05.160 looking at doubling the requirement of trees for each yard or lot each one is 02:43:05.160 --> 02:43:09.360 currently required to have a street tree but we will we're proposing an 02:43:09.360 --> 02:43:17.640 additional shade tree per lot as well as foundation planting next slide please on 02:43:17.640 --> 02:43:24.560 the garages the main impetus or one of the main impetus reasons for this 02:43:24.560 --> 02:43:30.720 request is the builders do want to bring a three-car garage product to Denton and 02:43:30.720 --> 02:43:38.200 believe that it would be well received by the community and their their design 02:43:38.200 --> 02:43:43.520 plans do include some forward extending garages and we did do a comprehensive 02:43:43.520 --> 02:43:48.640 analysis in terms of how what percentage of their plans that they're bringing to 02:43:48.640 --> 02:43:55.080 this market and would be would require a deviation from the base code and we've 02:43:55.080 --> 02:44:00.320 built that in there to have some restrictions so that it's not allowed on 02:44:00.320 --> 02:44:07.760 every lot next slide please and then lastly is the window and door percentage 02:44:07.760 --> 02:44:16.080 and Julie indicated we will and can comply to at least 15% of window and 02:44:16.080 --> 02:44:22.080 door percentage on the front facade which is the 29th consistent with the 2019 code 02:44:22.080 --> 02:44:28.340 plus proposing enhanced design features from the list that you see on your 02:44:28.340 --> 02:44:34.840 screen next slide that is really all I have I just wanted to walk you through 02:44:34.840 --> 02:44:39.920 kind of a basic summary and introduce the two home builders that we have on 02:44:39.920 --> 02:44:46.480 board for this project that we're excited to to begin construction on in 02:44:46.480 --> 02:44:52.300 the near future and happy to stand for any questions or allow you to have 02:44:52.300 --> 02:44:57.600 conversations directly with the builders if you choose thank you I appreciate it 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 02:45:03.160 --> 02:45:07.440 had two people make comments using our online form there were two in support 02:45:07.440 --> 02:45:12.280 and zero against all these comments were emailed to the commissioners and her 02:45:12.280 --> 02:45:18.400 city secretary to be recorded with that happy to continue the discussion or 02:45:18.400 --> 02:45:25.640 entertain a motion Commissioner Smith we have a first for approval Commissioner 02:45:25.640 --> 02:45:33.200 Ellis like it we have a first and a second for approval any discussion on 02:45:33.200 --> 02:45:39.320 this item seeing none I will call for a vote be a roll call starting with 02:45:39.320 --> 02:45:47.200 Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye 02:45:47.200 --> 02:45:54.000 Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Pernetta aye Commissioner Smith aye 02:45:54.000 --> 02:45:59.640 chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 congratulations and thanks for being 02:45:59.640 --> 02:46:04.960 here for a presentation tonight the next item of business gets us into our public 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 02:46:12.000 --> 02:46:17.800 Ron Maguida for presentation and I'll open the public hearing 02:46:19.880 --> 02:46:47.400 thank you chair let me pull out my presentation there is good evening Ron 02:46:47.400 --> 02:46:51.800 Maguida principal planner with Development Services this application is 02:46:51.800 --> 02:46:56.280 for comp plan amendment as mentioned in the introduction just want to go over 02:46:56.280 --> 02:47:01.440 the site location real quick as you can see line in yellow the site is located 02:47:01.440 --> 02:47:08.160 just south and west of Vintage Boulevard north of Fort Worth Drive the site 02:47:08.160 --> 02:47:12.880 itself is currently undeveloped with our agricultural use there are two stock 02:47:12.880 --> 02:47:21.160 sorry storage tanks that is on site as well as a plugged gas well and for 02:47:21.160 --> 02:47:26.280 background information this site was annexed into the city as long as well as 02:47:26.280 --> 02:47:34.720 the area to the east that outline here in the aerial that was they were both 02:47:34.720 --> 02:47:42.520 annexed into the city on August 25th of this year the request that is being 02:47:42.520 --> 02:47:46.960 brought forward for comp plan amendment is to reclassify the future land use 02:47:46.960 --> 02:47:53.860 designation future land use map of the site the 51 plus acres from rural areas 02:47:53.860 --> 02:48:00.040 to moderate residential this is being submitted in concert with a zoning map 02:48:00.040 --> 02:48:06.680 amendment to rezone this property to a r6 a residential 6 and the intent for 02:48:06.680 --> 02:48:10.840 that is to meet the dimensional standards for the site layout that you 02:48:10.840 --> 02:48:17.600 see here on the slide I just wanted to illustrate the location of the plug gas 02:48:17.600 --> 02:48:24.560 well that location will be a open space lot will not be developable and is shown 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 02:48:32.920 --> 02:48:37.560 of understanding the future land use map and designation what its purpose is as 02:48:37.560 --> 02:48:43.620 you all know in 2015 the den plan 2030 was adopted with it were goals policies 02:48:43.620 --> 02:48:48.280 in action some of the goals and policies reflect or reference the future land use 02:48:48.280 --> 02:48:55.000 map and designation the intent of a future land use map is to depict the 02:48:55.000 --> 02:49:00.360 intended long-term pattern of land uses throughout the city to establish the 02:49:00.360 --> 02:49:05.080 process of which amending zoning district if that was the request to 02:49:05.080 --> 02:49:10.000 review the future land use map for guidance and also to guide any future 02:49:10.000 --> 02:49:15.720 coordination between transportation and utility within the city so this is just 02:49:15.720 --> 02:49:21.400 to help give the city an opportunity to look at the areas around the city future 02:49:21.400 --> 02:49:28.240 in long term the modern residential which is the proposed future language 02:49:28.240 --> 02:49:33.780 designation is described in the den plan 2030 as shown here I won't read the 02:49:33.780 --> 02:49:37.560 entire description but just want to highlight that it calls for a single 02:49:37.560 --> 02:49:43.080 family detached houses on small lots adjacent to key corridors the intent is 02:49:43.080 --> 02:49:48.040 to link as many local streets as possible and again to maintain the scale 02:49:48.040 --> 02:49:55.800 and style of adjacent properties what is being proposed is illustrated in this 02:49:55.800 --> 02:50:00.880 slide currently the future language map shows the property as rural areas shown 02:50:00.880 --> 02:50:06.880 here in green what is proposed by the applicant is to reclassify that to 02:50:06.880 --> 02:50:12.940 moderate residential as shown here one of the recommendation or the analysis 02:50:12.940 --> 02:50:16.480 that it's consistent is being that it's adjacent to an existing moderate 02:50:16.480 --> 02:50:23.080 residential to the north of the subject site the list that you see on this slide 02:50:23.080 --> 02:50:30.000 identifies the approval criteria for all applications the main highlighted ones 02:50:30.000 --> 02:50:33.840 that are in bold are ones I would like to for the planning zoning Commission to 02:50:33.840 --> 02:50:38.960 focus and that is its comp is consistent with the comprehensive plan that the use 02:50:38.960 --> 02:50:44.400 itself or the proposed future language designation minimizes any impacts to 02:50:44.400 --> 02:50:49.800 property owner properties surrounding the site and that the utility service and 02:50:49.800 --> 02:50:55.520 improvement standards are met and are compliant with the development standards 02:50:55.520 --> 02:51:02.880 there is also a set of approval criteria for a comprehensive plan amendment listed 02:51:02.880 --> 02:51:08.880 here a through D that the comp plan amendment was an error or designation 02:51:08.880 --> 02:51:14.200 was an error it was not the city council failed to take into consideration 02:51:14.200 --> 02:51:20.560 existing facts and projection they did not and then in events trends and facts 02:51:20.560 --> 02:51:25.960 after adoption change the only thing that the change was that this property 02:51:25.960 --> 02:51:32.800 was annexed into the city and that the next step in annexation is to zone in 02:51:32.800 --> 02:51:37.800 this case the zoning also included a comprehensive plan amendment or includes 02:51:37.800 --> 02:51:42.640 a comprehensive plan amendment and then that the character of the area changed 02:51:42.640 --> 02:51:55.040 and it did not it's just getting the is moved forward okay the other it 02:51:55.040 --> 02:51:59.160 continues for the comprehensive plan amendment approval criteria that is not 02:51:59.160 --> 02:52:03.280 that it is not in conflict with any goals and policies staff has not found 02:52:03.280 --> 02:52:08.280 that it has it constitutes a substantial benefit to the city the staff believe it 02:52:08.280 --> 02:52:14.600 does and that it avoids any creation of any isolated uses this proposed comp plan 02:52:14.600 --> 02:52:18.920 will result in hopefully the development of a single-family development similar to 02:52:18.920 --> 02:52:25.720 what is located in the area and MD does not apply last slide on the comprehensive 02:52:25.720 --> 02:52:29.760 plan amendment approval criteria that it will not adversely impact the city in 02:52:29.760 --> 02:52:35.600 terms of land use patterns will not that it will be able to provide public 02:52:35.600 --> 02:52:39.280 services and facilities the environmental sensitive areas are 02:52:39.280 --> 02:52:44.600 protected in that increased traffic is not going to create any impacts to an 02:52:44.600 --> 02:52:51.480 existing uses in the area what we are now looking at is the how it is 02:52:51.480 --> 02:52:55.560 consistent with a comprehensive plan and staff's analysis includes that the 02:52:55.560 --> 02:53:00.920 arterial primary arterial of vintage Boulevard which runs from Fort Worth 02:53:00.920 --> 02:53:06.280 Drive all the way to I-35 is an appropriate future land use designation 02:53:06.280 --> 02:53:12.440 for a property long primary arterial that the modern residential is consistent 02:53:12.440 --> 02:53:17.160 with what is shown on the future language map to the north and that the 02:53:17.160 --> 02:53:22.360 future development if this were to be passed would be consistent with the 02:53:22.360 --> 02:53:27.880 development pattern of the area one main thing that I like to express is that the 02:53:27.880 --> 02:53:34.040 developer or property owner is not going to encroach into the flood plain area 02:53:34.040 --> 02:53:40.360 that is just south and east of the subject site which in turn also will be 02:53:40.360 --> 02:53:45.360 avoiding any environmentally sensitive areas so by protecting that area stop 02:53:45.360 --> 02:53:50.480 believes that they meet the intent of protecting our environmental and 02:53:50.480 --> 02:53:56.480 sensitive areas and resources and lastly the proposed development hopefully will 02:53:56.480 --> 02:54:01.840 if when developed will connect to an existing subdivision to the north by 02:54:01.840 --> 02:54:07.240 way of roadway and sidewalk classification or connectivity so this 02:54:07.240 --> 02:54:12.200 is what is identified as that area where the connectivity would occur it's along 02:54:12.200 --> 02:54:16.540 Tamarack Lane that will then extend south again if this were to be approved 02:54:16.540 --> 02:54:21.200 and this development were to be developed the scale of the area is 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 02:54:27.480 --> 02:54:32.400 that's being proposed as far as zoning application is to meet the development 02:54:32.400 --> 02:54:37.400 standards dimensional standards that is of a minimum of 6,000 square feet and 02:54:37.400 --> 02:54:42.840 again that is the intent of the applicants request let's just illustrate 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 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 02:54:55.560 --> 02:55:00.160 in an area and if it will create any adverse impact stuff feels that it will 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 02:55:05.040 --> 02:55:11.360 east is a floodplain area floodway mainly it will not be developed in fact there 02:55:11.360 --> 02:55:16.040 has been already some discussion about using some of that area for parkland and 02:55:16.040 --> 02:55:22.040 or trails for our parks department to the southeast forward drive and again 02:55:22.040 --> 02:55:27.560 the area that I'm referencing is the floodplain also extends most of this 02:55:27.560 --> 02:55:31.440 southern portion of this development and again based on the site plan that 02:55:31.440 --> 02:55:34.580 they're proposing they would not encroach into this area so again this 02:55:34.580 --> 02:55:40.280 area here even with the trees will be preserved and not developed as part of 02:55:40.280 --> 02:55:46.640 this at least this application looking at the area to the west it is currently 02:55:46.640 --> 02:55:51.640 either undeveloped or developed with a single-family agricultural use that will 02:55:51.640 --> 02:55:57.960 still remain and proper buffer and screening would be obviously developed 02:55:57.960 --> 02:56:03.880 or proposed as part of this development if and when it continues we look at the 02:56:03.880 --> 02:56:08.320 development standards and other regulations environmentally there are no 02:56:08.320 --> 02:56:12.480 adverse impacts we talked about the surrounding properties there was a 02:56:12.480 --> 02:56:16.600 physical impact analysis prepared for this application in fact it was prepared 02:56:16.600 --> 02:56:22.180 for the annexation in anticipation of a rezoning and or development of the site 02:56:22.180 --> 02:56:27.520 and based on that analysis it was concluded there are no adverse impact we 02:56:27.520 --> 02:56:32.900 will staff will look at the utility services and other facilities in a 02:56:32.900 --> 02:56:38.960 future development application when when it comes through trip generation an 02:56:38.960 --> 02:56:44.120 assessment was conducted and based on that assessment a TIA a full traffic 02:56:44.120 --> 02:56:48.760 impact analysis was not warranted and therefore concluded that the no adverse 02:56:48.760 --> 02:56:54.760 impact would be created by the traffic generated by this development adequate 02:56:54.760 --> 02:56:59.480 capacity for public services just want to make mention that in addition to 02:56:59.480 --> 02:57:03.080 notices that were sent out to the surrounding neighborhood we did also 02:57:03.080 --> 02:57:07.440 reach out to Argyle school district as this property falls under their 02:57:07.440 --> 02:57:13.640 jurisdiction and we heard back from Argyle and based on the ultimate build 02:57:13.640 --> 02:57:20.280 out of this site believe is sometime around 2023 by then the Argyle school 02:57:20.280 --> 02:57:26.760 district will have the schools that would be able to accommodate the student 02:57:26.760 --> 02:57:32.360 enrollment that would be generated by this development or future development 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 02:57:38.760 --> 02:57:43.920 courtesy notice that is there was website notices and newspaper notices 02:57:43.920 --> 02:57:49.680 there were no meetings held with in the neighborhood and as of this afternoon 02:57:49.680 --> 02:57:56.280 this evening staff has not received any opposition or in favor responses to 02:57:56.280 --> 02:58:01.840 those public hearing notices with that staff is recommending approval as it 02:58:01.840 --> 02:58:06.640 meets and complies with sections 2 4 5 which is the approval criteria for all 02:58:06.640 --> 02:58:11.520 applications as well as 2 7 1 which applies to the comp plan amendment 02:58:11.520 --> 02:58:18.380 approval criteria I will stand for questions I'd stand corrected the 02:58:18.380 --> 02:58:23.520 applicant does not have a presentation however they will they are available for 02:58:23.520 --> 02:58:31.560 questions if you have if you have they're currently on the call thanks Ron 02:58:31.560 --> 02:58:39.880 Christian back Ron where is the the closest connection for where city 02:58:39.880 --> 02:58:46.400 services might connect sure I believe vintage Boulevard is where the water I 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 02:58:50.480 --> 02:58:57.800 the water and wastewater that that's basically on vintage Boulevard okay so 02:58:57.800 --> 02:59:03.120 just just right there okay and single-family developments are north there 02:59:03.120 --> 02:59:06.760 may be some they'll probably will be some connections to create that that 02:59:06.760 --> 02:59:14.000 loop so that it's all connected okay and my understanding is if I am I 02:59:14.000 --> 02:59:18.080 remembering the the backup correctly do we did a down water assessment on this 02:59:18.080 --> 02:59:22.440 say that one more time we did a down water drainage assessment on this this 02:59:22.440 --> 02:59:28.040 property well part of the analysis of that will be done during platting and 02:59:28.040 --> 02:59:32.600 during them while and during the right I thought it was already been done so yeah 02:59:32.600 --> 02:59:35.960 I don't think that has occurred that will be during the platting and 02:59:35.960 --> 02:59:41.640 engineering review of those plans all right thank you so much okay any other 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 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 02:59:54.200 --> 02:59:59.760 their position and they were in support there was no one using that mechanism to 02:59:59.760 --> 03:00:06.160 lobby in the opposition with that I will go ahead and close the public hearing 03:00:06.160 --> 03:00:13.880 and continue the virtual day's discussion or a motion 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 03:00:23.360 --> 03:00:28.800 not dealing with the other annex piece of this like to the northeast right but 03:00:28.800 --> 03:00:33.040 do you know anything about that piece of property I just know that it's fully 03:00:33.040 --> 03:00:38.360 within the floodplain and that it will probably remain the entire parcel is 03:00:38.360 --> 03:00:47.000 correct okay that's what I wanted to understand yes okay thank you 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 03:00:58.520 --> 03:01:03.440 principle the idea of the comp plan being amended from rural future land use 03:01:03.440 --> 03:01:08.440 to moderate residential future and leaves make sense on its face it seems 03:01:08.440 --> 03:01:12.800 like the neighbors to the west kind of set that motion and then knowing that 03:01:12.800 --> 03:01:18.960 basically this corridor between our 35 W and 377 is just ever changing with with 03:01:18.960 --> 03:01:23.400 homes we just approved a neighborhood south of here so I don't foresee this 03:01:23.400 --> 03:01:30.160 property remaining rural it just doesn't make sense and I certainly I understand 03:01:30.160 --> 03:01:34.840 the applicants position on this I will say as I mentioned in work session I 03:01:34.840 --> 03:01:40.800 have some growing anxiety about the corridor between 35 and 377 that's in 03:01:40.800 --> 03:01:45.920 Denton's jurisdiction and how it's all homes and it's kind of this weird 03:01:45.920 --> 03:01:50.360 segment away from our town that we're they're about to get what our third 03:01:50.360 --> 03:01:56.420 largest park and it's all rooftops and I have concern about the economic 03:01:56.420 --> 03:02:01.720 viability for our town if we continue building homes in which the services of 03:02:01.720 --> 03:02:07.240 Roanoke and the restaurants and the things that Roanoke and Argyle provide 03:02:07.240 --> 03:02:13.480 will keep these cars moving southward and not northward into the economic 03:02:13.480 --> 03:02:18.920 drivers of our town and so again I don't hold the applicant responsible for that 03:02:18.920 --> 03:02:23.440 but I think as we look as Denton Classical Academy is going in a new 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 03:02:32.680 --> 03:02:40.260 any sort of commercial design being proposed in this entire corridor and I 03:02:40.260 --> 03:02:43.500 know hunter ranch and coal ranch whenever they get here might provide 03:02:43.500 --> 03:02:47.080 some economic drivers on the highway corridor but in the interim we're 03:02:47.080 --> 03:02:50.920 putting rooftops in and rooftops are not going to sustain Denton long-term in 03:02:50.920 --> 03:02:56.960 terms of the economy and so with that after that long soliloquy I will motion 03:02:56.960 --> 03:03:02.200 for approval on this item as staff presented and I'll look for a second but 03:03:02.200 --> 03:03:05.920 I just wanted to say my soapbox as we continue through this corridor 03:03:05.920 --> 03:03:09.960 progression I'm going to be more and more vocal about what is the accident 03:03:09.960 --> 03:03:13.240 what are we doing to for the betterment of Denton by providing all these 03:03:13.240 --> 03:03:20.160 rooftop homes I saw Commissioner Smith's hand next major I agree with your 03:03:20.160 --> 03:03:24.960 sentiments and I second Commissioner Ellis you had your hand up I don't want 03:03:24.960 --> 03:03:33.240 to discount you perfect so we have a first and a second for approval of staff 03:03:33.240 --> 03:03:37.280 presented I didn't see any conditions on this wrong right it's just a straight 03:03:37.280 --> 03:03:41.960 approval this is straight will be yes great we have first and a second any 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 03:03:49.920 --> 03:03:56.580 call starting in my upper right corner Commissioner Beck aye Commissioner 03:03:56.580 --> 03:04:03.880 Anderson aye Commissioner Ellis aye Commissioner Cole aye Commissioner Smith 03:04:03.880 --> 03:04:12.280 aye Commissioner Pernetta aye chair is also an aye motion carries 7-0 next 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 03:04:19.120 --> 03:04:26.320 the floor over to him and open the public hearing thank you chair 03:04:28.120 --> 03:04:34.480 sorry let me get back to start this is the counterpart to the comprehensive 03:04:34.480 --> 03:04:39.580 plan amendment this is the zoning map amendment request by the same applicant 03:04:39.580 --> 03:04:46.840 for the subject site we've already seen this site plan again the request for 03:04:46.840 --> 03:04:52.240 the zoning map amendment is to rezone or actually excuse me to establish the 03:04:52.240 --> 03:04:56.400 initial zoning since it was just recently annexed to a residential 6 03:04:56.400 --> 03:05:02.280 zoning district again the intent is to develop this with a single-family 03:05:02.280 --> 03:05:08.000 development and the intent is to be able to develop it within the dimensional 03:05:08.000 --> 03:05:13.440 standards of a residential 6 zoning district just want to illustrate that if 03:05:13.440 --> 03:05:18.380 this zoning case were not to be approved the underlying zoning that they would 03:05:18.380 --> 03:05:21.640 need to comply with if they were to move forward with any development is shown 03:05:21.640 --> 03:05:27.160 here under the RR residential rural zoning district the other column to the 03:05:27.160 --> 03:05:31.480 right is the residential 6 as you can see the minimum lot area which is 03:05:31.480 --> 03:05:36.960 primarily the reason for their request for an R6 is to be able to develop a 03:05:36.960 --> 03:05:44.680 minimum of 6,000 square feet shown here is the illustration of these current 03:05:44.680 --> 03:05:48.520 zoning map as you can see it is not currently zoned as it was recently annexed 03:05:48.520 --> 03:05:52.880 and you can see the surrounding area around the area is still in the county 03:05:52.880 --> 03:05:59.280 the area that's outlined in black is what we're talking about and per the 03:05:59.280 --> 03:06:05.760 request it would be zoned or be colored as brown color which is consistent with 03:06:05.760 --> 03:06:13.880 the R6 to the north of the subject property again you've seen this 03:06:13.880 --> 03:06:18.920 approval criteria for all applicable applications won't spend too much time 03:06:18.920 --> 03:06:24.640 on this other than again highlight the three areas or three criterias that we 03:06:24.640 --> 03:06:30.880 will have some discussion in there is also a zoning map amendment approval 03:06:30.880 --> 03:06:35.720 criteria which is 1 through 7 is it consistent with the future land use map 03:06:35.720 --> 03:06:42.400 again depending on how City Council you know decides that would be something to 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 03:06:47.760 --> 03:06:54.040 purpose statement of the zoning district it does well or have this area have have 03:06:54.040 --> 03:06:58.640 had any significant changes other than the annexation there has not been 03:06:58.640 --> 03:07:03.040 significant changes will this have an adverse impact to surrounding properties 03:07:03.040 --> 03:07:08.680 or to the neighborhood staffs analysis that it will not public facilities and 03:07:08.680 --> 03:07:14.980 services these will all be accounted for during the the platting if that is when 03:07:14.980 --> 03:07:21.000 the next phase is also again want to make mention that services also includes 03:07:21.000 --> 03:07:25.760 the school district and we did reach out to Argyle and again based on the build 03:07:25.760 --> 03:07:29.880 out of this development at that time the Argyle school district will have the 03:07:29.880 --> 03:07:34.600 schools to be able to accommodate the enrollment of those students that would 03:07:34.600 --> 03:07:41.320 be generated from this development won't spend too much on time on this slide but 03:07:41.320 --> 03:07:48.200 other than mention again that the r6 is appropriate for this area being that is 03:07:48.200 --> 03:07:52.200 a long vintage Boulevard again it's consistent with the development to the 03:07:52.200 --> 03:07:58.440 north in terms of pattern site design I'm sorry sought site layout design that 03:07:58.440 --> 03:08:05.400 is as well as the avoidance or the keeping away from the floodplain and 03:08:05.400 --> 03:08:10.160 environmental sensitive area all of which in staffs analysis makes it 03:08:10.160 --> 03:08:16.500 consistent with the comprehensive plan when it comes into the adverse impact we 03:08:16.500 --> 03:08:20.320 went through this with the common plan amendment again the site is very very 03:08:20.320 --> 03:08:25.600 rural in nature however you know future development when this development does 03:08:25.600 --> 03:08:33.400 occur we feel that it will not impact those areas in a negative way again we 03:08:33.400 --> 03:08:38.200 went through this with the common plan amendment with regards to the traffic 03:08:38.200 --> 03:08:41.440 just want to spend time a little bit on that there was a traffic generation 03:08:41.440 --> 03:08:50.200 assessment done based on the generation of a single-family 110 lots in total the 03:08:50.200 --> 03:08:54.800 conclusion is that there will be no adverse impact we did spend time on 03:08:54.800 --> 03:09:01.200 making sure that the connectivity as well as the turning into in from vintage 03:09:01.200 --> 03:09:07.920 Boulevard was accommodating the minimum requirements and it will again based on 03:09:07.920 --> 03:09:13.040 the site plan that has been proposed and again future applications will be 03:09:13.040 --> 03:09:17.920 reviewed in detail including a downstream drainage assessment when that 03:09:17.920 --> 03:09:25.280 time comes public outreach was made and again as of this evening staff has not 03:09:25.280 --> 03:09:32.300 received any in responses that is in opposition and or in favor so again 03:09:32.300 --> 03:09:37.040 nothing to report as far as public input in regards to the public hearing 03:09:37.040 --> 03:09:43.160 notices with that staff recommends approval as it complies with the sections 03:09:43.160 --> 03:09:49.240 245 again the criteria for approval for all applications and 272 which is the 03:09:49.240 --> 03:09:56.680 zoning amendment map criteria for approval staff is will stand for any 03:09:56.680 --> 03:10:01.080 questions and again the applicant does not have a presentation but is on the 03:10:01.080 --> 03:10:08.440 line if there are any questions for for them great thanks Ron any questions for 03:10:08.440 --> 03:10:15.280 Ron Mr. Beck thank you chair Ron can you refresh my memory on those two 03:10:15.280 --> 03:10:19.860 detention ponds or our drainages or duck ponds or whatever they were where the 03:10:19.860 --> 03:10:24.660 edge of the hundred-year floodplain was sure that you've indicated that the 03:10:24.660 --> 03:10:29.840 applicant was going to leave that correct and I appreciate you bringing 03:10:29.840 --> 03:10:35.760 that up let me pull up the present the presentation once again and I can share 03:10:35.760 --> 03:10:38.800 that delineation 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 03:10:53.720 --> 03:10:58.200 and you can see they're avoiding that all together and as it continues to the 03:10:58.200 --> 03:11:02.560 south and to the west this is the line of where the floodplain now there are 03:11:02.560 --> 03:11:06.520 there is a delineation here of a 500-year floodplain which they are able 03:11:06.520 --> 03:11:11.600 to develop but the main floodplain is just outside where they're proposing to 03:11:11.600 --> 03:11:17.120 develop and those stock storage tanks that is is shown outside of the 03:11:17.120 --> 03:11:23.320 development and within that floodplain area okay so and and just to point out 03:11:23.320 --> 03:11:28.720 everything to the east again is within the floodplain and I believe this line 03:11:28.720 --> 03:11:33.960 here delineates where the floodway is located so most of this area to the east 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 03:11:40.160 --> 03:11:46.080 that the drainage this right here no between the ponds oh I'm sorry yes that 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 03:11:50.040 --> 03:11:55.880 the two stock storage tanks okay all right thank you run you're welcome what 03:11:55.880 --> 03:12:00.280 other questions are there for Ron 03:12:00.280 --> 03:12:10.600 Chris Ellis thank you chair hey Ron I know with this our six zoning what just 03:12:10.600 --> 03:12:13.840 gives me a slight pause that's inconsistent with that neighborhood 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 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 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 03:12:34.280 --> 03:12:38.240 time real fast to let you know that there was one person who called in to 03:12:38.240 --> 03:12:44.480 our 940 349 7800 line to register their position they were in support of this 03:12:44.480 --> 03:13:00.040 project and we had no one use that to express opposition it is correct duplex 03:13:00.040 --> 03:13:04.440 triplex four plex are permitted with the use specific standards within our six 03:13:04.440 --> 03:13:09.600 and then I think it also opens up manufactured housing with an SUP is that 03:13:09.600 --> 03:13:14.960 correct that's correct okay did you all discuss that at all as being a concern 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 03:13:20.760 --> 03:13:27.080 project has presented certainly complies with with the area but we we didn't 03:13:27.080 --> 03:13:31.120 specifically discuss that however with the specific use permit I think there's 03:13:31.120 --> 03:13:35.600 there's ample opportunity to discuss that at a future time if and then if if 03:13:35.600 --> 03:13:41.240 that does get proposed with this property yeah it would just be a 03:13:41.240 --> 03:13:45.000 specific use permit for manufactured housing I don't believe anything's 03:13:45.000 --> 03:13:54.000 needed for the the others correct that's right that's correct okay 03:13:54.000 --> 03:13:58.120 Chris Ellis are you are you thinking about carving that out of this approval 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 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 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 03:14:18.240 --> 03:14:21.440 code yeah I would be carving it out because to me that that's just 03:14:21.440 --> 03:14:27.720 inconsistent with with the way it connects to Tamarack Lane that I would 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 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 03:14:36.320 --> 03:14:44.680 below the 7,000 square foot lot so I guess I'm slightly disappointed staff 03:14:44.680 --> 03:14:49.560 didn't look into that to try to maybe slightly mitigate that because it does 03:14:49.560 --> 03:15:03.020 cause me pause hi this is the applicant hi hi this is Randy Rivera the 03:15:03.020 --> 03:15:10.240 applicant I'm a planner with McAdams in Louisville and I appreciate 03:15:10.240 --> 03:15:17.280 Commissioner Ellis sharing that concern and we would be willing to allow that as 03:15:17.280 --> 03:15:20.960 a condition of the approval tonight if that's appropriate 03:15:20.960 --> 03:15:26.960 Randy I appreciate you providing that concession I think the question I have 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 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 03:15:42.920 --> 03:15:48.880 defer to her Cynthia could we potentially recommend this for approval 03:15:48.880 --> 03:15:58.080 limiting duplexes and triplexes from the zoning request mr. chair I'm not on 03:15:58.080 --> 03:16:03.880 mute for once I'm ahead of myself mr. chair under Texas law you can attach 03:16:03.880 --> 03:16:08.280 overlay conditions to your rezoning and it's certainly something that's planning 03:16:08.280 --> 03:16:12.820 commission can make a recommendation to the council on okay great 03:16:12.820 --> 03:16:19.440 Commissioner Ellis I turn it back to you is that something that you would explore 03:16:19.440 --> 03:16:26.160 absolutely okay then why don't I go ahead and close the public hearing since 03:16:26.160 --> 03:16:30.420 someone else is on the line to call and then we can kind of progress this 03:16:30.420 --> 03:16:35.040 conversation further but let's start with Commissioner Beck Commissioner Ellis 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 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 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 03:16:57.120 --> 03:17:01.560 though those are predominantly house-shaped house structured and house 03:17:01.560 --> 03:17:08.640 single-family density levels you don't you're having a problem with that 03:17:08.640 --> 03:17:15.600 yeah Christian I'll see you more welcome to surround yes it's inconsistent we're 03:17:15.600 --> 03:17:20.920 effectively the way it's presented could taking that subdivision to the north and 03:17:20.920 --> 03:17:25.320 and almost just creating a continuation of it to the south of vintage in my 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 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 03:17:36.580 --> 03:17:44.760 plex on it um yeah it's inconsistent with in my opinion with with its 03:17:44.760 --> 03:17:50.320 location yeah it is just to add my two cents to Commissioner Ellis's viewpoint 03:17:50.320 --> 03:17:54.520 we're continuing a road it's not a separate neighborhood in of itself 03:17:54.520 --> 03:17:58.440 there's connects to the northern property so you potentially have a 03:17:58.440 --> 03:18:03.960 single attached home next to a quad plex or a triplex which I agree with 03:18:03.960 --> 03:18:07.520 Christian Ellis in terms of the consistency of it's like we're redoing 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 03:18:11.720 --> 03:18:17.160 of that neighborhood but Christian back to four still yours no I was I think 03:18:17.160 --> 03:18:23.840 that clarified Commissioner Ellis's opinion point to me I thank you 03:18:23.840 --> 03:18:33.800 Commissioner house any other Christmas I make a motion to approve with the 03:18:33.800 --> 03:18:41.000 overlay condition of no triplexes duplexes or manufactured homes to be 03:18:41.000 --> 03:18:44.040 added to the zoning 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 03:18:50.920 --> 03:18:55.200 motion but since Commissioner Smith did I'll second his motion okay and just for 03:18:55.200 --> 03:19:02.200 clarification Chris Ross I could I make a friendly amendment to say that we're 03:19:02.200 --> 03:19:06.360 gonna limit it to single-family homes with that that is a much better way to 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 03:19:12.280 --> 03:19:16.640 Richard all right just just for further clarification it's single-family 03:19:16.640 --> 03:19:21.680 detached only correction correct single-family detached only yeah I don't 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 03:19:24.560 --> 03:19:27.920 just one column right single detached families just one color we're just gonna 03:19:27.920 --> 03:19:33.040 limit it to that right yeah I think that's cleaner Commissioner Anderson are 03:19:33.040 --> 03:19:36.840 you okay with that amendment absolutely okay so we have a first and a second for 03:19:36.840 --> 03:19:41.640 approval with a condition that it is restricted to single-family detached 03:19:41.640 --> 03:19:51.360 homes we have a first and a second is there any discussion on that great with 03:19:51.360 --> 03:19:56.040 that we'll go ahead and start the voting via roll call Commissioner Beck I 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 03:20:08.120 --> 03:20:14.720 I motion carries 7-0 congratulations next item of business is item 5 CS 20 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 03:20:20.680 --> 03:20:27.000 hearing Corina whenever you're ready the floor is yours 03:20:38.120 --> 03:20:55.080 probably work best if I have muted myself before I started that is always 03:20:55.080 --> 03:21:00.560 helpful yeah all right good evening the request today is for a specific use 03:21:00.560 --> 03:21:07.480 permit this is s 20 - 0 0 0 3 C Shady Shores town crossing for multifamily 03:21:07.480 --> 03:21:11.960 the request as I mentioned is a specific use permit to permit multifamily 03:21:11.960 --> 03:21:18.480 dwellings on approximately 21.96 acres in the suburban corridor district a 03:21:18.480 --> 03:21:23.600 little bit of history the site was previously rezoned in 2017 this was 03:21:23.600 --> 03:21:30.520 under the 2002 zoning it was a regional center residential RCR one and regional 03:21:30.520 --> 03:21:37.480 center commercial downtown RCC D both were the transition to the community 03:21:37.480 --> 03:21:42.960 mixed-use general which is CMG and that was the subject site and the adjacent 03:21:42.960 --> 03:21:49.840 parcel to the south in the the transition to the 2019 zoning that was 03:21:49.840 --> 03:21:54.440 transition to the current SC zoning district I did want to make a note that 03:21:54.440 --> 03:22:01.280 had this rezoning not been approved the subject property would have transitioned 03:22:01.280 --> 03:22:07.660 over to the MR zoning district which would allow multifamily by right the 03:22:07.660 --> 03:22:11.480 site plan that is shown on this on the screen does show or demonstrate that the 03:22:11.480 --> 03:22:16.160 applicant is proposing five buildings with this development and three would be 03:22:16.160 --> 03:22:21.480 I'm sorry four would be three-story buildings and one would be four stories 03:22:21.480 --> 03:22:26.560 and that would be building one three four and five those would be the three 03:22:26.560 --> 03:22:31.040 stories and this L shaped building towards the western more western 03:22:31.040 --> 03:22:36.660 property would be the four story the units proposed is 300 approximately 300 03:22:36.660 --> 03:22:41.920 dwelling units both one bedroom and two bedroom only along with the proposed 03:22:41.920 --> 03:22:48.160 development is 518 parking spaces those are vehicular spaces and it does include 03:22:48.160 --> 03:22:53.480 a reduction for motorcycle space substitutes which is once paid one space 03:22:53.480 --> 03:22:59.320 for every two motorcycle spaces it does include I believe 30 bicycle spaces for 03:22:59.320 --> 03:23:05.320 this development as you could see approximately 50 percent of the property 03:23:05.320 --> 03:23:12.640 is ESA or floodplain with the exception of this dark green portion on the 03:23:12.640 --> 03:23:17.200 westernmost part of the property so the applicant is proposing to dedicate a 03:23:17.200 --> 03:23:22.540 conservation easement which is approximately 11.6 acres that would 03:23:22.540 --> 03:23:28.240 include the ESA and the area for tree preservation which I'll speak to later 03:23:28.240 --> 03:23:32.920 as part of that kind of that floodplain that is located on the site the applicant 03:23:32.920 --> 03:23:37.000 is demonstrating a retaining wall on the western side of the property that's 03:23:37.000 --> 03:23:43.320 shown in red and in order to construct that there is a possibility of some minor 03:23:43.320 --> 03:23:49.260 encroachment into the ESA since they are abutting directly to the ESA shown so 03:23:49.260 --> 03:23:53.200 there will be an accompanying alternative ESA plan that would follow 03:23:53.200 --> 03:23:58.380 this presentation and so we are proposing a recommendation or a condition 03:23:58.380 --> 03:24:02.680 of approval with the recommendation indicating that they would need approval 03:24:02.680 --> 03:24:09.880 of that AESA also on this site there are three proposed driveways two on shady 03:24:09.880 --> 03:24:15.560 shores and one on Lakeview the driveway access that's on Lakeview would be a 03:24:15.560 --> 03:24:21.120 right turn in and right turnout only so there would be no left turn northbound 03:24:21.120 --> 03:24:27.600 on Lakeview due to the the median that is blocking that entrance on Shady 03:24:27.600 --> 03:24:32.920 Shores there is a full access driveway that would allow the residents to come 03:24:32.920 --> 03:24:36.980 this is the main entrance allow them to reach the leasing center that would be 03:24:36.980 --> 03:24:42.760 located in building two and then on the westernmost portion of the site is an 03:24:42.760 --> 03:24:49.320 egress only an emergency exit that would allow left and right turns on to Shady 03:24:49.320 --> 03:24:55.240 Shores last they are also proposing wider sidewalks along Shady Shores and 03:24:55.240 --> 03:25:04.200 Lakeview to kind of enhance pedestrian and bicycle circulation on the site the 03:25:04.200 --> 03:25:08.140 proposed landscape plan does demonstrate they meet the minimum requirements they 03:25:08.140 --> 03:25:13.960 are showing street trees along all of the building frontage for Shady Shores 03:25:13.960 --> 03:25:19.720 and Lakeview as well as the required right-of-way screening where parking is 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 03:25:25.400 --> 03:25:30.200 reflects both street trees and right-of-way screening plus a continuous 03:25:30.200 --> 03:25:36.960 shrub to to kind of buffer that proposed parking the applicant is also 03:25:36.960 --> 03:25:43.160 proposing to extend this plantings across the entire frontage of Shady 03:25:43.160 --> 03:25:47.400 Shores and Lakeview which is this bright green area that you'll see here this is 03:25:47.400 --> 03:25:52.680 not required by our code but they are proposing this to meet the concerns of 03:25:52.680 --> 03:25:57.440 of the residents that have indicated that they would like to see more 03:25:57.440 --> 03:26:01.640 screening from between the buildings that are up against the right-of-way and 03:26:01.640 --> 03:26:08.840 and the roadway in addition to that they are proposing a landscape buffer of 03:26:08.840 --> 03:26:13.360 trees on the northern portion of the site this is in addition to the hundred 03:26:13.360 --> 03:26:21.600 feet of easement that is associated with the DCTAA train line this would add kind 03:26:21.600 --> 03:26:25.280 of additional buffer between the residents that live on the northern 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 03:26:29.920 --> 03:26:36.400 that are shown within these orange boxed areas these orange areas are existing 03:26:36.400 --> 03:26:40.840 slope and drainage easements that were acquired by the city when Shady Shores 03:26:40.840 --> 03:26:47.240 stormwater improvements were put in the applicant is proposing to request an 03:26:47.240 --> 03:26:53.560 easement abandonment to allow plantings and paving and fencing within these 03:26:53.560 --> 03:27:01.440 areas so staff has indicated that we would first like to see a structural 03:27:01.440 --> 03:27:04.880 analysis of the proposed retaining walls that they would be putting along Shady 03:27:04.880 --> 03:27:10.800 Shores so with that a condition of approval would be requested that I'll 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 03:27:16.480 --> 03:27:22.160 the plantings that you see located here in addition to this they are proposing 03:27:22.160 --> 03:27:27.520 alternative landscape plantings so our Denton Development Code does require 03:27:27.520 --> 03:27:33.240 that parking lot landscaping be provided using two elements out of three options 03:27:33.240 --> 03:27:37.720 the applicant is proposing three partial elements or I should say one full 03:27:37.720 --> 03:27:42.840 element and two partial elements to meet this requirement they are proposing end 03:27:42.840 --> 03:27:49.400 cabs at the end of every grouping of parking spaces as well as meeting a 03:27:49.400 --> 03:27:55.760 seven foot landscaped median on this western part of the site the requirement 03:27:55.760 --> 03:28:00.880 is that they provide eight feet but they do have a requirement for right-of-way 03:28:00.880 --> 03:28:06.760 dedication as well as a 20 foot utility easement that does limit safe access 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 03:28:11.280 --> 03:28:16.160 the full points but they are providing it anyways in addition to that they are 03:28:16.160 --> 03:28:21.600 still proposing landscaped islands within the site there are some areas you 03:28:21.600 --> 03:28:25.400 can see here where it's obviously more than 10 spaces where we would require 03:28:25.400 --> 03:28:31.760 a landscape island and again they're they're offering three partial or two 03:28:31.760 --> 03:28:35.600 partial elements in replacement of one full element so staff felt that it was 03:28:35.600 --> 03:28:40.400 appropriate given the amount of plantings on the site open space and 03:28:40.400 --> 03:28:45.280 recreation is provided for this development it is required for 03:28:45.280 --> 03:28:51.040 multifamily in a dedication or set aside of eight percent of the land area they 03:28:51.040 --> 03:28:55.800 are proposing active and passive recreational space which is a resort 03:28:55.800 --> 03:29:00.440 style pool some picnic areas grilling areas they are proposing an enclosed dog 03:29:00.440 --> 03:29:07.480 park here on the north side as well as some indoor recreational facilities 03:29:07.480 --> 03:29:12.520 within building two including a fitness center and I and I can't remember the 03:29:12.520 --> 03:29:15.320 others off the top of my head but there's a few other recreational space was 03:29:15.320 --> 03:29:20.800 spaces within this building and just overall they are providing 37% 03:29:20.800 --> 03:29:26.440 landscaped area as well as 38% tree canopy area for the suburban corridor 03:29:26.440 --> 03:29:32.480 zoning district the minimum requirements for landscape area are 20% and the tree 03:29:32.480 --> 03:29:41.040 canopy requirements are 30% so they are going above the minimum for this site so 03:29:41.040 --> 03:29:44.480 before I go into tree preservation I do want to cover on the ESA field 03:29:44.480 --> 03:29:49.540 assessment that was conducted just last summer and was finalized early this 03:29:49.540 --> 03:29:55.040 February so this this field assessment was conducted by a third party it was 03:29:55.040 --> 03:30:00.560 approved in February of 2020 the biggest item related to this was related to the 03:30:00.560 --> 03:30:06.240 cross timbers habitat shown here in green this designation for ESA was 03:30:06.240 --> 03:30:10.860 removed due to it being a fragmented forest if you can see here there are a 03:30:10.860 --> 03:30:15.320 couple of gravel driveways that cut through the tree canopy because of this 03:30:15.320 --> 03:30:19.840 it does not achieve the minimum requirement of a contiguous 10 acre 03:30:19.840 --> 03:30:25.480 canopy the greatest area would be less than six acres so because of that the 03:30:25.480 --> 03:30:29.880 designation of cross timbers upland habitat was removed with the removal of 03:30:29.880 --> 03:30:35.080 that designation the developer was able to then develop the site which would of 03:30:35.080 --> 03:30:39.600 which would have otherwise excuse me unlimited the space that they would be 03:30:39.600 --> 03:30:46.120 able to use with this ESA it was also confirmed that there was indeed flood 03:30:46.120 --> 03:30:52.440 plain ESA and that boundary shown here is in line with the FEMA designation so 03:30:52.440 --> 03:30:59.140 it's updated every whenever the FEMA map is updated so the the line would fall 03:30:59.140 --> 03:31:05.440 follow the 2020 100 year floodplain that is shown on FEMA maps that floodplain 03:31:05.440 --> 03:31:10.760 again is undeveloped floodplain and is in a natural condition the field 03:31:10.760 --> 03:31:15.000 assessment also identified two stream segments that did have a presence of 03:31:15.000 --> 03:31:19.440 riparian buffer and so the the area shown in green would be that 50-foot 03:31:19.440 --> 03:31:24.680 riparian buffer and this brown area to the north would be the hundred foot and 03:31:24.680 --> 03:31:30.520 lastly they did identify a water-related habitat which is non wetland but is 03:31:30.520 --> 03:31:35.320 designated as a water-related habitat ESA and so the reason why I bring this up 03:31:35.320 --> 03:31:41.040 is because related to tree preservation tree preservation cannot include the 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 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 03:31:52.000 --> 03:31:58.880 this orange kind of weird looking shape that is essentially all of the ESA on 03:31:58.880 --> 03:32:03.600 the site and that's where they would be restricted from any they wouldn't be 03:32:03.600 --> 03:32:08.360 able to count this area's tree preservation in a sense so if you can 03:32:08.360 --> 03:32:12.480 see here they are meeting the minimum tree preservation requirements however 03:32:12.480 --> 03:32:18.240 this is at a reduced rate of 20% preservation they are meeting that with 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 03:32:26.960 --> 03:32:31.040 preservation they do have to increase mitigation for that that difference of 03:32:31.040 --> 03:32:35.220 10% that has to be mitigated at a higher rate and so the applicant has 03:32:35.220 --> 03:32:40.080 demonstrated that they would be able to achieve this they are demonstrating this 03:32:40.080 --> 03:32:47.340 with one by by designating the conservation easement and providing or 03:32:47.340 --> 03:32:54.060 proposing replacement tree plantings within this central meadow area they 03:32:54.060 --> 03:32:58.720 would get credit for that which would allow them to meet all the mitigation 03:32:58.720 --> 03:33:04.400 there are some other options within the Denton Development Code that would would 03:33:04.400 --> 03:33:08.560 be beneficial to them as well and the city looks at favorably which would be 03:33:08.560 --> 03:33:14.600 our Denton Wildscape program so rather than planting in this area this would be 03:33:14.600 --> 03:33:21.520 leaving the area in a natural condition this would need to be kind of negotiated 03:33:21.520 --> 03:33:26.240 with our folks and sustainability to make sure that we're we're meeting their 03:33:26.240 --> 03:33:31.100 requirements but this is just one other option that they could use for minimum 03:33:31.100 --> 03:33:35.640 mitigation and then the last option if they decide not to pursue either of the 03:33:35.640 --> 03:33:44.080 first two methods would be payment in lieu of plantings oh and I'll take a 03:33:44.080 --> 03:33:49.360 step back and just say the the developed area that you're seeing here which all 03:33:49.360 --> 03:33:56.960 of the the the parking the buildings the recreational space this developed area 03:33:56.960 --> 03:34:04.400 existing has an existing tree canopy of approximately 65.5% this is not 03:34:04.400 --> 03:34:10.800 including the the tree preservation area in the ESA while they are removing a lot 03:34:10.800 --> 03:34:16.520 of this for this development they are proposing that 38% tree canopy with the 03:34:16.520 --> 03:34:20.960 new landscape plantings and then if they do move forward with the the 03:34:20.960 --> 03:34:26.640 conservation plantings within this conservation area they would also be 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 03:34:33.360 --> 03:34:40.480 percent loss of tree canopy I'll just briefly cover the concept elevations for 03:34:40.480 --> 03:34:44.520 this site the applicant is going to go into more detail in a presentation after 03:34:44.520 --> 03:34:51.200 after this they are proposing again building one four and five would follow 03:34:51.200 --> 03:34:56.400 the same elevation per our code no more than three buildings would be able to 03:34:56.400 --> 03:35:01.080 have the same elevation style so just building one four and five would show 03:35:01.080 --> 03:35:05.540 what you're seeing here on the screen this is a three-story building it's 03:35:05.540 --> 03:35:11.760 showing some balconies some offsetting vertical and horizontal breaks to just 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 03:35:17.120 --> 03:35:21.600 street plantings but of course this would actually look more full with the 03:35:21.600 --> 03:35:26.960 additional plantings that they proposed building three that it's located on the 03:35:26.960 --> 03:35:32.600 corner of Lakeview and Shady Shores would have a slightly altered elevation 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 03:35:37.680 --> 03:35:43.240 break up the the monotony of the same buildings and then last this is the 03:35:43.240 --> 03:35:47.140 final elevation for building four which would be that L-shaped building that 03:35:47.140 --> 03:35:52.320 would overlook the ESA area this building would be the four-story building 03:35:52.320 --> 03:36:00.040 and includes the leasing center here in in the the main entrance of the site so 03:36:00.040 --> 03:36:04.320 talking about the surrounding development the the property shown is 03:36:04.320 --> 03:36:08.560 here in yellow the proposed development that they are coming forth with is 03:36:08.560 --> 03:36:13.920 approximately 13 dwelling units per acre so looking at that with the surrounding 03:36:13.920 --> 03:36:17.360 development there is a lot of single-family homes to the north of this 03:36:17.360 --> 03:36:22.480 site this is about moderate residential approximately five dwelling units per 03:36:22.480 --> 03:36:27.240 acre there is a mobile home park area that is located a little bit further 03:36:27.240 --> 03:36:33.680 west or northwest of the site but as you can see between the actual development 03:36:33.680 --> 03:36:38.120 or proposed development and the residential there is park space that 03:36:38.120 --> 03:36:44.360 buffers the two proposed uses there's some I believe it's Dallas Junior 03:36:44.360 --> 03:36:48.960 Veterans Memorial Park is located right here there's an open space lot and then 03:36:48.960 --> 03:36:52.480 there are trails that go through which actually also preserves a lot of the 03:36:52.480 --> 03:36:58.600 floodplain that cuts through the property to the east of Lakeview which 03:36:58.600 --> 03:37:01.840 really mirrors what the proposed development would be is an existing 03:37:01.840 --> 03:37:08.080 multifamily property that was developed in 2007 that development that apartment 03:37:08.080 --> 03:37:13.920 complex has approximately 15 dwelling units per acre which is slightly higher 03:37:13.920 --> 03:37:18.880 you'll see then than the proposed development the pink areas that you see 03:37:18.880 --> 03:37:23.680 here are undeveloped properties the one to the south is actually owned by the 03:37:23.680 --> 03:37:30.560 same developer and is currently zoned for Highway Corridor and so that's a 03:37:30.560 --> 03:37:36.520 little bit more of an intensive use the property to the east on Lakeview is 03:37:36.520 --> 03:37:42.120 actually zoned MN so that is a lower density zoning and would also allow 03:37:42.120 --> 03:37:49.520 multifamily if that were to ever come in the areas in red are existing auto deal 03:37:49.520 --> 03:37:55.480 or auto sales car dealerships these are existing and have been there so what 03:37:55.480 --> 03:37:59.320 you'll see here is that the proposed development it's separated by a rail line 03:37:59.320 --> 03:38:05.400 and has an additional park buffer if you would call it between the residential to 03:38:05.400 --> 03:38:09.400 the north and it it actually it just mirrors the same development that's 03:38:09.400 --> 03:38:16.520 existing on the opposite side of Lakeview so I'll just generally go over 03:38:16.520 --> 03:38:21.080 the general criteria for approval I won't go into too much detail I'll 03:38:21.080 --> 03:38:25.760 actually stick to the SUP criteria for approval since there is a lot of 03:38:25.760 --> 03:38:31.400 duplication in the kind of the requirements so the SUP criteria for 03:38:31.400 --> 03:38:36.600 approval in section seven two point seven 2d speaks to whether the use 03:38:36.600 --> 03:38:41.520 specific use permit is compatible with the surrounding area whether it has 03:38:41.520 --> 03:38:45.900 minimal impacts the future development of the area if it complies with all 03:38:45.900 --> 03:38:52.020 standards of the DDC and other city codes how it impacts access traffic 03:38:52.020 --> 03:38:56.720 emergency services parking noise glare things like that 03:38:56.720 --> 03:39:00.880 conformance with a comprehensive plan and then of course any impacts to the 03:39:00.880 --> 03:39:07.120 health safety and welfare of our residents in the area so kind of just 03:39:07.120 --> 03:39:11.820 marrying what I just spoke to a few slides ago about compatibility with the 03:39:11.820 --> 03:39:17.560 surrounding area as I discussed you know the the proposed development while it 03:39:17.560 --> 03:39:23.640 does abut this large residential area multifamily is one of those those 03:39:23.640 --> 03:39:30.080 housing types that provides a smoother transition between housing rather than 03:39:30.080 --> 03:39:34.400 you know high-intensity uses that would be allowed in the suburban corridor 03:39:34.400 --> 03:39:44.240 district such as auto you know auto maintenance uses auto repair oh my gosh 03:39:44.240 --> 03:39:47.760 I blinked out at the top of my head but more intensive commercial retail 03:39:47.760 --> 03:39:54.000 restaurant multifamily kind of adds that that buffer between those uses also as I 03:39:54.000 --> 03:39:59.280 mentioned it is mimicking what is existing in the area it's not kind of 03:39:59.280 --> 03:40:04.280 proposing you know another another auto dealership or something more intensive 03:40:04.280 --> 03:40:10.560 so multifamily is compatible with what's on the ground today it is sort of that 03:40:10.560 --> 03:40:15.560 supportive residential use that would come in with future development of any 03:40:15.560 --> 03:40:20.040 high-intensity commercial under that highway corridor zoning that you see 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 03:40:27.560 --> 03:40:31.720 east and it is also surrounded by highway corridor so it is unique within 03:40:31.720 --> 03:40:39.200 the city in that rather than having you know maybe like a higher residential use 03:40:39.200 --> 03:40:44.680 between it kind of just jumps straight into SC and again that comes with the 03:40:44.680 --> 03:40:50.480 rezoning that came in 2017 as I mentioned park space and that DCTA right 03:40:50.480 --> 03:40:54.680 of way provide a buffer between the moderate residential to the north and 03:40:54.680 --> 03:41:01.600 that that general development pattern exists so staff feels that you know the 03:41:01.600 --> 03:41:05.320 proposed development is in scale and similar to what you would find in 03:41:05.320 --> 03:41:10.480 commercial areas especially along a primary arterial like Lakeview and it 03:41:10.480 --> 03:41:14.540 does at least have a three points of access that would disperse the vehicle 03:41:14.540 --> 03:41:19.600 ingress and egress towards I-35 I'm speaking to the future land use 03:41:19.600 --> 03:41:24.560 designation this particular property does have four land use designations on 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 03:41:30.500 --> 03:41:34.280 designations would be community mixed use and regional mixed use that kind of 03:41:34.280 --> 03:41:38.240 creeps in on the west side the other two land use designations that cover the 03:41:38.240 --> 03:41:43.240 property are this low residential area and in the park space I'll focus on the 03:41:43.240 --> 03:41:48.620 first two since they do kind of dominate the the designations on the property so 03:41:48.620 --> 03:41:53.160 community mixed use really looks to promote a mix of uses it's 03:41:53.160 --> 03:41:57.720 predominantly commercial but residential is something that is permitted as a 03:41:57.720 --> 03:42:03.060 complementary use for those commercial areas that will come in this again is 03:42:03.060 --> 03:42:08.120 more of on a neighborhood scale commercial whereas the next designation 03:42:08.120 --> 03:42:12.240 of regional regional mixed use promotes a mix of uses that serve regional 03:42:12.240 --> 03:42:17.440 destinations this would be more moderate and high density residential higher 03:42:17.440 --> 03:42:21.780 intensity commercial office entertainment it only excludes industrial 03:42:21.780 --> 03:42:26.760 at that highest level but it does have that higher intensity scale so the 03:42:26.760 --> 03:42:31.040 proposed development staff feels that is it's consistent with the blended goals 03:42:31.040 --> 03:42:38.600 of both community mixed use and regional mixed use designations so next I'll 03:42:38.600 --> 03:42:43.080 speak to you know adequate public facilities first transportation traffic 03:42:43.080 --> 03:42:48.640 is is often a large topic of discussion with many of these developments this 03:42:48.640 --> 03:42:54.040 proposed development would generate just over 1,600 trips within a 24-hour period 03:42:54.040 --> 03:43:00.960 that would be 108 a.m. peak trips and 132 p.m. trips specific to this 03:43:00.960 --> 03:43:06.040 intersection of Shady Shores and Lakeview there would be a net increase of 03:43:06.040 --> 03:43:12.520 145 trips related to this development that would be 68 a.m. peak trips and 77 03:43:12.520 --> 03:43:19.360 p.m. peak trips Lakeview Boulevard is as I mentioned a primary arterial Shady 03:43:19.360 --> 03:43:23.680 Shores is currently listed as a collector on our current mobility plan 03:43:23.680 --> 03:43:28.960 but I did want to note that the 2020 mobility plan does propose Shady Shores 03:43:28.960 --> 03:43:32.840 as a local street so this would be a downgrade in the current does it roadway 03:43:32.840 --> 03:43:39.200 classification a traffic impact analysis was conducted for this 03:43:39.200 --> 03:43:45.840 development recommendations from the TIA did indicate that a left and right turn 03:43:45.840 --> 03:43:52.480 deceleration lane along Shady Shores would be recommended this requirement 03:43:52.480 --> 03:43:57.160 was waived by our city engineer due to a few things the applicant is proposing on 03:43:57.160 --> 03:44:03.520 street parking which would serve to slow some of that traffic going westbound on 03:44:03.520 --> 03:44:10.600 Shady Shores and the number of turn turning movements at those driveways 03:44:10.600 --> 03:44:16.640 were not as significant as would be on other sites where you would need 03:44:16.640 --> 03:44:22.480 significant deceleration another recommendation that came out of this was 03:44:22.480 --> 03:44:29.200 that related to the intersection of Shady Shores and Lakeview a signal was 03:44:29.200 --> 03:44:34.360 warranted by the existing traffic at this intersection so as you can see from 03:44:34.360 --> 03:44:42.240 from the previous numbers provided the existing traffic is around 3239 weekday 03:44:42.240 --> 03:44:47.080 trips within a 24-hour period the proposed development is again only 03:44:47.080 --> 03:44:53.280 providing a net increase of 145 trips so the developer would be responsible for a 03:44:53.280 --> 03:44:56.480 proportional cost of any signal improvements on this site but it would 03:44:56.480 --> 03:45:05.360 be roughly 5% in addition to roadway traffic the TIA did look at pedestrian 03:45:05.360 --> 03:45:11.600 multimodal analysis in this so the TIA did recommend that bike pit access be 03:45:11.600 --> 03:45:17.000 provided along Shady Shores and Lakeview the applicant is proposing a 7-foot 03:45:17.000 --> 03:45:22.800 sidewalk along Lakeview as well as an 8-foot sidewalk along Shady Shores and 03:45:22.800 --> 03:45:26.880 of course because of our Denton development requirements they are 03:45:26.880 --> 03:45:31.320 required to connect to the existing sidewalk sidewalk that is located on the 03:45:31.320 --> 03:45:37.920 west and extending this at least to the property boundaries on Lakeview the 03:45:37.920 --> 03:45:45.720 applicant is also proposing a crosswalk from the eastern or sorry western side 03:45:45.720 --> 03:45:49.320 of Lakeview onto the eastern side so that a connection can be made to the 03:45:49.320 --> 03:45:56.760 Denton Katie Trail that runs along the DCTA rail line it would also provide 03:45:56.760 --> 03:46:02.920 this connection to the park that is located to the north transit was also 03:46:02.920 --> 03:46:09.720 looked at within the TIA there is no DCTA stop located on the a-train and 03:46:09.720 --> 03:46:13.280 there is no bus service in the area but due to the development and the increased 03:46:13.280 --> 03:46:21.920 demand they do recommend or did recommend that future consideration be made as 03:46:21.920 --> 03:46:28.080 relates to public infrastructure the site does have accessibility to an 03:46:28.080 --> 03:46:33.000 existing 16 inch line off of Lakeview Lakeview for water services and there is 03:46:33.000 --> 03:46:38.680 capacity for this development to be served in terms of wastewater the 03:46:38.680 --> 03:46:44.200 closest wastewater line would be located where this square is off a post oak 03:46:44.200 --> 03:46:47.960 boulevard so in order to serve this development the applicant would need to 03:46:47.960 --> 03:46:54.720 extend what wastewater lines all the way up to this this this area it was also 03:46:54.720 --> 03:47:01.880 noted during the review that the demand for this proposed development could not 03:47:01.880 --> 03:47:06.600 be served sufficiently with the existing infrastructure so staff is 03:47:06.600 --> 03:47:11.040 recommending a condition of approval that improvements in the form of either 03:47:11.040 --> 03:47:17.940 upsizing the line or improvements to the the lift station sorry pumping capacity 03:47:17.940 --> 03:47:24.640 of the lift station be addressed as this as this project progresses forward so 03:47:24.640 --> 03:47:29.800 that would be between this square in this triangle improvements along the 03:47:29.800 --> 03:47:35.320 existing wastewater line here and then the existing lift station is located a 03:47:35.320 --> 03:47:40.840 little bit further up on Lakeview so of course any excuse me any 03:47:40.840 --> 03:47:46.200 improvements that would be made would be credited towards any tap and impact fees 03:47:46.200 --> 03:47:53.360 that are required once this development goes through the permitting process as I 03:47:53.360 --> 03:47:58.160 mentioned before the site is located at least a hundred feet in a direct line 03:47:58.160 --> 03:48:02.800 from the existing part to the north this is Dallas J veterans or Dallas Junior 03:48:02.800 --> 03:48:08.200 Veterans Memorial Park even though is it is really just a hundred feet in a 03:48:08.200 --> 03:48:13.000 direct line the closest and safest route would just be even so less than a 03:48:13.000 --> 03:48:20.240 quarter mile even even so the the applicant is proposing on-site amenities 03:48:20.240 --> 03:48:25.240 that I mentioned earlier that would be the active and passive recreation within 03:48:25.240 --> 03:48:33.440 that open space area staff did get in contact with DISD regarding the capacity 03:48:33.440 --> 03:48:40.120 of our school system so pretty at DISD this site would generate 69 additional 03:48:40.120 --> 03:48:44.280 elementary students 15 middle school students and 18 high school students 03:48:44.280 --> 03:48:48.440 these would be within the attendance zones of Stevens Elementary Meyers 03:48:48.440 --> 03:48:53.200 Middle School and Ryan High School the elementary school does have capacity to 03:48:53.200 --> 03:48:57.840 serve the development and as does Myers Middle School and Ryan High School 03:48:57.840 --> 03:49:04.000 however that would be limited capacity that DISD would serve to accommodate as 03:49:04.000 --> 03:49:07.240 long as there's no additional residential growth within the attendance 03:49:07.240 --> 03:49:12.880 zone they also did not have any additional concerns with this 03:49:12.880 --> 03:49:19.040 development in particular staff did reach out through public notices a legal 03:49:19.040 --> 03:49:26.480 ad and the applicant did provide their notices or their signs on the site 03:49:26.480 --> 03:49:32.040 within 200 feet we did not receive any immediate responses however staff has 03:49:32.040 --> 03:49:39.440 received responses from approximately 28 people as of today 21 of those these 03:49:39.440 --> 03:49:45.920 would be outside or within and outside the 500 foot area 21 responses in 03:49:45.920 --> 03:49:50.360 opposition two in favor and five would be neutral or just seeking general 03:49:50.360 --> 03:49:54.720 information so staff received these responses via email phone calls and 03:49:54.720 --> 03:50:01.240 through the online form that is on our website and I will mention this the the 03:50:01.240 --> 03:50:05.680 applicant did hold three neighborhood meetings these were meetings with the 03:50:05.680 --> 03:50:11.440 pecan preserve at Pecan Creek HOA to get feedback regarding their development 03:50:11.440 --> 03:50:17.760 plans and with this staff is recommending approval of the SUP with 03:50:17.760 --> 03:50:21.560 the following conditions one that landscaping in the attached plan 03:50:21.560 --> 03:50:26.080 reflects an intent to comply with our current DDC requirements that's regards 03:50:26.080 --> 03:50:30.120 to parking street trees minimum landscape and canopy areas as well as the 03:50:30.120 --> 03:50:34.160 compatibility buffers so this would allow minor alterations to the depicted 03:50:34.160 --> 03:50:39.480 locations of individual plantings and final individual plant selections that 03:50:39.480 --> 03:50:43.520 could be approved by city staff provided that those final landscaping 03:50:43.520 --> 03:50:48.840 complies with the attached plan again in terms of buffer overall landscaping 03:50:48.840 --> 03:50:53.040 street trees mature tree canopy as well as other elements in the Denton 03:50:53.040 --> 03:50:59.200 Development Code second relates to tree preservation so the tree preservation 03:50:59.200 --> 03:51:03.120 shown on the attached plans really just reflects an intent to comply with the 03:51:03.120 --> 03:51:07.920 2019 development code standards for tree preservation replacement and 03:51:07.920 --> 03:51:13.680 mitigation however as I mentioned before mitigation through the use of plantings 03:51:13.680 --> 03:51:18.560 within the conservation easement would be dedicated to the city but it also may 03:51:18.560 --> 03:51:23.400 be met using the Denton Wildscape program payment in lieu or any other 03:51:23.400 --> 03:51:28.680 method as permitted in the Denton Development Code section 7.74 which 03:51:28.680 --> 03:51:33.640 relates to tree preservation the third condition relates to sidewalk 03:51:33.640 --> 03:51:38.980 extensions so site sidewalks must be constructed concurrent with other public 03:51:38.980 --> 03:51:43.360 improvements along the frontages of Lakeview Boulevard and Shady Shores Road 03:51:43.360 --> 03:51:46.960 that would ensure that there's that connectivity with the development 03:51:46.960 --> 03:51:50.840 ensuring that there's pedestrian pedestrian and bike access around the 03:51:50.840 --> 03:51:56.560 area fourth there was a change in the condition from the staff report until 03:51:56.560 --> 03:52:01.320 now the applicant did request some minor changes and staff did not have any 03:52:01.320 --> 03:52:06.040 opposition to this which was just to reduce the specificity of the 03:52:06.040 --> 03:52:11.200 improvements required so for sewer extension off-site sanitary upgrades and 03:52:11.200 --> 03:52:15.040 or improvements to the downstream wastewater infrastructure must be 03:52:15.040 --> 03:52:19.360 constructed concurrent with other required public improvements in order 03:52:19.360 --> 03:52:26.480 to serve the multifamily development fourth sorry I had to catch my breath 03:52:26.480 --> 03:52:30.880 would be related to that easement abandonment again approval of the 03:52:30.880 --> 03:52:35.080 structural analysis of those proposed retaining walls along the right-of-way 03:52:35.080 --> 03:52:39.960 would need to be approved with the civil engineering plans and and prior to 03:52:39.960 --> 03:52:45.240 final plan approval as well as approval of the proposed abandonment of for the 03:52:45.240 --> 03:52:49.800 four slope and drainage easements that were shown next relates to the 03:52:49.800 --> 03:52:54.200 alternative ESA plan that will be following this presentation approval of 03:52:54.200 --> 03:52:58.200 an AESA would be required for those proposed encroachments related to the 03:52:58.200 --> 03:53:06.100 retaining walls into the riparian buffer and floodplain ESA seventh condition is 03:53:06.100 --> 03:53:10.680 just to make sure that that zoning map zoning map reflects the SUP on on the 03:53:10.680 --> 03:53:14.760 property consistent with our 2019 code and then of course any administrative 03:53:14.760 --> 03:53:21.200 approvals within the first condition the city would have the ability to do that 03:53:21.200 --> 03:53:26.320 in addition to this want to make sure that some of those site elements that are 03:53:26.320 --> 03:53:31.000 provided in the site plan in Alaska landscape plan remain with this plan but 03:53:31.000 --> 03:53:36.120 allow staff to make that the ability to increase any of those amounts by at 03:53:36.120 --> 03:53:41.560 least 5% and this would be related to the number of dwelling units provided 03:53:41.560 --> 03:53:46.280 that the number of buildings remains the same I'm sorry that they may increase 03:53:46.280 --> 03:53:49.480 the number of buildings provided there's a number of units and building for 03:53:49.480 --> 03:53:53.400 footprint remains the same it also relates to the gathering and open 03:53:53.400 --> 03:53:57.480 gathering in open areas such as that fitness center and some of the amenities 03:53:57.480 --> 03:54:01.240 that were provided I won't read through it too quickly but it also talks about 03:54:01.240 --> 03:54:07.840 parking tree preservation and access so with that I can answer any questions the 03:54:07.840 --> 03:54:11.760 applicant is available on the line and does have a presentation lined up if 03:54:11.760 --> 03:54:17.200 if there's no questions for me Korean I have one question right through the bat 03:54:17.200 --> 03:54:22.560 and I just wanted some context it goes back to my previous statement about 03:54:22.560 --> 03:54:28.360 number of dwelling units flooding the city without any seemingly jobs we 03:54:28.360 --> 03:54:34.800 approved a grocery store for this lot what what happened to the grocery store 03:54:34.800 --> 03:54:39.840 can you provide some history of why we're moving from jobs to houses again 03:54:39.840 --> 03:54:47.040 definitely I can so going back to that rezoning that came in in 2017 when that 03:54:47.040 --> 03:54:52.440 rezoning came in it was for the obviously to downs on the property from 03:54:52.440 --> 03:54:57.040 that RCR district down to suburban corridor when the applicant at the time 03:54:57.040 --> 03:55:03.040 came in and made the presentation to to the PNZ and City Council they did make 03:55:03.040 --> 03:55:07.080 the kind of the claim or the intent that they would be pretty putting in that 03:55:07.080 --> 03:55:12.520 grocery store fueling station but there was no condition or overlay made with 03:55:12.520 --> 03:55:16.680 that approval indicating that that would be the the only development on the 03:55:16.680 --> 03:55:22.680 property so as they move forward with their proposed development kind of the 03:55:22.680 --> 03:55:28.880 it ended up falling through essentially there wasn't a grocery store that was 03:55:28.880 --> 03:55:33.300 able to kind of move forward with that development so they are now coming back 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 03:55:38.400 --> 03:55:44.080 answer that more clearly but to my knowledge and there was no specific 03:55:44.080 --> 03:55:49.960 restriction site be developed as as retail it was just something that they 03:55:49.960 --> 03:55:54.640 intended to do it's the same same property owner and applicant it is I 03:55:54.640 --> 03:55:58.960 guess this is is exactly why when a zoning case comes to us we hear the 03:55:58.960 --> 03:56:05.560 zoning portion and not get mystified by the promises that Unicorn Lake was gonna 03:56:05.560 --> 03:56:10.200 get a grocery store because I know a lot of residents there were excited to not 03:56:10.200 --> 03:56:16.000 being a food desert and have a grocery store so I'll let the other Christmas 03:56:16.000 --> 03:56:19.680 ask any questions they have and then the applicant can certainly provide their 03:56:19.680 --> 03:56:24.200 presentation Christian back yeah thank you chair I actually that my first point 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 03:56:29.480 --> 03:56:34.440 through and and feedback from the community seemed to completely agree with 03:56:34.440 --> 03:56:40.740 everything you just said my question to staff is a little bit about the roadways 03:56:40.740 --> 03:56:44.640 and little chicken and egging that I want to make sure that we're not making 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 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 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 03:57:03.640 --> 03:57:09.560 going to downgrade the mobility plan from a local collector to a local street 03:57:09.560 --> 03:57:15.320 and those have different designations and different rules different TIs and you 03:57:15.320 --> 03:57:19.040 you mentioned an intersection on the 5% that the developer would have to pay 03:57:19.040 --> 03:57:23.920 for the light if we downgrade that but it's my understanding please correct me 03:57:23.920 --> 03:57:31.840 that if that you have to have a certain size street on the mobility plan to 03:57:31.840 --> 03:57:39.280 justify seven four seven eight a which is the use of the alternative easement 03:57:39.280 --> 03:57:45.800 provisions for disturbance and so yeah I know I'm mixing two items here and I 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 03:57:50.920 --> 03:57:55.200 going to downgrade to something that doesn't allow the open her can you 03:57:55.200 --> 03:58:04.960 educate me about that so I could probably speak to the encroachment and 03:58:04.960 --> 03:58:10.480 maybe Christie could probably speak to that better in the next presentation I 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 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 03:58:18.320 --> 03:58:26.720 then we have to say the alt ESA is invalid then we invalidate this one so 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 03:58:30.520 --> 03:58:36.500 appropriate to bring it up at this point definitely so within those ESA areas 03:58:36.500 --> 03:58:42.560 there are obviously encroachment is prohibited there are certain allowances 03:58:42.560 --> 03:58:47.360 within those areas that that wouldn't require the ESA the alt ESA and some 03:58:47.360 --> 03:58:51.720 that would regarding the encroachment into Shady Shores that would be a 03:58:51.720 --> 03:58:57.120 permitted activity is not actually part of the AESA presentation that's coming 03:58:57.120 --> 03:59:01.000 up after this but you do make I do understand your point is that if the 03:59:01.000 --> 03:59:05.400 property is downgraded or I'm sorry not the property but the the roadway 03:59:05.400 --> 03:59:10.720 classification of Shady Shores is downgraded from a collector to a local 03:59:10.720 --> 03:59:14.480 street then that would affect you know whether they could encroach or not I 03:59:14.480 --> 03:59:21.440 would speak to the current mobility plan which is currently in effect so while we 03:59:21.440 --> 03:59:27.080 are while I did indicate that it is in the draft mobility plan to be downgraded 03:59:27.080 --> 03:59:30.880 isn't something that is in place currently so we would have to go with 03:59:30.880 --> 03:59:36.560 whatever the the current mobility plan states now so I don't know if Richard 03:59:36.560 --> 03:59:40.520 wants to jump in on this but we also have some of our traffic engineering staff 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 03:59:45.480 --> 03:59:49.880 is really two different things that the slope easement is really related to the 03:59:49.880 --> 03:59:54.800 road and construction and maintenance of that separate and apart from the 03:59:54.800 --> 03:59:59.360 environmentally sensitive area and so I think I think there's a number of issues 03:59:59.360 --> 04:00:03.400 and I'm sure they'll get into it when they get into their presentation but 04:00:03.400 --> 04:00:06.920 there will be substantial grading on this site as well so at that point in 04:00:06.920 --> 04:00:11.720 time once that's done and some of those road improvements are done sidewalks are 04:00:11.720 --> 04:00:15.600 put in that slope easement most likely won't be needed because quite honestly 04:00:15.600 --> 04:00:19.960 there probably won't be a slope once they once they grade the site but again 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 04:00:25.160 --> 04:00:30.160 that helps and I know Shandra's on the phone as well from traffic 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 04:00:37.320 --> 04:00:42.720 I think is more of the sustainability and environmental section that as I 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 04:00:48.000 --> 04:00:52.840 have a road that where as a larger road it allows us to make certain exceptions 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 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 04:01:08.400 --> 04:01:13.560 the conditions now but then we we approve it the conditions now and then 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 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 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 04:01:28.560 --> 04:01:32.560 certain size Street and and and you know what are the rules for a certain site 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 04:01:37.280 --> 04:01:41.120 cart before the horse on this one 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 04:01:49.280 --> 04:01:55.680 know permitted encroachments yeah maybe that's all again I want to make sure we 04:01:55.680 --> 04:01:59.620 were talking about the road separately from the Alt ESA because the road the 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 04:02:04.480 --> 04:02:08.360 Christie's mentioned that she does have a slide relating specifically to that 04:02:08.360 --> 04:02:12.240 encroachment in the next presentation I'm not I know it goes back to your point 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 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 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 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 04:02:35.080 --> 04:02:38.040 it's important to note that we have a condition one of the conditions of 04:02:38.040 --> 04:02:43.440 approval is approval of the alternate ESA so if that alternate ESA is 04:02:43.440 --> 04:02:47.400 ultimately not approved by council then they could not meet that condition of 04:02:47.400 --> 04:02:51.000 approval and therefore could not proceed I thought about that Richard but if we 04:02:51.000 --> 04:02:54.720 are going to downgrade the road that that's a future event which means that 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 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 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 04:03:10.200 --> 04:03:14.640 quandary here again I don't think that the downgrading of the road would would 04:03:14.640 --> 04:03:19.080 have would have an effect either way I think I think it's identified that the 04:03:19.080 --> 04:03:24.400 traffic signals needed with with or without it and then the only thing that 04:03:24.400 --> 04:03:30.840 really partly changed was the waiver that again contingent on the approval of 04:03:30.840 --> 04:03:36.680 the SGP of the diesel lanes but but I believe again I'm not the traffic 04:03:36.680 --> 04:03:41.240 engineer and would defer to you would defer to Chandra who's on the line good 04:03:41.240 --> 04:03:44.960 evening this is Chandra senior engineering traffic and I concur with 04:03:44.960 --> 04:03:50.280 Richard that downgrading has no effect on either the traffic signal or to the 04:03:50.280 --> 04:03:56.960 ESA the ground grading on the future mobility is actually due to the Lake 04:03:56.960 --> 04:04:01.280 View Boulevard that's further up north is going to be terminating there would 04:04:01.280 --> 04:04:04.800 not be adding an additional capacity on Lake View which is already four line 04:04:04.800 --> 04:04:11.880 divided section but again I think this is my issue is that there I was reading 04:04:11.880 --> 04:04:17.280 that there was rules about what were what kind of alternative sustainability 04:04:17.280 --> 04:04:25.400 and ESA are allowed under different kinds of road conditions and the it was 04:04:25.400 --> 04:04:30.600 stated that you could we could do the exceptions because this was a road on 04:04:30.600 --> 04:04:34.800 the mobility plan the way that we made that argument in Roselon that we could 04:04:34.800 --> 04:04:38.240 put a bridge over that without consideration because it's on it's a 04:04:38.240 --> 04:04:43.440 known mobility plan road if we're downgrading this off sort of the the 04:04:43.440 --> 04:04:48.320 standard collector and arterial designation then are we not then just 04:04:48.320 --> 04:04:53.520 saying that we're using one set of rules and immediately downgrading them to an 04:04:53.520 --> 04:05:01.560 appropriate set of rules it was on the plan to be downgraded since it will not 04:05:01.560 --> 04:05:08.000 generate the amount of traffic that was initially conceived in 2015 mobility 04:05:08.000 --> 04:05:13.840 plan but with the developments that's going in and what's out there there is 04:05:13.840 --> 04:05:22.000 not enough capacity even to justify widening it even more larger section but 04:05:22.000 --> 04:05:33.800 it doesn't have to do anything with the environmentally sensitive areas okay my 04:05:33.800 --> 04:05:39.680 guess my question isn't one of traffic it's one of the appropriate alignment 04:05:39.680 --> 04:05:48.720 set of rules for a sustainable element up against a traffic item all right I will 04:05:48.720 --> 04:05:52.560 I will yield the floor and think about if I can restate this question in a 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 04:05:59.160 --> 04:06:04.760 oh Chris Ellis thanks I did just have a quick yeah maybe a quick question for 04:06:04.760 --> 04:06:09.300 staff it has to do with the traffic light that would be required when would 04:06:09.300 --> 04:06:16.320 that go in um since the TIA did indicate that the traffic signal is warranted due 04:06:16.320 --> 04:06:20.600 to existing traffic this would be on the responsibility of the city to to put it 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 04:06:28.200 --> 04:06:33.920 is existing so this would this would be something that we would need to identify 04:06:33.920 --> 04:06:39.600 existing funds for in order to to appropriately plan for this and I don't 04:06:39.600 --> 04:06:46.280 know if this is also another item that Chandra would like to speak on yes 04:06:46.280 --> 04:06:51.960 that's correct since it's not a high priority based on safety or any 04:06:51.960 --> 04:06:58.760 identified improvements out there so it will be on low priority whenever we have 04:06:58.760 --> 04:07:04.120 funds to address the need of course there is need for a signal right now but 04:07:04.120 --> 04:07:08.960 it doesn't warrant we have a high priority locations that's already 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 04:07:15.960 --> 04:07:21.640 soon is the traffic light going in that's correct okay so I would think it 04:07:21.640 --> 04:07:25.320 would be a very high priority for the people already in the neighborhood where 04:07:25.320 --> 04:07:30.400 the traffic signal is warranted before we put 300 more dwelling units in the 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 04:07:39.880 --> 04:07:45.940 applicant the opportunity to present I'm not sure who the applicant is but if 04:07:45.940 --> 04:07:51.100 they could just unmute themselves and say their name and their address you 04:07:51.100 --> 04:07:55.840 have ten minutes to present your presentation 04:08:13.080 --> 04:08:20.920 is the applicant on I believe Gerald Lukey or Charles Hodges might be 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 04:08:27.000 --> 04:08:33.400 Charles thank you this is Charles Hodges with Hodges architecture one three six 04:08:33.400 --> 04:08:39.600 four two Omega Dallas we represent the ownership of covenant development in the 04:08:39.600 --> 04:08:45.240 Weber Company in this matter we appreciate your time tonight I do want 04:08:45.240 --> 04:08:50.440 to advise Karina that the video feed is actually coming in about a minute after 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 04:08:56.320 --> 04:09:01.920 coming in a minute late to our servers evidently everyone's watching election 04:09:01.920 --> 04:09:07.480 returns continuing to come in tonight you're on the first page of the 04:09:07.480 --> 04:09:13.720 presentation yes if you could Karina put it on project overview or the second 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 04:09:24.440 --> 04:09:29.400 community and I really want to start by saying that all multifamily is not 04:09:29.400 --> 04:09:34.280 created equal there are a lot of different examples in the Denton area as 04:09:34.280 --> 04:09:40.400 y'all may or may not know we've been involved doing the razor ranch project 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 04:09:47.640 --> 04:09:51.400 there are many different types of multifamily and a lot of people throw 04:09:51.400 --> 04:09:57.080 multifamily into one box and think it's all the same an urban living community 04:09:57.080 --> 04:10:03.240 is really based on creating a special place and one that solves a lot of 04:10:03.240 --> 04:10:08.360 issues in today's lifestyles our typical demographic is made up of young 04:10:08.360 --> 04:10:13.720 professionals young married couples who don't want to or not able financially to 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 04:10:19.720 --> 04:10:23.920 nesters and broken nesters who want to stay in their social circle but no 04:10:23.920 --> 04:10:30.440 longer can afford or justify having a large home but want to be in that area 04:10:30.440 --> 04:10:36.400 last is freedom seniors that's a category that really are folks that they 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 04:10:40.160 --> 04:10:44.200 they're beyond empty nesters because they want the freedom to live in a 04:10:44.200 --> 04:10:49.320 community like this and turn all that maintenance obligation over to someone 04:10:49.320 --> 04:10:55.200 else and be free to travel where they want to this type of urban living unit 04:10:55.200 --> 04:11:04.040 is a set of amenities unlike any other the demands of today's world and somewhat 04:11:04.040 --> 04:11:09.320 in answer to mr. Roselle's question about how are we creating jobs there 04:11:09.320 --> 04:11:15.280 this unfortunate byproduct or the fortunate byproduct of the unfortunate 04:11:15.280 --> 04:11:22.840 circumstances we're in now the remote working community is now enlarging on a 04:11:22.840 --> 04:11:29.060 daily basis and it may in fact be a permanent fixture in the lifestyle from 04:11:29.060 --> 04:11:34.840 here on out a lot of our folks and our residents may actually choose to work 04:11:34.840 --> 04:11:41.440 remotely from their urban living community and what we provide in this 04:11:41.440 --> 04:11:48.160 type of development is not an arrangement of three-story exterior stair 04:11:48.160 --> 04:11:55.160 walk-up barracks looking garden apartments this is a combined community 04:11:55.160 --> 04:12:02.840 which encourages socialization as the most remote robust data speed and 04:12:02.840 --> 04:12:10.440 internet capabilities indoor and outdoor Wi-Fi zones with great strength and 04:12:10.440 --> 04:12:17.600 consistency social areas that are concentrated both within and adjacent to 04:12:17.600 --> 04:12:23.480 building clusters which really urge people not to be separated by many small 04:12:23.480 --> 04:12:29.200 buildings but create a community or micro communities within one larger 04:12:29.200 --> 04:12:35.800 combined building area shared workspaces for the remote work will be very 04:12:35.800 --> 04:12:41.560 important in the new generation of urban community and a lot of other outdoor 04:12:41.560 --> 04:12:47.720 social and gathering sites to create what we think is a unique living experience 04:12:47.720 --> 04:12:53.560 and one that doesn't want to be held back by the past developments for the 04:12:53.560 --> 04:13:01.480 last 30 years which are now obsolete prototypes in our three meetings with 04:13:01.480 --> 04:13:05.760 the residents we had great meetings they were all very respectful I really 04:13:05.760 --> 04:13:12.440 appreciated the tenor of all the meetings we learned a lot listening we 04:13:12.440 --> 04:13:17.880 were able to go back and talk to the ownership about beefing up the street 04:13:17.880 --> 04:13:22.200 tree array and and that's something that's not easy but we really listened 04:13:22.200 --> 04:13:27.360 to what the president said about the experience along Lakeview and we went 04:13:27.360 --> 04:13:33.000 back and and quite frankly spent a lot of money and and really beefed up and 04:13:33.000 --> 04:13:38.280 actually added a second row of street trees that are understory trees to give 04:13:38.280 --> 04:13:45.480 us a dimensional separation from Lakeview we heard a lot about the zoning issues 04:13:45.480 --> 04:13:52.600 but again as Karina has very detailed explained that the multifamily isn't 04:13:52.600 --> 04:13:58.160 allowed use and an appropriate use and a good transitional use for this piece of 04:13:58.160 --> 04:14:04.480 property we heard about environmental present preservation and I think not only 04:14:04.480 --> 04:14:11.640 have our efforts been realized and and certainly we work closely not only with 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 04:14:17.920 --> 04:14:23.600 work on this was to approach mr. packin and drew Huffman and talk about what we 04:14:23.600 --> 04:14:30.160 could make out of this preservation area keeping its pristine natural side but 04:14:30.160 --> 04:14:36.840 also making it an inviting order for interface with wildlife access and 04:14:36.840 --> 04:14:43.080 transportation were huge issues the amenities and resident profiles are 04:14:43.080 --> 04:14:47.300 something that I will address in answer to some of the questions and then the 04:14:47.300 --> 04:14:51.480 development history mr. Roselle and mr. back I'll actually answer your 04:14:51.480 --> 04:14:58.720 questions about that as the process concludes Karina we can move to the next 04:14:58.720 --> 04:15:04.240 side I'm sorry the next slide this illustrates in color the layout of the 04:15:04.240 --> 04:15:10.440 buildings which occupy approximately 10 acres of an almost 22 acre piece of 04:15:10.440 --> 04:15:18.300 property that preservation and conservation area comes one with the 04:15:18.300 --> 04:15:22.960 building arrangement and we have set aside these areas and place these 04:15:22.960 --> 04:15:28.020 buildings carefully with a lot of discussion with staff in order to 04:15:28.020 --> 04:15:34.320 appreciate and respect the conservation and preservation areas but also to 04:15:34.320 --> 04:15:39.960 create the urban edge that the staff encourages and almost mandates on every 04:15:39.960 --> 04:15:44.160 property so that we move into a new generation of residential development 04:15:44.160 --> 04:15:53.480 next slide please Karina environmental presentation are we on that slide it's 04:15:53.480 --> 04:15:57.360 at the wild scapes program slide yeah I've moved on to the wildscape program 04:15:57.360 --> 04:16:03.720 okay well while scapes is something we're very passionate about obviously 04:16:03.720 --> 04:16:08.600 conservation and the encouragement of the park areas to when they are a 04:16:08.600 --> 04:16:16.040 natural basin like this is we're very involved in bird conservation we found 04:16:16.040 --> 04:16:21.200 that a program that now has over 2 million acres in bird conservation areas 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 04:16:26.520 --> 04:16:31.640 architects and planners the wildscape program is something that we have 04:16:31.640 --> 04:16:37.960 committed to try to get to their certification the state right now because 04:16:37.960 --> 04:16:44.240 of COVID is not accepting certification applications but I think the interest is 04:16:44.240 --> 04:16:50.400 there from parks now to work with us side-by-side to work with Texas Parks 04:16:50.400 --> 04:16:56.080 and Wildlife and really make that conservation area all that it can be in a 04:16:56.080 --> 04:17:03.640 respected wildlife quarter the next slide is access and transportation I 04:17:03.640 --> 04:17:08.160 won't belabor these issues because Karina did a great job of explaining both the 04:17:08.160 --> 04:17:13.680 entry and exit locations with the primary traffic in and out off of shady 04:17:13.680 --> 04:17:19.720 shores I will point out on this slide in access and transportation this property 04:17:19.720 --> 04:17:24.640 was actually granted a median break on Lakeview but we chose not to do that 04:17:24.640 --> 04:17:30.040 with this particular use because we felt like that turn movements there and the 04:17:30.040 --> 04:17:35.520 existing congestion on Lakeview could be helped by not creating left-hand turn 04:17:35.520 --> 04:17:43.700 opportunity northbound on Lakeview we understand that the traffic is busy now 04:17:43.700 --> 04:17:49.440 as your PIA and your city staff has pointed out it's already a low 04:17:49.440 --> 04:17:54.520 performing intersection we think that and agree that obviously before we do 04:17:54.520 --> 04:18:02.120 anything the the situation is already there the location this is the 04:18:02.120 --> 04:18:12.480 transportation summary slide if you will please Karina we're on it okay thank 04:18:12.480 --> 04:18:17.240 you it's very important to look at the reality not the perception but the 04:18:17.240 --> 04:18:22.240 reality of what the ITE trip generation manuals and the accepted traffic 04:18:22.240 --> 04:18:28.040 engineering standards show for our type of the development compared with retail 04:18:28.040 --> 04:18:34.360 or grocery development as it showed in and was reflected in the PIA this 04:18:34.360 --> 04:18:40.680 development generates approximately 1632 daily trips what's very important is the 04:18:40.680 --> 04:18:47.000 comparison to retail or grocery store if this was a retail mix multi-tenant 04:18:47.000 --> 04:18:52.320 retail mix it would approximately generate three times that amount of 04:18:52.320 --> 04:18:58.160 traffic for 4717 daily trips and if it was a grocery store it would be almost 04:18:58.160 --> 04:19:04.360 four times the daily trip generation of what our proposed development will do 04:19:04.360 --> 04:19:09.760 and the thing that is important to think about a grocery store is active till 10 04:19:09.760 --> 04:19:15.200 30 at night our residents get home they want to cook their dinner they want to 04:19:15.200 --> 04:19:20.680 relax they want to be part of our amenities package her development pretty 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 04:19:26.880 --> 04:19:32.840 generate that 6 to 10 o'clock traffic a lot of these trips though are congested 04:19:32.840 --> 04:19:37.560 of if it were a grocery store people would be on their way home already in 04:19:37.560 --> 04:19:42.400 the p.m. peak and generating four times the amount of traffic so I think our 04:19:42.400 --> 04:19:49.520 development is right size I think it is low impact and the IT trip generation 04:19:49.520 --> 04:19:53.800 numbers basically compare our development with one small fast food 04:19:53.800 --> 04:19:58.080 restaurant that probably wouldn't do Chick-fil-a right now because I think 04:19:58.080 --> 04:20:03.880 they do even more than that but at this point I think that focusing on the 04:20:03.880 --> 04:20:09.160 streets and the street improvements Shady Shores is a was a big interest of 04:20:09.160 --> 04:20:13.880 ours to create a different streetscape there currently as you know and the 04:20:13.880 --> 04:20:19.000 residents well know it's a two track road basically a two-lane patchwork 04:20:19.000 --> 04:20:23.120 asphalt section it's not in great condition that's on the next 04:20:23.120 --> 04:20:30.200 transportation improvement slide please Karina I apologize again I just can't 04:20:30.200 --> 04:20:38.760 see your your your screen okay thank you obviously Shady Shores has an 04:20:38.760 --> 04:20:43.760 opportunity and I was visiting with planning staff about this early on can we 04:20:43.760 --> 04:20:50.280 improve that beyond what it is to change the character of the street and create 04:20:50.280 --> 04:20:56.360 extra lane width extra buffer width and really make that street even though it's 04:20:56.360 --> 04:21:01.120 being downgraded in the master mobility plan we can create a character street 04:21:01.120 --> 04:21:05.120 there and that's why we added the on-street parking that's why we added 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 04:21:11.200 --> 04:21:15.880 connect the bike and and mobility connections from a pedestrian and 04:21:15.880 --> 04:21:21.240 bicycle standpoint yeah just gonna briefly interrupt you here you're at 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 04:21:23.920 --> 04:21:30.080 individuals waiting online to start as well so to start checking in if we could 04:21:30.080 --> 04:21:36.860 skip forward three slides to the street profiles I'll try to rush through this 04:21:36.860 --> 04:21:42.800 it shows profiles of the sections of both Lakeview and Shady Shores are we on 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 04:21:47.600 --> 04:21:51.560 there is a variable width right away along Shady Shores but I hope I've 04:21:51.560 --> 04:21:56.760 adequately described the fact that we're trying to positively change the profile 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 04:22:01.840 --> 04:22:05.960 pointed out is the fact that along Lakeview there's a very wide right-of-way 04:22:05.960 --> 04:22:12.800 section in addition to the buffer section and in fact there's about a 47 04:22:12.800 --> 04:22:19.080 foot setback of the building rather than the 20 foot setback effectively there's 04:22:19.080 --> 04:22:25.440 a 47 foot setback of the buildings along Lakeview which enables us to get our two 04:22:25.440 --> 04:22:31.520 rows of trees in there without it looking cramped or cluttered our amenity 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 04:22:36.240 --> 04:22:41.460 amenity areas obviously we intend to build the finest quality that's been 04:22:41.460 --> 04:22:47.240 built in Denton our resident profiles very important and that was one of the 04:22:47.240 --> 04:22:51.800 questions that the residents asked and we likened this and and really looked at 04:22:51.800 --> 04:22:57.560 the comparison of our rental rate at about $1,200 to $1,750 a month which 04:22:57.560 --> 04:23:04.920 equates to approximately the purchase of a $250,000 house it does not though 04:23:04.920 --> 04:23:10.280 include the extra tax burden on a single-family residence purchase so 04:23:10.280 --> 04:23:14.400 that's what we're really looking at is reality I've described the type of 04:23:14.400 --> 04:23:20.240 residence we have average age around 37 married residents about eight roommates 04:23:20.240 --> 04:23:25.680 potentially around six but the majority are single residents or young married 04:23:25.680 --> 04:23:30.160 couples that are starting their professional life we've all been at that 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 04:23:35.560 --> 04:23:39.200 goals that I read about in the record Chronicle the other day was how do we 04:23:39.200 --> 04:23:44.360 keep our young professionals here how do we create those opportunities and housing 04:23:44.360 --> 04:23:50.280 options to keep those young professionals here to become a part of development I 04:23:50.280 --> 04:23:56.440 hope that we have answered we endeavored to answer the residents questions we had 04:23:56.440 --> 04:24:01.160 three great meetings we tried to definitively answer all questions at the 04:24:01.160 --> 04:24:07.200 end of our last meeting we heard no more questions so stand ready to answer any 04:24:07.200 --> 04:24:13.960 questions at this point thank you for the presentation anyone have any 04:24:13.960 --> 04:24:20.520 questions start out I don't see the first one I had you just mentioned that 04:24:20.520 --> 04:24:24.240 you said the dinner I her chronic will talk about keeping people in Denton and 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 04:24:27.960 --> 04:24:31.720 planning on keeping them in Denton you're not providing jobs for them so 04:24:31.720 --> 04:24:37.720 can you help me understand that actually it's a connection with the fact that 04:24:37.720 --> 04:24:44.000 remote working is now a real part of a lot of millennial and young lives as 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 04:24:48.880 --> 04:24:53.560 permanently but I think a lot of those young professional jobs are translating 04:24:53.560 --> 04:24:59.200 to permanent off-site work remote working opportunity the fact that we are 04:24:59.200 --> 04:25:03.680 putting so much into our technology we really think we're providing the best 04:25:03.680 --> 04:25:07.760 launch pad for that in order to keep those folks within the Denton area and 04:25:07.760 --> 04:25:12.040 not have them burning up the road as you described in the work session south 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 04:25:18.000 --> 04:25:22.120 point about burning up the road your initial slide was that all multifamily 04:25:22.120 --> 04:25:26.760 living is our multifamily is not created equal and that you're creating an urban 04:25:26.760 --> 04:25:32.120 living work environment but ran to a quick Google Maps the closest grocery 04:25:32.120 --> 04:25:37.280 store is 3.6 miles away it's a Kroger Albertsons 3.4 miles away the 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 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 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 04:25:53.160 --> 04:25:56.640 directly to quick trip so you mentioned the important looking at reality versus 04:25:56.640 --> 04:26:00.480 perception I'm wondering how you're not creating us burning up the road when no 04:26:00.480 --> 04:26:07.040 one can walk to anywhere in your urban living creation well I think that you 04:26:07.040 --> 04:26:11.000 have to look at balance and everything and I'd like to address your your first 04:26:11.000 --> 04:26:15.480 question with my last slide if I could Karina would you put the development 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 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 04:26:38.960 --> 04:26:44.160 much mr. Roselle and answer your question this is the development history 04:26:44.160 --> 04:26:50.280 our owner has owned this project for more than five years our owner is one of 04:26:50.280 --> 04:26:56.160 the most noted retail developers in Texas he's probably done more target 04:26:56.160 --> 04:27:01.140 anchored retail centers of large scale I know that they've created over 15 04:27:01.140 --> 04:27:06.840 million square feet of retail and if retail was a reality here they're the 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 04:27:11.960 --> 04:27:17.880 and their capability but here was the reality of the site the original concept 04:27:17.880 --> 04:27:22.840 was a program burger spent over four hundred thousand dollars in due 04:27:22.840 --> 04:27:28.280 diligence cost and then terminated any interest in the project and abandoned it 04:27:28.280 --> 04:27:32.240 they felt like there were restricted environmental conditions they felt like 04:27:32.240 --> 04:27:37.680 there was a lack of residential density it just didn't fit their model and they 04:27:37.680 --> 04:27:41.840 couldn't make it work after spending almost half a million dollars the site 04:27:41.840 --> 04:27:46.920 was presented to many other retail grocers who all declined for similar 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 04:27:53.760 --> 04:28:00.960 at is lower impact it does serve to provide housing alternatives for other 04:28:00.960 --> 04:28:06.240 people that we are trying to retain and attract to not only Denton but any city 04:28:06.240 --> 04:28:11.960 and it does act as the appropriate buffer between the density residential 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 04:28:18.920 --> 04:28:25.480 adjacent owned by the same team and they do have opportunity and intent to try to 04:28:25.480 --> 04:28:32.840 attract retail across shady shores along and close to the northern perimeter of 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 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 04:28:46.760 --> 04:28:53.720 able to be delivered Grover terminated the negotiations and abandoned the 04:28:53.720 --> 04:28:59.620 site I hope that answers the question about the history and and the 04:28:59.620 --> 04:29:04.720 opportunity for retail it definitely answers the the question about this the 04:29:04.720 --> 04:29:09.400 history of the property it doesn't necessarily address how you believe that 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 04:29:14.800 --> 04:29:21.480 anything but car dealerships is urban living well being the proud owner of a 04:29:21.480 --> 04:29:26.440 lot of retail myself co-tenancies come into play and unless you can assemble a 04:29:26.440 --> 04:29:33.400 large co-tenancy contingent and you're going to be basically putting in fast 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 04:29:38.280 --> 04:29:43.920 know there is a need for a competent retail development within the area but 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 04:29:49.920 --> 04:29:54.480 would require right off the bat left-hand turn in and left-hand out on 04:29:54.480 --> 04:30:00.120 Lakeview I just think they've made the conscious decision to abandon that 04:30:00.120 --> 04:30:04.640 opportunity here and work on that south side over there which is going to be 04:30:04.640 --> 04:30:11.320 more appropriate for retail thank you very much for that answer so any 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 04:30:20.800 --> 04:30:24.480 public hearing is turn it over to those who've been waiting patiently to talk 04:30:24.480 --> 04:30:28.560 beforehand I have this little script to read for this item we have four people 04:30:28.560 --> 04:30:31.800 make comments using our online form there were two in support of this item 04:30:31.800 --> 04:30:36.000 and two against all these common forms are emailed to the commissioners and our 04:30:36.000 --> 04:30:39.560 city secretary to be recorded additionally there was one person who 04:30:39.560 --> 04:30:45.160 called into our phone and their position was against the item and then finally we 04:30:45.160 --> 04:30:49.800 have four people who have been waiting on the line to speak I think they're 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 04:30:55.440 --> 04:30:58.920 unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record you'll be given 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 04:31:09.080 --> 04:31:16.560 UNT and I just recently relocated to the Denton area I lived in the Richardson 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 04:31:21.840 --> 04:31:27.040 relocate my family to this development was it was on the south edge of the 04:31:27.040 --> 04:31:33.120 city it was outside of the urban crawl and other than a couple of high density 04:31:33.120 --> 04:31:39.040 developments along shady shores it's it's pretty much a quiet and peaceful 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 04:31:45.600 --> 04:31:51.120 is is that the HOA of our neighborhood is not representing the citizens they 04:31:51.120 --> 04:32:00.200 have left it up to us individually to oppose or support the proposed rezoning 04:32:00.200 --> 04:32:06.680 of this area so your positive meetings that the developer had with certain 04:32:06.680 --> 04:32:11.440 members of our board does not resonate with what's going on in our internal HOA 04:32:11.440 --> 04:32:18.000 discussions on Facebook unfortunately I I wish more people would have publicly 04:32:18.000 --> 04:32:23.280 spoken and oppose this development because the traffic already along the 04:32:23.280 --> 04:32:29.280 shady shores Lake U heading up to the I-35 service road is it's pretty 04:32:29.280 --> 04:32:36.000 horrible during the commute times I commute up to the university every day 04:32:36.000 --> 04:32:42.360 commute home every day and I cannot tell you how many times I've almost been 04:32:42.360 --> 04:32:47.080 accidentally hit on the I-35 service road if I go the shady shores route 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 04:32:51.580 --> 04:33:00.360 the access road to avoid that blind corner putting in 300 plus high density 04:33:00.360 --> 04:33:07.520 units on this property is only going to exacerbate that problem and listening to 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 04:33:10.520 --> 04:33:15.400 signals in this area putting street parking along shady short is not gonna 04:33:15.400 --> 04:33:25.880 help with the congestion along that area the commute for me is is hair-raising 04:33:25.880 --> 04:33:30.920 coming in and out of the neighborhood actually I ride my bike on a weekly 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 04:33:37.120 --> 04:33:41.800 coming along Lakeview by the train tracks there because it's a very busy 04:33:41.800 --> 04:33:48.080 area I tried to gain access to the traffic reports I put in a public 04:33:48.080 --> 04:33:52.320 request for information on that and I have not received that yet and from what 04:33:52.320 --> 04:33:57.960 I understand from reading your notes that this is all pre-COVID as far as the 04:33:57.960 --> 04:34:04.200 analysis goes there have been additional houses built back in our development not 04:34:04.200 --> 04:34:09.160 only in the last phase but in other phases that have increased the traffic 04:34:09.160 --> 04:34:16.080 in the area beyond what I'm sure is represented within that report things 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 04:34:22.680 --> 04:34:27.400 half cars per these 300 departments you're putting another 500 cars through 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 04:34:33.960 --> 04:34:36.880 that horrible to come through that intersection the traffic that comes 04:34:36.880 --> 04:34:42.600 along shady shores coming to where they either go straight on to I-35 North or 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 04:34:47.680 --> 04:34:53.200 incredible it's backed up every morning it's backed up on Lakeview it's backed 04:34:53.200 --> 04:34:58.000 up at the signals of 35 and that additional congestion is only going to 04:34:58.000 --> 04:35:04.920 get worse with adding these additional units at this property mr. Smith I 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 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 04:35:16.360 --> 04:35:21.360 for you if you were told this property was to develop with something not to be 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 04:35:27.600 --> 04:35:34.800 this side of 35 and I disagree with the developer by putting in retail there we 04:35:34.800 --> 04:35:39.520 need some grocery stores some restaurants some stuff that's closed if 04:35:39.520 --> 04:35:44.460 you put in 300 apartments there there's nowhere there there's nowhere for them 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 04:35:47.760 --> 04:35:52.040 more trying to get access to stuff that I'm already accessing you know four or 04:35:52.040 --> 04:35:56.880 five miles away at either one of the Kroger's or the the Albertsons that 04:35:56.880 --> 04:36:02.760 south on 35 so I would like to see some sort of retail development or something 04:36:02.760 --> 04:36:09.200 like townhomes that is more low density and less traffic for the area I 04:36:09.200 --> 04:36:17.960 appreciate that answer mr. Beck can I can I ask the caller mr. Smith where do 04:36:17.960 --> 04:36:24.160 you shop just out of curiosity in that in that neighborhood I'm either up off 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 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 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 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 04:36:48.240 --> 04:36:52.020 minimum mr. Smith sorry Commissioner Beck real fast you ever go down to the 04:36:52.020 --> 04:36:57.760 Albertsons down in Corinth I actually have just recently found that so but 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 04:37:04.360 --> 04:37:09.320 had places that were you know three blocks away and that did not increase 04:37:09.320 --> 04:37:12.940 the traffic in our neighborhood and it's much higher density than what we have 04:37:12.940 --> 04:37:17.260 here on the south side of Denton yeah sorry Commissioner Beckett is you saw 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 04:37:22.160 --> 04:37:27.600 it was completely a nice follow-on thank you chair any other questions for mr. 04:37:27.600 --> 04:37:33.880 Smith seen none I just want to thank the caller have a good night the next 04:37:33.880 --> 04:37:38.240 individual we have waiting for us is Christie Shiflett I believe she is also 04:37:38.240 --> 04:37:44.040 on zoom she can unmute herself and then say name and address for the record and 04:37:44.040 --> 04:37:47.800 then you'll be provided four minutes thank you my name is Christie Shiflett 04:37:47.800 --> 04:37:53.840 that address is 7612 Hinkley Oak Drive and Denton and that's in the preserves 04:37:53.840 --> 04:38:00.640 I've spent quite a bit of time looking over our Denton 2030 plan and keep 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 04:38:06.680 --> 04:38:10.940 is to enhance our community character and promote functionality and this 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 04:38:16.480 --> 04:38:21.600 out back in this area there is no walkable retail anywhere we heard this 04:38:21.600 --> 04:38:26.240 was going to be a Kroger in the entire neighborhood like me was saying this is 04:38:26.240 --> 04:38:30.320 a great idea any type of retail where our children can have a part-time job 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 04:38:35.800 --> 04:38:41.380 to work would be ideal but I'm gonna have to disagree with the development 04:38:41.380 --> 04:38:44.920 history where he's talking about the money that Kroger put into that area and 04:38:44.920 --> 04:38:49.600 that was five years ago he kind of canceled himself out talking about 04:38:49.600 --> 04:38:53.480 having more remote workers well yes we have a lot of remote workers in our 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 04:38:59.280 --> 04:39:03.800 the grocery store or go for a walk on your lunch break to grab food because 04:39:03.800 --> 04:39:09.360 there's nothing walkable we have no option of a walkable Denton if you use 04:39:09.360 --> 04:39:13.760 this land to put more apartments there's already two apartment complexes there 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 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 04:39:25.240 --> 04:39:27.880 Denton someday 04:39:27.880 --> 04:39:34.640 ms. Shifflett I appreciate you calling in no need to be nervous is any is 04:39:34.640 --> 04:39:42.480 anyone have any questions I kind of want to echo Commissioner Beck's questions 04:39:42.480 --> 04:39:46.800 out of curiosity where's your grocery store of choice you don't have the name 04:39:46.800 --> 04:39:50.440 but if you just have a location I actually do a lot of shopping at Whole 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 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 04:40:00.320 --> 04:40:06.200 about one of those small whether it be Trader Joe's or Whole Foods or Central 04:40:06.200 --> 04:40:08.680 Market somewhere like that do you know how much money people in this 04:40:08.680 --> 04:40:13.280 neighborhood spend at stores like that that aren't in Denton and Denton doesn't 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 04:40:19.080 --> 04:40:25.520 great for our community and it would be ideal to have a smaller grocery store 04:40:25.520 --> 04:40:31.320 like that I appreciate your insights I hope you have a good night thanks for 04:40:31.320 --> 04:40:37.400 hanging out just late the next step is hope I pronounce this correctly lessel 04:40:37.400 --> 04:40:42.600 Herrera if you could just unmute and then say your name and address you'll have 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 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 04:40:54.960 --> 04:41:02.840 at 4725 which would be in direct view of the proposed multi-unit development I am 04:41:02.840 --> 04:41:07.360 not only concerned about the quality of life safety security but also the value 04:41:07.360 --> 04:41:12.120 of homes in my neighborhood I personally am in the real estate industry and and 04:41:12.120 --> 04:41:16.920 have knowledge of that I'm also very concerned about the capacity of our 04:41:16.920 --> 04:41:21.240 current elementary and middle schools after speaking with several local real 04:41:21.240 --> 04:41:25.240 estate agents that actively sell in our neighborhood they have warned that 04:41:25.240 --> 04:41:29.400 property values will be negatively affected by a multi-unit property like 04:41:29.400 --> 04:41:33.920 this in our area in direct view they cautioned that a decrease in property 04:41:33.920 --> 04:41:39.280 value would occur and cause negative effects being as much as double digit 04:41:39.280 --> 04:41:44.780 percentages besides it hurting us as homeowners the city will also be in 04:41:44.780 --> 04:41:50.520 effect because of property taxes the schools that the preserve our zone for 04:41:50.520 --> 04:41:55.200 are already in portable classroom units because of dealing with capacity issues 04:41:55.200 --> 04:42:01.680 recently another concern that has been brought up is traffic the bottom line is 04:42:01.680 --> 04:42:07.040 there's already an issue with traffic most days when my child goes off to 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 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 04:42:17.560 --> 04:42:21.200 that they would even consider putting something like this in before that has 04:42:21.200 --> 04:42:25.680 been dealt with adding 300 more residents will make it a nightmare and 04:42:25.680 --> 04:42:29.940 our neighborhood is not being is not finished being developed homes are still 04:42:29.940 --> 04:42:34.720 being built and it's already a mess there are many more negatives and 04:42:34.720 --> 04:42:40.560 positives associated with this proposed development I encourage you to vote no 04:42:40.560 --> 04:42:46.520 we already have two apartments in close proximity of here and we have no retail 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 04:42:52.880 --> 04:42:57.560 our money and tax dollars and other communities that are not benefiting from 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 04:43:03.160 --> 04:43:08.440 moms and pops or low-volume retail and what one of my other neighbors mentioned 04:43:08.440 --> 04:43:13.760 a smaller more whole foods sprouts type grocery store that we don't already have 04:43:13.760 --> 04:43:19.360 I think would highly benefit the residents in our neighborhood as well as 04:43:19.360 --> 04:43:25.040 the other surrounding neighborhoods I would encourage all of you to vote 04:43:25.040 --> 04:43:32.280 against this and really consider the residents and in our neighborhood I want 04:43:32.280 --> 04:43:35.080 to thank you for your time 04:43:35.080 --> 04:43:44.880 I'll mute sorry Liesl thanks for waiting and and speaking your perspective 04:43:44.880 --> 04:43:50.400 Commissioner Smith thank you chair thank you Lisa for being on I actually have a 04:43:50.400 --> 04:43:55.880 question for you but I do yes Rena thank you very much one other thing I 04:43:55.880 --> 04:43:59.720 would like to mention because y'all asked everybody else but me about where 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 04:44:06.000 --> 04:44:09.660 dollars aren't going to Denton town to Denton they're going to Flower Mound and 04:44:09.660 --> 04:44:14.040 Highland Village because that's where the Whole Foods the sprouts and the bigger 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 04:44:19.680 --> 04:44:24.720 appreciated and yeah I think we hear your here your concerns so thank you 04:44:24.720 --> 04:44:28.880 very much for coming on thanks Lisa Karina can I ask you a quick question 04:44:28.880 --> 04:44:31.760 and and I know this is something that Commissioner Beck asked a little bit 04:44:31.760 --> 04:44:36.880 earlier how go back and try to get the car before the horse on anything but 04:44:36.880 --> 04:44:42.920 what would be the difference you did talk about some of the the environmental 04:44:42.920 --> 04:44:48.600 sensitivity and environmental impact when you're talking about this SCP so and I 04:44:48.600 --> 04:44:51.840 and maybe another Commissioner can remind me whatever we voted on this is a 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 04:44:56.760 --> 04:45:01.360 see a lot of projects what would the difference in the environmental impact 04:45:01.360 --> 04:45:05.360 analysis that would be need to be done for a commercial property like this a 04:45:05.360 --> 04:45:09.400 commercial property or retail property how would it differ from this apartment 04:45:09.400 --> 04:45:16.480 complex so speaking to the tree preservation is is really what would 04:45:16.480 --> 04:45:21.960 affect the development of whatever would come in so I would I would say 04:45:21.960 --> 04:45:26.920 regardless of the type of development there whatever would come in would be 04:45:26.920 --> 04:45:32.600 really significantly limited by the current ESA and floodplain so I'm not 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 04:45:36.480 --> 04:45:41.320 that back up that had the grouping and then the rip by period of numbers that 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 04:45:52.520 --> 04:45:55.500 is then striking earlier when we were going through to work session as we've 04:45:55.500 --> 04:46:02.800 talked then we had presentation for just how big of a true definitely and so so 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 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 04:46:12.800 --> 04:46:21.280 roughly 50% of this property the current developer is proposing one lot it's 04:46:21.280 --> 04:46:28.720 really three three or five tracks if you count these small little insets but in 04:46:28.720 --> 04:46:33.280 order for the tree preservation to be met really what they're showing on the 04:46:33.280 --> 04:46:37.960 easternmost part of the site that is really the only developable area on this 04:46:37.960 --> 04:46:43.400 property I take that back because really they could develop on on the 04:46:43.400 --> 04:46:48.880 western westernmost portion but they are limited they could they could not 04:46:48.880 --> 04:46:54.240 encroach into this larger area so they're maximizing their site with them 04:46:54.240 --> 04:47:00.360 the multifamily commercial could come in it would just depend on whatever site 04:47:00.360 --> 04:47:05.720 layout would come in essentially because there is a lot of tree canopy on the 04:47:05.720 --> 04:47:11.080 site and although that cross timbers upland habitat was removed there are 04:47:11.080 --> 04:47:14.720 significant tree removals that would need to occur in order for development 04:47:14.720 --> 04:47:22.140 to come in so tree preservation meeting that minimum 30% is something that would 04:47:22.140 --> 04:47:25.920 need to be considered I wouldn't say that it's not possible because we were 04:47:25.920 --> 04:47:29.960 obviously able to make this happen with the current development but that would 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 04:47:35.360 --> 04:47:42.140 site depending on what commercial type development came in that would dictate 04:47:42.140 --> 04:47:45.160 the type of parking or the amount of parking that would come in so there's 04:47:45.160 --> 04:47:49.460 there's a lot of I guess it would cascade down the cascading requirements 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 04:47:56.560 --> 04:48:00.360 will come in I'm not sure if that answered your question fully yeah I know 04:48:00.360 --> 04:48:03.440 while you're talking I was doing some other just just tinker around because 04:48:03.440 --> 04:48:07.180 basically you're looking at you're saying that the that ESA is about that 04:48:07.180 --> 04:48:11.320 whole area that that border orange area is about 50% so you're talking about 10 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 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 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 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 04:48:30.380 --> 04:48:35.960 two one sees the line in Texas I just wanted to look at a comparison and 04:48:35.960 --> 04:48:41.320 briefly find it usually you can we're looking at a residential I pulled these 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 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 04:48:51.480 --> 04:48:54.920 really is something that and I'm thinking that's easily lane one just 04:48:54.920 --> 04:49:00.360 because that seems pretty you know comparable of an area of saying that 04:49:00.360 --> 04:49:03.200 this is something that could be happening there and I get it we're 04:49:03.200 --> 04:49:06.240 talking about an SCP for an apartment we're not talking about grocery stores 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 04:49:10.960 --> 04:49:16.560 done in the first place before we go through and start declining somebody for 04:49:16.560 --> 04:49:21.960 maybe an SCP seeing if there really is some feasibility and some merit to what 04:49:21.960 --> 04:49:26.440 the neighborhood to bring up so Kirsten Smith if I could add a suggestion if 04:49:26.440 --> 04:49:31.040 there's a request for kind of a live acreage for Kroger if that's possible 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 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 04:49:41.640 --> 04:49:47.680 roughly 83,000 square feet both the land and then the store itself building area 04:49:47.680 --> 04:49:51.200 for this property is roughly 93,000 square feet so just to give you that 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 04:49:55.800 --> 04:50:01.400 on and stop babbling on about I appreciate the compliment yeah we can go 04:50:01.400 --> 04:50:05.360 to the last caller there sure I'm sorry but thank you Richard Richard he said 04:50:05.360 --> 04:50:09.360 the the build that's proposed is 93,000 square feet that's the footprint not 04:50:09.360 --> 04:50:12.200 total square footage right correct so I was just looking at building footprint 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 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 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 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 04:50:31.040 --> 04:50:37.720 invite Alan Kerber to speak if he just unmute himself and then say his name and 04:50:37.720 --> 04:50:42.760 address he would have four minutes to give his perspective on the matter 04:50:42.760 --> 04:50:50.200 hi this is Alan Kerber can you hear me we can good evening fantastic again thank 04:50:50.200 --> 04:50:53.560 you for entertaining my thoughts here on this Alan Kerber I live here at the 04:50:53.560 --> 04:51:00.480 Preserves 7820 Aldersgate Lane echoing the sentiments of the people prior to 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 04:51:07.120 --> 04:51:12.880 close to things I've moved in from Springtown enjoy the area but I 04:51:12.880 --> 04:51:20.560 disagree and totally am against this apartment complex and I totally 04:51:20.560 --> 04:51:24.960 disagree with the comments made earlier one of your constituents said that Lake 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 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 04:51:38.320 --> 04:51:43.120 coming into major residential areas all the way up to Edwards Street which is 04:51:43.120 --> 04:51:47.040 about three and a half miles and then another mile and a half to two miles 04:51:47.040 --> 04:51:52.760 north of Edwards it's still major residential area and you're going to 04:51:52.760 --> 04:51:58.000 increase traffic on Lakeview and bringing it into the residential area and if 04:51:58.000 --> 04:52:04.800 they're using Lakeview North to migrate over into Denton they're going to be 04:52:04.800 --> 04:52:10.000 getting on Edwards and then hitting May Hill Road and you're only looking at one 04:52:10.000 --> 04:52:16.800 direction each way for traffic which will cause major problems with kids 04:52:16.800 --> 04:52:20.720 running around the neighborhoods on their bikes families walking their dogs 04:52:20.720 --> 04:52:29.000 on Edwards and and on Lakeview Boulevard when they're going north 35 as Tim said 04:52:29.000 --> 04:52:35.920 earlier mr. Smith we just recently had a major casual not casualty but an injury 04:52:35.920 --> 04:52:40.640 out there on on the bike trail right there where the railroad crossing is so 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 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 04:52:52.520 --> 04:53:00.000 access ramp off of Shady Shores if you decide to take that route versus the FM 04:53:00.000 --> 04:53:07.720 road that parallels 35 to get onto the northbound movement of traffic onto 35 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 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 04:53:17.400 --> 04:53:22.880 access and you've got to approximately drive three-quarters of a mile just to 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 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 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 04:53:42.320 --> 04:53:49.520 here with that there's just a major choke choke point there like we like the 04:53:49.520 --> 04:53:57.600 Boulevard I I think we need to put brick-and-mortar type of businesses in 04:53:57.600 --> 04:54:02.640 that area that's going to cater to the residents that are here now and the 04:54:02.640 --> 04:54:07.280 future homes and I definitely don't want my property values to go down on this 04:54:07.280 --> 04:54:15.280 and historically and my 55 years of living and living in over six homes and 04:54:15.280 --> 04:54:20.600 different homes across the United States I'm retired military guy 22 years and 04:54:20.600 --> 04:54:26.360 I've been in different cities different states and it seems as though when these 04:54:26.360 --> 04:54:32.280 when these apartment buildings go up your property values go down so I'm 04:54:32.280 --> 04:54:38.160 against it and I yield Alan perfect time in your four minutes was was closing so 04:54:38.160 --> 04:54:42.360 you kind of felt that first thanks for your service appreciate that very much 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 04:54:46.720 --> 04:54:54.080 go oh I got to drive up to outback all right out back to approximately three 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 04:55:01.400 --> 04:55:07.800 it was your grocery store choice I head on down to Teasley and Swisher very 04:55:07.800 --> 04:55:13.320 nicely got a nice super Walmart down there you've got Albertsons you got all 04:55:13.320 --> 04:55:19.400 kinds of little restaurants like you know chicken express so it's like 04:55:19.400 --> 04:55:23.640 everything's right there plus they built that community up very nicely because 04:55:23.640 --> 04:55:29.280 there's apartments there's homes people can walk to those area and stay off the 04:55:29.280 --> 04:55:34.920 roads but yet do their shopping and enjoy a dinner and not having to get out 04:55:34.920 --> 04:55:38.200 on the roads yeah I understand that unfortunately that area is not part of 04:55:38.200 --> 04:55:44.980 Denton so yeah well Alan I appreciate you calling in does anyone have 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 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 04:55:55.960 --> 04:56:00.780 anything from Karina yeah I was and I actually had one more question for the 04:56:00.780 --> 04:56:08.080 applicant after after kind of listening to you direct you want Karina or the 04:56:08.080 --> 04:56:19.240 applicant Karina first I'm sorry I'm muted I'm not finding the capability to 04:56:19.240 --> 04:56:25.240 share my screen for the the internet browser to show the interactive map I 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 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 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 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 04:56:47.160 --> 04:56:52.800 can thank you so the nice that you had the property listed for the last five 04:56:52.800 --> 04:56:57.200 years and you know original this was was rezoned in a way that you could go 04:56:57.200 --> 04:57:02.000 through and make this a grocery store can you give me some more back story why 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 04:57:06.960 --> 04:57:10.160 about it briefly earlier but I don't think I got details that I needed to 04:57:10.160 --> 04:57:17.760 understand contact sure happy to as I said the the history of the project is 04:57:17.760 --> 04:57:23.480 five years worth of attempts at development and Kroger did have it tied 04:57:23.480 --> 04:57:28.160 up for a good while and they abandoned it the developer did not abandon it Kroger 04:57:28.160 --> 04:57:31.880 just declined to pursue the site any further 04:57:31.880 --> 04:57:39.560 then talk I remember hearing that earlier but didn't didn't know why why 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 04:57:45.520 --> 04:57:50.080 basically listed for the developer the fact that they'd spent four hundred 04:57:50.080 --> 04:57:55.080 thousand dollars doing environmental civil and grading studies for the 04:57:55.080 --> 04:58:00.520 property traffic analysis and they just felt like that it was too restrictive of 04:58:00.520 --> 04:58:04.400 the site and the environmental conditions had a lot to do with their 04:58:04.400 --> 04:58:10.280 abandonment they didn't feel like there was enough residential density to serve 04:58:10.280 --> 04:58:15.120 a full service store in that location and they felt like the changes in 04:58:15.120 --> 04:58:21.120 shopping patterns and quite frankly all of the grocers have seen the change in 04:58:21.120 --> 04:58:26.040 shopping patterns and the business model we turn right around when Kroger 04:58:26.040 --> 04:58:31.160 terminated the developer offered the site to sprouts who said there are other 04:58:31.160 --> 04:58:37.520 stores were too close and this was not a site for sprouts they did contact other 04:58:37.520 --> 04:58:43.360 grocers who basically have quite honestly the grocers have pulled in 04:58:43.360 --> 04:58:48.040 their horns they're not near as aggressive for new locations and the 04:58:48.040 --> 04:58:55.480 fact that home delivery Amazon fresh all of the different opportunities to have 04:58:55.480 --> 04:59:01.200 food delivered to their locations it really began to take a big chunk out of 04:59:01.200 --> 04:59:07.240 the retail grocery business which was already at a very low margin and then 04:59:07.240 --> 04:59:14.560 about when did that conversation fall through about four years ago three and a 04:59:14.560 --> 04:59:21.120 half years ago okay and may also answer I believe mr. Becker or one of the 04:59:21.120 --> 04:59:27.560 gentleman maybe mr. Smith had a question about the TIA not serving the new growth 04:59:27.560 --> 04:59:34.800 the TIA projected through both 2023 and 2028 for growth and that was all 04:59:34.800 --> 04:59:42.520 analyzed as part of the TIA the grocery store question that was asked but Kroger 04:59:42.520 --> 04:59:47.040 now is the super Kroger in the marketplace about a hundred and twenty 04:59:47.040 --> 04:59:52.160 three thousand square feet trying to fit that on a ten acre side for the super 04:59:52.160 --> 04:59:59.280 store the gentleman mentioned Walmart Walmart takes 22 acres the dense the 04:59:59.280 --> 05:00:05.240 distance to the homes one I believe one lady did have a comment about seeing the 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 05:00:09.640 --> 05:00:15.480 Karina did their substantial tree cover in the 35 to 40 foot tall range 05:00:15.480 --> 05:00:24.320 separating the closest houses which are 485 feet from our closest building from 05:00:24.320 --> 05:00:32.040 the urban living area four hundred and eighty five feet away and in between are 05:00:32.040 --> 05:00:39.340 the additional buffer areas of trees we place the existing 40 foot tall tree 05:00:39.340 --> 05:00:45.280 cover and the dart line four hundred and eighty five feet property taxes there 05:00:45.280 --> 05:00:50.000 was some statement about these folks didn't pay property taxes this property 05:00:50.000 --> 05:00:55.640 pays almost a million dollars a year projected and had to learn property taxes 05:00:55.640 --> 05:01:02.440 so I wanted to make sure that was straight there is an opportunity here I 05:01:02.440 --> 05:01:08.320 think to work together we face the same opportunity when we did razor we 05:01:08.320 --> 05:01:12.760 actually built 380 there's an opportunity I think you already have 05:01:12.760 --> 05:01:19.240 about $81,000 that's been deposited in the reserve fund for that traffic signal 05:01:19.240 --> 05:01:24.520 we will certainly and have offered to pay our poor our portion of that and if 05:01:24.520 --> 05:01:29.640 there's a way we can help accelerate the building of the traffic signal that's 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 05:01:36.400 --> 05:01:42.640 nor did text not so we actually stepped up and privately built that 11 million 05:01:42.640 --> 05:01:48.080 dollar improvement so there's an opportunity there we think we were very 05:01:48.080 --> 05:01:53.600 open to working with city traffic to accelerate the placement of that signal 05:01:53.600 --> 05:01:59.720 because as you've seen and as staff has reiterated it's already operating at a 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 05:02:05.600 --> 05:02:09.520 there also have been other grocers that have been contacted with no real 05:02:09.520 --> 05:02:14.840 interest and the developer can certainly delineate that further but we've been 05:02:14.840 --> 05:02:19.880 through that many times are there other opportunities appreciate Rogers thank you 05:02:19.880 --> 05:02:25.880 very much appreciate that freedom do you have that GIS picture yes sir let me put 05:02:25.880 --> 05:02:48.840 it up right now and Richard you had the stats on that property again right just 05:02:48.840 --> 05:02:53.480 rounding up ten and a half acres again that's just the portion that the 05:02:53.480 --> 05:02:57.000 grocery store so it doesn't include those out parts those those commercial 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 05:03:02.880 --> 05:03:06.080 it was eighty three thousand square feet I think that those are the numbers I 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 05:03:13.760 --> 05:03:22.960 a half acres correct okay thank you and the some of those neighborhoods that are 05:03:22.960 --> 05:03:27.880 out there north of there that's the other Commissioner I know the preserve 05:03:27.880 --> 05:03:31.040 is this preserve is something that we voted on recently but I'm looking on 05:03:31.040 --> 05:03:35.680 Zillow there's a couple different dates I'm seeing like that maybe make it a 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 05:03:41.000 --> 05:03:46.000 increasing they built another segment of the neighborhood this year remember we 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 05:03:51.080 --> 05:03:55.460 still being built out yeah I believe that was Julie's project that just came 05:03:55.460 --> 05:04:01.040 through that was section J and K of the Preserve of Pecan Creek that was that 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 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 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 05:04:16.440 --> 05:04:25.920 for a second Chris or Cole thank you chair I yeah I remember the what five 05:04:25.920 --> 05:04:33.000 years ago well Kroger legitimately tried to put a store there and I remember one 05:04:33.000 --> 05:04:37.520 of the executives saying you know they flew up they threw in the town said you 05:04:37.520 --> 05:04:42.600 know didn't Texas is one of the worst municipalities we've ever done business 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 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 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 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 05:05:06.160 --> 05:05:09.800 your critical mat like Robeson they've been more in the grocery store for how 05:05:09.800 --> 05:05:13.960 many years but they don't have the critical massive population and all that 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 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 05:05:25.880 --> 05:05:30.080 of the executives said he would never do business didn't get so is it our 05:05:30.080 --> 05:05:34.800 fault I mean you know I hate to see an apartment complex there because we're 05:05:34.800 --> 05:05:40.160 just adding fuel to fire because like the chair said earlier I'm kind of 05:05:40.160 --> 05:05:45.260 feeling anxious and overwhelmed of all the rooftops that we're putting in this 05:05:45.260 --> 05:05:51.640 town with no infrastructure you know with not adequate infrastructure I don't 05:05:51.640 --> 05:05:56.560 know if we'll ever have if we will have adequate infrastructure because we're 05:05:56.560 --> 05:06:02.000 experiencing hyper growth we're growing and didn't like maybe three or five 05:06:02.000 --> 05:06:07.000 municipalities have grown in the United States ever you know we've been in the 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 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 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 05:06:28.680 --> 05:06:35.200 want to throw that out there Kroger made a legitimate shot and they were 05:06:35.200 --> 05:06:41.920 frustrated that they could not put a store so for what that's worth yeah 05:06:41.920 --> 05:06:45.840 thanks for that perspective I think Commissioner Ellis popped up her hand 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 05:06:50.720 --> 05:06:53.920 get with Commissioner Smith when he was talking about the preserve so if you 05:06:53.920 --> 05:06:58.160 haven't driven back through there I mean the preserve itself has been building 05:06:58.160 --> 05:07:04.000 out for decades it also bleeds into other neighborhoods Glenwood village 05:07:04.000 --> 05:07:08.560 villages of Carmel as you work back there it is truly one of the most 05:07:08.560 --> 05:07:15.920 densely populated home sites of our city and one thing we have to look at 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 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 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 05:07:31.280 --> 05:07:37.240 this site it's density of this monster that that really scares me here for sure 05:07:37.240 --> 05:07:44.600 with with all the problems that we do have already in that immediate area yeah 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 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 05:07:53.800 --> 05:07:58.840 if people were to come back and and have a conversation with you know Todd 05:07:58.840 --> 05:08:09.480 Christian Beck thank you chair is the applicant still on I imagine he is yes I 05:08:09.480 --> 05:08:13.640 am okay well so my question is would when you were approaching various retail 05:08:13.640 --> 05:08:19.720 agents did did you explore the possibility of like some of the retail 05:08:19.720 --> 05:08:24.600 around UNT where it's it's combined residential retail and in this sort of a 05:08:24.600 --> 05:08:29.480 partial question is staff in addition to the applicant is is that allowed in SC 05:08:29.480 --> 05:08:39.920 could you have retail on the bottom apartments on the top so let me ask mr. 05:08:39.920 --> 05:08:44.840 Hodges first yeah let me ask mr. Hodges first if you explored that we did 05:08:44.840 --> 05:08:49.280 explore it in fact we had several side plans and incorporated that we could 05:08:49.280 --> 05:08:53.900 never get enough critical mass of retail to make sense there's been a lot of 05:08:53.900 --> 05:08:59.720 vertically integrated mixed use that has failed and it's because you can't really 05:08:59.720 --> 05:09:05.780 develop enough critical mass of retail our residents won't generate enough to 05:09:05.780 --> 05:09:11.000 support that retail and the the fact that you have to come into the site and 05:09:11.000 --> 05:09:16.040 then share parking with another type of development it just didn't make sense to 05:09:16.040 --> 05:09:20.800 our developers and as I said now I'm the architect and the planner but our 05:09:20.800 --> 05:09:25.280 developers are some of the most successful retail developers anywhere in 05:09:25.280 --> 05:09:31.920 Texas they've done so many target anchored 15 million feet of retail they 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. 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 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 05:09:49.960 --> 05:09:54.720 getting back to the discussion of critical mass I think to really look at 05:09:54.720 --> 05:09:59.800 successful mixed use unless you're in a downtown densely very dense you know 05:09:59.800 --> 05:10:03.760 think of the square where you've got some some residential above you're you're 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 05:10:08.320 --> 05:10:16.000 get there okay thank you I appreciate that commissioner Smith thank you chair 05:10:16.000 --> 05:10:24.760 you did you did close public session yes to Commissioner Alice's point I have 05:10:24.760 --> 05:10:29.720 driven back there I've got clients back in the rural side of the East subject 05:10:29.720 --> 05:10:35.320 property and back in there towards the common Creek more anything else I was 05:10:35.320 --> 05:10:39.560 going to get some more evidence from what the applicant said you know four or 05:10:39.560 --> 05:10:42.640 five years ago that that conversation and following through in his chair 05:10:42.640 --> 05:10:46.600 Roselle's already said didn't change a lot in the last five years and especially 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 05:10:50.600 --> 05:10:54.000 and I have seen two or three different projects back in that area in the last 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 05:11:00.680 --> 05:11:04.120 much how much change has happened over there and maybe the change in 05:11:04.120 --> 05:11:11.040 marketability so with that said I'm gonna make a motion to the this SUV 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 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 05:11:22.360 --> 05:11:26.640 don't think an apartment complex should be this close to a highway like that yes 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 05:11:30.400 --> 05:11:35.160 apartment was fit into and with as much growth happening over there I just don't 05:11:35.160 --> 05:11:41.560 feel comfortable with that that location so I'm gonna make a motion to deny we 05:11:41.560 --> 05:11:46.640 have a motion on the floor commissioner Pernetta actually I wasn't making a 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 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 05:11:54.480 --> 05:11:58.480 do damned if you don't situation you know there is an apartment complex that I 05:11:58.480 --> 05:12:01.000 think that right it pretty much right across the street that same little area 05:12:01.000 --> 05:12:06.640 on there I know people are upset about the traffic but they're upset about the 05:12:06.640 --> 05:12:10.680 traffic but also wanting a grocery store there so I'm not really sure how you 05:12:10.680 --> 05:12:13.720 know an apartment complex versus a grocery store is gonna be significantly 05:12:13.720 --> 05:12:19.440 better for traffic and in the area and I'd be more comfortable you know maybe 05:12:19.440 --> 05:12:25.880 voting this down if we had something possibly coming in you know that would 05:12:25.880 --> 05:12:30.120 fill that need you know it feels like you know we would be turning down that 05:12:30.120 --> 05:12:35.400 this SUP saying we want a grocery store but there's nothing out there that's 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 05:12:40.520 --> 05:12:45.280 actually just there you know today you know I've gone to the animal hospital 05:12:45.280 --> 05:12:50.200 right down the street from in there's much car lots and everything it's not 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 05:12:54.920 --> 05:12:58.920 anybody putting a store in there that's going to have significant traffic where 05:12:58.920 --> 05:13:02.840 people aren't going to be going I hate going to this damn store because you 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 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 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 05:13:20.120 --> 05:13:26.160 an apartment complex in there but you know at the same time you know I feel 05:13:26.160 --> 05:13:29.040 bad about telling people you can't do something with this land with you with 05:13:29.040 --> 05:13:34.440 this property of yours we want something else to go there but but the thing that 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 05:13:42.280 --> 05:13:48.760 don't know I guess I'm not leaning toward disapproving the SUP or denying 05:13:48.760 --> 05:13:53.880 the SUP but having said that I don't feel great about approving it either this 05:13:53.880 --> 05:14:00.040 is just a weird little thorn in the side of development and actually you know 05:14:00.040 --> 05:14:05.680 putting something good there yeah we have a motion on the floor and so I'm 05:14:05.680 --> 05:14:10.200 looking for a second and then further discussion 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 05:14:18.860 --> 05:14:24.400 maybe comment on what Commissioner Pernetta was saying I mean all the 05:14:24.400 --> 05:14:28.160 discussion has been great about wanting a grocery store obviously we can't force 05:14:28.160 --> 05:14:32.280 that in there but it is good food for thought for those developers who might 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 05:14:39.720 --> 05:14:44.720 like the criteria that Corina put up there which was I think her number four 05:14:44.720 --> 05:14:50.680 for approval of how it impacts traffic and how it impacts utilities well we're 05:14:50.680 --> 05:14:55.760 negatively impacting traffic we are negatively impacting utilities because 05:14:55.760 --> 05:15:01.400 they are they have to do extensions and whatnot to even make this development 05:15:01.400 --> 05:15:07.680 work there we are also impacting negative property value for those direct 05:15:07.680 --> 05:15:12.840 houses not in the preserve as a whole in my opinion but in my professional 05:15:12.840 --> 05:15:17.040 opinion yeah if a house backs up to seeing a multifamily you are gonna lose 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 05:15:20.920 --> 05:15:25.840 a negative so approval of an SUP for me it shouldn't have these negative 05:15:25.840 --> 05:15:29.880 connotations with it we should be finding a reason that it should be 05:15:29.880 --> 05:15:33.920 approved that it doesn't have these negative impacts so that's that's my 05:15:33.920 --> 05:15:40.880 opinion for for seconding the denial. Thank you Mr. Ellis. Commissioner Anderson. 05:15:40.880 --> 05:15:45.560 Thank you chair yeah I was out there in the neighborhood yesterday as well for 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 05:15:50.160 --> 05:15:55.000 area or Pecan Preserve area and everybody I spoke with was against this 05:15:55.000 --> 05:16:01.320 project and they were all asking for grocery stores or retail but like the 05:16:01.320 --> 05:16:04.940 other commissioners have said we can't just sit there and wish upon it and it 05:16:04.940 --> 05:16:09.720 all of a sudden happens but Commissioner Ellis just said hopefully 05:16:09.720 --> 05:16:13.040 somebody's out there is listening or watching this and says hey they want a 05:16:13.040 --> 05:16:17.720 grocery store let's try to do something but that property again to what 05:16:17.720 --> 05:16:22.480 Commissioner Preneta said it's not the best property either I mean it's kind of 05:16:22.480 --> 05:16:28.320 hilly and the streets are horrible and I thought and again I'm going to vote 05:16:28.320 --> 05:16:33.520 against this project but the traffic is a big big thing and that's what 05:16:33.520 --> 05:16:39.080 everybody was talking about and it looked to me like they're gonna have to 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 05:16:42.680 --> 05:16:47.640 be and that's just gonna cause more congestion and there's already I mean 05:16:47.640 --> 05:16:50.240 the people are already talking about how bad the traffic is already I mean we 05:16:50.240 --> 05:16:53.600 heard we heard four callers a minute ago every one of them spoke about the 05:16:53.600 --> 05:16:58.080 traffic they're gonna have to tear up the roads to add sewage lines I mean 05:16:58.080 --> 05:17:01.240 there's no telling how many months believe me I've worked for the county 05:17:01.240 --> 05:17:05.360 government and I know how some sometimes projects get delayed and they're slow 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 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 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 05:17:19.520 --> 05:17:22.920 hearing all the people talk yesterday you know I think this is kind of a bad 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 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 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 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 05:17:41.360 --> 05:17:44.280 of tough so that's what I just want to say thank you 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 05:17:49.720 --> 05:17:54.440 before we get into the before the discussion I think that Commissioner 05:17:54.440 --> 05:18:01.080 Ellis Commissioner Preston said even Commissioner Anderson yeah it can I can 05:18:01.080 --> 05:18:04.640 retail or grocery stores go there immediately the cover the reason was 05:18:04.640 --> 05:18:09.000 having the conversation with Richard was in regards to is it feasible it's 05:18:09.000 --> 05:18:12.600 feasible is it is it plausible is it something that they're knocking down the 05:18:12.600 --> 05:18:16.000 applicant store to get get a commercial building out there commercial pad sites 05:18:16.000 --> 05:18:21.000 built tomorrow no they're not but the same time that doesn't mean that just 05:18:21.000 --> 05:18:26.520 because that's not an opportunity for them immediately if you've got an uneasy 05:18:26.520 --> 05:18:29.760 feeling about the opportunity is in front of you doesn't mean you have to 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 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 05:18:38.620 --> 05:18:43.560 something in my opinion this is more of a lateral move saying look I totally 05:18:43.560 --> 05:18:46.720 understand maybe an apartment would let you be able to develop this land faster 05:18:46.720 --> 05:18:51.240 God knows the city would love to have the tax base but there's some smart 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 05:18:54.680 --> 05:18:58.720 planning move in my opinion you know sometimes you got to have tough love and 05:18:58.720 --> 05:19:07.080 deny some things so that's that's my piece mr. Beck chair I have related 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 05:19:13.200 --> 05:19:19.520 place particular emphasis on the impacts of development on eases and the 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 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 05:19:32.320 --> 05:19:36.320 quality of life issue to have those kinds of resources in our town to have 05:19:36.320 --> 05:19:42.000 those green spaces in our town so but for quality of life you have the entire 05:19:42.000 --> 05:19:47.880 sort of section of this town saying their quality of life is diminished so I 05:19:47.880 --> 05:19:56.400 think it in terms of hitting the goals of the previous zoning we don't match 05:19:56.400 --> 05:20:02.880 the comprehensive plan and you know then you know for if we're going to disrupt 05:20:02.880 --> 05:20:08.040 an environmental region we should do it for something that it sort of is desired 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 05:20:13.600 --> 05:20:18.080 going to play one of our one of our goals off against the other it feels 05:20:18.080 --> 05:20:23.400 like this might be as Commissioner Smith said maybe maybe the wrong or 05:20:23.400 --> 05:20:29.800 inappropriate time for this so I'm also not going to support this Mr. Chairman 05:20:29.800 --> 05:20:38.360 that's Charles I just may I convey a message I got you certainly can the 05:20:38.360 --> 05:20:46.240 developer has contacted me and requested a table to reconsider the mixed use 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 05:20:56.960 --> 05:21:01.880 begin meetings as we have every week with the city immediately beginning next 05:21:01.880 --> 05:21:09.880 week yeah I appreciate the concession we do have a motion on the table that I 05:21:09.880 --> 05:21:14.640 think needs to be heard Commissioner Richard you had your hand up no the only 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 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 05:21:23.480 --> 05:21:26.440 obviously with with the site and it would take some time to I think for them 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 05:21:31.320 --> 05:21:34.600 case I would just recommend it be a date uncertain 05:21:34.600 --> 05:21:39.600 Christian Pernetta so you see after that effect I mean so would we still vote on 05:21:39.600 --> 05:21:43.040 this one or would we leave it to Commissioner Smith to withdraw his 05:21:43.040 --> 05:21:47.800 motion are we he would have to withdraw I would imagine Commissioner Smith 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 05:21:56.440 --> 05:22:01.080 use of commercial some sort of vertical mixed use of commercial on the front on 05:22:01.080 --> 05:22:05.120 the first floor and multifamily above it something along those lines where is the 05:22:05.120 --> 05:22:10.000 developer exactly what directions developer wind ahead well he didn't he 05:22:10.000 --> 05:22:13.480 didn't give me specific ratios but I understand that's what he wants to look 05:22:13.480 --> 05:22:17.560 at because it seems to be such a strong preference for any type of retail 05:22:17.560 --> 05:22:22.400 component although he's already planning on doing retail on the south track he 05:22:22.400 --> 05:22:27.520 wants to go back and see if there's any way possible to incorporate some retail 05:22:27.520 --> 05:22:35.800 that makes sense it has to make sense and do that on the first floor real 05:22:35.800 --> 05:22:40.480 quick I'm gonna interrupt through Commissioner Smith Richard if there is a 05:22:40.480 --> 05:22:44.080 denial and there's brought back mixed use is that a substantial change that he 05:22:44.080 --> 05:22:48.360 they could come back within a year they could I would probably make that 05:22:48.360 --> 05:22:51.520 determination and that it would be substantially different if there's a 05:22:51.520 --> 05:22:56.520 whole nother component to it that it's just not multifamily okay so they okay 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 05:23:03.240 --> 05:23:09.760 gonna withdraw my motion right the motion has been withdrawn for a denial 05:23:09.760 --> 05:23:14.440 Commissioner Smith make a motion to table the date on certain Christian 05:23:14.440 --> 05:23:24.640 pernetta I'll still get that motion Commissioner Ellis and so I guess I just 05:23:24.640 --> 05:23:28.720 have a question what are we tabling to to rehear this discussion on a 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 05:23:36.440 --> 05:23:42.520 be an entirely new request so I don't understand tabling an item that is not 05:23:42.520 --> 05:23:52.160 even I'm confused at what we're tabling Richard can you clarify or add 05:23:52.160 --> 05:23:56.680 clarification to Commissioner Ellis's point are that is the applicant able to 05:23:56.680 --> 05:24:02.200 come I mean with all the attachments of staff analysis site plan landscape that 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 05:24:09.720 --> 05:24:14.040 did something very similar with the Gavi ranch I think we came back a number of 05:24:14.040 --> 05:24:21.160 times they had requested postponements so we would just look at this as I don't 05:24:21.160 --> 05:24:24.080 think we would need to have them go through a whole new resubmittal of the 05:24:24.080 --> 05:24:28.240 application I think a lot of the analysis will just be updates but most 05:24:28.240 --> 05:24:33.840 likely again not seeing what they're proposing if they're gonna go vertical 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 05:24:36.920 --> 05:24:42.880 that we would just need to reevaluate the site more on it on the technical side 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 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 05:24:56.280 --> 05:25:00.080 differences and especially because the very next item is an Alt ESA that will 05:25:00.080 --> 05:25:05.920 no longer exist if we do this is that correct Richard it very well still could 05:25:05.920 --> 05:25:09.740 be there could be another you know additional modification to that to that 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 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 05:25:27.160 --> 05:25:32.240 right thank you okay Mr. Smith nature the reason why I 05:25:32.240 --> 05:25:35.560 would motion Commissioner Beck commissioner house is just from my my 05:25:35.560 --> 05:25:39.520 understanding and city staff can be more direct more than correct me but a 05:25:39.520 --> 05:25:44.680 denial for the SUP yes be material changes that be brought back but it 05:25:44.680 --> 05:25:49.600 seems to be cleaner in that there's not a process of having to do resubmission 05:25:49.600 --> 05:25:53.880 but rather just a reconfiguration of the currently submitted documents to have to 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 05:25:58.400 --> 05:26:02.120 smoother and easier process for the applicant be a smoother and easier 05:26:02.120 --> 05:26:06.520 process for city staff not to deal with a brand new submission if I'm wrong 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 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 05:26:14.960 --> 05:26:18.880 applicants going to do no matter what whether we deny or table the applicants 05:26:18.880 --> 05:26:21.360 get trying to make material enough changes to be able to come back with a 05:26:21.360 --> 05:26:25.800 new project so it makes sense so to me this seems like the easiest thing for 05:26:25.800 --> 05:26:32.760 time efficiency for staff I guess I'm sort of looking at it similar what we 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 05:26:37.080 --> 05:26:43.680 wanted to revise their application amend it prior to going to council I mean they 05:26:43.680 --> 05:26:48.520 they certainly could withdraw it and then resubmit it and so I think it's six 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 05:26:53.040 --> 05:26:56.600 something very similar with agave ranch 05:26:56.600 --> 05:27:03.920 Commissioner Ellis and I guess I mean I'm still a little bit confused though I 05:27:03.920 --> 05:27:08.160 mean agave ranch was pretty much the same iteration it was just different 05:27:08.160 --> 05:27:12.920 densities and so how we were breaking up that that rezoning component but then 05:27:12.920 --> 05:27:16.960 the development I mean this would have to be a substantially different project 05:27:16.960 --> 05:27:21.080 with all the discussion that I heard this evening and and the lack of support 05:27:21.080 --> 05:27:29.840 that I you know that that that this commission has so at any rate I'm 05:27:30.000 --> 05:27:37.840 sorry expressed it Chris are back thank you chair yeah I'm sort of where 05:27:37.840 --> 05:27:45.240 Commissioner Ellis is can we isn't it isn't it the most straightforward I mean 05:27:45.240 --> 05:27:50.080 I take Commissioner Smith's point and I want to be more gentle with this this 05:27:50.080 --> 05:27:56.000 developer and architect but isn't it the cleanest thing if you're coming back 05:27:56.000 --> 05:28:00.640 with a completely new concept to come back with a completely new concept I 05:28:00.640 --> 05:28:06.680 don't want to I don't want to necessarily you know add the complications 05:28:06.680 --> 05:28:10.160 that Commissioner Smith addressed but it feels like there's enough differences 05:28:10.160 --> 05:28:15.280 that we should we should do the denial and let them come back under the rules 05:28:15.280 --> 05:28:21.560 of the denial if that may be ours on just briefly this is untraditional but 05:28:21.560 --> 05:28:28.360 maybe it'd be helpful if you respond yes I think the thing that is important 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 05:28:32.960 --> 05:28:38.320 environmental analysis all of the tree preservation analysis and really gives 05:28:38.320 --> 05:28:43.600 us an opportunity to preserve the those important things and be able to very 05:28:43.600 --> 05:28:49.920 quickly analyze whether we can or cannot find a reasonable middle ground here and 05:28:49.920 --> 05:28:54.360 that's always our goal it always has been and we would like to we would 05:28:54.360 --> 05:28:58.560 request that the tabling move forward because we can move much more swiftly 05:28:58.560 --> 05:29:03.640 than starting and square one I appreciate that insight question back to 05:29:03.640 --> 05:29:07.680 your point I understood Richard to say it's basically six one half dozen of the 05:29:07.680 --> 05:29:13.680 other in terms of the legwork on the city side when processing it I take the 05:29:13.680 --> 05:29:16.920 applicant's point about with the workload on their end but it sounds like 05:29:16.920 --> 05:29:23.200 cities either way Christian Pernada and I was just gonna cover I guess kind of 05:29:23.200 --> 05:29:28.600 what Commissioner Smith and with you know Richard said and I mean my 05:29:28.600 --> 05:29:31.920 understanding is that it would you know no matter what it comes back to it would 05:29:31.920 --> 05:29:36.760 still be an SUP and that you know multifamily would be a component of that 05:29:36.760 --> 05:29:42.240 SUP as you know although there would be some kind of retail attached to it so 05:29:42.240 --> 05:29:47.440 you know I think there's enough similarity to kind of justify leaving it 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 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 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 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 05:30:11.480 --> 05:30:17.240 motion to table I would be seeking a denial on this project because it seems 05:30:17.240 --> 05:30:22.760 like it is innumerable the amount of different issues all of us have brought 05:30:22.760 --> 05:30:27.360 up everyone I think to a point has brought up something different about the 05:30:27.360 --> 05:30:34.880 complications of this project between traffic or utilities or desire from the 05:30:34.880 --> 05:30:40.720 neighbors it seems like prevailing to me is the issue of the actual residents on 05:30:40.720 --> 05:30:46.200 the property so unless there's a project at this point come back with with 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 05:30:53.520 --> 05:30:56.280 presentation we haven't talked about this at all elementary has a little bit 05:30:56.280 --> 05:31:00.800 of capacity but there is zero capacity for middle school and high school and so 05:31:00.800 --> 05:31:04.920 - I forget who said it earlier the word infrastructure it seems to be wholly 05:31:04.920 --> 05:31:08.560 lacking more people and I know Christian Burnett has said there's nothing like a 05:31:08.560 --> 05:31:11.880 grocery store coming to this area that might be true I'm hoping after five 05:31:11.880 --> 05:31:15.800 years I would at least want to re-explore that what I do know is as 05:31:15.800 --> 05:31:19.320 though I tend to be a commissioner and looking for the lesser of two evils in 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 05:31:23.240 --> 05:31:29.080 the last property in that area for the preserves to have something if this goes 05:31:29.080 --> 05:31:33.480 to an apartment and I understand that the applicant said the south parcel will 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 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 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 05:31:47.880 --> 05:31:52.400 all a better alternative to get more land productivity out of it I just think 05:31:52.400 --> 05:31:59.680 I would be I am more inclined to see this go to commercial property so the 05:31:59.680 --> 05:32:02.960 idea of putting retail on the first floor and then stacking residents on top 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 05:32:07.920 --> 05:32:11.720 where the citizens want this project to go I understand we can't tell Trader 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 05:32:15.920 --> 05:32:19.800 to say that there shouldn't be effort put forth either by this this owner or 05:32:19.800 --> 05:32:24.280 a new owner of the property to explore creatively how this gets done if they're 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 05:32:29.400 --> 05:32:33.960 centers in the exact same footprint with the exact same parking and it seems 05:32:33.960 --> 05:32:39.160 pretty easy now the economics of that I can't really speak into that it seems 05:32:39.160 --> 05:32:43.120 like there has been people who have passed on it but nevertheless as 05:32:43.120 --> 05:32:46.120 Commissioner Ellis said that's one of the most dense parts in our city so five 05:32:46.120 --> 05:32:50.800 years ago it seems like Kroger said that it wasn't densely populated again it 05:32:50.800 --> 05:32:54.600 seems like five years needs a revisit to the entire conversation of what that 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 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 05:33:05.040 --> 05:33:09.720 we have a second for that and so without any further discussion I think we should 05:33:09.720 --> 05:33:14.720 go ahead and hear that vote I'll do by roll call starting with 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 05:33:21.600 --> 05:33:39.480 you vote? Nay. Krister Anderson? Nay. Krister Ellis? Nay. Krister Cole? Nay. Krister Smith? Aye. 05:33:39.480 --> 05:33:47.480 Krister Pernetta? Aye. Chair is a nay. Motion fails 5-2. Chair will entertain 05:33:47.480 --> 05:33:54.240 another motion. Commissioner Smith? Make a motion to the deny. Commissioner Cole? 05:33:54.240 --> 05:34:00.600 Second. We have a first and a second to deny. Is there any discussion on this? 05:34:00.600 --> 05:34:05.600 Seeing none I'll call for a vote. Commissioner Beck? Aye. 05:34:05.600 --> 05:34:12.040 Commissioner Anderson? Aye. Commissioner Ellis? Aye. Commissioner Cole? Aye. 05:34:12.040 --> 05:34:19.840 Krister Smith? Aye. Krister Pernetta? Aye. Chair is also an aye. Motion carries 7-0 to 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 05:34:30.680 --> 05:34:37.080 conundrum here Richard do we go ahead and hear this and vote? I'm seeing nods 05:34:37.080 --> 05:34:44.360 from Cynthia. We would again yeah it's a recommendation. Yes sir. Can I maybe 05:34:44.360 --> 05:34:50.200 just a quick maybe two minute three minute recess I mean I could step away 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 05:34:54.800 --> 05:35:01.680 appreciate the suggestion I will cause call the meeting to recess at 948 be 05:35:01.680 --> 05:35:06.680 back by 952 please. Thank you for your patience I'm going to call back the 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 05:35:17.840 --> 05:35:22.440 going to open the public hearing and turn the floor over to Christy Upton and 05:35:22.440 --> 05:35:27.400 Christy if you could given the prior results do a maybe a high-level 05:35:27.400 --> 05:35:33.760 presentation I think that would be most beneficial for us. Absolutely. 05:35:36.720 --> 05:35:42.760 So good evening this is an alternative environmentally sensitive area plan and 05:35:42.760 --> 05:35:51.600 it is in regards to the project that you just discussed and the reason for this 05:35:51.600 --> 05:35:57.560 alternative AESA plan is for the construction of a retaining wall that 05:35:57.560 --> 05:36:04.360 would support the development. The AESA field assessment Corina went over that 05:36:04.360 --> 05:36:09.240 in the previous presentation so I'll just give you a little bit more 05:36:09.240 --> 05:36:15.560 highlight here there's a this stream is called Pecan Creek and there's the 05:36:15.560 --> 05:36:20.800 riparian buffers and the flip plane and the water related habitat that is all 05:36:20.800 --> 05:36:28.440 internet inter nested within this area all support the water quality and water 05:36:28.440 --> 05:36:36.240 quantity coming through this site and there is a permitted encroachment for 05:36:36.240 --> 05:36:43.560 the improvements to Shady Shores Road and that's in this area that's along 05:36:43.560 --> 05:36:48.960 Shady Shores they the applicant would need to remove some of the vegetation in 05:36:48.960 --> 05:36:54.400 order to construct the road and per the development code this is a permitted 05:36:54.400 --> 05:37:01.440 activity because staff it requires that the applicant restore that area to 05:37:01.440 --> 05:37:09.120 minimize erosion and promote the recovery of the ESA. So the proposed 05:37:09.120 --> 05:37:15.520 encroachments that are not permitted by the code is to remove some of the 05:37:15.520 --> 05:37:18.720 vegetation in order to construct these retaining walls that supports 05:37:18.720 --> 05:37:24.080 development and in order to construct the retaining walls the applicant would 05:37:24.080 --> 05:37:29.960 need to remove the understory and the some of the trees that are located 05:37:29.960 --> 05:37:36.320 within that riparian buffer zone that's 15 feet from the wall and in this 05:37:36.320 --> 05:37:42.200 temporary construction easement again it would result in some of that vegetation 05:37:42.200 --> 05:37:51.160 needing to be removed in order to to compensate for it and to restore the 05:37:51.160 --> 05:37:58.480 area and the applicant is going to is proposing to reseed with native grasses 05:37:58.480 --> 05:38:04.560 and to replace the damaged trees after construction they have identified that 05:38:04.560 --> 05:38:09.740 there would be 32 inches that would be removed and then they agreed that one 05:38:09.740 --> 05:38:14.000 year after the construction they would inspect the area and replace any dead or 05:38:14.000 --> 05:38:22.240 drying or dying trees that were found to have been damaged during the 05:38:22.240 --> 05:38:27.360 construction and the trees would be replaced at the mitigation rate per the 05:38:27.360 --> 05:38:37.880 the tree mitigation code and not always connected but that that seemed like a 05:38:37.880 --> 05:38:43.360 fair assessment to use the tree mitigation rate. There was one response 05:38:43.360 --> 05:38:49.920 of a favor you can see here in green and staff is recommending approval of the 05:38:49.920 --> 05:38:56.160 request with the land disturbances limited limiting the land disturbances 05:38:56.160 --> 05:39:03.760 as shown in the plan and then restoring the area per the plan with the seeded 05:39:03.760 --> 05:39:11.360 areas and then replacing the trees that were removed at the rate that the tree 05:39:11.360 --> 05:39:21.280 mitigation rate and then the one-year report that would upon approval provide 05:39:21.280 --> 05:39:27.480 for replacement of any further damaged trees and then the last two 05:39:27.480 --> 05:39:31.840 recommendations that environmental services typically recommends for 05:39:31.840 --> 05:39:42.320 ensuring that this is a successful plant and restoration and that's it. Are there any 05:39:42.320 --> 05:39:46.320 questions? Christy thank you for that great presentation we do have a 05:39:46.320 --> 05:39:49.520 question Commissioner Beck. Yeah thank you and I don't want to belabor this 05:39:49.520 --> 05:39:56.560 because all the reasons but something similar hopefully will come back 05:39:56.560 --> 05:40:00.920 because we're talking about the eastern part for development not the western 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 05:40:07.360 --> 05:40:22.160 I want education and and that is for the 747A8 does it matter this was the 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 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 05:40:32.760 --> 05:40:39.120 mobility plan? Any road on the mobility plan and the reason for that is is 05:40:39.120 --> 05:40:45.800 because you're you're not requiring you're requiring that applicant to build 05:40:45.800 --> 05:40:52.120 that road for for the community you know that road expansion would be for all 05:40:52.120 --> 05:40:58.080 community members so you're asking them to to build that road so equitably you 05:40:58.080 --> 05:41:05.280 wouldn't necessarily want to request them to request that that flexibility and 05:41:05.280 --> 05:41:12.600 alternative ESA plan for for a road that they have to build. Okay and this 05:41:12.600 --> 05:41:16.320 thank you that clarified that and I guess I should have started with you at 05:41:16.320 --> 05:41:22.920 the beginning so thank you and then this the second question is similar in the 05:41:22.920 --> 05:41:29.360 same section it seems to suggest that for erosion to the harm from erosion to 05:41:29.360 --> 05:41:36.160 be to be offset they have to improve it not just restore it is that correct? 05:41:36.160 --> 05:41:46.200 Are you still asking about the roadway? Whenever you modify an ESA it I think 05:41:46.200 --> 05:41:51.480 this section about the roadway was saying in order to do the erosion 05:41:51.480 --> 05:41:55.800 control maybe it is actually the retaining walls but in order to do that 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 05:42:00.920 --> 05:42:12.040 better? The COA specifically says restore to minimize erosion and to and to 05:42:12.040 --> 05:42:18.320 promote the recovery of the ESA so how that that actually is achieved I think 05:42:18.320 --> 05:42:24.840 is there there's going to be some some different ways and different means of 05:42:24.840 --> 05:42:31.240 getting there and it so it really kind of depends on the site depends on what 05:42:31.240 --> 05:42:38.400 is being proposed to be removed so I think there's just too many variables to 05:42:38.400 --> 05:42:42.840 try to cut it enough fair enough thank you I appreciate that that's all my 05:42:42.840 --> 05:42:49.360 questions thank you any other questions for Christy excuse me well I do want to 05:42:49.360 --> 05:42:53.000 say that for this item we had two people make comment using our online form those 05:42:53.000 --> 05:42:57.720 two individuals were in support of it they were not against it there's zero 05:42:57.720 --> 05:43:01.160 against it and all these common forms were emailed to the commissioners and 05:43:01.160 --> 05:43:07.120 our city secretary to record and with that I think I noted that the applicant 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 05:43:15.160 --> 05:43:19.480 you have any questions oh perfect there are others of us Charles is left okay 05:43:19.480 --> 05:43:23.400 well I appreciate you clarifying that is there any questions for the applicant 05:43:23.400 --> 05:43:29.760 okay great can I make a statement you absolutely can okay terrific my name is 05:43:29.760 --> 05:43:33.320 Michael Clark I'm with Winkleman and Associates I appreciate that opportunity 05:43:33.320 --> 05:43:40.520 6750 Hillcrest Plaza Suite 325 Dallas 75230 I know we had a lot of 05:43:40.520 --> 05:43:47.040 conversations and the previous case didn't go particularly well however if 05:43:47.040 --> 05:43:53.680 and I'm trying to formulate my words here if you saw fit to approve this 05:43:53.680 --> 05:43:59.520 action item what that would do is that would allow my client to know let me 05:43:59.520 --> 05:44:02.480 back up a minute let me say the different way we've worked very very 05:44:02.480 --> 05:44:07.680 diligently with staff with many many I don't use the word conflicting but many 05:44:07.680 --> 05:44:13.720 co-joined ordinances and rules and regulations to get to what we feel is a 05:44:13.720 --> 05:44:18.560 very minimal impact on this ESA an approval of this item would give my 05:44:18.560 --> 05:44:24.720 client the ability to know with with strong support that this is the limit of 05:44:24.720 --> 05:44:30.360 where we can develop so any subsequent site plans would have this limit defined 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 05:44:35.280 --> 05:44:38.600 ordinances we can with this minor variance and that would allow us to 05:44:38.600 --> 05:44:45.120 define this what is it the developed DIA and work with the with any revised site 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 05:44:50.680 --> 05:44:55.240 kind of counterintuitive to deny wanted to prove another but that would be very 05:44:55.240 --> 05:44:58.960 helpful for anybody further developing this to know that this is the limits of 05:44:58.960 --> 05:45:05.680 where you can go I appreciate that mr. Clark I would like to clarify on the 05:45:05.680 --> 05:45:11.200 city side either with Christy or Richard I didn't understand that to be the case 05:45:11.200 --> 05:45:18.320 that he presented just now that it would it hold true of other projects being 05:45:18.320 --> 05:45:35.000 brought forth can you clarify that well with the approval of this plan the the 05:45:35.000 --> 05:45:41.560 plan is not necessarily tied to the SCP so with the approval of this plan 05:45:41.560 --> 05:45:48.760 potentially the applicant could design as sites around this this limitation of 05:45:48.760 --> 05:45:56.200 of this alternative ESA plan and then proceed with the restoration that was 05:45:56.200 --> 05:46:01.960 proposed in the plan so as long as as the encroachments didn't increase and 05:46:01.960 --> 05:46:10.960 the the applicant is still proceeding with the same restoration plan I don't 05:46:10.960 --> 05:46:24.200 foresee that this approving this would would would cause for other impacts to 05:46:24.200 --> 05:46:30.880 other applications just allow for them to move forward yeah is is the as is an 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 05:46:37.960 --> 05:46:44.520 not proceed with the project or there's a change of ownership the ASA whole to 05:46:44.520 --> 05:46:52.440 the property is that correct that is correct maybe if you think of it in 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 05:46:58.760 --> 05:47:02.280 stayed with that with that property when they had to establish that second means 05:47:02.280 --> 05:47:07.040 of access as a result of fire to traverse that traverse that alt ESA 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 05:47:12.840 --> 05:47:19.720 would essentially do is fence in if you will that development impact area and 05:47:19.720 --> 05:47:25.840 then set the very the very absolute maximum limit that they could encroach 05:47:25.840 --> 05:47:32.120 into the ESA to build that retaining wall for the site so it would give them 05:47:32.120 --> 05:47:38.440 that boundary but again or or it could potentially if not it would could 05:47:38.440 --> 05:47:42.200 potentially if they didn't want to go for with the audience to shrink that 05:47:42.200 --> 05:47:46.000 development impact area and whether it would still be viable at that point that 05:47:46.000 --> 05:47:50.040 would be something they would have to determine I appreciate clarification I'm 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 05:47:56.600 --> 05:48:00.800 a little bit more conjoined that way but commissioner back you had your hand up 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 05:48:05.520 --> 05:48:09.560 Christie's point in the developers point that this would as Richard I believe said 05:48:09.560 --> 05:48:17.400 fence this in and provide a limit but there's there's were specific ESA 05:48:17.400 --> 05:48:22.720 encroachments caused by the layout of the buildings that they wanted to do and 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 05:48:27.600 --> 05:48:31.960 like a different alternative use and if they have a different building plan then 05:48:31.960 --> 05:48:38.040 they might need different encroachments and that would end up I wouldn't want to 05:48:38.040 --> 05:48:45.760 reduce the flexibility for a future development by having a restrictive ESA 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 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 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 05:48:59.320 --> 05:49:06.520 want to propose rather than use it as a fencing mechanism that would be my 05:49:06.520 --> 05:49:14.920 recommendation okay so having heard from the applicant I'm gonna go ahead and 05:49:14.920 --> 05:49:19.120 close the public hearing we can have further discussion or motion but it 05:49:19.120 --> 05:49:23.560 looks like I'm gonna go to Tim Smith commissioner Smith first 05:49:23.560 --> 05:49:28.720 but make a motion to the nine I agree with Commissioner Beck and chair Rizel 05:49:28.720 --> 05:49:34.640 that I think that just creates some sort of constriction that later on down the 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 05:49:38.200 --> 05:49:42.440 change to the all these stuff we come back around to it so I understand the 05:49:42.440 --> 05:49:48.280 applicants concerns that that a lot of work has been done if my original 05:49:48.280 --> 05:49:55.560 motion to table had been gone through motion to table but motion to deny so I 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 05:50:01.560 --> 05:50:05.640 don't understand all DSA without a development that to me doesn't make 05:50:05.640 --> 05:50:14.880 sense we have a first and a second for denial any discussion on this seeing 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 05:50:19.400 --> 05:50:26.560 gonna start with Commissioner Smith this time I Mr. Cole I coaster Ellis I 05:50:26.560 --> 05:50:35.760 Commissioner Anderson I Christopher Neta I commissioner Beck I chairs also an I 05:50:35.760 --> 05:50:43.160 motion to deny carry 7-0 that brings us to our concluding item item 6a to 05:50:43.160 --> 05:50:47.920 discuss the matrix as always I'm gonna toss this over to Richard and then to 05:50:47.920 --> 05:50:53.240 the dais for discussion Richard floors yours just quickly I know it's been a 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 05:50:58.640 --> 05:51:02.800 mobility plan discussion on both in terms of kind of where we are with the 05:51:02.800 --> 05:51:08.280 mobility plan as well as how it is amended I think that was the the initial 05:51:08.280 --> 05:51:11.920 question but I think it's also probably appropriate to talk about what kind of 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 05:51:15.920 --> 05:51:20.480 start but we'll we'll have that confirmed within within the next couple 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 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 05:51:32.480 --> 05:51:35.320 to give everyone the reference I know there was a question about 30-day 05:51:35.320 --> 05:51:43.760 extension and it's Texas local government code section 212.009 B - - we 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 05:51:51.120 --> 05:51:55.000 have it but just wanted to provide that provide that section to everyone the 05:51:55.000 --> 05:51:58.280 only other thing I just wanted to mention because I think it's we've had 05:51:58.280 --> 05:52:02.520 some interesting discussions more so I think on the comp plan and rezoning and 05:52:02.520 --> 05:52:07.440 even as it relates to a number of these rural residential designations that 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 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 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 05:52:25.880 --> 05:52:31.280 the selection of that RFP and ultimately that'll go to council for for decision 05:52:31.280 --> 05:52:36.520 but that is in the works and hopefully we will have somebody at least selected 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 05:52:40.600 --> 05:52:44.080 likely the first of the year so that will be coming back around and so I 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 05:52:47.360 --> 05:52:51.280 other utility plans and then again really taking a hard look at particularly 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 05:52:56.360 --> 05:53:01.880 RR because we annex them or are unincorporated are still unincorporated 05:53:01.880 --> 05:53:04.800 but we've given them an RR but really I think looking a little more 05:53:04.800 --> 05:53:09.520 strategically as as a city how we want to grow again ultimately I think that's 05:53:09.520 --> 05:53:14.160 just something that as a commission you'll have to make rec review and make 05:53:14.160 --> 05:53:18.600 a recommendation to council for ultimate decision but I think we're in for some 05:53:18.600 --> 05:53:25.760 long hopefully robust discussions and that's I'll leave it at that and I look 05:53:25.760 --> 05:53:32.040 forward to it thanks for the update Richard off the top on the matrix some 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 05:53:36.400 --> 05:53:44.200 discussion should lie this shady shores road thing is confounding we have a 05:53:44.200 --> 05:53:49.120 property owner who's trying desperately to develop a piece of land that has a 05:53:49.120 --> 05:53:55.080 or ESA all over it and apparently he owns the adjacent property across the 05:53:55.080 --> 05:54:00.120 road from Shady Shores I would be highly interested to see what we can do with 05:54:00.120 --> 05:54:04.160 that property owner to combine those lots and abandoned Shady Shores Road 05:54:04.160 --> 05:54:07.840 which is terrible to begin with because if we were to combine those two lots 05:54:07.840 --> 05:54:11.920 that would give the property owner significantly more land to develop on and 05:54:11.920 --> 05:54:16.160 give them frontage road to I-35 increases property value I see this as a 05:54:16.160 --> 05:54:21.360 win-win to get something that I think the residents the city all of us would 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 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 05:54:31.280 --> 05:54:35.320 sort of mitigation there but I would like to know the process of a city 05:54:35.320 --> 05:54:39.800 initiated reaching out to developer to see what we can do to actually get this 05:54:39.800 --> 05:54:45.120 project moving because I mean I really it seems like the developer wants to 05:54:45.120 --> 05:54:50.600 build there we have we have someone who's who's you know interested it seems 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 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 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 05:55:03.360 --> 05:55:08.320 discussion about some options with that property we heard tonight definitely 05:55:08.320 --> 05:55:11.920 definitely will and just to mention one of the one of the items that will 05:55:11.920 --> 05:55:17.280 eventually come back is as we discussed through through DC RC and go through the 05:55:17.280 --> 05:55:24.040 update to the DDC or cleanup is really including those procedures for 05:55:24.040 --> 05:55:28.600 abandonment or vacation of right away so so it is specifically outlined and it's 05:55:28.600 --> 05:55:33.080 a clear process within within the DDC and because we really don't don't have 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 05:55:38.000 --> 05:55:42.080 probably should be great thanks Richard any other items 05:55:42.080 --> 05:55:48.560 Chris Rebecca thank you chair Richard a number of people have reached out to me 05:55:48.560 --> 05:55:54.040 and said they they would like to have they know about the Arc GIS or maybe 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 05:55:57.400 --> 05:56:04.760 website can you tell if there's a list of development of properties under 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 05:56:08.280 --> 05:56:13.200 have that is there a public facing list that we could get because a number of 05:56:13.200 --> 05:56:17.000 people have asked me for the list they see the map they see the fine legend 05:56:17.000 --> 05:56:20.040 they can't read the legend they definitely can't manipulate the legend 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 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 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 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 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 05:56:50.120 --> 05:56:53.400 them integrated together and so we're in the those are just one of those items 05:56:53.400 --> 05:56:58.560 that we're continually doing but there is there is a component of the active 05:56:58.560 --> 05:57:02.880 projects map and I can I can forward that link that's a little different than 05:57:02.880 --> 05:57:08.840 the weekly submission that that is in a is in a spreadsheet essentially you can 05:57:08.840 --> 05:57:12.960 you can download it and it it'll give you every plat application that that's 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 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 05:57:24.000 --> 05:57:27.820 were asking me for so if you could share that with the Commission then I could 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 05:57:31.320 --> 05:57:36.560 would mind having the the active if you could show have someone show us how to 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 05:57:42.360 --> 05:57:46.200 trip fairly trivial the public could do I think they would appreciate that as 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 05:57:51.920 --> 05:58:03.040 three universities so any other items for the matrix great well done good 05:58:03.040 --> 05:58:07.840 meeting guys I will close it at 1018