Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Commission
work session for Wednesday, June 23rd, 2021.
Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call the meeting to order at 4.02.
The first item on the agenda this evening is to receive a work session report and hold
the discussion and give staff input regarding phase two of the Americans with Disabilities
Act ADA transition plan.
And I'll invite Stuart Birdseye to present.
Good afternoon, Chair and Planning and Zoning Commissioners.
I am Stuart Birdseye, the Assistant to the City Manager.
With me is Karen Zieman, a coordinator with our Parks and Recreation Department.
I'm going to share my screen really quick, and we will talk to you about phase two of
the ADA transition plan.
And what we hope to do is just briefly give you some background on what we're doing just
so that you're aware of kind of some planning efforts and some long-range things that we're
undertaking here.
What we're doing is phase two of the ADA transition plan is reviewing all city buildings, including
City Hall, where we are now, and associated park properties.
This includes playgrounds and trails.
You may be aware that in September of 2018, we did phase one, which was kind of the sidewalk
infrastructure.
So all of your sidewalks, corridors, curbs, ramps, pedestrian on the streets.
And so that was a little bit different scope.
But what we're doing today right now, what we're going through is we have a consultant
that is talking about our park properties in particular in our facilities.
Karen's going to take you through a couple of slides here, and then I'll get to talk
to you a little bit more about trails.
Good afternoon.
Phase two analysis is done by evaluation with a subcontractor of our Kimley-Horn Consultant
Group, Accessology.
They have began evaluating all facilities, which is including parking, accessible entrances,
and all interiors that employees or public would use.
It also includes the parks, which is building interior elements.
Again, parking, sidewalk trails, accessibility to those areas, and also all amenities.
That includes restrooms and concession stands, and playgrounds as well.
In the facility evaluations, all city facilities are evaluated.
It includes all the city halls, the fire stations, administrative offices, rec centers, outdoor
recreation sites.
And as you see, that includes athletic fields, restrooms, concessions, even bleachers.
So players, teens, public can have accessible amenities as well.
The city buildings at landfill, at EcoWorks, water distribution plants, development services,
and of course the police and service center, everything is evaluated to make sure that
it is compliant with the current standards.
When they go inside, they look for primary items, which are restrooms.
Of course the stalls, any showers that may be in their counter heights for customer service
desks, even down to the types of doorknobs or door entrances and see if they can be used
or not.
Stuart's going to talk about the trails for a minute.
Perfect.
So I've been out with a contractor evaluating the trails, and basically just to give you
an idea, the contractor is walking every inch of every building to look at all these ADA
accessibility items.
They're also walking every foot of every trail in every park, which can be pretty intense,
but she always has a good disposition about her.
It's all the paved surfaces, including the larger parks like North Lake, South Lakes,
Quaker Town.
It's also the neighborhood parks.
And what they're looking for is everything from gaps in the sidewalk where a chair may
trip up or somebody may trip on that to making sure that benches are the right distance away,
that they have proper clearance, that picnic tables have proper clearance, things like
that.
Some of these items are larger items that would take significant resources to fix.
Some of them are smaller items, like the gravel has washed onto the sidewalk.
You just need to kind of fix that back.
Kara mentioned bleachers.
We were out at one of the baseball fields, and the bleacher was there.
And so she was telling me that if you had a cane, there would be nothing to stop you
from running smack into the top of the bleachers.
And so I started in my mind engineering a plan to do this, and she was like, "No, no,
no.
It's sometimes just as simple as moving a trash can underneath the bleachers so that
they would run into something."
And so what they'll do at the end of their kind of analysis is put together a report
with high priority items, kind of lower priority items, and with associated costs.
They're also looking at all of our natural trails.
They're walking Clear Creek, Cooper Creek, the Wildflower Trail, up at North Lakes, our
South Lakes, and then all of our bike and multi-purpose trails as well.
All right.
So we are wrapping up that phase two evaluation, so our next step is putting it out to everyone
what we've been working on.
We have an ADA page on Discuss Denton, so we can receive public input from surveys that
we've compiled and that our consultants have compiled as well, and an interactive map on
the ADA page.
On that interactive map, you can literally pinpoint a location that you think we need
to look at, or you can go into the survey and it's asking, "Where have you seen that
we need improvement?"
There's various other questions that we put on Discuss Denton, such as an inclusive playground,
because that is in our plan for the future, so we want the public input on that.
Committee presentations, we've already presented once to the Committee on Persons with Disabilities.
That was on March 18th.
We're presenting to you guys today.
We do the Parks, Beautification and Recreation Board July 12th, and they will get this presentation
that you're receiving.
Then we will work with our consultant and update the transition plan, go through, we'll
get a draft from them, as Stuart mentioned, with the reports, and we will review it.
Once we get that final draft, we will re-present to the Parks Board and Committee on Persons
with Disability, and then hopefully go to City Council for their adoption of our transition
plan in October.
Do you have any questions?
Any questions for Stuart or Karen?
The only question I have is, well, two questions.
One, where's the funding?
What's the funding source for any repairs that need to be done that Kimley-Horn sees?
And two, what's the broadcast mechanisms you have to promote disgustdent.com?
Is that on social or is it from the city page?
Yeah, that's a great question.
I'll take the second one first, and then I'll rely on Gary to come down here and answer
the first question while I'm vamping here.
Disgustdent has been, it's an effort that's put forth by our Public Affairs Department,
and so they've promoted that on social media, on the website, through newsletters.
As an update, it talks about it, and specifically for the ADA transition plan, as they put out
newer communications, they kind of did a soft launch with it earlier, I think in May is
when they launched it, and they had very specific projects, including the Pet Mayor, which I
don't know if you know we have a new Pet Mayor, but we do.
That was one of them, just to kind of generate that interest, and now they're going to start
putting projects like the transition plan on there.
It really gives an open forum for people to provide their ideas, provide their input into
it instead of having to only attend public meetings.
We will have those as well for this project, for others, but it gives them kind of that
virtual thing, so if you always go to Avondale Park and you're like, "Man, this has always
driven me crazy," you'll be able to put that on the map for us to take a look at.
As far as funding, Gary, if you want to come down, I'm not exactly certain on that.
Good afternoon, Gary Pack and Director of Parks and Recreation.
Funding for the study was split between, it was a general fund appropriation being split
between us and facilities.
Facilities management is handling all the interior buildings that they maintain and
then all the park assets we're working on, so it's really a dual project with both of
those components.
Then from a long-term priority replacement or repair type of situation, right now we
just have a placeholder in our CIP budget, CMP budget for $50,000 just as a placeholder
until we get those priorities and then we can literally cut and paste those in.
We may need $200,000 one year, $100,000 next year, maybe $50,000 the third year, so until
we get the plan we won't know what the priorities are and how we're going to address them based
off of the immediate needs.
Gotcha.
That's helpful.
Any other questions for Stuart or Karen?
Gary?
All right.
Seeing none, I appreciate it.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Before we hop into our agenda, just by way of maybe housekeeping, especially for the new
commissioners and those who weren't here earlier.
I don't know if Christa Ellis was here, tonight we're doing a hybrid of Zoom and in person.
We do not have the interface to vote on our screen or request to speak on our screen.
So I'll have the task of going back and forth to see hands for speaking.
If I don't see you, just try to get my attention and I'll certainly make sure you have the
floor and then when we vote we'll do it by roll call like we have been doing.
And then in general, when there's a presenter for the work session, historically it's been
okay to interrupt while they present.
So just get my attention and we can stop the presentation midline.
But for the public hearing, the regular meetings, we typically let them finish out the presentation,
hold all questions to the end and then we stack the questions at the end just for the
sake of kind of the flow of presentations.
Any questions about that?
Awesome.
Let's dive into our agenda.
The first thing up is consideration of the minutes from June 9th.
Is there any edits to the meeting minutes from June 9th?
Seeing none, we'll go to the consent agenda.
We have three this evening.
Is there any questions that we need to bring up?
Staff answer.
3A, 3B, 3C, all final plat and two preliminary plots.
Any questions on those items?
All right.
We'll just go into the individual consideration items then.
First up is 4A, PP21-0010.
This is Mark Laird's presentation.
Is he on Zoom?
Mark is actually out this week on vacation so Julie is going to pull it up and then I
can cover any questions you all have.
Awesome.
All right.
This is a preliminary plat for what's known as Windsor Oaks Phase 2.
It's 152 residential lots, four HOA lots.
It's currently zoned R4 so they are platting in conformance with the zoning.
Since their last meeting when they had the extension request, they have not been able
to address the staff comments that were lingering at that point.
It was a lot of cleanups items, some engineering related items with intersection spacing, curve
radii, things of that nature.
So at this time, staff is recommending denial.
So as you've seen with other projects, once the plat is denied, they can resubmit whenever
they have those comments addressed and then we would bring it back within 15 days under
the shot clock legislation.
I'm happy to answer any questions you all might have.
Any questions for Haley?
Commissioner Pruitt?
Yeah, just one.
I understand the recommendations, that's fine for tonight, but in general, I think it would
help me to understand on some of the general approval criteria, like specifically the criteria
11 for the adequate road systems.
Just sort of an example at some point about what would be something that would be inadequate
and therefore cause for denial, hypothetically, because it's something that's hard to conceptualize.
So sometimes that would be things like if they were proposing to not provide a roadway
from the mobility plan or in this case, there's some much smaller scale items like then needing
to dimension spacing between intersections to make sure it meets our criteria manual.
Any of those sorts of things could fall under that general criteria.
Just a couple of examples that come to mind would be those sorts of things.
So it's limited to roadways within the bounds of the plat or the land area?
Yes, for something that has zoning in place and can develop by right, it would be limited
to what's within their control within the property that they're planning.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions for Haley?
Okay.
Next item is item 4B, PP 21-0011.
And Karina is here.
I'm here.
Good evening.
So the request today for preliminary plat for Habitat Village, this is an eight acre property
proposing 35 residential lots and one HOA lot for detention.
It's located between Hill Street and Duncan Street.
They are proposing to dedicate two rights of way within the development.
We are requesting denial of this request as it does not meet the established requirements
of the DDC.
However, the applicant has requested extension to a date certain of July 14th and we have
no opposition to this request.
I can take any questions.
Any questions for Karina?
I don't see any.
Thanks, Karina.
Next item is 4C, FR 21-00006.
This is Ron's item.
Ron is also out so I can give you the rundown on this one.
So this is a final replant.
This is phase four of the Eagle Creek addition.
So some of you may be familiar, as Ron has on the screen there with the map, it is a
multi-phase development that includes a total of 770 lots.
This particular phase is 216 residential lots.
They do have a couple of outstanding items related to their HOA documents needing to
be approved and some gas well notifications that are required since a portion of the lots
are within 1,000 feet of a gas well site.
They've requested an extension at this time.
Staff is recommending denial, but we do not have any opposition to that request that would
be to a date certain of July 14th.
Need to answer any questions.
Any questions for Haley on this item?
All right.
Seeing none, we will move to the final item for individual consideration, 4D-ZC-P1-21-12.
And this is Karina again.
All right.
So the request today is for a zoning compliance plan for Razor Medical Office building phase
two.
So the request again is for consideration of approval of a site plan for a medical office
development.
It's located on approximately 3.784 acres just north of Scripture, so in the northeast corner
of I-35 in Scripture.
Hey, Karina, if I ask, do we have a slide for this?
Sorry.
Oh, okay.
I am sorry, it's not, it's sharing on here.
It's telling me I'm sharing, but it says I'm not sharing the correct one, I apologize.
There you go.
Thank you.
Okay.
Sorry about that, y'all.
So this is a consideration for a site plan for a medical office building.
The property is located on the northeast corner of I-35 in Scripture.
This has come to a planning and zoning previously, so the site looks slightly bit smaller than
it was shown last time, and this is due to a recent textile acquisition along I-35 frontage
road.
So the zoning for this property is, oh, it's located in the Razor Ranch Overlay District,
the South Mixed Use District, and is located with a base zoning of the RCC District that
is based on the 2002 DDC, and I'll just step back for a second.
The reason why you're seeing the site plan is because the Razor Ranch Overlay District
is a little bit different than everywhere else in the city.
It does require planning and zoning approval of their site plan, so this is why this item
is coming before you today.
So again, the medical office use is what is permitted, or is what is proposed and what
is permitted in this area.
So like I mentioned, PNZ does look at these site plans for approval.
So the site plan that is provided, as well as the landscape plan and four-sided building
elevations, do meet the criteria for approval based on Ordinance 2011-225, and I'll go over
the site plan in just the next slide.
So the criteria for approval for this item is that the site plan substantially complies
with the concept and schematic plan approved by City Council for the Razor Ranch Overlay
District, that it provides compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that would not
adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods and properties, that the site plan provides adequate
and safe circulation of vehicular traffic, and that it also complies with all other sections
of the overlay district.
And so the site plan, shown on the screen, you'll see that I've marked up a few areas.
This site plan is actually demonstrating the previous phase, phase one.
So that is the area that is shown, outlined in orange.
This was approved by PNZ for an existing two-story medical office building.
This is located on lot R. This is for 22,000 square feet, 110 parking spaces were approved,
as well as some open space area, it was a patio area with some plantings.
Phase two is proposing to overlap a portion of phase one, so you can see that overlap
in the blue area here.
So phase two is what we're looking at today, as well as amending phase one for the area
of overlap.
So the proposed development is for an additional 15,000 square feet of medical office on the
northern lot two.
They're proposing 84 parking spaces for the development.
They do have two driveway access points along the northern panhandle drive, as well as cross-access
through the southern portion of the site to exit off onto Scripture.
Overall, they're providing 61% lot coverage, which is within the bounds of the RCCD district,
which allows for 90% lot coverage.
And I do want to point out that since this is based on the 2002 DDC, that would be different
than what we look at for a site plan under the 2019 DDC, which looks at building coverage
versus lot coverage.
Also on this site plan, I'm showing the outline for a future phase three.
That is not going to be considered with today's site plan, but it is shown to indicate that
they will or they do intend to develop further on this site.
So a separate site plan and separate PNZ consideration of that would need to come forward.
The landscape plan for the site is shown here as well.
It does meet the street tree requirements along panhandle.
The street trees required along I-35 are proposed in alternative locations.
They are shown also within panhandle, so they've proposed alternative locations.
Due to easements, so as you can see on the site plan, this site is heavily encumbered
by easements all over the property, so they are limited on where they could plant trees.
Most of our easements don't allow the planting of tree material, but they do allow planting
of ornamental grasses and shrubs.
So as you can see, a lot of these plantings are located outside the orange areas.
They do also meet parking lot landscaping requirements.
There are a few areas where they did request alternative locations, but they do meet the
number of required plantings for this site.
The big thing that I wanted to highlight for you is what we mentioned in the previous slide
is that there is an area of overlap.
Phase one did approve an open space area that had several plantings.
That area is located here in red.
In this phase two, they're requesting to remove that open space that was approved and replace
it with part of the building that they're proposing.
So staff has requested that they include those plantings that are being removed along on
the north side.
So these trees that are marked in green with a white outline, those are the proposed alternative
planting locations to offset the removal of those plantings.
Overall, they are still meeting the requirements for this area for minimum landscaping and
tree canopy.
They are exceeding those minimum requirements.
They're providing or proposing 30% landscape area, 39.6% tree canopy, 37.8% open space
overall across the entire site.
So that's including phase one and phase two.
These are just the proposed conceptual elevations for the site.
The razor wrench overlay district, when they do come in for site plan, we do ensure that
they provide four-sided elevations.
So this is all four sides of the proposed building.
Staff is recommending approval of the request as it meets the requirements for the razor
wrench overlay district.
However, we are recommending two conditions.
First, that the plant materials approved for phase two and the amended phase one shall
not be removed in a future phase unless they can be successfully replanted using equivalent
or similar plant material as permitted by the flexibility provided to the city manager
or their designee.
The second condition being that the minimum open space requirements must be maintained
for all approved and future phases of the land included within lot one R and two block
four of the razor wrench south edition.
And with that, I can take any questions.
Thanks, Corina.
Any questions for Corina?
Corina, have the conditions been discussed with the applicant?
Are they agreeable to those two conditions?
They have.
And we discussed with them the reasoning for putting those conditions.
So typically with a site plan or any plan that's proposing phasing, you won't get an
overlap of those phases.
Since phase two did show an overlap of phase one and phase three showed an overlap of phase
two, this is a reason why staff felt it was necessary to make sure that any plantings
proposed would not be negatively affected.
And they were not opposed to the conditions proposed.
Any questions?
Great.
Thanks, Corina.
Next item for business is there are public hearing items starting with five A. Five A
is being requested to postpone to a date certain of July 14th during regular hearing.
I will ask for a -- I'll open the meeting and then ask for a motion to postpone to a
date certain during regular meeting.
Next is 5B PD21-0003.
And I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation.
I heard it's brief, Sean.
Yes, sir.
Good evening, chair and members of the commission.
If you'll give me a moment, I'll pull up my presentation here.
One second.
Make sure that y'all will be able to see it.
Okay.
So I'm going to share -- there we go.
And start sharing.
There we are.
All right.
Again, good evening.
Sean Jacobson, assistant planner.
This is a rezoning from an R3 district to a PD district with an R7 base zoning on 17.805
acres.
This is just off north Bonnie Bray street on the south side of westward street.
As you can see, view of the site from the east and from the north.
Currently as you can see, this is zoned R3, that PD with the base R7.
This PD is proposing a -- it's bringing forward a new use.
The applicants proposed this.
It's more than five units on one lot, similar to our definition of multifamily.
But there are no more than two units in one building.
And the design is similar to a single family or a duplex style, which didn't match any
definition in the DDC currently.
We did some research on this type of development and found that in many cities this is developed
as a PD and we felt that was a good direction to go because it enabled staff and the applicant
to work together to tailor design standards that fit this use rather than trying to shove
it into a single family or a multifamily box.
So in line with that, the applicant has proposed for this specific PD, the use attached and
attached multifamily dwelling.
And this wouldn't be something that would apply to every future use of this type, just
this PD.
As you can see there, that's the definition, more than three but not more than 195 dwelling
units on a lot.
Maximum height of two stories, not to exceed 30 feet.
Maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre.
No more than 80 units will be in attached buildings.
No more than two units can be contained in one building.
And then standards allowing for similar accessory uses like an amenity center.
Along with this, some additional or modified standards were developed because, again, the
single family or multifamily standards weren't necessarily fully appropriate.
So all of the units will actually meet the single family standards for facade architecture
and the applicant is actually proposing to provide four rather than three elements of
architecture along the front facades.
The building differentiation will be similar to single family rather than the multifamily
standard so it will be based on ensuring that along the main drive you have a variation
in the types of buildings as well as within clusters, you have a certain number of unique
units within each cluster and that in front of, so across from or next to any unit, you'll
have a different style of unit.
So if you're walking out and looking at your front door, you're seeing a unit that looks
different than yours.
This would be meeting or exceeding the standard for buffers adjacent to single family though
as if it was multifamily, it's being buffered in that way and it would be meeting both the
multifamily minimum open space and landscape minimums and also providing the single family
standard 20% landscape in individual backyards.
As you can see, this is the overall development plan here, the 195 units of attached and detached
multifamily and you can also see outlined in green, it's a little over half an acre
public walking green that would be provided to the neighborhood outside the fence of this
facility.
That would be partly right of way but also partly just lot area that would be provided
to the neighborhood for a walking area.
Briefly this just compares the PD standards versus the base R7.
It would comply with DDC standards except were specifically laid out in the PD development
standards.
This PD would exceed tree canopy and landscape standards.
It goes below what would be the permitted height and lot coverage in an R7 based district.
Buffers are generally the same except for that increased west side buffer next to the
neighborhood on that side.
So as you know, we have our general approval criteria as well as our specific PD criteria
for approval.
We're going to begin by looking at the comprehensive plan and the future land use map.
The future land use here is moderate density residential which is 4 to 12 dwelling units
per acre.
This PD would be at 11.55 dwelling units per acre so aligning with moderate density residential.
It also furthers some key comprehensive plan goals.
It's providing that infill housing within central areas of Denton along a key corridor
but in a scale and design that's more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood than potentially
a traditional multi-family that would be three or four stories large buildings.
The design is instead similar to a single or family or duplex.
It contributes to providing that diversity of housing styles for the diverse needs of
residents of Denton and it places housing near within walking distance of a park, retail
areas and enhances walkability with that pedestrian pathway through the community walking green.
We also want to look at minimizing adverse impacts on the zoning properties.
We'll touch on this more later.
Neighborhood was concerned about traffic cutting through to Windsor, cutting through their
neighborhood to Windsor 288 so the developer is proposing to gate off and provide just
an emergency access out onto westward and there was also a concern about what the view
would be across westward for the residents living along that, what would they be looking
at.
And so the developer promotes that community walking green as well as a wood fence with
masonry columns along there and a height limitation of one story within for any units on their
site within 65 feet of westward.
On Crestview there were neighbors concerned about having their view blocked looking to
the west and so the developer proposed an expanded 15 foot buffer as well as a height
limitation of only one story within 100 feet of that lot line with the neighbors living
on Crestview.
The neighbors were also concerned about the pool and so hours were set for that.
As you can see here, this would be the view for those neighbors living on westward, primarily
seeing street trees, fences, bushes.
In terms of complying with the DDC again, complies except where specifically laid out
differently and in general were exceeding in areas like landscape and tree canopy.
In terms of providing greater building design, these would be the different housing designs
that would be proposed.
As I mentioned, you would be meeting that single family standard for front facade architecture
and would actually have four as opposed to the DDC standard, three various architectural
elements to distinguish them.
We also want to look at the amenities that are provided, so looking at site landscaping.
As I noted, this would be 19% landscape area above what would be required in an R7 base,
22% tree canopy above the base requirement and overall you would have 284 large canopy
trees, which I did some math on this, the most trees you could get if they developed
now as an R3 development would be 248.
This includes trees that they have just provided voluntarily as well as ones that we require
as buffers or street trees.
In addition, developers providing an additional 10 feet of buffer area along Bonnie Bray and
within that providing a cluster of three ornamental trees every 70 feet to additionally buffer
those residents from the high speed roadway and that is in addition to the two elements
they are already required to provide.
As I mentioned, each yard would have that 20% rear landscape area as well as one ornamental
tree per house in addition to the trees that are required for overall tree canopy.
Each one would front on either a green space or a shared courtyard.
These are some examples.
The open space would be provided in 20 amenitized courtyards and there are five different designs
that are provided and minimums are set for the number of trees, plantings and outdoor
furniture in each of those.
There is some flexibility to modify those designs with the approval of staff, but minimums
would need to be met.
In terms of other amenity areas, the detention pond, they've actually provided a trail around
that with a butterfly garden and they proposed 27 additional canopy trees above what would
be required that are spread through the pool and the two detention pond areas.
In terms of connectivity, there were concerns, again as I mentioned, for neighborhood and
staff about the impact of traffic out onto westward and above so that is gated.
The compromise was that instead the developers providing a connecting path through their
property from westward to Bonnie Bray within pedestrian access easements and so right now
there is no pedestrian connectivity through there.
What would be provided would be a pathway that runs through landscaped areas and provides
increased pedestrian mobility in that area.
Here is an example, as you can see above, that public walking green that would be landscaped
30 percent of the area with native or adapted shrubs, ornamental grasses, and ground cover.
Street trees would be designed to provide shade and benches would be provided.
Just a view along that.
Again, we mostly discussed this, but in terms of being compatible with the area, this is
housing that's provided in a form that is of a similar design to the single family house
in the neighborhood as opposed to a traditional multi-family use, meeting those single family
design standards with height limits and buffers for potential visual or sound impacts.
In terms of public facilities, school generation, I ran these numbers by Denton ISD and they
were not concerned about their ability to handle the students generated, water and waste
water is available, streets, TIA was done, and along with signal adjustments there was
the requirement there would be a hooded left turn and Bonnie Bray is going to be widened
and expanded and so the developer will coordinate with our streets department and have a conditional
of approval that they will design and cover the cost of either a change to our current
CIP project or of constructing and designing that themselves to ensure that left turn is
provided.
Parks up and around the corner is North Lakes Parks within a 10 minute walk and in terms
of a fiscal impact analysis it's estimated that over 10 years from when the property
value destabilizes that it will provide a net positive impact to the city's finances.
Did our public outreach and received one response from the property owner in favor, two neighborhood
meetings were conducted, you have the notes and those and as we've discussed many of those
concerns were addressed by design changes.
So with that staff is recommending approval subject to the conditions below which relate
to providing that hooded left turn and covering the cost of designing and installing that.
So with that, I'll stand for any questions you may have.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Sean, PDs have to be tied to a base zoning and just kind of looking at this, the base
zoning because it would be 12 units per acre would be what, MN?
The base zoning would actually be R7.
R7?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
And then that, if you could pull up the map, the site location map, the, it's not built
so it's not on the actual geographic images but just south of there I believe that's the
garden home project we approved not that long ago, maybe about six months, a year ago.
Just south of there you see that Aurora Lane.
Yes.
So that's the garden home project, right?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
What was the zoning on that again?
Was that a PD?
The zoning, I believe that's actually the razor ranch overlay.
It's RO.
Okay.
The zoning, yes.
It is?
That's correct and that property within the razor ranch overlay has a split zoning.
It's actually zoned under the old code neighborhood residential three on the north side but neighborhood
residential mixed use on the south side so it allowed for that mix of townhomes on the
south and single family on the north side.
Got it.
Understood.
Okay.
Any other questions for Sean?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Just real quick to satisfy how I think I understand this, this can be plotted as one lot?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
One owner renting out all the units.
Yes, ma'am.
I understand that correctly.
Okay.
Yes, ma'am.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Okay.
Thanks, Sean.
Next item of business is item 5C PD 21-0001C and this is Julie Wyatt's item.
Good evening, Julie.
Good evening.
Let me share my screen.
Okay.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt and I am presenting PD 21-0001C Kingsway.
So before we get into the specific request, I know Sean just talked about a PD and I know
we've seen a lot of these come forward, so I just wanted to give a little brief introduction
into PDs.
They're kind of a new thing within the, or a new old thing within the City of Denton.
So if you recall, the City of Denton permitted PDs under the 1969 and 1991 development codes.
We removed PDs out of the zoning toolbox in the 2002 Denton development code, but we retained
15 of those, I call them legacy PDs, where those sort of move forward.
So you've seen some of those legacy PDs.
In 2019, we reintroduced PDs as a tool within the City.
And it's really, there are two sections I just want to point out within the 2019 Denton
development code as to that purpose of the PDs and why we do them.
So subchapter 2 talks about that it is to achieve greater flexibility than it, than
allowed by the strict application of the DDC to encourage some unique or innovative land
uses while providing greater benefit to the City and ensure that provision of adequate
public infrastructure.
And then subchapter 3 talks about it, where it's to accommodate a substantial either residential,
commercial, or kind of industrial development.
It could combine different uses in sort of a comprehensive and thought-out development,
and then can allow that flexibility where they could maybe ask for some deviations from
the minimum standards of the code, but maybe offer some other elements within that development
to sort of meet the intent of why we have those development regulations than would otherwise
be allowed under those base zoning districts.
Now, within our PDs, the way we do them in the City of Denton, we do require base zoning
districts.
So all of these PDs are based upon a zoning district that is currently within the DDC,
but then they add those additional elements.
PDs as a process to establish a PD, it goes through the regular zoning process, so that's
why you're seeing this tonight.
And they do have to develop as they are proposing.
So a development map and development standards are tied to those PDs, and they have to -- they
have to develop in that way that is approved.
So that development map, it has to develop.
It gives that certainty of the development.
But there are provisions where they can make amendments.
The DDC allows for a major amendment and a minor amendment.
A major amendment would be something like changing the land use, adding more than 10%
dwelling units, or some other action that would potentially create a negative impact
with the adjacent property owners.
And those require just a public hearing zoning action like what you're seeing tonight.
A minor amendment would be something that would be a little less impactful, but it does
require notification.
So this is new to the 2019 Denton Development Code.
Under the old codes, you could just -- there could be administrative approvals for minor
amendments, and they would just be administrative and there was no public notification.
The 2019 Denton Development Code improves upon that, and it does require notification
for property owners within 200 feet of that requested change.
So those neighbors would be notified of any changes.
And then if there are -- if there is opposition to that that cannot be resolved, then it goes
to public hearing.
So it becomes a major amendment.
So that really is kind of a new thing that we didn't have under old -- the old codes
that is under the 2019 DDC.
So I just kind of wanted to bring that in and that process with those planned developments.
We'll probably talk more about those as we -- as we see more of them, but I just wanted
to provide that background.
So now we'll get to the request.
So the proposal is to rezone about 100 acres from R4 and R7 districts to a PD.
The property is located north -- on the northeast side of Loop 288 near Kings Row.
And just to let you know, it is sort of split.
There's 95 acres in the larger portion and then 5 acres in the smaller portion.
So the existing conditions on the site, the site, as I mentioned, is located on Loop 288.
The north boundary is in the city's -- or the property to the north of the subject property
is in the ETJ, so it is outside of the municipal boundary.
And then to the east of the property are some established neighborhoods, some single-family
neighborhoods.
There are easements that do impact the property.
There are four of them that run north-south and span the site.
And then one thing that we were made aware of during the review of this project is there
was a potential abandoned or unknown cemetery on the site.
On May 10th, there was a field examination, so ground-penetrating radar, and they did
not detect any field abnormalities.
And then the Texas Historical Commission has been involved with this, and they are working
on the report.
They will refer to the site as an unverified cemetery that is unlikely to contain remains.
So -- and that is generally in the area shown there in that red circle.
And just some surrounding roadways, you have Loop 288.
That is a TxDOT road.
As you know, there aren't any frontage roads on Loop 288 in this location yet.
TxDOT does intend to construct those in the future, and that will connect FM 428 and Kings
Row.
Airwood Parkway is a collector road that is -- it is currently constructed to the south
of the subject property, and it is -- per the mobility plan, it will have to extend
to the north as a collector.
And then there's Kings Row.
That is a two-lane undefided roadway.
There's a small sidewalk portion on the north side of the property, or on the north side
of Kings Row.
The current zoning on the property is R4 and R7, so it is a mix of those two zoning districts.
Single-family dwellings are permitted to be developed on the site.
In the R4 district, it could be developed with those single-family uses, a minimum lot
area of 7,000 square feet in the R4, and then 4,000 square feet in that R7 district.
So that's the current zoning on the property.
Minimum lot width is 50 feet, and depth is 80 feet.
Under the Denton Development Code, our minimum standards, we don't have any requirements
for minimum open space within single-family neighborhoods in the DDC, so no open space
would be required.
They are proposing, as I said, that PD, and a mix of lot sizes.
The R4A would be 7,800 square feet, maximum width -- or minimum width of 60 feet.
They are proposing deeper lots, 130 feet, 120 feet, and 110 feet.
They are -- the other two lot sizes would be that R4B, which would be 6,000 square feet,
and then R4C, which would be 4,400 square feet.
And as I mentioned, all of those would have those deeper depths.
And I did want to point out that they are proposing 21.8 acres of open space within
the development.
Now, that does include those existing easements, and that is 5.5 acres approximately of those
four easements that span the property.
And then about 3.3 acres of that would be ponds and tree preservation.
Here's your zoning plan.
This is just sort of a broad look at the proposal.
You've got your three lot sizes.
The 7,800, the larger lots, are proposed for that eastern and southern portion of the larger
tract to provide a transition area for those lots.
Then you get to the 6,600 square foot lots, and then finally transitioning to those smaller
lot sizes as you get closer to loop 288 in both the northern and southern portions.
As I mentioned, they also have the open spaces shown in the southern portion and extending
to the north, some open spaces on the north side of the tract, and then interspersed throughout
the development.
And then right-of-way dedication.
They would have to extend Deerwood as a collector and then those neighborhood streets.
Also, they would be required to dedicate right-of-way for those loop 288 frontage roads.
The criteria for approval for all developments is in subchapter two of the Denton Development
Code.
We have the general criteria.
I won't go over all of these, just a summary.
The project is consistent with the DDC and plan requirements except for those that are
described in the PD standards.
There aren't any prior approvals for the project.
It's not anticipated to generate significant adverse environmental or fiscal impacts.
And there are proposed conditions to anticipate and address traffic concerns.
The specific criteria for approval are also in subchapter two, and we'll go over those
a little more closely.
So first, I want to talk about the comprehensive plan.
The subject property has a future land use designation of low residential.
I just want to talk for a minute about the comprehensive plan in this area and just the
comprehensive plan more generally.
So I've kind of zoomed out on the comp plan in this general area to sort of talk about
how those pieces fit together.
So the subject site has a low residential future land use designation.
But what you also see in the area is community mixed use and you see that -- oh, sorry.
You see that at the intersection, so at FM 428 and Loop 288.
You also see it south of the subject property, kind of near Windsor and Loop 288.
And then that low residential sort of transitions to more moderate residential as you get closer
to university.
And it also transitions to rural as you move further out to the northeast of the property.
So all of those parts sort of fit together and really speak to one tenant that the comprehensive
plan had was that was to kind of grow contiguously.
And so that's what these future land use designations really talk about.
So with that said, low residential is intended for one to four dwelling units per acre.
Developments, as I mentioned, should be contiguous with existing development areas and organized
to promote walkability and access to open spaces within neighborhoods.
And then also to encourage a variety of housing styles and prices within neighborhoods to
make more dynamic places.
So we'll talk about how that -- the proposal fits within the comprehensive plan.
So overall, they are proposing a gross density of 3.8 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent
with that one to four dwelling units per acre.
It is adjacent to Loop 288 and contiguous to that existing development as it's growing
out from Loop 288.
And I just want to take a moment to talk about development in this area.
I know y'all are familiar with it.
You've seen a lot of these projects come forward.
But south of Loop 288 and those areas in orange, those are multifamily developments that have
-- are either under development or have been approved.
So they would be moving forward soon.
The area in red, that's a commercial development that is under review now and certain pieces
of it, I think, are under construction.
You see Stark Farms and Stewart Ridge, those residential developments as you move north
of the Denton ISD property.
Agave Ranch is a project you are all familiar with.
That's another project moving forward, residential project on FM 428.
And then a plot that you saw tonight where residential development in that area.
So that staged growth is sort of happening in this area, that it's moving out toward
the northeast.
Walkability, the proposal does include some trails within those existing easements.
Those are going to connect to proposed sidewalks within the development.
And they would establish that trail network within those easements that could be continued
as the areas to the north continue to develop.
So it really starts that trail system in this area.
And then those sidewalks will connect to that existing sidewalk facility to provide that
uninterrupted pedestrian pathway to that elementary school nearby.
And then as I mentioned, there are the three lot sizes within the development.
So it does provide that variety.
The criteria number two complies with the DDC.
It does comply with the DDC except for those areas where they expressly list within their
development standards document.
And we're going to talk about the architectural standards a little more closely in just a
minute.
And we did talk about those variety of lot sizes and as they compare to that R4 district.
Criterion three provides greater building design, amenities, and connectivity.
I want to break this down into three parts.
First I want to talk about greater building design.
So they are proposing some smaller lots within this development.
And so we wanted to make sure that that building design was adequate to enter a lively and
interesting place.
So they are proposing to comply with all architectural elements within subchapter seven of the Denton
Development Code.
And that includes things like architectural posts or covered front porches or other elements
that all subdivisions in the city have to follow.
And in addition to that, they're proposing some additional elements to make those, to
add to those single-family dwellings that they would have to do in addition to.
And so they would have to pick three from this list.
That could include a gabled roof dormer, carriage lights, a faux wood garage door, a minimum
size of a covered front porch, transom windows, enhanced driveway pavements.
So those additional elements that would be required above and beyond those minimum standards.
And then the next one I want to talk about is amenities.
So as I mentioned, single-family neighborhoods within the city of Denton, developed under
base zoning, are not required to provide minimum open space.
They are proposing that 21.8 acres.
And that does include a screening area near Loop 288, that tree preservation that I mentioned,
and also those existing easements.
Just for reference, their park dedication for 380 single-family dwelling units would
be 2.66 acres.
So that's what just a standard development would be required to either dedicate that
land or payment in lieu.
As part of that 21 acres, they are proposing a 5.31 acre open space gateway just at the
intersection of Grant Parkway in Deerwood.
And that would include a trail system, a wet pond with a fountain, a spray fountain in
the center of it, a playground equipment, a pavilion, seating areas, and tree plantings.
And in addition to that wet pond, there's another detention area that would also have
a wet pond with that spray feature so that they're turning those required infrastructure
necessities or facilities for drainage into neighborhood amenities.
They are proposing that tree buffer along Loop 288 as shown in this north exhibit along
with a masonry wall, a six-foot masonry wall in that location just to provide that separation
for those future residents.
And then based upon all of the open space, 124 lots or about 32 percent of the development
would be adjacent to open space areas.
And then finally, I want to talk about connectivity.
So I know I've talked about the easements.
We did talk with the developer and worked with them to oversize the area to capture
those easements and kind of some oversized HOA lots to allow tree plantings and landscaping
along that edge.
Also to, in those two easements, get those trails in there to provide those off-street
trail systems and that links that open space.
And as I mentioned, that does connect to the existing sidewalks as well as those future
neighborhood sidewalks, if approved.
And then Deerwood is designed in a way to have a 10-foot bike-ped path along that west
side of the road and then an 8-foot sidewalk with street trees along the east side.
Street trees couldn't be planted along that west side due to that electric easement, but
they do have the street trees on the east side.
Compatible criterion four is compatible buildings uses that are consistent with the character
of the area.
So the PD would allow residential uses, which are consistent with the adjacent properties.
It also would be consistent with the existing zoning because R4 is already on the property,
so it would really just be consistent with those current regulations.
And the proposal, while it would, while it has densities greater than the adjacent neighborhood,
as I mentioned, it does transition those lots so that the larger lots are adjacent to those
existing neighborhoods.
The development is expected to generate about 92 elementary students, 48 middle school students,
and 60 high school students.
Hodge Elementary is anticipated to meet capacity in the 2022-23 school year.
Strickland has sufficient capacity, and then Ryan High School will be nearing capacity
the year after Hodge Elementary.
The subdivision is within the eight-minute or less response time for fire.
There's a fire station along Sherman Drive.
Just note that there is a condition, our staff is recommending a condition, that they continue
working with TxDOT to secure that secondary emergency access and a minimum to provide
that remoteness for the fire department in case of an emergency.
And the use is consistent with the surrounding area, not expected to generate a significant
increase in crime or nuisances.
There is water and wastewater near the site, and they would be expected to extend it throughout
the site.
There have been no capacity issues identified.
And then finally, I just want to talk about transportation, and I'll try to be brief.
The proposal is estimated to generate about 3,500 daily trips.
That's 275 morning peak, 234 afternoon peak, and that's during the time that that Hodge
Elementary would be getting out, and then 366 evening peak.
They also estimated that site-generated trips to the school would be 41 morning vehicles
and then 35 afternoon vehicles.
We've heard a lot of concern about traffic in the area, particularly at the intersection
of Loop 288 and Kings Row.
So they did provide a traffic impact analysis that our engineering group has reviewed and
approved, and they're here tonight to talk about it if we have further questions.
But just to give you a brief outline, so intersections are graded on a scale from A to F, and it's
depending on how long a car has to wait at that intersection.
So anything above 80 seconds that a car would have to wait gets that grade of F, and then
it's sort of, you know, I think under 10 seconds, excuse me, is an A, and then there's that
gradation in between.
So under current conditions, that intersection at Kings Row and Loop 288 operates in the
morning at a level of service of E. So there's about a 79-second wait in the morning.
It's a level of C at that Hodge Elementary getting out afternoon, and then a level of
D in the evening.
The intersection at Kings Row and Deerwood operates at a level of service of B in the
morning, a level of service of B in the mid-afternoon, and a level of service of A in the evening.
So that is current conditions.
As part of their TIA, they looked at the 2029 conditions, which would take into account
growth in the area, as well as this development.
And that would cause this intersection at Kings Row and Loop 288 to drop to a level
of service of F, which would increase that delay by -- it's over 250 seconds.
And then it's an F in the mid-afternoon and F in the evening.
And then this intersection would also be impacted going to a level of service of D in the morning,
and then the afternoon would be a level of service of B.
So as part of that review and as part of the discussions with the applicant, our engineering
group has looked at interventions that would improve functioning of this area.
And the proposal is to graft a pavement section onto Kings Row in this general area 300 feet
long, 11 feet wide, to allow a bypass lane so those cars that just want to go straight
on Kings Row toward the east can go ahead and move freely.
And that would allow for a left turn pocket to turn to the north.
And then additionally to include a right turn lane at Kings Row and Loop 288 so that it
would be dedicated, it would be right turn only.
That would allow a sufficient capacity to get cars across that highway.
>> Julie, can I interrupt real fast?
Before we get too far into this, I have two questions.
Can you go back two slides?
The trip generation here at Kings Row and Loop 288, on the A.M. it says 79 seconds.
And on the left, is that current conditions?
There's 275 morning peak trips, or that's current?
>> That would be from the development only, sorry, I wasn't very clear on that.
So the estimated trip generation, that's 275 morning peak trips generated by the proposal.
>> I guess I don't know the logistics of it, but I would think that 275 additional trips
and 234 additional trips would make the A.M. and that first P.M. closer.
But the first P.M. of C, that 25 seconds is nearly, what is that, a third of the 80 seconds?
But it's nearly the same amount of added trips.
I don't know how that math works out.
>> I'm going to call engineering up to answer that.
>> We can wait on that.
There might be other questions.
But I'm just curious on how that math works out.
And then if you go forward one more slide, I don't know, I'm sorry, I wanted to see this
for 250 seconds.
This is in 2029, correct?
>> Yes.
>> And that's assuming probably a full build out of this proposed development.
Is it taking in consideration any other developments over the next eight years?
And is it taking in consideration TxDOT's plan for adding service roads?
>> I'm not sure about the service roads, and engineering may correct me, but I believe
they are taking into account a 3% growth rate.
They also included the background traffic for the proposed plat that you saw tonight.
So those projects that are kind of in that pipeline, that 2029 conditions included those
as well as a proposed 3% growth rate for traffic.
>> Yeah, I just -- for clarity, I don't -- this seems as though it's communicating, here's
just how bad it gets if this development goes in, but it's not speaking to any of the mobility
plans that the city's doing, and it's not taking into consideration the amount of homes
that would go in as a right to build, right?
So if we didn't do the PD and someone just built on an R4, that's going to have nearly
the same impact of this, right?
I don't know the difference.
I imagine it's 40 homes, probably, from a straight R4 to the PD.
So even if we didn't approve this, this highlights that this intersection needs to be improved
regardless of this project being approved, because the way it's zoned in this general
area is naturally going to cause a pinch here apart from this project's incremental increase
in density.
>> That is correct.
>> Okay.
>> But it doesn't really split out what could be developed by right.
It really is just looking at the total trips that would be generated by this particular
project, but you're correct.
If it were developed under the R4, there would be trips -- there would be impacts associated
with that.
>> And you mentioned earlier that TxDOT does have plans for service roads that connect Kings
Row up to 428.
>> Correct.
We don't -- there's not a design for that, and we don't have timing for it.
>> Okay.
Is there a reason we chose 2029 on these projections?
>> That would be something that I would have engineering discuss why they kind of chose
that date.
>> We might be able to lump engineering questions later.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay.
Sorry.
>> No.
Those are great questions.
So we have the conditions associated with those transportation improvements on Kings
Row, and these enhancements would result in a level of service of D or better, which is
what our transportation criteria manual has as a recommendation of level of service.
There aren't any city main -- >> Commissioner Ellis.
>> My microphone's being -- >> It's a longer press on these new mics.
>> Yeah.
I guess so.
Thank you.
Okay.
So back to that.
How do we think level service D is good, since it's over the 50% if we're doing ABCD, it's
towards the bad side, A, B, C, D, E, F, right?
We're saying D is acceptable.
I don't think D is sufficient or acceptable to the city, but I'm just wondering where
did we pull that from?
I know you said it's in the criteria manual, but where does that come from?
Someone might have a better answer in terms of engineering principles, but I can kind
of talk about it in terms of from a planning perspective.
So yes, it does bake in some sort of delay in these intersections, but what we don't
want to do from a planning perspective would be to design roads to accommodate the worst
traffic situation possible, because those would create oversized roads and intersections
in these, so they wouldn't have that necessarily neighborhood, that smaller scale.
So we wouldn't from a planning perspective necessarily want all A intersections, because
we do want them to be scaled appropriately for not just peak times.
And remember, those level of service are really talking about those peak times, so when people
are going to work or when people are coming home, those are really when we see those major
traffic impacts.
We don't want to necessarily design those intersections for just a couple of hours during
the 24 hour day.
Yeah, and I understand that.
I think where there's a disconnect to me is when we have an area that's already developed,
growing, why we're not changing our mindset there.
This intersection is already a problem today with nothing else.
It's a problem.
And so to view it like that, I just view it differently.
We already know it's a problem now.
We already know it's growing out there.
So to me, doing this, okay, that's something, but we're settling on D or better.
I mean, it's going to be D. It's not going to be better than D, even doing this, in my
opinion, because of, again, the problems we already have now.
So I'm throwing that out there because I think we need to look at that a little bit differently.
I understand that's the criteria manual, but if this was rural right now and this is one
development we're thinking of, I understand that.
I don't understand that way of thinking and presenting when we're dealing with this specific
type of situation.
And Julie, just for clarification, a D is a 40 second wait?
I'm going to have to look that up.
Okay.
I think we got some help.
55 seconds.
Okay.
Great.
Thank you.
Thanks.
So there aren't any city maintained parks within walking distance to this site.
So that's why that open space was really important.
And that was something that we talked to the applicant a lot.
They coordinated with parks to kind of talk about what kind of things would be optimal.
And that's how they arrived at that 3500 square foot playground equipment, the pavilion, and
then those additional trails.
So public outreach was sent out.
Thus far, we have received 74 letters in opposition.
31 of those are within 200 feet of the subject site and 6 in favor.
There is a map on your screen, hot off the presses, that kind of shows those, where those
opposition letters are in kind of in proximity to the subject property.
They did have three virtual neighborhood meetings in March and then also in May.
And some of those topics that were talked about were the traffic situation, drainage
elements, and just concerns about additional growth within the area.
That, Julie, on the previous screen, or is it -- I'm sorry, this one.
Is that shaded area?
Am I seeing that right?
Is that part of this ETJ on the northeast?
That is correct, yes.
But we still noted their opposition.
That doesn't count towards the 20% -- we're just doing that for reference of where comments
came from.
Absolutely, yes.
Okay.
And then I don't see any green on this, so I take it the 6 in favor were external from
this map?
I believe they're the property owner and then they're kind of outside that map, so.
Okay.
Thank you.
Oh, Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I guess while we're still on this map, what do we know about that property that's kind
of in the center?
Is that just an estate property?
Yeah, that is -- that's not part of this request.
It is a historic farm within the area, so they have provided in their plan stub outs
to that.
So if and when it ever did develop, it would be able to be taken into the project and kind
of folded in with residential development.
It does have a zoning of R4, so it could develop with residential uses.
Okay.
Thanks.
So staff does recommend approval of the request as it meets the criteria for approval.
We do have those two conditions.
One related to those improvements along Kings Row, and then the other is that secondary
fire access with those later phases to ensure that there is adequate fire access.
They -- if this moves forward tonight, then the next step would be City Council on July
the 20th.
And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
The applicant is here to answer any questions and has a presentation for the regular session.
Julie, have they agreed to the conditions -- have we talked about the conditions with
the applicant?
Yes.
And then -- I just lost it.
I'll go to Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Julie, a couple questions.
The -- the continuous park space, you said there's 2.66 acres for park dedication.
How -- what's the largest tract that's dedicated to parks that's continuous, that's all one?
Do you know?
In their proposal?
Yeah.
As I saw on the map, 2.66 in total.
How big are those parks?
I saw it kind of spread out throughout the entire plan.
Well, the -- so the 2.66 would be, if it were developed just as a base zoning, the -- the
typical development within the city of Denton has to develop -- has to dedicate a certain
amount of parkland, and it's based upon the number of dwelling units.
So if it developed, they -- they would have to dedicate 2.66 acres or do a payment in
lieu, so pay the parks a certain rate based upon that acreage.
As they're proposing, they -- they are proposing common open spaces maintained by the HOA that
the -- that south tract would be about five acres, and then there are additional acreage
throughout the site, smaller in size.
I believe that there's a -- a -- a treat area that's about 1.7 acres, and then other smaller
parcels taken into account.
So that's not 2.66.
They have more acres they're dedicating?
They're proposing 21.8 acres.
That's right.
Okay.
Yes, sir.
And the five -- five is the larger space.
Yes, sir.
Perfect.
All right.
Sorry.
I saw the 2.66, and I saw the 21.
I was confused on that piece here.
The primary criteria for needing to do the PD in the first place, it seems like it's square
footage of the lots was kind of the biggest deviation we're making away from R4.
My right -- yeah, my right, and that assumption there, that it was primarily -- that was the
biggest piece of it.
Yes, sir.
So it was done -- and that's probably more of an applicant question, but I'm assuming
that was done more for price diversity, or is it just a marketability?
From a planning perspective, it does get that variety of lot sizes, so it does have that
sort of -- it's -- it's not kind of -- it's not all the same throughout the development.
From the -- the applicant's perspective, I might let them answer that as to maybe their
-- their rationale.
Okay.
Can you give the -- do you know what the average square footage of the lots when you take it
as like 176, we're at 40 -- 46, 4800 square feet, can you get that number where it's like
average across the board, it'd be X amount of square feet?
I can do that for you.
Or you can give me the numbers, and I'll do it for myself, one of those two.
I can't do that in my head, so I'll have to -- I'll have to be confident.
Neither can I, Julie.
I'm smart, but I'm that smart.
And more on the not-that-smart, but yeah.
I'll be ready at the regular session with that number.
Is that --
Perfect.
That works.
Thanks, Julie.
Any other questions?
Yeah, can you explain how common and what the rationale is for treating the smaller
parcel separate under the same PDE with the same regulations?
Let me make sure I understand.
The rationale for just having that R4 as a base zoning district, but then --
From a planning perspective, right, are PDEs common where the land areas are non-contiguous
with different access points?
Why, from a city planning perspective, would we want to have those two areas zoned with
the same restrictions?
I see what you're saying, the smaller -- the smaller parcel to the south.
You know, that had an R7 zoning designation, and so it made sense to sort of kind of get
it -- get the entire area under sort of that same consistent development regulation.
So that's kind of that remainder piece in that little area, that five-acre parcel just
at the intersection of Loop 288 and Deer and Kings Road.
So we just get it under -- you know, planning didn't have any heartburn about that non-contiguous
area.
It really just ensures that this entire area develops in a more consistent manner.
Okay.
And one more.
Can you remind us again what the -- on the narrower 40-foot wide lots, what's the garage
front door allowance on those?
They have proposed an increased garage door allowance, and I'll have to look that up.
I don't have it with me, but it would be large -- under current regulations, the garage door
can only take up 40% of that frontage for the home.
As they're proposing, it would take up a larger bit of that frontage because the homes wouldn't
be as wide.
I'll have to look that up and let you know what that is, but I can find that out for
you.
Thank you.
Any other questions for Julie?
Commissioner Smith?
Thank you, Chair.
Julie, on that, the -- it is unusual for us to see a non-connected parcel whenever you're
looking at entire HOA-dedicated and maintained property.
And it seems like there's going to be a -- that southern parcel then is essentially -- won't
have any connectivity to the HOA services that are going to be up in the main section
of the area.
So really more of a question for probably the applicant in public, but how unusual is
that for us to see that in planning?
I mean, I've never seen it in whatever four years of being on P&Z.
The planning department didn't have any -- we didn't have any issues in development services
about, well, it's HOA, it's a small little lot down there.
Yeah, we didn't have any concerns in terms of those development regulations.
The applicant can probably speak to how that HOA would function.
They will have to provide -- you're right, it doesn't provide that direct connectivity.
But it would -- they would have to build those sidewalks, those northern piece of the sidewalks
along Kings Road, which would connect to that existing sidewalk facility.
So there would be pedestrian connectivity for that parcel and then, you know, there
would be that driving connectivity as well.
Yeah, I'd hate for that little parcel to become the little stepbrother of the HOA.
So that would be good.
Thanks.
I remember my first question and then I have a second one.
And Tana, with the non-contiguous piece, that can almost be built by right on the R7.
I think there's a lot minimum on a couple of the R4Cs on the width.
But more or less, if we didn't approve that or we were to separate it out, they could
nearly build that anyways.
That's probably why you didn't have our heartburn, I imagine, is that it almost aligns to the
R7 district there anyways.
The proposed lot sizes, yes, they are -- as far as the overall size of those lots, it
is consistent with R7 because R7 allows that 4,000 square foot lots.
Where the difference is, is the width of the lots.
They are proposing deeper lots but narrower, whereas that R7 under the base zoning has
the bit wider lots with the less depth.
Gotcha.
And then the question I had earlier is, is King Road -- Kings Road a city road?
It is, yes, sir.
But if they were to -- the requirement to do a right turn on to Lute 28 would have to
have text-out approval?
Yes, they would have to go through the text-out approval process.
Okay.
So that's not for the increase of the 300 feet on Kings Road?
No, it would just be reviewed by city staff, yes, sir.
Okay.
Great.
That's all I have.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Sorry.
Just while we're on the road question, I wasn't clear.
The recommended roadway improvements along Kings Road, when it says that those raise it
to a level service E, is that in the 2029 projection, is that nearer term when everything
is built out?
How does that work out?
And as well, is it 2029 with just this development or 2029 with this and the other things in
process?
I believe that is the 2029.
Engineering may want to confirm or deny -- excuse me, but it's the 2029 with those background
conditions and the proposed development.
Okay.
Thank you.
With that, maybe it's best use of time if I could ask engineering some of these road
questions.
Sure.
It might help us going into the regular meeting.
There might be other questions for you, but can we start with just the understanding of
what assumptions are made in that 2029 projection of the level of services?
The site includes this development, also includes the Windsor Phase II and Phase III, and any
other vacant plants that's in the vicinity.
So they're considered a 3% growth rate to include future growth.
Can you help me understand the rationale as we are trying to limit the variables of the
discussion to this plat, why all conditions for the future are either included or not
included?
Because it seems like to me, as my conscious thinks through, it would be helpful to know
here's the impact of this development on what's going on, or if that's not the most helpful
way for traffic to think about it, is to think about here's the impact of this development,
the Windsor Phase, but also taking the conditions of increased mobility plan, text dot.
But it seems as though we chose to maybe do worst case scenario of like here, if everything
was ever built out and no upgrades to the roads were ever done, here's the situation.
In my understanding that what was presented tonight is the worst case scenario.
That's right.
Okay.
And Kingsrow is the only link to the subdivision and to the other residences, so we want to
see the worst case and the city does not have any CAB project for Kingsrow.
So is there anything that's been done, it's the impact mitigation from the developments.
The collector that runs north and south, Deerwood, I think it's Deerwood.
Yes.
In the next eight years of mobility, does that connect up to Agave, or what's the anticipation
for that road over the next eight years?
This development will build this new connection from Grand Parkway all the way to the ETJ,
and if any other development comes up to the north, they will eventually connect to Hartlefield
to the north.
So it connects to Hartlefield, which then could dump into 428?
Yes.
So long term, maybe past 2029, there would be multiple entrances into this development.
It wouldn't just be off Kingsrow.
You could come in from the north into the development.
That's right.
Okay.
That's all the questions I had.
Does anyone else have questions for engineer traffic?
I want to monopolize them.
Christopher, thank you.
I'm just curious now that you're up here, when we see those level of service gradations
for an intersection, is that, I guess the question would be, is the apparent delay from
all entrances of that intersection always the same, or is that an average of all of
them?
How does that work out?
It's for specific movements.
If the intersection is signalized, then it's one level of letter of grade, which is A to
F, and if it's unsignalized intersections, then we will grade it by the movement.
Okay.
So I guess what I'm asking is, for instance, in this case, the Loop 288 traffic flow, north
and south, and then you have Kingsrow traffic flow, east and west, and you have turns and
everything else as well.
But is that intersection delay the same for people on Loop 288 as it is for Kingsrow,
or is that different?
And if it's different, how does that determine what letter grade is assigned?
You can interpret it both ways.
One letter grade for the whole intersection, how it operates, and by movement as well.
I think what's projected is by movement.
So currently, its level of service is E during the morning, and I think if I remember correctly,
it's Cs and Ds in the evenings, PM peak hours.
And the rest of the peak hours could be Cs or better.
Sure.
So it's sort of a worst entrance point to that intersection is that level of service
letter grade.
Because it's a signalized intersection, and we cannot hold the main thoroughfare, which
is Loop 288, for longer.
So the delays will be passed on to the cross streets, which is Kingsrow in this case.
Okay.
So the amount of delay that you would expect on the main thoroughfare would be less than
the amount on the Kingsrow, and the Kingsrow delay is really the one that's more representative
of that level of service letter grade.
Okay.
Thank you.
Last question I have is understanding the mechanisms of petitioning to TxDOT for road
improvements.
Is that done in a future forecast methodology, or does TxDOT require the data to be processed
and see any backups before, and this is just your interaction with TxDOT, because I'm thinking
about if a development goes in by riot or PD, and it does just overwhelm that intersection,
is there any way to forecast that, or does TxDOT require data to start actually helping
our city out with their roads?
TxDOT does their own modelings, and they would consider a regional-level forecast.
We consider more city-level, development-by-development level, and this impact is not considering
the future TxDOT frontage roads.
When TxDOT builds those frontage roads, or widen to 288, those conditions will dramatically
improve.
I agree with that.
What I'm more curious is, would the city look at an incoming project and go to TxDOT and
say, "We have 380 units.
This is our TIA study.
We need help," or is it the case that we have to put the lines on the road, count the cars,
and then petition TxDOT?
How does TxDOT operate?
Will they accept forecasts and models when we approve developments for their improvements?
Yes.
We have ongoing discussions with TxDOT on a month-to-month basis, and we brought up these
issues with them and made them aware of those delays and those intersections.
They have their own plan to widen it.
In fact, we are meeting with them tomorrow, I believe, so we are planning to bring up
those issues.
There is change in TxDOT as well right now, and they are more open to permit those access
connections which were not available before under a different engineering rule.
Do you have any indication of a timeline of actual construction?
Not at this time, but it has legs.
Before it was all lines, but they have plans going forward which they specifically told
us not to disclose since it's not officially public yet.
Understood.
I just imagine a start farm, agave ranch, whatever is happening at Windsor, this potential
project, the King's Road to 428 connection seems to be bolstered.
I know that the 428 is trying to get a signal.
There's a lot of things happening, and I'm glad to hear that the conversation with TxDOT
is happening because 428 is only getting more congested.
Yes.
I appreciate that insight.
Any other questions?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
With regard to Ferris Road, especially as it pertains to this development, because you
certainly can come from Hartley Field down Ferris and dead ends into King's Row, what
is the future plan of Ferris?
There's another development that's Windsor Oaks Phase 2 and Phase 3.
Even that development, it is under review with our traffic impact studies, and we have
asked them to widen the Ferris Road as well.
Right now we don't have a future plan for Ferris?
It's not in our mobility plan.
It's not?
It's a developer-driven improvement.
Okay.
Thank you.
And is Ferris Road a city road?
Do we have jurisdiction over that?
That's right.
To Silverdome, it's a city road.
Okay.
Past that, it's a county?
That's correct.
Okay.
Right.
It's not all a city road.
Gotcha.
I appreciate that.
Any other questions?
Yep.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Actually, this may be more of a planning question to Julie.
When you showed the future land use map and you pointed out that, you know, around those
nodes of cross-street intersections, that's kind of where some more intense uses were
envisioned.
I'm trying to remember, can you remind me what the state of Windsor is on the mobility
plan, if that is planned to cross Loop 288 in the future or not?
And I'm trying to understand whether the Windsor plan has changed and if it has, whether that
impacts what we envision in the future land use of that area.
This might be a joint engineering and planning question.
I'm not sure about the plans for Windsor.
I know we are looking at updating our mobility plan now, so Becky and Chandra might be able
to answer that.
But if there were changes to that roadway and maybe its connectivity, then it could
potentially change the future land use and kind of the vision for the area and what kind
of development we would anticipate.
So I think they go hand in hand, and y'all might want to.
Windsor currently on the mobility plan for the existing mobility plan and the proposed
shows it both as a collector.
There are some improvements that are going to be made to Windsor, but they're further
to the west of this area at the intersection of 35 and Windsor, and those are improvements
that are going to be made as part of the TxDOT 35 widening with an overpass in that area.
Okay, so there's no plans to have Windsor cross to the east of Loop 288.
I am not aware of any plans at this time.
Okay, thank you.
Any other questions for staff?
Okay, I'm seeing none.
Thanks Julian.
Everyone?
The next item of business is our final one for the work session.
This item 5DZ21-0005 is Cameron's project.
We're calling
Cameron back up.
You'll have to forgive us.
The revised format is really messing with staff.
No worries.
And you'll see she called the person that also messed up pulling her presentation, so
we might need to have Julie come help us, because it does a little wonky thing here.
Hey Julie, can you exit minimize video?
Okay, there we go.
I got you.
Right there.
We did it.
Teamwork.
Yay.
Thanks Julie.
Okay.
So let me start.
Okay.
So good evening chair and commissioners.
I'm going to be presenting on Z21-005.
So this is a rezoning for .326 acres from mixed use neighborhood and residential four
districts to an R6 district.
So this is located at southeast of the intersection of Skinner and Robertson Street.
So this subject property is currently vacant.
Based off historic aerials, it appears that it has been vacant since 1984.
It is approximately .1 acres of MN district and .23 acres of R4 district and it is surrounded
by MN, R4, R3 and PF districts.
So this is just kind of a quick overview of the zoning of the area over time.
So they, like I said, they are proposing a zoning of R6, which would allow for single
family all the way to fourplexes on the property.
So this is just the general approval criteria.
I'm just going to be covering specifically what's bolded, so .3 and 8.
And then the zoning criteria for approval, I'll be covering once again just the bolded,
which is 1, 5 and 6.
So first, the site is designated low residential for the Denton Plan 2030.
So this is intended for new development up to four dwelling units per acre and it's organized
to promote walkability, access to parks, open space and recreation amenities.
So the R6 is consistent with the future land use.
It permits a variety of lower intensity housing types available to the community at scale
and form typically found in the residential area and it's also within walking distance
of parks and school facilities such as the Fredmore Park as well as Fredmore High School.
Also as you can see from the map, it does serve as a transition between the low residential
area to the south as well as the downtown compatibility area that's just to the north.
And it does meet our overall goal to promote compact development pattern through infill
development.
So R6 is consistent with the surrounding zoning and development pattern.
It doesn't introduce any new uses.
Currently along Robertson Street, there are a mix of residential, a restaurant and religious
assembly uses.
And as I stated previously, the infill development would provide a variety of housing options
that are complementary in scale and character as well as serve as that transition once again
between the single family as well as the downtown area.
And currently as you see highlighted in blue, there are three duplexes and two fourplexes
currently located within 650 feet of this subject property that would be potentially
rezoned so that wouldn't be introducing any type of scale or character of residential
properties that are already in place.
So there is no direct vehicular connection to the neighborhood to the south except along
Robertson Street and development would require conformance with current site design standards
including screening and landscaping.
So just touching on some of the public facilities and services available to the property, it
would generate 30 vehicle trips per day with two total morning peak hour trips and four
evening.
The schools, it would only generate one elementary student and it is located within 0.4 miles
from Fredmore Park.
So this meets the goal of parks department goal of 10 minute walk to a park.
It is currently serviced by public water and wastewater services are available.
And then the nearest fire station is within 0.6 miles or that eight minute or less response
time boundary.
So there was one neighbor or property owner in favor at 521 Robertson Street, there was
none in opposition and staff is recommending approval of the requested rezoning.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you Chair.
Karen, so it's gonna be one duplex, correct?
It would be, well yeah, so their conceptual plan right now would be a fourplex currently,
so it would be four units total which meets with 0.36 acres and got it, got it, got it,
got it.
Okay, that's all the questions I have for staff, but I do maybe want to throw out there
just for, is the applicant gonna be here tonight in person?
The applicant should be actually on the phone.
Okay, can we, I mean just for, this seems pretty simple, can we possibly move D to being
above B and C just to get them on the phones, I have to sit there and wait.
Yeah we can make, we can change the agenda.
Any other questions for staff, Commissioner Pruitt?
Yeah just, I noticed in the backup that part of the reason why there's no vehicular access
to Y Street on the south is because that's actually a dart easement, or?
Yes, that is correct.
Is that right?
Or not easement, but right-of-way?
Yes.
I'm guessing that is sort of an old historical right-of-way that used to be a turnaround
train between what's now the A train and what's the freight train that goes through downtown.
I guess I'm wondering, you know, it would be interesting to see what happened in this
area and what additional possibilities were opened up if that wasn't there, so that we
had some more options, right?
I don't think it necessarily impacts this particular development, but there's a lot
of other possibilities in the area, so just a comment.
Any other questions for staff?
Okay, seeing none, that concludes our working agenda for this work session.
I will close the meeting at 5.43, we'll reconvene here at 6.30, thank you.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Planning and Zoning Regular Meeting
for Wednesday, June 23rd, 2020.
Seeing that we have a quorum, I'll call this meeting to order at 6.31 and please let the
record show that Commissioner Anderson is not present this evening.
The first item of business is to stand and provide a Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S.
and Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for
which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
The next item of business is to consider the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes
from June 9th, Commissioner Smith?
We have a first for approval, Commissioner Ellis?
Second.
We have a first and a second.
Since our screens are still not live for votes, we'll do votes by roll call this evening,
starting with Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Chairs, an aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Motion carries 6-0.
Next item of business is our Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Ellis?
I move approval.
We have a first for approval, Commissioner Cole?
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote to be a roll call, Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Chairs, an aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Motion carries 6-0.
Next item of business is our Items for Individual Consideration, starting with Item 4A, PP20-0010A,
and I will invite Haley, are you going to provide the overview?
Good evening.
This is a preliminary plat for the Windsor-Oaks Phase 2 addition.
This is a single-family residential subdivision being developed in accordance with the R-4
District.
At the last meeting, they did receive a request and receive an extension for this preliminary
plat.
Since that time, the applicant has been unable to fulfill all the requirements that were
outlined in their recommendation for denial initially, so staff continues to recommend
denial of this request.
At this time, those reasons are outlined in your backup and I am happy to answer any questions.
Is there any questions for staff?
And this evening, since we are on Zoom and there are comment calls and individuals calling
in through Zoom, I'll ask Stuart Birdseye to help me out with identifying individuals
who have filled out a comment card and read those in for the record.
Stuart, is there any for this item?
Thank you, Chair.
For this item, we had 27 people make comments using our online form.
All 27 of them were against this item.
These comment forms were emailed to the commissioners and will be included in the record.
Thank you.
Thanks, Stuart.
Is there any discussion on this item?
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to deny.
Okay.
We have a first for denial.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
We have a first and a second for denial.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote to be a roll call.
Just for clarification, a vote of yes is to affirm the deny.
Sometimes it can get confusing on the negative, but we'll start with Commissioner Pruitt.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Chair is an aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Motion carries 6-0.
Next item of business is item 4B, PP21-0011.
And I'll invite Carina Maldonado for presentation.
The item before you today is for a preliminary plaque for the Habitat Village.
This is PP21-0011.
This is for an 8-acre site between Hill Street and Duncan Street.
They are proposing 35 residential units with one HOA common lot for detention.
Staff is recommending denial of this request as it does not meet the established requirements
as outlined in your backup.
However, the applicant has requested a one-time 30-day extension to a date certain of July
14, 2021, and staff does not have opposition to this request.
I'd like to take any questions.
Any questions for this item?
Great.
And I will ask Stuart if there's any comments for this item.
No chair.
There are no comments for this item.
Perfect.
Commissioner Smith?
I make a motion to approve the extension to date certain of July 14, 2021.
We have a first.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
We have a first and a second to deny this to a date certain of July 14, which is the
30-day extension.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote.
Be a roll call.
Commissioner approval?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Chair is an aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Next item of business is item 4CFR21-0006 and Haley will provide an overview.
All right.
This is a final replant for a phase of the Eagle Creek addition.
The overall subdivision is what you see in the inset map there with the various colors
showing the phases.
Phase four contains 216 residential lots.
At this time, staff is recommending denial due to some deficiencies related to their
homeowners association documents and gas well notifications required with the plat.
However, the applicant has requested an extension and staff has no opposition to that request.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thanks, Haley.
Any questions for staff?
Okay.
And there's no comments on this item.
Is there any discussion?
Chair will entertain a motion if there is one.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Make a motion to approve the extension to date certain to July 14th, 2021.
We have a first.
Commissioner Ellis?
Second.
We have a first and a second to deny this item and provide a 30 day extension to date
certain of July 14th, 2021.
We'll vote via roll call.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Chair is an aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Next item of business is item 4D, ZCP 21-0012 and I'll invite Karina back for presentation.
All right.
Good evening.
The request today is for a zoning compliance plan, ZCP 21-0012, for the Razor Medical Office
Building phase two.
So the request today is to consider approval of a site plan for medical office development
on an approximately 3.784 acre site located on the northeast corner of I-35 and Scripture.
This request is coming before the Planning and Zoning Commission as it's located in the
Razor Ranch Overlay District.
So it's treated a little bit different than our normal zoning compliance plan process,
which is administratively approved.
The ordinance indicates that it does have to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission
for approval.
So that's why this item is here today.
The site recently had a recent textile acquisition.
So it was previously a little bit larger, about four acres.
So that textile acquisition for the frontage road expansion did reduce the site.
So as I mentioned before, the subject site is located in the Razor Ranch Overlay District
within the South Mixed Use District sub-area.
It does have a base zoning of RCCD, that is the Regional Center Commercial Downtown.
That base zoning is based on the 2002 DDC, which all the Razor Ranch Overlay District
does defer back to when the deviations in the ordinance don't speak to it.
So the proposed use for this site is medical office, and it is permitted in this area.
So as I mentioned, the Razor Ranch site plans do need P&Z approval.
It is subject to Ordinance 2011-225.
Within that ordinance, this site needs to comply with Exhibit C-2A and Exhibit D-2A
that was adopted specifically for this site.
The elements in the site plan that are being brought forth today include the site plan,
a landscape plan, as well as four-sided building elevations.
The criteria for approval for this site is shown below.
There are four criteria, the first being that the site plan substantially complies with
the concept and schematic plan approved by City Council.
That the site plan complies or provides compatible arrangement of buildings and land uses that
would not adversely affect adjoining neighborhoods or properties, third, that the site plan provides
for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular traffic, and last, that the plan complies
with all other sections of the overlay district.
So first I'll show the site plan for this area.
It does look a little bit strange because it does show several phases, so I wanted to
go over these phases just briefly with you.
So as you can see on the southern part of the site, PNC previously approved phase one
for medical office use.
That approved plan consists of a two-story medical office building on what is shown as
Lot 1R, it's 22,000 square feet.
Approved with that site plan was 110 parking spaces, as well as a patio area that included
some open space.
The phase two proposes to amend a portion of phase one, and that overlap is shown here
in this blue box, as well as propose an additional 15,000 square feet of medical office on Lot
2, and that is shown here in this red outline portion on the northern portion of the site.
So in addition to the medical office use of 15,000 square feet, along with that is 84
parking spaces.
The site does have two driveways on the north side, showing access to Panhandle Drive, as
well as cross access to the southern lot that provides a driveway on the south side at Scripture.
Overall, the proposed development shows 61% lot coverage.
That is significantly less than what is required within this zoning district of RCCD, which
is 90%.
And I do want to point out that lot coverage is based on the 2002 DDC, whereas all future
or existing and current site plans that are approved administratively go through the 2019
code, and that is looked at for building coverage rather than lot coverage.
So also shown on the site plan is a future site, future phase three.
So that is not being included with the site plan today.
However, it is shown on here to show that the applicant intends to submit a future site
plan for that area.
The landscape plan is provided on the screen.
It does show that it meets street tree requirements that are required for this site.
They are shown along Panhandle.
The applicant has requested alternative street tree locations due to the utility easements
that are shown encumbering the site, and those can be seen in the boxed areas in orange.
So these are a combination of drainage easements, public utility easements, several underground
electric lines that would prevent them from planting street trees.
However, they can plant shrubs in these areas.
Additionally, they do meet the parking lot landscape requirements for the site.
They are also proposing alternative locations for some of the parking lot landscaping due
to the limitations or encumbrances that I previously mentioned.
As was mentioned, they did overlap between phase one and phase two.
That area shown in red was previously designated as patio or open space that showed about seven
tree plantings within the area.
Since this was approved by P&Z, we have requested that they replant these plantings in a different
area of the site.
So those are shown with these green dots with a white outline to demonstrate that they are
maintaining the plantings but showing them in an alternative location to ensure that
everything approved is being replaced.
And lastly, they meet the overall landscape area for this site.
They're providing 30% landscaped area, 39.6% tree canopy, and 37.8% open space.
And this is calculated between both phase one and phase two.
These are the proposed elevations.
So as I mentioned, within the Razor Ranch Overlay District, they're required to provide
four-sided elevations.
So this would be all four sides of the proposed building.
So staff is recommending approval of this request as it does meet the established requirements
of the Razor Ranch Overlay District.
However, we are recommending two conditions.
First that the plant materials approved for phase two and the amended phase one shall
not be removed in any future phase unless they can be successfully replanted using equivalent
or similar plant material as permitted by the flexibility provided to the city manager
or their designee.
And second that the minimum open space requirements must be maintained for all approved and future
phases of the land included within lots one, R, and two, block four of the Razor Ranch
South addition.
And with that, I can answer any questions.
Thanks for the presentation.
Karina, any questions for staff?
I don't see any.
Thank you.
Chair, we'll entertain a motion or further discussion on the item.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve with staff recommendations and conditions that are out set in the presentation.
We have a first.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
We have a first and a second for approval with the conditions listed by staff.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Commissioner Schultz?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Motion carries six, zero.
That moves us to our public hearing segment for this evening.
And I just want to do a point of clarification real briefly.
We are making one adjustment to the agenda.
We are moving item D as in delta up one space.
So tonight we'll go A, B, D, and then finish with C for those of y'all needing to see those
items.
So the first item will be 5A, Z21-0007B.
I'm going to open the public hearing and ask for a motion to carry this postpone to a date
certain of July 14th.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to postpone to date certain of July 14th.
We have a first.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Second.
We have a first and a second.
I'll call a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Motion carries 6-0.
This item will be brought back to this commission on July 14th.
The next item is 5B, PD 21-0003 and I'll invite Sean Jacobson for presentation and open the
public hearing.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
I'll pull up my presentation here and we'll get rolling.
Okay.
So my name is Sean Jacobson, assistant planner.
Tonight I'm presenting PD 21-0003, the PERCH development.
This is a request for rezoning from the R3 district to a PD district with an R7 base
zoning on 17.805 acres.
It's located on the west side of North Bonnie Bray Street south of Westward Street.
As you can see, there's a view of the property there.
The applicant has brought to us a new use.
It's different than anything we've had before in Denton.
It involves more than five units on one lot, similar to multifamily, so all units would
be continued to be owned at least by the owner of that one lot.
At the same time, there's no more than two units in any one building and the buildings
are in a single family in duplex style.
Because this didn't match any use definition, the DDC, we did some research, saw some other
cities that have similar uses and they generally use a PD process.
We felt this made sense to tailor the standards to fit that use and therefore that use is
being brought as a PD tonight.
As a part of that, the applicant has presented a definition for this new use.
It would apply only to this PD, not across the board, but that definition includes that
it would be more than three but not more than 195 dwelling units, provides for a maximum
height, provides that there should be no more than two units per building, allows accessory
uses.
The applicant has also proposed standards that specifically apply to this use where
either the multifamily or the single family standards didn't necessarily make sense.
For instance, with facade architecture requiring that it meet the single family standards and
actually going somewhat above and beyond that, providing for differentiation standards to
ensure a variety of designs along the main drive and we're clustered together.
But the site is also, we'll be meeting the multifamily, the higher buffer standards adjacent
to the surrounding single family and institutional and it's also meeting both the multifamily
open space and landscape minimums as well as providing the minimum 20% rear yard for
each unit similar to a single family home.
As you can see here, this is the development plan proposed.
All of those colors represent large canopy trees.
The area in the green box is a public walking green proposed outside of the boundaries of
this development for the neighborhood.
We'll discuss that more later.
You can see just generally a summary of the dimensional standards showing that the site
generally meets or exceeds the R7 based district standards.
Of course, we review versus our general approval criteria and our PD criteria for approval.
We'll start with general criteria three, criteria one for the PD which is the comprehensive
plan.
This is a moderate residential future land use and that calls for a development that
is between four and 12 dwelling units per acre.
This would meet that at 11.55 dwelling units per acre.
As noted below, it also meets other comprehensive plan goals by providing infill housing in
kind of that central area of Denton within the loop but next to a high speed or at least
a larger more arterial highway.
It also helps contribute to providing more diverse housing styles that meet the diverse
needs of residents but at the same time, all of this in a scale and design that's more
compatible to the surrounding neighborhood than would be a traditional multifamily that
you might see with that kind of density typically and it does also provide that housing near
parks and retail.
Looking briefly at general criteria and minimizing the adverse impacts, so addressing some of
the concerns that neighbors had, providing for a gated emergency only access on the westward
in order to avoid cut through traffic through there, providing that common walking green
with a wooden masonry fence where the neighbors had expressed interest in continuing to be
able to walk for neighbors on crest view.
They had expressed concerns about having their view blocked and so the developer proposed
an additional, a buffer area that exceeds the required 10 as well as limiting heights
adjacent to those properties and within 100 feet of that lot line with the homes on crest
view.
As you can see here, here's an example of what that view, a rendering of what that view
across westward would look like, so seeing that fence, trees, shrubbery and not two story
buildings.
Again, complies with the DDC except with the PD standard specifically, call for otherwise.
We also look at ensuring that this is providing greater building design than we would get
otherwise.
As I noted, this is meeting the single family standards and actually adding a requirement
for an additional architectural element for all designs and as far as site landscaping,
this provides an additional 19% landscape area above what's required, 22% tree canopy
and 284 large canopy trees which exceeds by 36 the number of trees that could be provided
under kind of a maximum development under the current R3 zoning district and it also
provides a larger buffer along Bonnie Bray with buffer ornamental trees beyond the normal
two buffers that would be required.
In terms of the unit landscaping, as you mentioned, provides that 20% rear yard landscaping and
one ornamental tree per house as well as foundation plantings for all units.
The applicant is providing much of the open space in the form of courtyards, 20 of them
amenitized and each one has, is one of five unique designs, you can see here, which provides
some flexibility but we also set minimums with the applicant for what needs to be provided
within each one.
In terms of other amenity areas, the applicant proposed an additional 27 canopy trees to
spread through these three amenity areas and has provided a walking trail around the detention
pond with butterfly gardens.
Looking at improving connectivity, as mentioned, not having vehicle connectivity because of
concerns about cut through traffic but providing improved pedestrian mobility where there's
currently none allowing pedestrians to come from westward to Bonnie Bray along a landscaped
pathway.
As you can see here, there's an example of that public walking green, which includes
30% landscaping with native or adapted shrubs and benches for pedestrians.
Another example there.
Looking at criteria four, that these buildings would be compatible with the area.
So the PD is designed to prohibit that traditional three or four story multifamily instead providing
that density in housing that's designed in a way that's more compatible with the single
family houses in the area and providing those height limitations and other mitigation buffering
where closest to the surrounding neighbors.
School generation, Denton ISD expressed that students, they could handle that.
Water waste water is available.
The trip generation per the TIA with some mitigation via signal adjustments and a hooded
left turn should not expect it to have significant impact on the traffic in the area and we do
have a condition of approval relating to the applicant being responsible to design and
construct the hooded left turn at this location.
It is within 10 minutes walking distance of North Lakes Park and it is estimated to have
a net positive fiscal impact over 10 years from property value stabilization.
We did public outreach and received one response in favor.
So with that, staff does recommend approval of the request subject to the conditions below
which relate to requiring that hooded left turn to be designed and paid for by the applicant.
So with that, if you have any questions, happy to answer them and I do also have a presentation
from the applicant.
Great.
Thank you, Sean.
Thank you, Chairman.
Sean, what's the closest pedestrian crossing to North Lakes over there?
So that would be at Windsor and the path, the 10 minute path I worked at accounted for
crossing at that.
Okay.
Gotcha.
There's a stop sign.
It works.
Appreciate it.
Thank you.
Any other questions for Sean?
Okay.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone wishing to speak can do so.
We'd ask to fill out a card or those watching virtually can call in.
We will begin with cards first.
The first one I have here is Rob Baldwin and if you just state your name and address for
the record.
And are you the applicant?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
So you're provided 10 minutes to present to us.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
One moment.
It's okay.
I'm going to tag team.
My client's on the line and I'm here to kind of run the projector.
Sounds great.
One moment.
First time I've done a hybrid like this, so bear with me.
Same for me.
Okay.
Just getting there.
Presentation pulled up here.
Okay.
Can you hear me, Rob and Sean?
Yes, sir.
Yes, we can hear you.
There we go.
We're just loading the presentation.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay. and share screen.
There we are.
Okay.
Good evening, Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen.
My name is Rob Baldwin.
I'm opposite 3904 Elm Street, Suite B in Dallas, and I'm here representing Good and West Development
in this request.
I want to, first of all, thank you all for being here.
It's the first time I've been out in public in a long time and it's good to be back in
their home again.
And secondly, I'd like to thank city staff, they've been very great to work with.
Mr. Jacobson's gone beyond the call of duty to help us craft this PD that meets the city's
requirements and also addresses neighborhood concerns, so I'd like to thank him.
I think he did an exceptional job of briefing this.
I have David West on the line, who is the West in Good and West, and he'd like to have
a brief presentation and then I'm here to answer any questions and David will be here
as well.
So if I can, David, are you on the line?
Yes, I am.
Thank you, Rob.
Can you hear me?
I'll just tell me when to move the slides, please.
Okay.
Good evening, everybody.
Thank you for having us.
My name is David West.
I'm a partner with Good and West Residential, as Rob said.
My business partner, Elizabeth Good, is also on the line.
I'll start out by saying that, reiterating what Rob just said, we've been working to
the past several months with Sean and his team in the planning department.
He's been excellent to work with.
I think we've been able to craft a plan that is far better today than when we first started,
so I wanted to thank him for that.
Forgive me if some of this presentation is duplicative of what Sean has already presented,
but I'd like to highlight a few of his points.
Rob, if you could go to the first slide, the next slide.
So as Sean said, you know, this falls within the moderate density residential category of
the Denton 2030 future land use plan, not to exceed 12 units to the acre.
Our proposed development is at a density of 11.55 units to the acre.
We feel this project will help fill Denton's need for housing of all types, offering a
high quality choice for renters that may not want to live in traditional apartments and
that value private yards and communal open space.
We've capped our height to 30 feet, no more than two stories, which is lower than the
existing R3 zoning.
This will have far less impact on the surrounding neighborhoods and a typical three to four
story apartment building would.
In listening to the neighborhood in our various neighborhood meetings, we've also committed
to only single story buildings within 100 feet of our Western property line and 65 feet
from our Northern Westwood Street property line.
So the visual impact of our development will be much more in line with single family homes
than a typical multifamily apartment building.
And the perimeter trees and the internal landscaping that exceeds the DDC requirements will add
a significant buffer to the surrounding properties.
It'll also create visual appeal for the public and for our future residents.
Rob, if you could go to the next slide.
So I'd like to talk a little bit more about our neighborhood engagement.
The development team, we've interacted on four occasions with the surrounding neighbors,
once with the head of the Neighborhood Association to our Northwest, introducing ourselves and
the project, twice in a more formal setting with the neighborhood at large in an open
forum, and once with the church and the school of Immaculate Conception immediately to our
North.
We've received emailed letters of support from the church and the school to our North.
They're excited about our project.
They think it'll be a great addition to the neighborhood.
We also have another letter of support from a resident whose home borders our property
to the West.
And I believe that Sean has received additional outreach from another resident, either this
morning or yesterday, who's in support of our project and would be happy to provide
all that documentation to the commission.
So throughout this engagement, some of the changes we've made over time, we've reduced
our density.
Initially, we were at 200 units, we've reduced it to 195 units.
As I've already stated, we've committed to only single story units within 100 feet of
the Western property line and 65 feet of the Northern property line.
One of the main pain points to the neighbors was vehicular ingress and egress in and out
of our site.
And so we've committed to a vehicular gate that will be closed and locked at all times.
We will install a Knox box that will be accessible only to emergency services in the fire department.
Our only point of ingress and egress will be out onto Bonny Barre.
We've restricted the pool hours from 9am to 9pm to mitigate some concerns around noise.
And as Sean touched on, we've designed a community green, which is a strip of our property that's
outside of our fence line up on Westwood Drive.
This is an area where we understand some residents in the neighborhood currently use to walk
their dogs.
And so we felt like this would be a nice gesture to the neighborhood.
And if you could go to the next slide, Rob.
I know Sean's already shown some of these visuals in his presentation, but just to reiterate,
this is a 25 foot wide strip of property and it runs about 900 linear feet fronting Westwood
Street.
We're going to plant 29 trees, install a meandering sidewalk that is flanked by turf and ground
cover.
We're going to build an eight foot wooden privacy fence with masonry columns and we're
going to plant shrubbery and vines in front of that fence.
And the plan long term is for this to grow and to become an attractive green screen wall
that is visually appealing to the neighbors, but also functional for them to use.
We're going to install benches, doggy poop stations and just try and create a strip of
land that is pleasurable for the neighborhood.
If you go to the next slide, Rob, you've already seen our site plan, but some of the design
constraints we've had on this site is the fact that it's very long and very narrow.
And so we've designed our units in a cluster format, which everyone's front door opens
up onto a landscaped courtyard area and at the bottom of the slide are some examples
of that.
Sean also showed examples of these designs in his presentation.
So this is not only for visual appeal, but it really gives a sense of entry to our residents.
We have 389 parking spaces and 38 bicycle spaces, which exceeds the DDC's requirements.
We're exceeding the DDC's 8% open space requirements.
We've committed to planting a minimum of 284 trees, which far exceeds the DDC's requirements.
And you can see the whole perimeter of our site has trees every 30 feet on center.
We are meeting all of the DDC's landscape buffer requirements and on our western property
line, we are exceeding the DDC's requirements.
And if you could go to the last slide, Rob, these are just some visual representations
of how these open courtyards are going to look and feel.
Please note that we're in the early schematic design phase still, so we felt it was important
to be able to show how this will look and feel and with that being said, I will stop
presenting and happy to step back and answer any questions.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much.
We're here for questions.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
One question, this might be for Sean as well, but being that it's a PD, the site plan will
be codified into the zoning change, if it's approved.
Really the egress out of the complex, I guess you want to call it that way, is it because
of the hooded left turn lane, it's going to be right turn only onto Bonnie Bray alone.
Did the traffic impact analysis take anything into account on how that would add to the
Bonnie Bray signalized cross section?
Yes, it did, and specifically that was where the timing changes at a mitigation were recommended.
So it would continue to function at a level of service D, but with the timing change mitigations,
that would then improve that impact above what it would otherwise be and bring it to
where our engineers could support.
Was there a thought given to on peak hours how congested that left turn hooded lane would
get and how long that really truly should be?
It's great to have the left turn lane that protects the left turn lane to keep people
out of traffic, stop trying to take a left turn into the facility, into the complex,
but if it's backing back out to where people in the left lane outside of the hooded lane
are getting backed up because people are waiting trying to get into the left turn lane.
Was any of that thought about or considered or those kinds of things?
Yes, the TIA did take into account the time that would essentially the traffic and the
function of that intersection as well with the hooded left turn and determined that it
would work at an acceptable rate and I think actually at above a level of service D.
Okay.
Got it.
All right.
Thank you.
Any other questions right now?
We still have individuals wanting to make public comment.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Question if you heard from the property owner to the south developing the garden homes.
We did not get a response from that property owner.
They didn't come to the meeting either?
And I've sent two letters to them as well and gotten a response.
Okay.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
Great.
Thank you for being here.
If we have any more questions, we'll call you back.
The other card that I have in front of me is Michael Denny.
Mr. Denny, if you could just, that mic, yep, is preferred.
If you just state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.
Michael Denny, 2200 Overlook Lane.
We're at the corner of Westwood and Overlook, so we're directly across the street from this
development.
We're not comfortable with rental units coming in.
They'll be surrounded by three communities of family-owned homes.
But in our meetings with the developers, we're quite happy with the proposals for changes
they've made in their plans, particularly the linear park along Westwood.
It's a community area for our community of about 120 homes, so we appreciate that.
I have not heard tonight about restrictions on single-pupil-type gate by the emergency
entrance at the end of Lookout Lane into this new neighborhood.
I'm very satisfied that it'll be a Knox Box only entry for vehicles, but we're worried
about the personnel gate there.
People would be tempted, in the new neighborhood, would be tempted to park along Westwood, which
would be a problem.
It's a lot of traffic along that street, and that could cause difficulties.
We're very grateful that they've reduced the height of the buildings along there to
one stories, 'cause it would be like an alley if it were two-story buildings there, but
the park, the fence, and so forth.
If those things stay as part of the plan through to the end, 32 Construction will be very happy
about that.
Thank you.
Thanks for being here.
I don't have any other cards, but I believe we do have one caller.
Stuart, is there someone on the line?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
I wanted to also let you know that for this item, we did have one person make comments
using the online form.
They were in support of the item.
This comment form was emailed to all the commissioners, and it will be included in the record.
We do have one caller, and I'm asking staff to send them into the meeting now.
Thank you.
You should hear a beep whenever they are there.
Good evening.
You are connected with the Plan and Zoning Commission.
If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.
Good evening.
My name is Drew Christ.
I am a homeowner at 2208 Carriage Hill.
Commission, thank you so much for allowing me to speak tonight.
I, as a homeowner in the neighborhood, are in full support of this development.
I think staff and the developer have done a phenomenal job at increasing pedestrian
connectivity for the neighborhood.
This particular part of town has suffered from a continual disregard from prior developers
to consider future development and connectivity.
As a parent with a 5-year-old and a 3-year-old who are currently learning how to ride a bike,
I cannot take them on to Windsor or Bonnevray at 40 miles an hour, which we all know is
45.
We've all done it on accident.
It's simply too dangerous.
I am so grateful to the developer for going above and beyond by providing a public amenity
for residents of not only their own community, but the surrounding homeowners and home renters
who exist, not only to the north of this development, but also to the west.
I am very, I think this is perfect timing, a report came out from Trees of America yesterday
that labeled our census block that this development will be in as one of the lowest tree canopy
density census blocks in the city of Denton, and to see a developer going above and beyond
and planting such a significant number of native trees.
It's really encouraging, and so I strongly am in support, and again, thank you so much
for the opportunity to speak.
I am completely with my comments.
Thank you so much for calling in.
Do we have any questions for the caller?
We don't have any questions, but I appreciate your time to call in this evening.
Krister Smith.
One more question, thank you, Chair.
Sean, is the roads that are within there, is it going to be treated, because it is kind
of a mix between multifamily and the facade or everything else, so I just want to remind
you, the roads and everything else inside of there will be treated like private property
would be in an apartment where they are maintained by the owner.
Correct?
That is correct.
Okay.
I just wanted to confirm that.
Thank you.
Seeing we have no other comments, I'm going to close the public hearing at this time,
and if there's any discussion, more questions or motion, Krister Smith?
I'm going to make a motion to approve of staff recommendations and conditions.
Seeing that this zoning is currently R3 and the flume says it should be four units to
12 units per acre, it only even makes sense to put this into something that's actually
compliant.
It does sound like from those that commented from the neighborhood have said that the developer
has been very generous with making concessions and being able to accommodate for those that
exist there, so that being said, my motion stands.
We have a first.
Commissioner Ellis?
I will second and also say thank you for a detailed presentation, well done, and thank
you for the collaboration with the community.
We have a first and a second for approval with staff conditions.
Any discussion?
Before we take a vote via roll call, I just want to note, just for the record, if Westward
does not allow parking on the street, if it's possible to get a no parking sign reminder,
maybe to mitigate some of the parking concerns, it seems like the property is over-parked
as it is, so I don't foresee that being an issue, but if there is a way to maybe eliminate
some concern of the city to put up a no parking sign to keep that avenue free of parking,
that might be a nice consideration to the neighborhood.
That's my only comment.
With that, I will call a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Motion carries 6-0, congratulations.
The next item we'll hear tonight is the last item, it's 5DZ21-0005, and I will call Cameron
Robertson for presentation.
Okay, thank you Chair and Commissioners.
So I am presenting on Z21-005 for rezoning.
So this is a rezoning of 0.326 acres from mixed use neighborhood and residential four
districts to a residential six district.
This is located southeast of Skinner Street and Robertson Street.
So the property is currently vacant, it is approximately 0.1 acres of MN district and
0.23 acres of R4 district.
Based off historic areals, it is assumed that the property has been vacant since about 1984.
It is surrounded by MN, R4, R3, and public facilities districts.
So this just kind of shows you the zoning over time.
As I stated, this is proposed rezoning to R6, which would allow for single family homes
as well as up to four plexes.
So these are the general criteria for all applications.
The ones that I'm going to cover tonight are the ones specifically highlighted in bold,
which is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other applicable plans, as well as
minimizes adverse impacts on surrounding property.
Also the rezoning has to meet zoning criteria for approval.
So once again, I'm going to be just highlighting the three that are bolded here on the screen.
So first, the site is designated low residential, according to the Denton Plan 2030.
This is intended for new development up to four dwelling units per acre.
It is organized for remote walkability, access to parks, open space, and recreation amenities.
The R6 is consistent with the future land use, as it permits a variety of lower intensity
housing types available to the community at a scale and form typically found already in
the neighborhood, as well as within walking distance of parks and school facilities such
as the Fredmore Park and Fredmore High School.
As you can see also on the map, it serves as a transition area between the low residential
area to the south, as well as the downtown compatibility area just to the north.
It also serves the overall goal to promote a compact development pattern through infill
development.
So R6, as I stated, is consistent with the surrounding zoning and development pattern.
So currently on Robertson Street, it is mixed uses.
We do have some residential, we have a restaurant, as well as religious assembly uses.
And as I stated, there is infill development, would provide a variety of housing options,
and it also serves as that transition area, once again, between single family neighborhoods
to the south, as well as the mixed use and downtown transition area to the north.
Currently, as you can see highlighted in blue, we do have three duplexes and two fourplexes
currently located within 650 feet or less of the subject property.
So this rezoning would fit into this area.
There is no direct vehicular connection to the neighborhood to the south, it's just along
Robertson Street.
And the development would be required to conform with current site design standards, including
screening and landscaping.
So just to cover some of the public facilities and services that are available to serve the
property, so transportation, it would generate about 30 vehicle trips per day with two in
the morning, two total morning peak hour trips and four evening peak hour trips.
It would only generate one elementary student.
In terms of parks, there is the Fredmore Park, which is located within approximately .4 miles,
and it meets the Parks Department's goal of 10 minute walk to a park.
Park water and wastewater services are currently available to the site, and the nearest fire
station is within the eight minute or less response time boundary.
We did have our public outreach.
We did have one property owner in favor at 521 Robertson Street, highlighted in green
here on the map.
So staff does recommend approval of the requested rezoning as it complies with our criteria
in sections 2.45E as well as 2.72D of the Denton Development Code.
Thank you for the presentation.
And I think I did not formally open the public hearing, so I want to do that, open the public
hearing.
And is there any questions for Cameron on this item?
Christopher Pruitt.
Yeah, just one question.
Do you happen to know what the development fee to request this zoning change is?
I'm not sure exactly of the zoning fee.
I'm looking that up now.
I'll have that for you in just a minute.
Now we stall.
Any other questions while we're waiting to pull that up?
This is a public hearing, so anyone who's wishing to speak on this item may certainly
do so.
No one has called in at this time.
So if there's someone present that wants to speak or someone listening online that would
like to make any comments, we'd certainly provide you that time.
The zoning application fee itself was just over $8,500, and the total with their notifications
was about $9,200.
Okay.
Yeah, I'll just say that I'm excited to see this application come forward.
I will apologize to the future renters or homeowners that it's $2,000 a unit essentially
for the zoning, but I'm excited to see it come forward.
I think this is one of the most walkable, small, infilled places that we've seen in
a long time, so thank you.
Seeing that I don't have anyone on hold or here to speak, I'll close the public hearing
and turn to Commissioner Smith.
Make a motion to approve.
We have a first for approval.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
We have a first and second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote via roll call.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Aye.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Chair is an aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Motion carries 6-0.
That brings us back to Item 5C, which will close out our agenda this evening.
That item is 5C PD 21-0001C, and I'll invite Julie Wyatt for presentation and open the
public hearing.
Good evening.
Let me pull up my presentation.
Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, and I am presenting PD 21-0001C, Kingsway.
Before we get into the request, I'm just going to talk briefly about PDs.
They were permitted within the City of Denton in the 1969 and 1991 codes.
They were removed from the 2002 codes with the exception of a few of those PDs in favor
of just straight zoning.
PDs were reintroduced in the 2019 code to allow that flexibility and to provide some
creative land uses and projects, particularly when they are substantial developments, when
it's a big residential project or it's a big commercial or industrial project.
We do have processes that outline PDs in subchapter 2 of the Denton Development Code.
In order to move forward with a PD or to develop a property as a PD, it does have to go through
the rezoning process.
As part of that rezoning process, they have to provide a development map, so that's a
development plan and then also development standards, so really the text and the map of
that zoning code, because it is sort of unique zoning to a specific piece of property.
Part of the benefits to PDs is you do get certainty as to what would be built, because
you can go through some of those details of the building of that project, like open space
requirements or other types of connectivity.
As part of the processes for PDs, we also have within the code processes for amending
those PDs, and there are two types of amendments.
The major amendment, which is just like a regular rezoning case, and then a minor amendment,
which could be a minor change to the project, but it does require public notification to
properties within 200 feet of that request.
And if there is opposition, then it does have to kind of go through back through that public
hearing process.
But it does provide some protections for those adjacent property owners so they can kind
of know what's going on.
So with that said, now we'll get into the specifics.
So the request before you is to rezone about 100 acres from R4 and R7 districts into a
planned development.
It is in two tracks, and they are shown on your screen outlined in yellow.
They are on the outside of Loop 288 near the Kings Row Street.
And there are existing conditions to the site, I just want to go over briefly.
There are easements that impact the subject property.
There are four of them that sort of run north-south on that site, and about the area where those
red dash lines are.
There's also, staff was made aware of a potential abandoned or unknown cemetery during the review
of the project, and in response to that, there was a field survey of the property that used
ground penetrating radar.
They did not find any anomalies during that research.
And Texas Historical Commission has been working with the applicant and the property owner,
and they have deemed that it is like they'll refer to the site as an unverified cemetery
that is unlikely to contain remains.
And that area is about located in that circled spot there, that red circle, and that is in
an open space lot within the proposal as well.
And just wanted to touch on the briefly the surrounding roadways.
It is adjacent to Loop 288, as I mentioned.
This is a text dot highway.
Text dot does have future plans for frontage roads from Kings Row to FM 428.
We don't have timing for that yet, though.
Deerwood Parkway, that is a north-south collector within the City of Denton's mobility plan,
and if this is approved and moved forward, it will, they will be required to extend Deerfield,
I'm sorry, Deerwood to the north property boundary.
And then finally, Kings Row is a collector.
It is currently constructed as a two-lane undivided road.
There's a small section of four-foot sidewalk on the north side of that road as well.
Just to talk, briefly compare the current zoning map versus the proposal.
So the subject site has a zoning of R4 District.
Under R4, well R4 and R7, sorry, R4 and R7 would both permit the development of single-family
homes.
R4 District requires minimum lot sizes of 7,000 square feet, and then R7 requires 4,000 square
foot lots.
The minimum lot width in both of those districts is 50 feet, and the depth is 80 feet.
Under the current Denton Development Code, we do not have any minimum open space requirements
for single-family developments.
They are proposing a plan development, as I mentioned, with R4 as that base zoning district.
Within that PD, they would, they're proposing to develop or to permit any of those uses
that would be permitted in R4, so they are proposing a single-family residential development.
And they are proposing a variety of lot sizes, and those range from 7,800 square feet to
6,000 square feet to 4,400 square feet.
And they also have lot widths that sort of track that same, 60 feet, then 50 feet, then
40 feet.
They are proposing lot depths that are larger than the current Denton Development Code for
each of those lot types.
And there was a question at work session about what the average lot size across the development.
I did have to use an Excel spreadsheet, but it is 5,382 square feet would be the average
lot size across all of those lot sizes.
And they are proposing 21 acres of open space.
That does include those existing easements.
That's about 5.5 acres, as well as that the ponds for drainage and tree preservation.
There was also a question about garage widths, and I have that too.
Just, we'll just touch on that briefly.
They are proposing, because these are narrower lots that they're proposing, that those, the
larger size lots would have 45 percent of that frontage for those homes would be able
to be garage, and then the narrower lot, the 40 foot wide lot would be 60 percent, is what
they're proposing.
The Denton Development Code limits the garage frontage for 40 percent of that frontage of
homes.
The zoning plan, we'll just look at that.
That is, as I mentioned, they are proposing 380 single family lots.
With the 3 lot sizes, those would transition from those larger lots on the east side of
the development and the south side of the development on the 95 acre piece, and then
transition to those smaller lots as you move toward the west, toward Loop 288.
So it goes to 7,800, then 6,000, then the 4,400.
And the little 5 acre tract to the south sort of attracts that with the 6,000 square foot
lots on the east side of that area, and then transitioning to the smaller lot sizes.
As I mentioned, it does, the zoning plan also depicts that open space and right-of-way dedication.
They are showing that right-of-way dedication that will be needed for those frontage roads
for Loop 288, as well as that extension of the Deerwood Collector and Neighborhood Streets.
The criteria for approval are, as in subchapter two of the Denton Development Code, we have
the general and the specific.
This will summarize the general, it is consistent with the DDC except for those areas where
they are requesting those deviations.
There aren't any prior approvals for this project.
We don't expect any significant adverse environmental or fiscal impacts, and we are proposing conditions
that are anticipated to address any traffic concerns.
The specific criteria for approval is also in subchapter two, and we're going to go over
those a little more deeply.
So first of all, we need to talk about Denton Plan 2030, that's always the first place
we start.
The subject site has a future land use designation of low residential, which is intended for
those kind of that residential development, almost suburban style from one to four dwelling
units per acre.
Developments are intended to be contiguous with existing developed areas, and also organized
to promote walkability and that access to open spaces.
And also the Denton Plan 2030 talks about a variety of housing styles, that we want
those more dynamic places.
You can see kind of how this site fits in within the larger comprehensive plan when
you kind of zoom out and look at the plan shown on your screen.
We've got the low residential while you're closer to the loop with those nodes of activity
at those intersections with community mixed use near loop 288 at FM 428 and at Windsor.
And then you get that moderate residential as you're moving toward university.
And now let's look at how this proposal, you know, how it's analyzed against that comprehensive
plan.
So they are proposing an overall gross density of 3.8 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent
with the one to four dwelling units.
It is adjacent to loop 288, which is consistent, which is contiguous with that existing development.
That single-family residential neighborhood to the south, I believe it's called Harvest
Hill.
We've also had other projects that have come forward recently over the last few years with
multi-family and commercial development at the intersection of FM 428 and the loop.
And additional multi-family developments north of that with more single-family residential
development as you go outside the loop.
They're proposing in their PD to address walkability.
They're proposing some trails within those existing easements to amenitize those easements.
Those will connect to those sidewalks as well as those established sidewalk network to create
a continuous path to the elementary school for students.
And they are proposing that variety of lot sizes to sort of create that dynamic community.
Criterion two complies with the DDC.
They are complying with the DDC except for those areas in which they are requesting the
deviations.
We've talked about the lot sizes, and we'll talk about architectural standards as we move
forward.
Criterion three talks about building design, amenities, and connectivity, and that those
should be greater than what would be developed under base zoning.
And so I want to talk about these individually.
First, building design.
They are proposing to add additional architectural elements that would be in excess of what would
be permitted or required for just a base zoning development.
So if they came in and developed with R4, they would have to comply with the site design
standards for single family residential in subchapter seven.
They're proposing to comply with those elements as well as add additional elements, and then
each unit would have to have three of those additional elements, and those could be things
like the carriage lights, transom windows, decorative shutters, enhanced driveway payment,
or enhanced landscaping.
So those are those architectural enhancements that they're proposing.
The next I want to talk about is amenities.
As I mentioned, they are proposing open space, 21.8 acres of open space, and that would include
things like loop 288 screening, tree preservation, and those existing easements in addition to
just open spaces.
That includes a 5.31 acre open space gateway into the neighborhood, and that would include
a trail, a wet pond, so a pond that holds water with an aerator that will have a fountain
in the middle of it.
So a playground, a pavilion, and tree plantings.
They've used their -- or they're proposing to use those drainage areas, so those areas
where they've got to capture that runoff from those homes, and they've designed those in
a way to sort of create community amenities.
So instead of having a dry pond, they're proposing ponds that will hold water and have those
fountain features.
And then they're also proposing a treed buffer at loop 288 with a 6-foot masonry wall to
provide that screening for any future residents and that green screen.
So based upon all of this open space, 124 lots would be adjacent to open areas, and
that's about 32% of the proposed development.
And then finally, the last portion of Criterion 3 is connectivity.
So where possible, they have oversized those areas that include those existing easements
to allow for additional plantings, and they're also working with those easement holders to
have those trails within there.
Those will link to the -- to neighborhood sidewalks as well as that existing sidewalk
to provide that additional connectivity.
Those trails are also sited in a way that they'll -- they connect to the property to
the north.
So if and when that property does develop, there will be that -- sort of that beginning
of that trail system in the area.
And that trail is designed particularly in -- on Deerwood, and I show the -- that street
section here that they're proposing a 10-foot bike ped path on the west side of that, and
then an 8-foot pedestrian path on the east side.
So that way that accommodates those different modes of transportation.
Criterion 4, compatible buildings uses that are consistent with the character of the area.
They are proposing a residential development which is consistent with the adjacent residential
development.
It's also consistent with the -- with the permitted uses within R4.
Now they are proposing densities that are greater than the existing densities, and -- but
they have -- they have sited those lots in a way that transitions the larger lots into
the smaller lots as you move away from that -- those existing neighborhoods.
The development is expected to generate about 92 elementary school students, 48 middle school
students, and then 60 high school students.
Per Denton ISD, Hodge Elementary is anticipated to meet capacity in 2022-2023 school year.
Strickland Middle School has sufficient capacity, and then Ryan High School would be nearing
capacity one year after that Hodge Elementary School would potentially meet capacity.
There is a fire station within the eight-minute or less response time boundary.
There was one discussion we had with fire regarding this project, and that is that secondary
emergency access as -- what we have done is added a condition to the development that
they would have to secure a secondary emergency access to Loop 288 prior to the -- the platting
of -- of those -- those final stages or those -- of the development to ensure that there's
adequate access.
And then the use is consistent with the surrounding area, and it's not expected to generate significant
increase in crime or nuisances.
There's water and wastewater available in the area, and it would have to be extended
through the development, and there are no capacity issues that have been identified.
And then final piece I want to talk about is transportation.
So this project is estimated to generate 3,500 trips per day, and that would be 275 morning
peak, 234 mid-afternoon peak, and then 366 evening peak.
They also did an analysis of how many trips would be generated that would go to the nearby
school.
So we anticipate 41 morning vehicles and then 35 afternoon vehicles.
And now I want to direct your attention to the map on your screen, and that talks about
current roadway conditions.
So that would not include the traffic that would be generated by this development.
Currently the intersection at Deerwood and -- and Loop 288 is -- is operating at anywhere
between a level C to a level E level of service, and that is dependent on the amount of wait
times that are averaged at those intersections.
The other intersection -- another intersection was looked at was that Deerwood and Kingsrow,
and that has either a level of service A or B depending on the time of day at that intersection.
So those are current conditions.
The -- the applicant did a TIA for the development.
It's been reviewed and approved by our engineering staff, and -- and within that TIA they looked
at the 2029 conditions, and that includes growth in the area, so that background growth,
as well as the subject property, so if it developed with 380 dwelling units.
That would cause the intersection at Loop 288 and Kingsrow to become a level of service
of F, and then the intersection at Deerwood and Kingsrow would move to either a level
of service D or B depending on the time of day.
So in order to address those concerns regarding transportation, we are proposing a couple
of conditions, and these were -- these were determined through that TIA process.
The first would be to -- to add a right turn lane only that would allow cars to move from
Kingsrow to -- to go north on Loop 288.
The next intervention would be to -- to construct an additional lane on -- along Kingsrow, 300
feet long and 11 feet wide.
That would allow vehicles that are going straight on Kingsrow toward the east to move freely,
and that would allow for a left turn pocket going north on Deerwood.
And these are -- these are in the staff's recommendation regarding the project.
So these proposed enhancements would result in -- in a level of service of D or better,
and that would be those 2029 conditions, so with those additional trips.
There are no city maintained parks within walking distance to the subject property,
and that's why the -- that's why those open spaces were really important regarding this
project to make sure that there was adequate recreation area.
With a -- a development that would just go forward, so if it moved forward with just
the R4 development, there would not be any minimum open space required.
They would have to dedicate park dedication per ordinance, which would be -- which would
require 2.66 acres.
That would either be dedicated in -- in land or payment in lieu of -- of that dedication.
Public outreach was sent out.
Thus far, we have received 74 letters in opposition, and that's about 11.24 percent within the
200-foot boundary.
And then we've also received six letters in favor.
The applicant did hold three neighborhood meetings that were virtual.
The main concerns that were discussed were related to traffic.
There were drainage concerns discussed, and then also just concerns about densities in
the area.
So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends approval -- approval of the request
with the following conditions.
Prior to final plot approval, for any phase of the plan development, the developer must
submit civil engineering plans for public improvements in accordance with the city's
standards to serve the development.
In addition to all required internal improvements, these plans shall include the following roadway
improvements to Kings Row, that dedicated right turn lane from Kings Row onto Loop 288,
that 11 by 300-foot pavement section on that eastbound Kings Row to allow for that left-hand
turn lane, and then striping for that left-hand turn lane.
And then prior to final plot approval for phases 2B, 3A, and 3B, TxDOT must approve
a gated emergency access or full vehicular access connection to Loop 288, which meets
the minimum standards.
And if this moves forward tonight, the next step would be to go to City Council on July
20th, 2021.
And I will be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is here.
So any questions for staff?
I don't see any yet, Julie.
With that, we will go ahead with public comment.
First will be the applicant, Jim Strange and Thomas Fletcher.
Combined, you will have 20 minutes.
I'll let you all split it up as you all see it.
Jim Strange, 3613 Falcon Court, Denton, Texas, 76210.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.
I appreciate the opportunity to present King's Way to you.
I'm Jim Strange, and my wife and I are the 100 percent owners of Marketstone Realty Partners
IV, the developer for this project.
I was born and raised here in Denton, and I've raised my own family here as well.
I'm a second-generation general contractor and developer.
I've had the opportunity to develop numerous residential subdivisions and to also build
and remodel a significant number of residential and commercial properties for families, business
owners, charitable organizations here in Denton.
In addition to serving my fellow Denton citizens by building neighborhoods, homes, businesses,
churches, et cetera, I've also publicly served six years on the building standards
board and six years on planning and zoning.
Through all of these experiences, I've learned what it takes to make for well-designed communities
and projects.
Not only that, as a fellow citizen of Denton, I care about what is built in our community.
What attracted me to the brown tracks were all the features that this property had that
are necessary for a development vision to become a reality.
Proposed density is consistent with the future land use map.
There are property size utilities to the property.
There's a collector street within the property.
We're proposing direct access to loop 288, a separate loop 288 intersection with an existing
traffic light.
Hodge Elementary and two churches are within walking distance.
There's close proximity to the natatorium.
There's no ASA on the property, and the trees are along the perimeter for preservation.
As we all know, our city is facing unprecedented residential housing needs, and this development
will help meet these needs.
When I put the brown tracks under contract, I had a choice to make.
The 100-acre property had R7 and R4 zoning and would just need to be platted.
As you know, this choice would not require any neighborhood notices, meetings, and would
just need to meet the DDC for plat approval.
All the lots would have been roughly the same size, there would have been little variability
in price point and house size.
I knew this was not the best use of the property, and I chose to invest the time, the resources,
and the effort necessary to bring something unique and diverse to Denton that is desperately
needed.
The Denton 2030 plan specifies the following, page 48, 2.14.2, revise rural residential
to explicitly allow conservation development, including density and/or lot size incentives
for open space protection.
Page 54, 2.19.2, C, a variety of housing styles, types, and prices with large newly developed
neighborhoods are encouraged.
E, new residential development should be organized to promote walkability, access to parks, open
space, recreational amenities, and school facilities.
F, compact developments that include clustered small lots with substantial retained open
space are encouraged.
A general principle stated in the 2030 plan says new developments should be built close
to existing services to minimize costly capital expansion, and as recommended with the preferred
growth concept, this property is located adjacent to the corridor of loop 288.
The affordable housing needs and market value analysis dated January 2021 states the following
in the community engagement process section.
Page 91.3, future development should work to enhance this by including unique design
and diverse housing.
Page 91.5, smaller lots and more open space in certain areas can increase the desirability
of Denton and work from the city's "hipitude reputation."
This is in contrast to the housing styles the developers want to build.
While I stand here before you saying we're going to do something different, we're presenting
something very unique for you.
Kingsway will be a unique community offering three lot sizes to provide diversity in housing
within the development itself.
There will be over 20 acres of open space for residents to enjoy.
This open space throughout development will have over a million and a half dollars of
private funds, trees, invested into trails, trees, landscaping, benches, and masonry screening
walls along loop 288.
As part of the PD, I've had a full landscape plan prepared that provides all amenities
proposed.
Within the 20 acres of open space, I also work with the Parks Department to provide
a public park, and these areas are reflected in our landscape plan.
As Julie mentioned, we had a total of three neighborhood meetings.
The two main concerns were existing traffic congestion and drainage issues.
To address these two items factually, a preliminary drainage study and a TIA have been prepared
and reviewed by city staff.
We are proposing a second subdivision public access point, which we will have in our presentation,
directly off of loop 288.
This is also currently being reviewed by city staff and tech stock.
With the proposed road improvements at King's Row, a direct access off of loop 288, two
large retention ponds, we will resolve the two main issues raised by our neighbors.
I also met one-on-one with several neighbors to learn about their specific concerns, and
I requested other one-on-one meetings that went unanswered.
I've done way more than what is required by the City of Denton neighborhood notifications
to solicit neighborhood input.
Additionally, neighbors also stated that the Denton 2030 plan was important to them.
As I outlined previously, I believe King's Way is very much within the spirit and the
principles of Denton 2030 plan.
Neighbors also expressed concerns about the size and the price points of the homes to
be built in King's Way.
The new homes in King's Way will be comparable in size, and I expect supportive in price
point.
I prepared a brief summary for my own information of all the homes in Dearwood addition from
the Denton Appraisal District website.
The homes in Dearwood range in size from 1,332 square feet to 3,698 square feet, with 75%
of the existing homes being under 2,500 square feet.
Thomas Fletcher with Kimley-Horn will provide you with more details on the King's Way development
than I've just outlined.
Based on the larger vision I presented and the details that Thomas will provide, I hope
you will support the King's Way PD and help raise the bar for residential development
in the City of Denton.
I'll stand for any questions now or I'll stand for questions once Thomas provides additional
details.
Thank you.
Mr. Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Strange, in your opinion, if this PD wasn't approved, what would be lost when kept at
an R4 and R7 in comparison to what you've pursued to be able to provide through the
PD?
Can you kind of outline what you feel like would be lost if we kept it in the current
zoning?
The hugest would be the loss of people having the opportunity to buy homes that would be
at a lower price point over against Loop 288 versus one lot size, one price point.
You either can buy a house in here or not.
The open space is another huge thing.
We purposely increased the open space to offset for some of the smaller lots.
The real vision on this project was to try to open and meet the need that's presented
in our housing affordability.
When you get to $200,000, a lot of our service folks in the city are priced out of housing
here in Denton.
So the idea was to try to do large, actually oversized, lots in R4 against the existing
neighborhood, try to perfect the existing neighborhood.
We've done buffers, we've done deeper lots, we've put our park area trying to kind of
separate our subdivision from the existing neighborhood, and then as we've gone west,
we have started to make the lot smaller and hopefully more affordable for folks that would
necessarily drive by a new subdivision and say, "We can't afford one of those and have
to keep driving."
Gotcha.
So affordability for what it's worth and what the pricing will be will be unknown until
build actually happens, but affordability, larger park space and overall better development
than what you could buy right, go ahead and develop as of today.
Correct.
Mr. Strange, is it better to ask you or ask Mr. Fletcher questions about the separated
non-contiguous properties and HOA management of those?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
So I asked during work session just about how HOA fees and services work about whenever
you have a piece of the neighborhood essentially that's not connected to the main piece of
it, connectivity, being able to get folks to be able to walk up there, be able to access
the amenities up there, thoughts, ideas, why we still included that tract in the entire
neighborhood, anything you want to share on that piece?
Sure.
The original goal with that tract was to do what's called a model park.
So what our goal was was to have the opportunity to have housing right there at the intersection,
signal intersection of Kings Row and Loop 288 to provide great exposure to be able to
draw people into our neighborhood.
We're now obviously able to get a second point of ingress egress so that helps even enhance
the ability to come in.
I have developed other subdivisions that have multiple phases, have one subdivision and
they're all part of the same HOA so we have had experience with that.
I haven't had a problem with people saying, "Well, that's their part and that's their
part."
Sure.
It's a public park.
So essentially it's open to not only our subdivision, that was one of the things we worked out with
parks.
Originally it was all private.
Sure.
We worked out something with parks.
So now it is a public park.
It will be maintained by the HOA.
So not only will the five-acre parcel folks that live there, but also all the deer field
and whoever wants to drive in there will have access to the City of Denton public park.
You say I can go to that park?
Yes, sir, you can.
So it will be a model home park for a little bit.
That's correct.
That will be the last homes that are sold as other models there.
Good.
That information we didn't have, so I appreciate it.
Sure.
Thank you very much.
Yes, sir.
Good evening, Chair, commissioners.
My name is Thomas Fletcher, 6160 Warren Parkway, Frisco, Texas.
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to share with you tonight.
Let's see, how do I get this back to the presentation?
Good luck.
No, Julien O'Toole.
We have an expert.
All right, no, no, no, I'm very close.
It's going to be that one right there, there you go.
All right, and no, better.
Perfect.
Thank you.
I appreciate your time tonight.
I've got a quick presentation for you, and then I'll be happy to stand for questions.
Would ask for the opportunity to address any concerns presented by any of the residents
as well, tried to, knowing that we had three neighborhood meetings, tried to facilitate
or put the presentation together to kind of address a lot of those concerns that were
raised.
Julie had kind of gone over the existing zoning map.
This just kind of shows the property that we are requesting the zone change for, and
the surrounding uses, and as she had mentioned, what we're proposing is consistent and compatible
with the surrounding uses.
This shows the future land use plan, which is shown for low residential, which is one
to four dwelling units per acre.
We're proposing 3.8.
It is contiguous with the existing development.
It does, with all the open space and the trails that we're proposing, it does promote walk
ability.
It promotes access to public facilities, to Hodge Elementary.
There's two neighbor churches that are located in close proximity to the site, so there would
be ease of access to those.
It promotes access to the open space that's being provided, and then it also provides
for a variety of lot sizes, which allows for, you know, different price points for the homes.
Here is the site and just some of the surrounding developments, the existing aerial.
You can see Harvest Hill, which is an R4 subdivision just across the loop, Oak Bend Estates, which
is kind of to our northeast, which is ETJ, larger lot development, and then Deerfield,
which is surrounding us to our south and to our southeast, which is developed as an R3
development.
This is our concept plan, as was mentioned, what we tried to do when we did the layout,
we wanted to create transitional layout.
We wanted to provide the larger lots adjacent to the existing subdivisions, and then transition
to the smaller lots as we get closer to Loop 288.
What I will share with you is that our initial neighborhood meeting, our original concept
plan had 398 lots, so the PD proposal before you today is 380 lots.
So when we went through that neighborhood meeting, we started looking at additional
studies, doing the drainage study, listening to the concerns about the drainage that currently
runs off and affects the adjacent neighbors, and then also the buffering.
We revised this plan, so some of the main revisions, all the lots along our eastern
property, even though they're stated as a minimum of 7,800 square feet in the PD document,
all of those lots are 60 by 145.
The original layout was 60 by 130.
We adjusted all of those to 60 by 145, so that's about 8,700 square foot lots.
On the south side of the property, originally the layout had those lots abutting to Deerfield
on the south for the main track.
What we did is we created a buffer there, so we added a 40 foot buffer, and then we
kept those lots at 60 by 130, so those lots are 7,800 square feet, but now they have a
40 foot buffer adjacent to Deerfield.
So in saying that, there's also about 130 of the 176 lots that are 40 foot wide lots.
They actually have a depth of 120.
So when the question was asked about what the average square footage of the lot was
in the work session, and then Julie provided a response to that, her response was based
on taking the minimums and multiplying it by the number of lots, but what it doesn't
take into account is that there's a lot of the lots that are actually oversized.
The majority of the 40 foot wide lots are really 120 foot deep, not 110 foot deep.
A lot of the perimeter lots, if you look at the lots on the southern perimeter around
the out parcel, that is the farm, those lots are 130 foot deep.
So what we try and do is when we abut existing properties, we want to provide extra deep
lots because we're going to have to, we want to try and preserve trees on those fence lines.
We have to match existing grade at the property line, so we always want to build in additional
lot depth in order to do that and also provide those residents additional backyard space so
that when the properties around them develop, there's less impact to them.
So there's a lot of the lots that are actually oversized from that.
So did want to point that out.
On the five acre parcel, the current R7 zoning is a minimum of a 4,000 square foot lot.
The lots that are on the north side of the proposed street are all 130 foot deep.
So the R7 has a minimum lot depth of 80 feet, but all of those lots on the north side of
the street are 130, so there's 50 feet additional setback for those, you know, for those lots.
The lots on the south side of the street are 117 foot deep.
So I think if I did the math correctly, it's around the minimum lot is around 4,600 feet
in that five acre tract, whereas current zoning, the minimum is 4,000.
So really the only change there is we're doing, requesting a 40 foot wide lot versus the 50.
The Kingsway community, this is the rendering of the actual layout.
So what we did is, has been mentioned.
Our PD process, we've provided landscape hardscape plans.
So those plans are a part of the PD submittal and document, and we went in as we were discussing
this with parks and found the need for in the interest of the Parks Department to have
a public park with HOA maintenance, we ended up adding.
So in our neighborhood meetings, we had the pond and the open space, but we've since added
the pavilion, the playground equipment.
So there was a commitment to the Parks Department with this project that we would add the playground,
the pavilion, and some additional open space play area.
Based on some conversations with the Parks Department, knowing what open spaces in this
development they're interested in taking for parkland ownership with HOA maintenance.
There's a 1.7 acre preservation area that's to the north.
It's on this north side of the site and it's a nice, beautiful treeed area.
That would be preserved, 1.7 acres.
That would go to the park.
On the other side of the collector, it's about a 1.4 acre open space, and that's where we
have a lot of our proposed tree plantings.
So the Parks Department's interested in that as well.
And then the site to the south is 5.3 acres.
So there's, with those three together, and then they stated that they may be interested
in the regional trail along the collector.
All those areas combined are about 9.5 acres of open space.
So we've got a 2.6 acre requirement and there may be as much as 9.5 that's dedicated to
the city but maintained by the HOA.
So I think that's important to point out.
But you can see we've kind of gone through and tried to create sense of community.
When you enter the community, we want it to feel like a place of home where people want
to come and be a part of.
This is the overview of the park.
As I mentioned, it's got a fishing pond.
We've talked with parks about stocking that.
They even mentioned that they've recently stocked some of their public ponds and some
of the public parks, and it's really an inexpensive thing to do.
I think they mentioned for under $1,000, they were able to stock some ponds which will provide
amenity opportunity for citizens to be able to come out and fish.
You can see kind of in the upper portion of the illustration, there's that open space
play area.
We've got our pavilion, and then we've got our playground equipment.
Kind of gone through the open space.
Topography, there's a lot of area that runs through this track to the north.
There's the reed track to the north of us, and then our track, that's the brown track.
When Deerfield developed, there was a lot of offsite area that just kind of surface
drained through their lots, which has created significant drainage problems.
Those are longstanding, well-documented drainage problems.
We were provided emails that I think have gone back more than 10 years where there's
been correspondence with the residents in the city of Denton.
With our development, we would build infrastructure that would intercept that runoff, carry it
and convey it to our ponds.
We would detain that water and then slowly regulate that water into the downstream system
so we would be able to eliminate or minimize significantly the amount of water that's currently
running through those offsite residents.
Really one of the things I shared in the neighborhood meeting, and I'll share with you, we did a
project not long ago in the city of Denton, Old North Park.
It's just north of 380, it's on the inside of the loop.
When we did the zoning for that, a lot of the concern from the neighbors that lived
on Fox Cross Circle was that there's significant amount of runoff that essentially was from
the residential development over at Nottingham Drive.
It was surface draining through Misty Wood, releasing into the field and then just sheet-flowing
through their yards.
I went out in one of the prior to our project in one of the large rain events and it was
actually one of the homeowners that had their garage open.
They had a door from their garage to the backyard.
They had that open because in certain rain events, they actually had water coming through
the door in their garage in their backyard out the front of their garage.
What we did is we put in inlet systems in Misty Wood, we conveyed that water to a detention
pond and then we put an overflow system in where the water would go into the detention
pond.
If the detention pond ever overflowed, it would go down our internal street, therefore
bypassing those yards.
We were able to resolve that drainage problem and I feel like what we've got here is a very
similar situation.
We've got a large area that naturally drains through these lots and with a properly designed
subdivision, proper infrastructure, we can pick up that storm water, we can route it
through a detention pond and we can resolve those drainage issues for the current residents.
That was one of their main concerns so I did want to share that.
I think that's important.
Traffic impact analysis, it's been mentioned by Julie and I know there were some questions
in the work session that city staff had answered as well.
We've done a full traffic impact analysis and as part of that, you know, we've got mitigation
that we're proposing and what I'd like to do is just kind of share, we've already gone
through and what you see on your screen is the schematic layout for the improvements.
So for the westbound movement for the intersection of Kings Row and Loop 288, it was mentioned
that we would be adding that right turn lane but the reason we're adding, we're really
adding a left turn lane, we're expanding the pavement out so that there's dual left turn
lanes and a single right turn and through lane.
So you end up with three eastbound lanes and then the one, or three westbound lanes and
then the one eastbound lane.
So this shows this, we're also adding adequate storage.
So the storage of the existing leftbound lane gets extended so it gets increased plus we're
adding an additional leftbound lane and then we have the free right and through lane.
Additionally we're adding the left turn lane from eastbound Kings Row to northbound Deerwood
Parkway.
The 300 foot length is the actual storage length when you talk about transitions, there's,
you transition that over 100 feet so the actual improvement length is going to be more like
500 feet of overall paving improvement when you add the transition.
In order to do that there's an existing drainage culvert under Kings Row that has to be extended
to the south.
There are two to three overhead electric utility poles that will have to be relocated.
There's one communication box so all these improvements that are going to help improve
this regional situation, they also have ancillary items that have to be resolved as well.
So there are some utility improvements that, or revisions, adjustments that come with that
as well.
Jim mentioned we had the discussions with the city as one of the conditions.
We either have to have emergency access as part of several phases or permanent access
and the city, in our conversations with the city and then also TxDOT, basically the feedback
from TxDOT is primarily been that they're generally supportive of what the city would
support.
So in our conversations, our goal is to get an access, a full access point to Loop 288
that would be there until the frontage roads would be constructed.
So once the frontage roads are constructed that would go away.
But when we talk about the TIA and the level of service that the TIA is projecting, that
was projecting in 2029 with Windsor Oaks, phase two, phase three, with the expansion
of the mobile home community, the background traffic with growth, all of this without any
of these additional improvements.
So the TIA doesn't account for this access point.
So if this access point is added, more of your traffic is going to enter the loop at
this location.
So what we're showing here is the right turn deceleration lane and an acceleration lane.
So when you make a connection to a high speed facility like Loop 288, it's going to be important
to get the traffic onto the loop in a safe manner to where they have this acceleration
lane where they can get up to speed and then merge into traffic.
And that's very, very important with what's being shown here is that it has the right
turn deceleration lane and the acceleration lane.
One of the things that I did want to show, I showed a couple of R4 subdivisions.
One of the things I did want to point out, Harvest Hill on the aerial to the south, you
can see an area that's kind of towards the eastern portion of the site that has an existing
gas easement that runs through it.
That gas easement is actually platted into those lots.
It's not fenced around, but it's platted into those lots.
So when you talk about the open space and the easements and the working around the easements,
we've worked around the easements.
We've provided additional width greater than what the easement width is.
We've brought that into the HOA lot, so it's the HOA maintaining it, where there's not
a situation where a homeowner owns a portion of a gas easement that's located outside of
their fence line similar to this.
So we do feel like what we're proposing is superior to what we could develop under R4
conditions.
And did just want to point that out.
Just kind of a rundown, you know, we've kind of gone through why we believe the PD is beneficial.
We've also got increased architectural standards.
So in addition to what's required in the development code, we've provided a list of standards that
each builder will have to apply three in addition to each of the homes.
We've had neighborhood meetings.
We've tried to address the concerns.
We've worked really hard with our TIA, with the city, to try and address and improve the
regional transportation issues, and then also the drainage issues.
We've reduced the number of lots from the initial neighborhood meeting.
We're providing a diversity of lot sizes and price points, which is -- it's identified
in the Denton 2030 plan as being important.
We've got over five acres plus of park to be dedicated to the public, but maintained
by the HOA.
That includes the playground, the pavilion, a water fountain, the trails, landscaping,
irrigation.
We've got a second retention area adjacent to Loop 288 that's going to be developed
as an amenity, over 20% open space.
The tree plantings that are shown within the landscape plans, they're above and beyond
what's required by the Denton development code.
So there's significantly more tree plantings.
If you look at this site in today's condition, you've got about 16.7 acres of tree canopy.
With our proposed development and the city's calculation within the DDC, when it's fully
mature, it'll be 42.2 acres of tree canopy.
So we're more than doubling the tree canopy over time.
Additional -- incorporates easements into the corridors.
Really these other items we've kind of gone through and I've hit on.
Basically with that, we're excited to bring this development to the city of Denton.
I'll stand for any questions that you may have.
>> Thank you, Mr. Fletcher.
Any questions for the applicant at this time?
Commissioner Ellis.
>> Thank you, Chair.
So I don't know if it's for Mr. Fletcher or Mr. Strange.
Going back to the cemetery thing.
So staff kind of had circled it on their presentation.
And I see where there's a green space there.
Were you able to kind of pinpoint where that was?
Staff kind of circled it in a west-east kind of thing and we've got a green space going
north-south.
So curious as to how you decided that.
>> The area that was reported by the homeowner is fully in the green space that we've got.
They drew a map.
It should be in the backup.
You may have been able to review it.
So I've gotten a lot of grief that this is kind of a first for everybody.
>> Yeah.
Absolutely.
Okay.
Very good.
>> But anyway, we've taken it very seriously.
So we responded to the area they identified.
We did the ground-preventing radar.
We've had the historical commission spin out.
They reviewed the area.
Regardless of the finding, which they've pretty well determined they haven't issued their
formal determination letter yet, we'll do have an email from them saying here's their
internal discussions.
Regardless the area is not going to be in someone's backyard.
So it is going to be in a green space, an HOA lot, and it's more than likely going to
come back, as they say, a unverified cemetery, and they're going to recommend that it's not
even recognized in any kind of a deed record.
So it will essentially be a report that's been investigated and determined to not be
a cemetery, and therefore it's essentially going to go away.
And it's still going to be regardless in an HOA area.
>> Perfect.
Thank you.
>> Sure.
Any other questions?
>> I'm curious on the 40-foot wide lots, did you do any analysis or think of any other
layout options that could allow for rear vehicle access through an alley in order to take that?
So what made you choose this instead?
>> So we did.
We did look at analysis.
There's really several things that we looked at.
One, when we're trying to provide a diversity of price point, when you do a 40-foot lot
with an alley, because of the additional cost for the paving of the alley, the drainage,
you end up with substantially more drainage that's required.
What happens is your 40-foot rear entry lot, in a lot of cases where you're trying to provide
a price point for an entry-level buyer, you're actually ending up pricing them at or above
the 50-foot front entry.
So that's really the reason for that, is it just from a financial feasibility standpoint,
it doesn't provide that additional price point that we're trying to provide with this development.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> This is a public hearing.
If there's no other questions for the applicants at this time, we can move into public comment.
I have two cards here to speak.
Anyone else present that wishes to speak?
We certainly do so.
We would just ask that we have a card if possible.
But the two that I have right now, first I have Shawna Serrano, and then Reed Faring.
But Shawna, are you wishing to speak?
>> Yes.
>> If you could just go to that mic closest to you.
If you state your name and address, you will have four minutes to speak.
>> Okay.
My name is Shawna Serrano.
I live at 2720 Hartley Court, Denton, Texas, 76208.
I also am on the PTA board for Hodge Elementary as Vice President number two, and I've been
a volunteer at Hodge Elementary for the last four or five years, ever since my daughter
was in kindergarten.
And my concern was with the mobility issues and the traffic concerns with the pickup and
the drop off at Hodge.
And a lot of times you see where the traffic coming from, I guess, the westbound side of
the loop is backed up all the way to the loop, and it gets very scary, and there are people
on the loop, on the side, on the shoulder, as well as us when we're coming from the east
side of Kings Row.
We are off in the grassy median so that the buses and stuff can come through.
And in May, I was sitting there, I was the first car, and I've been the first car on
the other side, and I'll back up a little more.
Not all the way up, but I'll back up, because I know those buses come through.
One issue is that we need bigger or wider, Hodge, not Hodge, sorry, Kings Row needs to
be widened somehow, some way, because when you have, people start lining up for the school
at two o'clock, even though they don't let out till three.
And so we're sitting ducks there.
There's been times with, I've sat there, I have some videos I respectfully would like
to share with you guys, like email them to you that I took a video of, that basically
a car was coming down because he was waiting, but he had to go through the thruway to go
down Kings Row, and he basically played chicken with a bus, a school bus.
Now, technically, school buses should have the right of way at that time.
And he went up onto the sidewalk, and then when he had to go around, there was another
car behind the school bus he couldn't see, then he sped off around me.
That's very scary, waiting there, and there's nowhere I can go, and I'm already halfway
off the road, because those buses, some of those buses come through like 30, 40 miles
an hour.
They need to really slow it down, especially when we're dealing with an elementary school
and everybody, and we're just sitting there waiting for our kids to get out.
So those are really my concern was in the five acre track, them coming off onto Kings
Row too.
I know he presented tonight, it looks like coming in the one way in and out into the
big Kings way, that's harder for 380 homes of all that extra traffic.
So just, I know it's not 24/7, but the biggest thing is the school being there, and yes,
we are almost basically maxed out at the school with the children.
And so having one in and out, I see more in and out, and the one five acre, it's a little
harder to them coming off onto Kings Row as well.
But I did see in his presentation tonight, it looks like they're going to have like a,
what did you call it, the acceleration lane, not like at Locust off of Long Road, that
people will come out in front of you going 60 miles an hour, they're putting along trying
to get up to speed.
That's very dangerous, or people won't get over to the shoulder to make that right turn.
And then they, you know, they're slamming on their brakes and you're behind them, and
they don't have their signal on, they're going down Locust, you know, by the new housing
development that way.
So those are my main concerns.
And like I was saying, why did Kings Row, why you have the chance, I don't know who
owns that South Park property, but up to where the church is up there, have another like
at least two lanes, so that you do have a lane where people can go, but people do back
up all the way to the loop.
And sometimes we're on the loop as well, we're like maybe 10 car lengths on to the loop.
And that gets scary when people are going 60 miles an hour, 65, 70.
And what if that light, I know it's a long red light, or long, like 10 seconds to get
to red, but what if there's an accident and people just, you know, the cars get out of
control and you're sitting ducks there too, that that will alleviate some of the backup.
So those were my main concerns with this, is that the traffic widening Kings Row, so
that we would have access, not just right where the new development, the five acres
was to be, but on this side, we need, yeah, like two lanes on the right side, to be able
to have people go through, because you do have people that get upset and they go around
the school time.
They go around and they're constantly playing chicken with people coming this way.
So those are my concerns.
Well, I appreciate you being here and expressing those.
Thank you very much.
I forgot to say thank you for having me, Mr. Chairman and commissioners.
This is my first time doing this.
Next, we had Reed Ferring.
Hi, my name is Reed Ferring.
I live at 4572 Coyote Point.
We've been out in that part of the, that's off of Ferris Road.
We've lived out in that neighborhood for 28 or 29 years now.
I think you're familiar with some of our neighbors.
We've been taking a very serious interest in planned developments in that part of town.
I have to say I was pleased with some of the accommodations that were presented tonight
to address the traffic issues, which were deathly in the first proposals.
Without doing something serious about the Kings Row Loop 288 intersection, we're looking
at a nightmare down the road.
In my letters and my cards to you all, I've been urging that Planning and Zoning and City
Council really back off of this whole part of Denton and come up with a long-term strategy
that's going to accommodate growth in this area.
There's a lot of flat land out there.
We know the developers are going to be hungry to develop that land, but as I described it
recently, it's a big cul-de-sac.
It is bound by the railroad and Mingo, by Clear Creek, and by 428, and by the loop.
You come into that area and then you come back out, and there are many places to get
in and out.
We're filling up the plane from front to back, and we don't know how big the plane is going
to be when we're finished.
The last developers are going to be caught holding the bag in terms of how to get people
in and out of that area to Loop 288 or to Highway 380.
If we take these developments one at a time, we're looking at 150 new homes down on Silver
Dome.
The mobile home park is adding, I don't know, maybe 50 or 75 spaces right now.
It's probably only a matter of time.
There are a lot of old people out there that are going to sell their farms, and developers
are the only ones that can buy that land.
My plea to you is not so much a specific vote on this proposal, but for planning and zoning
to really back off, and not just a 2030 or a 2040 plan, but to look seriously at our
part of Denton and how it can be developed in a way that preserves the environmental
and historical qualities of that area.
Lots of Dentonites come out there to run and to ride bicycles.
It's a transition to the riparian habitats of Clear Creek and the Elm Fort.
The Clear Creek Nature Center is becoming more and more popular as an educational and recreational
facility.
I just want to urge you all to put us on your books for long-term planning, and consider
not just this development and the next development, but likely developments in the next 10 years
or so.
I think we're probably going to see a lot of that.
Many of us are suspicious that Taylor Morrison is hibernating, that they haven't backed
off of the Carter Ranch development.
Nobody's going to do that, we know, and that's going to be a big challenge for this group
as well.
Thank you very much for listening.
Thank you for being here, sir.
Any questions for citizens?
Christopher Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
I did have a question for staff after Ms. Serrano spoke, but the walkability and bikeability
to Hodge over there, was there any, never saw anything in the presentation on it, guesstimations
on that, and maybe Mr. Fletcher can add into that as well, but Julie first.
Well, that was something that staff discussed with the applicant, because we wanted to make
sure that there was that connection so that kids in this proposed development could actually
walk to school, and so it was important that it connect to that existing sidewalk and that
they have that appropriate crosswalks in those areas to ensure that those kids that could
walk would be able to do so.
Gotcha.
Mr. Fletcher, if you have anything extra to add, something stuck out of my mind when Ms.
Serrano was speaking, what's the longest, from the furthest point away on your property,
what would the walk be or bike be?
Well, I'm not sure what that would be.
I do know that there's over 9,000 linear feet of developer sidewalk within the development,
so there is a significant amount of trail.
I know in one of the neighborhood meetings it was brought up that currently the intersection
of Grant and Deerwood Parkway either doesn't have barrier-free ramps or they're substandard,
so we did as part of our proposal.
We've committed to redoing all the barrier-free ramps at that intersection, making that intersection
a stop condition so that as children from the proposed development and the existing
developments are walking to Hodge, the traffic has stop signs that indicates that they should
stop there as well along with the appropriate striping.
I will also add to her comments about the queuing.
We did as part of our TIA, our traffic engineers spent the day out there.
They looked at and observed exactly what she was speaking to.
In our TIA, we did make recommendations how the DISD could split the queuing to where
you would have a portion, whether it's K-3rd that would go from Kings Row to Deerwood to
Grant and then forth through the remainder would just continue straight on Kings Row
and then come around the backside of the school.
We did provide some recommendations for that.
I know in our discussions with the city, they were looking at that and improvements there
as well and we shared our recommendations to DISD, so I think there's probably ongoing
discussions about how the current situation can be improved.
I did want to point that out because we did try to provide some opinion on how that situation
could be remedied.
One of the comments was about the additional lane along Kings Row.
We have the five-acre parcel, but that area between Kings Row and Deerwood is not part
of our property and we voluntarily have already stepped up and offered to put in an additional
lane that is not required of us.
It's a gesture on our part to try to help improve the area that's over there.
It's an offsite improvement.
We've stepped up to say we recognize there's a problem, we don't want people to be hurt.
It's a problem before we even come out here, so we've already stepped up to do that.
We've also stepped up with the public access on Loop 28.
That was originally just going to be a secondary fire access.
It was going to have a gate on it and when we were able to work through some of those
concerns with the city and TaxDOT, we've asked now can we go ahead and do a public access
because I think it, even though it is considerably more money on our part to have to pay for
that improvement, I think it's a great improvement for not only our neighborhood but what the
gentleman spoke about.
It provides another point of ingress egress of an area that's kind of hard to get in and
out of and I think not only will, if this moves forward, Kingsway use it.
I think Deerwood and other neighbors out there will use it when there are times that Kings
Row may be backed up at school or whatever the case may be.
They just drive through the light, take the next right turn into Kingsway and come in the
back way to your place.
So I think it's a general improvement that we're willing to do because I know it makes
not only our subdivision better but it helps an area out there already and I just wanted
to clarify that.
Thank you.
I think I saw, there's Stewart, who's on the line, what do we got?
Hello Chair, I did want you to know we will send in the caller.
For this item we had 57 people make comments using our online form.
All 57 were against this item.
These comment forms were emailed to all the commissioners and will be included in the
record.
Right now we have six callers, people can still call in if they'd like but we have six
callers and we will send them in one after another as you direct us.
We will send the first one in now, whenever you hear the beep, she will be in.
Thank you, Stewart.
Good evening, you are connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If you could state your name and address, you will have four minutes to speak.
Thank you.
This is Eva Cadwallader, 3920 Fawn Drive, Denton, Texas, 76208.
I've lived here very happily for 25 years.
So I would like to read a statement I've put on file with the city, even though I know
that a few of my words may need a little bit of updating in view of what we've just been
listening to.
I've been listening to the meeting and I'm afraid of running out of time if I try to
update them as I go.
So I'm just going to read what I have and then if I have time, I'm going to say the
rest of the things I'd like to comment on.
Oh, I'm hearing an echo.
I'm sorry.
Okay.
So revealing the eight points stated in Section 3.2, purpose of the Denton Development Code
reveals that the latest Kingsway ground track PD does not comply with the majority of those
points or with the Denton Comprehensive Plan 2030.
It does not promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the city inhabitants, implement
the city's comprehensive plan, improve the citizens' quality of life, preserve and protect
the natural environment, improve the city's appearance, or improve mobility and promote
traffic safety.
Most importantly, the ground track PD directly violates Section 3.2.5 to "improve mobility
and promote traffic safety" and it would certainly not "improve the existing citizens' quality
of life" per Section 3.2.2.
Instead, it seems designed to benefit only Hindley Horne, the developer, at the clear
expense of the residents of the Deerwood, Elk Bend, and Ferris Road neighborhoods and
future residents of Kingsway.
The real purpose of this proposal, including the latest versions, and I comment on the
improvements on the latest versions later, is to justify increasing the density of the
ground track properties in order to allow for smaller lots and more houses.
None of the details in the many revisions change that substantially or really matter.
They are mainly cosmetic and superficial.
Now, that isn't entirely true anymore, but I will get back to that.
What matters most about this PD and any rezoning is the simple fact that our neighborhoods
are already very dangerously bottlenecked.
Should any emergency arise, either internal or external, to our immediate neighborhoods,
we are hopelessly trapped.
The more houses that are added, regardless of the specific PD, the worse this potentially
life-threatening situation gets.
The more houses, the more residents.
The more residents, the more traffic.
The more traffic, the more congestion.
All of that means a more danger to everyone living in Deerwood, Elk Bend, or Ferris Road,
or going to school at Hodge Elementary.
Potential approval of the proposed Windsor Oaks development would add even more traffic
on Ferris Road, Kings Road, making things worse and more impossible to get in and out
of our neighborhoods.
How many more nearby developments are yet to come?
We must now protest any kind of rezoning of the brown traffic, brown track Kingsway until
adequate access roads are built.
Therefore, until more roads and other infrastructure are built to access and serve the Kings Road
Luke 288 neighborhoods, I strongly object to rezoning from R4 and R7 to a PD or any
rezoning of the brown track property that would allow or permit any more lots or houses,
especially smaller ones.
Now, I don't know how my time is running, but I would like to comment on some of the
things that were said tonight.
The gentleman right before me, I think, had it exactly right.
He hit the point that I think is by far the most important, the fact that we are in this
bottleneck.
And I believe it is life-threatening.
And what I really would like to know about the developer's improvements recently suggested,
I'd like to know when they plan to do that, who is going to pay for it?
And I'd like to say that a lot of plans, such as I've just been listening to regarding
highways and drainage, for example, look great on paper, but it's a whole other matter when
you see them in practice.
But once they're all built and there, then you're stuck with a problem.
I'm particularly concerned about the egress, the getting out of our neighborhood in case
of emergencies.
To me, that is the single biggest problem.
And all those highways, if I understood it correctly, all those new roads they were talking
about are mainly for the going in and not the going out, but maybe I misunderstood that.
And in connection with that, the idea of working with a situation that already got a traffic,
a grade B in the traffic study, that is just, to me, appalling, shocking.
And another thing is the pool.
I understand that adding the pool seems like a good idea to help the drainage problem.
But we have a serious mosquito problem in Denton, a really big mosquito problem.
We had it right near my backyard.
Eva?
Yes?
I hate to interrupt, but I just want to be mindful of the other people on the call about
your time allocation.
If you could summarize your question, we'll certainly get a response for it.
All right.
My question is, rather than my statement, is I think that the gentleman before me had
it right, that no developments in our area should be considered until the road situation,
the cul-de-sac situation is fixed.
Once that's fixed, and I realize that might be a, that's a county matter, a tech stock
matter, but it's a larger matter.
And I think we have to think bigger.
We have to expand the circle of our thinking about this planning.
And that's what I like the planning people to do.
Thank you.
Gotcha.
So my plan this evening, Eva, is to listen to all the callers, and then we can compile
those questions for the applicant or staff to respond to.
So I've noted your question about the egresses and ingresses and some of the traffic issue,
and then I also heard some issues with mosquitoes in the retention ponds.
And then what we'll do is after the end of these calls, we'll make sure we get answers
for you either in public hearing or as a follow-up to you.
But I appreciate you calling in and providing your thoughts.
Thank you.
Have a good night.
You too.
Thank you, Chair.
We are going to send the next caller in.
Thanks, Stuart.
Good evening.
You are connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.
Yes, my name is Tom Silva, and I'm representing the property, Lifegate Church, at 3350 Dearwood
Parkway, 76208.
I'm the senior deacon at the church, and I called in tonight primarily because of the
fact that I've been listening to the calls and I've been watching the meeting going on.
We have some major concerns.
Although I like the fact that the development is going in, I like some of the points of
the development there, it's still one big cul-de-sac.
And if you look at the average American home, each American home in the United States has
about 1.9 vehicles, with 380 units going into that area, that's 760 cars to add to the congestion
of an already congested area.
Now, if you've not been there during the school time at Hodge Elementary, you'll notice that
although I think that I like the idea of the 11 by 300 feet pull-off on the side of King's
Row, that's only going to accommodate approximately 40 cars.
If you've ever been there during school rush hour, 40 cars is a drop in the bucket.
Unless you're going to have a police officer to direct traffic to get them on to Dearwood
Parkway over to the school, you're still going to have a mess.
And then you're going to have a bigger mess when the cars start coming out of Dearwood
Parkway since there's only one way in and one way out.
I would like to recommend to the PNZ committee that you look at some other neighborhoods
that's in a similar situation.
The east side of this development is going to be good because I like the size of the
house and property.
But when you get over the west side that's closer to 280, there's more homes over there
and more congestion.
And you'll probably be looking at about three to four cars in that neighborhood, and they'll
be parking on top of one another on that part of that development.
So that's going to add even more than the 760 cars that I'm talking about.
So the question I have is, how soon will there be an additional exit out of the new development?
That's one question.
And the other one is, I'm concerned about the traffic survey.
When it was done, was it done during the school, when the school was active, or was it done
on a holiday?
Because if it was done on a holiday, you're not even seeing the beginning of what's a
mess.
We have problems getting out of our church parking lot, and with three full-time employees
in the church, sometimes they have to wait to get out of our church parking lot to get
on a Dearwood Parkway to get out of there.
So those are our concerns, primarily.
Not that we have anything about any problems with the development of adding on to new homes
in the city of Denton.
Our problem is a traffic issue.
And I don't think adding 11 by 300 square foot side road is going to really help the
congestion.
You guys need to go over there during the school year and see what a mess that is off
288 and King's Row.
Anyway, that's the points I wanted to make, and I'd like to get that question answered
about when the survey was done and about when they're going to put an exit road out of that
neighborhood.
Yeah, I think those are valid questions.
I appreciate you calling.
Stay tuned to this meeting.
We'll make sure at the end of these callers that we have the applicant or staff address
those questions.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
But thank you for your time, and I appreciate you guys allowing me to say our piece in behalf
of Lifegate Church.
Absolutely.
I appreciate you calling.
Thank you.
Chair, we will get our third caller of the evening sent in.
Good evening.
You're connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.
Hi.
Thanks, everybody.
My name is Vicki McGovern, and I live at 3110 Hartley Field Road in Denton, Texas.
If you look at the chart that Mr. Fletcher put up, and he spoke about the Reeds property
just north of the brown track, I'm just north of the Reeds property, and I live on a seven-acre
parcel up here, as if you've looked around, you'll see most of these parcels up here are
significantly larger than what's being proposed for the brown track.
So, at this time, I agree absolutely with everything that everybody else has said.
Yes, sir.
Is this Bud?
Hey, Bud.
This is Corey with the City of Denton.
How are you, sir?
You are on the line.
Very well.
Thank you very much.
I'm just going to let you know that I'm going to put you in the queue to speak in the...
Lisa, are you there?
Once the current speaker gets finished, we'll go ahead and transfer you in, and you'll start
your four minutes.
Lisa, are you connected?
Yeah.
I'll get back on before I transfer you over.
Hello?
Lisa, are you there?
This is Vicki McGovern.
Is that her?
Yes.
Sorry.
I apologize.
Wrong name.
Sorry about that.
You can continue.
We're listening.
Okay.
What happened?
Okay.
So, I'll start.
I'll pretend like you heard everything I just said, but I would respectfully ask this committee
to please deny this PD and rezoning request being made here from an R4 to R7.
The R4 fits within the current guidelines within the Denton 2030 plan like everybody's
talked about for this area, and really, there's no special enhancements that I think this
development brings to the quality of life and the citizens of this area of warranting
this zoning change.
The green space that's being spoken of for this development mostly consists of easements
and retention time, and in addition to the significant traffic issues that have already
been spoken to, and I'm one of those grandparents, actually, that picks up my three kids from
school quite often, and I sit in those situations that were described earlier, so it is pretty
crazy.
Additionally, the plan of the new development showed roadways reaching to the north, and
this is important to me.
Out of the proposed development, you saw those roadways reaching north, again, back to where
I live, and when considered what the Denton Mobility Plan could actually cut through the
back of my current seven-acre property.
This is not what I envisioned when I moved here almost three years ago.
We as a community, as many have mentioned, are being boxed in, a community of nice, larger
lot homes.
When I spoke at other P&B meetings in the past, we were told that the vision for growth
of Denton was to infill and then growth to the west by the Collins Stadium.
Now we're facing this rezoning request along with the recent Taylor Morrison request, which
was to rezone from a rural residential five, which I know has been really tabled for the
moment, but could easily come back around.
I therefore respectfully ask that you please deny this request and consider the traffic,
safety, and existing neighbors before moving ahead with this.
Thank you very much for your time.
- Vicki, thank you so much for calling in and being patient with that technical issue.
Any questions for Vicki from us?
We don't have any questions for you, Vicki, but we will certainly consider your points.
Thank you.
- Thank you.
- Chair, we are sending in the next caller now.
- Good evening.
You are connected to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If you could state your name and address, you'll have four minutes to speak.
- Good evening, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
My name is Bud Volkin.
My wife and I have lived at 3909 Grant for 21 years.
I worked as a traffic engineer for the City of Denton for 16 years and in that capacity
in various other cities for a total of 39 years.
I rise to speak both in opposition to the approval of any rezoning of the brown track
lands from R4, and in particular, in opposition to BPD 2-0001.
The detailed amenities in PD2-0001 are clearly there primarily in an attempt to justify increasing
lot density from R4 to R7-like density, as well as to allow for smaller lot dimensions
and other deviations from what is prescribed for R4 and the DDC.
All of this comes at a considerable cost to the Scranton neighborhood.
There's nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The DDC 1.2 states eight criteria, it is hard for me to grasp how any of these purposes
are achieved by changing the current R4 zoning to any PD with R7-like density.
As to the applicability of the DDC 2.7.3, the only real effect of the change from R4
to a PD is to put more houses on smaller lots.
There is no unique, flexible, or innovative land use, nor are there any greater efficient
provisions of services and utilities that are involved as DDC 2.7.3 intends.
How will these amenities benefit anyone but the developer in the sale of these houses?
I fear that this PD contains a hidden agenda, which, if approved, could cause the brown
track property to return in the future with other more intense and different uses than
are currently allowed or easily foreseen with R4 zoning.
Likewise, regarding DDC 3.6.1, this PD does not include any combinations of any uses stated.
The only purpose of PD 2-0001 is to increase lot density and thus allow for smaller lot
dimensions and other deviations from what is prescribed for R4.
As for DDC 2.4, step three, E8, based on all the protesting input received, only from me
but from many neighbors, the proposed change from R4 to a PD will unquestionably bring
about major adverse impacts on the surrounding properties.
In addition, this provision allows the result of the citizen participation process to be
appropriately considered by the P&Z Commission.
In short, rezoning the brown track from R4 to a PD would bring irreparable material harm
to the property owners of the surrounding neighborhoods and, in the long run, to the
city of Denton.
I firmly oppose it.
The Commission has and will be hearing many concerns about this proposal.
Many of these concerns are viable and of significant importance to the speakers and should be to
the city as well.
The Commission may have sympathy and/or empathy for each concern, but may also believe that
some are not within their purview.
However, everything I have spoken to relates only to the DDC and thus are fully within
the charge of the Commission's consideration.
Therefore, I respectfully request the Commission to perform the duties assigned to them by
the City Council and deny this request for a PD and the intended R7-like density use.
Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you, bud, any questions for the Commission?
We don't have any questions for you, but I appreciate you calling and providing your
thoughts and perspective on the project.
Well thank you for your time.
Our next caller is being sent into the meeting now.
Good evening.
You are connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.
My name is Judith Michaelwitz.
My address is 3921 Fawn Drive in Denton, Texas.
You can start whenever.
Thank you.
I heard beeping and didn't know what was going on.
Yes, thank you very much for allowing me to speak this evening.
I am opposed to the rezoning from an R4 and an R7 to the plan development.
As a resident of the area, I'm extremely concerned, most importantly, with the safety issues in
regard to the safety of our children as they walk to and from Hodge Elementary School.
And although I did see and have been watching the proposed changes that would allow some
additional alleviation of our traffic constraints along Kings Row, I don't see anything that's
going to improve the safety of our children crossing the streets as they come in walking
or on bicycles from our neighborhood and attempt to go through the standing traffic, the stop
traffic, walking between cars.
And that's a huge concern for me personally.
The safety of our children and our community is there's nothing more important.
The amount of traffic that we have at Kings Row and at Loop 288 is astronomical at times.
It's not only when the school is in session, but it is a very dangerous intersection.
We frequently have automobile accidents at that intersection because it simply has not
been designed to handle the amount of traffic that comes through there.
The number of trucks, et cetera.
I've heard the other people describing how we're sitting on Loop 288 trying to make a
right-hand turn to come into our subdivision, and you're just stuck there, which is very
true.
You're just stuck at the light trying to make a left-hand turn onto Kings Row.
Both things are extremely frustrating, yes, but they're very, very dangerous.
So the main concern that I have is, of course, with the traffic congestion.
In addition, I have huge concern with the smaller lot sizes that are being proposed
and the impact that that's going to have on the property values of our homes in our neighborhoods.
Definitely prefer leaving the zoning as is, as the residential four neighborhood designation.
We fought hard to have that designation put in place a few years ago, and we definitely
ask that you, as the commission, would please consider denying the PD proposal, and I thank
you for your time.
Thank you, Judith, for calling in.
Any questions for the caller?
Judith, there's no questions from the commission, but I appreciate you taking the time to wait
on hold and let us know your thoughts and perspective on the project.
Thank you.
Chair, we are sending the next caller in right now.
Chair, we are having trouble.
It appears that this caller dropped off the line.
Is it our last caller?
You mentioned there's six.
It is the last caller.
Okay, we can certainly turn to the dais for discussion, and, Stuart, will you just interrupt
me if you reconnect with that individual?
Absolutely.
Let me get some time before we close the public hearing.
While we wait to see if we can reconnect with that citizen, is there any questions that
we can discuss?
I'm sorry, Chair.
They are coming in now, Chair.
Perfect.
Good evening.
You are connected with the Planning and Zoning Commission.
If you could state your name and address for the record, you'll have four minutes to speak.
Good evening.
My name is R.J. Miller.
I live at 5045 Oak Bend Circle in Denton, Texas, and thank you for taking my comments
tonight.
Basically, I would first like to commend the applicant for addressing many of the early
concerns, particularly traffic and drainage.
However, I have additional concerns that really have not been addressed, particularly the
higher density section that is essentially R7.
I am concerned that while it's been stated as a goal to be able to provide entry-level
housing for new homeowners, I think that based on trends that we've seen that will most likely
wind up being owned by investors and will be rental properties, and within a very short
period of time, those properties will be significantly run down and overcrowded.
I think you can go look at the housing development over on Dixon, Cruz, and Savage as an example
of that.
I think it's similarly sized lots over there.
Now, I think I heard, and this may be, it probably is unrelated to this particular request,
but that the prediction for the intersection at that traffic light at Kings Row and 288
in 2029, I thought I saw over four-minute queue times, which is just completely unacceptable,
I believe, and that apparently is even with the improvements to Kings Row that are proposed
by this particular applicant.
And I guess my final comment would be, when we buy our homes in this area, we look at
the zoning that is published and expect that to be adhered to, and we're seeing in this
part of Denton developers wanting to come in and make significant requests for variants
from that plan to put in much higher density housing.
So in closing, I would like to say I respectfully request that the Planning and Zoning Committee
stick to the published zoning plan that's in place and not grant this request.
Thank you for your time.
Any questions?
Sir, I appreciate you calling in.
We don't have any questions on our end, but I appreciate you waiting on hold, getting
through the technical difficulties and expressing your opinions and thoughts on the project.
Ma'am, did you want to speak?
Do you just make your way to this first microphone closest to you?
And if you could state your name and mail-in address for the record.
Okay.
Thank you for letting me speak.
I've never done this before, so I'm a little nervous.
Deborah Mills.
I live at 3907 Whitetail Drive, Denton, Texas, 76208.
I don't directly abut to the property, but I'm about a block away.
I actually back up to Hodge Elementary.
I completely agree with the callers that have called in before.
I would ask you to respectfully decline this request.
Again, it's very difficult now for us to get out of our neighborhood in the mornings.
Even though you say this is traffic in the mornings, it's not just the school traffic,
but it's people trying to go to work and things like that.
And the people coming out of this new development, how are they going to even get out of their
neighborhood if there's only one in and out of that area, right?
They're going to be frustrated with the same issues that we have today.
The other thing that I wanted to mention, I am concerned about the higher density.
We all bought our homes.
As somebody mentioned, I've lived there for 22 years now.
With the intended use that the zoning around it would stay, you know, as promised, okay?
And so we bought our homes.
The development that we're in, luckily the developer did a very good job and was very
good at particular about what he did.
I am kind of confused a little bit, though, if the high density was for lower income or
starter families, if there's going to be an HOA with this, that's the first I've heard
of that in this proposal, and that would pretty much price them out of that house that's supposedly
in their price range, because my understanding is HOA fees can basically put people out of
their homes over a period of time.
And again, it's traffic issues, it's density, property values, all of that that everybody
has stated before, so I would ask that you respectfully decline this.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Deborah, for being here.
You did great for your first time.
You did good for your first time.
Please do.
Anyone else wanting to speak this evening?
Okay.
With that, I'm going to go ahead and close the public hearing.
Before we open for a full discussion, I did want to see if we can get a couple questions
that have been addressed answered really quickly, and I don't know who's best to answer this.
My thought might be Thomas, but is there any timing on when the -- if TXOT approves your
acceleration/deceleration, is that going to be built concurrently with Phase 1, or is
that at full build out?
And then secondly, the deacon of the church was wondering when that TIA study was done.
Was it done actually during school time?
>> So I'll answer that one first.
The TIA was done during school time, and as part of the TIA, we actually -- our transportation
engineers went out there during -- essentially spent a full day out there.
So they were there when drop-off and pick-up was occurring.
So they actually even spoke with the principal of the school and some of the people.
I think one or several of them got approached asking what they were doing out there and
had to explain that they were here doing a TIA and observing the traffic pattern.
So it was done during school time.
So that is included within those counts.
On the first thing, I think we've written into the PD.
So originally, we thought that the access point to Loop 288 was going to be an emergency
access only, so the PD condition by the city states that that has to be in place prior
to the development of phase 3A, 3B, or 2B, and basically because that's the area of the
site that wouldn't currently meet the remote access requirement that's required by fire.
As the process is developed and we're showing the acceleration/deceleration lane with primary
access, we added language to the PD such that if the developer chose to develop those lots
first, then that would come in up front with the project.
So as the project is currently shown as being phased, it would be in that phase 2B time
frame that would require construction.
If the project phasing changes so that the initial phases are adjacent to the loop, then
it would certainly come in with phase 1.
Regarding the improvements to King's Row, I think that was asked timing as well.
That's a condition, the conditional city approval, that's required with phase 1.
And really what happens during the design process is that we have to do the design,
we have to get city approval, we bid the project, we go to construction.
Those improvements are accepted by the city and are being utilized prior to any homes
being constructed.
So the existing residents would see that increase in level of service, that choke point essentially
going away prior to our residents and our homes being developed and adding the traffic
to that transportation system.
And then the last question I was just asked, do you have a potential range for the HOA
fees?
Is there a targeted price point for that?
I don't.
Normally what they do is they take into account the open space, they'll get bids for mowing
and maintaining, they'll look at the amount.
You know, I live in a neighborhood that's very similar to this, it has a significant
amount of open space and trails.
We don't have a community pool, which we're not proposing here, but we do have play areas
and such.
And, you know, my HOA fee is $500 annually, so that's about a little over $40 a month.
So I don't, I've not seen a situation where the HOA dues would be such that they would
price someone out of the ability to afford a home within this subdivision.
Great.
Thank you.
Commissioner Smith.
I'm going to make a motion to approve with staff conditions and a couple of thoughts
along this as I do make this approval.
I think this is a thoughtful, carefully planned, well thought out project that is going to
convert an R4/R7 zone property to one that would be 3.8 units per acre, well within the
R4 based zone that is within there.
It's not converting an R4 to an R7.
There's some R7 like characteristics to the higher density pieces, but as we've talked
about those, those still comply by the DDC.
In addition, this could be currently developed by right by a project that without PNZ approval,
without city council approval, that's as it's been clearly shown to myself as commissioner
tonight that really wouldn't be in the best interest of the city at large nor the neighborhood
near there.
I want to commend the applicant and the engineering staff and the planning staff for going through
and creating a project that by going through a much more difficult process rather than
developing by right, you've created a project that is actually better for those that are
in the neighborhood and better for the city at large than what you could currently do
right now within the DDC and by your own right currently.
So I do want to make this known that in my humble opinion, a vote against this approval
would actually be more dangerous for the city than a vote to affirm and to approve it.
So that's my motion.
We have a first for approval with conditions.
Commissioner Ellis.
I will second that and also have a few thoughts as well.
Obviously traffic is an issue in this area to be certain right now, but in my opinion
that is on us as a city.
It's not on this developer.
I'm impressed with the consideration that you and the accommodations that you've given
after your backup material to us at those meetings.
This land, as Commissioner Smith said, is zoned right now to be developed and it can
be developed without any of these considerations.
So that being said, I will reiterate what I said at a Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting a few years ago, and that was the city has got to focus on this area for mobility
improvement now, sooner than later.
We have to.
And we also need to focus on giving significant thought to planning in this area.
This is where our city is developing right now and as a city we need to focus now on
what we want that to be.
And I said it a few years ago, and it needs to be done.
But this project was thoughtfully put together.
It's a need for our city, our residents, and I'm happy to second.
We have a first and second for approval with staff conditions.
Is there any discussion on this item?
Mr. Pruitt?
Thank you.
I actually have one question that didn't occur for staff until we heard all the comments.
When we look at that portion of King's Way, if we were to imagine that this PD wasn't
coming before us and that R7 portion of property was getting developed just by right, how would
the perimeter street improvements required by the development of that parcel compare
in number of lanes and whatnot to the proposed improvements on King's Way?
So that little five-acre section is part of the proposal.
So that right-hand turn lane onto Loop 288 is considered a perimeter street improvement.
So that could be something that would be required as a part of the platting.
Those additional improvements onto King's Row would not necessarily be a part of that
plat.
If those are off-site improvements, it wouldn't necessarily be required for that plat.
So that would be something in addition because of that PD.
Okay, so the right turn to go northbound on 288 would likely be required by right development,
but the extension of the extra lane to the right as you go eastward on King's Way would
not be?
Correct.
Okay.
Yeah, if you'll permit me just some thoughts on this.
I think, you know, when we restrict gradual change in the core of our city, that development
pressure gradually moves to the outskirts.
And in this case, it's causing a drastic change to an existing neighborhood.
So I think when that happens, we have to be very careful about the implications of that,
right?
And what it sounds like many of the comments are coming from is a perspective of fear and
uncertainty of change, right?
Ideally, I'd like to see these applications come forward with something that people see
will make their neighborhood better, not just something that will be tolerable, if you will,
right?
When all that's built is more homes, the only thing you increase is traffic, right?
So you know, I've heard a lot about walkability in the presentation both from staff and the
applicant, but the only place to walk to as near as I can tell is an elementary school
and two churches, maybe your neighbor's house, right?
So that just doesn't really clear the bar for me for what is walkable.
Certainly can't walk across 288.
There's no pedestrian crossing.
There's lots of fast cars.
You know, I think the main problem from the traffic perspective that I hear is what happens
at school drop-off and pickup, and that's a huge problem, right?
I may be in the minority on this, but I would see well-planned, thoughtful development in
this region as gradually decreasing that drop-off problem because as you provide more nearby
students and you give them safe ways to walk to school, you reduce the number of cars that
are currently driving kids across Luke 288 because they're not far enough to be picked
up by a bus, but they're geographically separated from a safe route to get to school.
You know, honestly, I'm pretty comfortable with 40-foot wide lots.
I'm sensitive and appreciative of the affordability goals and I think the track record of some
similar things in the rest of our city.
However, I'll capture this by saying my comments don't come from a desire for a particular
look of houses, but I think that neighborhoods are more successful in the long term when
they create a sense of pride in the people that live there, okay?
And as presented, it's a 40-foot wide lot with a 60% garage door width, that's an 18-foot
garage door, 20 feet once you put the columns in, and then a 10 feet of house next to it.
So that's what it's going to look like, right?
So I'm not opposed to 40-foot wide lots.
I really think we need to figure out as more of these applications come in, how do we make
a 40-foot wide lot something that people can be proud of, right?
I mean, it seems like you've got an 18-foot driveway, the city codes don't let you park
within five feet of that curb cut, so you've got 22 feet between the driveways minus five
feet on either side.
So if you have a 12-foot long car, you can park your car in the neighborhood, right?
So anyway, and then, you know, lastly, I'll just say that I'm not really sold on the wisdom
or the long-term benefit of a, I think it was quoted as a model home park to sort of
have a grand entrance to say, "Here's our homes."
I think our responsibility is to the future homeowners as well as to the rest of the neighborhood,
not to the developer to be able to have an easy way to showcase the homes.
I think that that existing parcel as it's zoned, R7, has more possibilities that could
benefit the neighborhood in the long-term more than another 12 or 14 homes, so those
are my thoughts.
I think the developer has done a great job addressing the concerns.
I understand the drainage concerns, but I really don't think, I think those would be
improved by the development instead of unimproved, so, thank you.
Thanks for your comments.
Commissioner Cole?
Thank you, Chair.
You know, I had two real large concerns coming in tonight with this case, and it was density
and mobility, and I'm real sensitive, and I think this commission is sensitive to increase
density closer you get to Clear Creek, but I think the example would be Gave Ranch.
If you remember what they came to the table with and what they came out with was a better
deal.
I think this is a good collaborative effort between staff and the applicant, so the density
issue, I think this is a better development than what you would have if he went by right,
as Commissioner Smith said.
As far as mobility, this whole city is a mobility issue.
We are all equally affected by it.
I can't get out of my neighborhood.
We have an amazing community, and we're drawing so many people here.
You cannot buy a newly built house in this city right now.
They don't exist, and I don't know what you do about this hyper growth, but as long as
we have people coming like fire ants, I don't know what you do.
You can't just say no, but, you know, I think I commend staff and the applicant.
Mr. Strange builds an excellent product, always has.
So I think we're getting a pretty good product out of this, so I congratulate staff and applicant
on working together.
Thank you.
>> Any other comments?
I can say a few things.
I think Commissioner Smith and Commissioner Ellis said it as eloquently as I could possibly
say, but my perspective is there's an R4 plot of land right there, and someone could come
in and build by right, and what we would have is the same density, it would be 4 to an acre,
we're dealing with 3.8 to an acre, and you would have the community at large would not
have any improvement to King's Row, we would not have any additional access to a neighborhood
off 288.
We would have potentially two acres of open space, but most likely they can just pay that
off and not have any open space, no city park, but in this project, we're getting 21 acres
of open space as well as a city park that is not costing the city any money.
And so when I think of two options that have been laid out tonight, the cost of making
a smaller lot on average seems to be a worthy cost in order to get a development that is
significantly better than what someone could by right build, and I would say this, too,
there are other properties north of 288 that we have seen recently, someone alluded that
one might be in hibernation, that are not local, and they would not be providing the
same consideration.
One, just to the west of this, is Dallas Investor primarily.
This is a project owned by a local, trying to build local, and it's not like the individual
is flipping it or going back down to their Dallas enclave to not deal with the remnants
of any damage put forth in the city.
And so I'm a proponent of keeping things local, promoting local, and I like having local developers
actually invest in their own town.
I think it says something about the city.
I have a lot of other notes here about housing costs and how they're only rising from now
and that I think this is the time to build for individuals trying to get in.
I would be remiss not to at least respond to Commissioner Pruitt's point about a sense
of pride.
Home ownership, by most studies, accounts for the single largest disparity in economic
generational wealth and gap and equity in this country.
And so we have individuals looking to provide a product that is impossible to get in them,
which would provide individuals of low economic status the ability to start building generational
wealth, which is only increasing.
It's the highest it's been in 50 years.
That's something to be proud of.
I think home ownership, period, is something to be proud of, but I wouldn't dare say if
you have a front-entry garage, you shouldn't be proud of that.
I disagree with that sentiment.
I think anyone who has worked hard to purchase a home should be proud of that accomplishment
and their generations beyond that should also be proud of that.
And so my hope is that upon this approval, we can have a lot more homeowners in Denton,
perhaps mitigate some of the apartment rush that's happening in our town and start actually
providing some economic equity for individuals in our community.
So with that, I support the project, if there's no other comments, we can take this to a vote.
Seeing none, Commissioner Pruitt?
Nay.
What did you say?
Nay.
Nay, okay.
Commissioner Smith?
Aye.
Commissioner McDade?
Aye.
Chairs, an aye.
Commissioner Ellis?
Aye.
Commissioner Cole?
Aye.
Motion carries 5-1.
Congratulations.
Thank you.
That moves us to our next item of business, which is our matrix.
Do you go back on some of these other developments like this, and do you go back and see what
some of those density homes over a period of time may transition to rental properties
or remaining single-family homes?
I certainly want to respect your thoughts.
You're not on mic for everyone to listen who's tuning in, but I would love for you to speak
to Julie Wyatt.
Julie, can you speak?
I think it's Deborah, correct?
Yes.
Can you speak to Deborah about her question?
I think she'd be the person to respond to that.
Thank you so much, Julie.
So like always, for the matrix, I'm going to start with Haley giving us an update, and
then we'll turn to the dais for questions or items.
Sure.
Just a couple of updates from our last meeting.
Mr. Smith had requested a workshop from Discover Denton, and I have reached out to them, and
they are available in the beginning of September, so we'll be putting that on our schedule.
And there were a few questions regarding the online comment forum.
Stuart did look into that.
We're currently not able to change the format of how those emails are sent, but they are
looking to upgrade that system, and that will integrate better with our agenda so that you
get those in a more organized fashion moving forward.
So I think other than that, just a couple of updates from Council.
The Parkside plan development off of Hickory Creek Road was approved at their meeting,
along with the commercial zoning on 380 that we had near Malone Street.
So both of those were approved, and just looking forward, we are planning to restart the bootcamp
series, if you will, in July, so you'll see some planning topics for discussion and training
coming forward to future work sessions.
I think that's the only updates I have for you all.
Great.
Any items to add to the matrix or questions?
I have one.
Commissioner Pruitt brought up a point earlier that I think is valid to discuss further about
examples of criteria of why things might get denied and to try to maybe provide some context
for new commissioners and seasoned ones of when we think through of why a criteria didn't
get denied, providing examples or context or maybe filtration of how you look at those
things would be helpful just to better understand that process.
Absolutely.
I'm sure we can work that into one of our bootcamps on platting, probably.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Yeah, I think that would help me a lot, especially as it pertains to our current legal understanding
of the plat process and the requirements there, just to get some more definition on that.
Yeah, I agree.
With no other items, I will close.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you.
Just really concluding, because I forgot to mention it earlier, one of our speakers right
here who's still here had a video that maybe she wanted to share if maybe Haley, you could
get with her or somebody from staff and then she can get that to you and you can disseminate
it to who needs to see it.
Absolutely.
Please.
Okay.
Thank you.
Are we good now?
Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you.
With that, I'll close the meeting at 926, thank you.