Good afternoon and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting
for Wednesday, August 18th, 2021.
This is our work session and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 437.
First work session item is citizen comment on consent agenda.
Stuart, do we have any callers for this?
There are no callers for this.
Okay.
Thank you.
Let's move on to work session reports.
Let's receive a report and hold a discussion regarding general topics in zoning.
Is that Julie?
It is Julie.
Good evening.
Keep it on?
Okay.
All right.
Good evening.
I am Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton and I am sharing my screen and
we're going to talk about our zoning boot camp tonight.
So this is a continuation of our boot camp series regarding just general planning topics
and just an overview of how they relate to the Denton Development Code.
Tonight we're going to be talking about zoning.
Brief agenda, we're going to talk about the history, the types of zoning, those zoning
processes in Denton, some other topics and then some helpful links.
So first we want to talk about is the time before zoning.
So zoning is relatively new and cities developed before we had zoning.
If you've been to Europe, you might have been to a medieval town where you saw, built
on a hillside and saw how the structure of that city, how that city was formed.
If you've been to New York, you've probably seen how the parts of that city were developed.
We've got a picture here of the City of Denton.
A lot of the downtown core of Denton was developed before we had zoning.
And then we have a picture of our most famous city that doesn't have zoning in Texas and
that is Houston.
Houston does not have zoning.
They do all of their land use planning by deed restriction.
So there was a time before zoning.
But in 1916, the equitable building at 120 Broadway was built in Manhattan and it was
38 stories and it cast a shadow.
Here is a picture of what that building looks like today.
At that time, New York attempted to address concerns related to light, air and congestion.
And so they enacted regulations that regulated height and bulk and use and then lot coverage.
So that was really their original zoning.
It included three districts.
That was residential, business and unrestricted.
And if you've read our 472-page Denton Development Code, this one was only 14 pages long.
So it was pretty easy to read compared to today's codes.
In 1926, the federal government got involved and they, the Department of Commerce granted
powers to divide cities into districts and that was the Standard State Zoning Enabling
Act and that it also allowed states to allow cities to establish zoning commissions and
amendment procedures.
And that was for the purpose of promoting health, safety, morals and the general welfare.
So you hear that phrase a lot and that's really kind of where it started.
That zoning was tested in 1926 with the Village of Euclid versus Ambler Realty Company.
This was a landmark Supreme Court case.
The zoning ordinance in question was to prevent commercial and industrial development on 68
acres.
They wanted it zoned residential.
The owners claimed that it reduced their land value and so it went all the way to the Supreme
Court and the Supreme Court did decide that zoning was a valid exercise of police power
to separate intensive uses from less intensive uses and that opinion stated that a nuisance
may be merely the right thing in the wrong place like a pig in the parlor instead of
the barnyard.
So now we get into what is zoning.
So we've talked about, we've talked about times before zoning and we talked about the
origin story for zoning and now kind of what is it.
So as I was preparing this presentation, I was trying to think of the elevator speech
attached to zoning.
What is it?
How would you describe it in 30 seconds?
So I said, you know, it divides a city into different areas set aside for different purposes.
It restricts their use of private property and essentially it's what a property owner
can do where and how much, but more probably more professionally it is a police power.
It is the right of a community to regulate the activities of private parties to protect
the interests of the public and that's where we get that health, safety and public welfare,
that phrase.
Your zoning reflects the values of the community and it implements your comprehensive plan,
but there's tension, there's tension between those private property rights as well as those
public interests.
So you have to balance that tension between those two things.
And as part of that, one phrase that you might have heard is something called a taking.
A taking deprives a property owner of all reasonable use of property without compensation.
And so what really essentially that those restrictions can't be so restrictive that
you have, that it deprives all reasonable use of the property and that cases, Mac could
probably talk much better than I can, but the Supreme Court has had cases go before
and regarding that taking and that reasonable use.
You know, as zoning is applied, it really contains two parts.
We have our text and we have our map.
The text establishes those districts, development standards, maybe how tall a building can be
or how much lot coverage or what sorts of uses would be allowed in a general area.
And then that map establishes the location of those districts.
So all of these images on your screen are different zoning codes within the state of
Texas.
So we have our Denton Development Code, but every municipality has a different type of
code.
Some of them are more kind of just text based, some are more visual.
Here this Lubbock has a lot of pictures in their zoning code.
Yours has a series of graphics and exhibits as well as tables and text.
And then we have those maps.
So those maps relate to those, that text by saying where each of those colors on the map
represents a different zoning district.
So that's how you can apply those two together.
Zoning in Texas, our Texas Local Government Code does speak to zoning.
It's in section or section 211.
And generally municipalities do have the authority to enact zoning and that is to promote the
health, safety, morals and general welfare, there it is again.
And it allows that governing body to regulate height, the number of stories, the size of
buildings, the percentage of the lot that may be occupied, size of yards or open space,
density and use of property.
And cities aren't required to adopt a comprehensive plan, but they do have to determine the consistency
with which their zoning applies to that comprehensive plan.
So those two things should relate and you should have processes in your code to determine
how much those should relate.
Section 211 also includes procedures.
One thing that we talk about a lot is notification.
When you request to rezone a piece of property, the public needs to be notified of that request.
The Texas Local Government Code has two notification procedures.
One, an item has to be published in the newspaper and what the Texas Local Government Code says
is it has to be the day before the day before 15 days prior to the meeting.
So essentially what that means is 17 days before the city council meeting, it's got
to be published in the newspaper, that request.
And then a mailing has to go out to property owners within 200 feet of the request and
it says the day before the day before, 10 days before P&Z, so 12 days before planning
and zoning, a mailing has to be noticed.
Now the City of Denton has additional notification.
We do do a newspaper notice for the Planning and Zoning Commission as well.
We also require the applicant to put signs on the property.
We send postcards to residents within 500 feet of the request and we also put it on
our website.
So we do above and beyond what the state of Texas requires as a minimum.
Zoning – rezoning of a property does require two public hearings.
The Planning and Zoning Commission provides that recommendation and then City Council
approves or denies it.
And then something that comes up from time to time is that supermajority provision.
So property owners within 200 feet of the request are noticed of that request.
And if written protest is filed by at least 20 percent of the area of the lots or land
within that 200 feet, then a supermajority is required and that's six out of seven
council members.
Also if P&Z recommends denial, a supermajority is required.
So let's see how zoning evolved in Denton.
I think probably some of you have seen these maps before because I like to drag them out
from time to time.
Originally zoning started in Denton in about – in 1935.
That really was just sort of the hint of zoning.
It really got started in earnest in 1941 and we adopted a zoning code as well as a zoning
map.
It included three districts – business, manufacturing and dwelling districts and you
can see that zoning map here.
Denton was a bit smaller then, but this was that zoning map in 1941.
There was a new code in 1959.
The best I can do as far as a zoning map near that 1959 code is this 1957 map.
Once again it retained those same three districts – the business, the manufacturing and the
dwelling.
Denton was a little bit bigger then, but it did maintain those districts.
A new code was adopted in 1969 and that really further separated the uses.
So we got to that zoning code that was a little more familiar to us.
It brought in things like office districts.
It differentiated the lot sizes for residential.
So you had 10,000 square foot lot zones or 7,000 square foot lot zones.
So it started further differentiating what those zoning districts should be.
In 1991 we adopted another code, and that was similar to the 1969 code.
So it really was kind of a continuation of those districts and those uses.
And the one we're all familiar with and that's the 2002 code.
The 2002 code was a result of our comprehensive planning efforts at the end of the 1990s.
It really introduced something new to Denton and that was mixed use districts.
So it included, if you remember, the NRMU, NRMU 12, our downtown districts.
So it started looking at those districts in kind of a more modern way and then that's
that mix of potential uses.
And that gets us to the 2019 Denton Development Code.
We maintained that mixed use districts and sort of built upon that.
We further differentiated our mixed use districts into kind of residential and then mixed use
corridor and then other districts.
So we sort of provide that organizational framework for those mixed use districts.
But we maintain kind of that theoretical model.
So now we're going to talk about zoning types.
So there are several types of zoning.
The most probably the one everyone is familiar with is called Euclidean zoning.
It is that use-based zoning, kind of more traditional.
It is based on that idea that some land uses should be separated.
So for instance, factories should not be built next to elementary schools or neighborhoods.
And then as we discussed, those early zoning models followed really those three zones,
the residential, commercial, industrial, sort of just broadly separated them in that manner.
Like Denton, those zones continue to further subdivide, separating different residential
uses and different commercial uses.
And it really has contributed to the form of our cities.
And our cities really reflect how those zoning trends move forward in the 20th century.
Form-based code, that's something we've been talking a lot about as a city.
I think council has been talking about it.
Form-based, a pure form-based code does not regulate use, it does not say what use can
go where.
But it does establish that building envelope, where in a lot a building can be set.
So it gives setbacks, heights, build two lines often in a form-based code.
You don't want parking between a building and a street, you want to pull those buildings
up to the front because it really is focused on that urban design standard and really defining
that street wall.
It can include design elements, things like building orientations, so oriented toward
the street.
Think of walkable developments that you've been in, percentages of windows and doors,
design elements like building materials, sidewalk widths and landscaping.
It can result in higher densities because it doesn't regulate use, it really doesn't
regulate density, it really looks at that form of that building.
And it's based on transects.
So on your screen here, those transects go from one to six, the natural zone being agricultural
area, kind of out agriculture, no real development.
And further intensifies it until you get to transect six, which is your urban core, so
think of the square.
So you can think of Denton and all those transects and how development changes when you go from
the outside of the city and then getting into the city.
Denton has elements of form-based code in our design standards and our overlay districts.
We do have design standards that really, some design standards that follow that form-based
model.
Another zoning type is plan developments.
It's something we've talked about quite a bit here recently.
We've seen quite a few of them.
They're new, and I put that in quotation marks, they're new to Denton in 2019 because they
were in our older codes, they were removed from the 2002 code in their back.
It does provide flexibility.
It allows a unified development concept that may not conform to our standard zoning.
But there should be offsets.
It's often something is offered for increased flexibility, but there's something about that
development that is either increased development quality or some sort of community benefit.
So there are offsets associated with PDs.
They can include a mix of uses.
We've seen purely residential PDs come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and we've
seen purely commercial or industrial PDs, and it can also include a mix of uses.
So it really is very broad-based, incredibly flexible.
And then development plan can be phased.
There's usually a site plan or a map associated with it, and there can be phasing associated
with it.
One term that we talk about a lot in the Planning Department is rational nexus.
And when we're looking at these plan developments or in some other projects like SUPs, conditions
or provisions associated with that have to have a reasonable connection to that development
impact.
So for instance, you would have an additional tree buffer in order to minimize glare, or
you may have additional screening at the right-of-way because of a larger parking lot, something
to that effect.
It's got to have a rational basis for that request.
This is often also related to impact fees or other exactions.
So that rational nexus is a term we bandy about.
Associated with that is rough proportionality, that those exactions imposed have to be proportionate
to the impact.
So they can't have a 10% impact, and then we ask for 100% of the payment or some other.
It's got to have that proportionate impact or that proportional, it's got to be roughly
proportionate to that impact.
And then similar concepts to PDs that we have seen are master plan communities and overlay
districts.
And we're going to talk about those briefly.
But first, I just want to stay on PDs just for one more slide.
So this is a PD.
It did not come forward in the city of Denton, it was from a neighboring community, but it
kind of shows typically what we see in commercial PDs or what is typical of a commercial PD.
Like straight zoning, PDs will have the text and the map.
So it's going to have both of those things with that PD.
But unlike straight zoning, it is specific to a certain piece of property.
So you can apply a zoning district to anywhere or an established zoning district to anywhere
within a city.
But a PD is only for that one piece of property.
And it runs with the land.
So a development must develop as it is established by the PD or the PD has to be amended.
And that's one thing that's come up in our discussions with these PDs.
So for instance, this developer said, okay, we're going to put these buildings in these
locations, they're going to be this size, we're going to have parking and access in
these locations, our dumpsters are going to go here, landscaping islands are going to
go here.
Here's the future pad site, and then here's what our development is going to look like.
When it's all said and done, it's going to have this tree canopy and these color palettes.
So that's really how those PDs work in other communities and how it's really started to
work within the city.
We know it's kind of new, but it is starting to work in that manner.
A master plan community, that was something in our 2002 debt and development code.
It's essentially a PD, but it's a really, really big PD.
It was either 125 acres or 300 acres, depending on ownership, and it really just provided
that alternative zoning.
So our 2002 development code did not have PDs, but it had these master plan communities,
which is essentially the same thing.
MPCs are not included in the 2019 DDC as a new project type, so you're not going to see
new MPCs move forward.
Those are really being handled just as PDs.
There are three PDs that we'll continue on, and they are addressed within the 2019 development
code, and that is Hunter and Cole Ranch, and that's on the southwest side of town and then
the Hills of Denton on the north side of town.
So those are going to continue on as they were planned, but you just won't see any new
MPCs come forward.
And then overlay districts.
Our subchapter four in our debt and development code does address overlay districts and allows
for the creation of overlay districts.
It does require a text zoning amendment and a zoning map amendment.
So essentially, when an overlay district is created, it's then put into the Denton development
code in subchapter four.
And we have a few of them in the city of Denton.
We haven't seen one in a while, but we do have a few that I just want to mention.
Fry Street, you may be familiar with that one.
Oh, and just to let you know, the symbology on our maps, those overlay districts are kind
of grayed out.
So you can see here's Razor Ranch here.
Fry Street's a little small.
We've got historic districts and then Unicorn Lake.
So Fry Street, it regulated parking, solid waste containers, signs, setbacks, and density.
That was the intent of Fry Street.
Unicorn Lake has additional regulations regarding uses, densities, dwelling sizes.
Razor Ranch has use and development standards.
Our historic districts, those are overlay districts within the city, so those are protected
by zoning.
And those are intended to protect and promote preservation within the city.
And then one we really don't see very often, and that is our municipal airport overlay
district.
It is shown right here.
And really, that restricts heights and it restricts uses.
Because of noise, you've got to restrict those uses.
It limits those residential uses because of the noise.
And then heights, obviously, because airplanes are coming in, the FAA wants to make sure
that those pilots and passengers are safe.
One thing I wanted to talk about that was related to overlay districts and some things
that we've talked about here are overlay conditions.
If you recall, in the 2002 development code, we had something called a mixed-use residential
protection overlay.
It allowed the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend and City Council to approve overlay
restrictions that were more restrictive than the base zoning to ensure compatibility with
adjacent residential uses.
So it did allow those overlay conditions.
Those were carried forward in the 2019 code.
Those old overlay restrictions were carried forward in the 2019 Denton Development Code
as PDs.
So they are, they do have a symbology on our map and they do have to follow that PD amendment
process.
However, our new Denton Development Code does not permit just overlay conditions on base
zoning districts.
So while we do have overlay districts that are permitted and allowed, those overlay conditions
on straight zoning is not allowed and it really should be treated as a PD at that point.
Zoning processes, I'll go really quickly on this.
We've got first Zoning Map Amendment, you'll see those a lot.
The purpose is to change the zoning district on the map, so just to change what rules apply
on a certain piece of property.
Staff makes a recommendation, we review that.
To public hearings, P&Z recommends approval or denial and then City Council either approves
or denies that request.
We do have criteria that we look at related to those.
It is in subchapter two of the Denton Development Code and that's really what we base our analysis
on and what the basis for the decision should be.
Plan developments, we have that process laid out in subchapter two as well.
It can be used if a rezoning or specific use permit would not achieve a desired result.
So that's really kind of what we look at, is when we need that flexibility.
As I mentioned, it includes that map as well as the text, so those development standards
and that visual map, and they also need to indicate the deviations from the DDC, so they'll
need to say in those development standards where they want to deviate and then what maybe
those offsets are.
One thing to keep in mind, you cannot deviate from gas wells, ESUs or tree preservation
with a PD.
Those have to be either addressed separately or they need to comply with those standards.
It follows the zoning amendment process.
Amendments for PDs, we talked about this a couple weeks ago.
We have that major and minor amendment.
It's new to the 2019 code that minor amendments, something that would be very limited, wouldn't
change the use, wouldn't change the intensity, but still is a change to that PD.
There still has to be a public notification, so we still send out a notice to those property
owners within 200 feet.
They have a time prescribed that they have to contact the city, and if there's an objection
to that or an opposition to that proposal that cannot be addressed, that cannot be sort
of worked through, then it does change to a major amendment, and a major amendment goes
to Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, just like any other zoning action.
Once again, we do have criteria for approval.
That's what we base our analysis on and the decisions should be based on as well.
Once again, follows that zoning amendment process.
A specific use permit, that is sort of zoning adjacent.
If you've looked at our zoning tables, you know that there are some uses that have a
P next to them, some that have a P+, and then some that have an S. Those that have an S
require a specific use permit.
A specific use permit, it follows the dual public hearing process, so it comes before
the Planning and Zoning Commission and onto City Council.
It's a use that is likely permitted or should be okay for that zoning district, but it does
need a little extra scrutiny.
There may be impacts associated with that use that could create challenges for nearby
properties, and so it gives a little extra scrutiny, allows the Planning and Zoning Commission
and Council to look at it.
And then an alternative ESA plan.
We don't see these very often, but that is that discretionary process to allow property
owners to address those ESA regulations, follows that zoning process as well.
Once again, it does have criteria for approval that we look at.
It's a little more on SUPs.
You're going to see one tonight, so this shouldn't be new, but it does.
We typically do have a site plan and a landscape plan and elevations associated with that SUP.
We want to know what they're going to build and how they're going to build it.
Those site plan and landscape plans, those are attached to the ordinance, often with
conditions that they have to follow.
If they want to deviate from that SUP, often we do bake in some allowances for some minor
modification, but we always reserve the right that any changes to that SUP need to move
forward for public hearing.
They do expire after two years, I believe, yes, Haley's nodding.
So they do expire, and they are tied to the use and the land, so that use could not develop
on that piece of property that requires an SUP without an SUP, and it has to conform
to that ordinance.
A DDC roadmap, y'all are probably all really familiar with the DDC, but I just wanted to
talk briefly about where you can find the information you need.
Step chapter one is our general standards.
It includes the authority for the DDC, our enforcement, our non-conforming regulations,
so that's kind of important.
And then that transition from previous regulations, as we're two years into the 2019 DDC, there's
maybe fewer projects transitioning, but that was something that was really important when
we were first implementing that code.
Step chapter two is the administration and procedures.
It's kind of what we're talking about tonight.
That really is, you know, how to process each project type, what is the criteria for approval,
who can approve it, what happens after it's approved.
If they want to make changes, how do we address that?
So it provides all those rules of the road for us.
Step chapter three establishes those zoning districts, what all those base districts are
and what the dimensional requirements are.
It also includes those purpose statements.
Step chapter four, we talked about overlay districts, use regulations.
So that's a really important chapter in terms of just what can you do on your property.
So it includes the permitted use tables, use specific standards, that was something new
to our 2019 development code in that if a use has a little plus by it, then you need
to refer to the use specific standards because it might limit the height of that particular
use or maybe require additional screening for that use or maybe limits the amount of
square footage that that use can develop.
So those are important, not only for this commission and for staff, but also for the
public to understand what they can do with their property.
That also includes performance standards and I know Commissioner Perrett, you had a question
regarding performance zoning, but we also have in our code performance standards.
And those really do, those regulate all uses in that smoke, odor, toxic matter, vibration,
noise, and glare, so those are those impacts that a particular use could have.
We do regulate those in the Denton Development Code.
Our code of ordinances also has additional standards, things like how many animals you
can keep on the property.
We limit the amount of glare you can have on an adjacent property, so we do look at
how properties do impact their neighbors.
Sub Chapter 6 is gas wells, sub Chapter 7 is development standards, is the soup to nuts
of development in the city of Denton.
So you go all the way from clearing and grading your property to ESAs, how you address ESAs
to tree preservation and then access, parking, building design, and then how tall your light
poles can be in your parking lot.
So it includes everything when you're developing your property.
Sub Chapter 8 is subdivision, when you have to subdivide, how you have to plan your lot,
it also includes cluster development standards, and then sub Chapter 9 is definitions.
We have an interactive map that then relates to our zoning text.
I've given just a little roadmap on how to access our interactive map just for you and
then folks at home.
If you go to the City of Denton's main web page, and this is how I get there, you scroll
all the way down and there is a little, on that gray bar at the bottom, there's a little
word that says maps.
You can click on that, and it'll take you to this page right here, the maps page, and
then I click on GIS maps, which then takes me to the GIS maps page, and then I can click
on interactive map, and then that's what gets this big interactive map to pull up.
It includes all parts of the City of Denton as well as the ETJ, and it has a menu of items
you can click on and off, and if you're bored one Saturday afternoon, you can look at the
contour maps of Denton, you can look in where water and wastewater are, you can look at
where our parks are related to our schools, so you can sort of, you can turn on those
layers and really look at how the city comes together in terms of infrastructure and planning
and built environment and open spaces.
We do have a planning tab that includes not only our current zoning, but it includes our
2002 zoning map, and it also includes the 1991 zoning map, so you can pull that up and
see how a piece of property evolved.
It includes our overlay districts.
We also have ESAs and floodplain on here, and then it's off the screen, but we do have
our mobility, so those are kind of the areas that we really look at when we're looking
at cases.
For further information, you may recall that our GIS group had a presentation for you all
in December of last year.
You can refer to that, you can go to the website and watch that again.
Cody with GIS as a fountain of information, he knows a lot more about it than I do.
And I just want to give you some helpful sources, and we'll get this, we'll get this presentation
to you, so you can follow some links that we often look at.
We often look at the Denton Central Appraisal District.
We look at see who the property owners are with the CAD.
American Planning Association has a lot of good reference materials you can look at.
I don't know how to say it.
I say planetism, but I don't know if that's the right way, but that's just a website that
has a lot of planning, current topics, and articles for you to read.
We look at the census, census is great for demographic information.
The North Central Texas Council of Governance, the COG, has a lot of, it has things like
traffic counts and a lot of other information regarding mobility and air quality and all
sorts of good stuff for the general area.
NACTO, the National Association for City Transportation Officials, they have a lot of really good
resource materials.
You can look there.
Municode is where our code is stored, so that's where you would go to find the Denton Development
Code.
Denton Plan 2030, that's on the website, two maps you might want to keep in mind, the Preferred
Growth Concept.
We often talk about that in the Future Land Use Map.
I've given you the code, the page references.
Denton Plan Update, that is our Comprehensive Plan Update.
I don't know if you've been involved in that, but there's a link to that update.
One website that Hailey turned me on, it's a good one, it's the Denton, it's the Text.Project
Tracker, and you can go see how Text.Projects are moving forward, it's a really cool website.
We've been working on a mobility plan update for quite a while, it's kind of tapped the
brakes and kind of catching up with our Comprehensive Plan, but there is a map on a website that
you can look at to see what that kind of draft plan is.
And then the Denton Bike Plan, so those are some websites that we look at and that you
might want to look at as you're just curious about Denton or looking at cases and projects.
And that really concludes my presentation.
One other thing I want to mention in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, we are having an
open house, and Hailey may know better than me, I believe it's September 16th, I don't
know the time, but it is at Development Services Center that hopefully you can attend.
I believe it's starting around 6 p.m., looking for Ron, we've got the head mod, so 6 p.m.
We are still formulating the plans, but there will be a lot of other city departments there.
We're hoping to have some interactive stations around the building so you can check out our
new building and interact with the maps and see how the plan is going.
If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Julie thanks for a great presentation, great information.
Anybody have any questions for Julie?
You can hit your button.
Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you.
Just, thank you for all the information, first of all, it was a very helpful overview.
I'm curious, you mentioned the process by which PDs are amended or rezoned from.
What determines who is able to initiate that process?
For instance, if you have a PD that encompasses multiple parcels and you have a single land
owner that would like to initiate that process, what would that look like?
So a property owner really is the person who has to initiate that rezoning since they are
in control of the property.
So if a PD is a really large one and they're out parcels and maybe somebody either doesn't
want to develop in accordance with that PD or wants to rezone out of it, that would be
up to that property owner and then we would have to send out the requisite notifications
and it would be up to council whether to approve that.
So they can initiate that just for their plot, it doesn't have to come from a consortium
if you will of all of the landowners within the PD.
Well, Mac may want to weigh in.
I don't, I mean, I'm not aware of a provision where they would have to get permission from
adjacent property owners in that PD, but you may know more than me.
I have to look at our code, but I know it's an issue that's come up in other cities, it's
always a good question about who all needs to be involved if they're going to amend that
PD that other properties all belong to.
I think the general consensus for most cities, and I'll have to verify this in our code,
is that that property owner, like Julie said, can initiate his own zoning on his own property
even though it's within an existing PD.
Thank you.
Sure.
Anyone else?
I don't see anything.
Thank you.
Thank you, Julie.
Okay, that takes us to our next work session item, which is clarification of agenda items
for tonight's meeting.
First one being our minutes.
Any questions on the minutes?
There are two on today's agenda.
Okay.
Consent agenda.
Any questions on the consent?
That will move us to individual consideration for a PE 21.3.
That is Haley.
Julie's going to pull that up for me.
That sounds good.
This is a plat extension request for a preliminary plat of Country Club Road estates.
Some of you may remember this project has been going on since about 2017, I believe.
It is a single-family subdivision.
It's on the east side of Country Club Road.
We'll see the map in just a second.
Did I get there?
Yeah, slide four, please.
Or you can go on to five.
There we go.
So the property you can see outlined in yellow, you'll notice there are parcel boundaries
already drawn within part of that on our map.
Phase one has been final plotted since the preliminary plat was initially approved.
In our old code, the approval of a final plat for a phase would extend the lifetime of
that preliminary plat.
So this particular plat, phase one was approved, final plotted in 2019, so that extended the
preliminary plat to 2021.
You can go to the next slide, please.
So this is just a look at the preliminary plat.
It's set to expire in just a few days on August 21st.
As I mentioned, phase one has been final plotted.
It's currently under construction.
Phase two, they have not been able to initiate yet, however.
The property owner and his applicant indicated that there have been several disruptions during
construction due to services, materials, and labor changes during the pandemic.
Similarly, or along with that, TextDOT has a widening project for FM 1830 or Country
Club Road, so they have a significant impact on this property.
There's a dotted line on phase two you can see.
And if TextDOT acquires that right of way as they expect, it could significantly alter
the amount of lots that they can achieve within phase two.
So they're waiting until they get a better idea of what that right of way will look like
before coming forward with that plat.
So combined with those two effects, they're requesting a one-year extension to allow them
to work through those things.
And staff is recommending approval of that extension as they've continued to show progress
towards completion of the project.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Any questions on this item?
Okay, I don't see any thank you, Julie and Haley.
Next item for individual consideration is PP 20029B, the Woodlands on McKinney Street,
which is Haley and Julie again.
We're a tag team these days.
Good.
You're a good tag team.
All right.
So this is a preliminary plat.
You may remember the Woodlands on McKinney Street being a much larger parcel that is
a manufactured home development.
The specific use permit for that project actually required them to maintain six one-acre lots
along their eastern border on Trinity Road.
So this is the preliminary plat for those six lots.
They are each one acre in size meeting the requirements of that SUP.
And since the agenda was posted, they provided an updated plat that was emailed to you all.
And we are now recommending approval of this plat.
Thank you.
Any questions on this item?
Okay.
Seeing none, we can move on to PP 210015A, which we will take no action on as the applicant
has withdrawn this item from tonight's agenda.
So we will go to PP, I'm sorry, FP 210023, which is Ron's item.
Hi, Ron.
Hello.
Thank you, Julie.
Madam Chair, members of the Commission, this is a final replant for a property you're probably
familiar with.
This is on the southwest corner of Mingo and Mockingbird.
The recommendation from staff is denial.
However, the applicant has submitted a 30-day extension for this application and staff has
no opposition.
That 30-day extension will take us to September 8th of the Planning, Zoning Commission meeting.
Okay.
Thanks, Ron.
And that concludes my presentation.
Okay.
Any questions for Ron on that?
So we'll be asking for an extension to a date certain of September 8th, is what they're
requesting.
Correct.
Okay.
Thanks, Ron.
Okay.
And that will move us to FP 210017A, that is Julie's item.
Good evening.
This is FP 21-001A.
This has been before it is within the Robeson Ranch development.
It is a final plat for Unit 6-2.
They still have a couple more items to work through on their plans, so staff is recommending
denial of the plat as it does not meet all of the requirements and I'll be happy to answer
any questions.
And there's already been an extension granted on this one, correct?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
Any questions on that one?
Okay.
Thanks, Julie.
You're sticking around for the next one, FP 21-0025.
This might also look familiar to you as well.
This is for the Grove as SUP was approved on this last year.
It is the final plat for this proposal.
They do have some requirements that they continue to have to work through, some comments.
And so staff does recommend denial.
They have requested an extension, and we have no objection to that extension to the September
8th PNC meeting.
Okay.
Great.
Any questions on that?
Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
That will take us to our public hearing portion of the agenda.
First one is DCA 21-03.
That is Ron's item.
Yes.
Second, ma'am chair, to pull up the presentation, and hopefully you'll see it.
There we go.
Ma'am chair, members of the commission, this is a development code amendment request, just
for way of background, on September, I'm sorry, August 17, that is, 2010, there was a development
code amendment to amend what was the industrial center general zoning district from 65 feet
maximum height, that is 240 feet, as a result of a consideration staff analysis of a warehouse
that was coming into the city.
Again, on August 17, the city council approved that increase in height limitation for the
ICG.
On October 1st, 2019, with the DDC update, that ICG was transitioned to HI.
By doing so, the development code also amended or changed the building height, what was again
140, brought it back down to 75.
Obviously, that caused a lot of issues in terms of nonconformity, in terms of several
structures, three in particular, that we are aware of.
It was really brought to our attention early in the process.
We had this in our code amendment list that we took to the DCRC.
We presented it to them.
Obviously, there was no concerns at that time because we were trying to correct nonconformity.
However, because this summer we received the application from a manufacturing company for
a billing permit, we needed to expedite this code amendment, so that's why we're taking
this on its own.
Again, this is for the zoning district of HI, amending specifically table 3.5-C, as
well as table 3.5.5, where it identifies what the maximum height limit is for HI zoning
district.
Again, what staff is proposing is to bring back the height maximum from 75 up to 140
feet.
The other way.
Just to give the planning zoning commission an idea where HI is located in the city, you
can see that the majority of the area is west of I-35 in what we refer to as our industrial
commerce area.
We do see some along I-37, that is, and south of I-35.
There's also a small number of parcels along Mayhill Drive.
You can see here by the landfill area.
What does that mean in terms of incompatible uses?
The DDC, the development code, has built in some standards and requirements in terms of
protecting those incompatible uses.
You can see here one of the major, one of the requirements that is, is setback requirements.
You can see under the HI zoning district, and again, we're changing this maximum building
height from 75, or proposing to change it, that is, from 75 to 140 feet.
We also note that setback requirements, that if this was adjacent to a residential zoning
category that you see here on the left, or on the right, that is, any of these residential
districts here, if it's adjacent to the HI, any development must be setback 200 feet.
So that is a significant amount of setback.
So again, to protect those incompatible uses, which in this regard is the residential uses
under all of the residential zoning districts that you see here.
By way of illustrating what that may look like, you can see the one here to the left,
the HI covers majority of the area, again, west of I-35.
There are small pockets of residential zoning districts, like one here to the north, also
to the south, but primarily the area is surrounded by LI, as well as PF, but again, any development
that comes in along adjacent to these residential zoning districts would have to be setback
200 feet.
The same applies here along I-35 and 377.
This right here is the Acme Brick property, and you can see that the majority of the area
is not surrounded by residential, but if it is, again, the setback requirement still applies
200 feet from that property.
Last, the area along May Hill, there are two pockets or two parcels that have the HI zoning
district.
There is a rural residential here, however, again, if a development were to come in and
develop on this property, they would have to be setback 200 feet from the residential
zoning district.
Last, buffer requirements, again, this is already in the development code, built in
to protect those incompatible uses, and the way this table works is that if there is a
developing use, in this case industrial, under the HI zoning district, they would have to
provide a buffer requirement, as you see here.
For example, if they were to build adjacent to a single family that's zone residential,
they would have to provide a minimum of 50 feet -- I'm sorry, 50 points, a minimum of
30 feet separation.
That 50 points is basically allowed under these elements that you see here, these buffer
elements, so they would have to provide a total of 50 points under which category or
which element they've chosen.
So again, next to a single family, 50 points is a lot of points, so they have to make sure
that that buffer is provided.
And for a commercial use, adjacency, they would have to provide 30 points, so a little
bit less, but still significant in terms of providing that buffer requirement.
Staff recommends approval of this code amendment as it meets the criteria for code amendments,
and I won't read this all, but really just to summarize, it's consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
It does not conflict with any other provisions.
It demonstrates the need for the community, the community need.
It responds to the substantial change, again, the change in terms of the development code
update, as well as it meets the purpose and is consistent with the intent of the DDC.
With that, I'll stand for any questions.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ron.
Any questions for Ron on this?
Mayor Cole.
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to go back to that, the maps, the three maps you had, and go to the far
left one.
That's in our backup.
So if you see that blue, just south of West University Drive, those are all rural homes
to the north and across University Drive.
So what you're saying is that blue, they're going to have to back up another 200 feet?
The blue is...
A further 200 feet?
So I'm sorry, let me try and get the screen here.
Here we go.
It wasn't showing earlier, so I want to make sure I have your question correct.
Mr. Cole, which area?
The left, the one that's right across from Ranch of States.
What's the one in our backup?
I'm looking at the one where West University...
So Ranch of States is up here.
Right, right.
So below that, where that heavy blue is...
Right here?
The light, or the head, wherever the HI that we're going to, 140 feet.
Which is this dark...
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
So I noticed there's a couple of lots there that are homes right to the north of it.
Right over here along University?
Yeah.
Okay.
So the zoning district does not look like it's residential.
No, but there are, I mean, there are homes that are now.
There are homes, yes.
So here and now.
Right.
So would this, would they have to go 200 feet back from those homes that exist no matter
what they're zoned, but they're still right now?
Yeah, the way it reads is adjacent to a zoning district, so that's not a zoning district,
so the 200 feet, in my opinion, would not, you know, not have to comply.
However, the buffer requirements will still have to apply.
And what would that buffer be?
So right here, so they would have to provide the minimum 50 points, as well as provide
a minimum of 30 foot setback for that property.
That is currently a single family detached use.
Okay.
Yeah.
Thank you, Laura.
Ron, I also want to add, I believe the building transition zone would also apply, so there's
a step back requirement.
When you're adjacent to a residential, I wanted to confirm that that would apply here.
I believe that would also offer protection in this instance.
Correct.
So there is also that step setback, and I did not include that here, but setback, the
one, the major one obviously was a big one, and then also the buffer requirements.
Okay.
Ron, I have a question.
If a property is next to an HI and the property is in the ETJ, would any protections be applied
to that or no?
Again, based on the- Let's say the residential use in the ETJ.
Yeah.
There'd be no zoning district, right, in the ETJ, however, the use would still apply.
And so the protection would still be there?
Yes, because it's used for single family, and that's what we would refer to as a single
family use.
Okay.
All right.
Any other questions on this item?
Thanks Ron.
Okay.
Our next public hearing item is Z210014.
This one did have a notification issue and is going to be postponed to a date certain
of 9/8, so we are not going to hear that item today.
So that will take us to S210001.
Hi, Karina.
Hi.
Just give me one second to make sure we're still not sharing.
All right, there you go.
All right, so the item today is S210001, Pebblebrook Parkside.
So the request tonight is for a specific use permit to allow multifamily dwellings on a-
the subject site is approximately 9.92 acres, and that's shown here on the east side of
Loop 288, just about 300 feet south of East McKinney Street.
The site is located within the suburban corridor district.
So first, we'll go over the site plan.
So the proposed development includes six, three, and four-story buildings and one clubhouse.
So the three-story buildings would be these two along the frontage of Loop 288, as well
as these three buildings here on the east side interior to the lot.
So just to orient you, north is on this side, so right now you're looking at it sideways.
And then the four-story building would be on the north side of the property.
So the request includes 216 dwelling units.
That includes one, two, and three-bedroom units.
Associated with this is 300 parking spaces.
That includes a parking alternative to allow a reduction in the minimum parking spaces
for this development.
Those alternatives include a reduction for affordable housing, bicycle substitutions,
as well as reduction of parking based on tree preservation.
So all of that incorporated, that comes to the 300 minimum parking spaces that are shown
on the site plan, as well as 111 bicycle spaces, and that includes the bicycle spaces that
are required at a minimum as well as those that are part of the substitution.
In addition, the developer is proposing a 12-foot side path along south Loop 288, that
is this bold orange line on the east side of Loop 288.
That is increased width from the minimum of five feet along the primary arterial.
They're also showing connections from that 12-foot side path into the site to allow pedestrian
and bicycle access into these buildings.
You can see that there's connections from that sidewalk directly to the buildings along
the frontage, as well as circulation to get to parking in the buildings in the rear.
With the development, they are proposing two driveway connections.
So one at the southern portion of the property, and one just north of central of that property.
So the southern driveway entrance is a full-axis driveway.
There is a light signal that you can see there, and we'll talk about it more later in the
presentation.
That is shown as the traffic signal that came in with the SUP for the Denton Grove.
You saw the final plaque for that item today.
That multifamily development is located on the west side, directly adjacent to this,
on the west side of Loop 288.
So that will allow for turn-in movements from Dutchess into the property, as well as all
other movements into that driveway.
So the northern driveway is a limited three-fourth access driveway.
So turn movements would include right in and right out, as well as a hooded left turn.
So that would be for traffic coming southbound on Loop 288 into the property.
And last, I wanted to point out, aerial fire access would be provided off of Loop 288.
That is to provide that aerial access to the four-story building on the north side.
They were unable to provide that internal to the site.
So they did work with the fire department to allow two 45-foot rollback curves.
That would include grass pavers and reinforced concrete.
So that would be over the 12-foot side path.
So that portion would be reinforced so that the trucks would be able to go in during emergency
access only.
And then last, because I'll talk about it in the next slide, it's a little hard to
see, but there's this hot pink lines that you'll see.
That is some sound fencing that they're proposing, just to ensure that there's that noise reduction
to the tenants of the site.
So next, I'll just go over the landscape plan just briefly.
Overall, they are proposing enhanced landscaping.
So above the minimum requirements, they are proposing 40% landscape area, 38% tree canopy.
That includes street trees along South Loop 288 on the east side.
They are proposed at alternative plant locations.
That is due to some easements and water lines along the frontage.
So they have proposed ornamental trees where there is no obstruction of those lines.
They're also proposing right-of-way screening in areas where you can see front parking.
So this is above what they're required to do.
Since the parking is not actually front parking, it's set back past the building line.
However, they are still screening it with continuous shrubs between the building and
Loop 288, as well as on that southern portion of the site.
They are also required to provide large canopy trees within the parking area.
So that would be within any end caps and any parking lot islands.
They have provided those as well as additional trees that are drought resistant and would
be planted at a higher caliper than required.
So I did mention the sound fence that they're proposing as added screening and noise reduction.
Overall, they are exceeding minimum tree preservation by about 10%.
And they're also setting aside some open space areas for passive and active recreation.
So as you can see, these dark blue areas on the site, those are ESA.
So floodplain ESA to the south, a riparian buffer that snakes through the northeast side.
So they are staying out of those areas, but they are showing open space adjacent and a
central gathering area.
So I'll just briefly go over the conceptual elevations.
On the left side of the screen, you'll see the front and rear elevation for the clubhouse.
On the top right corner, you'll see the front and rear elevation for those buildings that
are along Loop 288.
And then the elevation on the bottom corner is the front and rear elevation for those
buildings that are actually more interior to the site.
So you'll see the staircases that is actually interior, so it won't be emphasized along
Loop 288.
And then the next elevation is for the four-story building.
This is the front and rear elevation for that four-story building along South Loop 288.
So I'll go over the general approval criteria.
I'm just going to go over the ones highlighted as well as the highlighted areas for the SUP
criteria for approval.
So first, we'll talk about Denton Plan 2030.
So the site is primarily designated as community mixed use, that is, this pink area that you'll
see that extends to the north and to the east of this property.
Community mixed use is intended to promote a mix of uses, which predominantly includes
commercial, but we're moderate and high-density residential, as well as services and other
uses that are complementary to that commercial are allowed.
So this is consistent or this development is consistent with the goals of the community
mixed use designation.
So while the site itself or the proposal itself does have a high density at 21 dwelling units
per acre, if we look at the community mixed use designation as a whole, that includes
existing multifamily, those projects that have been approved, combined with this proposal,
they would still remain within five dwelling units per acre, which still, it meets the
intent of that supportive residential commercial.
Second, talking about the goal CC4, which indicates that this area is near a corridor
or focus area, and so that encourages the use of multimodal transportation.
As mentioned earlier, the site or the development is proposing those internal pedestrian connections
with that 12-foot side path that would allow them to connect to existing transit.
Even though transit in Denton County or Denton is set to be discontinued in December, they
still will have access to that on-demand service provided by DCTA.
They've also provided those parking reductions, increased landscaping, they're providing some
design elements from Table 4.1 of the comprehensive plan, and also having that pedestrian or bicycle
connections to the parking open space to the south that I'll talk about just here shortly.
And last, when we talk about the comprehensive plan addressing goal HN1, the proposed development
does further efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing choices for community
members most in need, including those with low income.
So next we'll talk about compatibility with the surrounding area.
So as I mentioned, within this land use designation and this zoning district, this is predominantly
for commercial uses.
So the multi-family use is permitted in SE with this specific use permit.
As you'll see around it, there are existing commercial, I've kind of highlighted them
generally in purple.
So you'll see immediately adjacent, there are commercial uses.
There are also undeveloped properties that are shown to the east, north, and west.
I do want to highlight though that even though it's currently undeveloped, there are some
projects that are either have been approved or are in the development process.
That would include the multi-family project to the west, that is Denton Grove.
To the south, there is some office indoor recreational uses coming through for development,
as well as more commercial to the north.
And then of course, there's an existing multi-family on the east side of the property.
And then to the south is that Pebblebrook open space that we'll talk about later.
I do have mentioned that staff is going to recommend a condition related to that open
space and I'll get to it in the next couple of slides.
So as I've mentioned a couple of times, there is ESA and Floodplain on this property, showing
you again, those areas that snake through on the northeast side and to the south.
That is riparian buffer and floodplain ESA.
There is a bit of zone X on the northeast side, just on that southern portion of riparian
buffer.
So overall, there's approximately 1.92 acres covered on this property that includes FEMA
floodplain and ESA.
And as you can see with the proposed site plan, they are remaining entirely out of this
area.
However, there are two areas where they come just very close to that buffer line.
I've highlighted them in red.
So the parking area to the north, the parking space comes right up to the buffer line and
on one of the buildings, I believe it's about seven to 10 feet from that.
So while they do maintain that they are outside of the riparian area, staff just wants to
add that additional level of support to ensure that once this project moves forward in the
development process, if it were to be identified that in order to develop the site, they would
need to have some sort of encroachment, that we kind of address that by adding a condition
of approval, ensuring that an alternative ESA would need to be approved in order for
this site plan to remain as is.
So that's just that added level of just security to ensure that there's no adverse impact to
the ESA.
As I mentioned, tree preservation is being maintained along the outside area of the ESA.
They're also maintaining that area for active and passive recreation.
While we do allow in our code to have ESAs as part of our open space, we do allow for
them to be "focal points" in our design.
We do want to ensure that those areas are not negatively impacted by the use of future
residents.
So staff is also recommending a condition to ensure that those ESAs are protected through
signage that is indicated in our ESA primer, and I'll get to the language specifically
later in the presentation.
So next, talking about adequate public facilities, and first, of course, traffic.
So the development will generate a net increase of 1,175 daily trips, and that includes 78
morning peak trips and 95 evening trips.
So as was indicated in the traffic impact analysis, this development alone does not
warrant a traffic signal, however, combined with the approved multifamily to the west,
which is the Denton Grove, a traffic signal would be warranted.
So because of that, the TIA was conditionally approved to ensure that the applicant or the
developer identify what their proportional cost for that signal would be.
So staff did carry over the condition from the TIA onto the SUP to ensure that, again,
the proportional cost of the signal based on the proportional impact would be assessed.
So speaking about the traffic on South Loop 288, that is a six-lane divided primary arterial,
which is fully built by TxDOT.
However, as part of this development, to increase the safety of pedestrians on site, the development
does propose a 12-foot, again, side path along South Loop 288.
Again, that is a five-foot minimum required along the primary arterial, as well as that
hooded left turn on South Loop 288 and that three-fourth access.
So adequate water and wastewater are available to the site.
I won't go into the specifics of the lines, the width of the lines, but they will be required
to extend both water and wastewater in order to serve the development.
And then any impact fees would be assessed at platting and civil engineering plans.
Fire access is available via Fire Station 2, located on Mockingbird Lane.
So that's less than an eight-minute response time.
It's just kind of northeast, just past the light.
And then, as I mentioned earlier, they will provide that aerial access to the four-story
building off of South Loop 288.
So we did contact DISD regarding the number of students generated, or that would be generated
from this affordable housing project.
So approximately 65 elementary students for Rivera Elementary, 24 middle school students
to Meyer Middle School, and 35 high school students to Ryan.
DISD did indicate that the increase in students could be accommodated, even though there is
kind of a significant number of students that would be generated by this development and
the adjacent Grove project.
And so speaking about parks, I know I mentioned it a couple times and said I was going to
talk about it later, the Pebblebrook Open Space is located, again, directly adjacent
to this property.
However, it has not yet been developed by Parks and Rec.
And I believe the last time we spoke, the development was looking to be about three
or five years out.
So our development code does indicate that a development should connect to any existing
or future trails.
However, since the Bike Master Plan indicates a trail through Pecan Creek but doesn't have
design plans for it yet, staff did want to ensure that there was a connection in the
future.
And we did also receive some feedback from City Council due to a related project.
So if you remember, the Legacy Multifamily Project off East McKinney, they also had a
condition added at City Council to add the connection to the future trail.
So we've carried that over to this project as well to ensure that the developer works
with Parks to find that appropriate connection and then add that to their civil engineering
plans and on.
So in addition to that, they do provide on-site amenities.
I won't go into them.
I did speak about them earlier, so I'll just move on.
So we did notice this project.
As you can see, within the 200-foot area, we did issue out 11 notices.
But within the 500 area, you'll see that the notices jumped up to 301.
That's because those notices were based off the utility address for multifamilies.
So as you can see, there's a lot of units there.
So there was a large number in notification.
However, we only received one response.
It was in favor.
That is the property located at the corner on Dutchess.
Two virtual neighborhood meetings were held for this development on June 30th and July
1st.
However, only one person was attendance.
The meeting was recorded though, so if anybody reached out, the developer did have that recording
to provide to them.
And you have to excuse me.
This mask is making it a little bit harder for me to read today, so I'm gasping a bit.
A lot of language, so bear with me.
So staff is recommending approval with the following conditions.
First, I won't read through the whole condition entirely.
This is a standard landscape condition to allow us to have that ability to make some
minor changes based on what is provided for you today.
The second condition is related to that alternative ESA.
So as we mentioned, there are the two areas near the ESA where they are not encroaching,
but they are within 10 feet, and we want to ensure that any encroachment would be approved
by an alternative ESA.
So that's the second condition that's on there.
Third is in regards to ESA protection.
So that's an additional protection from that encroachment.
So any open spaces that have been set aside for active and passive recreation and that
are located adjacent to the ESA shall incorporate permanent signage designed to promote the
benefits of preserving ESAs.
And so the language for these signs could be found in the City of Denton's ESA primer.
So that is again to ensure that any residents of this development would not litter or encroach
into the area, and so those signs would help educate the residents of this development.
And then fourth, trail connectivity.
So again, this was a request for a previous development from City Council that also related
to this property.
So we are requesting that the developer coordinate with the City of Denton's Parks Department
to identify the location of a future trail connection on their civil engineering plans
from their site to the Pebblebrook open space that is located to the south.
And then fifth, related to the traffic signal.
So while the traffic signal is being provided by the adjacent property, this development
does have a proportional cost associated with it.
So we are requesting that the developer prepare and submit a proportionality assessment to
the city engineer for the cost of the traffic signal design required at the intersection
of Dutchess Drive and South Loop 288.
So they would pay the cost for such improvements prior to the issuance of any permit in the
amount that does not exceed their rough proportionality to the impacts of the proposed development.
And then the next two conditions are kind of standard, making sure that this would go
on our zoning map, allowing administrative approvals to make some minor modifications
to the site plan.
And then attached with that, anything attached to the ordinance, which includes a site plan,
landscape plan, and sample building would be attached to the ordinance, and so this
is just a breakdown of those elements.
And with that, I can answer any questions, but just give me a break to breathe.
Any questions for Carina?
Commissioner Pruitt?
Thank you, Chair.
First of all, thank you for all the comprehensive view of this project.
Just out of curiosity, I noticed that on the, I guess you called it a side path or the plat
I think calls it as a sidewalk with a 12 foot path along the western edge.
It looked like the landscaping plan has trees in the middle of that.
Is that accurate?
Yes, that's correct.
So with the street tree location, there is, there were some, some like water lines, sewer
lines that kind of limited where they could be placed.
Since the sidewalk is about 12 feet, we approved them to use tree wells within that side path.
So there is sufficient space to allow the tree well and have, you know, passers by still
be able to sufficiently walk around that area.
So I believe there's about six feet of added space outside the tree well.
So it will have basically a variable 12 foot along loop 288.
So where the trees are located, it might be reduced down to six feet, and then it'll go
back to 12 where there are no trees.
Okay.
I guess is there something specific about the easement configuration between there and
the buildings that precludes a sidewalk from coming further from the road?
Yes.
So, so the side path would need to be within the right of way.
There is just based on the requirements for where our plantings could be, this is where
it kind of landed, so they can't put plantings within so many feet of a water line, five
feet, I believe, is what the limit is.
So in order to meet both our landscape standards and provide that amenity, they had to kind
of keep that push towards the right of way.
And this was kind of the best path forward.
Okay.
And there's, yeah, I trust staff on that.
I just when I see high speed roadways and I see sidewalks right next to them, I get nervous.
So I was just wondering whether this development or other ones like this had the option of
choosing to put the sidewalk more interior and leave a buffer space with trees between
the sidewalk and the roadway.
So, I don't know.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Corinne, I have just a couple of questions.
So who's actually in charge of installing the light, I assume, TxDOT, the traffic signal
at Dutchess?
I believe it's a combination of the city and the developer and TxDOT.
So there is a TxDOT permit that would be required.
I believe the city's involved with that.
And the city would acquire the funds to put it in.
So the city would install, I believe, or they're their consultant.
I'm not too familiar on how it works, but I believe it's a combination of entities that
will work together to have that installed.
And is there a timeline on that?
I am not aware of a timeline.
I do know that it's tied more to the Denton Grove project.
As you can see, the final plaque came through.
I believe that they would have to have funds in place within their escrow account.
And I believe it would be tied to when building permits are issued.
I don't have that answer, though, and I think Haley and I can get someone to answer that
for us tonight.
Next one, I assume all the conditions have been discussed with the applicant and are
understood.
Yes.
And my final question is to speak for the four-legged friends out there.
I didn't see any kind of dog park or pet area on the site plan and on a high-speed roadway
like that.
I would like there to be a place for those creatures to be inside of the development.
So was that discussed at all?
I'm just surprised to not see it on a site this large.
That was not discussed.
Typically, when some of these projects come in, it's the developer themselves that proposes
the dog park rather than a staff request.
The applicant will be here tonight, so I think that's a question that we could pose to them.
I do want to point out the -- I think it's about 17% of the land area is dedicated to
open space, so there's certainly an area that they could propose it or, you know, provide
the receptacles.
Okay.
I'll ask.
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Okay.
Thanks, Karina.
I appreciate it.
That is everything on our agenda, so I will close our work session at 6 o'clock and we
will reconvene for our public meeting at 630.
Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting for Wednesday, August 18th, 2021.
This is our regular meeting.
Let the record show that Chair Rozelle and Commissioner Smith are absent this evening.
Our first item on our agenda is to pledge 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.
On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible.
To clarify a bit for our agenda changes tonight, item 4C has been withdrawn and we will take
no action on that tonight, and in our public hearing section, 5B is being postponed and
will not be heard tonight.
And with that, we will go to our item 2, which is considered of minutes for July 28th and
August 4th.
Chair will entertain a motion.
Commissioner Cole?
I make a motion to approve.
Use your board.
Commissioner Pruitt?
I second.
We have a motion for approval.
With a second, any discussion?
Let's take a vote on the board, please.
That motion carries.
It should have been 5.
Somebody did not vote.
Chair McDade did not vote on that.
Okay, we are going to redo and vote on the board.
There was a technical error, so we have a first and a second for approval of the minutes
of July 28th and August 4th.
Motion carries, 5-0.
Thank you.
Let's move on to our consent agenda.
Chair will entertain discussion or motion on that.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Move approval.
Okay, we have a first for approval.
Commissioner Anderson?
Second.
We have first and a second for approval of the consent agenda this evening.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's call for a vote on the board, please.
Motion carries, 5-0.
That will move us to our individual consideration items.
Our first one is 4A, PF21-0003.
I think we are tag teaming Hailey and Julie for this item.
Yes, good evening.
Hailey Zagorski, Planning Department.
Julie is getting this pulled up on the screen.
The request before you is a plat extension for Country Club Road Estates.
You can see the subject property outlined in yellow on the map.
This is a 35.5-acre track located on the east side of Country Club Road.
Some of you may remember this request as it's been a project for a couple of years now.
The preliminary plat was first approved in September of 2018 and included 73 single family
lots and two open space lots.
The phase one final plat was approved in August of 2019, and that did extend the lifespan
of that preliminary plat initially.
The subdivision is zoned R3.
This is just a look at the preliminary plat.
Again, it contained two phases.
It is set to expire on August 21st of this year.
Phase one has been final plotted and is under construction.
Phase two, they have experienced some delays related to disruptions due to the pandemic
with labor and services availability, as well as they're still waiting for TxDOT to decide
the ultimate right of way for the widening of Country Club Road or FM 1830.
So between those two things, they are seeking to have a one-year extension of the preliminary
plat to allow them to continue to work on phase two.
And staff is recommending approval of the one-year extension as they have continued
to progress towards project completion.
And I believe the applicant's here as well if you have any questions.
Are there any questions for staff at the moment?
This individual consideration item, I do have a card on that, Mr. Allison, did you want
to speak on this item?
Okay, you can come on right down here.
I'm going to say wherever you are comfortable.
Works for me.
As long as you can hear me.
Absolutely.
This is Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group, Denson, Texas.
We've been working on this project since 2014 actually.
And I wanted to emphasize that the reason for the extension is because of the inability
of TxDOT to determine the required right of way width.
Ms. Segerski has indicated that she believes staff can work with us to hopefully get that
determined quickly, but I'm not going to ask her to guarantee it.
That right of way width could be anywhere from 30 feet to 100 feet.
I mean, TxDOT had numerous cross-sections they were looking into that area, plus shifting
the road back and forth.
And that's been our real reason.
The original intention was to develop the entire site, but we didn't know what to do
there or how it was going to be affected.
So we hope for this preliminary plan that we can come back within the next year within
the final plan and move forward with the rest.
What will be awkward is if we can get a determination from TxDOT of how much they need, but if they're
not ready to acquire it, we may be sitting there with a common area lot that is no productivity,
but the company sitting there holding onto it waiting for TxDOT to do something.
That's really not fair, but that just may be the way life is and we'll live with it.
But we would appreciate an extension and give us a chance to work with the city and Ms.
Zagurski and find out where Waldo is.
I don't know.
We'll get this figured out and move forward with it.
I'll answer any questions if you have any or respond to them and appreciate your help.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Allison.
Any questions for Mr. Allison?
Okay.
I don't see any.
Is there any further discussion on the item or Chair will entertain a motion?
Commissioner Anderson.
Make a motion to approve the extension for one year.
We have a motion to approve this item.
Second.
And a second.
First and a second to approve this item.
Any discussion?
Seeing none.
Let's call for a vote on the board.
That item carries 5-0.
That will take us to our next individual item for consideration, which is for B, PP200029B.
Hi, Julie and Haley.
Thank you.
There may be a little bit of technical difficulty here, but I can go ahead and summarize.
This is a preliminary plot, there we go, for the woodlands on McKinney Street, lots one
through six.
This is a project associated with the larger woodlands manufactured home community.
These are the six one-acre lots required by their specific use permit along Trinity
Boulevard.
And since the posting of the agenda, the applicant has resolved all of the comments, so a new
version of the plot was emailed to you all.
And staff is now recommending approval.
I'm happy to answer any questions.
Any questions for staff on this?
Okay, I do have a card for this individual item.
It is from Brad Springer.
Did you want to make comments, Mr. Springer?
This might be the wrong time for me to ask this, but I learned that there are a group
of people that might be buying these six lots, and is the developer going to provide water
and sewer taps, and is it there, and are y'all familiar with that?
I don't know that in this preliminary plot process we would have answers to that.
So the current owner has not yet provided their civil engineering plans, but they've
indicated they intend to do so, or at least assist in doing so, for whoever might purchase
the property.
But there will be city services available to the site.
There are some sewer improvements with the new lift station that are required to serve
the site.
But no more improvements to the road, to Trinity Road, right?
No, sir, they're not making any improvements on Trinity at this time.
That's just the questions we had.
Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Springer, you certainly can reach out to staff separately on this item at another
time if you have more specific questions for you and your clients.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay.
I don't have any other cards for this item.
Chair will entertain discussion or a motion.
The Chair will motion to approve this item.
Commissioner Cole?
Second.
There is a first and a second on the floor to approve the item.
Any discussion?
Call for a vote on the board, please.
Motion carries 5-0.
As mentioned earlier, 4C has been withdrawn and we will take no action.
So that will take us to 4D, FP210023.
Hi, Ron.
Good evening, Chair, members of the commission.
Make sure I can advance the slide.
So this is a final plat application for a property southwest of Mingo and Mockingbird.
It is for a multi-family development.
The subject application is recommending for -- staffs recommend denial to this application
as it does not meet the criteria for approval for final plat.
However the applicant has submitted an extension, a 30-day extension request.
Staff has no opposition to this request and the next opportunity for planning zoning commission
would be September 8th, if this were to be extended.
Any questions?
Any questions for Commissioner Anderson?
Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
Is this where the apartments were going to be that we heard months back?
Yes.
This is the Mockingbird multi-family, yes.
Did they get one extension already?
No.
This would be the first one.
We did hear a preliminary plat, so that was several months ago.
This is the final plat, so this is another application.
Okay.
Any further discussion for staff?
Chair will entertain a motion.
Commissioner Cole?
I'll make a motion to delay until September 8th, or 30-day, I'm sorry, 30-day extension.
We'll be approving the applicant's extension, is that what you mean?
Right.
To a date certain of September 8th?
Yep.
Okay.
Motion on the floor is to approve the applicant's request for an extension to a date certain
of September 8th.
Is there a second?
Commissioner Anderson?
Yes, I second.
Okay.
We've got a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Okay.
Let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 5-0.
That brings up 4EFP210017A.
That is Julie Wyatt's item.
All right.
Good evening.
Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner.
This final plat is within the Robeson Ranch development.
It is for single-family dwellings, Unit 6.2.
They have a few more items to work through regarding the technical requirements as required
by the Denton Development Code.
They have received one extension, so at this time, staff recommends denial of the final
plat.
I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Are there any questions on this item?
And Julie, to clarify, they've already had their one extension, that is?
Correct.
Which is the reason for denying?
Correct, yes.
Okay.
Any discussion?
No.
Okay.
Commissioner Anderson?
Yeah, Julie.
Thank you, Chair.
Julie, did they not ask?
They've already had one extension, is that right?
Yes, sir.
Okay, so they can't have it?
Okay.
Never mind.
I misheard you.
Thank you.
Any further discussion?
I can entertain a motion at this time.
Commissioner Anderson?
Make a motion to deny.
Motion on the floor is to deny.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second to deny.
Any discussion?
And to clarify, voting yes on this motion would be to deny the item.
Can you vote on the board, please?
That motion carries 5-0.
That will bring us to, for FFP21-0025, Julie Wyatt, hello again.
This final plat is for the Grove, if you recall.
This is for a multifamily development adjacent to Loop 288, just south of McKinney.
They do have a preliminary plat approved.
They do have a couple of things they have to work through to meet all the technical
requirements for the final plat, so staff recommends denial.
However, they have requested an extension, and staff has no opposition to an extension
to September 8th, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Any questions for Julie on this item?
I don't see any, Julie.
Thank you.
Sure.
Chair can entertain a motion or further discussion.
Commissioner Pruitt?
I move to approve the extension to a date certain of September 8th.
Commissioner Cole?
Okay.
First and a second to approve the applicant's request for an extension to a date certain
of September 8th.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
Motion carries 5-0.
That will bring us to our public hearing items.
The first one this evening is 5A, DCA21-0003.
I'll invite Ron to show his presentation, and I will open the public hearing.
Thank you, Chair.
Give me a second to pull up the presentation.
I'm Chair, members of the commission, Ron Megito, principal planner with Development
Services.
This is a proposed code amendment to amend the height restriction maximum for the HI heavy
industrial zoning district.
Just to weigh your background, back in August 17, 2010, there was an amendment to increase
the height for what was then industrial center general from 65 to 140 as a request or as
an analysis in determining the need for a higher maximum height due to some applications
that was being heard at that time.
Come to October 1, 2019, with the development code update, the ICG zoning district transitioned
to a heavy industrial zoning district.
By way of doing that, the maximum height was also changed.
It went back to what was 140, back down to 75.
By doing so, there were some non-conformities to existing structures that was created.
And then this summer, just a few months ago, a few weeks ago or so, we did receive an application
from an applicant for a manufacturing company to do some expansion and height extensions
of their building.
And by doing that, we realized that there was a need for this code amendment.
Now, this code amendment was always on our list of code amendments and we did present
this to the DCRC, the Development Code Review Committee.
However, due to this recent application, it was staff's thinking that we need to bring
this sooner than later.
So we're bringing this up to the Planning Zoning Commission for your consideration and
then ultimately the City Council, as there is an application pending.
With that, staff has initiated this code amendment, again, to address the non-conformity that
was created.
It would specifically amend table 3.5-C, as well as table 3.5.5, which are tables that
specifically provide the maximum height under the HI zoning district.
And what we are proposing, again, is to go from 75 feet, what it is today, to 140 feet
for what it was prior to the 2019 Development Code.
To give the Commission an understanding of where the HI zoning districts are located,
and you see that the majority of the area that is zoned HI is located on the west side
of I-35W.
There are some HI zoning district along 77, primarily the area here, which is the Acme
Brick Company.
There are also HI zoning districts along May Hill, right by the city landfill.
I want to make mention to the Commission that although the height restriction is being increased,
there are also setback requirements that would apply in situations where the HI district
were to develop, to address any incompatible uses impacts.
So if a property were to be developed in the HI, and they were adjacent to a residential
zoning district that you see here to the right, any of these zoning districts, they would
have to be set back 200 feet from that property.
So that is an added requirement, again, to address any incompatible impacts that may
be caused by that future development.
So just to kind of give an illustration of where that potentially could be, the area
again west of I-35W, you see some residential districts to the north pocket right here along
Western Boulevard.
Also there are a number of residential zoning districts to the south of the area.
But again, other than that, the area is surrounded by light industrial or public facilities to
the west.
The area adjacent to Acme Brick, you can see that the majority of the area is not adjacent
to single family or residential zoning districts.
However, there are some in this particular area.
And again, any development here would have to be set back 200 feet from these residential
zoning districts.
And then lastly, the area adjacent to the landfill, there's not much residential.
However, there is a rural residential zoning district.
And again, any development adjacent to that parcel would have to be set back 200 feet.
In addition, there are buffer requirements to any development that proposes industrial
adjacent to any other uses.
Again, that could be considered incompatible.
In terms of single family, the industrial use that would be proposed or developed would
have to provide 50 points of buffer points in order to develop as well as provide a minimum
of 30 feet width of that buffer area.
To achieve that 50 points, they would have to combine a number of these buffer elements
in order to get to that 50 points.
Similarly, with industrial adjacent to a commercial use, they would have to provide that minimum
30 points and then again provide that 30 feet of setback or buffer area for that particular
use.
Staff recommends approval of this code amendment as it meets the criteria for approving code
amendments.
Again, the list that you see here is fully described in your backup, but I'll just read
it for the commission as a summary.
It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
It does not conflict with any provisions of the DDC.
It does demonstrate the community need for the height increase.
There is a response to a substantial change in the condition and again, it's consistent
with the purpose and intent of the DDC.
With that, I stand for any questions.
Any questions for Ron on this item?
I don't see any.
Thank you, Ron.
- Okay.
- All the information.
Is there further discussion or motion?
Commissioner Cole.
- I make a motion to approve.
- If we could hold on that just for a moment.
I did want to announce that this is a public hearing.
Anyone in the audience can speak if they would like to before entertaining that motion?
Okay.
Seeing none.
Stuart, do we have anyone on the line?
- No, ma'am.
There are no callers.
- Thank you.
In that, I will close the public hearing and get back to Commissioner Cole.
- I motion to approve.
- Okay.
Commissioner Anderson.
- I second.
- Okay.
We have a motion to approve and a second.
This item.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
Motion carries 5-0.
Thank you, Ron.
Our next public hearing is 5BZ210014.
I am going to open the public hearing on this and ask that the item be postponed to a date
certain of September 22nd due to a notification error.
Commissioner Anderson.
- I make a motion to postpone to the date certain of September-
- 22nd.
- What?
- 22nd.
- Okay.
- Motion to approve the postponement to a date certain of September 22nd.
Commissioner Cole.
- Second.
- I second.
I will leave the public hearing open and we do have a motion on the floor to postpone
the item to a date certain of September 22nd.
Is there any discussion?
Let's vote on the board, please.
Motion carries 5-0.
Our final public hearing for the evening is 5C-S210001.
We'll invite Karina up for presentation and open the public hearing.
- Good evening.
Karina Maldonado, Associate Planner.
This is S21-001 for Pebble Brook Parkside.
So the request today is for a specific use permit to allow multifamily dwellings on approximately
9.92 acres located on the east side of South Loop 288, just approximately 300 feet south
of East McKinney Street.
The proposed development is located within the suburban corridor district.
So the site plan proposed for this development includes six, three, and four story buildings
as well as one clubhouse.
So the three story buildings are located.
There's two along Loop 288, which would be these two here, and then three on the interior
on the east side and for orientation north is over here, as well as a four story building
on the north side along Loop 288.
Overall, there's 216 dwelling units proposed.
That includes one, two, and three bedroom units.
Associated parking includes 300 vehicular parking spaces.
That minimum parking includes a reduction allowed within our Denton Development Code
for affordable housing, bicycle substitutions, and tree preservation.
Associated with that is 111 bicycle spaces.
That does include the proposed substitution for bicycle and parking.
Along with this development includes a proposed 12 foot side path along South Loop 288, as
well as internal circulation off of that side path into the development that would be accessed
to each building, as well as shared bicycle circulation within the development off of
that 12 foot side path as well.
Two driveway connections are proposed for this development.
The first is on the south side of the development at the intersection of Dutchess Drive and
Loop 288.
That would be a full access drive to allow both in and out motions at that intersection.
I will point out that this intersection proposed did come through with a previous multifamily
development on the west side of Loop 288.
You heard the final clap for that item today, which was the Denton Grove multifamily.
Last I'll talk about aerial access.
That is proposed off of South Loop 288.
That is proposed at the north side to reach the four story building via two 45 foot roll
back curves, which includes grass pavers and reinforced concrete.
I will talk about this many times tonight.
There is ESA on the property and I've located that in this dark bluish purple areas.
On the landscape plan, a couple of things to point out, they are proposing enhanced
landscaping on this property, a 40% landscape area, 38% tree canopy.
Within that includes proposed street trees along South Loop 288.
They are proposing alternative placements as well as smaller trees to accommodate easements
within this area.
Right of way screening is also proposed where parking is visible from the right of way,
as well as along the frontage between the building and Loop 288.
Large trees are proposed within the site within parking end caps and islands, as well as additional
trees, drought resistant species that would be at an increased caliper when planted.
They are also proposing a sound fence that was that hot pink line that you could see
on the site plan.
It's not quite shown here, but it is proposed to add that noise mitigation from any traffic
on Loop 288 to provide that noise mitigation for residents.
They are also exceeding minimum tree preservation by approximately 10%.
That's mainly areas you'll see here along the frontage, as well as around the ESA.
They are also proposing open space that is central to the site, so there is a central
gathering area that includes indoor amenities, as well as outdoor amenities such as a resort
stall pool, picnic areas, gazebo, children's playground, as well as passive areas adjacent
to the ESA.
So these are the conceptual elevations.
On the left is the front and rear elevation for the proposed community building.
On the top right corner, you'll see the front and rear elevation for the two buildings that
would be adjacent to Loop 288.
And then the bottom elevation is the front and rear elevation for the back three story
buildings on the site.
This elevation is the four story building, so it's the front and back side of the four
story building that's along Loop 288 at the north side.
So I won't go through all the general approval criteria.
I've highlighted those that I'll be speaking on, as well as the SUP criteria for approval.
There's about three that I'll go over tonight.
So first off, going over Denton Plan 2030, the site is located within the community mixed
use future land use designation.
This designation is intended to provide a mix of uses, which is predominantly commercial,
but also includes moderate to high density residential, as well as other complementary
uses.
So the proposed development is consistent with the future land use, as it does provide
that residential component for this larger commercial area.
And as was stated in the staff report, while the density on the proposed development is
21 dwelling units per acre, when we look at the overall community mixed use area, it does
average out to approximately five dwelling units per acre, including all existing and
approved multifamily.
Second, it relates to goal CC4, which indicates that this area is located on a corridor focus
area, which encourages the use of multimodal transportation by providing connections to
bike, ped, and transit facilities.
So as was mentioned earlier, they have that larger shared use path along Loop 288 that
provides internal connections, as well as bicycle connections.
They are orienting towards the public realm and do incorporate design elements from table
4.1 included in the comprehensive plan.
Last, speaking on goal HN1, it furthers efforts to expand the availability of affordable housing
choices for community members most in need of housing, including those with low incomes.
So next I'll talk about compatibility with the surrounding area.
So as I mentioned, this is the suburban corridor district, which is intended primarily for
commercial areas, office, retail, but also allows multifamily.
So Julie did mention earlier in the boot camp where a specific use is required, it is a
permitted activity within this area, but does require additional scrutiny.
So that's why you're hearing this case today.
So the site located here in yellow is adjacent to existing commercial.
That's those areas shown in purple, as well as some undeveloped property.
That undeveloped property, some of which include other developments that were already approved.
Like I mentioned earlier, the Grove on the west side was approved and is going through
the development process.
There is some commercial on the south side, also going through the development review
as well as commercial on this north corner.
More importantly, there's existing multifamily, which is compatible with this use, as well
as open space on the southeast corner.
And I will speak to the adjacency to the future park later in the presentation.
So ESA, that is the big item on this site.
So in order to minimize adverse environmental impacts, the development does propose to locate
all buildings and open space outside the ESAs.
So there is floodplain ESA on the south side, that's this dark purple here, as well as a
riparian buffer that kind of snakes through the northeast side.
So overall, ESA and floodplain do cover about 1.92 acres of the property.
They are remaining out of it.
However, there are two areas where they are outside the riparian buffer, however, development
activities might necessitate encroachment into the ESA.
So to accommodate for that, staff is requesting or recommending a condition of approval to
address those two areas to ensure that if an alternative ESA is required or is identified
during the CEP process, that an approval of that old ESA be required to maintain the site
plan orientation.
As I mentioned earlier, tree preservation was achieved and is shown just adjacent to
that ESA area, just to kind of enhance the preservation of it.
And last, open space that's required for multifamily is proposed adjacent to the ESA areas for
active and passive recreation.
In order to further mitigate any negative impacts to these areas, staff is also recommending
a condition to provide signage in these areas to ensure that there is no negative activities
like littering and also to ensure education to the residents of those areas.
And I'll kind of read through the full condition in a sec.
So as it relates to public facilities, this proposed development would generate a net
increase of 1,175 trips, that would be 78 morning peak trips and 95 evening peak trips.
A traffic impact analysis was conducted with this development and did indicate that the
development alone does not warrant a traffic signal.
However, combined with the adjacent multifamily, a traffic signal is warranted.
So, the condition added to the TIA indicated that the proportional impact would need to
be assessed.
So, staff carried over that condition to this SUP to ensure that their proportional cost
of any traffic signal design and construction would be associated with the traffic signal
that will come in with the adjacent development.
South Loop TD is a six-lane divided primary arterial and is fully developed.
However, the applicant will be providing a widened side path as well as provide a hooded
left turn to allow that limited three-fourth access at the northern driveway.
Water and wastewater is available to the site, but will need to be extended with the development
of it, and this will be assessed at the platting stage.
The property does also have access to fire, which would be fire station number two, which
would be less than an eight-minute response time.
As mentioned earlier, they are providing that aerial access to the northern building.
Staff did coordinate with DISD to ensure that students generated from this proposed development
would not have a negative impact.
DISD did indicate that the increase in students could be accommodated.
As we look at the adjacent open space, which is Pebblebrook Open Space, it's located directly
adjacent to the subject site on the southeast side.
This park is not yet developed by the city, and the city does have a general timeline
of three to five years.
Our development code does require that our developments provide a connection to any existing
or future trails.
However, since this is not developed and there are no design plans for it yet, staff is recommending
a condition of approval to ensure that that connection is provided at a later time and
that there is coordination between staff and the development.
On-site amenities are also provided.
I won't go through them in detail, we did talk about them earlier.
Outreach was had for this property.
Newspaper ads went out August 1st.
Two signs are posted on the property and were posted on August 4th.
Notices were mailed to those within 200 feet and 500 feet.
You'll see that there's a large difference between the number of notices between 200
and 500 feet, and that's due to the notices for the 500-foot being sent to the utility
address rather than the property owner.
The property owner was notified within 200 feet.
Overall, as of today, we've only received one response.
It is in favor of the project, and the developer did have two virtual neighborhood meetings.
Only one person was in attendance.
That staff is recommending approval subject to the following conditions.
The first is a standard landscape condition that we place on all SUPs, which would allow
some minor deviations from the site plan that's attached.
The second condition relates to the alternative ESA.
This condition reads that an approved alternative ESA plan will be required to support the approved
site plan if a determination is made during the review of the civil engineering plans
that development activities would encroach into the riparian or floodplain ESA.
So again, that's just to ensure that if development activities are needed during the construction
process that we have an approved plan.
The third would be the ESA protection, so open spaces that are set aside for active
and passive recreation and are located adjacent to the ESA shall incorporate that permanent
signage designed to promote the benefits of preserving ESAs, and the language for those
signs is provided in the City of Denton's ESA primer.
My glasses are fogging again.
All right, so fourth is trail connectivity.
The developer shall coordinate with the City of Denton's Park Department to identify the
location of future trail connections during the civil engineering plan process from the
subject site to that Pebblebrook open space.
And the fifth related to the traffic signal, so again, this is a traffic signal warranted
by both developments of the grove in this project.
So the developer shall prepare and submit a proportionality assessment to the city engineer
for the cost of the traffic signal design required at the intersection and that they
shall pay the cost for such improvements prior to the issuance of any building permits in
an amount that does not exceed the rough proportionality to the impacts of the proposed development.
The remaining conditions are standard conditions that are applied to all SUPs, so I won't go
over them.
And then finally, the attached site plan, landscape plan, and elevations would be attached
to the ordinance for this and all details listed are those included in those plans.
And with that, I can answer any questions.
I do also have a response related to the question asked during work session.
So I did, and let me just stop sharing, I did reach out to our traffic engineer regarding
the traffic signal at Dutchess and loop 288 for the grove.
He indicated that the city would be the one to install the traffic signal.
It would be prior to issuance of any COs for that development.
And so, yes, the city would build it.
Any funds associated with this project would be used for the design of the traffic signal.
Okay.
Excellent.
Thank you, Carina, for that.
Any other questions?
Any questions for Carina?
Commissioner Anderson?
Yes.
Okay.
For one, I'm not a big fan of apartments going along here, to be honest.
We got the grove going across the street.
I wasn't for that either.
Now we're going to put another one across the other street, we're going to put a red
light right there.
You got a red light at McKinney Street.
So when the light turns green, you're going to go about 200 yards and you're going to
have to stop at another stop sign, I mean, stop light.
I thought Loop 288 is to move traffic, not stop traffic.
I mean, we're going to put another one down by Audre Lane.
So right when you get off of University Drive, you're going to go to north, south on Loop
288 and you're going to have a red light at Audre Lane.
So we're congesting traffic and now we're going to add two more sets of apartment complexes
there.
And it says for community mixed use, it says to promote a mix of uses of which various
commercial uses remain predominant.
We're not making it predominant, we're making this more multi-family predominant.
From Audre Lane, I mean, from Audre and Woodrow Lane to Loop 288, there's already 10 apartment
complexes, affordable housing apartment complexes.
And now we want to put two more so we're going to have 12 within three quarters of a mile
and add more red lights and then we're going to have traffic going in and out off of Loop
288.
I just think it's going to cause a lot of headaches, to be honest with you.
And I mean, if the developers are here and they're going to have a presentation, I'd
like to see what they say.
But I mean, I don't think I can get behind this stuff, it's, DEN is becoming too apartment
happy, I think.
I mean, we've got so many apartment complexes popping up everywhere.
And like you said, it says right here that, I mean, if you go back to slide 12, even,
but it says, you know, it's to remain predominant commercial and all we're doing is making it,
you know, multi-family.
And you know, I'm not against affordable housing, believe me, I think we ought to have it, but
right there on the major thoroughfare off of Loop 288, that's supposed to be a major
thoroughfare to get traffic through.
And all we're doing is adding more congestion and more red lights, you know, and I mean,
like it says right there, you know, community mixed use.
And also, if you go forward a couple of slides, let's see there, I mean, it's going to develop
another 1,175 daily trips.
If you go through there at 8 o'clock in the morning, from University to 288, you stop
at Loop 288, I mean, you stop at McKinney Street.
That traffic backs up past Sonic all the way back to Dairy Queen.
Now those cars are going to get to move up 200 yards and stop again.
I just think it's, I think we're just congesting traffic is what we're doing instead of making
it better.
So anyway, I'd like to hear what they have to say.
Are there any further questions for staff?
Well, it just so happens I do have a card here from the applicant and they will speak.
So I will invite Amy Bissett up for her presentation.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Amy Bissett, 100 West Oak Street, Denton 76201.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here before you in person this evening.
It's been a while since I've been at this podium in person.
I will make a very brief presentation and I have two representatives of the developer
here with me that will also join me in that presentation.
I'm going to try to get through this breathing through a mask, but may hyperventilate and
fall over just like Karina mentioned earlier.
It's not an easy task up here.
So I do have with me Ryan Garcia and Mike Ash with JES Holdings.
They are the developer.
And then on the phone, I also have our engineer and our architect in case we get into some
specific technical questions that may need to be answered.
I do want to start by acknowledging and attempting to answer the questions that I heard both
in work session as well as Commissioner Anderson's question and comments opening this evening.
I want to start with the tree well question by Commissioner Pruitt.
We were asked by the city to provide -- it was a recommendation and a request to provide
a 12-foot wide sidewalk rather than the typical required 5-foot wide sidewalk.
And our site constraints were pretty simple.
From back of curb to existing utility poles was exactly 12 feet.
So that was the space that we had to work in and we had multiple calls with the city
to discuss how do we best configure that 12 feet of width.
So you want only 5 feet that is further away from the road and then trees in between because
they do require that street trees be within a certain distance from the road and within
the right of way area.
So we needed to be able to fit the trees and the sidewalk in there and there is our underground
utilities there as well.
So we heard from the city that their preference was the 12-foot sidewalk.
And so we proposed the tree wells within the sidewalk to be able to accommodate not necessarily
conflicting requests, but requests that could not easily be fit within that 12 feet.
So that was the resolution that we reached in collaboration with the city.
That way the trees are there, they create somewhat of a physical barrier, but the width
of the sidewalk still accommodates more pedestrian and more mixed type of traffic there.
So that was how we arrived at that conclusion.
And we could have backed off to a 5-foot sidewalk, but that was really at the preference of the
city staff.
So the traffic signal question was answered and the third question was Commissioner Ellis,
you asked about the dog park.
The site, I have been working with the developer for, since February, well actually we submitted
in February, so it's been longer than that, but we've configured and reconfigured the
site and talked about how to program the site for many months and a dog park has been on
the table during that whole time.
We did confer based upon your question and I think the applicant is or the developer
is amenable to adding the dog park, they have absolutely no issue with that, they just hadn't
decided for certain whether that's how the space would be programmed yet.
So you'll hear from them as well, but I don't think there's any issue with adding the dog
park to the site.
So I'm going to do something a little bit unusual here, actually I'm going to address
Commissioner Anderson's comments first, the COMP plan, the city's vision and policy document
for land planning says that this intersection of Loop 288 and McKinney is intended for the
highest density in the city of Denton, it is one of the nodes that is intended for essentially
maximum development and Loop 288 is built to accommodate maximum traffic as a primary
arterial.
So I'm not dismissing your concerns, what I'm saying is that from a perspective of a
land planner, when you look at where should this go, every document that guides city policy
says this is that location.
Furthermore, this area has been a food desert for quite some time and the conversation has
been that we've got to get rooftops and people in there before we'll get the commercial to
follow and I've been working on a number of sites in this corridor for four or five years
and that's always been a conversation, let's get some rooftops in there so that we can get
the commercial that we like to see.
So from the perspective of the developer, they are looking at where does the city want
us and every document says this is the right location.
So with that, I'm going to share very briefly, take a little bit of different approach here
and I want to tell you why this is one of my favorite developers that I've ever worked
with.
You guys see me up here monthly if not bi-weekly and JES Holdings has been an example of what
I wish every client would be.
They have listened to every request that the city had and has done their best to accommodate
it, even if it was not a requirement.
From the beginning, they reached out to local nonprofits.
We've had multiple conversations with Pat Smith from Serve Denton, with Michelle Connor from
Grace Like Rain to talk about collaborative opportunities to provide services to the community.
They went above and beyond in environmental considerations with staying out of the ESA
entirely, even though there is a process by which they could have encroached, maximizing
tree preservation.
We've had multiple conversations with the Parks Department about how can we activate
that park?
Is there an opportunity to bring it online sooner?
What can we do to help?
They have been amenable to all of those conversations.
They've been very thoughtful in the amenities that they are providing the residents as well
as their design.
They've taken it very seriously, the idea of usable balconies and a long loop 288 providing
Juliet balconies, even though they wouldn't want them to be usable because of the noise
and they're trying to create some mitigation of noise from loop 288 to their residents.
I wanted to say that it's been a privilege to work with them and to represent them.
They are certainly the type of developer that, in my opinion, we would want to see in the
city of Denton.
They're meeting a very serious need in the city for affordable housing.
I do just quickly want to point out that both Grace Lackrein and Sir Denton are very close
to this location and so collaborative opportunities to serve citizens is well suited here.
I'm going to skip these slides.
You've already seen all of this detail from Karina and I'm going to introduce Ryan Garcia
to come up and talk briefly about their company.
Thank you.
Thank you, Amy.
Thank you, commissioners.
I just want to, again, quickly introduce ourselves as the company on JES Holdings.
We have four main affiliate companies to show that we are a vertically integrated company,
with the big point being that we're not a flat by night developer.
If you look at all points of our operating companies, we are here to be invested in the
communities we develop in.
Mike and I work on the development side, which is the initial sourcing and puts the developments
together.
We've done over 200 of them.
We also, and something that makes us unique, is the sister company, Affordable Equity Partners.
We will be our own investor in the deal.
We've syndicated over $4 billion in state and federal tax credits.
We will also be our own general contractor through Fairway Construction.
They've completed over 200 developments across a 10-state portfolio, and we also have a management
company where we manage over 200 separate complexes, all this to show that we're not
going to build something and sell it in two years.
We are building something to be invested in the community.
We're going to be good neighbors, and we're going to be here for the long haul.
We want to make sure it's a good partnership and good fit for everybody involved.
Mike's going to talk a little bit about some of our property portfolio in Texas.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Mike Ash, Las Colinas, Texas.
It's a pleasure to be with you tonight, and thank you for your time.
We'd like to talk about a couple things.
One is I'd like to try to address some of the issues that Commissioner Anderson brought
up.
From our perspective, looking at this site and working with Amy, and by the way, thank
you for the kind words, Amy, we have worked very hard with staff, with Amy, with all city
employees to try to develop a project that met the requirements and the desires of the
city in terms of the comp plan, zoning, and all those issues.
I think we've done that.
I think this is a significant project for the city as it is for us also.
The real question, I think, is commercial use, and is that a more appropriate use here?
That's a question that communities all over the DFW area are wrestling with.
How do we balance the housing needs?
How do we balance our commercial needs?
In this particular case, I'd like to suggest that a commercial use is probably not the
appropriate use for this site.
It is a very awkward site size and shape.
It was very difficult for us to find a development plan that works for us.
I think a commercial broker would tell you that that is going to be even tougher for
a commercial use.
I think a commercial broker would also tell you that the commercial use is likely to result
in more curb cuts than the one point of entry we have right now, and is going to result
in more traffic conflicts with traffic coming out onto the loop versus the one point we
have right now.
I believe that if you talk to a traffic engineer, they would tell you that a multifamily use,
particularly in affordable housing use, which has typically fewer automobiles than a market
rate apartment, is going to have less traffic impact than commercial uses.
So I think there are a lot of reasons that this makes sense as a multifamily development.
I also think that it would act as catalyst, providing the rooftops to the neighborhoods
that Amy was talking about that will help commercial use to stimulate and grow.
If you look at the map right now of the area, the four hard corners at the intersection
just north of us are all commercial uses.
So I think you see that development.
I think our property will benefit commercial development by bringing more rooftops there.
Ryan talked a little bit about the interrelated nature of our companies.
I just want to talk a little bit about our portfolio.
The only reason Ryan and I are here really is to introduce ourselves and start a relationship
and get to know you a little bit.
The company is an experienced developer of affordable housing.
We've got probably 200 properties that we've developed, 200 properties that we manage,
200 properties that we have built across the country.
In terms of Texas, we've got 10 properties basically between Dallas, the Grand Prairie
area, and then Austin with stops in Waco, but they're also along the I-35 corridor.
And the reason we're sharing this with you is so that you know that we have a long-term
commitment to the property, to the community, and that we want to be good partners with
the city to bring this development to fruition.
Thank you for your time.
I also want to thank your staff for their time.
They've done a great job walking us through the process.
We haven't always got the answers that we've wanted from them, which ought to be good news
from your perspective, but they have always been open and responsive and accessible and
been straight shooters with us.
So thank you to Karina and to Julie and to the rest of the city staff for that.
And then Ryan and I are happy to answer any questions you may have.
And Amy.
Thank you.
Are there any questions for the applicant?
Commissioner McDade.
Thank you, Chair.
I just want to go off of what Commissioner Anderson talked about because I'm trying not
to take this personal, but where you're building the apartments, that's actually my district.
And like he said, when you want all your lane all the way down to the loop, to me that's
too many apartments.
I mean, I think true, we all need affordable housing, but I think we can find it in other
areas.
And when you talk about a food baron, I don't see how adding just 216 more, I mean adding
another rooftop when we already have those many apartments, it's going to make it even
closer to being a food baron.
I don't see adding one more rooftop that's going to make that any different.
If it's not there now, I don't really think it's ever going to be there.
And actually the problem I have, this is my district, and right now I think we just have
too many apartments in District 1.
That's why I personally, I'm not trying to be, I just can't get behind this project.
Thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner McDade.
Are there any other questions for the applicant?
Amy, I'd like to go back.
You mentioned my dog park question.
Is that something that can be added to the site plan?
Yes, we can absolutely add it to the site plan.
We're also open to you adding it as a condition so that it comes back with it incorporated
into the site plan if it were to proceed to City Council.
Okay.
Thank you, ma'am.
Any other questions for the applicant?
Okay, this is a public hearing.
Stuart, do we have anyone on the line?
No, ma'am.
There's nobody on the line.
Okay.
And seeing no one further in the audience, I will go ahead and close the public hearing.
I will make mention that there was one comment in favor using our online form, and that was
mailed out to all of the commissioners and will be recorded in the city secretary's office.
With that, I will entertain further discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Pruitt?
Yeah, thank you, Chair.
I guess I just want to share what I see in this part of the city and how that might apply
to some of the comments that have been made already.
I think to Commissioner Anderson's point, it always feels strange when you smush a large
apartment up next to a busy road, right, because maybe that's not where the people would like
to live.
Maybe it puts them in a position where even to get across the street to get to the shop,
they have to get in their car and drive across because it's a six-lane roadway with people
driving 50 miles an hour.
So in typical sites, when I see this type of a layout, I get very concerned.
In this specific situation, though, there are some mitigating factors to that, right?
There's an open space future park just to the south.
It's one of the rare places in our city where there's an already existing overpass where
Loop 288 goes over a riparian area, and there's a planned trail corridor there.
Sure, we don't know what is going to develop exactly on the west side of this, but it gives
us an opportunity to get people in a place where they can take advantage of the commercial
opportunities and density things that will be brought by development without being as
impacted by 40,000 cars a day, right?
So when I look at this site location compared to other sites like that that are next to
a six-lane arterial, it has a number of advantages to me from a multifamily perspective.
I get the concept that, hey, it looks like we're putting all of our apartments in the
same region of town, trust me, I get that, right?
At the same time, I think part of that is our fault, right?
When we see applications to bring multifamily properties, maybe smaller ones, to different
regions of town, we need to invite those and figure out where they can go and be supportive
of those.
Otherwise, we're going to continue to get more and more applications in regions that
are far away from existing homeowners, basically.
So I guess I understand the concerns, but when I look around in this general area and
other areas of the city, I feel like other locations that would allay those concerns
would potentially be worse for the future residents, right?
So I think this is a good project.
Is it perfect?
No, no project is, right?
I trust staff on the sidewalk issue.
At the same time, when I drive around town, I see new subdivisions where sidewalks have
serpentined in away from the roadway, and everybody's fine with it, but that's a minor
thing, right?
The important thing to me is future people living in these homes, how can they access
nearby and further away areas of the city?
And this seems to tick all those boxes to me.
Thank you, Commissioner Pruitt.
Commissioner Day, you're still on the board.
Did you have further comment?
Okay.
Thank you.
Anyone else in the discussion?
I'll just say a few words, piggyback on what Commissioner Pruitt said as well as what the
applicant presented.
I think this is a prime area in our city, honestly, for this development.
I think being there on the loop, it offers transportation options for people who may
not have a car, there's services in the area for people who will be taking advantage of
low-income housing.
There are developments happening on those hard corners right now that offer conveniences
in the area.
They've shown that they've worked very hard and in great detail with the city to bring
about a project that looks to me to fit in this spot very well.
So, those are my comments on the project.
Are there any others?
Commissioner McDade?
Thank you, Chair.
I just have one more question, because I'm not sure how, like you say, you have 216 units.
How do you go about allocating how many you want of those for affordable housing?
How does that process work?
The other is the market study.
We did have a third-party market study done that ran the analysis of all the units, ran
the analysis of how many competitive units there are in the market and what capture rates
were for those.
So, that was really the basis for the decision as to the makeup of the units.
Thank you.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, but my understanding is that the unit mix is made up of different
market bands of affordability, but the entire development is a tax credit development, so
we'll all be affordable housing at different levels.
Thank you.
Any further discussion?
The Chair will entertain a motion at this time.
Commissioner Pruitt?
I move approval with staff recommendations, with the staff recommended conditions.
Okay.
And, Commissioner Pruitt, I will second, but could I add a friendly amendment to please
add a dog park to the site plan?
Absolutely.
Thank you for reminding me.
I appreciate that.
There's a first and a second for approval with the addition of a dog park on the site
plan.
Is there any discussion?
Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion passes 3-2.
That concludes our public hearings for this evening and moves us to the planning and zoning
matrix.
Haley, is there any updates for the matrix?
Nothing specific to the matrix.
I did want to give you a couple of updates from council.
We did have two approvals last night.
The single family lot on South Bonnie Bray Street was approved, as well as the rezoning
for the two portions of the DME property at the Denton Energy Center.
Okay.
Thank you.
Does anyone need to add anything to the matrix for Haley?
I don't see anything, so with that, I will close the meeting at 747 p.m.
Thank you.