Welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for Wednesday,
September 22nd.
This is our work session and with the quorum present, I will call us to order at 5.04 p.m.
The first item of work session is citizen comment on consent agenda.
Rachel, are there any callers on that?
No, ma'am.
Not this evening.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sure.
Let's move on to our work session reports then.
2A is receive a report, hold a discussion regarding general topics and plotting.
And that looks like Mark.
How are you, Mark?
Good.
Good evening.
All right.
Good evening, guys.
My name is Mark Laird.
I'm a Planner in the Development Service Department.
This evening we have a presentation for you on plotting.
Tonight we're going to be talking about the background, parts of the plot, plotting in
Denton, plotting fundamentals, the shot clock, and the plot review considerations.
Now, exactly what is a plot?
A plot is a map that's been prepared by a licensed Texas land surveyor that identifies
the location and boundary of a Pacific track of land.
It also serves as a formal instrument for dedication of public land rights and restrictions.
Now upon approval by the city and execution by the property owner, the plot is filed with
the county clerk for public record.
Now plots are important because they give an accurate description of the land.
It shows vital features, such as site locations, dimensions, topography, lot boundaries, public
and private easements.
It also shows land rights to be dedicated for public use, for like access, utilities,
drainage, and parks, and it also provides a written description of the property.
But this illustration shows a typical final plot, and it shows many, the different components,
different parts of the plot.
You'll see the vicinity map and the all-important north arrow, the plot notes, the plot illustration
that shows streets, easements, lot boundaries, and dimensions.
Now each one of these components are important to validate the plot, to validate the map
as a plot.
Then as far as regulations go, we first look to the Texas Local Government Code, and it
defines a plot as a preliminary plot, a general plan, a final plot, and a replot.
And it also states when a plot is required.
A plot is required from the property owner with the intent to divide or develop.
Also the same code governed the City of Denton to adopt its own rules to govern plotting
as subdivision.
And with that we have the 2019 Denton Development Code, and it was adopted to promote the health,
safety, and welfare of its inhabitants.
It was also to implement the city's comprehensive plan to preserve and protect the natural environment,
improve the city's appearance, improve mobility, to facilitate adequate provisions of public
services and utilities, to encourage the appropriate use of land, buildings, and structures.
And also to establish procedures for processing of planning and zoning actions that affect
the development and use of property subject to the planning jurisdiction of the City of
Denton.
Now the City of Denton has plotting authority within its limits and also in the ETJ.
However, the Denton zoning regulations do not extend into the ETJ.
And we do have limited exceptions for plotting that we are not required to plot, and some
examples are to subdivide lots greater than 5 acres and not for development, for a lot
of record that was established before January 1, 1960 for the benefit of agricultural use
to construct accessory structure or fences, and the division of land by court order.
Now we ask ourselves why plot?
Well we want to plot to subdivide the land according to its assigned or designated zoning
district, to identify lot boundaries, to dedicate public land rights for streets, public utilities
necessary for development.
Also to adjust, abandon a public easement, setback line, or lot line, to create a legal
lot of record that's filed for public record with the county clerk.
And you may to obtain a building permit that requires public improvements.
And then we have this to subdivide, sell, transfer, and lease development.
And to really just to ensure and require compliance with certain standards that a development
will have adequate infrastructure, and result in a developable lot.
Now I'd like to invite Lisa Payne up to discuss plotting and denting.
Good evening y'all, I'm Lisa Payne, principal planner, I'm going to talk to you all about
different kinds of plots, so first we have a preliminary plot, which is a map showing
the main features of a proposed subdivision, submitted for the purpose preliminary review
before final plot.
It illustrates the property's layout and demonstrates compliance with requirements related to lots,
access ways, utilities, drainage, environmentally sensitive areas.
It provides an overall view of a property that will be developed in phases, but is not
filed with the county.
You can find more about that in section 2.6.3.
So staff reviews for compliance with regulations in the DDC and the criteria manuals, and then
we forward that plot to P&Z.
One sits in front of y'all, y'all have to consider the criteria that's in section 2.4.5,
which is also provided to you every time in exhibit two, which is the staff analysis.
You can also consider whether the preliminary plot provides a layout of lots, roads, driveways,
utilities, drainage, other public facilities to minimize the disturbance to sensitive areas,
provide, or to see if it provides evidence of public water and sewer, identifies and
adequately mitigates natural hazard areas, and proposes reasonable phasing.
Planning plots, they delineate the exact boundaries of a property.
They provide a detailed plan of containing the dimensions of lots, easements, rights
of way.
They include a legal description, an owner's dedication, signature blocks for the surveyor,
owner, city, and once this one's approved by the city, it is filed with the county and
becomes a legal lot of record.
For this one, the same thing, the staff re-review it, and then it comes before P&Z for y'all's
consideration.
This one, y'all are able to do approval or denial based on, again, the exhibit two and
also the items, making sure that it conforms with the preliminary plot and any conditions
of that approval, as well as with the DEC and any other applicable technical standards
regulated by the city.
So a replat, it modifies recorded plat if changes are made about the location or the
boundaries, easements, the number of lots.
Non-residential replats do not require public hearing.
So once again, staff will review according to the DEC and the criteria and forward to
the P&Z for decision.
So y'all can decide whether to approve or deny.
It does have final plot criteria there because it also applies to the replats.
So it's the same thing.
You want to make sure that it applies or that it conforms to the DEC.
So residential replats, those are a little bit different.
While they do the same thing, residential replats, they do require a public hearing
if there is a variance or an exception that's required.
In that case, we still do our review and send to P&Z and y'all still look at it as you would
any other replat, but in this case, the Texas local government code says if a proposed replat
of a residential lot requires a variance or exception, then P&Z must notify surrounding
property owners and hold public hearing.
And if that replat does not require an exception, then the public hearing is not required, but
we are required to send a notification after the fact to the surrounding property owners
to let them know that something was replatted.
Okay, administratively approved plots.
These are ones that staff can take care of ourselves for the most part.
Minor plots, replats, these are things that are, it's only creating a few lots, it's four
fewer lots.
There's existing streets, there's existing utilities, it's minimal adjustments.
Moving plots is mostly for scrivener's errors or you're moving a boundary one way or the
other, it's not a very big change.
The conveyance plot is, it's used to subdivide land, delineate boundaries, and does not include
the design of public infrastructure.
These, while we can't, while staff can approve these, if we can't come to an agreement with
the applicant and need to recommend approval, then, I mean, denial, then that needs to come
before P&Z so that y'all can decide if that gets denied or approved.
Once again, we'll send an Exhibit 2 staff analysis with that and y'all have to consider
whether that plot is consistent with the intent of the zoning, complies with the DDC, if it
does not affect the recorded easements without approval from the easement holder, is not
in adverse, or does not result in adverse impacts, will not limit the city's ability
to provide adequate and sufficient facilities, and complies with all of their ordinances.
And then we have a, we have a development plot and a gas well development plot.
Development plots are used when attractive land is not required to do a preliminary or
final plot, and it includes existing or private, or proposed private or public improvements.
And this one, staff, of course, we review according to the DDC and the criteria manuals,
but we can't approve or deny, they do not come to P&Z.
Same goes for the gas well development plots, these are for gas wells that are in the ETJ,
and once again, still has your public and private improvements, and we review and are
able to approve or deny based on that.
So now I'm going to ask Karina to come up here and close us out.
All right, good evening, Karina Maldonado, Associate Planner.
So I'll finish out the presentation with a few more slides, specifically talking about
some platting fundamentals, and when we're talking about this, we're talking about standards
for approval and denial.
So Texas Local Government Code Section 212 speaks to how a municipal authority can approve
or why they should approve a preliminary, final replat and all other plots.
So first, if a plat conforms with the general plan, which is our comprehensive plan, and
any current and future streets, alleys, parks, playgrounds, and public facilities, if it
also conforms to any general plans for the extension of municipal roads, streets, highways,
and other extension of public facilities, and any other rule adopted by the city after
a public hearing, so that's our subdivision ordinances.
If all of those standards are met, all of those regulations are met, then the city does
not have any discretion to deny the plat.
It must be approved based on this Texas Local Government Code.
Now on the opposite end, if it does not meet any of those requirements, we are not required
to approve the plat.
We can deny the plat at that point, and so I just want to emphasize, if we meet all requirements
of the code, the comprehensive plan, any master plans, the Planning and Zoning Commission
must approve the plat.
And so here's another layer of complexity that comes forward when we talk about plat.
And so some of you can remember back in 2019, HB 3167 was approved by the Texas legislation.
This is usually you'll hear reference to it as the shot clock.
So that legislation required that all municipalities have 30 days to act upon a plat or construction
plan.
So that is the date that we receive it and identify it as complete.
And then 30 days later, we have to identify whether it met all of our requirements or
it does not.
So we would approve or deny a plat at that time.
So this law just, when it was approved, there was, as you can remember, there was some time
where we were trying to identify how this would impact the city.
So because of this law, several changes to the city's processes, timelines, and actions
did occur.
Those were things like transitioning to a specific submittal date and resubmittal date
that would coincide with our PNZ meeting dates.
So prior to this, if you can remember, we had a few more meetings maybe, or they were
easier to schedule or reschedule.
Because of this law, we had to basically create a year long schedule that would coincide with
when we could receive applications for a plat to ensure that if they needed to be denied,
that we denied them on the right date.
So that's something that you might have noticed as a change.
Also we do now require more upfront work from the development community.
So in order to ensure that there's no negative impacts to the site, anything that's needed
as a supplementary study, such as a traffic impact analysis, environmentally sensitive
area field assessments, downstream assessments for drainage, and any relocation of or re-identification
of line boundaries for FEMA, all those things have to be done upfront or concurrent with
those plats.
It also eliminated some concurrent submittals for plat related applications.
Those are the ones I just mentioned.
So rather than submitting them at the same time, this is more of a consecutive process.
So maybe they have to do them first, then their preliminary plat.
So what this prevents is them from getting to a final plat without having those studies
done.
It also reduced time for reviews and resubmittals.
So we were dropped down to a 15 day cycle.
If they needed to resubmit after a denial, we had then 15 days to approve or deny again
that resubmittal.
So part of this is something that you all are very familiar with.
An applicant can request a one time extension of up to 30 days.
Those requests are obviously more frequent now to allow the developer to address any
of those outstanding comments.
So basically that 30 day cycle then gets extended up to 60 days.
On occasion, you'll see that they'll reduce that timeframe of their own accord.
And so last, you'll notice that our staff reports have changed.
So whenever a staff is recommending denial of a plat, there are three things that must
be included.
So those denials must be directly related to our requirements.
In order to demonstrate that, staff includes specific citations to those requirements,
to laws, to ordinances that indicate why it's being denied.
And then last, any of those denials cannot be arbitrary.
So they have to be tied or rooted to a specific requirement by ordinance, by code.
And it cannot be just because we don't like it.
So those are the things that the staff has looked at in order to comply with this law.
So I think this is probably the nitty gritty of a plat.
So something that you all are very interested in is why we would deny a plat.
So first, talking about plat review considerations.
So all plats that come before P&Z and that are reviewed internally are reviewed by our
development assistance team, which is DAP for shorthand, which is comprised of technical
staff from various city departments, including a third party consultant.
So those are reviewers like our engineering department, of course, planning staff.
There's FIRE that looks at this, and then other departments, DME looks at these.
So we do have a vast review process or a vast amount of eyes that touch these plats.
And so the reasons for denial when these come forward kind of broke it down into a few sections.
So first, a plat can be denied if it has insufficient information provided.
So staff looks at our preliminary plat, final plat checklist to ensure that the basic information
is provided so that it can be called the plat.
So if you kind of remember back to the slide that Mark showed you with the parts of a plat,
sometimes we'll see that those parts of the plat are missing, and so the plat is denied.
So those are graphic information.
Kind of the basic thing is showing where the boundaries of the property is, any easements,
floodplain notes like that.
So specific notes about dedication, tree preservation gas wells, those are some things that would
warrant a denial.
Furthermore, if the information that they do provide does not meet the requirements
of our development standards, we will recommend denial.
So the most common things that we see for denial is when the supplementary information
that they provide, such as utility layouts and demand, doesn't meet the code requirements.
And why that's important is because the information they provide dictates the size of those improvements,
which then dictates the size of the easements that they need to dedicate on the plat.
So while you see something kind of blank or simple looking on a sheet, it really does
have that supplemental information that we look at to ensure that everything is correct.
So on a related note, drainage conditions, we do look at pre and post conditions for
drainage.
So depending on certain calculations that engineering looks at, if the information doesn't
meet our code, then we don't know whether onsite detention is necessary, which would
then require more, again, dedication and easements.
And then last of other things that we do identify as pretty often is related to tree preservation.
So as you know, the city requires a minimum of 30% tree preservation for each development
or each lot.
So if insufficient information is provided to determine if they met that or if they're
missing a note related to that requirement, which is required by code, then we will deny
the plat.
And so that's important because it indicates to future development what is being preserved
and then what cannot be disturbed at a later time.
So we also look at our subdivision section of the code, so sometimes we deny plat because
they don't have sufficient access.
So that's access for residential lots, access for non-residential lots.
It's either not provided or not provided in a manner that meets our transportation criteria
manual.
Maybe they're not complying with the minimum lot dimensions for their specific zoning that
they're in, or they're providing common area lots, but they're not providing the HOA documents
that we have the city attorney's office review before they're filed with the county.
And sometimes they just don't do those supplemental studies that we need.
So those are things I mentioned earlier like flood studies, your traffic impact analysis,
or your civil engineering plans if it's a final plat which needs to have those finalized.
So I just wanted to show you kind of those supplemental sheets that staff looks at, but
aren't necessarily provided to P&Z for your approval.
So you can see here that staff has just a screenshot of some of the checklists that
we use.
And so in your staff reports, you'll see references to section 1.1, 1.2, things like that.
Those are the parts of the checklist where the applicant has not provided that information.
Some other supplemental sheets that our reviewers look at are their preliminary utility layout,
grading on the site, of course, tree preservation, and then pre and post drainage conditions.
And so the last slide I'll leave you with is just some helpful links that staff uses
to help in our review and to also just have some basic information.
So a lot of these checklists, submittal schedules, things like that, is all available on the
City of Denton's land development web page.
Things related to gas wells, you can find it at the Texas Railroad Commission's website.
You can actually pull up the location of gas wells in the city.
There's a link to DCAD that tells you about the property's information.
You can pull up their map and some other links that are very helpful for you.
And so with that, I guess any three of us can answer any questions for you.
>> Thank you.
That was a great presentation, y'all.
Thank you so much.
Any questions?
I think very informative, well done.
Thank you very much.
Okay, that'll move us to item three in our work session, which is clarification of agenda
items.
Go to the minutes.
Are there any questions on the minutes?
Okay.
Regarding the consent agenda, 3A has been withdrawn by the applicant.
So we will just have one item in the consent agenda.
Any question on that?
Okay.
So items for individual consideration 4A, PP290019.
Hello, Sean.
>> Hello.
One moment.
Okay.
All right.
Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Sean Jacobson, Assistant Planner, here to present and make sure we're on the right side
here.
All right.
PP2119, this is the Perch Denton edition.
Staff is recommending denial of this plaque, as it does not meet the established criteria
for approval, but staff has no objection to the request to extension to the October 20th,
2021 P&Z meeting.
>> Thank you, Sean.
Any questions on this item?
I don't see any, Sean.
I think you have the next one too, don't you?
>> Mm-hmm.
>> 4B's PP210016B.
>> Yes.
Again, this is a plaque for the PECON Creek edition, and staff is recommending approval
of this plaque as it meets the established criteria for approval at this time.
>> Any questions on that?
This was originally in our packet as denial, and then they worked through--
>> Yes.
We were able to resolve the outstanding issues with them.
>> Okay.
Excellent.
Any questions?
Okay.
Thanks, Sean.
Next is 4C PP210022.
Looks like Lisa's item.
>> Hello again.
>> Hi.
>> This is for a property for a preliminary plot first about 62 acres north of Hickory
Creek Road.
The preliminary plot will create 156 residential lots for single-family development.
A plan development for this site was approved earlier this year.
Staff is recommending denial as it does not meet the established criteria, but the applicant
has requested a 30-day extension to allow for additional time to address comments.
Staff has no objection with taking that to the October 20th P&Z meeting.
>> Okay.
Thanks, Lisa.
Any questions?
I do not see any.
Thank you.
Item 4D is PP210020.
This is Julie's item.
>> Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton, and this is PP210020.
This is a preliminary plot within the Robeson Ranch development.
They've got a few more comments they need to address, so staff does recommend
denial of the request.
However, we have no objection to that extension to the October 20th P&Z meeting.
>> Thanks, Julie.
Any questions for Julie?
I do not see any.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Moving through the agenda, our public hearing, first item of tonight is 5AZ210014A.
All right.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt again, and let me share my screen.
All right.
We thought we would continue that just providing a summary at the work session and the full
presentation at the regular session.
I'll be happy to answer any questions, but we'll just go over just one slide for this
presentation.
So this is Z210014A, Bolivar rezoning.
So the request before you is to rezone about a half acre lot on Bolivar just north of Congress.
They'd like to rezone from R3 to R7.
The intent is to convert that north structure within this property boundary to a professional
office.
Currently it is a single family home, and they'd like to convert it to an office.
It is within the downtown compatibility area, and the request is consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
And therefore, staff is going to recommend approval as it complies with the criteria
for approval.
Okay, Julie, I still have a question on this one.
I get a couple of questions.
So the first one is why not the SUP approach?
Because that is an option in the zoning that it's currently in, correct?
It is an option, and we did talk with the applicant about that.
However, she did prefer to go through that straight zoning just to provide more flexibility
as she moves forward.
The applicant is going to be here tonight, but she preferred to go that rezoning route.
Staff did not have an issue with that, given that there's R7 across the street.
She also worked with the property owner just south of her property to kind of create that
more logical extension of that R7.
So it's those two lots that are being rezoned.
That would lead me to my next question, actually.
So yeah, why the other property?
So that was to have more consistent zoning?
Exactly.
Yeah, just to provide that logical transition area, just kind of keep the -- not skip that
lot, but to have it a little more consistent.
Does the property owner live in that home, do you know?
The property to the south, so that southern lot, is owner occupied.
But the property that is potentially going to be converted to that law office, I don't
believe that is owner occupied, but once again, the property owner will be able to answer
that.
Okay.
I think that's all I have.
Anybody else on this one?
Commissioner Anderson?
Commissioner Anderson, go ahead.
Thanks, Chair.
Along with the Chair's question, why aren't we doing the south lot?
Because if we're going to turn that into R7, they could eventually scrape that house and
turn it into something else as well.
I mean, they could turn it into a multiplex.
It could -- yes, R7 does have more residential uses that are permitted within that zoning
district.
But we talked to the property owner, and while she doesn't have any plans right now, yes,
it could allow that property to redevelop.
Right.
I mean, she has no plans right now.
I mean, of course, it's going to sell it, and somebody else is going to do something
to it.
That's what's going to happen.
But why won't they just leave it one property, is my thing.
I mean --
It was really staff's opinion that we should not zone just on a lot-by-lot basis, but to
have really those areas of zoning that are consistent and that wouldn't leapfrog that
zoning.
So it wouldn't have that MN and then an R3 and then that R7, but just have that transition
area from the south toward the north, allowing that R3 to stay in place to the north, but
having just a more logical zoning pattern along that street.
So that property that they're thinking about, it's zoned what already?
I looked at it earlier today, but I can't remember.
Is it R3, you said?
Correct, yes.
So R3 wouldn't suffice for it to put an office there?
R3 requires a specific use permit for offices, and we did talk to the applicant about going
that SUP route.
SUPs are a little more intensive.
You've got site plans, landscape plans, and elevations associated with that.
And given that there was R7 across the street and R7 was consistent with the future land
use, she elected to go that R7 route.
I think there's ulterior motives, but okay, I think.
Any other questions for Julie on this item?
Okay, thanks, Julie.
Okay, our next item is, let's see, we are on 5B, PD20010.
Thanks, Julie, again.
Okay, this is PD20-0010, light industrial.
Once again, we'll go over the summary, but we'll be happy to answer any questions.
This request is to rezone approximately seven acres from RR and R4 districts to a PD district
with an LI base zoning.
Per the applicant, the intent is to resolve a nonconformity for an existing use.
The subject property development on the site began in 1984 when it was still in the county.
They've had iterations and they've added to it since that time, but when it was annexed
into the city and then when we've had transition zoning, it essentially made that use in that
building nonconforming.
The property owner would like to address that nonconformity to make sure that there's certainty
as to what can develop on the property, and so they're coming in tonight for that rezoning.
The Denton Plan 2030 has this property, the future land use is rural areas.
This request really isn't consistent with that future land use map.
However, when we look at the entire Denton Plan 2030 and all of the goals associated
with it, it is consistent with the economic vitality goal, and that is to support our
businesses and to facilitate employment uses and employers near residential, recreation,
and civic uses.
Given the criteria for approval and staff's analysis, we do recommend approval as it complies
with that criteria for approval, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
- Questions for Julie on this one?
- And Julie, with this, I mean, it is a PD, so they're eliminating certain uses, right,
to make it more compatible.
- You are correct.
We did work with the applicant because we are concerned.
There is residential zoning surrounding the property.
It's really emerging as a residential area.
There's a neighborhood being developed kind of to the southwest of the site, and so we
wanted to make sure that there were some controls over how it would develop, and so they have
netted out some of those more intensive commercial uses and provided limitations on that industrial
uses, as well as the development scale.
- Excellent.
Commissioner Smith?
- Thank you, Chair.
Julie, was this initiated by the city, or was this the applicant that came to the city
to look at the rezoned?
- The applicant approached the city, and they initially wanted to just go a straight ally,
but the staff really just was uncomfortable with that, given the future land use and surrounding
development.
So we've been working with them since last year to try to come up with a plan that makes
sense in this area.
- Do they give any indication of the impetus of why, I get it, to nonconformity, but usually
public when there's nonconformities, they're not exactly the ones, the first one to step
up and go through the application process and the cost to become conforming.
Was there a code violation or something like that that was issued out there at some point
in time that is forcing them to do this, or they just decided at the goodness of their
own heart to come up here and bring this up?
- I am not aware of any precipitating event that would cause this.
The applicant will be here tonight, and we'll be able to maybe provide some of that background
information.
- Sure.
Yeah, and I'm not trying to go on a witch hunt or something like that, or say there's
ulterior motives like Ronnie Will down there.
This one does seem a little unusual for it to be just brought up out of nowhere.
If there is no use changes, and I get it to nonconformity, but if there are no use changes,
then why are we bringing the zoning up in the first place and taking it from what it
is surrounded by in a residential space from R4 and RR to something that's much more stringent
like LI.
Okay, thank you.
- You bet.
- And I'll just say that, Commissioner Smith, it's possible that they could be wanting to
do some kind of renovation or something.
There's limitations on nonconforming, right?
If it's more than 50%, I think.
- You are correct, yes.
There are limitations as to what you can do with a nonconforming use and structure.
If it gets damaged, if it's less than 50%, you could put it back as it is.
If it's more than 50%, you couldn't put it back.
But I did want to point out that there is a development map associated with this.
So any expansions to what is shown on that development map is going to have to follow
our PD amendment procedures, and that would be that major or minor in the public notification.
So it does provide some certainty as to what is gonna be on the property, and it will at
least give some oversight as to how it will develop in the future.
- Thanks, Commissioner Pruitt?
- Yes, thank you, Chair.
Just a clerical note, maybe I misread it, but I think the slide that you had had the
file ID from the previous public hearing item instead of from this one.
- Oh, okay, thank you.
Oh, I'll fix that.
- Thanks, Julie, I don't see any other questions for this one.
- You bet.
- Thank you.
That takes us to 5C DCA 210004.
It is noted that staff is requesting this item be postponed to a date certain of October
6th.
Are there any questions on that?
Okay, then we'll go to 5D Z210011A.
It's noted that the applicant has requested this item be postponed to a date certain of
October 6th.
Any questions on that?
Okay, then we will go to 5E S210004B, that is Haley.
Hi, Haley.
- Good evening.
All right, so continuing with our theme of shortening this at work session, I'll just
go through the summary and we can hit all the details at the regular meeting.
So, this is a request that most of you have seen before.
This case initially came before you all on August 4th.
The request is for a specific use permit only for building height.
So, the proposed development is a multifamily use within an MN zoning district.
Multifamily is permitted by right and buildings up to 40 feet in height are permitted by right
in that district.
What they are requesting is to increase that height to a maximum of 60 to allow for the
development of a taller building with a more compact footprint on the site.
The code requires that MN can go up to 65 feet but when you're between 40 feet and 65,
you have to have that SUP.
So, that is the reason for the request this evening.
As we went through previously, staff is recommending approval of the request.
There are several conditions associated with that that are outlined in your backup that
are essentially intended to tie the site plan that you see in your backup and the building
elevations and landscaping plans to that ordinance.
I'm happy to go through those in detail but they're pretty self-explanatory and intended
only for that purpose of holding them to what you see on the plans this evening.
Since the last P&Z meeting, the applicant did go back and develop an alternative plan
to show what could be built by right because there were several questions regarding that
at the initial public hearing.
So, we'll go through that comparison at the meeting and again all of that is in your backup.
I'm happy to go through questions now if you have any but other than that, I will stand
for questions and we can go over the rest later on this evening.
Commissioner Villarreal.
Thank you, Chair.
Just to clarify, so if we do not approve the SUP tonight, the applicant does intend to
go forward with that alternative plan, correct?
Some version of that alternative plan, yes.
They would be able to build by right a multi-family development with the 40-foot building height.
So no matter what, there will be most likely an apartment complex here.
I would assume so, yes, sir.
Thank you.
And Haley, just so I understand, this request is identical, correct, to what we heard?
Correct.
They have made no changes to the specific use permit that's requested.
The only change is that as a result of some of those questions in discussion at the last
meeting, they did further explore what could be put on the site by right.
They presented their best guess as to a similar form as to what they would put there if they
were to go through the full engineering of that alternative plan.
And they did go to the neighborhood and have a third virtual meeting to go over that plan
with the neighbors.
That was actually my next question.
I saw that there was another meeting that was held.
I did not see any comments from that meeting.
No, given the timing, it was just held last week.
There wasn't a full write-up provided, but the applicant will be here this evening to
go through that in detail.
Okay.
We can ask them.
Okay.
Any other questions?
I do not see any.
Thanks, Haley.
Okay.
And actually, you're up for the next one.
It is 5FZ210010.
All right.
So this request may look familiar to some of you all as well.
The request before you this evening is a two-part rezoning.
There is a parcel that is the larger of the two outlined in black here that is approximately
21 acres.
It is just under that.
It has a split zoning of R6 and MN, and they are seeking to rezone that to light industrial.
And then there is a second area of the rezoning, the southern portion here, four one-acre parcels
that are currently zoned rural residential.
Back in May of this year, the portion that I'm hovering over with the mouse here, it's
shown in red on this aerial, shown as light industrial on this map, was rezoned from R6
to light industrial.
If you remember, at that time, the applicant presented a plan.
They were looking to build a distribution center warehouse on the west side of Gisling
Road on the parcels that are shown here with the blue outline.
And then they were going to use this 12 acres over here for parking associated with that
use.
There were concerns and discussion at the time of the safety of having people, you know,
cross back and forth between the two areas on Gisling Road.
And since that time, the applicant has kind of gone back to the drawing board and decided
to pursue something a little more substantive on the east side of Gisling.
So they are looking to rezone these two areas to consolidate the zoning across all of this,
to put that initial warehouse distribution center on this side, and then develop some
speculative warehousing on the west side of Gisling Road.
So all still associated with that original request from last spring, but looking to expand
the boundaries of light industrial on the east side of Gisling Road.
As we went through initially, and we'll look at a little more in detail later on, the future
land use for this area, the subject property rather, is moderate residential.
There is a transition when you look at the map along University and Gisling, where we
have built business innovation in the surrounding area.
So this is a transitional zone, not just in terms of future land use, but also what's
on the ground.
There's a lot of recent annexations that have occurred in the area.
There are a lot of existing nonconformities that don't match either the zoning or the future
land use map, such as these four parcels that actually couldn't be developed under their
current zoning today.
So we'll look in more detail at that this evening.
The staff is recommending approval of the request, and I'm happy to go into any of those
details.
So I know the report was probably a little confusing as the request touches on a lot
of different parcels in the area, but I will stand for any questions right now.
Thanks, Haley.
We do.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair.
Haley, those lots that are on the west side of the property, those can't be developed
as they currently stand, because it's in an RR right or RD5X, whatever it is, right?
It's not.
Correct.
Those are actually four separate one-acre parcels.
That can't be developed.
And RR does require a five-acre minimum to plat, so those could not be platted or developed
at all with their current zoning.
Gotcha.
And even if all four of those were combined into an RR, or they couldn't even do that?
Correct.
They still would not meet that five-acre minimum.
So it's basically just kind of useless land, not useless, I should say, but as it's currently
zoned, it's stuck, and even moving to residential, it's kind of stuck.
Are there utility easements on this property?
I see on the site location, there's cuts in the land there.
Can you point those out on the map?
Yes.
So the area in red, the initial 12-acre zoning request and this 20-acre portion of what we're
looking at tonight are part of a larger 86-acre tract.
That tract has two very significant encumbrances.
There is a, approximately the eastern limit of their rezoning request is an underground
gas line.
And then there is also a, I believe it's a 70-foot wide electric utility easement that
crosses that property as well.
Because of the substation that's down to the south east?
I believe that that is connected with one of those substations to the south.
Got it.
All right.
Thank you.
I just want to clear that.
Anybody else?
I don't see anything.
Thank you, Haley.
Okay.
That takes us through our agenda.
So with that, I will close our work session at 5.53 p.m.
We will reconvene here at 6.30 for our regular meeting.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton's Planning and Zoning Meeting Commission for
Wednesday, September 22nd.
With the quorum present, I will call us to order at 6.33 p.m.
First item of business is to say the Pledge of Allegiance to the U.S. and Texas Flags.
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.
And to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, one nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
All right.
Our first order of business on the agenda is to consider approval of the Planning and
Zoning Commission meeting minutes for September 8th.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Anderson?
I second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's call for a vote on the board please.
Motion carries 7-0.
Next order of business, our consent agenda.
Please note that item 3A has been withdrawn by the applicant.
So our consent agenda consists of item 3B.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve SANS agenda item 3A.
Thank you.
Commissioner Anderson?
I second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second to approve consent agenda as noted.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
That will take us to our items for individual consideration.
That is 4A, PP21-0019.
I'll invite Sean Jacobson up for presentation.
Hi, Sean.
Good evening, Chair and members of the commission.
I'll just open my presentation here.
All right, so I'm presenting PP21-0019, which is the Perch Denton edition.
This is a proposed plot of a 17.86 acre site, generally located 275 feet north of the intersection
of Bonnie Bray and Carroll Al Lago Drive.
Staff is recommending denial of this plot as it does not meet the established criteria
for approval.
But staff does not object to the request of extension to the October 20th, 2021 P&Z meeting.
With that, happy to answer any questions.
Thanks, Sean.
Any questions for Sean?
I do not see any.
Thank you.
Commissioner Anderson?
Make a motion to extend until October 22nd, 2021 meeting.
I believe it's October 20th?
October 20th, sorry, yes.
Okay.
Commissioner Cole?
Yes.
Okay, so we have a first and a second to grant the request for extension to a date certain
of October 20th.
Any discussion?
Okay, let's call for a vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 7-0, we'll go to 4B, PP21-0016B, also Sean's item.
All right, let's go again, make sure I've got the right one here, there we are.
So again, this is PP21-16, a proposed plot of the Concrete Business Park, and that is
Lots 3-7, Block B, and staff is now recommending approval of this plan as it meets the established
criteria for approval.
Happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Sean.
Any questions on this plot?
I do not see any, Sean.
Commissioner Smith?
Make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Villarreal?
Second.
Okay, a first and a second to approve item 4B, discussion?
Seeing none, let's vote, please.
That motion carries 7-0, brings us to 4C, PP21-0022.
Hi, Lisa.
Hi there, excuse me.
Okay, Lisa Payne, principal planner, this slide before you is for project number PP21-0022,
which is a preliminary plot containing approximately 62 acres and located north of Hickory Creek
Road in about 1,500 feet west of Waterside Place.
This preliminary plot will have 156 residential lots for a single-family development.
A plan development for this site was approved earlier this year.
Staff recommends denial as this does not meet the established criteria for approval.
However, the applicant has requested a 30-day extension to allow additional time for review.
Staff has no objection with this and they would like to extend to October 20th, 2021.
I'm available for questions.
Any questions for Lisa?
I do not see any.
Commissioner Villarreal?
I move to approve the 30-day extension until October 20th, 2021.
Okay, we have a first to approve that extension request.
Commissioner Anderson?
I second his motion.
Okay, we have a second to approve the extension request to a date certain of October 20th.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
That motion carries 7-0.
It will move us to 4-D, PP21-0020.
Hello, Julie.
Good evening.
Let me share the screen.
Good evening, I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton, and I have PP21-0020
for you this evening.
This is a single-family residential preliminary plat within the Robeson Ranch subdivision.
Staff does recommend denial as it does not meet all of the criteria for approval.
It still needs additional review.
The applicant has requested an extension, and staff has no objections to that extension
to October 20th, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thanks, Julie.
Any questions for Julie?
I do not see any, Julie.
Thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal?
I move for an extension of October 20th, is that right, 2021.
Commissioner Villarreal?
Second.
Okay.
A first and a second, excuse me, to approve the extension request to a date certain of
October 20th.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, let's vote on the board, please.
Motion carries 7-0.
That will move us into our public hearings for the evening.
First is 5A, Z21-0014.
Julie Wyatt to come up for presentation, and I will open the public hearing.
All right, good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, and this is Z21-0014, Bolivar Rezoning.
So the request before you is to rezone approximately half an acre from R3 district to R7 district.
As we talked about in the work session, the subject property is developed with two single
family dwellings on two unplatted tracks.
The applicant has indicated that the intent is to convert the north structure to a professional
office, leaving the southern structure as is, but I did want to mention that if this
was approved, any of the uses permitted in the R7 district would be permitted on the
site.
Current zoning is R3, as you can see on your map, the properties outlined here, and that
proposed zoning would extend that R7, providing that transition between the existing MN and
the R3.
I did want to mention, because it did come up in the work session, of why they didn't
pursue an SUP and keep that existing R3 zoning.
The applicant and I have talked several times over the last months about this project, and
that was one thing that we did talk about, is the SUP process as well as the offices
allowed in R3 with an SUP.
However, when we got into kind of the nitty-gritty in talking through the project, since the subject
property is unplatted, prior to development of that property, they would have to plat,
and unfortunately, the subject property does not meet the minimum dimensional requirements
for R3.
The minimum lot size for R3 is 10,000 square feet, and this lot is about 8,400 square feet,
so that's really where we went back and forth and decided to, and she elected to move forward
with that R7 zoning, as the subject property is consistent with the dimensional requirements
in R7.
The approval criteria for a rezoning is in subchapter two of the Denton Development Code.
Staff has analyzed the request and has determined it is consistent with the criteria for approval,
and we'll go over a little bit of that, but just a summary, it is consistent with the
Denton Plan 2030, as well as the purpose statement for R7.
There are not any anticipated adverse impacts to surrounding properties, and there are adequate
public facilities, as it's an infill lot.
So first, talking about Denton Plan 2030, the subject property outlined here in black
is in the downtown compatibility area, and we don't see a lot of zoning cases within
the downtown compatibility area, but it really is intended to provide a flexibility in form
and uses to strengthen not only downtown, but also those neighborhoods near downtown,
and this really is that transition area, it allows those uses and intensities to slowly
decrease as you move away from our central business district.
R7 is consistent with the future land use map.
It allows a mixed density residential, allows that variety of residential uses, and some
non-residential uses, those limited office type uses, but at that transitional scale
and intensity, so it would not introduce any incompatible scale in this area.
It's also an infill site.
Just south of the subject property is an office use, it was a commercial use that recently
transitioned to office use, and there's an existing area with existing roadways, Bolivar
is a collector street, and there's water and sewer, so it does meet that criteria for being
an infill lot.
R7 minimizes adverse impacts to surrounding property, so as we were analyzing this case,
we looked at the surrounding land uses as well as zoning pattern, and it is our analysis
that R7 is not anticipated to create adverse impacts.
This area north of downtown by our analysis really has kind of two sub-districts that
we look at, so you've got downtown to the south, which is one of our more intense development
areas within the city, but then when you move north off of Elm and Locust, we have our more
intense transitional area north of downtown, and you've got that higher intensity mixed
use as you move just north from downtown, but then when you move off to the west, it
really transitions to that residential, and in between those two, you have this sort of
buffer zone, and that's where we're seeing this pattern of R7, so you've got R7 southwest
of the subject property, and it really does kind of track that buffer zone between the
more intense MN and commercial uses along Elm and Locust toward those residential neighborhoods
toward the northeast, or I'm sorry, northwest of the site, and R7 would provide that gradual
change in intensity.
If the property did redevelop, and as I said, if R7 is approved, they could redevelop the
site with any of those uses permitted in R7.
It would have to conform to current development standards.
That would be things like platting and site design, parking, street trees, landscaping,
so all of those considerations would be a factor in redevelopment of the site.
Public outreach was sent out.
We have received two letters in support of the request, and they're shown on your screen.
And the applicant did have a neighborhood meeting.
She didn't have any attendees, but she is here tonight and will be happy to answer any
questions, and so based upon the criteria for approval and staff's analysis, we do
recommend approval of the request, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie.
Any questions for Julie at the moment?
I do not see any at this moment.
Thanks, Julie.
Thank you.
It looks like I do have one card from Brenda Ashley wishing to speak.
Okay.
All right.
Not wishing to speak, but is in support of the request.
Okay.
So with that, Rachel, are there any callers on?
I don't hear.
Rachel, are you there?
Sorry, Margie.
No, ma'am.
No.
No callers for this one.
Okay.
Thank you for that.
Anyone wishing to speak can come up and just state your name and address, and your time
will begin.
I'm Melissa Bradley.
I've lived at 805 Bolivar Street for about 45 years.
We reared our family there.
Bolivar is a wonderful little neighborhood.
It is quaint, it is different, and it's what Denton really is all about.
I hate to see you do the rezoning because I can envision another lawyer office, a daycare
center, a doctor's office, all coming in, probably not in my lifetime, but soon.
I really think that it's a mistake to do this because I've seen what has happened to Elm,
Locust, Oak, and I don't want to see that happen to Bolivar Street.
It's different, it's quaint, and it is no reflection on the young lady.
It is the street, it is the neighborhood, and I think it would be a huge mistake, even
this, even if this is a soft zoning, I really think that it would be a mistake to do it.
I hope you will consider what Bolivar Street really is all about.
It's about family, it's about sharing a cup of sugar, it's about helping neighbors.
We are, we're truly a neighborhood of what Denton used to be.
I really would be disappointed to see you do this because I think we're taking away
part of Denton that used to be and it can still be.
Thank you.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Any questions for the speaker?
Okay.
Anyone else wishing to speak?
This is a public hearing.
Anyone else wishing to speak?
If you, please, yeah, if you can come to one of the two microphones wherever you're comfortable
and state your name and address and yes, please, your time will begin.
Thank you.
My name is Kaitlyn Ashley and my address is 3601 Meadow Trail Lane in Denton, Texas.
I'm the applicant in this case, I am an attorney.
My goals are to have this as my office.
I've worked with Julie closely over the last several months.
We talked about doing the SUP, we talked about what zoning was recommended and I followed
everything that I've received from the staff as far as what direction I went in with the
application.
I've met with Ms. Bradley.
I really appreciate her coming and participating.
I think that more people should participate in things like this.
I think that any fear of high use or different use later on is well taken care of under PLATS
and the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission, this is for the R7 zoning.
I'm not positive, but I don't think that daycares and things like higher use can be under R7.
I do want to say that I've owned the Bolivar Street property for over a year now and I've
done everything I can to be a good neighbor.
I have renters and done everything I can to make sure they're respectful of the neighbors
in the area.
I've worked really closely with the St. Paul Lutheran Church.
Just to give you a picture of where this actually is, if you know where 7 Mile Cafe used to
be, if you know where the cupboard used to be, that's where I am.
There's literally my neighbor, Joan Phillips is between my property and where the cupboard
used to be.
On the map, there's a lot of green R3, but what you can't really see is that a lot of
that is the St. Paul Lutheran Church.
Right down there is a massage business.
There's a lot of businesses in this area and I think that my use will only contribute to
the neighborhood.
I want to fix the house up more as an office and as my place of business and bring that
pride to the city of Denton and not just use it as a rent house.
I want to make it quaint.
I want to make it nice.
I don't want to rent space in a concrete office building somewhere in Denton.
I really want to build my practice and have my roots here in Denton at this property.
From everything I've learned from Julie and the staff, what I want to do is in line with
the future zoning and the neighborhood.
Thank you so much.
- Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I have a question for you.
With regard to, will people be coming to your office if this is approved and you make it
your office?
Where would parking take place?
- Yes.
That's a great question and I've talked to a lot of my neighbors about that.
I know it doesn't really matter what kind of attorney I am, but I do wills and estates.
I've told my neighbors what I do.
Generally the most cars I would have at a time, I would have maybe a husband and wife
signing a will, my car and then two witnesses, so five cars at a time for maybe an hour at
a time.
It would be between the hours of eight and five, Monday through Friday.
I currently have one parking spot where my renters park.
I also have spoken with St. Paul Lutheran Church.
They've been kind enough to allow me to use their parking that's on the back end of their
parking lot.
I've talked with them if that ever becomes just not conducive to either of us.
The way that the property I have is set up is it's very long and narrow and the house
is positioned more towards the front and the backyard is very large and would fit adequate
parking spots.
I think I measured maybe five or six spots just in the back where there could also be
in the front, so I definitely don't want to contribute to any street parking.
I want to be as a courteous neighbor as I can, and I've thought about the parking.
I've also talked to neighbors about there's huge trees that have to be over 100-year-old
pecan trees, and I've drawn maps and talked to people about pouring concrete in a way that
those trees will always stay.
There's plenty of room in the backyard for parking.
- Thank you.
Any other questions?
- Thank you very much.
- Thank you.
As I am looking at here, it does look like daycare is a permitted use in R7, so just
to clarify that statement.
Anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open up for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Smith?
- I'm going to make a motion to approve.
I think the citizens' comments on this is very well heard.
I think that with it being so close and stuck between the church as well as the cupboard,
that it makes the most sense for this to be turned into office use.
I think that to protect neighborhoods, we have to look at it a little more microscopically
than we normally would in a zoning case, but in this scenario, the way that property is
situated, this makes 100% sense in my mind, especially for creating a buffer to protect
that neighborhood that you mentioned.
So that's my motion.
- Thank you.
Commissioner Perot?
- Yeah, I'd like to second.
I'll just say that I understand the desire to keep the neighborhood intact and enjoy
all of the benefits that it's had over decades.
I think one of the benefits that it's had is proximity to services and wonderful things
that you can get to quickly and easily.
So this is exactly the type of near downtown development that I think we should be encouraging.
So I'm happy to second.
- Thank you, Commissioner Perot.
We have a first and a second to approve the request.
Any discussion?
- I do not see any.
I'll just say a comment.
I think if this was somewhere else on the street, I would have a difficult time with
this request because I don't think there's neighborhood protections here, but because
these are two lone parcels sitting effectively in between some already non-neighborhood type
uses, I think the request is reasonable.
And thank you, Julie, for explaining why the SUP was not used.
I figured you would go there first.
That's why I asked it in work session, because it would have made more sense to me.
But you explained it well why that was not an option.
So thank you.
Any other discussion?
Okay, seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board.
That motion carries 7-0.
Our next public hearing item is 5BPD 200010.
I'll invite Julie White back up for presentation and open the public hearing.
All right.
My apologies, I closed out my presentation, so let me get it back up and we'll get ready
to go.
Hmm.
Oh, there it is.
I apologize.
Aha, here we go.
Sorry about that.
All right, this is PD20-0010 Light Industrial.
The request before you is to rezone about 7 acres from NR4 and RR districts to a PD district.
And just to give you a little bit of background, the subject property was annexed over time.
It was originally developed, the development began in 1984, and buildings have been added to the site since then.
It was annexed at two times, once in 1986, and that was that area just along McKinney, and then there was an additional annexation in 2013.
The subject property is located on the north side of McKinney.
It's situated in the east side of town.
The zoning is in place.
First there were initial zoning designations that were applied to the property when it was annexed, and then it transitioned over time with updated regulation.
So that's how we get that existing zoning pattern of R4 adjacent to McKinney, and then that RR district on the north side of the property.
So as I mentioned, the development of the site began in 1984. The current user and development on the site is for a sign manufacturing company.
And this use is nonconforming due to that existing zoning pattern, that use that's been in place since 1984 is a nonconforming use.
And therefore it would be subject to all the limitations and processes for nonconforming uses in section 1.5 of the debt and development code.
The current zoning, as I mentioned, is the RR and R4 districts.
That's that combination of green on the north side of the property and then that tan adjacent to McKinney.
The surrounding zoning pattern includes both RR district to the south as well as to the northwest of the site.
There's also R4 nearby adjacent to the property and on the south side of McKinney.
There's MN on McKinney as well as there's ETJ property. So it really is that variety of zoning districts, but it's primarily residential zoning.
They are proposing to rezone the property with that PD, with the LI-based zoning district.
This PD is a little different than what we typically see with PDs. Often we've seen these PDs where they've asked for deviations that maybe weren't allowed in the code.
This PD, given that existing zoning pattern and that emerging residential use, actually reduces some of those permitted uses in LI and changes those development standards.
So there are limitations on some of the more intensive commercial uses and industrial uses in LI.
The PD development standards do increase that lot size and setbacks, also reduce building height and lot coverage.
Commercial design standards, so the development code in subchapter 7 has a provision that industrial uses and industrial districts can deviate from our commercial design standards.
However, this development does require those commercial design standards, so if it ever does redevelop, it would have to develop in a more commercial way, less industrial looking.
Things like building orientation, building articulation, those elements.
And then the development standards also require loading areas to be to the side of the rear, once again to reduce any visual impacts for those loading areas.
And so that PD, the development standards and the development map, those are kind of embedded within those development standards.
The development map is really a reflection of what's existing on the property.
It does include that existing 50,000 square feet of building on the site, as well as those existing parking areas and vehicular maneuvering areas.
As part of the review of this project and analysis of this project, we did work with the developer to add some landscaping to get it more in conformance with today's standards.
So they are proposing some street trees along McKinney. There's existing trees near this area of the property, so that they wouldn't put any additional trees on that west side of the site.
But they are proposing street trees and some parking lot screening, the shrubbery, as well as buffer shrubs along the northern part of the site.
And then I'm showing here this purple line. That's that approximate location of that 400 feet.
So typically that they would have to comply with those commercial development standards within 250 feet of that right-of-way.
They've actually increased that. So any development within 400 feet of that right-of-way would have to comply with our commercial standards.
The criteria for approval are in subchapter two of the Denton Development Code.
Just a summary of that analysis, the project is consistent with our economic vitality element in the Denton Plan 2030.
It doesn't quite conform to the rural areas' future land use designation, but it does meet that overall goal due to that economic vitality component.
The development standards and permitted uses within this proposed BD are more restrictive than that base zoning, so it's a little different than what we typically see in PDs.
They are proposing those landscaping improvements. And then as far as public infrastructure, there is adequate capacity.
It's an existing use. This would not allow them to expand that use at this time.
So just briefly about Denton Plan 2030, as I mentioned, this is rural areas. That typically is kind of what it says it is. It's intended to promote farms and agricultural type uses, also very low density and some agricultural commercial uses.
This PD really doesn't quite fit that, but it does fit that economic vitality, and that is intended to support our employers within the city.
And then also to develop workforces that are near residential areas to provide that mix of uses.
This proposal would allow this existing business to remain as a conforming use, but it also includes regulations that provides certainty as to what could develop on the property.
But it is within that proximity to residential uses to provide employment for residential areas.
Public outreach was sent out for the proposal. We haven't received any letters, whether in opposition or in support of the request.
And based upon the criteria for approval, staff does recommend approval of the request. I'll be happy to answer any questions, and the applicant is also here to answer any questions.
Thank you, Julie. Any questions for Julie at this time?
I do not see any. Thank you.
This is a public hearing. I don't have any cards filled out for this item, but is anyone wishing to speak on this item?
And Rachel, are there any callers for this item?
No, Chair, not at this time.
Okay. Seeing none, I will...
Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to ask the applicant a question if the applicant is here.
Thank you.
Hi, if you'll state your name and address just for the public record, please.
Lee Ramsey, 525 South Loop 288. Thank you.
Mr. Ramsey, why the rezone? I know it's a non-conforming use. I understand that means you can't do expansion, you can't do if there's a possibility you want to sell it or, you know, something were to happen, damage, you can't rebuild, if it's more damage, 50%.
I'm not saying I want to support keeping a business in a non-conforming use in a zoning area, but staff couldn't really give us an answer or work session of what predicated you to be a good citizen to step up and want to make this a conforming use now.
Well, thank you so much for asking. Obviously we developed throughout the city of Denton and we recognize that long term this was a better play and we worked closely with staff which to look at instead of going to an LI zoning is the reason we went to a PD, which was a great idea, was to be able to limit the expansion of light industrial zoning in that area.
So we went to a PD so it wouldn't necessarily have adjoining light industrial zoning, and when we own assets for long term, we don't buy assets to just to flip and sell. So we wanted to just get it cleaned up so that it, you know, as we put new tenants in there we wouldn't have to deal with this long term, and we knew exactly what rules we needed to play by.
So that any new tenant coming in we could clearly make sure that they could occupy the building rather than going we're not sure are you the same use, because we can continue the same type of use as we have today.
So it was worth us going through the process to just to get it cleaned up and make sure that future city staff, and us and our future tenants that we understood the rules so that it wouldn't be later down the road unclear so thank you for asking that question.
It's just because if there are, since you own the building, there's right now sign manufacturer the tenant inside of there. If you had a new tenant in the future that was also doing manufacturing you want to be able to make sure that you guys can do that before you got your CEOs and that kind of stuff.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr Ramsey.
Public hearing is still open is there anyone wishing to speak on this item.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the motion or discussion Commissioner Smith, make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Villarreal second. We've got a first and a second to approve the PD request Is there any discussion.
Seeing them let's vote on the board please.
Motion carries seven zero that moves us to public hearing five see that's DCA 21 0004. I will open the public hearing, and it is noted that staff is requesting this item be postponed to a date certain of October Smith.
October six. Excuse me.
I will go ahead and move that unless there is a discussion from the dance. Okay, let's move on then to five DZ 21 0011 a, I will open the public hearing, and it is noted that applicant has requested this item be postponed to a date certain of October six.
Is there any discussion on that. Okay, that item is postponed public hearing remains open that takes us to five ES 21 0004 be that is Haley's item and I will open the public hearing.
Good evening.
All right, good evening. This is item s 21 for Millennium crest multifamily. We went through the summary at the work session so I will go into all the information here in more detail.
As we move along, just some background information regarding the site. It is probably very familiar to all of you. This request initially came before you on August 4 of this year.
The request is related to the roughly seven and a half acre property outlined in yellow on the aerial map. This site is proposed to be developed with a multifamily use the request for the SUV is specific to the building height.
They're requesting a maximum height of 60 feet for the building.
The multifamily use is permitted by right and the use up to 40 feet in height is permitted by right on the property. It is because they are seeking a building taller than 40 feet that we are here this evening.
On August 4 when this case first came before you if you remember there was a lot of discussion regarding what that would look like if they were to develop by right. So after that postponement the applicant kind of went back to the drawing board came up with an alternative for what they could feasibly put on the site within the current zoning entitlements and that plan we will look at a little more closely and they also did some additional neighborhood outreach that the applicant can discuss with you this evening.
So just to make sure everyone's on the same page regarding how we measure building height in the code. It is measured as the vertical distance from the finished grade to the highest point of the flat roof and as you can see in the proposed elevation they are looking at a flat roof building design.
So that would exclude any parapets.
As I mentioned they are seeking a maximum height of 60 feet. Their building is not proposed to be at 60 feet. They're proposing a structure that is roughly 54 feet 8 inches in height. However there's significant grade change on this side I believe it's in the order of 20 to 30 feet of change across the property with there being a low point on the south side and a couple of high points towards the north.
With all of those grade changes the building height as we measure it in the code would come out to about 58 feet. But because this is an S.U.P. and they have not done the fine grading and engineering for the site they're seeking that flexibility to make sure that they can stay under 60.
So this slide provides you a comparison of the S.U.P. site plan which again has not been modified since that August 4th hearing and then the alternative plan that they have proposed and presented to the neighbors to show what they could reasonably fit on the site by right to achieve the same unit count.
So on the north site plan the area in green is to show the significant areas of tree preservation. The same thing has been done on the alternative plan to show you where those clusters of trees would be kept.
The S.U.P. plan as you can see includes a singular multifamily building and then a future space for retail on the eastern most one and a half acres or so of the property.
Both of these plans showed 234 units within these buildings. The top plan again would have that maximum height of 60 feet it would be a four story building. On the alternative plan that you see on the bottom of the screen they are proposing five residential buildings that would be three stories each within that 40 foot height limit.
On the northern I'm sorry on the uppermost plan the S.U.P. plan that building is set back approximately 110 feet from the southern property line. On the alternative plan you can see the buildings are much closer this building is roughly 25 to 27 feet off the property line as best I could measure building four is approximately 13 feet.
The tree preservation area you can see is a significant change in the S.U.P. plan that tree preservation area and buffer how with the walking trails and all of those amenities that we looked at in more detail the first time around was 60 to 70 feet in width varying slightly as you go across the site.
The alternative plan of what they would propose to build by right. You can see that is greatly reduced. My apologies. It varies between about 13 feet and 27 feet as you go across the site.
Both plans have roughly comparable amount of parking shown on them the difference being the S.U.P. plan contains that majority almost all of that within a parking garage that the building would wrap around.
If you were to switch to surface parking primarily on the alternative plan there is a one one elevated level of parking here for a two story garage in the central part of the plan.
The rest of it would be surface parked tree preservation, as you can see visually is a significant difference. The S.U.P. plan proposes them slightly exceeding our minimum 30% preservation requirement with the alternative plan that is reduced to the bare minimum of 20%
per square foot. The S.U.P. plan proposes them to be reduced to the bare minimum of 15% per square foot. The S.U.P. plan proposes them to be reduced to the bare minimum of 20% per square foot.
The S.U.P. plan proposes them to be reduced to the bare minimum of 15% per square foot. The S.U.P. plan proposes them to be reduced to the bare minimum of 15% per square foot.
The S.U.P. plan proposes them to be reduced to the bare minimum of 15% per square foot.
And we believe that the plan that we're presenting is consistent with the Denton 2030 plan,
with compact development, urban development, tree preservation, and maintaining a natural habitat there.
So we -- if I can move forward.
Sorry.
I guess I'm going to scroll up. It's a PDF. Okay.
So Millennium Crest, we anticipate breaking ground in about six to nine months.
We are going to move forward in either direction, whether it's the four-story or the three-story option.
And we are requesting tonight, respectfully, that you deeply consider the four-story option.
We feel like it is a better plan for the city, for the community, for the neighbors.
And if we do not receive this S.U.P. for the additional height, we will have to take out another 153 trees.
We will lose over 25,000 more square feet of natural area that's there today.
And it will require us to shift the buildings closer to the south property line.
And here is the plan that Haley talked about that we showed before, the compact development
and the building being over 100 feet away to protect the neighbors.
And here's the alternative plan showing the -- how we have to spread apart the buildings
in order to get fire protection around all of them, the fire circulation that's required.
The 26-foot fire line is required, and then there's a 15-foot separation from the parking
to the front of the building along fire lanes.
And so we had to conform to that requirement of the development code.
Haley helpfully just reviewed this quickly and said that it looks like it does meet all the criteria.
It is a more spread-out development, takes up more land area to do the circulation and the paving,
and it fragments the open space.
It's going to be very strategic in where we put the parking and where we're saving the tree clusters.
This does take out the 153 more trees, and we're sitting at 21% tree mitigation
instead of the 33% that the other plan showed.
And this plan does not include below-ground detention.
It has a detention facility in the low spot of the property.
And looking at those side-by-side, we did a cross-section that shows the three-story approach,
what that would look like, you know, from this star on the adjacent property.
And that building roughly is 13 feet away from the property line, and this one 26 feet away.
The code requires a minimum of 10 by right.
We had, over the last year, we've had a pretty proactive neighborhood outreach effort.
We've had over 12 neighborhood meetings.
William and his team have made an extensive effort to contact these people,
to have conversations with them, call, email, drop stuff in their mailboxes and things like that.
Willing to meet with them and look at their properties and things like that.
And the neighborhood meeting that we had this past week,
we even shared with them an alternative plan that the four-story,
if we were to drop it in a series of steps, basically,
about ranging from a total of five to seven feet, excuse me,
if they would be willing to consider that as a less intense or less intrusive approach.
And while they were somewhat receptive to that, the overall sentiment of that meeting is
they do not want anything to develop on the property, they don't want to see apartments here.
This is allowed by right. William and his team are going to do it regardless.
And we just want to, you know, we feel like that compact development
is much more in keeping with the spirit and intent of the City of Denton.
I'll turn it over to William for his comments.
Thank you, Randy. Thank you. Good evening, all the commissioners.
My name is William Tsau. I am the developer for the Millennium Quest project.
And thank you again for allowing me to share my thought and my thinking,
our team of thinking about this in there.
We are, as Randy already presented to everybody, about the detail of our project here.
In early stage of this project, our preliminary conversation with the City of Denton planning department,
we have noticed that Denton development guidelines are generally very interested in preserving
as many trees, as many nature areas as possible.
Many of your code even reward extra credit toward nature resources and tree preservations.
We as Millennium Quest development team will fully embrace and support these guidelines.
As the project progress, we further made sure our project is foremost consistent
and meet with all the preservation goals set under the Denton 2030 comprehensive plan.
Encouragement of the infield development, compactness and high density along the major corridor.
Dear Commissioner, as Ms. Rivera presented earlier in our many, many meetings,
our neighbors who allow us to introduce their private area and their private time
to communicate with us for their concerns.
And we hereby tonight respectfully asking your approval for this special use permit application.
We own the land. We have a financial lender in place.
Our design and construction team in place.
Millennium Quest project is coming and we planning to be break ground in the next six to nine month time frame.
If today you deny the SUP application, by default,
we feel like you are denying our intention to preserve over 25,000 square feet of the nature land
and instead of that, we have to cover them with the parking lot and fire lane concrete
in order to meet the development code.
And you are denying our intention to preserve more than 150 more trees, existing trees in the site.
And also you are denying our intention to move our building as far away as the neighbors back your fence.
Currently, our design is about 110 feet away from the property line.
And to design by the code, we have to move the building much closer from 15 to 35 to 45 feet
to the neighbors back your fence in order to meeting the parking and the fire lane code requirement.
And so, you know, we want to say we are the future neighbor of this neighborhood.
And without this special height, we cannot have the intention to building a nature reserve zone
which is about 65 feet wide along the south boundary and to buffer our neighbors right there.
Thank you for your consideration and we are here. Any question we can answer.
And we appreciate your time and effort to let us know about your thought. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Tsou. Are there any questions for the applicant?
Commissioner Villarreal.
First off, thank you both for the presentation.
I just want to reiterate because I did read all of the complaints from the residents in Southridge.
But no matter what happens today, you will be pursuing a development of an apartment complex
with the same number of residents and most likely the same number of vehicles.
Correct. Yes, that is correct.
We will get 234 units on this property. Right.
And including that, you will have far less tree buffer, a far smaller tree buffer.
And it would be far more detrimental to tree preservation and to the environment.
Correct. That is correct. Yes.
You're very welcome. Commissioner Pruitt.
Thank you, Chair. Just a couple of questions.
Since there wasn't a summary provided from the latest community meeting,
I saw a couple of threads of thoughts in the public's comments to the board that I'd like to address if you could.
One of those is there was some discussion about a $1,500 price point or price points either with one or the other option.
Could you explain where those comments might have come from just so I can understand?
Yes, I'd be glad to.
The products, the two different plans you see before you will result in two different product types.
And the plan on the left will result in on average about a $1,500, you know, per month rent.
People are moving to these types of urban residential because it is interconnected with,
they can go straight from the garage to their unit in the interior hallways and enjoy those amenities in the courtyards.
The plan on the right is a different approach. It's more of a garden style. It's not as urban.
And so those rents would be a little bit lower.
Okay. And is it correct to explain that part of the cost difference in that would be the higher cost of structured parking and the other amenities that you're planning on providing?
Correct. The one on the left is highly, highly amenitized and a security control building and everything like that.
And the plan on the right is a sort of a somewhat of a standard type of garden style apartment complex.
Okay. Thank you. And the second question, if I may.
Sure. There were some comments about the broad concept of Section 8 programs.
Are you familiar enough with that to explain whether that program is tied to a particular property or development or whether it's a general voucher program?
Is that something you can speak to?
Well, I can speak to you that we are not doing voucher program or subsidized housing here in Section 8.
Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Anderson.
You're welcome.
Average. Yes, sir.
How would you entice a resident to want to move into your apartment complex when they could purchase a house in a neighborhood right behind it and have about the same payment for a house instead of paying a rent?
I don't believe the homes in the neighborhood behind this would yield in a $1,500 rent or mortgage.
Well, I just looked on Denton CAD and the average value anywhere between $250 to $300.
And if you do the mortgages on that, I mean, if you put money down, you're going to pay about $1,500 to $1,800 a month.
I'm sorry. I thought the homes to the south were significantly higher than that in value.
I mean, the ones I looked up were anywhere between $250 to $300. So, I mean, that's kind of a...
Well, there are people who rent by choice. I think a lot of us in this room at one point in our lives were renters.
And, you know, that is housing diversity is a need and is part of a program in Denton to bring in more housing stock, different housing stock.
And this provides that option. And so these are for people to live by choice, to live here, not by necessity or desperation or anything like that.
It's because they want to be in that, you know, my mom or my sister, they're single moms and stuff, and they could live in a place like this because they don't want to maintain anything, but they would do it by choice.
Now, housing diversity in Denton, I don't know if you've come to many of these meetings.
I mean, it's almost like every meeting we have, apartment complexes popping up in Denton.
And unfortunately, I just don't think another apartment complex is kind of wise right now.
I mean, it's, you know, I'll explain more here, but thank you.
Well, thank you for your comments. I appreciate that.
I can't hear you.
I didn't hear...
That's okay.
Pardon me?
Mr. Tsao would like to speak.
You want to comment on that question?
Certainly.
Commissioner Harrison, we, before any project we go in there, we have to do a thorough market study.
And what we identify in the product we design in there is there is a group of the "professional" high disposal income who are serving in the Denton for the medical facility here and also a lot of, you know, professional firm here.
So in terms of rent of average $1,500, we actually starting, I can share with you, we have a market study.
The rent will be starting $1.76 per square foot per month rent.
And average of the size in there, our rent will be starting at roughly right under $1,300, starting at $1,300 all the way to $1,800.
Yes, like Randy just said, these renters are by choice because the amenity we're providing here is a copper pocket.
It's very critical for the Texas extreme weather condition and the amenity is very favorable for the potential renter.
And also because this kind of product is close by the professionals, they're easy access.
And a lot of things also come into concern in there is there enough infrastructure, shopping, restaurant, everything available for this high-pay professional.
And that's why we are reason to come in here. And I may share with you a little bit more.
You know, it's currently the millennial, the major spending force in our society.
They're looking for, quote unquote, you know, I want to live alone together.
What that means together, it means they want to live in their own individual space.
But when they close the door, come out to socialize, they want a very rich amenity community for them to live in.
And that's what we intend to provide is a very rich amenity to helping them out.
Thank you. Thank you.
OK, I don't see any other questions. So we're going to I've got several cards wishing to speak.
First one I have is Ken Gold. State your name and address. Your time will begin.
You know, you know, the drill, how to get out of this. You have a presentation. Yeah. OK. I like Jerry's last time.
My name is Ken Gold. I live at 2512 Natchez Trace. I got a little presentation here and we'll try to move through it real quick.
There's a lot I want to cover and I'll try to still be understandable as I talk real fast.
This is an aerial view of the property. As you can see, it's a one great big green rectangle bordered on the right by buckies down here and their water, which is an ESA.
And this is, I think, the riparian area. This is all really one big habitat.
I will spend a little time on this habitat because there's a great irony here.
This is a quote from the staff and one of your backups. I should have cited which one it was.
It's not expected to have a significant adverse environmental impact. So look at what we start with.
In the ESA primer that the city puts out, it says that the ESA's - let me take my notes here. I'm going to be a lot faster.
I disagree with their comment in the first slide. This is the part where it says they provide an ecological - oh gosh, now what do I do?
How do I shrink that back down? That's my thumb did that.
Did I touch the key but I don't know what for? Maybe if I start over, if I get out and start over. Okay, that was it. Escape. They answered all your problems.
All right, this is just showing the benefits of the ESA.
Cross Timbers Upland Habitat. That's the part in the rectangle directly behind Natchez Trace.
The Upland Habitat. This is a diagram from the city showing there on the left, the upland.
Back in the early stages when there was a plan for the first review by the staff, Ms. Upton said that the official ESA map shows the crossland or upland habitat designation.
It was an ESA. It was removed.
Now, because it - if you read on down, it's because it did not meet the 10 acre threshold. This is from last spring.
Now, this slide explains how property lines are not to be used to determine cross timbers upland habitat.
They're not required to be used. They can be bigger than the property.
This property in question is a seven and a half, seven and a quarter acre tract.
But if you saw from the aerial pictures, it's really a lot bigger piece of property that's a true habitat.
This is just showing if it was an ESA. And it's not. And I'm not trying to get it designated as an ESA.
That the habitat to be retained is 50 percent.
This is it again. You can see it's clearly one big habitat.
Buckies went through a lot of trouble to get that ESA on their property. But really, it's all part of this one thing.
Slide 12, this is also from the staff in the backup, shows a little confusion in the history of how this area lost its ESA designation.
They say in the green highlight, February 2000.
But then they say that it's because the neighborhood in there below our neighborhood was part of the reason it couldn't get it.
But that was planted in '94 to '98 before the 2000 ESA.
So I challenge the statement that says it is not sufficient size to be an ESA, but it is not one.
That fight is over. It's not an ESA anymore. It's unjustified, but it's a done deal, a lost opportunity.
This is a little more on the ESA, showing what it would have been before the neighborhood, all that pink in there.
That's the ESA part. What's left north of the neighborhood is still there.
I think that's more than 10 acres.
Oh my, that went by fast.
Go ahead and take another 40 seconds since you had technical difficulties.
Let me just jump past all this ESA stuff. That's all the trees that's going to be wiped out.
This is the plan B, the supposed plan B. It's not a plan. It's not really a plan at all.
It's a drawing. That's all there is. It's a scare tactic.
It exists only because this board at the last meeting asked for a plan B because they didn't have one a month ago.
Then, as a poorly veiled threat, you've got the apartment shoved up against our back property line.
You've got a whole hell of a lot of trees wiped out, and you've got all this concrete.
It's not a real plan, and that's all I got. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Gold, for sharing your thoughts. Are there any questions?
Yeah, I lost a little bit.
Well, Ms. D. Gold, I have your card next. Would you like to come up and speak?
We can take this out. I don't know how to do that.
Go ahead. You can remit it. If you want, then we can leave it out.
No, I don't.
Hi, I'm Misty Gold. I live at 2512 Natchez Trace, and I have lived there for 23 years.
I was wrong when she said that we didn't want anything in that area.
We had 12 developers come in there over 23 years and try to build something on that property.
We were thrilled when they said it was going to be 55 plus.
We were thrilled when they said doctor's offices were going in there.
What we don't want is six stories, four stories, whatever, four stories, that's 60 feet, looking in my backyard.
And that's all I have to say. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Gold.
The next card I have is Eric Robertson.
State your name and address and your time will begin.
Good evening, everybody. My name is Eric Robertson. I'm at 2501 Shiloh Road.
My wife and I have been here for 22 years in the same house.
We've seen the neighborhood grow. It has been a blessing. We've had our kids raised there.
One of the things that I wanted to address is what was discussed at the last meeting,
and it's that whole criteria of incompatible use.
And I think, you know, they've talked about this fitting in with other commercial properties,
but if you go and drive over at Lillian Miller and you drive past the assisted living,
you drive onto Natchez Trace, which is one of the streets that I live off of,
you can tell that this is not compatible at all with any of the development that's there.
You can say that, but when you drive out there, it's just not there.
Furthermore, it's not compatible with the assisted living behind.
There is no four-story building there in that area on the west side of I-35.
And I would argue that it's not a part of the I-35 corridor,
and that was what was used and labeled at the last meeting to justify,
hey, this is compatible.
No, it's really not, and I think that's a huge point.
We have that use of the special, the SUP, which prohibits something like this,
and it is served as a protection, and it's served us well.
And I agree that it should not be granted here on this particular occasion.
The other thing I wanted to address was, and one of the things that I've heard said by the developer,
I've also heard I think one of the commissioners say this, but that there is a shortage of housing,
and thus we need this specific use permit because there's not enough housing.
We have, as Mr. Anderson has said, which I was basically going to piggyback off what he said,
because it was on my notes, but we have apartments going up everywhere in the city of Denton.
We do not have a housing shortage.
We have too many apartments as it is,
and now you're going to drop one right in the backyard of our subdivision.
If they want to build it up to three stories, they can go right ahead.
The good news is, and it seems like one of the motivations is we have these people that are wanting to come to Denton,
and we have to somehow account for them,
and that puts an unnamed individual above the names of the residents who have been paying taxes here for 20 years,
and that's not right.
The assumption that we have a housing shortage, you could verify if, in fact, well, there's no other places to rent.
I did a quick look today.
If you want to rent over near Buckees, you can.
They have vacancies at the apartment complex there.
If you want to rent in the square off Locust Street at Square 9 Apartments, currently 16 vacancies.
If you want to rent over by South Ridge Estates, you could go to London Dairy Oaks at Teasland 35,
and they have seven units available right now.
There is not a housing shortage.
They can build, and the good news is if you're worried about these unnamed people that are coming to Denton
and get somehow priority over the residents who have been here,
the developer can still build a structure for 234 units and accommodate.
It's a win-win for everybody.
So I would encourage you to deny the SUP, okay?
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Robertson.
Next card I have is Jeff Berry.
Hello, my name is Jeff Berry.
Hello, I'm 2500 Natchez Trace.
I feel that this project is way too big and will not be to scale for the surrounding buildings.
They even talked about lowering the grades on the building they want to build,
and it's still going to be too tall.
I mean, in consideration, all the buildings that are around there are two stories.
This thing will tower over everybody in the neighborhood, tower of the seniors.
I mean, you'll see it visibly from 35.
I'm not sure why they would want to consider it high-end apartments when it's going to share an entrance by Goodwill,
which constantly has drop-offs over there.
It's like, how would you feel?
You're renting this apartment, you've got to drive by Goodwill and see their drop-offs every day.
This construction of this building will be adding light and noise pollution to our neighborhood and to the seniors at Brookdale.
During the fall and the winter months, when there's no foliage on the trees,
there will be nothing screening the visibility of the lights off the building or dampening the noise.
I spoke with Jessica Jimenez on Monday, this Monday, who is the assistant director at Brookdale,
and she informed me they were not aware of any projects that were being proposed to be built behind their facility.
She said that she would be against it because of the seniors that walk around on the back of the yard,
sit there, hang out, and get to look out into the forest and look at the nature.
I spoke with the executive director from Brookdale, Kathy Hamilton,
and she informed me that she was not very happy about the project and was planning to submit a letter to oppose the project,
but had to wait for their legal team to approve.
On September 10th, Mr. Sazo and Ms. Stone came over to our house and wanted to talk about their updated plans, showing us the three-story version.
When they showed up, they informed us that this was the first time for them to visit our neighborhood, this being September 10th.
We wanted them to see, the reason we had them at our house, we wanted them to see our backyard, what we've done to it,
see it from our side of the fence, what we're going to be looking at.
They went on to show us their plan for the three-story build option that looked like they didn't put much effort into it.
It felt like an attempt to scare us with this plan.
On September 14th, during our Zoom meeting with the developer, Mr. Sazo said he had no plan on building this product.
So they just went to reaffirm it was just a scare tactic to us.
They've also talked about the studies of what the apartments will increase the value,
and these studies are not formal studies except for one, which is conducted by a multifamily housing developer,
and it's stated that moderate-income houses are not affected by multifamily developments that are in scale with adjacent developments.
I feel our neighborhood is more than just a moderate neighborhood to scale. That's all I have.
Thank you, Mr. Berry.
Next card I have is Greg Armour.
Greg Armour, 2508 Shiloh Road, been there 20 years, asking the Board to please deny the special use permit for the four-story multi-complex
between South Richard State's subdivision and Brookdale Senior Living.
The structure is out of scale for the area, one-story structures, homes, versus a four-story structure.
Even the commercial structures in the area are one-story.
Example, Bucky's is one of them.
It will affect the whole community. We'll be able to see the multi-structure around front porches and yards.
We sit at a higher elevation and know what the structure's going to be at.
Personally, I don't want to see a mouth hanging from someone's balcony.
Also, you need to address the grocery stores in the area.
Albertsons went out years ago. There's no food stores in the area to walk to. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Armour.
Next card I have is Ann Berry.
Good evening. My name is Ann Berry. I live at 2500 Natchez Trace. I'm here to ask you to deny the SUP.
In my opinion, the opposed building is far too tall. It's completely out of scale from any other surrounding buildings.
I do understand that the zoning does allow for apartments, but this particular zoning, the mixed use,
is purposed to ease the transition between our single-family housing and larger-scale commercial use.
And this would be the exact opposite of that. There are plenty of other mixed use type of development that could go on to this property
that would preserve even more trees and also provide a more conducive living condition for the residents of South Ridge Estates.
There's also the question of this Plan B, the three-story building that, as others have said, seemed to be thrown together in an effort
to scare the residents of South Ridge Estates into accepting this more monster-sized building.
But in fact, I fully believe this is yet another disingenuous plan from the developer, and I do not believe this plan would likely be built.
Mr. Sau himself in my dining room said this is not a product that they want to build.
So I noticed tonight, as opposed to the previous meeting, Mr. Sau did seem to stay further away from the mic and allow his colleague to do a lot of the talking.
He said as much at the last meeting that they didn't have a Plan B, they didn't want to build a Plan B,
but they were encouraged to come up with a plan, and a plan they did.
This Plan B he let us know would cost just as much as Plan A between the tree mitigation that they would have to pay for,
but yet just here in this meeting he said the rents would be lower.
So how is he going to offset the cost of that development with the decreased rents?
I believe it's all just a ruse.
The increased lights and noise and reduction of privacy for the residents of South Ridge Estates would reduce our peace and quality of life in this neighborhood.
This developer cannot guarantee who the residents will be.
He says he's going to target the high-end professionals at the medical facility, but as others have stated, coming past a pile of junk and overlooking an aging shopping center doesn't sound like a very high-end view to me.
I just want to continue to encourage you to look into the egress coming from Brookdale.
I know personally that they're opposed to it. I have seen nothing in writing, although the developer has said that he's had meetings with them.
If he's got some permissions, then I think it's something that we should see.
Again, I just want to thank you for your time this evening and again just ask you to deny this special use permit and allow us to preserve our community and allow some other type of development that's more conducive to that property to come in there.
Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Berry.
The next card I have is Russell Black.
My name is Russell Black. I live at 2304 Genendoa Trail in Southridge Estates. No, I'm not backed up right to this proposed apartment complex, so I'm not as directly impacted.
However, I'm trying to look at it objectively.
The choices that seem to be available to us, the first option, which is the 60-foot structure versus the 40-foot structure that spread out across that plat.
Correct me if I'm wrong, we can't stop them from building, right? We're not capable of stopping them from building. There's no way we can rezone.
They have it. They have the zoning to put an apartment complex there.
So at this point, it's a matter of what's going to go there, and if the options are A or B, 60 feet of, in my opinion, better quality, better structure, better layout versus a 40-foot structure that butts up right against my neighbor's houses, fences.
I don't see that we have a good option. There's no C. There's no, let's not do an apartment complex, which it sounds like a lot of my neighbors want, which if I had that choice, I would choose option C as well, but that's not on the table.
We can either approve or deny this, and for me, I don't see that we have. It's a game of chicken. Do we feel like they're going to pull the trigger on that 40-foot structure?
I don't know, but if they do, it's an atrocity. It's absolutely horrible for us, the people that move in there, but they're, by right, allowed to do it.
So if you give me option A or B, I choose A. My preference would be their A1 plan, which would drop it by seven feet. It's a variable amount, but it's a five to seven feet drop in their elevation, their starting foundation elevation.
If there's a way that we can hold them to that plan, that to me improves the visibility from the backyards of Natchez Trace, but I don't know how much, you know, this is an approval for, you know, the 60-foot variance, so I don't know that we can even hold them to that.
But if we give them the approval, then they can build whichever option A or A1 that they want to build. So I support it. Thanks.
Thank you, Mr. Black, for sharing your thoughts. Next card I have is Jerry Drake.
Really, I might need some help here.
Thank you so much. Jerry Drake, 2504 Shiloh. Mr. Anderson, I want to assure you that we all have covered parking also.
I'm taking a little bit different tack here, and I'm sorry, I guess because I used to do this kind of stuff, but it's not all a matter of what we selfishly want. This is a bad design in a bad location, and it doesn't have enough access.
And these are the four out of the six criteria that matter in saying that this SUP should be denied.
Something was said at the last meeting about studies. I think that Mr. Berry kind of stole my thunder a little bit.
Most of these things that the developer gave us were kind of self-serving articles about how to convince NIMBYs away from prejudice and stuff like that. They really weren't studies themselves.
But as far as the studies were concerned, the Harvard study was talking about the impact on property values. It said that insignificant impact to neighborhoods catered to low or moderate income buyers, that's not our neighborhoods market. And then it also said the strength of negative impacts is directly related to the concentration and scale of the facilities. In other words, size matters.
I think this slide is my favorite one here. Let's talk about the number of stories here. They're asked for four stories here, and they are completely surrounded by single story buildings, both commercial and residential.
Maybe there's a half dozen two story buildings here. And this is not a transition away from harmful incompatibility. It is the harmful incompatibility.
The natural buffer that they're talking about, man, they're just fencing the stuff out and away from them and concentrating all the adverse impacts of illegal campers and wildlife by shoving it up against us.
Last time, I think all the two of you saw me present before. I went through the fire code here. Fire lane is not designed to be both for vehicular traffic and fire apparatus. Fire apparatus, when it's out there, it's got outriggers that come out. It's hard to get around. You've got busy firefighters that are thinking about fighting a fire.
And Mr. Anderson pointed out, you've got this barricade across here. And something was said about the access easement. Mr. Sal came to me six months ago about this project, and they still don't have any kind of an easement in six months.
Haley could tell you that when I used to work for the city, I wasn't the world's fastest attorney, but I can get you an easement in less than six months.
You know, you're going to have people who are panicked trying to go down essentially a one lane alley. This isn't a street. This doesn't even meet the standards for, you know, a single lane, and it's not marked as one way. It got this incredibly dangerous bottleneck in here.
I'm worried about the safety of the people.
And with, you know, the fire access is the barest minimum, like scoring a D. Who celebrates a D? You know, and the traffic circulation is an F, because they fall below the street standards.
The developer won't be here when a calamity happens, but we will. So in summary, these are the four bases at issue here. It's not compatible. Compatible means that they fit in, not that they stick out.
The code standards, if I could continue a little bit long, thank you. There's only one exit. There's not two. We could see that. Mitigate impacts associated with traffic and access and immersive. No. Their four story design creates the need for aerial access that it restricts. It's a bad location.
You know, I didn't create that problem for them. That's the land that they picked out. There's plenty of land across I-35, plenty of properties around the Colorado Boulevard area.
You have discretion here to apply common sense. If an emergency strikes, remember paces crossing when the floor collapsed. Are you going to be proud if you recommended approval despite these issues? Mr. Anderson was spot on there.
And pretty pictures are not going to get there. A promise of high-end medical professional housing, and it's tucked behind the Goodwill thrift store in the strip mall's dumpster alley with penthouse views of that alley and Buc-ee's. This is not Park Avenue we're talking about.
And if we approved this project, even if it's doomed, it can't be later revoked. We should, at a minimum, make sure that we have Brookdale's easement. Make sure that there is a safe way out. Make sure that these people won't be endangered.
The people who live there, you think about them as well. I just want to add one other thing, if I may. This Plan B is nonsense. It's either done to scare us or it's done out of spite.
These two buildings down here that are up against our neighborhood could easily be moved to the north. You got this parking area up here at the very top. Are these people going to walk all the way across the campus to get to the cars just so they can have the building shoved up against us?
Look at this building. There are eight parking spaces here. Do they seriously expect us to believe that this is going to be a viable option to have these people walk all the way across here to their parking? This is nonsense. It's an insult.
Mr. Drake, I'm gonna have to ask you to wrap it up just because I've got other callers. That's quite alright. I'm done anyway. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Drake?
I don't see any. Thank you so much. Next card I have is Billy Ann Casper.
Did you want to speak Ms. Casper?
Would you like to speak at the podium?
Come on up, please. Thank you.
It doesn't back up to me, but I'll have to look at it just like I have to look at Bucky's big round sign.
And I'm truly worried about the fire issue in Brookdale. We have talked to Brookdale and nobody that we've talked to is even aware of this.
They've pushed it to their legal department. They'd be here tonight, but I mean, they had to wait. We had to bring it up to them. And there's no way to get fire trucks out of there. It's scary. So please, don't just think down.
Commissioner Smith, Ms. Casper, I think Commissioner Smith has a question for you. Nope. Question for staff. Oh, okay. You're good. Thank you, ma'am. Questions for staff. I apologize. Thank you, Ms. Casper. Yes, Commissioner Smith.
Haley, can I ask you a question real quick? I might be jumping the gun because I don't know if the chair's got more cards or not. Just from my side view, it looks like she was done. So it's been brought up quite a bit about that. And I think that the about the easement for Brookdale and, you know, engineer developer says one thing neighborhood neighbor says something different.
If the easement by Brookdale isn't received, what happens to the SUP? We obviously then doesn't need fire code, don't have two points of access. What happens then? The SUP is there and under the SP is only pertaining to the height of the building.
Is there anything else you foreseeably can see in the way that they would eventually do platting to be able to get two points of access? Or if there is no way for them to be able to even do that, that this SUP stands out there and that is what it is.
So I guess two things that I would point out. The applicant has forwarded an email that they received from a representative of Brookdale, I believe in their legal department, acknowledging that they are amenable to the access easement and agreed to work on it with them.
When was that? Do you know, did you see a date on that email? I could look it up for you. It was before that prior to this coming to you all the first time in August. I know that much. I do not know the exact date of that email, but I could find that information for you in a couple of minutes if you need me to.
With regards to if they were not able to get that easement, the SUP would still be approved. That approval would still stand. It would be incumbent upon the applicant to find another means of access and if that resulted in changes to the plan, then that could possibly trigger them coming back before P&Z and council to amend the site plan that is tied to that SUP.
Okay. I do not know, Mack, if you had any other thoughts on that matter. The only other thing on that is SUPs have an expiration date to them if they do not develop within a certain period of time, so there is a potential if they were not able to access it.
Two years, correct? Correct, two years, so it may expire at some point if it does not develop. Okay. Commissioner Smith, could I, we have got some callers who want to speak, so if we could let Haley maybe find the answer to that question and then we can circle back to staff questions. Is that okay? Okay, thank you.
Is there anyone here who wishes to speak? I do not have any other cards. Okay, one moment. I am going to get with the caller and then I will call on you next. Rachel, hi, will you patch through who you have on the line, please? Sure, one moment, please. This will be Jeff Roman.
Good evening. You are on with the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you will state your name and your address, your time will begin. Thank you. Thank you for having me. My name is Jeff Roman. I am at 2420 Natchez Trace.
I am on here tonight to ask you to please deny the SUP that the developer of Millennium Crest here has set forth. I have got just a couple of points. I will try and be fast. The first thing I would like to point out is that the height that they are requiring is simply not compatible and simply does not fit with the area that they are trying to build here.
I would say anyone that is driven through the South Ridge, Forest Ridge area, which is what I would consider a historical area in Denton, possibly even over into the Wind River, which is a newer development. There isn't anything higher than two stories, whether it be the shopping centers that are around here, the few medical offices that are around here, or the houses that are here. There is just not anything that fits three stories or higher. So I believe the height to be an issue considering the area that they are trying to put in.
Furthermore, I just don't think it fits with the area that it is going in. If you spend any time in Denton and you end up over in the Razor Ranch area, there are three and four story apartment complexes that are going in over there. If you are really trying to target the medical community, which they say here, I am questioning that as well.
But I would say that in my opinion would be a more desirable area and something that would actually fit with what Denton has and where the direction that Denton is going with this development.
As I recall hearing between Denton, Tarrant, and Dallas County, there is no more undeveloped land than in Denton County right now. And I am questioning why it is so important that we have a three or four story apartment complex that we are trying to put in a very tiny green area, as several of my neighbors have pointed out earlier.
I would think that if it is really that important to get a three or four story apartment complex, I would think that there are better areas to do that and it fits with what our city is moving towards.
One of the board here just a few minutes ago had asked about the target price for the $1,500 to $1,800 mark. That is indeed about what our payment is for actually owning a house in this particular neighborhood.
The other thing that I would question is that initially this was going to be an $1,100 to $1,500 payment range for what these units were going to be going for. And I have been concerned all along that it was not going to be hard for college students or multiple college students that would be able to string together that amount of money to actually be in an apartment and that the demographic that they were looking for was largely not going to be what actually ended up renting here.
And then finally, I just don't think there is any way they are going to be able to stereotype who it is that rents in this area.
And lastly, my wife being a medical professional, she has mentioned several times that if she had been working in a high stress job such as in the medical field right now, probably the last thing that she would find as a retreat to get home would be staring out of a four story or even three story for that matter apartment complex.
Looking over an aged shopping center along with the lights and sound of buckies in the interstate.
So again, I largely I just don't think the height is good for this area and I'm asking you please deny this.
That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Roman for sharing your thoughts.
Rachel, are there other callers on the line?
Yes, let me pass patch the next one. This should be Martha and Felman. Okay, thank you.
Good evening. You are on with the Planning and Zoning Commission. If you'll state your name and address your time will begin.
My name is Martha Anne Felman. We live at 2408 Nachos Trace. So our backyard backs up to the proposed development. So I have three main concerns with this development that is proposed behind our yard.
One is the noise. So the department complex will bring a lot more noise than we have currently.
Two is privacy. So if the fourth story building is built, people will be able to see from their fourth story over into our backyard.
And we have three little kids, a four year old, two year old, a baby. So then now we have to be concerned about the top level tenants looking into our backyard as our boys are playing.
And the third concern I have with this development is safety.
So over the past few years we've noticed more crime around our neighborhood with Buckees moving in.
If you remember, we moved into this house in 2016. In 2018 Buckees opened.
In October of 2020, sorry April 2020, there was an assault suspect shot and killed by deputies at Buckees.
If you remember, I was at home when that happened. There were helicopters swarming around the area and I was very concerned for my safety.
And I was concerned that someone might come into my area, right, to our neighborhood.
So my concern with this apartment building being built is it allows more of the general public into our neighborhood areas in car traffic and also foot traffic.
And so that's my main concern is that our neighborhood is going to become more of an area of potential crime as people may come off the highway into this apartment complex.
And not only the tenants, but also anyone who's on the highway may exit and pull into the apartment complex and thus allow easier access toward our neighborhood.
And that's all I have. Thank you.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Rachel, anyone else on the line?
No, Chair, not this evening.
Okay, thank you.
This is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak? Come on down.
If you'll please state your name and address. Your time will begin.
My name is Dan Lyons. I live at 2516 Shiloh Road in the neighborhood. I'm just sort of down the street of where this apartment complex is going up.
I am also a registered architect in the state of Texas and I've been looking at a few things. Let's talk about Plan B first.
Curious enough, when the developer was showing Plan B, they left out some information that they had shared with us with the neighborhood.
They left out the actual areas of both Option A and Option B of how much building area would be on the property.
On Option A, it's 285,430 square feet. On Option B, it's 228,029 square feet, quite a bit smaller.
GSA, which went to their website, their governing agency that shows a little bit about design, states that apartment buildings usually require 25.9% to 37.8% circulation and office space for administration.
If you take the lowest one, 25.9%, take that off of the square feet of 228,000 square feet, divide that by 234 units.
They're saying that each unit will be under 700 square feet. That's a very, very small unit. That's about the size of units in New York City.
They're not going to be getting anywhere near that kind of rent on that, so they're being a little bit disingenuous.
Also, this particular property is basically, according to the Denton Development Code, 3.31 is a mixed-use neighborhood.
It reads over here that the purpose of the mixed-use neighborhood, the MN District is provided to support compatibility between higher intensity mixed-use areas and adjacent residential and commercial areas.
The district contributes to a vibrant environment for pedestrians, bicycles, and includes varying densities of residential, neighborhood serving, retail, restaurants, commercial, and office use that are sensitive to the surrounding built and natural context in scale and form.
Everybody's been talking about scale. It's because it doesn't even fit within the purpose of this district.
It should be a scale relevant to our neighborhood, and it's not. It's going to be about twice to two and a half times the size of any of our houses in height.
So that's not really proper. It's not a proper building for that area, and that's all I really have.
Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts. This is a public hearing. Anyone else wishing to speak?
Chair, I actually have another caller.
Okay. Hold the line just a minute, Rachel. I do have someone here in chambers who is wishing to speak.
Certainly. Thank you.
Hi. If you'll state your name and address, your time will begin.
Great. My name is Lee Lyons, and I live at 2516 Shiloh Road. Just a couple of things. Thank you very much for taking the time to hear our comments.
I have been listening to some of my neighbors who are unfortunately not able to be here. I have one neighbor who lives on Natchez Trace who says that these apartments will look directly into the bedrooms of her three children.
It's a different neighbor than spoke earlier. In addition, on the Zoom call that was held with the developer on September 14th, the developer stated multiple times option B was not viable.
When we're bringing developments in to Denton, we need to have a good community partner. My feeling is that I'm not certain we have that here with a good community partner who wants to work with us in the neighborhood.
Personally, I would like us not to have the apartment building at all. In addition, at the last meeting, there was a comment made that young millennials are not moving to Denton.
What young millennials are looking for are developments that have a live, work, play concept. This development does not have that. Young millennials cannot walk to work from this development.
They are most likely not going to walk past Goodwill to go around the corner to go to Chili's and that shopping center, and there is no access to entertainment options at this development.
I respectfully ask that you deny the SUP. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Ms. Lyons for sharing your thoughts.
Is there anyone else in chambers wishing to speak at this time?
Okay, Rachel, go ahead and put the caller through, please.
Sure thing. One moment. This will be Ms. Roman.
Good evening. You're on with the planning and zoning commission. If you'll state your name and address, your time will begin.
My name is Kristen Roman. I live at 2420 Natchez Trace.
Thank you so much for taking my call. So I have a couple of concerns. The first one is just increased safety concerns.
The elevated height that is being reflected in this SUP, first of all, I would like to ask that you guys please deny the SUP that's being brought to you tonight.
My big safety concern is that there will be people directly looking into our backyard. The way that the building is positioned, they are literally looking directly into our backyard. And with apartment complexes comes increased crime, and it's giving somebody the direct view into our yard to monitor when we will be at home, when we won't be at home, and so forth.
The next concern that I have is that the Millennial Crest developers have offered to meet with us and to discuss adding additional foliage to enhance our view of it or to help block the apartment complex that's being built.
But that's another concern that I have because if there was anything lining, any extra trees lining my backyard, we feel that anybody that was trying to enter our property over the back fence, that would give them an opportunity to be able to easier access the back of our, over the fence and into our property.
So the apartment tower will tower over everything in this area. And that will just so happen to look directly into my daughter's playrooms and bedrooms. And so I have two little girls and safety is our number one concern, and we're not scared of Plan B.
I think they threw together Plan B in an effort to bully us into thinking that Plan A was the better option. They pushed the buildings as close to our fence line in order to scare us. And as it has been touched on several other times tonight, they could very easily reconfigure that space to better suit residents and then better suit us as well.
And also, I do agree, I think it was also touched on that these are future residents, and we have been here, you know, all together, this property has been here, or our addition has been here, over 20 years, and we have been paying taxes on our properties for over 20 years.
And I feel like that means to just say something about that we are, we're here, we don't, we know that that property will probably be developed at some point. It's just, this is not the ideal situation. And I, that's all I have. Thank you for your time.
And thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Rachel, do you have anyone else on the line?
No, ma'am, I do not. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. I will, for the record, state that we had 16 people fill out online comment forms. They were all in opposition.
They have been shared with this commission and will be recorded in the city secretary's office. We also had one caller tonight who did not wish to speak, but wished to make their comment known that they are opposed to the request.
With that, I will open the dais up for discussion.
Commissioner Smith.
Thank you, Chair. Haley, can I finish out my question line there?
Sorry, Chair, for cutting off earlier on cards and everything else.
Did you find that email?
14th of 2020, which is roughly the time they started working with the city through the pre-application process, I believe.
What was the content of the email? It was a general statement, I believe, from legal counsel with Brookdale indicating that they were amenable to working with the developer on the access easement.
They had some conditions that they were proposing if they were to reach an agreement on this, and both parties said that they were amenable to moving forward.
Okay. It had been referenced a couple times, or at least once, I know, by another public comment about the history of this project, or this property, I should say, I'm sorry.
Other zonings that had come in here, do you have much background or history of this, projects that have been posed here through plats? Maybe it wasn't a zoning change, obviously, but maybe it was just proposed, plats, things that got filed with the city, but then projects that fell through.
Sure. I recall maybe a handful of pre-application conferences with developers that have come in just with interest in the property.
There was one, I don't recall if the plat ever made it to P&Z, the senior living facility that was referenced. They did get pretty far through the site planning process, I believe submitted a preliminary plat, and ultimately withdrew because of being unable to obtain a second point of access and also tree preservation being a significant hurdle for their development.
Gotcha. Okay.
Thank you. I have some questions for the applicant. I don't know, Chair, if you want to let other people ask for Haley, then come back around and ask questions for the applicant.
Well, you do have the floor, so I'll hold.
Well, then I'll take it to the applicant then, thank you, Chair.
Mr. Zell, can I ask you some questions?
Mr. Rivera, you can come up as well to help out if you need to.
Just to confirm, you already own this property?
Yes.
Okay. Not under contract, you 100% own it.
That's correct.
You wanted to go out there and chop down trees, you could go ahead and do that if you wanted to.
Obviously tree code and everything else, Haley's going to get mad at me later for saying that, sorry.
But you own it. Got it. Understood.
Option A, you, we talked last time, you said, I think I remember in your presentation last time, you have projects like that already?
Millenium crests and a couple of different locations?
It's important.
Gotcha. So how many projects do you have that are like option B?
None.
None of them?
None of them.
Do you have any experience building plans like option B?
2001, I did build a three-story garden style apartment in the city of Rowlett.
Okay.
Eastern Dallas County, yes.
You still own that one or is that?
No.
You've gone and sold it off or?
Sold it off.
Okay. Got it. Understood.
So what changed, because I asked you last time, and I'm trying to give you the greatest benefit of the doubt.
But what changed from your previous answer till now, last time when I asked you, if we didn't approve this SUP, would you build?
And you said no.
We tabled the discussion to let you see if you could present something.
You came back, you're showing us this plan, it could be plan B.
You have the last experience you have in building a property like this, one that you proposed is 20 years ago.
What's changed between your answer of no, we wouldn't be able to develop it to now you would or you could?
Is it just you want to see something great for this piece of land?
What is it exactly that's changed between last time and now?
Okay. Mr. Smith, I really appreciate and it is my misunderstood your intention.
Okay.
And the reason I'm saying that is, and as well the same thing, the reason I sold my three-story garden apartment complexes is because those products is no longer desirable from the city's standpoint of view.
And secondly, it has never come to my mind I will come to Denton building a three-story garden apartment.
That's my mindset at that time.
And when we come back to study all these options and we realize it is not truly a tactic to try to convince the neighborhood on the other direction.
It is because there is a parking ratio required.
There is accessibility to the building requirement.
Everything coming into play for the three-story spreading out, you know, type of development.
It is inevitably we will have to lose some of the natural land because that's what I said.
That's the base of what I say.
I will never build a kind of product.
And at the end of the day here is I realize my message didn't get crossed properly.
And then this time what I try to show the court and Madam Chair, you together, is we want to show you, you know, this is the benefit we bring to the neighbors.
We bring to the neighborhood.
We are going to be your neighbors.
You know, we have reached out to all the neighborhood in there and we really appreciate being patient with us and we agree with this agreed.
So in that component I want to say I want to show, you know, this is our intention.
Our intention is not to scare the community.
We as an owner, like Mrs. Miu said, we are the landowner.
We have a construction team.
We have a design team.
We have a lender.
Everything in place.
If we have to go back to the drawing board to draw a three-story building in there, we definitely can do it.
And then we will move into third in six to nine months, depends on how long we will take to get the city's building permit.
Okay.
So essentially just to sum up what you said is that last time you said no, but that was because it was more of a misunderstanding that you wouldn't want to develop something like that.
Correct.
But you can.
And then I think without you saying it, let me make sure I'm understanding it.
You've had so much money invested in this already that it's kind of at a point of past return now where you almost have to develop something here now, is that what you're trying to say?
And it is coming with the instruction from the landowner.
We will build something.
Okay.
Mr. Rivera, can I ask you a question as well?
How many of these type of garden-style home apartments have you been a part of in developing in the past?
Oh, well, I've been doing entitlements for 15 years, so I've been doing designs on these.
I'd have to look that up because we've done over a dozen.
Okay.
Yeah.
Usually, obviously, you're having to be a little bit smaller in size. I know that was referenced by another speaker tonight, was that based off the square footage, you mentioned something like 229,000 square feet or so of building space, that the square footages wouldn't be comparable between plan A and plan B, essentially, is what you're trying to say.
Right, right. We wouldn't have as many internal breezeways, as many internal corridors as the urban one would.
Okay.
We wouldn't have the traditional garden breezeways.
Because of the connection to the garage.
Yeah, there's not as much common space in the building, but our architect has not done a floor plan on those. We use historical assumptions when we're doing these site plans at this stage, but if the SEP is not approved, then we'll release the architect to get going on some designs.
Okay.
Yeah.
Haley, can you correct me real quick if I'm wrong? I asked you earlier, so if it doesn't get approved, what happens to SEP? So the site plan that's tied to the SEP would still exist.
That if it doesn't get approved, then the site plan, this alternative plan B, which really isn't even a site plan, technically, because it doesn't really have all the criteria of that. Correct me if I'm wrong.
They wouldn't be held to plan B, what was presented tonight, because we're not approving an SEP.
That's correct. The plan B was purely for informational purposes at this point and would not be tied to this SEP request at all.
Awesome. Thank you. That's all the questions, Chair.
Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Anderson.
Thank you. It's Mr. So, and is Ms. Berry, is it Berry, is that correct?
Rivera. Okay, I apologize. Well, I'd like to get back to some numbers because I was in the mortgage business for over 10 years, well since '96 until I closed my place there, but we're talking a second ago about mortgages, $300,000.
I looked at some more properties on there. They're anywhere from between $200,000 to $330,000, I believe, in that neighborhood, which is a very nice neighborhood that you're trying to build next to.
If you take a $300,000 house, interest rates are like two and a quarter right now is a pretty good rate. And you're looking at $1,147 a month payment plus taxes and insurance, which is going to put you right around your rents rate.
But then you said, didn't you say $1.75 a square foot is what you're going to charge? Yes, $1.76. Okay, so I just did $1.75 at a 600 square foot apartment, which is pretty small.
I mean, you're looking at $1,050 a month. And I went off of the gentleman's numbers a minute ago who is an architect who said, you know, 750 square feet is going to be the average size, which is pretty small.
You're looking at over $1,300 a month for an apartment. Personally, I would rather spend my money on a $300,000 house and pay $1,145 a month.
That being said, I just want to thank you again for your presentation. I mean, I know it takes a lot to come up here and face all these people that have different opinions.
Sure. You know, you had 16 people online, five callers that called in, 10 people that spoke tonight in person. But anyway, I think you have a nice project.
Don't get me wrong. I think it's a nice project, but I do not think it's compatible with this area. I don't think it would be safe to live there personally.
In case there was an emergency, one way in, one way out, that's a death trap. That's what it sounds like to me is a death trap. I mean, you've got people in four walls and one little area with one way out.
I mean, hopefully you can get, if this doesn't go through or does go through or whatever, you're still going to need to get that thing through the assisted living place.
But anyways, I don't live behind your project, so I don't really have to, I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I do have to listen to the citizens of the neighborhood.
And anyway, as you've seen and heard tonight, there's only one person that's kind of spoke for your support, and he really doesn't even want it either, but he said if you had to pick the, let's show the two evils, it would be the bigger one.
So, I've got so many scribbled notes over here, I apologize. But I do have to go with the people. Therefore, I cannot support your project tonight. I vote in favor of the residents that this project affects.
And if you would like to look at another living community, there's a project that we had before our board last meeting. It's called Hortizontal Living.
I don't know, to me it was a new concept. I think it was a very neat, nice concept. They're single story homes in a smaller lot space area like yours, and they get quite a few little houses in there, but they're single family homes, like efficiency apartments, small size, and it's not going up.
I think you could probably get more support from these people with something like that, than you can these apartments.
With that being said, I can't remember who it was, but I want to say the company was Todd, something Todd. Christopher Todd Project. Yeah, Christopher Todd Communities, Taylor Morrison. Yes, I would highly recommend you guys talk to them because I don't want to think you would do this, but plan B, use it as a scare tactic to these people and have them to try to vote in favor of you because of that, because that to me, that just rubs me the wrong way.
Anyway, with that being said, good luck. I'm born and raised in Denton. I know that area. I have a lot of friends that live out in that area, and I have to go with the residents that live here, so unfortunately I cannot support your thing tonight.
Thank you, Mr Anderson, and like I speak to all the neighborhood in the same thing, you know, is that I thank you. First of all, thank you for their input. They pay attention and spend their time to talk to me. Yeah, I always be appreciated for that aspect in there.
Mr Anderson, you know, I, the only thing you know from my perspective, I can, it is in the demographic of the people who are intended to buy a house, or they are going to rent a house, rent an apartment is completely different demographic.
The reason for that is there is a down payment component of that. There is the job security, job location issue in there. That's the only thing I can, you know, and I appreciate, Mr Anderson, your input in this in there.
Okay. And, you know, it, as every commissioner here and including the chair, you are you are the policy decision making for the city of Denton, definitely you have to listen to your citizens, but as the as overall, we're looking in here.
My perspective is we looking at this apartment building will bring the additional residents that will be spending the money in the local retail, even as I heard several neighbors talk about the ever so left is because the number one the building is could be out of date.
One component in there is, you have a very shiny new product in the buckets, people go over there. So if we bring this project in there. We think our past experiences.
Attracting additional retail convenience store, you know, or small grocery store. I cannot guarantee that, but that's our past experience in terms of this, you know, residential project.
But again, you know, Mr Anderson, I fully respect your opinion in there. Well, the other thing to another residence of words they said, and I don't want to steal their thunder, but it was point on when they said that, why are we going to inconvenience these people that already live there I'm paraphrasing so please forget, but why are we going to inconvenience the people that have spent this money to already live there live there for 20 years for people that don't even live here.
They might not even. They might come in here be transient not come in here for a year, and their job moves on. We're going to inconvenience people that lived here for 20 something years for a person that's going to be here for a year.
And that's, and that's another reason I can't, unfortunately, you know, I can't. Yeah, that's, that's a little bit you know outside of the year it's overall. Unfortunately, every city is competing for the labor force at this moment, especially skilled professional everybody's try to providing the best environment to attracting them to retaining the employment in there.
So, a side note, I'm personally serving as a member of the regional transportation Council, which is called.
We have a lot of data showing.
We are with last 10 years we have 1 million people moving from all over the country. And, okay, I think we're getting off topic for what we're discussing so thank you. I appreciate Mr sound.
Commissioner Anderson did you have any further comments or.
Okay, Commissioner Cole.
Thank you chair.
Commissioner Anderson stole my thunder pretty much but I mean, the main thing with me is, is this project is incredibly incompatible with spark surrounding area.
I mean it just, it just does not belong.
I think the access is grossly insufficient.
And that hits to the safety of the project.
And, you know, kind of future reference.
This vote for this or we're going to do this routine.
Doesn't elicit a positive response.
I don't know if there is a plan B, but, you know, I'll put my chips on the table and call it bad.
But, I mean, you know that's just not a good tact to take with this commission.
And I'm not going to support this project.
But I appreciate y'all's work and time and coming up here and so thank y'all.
Commissioner proof.
Thank you chair.
Question for staff, and then one for the applicant, if you may.
There been a couple of comments about lighting and how that would impact the neighborhood.
I know that in the city's use of municipal lighting along streetlights and that sort of thing.
There's an effort to take dark sky policies.
I'm not sure what the right terms are.
Are there, are there development standards that regulate what their light impact on surrounding properties would be?
And if so, what are those?
Yes, so there are standards, I believe it is section 7.11 of the DDC if you ever care to read through them.
It is in general, there's a limitation to the number of foot candles that can be present at the property line.
I can't recall off the top of my head if it's either one foot candle or one half foot candle.
We have minimum parking light and walking area illuminance that they would have to meet, but they would have to balance that with the proximity to the property line.
And we do have standards related to all the lighting being required to be downcast and shielded from upward light shed for dark sky purposes.
And that's the gist of it.
There's a lot of other standards related to, you know, they can have certain amount of upcast lighting for decorative purposes on the walls and things like that.
But generally speaking, everything has to be downcast.
And there are limitations at the property line to how much light can shed over onto adjacent properties.
Okay.
Okay. Thank you.
And then question for the applicant.
As I look at the site plan, it looks like the entrance to the parking garage is two entrances on the north side, is that correct?
Yes.
So the drive around to the south side, is there any reason that a resident would drive their car around on that side?
Is it purely for fire access?
Commissioner, are you talking about the secondary plan, plan B?
No, this is plan A. There's a driveway, sort of a U around the south side of the taller building.
Yes. So we're required to have that for fire coverage and that that fire line is 26 feet wide.
But there is an access to the parking structure from that south drive aisle.
So really it's on the preferred plan, anyone that's taking the drive around the building is it's just another route to get out.
But most of the traffic is going to come in directly from 35 into the parking garage and then back out.
Very few will end up taking the whole loop around the site.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Just a couple of thoughts. I guess I'll echo one of the public comments that talked about what this type of development is.
I heard terms of compact and urban used as well as, you know, compatibility and nearby shopping and retail and that sort of thing.
This is not that type of development, right? It's a it's a tall suburban apartment complex where to go 200 feet, you have to get in your car and drive one and a half miles around the freeway.
So I do not love this plan. It's not, in my opinion, something that has urban form of character that Denton wants to be known by.
However, I don't think that's the question in front of the commission right now.
I think we owe it to ourselves to understand what the choice is, right?
As I hear many of the comments, honestly, what I hear is that the neighborhood is willing to roll the dice to hopefully deny the S.U.P. on the assumption that a garden style apartment complex will not be built and that a future developer will come through with something that is a little bit more amenable to the to the neighborhood.
I understand that again. That's an unknown. It sounds like they've had many years of history and a few things have been amenable.
A few things have not. And of all those things, nothing has happened yet.
I think to a certain extent, the fact that nothing has happened yet speaks to the challenge to develop this parcel. It's kind of tucked behind an already older aging strip mall development with one access point, et cetera, et cetera, all the things we've already talked about.
So to me, the question is really how do you weigh the benefit of the fiscal benefit to the city, right, to be able to lower everybody else's tax burden versus the chance that something else might be developed here in the future that would be better fitting.
But when I look at what might be better fitting, none of that really speaks to the urban form that we hope to build in Denton either.
So I think poking at a particular proposal in this case and saying, well, I don't like that is a little bit disingenuous because it's hard to imagine something that we could like. So I appreciate.
I really do appreciate all the comments, though. So thank you.
Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner Smith. Thank you, Mr. Vera. There was a question I forgot to ask earlier.
The plan be the way it's built. I think it was brought up by Mr. Drake about the positioning of the buildings there. Is there a reason why the position on the southern border like that I know that I know the buffer setbacks can be as close as 10 feet.
Is there a reason why they're put there from your opinion? Why they're not on the north side? We were not. We went through several iterations to get that plan prepared. We were not able to get enough surface parking and not impact more than 20 percent or not preserve less than 20 percent of the trees.
So we knew we had to overlap parking somewhere. And so what y'all see is a two level parking deck that's not interconnected, but you enter from the north side. That's the high side. And then you have that's one level. And then the south side is the other level elevation because elevation.
So that was like our controlling point right there. We had to put the parking garage where we're going to do the most cut and then the detention pond, obviously, in the very low spot and then positioning the buildings in a way that there's circulation.
No dead ends and fire lane wits that meet the criteria of the city's code. Okay, thank you.
Commissioner Villarreal. Yeah, I just want to reiterate a lot of what my other commissioners are saying. I do don't like this plan. I don't think the constituents in Southridge like this plan.
And I, if I could, I would wave a wand and make this an ESA if I could. But I can't. And I do know y'all have the right to develop here if possible. I just want to ask a question because it was brought up by six constituents here.
Did you or did you not tell constituents after PNZ spoke to you last time that you were not planning on going through with Plan B?
Sir, yes, I can answer that question. You know, that's the way I took the question is, you know, about the three story garden style apartment. That wasn't our approach. My answer is for that.
And, you know, how you've been taken to the other direction, I apologize. I've been, what should I say? It wasn't my best answer, but it is my general answer that we are not intend to buy, to come in with a three story product.
No, it's not. Garden style apartment is not our intention in the beginning. Yes. So just to clarify real quick. So if we denied SUP, do you plan to go forward and try to go for this option B?
You modify option B. We will build something in there. That's all I have.
Anybody else? I'll just, I guess, give my two cents. First, I guess on the thought of apartment need and rentals. It's not really what we're talking about here, but I'll put my two cents in. There is a need for that.
Everyone can't afford to or for whatever other option become a homeowner. So we absolutely have a need for rental property.
So my thoughts are this. I don't think much thought was given to Plan B, and I don't even know what to think of what was presented here.
It comes off, whether intentional or not, as a veiled threat. If you don't approve this, here's, you know, here's what we're going to do. And it's this drawing that seems like not a whole lot of thought was given to, honestly, which is what I thought
that maybe when this was postponed, that maybe would come off better than this, though I was against that postponement, because I didn't figure that you'd put the money into an architect and whatnot, and I understand that.
But as Commissioner Cole stated, I mean, it's not a great way to garner support for what it is that you're requesting.
You've heard all of the homeowners speak again tonight, the callers, the request does not fit the area. There is nothing on this side of Lillian Miller and 35 that is that high.
Not commercial, not housing of any type. It is a misfit. I understand your reason for requesting it, because you would like to fit this product on that parcel. I understand that.
It is a misfit for the neighborhood. Now whether we're taking the gamble on what it is that you're seemingly threatening with. I mean, I guess that's what a lot of us are saying here and what the neighborhood is saying.
Commissioner Anderson stated it. I had written it down earlier today. The horizontal multifamily option, if it has to be multifamily, it would be a far better option in this parcel of land, in its location, with it backing to this beautiful neighborhood.
So what was presented tonight is that doesn't feel good. It doesn't feel like you took the neighbors concerns. They shared their time. They've done a tremendous amount of research on all of this and have shared it with you and all of us.
And it seems like what you came back with tonight didn't appreciate anything of what they were saying about the place that they love to call home. So I guess I will leave my thoughts there, but clearly you know I cannot support the request before us.
With that, I will call on Commissioner Smith. I want to make a motion to deny that.
I think I want to first say to the applicant. Thank you for your hard work on this.
I think that it seems like based off of just the criteria within the DDC that there's plenty of evidence there to say that it gives me concern as a commissioner to approve something like this, being that there's already over 20% of the property surrounding you I think that a denial here at
at PNC won't really truly make a difference than the pill battle you'll have a council in the first place if you do take the project to that point. More than anything else, you know if we want to talk about diversity of housing in the in the, in the city, that if a three story
style apartment complex is built, at least we'll have some more affordable housing and sounds like the neighborhood is willing to run that risk and roll the dice to say that there are lower cost lower quality housing behind that them built by right, that they're
okay with whether or not that actually is going to be a built or not, and the neighborhoods okay with it, then I guess that we'll just have to go that route. So, emotion is to deny.
We have a first and a second to deny the request.
Any discussion.
Let's call for a vote on the board please.
And I'll carry seven, zero.
That will bring us to our final item.
That is Z 21 0010 I will call up Haley zygursky and open the public hearing.
Good evening.
This is case z 2110 Geesling Road industrial.
The request before you this evening is two part. The first being a 20.8 acre tract which is shown here in yellow as the eastern. Most of the two rezoning parcels.
Currently zoned are six and mixed use neighborhood, the request is to rezone to light industrial that particular parcel is part of a larger 86 acre parent tract, we've recently, as of May of this year seen 12.7 acres of that parcel already
zoned from our six to ally.
The second part of the request, are the four parcels shown here in yellow. Those are each approximately one acre in size for a total of 4.17 acres.
Those are currently zoned residential rural and again the request is for light industrial zoning.
So in the spirit of going through this in a little more summarized option I'm not going to go through each of the criteria will hit the highlights of that, with respect to the future land use map and the denton plan 2030 the property which is outlined in red on your screen is designated moderate residential as you're familiar with that is intended for residential density of four to 12 dwelling units per acre.
There are several goals outlined for moderate density residential areas in the comp plan, some of those are not necessarily consistent with this area.
It does call for areas with that density to be connected to existing neighborhoods and services to be walkable and connected with your surrounding retail and supporting uses for those neighborhoods. In this context, that is not what would, what would occur if this were to develop as residential the surrounding properties, although there is some retail on university are largely industrial in nature, existing land uses and developing.
Because of that, and given the transition that we see on our future land use map to with business innovation directly to the north and west of this property.
This is an area that staff is had already identified has needing to be looked at further with our comprehensive plan update which is well underway.
As you all have heard several updates from Ron over the last year with how that's going.
So because of all these factors, existing nonconformities on the ground being another large piece of this. For example, there's a property across the street, that's an existing manufacturing facility that's been in place for decades was annexed into the city and given a residential role zoning
designation as a placeholder.
So, that's an area that we're going to be looking at as well.
Similarly, there's a lot of heavy utility uses in this area to the south. And with the challenges we spoke about on the parent tract with the existing gas lines and utility lines crisscrossing the area. It seems very unlikely that residential would develop here, or that would be desirable to develop here because of those existing constraints.
So, that's an area that we're going to be looking at.
And then we're going to look at the other areas that we're going to be looking at as well.
So, this is an area that we're going to be looking at as well.
So, that's an area that we're going to be looking at as well.
And then we're going to look at the other areas that we're going to be looking at as well.
And then we're going to look at the other areas that we're looking at as well.
will close our meeting at 9.19 p.m.