and this meeting has been duly posted in accordance to the
Texas Open Meetings Act.
I'd like to turn the mic over to Manal Molledad who can
talk a little bit more about how things are going to play
out tonight.
>> Thank you, Vice Chair.
I wanted to advise the commission that we will be taking
our regular meeting out of order
in order to be able to succinctly address the items that
are listed on the agenda.
If you'd bear with me, with our work session item, we're
first going to go into a closed session.
After which, we will dive into our work session items.
Just to advise you on our regular meeting items, we will
first address public hearing
after we've addressed the consent items for the plat with
the exception of 3A.
We can look at those at the regular meeting and as a
consent and you can make your decision on those.
However, as it relates to the items associated with the
razor ranch development,
we will first address the amendment which is the public
hearing request which would be item 5A.
We will then go into the public hearing replant which is
item 5B.
We will then shuffle the agenda and go to the consent
agenda item 3A for the conveyance plant.
After which, we will consider or you will consider the
individual items 4A and 4B.
These items will be discussed last on the agenda.
The public hearing item 5C will be the first public hearing
item that will be considered.
The public hearing item 5D, the zoning change request, will
be addressed.
After which, we will then shuffle back to the individual
consideration item which is item 4C, the ADP.
So relatively straightforward.
>> Do I have a roster?
>> And Jennifer and I will guide you through this if there
are any hiccups along the way.
This order is basically being changed just to the nature of
the cases that you have in your agenda
and to enable a better solid understanding of the cases
that are in the packet today.
>> Thank you.
>> And with that, we'll blow into the next session.
>> Okay. So with that, we will go into our closed session
and when we're done with that, we'll go back to our talk
session.
Yes? I'm sorry.
And it is 507. Thank you.
Thank you and welcome back to our open work session.
The time now is 528 and we are going to receive a
clarification of our agenda items.
>> Thank you, Vice Chair.
If the commission has any questions, save item 3A.
Any questions regarding the plots for 3B, 3C, and 3D, I'd
be more than happy to discuss them.
Otherwise, we can move on into the other items.
>> I just had-- I'm sorry.
>> That's fine. We can present.
>> Okay. Well, I just had a question about the fireside
park addition.
>> Julie, if you would please.
>> It's just a simple question, Julie.
>> Oh, sure.
>> I was just-- could you review for me what we had decided
as far as fencing goes-- since a lot of these houses are
backing up along the back of the houses on Hinkle and Winds
or, what was the fencing that we decided on?
>> It's going to be wrought iron per the overlay, the
ordinance.
>> Okay.
>> All right, because I remember there was some
conversation about having a full privacy fence or a masonry
or something.
>> There was conversation about that.
And I'm not sure-- I believe the applicant also intends to
do wrought iron for the individual homeowners because they
want maximum visibility.
>> Okay. Of course.
Okay.
Thank you.
That was my question.
Any other questions for the plots?
>> That being said, if I can ask Sophie Humer to come up
and go ahead and discuss the conveyance plot for the Razor
Ranch Town Center.
But I'm also going to actually turn this around a little
bit and we'll start with all the items so that it makes
sense when we talk about the plots.
We have a final replot as well so we can talk about the
final replot, conveyance plot is, and that was the order I
was discussing with you earlier.
And I'll also have her dive into the other items related to
Razor Ranch so that you have it fresh in your mind as we're
going through it.
>> I'm going to start with the zoning.
Start with the plots.
>> Let's do that.
Let's start with the zoning.
>> Okay.
All right, so this is SI 1516, the Razor Ranch Zoning
Amendment.
The request before you is to consider making a
recommendation to city council regarding the procedural and
development standards for the Razor Ranch Overlay District
by superseding the previously approved Razor Ranch Overlay
District classification and amending Chapter 35, subchapter
715 of the Denton Development Code.
Just to give you an idea, I think we all know what Razor is
, but it's about 410 acres located on both sides of US
Highway 380, commonly known as University Drive, and also
between I-35, Bonnie Bray, and to the south scripture.
So the purpose of this amendment is to eliminate ambigu
ities between your concept plan sub areas and uses as well
as amend any exhibits that may conflict with past site
plans.
The amendment will allow us to align the goals of the Razor
Ranch Town Center vision, which was presented to city
council on January 6, 2015, with a concept and master plan.
And city council then blessed that vision and allowed us to
move forward with the development on the south side.
I'm just going to go through a brief summary of all of the
amendments as well as the exhibits.
So the first amendment is to amend the concept plan to
reflect current and future development as proposed by RED
Development in that vision presentation.
Here on the left side you have the original concept plan
and on the left you have the proposed plan.
If you follow my mouse, this south RR2 is now the WNCO.
RR1 has also been extended to include any parking lots that
may come in with any town center development.
The Hotel RR0 and MF has been aligned with lot 9R.
And also the RR1 has been extended to the boundary of the
convention center.
This is the underlying zoning district exhibit.
Again, the lines on that underlying haven't changed.
It's just the concept plan lines, so they've been reflected
.
This is the bubble plan exhibit B2 in the existing
ordinance.
It will be removed as it's not a regulatory document.
The concept plan is the document that sets the boundaries
for those sub areas.
The density zone plan exhibit B3 in the existing ordinance
has also been modified to reflect contemplated development.
The number of allowable units, density, any of those
trigger requirements based on non-residential development
have been left unchanged.
There's no change to those regulations.
On the left is the original and on the right is the
proposed.
Again, it was just extended to reflect current lot lines.
This is exhibit B5.
This is a site plan exhibit and it has just been modified
to reflect current built conditions at the marketplace as
well as eliminate this Cooke Children's Site Plan.
Their vision has changed for the overall development of
that site, but none of the development regulations have
changed.
The next amendment is to clarify the criteria of approval
for site plans.
Site plans are reviewed in accordance with all DDC
regulations and then modified by the razor range overlay
district.
Again, permitted uses are governed by the sub area.
So this is just to sum up, the city of Denton is amending
the razor range overlay district to eliminate any incons
istencies and ambiguities of the concept plan and outdated
exhibits as well as procedural regulations.
This is the public notification map.
We have received no responses.
Staff is recommending approval of the request as it's
compatible with the Denton Development Code section 3573.
And I will stand for any questions.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
The Children's Cooke Hospital, it's gone away?
It has not gone away.
This is a old, I've actually seen this configuration on
concept plans as far back as 2007.
Earlier this year, they came in for a children's pediatric
clinic here and they got an approved site plan.
They're still contemplating development of that site.
So none of that has changed.
They'll come in for site plans just as they did before.
Thank you.
Any other questions on this item?
Okay, thank you.
All right, now we'll move to the plat.
So we'll do the replat first, Sophie.
Yes.
Thank you.
All right, so this is the final replat, FR1526.
And for the record, this is listed as item 5B.
Correct.
The agenda.
Are there requests to consider a final replat of the razor
range town center phase one plots 10R1, 11 and 12 block A,
being a replat of razor ranch town center phase one, lot 10
R and lot one, block one of the razor ranch south conveyance
plat.
It's an approximately 74 acre property, generally located
at the southeast corner of University Drive and Interstate
Highway 35.
Section 212 of the Texas Local Government Code requires a
public hearing for any replat of a subdivision or part of a
subdivision without vacation of the proceeding plat.
This is page one of the plat, page two.
And don't worry, I'm going to take you through the kind of
the separate lots that we're bringing into this replat.
This is a schematic of the existing conditions.
You have lot 10R here and an existing conveyance plat.
This is the southernmost boundary of the 99 acres of south,
a future panhandle street is here.
This is Interstate Highway 35 and this is the future
heritage trail.
So this is the plat as they exist today.
To convey the convention center portions, there's a portion
of acreage that has been brought into the plat.
It's lot 11.
Lot 12 was taken out of the existing conveyance plat.
And to take lot 12 out of that conveyance plat, we have to
convey the remainder of that existing conveyance plat.
So that will come before you at CB15-4 tonight.
So this is just a schematic of what you'll be approving
tonight, which is lot 10R1, lot 11, and lot 12.
The plat meets all the technical requirements of the DDC
and staff is recommending approval.
>> Any questions on this item?
Okay, moving on.
So I'll move right into the conveyance plat, which is item
3A on your agenda.
It's CB15-4.
And just to reiterate, the request is to consider a convey
ance plat of lot 13, block 1 of the Razor Ranch Town Center
phase 1.
It's approximately 22 acres, generally located at the
southeast corner of University Drive and Interstate Highway
35.
This is the part of the replat.
This is 10R.
This is what will be future lot 12, and this is the
remainder.
So the plat boundary is around here.
The plat meets all the technical requirements of the DDC,
and staff is recommending approval.
Any questions?
Yep.
Commissioner Taylor.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Just to clarify, I guess for my own edification here, there
was a stripe between, in the former plat, but it's also
this northernmost line of this plat.
There appears to be like a 20 foot wide strip, but that's
not proposed to be a public street.
Is that just to keep, so where this curvy line is right
there?
Sure.
If you go a little bit further over, you'll notice there's
a 20 foot wide section maybe right there.
And in the other plat, the previous plat that was being
replaced by the replat, yeah, here, that gap also exists,
right?
Yes.
Yeah, and so I was just curious to the purpose of that, is
that like just to keep the main thoroughfare through the
parking lot?
Yeah, that'll be a future drive aisle.
It's not contemplated to be a public street at this time.
The wits would meet that requirement if it were to be
turned over to the city.
For right now, it's considered an internal drive.
Okay, just kind of unusual. It seemed to be that it was
excluded from both.
Yeah, it's because of the existing boundaries of the plat
and the way that it has to be plotted.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you.
Where's the new panhandle in this picture here?
It would be further south.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Dedowitz.
Where those private drives are, is that residential then
proposed?
Is that why there are private drives there?
Nothing has been submitted to the City of Denton.
It is being contemplated and it is a permitted use.
I mean, from the concept?
Sure.
Yes, sir.
I guess that's what we're seeing.
Yeah, MF is a permitted use.
That's the multifamily.
Right.
Correct.
As presented today and proposed in terms of the new exhibit
.
Correct.
Anything else on this item?
Okay.
Is there individual consideration?
So, I'm sorry, so 4A and 4B are the next things to talk
about. Is that still Sophie?
Yes.
Hey, Sophie.
Hey.
You're still up there.
Yes.
So now we're talking 4A and 4B?
Sure.
Okay.
All right, so we'll dive into the site plans or items for
individual consideration.
First is SP15 for In-N-Out Burger Razor Ranch.
The request is for approval of a site plan within the Razor
Ranch South Campus for a 3,870 square foot drive-through
restaurant on lot 1, block A of the Razor Ranch Town Center
, phase 1.
The subject property is outlined in red here.
It's on the south side of University Drive.
The subject property is located within the Razor Ranch Over
lay District.
It's further located in an RR2 sub-district. Drive-throughs
and restaurants are permitted in that sub-district.
Just to go through a list of the approved projects already,
we have Chili's, a multi-tenant retail site, Raisin Canes,
a WinCo, and another multi-tenant retail in this RR2 area.
For site plan approval for the Razor Ranch Town Center,
staff requires a site plan, landscape plan, and building
elevations that demonstrate compliance with the overlay's
architectural standards.
This is the site plan for In-N-Out Burger. University Drive
is up here onto the north.
This is an internal drive aisle. The TxDOT permit has been
approved by TxDOT.
There's also an internal opening here, and the site shares
cross-access with the Chili's.
They have approximately 74% lot coverage and 25% landscaped
area.
This is their landscape plan. They have 29% parking lot
landscaping and 37% parking lot tree canopy cover.
They also have a hardscape and plaza area, and most of the
three required elements are integrated together.
They're an outdoor dining and pedestrian sitting area. That
's in the front here as well.
And this area outlined in red is also a shaded area. It's
an outdoor dining area that is integrated into the actual
footprint of the building.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Vice Chair. This is where I had a question. It's
probably small, but it says here that the site plan meets
these standards by providing an outdoor seating area,
pedestrian seating, and integrated awnings and shade
structures that cover healthy travel pedestrian paths and
gathering places.
Where are the awnings at?
Awnings aren't necessarily shown on a site plan. Those are
not structural. They will be, however.
Here's an awning. Here's an awning.
But the three elements that they also have to meet that
requirement include one, outdoor dining, which they have,
two, pedestrian seating. I believe there are benches out
front as well as in the shade area, and then the integrated
shade area in their plaza area, which is this space.
Okay, but the awnings don't necessarily take care of
heavily traveled pedestrian paths.
No, there's some space out here. It is proportional to what
we also see with other drive-through restaurants along this
commercial area.
Okay. Just want to make sure they work.
Sure.
Thank you.
These are the elevations. This is the south elevation as
you would be looking north actually from the town center.
You also have the east elevation, which is what you'd be
looking at from Chili's. This is also what they consider
their main entrance, and here you can actually see the
structure pop out.
This is the north elevation. Again, all of these site plans
for the Razor Ranch Town Center are required to provide
architectural elements such as masonry requirements, and
they also have a reduced trade dress standard.
In-N-Out has particularly high trade dress requirements,
and so they actually, we met with them, we met with Red and
kind of got them to this elevation.
You also have this west elevation with the drive-through.
So there's plenty of masonry requirements, almost no trade
dress, and the color palette is also the same as it would
be on the rest of the strip.
So I'm just going to go through the criteria for approval.
The site plan does comply with the concept and schematic
plan. The restaurant and drive-through is a permitted use.
The site plan also provides for compatible arrangement of
buildings and land uses. Again, it's bordered by University
Drive to the north and surrounded by other commercial uses.
The site plan shares access to the internal drive aisles
and allows for the safe movement of pedestrians and veh
icular traffic.
And the site plan also complies with all other development
regulations of the ordinance. Staff is recommending
approval as it's consistent with the Razor Ranch Overlay
District.
I stand for any questions.
Yes, go ahead. Question to Taylor.
Thank you, Chair. So, this is kind of peripheral to this. I
'm noticing the street entrance, you said the text dot
permit had been received?
Yes, and approved.
And it's barely visible in this site diagram, but it
appears that what is now the turn lane from the access road
to 380 becomes a turn in only. Is that accurate? I'm just
trying to read that.
Yes, it is a right turn in only. This is pork chopped here
as well, so it'll be right out to discourage left turns.
That's what's been approved with the text dot permit.
Is there an additional right turn?
Okay.
And then it stops at the end.
And the text dot permit is approved through text dot
through our city engineers.
No, I was just trying to understand that. So that existing
turn lane is built right now and just kind of eventually
dead ends at the intersection.
Main entrance.
Main entrance. And so it will.
This is an additional right turn.
So it will be two right turn lines. Okay. Thank you.
I have a few questions.
As long as we're talking about traffic flow, because I take
my kids often to the restaurants on the north campus. It's
close to my house and there's a lot of good places to eat
there.
But when I'm walking through that parking lot with my kids,
there's a lot of things I like to change about that.
So a question about traffic flow and pedestrian
accessibility.
Sure.
Can you show me with this drive through kind of what is the
traffic flow for that? Because sometimes like when I'm at
the Chick-fil-A, for example, on the north side, I get
stuck. I'm trying to exit the parking lot and I get stuck
in the drive through.
So drive. And then I have another question too after that.
Sure. The stacking for the drive through.
The menu board is here.
The way that this building is oriented actually believe it
allows for a longer than what is required for the stacking.
What you would do is this is one of the is probably going
to be the most heavily used entrance for that site.
What you'll do is you'll come in and either park in the
parking lot or begin the stack here.
Sorry. So how would you get up to the stack there? You
wouldn't turn into the parking lot.
You turn in here and you can actually just go straight.
This is continuous.
So the stacking is happening kind of outside the parking
lot.
Yes.
That's great. I wish they did that at the Chick-fil-A.
Okay. Thank you.
The other another question too is how are pedestrians going
to get safely from their cars to the inside and out?
Knowing that the stacking is actually happening outside the
parking lot makes me feel a lot better about that.
But are there any sort of designated pedestrian walkways
anywhere inside that parking lot?
There aren't any dedicated to that.
The building footprint itself has a pretty large plaza area
in front, which is what we don't typically see that with
some of these drive through restaurants.
There are no greater than three rows of parking at any time
.
And so that is usually an allowable safe distance you don't
have.
Also the unique configuration of the site.
I know a lot of people just like to kind of go straight
through parking drive aisles at 25 miles an hour.
The way the site is designed, it actually kind of keeps
vehicles rotating either through.
You'll decide you don't want to get in line and you'll just
come in and park.
There aren't any straight drive aisles that somebody could
get up to speed in.
Okay. That's great. Yeah.
And then, like I said, knowing that the cars are stacking
outside the parking lot, I think is going to add an element
of safety.
And these are also pretty heavily landscaped.
Go to the landscape plan. These are actually fairly large
trees around the outside here as well as in the parking lot
.
So it exceeds all of the parking lot landscape requirements
, which will also help with some of the slowing down of the
vehicles.
Thank you. And that segues to my next question. And I see
there's some questions over here.
What are the parking lot requirements for trees as far as
breaking that up like those, was it 10 parking spaces and
then a tree?
I've seen that in other developments. What are the-
Yes, it's 10 parking spaces. Every 10 parking spaces, you
need a landscaped island and a landscaped tree.
And that's what's happening here?
It's sufficient.
Thank you.
Commissioner Rossell, you had a question?
Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. It kind of piggybacks on
Commissioner's earlier question.
On the east side of the parking, it's all open. There's no
curb there.
So there's not, you could pull through those parking spots
right into the main thoroughfare that you mentioned. Am I
reading that correctly?
You could. I'm trying to find this-
I'm looking specifically right in the center, like just due
east of the actual building.
Right here.
Right, but those parking spots that are doubled up down
right there.
This is, you can barely see it on the site plan. This is
actually the Chili's building.
Okay.
And there's parking that ends here. So this is a very
contained vehicular movement throughout the site.
Is that thoroughfare wider to allow for two cars going
through?
Or is the distance between the parking spots on In-N-Out's
property and Chili's the same distance as like the south
side of this property? Does that make sense?
It's the same distance. It's actually a pretty narrow,
calling it thoroughfare is being pretty generous. It's a
drive aisle. It's part of the parking lot.
Okay, but like you said, that is going to be the most
heavily trafficked area to get into the stack of the drive-
through.
Sure.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, it is.
Chair?
Mr. Dadowitz.
Can I piggyback? Because I'm looking at a schematic that
shows those parking spots on the In-N-Out flat.
It's not here, but he's right. There is no barrier there.
Cars can come from the north and pull. There you go.
There's no barrier there to those parking spots on that
east side. I mean, they can pull in this way. They can pull
throughout.
Yeah, they aren't required. It's a parking lot.
There are the number of landscape islands as well as the
other parking and the adjacent buildings actually make for
a pretty contained site.
The site plan has been evaluated by engineering for
internal stacking requirements and it meets all of the
requirements of the DDC.
But it's, yeah, I've got some ideas too, but go ahead,
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you. Is there a requirement for parking curbs in
between those, that aisle of spots?
No, there aren't. These aren't contained lots. They're
meant to function as cross, they're meant to wrap. They're
meant to have cars and pedestrians circulating throughout
the site.
Mostly cars. This side is auto-oriented. University is a
heavily traveled automobile. It's a primary arterial.
This is a site plan that meets all the requirements of the
DDC and it actually exceeds some of the requirements of the
Razor Ranch overlay district.
But it does seem to me that to further increase safety,
because it is car oriented, but the fact is there are
people that will be walking in there from, if they've got
to park on the far end of the parking lot, up wherever.
How hard would it be to put between, we're looking at the
east side of the parking lot there, just those little curb
stops between the two parking spaces so that as you're
coming in you can't just zip in and grab a parking spot and
maybe you didn't see out of the corner of your eye someone
trying to walk through there.
It doesn't seem like it would be that difficult. Is there a
, why are we not doing that?
If I can introduce, I'm sorry, go ahead.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you Chair. So, just to, I think I'd like to bring us
back to the nature of this type of use. You know, if you
just go across university to a very nice looking, well
designed development, you have, you know, 10 or 12 sets of
double road parking with no curb barriers at all.
Then you have these, then you have medians, you know, from
the SAMs all the way across the SAMs, then you have a set
of medians and you have all the way across the Walmart, and
a set of medians and you have the next set of box stores,
you know, 10 or 12 sets of rows and then another set of med
ians.
Here you have, you know, one row of parking between a
building and another building. You've got a solid
continuous barrier on the north side, that's not driveways
out on the 380, that's just landscape.
You have one 24 foot wide entryway on the south, and then
on the other side of the chiles is one more 24 foot wide
entryway. This isn't like, you know, if you look at most of
our parking lots in town, you can get a, you know, four or
500 yard straight shot diagonally across a parking lot.
And even on really high quality developments, like just
north of here, you can get, you know, two or 300 yards
easily of straight shots diagonally through parking stalls.
So I don't think that this warrants like a safety hazard
that needs to be addressed specifically for this site.
Just to,
And just to interject, if we look at this site plan, if you
look at the remit or the meets and bounds of this site, you
can tell that this is a shared access, if I'm not mistaken,
is that correct?
That helps with the vehicular circulation of traffic. If we
were to install curb stops or a raised median or some kind
of barrier, you're impeding the flow eventually of the
entire development, because your circulation pattern is
being looked at comprehensively
and taking into consideration the entire built up, eventual
built out environment.
So it behooves us and that's why our team sat down and
looked at this and said, let's have some shared access eas
ements.
Let's ensure that when we have back to back parking, those
are my words just to try and illustrate to the audience as
well,
that we are actually not compromising one, the flow of
traffic and the mutual access easements or the common
access easements or shared driveways enables more efficient
flow of traffic.
And this is also a fire lane. Yes.
I found that helpful. Thank you, Commissioner Beck. Thank
you Vice Chair. Just real quickly, could you demonstrate
how cars are expected to exit from that lane that they're
picking up food?
Sure, they'll, oh from picking up food out here. Yes. Yeah,
the menu board is here.
Before you even get to the menu board, you also have an
exit lane, which is required by engineering.
They'll come through the minute I the pickup window is
approximately here, and then they'll exit out into the
parking lot. Okay.
And there'll be wide enough slots. It's apparent where this
is. Yes. Okay exit.
West at the end of the building.
No, this is a fully contained you can actually see it
better on the landscape.
Oh, I see. Thank you. Yeah, this is all landscaped area.
This is a sidewalk that comes in off of university to get
you further south on the site.
So again, staying with this concern as they're coming out,
are they kind of blind until they get around that corner
there?
No, they'll exit here. They can get to there are no curbs
in here. This is all cross access.
You'll be able to exit here and come straight out back to
this drive aisle and exit. Okay. Thank you.
Further questions on this?
Okay. And then was it 4B would be next? Yes.
4B is SB 15-8, the Razor Ranch Embassy Suites and
Convention Center.
The request before you is to consider approval of the site
plan within the Razor Ranch South Campus for 115,860 square
foot hotel and convention center on lots 11 and 12 block A
of the Razor Ranch Town Center phase one.
It's an approximately 12 acre tract outlined in red or
orange here. It's on the south side of US Highway 380.
The subject property is located in the RR1 sub district.
Hotels and convention centers are permitted in that sub
district.
Just to show you in relationship to the overall town center
as well as the proposed projects, this site is contemplated
to be the town center, the heart of the town center area as
presented by reading their vision.
The convention center would be situated south of it here.
Again, Razor Ranch site plans, they're required to submit a
site plan, landscape plan, building elevations that
demonstrate compliance with the overlay's architectural
standards.
This is the site plan for the hotel and convention center.
They're at 82% lot coverage and provided 18% landscaped
area.
This is oriented north.
This way is north and the town center is right here. It
also provides for a nice visual corridor coming through the
middle of the town center.
This is the front of the hotel.
Outlined in yellow here is the hotel building, the tower
that actually kind of rises from the convention center. And
the one outlined in blue is the convention center. It's
kind of the one story convention center.
>> Question on this?
>> Commissioner Battschalk.
>> Thank you. That's all under one roof, the hotel and the
convention center?
>> The hotel is a tower, I believe it's 10 stories. And
then the convention center is a part of that, yes.
>> Okay.
>> We can see that on the elevations as well.
>> Okay. The space between, what looks like a space between
the tower and the convention center, what is that? Is that
outside or inside?
>> This is the roof of the convention center. That would be
outside. There is no, this is all, anything contained in
blue or yellow here is building.
>> Okay.
>> That's the building footprint.
>> Gotcha. Thank you.
>> This is their landscape plan. They're at 11% parking lot
landscaping and 41% parking lot tree canopy.
>> For their hardscape and plaza area, they provided a my
riad of the different architectural elements. They provide
seating area, additional plaza trees, shade with open space
, they have biker acts.
>> They also have integrated planters and they have a large
event lawn at the front of the building here.
>> These are the elevations. This is the north side of the
hotel and convention center. So it would be as you were
looking south from the town center. This is the entrance
with the kind of a portico.
>> The Hooligans restaurant is located here. The elevation
on the bottom of the page here is the south elevation as
you're looking north.
>> This is a wall that is longer than 100 foot. We worked
with the applicant to make sure they broke that up,
provided different building materials. And so you can see
here, this is the tower of the hotel.
>> These are the east and west elevations. The top is the
east as you would be looking from say heritage trail or any
other contemplated development. And then the west as you
would be looking from the interstate.
>> So I'm just going to go through again the criteria for
approval. The site plan complies with the concept and
schematic plan. Hotels and convention centers are permitted
.
>> Site plan provides for compatible arrangement of
buildings and land uses. It's interior again to the overall
development and will be surrounded by other commercial uses
.
>> Site plan shares access to internal drive aisles and
allows for the safe movement of pedestrian and vehicular
traffic.
>> And the site plan fully complies with all other
development regulations and the razor range overlay
district.
>> So with that, staff is recommending approval as it's
consistent with the razor range overlay district. I don't
stand for any questions.
>> Okay. Thank you, Sophie. Is that it for the razor range?
>> Yes.
>> I'm wondering would it be a good time now for us to take
a quick break and grab some food before we move on to the
next few items or is this the next --
>> We can do that.
>> Yeah? Okay. Then we're going to take a quick like five
minute or less recess and we'll reconvene in a few minutes.
>> At 6.09, you all did it in five minutes or less. I'm
very proud of you.
The next item we're going to talk about is 5D. And then
related to that, I guess would be item 4C. So Julie Wyatt.
>> Thank you.
>> Good evening. Let me find my presentation.
Okay. The request before you right now is Z1527. It's for
Popeyes and a Burger King.
It's to consider making a recommendation to city council
regarding a rezoning from NRMU to community mixed use
general on 2.1 acres.
The property is located at the corner of University and Eck
ford Street.
The existing zoning for the site is NRMU. In fact, here's
our site right here. It's at the corner.
The applicant is requesting a rezoning because they would
like to build a Popeyes and a Burger King, each with a
drive through use.
NRMU does permit restaurants. However, it has a limitation
that limits the restaurant use to sit down only, no drive
up service, drive through services permitted.
It also limits the number of seats to 100.
So they have -- so they're proposing a rezoning to CMG,
which would permit restaurants and drive through uses by
right.
The future land use designation per the Denton Plan 2030 is
commercial.
We're going to jump right into considerations. So first, in
looking at CMG, the purpose of CMG is to provide shopping,
services, recreation, and employment and is supported by
the entire community.
And when you look at where CMG is often located in the city
of Denton, it's on primary arterials because of that access
needed in order to serve the entire community.
When you look at the West University corridor, you can see
that CMG district prevails along this area, and we're going
to look at a map in just a minute that will make it clear.
The proposed CMG district is a logical extension of the
adjacent CMG district, and that the commercial use is
permitted in CMG are consistent with the existing
development pattern that's located along West University
Drive, also consistent with the character.
When you look at the uses, the existing NRMU does have
commercial uses. However, CMG sort of scales that up a
little bit to encompass the entire community, whereas NRMU
is more neighborhood based.
CMG also allows for some more auto-oriented uses like drive
-throughs that NRMU would ordinarily have an SUP for.
So here's a map of the West University corridor from I-35
to about North Locust, and you can see that CMG is along
this corridor pretty consistently.
There are some pockets that differ from that, and then of
course in the Razor Ranch you do have the RCCD, but that
has the additional access of being on 35.
So you can see that CMG is a consistent zoning district
along this corridor.
When you dive down in toward the property, you can also see
that the property is adjacent to an existing CMG.
There is some NRMU and NRMU 12 to the south and to the east
, but CMG is quite prevalent around the subject property.
So in that case, CMG is appropriate for this area.
And then when we look at the development pattern on West
University Drive, you see that over the decades it's
developed as a pretty substantial commercial corridor
within the city of Denton.
You have restaurants, you have drive-throughs, you also
have offices and other services and goods.
And so a CMG district as well as the proposed Popeyes and
Burger King are consistent with what's existing on West
University.
Some additional considerations, the subject property's
location on a primary major arterial adjacent to a
neighborhood is the land use pattern that is repeated along
West University Drive.
I'm going to show you a map of that in just a minute.
But also NRMU and CMG have similar dimensional requirements
, which even though CMG has some additional uses that NRMU
doesn't have,
because they have the same maximum lot coverage and same
height and same maximum or minimum lot area,
the development pattern would be similar for that lot,
whether it would be CMG or NRMU.
There are some variations, but the lot coverage is the same
.
So in looking at how the area has developed, West
University is a primary major arterial.
And just to let you know, a primary major arterial is one
of the highest street classifications that we have within
the city of Denton.
Its purpose is a route from outside the city to in the city
or to move people out of the city and then also across the
city.
So these are substantial roads.
And that is in part why CMG is located on West University.
Ector, which is another street that is adjacent to the
subject property, is a collector as well.
So we have this pattern of the CMG on West University
within residential behind it.
And you can see it in North University Place that's across
the street and a little east from the subject property.
You can also see it in North Lake Park addition.
It's similar to Westchester Park and also Carroll Park.
So this is a land use pattern that is not uncommon in this
area.
And then our final consideration for the zoning case was
Denton Plan 2030.
The future land use designation is commercial for the area.
The intent of commercial is to encourage concentrations of
commercial uses, typically more auto oriented than maybe
some of our more mixed use development areas.
And then they could be standalone in some of the outlying
areas.
The Denton Plan also says that the character of the area
should be maintained.
Staff believes that CMG meets the character of West
University Drive.
We are going to discuss the neighborhood adjacent and that
character in just a minute.
So we'll get to that.
And then NRMU district really isn't consistent with this
future land use designation.
It's a little more fine grain commercial, a little more for
just the neighborhoods surrounding it,
and a little more walkable than maybe West University is.
So CMG or the commercial, the future land use designation
of commercial, the intent is to eventually have an actual
commercial zoning district.
We don't have that yet, but CMG is probably the most
appropriate for that future land use designation.
So when we look at the future land use map of the West
University corridor, you can see that it really does
concentrate the commercial uses between I-35 and then also
the north locust area.
So you can see you've got the regional mixed use near the
highway because there's even better access there.
You've got the commercial corridor here and then it flows
into the community mixed use.
So the CMG does meet this future land use designation,
particularly in terms of the concentrating of the
commercial uses.
So the criteria for approval for zoning cases is in subch
apter three of the Denton Development Code.
First, the proposal must conform to the future land use
designation.
CMG does conform to commercial future land use.
We also, as staff, looked at the development pattern in the
land uses surrounding the request and due to the
development pattern on West University, we felt like this
was an appropriate zoning district.
And that the proposed rezoning facilitates adequate
provision of transportation and other public convenience
and public infrastructure.
Due to the location on West University, we felt like the
access to the site would be appropriate for a more
community based commercial development.
And then any additional infrastructure or public
convenience would be addressed at Platting.
So we looked at the zoning and we felt like the zoning was
appropriate.
However, during the process, staff asked the applicant to
hold some neighborhood meetings.
The applicant did hold two.
We also communicated with the neighborhood and through that
communication, we were alerted to the concerns that the
neighborhood had.
They had concerns about lighting and noise, traffic, visual
impacts of a drive through.
And so in order to address those, we worked with the
applicant to put forth an alternative development plan.
And we're using this as a mechanism to address those
concerns.
So it's allowing us to work on the site plan to elevate the
development and to get a high quality development that
would address screening, landscaping, lighting,
transportation, the building elevations and signage.
So we're going to look at the landscape plan, the site plan
and some architectural renderings to talk about some of the
things that are proposed with that ADP.
So we'll first look at the site plan.
It reflects two six foot monument signs.
This is above what the code requires.
The sign code for the city of Denton actually permits pole
signs on University that can be 20 feet high.
Because of this lot's location on Ector, they could also
have an additional sign on Ector because Ector is a
collector.
So in our discussions, it was limited to two six foot
monument signs.
There's also a proposed six foot masonry screening wall at
the southern edge of the property that is above what the
code requires.
Bicycle parking at each restaurant.
Trash cans at the end of the drive through to address some
of those concerns regarding litter.
A photometric study that exceeds the Denton Development
Code's requirements was also submitted.
Crosswalks for pedestrian crossing.
There is a bus stop here and so we told them that just in
case somebody's walking to provide a safe place for them to
walk.
And then I want to talk about access for just a minute.
The Denton Development Code requires that if access can be
taken from a lesser street, then access should not be
provided on an arterial, but rather be provided on a lesser
street.
In this case, Ector Street.
In talking with engineering and with the planning and then
also the developer, having the additional access on West
University helps the circulation within the site and also
takes pressure off of the entering and exiting the site
just from Ector Street.
As we all know, West University Drive is a text dot road
and so text dot does require approval of that.
In response to that, the applicant has submitted a TIA that
engineering is reviewing right now and they have some
confidence that text dot would approve this additional ride
in, ride out access here.
If that did not come about, if access could not be provided
here, this ADP, if the zoning was approved and the ADP was
approved, they could not build until they amended the ADP
and staff would have some concerns about recommending
approval for that because of the access issue.
The landscape plan, both NRMU and CMG. NRMU requires 40%
tree canopy, CMG requires 30%. The applicant is proposing
59% on the site.
They're proposing 29% landscaping, which exceeds the 20%
required.
They're proposing a 15 foot landscape area in the front,
which is not a code requirement unless you have front
parking.
They're proposing foundational plantings on the Popeyes
building.
The menu boards are going to be located in about these
areas and we felt pretty strongly as staff and then the
neighborhood felt that menu boards can create noise and
have visual impacts.
So the applicant has created, you know, planted a tree here
and added some plantings in order to screen that diagonally
from the adjacent neighborhood to try to help soften that
menu board area.
And then some additional shrubs were planned for the
southern portion, if approved.
Here are some architectural renderings.
We worked with the applicant.
The city of Denton or the Denton Development Code does not
have a masonry, a minimum masonry requirement for
commercial buildings.
They have submitted elevations that have a masonry
percentage from 7 to 63%, depending on the view of the
building.
If it's more visible, then it's a higher masonry percentage
.
We also talked to them that we wanted some more muted
colors.
Just a color palette that is more compatible with a
residential area because of neighborhood concerns.
So that is the ADP portion of it.
We'll go back to the zoning.
Because the zoning requires a public notification, ADP
doesn't, we did notify the public of the zoning request.
We have received two opposition letters and then four in
favor within the 200-foot boundary.
We have received other letters, and I gave you copies of
all of them that are from the adjacent neighborhood that
are outside of the boundary.
But within that 200-foot boundary, which is what triggers
the supermajority requirement, we have received two letters
of opposition, which does exceed the 20%.
So a supermajority vote will be required to approve it.
By council.
Here, no.
So based upon the criteria for approval for the zoning case
and the considerations presented here to you tonight, staff
does recommend approval of the zoning case.
We also recommend approval of the ADP with the condition
that it is only valid if the zoning case is approved by
city council, and I'll answer any questions.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
So if I understand you right, excuse me, the ADP won't be
approved if we don't get that university entrance.
The ADP before you tonight includes that West University
entrance.
If they do not get approval of that, then a building permit
couldn't be issued because they have an ADP in place.
A new ADP would have to come in front of you.
Staff would have to look at what they propose, and we would
make a recommendation based upon that.
Okay.
Does that answer your question?
Sure. Thank you.
One other thing, I'm sorry.
On the east side, can you show the illustration where there
's parking places there?
Yes.
Is that correct?
And then, what is there, some land between the parking
places and Hector Street?
You brought something up I failed to mention.
There is a three foot screening wall here that is a code
requirement.
This is kind of a landscape area.
It has an easement.
So, you know, not much landscaping can go in there.
This would be Hector Street, and then this is where the
parking would start.
One other thing, those parking spaces are angled so that
headlights, when they park in the evening, would go face
toward University and not toward the neighborhood.
But there's not room to put trees in there?
There aren't trees.
There isn't room in that.
Easement trees aren't usually allowed within easements
within the City of Denton.
So, in those cases, our landscape administrator works with
the applicant to meet the street tree requirement, but to
group them together, and that's what they've done in this
instance.
Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Rosl.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
I have a lot of questions probably, but I'll narrow it down
to three.
Just to be clear, that is two separate votes tonight, one
for rezoning and one for the ADP.
Yes, sir.
So, those are independent.
The next question I had is, has there been any traffic
impact study on Hector Street?
If all exiting traffic, well, not I guess all, but a lot of
exiting traffic and left, I guess westbound University
traffic would have to enter through Hector as well.
Has there been a traffic study on that?
That has been submitted to the City, and engineering is
reviewing it right now.
Okay.
And then lastly, you made a statement that if TextDOT did
not approve the primary arterial entrance, staff would have
concerns with approving the ADP.
I'm just curious, that's a make or break in terms of the
staff's recommendation?
We would have to see what the applicant came back with to
see how they would mitigate for that and how they would
address those concerns that prompted that.
Because that additional access really, when you're talking
about circulation at the previous In-N-Out Burger,
when we discuss the circulation pattern, that really helps
to create a safe circulation pattern within the site, but
it also takes the pressure off of Hector Street.
So, staff recommends approval for this with that driveway.
If they don't get approval for it, they would have to come
back and we would just have to see what they propose at
that time.
I'm not sure if staff would give a recommendation of
approval for that.
And I guess going along with that, just so I understand
this correctly, if someone's heading westbound on
University, and they wanted to eat at one of these
restaurants,
and then they wanted to continue that journey still west
ward, they would turn onto Hector, enter through the Hector,
go through a drive-through, circle all the way back out to
Hector, go to University, and then there's an unprotected
left turn back on University?
They could, or they could turn on Hector, turn on Emory,
and then go to Bonnie Bray and up to the light.
So, we kind of talked about all those scenarios.
So, a potential reroute would be actually through the
neighborhood?
It would be on that edge of the neighborhood.
Thank you.
Sure.
Commissioner Dudowitz.
Yes, thank you, Chair.
Can you show us a site plan that depicts this view, please?
That?
Neighborhood view.
I want to understand what the surrounding area is.
Don't help?
Okay.
So, we're talking about a neighborhood.
Can you tell me where that neighborhood is, and how far it
is away?
That's Emory, right?
This is, here's the subject property.
There is a piece of property between this one and the
neighborhood, and then you have Emory, which is sort of the
northern boundary of these, of the Hector Street
neighborhood, as well as the adjacent neighborhood.
Okay.
So, the property to the south is an empty field currently
in a barn?
I believe there's a single family, it's a house, yeah.
I believe it's a single family residence.
That's a house?
Mm-hmm.
In NRMU 12.
It looks like a barn to me.
Yeah, I'm not.
If I may, sorry.
And that property to the south, when they submitted their
letter, correct me if I'm wrong, Julie, but they were in
support of this.
Yes.
Okay.
The property?
The one to the south.
The one that you-
This property to the south and then this property.
No.
Both of them actually were in support.
Yeah, though I believe, also correct me if I'm wrong, the
person who wrote to approval for the south is also the one
who's trying to sell the piece of property to the north?
That it-
Is that correct?
I'm sorry.
It's the same person?
Is that-
So the person-
Okay, so back up.
So the property to the south is in approval, is in support
of this proposal.
However, I believe that that person who submitted that
letter is also the same party that is proposing this zoning
change.
I believe we- you do have a supportive letter in there from
the current property owner.
Right.
This, my understanding, is these two are different property
owners.
Okay.
Thank you.
Now what's to the- continue my question.
Sure.
Is that the very funeral home there to the east?
Yes, sir.
Okay.
And now what's to the east?
Those two vacant- no, you're going east across Hector?
Oh, I'm sorry.
Is that a vacant-
There's nothing here.
Okay.
Nothing there.
And this is vacant and this is vacant.
This is a single family home and this is a single family
home.
This one is actually has an NRMU 12 zoning designation.
Okay.
And then this one has an NR3 zoning designation.
Okay.
Because during your presentation you talked about parking
being slanted so as not to put lights into it and I don't
see hoses there.
Well, just so if it were slanted the other way, it could
shine into the homes.
Okay.
I have a question, a zoning question.
Because I can see how CMG would fit along University.
I'm not sure how I see how CMG could fit along Hector.
So why is, and I understand this is a- NRMU is also- well,
could you help me understand?
Why is NRMU and NRMU 12 maybe not considered commercial
whereas CMG is?
You know, we discussed that.
Sure, it does have a commercial component.
But when you look at what the future land use designation
is, CMG is a better fit for that future land use
designation.
Because actually the commercial future land use designation
wants to take any residential component out of it and have
it strictly commercial.
CMG does actually have a residential component, but it does
have more, a higher scale of commercial uses and also some
more auto-oriented uses.
So it fits within that commercial future land use
designation a little better.
NRMU is, it is a commercial zoning district, but the intent
is to be a little smaller scale than maybe on a primary
arterial.
Could you give me some examples?
Like, are we talking dry cleaners, bank, or- I'm sorry, go
ahead Commissioner Taylor.
I wonder if we're straying from clarification and moving
into discussing the item if we shouldn't continue in the
public hearing.
Yeah, that's a good point.
I'm going to hit you with that so be prepared.
Okay, I'll be ready.
One quick question.
Commissioner Dunham.
Yeah, just to make it very clear, under the current
ordinance, zoning, they could put these restaurants in?
Not with a drive-through.
Okay, but they could put these restaurants in?
Yes, sir.
The only element is a drive-through issue.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
Anything else?
Thank you, Julie.
Thank you.
Oh, sorry.
Mr. Vash?
Thank you, Chair.
University doesn't have an island, so people heading west,
I think Commissioner Lozell mentioned, can turn left off of
University into Popeyes?
It will only be a ride-in, ride-out.
There wouldn't be a meeting opening.
I believe there's a median opening at Ector, so there
wouldn't be an additional meeting opening yet.
So you were saying they'd have to turn left on Ector to
come in and then go back out?
Yeah.
Okay, thank you.
Sure.
Thank you, Julie.
And then our final item, we're throwing everything around.
Is it 5C is next?
Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
Hopefully this will be very brief.
Is that the certain order it is in the order here?
Mike, pardon the interruption, but since we're running a
bit late for the regular session, I'm curious, did anyone
need any clarification on this item right now?
Are you willing to hold your questions until the regular
session?
Is that okay?
Okay.
Thanks, Mike.
Okay, I guess with that, we will close our work session at
635, and we will reconvene in the council chambers in just
a few minutes for our regular session.
Good evening, and welcome to tonight's regular session of
the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
It is January 13, 2016.
The time is 646.
Thank you all very much for your patience with us while we
got up here this evening.
We had a very long work session, so thank you for your
patience.
The first item on our agenda for this evening is the Pledge
of Allegiance to both the U.S. and the Texas flag.
Please rise.
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.
I pledge allegiance to the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance
to the Texas, one state, under God, one nation, indivisible
.
Thank you.
A couple procedural items we want to cover is you can see
those of you who are holding an agenda, there are some
items that are listed as public hearings, some items that
are listed in the consent agenda, some that are items for
individual consideration, and many of those items are
related.
So we're going to go a bit out of order this evening.
Should we go through that now, Manal?
Yeah?
Would you like to walk us through that?
Sure.
Okay.
Thank you, Vice Chair Husson.
As you've mentioned, we are going to take the items that
are listed on the agenda out of order in order to ensure
continuity between certain zoning, certain cases or certain
items.
Taking that into consideration, in terms of the consent
agenda items, we have item 3A, which is CV150004, which
will not be addressed at this time due to its connectivity
to another item on the agenda.
However, the P&Z can choose to make a recommendation on
items B, C, and D of the consent item.
The individual items for individual consideration, those
will be moved around too.
We will first, in terms of if we discuss our scheduling,
the public hearing items will start first with the first
item being 5C, which is a zoning change request, which is
item Z150032.
The razor ranch related items that are referenced on the
agenda, which is the conveyance plan, the final replant,
the amendment to the overlay, and the two individual
consideration items associated with site plan, will be
heard last on the agenda.
They will be heard last at the meeting.
The second item after public hearing item 5C, the zoning
change request, will be the zoning change request for a
Burger King and Popeyes, the property on Ector Street in 3
80, after which we will go immediately into an individual
consideration item, which is item 4C for the requested ADP.
And I'd be happy to assist along the way should there be
any hiccups.
Great. It's clear as mud. Thank you very much.
Okay. So with that, the next item on our agenda is consider
approval of the planning and zoning commission minutes. Is
there any discussion about any of this?
Commissioner Dudowitz?
Yes, reference to the minutes, please.
Let's see, the minutes, I have it noted here.
December 9th.
Page two.
Page four.
Starting with line 10 through 1112.
I would like to add to that my request to add the townships
of Louisville and Flower Mound as I requested as part of
that study.
It was not mentioned in the minutes.
Thank you.
I had a couple of quick edits too, please.
It's from the November 18th meeting.
Page three, line 30.
We were talking about the proposed -- we were talking about
our upcoming calendar.
That wording is interesting where it says I seconded the
proposed December 28th meeting date.
I had questioned that.
We were discussing that.
That's line 30, page three.
Also a quick typo, line 39.
You have the word meetings, but it should be meeting
minutes.
And then at the bottom, I wasn't sure if it mattered or not
, but on page 10, line 36, there was where we held the
public hearing regarding the assembly halls, clubs, and lod
ges.
I believe we heard that prior to the mobility plan update,
and I wasn't sure if it needed to be reflected as such in
the meeting minutes, but those two items have been changed
in the order.
Those are my only edits.
Anything else?
Commissioner Taylor?
With those corrections, I move approval of the minutes from
the November 18th and December 9th meetings.
Commissioner Beck?
Second.
We have a first and a second.
Any further discussion?
Please vote on the board.
That motion passes.
Five, zero.
Thank you.
And moving on then, we are going to be looking at the
consent agenda, all but 3A.
Am I correct in that?
So we're looking at items 3B, C, and D?
Correct.
Commissioner Taylor?
Thank you, Vice Chair.
I move we approve consent agenda items B through D and hold
agenda item 3A until after we talk about agenda item 5A.
Thank you.
Commissioner Dudowitz?
And I second the motion.
Thank you.
Any discussion on this?
Please vote.
That motion passes unanimously.
Thank you.
And now, Munal, you'll have to walk me through the next
thing.
What are we doing next?
Absolutely.
Now we're going to jump into our public hearings.
And the first item that we're going to present before you,
the PNZ Commission and our audience, is item 5C.
And Mike Bell will present that to us tonight.
Thank you, Chair, Munal, members of the Commission.
This item is Z1532.
It is for the Windsor Oaks Phase 1.
Hopefully, as you'll see, this is a fairly minor amendment.
This is a very wordy caption, but essentially they're
trying to rezone three very small tracks to neighborhood
residential 4 so that all of Phase 1 is under the same
zoning.
Just to weigh it back around, the area highlighted here in
yellow is generally the area of the Windsor Oaks
development, 200-plus acres.
And then Phase 1 is the area outlined here in black.
And then within Phase 1, which is the dotted area, you can
see there are these three tracks that don't have the same
zoning.
So Track 1 is CMG.
Track 2 is NRME 12.
And Track 3 is NR3.
And the remainder of Phase 1, as you can see in this color
that's outside of the floodplain, is NR4.
Again, Track 1, 2, and 3.
The proposal, as you can see, is to change all these to NR4
.
You can see it not very clear on the overhead, but there
are single-family lots that cross this zoning line.
The intent is so that we can avoid some split zoning on
these properties that they'll all be under the same zoning
and avoid some potential complications for those future
owners.
In the end, it looks something like this.
So all of Phase 1 that's developable will be in NR4.
The considerations of this request is that it's not a
significant change.
It's very minor from the original plan for Windsor Oaks
that was approved in 2002.
It would bring all of the single-family lots under NR4 and
avoid split zoning of several single-family lots.
We did send notice to property owners who went 200 feet and
addresses been 500 feet.
We received one response in favor from the property owner.
Based on the considerations and the requirements of the
development code, staff recommends approval, and I'll stand
for any questions.
Any questions for staff?
Thank you, Mike.
This is a public hearing, so even if you have not filled
out a card, you are welcome to approach the podium and let
us know your thoughts.
Okay.
So do I close the public hearing at this point?
Thank you.
I'm kind of new at this job.
So we're closing the public hearing and opening it up for
discussion.
Or a motion.
Commissioner Dudowich.
I recommend approval as presented and submitted.
Thank you.
And Commissioner Beck?
Second.
Okay, so we have a first and a second.
Any further conversation on this item?
Okay.
Then please vote.
That motion passes 5-0.
Thank you.
And moving on.
And now are we looking at item 5D?
Correct.
Thank you.
Item 5D is to hold a public hearing and consider making a
recommendation to city council regarding rezoning requests
from neighborhood residential mixed use to community mixed
use general.
The subject property is approximately 2.1 acres generally
located at the southwest corner of West University Drive
and Ector Street.
And I'm opening the public hearing now at 655.
Thank you.
See if I can find my presentation.
If I could just make a comment for the record while staff
is looking for the presentation.
Who all is here to speak on this item?
Raise your hand.
Okay, since we have several speakers, I want to go ahead
and just mention what the rules are regarding or the
council rules that were recently passed regarding speaking
and the time limits.
Since we have several speakers, we're going to go ahead and
limit your time to three minutes each.
Any applicant and their agent on the public hearing item
will be allowed to speak no longer than 10 minutes with a
total of 20 minutes for all speakers representing the
applicant.
If there is a group of you that equals four or more persons
, then you can designate a representative and you will have
10 minutes to speak.
Is everyone clear on that?
Thank you.
Thank you for that.
And I'd like to make one more clarification too is that we
're going to be hearing item 5D, which is specific to the
rezoned requests from NRMU 12 to CMG.
The alternative development plan, which is listed as an
item for individual consideration, that's item 4C.
We will be hearing that item.
It is related, but we'll be hearing that item separately.
So I see many of you have filled out cards for item 4C.
I assume you might also want to speak on this.
So I'll go through the stack and ask if you'd like to speak
now and/or later.
Clear as mud?
Great.
Thank you.
Go ahead, Julie.
All right.
My name is Julie Wyatt.
I'm an associate planner with the City of Denton and I'm
presenting Z1527 to you.
And just to reiterate, I'll just be going over the zoning
case now.
We'll talk a little bit about the alternative development
plan and then we'll do that next.
So a little different than we did in the work session.
All right.
So the request is to consider making a recommendation to
City Council to rezone the subject property, which is 2.1
acres from NRMU,
Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use, to Community Mixed Use
General, which is CMG.
The subject property is located on the corner of West
University Drive and Ector Street.
And the existing zoning is NRMU.
Here is the subject property right here.
The request is before you today.
The applicant would like to develop the property with a
Popeyes and a Burger King,
each of which need a drive-through.
The current zoning of NRMU does permit the restaurant use.
However, there is a limitation to that use that no drive-up
service is permitted, that only sit down is -- it's only
limited to sit down.
So the applicant is pursuing a rezoning to CMG because
restaurants are permitted by right as well as drive-through
uses are permitted by right.
The future land use designation of the property is
commercial.
The consideration staff looked at when we analyzed the
proposal is first,
the purpose of the CMG zoning district is to provide
shopping services, employment, and recreation that is
supported by the entire community.
That is the intent of CMG.
And CMG is typically found on primary arterials.
Additional considerations, CMG district prevails along the
West University Drive corridor.
It is a commercial corridor, and we're going to look at a
map in a second that demonstrates that.
Additionally, the proposed CMG is a logical extension of
the existing CMG to just adjacent to the property as well
as across the street.
And that the commercial use is permitted and CMG are
consistent with the existing development pattern that
exists on West University Drive as a commercial corridor.
So let's look at a couple of maps.
First, here's the West University corridor.
You have I-35 as a boundary here and then about Locust here
.
And as you can see, much of this area has a zoning
designation of CMG, save for a couple of parcels.
But the predominant zoning on West University Drive is CMG.
When you zoom into the subject property, you can see that
the property adjacent to it does have a CMG zoning
designation as well as across the street and then on down
the street as well.
And then when we look at the development pattern on West
University Drive, over the years it has developed into a
commercial corridor that has primarily auto oriented uses.
You do have drive throughs, fast food, you have some banks,
some employment areas, and then also retail.
And this serves the entire community.
The subject property's location on this primary major arter
ial and adjacent to a neighborhood is a land use pattern
that is repeated along West University Drive.
And we'll look at that in just a minute.
Additionally, NRMU and CMG have similar dimensional
requirements so that even though the uses are different in
CMG and have additional commercial uses,
the way the property will develop will mimic in some ways
the way that the current zoning does because the maximum
lot coverage is the same for both CMG and NRMU.
The maximum building height for both zoning districts is 65
feet and the minimum lot area is 2500 square feet.
So the dimensions of that development would be very similar
.
So when we look at the adjacency of neighborhoods to the
commercial development on West University Drive, we first
looked at what the corridor looked like.
As I said, it's a primary major arterial.
The definition of a primary major arterial per the DDC is a
route that takes people in and out of the city as well as
takes them across the city.
So it's a major road within the city.
In fact, the only higher road classification we have in the
city is a freeway, so something like I-35 or parts of the
loop.
So it is a major road within the city.
Additionally, Ector Street is a collector per our mobility
plan.
So then when you look at the development that's just beyond
the commercial corridor, you see North University Place is
also adjacent, so that's a residential adjacent to the
commercial.
North Lake Park addition, Westchester Park, and Carroll
Park.
So these are just some examples of how this land use
pattern has been replicated down University.
Our final consideration for the zoning case was the Denton
Plan 2030.
The future land use designation is commercial.
The intent of the commercial land use designation is to
have concentrations of commercial uses, often auto-oriented
, maybe a little less mixed use than some of our other areas
, or standalone commercial uses in outlying areas.
In this instance, it would be commercial uses in more of an
auto-oriented way.
The character of the area should be maintained per the Dent
on Plan.
Staff believes that the character of University is
consistent with the CMG zoning designation.
However, we're going to talk about the character of the
adjacent neighborhoods in the next case, because we do want
to consider that as well.
And that the existing NRMU designation isn't quite
consistent with the future land use designation of
commercial, because it is a little more fine grain.
It's supposed to be a little more walkable, a little closer
, a little more embedded with the neighborhoods to provide
services for just the adjacent neighborhoods.
NRMU isn't maybe necessarily the most appropriate zoning
district here.
NRMU is supposed to have, or is intended to have, daycares,
dry cleaners, some of those types of uses that you would
just want to run to in your neighborhood.
Not serving necessarily the whole community.
Then when we look at the future land use designation of all
of this corridor, or the area, here is, kind of hard to see
, here's 35 here, here is University.
And then about Locust here, and here's our subject property
.
You can see that how the future land use designations in
this area work is concentrating the commercial development
in this area.
And it is in an auto-oriented way because of the street it
's on.
The criteria for approval for zoning cases is in subchapter
three of the Denton Development Code.
The first criteria for approval being conformance with the
Denton Plan 2030.
CMG is consistent with the commercial zoning designation.
Furthermore, the existing land use pattern of the
development on West University, as well as the zoning along
West University being CMG.
The proposed zoning is consistent with that.
The second criteria for approval is that it facilitates
adequate provision of transportation and other
infrastructure and public convenience.
Due to the location on West University Drive.
The CMG zoning district is appropriate because it does
provide adequate access.
Additional infrastructure considerations would be taken
into account during the planning process.
In order to address some of the neighborhood concerns, we
will be discussing alternative development plan that ties
the site plan to the proposed development.
We'll go over that next.
But the public notification was required for the zoning
case.
So a public notification was sent out.
We have received some public response.
This map is only looking at those responses that are within
the 200 foot buffer.
The Texas Local Government Code requires that if more than
20% of the property owners within a 200 foot buffer from
the subject property have an opposition to the project,
then a super majority vote is required by city council.
Due to the opposition that staff has received, that 20%
threshold has been exceeded.
So a super majority would be required by city council.
We did also receive some notices in favor, one being the
property owner and then the two properties to the south as
well as one across the street.
So based upon the considerations presented as well as the
criteria for approval in subchapter three of the DENT
development code, staff recommends approval of the zoning
case and I'll stand for any questions.
Questions for staff?
I have a question, Julie.
Sure.
Can you again walk me through what would be some permitted
uses in NRMU that are considered commercial?
Well, for instance, restaurants are permitted, but they do
have a limitation to size and also that drive up retail
sales and service that are permitted.
I'd have to get my code to run down the entire list, but it
does have substantial commercial uses.
However, they tend to be limited in their size.
So that sort of then lends itself to a more neighborhood
scale type development.
But there are commercial uses that are currently allowed in
NRMU.
Yes.
Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner Roselle.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Can you go back to the slide that showed the kind of...
that slide exactly.
Yeah, correct.
Good guess.
I guessed.
Just east of the proposed area, it kind of thins out there
and then it widens back out.
Is that current use because there's a school and floodplain
there, but it's listed as commercial.
You know, the future land use designation isn't exact
parcel base.
They really wanted to have it where, you know, kind of a
little more fluid.
So yes, I believe there is a school there and there's a
substantial flood area there, but it's not intended to be
absolutely what the parcel is, but just kind of the general
area.
Okay. Thank you.
Sure.
Commissioner Dudowitz.
Just a follow up on your comment.
The current size of the proposed buildings, would that be
the current code?
Yes, sir.
And the only difference is the drive.
Yes, sir.
So the developer could build Popeyes and Burger King
without the drive to meet the required code?
Yes, sir.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
A few questions, I'm going to start with zoning questions
and then I'm going to overlap into some ADP questions
because I do feel like we're...
Sure.
These are very intertwined.
So NRMU does allow restaurants and there is a limit and it
's a 100 seat limit.
So it's a fairly large restaurant.
Is that 100 seats?
100 seats, yeah.
Probably bigger than both of these restaurants.
I believe their seats are much less than 100 seats.
Yes, sir.
And NRMU does allow drive through facilities with a
specific use permit?
It does, just not for restaurants.
So if a bank had a drive through, then they would have to
get an SUP.
But because the restaurant has the limitation that that
supersedes the drive through use and the use table, so yes,
drive throughs are permitted, not with...
Or permitted with an SUP, not with restaurants.
Okay.
So you mean like a pharmacy, bank, things like that?
Dry cleaners, yes.
Okay.
And can you go...
You had a map of the neighborhoods?
Yes.
And so in this view, you're demonstrating the CMG basically
down university?
Yes, sir.
Looking at these very close districts that are potentially
very conflicting, you have low density residential and CMG
allows mid-rise offices,
like lots of retail uses, large shopping centers, big box
stores, a lot of times we'll use CMG to put in.
That's where the Kroger and the strip center are on the Kro
ger, on the south side of town, for example.
But I notice, and we normally would buffer, we would have
like an NRMU or something between a CMG and a neighborhood.
But there are no buffers really along here except for just
a few spots of NRMU and NRMU 12.
Something I think is really significant though is I don't
think of any place where the CMG directly fronts the front
of a house.
Like over in Carroll Park, I believe it's called, there is
a strip center facing sunset, very long strip center.
And it has an alley and a back fence and that hits the back
fence of a neighborhood.
So you can't even really get from that strip center to that
neighborhood.
It's a lot of work to get through and you have to cut over
down Alice and get back around.
Same thing in Westchester Park, you have, is it Primrose?
I believe this is the name of the street that comes out on
University, but it's a block long.
It's really kind of funny.
There's no commercial drive really putting traffic on Prim
rose.
And there's no commercial across from residential on Prim
rose.
And then when you get to Emory, while that is zoned CMG,
there are no primary driveways coming out on Emory.
And there are no houses that face Emory.
All the houses there face Thomas, Bellmead, et cetera.
Is that accurate?
I believe there are a couple of streets because I did look
at that as well because that was something that I looked at
, that access.
I believe to the north side there is one neighborhood that
the houses do front.
Don't quote me on that, but I believe because I did look at
that as a consideration.
And again, on the north side there might be one, well there
is actually I guess off Hinkle perhaps.
There's houses along Hinkle.
But again, in the, your neighborhood, the name escapes me,
back fences face back fences.
You have behind your back fence you have a very low traffic
alley.
It probably gets less traffic than a residential street.
So those form natural buffers.
Right.
Okay.
Now I guess moving on to the ADP.
So this is kind of presented intertwined with an ADP.
And the purpose of the ADP is to place limitations to
protect kind of the neighborhood from nuisance,
from any kind of pain from commercial development.
However, an ADP is, does an ADP run with the land?
It would be specific to this development.
So another development would not have to follow the ADP
rules.
So if we had an ADP here, so normally an ADP for the
audience and people watching at home,
an ADP will be used because this zoning category requires
60% landscape.
And they need 57% landscape and they'll modify their
parking lot to be more amenable for some other use.
So it's kind of a trade.
In order to get your extra 3% of paved area, you give
something else.
But in this case, the ADP isn't, the development isn't
losing anything to gain.
It's just, we're trying to put some requirements on them.
But if we passed, if we found an ADP that was amenable and
we passed the rezone and the ADP,
tomorrow the developer could scrap this site plan, sell the
land,
a new developer could come in and build any allowable use
by zoning.
And so that could be CMG, an office, strip center, you know
, any kind of,
a lot of fairly intensive office uses or medium to intense
retail uses.
I think that's all my questions.
Thank you.
Other questions for staff?
Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
All right.
The applicant is here if you have questions for the
applicant.
Would the applicant like to speak on this item?
Please come forward, sir, and state your name and address
for the record, please.
Hi, good evening, everybody.
My name is Armando Palacios and I'm director of development
for Sun Holdings.
And we're the ones that kind of get these two restaurants
in here.
What I wanted to say here that we understand everything
what's going on around
the restaurants with the drive-through and our intention to
get an approval for an ADP.
And I want to say also because we understand all these,
we have been doing these meetings with the neighborhood and
trying to understand
their concerns and what to do to do a better building and a
better,
to have a better view for the city as well and not to
bother anybody.
So what we're trying to do and we are already doing
according to this project is
going above and beyond the landscape requirements, like any
screening requirement.
And in masonry requirements, we're going above and beyond
those requirements as well.
We also went ahead and did a traffic study for it.
That way we also are into the requirements for that.
And actually we have all these technicians in here today.
So I'm going to hope we can, they can have some minutes to
talk about it.
And I want to say also we want to go to an ADP because
normally our sales go in a good
percentage on the drive-through as well.
Our stores are 60 seaters because I heard the question
before.
Our stores are 60 seaters, each one of them.
And we're just trying to, the main thing here is we're just
trying to work with
the neighborhood and have the best building possible and
anything that can bother
to address before, if everything goes fine, before going
forward with the construction.
So that is our point.
That is what we want to do.
We want to work with the neighborhood and have the best
solution possible.
So if any other questions, I would like to have the civil
engineer to go ahead and
explain some other things on it.
And thank you for your time.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Can I ask a question?
Oh, please.
Sir, can you please return?
I'm sorry.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Did I hear you correctly saying you would be in support of
a traffic study for this area?
Yes, we did a traffic study for it.
For Ector Street?
Yeah, for the whole side of it.
And we got the technician here, the traffic study gentleman
here.
Okay, and he's going to give us those results?
Okay, great.
Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Mickey Thomas.
I'm with MJ Thomas Engineering.
We're the civil engineer on the project.
If you don't mind, I'd like to see if I can get back to the
-- how do you get that to
go back, Julie?
There we go.
Okay.
I did want to let you know that we have worked diligently
with staff on this.
We've heard the city's comments and questions on this, and
we've tried to appease the city
as best we could on all of the site development issues.
The city has also requested that we meet with the citizens,
residents, adjacent to the property.
We had a meeting with them in December, I believe, was the
initial meeting.
They came forth with some comments and concerns.
We went back to the drawing board and offered up some
possible solutions.
There was a heavy rain that night, and there were a lot of
storms the night of the meeting,
so some of the residents were not able to attend.
So we went ahead and voluntarily opted to have a secondary
meeting so that way we could
have additional comments and try and present some of the
stuff that we've done.
So in some of the things that we've heard, there were some
concerns about the screening.
So along the south side of the property line, our
developers offered up to build a six-foot
screening wall along there to help buffer and remove that.
You can see the blue line.
If I can get the cursor to move here.
The blue line there, there will be a six-foot screening
wall there.
Also along Ector Street, the developers also agreed to put
in a three-foot tall screening wall
along there as well to kind of buffer some of the lights
and some of the traffic and stuff.
And other items that they were concerned about were the
lighting on the site.
With that, we've had a photometrics plan done to try and
ensure that the spillage of light
leaving the property line.
So at the property line, it's a negligible light, 0 to 0.1-
foot candles.
Also the landscaping, and we do have the landscape
architect here to discuss that,
but we have gone above and beyond the landscaping on this
site to try and buffer
and make it also look a little more palatable to the city
and the residences.
And the lighting buffer.
The funeral home also, we've also provided additional
buffer back to the west of us to the funeral home.
And then on the traffic, there was a lot of concerns about
the traffic that it was just going to be a total nightmare.
So the developer agreed to go ahead and do a voluntary
traffic study for the site.
So we've gone in and had that reviewed and everything
appears to be fine on the traffic study.
And he's here to talk about that more.
The other item that came up with the residences was trash.
You know, people throwing trash out and stuff like that.
So the developers agreed to place some additional trash
receptacles on the site.
And then also if it was a major problem, then they would
also try and go pick up the trash as well.
So with that being said, I'd be happy to answer any
questions,
or we can also bring down the traffic or landscape
architect as well to answer any questions.
Commissioner Beck.
Thanks, Vice Chair.
You said you would be putting a buffer up on the west side
between you and DeBerry.
What exactly are you putting up?
On the west side of the property, along the property line,
right here along these parking stalls,
we're going to be putting in a three-foot, I believe it's m
asonry.
That's east side.
I'm sorry, east side.
There's a masonry fence.
On the west side, it's going to be a substantial landscape
buffer between us and the funeral home.
Okay, what do you mean substantial?
That is, we're the landscape architect.
He'll fill me in on that.
We've got Terry Shroud's class.
Sir, could you, this is a public hearing for the record.
Could you please speak into the microphone?
Thank you.
There's people watching at home that would like to hear
your answer.
My name is Donald Bounds.
I'm with Birkenbeil Landscape Architects, and we're the
landscape architects working on this project.
And on the west side of the property, we're maintaining the
trees that are existing,
and then we're supplementing that with Nellie R. Stevenholy
, which is an evergreen holly that gets very large.
Thank you.
How high are the hollies?
Well, like six, it can get six feet.
Up to six feet.
Yeah.
Okay.
Okay, thank you.
And so before you sit down, can you please state your
address for the record?
Yes, it's 2001 North Lamar Street, Suite 401 Dallas, Texas,
75206.
Thank you.
Are there other questions for the applicant?
Okay.
And are there any other representatives here for the
applicant?
Yes, okay, thank you.
And again, state your name and address for the record,
please.
I'm Larry Servanko with Minckley Barfield, and I'm with the
Traffic and General Job.
And our address is 8201 Gateway in Richardson, so I'm here
to answer any questions you have.
We did do a traffic count in November of '19.
Before Thanksgiving, typically traffic is pretty busy at
that time.
We did a level of service analysis of what's out there now,
and then we added traffic from both of these sites.
And we also looked at traffic five years in the future.
And all this analysis means that the level of service,
which is how we judge our traffic operations, is acceptable
in all cases, even five years in the future.
And we recommended the two drives.
The amount of trips that will be generated will be about 60
in the morning and about 80 in the afternoon, and that's
for both sites.
In the mornings, Popeyes doesn't have any breakfast, so
there won't be as much traffic in the morning.
In the afternoon, it goes up a little bit.
And then with the two drives, what's going to happen is
most of the traffic that's going to be going to the site
will be driving along 380.
And a lot of these people will be going to work, whatever,
and will come in, get something to eat, and then go back
out.
That's why we want the driveway onto University Park, or
University, because we didn't deduct any traffic for that,
but that's called pass-through traffic.
It's traffic that would normally be on the road, but they
alter their route to get something to eat and then get back
on the street.
So we could have reduced the trips a little bit more for
that, but we decided to see what it looks like in the worst
case.
So the analysis shows that it's a good level of service.
Do you have any questions?
And before I get to you all, did you look at traffic counts
only on University, or did you also look at Hector and Em
ory as well?
We didn't do Emory, but we did Hector.
And on Hector, we just had about 10 to 13 cars that were
going up and down in both directions.
Thank you.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Just to understand those numbers, when you say 60 in the
morning, 80 in the afternoon, that's like trips per hour?
Per hour, yes.
And did you have a -- did you model like the breakdown of
traffic that would be in and out only on University versus
-- and could you say what was the --
like the -- that's the 60, 80, it's essentially the same
amount that's entering will be leaving, so it's about 60 in
the morning coming in and leaving, and afternoon will be 80
coming in.
Well, did you model whether they leave or enter on
University versus leaving or entering on Hector?
It's about 50/50 split.
Probably because of the medians, it's hard to turn left.
That's right, and the University does not have a median in
that particular driveway, so anybody wanting to turn left
is going to be doing it at Hector and turning right into
the site and left out and making a right to go back to
where they came from.
And is there -- so you do the -- looks at morning and
afternoon.
Did you do nighttime?
Like what -- so basically a drive-through restaurant is
typically open until 11 p.m. or midnight?
No, typically we use ITE trip generation rates to determine
how many trips are going to be coming with that size, and
they suggest that the -- you know, four to five, five to
six is the peak hour for those trips, because people are
going home and they want to get something to eat, take it
home with them.
That's why we key on that particular time period.
Right.
So if the other Burger Kings in Denton close at midnight,
would there -- I'm trying to understand what the traffic
difference would be from say 9 p.m. to midnight on the
residential street versus --
It could be less.
Yeah.
There could be some people in the neighborhood who want to
get a bite to eat at midnight, but probably a very small
amount.
All right.
Thank you.
Let's get real hungry.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
If I understand, first of all, these questions seem to be
regarding the ADP.
I don't want -- is it okay for me to ask more questions
about traffic studies since we have the individual here, or
should I wait until we go to the other item?
I don't want to blur the lines any more than they might
have already been blurred.
Well, we've been allowing a line of questioning for general
purposes as it relates to the zoning, but if it's very in-
depth, I would hold it.
It's -- I don't think it's too in-depth.
Okay.
Just to clarify, though, yeah, the traffic also affects rez
oning.
Right.
So --
Well, hopefully it wouldn't considering if we're rezoning
this regardless of what's going in.
So the rezoning is independent, I would believe, of any
potential building.
So if it's a bank or a drive-through, that's, I don't think
pertinent to rezoning.
So I don't know if traffic studies pertinent to rezoning.
But while I have you here, I wanted to talk to you about if
I understand the traffic flow of the property,
if I'm hitting westbound on University, in order to enter
the property, I must turn onto Ector.
You can turn left onto Ector and then right into the drive.
Okay.
And then if I want to exit going back westway, I have to go
back out Ector and then take an unprotected left --
If we have this other driveway, you can come out and just
make a right turn on University and don't get on Ector at
all.
But if I need to take a left on University, I would have to
hit Ector, correct?
That's correct.
Okay.
So if I was going westway, wanted to get somebody to
continue westward --
You'd have to --
-- you'd have to --
-- Ector.
-- and then turn left.
Knowing the area, I'm much more inclined, instead of trying
to make an unprotected left on University, to swing around
to Emory.
And so I'm curious why that wasn't included in the study,
because I think naturally a lot of drivers would see that
an open road to Bonnie Bray and take it.
And that's part of my concern about the traffic.
And it goes to maybe the number you mentioned.
You said that there's 80 cars an hour, but you said there's
a 50/50 split onto Ector.
But you also said the impact on Ector would be 10 to 13
cars.
Maybe I'm asking a little fuzzy.
Can you help me out on that?
Okay.
Well, do you have the -- the total number of trips is 170.
Okay.
So we have half of that's entering, half is exiting.
And then half of that would be on University, and the other
half would be on Ector.
That's still substantially more than 10 to 13 cars.
Oh, yes, yes, yes.
Okay.
But it's still -- the level of service is still pretty good
.
Okay.
Then can you clarify where I heard the 10 to 13 cars?
Maybe I misunderstood.
No, that's our actual count.
That's the actual count on Ector.
Okay.
Thank you for that clarification.
Thank you, sir.
Seeing no other questions for the applicant, I'm going to
start reading some of these cards.
And as I said, some of you filled out that you want to
speak in regards to the ADP.
And some of you wrote that you wanted to speak in regards
to the zoning change.
So I'm just going to go through these.
And if you'd like to hold your comments later for the ADP,
we can do that.
But we'll just start.
So Michael Hennen, would you like to speak on this item or
the ADP or both?
Okay.
Come on forward.
And you'll have three minutes if you could set your name
and address for the record.
But I know you've done this before, so thanks.
I'm Michael Hennen.
I live at 724 Thomas Street.
And I'm speaking in opposition to both of these requests
tonight for two reasons.
One is, well, we heard staff say that these requests were
consistent with the Denton 2030 plan.
And I disagree with that on a general basis.
The Denton 2030 plan calls for the city to promote balanced
managed growth in the city.
And I contend that the growth along University Avenue now
is unbalanced in favor of fast food restaurants.
I did a survey this morning, so I'd have the latest
information.
Here's what we've got now between I-35 and North Elm Street
.
Two McDonald's, two Whataburger's, a Brahms, a Panera that
also has a drive-thru, a Taco Casa, Taco Bell, Taco Bueno,
Taco Cabana,
Sonic, a Starbucks with a drive-thru, Chick-fil-A, Wendy's,
Pollo Regio, Mi Casita, Grandys, Arby's, Jack in the Box,
Schlatzky's, and a KFC.
That's what we have now.
University Avenue, rather than being a balanced use of
commercial properties, is turning into a strip of fast food
restaurants.
And I contend that that's not balanced growth and it's
unhealthy for the city.
The second thing is these businesses are trash generators.
Now, I don't live within 200 feet or 500 feet from these
properties.
I live across the street from McKenna Park.
But every day I go across the street and I find bags from
Burger King or from, excuse me, not Burger King, from Sonic
or from Whataburger or from McDonald's
that people have thrown into McKenna Park or have thrown
out of their car windows after they eat it and just throw
it there by the park.
So these businesses generate trash.
We have enough of them already on University Avenue and we
don't need any more.
This body is supposed to promote balanced growth in our
city.
We don't need more fast food restaurants on that portion of
University Avenue.
The only way to promote more of them would be to promote un
balanced growth in our city.
We're matched out right now.
The proposed use, especially the proposed change in the
zoning, would allow for other kinds of development to go in
there potentially that are inconsistent with the kind of
neighborhood we want to keep in that part of Denton.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Jesse Davis.
You can state your name and address for the record, please.
Thank you.
My name is Jesse Davis.
I live at 1228 Hector.
That's within 500 feet of the proposed development.
That's within 500 feet of the subject property.
First, thank you very much for bearing with us tonight.
By the time you hear from the last of us, you might be
ready to go home, go to sleep.
But thank you for bearing with us.
We're here tonight because this looks like a simple issue.
This looks like coloring then the right colors on the map,
making things match.
It's not that simple.
There's a deeper history to where we live.
There's a deeper history to this issue.
And that's why we included the Neighborhood in Opposition
one pager in your packet.
One thing that didn't make it into your packet due to an
email issue is the petition with 79 signatures on it.
We purposely shielded this petition from people who live
outside our neighborhood.
This is 79 people who live inside of our neighborhood.
Majority of us owner occupied homes.
Majority of us there in the NR1 designation on higher value
homes.
This other thing that will be in the City Council's packet
is a resolution from the Church of St. David of Wales up at
the top of the hill.
They voted last night against this resolution, excuse me,
against this rezoning because it affects them too.
You're also going to hear tonight from commercial property
owners who are opposed.
You're going to hear from people who live up and down our
street.
And the reason you're going to hear from them is because it
's deeper than just matching things along University Drive.
If you look at what's on University Drive now, the
proposition that's been made to you is that let's match
what we already have because it's consistent with our Dent
on Plan 2030.
NRMU already allows appropriate commercial use.
We are in favor of, we spent a lot of time talking about
this in our neighborhood, we support appropriate commercial
development.
If a dentist wants to build an office, if a direct leader
wants to go in, like our other existing neighbors, we don't
have a problem with that.
What we have a problem with is changing the status quo.
The developer has the burden of proof to show you all why
the status quo has to change.
They can't do it.
They can't do it with their engineers or their landscape
studies or their traffic studies.
They can't show you why they're appropriate for this spot.
And you're going to hear from a lot of folks tonight who
can tell you exactly why that impact on our neighborhood is
not appropriate, why it's not appropriate for Denton.
I want to really quickly address up front, because you're
going to hear from a lot of people tonight, kind of the 800
pound gorilla in the room that I hear from people around
town sometimes.
Well, why did you purchase a home so close to university?
Why did you purchase a home so close to some place where
somebody can build a Burger King?
No one in this room purchased a home within 500 feet or 200
feet or 100 feet, in Mr. DeBerry's case with his business,
of a place where you can build a Burger King.
We purchased homes or we built homes over 50 years ago in a
place where we can't do that.
They want to change the status quo.
And you're going to hear from a lot of folks tonight who
can tell you why that shouldn't happen.
Sir?
Thank you.
We have a question for you.
Yes, absolutely.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you, Mr. Javis, for being here.
I have one question, because we don't have that petition.
The petition with the signatures, is that against the rez
oning or is that against the ADP?
It's against the rezoning.
Real quickly on the ADP, I think you're going to hear from
some other folks on that also.
And we're going to scan this in and make it available to
you all, because it's an ongoing petition.
We don't dispute that these folks with their studies and
their engineers and their site plans, that they can build a
pretty nice Burger King and Popeyes.
We don't dispute that.
And they have been responsive to some of the things that we
're talking about.
But what we're talking about is why a drive-through doesn't
belong in our neighborhood in the first place.
There are many, many other places in Denton available to
them in this area, in this development zone, just down the
street, for them to build this.
I think it's clear that somebody drove down the street, saw
a green field, and thought, well, let's buy that up and put
a Burger King on it, without thinking about the deeper
history that's there.
And I appreciate your question.
Please do ask us questions.
I have some photos of the area available, if you all need
that kind of thing.
We have a lot of history here to share with you, and we don
't know what to give you unless you ask for it.
So we're happy to do that.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
I do have a question for you, Mr. Davison.
Yes, sir.
If for anybody else that's opposed to this, this would kind
of go out to all of you.
What we've -- part of what we've been seeing or hearing is
the objection to the fact that it's a drive-through.
Don't have any objection to a restaurant, correct?
Yes, sir.
A walk-in.
You don't have any objection to a walk-in, sit-down
restaurant, right?
I personally don't.
Most of the neighbors that I've spoken to don't.
There was a time that this property was deed restricted,
that that was not allowed, that there was nothing besides
residential.
That time has passed, and we recognize that.
We have a -- Luigi's right across the street is a walk-in
restaurant.
Many of us dine there.
There are other walk-in places in the area.
If there was a walk-in restaurant, I'd probably go there
pretty often.
Okay.
So it's the drive-through aspect that bothers you to a
large degree, or --?
I would say for me personally, I don't want to speak for
too many of my neighbors, but I know for me personally,
that's the deal breaker.
Okay.
The drive-through is the traffic generator.
It's the trash generator.
People who dine in the place don't take their trash with
them, except for maybe a foam cup or something.
It's the odor generator.
When you talk about a fried chicken place and a burger
place right next to the funeral home, it's the one -- the
drive-through is what generates the problems.
Okay.
Now, if we had another business there, though, that would
utilize a drive-through, would you be opposed to that, too,
like a pharmacy or a bank?
Well, first of all, I think all of those would be allowed
under current zoning.
So I wouldn't have this opportunity to have this
conversation with you if they wanted to build.
But, no, I wouldn't, because I recognize as a property
owner in this area that that's what this designation is for
.
And when I bought my home, I did look at what was available
for a developer in this area and knew full well what could
go in there.
I believe staff told us, though, if there was a drive-
through on a bank, that that would require an SUP.
Did I hear that right?
That's correct.
Okay.
So it's not automatically a part of the existing zoning.
It has to meet certain criteria in the form of an SUP.
Correct.
And I should probably tell you at this point that there
have been other -- we've heard directly from investors and
business owners in town that there's been other interest in
this lot at various points along the years.
When the deed restrictions expired in the '90s, there's
been other interest in this lot.
Mr. DeBerry may tell you about how he tried to build on
this lot some years ago.
The problem since the deed restrictions have expired with
the current ownership has not been the zoning.
Zoning has not been an impediment to development.
It's been the ownership.
Okay.
All right.
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Bill DeBerry, followed by Lindsay Ke
ifer.
My name is Bill DeBerry.
I own DeBerry Funeral Home, which is next door to this
property.
And first of all, the traffic out there is a nightmare.
I don't think this gentleman did a very good study.
I did a study on it when I first went out there.
And also, as Mr. Davis stated, I had signed contracts on
this property to build the funeral home, and due to the
fact of the deed restrictions, which I only think could be
built on that corner at that period of time, was a
residence.
And my other concern is this.
There's quite a few trees between my property and what is
next door.
And they're quite large trees.
And I don't want them removed.
I don't want to smell hamburgers and fried chicken in my
place of business.
And so this is one reason why I'm opposed of it against all
these. There's several other things.
And I know it's going to cause traffic out there.
I sit there at my front desk.
I have a nightmare watching.
In fact, Emory Street catches quite a bit of traffic,
because the people will cut through my property, their own
university, and I have an exit on to Emory.
They'll just zip right through my property just like it's
public land.
That's one thing that concerns me, and it is a nightmare
out there, I'll guarantee you.
And also, there is quite a bit of green on that property
that's probably going to have to be removed.
And I have quite a bit between me and that property, and I
don't want it removed.
And so I'm sure that there's I have spoken briefly with the
forestry person for the city of Denton about that.
And I know that there's certain limitations on the size
that can be cut down.
So I am against this, because it will not be good for the
neighborhood, as they stated in a letter that I received
from them, that this these two places are going to improve
the neighborhood.
I don't think they're going to, because I have a nice
facility.
And I don't think that these places will be of any.
I am not against other businesses, office business.
I'm not against that. If somebody wants to put an office
there.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And we've got a question
for you from Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Barrett, for coming down and speaking.
Just to lay one of your concerns, the trees on your
property that separate the two of you, they're not going
anywhere.
They're going to stay there. There's going to be an
addition to think the applicant said they were going to be
adding some hollies, yopon hollies or something like that.
So you'll be keeping those trees. So just want to know. I
don't want those trees removed.
Pardon me? I don't want those trees removed. They're not.
They're right on the fence.
Right. And most of us on the PNZ here are very much pro
tree. So we'd be opposed to that too.
Your concern about traffic that it's a nightmare. Is that
has that always been or does that seem to be more of a
factor now that they're doing all the construction?
It was previously before. The traffic has always been
terrible.
I've been out there, what, 26 years now and it is terrible.
What are the improvements they're doing there on 380 or
alleviate that?
It's just like when I have a funeral procession going out,
we go out and go down Emory because the policemen that
escort the funeral service, funeral escorts, they don't
want to go on to university.
They say it's a lot safer for us to go out your rear
entrance and get on Emory Street and go down to Bonnebrae
and then turn to the south.
You think they'll remain that way once they've improved 380
? You've got three lanes out there going both ways.
I have no idea what the police department will do.
Okay. Okay.
But they like going out the back way.
I don't blame them right now.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Lindsay Kiefer. Lindsay Kiefer. I
apologize if I mispronounced your name.
Is Lindsay here?
Thank you, sir. And that will be followed by Bridget Corb
ett.
I am Lindsay Kiefer and I live at 815 Ector.
My concern with this proposition is a change in the
designation of the property.
We that live on Ector enjoy a quiet neighborhood and this
will bring extra traffic because the university is located,
University of North Texas is located, such that these
businesses would attract collegians and all hours, all
hours, up and down Ector.
But I want to just stress that the proposition as it exists
makes no provision for people who live on Ector if they
think that a three-foot wall is going to accomplish that.
That's not going to accomplish anything.
It's just the aspect of the businesses.
The property is available for other businesses, but not
commercial endeavors such as Popeyes, Chicken, and Whatab
urger.
I just don't think that is appropriate for the neighborhood
and for the others that live on Ector and in the
surrounding streets, not just Ector.
They feel the same way, or at least they should.
Thank you.
Sir, I have a question.
Yes.
How long have you lived at this address?
How long have I lived on Ector?
Since 1970.
Okay.
And how many cars do you see drive up and down Ector on any
given day?
Would you?
With the increase of, or the aspect of development of the
Razor Ranch, we've seen a remarkable number of auto traffic
, but not anywhere near that these would.
Right.
I think your definition of remarkable might be different
today than it, I mean, since you've lived in this house for
the last 40 or so years, because I don't live in that
neighborhood, but I live near your neighborhood, and I own
a business in your neighborhood.
And so I'm often traveling up and down at Ector, and I tell
you, it doesn't matter what time of day I'm driving, it
could be high noon, and I might only see one or two cars
that entire stretch.
So your definition of remarkable might, I mean, I'm
wondering if it was like no one was ever there before.
It seems like a very not a very highly traveled road given
the location and the size of it.
Would you agree with that?
Yes.
With these businesses, which are primarily of interest to
collegians, not exclusively, but collegians, that would
just increase the traffic just remarkably.
I think that's a very valid point. I'm just thinking of
where it is, where the location of UNT is, and the location
of Ector is just a straight shot, isn't it?
Yes.
So, yeah, thank you.
I see no other questions. Thank you for your time.
And Bridget Corbett, followed by Charlotte Davis.
Hi there. My name is Bridget Corbett, and I live at 1220 E
ctor. I'm in one block up from the proposed restaurants.
Many of the concerns I have have already been addressed.
Mr. Taylor, I'm really glad that you mentioned about buffer
zones, and these fast food restaurants are not comparable
to even the fast food restaurants that are in this stretch
along University,
in that, as you said, it opens out towards right into the
driveway of a house across the way.
But also the other fast food restaurants, I lived for a
time on Malone Street in the second block up from the What
aburger there,
and the Whataburger is across from a little business trip
there with the Dollar General.
Most of those other fast food restaurants, well, all of
them that I'm aware of, none of them are in as close
proximity to houses, or maybe there's some more buffer zone
along the creek that runs alongside there.
There's floodplain areas, so things are not built there.
But many of us who live in the Ector Street neighborhood,
our neighborhood is unique in that the lots, including the
easement, the lots are about an acre.
And many people don't opt to buy houses on such large lots
because it involves a lot of maintenance of the property.
But I think that many of us who bought these lots, we
bought them because we enjoy being out on our property and
using it in that way.
And I do know that there will be a lot more trash in our
neighborhood from this.
When I lived on Malone Street, there was always Burger King
trash.
I still get trash now at my Ector Street house from Subway,
apparently lost a box of napkins last week and they blew up
for days.
But one way that for me, the valuation of my property would
be greatly lessened is by the odor from those fast food
restaurants.
I'm outside a lot and I don't want to smell that.
Also, the hours that would go along with, I know I'm
touching on the drive-through aspect, but that certainly is
a very important aspect.
The restaurants could become 24-hour restaurants and the
noise from that traffic.
Also, there's a lot of foot traffic, parents walking, kids
with strollers, people walking their dogs.
And just the increase of traffic from that construction on
University has been very significant. In broad daylight, in
the space of one week,
at that intersection of Ector and Emory, there were car wre
cks within just a few days apart.
And I do not look forward to that increase in traffic that
would accompany these kinds of businesses.
I'm not opposed to business being on those lots or zoned
that way, but not for the drive-through aspect and the
other unpleasant aspects that come along with fast food.
Also, I very much agree with the person who said that it
doesn't represent balanced growth along that corridor.
Absolutely, it does not. Thank you.
Thank you.
Charlotte Davis, followed by Gloria Howell.
I'm Charlotte Davis. We live at 728 Ector at the top of the
hill.
And I guess my concern is I agree with the traffic and the
problem about the trash, because on Panhandle, which Pan
handle is the side of our lot,
we are constantly picking up trash from people because of
all the shading that this road presents.
We are all the time picking up the trash because it's right
there in our yard and it comes in, blows across.
And when we talk about the traffic, I think that when they
redid the road at the top of our hill, there would be a dip
.
Now the dip is not there because at all hours you would
hear this breaking, you know, because, oh my gosh, the dip
is there, you know, because the back of your car will be
torn out if you hit it.
It doesn't exist anymore now. So, but the speed on this
road is anywhere from 40 or 50 miles an hour, no matter
what.
And as you say, we have, you know, people with children and
I just I really think the drive through is not what we need
and the smell and the trash.
And we knew Marion and Hector Roberts next to us. And when
they created this property, this land, all of it was theirs
.
And the White House, which is diagonal from us, was their
homestead.
And when they built the house next to us, which is about
three acres that it sits on, in the 40s, as Mr. Davis has
said, you know,
the deed has changed, we had formed the association so we
could preserve what we have in this neighborhood.
I don't think there is a neighborhood like this in the city
of Denton because there is not one where every in front of
every house there is a driveway that runs all the way
through.
Everybody has, you know, that wonderful thing to where if
you have company, you have lots of room for people to park.
And so I really think that this area is very special.
And I've been told by a realtor that within 10 or 15 years
that they're going to come in and start knocking these
houses down
and building two and three and five million dollar houses
like they did over in Dallas simply because there are no
lots like this anywhere in Denton.
And so we are trying to, we would really like to preserve
this area.
And I really think a nice restaurant or another doctor
office or anything like that would be very appropriate for
that area.
So thank you so much. Thank you. And Ms. Davis, I actually
have a question for you.
You seem to know a lot about the history of this
neighborhood.
Okay. Yeah. And you had mentioned there was a neighborhood
association that you all form.
Okay. So my question is, well, could you give me maybe an
update on that?
I remember reading several years ago that there was a
proposal for to create a small area plan.
And I'm not sure if that encompassed this particular
neighborhood, if it was the neighborhood just to the west
of that.
Are you familiar with any of that?
Well, I think we created the association simply because
they were trying to take the White House,
which I said was the homestead house, and turn it into more
or less like a place where they were going to have
apartments
and have lots of driveways and stuff and lots of cars and
other where they could rent out to a lot of people, a lot
of students.
That's what they were wanting to do.
And so instead of that happening, we were able to stop that
. And then they just took the house and redid the house and
created that.
Now, I'm not sure exactly. I know Ms. Kiefer might know.
Marsha, would you know what she's talking about?
I do.
You do. Okay.
Well, sorry. I'm sorry. Well, can we --
In just a second. She knows what you're talking about.
I'm not sure what protocol is for some of that.
But the small area that you were talking about.
But we just knew Marion next door when we moved in in '88,
because we had a house on Thomas that we lived in from '71.
And then we just moved the two blocks over. And Marion was
there, and she was there about two years.
And then Ms. Brody was across the street.
And then the house on the corner, which is next to Ms.
Robert's house, that was an original house.
I think Heidi and her husband are the second owners.
So the houses have not changed that much. We've been in
ours 26 years.
So as far as the neighborhoods staying, I really think --
The point of my question is that I very much agree with you
. It's a very unique neighborhood in Denton.
It's got houses of all sizes and lot sizes, really kind of
quirky, kind of renovated old barns that have been turned
into --
It's a really unique neighborhood.
And I agree with you. I'd like to see that preserved
somehow.
And I was wondering if you had had an update, perhaps, on
any efforts to -- that working along with the city to
preserve that.
And maybe if you all are planning on coming down to speak,
I can continue to ask those questions.
But I would encourage maybe the neighborhood to pursue that
.
Anyway, that was my question.
I do not know about that. I'm sorry.
Sorry to put you in the hot seat like that. I appreciate
for playing along. Thank you.
All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Gloria Howell, followed by Alex
Alexander.
Thank you. My name is Gloria Howell, and I live at 1216 ECH
RA, which is within the 500 feet.
I will say that recently my husband and I are moving back
into his childhood home, the home he grew up in.
He and his family moved to that house in 1965, just around
the corner.
Three years before that, they lived on Westchester, so he
grew up in that neighborhood.
We moved back into the home after his mother passed.
We specifically want to live in that area because of the
type of neighborhood it is.
It's a nice, quiet, calm neighborhood.
And if we put businesses like fast food restaurants, not
only are we going to get the college traffic,
we're also going to get Dittenheim traffic.
So that's even more traffic during the day.
And yes, they say they're going to close at 10 o'clock now,
but once they get it built,
there's no laws that are going to restrict them from
changing it to a 24-hour service.
And it's clear to me that if the other Burger King in town
stays open until 11,
that you really don't think it's going to take very long
for this one to decide.
And they're going to stay open until 11 also.
Specifically, the things that I object to are the drive-
through,
and there's a big, huge, clear difference between a bank
drive-through,
a dry cleaning drive-through, and a fast food restaurant
drive-through.
Huge difference.
As people have already said, there's just so much traffic,
maybe not up and down Ector,
but right there at Ector and University.
Huge traffic problems.
It's hard to get out on University.
Right now, I know a lot of it is because of the development
,
but we really don't need more of that type of traffic
coming onto Ector and onto Emory Street.
I'm concerned again about all of the trash.
They stay.
They're going to put trash cans at the end of their
properties, but you know what?
That's maybe a nice effort, but who's going to be the
police to make sure
that the people actually use those trash cans?
The smell.
I don't want to go outside my front door and smell BO and
think, is that me?
Do I need to go back in and take a shower?
Oh, no, it's Popeyes.
Like it's been said, there's plenty of places very close to
the current location they want.
They wouldn't have the opposition they have.
Anyway, thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Alex Alexander followed by Mary Marino.
Hi, my name is Alex Alexander.
I'm a resident of 1220 Ector, which is in the 500-foot zone
from the proposed change.
I won't take my whole time because I just want to reiterate
support for many of the excellent points
that have been made tonight, and so I won't take that time.
I just did want to point out a couple of things.
The gentleman who presented the traffic study mentioned, I
think, the number 10 to 13 cars.
First of all, it's actually higher, I think, just on inter
ocular analysis,
but it's also typically much higher than that already
because a lot of cars are avoiding that intersection area
because of the construction on University Drive.
I don't think that was a representative number having lived
there almost 10 years.
Also, just to touch on the trash can, trash is a
significant issue in the area for the drive-through.
It's a quality of life issue.
Hardly a day goes by there's not trash on the curb or
having blown into our yard.
Frankly, the idea to put trash cans doesn't address the
concerns of the residents
because people will go through the drive-through, again,
the drive-through, which is what we don't want,
eat the food on their way home or wherever they're going,
and then throw it out the window when they finish it.
The neighborhood is full of that kind of trash because of
the proximity of so many fast food establishments in the
area already.
I just wanted to maybe make the point that there's really
no benefit to the neighborhood residents.
There may be a punitive benefit to the citizens at large,
but I would even challenge that because as we know,
we know by now that fast foods are the lowest paying, low
paying jobs.
They're dead-end jobs.
The food is unhealthy.
Even to the community at large, I challenge someone to say
this is a real benefit to the community.
I don't feel it is.
I don't feel it shouldn't be or become a city of fast food
restaurants, even if it is on a major arterial.
I also just wanted to comment on the spirit and an
enthusiastic presentation by Ms. Wyatt tonight,
and strong support, it sounded like to me, of the proposed
change.
A little baffled by that when so much of the community
input or neighborhood input has been that we don't want the
drive-through.
I just want to point out that she did not appear.
I didn't hear her address the drive-through aspect.
She addressed the ADP, but I didn't hear her address really
the significant concerns which surrounded around the drive-
through aspect of this.
So anyway, thank you so much.
Thank you, sir.
Our next speaker is Mary Marino.
Oh, pardon me.
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
It's in the wrong pile.
I wrote that you oppose commercial development on or near E
ctor Street, so that's in opposition.
And I have two because you thank you 5D and 4C, both in
opposition.
The next speaker is Nikki Barnes.
I'm sorry.
Did I grab the wrong pile?
Maybe I have moved on to the next pile.
Okay.
I'm sorry.
I'm new to this job.
I'm the vice chair, so I got the hot seat today.
Thank you.
Okay.
So Nikki says that she's in opposition.
This is a residential neighborhood with lots of pedestrian
traffic.
A drive-through is not conducive to this environment with
direct contact to homes.
This type of property will bring down property values, the
lighting in the parking lot, and
headlights from cars driving through will affect the nearby
property owners.
Paul Barnes also not wishing to speak, but in opposition.
The proposed site has a lot of pedestrian traffic.
The proposed business will increase traffic in a
predominantly residential area of Ector
Street, which I feel will have a negative impact on
pedestrian traffic.
Karen McCormick not wishing to speak, but also in
opposition of both 5D and 4C.
I am in opposition of the request.
Ector neighborhood is an NR1, and this type of business
would not be conducive, and it
would increase traffic.
Mary McCormick in opposition of both 5D and 4C, I am in
opposition of the request for
having Popeyes/Burger King on Ector and University.
R Street Ector is NR1.
The requested businesses do not fit.
The businesses would be noisy at night and increase traffic
.
Marilyn Manning not wishing to speak, but in opposition of
5D and 4C.
I am opposed to having drive-through restaurant on the
corner of Ector and University.
Scott Sellers in opposition of both 4C and 5D.
Poor choice for a unique neighborhood.
Do not want 24-hour drive-throughs.
Keep to original plan of low traffic development that
closes at reasonable hour.
Marcia Kiefer in opposition of both 4C and 5D.
No entry/exit on Ector.
Katherine M. Dawson in opposition of 5D and 4C.
Don't trash our quiet tranquil neighborhood.
Our street has well-kept nice homes, nice yards.
We do not need traffic, smells, lights, trash, et cetera.
Heidi Robinson in opposition of 4C and 5D.
I strongly disapprove.
And then I have a stack of cards here, and I'm not sure if
these people would like to speak,
so I'm just going to read.
Donald Bounds.
I believe you already spoke, didn't you, sir?
Where's Donald?
Yes, you already spoke.
And he was in support.
Miguel Villarreal in support.
Lauren Glespie.
She does wish to speak.
Is Lauren here?
Thank you.
Would you like to approach?
Okay.
You are in support, though.
Duly noted.
Thank you, ma'am.
Armando Picachios.
That would be you.
Hello, sir.
Hello again.
You did speak in support.
Lisa Van Horn does not wish to speak.
She is in opposition of both 4C and 5D.
The high traffic nature of the proposed businesses would be
detrimental to the neighborhood.
And Kathy McMullen does not wish to speak but is in
opposition of -- you do wish to speak.
I'm sorry.
Please, go ahead.
Thank you.
Hello.
My name is Kathy McMullen.
I live at 815 Ector Street.
I've been asked by many people when you moved into this
area, there was an expectation that there would be
commercial development, which there was.
There is an expectation.
We looked at that before we moved here.
But there was also an expectation that the city would also
protect the character of our neighborhood and our property
values.
Ector Street has become pretty unwalkable now due to the
construction on 380.
And I'm hoping that that will die down.
I mean, really, at night I don't walk -- you're looking at
people going 40 or 50 miles an hour up Ector Street.
So I was hoping that once the construction was over, our
neighborhood would die back down into a walkable
neighborhood.
I don't see that happening with the drive-through dumping
onto our street.
The noise -- I've talked to some people who live back
behind Malone on the water burger, two and three blocks
from the water burger,
and they can tell you at 10 o'clock at night what people
are ordering over that microphone.
So it is noisy.
You can hear that.
And there's really no way to mitigate that.
As far as the odors go, when my husband and I first moved
here about seven years ago, we were looking at homes,
and we saw a home in Southridge that was about $100,000
less than the other homes.
So we were like, wow, we can't believe that.
We're going to go over and we're going to look at that
house.
We walked all the way through it.
We thought it was a great value.
We walked down into the backyard, and we were hit with the
odor of Jack in the Box and the speaker sounds,
and we said there's no way that we would pay for this home
to live right behind a fast food restaurant.
The last point is that this has been referred to a lot as a
corridor, but you have to understand that this is our
neighborhood.
This is not a corridor.
This is where we walk our dogs, where people walk their
children, where they play in the yard,
where we sit in our yard and where we barbecue.
And to put a fast food restaurant with a drive-through on N
ectar Street in that close proximity,
I believe, would turn our neighborhood into a corridor.
So I'm opposing both of these.
Thank you.
I'm out of cards, but this is a public hearing.
So if there's anyone else who hasn't gotten an opportunity
to speak yet, now is your chance if you'd like to approach
the podium.
And if you could please state your name and address for the
record, please, sir.
My name is Jay Howell.
I live at 1216 Nectar.
I would just pretty much like to reinforce what I've heard
so far, which are my concerns also.
I understand that eventually something will be built there.
And if it was me personally, I could see no problem with
what we have at the other end of Emory or Emory and Bonnie
Bray are there.
There's some office buildings, some kind down there.
It's not obnoxious.
It's not objectionable.
And if that kind of thing were to be proposed there, it
would not be the same kind of problem.
But a fast food restaurant will bring with it all of these
problems we've heard mentioned, the smell, if you've ever
noticed it,
just certain areas around where you have a high
concentration of these kind of things, it smells.
The trash, we already have trash from other fast food
restaurants that we get in our yard all the time.
And this would only make it that much worse.
The noise, like one lady just said, being able to hear them
order their food from, I mean,
we're at the fifth house up from where this would be, and
we're within the 500 foot range.
The light pollution, like when I first moved in here in '65
, there was nothing down at the end of Vector Street but
three foot high Johnson grass.
And there was no development out there.
We didn't buy the thing with any anticipation that it would
ever be developed into something like this.
And as far as the traffic study, one of my main concerns is
the traffic because you speak of a primary arterial,
which is University Drive and Vector Street as a collector.
I'm not really sure what that term means, but the traffic
study right now is like taking a study of something that's
not the way it's going to be.
And in other words, what it is right now is going to be a
lot worse if those two restaurants were there.
If you did a traffic study, you'd find out it's an undes
irable condition.
And as far as the -- it's almost like you expect nobody to
come from the south of University to these restaurants.
And like others have said, the North Texas crowd, the high
school kids, anybody to the south of University from Bonnie
Gray over to, you know,
as far as you want to go, anybody from the south is going
to come -- a lot of them are going to come right down V
ector.
At some point to get to that if you put an access point
that way.
So I really -- I don't think any of us in the area that
live there want a drive-through restaurant right there at
that location for all of the previously stated reasons.
And I would just want to ask you all if this was to be on
the end of your street, would you be in favor of it under
those conditions?
Thank you.
>> Thank you, sir.
This is a public hearing.
If you'd like to speak on this item, you're welcome to do
so now.
>> Hi, my name is Calvin Ballinger.
I live at 1228 Hillcrest.
This -- I think it's right outside the 200-foot zone, but
it's very, very close to my property.
I'm definitely opposed to this.
I'm just by virtue of the fact that a drive-through will
generate a lot of noise.
I work odd hours.
I have enough trouble sleeping from having PTSD.
And I don't need a bunch of drunken assholes ordering
chicken at 3 o'clock in the morning.
And so I appreciate all the effort that these guys have put
into proposing this.
But the only thing that I've heard is trying to make this
proposal less worse for the people that live in this
neighborhood.
And I just think it's a terrible idea.
So thank you.
>> Thank you, sir.
Anyone else who would like to speak?
This is a public hearing.
You're welcome to approach the microphone and let us know
your thoughts on this.
Going once, going twice.
Okay.
Thank you very much for hanging out tonight and letting us
know how you feel and standing up for your neighborhood.
I guess we open it up now for discussions.
We close the public hearing.
Close the public hearing at 819, and we will now open it up
for discussion among the commissioners.
Commissioner Beck.
Sorry.
If I could just make a point of order, just to educate the
audience in case you do not know regarding the voting
requirement on this matter,
the Roberts rules of order usually require a majority vote
of votes cast, which would be the members present.
We do have two members that are absent today.
However, our council has different rules that you have to
have, at least four votes in order for something to pass as
a majority.
And we only have five members on the panel, so we are going
to still require the four votes in order for this to pass.
And I just wanted everybody to be aware of that.
Quick clarification.
If something fails to get four votes, do we then consider
another motion or what's the procedural?
We could consider another motion provided in the scope of
the item that's been published.
Okay. Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
I must confess that coming in here and listening to staff's
arguments, I was persuaded that this is something we
probably should do.
I understand feelings of people in the neighborhood, and I
would probably feel the same way, too.
As far as traffic goes and trash and stuff like that, there
's going to be some of that.
Will it increase?
Possibly, yes.
But I guess my biggest concern here is the opposition I've
heard to it is quite vocal.
I understand the argument behind wanting to protect the
sanctity of your neighborhood.
And one of the things I heard that I hadn't heard before
that made sense to me, Mr. Hinnan made that comment, was
that this does kind of violate the effort of the Denton
Plan 2030
by being not diverse enough.
And I wasn't quite aware of it, but there are quite a few
of these type of establishments along University there that
kind of throw it out of kilter.
So that kind of weighed in on me.
But we are a body here that are supposed to be concerned
about people's neighborhoods.
I would have that feeling, too, and I would like to think
that the PNC would be there to back us up.
Based on what I've heard for their concerns, I would
probably vote against the part, not the ADP, but the item
that wants to rezone it.
Thank you.
Commissioner Rossell?
Thank you, Vice Chair.
Thank you for everyone taking time out of your night to
come and speak and be vocal about the opinions about your
own homestead.
I appreciate the developer for the work they put forth and
being here as well.
As I think about everything that was said tonight, the
overarching things that were mentioned, at least in this
item, was traffic, balanced growth, trash, and other kind
of pollutions, which I think is specific to an ADP.
So when I look at the rezone, I don't know if it's as
simple as this painting colored by numbers in terms of
casting a brush across the university corridor.
But I haven't received overwhelming evidence to think that
aligning the commercial zone across the corridor of
university would be a negative thing.
Now, the ADP is completely different.
I do have some significant concerns about what would be
used on the commercial zoning.
But you mentioned being opposed to the zoning.
I'd be more inclined to be for rezoning as it aligns with
future land use map, the 2030 plan outlined by the city.
And then obviously we'd have to address the ADP separately.
Thank you. Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
So we are hearing the zoning aspect of this case.
And zoning is typically the more critical.
Zoning sets all future uses going forward, the next 40, 50
years potentially.
And this is where the large uses come in.
Often this body sees contentious specific use permits or AD
Ps or things like that.
But those are only usually arguing a single sentence, a
single change in landscape, a change in buffer, a drive
through, an extra thousand square feet of building use.
In a rezone, when you go from an NR category, neighborhood
residential category, to like a commercial category, CMG,
we introduce probably 30 or 40 new potential uses here.
Well, obviously all of the conversation tonight has been
about the proposal for the restaurants.
This could be an office building.
It could be a shopping, a strip center.
It could be any number of things.
And so for me, actually, rezoning should be held to a
higher standard than a single change in use,
because this changes about 30 or 40 uses.
And what I've heard here is a lot of concern about encro
achment and nuisance, nuisances in traffic, litter, odor, so
forth.
A lot of this is not even necessarily traffic counts, but
auto cycling and the change in hours of the day that
traffic comes,
moving to a more commercial type traffic pattern instead of
a residential traffic pattern that's probably very, very
calm by 8 or 9 p.m.
And I see these concerns, they might be mitigatable by an
overlay district or something like that, but even an ADP is
not restrictive.
An ADP restricts a single site plan.
All they have to do is change the site plan.
Get a new site plan.
Typically, that would be a new developer comes in with a
completely different concept.
The ADP is just gone.
It isn't binding in any way.
So even whenever we have an ADP, and I'm sure that the
developer fully intends to build an 8-foot masonry wall and
angle parking away from the neighborhood
and all of those mitigating factors, if property changes
hands or the development falls through or 10 years from now
a different restaurant or different business comes in,
nothing in that is binding.
And so they could change the circulation pattern.
They could completely tear out everything and build an
office building or retail center or whatever.
And so for these reasons, I think it's more important to us
to address concerns of encroachment and nuisance on the
existing neighborhood.
Thank you.
Commissioner Dudowitz?
As we're all speaking to what's in front of us, as I
brought up earlier, these restaurants could be built there
now without any discussion.
That's approved.
It can be done.
What is that issue is the drive-through, which encroaches
and approaches on Ector.
The developer could turn around tomorrow and come back with
a plan that says we're going to do a drive-through, but it
's all going to be done through university.
And they're fine.
They can do that.
Somebody's shaking their head, but I understand that
because of -- you're right, with the drive-through.
The drive-through is the issue.
So that's -- thank you for making sure of that.
The ADP addresses one particular issue, and it's this time
in this property, next person coming in starts from scratch
.
And if it's building the current restaurants, they don't
have to put up any buffers or any other landscaping other
than what the ordinance requires.
So this is a difficult decision to be made here, and it all
rests around the drive-through.
Okay?
Thank you.
Commissioner Rossell, before I call on you, I want to turn
to speak to you, please.
Thank you.
So I have a couple of questions for staff before I make a
couple of comments.
Is there a small area plan for this neighborhood?
Is there anything in the works?
I know I read something in the DRC a few years ago.
I believe at one point there was a small area plan that was
in the infancy stages of getting together.
I don't believe that it has gone or has passed or has gone
farther than the infancy stage.
What would the neighborhood need to do in order to preserve
their neighborhood?
As far as the small area plan?
Yeah.
How would they get that ball rolling again?
I'm going to let Manal answer that.
Thank you for pointing that out. As part of our initiative
with the comp plan and the implementation of the comp plan
and the associated small area plans,
should the neighborhood decide to want to initiate or be
involved or create a small area plan,
all they have to do is contact our long-range planning
department, which Ron Minghita, he's in the audience.
I'll have him raise his hand.
He's in the audience.
You can contact him and he can --
Go.
And through that we can start the process of creating that
and understanding the needs of the community and
understanding the comp plan and trying to marry the two.
Thank you.
Set you up there, Ron.
I think there might be some people calling you tomorrow.
All right. Thank you.
My next question is about nuisances, regulating things like
odors, noise, lighting.
I know some of the lighting concerns could be addressed in
the ADP, but our -- is not sure if the question is for
legal or for staff,
but what is our role as planning and zoning to regulate od
ors, specifically from --
I'll take a stab at it and then legal may further expand on
it.
The ADP was -- is being used in this instance as a
mechanism to address some of those nuisance and impacts to
the neighborhood.
However, the ADP addresses only subchapter 13 of the Denton
Development Code requirements.
So those are mainly site design requirements, odor, hours
of operation, any of those types of issues aren't addressed
with the ADP.
I don't know if there are any other considerations that
legal would want to add to that.
How are odors contained in the ADP?
I mean, they're not.
There's no regulation of odor per se, unless it's a noxious
fume, and then it can be regulated through code.
But if it's just an unpleasant odor that's an annoyance,
that's a civil matter.
Okay. Thank you.
If I may.
Yeah, sure.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
We often see in our zoning ordinances things like bakeries
buffered from residential because they have the chance to
produce odors that normally baking is not a noxious odor,
but if it's 24/7 it becomes an annoyance.
So we use our zoning laws to prevent nuisance from
competitive or different uses.
Okay. Thank you.
Thanks for that clarification.
Okay.
I have a couple of comments that I wanted to make too, and
then Commissioner Roswell, thank you for your patience.
I understand, you know, staff has made a presentation here
about talking about how there's a commercial property CMG
all up and down university, and that is true.
And Julie, I'm going to quote you here.
When you say you spoke about the properties that, quote, "
the street it's on" and, quote, "the location on West
University Drive," I'd like to point out that this location
is also on Ector Street.
And I see how CMG can fit on University, but I do not see
how CMG fits on a residential street such as Ector.
So that was the first point I want to make.
And the properties that are east and west of this directly
are also zoned CMG, but they're not on a hard corner that
enters or exits into a neighborhood.
The only way you can get to those businesses is on
University Drive.
So, and I think that because this piece of property does
allow for some commercial uses, I'm really not leaning much
in favor of approving this rezone request because
commercial uses are currently allowed and would create a
sort of a buffer between the neighborhood and the rest of
the commercial uses.
So those are my comments. Commissioner Rozelle.
Thank you very much, Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you for reiterating the gravity of rezoning.
I certainly appreciate that this sets in motion a lot of
things.
So to that end, and this goes to Commissioner Briegel as
well, the Zoning Commission has the authority to limit this
to a University commercial zoning, right?
It's not inherently on Ector. We can limit access from E
ctor for all properties through the site planning?
Not through the zoning, but through the ADP potentially.
There's mechanisms to always protect an entrance from Ector
. Is there not? There's situations in which, just for
clarification, there's situations in which there are ways
in which an applicant can get access from Ector no matter
what?
I'm going to muddy your statement a little bit, and through
that, through discussion, I may be able to elaborate.
And Julie, correct me if I'm wrong, too.
Our Denton Development Code typically prevents or discour
ages access off of a primary arterial or primary roadway
such as University Drive.
In the instance where there is a secondary arterial such as
Ector, that becomes your main point of ingress and egress
per the ordinance.
However, let's now, we're talking about zoning, I
understand, but now we've mentioned the ADP a little bit,
and you've asked about site design and how can we limit
accessibility to a site if these issues come to light.
The reason why the University corridor right in, right out
access was suggested and then incorporated in the site
design was to attempt to limit the number of vehicles that
ingress off of Ector and to have the majority of the bulk
of the vehicles off of University Drive,
despite the ordinance stating that your primary access has
to come off of a secondary arterial,
because we understood that University Drive, in essence, is
designed and should be designed to accommodate these types
of uses, given the nature of that corridor, given the
existing land use pattern, and given the existing zoning
pattern.
And that's why we encourage that that be looked at.
However, the only thing you can limit in this instance, if
you review the ADP, you could make that recommendation.
But in terms of zoning, you could not place conditional
zoning or site design implications on the zoning case.
But then, if this use did not become a reality, then any
type of modifications or conditions on the ADP would not be
applicable, should the applicant not pursue this
application.
Only slightly muddied. I appreciate that. I understand that
through zoning, there's not a mechanism for entrance and
exits.
I was more curious about the protection of Ector that we,
the authority we had to protect Ector, because when I
initially saw this proposition, I kept thinking about the
Wendy's and Taco Bueno just east.
There's a single entrance, and then they split the property
, it looks like, and there's Cordell right to the west, but
neither one dump out on Cordell.
So I was just thinking if there's a way to mimic that, I'd
be curious, but that would be through the ADP and rezoning
would shut that down if there wasn't the rezone issue.
So we wouldn't have the opportunity to even have that
discussion. So I appreciate the clarification in allowing
me to think out loud.
I do have one question. Can someone explain to me a little
bit more about the small area plan and what power that
would provide the neighborhood in terms of preventing this?
I think this is a good opportunity for Ron to initiate his
long range planning.
This is Ron. You might want to talk to him.
Hi, Ron Mingida, planning department, long range planning
administrator. There was an attempt to do a small area plan
for the Ector-Body and Brea area.
My understanding is that the boundary of that small area
plan goes only up to Emory.
So all the properties south of Emory would be the area that
we would be looking at protecting, again, character,
special purpose for that specific area.
We would built in goals, objectives and guidelines in order
to protect that neighborhood.
The small area plan is just that it's a guiding document.
If we were to further try to protect it, we can also embark
in an overlay district that would even protect it even more
.
But the small area plan is just a study to identify what we
want that area to be, what it should be and what it could
be.
So we set boundaries, we set parameters in that regard.
Thank you.
Okay.
Question, Chair?
Commissioner Dudowitz.
You said that the boundary would end at Emory?
That's the current as it was proposed earlier. It never was
approved or adopted.
I understand. If it would be thought of as a small area
plan, would they have the opportunity to go beyond?
They could.
Ector up to?
Up to this property.
Up to what?
Up to university.
If the community chooses to include that area.
Thank you.
Okay.
So we've heard from all the commissioners. Commissioner
Taylor?
So I think we're moving a little bit more slowly on this
for a few reasons, but one of them is that we are short up
here on the DS, so it's not going to necessarily be a
simple vote.
So I want to make sure that we're reaching something that
we're basically in consensus for so we don't have to have a
bunch of hung votes.
And I do agree with Commissioner Rozelle that if this was
an SUP or a handful of other maybe like MPCs that require
site plan approval where we could limit access to Ector
altogether, create a buffer along Ector, you know, I think
this could potentially be compatible.
But this isn't an MPC. There isn't a way to get this to SUP
.
With an NRMU, it does not allow drive through restaurants
period, not even with an SUP.
When you go to categories that allow drive through
restaurants, they just allow them by right.
And so that means there isn't any kind of board review.
It's just you go file your building permit and you get a
building permit and go forth.
So for these reasons, I'm going to move that we recommend
denial of the rezoning due to the incompatible use that's
encroaching on an existing neighborhood, potential undue nu
isances created by this incompatible use of noise litter
traffic and so forth.
Cycling hours of operation and odor.
Thank you. So we have a first Commissioner Beck.
I don't know.
That wasn't. Yeah, he did make a motion.
Yeah, it's not on the board, but he did make a motion.
So we have a first by Commissioner Taylor.
And you move to deny this recommend denial.
We've got a second by Commissioner Beck.
Is there any further discussion on this before we vote?
So vote for is to recommend denial.
We clear on that. Okay. Thank you.
Okay.
Okay. So the.
So the motion passed the motion. How do I say this the
motion to deny has passed. So the rezone will not go into
effect or the next step is City Council.
Next up is City Council, but we recommend a denial.
Do we hear.
Do we do we now hear the ADP as well?
Quickly.
Oh, yes. Can we? Yes. So I guess we have the option of
postponing this until after we hear back from City Council.
What they choose to do about this case.
So I think we need a motion to as I understand though, the
passage or the denial makes this ADP moot.
It must be overridden.
Overridden.
Because it's an item and we might take it up later after
council decides it.
Council could by super majority vote overturn. And if they
approve it, then they're going to want to see an ADP
associated with that. The PNC will have to consider that
time.
So do we, we need to make a motion to postpone. I would
make a motion to postpone in this case because it's not a
city initiated. Okay.
So first commissioner Roselle, I motion to postpone item
for C to until when until hearing back from City Council on
the previously voted five D.
Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second.
Commissioner Dudowitz. I second the motion. Thank you. Okay
. First and a second to postpone the item for C, which is
the ADP until after we hear back from City Council on the
reason request.
But any conversation on this.
Okay, go ahead and I'm sorry. Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you. I'm just going to insert just use my pulpit up
here. So we have recommended denial to City Council. This
will go will most likely go to City Council for a vote.
So anybody who's interested in the outcome of this case
should pay attention and probably go to City Council in
three to four weeks, somewhere around there.
Thank you, Commissioner Taylor.
Seeing no other comments. I'm you already devote to postp
one
down there in the peanut gallery. All right.
All right. Motion passes five zero to postpone the ADP.
I'm wondering if we can take a five minute break or so. No,
10 minute break. We're going to take a quick 10 minute
break before we hear the rest of the agenda items. Thank
you.
It's the time is eight forty three or so.
Thank you and welcome back to the regular session of
tonight's planning and zoning commission meeting. The time
now is eight fifty five.
Up next, we are going to hear item. I just went through
this.
Is it five a that we're doing five a hold a public hearing
and consider making a recommendation to City Council
regarding amending the procedural and development standards
for the razor ranch overlay district by superseding the
previously approved razor ranch overlay district
classification and amending Chapter 35 subchapter seven
fifteen of the city of Denton development code.
The approximately four hundred ten acre site is generally
located on the north and south sides of US Highway three
eighty between I thirty five and Bonnie Bray. Do I open the
public hearing at this time? Thank you.
And that would be at eight fifty. Yes. But if I if you
could just allow me to make a correction to that item just
for the record, it is not super seizure.
It is an amendment and the backup materials you'll see that
it is actually amending the overlay not superseding. Yes,
ma'am. Thank you.
Sophie, I open the public hearing. I'm sorry at eight fifty
five and we're going to hear from Sophie.
All right. This is S.I. fifteen sixteen the razor ranch
zoning amendment.
The request before you is to consider making a
recommendation to City Council regarding amending the
procedural and development standards for the razor ranch
overlay district, which should supersede the previously
approved razor ranch overlay district classification and
amend Chapter thirty five subchapter seven fifteen of the
Denton development code.
Razor Ranch is approximately four hundred ten acres located
located on the north and south sides of US Highway three
eighty between I thirty five and Bonnie Bray Street and
scripture on the south.
Purpose of this amendment is to eliminate ambiguities
between your concept plan sub areas and uses as well as
amend any exhibits that conflict with past site plans.
The amendment also aligns the goals of the Razor Ranch Town
Center vision, which was presented to City Council on
January six twenty fifteen with the concept plan.
I'm just going to run through a summary of the amendments.
The first one is to amend the concept plan to reflect
current and future development as proposed by red
development in the vision presentation to City Council.
Here we have the exhibit bees be one. The original is on
the left on the proposed changes are on the right.
If you follow my mouse, you'll be able to see that we've
extended the town center up to include some of the parking
fields, modified South RR two to include the approved Winko
building and the hotel RROMF district now aligns with lot
nine are of the razor ranch town center,
which has been previously approved by the planning and
zoning commission.
This is an exhibit showing the underlying zoning district.
Again, the underlying zoning district has not changed.
The only thing that has changed are the concept plan lines,
which are reflected in exhibit be one.
This is exhibit be to the bubble plan as part of the
current ordinance.
It is it will be removed as part of this amendment as it is
not a regulatory document.
That concept plan is the document that sets the boundaries
for the sub areas and the permitted uses.
The density zone plan.
It's exhibit be three has also been modified to reflect
contemplated development of multifamily.
The number of allowable units, density and trigger
requirements that are based on non residential development
have been left unchanged.
This is the proposed change again extends into lot nine are
where there's contemplated multifamily development.
And again, just to reiterate, there's no change of density
or overall number of units allowed in those zones.
This is exhibit be five.
It has been modified to reflect current built conditions
specifically to the marketplace and to the cook children's
property.
The next amendment is to clarify criteria for site plans.
Site plans are reviewed in accordance with the development
code as modified by the razor range overlay district.
And again, to reiterate, the permitted uses are governed by
sub areas such as the RR ones and the RR twos.
To summarize, the city of Denton is amending the razor
ranch overlay district to eliminate inconsistencies and
ambiguities of the concept plan and outdated exhibits as
well as procedural regulations.
Notification were sent out to properties within 200 feet
and 500 feet.
We have received none to this date.
Staff is recommending approval of the request as is
compatible with the DDC section 3573.
I'll stand for any questions.
>> Commissioner Taylor.
>> Thank you, Vice Chair.
I just have a few questions, Sophie.
>> Sure.
>> I think I know the answers to these, but I'll go ahead
and ask them.
Does this change permitted uses within the razor ranch
shopping center?
>> No.
>> Does it change landscaping requirements?
>> No, as far as they relate to what's within RR one or RR
two.
None of the bulk of that, you'll know the magazine, C and D
of the razor ranch overlay district, none of that has
changed.
If a boundary has changed, it would now have to comply with
that sub area.
So any area that's within RR one now must comply with the R
R one standards.
>> And so as an example, masonry coverage on a building,
patio space, pedestrian orientation, amount of --
>> Correct.
>> The plaza.
>> Yeah, plaza.
So have any of those requirements changed?
>> Nope, they remain.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Any other questions for staff?
Thank you, Sophie.
If the applicant is here, would you care to speak on this
issue?
>> No.
>> This is a public hearing.
I have one card from Suzanne Smith.
I'm not sure if Suzanne would like to speak on this or not.
She marked 5A.
She just wrote, I am unclear as to the benefit or reason
for this amendment to the overlay ordinance.
I also have one card, it's not marked, but it looks like it
's in regards to razor ranch from Frank Mayhew.
Would you care to speak on this item, sir?
Fantastic.
Okay.
Well done, Sophie.
Great job.
>> On this section.
>> On this section, yes, sir.
Okay.
Thank you.
So this is a public hearing.
If anyone would like to speak for or against this item, you
're certainly welcome to approach the podium now.
For or against anyone?
Okay.
With that, I will close public hearing at 903 and open it
up to discussion among the commissioners.
Is there any discussion on this item?
The vice chair would entertain a motion.
Commissioner Detowitz?
I recommend approval as submitted.
Commissioner Rossell?
I second that.
We have a first from Commissioner Detowitz and a second
from Commissioner Rossell.
Is there any conversation that we'd like to have before we
vote?
Okay.
Then please vote on the board.
That motion passes, 5-0.
Next up is public hearing 5B.
Hold a public hearing and consider a final replat of the
Razor Ranch Town Center, Phase 1, Lots 10, R1, 11 and 12,
Block A,
being a replat of Razor Ranch Town Center, Phase 1, Lot 10,
R and Lot 1, Block 1, Razor Ranch South, Conveyance Platte,
Cabinet Y, Slide 470.
The approximately 73.921 acre property is generally located
at the southwest corner of University and I-35.
With that, I will open the public hearing at 905 and we'll
hear from staff.
Thank you, Chair.
This is FR 1526, the final replat of the Razor Ranch Town
Center.
It's for three lots, being a replat of Razor Ranch Town
Center, Phase 1, Lot 10, R and Lot 1, Block 1 of the Razor
Ranch South, Conveyance Platte.
Section 212-14 of the Texas Local Government Code requires
a public hearing for any replat of a subdivision or part of
a subdivision without vacation of the preceding platte.
This is the first page of the platte and it contains Lot 10
, R1.
This is the second page of the platte, containing lots 10,
R, a continuation of lot 10, R1, lot 11 and lot 12.
The schematic before you are the existing conditions of the
platte, lot 10, R, and to the north and then to the south
there's an existing conveyance platte.
So to facilitate the platte of the convention center, you
have lot 11, which was taken out of lot 10, R.
Lot 10, R now becomes lot 10, R1.
Lot 12 was pulled out of the existing conveyance platte and
became lot 12.
And then the remainder will be conveyed as part of a convey
ance platte.
Project number is CV15-4 and is before you for
consideration this evening.
All of the technical requirements of the platte have been
met and the platte is in order as submitted.
The replat complies with all debt and development code
requirements and staff recommends approval.
I'll stand for any questions.
>> Are there questions for staff?
Okay.
Thank you, Sophie.
Would the applicant care to speak?
This is a public hearing.
If anyone would like to speak for or against this item, you
're certainly welcome to at this time.
Is there anyone that would like to speak?
Okay.
With that, I will close the public hearing at 9.07 and open
it up to discussion.
Commissioner Taylor.
>> I move approval of this platte.
>> Commissioner Beck.
>> Second.
>> Is there any further discussion on this?
We've got a first from Commissioner Taylor and a second
from Commissioner Beck.
Okay.
Then please vote on the board.
That motion passes, 5-0.
Up next is 3A.
Am I correct in that?
3A.
We're going to go back to the consent agenda.
We did pull item 3A at the beginning of this meeting.
We'll hear it now, which is to consider conveyance platte
of lot 13, block 1 of the Razor Ranch Town Center, phase 1.
Do we just move right into--we don't need a staff
presentation on this?
Okay.
All right.
Commissioner Taylor.
>> I move acceptance of platte of 3-1A.
3A, excuse me.
>> We have a motion for approval of item 3A from
Commissioner Taylor.
Commissioner Rossell.
>> I second that motion.
>> Got a first and a second.
If there's no discussion, then we can vote on the board.
Item 3A passes unanimously, 5-0.
Now we move on to items for individual consideration.
Item 4A, consider approval of a site plan within the Razor
Ranch South Campus for a drive-through restaurant on lot 1,
block A of the Razor Ranch Town Center, phase 1.
This is not a public hearing, so I don't have to note the
time, correct?
>> Correct.
>> Okay.
I'm new to this.
Thank you.
>> Well, we took it a little out of order.
>> We did.
I know.
It's very confusing.
>> Thank you.
Okay.
So from that, we'll hear from staff.
>> All right.
Thank you.
This is SP15-4, the In-N-Out Burger Razor Ranch Site Plan.
Request before you to consider approval of a site plan
within the Razor Ranch South Campus for a 3,870-square-foot
drive-through restaurant on lot 1, block A of the Razor
Ranch Town Center, phase 1.
Subject property is outlined in red on the screen.
It's on the south side of US Highway 380 and 300 feet east
of I-35.
Subject property is located within the Razor Ranch Overlay
District.
It's further located in the South RR2 sub-district.
Drive-throughs and restaurants are permitted in that
district.
So we go over some previously approved projects.
The In-N-Out Burger, if approved tonight, will be next to
the Chili's on lot 2.
This was previously approved as well as Multitenant Retail
on lot 4.
Raising Cane's Drive-Through Restaurant on lot 5.
Wynco on lot 9.
And then Multitenant Retail was also recently approved next
to the Wynco.
Razor Ranch site plans are required to submit a site plan,
landscape plan, and building elevations.
This is the site plan for the In-N-Out Burger.
It is located again on lot 1.
There is an approved TxDOT permit for this opening onto
University.
The lot coverage is 74%.
Landscape area is 25%.
And it complies with that section of the Overlay District.
This is the landscape plan.
They provide 29% parking lot landscaping, 37% parking lot
tree canopy.
As for the Hartscape and Plaza area, they've combined three
elements into that Plaza area,
including outdoor dining, additional pedestrian seating, as
well as integrated shade to that Plaza area.
These are the elevations.
The top one is the south elevation, as you would be looking
north from the town center.
The east elevation is, as you would be looking, from the
adjacent lot to the Chili's.
And this is also considered their main entrance.
The north elevation is what you'd be looking at from 380.
And the west elevation is what you would be looking at from
the internal drive.
The elevations substantially comply with the architectural
requirements for the Razor Ranch Overlay District.
This includes elements as to the color scheme, as well as
the building material.
So the site plan, just to go through the criteria for
approval,
the site plan does comply with the concept and schematic
plan, as the use is permitted.
The site plan also provides for a compatible arrangement of
buildings and land uses.
It's bordered by University Drive to the north and is
surrounded by other commercial uses.
The site plan shares internal drive aisles and allows for
the safe movement of pedestrians and vehicular traffic.
So it meets this criteria for approval.
And it also fully complies with all other sections of the
Overlay District.
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed site plan,
as it is consistent with the Razor Ranch Overlay District.
And I'll stand for any questions.
Commissioner Rozelle.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
I have maybe more point of clarification.
One of the entrances to that property is on the far west,
and it's a right in, right out, I believe.
Correct. On the west side of that landscape, there's going
to be a road, right?
Correct. This is an internal drive aisle.
Okay.
And it will connect this road down here.
I can actually take you back to this.
This is Lot 1. This is where the Manow Burger is.
There's an entrance here.
And this internal drive aisle acts as kind of a spine
between the auto-oriented kind of pad buildings on this
north side.
And this road here will eventually be your entrance to the
town center.
Okay. So on University, right there on the west side, there
is a curb cut for a north turn.
So you're heading east. You can turn into that racetrack or
quick trip right there.
Is it an obligation of TxDOT to have a turn lane going left
?
Or is it just assuming that they would turn on that street?
If there's a curb cut there but not a turn lane, I wonder
if that causes any confusion, if people can turn left into
and out?
I know that the analysis was done with this TxDOT permit.
Earl Escobar is here, and he can probably answer any
questions to that TxDOT permit and the requirements that
were there for that.
I was wondering about that left turn being open but not
designated.
Thank you.
Easier to explain with an aerial.
Yeah.
I can explain it.
Good evening, Commissioner Earl Escobar, Engineering
Department.
There is a median opening at the driveway location.
However, there is not a left turn lane to head south onto
the site.
So that is why this driveway was only approved as a right
in, right out.
And that's why you have that pork chop and island to
prevent those left turns from --
Perfect. I didn't know there was that island there.
So there would be kind of a block from that left turn
getting in there.
And that would also prevent any left turn movements out of
the site onto 380 as well.
Perfect. Thanks for that clarification.
Are there other questions for staff?
Okay. The applicant is here. Would you like to speak?
No.
Are there questions for the applicant?
Okay.
And I did not see any cards submitted for anyone that would
like to speak to this item.
So I guess we're moving on to discussion from the
commissioners.
I just wanted to point out to both staff and to the
applicant,
I really appreciate you all pointing out where the bike
racks were.
I know I've been up here for a couple of years, Yammering,
about that.
And I've noticed that has come to us in other Razor Ranch
applications
and other applications from other applicants in the city.
And you all are starting to like not only put in the bike
racks proactively,
but point them out. And I just wanted to thank you for that
.
I think it furthers our goal as a bike and pedestrian
friendly city.
So thank you.
Any conversation on this?
You're going to let me have the last word?
Commissioner Taylor?
I move approval of the site plan.
Commissioner Dudowitz?
I second the motion.
Got a first and a second to approve this.
Any further discussion?
Okay. Then let's vote.
That motion passes unanimously 5-0.
Thank you. And then our next item is item 4B.
Consider approval for a site plan within the Razor Ranch
South Campus
for a convention center and hotel on lots 11 and 12,
block A of the Razor Ranch Town Center, phase one.
Go ahead, Sophie. Take it away.
This is SP158, the Razor Ranch Embassy Suites and
Convention Center.
The request is to consider approval of a site plan
in the Razor Ranch South Campus for 115,860 square foot
hotel
and convention center on lots 11 and 12,
block A of the Razor Ranch Town Center, phase one.
Site is approximately 12 acre tract.
It's located on the south side of US Highway 380 and 500
feet east of I-35.
It's located in this red outline here.
Subject property is located within the Razor Ranch Overlay
District.
It's further located in the South RR1 Sub-District.
Hotels and convention centers are both permitted in this
sub-district.
Again, Razor Ranch site plans.
They submit a site plan, landscape plan, and building elev
ations.
This is the site plan for the convention center.
This is oriented so that north and US 380 are towards the
left side of your screen.
They are at 82% lot coverage and 18% landscaped area.
Just to show the footprint of the building,
everything that is inside the blue, the dark blue outline,
is building footprint.
Anything in the yellow outline, that is the tower for the
hotel.
Just to show the disparity kind of between those two
and how it's located and how it's sited.
This is the landscape plan.
11% parking lot landscaping is provided as well as 41% tree
canopy.
Again, there's a balanced landscape consistent with
convention centers.
You also have the town center located off to the left side
that provides that visual corridor to the convention center
.
They also provided hardscape and plaza area that complies
with the overlay district.
They included seating area, additional plaza trees, shade
with open space, bike racks, and planters.
They also have an event lawn on the front of the building.
These are the elevations that were provided.
They were also provided to you during work session.
The wrong copy was in your backup, so I just wanted to
clarify that.
This elevation is the north as you would be looking from
the town center to the south.
This is the entrance to the hotel and to the convention
center.
The tower is then on the top.
The Hoolahands restaurant is located where my mouse is over
on the left.
This bottom elevation here, the south elevation,
that's as you would be looking north from the other side of
the property.
This is a wall that's longer than 100 feet,
but it's been broken up by different building materials,
colors,
to give a better sense of the four-sided architecture we
really like to see throughout the Razor Ranch town center.
And then, of course, you have the tower from the hotel.
This is the east elevation.
The top elevation here is as you would be looking from
Heritage Trail.
Again, you have changes in building materials and colors to
give a more pedestrian feel along the side of the building,
as well as on the west side there's windows, additional
entrances to the building,
and this west elevation is as you would be looking from the
highway, I-35.
Site plan does comply with the concept and schematic plan.
Hotels and convention centers are permitted by this concept
plan.
Site plan also provides a compatible arrangement of
buildings and land uses and satisfies this criteria for
approval.
It's interior to the overall development and is surrounded
by other commercial uses.
Site plan also meets the third criteria for approval.
It allows for the access of pedestrians and safe vehicular
traffic throughout the site.
And the site plan also fully complies with all other
development regulations of the overlay ordinance.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan as it's
consistent with the Razor Ranch overlay district.
And I'll stand for any questions.
Any questions for staff?
Okay. Thank you, Sophie.
And I think I know your answer, but would the applicant
like to speak to this issue?
And are there any questions for the applicant?
Okay. I think you're good. Thanks.
Okay. So is there any conversation that we'd like to have
on this item?
Is there a motion to approve?
Commissioner Rozelle?
I motion to approve this item.
And Commissioner Dudowitz?
I second the motion.
All right. We've got a first and a second. Is there any
further conversation?
Seeing none, we can vote on the board.
That motion passes 5-0.
So I'm looking over our agenda and we skipped around a bit,
but I think we covered everything.
Is that correct? Okay.
So then our next item then would be 6-A, discussion of the
Planning and Zoning Commission Project Matrix.
Thank you, Vice Chair.
That item, the report in there is basically identifying
items that the commission collectively wanted to be
discussed with projected timelines and tentative dates.
If you have any questions regarding that, we can address
those.
We're working diligently to try and address most of the
requests made.
Commissioner Taylor?
Thank you, Vice Chair.
I notice the third item on the list is a presentation
regarding bicycle linkage component of the Denton Mobility
Plan.
And that's scheduled for just a few weeks from now.
If it wouldn't be too much work, I would love to see a
rough timeline of coming soon projects.
If there's stuff that's planned in the next year or two or
whatever timeline it might be, if it's one year within
three years, within five years of projects related to
bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
We can definitely discuss that with Julie Anderson and
provide you an update on that.
Yeah, and I don't want to create a huge amount of work
creating some kind of in-depth list and timeframe.
But if there's a known that these projects are in the
progress now and these are planned in the next two years or
something like that.
Commissioner Rossell?
Thank you.
I'm not sure if it should be on the matrix, but two
meetings ago, three meetings ago, there was discussion
about there was actually a bicycle count completed by Julie
Anderson and her team.
We got an update on the outcome of there's like seven
locations that they did the bike count on.
If we could get an update on that research.
And that might be coming at this January 27th meeting.
I'm not sure if that's included in the presentation.
But I know there was that study done. I would just like to
see the results of that.
Sure.
Anything else on item 6A?
And with that, we went through everything.
So we're about ready to go home at 925.
I will close the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.
Thank you, everyone.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry, Commissioner.
Pardon me.
I didn't see you ring in here.
That's right.
I didn't hit the bar.
I think I saw the answer to my question about the duties
and responsibility to Planning and Zoning with blighted
areas is to be forthcoming.
Correct.
We will provide some insight and some will provide the
Commission with the roles and responsibilities of the P&Z
as well.
Okay.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else that I missed?
We're good.
Okay. Thank you.
And with that, I will close the meeting at 925.
Thank you very much for staying so late.
Good work, team.