Apr 13, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2016-04-13 5:00 PM

meeting our work session for April the 13th 2016. It is 5. 05. Our meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and our first order of business in our work session is going to be to receive clarification of agenda items and I will turn that over to Manal for presentation. Thank you Chairperson Strange. We have a few plots on the agenda if you'd be interested in going through those we can do that. If you have any questions on a specific plot we can address those. Commissioner Beck. I do have a couple of questions probably nothing we can deal with but yeah a couple of them. Okay. Something popped up. Okay should we address them one by one which plot? Okay. Okay on PP15-0024 the Meadow Oaks Division. It mentioned that the proposed residential lots exceed the maximum permitted density of four dwellings units per acre however based upon a continuous level permitting and planning. In other words we can do this anyway because of something that was done in 1970. So can I get that clarified? I'll invite Julie Wyatt to go ahead and go over this plot and explain the technicalities associated with it. I mean I looked at the lots on the houses that are already there and got a little measure in there and it didn't look like they're that much bigger so how are we getting more? Well the current zoning, let me make sure I have my, is NR4 and so the existing the 43 lots exceeds the permitted density for NR4, four dwelling units per acre. This Meadow Oaks edition was originally plotted in 1970 since that preliminary or the preliminary plot was approved in 1970. Since that time there have been a series of final plots done and permits that have been pulled developing those residential lots ever since then. So last summer the property owner approached us and requested a vested rights determination and at that time we looked at the request and legal looked at it as well as the city manager and determined that because those permits had continued to be pulled and those plots had continued to be approved that it was vested to what was approved in 1970. So it's a little more dense than what is typically permitted in NR4 but because of the vested rights that's why it's why it's got that little those additional lots. Nothing real noticeable so let's see, let's see, the other one, CB 16-02, that's, is it, Beverly's and Bitt Mike's. Oh okay, do we know exactly what DME is going to use that lot for? Because you got three houses that I think people are living in now. Just curious. Mike Bell will address them. I think I can find it up here. Doesn't seem to be up here but I think it's this lot right here. Yeah that's kind of the side of, part of that is the existing substation right now. Yeah. And when the new substation comes in that's going to be dec ommissioned but they don't have any plans for it at this time. Okay, it could stay vacant then. Okay, okay. Thank you. And then lastly FP 16-02, Bill, Judge Carmel. There is that one area that is called the upland habitat and environmental sensitive area so we're not building on that, that's correct, right? That's correct. Actually this entire lot is under contract with the Parks Department to be purchased for a park. We've got right away there for the future post oak road. That's correct. Okay, very good. Thank you. That's it. Seeing no other plaque questions I'm actually going to, yes , sorry. Sorry, I should flip the page. FP 15-035, Teesley trails. There is an existing pond there, very big one. I'm just curious, it looks like according to the plans we 're going to build over that so is that going to be plowed over? I have a picture of it right here. Let's see if I can rotate it so we... Was it on the print, the plat? Let's see, let me see where you're... So here's the existing houses right here to the north. I guess Teesley kind of does this thing. I'm not sure where exactly you're looking at, but this is in conformance with the preliminary plot that was approved. If there are any ponds on site or any drainage areas on site, they would have to accommodate for that. And they would have to make sure that that is directed to the storm sewer. Maybe I was just, I got on Google, got the Google map and got down in the general area and I thought it looked like right there. Because again, where are the houses that are already in existence there to this development? This is that road that's cutting in now right off of Tees ley. Are you saying houses north of there? Well, I guess it would be considered north because at that point Teesley is going north and south. Let me get to...now it's going to be slow. Let's see if we can figure out. Get on the same page here. Maybe. So are you talking about this pond? Yes. Okay. This is south of there. So it's kind of hard to see because on these maps the parc els aren't reflecting what you're seeing. So this little section right here lines up with, approximately with this section. So that pond is north of this development. So yes sir, this area, the platted area is going to be more in this general direction. All right. That's it. For sure. Thank you. Sure. Any other questions on plats? No. We'll move on to our next presentation. The next presentation is for the ADP 160003B. I'm going to ask Mike Belt to make this presentation. Thank you, and all members of the commission. All right. So this is ADP 160003. This is an alternative development plan. So for those in the audience, this is a request to deviate from site design standards only, and those are located in subchapter 13 of the development code. This is not a zoning issue. It's not a platting issue. It's strictly site design regulations. The subject property is roughly shown here in yellow. It's located on the south side of Fannin Street. The University of North Texas is up here to the north. 35 East is located down here. It's kind of in an eclectic area with a mix of housing types. It's in a downtown residential two zoning district, which allows multifamily, which is what they're trying to build here. And it's in a future language area, neighborhood university compatibility area. So the comp plan has called this out as an area that's going to see a mix of housing types and a bit of a transition as it goes from what was a single family neighborhood to more mix of housing types. What you can see here is a proposed site plan. It contains two buildings that are proposed for immediate development and then one kind of reserved. They'll build one here in the future. It's got the parking spaces and the sidewalk directly from the street to serve the property. How this deviates from the site design standards. First of all, there's a requirement that for multifamily buildings that at least 50% of the frontage have buildings within 20 feet of the curb. So what that means is if you take 20 feet back from the curb, you draw this line across it, 50% of that needs to be touched by building at some point. This standard is really kind of more for large scale developments, not meant for this kind of small lot type of one or two unit buildings. And then the second requirement there are questions to dev iate from is that buildings shall be directly accessed from the street and sidewalk, and that one ground floor entrance be oriented towards the street and include a porch. The African originally intended to do a, or proposed to do kind of a false door here with a landing and no connectivity to the sidewalk to kind of meet that provision. We all thought it was best just not to have a fake door and enhance the elevations a little bit. So that's what they proposed to do. And that's where it would be required by code. That right arrow is there instead going to do it right here on this walkway. And to kind of mitigate those requirements, provide a little enhanced aesthetics. They're going to do 100% masonry and stone on the buildings . The north side is what you'll see from the street right here. I will note that the applicant did take, we did work with the applicant to screen the stairwell. So they went above and beyond to make this screening here so you won't see it from the street. And then all four sides are masonry or brick. To give you an idea of what the landscaping will be, so it 's not just building front. There will be landscaping along the front and in front of the parking spaces as well. Just kind of put that site plan reference of what's around it to give you an idea of scale. It's completely in scale with what's around there in height and size and density. And planning feels that it's an appropriate request. So staff does recommend approval of the ADP. We're going to recommend a few conditions. One, that it comply with the site plan, landscape plan and elevations. One, that the building facades be 100% masonry or brick as they're proposing. And third, this is just clarification for the future to let everybody know that one additional building is going to come in. And that we're allowing that without amending the ADP so long as they comply with all our requirements. Just to make that clear. So with that I'll take any questions you might have. Commissioner Detowich. >> In essence, it's going to be further from the road than originally, which is kind of nice. And they're turning the building sideways instead of having the front sidewalk coming up to a door or patio. So it's really kind of enhancing, I think, what they're building here compared to what it would have to be to meet code originally. >> Considering the neighborhood and the narrow width of the lot, I think it's appropriate as well. >> Good. Thank you. >> Commissioner Weigel. >> Thank you, Chair. Mike, can you show me where there might be a sidewalk on F annin Street? Is the sidewalk that's built on the property, does that connect with another sidewalk that's already? >> It does not. >> Is the applicant proposing to build a sidewalk on Fannin ? There's a high pedestrian area really close to UNT. There's a lot of students that live there. Are they going to be walking in the street or are they going to be making like a path in the grass as they try and stay? >> What they'll be doing is connecting, they will be connecting from the driveway here, but not connecting the entire width. They're going to do payment in lieu of construction as there aren't any other sidewalks. >> Are there other sidewalks in the neighborhood? >> There are not. >> But doesn't it require, don't we require new developments to build a sidewalk so that when other new developments come in, eventually we'll have sidewalks everywhere? >> We do, typically. Engineering allowed payment in lieu of, in this case, and we'll come back and put the sidewalk in at a future date. >> So someone will put a sidewalk in later? >> They're paying the cost to put a sidewalk in to the city so that we can come back in later and do it. I don't know if there are any imminent plans at this point, but that's the purpose of the payment. >> I see. Okay, so the applicant is not building a sidewalk now. They're giving money to the city so that whenever that, whenever Fannin gets redone, a sidewalk will be built at least on that stretch, or will a sidewalk eventually be built along the whole length of that block? Explain that to me a little bit more. When are we getting a sidewalk? >> That I don't know. The payment is paid so that if they do ever come in and do a project on Fannin, that money can go towards putting a sidewalk in on the entire stretch of Fannin. >> How often do other developers do that? I mean, wouldn't it make more sense to have the developer just, if there's no immediate plans to rebuild Fannin, why wouldn't we just require the applicant to build the sidewalk like we would require any developer to build a sidewalk? >> And then when the city does eventually go back in and repair the street, then we would repair or stay off of the sidewalk or repair the sidewalk at the same time. I mean, it just, it seems a little backwards to me to have them pay that and then maybe we do a sidewalk 15 years from now, but we kind of need one now. >> I wish I had a better answer for you for that. Unfortunately, that's kind of, our engineering department makes that decision. And it is, it's uncommon that they do that in areas where there aren't a lot of sidewalks. I'm sure that's something we could get engineering in here to explain maybe. >> It sounds like a bigger problem we might need to talk about as a team. >> Sure. >> Okay, all right, thank you. >> Commissioner Rossell. >> Thank you, Chair. Before we question, listening to your comments, recall Commissioner Dudowitz talking about how that was a requirement for one of your businesses and you have a sidewalk to nowhere, or you have a road to nowhere. >> I'm the only one that has a sidewalk and within half a mile of the side of me. >> So I understand what you're saying, but I also am conflicted on a sidewalk to nowhere. Someone's going to be walking on grass and get a great sidewalk just to be back on grass. So, and who knows if when fanning gets redone, if it ever gets redone, if that would have to tear up a sidewalk and then you're duplicating efforts. So I think I'm okay with the sidewalk issue. But the question I have is, does the ADP not have to put out notice? >> No, it does not. >> But the ADP we had for the S that does require notice. >> Alternative ESA, it's given an ADP name because we don't have another acronym for it. But that is part of our zoning map and so it does require notice. >> Got you. Thank you. >> Commissioner Beck. >> There's no tree mitigation with this change. I notice they're removing three secondary trees and one large secondary tree. >> Yes, it's been reviewed by our forester and they will be required to mitigate those trees. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mike. >> The next item on our agenda would be a zoning case and an SUP to be heard at the same time. For 160002 and SUP150014, Julie White will be presenting this. Thanks, Julie. >> Good evening. All right. This request is to consider a rezoning from NR3 to NR6 and also a specific use permit for elderly housing. Just to orient you to the site, here is North Carroll. The property is right here. You're probably familiar with the Denton Rehab. And there is residential development to the north and also to the east. To the south, there's some religious institutions. Also the fairgrounds are here. And then farther south is the Denton Center. To the west, you then have some additional elderly housing and some undeveloped property. So to take you back in time, just give you a little background on what's happened on this site. So in 1964, it was an open piece of property. You can see there is some residential development to the north. There is some development, residential development in this area. Fairgrounds are there and then the Denton Center is there. Skip ahead to 1972. The previous codes did allow this use in the zoning district in which it was located. And so here you have the subject property. The first section of the facility had been built. It was built in 1969. There was more residential development to the north, a little more in this area. In 1997, they had come back for an SUP to add on this section in the back. The neighborhood just to the north, the adjacent neighborhood had begun and so houses were being built there . And then it looks to be that this area here was pretty much built out. And then in 2001, the neighborhood just to the north was pretty much complete. And it had built adjacent to the property. And then all other elements seemed to have remained the same. So last fall, maybe late last summer, the applicant submitted for a building permit in order to update the facility to meet more industry standards today. So update the facility, get some new elements to it. In that building permit, they requested to remove one of these wings and then one of these wings and add this new wing here. The net result, the net square footage that would be proposed is about 5,300 square feet in addition to what's on the ground now. So they're taking some, they're adding some, so it would be a net of about an additional 5,300 square feet. Here zooms in a little bit to what they're proposing. They are proposing to meet that 15 foot buffer that is required adjacent to the single family residential. But this is really all that they're asking to change on the property. Here's the landscape plan that goes with that. Here are the plantings that are required per that type C 15 foot landscape buffer. Within this modification and renovation, they're also proposing a landscape courtyard in the center. And here it is pulled out, some additional landscaping. Also within the building permit, they had an updated elevation currently, and you can see how the building currently looks now. It's a masonry building. It's one story. It's somewhat residential in nature. With this request and with this renovation, they would add some additional decorative elements to the building. Also add a steeper pitch to the roof, some rock elements to the front. Here's the rendering of what they're proposing. So when we got that building permit, we looked at it. We realized that the use was not permitted in the zoning district in which it sits. In 2002, the city was rezoned citywide, and some new zoning districts were applied. In this case, it was NR3. NR3 does not permit elderly housing. So we discussed this with the applicant, and we talked about how they should move forward. And so they came back to us proposing a neighborhood residential 6 zoning district with an SUP for the elderly housing use. So here's the future land use map. As you can see, north of -- here's the site right here. North of the site, there is a low density residential future land use designation. The site is in the middle of a moderate density residential future land use designation. And then down here near university, as you get closer to the Denton Center and the development on university, you have community mixed use. So when we look at the criteria for approval for both zoning and SUP, really the first place we start is the future land use. This future land use designation of moderate density residential, the intent is to have more residential development with a density of about 4 to 12 dwelling units per acre. This should complement the existing established neighborhoods. This is often in infill areas. But it should also provide a transition area. So between -- let's go back to the map. So between the low density residential and then the commercial, you can see that this is a great example of where moderate density residential should be. Because it really provides a transition zone between the more suburban low density development and the commercial development. It also provides a buffer between those two designations. Other considerations we looked at. Well, first of all, so the proposed NR6 does meet the intent of the moderate density future land use designation. The maximum density is six dwelling units per acre. It has primarily residential uses, so it would complement the character and what's existing out there. So if the property ever did redevelop, it would be compatible with what it's adjacent to. It's also the -- it also provides the transition between the low density residential, that NR3 and NR4 to the north. And then the NRMU, the more commercial districts to the south. When we look at the SUP, this facility has been there since 1969. The residential has developed adjacent to it. So when staff looks at that and when we look at what an elderly housing use is, we really think in terms of what the use is, that is appropriate for residential areas. Where we can run into difficulty sometimes with elderly housing is maybe on the scale and the design. And so that's why the SUP is important. Because you can look at the scale, the design of what they 're proposing, and make sure that it fits within the character and it is appropriate within the surrounding area. In this case, staff does feel it's appropriate. We feel like what they're proposing is really a continuation of what's been existing out there for quite a while. Additionally, due to the scope of what they're proposing, there's no substantial increase in traffic. They're not increasing the beds. They're really kind of reconfiguring how the beds and how the space is laid out. Permitting the existing elderly housing to expand wouldn't prevent the adjacent properties from developing with the residential land use pattern. And we feel that the use is compatible with residential development. Public notification was sent out. We've received two in favor, one of them being the applicant and two neutral. Based upon the considerations that I've discussed and the criteria for approval in the Denton Development Code, staff does recommend approval of the zoning case and also approval of the specific use permit for the elderly housing . With the following conditions, it must substantially comply with the site plan and the landscape plan. And that includes a maximum building square footage of 60,7 30 square feet. They must maintain that type C buffer adjacent to the neighborhood. We want to make sure that those uses are, that they mesh together well. And we believe that that buffer would help in that. And that no additional parking spaces would be permitted. So I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Hussbett. Can you give me, how did we arrive at 60,730? That's what they're proposing. That's the size of the building that they're proposing. So we wanted to make sure that that was maximum. If they did intend to come back and do a larger building that they would need to come back and get a new SUP. Because staff would need to look at that and make sure that it remained compatible with the adjacent residential. Continue. Thank you. Have they given an indication that that is, I mean, obviously it's, I mean, it's a need. And it's a growing industry. Sure. And so I understand the methodology to have them come back. But have they expressed, I mean, because I think that is going to, ultimately I think it will come up, especially with all the land in the back. You know, so it's kind of. They have a phase two that they are proposing. But this is not a part of this request because they're just , they're not ready to move forward with that yet. Also within NR6, there is a maximum lot coverage that they have to meet. And that was really important to staff because we wanted to make sure the scale stayed compatible with the area. So we'll just have to look at what they propose when they come forward with that. And we just wanted to limit the size at this point and we can review it further when it comes in. Does that answer your question? Yes. Kind of. Thank you. Commissioner Rosell. I'm not sure if this is possible, but this response that we have here, I'm kind of confused. If there's clarity to be had, I'd love it. If not, I'll live with my confusion. If I'm reading this correctly, it says I'm assuming the nursing home is expanding its size so that some building would be directly behind my property. Explanation point. But it's listed as a neutral. Yes. And so I'm confused about, so I spoke to this person, he was just telling us what's happening and he's neutral to it or if. I have not spoken with the person, but I saw that as well. Okay. He hasn't contacted me further on it. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Dedowitz. Two questions. Can you bring up the site location map, please? Correct. What's the building directly to the south? It's a church, it's a religious institution. Religious, and then what's to the south of that? Religious institution. I'm sorry? Religious institution. All right, can you now bring up the zoning map, please? Okay. So that's the site, which is outlined in black. We are recommending, or you're recommending, an NR6. And what the subcommittee has been wrestling with is, okay, we make that an NR6, and now within that whole square block area, we have a NR, what is it, an NR3. So my point is, you know, here we are at cookie cutting again, and should we not look at this as, and do the whole thing as a, and make it compatible, make it all NR6 or NRMU 12 or whatever, so that area there is compatible. I had some of the same, because if you'll look at the, really, this is kind of the first zoning case to match what the future land use is. And we struggle with that as staff. We address the cases that come before us, and I know that our long-range planning arm is working toward identifying those areas where we need to get moving and make sure that our zoning matches our future land use map. For the purpose of communicating with the whole commission, the last meeting, subcommittee meeting, we looked at one little piece, and it made sense. And it took us all about three seconds to say that was a good idea, and then we asked staff to say, well, don't bring us one at a time, bring us a number of these things so that we can get them done quickly, because some of them are no brainers, and this might be one of those situations where that whole thing should be rezoned because of what's there now and what's going to be anticipated as well as what, you know, we know. So if that's the case, is we just able to, not able to, do this now but come back and rezone that already? Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? I have a question. Will you go to the staff recommendations, please? With the conditions. Is there a reason why we don't have, why we're limiting their additional parking spaces? They're actually over-parked at this point, per our elderly housing requirements. We're not asking that they remove those and chunk those up now. So at this point, we don't foresee or need additional parking spaces. If they did come back for another SUP, that might be something that staff would then, you know, either not recommend as a condition or we would just have to look and see what they're proposing. So they didn't ask for any additional? No. So they feel like it's sufficient then? Okay. I just was concerned with them expanding that we'll be back and the reason that that comment got put in there, if there was a pushback or why it was there. We want to make sure that it stays, you know, a low intensity and compatible use. So. Well, I understand that, but I guess where I'm going with this, they've been there since the 60s before all these other people are there. And so now we need to worry about what everybody else has done that's coming around them and put limitations on this particular business versus these guys were there when nobody else was there and now we're concerned that they're impacting other people. That seems a little backwards to me. Just an observation. Commissioner Hussbett. And to your point, there is, there are two parking lots on the backside there that are pretty good size. I had to go there and serve somebody. So I was there recently. There's not much that's what I'm saying. There's there's not much in the back. There's limited usage up front, but in the back it's it's pretty. Thanks for scoping it out for us. What he's got to do with any other questions. Thank you, Julie. Ron just showed up in time. That whole area should be re looked at. Yes, well, just just north of there too. I mean, we have one yellow block is shown is all in our three but we got two churches in this and baking property there. And it's it's a good it's like a piece of a of a of an R3 is being taken out of. Okay. We don't talk about the bill another item this matrix to me about that. I believe Commissioner Beck would like to add during the regular meeting towards the end for future agenda items so we can bring that up then and add it to the matrix but if there any questions with what's in your packet as it relates to the matrix, I'd be happy to address those or discuss those. I don't see any. Early and having no other items of business on our work session we've covered them all. It is 540 and we'll close the work session and we're going to reconvene for our regular meeting and council chambers at six. Good evening and welcome to the city of Denton planning and zoning meeting. It is 630 on April the 13th. And our meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present, and I'm going to call our meeting to order at this time. Our first order of business is to sand for the US and Texas flag. I believe you can apply to 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 one state under God, one indivisible. Just as a point of order on our agenda tonight, we do not have a set of minutes to review. I assume those will come before our next meeting. With that said, I will move on to our consent agenda. Commissioner Beck. I move we approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Bruegel. I second. The first and the second, any discussion on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board. Motion passes six to zero with one absent. That moves us to agenda item number three. Items for individual consideration. Item A, ADP 16-0003. I believe that will be presented by Mike Bell. Thank you, Chair, members of the commission. This project is ADP 16-3. It's an alternative development plan that would allow a multifamily development to deviate from some of the design standards in subchapter 13 regarding building location and orientation. We presented more detail in the work session. But generally the small acreage and narrow width of this lot are factors that limit strict compliance with the DDC. The proposed site plan is consistent with what's around in the area and meets the intent of the code. Staff does have a recommendation of approval with conditions that are listed in your backup. I'd be happy to go through anything more in detail. I do know the applicant is also here to speak. Any questions for staff? Thank you, Mike. Since this is not public hearing, Commissioner Rosell. I motion to approve the agenda item with the staff's conditions listed. Commissioner Hesbeth. Second. The first and the second. And now we will recognize Commissioner Bruegel for discussion. Thank you, Chair. I just want to say once again, I love when we get these inf ill developments coming our way. It's a small, funky little piece of property in a high pedestrian area. And I think it seems to fit well. And I just I'm always a fan of infills. So way to go. Seeing no further discussion. Any other questions or discussion? Seeing none, we will call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six zero. We'll move us to item four on our agenda tonight, our public hearings. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing for item A Z 16 dash zero zero zero two and S 15 dash zero zero one four. I don't know. Do we have the applicant here? And if the applicant is here, we'd like to hear from you first, please present your project. Since this is a public hearing, anybody is going to wish to speak on this item. If you will either go ahead and fill out a card for us before you speak or at the time that you do come up and speak, please fill out a card for us before you leave. Thank you. If you'll give your name and address and present your project. My name is Chad Benson. I live at 1600 Pecan Point, McKin ney Drive. Or Pecan Point in McKinney. Thank you. I am one of the owners of the project and we have been in business since 1969 caring for the elderly. The site has been there for a long time. It was originally built in 69, modified and added to in mid 80s, added again in the 90s. And so it is time again to do a little refresh to the building. So we would like to do that for just to keep up with the Joneses to to update the facility, to give provide better care to the patients and make it more accessible for the staff, making it more modern and more applicable to modern medical care. We're a five star rated facility. We have quality care. So we would just now like to update our facility as well to match that. Any questions? I do have one question if you're done with your presentation. Yeah. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. As briefly as you can or whatever it takes, I'd be interested in hearing this, what you're doing the expansion for. I found it interesting in the background material. But could you just for purposes of letting the public know, could you just give us a little bit of information on what you're going to be doing here, please? You bet. So in elderly care, we have two primary units. We have what would be a short term unit. So someone coming right out of the hospital, a knee or a hip replacement, and they need 20 days of rehab. Get them better. Get them home. Then we have what would be a long term unit. That would be more your traditional nursing home where people live there for five, ten years. They can't care for themselves at home. This would be an update, a refresh of making those short term care focused unit for those coming right out of the hospital, private rooms, private showers, nice amenities, higher medical standard of living for those patients coming out of the hospital and giving them a nice place to be before they go home. So it would be a short term focused unit. Great. Thank you. The only question I would have is, I know there are several conditions that we're going to place if this is move forward. Do you have any objection to those conditions for approval? Not at this time. No. Okay. Great. I see no further questions. So thank you for your presentation. This time I'll call on staff, which would be Julie Wyatt to provide the staff report. Good evening. Just as a summary for Z15-2 and S15-2. Julie, if I could interrupt? I want to make sure on my comments, anyone that will wish to speak as soon as the staff report is given, feel free to come forward at that time. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear earlier. So we'll certainly call on you as soon as Julie gives the report. Thank you. Just as a summary of the request before you, it is a proposed rezoning from NR3 to NR6 and an SUP for elderly housing. Staff has analyzed the proposal and finds that the request is consistent with the Denton Plan 2030 and that the use is compatible with the adjacent surrounding residential and institutional development. Staff does recommend approval with conditions that the development conform to the attached site plan and landscape plan, and that includes a maximum building square footage, the maintenance of the type C buffer on the north property line, and then no additional parking spaces. I'll stand for any questions. Any questions for staff? I see none. Thank you, Julie. At this time, this is a public hearing, so if there's anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time and give your name and address and please fill out a card for us. Where's the cards? There should be cards after you give your comment. There should be some either here or there's some outside on the table. All right. My name is Paul Bowers and I live in 505 Strata, and so that's about 30 feet from my back door. This is the first time I've -- this has come up. I'm the first time a house owner, so this is all kind of new to me. But I just had a couple of brief questions. One is you said that there would be a type C barrier. I don't know what that means. My concern is it's a chain link fence right now, and if they're going to start construction or something like that, would that be improved? And then the second question is what kind of impact would that happen on the property values in the area? I will call on staff. Those are my two questions. I think they can certainly speak to your first question about the -- I think what you're asking about is the type C buffer is what that might be composed of and make into that here from the dias. Yes. We'll put up the site plan and go over that with you, the landscape plan, to show you what's being proposed. Okay. All right. A type C buffer is a 15-foot landscape buffer. It includes, I believe, six deciduous and evergreen trees. And let me verify the number of shrubs. Is there a way to blow that up, Penny? I can certainly try. 25 shrubs per linear feet. Let's see if I can do this. That didn't work. So as you can see -- and also just to let you know, there is a small elevation change between the subject property and the adjacent residential. So the subject property is a little lower than the adjacent residential uses. There is an existing tree line there. And -- but many of those trees aren't on their property, so we wanted to make sure that that buffer was, you know, met the code and was sufficient. So there are trees here and there's a cluster here, cluster here. There's also a row of shrubs. There will be a sidewalk as well and there's a small retaining wall there as well. There's additional shrubs here, shrubs here, more trees. So all the way down, it sort of repeats that pattern of trees and shrubs. Julie, just a clarification, would you give what the shrub count, I think it's per 100 linear feet? Yes, sir. 25 -- I've lost it. 25 shrubs per 100 linear feet. 100 linear feet. Okay. Thank you. Sure. I've got two ahead of you if you'd like to ring. Commissioner Hussbett. Thank you, Chair. Julie, could you pull up that initial map you had up, please? Because I think it's -- no, no, the -- that shows the area. This -- or let me go. There you go. That -- Yes. Okay. And so I think it would be -- and I'm sorry, I did not catch your name. Paul. Paul Babich. Yes, sir. I think -- do you -- your home is to the left of the yellow squared area, I do believe? It's just to the left of the -- it's where the corner of the yellow -- that's my house. Okay. Got it. And so, Julie, could you -- my understanding is the construction is more towards -- Right. That is -- let me go back. Okay, so I guess the citizen's home would be in about this location. Right. The impact area really is here. Right. There's no additional improvements proposed at this time in this area. So really it's up toward the front, closer to Carroll. Perfect. That was my understanding. Okay. Senator. Great. Did that address your question? That did, thank you. Great. Thank you, Julie. I'm sorry, we have a couple other -- my apologies. Commissioner Begg. Thank you, Chair. And just for Paul's sake, confirm that that chain link fence that's there now will remain there, is that right? It's my understanding that that's not being removed at this time. Okay. Nope. There is no chain link fence. I think he may be referring to his fairgrounds. Okay. Yeah, I'm back to the -- I'm back to fairgrounds. Okay. I was looking at the original background, it would go down pretty close to my house, and that's the reason why I was asking about the chain link fence. Okay. All right. There's no chain link fence that's going to remain. The applicant has made -- If we're going to start crosstalk kind of out here in the audience, we need to come to the front so everybody that's watching online and are recording can hear. So if we need to address the chain link fence, we certainly can if that's an issue or concern. The applicant has stated that the chain link fence is not on their property. It is on the fairgrounds' own property that they have a wood fence on their property line. Right. One final question. Commissioner Dudowitz. Just another point of clarification for the citizens. The spoke on the current housing at 2 o'clock is going to be taken down to allow for this new expansion. So, you know, just to let you know. And the improvements and the aesthetics is going to be, we 've seen pretty good and pretty much up to date and really enhance the area. That's correct. That's a good way to say it. 12 o'clock and 2 o'clock are being removed. I see no other questions for Julie at this time. Thank you, Julie. Again, this is a public hearing. So anyone that would like to speak on this item at this time, please come forward, state your name and address. My name is William Nielsen and my residence address is 12 Funny Oak Tree Street. I own the property at 439 Stratter, which sits right in back of the property that we're talking about. My interest in being here at this time is that if you look out the backside of the house, you look at a series of roofs on the subject property here. And I'm wondering if there's any kind of mitigation possible in the event that the site type mitigation, if the story, if the structures that are going to be put in are higher rising than the current ones. Okay. Julie, would you like to address that question for us? That actually was a question that staff had. We wanted to make sure that it met all residential setbacks . And then if I could get to here. So they are increasing the pitch of the roof and so that is going to be adjacent. But we felt like the pitch of this roof and what they're proposing really is residential and something you would see in any neighborhood. That's the type of roof that you would look at your neighbor. So it will be higher than what it is now because right now it's a much lower roof pitch. But it would meet all buffers and residential setbacks. And it stays single story so it's not multi-story. Correct. So it's still single story and the roof pitch is slightly taller. Correct. Okay. Julie. Commissioner Roselk, another question. Thank you, Chair. Just for clarification. Sure. The roof is a composite or what is the material of the roof ? I'm going to have the applicant come up and answer that question. Good evening. I'm Zellma Loeb, Loeb Architects. I'm the registered architect on the project. For Denton Rehab and Nursing, my personal residential address is 1705 Brookview Drive, Carrollton, Texas, 75007. The front elevation you're looking at right now on the far right end, the pitch of that roof is put in. So give us some more residential look. Now that ridge line only carries back a little ways and then it will drop down lower because that's expensive to do all the way back on that wing. So we did drop back down lower. One thing I know, Julie started to talk about it. I don't think she finished, but we are actually further away with the new construction from the homes and the side yard and the setback and property line than we are right now. The building is going to be further back when we do the type C buffer. That's going to be further back than what the existing construction is right now. And the material? It is a composite roof. You said it drops back. It's not going back to flat. It's just being the... It's going to lower the pitch. It'll go across and then once it gets to the front nurse's station, which is up towards the front of the building, about 20 feet in, then it'll dip down. Perfect. Thanks for clarifying that. Oh, you're welcome. Sir, did you have any other comments or any other questions we could address for you? Thank you, sir. Appreciate your comments and feedback. Again, it's a public hearing. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item? At this time, please come forward. Seeing no one else, I will close the public hearing on this item. Commissioner Dudowitz. If there's no further discussion, I would make a recommendation that we approve and approve this with subjects to the conditions that the staff put in. All three? All three. Okay. Commissioner Beck. Second, sir. Okay. We have a first and a second to approve with the three staff conditions. Any further discussion or comments? Commissioner Hesmuth. I did want to point out for the residents that this is set up such that if there's future adjustments, they would come back and request those. So please continue to stay active and continue to give the feedback because it's greatly appreciated. Any other comments or questions? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. Motion carries six to zero. That will move us to our final items on our agenda tonight, our project matrix and our concluding items. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you, Chair. So as I'm looking at the matrix, there were three things that I had requested a while back that aren't in there, so I'm wondering, it might just be happening in the overall D DC rewrite that I know staff is working on, but I had requested a report a while back on the growing movement of tiny houses that we're seeing across the country, and I know we have like a minimum lot requirement for structures, and tiny houses don't always fit with that. And so I was wondering, and I know Commissioner Connor, way back in like June of 2015, had asked about a report on lot coverage, and we're still kind of working on that, so that might fit with there. Another request I had made a while back was alternatives to some of these landscape requirements, trying to encourage more zero escaping whenever possible, and I didn't see that in there in the matrix, and also I know we're working on like kind of clustering developments to preserve more green space so homes are closer together and we're having more open space and so maybe all of that is kind of coming in these general over right rewrites of the DDC but if we can maybe include that somewhere just kind of know where y'all are at in the process, I think that would be helpful. That's my first point did you want to address that first before I'm okay. No, okay. I'll forget otherwise. Okay. So, and then my other comment was, I know last at our last meeting we briefly looked at the tree ordinance, and the developers all came out and had requested more time to review it and I know staff had said that they were going to organize a meeting with the developers and I think that's fantastic. I'd also like to encourage staff to facilitate a meeting with the general public, because this is a partnership, the what the developers build is what we're living with, and we want to make sure that this is fitting with the community and so I would like to encourage staff, I don't know if you partner with K DB or if you want me to just rent a room at the North Lakes rec center or something but I just I want I want to see that happen too. Anything needs to be addressed with that monologue just yes if I can just give her a couple of updates. The greenhouse movement that you've mentioned that's something that is on our radar, it's not referenced on this matrix just yet. The other elements that you also raise with the zero escaping although we have that provision in our landscape, you know, landscaping requirements, those will be revisited as well. We're looking at a comprehensive analysis and potential rewrite of the Denton Development Code. So we're working on that the reason why we haven't given you any succinct data just yet is because we're creating our project timelines associated with that. It is definitely on our radar. As it relates to the tree code amendment, the tree preservation component of the tree code. Yes, we're absolutely in process we've started meeting with our development community. We have also discussed a game plan to involve the community at large, so that everybody is apprised and we can secure their feedback as well. I will get back with you hopefully tomorrow towards the close of the week to give you some status on that and we do want to meet with everybody and actually vet the program with all individuals within Denton the development community, our residents, and of course the staff and those that are involved in it. So, I think we're going to anticipate much longer meetings in the very near future where we will be addressing these items. Thank you. Can I ask for clarification on that, your tree comments. If I understand the tree update came from a solicitation of public input to come into that already, didn't it? It is my understanding that if you recall the City Council last year started looking at the tree fund that was created and the monies within that tree fund and how to responsibly expend those monies to create programs that would benefit the community. We have five pilot programs that we initiated in the parks. In addition to that, we also created some incentive programs in collaboration with KDB, Keep Denton Beautiful. And from there, there was discussion from the City Council and our leadership team to start revisiting our tree code to determine if it is indeed viable, is it consistent with our benchmarking communities, what are we doing, what do we need to improve, what works, and to basically streamline it where it's more readily understandable. We did a survey. We did. We benchmarked several communities. We did a community survey. We met with stakeholders such as KDB. We met with DCDA. We posted the agenda. We are always welcome if there are any comments from the community as well. We do want to hopefully have some meetings with the community as well to start moving forward with that. That is just a component of the entire tree code, which has landscaping elements in it too. So there will be more work associated with that. But we thought it would be more appropriate to start tackling this ordinance so that we could all understand it very well and move slowly into progressing into a viable ordinance. That's great. Yeah, I guess I just remembered when we had our bike plan. We would have several events at the Civic Center and there would be different stations. I was like, let's do something fun like that and get some public input. But it sounds like you guys are addressing that already. And I really appreciate the comments and we will strive to make sure it's all inclusive. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I'd just simply like to add a work session item at our next PNZ meeting to discuss and better understand the public hearing notification issue process. I think you brought that up and yes, I agree with you. I did. I can't. I didn't hear. Do you want to restate your comment? Yeah, I just wanted to add a work session item at our next PNZ meeting where we can discuss and better understand the public notification process when we're building or zone changing. We can have a work session item at the next PNZ meeting to elaborate on the process and explain what it is we do and how we do it in accordance with Texas Local Government Code and shed some light on that for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Commissioner Dadovitz. And that's a good point because we all need to be aware of how the notices go up, but also to understand the problems we're having with it and if there is any solutions to it. And there may not be. But I agree because a lot of people come to front of us and say, hey, I wasn't notified. And we find out that they're not the original owner or there's some lag in communication with the who's got title of what property, what not. So there might be. I agree. It's been raised several times by several commissioners questions. I think it's a good use of time if possible in our next work session to address that. So any other items to be added to our matrix or future agenda? Seeing none, I will close the meeting, our PNZ meeting at 6 58. Thank you very much.