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.