May 11, 2016 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2016-05-11 5:30 PM

Planning and Zoning Commission work session for May the 11 th. It is 535 and our meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and I'll call our meeting to order at this time. Our first item on our agenda is going to be to receive clarification of agenda items and I will turn that over to Manal for presentation. Thank you Chair President Strange. We have on the consent agenda item a general development plan. It's relatively straightforward. We'd be happy to present it or answer any questions that anybody may have on this one else we could move forward to the next item. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. Okay and I'm just again new at this and everything but this development looks like it's just pure housing development. There is nothing there. We were talking at our last meeting about conservation development and there is no green space in this place. There's no bike riding area. It's on a busy road and I don't know should we be making comments? Shouldn't we be you know seeking somebody to build something along those lines if we have to consider that? Or is that something we should I should even be voice an opinion about at this point? Definitely appreciate the suggestions however at this time zoning is already in place. The parameters of the existing Denton Development Code in place in order to create those types of elements or introduce those types of elements we would have to actually create those districts to establish those criteria. Okay and I think we're making a movement is underway to get to that point. Okay so this is something we probably address on down the road. Okay good good. Now I guess and again probably not the right time to do it but I noticed that on the oil wells there I guess it would be the south east corner that look like the back and right up to the houses. Now again I can't retain this information but what's the distances again? If I'm not mistaken the setbacks to these existing wells now this is not on their property it's an adjacent well. If I'm not mistaken it is 250 feet because it's the reverse. Right but that didn't look like 250 feet. It looks like they're right up against the back. No I believe that once we bring forward the preliminary plot we'll have the true dimension associated with that. At this point the general development plan reflects the ph asing program associated with this component of the development. We have addressed and discussed the gas well element associated in terms of adjac ency as well with the applicant and vetted it with our legal team as well. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you chair. Could you we don't see very many general development plans could you just outline the difference between this and say a preliminary plot that shows phases? If I'm not mistaken and Chandran can we pull that up on the screen please and I'm sure you can provide some additional guidance as well. The intent of a general development plan you know if you look at it I'm sure when you read it you think this is very syn onymous to a preliminary plot to a great extent but in this instance we are identifying the phasing program. We are also identifying and making sure we vetted with our engineering team you know are the access points for instance accurate does that work? A component of it is you know we have all those phases reflective. What is the connectivity to existing phase versus future phases? So in concept the development itself is being addressed. The plotting component obviously is a different extension of development as you move forward but if I'm not mistaken that's where the intent of the GDP comes in. Yes so the GDP is a conceptual land use plan. Some really high-level engineering just to make sure that the lots can be adequately served if we do move forward to the final plat. The reason why it's required is that well in this instance is that the property was under one ownership it was a large tract over 20 acres and they were proposing to plat it or final plat it in phases and so there was an original GDP that expired I guess it was approved in 2011 and expired two years after that and so in order for them to move forward with the prelim they need to come back in they needed to come back and restart the GDP or follow new GDP so that they can go to prelim and final. Did that answer your question? Okay. Another question. What size are these lots? Most of these are about 80 well the minimum required is 80 foot of frontage on the right-of-way but when I measured most of them are about a hundred a little bit over that. At least the ones along fairway the ones in this bottom left hand corner. Correct. Well look I'm familiar with this development I believe it's pretty much kind of a state homes it looks like they're all in R2 which we don't see hardly ever in the city. It's very rare. It looks to me like the lots there in phase four are probably at least an acre in size in comparison to what is in phase one. Right. And so you know it's nice to see finally a subdivision in my opinion that comes to us it's not an NR 4 or NR6. It's just stacked on top but there's actually large lots and it's a nice area out by the Country Club and I've got great water features at the entrance way and so you know I think it's a great looking subdivision and I think it will be well received by people looking for those types of lots because there are hardly any of them left in the city of Denton. Yes it does help us to have more diversity in terms of housing stuff. Correct. Commissioner Briegel. I've just got a question about phase 1B. What can you just explain why that I mean I don't see any this section. No phase 1B at the top there. What I'm just kind of curious why it's labeled right at the top. It doesn't look like there's gonna be any houses or anything there so I was just kind of curious. I'm not quite sure but the applicant is here if he wants do you want to come answer that question? Good evening. Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group. I 'd have to look at an area but my understanding there is a house up there on the 1B that's already been set up and done and because of the ESAs and floodplain not anything that really additional can be done there so that's set up to go with and these are the larger lots and right now the houses out here tending to go for $500,000 and up. They do have water entry features at the front and in the back where the detention pond is they've made that a staged detention pond with fountains and a continuous water feature so they've done quite a bit to try and enhance it and then they got the country club golf course obviously next door that I cannot tell you how many of them are or are not members of the country club but but there's quite a bit in the area. I'll be glad to address any other questions you might have while I'm up here. No I was just curious because it just seems so much like so that's a seven and a half acre lot up there. 7 .53 but it's so awkward and ill-shaped I don't think anything different is gonna happen with it. No I'm certainly not critiquing I was just kind of curious about. Oh yeah I don't blame you it's a hangnail on the property so to speak . That's not a good way to put it. Any other questions on this particular item? Thank you very much. Our next item is a zoning change request I'm gonna ask Julie Wyatt to make that presentation for us. Hi there Julie Wyatt. All right I'm presenting Z 16 3 to you Bell Avenue duplex. The request before you is to consider a rezoning from NR 3 to NR 6 on approximately 0.6 acres. The applicant would like to develop the property with two duplexes which would be four total units. The location of the property it's at Windsor and Bell on the corner here. A little bit of history this area was originally a planned development it was PD 72. It was a mixed-use development it originally had the the low density single-family uses on the north side. There was an open space running kind of bisecting the development. To the south there were garden homes which were town homes and then four plexes and duplexes. Also multifamily was proposed with that concept plan and neighborhood services. As that PD developed the single-family uses developed to the north as as planned as well as the open space. The neighborhood services area I believe became a food line and is now the North Branch Library and the multifamily the garden style apartments were were developed . This area that was originally proposed for the duplex four plex some duplexes were were developed as well as there's some townhome type type development on East Windsor. However this spine of North Bell and the streets that rad iate off of that was actually changed to single-family uses more low density single-family uses during the development of this PD and and then they were originally and then they were eventually developed as single-family uses. The subject property is right here on the corner. Currently the zoning it was rezoned out of the PD well it was it was during the during the evolution of the PD there were rezoning's that happened but but eventually the PD was gone as of the 2002 citywide rezoning and an NR3 zoning designation was was given to the property and as you can see that NR3 does follow that single-family that portion that was developed with that low density single- family. The applicant is proposing an NR6 zoning designation for right here. Staff looked at the future land use it does have a low density residential future land use the proposed NR6 does not meet the intent of the low density future land use. Low density residential when you think about it think about the typical suburban type development sometimes the curvilinear streets or that low density type the one to two story houses front yard backyard with the driveway that that's the type of development that low density residential. Also some cluster homes but that's typically what you would think about. Dwelling units one to four dwelling units per acre and any new development should respond to the existing development pattern in the character. NR6 is typically associated with the moderate density future land use designation and we I'm showing you a future land use map that's somewhat zoomed out because I wanted you to take a look at where the low density residential is and then where the moderate densities to show you what the intent of those types of future land use designations are. Moderate density is meant for for dwelling units up to 12 dwelling units per acre and it's supposed to be kind of transitional the additional mix of residential uses and it's it's typically closer to our our mixed use future land use designation so you can see it's here near the near the neighborhood mixed use future land use but adjacent to the low density residential so sort of a transitional area. So when it when a rezoning request doesn't meet the future land use designation staff has some additional criteria for approval that we look at that criteria for approval goes a deeper dive into the request and looks at the character of the area with the land use pattern is and and and the analysis with that so we looked at the at the the request not only from a high level to see you know what the adjacent zoning districts were what the adjacent uses were but we also wanted to dive down at the block level as well. When we did that on this we we saw that yes there are a mix of uses and in the area you've got you've got duplexes you've got fourplexes and you have single-family homes and they're there they're in this area so here's the duplex here's the fourplexes in these areas but what you do have when you have that mix of densities and those those different residential uses you also have these physical mechanisms that create a separation between those uses and the single-family area so for instance the fourplexes south of Windsor you've got an arterial here you 've got you have an alley separating these duplexes from the single-family homes in this neighborhood in this instance you've got a mature line of trees that provide some physical barriers between the single-family uses and those those fourplexes so we looked at that so there is a mix of uses but there was there is that separation created by those physical barriers. We also looked at where the property is situated particularly in a single- family neighborhood but it is the gateway this neighborhood has two entrances right here on North Locust and then here at North you know at North Bell and Windsor and this really is a gateway to this single-family neighborhood and this is established as an NR3 it's got about a 3.9 dwelling units per acre so it meets that that you know close to that NR3 zoning designation and at the block level this continuing the NR3 zoning designation makes sense because it's consistent with with what's there by introducing NR6 in this area and we we see that there's adjacent NR6 so we see that when you zoom up you know there is that mix of zoning uses or zoning districts but when you enter when you introduce NR6 here at the block level what it would do is it could potentially compromise the existing development pattern it could it could change it and and create a new land use pattern that is not existing and we want to make sure that we protect those those existing neighborhoods. Commissioner Beck. Chair Julie based on what you just said that you're concerned that it would alter the character for the new what's that based on I mean I can honestly see the concern and I'm opposed to you know patch one zoning and everything like that but this one this one is kind of unique here so what did you say to potentially alter the existing land use pattern with an LL density single-family so what are you basing that on? Well we're basing it on the potential dens ities within an NR6 and also additional residential uses so NR3 permits single- family homes it also it doesn't permit duplexes it permits town homes within SUP so you can take a closer look at what that use is and see if it meets within the scale and within the character of the neighborhood. By bringing in NR6 at the block level and and directly adjacent to single-family homes that are developed with an NR3 in an NR3 pattern that low density residential it could it could shrink the lot size it just create a new development pattern away from that large larger lot the lower density to a smaller density at the block level. So you're saying that it would serve as an emphasis to for other property owners to change the status of their lot too? I don't know if it would necessarily spur redevelopment in order to I mean it always could but I'm not sure if that was necessarily the the fear of staff and let me show you I was talking to Commissioner Taylor at Google Earth's pictures are better than mine so look at those are mine those are terrible this this I think illustrates so this is this is take this was taken by Google on Windsor facing North Bell and as you can see this this is the property in question and it really is when you look down this street you can see it is developed in a low density single-family pattern and by introducing additional uses and and zoning districts it could potentially alter that particularly at a at a critical point in neighborhood which is you know the gateway that entrance into the neighborhood. But we're talking about such a small area there and the houses are designed in a way that tend to blend in I mean if it was scattered, helter-skelter I'd see that but it's right at the corner where there's a mix of those uses anyway so. It is and that's why we looked at those physical barriers because we really wanted to see how those uses played together and and because of those physical barriers staff like felt it was most appropriate to keep it with the NR3 to keep that consistent development pattern through that block level development. And if I can interject with just a second when Julie's talking about changing what you're altering and what you could potentially impact by altering the zoning classification is the integrity of that already established single-family low density residential neighborhood so that played a factor into our analysis as well. So here are my pictures. I got really good pictures of the street. So here's the property across the street the one next door came out even worse than this one. This is actually across Winds or so this is one of the four plexes that's across Windsor and then this is looking down the street. And once again here's Google's much better picture showing just how the continuation of that line of development through the street . Staff did do a public notification. There are two letters in response to to the notification. They are not within the 200 foot but I did want to provide them to you. We didn't receive any letters back other than those. So based upon the considerations presented in the criteria for approval in subchapter 3 of the Dent Development Code, staff recommends denial of this request and I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you Chair. I'm going to work backwards. I've got a few questions that I want to piggyback off of what Commissioner Beck was asking. So as I understand it, town homes are allowed with an SUP but du plexes are not. Correct. How many units is the applicant proposing to build with this? Oh I'm so sorry it's a zoning case. Okay well then I did have a question about so attached single-family dwellings and accessory dwelling units are allowed. Attached single-family dwellings to town homes. Okay and then when you have your picture of the fourplex, I guess what's the difference between a duplex and a townhome? What's the difference between a fourplex and a townhome? A duplex would be two dwelling units that share a common wall. A townhome would be you can have up to eight dwelling units. Town homes are on each individual platted lot so each individual townhome would be owned fee simple on its own lot. A duplex you can have two sides on one lot. If you put a townhome style development on one lot and it was more than three units that would be multifamily. Did I explain that? Okay. Do you want me to say it one more time? Okay so town homes, to be considered a townhome, you can have eight attached dwelling units but each one has to be on its own platted lot and so they're often very narrow skinny lots. So I'm thinking of like are those town homes then that are just north of North Branch Library? So you're like out of town there like on the left-hand side those would be town homes. They are and if you'll we can skip back if you can see here you see the lot lines and all it looks like little little teeth. Yes those are each on their own platted lot so you could buy one unit. Those are town homes. Okay and then going thank you for explaining that. Sure. What about accessory dwelling units? Could that be like tiny houses perhaps? It well we have the limitation one, limitation one addresses accessory dwelling units and I believe most of the zoning districts. It could be it there are you can't go over the lot coverage it needs to be in the back of the of the primary structure. I believe you have to have a minimum square feet of 500 but it can't go over half of the primary structure. So there's some there's some parameters but yes it would be it could be. It would be a tiny house but it would be kind of on the same lot as a main. I think it's more of it like a granny flat. Right. You would yeah. Okay okay regarding physical barriers because I see that that Google picture was really helpful to see the tree. Those trees right there that's very helpful but I also see like you know there's like fence there's other barriers or streets and there's fences. So what other what mechanisms mechanisms are in place for buffering between different neighborhood zones? What would we have in place to protect NR3 from NR6 from encroaching on NR3? They would have to meet any buffering requirements and we buffer based upon use. Let me get my code. Okay so single-family residential against all other residential would be a type B buffer which is a 10-foot planted strip which requires five evergreen and deciduous trees and 30 shrubs. So there would be a buffer required in between between the uses. But it would take a few years for those trees to grow up big enough to to really provide the privacy. But they're okay so there's a buffer. Okay and then my last question is about the future land use map. Can you go back to that slide please? Okay so I understand that the future land use map has for most for that entire area basically low density but there's already high density that exists in great quantities in this neighborhood. So how is the city planning on kind of balancing that as we move towards the future with the 2030 comp plan when we already have dense neighborhoods but the intention is for low density and we also encourage high density in our comprehensive plan. We want more especially in the inner part of the city which I guess I would kind of consider this you know kind of central Denton. How do we balance that? I'll take a stab at this and Manal may want to jump in. When we look at a future land use designation it's it's in even higher level than would be zoning. And so although there may be uses that don't quite fit within that designation within it , it as a whole would would meet in that and that is our aspiration for that area . So you know I don't know if there would be if we would want to change the future land use to to meet necessarily what's on the ground but it's it's it's not on a parcel by parcel but layer basis it's it's a much higher level and so that's that's why what's on the ground doesn't necessarily always mesh quite with what's what's on the future land use. And it does have an aspirational quality as well you know how how do we want to see it develop in the future so and I don 't know if Manal wants to add to that or. It's accurate. Okay. All right thank you . Commissioner Beck. I'm really torn here between on this one I mean I understand wanting to sustain the single family the NR3 again as opposed to doing this little patchwork changes here but in this particular case because of its particular location I just don't see it being all that diabolical and offsetting anything. There was the letters went out and again we didn't get much feedback and there's my concern again then that the people who live in the house get the letters. And the applicant did have a neighborhood meeting and I believe they had one couple come so it was. Well my next question was going to be what was the consensus on but if there's one couple never mind there but yeah again it's it's tough to on this particular case if it were back on in the area the neighborhood I would see that. My the thing I'm for a little bit on this one is duplexes theoretically anyway are cheaper and more affordable would be considered more affordable housing again we need that and density would be a plus living right across the street from middle school so that's. I'm sorry I just want to direct a point of order. Sure Commissioner Taylor. Thank you so we're we're in the work session we're just getting clarification we don't really want to deliberate until we get to the public to be able to deliberate in front of the public so I just I feel like we might be veering toward deliberation instead of clarification. Thank you for that. I just want to interject that. I thought you were going to ask a question. Well the question was I wanted to preface it with my feelings about it but then the question was what was the consensus among the group and clearly there was no real consensus there so. And the request before us is a change in zoning from to the du plexes is potentially that's what might be developed but it could develop with the other uses that are permitted in an R6 so our evaluation is based on that zoning designation that land use and the associated land uses within that not just the duplexes. We are aware that the applicant has intimated that they would develop the site with that but we have to look at it comprehensively for the zoning designation. Okay thank you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair and I didn't mean to cut you off I just want to make sure that we deliberate kind of in front of the public. Mike I had a dimensional question. There's a minimum lot size. This is in a larger subdivision so they there wouldn't be the area requirements just the minimum widths and depths is that correct? I based it on the minimum widths and depths so yes. And if if somebody were to build townhomes they still have to meet the minimum width so it would have to be like a 50 foot wide townhome. Right it would be yes it would be a rather large lot to meet the minimum size. But at replatting it couldn't get narrower than the minimum lot width right? Correct. Okay just making sure . Commissioner Roselle. Thank you Chair. The two letters we have one gave an address do we have an address for the second person? I don't. I have a question do we have any idea when these two lots were originally platted? The applicant does. If you could come to them and come up and that's okay. The audio can't capture you back there. You will give your name and address for us please as well. My name is Yolanda Voral and I reside at 2201 Geneva Circle. I did a little bit of research on this area and the subdivision went in in the mid 80s. The houses the phase that we're looking at the houses across the street and to the north of us were built in 94 and 95. This lot's been vacant the entire time. At least 20-25 years soon okay. Thank you very much. I want to piggyback also kind of what Amber brought up. If you could go to what the future zoning is and then go back one like you had it what the current is our future zoning map shows basically the area that's already NRME 12 the NRM 6 all those areas to be low density. So I understand your concern and and an apology for looking to the 2030 plan of what we would like it to be but also think we 've got to balance it to what's already there existing and with all these already existing zonings here in an area that already as we're looking future there 's already things that aren't quote-unquote conforming or compatible or whatever term is the right planning term to put on it. So you know I think that's something also for us to consider is not only because we deal with this a lot as to what the comp plan shows it to be but in reality there's some other things around it that that may not be conforming to what the comp plan shows and I think this is a prime example of one of those instances where we have a lot of higher density things already existing there as well. So thank you for my questions anybody else have any questions on this particular item? Thank you. With that I'm going to close our work session at 6 o 8 and we will reconvene in council chambers at 6 30. Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for May 11th. This meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum present and the time is 6 35 and I'll call our meeting to order. Our first time of business will be to stand and give the pledge the US and Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state, under God, one indivisible. It's just a point of order for our meeting tonight we do not have a set of minutes to consider so I assume that will be on our next meeting to take a look at. Our next item then will be our consent agenda. Commissioner Beck. I move we approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Taylor. Second. Okay. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none we'll call for a vote on the board. And that motion carries 6 to 0. The next item on our agenda will be our public hearings and our first item will be Z 16 - 0 0 0 3 and I'm going to open the public hearing at this time and I will call on the applicant to present your project please. 2201 Geneva Circle. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, staff, I'm here to present tonight the property at 3104 North Bell. I'm the lead designer at Tim Beatty Builders and Mr. Beatty is the owner of this property as well as the builder if we gain your support tonight. We're seeking the approval of a zoning change for the two infill lots located at 3104 North Bell. The lots are in the northeast corner of Windsor and Bell and described as 55 R1 and 55 R2 . The property is currently zoned in R3 which allows for the residential building but not for the duplex that we are proposing to build. The surrounding property uses are a mix of multifamily, duplex, and residential as well as a junior high school and the future land use for the entire area is low residential although the current uses have a higher percent density of multifamily and du plex than they do residential. I brought a map if I can get the overhead working. Percentages of multifamily are shown in purple and duplex in blue we have 46 percent multifamily and duplex and 21 percent residential in this area. To give you a little history the lot the development was platted in the mid 80s the homes across the street and to the north were built in 94 and 95. Mr. Beatty's lot has been vacant the entire time. In the year 2000 the two lots were replatted with a private access easement on the north end of the interior lot. I wanted to show you this. The private access easement wraps from the interior lot 55 1R all the way around with a 20-foot radius and comes down into the to the lot on the corner. This private access easement is something that you would know more normally see in commercial or multifamily and not necessarily residential at least in my in my working history. It's und etermined why this property was replatted if only residential was to be built. Neighborhood compatibility would have placed the driveway shared between two properties as it is across the street at 3101 and 3105 North Bell. One might assume a higher density was in the works regardless the current plat layout and the size of the lots which are much larger than the other lots in the neighborhood and the combination easement off Windsor which is 35 feet post hardship to the owner. We studied the neighborhood and determined the best use of the infill property would be duplex and we made this decision based on the surrounding uses to the east and south being multif amily and we hoped that this would be an acceptable buffer to the neighborhood . We sent mailings out to 116 surrounding properties within 200 and 500 feet. We held a neighborhood meeting at the North Branch Library on April 25th and one family attended. We presented the building elevations and two site plans. One with the driveway as currently planted and the other with a shared driveway we thought would be more compatible with the neighborhood although it would require us to amend the plat. The attendees were in favor of the driveway being shared between the duplex units. Overall they favored the appearance of the structures and informed us they would share the information with the neighbor who was unable to attend. I wanted to show you the two site plans. The first shows the way the property is currently platted. This would be the neighbor directly to North and this would be the entrance to both lots and this is why they were opposed to that. They favored the second site plan. I did get a phone call from the second neighbor last week and she also favored the driveway being between the two structures. I answered the question. She called me on the phone. We talked and answered all of her questions pertaining to the size and finish of the units. Mr. Beatty received one other telephone call in favor of the project. The structures are designed to meet the DDC requirements for lock coverage, height, architectural element, and landscape if the zoning changes approved tonight. The duplex units will appear as single-family residences and are compatible with the existing neighborhood. The parking will be screened from Bell and Windsor. The East property line will be fenced to help buffer from the multifamily to the east and we will construct the missing sidewalk on Windsor and rebuild the ADA ramp as required as well as add street trees. The proposed project has adequate utilities, neighborhood amenities, public transportation, schools, and the library. Each infill lot will have adequate open space for its tenants and the target tenants are families with long-term leases. Although we worked closely with staff to plead our case, we were unable to gain their support. We're here to offer a well-designed project that we feel will buffer the existing homes from multifamily and be compatible with the neighborhood. We hope to offer quality, affordable housing in this neighborhood. We're willing to continue to work with staff and we would like to amend the plat to be more compatible with the neighborhood and to meet the wishes of the adjoining two neighbors who took the time to meet with us and discuss this project prior to tonight. If necessary, we're willing to submit an alternative development plan and we can create an overlay that will only allow single-family or duplex buildings to be constructed on these two infill lots. We hope to gain your support for this infill project and we're here to answer any questions that you may have. I have some questions. Commissioner back. Thank you Chair. Thanks, Jel ona, for your presentation here in those houses. Those duplexes look very much like houses. Was there some kind of buffer on the north side? If we're allowed to move the driveway in between the two property lines, we have it designed right now to provide ten feet of buffering which would meet the requirement, but I have about, you know, a few more feet. I could probably get 15 in there if it would help and that's why we were here to talk about or we're willing to work through an amended plat to offer more. Okay. Why not stay with the NR3? Why not build single -family homes? The lots, these two lots are 12,700 and 12,400 feet, substantially larger, and the lots across the street are 8,500 and 7,600. It's just a lot of property. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Rosell. Out of curiosity, the percentages don't add up to a hundred. Is the other missing, is that roads or can you explain the missing percentages? The missing percentage would be the school and probably our property itself and we didn't include the roads, you're correct. Thank you. Commissioner Hesbeth. So some of the concerns are traffic. Can you speak to that, to traffic currently? So some of the concerns we receive say Windsor Bell too busy, what are your thoughts or what are, just share your thoughts on the issue being raised about traffic. Well the two lots, if they were developed with housing, we don't feel like it would be that much more traffic than the area already has. I think there are a lot of concerns for the multifamily that's in the area, which is one of the reasons that we opted to go with duplex for a lower density to be a buffer rather than to add additional. I think the original, when we purchased the property it was thought, the thought pattern was to do two fourplexes which would have been eight units and 16 bedrooms and you know higher density. We're looking for families who may or may not have multiple cars. I don't really feel the impact would be that substantial. Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. So you talked to two people total? Three, two families. Two families. The property directly to the north and then the second to the north. The second to nobody across the street. Nobody across the street responded. And there are consensus with them was that they weren't opposed to provided you put the driveway in the middle. That's correct. The person who attended the meeting was the second house to the north. She said they were queued as a button but she was concerned about the location of the driveway. The second was the property directly to the north and she was concerned about the location of the driveway because her son's bedroom window is on that property line. Okay. You mentioned that one of them was representing somebody else did I hear that right that they were speaking? The second neighbor was there she was hoping the first neighbor could come but they couldn't make the meeting that night. And she expressed their sentiment was what for them? That is the same neighbor that contacted me by telephone. Okay and they were opposed to it or? They were not in favor not opposed but they were in favor of the driveway moving to the middle. Okay. If we proceeded. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Thank you. Collin Julie. All right I'll just provide a summary of the proposal. So the request before you tonight is to consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a rezoning from NR3 to NR6. The location of the property is at Windsor and Bell on the corner there. Staff's findings were that NR6 did not meet the future land use designation of low density residential and that the maximum density and expanded residential uses in NR6 wouldn 't would not be complementary to the existing adjacent NR3 district and established single family neighborhood therefore staff is recommending denial of the proposal. I will stand for any questions. Commissioner Bruegel. Thank you chair. In the presentation by the applicant she showed the potential should this go forward their their proposal for what they'd like to build there. I understand that this is a rezone request but what sort of how much say does PNC have in something like the lot layout to sort of like minimize the the visual impact on on adjacent properties. Would we get a chance to kind of approve a site plan on something or if we just say no site plan unless it you know it didn't meet the subchapter 13 requirements for site design. So once it gets to that point the building we would make sure that it meets all buffering requirements all access requirements all parking all screening building orientation and building materials so that would all be reviewed at a staff level and unless they wanted to vary from the code it wouldn't come back before you. Okay thank you. Sure. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you chair. Do you have a close-in aerial of the site or is that is that the best you have? That is the best I have. Okay I was trying to measure the width of the total land area and so this is rezoning the site there we don't have binding site plans we can't put landscape requirements we can't we can't do any any extra requirements we can just basically rezone from what I could tell like it's either it 's about 190 maybe feet wide. 174. 174. Are you talking nor are you talking street frontage? Yeah a lot. Okay good. So yeah 180. So at NR6 that would allow three lots if it was going to be replanted it could be replanted to a total of three lots. For single family. For single family. Would they could also be those could also be duplexes right three it could it would be possible to put three duplexes. If they could fit it on there. And then if it went to townhomes it would be three 50 foot wide townhomes that would not really practical. Correct. Okay so yeah I was just trying to figure out you know what is what is the maximum density at NR6 so are there any other denser uses that are missing is that is that pretty much the worst? No that's that's that's basically it it would just be those residential uses there's not multifamily or or any commercial uses so it would just be the residential. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Thank You Julie. Again this is a public hearing anyone who would like to come and speak on this item please come forward at this time and give your name and address. If you haven't filled have you filled out a card? Okay please come on. Yes my name is Emily McClendon and I am the neighbor directly adjacent to this property and my husband couldn't be here tonight but when me and my husband and my young son moved here three years ago we made sure to check that this empty lot was zoned single-family resident and we were unable to attend the informational meeting that they gave but I did talk to Yolanda and you know I just wanted to get some more information because I really was undecided on on it at first but in the time since then I've given it a lot of thought and I have to say that I am against it because I feel like our neighborhood our subdiv ision is single-family homes yes we do have apartments behind us and the ones across from Windsor I mean she was saying it's like this is going to be a buffer that's not even relevant for us you know across from Windsor is so far so I just feel like our subdivision is single-family homes and I think to complete our our neighborhood you know we should keep it single-family and we're also concerned about what it might do to our property values in the future I mean they the duplexes look very nice but you know what's it gonna be in 10 years you know and the other the other thing is is that we are us and our neighbors right next to us and they weren't able to come tonight but we were real close to them and we are long-term invested in our in our home and our property and I feel like if you put duplexes there you automatically take that option away that these people next to us could possibly be long-term invested into their property so that's just basically my feelings on it I guess that's it thank you questions for you excuse me Commissioner Beck thank you chair is there anybody else other than you and the neighbor you mentioned that feels similar to you we're trying to get more input here yeah I personally don't know we were very close to our neighbors right next to us but I couldn't say for the people across the street and you're like you would be like the third house up from these from these duplexes is that correct no we're right next to them we're the ones right next to it yeah so like I mean if that driveway went in like it would be right up against our fence and okay that just makes me uncomfortable you know so yeah okay thank you see other questions thank you very much thank you in this little public hearing if anyone else would like to speak please come forward at this time seeing none I've got two other emails one is from Weldon Church at 31 36 Lido Way and he is opposed to change in the zoning and then we have one other comment from Nona McCaleb she is opposed as well but there is not an address on here so we do not know how close they may or if they are inside the notification area those are the only public comments that we have to be read in the record at this time seeing no one else want to come speak before us I'm going to close excuse me good evening commissioners I'm Tim Beatty I reside at 2459 West Blackjack Road in Arbery most of my time is spent at 421 East Hickory in Denton and I have owned this property for several years now over over 10 and very familiar with this property I was even involved with this development when it went in but the problem is with this property is a another developer owned this before I did and the way this is platted is not compatible for for a single-family home it was pointed out earlier and and I understand the neighbors concern and we could go build two houses right now but the driveway would run right down the side of our fence and so as you've seen this is a a high density area I understand the traffic there's a public school across the street in a public library this is a this is an arterial street that majority of this traffic I don't have any way of proving it but it's I'm sure more than 50% of it don't even live in this this area we're talking about so the impact and traffic I think is very minimal obviously you can see we're trying to build something that's attractive something that would look good it's an infield lot it's been a vacant lot since the beginning and it's an opportunity to get another infield lot filled with something that's very compatible very attractive and I think it would enhance the neighborhood not not devaluate the neighborhood at all so just before you vote I would just ask that you take a serious look at the area at at the densities at at these two lots they're they 're they're difficult to build a single-family home and I don't think any of you would want to have a driveway that wrapped around your house for the neighbor next door and that's the way this is set up so just thought I would throw my opinion in and if you got any questions for me feel free to ask you have a question Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I just have two quick questions hopefully yes sir the first is it was there any considerations maybe going through a replat to make it more conducive to do single-family dwell ings on the property well we looked at it the problem is it's border I mean to downsize the lot to where there would be three lots there they're too small and you know like you on the said you know there's a buffer there on Windsor that they they took away so it it really doesn't lend itself to do that and they you know you're gonna end up with an approach too close to intersection by doing that as well so it's it's just a problem it's a problem lot sure the same question I had is in work session there's a mention of a long-term lease given any idea of how long-term the lease commitments would be to the citizens fear or concern about a rotational neighbor can you speak to that well you know I'm one I'm not gonna tell you you know what you want to hear you know people are people we we would require we haven't got this far yet but our minimum is one- year commitments but people break leases you know sure but and I will say there 's single-family rent homes across the street and there's four lease signs out right now so this area I understand there's homes and there's homesteads and there's families but it's also made up of long-term lease buildings here thank you thank you any other questions for this speaker okay thank you thank you thank you in this is a public hearing if there's anyone else that would like to speak on this item please come forward at this time seeing none I'm going to close the public hearing and open the floor for discussion Commissioner Taylor thank you chair I just had a quick question for staff this might be more an engineering question the site plan that was shown the possible future a possible future site plan that was shown had a single central driveway was and those mentioned that maybe the drive would be too close to the arterial would that because it's trying to think how to the question would that would they be able to build that driveway at the lot line there because there'd be the only way to access that lot or it would have to meet the driveway spacing requirements let me see if I can I wish Earl was here tonight the driveways to the north they do have a split driveway between so they could it could be shared you know the development pattern just to the north you'll see that these these houses do share a driveway let me see if the transportation section will tell me it may be in the criteria manual so I may hit a hit a road block here but I don't know the answer to it that would have to be something that Earl and engineering would have to look at but there's generally some flexibility if you have a lot that you cannot build a driveway to you have to provide allow access in some capacity so yeah all right thank you sure Commissioner back thank you chair as I mentioned before I am really torn between this decision because I know our African has always built a fine product and this is a unique lot it's in an area where it blends in with both single-family multifamily and I understand homeowners concerns too about how it's going to affect their property so it's a tough decision here but and I think if it was anywhere else I wouldn't have any problem sustaining the nr 3 and so we don't have this patchwork zoning but after listening to all sides I'm under the opinion that maybe this is the exception where we do change the zoning for this particular case because otherwise this lot of probably just sit there forever and ever and provided that you know we get the quality workmanship we always have from the applicant and I would probably also add that they do seriously consider if we do vote in their favor that you do build some kind of buffer on that north side that would be more distinctive as a separation so with all that in consideration I am considering voting for this approval thank you Commissioner Husspeth thank you chair I'm sorry Julie I was talking and I had a question for you while you're there so my question is as it's currently zoned in our three there under those allowed uses there's a community homes for disabled can you what is that what does that look like I know I know a little bit about and state it would be like any other house we do have a sub chapter for it in the code it is my understanding that state law requires that that is permitted in all residential zoning districts so so it would be just just like any other home we do have regulations there have to be so many a maximum number of people they can't be within half mile of each other so we have some guidelines but it's something that's permitted it would be it'd look like any other house but to my point how many people with that how many you know that's that's what that's what I'm curious about I believe it's for unrelated for unrelated okay so currently just people if you have two duplexes two adults that's four people and it's allowed currently if it was a different and used in a different way you could have those same four people am I understand am I drawing a straight line right I mean am I missing it as far as just I'm just saying just sheer number of people that are now injecting themselves into this neighborhood yes okay I think okay okay Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I appreciate the citizen coming out and speaking I certainly understand you being right next door your feelings are certainly valued so I appreciate you coming forward and talking and it definitely plays into the difficultness of this decision it does seem apparent though that the neighborhood is a lot of multifamily and du plex I mean based on the residential development of those percentages I mean over half of the area is not homeowner homeowner lived in and so I feel like conducive to the actual neighborhood it seems appropriate to to go forward with this but it is a difficult decision Commissioner Bruegel thank you chair you know I love infill you know I love it but I don't always approve it there was a case a year year and a half ago on the corner of Sherman and Kings Row you remember that Commissioner Taylor and Commissioner strange and they wanted to increase the density and it it seemed like a really good and it was a really cute project but it really didn't fit the character of the neighborhood and though I agree with Commissioner Beck that we do need more affordable housing in Denton and I agree with Commissioner Roselle that there already is a lot of multifamily in this neighborhood when you look at the site there are some pretty clear barriers delineating where multifamily and single-family are located I understand that the owner may not be able to make as large of a profit building only two single-family homes as he would if you were to build some duplexes but I think the greater good here is to to honor the wishes of the neighborhood which came out to speak and I this is going to go to City Council so I encourage you to speak to your neighbors and make sure that they show up as well so this is a really tough decision because I love infill and I love density but in this case I'm going to move for denial of this request yes I am I'm moving now I'm gonna move that yeah Commissioner Taylor I'll second I have a first and a second any further discussion Commissioner Hatchbeth thank you yes I mean I'm good I I would love to get your thought mr. chair just because it is quite the conundrum but we have two separate entities that have reached out to the neighborhood we have the city that reached out we have the builder that reached out and the response is minute and so it leaves us to read the tea leaves and I think it's unique in that the property owner is deeply vested in the city and and so when you're talking about someone that has to be accountable I mean this is right in his wheelhouse this is his business this is his reputation this is what he does day in day out so I just think it's it's a little unique in that it's not a person that may or may not be invested in the community may just turn it may flip it I mean his name is synonymous and tied to it and it has probably far reaching that implications than then we we know so I think when you're talking about holding someone accountable to a product and and making sure they stand behind it and making sure they keep it just so I think this project is that I mean it is that so I am curious because you have an insight to the business side of the business and just experience that that I want to understand better I have the floor next so I'll offer a couple of comments I appreciate the perspective fellow commissioners and also the homeowner that's come before us after looking at the renderings I know those are not tied to what we're going to look at as far as voting on one way or the other on their zoning tonight I did find it interesting in the way that they were laid out that they didn't have entrances on each side of the home like a normal duplex was they're stacked front to back so it has more of appearance of a single-family design in a single-family neighborhood versus your traditional duplex which is what's all up and down the street and townhomes and as well as the apartments and the four plexes across the street I drove over to the neighborhood actually today before a meeting just to refresh myself it's been I had to say 30 years since I was at Strickland but anyway you know it's a lot of stuff is still exactly the same as when I was there in you know in those early days and I think one of the things for me and I'm not going to support the this particular motion I'm in favor of this project because the subdivision has been developed for 30 years the houses have taken some time and as the last ones being built in the in the mid 90s that's 20 years ago and in my opinion as a developer is and builder as well in this community is that if the marketplace has got a need for those things then they they get absorbed very quickly and if this was single-family use they'd have houses on them and there's a reason why they don't have single-family houses on them now and it's probably because of what's behind them what's across the street and I think this is probably one of those cases where you know you need to take a look at there's someone here of good reputation and a local person that has a great history behind them of building some great products it wants to take the serious on the launch for a long time and I can assure you if they felt like they could move forward with this and doing single-family they probably already would have single -family houses on them versus they've been mowing them and paying taxes on for at least ten years or longer so for those reasons I'm not going to support this motion and and I hope that we get a an opportunity to bring this back up in a in a next motion if this one doesn't pass to move this forward and see something nice built over there on that area and and and have them turn from vacant lots to places where people live and kids go to school Commissioner Taylor thank you chair I meant to speak a minute ago and I somehow got reset off the board so I'm was somewhat ambivalent about this beginning of the night and there there is a lot of kind of moderate density around it there's a lot of duplexes and fourplexes you know across the back fence and just down you know across Windsor and I just look at this as you know those those have been single-family lots for since they were planted and the you know the the owner the current owner has owned them for 16 years so if they haven't been developed it's because the current owner has chosen not to develop them not I think more more than any great market force that's saying we don't need any single- family in Denton and if I was and I was thinking about this I I move I'm moving into a neighborhood that's turning from primarily rental to primarily single family and if there was an empty lot across the street you could fit two houses on you could fit a duplex or possibly two duplexes on it I would be really an upset if if that was proposed and so I think this North Bell Avenue is a cohesive single-family neighborhood even though it has du plexes across each back fence all of the houses along North Bell and Lido and Foxwood and Holly Creek you know they have the green belt on one side and you know a little neighborhood right there so I don't think this is going to do great harm to the neighborhood but I I would be really angry if this appeared across the street from my house and and in an area that's currently zoned single-family and so that's that's why I feel I'm going to support the motion to deny any other requests to speak for a call vote on board so sure just just to clarify then so vote commissioner Brigham thank you chair just to clarify then a vote for then is about to deny this request that is your motion yeah thanks commissioner Hedgesmith sorry so commissioner Taylor if help me reconcile and I'm going to go back to my staple currently so we went we jumped a few grades for the United Way headquarters it's smack dab in the minute next to a neighborhood I mean it's all there's no multifamily anywhere in there and so I 'm trying to reconcile understanding how the look I'll concede that the barriers are set I agree but I'm just trying to reconcile one there's two neighbors that reached out and so I don't know that I'm comfortable speaking for the rest of the neighbors and in two as a body we've kind of made decisions that are comparable to this decision in the past so I'm just trying to reconcile that so any insight I'd welcome commissioner Taylor thank you chair so in regard to the United Way project a couple months ago I think I was also I didn't feel I did feel it had an impact on the neighborhood and it's a really it was across the back it was a five or so acre parcel across the back fence from a row of houses and I think the the so the future land use plan that had been in place since before the 2030 plan since since the 2020 plan I believe it did have that area indicated as industrial and so I felt like we could have handled that project better I felt like if it had been zoned into one of the NR categories it would have provided a better buffer and I felt like there was risk because we zoned it in a potentially light industrial use that something really noxious could have gone in behind that back the back fences of those neighborhoods and I just have to rely on trusting United Way wouldn't do that and so I think if the balance of the future land use plan in that area and and the fact that it would provide some buffer was was what swayed me on that project and I do agree this you know this isn't the worst thing ever and it's not going to you know destroy this neighborhood but I do think it will have negative impact over over a long period of time and if there are empty rental houses across the street right now you know those will be less likely to become owner-occupied over time if there is a duplex of you know guaranteed permanent rental directly across the street from them so you're kind of guaranteeing that there will be more rentals in this neighborhood it will be less owner-occupied as time goes forward seeing no more requests to speak I will restate the motion the motion before us is to deny the rezoning request and I have a second on that and I see no other request to speak so I will call for a vote on the board the motion fails four to zero I'm sorry for two apologize I saw the zero on the end so I read the last thing came out my mouth first for opposed to in favor the motion fails Commissioner Rizzo I'd like to make a motion to go ahead and approve this agenda item Commissioner Beck chair I would maybe I don't know if I can do this at a time I would second the motion but I would like to emphasize the need for a north buffer is there some way I can this can be a part of that approval no we can't put that in with our zoning but I think we had in our work session that if it is with the duplex on there that it would require a 10-foot buffer I believe that's one of the development code requirements is that correct staff okay okay did I second the motion okay any other requests to speak on this motion we have a first and a second and the motion before us is to approve the zoning as requested I'm in our three to in our six any other requests to speak seeing none I'll call for a vote on the board motion carries four to two thank you everyone the next item on our agenda this evening will be to discuss our project matrix and any concluding items none at 720 Commissioner back she's we would like to talk with Commissioner Briggs about this if we could discuss at some future time or maybe I just need to put a balloon out there to think about the possibility of some competition between our Commission City Council perhaps even the the other Commission that traffic safe yes bicycle race on the square and not just to you know the public will have a warmer feeling with its elected officials and its public servants and to promote the use of bicycles so something that maybe we could address in the future we'll add that to the matrix any other items seeing none at 722 I'm going to close our meeting for this evening thank you everyone