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