This meeting has been duly posted and we have a quorum
present. This is going to be our meeting for September the
28th and I'm going to call our meeting to order at 5 o'
clock.
Our first order of business today is going to be to receive
clarification of agenda items and before I recognize Menal
to bring that forth, I understand we have a new associate
planner with us today.
Ms. Abbe-Riaz, welcome and thank you for your service and
helping us this afternoon and in the future. Glad that you
're here to join us.
And with that, I will turn it over to Menal for
clarification of our agenda items.
Thank you, Chairperson Strange. We are going to start with
a preliminary plaque for North Lake Shopping Center and
Mike Bell is here to present that.
Okay, thank you.
All right, this is a preliminary plaque for five non-
residential lots at the northeast corner of Bonnie Bray and
Highway 380.
The big anchor lot here and several kind of pad sites
around the outside.
It does meet all our requirements for utilities and
infrastructure. So we are recommending approval and there
will be a final plaque coming shortly.
Anybody else? I have a question on this plaque.
I noticed on the finished floor elevations on the, I guess
the site that would be to the far northwest looks like it's
682 and the lower finished floor elevation is 671.
So it's about a 10 feet of difference in the height of
those.
It looks like there's a lot of common ingress, egress. Just
curious how that will all tie together.
Somebody a lot smarter than me may already have all that
figured out, but it's a lot of grade change in two pad
sites.
I would look at the grading and drainage plans for part of
the backup for the plant, but I will ask Roleskobar if he's
got any more information on that.
Those minimum finished floor elevations are just based on
the FEMA floodplain elevation at those locations, but the
terrain doesn't necessarily reflect the same amount of drop
between those two elevations as well.
It's pretty, I think it's a pretty flat area.
So the, I guess the elevation at 671 I believe is not going
to actually be, the actual building will not be at that
elevation.
It will be a lot higher because of the terrain being a lot
higher at that point.
Okay. Well, don't have the topo, just have the finished
floor and it's a lot of difference.
So thanks for the clarification.
I don't know if this affects us too much, but that dam for
the Northlake Park is just about on this property line as
well.
So maybe a bit of a slope from that dam.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mike.
Next item is an ADP and Julie Wyatt is going to present
this for us. It's ADP 160013.
Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt.
I'm presenting ADP 1613 for Aldi.
I did put two letters on your desk regarding this.
This isn't a public hearing item.
There's no notification.
This is an individual consideration item.
But the neighborhood did send me letters, so we wanted to
provide those to you today.
So the request before you is to consider an alternative
development plan for the construction of an approximately
19,000 square foot grocery store.
The subject property is located on the corner of University
and Ector right here in yellow.
The current zoning is NRMU.
It's important to note that the use is permitted.
However, there are design considerations that the applicant
would like for you to consider tonight.
And the request includes several deviations from subchapter
13.
NRMU is considered a pedestrian oriented district within
the city of Denton.
As such, there are additional site design considerations
within that.
One being at least 60% of the street frontage shall have a
building within 10 feet of the front property line.
There's a minimum floor to area ratio of 0.4 and they're
proposing a 0.238.
The parking area should be located behind the buildings or
one or both sides.
And then the building setback can't be more than 15 feet
from the right of way unless there's a plaza area.
The applicant would like to vary from these site design
considerations and we're going to go over the site plan.
First of all, they're proposing a sign on University.
The code requires that they could have or permits that they
could have a sign on both Ector and University.
They're only proposing a sign on University.
They do propose 72 parking spaces, which actually exceeds
the 64 required by the code.
But because they're exceeding those spaces, they are
proposing to construct those with pervious surface.
That actually meets the Denton development code
requirements and is not a part of this request.
But it was originally something that they thought they were
going to do, so I wanted to bring that forward to you.
So the excess parking isn't a part of this request today.
It's just really that building orientation and where the
parking area is.
They are also proposing to the loading dock area, there's a
wall that screens that.
It's also proposed to go below grade to screen that and
mute that for the neighborhood.
There are some pedestrian connections.
There's one pedestrian connection here from this sidewalk
on Ector.
There's also another pedestrian connection from this
handicap parking spot to the building front.
Yes, sir.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
How are those designed?
Is it just marked?
It's really just going to be paint on the...
Okay.
Yes, sir.
Okay, thanks.
What they're proposing is paint on the concrete.
They are also proposing cart storage behind masonry walls,
3 1/2 foot masonry walls, to screen that cart storage and
just make it look really nice.
They're also...
They have proposed a landscape plan.
They are proposing a 15-foot buffer on the south property
line.
This 15-foot buffer is only required in this portion next
to this single-family home.
However, they're proposing to extend that even against this
adjacent NRMU zoning designation.
They are also proposing to increase the vegetation within
that landscape buffer to 10 large evergreen trees, 21 small
trees, and then 80 shrubs.
They're proposing an additional square footage of landscape
areas, as well as tree canopy.
They're also proposing planting islands and end caps within
the parking area that exceeds what code requires.
Now, the code does require these end caps and planting
areas, but they only require one tree per planting area.
So by adding the shrub, the low-water shrubs, it's
enhancing it because the development code doesn't require
any plantings other than grass and then trees.
So any... those shrubs within that parking area is
additional.
They're also proposing some foundation plantings in front
of the building along University, and then an enhanced
parking lot screening area here on Ector.
Parking lot screening at the right-of-way, if it's not in
front of a building, requires one tree every 40 linear feet
.
They're proposing additional shrubbery in order to screen
the parking lot or the car headlights and just visually
improve that parking area.
Here are the elevations they're proposing.
I put some arrows just to make it a little shorthand for
you.
This elevation is proposed to be the Ector Street location,
and you can see that is the dock area.
This elevation here, I did not put an arrow because it's
this one right here, and the arrows were getting a little
confusing.
So this is actually in this area.
This is the University side of the building, and then this
is the southern or the rear elevation to the south.
So this would be next to that 15-foot landscape buffer.
It's important to note the Denton Development Code doesn't
have a minimum masonry requirement for commercial buildings
,
and they are proposing a masonry building.
So that exceeds what the code requires.
Oh, yes, sir?
>> Question?
>> Is the front screening for the shopping carts identified
in that university elevation?
You said there's a three-and-a-half masonry screening?
>> Yes, it's a little difficult to see because it's flat,
but it is for the University side.
It's near these bollards right here, and then you can kind
of see it on the Ector side, and then the flip side, you
can see the University one here.
>> So the masonry matches that bottom portion of the mason
ry?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Thank you.
>> Sure.
>> Commissioner Tyler.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Going back to the landscaping along Ector.
>> Sure.
>> Is there existing overhead utilities, utility line
running along Ector?
>> There aren't any existing overhead utilities.
We do have the plat, and I don't have it with me.
I wish I had brought it, but there aren't any utilities
here.
There are utilities along University, which that's why we
've got such a large area here.
But these should be, and DME and engineering have looked at
this, and they've said it's okay.
So these trees will be okay in this area.
>> Okay, I just want to make sure, because I'm fairly
certain there is a power line that runs along the west side
of Ector.
So I don't know if it ends before this block, or if it's
just out in the right of way and doesn't affect the
landscape.
>> I believe there's one pole that is at the corner of Em
ory and Ector when you look at the aerial.
You can see those, and there are some overhead lines.
I don't know what they're for though.
I don't know if they're power or, you do see them?
Do they extend all the way up?
Yes, they do.
So we need to ascertain what those are.
>> Okay.
>> Regarding, and we can get that information to you.
>> Sure.
>> And if for some reason it couldn't develop the way it's
proposed here, it would have to come back to you.
So we have requested that the site plan and landscape plan
be attached to the ADP.
So we looked at the criteria for approval for ADPs, and
that's in sub-chapter 13 of the Denton Development Code.
First, that it preserves existing neighborhoods.
Staff analyzed what they proposed and believes that this
enhanced buffer on the south side of the property increases
the compatibility between the proposed development and the
neighborhood to the south.
Assures a quality development that fits in with the
character of Denton.
You know, this is, and we were talking before, this is kind
of a unique property in that it's on University, which is
really an auto-oriented street.
And so, but it is close to a neighborhood, so it kind of
splits these worlds.
And so we do feel that this proposal does fit within the
commercial character of the University, but that the
additional landscaping serves to soften this proposal and
allows it to be more compatible with that neighborhood area
.
The criteria also states that we need to focus development
on activity sitters to curb strip development and urban
sprawl.
So this is within the infill boundary and it's within
existing road networks.
It's not creating additional roads.
The proposed location is near a residential and commercial
area anyway.
Ensure that the infrastructure is capable of accommodating
the development.
This was vetted during the plat approval.
There was a re-plat that was administratively approved in
August.
And then ensure the developer's alternative proposal
results in an overall high quality development.
And staff believes that this enhanced landscaping does
define the right of way and creates the visual interest for
pedestrians.
And you know, what these requirements are for, the building
orientation, the floor to area ratio, the location of the
parking.
It's really to minimize the visual impacts of parking areas
for someone walking by for pedestrians.
So additionally, we want to define the street wall.
We want to define that street area.
And with the additional plantings, staff believes that this
proposal does achieve that.
That it does activate the pedestrian area and it does
define the street.
So based upon those recommendations or criteria for
approval, staff does recommend approval.
But with some conditions, one that the proposed development
must substantially conform to the site plan, landscape and
elevations,
including those marked pedestrian areas within the parking
lot, the enhanced type C buffer, the additional landscape
area, as well as the additional tree canopy.
The parking lot planting islands with that enhanced landsca
ping, enhanced parking lot screening, Ector with the
additional shrubbery, no ground signs to be permitted on E
ctor.
And then only ground signs would be on University.
The screen cart storage and then the loading area must be
at the rear, you know, below grade with that eight foot
screening wall to mute those visual impacts of that.
So if you have any other questions, I'll stand for the
question.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair.
What are the dimensions of that sign on the front there?
The sign for on University that they're going to be
installed.
Is that low to the ground?
It would have to meet any of the sign requirements on
University.
So it would have to meet the height requirements.
Let me see if I can. I can't see that.
Don't mean to put you on the spot. No, no.
It's a good question.
You know, we haven't we don't have any sign elevations for
it.
The applicant will be here tonight.
So you could certainly ask them about it.
Thank you.
And I just, I guess, like to make one comment.
I think the applicant has done a good job to minimize the
effect of putting those parking places out front.
We seem to have gone through several requests here where we
've acquiesced to, you know, leaving the parking places in
front.
But this this this particular project has done a good job
of trying to minimize that with the buffer.
But I just just wanted to raise that concern because I hope
we don't get in the groove here.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Just my own edification, it appears that they're being
asked to get a variance for the 10 foot setback for the
building.
And yet I don't see a single building on the university
except Sherwin Williams that fits that description.
And so I'm just curious as to why does all the fit into
that criteria, whereas nobody else has.
That is a good question. It has to do with the zoning
district.
So this property is located in a neighborhood residential
mixed use zoning district per the Denton development code.
That neighborhood residential family of zoning districts is
considered a pedestrian oriented district.
And so they have some different site design guidelines.
All much of the of the zoning on university is community
mixed use general.
It isn't a pedestrian. Those aren't considered pedestrian
oriented.
That isn't a pedestrian oriented district and therefore it
has different site design requirements.
And front parking is permitted in CMG provided that they
they screen it in accordance with the code.
Thank you.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you. I have two questions that piggyback both the
earlier comments.
The first is the mention of ground signage.
Am I missing something? How inclusive or exclusive is
ground signage?
Is there other kind of signage that they're allowed to use
apart from ground signage on Ector?
They could a wall sign on the building.
They would still have to meet the setbacks for any illum
ination for the sign.
But but yes, we separate the indent and signs between wall
signs and ground signs.
So a ground sign would be a monument sign or a pole sign.
Any anything that's not attached to a building.
So apart from the building, if you're on Ector, the goal is
to not have a visual sign.
And that's what we discussed with the applicant to not have
that sign on Ector.
And the second question I have is in regards to the
specific zoning.
The FAR, Florida area ratio of 40 percent seems to
encourage a certain amount of density.
They're asking for a less dense application. Am I
understanding that?
They are.
The intent of that higher Florida area ratio in pedestrian
oriented districts is to encourage buildings and pedestrian
people areas to take up more of the lot so that you
activate more of the lot for people.
So by going less than that, you're having less room for
people.
So that's why that's a part of the request.
That makes sense.
Thank you.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Julie, do you know anything about the lighting that's going
in?
They will have to meet all DDC requirements for lighting.
And let me get my code so I quote it correctly.
Subchapter 13.
Light performance standards in subchapter 13 state that
light cannot measure more than one half foot candle at the
property line.
And then any pedestrian has to have areas have to have one
foot candle.
So so they would have to meet the subchapter 13
requirements for commercial development.
If they didn't, they'd have to come back and ask ask you if
they could vary from that.
Any other questions for staff.
Thank you, Julie.
Julie, you might want to stay.
Next discussion item is the 160016, which is a request by
DSD for a public hearing for a change in zoning.
All right.
This request is the 1616 the ISD student services.
I put some additional letters on your chairs about this one
.
There's some opposition and then letters in opposition and
letters in favor.
So the request before you is to consider a rezoning for two
tracks from NR3 neighborhood residential three to and
downtown residential two to downtown commercial
neighborhood on approximately five point five acres.
We're going to get to the specifics of this request.
But before we do that, I kind of want to just take a
broader look at the zoning in the area, particularly the
area north of downtown.
So this is the area north of downtown.
Here's the courthouse down here.
And this is the subject property.
So you just keep that in mind.
So this is the current land use of the property north of
downtown.
I actually did mark the courthouse right here.
So you can see near the courthouse, this pink is commercial
development.
And this is our downtown core.
And you can see it's a lot of pink.
As you go north up Elm and Locust, you see you see a lot of
pink and then it fades into the yellow, the yellow being
single family homes.
This area just north is a mix of uses.
It's got single family.
It's got some small apartment complexes.
It has some office uses.
It has some restaurant uses.
You have TWU in this area.
As you go north to university, that's where this auto
oriented development.
That's a lot of commercial development and you can see
there's a lot of pink there.
And then when you get in this area, you can see a lot of
yellow.
That really is an established single family neighborhood
just adjacent to the request.
And then when you look at the same vantage point with the
zoning, you can see the zoning actually kind of reflects
that.
This dark green being the downtown development, that's DCG.
That's our downtown core zoning district.
We have DR2 north of that.
That is one of our downtown zoning districts, downtown
residential two.
It does permit a mix of uses, some small scale office uses,
some multifamily, single family residential as well as du
plex, I believe.
So it's got a mix of uses.
Once again, TWU is here.
CMG, we see CMG, one of our more commercial districts along
university.
And then our neighborhood residential three, that's
reflected where that single family, where you saw a lot of
yellow in the current land use.
And R3 is one of our lower density zoning districts.
It permits three and a half dwelling units per acre.
So you can see our current zoning and our land use mirror
each other to some respects.
So now we're going to get specific to this request.
It is on two tracks, the first track being here, or the
first track I'm referring to.
It's adjacent to Bolivar and Elm.
Second is on the bottom, or on the southern part, and then
third is on the north side.
And then here's track two, which is between Locust and Elm.
It's important to note, Denton ISD is coming to the city to
rezone, not for use.
Because it's Denton ISD, it's permitted in any zoning
district.
So we're not really talking about use, or in their specific
case, we're not talking about use.
They're actually coming to the city because of lot coverage
, because the zoning districts that they're in have a lower
lot coverage than what they need in order to redevelop.
Also, before I leave this slide, once again I want to point
out, you can see maybe more clearly this residential
development pattern here.
And then it becomes a little more mixed use in this area.
You can really see the residential here.
So when we look a little closer at the current zoning, we
see that tract one is split down the middle with two zon
ings.
NR3 district and then DR2 district.
This tract two is wholly within DR2 district.
There is DCN adjacent, and that is part of the Denton ISD
administration facility right here.
And then DCG district is the dark green.
NR3, as I said before, is primarily single family
residential.
It's lower density, three and a half dwelling units per
acre.
Maximum building height of 40 feet and then a max lot
coverage of 50 feet.
And as I looked at my staff report today, I realized I put
30, the lot coverage is 30% instead of 50%.
So that was an error on my staff report.
But the max lot coverage in NR3 is 50%.
Lot coverage within the city of Denton includes the
building as well as any impervious surface.
So all the parking areas, all of the sidewalks, all of the
drive aisles, as well as the building, those all count
toward lot coverage.
DR2, so that's NR3.
DR2 does permit moderate density residential uses.
It permits small scale commercial uses.
It has a maximum building height of 45 feet and then a max
maximum lot coverage of 75%.
Some photos I took of the surrounding area.
Once again, I'm not good at taking photos, so don't expect
great things.
But here is Locust and you can see the development pattern
in the area.
It's primarily one and two story office buildings and then
some of the multifamily do go up to three story.
This is Elm.
Once again, kind of the same development pattern.
And then here is Bolivar.
Bolivar is getting where you're more getting into the
primarily residential area and you can see this is looking
north and then this is looking south.
The future land use designation.
As we've talked about before, the future land use, it doesn
't have hard lines.
Those lines are kind of transitional areas and so we sort
of look, so we can look at it more comprehensively.
There are two tracts.
So tract one is on the edge.
It is in downtown compatibility area, but it is also on the
edge of low density residential.
So we wanted to make sure we looked at that comprehensively
.
So we looked at both of those future land use designations.
Track two is in, wholly within the downtown compatibility
area.
The future land use designation for low density residential
, its intent is to encourage single family dwellings,
maximum of four dwelling units per acre, kind of a suburban
style development pattern.
The downtown compatibility area, future land use
designation, its intent is to create a compatible form and
uses that strengthen both downtown and adjacent neighbors.
And that's important.
And when you look at a larger future land use map, you can
see this dark red, that's downtown Denton.
That is a really intense district.
But then we have this downtown compatibility area that
comes out of that to the north and then here to the east.
And you can see it really does buffer and it's a transition
area between the downtown and the neighborhoods.
Considerations we looked at when we reviewed this project
was first tract one protrudes into an established single
family residential neighborhood that's zoned NR3.
We felt that this neighborhood derives protection from this
existing zoning.
And that DCN would increase the likelihood of a domino
effect of encroachment into the neighborhood, potentially
compromising its integrity.
So what does that mean?
All right. I have some animation, so let's hope it works.
So let's go back to the current zoning.
So here's our current zoning map.
There's a really hard line between the existing NR3 and the
DR2.
And that's shown in that red line.
And that really does protect that residential neighborhood
because it only permits single family uses.
It doesn't allow it to redevelop with multifamily or
commercial uses.
It really does protect that existing development pattern.
And as you can see, it's also reflected in the land use.
So when you put that hard red line there, you can see the
yellow is in the NR3 side, whereas the part that's in DR2
is developed to reflect what the zoning district permits.
So when we get a little closer in to the project, once
again, we've got our hard line on the NR3 and the DR2.
If DCN moved forward and was approved, it would break that
hard line and it would project into that residential
neighborhood,
potentially allowing adjacent properties to rezone and then
affect that development pattern because they could be rede
veloped in a way that isn't consistent with what's there.
Because this is a cohesive, well established neighborhood.
Our second consideration was that the proposed DCN district
would create incompatibilities with the existing
development pattern and land uses.
As we saw in those photos, the current land use or the
current development in the area really is kind of small
scale.
It's single family homes, it's offices, but they're one and
two story.
It's some small multifamily, maximum three stories.
So it's kind of a small scale development.
DCN's maximum height is 100 feet and the maximum density is
72 dwelling units an acre, which is quite a bit different
than what's existing.
And let's compare some of the land use tables with that.
So here's NR3, it's single family, it permits three and a
half dwelling units per acre.
DR2 permits 30 dwelling units per acre.
DCN goes all the way to 72, so there's quite a big jump
there.
As far as commercial districts, NR3 doesn't permit
commercial, it is a residential zoning district, DR2.
Permits the small scale, under 5,000 square feet.
When you get to DCN, retail and offices could go up to 25,
000 square feet per lot, so they're quite a bit different.
And then industrial and institutional uses, just as an
example, the elderly housing isn't permitted in NR3 or DR2.
It could go up to 55,000 square feet in DCN.
So it's just the scale of development is different.
And then when you look at the building envelope, what part
of the lot a developer could actually construct a building
in?
When you look at NR3, the maximum lot coverage is 50%, the
maximum building height is 40 feet, DR2 is 45 feet.
Maximum height in DCN goes all the way to 100 feet.
So although the current applicant isn't proposing to build
something that high, when we look at a rezoning,
we have to look at all of the uses that are permitted in
that zoning district and how it could potentially develop.
And when we look at how DCN could potentially develop, it
really could dwarf what is existing there and would really
be out of scale for what's in the neighborhood.
We also looked at Denton Plan 2030.
DCN doesn't meet the intent of low density residential.
It is a commercial and a mixed use zoning district, so it
doesn't meet what we consider to be low density residential
in the city.
Downtown compatibility area, DCN could be appropriate for
this future land use.
And I want to make that clear because it could be
appropriate.
However, when we look at the character of the immediate
area and the surrounding area,
it really wouldn't balance the protection of the
neighborhoods with the commercial needs of downtown.
DCN district would probably be more appropriate to the
south, closer to downtown.
So it could be that buffer, be that bridge between the
downtown development and the neighborhoods.
And that expanding DCN district in this area could
potentially create a new commercial hub.
And just to show you the map.
So there is DCN existing here.
But by expanding that, you're kind of skipping over this
sort of lower scale development to potentially creating a
new development pattern here within the neighborhood.
And staff doesn't really feel that that's an appropriate
land use pattern.
Final consideration, the DISD central offices have been in
this location for many years.
Staff feels like this is a great infill and it's good in
this location.
And it presents a desirable opportunity.
So we don't have issue with the use or actually what they
're proposing.
However, we do feel that the zoning district that they are
proposing is incompatible with the existing development
pattern and zoning pattern.
And that we want them to redevelop, but we'd like for them
to take a more conservative approach, possibly approaching
ZBA for variance for the lot coverage.
Because their use is permitted.
We did send out a public notification.
We've received a couple or three in opposition and one in
favor.
I'm sorry, two in favor.
So based upon the considerations and the criteria for
approval in the development code, staff does recommend
denial of this request and Manal would like to add.
Actually, I have a question.
Yes, ma'am.
Would you please elaborate a little bit on what DISD is
proposing?
I believe they're expanding their facility or are they
raising and rebuilding?
They are.
Because this is pertinent then to.
And the applicant is here and I'm sure they'll provide
their site plan. But yes, they are.
This is probably good.
What they're actually proposing, this building right here,
I don't know if you can see it very well, they intend for
that to remain.
That won't change.
And that's the part that's in NR3.
They are proposing additional parking for that in order to
accommodate the employees.
So this is the NR3 portion.
This can only be 50 percent lot coverage.
It exceeds it now.
So they would need to either rezone or go to ZBA in order
to expand that.
There are also some structures on this site that they would
like to tear down and build a new facility here.
They've actually, this map doesn't reflect it, but they
have abandoned Gary Street and are actually creating a
pedestrian walkway.
It looks great.
So that the people who work in this facility have a safe
place to cross between buildings.
They're working with TextDOT in order to get some sort of
light or something to accommodate that pedestrian crossing
here.
So that's actually going there.
And honestly, I can't remember, but I'm sure they can tell
us what they're going to do in this location.
So there is some rebuilding.
There's some redevelopment.
It's a rather comprehensive package.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
Could you pull up a closer up aerial or maybe a Google Maps
image or aerial just zoomed in?
Let's see if I can.
Go back to Google Maps instead of Google Maps.
I know.
It's so much better than my picture.
It's zoomable.
We might have to flip back and forth to answer my question.
How about that?
Yes.
So we're looking at the two red roofed buildings, this
thing over here, and then these two silver roofed
commercial buildings right there.
And the current thing marked independent school district,
that's already DCN.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
And so the density on or the lot coverage just south of
Gary is already at like 80 or 90%.
It is.
It's already completely.
And then the two red roofed lot buildings, those are at
probably at least 80%, looks like.
There's a little bit of grass back in the north side.
Well, they actually, this is a public alley.
Once their intent is to replat all of this, abandon this
public alley, and all of this would be one lot.
Right.
I'm just trying to understand the history here because
these were developed in the 80s.
And they were built at a much higher lot coverage than like
twice what's allowed.
You know, almost 100% lot coverage.
Okay.
And then those, there used to be some little single family
homes, I believe, down along third, I remember a few years
ago it seems like.
So those lots, they just bought empty lots or bought and
demolished some old rental properties.
Okay. Thank you.
Sure.
I just want to jump in on your comment, Devin, just for
some of our newer commissioners.
I think one of the reasons why we are having this lot
coverage reform is because of the change in the definition
of how the city determines lot coverage.
Right.
It didn't used to be all impervious.
It used to just be essentially the structure, the sidewalks
, the parking lots were not included.
That changed a number of years ago, five?
2000.
2000 and something, I believe.
But a number of years ago, absolutely right.
And so that's why I just want to say for the record that
DISD didn't build something that is not in compliance with
our code.
Correct.
City of Denton changed the definition of lot coverage and
now that's created this issue.
Correct.
So just to add on to that clarification.
Commissioner Rozelle.
Thank you.
The Northeast building, DISD, has that recently come before
the commission for rezoning to DCN or what's the history to
get that to DCN?
It was approved during the city or it was done during the
citywide rezoning in 2002.
Is there, this might be a very difficult question to answer
.
Is there a reason that that was DCN but the other seemingly
same interested buildings was not put into DCN at that time
?
I could guess.
But my guess is that DISD was there and so they just, they
zoned it in accordance with what was existing.
I don't know why other properties, I don't know why others
were left out.
So it's a good question.
The other question, maybe not even a question, concern I
have is you brought up a couple times with some sweet
animations a hard line.
That hard line's not even on a road for my estimations.
It was just put in at the end of where single family
housing happens to end.
Yes.
So it seems like a convenient lines to put in but it's not
an actual road delineation between those two zones.
And it seems like the current construction already breaks
that hard line, making it not really a hard line at all in
my estimation.
Because their property already crosses it.
That line is not on a road.
It comes down, kind of does a jig-jag around their property
and then continues.
There's an alley there.
I can address that.
For a couple blocks, yeah.
Right, you're absolutely right.
The hard line is not a physical separation by a right of
way or specific uses.
In fact, that hard line is specific to zoning designation
hard line.
That zoning designation that you see on this subject
property, the subject property is split and has two zoning
categories, the NR3 and then the DR2.
So in terms of the analysis of the fundamentals, really, if
we were to get down to it, was we completely understand
what's on this site.
We completely see the vision that DISD has.
We understand that and the expansion would, in fact,
enhance the property, no doubt.
However, the change in zoning for tract one or portion of
tract one, which is the NR3,
could domino into piecemeal zoning requests that would
follow that red hard line or to the west of that hard line.
And there have been, in fact, we have received some comment
from adjacent property owners who felt that this, you know,
great.
Now I can go ahead and rezone my lot and do whatever I want
with it.
So this was a very difficult zoning case.
Although it seems really simple, in reality, we're dealing
with a split zoning on a property that is already developed
and is wanting to redevelop or, you know, reestablish and
refine what they have.
Yet we've got to grapple with the, or we've got the
fundamental question that as planning staff, we have to
answer is, would this truly be a detriment to the adjacent
built out, well established, older neighborhood.
And yet we understand that to the west of that, to the east
of that hard line, there are a number of mixed uses.
And therefore, if we go back to Julie's recommendation or
prior to her recommendation, her final consideration, that
there is an alternative avenue available.
And that's to seek a recommendation, a favorable
recommendation from the zoning board of adjustment to allow
them to build on an increased lot coverage premise.
And again, a very difficult question to answer because we
have to now ensure the integrity or protect or limit the
dilution of that residential neighborhood because that's
one of our charges is how do we maintain the integrity of
these neighborhoods.
>> Sure, that makes perfect sense.
I guess, I guess my point or my perspective is, DEN ISD is
not asking to encroach on a line.
They're already past the line.
They're just asking to further develop beyond the line they
're already been passed.
>> You're correct.
So DISD is saying we already, and I'm speaking for DISD, so
I'm paraphrasing.
DISD is situated on a site or is their siting has two
zoning districts.
Let's assume that they were able to or they chose to expand
under the existing parameters of the, because it's a split
zoning.
Wherever they were developing and whatever the crossover of
that development were, if it were contained within the NR3,
they would have to comply with the NR3 development
regulations, which would hamper their ability to be able to
use the lot to their liking.
The same theory then applies to the DR2 component to the
east where the hard red line is, where the hard line is,
and they would have to comply with those lot coverage and
building height requirements.
Obviously, that's not conducive.
On the other hand, if there was a crossover of buildings
over that red line, so to speak, crossover of zoning
district, then they would have to comply with the most
restrictive zoning regulation.
And so back to fundamentally, are we re-zoning, enabling a
re-zoning on this property could cause dilution or could
hamper the NR3 district to the north and to the south and
eventually, as Julie showed in her sweet animation, to the
west.
However, there is an opportunity available, and that is the
Zoning Board of Adjustment, so that they can then request a
variance to their lot coverage requirements and allow them
to go higher than what is permitted in the zoning district
of NR3, for example, or DR2, for example.
And that single change would suit the needs of the proposed
reconstruction or redevelopment?
I believe building height and lot coverage, correct, Julie?
I don't even know if it's building height.
It may just be lot coverage.
Okay.
But then again, there's no guarantee to the recommendation.
Thank you.
Commissioner Back.
Thank you, Chair.
Regarding this variance that they would seek, it wouldn't
change the zoning.
It would still be NR3.
Right.
Okay.
It's my understanding, too, that what they want to do on
the NR3 section, if you can go back to your Google map.
Yes, sir.
Where they want to do parking up there, is that correct?
On that corner?
That's just parking, no buildings going on there, is that
correct?
Correct.
Okay.
That's our understanding, yes.
And DCN, is it a mixed use thing where housing can go in
with that, or is that purely commercial?
No.
I'll go back.
DCN doesn't permit single family uses, but it does permit
some residential uses, multifamily duplexes.
So it does permit a mix of residential uses.
But not single family?
No, sir.
And again, the discussion, and I apologize, but the
discussion goes back to, you know, when we look at the
zoning change,
we look at the site comprehensively and future redevelop
ment of the site, too.
Therefore, those fundamental questions have arisen.
Right.
Okay.
Thank you.
I want to jump in a second.
I follow the logic on zoning.
I tend to be very, as you know, pro on allowing these.
My question would be more on the alternative for a variance
.
I know there are specific criteria that you have to meet to
be able to be granted a variance.
Would this property meet those threshold requirements to
qualify for a variance?
And if so, would staff be willing to recommend for approval
a variance that if we turn this down this evening
or follow staff's recommendation that a variance would be
assured to DISD that they're not totally shut down
and no longer can move forward?
You're pointing at me to answer that question, and I will,
actually happily.
If you recall, we've clearly stated that the use and the
expansion is something that we're in favor of.
In fact, it is in field development.
But because of the associated zoning districts, it makes it
a very difficult decision, I believe,
not just on the planning department's planning division's
part, but also yourselves when you're sitting here
because you've got some fundamental issues to answer.
However, when you look at the criteria of the Zoning Board
of Adjustment,
and I hope I'm not digressing from the agenda topic, but
there are several criteria that are listed in there.
And primarily, there are some physical constraints on that
site which hamper the ability for it to redevelop
or to develop or to accommodate expansion.
And first blush, I would say that we should not have an
objection, staff should not have an objection
recommending favorably to the Zoning Board of Adjustment
for this type of request.
And we've had several requests in this manner that have
gone forward in the past.
Okay. So, Chair, I'm going to continue down this line.
If, for example, in hypotheticals, if staff feels like
based on what you described that we could look at a
variance,
would it be possible for us to table this, give the
applicant an opportunity to apply and get their hopefully
variance,
and if for some reason there was an issue, this could then
come back to us.
I would actually like to defer to Aaron on just one
question.
Can we continue? And then depending on if the Zoning Board
of Adjustment does not recommend favorably,
I just want to verify if there's a time constraint or a
time limit on that.
I've always been of the opinion that you can do that.
We don't necessarily have done that in the past here in the
City of Denton and other Texas cities.
I'm having practice in another state, doing the same kind
of work that was very common.
There's nothing that prohibits us from doing that.
But the ultimate decision on whether or not that should
occur would lie with the applicant.
The applicant can choose to say, I don't want to go to ZBA.
I want to take my chances and go forward here.
So it is possible, but it takes the applicant also to join
in that decision.
I understand, please.
Commissioner Ellis, I think you were next.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, I just wanted to go with what Munal was talking about
.
It's really the future when we do make this type of zoning
change.
If DISD down the road chooses to sell the lot, it does open
the door if we make this change to a world of possibilities
that the people along Bolivar and Second Street in
particular do not want.
I take this route twice a day on my way to Denton High.
There are at times that this building does impede on the
neighborhood often with parking.
And I do understand the need for expansion, and hopefully
maybe that would alleviate some parking down the road.
If they could expand currently where they are and take it
off the street because it is dangerous right now,
I will tell you that any time that they're doing a large
education there.
But I think it's for the future that I would have to
definitely agree with Staffan Boatnoh on this.
Commissioner Tyler.
Thank you, Chair.
I was going to go back to the procedural question of
potential options to push this to ZBA.
Would that be a new case, or would this case be transformed
into --
It would be a new application.
It would be a specific application for the Zoning Board of
Adjustment process.
So they would have to reapply, and we can determine the
associated fees and what have you with that.
Thank you.
Commissioner Shelton.
You know, to echo the concerns about parking, you mentioned
that the northern part would be pretty much parking a lot.
What's going to happen, I guess, on the east side where the
structures remain that they're going to be tearing down?
Is there going to be additional building?
And if so, is that then going to mean more parking spaces
or more people coming to work,
which now all of a sudden they've run out of parking spaces
so they're back out on the street?
And would that alleviate their parking issues?
The applicant is here, and I believe they are prepared to
discuss the numbers of employees,
how their proposal will affect the parking situation.
So if you don't mind, I'm going to defer to them because
they're a lot more well-versed on that.
Sure.
Okay.
How about this next?
Commissioner Roseau.
Thank you.
It seems often that it comes back, in my opinion, about
future land use versus current use and the difference of
that.
It's been explained to me explicitly that future land use
specifically has a gray blurred line.
Is that what we call it?
Fuzzy lines.
This is the first time I've ever seen from staff present a
hard line, specifically against all the blurry lines that
we do see.
And I'm wondering, is the reason that we're specifically
calling out this hard line, for the first time in my
experience,
for the protection of those houses, because it seems like
it's supposed to be a transition zoning.
And that is the difference between the future land use and
the zoning.
So you're right.
The future land use does have that fuzzy, and we can kind
of look at it.
We can analyze it both in the low-density residential as
well as the downtown compatibility area.
But when we get to the zoning, that's when the hard line,
because that's when we get parcel by parcel.
So you're right.
The hard line is not with the future land use.
The hard line is with the zoning on that.
And to impress further upon that, Julie, if you go back to
that map where it shows the blurred areas,
when we talk about the downtown compatibility area, really
it's to make sure that we strengthen both the downtown and
adjacent neighborhoods.
And that's where then the analysis gets a little, we do a
deeper dive into the analysis.
Commissioner Begg.
Thank you, Chair.
And I would just add that transition is definitely what we
want.
But this change would create a transition that is kind of
outside the parameters of what I think is there and wants
to be there.
That would be my main concern.
You're looking at, if we go to DCN, you're looking at
possibly a seven, eight story building there.
And that would be a deep concern for me and the
neighborhood.
Commissioner Taylor.
So just exploring the philosophy that Commissioner Rozelle
brought up, I think it's important.
You know, I found, I find in my own viewing of the future
land use map is that in green filled areas, in areas that
haven't been developed,
you might have lots or you might have open land that is
potentially going to become parcels for single family
development or commercial development.
And I feel like those areas, those boundaries can move a
lot more because there isn't a clear expectation.
In a case like this, you have 50 or so single family homes.
Every single lot has a home on it.
They've been there for 60 to 80 years.
You know, I think there's a clear expectation that there is
a boundary there.
So I think that's another part of this fuzziness is
whenever it's a vacant lot or something that's been demol
ished or doesn't have anything across the street from it or
those types of things,
there's less expectation that it's going to stay exactly
what it's designated.
But whenever you have 50 parcels in a row, you know, a
quarter mile or more in a pretty dense area, completely
developed.
You know, if you go back to, is it one map back?
The one with the actual uses, sorry, forward.
You know, there's, you can see a lot of purple mixed in
with the yellow over here.
All these little commercial uses kind of sprinkled in.
But then there's this clear line, you know, down Bolivar
and, you know, up at, what is that, about Westway or so.
There is nothing commercial in this big, big block.
So, and all of those, every single one of those lots has
been built out.
So I think that's where you might get a clear, clearer,
brighter lines as opposed to, you know, areas where there
are open lots.
Where then you might say, ah, this can move over 100 feet
or, you know, you could do, these two parcels could go more
commercial or more residential or, you know, in some cases
we designate an intersection and say,
we're going to put 50 acres of commercial here, well it's
cow pastures now, and it turns out that the commercial
developer wants the next intersection over.
And so we end up putting 50 acres of commercial there and
this 50 acres of commercial up here gets developed as
residential.
Because those are just kind of, those are plans on a map as
opposed to, you know, well developed expectations.
Yeah, I appreciate the insight.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you.
I appreciate the insight and I, clearly the lines are
evident, the lines break down is where their building
already is.
There's, so yes, there's a line at Westway, there's clearly
a line at Bolivar, but there's not a hard line through that
alley because it's interrupted by their current building.
And so, pardon me, I understand exactly what you're saying.
The, the, to me the biggest issue is rezoning them, selling
the property, and then we're out of control over that
development.
But to say there's, there's this hard line, I don't think
is a correct assertion because they already are there.
Like there's, there's not a hard line where it's pink and
yellow, there's kind of a hard line north of it, there's
kind of a hard line south of it, but not where they are.
And so I guess that's the internal struggle I have is, I
understand the long term, but I also understand it's been
there since the 80s, so those houses have been living this,
with us for 40 years.
And so it's not, to your point, we're not going into cow
pastures, granted, but we're also not, they're not going
and tearing down family homes.
They're, they're working on a building that's already been
in that neighborhood as a known quantity for 30 years.
And that was our struggle too, because the use has been
there and they're, you know, a good neighbor and we want
them to develop and it really, it really was a struggle
that we had internally as well.
Sure, no, I understand it.
I'm going to throw one other thing before we close this
item and take a break, get food, and then we'll start on
razor ranch.
This is a thought just to throw out for commission to
consider and maybe DSC to consider between our break and
when we meet.
I believe our board has a purview to zone down rather than
zone up, so we could take a look at the possibility of, on
the one tract, give them the DCN that they're looking for.
And on the track that is the NR3, we could do that as a DR2
, which gets them close to where they want to be for tonight
.
It may not be exactly where they would like to be.
And if they need to go from 75% to 80, they could look at a
variance.
But I think we have the purview to down zone versus up zone
.
And I don't know if that's something that staff has
discussed with the applicant or the applicant wants to
consider it.
Maybe the commission may or may not want to consider it,
but just as Chair, we'll throw that out as another option
we may be able to put before us tonight, depending on what
the applicant would like to consider based on where things
seem to be going so far tonight on kind of trying to get a
consensus here.
So with that, Julie, thanks for your presentation on this.
And I'm going to call a recess in our work session at 6 o'
clock.
We'll take a quick break and get some food and try to come
back in.
I think our next item is going to be at least 20, 30
minutes.
So we're going to kind of start running.
Thank you.
We're going to reconvene our work session at 6 o'clock.
I believe the next item on our agenda to receive
clarification on is going to be in the public hearing for
razor ranch.
Mike Bell.
Thank you, Chair.
This project is the 1613.
It's the razor ranch zoning plan.
The request before you tonight will be to consider an
amendment to the razor ranch overlay district to reclassify
approximately 10 acres from a south mixed use sub area to
the south or to separate and I'll get into that.
I do want to clarify 10 acres is an overstatement.
This is changing an exhibit.
It's not a meets and bounds description.
So it's actually probably more like four or five, but we
just want to overestimate for notification purposes.
What this would entail is an amendment to two exhibits of
the district with the exhibit B1, which is the concept
schematic plan and before, which is the zoning overlay.
We provided both of those in your backup.
We do have some new members since last time a razor ranch
item came up.
So I want to give a brief kind of overview, very general
overview what razor ranch district is the overlay itself
includes 410 acres highlighted in the area in yellow.
It's as we all know, it's on 380 between Bonnie Bray and I
35.
The district itself was originally improved in 2007.
And since then, there have been a number of amendments that
the two two big ones, in my opinion, in 2008 and 2010.
When we're working with now is essentially the 2010 version
of the ordinance with some modifications that we made
earlier this year.
The overlay district contains three major components that
are specific to this area, one being zoning restrictions
and we limit some of the uses in this area.
Then there's the map, which is the exhibits that we're
talking about.
It also has specific site design criteria in terms of
architecture, landscape and signage.
And then there's a special process for site plans.
So what y'all do see site plans for razor ranch when they
come in, you know, they'll see one at the next meeting
actually.
And then I want to give kind of a breakdown of how razor
ranch has broken up in terms of zoning and in terms of site
design because they're a little unique.
There are two major areas in razor ranch.
There's the marketplace on the north side of 380.
It's called the south campus on the south side of 380. I do
want to call this out.
This is the 10 acres, the five acres we're talking about.
I want to keep it in context of our conversation here so
you know where it is in terms of these boundaries.
But it's this double black line is the subject property we
'll be talking about.
It should stay there as I move through the slides.
Within the marketplace on the north side, there are three
areas that are R2 and R3.
And there's a residential area north of where the Sands and
Academy between that row of buildings.
On the south side, it's divided into five or six categories
.
RR1 is the town center, the formal town center.
RR2 is the pad sites along 380 and I-35 where you see the
chiles, the multi-tenant building, the raising canes.
Then the south mixed use district is everything kind of
roughly east of Heritage Trail and then between that and
the town center.
Then there are three kind of outlying areas, the substation
, the gas fill pad, and Cooke Children's have their own
specific regulations.
So that's the zoning and that's the uses, the regulations.
But then there's also some design standards categories that
group some of these districts together.
So for the marketplace, the entire marketplace follows
exhibits C, D, and E.
C being architecture, D being landscape, E being signage.
And then the residential north of the Sands to Academy,
those standards haven't been approved yet, but they will be
in C, D, and E.
The second major section of design standards is the town
center and the south RR2 in this area here.
Those follow exhibits C1, D1, and E1.
Those are part of the ordinance today.
And then there's the south mixed use district.
And those have exhibits C2, C3, D2, and E2.
And those C2, D2, and E2 have not been approved at this
point.
It's always been the intent that as Razor gets to this
phase of development, they'll come in and write those
standards before any development occurs on the site.
And then there's also C3, which is specific to multifamily,
and we'll get into that in the next item.
So getting into specifics of this request, what they would
like to do, on the left you see the existing map.
It's part of that south mixed use district on I-35.
This is where Panhandle will be.
They would like to change that into the south RR2 district.
So the same as the Basing Canes, the Wynn Code, the multi-
tenant buildings that you're seeing go up right now.
And what does that mean? What are the changes that happen?
Well, these are the uses that are permitted in both
districts, and they're entirely commercial.
What you'd expect, hotel, retail, restaurants, movie
theaters, offices.
Those are all permitted in both districts, the existing and
proposed.
What's different is in the existing district, there are
some residential uses that are allowed.
Town homes, multifamily dwellings, single-family dwellings.
That if this request were approved, those residential uses
would go away.
They would no longer be permitted.
In terms of the general regulations, they're basically the
same.
The south mixed use has some additional requirements for
single-family.
Because single-family is not allowed in the proposed use,
they're not present on the right side.
They're roughly the same for both districts.
And then where we get to the difference, the big difference
and why, the primary reason they're here tonight,
is that the current zoning does not have the design
standards approved.
C2, D2, and E2.
Those are always intended to be inserted later.
The district they're going to would then follow standards
that have already been approved, the C1, D1, and E1.
So really their request is to, they have a retail use in
mind.
The retail use is permitted in both districts.
They want to go ahead and follow the design standards that
have already been approved for 380 and 35.
And what does that look like?
Some of the new members just want to show some of the
recent elevations to give you an idea of what those
architectural standards require.
And so you see there's kind of a generally consistent theme
in terms of materials and color.
That would be the requirement for this site, should it be
approved.
And again, what it really boils down to is this change is
two major things.
One is the day it's a residential uses and it changes the
design standards.
That's really what it boils down to.
And realistically, residential is probably not ideal along
I-35 anyway.
So we don't see that loss as being detrimental to the
integrity of the district.
And ultimately we don't foresee the eventual design
standards in C2, D2, and E2 being,
for non-residential being all that different from what's
already approved.
What will be different in C2, D2, and E2 are those design
standards for the single family, the multi-family, townh
omes, things like that.
So in terms of design, probably not going to be too
different anyway.
We did send out a notification.
We didn't receive any replies.
I did get a number of phone calls, but nobody wanted to
return a notice.
And we will be recommending approval.
So with that, I'll stand for any questions that you may
have.
Commissioner Rosell.
You said you did get phone calls?
Yes.
What were the phone calls?
It was most of the businesses around wanting to know what
was going on.
Okay. There wasn't any residents and outcry or anything
like that?
No.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
On that note, I think it's because in the buffer region for
notifications, there aren't any single family homes.
Question for you.
Is this just to begin development?
Is that why they want to do this, just so they can begin
development sooner?
Yes. There's a user in mind and they have a site plan in,
they're ready to build.
But to do that, under the current zoning, they have to get
those standards approved, those design steps.
And they're not ready to do that just yet for the entire
south mixed use district.
Okay. We're just not ready to do that yet.
So by doing this, this allows that development to begin.
Correct.
And it's 10 acres.
It's, like we overestimated, it's probably more like four
or five acres.
Four or five acres, is all?
We don't have a legal description of this boundary.
Typically in a zoning case, we would get a legal
description and it's set in place.
But because all this is is changing an exhibit and an
ordinance, just one little map,
we didn't have them go out and survey the exact site.
Okay.
But for public notification requirements, if we under
notice, there are legal implications of that.
So it's less than 10 acres.
So we went ahead and went over it just to be safe.
Okay. Understood. Thank you.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Trying to get some background on the Razor Ranch, I found
that there's been a lot of issues regarding changes that
are always being made.
And my concern is that in the original plan that Razor
Ranch people got tax incentives, rebates, abatements, and
all kinds of things,
how does the changing from non-residential or from
residential to non-residential, how does that affect any of
that?
It shouldn't affect it at all in terms of the tax state.
And the applicant can speak to that probably more clearly
than I could.
But my understanding is it does not affect any of that.
It's just the design standards and the use is permitted.
Well, but when you have residential, you have property
taxes.
And if it goes to commercial, are they still going to get
the same tax treatment as the other parts of Razor Ranch?
Forgive me. I'm really not an expert on the tax level.
Okay. That's fine.
I think the applicant could probably answer that question.
That's fine. Okay. Thank you.
Well, I'll chime in.
You'll still get your property tax on the commercial, but
you should also get sales tax that you wouldn't receive in
a residential.
Application and I agree with you.
I don't know that residential was ever a great use there
along I-35.
And I think certainly now with the convention center in
there, I think it makes a whole lot more sense to have
commercial out in front of that to serve and support that
convention center than some type of residential stuck out
there along 35.
So I think it's a good idea.
And I like seeing the consistency of the standards that we
already have in place and eliminate some of that mix and
match that's been before our commission before about
different colors and all those kinds of discussion.
So I think it's a good idea.
Let me ask you this.
Mr. Sullivan.
The, now what is the, I guess the difference between the
tax incentives for sales taxes versus property taxes?
My understanding is that there would be no incentive
necessarily from a property standpoint, property tax
standpoint, since the owner pays that and not raise a ranch
.
Whereas if you have sales taxes, then that's where their
reimbursements, abatements, or what have you would come
into play.
And there are residential along 35 just south of there.
I'm not sure that that's a legitimate concern just because
there are already town homes and apartments not too far
into the south.
Well, I wasn't into specifics of, I guess maybe what your
question, I was just making a general statement that they
both will pay property taxes.
A residential won't pay a sales tax.
There won't be commerce going on there and there won't be
sales taxes taking place there.
In a commercial setting, if it's another fast food
restaurant, there'll be sales tax there that would come to
the city that would not come there if it was, to your point
, a town home.
There will be no sales tax collected there.
That was my statement.
That may not be the point you were asking.
Well, I guess my concern was where would the city gain more
tax revenue from residential or after the rebates or
reimbursements or whatever, how the incentives are set up.
Or would it come from sales taxes?
And that's what I'm, I guess I'm wondering what's the
overall benefit to the city by changing it from residential
to non-residential.
This isn't what you're, give me one second.
This probably isn't exactly what you're getting at, but I
do want to make it clear that commercial is permitted there
today.
They could do retail.
Both of them are permitted.
They're only removing the ability to do residential.
So in terms of what they could have done before and after,
it's essentially the same.
It's just the design standards.
OK, so residential was not required.
It was just an option.
That's what I was going to say.
Gotcha.
Thank you for the clarification.
Other questions?
Great.
We have the next item, which is also Rage Ranch.
Mike Bell.
All right.
This is Z1622.
This is the Rage Ranch multifamily standards.
I do have a long version and a short version.
I'll leave it up to you which one you want to hear.
But essentially it's a request to amend the exhibit C3 that
we talked about in the last presentation, the multifamily
standards that are specific to the south mixed use area.
And it would amend that exhibit C3, B3, excuse me.
I'm sorry, that's a mistake.
It's C3, yes, as it is here.
C3.
So multifamily, this is the only area multifamily is
permitted in the south mixed use area.
So these standards are specific to this area.
Just to give you an idea of how these standards were
developed, these are the Afghans proposed standards.
But what we did recommend is they use subchapter 13, which
is our citywide standards as a baseline and go from there.
And so in your backup, I have provided kind of a comparison
chart between the citywide standards and how they compare
to the proposed standards.
But generally it's all the same sections that you would see
in any other site design criteria manual, the site design
orientation, architecture, and regulations, landscaping,
lighting, open space, all the stuff you're typically used
to seeing in a zoning regulation, site design regulation.
And with that, I will leave it up to you whether you want
me to go through these or not.
If you have questions, otherwise I can jump to it at the
very end.
There's kind of a real world example of what we have an
application in that meets these standards.
And I can show you what that would look like.
Won't you please do that?
And if we have some questions, we can come back.
As you'll see, it's pretty wordy as they go through the
long version.
OK, so this is the site plan application we have in now.
It will be coming before you at the next meeting should
these standards be approved.
And essentially what it is is a multifamily development.
This would be, north would be to your left.
The WNCO is right here.
This is Heritage Trail.
It's a arterial roadway.
And it requires the buildings be set up to the front of the
street, just like we normally require for citywide
development.
One of the exceptions, though, is it doesn't require it
along private streets.
Again, if you looked at a master plan of Razor Ranch, this
is all just a big parking field, primarily anyway.
But we did want to encourage the building to be set up
along public streets.
I'm missing a slide here.
And then in terms of elevations and color materials, it's
pretty similar to what you've seen in the other parts of
Razor Ranch.
However, we did not, the applicant did not wish to include
like a pallet or building material samples specifically for
multifamily development.
So those are different from what you're used to seeing in
the other exhibits.
But we did specify the materials that they could use.
So it does narrow it down a bit more than the citywide
standards in terms of building materials.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Go back one, Mike.
Yeah, right there.
It seems clear what are the apartment buildings.
What are the little cube areas around?
Are those apartments, too, or townhomes?
These are garages.
OK, OK, great.
And we require them to match the building.
They have high masonry standards and building materials
standards.
They're not allowed to be out in front of the buildings.
They have to be at the side or the rear.
That's what you're typically used to seeing.
And I did, again, I want to stress that I outlined all this
.
Again, that's very wordy, too.
So I'm happy to hit the highlights if you wish.
But it is more strict than our citywide requirements.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
So this is an update to C3.
Can they build if we don't have D2 and E2 defined?
Yes.
No landscape standards?
Yes.
The C2, D2, and E2 will be for the non-residential and the
single family components.
The ordinance specifically calls out that multifamily shall
follow Exhibit C3.
So everything else is subject to C2, D2, and E2.
So C3 is completely inclusive of landscape and everything?
Absolutely.
Okay.
I understand.
I was curious about that when I just saw that one of three
standards being approved.
And this also, the material requirements, they match the
material requirements, material and color requirements of
the rest of Southside Razor Ranch?
No, there are no pallet approved like you've seen with the
non-residential.
So the, what you see on 380 being built has a color pallet
associated with it and material pallet.
This does not have that, but we are requiring 40% masonry.
Everything else, we're capping secondary materials to 30%
each so you're not going to have 40% MESO and 30% stucco.
It'll be primarily masonry.
And we've limited the materials to specific materials that
we'd like to see.
Not color, not a specific brand of stone, but we would say
stone, for instance.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Thank you, Mike.
Short version it is.
Yep, short version.
And with that, let's see, back here to the front.
That is all the items we have on our work session agenda
this evening.
So I'm going to close our work session at 625.
And if we can hurry, we can try to reconvene on time at 630
if possible.
Good evening and welcome to the City of Bend Planning and Z
oning Commission meeting for September the 28th.
We have a quorum present and our meeting has been duly
posted.
And I'm going to call our meeting to order at 635.
Our first order of business will be to stand and give the
pledge to the U.S. and Texas flag.
And to the flag of the United States of America.
Honorable Texas, Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the
Texas, Texas, Washington, and under God, one, indivisible.
Just as a point of order, we will not have a minutes for
our meetings this evening.
That will be in our next meeting and that will take us to
our consent agenda.
And our first item will be PP16-0001.
Chair would entertain a motion.
Commissioner Batt.
Commissioner Rossell.
I second.
Okay.
We have a first and second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
We'll move us to item three, our individual consideration
items.
First item will be A, which will be ADP16-0013.
And I'm going to call on Julie Wyatt, sorry, for the
presentation on that.
It's on part of a page.
Good evening.
Would you like for me to go over the site plan again?
I know we went over it in work session, but because we've
got a lot of audience members here.
Please, thank you.
Who may not have had an opportunity.
Okay.
The request before you is an alternative development plan
for an Aldi.
The request is to construct an alternative development plan
to construct approximately
19,000 square foot grocery store.
The subject property is located on University and Ector.
And it is in our MU zoning district.
The use is permitted, however, there are site design
considerations that the applicant would
like for you to consider this evening.
There are some portions of subchapter 13 that the applicant
would like to deviate from.
One being that 60% of the street frontage shall have
buildings within 10 feet of the
front property line.
The minimum floor to area ratio of four tents.
That the parking area should be located behind the
buildings or on one or both sides.
And that the building should be set back not more than 15
feet from the right of way unless
it was a plaza.
So those are the site design considerations that they would
like to deviate from tonight.
So we'll look at those in relationship to the site plan.
And actually, because Commissioner Taylor asked during the
work session about the easements
along Ector, I went ahead and pulled up the plat.
There is an easement, a public utility easement on the
property to the south of the property.
There isn't a public easement.
So if there are any polls there, we could do additional
research, but there's not a
public utility easement in that location.
So just wanted to answer that question for you, sir.
So sorry.
Sorry for the detour.
Okay.
Back to the site plan.
All right.
They're proposing one sign along University Street.
They are also proposing 72 parking spaces.
Now, the debt and development code requires 64 parking
spaces for this location.
It also states that if an applicant wants to exceed the
parking requirements, those
parking spaces have to be constructed of pervious surface.
And the applicant has elected to develop the parking lot
with those pervious surfaces.
So if you'll see the pink area, those are parking spaces,
but the parking spaces that
exceed the 64 that are required, but they are proposing per
vious surface.
So that meets the debt and development code requirements.
Some additional site design considerations.
They are proposing three and a half foot walls, masonry
walls to screen the carts to reduce
that visual impact of the carts.
They're also proposing some pedestrian connections from the
sidewalk to the building here on
the Ector Street side, also a pedestrian walkway here.
And then their loading dock area is proposed to be below
grade, screened with an eight
foot masonry wall to reduce the visual impacts of that
loading area.
When we look at the landscape plan, there's a little more
to look at.
First of all, normally a 15 foot type C buffer would be
required in this location.
However, they've extended that buffer and actually added
additional landscaping within
it in order to beef up that buffer between the proposed
commercial development and the
neighborhood to the south.
They're also proposing some foundation plantings here along
University in the front of the
building.
They're landscape islands.
They are meeting the landscape island and NCAP requirements
of the city of Denton's
subchapter 13, but they are enhancing that.
Subchapter 13 requires only one tree in those landscape
islands.
They've actually proposed not only those, but some low
water usage shrubbery in order
to provide some enhanced landscaping.
And then this parking lot here on Ector, they're proposing
additional screening for that.
The code only requires one tree every 40 feet.
They've actually proposed to add shrubbery and to reduce
the visual impacts of that parking
area.
All of this combined includes an additional 4,600 square
feet in landscape area that's
not required by the code, as well as additional tree canopy
at maturity of over 6,000 square
feet.
Here's the elevations.
Just to give you a little shorthand, this elevation is
proposed to be on HIC on the
site.
So on Hector, this is the elevation that will be on this
side.
This is the university side of the proposed building.
And then this is the side that will face the south end of
the property.
This is 100% masonry structure.
Well, not 100%, I'm sorry.
That's incorrect.
It is predominantly masonry.
There are some additional elements in this area that are
going to be a metal element.
The considerations for ADPs are in subchapter 13.
First, they need to preserve existing neighborhoods, assure
quality development that fits within
the character of Denton, focus new development activity
centers to curb strip development
and urban sprawl to ensure that the infrastructure is
capable of accommodating the development,
and ensure that the proposal results in an overall high
quality development that meets
the intent of why we have these requirements.
And when you look at why we have these requirements for
building orientation and parking location,
it really is to enhance the pedestrian experience in these
pedestrian-oriented areas.
Staff worked with the applicant to get additional landsca
ping to in effect work the same way
a building in that area may in order to reduce the visual
impacts of the parking area to
define the street wall and to provide visual relief for
pedestrians walking by.
It will provide a nice visual atmosphere.
So based upon the criteria for approval, staff does
recommend approval of the request with
some conditions.
First, that the proposed development comply with or
substantially conform to the attached
site plan, landscape plan, and elevations.
And that includes those elements we talked about, the
pedestrian connections, the enhanced
buffer, the additional landscaping and tree canopy,
enhanced landscaping areas in the
parking islands and on screening, the prohibition of ground
signs on Ector to reduce the visual
impact of the commercial development, to screen that cart
storage, and then also to make sure
that that loading area is below grade so that it will
reduce the visual impact.
I'll stand for any questions, and I know the applicant is
here and would be prepared to
answer any questions as well.
And make a presentation.
Okay.
Answer any questions.
Thank you, Chair.
Just curious, what determined where these pervious parking
spaces would go?
Did it have something to do with how they drained or?
You know, that would be something that you would, you might
want to ask the applicant.
When they, you know, that was initially something because
they did have a neighborhood meeting
and that was initially something that they were considering
is putting that within this
ADP to construct those with just regular concrete.
And they've elected since then to do those with pervious
pavement in order to meet the
Denton Development Code requirements.
So.
Okay.
I'll pick their brain when they come up.
Yes.
Thank you.
Any other questions for staff?
Thank you, Julie.
Sure.
I'm sorry.
Commissioner Tyler.
President Light.
Thank you, Chair.
Sorry, I was slow on the button there.
So I'm looking at the ADP request has four things that are
within the change.
As you said, floor area ratio, the setbacks, and then
parking for the building.
So this lot works in development, meeting all the
requirements that it develops.
If they didn't require an ADP, they just file a project
that met those requirements,
put in the building permit and start construction already.
Yes, sir.
The use is permitted.
And so can you pull up the site plan?
Sure.
Just to get an idea of what that would look like.
They would have to have the buildings not more than 10 feet
from Exeter Street?
Well, the building actually fronts university.
So the building would have to be slid up toward university,
either toward this corner or potentially
in the middle here within the parking centered in the back.
It wouldn't have to face both streets.
It would only have to face university.
Just one.
And then it would have to front at least 60%.
Oh, sorry.
Can you make sure your mic is on?
Sorry about that.
Okay.
So and then it would, if so it would front university and
it had to be at least or not
more than 10 feet from university.
60% of the property line would have to have buildings,
built structure within 10 feet
of the property.
So say for Granz, if this was 100 feet long, 60 feet of
this would have to have a building
within 10 feet of the front property line.
They couldn't actually do it in this area because there's a
20 foot utility.
Is that where you're going?
It was good.
20 foot utility easement.
So they would just have to be, you know, adjacent to that
20 foot utility easement.
Okay.
And then the floor area ratio, we're saying a minimum
recommended floor area ratio of
0.4 and they're at like 0.23.
Yes, sir.
So they would have to build a 32,000 square foot building
instead of a 19,000 square foot
building?
So the areas and pedestrian areas can actually be
considered as a part of the floor to area
ratio in the zoning district.
So you could potentially have a, you know, a gathering
space or some sort of plaza area
that could count toward that floor to area ratio.
So it wouldn't necessarily just be building.
It could be building and that people place.
And this is NRMU.
Yes, sir.
So it allows grocery stores up to 25,000 square feet,
general retail to 5,000 or so, and restaurants
up to something 4 or 5,000.
4,000, I believe.
4,000.
And then, you know, apartments with a mixed use.
Or SUP.
Yes, sir.
Or an SUP, but not single family homes.
I don't believe.
Let me check.
I believe it's multi family.
I don't think so.
Are you correct?
So like a fourplex could go in, an apartment could go in
with an SUP.
You could have retail with apartments above without an SUP
with just a building permit.
As long as it met the mixed use development requirements.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sure.
Any other questions for staff?
Thank you, Julie.
Thank you.
This is not a public hearing, but it is an individual
consideration item.
As such, so far, the public is welcome to speak on this.
You will have to fill out a card.
The difference between a public hearing and an individual
consideration is instead of having
four minutes like you will in a public hearing, you'll have
three.
So if anyone would like to speak on this, you can certainly
give comment as an individual consideration.
You will need to fill out a card, though.
So far, I have two cards.
The first card I have is for Brigid Corbett at 1220 Ector.
Would you like to speak or would you just like your card
read?
I'd like to speak.
Okay.
Please state your name and address for the record and you
're speaking in opposition.
Yes, I am.
Okay.
My name is Brigid Corbett.
I'm at 1220 Ector, Denton, Texas, 76201.
I'm a resident of the city of
San Diego.
I'm a resident of the city of San Diego.
My concerns are twofold.
And one of my concerns, I think that the way things are set
up with the city, these things are not usually
addressed together.
I had tried back in May, I sent an email to a city employee
and asked her to forward it to some other
city.
And she said, "I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry."
I'm feeling my concerns are not addressed.
But what my concerns are, number one, is the variance in
the parking.
Because this site abuts a neighborhood, I feel like the
current zoning that's in place is in place to
protect our neighborhood from the scale of business.
And so to do a variance on that seems to me to put our
neighborhood character at risk.
And I think that that ties in also with traffic concerns
because there are things that are going on with
Ector Street that, for instance, the street was recently
repaved, even though it had been repaved in the
not too distant past.
It's a very short street, but it is yellow striped, which
gives the impression that there's a higher
speed limit than it is.
And when I sent my email back in May to express concerns, I
asked about any kind of traffic calming
practices that are done routinely in larger cities like
Austin, for instance.
And there are numerous things that can be done.
One of those is speed bumps, also texture on the road, stop
signs.
The response I received back today that had actually come
out in June but didn't reach me until today when I
asked about it addressed only speed bumps.
And it directed me to speak with someone in the engineering
department.
And I'm happy to do that.
But I think that if there is zoning that affects a
situation like this where it's a business that's right next
to a neighborhood, you can't fully address it without
addressing the traffic concerns.
And I had also said that with the variance in the parking,
I'm opposed.
If the plan came in with the parking that's already allowed
in the zoning, I would be fine with it.
Thank you.
We have a question for you, Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
Ms. Corbett, thanks for coming in and speaking to us.
Appreciate it.
This traffic you're concerned about, do you see -- how much
of it do you actually see coming down, Hector,
as opposed to University?
We don't have a whole lot of traffic on our street, but
there are people who drive much faster than 30.
I agree.
And the speed limit there now should be 30.
Okay.
Your concern is that this is going to be violated more
often now because if this grocery store goes in?
Well, our street is deemed a collector street.
Right.
In larger cities, collector streets still have traffic
calming strategies because you can't just say,
well, now that this is a collector street, we're going to
ignore that it's a neighborhood street as well.
And it's my impression that we are getting away from
concerns for the integrity of the neighborhood
and moving towards making traffic easier.
The response that I got today was, let's see, our
engineering department checked with fire regarding
installation of speed humps on Hector Street.
Unfortunately, they don't support it as it is designated as
a collector in the city's mobility plan.
Additionally, this segment of Hector is approximately 30
feet wide with frontage roads on either side.
That's some of us here live on Hector.
That's where we park our cars.
In no way are those roads, makes it sound like a freeway,
wide enough to provide access and space for parking
vehicles.
As such, the street design enables vehicles to pass at a
higher speed due to the reduced friction,
which I'm sorry, but that really didn't make sense to me,
reduced friction.
Well, I agree there's probably going to be some increased
traffic coming down Hector and some calming devices would
be a sensible thing to do.
So I don't know what we can do here with that today.
Well, I'll be contacting the engineering department, but I
would hope that in the future there would be collaboration
between departments
because obviously something like this affects more than
just the lot itself.
I understand. Thank you.
All right. Thank you.
Another question for you, please. Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you. It's actually more of a clarification from staff
regarding Ms. Corbett's comments about parking.
Is the parking currently a minimum and they're going above
and beyond or is it a maximum and they're actually asking
for variance to put in more parking?
Can you clarify that?
Sure. Sure.
The original neighborhood meeting that they had did say
that they wanted to exceed the parking and construct it
with impervious surface.
The Denton Development Code allows developers to exceed the
parking maximums if they construct them with pervious
surface.
So since they have come back and said, no, we want to do it
with pervious surface, that actually meets the code
requirements and therefore is not a part of this ADP
request.
They actually with parking, with the parking numbers, they
meet the code requirements.
Thank you. Thank you for the clarification.
I have another card.
Amber Briggle, 529 Malone Street, speaking in support.
It's good to see you back.
I missed y'all.
Yeah.
Thank you, Chair, commissioners.
My name is Amber Briggle.
I live just north of this proposed development and I work
just south of it.
So I'll give my work address, 529 Malone Street.
I have a bit of history with this case, being that I served
on the Planning and Zoning Commission for three years.
I know that previously this case, there was a proposal for
a zoning change on this corner.
They wanted to put in drive-through fast food and the
neighborhood came out vehemently opposed.
And I thought it was a terrible idea.
And so we did reject that proposal.
I think this is a much better idea.
Commissioner Beck and I were at that neighborhood meeting
several months ago.
I am in favor of this.
I know I saw in y'all's backup some of the considerations
why it required that the ADP were, for example,
item 1A and item 1C.
1A said it's set a little closer to the neighborhood and
set away from University Drive.
And the parking was going to be on the front and on the
side.
I think that's great because if we're in our Gentin 2030
plan wanting to do more multimodal transportation,
for example, cycling and walking, you want the structure to
be closer to the neighborhood.
And in this case, it is.
So I think that that's a good idea.
I also think having more parking spaces means that there
will be less parking on the street,
which was a concern that the neighborhood had.
You may recall, Commissioner Beck, they were very concerned
about parking on Ector and possibly on Emory.
I think having more parking spaces on site is going to
reduce on street parking.
I am in favor of the pedestrian access.
I'm curious to see where the bike racks are.
I think it is required now.
You're smiling at me.
But you know I'm going to talk about bike racks.
I think it's required now in our parking requirements.
I was just kind of curious to see where those were at.
A couple of questions I had were the extra 5,000 feet or so
of landscaping.
I'm kind of curious to know if Bermuda grass is included in
that.
Staff has heard me talk about this before.
I am in favor of more.
If we're going to be asking for accommodations from
developers,
I think we need to be encouraging more zero scaping.
And they can certainly put Bermuda grass on their property,
but I think if we're going to be counting this landscape
requirement that they're going above and beyond,
I don't think it should be with something that's Bermuda
grass that requires a lot more water to do.
So I would again encourage and urge staff and the Planning
and Zoning Commission
to look at more zero scaping requirements in the cases of
SUPs and ADPs.
Bike racks, okay.
Oh, and I'm also curious to know if the applicant did a
traffic study on Emory.
The last time that this lot came to us, a traffic study on
Emory was not done.
And I think that that's important to look at since it's a
straight kind of east-west road.
And also we talked at the neighborhood meeting about
possibly putting up a sign showing the trucks,
that there was no truck traffic going down Emory or Ector.
They wanted to do a one-way in and out on University.
I just want to make sure that that's included in this as
well.
And regarding the citizen who spoke before me, I thought
you had some very good concerns.
I'm concerned also about the speed on Ector a lot.
And I think if we were to continue working on our bike plan
,
I think striping Ector to include a designated bike lane
would not only narrow the lanes,
which would kind of create this psychological --
kind of make you feel like you've got to drive a little bit
slower because it's a shorter, smaller lane,
but also encourages more multimodal transportation.
For example, the students coming up from UNT, they lost
their sack and save.
Now they've got to ride their bikes across University to
get to Albertsons, Sam's Club, Walmart, and Kroger.
This is on the correct side of the road.
I'm wrapping it up.
But if we could get some striping on Ector, it would slow
the traffic and encourage more cycling.
That's it. Thank you.
-Question for you. -Yes, sir.
-Commissioner Rossell. -Thank you, Mr. Rolfe, for being
here.
I think the city uses the word "friction,"
so maybe the bike lanes would create friction to slow down
traffic to the e-mail's point.
Maybe that's what they're talking about. I don't know.
But maybe the bike lanes would help with that sort of
friction to encourage slower traffic down that road.
-Sure. -I support that theory completely.
I was wondering if the applicant or Julie could speak to
the bike racks for clarification.
I'm going to have the applicant come up and show you where
they are.
Perfect.
Good evening. My name's Brian Berger.
I'm with Berger Engineering, 17103 Preston Road.
The bike racks will be up underneath the front canopy of
the building.
They're not shown on that side plan, but the bike racks
will be underneath that front canopy.
-Thank you. -Thank you.
-Thanks. -Great. Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next speaker will be Mark Mitchell, 1215 Hector,
speaking in opposition.
I really just have-- I'd like to start with an equation.
Will you state your name and address, please, for us?
-Mark Mitchell, 1215 Hector. -Thank you.
I live just a couple hundred yards from the site to the
south.
And I attended the previous meeting they had in the
neighborhood,
and I've spoken with Ms. Wyatt a couple of times,
and I wrote a letter and asked her to pass it on to the
commission.
I just would like to know if any of you all have seen that.
Okay. Well, that's all I need to know, because all my
concerns are in there.
So thank you.
I have a question for you, sir.
Commissioner Tyler.
Thank you, Chair.
So Mr. Mitchell, I noticed in your letter you said-- I'm
trying to find the exact sentence.
You said basically that you know that this is going to
develop commercial,
but you didn't feel that this was an appropriate type of
commercial development.
What would be a better one for this quarter?
I think I gave a couple of examples there in the letter.
Just to-- in general, a business which has less traffic and
not open until 9 at night.
So something like an office that closes at 6 p.m. or doctor
's office?
Yeah. One example I stated in there was, you know, like the
paint store
that's a couple hundred yards down the street.
That's a-- you know, they don't have 80 parking spaces, and
they close at 6.
So I just think that there's going to be an awful lot of
traffic and activity
with something like a grocery store.
Thank you for the clarification.
I actually didn't see the reference to the paint store, so
thank you.
You see it now?
I do, yeah.
Okay. All right.
Thank you, sir.
Appreciate your comments.
Next speaker will be Jesse Davis at 1228.
Hector looks like speaking in support.
Hi, I'm Jesse, Jesse Davis at 1228, Hector.
I checked the support box because there are only two boxes,
but I want to explain a little bit of my thought process in
getting there
because we spent a lot of time as a neighborhood talking
about this lot.
Some of the commissioners know the history there,
what this lot was intended to be developed as,
when the houses were built years ago, when the street was
platted.
It was originally going to be a church.
There's going to be another couple different kinds of
community building.
The last thing we had was a proposal to build a Burger King
and a Popeyes there,
and we all saw very easily that that was not appropriate
for our neighborhood.
Now, as you look at this proposal for a grocery store,
there was a time in our city's history where neighborhood
grocery stores were all over the place.
Itty bitty little things, you get your dry goods or
whatever.
The Art Alley building, now Vintage Blue, was a grocery
store right in the middle of the neighborhood.
That's not really appropriate to the way that we shop for
groceries and the way we live now.
That's the opposition part of what my neighbors, I think,
are saying.
The things I agree with my neighbors about, Bridget is my
neighbor right next door,
right across the street from me, and I really do agree with
their concerns about traffic.
I think Ector is going to be where that traffic goes.
I think University, even when it's finished,
is not going to be able to handle the kind of traffic that
this side is going to see.
You don't even have the parking lot buffer like you do with
Albertsons a little further down,
and you certainly don't have next-door Albertsons
residential homes.
Here's the support part. Here's the reason why I checked
that box.
There is a developer entitled by right in this zoning to
build a grocery store.
They are not entitled to do it in quite this way,
but I think it's important that we encourage our developers
when they meet resistance from the neighborhood.
These developers behaved in a way 180 degrees differently
than the guys who wanted to build the Popeyes and the
Burger King.
Those people were not concerned with our development code.
They were not concerned with the people in the neighborhood
.
They wanted to build what they wanted to build and do it in
the way they wanted to do it.
There are some other people in some other industries I'm
not going to go into today
who did the exact same thing and really ran afoul of this
city by not working with residents
and found themselves in the news for not working with the
people of that.
The only reason I'm checking the support box on this
is because I want to encourage developers to work with
neighborhoods in the future.
They really have done a lot in this ADP.
You'll see their landscaping is way above requirements.
You'll see that some of the things they did to address,
like the impervious services you heard about from Julie,
they did a lot to address our concerns.
Really not quite enough and Aldi is not really the neighbor
that I want.
That is not the neighbor that I want,
but I think that they're entitled to build a grocery store
in this zoning,
and I think they're doing everything that they can to make
their business model fit in this spot.
One thing that was discussed that I'm glad Amber brought up
was the trucks.
The way that this site plan...
Could you put the site plan back up, whoever's running?
Okay.
The way the site plan is supposed to work, as we've been
told by the developer,
is that these trucks are supposed to come in from
university,
because that's their route from their distribution center.
They are supposed to go out head first into Ector Street
and come out just a few feet
and back down to that below grade loading dock.
If there's any way possible...
The developer talked about signs.
I don't think there's anything specifically that can
address this in an ADP,
but that is key for the folks in the neighborhood,
that those trucks aren't rumbling up and down Ector Street
making deliveries.
I think though, to your point earlier, Commissioner Beck,
there is going to be a substantial increase in traffic.
People are going to want to get to this store,
and I think they're going to want to get to it from the
south,
from the north, from the east and the west.
I think eventually the city is going to have to put a light
at Ector Street,
which is not really the kind of street that we have now.
Commissioner Beck, any question?
I don't disagree that there's going to be some increased
auto traffic,
but it seems to me that this is an opportunity for the
neighborhood
to have something in close proximity to where they live,
where they can walk and bike.
University students could go either way on that,
but I would suspect that there's a propensity now to bike
in a lot of instances like that.
So I understand the concern of a neighborhood
and a type of business to come in that would detract from
that,
but of all the businesses that we've dealt with so far and
everything,
and as you mentioned, they've been most amenable to the
concerns of the neighborhood.
You know, having a grocery store within walking distance,
anyway, for me personally,
they just built that new law as TECA down the road for me,
and it's a big plus for me.
I enjoy that instead of trying to fight what little traffic
I have to get to Kroger.
But I do understand your concern about traffic coming up
down Ector.
I'm just thinking that we're probably going to see a good
deal of pedestrian and biking traffic
as opposed to auto traffic.
I think, Commissioner, you make a good point about the
proximity of --
one of the problems with the other proposals was that it
was not good,
wholesome food, that we're in the news right now,
we read a lot about food deserts and getting good, wh
olesome food, easily accessible.
This is the opposite of that.
In fact, my wife and I have had conversations about whether
I'm allowed to take the carts back
across the street to our house, or if I have to load the
car up and drive back to our house.
She says I'm not allowed to take the carts across the
street.
To your point about traffic, though, you have to remember
all the houses behind us.
Ector Street's a straight shot.
It's easy to think of it as just that one neighborhood, but
it is a collector.
Everything from Malone over, and people cutting over on Mal
one,
cutting over on Emory, coming right back by my corner, and
coming into the Aldi.
You have to remember all the folks on Stan Lee on over to E
ctor,
and remember there is a major development, partially
residential, going in just to our west.
There will be a substantial amount of traffic, and those
folks in the eventual
mixed-use development, Razor Ranch, they're not going to
want to come down all the way to university
through their development, turn on university, and come up
into this Aldi.
They're going to come through our neighborhood, down
scripture.
So to the extent an ADP can address traffic, or to the
extent that you hear our neighborhood
in front of you again as part of a small area plan or
something similar,
and you start hearing from us more often on traffic, please
remember those things,
that we are not just the straight shot, like Brigid said,
painted like a highway,
that there's a lot more going on there.
But don't you think residents over in Razor Ranch are more
apt to shop Winko,
and even Walmart, they're closer?
Aldi doesn't think so.
Anybody else?
Yes, a couple more questions.
Commissioner Hespeth.
Well, so I appreciate your insight, and it's well laid out.
So I want to ask you, I have a question, two questions and
a point.
So my point is, I think the benefit here is that Aldi is,
like you said,
a good neighbor on this project, in addition to they have
the warehouse,
and that's expanding, growing.
So they're invested in the city, so I think they're
invested in being a good neighbor,
multifaceted, and I see the location on Luke 288, and it
does very well.
My question is, my two questions, one is, how many, I don't
know the schematic,
but I know the schematics of that neighborhood.
So how many people are, is it 80% owned, 20% rentals?
What is your feel for that?
I think conservatively on Ector Street, I think it's about
70/30,
70% owner occupied, about 30% rental.
I think you start going further out from there, it's hard
to tell.
On the streets, the streets between Ector and Bonnie Bray,
and maybe some of my neighbors can speak better to this,
I think you're closer to like a 60/40 owner occupied.
And as you go towards Malone, you're probably about 50/50,
depending on,
now remember you've got a big split between the smaller
houses to the south in that block,
and then you've got the owner occupied houses on Emory,
Westchester, Crescent, Cordell.
Okay.
And then lastly, have you considered the fact though that
Bonnie Bray will be almost doubled in size?
I mean, it is going to be significant.
I think that lowers, at least I think those that are
familiar with Denton may use that as a cut through.
But I think the traffic on that road becomes less inviting
when university is done and Bonnie Bray is done.
I mean, again, Bonnie Bray twice the size.
There's no signal lights from university to I-35, right?
I mean, no, at Oak.
Yeah.
So, I mean, it's a pretty straight shot.
If it's widened substantially, I think it'll eat a lot of
the traffic.
It just, you know, if I'm just understanding the area as
well as I do.
So I think it'll fix some of that.
I think your concerns are legitimate on the 18-wheelers and
the path,
and that they don't get lazy and they follow instructions.
But I think some of the just the pass through traffic, it
almost becomes, unless you're turning right on university,
it comes to make a left on university from actor would be a
nightmare, you know.
And so I think that'll fix a lot of it.
I think you're right to an extent, however, if you ever sat
at that light northbound on Bonnie Bray and stacked back 20
or 30 cars,
you turn onto Emory as soon as you can because now that Em
ory is open, it didn't used to be.
Twenty years ago, that was, there was a barrier there.
You can now take Emory all the way through to Malone, and
people do.
The people, the elementary school traffic, the people go
into other businesses there, the Piccadilly Square business
there.
And people use Emory quite a bit now.
And since there's been the construction on university, that
's become kind of a thoroughfare.
So I think there still will be substantial traffic coming
off of Bonnie Bray.
They may take Bonnie Bray north as far as Emory, but they
're going to come down Emory through our neighborhood behind
the funeral home and the paint store.
They're going to take a left onto Ector and turn in that E
ctor entrance, and then they're going to leave again on E
ctor to go back south wherever they came from.
So they may end up on Bonnie Bray for part of their trip.
They're going to end it on Ector Street, Emory Street.
Got it.
More question for you.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
My question is probably more for staff.
Since this was all done before my time on commission, was
there a traffic impact study done for Ector?
Project specific or just generally for Ector?
Specific for the Aldi project.
For the Aldi project?
I don't believe one was done for the Aldi project.
The applicant can speak to that.
The applicant, please.
There was a traffic study completed for Aldi.
I don't know if it went back and studied at Ector further
south.
I know we did a study for the intersection at Ector and
University and the impacts of our drive approaches, but I
don't believe we went back into the neighborhood.
Because when you do a traffic analysis and you look at a
commercial driveway, there's going to be so many -- when
you run the numbers, there are going to be so few turns
going right.
That it doesn't really warrant that study because those
numbers are so small, everyone is going back to the main
collector road.
But we did do a study and engineering has reviewed it and
approved it.
Commissioner Huthbist, the button is still not working.
Way big.
To Commissioner Brigham's point, have you looked at landsca
ping, can you expound on what your thoughts are, what the
plan is?
There is Bermuda grass, there is sod, but in a lot of the
landscape areas we did do a lot of zero scape and drought
tolerant plants to decrease the need for irrigation.
So we have kind of done a combination of those types of
materials, but there is a lot of zero scape in there.
Okay. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Another question for you. Commissioner Babbitt.
Thank you, Chair.
And I'm sorry, what was your name again?
My name is Brian Berger.
Brian, thank you, Brian.
Just while you're up here, two quick questions.
What are the signage dimensions for that sign you're going
to put out on University?
Are we looking at something?
No, it will be a monument sign.
We do not have the exact size yet.
We're not that far along.
We'll probably have that here in the next few weeks.
Are we looking at something like maybe six foot by three
foot or something like that?
It will be whatever is allowed by code.
Probably eight foot tall or six foot tall, whatever is
allowed by code.
Okay.
And then the question I asked after, what determine where
the previous parking places you're going to, what determine
those locations?
The problem we have with pervious pavement is it's not as
durable as impermeable concrete.
So the spaces I selected, and it was solely based on my
opinion, was as far away from the front door as possible so
that they will take the least amount of traffic and wear
and tear and maybe they'll hold up a little bit better.
It has nothing to do with how much water will run across or
won't run across it.
I just selected the spots that were furthest away from the
front door.
Okay.
Thank you.
I'll have you here.
I'm going to ask you a question.
We've got some conditions when we get down to looking for a
motion.
Were there any questions on any of those or is the
applicant okay with the conditions for approval?
No, I think we're fine with all the conditions.
Fine with all of them.
Yes, sir.
Thank you for the clarification on that.
I have no other questions for you.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you.
I do have one other card.
Michael Hinnan, he did not wish to speak at 724 Thomas
Street, and he was in support of this item.
Again, this is not a public hearing, but if you would like
to speak, it's an individual consideration item.
You're welcome to come up and speak on this item, and then
please fill out a card.
So kind of a final invitation.
Again, it's not a public hearing, so no.
[inaudible]
Let me ask for clarification on rules from staff.
I think there's just one opportunity to speak.
Sorry, we have one opportunity.
Someone sitting next to me.
[inaudible]
Someone sitting next to you is welcome to come speak if
they'd like to share your points.
We have a question.
Oh, you have a question.
That's another solution.
Commissioner Hussbuth.
Did you happen to send a letter with your concerns?
I sent my letter almost four months ago, and I understood
it was printed out today when I prompted and asked about it
.
I do hope that you have that.
But Mike, I just wanted to add an additional comment that
Aldi presented this not as a little neighborhood grocery
store,
but as a flagship store that they advised us they thought
would bring business from Oklahoma and from all over the
place
that employees at other Aldi stores would come to this
store to see how things are done.
So it's possible and likely that there will be more traffic
at this store than there is at the store on the loop.
That was all I had to add.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I see no other cards to speak.
So again, this is an item for individual consideration.
So I'm going to turn back to commissioners for a motion or
discussion amongst us.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
So I believe Ms. Corbett brought up some really valid
points regarding traffic flow and traffic calming.
I've had my own disagreements with city engineering about
traffic calming.
And I think Ector Street is a perfect example of a place
where not using speed bumps, but using road narrowing
techniques.
If the intersection comes down to a 20-foot wide gap with
trees on little islands, it dramatically slows down speed.
You're not going to go through those intersections that don
't have stop signs at 40 or 45 miles an hour.
You're going to slow down to 25 miles an hour.
It provides a little cover for people who are walking their
dog or pushing a stroller or riding their bicycle because
people don't tend to wander into that open, wide open 15 or
20 feet of space that they have.
They know that there's a bump out coming and they stay to
the middle of the road and leave the edges safe.
So I personally would like to see that on Ector and several
other streets, including Windsor and other neighborhoods in
town.
It does fall outside of our purview as planning and zoning.
We really just handle a very specific handful of cases like
zonings, ADPs, and plats.
And I know that this isn't the perfect development.
I strongly opposed the fast food proposals.
Was that eight months ago?
I believe in January or so.
Because I thought that that was an encroachment on the
neighborhood.
This converting to a commercial zoning right there at the
corner.
Open till 2 a.m. or later, you know, driveway directly
across from a private residences driveway that's open late.
And I don't think that this Aldi is perfect here.
But I do think it will service the neighborhood.
I think it will provide a walkable destination within a
four or five block radius.
And I think it will also provide a nice drivable and bicycl
able destination to the to the immediate neighborhood.
And the I think most traffic that isn't somewhere between
Bonnie Bray and Malone is going to take university.
There aren't any streets that go directly all the way
through without lots of stop signs and ditches across them
like Crescent that beyond Malone and Bonnie Bray.
So I wish we could address the traffic situation more.
But like I said, we can't.
We the neighborhood can approach engineering and see about
those changes.
But for these reasons, I think Aldi is a good enough option
.
I think it's it's it meets the needs of the neighborhood.
It doesn't provide a tremendous burden to the neighborhood.
It meets the 80.
This ADP is tiny compared to a rezoning that allows much
higher densities or late night uses or alcohol to be served
or things like that.
So for those reasons, I move approval with staff's
recommendations.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair.
And I'd just like to echo most of what Commissioner Taylor
said to change is inevitable no matter what happens.
And one thing that's definitely going to change with the
city didn't we're going to grow population is going to grow
.
Traffic is going to increase one way or the other, whether
there's an Aldi store there or not.
I am very sympathetic to the fact that this is a grand old
neighborhood over there.
I love it myself.
But Hector is even though it's a collector's street, it's
it's it's it's it collects to it connects to a lot of other
things, too.
My hope and belief is that we especially if we do some
markings on the street to narrow the lanes and open it up
for bicycling,
that that will not only slow the traffic down, but that
should generate a lot of the customer base for Aldi.
It's kind of hard to expect the ideal situation to come
along.
And it may not or may not for a long time.
And in the meantime, the property owner has to deal with
that and pay taxes on it while it sits there and does
nothing.
So considering all that, I am for this project to second
the motion.
OK, thank you.
We have a first and a second.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, just clarification.
We have a first and a second for approval with all the
conditions listed in our backup agenda, which will be items
a through I.
So with that, I will call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries seven zero.
Thank you.
That will move us to our public hearing section of our
agenda this evening.
The first item that we're going to have before us this
evening, I'm going to open the public hearing for item A,
which is Z 16 dash zero zero one six.
And I'll call on Judy White.
Would you like for me to go through the presentation again
or just the.
Just the summary.
I did the summary, if you don't mind, on the current zoning
and what's being proposed.
And then we'll I'm sure have lots of questions to go from
there.
Thank you.
Sure.
All right.
So the request before you or I'm sorry, this is Z 16 16
that ISD services, student services.
The request before you is to consider a rezoning from NR
three and DR two to DC or to DC and on two tracks.
The applicant and owner is Denton ISD.
The property is located on ball between Bolivar and Elm and
then between Elm and Locus.
Just to look at the existing zoning.
There were considerations we discussed at work at work
session.
I'd be happy to go over those again.
But staff is based upon those considerations and the
criteria for approval.
Staff does recommend denial of this request.
So I'll stand for any questions.
The applicant is here and I'll be happy to go over anything
you'd like for me to.
Any questions for staff?
OK.
Again, this is a public hearing.
I'll do that.
This is a public hearing and I'm going to call on the
applicant to come first.
And then I know we have some other cards of people to speak
and hopefully you will be able to maybe eliminate some
questions with your presentation.
So thank you.
Right there.
I just want to start by introduce myself.
I'm Keith Cummins with Corgan and Associates and this is
Robert Talbman.
I'm with Glenn Engineering, Civil Engineering Consultant
for the district at 105 Decker Court, Irving, Texas.
What we'd like to start off a little bit is we have a
little bit of a project narrative.
What we want to talk about a little bit here is that our
project narrative that obviously our site is located in Bol
ivar, just to 3rd Street to the north, 2nd Street to the
south, and we extend all the way to Locus on the east, Bol
ivar on the west.
One of the things we want to talk a little bit about is the
historical perspective of our site.
This actually started to be the Stonewall Jackson
Elementary School that was built in the early 1920s.
So the school district has been here approximately 100
years.
In the early 80s, part of the building was tore down of the
Stonewall Jackson.
As you can see up here, this is actually the current
location of the administration building.
It was tore down, part of it was tore down in the early 80s
and the administration building was also built in that same
location.
Along with that, this district started to purchase some of
the properties in and around the area.
So we've been there for 100 years.
The other option that we also want to make sure, as you
understand, is we are the school district and for the fact
that we've been there 100 years,
we plan on actually putting another $29 million onto this
site to be there for a long time to come also.
So while we have a great past in this neighborhood, we also
are looking for a great future.
One of the things that was brought up earlier in the
presentation was the amount of commercial or the impact,
the areas that are in purple that I'm kind of highlighting
with the area.
As we've talked about, they had what they called the hard
line of the differential between what exists today and what
the zoning is.
Currently, we're occupying a building that is, I was hoping
I could get it,
is the building that is located here, the professional
services building.
It is currently 90% what you call the coverage as far as
land use, including the building and the paving.
We're about to tear down these buildings, get rid of the
gravel that is in the back, clean this up, there's some
site, and we're proposing a new building on that.
So along with that is a lot of cleaning up in the
neighborhood to clean up the area.
I skipped through a lot of what we presented as far as the
streets and the adequacy.
One of the things we want to talk about a little bit more
is some of the joining uses that we have currently around
us.
This is an aerial of TWU campus. It's just immediately to
the north.
The very bottom of our screen is the administration
building.
At the very top and sort of the right is the new student
housing that's up there.
One of the things we wanted to point out is that it is also
a three-story structure.
It's located on the same street we are in a very similar
manner what we're proposing.
This is a view from the street that shows about the same
type setback that we're going to have.
This is our professional development center that's existing
today that we're talking about right here and the need for
our rezoning.
As you can see currently, it's basically a nice concrete,
well-maintained parking lot with a building that's set back
two stories in height.
And right on the other side of the street is the current
residential.
Another view. This is looking from 2nd Street looking north
.
With that we'll go if you can load up there.
So to give a little historical perspective, we've been
there for a long time.
We've been a good neighbor. The building that we're talking
about has existed since the early 80s.
And with that, we just want to run through again some
information just for clarification and in case you have any
questions.
Just the general location in proximity to downtown and TWU.
The site in question that we're looking at, majority of the
renovations, the new building, excuse me, taking place.
This is a site plan showing the new proposed site plan for
the site.
As you can see in the site plan, this is the proposed
actual new building that we are working with the district
to propose.
This is a renovated parking lot. There's an existing
parking there that we're looking to renovate.
Some new parking to the north of the existing PDC, which we
are not doing any work to.
That building is staying intact as it is.
You can see here the main central focus of this is this
pedestrian walkway.
We actually have a couple other slides that will focus on
that.
When talking with the district, that was something that was
very important to them,
is to form a campus out of these separate buildings that
were separated by different streets in this area.
The concept that we decided on was the central walkway that
really ties this into more of a campus feel for their
facilities.
The last piece that we had identified is this to the bottom
right,
which was an existing building that is just being taken
down and new parking added with,
as you can see, buffers to Locust Street as well.
With that, I wanted to talk in just a couple of minutes
about the impervious area that we talked about.
While we're trying to create this nice looking pedestrian
way, we're going to talk about how it looks and what we're
doing.
We're putting some zero-scaping in, some trees, they're
going to have benches.
We have bike racks at both facilities so that our employees
that live in the neighborhood or in the area can come to
work, bike to work.
Also, we have a lot of TWU students that would be able to
bike over here and do some of the facilities that we have.
But in the impervious calculations, the way we calculate it
, it's no longer landscaping, it counts against us.
One of the reasons that we're talking about needing the rez
oning is that the activities that we want to have in action
here
actually are a detriment to what our facility is in their
impervious calculations into land use.
I wanted to talk a little bit about the hard line that we
talk about.
It actually exists in this alleyway that is the separation
right here is between the two zonings of the NR3 and the DC
N or the DR2.
That's the magic line that we've been talking about.
Again, I wanted to reiterate this pedestrian walkway.
It's something that we feel is really tying this campus
together.
It's a central focus of the site.
This is just a rendering that we've done of how this site
might be activated by producing a central passageway here.
To continue with this, these are some shots that we were
looking at.
You can see what is being proposed as a three-story
building.
I know there was some question on occupancy of the site and
how that's going to affect the surrounding neighborhood.
What this facility actually is, is not actually bringing
new staff into the location.
It's actually, as the district has grown, they've become
more and more crowded in the existing facilities they have.
What we're doing is actually taking current employees that
are on the facility in the campus and just giving them more
workspace in this opportunity.
There is a little bit of room for growth, but at this
current state status right now, we're actually using the
building for the existing staff that is on the campus
already.
Don't forget, we're also demoing four buildings that are on
the campus also that have current staff occupying.
So that will also be moved into, this is just a view coming
from south.
The way the building was oriented, just back to the
original site plan, one thing that we were very concerned
with was the actual location to the street.
So as you can see, we located the building as close as we
could to the existing structure and gave it the max
distance away from actually Elm Street.
We understand this is a three story building, but that's
why we positioned it next to an existing two story building
to give a little bit more relief to the immediate street
there.
And nothing directly adjacent to the residential area.
This is completely inside an existing facility that is
being used by the district currently.
>> With that same thing, the other reason to go to three
stories is also to reduce the footprint.
The space needed if we go to two stories then takes up more
of the lot and we also reduce our lot coverage.
So the three story building, similar to what they did at TW
U, is actually helping us in where we're trying to achieve
is to get as much landscaping as possible on our site.
>> Just quickly through the floor plans, it is, like we
spoke, an office facility with entry on the side of that
pedestrian pathway.
The idea of that is to really energize that walkway and
make it a space that is really active and used, and again,
to reinforce that campus feel.
The stories are actually pretty much a match as you go up
in the building with offices in the center with workst
ations around the exterior of the building.
Finally, this is just some interior renderings of the
facility just to let you see what we're envisioning for
this space.
This is the entry coming in off of that pedestrian walkway.
It's a two story volume lobby and the third floor would
actually be utilized for conference room spaces.
Again, this is just the open field of the workspace and the
existing, or the design building.
So with that, we can get back to the landscape plan.
>> Got some questions for you.
Commissioner Beck.
>> Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, gentlemen, for your presentation, and either one of
you can answer this, but --
>> Commissioner Beck, can you pull your mic from closer to
the time?
I'm having a hard time hearing you.
>> How's that?
>> That's better.
>> Okay.
The plans are great.
I mean, this is going to be an awesome look in development
when it's done, and I think it will be an enhancement to
the neighborhood, too.
I -- when I was going to North Texas in the early '70s, I
lived on the corner of Bolivar and Crescent there, so I
love that neighborhood.
My question to you is, why go this route?
Why didn't you go the variance route with the zoning board?
Because -- okay.
>> And I'd like also some clarification.
The reason -- the way we understand the variance is when
you go to ZBA, you have to prove a hardship.
The way I understand a hardship is you can't create the
hardship.
When we practice into one lot, the one lot is everything
from Elm Street to Bolivar, so we have that whole block.
We would -- we're unable to meet the land or the impervious
calculation with the buildings that we have currently
because it's 50/50.
So leaving the existing buildings as they're intact, we can
't meet it.
So if we -- what they -- what I'm afraid ZBA is going to
tell you is you can't create a hardship, so they'll just
tell us you can't build the building.
You can leave what you have, but you can't add to it.
And that's the way I understand ZBA.
You can't create the hardship.
You can't do it with the current hardship.
>> Okay.
Well, I can understand your reasoning there, and I couldn't
answer that either, but I guess --
>> That's where we've been perplexed.
>> Okay.
>> And we've gone back with staff.
We've talked about that, the ZBA route.
And that was our first update, but as we talked about it
more, we realized that probably it wasn't the best avenue.
I do sort of have a compromise if we're into those words,
but --
>> Please.
>> I think what we've talked about a little bit is what I
heard from staff is they were looking for a buffer.
And I think what we'd like to offer up is that we would
like to continue the DCN use up to that magic hard line and
then switch over to the DCN for the strip.
And basically what it used to be is these were all platted
lots.
So the old alleyway that is their hard line, then we would
have the difference between the DCN and the NR3.
So we go from DCN to DR2 to NR3.
So it's puzzling because while we talked about that use,
and I heard several of the councilmen, it didn't -- that
hard line didn't really physically exist on the ground.
It was a line on paper.
And when they rezoned several years ago in the early 2000,
our buildings existed, but they weren't taken into
consideration.
The administration building was, but the church that's
beside us, one of the reasons we replatted, because we didn
't meet the fire requirements.
So we've gone through a lot of stuff to try to get all of
our buildings up to code to meet it with all of the abandon
ment of alleys and the increased spaces.
So we're working very hard on getting to where we need to
be.
Okay.
Well, I empathize with you.
I really do.
Let me just kind of try and convey a concern that I'm sure
people in the neighborhood would have.
Because this kind of falls on an unpleasant experience the
city dealt with with Buc-E's.
It was zoned for that, and rightfully had a right to go
there.
But I think, you know, nobody ever conceived that something
like a Buc-E's would be there.
Not that you're anywhere close to that, please.
But -- and I was glad to hear you say you've been here for
100 years, and as far as you know, you'll be here another
100 years.
And unless you can put that in blood and on paper and
everything like that, I think people are always going to be
a little tentative of what can happen down the road.
And the idea that you rezone this DCN and the potential for
a seven or eight story building going there, I think unner
ves people.
I don't know how you would assuage their feelings on that.
Sure, just guaranteeing you're never going to move or
something like that.
So anyway, that's my two cents worth.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
So I didn't quite understand your answer to Commissioner
Beck's question about compromise in rezoning some.
Could you run through that again?
I think I got --
We talked about a little bit of how we could buffer the
area between the -- let me slow down again.
The NR3, which is the residential that is across the other
side of Boulevard.
Which is where the PDC currently --
Right.
The PDC here.
It's already a two story building.
The reason that we had difficulties with the DCR2 is it
only was restricted to 45 feet in height, but our building
that's currently on that site is only two story.
And it's 80/20 or 80/75.
No, 75/25.
So what you're proposing is basically west of the alley, DR
2, east of the alley, DCN.
Yes.
And that meets the requirements that we're able to keep the
elevations that we need.
We'll meet the landscape requirements at the 80/20 and the
75/25 with our existing conditions.
Okay.
Yeah, that makes a lot more sense.
Yes, and it provides that buffer so that we're not encro
aching into the magic area.
And this facility currently is that zone currently.
Yeah.
Which is adjacent to it.
Any other questions for the applicant?
A couple.
Commissioner Sullivan.
I'm confused.
Where is the new building going?
It is this white space right here, and that is the only --
So you're going to maintain the old building.
Maintaining the old building.
We're not touching the old building.
And then you're going to tear down some of the outlying
buildings.
Yes, there's two older abandoned houses on that site that
were --
And so how many employees are there now and how many will
there be?
In the current complex?
In the current complex.
I would have to give you the exact current complex.
Well, I mean, just approximate.
All I have been informed is that we are planning for some
future hiring of the facility.
But currently, as is, it's everyone that is on the site is
going to get a spot in the new building or the existing
buildings.
So we're not adding any new people to the site.
We are factoring in, I believe, there is about 10 new
spaces per floor in the new building for future growth.
So approximately 30 more people could potentially be on the
site itself.
Because it looks like there's a whole lot more parking that
's going to be there eventually than what's there now.
Correct.
And to me, that would indicate a lot more people parking in
those parking spaces.
Sort of.
And I see where you're going with that, but a lot of what
we've heard in the neighborhood and what we've experienced
on there is that there's inadequate parking today.
Currently, we're trying to meet those.
Yeah, we're trying to meet our current needs.
So you're putting those off the street, basically.
Right, you get everybody off the street and out of the
neighborhood a little bit and more on site.
That's the purpose for a lot of this.
Also, we have a little bit of a joint use with the church
that's on the other side that when we tear down our
building, it's going to provide some adequate parking for
all the neighbors in the area, too.
So it's helping us during the day.
And it's also going to be the side benefit is it's going to
be able to help others in the neighborhood.
We met with the neighbors last week, and that was a concern
was actually the church, not the actual school facility.
And that was something they were relieved to see was some
additional parking that maybe can help relieve that.
Thank you.
Commissioner Rosale.
Thank you.
This is more for staff to clarify some of the things that
have been brought up just so I can ponder and understand
the reality or the potential reality.
One, is there any clarification that we could get on the
option that they have with ZBA?
Is their understanding of it requiring a hardship correct?
That's first question.
Subchapter three of the debt and development code outlines
ZBA.
And ZBA can provide, may grant a variance for lot coverage.
The criteria of which, where literal enforcement of the
regulations will result in unnecessary hardship, where the
variance is necessary to develop a specific parcel of land,
which because of site shape, size, or topography differs
from other parcels in the same district and it cannot be
developed in a manner commensurate with the development
allowed for other parcels.
It does say the variance shall not be granted to relieve a
self-created or personal hardship or to relieve a purely
financial hardship.
Staff would take, I know Manal talked about in the work
session, that staff would take a look at the request and do
an analysis on that variance.
It is existing.
There is an existing condition on the site which definitely
lends itself to a favorable review of that analysis.
We have had prior discussion and maybe there was a cross
line somewhere, but we have intimated how viable a Zoning
Board of Adjustment request or variance would be prior to
proceeding with a zoning case.
So there's a couple of options available.
As it relates to the ZBA, Zoning Board of Adjustment
application, they meet once a month, so we would have to
revisit the application, revisit the schedule and see where
they would fit in that, which could potentially mean on
your part a continuance or should you choose to make an
alternative recommendation.
That's your purview.
Thank you for the explanation.
Second question, kind of along those lines in terms of
looking at options, is it possible the way the agenda item
is presented to us to split track one into a DR2/DCN split
as they had suggested, or is that an entire new application
to change that?
I believe there was some discussion earlier on if you're,
for the lack of a better phrase, down zoning or looking at
the zoning that's not more restrictive than what's already
there.
Aaron's already chimed in.
He's ready to speak.
I can answer that question.
I think that the way this has been posted, they've asked
for a zoning that is of a higher classification, jumping up
two spots if I'm not mistaken.
You don't necessarily, because of the way it's posted with
the request, you can give them something less than what was
posted and requested, or you can make the recommendation to
offer that.
That's where the DR2 would be between the NR3 and the DCN.
So it is possible for us tonight with this presented to
take what's west of the alley that butts up against Bolivar
and zone that DR2 and what's east of that alley that butts
up against Elm approve the DCN request.
That is correct, because the entire area on both sides of
the alley are currently requested to be DCN.
Okay.
Yes, sir.
Thank you.
That's very helpful.
I just wanted to clarify.
I know that the question on the variance came up, and just
so that this board isn't confused, there was a statement
made with regards to a self-created hardship.
I just want to correct, to make sure everybody understands
what a self-created hardship.
That's one of the things that a ZBA looks to to make sure
the applicant doesn't create it.
The best example that I give to the ZBA, or used to get the
ZBA when I was their counsel, is when somebody, a developer
, starts with a fresh, clean slate, green field development,
and then decides that they want to maximize, build
something bigger than what's allowed, and they come in to
get a variance.
Well, that is a self-created hardship.
They're creating it themselves.
They have the opportunity to cure it.
As opposed to what is present in this location, you have
existing structures and impervious surface.
That is a different situation than the typical scenario of
a self-created hardship.
So I wanted to make sure that that doesn't impact your
ability.
I just want for you all to be clear that what was described
is not a self-created hardship, per se.
Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair.
So you're saying then that there is a condition there that
they could conceivably get the variance,
that there isn't going to be a problem with the hardship
issue?
What I'm saying is that the statement that was made is not
a true self-created hardship that the ZBA would then deny,
because they're putting everything on one lot, and they're
trying to get an increase what is allowed.
They have what is called under the zoning theory, as well
as under our code, a nonconforming structures that already
exist.
They're only building one lot, and of course, because they
are doing site development, repaving the sidewalks and all
that,
it's treated as if they're exceeding what they had before,
even though it was already in place.
So their argument at ZBA, as much as I hate to tell what
the applicant, what their argument is,
is not that we are starting afresh and creating a new
surface or paving a new surface.
We are basically doing over or rebuilding over existing
surface that we have, but for the change in the zoning.
Can I ask how that applies to our building height then?
Please step to the mic if you'd like to get a clarification
.
The question that we have the two-fold problem with this,
it's the lot coverage, which I understand now clearly that
it looks like that,
but the other self-inflicted is the building height,
because in the existing height requirement, we exceed.
That is a different scenario.
Okay.
It's only addressing what is on the ground physically.
Okay.
That's fair.
I think Commissioner Rosell, it was Commissioner Beck, now
we're back to Commissioner Rosell, I'm sorry.
Keeping up with the questions.
Go ahead.
That last statement might clarify my question here, but it
's my understanding that if there was an option to
potentially table this item
and wait for them to go before ZBA, the applicant would
also have to be in agreeance for us to be able to table
this
to a date in the future, or we can do that?
Ultimately, if they want to go, we can't force them to go
to ZBA.
Ultimately, the applicant would have to do, we have to make
that decision, because the applicant would then have to
create new drawings,
go to the engineer, have them redraw what they want to do,
the architect, there's one involved, and then pay the fee
for that ZBA process,
which I don't know what that fee is.
Ultimately, they have to agree to do that.
There's not a mechanism that we force them to do that route
.
So I guess my question would be to the applicant, if the
commission was to entertain the idea of tabling for ZBA
decision,
would that be something you all would be open to, or would
you rather a vote be apart from a ZBA option?
I'm still fudging on the ZBA and our health requirement,
because I don't believe we adequately address that.
I understand the lot coverage, I think we're fine in that.
The height now is the other, we have two folds for ZBA, it
's the lot coverage and the height.
I can't answer that question. What I was doing was clar
ifying a statement you made so that they wouldn't be
confused.
This commission, who I do represent as your legal counsel,
you're asking one that is not a statement or cause
confusion, it would cost me to correct it.
That would be something that I would recommend you
coordinate with the legal counsel for the school district
who could answer that question.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. For the applicant, I'm sorry, you just
sat down.
I guess a question for the site plan. This is a
professional development site, correct, currently?
Correct, yes, ma'am.
And is that what it's remaining or are there future plans
with this expansion for it to become other things?
No, ma'am. It's all on staff, professional development.
Excuse me, it's professional development and support
services, so it houses their accounting departments, their
in-staff that manages, so it's both currently, both are
housed in the professional services building, excuse me,
professional development building.
This is actually going to allow them to keep the
professional development building more intact with that and
pull out the support services staff into a support services
building.
But on this campus?
Yes, yes, this building, so it's all staff.
And with this, because this is really an expansion for what
you have now, are you bringing other things that are
happening elsewhere in buildings in the district?
There has not been a clear indication of that. Currently
what we've had have identified are staff that's on the
campus itself.
I guess what I'm getting to is other activities.
Oh, yes.
Because you do, I mean you have many educational services
for your teachers throughout the year, certainly over the
summertime, you have workshops there.
There is none planned. This is strictly office space for...
As it's being used now.
As it's being used now. So no additional, I guess, perks.
Okay, understood.
Or opportunities.
Thank you.
Okay.
Great. I see no further questions. Thank you, applicants.
This is a public hearing. As such, if you would like to
speak, please fill out a card and turn those in.
I've got several cards and I'm going to start with our
cards.
I have Barney Cosimo at 1107 Bolivar.
As you come forward, if you'll please state your name and
address for the record and you'll have four minutes, sir.
Thank you.
Okay. My name is Barney Cosimo. I live at 1107 Bolivar and
I also own rental property directly across from the
development.
As I understand it, the existing buildings are going to
remain. That is the main building that was formerly the
Catholic Church educational building and the church
building and the other buildings are going to be cleared
from the site.
Just looking at the plan, it looks like it will
significantly enhance the aesthetics of the area.
I don't think a three-story building on Elm is going to be
overly intrusive on Bolivar. It would be nice to get that
area cleaned up. It is pretty much a haphazard mess.
Right now there's a portable building serving as a support
building and a field that is not developed, but it also
collects water when it rains.
It would be nice to have that developed and cleaned up and
nicely landscaped. I can support it. I'd rather have that
than some of the other things that have been proposed for
that area in the past. Thank you.
We have a question for you. Commissioner Beck.
Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry. Mr. Cosimo, did you say you
did live directly across the street from it?
I live just a little bit south at 1107, but I own rental
property directly across from that. You live at 1107 Boliv
ar? 1107, yes. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Our next speaker, request to speak, will be
Kate Lamas at 1120 North Locust and your card is marked in
opposition.
Hi, it's actually Kate Linus. Linus, sorry. That's all
right. I live at 1120 North Locust. I also work at the cour
thouse on the square at 110 West Hickory. I work for Denton
County.
So I would like to say that I did go to the neighborhood
meeting that the DISD offered on the 22nd and that was very
good. I am in support of the idea that DISD is trying to
form a campus.
I love that idea. I had understood from that meeting that
not only was it going to be every employee that was
currently on those different blocks, but in addition, they
were moving staff from the building that is currently off
of university.
And so that would actually increase the overall numbers.
But again, it's that idea of the campus. I also support the
idea of the pedestrian crossway.
I would like to mention, however, that Elm and Locust are
text dot roads. They are highways, Highway 77 and Highway
377. And without the agreement of text dot, there is no way
that there can be a pedestrian walkway across Elm Street or
any other one.
If the ISD, the city, text dot and everybody else involved
actually agrees to a pedestrian walkway on Elm Street,
please move it all the way across on Locust so that you
have neighborhood all the way to TWU and people cannot go
55 miles an hour down Locust and in front of my house.
But I'm speaking in opposition to the rezoning request. I
don't agree that there's any need to rezone these pieces of
property in order to build this campus that they want.
I think that they can work within the ideas of staff staff
recommendation, which actually is a denial staff recommends
denial of the request as it is incompatible with the
surrounding land uses uses and development pattern and is
inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Denton
plan.
I think that's a very important point to note in the
resolution, which is to make the zoning district consistent
with the comprehensive plan and the future land use plan.
Three stories, not three stories. That doesn't bother me so
much. The look isn't really wonderful for the neighborhood
because the neighborhood has a whole lot of older buildings
. My particular home was built in 1928. I just got recently
the historic landmark.
That's okay. My house is brick next door is a Denton wood
house next to it is a fake brick colonial. I mean, there's
all kinds of development. It's modern looking. That's not a
problem either.
It is huge. If you just go back and look at the pictures,
the site plans, it is so much bigger than anything else
around it. Maybe bring the three stories size down a little
bit instead of being monumental architecture. We make it
human size architecture.
It doesn't have to be huge buildings like around TWU campus
with the big multi story buildings. It should fit in to the
neighborhood. And I think that it can fit into the
neighborhood.
Some of the building they have right now is the old
elementary school. I mean, they were talking about you can
actually see parts of it in the rough. That's fantastic.
But fit into the neighborhood so it doesn't have to be
quite so extensive. That's it.
Let's make a clarification for you. In our work session, I
know everybody wasn't able to be there. One of the main
concerns that the commission had with the zoning request is
with the DCN, the height is 100 feet. With the DR2, the
height is 45 feet.
So it's a substantial difference to go from the DCN to go
back to DR2. That's one of the things we'll be talking with
the applicant here in a minute after we close the public
hearing and how we move this forward. Does that make a
difference to you if it goes from 100 feet down to 45?
I don't know that you can do a three story building in 45
feet. I don't know. I don't know enough about it. They
would have to in that zoning. One of my concerns with
changing the zoning in that way as opposed to doing the ZAB
, which was the staff recommendation, is I have a house that
I'm going to have for a very long time with very old trees
around it.
I would love to not have the falling down building. That
used to be my church when it was a Catholic church.
Something that's going to clean it up, that's fantastic.
But 100 feet right there? I don't know that that's
appropriate for the rest of the neighborhood.
I think that needs to be kept in mind. What is appropriate
for the rest of the neighborhood? Thank you. We have a
question. Commissioner Roselle? You brought a good point.
Not a question for you. Sorry. Is it possible to build that
building under 45 feet?
It's something we can look at. Currently the parapet height
is at 49 feet, so we're very close to it. The complications
come in, of course, with our mechanical and structural, if
it works within the system. It's something we can go back
and reevaluate and see.
There are additional mechanical screens that we have
currently on the rooftop, which would add some height to
that. I would have to get clarification if that zoning
restriction is for parapet height or for actual mechanical
screens would be a factor as well.
I'm going to ask this question. I'm going to steal it from
Commissioner Hudspeth. Is it possible to go down? Can you
office down?
Okay, perfect. That's ignorant speaking. I was curious.
Thank you.
Okay. Again, this is a public hearing. The next speaker I
have a card on is Michael Hinnon, 724 Thomas Street,
speaking in opposition.
Do you still like to speak? I'm sorry. You're correct. I
have it mixed in with the others. We've got a stack of
cards. I apologize.
I'll make sure I have the rest of them correct. Okay. I
apologize. The next speaker then would be Lori Davis, 1502
Bolivar, and question mark.
Okay. That's fine. My name is Lori Davis, 1502 Bolivar, 76
201. I was worried about the traffic flow going in and out
of Bolivar because I've lived there for 15 years now, and
actually 16 years.
People fly up and down Bolivar Street like it is one of the
highways. They really do. It's scary. And I was just
wanting to know if they had done traffic studies about this
because if there's an increase in people going to this
building, how it's going to affect just backing in and out
of your driveway every morning or every evening.
That's all. We can certainly ask the applicant to answer
that question for you if they have done any of that. Okay.
We've not done a traffic impact analysis, but we have
looked at what happens on our site in a regular basis, and
that's one of the reasons for getting more on-site parking
is to get one of the things that the district has been
aware of for a long time is the on-street parking issue.
So by getting those people off the street, we're hoping to
be able to clean up the neighborhood and get more of our
staff in parking. Okay, great. Thank you.
Again, this is a public hearing. I don't have any more
cards wishing to speak. I have a couple of comments that I
'm going to at least acknowledge and read in the record.
Anyone else that would like to speak is welcome to come
forward and you can fill out a card. We would like to hear
from you. In the meantime, I do have a note from Tommy Toul
ouse, looks like at 1408 Bolver Street.
He is in favor of the request.
I also have a comment here from Samuel Smith at 1508
Village Estates Drive. He is opposed to the request, and
those are all the cards or comments that we have at this
time.
Again, it's a public hearing, so anyone who would like to
speak, please come forward at this time.
Seeing no one else, I'm going to close the public hearing
and I'm going to open the floor for discussion or a motion.
Commissioner Hussbuth.
Thank you. So I wasn't here, so I'm going to try to keep it
short. I was watching online and yelling at my seat, but I
couldn't, you couldn't hear me.
So my thought is I have two chief points. One is to start
to try to be consistent within half blocks is a bit onerous
, in my humble opinion.
So if we're talking to, I don't know, you can call this an
alley. We'll call it an alley. But our city has bigger
zoning issues than half blocks.
And then if I look forward to the future land use, it also
backs that point that it uses Bolver as a meshing point for
those two districts.
This body, if we're going to start splitting half blocks,
it's going to be a whole bunch of late meetings.
It's a terrible precedent to sit, in my humble opinion. And
then it also, looking forward, as I look at the future land
use,
it also points out something that we should probably
consider, and that is that TW is not too far away. And they
don't have to ask for much.
So as that university grows, and it's stated that they have
housing need issues, and they're growing exponentially.
So you're talking about taking a project and taking
something out of your control and putting it in the state's
control in the near future
if we're not careful about how we manage things. And so I
just, I think it all flows.
I mean, I'm using the future land use and reality as a
guiding light.
Reality is we can't be consistent in zoning within half
blocks. And two, the future land use says it fits.
And then logic says they're not going to sell a building in
the middle of their other two buildings.
I mean, if it's on the edges, I get it, maybe. But you're
not going to have an existing building, build a new
building,
and then have another existing building, and then sell the
one in the middle so that you can build some magical,
mystical, eight, seven story building.
That just defies logic. So for me, those are the things
that really perplex me is I don't want to, as a body, for
the time that I'm sitting here,
start managing half blocks. I just think that's, it's hard
for me to process that if you, because again, we're looking
at the entire city.
So citywide, are we going to start looking at every alley,
every half block, and try to be consistent within them?
That makes for a lot of late Wednesday nights. What is
today? Today Wednesday? Yes. All right. Thank you.
Okay. Commissioner Taylor. Excuse me. Thank you, Chair.
So for the benefit of the audience who might not have been
following along in our work session,
we had a lot of conversations about the building facing Bol
ivar. It's been there for probably 30 years, something along
30 years or more.
And it, it's, so it's been part of the neighborhood and the
neighbors have accepted it as much as they may or may not
like the parking and additional traffic it might bring.
However, it's zoned NR3, which is a three house, three and
a half houses per acre residential zoning, a very kind of
low density suburban type zoning.
And the concern isn't so much that, you know, this is, if
we rezone it, the school district's going to build a 10
story tower and loom over the neighborhood.
The concern is we begin to, to erode the line that forms
the boundary between the neighborhood and the commercial
area on Elm and Locust.
And so we were, we've been trying to figure out ways
because if the school district re-zones this piece,
somebody who owns a couple of rental properties on the
other side of Bolivar or a half a block up or half a block
down could say, you know, there's already DCN on this block
.
I want to put in DCN on my three lots, plathem together and
build a nice little five story apartment building with, you
know, 15 units, pretty small.
But that's obviously a dramatic change for the neighborhood
.
It's, it's, you know, this, this beginning erosion of, of
the zoning boundary.
And so we were, that's why the ZBA approach keeps the
existing zoning, you know, keeps it in our three.
It's still a nonconforming use and you just get your height
changes and your pervious cover changes.
But I also realized that that, that's a ton of work for the
applicant.
It's the height, there might not be an easy way to do it or
it might not pass the ZBA.
So, so we don't know that that's a guaranteed solution
either.
You've brought a beautiful site plan and this is a struggle
for me because this is a rezone and site plans can't be
bound to a rezoning.
In theory, this is unlikely.
The district could rezone all this, bulldoze it all and
sell it to an apartment developer.
You know, it's not going to happen.
But that's, that's something we have to consider with rez
ones as opposed to the ADP earlier today where we can make
the site plan binding.
They want to change the color of the brick, they have to
come back.
They want to put in one less tree on that, that buffer,
they have to come back.
If it would rezone, it's, it's permanently rezoned and if
something changes in the disposition of the property, you
now have a new set of rules.
And that's also the challenge that the neighbor is on.
Locusts have brought up.
You need 49 feet instead of 45 feet.
But our next zoning category is 100 feet of height.
And, you know, I don't think you all are going to build a
100 foot tower.
But that's, that is a huge difference in scale.
So we're trying to find a way to allow this really great
project that's walkable, integrates into the neighborhood
pretty well,
provides walkable employment and a nice pedestrian plaza
that was a benefit to everybody in the area,
takes parking off of the street and puts it on your parking
lot, shares parking with the neighborhood, etc.
Without eroding the protections of the neighborhoods to the
, to the west and without, you know,
opening up a whole other can of worms with future zoning
changes in the neighboring area or, you know,
this kind of God forbid scenario where somehow the property
changes ownership and something else gets built there.
And I, I'm, I'm worried about the ZBA solution.
In the work session, I was really leaning toward the ZBA.
If we could table this, you know,
set a post-mortem date until the application is changed or
results of ZBA are finished.
But I do think that that's, it's going to add a massive
amount of delay.
And I like the DR2 on Bolivar because that provides
protection toward Bolivar.
DR2 is still a residential zoning.
You know, it gets you your 75% lot coverage, 45 foot height
, so you can't add a third story, but you're not going to
anyway.
But then that does make the rest of it, everything toward
Elm and Locust, BDCN with 100 foot height, 72 units per
acre.
So I'm still not convinced, I'm not comfortable making a
motion on that yet because, because it still sounds like it
's, it's too much the other way.
So I guess those are, those are my comments and thoughts at
this point.
And I'd like to see what everybody else on the commission
thinks.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. I have to echo a lot of what Commissioner
Taylor said.
My, my concern is the zoning change. I think the site plan
is beautiful.
I think Denton ISD has been a fabulous neighbor in that
spot and has been there, as you stated, and showed us for
decades.
But when we make a zoning change like this, we really do
have to think about what those unintended consequences
could be.
CISD doesn't have any plans that we know of to sell down
the road.
But if it does, as it continues to grow and it's going to
outgrow that site and further building,
it does set it up to be sold to someone who is going to
develop it and could put the 100 foot building in,
could put a bar, could put a restaurant, could put
something that's not compatible with those homes that, that
are around there.
It is just hard for me to support the zoning change.
I love the plan of the campus. I love the plan of more
parking, getting it off the street.
I love the plan of getting rid of the temporary trailer
that's on it, which is kind of an eyesore for the
neighborhood.
That is all really, really good.
I would love to be able to come up with another way that we
can help accomplish this without putting the residents at
risk.
And I really do think the zoning change puts the
residential neighborhood at risk.
And I just can't get behind that.
Commissioner Rosell.
Thank you, Chair.
I brought this up in work session, but I feel obliged to
bring it up again and maybe ask a more specific question.
Generally speaking, when we see a transition from one zone
to another zone, there is a distinct buffer or kind of an
understood barrier that would separate the two.
Is that generally correct? And what the city tries to do is
have some sort of road or land that buffers two zones?
No, it's not a general premise.
However, in terms of land use analysis, you look at the
existing zoning, you look at the zoning pattern, you try
and study that and see how that's evolved over the years.
And then you look at the surrounding land use pattern and
you determine the cohesiveness of what's being proposed
against what's out there.
So the physical separation that you're speaking of, those
are factors associated in decision making.
So they could be a fence, a tree line, a right of way mason
ry screen wall.
All those factors come into consideration when we assess.
Sure. And I guess my point in that question is there's the
zoning change between DR2 and NR3 is some say an alley.
If that is an alley, it runs three blocks.
But above that, there's not an alley.
So it seems the way current zoning is on Elm Street,
someone could go in right now and build a 45 foot building
and their backyard being NR3 property.
To me, that's not much of a buffer. It seems like the
natural buffer would be Bolivar Street.
Sure. So if I'm looking at this and I say the natural
buffer between two zones would be Bolivar, then there's
zero encroachment.
And to Commissioner Hudspeth's point, we're getting into
half blocks where neighbors have different rights to what
they can build on their property as it is now.
I apologize.
I'm asking a question or?
Well, I feel like Julie's going to say something I want to
give her the opportunity.
I just brought up the map. And I see what you are saying
because here is that line that you're talking about,
correct? Right here?
Yes. Yeah, there's a line between the yellow and the green.
And part of it is separated by an alley.
But most of that hard line, as we discussed earlier, is a
backyard fence.
You're right. It is. It is. So the houses that front Boliv
ar have the NR3 zoning designation and then the houses that
front Elm have the DR2 zoning designation.
And so it was brought up earlier that there might be, if we
rezone this property, there might be zoning creep or
someone could come back and say, my app just crashed.
Someone could come back and say, oh, they just rezone that.
I'm going to rezone mine.
But just north of Third Street on Bolivar, it's zoned NR3.
They have a case to zone that DR2 right now because their
backyard is DR2.
And so I feel like the entire east side of Bolivar could
probably state claim if they wanted to change that to DR2
because their neighbors are DR2.
The threat of zoning creep across Bolivar becomes less of
an issue because Bolivar actually seems like a logical del
ineation between the two zones.
And so I guess to Commissioner Hudsworth's point, we're now
in half lots. And yes, we could rezone this.
They could raise the entire thing and probably make a
profit. And that does concern me.
But if they do build a $29 million complex made for offices
, the likelihood of them selling that to someone who's going
to tear down that to build a massive apartment complex
probably doesn't make financial sense.
So I guess the only concern I would have is this lingering
idea that they could get this rezoned and then DNISD could
turn a profit by just wiping out all of that.
Is your staff going to pass? I didn't necessarily present a
question. I understand that. But those are my concerns.
I really appreciate what you've just raised. And perhaps
there was lack of clarity in staff's analysis or
presentation. Julie, I'm speaking of myself.
When we talk about zoning creep, as you've mentioned, and I
do like that phrase, the intent was not to say that we're
looking at a half block and are we going to continue to
look at half blocks.
We have to look at each zoning case request as a separate
entity, as an individual element and see what the potential
risk is.
We completely, in our analysis, said we are very supportive
of what Denton ISD is proposing, the structure of their
building.
We completely understand that they're not going to go
anywhere. And the reality is they will not more than likely
raise the building.
But down the road, over the years, and as you've seen the
land use pattern that's been evolving in the city of Denton
, we want to make sure that we protect that to the greatest
extent possible.
And as a result, the fundamental principle, again, that's
what was raised, is the fundamental principles here are
what would happen when, because we have actually been
approached and have received conversations that state that,
oh, great, if that happens, now I can go ahead and do my
property and rezone my property.
And so when does that stop or when do we stop it or do we
stop it, you know, do we start assessing that mid-block or
do we start assessing that when you see a trend of 20 or 30
properties with pockets of NR3 in there.
So back to the principle of the fundamental issue is, alley
or no alley, there is a split zoning on that property.
We understand that a DCN component of this DISD property
was already zoned. We also understand that there is a split
zoning.
If we had a crystal ball to see what happened in the past,
that would definitely alleviate some of the questions that
are raised today.
And unfortunately we don't. But our goal or our priority at
this point is to protect a well-established neighborhood.
Some of these homes are receiving historic landmark design
ations as well. So we don't want to deter that element as
well.
Yet we don't want to deter DISD either. So we're trying to,
again, this is the land use analysis associated with it.
But now what do we do to facilitate DISD to be able to go
vertical?
I appreciate that. And believe me, there's an internal
struggle of understanding that we're making decisions that
are really impactful 40, 50 years down the road that we
have no ability to foresee.
And I certainly understand that a fundamental zoning change
can open doors later on. I value that and the internal
turmoil about this decision.
When I look at it today, I see there's DCN there. Based on
the scale of this map, there's DCN to the east by about 250
feet.
Past that is TWA, which their master plan creeps west. And
I think they've presented again, to Commissioner Taylor's
point, we can't go off site plans.
But it seems as though they're trying to cultivate the area
to beautify it. I think, in my opinion, raise the quality
of what's existing there.
And if I can just echo one, not echo, but just iterate, one
point is that let's assume that the commission recommends
to rezone the NR3 component or the NR3 district to DR2.
And then the property just east of that would retain, would
be rezoned to DCN, for example.
If there is any overlap of building on that lot that shows
that split zoning, or there's an overlap on the boundaries
of the zoning or overlaps onto a different zoning category,
then the more restrictive zoning category applies as it
relates to the development standards. And again, back to
that same struggle, how do we address this?
Yeah, I guess it's for the record, maybe for the commission
's edification. I'm leaning towards approving this. I'd be
open to the DR2/DCN split.
If that would potentially limit that creep to the west, it
sounds like there's a minimal understanding on DISD's part.
So that's kind of where I'm at.
Okay. Thank you for that.
I've got three others, so I'll hit you on that.
Commissioner Hussbett.
Yeah, I think I pushed my button first. It just doesn't
work.
It's not showing up.
No, it's broken. But so to answer the Monal's question, I
think, me personally, and I'm very linear. I don't do much
outside the fringes.
So my answer to that question is, when do you start to make
those decisions? I think the answer is when you can enforce
them consistently. That's the whole thing.
I think a builder, a developer, anyone, if they can
approach and understand that we are consistently applying
statutes, and I don't think that we can consistently
protect alleys.
And so that's my answer to that. And I think from
everything else I've heard, it's the troubling thing for me
is we're going off on what-ifs and maybe this and
potentially that and a person called about that,
whereas we have an active proposal in front of us, and we
can take those other instances as they come. And I would
take it, but I'll step into the what-if category.
So what if BISD says, hey, fine, we'll sell the property
because we'll go build our campus.
We've got to understand this is a school district that
stretches from Denton almost to Little Elm, south almost to
Carrollton, Louisville area, has four high schools,
and they've never expanded but four in this particular area
. I mean, to me, that's exemplary of a good neighbor.
And someone that has used extreme conservative principles.
We've had two superintendents for as long as I've known.
And so I really, I struggle with, one, the consistency.
That's big for me. I just, I think as builders, and even if
you take the neighborhood in consideration,
everyone says their neighborhood needs to be cleaned up.
And if you look at the people that spoke today, you have
two in favor and three if you count his rental property.
And then you have two against and one in the middle based
on traffic. So we're trying to protect the neighborhood,
but the neighborhood has spoken and they're about middle of
the road.
And so for me, it really is hard to get behind anything but
moving forward just because it takes a lot of imagination
to get somewhere else.
And if I use my imagination, you can, I mean, they have
four high schools. They're going to need the office space.
So either they're going to build or they're going to move,
but something's got to give. You can't force them to stay.
And then are you excited about your neighborhood that's
coming in? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not.
And I think if I look at the map, just to the north of
there, there's apartments, at least one or two on Bolivar
there.
So you're telling me the apartment complexes are better
than office building with office park. I disagree.
So that's where I really get hung up is if you look at that
area, even the homes are businesses. You know, it's like
you can't it is it is very interesting to me.
But thank you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair.
So I just wanted to point out that we started referring to
as half blocks as zoning boundaries is really common,
especially in this neighborhood.
If you go over to Westway between Westway and University
Drive, you have CMG, which is an extremely high density
commercial sharing a back fence with N.R.
three. And that's, you know, 40 or 50 houses in a row.
If you go to Ector, which we just had a zoning case on
earlier tonight, Ector is N.R.
one. It's only the houses that directly face Ector are N.R.
one. All of the back fences are N.R. four and N.R. three.
You know, you can do this around the historic district all
over on campus.
Back fences are a really common zoning boundary.
So to say that we can't zone on back fences or half blocks,
that's that's pretty dangerous, especially when you're
looking at the street where the entire six or eight blocks,
ten blocks of the street is split on that half block. And
it's very consistent. There aren't any businesses in the N.
R.
three area on Bolivar. There are a lot of businesses in the
D.R.
two area and the D.C.N. area on Locust and Elm.
But that zoning stands whenever we had the use map up
earlier, there were a whole lot of pink things on Locust
and Elm. There weren't any on Bolivar.
But again, D.R. two to me is almost N.R. three. It's very
close.
So I don't I agree that N.R. D.R. two would would probably
be appropriate on Bolivar.
Then the next question is, is D.C.N. appropriate on Locust
and Elm?
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair.
I guess my point is, is just because we look at the current
zoning doesn't mean it's all such the right thing.
And we do to echo Manal's point, we do have to take each
request very specifically.
Nobody is saying again that Denton ISD has been a bad
neighbor. They really haven't.
But truly, if you go to the corner of Bolivar and and third
, it's it it does look out of sorts for the neighborhood,
the building.
I know it's been there forever. And when it was a school, I
'm sure it was a little more appropriate.
It does look odd. It is a residential neighborhood with
historic homes on it that people are actually rehabbing and
selling for, you know, three hundred thousand plus.
It's to change the zoning again, just to reiterate my
earlier point, we do set up possibly bad things for the
neighborhood.
And that is our responsibility to think about. No, we don't
have a crystal ball for the future, but it is something we
have to take into consideration when we're making a zoning
change, because we could have something there one day that
doesn't need to be there.
OK, Commissioner Sullivan. Thank you, Chair.
As I take a walk through Google map going around the
neighborhood, what I see is a lot of trees, grass areas,
low profile homes, first one story homes, low profile
buildings.
The ISD is probably is the two story, one of the few. And I
try to imagine a three story building going into that in
the same area.
And since you mentioned earlier, you're really separating
out two distinct services in the building that this is
going to be for support and not necessarily what the other
one was.
I can't recall. And so I just keep thinking, why here out
of all the property the ISD has and what's available in the
in the in Denton?
Why this location? Because I just don't see how it would
fit in with the I mean, the architecture.
It looks great. I don't think it would look good here,
though.
And I think that that would be my concern is that it would
stick out like a sore thumb and not be conducive with the
the older homes and the low profile buildings.
Commissioner Oso. Thank you, Chair.
I want to just take advantage of clarifying, Mr. Taylor.
Are you saying that since there's been other times in which
we've zoned half blocks, that's the ideal we should be
going for?
So I don't think it's an ideal.
Thank you. I don't think it's an ideal, but I think it
clearly works.
There's there are successful neighborhoods, a budding
commercial properties and that back fence is the border.
And personally, I would rather share a back fence than a
side fence or face across the street.
I don't want my I would rather have my back fence next to
an apartment or a commercial development than my front door
.
So unless there's like some kind of tall light or something
like that shining in the backyard.
Yeah, gotcha. And we've we've said the same commission and
done that with backyards and understanding where front
doors face.
And so I agree with you that it can happen. I'm not against
it.
My point rather in time with the half blocks was to say
that in within a block, there's already two zoning.
So I don't know if changing the zoning for this is going to
necessarily promote or start advocating for that zone creep
more so than these half blocks that are zoned differently.
Commissioner Tyler. Thank you.
Yeah, no, I agree that there's there are questions of how
big a deal is this?
But, you know, and I think your initial statement might
have it sounded very broad to me, like we shouldn't be
splitting half blocks by zoning.
And so if you say that, then all of the east side of Boliv
ar immediately becomes like ready to be D.R.
to then the subcommittee starts working much harder to
align. Yeah, you mentioned that you believe D.R.
to is not too far off from N.R. three.
Are what are your thoughts on making the property that
faces or a but Bolivar D.R.
two and the Elm side D.C.N.
So I I think that D.R. two would be appropriate on Bolivar
without much problem.
It's it's it allows higher lot coverage and like a five
foot higher roof line.
But it's primarily a residential zoning.
The problem is D.R. two isn't quite high enough.
It's five feet short of what they need for their building.
And then that's where the concern about I mentioned D.C.N.
on Oak and I'm sorry, Elm and Locust.
Then that becomes the rezone risk really is the only risk
of that one.
I think that that solves the encroachment risk.
And then we just have to consider kind of the new builder
or change of property ownership risk.
No sense. Thank you.
Commissioner Hussman.
Sorry, I would like to hear from someone.
Anyone.
First, let's start this.
I'd love to hear the summary of the thought and the future
land use map.
Right. So someone put time effort thought into that.
I'm assuming Manal is that right.
I mean, generally. Absolutely.
OK. So the future land use map says that half block
included all the way up to
university as far as I can see is consistent in the future
that we're trying to predict.
And so I'd love to hear from I've heard conversations,
but I've not heard anyone speak to why we should ignore the
future land use map.
Well, we're not. OK.
And I think this is a great opportunity to bring that slide
forward.
Julie, the slide where you've got the underlined component.
Let's talk and let's talk about the we're going to talk
about the future land use map.
We all know what low density residential is,
but I think Julie encompass the language as it relates to
downtown compatibility area,
and I won't do it justice.
But what does that encompass the downtown compatible?
Again, the future land use map is not reflecting zoning
districts.
So now let's break that down.
Julie, you had a really good phrase that you had used
earlier.
I actually borrowed it from Mike.
But the downtown compatibility area isn't necessarily one
particular zoning district.
It could encompass a lot of them and DCN could be one, DR1,
DR2.
But what we have to do is look at the individual character
of that area
and make sure that that the zoning districts are compatible
next to each other.
So when they're adjacent to each other, there's an
appropriate transition.
And so in relationship to this case, when we look at DCN
and then the adjacent zoning districts,
we see there's a lot of incompatibility with scale.
So it's not necessarily DCN isn't compatible with the
downtown compatibility area,
but it's not appropriate in this location because of the
intent to make sure you strengthen
not only the downtown development pattern, but the
neighborhoods as well.
And so it's meant to transition from that downtown to the
neighborhoods.
And so DCN could be appropriate, but it's not all in every
case.
Did that answer it?
Continue.
Yes.
So yes.
And so under this future land use, single family houses fit
?
In downtown compatibility area?
Yes.
Well, that would depend on the specific area.
Probably not.
I mean, this is on the edge of the low density residential
in the downtown compatibility area.
So we can't just look at that future land use.
We have to look at that transition between the two.
So that's where you get that NR3 because there's a
transition between those two.
And then we have to look even deeper at what the character
of that area is.
So this is the overarching ideal and goals, but you have to
really drill down to the details as well.
That can't inform everything.
Continue.
Sure.
I agree.
But the property in question using your picture is in the
middle far -- not far, just to the outside of the blend.
So if I'm looking at low residential being single family
homes is outside the blend, then you have the blend where
you're going to bring those two uses together.
Right.
Then you have the proposed property.
And so based on just what you said, not holding you to it,
but using it, a single -- we're trying to protect single
family houses in a future land use area that doesn't
support single family houses.
And I understand where you're -- I understand what you're
looking at.
I think you're looking too -- you're looking too narrowly.
You've got to go up a little higher and say that these are
the general areas.
And that's why those blend areas look like water was built
on the future land use map is because we didn't want those
hard parcel lines because it really doesn't often -- it
doesn't always reflect what's going on in the ground.
So that's why we wanted that blending area.
It's not a hard and fast line.
It is -- there's a fluidity there.
Yeah, and I understand.
So I'm going to switch gears now.
So as it's zoned currently, if DISD sells it and someone
else moves in, they're free to build whatever uses are
currently there.
I mean, they're free to build those things.
Whatever is currently permitted in the zoning districts,
yes, sir.
Right.
Okay.
Thank you.
Sure.
We have a question for the applicant.
You've heard all the discussion.
We're kind of all over the board here.
Yes, sir.
My concern as chair and sitting through these meetings over
many years of trying to do, well, maybe variance, maybe we
'll kind of mix and match the zoning and come up with a
compromise.
It's my experience in the past when we do that, a lot of
times the feedback is we made a boo-boo because we did
something a little quicker and didn't have as much time to
study all the facts.
I know this item has been pulled more than once from our
agenda.
And I don't know if you're open to having this continued
and to give not only yourselves but staff an opportunity to
make another run at this and come back to us or if you'd
prefer us to move forward here and let the cards follow
some way.
I think we'd like the opportunity to work with staff and
perhaps again look at the ZBA process and see which way we
can go.
So I think we would ask, request, propose you to postpone.
Okay.
Well, continue.
Continue.
And that's my sense as well because I think we've had a
really good discussion of a lot of the different facts we
've heard from citizens and neighbors.
And I don't feel like there's really a place where it's
really clear after all the discussion, all the impact.
Well, I think everybody's formed a consensus over here.
I'd like to go ahead and make a motion then that we
continue this.
What would be a reasonable timeframe?
I'm going to ask for some input from staff.
In order to place the item, I don't have the ZBA schedule
in front of me right now.
End of October.
So November would be the first ZBA meeting.
The first Monday in November, if I'm not mistaken, or the
last Monday in November would be the first meeting for ZBA,
which gives sufficient time for us to talk, receive
application.
Did I get the date wrong?
I apologize.
Last Monday of October.
Last Monday of October, I apologize.
So I believe we still have an opportunity to hit that
meeting.
Let's -- we will -- I'm sorry.
You have a publication deadline.
I'm thinking about publication.
I know it's going to be very tight to meet the October.
In order to hit that, we'd have to actually send out
notification, if I'm not mistaken, by Saturday or Monday.
So we can look at that.
Please -- we will coordinate with you first thing tomorrow
morning.
Okay.
And then we will establish the timelines associated with
that.
So I would give some leeway, and I would say 60 days.
60 days.
Are you okay with that?
While it's not exactly preferred, I do believe it's going
to be the method we choose.
Well, there's certainly more certainty there.
But the way it sounds like it's going right now.
Yeah.
Well, each day that passes, most unfortunately, inflation
continues, and it's one of those things.
I'm very anxious to get started.
Our drawings are complete.
So this is very exciting.
If this can get resolved, then we'd be able to see it
sooner than that.
We don't want to set it for too soon and not give you the
opportunity to explore all the options that maybe you can
get this resolved.
Yes, sir.
So 60 days.
Is that where we're within 60 days?
It should be done within 60 days.
Do we need to do a date certain or just 60 days?
I would continue it to 60 days, and then we'll make sure
that it's on the subsequent agenda.
It could be plus or minus a few days.
Yes.
Agreed.
Okay.
So rather a date certain.
Okay.
Well, thank you for the feedback and the consideration.
With that, the Chair is going to make a motion that this
item be continued for 60 days.
And we look forward to either seeing it back here or having
it resolved another way in as timely a matter as possible.
With that, Commissioner Beck.
I second the motion.
Okay.
We have a first and a second.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
Thank you for a great presentation.
I'm going to let the room clear.
And I think as we've gone now for a little over two hours,
I think we're going to take a short break.
And then let's reconvene in 10 minutes.
I'm going to call a recess at 845 and let's try to get back
.
Okay.
I'm going to call our PNC meeting back in order at 855.
And we're going to continue with our public hearings items.
And I'm going to open the public hearing for item C, Z16-00
13.
I'll call on Mike Bell for that presentation.
Thank you, Chair, members of the commission.
Again, it's almost 9.
I'll ask if you want the short version or the long version.
Let's try the short.
I thought you might say that.
All right.
So the request is to consider an amendment to the razor
ranch overlay district to change less than 10 acres, but no
more than, from a south mixed use sub area to the south R2
sub area.
And this requires a changing of two exhibits in the
ordinance.
So an overview, the area in yellow is the 410 acres that
includes razor ranch.
But at the bottom left, you'll see a double black line.
That's the roughly 10 acre, less than 10 acre property that
we're considering tonight.
What that change includes is the -- this property here, you
can see it would be going from the south mixed use sub area
to south R2.
Which is an extension of what is already present along I-35
and U.S. 380.
Additionally, we have site design standards.
I don't want to bore you with the standards.
This here is a razor ranch overlay and all the exhibits.
It's about as big as a development code.
But essentially, it has sets of architectural standards
broken up by sub districts.
And what this would do is keep all the commercial uses that
are permitted, currently permitted, they would be allowed
to keep doing those.
But what it would do is eliminate the ability to do any of
the residential uses, single family, multi family, town
homes, things like that, would be eliminated.
And again, there's no requirement for mixed use.
They could do pure retail or pure residential if they
wanted to.
But under the new proposal, it would just be commercial.
General regulations are about the same.
And again, the real crux of this is the design standards,
the architectural landscape and signage standards.
They currently do not have standards for the district they
're in.
They would like to go to the RR2.
It's a logical extension.
And it would allow them to use existing design standards.
And again, this is kind of the idea of what's been approved
in the past under these C1, D1, and E1 to give you an idea
what that looks like.
Going over the considerations we did in work session.
It really just boils down to the residential uses being
removed and the change in the design standards.
And as we've outlined, we really don't think that's a cause
of concern.
For that reason, we will support the request.
We did send out a notification.
Received nothing in favor or in opposition.
And with that, I recommend approval.
The applicant is here, and I'll stand for any questions.
Any questions for staff?
Thank you, Mike.
The applicant is here and would like to speak?
No?
Okay.
This is a public hearing.
I have one card.
And it looks like it has two agenda items on here.
It would be Michael Hinnan.
He is marked in opposition requesting he would like to
speak.
Okay, Mr. Chair, I think I marked item C and D.
Yes, we're on 4C.
Oh, we were on B. I'm sorry.
That item has been -- I apologize, I didn't announce it.
It's been withdrawn.
Should have clarified that.
I apologize.
So we are on 4C.
Michael Hinnan, 724 Thomas Street in Denton.
My comments actually go to 4C and to D.
And I noticed in the exhibit B1 that was in our materials
tonight,
if you could call that back up again where I could --
as I'm speaking, that would help be helpful.
Which page is it?
I'm sorry.
B1, exhibit B1.
Show us that.
You know, this is the first schematic I've seen in these
exhibits.
I'm sure it's been out previously, but it's the first time
I've seen it.
Looking down into the -- and I don't have an objection to
the specific item.
I do have questions and objections that relate to the
entire project
that may be coming before you in subsequent meetings.
And down in the far southeast corner of the exhibit,
you see the gas wells that exist at Bonnie Bray and
Scripture Street.
And I noticed that the current zoning map, the existing and
the proposed,
show some uses that I think are incompatible with our
current gas well ordinance
in terms of the setbacks, the single family, the hotel --
possible hotel use, multifamily uses.
I believe this zoning map in general shows that those are
incompatible
with the setback requirements for reverse setbacks.
It could be 250 feet or it could be 300 feet,
depending on what's on the gas well property.
I wanted to bring that to the commission's attention
as you start to consider future use of that property.
Just for clarification, my understanding of the gas wells
are on the corner of Bonnie Bray and Scripture.
Yes.
And the single family stops at Panhandle, the extension of
Panhandle.
Is that what you're talking about?
That's part of it.
You'll also see that down just to the west of the gas wells
,
you'll see what is in blue that has hotels,
which are protected use under the gas well ordinance.
And I believe it also has MF, which I suppose is multif
amily.
And so residential uses are protected, as I understand it,
under the gas well ordinance and require at least a 250
feet setback
for the land use owner.
300 feet if the property on the gas well contains
certain kinds of flammable items on it.
So that's what I'm drawing attention to.
I believe that the surrounding areas--and it's hard for me
to read the scale there exactly,
but they look like they're within the 250 foot or 300 foot
lines,
even the single family to the north of there is within that
distance.
So I wanted to bring that to the attention of the
commission,
and that's my concern.
Okay.
Thank you for your input, and we'll certainly--SAAF is here
to hear that,
and I'm sure they can get with the applicant and clear up
any discrepancies there are
where there might be a problem with that.
So thank you for bringing that to our attention.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item?
I do not have any other cards on this item.
Anyone who would like to speak, please come forward.
It looks like Mike Bell may have a comment for us.
I just want to clarify for the gentleman who just spoke.
We are looking at a general development plan application.
We have had the conversations with Gas Wells, and the
property owner--
the Gas Wells division of the city and the property owner
will be addressing that
with the general development plan, and that will come
before the board,
so you'll see the resolution to that very issue.
Okay, so very aware of it and working on it to address it.
Yes, sir.
Great.
Thank you, Mike.
Let's see.
Anyone else that wishes to speak?
I'm going to close the public hearing on item C, Z16-001,
and I'm going to open that for a motion or discussion.
Looks like a motion from Commissioner Rozelle.
I move that we approve item Z16-13.
Commissioner Hussbuth.
Yes, I'm back.
All right.
I can see you here.
Thank you.
Second.
All right.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any further discussion or comments?
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
We'll move us to item D.
I will open the public hearing for Z16-0022,
and we'll call on Mike Bell to present that item as well.
Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
We'll get to the meeting, the item here.
This is Z16-22.
This is for the razor ranch multifamily standards.
The request is to amend the overlay district
to provide design standards and criteria for multifamily
development
in that south mixed-use sub-area,
and it would require an amendment to exhibit B3 of the
ordinance.
As we've talked about, the district is divided into three
major areas
in terms of design.
This would be for the south mixed-use area,
and it is exhibit C3 specific to south mixed-use.
In general, we've used the citywide standards as a baseline
,
and enhanced them from there, specific for razor ranch,
unique identity.
We've provided these sections.
I provided them in your backup with a comparison to subch
apter 13.
Be happy to go through any of those provisions if you'd
like.
I also do want to call attention, particularly for
Commissioner Hudspeth,
who was not here in the work session.
I handed some pages out on your chair.
That is a site plan that has been under review
that we've reviewed for these proposed criteria and meets
those criteria.
So this is the type of development that you would see under
these standards
or would be allowed under these standards,
and you'll be seeing that at your October 12th meeting.
I just want to give you an impression now what this would
look like
in case there were any hesitations.
Just there for your convenience if you need them.
This is, again, an idea what those buildings would look
like.
We did send out a notification, as this is an overlay
amendment.
We received no responses in opposition or in favor,
and staff recommends approval.
I'll be happy to stand for any questions.
Any questions for staff?
Thank you, Mike.
I'm calling the applicant.
We don't have a card from you, but we'd be happy for you to
speak
and then fill out a card for us, please.
Thank you, Commissioner.
Chairman, my name is Scott Wagner.
I reside at 1 East Washington in Phoenix, Arizona.
I've been here for several years.
I'm here in town about every week or two the past six years
.
I'd like to say thank you to everybody for the
considerations,
and at any time during a meeting or in between meetings or
when I'm in town,
I'm happy to meet with any of you new members to go through
the project,
go through the progress, the history, a little bit about
where we're going,
what we're about at Razor Ranch.
We're very excited about the projects.
These zoning cases are necessary to set the stage for
applicants to come in soon,
so we're excited to see some new projects.
You'll see those site plans and have more detail forth
coming.
So at any time if there's any questions, please let me know
.
Again, thank you.
Great. Thank you.
Any questions for the applicant?
Thank you.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing for Item D, Z
16-002,
and we'll open the floor for discussion or motion.
I apologize.
Mr. Hinden, would you like to speak on Item D as well, or
did you cover that in Item C?
I apologize.
I do not.
Okay. Thank you.
We will leave this item closed, and thank you for the
clarification.
Commissioner Beck?
I move approval of Z16-0022.
Okay.
Commissioner Ellis?
Chair, I second.
Okay.
I have a first.
Thank you.
I second.
Great.
Thank you.
I call for approval.
Any discussion or comments?
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 7-0.
That will move us to our final item this evening, our
matrix,
and any concluding items that we have.
Commissioner Rosell?
Thank you, Chair.
I have a question, and part of this is just to continue the
Commissioner Brighill legacy here a little bit.
It's about bikes.
No, I'm joking.
It's about landscape requirements.
She had brought up during her tenure this zero scape idea,
and seeing tonight the Aldi proposal,
I really like that they're making these parking islands
more than just a single tree,
and actually adding some foliage underneath it.
But is there -- what is the steps, or how does that look
like,
as you start progressing those general requirements to
promote or to incentivize zero scaping?
What does that look like?
Thank you, Commissioner Rosell.
At this point, if you recall, we are currently looking at
revising the tree code that's currently underway.
In fact, we're going to have several workshops associated
with that.
Subsequent to that, and almost after a few works, a little
bit of resolution associated with the tree code,
we're actually revisiting our landscape ordinance as well,
which will be accommodating some of these elements that we
've already heard about, discussed,
and that we've encouraged, because currently as the
ordinance stands, it encourages or allows zero scaping.
But in this instance, we want to evaluate and see the
opportunity to actually incorporate those and see if there
's --
a lot of communities do have incentive programs associated
with that, and it'll come before you as an amendment to the
tree ordinance, the landscaping requirements.
That's great news.
Would that potentially impact current development that they
could transition to a more zero scaped model?
We can create the ordinance or fold language into the
ordinance that would encourage or enable current
developments
to then try and accommodate in being consistent with the
current or revised ordinance requirements as it relates to
zero scaping.
Thank you.
Commissioner Hesbeth.
Along those lines, it's not really a matrix issue, but is
there a way to add a line item to the reports that we
receive,
the overall of each project that kind of haywards, if he's
had an input on -- so, for example, Aldi,
I know someone had mentioned that they were maintaining
trees or the groves,
but is there a way to add a line item just if he has
something, or even if he doesn't, just to know that he's --
I just don't know where that would fit in that summary of a
project.
Or I guess I'd better say I'd like a specific line item for
Hayward to have his input to say,
hey, I looked at the trees, or -- because how would we know
if there's a particular endangered tree that he was in
disagreement with?
I'd like to have a category for that.
I understand what you're saying, and it could be applicable
to some of the cases, such as our alternative ESAs,
or if you have an ADP associated with that, if it's a
straight zoning and there's a site plan, obviously there's
no review.
However, if you have, for instance, an overlay district
where there's some amendments to that,
or potential future other types of zoning overlays or plan
development districts,
then we have an opportunity to provide that input.
In the instances where we have those elements as I iterated
, alternative ESAs and ADPs,
we do have an opportunity to include, and I think in the
past we have, where the urban forester has looked at the
mitigation and preservation requirements,
which is also applicable to the plats.
However, when you read the plats, we say all technical
requirements have been addressed, and that's why that's not
included in there.
But definitely if the situation does arise where we know
there's a potential, where we should look at something that
you need to --
you, the commission, needs to be apprised of, we will
include that, reflecting that the --
because the urban forester is part of the planning division
, so all those elements are reviewed and analyzed.
I have one.
It's been a while since we've talked about I-35, and I'm
curious if it's far enough along yet for us to get an
update on the Buc-Ease area of Loop 288,
the Brinker Road extension under 35, and May Hill to see
where that stands and what the current time frame for that
is with TechStat.
You may -- Earl may -- he may already be gone, have an idea
on where that is.
I know it's been talked about, and it was a big concern at
that particular item with Buc-Ease, and it looks like work
has begun over there on that area.
And I'm just curious to see where the road improvements
stand.
We will coordinate with our engineering team and get you
some answers to that.
Great. Thank you.
Anybody else?
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you.
Not that you need more workmen, all, but -- and this may be
somewhere in the matrix in the past -- but notifications,
specifically on undeveloped pieces of land
that is going to go to a public hearing for a zoning change
, perhaps.
I find the way it's posted now inadequate, especially on a
high-speed road.
One in particular I passed probably a dozen times, and I
still couldn't read it.
You know, it's a small piece of paper with a Sharpie
written on it.
I had my daughter take a picture of it as we slowly went by
, but it's a 50-mile-an-hour road.
I still never figured out what it was.
Actually, I asked Commissioner Taylor what it was down the
road.
But if there's a way we can maybe get an update on that, we
can discuss it just for better signage
so people can actually know of a public hearing and what's
happening, that would be great.
I really appreciate you bringing that back to our attention
, Commissioner Ellis.
What we're looking at is revising our entire notification
process, not just as it relates to posting the signs,
but also who we send to and how we send to.
And we have state local government code requirements, and
then on top of that,
we have slightly more restrictive requirements as it
relates to our Denton Development Code.
Just food for thought is a lot of communities now have the
applicant post much larger signs
and sign an affidavit that they've posted a zoning change
or an SUP sign on the property
or any public hearing item, and those are some of the
recommendations
we're going to bring forward to the Planning and Zoning
Commission.
Hopefully sooner than later, and we've actually been
talking about it internally,
and we're very keen to bring this back to you very, very
quickly in a matter of a couple of meetings, hopefully, for
discussion.
Thank you.
Okay. Anybody else? No?
Okay. It is 9.15, and I'm going -- do you have Commissioner
--
I'll be on there. I just have one question for Manal.
Well, you were going off, and I'm sorry I missed your back.
Manal, can you -- I need to write down your new title and
congratulate you, but can you -- what is your new title now
?
The Director of Development Services.
Outstanding.
Thank you, Commissioner Hardsmith. I appreciate it. Put me
on the spot, but thank you so much.
Thank you for that. Anybody else?
Congratulations, and I'm going to close our PNC meeting at
9.16. Thank you, everybody.