This evening time is 432 and this meeting has been duly
posted and we do
have a quorum present and I'm going to call our meeting to
order and I will
turn it over to Shandra for clarification of agenda items.
Thank you
chair. Tonight we have several well two items on the
consent agenda,
two items for individual consideration and then eight items
under public hearing.
Before we start I'd like to see if there's any discussion
on the minutes
from the October 26th meeting. Okay and so with that I'll
invite Julie Wyatt up
for the presentation on the preliminary, I'm sorry, prelim
plat for the service
King edition. And just for the record this is for
clarification purposes so
she will be going over it if there's a question. It is a
preliminary plat for a
commercial development it's adjacent to I-35 and I'll
answer it's two lots and
I'll answer any questions you have. I had a question and it
may just be for my
learning curve. Why are there drainage easements and water
easements inside and
shown on the right away? I thought when we have a right
away that easements and
things typically aren't shown inside there. There were a
lot of existing
easements that that affected this lot and those may be the
haven't been
removed yet. Well or that that affect the lot and Earl did
you have any that
you'd like to add?
It's got I think a 70 foot right away on it and then the
drainage easement kind
to the west goes through it and I thought there was also a
20 foot water
line easement that's inside the right away. A lot of the
easements were
previously within the property but then textile went in and
acquired a bunch of
right away needed for the widening and those easements just
happened to end up
being in the new right away line. Okay so that just haven't
been removed. But the right
away will supersede the easement within the portion that's.
Well that was kind of
my question normally when we have right away we don't
usually have easements. No
we typically don't. I was just curious as to why this one
had some easements in it
and were inside the right away and so what you're saying
the easements
pre-existed the right away and they just haven't had the
easements removed and
they're just showing up on the plat search. Or the eas
ements removed that are
within the right away. Right. But typically you don't need
to because the
right away encompasses the easement. Okay that was my only
question on that. Thank you.
Okay thank you Julie and actually you're up next. This is
for the Ranch View
Specialty Hospital. This is our final plan. This is the
last step that y'all
will see for the Ranch View Specialty Hospital. I know you
've seen this this
project several times. It is a commercial development. It's
for medical
offices adjacent to I-35W and Crawford Road and you've seen
the preliminary
plat and this is in conformance with that preliminary plat
and I'll answer
any questions I can. Any questions? All right. Thank you
Julie. And then Julie you
might as well stay. The next item is the PDA Plan
Development Amendment for Ropes
and Ranch. All right good evening I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior
Planner with the City
of Denton. I know you've seen this one before. We'll go
over some of the things
to refresh your memory from the October 12th meeting but
this is a request to
consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding
a detailed plan
amendment for ropes and ranch in order to blend the
residential uses within the
land use plan. This is something you saw on October 12th
and it was continued to
today. The subject property is located on Crawford Road 35W
is actually in this
area so it's in the southwest part of town. A little
background of PDs within
the City of Denton. There are two part processes within the
1991 code. They're
actually not permitted within the 2002 code but we do have
some PDs left over
from prior to the 2002 code adoption. So any PDs that
remain from previously
follow that 1991 code and that code required two steps.
First the concept
plan which was the general guidelines including the uses.
For ropes and ranch
it was approved in 1999 and that concept plan emphasized
flexibility
and variety of housing options. And embedded within that
were residential
uses and there were five. Single-family luxury, single-
family premier, single-
family casita. All of those were single-family detached
homes. Single-family
villa was single-family attached so a duplex and then there
was the multi-family
component which also allowed development for elderly
housing or that sort of use.
Nursing homes that sort of thing. So those were the
residential uses permitted
within that concept plan. There have been several detailed
plans that have been
approved throughout the years. The most recent one being
2011 and what that did
is it depicted the precise locations of those individual
residential land use
categories and that included 63 of those single-family vill
as or SFVs or duplexes.
So and those were clustered along an arterial. And this is
what that looks
like. So you have all of the arrows point to the
traditional lots which would be
the casitas. The premier lots are the gray. The the
preserved lots which are
the the largest lots that they have are in the blue. There
's one little section
and then here are those duplex lots. Those were along the
arterial there. So
that was the 2011 plan. This is the proposed land use plan
that you saw on
October 12th. It it reallocated all those residential uses
and combined them into
one residential overarching use where any of those
residential uses except for
multi-family to could be located anywhere in that yellow.
And that proposal
included some text that include that said the SFL, SFP, SFC
and SFV land uses
would be permitted in anywhere within the R. That it
permitted a maximum of
1,200 of those SFV units and that the multi-family to MF2
would only be
permitted if it was depicted in this land use plan which it
wasn't or as part
of a detailed plan amendment. So any multi-family they
would have to come
back before you and City Council in order to get approval
for that. So
throughout the discussion on October 12th there were some
current concerns that
were raised regarding those villas those duplexes and by
both this commission as
well as the neighbors and some revisions that were proposed
by P&Z included the
reduction a reduction in the number from 1,200 to 600 which
would be a total of
300 structures. A requirement that those uses be clustered,
buffer or transition
requirements between those duplex uses and the single-
family detach uses. A
prohibition against the front facades of duplexes and
single-family homes facing
each other and then possibly providing general locations
for those for those
SFV villas duplex uses. So the applicant went back and made
some revisions and
what they resubmitted to us was to retain that overarching
R
residential use in this area which would permit the SFL,
the SFP, the SFC and the
SFV within all areas shown in yellow to also retain that
maximum 1,200 units
once again permit the provisions regarding multifamily but
then remove
all of the areas outlined in blue from the request so those
would fall back to
previous detail plans in terms of development and what
which which housing
goes where. So that was their that was their revision we
asked them if they
wanted. Commissioner Rossell. Yes sir. Thank you. Sorry for
the interruption. Do you know of the
the build out of what's the outline in blue is that
currently fully built out
or is there land still in that blue outline that has not
been developed? It's
everything that's been platted, final platted up till now.
So yes some of it is
built out some of it for instance this 10.1 10.2 these
these plots are fairly
recent so they're they're working through those and then
and then this
right here that's a fairly recent plat as well. So thank
you.
Commissioner Sullivan. I've gotten some questions about
this. There are a few lots in here that are outside the
blue line that are in fact already developed.
And so I don't know if it was just an oversight on their
part or if they were using an older map to begin with that
would indicate that maybe it's not built out there.
For example if I can approach the map here. Sure. These
three specifically these three lots here are already built.
These three lots right here?
They're already in existence. And so that's one thing that
's just sort of an oversight.
Okay. Those three people are upset. And so the other issue
is that the things that in yellow that above the blue line
that while they are not currently developed that when the
people bought that's along the inside of the blue line were
told specific types of housing is going to go in there.
And under this under this plan of ours a lot better than
the last one. It's still getting leeway to where possibly
the people who bought then are not going to have what they
were told later.
I don't know how hard and fast this blue line is or what
the assurances are that Robeson is going to issue to the
homeowners saying told you this that will continue.
Well and we did we did approach Robeson about adding more
of those elements that y'all suggested in the last meeting
in into this and they declined to do so. But they will be
here tonight and that may be something that we want that
you might want to discuss about about pushing that that
boundary line a little further in order to give more
certainty to those property owners that are that are
adjacent to that blue line.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair. So Julie as I
understand that the only change from what we saw previously
October 12th is that they're just not including anything
that's already plotted. Other than that everything's the
same.
Yes ma'am. Okay. Thank you. All right. So the
considerations that we looked at when we when we analyze
this we really went back to that 1991 code and and I know
we've discussed this before that 91 code does have criteria
for approval that we look at.
We have to analyze the request against first does it apply
with the general concept plan. This does that general
concept plan did embed within it that idea of flexibility
and a variety of housing types.
Does it provide a compatible arrangement with buildings and
land uses that would not adversely affect the adjoining
neighborhoods or properties outside the plan.
We looked at that and we don't we don't see that there is
going to be an impact to the properties adjoining the
development that's an that is undeveloped property and we
don't perceive an impact there.
But it is difficult to ascertain what the impact is of the
of the additional duplexes within the development.
It provides for adequate and safe circulation of vehicular
traffic because this request doesn't actually increase the
total number of dwelling units. It merely reallocates those
land use categories.
So the the duplex is the villas. If those increase within
the ropes and ranch development then a different than
another residential housing type would decrease increase
decrease.
So it would it would balance out and maintain that that 60
37 dwelling units and is it in substantial compliance with
the landscape science subdivision and other regulations of
the city.
Yes it is.
And while planning does not have an objection to the
request in light of the discussions that we had here on
October 12th as well as feedback that we have received from
the neighborhood.
The additional conditions that were suggested by this by
this board are are appropriate would be appropriate in this
instance.
A public notification was sent out here. Here are my totals
. We've received 31 in opposition 44 in favor and then 19 in
neutral.
Staff recommend's approval of the request. Sorry.
No sir no sir. It was just that one public notification. I
did continue to receive feedback and phone calls and emails
but no additional public or mailing was then.
Well yes and it would but it is still a part of the total
development. So it is part because those houses are a part
of the PD and that whole PD is being amended that it would
still you know we're still looking at them.
Sure sure.
Sure sure yes.
The request was continued so that's why there wasn't a re
notice. So thank you. We did. Yes go ahead. Sorry
Commissioner Hesbeth. Thank you chair. So I guess can we
just to talk amongst ourselves so I can understand.
I'm curious. I need some guidance as to where to weigh
decisions. If I look at the blue line it looks like they
tried to follow the golf course and even the three houses
that Commissioner Sullivan pointed out it's in their
backyard.
So we've set out a prerequisite before saying hey we don't
want to face in each other. So it looks like they've drawn
the line such that it's it meets the previous request. So I
'm just curious if we're how we're going to or how to weigh
decisions right it's like it's obvious.
It's a need. It's obvious that it's well supported in the
entire community. And so those dissenting how do you weigh
that do you weigh it. I mean because I don't think there's
ever a perfect place for blue line.
You know and so that's as we go through the presentation
that's what I'm weighing that's what I'm I'm going to
struggle with it's it looks like the prerequisites
generally have been you know factored in and it looks like
they tried to follow the golf course to give you that
buffer between the two and the others in the backyard so it
's not facing one of the other houses.
So that just says we go forward I'll be listening to see
how to weigh dissenting opinions and process that. I think
I'll try to answer that question.
So once we are amending the full PD, the notification goes
out to the property owner that we originally sent the
notice to. And so the 20% should it. Should we fall into,
should we get to that point where there's 20% opposition,
that total will be counted based on that that original
boundary.
Unless somebody has a different interpretation.
And right now because it is such a large development, even
though we've we received quite a few letters back.
The percentages of opposition or even in favor neutral or
are fairly low just because it's such a large development.
So I'll answer any questions I can.
Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair so Julie these
responses that we have are the same ones we got on October
12 is that right.
Some are new. Okay, and I mixed them all up. Okay, so I
have no idea what your name is so I'm sorry I apologize I
killed a few trees on that one so I want to make sure you
had all the available information in front of you.
Thanks.
All right. Thank you. There's a few more questions. I was
going to call on Commissioner Sullivan since you live in Ro
bson Ranch. Can you share just kind of what the feeling from
Robson Ranch what you've been told about their feelings
about the changes that are being proposed.
Whether it was a town hall meeting that I attended in Robs
on.
I used to love double speaker people would ask specific
question regarding what about what's going to be behind my
house, and they say well you know it's going to be
residents.
What does that mean that a duplex or single family or what
have you. So people were concerned about that. That, again,
people that I've talked with you got emails from are
concerned that, again, the people that are on that blue
line.
While their house may back up to the blue line and so
therefore the front house don't face each other.
Make sure your mic is on I think.
It's greener now greener.
Those guys will be happy.
So that the people that whose backyard backs up to the
backyard of the villa. It's two different lifestyles that
the the villa people tend to live on the patios more.
And so it's you know very close proximity and it's just not
in their thought not very conducive.
So that's, it's a concern for those who are closer to the
area impact area than it is to those who are further away
from it because their areas are fairly well built out.
And the concern they had was that if there's an empty lot
in the middle of street according to the old map they could
have put a duplex in there.
And so that was their concern that they didn't want you
know the infill areas to be used as duplexes.
So they've taken you know they've taken that off the board
which is positive.
But it's still it's the the backyard issue and the fact
that people have in fact I just got an email when I pulled
in this evening that said to that you know we were told
that a premier houses were going to be built behind us.
Well that's not what's you know what's being shown now and
so that's their concern.
So they would like more assurance from Robson or somebody
to say what we told you when you bought is still going to
happen.
You know that's not going to affect anything it's just for
the stuff that's on further north where these things are
going to happen.
So that's that's sort of the give and take that's going on
in the in the area out there.
Okay.
Thank you for that.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Commissioner Sullivan just to ask there was discussion on
October 12 that the developer come back and talk with the
residents.
Did that happen?
Are you saying that meeting happened in between the
continuation or is that the first one after the last time
they were here.
In fact it was probably a month and a half ago that they
came back and had another town hall meeting and that's that
's the one that I attended.
And again it was the concerns were what's going to happen
to the houses behind me.
That's where that really was the biggest voice and that's
where Robson didn't really I mean the answer the question
technically but not specifically because a multifamily
villa is a residence just like a single family home is a
residence.
And so that's where they were kind of dancing around the
issue.
Sure.
That was let me just say that was one thing I was going to
ask staff about and we didn't talk about in today's
presentation but my recollection from last time was that on
the casitas the duplexes.
They actually count as one unit it's not two separate units
.
Is that correct?
No it's two separate dwelling units because each the way
the development code defines the dwelling unit is a kitchen
basically and so there would be each would be two separate.
Each structure would be two separate dwelling units so it
would be so they're they're proposing or requesting 1200 du
plexes, but it would be 600 structures.
Okay.
So I misunderstood about there's two structures being
counted as one.
Well, let me rephrase the duplex two families and wasn't
residents count says two residential structures rather than
one to residential dwelling units.
Yes, sir.
Okay, I was misunderstood it was mistaken on my
understanding so they're two separate.
It's been a little confusing so I'm with you.
Thank you for the clarification.
Mr. Husband.
Yeah, I just, I do get hung up on our previous meeting we
outlined some, some bullets.
Those bullets get hit, and then it's, oh by the way, and I
do in practice, I don't.
I struggle with making the connection that that's a bad
thing right, because my understanding just as it was
understood as it was laid out these are homes.
I mean the townhomes whatever there are the people leave,
and they come back and they kind of vacillate a bit. I don
't understand what's bad about that.
You know, if my neighbors would leave all the time that'd
be great, you know, you know, what am I looking at the
backup, you know that that type of thing so I don't, I don
't see that as a negative and I don't see.
I just don't think it's right to keep moving the goal line,
you know, it's like hey well, here's these four prerequis
ites we really like to see you come back with those four
prerequisites and now I'm worried about my backyard.
Before it was hate I don't want to face it. Now it's I don
't want it in back of me. And we're another four months out
and we already know that it's in need.
And so I just, I just think it's a dangerous precedent to
to ask someone to meet we specifically laid out these,
these points we specifically set a date certain.
And so, is it perfect? Absolutely not. But I think short
comings would fall on.
I'd almost put it on me for not asking a better question
than on them for doing what we in spirit, ask them to do is
it again is it perfect no.
But I need someone I'd need to hear a reason why someone
that's gone half the year is in my backyard is a bad thing.
I mean, so I don't I don't understand that to be bad.
If I could just a second, I want to, I got a clarification
from legal that we're getting a little outside the bounds
of our work session of getting information presented to us
and having a lot of discussion and the recommendation is if
we're going to get into quite a bit discussion I would
rather us have it there in our public session with citizens
there that can hear rather than we do it all here and just
make a motion to vote in there that we've discussed it so
unless there's another question specifically for staff.
I'm going to say that this item has been presented and we
'll move to our next one unless there's a particular
question for staff that we want to follow up on.
Sure. Commissioner was oh, thank you chair. Julian and in
your discussions with the applicant.
Commissioner Sullivan brought up the point about these
three houses. And it does seem like maybe low hanging fruit
of those exist. I'm not saying we start blurring that blue
line.
Because I agree with Commissioner has but it seems like a
natural kind of break. But those three houses are built. Do
you feel the applicant would be a minimal to moving that
line back.
They like hard because it seems like they declined some of
our requests. And I guess I asked the applicant I'm just
curious about if they would move it three houses back.
I can absolutely approach them prior to the regular meeting
and see if that's something that they could do.
I'm just curious if that's like a deal breaker for them.
Thank you. Commissioner else. Thank you chair. On that same
note, is that a hard line or you said everything that's
already been plotted.
So if those three homes are there, they're plotted. So they
should be not included. Well, and that was just a shorthand
that that I used. This was what they submitted.
So this is they didn't they didn't qualify it. They just
submitted a new draw a new map. So so that's a hard line as
far as what they're presenting to us then. Yes. Okay.
Understood. Thank you.
I have I guess final question. Help me understand staff's
perspective to approve this when it's so counter to how we
do zoning throughout the rest of our city that you know it
is in our six and that's what goes in it and then our three
and you can have in our immune.
We don't have a mix of that in our city. So I'm having a
hard time after maybe I'm just the old guy with long in the
tooth here how we've always done it. I'm having a hard time
getting there with this approach. Sure.
And I understand and we have those conversations because it
's a PD because that type of mixing of housing was was put
into the PD is as one of the one of the guiding principles,
then that PD does allow for that flexibility and for it to
be a little less
hard and fast as we have in the rest of the zoning. So yes,
it doesn't really follow the way we typically look at
things within the broader city, but within this PD because
because it's its own development and it's got its own own
standards and criteria that allows that a little more
flexibility for staff to look at these types of specific
requests in a little more detail that way.
Can you push back a little.
I hear that in the flexibility and understand it.
But we don't do that anywhere else in our city that we have
a duplex on one lot and then a single family home next to
it. We've had things come before this commission and had a
lot of spirited discussion about staff saying well this is
existing neighborhood and you know we're going to put a
couple duplexes here on the corner
and that's exactly what this is this is going to be a or
has the capability of being duplex single family all this,
whatever kind of floats and that's just very different than
what we typically do is and I've stood here and argued that
very very thing.
But because it really does come down to the nature of the
PD. And so it is it is different than that that straight
zoning that we have to the rest of the city or, or we're
reviewing it in that that different so I hear you we have,
we have had those spirited discussions here.
But, but because of the nature of the PD and Chandler and
all want to add anything to that.
I guess I'm just a little puzzled as to why we're not doing
more of a cluster that you can do it here or do it there
versus you can just do it anywhere, other than it makes it
very easy for the developer to whatever they want to build
however they want to build to never have to come back and
say, hey, market conditions have changed, we have more
demand here and we would like to just like we do in any
other projects, make a change and come back and talk about
it versus we want a blank check, and we don't ever want to
have to come back and we'll build what we want to build.
It fits this box and if it's gonna be outside the box, we
'll come back but otherwise, we'll never be back before this
commission or city council again. And you know, after our
last discussion we did go back and we talked about it and
when they did submit this, this new map to us, you know I,
I contacted them and say but this doesn't address any of
those other concerns that PNC Do you not want to add those
in there.
And they declined to do so but we have put in our
recommendation that although we're okay with the request,
we've certainly heard your concerns and we think that any
requirements to provide buffers or transitions between
those two uses could be appropriate.
So, I think I think you're, you're right and that what you
have suggested to us could be appropriate measures that
that y'all could could recommend to to add to this map as
well.
Right, and just add more. Hopefully it's more. But with PDs
you also we with PDs we tend to allow greater flexibility
because ideally we get a better product in the end then we
could get with straight zoning.
So typically you get more open space you get connections
you get a better quality product. As far as design
standards, the, the facades of the buildings are typically
more than what we require for the base zoning.
And so that's why there's a little bit of a give and take
with PDs.
But surely, if you sense zoning is discretionary and this
is zoning. Should you see things that you should you
identify things that you would like to see in the PD.
Those can be recommendations that you make as a commission.
This is a carry one one step further. Either
recommendations that we can form consensus on. And if for
some reason, there isn't consensus and this doesn't move
forward at least from a PNC where the recommendation it
does go to city council.
Is that correct.
And if it didn't pass here it would take a supermajority at
council then to to to address whatever changes need to be
made. Yes, sir. Okay.
Other questions for staff.
Buddy.
Okay. Thank you, Julie. Thank you.
Okay. The next item is the approving the 2017 calendar.
There should be a copy of this in your backup. And if you
will please let us know if any of the dates. You feel we
need to change or if not.
Can you carry this forward.
On the calendar the only thing I remember looking at it but
I don't know that I saw spring break on was it missed. That
's the only other thing that I saw.
It looked like we missed most of the other holidays and
things so anybody else have some conflicts on the calendar.
Commissioner has but did you have some conflicts or no.
Good. Okay.
That takes us to our public hearings and I'll invite Haley
's a girl ski up for the Darnell edition.
Okay, so you've seen this one recently as a zoning case.
This is replats to combine three lots into one for the
purpose of developing a pastoral center on McCormick Street
.
So if you have any questions I can address those now.
Now there were some concerns when this was before us about
parking and some of those I don't know if any commissioners
want to address any of that or feel like this is okay as is
or want to come back to me that.
Okay.
Thank you. Thank you.
Next we have Julie Wyatt who's presenting on the Maple Leaf
homes, final reply.
All right.
They're replating the subject property in order to
accommodate a townhome development.
It's all McKinney.
Any questions.
There's not because of the zoning district that it's in it
's in our in you and so it's not a single family zoning
district so there's no mailing notification there still
wasn't a newspaper notification.
Gotcha. Okay.
Any questions for Julie.
Thank you.
If you're back or not. Yeah, I'm just gonna stay here.
Titus edition. Titus edition. All right. Let me rotate this
.
All right.
This is an industrial development on the west side of town.
They're not changing the lot configuration they're merely
moving some utility easements. And I believe there's also a
pipeline easement that's being dedicated with this plot so
no additional lots being created.
Any questions.
Thank you Julie and guess you're stay up there.
I'm trying to reply for the didn't ISD. All right. And once
again this is one that you have seen. We had a zoning case
come before you guys and they elected to go to ZBA ZBA did
approve a variance for lot coverage and building height for
the didn't ISD administration building.
So they are going to move forward with their development.
So they are replating this in order to combine a bunch of
old old lots and also to abandon an alleyway through it.
So if this does require a mailing and you have two letters
on your desk. I had one in opposition and two in favor of
the request.
And I'll stand for any questions.
Nice but coming I'm glad that the ISD and staff was able to
get together and come up a way to get a variance created on
that because I think it solves what was going to be a
really big issue so good job on all parties.
Thank you.
So our next item is a request for historic landmark
designation for 717 West Oak, and I invite Roman McAllen up
.
Thank you.
I'm Roman McAllen I'm the historic preservation officer for
the city of Denton.
And this is, these are two, two, two houses that have been
asked to be a landmark.
The first one is at 716 West Oak.
And this is an image from the 1940s of it. I have a few
slides I'll just click quickly through these and then if
you have any questions.
Generally speaking this is all in your packet. The request
is for a landmark designation, the owners Don and John
Morris, the location there at south side of West Oak Street
midway between Denton Street and Mounts Avenue and Oak
history, Oak Hickory Historic District.
And this designation complies with the Denton 2030 plan and
I've got a slide on that. There's a request we're making.
Historic landmark designations for those you know have been
been done here in Denton since 1986.
And we're just continuing that tradition. This particular
house was built around 1925, according to one survey in 19
23 or 24 according to a couple of other records.
This is the language as to how the why this is before the
planning and zoning commission, because the commission has
to approve it after recommendation from the, from the
landmark committee.
Landmark Commission.
The, with respect to the Denton plan 2030 there's kind of
two elements to element four and seven that relate to this
and I think this is just important to note.
Four element four was developed to identify preserve
maintain and create character areas within the city, and
seven specifically calls out for defense mechanisms to
prevent spillover impacts from adjacent corridor and center
development and from capital investments such as road widen
ing.
So, you know, that's the idea behind.
It's why people, why the city has supported landmark design
ations.
And this particular property again in the 1996 historic
resource survey which was a very comprehensive survey that
was city wide and in 1996 every building that was 50 years
or older was surveyed.
There were a couple thousand buildings at that time and
this house was listed as a colonial revival style. It's
referred to as a different way but those those terms, it's
kind of a blend of style so it.
It's important that it's just 1925 and mostly original.
There are 13 criteria, any one of those criteria qualify a
house for landmark designation.
And those are in your packet in this particular house I
just pick three or the actually applicant pick three embod
iment of a distinguishing characteristic of an architectural
type.
And then here it refers to the colonial revival style and
how you get there.
The embodiment of elements of architectural design of
innovation and this home represents that it'll see this
home is a contributing home in oak history historic
district as indicated by its architectural integrity so you
can't be a contributing home in any historic district if
you don't have enough architectural integrity this home has
it.
And then finally you can also be identified so a home could
actually have very little left of it but if it meets number
11 which is it's you know historical person in this case
that the how the original Jackson family has been very
prominent in.
In Denton.
Specifically the the senior how Jackson was it Brent
Jackson senior was an attorney and a county judge and then
his son how was, if you go through your documentation it's
pretty impressive stuff that he's been involved in this was
the home when the owner bought it.
This is the home today it's also been fully rehabilitated
so we'll probably see a tax exemption requests later.
And we recommend approval for landmark designation.
So, quick question just for my identification once the
designation has been permitted to a property is there
limitations on what that homeowner or property owner can
then do in terms of updating windows or painting the house
or are there limitations then put on the property
because it's designated as a landmark.
Not specifically as such it. The, the historic landmark
designation, or any property in one of the three historic
districts.
When they apply for a building permit. They also have to
get us what's called certificate of appropriateness.
And that could either be approved administratively by the
preservation officer if it's kind of routine maintenance
roofing painting course any kind of repairs even when
rotten wood repair. But if you're getting to where you're
alter altering the structure, especially
if you're altering the front of it, or what's visible from
the roadway or the sides, then you would take it to the
historic landmark commission who would apply the US
Secretary of Interior standards for historic preservation
and an approver deny that you can
change windows, windows are kind of one of the most
important things because there have been many studies to
show that if your historical windows are there and intact
that they're the most sustainable way to go that the, that
you don't get a real big payback by, so we discourage going
in
with that. On the other hand if you put in a real high
quality window that matches the facade and that's that's
usually going to be allowed. And a lot of things can be
allowed it's
in general when you're looking at a structure, you don't
want to alter it significantly is the rule of thumb. Then
if the historic landmark commission did deny certificate of
appropriateness that may be appealed to the PNC that
decision may be
appealed to the city or appeal to the City Council as well.
So there's a lot of opportunities for someone to get with
what they need. Yeah. Thank you.
Any other questions for staff on this particular residence.
Next one. Sure. Thank you, sir. The next one is that is HL
16 seven. This is 616 Pearl Street again in 1940s image.
This home. Also, and if I felt in both of these some of
these largely intact including the windows on all of the
side.
This home is there also in the oak history is okay, history
, historic district. Here the owners, William and Angela
Matthews. And this home was constructed around 1917 I
believe it also there's some differences on that date but a
little little before or after
1917 is the accurate number purse and deed records that the
owner has 1920s what was a guest. This are the three
elements that it would meet. It's a specific style in case
of number three. It's contributes to the history historic
district 12 and the sense of pride 13.
With all these HLs, there's, you could really get most of
the homes on a lot of those 13 criteria you just need to
pick one here's the home today just for the record it's
undergone also an extensive rehabilitation. It's a great
looking home as is the other.
Both of these do a lot for our residents.
And that's actually insignificant that it could be an HL
but it's these happen to also just have the be really good
quality restoration.
That's we have on that one.
That's great. Thank you. Okay. Thanks.
Good morning so this first case is a z 1621 it's a zoning
case for the North Elm Apartments.
So the request is for us to hold a public hearing and
consider making a recommendation to city council regarding
a rezoning from regional center commercial downtown to
neighborhood residential mixed use on approximately 12.97
acres.
Located on the kind of west northwest side of the rainy
road Elm Street intersection. It's about 1900 feet east of
Bonnie Bray Street.
Just a little more idea of what's in the area to the north
across Elm is a UNT discovery park. It's bordered on the
south by North Lake Park across rainy road, and then two
properties to the west and southwest of it have recently
been plotted for town home development in the future.
So currently it is our zone RCC D, their proposal is to go
to NRM you.
The future land use designation for the property is
neighborhood mixed use, which applies to primarily
residential areas where we encourage a mix of housing types
and densities, as well as supporting retail and service
uses.
So, rezoning NRM you is kind of a logical extension because
there's already neighborhood residential designations to
the south and the east of the property. And it is
consistent with that future land use designation of
neighborhood mixed use.
If you compare the scale of development that would be
permitted between these two districts, and given what's
around it being primarily residential uses of attached
single family single family and other apartments in the
area, and our immune seems much more fitting with the scale
in terms of density and building height and things like
that for the area.
And also in your backup was the schedule of permitted uses
and if you look through that you can see that NRM you as a
much less intense district in terms of the commercial and
some industrial uses that are allowed.
So it would seem more appropriate for the character of the
area as well.
So the applicant indicated that they're requesting this rez
oning, because under the RCC district there is a limitation
that requires multifamily uses be part of a mixed use
development that would require commercial uses be on the
ground floor along any Avenue collector or arterial.
So in this case they would have required commercial uses on
the ground floor along both Riney and Elm Street.
And rezoning NRM you. There is also a limitation for mixed
use, but it does allow multifamily development to occur,
either as part of a mixed use development under a small
area plan or with an SUV.
So that's why they've concurrently submitted an application
for a specific use permit.
So if both of those are permitted or approved then they
would be allowed to pursue this without the mixed use
component.
So the applicant also recommended that the property be part
of a mixed use development under a small area plan.
So that's the request for the area right now it's currently
vacant land and notifications were sent out five notices
sent to properties within 200 feet six within 500.
And one response was received in favor who is from the
current owner of the property, and they did hold a
neighborhood meeting on November 22, there was no
attendance at the meeting.
The future land use designation.
So there any questions on the zoning case.
One question.
Commissioner was L.
This, instead of me assuming I'd rather just ask an SGP
couldn't be done on the current zoning to skip the mixed
use it has to be into mixed use and then an SGP on top of
that.
So there's two limitations applied in our CCD one of them
is the same one that it has under NRM you that allows the
SGP. However, the other one does specifically call out the
need for commercial uses on the ground floor along the
streets.
So, yeah, go any other questions.
Alright, so they can go quickly through the SGP here.
Much of the same information.
In this case as 16 five.
Again, they're requesting this SGP for multifamily
development. The same property here on Rhenie and North Elm
.
So just a reminder there are requesting this rezoning to NR
M you, and it is compatible with that future land use
designation.
So pending approval of the rezoning they're proposing a
multifamily development without a mixed use component.
So, again, it is consistent with the future land use and
the development that's occurring in the area, and it
generally complies with the criteria for approval of an SGP
that are outlined in 3564 of the DDC.
Just go quickly through their site plan. What they're
proposing is to divide the property into three lots. So the
two that are outlined in blue would have the multifamily
development on it. The third lot that's at the very corner
of Elm and Rhenie is being reserved for development at a
later date.
They haven't indicated an intent to do anything with that
lot yet.
And in addition to the two lots, they're also proposing a
new right of way that would be called Discovery Boulevard
connecting north to south from Rhenie to North Elm.
To give you a general idea of their product they're looking
to develop, lot one, which is the lot on the west side,
would have two four story apartment buildings on it.
There would be 89 one bedroom units and 66 two bedroom
units in those buildings.
On lot two, they would have three three story buildings, 86
one bedroom units and 48 two bedroom units.
And looking at their calculations, they are parked
appropriately with on-site parking as well as parallel
parking along Discovery Boulevard.
And to kind of mitigate the use here, a type B buffer,
which is a 10 foot wide planted area, is required between
this multifamily and the proposed attached single family
units to the west.
In addition to that 10 foot wide planting area, they also
have indicated that they intend to leave the existing
vegetation along the western border to help intensify that
buffer.
And the way they've laid out the site, they do have some
parking that would be along Rhenie Road.
So to mitigate for any nuisances that could be caused by
that parking, they've proposed a planting of small trees
and shrubs in that it is in an electric utility easement,
so it restricted what they could plant.
But they worked with DME and found some plants that would
be appropriate in that easement.
Just an idea of their elevations.
For all of the buildings, they are proposing materials that
would be brick, stone, stucco and fiber cement siding.
Each of the buildings has an average of 60 to 70% masonry
components on it.
I did include the elevations for each of the buildings just
to give you an idea of what they're looking at.
So this is building one which would have the leasing center
and offices in it.
There's a close up to show you more of how they're planning
to distribute those materials.
And this would be the other four story building that they
're looking at.
And all of these are also included in your backup if you'd
like to see them in more detail.
And then there are three story buildings which would be on
lot two.
Again, all very similar materials.
They do have garages under some of the units.
And again, with this case, we did send out notification.
We got one response in favor from the current property
owner.
And they did hold a neighborhood meeting.
But again, no attendance at that meeting.
So for this case, staff recommends approval of the request
because of its compatibility with the surrounding area.
And with the Denton Plan 2030, we do put one condition on
our recommendation.
And that would be that it substantially complies with the
site plan, landscape plan, and elevations that you've seen
here.
So any questions on this?
Commissioner Heskett.
And stop me if I get out of scope.
But I have -- and it may be a question for Earl.
I have road improvement and type questions, infrastructure,
because riding road is pretty narrow.
So I'm assuming they're going to do improvements.
And there's -- seems like this area is getting developed
pretty quickly.
So I want to try to get an understanding of what
improvements they're going to be making on Riney.
Because I know the water lines don't come -- I'm not sure
if they come all the way down Riney or existing.
Okay.
So what improvements do they have to make to the road?
Okay.
There is an existing townhome development located on the
south side of Riney, just west of this site here.
There is another townhome development approved and about to
start construction here soon, directly west of this
development.
So both of these developments have improved Riney Road.
So you'll have a full improved section of Riney along both
of these frontages.
When this development does come in, it would -- it was best
for this development to go ahead and improve Riney Road.
It would be 25 feet worth of pavement.
I believe the existing pavement out there is only 20 feet,
if even that.
And so they'll improve 25 feet of pavement all the way
along their furnish, which extends all the way to the
intersection of Willam Street.
They're also building a full road -- public roadway that
bisects their site and connects Riney to 77 as well, along
with a left turn lane within this existing median opening.
Excellent.
And --
Continue. Sure.
Thank you.
Any pause in traffic darting across Elm from there?
Will the openings prohibit that?
Or, I mean, because -- what is the speed limit on Elm there
?
I mean, you can get up to going pretty -- I don't know what
the speed limit is.
I think it's 50.
Yeah.
55.1.
Yes.
But coming out of there, is there a gradual merge, or do
you think they would use Riney?
Oh, heading -- if you're coming southbound on to the site?
Moreover, if you're leaving the site.
Leaving the site, so yes.
I'm assuming if they're attracting someone that's going to
be needing to get to Discovery Park, let's say, you're
tempted to try to cross four lanes of traffic at 50, have
we done an analysis of that?
And again, because there's going to be quite the injection
of people in this area, has that been looked at, how they
're going to get across Elm, let's say they want to go to
Razor Ranch and don't want to take the scenic route and go
to the right.
You're tempted to go to the left, but again, you've got to
go across four lanes.
But Riney Road, the existing Riney Road does extend all the
way to Bonny Bray, so if they wanted to go to Razor, they
would probably end up taking the existing Riney all the way
down to Bonny Bray and taking a left and heading south
there.
In terms of crossing the entire width of Elm Street to the
Discovery Center, it's a possibility.
It can be done.
They also have the protection of the median, since it's
such a wide opening, they can, if they can't make it all
the way through, they can at least make it halfway, wait
until it clears and then cross the other half, if need be.
And same thing with making a left out as well. They have
that protection of that median opening.
Thank you.
Do we have any information on when or if a light would be
installed at that location?
No, the light will actually be installed at Nicosia, which
is not too far down to where the new animal shelter is
going to be.
There's just not going to be enough traffic to warrant, and
the spacing is not going to meet textile requirements
anyway, but Nicosia is going to be the busier intersection
between the two.
Do you have a timeline on that one? The Nicosia
intersection?
There is no timeline for that.
I'd have a follow up question on engineering then.
So if they're going to be doing the improvements on Riney
Road instead of the traffic impact fee, is that how they're
going to do that?
They'll get credit towards that. So the way it works is
they'll have the maximum amount which they'll be proportion
ately responsible to build up to, and if that amount is
greater than, I guess if the cost of the road improvements
is greater than the calculated amount that they would
normally just pay, then they would just be credited towards
that calculated amount, not be required to pay any roadway
impact fees.
Okay. So they are going to, so are they required to put in
that street section or not in this?
It's a tough call because you have the option. Do you want
them to improve the road or do you want to collect the fee
at a significantly reduced amount that you can apply within
that six square mile area of that service area?
And in this case, staff felt that it would be best to just
have them improve the road and credit it towards their road
way impact fees.
So that is required. They don't get an option to choose.
They're going to have to improve Riney Road?
That's correct.
Okay. Any other questions for Earl?
Thank you, Earl.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. Haley, on your last slide, and this is
just for my own clarification, with the condition, and I
see the term used a lot, substantially comply, do we have a
definition for what that actually means?
Sharon, would you like to answer that?
Yeah.
There is no hard definition of what that means. It's
discretionary with the planner.
And I think we do that on purpose so that there's a little
bit more room.
If something is, it can't be done and you have to move
something, then it's easier to do that way.
So obviously we do look at the number of units in that same
ballpark that they presented.
We want to see the elevation be consistent. Obviously there
may be some tweaks that they need to make down the line,
but the end product should look substantially like what
they presented here.
And that's sort of how we go on that one.
I'm sorry.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you. Kind of a related question. The site plan
includes interior layouts.
That's not very typical.
If you zoom in, those are actually rooms and stuff.
Yeah, that's not very typical.
Yeah. And so I just wanted to make sure that normally we
make site plan binding, but the site plan just has a
footprint.
So is the developer aware that they're going to be
potentially bound to a layout with this?
As long as it has to be substantially similar to...
We would allow some wiggle room there on that if they
couldn't do it.
But yeah, they are aware that we're holding them to the
site plan as they've presented it.
Okay, I just wanted to... They don't want to substitute in
the next hour a site plan with only a footprint, do they?
We could ask them.
Okay, like I said, I just don't want to get them in a bind
where, you know, the garage is in the wrong side or that
one's a two bedroom, not a three bedroom or something like
that.
And things like that, if the garage is facing... visible
from the street, stairwells visible from the street, we
will hold them to that because that impacts the visual, the
aesthetics of the development.
Obviously, if they need to adjust the layout due to
engineering or some other issue that comes up during
construction, we can work with them.
But generally, what they present is what we would look for
when it comes in.
Any other questions?
All right. Thank you.
Thank you.
That's it.
With that, we have gone through all the items that we have
on our both our work session and then to present in our
public session later on this evening. So, unless there any
other questions at this time prior to closing work session.
Then I'm going to close our work session at 537. Thank you.
Good evening and welcome to the November 30 planning and
zoning Commission for the city of Denton.
This meeting has been duly posted and a quorum is present.
It is 631 and I will call our meeting to order at this time
.
Please stand and join us to say the US and the Texas flag.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of
America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I pledge allegiance to the city of Texas, one state under
God, one indivisible.
The next item on our agenda this evening will be to
consider approval of our PNC Commission meeting minutes for
October the 26.
Commissioner Hussbuth.
Move approval.
Commissioner Ellis.
Second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none,
I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries five zero. I don't know why it's five.
I don't see recuse but anyway.
Five zero and one recuse.
Is that correct?
That will take us to our consent agenda.
Commissioner Rossell.
I move for approval of the consent agenda.
Commissioner Taylor.
Second.
Okay.
Have a first and a second. Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries six zero.
Move us to item four, items for individual consideration.
The first item we'll have will be PDA 16-0007A and we'll
call on Julie Wyatt for the presentation.
Julie, before you get started, I want to announce to the
crowd, this is an individual consideration item.
This was a public hearing at our last meeting and if you
spoke, our rules are that you can't speak at a public
hearing.
However, since this is an individual consideration item, if
you would like to speak after we have it presented, if you
want to fill out a card, you'll be allowed to speak at that
time.
So if you would like to speak on it, please fill out a card
and we will be happy to have you before us to answer your
question to receive your comments.
Thank you, Julie.
Sure.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the City of Denton.
This is PDA 16-7, Robeson Ranch.
The request before you is to consider making a
recommendation to city council regarding a detailed plan
amendment for plan development 173, Robeson Ranch.
This is to permit the blending of residential uses within
the land use plan.
Originally, the public hearing was heard on the October 12
th P&Z meeting and it was continued to tonight.
The subject property is located on Robeson Ranch Road, 35W,
west of 35W.
35W is about right here and here's Robeson Ranch Road.
All right.
This is a plan development.
The current Denton development code does not permit PDs
except for a few left from prior to the adoption of the
2002 Denton development code.
So when we analyze a PD, when we look at it, we look at the
1991 code and the requirements within it.
That 1991 code did permit PDs and it was a two-step process
, the concept plan and then a detail plan.
The concept plan for Robeson Ranch was approved in 1999 and
it did include provisions to provide flexibility and a
variety of housing options within the plan development.
It also included five residential uses.
Three of those, the single-family luxury, the single-family
Premier and the single-family Casita, were all single-
family detached homes.
The single-family villa is a two-family attached, so what
we normally think of as a duplex is a single-family villa.
And then multi-family too, that is the multi-family
component or it would also include maybe something like
nursing homes or assisted living facilities.
So those are the five residential uses included in that
concept plan.
After the concept plan comes the detail plan and it
provides maybe where those uses are going to go.
And the detail plans for Robeson Ranch, there have been
several of them, the most recent being 2011.
And that depicted the precise locations of those
residential land use categories.
And that included 63 clustered single-family villas, which
is the duplex.
So we'll take a look at that 2011 land use plan.
As you can see, the yellow was the single-family Casita.
Those were the traditional lots.
The Premier lots, the single-family Premier with a gray.
This little blue was the Preserve lots.
Those were the largest lots.
And then down here in the corner, clustered on an arterial
were the 63 duplexes, the single-family villas.
On October 12th, you were presented the proposed land use
plan that reallocated all of those residential uses
and grouped them under one use and that'd be residential.
So all that yellow, any of those residential land uses,
except for MF2, multifamily 2, could be permitted within
that yellow area.
And so that proposal on October 12th included that yellow
area, the residential area,
would include the single-family luxury, the single-family
Premier, the single-family Casita,
and the single-family villas all within that yellow area.
It permitted a maximum of 1,200 dwelling units for the du
plexes, for the SFV.
And then it also addressed the multifamily 2 and that that
wasn't, if it wasn't depicted in that land use plan and it
wasn't,
then any multifamily would come forward, would have to have
a plan development amendment, much like what you're hearing
tonight.
So during the discussion on October 12th, a lot of concerns
were raised, not only by the P&Z, but also by the
neighborhood and the residents.
And so in order to address those concerns, P&Z had some
suggestions.
First, to reduce the number of permitted single-family vill
as to 600, to require that the duplexes be clustered
together,
to provide a buffer or transition areas between those
single-family detached residential uses and the duplexes,
to prohibit the duplexes from facing a single-family
detached home, and then also possibly providing for general
locations for those duplexes.
So those are some suggestions that P&Z made and charged the
applicant to go back and make some revisions.
The applicant did make some revisions that this is the
proposed land use plan that they sent to staff.
And it retains that the SFL, the SFP, the SFC, and the SFV,
so those four residential land use categories, would still
all be permitted in the yellow areas.
Still retain that maximum 1200 dwelling units and once
again, keep those provisions for the MF2.
But what they did change is they removed the areas outlined
in blue from the request,
so that those would fall back to previous detailed plan
requirements, so that they would,
the new amendment would only apply to those outside of the
blue area.
Staff did approach the applicant about some additional
requirements that were brought up by the Planning and Z
oning Commission,
and they declined to move forward with those.
So considerations we looked at are the criteria for
approval that are in that 1991 code, first that it complies
with the general concept plan.
This proposal does comply with the general concept plan and
that it does emphasize the flexibility and variety embedded
within that.
Provides a compatible arrangement for buildings and land
uses that would not adversely affect adjoining
neighborhoods or properties outside the plan.
While there is no perceived impact for the request on
properties outside of the Robeson Ranch community,
it would be difficult to ascertain the impact of the
increased number of villas due to that, you know, the lack
of separation or delineation between those products.
So it provides adequate and safe circulation for vehicular
traffic.
Since this request does not include an increase in the
number of dwelling units,
it would maintain the existing number, the 6037 dwelling
units approved in 2011.
It would just reallocate where those uses would or what
types of uses those would be.
There's not an anticipated resulting increase in traffic.
And in substantial compliance with the landscape sign,
subdivision, other regulations of the city, the plan is in
compliance with all of those.
So just while planning, it does not have an objection to
the request.
In light of those discussions at the October 12th meeting
and discussions with the neighborhood,
those additional conditions or similar conditions that PNZ
suggested on October 12th to reduce any impacts could be
considered appropriate.
Public notification was sent out.
Since the October 12th meeting, I did receive a few more
letters and responses.
We have 31 in opposition, 44 in favor and 19 neutral.
So based upon the criteria for approval, staff recommends
approval of the request
and consistent with the PNZ recommendations on the October
12th meeting.
I'll stand for any questions and the applicant is here.
Any questions for staff?
Well, I'll ask a question then.
Do we have anywhere else in the city of Denton in our other
zoning categories that we intermix duplexes and single
family just side by side?
However, we do that.
In maybe one or two of the neighborhood residential zoning
districts, we do permit duplexes, but there are
requirements,
there are limitations based upon that, that they can't be
on the edge of the neighborhood.
So there are some limitations to where those duplexes could
go and that they would each side would have to be on their
own separate platted lot.
So I believe that's in our four, but yeah.
Do we have any areas with 1,200 of them, 1,200 duplexes?
Not that I'm aware of.
So it's a small area then?
That this would be a--
The couple of places you say that we do allow that, they
are fairly small in number then in comparison to what's
being asked here?
Yes, sir.
Okay, great.
Thank you.
If the applicants here would like to speak or present your
project, please come forward at this time.
And then so far I've got two cards in to speak that I will
recognize after the applicant.
So if anyone else would like to speak on this item, please
fill out a card for us.
Good evening.
My name is Steve Soriano and I'm here on behalf of Ropes
and Ranch.
Do you guys do the address thing here?
Please.
Okay, my address is 9532 East Riggs Road, Sun Lakes,
Arizona.
I don't have much of a presentation.
I did have the opportunity to watch a work session earlier
today and there were instances where I wanted to--where I
said things to the computer saying, well, that's not
exactly right, that's not exactly right.
So I don't have much of a presentation beyond what staff
has presented.
Other than to point out that we've been working with the
city now for 20 years.
There's been a lot of give and take on this master plan.
We work with the homeowners and it's an ever increasing
number of homeowners. We're now up to about 1,900 residents
within the community.
All 1,900 of the residents were notified either by staff,
by mail, staff by certified mail, or they were invited to
two open houses that we held on the site.
They were invited by email and by a message board that's
within the community.
So 1,900 people or 1,900 homes worth of people have been
apprised of this and have had the opportunity to object, to
support or to show up here tonight.
We did have a second meeting after your last P&Z meeting
where you continued it.
We had a second meeting within the community.
There were 200ish, maybe 225ish people that showed up and
some people had concerns and we tried to address them.
Some people had some concerns and we were unable to solve
them, but we tried.
The whole community is actually going to be about 6,500,
maybe 7,000, somewhere about 6,500 homes.
So to address your questions to staff leading up to this,
the number of villas within the community, I would look at
it as a percentage rather than saying the absolute number.
Or I would ask that you look at it as a percentage rather
than the absolute number because as a percentage it's not a
very large amount.
The only other fact that, staff has done an excellent job
presenting it to you, I've got no complaints with it.
The only fact that you guys don't know is that the average
price of the villas we've sold so far was $277,000.
And there's been some insinuations by some people that the
villas are lesser than the traditions or the premiers of
the estates.
And I just wanted to tell you that no they're not.
They're actually $277,000 average closing price so far.
And the people that live in them are just as nice as the
people that would live in traditions, premiers, or estates.
With that, I'd like to answer any questions you may have
and hopefully get you to vote yes.
>> Got a few questions for you.
Commissioner Sullivan.
>> Yes, I would like to thank you all for the green button.
Sorry about that.
I would like to express my appreciation for coming back
with the plan that you all submitted.
I think it is far superior than it was when you put in the
blue line and anything inside the blue line was not going
to be affected.
I think that eased a lot of people's concerns about coming
in and using vacant lots to put duplexes in the middle of a
neighborhood.
And so I appreciate the work that you did with that.
However, there are still some issues that I've heard from
people that, and I don't know if the blue line is a hard,
fast line that this is the line in the sand, so to speak,
that's not going to move.
But for example, on the map, block 25, there's an area
there that is outside the blue line that is actually off of
Ambrosia Lane.
And right before the golf course.
And yes, exactly.
So that area that right now is, has been depicted as the
premier homes, I believe.
And that's one of the concerns that I've heard from about
four people on that street that they told us it was going
to be premier and now could be whatever they want it to be.
And I think that's a concern that instead of using the golf
course as the buffer,
that that area is now in yellow so that it could be
whatever you all wanted to put there.
And that's not what people were told when they bought the
property.
And so that's a concern.
So I mean, is that, again, is there leeway in y'all's
planning that can allow for things like that?
Or how is that going to be addressed?
Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Sullivan, for the question.
And to answer that question specifically, I just spoke with
the planner and we're willing to draw the blue line across
those three lots.
So if the camera can zoom in, you'll see a gray area on
this map that represents open space.
And this map is in your material.
So it's not for the people in the audience.
This is the area you're talking about.
These are the three lots that you have a question about,
right?
Well, those are three.
But then if you go on the other side of the blue line,
right there where the number 25 is.
Yeah. The unit you're talking about is the north of 25.
And I think it's called 25-2.
It's that single street that has unit 25 on the south side
and has golf course on the north side.
Yes.
We would agree to alter the line to take that unit 25-2
under the prohibition of no villas.
I understand that there's people that live in 25 that don't
want traditions behind them.
So we would agree to take that blue line and move it to
include unit 25-22.
Just move it up.
Because again, in the last town hall meeting, I think that
was probably the number one question I asked was what's
going to be behind me?
A lot of people asked that.
And that's really what I think is the biggest concern.
Okay.
We'll take 25-2 out.
And then most of the other blue line is either separated by
a major boulevard or a golf course.
So if that addresses your concern, the name of that unit is
25-2.
And we'll agree to put the blue line prohibition against
villas on the north side of 25-2 against the golf course,
solving that concern.
Perfect. Thank you.
Thank you, sir.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you, Chair.
So I appreciate the context of the explanation about the
villas in terms of price and quality.
From the information I've received, both from individuals
writing in as well as public testimony from last meeting,
it seems like there's high praise for the villas.
I haven't heard any question about the quality.
And maybe I'm just out of it.
But there's people who actually were testifying to the
quality and actually wanting to get into one.
So I think the quality for the villas is there.
I heard the issues of being next to or adjacent to a duplex
type structure apart from the quality.
Someone has a nice big loft, a nice house, and you have the
ability to one off, put a duplex.
So I was the one last meeting who brought up the idea of cl
ustering them.
And it seems like that request was declined.
So my question to you is, do you envision ever building one
unit of a villa interspersed with other lots, your premier
lots, your luxury lots?
Would you do that?
No.
That makes sense to me.
So I'm curious of why then if you wouldn't do that
inherently, you wouldn't agree to provide some assurance to
the residents to build in a cluster of four, eight, twelve.
Why wouldn't you agree to cluster them?
Well, maybe we can agree to that.
It depends.
I don't know what a cluster is because cluster is not a
defined term within our within our PD or within anything.
But if you look at the plan and I know I just asked for it
to zoom in.
If you zoom back out, you'll see that everything's a
numbered neighborhood.
And then there's just logical.
There's individual neighborhoods that are defined as unit
numbers.
Okay. We'll agree not to mix villas and other within the
same units, which is how we plan on addressing one of the
concerns, which is no villas facing a premier tradition or
estate.
And that's how we also plan on addressing that there'll be
no villas next to a tradition premier or estate.
So I don't know what a cluster is exactly. We call them
villages or unit numbers.
But I think you're getting what you asked for.
I think we are okay with it because what we will commit to
is that there'll be no mixing of traditions in the same
units as same plats.
And the plats come before you, by the way, the plats come
before you before they get to go to the next stage.
But there'll be no traditions mixed with premieres. I'm
sorry. There'll be no villas mixed with premieres,
traditions or estates.
That's extremely helpful. Thank you.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
So I made a good chunk of the recommendation last time
about let's lay down in this amendment to the PD some text
that describes what the rules would be for placement.
So you've had a month to write any rule you wanted and you
came back with exactly what you came here with minus a blue
line a month ago.
So I don't know if we need to do we need to wait another
month and get the text that you would agree to because we
don't really want to write a rule up here from the DS.
And that would have unintended consequences probably for
for both residents and for you.
So we would much prefer you to write the rule that's amen
able to you that includes these protections of clustering.
Maybe no unit will be mixed if that's if that's how you
define it or how you want to build it.
You know, to me, I would say some of these units are really
big and you might actually be able to say half the unit
will be, you know, villas and half won't.
And here's how we'll, you know, provide a buffer between
them.
You know, so I'm kind of surprised that you're saying
tonight to us that you will unit by unit build all villas
or all of a different product.
Also, following on Commissioner Sullivan's question, you're
talking about unit 24 and 25, I believe, how people living
in 24 are worried about what might go into 25.
That was that that area that he asked the blue line be
extended around.
I think I think he asked about 25 and the unnumbered unit
just north of 25, which is also known as 25 to.
OK, I guess the map I'm looking at doesn't indicate a split
.
So now that makes sense.
But if you look at, say, unit 27, one and 27 to 27 one
builds first just on the other side of the golf course
there, the people that live there might suddenly get duplex
es in their backyard.
And so so we're by drawing the blue line, you're saying
basically this is the only area where people can know what
to expect behind them.
Well, I'm sorry.
If you ever saw, I mean, I love the blue line basically
represents where homes have been sold already.
The idea is that anybody that buys in the future will know
that there may be other ropes and homes in their in their
in their backyard.
I to address your concern about another delay, we've gone
over six months now without any sales and villas.
And while that's not your problem, it zero sales is really,
really bad for a community.
And we would not like a delay, a further delay of any.
We've been working with staff for a long time.
Some of the staff is has moved on, but we would definitely
not like a delay.
We would like we would like to vote this this evening if
possible.
As far as people knowing what's going to be in their back
yards, if you're outside the blue line, you already had a
variability of whether they were going to be traditions,
premieres or states.
Now you'll have a variability of traditions, premieres, est
ates or villas.
So it's not like there was it's not like there was a
certainty as to what was going to be behind you.
I talked with Brian Boylan, who's our sales manager before
this meeting, and he said that before people buy, they
always say, hey, what's going to be behind me?
That's a regular question. And he rolls out a map and shows
them what the unit is and he tells them what the options
are.
We'll continue to do that. But there was no certainty.
There's never any certainty beyond your property line of
what's going to be there.
We're now offering that certainty by saying we're not going
to mix villas with traditions, premieres or estates.
So there's more certainty here than there was previously.
I don't know how else to I don't know how other than people
asking the question, hey, what's going to be behind me?
I don't know how else to get them that that level of
comfort.
So what we're asking for is instead of yellow just being
traditions, premieres and estates, we're asking if we do
traditions, premieres, estates and villas.
And so I believe in your response to Commissioner Roselle,
you'd said that you would be so you do an entire unit and
you would be OK with.
Not having the front facade face the front front facade of
villas, facing the front facade of other products and then
not having the sidewall like side by side, not having one.
Right. So now that does create the way your units are laid
out.
You have several units that the last lot of unit 27 to is
next door to the first lot of twenty seven one.
And so I just want to like, you know, if we are going to be
writing these rules on the fly up here.
Well, I don't want to write rules on the fly.
But what we worked out what we didn't work it out.
That's not true. What we discussed with staff was having a
designated buffer between traditions units and non
traditions units.
And that would be essentially property or real estate that
we would eat.
We would take the cost of those of those buffers.
Well, how big do those buffers need to be?
The depth of a tradition lot, excuse me, the depth of a
villa lot is ten, maybe 15 feet shorter than that of a
tradition lot.
So for a lot of people, as Commissioner Sullivan said, a
lot of people live in their backyard.
They live on their back patio, the barbecues, you know,
watching the sunset, that kind of thing.
So the only difference between a villa and a tradition
might be 10 or 15 feet in depth.
We'll agree to a 20 foot buffer on top of whatever the
normal buffer is.
We'll agree to a 20 foot buffer between a villa
neighborhood and a tradition of premier in a state.
So it sounds like you've already discussed with staff the
terms that you would agree to.
Informally.
Okay. But you didn't bring any here to us.
We were the ones that requested the amendment, like the
adjustments to the amendment.
Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you.
Commissioner Sullivan.
I'm just curious, you said no villas had been sold.
How many other homes have been sold during the period of
time you said no villas had been sold?
I think we are selling about 25 a month.
Solds?
Which is, well, below 25 a month, which is we desperately
need the villas approved.
Because we're not making the sales we need to.
And I don't think anybody in Robeson is anti-villa.
Because there is, I can see a need for it.
I may be in one someday.
But I think it's just the fact that in Robeson the way you
all have structured things, very well I might add,
is that neighborhood is important.
Everything goes on in the neighborhood.
Whether it's card groups, game groups, wine groups,
everything centers around the neighborhood.
And when you have a neighborhood that includes the villas
where a lot of people live there full time, some people don
't.
So that sort of disrupts that neighborhood atmosphere that
Robeson is all about.
And so I think that's, again, the concern.
And you've addressed that I think to some degree in that no
unit will have a mixture of villas and regular homes.
And I think that's positive.
And so I just think that, again, what has been said is that
it would have been nice if we had all of that here
so that we could have it in writing so that we don't vote
on something that we don't have in writing.
And then all of a sudden people have amnesia and we don't
remember what was said.
And so I think that's the concern that's being voiced.
I understand.
I wish.
You know, like I said, I watched the work session and I'm
trying to answer the questions that I saw were concerns.
And I apologize for the delay, but, you know, hopefully we
can get past that.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Good evening.
I have several questions.
I guess let me start out with you asked us to look at the
villas as a percentage.
And the way you have, I guess this written, is it 25% of
that 6,500?
Yes.
Okay.
And where were you originally with villas?
Zero percent.
You didn't have a percentage in the original?
The villas were not in approved use under the PAD or the PD
, excuse me, 20 years ago.
But what we discussed with previous city councils and
previous PNCs is that we would be back in front of you
multiple times over the next 20, 30, 40 years because
consumer demands will change.
And we have been back in front of you, your boards, for
probably half a dozen times with different changes and
different modifications.
And there'll be more as staff pointed out during the
opening presentation.
One of the concerns that the community has voiced is multi-
family.
Nobody wants to find themselves next door to a three-story
building by surprise.
Well, that's MR2.
MF2, sorry.
That's MF2.
And we're not asking for any MF2.
So we'll be back in front of you someday.
I don't know when, asking for MF2.
All we're asking for tonight is these duplex villas.
And you said you haven't sold any villas.
Is that because you can't build any villas?
We don't have any more land approved for it until we get
through the staff, PNC, and city council process.
Okay.
And then I guess a follow-up question to people's concern
about, namely, their property value.
I mean, that's really what everybody's concern is.
In coming into some of these builds, some residents are
paying lot premiums, correct?
Absolutely.
Right.
So if somebody's paying a lot premium and then suddenly a
villa is put in their backyard, what are they paying a
premium for?
And I understand that going into new construction anywhere
with vacant land behind you, next to you,
you don't necessarily know what you're getting, it could be
sold to another developer at some point,
another builder who could change things.
So that I understand.
But when somebody's paying premium lot and building your
luxury line of product, they don't expect that,
and again, a villa is a pretty product and people do want
it,
but people who have paid the luxury tag don't necessarily
want that unknown in their backyard.
And that's certainly a concern, and I know that has been a
concern of this commission
as to why we wanted more designated spaces marked for vill
as or clusters marked for villas to eliminate some of that
concern.
And we didn't get that with the blue line, for sure.
A couple of answers.
One is that people do pay lot premiums on the villas.
I believe that some lot premiums on the villas were six
figures or larger on some of them.
Some of them were zero, but some of them were six figures
or larger.
A lot premium is generally a function of what it looks out
over or what it's next to or where it is within the
community.
And by putting people on notice that a villa is something
that could be behind them,
they'll know that before they make the purchase.
If there's going to be a villa behind them, they're going
to know that before they make the purchase, if they ask the
question, if they choose to ask.
How would they know that, though?
They could ask, and we can unroll the plans and show them.
Because as we slowly work our way north through the
community, we're planning 18, 24 months before we're
selling.
So we'll know what's going to be behind.
And all of our buyers are a student of to say, well, if
that's really going to be a golf course, I want to plat.
I want to sign plat showing me that that's going to be a
golf course.
If the design is showing back to back with something else,
then they know it could be one of the approved uses.
How many villas are built currently?
65? 63.
And how many different groups on this map?
Presently one.
OK.
And it's presently this piece inside the blue line.
What did I do with my pen?
See this long, narrow piece?
So that's currently all villas.
And the next place we want to go is right over here, the
yellow one just right across the street from there by the
dog park.
And then what we're asking for tonight is we're not asking
for any increase in the total number of units.
We're not asking for any more than 600 structures or 1200
duplexes, whatever nomenclature.
You know what I mean?
I want to make sure we're talking about the same fact set.
So we're asking for 600 structures, AKA 1200 duplexes.
And we want the ability to do it anywhere on the yellow.
And in the past, I might have suggested that we probably
won't do duplexes along the golf course.
But we're getting-- there's such heavy demand for the du
plexes within the community from people, couples, singles,
whatever.
There's such heavy demand.
And we got the premium within the current section of duplex
es that we may do duplexes, you know, villas on the golf
course.
Thank you.
Just as housekeeping for our board, we've got two cards to
speak.
I know we have some more questions.
I'm going to ask some at this time.
I don't have a problem with the villas.
I understand, Margaret, I'm in the construction business,
development business.
So I understand the fluidity of needing to change.
I'm somewhat really puzzled as to why you all elected with
all the guidance that we gave at our last meeting to come
back and essentially put a blue line on
and not address those in any way and yet then stand before
us and say we're willing to do the things that we talked
about.
As chair, typically we've always tried because as I think
Commissioner Taylor stated, in the past when we do things
on the fly, it usually doesn't work out well.
So we were-- I was hopeful that when you came back to us
that the questions, concerns, suggestions would be
addressed.
And this was a hopefully a pretty straightforward meeting
this evening.
Can you tell us why you all chose not to address those in a
way that could be worked out with staff in a organized
presentation back before our commission?
The-- first let me apologize for that, OK?
I apologize for that.
I'm sorry that we weren't able to accomplish that.
We met with the homeowners.
We answered a lot of questions from homeowners.
Again, not everybody is convinced.
One of the requests that P&Z put forward last time was
specific identification of the units that are going to be
villas versus the units that are going to be traditions
versus premieres versus estates versus whatever.
And we're unable to do that.
We're unable to do that because we don't know what market
demand is going to be until we get in there and actually
topo an area.
We don't know what it's going to lend itself to on layouts,
what it's going to lend itself to.
We're over two miles, maybe three miles from our south
boundary to our north boundary of our property holdings.
So the size of this property is different than just
planning a 60 unit or an 80 unit subdivision.
We're trying to-- we're circling in on what the development
is going to be.
First was the concept plan.
And this is still the same concept plan.
Then is the detail plan.
And then we come to you with plats.
So you'll have a chance to see the plats before they get
approved.
We can't with any certainty say what's going to be where.
And that's why we weren't able to do that between the last
meeting and this meeting.
We can't agree to broad bright lines.
Bright line.
No villas next to traditions, premieres, or estates.
We can agree to bright lines where the definition of next
to is an extra 20 feet.
So we can agree to certain bright lines.
But we don't know how many or where they're going to be
until we see how sales go.
So I guess your point is instead of coming back and saying,
well, maybe instead of doing clusters,
we're going to do in this unit or that unit, just said,
will you leave it like it is?
We'll figure it out essentially.
No.
Well, what we're saying is that in the bright yellows, if
you're buying in the bright yellow,
and if we, excuse me, if we're going to come back to the
city with a plat for the bright yellow,
uses available to it under the detail plan would include
premieres, estates, villas, and traditions.
That's what we're asking for.
We're asking for the areas that are marked in yellow, which
would exclude the area in the south of the blue line,
be available to bring a plat forward for consideration for
any of those four uses.
And I think when a plat comes before our commission, if it
meets the criteria that it's specified for,
then we pretty much are obligated to approve it.
So if we, to use your point, if you want to do a plat to us
that we've said you can do any of these four mixes,
you could do half, quarter of the pod, villas, and whatever
mix you would want to as long as it's within,
then it could be essentially it's in compliance and
according to the detail plan, and we would need to approve
it,
essentially if we move this forward the way that it's
proposed by you all to us tonight.
But for the caveats that I'm agreeing to now, which is we
would not mix within units or villages or clusters,
we would not mix within those units single family and
attached product.
Right.
That's what you're offering now.
But my point is what you've brought to us, if we approve it
as is, you can plat it in any configuration that you want
to.
And since it is in compliance with the detail plan, we
would essentially need to approve it because we've already
given you permission to do so.
And you're offering now before us kind of on the fly to
draft some of this and try to make it work out.
I'm trying to solve the concerns that I've heard.
Okay.
I think the concerns are the same ones that were here a
month ago, and now we're trying to do it on the clock here.
It figured out.
I'm somewhat of the opinion that we need to I'm not going
to make a motion, but I'm just going to state my opinion is
that we deny it and move it forward to city council.
You all can draft it all however it needs to be drafted,
and then it can be approved at that point, and hopefully it
will be worked out in your best interest.
I agree with Commissioner Tedder.
I don't want to be up here drafting policy for your subdiv
ision that you all have invested a tremendous amount of
money,
and you have clients and residents that have invested
tremendously in it, and we're up here trying to draft
something that doesn't get drafted correctly, and then we
're having to fix it later.
So those are my comments and my questions.
I appreciate your answers and responses.
Are there any other questions for the applicant?
Thank you for your answers and your time.
I have two cards.
Okay, I just stay on the board.
Commissioner Husbeth, I'm sorry.
No, sir, I didn't.
I'm going to I want to hear from those that are here to
speak, and then I'll have a question for you.
Yes, please.
Thank you.
At this time, I just have two cards wishing to speak on
this item.
I have Bruce Walker.
Mr. Walker, if you'd like to come forward, and then the
other card I have is from Elma Walker.
Good evening.
Bruce Walker, 9805 Grandview Drive.
I live at Ropes and Ranch, and I'm not like Mr. Steve over
here.
I'm not against these villas.
I have some concerns, but this is the first time I've
looked at this map, and so my comments may be a little bit
out of context in that I haven't seen this map in a while.
There's a couple of gas wells on this that were I looked at
the 2011 map that were marked as gas wells, and let's see,
this one here and this one here.
Both of them say now they're -- let's see.
I apologize.
Yeah.
Both of them basically say on the proposed plan, it's a gas
park.
It used to say it was on a gas park.
Now it says it's a future detailed plan, exceptions E.
The other one says it used to be a gas park. Now it's a
proposed plan, detail exception F, and I don't know what E
and F is.
Okay?
Up in this far corner up here, there's another -- it used
to be Biltmore gas plan number 14.
Now it's future detailed plan exception D.
So having looked at that and having the old plan, I'm
wondering what changed.
Also, we have here this gray area here which basically says
-- let's see.
Oh, this was basically supposed to be a clubhouse, and now
it says future plan exception C.
So my question was, is the clubhouse still going to be
built there or not?
A couple other issues have come up.
This gas well here, in the meeting when this -- when Chris
-- Mayor Chris Watts was not mayor but was a councilman,
that particular gas well was supposed to have 250,000 feet,
and Mr. Soriano basically --
Mr. Soriano agreed to make that 250 feet from homes.
It doesn't show on the map here.
It slows right next to where it was before, so that makes
me wonder if that somehow got missed in the translation.
And the other thing that -- again, none of this affects me
because I don't live there.
I live way deep in the blue line.
Okay?
This is just me thinking about neighbors of the future.
The other area of concern is right over here, which is P
onder.
Okay?
There's a major compressor station, waste injection well,
eight-acre wastewater collection pond,
and my wonder, even though this is us, that's Ponder.
How close can homes be to that area safely?
I don't know what the rules are, but I certainly wouldn't
want to live there.
Those are my questions.
Okay.
I'll call on staff to see if we can get some answers to
your questions.
I think I can answer the question on the grayed-out areas.
Since the request wasn't a part -- since gas wells weren't
a part of the request,
it was just having to do with the residential uses,
those were grayed out as not a part of the detailed plan or
the land use plan amendment.
As far as the compressor station in Ponder, I'm not certain
about the setbacks.
I'm not sure if we have any setbacks regarding that, but
anyway.
Okay.
Thank you, Julie.
I'll call on Emma Walker.
I have one other card that's been added, Julian Rimsky.
Emma Walker, 9805 Grandview.
So that map that he was referring to was 2011, by the way.
We never did receive anything on this in the mail.
Okay.
So I don't know about other people, but we never did.
So I went to see Julie because I heard about it.
Okay.
That shouldn't be happening.
I wanted to confirm how many two-family units were proposed
.
I heard you talking about that.
And I'd like to suggest that we only give approval for half
of the two-family --
or two-family units proposed, the duplexes, including those
already built.
And then Robeson to come back to planning to propose the
last half of those two-family units
and any other proposed changes at that time.
I support the P&Z revision proposing the prohibition of the
front facade of duplexes
facing the front facade of single-family detached
residential uses that you came up with.
I support the P&Z revision proposing the duplexes should be
clustered together
in their own sections or small neighborhoods
and single-family homes in their own sections or
neighborhoods.
This protects homeowners in the future from duplexes being
interspersed with the single-family homes.
I support the P&Z revision that buffer or transition --
that have buffer or transition requirements that should
exist between single-family detached residential uses.
Now, for example, the current duplex neighborhood is
separated from single-family homes by the golf course.
Whether the people on the one side of the golf course that
have a balcony overlooking the golf course and the duplexes
knew about that, that's up for grabs.
Okay.
I want you to revise that chart, Julie, where the fifth
choice, the multi-family --
two- or three-story is still on that list.
That shouldn't even be on the list.
It must have caused some confusion in the neighborhood.
I did see a message on the message board that talked about
multi-family, and that kind of upsets people.
Now, so having said all that, I think that in the future
you're going to be dealing more and more with this kind of
thing.
This was a PD before they had MPCs.
I know all about MPCs because I've been involved with over
looking that, too.
We have Hunter Ranch on one side and Cole Ranch on the
other, and between those two exits on I-35, we will double
the population in Denton.
So we are talking about a major, major thing.
It needs to be handled differently.
And you're doing a good job.
So there we go.
When you were talking about, like, exceptions to that blue
line thing, and I don't know whether I can -- oh, that's
how you do it.
Right over here is another one of those.
See the indentations?
Right now there are some houses there.
And the implication is that it will adhere with that kind
of thing.
But at any point in time, you know, across that -- on the
other side of the blue line, it could be duplexes.
That may be the person buying across the street didn't know
about.
So that is a possibility.
That's a concern.
Now, having said that, I will also say that there is a
possibility my husband and I will move into a duplex
someday.
So we are not anti-village.
We think it's a great idea.
All right.
My final comment would be this, that back when they were
talking about a longer distance from a gas well, Mr. Sur
iano called a meeting out at Robeson and everybody who could
attend I'm sure was there.
And we were basically threatened that they would be pulling
out of Robeson Ranch if they didn't get this taken care of.
In fact, that's when the council meeting followed and Chris
Watts, now our mayor, bartered a deal to have at least a
250 distance from a house and a gas well pad.
So we like things in writing.
And I think that you should require these things in writing
because otherwise they may not happen.
You'll be some other people sitting up here.
I may be dead.
And I think that we need to take care of this considering
the size of it for the future.
Thank you.
I have one final card.
Julianne Rimsky.
Anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please
fill out a card and come forward when I call your name.
Good evening and thank you.
As I said, my name is Julianne Rimsky.
I live at 11904 Glenbrook, Robeson resident.
And if I could hopefully do things with the map
appropriately, I am going to speak in favor of the way the
proposal was somewhat presented.
And the reason I'm saying somewhat is because I did miss
some of the beginning.
One of the things in regard to, and I've got nothing to do
with having been on a zoning board, I'm not a builder
developer, but just in having studied it.
When a builder is initially going in, he has to run his
support system, his streets, his water, his sewer.
He puts it in as to a certain grid, and then as he's
developing the rest of the plan, he's going to go further
out from that.
In order to say for sure where something is going to go,
part of that is going to be based on how he's extending his
water, his sewer, and the electrical going in.
He needs to do that in what is most economical for himself.
He's put in the request of putting villas just on the other
side of Michelle.
I live further up on Michelle.
Putting in villas.
If you want to slide the map up, we can follow where you're
trying to show us.
Okay.
All righty.
This is Michelle.
You presently have villas at this side.
The next spot that he wants to put them in is over here
across the street.
I think he wants to put in a total of 30, which would be 15
units or thereabouts, because when you say 30, it's 30
individual but 15 buildings.
Okay.
That will finish up your building area in through there.
That is a good place to put them, because it has the buffer
of the community park.
It has the dog park, et cetera.
If he gets and wants to put in more villas, if we go to the
area where the blue is and they've spoken of 25 and
changing 25-1 and 25-2 and the like, and I'm not the
builder, I'm that, but my common sense would say,
okay, this area right in here, you would remain with
regular homes.
This little pod here.
Now, pods, clusters, neighborhoods, they all kind of mean
the same depending on where you're at.
Whatever you put in as a villa, you have to keep together.
The rationale being is they're all getting their water paid
for by the private HOA, and I'm calling it private, but it
's a sub-HOA they're in.
There's no way that anybody is going to want to put a villa
in the middle of another house area, because you're not
going to get the support for it.
They've used the terms lock and leave, and that, I think,
is a big misconception.
In other areas of the community or country, you have places
where I kind of maybe would have liked to have had it with
moving in,
where I didn't have to worry about hiring my gardener,
hiring my, yeah, I'm going to blank out.
Okay, the person to put down the weed and feed, somebody to
come and trim the shrubs, etc., whether or not my watering
system is working.
These are things that are taken care of.
It doesn't mean that I'm going to leave the place and have
it go derelict.
It just means I've got something better to do with my time,
which might include going off to the schools, reading to
the children, tutoring them, etc.
I think that's a little bit more productive sometime than
worrying about whether or not my grass has gotten cut.
Looking at the proposal in the way I understood it was that
they would like to have the feasibility that say in two
months,
they find out that they need to put in X number of villas.
To have that feasibility of looking with where they're
digging, how the land is laid out, how they can do the
support system,
and whether or not they would then determine that this
neighborhood over here would be a villa or this
neighborhood up here would be a set of villas,
and they would be separated by be a street, be a golf
course, be a wetlands or that thing.
They would still come back to you at that time, but they
don't want to go through all of the initial preliminaries.
To say to have all of that ready today, well, we drove down
one of the streets and they're bulldozing and working on it
,
and until they find out how that lot of land is going to
pan out when you're on a bulldozer,
then they can't figure out what it would be working best
for.
A concern, I think, for some of the neighbors or within the
community of Robeson ought to be that if Robeson cannot
maintain their buildings
and for some reason they do end up pulling out, then I as a
homeowner, based on the rules and regulations of the zoning
and the city council
and what is based on the CC and ours of Robeson, we're
going to be the ones that are going to have to take care of
our own streets.
We're going to have to worry about those things that right
now the city of Denton does not have to take care of.
We pay for our trash. We maintain our own streets, et
cetera. I thank you.
Thank you.
That's the last card that I have on this item.
So at this time I'm going to go back and answer the
questions Mr. Walker had on some of the gas well issues I
can answer.
Julie couldn't answer.
Okay.
I've got, Legal would like to clarify, I think, some of the
gas well questions, and then we will open and die us up for
discussion and a motion.
I just wanted to touch on the gas well issues that Mr.
Walker had raised, specifically the Ponder ETJ issue,
as well as also some of the comments made by, on the
history of this project, made by Julie Wyatt, our senior
planner who presented this item.
As far as the separation standards that Mr. Walker was
referring to are normally called setbacks.
Now, under Texas law, cities are allowed to regulate uses
and distances between uses and internally within a use
through the concept of zoning.
And zoning is only effective, or should I say, the city
only has the power to use zoning within the city limits.
Once you go outside the city limits, it's no longer a, we
don't have zoning power, so we can't enforce or implement a
separation standard for a use that's outside the city
limits to uses that are inside.
And that's even further reinforced when that particular use
happens to be in another city's extra-territorial
jurisdiction,
which is they can regulate through their platting just like
we regulate plats in the ETJ.
So with that, that's why we don't have a system, nor are we
allowed to by Texas law, to implement some type of a set
back from a wastewater injection well that may be located in
the ETJ of another city.
So hopefully that answers that question.
The other part, as far as what Julie Wyatt confirmed, you
know, what happened in 2011, and some of the comments about
the discussions involving Council Member Watson, Mayor
Watson, who was a council member at the time.
And as I'm looking at the planners in this room, you know,
they're all newer, and I guess I've been here five and a
half years, and I've more or less become institutional
knowledge on this particular project.
I was there in 2011 at the P&Z and at the City Council
discussions, and I know that gas wells were raised at that
time.
I can't remember exactly specifics or whether the 250-foot
agreement was reached at that meeting.
I'm assuming that that was not reflected in the actual
ordinance at the time, or if there's any mention of that.
So just like some comments had been made earlier by P&Z,
unless it's actually written down, it's very difficult to
go back and determine what exactly was said or agreed to or
decided if it's not written.
And that is something I guess I'm in agreement with some of
the members on the P&Z that have expressed that opinion or
their concern.
We need some conditions that are definitely written down so
that we don't have to come back here to decide what
actually occurred five, six, ten, fifteen, twenty years,
because this development will continue developing for many
years to come.
So with that, I just wanted to add that to the record.
Thank you.
Commissioner Hutchibeth.
Thank you, Chair.
If I could have the gentleman behind you, Mr. Chair, I
forget his name. He spoke to us before.
Yes, sir, if you would please.
Thank you.
And if I could have the map, please.
The map they have out there.
As an overarching narrative, I share concern of my fellow
commissioners, but I'm hoping there's a consensus to be
made here.
I found your presentation to be easy for me to understand.
Give me just, and I'm not going to hold you to it, I just
need to have a kind of a visual.
Can you give me a general, can we pan out a little bit so
we see the whole map?
She'll adjust it.
I think.
Cool. Thank you.
So what, using the existing villas that sliver as kind of a
mile marker, you said there's 63.
What does the max, in yellow space, if you can, what would,
if we just kind of grouped it all together, just so I can
get a proportion, what is 1200, I get units, what does that
look like?
What sections kind of, can you give me a general, I mean,
and again, I'm not holding you to it, I just need to kind
of have some visual to say this general area would
encompass that type space.
Yes sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission.
Given that the 6000 to 37 unit maximum for the whole
project and that we're currently around 1900 units, so let
's say there's a plus or minus 5% swing, I think we
discussed last time around, so if we say 6300 as a maximum,
we're around 19 now leaving 43, 4400.
So that's a very in yellow, not within the hatched zone,
being 4400 units, 4300 units, 1200 of those to be the vill
as, I'd say about a third of that yellow space if that lends
any detail to it.
So if I run up the side there, let's say from.
Like in that area?
Yeah.
So straight up from there, kind of, generally, and again.
Generally, I would say so.
Yes.
30%, something like that, that's probably reasonable.
Got it.
Okay.
And then, help me understand when we say, when I'm thinking
the neighborhood sections, the numbers, what do you call
them again?
Neighborhoods, units.
Yeah, so neighborhood units.
So is 27 one and then 27 two, that's two different
neighborhood units?
Yes, sir, typically phasing.
Okay.
Exactly right.
Got it.
I guess I'm not asking you to answer this.
I'm just going to, I'm speaking out loud, Mr. Sorrell.
So my thought is, I'm hoping we can come to an agreement on
a section and then at least get the ball rolling.
I respect the fact that there's 44 people that said they're
in favor of it.
I'm not willing to ignore that.
There's two people that said, hey, we need a couple issues,
but none of them, none of the issues aren't corrected by Mr
.
Sorrell's willingness to bookend everything.
So that leaves me with, I can either ignore the 44 people,
ignore the two people that spoke today saying they're
willing to be amenable to some adjustments.
And the one person that spoke that said she's amenable to
the adjustments, I'm not willing to ignore all that for
another month.
But I guess my question is, and I don't, you don't have to
answer this.
That may be for Mr. Sorrell, but is there a section,
because I'm assuming we're not moving up to section 46
because that's at the very top and nothing else is there.
So I think we can, with a reasonable amount of certainty,
zone in on a segment that says, hey, let's get the ball
rolling, understanding there's a need and understanding I
don't want you to lose not one customer.
And then that gives us time to fix the rest, the language,
et cetera, et cetera.
So I think hopefully that's a good mix. I'll see what else
comes.
But that was my question for you. And so I just, I know I
can count on you. So thank you.
I appreciate that. If I can make one comment to pseudo
response.
In terms of the layout, I know it was a lot of discussion
last time, identify, pause, and have some locations that
are pinned right down.
Within some context, some offset, some buffers, some of the
facades not facing each other.
We took a look and just started into the effort to see what
is it going to take to identify those and kind of pick a
spot like unit 27.2 came up.
So if there's lots on the golf course, they're going to be
usually typically a higher end product.
They're not going to be bills across from them. Now there's
some amount of a buffer, maybe 20 feet, hasn't really been
pinned down.
We start kind of running into these roadblocks with every
decision that need to be made in order to get some finite
locations.
We found we were hitting more roadblocks and we were making
headway, which turned us into the neighborhood meeting and
some further discussions and left our effort to right or
wrong.
And again, we apologize if that's a surprise and it sounds
like it was coming here tonight, but some kind of a stip
ulated approval with some of the staff report.
I know staff did a great job again, appreciate their help
identifying a handful of the buffer zone, the offset, the
facades, and that side by side together with our hatching.
We greatly appreciate an ability to identify what we hope
are fairly summarizable list of the issues that are pending
.
And then our land planning can take those turns with
accurate, hard and fast limitations and draw real lines and
start that planning, start all that engineering work that
was for whatever it's worth.
The rationale behind how we're coming for you tonight.
I'll ask you a question.
Follow up.
I'm not opposed to what you're trying to do.
And I said I'm not opposed to villas.
We're talking about hypotheticals and kind of going off the
fly.
If I understand you're trying to get this going, and at
least for myself, I don't want to be a roadblock to your
development.
I'd like to see it be successful, it's been successful, I'd
like it to continue to be that way.
If as an option we were to deny it at PNC, it moves on to
City Council.
You're able then to work out all these issues that you're
talking about between tonight and when you go to City
Council.
I know it's not the answer that you want to be a denial,
but I'm not comfortable trying to be up here after you all
spent a month working on it and not been able to come up to
it and we're going to work it out an hour tonight and draft
language to send on to City Council.
Is that something that you're willing to consider even
though I know it's a denial?
It does move your project forward.
I'm hopeful City Council between now and when you go there,
you can work out all of these issues and the things that
you've talked about that you're willing to do, which were
our concerns as a commissioner or some of our concerns as
commissioners.
If that's a viable option, even though it's a denial and
nobody likes to hear that, it does keep you moving forward.
It does allow you the time to resolve these things and get
it done at City Council to move forward.
I don't know if that's something you all would like to
consider as an option or if that's just not something you
want to talk about.
If, excuse me, if I can try to respond to that.
One of the issues under that scenario where that would
happen and we still have issues to work out, where I feel
we're going to come into the same situation where our
ability to pin down layouts and really move forward and
tighten anything up, given the TOPO and then all the other
issues that plan with it, I know you understand,
isn't going to be any more solidified until that approval
is in place.
So get into that point where we can actually put pen to
paper and know exactly what the constraints are and get
things put together.
We're having a hard time with that, and I think that would
still exist under that scenario.
Given that the red hatched area has eliminated a lot of the
concern last time, which was the infill surprises.
So we think that's taken care of and understanding it isn't
a preference to, on the fly, I mentioned, work through
these other issues.
But if there's a potential to move it forward with stip
ulations for the handful of the buffer zone, 20 foot has
come up, the handful of other issues, the façade's not
facing each other in the future units, and then not being
side by side, I think that there's really a handful of them
that are left.
And if there's an ability to have a motion that tries to
address those three with a hard and fast limit, then we can
know where we stand better and when we actually get final
ized, be able to proceed.
And until that point, we're going to be a little bit unable
to jump right in for lack of a better term.
Excuse me. I don't know if that helps. That would be our
preference.
That's what we're requesting is, I guess, a stipulated
approval with that addresses those, I'll say three terms I
think that are outstanding.
Okay. I've got one other question. Commissioner Rosano, do
you have a question or just something else for this
particular speaker?
It's not necessarily for the particular speaker. I
appreciate your feedback.
Thanks.
I have some thoughts and then I have a concern to express
as the momentum's carrying us to some sort of motion. The
report that we received from our city staff says that P&Z
made recommendations for revisions and continued the
request the applicant could further collect from
neighborhood input and revise proposal.
And from what I gather, there were six things that was
needed or that we proposed. There's a reduction in the
number of permitted villas, a requirement that the duplexes
be clustered, a buffer, a prohibition of front-facing fac
ades, general locations, and then a protection for those
already platted. So that's six items.
You all came today with one of those addressed on record.
The proposal we have one in which you protected an area.
And it says the applicant submitted the revised detailed
land use plan but made no additional effort to address the
concerns raised. Yet I'm hearing of those six items, we can
knock off four of them real fast.
We can change the cluster because you said you build by
unit so we have the cluster one checked off. We have the
buffer that you've provided tonight about buffering. And
then we have this front-facing facade that you're fine
changing.
And so I'm sitting here thinking if you all would have come
to us with four out of the six proposals that we
recommended a month ago in writing, I don't want to speak
on behalf of the commission, but it would have been a
little bit more smooth than what we're experiencing tonight
.
And so there's a little bit of Chairman said surprise. That
's a decent word to hear that two thirds of everything that
was suggested to you. It was actually amenable. And you all
are okay with doing it tonight.
It's a little frustrating because I think we can all agree
that we're not against villas. We I feel a little bit hand
tied by the way this was presented to us and it seems like
staff provided some opportunities to get this clarified.
So my concern, those are my thoughts. My concern is if I
was to hypothetically make a motion, it would sound
something like I approve with the condition that we include
unit 25-2 in the hatched zone that would include no
products being mixed by villas, premier estates or
traditions that a buffer behind villas would be at least 20
feet and there wouldn't be front-facing facades.
And I'm not an attorney to even write that language, but it
would have to include all those things. And I hope you can
see our hesitancy to just make that a condition for
approval because it is on the fly.
I don't even know if what I just mentioned could even put
it into motion. But those are the four things that I've
heard, which it seems everyone's on the same page with the
agreeable. I just wish it was brought to us first.
And so, yeah, I guess my thought is I'm not okay with
making those conditions. It's hard to approve on those
conditions.
And so I probably side with the chair here in that a denial
and then city council can super majority, I believe, vote
it through. It's just unfortunate that at 8 o'clock the
night of we are hearing these things that everyone's okay
with.
I don't have any other speakers and I don't have a motioner
. So someone else, Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah, I really think four of six would have been enough.
It would have been about a 10 minute item or less. So I
think hearing consensus building on the commission, I'm
going to make a motion for denial. And I would like to add
notes as to the reason why this is a denial because I think
most of us here wanted to vote yes to this.
And I really thought this would be like you said, there's
going to be a list of there's going to be two paragraphs of
text that lay out how these things are going to be located
and it'll sail through.
But instead, we got almost the identical proposal we had a
month ago.
So I move we recommend denials to city council to this
amendment to the plan development 173 because it does not
address the issue of Villa lots being directly across the
street from other single family lots because it does not
include a 20 foot buffer in the form of golf course park or
other open space.
Because it does not indicate any grouping or clustering of
the units.
Trying to make sure I have them all.
And because of the concerns that this will put
approximately 28 to 30% of all future development in Robes
on into higher density attached dwelling category.
Commissioner Roselle.
So I second the motion.
But just as Commissioner Taylor did, as council is reading
over these minutes, I would like to strongly suggest that
as if council is to hear this that if the applicant comes
forward with the discussed items that Commissioner Taylor
just laid out, then I am for approving this project.
So for what it's worth to the council, I am a proponent of
this project.
I just wish it was complete when came to us.
We have a first and a second.
Any further discussion.
Commissioner has with.
Yeah, I just.
I just don't think it's good to deny it.
I really don't.
I think there's a mechanism.
So my pitch is there's a mechanism where we can identify a
section that allows them to start building.
And again, we're talking about a segment of a population
that it's time sensitive.
It's option sensitive.
It's we I didn't want to put it off to the month we did.
And I'm sensitive to the points being made.
I don't think it is that onerous.
If you have broad strokes, I think it becomes onerous to
write something when you're in the in the weeds to detail
something out.
But to take broad strokes and say thou shall not X, Y, Z, I
think is is palatable for me understanding.
I'm kind of out there by myself.
I just don't think whenever we never get this response ever
.
And for a commission to ignore this response or take it
lightly or take personal preferences and supersede it, it
troubles me.
It troubles me that I would I mean, do we go to every
household and ask them the questions?
We're talking about adult community that knows the due
diligence.
They know the questions to ask.
And so to me, for me, for us to say, hey, well, they don't
know what's going in their backyard.
I disagree.
We're not talking about 20 year old kids.
We're talking about adults that understand due diligence
better than most.
They've owned businesses.
They've sold businesses.
They bought businesses.
And I don't think we go house to house and search for
knives to make sure they have plug protectors.
I mean, I think you get a little bit onerous and you get to
where, hey, these are adults making a purchase that have
are fully capable of making intelligent decisions.
And they don't need us to babysit them.
Our job is to make sure that the land is utilized
appropriately.
And I think we can get that done at least in one segment.
Let's say if this is if I'm not the lone wolf wolf pack of
one, then you're looking at section 17 three that's next to
the the villas currently that is, hey, we can agree to that
.
That gets the ball rolling.
And then they come back and clean it up.
So that's that's just my thought.
I think we're going it's it's into to almost a personal
level.
I hear people talking about backyards and I never hear that
.
I mean, I've been I've been on this commission that long,
but I've never heard anyone say, hey, I don't want to vote
for something because it might affect Bob's backyard.
Bob is a grown man.
And in this instance, mature grown man and Bob understands
and has good questions.
This has been the most intelligent group we've dealt with.
Most active community didn't has.
And 44 of those active communities and the three that sat
before us today said they're good with it.
And for this commission to ignore the populace is what our
job.
Our job is I have personal preferences.
I got to set those aside.
It does it taste great?
Absolutely not.
I'm all for having things written and buttoned down.
But the fact of the matter is they did not.
They've apologized.
I take them at their word.
He is probably one of the best presenters I've seen since I
've been here as far as getting to the chase.
And yes is yes and no is no.
And I take them at their word.
But again, my hope is that this particular motion is set
aside.
We can go back.
We can pick a section and allow them to begin to serve
their community, serve Denton County by proxy and city of
Denton.
And then we can clean it up.
But that's my soliloquy.
Commissioner Sullivan.
Commissioner Hespeth, I would agree with you in most of
what you said regarding the agent intelligence of the
people out there,
me being one of them.
But you have to understand that what we're really talking
about are protecting the people who have already made an
investment
based on things that were told to them at the time that
they made those decisions.
We're not talking about people in the future because we don
't know who they are.
And so that's really I think what the issue for me is, is
that I don't want anything to change that has already been
said to those people.
And of the 41 people that we have in favor of it, not a
single one of them live on the fringe near the blue line.
They all live down in the middle where it's not going to
affect them one iota.
And so I think that when you look at the fact that a notice
did not go out to those people that are closest to that
blue line,
we don't really have an indication of how those people feel
.
We have an indication of how the people down in the middle
of the area feel because they just, everybody likes to live
out there.
And they say, hey, whatever Robeson says, that's fine with
me because it's not in their backyard.
And so I think that's really the key for me is I want to
protect the people who have made the investment and not
change what they have already been told.
And I've heard that they're willing to do that.
I just wish like everybody has said that they had come with
that in hand and given it to us and I'd be ready to vote
for it.
But they didn't, so we can't.
Mr. Chairman, can I address one thing, please?
I'll take a much more of your time.
Appreciate all the comments and feedback and kind words.
Certainly the fluidity and dynamics of how this has gone
has come as a surprise to you all and we do apologize for
that.
We, in working through it and hearing concerns and rolling
with the punches, if you will, that's kind of led us down
the road.
We are and we have and here we are.
Rather, as opposed to having stipulations tied for reasons
not to approve,
we would greatly appreciate if there's any ability to spin
it the other way, have the motion carried that takes the
best shot at what we are pinning down, what we are willing
to offer, recognizing that it could have been presented
better.
We greatly appreciate some ability and we think it's
something that we can get our hands around.
It sounds generally agreeable, although not pinned down
specifically.
If we could rather than have a motion that talks about why
it recommends denial, make that recommendation for approval
based on those same motions, same stipulations, I'm sorry.
That would greatly appreciate that and be very helpful for
our development effort.
Well, I might ask legal if there's a way if we were to, on
the vote, to deny if it didn't pass and someone wanted to
make a motion to approve and put all those conditions on,
how that moves from this commission on to city council to
those concerns being able to be addressed in an appropriate
manner, being that we've specified them once and they haven
't so far, how we as a commission can move that forward to
council.
If I understood your question correctly, if the motion to
deny fails and a subsequent commissioner makes a motion to
approve with conditions,
as actually was suggested by Commissioner Rosell, and
seconded and approved, knowing that it's just, basically it
's concepts.
Sometimes it's tricky to take concepts and put them down to
paper and translate them.
But the way to do that, and we have done this in the past
when I used to be on here, your council,
was to direct staff and legal in the interim between this
meeting and the council meeting to actually draft that
language for the council's consideration,
knowing that we would try to capture the intent that you
all wanted us to put down to paper, but there is a risk
that it may not fully capture.
But that's your discretion.
You can direct that and we'll do our best, and that would
then be presented to council with whatever recommendations
you all may make, whether you're positive or against it.
Does that answer your question?
I appreciate it. It sounds to be an option, how rigid, if
there's an ability on our part to aid, if that were to be
something successful that took a drafting between tonight
and council,
we could quickly respond and measure it in a day if that is
of any assistance in that scenario.
We would greatly appreciate it.
Well, I'm not opposed to that. I'm the one that initially
floated the idea about denial.
And let me tell you why. It's because in the past when we
have done this and it moves forward, a lot of things don't
get addressed.
And then there are commissioners that are concerned that,
hey, we made a motion to move it forward and it was not
addressed and it's now gone beyond us.
So that's why I've made the statements that I have earlier.
Again, I'm disappointed that this is a position that we're
put in as a council or as a commission to try to draft this
language here and move it forward
when we were hopeful in doing it in 30 days that this just
comes forward and been tickled for a 10-minute presentation
and it moves on and you guys are good to go.
That was our intent in putting it forward the way that it
was.
We have a motion and a second before us.
I've got so many people on the board.
I don't know who's still wanting to speak on this before we
call for a vote or if this is -- I'm a recognized
commissioner, Alice, and then we're going to vote on the
motion.
Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say just a couple words
for the record.
I don't think anybody on this commission feels good about a
denial.
We gave a lot of good recommendation a month ago and to
come forward just with the blue line was very disappointing
because no one's against what it is that you want to do.
And clearly there's a need, as Commissioner Hutspeth has
said.
I mean, many people are in favor and many people want the
Villa product to get started so they can get into it.
It's just many, many concerns were not addressed and to try
to, as Commissioner Taylor addressed earlier, to try to
craft this up here when you've had a month to do it is
difficult certainly for us.
And I still have the question that out there I think that
Chair asked is why did you only bring back the blue line
and why didn't you address the things that you are willing
to now have us hurry up and put into a motion?
I still would like that answered.
Why weren't these concerns addressed a month ago between
you so that we could have voted in favor of this?
Thank you. And again, my apologies in the fact that this is
how it's playing out.
For part of our rationale I mentioned earlier about the
effort we made to try to start, make some decisions and
creating a new layer that would identify pods and hitting
challenges there, not overcomeable, but challenges that
forced decisions that were a little bit fluid at the time
based on widths of offsets and such.
They kind of created some issues there that turned into
maybe we should state some of these conditions on the map
and have that be the document that would be standalone.
But then if those conditions were to change, now is the map
at a date, so would it be better to write it down or to
have it to the point where it comes to a motion?
That was part of my understanding and as is evident in an
accurate understanding. But thinking that we could keep
some fluidity, this map would still be this map. It wouldn
't be edited. There wouldn't be text on it that's now no
longer valid or slightly different.
So for that reason it didn't get stated on the map and by
design, getting right, wrong or indifferent.
But that was the rationale that led to why we're here, if
that answers your question.
I guess it does. Thank you. It answers part of it. And I
understand the blue line in that addresses a great deal of
concern about a duplex being thrown in the middle of a
single family street.
But what you're throwing out there now, like buffers and
all that, that would have been really great information to
have in writing right now because it would alleviate a lot
of concern that is still out there for a great deal of
residents out there.
And that's my concern. And I don't understand why you didn
't draft that.
I appreciate that. I guess our hope and still our hope is
that that could be something that was stipulated with a
very little bit of text. But that's what we're requesting.
Thank you.
I have Commissioner Rossell and Commissioner Hesboski. You
all both wanted to speak again?
I just have a quick comment. I initially second the motion.
Listening to a potential legal option to put forth an
option that legal can kind of clean up in the interim.
I'm inclined to see about that. And I don't technically I
don't know if I can vote against my own motion. So I
clicked withdrawal. I don't know what the procedure is.
That's more I don't know if it's a question. Should I
officially withdraw my second or just vote against my
motion?
You can withdraw your second.
Okay. Then I've done that.
I'm going to call on Commissioner Taylor and then I'll
recognize Commissioner Hesboski since your motion has been
unsealed.
Thank you, Chair. Yeah.
So I wish we could split this and send forward approval for
unit 17 so that you can start construction tomorrow.
But I don't think it's possible for us to split and have a
partial plan go forward while the other half of the plan
gets revised.
Without a second. So as far as Commissioner Hesbos brought
up, I would be all for that. But it's just not procedurally
possible.
And I would be amenable to the recommendation with all the
conditions.
But again, I don't I don't feel that comfortable just
saying for staff to decide. I really think we do need to
lay them out as best as possible.
Since my motion doesn't have a second, I suppose I can
substitute a new motion.
You have to withdraw your original motion.
Okay. So I guess I will withdraw my original motion. Let
the conversation carry on.
I'm going to speak up just a sec before I recognize our
next speaker. Our next meeting is December the 14th.
Obviously, you can see how much trouble we're trying to
come up with, how to deny it, approve it, conditions to put
on it.
We have the option to continue this again to the 14th and
give you all the option to clean this up, get with staff
and bring it back to us.
And it's clean and it's done versus us trying to figure out
somehow a way to do it by the fly up here.
Is that something you all would like to kick around and
right quick and let us know while I recognize our next
speaker?
We're going to try to get this moved on because I know we
've got lots of other people out here this evening that
would like to have their project heard.
I hope that they're prepared and ready to move forward.
Yes.
So I'm going to recognize Commissioner Hudsworth and if you
all will let us know about the 14th.
So I have a question for legal.
In our commission's commission, if you will, does people's
property rights fall in?
Is that our job? Is that lined out in our responsibility to
protect people's -- I'll give you a hypothetical.
Is that the responsibility of the commission to purchase
some property and then is it this commission's
responsibility to protect the property in which they
purchase and the agreements they're in?
You may have heard that type of analysis probably called a
different term, compatibility of uses, where you're looking
to make sure where their particular use is compatible with
the surrounding land uses.
Whether this type of use, what type of impacts would it
have on adjoining use or surrounding uses?
And that in the cases where you have existing built homes
or structures and unbuilt, that would be a factor you'd
look in.
You're not really saying these people don't want this in
their backyard.
In essence, you are performing some of that analysis in the
compatibility of uses.
So one follow-up to that.
Given the hypothetical, someone purchased a property, they
disagreed that they were told in advance what's going to be
in their backyard.
Does that still fall into our purview?
That would be more -- whatever promises they were made by
the developer, that's a private party agreement or a
promise.
It's not anything involving the city.
I agree.
Commissioner Tyler.
Thank you, Chair.
Before I recognize it, I'm sorry.
Did you all have a response for the 14th?
I wanted to.
I didn't want to interrupt you.
In terms of the terms of events that's left us here tonight
, regrettable terms of events that isn't the clear
presentation that we all would have liked to have.
Our vast preference would be to move forward.
We're requesting a decision tonight under the stipulations,
a handful, if it's a buffer zone, say 20 feet, if it's no
facades facing, and none side by side, and of course none
in the hatched area.
We would greatly appreciate to have that approved tonight,
of course.
Up and down, rather, continuance.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Tyler.
Thank you, Chair.
In regard to whether this is about property values or
something like that, I think for me this is more about
consistency in development.
The only category that allows single family homes and
attached dwellings by right in our code is NR6, which is a
pretty restrictive small lot line zoning that is used very
rarely and is very contentious every time we put it in a
neighborhood.
And it tends to be a buffer between apartments and either a
commercial area or a single family area.
And people come out with pitchforks whenever a developer
wants to put in 100 acres of NR6 next to existing NR4, NR3.
So that continuity of use and compatible uses next to each
other is the issue here. It is possible, and NR4 and NR3
allow with specific use permit to put duplexes inside of
those more traditional single family zoning, but that's
pretty rare.
And they're well designed and well laid out.
And your proposing is well designed and well laid out, so
it kind of follows that NR4 plus some nice duplexes tucked
in.
Normally we vote up or down every single duplex development
like that.
And so to come forward with, you know, this anywhere in
yellow, I understand that you all are trying to protect
your investment and you're not going to, you know, shoot
yourselves in the foot or destroy value.
This is different than every other area of the city.
And it's not consistent with, you know, our normal
residential development.
And that's why we want to do some restrictions. We want to
give you the flexibility to put in more of these units.
And I think it's great, higher density, less maintenance,
easier for the residents.
It fits a need in the type of housing. So all of these
things are really wonderful.
And that's why we had the six requirements.
So I guess I'm going to make a motion to approve with
additional with the recommendations that is on the item now
, as well as a set of recommendations or set of conditions.
First, all Villa lots shall be located in a unit that is
solely Villa lots.
Second, all second. We're writing that. I'm sorry.
Okay. This moment to catch it.
All Villa lots or SFV lots shall be located in a unit that
is solely SFV lots.
The second additional condition is all SFV lots shall be
separated from SFC, SFP and SFL lots by at least 20 feet of
golf course park or open space.
By at least 20 feet of golf course golf course park or open
space.
Not road can't be across the road from each other.
No SFV lot shall be located directly adjacent across a
street from an SFC, SFP or SFL lot.
That that would the way you've worded that that's located
directly adjacent across the street. That means they face
each other.
But if they're if they're one house down, then it doesn't
meet that condition.
That would be okay.
That's the problem with trying to.
Yeah, this is this is this is the fun part of writing laws
up here.
Within the pod.
Yes, sir.
Okay.
Yeah, unless unless there's some units are across the
street from each other. Okay, so you could have.
And I believe there was one more. I'm trying to figure out
what it was.
Anybody has any.
That's the across the street.
Oh, and it's a blue line to 25 to 25 dash two.
And the the blue line and restriction on not changing or
not allowing SFV lots shall be extended to include all of
unit 25 to.
Yes, sir.
I have a motion on the floor to have a second or a friendly
amendment if we miss something.
I I can't second it.
I'll second that motion just for clarity, though.
In in your language, if a backyard street backyard, that is
okay to cross product types.
I don't I didn't actually word it that way. I don't think
do you have backyard street backyard.
Some cases are arterial roads.
Yeah, arterials.
Oh, yeah, I don't know.
Okay. So would you like to make a friendly amendment to
adjust that?
Why does mine include the 20 foot barrier to include
concrete or roads?
But then if the how do you do out the side, not the front,
you're the corner lot.
When the cluster if you look at the if you look at the unit
layouts, there are units that are directly across the
street like you the east side of the streets.
One unit, the west side of the streets, another unit.
I think if if I may.
We'll let them finish and make sure we've got our first and
second squared away and then we'll open for discussion.
So do you have a map in front of you, Mr. Taylor?
So would you like an example?
Well, I'm just wondering, like above twenty seven to there
's that little thirty two unit.
But above that's like thirty three touches thirty seven.
Right. So the language you used would prohibit thirty three
or thirty seven being villas.
But thirty two could be a villa.
Well, thirty three could be a villa if they had a twenty
foot buffer up to thirty seven.
Yeah. Like they would have to do the backyard buffer.
Perfect. That makes sense.
I'm good with the second. I second the motion.
OK, we have a first and a second to approve with a number
of conditions.
Commissioner Husband.
You're good. OK.
All right. We've got a first and a second.
Any further discussion?
Comment.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I guess I would have to ask the applicant if they're OK
with all of these conditions as written.
We are and we appreciate the cooperation and effort at
resolving this given all the time.
And thank you for it.
Anybody else for a call for a vote on board?
My only comment is I hope we've moved it forward and we
haven't stepped on and made a bigger mess than we fixed
tonight.
So good luck at council.
And we've done our best to get you to the next spot.
And I don't think anybody here was opposed to your project.
We just wanted you all to draft the language rather than us
so that we could move your project forward and not create
an issue.
At least that's I'm going to speak for myself, my intent
and I think several other commissioners have said that.
So I hope we've done that.
And I'm going to call for a vote on the board.
Sure.
We need to do a handbook.
We can do whatever.
Can I have a question?
Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
Can I have it?
Restate the motion, please.
I appreciate it.
Sorry.
Commissioner Taylor, would you like to restate your motion?
I'm going to let you have that one.
Thank you.
Approval with a recommended approval to city council with
the original condition in our backup.
Plus all Villa lot shall be located in a unit that is
solely Villa lots.
All Villa lots shall be separated from other single family
lots by at least 20 feet of golf course park or open space.
No Villa lot shall be located directly adjacent across the
street from one of the other single family lot types.
So the unit 25 to shall retain its existing use or category
.
Are we able to get a vote on the board with conditions?
All illegal?
I just wanted to add that the blue line concept and all
that, I might change it and actually reference like
Commissioner Ellis said within its original configuration.
And the only reason why is that these documents get scanned
in laser fish and they're not scanned in color.
So when you say blue line, in five, 10 years from now,
nobody's going to know what you were talking about.
And so I will word that in such a way to include it using
Commissioner Ellis's suggestion.
You want us to do a hand vote?
Hasn't come up yet.
Here we are.
All right.
Please vote on the board and a motion to approve with
conditions.
Motion carries six to zero.
Good luck with your project.
Thank you all very much for your time and effort.
It's greatly appreciated.
Likewise, staff.
We'll move us on to our next item this evening, item B,
which is PZ 16-188.
That will be considered approval of our planning and zoning
commission calendar for next year.
And I don't know who will make that presentation.
Do we have a presenter or we just?
Okay.
Well, just like our minutes, I'm going to treat this just
like our minutes.
The calendar is in our packet for everyone to review and
public to review.
And unless legal has got a I just remember what the
previous plan directors would say with respect to this item
.
It's basically this is before you for consideration.
You've had an opportunity to look at the dates on the
calendar.
Is there anything dates there that may not be compatible
with this commission or, you know, the fall on a holiday?
Sometimes that happens. If not, then a motion was called
and seconded.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
I make a motion to approve the 2017 planning and zoning
commission calendar.
Commissioner Rozelle.
I second the motion.
Have a first and second. Any discussion?
Any conflicts on the calendar?
Seeing none, I call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries six to zero.
That will move us to our public hearing section this
evening.
I'm going to open the public hearing for F.R. 16-0024 and I
will call on Haley Zagurski for presentation.
Good evening.
I'm Haley Zagurski with the planning department.
So this is F.R. 16-0024.
It's a final plat of lot 2R of the FM Darnell edition.
And the purpose of this replat is to combine three existing
lots into a single lot for the intent to develop a pastoral
center on the east side of McCormick Street just south of
Eagle Drive.
And if you have any questions, I can answer those now.
Any questions for staff?
Thank you, Haley.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and chair will
entertain a motion or discussion.
Commissioner Taylor.
I move approval of final replat.
Commissioner Hesmuth.
I second.
Okay.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
Next item will be item B, and I'm going to open the public
hearing for FR15-0022 and call on Julie Wyatt for that
presentation.
Good evening.
I'm Julie Wyatt.
This is a replat of a piece of property in order to develop
the site with townhomes.
And I'll stand for any questions.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair.
Julie, just for clarification, no notice is went out for
this because it's not a zoning change?
It is not a zoning change.
A replat does require a public notification in the
newspaper.
If a property has a zoning designation on it that limits it
to single-family homes, duplexes or single-family homes,
then you would be required to send a mailing notice through
the mail since this doesn't have a zoning designation that
limits it to either of those uses and one wasn't required.
Thank you, Julie.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone here who would like to speak on this item, please
come forward at this time.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Hussbuth.
Move approval.
Commissioner O'Zell.
I second the motion.
I have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries six to zero.
I move us to item C. I'm going to open the public hearing
for FR 16-0022 and we'll call on Julie Wyatt for the
presentation.
Did I do the right one?
Sorry, I have the wrong one.
There we go.
Sorry about that.
All right.
This request is for a replat for an industrial development
on the west side of town.
They're not proposing to reconfigure the lots, merely to
modify some existing easements as well as dedicate a new
pipeline easement or reflect it on the plat.
So I'll stand for any questions.
Any questions for staff?
Seeing none, thank you, Julie.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner O'Zell.
I move to approve item FR 16-0022.
I will second that motion.
Motion for first and second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, we'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
We'll move us to item D.
We'll open the public hearing for FR 16-0004A.
I'll call on Julie Wyatt for that presentation.
Last time I'm coming up tonight.
All right.
This is a replat for a piece of property for Denton ISD
Administration Building.
This one did require a written notification because it does
have an NR3 zoning district which does limit the uses to
single family.
So this one actually did have a mailing component to it.
They are requesting a replat in order to combine all the
lots and abandon a public alley in order to redevelop the
site or add some new development to the site for the Denton
ISD Administration Building.
So I'll stand for any questions.
Commissioner Tyler.
Thank you, Chair.
This is novel to me.
The abandoning of a public alley is I guess because the
city controls it, the city can just abandon it at any time?
This was, because I checked with real estate to make sure,
this was the right mechanism in order to abandon that
because they own all the properties around it.
So because they control that entire block, then this is how
.
Okay. So it's similar like I guess a street right of way
abandonment.
If you did have a street that was surrounded like an old
cul-de-sac or something.
Well, Gary Street actually adjacent to it, they are looking
to abandon that and that does have to go to city council.
So that is treated a little differently than this alley.
So just alleys.
In this instance, yes.
I can't speak for all instances, but in this one, yes.
Thank you.
So you know the questions. Thank you, Julie.
I've got two letters to read in and then I have a card from
Mr. Coleman in support.
He does not wish to speak my apology.
I thought you wanted to speak, Bill.
He's in support of this.
Bill Coleman at 502 West Oak.
And I also have two other.
I have Eddie Lane at 111 West McKinney Street in favor of
the request.
And then I have Samuel Smith at 158 Village Estates Drive
in Highland Village, Texas.
That is opposed to the request.
Those are the only cards that we have on this item.
Anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please
come forward at this time.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing.
And before I call for -- well, I'm going to call for
discussion or a motion.
I'm going to make a comment.
I want to applaud staff and DISD on this item.
I know this was before us several weeks ago.
And I'm glad to see that there was a good solution that was
worked out with the Zoning Board of Adjustment to get this
addressed
and for it to come back to us at this time to move it on
forward.
So good job, staff.
And I am going to recognize Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
I also would like to say this case worked out really well.
It was getting to be somewhat contentious.
And it found a nice solution at ZBA that balanced the needs
of all parties involved.
And with that, I'd like to recommend approval -- sorry,
move we approve.
Final replat 160004A.
Okay.
Commissioner Rizzo.
I too echo the opinions of the other commissioners.
I'm glad to see that this was resolved.
I was excited about the project.
So great work.
And I second the motion.
Okay.
We have a first and second for approval.
Any other discussion or comments?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
We'll move us to item E.
I'm going to open the public hearing for HL16-0005
and call on Roman McAllen for presentation.
Okay.
Good evening.
Good evening, commissioners.
This is to designate the property at 716 West Oak Street.
And I'm looking for a recommendation to the city council
for approval of this as a historic landmark.
Just very quickly.
Sorry.
That's true.
7-07 you should be seeing is what we're talking about.
We do.
And it is 7 -- thank you for correcting.
717.
So it's correct on your agenda is what you're looking at.
And sorry about that.
The owners are Don and John Morris.
And why am I not getting this slide?
Here we go.
Sorry about that.
And as you know, this comes before you as a result of -- as
we're called of our development code.
And this is a property that was surveyed in 1996.
This is a very significant property.
It was designated as a high priority.
It meets three or more of the 13 criteria, only one of
which is needed for designation.
This is the home prior to its renovation.
This is the home today.
And we'll recommend approval of this request.
And I'll answer any questions.
I'm sorry.
Let me add one more thing.
This item did go -- did have a mail out 200 feet and 500
feet.
And there were three positive responses.
Do you need me to read the people who made those responses
into the record?
I don't think so if they're part of our record.
Okay.
Great.
Thanks.
Any questions?
Any questions for staff?
Thank you.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
I'm Donna Morris.
My address is 918 West Oak.
And we bought this house and refurbished it and our
daughter and her family have moved in there.
And this was what is known in town as the Hal Jackson House
.
And I respectfully request your approval.
Great.
Were you pleased when you had time to fill out a card for
us before you leave this evening?
Thank you.
Again, this is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please
come forward at this time.
Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and open this
item up for discussion or a motion.
I'd like to make a motion to approve.
Commissioner Hatchbuth?
Second.
I have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
Congratulations.
Nice job on your home.
We'll move us to item F, which will be HL16-0007.
And I'm going to open the public hearing and call on Roman
McGowan for presentation.
Okay.
And this is the exact same type of designation, different
property in the same historic district, 619 Pearl Street.
And I'm going to open it up for you for the same reasons.
This property also had three responses back from the
neighborhood, and one of them was pretty significant.
And I just want to mention it.
It's from, it looks like a Lindy Dodd.
And they said, "We wholeheartedly support this historic
landmark designation for 619 Pearl Street.
And we support preservation of historical homes in Denton,
regardless of the location.
And we support planning and zoning and city-supported
designation and preservation of all resources in Denton."
So this is, again, that same sort of designation.
It's just a wonderful thing that the city does to protect
our resources.
And this is that property today.
Any questions?
Commissioner Tyler.
Thank you, Chair.
So I'm looking at the aerial, and it does not show a
detached garage or outbuilding.
Is there a detached garage on this?
I'm thinking of the right corner, I believe.
There is.
Is it here on the image on the right?
Okay, yeah.
And I was curious.
So that is a new structure.
That is a new structure.
And is the outbuilding required to meet all of the same
criteria as the main building, or is it just the house?
I'm trying to remember.
That's a good question.
I think when we list these as a landmark, that they would
apply to the whole site.
In this case, when you're making the consideration, you're
looking at the original structure on the site.
Obviously, the new structure, it doesn't have the same
historical value, but as long as it was built.
And in this case, it would meet the standard, the United
States Secretary of Interior's standards for historic
preservation or building in a historic district.
The HLC approved that structure.
It met all those guidelines, and it's a magician in the
site.
So it's just there.
So we actually just said right there.
So if this had been a historic landmark before the out
building was built, the outbuilding would have met all the
requirements.
Because I think it does meet the facade requirements and
all that stuff, right?
It goes to your question earlier, Andrew.
You could build a building like that.
You can build additions.
You can build other quarters, carports and things.
They just need to meet the standard.
You wouldn't, if that home was, say, for example, set
farther back, putting something in front of it, probably
not going to fly.
Thank you.
Any other questions for staff?
Thank you.
And this is a public hearing.
Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come
forward at this time.
Singh and I will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or motion.
Commissioner Rizzo.
I just wanted to say that I'm appreciative of the citizens
who didn't take care of this part of town for us.
So I commend the hard work and effort put forth to have
these buildings approved, and I'm glad they're being
protected.
I hope this is a catalyst for even more.
And so I happily move to approve this item.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair, and I will happily second that motion.
We have a first and a second for approval.
Any discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries six to zero.
Another great job on preservation here in Denton.
Thank you.
We'll move us to item G, and I'm going to open the public
hearing for Z16-0021.
And we'll call on Haley Zagurski for presentation.
Good evening.
So this is case Z1621 for the North Elm Street Apartments.
I'll keep this brief and just do a summary of the case, but
if you would like me to go over anything that we discussed
in the work session, I'd be happy to do so.
So the request is to rezone approximately 12.97 acres from
Regional Center Commercial Downtown District to the
Neighborhood Residential Mixed Use District.
The property is located on the northwest side of the Rainey
Road-Elm Street intersection.
It's approximately 1,900 feet east of Bonneberry Street.
And staff found through our analysis that the proposed rez
oning to NRMU conforms with the future land use designation
for the property of neighborhood mixed use,
and is also compatible with surrounding zoning designations
and property uses in the area.
So we recommend approval of this case.
And I'll stand for any questions.
I'm going to ask a question on behalf of Commissioner
Taylor.
I think he brought up in work session.
Did we get an answer on the site plan?
It's the things that were shown on site plan, if there was
going to be a substitution or not.
There is no substitution.
I spoke with the applicant who is here, and they're
comfortable with it as presented.
As presented. Okay, great.
Any other questions for staff?
Thank you, Haley.
I have a card, but I guess I have a comment I'll read into
the record from Randall Smith.
5428 Lake Victoria Court in Flower Mound, Texas.
He is in favor of this request.
And this is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to speak on this item, please
come forward at this time.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and chair will
entertain a motion or would there be further discussion?
Commissioner Hussbett.
Move approval of Z16-0021.
Okay.
Commissioner Ellis.
Thank you, Chair. I will second that.
Okay.
I have a first and a second for approval.
Any further discussion?
Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board.
Motion carries 6-0.
That will move us to item H.
I'm going to open the public hearing for S16-0005.
We'll call on Haley for presentation.
Thank you.
Okay.
So this is request S16-05, and this is for a specific use
permit that follows the zoning case that we just heard.
So the request is for an SUP to allow for multifamily
development on the same 12.97 acres of land at Raine and
North Elm.
The applicant has proposed a multifamily development that
would have a total of five buildings, a mixture of four-
story and three-story buildings with a total of
approximately 289 units.
And after analysis, staff found that the development is
compatible with surrounding property uses and is also
consistent with the objectives of the future land use
designation in the Denton Plan 2030.
So staff recommends approval of S16-05 with the condition
that the proposed development substantially complies with
the site plan, landscape plan, and elevations that were
provided.
Got some questions for you.
Yes, sir.
Commissioner Taylor.
Thank you, Chair.
Has the site plan hasn't gone through DRC yet, or has it?
The site plan was reviewed as part of the SUP, but it will
go through the final site plan process following the
planning of the property.
Okay.
I'm just noticing I believe the trash and recycling enclos
ures might not meet the criteria manuals.
So it just seems like they're not -- well, that one looks
big enough, but this other one doesn't look big enough.
So, of course, I guess in that case, this is where
substantially complies comes in.
So obviously I want -- the site generally looks good, but I
would want to make sure that it meets all of our criteria
manuals.
Yes, sir.
And it will be reviewed in more detail with the site plan.
Okay.
Thank you.
Commissioner Rossell.
Thank you, Chair.
You mentioned in the work session this lower corner, that
would come back to us for another site plan, is that
correct?
If they're to build on that or if it meets zoning, they can
just build by right, I guess, for the MIMU?
For the third lot?
Yes.
Yes, so that is not part of the multifamily request.
I believe there is other development intended for that site
.
But it could go -- once it's platted, it could go straight
to the site plan process, but you will see the property
again at platting.
Okay.
Thanks.
Any other questions for staff?
Thank you, Hayley.
I have -- it's not a card, but I have a comment in favor
request, Randall Smith, 5428 Lake Victoria Court, Flower M
ound, Texas.
Again, he's in favor.
This is a public hearing.
Anyone else who would like to come forward and speak on
this item at this time, please come forward.
Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and open the
floor for discussion or motion.
Mr. Chair?
Yes.
I have a question.
I was looking at the staff's recommendation, and I've
noticed that they've changed somewhat, especially with
these types of projects that are on a road classification
377.
Usually they're dependent on TextDOT improving the curb cut
at that location.
I see that they have a proposed curb cut.
Sometimes they can't get that from TextDOT.
Sometimes they can't.
I was trying to find whether something like that is
included as part of the recommendation or requirement.
We don't know that, but typically we covered that by
including a provision that they comply with all other city
ordinances and state and federal laws that may be
applicable to cover those kinds of situations as well.
Because right now as it stands, it wouldn't cover a
situation like that unless they already have the curb cut
and I didn't find approval from TextDOT and I didn't see
that in the backup.
We have preliminarily met with TextDOT about this curb cut
onto US 77.
They had no issues with it.
They had no issues with the proposed left turn lane onto
the site, but it hasn't been formally approved because they
haven't applied for a formal TextDOT permit.
It's something that would be dependent otherwise.
We don't have it in our -- I don't want to put the building
department in a position where they have to issue a permit
when they haven't gotten necessary approvals from a state
agency because it's kind of an awkward position.
I would recommend that some type of additional condition be
put in that they comply with all other local ordinances and
state and applicable state laws as well.
That would cover the TextDOT issue.
Do you have some specific language or is that it that you'd
like to add?
We could do a friendly amendment.
Something that can be done by a friendly amendment, but it
's something just to cover everything and make sure that we
're not deficient in any areas.
I don't remember who the original motioner or seconder was
for a friendly amendment to that.
We haven't even done it.
I can't make the amendments.
We've had a few items and it's a long night.
I apologize.
So any further discussion or motion with a friendly
amendment?
Commissioner Hussbeth.
I move that we approve S16-0005 with the requirement that
they meet all state and city requirements pertaining to the
right of ways, curbs, streets, access, et cetera.
Okay.
Legal, does that suffice on the condition you are looking
for?
No, that would be sufficient.
Great.
Thank you, Commissioner Hussbeth.
Commissioner Ellis.
I will second that as long as we're including staff
recommendations on that as well.
Okay.
Correct.
Great.
We have a motion, first and a second, to approve with the
condition as drafted by Commissioner Hussbeth and
recommended also by legal.
We'll call for further discussion on this item.
Seeing none, Commissioner Taylor.
So clarifying and the staff recommendation too?
I didn't, sorry, I just wanted to make sure.
Yes.
Okay.
Someone help me if I've gotten something messed up.
I just didn't like, in the original motion was with the
condition of legal, I just wanted to make sure, and also
the site landscape plan and so forth will be by the law.
Okay.
All of the conditions that are mentioned.
Okay.
Thank you for the clarification.
Do we need any clarification on that with a seconder or not
?
No, I thought the seconder actually reiterated that staff
recommendation.
Great.
Okay, so with a seconder and a first and a second, I'll
call for a vote on the board to approve with conditions.
Motion carries six to zero.
That concludes our public hearing section and we'll move us
to our project matrix.
Yes, you should open your packet, the latest list of
requests for information.
Are there any additions at this time?
I have a couple questions.
Commissioner Zell.
I was in the matrix and it looks like Commissioner Briegel
and Dudowitz a while ago, where one of the items is future
plans for additional parking to the downtown area.
In light of the television ads that are being run for Waus
el Fest this Friday, I know, just present in my mind, the
massive parking disarray we're about to experience downtown
this weekend.
Is there any update on when we'll know about that specific
item, about the parking downtown, or are we going to get a
report?
It says upcoming work session. Do we have a timeframe on
that one?
I do not at this time, but staff is, we're coordinating,
core work, I'm sleepy, coordinated internally and there's a
meeting next week.
So we'll bring forward the schedule after we get it
together on our ends.
Perfect. And the other thing, I don't know if this is to
add to the matrix or rather maybe offline clarification,
but I would love to know the city thresholds.
City thresholds for installing sidewalks to pre-existing
roads.
I don't know what has to happen to necessitate a sidewalk
being built, but there are some streets that just seem like
they're crying for a sidewalk.
And I don't know the process of getting a sidewalk added or
if there's general conditions that have to be met.
I'd welcome some more information about sidewalks in town.
Okay.
Sure.
I know I haven't been on here for a while, but I noticed
that there are several new members that have come up within
or come on this commission in the last year, two years.
I recommend that maybe it is time for a discussion or
actually a legal presentation on gas wells.
We do have a new gas well ordinance that was adopted. I
think some of you weren't on the commission yet.
The gas well issues are a big issue in this town and they
were in part of the Robeson Ranch and that's something that
needs some further discussion internally about that
particular project.
But it's something for you all to know and be able to
identify what those requirements are when you see these
plots come before you that have gas wells in them.
Okay.
I've got one to add. I know I had asked for an update on
the tech stock plans for May Hill in 35.
I don't know when those are planning to come to us, but I
have another request that can probably go under that same
category of Ryan Road.
We have a number of subdivisions that are going in on Ryan
Road and I believe the new procedure we have is the impact
fees rather than perimeter street paving and all the road
improvements.
And I think there was a condition put on that roadway
impact that once the road got to a certain level that would
trigger the city to come in and improve that road.
And I'd be curious to know what Ryan Road's current rating
is currently or proposed after however many 500, 600 or
however many lots that are currently under development
right there.
Where that stands and possibly a light at the end of Ryan
at 1830 because that's the only way for those people to get
out.
I think.
What's wrong.
That's okay. And I do have that information on May Hill. I
'm just I want to put it in a memo.
If it's better to handle as a memo and nobody else cares
about fine you can send it to me but I'll take it.
So that's fine. A memo on that and a memo on Ryan rather
than taking up work session time unless staff feels like
that's the most appropriate way to deal with it.
So anybody else?
Good meeting. Long meeting tonight.
At 9 o'clock I'm going to close our PNC meeting for this
evening and thank you everybody for a very good discussion
on some tough issues tonight.
Thank you.