session for December the 14th this meeting has been duly
posted and we
have a quorum present and I'm gonna call our meeting order
at 531 our first order
of business will be to receive clarification of agenda
items and I
will ask Chandra to turn it over to her for presentation of
the items tonight
okay we have two items on the consent agenda a final plat
and a prelim if
there's any questions we can call up the case managers if
not we'll go to the
public hearing items. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you chair I
just had one and I
don't know if it's a big deal or not there's a typo in in
the prelim plot I
don't know if that's important to know but yeah it's in the
notes line too okay
it just says that the R is missing from ground. Thanks for
helping us get it right.
Okay and so we have two items for public hearing the first
is a zoning case for
the country club of states and I'll invite Haley Zagurski
up.
[Page turning]
All right this is case Z1625 for country club road of
states and the request is to hold a
public hearing and consider a request to rezone
approximately 15 and a half
acres from neighborhood residential 2 to neighborhood
residential 3 as well as to
rezone approximately 20 acres from neighborhood residential
4 to
neighborhood residential 3. The subject property is
comprised of four parcels
of land three of them have frontage on country club road
the fourth is
currently landlocked they're located on the east side of
country club road
approximately 265 feet south of Regency Court and to give
you a little bit
better view of where this is at the very top you can see
the Fort Worth drive and
country club road intersection as well as how this relates
to Hobson Lane.
Some of the surrounding properties the Bent Creek estate
subdivision is located
east or west across country club road Regency Oaks is
immediately to the north
of this property and the El Paso addition is to the east of
it and there
is a tributary of Hickory Creek that runs north to south
across the property.
So as I mentioned currently 15 and a half acres which is
roughly 43 percent
of the property is zoned NR2 a little over 20 acres or
about 56 percent is
zoned NR4 and the proposal is to rezone all four parcels to
NR3.
Commissioner Back. Thank you Chair. Go back that little
strip out there is that that road is
that all that is that little panhandle? Oh yes I believe
that's their access. Okay.
So the future land use designation for the property is low
residential and this
designation allows for single-family residential areas with
a density of up
to four units per acre. It encourages new single-family
developments that is
compatible with existing neighborhoods and it promotes a
variety of housing
styles types and price points. So some of our
considerations for this rezoning to
NR3 is not inconsistent with the surrounding patterns it's
not an
immediate continuation of anything adjoining the property
but there is
other NR3 across country club road from the property. The
permitted uses within
the NR3 district are consistent with the surrounding
development primarily
single-family dwellings or what's permitted there. Multi-
family and duplex
uses are not permitted in the current or the proposed
zoning district and NR3 is
consistent with that future land use designation of low
residential. Overall
this provides for a decrease in the intensity of the
current zoning because
over half of the property is currently NR4 and it would be
reduced to NR3 and
NR3 is kind of an intermediate in terms of density and
scale from what's
currently there so that would provide a more logical
transition between the
existing NR2 zone neighborhoods and what is being proposed.
So just to give you a
look at that the NR3 regulations that they would be subject
to if this is
approved are circled in yellow in the middle so it's kind
of an intermediate
in terms of the density that's allowed in the zoning
districts as well as in
the lot coverage and the other criteria and so this rez
oning would consolidate
the development in the future from having two different
sets of criteria
that it would have to be looked at with when they go to
Platte and develop to
just one set of zoning criteria. The existing zoning with
the two
different designations would allow a maximum of 111 lots on
the entire
property. The proposed zoning would permit up to 124 lots
or 124 dwelling
units per acre to be exact. The applicant has stated that
their intent is to
develop between 73 and 78 lots and that is reduced and
depend the final
configuration and number of lots will depend on the
physical constraints that
are imposed by the current floodplain and alternative ESA
that runs through the
property so they have an application in for an alternative
environmentally
sensitive area plan and depending on how that is worked out
would basically
determine what configuration of lots they could achieve
here.
Notification was sent out for this case. 46 notices sent to
properties within 200
feet, 126 sent to the 500 foot radius. We received two in
opposition, one in favor,
one neutral, and one that I placed on your desk today was
received and they
were kind of undecided on how they felt about the case. All
of the other notices
or responses that I received were included in your backup
with the
notification map. So staff recommends approval of this
request as it's
compatible with the surrounding land use and zoning pattern
and is consistent
with the goals and objectives of the Denton Plan 2030 and I
'll stand for any
questions if you have them. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you
Chair. I have I have
several questions some pertain just to this project and
some are just just
general questions on a development that might have a mixed
zoning. So can you
back up to the area the two more I think two more back not
the area one one
forward I'm sorry with the floodplain. So those houses that
are already built on
Country Club Road those are on individual fairly small parc
els those
are kind of like an about an NR3 or NR4 density right now
aren't they? There's
ten total houses that front Country Club right now they're
actually all on one parcel of land.
It's not individual lots. Oh okay so if they were parceled
out it would I'm like
just looking across the street is NR3 and they're a little
bit tighter
together than the NR3 are. So okay. Again I believe just to
clarify the
subdivision across the street is NR3 but it was developed
before that zoning
designation was put in place so I think it is actually a
higher density than NR3.
Okay all right and my other question is this is probably a
good map to do it on
they're they're aiming for 75 ish lots how does density
transfer work in a
development if you actually had a development with two zon
ings in it like
some of our larger developments have in our three at the
front and our six at
the back or something like that can you density transfer is
it only within the
the boundaries of the zoning district okay. Hey Alex so I'm
just looking at
this and trying to figure out because you get a bunch of
you know 25% of that
or 20% of that or something is in a floodplain so you'd get
a bunch of
density transfer anyway so it seems like you could still
build 75 lots really
easily so I'm just trying to understand you know and I
understand there might be
like they probably want the same zoning across the entire
project and there
might be those side yard sizes and things like that that as
to why the
developers doing it I'm just trying to trying to understand
for my own
education. Yeah I believe a lot of the intent was to
consolidate it under one
set of regulations there because the way it's configured
now that NR4 would
lead to smaller lots kind of in the back of the property
and larger lots on the
edges and so I think just to simplify moving forward they
were hoping to
consolidate that but I believe the applicant will be here
at the public
hearing later if you have any questions. And then the hatch
ed orange here are
those areas that have been are being removed from the ESA
or what's the
designation there do you know? The hatched areas are
historic Lomar. Oh okay
so not really. Yeah the blue area is the current floodplain
. All right thank you.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you Chair. I'm sorry the hatch
marks are historical what?
Lomar I'm not sure. Earl would probably be able to better
answer questions about
what that designation is. Okay. Earl? Question? They're
wondering what the
hatched areas. Could you explain that a little bit more?
The hatched area is the historical floodplain. Oh okay.
That's what the floodplain used to be because it was unstud
ied. Yeah. And so
when the Regency development to the north came in they
performed a letter of
map revision to establish where the floodplain actually is
by studying it
and that's where the blue shade comes in. Okay so the
historical little hatch marks.
Yeah that layer should have been turned off. Gotcha. Thanks
. Commissioner Hatchbeth. I don't know if this is
another Earl question but I don't even know if I can ask it
if it's
germane to what we're considering today. Has anyone
considered the ins and out of
the property? Can we consider that at this point or no?
This is since this is a zoning matter there we can't really
take. Definitely
gonna have access to Country Club and then there's a street
stubbed out from
the east and our code requires them to connect to that. I
believe we also
require connectivity to the south and I just don't I don't
recall how many
connection points you had on Country Club. At least one.
One to the south and
one to the east. Just one.
Lee do you want to I think have a little more of a
conversation if
you want to come up and maybe you can answer some questions
. Thank you.
I'm sorry Lee Allison with Allison Engineering Group.
Appreciate the visit
to opportunity to visit here briefly. We do have a concept
plan that'll be in my
presentation this evening. It does include connection to
the east and a
connection to the west of Country Club Road and it does
cross the floodplain in
the developed portion or the developed floodplain portion
of it and so the
connectivity will be there. We've had some discussions
about going to the
south but I think because of the gas well and other reasons
we thought we may
not but that's not necessarily a closed discussion at this
time.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. I was gonna wait until
the public hearing to
act just but since we got you up here the egress or ingress
from the east which
is the metal land? Metal I think so. Okay is that gonna
extend all the way across
the property to Country Club? It's gonna wind through the
property to Country
Club. Okay. So in our concept plan and I'm gonna ask the
attorney for comment I'm
not sure how much it's appropriate for me to speak up now.
We should wait until the
regular session in order to go through that. I think we're
staying in this room
tonight because there's construction in the chamber. I'll
be glad to answer
any other questions that are appropriate for me at this
time. Thank you.
Thank you Lee. Any other questions? I'd have one and we may
get into this a little
later. Are they gonna be coming back with doing some type
of a letter of map
revision or or Clomore or something to narrow that flood
plain as well and that
I know that's extra beyond what we're talking about with
zoning but they will
they will have to submit for a conditional letter of map
revision of
Clomore and Lomar just because there's a street that's
gonna be proposed across
that creek and so that being said they're gonna have to
reduce that flood
plain to be contained within a pipe system at the road
crossing. Okay great
thank you. Any other questions for staff on this item? The
next item is the
specific use permit for the QT on Carroll and I'll invite
Julie Wyatt up.
Hi I'm Julie Wyatt. The request before you is to consider
making recommendation to
City Council regarding amending an SUP for the QT at
Carroll and Eagle to allow
them to add 16 more parking spaces to the site. The subject
property is located
on the corner here at Eagle in North Carroll. It's in a
downtown commercial
general zoning district. This zoning district does require
a specific use
permit for the use which is quick vehicle servicing. That
SUP was approved
in 2002 by the City Council and that that development
included a 5,000 square
foot retail building, 12 fuel pumps, 26 parking spaces, a
little over 58,000
square feet of impervious surface and then 25,594 square
feet of new tree
canopy. Yes sir. Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair because
I'm gonna get in part of
this later but the 26 parking spaces does that include
where the pumps are at
or they consider parking spaces? Those are not considered
parking spaces. Okay thanks.
And here is that site plan associated with that with that
SUP. Here's the I
don't know what the black lines are. Here is the here's the
building the
gas pumps. They had access they have access to Carroll as
well as Eagle and
Myrtle. And then here is the landscape plan associated with
it. They had street
trees and some some landscape islands out by by the right
of way. So here's
what they're proposing. With this request they're proposing
16 additional
parking spaces and those are in the yellow. A pedestrian
crossing to connect
to this sidewalk on Carroll to the the retail building. In
order to meet the
screening requirements in the Denton Development Code there
's a proposed
three-foot masonry wall here that to match the the retail
building. And then
an inlet filter here which I'll go over in just a minute.
Deborah might have
additional information. And all of these proposed
improvements would result in an
impervious surface of 63,963 square feet which is 68%. Just
to note that is that
meets the Denton Development Code requirements for DCG
which which
permits a maximum of 85% lot coverage. So to go a little
further into that inlet
filter what this is it's it's it's a it's a bucket like
structure that they
put inside and in the existing curb inlet and as water
during a rain event
flows into that inlet a portion of that water will go into
that bucket and
through a filter. So it will then filter out as Deborah
said floatable so anything
that floats as well as any other pollution that's in that
water. So that
that's what that that filter would do. And the point of
that is to reduce the
pollutants particularly that are caused by the additional
impervious surface. And
then yes sir. Commissioner Beth. Thank you Chair. That area
where they put the new
parking spaces is way back there away from that drainage.
Is everything pitched
in that direction or? That's a really good question. No. It
's an existing curb
inlet and and as we were working with them and as we were
talking with them
this location you're right this does not necessarily drain
here but this area the
the pump area would drain there. So we can kind of infer
that that's going to
be an area that may see a lot of pollution and so since
this
infrastructure was already there it made sense to put that
filter there to have a
greater impact on on the runoff and the pollutants
suspended within that runoff.
But it's actually not going to help the 16 new parking. It
won't help that but
what it will do and let me I'm gonna show you this is
schematic it is not
where here this may help because I had the same question.
So this is something
that the applicant put together I said what is actually
draining in there
because it's I think it's a good question and and this is
this yellow area
is what they're showing would would actually potentially
drain in that area
which does take up some existing parking as well as those
pump areas. So yes the
the new parking area wouldn't necessarily flow in there but
it would
accommodate an impervious surface that is equal to or
greater than what they're
proposing as far as new pervious surface impervious surface
. So those
parking spaces wouldn't flow in there but other impervious
surface on the site
which one would imagine could get equally as polluted or
have equally as
many things drip on it would would flow through that area.
This is kind of a
what would you call it again say look we can't affect this
area but look what
we're doing to the area that is disinherited and it's doing
much better than it was
before. Essentially that is what they're proposing and and
this is an existing
infrastructure this is where the storm sewer goes to so
that that's why it
made sense for that location. Okay thank you. The proposal
also would reduce the
the existing tree canopy down to 25% to 23,800 square feet
and here and here's
how that's made up. These four trees would have to be
actually relocated as
as a result of this request and I'll show you those
locations in a moment but
they're proposing to relocate these four trees. These these
trees they are
proposing would have to be taken down as a result of this
request and there's the
location for those those relocated trees. This is kind of
just a rendering of what
they're proposing part of the reason for this request is
that they are adding
that side door adjacent to Carroll so they're they're
wanting additional
parking spaces next to that side door. The considerations
that staff looked at
since this proposal is purely a modification of an existing
use it
really is just to renovate an existing commercial use not
adding an additional
use to the area. It doesn't substantially affect the
existing scalar form and it
also complies with the with the the impervious cover and
and and the building
envelope for the governing zoning district for DCG so the
impacts on the
adjacent properties would be minimal. The inlet filter
would address some of the
pollution issues that are associated with additional
parking so that that
would that was a consideration that staff looked at and the
request does
comply with all of the criteria for specific use permits
within subchapter
six. Based upon that staff does recommend approval of the
request but we do have
it subject to some conditions. First that the proposal does
substantially
conform to the attached site plan, landscape plan, and
grading plan is
submitted and that includes that five foot REM Triton curb
inlet filter with a
replaceable REM fog media pack. It should be installed and
maintained in the
northwest corner of the site as depicted on the site plan.
The applicant must
submit three reports per calendar year to the planning
division demonstrating
that the curb inlet filter has been inspected and
maintained a minimum of
three times per year or when the debris or an accumulation
reaches 80% of
filtered capacity. Additionally the reports must confirm
must provide
confirmation that the REM, I think I have a typo there, FOG
replaceable media has been replaced at least once per year
when the media pack
is 50% coated with contaminants. They have to provide that
marked pedestrian
connection as depicted on the site plan and also maintain
relocate those four
trees that they are proposing to relocate as shown on the
landscape plan.
In addition to that staff has one more recommendation and
that is for four
additional trees to be planted on the site. As a result of
this proposal as I
discussed the tree canopy would be lowered from to that 25
%. In order to
maintain the existing tree canopy on the site we're we're
proposing a condition
that they do plant four two-inch caliper trees to be
planted in accordance with
the landscape and tree canopy requirements in subchapter 13
. Yes sir.
Commissioner Beck. Thank you chair. Did you show us where
those four new trees were going?
No that would be, yes they would need to be planted as a
part of the site plan
process and building permit. How many trees are we pulling
out? This is the
tree survey and I believe it's in your backup as well. I
think there are one two
three four five trees that were that were being removed
some larger and some
smaller and I didn't I didn't suggest we didn't suggest
five trees because we
looked at the overall canopy and so we wanted we wanted to
maintain or get
close to maintaining that existing canopy. Okay thank you.
Sure. Commissioner
Hatchbeth. Can we go back and look at whatever you would
purport to be your
best slide depicting where I'm trying to get my head around
exactly where the
I have a general idea where the parking space is going but
I want to have
questions of where the driveway is I'm just not real clear
and where the
driveway currently is that so I guess it would be the one
that it's most south.
Yes sir it is this one right here on Carroll. Okay and then
so where are the
new? It's in the yellow right here. Okay. So there's there
's some behind it and
then on the side adjacent to the retail and then and then
and then here
adjacent to Carroll. Okay and are there no concern I mean
because it's pretty
difficult to get in there as is right because you're on
Carroll and so you're
like 45 ish and you slide in and you're gonna have people
walking across there
which then backs up on to Carroll you get maybe what three
cars before so if
someone's backing out you know and they're not at all
comfortable with it
or this I know I mean is that a concern at all? Engineering
has reviewed it and
and it meets the criteria for approval for for the
transportation and for the
stacking. Okay thank you. And Earl will come up.
It met our I'm sorry it met our minimum stacking
requirements from a public
library that's our main concern is really backing up into
Carroll with
these parking parking spaces that you know the car has to
wait for a car to
back out and exit will that result in a stacking back into
Carroll Boulevard and
that's those parking spaces are far back are into the side
enough to prevent
that from happening. Continue sure. Yeah so what is that
walk me through I mean
because I don't just my experience with that filling
station so you have where
the crosswalk is you'll have the air station is just to the
north of that
which in and of itself causes a little bit of a backup and
then so most people
avoid that second driveway near that crosswalk and they
would opt to pull
into that back one there and so I just no no the yes right
there so I think
most people coming on to the site use that entrance and it
's almost before you
see the gas station so it's kind of almost like a second
thoughts like oh I'll
pull in here type thing and so I'm really I'm just curious
how many cars you you
will stack there I guess is the simplest question if if
someone's backing out
let's say in the first base of the yellow nearest the
building how many
cars can you get waiting before it gets on the Carol if a
car was in these
spaces and happen to block the traffic from entering the
site yes how many
cars would it would it take to back in the Carol yes sir it
is four vehicles
four okay thank you commissioner Taylor thank you chair so
I noticed on the
original site plan there is an area of pervious paving yes
and that's
approximately where the parking spots are now behind to the
yeah so that's and
it's ten feet off the building and it's 20 feet wide so if
you go to the the new
the new site plan that's basically just exactly where those
yellow spots are and
why was that pervious this is all it was for fire access
for fire access so that
was not used for so normally nobody volunteers for pervious
paving so I was
wondering if there was a requirement if they were using per
vious paving because
they were exceeding some other I am not sure because they
don't they don't get
close to the the maximum lot coverage so I'm not really
sure why they elected to
do those pervious there instead of pavement and I guess
that that is the
most significant addition of concrete is that 34 by 70 is
basically all new yes
sir that's where most of the 10,000 square feet of new
pavement is okay I'll
ask some questions and I guess nobody else
currently they're at 68 and they're permitted to have 85
percent coverage
there they're there as proposed it would be 68 I believe it
's 46 percent how
they are now they're way under though from what they could
be there have it
after this they'll have a 25 percent tree canopy they're
only required to have
20 yes so why are they having to plant four two-inch trees
and why are they
putting in that filter out there when their site is in
compliance it seems
like they're doing extra things that aren't required they
actually are
exceeding our required parking and because they're doing
that staff worked
with them instead of going through the ADP process we
actually did work with
them on doing an ADP for the excess parking because they
are exceeding the
the permitted parking so but in the end we said let's just
move forward with the
SUP because that you know that will be backed up by
ordinance so and it's it's
approved by City Council so they're actually doing those
additional things
because they are exceeding our maximum parking with imper
vious surface okay so
it's the number of parking spaces not not the impervious
not the impervious
okay great thank you sure Commissioner Beck just one
general question is the
applicant gonna be here he will be okay he's on his way I
hope
thank you thank you Julie okay I'm going to that's the last
item we have for
clarification on our work session so at 6 o 2 we're going
to close our work
session and we were going to reconvene in this room tonight
due to construction
and City Council chambers back in this same work session
room at 630 thank you
good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and
Zoning Commission
meeting for December 14 2016 this meeting has been duly
posted and we have
a quorum present and I'm gonna call our meeting to order at
635 our first order
business this evening will be to stand and give the pledge
the US and the
Texas flag
honor the Texas flag under God one indivisible
there's just a point of order tonight we do not have
minutes tonight so I'm going
to move on to our consent agenda and since we're in our the
council work
session meeting tonight we will not have electronic voting
will just be doing
hand votes tonight so with that on our consent agenda the
chair would entertain
a motion or if there'd be discussion Commissioner Beck
thank you chair I move
we approve consent agenda okay second okay I have a first
from Commissioner
Beck and a second from Commissioner Taylor for approval any
discussion or
questions seeing none I'll call for a hand vote all those
in favor raise your
hand right hand all those opposed same sign passes unanim
ous six to zero that
will move us to our public hearing section and I'm going to
open the public
hearing for item a which is z 16 - zero zero two five and I
will call on Haley
for presentation on that
I don't have any cars let me announce that just as a second
I appreciate everybody
bearing with us tonight since we are not in our normal room
and we do have cards
if you would like to speak I don't know if they're just
outside the door tonight
if you'd like to speak please fill out a card you can there
are cards that will
be marked if you'd like to speak and there are cards if you
would just like
your opinions or questions heard and not wishing to speak
there's cards that you
can do that if you'll just hand those up here to us we'll
take those in and then
call on you here as we get into the particular items that
your questions or
cards are for so with that announcement I'll turn back to H
aley to for
presentation on this item yes since we have a little bit of
a crowd I'll go
ahead and run through the presentation from work session so
this is case z 16
25 for Country Club Road estates the request was to hold a
public hearing and
consider a request to rezone approximately 15 and a half
acres from
neighborhood residential 2 to neighborhood residential 3
and to rezone
approximately 20 acres from neighborhood residential 4 to
neighborhood
residential 3 the property is comprised of four parcels of
land located on the
east side of Country Club Road just south of Regency Court
some just for a
reference the property is you can see the Country Club and
Fort Worth Drive
intersection at the north side of the map to give you a
reference point there
the Regency Oak subdivision adjoins it to the north the Alp
aceo addition adjoins
it to the east Bent Creek Estates is located just across
Country Club Road
and then a tributary of Hickory Creek runs north south
through the property so
as I mentioned earlier currently 15 and a half acres are z
oned in our two that's
about 43% of the property 20.1 six acres are zoned in our
four that makes up about
56% of the property and the proposal is to take all four
parcels to the NR3
district the future land use designation is low residential
so that allows for
single-family subdivisions up to four dwelling units per
acre in density this
designation encourages new single-family residential
development that is
compatible with existing neighborhoods and promotes a
variety of housing styles
types and price points some considerations for this rez
oning to NR3
is not inconsistent with the surrounding pattern there is
NR3 located across
Country Club Road to the west of this property the uses
that are permitted
within the NR3 district which are primarily single-family
dwelling units
are consistent with existing development in the area multif
amily and duplex uses
would not be permitted in either the current or the
proposed zoning districts
and NR3 is also consistent with the future land use
designation of low
residential so for comparison here's the general
regulations that would apply
subdivisions greater than two acres don't have minimum lot
sizes we go by
a density so NR3 allows up to three and a half dwelling
units per acre in
comparison the NR2 portion would allow two and our four
would allow four
dwelling units per acre you can see that in the other
criteria and our three is
an intermediate between the two existing zoning districts
so it kind of provides
a smoother transition in scale and density between the
current in our two
subdivisions that surround this and what's being proposed
currently under the
two existing zoning districts it would allow for up to a
hundred and eleven
lots or dwelling a hundred and eleven dwelling units per
acre and the
proposal would allow for a hundred and twenty four lots or
a hundred and twenty
four dwelling units per acre the applicant has stated that
their intent
would be to develop between 73 and 78 lots in this area
depending on the final
physical constraints that are imposed on the area based on
floodplain that exists
as you can see here in blue that's the existing floodplain
that surrounds that
tributary to Hickory Creek and notifications were sent
about this we
received two in opposition one in favor one that was
neutral and one that was
undecided and staff is recommending approval of the request
because of its
compatibility with the surrounding land uses and its
consistency with the
objectives of the Denton plan 2030 so I'll stand for any
questions any
questions for staff of the Commission thank you Haley we
have some cards while
I'm going through the cards I think we have the applicant
here who wishes to
speak and let him go ahead and call on Lee Allison the
applicant or representing
the applicant or some additional information and we'll go
through cards
the public and ask you all to come as well just a reminder
since you do
represent the applicant you'll have a total of ten minutes
and if the
applicant would like to speak as well they have ten minutes
for a total of 20
between all of you representing the applicant thank you I'm
do my best to
keep it to three or four my name is Lee Allison with
Allison engineering group
I'm here representing this project Kent Key could not be
here this evening Lance
Holdorf our project manager from Allison engineering is
with me as well we are
for the moment calling this country club estate spending
another name at another
date I'd like to just supplement the staff comments there's
some rumors and
concerns that have been going around we heard an indication
that somebody
thought there was going to be apartments out there well
that's absolutely not the
case none of these zoning card categories allows apartments
at all
there had been discussion in some of the comments turned in
about a drainage
plan well the drainage plan is currently underway we've
already started an
alternative ESA application we had hoped to bring that
through tonight with the
zoning but we've learned we have to have an approved
preliminary plan so we're
working on that and that'll be coming to you hopefully in
the near future on the
same agenda discussions about traffic of course there'll be
traffic that's why the
city has a traffic master thoroughfare plan this works well
with that I don't
think we're punched punching the density enough to affect
that and we'll be
paying impact fees that will help the city implement its
thoroughfare plans
one neighbor I believe to the east mentioned some drainage
problems and as I
read through their comments to the city they sound like
some significant
drainage problems however that is upstream or uphill from
us so we're not
draining on to their property nor contributing to those
problems at the
same time if there's any way that we could work along with
the city on our
project to leave the problems we will I think Earl can
testify at a recent
project Meadows Oaks we learned about some far downstream
drainage problems
after we already had approved construction plans and we
went in and
redid the street grading on those to avoid that so we're
ready to work with
those kind of things as that happens the NR2 zoning some
concern well there's
actually a very awkward zoning situation here as you've
seen earlier we got an
NR4 in the tan color and NR2 in the yellow the NR4 allows
four homes per
acre and the NR2 allows two homes per acre it's kind of a
weird split with
this being over a two acre site we're not subject to the
minimum lot
dimensions so we could squeeze all the lots in or somebody
can squeeze all the
lots in as they intend to oops I'm going wrong now I'm
really in trouble
some have already jumped to our concept plan we mentioned
that I know the
concept plans are not part of the zoning consideration but
our initial concepts
if we reclaim the part of the ESA would give us about 73
lots we've put a
maximum of 78 Kent wants to have 16,000 square foot lots
minimum to the east of
the drainage area and about 12,000 square foot lots minimum
to west which
is much greater than what the code requires again as we go
through the ESA
and the preliminary plan we'll get to that this is an
aerial photograph of the
site one thing I want to point out here primarily is all
the houses that front
Country Club Road the intention is to move those off and
get rid of those
driveways onto Country Club Road which I think would be an
enhancement to the
traffic situation let me go back me and this mouse are not
getting a question
Commissioner Beck thank you chair so are you talking about
the houses on the
property that face Country Club Road all those what are you
gonna what you're
moving those he's got a development out in the county
somewhere I'm sorry I don't
know the locating I can't disclose it I don't know it it's
okay but he plans to
move those they're still structurally in pretty good
condition but they don't fit
in with the neighborhood that he's wanting to develop plus
all the accesses
to Country Club Road and the fact that they all would need
individual lots and
it just wouldn't work well yeah well that's good news
thanks Lee and why in the world can I
I'm sorry I may need all ten minutes just to work these
power points
all right it worked they let me turn on and close all the
kid as long as I close
without saving okay all right there we go and there was the
concept
planet this one we're showing a access from I'll try and
use the pointer to the
east on metal and road to come through and across across
the ESA up here
because it's developed floodplain and then come back out to
Country Club Road
we've discussed with staff previously and access to the
south however with the
master thoroughfare plan and the arterial coming across
there were some
issues with it but that's not a closed discussion at this
time and that shows
the extent of the ESA and we're preparing an alternate ESA
for to be able
to bring that in but not get in not get into the stream
buffer ESA just to be
able to narrow the the floodplain ESA and recover some
property there that's
really just primarily mowed grass we're staying outside of
the tree line and
outside of the floodplain ESA I mean stream buffer ESA but
again that's for
further consideration and not for consideration tonight
just give you an
idea where we're headed I'll pause and be available for
questions at this time if
you have any oh I did want to bring up I'm sorry because it
wasn't in my
slides the zoning ordinance I think it's always good to
look at it
comprehensively we're real quick to look at density like
how many homes each one
allows but at the same time nr3 has a maximum coverage of
50% while nr4 has a
maximum coverage of 60% and nr2 of course has maximum of 30
% but you can
still put a 3,000 square foot home in nr2 on a 9,000 square
foot lot as long as
you don't have more than X number lot so even without
recovering the flood
planes so you could develop in accordance with these
existing zones and
not get into them but you'd end up with much smaller lots
and much smaller homes
and a very different appearance than if we can keep the
spread out a large lot
appearance that Kent is trying to carry through and
transition down to the
Country Club Road now I'll stop wait for any questions or
comments
Commissioner back thank you chair you had mentioned in our
background
information we mentioned that you intend to utilize area
around the creek as
urban green space within the neighborhood so could you and
I know
we're dealing with a rezoning issue here but we've touched
on the development
aspect that can you just detail are we looking at maybe a
park or just leaving
it open as pure green space basically according to the didn
't development code
this area in here would be its own individual lot that
would be a green
space it would be also for drainage purposes but it could
have walking track
bike paths through there if it should be continued through
other neighborhoods
that's a potential if not it's still a green space for this
area to utilize
individually thank you Commissioner Roselle thank you chair
thank you mr.
Allison for your presentation just so I'm I'm understanding
you correctly this
project could go forward with the split zoning the the
reason y'all have chosen
to come for rezoning is so that the east part of the
property would not be forced
to be developed denser you want a less dense development on
the east side am I
understanding that correctly that is correct I'm getting a
little better at
this basically within the area that's colored tan we'd have
to put four lots
per acre to get our density out of that with the stream
buffer that goes through
there and you can kind of see where the creek falls that
means let's say there's
20 acres we could get 80 homes in there but we'd be putting
all 80 homes in this
area right here I don't know that would even get 80 but you
know we could pack
it in on five six thousand square foot lots on in our four
thank you and we're
not wanting to do that somebody could not I'll ask a
question at this point
that property is already zoned in our four yes you all are
basically wanting
to rezone the whole entire property to in our three yes I
think in our four
allows in certain instances that you can have duplexes in
the site I'm
understanding correctly so currently the way it's on
somebody could come in and
and do duplexes on the in our four part if they wanted to
under in our three
that's not permitted has to be single-family home so it's
almost if
you're a neighbor to the east and if you're concerned about
the development I
would see that the in our three rezone would probably be an
enhancement and more
of a protection against the possibility what could go in
there the way it's
owned as is that first statement or that's a very fair
statement even though
I know people are always concerned about things being
developed it is already
zoned in our four and actually you're down zoning that
portion of the property
and asking for an up zoning on the front part from in our
two to our three so
you're going down against existing neighborhood and going
up against
country club road okay any other questions for the
applicants
representative okay thank you Lee appreciate it and I'm not
going anywhere
so something comes up
no did you want to okay I have sir if if you want to if you
want to speak you can
fill out a card but you can't address the individuals at
the podium okay sure
you want to have any come back on it's probably a question
for okay Earl would
you come up and then we've got a question
so my question is about traffic routing and the disarray
that country club road
currently is in and I understand that the applicant was
saying that removal
of those homes might reduce driveways access to country
club but we're also
introducing a lot of homes directly on the country club did
the city look at
what will happen to the neighborhood to the east because I
live in the area and
my first thought is individuals that want to get down to 24
99 and Geyer they
could bypass country club Ryan Hobson and all that mess by
just going through
the existing neighborhood was that looked at and studied
and if so what was
the outcome it's really hard to tell because you know
traffic depending on
where you're going you can assume a split but that's that's
what it is it's
just an assumption you could head east which then head
south to get you to I
believe it's Ryan right and that can get you either way
either back to country
club or to Teasley or you could head north on country club
to get the 377
textile is currently going to begin construction on 377
from the highway all
the way down just south of country club road they're gonna
widen that to six
lanes and they're also gonna do some improvements on FM 18
30 which is
country club road from Fort Worth Drive to Hobson they're
gonna widen that the
four lanes just to improve that intersection you know
country club road
is FM 1830 is a textile roadway the city has in the past
applied for signal at
Hobson and country club road and was denied by textile
because of its
vicinity to the intersection with the US 377 we've also
performed weren't a
signal weren't analysis over at FM 1830 and Ryan as well as
1830 and Hickory Creek
and they both did not meet text odds warrants but as soon
as it as soon as
it does then we'll begin design and construction of those
are those warrants
explicitly detailed or we all applying trying to figure out
what those warrants
were how we know we're in rat that threshold text dot has
certain
thresholds they have eight warrants that we have to meet
and and we did not meet
those and I know that text dots working in 2017 for the 377
and also that
Teasley Lillian Miller is what's the do you know the
schedule on 1830 and or
Ryan is there any schedule for improvements on those two
roads there
are no planned improvements pass Hobson for country club at
this time but 1830
from Hobson to 377 slated for February 2017 Teasley is I
believe it's June of
next year okay thank you Commissioner Beck
as well no no I have a question for Earl before we move on
I was going to offer
something to Commissioner Roeville that might alleviate the
concern because I I
kind of looked at that too how metal land comes in and
connects country club to
areas East but probably the only people that would use that
would be the people
in the new development because it does some zigging and sag
ging and if you
wanted to get a place quick to the issue I think more
likely take Hobson or Ryan
Roe but that's just an opinion of course I did have a
follow-up question for how
long ago was a study done on the warrants for Ryan last
year last year
is that so that did they take into consideration all the
new developments
that are going in currently on Ryan or is it just a actual
traffic it was
actually on the ground counts okay and that's what text dot
will they will not
permit a signal unless it's based on actual on the ground
counts okay so we
know warrants so when those subdivisions come in the city
can go back and do a
new train account that's correct with all the new traffic
that will be on there
and see now if those intersections would meet the criteria
possibly for a signal
but not until the homes are built the people are in it and
the traffic is even
worse than it is now and I think we performed a count
before last year
sometime and it actually did me more and then we went back
last year to
re-perform those counts at those intersections and it didn
't meet counts
I think our traffic department thought there was maybe some
redirectional
traffic because of 2499 possibly or I guess 2499 to
completion 2499 was done
recently so okay this may be one more level of detail do
they do the count
just for the the day or is it during certain times of the
day how precise is
account because it's a 24-hour count again text out has
eight warrants we have
to meet the peak our warrant we have to meet a four-hour
warrants and an eight
hour one okay I know during depending on when what time you
're getting there
around school time and work time getting out of those
neighborhoods the traffic
backup on Ryan and Hobson is extensive during those times
later middle of the
morning it's not as bad I don't know if there's a
particular time that they do
or it's not time sensitive it's not time sensitive okay
great thank you any other
questions for Earl or another staff member actually kind of
a comment
bringing in some history on cut-through traffic okay sure
Commissioner Taylor thank you chair I was just going to say
the the master the
mobility master plan since the at least the late 1980s had
had El Paseo as an
arterial connecting from 1832 Teasley and that had not been
a popular idea and
it finally got removed from from that role about four years
ago or so so in
theory you know on our 20 year ago plan El Paseo would have
come through
probably just on the very south side of this property been
a major arterial all
the way across to Teasley and on both ends there were
people fighting it so it
won't connect and that does prevent this from being a good
way to get to Teasley
because if you do manage to get over into the neighborhood
on El Paseo you
can't really you can get to Montecito but you can't really
get out of that
neighborhood so you know it does does really limit the
amount of cross traffic
here as opposed to if El Paseo did connect on the Teasley
side you know this
would any outlet on this side would immediately become a
highway thank you
Commissioner Ellis thank you chair Earl I'm sorry I just
want to try to
understand what you said earlier as far as meeting the war
rants you said we met
some but not all can you elaborate on that at all no no
what I've met was we
performed a warrant analysis prior to last year and it
actually did meet
warrants but there were some questions on the numbers and
accounts so we read
that we performed those numbers just last year and
discovered that it didn't
meet warrants okay and do and we don't have a plan to do it
again we don't
think there's gonna be a significant change from and within
12 months so no
plan in place it right now we can I mean whenever we want
to it's just there
hasn't been a significant amount of development since the
last 12 months to
to warrant additional traffic okay thanks okay any other
questions for
staff or I'm going to start calling some of our folks that
have requested to
speak first card I have is from Donna Zelisco McLaughlin I
think 3300 Belmont
Street and she is in opposition if you would please come
okay if you'll give us
your name and address and then that's okay okay Donna Zel
isco McLaughlin live
at 3300 Belmont Street in Denton I'm also speaking for Rick
and Kelly
Wisenhunt there are new neighbors at the 3306 Belmont
Street house they did not
receive a notification of this hearing and they are also in
opposition I'm
going to read my notes please okay we're all opposed to
this proposal for the
zoning change for the following reasons one changes in the
landscape environment
and the property generally located on the east side of
Country Club Road and
directly west of our property to increase density of the
land will enhance
the probability of continued flooding of our property we
moved to this property
in June 2007 our house was the fourth house built on this
side of Belmont our
property experienced flooding at the time it was built in
doing two other
rainy storms over the years since then the house south to
ours which is the 3306
Belmont Street was built two years before ours had
experienced water problems
prior to our house being built and also continues to have
backyard water issues
during extreme rains we have built two French drains and a
major retaining wall
on the south side of our house in order to control water
damage to our property
and to the 3306 Belmont property on the north side of our
house in order to
allow water to flow freely to the street we have not
landscaped beyond putting in
a lawn the extraordinary amount of water on the north side
of the house is the
result of higher elevations of the developed properties
north of us and
from water that flows west of us water continues to drain
to Belmont Street on
the north side of our house even on days after it stops
raining and all you have
to do is come and you will see the water coming underneath
the front of our lawn
going into Belmont Street any environmental or watershed
protection
protector team should be able to identify this problem area
from Belmont
Street also if you came during the storm you would see from
Belmont from the
north side of Belmont Street where the cul-de-sac is it g
ushes down so
forcefully during an extreme rain that the drain draining
cannot empty out from
the French drains because the power from coming down Bel
mont is strong water has
flooded our yard and has reached our back door beside the
back door of the
house through our patio despite efforts to direct water
away from the house
there is a distance of approximately 40 feet from our west
boundary where a
grove of trees also provides a barrier to any kind of water
flow since Belmont
Street has water gushing from the cul-de-sac which is the
north end and
because the north end of the street is greatly elevated the
backyards in the
middle of the estates of El Paso decision that's the homes
that are
between Belmont and Preetness which is that whole
neighborhood of the new
development also have had flooding issues due to the
natural flow of water
in the area when it's extremely rainy the same time when
there was flooding in
the downtown Denton area which is why all the work was
being done in downtown is
when we were aware that the neighbors across the street
between Belmont and
Preetness had backyard flooding issues our neighborhood is
zoned in our two
the neighborhood occupies the land that the original ranch
occupied when it
rains a lot funny became a real issue is what we were told
by the developer
decreasing the available natural environment for runoff
that is the
rainfall that is not absorbed by the soil will aggravate
the existing
flooding problem don't matter how many houses if it's
cemented over we're going
to have worth flooding problems do not change the zoning to
increase density in
an area adjacent to ours and therefore decrease the
property value of the
existing homes on our street removal of any of the trees
and our for area will
matter your four minutes is up okay thank you for your
comments I have a
couple questions for you Commissioner Rozelle this first
thank you chair
community Commissioner back next mr. Glockland I appreciate
you you coming and
speaking tonight my mother actually lived on the east side
of Belmont and
I'm very familiar with the rain waters that come from the
north down everyone's
backyard in the center she had a great center fence to
allow the water to flow
through it's my understanding that that water for the for
those houses including
your own is from the high elevation of the property to the
north and that the
property to the west is actually a lower elevation is that
correct not front if
you come and look at the side the north side of our house
between our home and
the hills home we were told okay we will originally wanted
to put a driveway
there we were told we could not because of how the water
was coming from the
lot that wants to be rezoned okay and if in this is where
we're getting water on
that side of the house even after it stops raining and and
it did yes if
there's an elevation on the north but there also is it's
not as extreme as the
one on the north but waters coming from west from west
because our fence line
even though we've built up the backyard to the fence line
it's still the only
thing to do is walk out there and how soggy marshy it is
after it rains and
then another point not question is the area to the west is
actually trying to
rezone to a less dense area this evening they're not trying
to increase density
behind your property I'm not sure if you're aware of that
but the the request
of the applicant yes that was my next statement you
mentioned that you didn't
want them to increase zoning that isn't happening tonight
that's not even
proposed what's proposed is to decrease the density behind
your home they want
to put more development back there and I'm concerned that
the fact we're gonna
lose the land that's on the branch that's got the growth
the growth of trees
and the open land that absorbs water that if it's you know
it has residences
and driveways and concrete it's the absolute absorption of
the water will
make our situation worse I understand thank you
Commissioner Beck thank you chair thank you miss let's go
and clothland let me
kind of help me kind of wrap my head around all this now as
Commissioner
Rossell pointed out you really are getting less density
behind you you
mentioned yes but there's still gonna be development in
there which there will
when y'all bought that house did you ever think there wasn
't gonna be any
development in there no okay we were told that Meadowlands
was probably gonna
be extended between where it is now to Country Club and we
went back there and
we looked at the homes that are in that little a long
Country Club room no a
long Country Club and you go how do you have to get to that
ranch it looks more
like somebody's driveway yeah okay and we went back in
there and checked it all
out okay so we were aware that they were probably gonna be
changed so inevitably
the development is gonna happen in and really there's not
much we can do about
that if we leave it like it is though and a developer does
come in then they
will build in more density directly behind you now mr.
Allison explained
that drainage shouldn't be an issue with their development
he could elaborate on
it if he wants to but I would think the fact that you're
experiencing heavy
flooding right now you know naturally when a development
comes in doesn't
automatically mean the drainage will increase it could
improve because they
have to meet certain criteria to to ensure that wherever
they develop it
doesn't drain on to somebody else's property and again I
understand that is
a perfect world scenario but nonetheless it could actually
get better than worse
I'm aware of that but I just believe that I need to have my
say and the
record concerns are because I'm aware here in Denton where
there's been other
development that issues have come up granted where there
weren't issues okay
very good thank you then thank you next speaker is Robert
McLaughlin at 3300
Belmont to be followed by Diane Garcia as she's coming the
microphone this is a
public hearing so anyone that would like to speak on this
item please fill out a
blue card if you do not want to speak you can fill out a
white card but we
will need a card for anyone who does wish to speak you'll
have can I bring
this path I don't know if we have that capability tonight
because we're not in
our normal it was up a moment ago okay great in the slide
packet great thank
you my mistake will get back to that slide I thought you
had something you
wanted to put on the overhead camera
, okay. I see okay. Okay.
I'm Robert McLaughlin under 3300 Belmont Street. I wanted
to read a statement
that's included in your packet of information here that
said the purpose
of the neighborhood residential zoning districts is to
preserve or protect the
existing neighborhoods and to ensure that any new
development is compatible
with the existing land uses patterns and design standards.
I would contend that we
haven't met that compatibility requirement because the vast
majority it
doesn't show on this map well but the vast majority of the
existing neighborhood
is the Forest Ridge-El Pasayo area which incorporates
several hundred acres to
the east and city staff has identified the small Bend Creek
Estates area it's
the NR3 area as a cross country club as the area that we're
comparing to so I'm
kind of like we've got a tree but we're comparing it to a
single leaf the El
Pasayo area is much much more established and I think is
the area that
we should be comparing to so my point would be I recognize
the fact that the
NR3 development or designation is somewhat of an
improvement from NR4 but
I feel like you haven't asked them to go quite far enough
if you want to preserve
the El Pasayo Forest Ridge designation and how it's all put
together this lot
should be all NR2 and then as it's developed it was going
to be much more
compatible with what we have there I think you would have
somewhere between
65 and 70 homes I understand from mr. Allison's
presentation that they're
producing 78 73 to 78 what worries me is if if mr. Loughlin
could we get you to
speak in the microphone because they're having a hard time
hearing you in the
back we record the meetings thank you quite all right my
concern with the NR
3 designation is once that's granted is there anything
which would impede or
prohibit the maximum development of that land which would
be up to about 125
homes okay I didn't think so so my request would be that I
think that in our
two designation is much more appropriate to this property
and that I would urge
you to reject this request from the developer and ask them
to represent it
as an NR 2 and to preserve the forest region El Pasayo area
thank you
Commissioner Roselle thank you chair I appreciate your
feedback I currently live
in the NR 2 that you're speaking of and I appreciate the
considerations that
that you're making mr. Allison and his presentation said
that to the east of
the floodplain area there are going to be lots of 16,000
square feet which is
0.36 acres which is the roughly the current size of the
lots to the west of
Belmont and then certainly into forest rich proper 0.36
acres is on par with
the forest search development correct we're close but not
quite there in the
sense of yeah there are parts of forest ridge that do have
some smaller lots
than the 0.5 acres but an NR 2 would give us the larger lot
size less coverage
on the lot and we would be more compatible with several
hundred homes
which exists there I understand that the NR 2 though the
actual property wouldn't
be half acres when you actually consider roads drainages
coverage so the density
for foresters although in our two I don't know if there's
any half acre
properties in forest rich proper you know old phase one
phase two of forest
ridge they're going to be less than half acre lots so even
if we had in our two
designation which you might be proposing they wouldn't
achieve a half acre
designation for clarification all right I don't know if
that would be a
possibility well I can only speak for my home and
certainly partly from my neighbors but we have half acre
lots there along Belmont
Street so we knew that this area would be developed as you
had pointed out that
was no surprise but we had always been led to believe that
when it was developed
it would be a continuation of the Alpacao development and
would be
developed in the same residential zoning capacity or I'm
not sure which one I'm
looking for there and so the NR 3 is a bit of a surprise
and kind of a rude
surprise it's not what we were expecting to have happen
sure thank you any other
questions thank you sir appreciate your comments next
speaker I have is Diane
Garcia speaking in opposition to be followed by Paul Wadley
hello I'm Diane
Garcia I live at 120 West Alpacao which goes is the
intersection with Belmont
and I am quite concerned about this proposal I'm concerned
about the traffic
flow and the fact that people wishing to make the
connection with Meadowlands is
going to come are going to come assuming they'll help us
say I'm to make the current
the turn I really ask and I'm sure this has been considered
but has it been
seriously considered that all accesses be off Country Club
Country Club is
already a mess and so this would just be part of it I'm
also concerned about the
density rating and as most of the McLaughlin said I would I
appreciate the
lowering from in our four to three and I would appreciate
more serious concerns
toward the in our two for this great thank you thank you
for your comments any
questions thank you ma'am next speaker will be Paul Wadley
followed by Lisa
Hill thank you everyone for allowing me to speak I live at
801 Regency Court
which is on the northern border of the proposed development
and we've kind of
been in our own little world for a long time just kind of
houses right off of
Country Club and we've seen developments go up directly
across Country Club and
it affected the traffic significantly there are times of
the day where you
look to my left and there's cars backed up from hops and
for miles my concern is
traffic number one on a more selfish concern the back my
backyard is lined by
some very tall lovely trees I would hate to see those go
for me to look at
another neighborhood think it would significantly affect
all the value of
the properties on that northern border and kind of our own
formerly isolated
land on the plus side I think moving those houses on
Country Club sounds like
a stellar idea there's currently heavy metal music played
from one of those
houses till 1 2 a.m. most nights of the week so having that
gone would be
phenomenal but I'm concerned about the trees mostly traffic
secondarily and
would mostly just like to talk to mr. Allison about the
plans for preserving
natural beauty of that line thank you commissioner Hesbeth
what just so I can
get I'm gonna look afterwards what is your address again
you know one
Regency right there on Country Club where it's become quite
busy thank you
sir sure thing Commissioner Beck thank you chair I was
hoping
Commissioner would ask but can you point out where your
property is located you
were concerned about trees this is my property here okay
right on the corner
and our backyard line is lined with trees that are pretty
impressive tall
trees I see cranes live in those trees but I looked and
they're not protected
species or anything so I can't get away with that okay
great thank you
before you go hey would you raise your hand mr. Watley may
want to get with you
about his concern about trees that's our specialists here
in the student with
trees that can tell you how our tree code will kick in on
this property so
maybe that be a we love trees you may want to friendly
after the meeting or
maybe telephone call and he can tell you how those trees
will have to be
preserved yeah that would be lovely thank you okay our next
speaker will be
Lisa Hill to be followed by John Pimento
good afternoon my name is Lisa Hill and we live right next
door to the McLaughlin
so I concur with everything they both said when we moved
into the neighborhood
we knew that there would be development in the back but I
concur because we want
the neighborhood to be consistent with what it is now and I
know development
does happen different things does come in but as far as to
keep you know as
far as the property values to keep everything now I wasn't
aware because I
didn't have a chance to really study everything you mr.
strange you had made a
because we're right now it's going to be zoned but in our
form it's currently in
our four is going to be three that's correct okay it's
going down but we
prefer to if at all possible but anyway bottom line is to
keep the nature of the
beauty the trees the flooding and I do know what they're
speaking of because we
did see we had the city to come out and it is I mean yeah
it's a lot of flooding
there so I would ask them to take that in consideration we
would like to keep
it at level zoning to fit all possible thank you okay thank
you
next speaker will be John Pimento he is in support and then
followed by Troy
Johnson did I get I'm sorry somebody's handing cards I
apologize that we've we
got you're correct it is 3b my mistake some of these are
marked and some are
not our next speaker will be Troy Johnson that's the last
card that I have
here requesting to speak
okay and I want to thank the city the staff can you just in
the microphone
for the guys like will you give your name and full address
sure please
Troy Johnson 3200 Belmont thank you sir all right it'll be
brief since I guess
I'm the last one in between this gentleman here maybe thank
you for a
careful consideration I don't have a lot to add because I
think many people have
said many things good things about development we certainly
understand that
that's the nature of where we live in the excitement of our
area also
important things about scenery about wildlife about mr.
widely I look forward
to getting to know him and maybe work with him some I hope
you're you're also
mindful maybe one of the things I didn't hear about is is
school density and
impact on schools as you continue down this path of
development and the
readiness for the school districts to be able to manage
especially if there are
120 or so homes if that's what I heard versus 50 fewer
homes which is a lot
fewer children as you might expect I do agree with a lot of
my neighbors there
the traffic patterns are going to change and I'm glad that
you understand that
neighborhood well and I know all of you have probably
driven through there some
time or another that will become a good thoroughfare
especially with ways the
mobile app that helps us find shortcuts that's a good being
on it and that
track that stop sign is going to get run and it's going to
be a dangerous kind of
intersection the way that it curves and s is right there
and so I appreciate a
lot of thought from us on a part of city planners
developers as we move forward
to get that right for the safety of children that are
walking home from the
school bus it's quite a ways down or just people that are
walking their dogs
during the day and at night and I'll be happy to answer any
questions you might
have Commissioner Hedgesmith so if I were to put you on a
spot and say give me a
number of houses that use that fit in that square what
number comes to your
mind that's a fair amount of homes to fit in that that
marked area no I'm on
the frontier my knowledge on that one so you got me there
but I do like the
discussion about lot size being somewhat comparable being
in that 70 range you
know the lower the lower certainly feels like it's commens
urate with the
development of the community and what what's what's all
around that particular
lot I thought there was a really good summary about what
the nature of that
kind of area is and so something that's kind of commens
urate or matching in that
so great answer if I may and so if I were to represent to
you that the
developers talking round numbers point three six of an acre
and the bulk of
those houses on Belmont are point three eight so we're
talking about point oh two
difference for the majority your your property is about
point four seven
there's one about point five on that street but all all
total we're right
about point oh two let's round it up point oh four
difference of an acre
that's that's consistent and do you agree or do you think
point oh four
matters that's a that's a great question the thing that I
would be curious about
is whether that point three six is an average or if it's a
minimum size you
see there's a difference because point three six could mean
you have some that
are point five and some that are two point two five and
point two five lot is
a very different size lot than a point three six and so
most of these I think
the smaller you might have mentioned was point three six I
think some of my
neighbors probably have about that and so I would say it
kind of depends what
your point three six really represents but if it's in that
range then you know
we're talking pretty commensurate but if you're getting
down a quarter acre size
and such and even a third of an acre you know that would
represent smaller I
think smaller than the smallest in that area so you see
where I'm coming from
okay thank you sure thank you yes thank you for your
comments thank you all for
your time again this is a public hearing anyone who wishes
to speak please come
forward at this time and then you can fill out a card I
have one email from
Andrea and Steve Shula at 601 Regency Court and quote they
are not completely
for or against it so I'm going to put them down as a
neutral and their major
concerns are traffic and drainage if there's anyone else
that would like to
speak on this item please come forward at this time before
I close the public
hearing if we have a question you can come back up do we
have a question
I believe mr. McLaughlin has a question for me that we didn
't get answer
previous okay commissioner Beck and you may have a question
for you please come
back to the microphone because our rule is you get one
opportunity and we kind
of sometimes can do get around that with a question mr. Mc
Laughlin did you have a
question for me I had an answer or a question whichever you
need the question
was posed did we have an idea of how many homes would be
the optimum number
and that would be not to exceed 70 and 60 would be better
commissioner has but
do you have a question yes sir so the overall acreage I don
't have it in front
of me but round numbers I mean can we agree that we're
talking in your numbers
where eight houses different from what's proposed okay so I
'm not saying eight
houses eight houses don't matter I just wanted to normalize
the conversation to
make sure I mean and that's fair I mean I noted your answer
before and I was just
trying to get the poll the other neighborhoods other people
who live in
neighborhood to see if that number resonates with everyone
so that that was
the purpose for the question but but thank you thank you
appreciate it thank
you seeing no one else wishing to speak I'm going to close
our public hearing at
this time and I'll open the floor for discussion or emotion
mr. Taylor thank you chair I just want to I think everybody
on the commission's
aware and hopefully most of the audience is but I'd like to
bring up two things
we are talking about a development that is suggesting 73 to
78 houses and you
know Allison engineering is reputable we have dealt with
them a lot they work on
a lot of projects in town but we can't see unforeseen
circumstances so we
really do need to think about this as the maximum possible
because if you know
the landowner goes bankrupt or another financial crisis
happens or any number
of things leads to this piece of property being sold it can
be developed
at whatever the zoning is that exists the second point is
this property can be
developed right now at the zoning it exists at now and we
can't even even if
tonight we tried to rezone it to NR to the developers
already applied for an
application and so they get to follow the regulations of
the date that they
applied for their application they filed their application
so they could come in
if we change it to NR to right now they could build at NR
for density so we
can't really turn back the clock or roll this to NR to the
the the choices we
have are make it in our three and make it consistent or
leave it the way it is
basically so I just want to I just want to bring that up
that that we we don't
want to talk too much about 70 or 73 or 78 and we don't we
can't really
feasibly talk about all of this as if it were in our two
with 71 houses allowed
in our two densities because right now it's in our four and
that allows about
112 or 113 total houses so just wanted to bring up those
two points in our
discussion did you have Commissioner Ellis now come to you
Commissioner I
think you're here I actually was hoping to ask mr. Allison
a question absolutely
can we bring him back up yes thank you mr. Allison is there
a way you can
elaborate for us why you you cannot do NR to hear how that
would affect your
your project and why you are requesting NR three could
could you elaborate that
point for for us in our audience I can get back to
trying to get to my presentation I can't find it I'm
somebody else's
apologize
I'll do my best to try and explain for mr. key that's one
of the reasons we
brought this slide in as well we weren't trying to to
disguise anything we feel
like that in our three less is too close to what we can do
today Kent really
doesn't want to do the smaller lots at the same time he's
got an investment
there and needs to get a return on the investment and the
NR three allows up to
124 but to go to NR two would just put him way too low
compared put him down
into the into the 70 range and believe it or not three or
four more lots can
make quite a bit of difference so he is looking for that as
mr. Taylor pointed
out what's there can be done these densities you need to
look at because it
is correct another reason we brought this chart up is you
've really got to
look at the zoning and how that affects the overall site
but I also wanted to
point out with the ESA limits and the proposed ESA
alternate ESA if we come
back I'm taking a long time to answer your question I
apologize but with this
it's very difficult to get even with the NR for that high
density in this area
because of the lot coverages and the set building setbacks
and those kind of
things so the NR three seemed like a good compromise and an
overall upgrade
compared to what was there relative to what's over here and
with his plan that
we've come up and we're sticking with the the I mean this
plan shows 73 I don't
really see it it changing but we said 78 to give us a
little wiggle room as we go
through the processes with the city one thing we might
consider and I'm not sure
how best to do it would be to eliminate this piece of road
right here we could
have two entries well we've got two shown here now we could
move it down here
and keep it there this side wouldn't be a problem this
could be an issue because
of emergency access and more than needed and maybe we build
that as an emergency
access only for some reason not keep it open one of the
reasons we put the z-shaped
road in here was to discourage the through traffic the cut
through traffic
and it was our understanding that even though not as an
arterial and maybe I
misunderstood but I thought Alpacaille was still shown as a
collector coming
all the way through so it may not be going through as an
arterial but will be
going through as a commercial collector which is
essentially what it is today
and that's what's really going to take the cut through
traffic in the future
and when you look at the amount of money you put in for p
aving and different
things to go with the infrastructure he's just trying to
find an economically
feasible number here but he's also looking to keep these
lots on the higher
side and also back here to help transition from the bigger
lots through
bigger lots to a little bit smaller on this side and again
I think when we come
back with the ESA if we come back with an ESA and try and
look at doing 120
lots that's where you say you don't get the ESA so you're
kind of stuck with
some physical constraints that keep us you know sometimes
it's the practical
limitations not the actual specific zoning numbers that
that minimize or
determine what we can really do on the site so when you
look at the zoning
along with the existing environmentally system of areas it
's it's tough to even
do the NR4 out there I mean still be done but it'd be even
uglier than all
but if we get the ESA and do this this will be a nice site.
Well you're up there
Lee if you don't mind I'm glad you have this map up this is
a topo map
essentially that you have on there as well as can you speak
on your
professional opinion as to how with the essentially two cul
-de-sacs that you have
coming up on the east side of your property how that will
pick up water and
the city requirements for I believe it lots have to drain
to the streets how
that may improve some of the drainage issues that we've
heard about this evening.
Yes I can our focus has been primarily on the floodplain
itself but as we look
at this topo map there is a ridge along here and you can
see there is a small
area that does drain back to the east and that would go
into the yards that
are having some complications with these cul-de-sacs here
we'd be cutting down
and we can make sure that all of these areas drain into the
cul-de-sacs and
into the creek and away from those homes additionally we'd
have probably some
storms so we're maybe not this far back but if there are
some other problems that
our development doesn't directly solve we might work with
the city to extend
some storms who are to resolve some city problems in that
area possibly I don't
know we haven't studied it but there's potential there.
Okay. Commissioner Rossell.
This is more clarification maybe for own edification but it
fits here if this was
an NR2 zoning the spaces in which they can't develop they
can displace that
density elsewhere do you know off the top your head what
the lot sizes would be
condensed down to an NR2 I mean wouldn't it be I'm just
thinking it'd be point
four and change. Well if we were to develop with this ESA
and the whole
things NR2 would probably bound in the 12,000 square foot
per lot by the time
you allow for streets and things if we get an alternative E
SA and we're in the
NR2 probably more than 14,000 square foot average per lot
again as I think you
were pointing out earlier and I'm gonna be off the chart
here but you know 35
acres NR2 70 lots we could make this one lot and we could
make this 69 lots you
know just to help shift it around because the code when you
're over two
acres doesn't doesn't set a minimum lot size it basically
sets an average and
the number of lots is based on the gross acreage of the
development that you know
NR2 doesn't mean a half acre lot it's probably more in the
point four acres
some of these lots I did look earlier depending on you
found some more in the
point four point three six range there were some out there
further away that
are more like into a point five but it varies thank you I
'll make one other
comment one of the issues that probably has not been
discussed it's gonna be the
lot coverage and depending on whether it's an NR2 or an NR4
or a compromise in
the middle of NR3 you're gonna get a difference in the lot
coverage to on on
these and that's part of the issue I assume from what I
know about the
developers is one of the driving issues on this is to make
this a little more of
a consistent development and then also because a lot
coverage to make the lots
be essentially buildable lots and I think that's another
issue that will
probably be brought to us and discuss maybe in more detail
when you all come
back for preliminary platting in your ESA but I think that
's just for the
Commission that's another big issue that's going to come
before us as to
why this is where Quest was made to begin with any other
questions for mr.
Allison thank you again our public hearing is closed so we
're in discussion
or motion commissioner back thank you chair just some
comments and then I'll
make a motion I have heard the concerns of the citizens
around that and I
understand that course increased traffic drainage issues is
a legitimate concern
honestly feel though any changes we have in traffic is to
distinguish between
and in our to development and an NR4 you know is is not
going to be that
consequential if we're looking at road development on Hobs
on that's going to
expand it and Ryan Road eventually you know those are going
to be the default
roads to get from Country Club to the Teasley and all that
the way this is
set up it's going to actually discourage any cutting
through is my opinion the
developer if we get in once we get into that I'm vaguely
familiar with them
they're very eco-friendly I think that the concerns people
have about trees and
everything will be a laid once we see what the developer
has in store he's
been before us on several occasions and he's expressed a
genuine concern for
environmentally sound areas keeping things intact as they
are so as difficult
as it may be you know to cross paths with the homeowners
that oppose this I'm
going to move that we approve this okay the motion for
approval I have a second
second Commissioner Taylor second any discussion
Commissioner Hesbeth yeah I just I struggle with the
options Commissioner
Taylor pointed out and I think the most encouraging thing
for me is Mr. Allison's
willingness to meet those concerns so really I've boiled
those concerns down
to the traffic on Country Club Road which we as a city have
no control over so
assuming he works with the neighborhood to mitigate the
water assuming he works
with the neighborhood to to preserve trees where he can and
he's articulated
those things he's articulated the willingness to shift she
streets around
to make it less cut through friendly if you will I really I
mean there's nothing
we can do about this body can do about Country Club Road
and so just just
thinking out loud I think that that's why I'm at peace with
it is just because
he's touched all the concerns of the neighborhood and did
not go where we've
seen some go worse just hey here's my project here's what I
'm gonna do and and
everyone can pound sand I mean he's he's shown a
willingness to to be pliable and
I think that's that's that's commendable so anyway I think
I think he mitigates
the concerns of the neighborhood and removes that in our
for label that's
hanging out there currently and then we don't have any say
so and what goes
there so I want to take advantage of that why we can
Commissioner Roselle
thank you chair I just wanted to thank everyone for coming
out and helping
us have this conversation and dialogue through this and
bring up points that
help contextualize this I can say living in the
neighborhood if there is
individuals that cut through I'm gonna I'm gonna be a
victim to it I'm gonna
have to deal with El Paseo that stop sign where it's run
often and I'm sure
I've seen most people that spoke tonight in my passing on
the way to work or
coming home so I'm familiar with the area and I and
certainly will be
interested in anxious to see the new traffic patterns and
hoping that tech
stock can can approve some stoplights but I think based on
just the flood
plane going through someone mentioned earlier that we're
looking at a tree or
leaf not a tree and I feel to some extent that might be
true except that it
it seems that the floodplain in existence kind of forces
these lots to
be kind of capped at a certain size this doesn't seem I don
't see the
economics of putting half acre lots in their unit of his NR
two and there's an
opportunity right now to make sure duplexes are not built
on that property
and so for the reasons independent of what Mr. Taylor
saying of the
development going in this still secures this property to a
point that encourages
I think a higher level of development that then it
currently stands and so for
those reasons and with great hope that the traffic is
resolved for the approval
of this
nobody else any coming I'm gonna make comments to you I'm
echo what I said
earlier and Commissioner just Rosal just said is that
currently this is in our
four and so we don't typically get a lot of down zoning
cases here before us and
I think it's for the neighborhood to the east this is a
great opportunity for it
to be down zone from what could go there right now as in
our four to NNR three I
think gives a neighborhood a lot more protection than what
you could face
within our four and really no say so about it and so for
that reason alone I'm
I'm going to support this this evening I also believe that
because of the design
that has been put before us which were they're not bound to
this is a concept
but familiar with the developer and other projects that
they've done that I'm
sure they have taken that into account to make it more
difficult to get in and
out of that neighborhood versus just a straight shot do
West that might make it
more of a cut through that I think that is a good first
step we'll have an
opportunity look at that when they bring it back and the
final reason I'm
gonna support it is because I have heard the neighbors
concerns about the
drainage and I think when the streets get in here sooner
rather than later and
they have to meet the development code to have those slots
drained to the
street that some of your issues will get addressed that
right now if this doesn't
move forward you may be having to contend with those for
some time longer
so for those three reasons I'm going to support this as
well and unless anybody
else has a comment I'm gonna call for a hand vote this
evening all those in
favor please raise your right hand all those opposed same
sign and the motion
to approve carries six to zero thank you all for coming out
this evening that
will move us to our item 3b and I'm going to give them
we can I exit your presentation give the room just a couple
more minutes to kind
of clear since we're kind of small and then we'll open our
next item here
I know I'm like somewhere we're kind of having a de facto
break here
you want me just to call it for five minutes here I tell
you what we've got a
few more people trying to clear the room and I think a
couple people needed to
take a quick break I'm a caller recess at 750
I'm Julie Wyatt this is s 16 6 quick trip do you want to go
over the whole
presentation again or do we want to do the summary okay all
right we'll do the
summary all right the request before you is to consider a
modification of an
existing approved SUP to permit 16 additional parking
spaces at the quick
trip location at the corner of Carroll and Eagle staff has
reviewed the
request and compared it against the criteria for approval
and does recommend
approval and let me get down to the with conditions that
the proposed development
substantially comply with the site plan landscape plan and
grading plan as they
have been submitted which includes and I'll summarize the
installation of a
curb inlet filter with an irreplaceable REM fog media pack
at the northwest
corner of the site and that it should be three reports
should be submitted to the
planning department per year demonstrating that it is being
maintained in accordance with the manufacturers
instructions that they
place a marked pedestrian connection between the the
sidewalk on North Carroll
and the retail building that they do relocate those
existing trees on the
site that can be saved and staff also recommends an
additional four two inch
caliper large canopy tree trees to be planted in accordance
with sub chapter
13 of the Denton Development Code I can stand for any
questions and the
applicant is also here so thank you chair hi Julie hi hey
just a question
back about that filter in the reports what is in those
reports or how did we
come up with three a year would would do and are we as a
city we're just in
trusting them to do that or we're gonna look at these
filters or just elaborate
on sure that's based upon the manufacturers specifications
for
maintenance and yes they would be submitted to planning if
if for some
reason they didn't work as they were supposed to or they
did not maintain
them in accordance with this SUPs can be revoked by the
City Council so there is
some some checks and balances with that do the reports come
from the
manufacturer or telling them what to put in they would come
from the applicant
just just reporting to us that they have maintained that's
all that that's
really gonna say is we've done it here's the date we've
done it yes ma'am yes ma'am
but we're not gonna check it well and hopefully we don't we
we don't always
have the manpower to go out there and do the inspections we
'd like to and and and
Deborah's here and she may be able to add she knows a lot
about the I swim and
best management practices for that good evening the Robiera
with environmental
services and sustainability pretty much what we have is a
control that is trying
to deal with two aspects the floatables and the pollution
in the water they the
media the filtering media that they're using is for fog
which stands for fat
oils and grease and pretty much what they're collecting is
all the oils that
my wash out from from that parking surface and then they
will call that
also the floatables this is a site that they're pretty much
retrofitting they
only have one curb inlet on site so that's what they're
using those
controls are good as long as they're maintained properly
according to the
manufacturer so it would be upon the the applicant to
actually keep them up it's
my understanding that the QT corporation have a maintenance
division who deals
with this type of controls these controls are not new to
them they have
using in other facilities as well so they're familiar with
it so with the
history of maintenance and knowledge about it staff feel
comfortable that they
will be able to proceed and do the maintenance accordingly
and we don't
have anything as a city that that checks checks on these at
all we currently don't
however when we don't see when when those controls are
start malfunctioning
it would be visible people will start complaining about it
so at that time
probably is when stuff will be able to go in and check for
those the other
thing is most of the time when we move from the design a
stage where the
engineers put them all those controls is up to the manager
or the owner of that
business to actually know about it perform their
maintenance and so on so I
think that it's a learning process not only from the design
you know you have
this you have for now on to follow up and that's I believe
is why staff is
required all those conditions to be put on the ordinance as
a reminder of what
is needed to be done
thank you chair I was just curious how many other I guess
sites or developments
in Denton currently have do some kind of reporting every
six months or years
well actually the razor range who have some specifications
about the reporting
of the BMPs that they have put in place the other
businesses that they have
controls like bio life they have a skirt inside the inlet
that is intended to
filtrate chewy have also a similar device on the parking
lot they are not
required to put controls I'm sorry they're not required to
provide reports
of it however as again in those instances where we have
seen malfunctioning or
evidence that they are not being properly maintained we
most of the time
approach whoever is the manager and as long as we tell them
hey do you know that
you have an alternative development plan or you have
something that makes you
maintain them they act on it sometimes because they they
don't know and so right
now you said razor ranch that that would be is that an MPC
no the razor range is
actually an overlay district okay so the so an overlay
district ADP or SUP are
those those are or maybe an ESA those are the only types of
his little of
instruments that would require this or do some general
drainage plans are not
actually it will be most of the time for example you can
have excess parking as
long as you use pervious surface okay so is in those
instances when you don't
provide the previous surfaces that you go through some sort
of alternative
mechanism so in this case have been overlay districts could
be NPCs master
plan communities specific use permits alternative
development plans any other
questions for Denver thank you
Julie I think you were going through some I think we got to
the first two
conditions I'll just repeat and then the marked pedestrian
connection we would
require that as part of it can as a condition to relocate
those existing
trees where those proposed parking spots would be and then
staff also is
recommending that they plant for two inch caliper trees in
accordance with
our sub chapter 13 requirements in order to to maintain the
tree canopy that
that's similar to the tree canopy that exists today
commissioner Tyler thank
you chair so when you say relocate you mean relocate that
exact tree not okay
was that hey is that a preferred solution or was that just
what the
applicant offered or that's what they offered and I know
Haywood talks to
applicants about that a lot that you can that you can reloc
ate trees if you if
you do it correctly and and make sure that you take care of
it so they can
save them and and they don't don't have to go away so that
was something that
they proposed normally we see shall be mitigated with or
shall be replaced by
so when it said relocated I just wanted to make sure that
wasn't the right
commissioner better monkey and on that so if trains
planning any of those they
die within a set period of time we can make them replace it
our our landscape
code does require that they maintain them and I believe it
's for a period of
three years that three years they're looked at and that
they have to irrigate
them and make sure that they stay alive okay thank you I'm
good if I'm current
on that any other questions for staff thank you Julie thank
you I have one
card for speaker I've got it right now I think John Piment
el if you'll give your
name and address and looks like you're in support and you
'll have four minutes
are you the applicant yes I don't have to do a car got ten
minutes or okay
perfect I go with the four John Pimentel address is 3708
Beatrice Drive here in
Denton I'm a real estate project manager for a quick trip
the reason why we're
wanting to do this is we're going back to our sites our
number one complaint
and it's kind of sound it's a good problem to have but it's
we're just too
busy particularly here in three out of our Denton three out
of four of our
Denton stores is top 20% in DFW I worked at stores for nine
years and I worked
at both stores that were this one and hopefully next month
the one on 35
there's busy stores and recently we don't have any here in
then
unfortunately but we have some of the sites with four entr
ances this one has
one so we just kind of causes a lot of congestion problems
in the store and if
you ever been to the store the 135 is just the lot
circulation is very poor
just don't have enough parking spaces and again that's our
number one complaint
that we received for these two stores and with that I just
really want to open
up to any questions you may have okay Commissioner Burke
thank you chair thank
you for your presentation fair warning I'm an opponent of
more and more parking
spaces I'm in fact I've tried to encourage city staff to
review didn't
development code and consider eliminating the required
parking space so
justify 16 parking spaces for that particular site keeping
in mind I
realize you'll have that door on one side but you've got a
lot of student
population there that's gonna ambulate you know they're not
gonna drive so
taking that into consideration do you really think it's
gonna require 16
parking spaces to handle what you suspected is gonna be oh
absolutely yes
sir if we could possibly put more you probably would we do
get a lot of foot
traffic at this door from the college students but we get a
lot of car traffic
as well and we're experiencing issues now with actually
parking at the pumps
when they're not actually needing to get gas I'm including
those college students
who don't need to get gas and they'll just park there and
it's just holding up
parking or a spot or a fueling position for our customers
okay thank you yes sir
Commissioner O'Zell thank you chair Commissioner Beck I've
frequented this
quick trip and so I can tell you at about 740 745 in the a.
m. I am frequently
parking at a pump or leaving this location because it is
slammed packed
and so I can totally I understand and I'm typically with
you at the reduction
of parking a lot of places but I can certainly see a need
for this because
they're certainly missing out on business because their
parking situation
is really it's bad in the mornings it is crazy and I would
like to say we
actually would not want to add more parking you know just
cost extra you
know but it's just again dictated by customer feedback and
need and this is
actually as busy as it is we have two other den stores that
are far busier
than than this one so the one on May Hill is our best store
in Dallas Fort Worth
that is not a travel center so Commissioner Hespeth yeah I
just want
to add one nugget I am concerned a little bit about and I
know you're
adding an entrance there so maybe it'll fix it but just for
to add a note I'm
curious about the security features from behind the
building because you have the
yeah the day labor center you have the people I mean I mean
the homeless
population in Denton is just growing right so so they kind
of hang out so if
you're looking at the front door they hang out to the left
there on the side
of the ice machine and so now you give them access around a
building and so if
I have college students walking up let's say or someone
from the laundry mat down
I just I would just I don't know what that's what that
looks like in practice
I would just say hey I am generally concerned about parking
around back if
there's not lighting or some other things done to try to
and again there's
gonna be entrance there so it's gonna be going in and out
sure I just I do have
some concern not enough doesn't rise to the level where I'm
against it it just
is a concern no it's a valid concern and actually I'm happy
you brought that up
because about two years ago we went through a whole 50
million dollar
security project and every square inch of the store is
filmed and monitored I
think in Tulsa and I think one per every ten stores or so
is being watched at
same time and it's it's and I'm not exaggerating it's the
best in retail
the Federal Reserve actually came to us and asked us how we
can go about it for
banks we hired a former general who running our security
team and it's bar
none of the best security system there so we're bragging
about that but it's
it's absolutely true no and I don't disagree but this is a
little pet peeve
of mine sure I'm going to tangent you can go you can go to
the post office and
you have great pictures of people are looking for finding
them is a tricky
part so so the fact that you capture on video you know you
got I mean I wanted
to be more preventative then we have a video of them and if
you see them call
us yeah and I'm not saying that's your practice I'm just
saying I don't I take
little comfort and when people I mean it happens often but
it and so I'll say it's
a pet peeve of mine but people say hey I have a video
system and there's pictures
of them but you can't you know you got to get them and so I
just want to I just
want to I think y'all are on top of it and that's great to
know because then I
wanted to champion you know what y'all are doing and for
our community that I
think so I appreciate that commissioner back it wasn't
brought up but we you'd be
adding lighting in the back there yes sir okay thanks any
other questions for
applicant thank you sir for your presentation
since there's no one else in the room I'm gonna take it
that there aren't any
more speakers and I'm gonna close the public hearing and
open the floor for
discussion or a motion Commissioner Hesbuth I move approval
with the
conditions yes with the the conditions that staff is as
laid out okay
Commissioner Rozelle second okay we have a first and a
second for approval with
the conditions that are in the backup and that staff has
read into the record
with the first and second on any discussion or other
questions the only
question I have is when I meant to ask the applicant when
you were up you can
just shake your head were you okay with all the criteria
that we had for approval
conditions if you don't mind if you've got comment if you
'll give it to the
mic I'm sorry
thank you I thought about saying something on my way back
to the seat
we can comply with all of them the only one I would I would
ask maybe to deviate
from is to add the four extra trees the only reason I say
that kind of goes to
your concern as if you kind of look at the site plan back
there we kind of have
a bunch of trees there and with the kind of long crew
problem that we have at
that store we kind of don't want them hanging out behind in
that area
specifically not only that but in in for the future if we
want to expand even
more kind of expand to more so our current store if we're
able to acquire
more land it just would kind of make it easier on us just
kind of make it easier
for us to be able to develop and not have to remove those
trees as well I'll
follow up I think we have somewhere in here about moving
some existing trees
you know what size the existing trees are approximately I
do not not off the
top my staff would know how big the existing trees are
okay so you're moving for six inch trees you don't have a
problem with that
you're asking about for two inch trees adding those yeah
absolutely and really
I just wanted to state that even with their removing some
trees were still
five and square feet of square feet over the canopy on the
parking area and 48
hundred square feet as a whole for the entire development
so well over other
what dent requires okay I'll ask motioning Commissioner if
you want to
amend your motion for the four two-inch trees or leave as
is can I call Hayward
up was that absolutely yeah mr. Hayward
does eight inches of tree matter what which give me give me
your thought on
you like that awesome I'm proud of me well the additional
trees of course as
canopy to the city being an area where there's a lot of
traffic a lot of
emissions they help you know to purify their clean air so
of course it matters
because it's this future tree canopy for the city there are
a number of mature
trees on the site of alone that believes the south boundary
one thing when you're
looking at managing trees you look at you know having a
diversity of age of
your your trees on a site or in a city so as some of those
older trees are
dying off you have some of the younger trees to take their
place so it's kind
of a circle of life type thing we're having discussion have
you got a
military finish have you got another follow-up or comment
with Haywood no so
I'm just thinking out loud I'm gonna leave the four trees
but I would be
willing to have Hayward in the applicant discuss location
because I think his
point is valid and I take him at his word that if they're
expanding if
they're doing something to kind of place them where it's it
's user-friendly and
easy on them and still doesn't lower the requirement or a
request okay so you
were not going to amend the most we're gonna leave it as is
I think the site
plan had a designation for the trees went to I believe the
four trees have
removed yes but I'm saying if that if that location does
not work for the
applicant and there is a different location that the
applicant then is more
at peace with than they they can work that out okay I don't
know if that's we
have any concerns legal
the site plan for consideration by council thank you okay
no then I'll
leave it as is and just leave it okay thank you do we have
any other
discussion we have a motion and a second for approval with
all the
conditions that were listed as as in the backup and per
staff am I correct on
your motion that is correct and I welcome discussion okay
any discussions
before we take a vote on the board you know Commissioner
else thank you chair
I'll just say what I was going to say but I'm glad you're
not changing your
motion just you know what we need the trees here I mean we
were just you know
graded as one of the worst heirs in DFW I mean we need
trees you know so the
suggestion by staff I think is a good one to to add the
trees and I hope you
can do that and thank you Commissioner Taylor thank you
chair and I do think
there are opportunities but I'm just looking at the the
landscape plan as it
is now and the species isn't specified so they could be
smaller they could and
there are places along the road frontage you have a pretty
steady canopy but
there are gaps in the canopy and around the new parking
area there's a big
island it's about a 15 or 20 foot diameter island put one
over there and I
mean I just feel like there are places to put to plant four
trees of a medium
variety without adding to the forest behind the building
necessarily so those
were going to be my comments on it okay Commissioner Rizzo
to both Mr. Ellis and
Commissioner Taylor's point I I would might ask
Commissioner Hussbett to make
an amendment to free up it's my understanding that the the
motion on the
table right now would actually define those trees are
placed correct not the
new trees just the ones that are being relocated so the way
the motion has been
placed these four additional the site plan only delineates
where the trees are
to be relocated but the four new trees it does not have a
space for correct
it does it does it's actually eight trees total it's four
moved and then four new
those in the side plan that those are the relocated trees
yes sir those are
the relocated so the new trees they have discretion yes sir
okay then I take back
everything I I did want to staff did in there in our yes
yeah okay my only
comment is I'm gonna go ahead and vote for approval with
the conditions but I
do want to bring up for the applicants point they're still
25 percent and
they're only required 20 so they're above and beyond what's
required and I
know the reason for that was because of the parking number
of parking spaces but
as far as a minimum they are already above so with that I'm
going to call for
a vote hand sign all those in favor of approval with
conditions please raise
your right hand all those opposed same sign seeing none
motion carries six zero
for approval with the conditions congratulations and good
luck with your
project that will take us to our project matrix and conclud
ing items okay I did
get the request from the last meeting and I have
communicated that information
to Deborah Vieira in Earl's so you should expect an update
sometime in the
near future on the ESA request and also the the street
improvements I'm gonna I
want to gauge your interest for Trico because that is going
to be coming back
not for discussion but just for scheduling purposes we've
we are trying
to plan an additional work session before we bring the item
back for
consideration and I'm wondering do you guys want to do that
on a regularly
scheduled work session or would you be open to a special
call just for trees
I'm just gonna suspend the rules just we'll do discussion
yeah so my primary
thought on that is we need to in the legal world you take a
deposition to
nail down people's testimony right and I think so I
parallel that to the tree
ordinance I just I don't care when we meet my only
requirement and request is
that we nail down a meeting with the certain number of
developers and get
their thoughts captured because last time they came and
talked to us and
they were all over the place they didn't agree with each
other and I just want to
try to solidify that at least get it some sort of record
get them on record
before we have to then listen to them tell us how crazy we
are and and and and
it's not based on anything so I would like for staff to
meet and Heyward to
meet with them and pin them down and then at least we have
some sort of
record to say well on Tuesday you said and now that somehow
that's changed but
I just the fluidity is in my opinion the problem that they
kind of vacillate so
more we could pin them down and whatever that number is it
is but just to get
them static and then we can kind of move forward so I'd
like for staff to meet
with whatever developers to kind of get a feel for their
thoughts and then
before it comes to us I'm personally with Christian Oats
mith I can meet any
time it needs to be a special call it seems to make sense
to me just to do it
on a Wednesday before maybe it's selfishly but I have the
calendar of my
kind of Wednesdays afternoons blocked off but if I mean
given lead time
special calls fine okay okay yeah my preference would also
be just a work
session item instead of a special meeting okay and and we
if we know it's
coming and it runs over our hour and a half or whatever we
might have I'd also I
would prefer just to come in at 9 you know stay after the
meeting go back into
work session at the end then spread it out over a month or
two okay so you all
want a special session workshop and then you are wanting a
regular work session I
guess to clarify I'm just prefer to be on a Wednesday if we
need with the work
session up to four to accommodate that's on a regularly
scheduled day not
yes yes but I'm with the Commissioner Taylor I'm fine
pulling a late night if
if the Commission needs to meet at five and on a whole can
't meet earlier yeah
I think I'm the same and I think if we do some stuff on the
front end it'll
shorten a lot of the the conversations well having looked
at a preliminary
draft of it it's quite lengthy so we may need to do that
several times or we can
knock it out with just a special call workshop okay like we
did the oil and
gas so it's up to you all yeah I would think two hours two
hours and so if it's
okay we can just go ahead and do a full background for
Commissioner Ellis and
Commissioner Sullivan at that meeting and then pick up
where we left off the
last time does that make sense or do you guys have any
preference so so is it so
is it dramatically changed or is it similar to what we saw
in the summer
it's changed okay and so we're gonna have to reintroduce it
to the DCA the
developers is it what's the anagram for it BCDA thank you
in order to get some
feedback from them and then we'll bring it forward and and
do a page turn like
we did I think that would be helpful a page turn don't you
okay so do like a
three-hour work session on a Wednesday okay I think that
would be more
beneficial that way you're not coming back again and again
and having to stay
late again and again in just one work session not a series
well yeah and we'll
see how we stand at that point if we can get through it
okay
y'all I'm able to do a special call and try to get through
it not December right
this would be it's next year I can see your mind twirling
no we're not gonna
interfere with vacations so maybe a Wednesday where you don
't have a
regularly scheduled meeting but you know between go ahead
and do a special
session and this be after first year sometime January or
February right we
need some time to present it to DCDA to present to them or
present to us okay
so special call sometime in January maybe towards the end
of January between
our second and fourth like the third Wednesday that way
maybe the first part
you can get with DCDA and does that talk about calendars is
where I want to get
their calendar out right quick and kind of see what that
looks like that would
be and help me with that that would be January when are our
meetings in January
they said the 18th is actually not good for me yeah don't
we have a joint session
that's trying to happen with council in January - do you
have the new meetings on
your schedule I think and the January didn't she said 11
okay so we could do
it the 18th or the first I have a conflict on the 18th at 6
p.m. we could
do it February 1st and that'll give us the whole month of
January to get with
developers and get go back and forth on it well I think it
's reasonable okay
tentatively February 1st is probably gonna be a problem for
me so I'm sorry if
we cannot it's my daughter's 18th birthday it would be
really tough for me
to be here talking about trees which I love trees but that
would be a tough day
for me February 1st but everyone else is okay so could we
could we just not have
anything contentious on the January 25th agenda and so well
it's just that
council only has one meeting in January and so there's
gonna be a race for
everybody to get recommendations here to go to council so I
'm just thinking ahead
that we might have an issue so we'll get with you more than
likely sometime
unfortunately sound like maybe February and not the first
and we'll let you guys
get some dates and figure that out just one comment if I
could sure can we get
an update on the staff list there's a few changes in there
including this
Jarvis so we could get an update on changes so you need an
updated contact
list for staff anything else for our project matrix
commissioner matrix but
Merry Christmas and happy new year absolutely last meeting
here a good call
okay with that seeing none others I'm going to close our
meeting this evening
at 830 thank you everyone and again Merry Christmas happy
new year