Feb 22, 2017 Planning and Zoning Commission on 2017-02-22 5:00 PM

meeting for February 22nd, 2017. We do have a quorum present and this meeting has been duly posted and I'm going to call our work session into order at 10 after 5. And at this time I will turn it over to Manal for clarification of agendas. Thank you, Chairperson Strange. We do have four plots that are on the agenda. They're relatively straightforward. If there are any questions related to that we will call upon either Julie or Hayley to come and present those. Else we can dive into the other cases. Questions on the plaques? Super. The next item is a final replant. It does require a public hearing and it too is relatively straightforward. If there are any questions related to that we can go ahead and discuss it. If there are any questions of the Commission? Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. Is this the Hale State? Correct. Okay. Super. I do have one question. Okay. Should I just ask? Yes, please. Okay. They're going to break this down into two different lots when I understand. I'm assuming that because there are issues with ESA and FEMA floodplain that nobody's going to be building on that particular lot, but they will be building on lot one. Is that? Hayley, why don't you walk through the plot and with your cursor for the audience also identify where those flood plain issues and ESA concerns are so we can explain that to the Commission and the audience. All right. Yes. So lot one, block B is already developed with a single family residence. Oh, okay. And they are splitting off lot two, block B. And as you can see it does have a sizable area of zone, I think it's AE, floodplain on it. So there is a drainage easement dedicated for that. As well we have this easement in the back for a reserve pump, I believe that's associated with the pond that is to the north of this property. And other than that it's relatively straightforward, but they would be required to follow subchapter 17 and 19 development standards for being within the floodplain and an ESA, environmentally sensitive area. AE, is that a combination of zones or is that a single classification itself that deals with flooding over? It's a floodplain classification. By itself, just AE, not A through E. It's not a zoning designation. Okay. So is there room in this lot to build a single family home that won't conflict with what's there? Well, it depends on one, what their footprint is, two, are they, what their mitigation measures would be with the ESA if they were to choose to compromise the ESA, as it relates to the floodplain it would depend then on what it is they're proposing and it would go through the engineering department to make sure they don't compromise any of the requirements associated with that. Okay. At this time the request before you is purely to go ahead and create two lots of records. Okay. With no, no. At this point there is no, we have not been intimated as to what is being proposed. But the request is straightforward. It is not, it meets our technical requirements. Great. Thank you. Well, I'll follow up with a question. Can they actually build a lot or a house on that lot? I believe Earl is here. Earl, would you be able to guide us as to the floodplain ramifications or the zones rather? Earl asked for engineering. Lot two, the majority of lot two is really encumbered by this floodplain easement which begins here and ends here. So everything east or to the right of that line is all eas ement. So mainly your only developable area is this little triangular sliver here as is. Now however, you know, there is a potential that, you know, in the future somebody can come and reclaim floodplain through a Clomar and Lomar and such that. But right now as it is, as it stands, this is the only developable area that I see that's not encumbered by any easements or floodplain. Well, I guess that's kind of my question and maybe more just for information rather than anything else is the rest of the lot is clearly in the floodplain. I don't understand. I mean, I guess they can replat it if that's what they choose. But what the purpose is, if it's an unbuildable lot. We had the same questions and we spoke with legal and there is nothing in our code that says you cannot build a non- developable lot of zones that meets our minimum size requirements, area requirements. So there's a potential for reclamation and they choose to do that. Perhaps they'll want to sell it. We don't know, but at this point, as it relates to the technical requirements of subdividing the lot into two lots of record. Well, okay. I'm sorry to ask me a question. I have a lot of questions kind of living over in the neighborhood. People calling wanting to know if somebody is going to build another house there and all kinds of questions about the deed restrictions for that neighborhood. And I guess maybe legal can speak. Okay. Well, I'm going to withdraw my question as on advice of Lou because I do have a conflict. I wasn't aware I couldn't participate in the work session. I wasn't going to participate in the public hearing. I'll withdraw my question. Thank you. That's okay. We could do work session. Anyone else have any questions on this item? Thank you, Haley. Seeing none, Haley can and she's bringing her stuff with the next item is a public hearing request. Haley is going to present that item for us. This is case Z1629 for the CST corner store. The request is to hold a public hearing and consider a request by the property owners to rezone approximately .7 acres from neighborhood residential six to community mixed use general or CMG district as well as to rezone approximately 3.6 acres from a neighborhood residential mixed use designation to a CMG district. And the subject property is located on the south side of town along Fort Worth drive and generally at the northeast corner of country club and Hobson. So it has frontage on three roadways. Currently it is comprised of portions of two different parc els of land. There's a parcel on the north you see there with a single family home and then the vacant parcel on the south. And so just to give you an idea of what else is in this area. As I mentioned there's a single family home on the northern parcel. There are a few more single family homes on the southern side of Hobson Lane. The development directly across Hobson is an office park and then there's multifamily development as well as a Shell gas station across from it on country club road. So currently it is split between NR6 designation on the northern parcel and NRMU on the southern three and a half acres. The proposal is to take all of this to CMG. And the future land use for this area is community mixed use which promotes a mix of uses predominantly commercial but with complementary residential and service uses mixed in as well. It's meant to encourage a diversity of uses that can develop over time as an area redevelops. So some of the considerations we looked at. This rezoning would introduce CMG zoning into this area currently several hundred feet north on Fort Worth Drive before you would hit the next area where CMG district applies. This CMG designation would encourage appropriate commercial uses given the prominent hard corner location of this property. And CMG also conforms to that future land use designation of community mixed use. So staff originally we had reservations about this because it would create an isolated zoning district with this NRMU remainder that I've outlined in yellow. However we received an application from the same developers to rezone this remaining NRMU portion to CMG. We received that application yesterday. Just to give you an idea of how this development could look the general regulations between for CMG and NRMU district are very similar. Same lot coverage same amount of landscape area required same building height. So the NRMU portion of the property would develop in scale relatively the same under CMG as it would NRMU. We did send notifications about this and we received two favorable responses. Those were handed out before the meeting and those properties are outlined in green on this map. And then we received one response in opposition that was within that 200 foot radius that's directly across the street. You did receive a fourth response that I received today and that's from a person outside the 200 foot radius but they still wanted their concerns to be expressed at the meeting. So all of those were handed out to you. And with all those considerations staff is now recommending approval of this case. The CMG district does conform with that future land use designation and that application that we received yesterday would resolve our concerns regarding that isolated pocket of NRMU zoning. So we now feel comfortable with the recommendation of approval on this case. I'll stand for any questions. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you Chair. I think I'm going to have some questions in the public hearing. I would like to just clarify a few things. The first road improvements would the development that goes in here be required to improve the perimeter roads? I'll answer that one for you. Do we have any attachments? It looks like there's a whole little section about the roads. These are just in case slides. 377 and Country Club Road or FM 1830, they're both textile roadways so they will not be required to improve those roads. Actually those two roads are actually in process of being improved. 377 all the way down to, I can't remember how far down it goes beyond this side, but Country Club will be improved up to Hobson. And as part of the improvements on Country Club, this is Ho bson here, this is FM 1830. They're going to widen this area to provide a median in the middle, dedicated left turn lane for southbound 1830 onto Hobson. Left turn lanes along, I guess on 1830, left turn lanes on both sides of 1830 at the intersection of Hobson, right turn lane at Hobson. They're also going to build a dedicated right turn on west bound Hobson onto 377 as well. And that would all be textile? Yes, that's all being done by textile. And is that project, do we have a timeline on the project? It should begin, the utilities are being relocated right now and the pavement should begin shortly after, so we're thinking summer of this year. Okay, so yeah that was my street question. I'm sure we'll probably call you up out there to talk about this too. Now in terms of access to this property, they've submitted this conceptual site plan. They presented it to TxDOT for conceptual approvals for their dry-vary access points on one on 377, one on FM 1830. The one on FM 1830 is a write-in only, and the one on 377 is a write-in write-out because of the future, or if not future, but proposed median that's going to be built upon the widening. And as well as a full access driveway off of Hobson. Depending on the trip generation, they may be required to construct a left turn lane just because of its vicinity to the intersection, just to make sure they're backing up into that intersection for those left turn movements. Commissioner Beck. I'm glad to see they did make the change out because I was having a hard time not accepting this or going against the recommendation because it seems like if you look at it and you look at the future land use, you've got CMG in there all the way up, but you've got this block of NR6 in there right now. These are these kind of zoning difficulties we run into, and it's probably not appropriate for me to mention it here , but maybe the subcommittee I'm going to be on, this would be something that we probably should look at rezoning this stretch of Fort Worth Drive there that would accommodate, I would think, CMG. I just don't see NR6 being viable in that probably from about 300 or 400 feet out. So anyway, just my comment on that. Thanks. Commissioner Hutchbeth. May I borrow you one more time, Earl? I have a Hobson question. Has there been any assessment of Hobson, that's a city, that city didn't road, right? That's correct. So have we looked at that in preparation in these other advancements go in the text outroads, that Hobson road is fairly busy anyway, it's a way to shortcut that intersection. It's a narrow road, and if this station, let's say, takes off and there's lots of traffic there, have we kind of looked in advance to how long it would take us to go from planning to actually getting in front of that any traffic that would back up on Hobson? In terms of the actual project materializing to construction type? Yeah, just assuming that it works. Assuming that the gas, if we build, they'll come. All the improvements are in, the gas engine goes in. Yeah, and there's more traffic there. Have we looked at, if that happens, Hobson could be a nightmare. Potentially, the city tried to apply for a traffic signal at this intersection, but the tech site denied it because of its vicinity to the next intersection down, which is 377 and FM 1830, so they will not allow a signal at this intersection. In terms of traffic, I think that the construction of a right turn lane will alleviate a lot of that congestion because a lot of these, I guess that one vehicle that wants a turn left is holding off the rest of the road, creating that backup, but now creating, constructing that dedicated right turn lane should alleviate a lot of the current issues that they're having at this intersection, along with constructing a left turn lane on Country Club Road to get to the intersection. Country Club Road to get on the Hobson as well. That usually backs up into 377 during the peak hours. So, and as well, they're, they're constructing two through lanes past this intersection. So, on Country Club at the intersection. Right now there's only one lane past this intersection to turn left or straight. Okay, then give me, if we lived in Utopia from planning to actual road, how long would that take? Planning to actual road. Which road, I guess. Hobson. Hobson. So, let's say the station's in, we realize, yes, we need to widen the road, it'd be great, you can get to Eureka Park faster, all that fun stuff. From identifying, yes, we're going to widen, and it's approved to widen Hobson, to actually it being done. What is that, traditionally, what is that time frame? Widening of say Hobson Road from Country Club all the way to Teasley, for example. Sure. Making that a road project. Yes. Well, there's all kinds of complications with that because it depends on funding. Usually roads are funded through bonds or road impact fees. We just started roadway impact fees, so the pot of money on the road impact fees for this zone is pretty low right now. So unless we incorporate into a bond, next one being 2020, and say, for example, this road does get selected as part of the bond program. You know, 2020, then we're looking at 2023 to actual start a construction, because you have to account for design time . Got it. From the bond to actual construction. And based on prioritization, or correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand then you would also, depending on the bond , you would also prioritize what falls into your program and what is critical path at that point. Right. It's something if we were to forecast, we would one, have to have the conditions present to be able to forecast what needs to be done with that infrastructure improvement and then be able to put it on a critical path, depending on what the situation is on the right of way. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Bec. Thank you, Chair. Looking at this diagram here, are we making, does that look like we're making a right turn lane on Hobson to swing on to 1830? That is part of the text outlining plans. Okay. How far back from 1830 does that go? Yeah, it's going to go down. Are we looking at maybe the length of a football field? Or is it that long? Over 96 to, say, 500. So about 400, oh, well that's the beginning of the, so about 350 feet. Okay, it's about a football field. That seems like it would alleviate your concern there because that's where the backup would occur, I think, is people couldn't make that right turn. Yeah. So it's 350 feet at 20 feet per vehicle. That's quite a bit of storage. Okay. Thanks. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Earl. Sorry. A couple of things. Okay. So what is Hobson on the future mobility? What is Hobson considered? What type of structure? Hobson is classified as a four-lane divided roadway, two lanes each direction, with a median in the middle. Oh, that is the future plan of Hobson? Yes. I see. Can you go back to that site plan? Yeah, I got confused on where you were talking about right turn in. So, okay, so you have a right turn only off of Hobson? A right turn in off of FM 1830. That's a right turn only. Right turn in. Okay, okay. So they can't exit it back out. And then this one with a median, and there's not going to be a median opening here because of this median opening already there. This will only be a right in, right out. Okay. Now this one will be a full access driveway where you can turn left, left out, or right out. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this one just because that intersection is a nightmare right now. It is a nightmare. That's why there's so many lanes being built between these two intersections. I have to even question whether CMG is the direction we want to go on this particular corner. I guess I would have to ask, originally staff was not on board with this, and I kind of feel like you got strong- armed, so can you fill me in on that? Haley, can I field that question for you if you don't mind? Certainly. When we received this zoning request, and Haley's going to pop up the zoning map for me so I can show the subject property, the portion under consideration that was before you in your packet was what's in the pink area right now. Our recommendation was unfavorable, and our recommendation stated that we feel, from a land use perspective, that this hard corner should be looked at comprehensively, and therefore the entire track should be zoned CMG, because now you have a sliver of NRMU between the NR6 and the CMG. We voiced our concern to the applicant and let them know and inform them of our request, and they realized that, well, they could actually have this property under contract, and it made more sense to consolidate the zoning on the property. That is the reason why our recommendation, and we're so comfortable recommending favorably, because we have actually received a zoning change application for that piece too. Now, as it relates to the development and the infrastructure, so there are two tasks at hand. We do know that there is an intention to develop the facility with a fueling station, a C-Store, and a fueling station, if I'm not mistaken. So we have that basic info or schematic which has enabled us to prompt the applicant to visit with TextDOT and make sure just because of the ramifications associated with infrastructure improvement that TextDOT, this is the intention. So how does that impact the city and the city's right of way? So in terms of the land use analysis and zoning to CMG, the applicability or the appropriateness of the request exists just because of the uses permitted in CMG, and typically, given the right of way frontage, the types of street that there is frontage on for this subject site, it accommodates those uses well and can serve as a good transition ultimately when you typically see CMG along these types of corridors. And that's why, and based on the land use plan, that's why there was no negative opinion of staff as it relates to the request. When it comes to the infrastructure ramifications and what occurs at that point, obviously, if there are issues that cannot be resolved as it relates to ingress and egress of the site, as it relates to the peak hours of use of this site, then that is something that developability could be ham pered if they were unable to mitigate those requirements. And so you're saying the NRMU is going to be coming before us as well for zoning changes, is what you're saying? Absolutely. An official application has been made for NRMU. And so it is up to the commission then to choose which. Well, right, but effectively, right now, you're recommending this favorably. And then, obviously, the NRMU would be favorable as well because that was effectively the idea to get this one in a favorable light. Correct. And I guess my question is the CMG in this area at all? I'm having a hard time with that. I get you. I get you with what is already in the area, the amount of residents who are in the area. I mean, it's not Fort Worth Drive. It's a transition into Fort Worth Drive 377 and that, but that's not what it is, especially this NRMU shown here on this map off of Hobson. It doesn't have the same feel, in my opinion, as you make that turn onto Fort Worth Drive. Could you repeat your statement, Commissioner Ellis? I didn't understand. The NRMU piece off of Hobson, which piece are you referring to, the subject? Not the subject. Okay. The NRMU on here currently that I'm staring at. And even the subject, being that it does come off of Hobson , it doesn't, I don't get the feel that it needs to be CMG. I see. I understand. That this, that all of these parcels of land need to be that particular zone. I'm having a hard time keeping my head on that. I understand. Do you have a comparison of the uses and the future land use map and then the permitted uses in CMG and NRMU that we could do a quick comparison for? That should be in the backup that everyone received. There's a comparison chart of uses. I didn't incorporate it into the presentation, but it should be in everyone's backup. Yeah, it is. Okay, super. I just wanted to make sure you received that. Thank you, Commissioner Ellis. I appreciate it. Thank you. Appreciate it. Commissioner Talen. Okay. Any other questions on this item? Thank you, Haley. I've got an announcement right quick. We've actually on our public hearing tonight, we have two items. Our item D and our item E both have been withdrawn. I think on our agenda E was only withdrawn. D has also been withdrawn. So I just want to announce that for those that are watching that were planning to come this evening, I will announce that again when we go into council chambers. So that's going to move that we are only going to have one more item here to go over in our public. I mean, excuse me, in our work session, which is going to be item C. And I know this is going to be an item with I think a number of questions and discussions. So I think it might be prudent for us to take a break at 5 38 and get something to eat and then we'll start our presentation for C. So I'm going to call recess at 538 for food. You guys are about to get started? Yes, sir. Five, four, three. Welcome back. We will reopen our work session at five fifty and we're on item C and I'll call on Julie Wyatt for presentation. Good evening. Julie Wyatt, senior planner with the city of Denton and I am presenting the 1623 to you tonight. The location of the subject property is south of scripture. It's outlined here in yellow and it's between normal and Brian Street. It's made up of three parcels. The largest parcel and you'll see this in a minute actually has split zoning. The north side of the parcel has a DCG zoning district. The south side of the parcel has a DR2 zoning district. And the subject's property is approximately 1200 square feet from, not square, 1200 linear feet from UNT. That's about a five to ten minute walk. It's a little less than a quarter mile. So the request before you is to hold a public hearing and consider rezoning approximately 1.39 acres from downtown residential two, DR2, to downtown commercial general. That's DCG district. This map's a little, it's got a lot on it, but I wanted you to see how all of the zoning and the land uses work together. So we're going to go over this map and the surrounding area together. So first of all, to orient you, the property here is in the black. So this is the subject property. It's kind of hard to see, but here's where you can, where the split zoning comes into play. So this is the larger tract. This little bit darker green is DCG and here's your DR2. This tract right here, this property, is developed with an institutional facility. It hasn't been used in several years, so it's vacant. The other development on the subject property is a couple of houses. The adjacent DCG is developed with that institutional facility as well as some commercial uses. And then there's also a single family dwelling. So it's a mixed, this is a mixed use area. So you'll see that. To the south of the subject property is DR2. That area is developed with single family uses, with single family uses that are occupied as multi-family dwellings. And then multi-family dwellings, and then there's a couple of commercial uses. So that's a real mixed use area as well. To the north of the subject property, across scripture, you have NRMU 12. This is the Flow Hospital site. I'm sure several of you all remember the Flow Hospital. So there's NRMU 12 as well as some NRMU and NRMU 12 here. This is developed with multi-family. You've got single family. You've got office uses and you've got commercial uses. So that's across the street, across scripture. To the south, you're probably familiar, this is the University of North Texas campus. This is the Fry Street area. Beyond the immediate vicinity of the subject property, we 've got these traditional established single family neighborhoods. And these are predominantly single family development. They have a zoning designation of NR3 on them. NR3, just to remind you, doesn't permit multi-family development and it doesn't permit commercial development. There are two other additional areas I just want to point out to you in the vicinity. We have two historic districts. We have the West Oak Historic District here and then the Oak Hickory Historic District here. Then the properties with the solid pink have additional landmark designations. So we've got layers in this area and also a wide variety mix of uses. I also want to point out, before I go to the next slide, so the applicant has approached the city about this rezoning. Their intent, their expressed intent is to develop the site with multi-family dwellings. I just want to point out the existing zoning does permit multi-family. DR2 does permit multi-family as well as the DCG. There is a difference in scale. DCG also permits some additional commercial uses that DR2 doesn't permit. So just to let you know that. So now let's look at the future land use of the subject property in the surrounding area. This is in a neighborhood university compatibility area. The areas that are neighborhood university compatibility areas are parts of the city that are affected by the universities. And in this case, of course, it's UNT. So it's affected by that proximity to UNT. The intent is to create a compatible form and land uses that can serve both the university as well as the established neighborhoods. What we look for is a gradual transition in scale, use and character. We also want to encourage uses that are in close proximity to each other. So we do encourage a multimodal way of moving about to encourage that walking and bicycle use, create dynamic areas. Just to show what's then surround there is future land use because we kind of want to take a big picture look at the area. To the north, those areas that were the NRMU and NRMU 12, those are neighborhood mixed use per the future land use. And then beyond that, those areas that are the primarily single family traditional neighborhoods, those have a future land use designation of low density residential, which is that one to four dwelling units per acre that I know you all have seen a lot. So the considerations that we looked at when we did the land use analysis of this request is first we looked to see the criteria for approval in sub-chapter three of the Dent on Development Code. So the future land use designation, does the request meet that future land use designation? Staff determined that it does and for several reasons. The comp plan talks about and I know UNT talks about projected increases in enrollment in the university. And that those increases in enrollment are creating a need for additional housing, density, and also commercial development. So we want to look at all of the uses within DCG in close proximity to UNT. So DCG meets that criteria. The uses in the density in DCG foster that walkability, the livability, and the vibrancy of that public realm. The existing building has been in disuse for several years. Rezoning, potentially rezoning to DCG could possibly provide a catalyst for revitalization on this subject property. But we want to be care and we want to take care to be sensitive in scale. This area is surrounded by some of our single family urban neighborhoods. And we want to make sure that we're sensitive to those. And so when we looked at that, let me see. So in respect to the sensitivity to scale, I want to show you a map. So let's go to the next slide. So we looked at the location of the subject property. So here is the proposal. Adjacent to it, we have DCG. And then the surrounding NR3. So when we looked at the potential scale of DCG development and how that affects those surrounding neighborhoods, we looked at the zoning pattern and we saw it's surrounded by DR2, which provides a transition and a gradual reduction in the scale of development. We also looked at the NRMU and NRMU12 across scripture that provided that buffer zone and that transitional area between the development patterns associated with DCG as well as the uses. And the other criteria for approval is the adequate infrastructure. And those are questions that we will then go through during the site plan process and we will make sure that there's adequate right of way dedication and sidewalks and water and sewer. And that all goes during the planning as well as the site plan. Some site photos. I use Google Photos again because once again, they take better pictures than I do. But here is the subject property. This is Normal Street looking north toward the subject property at one of the houses associated with the request. It has been left off. And then this is the view of the property from Bryan Street . So this is looking north on Bryan Street. And then we'll look at my photos, but not good ones. These are some of the properties that surround the area. Another consideration that we looked at as we did our land use analysis is, and particularly after hearing from the neighbors during the two neighborhood meetings, was they had concerns about scale. And so in these mixed use areas, you do want to be sensitive to scale. And so we looked at the Denton Development Code and there are design requirements within the Denton Development Code that do allow or do put additional requirements on properties so that they maintain an appropriate scale with adjacent single family residential. So one of those is a minimum yard. Within subchapter five of the Denton Development Code, if a use is abutting a single family use, they have to have a minimum yard of 20 feet, plus one foot for each foot of building height over 30 feet. So what that does is as the building height goes up, the building has to move farther away from the single family use. Does that make sense? Commissioner Beck. In the diagrams that look like the building was starting to take a slow... We'll talk about that one in a minute. So these are different elements within the Denton Development Code. This is one where the minimum yard, so this does move the actual building. If the building gets taller, we'll talk about that one in just a minute. Also, there are landscape buffers. I know y'all are familiar with those within the Denton Development Code. If you have adjacent uses, we do require landscape buffer, for example, multifamily adjacent to single family requires a 10 foot landscape buffer. And this is a diagram from the Denton Development Code that shows what kind of plantings need to be within that buffer. And then the final thing is the residential proximity slope , which is what you are referring to. And I'm going to... Commissioner Tyler. Sure. I just had a question regarding all of this. So we're talking about these buffers and potential proximity slope, proximity side yard requirements to single family. Yes. So if you zoom in, I don't see any single... Where's the single family? Well... So would there be a buffer required anywhere? Because it looks like an apartment building, apartment building. So is that... well, those two houses... so is that single family or is that... This is a single family property that we're not sure if it is used as multifamily or used as single family. So during the site plan process, during building permit, as we go through that, if there are any adjacent... and really that would be the property. So if the zoning was approved, if they did move forward, we would have to make sure that if they are... If any single family uses that being probably... particularly on the minimum yard would be the one. Now, residential proximity slope is a little different. So did you want to add something to that, Manal? Julie, would you iterate again when we're talking about these parameters as it relates to scale and developability. These are criteria that are established in the DCG. Are they commensurate with those in the DR2 district as well? This would be required in any... for any development. And the intent is to make sure that when you have a mix of uses that the adjacent scale is appropriate. So thank you, yeah. Okay. So and then you would have, of course, across the street there's single family, maybe on both sides? There's some single family across scripture as well as across normal. And this... maybe this will answer some of your questions. So the residential proximity slope, the intent of that is to make sure it minimizes visual impacts of taller buildings when they're in close proximity to single family residential. And so it applies not only if the two uses share a property line, but if they're also across the street from each other . So in the... and this may be more applicable in this case because we do have some single family uses across the street. So here's how the residential proximity slope is determined . When you have a multifamily development, you would... you would end up building... if the building height exceeds 40 feet, then you would at the setback line measure up 40 feet in the air and then the building would have to be stepped back from that at an angle of 35 degrees in order to reduce the impact of the height of the building on the adjacent sidewalk and on the adjacent properties. So just... Continue. To continue the example, the 20 feet plus one foot per height would make a 60 foot mixed use setback. Or can we go back to that formula? Yeah. Is that... So if it was adjacent to a single family use... Over 30 feet. Over 30 feet. A 60 foot building would then require a 50 foot setback from that single family use. Is it measured from that 40 foot edge or is it measured from the top of the building somewhere further over here? There are two different elements. We have... the first... the minimum yard is how far away the building is and then the residential proximity slope is the stepped back from 40 feet in the air. Right. But they're co-mingled in that diagram you have. So I'm just trying to get... Minimum yard, is it based on the 40 foot edge or is it based on the maximum height somewhere else in the building? I'm not sure I understand the question. So let's say it's a hypothetical 100 foot building is being built. Right. It has this 40 foot maximum at the setback. Correct. And then somewhere over... away from the setback, it's taller. Yes. Does it have to have a 90 foot side yard? Because that's 100 minus 30 plus 20. Or does it have to have a 30 foot side yard? Let me see if I can answer it. If I don't answer it, maybe... we'll figure this out. So if... let me go back to... This was one of my just in case slides. I needed my just in case. All right. So for instance, if here's a single family use, if the building was 100 feet adjacent to this single family use, it would have to have a 90 foot setback. And the physical building. And then at that 90 foot edge, it would only be 40 feet tall. No. Well, yes, at 40 feet tall. And it would have to be setback for the residential proximity slope. So if any part of the building is 100 feet, it would have to have a 90 foot side yard? And this is... there's a huge difference in a 30 foot side yard. Only if it was... only if it shared a property line with a single family use. If it was across the street, that minimum side yard... that minimum yard would not apply. Okay. Did I answer your question? So if any part of the building is 100 feet, that's what... or whatever height, the maximum height of the building determines... Depending on the adjacent use. Yes. It all hinges on the adjacent use. So that's... again, so maximum height of the building adjacent to single family use is used determining the side yard requirement, not the height at the side yard. Julie, pull up that diagram again. I think we're talking somewhat the same thing, but we're not hitting... I guess we're not understanding your question. And this is a diagram just to show the residential proximity slope. So it doesn't conflate those two requirements. Well, it does... it makes you setback, which is the 20 feet plus 1 foot over 30. Yes. Yes. So... and that's my key... my question is, if it goes by just kind of the nearest edge, 40 feet, that creates a 30 foot setback. If it goes by the tallest point on the building somewhere else, it could create a... Then that setback could be much more significant. And so which way is the math calculated? I guess it would depend going back to what is the adjacency , so it would then render developability, right? Is what you 're... But you can't have a 100 foot wall... if you made it 100 feet tall here, that would be illegal. It would make you have a 90 foot setback, and then you still would have to have a 40 foot minimum height or maximum height. You're right. You could not have a minimum... you are... oh , I got it. Yes. So highest point. Highest point adjacency. Yes. Okay. Alright. So the highest point on the building determines the mixed use setback from a single family use. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Alright. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Chair. I'm still flummoxed a little bit about how we're talking about scale here. Okay. We're going to be talking about a five story building that 's going to be in close proximity to houses and two story apartment complexes. It's going to stick out like a sore thumb to me. I just... the scale is going to be... I don't see how you can get a scale that blends in with the neighborhood. So how do we even come to some understanding of scale when we're talking about a building that's going to be at least five stories high? Well, and that's really where the residential proximity slope comes in because it is intended for these mixed use areas where you do potentially have buildings that are taller than the adjacent properties. So the intent is to kind of visually mute those upper floors because you figure at 40 feet you're probably at the third floor. And so it's going to then be stepped back so that it's not as looming on the sidewalk. Okay. Commissioner Hussbett. Can we look at the future land use map again? Sure. Please, thank you. Okay. So darker blue and then it kind of transitions lighter blue . So help me understand this type of development at the end of the transition, right? Because here's what it feels like to me. We couldn't buy any property closer to UNT and so we found this and we're going to stick it here. That's how it -- but if I'm looking at how things flow, it should be tailing off there, not hitting stride. Am I reading that wrong? Well, but we already have. In fact, the end of it is already DCG. So really this is just a continuation of an existing zoning pattern that's there now. So -- and it's based upon the historical zoning and how this area has developed. So I hear you and we've looked at all of these factors, but due to the existing zoning pattern that's there now, this really is just a continuation of what's there. Continue. Okay. So let's take that approach. Well, I still would like -- I'll answer my question with a statement. I don't think we should be hitting stride at the end of the transition. But even that -- when I look at the comparison between -- the only bad things are not allowed, in my opinion, for that area, right? That's my humble opinion. When I look at the comparison, we're talking hotels, bed and breakfast, retail sales, movie theaters with SUP, restaurants, private clubs, bars. And so I don't -- as is, seems that it would accommodate whatever needs to be done. And transitioning opens a lot of doors. And so my question is, this is -- what is the height difference? Because that's the only thing not listed kind of in this chart. So what are we talking the difference in height from DR2 to DCG? Because I think it's important to also understand this area , right? Because the other apartment complex is on a hill. And so it kind of naturally kind of -- it's the first thing you see and it's on a hill. So as you're driving up a hill, it's kind of going uphill and it has just a different feel to it. It may be the same height, it may all be the same, but it feels different, looks different. By the time it levels out, that development levels out. So comparing apples to apples, what are we talking about height difference if we leave it -- if it's left as is versus where they want to go? DR2 permits 45 feet in height, a three or four story building. DCG permits 100 feet, probably about an eight story building. Give that to me again, I'm sorry. DR2 permits 45 feet, so three or four story building. DCG permits 100 feet, about an eight story building. And that's -- my math, that's double, right? Over double? Yes, sir. Outstanding. Thank you. Ms. Menard would like to make some clarification. Just to -- a point of clarification, Julie, if you would go to the zoning map or a map that reflects the subject property, keep in mind that, you know, the commission has raised questions regarding development and what has been intermitted to staff as to what is being developed. A portion of that property is already zoned DCG, which can go up to that height of 100 feet. There is a split zoning on the property. The overall developable property. So I wanted to highlight that so that it was clear to the audience and, of course, definitely I'm sure the PNZ is aware of this, that you've got property that is partially developable with DCG and a part that is under DR2. Commissioner Hutchins. Sorry, Margie. So just to be clear, they could -- then they could develop that currently and they could put their building there if they want, right? Correct. And we're not complicit in that. I mean, that's their decision. They can do it. They can squeeze it in. And we don't have to vote on anything. In terms of the land uses, the discussion that's before you tonight, the applicant is requesting a change in zoning primarily, if I'm not mistaken, and the applicant will be present to discuss it, is to consolidate the zoning on the property to have one like zoning so that they can follow the one single zoning design criteria. That is the intent of the request before you. In terms of the uses and the uses that have been discussed tonight, they're permitted by right. For that segment? For both the DR2 and the DCG zoning. Sure. Excellent. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Could go back to Commissioner Hutspeth. He talked about transition. And we've talked about this before when we've had some other projects come before us with that university transition. Can you give me the city's definition of what that looks like? I don't know if there is a specific definition because when you're talking about transitioning, and we all may want to jump in if we're talking about transitioning in our core, you know, in downtown, it's going to look a lot different than transition, say, on the loop, our more suburban areas. So in this respect, yes, the DCG permits 100 foot building. And then the adjacent NRMU permits 65, so that's stepping down. And then the NR3 permits, you know, 40 foot building. So it allows that building to step down. Additionally, the uses. You can also transition the uses. So the uses within DR2 and DCG have commercial uses. They have multifamily. They have, you know, the densities. DCG permits 150 dwelling units per acre and DR2 permits 30 dwelling units per acre. NRMU and NRMU 12 also have, permit multifamily with some limitations in SUP and also permits some commercial uses. So that also transitions those uses from more of a mixed use area down into that single family neighborhood that's surrounding it. So when we talk about that transition, that's what we mean here. In other parts of the city, it might look different. Okay, so we're talking about transition from the zoning. And I guess I was talking about transition with the university. Oh, okay. I can. All right. In terms of the future land use designation, we don't have a specific definition for the neighborhood university compatibility area. What we have in the Denton Plan 2030 is you have kind of the intent of what that is and then what the design guidelines look like. So when we look at a request, we look at the intent and these are bullet points that bring out what that intent is. And then we look at the zoning district and see if that matches it. So we don't really have a specific definition. And Manal, it sounds like she wants to add something to that. So we look at the dark blue and we look at the light blue on the screen. And I think that's where the query arises is , well, if this truly is supposed to be, yes, it is a neighborhood university compatibility area based on the confline. But it also reflects a transitional type fading in of uses or blending in of uses, perhaps lower scale, perhaps not. But that is the ultimate goal or the guiding tool. However, when you've got smaller parcels of land that are littered or that are dotted with specific zoning categories where there is an opportunity to consolidate, when you know the uses are pretty much like within that compatibility area, then the discussion pretty much hinges more on what is going to, what is the most beneficial in terms of compatibility of zoning district at this point. Continue. Thank you, Chair. Right. And I guess that's what's so difficult about this right now is because you think of transition out and you think of getting smaller, right? And so I guess we already have ourselves a problem just because of current zoning that sits on part of this land on scripture, because we could transition down and then it can bump up because it's allowed right now with the way it's z oned. So I think the hard part is if we now start creeping this way and allow this up zone in these two parcels, you know, are we now moving that transitional line? And, you know, does it become a domino effect and now suddenly the transitional line for the university is now at scripture? And then we're transitioning from there. So that's where my head is at the moment. Commissioner Taylor. Two kind of small technical questions. Do we know the square footage of the current DCG part and then the part requested to be rezoned? I don't have that information. DC, the current is about 1.7 and the current and the proposed is about 1.3 ish. So it's anywhere in there. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Clarification, how did we end up with a zoning split in the middle of a lot? I can answer that. You can. Okay. Thank you. Well, okay. I know a partial. This building that's there, that institutional use was built in the early '80s and it was built over a property line. And so at some point they consolidated and it matched the zoning at the time. At some point they consolidated that property into one lot. So the building was built over a property line over the different zoning districts and then at some point they consolidated the lot. And now they're proposing to consolidate the zoning. So yeah. I have one more clarification question. On the map, the way it's cut out, there looks like there is a parcel that sits on the corner of Bryan and scripture. Is that someone else's property? Is that going to be part of this? It would be a part of it if -- And it's already zoned? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Commissioner Beck. Thanks, Chair. I don't know what Commissioner Ells is talking about. I'm just trying to figure out how did we get DCG down at that end of this area? Because I don't mind the usages. I don't have any problem with the usages. I think that bodes well for us. But how did we get down to somewhere where you could build a 100-foot high building when you don't have that anywhere near that area? Or back the other way? So how did we -- and I know this -- it's a done deal in its history and everything. But back in 2002, they did this. What was going on in their minds? Here's what they did. The current zoning, during the citywide rezoning in 2002, they rezoned it based upon what was on the site. And in this case -- and then with the historical zoning. And this historical zoning here was all office. This was the flow hospital, and apparently it was a major -- it was the county -- it was a major hospital within the city of Denton. So this really was a note of activity, medical activity within the city of Denton. And a lot of these properties were pharmacies or doctor's offices, things that were associated with the hospital. So I think, you know, as the area has evolved, as the university has grown, as students have -- you know, as that population has grown, it's gone from that note of medical activity onto more of a center of a residential area. Okay. So some of it, the reasoning was based on how it would feed off of what was the hospital. Yes. I mean, that was -- that started before we had zoning. So there was farms and fields all around it. But still, there was the residential aspect of this whole area. Once we lost flow, we kept the DCG there anyway. Was there no -- again, it just seems odd to have not reflected the change once flow was gone, and we're left with that now. And I don't know the answer to that. And that's being used in part to justify adding on to it now. Right. I don't know the answer to why they chose what they chose at that point. Okay. Just thinking out loud there. Thanks. You all want me to finish? I'm going to make a comment, and I know we're getting close on time. Just kind of observation, I know we've had a project before us a few months ago at Fry Street. And there's a lot of conversation here on our commission about transitions. And I guess just kind of my throwout on the table of the commission is that as these projects continue to come forward, we had a project that was proposed smaller in scale, closer to the university, and it was -- you know, there was not support for it. And now we have a project that's currently zoned that's farther away. And I don't know as a city how we get to a place of where is the appropriate place to build them, because when somebody comes before us and wants to do it closer to the university, it's a no. And they go to somewhere that is zoned for the most part, the biggest part of it, that can be considerably taller than what was before us. And it's a no-go there. And I struggle a little bit as a commissioner going, well, how do we find some consensus here for people to be able to provide some student housing? Where is it? If it's closer over to Oak Street, the historic district is even more upset about it. If it's farther away from Oak Street and where there's commercial properties, it's no good there either. And so I just want to point that out that at some place we 've got to find some consistency, I think, as a commission of what we are going to do or where we are going to go. So people that listen to our meetings that go back and look at properties and bring projects go, well, we don't want it closer to Oak Street. We'll go somewhere -- I don't want it -- it's too far away and not a transition. It's a little bit of a contradiction for folks that are trying to do business as a commission to give that mixed message. And so, you know, it's currently zoned. And I want to pose a question. Do we know what height that they're proposing to build on there? Do we have a guide into that particular -- I'm sure as far as they are, they've already got plans. And I know we can't consider that as part of our motion unless we know that they already have some other plan that we can put a cap or something like that. An overlay. It can't be a maximum height. Do we know how tall the building is that they're currently proposing? >> Chairperson Strange, I'm sure the applicant will have information related to that. We understood that what the use is with the intended use or the primary use of the property that it was permitted. So we didn't tackle the height of the building. As you are aware, there is significant commentary from our community as to what they think of the use. Again, we had to be very considerate of what the request was before us. So I'm sure the applicant will have more information as it relates to specificity associated with their project. And with that, if the commission is looking at adding or incorporating some type of, as you mentioned, a cap or an overlay for the lack of a better word, restriction, then that is the opportunity that the commission can discuss as well at regular meeting probably. >> Okay. Quick question before we close. >> Quick question. Quick response pretty much to what you said. I understand that that makes it difficult when we have this kind of assessment for us. But part of what needs to be incorporated in here and Manal tapped on it is the area specific has to be factored into. The north side of the UNT campus is distinct in ways that other areas around the campus are not. I love this design. I love these kind of buildings. I think we need this kind of density. I just think there's a lot of other places it could go. So that's kind of the conflict I'm having with it there. Yeah, technically it's on that way. But look at the area where you're going to do that. It's going to have, in my opinion, more of a negative impact there than it would say over on Eagle or west of there and stuff like that. So that's why I'm raising some questions. >> Those are some of the elements that perhaps the commission can look at. But from a planning division standpoint, we purely looked at the request itself, which was a request for a change in zoning. >> With that, I'm going to close our work session at 628 and we'll reconvene as quickly as we can in council chambers. >> Okay, everybody quiet. We're about to start. Okay, starting in five, four, three. >> Good evening and welcome to the City of Denton Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for February 22, 2017. This meeting has been dually posted and we have a quorum present. And I'm going to call our meeting to order at 645. Our first order of business will be to stand and give the pledge to the U.S. and Texas flags. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. On the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all. >> I want to apologize to everyone that we've gotten a little bit later start this evening than we were scheduled for. We have a number of changes to our agenda this evening. First, I want to announce that our items D and E have both been postponed and continued to March 8th. >> Do you have a comment? >> Of the public hearing, item four, D and E. So if you're here for those items, we want to let you know that rather than sitting through the rest of our agenda. And with that announcement, we will move on to item 2A and chair will entertain a motion on our minutes of February the 8th. Commissioner Taylor. >> I move approval of our minutes. >> Commissioner Beck. >> Second. >> Okay. We have first and a second for approval. Any discussion? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion carries 5-0. That will move us to our consent agenda. Chair would entertain a motion on our, Commissioner Beck. >> I move we approve consent agenda. >> Okay. Commissioner Ellis. >> Second. >> Okay. We have first and a second for approval. Any discussion on the consent agenda? Seeing none, I'll call for a vote on the board. That motion carries 5-0 as well. That will move us to item 4, which is our public hearing sections. I, as chair, have a conflict of interest on item A as I own property across the street from this item. So at this time, I'm going to step away and recuse myself and turn the dais over to our vice chair, Commissioner Taylor. >> I hear all your cards. >> Good evening. Our current item is public hearing 4A, FR16-0023, a public hearing considering a request for final replat of lots 1 and 2, block B of the Hale Estates. Do we have a staff presentation? >> We have to open the public hearing. >> I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I will open the public hearing at this time. >> Haley Zikorski, our planner with the planning division, a quick presentation related to this final reply. And the applicant is also present, vice chair. >> Yes, FR16-23 is a replat of lot 1, block B of the Montec ito's addition. And they're proposing to plot this one lot into two. It would be lots 1 and 2, block B of the Hale Estates. The property is generally located at the corner of Santa Monica Drive and El Paseo Street. And I can answer any questions. >> Do we have any questions of staff? >> I do have a card from the applicant. Is Steve Hale in the audience? Would you care to come forward and speak? >> Sure. >> And please state your name and address when you get to the podium. >> Steve Hale, 3401 Santa Monica here in Denton. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for allowing me to speak. I think I need to speak not only to you all, but I think I see some of my neighbors out here, which have come, I guess . Would you all mind raising your hand if you're here on this deal? I know Doug and some of you folks. I appreciate you all coming out. If I know there's such an interest, we would have talked about this at the last Christmas party. >> If you could speak into the microphone. >> But we didn't get an invitation for it, but if you all had one. But anyway, just want to briefly, you know what we're doing here. We're trying to split the lot. When Karen and I inherited, and that's my wife Karen right there, we sort of inherited this property about nine years ago. And we knew it was a pretty good size. And we knew it had a dam on it. And the property includes the dam and a good portion of that pond down there, I guess, if you're all familiar with that. And -- excuse me. For the first couple of years, it was kind of fun. A lot of room back there and a lot of things to do. But over the years, it's turned into a little less fun and more expense to maintain all that property back there. I don't know if many of my neighbors are aware of this, but these Texas -- TCEQ, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, has oversight over that dam. And I get a report from them every couple of years. They come out and do an inspection and so on. And anybody that had been dealing with them for several years on this thing had mentioned it from time to time to some of the neighbors, but they don't seem to be too interested in that issue. The last report I got from the -- last year from the TCEQ is requiring engineering studies of the dam, is requiring an emergency action plan, all this kind of stuff that we're going to have to be out of pocket for quite a bit, hiring engineers and so on to have all this stuff done back there, probably costing anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 to get all this thing brought up to their requirements. So we decided it's been more work than we wanted to do anyway. I'm tired of going back there and having to pull out the branches that the beavers bring in every night, every day when I get home from work. And it just turned out we're not getting younger. So we thought one of the things we needed to do was see if we could just divide the property and get it sold. We spoke to a builder in the area, and he was interested in looking at it as a lot. And so I told him, I said, before we go any further with it , our neighbor across the street, across El Paso, Kevin Nelms , had expressed an interest a long time ago about buying the property back there if we were ever interested in selling. So I went to Kevin and I said, this is what we're thinking about doing. And he said, yeah, he'd be interested. And he decided he'd like to buy it. So we did a handshake on the deal. And that was eight or nine months ago. And I didn't realize this process took quite so long. But Kevin is still interested. In fact, Kevin's here. I did get a call from one of the neighbors the other morning, a fellow we know, and he was interested in knowing what Kevin's going to do with the property. I told him I had no idea about it. He understands what's going on. I've shared all the information from the TCEQ with Kevin. Kevin has the ability and the wherewithal, and he's younger than me and all that, to go in there. And he has crews with a lot of time to go in there and fix that dam up and take care of what needs to be taken care of . I'm not as interested -- I know that everybody's interested in knowing what Kevin's going to do back there with that property. But to be honest with you, I'm less concerned about what might happen if he wants to build something back there, even though the property is all flood plain now. I think it's been -- the way that it's been redone, it's all flood plain. So I don't know what he could build, but my main concern is for the people who are downstream. And that dam needs to be fixed, and it's going to be very expensive, and it's going to be very time consuming to get all that work done. But Kevin happens to be the first person who lives downstream from that dam. So he has the most vested interest of anybody in the city of Denton as to what's going to happen with that property. So Kevin definitely has an interest in making sure that the dam is repaired so it doesn't breach and flow down and damage his property and so on. But anyway, I think at that point, that's all I have. And I think Kevin's going to speak here in a little bit if somebody has any questions as to what his plans are. Do you all have any questions of me? Yes, we do have one question. Commissioner Beck? Thank you, Vice Chair. I appreciate you coming down and speaking, Mr. Hill, and I empathize with your situation here, getting kind of stuck with that. And I don't blame you for it. But it was kind of puzzling to us, you know, why the split was there and the fact that there isn't much you can build on because it is a flood plain. So I hope Kevin does indeed have some good plans for it because first I'd like to see you get off the hook from it. And perhaps this piece of land serve a useful purpose. Yes. Well, Kevin's kitchen window looks out onto the property. So that's what they look at all the time out their window. There just happens to be a street between him and this property. And that's about it. Have you approached the city at all? Maybe they might have some interest in it as a small park or something? No. I spoke with your emergency planner, your emergency guy, Mr . Pena. Anyway, one time when I was trying to work up this emergency action plan myself and he didn't seem to express any interest in the property. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hill. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing and I have several cards already. If anybody would like to speak either in opposition or support of this issue, please fill out a blue card and give it to our secretary. Our next speaker is Kevin Nelms. Please come forward and state your name and address and you 'll have four minutes to speak. My name is Kevin Nelms. I live at 3403 Shadowbrook Court across the street from him . Is that's all my name and address? Okay. And people are wondering what I want to do with this. Well, first of all, like Steve says, I look out and it's not very pretty right now because there's a bunch of trees falling down. There's trees over the dam. And now we were scheduled for the agenda for selling 40 acres over on Mayhill Road. That's my farm over there and I've got a bunch of equipment . I've got the people. I've got the resources to fix the thing up. And basically what I want to do is look nice. And my little eight-year-old, he likes to go over there and play. And people are dumping rocks over there and everything. I just want to make it look nice. And I really don't know what I want to do with the property . But I just want to get it cleaned up and I can get a nice view across the lake. There's a bunch of trees that need to cut down. There's a bunch of trees dying. And that's it. Does anybody have any questions? No questions. No questions. Thank you. No questions? Okay. Thank you. Thanks for hearing me. And our next speaker is Douglas Ebersole. I'm Doug Ebersole. I live at 3210 Montecito Road. And my property backs up on the lake. We have a view of the lake and the dam. First of all, I'm surprised there's such an absence of history about the lake. This goes way back. We lived there since '84. And the neighbors behind that came there before us have worked hard to maintain this lake for decades. As a matter of fact, the person who used to live in their house used to have to go down to Austin with several neighbors to protect the lake and the dam from the desire of the Texas Resources Commission to tear it out . And it's no secret that the Texas Resources Commission as well as the city of Denton would like that dam gone. It would solve their -- it's a dammed up drainage easement. But we established grandfather rights for that with the Resources Commission. And it's passed on. And now when I moved in, six months after I moved in, the dam washed out. That was a total surprise to me. So the first thing we did was form a neighborhood association of the lake owners back in 1984. And we got together. We had meetings. And we pooled some funds, hired an engineer to rebuild the dam. And we have rebuilt it at least four times during the time I've been there. And I've been the instigator of that all this time. I have led that group. And I established the Homeowner's Association and led that up until about seven or eight years ago when I dissolved the association. But we had done a lot of work on that as a cooperative group. And I'm surprised that what is happening here -- this is my first knowledge of it a week or two ago. And absent any information that they might have sought to talk to the neighbors about and clue us in what you want to do there, I have to oppose this because this would subdivide -- this is subdividing a lot in Montecito. This lot -- this addition was established back in the '60s by Bob Nichols after Montecito in Santa Barbara. And these are large lots. They're large lots inside the city limits. It's a unique place. It has character and qualities that you don't find anyplace else. And to subdivide this would set a terrible precedent, which this could be done anyplace in the subdivision, behind my house, behind other houses. And I have multifamily or SR3. Who knows what could happen. And this would be a terrible precedent in my opinion. Finally, in subdividing this to sell it off because there's a problem there. Well, eight years -- actually, I think last time I got the city to come down and clean that easement out, it was four years ago. It was -- you think it's full of trees now, it was really full of stuff then. They cleaned that whole thing out and regraded the whole ditch there. And that was because of me. I persuaded them to come down and do that. We've had the lake dredged before. The city has participated in that and dredged it all the way up to Hobson Lane. The easement -- there's been a lot of cooperation and participation over the last many years. And because we haven't done anything lately, it's because I didn't know if there's any big issues. The dam has held and that's really remarkable. And it's really a credit to the people who got together as a neighborhood and designed it and engineered it and funded it. This has all been paid for by neighbors who have cooperated . This is history that some people don't seem to know or appreciate. But finally, relinquishing control bothers me a lot to rel inquish control of that area with the dam to someone who does not live on the lake. Now, this is a verbal agreement. There's no contract. What you say you're going to do, I don't know that. But I would hate to see something built down there in the floodplain that had to be elevated and tower over the lake. Plus, giving control to someone who doesn't live there, you may pass it on to somebody else. And if it gets turned over to the Texas Water Resources or the City of Denton eventually, you'll take it out because it makes our job easier without that dam there. And then that would be turned into a big snake pit back there, which would happen. It's happened before. The lakes have been washed out many times. And it's not pretty when it happens. This is meaningful to the whole side of town, to the whole neighborhood, not just the lake owners. That needs to be preserved and maintained and not subdivid ed. Thank you, sir. Our next speaker is -- we have some -- I'm sorry, we have some questions. Should we -- would it be okay if we finished the public hearing, or do you want to give the comment now? Okay, so Commissioner Hudspeth. Thank you, Acting Chair. Earl, may I borrow you to put up the graphic that shows -- and kind of demonstrate what's available as is so that we can frame what can be done on the property and kind of understand what's available to whoever would buy that parcel. Let me see if I can -- I'm sorry, let me see if I can clean this up, too. Thank you. I don't know why it's grayed out like this. That's not it. [inaudible] Can I just close on that? Good evening. My name is Earl Escobar, Engineering Department. Trying to zoom in to help pinpoint what exactly is not enc umbered by easements within this lot, too. And if you could follow my cursor. I think you had a -- in work session, you had one that was kind of zoomed in. Right. And that's the reason this program's not letting me zoom in . Got it. Well, maybe. That didn't work. I apologize. Okay. But if you could follow my cursor, this little triangular area is pretty much the only portion of this lot that's not encumbered by any easements, drainage or utility or whatnot. And if you had to give me a round number, since it's harder to see, round number -- amount of space that is? I would say it's about a -- I don't know, say 40 by 100- foot area, triangular-shaped area. So of everything in that, you were talking round numbers, not holding you to it, 40 to 100-ish space that's available that's not -- That's not encumbered by any floodplain or easements. Right. Okay. That's deemed developable. Got it. Thank you. That's helpful. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. Mr. Ebbersol, can I get you to come back down, sir? Can I get you to come back down, please? Thank you. I understand your concern here, and I appreciate you sharing that information you did, because I wasn't even aware there was a lake over there. That's just the tip of the iceberg. Yeah. But my question to you would be, how do you alleviate the situation Mr. Hill is facing right now, the financial burden this is, if he can't split this property off and sell it? I understand your concern for it, and I empathize with you. But I find myself empathizing with him, too. So how do you reconcile that? Is there a way to get -- First of all, as I just said, I worked with the city drainage department to have that cleared out, I can't remember, it was three or four years ago, and cleaned up, and they graded the entire easement there between El Paseo and the dam. It's totally regraded and cleared out. Now, nothing's permanent. Everything changes. That's an ecosystem that keeps on changing, so it needs constant attention. But the neighbors, like I said, we had a homeowners association, we got together over 20 years to rebuild, design, build it. The house on the corner behind you, across the lake, half the dirt on their property was brought out of the lake, same way on the lot next to you on El Paseo there. That was all fill, it was taken out of the lake because those neighbors cooperated and let us put it there when we cleaned out the lake and dredged it. And this is all done at our expense. And the neighbors cooperated to do that, and that would have to be done again. I've done this for decades. I'm not the person to spearhead it again. We need younger people to do it. That's how it happened before, and it should happen again. It's first my knowledge that you've been spending some money on it and to maintain it. I didn't know that. If I had been made part of the loop, then I would have helped and got neighborhood support. That's how it's happened. That's how it happens to other neighbors around the city. Well, I agree. I think if you could get this organized again where everybody could pitch in because it just -- Well, we've done it. We've done it since 1984 and before I got there. But it's nonexistent right now. Is that correct? Okay. And right now the financial burden to maintain it is falling on Mr. Hill. It's not clear to me what that burden exactly is right now. Okay. As a matter of fact, we had -- I paid a guy to go down there and fix the dam last summer. He took the boards out and rewelded the sides of the dam there. And I paid -- my next door neighbor and I paid for that. I got it. Yeah, you did. You paid a third of it. I'm sorry. Yeah. The three of us. That's the only three. There's 11 property owners on the lake. I didn't even bother to talk to him about that because it wasn't that big a deal. Well, it puts us kind of in a quandary. It seems to vote on something that has some benefit and it could probably be salvaged if everybody pitched in. But unless that happens, the onus falls on Mr. Hill at this point. So I don't know how we reconcile that here tonight unless we just don't vote on it. Well, I don't either because this is -- up until last week, I had no idea about this. Okay. Thank you. So this is a public hearing. Anybody that wishes to speak in favor or against can submit a blue card. I have two more cards wishing to speak. Michael Doransky will be followed by Weaver McClure. Doransky at 2911 Montecito here in Denton. First of all, I don't think we'd kind of be here today if we'd actually had probably a neighborhood meeting to discuss the issues with this property or the issues that they're facing with this piece of property. But we didn't have said meetings. So a lot of times for -- like with Doug and I, we're hearing a lot of these things for the first time. And I'm sure a lot of people are going to get hurt tonight in their feelings of opposition or for this piece because we did not have said meeting ahead of time for this. So we didn't have a neighborhood go, okay, we are all for this or all against this, but it still has -- it got to this point. Our subdivision was founded with a set of covenants and number eight of those covenants was says you just cannot subdivide the properties. And that's exactly what's going on here today. And regardless of these pieces, if we allow them to subdiv ide, that's not -- that will then set a precedent for other people to go, well, they subdivided, I want to subdivide. And now other properties could just get torn down with these lots that are three to five acres in size. And you could put a ton more houses in just by tearing down one house and continue to build out if we allow one person to subdivide and allow then other lots to be subdivided by setting that precedent. The subdivision would never look the same. And as Doug has pointed out, it's a very unique area and the people there have a love for that area. And I think that it's within our best interest to maintain the integrity of what the covenants had established that these properties would not be subdivided into these pieces. And as, you know, I understand Kevin's point that he wants to go out there and he wants to see the view of the property. And as Doug has pointed out, being neighborly, if he wants to provide his own equipment to clear out these property for him, I'm all for that. But I still don't believe in subdividing this property. And as Doug has pointed out, this property has a dam that encompasses it. And as he's informed me and I assume others, the city as well as the state of Texas does not want to maintain that dam and you don't want that dam at all. As part of that, if whatever is in this floodplain, the lake could then be drained and then some of that property would then fall out of a floodplain, allowing it to be further developed into whatever that small sliver into a larger piece or to whatever could be elevated off of there. And when you drain or remove this dam off of there, the property is further on down there. We'll probably experience, I would assume, some larger ebbs and flows if we have heavy rainfall because that dam just provides like a current or a coupling or what if you want to call it to prevent said water from coming down there because the lake allows water to fill up without rushing down further off of there. So in conclusion, I would ask that the board deny the repl at and maintain the integrity that the covenants originally had established to not allow other subdivides in there. And again, it would just set a precedent for other people to want to do the same thing or for a new home builder to come in and buy one piece of property and then be able to build five houses or so on that one piece of property. I think the wildlife is important to maintain around there and that could completely disappear depending on whatever Kevin decides to do. If he decides to sell it to somebody else after he's got what he wanted for a view or if something should happen or it goes further down the line, I don't think there's any type of guarantees that the people who live there can get that would maybe reassure them that this is fine because again, if comes further down the line that people could then subdivide their own property or a home builder could come in and ask for the same same considerations that they're asking for. Thank you. So weaver McClure will be followed by Cassandra Cornell. My name is Weaver McClure. I'm 3100 Carmel. I'm in the Mont ecito Addition Block C. In 19, I don't know if you're familiar with the deed restrictions on this property, on this property in the Mont ecito Division. There was a deed restriction Bob Nichols did back in 1965. It was amended in 1966. The deed restrictions restrict subdivisions of lots into smaller lots unless there's like 300 front feet to the street. I don't think on Santa Monica there's 300 feet in length or maybe, but I think on the side of El Paso there's probably more than that. So I guess it could be subdivided by the deed restrictions. I'm in opposition to it unless the deed restrictions pass along with, you know, with your approval. The way it looks to me like the deed restrictions for Mont ecito Division is there now. If it's replatted, is that going to lift the deed restrictions that we have on the whole Montecito Addition? Because the way I'm reading this, it goes from Montecito Addition Lot 13 Block B to the Hell of States Block, you know, Lot 1 and 2 Block B. So that's a question that I have and I haven't got an answer so far. Well, I think it's because the city is prohibited by state law from enforcing any kind of restricted covenant that might be on the property, which includes your HOA bylaws. So we can't enforce those bylaws. We can only look at the application as it sits in front of us. So we don't have control over that. That would be a separate civil action that you would have to undergo that separated from this. Do you know if you replat it though, if that deed restriction, since you're changing the name of the subdiv ision to Hell of States from Montecito Division, what that does? Does that take it out of the Montecito Estates Addition? No, it would still be in it. Even though it's called something different? I don't know. Because it's a replant of a specific lot within the Montec ito Addition, it still remains within that parent subdiv ision plant. So it's not being removed from that parent tract. However, as it relates to the implications of the deed restrictions that you're referring to, that would be between the, whether it's your HOA or neighborhood. Deed restriction committee? Exactly, to discern what your bylaws are as it relates to replanting property. Okay. Any questions? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Cassandra Cornell. And that's all the cards I have that wish to speak. If anybody else would like to speak on this matter, please fill out a blue card. Hi. I'm at 3200 Montecito. I live next door to Mr. Ebersole. And I just wanted to let you know that when I bought my house 15 years ago, it was made very clear to us that under no circumstances were we ever allowed to subdivide our lots . It was a declared bird sanctuary. There's a lot of rare species that live there. And we really, really protect and guard our lake. I believe that maybe in this case there is a miscommun ication because I do know that 15 years ago we also knew as neighbors that if anything were to happen, we all worked together to take care of our lake and to take care of our animals and birds. And I think that maybe through just attrition of properties that that didn't get relayed somehow. But I do know I've seen pictures of neighbors digging in the mud together to take care of it. What I don't understand is wanting to divide the plot because essentially you would be buying a burden of just the dam and a floodplain. And what concerns me is, is there may be good intentions there for now, but if anything were to happen to that owner , who's to say that they wouldn't do something to control the dam and with that dam they would destroy all of those animals and birds and everything else. We protect. It is a very rare treasure to live there and I plan on finishing my life there. My husband is a cancer survivor and we chose to live there because of the peace and it would really break my heart to see our wonderful neighborhood be destroyed. Thank you. Thank you. I do have three cards that were submitted that did not wish to speak and I'll read those into the record now. Mike Murray at 3211 Santa Monica Drive in Denton is expresses his opposition. Jan McClure at 3100 Carmel Street in Denton expresses her opposition. Arlie Holstrand at 3110 Carmel Street in Denton expresses their opposition. This is a public hearing. If anybody else would like to speak on this item, please come forward now. I'm sorry, sir. You've already you've already spoken for your four minutes. So if anybody else would like to speak on this issue. Seeing nobody else I will close the public hearing and open this for discussion. Commissioner Beck. Thank you, Vice Chair. I guess we need clarification here as a commission as really what to do here is a simple up or down vote. Are we still just looking at voting on whether to allow the property to divide or we're looking at other legal consequences that will affect this? So help us here as far as the vote goes. What exactly are we? Let me let our legal counsel advise us. Thank you, Chair. You're solely looking at whether or not it should be subd ivided, replatted based on our technical requirements. We don't really have the discretion to bring into whether or not there is some sort of civil dispute between adjacent property owners. So the only thing that we're looking at is whether or not he can make it a lot of record. We're not looking at the sale. We're not looking at anything else. Just whether or not he can make that a lot of record. Which if it's met all the technical requirements, which the staff says that it has, then there's not much discretion to be had in that. So can we move to either approve or deny? You either approve or deny. Okay. Unlike the objections in say a rezoning case, there's nothing that triggers any kind of supermajority requirement or anything as far as objections are concerned. Okay. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Vice Chair. I guess my question may be staff legal. Okay. So a replant and a subdivide is one in the same? Correct. Okay. In this case. Sorry? In this case, yes. And with staff looking at this, deed restrictions are not considered when this is being looked at. So any plat can be replatted? So long as it meets the technical requirements of the city, yes. Can you enlighten us on the technical requirements? Sure. Thank you, Chair. The Denton Development Code has specific subdivision requirements. In this instance, because this is a replant of a resident ially zoned property, that is why it is a public hearing in this manner. Notices are sent within 200 feet of the subject site. And it gives an opportunity for the community within that subdivision to come forward and voice their opinion. As it relates to the technical requirements, the elements that are looked at are the zoning district criteria, the minimum lot size, which is primary in a residential subdivision, the engineering department, because they're just making sure that the necessary or pertinent easements are reflected on the site, which, as you can see on this lot too, if I'm not mistaken, is the lot that's being questioned right now. And again, those technical requirements, there is no development occurring at this time. There's a large swath of drainage easement and floodplain on the property. They are not mitigating or compromising any elements associated with the subdivision ordinance at this time. The issue at hand, I think, before the Commission right now is the concern associated with deed restrictions that the surrounding property owners have mentioned, which we do not enforce. And of course, zoning remains the same. Zoning remains the same. The lot and the lot size as it relates to the zoning requirements of that subdivision are intact in the sense that they've not been compromised. So the minimum lot requirements for lot one and two are intact. Commissioner Hutsmith. Thank you, Chair. Menal, can you help me understand the environmentally sensitive area? What protections does it have, changes to that but for that one swath of land, changes to that if the lot's separated, changes to that new lot, would that come back before us? Is that body of water protected? Sure. Commissioner Hutsmith and Commission, one of the elements that we would consider, that we would be required to consider as it relates to development of that property in the sense if it were to go vertical with a residential structure, then if there is a environmentally sensitive area on that subject site, our environmental team would review and see what mitigation measures would have to be put in place to protect and protect the property. And provide any necessary mitigation. That is referred to as an alternative environmentally sensitive area. In order to do that, you have to go through the public hearing process. It is a dual public hearing process, which means that the request would be notified. It would come before the Planning and Zoning Commission and then move on to the City Council. The other element that needs to be considered is not just the ESA or the ESA that we've referred to, but there is, if I'm not mistaken, a floodway/flood zone on the property. And any type, if there were development to occur, then mitigation measures as it relates to perhaps doing a letter of map provision to adjust the limits or remit of or boundary of that flood zone. Again, that would warrant an engineering design to come forward and be approved by the Engineering Department. Thank you. So I have a few questions. Regarding the drainage easement being put in place by this plat. If we can get the drawing on the board. So the plat indicates a large area that says of drainage easement. This is separate from the floodplain. So if the floodplain were to shift, would this easement stay in place? That's correct. The easement would stay in place because it is plotted in its place in order to amend the easement to conform to the newly relocated floodplain for whatever reason that it alters in the future. They would have to replat the property to reflect the new location. And then there is also a 15 foot utility easement, is that correct? A 20 foot utility easement as well? Even if they got the utility lines moved, they would have to come forward and have it replatted again in order to remove the easements? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hutsmith. I'm inclined to, if it's an option, move that we push this item back to give the neighborhood time to evaluate, talk, before we have to insert ourselves. I have a hard time making that decision. Again, we're short a couple of members. One, two. I think some things can be, if they are at impasse, then sure. I'm happy to, not happy, but we'll have to break ties. But I think, given an opportunity, hopefully some of these issues may be able to be worked out and the deed restriction is news to me. And I don't want to make a decision that triggers civil actions if they can be managed otherwise. If they can't, they can't. But that's my inclination. I don't know where we fall or how that would look in practice if I have to select a certain meeting date. But I would like to give some time for, because the gross majority of the people are against, and that weighs heavy. And then, so you counterbalance that with, it's their property. I mean, so how can you tell someone what to do with their property? So it's a very compelling argument, but I'd like to allow them to have control of that conversation before we wrangle that control away from them. So I might ask the applicant to return to the microphone just for a moment. We're in a unique situation here because we only have four commissioners tonight, and it requires four affirmative votes for us to approve. So if we had two more commissioners, there might be more leeway. And I wonder if two or four weeks might give you the opportunity to speak with your neighbors about and resolve some of these issues. Okay, if I could ask you a question, regardless of which way your vote would go tonight, does this matter have to go up to the council for final approval of any sort, or is this the last stop right here? This is the last stop for Platts. Okay, so you're saying it requires four votes, so all the members present would have to vote affirmatively to approve this. And if you did not get off, I did not get off four votes, then my application is killed, is denied? Well, you could bring it back, but as of now it would be gone. It would be denied. I see. Well, we've been waiting a long time for this thing. It's taken us over eight months, and my surveyor said it'd be two months. So I'm inclined to not do that, but I don't want to also get in or out with all my neighbors unnecessarily. If we can reschedule this in two weeks, I'd be willing to do that. But I also have to explain to these people that I do have an agreement to sell this property. So maybe that would involve him as well in our discussion, so. But I don't mind pushing it off. So I'm thinking it sounds like two weeks. Do we have room on the calendar for two weeks? Absolutely, we'd be able to. We would not have to re-notify or re-notice this, and we would re-hear this on March the 8 th. And hopefully that will give the applicants sufficient time to communicate with the neighborhood. Thank you very much. I'm sorry, just so that we're clear on the record, you consenting to such a postponement until March 8th. I have my wife as well. Do you agree? Yes, ma'am. You're all right. Yes, that's fine. Okay. And Commissioner Hudspeth, are you making a motion? Yes. Go ahead. So I move that we take agenda item A, FR16-0023, and postp one it for two weeks. And a date certain? Yes, to a date certain. Which weekend? March 8th. Yes. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Commissioner Ellis? Second. So we have a motion and a second, and I would like to speak on this piece briefly. With PLATs, the Planning and Zoning Commission has very limited authority. We can only deny a PLAT if it violates some technical requirement, which is things like width, lot width, square footage. There's several chapters that cover them. But it tends to be very minute details, which our staff does a very good job of identifying. However, the complexity of this case and the concerns of the neighborhood and the fact that we only have four commissioners sitting up here tonight, I do feel justifies this postponement. That said, to the neighbors, you will either have to find a technical reason why the commission could vote against it if you want to stop it. Or there's nothing we can do as far as covenants or deed restrictions. Those would require you to take action, not us. Any further discussion? Call for a vote on the board. The motion to postpone two weeks carries 4-0. And now we will move to our next agenda item, item 4B, and Commissioner Strange, Chairperson Strange will return. Thank you. We'll give a few minutes to let the room clear before we open our next item. Thank you for your patience allowing the room to clear. We'll continue on with our agenda. We're moving to item B. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing for Z16- 0029 and I will call on Haley for presentation. Good evening. This is case Z16-29 for the CST corner store. Given that we have quite a bit of audience, I'll run through the presentation briefly again just so everyone's on the same page. So the request was to hold a public hearing and consider a request by the property owners to rezone approximately .7 acres from a neighborhood residential 6 or NR6 district to a community mixed use general district, the CMG district, as well as to rezone approximately 3.6 acres from neighborhood residential mixed use or NRMU to CMG. This property is generally located at the northeast corner of Country Club and Hobson. It also has frontage on Fort Worth Drive. And currently it is split between two parcels of land. So just a general idea of what's in the area, there's some multifamily as well as a gas station across Country Club Road from the property. There is a small office park and some single family homes to the south across Hobson. And then there's a mix of industrial and commercial uses across Fort Worth Drive from the property as well. So the current zoning, approximately .7 acres is currently zoned NR6. 3.6 acres are currently zoned NRMU. The future land use designation for this property is community mixed use, which is a designation that promotes a mix of uses, mostly commercial with a mix of supporting residential and service uses. So considerations that staff looked at for this, the CMG district would be newly introduced to the area with this request. There currently isn't any other CMG adjoining the property. We feel that CMG would, it allows a mixture of commercial and institutional uses that would be appropriate, we felt, at this prominent hard corner location. And CMG also conforms to that future land use designation of community mixed use. This proposal would create a slightly isolated pocket of NR MU as it's presented tonight. So the southern parcel that is being handled here would then have three zoning districts and that could create some incohesive development on the property, we felt. So that was the reason for our initial recommendation of denial on this request, as was stated in your backup. However, since this, we've communicated these concerns to the applicants and they have since submitted an additional application to rezone the portion outlined in yellow on the map. So the remainder of that NRMU parcel, they're also proposing to rezone to CMG as well. And that's a future case that will come before you all for consideration in the next few weeks. Just a comparison, CMG is very comparable to the existing NRMU district that encompasses the majority of the property . Very comparable in terms of lot coverage, building height, so the scale of development would be relatively consistent between what's permitted now and what would be permitted under CMG. Notifications were sent on this matter. We received two in favor and one in opposition that were within a 200 foot radius of the subject property. And given the new application that's been submitted that would allow for more cohesive development of a larger chunk of this property with the CMG designation, as well as its consistency with the future land use designation for this area, staff is now recommending approval of this request. And I can stand for any questions at this time. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Hussman. Earl, can you come down and give us the preview of the text dot roads just so those that are going to come speak can have a frame of reference? So text dot is currently working on widening Fort Worth Drive and along with a portion of FM 1830 all the way to the intersection with Hobson Road. And so I've taken a couple of areas here for you to look at here. So this is the intersection 377 and FM 1830 and James Street. So they're aligning this intersection up. Currently, James Street does not line up with this intersection at all. And so this is going to be a signalized intersection. They're going to construct two dedicated right turn lanes from 1830 to northbound 377. And they're going to and as you head south on FM 1830, they 're going to construct a dedicated left turn lane at the intersection of Hobson in 1830, dedicated right turn from 1830 to Hobson, one through lane. Could you could you blow that up? Sure. Interpresentation mode. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, I forgot about that. Hopefully that's better. And they're also going to widen Hobson by creating a dedicated right turn lane. Right now, there's only one lane to take to exit Hobson onto 1830. So that'll I mean, all these turn lanes should alleviate the congestion that's currently going on in this area. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Taylor. Thank you, Chair. Let me get my questions back up. So my questions were more pertaining to the zoning and the size of the proposed zoning parcel. Could you bring back up the future land use map or the current or future zoning map either way, either one of those. So here we show a large area of community mixed use all along the highway. And community mixed use is often large shopping centers, grocery stores with retail in front. Probably typically 10 or 20 acres in size or sometimes larger long strip centers, I believe is is I Kroger on University Drive that entire strip center, I believe is CMG . So I look at this and is that that looks like about a 10 acre parcel and we're rezoning just like the end two acres of it. I believe total what they've proposed for now is a little over four acres. And then the additional request would be for approximately two acres. So total total is six. So it's rare that I'm saying this is not enough commercial. But I find myself kind of puzzling over such a small area of community mixed use. You know, I would expect you would have gas stations and small retail on the front and then something some anchor in the back. And so I would expect this to go back, you know, another several hundred feet and then up the highway quarter mile or something like that. Is it feasible to to zone just four acres, three or four acres into community mixed use? It seems like it doesn't really seem like it supports the intent of the zoning district. Commissioner Taylor, I understand where you're coming from and it is right here. You say that as it relates to the community mixed use district itself, it is typically found along major thoroughfares and corridors to enable a mix or plethora of mixed uses where you've got an anchor store, for example, with then junior anchors and associated like uses as you as you've indicated. However, in this instance, is it enough? Should it be more? Should it be longer? Should it be wider? Again, a lot of the times when there is a zoning change request, it is from a specific applicant and is not a citywide initiative that is taken to to create this or this vision or realize the vision of the comprehensive plan, so to speak. Ideally, perhaps through court or visioning through a philosophical discussion. Now that could be achievable in the near future, but at this time, this is the impetus that we're hoping that would enable the creation of CMG districts in the future, especially along the frontage of the right of way. Another challenge in this because of the small size of this CMG parcel is how much frontage is on Highway 377? Is it maybe a couple hundred feet, 150 feet? Let me see if I can answer that for you. I believe it is several hundred feet. I bring that up because it is very close to that intersection. If this went another 500 feet up 377, you could have safer entrances and exits. You could design a more cohesive commercial development, but just having a driveway 100 feet from what's going to be two six-lane roads, that's going to be divided roads, so it'll be right in, right out only on the highway. And then a unique little entrance off of Country Club, and all of those could be alleviated if this was larger. Did you want the exact numbers for this parcel? Sure, that'd be great. Thank you. So their frontage is approximately 175 feet along Fort Worth Drive. It's approximately 310 feet on Country Club Road and then around 340 feet on Hobson for this current parcel. The portion on Hobson would be extended with that additional. Would you use your cursor to reflect that for the benefit of the audience as well on those frontages, please, and repeat them? Yes, so 175 feet here along Fort Worth Drive. Actually, I think Ariel would serve that a little bit better. So here along Fort Worth Drive, 175 feet roughly, and then it's about 340 feet or 310 feet here on Country Club Road and then 340 feet in width here on Hobson. Thank you. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. Okay, so as I understand this, leading to Commissioner Taylor's point about this being so small, staff had that same issue of it being so small in creating this little mini CMG district. Yes. But now that the applicant, which is the same landowner to the property southwest of it. Yes, it is all. Right? The enter. Yeah. So they've put a request now to make that larger and make that whole district their CMG, which now allows you to want to say yes to this small parcel. Am I interpreting that correctly? Yes, our thinking is that with this entire, what it would eliminate this isolated zoning district of NRMU by rezoning the entire portion that was originally in red here. The second thought was with three zoning patterns on it, I believe this is, I can't remember, it's approximately 13 acres total, this parcel here. It would be in cohesive development standards potentially with three zoning districts by at least encompassing all of the area that was formerly NRMU. It would allow more cohesive development because that larger, approximately six acres then would share the same zoning designation. So my concerns are I don't even know if CMG is appropriate for this particular piece of land or several parcels of land in this particular intersection, which is currently a nightmare and is going to be for quite some time. Because we don't exactly know when tech stuff is going to be their thing. The other thing I'm having a hard time with is if we vote on this today, this small parcel, it kind of forces us to vote yes in two weeks or whenever we see this other parcel of land come before us for a rezone. Which I'm uncomfortable with that whole thing, the way that whole thing is playing out. I'm very uncomfortable with that. >> Yeah, questions for staff. I'll ask one. Would you put the future zoning district back up as far as what is supposed to be community mixed use? What they're asking for CMG is compatible with that, correct? >> Yes. >> That's exactly what we have it planned for on our 2030 plan. So they're not asking for anything above and beyond what we have already as a city designated that area to become. >> That's correct. >> And it's a matter of really, I guess in my opinion, is who's first. Versus a lot of times there's already zonings in place and now we're conforming to other zonings. This is essentially first piece of this particular part. There's CMG I think farther to the north, closer to 35, but all of this corridor is somewhat transitioning over the years from what's been a residential area to number of businesses being built there. I think little guys has built a new building there in the last couple years. I know there's another building under construction I think on the other side of 377. So I think it's an area that's in transition in our city and going to be transitioning from residential to more of a commercial use. And so when I look at this proposal, I understand Commissioner Taylor's a lot of times based on some of the other developments that have come before us with razor ranch and the larger tracks. This just may not be that large of a development, but because it is so many parcels versus it is a 50-acre tract or a 30-acre tract, it's residential areas that are going to be put together to make larger tracks and going to be transitioning to commercial. With that said, I particularly don't have an issue with it. I think since it conforms to our future zoning map, I have a tendency to support it. But I'm calling Commissioner Back as a comment as well. Thank you, Chair. Just to respond to Commissioner Ellis' concern about this being a problem if the road work doesn't come into play in a timely manner. Correct me if I'm wrong, staff, on this, but I believe we had a date certain of 2018. Is that correct? Earl, thank you. Earl, didn't we, when this, the road construction, it's in the works. This thing is going to be ready about the same time that this storefront wants to go up and everything. Is that correct? This area should be done within a 12-month period. They're currently relocating the utilities outside the right-of-way right now, and then the street work should begin sometime this summer. So it all should flow together pretty evenly. With the timing of the zoning case and then the, I don't know what other processes, the planning process, site plan process with this project, it should probably follow about the same time frame. Okay, thanks, sir. Any other questions for staff? Any questions? Again, this is a public hearing. I have two cards. The first card I have requesting to speak is Jared Westmore land, if you'd come forward at this time. Hi, good evening all. I'm Jared Westmoreland. I represent C ST Brands, which is a spinoff from Corporate Valero down in San Antonio. My address is 1818 Summit Avenue, Dallas, Texas. Here to really just address any additional questions you have. One question that was raised, Mr. Taylor, that I did want to address is that in TexDOT, we have met with TexDOT and formally submitted our curb cuts, and they have granted the approval of where the placement of the curb cut will go based on the schematic and our submittal of the site plan. So that has been reviewed, fully approved by TexDOT and conforms with their requirements. Any other additional questions from the audience or staff or the city? I'm certainly here to address those questions. Okay, got a question. Commissioner Beck. Just curious, how many pumps are there? There will be seven fueling stations. Okay, thanks. Yes, sir. And I have elevations as well that I'd like to pass around and just share with you. We'll get some of these up on the overhead so everyone can see what we have. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. We have one other card. Dick Smith, he does not wish to speak, but he is in support . Do not have -- please, the card I had said do not speak, you are more than welcome to speak. Please state your name and address and we have four minutes . Dick Smith, 721 West Hobson, Denton. I'm a partner in the ownership of this property, including the 10 acres that you referred to adjacent to this piece. I also live across the street from this property. And my partner and I have been very restrictive. We've had an opportunity to develop this property several times over the last 10 years. And because I live across the street from it, I'm very interested in what is going to be built there. And we've turned down quite a few projects. Now, these -- the planned use for the far northwest corner of what is in question here, we were agreeable to selling one acre and they were buying another acre just north of it to accommodate what they need . We had the request over the last week to include the balance of that four acres, give or take, and include it in the CMG zoning. We had no -- we were ambivalent on that. And the city has asked us to do that. So we have agreed to include it in there. That's how that happened. There's a lot of uses for it other than a large -- I mean, for CMG zoning other than a large Kroger store. So I think we're in favor of this. I'll be living across the street from it. They've been very receptive to landscape zoning around -- or landscape screening around the store, as well as lighting restrictions that we have requested to keeping down lighting. We just have no issues with how this thing has come down. So I just wanted to let you know I'm living across the street. I'm in favor of it. Any questions? Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item, please come forward at this time. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. Open the floor for -- Commissioner Hudsbeth. I don't know if it's right to start the discussion with a motion, but -- You have the floor. I'm going to move approval of agenda item Z160029. Commissioner Back. Second. We have a first and a second for approval. Discussion. Commissioner Elvis. I'll just restate. I'm going to go ahead and vote no on this. I'm just not comfortable, again, with the way it all kind of came together. I'm not sure, like I said, I'm comfortable with CMG being where we're going to put it next to NR2. I'd be more comfortable if we were going the other direction up Fort Worth Drive, which seems more likely with this zoning, in my opinion. So I just can't support it. Sure. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you, Chair. As I've voiced several concerns about the overall zoning aspect or planning aspect of this, where this does feel like it's too small of a parcel, and the NRMU immediately to the east was concerning as well. But I guess we'll expect to see that in four weeks or so, four or six weeks. And I'm really torn because I don't think -- I think this would be appropriate development, and I think the zoning category will be appropriate as the rest of 377 rezones. I guess I'd say this is an imperfect start. I wish we could have had a better start, but I guess I will support it because it is the correct direction to move along 377. Okay. Any other discussion? Okay. Seeing none, I will call for a vote on the board. Motion carries to approve 4-1. Can I make the motion? Do I have a conflict? Okay. We have a housekeeping item, and we're going to be going back to item 4-A, and as such I'm going to step out with my same conflict and I'm going to let housekeeping get cleaned up. It's a motion to reopen. So I was just notified that we actually closed the public hearing on 4-A before taking the motion to postpone, and so we want to go ahead and seek a motion to reopen that public hearing so that it does not have to be re-noticed at a later time. So I apologize for my administrative faux pas, and I will consider -- Commissioner Hudspeth? I move we reopen agenda item FR -- FR160023, reopen that public -- And Commissioner Beck? Second. Just as a point of order, you want to reopen it and postp one it to the March 8th deadline? That's correct. Okay. And you're okay with that, Friendly? So we have a motion to reopen public hearing agenda item 4- A and postpone to a date certain of March 8th. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Call for a vote on the board. Motion carries. 4-0. Thank you. Thank you. It is 8.05, and I think we have a long item that we're getting ready to start on. I think it would be appropriate for us to take a five to 10 -minute break, and let's try to get back as quick as we can and get started. So I'm going to call a recess at 8.05. Good evening and welcome back. I will call us back in session at 8.19. We are going to now open the public hearing for item C. It will be Z16-0023, and I will call on Julie Wyatt for presentation. Good evening. I'm Julie Wyatt, Senior Planner with the City of Denton. The request before you or the location of the request before you is south of Scripture. It's between Normal and Bryan Street. It's north of the UNT campus. The request from the applicant is to rezone approximately 1 .39 acres from DR2 to DCG district. They've expressed their intent to do this is to consolidate the zoning on the property. This request is three parcels. The largest of the three parcels actually has split zoning on it. It has a half DCG and half DR2. So they're requesting to consolidate that zoning to the DCG zoning district in order to develop the entire tract with a multifamily use. So I'm going to call on the applicant at this time. Okay. He's going to come up. Good evening. My name is Lee Allison. I'm with Allison Engineering Group. We office here in Denton, Texas. And this evening, because of some information that's come up that may be confusing, we would like to ask for a continuance until the next commission meeting. I believe that would be March the 8th of 2017. Okay. I might call on legal for clarification of how we would handle that appropriately. We can make a motion, but you have the opportunity. I know that you have plenty of people here that are wishing maybe to speak. If you want to hold your comments until any sort of postpon ement, then you can do so so that the entire commission would benefit from hearing them, or you can go ahead and speak now. And then we can do a subsequent motion after the public hearing. However, you want to handle that. Commissioner Tyler. Thank you. Let me start over. Thank you, Chair. Can I ask what information came to light that now requires a postponement? There seems to be some confusion regarding building heights and setbacks in residential areas, and we need some time to clarify that and make sure we understand it exactly. And we feel like that needs to be worked out before we have a full presentation to the commission. So do you feel that the -- so you have confusion about building heights, or you feel like the commission has confusion about building heights? I think everybody's got confusion about the building height right now, particularly with discussing it with staff later , and that needs to maybe have some exhibits and examples to clarify that. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Hutchins. Just my personal preference, I would like to hear from those that are willing to speak just so that I can have an understanding of the neighborhood and concerns, thoughts, that type of thing. And also I think it's good for the applicant to -- I know you've had neighborhood meetings, but I think it would be good to kind of fine tune those things, get another chance to hear those things. So me personally, I would like to hear those thoughts, comments, so that I can better understand the issue from a different perspective. Okay. Okay. Just as a clarification, I think in the past when we've had to do a continuance of public hearings and we've had a large group come out, I want to give you the opportunity to speak tonight. And I think we have in the past, as this continues, to suspend the rule that if you speak, you don't get to speak at the next meeting. And so in this instance, we are going to continue that, that you can speak this evening. And when this item comes back before us on March the 8th, even if you have spoken tonight, you will have an opportunity to speak again at that time. So again, this is a public hearing. So if we do have people that would like to go ahead and speak tonight, we don't have all the commissioners here. You can certainly speak to the ones that are here. And then you can come back if you would like to on the 8th, when hopefully we have a full commission and make your points again. So I'm going to -- I have a large stack of cards, a lot of emails. And so I do want to open this up. It is a public hearing. So if you would like to speak this evening, please come forward and do that. It's first come, first served. So whoever would like to do that this evening, please come to the mic. And then -- okay. >> If I could just -- if I could ask staff just briefly, we would keep this public hearing open so that it wouldn't have to be republished, correct? >> That is correct. >> Okay. So then we should probably do the motion and then go ahead and hear testimony from the public. Okay. So I think the motion would be better at this time. >> Give us just a second to do things in appropriate steps. Commissioner Hussman. >> I move we postpone this agenda item Z160023 to a date certain March 8. >> Okay. Continue. >> And continue the open discussion. I'm sure I'm dragging -- >> To the public hearing. >> There you go. >> I'm sure the public hearing to that point as well. >> Okay. So we're going to -- motion B to continue to March the 8th. Commissioner Beck. >> Second. >> Okay. We have a first and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, we will call for a vote on the board to continue to March the 8th. Motion carries five to zero. This is still a public hearing. We are continued. So anyone that would like to speak, please come forward at this time. >> Thank you. My name is Paul Meltzer. I live at 1914 West Oak Street. I'm a public health officer. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I work at the Department of Health and Human Services. I spent the night with Simon, my seven-year-old son, who has done a fantastic job, because it's that important to me to spend his whole night sitting here in council chambers, because this neighborhood matters to me. I want to first of all thank you all for what you do, and I know that you read through lots of paperwork and do lots of deep thinking, and that you have a very deep knowledge of what goes on in Denton and what's permissible and what isn't. And so I would remind you of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan document for our city development. I know some of the people who are in front of me now have served on that committee. I was on that committee, in fact, and I'm going to read to you what it says for Neighborhood University Compatibility Area Development Criteria. This is, by the way, Goal LU-6, Grow with Balance, Establish Land Use Designation that Responds to the Growing Needs and Character Specifications of the Denton Community. And the very first statement says, "The Neighborhood University compatibility area should provide a gradual transition in scale, use, character, and intensity between the universities and the surrounding neighborhoods." So there will be other people who will speak eloquently, more eloquently than I. I wouldn't be here, though, and none of us would, if the developers were willing to follow what the existing zoning was. Now, I don't personally agree with the existing zoning. I think it's vestigial to what was there when the Flow Hospital was there and that the neighborhood character has changed. But we have serious questions about parking, which is already taxing our neighborhood greatly, storm drainage, and what's to do with the water. The people who live north of this development already have serious storm drainage problems. But most importantly, I'm concerned about maintaining historic character in the infill. Compatible with our existing neighborhoods, and I'm asking you, when you come to your decision to make sure that it is something that is careful, conscientious redevelopment, in the neighborhood meetings, nobody said, "No, let's leave this as an abandoned mental hospital facility." We want to see it redeveloped, but we want to see it developed in a way that is going to maintain our values as single homeowners, as single-family homeowners. We want to see it so that the retail that goes in is useful to us in the neighborhood and to the students who live there, because we all choose to live in this neighborhood because of the different varieties of things it provides. My son can ride his bicycle to the Howdy Doody to buy a candy bar. He will never have to cross a busy street to get to Denton High School or Calhoun Middle School. And I love where I live, and I'm standing here tonight to defend its historic character and its ability to have a happy family life that also works with students and small businesses. Thank you. -Okay, thank you. -Thank you. Anyone? -Thank you. -I'll be back. [ Indistinct conversations ] Hi. My name's Craig Clifton, and I wanted to thank you all. It's very gracious to allow us to speak now and then also in the future, so I'll just bring up one point or two and keep it brief. Can you give us your address, please? -How about your partner? -Need your address, please. We were moving 720 Hector, but we were moving back over to Normal Street where we've had property for 50 years. -Thank you. -And that was 407 Normal, and we found out about what they were building. Now, for 50 years, we've had property there and lived off there off and on. And so we were there where this rezoning took place, and it was explained to us -- this was for a medical building with Flow Hospital. It was certainly not an SRO and not an apartment. There wouldn't be any parking problems. No one would be there after 5 o'clock, and that's how it was presented to us. So we think it's -- they found a loophole in that when they presented that to us for the rezoning, we were voting for that. We weren't voting for this, and this certainly wouldn't be okay. It's not a like-kind development in our neighborhood, our street, which I'm sure you all have been down, is one or two stories apartments or rent houses. And when they build this four-to-five story, they're going to more than triple the population of our street. And our street's just one block long, and it's just a residential area street just like Bryan Street. The traffic and the parking for all their friends will be coming by. We can't withhold that, and there isn't going to be any room on that street for anything once they build this. It isn't congruent to the neighborhood. Why they're allowing this to go into a residential neighborhood is because they found this zoning loophole. So when he's talking about redoing the laws, specifically, let's look at this one zoning. When we allowed it to go through, we thought it was one thing, and now it's double-backed on us. These things are fine where they're built out by the highways, where there's no problem with their friends coming by, which would be literally, you know, let's say these kids are the most studious kids in the world, and they don't have one friend come by four days a week. But on those three other days, they'll have friends come by , and let's say they're the most antisocial, and they only have one friend come by those three days. And they see their girlfriend one day a week, okay? That's 2,500 people driving around these one-block streets without parking, and we know it's going to be a lot more people than that coming to visit. So this 150 feet, it's going to be blocks in every area where all these people are going to be parking, and day and night. And right now we have people filling up our parking lots, just go down to City Park. This is unattainable. I don't know how it's ever gotten this far that they think they can build this in a residential neighborhood. I'm not against these being built where they're not going to destroy everything on that city block. Thank you. Commissioner Batt. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Clifton. I appreciate your presentation. You said you were around, and I guess it was 2002 when they made the zoning change. Right. We were living once again over their own normal street. Were you aware at that time that DCG allowed 100-foot tall stories? We were told when we asked about this, we called the city council. They said that they wanted to build a building that would be congruent to, like, Flow Hospital, three stories, something like that. But they said that it wouldn't be a hospital. It wouldn't be a day and night thing. It would just be, like, for clinics, it's next door there now where they used to do lab work, and then offices, like doctor's offices and so forth, that they didn't have room for over at the hospital. So no one conveyed to you, as far as you can remember, that other usages here could include? No, not at all. Okay. That's why, you know, we were moving back over normal. I mean, we want something done with that property. And since 2000, all the apartments have been built there are all two stories. And at the most, population of extra 50 people on the street, maybe 75, something like that, in each of these apartments. And, you know, we're all for that. I mean, nobody wants that vacant rest home or whatever is there, you know. But it needs to be two stories. It needs to be the same population as everyone else on the street. Because there's not going to be any businesses left on that street. Nobody's going to want to live there. First off, when they built these other apartments here in the 21st century, we were there, one of them was right behind one of my properties. It took them two months to do. This is going to take two years, two and a half years, they first said. And then once they came back with even more property involved, they realized, oh, well, that sounded bad. It's only going to take a year and five months now. But how real long it takes like that, nobody's going to live on there. And it's going to be -- the traffic now is pretty bad. I'd like everybody to come over to that area, take a look where this is going to be. See, this is one of the oldest streets in Denton. This is Normal Street when North Texas used to be Normal Teachers College, okay. And this is where all the teachers lived on this street. And so this is one of the oldest, you know, apartment and residential streets in Denton. When he's talking about historical streets, this is that area. North Texas can build their own housing. They don't pay any taxes. They can afford it. Why? Why, we need to pick up that slack. When we've been doing it all these years, when we've been paying all these taxes to be protected from people like this who just drop in and blow us out, haven't lived in this city one day, all right, paid taxes one day. I mean, we lived here all along and we never saw this coming. No one ever told us, you know, that that would be something that could be put in over there. You know, they just said that think about Flow Hospital, but think about we need spaces for other doctors and services. We don't have it, Flow. Got it. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Hi. Thanks, y'all, for staying so late. I don't know why we're always last. Mary Anderson, 924 West Oak. I'm beginning to get very familiar with you guys, or at least City Council. But, you know, I want to protest the notice for this. The notice did appear in the paper. Thank goodness I read the paper, even the back, because there's not much in the paper these days. But the notice was planted on normal, so far down on the property line that nobody on Scripture, which I drive by quite a lot, could see. So nobody was going to show up because it wasn't obvious. They're rezoning all of it, so why isn't it obvious to me that I could see this on the street? Bad. We really don't need more apartments. Certainly not in my neighborhood. There are vacant apartments everywhere. They just don't advertise them. There are -- I drive around at this time of year when the students have given up this semester. You know, they've gone away. I teach. They drop classes. They leave. The moving vans are going. There are plenty of empty apartments. We just want to see whose pockets get filled first. They're going to have somebody take the money and run out of state, out of town. They're not going to leave the money here. They'll employ, you know, a manager. That's about it. UNT is building apartments, I think, west of here, so there 's not really any more need. And with online learning, there is no mass transit there. There is no decent streets. Where are we going to get all this infrastructure that we need? I live downhill. I'm going to get flooded, like the lady on Egan said. There just isn't any place to park. There's no mass transit. You know, development is great, just not here. We don't need the development in this location. And besides, once you get that one approved, they're just going to go over and do it again because we're going to get EDR back, and they're going to want to put another SRO. And when these buildings get old and tired, they'll turn transient because the trend will go away, and families are never going to want to live in SROs. That's horrid. I wouldn't want my children to live with, you know, serial killers next door in the same apartment. You never know. They're taking the money and running, and there's no benefit to the neighborhood. Where's the benefit? We're going to have to have more services. Where's the benefit for us? I don't see any benefit. It's not respectful of the neighborhood. It's just somebody trying to make a quick killing in my neighborhood again. And the apartments on Oak across from where EDR wants to build, funny, those apartments are almost all vacant. What do you think is happening next? A few more carpetbaggers are going to come in on Oak and do more of the same thing, take the money and run. So really keep this in mind. The intent is worth the paper it was written on that Mr. Cl ifton said. There was no paper. They promised something, and you know what happens? It's worth the paper. It was written on nothing. So please, you know, show us a little respect. We are tired of staying here late, too. You know, send a message to the developers, enough is enough. You know, make it within the neighborhood restrictions, and keep it respectful. We can't afford all this nasty parking traffic and people getting run over. You know, it's going to happen. Thank you. A question for you. You made a comment that you didn't think the notice was well done, and I think the reason maybe the notice wasn't on the scriptures is because that's already zoned. The rezoning is for the property that's farther down on normal. But they're going to put it together, so is that out of replatting, too? Well, right now we have a zoning before us, and so it's a zoning notice. The plat shows all of it. Well, you made a statement, and I was trying to help and address your question about the notice that you brought up. And so the notice was posted where the zoning change is not on a piece of property that is not being rezoned because what's before us tonight is rezoning. So they have put the notice on the property that's being requested to be rezoned. As far away from scripture as humanly possible. Just letting you know, that's why it wasn't on the scriptures. I got to be as far away as humanly possible, because I drove there just before I came here. Because I never saw it, and I drive by all the time. Just responding to your point. I appreciate that, at least the explanation of why. I see now very carefully here, yeah. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you so much. Hi, I'm Patrice Lyke. I live in 1109 Egan. And the first thing I wanted to do was to address Commissioner Beck. You asked Mr. Clifton about the 2002 zoning and any public hearings, and did he know what was going to happen there? And I just wanted to say that I've lived on Egan Street for 20 years. And 15 years ago, Denton was a different place. And our old neighborhoods were different places. Flow Hospital was still intact 15 years ago. And it's true, you know, everything. If you grew up in Denton, you know that Flow Hospital anch ored the neighborhood. And that neighborhood scale goods and services and facilities grew up around that. So that meant that, yes, when the Minton's lived on 1400 block of Egan Street, and they had a tiny strip mall right behind them, it was neighborhood scale. And you could go up to Mr. New's Pharmacy, get your antibiotics, and be home in half a block. So 15 years ago, we also did not have SROs in Denton. And I bet you if you ask most people on planning and zoning or city council, they had no idea such a thing even existed. So when we call this multifamily, it's really a misnomer, because single resident occupancy is not family occupancy, which of course means that when these structures are built, they're never built to accommodate a family. They're only built to be glorified dorms. In my opinion, that's really a separate zoning category. So you're dealing with a transient population that are just simply going to be cycling through multifamily, as I said, is misnomer when we're talking about SROs. So in terms of our neighborhood being aware 15 years ago of what could go in and how that site could be used, honestly, no, we had no idea what could be coming our direction in 15 years. We sat there with flow. We had no idea that SROs even existed. So no, we were not going to be prepared to be fighting this 15 years later. I'll be back in a couple weeks. But just something I'd like to point out, of course, is that just like Paul was saying, we're really looking at an area that was never meant to be university compatible. It was meant to be hospital district compatible. And UNT is building dormitories. The last meeting I was in, UNT said that it's hoping for an enrollment of 45,000. It has built infrastructure for 40,000, and they have no plans to increase the infrastructure. They're going for online programming. I mean, I don't know how that's going to tie into this. But honestly, we're not Denton. The city of Denton does not have to provide housing for UNT students. It's just not our business. Another thing I was going to talk about real quickly was infrastructure. And simply, the roads in that area cannot handle increased traffic. And those students are going to have to leave that site. Because it's only residential, there's going to be no commercial currently planned on that site. Then you're going to need toilet paper. They're going to need eggs. They're going to have to get in their cars and be zipping around the neighborhood to get these things. If you look even at Scripture and how well completed the street is, when you get to the farthest east, I guess it's on the southeast side, Scripture isn't even finished out. It doesn't have a curb and gutter. The pavement just kind of ends. And there's a little ditch there. So we're talking about adding all these warm bodies, all these cars, all the drainage to an area that doesn't even have a finished street. I'll just -- I'll see you again. [ Laughter ] >> Commissioner Back. >> I have a general question, I think for staff mainly. I didn't see anything of background information or the Africans' narrative about the analysis of road traffic. What do we call that? Yeah, T-A-R, T-R-A or something. >> T-I-A. >> T-I-A, thank you. I didn't see that in any of the paperwork. So have we done that? And if not, will we be doing it? >> I'm April Erle. Engineering has done a preliminary look at some numbers that they've provided as far as traffic impact. So I'll call Erle up. >> Thanks, Julie. >> As part of the zoning application, they submitted a brief summary of what the traffic impact would be. It's really not as detailed as we expect it to be. So we're hoping that the applicant can shed a little bit more light when they come up and present their case. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Can you get one and we'll put it back up overhead? >> I'll put one up here too. So I wanted to start out tonight and ask you to think about your most favorite place to go vacationing. >> Name. >> Name and address. >> Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Randy Hunt. I'm at 722 West Oak. Randy Hunt, 722 West Oak. So I think everybody has got a place it's fun to go to. But the reason it's fun is because it's a sense of place. And that's a very key word. A very important thing for all of us. So as I've started asking questions to some of the state agencies, they're really supplying us with a lot of information about how do you create a sense of place. So one of the documents is to the U.S. Conference of Mayors , the Mayors Institute of City Design. And that's their theme. How do you create a sense of place? We've got a sense of place. And it's cool. We have these are the old Sanborn maps. And I'll bring it back for next time. But, you know, this is what the city looked like. These are basically our city limits. This is in 1907, 100 years ago. Here it is in 1912. And these go like every five to seven years. But what you're seeing is that it starts to develop because this is when Texas Normal College got pushed down off the square. And it got there because then citizens put it there. They bought the land and convinced everyone. The important thing about the map that I was giving you, this comes from a survey done by the Texas Historic Commission. What they're doing is giving us the breadcrumbs for us to go follow because if we want to create tourism, like cultural tourism, which is the big theme now, we need historic districts. And we've just created a National Register District that will be listed in the National Park Service Historic, National Register of Historic Places. We're in step five of six. So it's not quite done yet, but all the approvals from the Texas Historic Commission are done. So on this map, I don't know how to illustrate it. I guess I'll just point to it here. This whole area was what THC recommended to be a National Register District. They also recommended this area to be a National Register District. So we're talking to them now that we've got our part done, which is about 350 homes. How do we go do this? And they're saying, get busy, because you've got properties over here that are worth saving. So that's the theme. What we need to do is to replicate what we've done in the dark green area, over here in the light green area, and a five-story building does not create a sense of place. If you want a reference to that, think about how the downtown square used to look. Because you ever thought about why is there like a 10-story building down there that sells Wells Fargo? Do you know there actually was a bank there? But it wasn't 10 stories. That created a sense of place. And to get the National Register for the square, man, they had to get very creative, because you have to have at least 50% contributing properties there. They've got it, but it's just the square. Our area is 350 homes. We can include another 250 in this area. All we need is the time. And all we need is the collaboration. Commissioner Back. Thank you, Chair. When was the last time you all actually interacted with the Texas Historic Agency to try and establish this district? Well, it's been consistent for the last year and a half. Okay. So it's been recent. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. I didn't get the final approval that the staff had done their final recommendations until two weeks ago. Okay. Has anybody in your area considered overlay districts for areas like this? Well, if anything. We've got a couple already in that general area, so is there any further consideration given towards an overlay district for this area? Absolutely. And there's some things that had never been considered in Denton before that we need to consider. Okay. Okay. Thanks, Randy. Thank you all for staying here. I'm Jacqueline Ferge, and I'm also at 1401 Eagan. I'm Michelle Lynn's tenant, and I'm glad to be her tenant because what she said tonight, I would definitely replicate . I'm in favor of safe biking roads for her son. I don't know how he makes it to howdy-doodie because I have to stand at the corner of Scripture for five, 10 minutes every morning just trying to cross. I don't want Scripture to turn into Carroll. It's why I live there. It's why I left the square so I could walk to work, UNT, on a safe, quiet neighborhood. I don't want there to be any more beds than there are parking places, and whatever you all allow in there, I want absolutely neighborhood compatibility. And, you know, frankly, my biggest dream is that no would mean no. You know, we are here, I think, not because this gentleman, you know, wants to use the property values of this historic neighborhood to enrich his own enterprise, but because you all keep leaving the back door open for everybody who wants to come along and say, how about this, how about that? You know we are a committed, organized, historic-minded neighborhood, and it would be just so great if we could all just kind of stay there and hear what we're saying and let this be the character of this neighborhood. For now, for good. That would be so appreciated. Thank you all very much. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak, please come forward at this time. Hi, it's Kim McKibbin. I own property at 1306 West Hickory Street here in Denton. And I am here, I was here at the earlier meeting as well, because I'm curious about what's going on in Denton. I have started to read the 2030 plan. I've looked at a lot of the maps. It is quite detailed. And it was brought up earlier is that the community, the university compatibility area shouldn't be moving back towards the university with that height, but away from it. Now, I worked at Flow Hospital. I was one of the last ones out of the building when they closed the doors. Flow was never supposed to turn into any kind of student housing. That was not what the intent was when it was sold. So I have a little bit of history in this area because I worked there on all three floors of Flow Hospital. And I am very concerned about the request to rezone without any commitment to what's going to be done with that. There is a compromise in there somewhere. You don't have to build a 10-story building and you don't have to build a 2-story building. There are structures that would fit. However, the greed of the developers keeps that from happening in a lot of cases. The historical buildings you're going to have, you know, I don't know what you're going to do about the trees. How are they going to put those things there and not mitigate these trees? You guys were working on your tree ordinance not too long ago. I am concerned about the traffic. My business is downhill from there. So there's going to be a lot of things happening there. And yes, whatever they put there, they need to have one-to- one parking and they're going to have to do a lot of work on the infrastructure. I am personally very much opposed to single room occupancy. That leaves it only to students where there could be studios built here. There could be one-to-two-bedroom apartments built here, which would not only serve the students, but also serve the rest of Denton. We have people moving into the areas. Yes, we need housing for them. I want to move to a place in Denton that I can't find a house right now. So I have sympathy with that. But as someone else said, it's not the city's responsibility to provide dormitories for the University of North Texas. Seeing as there are currently 9,384 of them in Denton spread out between 26 complexes. Now, that was the number from an article I found in November of 2016. How many do we really need in Denton? And as these cannot be used for anything else in the population of the University, if it goes online, it's going to go down. Just really be very careful what you do. I know you guys will, and I know you're stuck with just the rezoning stuff at this point. But then after you rezone it, what happens? Do they ask for a little bit more? I don't believe an overlay is a solution because they walked right in and asked for a variance to the overlay down on Hickory Street. And that didn't stop them at all. So please be aware we need housing, we need spaces, people need parking. It is in a food desert. Someone said something about that. There's no place to even buy a head of lettuce anywhere down there. Please, as you move forward with this rezoning and with what you allow to be built there, because I'm pretty sure something will be built there. What do we need? What will we need 20 years from now? And what will we need 25, 30 years from now? I intend to retire in Denton. And hopefully I'll find a place to live. Thank you. A question for you. Yes, sir. I was encouraged to hear you say the word compromise. And I think that may be a missing piece. Do you have some ideas of what compromise for you is on this particular parcel? Well, if you start to look at the height is a major issue. And it truly is. A compromise here, which I think maybe some of the people in the neighborhood might like to see, is something lower. Some not SROs. If you could have studio apartments, if you could have one and two bedroom apartments that kept some of the walk ability to the area, our faculty and staff would also at UNT would also have a place to live. So I think that if you could compromise somehow and get the developer to talk to the people, I know even when they built the youth center down there on Fry Street, they worked with the neighborhood adjoining them to what the structure looked like, to what it would be made out of, to what the feel would be, to how far the setbacks would be and what plants would be there. So their development is inevitable. But there needs to be a compromise. And it can't all always be about the end profit for the developer. A lot of times it truly needs to be about the environment and the safety of the people and the citizens of Denton. And I'm talking longtime citizens. I know we survive off the students and all of that. But so long as I've been here for a while and we came here as students and we stayed here. And I think that there's going to be more people like that. Denton is one of the top places to retire to now. Where are you going to put us? Are any of these apartments going to be handicap accessible ? What are you going to do with us? So I think that Denton's at a tipping point. I think that we might need to look at SROs. How many do we need? Does it require a special use permit to put those things in there? What's the parking going to be? There's certainly not single family dwellings or multiple family dwellings. They are a creature of their own making. And each bedroom costs $650, $700, minimal. For those is a whole lot of money. But we built new apartments down around the rail station, which are not SROs. I don't particularly like the way they look. They look like Denver. But they gave other people, other than students, places to live in Denton. I love this neighborhood up there. I used to sit out around Flo before they tore all the trees and everything down. Worked on the psych units up there. And that was part of the thing. You could, from the third floor psych unit, you could see the whole downtown. Unfortunately, there was a 10-story building there. If they put a really tall building there, you will be able to see it from 35. Because it is on top of that hill. So you're sitting something on top of the hill that's going to cover a lot of ground. You've got drainage issues. You've got how you're going to pump water to it. Very carefully consider what you're doing. Thank you very much. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone who would like to speak on this item tonight, please come forward. Hello. Brian Morrison. I'm at 305 Mounts Avenue. That's in the Oak History Historic District. I was going to make a lot of other comments tonight. But in light of what she had just said, I think a compromise would be something that fits the area, fits the lot as far as size, density, traffic, parking, all those things. We're already feeling the overflow. And I'm a good distance from UNT. We're already feeling the overflow from Denton's parking issues. They keep taking away parking lots and building parking gar ages that the students can't afford to park in. And so they're all flowing out into the neighborhoods and on the streets. In the streets around me, they're just lined up bumper to bumper every day, all day. So getting in and out of the neighborhood is very difficult . So as far as compromise goes for this property and those in the area, I think what goes in -- I know it's going to be redeveloped, but what goes in should definitely fit the area of the site as far as size, density, and of course, the appearance, the compatibility with the historic area. Okay. Thank you. Again, this is a public hearing. Anyone else who would like to speak on this item tonight at this time? Seeing none, we are not closing the public hearing. Since we are continuing it. I'm glad you did that so I could learn from you. So with that, again, this item has been continued to March the 8th. So please, everyone, come back. You'll have an opportunity to speak again to hopefully the full commission. And thank you all for coming this evening and appreciate your comments. I'm sorry. Before we move on, commissioner Beck. Thank you, chair. And I appreciate everyone of you all coming out and speaking to this. I know it's been tough on you over the months and everything. We appreciate it. I would just like to make one comment. I suspect Mr. Allison got an earful tonight. And I'm sure he'll take them into consideration. And I hope you do address them. I would like you to consider one thing, too. It's kind of troubled me, Lee. It's just it's been frustrating to see any developer come in to the north side of UNT campus and want to build these tall high-rise buildings. There are so many areas around the campus we do it. And I wouldn't have a problem anywhere else approving this. I like the design. I like a lot of what you do. We need this kind of density. But some areas are just off limits, in my opinion. And this is one of them. I would just wish that you would take your great product and find another location around the campus for it. So just consider that if you would. Thank you. Again, thank you all for coming out this evening. I hope to see you all back in a couple of weeks. Moving on on our agenda, both items D and E as we announced at the beginning of our meeting, both of those items have been withdrawn. And so that will move us this evening to our item number five, which is going to be our project matrix and concluding items. Commissioner Ellis. Thank you, Chair. First, I want to say thank you, staff, for doing the zoning comparison chart so quick. I noticed that was all included in our backup stuff. And it's so helpful. So thank you. Thank you on that. Next, could I request, if possible, can we get some of these comments before the start of the work session? Is that possible at all? Commissioner Ellis, which comments are you referring to? I'm sorry. I should have clarified. When we have public hearings and we have so many comments as we did today, it's difficult to go through them in detail when we get them at the start of work session. I don't know if that can be -- I don't know when they come to you, so I don't know if this can be remedied. I think it can. And I also think it cannot, so bear with me. In instances where we do receive a number of comments, we try and amass them together at the same time and make sure that they're presented at the meeting. But in instances where these came in, they flowed in, it wasn't amass mailing that came in to us. But in instances where we receive a few bulk, we'll make sure that we provide whatever we can via email to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Okay, thanks. But it would be at the time of posting of the agenda as well. Right, and I guess that's what I mean. If we do have a stack at that point, maybe they could be included, and that's at least a head start. We'll make an effort to try and get that to you. Thank you. Anyone else? No? Okay, at 9.08, I'm going to close our meeting this evening. Thank you, everyone.