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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.